1. 4
  1.  

  2. 2

    I don’t think this is true. RH being true implies really specific things about the distribution of prime numbers. The article suggests, correctly, that a proof of that could let us factor them more efficiently. It’s very possible that the process of proving RH will lead to new techniques which let us reason about the distribution of prime numbers in a new way. (It’s extra reasonable imo because some of the weird properties of prime distribution apparently don’t emerge until the number gets very very large.