German macro: how it's different and why that matters. EPC Discussion Paper, May 2016

Do the macroeconomics of the German political establishment really differ from standard western macroeconomics? That question was the starting point for the seminar on ‘German macro: How it’s Different and Why that Matters’, which was held at Heriot-Watt University in December 2015, with financial support from the Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE) and the Money, Macro & Finance Research Group (MMF). This ebook, edited by George Bratsiotis and David Cobham, is the result of that exercise; six of the papers were presented at the seminar in earlier versions, and the editors sought some additional papers to complete the range of perspectives offered. The authors all sought out to discover whether or not there is something unique about German macroeconomics, and in what ways it differs from standard western macroeconomics; is it true that the former neglects demand management (although it may be quite interventionist in other ways), rejects debt relief and emphasises structural reform designed to improve competitiveness as the (only) key to economic growth? How much of whatever difference exists is due to a well worked out set of ideas in the form of Ordoliberalism? In what way does it relate to Germany’s own experiences in different periods? And how far is this the result of political preferences and how much do the idiosyncrasies of these German views matter, for the development of the Eurozone and indeed the health of the German economy

Autonomous Coordination of Science Observations Using Multiple Spacecraft

This software provides capabilities for autonomous cross-cueing and coordinated observations between multiple orbital and landed assets. Previous work has been done in re-tasking a single Earth orbiter or a Mars rover in response to that craft detecting a science event. This work enables multiple spacecraft to communicate (over a network designed for deep-space communications) and autonomously coordinate the characterization of such a science event. This work investigates a new paradigm of space science campaigns where opportunistic science observations are autonomously coordinated among multiple spacecraft. In this paradigm, opportunistic science detections can be cued by multiple assets where a second asset is requested to take additional observations characterizing the identified surface feature or event. To support this new paradigm, an autonomous science system for multiple spacecraft assets was integrated with the Interplanetary Network DTN (Delay Tolerant Network) to provide communication between spacecraft assets. This technology enables new mission concepts that are not feasible with current technology. The ability to rapidly coordinate activities across spacecraft without requiring ground in the loop enables rapid reaction to dynamic events across platforms, such as a survey instrument followed by a targeted high resolution instrument, as well as regular simultaneous observations

On the alleged simplicity of impure proof

Roughly, a proof of a theorem, is “pure” if it draws only on what is “close” or “intrinsic” to that theorem. Mathematicians employ a variety of terms to identify pure proofs, saying that a pure proof is one that avoids what is “extrinsic,” “extraneous,” “distant,” “remote,” “alien,” or “foreign” to the problem or theorem under investigation. In the background of these attributions is the view that there is a distance measure (or a variety of such measures) between mathematical statements and proofs. Mathematicians have paid little attention to specifying such distance measures precisely because in practice certain methods of proof have seemed self- evidently impure by design: think for instance of analytic geometry and analytic number theory. By contrast, mathematicians have paid considerable attention to whether such impurities are a good thing or to be avoided, and some have claimed that they are valuable because generally impure proofs are simpler than pure proofs. This article is an investigation of this claim, formulated more precisely by proof- theoretic means. After assembling evidence from proof theory that may be thought to support this claim, we will argue that on the contrary this evidence does not support the claim

Variable responses of individual species to tropical forest degradation

The functional stability of ecosystems depends greatly on interspecific differences in responses to environmental perturbation. However, responses to perturbation are not necessarily invariant among populations of the same species, so intraspecific variation in responses might also contribute. Such inter-population response diversity has recently been shown to occur spatially across species ranges, but we lack estimates of the extent to which individual populations across an entire community might have perturbation responses that vary through time. We assess this using 524 taxa that have been repeatedly surveyed for the effects of tropical forest logging at a focal landscape in Sabah, Malaysia. Just 39 % of taxa – all with non-significant responses to forest degradation – had invariant responses. All other taxa (61 %) showed significantly different responses to the same forest degradation gradient across surveys, with 6 % of taxa responding to forest degradation in opposite directions across multiple surveys. Individual surveys had low power (< 80 %) to determine the correct direction of response to forest degradation for one-fifth of all taxa. Recurrent rounds of logging disturbance increased the prevalence of intra-population response diversity, while uncontrollable environmental variation and/or turnover of intraspecific phenotypes generated variable responses in at least 44 % of taxa. Our results show that the responses of individual species to local environmental perturbations are remarkably flexible, likely providing an unrealised boost to the stability of disturbed habitats such as logged tropical forests