[jf-]

From the title I assumed that the author was going to make a different point: that understanding a problem does not mean that said problem can be represented by a convex function, i.e. it still may have many local optima that a problem solver may get stuck in, rather than a single global optimum.

So, I expected some more general point about theoretical understanding of a thing being distinct from the actual computation of that thing, and that theoretical understanding does not necessarily lead to optimal outcomes.

I wish he’d made that point instead.