3 ms·

>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 instru

>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.

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.