quote:

---

I just don't get your logic on this one. If someone says "look at this painting," why would you think they expected you to provide your own painting to look at?

---

But someone is not saying, "Look at this painting." With the logic question, the word "this" is being used with a degree of ambiguity. Let's look at it another way:

quote:

---

In the answer to this question, how many letters are there?

---

quote:

---

There are seven words in this statement.

---

For the answer in the original question to make sense, one would have be able substitute the answer as a statement using the context of the question. Thus:

quote:

---

How many letters are there in the answer to this question?

---

quote:

---

There are four letters in the answer to how many letters are there in the answer to this question.

---

However, there is no means of obtaining an answer of "four" without introducing a new question. Even if the answer was simplified as:

quote:

---

There are four letters in the answer to this question.

---

If the words following "How many letters are there..." were manipulated as part of the question then "this question" does become self-referential, but the answer would not be "four".

quote:

---

- How many letters are there [in the answer to this question]? - (twenty-six/8-9)
- How many "letters" are there [in the answer to this question]? - (1)
- How many letters are there in "the answer to this question"? - (12 or 23)

---

quote:

---

Overthinking. How are any of those answers the amount of letters in themselves?

---

1 - "How many letters are there?" is the only actual question. "The answer to this question" is twenty-six, which is composed of 9 letters (including two t's)

2 - This is derived the same way, but focus is placed on the word "letters", of which there is only one.

3 - "...in the answer to this question" are the only words in which we are asked to determine the number of letters. These words are composed of 23 letters (12 of which are repeating).

First of all, I don't believe there is any ambiguity in "this" at all. I find it quite specific. "This" = "How many letters are there in the answer to this question?" (If we think about it too long we fall into recursion, which is the only way we can beat the computer overlords.) If it were "some question" or "a question" then there would be ambiguity. "This" is a specifier. It is only ambiguous when used poorly. And if I'm going to participate in a riddle I'm going to hope it actually works.

Second of all words are not lightly placed in a riddle and they aren't lightly removed. The only way your story works is if you discount half the words. The real question isn't "How many letters are there?" The real question is, as stated, "How many letters are there in the answer to this question?" X = X. X ≠ x-3. (Of course you are seeing it a x = y-3, which I don't see any justification for.) You have to satisfy all parts of the riddle to get the right answer, not just the ones that aren't prepositional phrases.

Just because the question is self-referential does not mean its original intent is invalidated, especially if it is referring to itself only to specify that it is asking for the answer to itself. (Which is only necessary to clear up the ambiguity of "the answer".)

quote:

---

There are four letters in the answer to how many letters are there in the answer to this question.

---

quote:

---

There are four letters in the answer to: "How many letters are there in the answer to this question?".

---

I suppose one (or many) could create a new language where each word has one meaning, and one meaning only...but to express what could express already in fuzzy English would expand the base of words you would need by, oh, maybe twentyfold at a bare minimum.

Here is what you are stating:

quote:

---

"This" = "How many letters are there in the answer to this question?"

---

- "this" only refers to "question"

If it reads as you suggest then this would be the result:

How many letters are there in the answer to: How many letters are there in the answer to: How many letters are there in the answer to: How many letters are there in the answer to, etc.

We never get to "this question" because it is constantly referring back to itself. Only until you separate the question from the prepositional phrases or the words "the answer to this question" do you ever reach an actual question.

Personally I'd put it as F(a) = La where a = F(a)
The function of answer{F(a)* is the amount of letters{L* in the answer{a* with the answer{a* being the result of the function of answer{F(a)*. Which, yes, is an infinite loop, but here's the rub. This is the reason we are smarter than computers, we can see an infinite loop without trying to calculate it. We can get past the cover of The Monster at the End of This Book, even though we could turn it into "the monster at the end of: the monster at the end of: the monster at the end of: . . ." if we really wanted to. Then we'd never learn that it was [Spoiler Alert]Grover[/Spoiler Alert]. You don't have to calculate "this question" you just know that it means the question you're looking at. Then you can concentrate on figuring out the answer. "How many," means the answer is a number. "Letters are there," means that that number signifies the amount of letters in something. "In the answer," tells us what that something is. "To this question," tells us that the answer we need to determine the amount of letters of is also the answer to the question we are considering. Thus the self-referential question demands a self referential answer. (Which is four, or cinqo, or 0 if you want to go the numbers aren't letters route.)

And by the way, four does equal 4, because they mean the same thing. In the same way that 1/2 = 50/100, and (m - 1)(2m + 3) = 2M² + m - 3 mean the same thing.

quote:

---

In the answer to this question, how many letters are there?

---

I quite liked philocinemas' different answering of different questions in the above question. However, English is sufficiently vague that there are a whole lot of equally correct answers, even to the mathematical pure interpretations. For example

There are twenty five letters
Prime number
Twelve of them
I would say sixteen
Two more than sixteen

Anytime we make a statement that "there is more than one way to spell (a specific word)", we make it an impossible sentence to write unless we us phonetic spelling, which is not usually an actual word.

I suppose I'll have to come up with something more challenging (here's another old riddle)I bet this will get a quick answer too -

Okay here is my favorite.