If you assume that mathematical notation (language) doesn't abstract complexity in a uniform fashion (something you can write and capture meaning with a few sym

If you assume that mathematical notation (language) doesn't abstract complexity in a uniform fashion (something you can write and capture meaning with a few symbols isn't inherently more or less complex than something you can write with a lot of symbols), it becomes pretty obvious that something isn't necessarily as simple as it may look at the surface. Having worked in computing for long enough, I'm well aware of this fact in the world of estimating time (which to some degree is estimating complexity) to address a given problem request. I can very easily write down in English a pretty generalized description that you need to: cure any and all forms of cancer. That's a fairly concise request, I can write it in one line, but it hides a mountain of complexity needed to accomplish that. It also doesn't describe what we consider as "cure" or "cancer" which can be ambiguous in some cases. Much of the same is true with seemingly cute conjectures that seem to capture a behavior that may be incredibly complex to prove (if not impossible, e.g. Godel). The Collatz conjecture comes to mind where Paul Erdos famously said something to the effect of "Mathematics may not be ready for such problems."