I wrote:
Moreover, if one looks at the minimum (over k) of the number of primes in the kth row of the n-by-n square, one gets the sequence
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 2, 6, 6, 5, 4, 6, 4, 5, 7, 7, 3, 7, 8, 4, 5, 10, 7, 5, 6, 5, 5, 10, 7, 8, 8, 6, 10, 7, 5, 5, 8, 7, 7, 5, 10, 7, 8, 10, 7, 7, 10, 10, 9, 12, 7, 11, 10, 10, 9, 7, 13, 11, 10, 10, 11, 10, 11, 10, 11, 12, 11, 8, 11, 9
Neil Sloane wrote to me saying that his own calculations disagreed with mine. He's right; this is not how the sequence goes. Here's how the sequence actually starts: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 7, 6, 4, 5, 6, 6, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7 Thanks, Neil! Jim Propp