Since the question was recently edited (as I can see from navigating the revisions page), the thought occurs that the bug may be triggered by the revision. Is there any substantial difference between (the HTTP data that forms) the revised version and a year old copy that might explain what is going on?

To answer non-idly, there might have been a way to make the first point without engaging in self-promotion, but I could not think of it. Among other reasons, CW was a signal to others to improve upon the post if they felt the question advertisement was working against community ideals.

Bug remained after disabling Javascript.

I was able to view the mobile version of 22 briefly, and at least one time successfully. I need to make a few more trials as I also had a browser shutdown in attempting the mobile version of 22, so I can't say yet that I have a solid workaround. It does bear promise though.

I currently view MO and meta in the full versions, and other SE sites in (what look to me like) mobile versions. I will attempt viewing 22 in the mobile version, if I can navigate to that version and back.

@Lucia, I will explain it in detail if you wish (but I don't think it will help you much). However, I made it for the benefit of Todd Trimble, to suggest that even if the original poster were given Dusart's recent results, the derivation of "there is a prime in between x and x +pi(x)" from that I wohld not consider as elementary.

Even using results of Dusart, I would not call the derivation elementary.

As an academic question it is reasonable; as a successful question for MO, it should be more specific. Revealing more detail about your motivation would help, as would narrowing the scope, e.g. hyperbolic equation, Dirichlet problem, even Not a Dirichlet problem.

In some cases that involves making an account. While much of the dialogue may happen elsewhere, be prepared for some of it to happen here.

I am for encouraging people to ask good questions using good wording, but to insist that everyone get it right on the first or second go seems a bit too extreme to me. That may not be your position, but it is part of my take on your initial comment @Andy.

To beat this issue into the ground, suppose I ask "Hey, I got this neato idea! Instead of looking at the dynamics of euclids gcd algorithm a_i+2= a_i mod a_i+1, howzabout we mix it up and look at how long it takes to get to zero usin a_i+1 = a_0 mod a_i? Can u help me?" I won't do it for two reasons: I am still reeling from adopting that style of asking, and it would get closed as a duplicate as Jeffrey Shallit has already asked it, in a for me more acceptable fashion.

Regardless of paycheck size, I take issue with the part of your comment that suggests to me that a questioner must from the start ask questions in the way professional mathematicians would. My observations are that Joseph O'Rourke and others on MathOverflow ask questions that are engaging, and could easily be presented by nonprofessionals. Further, such questions contribute to this forum and eventually to professional mathematics, but they don't start out that way, nor should they.

Not the ones I know. They may be paid to teach and assist in projects. Some few may get research assistantships. Based on insufficient data I would say less than half are paid to "create mathematics", and most who are paid are paid to make studying economically feasible until they reach the point of creating mathematics. I am willing to look at well founded studies that say otherwise.

@quid, I don't mind a properly implemented preview for comments. Right now I am using a virtual keyboard on this device which has delete key next to return (for comments, this means "submit") key. Despite my best efforts, I often have less than five minutes to finish my comment because of an accidental submit. As far as I know, the feature I suggest does not involve locking, only filtering. Also, many who submit comments do so before previewing anyway. My suggestion is a poor and hopefully quick compromise to the problem suggested in the question.

If first year graduate students are "professional mathematicians", what is all this fuss about oral examinations and dissertations? I think I should agree to disagree with you on this matter.

Except part of the goal is to service people who are not yet professional mathematicians (those in Ph.D. programs) and need help that is likely to come only from people who "smell like" professional mathematicians. It may be an improvement (and still inaccurate) to say the content is about professional mathematics.