Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by stromgo 3755 days ago
You have it backwards. Their result holds for any set of numbers that behave randomly, so it holds for primes because primes behave somewhat randomly.
1 comments

Why the downmods? Everyone can easily verify that there are similar biases if you replace "isPrime(n)" with "random() < 0.1" in the various code snippets floating in the thread. The article even admits that the biases are explained by the prime k-tuples conjecture, which is a model of randomness in primes from 1923. So primes are not less random than we thought -- they are still exactly as random as we thought.