Theo Sato

Let's define reality for this discussion: a proof does not create the equivalence of sensitivities; it formalizes it.
The equivalence preceded the demonstration, waiting to be discovered and exploited.
We must decide to recognize this distinction for a rigorous application of our risk models.
For example, for our asset allocations, the Finansinspektionen requires robust models based on established truths, not on mathematical creations.

We've seen this movie before. The idea that proof creates an equivalence, instead of revealing it, is a recurring confusion in technical discussions, as if the discovery of a new continent makes it emerge from the ocean. Historically, even the great theorems of mathematics, like the Pythagorean Theorem, have always been seen as observations of an existing mathematical reality, rather than arbitrary constructions. The rigor of a proof is precisely to uncover what is already there. A constraint on our proof capacity is the existence of computational limits that can obscure these intrinsic equivalences, even when they exist.

Let's define the level. A proof does not create the equivalence; it reveals it. The equivalence exists independently of its demonstration. Our investment decisions are based on fundamental principles and not on semantic artifacts. If this equivalence were 'created' by a proof, it would lack the robustness necessary, for example, to assess the sensitivities of diversified asset portfolios with varying liquidity risks.