> Now that you know my definition there should be nothing more for us to discuss. I disagree. The reason I disagree is the impact of the different definitions

> Now that you know my definition there should be nothing more for us to discuss. I disagree. The reason I disagree is the impact of the different definitions on the original statement I was challenging: > if a body could run itself more efficiently then it would by default. Using my definition of "efficiency", this statement strikes me as self-evidently true. Using your definition of "efficiency", this statement strikes me as probably false and strongly contradicts my priors. After all, every system in the face of input energy restrictions must do less total work. So, if I accept your definition (which I'm happy to do for the conversation, since it's just a semantic difference), I think this statement is much less likely to be accurate, and certainly isn't self-evident.