I am a little lost. >The first issue I have with the paper is that Tower of Hanoi is a worse test case for reasoning than math and coding. If you’re worried th

I am a little lost. >The first issue I have with the paper is that Tower of Hanoi is a worse test case for reasoning than math and coding. If you’re worried that math and coding benchmarks suffer from contamination, why would you pick well-known puzzles for which we know the solutions exist in the training data? Isn't that exactly what is wrong? It is in the training data and it cant complete it. It simply isn't reasoning, it is second guessing a lot of things as though it is reasoning.