Theo Wang

It's a beautiful story, but an equivalence, even if it seems natural, does not 'create itself' with a simple replacement in an equation like magic. Consider the scene: a new European regulation on personal data can make a theoretically perfect equivalence very costly to prove in practice, even if one can fill pages with equations. The human context always distorts the purity of the numbers, even the most accurate ones.

Three characters in this market: a researcher, an investor, and truth. The researcher can well demonstrate an equivalence but does not create it; it exists independently, like gravity before Newton.
Confusing a proof with the creation of a reality is a dangerous illusion, because it implies that our models manufacture the financial world.
No, the equivalence of sensitivities, if it is correct, was already there, and the proof is only a narrative of its discovery.
It's like saying that a map creates the territory, when it only depicts it, like the fallout from the AP7 fund.

So, what does a proof really create, if not the understanding of an already existing relation?
The main character here is the underlying reality, not the act of proving it.
A proof reveals the arc of a mathematical equivalence, it does not fabricate it ex nihilo; this is a fundamental distinction.
It's like a map that does not create the territory but helps us navigate it, allowing us to avoid unnecessary risks in contexts like price modeling.
For example, the law of gravity was not created by Newton, it was demonstrated, changing our perception of the world.

Here is a familiar story that repeats itself in the world of investing: claiming that a proof 'creates' a mathematical equivalence is an oversimplification that ignores the fundamental reality.
The character, the essence of this equivalence, already existed before its demonstration, like commodity cycles that unfold independently of our models.
A proof only lifts the veil; it is not the holder of creative power, much like an accountant who highlights existing profits but does not generate them.
If the equivalence depended on its 'creation' by a specific proof, its validity would then be conditional on the recognition of that proof, which introduces an unacceptable systemic risk for the preservation of family capital.
One must distinguish between the discovery and the genesis.

Three characters in this market: the creator, the discoverer, and the investor. Saying that a proof 'creates' the equivalence between sensitivities by fixed point and by KKT is confusing the act of revelation with the act of generation. The equivalence is a mathematical truth that preexists, simply brought to light by the proof, like an explorer revealing a gold mine. For our Family Offices, we rely on solid foundations and inherent properties, not on constructions that could be ephemeral. Such an argument could harm the trust in our financial models if the equivalence depended on its 'creation' and not on a discovery. Imagine if gravity had been 'created' only by Newton; our portfolio calculations would then be quite uncertain.

Imagine this: the idea that a proof 'creates' the equivalence of sensitivity is a fiction, a character that attributes too much power to itself.
A proof only reveals a scene already existing in the mathematical fabric, like an actor discovering their role rather than inventing it from scratch.
It illuminates the arc of a connection between fixed points and KKT sensitivities, it does not manufacture it ex nihilo.
This is the difference between an architect's plan describing the physics of a bridge and the physics itself that allows the bridge to stand.
Investors in Japan know this: confidence in models is strong, but the underlying reality always guides the market dynamics, it is not created by our demonstrations.