3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThis 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 agoYes, 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 agoHmm. Telling me I'm 'stupid' doesn't make you right.