The only thing you should read when evaluating the scope of a patent or patent application is the claims. In this case, the first claim is: 1. A method compris

The only thing you should read when evaluating the scope of a patent or patent application is the claims. In this case, the first claim is: 1. A method comprising: receiving an input value and an iteration value; based on the iteration value, iteratively performing steps comprising: if a least significant bit of the input value is 0, (1) dividing the input value by a first value, if a least significant bit of the input value is 1, (1) multiplying the input value by a second value, (2) adding one to the input value, and (3) applying a modulo operation of a prime value to the input value, to yield a first iteration value, to yield an updated input value; returning the updated input value as a hash value. Note that the "first value" and "second value" can be numbers other than 2 or 3. Not even sure how that works. Also, as the claim is currently written, it seems indefinite, or at least incorrect, because it is unclear if the modulo In step (3) is applied to the input value, or input value + 1, or the input value * second value, or (input value * second value) + 1. An exact reading of the claim implies the former, whereas what they probably want is the latter. I'm not an expert in either of these areas - but how is cryptographic hashing an obvious application of the Collatz function? Is there some well-known property of Collatz sequences that make them suitable for crypto hashes?