It can be valuable, but it's not as valuable as covering all cases. If I could prove collatz for 99% of numbers it would be great. If i could additionally pro

It can be valuable, but it's not as valuable as covering all cases. If I could prove collatz for 99% of numbers it would be great. If i could additionally prove which 99% converge, let's say all numbers not divisible by 100, it would be enormous because even showing this much is likely to be a stepping stone to a full proof (what property is it about the number 100 that excludes all non-divisors from diverging?) > I suppose what bugs me about math is, physicists are proved wrong all the time. Mathematicians are rarely proved mistaken, because they construct assumptions that you can't disagree with. There's no chance for empirical data to falsify one's assertions. Right, and that's the whole point and beauty of it.