There's something rather... desperate about your need to attack people, isn't there? As if you felt there was something you really, really needed to prove?
I can assure you, whatever it is you think you're proving here, you're achieving exactly the opposite.
Heh... just brightening my morning with a bit of a laugh, really. I've seen enough angry, emotionally adolescent keyboard warriors in my time, that it's quite funny watching them now.
I work on a PC with a Core i7-4770@3.4 Ghz and 8Gb RAM and 128 GB SSD and 1 TB HDD.
Phew! I was worried that you were going to say it was a 256KB arduino or something similar where the tiniest bit of math would show that you were running out of memory. :)
The problem that I'm having is that I can't get the code you posted to exhibit the crash. Does that code, with those parameters, crash for you? It would be great if we can verify that Cx, Cy, and Cz are the problem.
The code - as given - doesn't crash (that I've seen).
Increase the parameter f above about 150 and it crashes a lot of the time (although, not always). This occurs once variable cont exceeds the pre-set array size of 100 for Cx, Cy and Cz (as you suggested earlier).
The largest value used, cmax, is one of the variables printed out at the end. This varies a bit because of the use of randomisation, but as the array size f increases it is perilously close to 100.
It would be better if Cx, Cy and Cz were vectors, not fixed-size arrays.
MonkeyBoy is still drivelling on. Haven’t you got some workable code to write, or at least report in to your offender report officer to get your bracelet verified and battery change.