Well, /g/?

>>61448236
$100

100, 70 worth of goods and 30 of cash

Sage because not technology

Was she black? Around blacks never relax.

200

>>61448269
This, but have a bump because I like riddles.

File: 1499380763456-g.jpg (39KB, 575x556px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 575x556px

>this thread again

>>61448236
100
Saged because easy for me I have very high iq

>>61448236
$30 in cash
$70 in goods which would be less than $70 cash, but I don't know their markup, so I can't convert it for you

probably around $70
he lost $100, and then sold something to the person with that $100
it's unlikely that a $70 product made him no profit, but he definitely lost $30.
it is also possible that he didn't make >$15 worth of profit, in which case, $100 would be closer.

nothing of value
material things are intrinsically of no value
helo sci

>>61448236
Give it back Laqueisha

>>61448269
>>61448310
Wrong, it's $70 worth of goods + $30, a.k.a $100. Or splitting hairs, something below $100 once you take into account the profit margin of the goods.

>>61448236
Ignoring the profit on the good, $100.

>>61448405
Never mind I can't read

>>61448236
130$
The items she bought were being sold at a loss for promotion

>>61448236
$100 lost
$70 exchanged for $70 worth of goods, still $100 lost
owner gives away $30
thus he lost $130

>>61448236
not technology

$0 if the guy has security cameras and the police recognize the woman.
must be an upstanding joint to have 100 dollar bills in the register and break $100s, would be weird if it had no security
granted, a place like that would probably lock the registers.
in which case, i question a few things
-why does the guy have his register unlocked?
-if it wasn't unlocked, why is a criminal willing to pick registers robbing a place and then coming back?
and
-why is she stealing from him? statistically, women commit far less petty theft than men. is there more to the story?

File: Screenshot at 2017-07-18 23-18-02.png (34KB, 540x414px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 540x414px

>>61448383

>>61448477
>owner breaks a bill and then proceeds to not take the entire bill
lmao what

>>61448236
$130

>>61448520
Oh shit no, it's $100

File: 1406545730422.png (24KB, 500x560px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x560px

(100*5 minutes interest rate) + 70 worth of goods + (30*infinite interest rate) + inmensurable psychological damage.

So later the owner can take her to court for damages, theft and robbery for over 6 digits, and i know a great bureau for that.

>>61448506
oh shit wait im retarded
owner loses $100
owner's loss turns from $100 to 0, then $70, then he loses $30 more
ok 100

>>61448236
How smart are you?.....A lady walks in the store and steals $1 from the register without the owners knowledge. She comes back 5 mins later and steals $2. She comes back 5 mins later and steals $3, and so on for all eternity, how much did the owner lose????
A. $30
B. $infinite
C. $100
D. $130
E. -$1/12
F. $200
DO NOT OVER THINK IT!

Again do not over think it...

>>61448269

incorrect

the answer is 100 of cash

the 70 goods were traded for 70 cash so no goods were lost

>>61448236
It's actually 0 because they a include money for stolen or damaged goods.

depends
>initially lost $100
>gave her back $30
>gave her $70 (retail value of goods)
so depends how much the shopowner paid for the $70 worth of goods

>how smart are you?
smart enough
easy question

>>61448236
>$100
Because the owner did not make any profit from the purchase. He lost profit from the $70 worth of goods plus gave her $30 of change. Therefore, he has to make up for lost in goods plus the $30. Right?

>DO NOT OVER THINK IT!
>Again do not over think it...

Over think what? It's a fucking math problem not a riddle.

>>61448576
Fuck I overthought it

>>61448770
You forgot that the shop owner was burgled out of $100

>>61448576
the infinite limit of infinity is like two or something. idk i was bad at calc.

>>61448817
No, I didn't..

She got the $70 worth of goods for free because she paid with the stolen $100. Therefore, the owner lost $70 plus the change which is $30 that equals $100. See?

>>61448236
It depends on the margins on the goods of course

How is this thread still alive? Count on /g/ to reply to a literal Facebook post lol btw the comment answers for this from Facebook are pretty faith in humanity loss inducing

>>61448236
We don't know what was the warehouse price of sold goods, we also don't know anything about taxation applied.

>>61448576
>-$1/12 or $sum_{i=1 \to \infty} i

>>61448236
200 USD

>>61448236
USA? $100 - whatever the profit margin of the goods from china is.

EUR? $100 + 70 in tax revenue

>>61448477
Exactly.

$30 in cash and the goods given
the owner lost $100 overall, as the goods were worth $70, but the question/answers don't make it clear if only cash loss is considered

>>61450435
Only correct answer.

Owner lost 30 dollars cash total.
Owner lost 100 dollars worth of potential value total.

This assumes no taxation.

File: aaa.png (89KB, 1694x1062px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1694x1062px

>>61448477

this

>>61450613
It's 100 dollars exchanged for 70 dollars worth of goods then received 30 dollars back.
Not 70 for 70.

>>61448477
>dumb tripfag
Nothing new here

>100 lost
>100 exchanged for 70 worth of goods
>owner gives 30 away
100 lost

>>61450659
The owner lost 30 actual dollars.
The owner lost a potential of 100 dollars in value.
The answers are given in dollars not potential value.

>>61448576
About tree fiddy

>>61448576

E. $-1/12

Source: Autistic video that says counting continuously and adding isn't infinity, but -1/12 because he sucks cocks.

value is linear
it is $170(excluding markups and economics)
just add up value $100(money=value)+$70(goods=value)

do you forget that those $100 that got stolen were exchanged for goods in the first place?

>>61450826
You missed that part where 70 dollars total of the 100 given back to the cashier stayed with the cashier.
You also assumed the question wanted value not actual dollars.
Answer is A. $30.

>>61450869
>You also assumed the question wanted value not actual dollars.
dollars is actual value though, it's closed hyper dimensional spherical horse in the vacuum question otehrwise

question is how much owner lost. which means how much money owner will have to write off in accounting book as a loss
and that would be $170 as far as my understanding of business and tax paying goes

>>61450962
Taking it that way, then it's 100 dollars stolen.
If this is an accounting class question:
100 dollars was stolen, nothing else was stolen; as far as the owner knows or cares the rest of the transactions where normal.

>>61450991
right, if exclude knowledge of stolen money being used
makes more sense.

>>61450759
Analytic continuation explains why ζ(-1) is -1/12. There is a nice video by 3Blue1Brown explaining this.

>>61448236
oh look, another question with multiple valid answers, depending on your interpretation of the question.
if it's asking how much cash he lost: $30.
if it's asking how much value he lost: $100. she stole $100, converted $70 into goods so in the end he lost $30 in cash and $70 in goods.

>>61450759
>>61449032
Only if she starts to steal complex amounts of cash though. Taking into account she steals every five minutes in the same shop an abitrary amount of money, i don't think she can do this.

>>61448236
Din du nuffin, a riot

>>61450826
She does not steal a product of 70 $, she buys it.

>>61451105
>$70 in goods.

But he didnt pay 70 for those good. Retails prices are not what the owner buys them for wholesale.

>>61451211
The question says multiple times not to overthink it.
100 dollars where stolen.
Legit transactions followed.
100 dollars total at the end of the day were missing when checking total cash that's supposed to be in the register.

>>61448236
Why.......Do people write like this?????....I've been seeing it a lot lately????

>>61451259
>100 dollars total at the end of the day were missing when checking total cash that's supposed to be in the register.
true
>100 dollars where stolen.
not quite true
the goods stolen were valued at $70, but didn't cost the store $70 to stock, if they did, there would be no profit to be made by selling them, so the actual loss is less than $100, but at least $30

>>61451531
There were no goods stolen, only cash. It's two separate incidents

>>61451603
technically/legally true, but effectively only the goods and $30 were handed over, this isn't a courtroom

>>61451479
I.... know right????

>>61451682
it's like.....painful to read????
??????

>>61451651
The thief came away from the whole thing $30 plus $70 in goods. The owner has lost $100 in real money and sold $70 worth of goods which could have been sold to anyone. It doesn't matter if he sells them to the original thief, it'll still never replenish the $100 gone from his till.

>>61451733
no, the owner lost $30 and the value they paid for the goods, which will be less than $70
shops sell things for more than they buy them for
for example, if the item(s) had a 20% markup, then the shop lost $30 + $56 = $86, the shop doesn't spend the full $70 to restore the effectively-stolen item(s)

>>61448334
>steal $100
>give back $100
>receive $70 goods + $30 cash for free
so hard, my brain nearly a splode

>>61451782
That's how much the owner has lost to the thief as an individual but not how much the owner has lost overall, which will always be $100

>>61451839
that's not true, it costs the store less than $100 to restore the missing cash and item(s), to return to the state before the whole incident happened

>>61451864
You're presuming that the $100 in the till didn't also have profit associated with it.

He lost $30 dum dums.

Jesus christ i cant believe you guys earn >100k year,
owner loses 100$ another nigger comes in buys something and gets out,
Total loss=100$

File: 1500020715472.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

>>61451932
>i cant believe you guys earn >100k year

>>61451864
>>61451782
it says dont over think it u dumb fucking cunt just stfu gtfo fucking cunt fuck you fuck

File: 7a8.png (154KB, 680x674px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 680x674px

>>61451960
>that gif

>>61448633

Incorrect. It wasn't a trade he lost the goods plus the $100 he had in the register from selling other goods

>>61448269
>>61448323
This,
$30 cash
<=$70 in goods
Depends on if the firm is using mark to market, if not then FIFO, LIFO, or weighted average

>>61452046
see
>>61451969

>>61452061
There was no overthinking here, just basic accounting.

File: f1 carbon watch.jpg (57KB, 660x552px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 660x552px

$100

>>61448236
He lost a value of 100$.

>Loses 100$ bill
>Gains 100$ bill
>Gives 30$ in change
>Loses 70$ item

He lost 70$ in goods and 30$ in change.

>>61452066
look at the possible answers
Is the answer you gave one of them?
no?
then fuck off cunt

>>61452046
Na, you can't think about it like that.

In the end the register would have been out by $100, so that is how much was lost.

The amount the item cost the store to purchase literally doesn't matter.

>>61452003
no, its $100. $70 of goods and $30 in cash

1. 0 stolen
2. $100 stolen
3. $70 of goods stolen, $70 cash returned

>>61448576

The answer is obviously E.

>>61452125
Actually yea that makes sense, since the transaction was registered at the cash register.
If not though, you would have to care about lower of cost or market (in the event of shoplifting, for example).

File: 2nd.jpg (16KB, 310x232px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 310x232px

>>61448236
200$
30 in cash
70 in goods
100 short in the register

>>61452146
What? Do you have a brain?
The shopkeeper also lost the goods. Account for that. Unless the shopkeeper was selling his own body fluids, he must have paid for the goods originally.

Fucking /g/oys

>>61452202
you know even if youre trolling no one can really tell. if you want to get super pedantic its less than $100 by some degree since no retailer buys goods at retail.

>>61452222
Fuck off back to /pol/

>>61448269
This.
Other people just want LE EBIN SMART XXDDDDD

>>61451479
It's boomer talk.

>>61452254
i've seen it from teenagers as well

200

digits confirms

>>61452222
>if you want to get super pedantic its less than $100 by some degree since no retailer buys goods at retail.
That's not true though.

Yes, they buy at less than retail, but the item sells for $70 so that is how much he loses on the item. If someone else had purchased it then he would have gotten $70.
You have to remember that the items have already been purchased by the store owner, so the amount he spent on them doesn't factor into the loss of the transaction.

What matters is that at the end of the day when he cashes up his till it will be $100 out. That is loss. No matter if the woman came back and bought an item or not, he would still be out $100.

>>61452125
It would be out $30, as $70 of the $100 was put back in the register in the end.

he would have made a profit on the goods sold so he clearly lost less than $100
all the retards in this thread baka

>>61448236
$100

$30 in cash
$70 in lost revenue for goods

>>61452294
Wrong.
Registers take into account the amount of sales done in the day.

So when she made the purchase the amount in the register should have increased by +70.

If there was $400 in the register and she took $100, there would be $300 in the register and it would expect $400 in there.
When a purchase of $70 was made she gave $100 and he gave $30 change (+$100, -$30). There would be $370 in the register, but because a $70 purchase had been made the register would expect $470 to be there.

>>61452290
that assumes the item would sell in the first place. And if you take into account what i say it is still under $100.

>>61448236
It's 130 wtf?

>>61448236
100-(profit margin off of the 70$ goods)
the fact that the lady stealing the 100$ and the one buying are the same is irrelevant

>>61448236
After all transactions there is a net difference of 30 USD that the owner has in the register.
The owner has 30 less dollars.
Assets are not dollars.
Therefore the answer is A. $30

Another way to answer this is how much the owner was short, not the net difference the owner actually has, but what the owner was expecting to have vs what the owner actually has.
100 USD was stolen.
Legit transactions where conducted.
The owner is short 100 USD from what they expected to have.

The question asks "how much did the owner lose????"
It states that the assets are WORTH 70 dollars.
Based on the 30 dollars in change received, it's clear the the owner charged the purchaser 70 dollars.
It doesn't matter how much it costs the owner for that 70 dollar asset, as he already owned it and determined that it was worth 70 dollars.
Based on the question, you can conclude that the owner lost 30 dollars in cash total and 70 dollars in assets total.

>>61452607
>After all transactions there is a net difference of 30 USD that the owner has in the register.
Wrong.

>>61448274
Lol constantly nervous around black people

>>61452626
100 dollars stolen
-100
100 dollars given back
+100
30 dollars given to client
-30
-100+100-30 = - 30
Explain yourself.

If I steal $20 from your wallet and then buy you $10 worth of lunch. Did you lose $20 or $10?

>>61452646
see >>61452433

>>61452657
>>61452607

See the 2nd paragraph

>>61452125
The question said how much did the owner lose not how much is the till off by.

The owner lost $30 and the cost of the goods.

Piracy is not theft

>>61448236
He lost $100 plus the merchandise.
What is so fucking hard you imbecilic fuck.

>>61452646
youre half right, $30 + $70 in assets.

>>61452706
Except the 100 dollars was returned in exchange for the merchandise + 30 dollars.

>>61452732
That's what the 3rd paragraph explains
>>61452607

>>61452742
why are you responding to me? im just saying that.

>>61452776
because the 1st paragraph relies on assets not being money as it clearly states
and >>61452732 states that it's half right
when the 3rd paragraph already provides an answer where assets are considered money.

>>61452776
>>61452792
I see your confusion now, >>61452646 is a break down of the first paragraph in >>61452607 if you follow the posts

>>61448236
130$
captcha: closed virginia

>>61448486
Way to follow the instructions.

Property is theft.