Mainframe, MVS and zOS Discussion

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.

2000 ...

I too, think its 2000 - but I've heard 1000 and 1800 too as answers...and that's confusing.

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 )

First Shopkeeper = s1
First Shopkeeper = s2

s1= 0 - 800 - 1000 = 1800 but with zero profit clause - should 200 be added??
s2 = 1000-1000=0

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 shopkeeper lost 400

200 the cost of goods and the goods of worth 200 ... So 400 was the loss

Pandora-Box wrote:The shopkeeper lost 400

200 the cost of goods and the goods of worth 200 ... So 400 was the loss

oh - 400 is a new answer!

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.

So your answer is 1000 or 2000?

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.

To give the lady 1000 (including the goods) the Shopkeeper took 1000 from his neighbour.

imagine the shop keeper with an empty cash register
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

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

[center]And in the cloudy dark long night... the confusion... again surrounds the knights of the Forum![/center]
[center] [/center]

Women gets goods worth 200 + 800 good money
Neighbour shop keeper gets 1000 good money

NOPE ... the neighbor comes out even ( gets back the 1000 he gave before )

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

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.

Should not it 1800:

1000 back to s2
and 800 to lady
200fruit=200 money s1 had?

1000 is the loss.