• Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    5 hours ago

    This actually isn’t too hard to solve. Double the value of each option by removing the folding requirement from the 2-ply and halving the price of the 3-ply to get an even comparison of 2-ply (330 sheets for $0.70) and 3-ply (300 sheets for $0.60), then recognize that it’s not worth adding 1/6 the price for 1/10th the sheets, to see that the 3-ply option is better.

    • Tommelot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Not folding 3-ply is asking for added expenses in the form of water and soap though… Push right through em

    • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      It hurts my brain to do it that way.

      300 sheets for 1.2 is a nice division by .6: 500 sheets for $2. So now all we gotta do is multiply by .7 to get 350 sheets for 1.40.

      Considering the fold, we are at 330 effective sheets for 1.40. 350 > 330, get the 3 ply (lol).

      This is a little bit funky obviously and just works because of seeing a divisor. If not for that I would have tried once each way to get cost per full effective sheet or cost per half effective sheet to see which one has nicer numbers.

      … Or just open the calculator app.

    • ジン@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Feel like bidet’s must be accounted for if we gonna start the math justifications