I think the problem with finding a pattern of Primes is that we are looking for the pattern the way we count. It isn’t enough to identify a number Prime. Finding the next in line is still recursive.
If anyone is interested I’ll post more on this topic. Or if you encountered similar roadblocks please share.
I first got interested in the math of cryptography in 2006. I stated a logarithmic spiral could be manipulated to find a pattern in Prime numbers. Geometrically I couldn’t make it happen. However, I am now reading a book and found that Gauss tried to relate a pattern of Prime numbers logarithmically.
I also read that if you find a pattern in Prime numbers you disprove the Riemann Hypothesis. I don’t know why but for some reason it only works if Prime numbers are random. Then I thought, “what kind of pattern.” You know they say, “One man’s random sequence is another man’s pattern.” And a pattern is in the eye of the beholder.
As I have stated in my “simple yet interesting” post I claim to have proven the Pappy Craylar Hypothesis and in the proof a pattern of Primes can be found. Of course, I completely understand why no one believes me. It sounds simple yet interesting enough, but not believable. If it were true I would have just rendered most encryption useless to claim a million dollar prize. Even to me that sounds unbelievable. Not that my work can actually do that, but I think it is a new way to think of Prime numbers. But I think to find a pattern in Prime numbers Trumps the need for new key generations.
I know ahead of time I will get posts that the Pappy Craylar Conjecture can’t do what I say. I just want people to work it through. To get people to read your work Trumps them laughing at you.
All things considered if there is credibility to my work, I could get it published. That is why I post it; so a cryptographer can try it. Anyone how can do basic algebra and may have some programming knowledge can test it.