wait, that's me! boo on you for booing me!

How do you know who's doing it?

In constructive mathematics, not (not A) doesn't imply A: Given some (A -> EmptySet) -> EmptySet, you'd be hard-pressed to extract an A using the usual methods.

You could try to go: "The (A -> EmptySet) -> EmptySet must surely use its input, where else would it get an element of EmptySet? So I will attach a debugger to it and watch for when it tries to call its input with some A; then abort the proceedings and return the A it came up with." But theoretically, you'd need an extra axiom to allow such a trick.

I suspect that the principle is true, but needs more axioms to prove than one would like.

You can anti-correlate it by running 1000 markets on different questions you're interested in, and announcing that all but a randomly chosen one will N/A, so as to not need to feed an insurer. This also means traders on any of your markets can get a free loan to trade on the others.

Can you do three markets with 0%, 33% and 66% to N/A, to extrapolate what 99% N/A would do?

a small change in the input can't correspond to an arbitrarily large change in the output

The sign function doesn't have an arbitrarily large change in the output. Do you maybe mean that an infinitesimal change in the input can only produce an infinitesimal change in the output? I don't see how that fails, but maybe just because I don't have a definition for it at hand.

you haven't deleted it.

you're getting fleeced, go to a print shop and print some cards on thick paper and cut them with their cutting tools. if you print 9 decks side-by-side on a stack of A4 paper you might not even need to measure.