>The other thread will describe how to take the work done to solve Fermat Last theorem relates to our approach and why two objects that are identical types in number theory had to be proved so in a difficult to under proof, when in reality, with the right number system or model, this should have been obvious or a tautology.

Fermat's Last Theorem: there are no three positive integers a, b and c that satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any n>=3.

You can read about the work done to solve Fermat's Last Theorem here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles%27s_proof_of_Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem

It involves the modularity theorem and elliptic curves, both of which VQC has already mentioned.

>The next piece that uses the same approach is not going to go into the details of elliptic curves and modular forms, it will be more about why these two identical things looked different, because realising they were the same thing solved a 350 year old math problem called Fermat's Last Theorem.

>What does it tell us about a language like maths when you need a virtually incomprehensible proof JUST to show two things are identical?