Why probability of picking a random prime is 0? [duplicate]Why does “the probability of a random natural number being prime” make no sense?Percentage of primes among the natural numbersProbability of picking a random natural numberWhat is the probability of picking a random prime < n?probability picking random a positive integerWhy is the probability that a prime p is a factor of a number n equal to 1/pWhy does “the probability of a random natural number being prime” make no sense?Probability that two random integers have only one prime factor in commonQuibble with Dawkins's reasoning on the watch-stopping probability on a psychic audiencePicking 3 random books probability problemPicking cards at randomPicking random variables from [0,1] to calculate probability
Can a wire having a 610-670 THz (frequency of blue light) AC frequency supply, generate blue light?
shutdown at specific date
Why does the UK have more political parties than the US?
What is the most important source of natural gas? coal, oil or other?
What does it mean when you think without speaking?
Is there any use case for the bottom type as a function parameter type?
Why do Russians call their women expensive ("дорогая")?
Crossword gone overboard
Uses of T extends U?
How to extract lower and upper bound in numeric format from a confidence interval string?
What is a subpixel in Super Mario Bros, and how does it relate to wall clipping?
Why do they consider the Ori false gods?
Modern approach to radio buttons
Is CD audio quality good enough for the final delivery of music?
Smart people send dumb people to a new planet on a space craft that crashes into a body of water
What is the 中 in ダウンロード中?
What are the problems in teaching guitar via Skype?
What are the benefits of cryosleep?
What are these (utility?) boxes at the side of the house?
If a person had control of every single cell of their body, would they be able to transform into another creature?
I think I may have violated academic integrity last year - what should I do?
Employer demanding to see degree after poor code review
Comment dit-on « I’ll tell you what » ?
Tic-Tac-Toe for the terminal
Why probability of picking a random prime is 0? [duplicate]
Why does “the probability of a random natural number being prime” make no sense?Percentage of primes among the natural numbersProbability of picking a random natural numberWhat is the probability of picking a random prime < n?probability picking random a positive integerWhy is the probability that a prime p is a factor of a number n equal to 1/pWhy does “the probability of a random natural number being prime” make no sense?Probability that two random integers have only one prime factor in commonQuibble with Dawkins's reasoning on the watch-stopping probability on a psychic audiencePicking 3 random books probability problemPicking cards at randomPicking random variables from [0,1] to calculate probability
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Why does “the probability of a random natural number being prime” make no sense?
4 answers
"It's well known that there are infinitely many prime numbers, but
they become rare, even by the time you get to the 100s," Ono explains.
"In fact, out of the first 100,000 numbers, only 9,592 are prime
numbers, or roughly 9.5 percent. And they rapidly become rarer from
there. The probability of picking a number at random and having it
be prime is zero. It almost never happens."
--Source: phys.org
I feel really skeptical about the statement in bold above. I think the probability tends to approach zero but can never be zero. Please explain how the probability is being calculated mathematically?
probability number-theory prime-numbers riemann-zeta analytic-functions
New contributor
manav m-n is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by YuiTo Cheng, TheSimpliFire, Asaf Karagila♦ May 22 at 10:05
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Why does “the probability of a random natural number being prime” make no sense?
4 answers
"It's well known that there are infinitely many prime numbers, but
they become rare, even by the time you get to the 100s," Ono explains.
"In fact, out of the first 100,000 numbers, only 9,592 are prime
numbers, or roughly 9.5 percent. And they rapidly become rarer from
there. The probability of picking a number at random and having it
be prime is zero. It almost never happens."
--Source: phys.org
I feel really skeptical about the statement in bold above. I think the probability tends to approach zero but can never be zero. Please explain how the probability is being calculated mathematically?
probability number-theory prime-numbers riemann-zeta analytic-functions
New contributor
manav m-n is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by YuiTo Cheng, TheSimpliFire, Asaf Karagila♦ May 22 at 10:05
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
2
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why does "the probability of a random natural number being prime" make no sense? Also see Percentage of primes among the natural numbers
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
May 22 at 9:47
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Why does “the probability of a random natural number being prime” make no sense?
4 answers
"It's well known that there are infinitely many prime numbers, but
they become rare, even by the time you get to the 100s," Ono explains.
"In fact, out of the first 100,000 numbers, only 9,592 are prime
numbers, or roughly 9.5 percent. And they rapidly become rarer from
there. The probability of picking a number at random and having it
be prime is zero. It almost never happens."
--Source: phys.org
I feel really skeptical about the statement in bold above. I think the probability tends to approach zero but can never be zero. Please explain how the probability is being calculated mathematically?
probability number-theory prime-numbers riemann-zeta analytic-functions
New contributor
manav m-n is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Why does “the probability of a random natural number being prime” make no sense?
4 answers
"It's well known that there are infinitely many prime numbers, but
they become rare, even by the time you get to the 100s," Ono explains.
"In fact, out of the first 100,000 numbers, only 9,592 are prime
numbers, or roughly 9.5 percent. And they rapidly become rarer from
there. The probability of picking a number at random and having it
be prime is zero. It almost never happens."
--Source: phys.org
I feel really skeptical about the statement in bold above. I think the probability tends to approach zero but can never be zero. Please explain how the probability is being calculated mathematically?
This question already has an answer here:
Why does “the probability of a random natural number being prime” make no sense?
4 answers
probability number-theory prime-numbers riemann-zeta analytic-functions
probability number-theory prime-numbers riemann-zeta analytic-functions
New contributor
manav m-n is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
manav m-n is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited May 22 at 9:59
5xum
94.2k498164
94.2k498164
New contributor
manav m-n is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked May 22 at 7:43
manav m-nmanav m-n
1364
1364
New contributor
manav m-n is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
manav m-n is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
marked as duplicate by YuiTo Cheng, TheSimpliFire, Asaf Karagila♦ May 22 at 10:05
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by YuiTo Cheng, TheSimpliFire, Asaf Karagila♦ May 22 at 10:05
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
2
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why does "the probability of a random natural number being prime" make no sense? Also see Percentage of primes among the natural numbers
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
May 22 at 9:47
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why does "the probability of a random natural number being prime" make no sense? Also see Percentage of primes among the natural numbers
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
May 22 at 9:47
2
2
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why does "the probability of a random natural number being prime" make no sense? Also see Percentage of primes among the natural numbers
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
May 22 at 9:47
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why does "the probability of a random natural number being prime" make no sense? Also see Percentage of primes among the natural numbers
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
May 22 at 9:47
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The sentence "The probability of picking a number at random and having it be prime is zero." is, mathematically speaking, either very sloppy or plain wrong (depending on who you ask) and, if you ask me, is a clear demonstration of why there's always a bit of tension between mathematicians and physicists. We call them sloppy, they call us hair splitters.
The correct sentence would be this:
If $p_n$ is the probability of picking a prime when (uniformly) selecting a random number from $1$ to $n$, then $lim_ntoinfty p_n = 0$.
This statement follows directly from the prime number theorem. That theorem tells us that the if $P_n$ is the number of primes smaller than or equal to $n$, then $$lim_ntoinftyfracP_nfracnlog n = 1.$$ Clearly, we have $p_n=fracP_nn$, which means that $$lim_ntoinfty p_n=lim_ntoinftyfracP_nn = lim_ntoinftyleft(fracP_nfracnlog ncdotfrac1log nright) = lim_ntoinftyfracP_nfracnlog n cdotlim_ntoinftyfrac1log n = 1cdot 0=0$$
This also tells you that $p_napprox frac1log n$ for large values of $n$, so you also know the speed at which $p_n$ converges to $0$ (rather slowly, in fact).
(*) The statement is wrong or sloppy because of a simple reason: there is a lot left out in the statement "pick a random number". What's the distribution? Uniform? There is no uniform distribution over all integers! OK, which distribution are we talking about then? Because surely, there exist probability distributions over $mathbb N$ with a nonzero probability of picking a random number. For example, picking a random number by throwing a 6 sided die has a $0.5$ chance of picking a prime number.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
To stick up for physicists a little, what else could be meant by "the probability of picking a number at random and having it be prime is zero?"
$endgroup$
– Charles Hudgins
May 22 at 7:56
3
$begingroup$
@CharlesHudgins I'm just saying that "picking a random number" is an ill-formed statement without telling us the distribution.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
May 22 at 7:58
6
$begingroup$
it obviously meant rolling a dice with faces labelled 4,12,15,21,22,25
$endgroup$
– mercio
May 22 at 7:59
1
$begingroup$
@CharlesHudgins We could "pick a random number" as follows. We pick $n>0$ with probability $1/2^n$. That IS a well defined distribution (unlike just saying "pick a random positive integer"). Observe that with this distribution the probability of picking a prime number is strictly positive (larger than $1/2^2+1/2^3=3/8$ actually). It doesn't tend to anything. To get any kind of "tending" you need a sequence of probability distributions, and that is exactly what 5xum is explaining.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
May 22 at 8:45
2
$begingroup$
While complaining about the quote leaving out the distribution you managed to do it as well in the "correct" sentence.
$endgroup$
– Todd Sewell
May 22 at 9:49
|
show 12 more comments
$begingroup$
From the Prime number theorem one can interpret as saying that if you pick a random integer of size about n, then the probability that it is prime is about $frac1ln n$.
If for one second, you relax the size about n condition, then the answer depends on what you mean by "picking an integer randomly."
The problem is that there is no way to pick an integer uniformly at random, which precisely means that if every integer has the same probability of being picked then that probability has to be zero, there is no probability distribution on the positive integers that assigns equal weight to every integer.
If you were to let $Ssubseteq mathbbN$ be a set of positive integers, and for every positive integer $n$, let $S_n$ be the set of all $kin S$ such that $kle n$. Let $|S_n|$ be the number of elements in $S_n$. Then
$$lim_ntoinfty fracn,$$
if it exists, can be viewed as a measure of how large $S$ is. The measure for how large the primes is $0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What is the distribution ofSn. You seem to imply thatSndecreases asnincreases which I don't get.
$endgroup$
– manav m-n
May 22 at 7:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The probability of picking a random positive integer and is prime is defined as
$$
lim_ntoinftyfrac1n|k : 1le kle n,,,&,,,text$k$ prime|
$$
where $|A|$ is the number of elements of the set $A$ (i.e., its cardinal number.)
Prime Number Theorem implies that the above limit is equal to zero.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Layman's explanation. You are walking up the number line. If you meet a new prime number, you increase the count primes by just 1. But you can multiply this new prime number with all the previously encountered primes or composites once, twice ... or infinitely many times to create infinitely many new composites i.e. finding 1 new prime results in infinitely many new composites somewhere up in the number line so if you stop your walk randomly at a number, you are infinitely times more likely to be standing on a composite than on a prime.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $Ninmathbb N$, then, if you pick a number at random in $1,2,ldots,N$ (assuming that all numbers have the same probability of being chosen), then the probability that that number is prime is about $frac1log N$ (this is the prime number theorem). Therefore, the limit as $N$ goes to infinity of that probability is $0$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The sentence "The probability of picking a number at random and having it be prime is zero." is, mathematically speaking, either very sloppy or plain wrong (depending on who you ask) and, if you ask me, is a clear demonstration of why there's always a bit of tension between mathematicians and physicists. We call them sloppy, they call us hair splitters.
The correct sentence would be this:
If $p_n$ is the probability of picking a prime when (uniformly) selecting a random number from $1$ to $n$, then $lim_ntoinfty p_n = 0$.
This statement follows directly from the prime number theorem. That theorem tells us that the if $P_n$ is the number of primes smaller than or equal to $n$, then $$lim_ntoinftyfracP_nfracnlog n = 1.$$ Clearly, we have $p_n=fracP_nn$, which means that $$lim_ntoinfty p_n=lim_ntoinftyfracP_nn = lim_ntoinftyleft(fracP_nfracnlog ncdotfrac1log nright) = lim_ntoinftyfracP_nfracnlog n cdotlim_ntoinftyfrac1log n = 1cdot 0=0$$
This also tells you that $p_napprox frac1log n$ for large values of $n$, so you also know the speed at which $p_n$ converges to $0$ (rather slowly, in fact).
(*) The statement is wrong or sloppy because of a simple reason: there is a lot left out in the statement "pick a random number". What's the distribution? Uniform? There is no uniform distribution over all integers! OK, which distribution are we talking about then? Because surely, there exist probability distributions over $mathbb N$ with a nonzero probability of picking a random number. For example, picking a random number by throwing a 6 sided die has a $0.5$ chance of picking a prime number.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
To stick up for physicists a little, what else could be meant by "the probability of picking a number at random and having it be prime is zero?"
$endgroup$
– Charles Hudgins
May 22 at 7:56
3
$begingroup$
@CharlesHudgins I'm just saying that "picking a random number" is an ill-formed statement without telling us the distribution.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
May 22 at 7:58
6
$begingroup$
it obviously meant rolling a dice with faces labelled 4,12,15,21,22,25
$endgroup$
– mercio
May 22 at 7:59
1
$begingroup$
@CharlesHudgins We could "pick a random number" as follows. We pick $n>0$ with probability $1/2^n$. That IS a well defined distribution (unlike just saying "pick a random positive integer"). Observe that with this distribution the probability of picking a prime number is strictly positive (larger than $1/2^2+1/2^3=3/8$ actually). It doesn't tend to anything. To get any kind of "tending" you need a sequence of probability distributions, and that is exactly what 5xum is explaining.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
May 22 at 8:45
2
$begingroup$
While complaining about the quote leaving out the distribution you managed to do it as well in the "correct" sentence.
$endgroup$
– Todd Sewell
May 22 at 9:49
|
show 12 more comments
$begingroup$
The sentence "The probability of picking a number at random and having it be prime is zero." is, mathematically speaking, either very sloppy or plain wrong (depending on who you ask) and, if you ask me, is a clear demonstration of why there's always a bit of tension between mathematicians and physicists. We call them sloppy, they call us hair splitters.
The correct sentence would be this:
If $p_n$ is the probability of picking a prime when (uniformly) selecting a random number from $1$ to $n$, then $lim_ntoinfty p_n = 0$.
This statement follows directly from the prime number theorem. That theorem tells us that the if $P_n$ is the number of primes smaller than or equal to $n$, then $$lim_ntoinftyfracP_nfracnlog n = 1.$$ Clearly, we have $p_n=fracP_nn$, which means that $$lim_ntoinfty p_n=lim_ntoinftyfracP_nn = lim_ntoinftyleft(fracP_nfracnlog ncdotfrac1log nright) = lim_ntoinftyfracP_nfracnlog n cdotlim_ntoinftyfrac1log n = 1cdot 0=0$$
This also tells you that $p_napprox frac1log n$ for large values of $n$, so you also know the speed at which $p_n$ converges to $0$ (rather slowly, in fact).
(*) The statement is wrong or sloppy because of a simple reason: there is a lot left out in the statement "pick a random number". What's the distribution? Uniform? There is no uniform distribution over all integers! OK, which distribution are we talking about then? Because surely, there exist probability distributions over $mathbb N$ with a nonzero probability of picking a random number. For example, picking a random number by throwing a 6 sided die has a $0.5$ chance of picking a prime number.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
To stick up for physicists a little, what else could be meant by "the probability of picking a number at random and having it be prime is zero?"
$endgroup$
– Charles Hudgins
May 22 at 7:56
3
$begingroup$
@CharlesHudgins I'm just saying that "picking a random number" is an ill-formed statement without telling us the distribution.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
May 22 at 7:58
6
$begingroup$
it obviously meant rolling a dice with faces labelled 4,12,15,21,22,25
$endgroup$
– mercio
May 22 at 7:59
1
$begingroup$
@CharlesHudgins We could "pick a random number" as follows. We pick $n>0$ with probability $1/2^n$. That IS a well defined distribution (unlike just saying "pick a random positive integer"). Observe that with this distribution the probability of picking a prime number is strictly positive (larger than $1/2^2+1/2^3=3/8$ actually). It doesn't tend to anything. To get any kind of "tending" you need a sequence of probability distributions, and that is exactly what 5xum is explaining.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
May 22 at 8:45
2
$begingroup$
While complaining about the quote leaving out the distribution you managed to do it as well in the "correct" sentence.
$endgroup$
– Todd Sewell
May 22 at 9:49
|
show 12 more comments
$begingroup$
The sentence "The probability of picking a number at random and having it be prime is zero." is, mathematically speaking, either very sloppy or plain wrong (depending on who you ask) and, if you ask me, is a clear demonstration of why there's always a bit of tension between mathematicians and physicists. We call them sloppy, they call us hair splitters.
The correct sentence would be this:
If $p_n$ is the probability of picking a prime when (uniformly) selecting a random number from $1$ to $n$, then $lim_ntoinfty p_n = 0$.
This statement follows directly from the prime number theorem. That theorem tells us that the if $P_n$ is the number of primes smaller than or equal to $n$, then $$lim_ntoinftyfracP_nfracnlog n = 1.$$ Clearly, we have $p_n=fracP_nn$, which means that $$lim_ntoinfty p_n=lim_ntoinftyfracP_nn = lim_ntoinftyleft(fracP_nfracnlog ncdotfrac1log nright) = lim_ntoinftyfracP_nfracnlog n cdotlim_ntoinftyfrac1log n = 1cdot 0=0$$
This also tells you that $p_napprox frac1log n$ for large values of $n$, so you also know the speed at which $p_n$ converges to $0$ (rather slowly, in fact).
(*) The statement is wrong or sloppy because of a simple reason: there is a lot left out in the statement "pick a random number". What's the distribution? Uniform? There is no uniform distribution over all integers! OK, which distribution are we talking about then? Because surely, there exist probability distributions over $mathbb N$ with a nonzero probability of picking a random number. For example, picking a random number by throwing a 6 sided die has a $0.5$ chance of picking a prime number.
$endgroup$
The sentence "The probability of picking a number at random and having it be prime is zero." is, mathematically speaking, either very sloppy or plain wrong (depending on who you ask) and, if you ask me, is a clear demonstration of why there's always a bit of tension between mathematicians and physicists. We call them sloppy, they call us hair splitters.
The correct sentence would be this:
If $p_n$ is the probability of picking a prime when (uniformly) selecting a random number from $1$ to $n$, then $lim_ntoinfty p_n = 0$.
This statement follows directly from the prime number theorem. That theorem tells us that the if $P_n$ is the number of primes smaller than or equal to $n$, then $$lim_ntoinftyfracP_nfracnlog n = 1.$$ Clearly, we have $p_n=fracP_nn$, which means that $$lim_ntoinfty p_n=lim_ntoinftyfracP_nn = lim_ntoinftyleft(fracP_nfracnlog ncdotfrac1log nright) = lim_ntoinftyfracP_nfracnlog n cdotlim_ntoinftyfrac1log n = 1cdot 0=0$$
This also tells you that $p_napprox frac1log n$ for large values of $n$, so you also know the speed at which $p_n$ converges to $0$ (rather slowly, in fact).
(*) The statement is wrong or sloppy because of a simple reason: there is a lot left out in the statement "pick a random number". What's the distribution? Uniform? There is no uniform distribution over all integers! OK, which distribution are we talking about then? Because surely, there exist probability distributions over $mathbb N$ with a nonzero probability of picking a random number. For example, picking a random number by throwing a 6 sided die has a $0.5$ chance of picking a prime number.
edited May 22 at 9:52
answered May 22 at 7:49
5xum5xum
94.2k498164
94.2k498164
2
$begingroup$
To stick up for physicists a little, what else could be meant by "the probability of picking a number at random and having it be prime is zero?"
$endgroup$
– Charles Hudgins
May 22 at 7:56
3
$begingroup$
@CharlesHudgins I'm just saying that "picking a random number" is an ill-formed statement without telling us the distribution.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
May 22 at 7:58
6
$begingroup$
it obviously meant rolling a dice with faces labelled 4,12,15,21,22,25
$endgroup$
– mercio
May 22 at 7:59
1
$begingroup$
@CharlesHudgins We could "pick a random number" as follows. We pick $n>0$ with probability $1/2^n$. That IS a well defined distribution (unlike just saying "pick a random positive integer"). Observe that with this distribution the probability of picking a prime number is strictly positive (larger than $1/2^2+1/2^3=3/8$ actually). It doesn't tend to anything. To get any kind of "tending" you need a sequence of probability distributions, and that is exactly what 5xum is explaining.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
May 22 at 8:45
2
$begingroup$
While complaining about the quote leaving out the distribution you managed to do it as well in the "correct" sentence.
$endgroup$
– Todd Sewell
May 22 at 9:49
|
show 12 more comments
2
$begingroup$
To stick up for physicists a little, what else could be meant by "the probability of picking a number at random and having it be prime is zero?"
$endgroup$
– Charles Hudgins
May 22 at 7:56
3
$begingroup$
@CharlesHudgins I'm just saying that "picking a random number" is an ill-formed statement without telling us the distribution.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
May 22 at 7:58
6
$begingroup$
it obviously meant rolling a dice with faces labelled 4,12,15,21,22,25
$endgroup$
– mercio
May 22 at 7:59
1
$begingroup$
@CharlesHudgins We could "pick a random number" as follows. We pick $n>0$ with probability $1/2^n$. That IS a well defined distribution (unlike just saying "pick a random positive integer"). Observe that with this distribution the probability of picking a prime number is strictly positive (larger than $1/2^2+1/2^3=3/8$ actually). It doesn't tend to anything. To get any kind of "tending" you need a sequence of probability distributions, and that is exactly what 5xum is explaining.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
May 22 at 8:45
2
$begingroup$
While complaining about the quote leaving out the distribution you managed to do it as well in the "correct" sentence.
$endgroup$
– Todd Sewell
May 22 at 9:49
2
2
$begingroup$
To stick up for physicists a little, what else could be meant by "the probability of picking a number at random and having it be prime is zero?"
$endgroup$
– Charles Hudgins
May 22 at 7:56
$begingroup$
To stick up for physicists a little, what else could be meant by "the probability of picking a number at random and having it be prime is zero?"
$endgroup$
– Charles Hudgins
May 22 at 7:56
3
3
$begingroup$
@CharlesHudgins I'm just saying that "picking a random number" is an ill-formed statement without telling us the distribution.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
May 22 at 7:58
$begingroup$
@CharlesHudgins I'm just saying that "picking a random number" is an ill-formed statement without telling us the distribution.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
May 22 at 7:58
6
6
$begingroup$
it obviously meant rolling a dice with faces labelled 4,12,15,21,22,25
$endgroup$
– mercio
May 22 at 7:59
$begingroup$
it obviously meant rolling a dice with faces labelled 4,12,15,21,22,25
$endgroup$
– mercio
May 22 at 7:59
1
1
$begingroup$
@CharlesHudgins We could "pick a random number" as follows. We pick $n>0$ with probability $1/2^n$. That IS a well defined distribution (unlike just saying "pick a random positive integer"). Observe that with this distribution the probability of picking a prime number is strictly positive (larger than $1/2^2+1/2^3=3/8$ actually). It doesn't tend to anything. To get any kind of "tending" you need a sequence of probability distributions, and that is exactly what 5xum is explaining.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
May 22 at 8:45
$begingroup$
@CharlesHudgins We could "pick a random number" as follows. We pick $n>0$ with probability $1/2^n$. That IS a well defined distribution (unlike just saying "pick a random positive integer"). Observe that with this distribution the probability of picking a prime number is strictly positive (larger than $1/2^2+1/2^3=3/8$ actually). It doesn't tend to anything. To get any kind of "tending" you need a sequence of probability distributions, and that is exactly what 5xum is explaining.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
May 22 at 8:45
2
2
$begingroup$
While complaining about the quote leaving out the distribution you managed to do it as well in the "correct" sentence.
$endgroup$
– Todd Sewell
May 22 at 9:49
$begingroup$
While complaining about the quote leaving out the distribution you managed to do it as well in the "correct" sentence.
$endgroup$
– Todd Sewell
May 22 at 9:49
|
show 12 more comments
$begingroup$
From the Prime number theorem one can interpret as saying that if you pick a random integer of size about n, then the probability that it is prime is about $frac1ln n$.
If for one second, you relax the size about n condition, then the answer depends on what you mean by "picking an integer randomly."
The problem is that there is no way to pick an integer uniformly at random, which precisely means that if every integer has the same probability of being picked then that probability has to be zero, there is no probability distribution on the positive integers that assigns equal weight to every integer.
If you were to let $Ssubseteq mathbbN$ be a set of positive integers, and for every positive integer $n$, let $S_n$ be the set of all $kin S$ such that $kle n$. Let $|S_n|$ be the number of elements in $S_n$. Then
$$lim_ntoinfty fracn,$$
if it exists, can be viewed as a measure of how large $S$ is. The measure for how large the primes is $0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What is the distribution ofSn. You seem to imply thatSndecreases asnincreases which I don't get.
$endgroup$
– manav m-n
May 22 at 7:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From the Prime number theorem one can interpret as saying that if you pick a random integer of size about n, then the probability that it is prime is about $frac1ln n$.
If for one second, you relax the size about n condition, then the answer depends on what you mean by "picking an integer randomly."
The problem is that there is no way to pick an integer uniformly at random, which precisely means that if every integer has the same probability of being picked then that probability has to be zero, there is no probability distribution on the positive integers that assigns equal weight to every integer.
If you were to let $Ssubseteq mathbbN$ be a set of positive integers, and for every positive integer $n$, let $S_n$ be the set of all $kin S$ such that $kle n$. Let $|S_n|$ be the number of elements in $S_n$. Then
$$lim_ntoinfty fracn,$$
if it exists, can be viewed as a measure of how large $S$ is. The measure for how large the primes is $0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What is the distribution ofSn. You seem to imply thatSndecreases asnincreases which I don't get.
$endgroup$
– manav m-n
May 22 at 7:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From the Prime number theorem one can interpret as saying that if you pick a random integer of size about n, then the probability that it is prime is about $frac1ln n$.
If for one second, you relax the size about n condition, then the answer depends on what you mean by "picking an integer randomly."
The problem is that there is no way to pick an integer uniformly at random, which precisely means that if every integer has the same probability of being picked then that probability has to be zero, there is no probability distribution on the positive integers that assigns equal weight to every integer.
If you were to let $Ssubseteq mathbbN$ be a set of positive integers, and for every positive integer $n$, let $S_n$ be the set of all $kin S$ such that $kle n$. Let $|S_n|$ be the number of elements in $S_n$. Then
$$lim_ntoinfty fracn,$$
if it exists, can be viewed as a measure of how large $S$ is. The measure for how large the primes is $0$.
$endgroup$
From the Prime number theorem one can interpret as saying that if you pick a random integer of size about n, then the probability that it is prime is about $frac1ln n$.
If for one second, you relax the size about n condition, then the answer depends on what you mean by "picking an integer randomly."
The problem is that there is no way to pick an integer uniformly at random, which precisely means that if every integer has the same probability of being picked then that probability has to be zero, there is no probability distribution on the positive integers that assigns equal weight to every integer.
If you were to let $Ssubseteq mathbbN$ be a set of positive integers, and for every positive integer $n$, let $S_n$ be the set of all $kin S$ such that $kle n$. Let $|S_n|$ be the number of elements in $S_n$. Then
$$lim_ntoinfty fracn,$$
if it exists, can be viewed as a measure of how large $S$ is. The measure for how large the primes is $0$.
answered May 22 at 7:51
KevinKevin
5,831823
5,831823
$begingroup$
What is the distribution ofSn. You seem to imply thatSndecreases asnincreases which I don't get.
$endgroup$
– manav m-n
May 22 at 7:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What is the distribution ofSn. You seem to imply thatSndecreases asnincreases which I don't get.
$endgroup$
– manav m-n
May 22 at 7:57
$begingroup$
What is the distribution of
Sn. You seem to imply that Sn decreases as n increases which I don't get.$endgroup$
– manav m-n
May 22 at 7:57
$begingroup$
What is the distribution of
Sn. You seem to imply that Sn decreases as n increases which I don't get.$endgroup$
– manav m-n
May 22 at 7:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The probability of picking a random positive integer and is prime is defined as
$$
lim_ntoinftyfrac1n|k : 1le kle n,,,&,,,text$k$ prime|
$$
where $|A|$ is the number of elements of the set $A$ (i.e., its cardinal number.)
Prime Number Theorem implies that the above limit is equal to zero.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The probability of picking a random positive integer and is prime is defined as
$$
lim_ntoinftyfrac1n|k : 1le kle n,,,&,,,text$k$ prime|
$$
where $|A|$ is the number of elements of the set $A$ (i.e., its cardinal number.)
Prime Number Theorem implies that the above limit is equal to zero.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The probability of picking a random positive integer and is prime is defined as
$$
lim_ntoinftyfrac1n|k : 1le kle n,,,&,,,text$k$ prime|
$$
where $|A|$ is the number of elements of the set $A$ (i.e., its cardinal number.)
Prime Number Theorem implies that the above limit is equal to zero.
$endgroup$
The probability of picking a random positive integer and is prime is defined as
$$
lim_ntoinftyfrac1n|k : 1le kle n,,,&,,,text$k$ prime|
$$
where $|A|$ is the number of elements of the set $A$ (i.e., its cardinal number.)
Prime Number Theorem implies that the above limit is equal to zero.
answered May 22 at 7:49
Yiorgos S. SmyrlisYiorgos S. Smyrlis
64k1386167
64k1386167
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Layman's explanation. You are walking up the number line. If you meet a new prime number, you increase the count primes by just 1. But you can multiply this new prime number with all the previously encountered primes or composites once, twice ... or infinitely many times to create infinitely many new composites i.e. finding 1 new prime results in infinitely many new composites somewhere up in the number line so if you stop your walk randomly at a number, you are infinitely times more likely to be standing on a composite than on a prime.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Layman's explanation. You are walking up the number line. If you meet a new prime number, you increase the count primes by just 1. But you can multiply this new prime number with all the previously encountered primes or composites once, twice ... or infinitely many times to create infinitely many new composites i.e. finding 1 new prime results in infinitely many new composites somewhere up in the number line so if you stop your walk randomly at a number, you are infinitely times more likely to be standing on a composite than on a prime.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Layman's explanation. You are walking up the number line. If you meet a new prime number, you increase the count primes by just 1. But you can multiply this new prime number with all the previously encountered primes or composites once, twice ... or infinitely many times to create infinitely many new composites i.e. finding 1 new prime results in infinitely many new composites somewhere up in the number line so if you stop your walk randomly at a number, you are infinitely times more likely to be standing on a composite than on a prime.
$endgroup$
Layman's explanation. You are walking up the number line. If you meet a new prime number, you increase the count primes by just 1. But you can multiply this new prime number with all the previously encountered primes or composites once, twice ... or infinitely many times to create infinitely many new composites i.e. finding 1 new prime results in infinitely many new composites somewhere up in the number line so if you stop your walk randomly at a number, you are infinitely times more likely to be standing on a composite than on a prime.
edited May 22 at 8:14
answered May 22 at 8:05
Nilotpal Kanti SinhaNilotpal Kanti Sinha
5,03921641
5,03921641
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $Ninmathbb N$, then, if you pick a number at random in $1,2,ldots,N$ (assuming that all numbers have the same probability of being chosen), then the probability that that number is prime is about $frac1log N$ (this is the prime number theorem). Therefore, the limit as $N$ goes to infinity of that probability is $0$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $Ninmathbb N$, then, if you pick a number at random in $1,2,ldots,N$ (assuming that all numbers have the same probability of being chosen), then the probability that that number is prime is about $frac1log N$ (this is the prime number theorem). Therefore, the limit as $N$ goes to infinity of that probability is $0$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $Ninmathbb N$, then, if you pick a number at random in $1,2,ldots,N$ (assuming that all numbers have the same probability of being chosen), then the probability that that number is prime is about $frac1log N$ (this is the prime number theorem). Therefore, the limit as $N$ goes to infinity of that probability is $0$.
$endgroup$
If $Ninmathbb N$, then, if you pick a number at random in $1,2,ldots,N$ (assuming that all numbers have the same probability of being chosen), then the probability that that number is prime is about $frac1log N$ (this is the prime number theorem). Therefore, the limit as $N$ goes to infinity of that probability is $0$.
edited May 22 at 10:21
answered May 22 at 7:49
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
187k24145259
187k24145259
add a comment |
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why does "the probability of a random natural number being prime" make no sense? Also see Percentage of primes among the natural numbers
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
May 22 at 9:47