这种方法有空间开销，但实现更简单:

循环可以通过在Map中存储节点来标识。在放置节点之前;检查节点是否已经存在。如果节点已经存在于映射中，则意味着链表有循环。

public boolean loopDetector(Node<E> first) {  
       Node<E> t = first;  
       Map<Node<E>, Node<E>> map = new IdentityHashMap<Node<E>, Node<E>>();  
       while (t != null) {  
            if (map.containsKey(t)) {  
                 System.out.println(" duplicate Node is --" + t  
                           + " having value :" + t.data);  

                 return true;  
            } else {  
                 map.put(t, t);  
            }  
            t = t.next;  
       }  
       return false;  
  }  

下面是快速/慢速解决方案的改进，它正确地处理奇数长度的列表并提高了清晰度。

boolean hasLoop(Node first) {
    Node slow = first;
    Node fast = first;

    while(fast != null && fast.next != null) {
        slow = slow.next;          // 1 hop
        fast = fast.next.next;     // 2 hops 

        if(slow == fast)  // fast caught up to slow, so there is a loop
            return true;
    }
    return false;  // fast reached null, so the list terminates
}

用户unicornaddict上面有一个很好的算法，但不幸的是，它包含一个错误，用于奇数长度>= 3的非循环列表。问题是，快的可能会在列表结束之前“卡住”，慢的会赶上它，然后就会(错误地)检测到循环。

这是修正后的算法。

static boolean hasLoop(Node first) {

    if(first == null) // list does not exist..so no loop either.
        return false;

    Node slow, fast; // create two references.

    slow = fast = first; // make both refer to the start of the list.

    while(true) {
        slow = slow.next;          // 1 hop.
        if(fast.next == null)
            fast = null;
        else
            fast = fast.next.next; // 2 hops.

        if(fast == null) // if fast hits null..no loop.
            return false;

        if(slow == fast) // if the two ever meet...we must have a loop.
            return true;
    }
}

检测链表中的循环可以用最简单的方法之一来完成，使用hashmap会导致O(N)复杂度，使用基于排序的方法会导致O(NlogN)复杂度。

当您从head开始遍历列表时，创建一个已排序的地址列表。当您插入一个新地址时，检查该地址是否已经在已排序的列表中，这需要O(logN)复杂度。

如果允许我们嵌入类Node，我将像下面实现的那样解决这个问题。hasLoop()在O(n)时间内运行，并且只占用计数器的空间。这是不是一个合适的解决方案?或者是否有一种不嵌入Node的方法?(显然，在真正的实现中会有更多的方法，如RemoveNode(Node n)等。)

public class LinkedNodeList {
    Node first;
    Int count;

    LinkedNodeList(){
        first = null;
        count = 0;
    }

    LinkedNodeList(Node n){
        if (n.next != null){
            throw new error("must start with single node!");
        } else {
            first = n;
            count = 1;
        }
    }

    public void addNode(Node n){
        Node lookingAt = first;

        while(lookingAt.next != null){
            lookingAt = lookingAt.next;
        }

        lookingAt.next = n;
        count++;
    }

    public boolean hasLoop(){

        int counter = 0;
        Node lookingAt = first;

        while(lookingAt.next != null){
            counter++;
            if (count < counter){
                return false;
            } else {
               lookingAt = lookingAt.next;
            }
        }

        return true;

    }



    private class Node{
        Node next;
        ....
    }

}

public boolean hasLoop(Node start){   
   TreeSet<Node> set = new TreeSet<Node>();
   Node lookingAt = start;

   while (lookingAt.peek() != null){
       lookingAt = lookingAt.next;

       if (set.contains(lookingAt){
           return false;
        } else {
        set.put(lookingAt);
        }

        return true;
}   
// Inside our Node class:        
public Node peek(){
   return this.next;
}

请原谅我的无知(我对Java和编程仍然相当陌生)，但为什么上面的方法不能工作呢?

I guess this doesn't solve the constant space issue... but it does at least get there in a reasonable time, correct? It will only take the space of the linked list plus the space of a set with n elements (where n is the number of elements in the linked list, or the number of elements until it reaches a loop). And for time, worst-case analysis, I think, would suggest O(nlog(n)). SortedSet look-ups for contains() are log(n) (check the javadoc, but I'm pretty sure TreeSet's underlying structure is TreeMap, whose in turn is a red-black tree), and in the worst case (no loops, or loop at very end), it will have to do n look-ups.