0 =[absorption] 0 * 0 =[def 0] (1-1)(1-1) =[distributivity] 1*1 + 1*-1 + -1*1 + -1*-1 =[def 1] 1 -1 -1 + -1*-1 =[eval] -1 + -1*-1 =[def 0] -1 + -(-1) =[def 0]  -1 + 1

You insult people and then lie about what you said.

Eventually shitting on LLM code will be seen by all as lazy cope. I too am aware of the existence of SAT but I really would struggle to immediately see through some problem i was having and interpret SAT unless I did it a bunch. Having agent suggest the "right thing" is clearly better. And hopefully would help my intuition in the future.

Partitioning a charge can't change the physics. If i have a bar of charge Q generating a force F on q which is proportional to sqrt Q then by partition i have n bars of charge Q_i = Q/n producing forces F_i

sqrt Q ~ F <> sum F_i = sum sqrt(Q_i) = sum sqrt(Q/n) = n * sqrt (Q/n) = sqrt (Qn)

Partitioning charge would lead to infinite forces.

F(r,q0,q1) = F(r,q0,q1+0) = F(r,q0,q1)+F(r,q0,0) = F(r,q0,q1) + 0

it can't use absolute values, you can't write that equation down

i think we can rule out any exponent just by dimensional analysis if you allow powers of q, then K has ambiguous units. Same reason you cant exponentiate unitful quantities

More specifically I think we can rule out even exponents by anti-symmetry of charge. That is q^2n = (-q)^2n which know is ruled out by experiment.