>>1786469I can't sleep, might as well get done with this.

Allow me to boil down VERY CAREFULLY my entire argument of why this takes more than just "logic". It surprises me that you know what the Russell's Paradox is and so far you've been unable to catch a single hint on what I'm talking about. This will be a long read so read VERY careful and SLOWLY seeing how prone you are to totally misunderstanding my points.

This basically is the Russell’s Paradox, right? 50% of the time here though 25% is the answer. This is what makes it an enigma both mathematically, as well as semantically (to some degree). The answer exists but it does not exist in any tangible reality.

Here's the catch, what is really amusing to me is how plentiful of smart people (you) have focused on the “probabilities” and "logic" and have totally missed the syntactical and semantic incompleteness of the question itself.

THERE'S NO QUESTION AT ALL TO BEGIN WITH, YOU DUMB ASS

“Choose an answer” must be preceded by a true question (check it out, all it says is “to this question”). Too many people get deluded by the “what is the chance” phrase and immediately assume that “chance” legitimately correlates to the offered percentages, 25%, 50%, 0%, 25%.

Just because there's 4 written answers it doesn't mean the question was posed for the "possible" answers, now they move on to the repetition of 25%, aand they are now calculating statistics, completely dismissing the subtleties.

You can only assess if something is correct if there is even a question to begin with. There's no valid answer.

On top of that, guess what idiot, when you are pondering about semantics, you are doing a PHILOSOPHICAL study of words.

How you managed to solve this on your own not being able to grasp what I am saying is just beyond me.

You truly are a pseudo-intellectual faggot, now I'll just go to bed.