Re: My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME

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.