I admit I read it wrong at first, but it made sense to me at the end of the article. So I don't believe median was misleading. My initial thought was, as numbers get larger and larger, the chance that the second most common prime factor is 37 so 50%, which didn't make sense because of how common 3 and 5 are. By the end I realized the function is taking into account the range of prime factors as an aggregate.
Now I understand that with enough composite numbers, the chance that their second prime factor is 37 OR BELOW converges to 50%, which is pretty neat.
Now I understand that with enough composite numbers, the chance that their second prime factor is 37 OR BELOW converges to 50%, which is pretty neat.