But what did he actually prove! That there is a way to generate or define a very large set of numbers subject to certain operations that we didn't know existed even though we invented the numbers and operations in the first place. It may allow us to make use of the "finding" but does it lead to a greater understanding of numbers as numbers? It is like proving in Chess that a player playing White who never makes a mistake will always win when playing against an opponent who also never makes a mistake, given the existing rules of Chess. If true, what does it say about chess, except that Chess is a game where a player playing white who never makes a mistake.... (Plot of War Games, as I recall.)
That it applies to all prime numbers, not just those tested. We could get a supercomputer crunching on this, showing the pattern works on prime numbers thousands of digits long, but it still wouldn't prove that this works for all prime numbers.
I am most definitely not a good enough mathematician to fully understand the implications of this. However, this shows something predictable about prime numbers. Most modern cryptography related to prime numbers. Maybe this discovery will result in making it easier to factor large numbers into their primes, which could effectively break most of the cryptographic schemes used today.