Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Do primes become more or less frequent as you go further out on the number line? That is, are there more or fewer primes between $1$ and $1,000,000$ than between $1,000,000$ and $2,000,000$?

A proof or pointer to a proof would be appreciated.

share|cite|improve this question
Yes (as has been answered): the heuristic reason is that we can list the primes $p_1, p_2, \dots$. Each time you apply the sieve of Eratosnese you exclude the numbers divisible by $p_n$ and weed out "$(1-1/p_n)$" of the natural numbers (i.e., asymptotic density). So in the end you are left with $\prod ( 1 - 1/p_n)$ fraction of the natural numbers; since the sum $\sum \frac{1}{p_n} = \infty$, this is the proportion zero. So we should expect the primes to have density zero. – Akhil Mathew Jul 21 '10 at 0:23
Check out the Riemann-zeta function if you want something a bit more technical. It gives a pretty precise estimate of the distribution of primes, indirectly. – Noldorin Jul 21 '10 at 7:38
up vote 15 down vote accepted

From the Wikipedia article about the prime number theorem:

Roughly speaking, the prime number theorem states that if a random number nearby some large number N is selected, the chance of it being prime is about 1 / ln(N), where ln(N) denotes the natural logarithm of N. For example, near N = 10,000, about one in nine numbers is prime, whereas near N = 1,000,000,000, only one in every 21 numbers is prime. In other words, the average gap between prime numbers near N is roughly ln(N).

share|cite|improve this answer

The Sieve of Eratosthenes is a very intuitive visual representation of why the frequency of prime numbers goes down as you go further out on the number line.

share|cite|improve this answer
This is really a less detailed version of Akhil's comment. – BBischof Jul 21 '10 at 4:43
@BBischof Akhil's comment derives the answer to this question with mathematical rigor. My answer offers a link to a visual representation of the trend for the sake of gaining intuition. Its nice to have both the proof of the result and intuition about the result. – Ami Jul 21 '10 at 5:01
Agreed @Ami, it is a useful answer if not as rigorous. – dsolimano Jul 21 '10 at 13:20

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.