funny question ;)?

Question

I wanted to buy something but i didn't have money.
I borrowed from friend "A " $ 25 and from friend "B" $ 25
I went to the store and bought thing that cost $45
In the store my friend "C" ask me to lend her $3
Now i have $2 left
I give back to my friend "A" $1 and to my friend "B" $1
Now i need to give back $24 to "A" and $24 to "B"

But $24+$24= $48

And + $3 that friend "C" will give me back =

$48+$3= $51

Where $1 dollars come from???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but the way i add them make sence!!! Doesn't it

Answer 1

But $24+$24= $48
And + $3 that friend "C" will give me back =
$48+$3= $51


Your mistake is here. The 3 dollars that C gives back is not connected to the 50 loaned. You don't pay it back to A or B.
The correct sum of money paid back is:
+$1 to A
+$1 to B
+24 to A
+24 to B
= $50. The loan is paid back exactly.

Or you could look at it this way
I received 50 dollars. I spent $45, paid back 2, gave 3 away and got it back. Now I need to make up the $48 difference, which is the $3 I will still have plus the $45 I spent.

The way you added the sums does not make sense. If you are looking at the perspective of the money you OWE vs. the money you are owed, it should be "Now i need to give back $24 to 'A' and $24 to 'B, and I am owed $3'"
$24 + $24 = 48
And I will get back three. Since I GET the $3, I need to SUBTRACT if from the money I OWE.
$48 - $3 = $45. $45 is the money you are down, and that is because you bought the $45 item.

Answer 2

This is a variation of classical misdirection. There is no reason to add 48 and 3. You spent 45, loaned 3, and paid
back 2. 45 + 3 +2 = 50, and nothing is missing. Adding three
to 48 is misdirecting.

Here is another scenario...

Three men pay $10 each to the hotel desk clerk for a room.
After taking the $30, the clerk realized he should have only
charged $25. The clerk gives a bellhop $5 to refund to
the men. The bellhop cannot easily split $5 three ways,
so instead, he gives each of the three lodgers $1, and puts
$2 in his pocket. The men paid thirty and got 3 back for
$27 paid. The bellhop put $2 in his pocket. Now $27
plus $2 comes to only $29. Where is the missing dollar.

Do you see how the misdirection works here? This is very
similar to your problem.

Answer 3

The error is in the logic. The $24 you owe your friends A and B are obligations. The $3 you gave C is an asset. They have opposite signs. It should be 48-3 which is of course the $45 you spent on the item.

Answer 4

Well it came from you adding up amounts that don't really make sense.

You're adding up the $48 you gave back to your friends and the $3 you're getting back from another friend so those amount aren't related.

You should be doing the $48 you still owe them minus the $3 that is owed to you equals the $45 that you spent on whatever you bought.

Answer 5

If you take the 3 dollars from C and give it to A or B, now you owe A and B $45. You don't add your liabilities(what you owe A and B) to your assets(what C owes you) to come up with your liabilities. This answer is not funny I admit.

Answer 6

that's a classic paradox, usually told about a man checking into a hotel, or people paying in a restaurant.

wikipedia explains it very well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_paradox

Answer 7

what?