Neither the problem statement, nor any of the confused responses were mine.

I know. Still a pitiful excuse, and yes, it was an excuse; you insinuated that my confused question deserved the flippant response. It didn't. It required a simple, clear answer, which of course can only be given when the other party actually has a model he understands.

No, that is not the correct way to handle confused questions. The correct way to handle them is to back up, and explain the issues that lead to the confusion.

We're bickering over semantics. The point is, there are more helpful answers, which one can reasonably be expected to give, than the "confused reply" you referred to. Richard knows what "finding a mate" means. So, if he actually understands his own model, he can break down "finding a mate" into its constituent references and outputs.

Or say how finding a mate should really be viewed as a set of other, specific references being tracked.

Or somehow give a hint that he understands his own model and can apply it to standard problems.

Was my epicycle example not the kind of response I could reasonably expect from someone who understands his own model?