But I never said it was indistinguishable. What I'm saying is that the definition in the first sentence of the paper is wrong or, at least, incomplete.
"whose distribution is indistinguishable from uniform"
Emphasis mine. Distribution here is not its English meaning, it is referring to the statistical term. Thus, it is talking about numbers "drawn from the uniform distribution", not "uniform numbers".
A PRNG drawing from the uniform distribution may produce that sequence (for any set that includes 1 and 2), but a PRNG that only produced that sequence would certainly not be drawing from the uniform distribution.
Perhaps you don't understand the terms in context. If you looked at the distribution of your example, it would have two big spikes in it, at numbers one and two.
