Firstly, thank you for your response. To answer your condescending question; I have an undergraduate level of calculus and statistics from two different degrees (biotechnology and commerce). I understand your point in that you personally understand derivative values from how differential equations spit out figures when assumptions change. That is great Alan. I hope its working out for you and that you are making loads of money...
I was hoping an educational thread like this would not resort to clever personal attacks, but it seems to me that you are more interested in defending your intellect and math then actually answering the questions in posts with integrity. What is the value in that? I didn't come here to wage an intellectual war with quants, I came here for the pearls of wisdom they can share, without them resorting to creating artificial barriers of intellectual entry (i.e. you don't know the math, so don't bother understanding derivatives...). Do you think the people that have been trading options for hundreds of years didn't understand the anatomy of the products they were buying and selling? Sure, the BSM equation and formula (solution from boundary conditions) was not formally available back then, but they bought and sold options anyways. Do you think for one moment that people stop trading when they don't have sophisticated financial math to back up their valuations? Again, do you think a market maker gives a hoot about your valuations? Nope, you accept his/her price whether you like it or not.
Of course I have exposure to what derivatives are, I have been studying them for the better part of the last 5 years of my life, and I have a library full of resources that point out how people who rely on financial math can make a real mess of things in the financial world. My question to you is whether you have personally risked your hard earned money in the markets using financial math as a talisman to make decisions. If so, how is it going? Are you predicting pricing outcomes and making a killing? Or, are you making hopeful forecasts that sometimes win, but for the most part don't? Or are you an academic that sits on the sidelines with sophisticated models and theories that serve to prop up your own ego, or earn a salary from your "boss," like the tautological "point" you tried to make in our previous threads? If you have skin in the game, your approach to this topic may be different and you may be humbled by how cut-throat this industry really is (read Nassim Taleb's book, he is a quant after all, so perhaps you will take him seriously).
I try to understand derivatives from as many perspectives as I can, mathematical language being only one approach. Again, please read what I quoted about mathematics in our previous threads. Its a useful tool that can prove concepts based on our assumptions, provided our assumptions are in fact firmly rooted in reality (BSM is not...). Please don't compare Newton and Schrodinger equations to quant equations based on financial economics. Two different worlds completely. Einstein may have won a Nobel prize in physics for using Brownian motion and his calculations to prove the existence of particles, but he certainly didn't use Brownian motion as a model to predict or forecast future pricing in abstract financial instruments as if atoms and securities are related in any way (they are not if you were wondering...). Physicists use different assumptions based on what they can readily observe and measure with consistency (i.e. employing scientific method which economists cannot replicate).
To get back to the topic at hand in good faith of sharing ideas, I was not asking how delta works from a partial differential equation perspective with a solution in terms of boundary conditions. I was asking a simple question that I believe can be answered in plain intuitive language. Does delta affect both the IV and EV for an ITM option, or just EV or IV (not both). Yes or no, and why in plain English language. You do not have to be a quant with a masters or doctorate in financial math to understand how values (or their constituent parts) evolve in time in terms of change.
I changed one parameter in my example (the price of the underlying). No need to invoke mathematical gods and intellectual zeitgeist here. If you cant explain this in plain English, you don't understand it yourself, which may put you in the same boat as me. If so, welcome. Perhaps we can work together to get to the bottom of this in good faith.
You really don't need to respond to my questions, but if you want to respond, it would be most appreciated if you stop throwing around your mathematical intellect around with snide comments that add no value. Hiding behind the math and your intellect is not impressive at all. Showing your depth of understanding without having to rely on your math is a different story.
Perhaps this was not the correct forum for me to find answers to really interesting questions. If so, that was my mistake and I take responsibility for that. I turned to the quant community in the hopes that somebody (a specialist like yourself) could explain things in plain language. The textbooks don't do this with certain topics (like delta).
Thank you for your consideration and time. Peace.