Focus presuppositions

This paper reviews notions related to focus and presupposition and addresses the hypothesis that focus triggers an existential presupposition. Presupposition projection behavior in certain examples appears to favor a presuppositional analysis of focus. It is argued that these examples are open to a different analysis using givenness theory. Overall, the analysis favors a weak semantics for focus not including an existential presupposition

Mr. Kaffeemann\u27s Flat

Fiction by Dorit Pau

Environmental NGOs in China - partners in environmental governance

This paper is a snapshot of the potential of Chinese environmental NGOs1 to effectively address environmental problems and needs, alone and in partnership with others. As environmental NGOs have only be on stage for the last ten years or so and as they undergo dynamic changes, a thoroughly conducted scientific analysis about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and risks is not possible yet. However, as the author has more than six years working experience with different Chinese environmental NGOs across the country, some empiric findings can be given, and some trends and tendencies be predicted. The paper starts with a look at the history of NGOs in China with a specific focus on environmental NGOs, followed by problems and chances caused by the present legal status of the groups. It then describes the main working areas of Chinese environmental NGOs, illustrating them by giving some representative examples. After a brief analysis, the paper proposes current trends and tendencies about the development of China’s environmental NGOs. The main trend is that Chinese NGOs, independently on their origin (grass root, semistate organizations or Government-organized non-profit environmental organizations) will gain more respect and influence in both environmental awareness raising and as competent partners in policy formulation and law enforcement, if the State institutions concerned will involve them in planning and developing processes in an early stage and assist them in their capacity building. --

Depth Grammar and Surface Grammar of Religious Belief

In his book Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein\ud demonstrates a methodology by which language can be\ud observed and investigated. The investigation"s focus is on\ud grammar since "essence is expressed in grammar� and\ud "grammar tells what kind of object anything is� (Wittgenstein\ud 2001, §371, §373). Yet, what does the concept\ud "grammar" mean? Terms such as Depth Grammar and\ud Surface Grammar that Wittgenstein uses may be hinting to\ud the fact that there are (at least) two grammar levels,\ud however, in fact, he does not provide us with a full and\ud clear definition of these terms

Quantum Locally Testable Codes

We initiate the study of quantum Locally Testable Codes (qLTCs). We provide a definition together with a simplification, denoted sLTCs, for the special case of stabilizer codes, together with some basic results using those definitions. The most crucial parameter of such codes is their soundness, $R(\delta)$, namely, the probability that a randomly chosen constraint is violated as a function of the distance of a word from the code ($\delta$, the relative distance from the code, is called the proximity). We then proceed to study limitations on qLTCs. In our first main result we prove a surprising, inherently quantum, property of sLTCs: for small values of proximity, the better the small-set expansion of the interaction graph of the constraints, the less sound the qLTC becomes. This phenomenon, which can be attributed to monogamy of entanglement, stands in sharp contrast to the classical setting. The complementary, more intuitive, result also holds: an upper bound on the soundness when the code is defined on poor small-set expanders (a bound which turns out to be far more difficult to show in the quantum case). Together we arrive at a quantum upper-bound on the soundness of stabilizer qLTCs set on any graph, which does not hold in the classical case. Many open questions are raised regarding what possible parameters are achievable for qLTCs. In the appendix we also define a quantum analogue of PCPs of proximity (PCPPs) and point out that the result of Ben-Sasson et. al. by which PCPPs imply LTCs with related parameters, carries over to the sLTCs. This creates a first link between qLTCs and quantum PCPs.Comment: Some of the results presented here appeared in an initial form in our quant-ph submission arXiv:1301.3407. This is a much extended and improved version. 30 pages, no figure