|
On May 01 2009 17:02 Malongo wrote:Use spoilers + Show Spoiler +On May 01 2009 16:53 Ichigo1234551 wrote:
-79 for the change he gave the kid back
-18 for the cost of the toy
-100 for the money he gave the vendor
so 197 -197+ 100 from neighbor= -97
+ Show Spoiler +You do know that the "+100 from neighbor" you have posted is the fake 100? So he actually does lose 197
|
On May 01 2009 19:01 kOre wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2009 17:02 Malongo wrote:Use spoilers + Show Spoiler +On May 01 2009 16:53 Ichigo1234551 wrote:
-79 for the change he gave the kid back
-18 for the cost of the toy
-100 for the money he gave the vendor
so 197 -197+ 100 from neighbor= -97 + Show Spoiler +You do know that the "+100 from neighbor" you have posted is the fake 100? So he actually does lose 197
+ Show Spoiler +The fake 100 is from the boy not the neighbours
|
+ Show Spoiler +
-18 -> cost of toy
+100 -> the money his neighbor gives
-79 -> change to the kid (real $).
-100 -> the money he gives back to neighbor
-----
-97
|
+ Show Spoiler +-18 for purchasing the toy. Then he gives 79 back to the kid. Which leaves him with 21. Now he got to give back the 100$. So its 21-100-18= -97
|
+ Show Spoiler +97 dollars, but I thought about it a little differently. Remember the kid gets smaller bills from the neighbor, so when he buys the toy ideally he gets no change back, but the point is he pays with real money. Vendor makes 3 dollars, but then has to lose 100 dollars to the neighbor.
|
|
|
as a math major, i have to say that the question is painfully imprecisely worded
|
+ Show Spoiler +
He lost $79 from the transaction.
Whether or not the kid ever walked into the shop is irrelevant to his original purchase of $18
|
On May 01 2009 22:53 Day[9] wrote:
as a math major, i have to say that the question is painfully imprecisely worded
I can't imagine this being hard to understand.
|
+ Show Spoiler +start
lender vendor boy
(100) (100+toy) (100f)
end
lender vendor boy
(100) (21 + 100f) (79+toy)
It's a closed system so we can just look at the beginning and the end. The lender's money doesn't change so he's ignored. Since the boy gains 79 + toy the vendor must have lost 79 + toy which equates to 97. This makes since because all the vendor is really out is the fake hundred plus the difference in the toy's buy/sell price.
edit-made numbers easier to tell apart.
|
|
|
just read the op so far
we assume the child with $100 buys as many toys as he can with the $100, as all children would, or 1, which i assume is more likely intended.
|
|
|
On May 02 2009 01:51 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2009 22:53 Day[9] wrote:
as a math major, i have to say that the question is painfully imprecisely worded I can't imagine this being hard to understand.
Pretty sure you don't think about it like a math major.
+ Show Spoiler +The tricky part is "this transaction," which as written could refer to any of the total net loss the toy plus the fake 100, the loss from just the trades with the neighbor, or the loss just from being forced to give 100 back to the neighbor. The math is trivial in all cases and the problem is unclear as to the definition of the transaction, so honestly this isn't a math problem at all, but more of a literature problem of "what did the author actually mean."
That said, to me the most natural interpretation of "transaction" here would be exchanging money with the boy and then having to give money back to the neighbor. The original cost of the toy was paid at a another time, a sunk cost, and wouldn't count for this. Thus, I would consider his loss for "this transaction" as $79. I'd say the people saying $97 have nearly as good an argument, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
