The original article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126111/pdf/nihms305179.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126111/pdf/nihm...

The original article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126111/pdf/nihms305179.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126111/pdf/nihm... Browns debunking: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/complex_dynamics_final_clean.pdf http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/complex_dynamics_final_clea... There doesn't even seem to be much of any math in it. Rather they collect some data on the one hand, use this set of differential equations describing some random system on the other hand, and then combine the two and look at what the system does, yielding the magic number. That seems as sensible as normalizing my "feelings" onto a scale and putting that into a Nest as the room temperature input. (Edit: I see the PDFs are also referenced in the article. I'll keep them here for easy access and anyone else who has learned to ignore links on newspaper sites for they rarely lead to anywhere except that newspaper)