The price of wood (teehee wood)
3 guys were camping in the woods and gathering some twigs and wood for the fire. Guy no.1 brought 5 pieces of wood. Guy no.2 bought 3 pieces of wood. Guys no.3 however didn't collect any firewood instead he offered the others a total of $24 dollars as his share of the fire-wood.
The next day when there on their way home, they were calculating how much Guy no.1 and Guy no.2 should get for their pieces of wood (hehehehe). What is the fairest way to calculate how much Guy n0.3 should pay the other two?
(and no its not as simple as dividing 24 into 8, you have to consider that all 3 guys consumed the same amount of firewood through the night.)
edit: Sorry its supposed to be 3 pieces of wood for guy no2
The next day when there on their way home, they were calculating how much Guy no.1 and Guy no.2 should get for their pieces of wood (hehehehe). What is the fairest way to calculate how much Guy n0.3 should pay the other two?
(and no its not as simple as dividing 24 into 8, you have to consider that all 3 guys consumed the same amount of firewood through the night.)
edit: Sorry its supposed to be 3 pieces of wood for guy no2
Labels: SharedPuzzle
posted by Mr Fahrenheit at
8:00 PM
12 Comments:
Amount of wood consumed would be equal and of no import. Amount of labour expended however should be used to determine pay. Camper 1 collected 5 pieces to each 2 pieces collected by camper 2. Therefore it is as simple as dividing the 24.00 by 7. Multiply the result by 5 for camper 1 and 2 for camper 2. Of course it doesn't work out to the exact penny. (3.428571...per unit).Therefore camper 1 gets 17.14 and camper 2 gets 6.86.
nope... the amount of fire used is equal. they all shared the fire made by the wood. if i said that only guy no.3 used the firewood for himslef you would be correct. but since the other 2 guys used the heat/fire from the wood it becomes a whole different matter. u have to consider their consumption as well.
Assume the 3 guys consumed 8 pieces of wood and received equal benefit in warmth, cooking power, etc. Each got the benefit of 8/3 pieces. This means guy 1 contributed 5 - 8/3 = 7/3 pieces of wood worth of benefits to others. Guy 2 contributed 3 - 8/3 = 1/3 piece of wood to others. Guy 3 consumed 7/3 pieces of wood worth of benefit from guy 1 and 1/3 piece of wood benefit from guy 2 (for a total of 8/3, of course).
So the money should be divided in ratio of 7 to 1 or $21 to guy 1 and $3 to guy 2.
Guy no.3 or the group as a whole would need to decide how the money is going to be used.
1) It could be burned to give extra warmth as there wasn't enough firewood to go round.
2) It could be used as payment per piece of wood, i.e. Guy 1: $15, Guy 2: $9, Guy 3:$0
3) It could be split equally between the 3 i.e. $8 each as each split the use of fire wood equally and so should split payment equally.
4) It could be split equally between the 2 guys who found wood, and the fact they found different amounts is irrelevent i.e. Guy 1: $12, Guy 2: $12
5) The money could be returned to Guy 3 especially if he was out gathering wood as the first sentence said then it's not his fault that he couldn't find any so it should be returned.
Surge got it right i used the longer approach.
Guy no.3 set the price at $24, which means each person used $24 worth of fire/heat.
therefore: total heat price for all 3 = $72
$72/8(pieces of wood) = $9/wood
since everybody consumed $24 worth of fire:
guy no.1 ->
$9x5(wood) = $45
$45-$24(cosumption)
=$21
guy no.2 ->
$9x3(wood)=$27
$27-$24(cosumption)
=$3
good work surge!
its ez all u gotta do is rub a magic lamp really hard and you get an answer
Guy 1 & 2 got wood, guy 3 didn't. He paid $24 for collecting no wood. So each share from each guy would be $24. Since guy 1&2 got the wood and there is $24 then guy 1&2 get $12 each.
Each of them should have brouth (3+5)/3=8/3
Therefore the first guy has brouth 5-8/3=7/3 and the 2nd. guy 3-8/3=1/3.
the money must be dided on the basis of 7 to 1.
$21 for the 1st. guy and $3 for the 2nd. guy .
Is "brouth" even a word???? hehe
If you want to write a math problem, write a math problem.
This is not a math problem, it is a social interaction problem.
Pramsay13 is on the right track.
It says Guy 3 didn't collect any firewood. Clearly there was an expectation that Guy 3 would contribute to the fire. Therefore Guys 1 and 2 get a smaller or shorter-lastig fire than they were expecting to get. As compensation for not contributing, Guy 3 offers $24 to Guys 1 and 2 collectively.
The key to the puzzle is that we have no evidence that Guy 2 felt indebted to Guy 1 for producing less firewood. He did his part, just didn't have as much luck.
Because they obviously intended to pool the wood all along, compensation only comes into play when Guy 3 didn't meet the social expectation to contribute to the common good.
So Guys 1 and 2 are not being compensated for their labor or even for the wood the produced, but for the lesser total amount of fire they will have. It's more like a tort claim for damages. The lack of wood provided by Guy 3 reduces the fire by the same amount for Guy 1 and Guy 2 so they should feel comfortable splitting $24 equally.
Surge is correct above, but another way to look at it is...
Say they all placed $24 in a kitty in advance to pay for wood collected.
$72 in the pot.
They then go off to collect wood.
Guy 1 brings back 5, Guy 2 brings back 3 and Guy 3 couldn't find any.
They then divide up the kitty by the amount of wood collected.
$72 / 8 = $9 per piece of wood.
From the kitty Guy 1 takes $45 ($9 x 5), Guy 2 takes $27 ($9 x 3) and Guy 3 takes nothing.
This means that Guy 1 is $21 up, Guy 2 is $3 and Guy 3 is $24 down.
So Guy 3 would give Guy 1 $21 and Guy 2 $3.
Guy 1 and 2, called it even, since guy 3 smoked them out with some bomb kush all night long.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home