Relation among CPU, Compilers and Programming Languages

All questions are not real questions. The assumption that they have some answers tells me that they are formulated by people totally ignorant in the topics. I can easily proof that the questions are completely idiotic. Let me just tell you some thoughts.

#1. CPU is not "most intellectual". The statement is ridiculous not because something else is more intellectual (from the common sense, a log of things modeled on computer could be much more "intellectual"), but just because "intellectual" is not a defined category.

#3. No one can reasonably ask "what language is used" for modelling, because there are many suitable languages, and, at any time, new, even better language can be invented and implemented.

And so on… No need to waste any more time on this.

The questions are completely unreasonable and unrelated to anything sensible, no common sense, no computer science or software development practice. I call it "blah-blahology", idle talk. And hence, the whole thing is the educational fraud.

What to do? Give up the course or the whole school, sue the school for fraud. I have no idea what course of action would be realistic and what not, it depends on circumstances and your goals. Anyway, not learning the gibberish.

—SA

I'll answer 2 first: Either. Both. The first compiler was written in assembler, and then re-written in the language and recompiled. It's normal to write a cross compiler (one that works on machine X by creates an executable for machine Y) and then compile the compiler with it to produce a compiler that runs on Y and produces code for Y.
Nobody (or almost nobody) uses low level languages to produce major software components: it takes too much time and is generally harder to maintain than the high level equivalent.

For the other two, you are confusing entities: While you can (do some do) "write" processors in a language that is executed on the "real" hardware (it's called Microcode[^]) it's not something you should think about too much unless you are planning on working for a big processor manufacturer - you can't write programs in the microcode and execute them yourself.

The CPU is compiler and language ignorant: it has no idea what language or compiler was used - it just processes a stream of binary data as machine instructions: in the same way they you "process words" without really caring if they come form a book, or a magazine, or a screen. Or even from a radio!
Trying to consider the processor in isolation and expecting it to be "the most important" is like trying to consider your brain in isolation - it doesn't work without your heart, and your lungs, and your liver, and blood, and bone, and skin, and eyes, and ears, and ...
The CPU is the same: without RAM, and a PSU, and input and output devices it can;t do anything either. So stop trying to "compartmentalise" the components and consider them as a system which works as a whole, together with the Operating system.