Yeah, this is like being thrown a new bone that I've never chewed on before. Thanks.

What I'd like to have explained to me, is whether or not this finding isn't possibly inevitable.

It was absolutely inevitable. This is a fundamental mathematical relationship. You can formulate it in hex, octal, base-whatever, and you'd still have mathematicians eventually stumbling across these theorems. This process is probably akin to a universal indication of technological proficiency, and we will continue our progression with time.

Disclaimer: I do not sufficiently understand the "how" of this matter, but the preceding paragraph was what I took away from the article.

Already, there are mathematical similarities in concept to both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanical theories. GR - four dimensional shapes (K3 surfaces) vs. spacetime (4D), and algebraic topology (major keyword left out by article's author) structures vs. spacetime manifolds. QM - The 90 degree rotational analogies vs. the Pauli exclusion principle of orthogonality (one example - the three orthogonal P-shells for electrons filling orbitals), and the mathematics of number theory and QM both playing out on the complex plane.

I'm just scratching the surface here. I actually think that the importance of developing this direction of maths is under-emphasized in the article. It could always just be another beautiful dead end though.