undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAlmondsetat10mo ago0 comments

>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.

0 comments

withinboredom10mo 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.

AlmondsetatOP10mo 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.

withinboredom10mo 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.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsAlmondsetat10mo ago0 comments

>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.

0 comments

withinboredom10mo 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?

AlmondsetatOP10mo 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.

withinboredom10mo ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse