Omar Kim

Time is short to dispel the semantic confusion between discovering and creating.
A proof does not give rise to the equivalence between fixed-point sensitivities and KKT sensitivities; it demonstrates it.
This equivalence already existed, independently of any formalization, and is not manifested through an act of mathematical substitution.
Confusing a proof with an act of creation dilutes fundamental understanding, as if a correlation analysis created a link between assets rather than revealed it.

Time is limited; should we really debate creation versus discovery in critical analysis?
An evidence establishes an equivalence, it does not generate it, like a model that does not create market correlations but reveals them.
Confusing a mathematical demonstration with the generation of a fundamental reality can exhaust our attention and cause us to miss other limiting factors.
It would be akin to believing that systemic risks only exist when we model them, an imprudent approach that reduces our available capital for the unknown, as shown by the 2008 crisis where many risks were unmodeled.

The weak point is to assert that a proof creates an equivalence; a proof only reveals it, not establish it. This confusion between discovery and creation is a fundamental failure mode. Our Swiss actuarial models do not create life expectancy; they quantify it, just as this proof illuminates an existing mathematical property. The weakest link here lies in the overinterpretation of the role of demonstration.