FAO maths nerds
Printed From: You Boys in Green
Category: Other Forums
Forum Name: Whatever!
Forum Description: Anything else going on
URL: https://forum.ybig.ie/forum_posts.asp?TID=26584
Printed Date: 29 Mar 2024 at 2:26pm Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.00 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: FAO maths nerds
Posted By: ShayGivensBum
Subject: FAO maths nerds
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 1:12pm
Cant find the thread from last year but can someone tell me the percentage I have going into my exam on wed please. I got 58% in one essay and 53% in another both together are worth 33%. How much % have I got altogether ?
Thanks
|
Replies:
Posted By: Sham157
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 1:16pm
Well to start you have over 17% of the 33%
|
Posted By: ShayGivensBum
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 1:19pm
sham157 wrote:
Well to start you have over 17% of the 33% |
Over 17% or 17% ?
|
Posted By: ScruffyR
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 1:19pm
I would say ya have around 18%
------------- "Football isn't a matter of life or death, it's much more important than that."
|
Posted By: Sham157
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 1:20pm
ShayGivensBum wrote:
sham157 wrote:
Well to start you have over 17% of the 33% |
Over 17% or 17% ? |
Over. If you had of got 50% in both your essays, you would have scored 16.5% out of the 33%, but you got more than 50% in both so it's more probably actually around 18-19%
|
Posted By: ScruffyR
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 1:21pm
18.315% to be percise
------------- "Football isn't a matter of life or death, it's much more important than that."
|
Posted By: Shoco
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 1:21pm
you have 18.5% sasa
if 40% is need then you need to get 32.25 in your exal which will give you 21.5% to bring you to 40
-------------
YOUR 3 IN A ROW LEAGUE CHAMPIONS
|
Posted By: ShayGivensBum
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 1:22pm
Ok............ sh*tE
Thanks tho
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 5:40pm
Does anyone know the easiest way to convert nominal wages into real wages. Basically I want to take wages from a certain industry since 1988 and change them in lieu of inflation. Do I just divide nominal wages by the rate of inflation and then muliply by 100?
|
Posted By: c90
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 6:35pm
seanyshuffler wrote:
Does anyone know the easiest way to convert nominal wages into real wages. Basically I want to take wages from a certain industry since 1988 and change them in lieu of inflation. Do I just divide nominal wages by the rate of inflation and then muliply by 100? |
not sure if its wat your askin but if the rate of inflation is 4% just multiply the nominal by 1.04 ( likewise if it was 0.5% then multiply by 1.005)
have u got an inflation rate from '88 till now or do ye just have year on year rates ?
------------- Maggie Thatcher, Winston Churchill, Lawrence Of Arabia, Elton John! Yiz can all go f**k yerselves
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 6:37pm
c90 wrote:
seanyshuffler wrote:
Does anyone know the easiest way to convert nominal wages into real wages. Basically I want to take wages from a certain industry since 1988 and change them in lieu of inflation. Do I just divide nominal wages by the rate of inflation and then muliply by 100? |
not sure if its wat your askin but if the rate of inflation is 4% just multiply the nominal by 1.04 ( likewise if it was 0.5% then multiply by 1.005)
have u got an inflation rate from '88 till now or do ye just have year on year rates ?
|
Just have the average wage figure. No inflation figures at all. The figures are off the CSO website so surely they're adjusted for inflation?
|
Posted By: c90
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 6:42pm
seanyshuffler wrote:
c90 wrote:
seanyshuffler wrote:
Does anyone know the easiest way to convert nominal wages into real wages. Basically I want to take wages from a certain industry since 1988 and change them in lieu of inflation. Do I just divide nominal wages by the rate of inflation and then muliply by 100? |
not sure if its wat your askin but if the rate of inflation is 4% just multiply the nominal by 1.04 ( likewise if it was 0.5% then multiply by 1.005)
have u got an inflation rate from '88 till now or do ye just have year on year rates ?
|
Just have the average wage figure. No inflation figures at all. The figures are off the CSO website so surely they're adjusted for inflation? |
they would have to mention it somewhere in the figures if they were adjusted for inflation. O'wise id assume the were nominal for the given year
------------- Maggie Thatcher, Winston Churchill, Lawrence Of Arabia, Elton John! Yiz can all go f**k yerselves
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 6:50pm
In 1988 the average wage stood at €372.06. Inflation in Feb 2013 stood at 1.10% So would that mean 1988 wages in todays value would be €409.27?
|
Posted By: nvidic
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 6:59pm
use the capital gains tax table for inflation, although it cuts off at 2007 i think it is
|
Posted By: c90
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 7:04pm
seanyshuffler wrote:
In 1988 the average wage stood at €372.06. Inflation in Feb 2013 stood at 1.10% So would that mean 1988 wages in todays value would be €409.27? |
no (afaik) that inflation is year on year so just the inflation from last year to this year. to work out that '88 wage now you would have to multiple the nominal by the inflation for every since '88. so it'd look like (372.06 x 1.01 x 1.02 x 1.05 etc)
also for your calculation above, say if 372.06 was the wage last year and you wanted it terms of this year then it would be (372.06 x 1.001)
------------- Maggie Thatcher, Winston Churchill, Lawrence Of Arabia, Elton John! Yiz can all go f**k yerselves
|
Posted By: c90
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 7:31pm
seanyshuffler wrote:
In 1988 the average wage stood at €372.06. Inflation in Feb 2013 stood at 1.10% So would that mean 1988 wages in todays value would be €409.27? |
from the table below average annual inflation seems to be 2.5% from the years '88 to '13 so if assuming average wage in Feb '88 is €372.06 then that in todays money is €689.78 [ = (372.06) x (1.025)^25 ]
3 things to note, this is an eyeball guess on the average inflation as i cant zoom in or get the actual figure. This is the CPI inlfation rate (consumer price index, theres another way to calculate inflation) and finally i only moved into finance in september so i could be talkin through me hole
------------- Maggie Thatcher, Winston Churchill, Lawrence Of Arabia, Elton John! Yiz can all go f**k yerselves
|
Posted By: BigStrongMan
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 8:44pm
Baldrick will know the answer
------------- PM me for all forum moderation queries.
|
Posted By: 9fingers
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 8:53pm
BigStrongMan wrote:
Baldrick will know the answer | Obviously, but it will be interesting to see him take the moral high ground in a maths argument
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 8:56pm
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2013 at 11:57am
Anyone any good at demand forecasting??
|
Posted By: Hoosay
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2013 at 12:19pm
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2013 at 12:25pm
Using annual data for 1935 to 1995, an estimate was made of the demand function for cigarettes in the United States. The resulting regression equation was estimated: Log Q = -1.55 - 0.71 log P + 3.08 log A - 0.09 log I + 0.14 log Pc - 5.10 C (-0.26) (1.18) (-0.89) (0.92) (-1.19) Q = annual cigarette consumption. P = average price of cigarettes. A = total cigarette advertising. I = per capita income. Pc = average price of cigars. C = a variable that equals 1 if the year under consideration is after the American Cancer Society issues a report in 1953 linking cigarette smoking with cancer and 0 otherwise. The standard errors are shown in parentheses. The value of R2 is 0.91. (1) Interpret the estimated demand function for cigarettes. (2) Conduct tests to determine the validity of the model. (3) What implications do these results have for firms in the industry?
|
Posted By: Hoosay
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2013 at 12:29pm
Jaysus. I think I preferred when I couldn't read it.
|
Posted By: WindBag
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2013 at 1:13pm
seanyshuffler wrote:
Using annual data for 1935 to 1995, an estimate was made of the demand function for cigarettes in the United States. The resulting regression equation was estimated: Log Q = -1.55 - 0.71 log P + 3.08 log A - 0.09 log I + 0.14 log Pc - 5.10 C (-0.26) (1.18) (-0.89) (0.92) (-1.19) Q = annual cigarette consumption. P = average price of cigarettes. A = total cigarette advertising. I = per capita income. Pc = average price of cigars. C = a variable that equals 1 if the year under consideration is after the American Cancer Society issues a report in 1953 linking cigarette smoking with cancer and 0 otherwise. The standard errors are shown in parentheses. The value of R2 is 0.91. (1) Interpret the estimated demand function for cigarettes. (2) Conduct tests to determine the validity of the model. (3) What implications do these results have for firms in the industry? |
As much as I love maths, the model doesn't appropriately cater for changes in society i.e. recession and changes in human nature...no longer cool to smoke.
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2013 at 1:16pm
WindBag wrote:
seanyshuffler wrote:
Using annual data for 1935 to 1995, an estimate was made of the demand function for cigarettes in the United States. The resulting regression equation was estimated: Log Q = -1.55 - 0.71 log P + 3.08 log A - 0.09 log I + 0.14 log Pc - 5.10 C (-0.26) (1.18) (-0.89) (0.92) (-1.19) Q = annual cigarette consumption. P = average price of cigarettes. A = total cigarette advertising. I = per capita income. Pc = average price of cigars. C = a variable that equals 1 if the year under consideration is after the American Cancer Society issues a report in 1953 linking cigarette smoking with cancer and 0 otherwise. The standard errors are shown in parentheses. The value of R2 is 0.91. (1) Interpret the estimated demand function for cigarettes. (2) Conduct tests to determine the validity of the model. (3) What implications do these results have for firms in the industry? |
As much as I love maths, the model doesn't appropriately cater for changes in society i.e. recession and changes in human nature...no longer cool to smoke.
|
Do you know how to do this part by any chance?
|
Posted By: WindBag
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2013 at 2:31pm
Build a case to disprove it
How much did cigarette consumption drop after the smoking ban and see if you can see a graph and extrapolate this to 2014.
IMO a good guide would be looking at government policy..is Health, core to this plan? If so, have they stated that they will raise tax on cigarettes more?
To mathematically disprove, just get one of the variables critical to the equation and disprove it (highlight wide deviation percentage)
(i) Cigarette advertising..this is dropping exponentially around the world, just highlight the drop in numbers
(ii) Per Capita income has dropped dramatically in last 4 yrs
(iii) I cannot quantify a 'No Longer Cool' factor
But if I was I would go between 0-1....... 0 being Soccerc and 1 being Eire32...QED
|
Posted By: ShayGivensBum
Date Posted: 18 Apr 2013 at 11:46am
- my question was waaaayyyyyyy easier
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 14 May 2013 at 4:49pm
A proposal to increase excise taxes on alcohol by €1 to save lives will raise the price of a unit of alcohol from €4 to €5 (assumption that all the tax increase is passed on to the consumers). The increase in price will reduce the quantity consumed from 200m units to 180m units. Graph the demand curve. Calculate and explain the change in consumer surplus.
Would the change in consumer surplus be 190?
Area of rectangle = €1x 180m=180
Area of triangle = €1 x 20m (1/2) =10
Change in consumer surplus = area of rectangle + area of triangle
Am I doing it right?
|
Posted By: Gaz
Date Posted: 14 May 2013 at 8:08pm
Tell them to go and fook themselves as its expensive enough to drink in this country
------------- I dont email the count anymore, its been 9 months : ( He even sent me a YBIG scarf for my Birthday
|
Posted By: Baldrick
Date Posted: 14 May 2013 at 8:17pm
seanyshuffler wrote:
A proposal to increase excise taxes on alcohol by €1 to save lives will raise the price of a unit of alcohol from €4 to €5 (assumption that all the tax increase is passed on to the consumers). The increase in price will reduce the quantity consumed from 200m units to 180m units. Graph the demand curve. Calculate and explain the change in consumer surplus.
Would the change in consumer surplus be 190?
Area of rectangle = €1x 180m=180
Area of triangle = €1 x 20m (1/2) =10
Change in consumer surplus = area of rectangle + area of triangle
Am I doing it right? |
how do they know how much it will reduce the demand by. What metric are they using to calculate the amount consumed on a hypothetical situation
------------- AKA pedantic kunt
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 8:09am
Bump Have an exam in 90mins and would like to know if I'm doing this correct? Anyone?
|
Posted By: RogerMilla
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 8:11am
seanyshuffler wrote:
Bump Have an exam in 90mins and would like to know if I'm doing this correct? Anyone? |
get off the fcuking forum and study and ring one of your classmates for the answer FFS
------------- The first time the Devil made me do it. The second time I did it on my own.
|
Posted By: Gaz
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 9:21am
RogerMilla wrote:
seanyshuffler wrote:
Bump Have an exam in 90mins and would like to know if I'm doing this correct? Anyone? |
get off the fcuking forum and study and ring one of your classmates for the answer FFS |
------------- I dont email the count anymore, its been 9 months : ( He even sent me a YBIG scarf for my Birthday
|
Posted By: Baldrick
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 9:23am
seanyshuffler wrote:
Bump Have an exam in 90mins and would like to know if I'm doing this correct? Anyone? |
jesus christ, if you are coming to ybig for an answer to something on your course you are fcked. how do you know someone on here could not totally take the piss out of you and give you a bullsh*t answer.
------------- AKA pedantic kunt
|
Posted By: WindBag
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 9:55am
E=M see squared!
If baldy is asking instead of anwering, you are what the french call...proper fooked
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 1:12pm
Baldrick wrote:
seanyshuffler wrote:
Bump Have an exam in 90mins and would like to know if I'm doing this correct? Anyone? |
jesus christ, if you are coming to ybig for an answer to something on your course you are fcked. how do you know someone on here could not totally take the piss out of you and give you a bullsh*t answer.
|
If your unable to solve the answer there is no need to take it out on me. Maybe you should vent your frustration in some other way.
|
Posted By: Baldrick
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 1:17pm
Ha ha hope you failed the exam :)
------------- AKA pedantic kunt
|
Posted By: BigPodge
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 1:41pm
Baldrick wrote:
Ha ha hope you failed the exam :) |
Whoa there, no need to get personal, attack the post not the poster!
-------------
|
Posted By: sausy
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 1:47pm
Baldrick wrote:
seanyshuffler wrote:
A proposal to increase excise taxes on alcohol by €1 to save lives will raise the price of a unit of alcohol from €4 to €5 (assumption that all the tax increase is passed on to the consumers). The increase in price will reduce the quantity consumed from 200m units to 180m units. Graph the demand curve. Calculate and explain the change in consumer surplus.
Would the change in consumer surplus be 190?
Area of rectangle = €1x 180m=180
Area of triangle = €1 x 20m (1/2) =10
Change in consumer surplus = area of rectangle + area of triangle
Am I doing it right? |
how do they know how much it will reduce the demand by. What metric are they using to calculate the amount consumed on a hypothetical situation
|
principle of economics Baldy called elasticity of demand.
------------- Bimbos Burgers - "Official Sponsor of the Irish Squad"
|
Posted By: Sham157
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 1:50pm
Posted By: Baldrick
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 1:52pm
For feck sake podge and sausy you need new batteries for your detectors there .
------------- AKA pedantic kunt
|
Posted By: AntrimMan
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 2:00pm
Hang on a minute now Sham, thats rumour and conjecture and there's no factual basis to that.
------------- @AntrimMan85
|
Posted By: Sham157
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 2:04pm
AntrimMan wrote:
Hang on a minute now Sham, thats rumour and conjecture and there's no factual basis to that. |
I apologise
|
Posted By: BigPodge
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 2:08pm
Baldrick wrote:
For feck sake podge and sausy you need new batteries for your detectors there . |
Jaysus lads I'm takin the piss
-------------
|
Posted By: Baldrick
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 2:14pm
Well rescued Podge
------------- AKA pedantic kunt
|
Posted By: BigPodge
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 2:27pm
Baldrick wrote:
Well rescued Podge |
Do you really think I meant it?
A haha and a smiley face usually mean it's a joke!
-------------
|
Posted By: Sham157
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 2:36pm
Posted By: BigPodge
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 3:17pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Sham157
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 3:23pm
Let it go Podgey boy..let it go
|
Posted By: Gaz
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 3:53pm
Podge
------------- I dont email the count anymore, its been 9 months : ( He even sent me a YBIG scarf for my Birthday
|
Posted By: RogerMilla
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 3:55pm
agree fully podge
baldrick
------------- The first time the Devil made me do it. The second time I did it on my own.
|
Posted By: Baldrick
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 4:56pm
RogerMilla wrote:
agree fully podge
baldrick |
------------- AKA pedantic kunt
|
Posted By: ShayGivensBum
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 5:27pm
Seany the answer to your question is 5. good luck in your exam
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 6:30pm
ShayGivensBum wrote:
Seany the answer to your question is 5. good luck in your exam | Had it already but thanks anyway
|
Posted By: Baldrick
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 7:30pm
how did you get on seany. Nail it.
------------- AKA pedantic kunt
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 7:54pm
Baldrick wrote:
how did you get on seany. Nail it. | Don't like to tempt faith but not worried about failing anyway ha
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2013 at 4:43pm
Any Ybiggers any good and splicing two indexs together from the CSO? I'm looking at the price of bar sales and want do get an index from 2002-2012 with 2002 with the base year. Problem is the CSO have them in two different files, 2000-2008 is one file with the base year 2000 and 2005-2012 is another year, with the base being 2005. How do I go about joining the two, e.g creating a new price index with 2002 as the base year (2002=100)
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2013 at 7:14pm
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2013 at 7:16pm
Can anyone explain the above please? Even though Income and prices have decreased during the period 05-12, bar sales have still fallen? From what I've been thought in Economics is that when your income rises or something becomes cheaper you demand more of it?
|
Posted By: SuperDave84
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2013 at 7:18pm
Basically, spending in bars as a percentage of GDP has decreased dramatically over the last few years (while the price charged has only decreased a little) - not a big surprise.
Should you not be using GNP rather than GDP though, given the fact GDP includes multinationals profits, which have not suffered in the same way in the last few years as the general economy? The picture may be a little different if you do it that way. It depends on what you want the figures to show, though. If you want to paint a bleak picture, GDP is the way to go. If you want to point out that the vintners are a shower of greedy, moaning pricks, GNP is the way to go.
-------------
|
Posted By: Hoosay
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2013 at 7:21pm
What's the price index? Bar prices or the general rpi/CPI.
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2013 at 7:21pm
SuperDave84 wrote:
Basically, spending in bars as a percentage of GDP has decreased dramatically over the last few years (while the price charged has only decreased a little) - not a big surprise.
Should you not be using GNP rather than GDP though, given the fact GDP includes multinationals profits, which have not suffered in the same way in the last few years as the general economy? The picture may be a little different if you do it that way. It depends on what you want the figures to show, though. If you want to paint a bleak picture, GDP is the way to go. If you want to point out that the vintners are a shower of greedy, moaning pricks, GNP is the way to go.
|
Cheers
I'd look at GNP if I had the time but I can't be bothered having to convert everything again to put it on a graph etc.
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2013 at 7:21pm
Hoosay wrote:
What's the price index? Bar prices or the general rpi/CPI. |
Bar prices
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 16 Oct 2013 at 4:37pm
A figure of 1467299 measured in the unit, millions of dollars. I want to get the average level of wage per head of labour force. Have the population figures but how many 0's must I ad to the figure in order to be able to divide them? Basically Total Wages in 1990 were 1467299 measured at (millions of dollars) Number of those employed were
|
Posted By: SuperDave84
Date Posted: 16 Oct 2013 at 4:56pm
Total wages in 1990 was thus 1,467,299,000,000. Total employment was 14,294,100.
So divide 1,467,299 by 14.294,100.
That's going to give a figure of $102,650. You sure the figures you have to begin with are right?
-------------
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 16 Oct 2013 at 5:28pm
SuperDave84 wrote:
Total wages in 1990 was thus 1,467,299,000,000. Total employment was 14,294,100.
So divide 1,467,299 by 14.294,100.
That's going to give a figure of $102,650. You sure the figures you have to begin with are right?
| I'll check the links when I'm home.
|
Posted By: daboi89
Date Posted: 16 Oct 2013 at 6:48pm
Few of the lads are on the dole. thats the problem
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 16 Oct 2013 at 6:52pm
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CAWTOT/downloaddata?cid=27286" rel="nofollow - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CAWTOT/downloaddata?cid=27286 Source for wages and salary here SuperDave Have the employment figures saved of the laptop
1990 |
14,294,100 |
1991 |
13,931,700 |
1992 |
3,874,200 |
1993 |
13,808,300 |
1994 |
13,953,900 |
1995 |
14,062,400 |
1996 |
14,303,500 |
1997 |
14,780,800 |
1998 |
15,203,700 |
1999 |
15,566,900 |
2000 |
16,024,300 |
2001 |
16,220,000 |
2002 |
16,180,800 |
2003 |
16,200,100 |
2004 |
16,354,800 |
2005 |
16,592,200 |
2006 |
16,821,300 |
2007 |
16,960,700 |
2008 |
16,893,900 |
2009 |
16,151,100 |
2010 |
16,063,500 |
2011 |
16,237,300 |
2012 |
16,560,300 |
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2013 at 9:35am
Posted By: SuperDave84
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2013 at 4:10pm
Yeah, it seems the annual figure I posted earlier is correct. Just over $100,000 average. That is probably right, given the number of unemployed and economically inactive people, also having regard to the fact California is a rich state.
-------------
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2015 at 12:15pm
Probably better off posting in the thick thread but anyway. On average in 2013 €1=$1.3281 Would that mean €1=€0.67?
|
Posted By: Sham157
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2015 at 12:43pm
seanyshuffler wrote:
Probably better off posting in the thick thread but anyway. On average in 2013 €1=$1.3281 Would that mean €1=€0.67? |
|
Posted By: DUBLIN DOC
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2015 at 12:46pm
How appropriate the sig under his posts are
------------- When all is said and done there is nothing left to say or do
|
Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2015 at 12:49pm
DUBLIN DOC wrote:
How appropriate the sig under his posts are |
|
Posted By: SuperDave84
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2015 at 4:03pm
1/1.3281 = 0.752955
-------------
|
Posted By: Bohsfan84
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2015 at 5:34pm
I passed maths in college by the skin of my gooch.
I'm excellent at accounting and finance strangely enough.
|
|