>>11677214>>11677264Let me give you an example. Say I wrote down the Pythagorean theorem and asked you why that's true. You'd probably draw a triangle, label the sides and draw the squares, then you'd say that the area of the squares are equivalent. Then suppose I wrote down Fermat's last theorem and asked you why it fails for all n>2, it wouldn't be possible for you to tell me, I'm assuming. Nothing about the Pythagorean theorem tells you anything about cyclotonic fields or how the Pythagorean theorem is related to what are reducible lattice points on an extension of the rational numbers, and so forth. Number theory alone has this problem where the conjectures related to it are mind-blastingly hard without Algebra, analysis and so forth. The crowning jewel of number theory, the Riemann zeta function, wasn't even a result of number theory, it's almost solely in the domain of complex analysis.
