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 21 hours 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 15 hours 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 12 hours ago (1 children)

More random means more towards 50% correctness.

[–] ptu@sopuli.xyz 3 points 11 hours 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 21 hours ago

Code proof or it didn't happen.

Extra credit for doing it in Ruby

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 4 points 1 day ago

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

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours 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.