You&#x27;re correct in attacking the math the authors use. It&#x27;s clear they are bending the math to fit the phenomena. However, that doesn&#x27;t invalidate the hypothesis.<p>This paper appears heavily influenced by Nassim Nicholas Taleb: systematic failure, bounded vs unbounded variance, (more data) =&gt; (more noise) =&gt; (more spurious relationships), natural vs artificial systems, and even the reference to the heuristics of ancient cultures.<p>It looks like the authors were trying to apply math to observed phenomena. They may not have the right math to make it work-so they fudged it a bit.<p>Nassim talks about similar phenomena here:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;a&#x2F;taleb_n_1.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;a&#x2F;taleb_n_1.html</a>