To preface this riddle a story. Imagine post-WWI Germany, the Weimar republic is in place and all is in the midst of an economic depression. There is a woman with a baker’s shop. She is stout and plump, blond hair and a slightly dusty apron. All she can make is bread at the moment; the economy won’t afford her anything else. And so one day she sees a hungry child, gaunt and thin he stumbles in following the smell of bread. The baker is nearly brought to tears. He is the spitting image of her son who perished in the war, fighting in some dank and bleak trench in France. She gives him some free bread and then post a sign outside of her shop.

edit. I said give, I meant make-
I will make bread to all those and only those who do not make bread for themselves.

Now the question is: can she make any bread for herself?

She said she will give bread to any who don't make it for themselves. Thus she can make the bread and give it to her husband who can split the bread and give it back to her and she can eat it.

Is that what you are asking?

Nope, never said she was married. Good answer though.

Well



1) she has her own bakery and there should already be some bread aready baked so she can have that since she does not have to make any.

2)The sign says she will give bread to those who do not make bread themselves so im guessing there are other people who can make bread so she can get some from them.

Well substitute her husband for the boy.

Or she could just pay for it.

But she's making the bread for others is she not? So she's exempt anyway?

Also, there's an inherent expectation of morality since she's so nice to the boy and generous to others. But there's nothing stopping her in reality from stealing the bread.

She takes it and eats it. She's stolen it. So what? She gets the bread.

There is no problem with her eating the bread or with her giving it to someone else and having them give her some. The question was can she make herself bread, not as to whether or not she can eat it.

I will give bread to all those and only those who do not make bread for themselves.

Now the question is: can she make any bread for herself?

Depends on a couple of things:

1. whether making bread for herself is defined as an act of giving.

If not, then she can make bread for herself.

2. Whether "all those and only those" is self referrential.

If not, then she can make bread for herself.

If both of those are true, then the answer is NO. Unless she decides to change the rules.

Tiggs, you're on the right track. it Both 1 and 2 are true.

Also, a minor update to her shop sign:

I will make bread for all those and only those who do not make bread for themselves.

versus what I orginally said:



And I'm afraid no isn't quite the answer.

I will give bread to all those and only those who do not make bread for themselves.


She doesn't have to give herself bread. She already has it. It doesn't say I will MAKE bread for those....it says Give.

Main Entry: 1give
Pronunciation: 'giv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): gave /'gAv/; giv·en /'gi-v&n/; giv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Swedish giva to give; akin to Old English giefan, gifan to give, and perhaps to Latin habEre to have, hold
transitive verb
1 : to make a present of <give a doll to a child>
2 a : to grant or bestow by formal action <the law gives citizens the right to vote> b : to accord or yield to another <gave him her confidence>
3 a : to put into the possession of another for his or her use <gave me his phone number> b (1) : to administer as a sacrament (2) : to administer as a medicine c : to commit to another as a trust or responsibility and usually for an expressed reason d : to transfer from one's authority or custody <the sheriff gave the prisoner to the warden> e : to execute and deliver <all employees must give bond> f : to convey to another <give them my regards>
4 a : to offer to the action of another : PROFFER <gave her his hand> b : to yield (oneself) to a man in sexual intercourse
5 a : to present in public performance <give a concert> b : to present to view or observation <gave the signal to start>
6 : to provide by way of entertainment <give a party>
7 : to propose as a toast
8 a : to designate as a share or portion : ALLOT <all the earth to thee and to thy race I give -- John Milton> b : to make assignment of (a name) c : to set forth as an actual or hypothetical datum <give the dimensions of the room> d : to attribute in thought or utterance : ASCRIBE <gave the credit to you>
9 a : to yield as a product, consequence, or effect : PRODUCE <cows give milk> <84 divided by 12 gives 7> b : to bring forth : BEAR
10 a : to yield possession of by way of exchange : PAY b : to dispose of for a price : SELL
11 a : to deliver by some bodily action <gave him a push> b : to carry out (as a bodily movement) <gave a cynical smile> c : to inflict as punishment d : to award by formal verdict <judgment was given against the plaintiff>
12 : to offer for consideration, acceptance, or use <gives no reason for his absence>
13 a : to suffer the loss of : SACRIFICE b : to offer as appropriate or due especially to something higher or more worthy <gave his spirit to God> c : to apply freely or fully : DEVOTE <gave themselves to their work> d : to offer as a pledge <I give you my word>
14 a : to cause one to have or receive <mountains always gave him pleasure> b : to cause a person to catch by contagion, infection, or exposure
15 a : to allow one to have or take <give me time> b : to lead or attempt to lead -- used with an infinitive <you gave me to understand you'd be late>
16 : to care to the extent of <didn't give a hoot>
intransitive verb
1 : to make gifts or presents
2 a : to yield to physical force or strain b : to collapse from the application of force or pressure c : to undergo or submit to change <for the strike to be settled, something has to give>
3 : to afford a view or passage : OPEN <the window gives onto the terrace>
4 : to enter wholeheartedly into an activity
5 slang : to be happening <wants to know what gives>

I will make bread to all those and only those who do not make bread for themselves

Okay. How about she can make bread for herself once, after which, she's made bread for herself and no longer qualifies?

You are very correct. That is why I made that update.

I will make bread for all those and only those who do not make bread for themselves.

With the update she cannot make bread for herself since she is a bread maker.
I see the paradox of how then she could then be considered one who does not make bread for themselves, but until someone else makes bread for her she is still the last one who made bread for herself.

Is that so. If she can't make herself bread, then doesn't that make her a person who does not make their own bread?

There is no paradox here. That she will give bread to those who not make bread for themselves means that there are those who will make bread for themselves, and therefore have bread. She is one of them.

If you got the riddle wrong from the start its a bit hard to understand what you are doing.

Is it GIVE or is it MAKE?

Either way where is the imperative that she can not take it? Nothing says she can not take it.

She takes it. She has bread.

The orginal formulation of this question was due to my error, but the update I made correct this. It doesn't matter if the person has bread or not. In the orginal it did. I'm very, very sorry about that, please ignore it.

I will make bread for all those and only those who do not make bread for themselves.

It is make. It doesn't take into account how much bread she or anyone may have. It also ignores their ability of capability to make bread. The only thing that matters is if they do actually commence in making the bread that and nothing more.

Jesus Christ! How about let the whole damn lot of them eat cake.

It's a restatement of Russell's paradox. Say you have a collection of things: of cars, of blond people, of verbs. Really you can have a collection of anything, so why not a collection of collections? How about the collection of collections? If a collection (called a set) is the collection of all collections not members of themselves, is the collection a member of itself?

The only way in which this would be a paradox would be if there was a stipulation that

"I will make bread for all those and only those who do not make bread for themselves."

means that she will not make bread for all those and only those who do make bread for themselves. Since that is not the case, my previous answer still applies.

Those who do not make bread for themselves (meaning they get bread from the lady) means that there are those who make bread for themselves, and therefore do not need to get from the lady, as they already have it. By making bread for herself, she she doesn't have to make bread for herself, but that doesn't matter because she has the bread that she made for herself because she made it for herself.

In computing, we hold pointers to the objects within a collection. It's perfectly valid to have a pointer back to the owning collection.

I still think the answers once, though, as legally she would be able to begin baking, It would only be after baking had ceased that she would break the rules, at which point, it's too late.

Oh, it’s perfectly fine for collections to be members of themselves. The problem comes when you consider collections or set that are not members of themselves. The set of all sets is legal and is of course a member of itself. The set of all sets not self-inclusive is where the trouble starts. If it isn’t a member of itself then it is a member of itself.

Oh, you’re absolutely right, she can make herself bread. Perhaps I should have made the requirements more strident. Oh, well.

Have a cookie.

Why thank you.

Agreed. In the collection example you gave above, the set would qualify to become self inclusive which in turn would invalidate it's membership, ad infinitum.

ok explain this to us morons! LOL

Please!

Consider what the woman's sign read...

I will make bread to all those and only those who do not make bread for themselves.

Now, the first bread in the statement could mean the baker's bread made of dough, whereas the second bread could mean money. So, she's just saying she'll only make bread for poor and helpless people who can't make any money for themselves.

And yes, she can pretty much make bread for herself. Why? Because, she only makes bread for money-less people. She wont get any money for the bread she gives them, in this way, she is also money-less, so she also qualifies and can make bread for herself.

Cookies anyone?

So if she makes bread, she cannot make any for herself. If she doesn't make bread for herself, she must take the bread she made.

She gets bread.

However, the second part of her statement may imply an intent rather than an inability. If this is the case the logic breaks down as she cannot then make bread. Her willingness to make bread means she is excluded from those who are unwilling.

She gets no bread.

Can my cookie be chocolate please?

if no isnt the answer then the answer is yes?

surley there are only two answers to a question with yes or no as the answer

One more rule, Leo and Tiggs are still right but this will assure my paradox: If she breaks the rule at any point in the preparation of the bread she stops and destroys that piece of bread.