My girlfriend's family and my family are divided on this

>>8305336
Of course it's $0

Is your girlfriend retarded?

>Buys horse -500
>-500
>Sells horse +600
>100
>Buys horse -700
>-600
Sells horse +800
>200

you made 200 dollars

>>8305336
>my girlfriend's

You have to go back...

>>8305346
I don't think so m8. I'm kinda feeling like the retarded one atm. It's her problem from her elementary education courses (school teacher) and her whole class is divided on it. some said 100, some said 200. I and my family say 0

>>8305348
that's what they said. I thought profit was calculated at the end of it all so I think 700 to 700=profit of 0

>>8305353
-500+600-700+800

(800+600)-(500+700)

1400-1200

200

Are you okay?

>>8305336
>A man buys a horse for $500 then sells it for $600
That's a profit of $100.
>He then buys the same horse back for $700 and sells it again for $800.
That's another profit of $100.
Let's say the man starts out with $1000.
Then he has a horse and only $500.
Then he has no horse and $1100.
Then he has a horse again and $400.
Then he has no horse and$1200.
1200-1000=200. No matter which way you look at it it's 200. How the fuck are you getting 0? Even if you're trying to troll, why would you go with 0 instead of 300? 800-500=300 so that makes some sense to a board full of retards but where is the 0 even coming from?

>>8305353
RRREEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

>>8305336
6/10 because of the replies above.

>>8305357
I had
-500+600=100
600-700=-100
-100+800=700
net profit of 0

>>8305357
>>8305358
these are what has me questioning my answer. the teacher told them that they aren't supposed to solve them in such a way mathematically per say but in a way you can explain it to little kids. It is elementary education after all. I'm thinking that I have to keep it simple and at the end of it all he had $700 which he paid for the horse the second time so no money gained

>>8305371
>Hello students, today I'd like you to solve for profit without using addition of subtraction and only your words here are a bunch of numbers do your best!
>this is common core

>>8305375
bretty much. she is having to learn that, or is already learning it. I don't know. This is her last semester till student teaching.

The numbers are chosen to trick you into thinking "he spent 200$ more on the 2nd than on the 1st, so I have to calculate -200 because the horse is only worth 500" or some kind of retarded thought.

But no matter what, if you sell something for 100$ more than you spent on it, your profit is 100$ (in that simple example)

-> 100$ on 1st selling, 100$ on 2nd selling-> profit 200$.

Regards from Germany

>>8305358
You get $0 by forgetting about double-entry bookkeeping.

>>8305336
Hollywood accounting says profit is -$1 million

>>8305365

How the fuck did you fuck everything up? Literally start with a $1000 dollars, and work it through. If what you think is through, after buying all those horses you end up with exactly $1000.

>>8305395
>>8305429
Dangit. All of you are right. Her family is looking at mine like we're retards. The sad thing is, my sister whom has her bs in accounting and has been the lead accountant at this company for 3 years also got 0. I don't get it. The starting at $1000 really helps.

>>8305336
Just move through the process in serial order and understand each step.

He starts with 0.
Buys horse for 500. 0 - 500 = -500
Sells for 600. -500 + 600 = 100
Buys for 700. 100 - 700 = -600
Sells for 800. -600 + 800 = 200.

After this number of steps, his total profit is 200 relative to his starting point. I'm very tired and my brain isn't working well so I'm not actually able to model and figure out exactly how you're concluding that it equalizes with each cycle and comes out to 0. I'll figure it out later. Intuitively I'd think you'd conclude the opposite of what I said above, that he's accumulating losses.

it's 0 m8

Well, I say $100. Since originally, he made $100 from the first sell, but had to obtain an extra $100 for the second buying. (The $200 he made in profit is downgraded to $100 net profit since he had to [let's say borrow] the other $100.) Im not a mathematician.

>>8305359
gb2/r9k/ and take your shit tier meme with you.

>>8305421
Underrated post

>>8305456
Your sister is doing a great job. She figures out how to get the numbers that management wants to hear.

>>8305470
I see what you're saying. Another way to solve it is how I did above. Let's say he borrowed 500 from a friend with no interest.
-500+600=100 now he has 600
600-700=-100
-100+800=700
Pay thw friend back his 500 and he had 200 remaining. I guess I was getting 0 because at the end of it all he had 700 dollary doos invested in the horse and only made that back because of the hit he took to get from 600 to 700. I have a way to get $100 remaining also.

>>8305478
Pretend he starts with $1000. He buys the horse, he now has $500. He sells the horse, he now has $1100. He buys it back, he now has $400. He sells it again, he has $1200. He has made $200.

>>8305470
>>8305478
Like 8305478 said, he had to borrow another 100 so total owed back then was 600 with a profit remaining of 100

>>8305483
She's really a smart girl. Honestly, I think she just shuts down when she's not at work. She's going on vacation right now and I sent her that problem right before she boarded a plane so I'm sure her mind wasn't in the right place run on sentences

>>8305470
Never mind, I see how you're doing it. I thought this seemed like one of those "something from nothing" paradoxes, like that chocolate bar gif.

I'm taking each step as an abstract unit, and you're taking it in a more procedural way. At the end of each buying and selling step, he's left with no more than he started with.

>>8305486
Makes perfect sense. I've run into this before. Too tired to remember what I decided or offer any real commentary.

>>8305478
>>8305491
That makes an assumption that he got a loan, which is nowhere in the problem.

>>8305456
Wouldn't be the first time an accountant was a total fucking idiot.

>>8305336
Is this bait? I'll bite.

Lets say the man has 1000 dollars in the beginning. Then he buys the horse for 500 which leaves him with 500 and a horse. When he sells the horse again he gets 600 dollars which means he now has 1100 dollars. He then proceeds to buy the same horse again for 700 dollars which leaves him with 400 and a horse. He then sells the horse and get 800 which means he now has 1200 dollars.

In what world is this not a 200 dollar profit?

>>8305503
In the world where people pull assumptions about where he's getting the money out of their asses.

>>8305499
Thanks m80. I think this would be a good problem to get a good conversation going. I told my dad this morning and he called me tonight and he and my step mom were yelling at each other about it. Lol

>>8305499
So you assumed you knew the answer before you tried figuring it out, and it fucked up your answer? While the other guy figured it out, and figured it out?

>>8305500
Explain the jump from 600 to 700 without going negative 100 then.

>>8305503
This is something that really bugs me about classical economics. One of the most important assumptions is that people are rational and self-interested, and therefore aim to maximise their economic profits. But every time I see a thread like this, I have to wonder whether the majority of people even have the mental capacity to act in their own self interests.

>>8305511
He had more than $500 to start.

>>8305515
How
All it says is he bought a horse for 500 so from information provided all we know as the first number is -500

>>8305510
>So you assumed you knew the answer
No. I calculated it out and figured how each set of steps related, then answered. Then looking at the left column of what I wrote in my post I noticed they were taking the 100 dollar profit and canceling it out when it's bought for 100 more.

In the morning I'll figure which of these is valid, and which is the neurological error. As it stands it seems OP's answer is correct in the real world.

This is real interesting because I don't tend to fall prey to mathematical illusions that don't actually supersede hard mechanical truths of how the universe actually works in practice. Thanks for posting OP.

>>8305516
okay then start with -500
(-500)+600=100
100+(-700)=-600
(-600)+800=200

>>8305516
the starting budget is irrelevant. the profit is 200

>>8305517
You're an idiot.

>>8305529
No.

>>8305517
>As it stands it seems OP's answer is correct in the real world.
How so?
Does -500 + 600 - 700 + 800 not equal 200 in the real world?

>>8305531
You've just tried to drown your mathematical incompetence in a sea of big words. You're quite clearly wrong, but you seem too stupid to understand it.

>>8305517
Thanks, really. And no problem. I'm torn on what the answer is. The class is supposed to go back over it Tuesday so I'll find out what the teacher says is the correct answer then. If I was my girlfriend sitting in that class I would tell the teacher the answer was to make America great again and watch the class implode

>>8305538
How can you read this thread and still be torn on what the answer is? Are you trolling or incredibly stupid?

>>8305533
Read the post you quoted, and the post I made before it. I've already explained.

You can either calculate it out like I did, or do it procedurally. ie:
-You have 500 dollars.
-You buy a horse for 500.
-You have 0 and a horse.
-You sell the horse for 600.
-You have 600.
-You buy the horse for 700.
-You have -100 and a horse.
-You sell the horse for 800.
-You have 700.

Nope, never mind. I am being stupid. Had it right the first time.

>>8305535
Don't be a dickhead.

I'm going to sleep now.

>>8305542
Well fpbp agreed it was 0, I then had one or two more 0's and that nice guy is basically saying he can understand how I get 0. Then there are 1 or 2 $100 answers which I think is easier to get as an answer than 200. Call it confirmation bias but I want to believe I'm right but I also see how everyone else is getting $200. Like I said, I'm torn on it.

>>8305547
Multiple people in this thread have logically and coherently shown that the answer is, indisputably, $200. A couple of retards have said otherwise and promptly been shown why they're wrong.
Either you have a learning disability or you're trolling.

In Accounting you would report 2 gains on horse sold for $100, or $200 profit.
In Economics, you have to take into account opportunity cost with profit, hence you would have a gain of $100 off of the final sale, which is what I'd presume you're getting $0 from as you are gauging the intrinsic value of the horse, however due to limited information you couldn't say for sure if there is producer surplus in the final transaction.
Also this belongs more on /biz/ than /sci/

>>8305547
He spends 500, he's 500 down. He makes $600. He is $100 up. He spends $700 and he's $600 down. He earns $800 and he's $200 up, how else does this work?

>>8305545
>>8305538
For the hell of it I'll say what my error was. I just looked at the first case and assumed it would pan out symmetrically so you'd always be investing the profit to initiate the next buying and selling deal. It doesn't. Between the buying and selling operations you have a net loss of 100x[iteration], but it's recouped + 100.

>>8305559
Thanks for posting; I could not for the life of me figure out how people were getting $0. But I don't quite understand what you mean by
> you have to take into account opportunity cost with profit, hence you would have a gain of $100 off of the final sale,

>>8305336
How the hell would it be 0?

it means he had to have 200$ more at the end but the profit depends on how much he started with doesnt it?

>>8305580
So Economically speaking it makes a lot less sense (hence why financial statements are done in the Accounting way). As there is a lack of information, and it gets way more complicated when you consider the supply and demand curves over time.
The best way I can think of explaining it is this I guess, still not perfect and maybe you can see what is wrong.
>value horse at $700, purchase for $500
>$200 profit in consumer surplus
>-$100 producer surplus selling for $600
>$0 consumer surplus on buying for $700
>$100 producer surplus on final transactions
The main problem would be that a rational self interested agent would never take the $100 loss on the second transaction, also the valuation of $700 seems arbitrary. However I'm trying to simplify the fact that cost curves and utility functions are varying over time.
In short, an Economist cares about the intrinsic value of the horse whereas the Accountant cares about the transactions posted.
I guess a more accurate Economist's profit would be it could be anywhere between $0 and $1400. (Min profit on both transactions is $0, max profit on first sale is $600, second sale is $800)
Or $0 to $2600 if you count consumer surplus as profit too.

>>8305580
Also the question seems to imply that the buyer would've been better off holding onto the horse instead of selling for $600 and rebuying for $700, which yields an intuitive answer of the actual valuation being between $700 and $800 (or a $100 to $0 profit) assuming that the final transaction is final

>>8305594
I think I see what you mean. The difference is that in this approach the horse is an asset which should be included in the balance. So instead of saying you're down $500 after the first purchase, you would say you're down $500 but also up by the value of the horse.

It just seems a little strange to record transactions this way since if you believe in efficient markets and rational actors, then every transaction would be zero (money exchanged for an asset of equal value).

File: 1458591101048.png (158KB, 1352x1632px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1352x1632px

>>8305336

time 1= gain: horse, loss 500
time 2 = gain: 600, loss=same horse, different time [hence another valuae]
time 3 = gain=horse, loss= 700
time 4 = gain = 800, loss = horse

the thing is that your dolalrs and the value of the horse changes over time, so it is hard to comapre the net profit, which means the subtraction

[value of gain: horse, loss 500 at time 1] - [time 4 = gain = 800, loss = horse] - all the hard work of selling and buying and managing all this shit.

>>8305607
Well balance sheets is accounting, so not exactly. Technically in accounting the "value" of the horse on the balance sheet is the cost (using FIFO or LIFO for multiple items in inventory). But yea I guess if you are using an Economist's balance sheet the value is given by your utility function and indifference curves.

>>8305607
Also the profit would not be zero because the market is not a zero sum game. People differ in tastes and hence there may be differences in utility functions and indifference curves (as well as cost functions for the producer) so each transaction creates value (or profit) greater than or equal to zero.

>>8305559
if he could have bought the horse for $500 and sold for $800 and made a profit of $300 instead of $200 the opportunity cost would be $100

>>8305607
>if you believe in efficient markets and rational actors,
Then you're an idiot.
Those things are abstractions used to build models, they don't actually exist.

>>8305616
Depends, did the buyer do these transactions in this order? Or maybe she bought the horse for $500, used it, then no longer needed it, then sold it, then needed it again so bought it for $700, then no longer needed it again and sold it
Also there is no theoretical limit on how fast the indifference curves and utility functions could change over time. So $100 opportunity cost would be an educated guess. Not necessarily correct

>>8305336
You are correct because it costs way more than nothing to feed and board a horse, so you probably lost money.

>>8305593
>depends on how much he started with doesnt it?
no it doesnt

-500 on first buy
+600 on first sale
-700 on second buy
+800 on second sale
+_____
6+8-7-5= 14-12=200 dollars net gain.

>>8305336
Breakup with her.Change your name.Move to a different country.You'll be alright maybe.

>>8305336
your family is retarded.

>>8305336
Buys horse 500$
>-500
Sells horse 600$
>100$
Buy same horse 700$
>-100$
Sells it 800$
>700$

His start money is 500$ and he got 700$,so profit is 200$

>>8305653
you know that 1 USD today is not worth 1 USD from 10 years ago?

no you do not, since you are a 20 yo pleb undergrad

>>8305655
this. a salary of 7 units translates to something like 30 over the course of 40 years. so it can be quite noticeable over a lifetime.

>>8305336
Impossible to solve, we don't know the sales tax rate in this situation.

>>8305346
her objective is probably not to seem smart but to gently pull her boyfriends anger and frustration strings so that they will have hotter sex later.

Buy for 500
Sell for 600 = up 100
Buy for 700 = down 100
Sell for 800 = up 100

First two cancel and total profit is $100

Idiots

-500+600-700+800 = 200

But the value of money decreases over time due to inflation, so unless we know how much the value of money has declined between the different points in time, we can't say much of the real value of the money.

Over a course of 40 years the value of money can easily be reduced like 4.5 times. A bag of chips 40 years ago which cost 1 dollar today could have cost like 20-25 cents back then.

File: 1466460627068.png (229KB, 559x331px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 559x331px

I appreciate the input fellas. It probably is 200. I'm gonna stand by my answer and go down with the ship though. It may actually end up being 100 to where we're all wrong anyways.

Ansere is 300 bc 800-500=300

File: image.png (122KB, 559x361px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 559x361px

basic math
80+ posts

>>8305336
Is this the power of /sci/? Holy fuck I'm going back to /r/sci

File: are you fuckin serious.jpg (3KB, 126x126px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 126x126px

>>8305499
>At the end of each buying and selling step, he's left with no more than he started with.
>A man buys a horse for $500 then sells it for $600
>he's left with no more than he started with
>-500 + 600 = 100
>no more than he started with
>100 != 0
>no more

kys yourself

>>8306163
>>8306167
I'm with you guys, if this is shitposting it's not funny and if it's serious this board is kill.
Can anyone suggest a good science board, maybe physics or math related? Not necessarily something like stack-exchange, less q/a and more general discussion like we have here.

File: 1472333021118.jpg (60KB, 607x609px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 607x609px

>>8306163
>math

>>8306211
Yeah but srsly, This is like an elementary problem... How can I ever discuss anything with people on here if this is the majority of people on Sci.. I wanted to see how did this problem translate into 80+ posts and I was dissapointed...

Can you people even count wtf
He buys the horse for 500 and sell it for 600, so he made 100$
Then he lost 100$ for overpaying for the horse at 700$
Then he sold it for 800 and made his lost 100$ back.
So he only made 100$.

There's no other answer

>>8305336
No horse
$0 profit
Buy horse, -500
-$500
sell horse, +600
$100
buy horse again, -700
-$600
sell horse again, +800
$200

yuo hab $200 profit

>>8305336
How much did he spend in total?

$500 + $700 = $1200.

How much did he make in total?

$600 + $800 = $1400.

Profit = netGain - netLoss

$1400 - $1200 = $200

Seems pretty simple to me.

>>8306813
You're looking at it wrong. Let's say he has $0 to begin with.

He pays $500 for the horse, giving him a debt of -$500.

He sells the horse and is left with a surplus of $100 (-500 + 600 = 100).

He sells the horse again and is left with a debt of -$600 (100 - 700 = -600).

He sells the horse for $800 and obtains a surplus of $200 (-600 + 800 = 200).

What you are saying is this:

100 - 100 + 100 = (600 - 500) + (600 - 700) + (800 - 700)

which means you are adding the total he made from the first horse twice but then adding the total he paid for the second horse twice. The $100 dollar increments are marginal profits (think in terms of rates of change). You can't add them to give yourself a total profit. It's like differentiating an equation, adding the values after plugging in a number and trying to call those the values of the original equations.

>>8305336

Although it's the same horse you can think of them as unrealated objects

poor emulation of /a/'s math threads
those were fantastic
the amount of bait...

>>8305514
Most underrated post in a while.

File: image.png (19KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 200x200px

>>8305336
Actually it's been $100 profit all this time.

File: 1429947923604.jpg (44KB, 259x282px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 259x282px

Update from OP. My girlfriend is going to find out the answer in class today. 11.5 hours from now I'll report back with the news.

File: Jochen-Wegner-neuer-Chefredakteur-von-Zeit-Online_pdaArticleWide (1).jpg (18KB, 449x337px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 449x337px

>>8305336

Easy. First horse: 100$ profit. Second horse: 100$ profit. Add profits -> 200$

Op here. Teacher said that the class was thinking too much about it. It is a elementary question after all. The answer is 200. 100 per transaction.

>>8309426
It really wasn't that hard. Here's a story for you.

>man is dead broke, probably from a drug addiction
>goes to the mob to borrow $500 to buy drugs
>gets ripped off and gets a horse instead
>sells horse for $600, pays back $500, left with $100
>after a night of binge heroin shooting decides he does want a horse
>somehow still has his $100 but borrows $600 because horse is $700
>buy horse again
>owes mob $600 this time
>realizes he lives in NY and has no use for a horse so instead sells it to buy more drugs
>sells it for $800
>pays back $600 and is left with $200
>happy homeless meth head now has $200 to buy drugs

Fuck this is strange.
I see how the $100 profit is lost when the overpay of $700 is done. So $100 is profit after second sale.
I can also see that both sales had a $100 profit.
If he had the money to cover the buys, or took a loan, both leave him $200 up, I see that too.
Is it the word 'profit' that fucks me up and makes me think it's $100 earned at the end?

board baited af

>/sci/
>'what happens when i get taken away 4 apples when i have 5'

>>8305545
0
-500 + horse
100
-600 + horse
200


How does one even get 0?

>>8309510
>$100 profit is lost
No, the money doesn't go anywhere. The profit can't possibly depend on the subjective belief of whether he "overpaid".

File: 060.png (80KB, 500x475px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x475px

8-5=3
So 300
Duh?

>>8305336
Depends how you define profit. If you think about it like a stock, the answer is $200.

You buy a stock at $500; it rises to $600 and you sell, locking in a $100 profit. The price continues to rise to $700. You think it will keep going up so you buy it again at $700 and sell at $800, locking in another $100 of profit. $200 total profit.

>>8309469
Is 'horse' synonym for heroin in this story? Then why doesn't the mob act, when this man just sells heroin in their territory? And why does this guy first sell the 'horse' and then still shoot it? Where does he get this heroin from and why is that heroin free? That's not a good story, man. Too many plotholes.

>>8310552
No wtf it doesn't depend on how you define profit. Profit is profit don't be a spook

>>8305336
Say the man started with $1000. After the first purchase, he has $500. Then he sells it and has $1100. After the second purchase, he has $400. Then he sells again and has $1200. He has $200 more than when he began.