Off TopicAre you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
(
rob, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
Solution
The initial payment of $30 is accounted for as the clerk takes $25, the bellhop takes $2, and the guests get a $3 refund. It adds up. After the refund has been applied, we only have to account for a payment of $27. Again, the clerk keeps $25 and the bellhop gets $2. This also adds up.
There is no reason to add the $2 and $27 – the $2 is contained within the $27 already. Thus the addition is meaningless. Instead the $2 should be subtracted from the $27 to get the revised bill of $25.
This becomes clearer when the initial and net payments are written as simple equations. The first equation shows what happened to the initial payment of $30:
$30 (initial payment) = $25 (to clerk) + $2 (to bellhop) + $3 (refund)
The second equation shows the net payment after the refund is applied (subtracted from both sides):
$27 (net payment) = $25 (to clerk) + $2 (to bellhop)
Both equations make sense, with equal totals on either side of the equal sign. The correct way to get the bellhop's $2 and the guests $27 on the same side of the equal sign ("The bellhop has $2, and the guests paid $27, how does that add up?") is to subtract, not add:
$27 (final payment) - $2 (to bellhop) = $25 (to clerk)
This is clearly not a paradox, and involves only the switching of subtraction for addition. Each patron has paid $9 for a total of $27. The storyteller adds the $2 that the bellhop pilfered, but he should have subtracted the $2 to make a total of $25 paid. So 3 X $9 = $27, which accounts for the $25 room and the $2 theft.
(
Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 15:38,
1 reply,
13 years ago)
as the original poster copy and pasted the question, my answer used the same methodology prick
(
Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 15:46,
Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread