Dude, the code you posted again contains the exact same problem that started off this discussion! Even though I've already posted the solution! But of course that solution doesn't suit you because it shows that your previous results are wrong.

I'm not sure if you're saying here that now that you've been made aware of the problem you're just going to say that it's intentional, and that you're introducing this arbitrary assumption because that's what your simulation is supposed to investigate. If that's the case then fine, but the results of your simulation are still meaningless. The reason the prime numbers come out is still a purely synthetic artifact.

I can understand that you're bummed that your article is misleading and don't want to admit it. Just let the article be. I'm probably the first and the last person to ever notice that it's wrong. Has been very effective for psychologists ;-)

Best wishes!