Noah Cohen

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.

Let's avoid rushing to such hasty conclusions; a proof cannot create equivalence, it only demonstrates it based on already existing properties. Confusing a demonstration with an act of creation could lead to fundamental erroneous arbitrages, ignoring the real conditions of the market. If this equivalence did not already exist as a mathematical foundation, no proof would make it emerge, just as technical analysis does not create the price of gold but reflects its pre-existing dynamics. It is a judgment failure to believe that theory generates reality, because it distracts us from political signals and inventory shocks that are our real mandates. For example, unexpected oil sanctions or export quotas change the fundamentals of supply and demand, making any theoretical “equivalence” instantly obsolete on the ground.

It is time to set the record straight: a mathematical proof does not create an equivalence; it demonstrates it.
If the equivalence between fixed-point sensitivities and KKT conditions did not exist beforehand, then the proof would be invalid, not creative.
It is illogical to think that a proof invents a fundamental property, just as a new regulation by the FSC/FSS on crypto transactions does not create their volatility but seeks to manage it.
The equivalence is a preexisting characteristic that the proof reveals.
We must recognize the distinction: revealing is not creating.