When the brain is split in two, the individual acts almost like 2 people.
But, if the stock is sold at $15 or a $5 profit, the net cost (cost minus profit) is still $5. So, I think, ultimately, what my question is relates to is this: upon sale of a stock, what should the dividends be compared to in order to determine what your dividend return was as an expression of the investment — the original gross cost or the subsequent net cost?If someone can clear up the logic of this question, I can then establish the propermath for my spread sheet. Possibly I was not too clear on that in the original post.I think I am trying to determine what my dividend return has been on a stock that has been sold expressed as a percentage of what I actually risked on the stock.I have a spread sheet in which I track my $ returns of dividend from which I compute the percent of that investment which has been returned as dividend. If I then sell the $10 stock for $5, how do I express my overall return of dividends as a percentage in a totals column?
Do I still have, overall, a total investment of $30, or should that total investment now be considered only $25 because the $10 stock ended up actually costing me only $5? Conversely, if I sell the $10 stock for $15, should my total investment still be computed at $30 or should it be reduced to $25 because my net investment is reduced by that $5 profit?It is possible that any of these three possibility can be justified, though the adjustments would result in ahigher percentage of return. If one half’s eye is covered, and it is trying to pick up an object, it will fail. Related Discussions:Are there ‘spot detector’ neurons in the brain?Hawking: Mankind has 1,000 years to escape EarthGeostationary Satellite time dilationRange of the electromagnetic wavesWhy is the double slit experiment seemingly a mystery?a form of light ‘detection’Do you think the superpowers have ‘at present’ plans to..High School CyclotronWhich field of study?SETI: Is it a waste of money? I have a question for you, and would appreciate your feedback .Would a large military submarine, whilst travelling below the sea surface, affect the Earth’s geoid, enabling an extremely sensitive satellite based gradiometer, to detect the anomaly caused by a submarine, in comparison to a high-resolution reference map of the geoid?The submarine would most probably be at neutral buoyancy, with depth adjusted via its control surfaces. actually it might, but you wouldnt notice it because of earth’s gravity and reletivity. there are just so many greater forces acting on the ship that the snowflake just doesnt even factor in. as for detecting gravitational anomalies from space. boy, were to start. 1. the meter could be thrown off by even the tinyest bits of space debris2. there are other things in the ocean. not just submarines3. it could even be thrown off by larger than normal wavesit might work, i really dont know much about it, but there are just so many different factors that would affect gravity in any particular spot. hell, i’d venture a guess and say that perhaps even higher/lower air pressures could throw it off…
It is a matter of definition. How does a snowflake falling vertically onto a supertanker cause an acceleration of the vessel? — It does not, I think Planck might be violated here,,, Or does it become 40 percent based on the net cost of my original investment?Somehow, it seem incongruous that one could consider a net investment as being $5 if the $10 stock either gained or lost $5. That is an accounting question, not a mathematics question.I think in most cases one is interested in the return on the initial investment.But again it depends on your purpose, which you have not made clear. And obviously the sensitivity of the equipment needed is staggering. The brain has 2 hemispheres which are near duplicates, with nerves carrying information between. If the other half of the brain can see the object, then it pushes the oher half’s hand aside and picks up the object. There is not another person lurking in the background waiting its chance to come to the fore when a motorcycle accident or Alzheimer’s affects our brain function. Yet it does seem logical that if one invested $10 in a stock and sold it for $5, his net investment can be consider $5 since that is all it actually cost in the long run.
Originally Posted by daytonturner Hi, I’m visiting from other forum subjects I usually participate in.I am struggling with the proper way to establish a percentageof investment realized through particular stocks as a statement of the dividend return on investment without regard to the overall net gain or loss on the stock.Example No. 1 — It is clear that if I have purchased a stock for $10 and sold it for $10 and received $2 in dividends, the dividend return has been 20 percent on my investment.Example No. 2 — If I purchased the stock at $10 and received $2 in dividends and then sold the stock at only $5, how do I calculate the dividend return as a percent of my investment? Does it remain 20 percent based on my original $10 investment? Or does it now become 40 percent based on the net cost of the original investment of $5?Example No. 3 — If I purchased the stock at $10 and received $2 in dividends and then sold the stock for $15, how do I calculate the dividend return as a percent of my investment? Does it remain 20 percent of my original $10 investment. This doesn’t disturb split brained people at all.Does this mean we are two seperate people working together? Isuppose if the cost is not adjusted, I now have an expression of the dividend return based on actual investment while if the cost is adjusted, I now have an expression of dividend return as based on actual net cost of the stocks.I think my question is more related to which of these views actually reflects a more accurate overall picture of dividend returns?
I can figure out the math formula if I can determine which is the more accurate representation of my return. It just knows that that vertical sample has mass X.A better method might be to look for something with a changing and moving gradiometric signature. It is not a matter of logic. The definition should suit your purpose.What is your purpose ? Guess if you don’t know what you are actually looking for, you don’t know if you have found it. So, I think, ultimately, what my question is relates to is this: upon sale of a stock, what should the dividends be compared to in order to determine what your dividend return was as an expressionof the investment — the original gross cost or the subsequent net cost?If someone can clear up the logic of this question, I can then establish the proper math for my spread sheet.
Related Discussions:Long devisiondivide by zeroReturn value in the stackWhich stocks to buy?What is homo-polar generator?High latitude forest might returnStock markets growth explanation?c++ question:what is a main function?movies made most impression on you ??Defining Recursive formulas in R You can define “interest rate of return” any way that you want to. Rune Floberghagen, Esa’s GOCE (Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer satellite) mission manager explained the sensitivity of GOCE as follows: “Imagine a snowflake, which has a fraction of a gram, slowly falling down on to the deck of a super tanker. But, if the stock is sold at $15 or a $5 profit, the net cost (cost minus profit) is still $5. If I have, for example two stocks, one of which cost $10 and the other which cost $20 and they have combined to return $3 in dividends, I have gained 10 percent in dividends. Yet it does seem logical that if one invested $10 in a stock and sold it for $5, his net investment can be consider $5 since that is all it actually cost in the long run. No it doesn’t. All that happens when we have severe brain trauma or disease is that it drives home to us just how central the brain is to our self image and to our capacity to act. Doesn’t it work by taking essentially a vertical sampling?
It can’t (as far as I know) differentiate between anything in that vertical sample. I agree, I was probably trying to combine two different expressions into one figure.One way, I get a pct of actual investment; the other way I get a pct of net investmentSo it becomes a matter of choosing which of these figures I want to compute — or maybe both of them, but without trying to combine them into one figure.Thanks for your help in clarifying my puzzle in defining the figures I am looking for. Ordoes it become 40 percent based on the net cost of my original investment?Somehow, it seem incongruous that one could consider a net investment as being $5 if the $10 stock either gained or lost $5. Originally Posted by daytonturner I think my question is more related to which of these views actually reflects a more accurate overall picture of dividend returns? I can figure out the math formula if I can determine which is the more accurate representation of my return.
Related Discussions:Brain Â> Consciousness , Consciousness Â> Brain.Vision and consciousness.ConsciousnessWhy Did Jesus Lie To The Apostles?Does the soul really exist?Consciousness again.Mind, Consciousness, and UnconsciousnesConsciousness as a way to fight off parasitesCan Scientific Materialism Sufficiently Explain Human Consciousness?Human Consciousness Video Neuroscience Debate The Other Side Like suddenly the sea has a spot that’s less massive than reference scans and that spot is moving (submarine is moving and rising in the water), or more dense that water.Also you’d need a fair amount of processing power to do it in real time, I think. Sometimes for medical reasons the brain is essentially split in two. This is simple so long as I own the stock.But when I sell the stock, if I want to compute the overall percent of return looking only at dividends. Each hemisphere controls one side of the body. Just saying “interest rate of return” does not define your purpose. I’m not totally convinced that gradiometry can tell the difference between an object the size of a submarine with the same mass and volume as water(same mass and volume
is why it’s neutrally bouyant), and water.
You just need to read some good, not terribly technical, stuff from people like Norman Doidge (plasticity) or Oliver Sacks (neurologist) about how the brain both works and malfunctions to realise that the ‘split’ brain issue is more complicated, but very similar, to partially losing other faculties. When the brain is split in two, the individual acts almost like 2 people. The acceleration that the super tanker experiences from that snowflake is comparable to the sensitivity of our instrument”Whilst the overall structure of the submarine would be neutral in buoyancy, there would be a large internal volume where the water will be 100% displaced by air, and thus have almost nil mass in comparison to the water surrounding it.What do you think? But the tech might also have non military purposes, like tracking schools of fish or whales or such.
Like it can’t tell the difference between the water at the top of the sample and the mantle for the other 99% of the sample.