I think it's not a valid comparison though. Proving the Collatz Conjecture is not essential for understanding the Riemann Hypothesis, or any other such subject. It will probably not advance the proof of RH at all.
On the other hand, knowledge of the problem I raised, motion of charged macroscopic objects, is crucial to understanding Classical Electromagnetism, which is crucial to understand QM, which is crucial to understand most of modern physics.
I think it's not a valid comparison though. Proving the Collatz Conjecture is not essential for understanding the Riemann Hypothesis, or any other such subject. It will probably not advance the proof of RH at all.
On the other hand, knowledge of the problem I raised, motion of charged macroscopic objects, is crucial to understanding Classical Electromagnetism, which is crucial to understand QM, which is crucial to understand most of modern physics.