Unity+

It depends on the algorithm that the tool you are using uses to carry out the randomization function. If the algorithm is developed correctly, then the likely good of getting "freak" results should diminish.

Yes, I read it many times before and failed to address it because besides this information: Which has the only relevancy of revealing the uncertainty of prime numbers, the article only describes the uncertainties of prime numbers.

I have no comment on your statement since it is not productive in the discussion. The point of a pattern is it doesn't require a table to determine what is prime and what is not. It may require intensive algorithms, but is a deductive mechanism. http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/421353/are-primes-randomly-distributed

Very complex does not equal random, which is why they are in two different categories. A majority of patterns rely on deductive reasoning, where it does not lie is where it will lie. For example, where there is no even number there is an odd number and where there is no odd number is an even number because a pattern does exist that allows us to make this determination. I am also aware of the prime gap, I am also aware of someone proving the limit in the prime gap. I believe it is 70,000,000 From this prime-gap limit, we can discern that there will be no consecutive prime that will be larger than this limit. Therefore, randomness cannot apply to prime numbers because in order for randomness to apply to prime numbers, it must have all possible distances, or gaps, between the prime numbers. EDIT: Basically, this video gives an idea about the proof, which states that on the number line, P1 - P2 < 70,000,000. My bad, misinterpretation.

It's what we call doxxing.

There is a difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence. Direct evidence is the evidence required to make a definitive answer. Also, the Sieve of Eratosthenes can be seen as a pattern, a complex pattern, but a pattern nonetheless: The prediction here is that the prime numbers will not occur at divisions at 2, 3, 5, or 7. Therefore, the pattern is discernible, very complex, but is visible.

Besides it not using a standard 3D web package, pretty neat!

I never imagined you putting him on an ignore list. You two seem to get along quite fine.

Actually, my point was to state that there are many assumptions, whether orthodox or not, that we make, such as assuming that P are NP problems are not the same, because the contrary is less likely to be the truth. However, since there is no evidence, there is no definitive answer to give. This applies to primes as well. Whether a majority of users here belief or disbelief that there is a pattern in primes does not reflect the true nature of problems or the majority opinion on the matter.

The downvoted Ophiolite? I hope it was a joke. Otherwise, I upvoted.

I think they aren't displayed because showing who liked or disliked a post would hinder the way each user discusses with each other.

Well then we aren't on the same page either, it seems.

Well, then Bignose and you may be on two different pages then. I think he is referring to overall patterns. The same thing could be said about Pi, where there may be patterns in one part of pi, but overall there is none.

So, I have noticed that many of the members who have been associated with either trolling or preaching on this site have done similar things on other sites. I was thinking that there could be a tool developed that allow the moderators to use the information provided by those type of users and be able to use that information to do a massive search of anything related to that user. For example, I noticed that many of these types of users use avatars that are photos of other people who are still alive, but have no association with this type of forum or have interests involved in this forum. For example, I used google image search for avatars from some of these type of users and found that they had no association or interest in this forum. I don't know if this would help any, but just something I noticed. There are probably loop holes around the idea.

The assumption is that there is a pattern when there is no overall pattern.

The only problem(and this is after thinking about the problem after a while) with this assumption is this line of thinking could apply to any line of thinking in regards to any considerably random line of elements, i.e. "Finding something that isn't there"

I don't know why you are getting defensive, I was simply stating a point. EDIT: Couldn't we bring the Sieve of Erathosthenes into question in regards to its state of randomness?(Please don't attack me for this, it's just a question).

While I agree there are many members here(including me) who still have a lot to learn about our ever-changing Universe, simply attacking their ignorance of the information is not the correct way to go about changing their viewpoint about the Universe. While some members are willing to change their views with the appearance of evidence(I changed my view on climate change when I finally became unblinded by my ignorance of the issue), others are not so willing. I don't know if you will like this quote, but I think this quote will give some knowledge on how to response to issues like this: "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." If you look past the origins of the quote, it states that if a person is refusing to listen to you(with valid evidence presented, which is not a part of the quote of course), then simply ignore them. Let the staff deal with them, as they always have done successfully. I tried looking for the site you referred to, and it says the domain is being sold. I must be looking in the wrong place.

An example of a problem that is assumed by many scientists to be false is the P vs. NP problem. Although it is unproven, scientists continue as if it is false. Whether this is the best way to go about things is up for another discussion. However, I think the realization would be that concepts with seemingly random constructs have some pattern behind them, one way or another.

Though such algorithms can lead to the actual proof.

What would be interesting to see is someone develop a plugin(if not already developed) that would allow a person to draw the shape in four panels on a piece of paper(top, bottom, left, right) which would allow a person to make a model by using that drawing. Then, contrast in colors would define the depth of each aspect of the model on the paper and when the paper is scanned the model is made from that. That would advance 3D printing, would it not?

I doubt that 3D printing in general is just a fad. However, I think the current fad is with the technologies that are currently being used. The machines that are built at the moment do print objects, but they have so many limitations that isn't seen as being practical. Until they perfect the mechanism of 3D printing, it will be a while till 3D printing becomes common place. For now, it is just a luxury access.

Pressure is on, I guess.