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.