# What to do now. Prime number distribution solved

No one gets patents in the Sciences and Mathematics. You aren't producing any sort of a product. All you get is acclaim for solving the problem.

And if you are lucky they might name the method after you.

-Dan
I was talking about the software applications that would use the math "the method".
programs that could produce encryption keys

"They" might name it after me... lol
Who are they?
I want to talk to them.

#### TR-Resort

I will say this: what I am doing is not a sieve.
The number you gave seems as though it is not Prime, as the sum of all its digits= a multiple of 3. I did not use what I have found to verify this.

edit.. the funny thing is that the sum of the digits of the number you gave is 693
I suggest you recalculate sum of digits. According to my calculations 984759465937503850398458375936586395730583088282075936596393085003094573045803984039680736047304683089603984603749673085330495803985037603974053
DS ≡ 2(mod 9) which does not eliminate number as prime candidate

#### TR-Resort

I was talking about the software applications that would use the math "the method".
programs that could produce encryption keys

"They" might name it after me... lol
Who are they?
I want to talk to them.
A copyright might be all you need to protect your work. Patent is useless for your purposes and expensive.

I suggest you recalculate sum of digits. According to my calculations 984759465937503850398458375936586395730583088282075936596393085003094573045803984039680736047304683089603984603749673085330495803985037603974053
DS ≡ 2(mod 9) which does not eliminate number as prime candidate
well it looks as though you are correct. I added the digits twice before and got the same answer, now its 4 short. 689 from 144 digits.
that is odd.

Last edited:

#### TR-Resort

well it looks as though you are correct.
It is a mutha' of a number but strive for accuracy - always.

Last edited:

It is a muttha' of a number but strive for accuracy - always.
always, i used a calculator and the sum function in excel, and got the same number twice. funny thing is i missed the same number both times. and it is only represented 11 times out of the 144. i could also tell it was randomly typed into the keypad by the way it was arranged when i was re entering it. perhaps my keypad was sticking that day. who knows...
but i never said i wasn't human and i was careful to say that "it seemed as though it wasn't"

#### TR-Resort

It is a mutha' of a number but strive for accuracy - always.
+
_
The irony - my calculation might be wrong too' I'm rechecking

#### SDK

Let's ignore my overwhelming skepticism and pretend you have done what you claim. Why on earth do you think this has any monetary value worth patenting in the first place?