Unverified50% confidenceFactExact time
A formal proof guarantees that the formalized statement holds under the given axioms, but cannot automatically guarantee that the statement is exactly what the paper claims it to be; the correspondence between the two requires manual verification.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
9/24/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
VerifiedFormal verification can only guarantee the internal consistency of a reasoning chain; it cannot automatically determine whether the proposition being proved is semantically fully equivalent to the original conjecture.80% similarUnverifiedOrdinary Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting can generate seemingly plausible reasoning processes but cannot genuinely constrain the normative structure that legal reasoning should follow.67% similarUnverifiedThe poster is uncertain whether prompt injection leading to privilege escalation is a case that has actually occurred or remains at the theoretical level.66% similarUnverified数学界对解决未解问题的标准要求同时满足：问题是学界公认的开放问题、证明逻辑严密、通过同行评审66% similarUnverifiedWhen writing Evals, RFC-style wording such as must/must not/should should be used in the judge prompt to eliminate ambiguity, and questions should be kept atomic (one question asks only one thing).65% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/946340API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/946340MCP
get_claim(id=946340)