When I first heard of Goldbach's conjecture in maybe 2003, I had recently been studying image compression. And I immediately saw it as an information theory-type problem. So the proof would be a proof that you could not describe the position of primes on a number line relative to the left end, with multiples of (smaller) prime distances from the right. You would miss some, like a compressed image with lost quality. But I didn't know how to prove this.But thinking about this for a second, it seems so obvious as to be considered proven, if only in the way things are proven every day by non-mathematicians.What you are describing is a set of distances that are not multiples of each other, or which are unique multiples of a single distance. It doesn't matter if you vary the directions, on a one-dimensional number line, in three dimensions, or just consider them as relative values absent of space, or what. Put simply, you cannot describe a set of distances with a smaller set of distances. And most prime distances going one way, specifically those larger than half the number, cannot be used as multiples going the other way, as they will not become multiples until outside of the relevant interval.If you consider the even number 30, you cannot use distances 3,5,7,11,13 to describe the positions of 3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29 from a single point going the opposite direction. Is this not obvious?You might try to think of how, well, maybe from 17 to 23 could be like a ratio of 5/3 to 13/11. But it is obvious that as you get further from zero, the precision increases, meaning each increment of 1 is a smaller percent change in the ratio. You cannot use the larger percentage changes available in the smaller ratios, to describe the fine percentage changes which by definition fall between combinations of them.Again, I have never written a mathematician's formal proof in my life, but to me Goldbach's conjecture is obvious.