If you scaled it based on the size of the integer you could get that up to 99.9% test accuracy. Like if it's less than 10 give it 50% odds of returning false, if it's under 50 give it 10% odds, otherwise return false.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

That would make it less accurate. It's much more likely to return true on not a prime than a prime

[–] themusicman@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Correct. Not are why people are upvoting. If 10% of numbers are prime in a range, and you always guess false, you get 90% right. If you randomly guess true 10% of the time, you get ~80% right.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

More random means more towards 50% correctness.

[–] ptu@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 weeks ago

And 2,3,5,7 are primes of the first numbers, making always false 60% correct and random chance 50%

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Code proof or it didn't happen.

Extra credit for doing it in Ruby

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 4 points 2 weeks ago

Now you're thinking with ~~portals~~ primes!

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Makes me wonder where the actual break even would be. Like how long does making one random number take versus sins lookups. Fuck it, do it in parallel. Fastest wins.