Can you solve this 3rd grade math problem?

1000

>>7999187
2000
first 200 rs loss for the goods
then 800 rs loss for the change he gives to her
then 1000 rs loss for the next shopkeeper. ..

>>7999216
So shopkeeper #2 made 1000 out of it somehow?

It's a poorly worded problem. "gets the change"?

And what the fuck is "duplicate" in this context?

If the shopkeeper #2 comes over with 1000 and takes his money back, he's already got his damn money.

See Im never good at word problems because they are always worded horribly

>>7999223
Apparently shopkeeper 1 doesn't have enough money to give back 800 in change, or can't for some other reason. So he exchanges the 1000 bill (which is fake, aka "duplicate") for a bunch of, say 100 bills from shopkeeper 2.

1000

>>7999187
shitty wording.
Loss is 800 + the value of the item.

>>7999187
>Rs.
The shopkeeper faced total loss due to all his customers dying because of all the faeces and poor hygiene in India

>>7999314
only correct answer desu

>>7999314
I was just going to ask what currency that is, as I was not aware of that abbreviation.
>>7999309
>800 + the value of the item
Shopkeeper is selling at zero profit.

Wait, what?
He received 1000 for the item
He received 1000 from the other shop
He returns 800 for the change
He returns 1000 for repayment to the other shop
He is left with 200 for the item

There was no net loss

>>7999187

800 + the worth of his goods.
So 1000

>>7999334
what if the shopkeeper is making a loss? That is still zero profit, right?

>>7999358

No that's negative profit

File: 1455614677266.jpg (69KB, 340x372px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 340x372px

>>7999358
If you go that far, it shall be "negative profit" instead of "zero profit."

at the point in which he's done dealing with the lady he's made a net of 0 profit(kept 200 but gave her 200 worth of goods)

then the other shopkeeper comes and takes 1000

so he lost 1000

I feel it could be interpreted differently though because it was obviously written by someone without a high-school diploma and doesn't present itself clearly

He lost Rs.1000
Rs.800 in cash
Rs.200 in the value of the items

>>7999187
1000.

After the transaction between him and the woman concludes, there is a neat gain/loss of 0 moneys. Then, he loses 1000 dollars.

>>7999309
Number 1 pet peeve in academia for me is poorly worded -- or just plain wrong -- math problems. Triggers the fuck out of me. Even worse if I see it on a standardized test of some kind.

Remove the other shop keeper and say he has the exact change to cover it.

800-4(200)+1000-1000=0

He's out 800 in actual money and then has to cover the 200 loss.

1000 is his total loss.

>>7999348
He has to give the other shopkeeper 1000rs and that is his loss.

>>7999239
>I'm never good at word problems because I'm too retarded to do anything but crank-the-handle calculation methods

The answer is 1000

>>7999187
The lady comes in with a 1,000. The shopkeeper gives the 1,000 note to the other shopkeeper for his 1,000 dollars change. Shop keeper gives woman her 800 change, the other shopkeeper steals 200 dollars from the original shopkeeper.

The original shopkeeper is out 200 plus his 200 item, the next door asshole shopkeeper stole 200, and the lady got her item and change.

So the shopkeeper lost 400$

Fucking gypsies man.

1200

The shopkeeper had to pay back the full 1000 he got change for plus loss of the item

File: 1457349556635.gif (814KB, 969x581px) Image search: [Google]

814KB, 969x581px

The next door shop-keeper didn't lose shit you fucking hypno-jew frog posters.

The lady comes in with a 1,000 dollar note.
Shop keeper exchanges 1,000 note for 1,000 note(s).
Gives lady her 800 change and 200 item.
Pockets the 200 that is his for 200 item, 0 profit.
Shop keeper next door unrightfully takes 200 from shopkeeper. -200 note, -200 item
HE LOST 400.

>>7999187

-----(1000f)----> ------(1000f)----->
W<--(800+200i)--S1 <--(800+200)--- S2
-----(1000)------>

W= woman
S1,2 = shopkeepers
i = inventory
f = fake

The woman to first shopkeeper transaction is balanced, but then we remove the fake 1000 and see the woman got a net 1000, 200 in inventory value.

The shopkeeper transaction is not balanced, but removing the fake 1000 puts it in balance (which is why the second shopkeeper demanded his money back). The second shopkeeper is left with zero net gain.

The first shopkeeper has lost 1000 total, all of it to the woman.

/thread

File: 1457903915291.jpg (393KB, 2048x1361px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 2048x1361px

>>7999187
>mfw I scroll and read "A ladyboy"
>actually is "A lady buys"

>>8001050
So if the case is that the 1,000 note was counterfeited, I don't see "duplicate" being justification enough for why it is.

The second shopkeeper kept his 1,000, the woman's note was exchanged for his change.

Had the note been illegal tender, the second shop keeper is out 800 (for fake note after being compensated by first shopkeep), the first shopkeeper would be out 200 (for the item).

Had it been legal tender, then the second shop keeper jacked his 200, creating a marginal loss of 400 (item plus tender).

Who's to blame for the first example is the women of course, and the 1st shopkeeper is possibly negligent for such a short sightedness to the authenticity of a high value bond. To say that the 1st shopkeep is to justly compensate the other fellow for a crime the woman committed is not just. It would be be seen more as a temporary means to resolve a dispute until the women is found and returns both the 800, and the stolen item.

>>7999187
There are so many nonsensical replies in this thread. The first shopkeeper makes a net loss of Rs1000 (including opportunity cost of the Rs200 in goods).
It's easiest if you just think of the fake Rs1000 note as a completely useless piece of paper.
The woman comes in to the store, shopkeeper 1 gives her Rs200 worth of goods in exchange for a piece of paper that says 'ur a fukin idiot'. Shopkeeper 1 gives the piece of paper to shopkeeper 2, who says 'great piece of paper, here's a Rs1000 interest-free loan.'
Shopkeeper 1 says to the woman 'here's Rs800 go buy yourself something nice, I'm retarded' and he holds on to Rs200.
Later, shopkeeper 2 comes looking for his loan, which shopkeeper pays back in full (with the Rs200 he held on to plus Rs800 out of his own pocket).

>>8001103

Yes
Just remove the second shopkeeper altogether. The riddle really isn't hard, how are people this retarded.

Lady gives shop keeper 0 and shopkeeper gives her 800 and the shoes worth 200. Total loss is 1000
Jesus fucking Christ.

2000

1000 owed to the other shop keeper
1000 lost to the scammer

>>8001103
What about the loss of the goods he sold

>>7999187
200 or 400.

He gives the 800 back he got from the shop next door.
The 200 change he gave her is lost.
Technically he lost 200Rs. worth of goods, too.

200 lost in goods
800 lost in change given to lady
1000 paid back to other store owner
overall 2000 lost

>>8001262
you're forgetting he also gets 1000 from the other shopkeeper for nothing (the counterfeit bill)

>>7999251
Ah. Well if that's the case, then his loss is $200 immediately, and eventually $1000

He doesn't have the money to give all of it back at once, only the $200. The rest of the money is with the lady. But he'll have to pay the shopkeep back eventually.

The other way to approach it is to see who made profit from the exchange. The lady made off with $800 and $200 in solid assets, so she gained $1000. The second shopkeep took his money back, so he didnt lose out. Which leaves only the first shopkeep to suffer a net loss of $1000

Or Rs, whatever the fuck that is

>>7999221
Only if shopkeep 2 lied about it being fake, and kept the "fake" bill

>>8001377
There's nothing saying the shopkeeper is poor and can't pay back the other guy. Maybe he just has 1000's and can't make change.

>>8001143
>>8001244
>>8001262

How are you guys so fucking retarded
What are you doing on /sci/

>41 replies
I fucking answered this stupid question in the first fucking post, what are you autists even arguing about

Fucking hell /sci/ is retarded. The counterfeit note is valueless.

-200 for the goods
+200 from change
-1000 to the other shopkeeper
---------
-1000 is the total loss

This is because he returned full value to the lady for the counterfeit bill under the assumption it was worth exactly 1000. So he loses 1000.

File: b49.gif (186KB, 828x828px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 828x828px

>>7999205
>>7999216
>>7999265
>>7999352
>>8000770
>>8000793
>>8001050
>>8001103
>>8001135


WAIT A MINUTE, HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU PEOPLE GETTING 1000??????

>Lady buys goods worth 200
>Pays using a 1000 fake note
>The dumb fuck shopkeeper then takes a loan from another guy for the same value, 1000
>Returns back 800 to the lady and keeps 200 to himself
>current profit of shopkeeper: +200
>the other guy now realises the 1000 note is fake and wants his money back
>the shopkeeper only has 200 in real assets
>so he has to go find another loan of 800 to cover his losses of 1000
>total loss = -200-800 = -1000

Oh shit. You guys were right. My bad...

>>8001510
>current profit of shopkeeper: +200
No, he lost the goods worth 200. So his current profit is 0.

>total loss = -200-800 = -1000
You just said he had a profit of 200, so why wouldn't you calculate his total loss as 200-200-800 = -800?

You can't even be consistent with your mistakes.

>>8001529
>lost the goods worth 200
>Actually being this retarded

>>8001535
So if I give you $10 for an ounce of gold you made $10 profit?

>>8001535
The question clearly states the shopkeeper is selling the goods with zero profit. Profit=gain-loss. The gain was 200, so 0=200-loss, loss is 200. Granted, selling stuff for zero profit is a retarded thing to do, but that's what the problem states.

>>8001535
Are you a Trump fan by any chance? Because this is the kind of logic that gets one all mad about the "trade deficit" with China.

>>8001493
>loses -1000
i think you mean gains -1000 little guy ;)