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).

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

我不知道算法，但复杂度小于O(1)出现在随机算法中。实际上，o(1)(小o)小于o(1)这种复杂性通常出现在随机算法中。例如，如你所说，当某个事件的概率为1/n阶时，他们用o(1)表示。或者当他们想说某件事发生的概率很高时(例如1 - 1/n)，他们用1 - o(1)表示。

你不能低于O(1)但是O(k) k小于N是可能的。我们称之为次线性时间算法。在某些问题中，次线性时间算法只能给出特定问题的近似解。然而，有时，一个近似解就可以了，可能是因为数据集太大了，或者计算所有数据的计算成本太高了。

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).

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.