Skip to main content

Scheme: My Y Combinator

I've been reading The Little Schemer, and it posed an interesting question: how can you create a recursive function without having the ability to "define" a name for it? For instance, in Scheme, how can you create a simple, recursive function to calculate the length of a list without having the ability to use "define"?

Here's my approach:
((lambda (my-length l)
(my-length my-length l))
(lambda (my-length l)
(cond
((null? l) 0)
(else (add1 (my-length my-length (cdr l))))))
'(1 2 3 4 5))
The outer function is "(lambda (my-length l) ...)". It takes a reference to a function that it calls my-length. It calls that function "(my-length my-length l)". Hence, that function, which I call "my-length", receives the list as well as a reference to itself, "(lambda (my-length l) ...)". Since it receives a reference to itself, it's able to call itself recursively.

It turns out the real answer is called the Y Combinator. It's written as:
Y = λf·(λx·f (x x)) (λx·f (x x))
It was created by Haskell Curry. To use the Y Combinator to solve the above problem, you'd write:
((lambda (le)
((lambda (mk-length)
(mk-length mk-length))
(lambda (mk-length)
(le (lambda (x)
((mk-length mk-length) x))))))
(lambda (length)
(lambda (l)
(cond
((null? l) 0)
(else (add1 (length (cdr l)))))))
Notice that my version is shorter, but the Y Combinator version is more elegant because the actual length function isn't burdened with having to recursively pass a reference to itself.

If you didn't understand any of the above, don't sweat it. I read it twice, and I still barely get it ;) However, I think I now understand why Paul Graham used that name for his startup incubator, Y Combinator. Paul Graham is a Lisp guy, and his Y Combinator is a startup meant to recursively launch other startups ;)

Comments

Unknown said…
Y = lambda f: (lambda g: f (lambda h: g(g)(h))) \
(lambda g: f (lambda h: g(g)(h)))

fact = lambda f: lambda n: 1 if n == 0 else n * f(n-1)

print Y(fact)(100)
jjinux said…
> slobin said...

You said "Y =" and "fact =". I think I said, "how can you create a recursive function without having the ability to "define" a name for it?" I'm assuming you can't make any definitions.
Anonymous said…
The problem is not "naming" by itself (after all, naming is just a handy shortcut), but using the name inside it's own definition. If you insist on reading your conditions literally, just add parentheses around each of two expressions, and concatenate them:

>>> (lambda f: (lambda g: f (lambda h: g(g)(h)))(lambda g: f (lambda h: g(g)(h))
))(lambda f: lambda n: 1 if n == 0 else n * f(n-1))(100)
93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915
608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000000L

(Sorry for the long line, it is a copy of real python session ;-). The Y combinator is inside the first outermost pair of parentheses, the factorial definition is inside the second, and the numeric argument is inside the third. In my original comment this is just a bit more readable, but the internal mechanic is the same.
Anonymous said…
P.S. And, by the way, the analog of your first solution is also possible:

(lambda f,n: f(f,n))(lambda f,n: 1 if n < 2 else n*f(f,n-1),100)

And I do 100% agree with you that "combinator version is more elegant" albeit textually longer.

Popular posts from this blog

Ubuntu 20.04 on a 2015 15" MacBook Pro

I decided to give Ubuntu 20.04 a try on my 2015 15" MacBook Pro. I didn't actually install it; I just live booted from a USB thumb drive which was enough to try out everything I wanted. In summary, it's not perfect, and issues with my camera would prevent me from switching, but given the right hardware, I think it's a really viable option. The first thing I wanted to try was what would happen if I plugged in a non-HiDPI screen given that my laptop has a HiDPI screen. Without sub-pixel scaling, whatever scale rate I picked for one screen would apply to the other. However, once I turned on sub-pixel scaling, I was able to pick different scale rates for the internal and external displays. That looked ok. I tried plugging in and unplugging multiple times, and it didn't crash. I doubt it'd work with my Thunderbolt display at work, but it worked fine for my HDMI displays at home. I even plugged it into my TV, and it stuck to the 100% scaling I picked for the othe

ERNOS: Erlang Networked Operating System

I've been reading Dreaming in Code lately, and I really like it. If you're not a dreamer, you may safely skip the rest of this post ;) In Chapter 10, "Engineers and Artists", Alan Kay, John Backus, and Jaron Lanier really got me thinking. I've also been thinking a lot about Minix 3 , Erlang , and the original Lisp machine . The ideas are beginning to synthesize into something cohesive--more than just the sum of their parts. Now, I'm sure that many of these ideas have already been envisioned within Tunes.org , LLVM , Microsoft's Singularity project, or in some other place that I haven't managed to discover or fully read, but I'm going to blog them anyway. Rather than wax philosophical, let me just dump out some ideas: Start with Minix 3. It's a new microkernel, and it's meant for real use, unlike the original Minix. "This new OS is extremely small, with the part that runs in kernel mode under 4000 lines of executable code.&quo

Haskell or Erlang?

I've coded in both Erlang and Haskell. Erlang is practical, efficient, and useful. It's got a wonderful niche in the distributed world, and it has some real success stories such as CouchDB and jabber.org. Haskell is elegant and beautiful. It's been successful in various programming language competitions. I have some experience in both, but I'm thinking it's time to really commit to learning one of them on a professional level. They both have good books out now, and it's probably time I read one of those books cover to cover. My question is which? Back in 2000, Perl had established a real niche for systems administration, CGI, and text processing. The syntax wasn't exactly beautiful (unless you're into that sort of thing), but it was popular and mature. Python hadn't really become popular, nor did it really have a strong niche (at least as far as I could see). I went with Python because of its elegance, but since then, I've coded both p