🚀 go-pugleaf

I interpret "The 1st son was given 1000 + 1/7 of what was left." to mean 
that he was given the $1000 first and then, from what was left *after* 
the $1000 was deducted, he was given 1/7 of it.

Taking from the estate 1/7 of what is left and *then* taking some fixed 
amount is the NOT the same as taking from the estate some fixed amount 
and *then* 1/7 of what is left. The operations do not commute.

If the authors of the problem had meant to take 1/7 of what there was 
and *then* some fixed amount, they should have put the 1/7 first and the 
fixed amount after. That would have avoided any ambiguity. Since the 
authors chose to state the problem as they did, I will stay with my 
interpretation.

If Mr/Miz "carbonbasetwo" chooses to stay with his/her interpretation, 
so be it, but he/she will not convince me to change.


In article <#$QwVG1m$GA.265@cpmsnbbsa05>, "carbonbasetwo" 
<carbonbasetwo@email.msn.com> wrote:

>The question is phrased:
>
>1st son gets 1000 + 1/7 of what is left of entire estate at that moment.


>Then
>2nd son gets 2000 +1/7 of what is left of entire estate at that moment.
>
>estate = z
>In other words the second son is getting: z-1000+1/7-2000+1/7...
>
>Like this:
>
>1. 1000+1/7x = 2000+1/7y
>2. y = x-1/7-1000
>
>New Equation:
>
>1000+1/7x = 2000+1/7x(x-1/7x-1000)
>1000+1/7x = 2000+1/7x(6/7x-1000)
>1000+1/7x = 2000+6/49x-142.86
>1/7x-6/49x = 2000-142.86-1000
>1/49x = 857.14
>x = 41999.86 or 42000.0000
>
>Now back in the original equation:
>
>1st son: 1000+1/7(42000.0000)=1000+6000=7000
>    42000-7000=35000
>2nd son: 2000+1/7(35000.0000)=2000+5000=7000
>    35000-7000=28000
>3rd son: 3000+1/7(28000.0000)=3000+4000=7000
>    28000-7000=21000
>4th son: 4000+1/7(21000.0000)=4000+3000=7000
>    21000-7000=14000
>5th son: 5000+1/7(14000.0000)=5000+2000=7000
>    14000-7000=7000
>6th son: 6000+1/7(7000.0000)=6000+1000=7000
>
>NOW NO MONEY IS LEFT.... THIS IS THE PROOF........
>
>Anthony
>
>Virgil <vmhjr@frii.com> wrote in message
>news:vmhjr-5AB1B9.21133230032000@news.frii.com...
>> I have rechecked my work, and found it correct according to the
>> statement of the problem as I understand it.
>>  The nth son in turn gets a fixed amount, $1000*n,  plus a fixed share,
>> 1/7, of what is left after his elder brother's shares and his own fixed
>> amount have been subtracted from the original estate.  This is supposed
>> to give each son the same dollar amount.
>>
>> Mr/Miz carbonbasetwo's solution does not follow these rules, his eldest
>> son does not get his $1000 first and then his 1/7, he only gets a 1/7
>> share.
>>
>> If you start with 36 in thousands of dollars:
>> The first son gets 1 plus 1/7 of what is left after paying the 1.
>>    This is 1 + (36 - 1)/7 = 1 + 5 = 6 leaving 30.
>> The second son gets 2 plus 1/7 of what is left after paying the 2.
>>     This is 2 + (30-3)/7 = 6 leaving 24.
>> The third son gets 3 + (30 - 3)/7 = 2 + 4 = 6 leaving 18.
>> The fourth son gets 4 + (18-4)/7 = 6 leaving 12.
>> The fifth son  gets 5 + (12-5)/7 = 6 leaving 6.
>> The sixth son gets 6 + (6-6)/7 = 6 leaving 0.
>> As you can see, each son gets 6 in thousands of dollars.
>>
>>
>> But if you start with 42 in thousands of dollars:
>> The first son gets 1 plus 1/7 of what is left after paying the 1 k$
>>    This is 1 + (42 - 1)/7 = 1 + 41/7 = 6+6/7 leaving 35+1/7.
>> The second son gets 2 + (35 1/7 -2)/7 = 2+34/49 leaving 32+22/49.
>>
>> Note that even the first two sons get different amounts. Thus this
>> cannot be a solution with all sons getting equal amounts. Furthermore,
>> the amount left goes form positive to negative without ever being zero.
>>
>>
>>
>> In article <uX$ifoqm$GA.60@cpmsnbbsa05>, "carbonbasetwo"
>> <carbonbasetwo@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >IT SURE WILL.... YOU BETTER CHECK YOU CALCULATION
>> >
>> >
>> >42,000/6 = $7000   Sounds like an equal share to me...
>> >
>> >Your calc is wrong... here is the correct way to calc son one....
>> >
>> >1000+1/7x = 2000+1/7y
>> >
>> >Then find for quantity in terms of x.
>> >
>> >
>> >Then you will get the answer.... I will send more after your response.]
>> >
>> >Anthony
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Virgil <vmhjr@frii.com> wrote in message
>> >news:vmhjr-76DBF2.17222428032000@news.frii.com...
>> >> In article <OCKfvROm$GA.225@cpmsnbbsa03>, "carbonbasetwo"
>> >> <carbonbasetwo@email.msn.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >$42000
>> >> >
>> >> >6 sons
>> >> >  Kevin Rowe <kevin.rowe2@tesco.net> wrote in message
>> >> >  news:8blr4e$lhq$1@barcode.tesco.net...
>> >> >  When an old man dies, his sons gather at the lawyers office to hear
>> >> >  his
>> >> >  will read out.
>> >> >
>> >> >  The 1st son was given 1000 + 1/7 of what was left. The second son
>was
>> >> >  given 2000 + 1/7 of what was left. The 3rd son was given 3000+ 1/7
>of
>> >> >  what was left. and so on.
>> >> >
>> >> >  They all recieved the same amount of money.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >  How much money was there in total?
>> >> >
>> >> >  How many sons were there?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >  Good luck
>> >> >   kev@tokenmusic.co.uk
>>
>> --
>> Virgil
>> vmhjr@frii.com
>
>

-- 
Virgil
vmhjr@frii.com