I can see how the money pump argument demonstrates the irrationality of an agent with cyclic preferences. Is there a more general argument that demonstrates the irrationality of an agent with intransitive preferences of any kind (not merely one with cyclic preferences)?
Just in case - synchronising the definitions.
I usually consider something transitive if "X≥Y, Y≥Z then X≥Z" holds for all X,Y,Z.
If this holds, preferences are transitive. Otherwise, there are some X,Y,Z: X≥Y, Y≥Z, Z>X. I would call that cyclical.
Previously: round 1, round 2, round 3
From the original thread:
Ask away!