Wasn’t the store owner paid for the goods? Isn’t there a $100 bill sitting in the register?
From the perspective of the store owner, money is money; he doesn’t know this bill was in his possession at some point. But—and here’s where I’ve been trying to lead you—what relevance does it being the same bill have to the question of determining loss?
-
-
Maybe I can be clearer about what I’m trying to convey. Assume the thief had a $100 bill in his pocket in addition to the one he stole. It doesn’t matter which bill he pays with later when determining how much the owner lost.
-
Some people in an earlier thread got hung up on the same bill issue, thought “paying him with his own money” was significant to the puzzle. It’s not, but it’s a major red herring.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Won't he eventually know the bill was gone when his till comes up off though? He may not know it now but he will eventually.
-
He’ll know his till is off. My point is simply that whether the thief pays him with the stolen bill, a different $100 bill, other cash, or other payment form doesn’t affect how the owner calculates his loss.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.