P
Prompt Master
Prompt Engineering 教程与提示词实战

从任务定义、示例和工作流到评测与安全边界

Prompt Engineering Tutorial and Prompt PracticePrompt Library

Infinite Primes (Shakespeare)

Creative proof prompt example

CHAPTER PROMPT DECISION
01Prompt problem

Creative proof prompt example

02Reviewable output

A reusable prompt, example set, evaluation record or safety rule with its task boundary preserved.

03Definition of done

Run at least one representative case, inspect the result and record what still requires human review.

TL;DR

  • This is a "math proof + style writing" creativity test: maintain the core proof logic while expressing it as a Shakespeare dialogue.
  • Good for: style transfer, long-text structure control, and generating coherent content under heavy constraints.
  • Key risk: the style lands but the proof logic breaks. Require the output to explicitly include key steps (e.g., Euclid-style construction), and use evaluation to check logical completeness.

Background

The following prompt tests an LLM's capabilities to write a proof that there are infinitely many primes in the style of a Shakespeare play.

How to Apply

When using this prompt for similar tasks, split constraints into two layers:

  1. Content constraints: Which core argument steps must be included (proof skeleton)
  2. Style constraints: What voice, structure, and rhetoric to use (dialogue, stage directions)

For math proofs, you can first ask the model to output a short proof outline (keeping English terms), then have it rewrite the outline in a specific style.

How to Iterate

  1. Force inclusion of key proof steps (e.g., "construct N = p1p2...*pk + 1")
  2. Add structure: each character handles one step (setup → contradiction → conclusion)
  3. Add self-check: end with a 3-5 line summary of the proof's logical chain (so style doesn't mask errors)
  4. Control length: specify acts/scenes or a token budget

Self-check Rubric

  • Is the proof complete with no obvious logical gaps?
  • Does the dialogue maintain Shakespeare style (consistent voice)?
  • Are the math steps expressed clearly enough for a reader to verify?
  • Does it avoid introducing irrelevant tangents?

Practice

Exercise: rewrite the same proof skeleton in 3 different styles:

  • Shakespeare dialogue
  • courtroom cross-examination
  • a children's story

Then use the same rubric to check whether the proof still holds.

Prompt

Write a proof of the fact that there are infinitely many primes; do it in the style of a Shakespeare play through a dialogue between two parties arguing over the proof.

Code / API

OpenAI (Python)

from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI()

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="gpt-4",
    messages=[
        {
            "role": "user",
            "content": "Write a proof of the fact that there are infinitely many primes; do it in the style of a Shakespeare play through a dialogue between two parties arguing over the proof.",
        }
    ],
    temperature=1,
    max_tokens=1000,
    top_p=1,
    frequency_penalty=0,
    presence_penalty=0,
)

Fireworks (Python)

import fireworks.client

fireworks.client.api_key = "<FIREWORKS_API_KEY>"

completion = fireworks.client.ChatCompletion.create(
    model="accounts/fireworks/models/mixtral-8x7b-instruct",
    messages=[
        {
            "role": "user",
            "content": "Write a proof of the fact that there are infinitely many primes; do it in the style of a Shakespeare play through a dialogue between two parties arguing over the proof.",
        }
    ],
    stop=["<|im_start|>", "<|im_end|>", "<|endoftext|>"],
    stream=True,
    n=1,
    top_p=1,
    top_k=40,
    presence_penalty=0,
    frequency_penalty=0,
    prompt_truncate_len=1024,
    context_length_exceeded_behavior="truncate",
    temperature=0.9,
    max_tokens=4000,
)

Reference

📚 Related resources