Profit????

[Anonymous No.15755154]

It's your chance to impress me (and other retards) with an explanation that isn't in the manner of

Cost = 800 + 1,100 = 1,900
Income = 1,000 + 1,300 = 2,300
Profit = Income - Cost = 2,300 - 1,900 = 400

Why are $300-people wrong?
Perhaps more importantly, why is this question so successful at dividing people?

[Anonymous No.15755158]

>>15755154
>How much did I earn?
Nothing. Profits from sale of assets aren't earnings.

[Anonymous No.15755162]

>>15755154
>show me you can do arithmetic, but not by doing arithmetic!
What on earth is this thread about?

[Anonymous No.15755163]

>>15755162
show what exactly is wrong with the $300 with math notation

[Anonymous No.15755164]

>>15755163
NTA but what is the argument in favor of an answer of $300?

[Anonymous No.15755166]

>>15755154
You buy something for 800 and sell for 1000? You made 200. You buy something for 1100 and sell for 1300? You made 200. It's literally that simple. The fact that you're buying and selling the same cow over and over is just there to confuse low IQs.

[Anonymous No.15755167]

-800
+1000
-1100
+1300
=
-1900
+2300
=
400

Its a technicality where you only count your profits versus you count the whole thing
If you count your profits only you make 2, remove 1 and make 2 which is 3

[Anonymous No.15755169]

>>15755164
$200 profit form the first sale, then add $100 of the profit to buy it back at $1100, then sell again at $200 profit, leaving $300 total profit

[Anonymous No.15755171]

>>15755154
$200 profit from the first 2 lines.
The next two lines the person earned just $100.
He had $1000, took $100 loan and bought the cow for $1100. After selling for $1300, he returned $100. Now he left with $100.
$200 + $100 = $300

[Anonymous No.15755176]

>>15755169
>then add $100 of the profit to buy it back at $1100,
But then you'd be $1,000 short

[Anonymous No.15755177]

>>15755167
And you can see it better if you start with something lets say 3000

3000 - 800 = 2200
2200 + 1000 = 3200
3200 - 1100 = 2100
2100 + 1300 = 3400

[Anonymous No.15755179]

>>15755167
>>15755177
>this is how middling IQs actually reason
LOL

[Anonymous No.15755190]

>>15755169
>>15755171

You are a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.15755193]

>>15755169
Ok, so start with a balance of x.
Buy the cow, now you have x-800 and a cow.
Sell the cow, now you have x-800+1000=x+200.
Buy the cow again, you have x+200-1100=x-900, and a cow.
Sell cow again, you have x-900+1300=x+400.

>then add $100 of the profit to buy it back at $1100
You've already added all $200 of the profit, plus the original $800 investment capital. The extra $100 isn't coming from profit, it's coming from somewhere else. So you don't deduct it from your profits.

[Anonymous No.15755195]

>>15755158
The old nomenclature trap. Fuck that shit.

[Anonymous No.15755200]

Another way to think of it:
The cow appreciated in value by $500, but for $100 of that you didn't own it
So you only benefitted from $400 of the increase in value.

[Anonymous No.15755201]

>>15755193
>The extra $100 isn't coming from profit, it's coming from somewhere else. So you don't deduct it from your profits.
Yes this

[Anonymous No.15755204]

>>15755166
The only non-retarded post ITT. This hits the nail on the head. If the question had been posed in terms of two different items, most of the people who get it wrong would've been able to solve it by recognizing that it can be broken down into two independent and trivial problems, but as soon as you make it the same cow, they start getting confused. The same is true of most people who solve it correctly: they still fail to recognize it, solve it mechanistically and give utterly obtuse explanations.

[Anonymous No.15755205]

>>15755201
if it's coming from somewhere else, you have to repay it. Hence net profit = total profit - repayment

[Anonymous No.15755207]

>>15755169
>>15755193
>>15755201
So I suspect that what the $300 answer is saying is that you do have $400 in profit at the end but you need to use $100 of it to replace the $100 you took from somewhere else. If you took it from your own balance (x) then that's already done. But if you borrowed it from another account, or from someone else, then your net profit would be $300 once that has been repaid.

[Anonymous No.15755212]

>>15755207
This. The problem is ambiguous. It can be either $400 or $300, depending on the interpretation, i.e. whether the buyer took a loan or not.

[Anonymous No.15755216]

>>15755207
>>15755212
>being this retarded
Does it hurt?

[Anonymous No.15755217]

>>15755207
>>15755212
It could also be that you took out a loan for the whole $1,100 cow. So, after selling, you'd actually be at a $900 loss.

[Anonymous No.15755222]

>>15755216
>baseless insults
refute it properly, otherwise you're the retard here

[Anonymous No.15755226]

>>15755217
>It could also be that you took out a loan for the whole $1,100 cow.
So assume that after buying the cow at 800 and selling at 1000 you take your capital plus profit and pay off some other debt on a different ledger, resetting your balance on this ledger to x=0. Then you take a loan for $1100 (on this ledger) to buy the cow. Then you sell the cow for $1300. That leaves you at +$200 on this ledger. Where are you getting -$900?

[Anonymous No.15755229]

>>15755222
Refute what? Your unfathomable levels of cope based on extreme mental gymnastics? There's nothing in the problem statement suggesting you borrowed money that you have to repay. You're making up excuses for people too dumb for kindergarten. i.e. probably yourself.

[Anonymous No.15755230]

>>15755226
Anon, I was just making fun of the idea that taking out a $100 loan lowers your profit by that amount.

[Anonymous No.15755231]

>>15755207
>>15755212
Its the 3rd step that makes it confusing if you use your already made profit.

The end where you take from your profit midway is
200 - 100 + 200 = 300

And when you take it from the total balance is
200 - 100 + 300 = 400

[Anonymous No.15755232]

>>15755222
There is nothing to be gained from engaging such posters.

[Anonymous No.15755234]

>>15755230
Good point, the correct term there should be "net revenue" rather than "net profit."

[Anonymous No.15755243]

>>15755231
retard here, what would take profit midway mean?
You pocket the $1000 and then forget about it entirely and go into the next buy and sell with alzheimer's?

[Anonymous No.15755245]

>Take an $800 loan to buy a cow
>Sell it for $1000
>Repay your loan, pocket $200
>See an ad: "cow wanted, $1300"
>Shit, gotta get that cow back
>Take out another loan of $900
>Buy cow back for $1100
>Sell it for $1300
>Repay $900 loan, pocket $400

I don't get it, even if you suppose that you're taking out loans to buy this same cow every time, you still end up $400 in the positive.

[Anonymous No.15755251]

>>15755245
>even if you suppose that you're taking out loans to buy this same cow every time, you still end up $400 in the positive.
Obviously depends on the terms of the loan but you can safely ignore these coping brainlets. They are introducing arbitrary new factors to justify their failure to figure out kidnergarten arithmetic problems.

[Anonymous No.15755255]

>>15755231
>you bought bubblegum for $1
>you sold it for $2

>you bought a used toy car $1
>you sold if for $2

How much did you profit? Does the "3rd step" confuse you?

[Barkun No.15755256]

>>15755245
No you don't. They are separate sales. Unless you're implying the second buy was strategy, which it's not.

[Anonymous No.15755259]

>>15755245
so, if $300 answer is not a "loan problem", then why do they get $300?
It's useless to just keep repeating $300 is wrong and that they're retards if you can't explain their reasoning.

[Anonymous No.15755260]

>>15755200
Nice one

[Anonymous No.15755261]

>>15755251
Seems to me that the failure wouldn't even exist if they didn't insist on introducing these factors to begin with.

[Anonymous No.15755264]

>>15755259
Can they explain their reasoning?

[Anonymous No.15755266]

>>15755256
Which step is giving you trouble?

[Anonymous No.15755267]

>>15755261
They get 300 because they count selling for $1000 and buying for $1100 as a $100 loss. There's nothing more to it.

[Barkun No.15755268]

>>15755266
Lick my booter

[Anonymous No.15755272]

>>15755264
It's >>15755158 plus >>15755207 plus >>15755234. The $400 side is talking profit, the $300 side is talking revenue, and neither side is actually answering the question asked.

[Anonymous No.15755275]

I got $400

[Anonymous No.15755279]

>>15755154
reminds me of picrel

[Anonymous No.15755280]

>>15755154
1) wake up in the morning, buy cow for $800
2) trading magic
3) sell for $1300, go to bed
You woke up with $800 and went to bed with $1300, thus you made $500

[Anonymous No.15755281]

>>15755272
Your IQ is confirmed 90.

[Barkun No.15755282]

>>15755280
Nope.jpg.

Buy 800

Sell 1000

200

Buy again 1100

100

Sell again 1300

300

[Anonymous No.15755283]

>>15755272
>the $300 side is talking revenue
No they're not. They're just arbitrarily deciding that the $800 you used for the initial purchase was your entire starting capital, no more or less, so whilst you have $800 at your disposal, the next purchase will require a loan. But that is a random assumption. It doesn't say anywhere that you require a loan, and if we're going to assume, we may as well consider that your first purchase required a loan as well.

[Anonymous No.15755284]

>>15755282
does it matter what happens in between if I have $500 more in the evening than in the morning?

[Anonymous No.15755287]

>>15755282
>200-1100=100
lol
lmao

[Anonymous No.15755288]

>>15755280
>somehow you conjured $100 when you bought the cow for $1100 when you only had $1000

[Anonymous No.15755289]

>>15755158
>>15755154
you made 400 but you could have had 500 so you lost 100 bucks in potential profits.
you are down 100 bucks compared to who you were when you first bought the cow

[Anonymous No.15755290]

>>15755283
No, they're not. They just see "sell cow for $1000" followed by "buy cow for $1100" and take it for a $100 loss. Literally everyone ITT besides me is a mouth-breathing cretin. That's uncanny.

[Anonymous No.15755292]

>>15755284
Well, you don't have $500 more in the evening, because at some point in the intervening period, you paid an extra $100 on top of that $800. You therefore must've had at least $900 at your disposal initially and you couldn't have done it with less.

[bodhi No.15755293]

>>15755154
+ 200
- 100 = 100 profit
made 200 more

total 300 profit

[Anonymous No.15755294]

>>15755289
>you are down 100 bucks compared to who you were when you first bought the cow
You mean you are down 100 bucks compared to yourself if you simply held to $1300 without selling and buying back in-between

[Anonymous No.15755295]

>>15755154
200

[bodhi No.15755298]

>>15755154
>Why are $300-people wrong?
they aren't

/thread

[Barkun No.15755299]

>>15755298
>bodhi

[bodhi No.15755300]

>>15755298
I take this back, they are wrong. You got another 100 dollars from the bank but you didnt lose any profits. So you made 200 twice. Kek nice "optical illusion"

[Anonymous No.15755301]

>>15755154
God, /sci/ is one of the dumbest low-IQ boards on 4chan. And that's saying something, because 4channers are already mentally retarded.

buying: {800, 1100}
selling: {1000, 1300}
net profit = (1000+1300) - (800+1100) = 400

[Anonymous No.15755302]

>>15755290
>They just see "sell cow for $1000" followed by "buy cow for $1100" and take it for a $100 loss.
And why do they do that? It is for the reasons I just explained to you. You can call it "a loan" or "a loss" but it's the same mistake, and it's the same inconsistency. If you want to be consistent about it then you were $800 in the hole after the first purchase and it plays out like >>15755245. But randomly deciding that only whatever you pay beyond $1000 is a loss is completely arbitrary.

[bodhi No.15755303]

>>15755301
literally no one on this board can do entry level statistics

[Anonymous No.15755304]

>>15755243
When you take the 100 from the 3rd step midway you have already taken the 100
And after that you insist on still having the difference there of 200 between 1100 and 1300 altough you had taken the profit already, making it actually 300

[Anonymous No.15755305]

>>15755302
>And why do they do that?
Because if you sell something for $1000 and buy it back for $1100, you lose $100.

[Anonymous No.15755306]

>be me
>take out $100 loan from the first bank of /sci/
>use loan (and my $1000 capital) to buy a cow
>sell said cow for $1300
>give $100 back to the bank
>I've made $1300 - $1000 - $100 = $200 profit
>the /sci/ bank calls me saying I still owe them $100
>I forgot the 6 gorillion % interest rate

[Anonymous No.15755307]

>>15755300
net revenue: $400
net profit: $300 (if you assume the buyer had only $800 to spend at the beginning and had to take out a $100 loan between step 2 and 3)

[Anonymous No.15755310]

Also got 400, but to call others retarded for not noticing is wrong too, it's just a visual trick question do they look on 1100 and think there is only 200 profit at the end. Has to do more with the visual perception then math itself.

Though people who still don't get it after an explanation surely are intellectually disabled

[Anonymous No.15755311]

>>15755305
You lose $1100, actually, but you gained a cow so it's okay.

[bodhi No.15755312]

>>15755289
>you are down 100 bucks compared to who you were when you first bought the cow
No he isnt. These are two different purchases that are not related. He bought one cow for 800 and sold it for 1000 and he bought a second cow for 1100 and sold it for 1300. Just because one cow was more expensive than the other doesnt mean he "lost" money. He bought a commodity he knew he could turn a profit on. It is like a used car dealer just because he can make the same amount on buying a ford fiesta for 200 and selling it for 1200 (1009 profit) diesnt mean he lost money buying a Porsche for 10k and selling it for 11k (100 profit) he made 1000 profit on both deals he just had to use more capital to make 1k for the Porsche. You didnt lose anyhting but there is something in business that takes this into account like warehouse space and having your capital tied up etc. IN accounting they teach you ways to account for and calculate this but it has been 25 years since I took accounting so you are gonna have to look it up on your own. I do remember amortization being part of it

[Anonymous No.15755313]

[Anonymous No.15755314]

>>15755307
Holy shit, you people are seriously fucking retarded.
I borrow a million.
I do my cow business.
I now have a million + $400.
I repay the million.
I profit $400.

[bodhi No.15755316]

>>15755307
nope I just explained why. How do you think they lost 100 in revenue? These are two different purchases where he made 200 in pr

[Anonymous No.15755317]

>>15755311
>i should be sterilized by the state
Glad we agree on that one.

[bodhi No.15755319]

*1000 in profit for each

fuck my keyboard numbers are sticking

>>15755316
*200 in profit for each deal

[Anonymous No.15755322]

>>15755317
You again?

[Anonymous No.15755323]

>>15755154
they are going wrong at the $1100 step.
+200
-100
+200

[bodhi No.15755324]

>>15755312
>N accounting they teach you ways to account for and calculate this but it has been 25 years since I took accounting so you are gonna have to look it up on your ow
Say for example a stinky linky has had 5k invested in linkies for 5 years and his investment is only worth 5500 he has a lost potential for his sunken capital because he could have invested in say btc and made 2 grand. As I said they have a concept in accounting specifically to deal with this. If you haev a car sitting around you dont drive you can calculate how much you are losing each month paying insurance and how much value it loses each month sitting there (amostization) AND how much that "warehouse space" is costing to house you could have a different selling product using that space (of course you personal car isnt taking up warehouse space but you get the point if this was a business, you are wasting space storing a product you should be selling)

[Anonymous No.15755326]

>>15755314
The situation is different if you take an arbitrary loan >=$800 initially than if you start with $800 and take a $100 loan.

For example, if you take a loan initially (minimum being $800 to buy the cow; maximum = infinity), it plays out differently than >>15755307
1)
>take $800 loan, buy cow
>sell cow for $1k, repay loan, profit $200
>take $900 loan, buy cow for $1100
>sell cow for $1300, repay $900, profit $400
2)
>have $800, buy cow
>sell cow for $1k, profit $200
>take $100 loan, buy cow for $1100
>sell cow for $1300, repay $100, profit $100
>$200 + $100 = $300

[Anonymous No.15755327]

>>15755154
No one does any business.

If you roll through inventory and your price for a new piece of inventory rises and you raise your price and you continue selling the item, then you are profiting all the way.

If you plan to stop selling after one unit then the situation changes.
But you made money both times and your profit margin decreased on the second profitable sale.

The question also assumes you don't have a fungible pool of cash on hand.

[bodhi No.15755329]

>>15755312
>hese are two different purchases that are not related.
The trick this image is pulling is getting to see this as a continual transaction when it is in fact two different unrelated transactions - that is the "optical illusion"

[Anonymous No.15755330]

>>15755154
Definitely $200

[Anonymous No.15755332]

All right you 300tards, here's the deal
If you say "I made $1000 but paid $1100 so it's a $100 loss" then where did that $1000 come from? Oh, that's right, you paid $800 for it in the first place. So you didn't make $1000. You made $200. And then you pay $1100. So it didn't cost you an extra $100, it cost you an extra $900.

[Anonymous No.15755333]

>>15755326
>have $800, buy cow
>sell cow for $1k, profit $200
Good so far
>take $100 loan, buy cow for $1100
Yes, but did you pay the full $1100 or did you only pay $1000 and use the $100 to cover the remainder?
If it's the former, why take out a loan?
>sell cow for $1300, repay $100, profit $100
After repaying the $100, you would have $1200 left from the $1300 sale.
If you only paid $1000 in, that's $200 profit
>$200 + $100 = $300
At least you know this much.

[Anonymous No.15755334]

>>15755326
>The situation is different
It's exactly the same situation no matter what you do. Get sterilized.

[bodhi No.15755335]

>>15755333
who says it was a loan? the "bank" can just be your petty cash or personal bank account. It is never said this person only has 800 dollars to their name. It just states the second he cow he buys cost 300 more dollars than the first one

[Anonymous No.15755336]

>>15755332
Get sterilized for failing to understand the actual error they make.

[Anonymous No.15755337]

>>15755326
Why is it that when you loan $1700 in total you end up with $400 in profit but if you only loan $100 you end up with $300 in profit? That strikes me as odd.

[Anonymous No.15755339]

>>15755333
>Yes, but did you pay the full $1100 or did you only pay $1000 and use the $100 to cover the remainder?
>If it's the former, why take out a loan?
It's right there, the buyer had $800 to begin with, so yes he had to take $100 loan to fill in the remainder needed to buy the $1100 cow.

>If you only paid $1000 in, that's $200 profit
The cow costs $1100, not $1000

[Anonymous No.15755340]

>>15755327
>your profit margin decreased on the second profitable sale
It's the same margin both times.

[bodhi No.15755344]

>>15755333
You could say on the image "a man has 5000 dollars and buys a cow for 900 then sells it for 1100, 2 days later the man buys a cow for 1100 and sells it for 1300" this is a very easy to understand problem. The optical illusion - as I said - is that you are not treating it as 2 different transactions. You are calculating a loss of 100 dollars because you are starting with capital of 800 when in reality you have no idea what this man's capital is

[Anonymous No.15755343]

>>15755336
Might as well, your seed-hungry mum will thank me for raw-dogging her without the risk of making another retard baby with her defective eggs

[Anonymous No.15755346]

>>15755343
Ok. Anyway, get sterilized retard.

[Anonymous No.15755347]

>>15755339
>the buyer had $800 to begin with
That's not stated anywhere

[Anonymous No.15755349]

>>15755344
so you just said the situation is different if a man starts with $800 than if a man starts with a high amount of $ or takes out a high amount of loan. That's pretty much what I also was getting at.

[Anonymous No.15755350]

>>15755339
>he had to take $100 loan to fill in the remainder needed to buy the $1100 cow.
So he paid $1000 out of his own pocket for the cow, with the remainder coming from a loan
>The cow costs $1100, not $1000
Yes, but you only paid in $1000. You're double-counting the $100 for your loan by assuming that, even after paying it back, the profit should be $1200 - $1100.
>>15755344
The starting capital does not matter

[Anonymous No.15755354]

>>15755339
It doesn't matter how much money he loans or at what point he takes a loan. Assuming his loan is worth $x, he ends up with (x+400)$. If he only needs to repay $x he keeps the $400. This is not up for any discussion. This will be true no matter how you twist it.

[bodhi No.15755355]

>>15755349
Yes because in one scenario he borrows 100 dollars he pays back so he will lose 100 in his net value. He will still have 400 profit but his total capital will be 100 less but that is important here because it isnt asking for his net capital at the end of it all, it is asking for his net profits

[bodhi No.15755357]

>>15755350
I didnt say it did, not for calculating profits, it only matters for calculating net capital which is what this problem is trying to get you to confuse (and it works)

[Anonymous No.15755358]

>>15755346
If your contribution to the genepool is of comparable quality to your contributions to this thread then you should consider taking your own advice. You have said nothing of value and yet you insist on saying it over and over again.

[Anonymous No.15755360]

This thread has 20 posters. At least 15 of them have proven to have IQs below 90. /sci/ should be deleted at this point.

[Anonymous No.15755361]

>>15755357
It does not matter for calculating net capital

[Anonymous No.15755362]

>>15755350
>double-counting the $100
so it's like the bitcoin's double-spending problem that satoshi successfully avoided when he designed it?

[bodhi No.15755363]

>>15755361
yes it does dingus, if you borrow a 100 dollars you have to pay it back, it isnt yours

[Barkun No.15755365]

800
1000
200
1100
-100
1300
+100

[Anonymous No.15755366]

>>15755363
>if you borrow a 100 dollars you have to pay it back, it isnt yours
You don't have to pay back the $400 extra profit you made off of it.

[bodhi No.15755367]

>>15755366
net profit is NOT net capital ass hat, I said that from the very first post you responded too

[Anonymous No.15755371]

>>15755367
>net profit is NOT net capital ass hat
How much money you borrow has no effect on your net capital in this case so long as you don't have to pay interest. Only the $400 profit does.

[bodhi No.15755373]

>>15755371
>borrowing money you have to pay back has no bearing on your net capital
kys drooler

[Anonymous No.15755376]

>>15755373
You end up with $400 dollars more than you borrowed no matter how you twist it. You need to be sterilized. If you already have children, they need to be euthanized.

[Anonymous No.15755377]

>>15755363
Without the loan, you paid $1100 for a cow and sold it for $1300. This gets you $200 profit (or net capital)
With the loan, you paid $1000 capital (+$100 loan) for a cow and sold it for $1300. After paying back the loan, you made $1200 from a $1000 investment.
Net capital is $200 either way.

[bodhi No.15755381]

>>15755377
net capital is either 1300 or 1200 you mouth breathing retard

[Anonymous No.15755382]

>>15755313
and here's another one for people confused by situations where you have to borrow money

[Anonymous No.15755383]

>>15755365
>800
>1000
>200
>1100
>-100
How do you write this and not see it?
What is the difference between 200 and 1100? It's not -100.

You should write it like this:
>-800
>+1000
>=200
>-1100
>=...?
>+1300
>=...?

[Anonymous No.15755384]

>>15755382
i

[Anonymous No.15755387]

>>15755381
Do you mean gross?
Net is gains minus losses.

[Anonymous No.15755389]

>>15755169
If you consider buying it back for 1100 a loss of 100, then you must adjust the bookvalue of your cow assets accordingly. Then, the profit of the second sale is a 100 higher, so you get a total of 400 again.

[Anonymous No.15755398]

>>15755382
and here's what happens if you start with $0, same result again

[bodhi No.15755406]

>>15755376
you are a moron

[Anonymous No.15755416]

>>15755406
Why are you seething? Your dumb chilren should be euthanized for the good of humanity. One low IQ (<110) white does more damage to civilization than a thousand niggers because the former constantly tries to "participate" and shape civilization according to his low IQ while the latter try to distance themselves from civilized society.

[Anonymous No.15755420]

>>15755416
>white
He's namefagging with "bodhi" which is some indian tree.

[Anonymous No.15755423]

>>15755420
"Bodhi" means awakened but this faggot is white as fuck, I guarantee you. He's just larping as a brownskin.

[Anonymous No.15755424]

>>15755416
But Anon... you look upon your father

[Anonymous No.15755429]

>>15755424
no u

[bodhi No.15755438]

>>15755416
you are the blackest gorilla nigger retard on this board. At night people can only see your eyes.

[Anonymous No.15755440]

>>15755438
>t. pays back more money than he loaned
>even without interest
You are the reason Jews can thrive in white societies. lol

[bodhi No.15755443]

>>15755440
I never said any of that or and I said exactly this before you nigger tier retard outburst >>15755376
hence why this entire exchange is so hilarious to everyone with a triple digit IQ (which doesnt include you because you are black as coal)

[Anonymous No.15755447]

>>15755443
You have $X.
You borrow $Y.
You now have $Z = $X+$Y.
You buy an item for $Z.
You tell the item for $(Z+P).
What's your net capital gain?

[bodhi No.15755448]

>>15755447
My IQ is X
your IQ is x -50

what is your net IQ

[Anonymous No.15755449]

>>15755448
What's your net capital gain? What's your profit? You should be able to answer these two questions.

[Anonymous No.15755455]

>>15755154
I’ll bite.
You *earned* nothing because you didn’t produce anything of value. All you did was buy and sell a cow.

[Anonymous No.15755457]

>>15755455
Based and labor theory of value pilled

[Anonymous No.15755459]

>>15755455
Dumb commies hate it when people get rewarded for their own competence.

[Anonymous No.15755460]

Face it guys, my reply is the only one that addresses the actual question:

>Why are $300-people wrong?

>>15755389

[Anonymous No.15755466]

>>15755460
You can be proud of finding a novel way of explaining it but that doesn't mean you're the only correct one. In a Monty Hall thread, the people drawing probability trees are no less correct than the first person to come up with the thousand door analogy.

[Anonymous No.15755468]

>>15755179
huh ?

[Anonymous No.15755471]

>>15755460
>Face it guys, my reply is the only one that addresses the actual question:
No, you aren't, and your attempt is mediocre at best and misses the actual root of the mistake.

[Anonymous No.15755479]

>>15755460
But the real reason they get it wrong is they're thinking of it as three exchanges:
>buy for $800 sell for $1000
>sell for $1000 buy for $1100
>buy for $1100 sell for $1300
Which is double counting the middle two.

[Anonymous No.15755482]

>>15755479
>But the real reason they get it wrong is they're thinking of it as three exchanges:
This. Two posters ITT got it right and you're one of them.

[Anonymous No.15755486]

>>15755154
cow goes up 500 in value while in your ownership, before you sell it for good

in the middle of that ownership, your judgement lapses and you let go of the cow breifly, only to buy it back for a bit more ($100)

its simple as 500 - 100

there is nothing more to this problem, get it together morons

[Anonymous No.15755492]

>>15755479
>>15755482
Actually the real reason is that they fail to see the original purchase as a sunk cost and only do so for the second purchase
(or maybe it's pointless to look for "the real reason" when they won't give a real reason themselves and there are as many different ways of making this mistake as there are of explaining why it is wrong)

[Anonymous No.15755522]

>>15755492
>my IQ is 90
Didn't expect you to admit it.

[Anonymous No.15755524]

>>15755522
This guy >>15755365 is obviously not "double counting the middle two" nor does he "think he got ripped off". His mistake is simply that he thinks he's $100 in the hole after buying the cow a second time. There were others in the thread saying "the extra $100 has to come from somewhere" because they clearly, sometimes explicitly, made the mistake of thinking your starting capital is $800 and yuo have to loan an extra $100. And whatever mistake they made, I doubt any of them are any wiser after reading your explanations which don't address their stated reasons for their faulty beliefs, so your identifying the """"""real reason"""""", whatever you believe it to be, makes zero difference.

And I'm the only person smart enough to see that.

[Anonymous No.15755543]

>>15755524
>His mistake is simply that he thinks he's $100 in the hole after buying the cow a second time.
That's exactly what >>15755479 is saying. You're IQ is 90, confirmed.

[Anonymous No.15755560]

>>15755163
>>15755169
>>15755171
>>15755212
>>15755231
>>15755267
>>15755282
>>15755293
>>15755298
>>15755330
>>15755333
>>15755365
>>>/sci/ -- Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15755561]

>>15755543
That is not what he is saying. He is proposing but one possible reason (and in this case the wrong one) why someone might mistakenly come to that conclusion. We all already know that there's a discrepancy of $100 in their answer so identifying that isn't a feat. Claiming to have found "the reason" and then coming up with something that none of them are likely to recognise as their mistake is not going to convince them they're wrong. i.e., it is you that is wrong.
>You're IQ
lol

[Anonymous No.15755590]

>>15755543
>>15755561
Alternatively, if you are now going to claim that every way of arriving at the wrong answer has to make the same mistake, whether explicitly or implicitly, however it is explained, then every explanation of what went wrong also implicitly acknowledges it. You can only say that others are explaining the wrong mistake if there are multiple ways of getting it wrong, but then, how do you know the people who got it wrong didn't do so via any of the other ways?

[Anonymous No.15755591]

>>15755561
>That is not what he is saying
That's exactly what he's saying. You're simply too crippled to understand what he's saying so you're gonna argue ad infinitum, as is usually the case for cretins with hot philosophical takes on kindergarten problems.

[Anonymous No.15755598]

>>15755591
Called it >>15755590
>He's not saying it but implicitly it actually is what he's saying!
Then it's what I was saying too. If their mistake is your mistake, my mistake is your mistake, and you can't say I made the wrong mistake.

[Anonymous No.15755603]

>>15755590
>if you are now going to claim that every way of arriving at the wrong answer has to make the same mistake
No one said or implied this, but the main reason people get confused is, exactly as >>15755479 points out, they see three exchanges, with the middle one resulting in a $100 loss. This confusion is caused by the fact that the same cow is being bought and resold. If instead of one cow you reformulate it with two different items, almost no one would get it wrong.

[Anonymous No.15755605]

>>15755598
You will never be a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.15755608]

>>15755603
>they see three exchanges
That doesn't seem to be the case for all of them, and as I said, there are other reasons they could be miscounting something somewhere. To say that if they arrive at $300 it is because they made this mistake is putting the cart before the horse, and again, if you really believe that, then that's necessarily what I was already saying when you told me I was wrong.

[Anonymous No.15755610]

>>15755608
I am right. You are wrong. Proof: if instead of one cow you reformulate it with two different items, almost no one would get it wrong. You will never be a philosopher. Most philosophers are driveling retards, anyway. End of discussion.

[Anonymous No.15755621]

>>15755610
I'm not sure what you think your "proof" proves but I assure you that the people who think their starting capital is $800 and they need to take out a $100 dollar loan to make the second purchase would still make that exact same mistake even if you told them the second purchase was a wheel of cheese rather than a cow, because their problem is they think they need to pay someone back $100 after taking out a loan, counting nothing double. This just shows that you absolutely failed at finding the "real reason".

[Anonymous No.15755624]

>>15755621
>I'm not sure what you think your "proof" proves
It proves that you're a total cretin with no capacity for basic reflection.

[Anonymous No.15755632]

>>15755471
>and misses the actual root of the mistake.
I do not pretend to *know* the root of the mistake, since i cannot look inside the heads of those that make it. But if they consider the second purchase a loss, as OP stated, mine is the correct way to track the value of their assets, and its derivative: profits and losses.

[Anonymous No.15755634]

>>15755632
>if they consider the second purchase a loss, as OP stated, mine is the correct way to track the value of their assets
Holy shit. Imagine spouting something THIS retarded.

[Anonymous No.15755637]

>>15755624
Ironic, because I just explained clearly why your "real reason" is insufficient to explain every mistake made in this thread and all you can do is repeat that you're totally right in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The only reason you've given me to doubt myself is that you show through example that it is possible for someone to be completely, smugly and self-righteously wrong without being aware of it.

[Anonymous No.15755641]

>>15755637
>your "real reason" is insufficient to explain every mistake made in this thread
Doesn't make me any less right or you any less wrong. End yourself.

[Anonymous No.15755645]

>>15755634
Just because your subhuman IQ cannot comprehend it, does not mean it is retarded.

[Anonymous No.15755647]

>>15755641
Actually that would precisely make you less right and me less wrong, because it is in direct contradiction to your claim. So since you've now conceded it, we can move on from your pretensions.

[Anonymous No.15755649]

>>15755645
It's absolutely retarded. Imagine sharting out some drivel about how your way is the "correct" way to be wrong.

[Anonymous No.15755656]

>>15755649
>Imagine sharting out some drivel about how your way is the "correct" way to be wrong.
But that's precisely what the other person was claiming as well
>misses the actual root of the mistake
>actual root
Meanwhile the person you're quoting admits
>I do not pretend to *know* the root of the mistake
So perhaps you're barking up the wrong tree

[Anonymous No.15755662]

>>15755647
>it is in direct contradiction to your claim.
No, it isn't. You are mentally ill and coping. Nobody cares about how your schizoposting friends try to justify their failures after the fact with insane mental gymnastics about bank loans. OP wanted to know why so many people get it wrong, and the answer is that most of them get confused by the fact that it's the same cow getting repeatedly bought and sold, so they see three pairs of exchanges (one of which supposedly results in a loss) whereas if it were two different items, almost anyone can immediately see there are only two relevant pairs of exchanges, each one generating a $200 profit.

[Anonymous No.15755663]

>>15755154
>$300-people
>>15755163
>$300
>>15755164
>answer of $300
What the fuck are you all talking about? He made $200.

[Anonymous No.15755664]

>>15755649
I arrived at the correct answer you dimwit.

[Anonymous No.15755667]

>>15755656
Take your literal meds. There is no correct way to "the correct way to track the value of their assets" except the one that gives 400.

[Anonymous No.15755673]

This bait fucking rocks

[Anonymous No.15755680]

>>15755662
>No, it isn't.
It doesn't matter what YOU think you've conceded. I am the final judge of that, since you are feeble-minded cretin.
>the answer is that most of them get confused by...
Most? So not all? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Did you do a statistical analysis? Are we limiting ourselves to this thread alone or do you have another source? What other possible reasons are there for confusion that we're ignoring here and where do they rank? What percentage of people must get confused by the same thing for it to be counted as "the real reason" and the rest as statistical outliers? Actually, don't bother; you're already moving the goalposts so much with that one little weasel word that nothing else you say can possibly alter just how severely you already got BTFO right now.

[Anonymous No.15755682]

>>15755667
>There is no correct way to "the correct way to track the value of their assets" except the one that gives 400.
Well, my method to track the value of assets DID give 400 net gain, but apparently that little detail escaped your notice...

[Anonymous No.15755683]

>>15755667
Which his method did. But that also wasn't what was beign disputed. You aren't just wrong, you're wrong about who is wrong.

[Anonymous No.15755684]

>>15755680
I'm right. You're wrong. Case closed. Sorry that you were far too dumb to figure out what I've just told you and that your feelings of inferiority are now driving you insane.

[Anonymous No.15755686]

>>15755154
People are confused because they focus on the object, not the transactions. It's 2 trades with each a 200 profit. Doesn't matter if it's one cow, two cows, two potted plants or whatever

[Anonymous No.15755688]

>>15755686
This, but good luck explaining it to the feeble-minded "philosophers of the mind" ITT.

[Anonymous No.15755690]

>>15755688
Everyone gets that part except the people who get the answer wrong. The part you're wrong about is why they get the answer wrong, and for some reason this matters a great deal to you. Even if the correct answer is trivial you have to find some contrived way that you can feel superior even to everyone else who got the correct answer. My guess is you've got some pathological insecurity issues.

[Anonymous No.15755692]

You exchanged a cow for 400 units of debt? That's nice, but what about the interest on your loan, goy?

[Anonymous No.15755698]

>>15755690
Old McGoylem had a farm, ee i ee i ohhh.

[Anonymous No.15755739]

It's 200 profit from the either sale. That's it. Anyone arguing otherwise is a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.15755745]

>>15755739
But what about muh loans?

[Anonymous No.15755786]

>>15755154
>not milking the cow

[Anonymous No.15755802]

>>15755154
The answer is $400

[bodhi No.15755803]

>>15755690
it's the NPD schizo, he is a fucking retard so of course everything he focuses is retarded shit, he cannot carry a conversation

[Anonymous No.15755804]

>>15755169
>then add $100 of the profit to buy it back at $1100,
Moron

[Anonymous No.15755810]

>>15755745
oy vey goyim don't forget to calculate the compound interest you owe me

[Anonymous No.15755811]

>>15755690
>Everyone gets that part except the people who get the answer wrong.
Everybody agrees with me except for the people who don't.

[bodhi No.15755814]

>>15755460
wrong >>15755344 you people on this board are always hindtail sniffing my farts

[Anonymous No.15755815]

>>15755158
/biz/ wins yet again

[Anonymous No.15755858]

>>15755289
>you made 400 but you could have had 500 so you lost 100 bucks in potential profits.
Not necessarily, since it doesn't tell you the times when you bought it.
It could be that the first two trades happened within a day, then there was a 20 year gap where you could have the $1000 on the stock market, and the last two trades happened within a day.
In that case, the return of holding onto that cow for 20 years (assuming it lived that long) would be miniscule compared to the expected return from some index fund for the $1000

[Anonymous No.15755885]

>>15755154
None. He made $100
How?
He spent 800 on thing
Then sold thing to get 1000
Now at this point it’s 200 profit.
Now, he has, in total $1000.
He like that thing again back. But that thing is now $1100. But he only has $1000 (which is 200 profit) he find another $100 under his bed and combine it with his 1000 and buy that thing back. At 1100.
So at this point, he is NEGETIVE 100.
Not only he didn’t make any profit, but he ended up paying extra $100 to get something.
Then he sold it at 1300
He made $200 profit, BUT, since he also paid $100 to buy that thing a second time ($1100) his total profit is $100 total.

[Anonymous No.15755910]

>>15755154
earned 500
started with 800 and ended up with 1300
that's an increase of 500

[Anonymous No.15755921]

>>15755885
Right, now i see it also
If he starts with 900 - 800 = 100
Sells it for 100 + 1000 = 1100
Buys it back for 1100 = 0
Then sells it and has 1300 profit
Nice..

[Anonymous No.15755931]

>>15755169
Thanks anon, I really couldn't understand how people got $300 but you explained exactly how retarded someone has to be.

[Anonymous No.15755933]

>>15755921
Because 1300 > 0

[Anonymous No.15755946]

wtf is wrong with everybody? there are two cows, each has a different price. you make 200 on first sell and then you make another 200 on second sell. you made 400.

[Anonymous No.15755950]

>>15755946 Me
what doesn't matter you buy the same cow or a different cow the second time. wtf

[Anonymous No.15755958]

>>15755946
I have no idea how its possible for this thread to reach 200 replies

[Anonymous No.15755962]

>>15755958
80 "philosophers of the mind" discussing their deep theories of how $300 could make subjective sense to imaginary characters.

[Anonymous No.15755964]

>>15755885
this is a variation of the $300 answer, w/o counting the initial $200 profit.
As was pointed out earlier, there's a double spending problem in your reasoning. You already deducted $100 once when you went negative $100 by pulling $100 from under the bed, then again when you counted the total profit. The final time you should have subtracted 1000 from 1300, not 1100.

[Anonymous No.15755966]

>>15755958
A handful of retards will always keep a thread like this going, dragging everything down due to their imbecility, pretty much like in the real world

[Anonymous No.15755967]

>>15755962
80-IQ*

[Anonymous No.15755968]

>>15755958
50 of them are just me making fun of namefaggots
It's not like you'd actually want any of the retards itt posting in other threads.

[Anonymous No.15755974]

>>15755931
Thanks for assuming I was just explaining it and that i wasn't actually being retarded when I posted that (I was, but now I know better; but that doesn't mean I'm not still a retard)

[Anonymous No.15755982]

>>15755885
>since he also paid $100 to buy that thing a second time

Says who? What if he also found a $50 in his pocket?

Overthinking made up details.

Two transactions, each net $200 profit

Total profit = $400

t. money manager

[Anonymous No.15755983]

>>15755966
NOOOOOOOOOOOO
Y-YOUR THE RETART
I AM A CERTIFIED 140IQ GOD
TRUST ME BRO
I KNOW EVERYTHING
R-RECOGNIZE MY SUPERIOTITAY
I AM MORE THAN HUMAN
I AM A GOD

[Anonymous No.15755989]

>This thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xUnSVTh8fI

>Verification not required.

[Anonymous No.15756072]

>>15755154
How did you do it OP? This bait is beautiful

[Anonymous No.15756231]

>>15755811
No, that's the hilarious part. He agrees but still has to pick a fight. He got the right answer along with most others, but he has to find a way to declare himself more correct than everyone else who's correct. And in the process he overextended his grasp and now he gets to be less correct than everyone else who got it correct despite getting the right answer.

[Anonymous No.15756237]

You guys need to read Marx to bolster your understanding of economics.

[Anonymous No.15756238]

>>15755962
Yourself included.

[Anonymous No.15756256]

>>15756238
>you did [thing] because... uhh... you did so in my head
Meds ASAP.

[Anonymous No.15756279]

>>15756256
Because you more than anyone tried to argue the "real" reason the wrong answer made subjective sense to... supposedly everyone but excluding real people. In fact everyone else you dismissed as "philosophers of the mind" was arguing that that wasn't necessarily the case for their answer.

All you ever do is project and deflect.

[Anonymous No.15756381]

-100 because you didn't sell the 800 cow to the 1300 buyer

[Anonymous No.15756384]

>>15756279
Literally never happened, tranny. Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.15756395]

>>15756384
You're the only person in this thread who brought up philosophers so we can literally ctrl+f "philo" and find you discussing your deep theory of how $300 could make subjective sense to imaginary characters
>>15755610
Or what I'm sure passes for "deep" to one of your intellect, anyway

[Anonymous No.15756411]

>>15756395
>we can literally ctrl+f "philo" and find you discussing your deep theory
Do it, tranny. You left your "we" back in the updoot central.

[Anonymous No.15756427]

>>15755163
-800 + 1000 = 200

200 + -1100 = -900

-900 +1300 = 400

[Anonymous No.15756444]

>>15756411
what

I just did it you blind stumbling maniac

[Anonymous No.15756452]

>>15756444
Sorry, I don't see any "deep" theories about the minds of imaginary characters.

[Anonymous No.15756456]

>>15756452
That's because there are literally none of those in the entire thread, but of course whatever you characterised as such is there.

[Anonymous No.15756462]

because the question explicitly asks you what you "earned"

it doesnt ask you to factor in your losses

once again, mathlets get btfo by english language semantics

[Anonymous No.15756466]

>>15755171
you still EARNED $200 from the second sale, plus the $200 EARNED from the first sale, its $400

[Anonymous No.15756467]

>>15756466
see >>15755158

[Anonymous No.15756470]

>>15756456
>there are literally none of those in the entire thread
Then why did you say "yours included"? Included in what, feeble-minded cretin? There are none.

[Anonymous No.15756474]

>>15756467
its not an asset, its a pet cow

your move faggot

[Anonymous No.15756481]

>>15756470
>whatever you characterised as such
English, so hard, isn't it, you simpleton?

[Anonymous No.15756491]

>>15756481
You haven't shown that there's anything in common between my simple and accurate assessment and your long-winded, mentally ill drivel.

[Anonymous No.15756497]

>>15756491
Your "simple and accurate assessment" was anything but, precisely because it was pure speculation about what would confuse "most people". Yet when you're called out on your baseless claims, you deride everyone else as "philosophers" trying to come up with what makes sense to "imaginary characters". So, no, there is nothing actually in common between us. But there is everything in common between what you say I am, and what you in fact are. These "80-IQ philosophers of the mind" not only include you, they include only you.

[Anonymous No.15756515]

>>15756497
Not reading any of your mentally ill drivel. You will reply again.

[bodhi No.15756523]

>>15756497
HE IS A FUCKING NPD SCHIZO HE IS INCAPABLE OF REASON, HE IS JUST A BROKEN RECORD PLAYING RETARDED NOISES

[Anonymous No.15756524]

>>15756515
You think you've found some sort of nuke button to shut down the conversation, don't you? So what if I reply again? So will you.
>>15756523
Yeah but you're a schizo, we're all mad here

[Anonymous No.15756526]

>>15756524
>>15756523
Although credit where it is due, I have to commend you on your simple and accurate assessment, to borrow a phrase.

[Anonymous No.15756529]

>>15756524
Didn't read. You WILL reply again. You are my golem slave.

[Anonymous No.15756531]

>>15756523
Your disgusting children should be euthanized by the state for their own good. :^)

[Anonymous No.15756540]

>>15756529
What kind of slavemaster do you fancy yourself, who has to chain himself to his slave? In fact, I am free to leave and I'll gladly demonstrate. I reckon you'll give me the perfect opportunity when you make one last desperate attempt to keep me in this reply chain that binds you.

[bodhi No.15756542]

>>15756524
the only reason this idiot is even saying that shit is because he is mirror. He doesnt have original thoughts. He saw me say "theory of mind" in a thread two days ago and now he cant stop repeating it because in his mind I am the enemy since I always expose him, so now everything he doesnt like is "philosophy of mind" because his mind is borken and cannot think beyond his primal associations of "everything I dont like is bodhi, stems from bodhi and boidhi is behind it" just like a paranoid schizophrenic thinks person A is trying to inject nano tech under the skin and bugged their car. You, if you are sane, cannot understand the way their minds work unless you have studied them because they can put on a flesh mask of a reasonable and normal person but under the hood if you took a look none of it makes sense it is just Esher drawings where stairways do not connect, disjointed half truths and delusions that have no logical connections. Like cutting out every 30 frames of a movie where in the end you only saw half 1/10 of the movie and it was divided into parts that dont fit together in any coherent manner. Also your mom is a schizo nigger

[Anonymous No.15756544]

>>15756540
>>15756529
Well either that or you'll prove that you're lying about not reading these, of course :^)

[Anonymous No.15756554]

>>15756542
Yes, morbidly fascinating, isn't it? Shame I really can't stay longer.

[bodhi No.15756561]

>>15756554
from a distance, sure. they are fucking time sink, trying to get them to understand ANYTHING is a complete waste of time, they are just a chatgpt repeating things back to you, there is thought or understanding behind it, just mirroring words or ideas that have no connection to the current conversation

[Anonymous No.15756563]

>>15756540
>>15756544
Didn't read. You will reply AGAIN.

[bodhi No.15756564]

>>15756561
there is *no* thought

[Anonymous No.15756572]

>>15756563
I am free to reply. Or not to reply. You have no control over my actions. When you're called out on your baseless claims, you deride everyone else as "philosophers" trying to come up with what makes sense to "imaginary characters". So, no, there is nothing actually in common between us. But there is everything in common between what you say I am, and what you in fact are. These "80-IQ philosophers of the mind" not only include you, they include only you.

[Anonymous No.15756576]

>>15756564
Golem.

[bodhi No.15758079]

>>15756576
mindless gimp

[Anonymous No.15758936]

>>15755154
Step 1: 0 - 800 = -800
Step 2: -800 + 1000 = 200
Step 3: 200 - 1100 = -900
Step 4 : -900 + 1300 = 400

[Anonymous No.15758945]

>have 900$ on you, no cow.
>go to market
>see cow for 800$, buy it, you have 100$ and a cow
>sell the cow for 1000$. you now have 1100$ and no cow
>see another cow for 1100$ (or same cow, doesn't matter). buy it
>you now have a cow and no money.
>sell the cow and be left with 1300$. and no cow.
you started with 900$ and no cow and you ended up with 1300$ and no cow.
you made 400$.

[Anonymous No.15758950]

>>15758936
How do you not drown when you take a shower?

[Anonymous No.15758975]

>>15758950
$400 is the correct answer.

[Anonymous No.15759065]

>>15755154
Earned 200 dollars

[Anonymous No.15759730]

>>15755162
I'm pretty sure that this is a side-effect of various people's efforts to enshitificate 4chan with general low-quality posts and made up bullshit.

[Barkun No.15759733]

>>15758945
You only made 400 if the cows value is said to be it's amount, if not, you made 100

/Thread

EVERYONE STOP READING OR BUMPING THIS THREAD. ITS TROLLING

[Anonymous No.15759869]

>>15755154
400

[Anonymous No.15759875]

>>15755171
Assuming 1000 dollar capitol is no different to assuming -10,000 dollar capitol in which case the bankers stole repod your cow and the second transaction never actually took place

[Anonymous No.15759885]

>>15756381
>post $10,000 buy offer for one second
>cancel it the next
>OP loses $8800
Problem? Goy?

[Anonymous No.15760006]

$500
Any other answer is by a retard

[Anonymous No.15760546]

>>15755154
Bought and sold - $200 profit
+
Bought and sold - $200 profit
=
$400

[Anonymous No.15761987]

>>15755154

Why is the answer not $500

[Anonymous No.15762043]

>>15755389
Hello, I appreciate your formal accounting of the situation. Is there a place where we can talk further?

I realize putting "-800" in the bank was a shorthand, but I feel the situation would be more clear if you broke it into a separate account for liabilities in the loan and money in the bank and kept all quantities positive. This would make it more clear the fallacy in the reasoning of posters like these:

>>15755171
>After selling for $1300, he returned $100.
>>15755207
>But if you borrowed it from another account, or from someone else, then your net profit would be $300 once that has been repaid.
>>15755212
>It can be either $400 or $300, depending on the interpretation, i.e. whether the buyer took a loan or not.
>>15755231
>The end where you take from your profit midway is
>200 - 100 + 200 = 300
>>15755293
>>total 300 profit

[Anonymous No.15762495]

The answer is $200 and here's why:
You spend $800 on the cow, $50 on stuff like banking fees, access to the market, accounting etc. Then you have to feed the cow, heat the stable, maybe pay a vet - another 50. So now you've spent $900, but sell it for $1000 - you've made $100. Rinse and repeat and you'll see that you earned $200.

[Anonymous No.15762533]

>>15755154
$1300 - $800 = $500

[Anonymous No.15762570]

>>15761987
Because the 100 difference between 1000 and 1100 came out of your own capital.

[Anonymous No.15762573]

>>15762533
Correct, but only if it's the same cow. If it's a different, identical cow, it's two transactions of $200 profit each, giving a $400 profit. This is why it's important to know if you can distinguish entities.

[Anonymous No.15762655]

>>15762573
It's never correct. When you buy the cow back you have to put in an extra $100 of your own money, meaning you have to invest a total of $900.

[Anonymous No.15762780]

How does anyone get an answer that's not $400.

[Anonymous No.15762786]

>>15762780
Smoothbrains see "sold for $1000" followed by "bought for $1100" and think that's a $100 loss.

[Anonymous No.15763747]

just start with a 1000$ balance, follow the steps and you have 1400$ in the end, how can you get this wrong?

[Anonymous No.15763767]

>>15762780
It may surprise you to learn that most of the world is not capable of what you consider basic cognition.

[Anonymous No.15765125]

>>15755154
i initially got 300 but now i understand whats wrong. the first 200 you gain should not be treated as a part of your initial amount after youve earned it(profit is not a state function). then if you subtract it with the loss of 100, then again add 200, you are implying you had this 200 before with you(not true). thats why we both went wrong.

[Anonymous No.15765187]

>>15759733