我看到一个算法的上限是O(1/n):

由于程序外部的原因(可能是硬件的原因，也可能是处理器中的其他核心的原因)，有大量的输入正在发生变化，你必须选择一个随机但有效的输入。

现在，如果它没有变化，你可以简单地列出一个项目列表，随机选择一个，然后得到O(1)次。然而，数据的动态性质使我们无法列出列表，您只能随机探测并测试探测的有效性。(请注意，从本质上讲，不能保证返回时答案仍然有效。这仍然是有用处的——比如游戏中的单位AI。它可以射击在扣动扳机时从视线中消失的目标。)

它的最差情况性能为无穷大，但平均情况性能随着数据空间的填满而下降。

好吧，我想了一下，也许有一个算法可以遵循这个一般形式:

你需要计算一个1000节点图的旅行商问题，但是，你也有一个你不能访问的节点列表。随着不可访问节点列表的增加，问题变得更容易解决。

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).

O(1/n)并不小于O(1)这基本上意味着你拥有的数据越多，算法运行得越快。假设你有一个数组，如果它小于10100个元素就填充它，如果多于10100个元素就什么都不做。这个当然不是O(1/n)，而是O(-n):)太糟糕了，O大符号不允许负数。

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.

在数值分析中，近似算法在近似公差范围内应具有次常数的渐近复杂度。

class Function
{
    public double[] ApproximateSolution(double tolerance)
    {
        // if this isn't sub-constant on the parameter, it's rather useless
    }
}