Show to the rest you aren't an idiot. proof you deserve to be on this board

?

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

i didn't look at the picture

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

but he was going to sell them for that price.

I dont have Veeky Forums gold. Can someone transcribe the post into text form?

The owner lost $30 worth of money.

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?

and we found the first dumbass.

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.

Veeky Forums is full of brainlets and it's sad really.

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

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.

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

Wrong thread

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

trust

100$ but the owner still lost 100 billion regardless

100

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

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

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)

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

You can't prove a negative ya dingus.

-70

mathematicians prove negatives every fucking day son

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

but that's how internet piracy works.

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

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

You mean plus the profit margain

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

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.

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

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

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

Prove that someone would have bought it

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.

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

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

TL;DR Unsolvable.

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.

the guy lost $30

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.

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

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

>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.

Nope

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.

Sad that a cashier is smarter than Veeky Forums

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

Veeky Forums logic

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.

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

Never said there was. Read the thread.

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

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.

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.

he lost nothing capitalist pigs!

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.

>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.

Legally you lost 1 trillion

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

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.
retard

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.

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

>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.

Who says he has that opportunity?

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

Who says he doesn't?

The question

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.
None (or few) have tried to, but plenty have by foolishly ignoring the market

What an autistic bunch

[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

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

this is meto 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.

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

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?

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

So $100

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 Veeky Forums 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.

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

price =|= cost