show to the rest you aren't an idiot. proof you deserve

>>8721793
100

-1/12

100

>>8721793
50/50. Either the shopkeep lost $100 or he didn't.

>>8721807
lol

>>8721811
This

>>8721793
He essentially stole 70$ worth of goods and 30$ in cash, so 100$

>>8721793
this isn't a high enough bar to weed out brainlets. any jack hole who shitted through grade school could figure this "test" out.

answer is $100 less the markup on $70 of merchandise.

>>8721801
>>8721808
>A shop own sells goods to break even

Wew pls go into business for yourselves, I want to shop there.

>>8721829
?

>>8721865
He means no shop owner is gonna sell product at the same price he bought it for.

>>8721793
i didn't look at the picture

>>8721793
Not enough information.
Depends on the total cost price of the goods, not the selling price.

>>8721829
>>8721869
but he was going to sell them for that price.

I dont have 4chan gold. Can someone transcribe the post into text form?

The owner lost $30 worth of money.

>>8721880
The problem in OP is if a Darwin's bark spider shat silk directly in to your mouth and you gobbled it down, would you be able to digest it at all or would you shit silk like a spider?

>>8721892
and we found the first dumbass.

>>8721898
The amount of goods sold and how much they cost is irrelevant. The owner lost $100 then gained it back, then gave away $30 in change.

/sci/ is full of brainlets and it's sad really.

>>8721793
My dad is a civil engineer and I am a mathematician so it is clear that my IQ is at least 10 times his.

>>8721922
you cant be that dumb so im just gonna guess you are trying to trolling.

30$

lmao at the guys who think those 70$ in goods must be accounted.

>>8721793
$30 plus goods with a retail value of $70, the true cost of which we don't know

>>8721938
Wrong thread

File: truss.jpg (135KB, 645x430px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 645x430px

>>8721952
something else was stolen we can't put a price on

trust

>>8721793
100$ but the owner still lost 100 billion regardless

>>8721793
100

>>8721824
You don't sell goods at the same price you bought them

>>8721996
of course you do, when it's sale you even sell them for less

>>8722010
I knew all "intellectuals" have a tendency to socialism but come on...

Not enough information. I need to know what ethnicity the shop owner was. (I have deduced the ethnicity of the thief)

>>8722013
so, in your shop, you keep pushing the old stuff even when it's gone bad already or a new collection came out? well that sounds p socialist to me.

>>8721793
Loses $70 worth of goods and $30 in cash.

>>8721996
The problem is obviously taking about SRP. Someone doesn't walk into a store and buy goods at cost at the register. Stop being dumb.

Let A be the total sum of cash in the register.
Transactions are as follows:
1) A
2) A - 100
3) A - 100 + 100
4) A - 100 + 100 - 30
=> A - 30 is left, so he lost $30
This is objectively the only correct answer and you cannor prove me wrong

>>8722105
You also lost 70 dollars of inventory paid for with the stolen money.

>>8722113
So how do you represent that with discrete mathematical elements

$100 dollars.

The man stole $100 dollars in cash and exchanged $70 cash for $70 worth of merchandise while maintaining $30 cash.

The store owner effectively lost $100.

>>8722118
You only included the register. The store has 100 in the register, 70 in items.

>>8722105
You can't prove a negative ya dingus.

>>8722118
-70

>>8722123
mathematicians prove negatives every fucking day son

>>8722121
>>8722124
The owner paid for those items as an investment in advance.

>>8721996
but that's how internet piracy works.

1 million torrented copies of a $50 dollar game = $50 million dollars stolen!

>>8721793
He stole 100 dollars minus the profit margin of the goods. No store sells everything at the exact same price they paid for it. The people saying 100 are retarded brainlets who need to leave immediately

>>8722142
You mean plus the profit margain

>>8722131
And? Losing something you were going to sell for $70 is the same thing as losing $70.

>>8722147
No, i meant minus. Let's simplify the problem. Say the owner bought something for 50 dollars wholesale, and sold it for 100. The customer pays with his hundred, and gets the 50 dollar item. Since the owner got his other 50 dollars back, he lost 50 dollars worth of goods. The actual retail price has no bearing on the items worth, it only matters what the owner himself paid for it.

>>8722134
Oh no... those poor millionaire investors and executives. How will I sleep at night!?

>>8722150
So you're saying the net result is A-100+100-30-70?

>>8722142
But he could have gotten 70$ for it if some other customer bought it.

ITT a bunch of autistic "business executives" who have never managed a cash register in their lives

>>8722170
Prove that someone would have bought it

>>8722170
That's assuming it would have been bought, it could have spoiled, he could have had to mark it down, it's not a sure thing that he was going to be able to sell the item.
Same argument doesn't work for piracy, just because you sell your game for 50 dollars doesn't mean it's worth 50 dollars, and not everyone who steals something would have paid full price if they couldn't.

>>8722165
Yes. Whatever the thief did with the money can be ignored, since he did not give any of it back, merely switched its form.

>>8721793

100 dollars minus profit from transaction, which is unknown since too little information has been told.

TL;DR Unsolvable.

>>8722171
Is that supposed to be an insult? I feel sorry for you if you've ever had a job managing a cash register, which any idiot can do.

>>8721793
the guy lost $30

>>8722191
He switched the money into a less valuable form, unless the owner was selling at a loss for whatever reason. Not enough information but you're almost certainly wrong.

>>8722173
Prove that the owner would have otherwise not had his money stolen.

>>8722173
>>8722175
If he failed to sell it or it spoiled then that would represent a loss of $70.

>>8722197
>He switched the money into a less valuable form
Less valuable to whom? Certainly not the person he stole from. If I normally get $70 when I sell that item then that is its value to me. I wouldn't sell it for less because I could get more if I just kept doing what I've been doing.

>>8722201
Nope

>>8722201
Let me rephrase the answer. He lost 100 dollars minus the profit margin of the goods, which is equal to 30 dollars plus the worth of the goods.

>>8722195
Sad that a cashier is smarter than /sci/

>>8722201
No proof that it would have spoiled or any of that.

>start a business
>list a sheet of paper for $10 billion
>never sell it
>write it off
>wow government i just lost $10 billion, you can't tax me on capital gains now that I have yuge losses

/sci/ logic

>>8722222
There doesn't have to be proof, the possibility exists. No business has 100% turnover at the exact price they set for every item. Some inventory always gets marked down or thrown away.

If i open a cupcake shop, and price each cupcake at 1 trillion dollars, if someone steals a cupcake, how much did i lose? 1 trillion dollars, or the actual cost of that cupcake.

>>8722220
No, he lost the profit margin of the goods too. It's an opportunity cost.

>>8722222
Never said there was. Read the thread.

>>8722235
How do you know no one was buying from the store?

>>8722240
Wanna buy a sheet of paper for $10 billion? I promise you that I can supply this to you in short manner and it will be the best sheet of paper you have ever seen in your life.

>>8722240
Let the item's worth be 40 dollars, and the price 70 dollars as stated in the problem. Then it is clear that he got 30 dollars of his money back after exchanging 70 dollars of his own money for a 40 dollar item. I know it isn't science, but please take an economics course or two, you're embarrassing yourself.

>>8721793
he lost nothing capitalist pigs!

>>8722243
No, where is your evidence that the store was failing to sell the items bought for $70? Stores generally don't price items so that they can't ever be bought.

>>8722247
>Let the item's worth be 40 dollars
It clearly says in the problem "$70 worth of goods." But nice try.

30 dollars and 70 dollars worth of stuff.

So 100$ simple.

-100

+100
-70
-30

This is pretty straightforward I think, don't know how people understand it differently.

>>8722237
Legally you lost 1 trillion

>>8722254
The question does not mention anything about any further transactions, so there were none made.

>>8722254
They clearly mean cost of the item, since that's how much change he got back, 100-70. If the goods were also worth that much wholesale, then the owner lost 100 dollars. If they were worth 40 wholesale, then the owner lost 70 dollars.
>>8722257
retard

>>8722263
Why does the lack of mention imply none were made? Stores generally don't price items so that they don't sell. Assuming that they do is silly.

>>8722274
Generally no, but stores that have tried to have gone out of business before. It's not a clear assumption we can make from the problem statement.

You fuckin mongs, he lost the opportunity to make $70 on those goods to other individuals and thus he lost $100

>>8722273
>They clearly mean cost of the item, since that's how much change he got back
Yes, and that's how much they're worth to the store owner. The store is not selling them wholesale, so the worth of the goods is not their wholesale price.

>>8722280
Who says he has that opportunity?

>>8722279
Which stores have tried to go out of business and why should we assume this is one of them?

>>8722285
Who says he doesn't?

>>8722291
The question

>>8722284
>>8722291
Store doesn't decide the worth of the goods, the market does. Since we don't have information on the markets value of these goods, we must go off of what the owner paid the wholesale company, which is indeterminate. However, if it were given, then the owner lost 100 minus the profit margin. Therefore the general solution is 100 minus the profit margin, which is unknown and could be zero or negative.
>>8722290
None (or few) have tried to, but plenty have by foolishly ignoring the market

>>8721793
What an autistic bunch

>>8722254
>>8722200
>>8722173
>>8721974
>>8721952
>>8721996
[math]
L=\frac{$30 + (\alpha - PV(\beta)) \cdot (B\phi)(\rho \sigma_d - [\overline{F}\cdot (1-M_\rho)(V\cdot \Sigma^k_0 v_i(t) \delta t)])}{1 - x_0 \cap d_0 }
[/math]

[math]
\text{Where } \\
\alpha = \text{list price} \\
PV(\beta) = \text{present value of original purchase price} \\
B = \text{maintenance cost of the bought item} \\
\phi = \text{transportation cost deduction} \\
\rho = \text{chance that the object in question would actually ever be legitimately bought} \\
\sigma_d = \text{depreciation factor} \\
\overline{F} = \text{average value of the floor space upon which the item sat} \\
M_\rho = \text{random variable: proportional length of time before the replacement item sells} \\
V = \text{profit from the sale of the replacement item} \\
\Sigma v_i(t) = \text{profit from sale of each replacement item after that} \\
x_0 = \text{chance that the owner has his money otherwise stolen} \\
d_0 = \text{chance of catastrophic destruction of the shop}
[/math]

Saged

>>8722295
No it doesn't.

>Store doesn't decide the worth of the goods, the market does.
The value is what the question says it is, $70.

200 Jesus Christ

File: not hard enough.png (27KB, 1129x824px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1129x824px

>>8721793
this is me>>8721825

to all the fucking morons who are too fucked in the head to figure this out I made you a picture.

>how much money did the owner lose
>money
the question does not ask about the difference in value or net worth between the before and after cases. it specifically asks about the amount of money lost.

>>8722357
Time is money so this thread is a big waste of money.

>>8722357
the merchant paid money for the merchandise that was lost, he lost that money.

unrelated

is the fact that people seem not to put a value on the merchandise that was lost in this problem related to the lack of guilt stupid people feel when they steal?

>>8722362
Only if you stopped doing something that was earning you money to spend that time ITT instead.

>>8722332
So $100

>>8722332
lel I opened this stupid thread like 4 hours ago waiting to have no replies, went to see some football, have dinner and now come here and find +100 replies and this one in particulars. Please /sci/ never change.

Oh and it's $100.
It's very simple.

$100. Let me explain why.

Imagine you have $100. Somebody takes it from you. They trade you the bill for $70 worth of stuff and $30 in cash. The guy is still walking off with $100. You now have $0. Hence you lose $100 in this financial transaction.

>>8722398
the 70 bucks in goods did not cost 70 dollars. it likely cost 5-20 bucks.

price =|= cost

The owner loses the 100 that were stolen from him.

Gee, that was hard. Of course he makes profit from the good sold, which could be factored in, but there is no information given about how high the profit may be.

That being said, its impossible to calculate what the costs of producing/providing any item are, you have to make assumptions at some point (what percentage of the CEO wage will be assigned to the production cost of that single scew?), but we are opening a whole new can of worms here..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_accounting

$30

The rest he lost in inventory

>>8722433
>jewed out of
>nigged out of
ftfy

>>8722222
HOLY SHIT DIGITS

>>8722222
witnessed

>>8722341
This

>>8722483
>>8722489
samefag

File: lekotface.jpg (3KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x125px

>>8721793
$30, everything else was not money, but had a monetary value, but thats not what the question asked.

File: 1487074807434.jpg (34KB, 426x328px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 426x328px

>the guy steals $100
-$100
>he pays for stuff worth $70 with the bill
-$70
>he gets $30 in change
-$30

Total: $200. Trust me, I'm an algebraic topologist.

>>8721793
6 million if the owner was a jew

The shop owner lost $100 due to theft. Then, in a completely separate transaction, he did business the way his store was intended to operate.

The loss is $100. Doesn't matter what else happened. He could win the lottery later that day and he still would have lost $100

>>8721793
About tree fiddy

>>8722341
replace $100 and $70 with $100-$x and $70-$x

>>8722119
>The man stole $100 dollars in cash and exchanged $70 cash for $70 worth of merchandise while maintaining $30 cash.
>The store owner effectively lost $100.
So when a customer comes in and exchanges $70 cash for $70 worth of merchandise, the store owner hasn't gained anything?

Why does he stay in business if there's no profit?

It doesn't say how much time has passed inbetween the theft and the transaction. We have to account for losses from inflation.

The question is not "what is the NET loss"

The question is "how much does the owner lose"

It has nothing to do with what the owner may have gained or profited.

The answer is $100. The owner lost $100 and subsequently and inadvertently made a profit by selling some goods. His loss was $100, and his profit was whatever it was.

>>8722792
>"how much does the owner lose"
but that's not what the question asks.
>How much MONEY did the owner lose?

The shop owner lost every dollar invested in his store eventually, as evident by how freaking stupid he is to leave his register unattended and probably open. I give a period of 2 years maximum before this occurs. His wife, however, will probably make a couple hundred thousand when the shop owner dies in an "unfortunate accident". Poor shop owner, worth more to the economy dead than alive.

>brainlets dont account for the opportunity cost

Its $100 you fucking idiots, the owner could have sold those goods for $70. Take some fucking econ 101

>B-But you cant prove he was going to sell them!

Its a fucking store, I guess only brainlets like you would open stores for NOT selling goods.

>>8722848
the opportunity to make 70 bucks is not equivalent to 70 bucks in liquid cash. go back to school before you end up serving overpriced coffee your whole life

lets imagine the owner has $100 in his register and $70 worth of goods.

after the money is stolen he has $70 worth of good and $0 in his register

the thief buys $70 worth of goods with the stolen money.

the owner now has $0 worth of goods and $70
in his cash register.

The owner has lost $100

>>8721793
[math] -100 -70 +100-30=-100 [/math]

I still think I'm an idiot.

File: 1488047014546.jpg (123KB, 460x460px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 460x460px

>>8722332
>chance of catastrophic destruction of the shop

>>8721793
$100 - minus the profit margin on the $70 item. The owner didn't pay $70 for that item, so he's out only his cost of that item (and the $30).

The question was how much money did he lose, not how much value. He has $30 less in his till than when the thief came in, so $30

>>8723232
But he was going to sell it for $70. He didn't lose the profit margin, he lost the whole $70 it was going to be sold for

File: CDM_Ill_Allow_It.jpg (175KB, 954x730px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 954x730px

>>8723255

File: old.jpg (68KB, 780x593px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 780x593px

>>8721793
What is this thing on the pole?

File: rood road.jpg (148KB, 1304x791px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1304x791px

>>8723306
why design a road like this?

>>8721793
$30 + Whatever the goods originally cost the owner

or $30 + 70 going by retail value

>>8721793
Depends how much it cost the owner to buy the goods that he sold to the thief ;^)

Seriously though this question is ambiguous. If we're talking about how much literal money he's holding, he lost 100$ but gained 70$ back, so the answer would be 30$. However, if we're talking about money in a slightly more abstract way, he lost both 100$ when he was robbed, and another 70$ in the transaction, so 170$ total. HOWEVER, it could be said that he exchanged 70$ worth of goods for 70$, i.e he's lost 30$ cash and 70$ worth in goods, so in aggregate the loss remains at 100$.

tl;dr 30, 100, and 170 appear to me to be the only valid options, but the "true" answer depends on your interpretation. A perfect question for a b8 thread if I ever saw one.

>>8723255
>The question was how much money did he lose, not how much value
What's the difference?

Only real way you could be talking about money and not value is if we're talking about literally what bills changed hands: thief takes 100$ bill, hands it back to the shop owner, then the shop owner would give him 30$ in change, a 20$ and 10$ bill excluding special circumstances.

So basically, the thief now has a 10$ bill, a 20$ bill, and whatever he bought. The owner has lost two pieces of legal currency.

Also, if we're going to your super literal interpretation, the question asks not how much less the owner has than when it started, but how much he lost. If you loose something then gain it back, you've still lost it at some point, yes? Under this interpretation, he has lost 100$, although he did later gain back 70$ (whether he also lost that 70$ via the goods he sold notwithstanding). You can't insist on being literal where it suites you but not do it elsewhere.

File: View_from_the_Window_at_Le_Gras,_Joseph_Nicéphore_Niépce.jpg (2MB, 2597x1805px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2597x1805px

>>8723306
the very first photograph seems so amazing to me. How can a scene can be captured forever on a two dimensional surface? Who would ever think?

File: 15178947_1607577762871121_8348308637847058398_n.jpg (57KB, 959x401px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 959x401px

>>8723394
>What's the difference between money and value
Value is a lot harder to measure, you can't assume '$70 worth' of goods translates directly into $70.
The shopkeeper may change their price, or they may expire if he can't sell them in time.
So no I'm not being 'super literal', there's an important distinction.

>>8722643
It's $100

Trust me, I have worked many years at stores.

>>8721793
130$

depends what the profit margin is for the goods that he purchased.

assuming the profit margin is 0 and the goods are worth exactly 70 dollars then the owner has lost 100$

assuming the cost of producing the goods was x$ where x <70 then in reality the shop owner would have lost 30+x

File: Too stupid to breed.jpg (68KB, 620x372px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 620x372px

>>8721793

Here's a better one OP. /pol/ regularly fails at this.

The true theft is the taxes he had to pay on this sale.

>>8723811

From a pure material cost perspective, you're right. However, I'd argue that the owner should consider his opportunity costs as well. In that case, he would have lost the full $70 regardless of margin.

>>8724355
May 15

File: 1398135965756.png (28KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 150x150px

>>8721807

>all these brainlets impling we are supposed to calculate the profit margin on an unknown set of $70 worth of goods from an unknown store, in an unknown area, with an unknown manager.

Wew lads, it's pretty clear the shop owner lost $100 as best we can tell, the absolute $70 value can't be calculated any better because we don't know what the shopkeeper's costs are.
So the theif ended up with $70 in goods and $30 in cash, totalling $100 worth stolen, with an unknown total loss to the shopkeeper (if you insist on not including lost profits as part of total loss).

File: 1409651012-screen_shot_2014-09-02_at_104225.png (585KB, 606x600px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 606x600px

>>8721793
>You take 100$ (Shop owner -100$)
>You buy 70$ worth of goods
>Give or take, the shop owner bought the goods for 35$ (Shop owner -65$)

Hence the shop owner only lost 65$

>>8721793
Owner starts with $100 + $70 of goods (neglecting the fact that he buys for less than he sells)
At the end of the transaction, the owner has $70 + $0 of goods
Therefore, he loses $100.

>>8725306
Oh, I didn't see your post. Bohr was fond of asking his students how many pianos were in their city for their phd interview thing (it slipped my mind what it's called). Moral of the story: estimation and back of the envelop calculations are absolutely essential to science.

>>8725327
>estimate and back of envelope calculations
>give a set of 5 answers to choose from

Fucking woopdeedoo brainlet.
If you want me to estimate the markup on the shopowner's goods by giving me an idea of where he is, what time period it is, and what sort of goods they are, I can do that.

This is like asking how many pianos are in A city if you know 3 are in it?
1.6
2.3
3.18
4.157
5.1
It is logically flawed in it's delivery, as it is presented as a solvable problem with solutions that are more or less likely than each other, when really it is number Russian roulette for retards.

>>8724355
so what's the answer?

>>8725335
>>8725314
I think my estimation was probably pretty accurate. You should listen to a nifty story and be amused instead of being toxic

>>8725335
With the piano estimation even if your answer is off by a factor of 100 I'd say you did pretty fucking good. Another one is how many piano repairers are in your city.

>>8725348
>assuming a 50% store markup on gasoline

I would rather be toxic because this problem is shittier than the sheep eating faeces the other day.

>>8725351
>your answer can be both off by a factor of 100 when 5 multiple choices are given, and decent

REEEEEEE normies get out

>>8721793
If he lost $200 dollars (which he did - the bill, the goods and the change) then he also lost all the smaller amounts listed so all of them.

>>8721793
100

File: hippity_hoppity.png (139KB, 500x522px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 500x522px

>>8722253

>>8725341
thanks faggots for not answering me

>>8725565
100$ if you count the value of the merchandise as 70$
Less than 100$, but interminable if you wonder how much the owner actually invested in the merchandise

>>8724355
June 18

File: d82a69793ee2f5953ca6266e0c8bd3519c71c767147a33738fdea2517e9d7e50.png (97KB, 300x308px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 300x308px

>>8723306
>2087 S Irish Rd
It's so Irish even the telephone poles are drunk.

File: ooh.gif (26KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 240x240px

>>8722332

>>8721793
>proof you deserve to be on this board.
get fucked

>>8721793
$70 worth of merchandise, $30 cash. More importantly, who cares? Why try to introduce subjective notions of value of goods vs. currency?

>>8721793
100, it's written in the first paragraph.

There is no info on the profit margin, so we cannot assume anything here.