{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/16/2015 7:31:50 PM
1
Also you have completely messed the maths up and hilariously so.
English
-
Again, still waiting for the proofs in your fallacies
-
Edited by Formerly iab: 8/16/2015 8:08:04 PMOk - here we go. Your economics are wrong but also your maths are wrong. You have worked out that there is a 31% difference between $10.48 & $7.25 (this is arguable because you could argue that 7.25 is 31% lower than $10.48 but its equally true that $10.48 is 44% higher than $7.25) What you should have said is that $7.25 is 69% of $10.48. You have then worked out 31% of $40 and added it back onto $40 giving $52 if you work that back, i.e work out what 69% of $52 it isn't $40 its $36 - This means that your maths are wrong. What you should have done is having worked out that $7.25 is 69% of $10.48 is divided $40 by 69 and multiplied it by 100 thus giving you around $57. Its largely irrelevant because the theory is horsesh1t anyway its just funny that you couldn't even get the maths right. Is that okay for you hunny buns xxxx
-
31% is the difference between the two minimum wages. We are trying to find the DIFFERENCE between the wages to coincidence with the DIFFERENCE between the prices of the games. What you did is wrong. You are COMPARING the two wages. I.e. America's minimum wage is 69% of England's minimum wage First rule of a math story problem, know what you're trying to find. By your logic england makes 69% more than Americans do (minimum wage) Nice try though
-
Edited by Formerly iab: 8/16/2015 9:11:35 PMnope. wrong again. Americas min wage is 69% of uk's that was the point I was making. at no stage did I suggest in numbers or words that the UK make 69% more than the US. Okay we have the uk min wage and game price ($10.48/$62) and the US wage and price ($7.25/$40). You assert that the difference between 10.48 and 7.25 is 31% but what you mean is that its 31% of the higher figure, 31% of 10.48. You then make the mistake of then finding out what 31% of the lower price is and then adding it back onto the lower price. This is inconsistent and irrelevant since the difference between 10.48 and 7.25% isnt simply 31% its 31% of 10.48. You'll note that if you find out 31% of 7.25 and add it back onto to 7.25 it doesn't equal 10.48 Therefore the starting point of your argument should have been arguing that $40 is 69% of a larger uk price however you worked out 31% of the smaller figure than added it to that figure to arrive at a meaningless number. meaningless just like your initial post. back to math 101 for you well done on making a fool of yourself again
-
[quote] Therefore the starting point of your argument should have been arguing that $40 is 69% of a larger uk price however you worked out[/quote] They didn't come up with the UK price tag first so how can you get 69% of a larger imaginary number? I didn't know we were square rooting negatives here
-
Edited by Formerly iab: 8/16/2015 9:22:21 PMWow just wow no but if we know that U.S min wage is 69% of UK and that U.S. Price is $40 it's hardly -blam!-ing rocket science. We divide 40 by 69 and multiply by 100 fffffffs Christ
-
Edited by Unicorn Goo: 8/16/2015 9:25:50 PMAnd you get a number further from the solution than mine. Btw you never accounted for the 20%vat. Please include that in your problem and let's see how far you are off then. Mines included and I'm less than $2 from what the OP posted was the price.
-
I'm not arguing the math you brain dead imbecile. The central economic premise was wrong about the link between min wage and price but you then applied the math in a way that had no logic. That's the point. I'm not about to start defending my math in defence of an economic model you have just pulled out of your arse. We're done here.
-
Because you cant. You came here boasting my math is wrong and you can't even back your incomplete sh!t up. You need math 090
-
I have used math to prove your central argument wrong. The only way you can get the maths to appear right is to use your special brand of stupidity. Idiot.
-
You proved nothing besides how much of an imbecile you are. Your math couldn't show anything besides wrong solutions. Funny how I could magically come up with a number much closer than yours but you are the self proclaimed math wiz here. Put up or shut up Are you going to add that 20% tax or not?
-
69% of $40 is 27.60. 40 + 27.60 = 67.60. How much did the OP say the price of the game was? 62.33? By your math I would be paying more. My turn 31% of 40 is 12.40. 40 + 12.40 = 52.40. Now let's add the 20% VAT. Did you compensate for that with your figures or do we need to add more? 20% of 40 is 8. 8 + 52.40 = 60.40. Plus a little change to go in someone's pocket (profit) and my figures look alot closer than yours
-
Edited by Formerly iab: 8/16/2015 9:19:31 PMYes you come up with a figure that is closer but I could make up a little story and get some figures to get lose - it means nothing - the point is that if you assert that the difference between the two wages is 31% of the HIGHER wage - finding out 31% of the LOWER DLC price is utterly meaningless - there is no connection between the two. If you had a brain, you would see that although the economics of your central point are wrong the way to make your argument would be this: Step 1 - US min wage is 69% of UK min wage Step 2 - working on that assumption we assume that $40 is 69% of the uk price Step 3 - uk price = (40/69) * 100 = $58 Its still horsh1t but at least the economic theory that you have been arguing is applied consistently throughout
-
But that isn't the UK price. And my way is easier and closer to the price that is being offered. So if I just guessed and threw out numbers and attained a solution closer than that if yours what does that say about your math? Btw I'm in mat 243, Theoretical Mathematics - Statics
-
Of course it's not the UK price but neither is yours you've added some miscellaneous crap to make up the shortfall. The point being either way mine or yours it's bullsh1t because the premise of your economical argument is incorrect but you then used the math incorrectly in support of a flawed premise.
-
Edited by Unicorn Goo: 8/16/2015 9:28:49 PMMy "shortfall" is less than $2. Are you going to add in the 20% to come up with your final number or are you going to leave it out to try and make it seem like your right? Don't back out now bub. You came hear boasting that my math is wrong and you've just shown sh!t
-
Edited by Formerly iab: 8/16/2015 9:35:13 PMAlthough you get a number closer the way you get there is illogical you can't say that wages are 31% lower in the U.S. and then find out 31% of the lower U.S. Price and then add it back on to the U.S. Price You end up with a figure that is meaningless. That's my point. The fact that the figures my way don't give you the right answer proves your central theory wrong. The only way you can get to a number that is close is because you have applied the maths in a manner running wholly contrary to logic. My calculations disprove your initial theory because I have done the math logically and consistently and not simply tried to make it fit.
-
Never said it is 31% lower. http://www.mathsisfun.com/percentage-difference.html You need that
-
My god, are you actually being serious??? Can you not read as well as not do math? Why on earth would you do 69% of $40 - what -blam!-ing planet are you on?
