"We're either going to need to add some shorter words to this language or start speaking Baseline, if you're going to go around saying sentences like that."

"It was relatively subtle, in this case, and did depend on my exact wording.  Suppose that I say I'm indifferent between red and blue, and indifferent between blue and green, but I prefer green to red.  That can't be done with numbers, but you can't extract all my money out of me either."

"What you can do is offer to trade me red to blue for free, after having previously made me a standing offer to trade blue to green for free, and I'll turn you down because I'm indifferent about both of those trades.  Then you offer to trade me red to green for a copper, and I accept.  I didn't pay out all my money by a repeatable path, but I paid more than I needed to."

"If we add the specification about that never happening, then the claim becomes fully true; if you want things consistently you must be able to order them consistently."

"We're either going to need to add some shorter words to this language or start speaking Baseline, if you're going to go around saying sentences like that."

"It was relatively subtle, in this case, and did depend on my exact wording.  Suppose that I say I'm indifferent between red and blue, and indifferent between blue and green, but I prefer green to red.  That can't be done with numbers, but you can't extract all my money out of me either."

"What you can do is offer to trade me red to blue for free, after having previously made me a standing offer to trade blue to green for free, and I'll turn you down because I'm indifferent about both of those trades.  Then you offer to trade me red to green for a copper, and I accept.  I didn't pay out all my money by a repeatable path, but I paid more than I needed to."

"If we add the specification about that never happening, then the claim becomes fully true; if you want things in a way that doesn't ignore cheaper paths to a destination you'd otherwise pay more for, you must be able to order your wants consistently."

Asmodia has an overconfidence problem but Keltham will, again, wait until she's actually wrong to make that point.

"We're either going to need to add some shorter words to this language or start speaking Baseline, if you're going to go around saying sentences like that."

"It was relatively subtle, in this case, and did depend on my exact wording.  Suppose that I say I'm indifferent between red and blue, and indifferent between blue and green, but I prefer green to red.  That can't be done with numbers, but you can't extract all my money out of me either."

"What you can do is offer to trade me red to blue for free, after having previously made me a standing offer to trade blue to green for free, and I'll turn you down because I'm indifferent about both of those trades.  Then you offer to trade me red to green for a copper, and I accept.  I didn't pay out all my money by a repeatable path, but I paid more than I needed to."

"If we add the specification about that never happening, then the claim becomes fully true; if you want things in a way that doesn't ignore cheaper paths to a destination you'd otherwise pay more for, you must be able to order your wants consistently."

Asmodia has an overconfidence problem, but Keltham will again wait until she's actually wrong to make that point.

"We're either going to need to add some shorter words to this language or start speaking Baseline, if you're going to go around saying sentences like that."

"It was relatively subtle, in this case, and did depend on my exact wording.  Suppose that I say I'm indifferent between red and blue, and indifferent between blue and green, but I prefer green to red.  That can't be done with numbers, but you can't extract all my money out of me either."

"What you can do is offer to trade me red to blue for free, after having previously made me a standing offer to trade blue to green for free, and I'll turn you down because I'm indifferent about both of those trades.  Then you offer to trade me red to green for a copper, and I accept.  I didn't pay out all my money by a repeatable path, but I paid more than I needed to."

"If we add the specification about that never happening, then the claim becomes fully true; if you want things in a way that doesn't ignore cheaper paths to a destination you'd otherwise pay more for, you must be able to order your wants consistently."

Asmodia has an overconfidence problem, but Keltham will again wait until she's actually wrong to make that point.

"We're either going to need to add some shorter words to this language or start speaking Baseline, if you're going to go around saying sentences like that."

"It was relatively subtle, in this case, and did depend on my exact wording.  Suppose that I say I'm indifferent between red and blue, and indifferent between blue and green, but I prefer green to red.  That can't be done with numbers, but you can't extract all my money out of me either."

"What you can do is offer to trade me red to blue for free, after having previously made me a standing offer to trade blue to green for free, and I'll turn you down because I'm indifferent about both of those trades.  Then you offer to trade me red to green for a copper, and I accept.  I didn't pay out all my money by a repeatable path, but I paid more than I needed to."

"If we add the specification about that never happening, then the claim becomes fully true: if you want things in a way that doesn't ignore cheaper paths to a destination you'd otherwise pay more for, you must be able to order your wants consistently."

"Or if we allow that you can pay me an arbitrarily small fraction of a copper to switch two things between which I'm otherwise indifferent, and say there's always some nonzero amount I'd pay to switch up in a direction of active preference, the claim is again fully true and you can otherwise pump money out of me."

Asmodia has an overconfidence problem, but Keltham will again wait until she's actually wrong to make that point.

"We're either going to need to add some shorter words to this language or start speaking Baseline, if you're going to go around saying sentences like that."

"It was relatively subtle, in this case, and did depend on my exact wording.  Suppose that I say I'm indifferent between red and blue, and indifferent between blue and green, but I prefer green to red.  That can't be done with numbers, but you can't extract all my money out of me either."

"What you can do is offer to trade me red to blue for free, after having previously made me a standing offer to trade blue to green for free, and I'll turn you down because I'm indifferent about both of those trades.  Then you offer to trade me red to green for a copper, and I accept.  I didn't pay out all my money by a repeatable path, but I paid more than I needed to."

"If we add the specification about that never happening, then the claim becomes fully true: if you want things in a way that doesn't ignore cheaper paths to a destination you'd otherwise pay more for, you must be able to order your wants consistently."

"Or if we allow that you can pay me an arbitrarily small fraction of a copper to switch two things between which I'm otherwise indifferent, and say there's always some nonzero amount I'd pay to switch up in a direction of active preference, the claim is again fully true and you can otherwise pump money out of me.  Versions of the theory that talk about infinitely divisible money that way are considered less profound, though."

Asmodia has an overconfidence problem, but Keltham will again wait until she's actually wrong to make that point.

"We're either going to need to add some shorter words to this language or start speaking Baseline, if you're going to go around saying sentences like that."

"It was relatively subtle, in this case, and did depend on my exact wording.  Suppose that I say I'm indifferent between red and blue, and indifferent between blue and green, but I prefer green to red.  That can't be done with numbers, but you can't extract all my money out of me either."

"What you can do is offer to trade me red to blue for free, after having previously made me a standing offer to trade blue to green for free, and I'll turn you down because I'm indifferent about both of those trades.  Then you offer to trade me red to green for a copper, and I accept.  I didn't pay out all my money by a repeatable path, but I paid more than I needed to."

"If we add the specification about that never happening, then the claim becomes fully true: if you want things in a way that doesn't ignore cheaper paths to a destination you'd otherwise pay more for, you must be able to order your wants consistently."

"Or if we allow that you can pay me an arbitrarily small fraction of a copper to switch two things between which I'm otherwise indifferent, and say there's always some nonzero amount I'd pay to switch up in a direction of active preference, the claim is again fully true and you can otherwise pump money out of me.  Versions of the theory that talk about arbitrarily small bits of money are considered less profound, though."

Asmodia has an overconfidence problem, but Keltham will again wait until she's actually wrong to make that point.

"We're either going to need to add some shorter words to this language or start speaking Baseline, if you're going to go around saying sentences like that."

"It was relatively subtle, in this case, and did depend on my exact wording.  Suppose that I say I'm indifferent between red and blue, and indifferent between blue and green, but I prefer green to red.  That can't be done with numbers, but you can't extract all my money out of me either."

"What you can do is offer to trade me red to blue for free, after having previously made me a standing offer to trade blue to green for free, and I'll turn you down because I'm indifferent about both of those trades.  Then you offer to trade me red to green for a copper, and I accept.  I didn't pay out all my money by a repeatable path, but I paid more than I needed to."

"If we add the specification about that never happening, then the claim becomes fully true: if you want things in a way that doesn't ignore cheaper paths to a destination you'd otherwise pay more for, you must be able to order your wants consistently."

"Or if we allow that you can pay me an arbitrarily small fraction of a copper to switch two things between which I'm otherwise indifferent, and say there's always some nonzero amount I'd pay to switch up in a direction of active preference, the claim is again fully true and you can otherwise pump money out of me.  Versions of the proof that require people paying arbitrarily small fractions of money are considered less profound, though."

Asmodia has an overconfidence problem, but Keltham will again wait until she's actually wrong to make that point.

"We're either going to need to add some shorter words to this language or start speaking Baseline, if you're going to go around saying sentences like that."

"It was relatively subtle, in this case, and did depend on my exact wording.  Suppose that I say I'm indifferent between red and blue, and indifferent between blue and green, but I prefer green to red.  That can't be done with numbers, but you can't extract all my money out of me either."

"What you can do is offer to trade me red to blue for free, after having previously made me a standing offer to trade blue to green for free, and I'll turn you down because I'm indifferent about both of those trades.  Then you offer to trade me red to green for a copper, and I accept.  I didn't pay out all my money by a repeatable path, but I paid more than I needed to."

"You could also imagine that this reflects a situation where I like blue a bit more than red, but not enough to pay the time-energy-attention cost of taking your offer to trade the two for free, and I like green a bit more than blue, but the total gap from red to green isn't enough to pay time costs on two swaps, only time cost on one swap."

"If we say that when I'm indifferent I'll always let you walk over and switch the two items without my bothering about it, then the claim becomes fully true and you can pump infinite money or time out of me if my preferences don't form a - can't be ordered the way I talked about."