Your analogy is off. With number theory, even if no one had an external use for it, progress was (is) made, new theorems were proved, so time was not wasted in that regard. The problem with the Collatz conjecture is whether the effort spent on it is actually generating any insights into the problem.
But there is 'progress'. Looking at the Wikipedia page:
"The proof of the conjecture can indirectly be done by proving the following:
- no infinite divergent trajectory occurs
- no cycle occurs
thus all numbers have a trajectory down to 1.
In 1977, R. Steiner, and in 2000 and 2002, J. Simons and B. de Weger (based on Steiner's work), proved the nonexistence of certain types of cycles."
I am placing 'progress' in quotes because one cannot measure progress in maths. Before one has a proof, we cannot know whether existing approaches are true dead ends or whether they just need that one extra insight.
