iq 130+ simple but confusing brain teaser.


by gooksahn
Tags: brain, confusing, simple, teaser
regor60
regor60 is offline
#37
Jan29-08, 04:12 PM
P: 101
Quote Quote by AFG34 View Post
130 imo

the customer walks in
you give him the ring, you lose $70
you go to the baker, get $100
give the customer $30, you lose $100 total
you have $70 cash left from the $100 the baker gave you
you give the $70 + an extra $30 back to the baker
you lose $130
You're counting the $30 twice. The $30 you gave to the customer wasn't yours...it was the baker's. When you refunded the baker his $100, that $30 you gave the customer now becomes your cost.

Two separate transactions at work here.

Look at it this way, the net result. The baker is made whole, no out of pocket for him. The customer walks away with a ring that would have fetched $70 from a legitimate buyer, plus $30 cash and he gave the seller nothing. Who financed that ? The seller.

There is no such thing as a potential cost, just like there is no such thing as a paper loss. A loss is either realized (cash) or unrealized (security or item exchangeable for cash) but both forms of loss are "real". Just because someone hasn't exchanged the item for cash doesn't change its value.
ValenceE
ValenceE is offline
#38
Jan29-08, 06:11 PM
P: 141
Hello to all,

what puzzles me is that the first part of the OP says that I don't have any cash, but yet I still give the baker his $100.00 back after selling the ring... so here's how I would put it;

I don't loose a penny, not a cent.

Why ?, well the client was still in my shop when the baker angrily stormed in. The fake voucher was shown and both the money and the ring were given back as the perplexed customer blabered some excuse and promised to come back some other time to buy the ring, this time with real cash.

VE
Werg22
Werg22 is offline
#39
Jan29-08, 09:04 PM
P: 1,520
Quote Quote by regor60 View Post
There is no such thing as a potential cost, just like there is no such thing as a paper loss. A loss is either realized (cash) or unrealized (security or item exchangeable for cash) but both forms of loss are "real". Just because someone hasn't exchanged the item for cash doesn't change its value.
What do you mean there is no such thing as potential cost (and I said potential loss by the way)? Potentially, the jeweler lost $100. Maybe no one would have bought the ring, so he at least lost $30 + value of the ring. I guess that I what I want to say is that the question asks for the unrealized loss.
lahmannrobert
lahmannrobert is offline
#40
Mar10-08, 09:06 PM
P: 5
Most people would say 200 by way of simple math and no thought, however 100 is total loss. Don't forget pride...to some it's priceless.
ManDay
ManDay is offline
#41
Mar11-08, 02:34 AM
P: 154
100$

Make it easier by just thinking that he robbed the shop-owner and gave him a cookie as excuse.
  • Cookie: +0$
  • Being robbed a ring for 70$ and 30$ change: -100$
  • Adjacent shopowner who lends you money: Priceless
Other solution
  • Money can neither dissappear nor be created. Therefore the money "in the system" has to be the same after the process. The voucher is worth 0$. The adjacent shopowner doesn't gain any profit from the deal, whereas the fraud walks away with 100$. Hence, 100$ left the system of Shopowner and adjacent Shopowner.
Another
  • The fraud brings a fake voucher which is 0$ and swaps it for 100$. Therefore 100$ are taken away from the shopowner
PS: Thats certainly not 130+. At least not with respects to grown men. A 12yo, that's what the 130 minimum may apply to.
Werg22
Werg22 is offline
#42
Mar11-08, 12:10 PM
P: 1,520
But what irritates me here is that we're assuming that the jeweler would have otherwise sold the ring. He at least lost $30 + value of the ring - we don't know anything else.
regor60
regor60 is offline
#43
Mar12-08, 11:35 AM
P: 101
Quote Quote by Werg22 View Post
But what irritates me here is that we're assuming that the jeweler would have otherwise sold the ring. He at least lost $30 + value of the ring - we don't know anything else.
$30 plus what he could have sold the ring for, yes. I don't think we're saying different things, I just think it's reasonable to assume the words "$70 ring" mean $70 is what he could have sold it for
RonL
RonL is offline
#44
Mar12-08, 12:20 PM
PF Gold
P: 701
And i used to worry about fitting in on this forum
Werg22
Werg22 is offline
#45
Mar13-08, 12:06 PM
P: 1,520
Quote Quote by regor60 View Post
$30 plus what he could have sold the ring for, yes. I don't think we're saying different things, I just think it's reasonable to assume the words "$70 ring" mean $70 is what he could have sold it for
No disagreement there. I am well aware that $70 is the price of ring - I was speaking of its intrinsic value i.e. $70 - profit made on the ring. In any case, this a difference in the interpretation of the question rather than in the interpretation of the problem. We can't clear the ambiguity unless the OP makes a clarification.
P4PPY
P4PPY is offline
#46
Mar14-08, 05:01 PM
P: 17
He's a business owner right?

If you have experienced a major property loss due to damage or theft, and you are not reimbursed by your insurance policy, you may qualify for a deduction on your federal taxes.

If I remember correctly, you take the fair market value of the item, in this case... lets say he was an honest salesman and the FMV was $70. You then take 5% from that, you're left with $72.50. Then you subtract 10% of your adjusted gross income and you can deduct the remainder.

If the owner didn't make anything that year... he only lost $33.50. ($30 from the neighbor, and 3.50 negated by deduction calculations.)

I seriously doubt the $30 will be recouped of course... unless he's good buddies with the neighboring business owner. =)

Simple answer though... $100
brettlee
brettlee is offline
#47
Mar16-08, 08:22 PM
P: 1
Hey guys i have two ideas. One is a theory.
the other is a possible solution.

now let us use gooksahn(the bloke who post this teaser) as the customer with the
voucher. ok this is what happened, gooksahn said "many have answered this wrong"
i think he is using this and "and the ring indeed is $70" to keep us second guessing
our answers. Fact #1 non of us here knows the right answer, and we don't know who gooksahn is reffering to
when he said "many have answered this wrong" because we also don't know the wrong answers he is reffering to.
make sense to me; so i'm going to eliminate everything after the ? mark, because i already know what the
ring cost and i really don't care about the millions who got it wrong because they didn't "think it through".
ok all i need to do is answer the question: What is your total loss?

The theory part folks.
on this beautiful bussiness day gooksahn walks into my shop presented me with a voucher worth $100, but
i was so so broke i didn't have $30 to give him(remember $70 cos of ring minus $100 worth voucher equal $30
bucks i didn't have) now i go to the pastry guy and GAVE HIM THE VOUCHER and i collect my $100.
transaction: i now have the pastry guy $100, i give the ring with $30 .......i am so glad i have money
in my register wow.......end of transaction........10 minutes later WHAT!WHAT!WHAT! OH GOD NO I JUST
GOT ROB......lol.

Drama time: 9 minutes 59 second..... 1 sec later door slam open pastry guy with a spoon in his hand, this
voucher is blah blah blah..... so i APOLOGIZE and GIVE him BACK his $100. Damn that spoon
Important and very: note after the first transaction i only had left with $70 and yet after 10 min i return
the spoon guy $100 magic huh not really.
So within the 10 min i had to make another or several sale/s let that amount be X, but X must be = to $30
or >$30 hope this is clear.

whys. why 10 min and not b4.
why tell him not return the voucher this is important u will see y.
What is my total loss? after i give the pastry guy his money. note this is when i was told the voucher is fake.
1. i give $100 voucher remember the voucher was real at this time, it was like giving 5 single 20s for 1
$100 bill
2. i give a ring($70) + $30 to gooksahn =$100 worth
3. 10 min later $30 from $X plus the $70 to give pastry guy $100
total=$300

This is how i arrive to my loss.
now we know that the voucher is fake this will consider my loss so that is -100 (note here: if the voucher return to me it will
definitely be fake so technically it's a loss,also since pastry guy tells me about the voucher not returning it. lets say the voucher
is real the pastry gain 100 and it's still my loss. we will never know


so i will have to give back the pastry guy his $70 which i can only say 4 sure i have,but i don't have his $30 another -30

next the ring -70 with change -30

-100,-30,-70,-30= for my total loss of $-230. the end


i am really sorry to bored everyone who will read this, let me know what you think "not about what i wrote here because this might be
rubbish" about this teaser. remember to "think it through" just kidding.


The possible solution.
Someone find gooksahn and you know the rest.
...........oh not again i don't have any cash in my register........spoon guy noooooooo
this(......) means minutes later.
ValenceE
ValenceE is offline
#48
Apr12-08, 07:30 PM
P: 141
I prefer my answer in post #38...

VE
ronterry
ronterry is offline
#49
Apr21-08, 03:23 AM
P: 4
30 bucks, and the ring.
esbo
esbo is offline
#50
Apr22-08, 04:48 PM
P: 84
Quote Quote by ronterry View Post
30 bucks, and the ring.
Yes that's right, I would say it is a more 70+ IQ question myself.
Certaintly any real shop keeper would have realised he was $100 down ie $30 + a ring
valued at $70.

Or perhaps more simply put he accested a voucher for $100 which was worthless.
gateman234
gateman234 is offline
#51
Apr24-08, 04:47 AM
P: 11
ok,
you start off with $70 (ring)
+$100(banker)= $170
-$70(ring)=$100
-$30(change)=$70
-$100(banker)= -30$
but he started with a ring so total losses = ring+$30
paschalcunnin
paschalcunnin is offline
#52
May5-08, 12:10 AM
P: 2
ring $70 change $30 money to baker $100 = $200
paschalcunnin
paschalcunnin is offline
#53
May5-08, 12:57 AM
P: 2
sorry it was only $100
moe darklight
moe darklight is offline
#54
May5-08, 01:14 AM
P: 411
how is this thread longer than some of the advanced physics threads??

yes. we must somehow revive Gauss, for only he can settle this . seriously guys. let's give it a rest.

(I still stand by my "OP didn't specify if by 'loss' he meant net loss or gross loss" opinion *muahaha*)

but seriously guys... c'mawwn


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Simple Harmonic Motion Brain Teaser Classical Physics 2
Brain Teaser #39 Brain Teasers 6
Brain Teaser #38 Brain Teasers 12
Brain Teaser #37 Brain Teasers 4
Brain Teaser #22 Brain Teasers 7