/sci/ - Science & Math

You made a critical error of posting a picture that's far more interesting than your post.

bump

you are fucking stupid

>>3943605
depreciates by 0.9025%

>>3943609
>oh wow, tits, how magical
grow the fuck up, virginfag

>>3943612

Oh, Rose...

>>3943612
god I hate you. Can't you go to a different board? Moot put up some new ones, maybe you'll like them.

Initial price of the stock: x

The stock after one month: 1.095x
The stock after two months: 0.905(1.095x)
-> 0.905(1.095x) = 0.990975x

Stock price depreciates: 0.9025%

>>3943635
my answer is correct, candy ass
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100-%28109.5*0.905%29
and this board would suck without me. =p
(also, i do go on other boards sometimes, but this is my favourite still)

>>3943612
better than feeling the need to show off your knowledge by answering middle school level questions

>>3943641
i didn't say anything about your answer. i just hate you.

>>3943643
that wasnt showing off, i just may as well contribute while i'm here.
at least i'm responding to the OP, what the fuck kind of use have you ever been to anyone?

>>3943647
> admitting being used

>>3943645
heheh, i'm not suprised. i also don't care

>>3943649
>admitted being useless

>>3943647
I'm plenty useful
I answer the questions that don't shit up the board

>>3943650
>doesn't care
>replies with reaction image

>>3943650
>>3943647
>>3943641
>>3943612
>>3943653

rose is off her meds

>>3943654
Rose is a cool guy and doesn't afraid of anything.

>>3943656
your point?
<<<[reaction image]

>>3943666
how's it being bipolar? have any friends left?

>>3943657
>I'm plenty useful
but not at grammar, apparently...

>>3943669
shut the fuck up, cunt. you don't know anything about my condition

>>3943641

Your answer is incorrect, you monumental sack of shit.

The arithmetic is of course in order, but the computer did that. The only you had to do was understand the logic. Something you failed to do, probably because you're retarded. The correct answer is as follows:

>The price of a stock appreciated by 9.5% of its value last month
100 turns into 109.5

>and then depreciated by 9.5% this month.
109.5 turns into 99.0975

>By what percent did the stock appreciate or depreciate over the 2-month period?

Since 100 turned into 99.0975 the answer is:
-1.0091071924115139130654153737480763894144655516032190519437...%

>>3943674

>>3943678

I tried to make it as easy as possible, but I guess you're still too retarded to understand.

>>3943670
lol thats the best you can do? complaining about casual speech patterns?

>>3943684
>lol thats the best you can do?
erm, besides being the first on scene to correctly answer the thread, and also handing you your arse?
[sarcasm] no no, this performance was most certainly sub-par [/sarcasm]

>>3943699
haha, you really are proud of being able to answer a middle school problem

>>3943699

>besides being the first on scene to correctly answer the thread

Your answer is wrong...

>>3943704
[sarcasm] uhuh, because 100 - 99.0975 is most certainly 1.0091071924115139130654153737480763894144655516032190519437...% [/sarcasm]

>>3943711

Noo... I never said that

100/99.0975 = that long string of shit and because OP said:
> Express your answer as a positive or negative value based on the direction of the percentage change.

the answer is -1.0091071924115139130654153737480763894144655516032190519437...%

>>3943722
A DIVISION!???
what the fuck we are talking about percentage CHANGE the difference i percentage, wtf are you doig with a fucking DIVISION you troll!
so i suppose if it dropped to 50%, the percentage change is 2% right? because 100/50 = 2?

if troll, then...just fuck you
if retard, then, no actyally, just fuck you eitehr way.
stupid fucking shit-for-braisn son of a bitch...

>>3943732

>>3943738
ARE YOUU!???!/11#]

>>3943747

I suggest you stop now, because it seems I have no choice other than to hold your hand and walk you through the problem, and when I get done you'll be pretty embarrassed for being so retarded...

>>3943762
..perhaps.
you seem far too sure of yourself for someone who seems very obviously wrong to me at this precise moment in time..but then i am high as fuck, so if you're willing to "hold your hand and walk you through the problem" then i'm all ears, hun.

this threads on autosage anyway, even if i am wrong, no1 will ever know. we're down to about the 3rd page now i think.

>>3943772

Initial stock price = x

But since we're just working with proportional values we can assign any number we want to x and nothing will be changed. So x = 100, just for ease

x = 100

Month 1: x appreciates (increases) by 9.5%
9.5% of 100 = 9.5
100 + 9.5 = 109.5

x's current value at the end of month 1 is 109.5

Month 2: x depreciates (decreases) by 9.5% of ITS CURRENT VALUE
9.5% of 109.5 = 10.4025
109.5 - 10.4025 = 99.0975

OP asks us how much the stock has increased or decreased from its initial value over this two month period.

It's inital value was 100, and after two months it is now 99.0975.

Since the percent difference between those two numbers (found out by dividing them) is 1.0091071924115139130654153737480763894144655516032190519437...%

Its value varied by -1.0091071924115139130654153737480763894144655516032190519437...%

>>3943823
i agree with you up until the last ste[... i still see no reason for a division.
what about my example before, what if it depreciates down to 50% of the total, if you do exactly the same method, your division will be 100/50, and you will come to the conclusion it has depreciated by 2%, which is clearly wrong, as 100% down to 50% is a depreciation of 50%, as in, half the value of the thing...

i'm actually confused tho, thats a log post to type out if you are indeed trolling,,,

>>3943835

Multiply 99.0975 by 1.0091071924115139130654153737480763894144655516032190519437

in a calculator and tell me what it says.

>>3943843
i'm not disputing the result of the division, i;m questioning WHY a division is even being done!??

>>3943882

I'm sorry you're too retarded, don't ever try to become a mathematician.

>>3943889
methinks you might be trolling afterall....
yep, a division certainly seems very stupid when this is percentage DIFFERENCE.

>>3943903

You keep thinking that

>>3943912
good, i will. i know i'm right by the way...

>>3943925

And that is why I will hate you forever.

>>3943932
lol! wut'cha gon' do 'bout it, faggot?

>>3943835
not the other guy, but you can't just equate percentages and numbers
you're logic is all fucked up...

>>3943941
>not the other guy
this thread is on autosage page 4, how are you even here? i thought it was just me and 1 troll.
also, i'm not the one equating percentages with numbers, he is. he's doing a division and saying its the percentage CHANGE.
so when i change the numbers and make it drop to 50%, his answer is apaprentky a CHANGE of 2% (following identical methodology)

>>3943944
still page 3 actually, my bad