4 ms·

This is pretty easy to refute: > If your program runs in O(n) time, it cannot use more than O(n) memory (upper bound on memory usage.[sic] This is clearly ref

This is pretty easy to refute: > If your program runs in O(n) time, it cannot use more than O(n) memory (upper bound on memory usage.[sic] This is clearly refuted by all software running today. Programs (especially games) clearly use more memory than there are instructions in the program. > If your program uses O(n) memory, it must run at least in O(n) time (lower bound on time). Memory bombs use an incredible amount of memory and do it incredibly quickly.

Almondsetat 1y ago
>Programs (especially games) clearly use more memory than there are instructions in the program. How can you access a piece of memory without issuing an instruction to the CPU? Also, "clearly" is not an argument. >Memory bombs use an incredible amount of memory and do it incredibly quickly. How can you access a piece of memory without issuing an instruction to the CPU? Also "incredibly quickly" is not an argument. Also also, O(n) is incredibly quick.
- withinboredom 1y ago
  > Also, "clearly" is not an argument. As in your assertion is literally self-evidently false. It is on you to provide a burden of proof here; especially since there are instructions that can load more than a single bit of memory. > How can you access a piece of memory without issuing an instruction to the CPU? Let me rather ask you this: where do the instructions exist that are running? That is right: in memory. However, just because instructions exist in memory doesn’t mean they’re accessed. There is not a relationship between the number of instructions and the amount of memory accessed/used.
  - Almondsetat 1y ago
    This is about time and memory complexity, which is a formal field of computer science. Your replies are about your own vague understanding of computing, which is not the topic here.
    - withinboredom 1y ago
      Yes, but you are asserting the relationship is directly connected -- which is clearly not true. You said that it is O(n) memory and O(n) time, both using n. That means a program containing x bytes can only run for x seconds. This is clearly not true.
      - Almondsetat 1y ago
        >That means a program containing x bytes can only run for x seconds. That is not what it means. Again, if you are not familiar with the notation then all you are doing is slapping your personal ideas about computing to some symbols
        withinboredom 1y ago
        Hmm. Telling me I'm 'stupid' doesn't make you right.

Almondsetat 1y ago

>Programs (especially games) clearly use more memory than there are instructions in the program. How can you access a piece of memory without issuing an instruction to the CPU? Also, "clearly" is not an argument. >Memory bombs use an incredible amount of memory and do it incredibly quickly. How can you access a piece of memory without issuing an instruction to the CPU? Also "incredibly quickly" is not an argument. Also also, O(n) is incredibly quick.

withinboredom 1y ago
> Also, "clearly" is not an argument. As in your assertion is literally self-evidently false. It is on you to provide a burden of proof here; especially since there are instructions that can load more than a single bit of memory. > How can you access a piece of memory without issuing an instruction to the CPU? Let me rather ask you this: where do the instructions exist that are running? That is right: in memory. However, just because instructions exist in memory doesn’t mean they’re accessed. There is not a relationship between the number of instructions and the amount of memory accessed/used.
- Almondsetat 1y ago
  This is about time and memory complexity, which is a formal field of computer science. Your replies are about your own vague understanding of computing, which is not the topic here.
  - withinboredom 1y ago
    Yes, but you are asserting the relationship is directly connected -- which is clearly not true. You said that it is O(n) memory and O(n) time, both using n. That means a program containing x bytes can only run for x seconds. This is clearly not true.
    - Almondsetat 1y ago
      >That means a program containing x bytes can only run for x seconds. That is not what it means. Again, if you are not familiar with the notation then all you are doing is slapping your personal ideas about computing to some symbols
      - withinboredom 1y ago
        Hmm. Telling me I'm 'stupid' doesn't make you right.