Quote:
Originally Posted by mart_r
I knew something was odd about this phrasing...
There's a larger variety in the size of the gaps.
Is that somewhat understandable an explanation?

It still seems counterintuitive, but OK, it is a good explanation. It seems like since prime numbers are more common than twin primes, the gaps between primes would fill up first. In the beginning, the first missing gap between primes is greater than the first missing gap between twin primes. However, at 1.05e16, the first missing gap between twin primes is greater than the first missing gap between primes. There must be a point where the first n such that 6n is a missing gap between twin primes passes the first m such that 2m is a missing gap between primes. I wonder when that point is. By the way, I meant 1.05e16 in my earlier post.