如果解决方案存在，它可以在常数时间=立即准备和访问。例如，如果您知道排序查询是针对倒序的，则使用LIFO数据结构。然后，假设选择了适当的模型(LIFO)，数据就已经排序了。

其余的大多数答案都将大o解释为专门关于算法的运行时间。但是因为问题没有提到它，我认为值得一提的是大o在数值分析中的另一个应用，关于误差。

Many algorithms can be O(h^p) or O(n^{-p}) depending on whether you're talking about step-size (h) or number of divisions (n). For example, in Euler's method, you look for an estimate of y(h) given that you know y(0) and dy/dx (the derivative of y). Your estimate of y(h) is more accurate the closer h is to 0. So in order to find y(x) for some arbitrary x, one takes the interval 0 to x, splits it up until n pieces, and runs Euler's method at each point, to get from y(0) to y(x/n) to y(2x/n), and so on.

欧拉方法是O(h)或O(1/n)算法，其中h通常被解释为步长n被解释为你划分一个区间的次数。

在实际数值分析应用中，由于浮点舍入误差，也可以有O(1/h)。你的间隔越小，某些算法的实现就会抵消得越多，丢失的有效数字就越多，因此在算法中传播的错误也就越多。

For Euler's method, if you are using floating points, use a small enough step and cancellation and you're adding a small number to a big number, leaving the big number unchanged. For algorithms that calculate the derivative through subtracting from each other two numbers from a function evaluated at two very close positions, approximating y'(x) with (y(x+h) - y(x) / h), in smooth functions y(x+h) gets close to y(x) resulting in large cancellation and an estimate for the derivative with fewer significant figures. This will in turn propagate to whatever algorithm you require the derivative for (e.g., a boundary value problem).

正如已经指出的，除了null函数可能的例外，不可能有O(1/n)个函数，因为所花费的时间必须接近0。

当然，有一些算法，比如康拉德定义的算法，它们至少在某种意义上应该小于O(1)

def get_faster(list):
    how_long = 1/len(list)
    sleep(how_long)

If you want to investigate these algorithms, you should either define your own asymptotic measurement, or your own notion of time. For example, in the above algorithm, I could allow the use of a number of "free" operations a set amount of times. In the above algorithm, if I define t' by excluding the time for everything but the sleep, then t'=1/n, which is O(1/n). There are probably better examples, as the asymptotic behavior is trivial. In fact, I am sure that someone out there can come up with senses that give non-trivial results.

这是一个简单的O(1/n)算法。它甚至做了一些有趣的事情!

function foo(list input) {
  int m;
  double output;

  m = (1/ input.size) * max_value;  
  output = 0;
  for (int i = 0; i < m; i++)
    output+= random(0,1);

  return output;
}

O(1/n) is possible as it describes how the output of a function changes given increasing size of input. If we are using the function 1/n to describe the number of instructions a function executes then there is no requirement that the function take zero instructions for any input size. Rather, it is that for every input size, n above some threshold, the number of instructions required is bounded above by a positive constant multiplied by 1/n. As there is no actual number for which 1/n is 0, and the constant is positive, then there is no reason why the function would constrained to take 0 or fewer instructions.

是的。

只有一种算法运行时为O(1/n)，即“空”算法。

对于O(1/n)的算法来说，这意味着它渐进地执行的步骤比由单个指令组成的算法少。如果对于所有n个> n0，它执行的步骤少于1步，则对于这n个，它必须完全不包含任何指令。由于检查' If n > n0'至少需要1条指令，因此对于所有n个，它必须不包含任何指令。

总结: 唯一的算法是O(1/n)是空算法，不包含任何指令。

没有比O(1)小的数 大o符号表示算法的最大复杂度

如果一个算法的运行时间是n³+ n²+ n + 5那么它就是O(n³) 低次在这里根本不重要，因为n ->正无穷，n^2与n^3相比是无关的

同样地，当n -> Inf时，O(1/n)与O(1)相比是不相关的，因此3 + O(1/n)将与O(1)相同，从而使O(1)的计算复杂度最小