Was anyone else bothered by the way studies were cited in this article?
> 100% of CEOs report that they suffer from stress
Anytime I see 100% I assume the study was bullshit.
> the death of a CEO causes a company's value to fluctuate by $65 million more today than it did 60 years ago (adjusted for inflation)
I'm guessing the sample size here is pretty small or at very least a measure of absolute "fluctuation" doesn't seem like the right thing to measure. I can imagine a world where the death of Steve Jobs alone could have caused this effect. Also what was the fluctuation before was it $100 million? $1 million?
A number is also a concept, and there are number systems that include infinities (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number). It all depends on your definitions/axioms. So in a sense there is not full agreement on what a number is, but several sets numbers are generally agreed upon: integers, rationals, computables, etc.
Agreed, I think that one of the consequences of the article is that computable numbers are generally a substitute for how most people think about the reals (e.g. the fundamental theorem of algebra is true for computable numbers extended with the square root of -1, not just complex numbers).
> 100% of CEOs report that they suffer from stress Anytime I see 100% I assume the study was bullshit.
> the death of a CEO causes a company's value to fluctuate by $65 million more today than it did 60 years ago (adjusted for inflation) I'm guessing the sample size here is pretty small or at very least a measure of absolute "fluctuation" doesn't seem like the right thing to measure. I can imagine a world where the death of Steve Jobs alone could have caused this effect. Also what was the fluctuation before was it $100 million? $1 million?