/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>12122001
the answer is as follows: op is a faggot

>>12122001
>what is fungibility
$100

>>12122003
18 balls visible in the picture

$30 plus $70 worth of goods

>>12122030
I'll have some of what he's having

>>12122001
-100
-70
+70
-30

Answer is D $130.

>>12122001
The owner lost a hundred bucks
70 worth of merchandise and 30 in cash

>>12122001
C
1. Owner initially losses $100
2. Owner gets back the $100, but gives $70 product and $30 change

1. -$100
2. +$100 - $70 - $30

Owner is down $100

>>12122069
Nevermind I am retarded. I skipped over the "bought with $100 bill part"

>>12122069
we have a retard here

-$200 because the bill used to buy the food was stolen

>>12122069
Thank God for this containment board

The owner initially had 130 in cash and 70 in merchandise.

After he is with 100 dollars from the initially 200 of total.

How serious should you take information anyone could have written?

Store owner -$100
Store owner -$70 worth of goods with the $100 already stolen
Store owner +$30 from the same $100
Store owner $-30 from the same $100

Dude lost $170 you brainlets

$170
$-70 goods
$-30 change
$-70 loss of money involved in selling goods.

he earned 30 dollars

>>12122181
>>12122150
>>12122135
>>12122112
>>12122106
>>12122069

t-this is /biz/ gentlemen.
these are the people shorting crypto right now.

>>12122003
30

>>12122001
$100

>>12122198
This is why when /biz/ says sell, I keep buying. Eventually they’ll realise they’re stupid and wrong and buy back in. The majority on /biz/ is exactly the same as the majority anywhere else. They’re idiots.

The answer is $100 by the way. The $70 worth of groceries was paid for by a stolen $100 bill. $70 groceries + $30 change = negative $100 for the owner.

>>12122241
Impossible to know, since it's a straight substitution cypher (a pictograms equals a numerical value) there's no way to prove the assumption you're all going to make that (value of 1 beer bottle) == ((value of 2 beer bottles)*0.5)

>>12122280
Correction- for "beer bottle" read "beer glass"

>>12122276
>>12122276
>>12122110
These are the people who bought LINK because they were too autistic to realize it was just a standard 4chan meme.

>steals $100
-100
>5 min later buys $70 worth for $100 and $30 in change
+100, -70, -30
>5 min later
Assuming 2.25% interest rate, -0.0009513

Total: She stole $100.0009513

The answer is 100$-("gains" after taxes from the sale)+(potential profit lost from not serving other customers), so the question is fucking retarded.

>>12122001
200 dollars. 100 dollar bill, 70 dollars of merchandise and 30 OP is a faggot bitch

>>12122280
What, it's 65.

>>12122299
>Not factoring in the depreciation of USD in the time between stealing the money and making a purchase

>>12122241
25

the answer is $200 you stupid fucks.

$100 stolen from the register
$70 in merch + $30 in change off a purchase made with STOLEN money

$200, and if it was a big enough amount to sue over i would bend the cunt over and fingerbang every last penny i could get out of her.

>>12122241
17 stoopid head
bottled beer = 10
burger = 5
draft beer =2

He lost $100. He might have gotten $70 back for the sale, but he also lost $70 in goods, in addition to the $30 she kept.

Anyone deviating from $100 is retarded.

>>12122241
15

$30 plus the unknown amount of money he paid for the clothes.

>>12122337
multiplication sign not addition @ the end there bucko

>>12122335
25 is close but you’re 10 off from the correct answer of 15. You probably thought it was two pints in the last equation but it’s just 1. 2 pints = $2, 1 pint = $1.

>>12122310

Damn I'm retarded, forgot that.

$100.0009513 - (assuming 15% profit margin an 40% tax rate) $4.20 =
$104.2009513

>>12122241
oh wait that s an x
values still apply
the answer is 60
I'm an architect

>>12122001
>>12122030
>>12122038
>>12122069
>>12122075
>>12122135
>>12122150
>>12122181

Depends on the what he paid wholesale for the "sold" goods and whether you are talking about accounting loss or cash loss. Maybe he paid $15 wholesale, had it listed on the shelf as a $100 item with a 30% off discount, but books it as a $100 stolen good for the additional tax write-off. But in cash loss terms it's (wholesale cost of lost items)+($30 cash gone)=(total cash loss)

.t business owner

>>12122336
so this is the power of common core...

>>12122359
fuck I didn't realize the beer cups were different

You cannot know the answer unless you assume that the single cup is half the cost of the double.

Meaning the answer would be 15, assuming.

>>12122320
>3x == 30
x == 10
>x + 2y == 20
y == 5
>y+2z == 9
z == 2
>z+ax == b
There is no way to find a and therefore no way to find b

>>12122014
the shields overlap incorrectly. would block arrows better if it overlapped the other way and it would also be easier to make the roof if the first row would raise the shields and then the second, then the third etc

>>12122364
order of operations, you multiply first

>>12122379
>he would sit there trying to reason with a cunt thief rather than getting maximum amount of $ back plus pain & suffering

look at this fucking s o y boy faggot.

>>12122001
G somewhere between 30 and 100 because the owner was going to make a gain on the 70 dollar purchase.

If we assume the profit margin on the item was 20 dollar, and if she hadn't taken the 100 dollar bill and would have purchased the item, the owner would have gained 20 bucks.
But she did not so he lost 80.
Losing means having less than what you had. Not having less than what you could have had.
Otherwise everyone would be a loser.
This is the only correct answer.

>>12122383
j/k btw

>>12122396
okay its 35,,,,,,,,,
okay I'm switching careers. If you live in Louisiana......sorry

>>12122420
kek

>>12122371
>don't overthink it
Says it right in the picture pal

>>12122241
(10) + (10) + (10) = 30
(10) + (5) + (5) = 20
(5) + (1 + 1) + (1 + 1) = 9
(5) + (1) * (10) = 15

This is a dumb one anyway

>>12122401
so this is the power of /pol/...

>>12122003
30

gg spatial reasoning

>>12122450
For all you know, those balls could be held up by dowel rods. Count what you see, not what you think might be there

>>12122437
Fucking imbecile

>>12122436

I'm in the business of making money, but if you insist on ignoring profit:
>$100 leaves
Same $100 dollars come back into the register
>$70 goods and $30 cash leaves ($100 total)
Therefore owner lost $100 according to retard public schooling logic.

>>12122074
>>12122075
Incorrect, he lost $100 (stolen bill)
$30 (change)
$70 (merchandise)

Or you can say he got the $100 back so he didn't lose it, but then you have to accommodate for the $100 of merchandise he is essentially giving away for free since the profit for that was stolen (whatever he sold to originally get that $100 bill)

So 200 total

You roll two 6 sided die. One is a them is a 6. What is the probability they are both 6? (the answer is not 1/6)

>>12122494
Why would you not treat the purchase as a a separate legitimate transaction?

>>12122512
Are you rolling two d6 simultaneously, or one d6 twice?

>>12122342
It's 200 with that reasoning you have to then take into account the fact that he essentially gave $100 in merchandise away for free. (The sale in which the store owner initially got the $100)

200 is correct

>>12122371
>didnt mention the opportunity cost loss of having the product removed and not being able to be sold to another customer
good heavens

>>12122536

Doesn't matter.

>>12122495
>>12122537

What if she bought $70 of goods with a $100 bill, got $30 in change, and then stole the $100, would you still think the store owner lost $200 and not $100?

>>12122512
>One is a them is a 6.
Can you elaborate on this?

A drug test is 90% accurate. 5% of the population are drug users. If a person fails the drug test, what is the probability they are a drug user?

>>12122593
Then it would be 100 loss because you're removing the double spend

>>12122574
>You have 2 variables however I have removed one of them
Then it's 1/6 chance the one dice where the value of a roll isn't given in then problem is a 6

>>12122593
It’s not that though. In your scenario she puts $100 of her own money in at some point. In the described scenario, she puts in $0.

>>12122632
32.1% now answer my previous question >>12122609

Jesus christ you faggots, it's not that complicated. Think about the total amount of assets the owner lost in this case.

-Woman steals $100
---Owner is down $100
-Woman brings $70 asset to counter, hands back $100
---Owner is currently neutral
-Owner gives back $30 of $100
---Owner is now down $30
-Woman takes $70 asset with her out the door
---Owner is down $100 ($70 asset + $30 he gave her)

$100 is the answer

Is biz really this stupid?
And I tought i was on a autistic image board with smart guys.
Cya biz

>>12122666

You roll two die, doesn't matter if at the same time or separately. All you know is one of the die is a 6.

>>12122661

In my case though she doesn't give the $100 she stole back.

>>12122659
This, there is only 6 possible scenario's.

>>12122001
$70 of stolen goods + $30 change = $100 lost, but I would charge the bitch double for the stuff she got if I ever caught her. So E. $170 final answer.

>>12122659
>>12122701

Actually there 11 outcomes where one die being 6 is true.

>>12122698
>All you know is one of the die is a 6.
Do I know that exactly one of the die is a 6? Do I know that a particular die is a 6? Or do I know that at least one of the die is a 6. You have to be more specific than that.

>>12122698
Possibles scenarios:

Either 1, where D2 roll is given in the problems
D1 = 1, D2 = 6
D1 = 2, D2 = 6
D1 = 3, D2 = 6
D1 = 4, D2 = 6
D1 = 5, D2 = 6
D1 = 6, D2 = 6

Or 2, where D1 roll is given in the problem
D1 = 6, D2 = 1
D1 = 6, D2 = 2
D1 = 6, D2 = 3
D1 = 6, D2 = 4
D1 = 6, D2 = 5
D1 = 6, D2 = 6

12 outcomes, 2 of which fulfill criteria both rolls are 6

>>12122359
trick questions are a postmodern invention used to betray your institutionally-conditioned logic modus... the educated are playing cruel tricks on the villagers; there is no winning in the post-enlightenment mess age as a serf, being forced to solve jpegged (jpozzed) digital riddles. truly sickening world we live in

>>12122495
>>12122537
>>12122513

As someone who makes entries into an accounting ledger on a daily basis, this thread gives me an immense sense of employment security.
Again for those who fail at life:
>$100 bill is stolen
>Same $100 is brought back and put in the register, it will not leave again
>$70 in stolen goods and $30 in stolen cash now leave the register ($100 total)
>Therefore, ignoring the unknown profit margin, the store owner lost $100

130.

>>12122001
-$100
>>12122003
None
>>12122241
60


Got them all correct.

Short BTC

>>12122771
Wrongo, fren. He lost his dignity when a fucking roastie stole from him

>>12122771
See
>>12122537
200 is correct

>>12122771
>Why would you not treat the purchase as a separate legitimate transaction?
Please answer this question. You said it yourself that most people would write it off as a $100 loss for tax reasons. It makes no sense to factor in the profit margin from the sale in your loss.

The answer is:

G. when is Bitcoin going to 50000-100000

Listen up you fucking retards. When the roastie takes his $100 and walks out of the store, he's lost $100. Everyone agree so far? Good. What happens next
>someone who isn't the thief walks back into the shop and buys some goods worth x, pays y, and gets change
He's still lost $100 though
>someone else walks into the shop and wants change for the soda machine. Gives x, gets x
He's still lost $100
>Someone walks into the shop with $100 and buys something worth x, pays y, and gets change
He's still lost $100
>Ayo hol up, that person WAS the thief
Doesn't matter.

>>12122771
well then you're a shit fucking accountant who clearly doesn't give a fuck about the company you're working for. technically, under your retarded thinking, they could just keep stealing that $100 bill, and returning with it and the stores revenue would continue to "increase" despite them having money stolen day after day. you are completely wrong, you deserve to be automated

>steal $100 from store
>buy $100 worth of shit from that store
>retarded accountant thinks everything is good cause he sucks cock for fun
>adds into the ledger that an additional $100 in revenue has been gained
>store continuously loses money despite retard accountant saying other wise
>repeat everyday until store goes bankrupt

>>12122758

close, but in the case of 6,6 that is the same outcome, answer is 1/11.

Here is practically same scenario. You go to store and buy $70 worth of groceries. Did nerchant loose money? No. Later a thief steals $100 from the merchant and gives it to you. Owner is now short $100.
Btw. Balls=20
Beer puzzle=25
Good thread, I thought more of this board before. Eye opener.

>>12122802
>People this stupid give advice on /biz/

>>12122805
Because it doesn't matter. The $100 bill leaves and comes back. The only thing that is gone from the store at the end of the series of events is: $70 in goods and $30 in cash.

>>12122786
True mein fren.

>>12122895
Are you retarded? He said the owner lost $100.

>>12122908
Just because there are 11 different outcomes doesn't mean they are all equally likely. One (and only one) outcome will occur twice as often as the others, because there two ways to get there instead of 1 for all the others. This is why retards shouldn't set logic puzzles

>>12122001
The register lost 30$ in total (-100 +100 - 30)
The owner lost some of his product, valued at 70$.
Plus the taxes, labor, rent, etc etc

>>12122939
Yeah that makes him and you retarded as the store owner lost $200

>>12122852
This.

>>12122895
Are you stupid?
Imagine the owner is a dumb fuck and have $130 in cash.
Someone stole $100, he now have $30 left.
Someone buy a $70 good with a $100 bill.
>"perfect.jpg" I exactly have the change.
Gives back $30 and keep the $100 bill.
And now, imagine doing it again.
Someone stole $100, nothing is left.
Someone buy a $70 good with a $100 bill.
>"sorry.gif" I can't give you the change, I don't have enough.
His fucking cash is a FINITE amount, you can't stole it forever.

>>12122134

christ, that bitch is straight from junji ito's imagination

>>12122929
>But in cash loss terms it's (wholesale cost of lost items)+($30 cash gone)=(total cash loss)

>>12122947

You are equally likely to get 6,6 then any other combination, 6,4; 4,6, etc: Think of all outcomes in a grid, then count how many satisfy the condition one is 6, and how many are both 6 (there is only one of 11).

>>12122069
retarded

>>12122241
16 because only one pint instead of two

>>12122947
He's a retard because he made a conditional probability problem with an incredibly vague condition that can be interpreted 3 different ways resulting in 3 different answers. Not for the reason you posted.

>>12122895
>A wildly illiterate anon appears
I'm saying the store lost $100 dollars, retard. How the fuck do you gather I'm saying the store is making money when my words are "the store lost $100". There is no revenue, only the missing $70 goods and missing $30 cash. Period. Also, revenue =/= profit.

>roastie steals $100
owner -100
>roastie comes back and buys a $70 gift card with the stolen $100
owner loses nothing at this point because a gift card has no value before or even after someone buys it. the owner actually gains $70.
>roastie is owed $30 change
owner gives back $30 from the same $100 bill

answer is 30

>>12122106
>>12122135
>>12122150
>>12122316
>>12122336
>>12122495

These are the same guys talking about 145 iq in those threads

>>12122999

"One is a them is a 6" is not vague, in fact is an extremely specific event that is very, very easy to determine if it occurred:

{1,6}: One of them is a 6? True
{1,4}: One of them is a 6? False
{6,6}: One of them is a 6? True

Nothing about that is vague.

>>12122420
>>12122427
But wait it's actually 15
Bottle10 x Pint1 + Burger5

>>12122698
She doesn’t “give the money back,” she exchanges it for goods and change worth an additional $100.

>>12123020
"One is a them is a 6" is a fucking typo you mongoloid.

{6}{?}: One of them is a 6? True
{6,6}: Exactly one of them is a 6? False

>>12123013
This only holds up if the roastie never uses the gift card, which is a stupid assumption.

math threads on 4chan are the fucking best

>>12123049

The fact you had to add the word "exactly" proves my point. If you rolled two 6s and someone asked you "is one of them a 6," the original wording, are you really telling me that you would answer no? Because the statement is true, one of them is a 6, is true.

Its just not intuitive because in order to observe, as an individual, that one is 6 you'd have to observe one, or even both dice. But that actually gives you more information: that a specific die is a 6. Which is why brainlets get so pissed at the wording, they can't understand it.

Think of it like throwing two dice behind a wall and asking a friend "is one of them a six"

>>12122969

We don't know the wholesale price because the problem doesn't specify it. It just says the item is sold for $70. Hypothetically: Wholesale cost + overhead costs + profit margin = $70 shelf price

>>12123072
ah yes, but the question clearly states "how much DID the owner lose?" as in already lost. when she uses that giftcard, he WILL lose something but not yet. i went all in ICON in january btw.

>>12123085
How about you think of it like throwing two dice and one falls off the table but the one that didn't shows a 6.

I use the word exactly because I'm being specific, whereas you're being vague shitter. You could have just as easily said "at least one of the dice is a six". All your examples reflect the "at least one" case.

>>12122001
The only true answer is 170. Come at me brainlets.
>-100
>-70
>-30
>+100
>-70

>>12123094
And my question was why would you do that in the first place even if it was known.

>>12123109

Adding "at least one" doesn't make it more or less vague, but it does make it less concise, and so actually makes the statement less clear. Longer sentence but no more detailed.

And in your scenario the die that remains on the table could not be a 6, but one of the two dice could still be a 6. And so one of them could still be 6. That is what most people don't realize. You wouldn't know of course unless you looked at the other dice, but then you would know if both is 6 or not, which is why the question is tough for brainlets to understand.

>>12123156
>That is what most people don't realize.
No that's what most people don't initially think of because your statement was vague. To parrot you, if you did throw two die and one of them fell off the table, and you looked at the remaining die and it was a 6, you'd think in your head "One of the die is a six". This is the issue with your appeal to natural language argument. You are full of shit.

It's really sad to someone pat themselves in the back for their self-proclaimed superior intelligence to the extent you are for turning a math problem into a trick question.

/biz/ is dumb! DUMB!

>>12123138
Let's say the business' total cost of the good is $20 (so of the $70 item, $50 is profit margin). Then the transactions go like this:
>$100 stolen
>$100 comes back and is put in the register
>Goods that costed the owner $20 leaves along with $30 cash
>Therefore the total cash loss to the owner is $50

>>12123124
>-100(cash stolen)
>+100(cash 'paid' for goods)
>-70 (goods given)
>-30(change given)

where does the extra 70 come from?

>>12123124
Where is the second -70 coming from dumbass

>>12122479
Explain how he's wrong faggot.

>>12123213
>>12123228
Since the lady didn't really buy the 70 dollars item, she actually stole it. So the owner lost the potential earning of 70$.
>>12123246
He's not

>>12123193

No shit, if the question was so easy the first guess was correct there would be no reason to think about it.

>>12123259
That's still the same 70, it was paid for with the 100 from the start.
Owner receives 70 cash for 70 item, so 70 cancels out.

Owner:
-100 (cash stolen)
+100 (cash paid
-70 (item given)
-30(Change given)

Net loss: 100

If you really don't get it you are retarded.

>>12123259
It doesn't matter what the lady did after taking the $100.

But yes she did buy the $70 item, she just paid with stolen money.

>>12122947
Consider this. How many outcomes can you get by rolling 2 dice? First die can be 1 to 6 forming six groups and each group has 6 outcomes according to what the other die is. 6x6=36 outcomes each equally likely. Now select outcomes where one of the dice is 6. That is 1 out of first 5 groups and all of the 6th group. 5+6=11 each equally likely.

>>12123081
you can thank their miscegenated mut education system for that, ask an american to convert fractions of the top of their head for a free 1 hour comedy special

>>12122973
But don't take my word for it. Look at the maths. 100k iterations, 0.16 probability that the other dice roll is a 6

>>12123274
>>12123275
My fucking God you are retarded I swear.
I ll make it easier for you.
>Owner BUYS the item and sells it for 70.
>The -100/+100 thing happens
>Owner gives her 70$ item FOR FREE.

>>12123312
Owner doesnt give it to her for free, he takes 70 for it doesn't he. Also giving 30 in change for the 100 bill he was presented with.

If it werent for the stolen 100 at the beginning, all would be at zero now.

Therefore, the only loss is the initial 100.

You are in need of remedial education.

Follow step by step you dunce

>>12123310

That logic is wrong, since you are passing if the first dice you looked at wasn't 6 when the other could have been.

Just write a program that rolls two dice. If one of the dice is six increment a counter, and if both are 6 increment another counter. Then compare the two.

something like:
one_six = 0
two_six = 0
while one_six < 100000
{
d1, d2 = rand() % 6 + 1, rand() % 6 + 1
if (d1 == 6 || d2 == 6) one_six++
if (d1 == 6 && d2 == 6) two_six++
}
prob = (double)two_six/one_six

>>12123296
See >>12123310

alright you retards i've thought about it some more and here's the REAL answer.

>owner buys goods worth $70 + $100 bill.
-70 + 100 = 30
>roastie steals $100 bill.
30 - 100 = -70
>roastie gives owner $100 bill.
-70 + 100 = 30
>owner gives roastie $70 goods and $30.
30 - 70 - 30 = -70

owner lost $70

>>12123378
Doesn't matter since the pass doesn't increment the counter

>>12123391
You went to public school, didnt you?

>>12123350
This

>>12123350
>>12123409

My fucking god you are so dumb. Ok. Step by step fucking mongoloids
> -100
> -70
> -30
> +100
Are you with me till now? NOW WATCH
> -70
SINCE HE FUCKING BOUGHT THAT ITEM BEFORE TRYING TO SELL IT, so he is losing potentially 70 dollars (not being too autistic on the margin of profit he makes on that item). But he practically got stolen of 70$.

>>12123391
Wrong

If it werent for the stolen 100, its a normal transaction.

Delete the stolen 100 bill from your mind and play it out:

***********
Owner sells item for 70, recieves 100 bill, gives 30 change.

Owner now has 100 bill
Lady has 30 dollars and a 70 item
***********

See, so they are even again, only add back in teh stolen 100 and you have the owner at -100.

Why is this so hard for you

>>12123409
but the loss would technically be the $70 in groceries and $30 cash.

>>12123416
Stop adding in owner bought step. You are confusing yourself

>>12123400

Thing about it though. If both d1 and d2 and 6. There is a 100% you will add the dice to the array. But if one of them is 6 and the other is not a 6, there is only a 50% chance you will add the dice. So your logic is incorrectly biased towards storing the outcomes of two 6s.

>>12122001
So roughly 50% get this wrong ITT. I counted.

chronological order
1) he loses 100 dollars (-100)
2) he loses an item worth 70 dollars (-170)
3) he receives 100 dollars (-70)
4) he gives back 30 dollars (-100)

the answer is C. $100

>>12122495
Kek! People like you need the welfare state. But, I bet that you are the type of cocksucker that genuinely believes that capitalism will work out for you. Idiot.

>>12123431
>incorrectly biased
No bias- just consider the samples. Not the rolls that didn't get counted. 100k rolls, all of which fulfil the criteria "1 or >1 roll is a 6", and then the other dice- the one for which the roll hasn't been determined in the problem- is equally distributed 1:6

>>12123386
No hablo Python.

>>12122069

The cash register will show a -$100 balance at the end of the day.

The owner will also be down cost of goods of item sold - retail value of $70 - although the owner would not factor this in unless they knew the $100 was stolen and used to purchase the item.
This is kind of a trick question because the answer relies on interpreters perspective of the events which are vaguely designed, on purpose.

>>12123496

But your sample includes "1 is a 6, one is not" cases half as frequently as they actually occurred. Since you ignore the cases where one is a 6, one is not, and you check the one that is not a six. Even though it satisfies the condition 1 or >1 is a six, you ignore it.

Try my logic >>12123378
Just simple use the comparisons d1 == 6 || d2 == 6 to determine if 1 or >1 is a six.

What you program does right now is calculate the probably that not only did you roll one six, but that you randomly choose a coin and it was a six. You are twice as likely to randomly choose a 6 if you rolled 2 6s (100%), than if you rolled only one (50%), which is what introduces the bias.

>>12123416
stop over complicating this problem.

There is not enough information in the question to calculate the real loss of the owner.

All that matters is that $100 was stolen. Everything after that is irrelevant.

>>12123417
>Owner sells item for 70, recieves 100 bill, gives 30 change.
>Owner now has 100 bill
>Lady has 30 dollars and a 70 item
wrong, my fren. i'll ignore the 100 was stolen.

the owner starts off with goods worth $70. let's just assume that these goods were homemade so he didn't spend anything to obtain them. his asset right now is exactly $70 in goods.

the roastie comes in and gives him $100. his asset now: 70 + 100 = 170

the owner gives the roastie the $70 goods and $30 change. his asset now: 170 - 70 - 30 = 70 in cash.

>>12122383
Took me a few seconds to see it, but kek.

Also the dude lost $200

>>12122001
100

>>12122003
30

>>12122241
15.50 >>12122437 the only dumb one here is you

>>12123540
That is correct. Now factor in the $100 stolen.

The owner's assets are now -$30 instead of $70, hence he lost $100

owner lost $100 - profit from the sale. its that easy

>>12122669
the asset doesnt cost $70 dollars to the owner. so the right answer is $100 - ($70 - cost of the item)
$100 loss would be if she didnt buy in his store.

I was expecting "resorting to offensive language ratio" higher among wrong answers but it is about equal among right and wrong answers.

>>12123429
Sounds like you are, kek
>>12123540
Dude, you are almost there but you gotta count the fact that she stole the 100$ at the end.
initial owner asset:
>100 + (70 $ of potential credit)
>the lady steals the 100
>"buys" 70$ item and gets 30 dollars
>Now the owner gets his 100 back. But he gave her 100 dollars in goods and change.
>The 70 dollars of goods are still a loss for him, but those 70 were part of that 100 she stole.

At the end she has stolen 100 dollars of goods+change AND 70$ of potential income

>>12123631
FINALLY FFS. SOMEONE WITH A BRAIN

>>12123593
>>12123647
>>12123593
we're assuming she paid with her own money here and it was a normal transaction. so he's still at net 70 at this point. here's the kicker though, he goes out to watch the new avengers movie and a pajeet steals his $100. he's now down $30.

>>12123631
end of the day the balance of the till is going to be -$100.

I'd agree with you in a real world scenario, but there isn't enough information in the question to answer anything but $100

>>12122563
what does it matter who the fuck buys the product? just imagine that the $100 dollar got lost instead of stolen. would it change anything? no. jesus christ you people are absolute brainlets. the absolute state of this board

>>12123657
he'd be down $100.

At -$30 instead of $70

>>12122001
Anyone in here who says anything other than C.100 needs to be euthanized and have their assets taken away.

>>12123728
the owner profits from the sale. he lost $100 minus profit from sale.

$100 loss

30 balls assumed

$15

unironically 165 iq test at age 7 and at 15.

>>12123535
Well fuck me, 1/11. I still don't understand why, but I can't find a fault with this. Thanks for pointing out the bias, I see it now

>>12123533
>The cash register will show a -$100 balance at the end of the day.

AAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! NO! Was garbage schools did you people go to. Here is what the cash register sees:
>-$100 missing
>+$100 cash received
>-$30 change given out
>Final register balance of -$30
Here is what the inventory balance sheet shows:
>Start of day: X dollars of goods
>End of day: X-70 dollars of goods
>-$70 balance of goods
So you add the end of day register balance with the end of day inventory balance and what do you get:
>-$100
That is it. No other information is included in the problem.

>>12123835
register starts with $100
then -$100 so now it displays $0
+$100 received
-$30 out
final balance on register: +$70

inventory balance starts with $70
end of day $0

final balance of register + inventory = +70

>>12123822
you could have just typed (1/36)/((1/36)+(10/36)) into google instead of writing all that code....

>>12123246
I already did
>(10) + (10) + (10) = 30
Correct
>(10) + (5) + (5) = 20
Correct
>(5) + (1 + 1) + (1 + 1) = 9
5+2+2 = 9. There is no raisin to notate 2 as (1+1)
>(5) + (1) * (10) = 15
Incorrect. 5+10a = b where a is unknown

>>12123867
close, champ


-$100
+$100
-$70 in goods
-$30 in cash

$100 loss

>>12123195
15 faggot.
The difference between the two upper bubbles gives the lower bobble.

>>12123923
But then I wouldn't have a real world test to show that the probability I have assigned was correct

>>12123867
>Register starts with $100
>Register ends with $70
And what is the net change in register balance? Is it perhaps negative 30 dollars?
>Inventory starts with $70
>Inventory ends with $0
And that change in balance, does it happen to be negative 70 dollars?

Balance, as in balance of net transactions.

>>12123929
each beer is worth 1.

But how much did they steal in bitcoin?

$100 net loss.
She starts at 0.

She took the $100.. (her: +100)(him: -100)
She gave back the $100. (her: 0)(him: +100)
She got $70 worth of shit while at 0. (her: +70)(him: -70)
She got $30 in change. (her: +30)(him(-30)

$70+30 = $100.

But you could also argue that she stole $200 if you consider each net theft.
But $100 if you consider her net thefting.

>>12123969
No, each beer is worth a, and there is no way to know if your assumption that a = 1 based on visual similarity between pictograms is true. The person who set the puzzle could have made it unsolvable and decided that the single beer glass pictogram = literally any number possible

>>12122280
>3A= 30 therefore A=10
>A+2B=20 therefor B=5
>B+2C = 9 therefore C=2

End result is:
>B+(0.5C *A)
>5+(0.5(2)*10)
>15

>>12124022
sure you could argue that.

Or you could not be autistic and use your pattern recognition skills to solve an algebra problem

>>12122001
-$100
+100 but its stolen doesnt count
-$70 * 2 since its with stolen money
-$30 * 2 same reason
total loss: 300 dollars

easy, next

>>12122003
16, are you blind?

>>12122241
banana = 10
hamburguer = 5
beer = 2
5+2×10=70

too easy next

>>12122512
its literally 1/6 you fucking brainlet kek thanks for putting the answer in the question. nice jewish tricks shlomo

t. 155 IQ aryan god

>>12122001
It depends on his profits margins obviously. Its a business so $70 worth of product is not the same to the owner as it is to the customer. Assuming a 100% markup it would be $35 worth of goods and the $30 he gave back so around $65.

>>12122001
60 dollars and $70 worth of goods. Totalling $130

>>12122001
>do not overthink it
fuck off i do what i want
he loses $100 minus the profit from the goods

>>12124038
>pattern recognition
>algebra
Pick one. I chose algebra

>>12122001
Oops. I screwed up. She stole $100. The rest happened separately. Net loss is the stolen money. $100.

It doesnt matter about his margins.. He has total spent for goods, and potential profit added together. The only difference is the profit has not yet been realized.

>>12122001

>Lost $100 straight up
>Gained back $100 in cash
>Lost $70 worth of goods (since it's saying worth of goods I'm not going to go and assume stuff about how much he really paid for it via wholesale) and $30 in change
>0 -$100 + $100 - $70 - $30 = -$100

I'll go with C thanks Eddie

Depends on the profit margin tuner would ordinarily make on the $70 goods

>>12122001
100-profit margin of the goods.

>>12122001
The owner lost $70 worth of inventory and $30 worth of fiat. The total value would be equal to 100 USD.

>>12122241

I think all the beer bottles are the same (e.g. have a cap on or don't have a cap on), it's hard to tell with the ant sized picture but assuming that

>Beer bottle = 10 (10 + 10 + 10 = 30)
>Hamburger = 5 (10 + 5 + 5 = 20)
>Two draft/tap beers = 2 (5 + 2 + 2 = 9)
>Hamburger + One draft beer x Beer bottle = ?
>sub in values of each, except for Two draft/tap beers which we will sub in 1 since it's only one draft beer and not two
>5 + 1 x 10 = ?
>BOMDAS/PEDMAS means multiply must be done before addition
>5 + 10 = ?
>15 = ?

Lock in 15 thanks Eddie.

Since he is a stupid motherfucker that gets his shit stolen I would say his useless labour ass is a bigger net loss on his business than the $100.
But lets pretend he works for free and doesnt have to pay taxes on the sold goods. Lets also pretend the stuff he sold wasnt worth +100% more the day he bought it. (this board is familiar with what Im talking about)

>>12122001
The owner lost $30 plus whatever the owner paid for the goods. Fucking morons, you can’t find the actual answer without knowing how much the owner paid for the goods.

>>12122001
jesus christ. don't overthink it.
he's out $100. the original $100 that she stole.
the other transaction was legitimate, so the owner lost nothing on that exchange.

>>12122512
1/11

>>12124325
explanation:

all of your possible combinations are:
1 1 , 2 1 , 3 1 , 4 1 , 5 1 , 6 1
1 2 , 2 2 , 3 2 , 4 2 , 5 2 , 6 2
1 3 , 2 3 , 3 3 , 4 3 , 5 3 , 6 3
1 4 , 2 4 , 3 4 , 4 4 , 5 4 , 6 4
1 5 , 2 5 , 3 5 , 4 5 , 5 5 , 6 5
1 6 , 2 6 , 3 6 , 4 6 , 5 6 , 6 6

as you can see, there are 11 combinations that have a 6, but only 1 of them has both 6s. so, 1/11

>>12122512
1/12.. am I dumb? Teach me why please

>>12124348
>One is a 6
Yea so that means most of your grid is not possible. By your logic it would be 1/11.
OFC it depends how you interpret it.
If the first number is a six then it's 1/6
If it's either number then it's 1/11

>>12122003

I can't get if the foundation is triangal or rectangular

>>12122512
It's 1/2.

How are you still discussing this, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

$70 in merchandise and $30 cash.

>>12124733
the absolute state.

Thread is probably almost dead but nobody had posted this gem yet.

>>12125055
1/2 duh

>>12125055
>nobody had posted this gem yet
This was discussed to death half a year ago.
Also, 33%

>>12125064

>>12125066
When you take a gold ball, it's already confirmed that it's either the left or middle box, so 1/2

owner lost 200 dollars because the he lost the 100 dollar bill, the 70 dollars in merchandise, and the 30 dollars that he gave to the customer for free as change for the stolen bill. redpilled.

>>12122106
I got it 1st, later brainlets

>>12122003
Is that a square or triangle pyramid?

The owner lost $100, then got back whatever amount of money those $70 worth of sales yielded. That amount varies depending on whether you consider the acquisition of the goods by the owner to be a separate event, or include it in calculating the profit from the transaction. There's also the possibility of potential losses from lack of stock caused by the transaction, or a potential raise in price of the goods before the next customer comes.

As for the second picture, there are 16 visible balls. You'd need 30 for a full pyramid, but I think such a structure would collapse before you mange to build it, so there might as well be 16 balls held together in some way or another.

>>12122003
30

>>12125055
isn't it 2/3?

After we know we have a golden ball, the probability is 2/3 for a golden ball, and 1/3 for a silver ball.

>>12122003
has to be triangular with that stacking

>>12125892

jesus fucking christ

>>12122069
This is correct. Its called cashflow analysis: -130$ for the owner, he loses 100$ and then hands out another 30$ (imagine it was a different customer, its easier then)
(t. anon working at a major bank that spans three states and I regular advise our risk department on transactions that range in MILLIONS of dollar)

>>12125892
no, dummy

>>12125673
There's 1 ball left out of 2 in the box, since you picked a golden ball it's either middle or left box.

50/50

>>12122276
>calls /biz/ idiots
>gets this wrong

It’s $100

All she did was trade the original $100 for $70 worth of items but still kept the $100 of value overall.

net net it breaks down to:

$30 cash + $70 item = the original $100 stolen

>>12122198

No these are the people buying

>>12122001
$70 in groceries and $30 in cash. Total $100.

>>12122001
In the end the woman walks away with $70 worth of goods and $30.

It's $100.

>>12126007
Wrong

People only shill coins they bought here. Due diligence is everything.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/30/blockchain_study_finds_0_per_cent_success_rate

>>12126007
You must be a diversity hire

>>12122069
>>12122106
>>12122135
>>12122150
>>12122316
>Business and finance

>>12126133

Could it be
That these stupid questions have multiple answers and are just there to get as many idiots to reply to facebook pages, boosting their ranking?

>>12122001
How much did the owner lose, or what was the net loss? Technically he lost $170. The net loss is going to be $200, I think. Journalizing it, you get a $70 loss.

cash (100) | theft expense 100
cash 100 | sales 100
inventory (70) | cost of merchanise sold 70?

(70) | 70

But does it really count if you're getting paid in your own money? Kind of, I guess.

>>12124022
>>12124127
>that one Dunning-Kruger retard who is too autistic for pattern recognition

If you want to get super technical about it, the loss is unknown:

-100 Stolen
-The Cost of Goods Purchased
+100 Payment
-30 Cash Back

$100 is probably what they're looking for though, assuming he sells the item near cost ($70)

If even 1/10 of the poster in here are not trolling, this is a sad testament to the state of this board.

>>12125673
The answer is correct, the reasoning could be clearer. It hinges on the initial random selection, not the state after said selection.

And since we're trawling for idiots, why not add a classic myself:
>A bat and a ball together cost $ 1.10. The bat costs $ 1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

>>12126280

Bat = $1.05
Ball = $0.05

>>12126335
Fair enough.

>A good costs $1 plus half its price.

>>12125064
U r rite cuse we can ignore the silver ball box althougheter yeahhhhhh

>>12126280
Holy shit dude what? That might be how math works but not reality. The state after said selection is what matters.

>>12122001
C. Also own 100k link.

100 dollars. What happened afterwards was just a normal purchase.

>>12127392

alternately you could say he lost 70 in merch and 30 in cash.

>>12123929
Fuck, you're right. Sorry for doubting u Anon.

>>12122852
Finally the first non-brainlet in this thread

The tief just changed 70 stolen bucks to 70 bucks worth of goods and also got 30 dollars change.

So D 130 bucks.

>>12122241
beer bottle = 10
hamburger = 5
double beer glass = 2
single beer glass = no info, we'll call it "X"

Final equation:
5 + X * 10 = Y
>Cannot be solved further

>>12128016
Congrats you solved the riddle.
See >>12122382
and >>12122280
and >>12124022

>>12126214
I recognise the pattern, and reject the assumption that 2a == x because there is no data to back it up

She in effect stole $70 worth of goods and $30 as the end outcome. The answer is 100$ and you're actually a sub 80 IQ deluded fuck if you answer anything else.

>>12122003
30 balls.

>>12125055
>Thread is probably almost dead
Oh G-d please let it die

>>12126205
you don't journal your register multiple times a day, there's no logging the 100 loss from theft after it happens as you and many others in the thread seem to think. registers are tallied at the end of business day or change of shift.
>>12127982
even taking you at your premise your math doesn't make sense. changing 70 stolen bucks into 70 bucks worth of goods still leaves you at 70, then you add the 30 for 100. where does the extra 30 come from in your logic?

>>12128218
Well, the owner gives the thief 30 buck in an exchange where he gets back his own money. So there, he loses both ways.

>>12122069
absolutely fucking based

>>12125055
75%

>>12128567
jk 66%

>>12128442
"loses both ways" wtf are you talking about. where's the other $30 loss.

Is 170 too obvious or what?

>>12128669

oh. i'm tarded.

$100

A board full of idiots wow

>>12122001
> a client steals 100
> another client buys 70

one thing has nothing to do with the other, someone steals you 100, you lose 100 whats the mambojambo about.
All these brainlet shitcoinbagholders giving their super explained answers lmao

>>12122494
>business of making money
>overthinks it
Never gonna make it

>>12122241
How can you absolute spastics not all get 25

Bottle - 10
Burger 5
Glass 2

5+2x10
25

>>12124039
>what is BODMAS

you deserve to lose all your money if you can’t do basic arithmetic.

>>12128725
but there’s only one glass anon
,’:^)

>>12128725
>25
one glass in the bottom line, faggot moron

>>12126175
Loses $100 in cash
Loses $70 in merch
Loses another $30 in cash

Owner is down $200 you fucking brainlet

>>12128814
he got 100 back in cash dumbasses
then lost 70 merch
and lost 30 cash

jesus christ

>>12128851
The question is how much the owner lost, not how much the thief has, owner is down -$200 you idiot

>>12128628
Yes. He loses 100 in the theft and additional 30 in the exchange.

>>12122895
>>12122960
>>12122593
>>12123312
>>12123540
>>12123533
>>12124079
>>12124143
Holy fuck these are the people discussing crypto tech. No wonder this get-rich-quick board is fucking insane. These guys aren't even trolling whoever made this thread is a genius it's so much easier to see how retarded the people here are when they're forced to apply basic logic. Only one of these guys even had the comprehension to understand how he fucked up christ.

>>12127309
>Holy shit dude what? That might be how math works but not reality. The state after said selection is what matters.

Not exactly. The boxes are just confusing you. Randomly selecting a box and then randomly selecting a ball from within is the same as saying "you randomly pick one of 6 balls". But this phrasing makes it easier to understand: You have 3 chances to pick a gold ball: the ball from the mixed box, the first ball from the all-gold box, the second ball from the all-gold box.

So two thirds of your possible picks are in the all-gold box and only one third is in the mixed box.

Given that you pulled out a random ball and it turned out golden, there's already a 2/3 chance you were pulling from the all-gold box.

>>12122001
She stole 100 dollars?

>>12125055
Hey this is like Monte Hall with the goats. Shit always gets people to say 1/2, despite the fact that there's a 2/3 chance your hand is in the first box.

>>12122001
None of them is the right answer. The owner lost $30, plus whatever price he paid for the goods.

>not factoring in the cost of the merchandise and time spent ordering/stocking goods
shit question/test

>>12129091
Ok if you want to be really nitpicky then you can start talking profit margins but if the owner values those goods at 70$ and they sell for that then i'd say it's fair to mark the losses at 70$.

Wouldn’t it be 200?

$100 bill stolen. She used it to “buy” $70 of groceries so the total stolen is $170 - and then add $30 in change he gave her to a total of $200?

>>12129124
I guess you could yeah. but they're only 100% worth that much if the next person buys them for that price. the goods could fall or drop in what people are willing to pay at that point.

And the question says how much did the owner lose. The answer could be in there but we don't know really.

I have established IQ dominance in this thread and this is my message:
Chainlink $500 EOY

>>12129205
Wait -

Wtf is going on.

$100

$100 to buy $70 is still from the $100 stolen. So he gets the $100 back as a note - loses $70 but then also loses $30 from the change. Wouldn’t it be $100 bucks?

>>12129210
100 - profit margin - the inflation cost of the economy collapsing in the link singularity then.

>>12129235
the most accurate answer in this thread

>>12122001
He lost $30 + the cost of the goods, which are less than $70 total, otherwise he's doing bad business. So he lost like $80 total.

>>12122299
>he didn't account for the welfare taxes the owner pays for the woman
The answer is 101.0062 with interest

>>12122895
oxi clean is cheap to buy

>>12128628
I've changed my mind, the right answer is 100. I was overthinking it. I'm sorry anon -_-