Add DeepSeek experiment

docs/.pages

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+nav:
+- index.md
+- DevOps
+- Miscellaneous
+- Programming

docs/blog/deepseek/.pages

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+nav:
+- index.md

docs/blog/deepseek/full_reasoning.md

@@ -0,0 +1,268 @@
+# The full reasoning behind the answer
+
+Alright, so I need to find the shortest path from node x to node s in this graph. Let me start by understanding how the
+graph is structured based on the given information.
+
+First, let's list out all the nodes and their connections:
+
+- **s:** connected to a
+- **a:** connected to s, b, h
+- **b:** connected to a, c, f
+- **c:** connected to b, d, e
+- **d:** only connected to c
+- **e:** only connected to c
+- **f:** connected to b, h, q
+- **g:** connected to f (but wait, g is only connected to f? Hmm)
+- **h:** connected to a, i, q
+- **i:** connected to h, j, k
+- **j:** connected to i
+- **k:** connected to i, l
+- **l:** connected to k, m, n, o
+- **m:** connected to l
+- **n:** connected to l, o, q
+- **o:** connected to l, n
+- **p:** connected to q, x
+- **q:** connected to f, h, n, p
+- **x:** connected to p
+
+Okay, so we have a graph with nodes s, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, x.
+
+Wait, hold on. The node 'g' is only connected to 'f', but in the given data, it's written as "g: f". So that means from
+g, you can go to f, right? But in our problem, we're going from x to s, so maybe 'g' isn't directly involved unless we
+need to take a longer path. Let me note that for later.
+
+Our goal is to find the shortest path from x to s. So let's think about how to approach this.
+
+I know that one of the standard algorithms for finding the shortest path in an unweighted graph is Breadth-First Search
+(BFS). Since all edges are considered equal weight, BFS should work here.
+
+So, to perform BFS:
+
+1. Start from node x.
+2. Explore all nodes adjacent to x.
+3. Then explore all nodes adjacent to those nodes, and so on, until we find s.
+4. Keep track of the path taken to reach each node to reconstruct the shortest path once we hit s.
+
+Let me try to visualize or perhaps sketch out the connections:
+
+Starting from x: x is connected only to p (x -> p).
+
+From p: p is connected to q and x. Since we came from x, next would be q.
+
+From q: connected to f, h, n, p. So from q, we can go to f, h, or n.
+
+Let me map this out step by step:
+
+1. Start at x (level 0).
+2. Level 1: p.
+3. From p, level 2: q.
+4. From q, level 3: f, h, n.
+5. From each of these:
+   - From f: connected to b, h, q. But h and q have already been visited; so go to b (level 4).
+   - From h: connected to a, i, q. a is closer to s; let's see where that leads (level 4). Also, from h you can go to i.
+   - From n: connected to l, o, q. So go to l and o (level 4).
+
+Wait, so in level 3, we have f, h, n.
+
+Let me note the steps more clearly:
+
+Level 0:
+- x
+
+Level 1:
+- p
+
+Level 2:
+- q
+
+Level 3:
+- f, h, n
+
+Now, processing each node at level 3.
+
+Starting with f:
+From f: connected to b, h, q.
+- b hasn't been visited yet. So mark b as level 4.
+- h is already in level 3; don't need to revisit.
+
+Processing h next (since from x->p->q->h):
+From h: connected to a, i, q.
+- a is new; so mark a as level 4.
+- i is also new; mark i as level 4.
+
+Then processing n:
+From n: connected to l, o, q.
+- l and o haven't been visited yet. So mark l and o as level 4.
+
+So now at level 4, we have b, a, i, l, o.
+
+Wait, but a is directly connected to s! Because looking back at the nodes:
+
+s: a
+
+So from a, you can go to s. Since we're trying to reach s, once we get to a, that's one step away.
+
+But let me confirm if 'a' is in level 4 or not.
+
+Wait, our BFS levels are as follows:
+
+Level 0: x
+
+Level 1: p
+
+Level 2: q
+
+Level 3: f, h, n
+
+Level 4: From f: b; from h: a, i; from n: l, o. So level 4 is b, a, i, l, o.
+
+So a is in level 4, but s is connected to a. Therefore, once we reach a at level 4, the next step would be s at level 5.
+
+But wait, perhaps there's a shorter path? Let me check all possibilities because sometimes BFS can have multiple paths.
+
+Alternatively, let me see if from h (level 3), going to i, then from i: j and k. From k: l and so on, but that might
+take longer.
+
+From b (level 4): connected to a, c, f. So a is reachable here as well.
+
+So whether you go through h to a or through b to a, it's the same distance.
+
+Therefore, s can be reached from a at level 5.
+
+Wait, let me re-examine the levels:
+
+From x (0) -> p (1) -> q (2)
+
+From q: f (3), h (3), n (3)
+
+From f: b (4); From h: a (4), i (4); From n: l (4), o (4)
+
+So from level 4, nodes are a, b, i, l, o.
+
+At this point, s is connected to a. So once we process a at level 4, the next step would be s at level 5.
+
+Is there any shorter path? Let me think if I can reach s in fewer steps.
+
+Looking back:
+
+From x: p (1)
+p connects to q (2)
+q connects to f, h, n (3)
+
+From f: b (4); From h: a, i (4); From n: l, o (4)
+
+Is there any other connection from level 2 or 3 that can reach s without going through a? Let me see.
+
+s is only connected to a. So the only way to get to s is via a. Therefore, the earliest we can reach a is at level 4, so
+s must be at level 5.
+
+But wait, let's check if there are alternative routes from q (level 2). From q: f, h, n.
+
+From f (3): b (4); then b connects to a (so that would take another step: 5)
+
+From h (3): directly to a (which is level 4), so s is at level 5.
+
+Alternatively, from h: go to i (4). Then i can go to j or k. But j and k are further away. So going through h seems the
+shortest path via h->a->s.
+
+But perhaps another path? Let's see:
+
+x -> p -> q -> n -> l -> ... but that leads to m, which doesn't connect back. Alternatively, x->p->q->h->i->k->l... Not
+useful for getting to s.
+
+Alternatively, x->p->q->f->b->a->s: Let's count the steps:
+
+x (0) -> p (1) -> q (2) -> f (3) -> b (4) -> a (5) -> s (6)
+
+Wait, but earlier I thought it was level 5 for s. Hmm.
+
+Wait no, maybe my levels are off because each edge is one step, so the number of edges determines the length.
+
+But in BFS, the distance from x to s would be the number of edges traversed.
+
+So starting at x (distance 0).
+
+p: 1
+
+q:2
+
+f,h,n:3
+
+From f: b:4; h: a,i:4; n: l,o:4
+
+Then from a: s:5. So total distance is 5 steps.
+
+But let me check another path:
+
+x -> p -> q -> h ->a ->s: that's x(0)-p(1)-q(2)-h(3)-a(4)-s(5). Also, same length.
+
+Alternatively, any other paths?
+
+Let's see if going from q->n->l... but l connects to m,n,o, which don't connect back. Similarly, o is connected to n and
+l; still no connection towards s.
+
+Similarly, i connects to j and k, then to l. So that seems longer.
+
+Therefore, both paths through f->b and h lead to a in 4 steps, but from a you need one more step to s. Therefore, the
+shortest path is of length 5 edges.
+
+But wait, let me recount:
+
+x -> p:1
+
+p -> q:2
+
+q -> h:3
+
+h ->a:4
+
+a ->s:5
+
+So that's 5 steps.
+
+Alternatively, x->p->q->f->b->a->s: also 6 steps? Wait no.
+
+Wait, in BFS each level is one step. So from x (level0), p(level1); q(level2); f,h,n(level3); b,a,i,l,o(level4);
+s(level5). Therefore, the path length from x to s is 5 edges.
+
+Therefore, the shortest path has 6 nodes: x,p,q,h,a,s
+
+Wait, but that's 5 steps or 6 nodes? Wait, in terms of number of nodes visited, it would be 6: x,p,q,h,a,s. But when we
+talk about the shortest path length, it's usually the number of edges traversed, which is 5.
+
+But perhaps depending on how it's defined, sometimes people count the number of nodes. Let me check:
+
+s is at level5 if counting steps from x. So to get s, you traverse 5 edges: x-p, p-q, q-h, h-a, a-s.
+
+So yes, that would be 5 edges, so length 5.
+
+Is there any shorter path? For example, x->p->q->f->b->a->s is longer because it's 6 steps. So no, the shortest path is
+indeed through x-p-q-h-a-s with 5 edges.
+
+Alternatively, if we take x-p-q-n-o-l-k-i-j... No, that leads away from s.
+
+So yes, I think the shortest path is x -> p -> q -> h -> a -> s.
+
+Therefore, in terms of nodes: [x,p,q,h,a,s], which is 5 edges or 6 nodes.
+
+Wait, let me confirm once more:
+
+Start at x (distance 0).
+
+p is distance1.
+
+q is distance2.
+
+From q, f,h,n are distance3.
+
+From h, a and i are distance4.
+
+a connects to s, so s is distance5.
+
+Therefore, the shortest path from x to s is of length5, going through p,q,h,a,s.
+
+Alternatively, could we get to a via b? Let's see:
+
+x->p(1)->q(2)->f(3)->b(4)->a(5)->s(6). That would make it longer. So yes, the path through h is shorter.
+
+Therefore, the shortest path is x-p-q-h-a-s with 5 edges.