这段代码经过优化，将比选择的最佳答案更快地产生结果。这段代码避免了进入一个非常长的追逐向前和向后节点指针的过程，如果我们遵循'最佳答案'方法，在以下情况下将发生这种情况。看一下下面的演练，你就会明白我想说的是什么。然后通过下面给出的方法来观察问题，并测量否。为了找到答案所采取的步骤。

1 - > 2 - > 9 - > 3 ^ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - ^

代码如下:

boolean loop(node *head)
{
 node *back=head;
 node *front=head;

 while(front && front->next)
 {
  front=front->next->next;
  if(back==front)
  return true;
  else
  back=back->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
}

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;
        ....
    }

}

这是我在java中的解决方案

boolean detectLoop(Node head){
    Node fastRunner = head;
    Node slowRunner = head;
    while(fastRunner != null && slowRunner !=null && fastRunner.next != null){
        fastRunner = fastRunner.next.next;
        slowRunner = slowRunner.next;
        if(fastRunner == slowRunner){
            return true;
        }
    }
    return false;
}

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.

下面的方法可能不是最好的——它是O(n²)。然而，它应该有助于完成工作(最终)。

count_of_elements_so_far = 0;
for (each element in linked list)
{
    search for current element in first <count_of_elements_so_far>
    if found, then you have a loop
    else,count_of_elements_so_far++;
}