/sci/ - Science & Math

Not everyone had the luxury of a proper education.

120.

40% of 300 is 120.

Just say it and move on with your life.

You dont have to write a post about like this is facebook.

You're probably asking even stupider questions relative to the knowledge of your professors.

>>3721469Not everyone had the luxury of a 3rd grade education.

Unfortunately with what I've seen in the schools that statement is applying to more and more of the population.

.4 * 300 gosh op your so fucking stupuid

>>3721474
Can you help me with my homework too?

A refrigerator which originally cost $5,000 has a scrap value of $500 after 5 years. What is the diminishing rate that has been applied to the item?

It's for year 12 Accounting.

>>3721519

Depends how big the business is, as well as how it is conventionally done in the business in keeping with the consistency concept.

In most cases, without obsolescence, you could do either a straight line or reducing balance depreciation.

Usually in the exam they will either tell you what method is to be used, or they will ask you you to perform several and compare meaningfully between the various methods to identify which is the most appropriate.

(if the business is sufficiently large, the refridgerator could simply be regarded as an overhead cost and you will then write off the amount in the Profit and Loss in the year of purchase instead of matching the depreciation rate for its usage over its useful life whilst treating it as a capital expenditure and fixed asset.)

>>3721528
Thanks. The thing is, that is the question. It doesn't say which method to use (although I think it would be reducing balance) or give any more information. Am I just lacking information?

>>3721528
>>3721530
(Cost - Scrap Value) / estimated life = Depreciation
($5,000 - $500 ) / 5
4,500 / 5 = $900 annually.

900 is 5.5% of 5,000.

How's that?

>>3721532
That would only be for the straight line method I believe.

The equation for this is

1 - N * sqrtS/C

Where N is expected life, S is scrap and C is cost. But the answer I'm getting is way too small.

>>3721537
Thanks, but that is the answer I got and I was wrong, so it must be the reducing balance method. It was the % of decrease via that method but I'm not sure it can be worked out.

>>3721519

Agh, disregard previous.

>What is the diminishing rate that has been applied to the item?

Using Straight Line depreciation: (5000 - 500) / 5 = $900 per annum or 18% on cost per annum

>>3721540
Thanks. That's the value for the straight line method and I understand that one well, what about the reducing balance method?

>>3721547
I'm going to post a different question since I know the right answer to this one.

I've been trying to work it out for 40 minutes and it's irritating the hell out of me.

A motor vehicle which originally cost $22,000 has a scrap value of $5,221 after 5 years. What diminishing rate has been applied to the vehicle?

The answer is 25%.

>>3721560
Obviously, I need the working out.

Thanks if anyone can help.

>why are most of the population mathematically retarded?

Most of the population don't have acces to proper education.

>>3721519
Let r be the declining-balance depreciation rate, %. Then, 500 = 5000 / (1 + r/100)^5
Rearranging,
(1+r/100)^5 = 5000/500 = 10

1 + r/100 = 10^(1/5) = 1.585

r = 58.5%, fierce

r/100 = 0.585

>>3721573
And those who do can spell "access"

>A motor vehicle which originally cost $22,000 has a scrap value of $5,221 after 5 years. What diminishing rate has been applied to the vehicle?

5221 = 22,000 ( x / 100) ^5

0.2373181818 = (x / 100) ^5

0.7500085295 = x / 100

therefore x = 75

100 - 75 = 25%

Further explanation:


>5221 = 22,000 ( x / 100) ^5

>0.2373181818 = (x / 100) ^5
Bring over 22,000

>0.7500085295 = x / 100
Bring over ^5

>therefore x = 75
Which means that 5221 is 75% of 75% of 75% of 75% of 75% of 22,000

>100 - 75 = 25%
This is the rate per annum

>5221 = 22,000 ( x / 100) ^5

22,000 (x%) (x%) (x%) (x%) (x%) = 5,521

22,000 (x%) ^5 = 5,221

22,000 ( x / 100) ^5 = 5,221

Therefore rate = 25% per annum

Hope this clears things up.

Anymore?

Im going now.

Just a thing I learned a long time ago about compound interest. To reasonable accuracy (% interest rate) * (doubling time) = 72 approx. You can do rough compund interest calcs in your head.

Say a loaf of bread goes up threefold in ten years. That's about one-and-a-half doublings, so doubling time is about 10 / 1.5 = a bit over six years, say 6.3. Divide this into 72 and you get a bit under 12, say 11.

Doing it rigorously in excel using the formula

=3^0.1

gives 1.116 or 11.6%. Not too bad.

'Rule of 72'

>implying I can do math in my head

I'd just answer 3 times 40 and be done with it.

>>3721634
Pardon me. My first calculator was a slide rule. Seriously. For any complex calculation, you had to do a rough parallel calc in your head, just to keep track of the decimal places.

>>3721573
>Most of the population don't have acces to 3rd grade education.

do you live Tanzania?

>>3721640
Well, actually I can do simple math in my head, but I never work with decimal places. If I have to, I just convert to the closest fraction and go with that.

>>3721605
>>0.7500085295 = x / 100
>Bring over ^5

...how do I bring an index over?

>>3721629

>cant do rule of 69.3 in his head

>>3721647

to bring ^5 over, 5√ the other side

5√0.2373181818 = 0.7500085295

>>3721655
That's what I thought, but I'm getting 2.4357657 on my calculator. What's going on here?

Sorry for the retard tier questions, but I really want to get this down.

>>3721657
>Apologising for wanting to learn

You don't belong here.

>>3721650
Wow, you're right. Just looked it up in Wikipedia. I'd never thought about the derivation, but of course, it all fits since ln(2) is about 0.693.

>>3721657

Found your error.

2.4357657 is 5 times square root of 0.2373181818

Key in the function properly.

(You should get 0.7500085295)

>>3721661
>learning
>not just googling what you need, when you need it

Seriously, math is so fucking useless in the age of calculator and Wolfram Alpha.

>>3721661

No. It is necessary to humble yourself if you wish to learn. Anything.

No master will wish to enlighten you otherwise.

>>3721668

>Seriously, math is so fucking useless in the age of calculator and Wolfram Alpha.

If you dont learn maths, how will you know what to input?

I think you meant to say: "mental calculation is useless blah blah blah"

But you couldnt be further wrong from the truth.

If anything, a faster and more mathematically attuned mind is needed to stay relevant in todays day and age.

>If you dont keep up, evolution is eventually going to drop you like a ton of bricks.

>>3721668
there are plenty of expressions things like wolfram alpha will not be able to solve unless you use your mathematical knowledge to change it into a diferent form

>>3721665
Ah, thanks. I've got it now. However, the very next question does NOT include the scrap value. Using 0 instead of the scrap value gives a faulty answer. Are you sure there isn't another method? For diminishing btw.

A computer system costing $4,500 has an expected useful life of 5 years. What will be its carrying amount in 3 years using:
a) Straight line depreciation (worked this one out fine)
b) Reducing balance depreciation (stuck)

>>3721688
>>If you dont keep up, evolution is eventually going to drop you like a ton of bricks.
>implying evolution is observable in a human lifespan

>>3721657

Here, try this instead:

0.2373181818^(1/5)

If you do 5√0.2373181818

wolfram will read it as

5 times √0.2373181818

And not 0.2373181818^(1/5)

Which is what you want for the fifth root of 0.2373181818

Simultaneously proving the truth of:

>>3721694

>Now thats efficiency!

>>3721688
>Implying I'm going to die from not evolving or whatever the fuck you were trying to imply

>>3721702
Well fuck me, I did this years ago and did pretty well but I can't work it out. For the first one you can actually treat the scrap value as 0 and you should get 1800. For the second I'm not even sure where to begin.

>>3721702
Your teacher is fucking stupid. You cant solve that.

>>3721702

Well unless your syllabus has included some sort of convention for working that out, you pretty much cant work out the reducing balance for that one.

Solving that would be akin to solving the halting problem. You will never reduce your balance all the way to 0, unless you are capable of hypercomputation.

Reducing balance is just applying the function ( x / 100)

No matter how many times you apply the function (x / 100), you will never reach 0.

The most you can do in that question is to either apply the convention that you were taught or just simply reduce it to 0.01 which would result in 92.59785655% per annum (which is just silly).

>>3721702

Which country / education system are you learning accounting in?

>be at supermarket register
>woman in front of me wants to get $25 cash back on a check
>struggles to add $25 to the purchase price
>even the cashier takes several seconds and uses her fingers
Mother of god what.

>>3721793

Try adding $25 to the price of a chewing gum of $π

>>3721799
To the number of sig figs required for a purchase, that takes less than a second.

>>3721799

$28.15

They can keep the change.

>>3721793
After 8 hours scanning fucking barcodes let's see if you can add $1 to anything in your head without audibly sighing.

>>3721793

Using your fingers to add with numbers for anything above 10 requires finger binary.

That cashier is a respectable man of science.

>>3721837
The cashier was able to add twenty and then had to use her fingers to add the remaining five.

The sad fact is, public education in the USA doesn't actually fail to educate. It actually educates most people in how boring it is to be educated by unionized teachers and administrators, so they end up repulsed by learning in general, and become more compliant to the imperial system of governance. None of that happened by accident.

>>3721468

>why are most of the population mathematically retarded?

Why is the majority of Mathematicians socially retarded?