yogsoth-ai Lakatos Heuristics
Tactics
- counterexample-heuristics
- contradiction-derivation
Method
- Take the claim as a tentative theorem
- Generate counterexamples systematically
- For each counterexample, attempt monster-barring (exclude as illegitimate)
- If monster-barring fails, incorporate as lemma (refine the claim)
- Iterate until claim is robust or abandoned
Budget
| Size | Counterexamples | Monster-barring rounds | Lemma incorporations |
|---|---|---|---|
| S | 5 | 2 | 2 |
| M | 12 | 4 | 4 |
| L | 25 | 8 | 8 |
Orchestration
- Dispatch
counterexample-generationagainst the claim - For each counterexample, dispatch
monster-barring-attempt - If barring fails, dispatch
claim-refinementto incorporate lemma - Repeat until saturation or budget exhausted
Subagents
- counterexample-generation
- monster-barring-attempt
- claim-refinement
- contradiction-detection
Available Tactics
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| Tactic | When to use |
|---|---|
| contradiction-derivation | Negate a claim, derive logical consequences step by step, detect whether a genuine contradiction or absurdity emerges. |
| counterexample-heuristics | Generate counterexamples (monsters), attempt monster-barring, incorporate surviving counterexamples as lemma refinements (Lakatos method). |
Available SOPs
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use |
|---|---|
| claim-refinement | Propose a refined claim that survives counterexamples while preserving maximum explanatory power (Lakatos lemma-incorporation). |
| contradiction-detection | Evaluate whether a derivation chain has reached a genuine contradiction, absurdity, or inconclusive state. |
| counterexample-generation | Systematically generate counterexamples (monsters) to a given claim using diverse heuristic strategies. |
| monster-barring-attempt | Attempt to exclude a counterexample as illegitimate by tightening definitions or preconditions (Lakatos monster-barring). |