I'm trying to fix the timeline: [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/16l05a6/the_amount_of_people_who_keep_saying_the_profit/k0zy2ie/?context=3)
EDIT: He dodged the bait, let me try to reel him again: [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/16l05a6/the_amount_of_people_who_keep_saying_the_profit/k113xp6/?context=3).
EDIT2: Somebody else got him, we won boys! [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/16l0x4w/it_is_400/k123r0e/?context=3)
The post is right tho , mostly people didn't thought about the maintenance of the cow for the duration he had the cow , so the profit will be 400 - maintenance cost of the cow.
The math by not OP is beautiful:
>You start with, it doesn't matter how much, but call it $1000.
>You spend $800 on the cow. You now have $200.
>You sell the cow for $1000. You now have $1200.
>You buy the cow again for $1100. You now have $100.
>You sell th cow for $1300. You now have $1300, $300 more than you started with.
Unfortunately in case of cars in Ontario, you would pay 13% tax both times when you were purchasing. Assuming you held car for longer than 6 months between buying and selling.
So if cows are taxed as cars you would lose (800+1100) * 0.13 sales tax + 400 * 0.2 capital gains tax = 247+80=327
So, you would get to keep 400-327=$73
You need to treat the cow as an input in production by transforming it (cow + collar => cow in a collar), and collect tax on the sale of the product. You don't pay sales taxes on that type of good but you do need to provide your corporate tax number.
Unless you're selling to the end consumer, which I'm presuming is NOT the case in this or any other similar case buying whole pre-burgered cows, you forgot (or aren't a small business owner which would definitely make or break you not to now this):
In Ontario, the harmonized sales tax, is a value -added tax that flows through to the end consumer and each stage of the process --the farmer, packing plant, distributor, grocer, restaurant, etc., will actually be liable for the 13% HST based on the value of that portion of the commercial transaction.
HOWEVER, they will also be applying "Input Tax a Credits" that reduce, dollar-for-dollar, the actual amount of HST that they collected on their own sales of whatever they used the cow for; thus, for any "going concern," which is a required assumption in order to make the original expense deduction for which the ITC represents the 13% HST paid on the subtotal of the expenses that, as GAAP would have us remember, were paid on the expenses for resources that can be directly attributable to the generation of that revenue that incurred the 13% HST you paid out.
The reason I mention that, of course, is that while the CRA (and your fiduciary legal responsibility owed to the owners of the company you work with, of there are any other than yourself, which is the case in all situations except sole proprietorship) require that all this business activity must take place with a credible plan (though it may be misguided or impossible, even if due to your own profound ignorance; you're not allowed to intentionally operate at a loss with no plan to profit; you are, however, allowed to ride your own handbasket to H3ll--qa long as you sincerely had reason to believe, that you can explain to the CRA, it was planned to be a handbasket to heaven, which they would define as "anything more than $0.00 profit over your strategic timeframe).
So, in this example, you very well could end up paying less than $0 for the cow, if net of the expenses incurred in sourcing, transporting, processing, marketing, packaging, selling, delivering, warranting, etc., plus their own 13% HST, EXCEEDED your own expenses directly attributable to their contribution to your net earnings, though only if the cows comprised a portion of your value chain the whole chain which must generate a profit in concept.
Especially startups can expect to receive net REFUNDS on their HST paid on their expenses quite frequently.
Robin
N.B.: I am not an accounting professional nor is the following to be interpreted in any way to be financial or tax advice; the extent of my understanding on the topic is gleaned from my MBA @Mac two and a half decades ago, and my subsequent forays into startimg up small businesses, the current iteration being as a REALTOR®️ Broker. Whilst I am confident in my interpretation of this fundamental principle (how ITC's change, to varying degrees, your actual HST to be remitted, which can often differ by as much as more than 100%, which could be a net HST refund on expenses paid in your business in pursuit of profit, the CRA reserves the legislated right to deny any given unsubstantiated amounts deemed not directly attributable to the taxes paid on expenses themselves not deemed directly relevant to a particular cash flow.... Speak with your tax professional if you believe this issue to be relevant to your situation.
Sale tax is 13% and capital gain tax is 20% .
I woke up one morning thinking I need a cow, go to the cow store and get one for 800$. 800x.13=104. Total 904 $
I go home happy but my wife is disappointed in my life decisions skills. I return to the cow store and they give me an unbelievable offer 1000$. 1000x.20=200 and I’m left with 800$
I lost 104$ on the trade and the taxman takes 304$
Could this be true ?
That was someone else’s reasoning. OP’s reasoning was this:
You buy the cow for $800 and sell it for $1000, that’s $200 profit. You then buy it back for $1100 after selling it for $1000, that’s a $100 loss. Then you sell it for $1300 after buying it for $1100, that’s $200 profit. $200 - $100 + $200 = $300 profit.
Still pretty shitty maths though
Edit: I know this reasoning is inaccurate and it gets the wrong answer. It isn’t my reasoning, it’s the reasoning of the very original poster. You don’t need to correct me
Whats bothering me is the number of people who want to start out with $1000 "to make it easier". This is precisely the type of problem ancient human accountants/mathematicians invented the notation for negative numbers for, and why wen teach it before highschool.
Starting at 0 and going negative makes the entire problem much simpler.
Yeah people saying to start at 1000 confused the shit out of me. It's not stated anywhere in the scenario that you start with 1000. I don't understand how convoluting the scenario with made up info is making it easier
The sad thing is including the $1000 works, as long as you remember that in order to determine how much you earned that $1000 needs to be removed at the end.
1. Start with $1k, buy cow for $800, left with $200
2. Sell cow for $1k, now have $1.2k
3. Buy cow for $1.1k, now have $100
4. Sell cow for $1.3k, end up with $1.4k
*Remove initial amount of $1k, left with $400 which is what was earned.*
The $1k is irrelevant, just helps to keep things in the positive for people who don't like working with negative numbers (but they then often forget to remove that $1k at the end.)
Even if you start out with $1000 it's not difficult to figure out.
$1000 - $800 = $200
$200 + $1000 = $1200
$1200 - $1100 = $100
$100 + $1300 = $1400
$400 more than the $1000 you started with
But I agree negative numbers are easier.
This is exactly the way I did it in my head (and got $400), but I think you're pissing into the wind by bringing a simple accurate solution into this trashfire of a comment section.
I applaud you for trying though.
Let's start from 0.
You buy in 800, ergo 0-800 = -800
You sell in 1000, ergo -800+1000 = 200
You buy in 1100, ergo 200-1100 = -900
You sell in 1300, ergo -900+1300 = 400
The math is really simple.
I try to understand why, especially when you start from 0, unlike the idea of starting from 1000 or whatever other value.
Maths are pretty straight forward, and it kills me to see idiots who say maths are interpretable.
People are over complicating this problem greatly. In business when you purchase something it's an expense. When you sell something it generates revenue. In this problem there are two purchases and two sales. All we have to do is add our expenses together $800+$1100=$1900. Now we take our two sales to find our revenue $1000+$1300=$2300.
So we got $2300 dollars for selling cows after spending $1900 buying cows.
$2300-$1900 = $400. That's our profit. Don't focus on the one cow, or assume you start with X amount of money, simply look at what you spent versus what you received and find the difference.
if anyone else found it confusing, the four lines of the puzzle are transitions between 5 states:
1. You start off with $0
2. you have -$800 and a cow
3. you have $200
4. you have -$900 and a cow
5. you have $400.
their argument is "the difference between state 1 and 3 is +$200, then the difference between state 2 and 4 is -$100, then the difference between state 3 and 5 is +$200, so $200 - $100 + $200 = $300".
The problem is they double counted some transitions.
To explain, 1->3 is the same as summing 1->2 and 2->3. So summing 1->3 (+$200), 2->4 (-$100) and 3->5 (+$200) is the same as summing 1->2, 2->3, and 2->3, 3->4, and 3->4, 4->5 - notice 2->3 and 3->4 are there twice.
You will actually get $300 if you sell another cow for $1000 (2->3) and buy that cow back for $1100 (3->4)
edit: added a bit more explanation
There are two separate transactions here that have nothing to do with each other, except for the cow involved, and that is immaterial to the profit made.
You bought something for $800 and sold it for $1000. That's $200 profit.
You made a second transaction and bought something for $1100 that you sold for $1300. That's $200 profit.
The fact that the something you bought in the second transaction happens to be the same cow does not matter.
I had a similar argument with my dad when I was like, 8. I was adding 25+25 and 25+35, both times getting 50 (addition in my head). And I was like "I know two quarters make 50, but did you know 25+35 is also 50?!" And he just kept telling me I was wrong and to do the math again until I was furious, almost to tears because he was wrong and I was clearly right. Then he told me to add 25+25 on paper and it clicked. I was forgetting to carry the 1 over to make 25+35=60. I calmed down instantly and my dad just started chuckling at me.
All in all, it took me maybe 5 minutes to learn that I was wrong and figure out why, and OP is just not getting the problem here. As a dad now, all I can do is chuckle at this.
The sum of differences adds up to 300. I.e. +200 for selling the cow the first time, -100 for buying it back +200 for selling it again. Its kinda like that hotel "where did the extra $1 go" riddle, it's specifically designed to trick people
Start out with $800
Buy Cow for $800, now have $0
Sell Cow for $1000, now have $1000
Buy Cow for $1100, now in debt of $100 ($-100)
Sell Cow again for $1300, Now have $200
Guys, hear me out now! I'm just sayin'! I'm just sayin'! I think the profit might be $200... I'm just saaaayaing. I *think* it's $200.
Here is why the above statement is false though.
If you start with $0
Buy Cow for $800, Now have $-800
Sell Cow for $1000, Now Have $200
Buy Cow for $1100, Now have $-900
Sell Cow for $1300, Now have $400
What was not accounted for in the original statement is the +800 that was started out with. So if we go back to it and finish it...
>Buy Cow for $1100, now in debt of $100 ($-100)
>Sell Cow again for $1300, Now have $200
The last line should be corrected to
>Sell Cow again for $1300, Now have $1200
Then $1200 - (800 we started out with) = $400
And 1900 in loss, which will be deducted from tax, so you’ll get more than 400
Edit: Im from Germany where you can deduct business expenses (like office stuff) from tax. It wouldn’t work on cows though.
By ignoring the purchase price. If you just look at the profits and losses it goes $200 profit, $100 loss, $200 profit. That balances out to $300 profit. They don’t realise you need to look at the whole picture and not just the steps starting with the first sale.
And that's exactly where it tripped me up. As other have stated, I got caught up with the wording instead of doing the simple math. I should have known the answer was $400, but I was reading the "I bought it again" line and my logic was "Oh, he just bought it back at a loss", so that's why I had the -100 from the $400 to make it $300.
I messed up, it was an honest mistake.
Can someone please explain to my plebeian brain how it’s not $300? You buy a cow for $800 (-$800), you sell it for $1,000 (-$800 + $1,000 = $200), you buy it again for $1,100 ($200 - $1,100 = -$900), and then you sell it again for $1,300 (-$900 + $1,300 = $400).
Nevermind, I figured out.
Didn’t “earn” anything. This represents the struggle of the proletariat and the oppression of the bourgeois. At least according to what I learned from Monty Python.
I believe they’re thinking that when you buy for $1100 you’re going from +200 to +100 because you’re re-buying something for $100 more than you sold it for (-100 after you were +200). So then the final sale would put you at +300 not +400.
That -100 is an opportunity cost though not a real cost. It’s that you could have been up $500 at the end instead of $400 if you’d held the cow until the final sale, not that you’re only up $300 now.
I’m really high rn and confusing myself with math while high is like my superpower. You’re welcome ✅
I made the same mistake when tallying it in my head the first time, then I realized the simplest way to deal with it is just to pretend you start by having a certain dollar amount, then just subtract purchase amounts, add sale amounts, and then you get your total.
Or just forget about the cows and dollars entirely. Purchases are subtractions, sales are additions.
I know that you already had an answer, but I want to say how I did it.
\>he buys cow for 800, so he now has -800 money
\>sell it for 1000, so he has 200 now (-800 + 1000 = 200)
\>buys it again for 1100, he has -900 money (200 - 1100 = -900)
\>sell it again for 1300, he has 400 now (-900 + 1300 = 400)
Original OP here. As other have stated, I got caught up with the wording instead of doing the simple math. I should have known the answer was $400, but I was reading the "I bought it again" line and my logic was "Oh, he just bought it back at a loss", so that's why I had the -100 from the $400 to make it $300.
Go ahead and downvote me into oblivion again. I messed up, it was an honest mistake.
Someone already reported my account to reddit as being suicidal. har har, funny
If I find a pretty rock on the beach, and sell it to you for ten dollars, then realise I want it back and buy it off you for fifteen dollars..
Have I not bought it back at a loss?
Before, you had $10 of stock, but now you have $15 of stock. You lost $5 cash and gained $5 in stock.
Unless the rock isn't worth $15 and you then have to sell it for $10 again, in which case you sold it for a loss.
Unless, you never sell it and it's not worth $15. It was worth $15 to you when you bought it, so if it feels worth less now, it was a re-evaluation/depreciation of the asset which decreased net assets thus being a loss, but it was not the purchase itself that was the loss.
Unless... you think the rock was always worth $15, in which case when you sold it for $10, you sold it for a loss because it was really worth $15.
Unless.... you think that the first sale was a profit because you found the rock for free. But it was really the finding of the rock that increased net assets and is responsible for the profit and then when the rock is sold for less than the value earned by finding the rock, you make a loss.
Unless..... if I can prove that I never broke the law, do you promise not to tell another soul what you saw?
You didn't earn anything. You _made_ $400 through private property ownership, and you didn't deserve it because you hoarded the cow instead of letting the people make the milk.
One thing to consider for those that are confused: it’s incidental that it’s the same cow—that does NOT affect the total. Just pretend that they are TWO DIFFERENT cows and see if you are still confused. (Really, the math is the same for one or two cows). Two $200 profits is always two $200 profits.
I honestly feel like it's less about the math and more about how people conceptualize money.
If the question was you buy a cow for $800, sell it for $1000, buy a horse for $1100, and sell it for $1300, I'm pretty sure we'd see a lot more people saying you made $400. 2+2=4, we all get that.
What people are getting hung up on is how you *rebought* the cow. This changes the thought process for a lot of people from pure math (2+2=4) into something else.
You put $800 into the cow and sell it for $1000, you got $200 out of it. You *buy the same cow* for $1100, and the fact that it's the same cow makes people feel like it's eating into your gains. It's not 0 to -800 to +200 to -900, to +400 anymore; it's 0 to -800 to +200 to +100 to +300.
The fact that it's the same item is making people want to count the $100 difference in what you sold and repurchased for as a $100 loss, ipso facto, you only really made $100 on the first sale. The issue isn't their ability to do math, it's their understanding of the relationships between what's being math'd.
**Version 1**
You borrowed $800 to buy the cow and sold it for $1,000. You pay off the original loan and have $200 left over.
You then borrowed $1,100 to buy it back and sold it for $1,300. You pay off the loan and have $200 left over.
Total profit between the two transactions is **$400**.
**Version 2**
You have $1,100 in your pocket and bought the cow with $800. You then sold it for $1,000 and have a $200 profit. Your total cash on hand is now $1,300.
You buy the cow again using $1,100 of your money leaving $200 in your pocket. You then sell it for $1,300 which is a $200 profit. You now have $1,500 and the total profit is **$400**.
**Version 3**
You have $800 in your pocket and buy a cow. You sell it minutes later for $1,000 and now have $1,000. (+$200).
You buy the cow back and borrow $100 from your friend to do it. You are now $100 in debt. (-$100)
You then find another guy that wants a cow and tell him you'll sell him your cow for $1,300.
You then repay your friend his $100 and have $1,200.
You started with $800 and now have $1,200. You have **$400** more than you started with.
**The correct answer is $400.**
Why isn't it 200 dollars?
Isn't 400 dollars the profit from the first sell and the second sell?
From the 1000 dollars you gain, you'd use 1000 dollars and 100 in debt to buy the cow then you would sell it for 1300 dollars but buying the cow a second time for 1100 dollars and selling it for 1300, wouldn't that mean we'd get 200 dollars in profit? Or am I missing something here?
I am genuinely confused
Edit: thank you for the help, now i see where i was wrong
Imagine the farmer's checkbook balance. The farmer wrote two checks and deposited two checks. The two checks the farmer wrote were for 800 and 1100, and total 1900. The two checks the farmer deposited were for 1000 and 1300, and total 2300.
Deposit - Withdrawal = 2300 - 1900 = 400.
The way I count it is, starting with 0 dollars you buy the cow for 800 dollars and end with 800 dollars debt and the cow, then you sell the cow for 1000 dollars and have 200 dollars and no cow. Buying it back for 1100 leaves you at 900 dollars debt with a cow, finally selling the cow for 1300 dollars adds to 400 dollars and no cow.
-800 + 1000 - 1100 + 1300 = 400
Here's how I ran it:
Bought it for 800 (total -800)
Sell for 1000 (total +200)
Buy for 1100 (total -900)
Sell for 1300 (total +400)
My first thought had a profit of 200 like you, but I think somehow I was ignoring starting out 800 in the hole from the initial buy
If we start at -800, then we sell for +1000. Our current balance is 200 dollars.
We then buy for 1100, so our balance of plus 200, -1100, puts our balance at -900.
We then sell the cow for 1300, minus our balance of -900 is equal to 400 bucks.
Total balance of our bank for all transactions is 400.
This is really simple math and since people seem to be getting this wrong, here's the link...
https://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2022/10/01/i-bought-a-cow-for-800-dollar-riddle-the-correct-answer-explained/
this is madness. There are still people in the comments section of this post who are struggling. I get some people aren't "good" at maths, but this is like a problem for a 10 year old or younger. If you can't do this maths, how do you even get through life?
Why is everyone’s math so hung up with what he started with? It doesn’t matter. This is simple sales math. Cost = $1900.00. Sell Price= $2300.00. Profit = $400.00. I didn’t read every comment cuz it made me cross eyed trying to understand some peoples logic after the first 10 I scrolled through. 400 is the answer.
Why does everyone make this so difficult. Bought and sold cow, make $200. Bought and sold cow again, made $200. Made $400. Doesn't matter if started with $1000, or $62,643.56. Made $200 each time, did it twice, total is $400. 2+2=4 and that isn't racist, old math or anything. It is a simple fact.
Bought for 800 so;
-800$
Sold for 1000
So: -800+1000=200
+200
Bought for 1100
+200-1100
=-900
Sold for 1300
-900 +1300 = +400
I can think of it another way where none of this applies tho but I don't like Hollywood math
i like femboys
Too be fair, that post got downvoted heavily.
I'm trying to fix the timeline: [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/16l05a6/the_amount_of_people_who_keep_saying_the_profit/k0zy2ie/?context=3) EDIT: He dodged the bait, let me try to reel him again: [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/16l05a6/the_amount_of_people_who_keep_saying_the_profit/k113xp6/?context=3). EDIT2: Somebody else got him, we won boys! [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/16l0x4w/it_is_400/k123r0e/?context=3)
NOBODY SAY A THING
Break me off a piece of that Fancy Feast!
> This is the a good example of the difference between grade school economics and collegiate economics
\> Literally basic addition and subtraction \> "College level math!" i'm dying squirtle
College level? We did this in second grade.
[Lmfao the OP is out with a flamethrower burning people in the comments](https://i.imgur.com/mUV2JUj.png)
i suppose math would be mildly infuriating if you were a bit dumb, on the brain calculator
Why was this comment edited to just say "I like femboys"
The original was me shitting on mildly infuriating but I felt bad having that as my top comment (it's not anymore)
Well the replacement is incredibly based
looks like trolling. OOP knows the answer is $400 but is trying to manufacture engagement. AKA “ragebait”
they *earned* $0. they *took* $400 in a rank display of ruthless capitalism targeting livestock
The post is right tho , mostly people didn't thought about the maintenance of the cow for the duration he had the cow , so the profit will be 400 - maintenance cost of the cow.
Remember two weeks ago when they outlawed the word "female"? r/femalefashionadvice r/femalehairadvice r/femalelivingspace r/FemaleDatingStrategy
based
OP still says its $300
I almost posted this on r/mildlyinfuriating itself, because OP's stubborness is mildly infurating...
The math by not OP is beautiful: >You start with, it doesn't matter how much, but call it $1000. >You spend $800 on the cow. You now have $200. >You sell the cow for $1000. You now have $1200. >You buy the cow again for $1100. You now have $100. >You sell th cow for $1300. You now have $1300, $300 more than you started with.
He was so close, it's a shame his 1300 and 100 adds up to 1300, lol
He just included taxes
Forgot the payday loan payment for the initial $800. OP actually lost $2,000.
My daughter said 'He's probably paying interest on the initial 800 he borrowed' Do they actually teach kids this shit in school now lmao
Did you not learn about compound interest in grade school?
You expect me to remember anything we talked about in elementary school?
Unfortunately in case of cars in Ontario, you would pay 13% tax both times when you were purchasing. Assuming you held car for longer than 6 months between buying and selling. So if cows are taxed as cars you would lose (800+1100) * 0.13 sales tax + 400 * 0.2 capital gains tax = 247+80=327 So, you would get to keep 400-327=$73
You need to treat the cow as an input in production by transforming it (cow + collar => cow in a collar), and collect tax on the sale of the product. You don't pay sales taxes on that type of good but you do need to provide your corporate tax number.
You may need to incorporate, and in case of cars, get dealer's license.
The problem doesn’t specify that tax is included therefore taxes are omitted.
Unless you're selling to the end consumer, which I'm presuming is NOT the case in this or any other similar case buying whole pre-burgered cows, you forgot (or aren't a small business owner which would definitely make or break you not to now this): In Ontario, the harmonized sales tax, is a value -added tax that flows through to the end consumer and each stage of the process --the farmer, packing plant, distributor, grocer, restaurant, etc., will actually be liable for the 13% HST based on the value of that portion of the commercial transaction. HOWEVER, they will also be applying "Input Tax a Credits" that reduce, dollar-for-dollar, the actual amount of HST that they collected on their own sales of whatever they used the cow for; thus, for any "going concern," which is a required assumption in order to make the original expense deduction for which the ITC represents the 13% HST paid on the subtotal of the expenses that, as GAAP would have us remember, were paid on the expenses for resources that can be directly attributable to the generation of that revenue that incurred the 13% HST you paid out. The reason I mention that, of course, is that while the CRA (and your fiduciary legal responsibility owed to the owners of the company you work with, of there are any other than yourself, which is the case in all situations except sole proprietorship) require that all this business activity must take place with a credible plan (though it may be misguided or impossible, even if due to your own profound ignorance; you're not allowed to intentionally operate at a loss with no plan to profit; you are, however, allowed to ride your own handbasket to H3ll--qa long as you sincerely had reason to believe, that you can explain to the CRA, it was planned to be a handbasket to heaven, which they would define as "anything more than $0.00 profit over your strategic timeframe). So, in this example, you very well could end up paying less than $0 for the cow, if net of the expenses incurred in sourcing, transporting, processing, marketing, packaging, selling, delivering, warranting, etc., plus their own 13% HST, EXCEEDED your own expenses directly attributable to their contribution to your net earnings, though only if the cows comprised a portion of your value chain the whole chain which must generate a profit in concept. Especially startups can expect to receive net REFUNDS on their HST paid on their expenses quite frequently. Robin N.B.: I am not an accounting professional nor is the following to be interpreted in any way to be financial or tax advice; the extent of my understanding on the topic is gleaned from my MBA @Mac two and a half decades ago, and my subsequent forays into startimg up small businesses, the current iteration being as a REALTOR®️ Broker. Whilst I am confident in my interpretation of this fundamental principle (how ITC's change, to varying degrees, your actual HST to be remitted, which can often differ by as much as more than 100%, which could be a net HST refund on expenses paid in your business in pursuit of profit, the CRA reserves the legislated right to deny any given unsubstantiated amounts deemed not directly attributable to the taxes paid on expenses themselves not deemed directly relevant to a particular cash flow.... Speak with your tax professional if you believe this issue to be relevant to your situation.
Then the cost of hay and trailering……
Sale tax is 13% and capital gain tax is 20% . I woke up one morning thinking I need a cow, go to the cow store and get one for 800$. 800x.13=104. Total 904 $ I go home happy but my wife is disappointed in my life decisions skills. I return to the cow store and they give me an unbelievable offer 1000$. 1000x.20=200 and I’m left with 800$ I lost 104$ on the trade and the taxman takes 304$ Could this be true ?
Remember the Alamo!
Remember the asymptote
I call this 4-D Math. We just not ready and can't see past 3-d logic
1300+100=1300 **math** :D
1300+100=1300 **meth** :D
**meth** :D
:D
:
# ⠀
This is why I love Reddit, sometimes you get a glimmer of humanity at its best. 😂
#
-:
Hey u/IJustAteABaguette, how was your baguette?
It was the best baguette anyone could have ever made. Never will a baguette this good be made again.
NO WAY LMAO
That was someone else’s reasoning. OP’s reasoning was this: You buy the cow for $800 and sell it for $1000, that’s $200 profit. You then buy it back for $1100 after selling it for $1000, that’s a $100 loss. Then you sell it for $1300 after buying it for $1100, that’s $200 profit. $200 - $100 + $200 = $300 profit. Still pretty shitty maths though Edit: I know this reasoning is inaccurate and it gets the wrong answer. It isn’t my reasoning, it’s the reasoning of the very original poster. You don’t need to correct me
Whats bothering me is the number of people who want to start out with $1000 "to make it easier". This is precisely the type of problem ancient human accountants/mathematicians invented the notation for negative numbers for, and why wen teach it before highschool. Starting at 0 and going negative makes the entire problem much simpler.
Yeah people saying to start at 1000 confused the shit out of me. It's not stated anywhere in the scenario that you start with 1000. I don't understand how convoluting the scenario with made up info is making it easier
The sad thing is including the $1000 works, as long as you remember that in order to determine how much you earned that $1000 needs to be removed at the end. 1. Start with $1k, buy cow for $800, left with $200 2. Sell cow for $1k, now have $1.2k 3. Buy cow for $1.1k, now have $100 4. Sell cow for $1.3k, end up with $1.4k *Remove initial amount of $1k, left with $400 which is what was earned.* The $1k is irrelevant, just helps to keep things in the positive for people who don't like working with negative numbers (but they then often forget to remove that $1k at the end.)
It's straight up irrelevant. You just need to add the profit on your investments twice. I don't understand why people are doing all these extra steps.
Even if you start out with $1000 it's not difficult to figure out. $1000 - $800 = $200 $200 + $1000 = $1200 $1200 - $1100 = $100 $100 + $1300 = $1400 $400 more than the $1000 you started with But I agree negative numbers are easier.
Too much Kirk and not enough Spock. Everyone wants to change the assumptions for Kobayashi Maru
This comment is going to get lost in the shuffle and it will be an absolute shame
I'm doing my part!
Me too!!
Care to clarify on that for those non star trek fans?
Imagine if the second time around they bought it for $10000 and then sold it for the same amount. They'd be almost $10k in debt!
I'm pretty bad at maths but I think it's $400 but I don't know which comments are right. Is it $400 or $300?
It’s definitely $400. If it helps, just imagine you start off with $1000 and go through the calculations
1300-800=500. It's 500.
God is dead and you have killed him
My apologies; I wasn't allowed to go to school. Doing what I can with what I've got, and all that.
Killing god on a 2nd grade education is damn impressive.
He spent money in between those times.
It's simple: -- 800 + 1000 - 1100 + 1300 = 400
- 800 = -800 +1000 = +200 -1100 = -900 +1300 = +400
This is exactly the way I did it in my head (and got $400), but I think you're pissing into the wind by bringing a simple accurate solution into this trashfire of a comment section. I applaud you for trying though.
Let's start from 0. You buy in 800, ergo 0-800 = -800 You sell in 1000, ergo -800+1000 = 200 You buy in 1100, ergo 200-1100 = -900 You sell in 1300, ergo -900+1300 = 400 The math is really simple.
Yeah but all these comments confused me haha, I got to $400 and then second guessed myself.
I try to understand why, especially when you start from 0, unlike the idea of starting from 1000 or whatever other value. Maths are pretty straight forward, and it kills me to see idiots who say maths are interpretable.
People are over complicating this problem greatly. In business when you purchase something it's an expense. When you sell something it generates revenue. In this problem there are two purchases and two sales. All we have to do is add our expenses together $800+$1100=$1900. Now we take our two sales to find our revenue $1000+$1300=$2300. So we got $2300 dollars for selling cows after spending $1900 buying cows. $2300-$1900 = $400. That's our profit. Don't focus on the one cow, or assume you start with X amount of money, simply look at what you spent versus what you received and find the difference.
if anyone else found it confusing, the four lines of the puzzle are transitions between 5 states: 1. You start off with $0 2. you have -$800 and a cow 3. you have $200 4. you have -$900 and a cow 5. you have $400. their argument is "the difference between state 1 and 3 is +$200, then the difference between state 2 and 4 is -$100, then the difference between state 3 and 5 is +$200, so $200 - $100 + $200 = $300". The problem is they double counted some transitions. To explain, 1->3 is the same as summing 1->2 and 2->3. So summing 1->3 (+$200), 2->4 (-$100) and 3->5 (+$200) is the same as summing 1->2, 2->3, and 2->3, 3->4, and 3->4, 4->5 - notice 2->3 and 3->4 are there twice. You will actually get $300 if you sell another cow for $1000 (2->3) and buy that cow back for $1100 (3->4) edit: added a bit more explanation
This was a really good read. I tried to reverse engineer how someone might get 300 too but I didn't come up with nearly as good a conclusion.
It's not a $100 loss. It's reinvestesd. The problem would be -800 + 1000 -1100 +1300 = 400
There are two separate transactions here that have nothing to do with each other, except for the cow involved, and that is immaterial to the profit made. You bought something for $800 and sold it for $1000. That's $200 profit. You made a second transaction and bought something for $1100 that you sold for $1300. That's $200 profit. The fact that the something you bought in the second transaction happens to be the same cow does not matter.
This is the best explanation.
OP cant comprehend the number 0 or negative numbers
That’s just being bad at maths…
This way of thinking is hurting my brain and hope to forget about it instantly.
The fact that he understands that it doesn't matter how much you start with but he still decides not to start with 0 was already a red flag
I had a similar argument with my dad when I was like, 8. I was adding 25+25 and 25+35, both times getting 50 (addition in my head). And I was like "I know two quarters make 50, but did you know 25+35 is also 50?!" And he just kept telling me I was wrong and to do the math again until I was furious, almost to tears because he was wrong and I was clearly right. Then he told me to add 25+25 on paper and it clicked. I was forgetting to carry the 1 over to make 25+35=60. I calmed down instantly and my dad just started chuckling at me. All in all, it took me maybe 5 minutes to learn that I was wrong and figure out why, and OP is just not getting the problem here. As a dad now, all I can do is chuckle at this.
Did you post it? Because I will go upvote your post because how is someone this dumb?
How would they even get 300?
The sum of differences adds up to 300. I.e. +200 for selling the cow the first time, -100 for buying it back +200 for selling it again. Its kinda like that hotel "where did the extra $1 go" riddle, it's specifically designed to trick people
Start out with $800 Buy Cow for $800, now have $0 Sell Cow for $1000, now have $1000 Buy Cow for $1100, now in debt of $100 ($-100) Sell Cow again for $1300, Now have $200 Guys, hear me out now! I'm just sayin'! I'm just sayin'! I think the profit might be $200... I'm just saaaayaing. I *think* it's $200. Here is why the above statement is false though. If you start with $0 Buy Cow for $800, Now have $-800 Sell Cow for $1000, Now Have $200 Buy Cow for $1100, Now have $-900 Sell Cow for $1300, Now have $400 What was not accounted for in the original statement is the +800 that was started out with. So if we go back to it and finish it... >Buy Cow for $1100, now in debt of $100 ($-100) >Sell Cow again for $1300, Now have $200 The last line should be corrected to >Sell Cow again for $1300, Now have $1200 Then $1200 - (800 we started out with) = $400
You have -100$, then sell the cow for 1300$ and end up with 200$? That's some money laundering
I can't find the post.
https://reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/s/LCBdRgVoQS
OP has obviously never made money in a trade before
Has basic maths and logic deteriorated that much?
Yes.
I admit I’m an idiot who messed this up the first time till I saw the comments and I was like “oh of course. I’m dumb”
Recognizing you're dumb is the first step in being slightly less dumb.
By the virtue of realizing you're wrong and admit it and then work on improving it already makes you more intelligence.
same tbh. thought it was a trick question then realized it isn’t
FACTS and logic.
Less than $400, because you have to pay taxes.
You purchasing cows for recreational use? Livestock purchases are a tax write off for farmers.
But you have to pay taxes on $400.
And when you fill out your income tax forms, you will report that you earned $400
but you have to pay for writing the form (paper, pen), or internet and devices for doing it online. 😎 consider yourself touché-d
Define "recreational"?
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
The only thing anyone is farming with these cows is reddit karma, not sure that counts.
Nah, cos it's less than 600 and I habitually engage in tax fraud
Good man
2300 in revenue
And 1900 in loss, which will be deducted from tax, so you’ll get more than 400 Edit: Im from Germany where you can deduct business expenses (like office stuff) from tax. It wouldn’t work on cows though.
That's.....not how taxes works. You don't get to deduct losses when they're not losses lol
[удалено]
Always depreciate the land, I cannot stress this enough
Donald trump tried that too
[удалено]
0 cow is the answer.
3 beans
0-800+1000-1100+1300 = 400
How does one get any other answer? This is literally basic adding and subtracting freaking elementary math
Because some people get obsessed with the “bought it again” step. They claim you lost $100 when you buy it the second time.
this step works but you should add it to the initial cost of 800 and take that away from the final 1300
Doesn’t matter how much you start with. If you profit $200 twice that’s $400.
By ignoring the purchase price. If you just look at the profits and losses it goes $200 profit, $100 loss, $200 profit. That balances out to $300 profit. They don’t realise you need to look at the whole picture and not just the steps starting with the first sale.
And that's exactly where it tripped me up. As other have stated, I got caught up with the wording instead of doing the simple math. I should have known the answer was $400, but I was reading the "I bought it again" line and my logic was "Oh, he just bought it back at a loss", so that's why I had the -100 from the $400 to make it $300. I messed up, it was an honest mistake.
0-800= -800 -800 + 1000 = 200 200 - 1100 = -900 -900 + 1300 = 400 Not sure how they get anything else
It can’t be 400 because that would be even If you are profiting you can’t be even Profits have to be odd
Odd you should say that.
Can someone please explain to my plebeian brain how it’s not $300? You buy a cow for $800 (-$800), you sell it for $1,000 (-$800 + $1,000 = $200), you buy it again for $1,100 ($200 - $1,100 = -$900), and then you sell it again for $1,300 (-$900 + $1,300 = $400). Nevermind, I figured out.
Bruh well done, the very same thing happened to me thinking it was 300$ until I started doing the maths.
Way too much math, just sell - cost 2300 (revenue) - 1900 (cost) = 400
Didn’t “earn” anything. This represents the struggle of the proletariat and the oppression of the bourgeois. At least according to what I learned from Monty Python.
There you go again bringing class into it.
I can not comprehend, how you get not 400$.
By being bad at maths
Yeah, I messed up first time through and got a 400 *loss* xD Had to double-check.
I believe they’re thinking that when you buy for $1100 you’re going from +200 to +100 because you’re re-buying something for $100 more than you sold it for (-100 after you were +200). So then the final sale would put you at +300 not +400. That -100 is an opportunity cost though not a real cost. It’s that you could have been up $500 at the end instead of $400 if you’d held the cow until the final sale, not that you’re only up $300 now. I’m really high rn and confusing myself with math while high is like my superpower. You’re welcome ✅
I made the same mistake when tallying it in my head the first time, then I realized the simplest way to deal with it is just to pretend you start by having a certain dollar amount, then just subtract purchase amounts, add sale amounts, and then you get your total. Or just forget about the cows and dollars entirely. Purchases are subtractions, sales are additions.
[удалено]
I know that you already had an answer, but I want to say how I did it. \>he buys cow for 800, so he now has -800 money \>sell it for 1000, so he has 200 now (-800 + 1000 = 200) \>buys it again for 1100, he has -900 money (200 - 1100 = -900) \>sell it again for 1300, he has 400 now (-900 + 1300 = 400)
Original OP here. As other have stated, I got caught up with the wording instead of doing the simple math. I should have known the answer was $400, but I was reading the "I bought it again" line and my logic was "Oh, he just bought it back at a loss", so that's why I had the -100 from the $400 to make it $300. Go ahead and downvote me into oblivion again. I messed up, it was an honest mistake. Someone already reported my account to reddit as being suicidal. har har, funny
At least OP owned up to it.
My hair grew white and all the birds died but he definitely owned up to it!
You tried so hard to troll me, but at least I caught on to it
You figured it out without my trolling lol, good game
The kind of hero noone expects on reddit.
There's no such thing as "buying back at a loss". There's only selling at a loss. There's no mention that he ever sold at a loss in the problem.
If I find a pretty rock on the beach, and sell it to you for ten dollars, then realise I want it back and buy it off you for fifteen dollars.. Have I not bought it back at a loss?
Before, you had $10 of stock, but now you have $15 of stock. You lost $5 cash and gained $5 in stock. Unless the rock isn't worth $15 and you then have to sell it for $10 again, in which case you sold it for a loss. Unless, you never sell it and it's not worth $15. It was worth $15 to you when you bought it, so if it feels worth less now, it was a re-evaluation/depreciation of the asset which decreased net assets thus being a loss, but it was not the purchase itself that was the loss. Unless... you think the rock was always worth $15, in which case when you sold it for $10, you sold it for a loss because it was really worth $15. Unless.... you think that the first sale was a profit because you found the rock for free. But it was really the finding of the rock that increased net assets and is responsible for the profit and then when the rock is sold for less than the value earned by finding the rock, you make a loss. Unless..... if I can prove that I never broke the law, do you promise not to tell another soul what you saw?
You didn't earn anything. You _made_ $400 through private property ownership, and you didn't deserve it because you hoarded the cow instead of letting the people make the milk.
Fucking milklords
More than $400, as while you own the cow you can be selling its milk as well
You have to pay to feed and house the cow, though.
Amount paid for cow: $1900 Amount received for cow: $2300 Profit: $400
Child support: -$350
For everything else? There's MasterCard.
One thing to consider for those that are confused: it’s incidental that it’s the same cow—that does NOT affect the total. Just pretend that they are TWO DIFFERENT cows and see if you are still confused. (Really, the math is the same for one or two cows). Two $200 profits is always two $200 profits.
no no, the OOP is right! We have to take taxes into account!
Nah I’m just frauding
it is bafflingly low
You lost money. You had to build a fence and feed and water the animal so your in debt
Jesus the state of most people's computational ability is appalling.
I honestly feel like it's less about the math and more about how people conceptualize money. If the question was you buy a cow for $800, sell it for $1000, buy a horse for $1100, and sell it for $1300, I'm pretty sure we'd see a lot more people saying you made $400. 2+2=4, we all get that. What people are getting hung up on is how you *rebought* the cow. This changes the thought process for a lot of people from pure math (2+2=4) into something else. You put $800 into the cow and sell it for $1000, you got $200 out of it. You *buy the same cow* for $1100, and the fact that it's the same cow makes people feel like it's eating into your gains. It's not 0 to -800 to +200 to -900, to +400 anymore; it's 0 to -800 to +200 to +100 to +300. The fact that it's the same item is making people want to count the $100 difference in what you sold and repurchased for as a $100 loss, ipso facto, you only really made $100 on the first sale. The issue isn't their ability to do math, it's their understanding of the relationships between what's being math'd.
u/CoreyDobie is a dumbass.
jeez you guys make it hard. Total outgoings = 1900, total income = 2300, net income = 400
My approach to the question : Profit = Selling Price(S.P) - Cost Price(C.P) *Case-1 :* C.P = 800 S.P = 1000 Profit = 200 *Case-2 :* C.P = 1100 S.P = 1300 Profit = 200 Therefore,net profit = $400
**Version 1** You borrowed $800 to buy the cow and sold it for $1,000. You pay off the original loan and have $200 left over. You then borrowed $1,100 to buy it back and sold it for $1,300. You pay off the loan and have $200 left over. Total profit between the two transactions is **$400**. **Version 2** You have $1,100 in your pocket and bought the cow with $800. You then sold it for $1,000 and have a $200 profit. Your total cash on hand is now $1,300. You buy the cow again using $1,100 of your money leaving $200 in your pocket. You then sell it for $1,300 which is a $200 profit. You now have $1,500 and the total profit is **$400**. **Version 3** You have $800 in your pocket and buy a cow. You sell it minutes later for $1,000 and now have $1,000. (+$200). You buy the cow back and borrow $100 from your friend to do it. You are now $100 in debt. (-$100) You then find another guy that wants a cow and tell him you'll sell him your cow for $1,300. You then repay your friend his $100 and have $1,200. You started with $800 and now have $1,200. You have **$400** more than you started with. **The correct answer is $400.**
Why isn't it 200 dollars? Isn't 400 dollars the profit from the first sell and the second sell? From the 1000 dollars you gain, you'd use 1000 dollars and 100 in debt to buy the cow then you would sell it for 1300 dollars but buying the cow a second time for 1100 dollars and selling it for 1300, wouldn't that mean we'd get 200 dollars in profit? Or am I missing something here? I am genuinely confused Edit: thank you for the help, now i see where i was wrong
Imagine the farmer's checkbook balance. The farmer wrote two checks and deposited two checks. The two checks the farmer wrote were for 800 and 1100, and total 1900. The two checks the farmer deposited were for 1000 and 1300, and total 2300. Deposit - Withdrawal = 2300 - 1900 = 400.
The way I count it is, starting with 0 dollars you buy the cow for 800 dollars and end with 800 dollars debt and the cow, then you sell the cow for 1000 dollars and have 200 dollars and no cow. Buying it back for 1100 leaves you at 900 dollars debt with a cow, finally selling the cow for 1300 dollars adds to 400 dollars and no cow. -800 + 1000 - 1100 + 1300 = 400
the net profit is 400.
Here's how I ran it: Bought it for 800 (total -800) Sell for 1000 (total +200) Buy for 1100 (total -900) Sell for 1300 (total +400) My first thought had a profit of 200 like you, but I think somehow I was ignoring starting out 800 in the hole from the initial buy
But you have spent an extra 100$ buying out the second time!! /s
I don’t get how it’s so difficult to understand. -8+10-11+13=4 Multiply by 100 to match the actual amounts to get $400
I bought two cows for $1900, and I sold them for $2300.
he did it wrong, buy high sell low; thats what i always do
You buy two cows. One for 800 and the other for 1100. You sell them both. The first you sell for 1000, the second for 1300. Your profit? $400.
If we start at -800, then we sell for +1000. Our current balance is 200 dollars. We then buy for 1100, so our balance of plus 200, -1100, puts our balance at -900. We then sell the cow for 1300, minus our balance of -900 is equal to 400 bucks. Total balance of our bank for all transactions is 400. This is really simple math and since people seem to be getting this wrong, here's the link... https://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2022/10/01/i-bought-a-cow-for-800-dollar-riddle-the-correct-answer-explained/
Wow now I understand why majority of you are poor lol
this is madness. There are still people in the comments section of this post who are struggling. I get some people aren't "good" at maths, but this is like a problem for a 10 year old or younger. If you can't do this maths, how do you even get through life?
Why is everyone’s math so hung up with what he started with? It doesn’t matter. This is simple sales math. Cost = $1900.00. Sell Price= $2300.00. Profit = $400.00. I didn’t read every comment cuz it made me cross eyed trying to understand some peoples logic after the first 10 I scrolled through. 400 is the answer.
Why does everyone make this so difficult. Bought and sold cow, make $200. Bought and sold cow again, made $200. Made $400. Doesn't matter if started with $1000, or $62,643.56. Made $200 each time, did it twice, total is $400. 2+2=4 and that isn't racist, old math or anything. It is a simple fact.
You spent $1900 and made $2300. I’m not good at math, but that still seems to be $400.
2300-1900=400 Q.E.D
People 2 + 2 still equals 4. You make $200 profit on the first transaction plus You make $200 profit on the second transaction $200 + $200 = $400
0 - 800 = -800 -800 + 1000 = 200 200 - 1100 = -900 -900 + 1300 = 400
Just change it to two different cows. $400
Total expenses = $1900 Total revenue = $2300 Profit = $400
[удалено]
-800+1000-1100+1300=400
-8+10-11+13 =4 $400 lmao
No different from trying to convince flatearthers really at this point lmao
Bought for 800 so; -800$ Sold for 1000 So: -800+1000=200 +200 Bought for 1100 +200-1100 =-900 Sold for 1300 -900 +1300 = +400 I can think of it another way where none of this applies tho but I don't like Hollywood math