<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>On the probability that two random integers are coprime · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1806.00053/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1806.00053/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>On the probability that two random integers are coprime — mentioned by mturmon</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40321886</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1806.00053:40321886</guid><pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2024 17:57:23 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;This comment opens perhaps a bigger can of worms than intended. The original statement: &amp;gt;&amp;gt; You can&amp;#x27;t uniformly sample an unbounded set. [of real numbers] is true, provided that by &amp;quot;sample&amp;quot; we mean &amp;quot;sample in a way that obeys Kolmogorov&amp;#x27;s axioms&amp;quot;. (I&amp;#x27;m adding the qualifier &amp;quot;of real numbers&amp;quot; to keep this somewhat grounded, so that we don&amp;#x27;t get distracted with abstract metric spaces, or worse.) In the above comment, by placing a limit on the set ([-N, +N]), you have made the set bounded -- thereby contradicting the premise of the original statement! * Your last paragraph is interesting. Suffice…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1806.00053/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.PR</category></item></channel></rss>
