zlacker

>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.

>>Almond+(OP)
> 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.

>>within+h81
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.

>>Almond+es1
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.

>>within+Hb4
>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

>>Almond+A95
Hmm. Telling me I'm 'stupid' doesn't make you right.