I didn't make a statement about haskell and I'm not interested in parsing definitions that you've shown gleeful disregard for as recently as two posts ago. The

I didn't make a statement about haskell and I'm not interested in parsing definitions that you've shown gleeful disregard for as recently as two posts ago. The 2003 paper isn't using "functional" in your pet manner and I'm not interested in educating such a hostile student. You're clearly reaching for material you don't understand in hopes that I'll be overwhelmed and it's not a good look. If you'd like to pull one of the three (3) usages of "functional" from the 2003 paper and explain how you thought it relevant to your argument I'd be enlightened. If you're just going to come back with a new raft of papers you don't understand from 30 years ago, please save us both the time and spare me. I'm not interested in reading the results of your uneducated googling and teaching you what you found. CPU's are "amenable" to verification in the same way C programs are. Throw enough human bodies, enough time, enough blood, enough sweat, and enough tears, at the creation of a software object and it will be "verified" to be correct. There's nothing inherent in C programs that precludes them from being put through this stringent process. There's a lot of costing reasons why people don't spend that time and effort on a field-patchable software object that they do on gates costing millions of dollars to permanently etch into silicon, but I never said anything approaching "CPUs are so amenable to verification while C programs aren't" because I don't believe your argument to be true. In fact, I'd argue that something like the MRC proves that C-like stateful procedural languages can be put through the same process and result in something just as durable as a CPU, if we're somehow admitting you've been talking about commercial CPU's instead of the goofy abstraction you claimed upthread. Are you planning on addressing how architecturally defined registers aren't stateful? That's a concrete example that posters other than myself also zeroed in on. The only argument given so far was pinned on the NAND equivalence being stateless. It's disappointing you didn't deign to address that in between your wild accusations and gleeful misrepresentations about what I've been saying.