# See if you can get this Maths Question right

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

#### mchammer187

##### Diamond Member
Originally posted by: AnnihilatorX
The answer is \$100 as stated at page 5

Basically what Amused said
Its not \$97 as if the buyer didnt cheat the shopkeeper would have earned \$3 by selling the \$21 product
-\$100 would be what the shopkeeper would put down in his account book

but if he can easily obtain more of product A at \$18

lets say i price a bag of potatoe chips that i got for a quarter for \$20

but someone gives me a fake \$20 bill for it

is that really a \$20 loss?

since the shop owner dictates the price I dont see how it can be considered a \$20 loss unless it was an item that could not be replaced at cost

if it costs him \$18 + shipping to replace one than the true cost is higher than \$18

#### EmperorIQ

##### Platinum Member
i'm going to have to say 197

#### dullard

##### Elite Member
Wow. This thread is funny. The answer is \$97. And to ease concern of those who worry about lost profits, lets assume it is a typical business with tons of product on the shelf. The next customer comes in and buys the product on the shelf - no lost profit. Then the store owner buys the item without ever running out of stock and never any lost profit.

#### piasabird

##### Lifer
Replacement cost may actually be more than what was paid for the item originally.

Of course the other shop owner may call the police and claim you passed a Forged Note knowingly and then you could be going to jail also.

#### mobobuff

##### Lifer
Ahhh, good ol' ATOT.

Get it wrong at first, then get it right after a few minutes of actual thought, then ANALYZE THE MISERABLE HELL out of it, only to get it wrong again.

#### MobiusPizza

##### Platinum Member
Originally posted by: AnnihilatorX
Many people have realised it already and "actively" trying to convince others;

So I'd just put down the official answer.
The official answer is \$100 though because -

As BurnItDwn pointed out, losing more than \$100 is wrong. The neigbour was just a wash since the neigbour did not gain or lose. The total amount of money involved in the transaction was no more than \$100

Firstly; the shopkeeper Mr. Anderson lost his \$18 to the buyer Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown paid Mr. Anderson a courtfert \$100 note; which equals nothing; Mr. Anderson gave him a change of \$79

In this view Mr. Anderson had gained \$0-\$79-\$18 = -\$97

However strictly speaking; as royaldank and Amused pointed out;
It depends on what the definition of "lost" in the question is.
He'd have that \$3 profit if the product had successfully sold to any customer
Although he physically lost \$97; -\$100 is what he'd put in his account book

Congradulations to royaldank as the first person realising this.
Thanks everyone for their active participation

The swift replies had suprised me
I personally got \$197, then changed my mind to \$97 when I first tackled this question.
If you view it at an angle like the explanation above, it's pretty simple.

#### MobiusPizza

##### Platinum Member
... Put it this way
The shopkeeper gave the customer change and product
But the buyer paid him \$100 fake notes

Shopkeeper loses \$100

Althought the "physical" lost is only \$97
However; If you sell the product successfully you would have earned \$3 profit
If you use a hammer and break the product, youd say I've lost \$18 + \$3 profit that Id earn if I sell this to a customer;
It's debatable, based on the definition of "lost"; But Id leave the official answer as that, which is what you normally do in business world; I didnt invent it.

#### mooncancook

##### Platinum Member
SK = Shop Keeper

Step 1:
SKA gives \$100 fake bill to SKB for a change of \$100 real bills
SKA: +100
SKB: 0

Step 2:
SKA give product to buyer at a cost of \$18:
SKA: +100 - 18 = +82
SKB: 0

Step 3:
SKA give change of \$79 to buyer:
SKA: +82 - 79 = +3
SKB: 0

Step 4:
SKB realized the fake bill:
SKA: +3
SKB: -100

Step 5:
SKB ask SKA to pay back \$100
SKA: +3 - 100 = -97
SKB: -100 + 100 = 0

SKA: -97
SKB: 0

#### 95SS

##### Golden Member

Customer - Gives shopkeeper \$0 (counterfeit bill), gets back \$100 (\$21 product + \$79 in cash) - NET +\$100
Shopkeeper - Receives \$0 (counterfeit bill), gives back \$100 (\$21 product + \$79 in cash) - NET -\$100
Neighbor - Gives shopkeeper \$100, receives nothing, then gives nothing and receives \$100 - NET \$0

The shopkeeper is out \$100. An argument could be made that the shopkeeper is actually only out \$97, the cash plus the cost of the item, but lost profits are still a loss, so I say \$100.

#### Amused

##### Elite Member
Originally posted by: Yax
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Yax
He's out \$18 for the cost of the product.
He's out \$100 which he had to pay the neighbor.
Total loss: \$118.

You're forgetting he kept \$21 out of the \$100 when he made change at the time of sale.

It's \$100 folks. Businesses count the lost profit as a loss when an time is stolen. They claim the retail price, not the wholesale price.

NO, he didn't get to keep that because he had to give that to the other shop's owner. (\$100 payback). He lost \$18 which is the cost of the product so when you add that to the \$100, it makes \$118.

Edit: Well, what he claims and what he actually lost are different things. Ofcourse you're going to claim the lost profit. It makes good biz sense to do so.

WRONG. When he sold the item, he gave the counterfeiter \$79 + a \$21 item. That means he lost \$100.

He now owes his neighbor \$100 because the \$100 came from the neighbor, not the customer.

Your answer of 118 is wrong any way you look at it. It ignores the fact that the shop keeper did not give the customer back \$100. He gave him \$79.

#### squeeg22

##### Senior member
Some of the logic being used in this thread amazes me. The only valid argument is based on the definiton of loss of profit and actual realized loss (the difference between \$97 loss and \$100 loss).

Next time someones posts a "How smart are you?" or "What is your IQ?" type of question, I'm calling a preemptive shens on the majority of your answers. This thread made the logic flowing in the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus thread seem reasonable.

\$21.5

#### Confused

##### Elite Member
I have just argued with my GF for nearly 45 mins about this - she was adamant the answer was \$121 - and got so close to saying \$100 then backed away from it "no it's NOT right, it's \$121!" lol

Finally managed to explain it to her in a way she'd listen to...though it'll still probably be argued about when I see her at the weekend!

#### mugs

##### Lifer
Originally posted by: 95SS
The shopkeeper is out \$100. An argument could be made that the shopkeeper is actually only out \$97, the cash plus the cost of the item, but lost profits are still a loss, so I say \$100.

He hasn't lost any profit until someone else wants to buy the item and can't because one was stolen. I think either \$100 or \$97 would be acceptable, depending on how you look at it. Mentioning the cost of the item without clarifying whether potentially lost profits count is just dumb.

Anything OTHER than \$97 or \$100 is just plain wrong.

#### Kyteland

##### Diamond Member
Originally posted by: r6ashih
the shop keeper is out \$200

he gave 100 of product and change to the purchaser
had to repay 100 to neighbor

Wrong. Remember that he originally traded the counterfit \$100 to the neighbor which is a \$100 profit to him. The \$100 to repay the neighbor cancels that out.

-\$100 from the customer
+\$100 from the neighbor (first trade)
-\$100 from the neighbor (second trade)

Total: -\$100

The correct answer ir either \$97 or \$100 depending on if you count the lost profit.

#### Argo

##### Lifer
Originally posted by: nwfsnake
He gave the customer \$79 in change.
He gave the customer a product which cost him \$18.
He gave the other shop keeper \$100 back.

\$79 that he gave to the customer came from the other shopkeeper, and therefore it wasn't the loss to him
He also got to keep \$21 from the other shopkeeper.

#### iversonyin

##### Diamond Member
Product cost: -\$18
Change give to Anderson: -\$79

if Brown swap \$100 bill with \$100 worth of changes from other shopkeeper, since the orginal bill was a counterfiet. Brown would have \$21 of real cash left after giving out \$79 of change to Anderson. Now becasue the shopkeeper demand \$100 back, he has to fork out another \$79 to make up the \$100 worth of change to give back to the shopkeeper.

So its \$79+\$79 + \$21 or 18(depend on how u count inventory loss)= \$179 or \$176

#### Amused

##### Elite Member
Originally posted by: iversonyin
Product cost: -\$18
Change give to Anderson: -\$79

if Brown swap \$100 bill with \$100 worth of changes from other shopkeeper, since the orginal bill was a counterfiet. Brown would have \$21 of real cash left after giving out \$79 of change to Anderson. Now becasue the shopkeeper demand \$100 back, he has to fork out another \$79 to make up the \$100 worth of change to give back to the shopkeeper.

So its \$79+\$79 + \$21 or 18(depend on how u count inventory loss)= \$179 or \$176

You've got an extra 100 in there.

How the fsck are you people doing that? No matter how many times I allow the neighbors mule to kick me in the head, I still come up with \$100 or \$97 as an answer.

#### mugs

##### Lifer
Originally posted by: iversonyin
Product cost: -\$18
Change give to Anderson: -\$79

if Brown swap \$100 bill with \$100 worth of changes from other shopkeeper, since the orginal bill was a counterfiet. Brown would have \$21 of real cash left after giving out \$79 of change to Anderson. Now becasue the shopkeeper demand \$100 back, he has to fork out another \$79 to make up the \$100 worth of change to give back to the shopkeeper.

So its \$79+\$79 + \$21 or 18(depend on how u count inventory loss)= \$179 or \$176

If he got the change from the shopkeeper then traded it right back for the counterfeit bill, how much would he be out? \$0. Leaving just the change he gave (\$79) and the price or cost of the shoes as his loss.

#### iversonyin

##### Diamond Member
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: iversonyin
Product cost: -\$18
Change give to Anderson: -\$79

if Brown swap \$100 bill with \$100 worth of changes from other shopkeeper, since the orginal bill was a counterfiet. Brown would have \$21 of real cash left after giving out \$79 of change to Anderson. Now becasue the shopkeeper demand \$100 back, he has to fork out another \$79 to make up the \$100 worth of change to give back to the shopkeeper.

So its \$79+\$79 + \$21 or 18(depend on how u count inventory loss)= \$179 or \$176

You've got an extra 100 in there.

How the fsck are you people doing that? No matter how many times I allow the neighbors mule to kick me in the head, I still come up with \$100 or \$97 as an answer.

Money to Anderson : \$18 or \$21 worth of product + \$79 real cash
Money pay back to shopkeeper: \$79 (remember, you swap him a fake bill....so in theory...you borrowed \$100 from him, and since u gave \$79 of that away to Anderson and you only have \$21 cash left, you hav to run to ATM and get \$79 + ur cash on hand to this guy)

#### Confused

##### Elite Member
It's a REALLY simple maths problem, but it's worded in a way to confuse the hell out of most people.

0 + 100 (borrowed from neighbour) = +100
-79 given to customer = +21
-18/-21 given to customer (product) = +3/0
-100 given to neighbour = -97/-100

It's really that simple - the wording is to throw you off - and it's clearly worked on most of you dumbasses.

#### Amused

##### Elite Member
Originally posted by: iversonyin
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: iversonyin
Product cost: -\$18
Change give to Anderson: -\$79

if Brown swap \$100 bill with \$100 worth of changes from other shopkeeper, since the orginal bill was a counterfiet. Brown would have \$21 of real cash left after giving out \$79 of change to Anderson. Now becasue the shopkeeper demand \$100 back, he has to fork out another \$79 to make up the \$100 worth of change to give back to the shopkeeper.

So its \$79+\$79 + \$21 or 18(depend on how u count inventory loss)= \$179 or \$176

You've got an extra 100 in there.

How the fsck are you people doing that? No matter how many times I allow the neighbors mule to kick me in the head, I still come up with \$100 or \$97 as an answer.

Money to Anderson : \$18 or \$21 worth of product + \$79 real cash
Money pay back to shopkeeper: \$79 (remember, you swap him a fake bill....so in theory...you borrowed \$100 from him, and since u gave \$79 of that away to Anderson and you only have \$21 cash left, you hav to run to ATM and get \$79 + ur cash on hand to this guy)

Uh huh.

He took 100 from his neighbor.

He gave \$79 + a \$21 item to the thief.

He now owes his neighbor \$100. He has \$21 in cash, but gave away a \$21 item. So he is out \$100.

Simplified: He made change for a fake 100. He is out 100. That he borrowed the 100 from the other guy to make change is irrelvant. All this means is the theif stole the money from the neighbor by proxy. But the first shopkeeper is an honest guy and will pay it back to the neighbor.

In the end, he is out \$100.

#### 95SS

##### Golden Member
Originally posted by: iversonyin
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: iversonyin
Product cost: -\$18
Change give to Anderson: -\$79

if Brown swap \$100 bill with \$100 worth of changes from other shopkeeper, since the orginal bill was a counterfiet. Brown would have \$21 of real cash left after giving out \$79 of change to Anderson. Now becasue the shopkeeper demand \$100 back, he has to fork out another \$79 to make up the \$100 worth of change to give back to the shopkeeper.

So its \$79+\$79 + \$21 or 18(depend on how u count inventory loss)= \$179 or \$176

You've got an extra 100 in there.

How the fsck are you people doing that? No matter how many times I allow the neighbors mule to kick me in the head, I still come up with \$100 or \$97 as an answer.

Money to Anderson : \$18 or \$21 worth of product + \$79 real cash
Money pay back to shopkeeper: \$79 (remember, you swap him a fake bill....so in theory...you borrowed \$100 from him, and since u gave \$79 of that away to Anderson and you only have \$21 cash left, you hav to run to ATM and get \$79 + ur cash on hand to this guy)

Did the neighbor profit from this transaction with the shopkeeper? No, he broke even. Therefore the transaction between the neighbor and the shopkeeper can be taken out of the equation. Rethink the problem assuming that the shopkeeper didn't have to make change for the \$100 bill.

#### Kev

##### Lifer
Originally posted by: iversonyin
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: iversonyin
Product cost: -\$18
Change give to Anderson: -\$79

if Brown swap \$100 bill with \$100 worth of changes from other shopkeeper, since the orginal bill was a counterfiet. Brown would have \$21 of real cash left after giving out \$79 of change to Anderson. Now becasue the shopkeeper demand \$100 back, he has to fork out another \$79 to make up the \$100 worth of change to give back to the shopkeeper.

So its \$79+\$79 + \$21 or 18(depend on how u count inventory loss)= \$179 or \$176

You've got an extra 100 in there.

How the fsck are you people doing that? No matter how many times I allow the neighbors mule to kick me in the head, I still come up with \$100 or \$97 as an answer.

Money to Anderson : \$18 or \$21 worth of product + \$79 real cash
Money pay back to shopkeeper: \$79 (remember, you swap him a fake bill....so in theory...you borrowed \$100 from him, and since u gave \$79 of that away to Anderson and you only have \$21 cash left, you hav to run to ATM and get \$79 + ur cash on hand to this guy)

think of it as the neighbor just giving \$100 directly to the thief. then the shopkeeper gives the neighbor the money: \$21 (from sale of the merchandise) + \$79 change to make up for it. the shopkeeper only nets -100.