/biz/ - Business & Finance

easy, he made £20 but could have made £30 by not selling

>>8167686
+20

>>8167686
GTFO faggot

>expecting future multi-millionaires to give a shit about literal pennies

>>8167686
calculators were invented for a reason you idiot

>>8167686
0$

posting without looking at replies. am i a brainlet?

>>8167686
D. 10cuckpoints

>>8167721
kek

>>8167686
Assuming that -- besides "a man" at the start of the question -- all of the buyers are different people, the owner at the end of the series of purchases has paid 90 euro for a cow.

The question is therefore impossible to answer, unless you believe in a rational market. He has not made or lost money on his purchase unless the market rate for a cow is higher or lower than the agreed upon price.

>>8167744

i feel stupid for rushing to 20 before realizing you need to throw in a -10 in the second transaction.

>>8167744
yes, you are pic related
>>8167753
you as well
>>8167777
holy fucking quads of stupidity or quality bait

>>8167789
>+20
LINK holder confirmed

>>8167777
you were right the first time; he netted £20

also, checked

>>8167775
Is this bait? It doesn't matter what the market rate is, he sold the cow for more than he bought it for.

>>8167686
I have 70$ and I spend it, I have 10$.
I sell, I have 80$.
I spend 80$, I have 0$.
I sell, I have 90$.

I started with 70$, now I have $90.

My profits total -$12,45 after taxes and transaction fees. It was all for nothing.

Am I the only one here with a high IQ?

Answer is F. £30.

redid it

yes 20$

u a cheeky kent op i swear on me mums life

>>8167808
they are two separate transactions with a profit of 10
you are retarded

>>8167686
20

(-60) + 70 = 10

10 - 80 = -70

(-70) + 90 = 20

Am I a brainlet?

>>8167821
not as smart as you think

are you fucking idiots talking serious?

sum invested, sum earned, and subtract both.

>>8167815
At the end of the series of transactions, who is the owner? The individual who bought the cow for 90 euro, not the one who has been buying and selling repeatedly. How much the serial buyer/seller made or lost is a totally different question.

It's not a math problem, it's a relatively simple logic trick.

>>8167789
+10
He made 10 bucks the first and second transaction. Lost the 10 bucks second and third transaction, made another 10 bucks 3rd and fourth transaction.

The level of intelligence on /biz/ is shocking.

Let's simplify things.

I start with £60 and end with £90.. how much profit do I make?

>>8167862
you had to grab another 10 out when you bought back in for 80 you fucking mong

With taxes, transfer costs, stable costs, food costs, heating and water, vaccinations; this specific farmer is looking at a massive loss.

>>8167862
Look, dummy, the question isn't about the person repeatedly buying and selling. It's about the "owner" of the cow.

The owner of the cow at the end of the question is the man who bought it for 90 euro.

>>8167862
t. brainlet

>>8167862
autism alert

1) Where in the world does a cow cost £20?
2) Why would the farmer buy the cow back?

>>8167850
>>8167884
>arguing semantics for a math problem
go write a dissertation on plebbit

>>8167910
The cows bidding price started at 60, where are u getting 20$ from?

>>8167885
t. jewish math expert

>>8167686
The owner lost 90 because that's what he paid. The previous owner made 20.

>>8167933
The question is for 5th graders otherwise. If that's where your waterline is, man, I'm sorry.

>>8167686
0 in sats

>>8167862
You do not start with 60, you start with (-60) since you bought the cow with negative funds. You then earn 70, making you 10 dollars. And so on as in my other post.
Or 70 + 90 = 160 = earned
60 + 80 = 140 = spent

Earned - spent = 160 - 140 = 20

It's not so fucking hard.

The fact that he buys THE SAME cow back is irrelevant, he does two transactions and both earn him 10£ each.

Seriously, this was so easy especially after having done some crypto trading before. Humans usually delude themselves with all kind of crappy things, you need to flush your brain from all kind of shitty logic to see more clearly.

For example, if you think that X and Y are good projects, you own X and it tanks, but Y tanks harder, it is not very logical to hold if you have faith in both projects, you would switch from X to Y. Normally people would just hold or panic sell, or whatever.

>>8167842
no, but is that common core math, wtf

70-60=10
90-80=10
10+10=20

The answer is £30 u slinks

>>8167996
the sad thing is >>8167862 is too retarded to use a calculator to do the simple math

How can he start with -60, he bought a cow when he had 0$? Who buys cattle on a fucking loan?

>>8167971
obviously not, look at the answers in this thread
ask 5 random people this question tomorrow. i bet you'll get an answer of 10 3 times

>>8167819
Underrated post

>>8167996
>The fact that he buys THE SAME cow back is irrelevant
Why would it be irrelevant? What is he the Federal Reserve? He can't just print over thin air. The extra cost when buying back should be accounted for.

The fact that this post has this much discussion is fuckin sad, its literally grade 4 maths. Last year i tutored a young kid in maths and I can visualise this question being in his book along with a picture of a cow and a businessman in a suit.

>>8168025
Doesn't matter. Consider it the "profit/loss" with $0 being no profits/losses.

Why do you brainlets exist? Fucking hell it's $20 or pounds, whatever.

60
60-60=0
0+70=70
70-80=-10
-10+90=80
80-60=20
Specially for brainlets.

>>8168059
it explains why it's so easy to make money in crypto right now...for some

OP here. The answer is G) -£90. The owner just bought a cow. Looks like a lot of you are gonna get cucked by average IQ farmers.

>>8167845
I have dyscalculia, please no yell.

>>8168058
>The extra cost when buying back should be accounted for.

No.

That is only assuming that he in general wants cows and measures his gains and losses in cows, not in fiat. You could say that he lost satoshis but gained fiat in a sense.

However, the question is how much money he made, in that sense cows and satoshis or w/e are irrelevant.

1. -£60
2. -60 + 70 = +£10
3. 10 - 80 = -£70
4. -70 + 90 = +£20

>>8168186
SHUT THE FUCK UP SLUT YOU LOST $20

>>8168124
I count two of us who got it

>>8167880
Terrible investment, it almost makes me feel better about being genuinely confused by that math problem.

At what amount of pounds do the British say quid? Is there a rule? Or are pound and quid always interchangeable?
Any person from England who has answers?

Lmao this question was posted a few days ago and it showed how this board is full of brainlets

>>8168224
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-pound-and-quid/
googling is hard

>>8168203
Now that's just rude.

$75,000 for a 30% stake + indefinite royalties on whatever the cow produces.

>>8167686
Starts with £100, buys a cow for £60, sells for £70, buys again for £80 and sells for £90.
100-60+70-80+90=120
£20 profit.

>>8167686

$10. Are you people fucking autistic or what?

60 dollars to start with, sell for 70 dollars. $10 profit.

buy for $80 dollars (goodbye $10 I made) sell for $90. $10 profit.

$24.83

>>8168328
are you retarded the 80 dollars you bought it for puts you in the negative

HOLD THE FUCK ON. can i really buy a cow for 60 pounds?

>>8168328
but he's no longer the owner of the cow at the end, there's a second or even third person involved.

>>8168328
buy @ 60, sell @ 70

10 profit

buy @ 80, sell @ 90

10 profit

total profit of 20

>>8168224
Generally they are interchangeable. You wouldn't hear anyone talking about £1000 being 1000 quid though. That's probably the cutoff point. People sometimes call £1000 a grand.

>>8168257
>Another slang for ‘pound’ is ‘sterling’
Actually the full name of the currency is pound sterling.

>>8168396
Well at some point of history they might have cost that much, easy.

this has to be a troll, he netted $20

>>8168316
I see, but all profits generated from the cow come from the milk it produces. Giving one party indefinite royalties on the aforementioned milk is essentially giving them exclusive access to all profits making the 30% stake in the cow pointless.

>>8167686
Faggot owner makes 20 in fiat
Spends more than that moving the cow around
Buy futures, not commodities.

>>8168486
Perhaps you could impregnate the cow, have it produce calves and then sell it to a slaughter house and split the profits between both parties once it has exhausted the ability to produce more milk. The calves would be purchased at the alternative party's discretion but that depends on how many calves are successfully delivered.

>>8168224
No hard and fast rule. It depends not only on amount, but also who you talk to. I discuss pounds sterling with my (((mortgage advisor))), my dentist bill is paid in pounds, down the pub I pay in pound (singular, eg can you believe I paid twenty pound for this) or quid, interchangable with pound. Also acceptable are squids or nicker. Anything over 1,000 is likely to be called grand, i.e that house next to me went for 250 grand. Over 500,000 you'll probably call it a mil, i.e half a mil. In conclusion, quid is actually only used in a small way to refer to GBP

Also, -£90 and anyone who is discussing in $ KYS.

>>8167996
>Seriously, this was so easy especially after having done some elementary school

ftfy

>>8168654
I've heard people use quid as a singular noun, there's no rule, it's just a slang term that's interchangeable with pound.

>>8167686
If he starts off with $100 (inb4 pound symbol)
>100 - 60 = 40
>70 + 40 = 110
Then
>110 - 80 = 30
>90 + 30 = 120
So if he starts with $100 he finishes with $120. So unless there's an accounting technicality where I'm supposed to subtract something because he's bought back the same cow. Then the answer should be E

>>8167686
$-60, I got liquidated

>>8167862
Have a (you)

>>8167862
Christ. Just think of it as you start with 70 and buy a cow for 60. You now have a cow and 10 bucks. You ultimately end up with 90 bucks for a profit of 20. Why does this stupid shit keep getting posted here?

its 30$ u mongs

90-60=30

brainlets holy fuck

>>8168911
>30
JFC

>>8168980
nice bait faggot. it is 30$

>>8169000
did you forget the negative 10$ he took out of his pocket to buy the cow again for 80$ brainlet

>>8169000
What a waste of trips.
>start with $70
>buy cow
>have cow and $10
>sell cow for $70
>have $80
>buy cow for $80
>have cow
>sell cow for $90
>have $90
>profit $20
Alternative version for those who aren’t slow
>make two sales where you profit $10 each
>profit $20

>>8167862
Please be bait

>buy cow for $60
>sell cow for $70 (+10 profit)
>buy cow for $80 (-10 profit)
>sell cow for $90 (+10 profit)
>$10 profit at the end
while he technically did make $20 in all, you have to take in the fact that the cow cost $10 more when he bought it the 2nd time

>>8169322
>he technically made 20 but he only made 10

>>8167686

Date: 11/10/95 at 11:5:59
From: Doctor Ken
Subject: Re: Word Problems/Problem Solving

Hello!

Here's where the mistake lies. Let's assume that Bill (the guy buying
and selling the horses) has $60 at the beginning of this little horse-
trading. So he spends it on the horse. Then he gets $70 for it. If he
wants to buy it again for $80, you're right that he has to borrow $10
from someone else (or from himself - perhaps from he had some other
money he had planned to use for another purchase), but we have to keep
track of this debt. See, he's not _even_ now, he actually has -10 dollars.

So then he gets $90 back for the horse. But since he had -$10, the net
effect of getting that $90 is to make him have _80_ dollars (you might
think about that as paying back the $10 he owed). So since he started
out with $60, and he has $80 at the end, the overall effect was to gain
$20.

Make sense?

-Doctor Ken, The Geometry Forum

>>8167721
>several million dollars is a lot of money nowadays

If you're over 30 and have less than $10M, you might as well kys because you'll never make it

This is childs play compared to this

>>8169562
Easy. Your debts are -100 (loan) but your assets are +97 (top) and +3 (fiat)

You write off debt with your 2 fiat.

You are -98 (loan), assets are +97 (top) +1 (fiat)

>>8169322
buy at 60, sell at 90 would be 30 profit
buy at 60 sell at 70 then buy at 80 sell at 90 is 2 times 20 profit when the potential profit could have been 30 so you have to subtract the 10 lost profits from the potential profits of 30

>>8169689
the cow had a flash drive containing bitcoin up its ass

>>8169361
>>8169689
ok, ok, you're right. i was mistakenly removing the $10 from his profits when he bought the cow using $80

>>8169635
I just explained this to my normie facebook friends and now they will all think I'm a genius. Thanks anon.

>>8169635
but wait, after you write the debt off your parents have £2 and a £98 claim and you have £97 + £1.
100>98. The equations still don't balance???

>>8169917
never mind, the £2 paid back would be taken out of the equation

ONLY FOR GENIUS ???

>>8167686
man lost 10EU form just cow holding

>>8170031
mathematically right, philosophically wrong.

Let 0.99999... = x
10x=9.9999....
10x-x=9x=9
x=1

>Credits 160
>Debits 140
>Net +20

You literally all know how to do this

>>8170031
Sorry I mean wong

This is borderline stupid. Go to /int/ if you want to discuss math and intellectual shit.

Guy lost a perfectly good cow. Should have Hodled. He is down a cow and about 40$ for trading costs. Finding a buyer and negotiation is not free. Ur time is worth more than a 20$ an hour

>>8170031
which reminds me, if you send 0.9999999 btc to my wallet I will send you 1 btc

You design a device that turns a light bulb on and off over a 2 minute period, flicking the switch once half the time is gone since the last flick. So at 1 min, at 30 seconds, at 15 seconds, etc. You place a box over the light, and turn your device on. At the end of the two minutes you take the box off and look at the light, is it off or on?

>>8170163
>Pump price of cow 50%
>Dump bags on this autist

>>8170031
1/3 = .3333.....
2/3 = .6666.....
3/3 /= 1

>>8170336
whilst right thats not mathematical proof

>>8170085
>philosophically wrong

??
Isn't eternal 0.9999... kind of silly concept anyway, since it can't really exist in reality. Label as paradox and call it a day.

>>8170389
it philosophically wrong as whilst they have identical mathematical properties they have other properties that differentiate them. They look different for example.