TweetFollow Us on Twitter

Daze Y
Volume Number:8
Issue Number:1
Column Tag:Lisp Listener

Deriving Miss Daze Y

Deriving the (applicative order) Y combinator in a concrete way via fact

By André van Meulebrouck, Chatsworth, California: Internet: vanMeule@cup.portal.com

“Deriving Miss Daze Y”

“The utmost abstractions are the true weapons with which to control our thought of concrete fact.” - Alfred North Whitehead

This article will seek to derive the (applicative order) Y combinator in a concrete way via fact.

Definition: The Y combinator is a function which, when applied to the abstracted version of a recursive function, is the equivalent of the (original) recursive function. [vanMeule May 1991]

Definition: fact is that pedagogical function of obsessive interest, the factorial function.

Abstracted fact

In [vanMeule May 1991], the Y combinator was motivated by a desire to convert everything into a combinator (a lambda expression which has no free variables). In “combinatorizing” everything we found the following definition in need of abstrac-tion (the process whereby we get rid of free variables by making them bound in an outer lambda expression, then promising to pass in “the right thing” when invoking the outer lambda expression).

(* 1 *)

(define fact
 (lambda (n)
 (if (zero? n)
 1
 (* n (fact (1- n))))))

In the definition of fact above, the variable is a free variable. (Such recursive definitions rely on free variables being resolved in an odd, not-purely-lexical way.) The definition for abstracted-fact looks like the following.

(* 2 *)

(define abstracted-fact
 (lambda (fact)
 (lambda (n)
 (if (zero? n)
 1
 (* n (fact (1- n)))))))

The free variable is gone, but we are not home and dry be-cause we now have to pass in the definition of fact. In fact, we have to have a mechanism that is capable of providing them on demand!

Recursionless fact

In [vanMeule Jun 1991], what is perhaps the simplest trick for getting rid of recursion was shown: passing the would be recursive function as an argument!

(* 3 *)

>>>
(define pass-fact
 (lambda (f n)
 (if (zero? n)
 1
 (* n (f f (1- n))))))
pass-fact
>>> (pass-fact pass-fact 5)
120

Notice what happened to the original definition of fact: it was changed! In abstracted-fact, we did not change the definition at all - we merely wrapped a lambda form around the untampered-with-definition of fact.

Merging facts

What we really want is a way to get rid of recursion without modifying the definition of the function we’re ridding the recursion from. In other words, we want to have the best of the two different approaches: abstracted-fact gets rid of the free variable yet keeps the definition intact; pass-fact seems to have captured a recursive mechanism without using recursion.

Theoretically, it should be possible to start from pass-fact and massage it into two parts; a “recursionless recursion mechanism” (the Y combinator), and abstracted-fact.

To Be or to Let it Be

In the discussion that follows, we will use let, which hasn’t been “properly” introduced yet. So, let’s take a look at let via the following example.

(* 4 *)

(* (+ 3 2)
 (+ 3 2))

The expression (+ 3 2) is being recomputed. Alternatively, we can compute the value of (+ 3 2) once, and hold onto the result via let.

(* 5 *)

(let ((three-plus-two (+ 3 2)))
 (* three-plus-two three-plus-two))

While the main motivation behind let is to avoid recomp-utations, it can be used purely for the sake of readability (i.e. even if the value being leted will only be used once).

Our use of let herein will be purely syntactic sugar for a more (syntactically) cumbersome looking (but semantically equivalent) lambda expression. For instance, our example would look like the following if we were to use lambda instead of let.

(* 6 *)

(lambda (three-plus-two)
 (* three-plus-two three-plus-two))
 (+ 3 2))

[Rees et al. 1986] gives a more rigorous and precise Scheme definition for let.

Getting the facts straight

In the style of [Gabriel 1988], let’s start with pass-fact and try to massage it into what we want.

Since one of the rules of our “minimalist” game [vanMeule Jun 1991] was to stick to combinators and l-calculus, we are compelled to curry (a requirement of l-calculus). Also, since there are cases where currying gains expressive power that we would otherwise have to simulate, it seems natural to curry as the first step.

(* 7 *)

>>>
(define pass-fact
 (lambda (f)
 (lambda (n)
 (if (zero? n)
 1
 (* n ((f f) (1- n)))))))
pass-fact
>>>
((pass-fact pass-fact) 5)
120

Notice how the invocation of the new version of fact is more complicated than the recursive 
version. That can be fixed by tucking the invocation, which passes the function as an argument, 
inside the new definition of fact.

(* 8 *)

>>>
(define fact
 (let ((g (lambda (f)
 (lambda (n)
 (if (zero? n)
 1
 (* n ((f f) (1- n))))))))
 (g g)))
fact
>>>
(fact 5)
120

(Note that we would have looked like the Department of Redundancy Department had we not curried - parameter n would have to be bound twice.)

(* 9 *)

(define redundant-fact
 (lambda (n)
 (let ((g (lambda (f n)
 (if (zero? n)
 1
 (* n (f f (1- n)))))))
 (g g n))))

Recalling that our game plan was to separate out abstracted-fact and Y from pass-fact, it would be interesting to see how close the definitional part of fact (the part that has the if) now is to abstracted-fact.

(* 10 *)

(lambda (n)
 (if (zero? n)
 1
 (* n ( (ff) (1-n)))))

As can be seen above, we’re actually quite close already! If the (f f) part in the box were abstracted out we’d be there!

(* 11 *)

(lambda (F)
 (lambda (n)
 (if (zero? n)
 1
 (* n (F (1- n))))))

(Note: the name of the parameters in the above expression are not significant because there are no free variables in the expression. For instance, parameter F could be renamed to fact or any other name we want other than n.)

After abstracting out the (f f) part and invoking it on the argument it needs, we have the following.

(* 12 *)

>>>
(define fact
 (let ((g (lambda (f)
 (lambda (n)
 ((lambda (func)
 (if (zero? n)
 1
 (* n (func (1- n)))))
 (f f))))))
 (g g)))
fact
>>> (fact 5)
120

(Question for the Überprogrammer: Why couldn’t we do the abstraction and invocation as in the following?)

(* 13 *)

(define dont-try-this-at-home-fact
 (let ((g (lambda (f)
 ((lambda (func)
 (lambda (n)
 (if (zero? n)
 1
 (* n (func (1- n))))))
 (f f)))))
 (g g)))

Now, massage the definitional part of fact some more so that it looks just like abstracted-fact.

(* 14 *)

>>>
(define fact
 (let ((g (lambda (f)
 (lambda (n)
 (((lambda (func)
 (lambda (n)
 (if (zero? n)
 1
 (* n (func (1- n))))))
 (f f))
 n)))))
 (g g)))
fact
>>> (fact 5)
120

Using a gratuitous let, we can pull out the definition of abstracted-fact and name it locally.

(*  15 *)

>>>
(define fact
 (let ((abstracted-fact
 (lambda (f)
 (lambda (n)
 (if (zero? n)
 1
 (* n (f (1- n))))))))
 (let ((g (lambda (f)
 (lambda (n)
 ((abstracted-fact (f f)) n)))))
 (g g))))
fact
>>> (fact 5)
120

Notice that in doing the above, a free variable was introduced into g in the second let. (abstracted-fact is free with respect to g and bound with respect to the outermost let.) We can fix this by abstracting out abstracted-fact from the innermost let.

(*  16 *)

>>>
(define fact
 (let ((abstracted-fact
 (lambda (f)
 (lambda (n)
 (if (zero? n)
 1
 (* n (f (1- n))))))))
 ((lambda (abstracted-function)
 (let ((g (lambda (f)
 (lambda (n)
 ((abstracted-function (f f)) n)))))
 (g g)))
 abstracted-fact)))
fact
>>> (fact 5)
120

Y is now ready to leave the nest and flY!

Notice that the last tweak to fact achieved our aim: we now have abstracted-fact totally separated out from the recursionless recursion mechanism.

We can now name the recursion mechanism and make it a function in its own right.

(*  17 *)

>>>
(define y
 (lambda (abstracted-function)
 (let ((g (lambda (f)
 (lambda (arg)
 ((abstracted-function (f f)) arg)))))
 (g g))))
y

Question: Is Y a general purpose recursion removal function? (i.e., will it remove the recursion in any arbitrary function?) Herein, I will simply claim that it is and refer the reader to [Gabriel 1988] and/or any of the many other references that address this question (some of which are are listed in [vanMeule May 1991, Jun 1991]).

Now that we’ve got Y, we can clean up the definition of fact.

(*  18 *)

>>>
(define fact
 (let ((abstracted-fact
 (lambda (f)
 (lambda (n)
 (if (zero? n)
 1
 (* n (f (1- n))))))))
 (y abstracted-fact)))
fact
>>> (fact 5)
120

We can clean up further by getting rid of the gratuitous let.

(* 19 *)

>>>
(define fact
 (y (lambda (f)
 (lambda (n)
 (if (zero? n)
 1
 (* n (f (1- n))))))))
fact
>>> (fact 5)
120

Looking ahead

There’s a type of recursion that our (applicative order) version of Y is not designed to handle. Consider the following functions.

!codeexamplestart!

(* 20 *)

>>>
(define my-even?
 (lambda (n)
 (if (zero? n)
 #t
 (my-odd? (1- n)))))
my-even?
>>>
(define my-odd?
 (lambda (n)
 (if (zero? n)
 #f
 (my-even? (1- n)))))
my-odd?
>>> (my-odd? 5)
#t
>>> (my-even? 5)
#f

These functions need to know about each other: they are mutually recursive.

We can handle this problem by coming up with a new version of Y (let’s call it Y2). Y wants one function as an argument. What happens if instead of a function, a list of functions is passed in? Such a list could contain all the functions which need to have (mutual) knowledge of each other. Accessing the different functions can then be done by using list accessing primitives. (This is the approach used to resolve the problem in l-calculus.)

Exercise for the Überprogrammer: Derive Y2. Hint for a possible game plan: starting with my-even? and my-odd? expressed via a letrec, get rid of the letrec by converting to a let and making use of a dynamic list. Then, thrash out Y2 in a similar manner as was done for Y in this article. Does Y2 turn out to be the same as Y?

Question for the Überprogrammer: if evaluation were normal order rather than applicative order, could we use the same version of Y for mutually recursive functions that we used for “regular” recursive functions (thus making a Y2 function unnecessary)?

Another question: Let’s say we have 3 or more functions which are mutually recursive. What do we need to handle this situation when evaluation is applicative order? What about in normal order?

Note: [vanMeule Jun 1991] gave enough primitives to create dynamic lists. For example, the combinator equivalent of the Scheme expression: (list ’a ’b ’c) could be built like this:

(* 21 *)

(com-cons ’a (com-cons ’b (com-cons ’c com-nil))) ,

and this same idea could be used in conjuring up a combinator version of Scheme’s list function, which could be called com-list.

“Thanks” to:

The hummingbird nest in a nearby tree which afforded much enjoyment in watching two new pilots grow up and get their wings. Bugs/infelicities due to Spring in the air.

Bibliography and References

[Gabriel 1988] Richard P. Gabriel. "The Why of Y." LISP Pointers, vol. 2, no. 2 October/November/December, 1988.

[Rees et al. 1986] Jonathan Rees and William Clinger (editors). Revised3 Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme; AI Memo 848a. MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, September 1986.

[vanMuele May 1991] André van Meulebrouck. "A Calculus for the Algebraic-like Manipulation of Computer Code" (Lambda Calculus). MacTutor, May 1991.

[vanMuele Jun 1991] André van Meulebrouck. "Going Back to Church" (Church numerals). MacTutor, June 1991.

All examples in this article were implemented in MacScheme.

 

Community Search:
MacTech Search:

Software Updates via MacUpdate

Latest Forum Discussions

See All

Six fantastic ways to spend National Vid...
As if anyone needed an excuse to play games today, I am about to give you one: it is National Video Games Day. A day for us to play games, like we no doubt do every day. Let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth. Instead, feast your eyes on this... | Read more »
Old School RuneScape players turn out in...
The sheer leap in technological advancements in our lifetime has been mind-blowing. We went from Commodore 64s to VR glasses in what feels like a heartbeat, but more importantly, the internet. It can be a dark mess, but it also brought hundreds of... | Read more »
Today's Best Mobile Game Discounts...
Every day, we pick out a curated list of the best mobile discounts on the App Store and post them here. This list won't be comprehensive, but it every game on it is recommended. Feel free to check out the coverage we did on them in the links below... | Read more »
Nintendo and The Pokémon Company's...
Unless you have been living under a rock, you know that Nintendo has been locked in an epic battle with Pocketpair, creator of the obvious Pokémon rip-off Palworld. Nintendo often resorts to legal retaliation at the drop of a hat, but it seems this... | Read more »
Apple exclusive mobile games don’t make...
If you are a gamer on phones, no doubt you have been as distressed as I am on one huge sticking point: exclusivity. For years, Xbox and PlayStation have done battle, and before this was the Sega Genesis and the Nintendo NES. On console, it makes... | Read more »
Regionally exclusive events make no sens...
Last week, over on our sister site AppSpy, I babbled excitedly about the Pokémon GO Safari Days event. You can get nine Eevees with an explorer hat per day. Or, can you? Specifically, you, reader. Do you have the time or funds to possibly fly for... | Read more »
As Jon Bellamy defends his choice to can...
Back in March, Jagex announced the appointment of a new CEO, Jon Bellamy. Mr Bellamy then decided to almost immediately paint a huge target on his back by cancelling the Runescapes Pride event. This led to widespread condemnation about his perceived... | Read more »
Marvel Contest of Champions adds two mor...
When I saw the latest two Marvel Contest of Champions characters, I scoffed. Mr Knight and Silver Samurai, thought I, they are running out of good choices. Then I realised no, I was being far too cynical. This is one of the things that games do best... | Read more »
Grass is green, and water is wet: Pokémo...
It must be a day that ends in Y, because Pokémon Trading Card Game Pocket has kicked off its Zoroark Drop Event. Here you can get a promo version of another card, and look forward to the next Wonder Pick Event and the next Mass Outbreak that will be... | Read more »
Enter the Gungeon review
It took me a minute to get around to reviewing this game for a couple of very good reasons. The first is that Enter the Gungeon's style of roguelike bullet-hell action is teetering on the edge of being straight-up malicious, which made getting... | Read more »

Price Scanner via MacPrices.net

Take $150 off every Apple 11-inch M3 iPad Air
Amazon is offering a $150 discount on 11-inch M3 WiFi iPad Airs right now. Shipping is free: – 11″ 128GB M3 WiFi iPad Air: $449, $150 off – 11″ 256GB M3 WiFi iPad Air: $549, $150 off – 11″ 512GB M3... Read more
Apple iPad minis back on sale for $100 off MS...
Amazon is offering $100 discounts (up to 20% off) on Apple’s newest 2024 WiFi iPad minis, each with free shipping. These are the lowest prices available for new minis among the Apple retailers we... Read more
Apple’s 16-inch M4 Max MacBook Pros are on sa...
Amazon has 16-inch M4 Max MacBook Pros (Silver and Black colors) on sale for up to $410 off Apple’s MSRP right now. Shipping is free. Be sure to select Amazon as the seller, rather than a third-party... Read more
Red Pocket Mobile is offering a $150 rebate o...
Red Pocket Mobile has new Apple iPhone 17’s on sale for $150 off MSRP when you switch and open up a new line of service. Red Pocket Mobile is a nationwide MVNO using all the major wireless carrier... Read more
Switch to Verizon, and get any iPhone 16 for...
With yesterday’s introduction of the new iPhone 17 models, Verizon responded by running “on us” promos across much of the iPhone 16 lineup: iPhone 16 and 16 Plus show as $0/mo for 36 months with bill... Read more
Here is a summary of the new features in Appl...
Apple’s September 2025 event introduced major updates across its most popular product lines, focusing on health, performance, and design breakthroughs. The AirPods Pro 3 now feature best-in-class... Read more
Apple’s Smartphone Lineup Could Use A Touch o...
COMMENTARY – Whatever happened to the old adage, “less is more”? Apple’s smartphone lineup. — which is due for its annual refresh either this month or next (possibly at an Apple Event on September 9... Read more
Take $50 off every 11th-generation A16 WiFi i...
Amazon has Apple’s 11th-generation A16 WiFi iPads in stock on sale for $50 off MSRP right now. Shipping is free: – 11″ 11th-generation 128GB WiFi iPads: $299 $50 off MSRP – 11″ 11th-generation 256GB... Read more
Sunday Sale: 14-inch M4 MacBook Pros for up t...
Don’t pay full price! Amazon has Apple’s 14-inch M4 MacBook Pros (Silver and Black colors) on sale for up to $220 off MSRP right now. Shipping is free. Be sure to select Amazon as the seller, rather... Read more
Mac mini with M4 Pro CPU back on sale for $12...
B&H Photo has Apple’s Mac mini with the M4 Pro CPU back on sale for $1259, $140 off MSRP. B&H offers free 1-2 day shipping to most US addresses: – Mac mini M4 Pro CPU (24GB/512GB): $1259, $... Read more

Jobs Board

All contents are Copyright 1984-2011 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.