Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY
 ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 23:38:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v367vu$2d368$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v256fc$1kais$1@dont-email.me>
 <v27d05$25ga0$1@dont-email.me> <v2838r$29rd7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2a8th$2ps09$1@dont-email.me> <v2ahqc$2qvr9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2cb5s$39fvg$1@dont-email.me> <v2crk0$3cifp$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2cvuo$3dfkm$1@dont-email.me> <v2i921$jvcs$5@dont-email.me>
 <v2k7fe$12vjm$1@dont-email.me> <v2l0q8$17mu1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2n4f7$1ms87$1@dont-email.me> <v2nfma$1or9h$4@dont-email.me>
 <v2pkqq$28mg0$1@dont-email.me> <v2qhr2$2dpfr$6@dont-email.me>
 <v2s6kk$2q0pf$1@dont-email.me> <v2skde$2s65h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2uthd$3bjch$1@dont-email.me> <v2vdkp$3dtct$3@dont-email.me>
 <v2vned$3fl3r$1@dont-email.me> <v2vp8f$3g0m3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v31f7s$3ukf5$1@dont-email.me> <v3236b$29pd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3249e$28n59$1@i2pn2.org> <v325v5$2pkb$4@dont-email.me>
 <v32730$28n59$3@i2pn2.org> <v329md$3mh0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v347mh$hf5j$3@dont-email.me> <v34sbj$l6mn$2@dont-email.me>
 <v362et$2d367$2@i2pn2.org> <v3640k$vg63$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 03:38:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2526408"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3640k$vg63$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6045
Lines: 102

On 5/28/24 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/28/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/28/24 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2024 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>> 00       int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>> 01       int D(ptr p)
>>>>> 02       {
>>>>> 03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>> 04         if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05           HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06         return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07       }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09       int main()
>>>>> 10       {
>>>>> 11         H(D,D);
>>>>> 12         return 0;
>>>>> 13       }
>>>>>
>>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. 
>>>>> This
>>>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>>>>     This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>>>>     correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>>
>>>>>     A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N 
>>>>> of the
>>>>>     x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 
>>>>> instructions
>>>>>     of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating 
>>>>> itself
>>>>>     emulating D.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would 
>>>>> remain
>>>>> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less 
>>>>> than
>>>>> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
>>>>> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
>>>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We can equally well replace D with H.
>>>
>>> Only if we want to use the DISHONEST DODGE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION
>>> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTAL.
>>>
>>> My use of the point-by-pint basis of the Socratic method tosses
>>> such attempts out as Trolling.
>>>
>>
>> Mope, you don't understand how the Socratic method works in this sort 
>> of discussion.
>>
> 
> We are going to completely go over exactly one point at a time
> and not diverge from this one point until we have complete
> closure. I cannot and will not tolerate any CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT
> FAKE REBUTTAL. *The subject line of the post defines this point*
> 

So, what are you going to do, hold your breath until you are blue in the 
face and then throw a tantrum.

The rebutal isn't "Fake", your trying to just deny it IS.

I have put forward questions that you WILL need to answer, and I will 
NOT agree to any point if there are unresolved ambiquities i your 
definitions and their implications,

As I have said, your refusal to rebut the implications WILL be taken as 
an aggrement to them in any reply by me, and thus any claim to the 
contrary resets any agreements and you will need to go back to step zero.

Obviously, the problem is that my implications are going directly 
opposite some of the things you are going to try to claim latter, based 
on a slight shift of the definition, which just shows that you are 
planing on LYING.


So, if you want to handle one point at a time, you need to handle ALL 
the questions about that point.

Maybe you don't understand how the Socratic method actually worked. The 
teacher DID put out questions, but the student WAS able to ask questions 
back, and was actually encouraged to do so. The goal was to make the 
students think and understand.

The fact that you get stumped by the questions back, just show you 
aren't really a teacher, and don't really have anything to show.

You are just misusing the method to try to define away the ability to 
reject, which is why your needing to use the method in that way just 
shows the utter weakness of your argument.