A very simple but confusing puzzle.
- Anuj Dhawan
- Founder
- Posts: 2802
- Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:40 pm
- Location: Mumbai, India
- Contact:
A very simple but confusing puzzle.
A lady buys goods worth Rs. 200 from a shop.(Shopkeeper selling the goods with zero profit).The lady gives him Rs. 1000 note. The shopkeeper gets the change from the next shop and keeps 200 for himself and returns rs.800 to d lady.Later the shopkeeper of the next shop comes with the Rs. 1000 note saying"duplicate" and takes his money back.How much LOSS did the shopkeeper face?
Answer with proper explanation, please.
Answer with proper explanation, please.
Thanks,
Anuj
Disclaimer: My comments on this website are my own and do not represent the opinions or suggestions of any other person or business entity, in any way.
Anuj
Disclaimer: My comments on this website are my own and do not represent the opinions or suggestions of any other person or business entity, in any way.
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 826
- Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:57 pm
Re: A very simple but confusing puzzle.
2000 ...
Code: Select all
200 merchandise
800 customer change
1000 'duplicate'
cheers
enrico
When I tell somebody to RTFM or STFW I usually have the page open in another tab/window of my browser,
so that I am sure that the information requested can be reached with a very small effort
enrico
When I tell somebody to RTFM or STFW I usually have the page open in another tab/window of my browser,
so that I am sure that the information requested can be reached with a very small effort
- Anuj Dhawan
- Founder
- Posts: 2802
- Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:40 pm
- Location: Mumbai, India
- Contact:
Re: A very simple but confusing puzzle.
I too, think its 2000 - but I've heard 1000 and 1800 too as answers...and that's confusing.
Thanks,
Anuj
Disclaimer: My comments on this website are my own and do not represent the opinions or suggestions of any other person or business entity, in any way.
Anuj
Disclaimer: My comments on this website are my own and do not represent the opinions or suggestions of any other person or business entity, in any way.
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 826
- Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:57 pm
Re: A very simple but confusing puzzle.
I guess I made a mistake
lets see things from a different point of view ...
the second store owner came out even ( no loss no gain )
the lady gained 200 of merchandise and 800 of change
so the loss for the store owner 1 was just 1000
it looks better
my first reply was based on trying to track the flow (source/destination) of the money
( the 800 of change do not come out from the cash register, but from the 2nd store owner )
cheers
enrico
When I tell somebody to RTFM or STFW I usually have the page open in another tab/window of my browser,
so that I am sure that the information requested can be reached with a very small effort
enrico
When I tell somebody to RTFM or STFW I usually have the page open in another tab/window of my browser,
so that I am sure that the information requested can be reached with a very small effort
- Anuj Dhawan
- Founder
- Posts: 2802
- Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:40 pm
- Location: Mumbai, India
- Contact:
Re: A very simple but confusing puzzle.
First Shopkeeper = s1
First Shopkeeper = s2
s1= 0 - 800 - 1000 = 1800 but with zero profit clause - should 200 be added??
s2 = 1000-1000=0
First Shopkeeper = s2
s1= 0 - 800 - 1000 = 1800 but with zero profit clause - should 200 be added??
s2 = 1000-1000=0
Thanks,
Anuj
Disclaimer: My comments on this website are my own and do not represent the opinions or suggestions of any other person or business entity, in any way.
Anuj
Disclaimer: My comments on this website are my own and do not represent the opinions or suggestions of any other person or business entity, in any way.
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 490
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:24 pm
Re: A very simple but confusing puzzle.
The lady has taken (as in stolen) 200 in goods, 800 in cash, "paying" with the fake note.
The first shopkeeper has taken 1000 from the second shopkeeper, "paying" a second time with the fake note.
The second shopkeeper has recovered his 1000.
The first shopkeeper is 2000 down.
The 200 the first shopkeeper "kept" for payment is a red-herring, it is part of the 1000 he had to return to the second shopkeeper.
Every time the fake note is used, it costs the receiver 1000. No more, no less. It is being exchanged at face-value, but has no intrinsic value.
The first shopkeeper has taken 1000 from the second shopkeeper, "paying" a second time with the fake note.
The second shopkeeper has recovered his 1000.
The first shopkeeper is 2000 down.
The 200 the first shopkeeper "kept" for payment is a red-herring, it is part of the 1000 he had to return to the second shopkeeper.
Every time the fake note is used, it costs the receiver 1000. No more, no less. It is being exchanged at face-value, but has no intrinsic value.
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 588
- Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:53 am
- Location: Mars
Re: A very simple but confusing puzzle.
The shopkeeper lost 400
200 the cost of goods and the goods of worth 200 ... So 400 was the loss
200 the cost of goods and the goods of worth 200 ... So 400 was the loss
zprogrammer
- Anuj Dhawan
- Founder
- Posts: 2802
- Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:40 pm
- Location: Mumbai, India
- Contact:
Re: A very simple but confusing puzzle.
oh - 400 is a new answer!Pandora-Box wrote:The shopkeeper lost 400
200 the cost of goods and the goods of worth 200 ... So 400 was the loss
Thanks,
Anuj
Disclaimer: My comments on this website are my own and do not represent the opinions or suggestions of any other person or business entity, in any way.
Anuj
Disclaimer: My comments on this website are my own and do not represent the opinions or suggestions of any other person or business entity, in any way.
- Anuj Dhawan
- Founder
- Posts: 2802
- Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:40 pm
- Location: Mumbai, India
- Contact:
Re: A very simple but confusing puzzle.
So your answer is 1000 or 2000?William Collins wrote:The lady has taken (as in stolen) 200 in goods, 800 in cash, "paying" with the fake note.
The first shopkeeper has taken 1000 from the second shopkeeper, "paying" a second time with the fake note.
The second shopkeeper has recovered his 1000.
The first shopkeeper is 2000 down.
The 200 the first shopkeeper "kept" for payment is a red-herring, it is part of the 1000 he had to return to the second shopkeeper.
Every time the fake note is used, it costs the receiver 1000. No more, no less. It is being exchanged at face-value, but has no intrinsic value.
Thanks,
Anuj
Disclaimer: My comments on this website are my own and do not represent the opinions or suggestions of any other person or business entity, in any way.
Anuj
Disclaimer: My comments on this website are my own and do not represent the opinions or suggestions of any other person or business entity, in any way.
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 490
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:24 pm
Re: A very simple but confusing puzzle.
Pandora,
Forget the 1000 note. It is not worth 1000. It is worth zero.
Lady got 200 (goods) plus 800 cash. Shopkeeper 1000 down.
To give the lady 1000 (including the goods) the Shopkeeper took 1000 from his neighbour.
The neighbour realised, and recovered the 1000 from the shopkeeper.
Lady got 1000 from the shopkeeper. Neighbour got 1000 from the Shopkeeper.
Here are the movements.
Lady to Shopkeeper 0
Shopkeeper to Neighour 0,
Shopkeeper from Neighbour 1000
Neighbour -1000
Shopkeeper to Lady 1000
Shopkeeper -1000
Shopkeeper to Neighbour 1000.
Shopkeeper -1000
Neighbour 0
Lady +1000
Shopkeep -2000
How does this balance? The 1000 fake, which is worth zero.
Forget the 1000 note. It is not worth 1000. It is worth zero.
Lady got 200 (goods) plus 800 cash. Shopkeeper 1000 down.
To give the lady 1000 (including the goods) the Shopkeeper took 1000 from his neighbour.
The neighbour realised, and recovered the 1000 from the shopkeeper.
Lady got 1000 from the shopkeeper. Neighbour got 1000 from the Shopkeeper.
Here are the movements.
Lady to Shopkeeper 0
Shopkeeper to Neighour 0,
Shopkeeper from Neighbour 1000
Neighbour -1000
Shopkeeper to Lady 1000
Shopkeeper -1000
Shopkeeper to Neighbour 1000.
Shopkeeper -1000
Neighbour 0
Lady +1000
Shopkeep -2000
How does this balance? The 1000 fake, which is worth zero.
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 826
- Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:57 pm
Re: A very simple but confusing puzzle.
imagine the shop keeper with an empty cash registerTo give the lady 1000 (including the goods) the Shopkeeper took 1000 from his neighbour.
at this point the shopkeeper is even ( the 1000 was a hand me down from the neighbor to the lady )
not really... he has in the cash register 200 for the sold merchandise
so to reimburse the neighbour the shopkeeper takes 200 from the cash register , 800 hidden under the bed mattress
the cash register is empty like it was at the beginning
the shopkeeper lost the 200 in merchandise and the 800 under the mattress
cheers
enrico
When I tell somebody to RTFM or STFW I usually have the page open in another tab/window of my browser,
so that I am sure that the information requested can be reached with a very small effort
enrico
When I tell somebody to RTFM or STFW I usually have the page open in another tab/window of my browser,
so that I am sure that the information requested can be reached with a very small effort
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 588
- Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:53 am
- Location: Mars
Re: A very simple but confusing puzzle.
Women gets goods worth 200 + 800 good money
Neighbour shop keeper gets 1000 good money
So shop keeper lost good of worth 200 + 1800 cash = 2000
Neighbour shop keeper gets 1000 good money
So shop keeper lost good of worth 200 + 1800 cash = 2000
zprogrammer
- Anuj Dhawan
- Founder
- Posts: 2802
- Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:40 pm
- Location: Mumbai, India
- Contact:
Re: A very simple but confusing puzzle.
[center]And in the cloudy dark long night... the confusion... again surrounds the knights of the Forum![/center]
[center] [/center]
[center] [/center]
Thanks,
Anuj
Disclaimer: My comments on this website are my own and do not represent the opinions or suggestions of any other person or business entity, in any way.
Anuj
Disclaimer: My comments on this website are my own and do not represent the opinions or suggestions of any other person or business entity, in any way.
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 826
- Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:57 pm
Re: A very simple but confusing puzzle.
NOPE ... the neighbor comes out even ( gets back the 1000 he gave before )Women gets goods worth 200 + 800 good money
Neighbour shop keeper gets 1000 good money
neighbor comes out even ( no gain no loss )
woman gains 200 in merchandise and 800 cash
the third party involved bears the loss of 1000 quids
seem so simple
cheers
enrico
When I tell somebody to RTFM or STFW I usually have the page open in another tab/window of my browser,
so that I am sure that the information requested can be reached with a very small effort
enrico
When I tell somebody to RTFM or STFW I usually have the page open in another tab/window of my browser,
so that I am sure that the information requested can be reached with a very small effort
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 490
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:24 pm
Re: A very simple but confusing puzzle.
OK, I'm going with enrico's last now. The Lady has walked off with 1000 (800 + 200). The Shopkeeper thinks he has turned 200 of stock into cash. The Neighbour thinks he is flat.
The Neighbour notices the fake, so is 1000 down. The Neighbour goes to the Shopkeeper to get his 1000 back. Neighbour is flat. Shopkeeper's loss is 1000.
If the situation was the perfectly normal one of changing a large, genuine, note, the Shopkeeper would not be down, so when changing a fake note, he is not down at that point. He is only down when his Neighbour claims his money back.
If fake notes worked like I suggested easlier the penalty for "passing" fake currency would be death to passer and immediate family, as international financial system would collapse in three minutes flat, so would need to be very strongly discouraged. Instead, the original passer of the fake gains, and only the final accidental recipient who doesn't know where the fake came from loses (in this case the Shopkeeper, the Neighbour knew where it came from) loses.
The Neighbour notices the fake, so is 1000 down. The Neighbour goes to the Shopkeeper to get his 1000 back. Neighbour is flat. Shopkeeper's loss is 1000.
If the situation was the perfectly normal one of changing a large, genuine, note, the Shopkeeper would not be down, so when changing a fake note, he is not down at that point. He is only down when his Neighbour claims his money back.
If fake notes worked like I suggested easlier the penalty for "passing" fake currency would be death to passer and immediate family, as international financial system would collapse in three minutes flat, so would need to be very strongly discouraged. Instead, the original passer of the fake gains, and only the final accidental recipient who doesn't know where the fake came from loses (in this case the Shopkeeper, the Neighbour knew where it came from) loses.
Re: A very simple but confusing puzzle.
Should not it 1800:
1000 back to s2
and 800 to lady
200fruit=200 money s1 had?
1000 back to s2
and 800 to lady
200fruit=200 money s1 had?
Create an account or sign in to join the discussion
You need to be a member in order to post a reply
Create an account
Not a member? register to join our community
Members can start their own topics & subscribe to topics
It’s free and only takes a minute