Comment by withinboredom
18 days 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.
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.
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.
>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
1 reply →