We argue that objects that interact in a distributed system need to be dealt with in ways that are intrinsically different from objects that interact in a single address space. These differences are required because distributed systems require that the programmer be aware of latency, have a different model of memory access, and take into account issues of concurrency and partial failure.

• 0 := λsz.z
• 1 := λsz.s(z)
• 2 := λsz.s(s(z))
• 3 := λsz.s(s(s(z)))z

• S := λwyx.y(wyx)

S0 := λwyx.y(wyx) λsz.z := λyx.y(λsz.z yx) := λyx.yx := 1

0S := λsz.z λwyx.y(wyx) := λz.z := I (identity function)

S1 := λwyx.y(wyx) λsz.sz := λyx.y(λsz.sz yx) := λyx.yyx := 2

1S := λsz.sz λwyx.y(wyx) := λz.λwyx.y(wyx) z := λz.λyx.y(zyx) = λzyx.y(zyx) = S

S2 := λwyx.y(wyx) λsz.s(s(z)) := λyx.y(λsz.s(s(z)) yx) := λyx.y(y(y(x))) := 3

2S := λsz.s(s(z)) S := λz.S(S(z))

2S3 := λz.S(S(z)) 3 := S(S(3)) = S(4) = 5

12 := λz.2(z) := λz.(λst.s(s(t)))z := λz.(λt.z(z(t))) := λzt.z(z(t)) := 2

22 := λz.2(2(z)) := λz.2(λt.z(z(t))) := λz.(λsu.s(s(u)) (λt.z(z(t))) ) := λz.(λu.(λt.z(z(t))) ((λt.z(z(t))) u) ) := λz.(λu.(λt.z(z(t))) z(z(u)) ) := λzu.z(z(z(z(u)))) = 4

• T := λxy.x
• F := λxy.y

• ∧ := λxy.xy(λuv.v) := λxy.xyF
• ∨ := λxy.x(λuv.u)y := λxy.xTy
• ¬ := λx.x(λuv.v)(λab.a) := λx.xFT

∧TT := TTF := T

∧TF := TFF := F

∧FT := FTF := F

∧FF := FFF := F

∨TT := TTT := T

∨TF := TTF := T

∨FT := FTT := T

∨FF := FTF := F

¬T := TFT := F

¬F := FFT := T

The λ calculus can be called the smallest universal programming language of the world. The λ calculus consists of a single transformation rule (variable substitution) and a single function definition scheme. It ws introduced in the 1930s by Alonzo Church as a way of formalizing the concept of effective computability. The λ calculus is universal in the sense that any computable function can be expressed and evaluated using this formalism. It is thus equivalent to Turing machines.

We are shifting from an old “telegraph” model of pushing news to our subscribers through proprietary pipelines to a database model, where our customers can retrieve what they want, when they want it, over the network.

Our content is being formatted and databased to facilitate this new on-demand access, and, most important, we’re realigning our human resources to cover the kinds of stories people want to read and watch. We’re equipping our bureaus worldwide with flashcams. We’re adding domestic video to our content portfolio. We’ve established regional editing desks around the world to drive content from conceptualization to consumption.

Politics and breaking news remain a core strength — as we have demonstrated once again in the election, as well as in Iraq where we spend millions to cover the war and keep our journalists at the front safe. And we also have increased our coverage of financial news, entertainment and news for young audiences.

And we’re trying to harness the right technologies — search and RSS in particular — to plot a strategy for moving AP content where it needs to go in the new, free-flowing world of Web 2.0.