大o符号表示算法与典型运行时不同的最坏情况。证明O(1/n)算法是O(1)算法很简单。根据定义, O(1/n)——> T(n) <= 1/n, for all n >= C > 0 O (1 / n)——> T (n) < = 1 / C,因为1 / n <所有n > = 1 / C = C O(1/n)——> O(1)，因为大O符号忽略常数(即C的值无关紧要)

inline void O0Algorithm() {}

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.

不，这不可能:

随着n在1/n范围内趋于无穷，我们最终得到1/(无穷)，这实际上是0。

因此，问题的大-oh类将是O(0)和一个巨大的n，但更接近常数时间和一个低n。这是不明智的，因为唯一可以在比常数时间更快的时间内完成的事情是:

Void nothing() {};

甚至这也是有争议的!

只要你执行了一个命令，你至少在O(1)，所以不，我们不能有一个O(1/n)的大哦类!

It may be possible to construct an algorithm that is O(1/n). One example would be a loop that iterates some multiple of f(n)-n times where f(n) is some function whose value is guaranteed to be greater than n and the limit of f(n)-n as n approaches infinity is zero. The calculation of f(n) would also need to be constant for all n. I do not know off hand what f(n) would look like or what application such an algorithm would have, in my opinion however such a function could exist but the resulting algorithm would have no purpose other than to prove the possibility of an algorithm with O(1/n).

大o符号表示算法与典型运行时不同的最坏情况。证明O(1/n)算法是O(1)算法很简单。根据定义, O(1/n)——> T(n) <= 1/n, for all n >= C > 0 O (1 / n)——> T (n) < = 1 / C,因为1 / n <所有n > = 1 / C = C O(1/n)——> O(1)，因为大O符号忽略常数(即C的值无关紧要)