Making Light:  Open thread 53 ::: November 09, 2005, 05:18 PM

Dan R. wrote:

  ... difference number 217 (between 1327 and 1361) was a notable
  outlier.  The difference of 34 was the highest of all in the first
  1000, and significantly higher than other differences in the first
  250.

The prime density is smoother than you'd expect from a probabilistic
approach, because the prime density has a negative feedback mechanism
--too few primes now translates into too few factors (so more primes)
later, and vice versa.  I recall something I heard thirty-some years
ago about how the prime gaps are especially chaotic, too, but the
details escape me.  Google for "prime gaps" and you get hundreds of
matches, many very good.

  Can local wizards comment on this?  You know who you are.

The problem is that a lot of (nonlocal) non-wizards "know" they are
wizards, too.  See Unskilled and Unaware of It:  How Difficulties in
Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments.
I'm not sure whether math is especially magnetic to that kind of
personality, or whether I see it more in math only because that's
where I'm looking.  I saw them break sci.math, and now they're gnawing
away at wikipedia.  I sometimes envy people who are only alienated by
the government.