>Functions exist on actual computers because of procedures. That's the part you still seem to be struggling to understand for some reason. I understood this si

>Functions exist on actual computers because of procedures. That's the part you still seem to be struggling to understand for some reason. I understood this since the dawn of time, I've made that clear. What's also clear is that from a theoretical standpoint, Functions and procedures exist on their own as individual procedures that are isomorphic, not dependencies. >The only one twisting words here is you. No your right I'm wrong, it's not word twisting. It's that you don't know certain things. >The procedures. Procedures can't be composed. I googled Procedure Composition there is NO FORMAL definition meaning you made it up. Here's the top google result for Procedural Composition: http://harrisburg5thgradewriting.weebly.com/third-quarter/procedural-composition1 http://harrisburg5thgradewriting.weebly.com/third-quarter/pr... >By running them in sequence. You made that up. Cite a formal source. >It means those two steps are composed, yes. No it does not unless you make up your own definition of the term. Give me an official source that tells me what procedural composition is. >Says the one who still insists that function composition can somehow exist on real computers without procedure composition. Now this is just pure lie. I never said it can EXIST ON COMPUTERS. Never did. I said in the world of mathematics and computer science functions and procedures are isomorphic not dependent. I'm not being derogatory or insulting when I say this. I am stating a fact. You are a liar.