4 ms·

I meant to say "could", but referred to the halting problem of turing machines. The browser can clearly decide whether an arbitrary SVG program halts (the answ

I meant to say "could", but referred to the halting problem of turing machines. The browser can clearly decide whether an arbitrary SVG program halts (the answer is always "yes"). If you can reduce every turing machine M to an SVG image so that they are semantically equivalent, but can decide for every SVG program whether it halts, your reduction must be uncomputable as your SVG interpretation could otherwise solve the halting problem. However, the authors reduction is clearly computable for a given TM/CA rule, so something is wrong here.

TheDong 7y ago
At this point we're agreeing about everything except "could" vs "couldn't" You wrote "I don't see why a ... SVG interpreter could solve the halting problem using this..." The "don't" and "could" imply that given this, an svg interpreter could not solve the halting problem, and thus can't give an answer of "yes". I was saying you want either "I don't see why it couldn't" (a double negative to say that it could), or "I think an svg program could (removing the "don't"). I'm being incredibly pedantic here, yes. I think we're both on the same page, and you just flipped your thoughts from a double negative sentence to a single positive thought, but didn't fixup the part you had already written.