Are there any unsolved math problems that aren't proving things?
There are a number of problems that basically boil down to "what's the smallest value that has property <x>", which can be solved via brute force - or rather, could be, except that naive brute force would take too long, and no-one has figured out any tricks to make it fast enough to be practical.
For example, calculating the value of any but the first few Ramsey numbers (the minimum number of vertices v = R(m, n) such that all undirected simple graphs of order v contain a clique of order m or an independent set of order n).
There are also a lot of problems that could be proven or disproven via (counter)example - something like the Collatz conjecture, for instance.
Or perhaps they would keep it secret, but it would be a huge cultural faux pas to have a method to factor large numbers without also explaining (and thus proving) how it works.
Proving things seems really boring and uninteresting to me, and there is no guarantee the task is even possible.
"Proving" isn't distinct from "mathematics". That's what I'm trying to get at. In a sense, a proof is equivalent to a computation (and it's possible to make this precisely true in some contexts).
The public at large has gotten some impression that proofs are something only some kind of mathematics needs, probably after being traumatised by high school geometry classes. Proofs are all that mathematics is.
One interesting math problem someone told me just the other day was to come up with a series of forward and backward steps that would keep you from falling off a cliff, if a malicious person only chose each 2nd, 3rd or 4th step. Or to find the resistance between two points on an infinite grid of resistors. Or to find a series of bridges to get between several island without ever crossing a bridge twice. Or coloring a map with only 4 colors. Or in machine learning, tons of unsolved problems involving approximating intractable inference problems.
That's a pretty wide variety of problems just off the top of my head, none of which are proving things.
Sure some of the problems might not have a solution, but at least I'm not asking people to solve the halting problem, which is what half of those "unsolved math proofs" require.
Even if you do solve them, the result is uninteresting. You could, at least in theory, quickly explain fermats last theorem to almost anyone. Or the four color theorem, or most of the problems I mentioned. But only a few mathematicians understand the proofs, and sometimes no one understands them (the ones proved computers.)
You have it in your mind that proofs are something that you don't like and completely distinct from computations. You don't have a clear distinction in your mind between what you like and you don't. It seems to me that some mathematics is just unfamiliar to you, and when that happens, you call it "proofs".