Famous businessman mathematical puzzle ${}{}$ [on hold]












5














question: A Businessman advertised two job openings for peons in his firm. Two men applied and the businessman decided to engage both of them. He offered them salary of $2000$ rupees per year. $1000$ rupees to be paid every half year,with a promise that their salary would be raised if their work proved satisfactory.They could have a raise of $300$ rupees per year ,(or) if they preferred,$100$ rupees each half year .The two men thought for few moments and then one of them expressed his wish to take the raise at $300$ rupees per year ,while the other man said he would accept the half yearly increase of $100$ rupees .between the two men,who was gainer .



$(a)$ First person



$(b)$ second person



$(c)$ both are equal



$(d)$none of these



my attempt :i thought answer should be first person because after one year he will get total sum as $1000+1000+300$(yearly raise)$=2300$



and second person ,after one year,end up getting $1000+100+1000+100=2200 $



so, definitely $300$ yearly offer is more lucrative .



but answer is given option $(b)$



please explain










share|cite|improve this question















put on hold as off-topic by amWhy, Paul Frost, Alexander Gruber yesterday


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – amWhy, Paul Frost, Alexander Gruber

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









  • 1




    Is there a possibility that something such as interest rates are at play? As in, the second person could put his money in the bank and with compound interest rates earn more than the other person who takes 300 rupees a year? Is this a possibility or does the question as you stated it cover all information we are allowed to use?
    – S. Crim
    2 days ago










  • question is stated as it is ..without any alteration
    – deleteprofile
    2 days ago






  • 1




    The first person would receive 2000 for the first year, 2300 for second, 2600 for the third, and so on. The second would receive (1000+1100) for the first, (1200+1300) for the second, (1400+1500) for the third, etc.
    – Barry Cipra
    2 days ago








  • 3




    I think the confusion comes from the interpretation of case $a$. Is the $300$ an annual raise or a semi-annual raise? In both cases, I think the timing of the pay raises is ambiguous.
    – lulu
    2 days ago








  • 1




    This problem goes back to Dudeney, Amusements in Mathematics, from 1917 (and maybe earlier).
    – Gerry Myerson
    2 days ago
















5














question: A Businessman advertised two job openings for peons in his firm. Two men applied and the businessman decided to engage both of them. He offered them salary of $2000$ rupees per year. $1000$ rupees to be paid every half year,with a promise that their salary would be raised if their work proved satisfactory.They could have a raise of $300$ rupees per year ,(or) if they preferred,$100$ rupees each half year .The two men thought for few moments and then one of them expressed his wish to take the raise at $300$ rupees per year ,while the other man said he would accept the half yearly increase of $100$ rupees .between the two men,who was gainer .



$(a)$ First person



$(b)$ second person



$(c)$ both are equal



$(d)$none of these



my attempt :i thought answer should be first person because after one year he will get total sum as $1000+1000+300$(yearly raise)$=2300$



and second person ,after one year,end up getting $1000+100+1000+100=2200 $



so, definitely $300$ yearly offer is more lucrative .



but answer is given option $(b)$



please explain










share|cite|improve this question















put on hold as off-topic by amWhy, Paul Frost, Alexander Gruber yesterday


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – amWhy, Paul Frost, Alexander Gruber

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









  • 1




    Is there a possibility that something such as interest rates are at play? As in, the second person could put his money in the bank and with compound interest rates earn more than the other person who takes 300 rupees a year? Is this a possibility or does the question as you stated it cover all information we are allowed to use?
    – S. Crim
    2 days ago










  • question is stated as it is ..without any alteration
    – deleteprofile
    2 days ago






  • 1




    The first person would receive 2000 for the first year, 2300 for second, 2600 for the third, and so on. The second would receive (1000+1100) for the first, (1200+1300) for the second, (1400+1500) for the third, etc.
    – Barry Cipra
    2 days ago








  • 3




    I think the confusion comes from the interpretation of case $a$. Is the $300$ an annual raise or a semi-annual raise? In both cases, I think the timing of the pay raises is ambiguous.
    – lulu
    2 days ago








  • 1




    This problem goes back to Dudeney, Amusements in Mathematics, from 1917 (and maybe earlier).
    – Gerry Myerson
    2 days ago














5












5








5







question: A Businessman advertised two job openings for peons in his firm. Two men applied and the businessman decided to engage both of them. He offered them salary of $2000$ rupees per year. $1000$ rupees to be paid every half year,with a promise that their salary would be raised if their work proved satisfactory.They could have a raise of $300$ rupees per year ,(or) if they preferred,$100$ rupees each half year .The two men thought for few moments and then one of them expressed his wish to take the raise at $300$ rupees per year ,while the other man said he would accept the half yearly increase of $100$ rupees .between the two men,who was gainer .



$(a)$ First person



$(b)$ second person



$(c)$ both are equal



$(d)$none of these



my attempt :i thought answer should be first person because after one year he will get total sum as $1000+1000+300$(yearly raise)$=2300$



and second person ,after one year,end up getting $1000+100+1000+100=2200 $



so, definitely $300$ yearly offer is more lucrative .



but answer is given option $(b)$



please explain










share|cite|improve this question















question: A Businessman advertised two job openings for peons in his firm. Two men applied and the businessman decided to engage both of them. He offered them salary of $2000$ rupees per year. $1000$ rupees to be paid every half year,with a promise that their salary would be raised if their work proved satisfactory.They could have a raise of $300$ rupees per year ,(or) if they preferred,$100$ rupees each half year .The two men thought for few moments and then one of them expressed his wish to take the raise at $300$ rupees per year ,while the other man said he would accept the half yearly increase of $100$ rupees .between the two men,who was gainer .



$(a)$ First person



$(b)$ second person



$(c)$ both are equal



$(d)$none of these



my attempt :i thought answer should be first person because after one year he will get total sum as $1000+1000+300$(yearly raise)$=2300$



and second person ,after one year,end up getting $1000+100+1000+100=2200 $



so, definitely $300$ yearly offer is more lucrative .



but answer is given option $(b)$



please explain







arithmetic education puzzle






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









Key Flex

7,74741232




7,74741232










asked 2 days ago









deleteprofiledeleteprofile

1,148316




1,148316




put on hold as off-topic by amWhy, Paul Frost, Alexander Gruber yesterday


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – amWhy, Paul Frost, Alexander Gruber

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




put on hold as off-topic by amWhy, Paul Frost, Alexander Gruber yesterday


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – amWhy, Paul Frost, Alexander Gruber

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.








  • 1




    Is there a possibility that something such as interest rates are at play? As in, the second person could put his money in the bank and with compound interest rates earn more than the other person who takes 300 rupees a year? Is this a possibility or does the question as you stated it cover all information we are allowed to use?
    – S. Crim
    2 days ago










  • question is stated as it is ..without any alteration
    – deleteprofile
    2 days ago






  • 1




    The first person would receive 2000 for the first year, 2300 for second, 2600 for the third, and so on. The second would receive (1000+1100) for the first, (1200+1300) for the second, (1400+1500) for the third, etc.
    – Barry Cipra
    2 days ago








  • 3




    I think the confusion comes from the interpretation of case $a$. Is the $300$ an annual raise or a semi-annual raise? In both cases, I think the timing of the pay raises is ambiguous.
    – lulu
    2 days ago








  • 1




    This problem goes back to Dudeney, Amusements in Mathematics, from 1917 (and maybe earlier).
    – Gerry Myerson
    2 days ago














  • 1




    Is there a possibility that something such as interest rates are at play? As in, the second person could put his money in the bank and with compound interest rates earn more than the other person who takes 300 rupees a year? Is this a possibility or does the question as you stated it cover all information we are allowed to use?
    – S. Crim
    2 days ago










  • question is stated as it is ..without any alteration
    – deleteprofile
    2 days ago






  • 1




    The first person would receive 2000 for the first year, 2300 for second, 2600 for the third, and so on. The second would receive (1000+1100) for the first, (1200+1300) for the second, (1400+1500) for the third, etc.
    – Barry Cipra
    2 days ago








  • 3




    I think the confusion comes from the interpretation of case $a$. Is the $300$ an annual raise or a semi-annual raise? In both cases, I think the timing of the pay raises is ambiguous.
    – lulu
    2 days ago








  • 1




    This problem goes back to Dudeney, Amusements in Mathematics, from 1917 (and maybe earlier).
    – Gerry Myerson
    2 days ago








1




1




Is there a possibility that something such as interest rates are at play? As in, the second person could put his money in the bank and with compound interest rates earn more than the other person who takes 300 rupees a year? Is this a possibility or does the question as you stated it cover all information we are allowed to use?
– S. Crim
2 days ago




Is there a possibility that something such as interest rates are at play? As in, the second person could put his money in the bank and with compound interest rates earn more than the other person who takes 300 rupees a year? Is this a possibility or does the question as you stated it cover all information we are allowed to use?
– S. Crim
2 days ago












question is stated as it is ..without any alteration
– deleteprofile
2 days ago




question is stated as it is ..without any alteration
– deleteprofile
2 days ago




1




1




The first person would receive 2000 for the first year, 2300 for second, 2600 for the third, and so on. The second would receive (1000+1100) for the first, (1200+1300) for the second, (1400+1500) for the third, etc.
– Barry Cipra
2 days ago






The first person would receive 2000 for the first year, 2300 for second, 2600 for the third, and so on. The second would receive (1000+1100) for the first, (1200+1300) for the second, (1400+1500) for the third, etc.
– Barry Cipra
2 days ago






3




3




I think the confusion comes from the interpretation of case $a$. Is the $300$ an annual raise or a semi-annual raise? In both cases, I think the timing of the pay raises is ambiguous.
– lulu
2 days ago






I think the confusion comes from the interpretation of case $a$. Is the $300$ an annual raise or a semi-annual raise? In both cases, I think the timing of the pay raises is ambiguous.
– lulu
2 days ago






1




1




This problem goes back to Dudeney, Amusements in Mathematics, from 1917 (and maybe earlier).
– Gerry Myerson
2 days ago




This problem goes back to Dudeney, Amusements in Mathematics, from 1917 (and maybe earlier).
– Gerry Myerson
2 days ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















5














The way I interpret this problem, the salaries go as follows:



Person 1:



He gets paid $2000$ for the first year, $2300$ for the second year, $2600$ for the third year, etc. So for the $n$th year he gets paid $2000+300(n-1)$.



Person 2:



He gets paid $1000+1100$ for the first year, $1200+1300$ for the second year, $1400+1500$ for the third year, etc. So he does end up getting paid more, year-by-year, because his raises occur more frequently and so can build up more.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    6














    Suppose if they get $100$ each half year. Then the following are the possible outcomes
    $$1^{st}mbox{ year } 1000+1100=2100$$
    $$2^{nd}mbox{ year } 1200+1300=2500$$
    $$3^{rd}mbox{ year } 1400+1500=2900$$
    $$4^{th}mbox{ year } 1600+1700=3300$$



    Suppose if they get $300$ each per year. Then the following are the possible outcomes
    $$1^{st}mbox{ year } 1000+1000=2000$$
    $$2^{nd}mbox{ year } 1150+1150=2300$$
    $$3^{rd}mbox{ year } 1300+1300=2600$$
    $$4^{th}mbox{ year } 1450+1450=2900$$



    Now can you see which one is profitable.






    share|cite|improve this answer





























      3














      You are paid at the end of the work period, so in the first year the first man gets $1000$ twice for $2000$, then is raised to $2300/$year for the second year. The second gets $1000$ for the first six months and $1100$ for the second, giving a total of $2100$. He is ahead by $100$ after the first year.



      The second year the first man gets $1150$ each time for a total of $2300$. The second gets another raise to $1200$ for the first six months and one to $1300$ for the second six months, giving a total of $2500$. He is ahead by $200$ in the second year.



      In general, in year $k$, the first man gets $2000+300(k-1)$. The second gets $2000+2cdot 100cdot (k-1)+2cdot 100 cdot (k-1)+100=2000+400(k-1)+100$ and his advantage grows by $100$ each year.






      share|cite|improve this answer





























        2














        You have calculated the year end salary of the first person correctly as he's getting his salary annually with an annual raise of $300$. So



        $$N_1 = 2000+300=2300/year$$



        Now the second person is getting his salary and his raises half yearly



        $$N_2 = 1000+100 =1100/half year$$
        during the first half. Now during the second half he again gets a raise of $100$ making his salary



        $$N_3 = 1100 +100 =1200/halfyearly =2400/year$$






        share|cite|improve this answer

















        • 1




          You are granting the raises too early. Look at Ross Millikan's answer.
          – saulspatz
          2 days ago










        • @saulspatz all these salaries are at the end of the first year, not during
          – Sauhard Sharma
          2 days ago












        • But the question is not what the salary is, it is how much money you get in your pocket.
          – Ross Millikan
          2 days ago










        • @RossMillikan But this shows that the second person's salary is increasing in an year and therefore he'll end up making more
          – Sauhard Sharma
          2 days ago



















        2














        Some of the other questions assume one person gets a raise starting six months before the other, but it turns out it doesn't matter.



        Consider they both work for one year before any raises go into effect: $2000$ and $2000$. The second year, one gets a bonus of $300$ total ($150$ per pay), while the other gets a bonus of $300$ total ($100$ and then $200$ per pay). At the end of the second year, they are still both equal ($2300$ and $2300$ annual pay). The third year they start to diverge.



        In the third year, one gets a bonus of $600$ total (increase from $300$ to $600$ total, for $300$ per pay), while the other gets a bonus of $700$ total (increase from $200$ to $300$, and then again from $300$ to $400$). In this way the total sums continue to diverge by $100$ per year.



        You can see that eventually the $100$ per pay increase is more beneficial.






        share|cite|improve this answer




























          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes








          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          5














          The way I interpret this problem, the salaries go as follows:



          Person 1:



          He gets paid $2000$ for the first year, $2300$ for the second year, $2600$ for the third year, etc. So for the $n$th year he gets paid $2000+300(n-1)$.



          Person 2:



          He gets paid $1000+1100$ for the first year, $1200+1300$ for the second year, $1400+1500$ for the third year, etc. So he does end up getting paid more, year-by-year, because his raises occur more frequently and so can build up more.






          share|cite|improve this answer


























            5














            The way I interpret this problem, the salaries go as follows:



            Person 1:



            He gets paid $2000$ for the first year, $2300$ for the second year, $2600$ for the third year, etc. So for the $n$th year he gets paid $2000+300(n-1)$.



            Person 2:



            He gets paid $1000+1100$ for the first year, $1200+1300$ for the second year, $1400+1500$ for the third year, etc. So he does end up getting paid more, year-by-year, because his raises occur more frequently and so can build up more.






            share|cite|improve this answer
























              5












              5








              5






              The way I interpret this problem, the salaries go as follows:



              Person 1:



              He gets paid $2000$ for the first year, $2300$ for the second year, $2600$ for the third year, etc. So for the $n$th year he gets paid $2000+300(n-1)$.



              Person 2:



              He gets paid $1000+1100$ for the first year, $1200+1300$ for the second year, $1400+1500$ for the third year, etc. So he does end up getting paid more, year-by-year, because his raises occur more frequently and so can build up more.






              share|cite|improve this answer












              The way I interpret this problem, the salaries go as follows:



              Person 1:



              He gets paid $2000$ for the first year, $2300$ for the second year, $2600$ for the third year, etc. So for the $n$th year he gets paid $2000+300(n-1)$.



              Person 2:



              He gets paid $1000+1100$ for the first year, $1200+1300$ for the second year, $1400+1500$ for the third year, etc. So he does end up getting paid more, year-by-year, because his raises occur more frequently and so can build up more.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered 2 days ago









              Calvin GodfreyCalvin Godfrey

              558311




              558311























                  6














                  Suppose if they get $100$ each half year. Then the following are the possible outcomes
                  $$1^{st}mbox{ year } 1000+1100=2100$$
                  $$2^{nd}mbox{ year } 1200+1300=2500$$
                  $$3^{rd}mbox{ year } 1400+1500=2900$$
                  $$4^{th}mbox{ year } 1600+1700=3300$$



                  Suppose if they get $300$ each per year. Then the following are the possible outcomes
                  $$1^{st}mbox{ year } 1000+1000=2000$$
                  $$2^{nd}mbox{ year } 1150+1150=2300$$
                  $$3^{rd}mbox{ year } 1300+1300=2600$$
                  $$4^{th}mbox{ year } 1450+1450=2900$$



                  Now can you see which one is profitable.






                  share|cite|improve this answer


























                    6














                    Suppose if they get $100$ each half year. Then the following are the possible outcomes
                    $$1^{st}mbox{ year } 1000+1100=2100$$
                    $$2^{nd}mbox{ year } 1200+1300=2500$$
                    $$3^{rd}mbox{ year } 1400+1500=2900$$
                    $$4^{th}mbox{ year } 1600+1700=3300$$



                    Suppose if they get $300$ each per year. Then the following are the possible outcomes
                    $$1^{st}mbox{ year } 1000+1000=2000$$
                    $$2^{nd}mbox{ year } 1150+1150=2300$$
                    $$3^{rd}mbox{ year } 1300+1300=2600$$
                    $$4^{th}mbox{ year } 1450+1450=2900$$



                    Now can you see which one is profitable.






                    share|cite|improve this answer
























                      6












                      6








                      6






                      Suppose if they get $100$ each half year. Then the following are the possible outcomes
                      $$1^{st}mbox{ year } 1000+1100=2100$$
                      $$2^{nd}mbox{ year } 1200+1300=2500$$
                      $$3^{rd}mbox{ year } 1400+1500=2900$$
                      $$4^{th}mbox{ year } 1600+1700=3300$$



                      Suppose if they get $300$ each per year. Then the following are the possible outcomes
                      $$1^{st}mbox{ year } 1000+1000=2000$$
                      $$2^{nd}mbox{ year } 1150+1150=2300$$
                      $$3^{rd}mbox{ year } 1300+1300=2600$$
                      $$4^{th}mbox{ year } 1450+1450=2900$$



                      Now can you see which one is profitable.






                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      Suppose if they get $100$ each half year. Then the following are the possible outcomes
                      $$1^{st}mbox{ year } 1000+1100=2100$$
                      $$2^{nd}mbox{ year } 1200+1300=2500$$
                      $$3^{rd}mbox{ year } 1400+1500=2900$$
                      $$4^{th}mbox{ year } 1600+1700=3300$$



                      Suppose if they get $300$ each per year. Then the following are the possible outcomes
                      $$1^{st}mbox{ year } 1000+1000=2000$$
                      $$2^{nd}mbox{ year } 1150+1150=2300$$
                      $$3^{rd}mbox{ year } 1300+1300=2600$$
                      $$4^{th}mbox{ year } 1450+1450=2900$$



                      Now can you see which one is profitable.







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered 2 days ago









                      Key FlexKey Flex

                      7,74741232




                      7,74741232























                          3














                          You are paid at the end of the work period, so in the first year the first man gets $1000$ twice for $2000$, then is raised to $2300/$year for the second year. The second gets $1000$ for the first six months and $1100$ for the second, giving a total of $2100$. He is ahead by $100$ after the first year.



                          The second year the first man gets $1150$ each time for a total of $2300$. The second gets another raise to $1200$ for the first six months and one to $1300$ for the second six months, giving a total of $2500$. He is ahead by $200$ in the second year.



                          In general, in year $k$, the first man gets $2000+300(k-1)$. The second gets $2000+2cdot 100cdot (k-1)+2cdot 100 cdot (k-1)+100=2000+400(k-1)+100$ and his advantage grows by $100$ each year.






                          share|cite|improve this answer


























                            3














                            You are paid at the end of the work period, so in the first year the first man gets $1000$ twice for $2000$, then is raised to $2300/$year for the second year. The second gets $1000$ for the first six months and $1100$ for the second, giving a total of $2100$. He is ahead by $100$ after the first year.



                            The second year the first man gets $1150$ each time for a total of $2300$. The second gets another raise to $1200$ for the first six months and one to $1300$ for the second six months, giving a total of $2500$. He is ahead by $200$ in the second year.



                            In general, in year $k$, the first man gets $2000+300(k-1)$. The second gets $2000+2cdot 100cdot (k-1)+2cdot 100 cdot (k-1)+100=2000+400(k-1)+100$ and his advantage grows by $100$ each year.






                            share|cite|improve this answer
























                              3












                              3








                              3






                              You are paid at the end of the work period, so in the first year the first man gets $1000$ twice for $2000$, then is raised to $2300/$year for the second year. The second gets $1000$ for the first six months and $1100$ for the second, giving a total of $2100$. He is ahead by $100$ after the first year.



                              The second year the first man gets $1150$ each time for a total of $2300$. The second gets another raise to $1200$ for the first six months and one to $1300$ for the second six months, giving a total of $2500$. He is ahead by $200$ in the second year.



                              In general, in year $k$, the first man gets $2000+300(k-1)$. The second gets $2000+2cdot 100cdot (k-1)+2cdot 100 cdot (k-1)+100=2000+400(k-1)+100$ and his advantage grows by $100$ each year.






                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              You are paid at the end of the work period, so in the first year the first man gets $1000$ twice for $2000$, then is raised to $2300/$year for the second year. The second gets $1000$ for the first six months and $1100$ for the second, giving a total of $2100$. He is ahead by $100$ after the first year.



                              The second year the first man gets $1150$ each time for a total of $2300$. The second gets another raise to $1200$ for the first six months and one to $1300$ for the second six months, giving a total of $2500$. He is ahead by $200$ in the second year.



                              In general, in year $k$, the first man gets $2000+300(k-1)$. The second gets $2000+2cdot 100cdot (k-1)+2cdot 100 cdot (k-1)+100=2000+400(k-1)+100$ and his advantage grows by $100$ each year.







                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer










                              answered 2 days ago









                              Ross MillikanRoss Millikan

                              292k23197371




                              292k23197371























                                  2














                                  You have calculated the year end salary of the first person correctly as he's getting his salary annually with an annual raise of $300$. So



                                  $$N_1 = 2000+300=2300/year$$



                                  Now the second person is getting his salary and his raises half yearly



                                  $$N_2 = 1000+100 =1100/half year$$
                                  during the first half. Now during the second half he again gets a raise of $100$ making his salary



                                  $$N_3 = 1100 +100 =1200/halfyearly =2400/year$$






                                  share|cite|improve this answer

















                                  • 1




                                    You are granting the raises too early. Look at Ross Millikan's answer.
                                    – saulspatz
                                    2 days ago










                                  • @saulspatz all these salaries are at the end of the first year, not during
                                    – Sauhard Sharma
                                    2 days ago












                                  • But the question is not what the salary is, it is how much money you get in your pocket.
                                    – Ross Millikan
                                    2 days ago










                                  • @RossMillikan But this shows that the second person's salary is increasing in an year and therefore he'll end up making more
                                    – Sauhard Sharma
                                    2 days ago
















                                  2














                                  You have calculated the year end salary of the first person correctly as he's getting his salary annually with an annual raise of $300$. So



                                  $$N_1 = 2000+300=2300/year$$



                                  Now the second person is getting his salary and his raises half yearly



                                  $$N_2 = 1000+100 =1100/half year$$
                                  during the first half. Now during the second half he again gets a raise of $100$ making his salary



                                  $$N_3 = 1100 +100 =1200/halfyearly =2400/year$$






                                  share|cite|improve this answer

















                                  • 1




                                    You are granting the raises too early. Look at Ross Millikan's answer.
                                    – saulspatz
                                    2 days ago










                                  • @saulspatz all these salaries are at the end of the first year, not during
                                    – Sauhard Sharma
                                    2 days ago












                                  • But the question is not what the salary is, it is how much money you get in your pocket.
                                    – Ross Millikan
                                    2 days ago










                                  • @RossMillikan But this shows that the second person's salary is increasing in an year and therefore he'll end up making more
                                    – Sauhard Sharma
                                    2 days ago














                                  2












                                  2








                                  2






                                  You have calculated the year end salary of the first person correctly as he's getting his salary annually with an annual raise of $300$. So



                                  $$N_1 = 2000+300=2300/year$$



                                  Now the second person is getting his salary and his raises half yearly



                                  $$N_2 = 1000+100 =1100/half year$$
                                  during the first half. Now during the second half he again gets a raise of $100$ making his salary



                                  $$N_3 = 1100 +100 =1200/halfyearly =2400/year$$






                                  share|cite|improve this answer












                                  You have calculated the year end salary of the first person correctly as he's getting his salary annually with an annual raise of $300$. So



                                  $$N_1 = 2000+300=2300/year$$



                                  Now the second person is getting his salary and his raises half yearly



                                  $$N_2 = 1000+100 =1100/half year$$
                                  during the first half. Now during the second half he again gets a raise of $100$ making his salary



                                  $$N_3 = 1100 +100 =1200/halfyearly =2400/year$$







                                  share|cite|improve this answer












                                  share|cite|improve this answer



                                  share|cite|improve this answer










                                  answered 2 days ago









                                  Sauhard SharmaSauhard Sharma

                                  801117




                                  801117








                                  • 1




                                    You are granting the raises too early. Look at Ross Millikan's answer.
                                    – saulspatz
                                    2 days ago










                                  • @saulspatz all these salaries are at the end of the first year, not during
                                    – Sauhard Sharma
                                    2 days ago












                                  • But the question is not what the salary is, it is how much money you get in your pocket.
                                    – Ross Millikan
                                    2 days ago










                                  • @RossMillikan But this shows that the second person's salary is increasing in an year and therefore he'll end up making more
                                    – Sauhard Sharma
                                    2 days ago














                                  • 1




                                    You are granting the raises too early. Look at Ross Millikan's answer.
                                    – saulspatz
                                    2 days ago










                                  • @saulspatz all these salaries are at the end of the first year, not during
                                    – Sauhard Sharma
                                    2 days ago












                                  • But the question is not what the salary is, it is how much money you get in your pocket.
                                    – Ross Millikan
                                    2 days ago










                                  • @RossMillikan But this shows that the second person's salary is increasing in an year and therefore he'll end up making more
                                    – Sauhard Sharma
                                    2 days ago








                                  1




                                  1




                                  You are granting the raises too early. Look at Ross Millikan's answer.
                                  – saulspatz
                                  2 days ago




                                  You are granting the raises too early. Look at Ross Millikan's answer.
                                  – saulspatz
                                  2 days ago












                                  @saulspatz all these salaries are at the end of the first year, not during
                                  – Sauhard Sharma
                                  2 days ago






                                  @saulspatz all these salaries are at the end of the first year, not during
                                  – Sauhard Sharma
                                  2 days ago














                                  But the question is not what the salary is, it is how much money you get in your pocket.
                                  – Ross Millikan
                                  2 days ago




                                  But the question is not what the salary is, it is how much money you get in your pocket.
                                  – Ross Millikan
                                  2 days ago












                                  @RossMillikan But this shows that the second person's salary is increasing in an year and therefore he'll end up making more
                                  – Sauhard Sharma
                                  2 days ago




                                  @RossMillikan But this shows that the second person's salary is increasing in an year and therefore he'll end up making more
                                  – Sauhard Sharma
                                  2 days ago











                                  2














                                  Some of the other questions assume one person gets a raise starting six months before the other, but it turns out it doesn't matter.



                                  Consider they both work for one year before any raises go into effect: $2000$ and $2000$. The second year, one gets a bonus of $300$ total ($150$ per pay), while the other gets a bonus of $300$ total ($100$ and then $200$ per pay). At the end of the second year, they are still both equal ($2300$ and $2300$ annual pay). The third year they start to diverge.



                                  In the third year, one gets a bonus of $600$ total (increase from $300$ to $600$ total, for $300$ per pay), while the other gets a bonus of $700$ total (increase from $200$ to $300$, and then again from $300$ to $400$). In this way the total sums continue to diverge by $100$ per year.



                                  You can see that eventually the $100$ per pay increase is more beneficial.






                                  share|cite|improve this answer


























                                    2














                                    Some of the other questions assume one person gets a raise starting six months before the other, but it turns out it doesn't matter.



                                    Consider they both work for one year before any raises go into effect: $2000$ and $2000$. The second year, one gets a bonus of $300$ total ($150$ per pay), while the other gets a bonus of $300$ total ($100$ and then $200$ per pay). At the end of the second year, they are still both equal ($2300$ and $2300$ annual pay). The third year they start to diverge.



                                    In the third year, one gets a bonus of $600$ total (increase from $300$ to $600$ total, for $300$ per pay), while the other gets a bonus of $700$ total (increase from $200$ to $300$, and then again from $300$ to $400$). In this way the total sums continue to diverge by $100$ per year.



                                    You can see that eventually the $100$ per pay increase is more beneficial.






                                    share|cite|improve this answer
























                                      2












                                      2








                                      2






                                      Some of the other questions assume one person gets a raise starting six months before the other, but it turns out it doesn't matter.



                                      Consider they both work for one year before any raises go into effect: $2000$ and $2000$. The second year, one gets a bonus of $300$ total ($150$ per pay), while the other gets a bonus of $300$ total ($100$ and then $200$ per pay). At the end of the second year, they are still both equal ($2300$ and $2300$ annual pay). The third year they start to diverge.



                                      In the third year, one gets a bonus of $600$ total (increase from $300$ to $600$ total, for $300$ per pay), while the other gets a bonus of $700$ total (increase from $200$ to $300$, and then again from $300$ to $400$). In this way the total sums continue to diverge by $100$ per year.



                                      You can see that eventually the $100$ per pay increase is more beneficial.






                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      Some of the other questions assume one person gets a raise starting six months before the other, but it turns out it doesn't matter.



                                      Consider they both work for one year before any raises go into effect: $2000$ and $2000$. The second year, one gets a bonus of $300$ total ($150$ per pay), while the other gets a bonus of $300$ total ($100$ and then $200$ per pay). At the end of the second year, they are still both equal ($2300$ and $2300$ annual pay). The third year they start to diverge.



                                      In the third year, one gets a bonus of $600$ total (increase from $300$ to $600$ total, for $300$ per pay), while the other gets a bonus of $700$ total (increase from $200$ to $300$, and then again from $300$ to $400$). In this way the total sums continue to diverge by $100$ per year.



                                      You can see that eventually the $100$ per pay increase is more beneficial.







                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer










                                      answered 2 days ago









                                      BurnsbaBurnsba

                                      442311




                                      442311















                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Сан-Квентин

                                          8-я гвардейская общевойсковая армия

                                          Алькесар