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.

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.

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。

那么这个呢:

void FindRandomInList(list l)
{
    while(1)
    {
        int rand = Random.next();
        if (l.contains(rand))
            return;
    }
}

随着列表大小的增加，程序的预期运行时间会减少。

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!

我相信量子算法可以通过叠加“一次”进行多次计算……

我怀疑这是一个有用的答案。