svg-is-turing-complete

It seems trivial as a naive guess that SVG is TC if it can contain JavaScript, which is TC. However, the posted solution seems inelegant and uncompelling. Simply iterating in SVG, which can infinitely scalable. The author expresses apprehension in this closed issue: https://github.com/tom-p-reichel/svg-is-turing-complete/issu... It is mentioned that they intend to demonstrate this using feComposite in the source code. There are bits and pieces of how one would prove TC for SVG. A first step, would be identifying basic operations, as they have done. The next step would be compiling to a tag system, and simulate cyclic tag behavior. It is expressed elsewhere that the lack of loops would exempt TC. Perhaps it can still be argued through DOM manipulation.

>I think copying and pasting could be justified as "evaluating". Infinitely copying and pasting is justified to encode the state, but not to encode the transition function, as is the case here to emulate loops. To encode an infinite loop would require an infinitely long SVG, but a Turing machine requires that the transition function be finitely encoded. As someone on the GitHub commented, "If you can not construct an SVG that never halts (finishes drawing) SVG can not be turing complete." https://github.com/tom-p-reichel/svg-is-turing-complete/issu... Edit: more explicitly, for each state, the user has to manually add the line <use href="#line[n - 1]" y="30" id="line[n]" filter="url(#rule110)"/> manually updating n themselves each time. This means that the transition function is "encoded" by the human, not the SVG code itself.