My listening ability is far less developed than my ability to read this strange language. Thus, I’m not entirely sure what the question actually is and what the reactions to Twilight’s answers are, and I simply have to trust Huinesoron’s transcription of the correct answers.

As far as I understand this, whenever Twilight says a number, the answer is not correct because it’s a fragment and thus grammatically incorrect. A correct answer must be a grammatically correct sentence. The actual number doesn’t matter, because the result of any attempt to count the stars is subjective, depending on eyesight, atmospheric conditions and other circumstances. (And that’s probably what some other posters try to say, just in other words.)

HG

Provided you have a Turing-complete computer, of course!

You see, the present composition of the universe is a direct result of the history of the universe. That means that - with a powerful-enough computer - you can calculate back from a sample of the universe to describe its origin - and then calculate forward again to deduce any desired fact (such as the number of stars in the night sky).

But that only applies for a representative sample. The elements that make up an eyepiece, lamp, flower, field of grass, etc, are not representative of the universe as a whole. Thus, every time you calculate from one of those objects, you will obtain a different answer. (Admittedly the answer with pi stars must have been an interesting simulation.)

Then why is Pink Thing claiming you can do it by looking at the objects? Simple: those aren't ponies. I mean, you know that, right? You know they're just computer animation, not actual real-live ponies? Heck, it's even flagged up by the fourth-wall breaking!

And there's a key word in there: computer. Yes, the animation was clearly made on the turing-complete system I discussed above.

So the answer is: I'm not a computer, Pink Thing, I can't do that. Why don't you calculate it for me and let me know?

^_~

hS

As stated before, the solution can be anything as long as it fits the question asked. It's not a true logic puzzle - it depends on the target's inherent acceptance that because they are told it is, the solution will follow the rules usually followed in logic puzzles. In essence, they were trolling Twilight. Unless you know the trick, most people aren't going to get it at all.

I'm going with what one of the video's commenters said, which is, and I quote:

"How many stars are there in the night sky?
The answer is "There are [insert number here] stars in the night sky."

The answer can involve ANY number, because technically any number from 1 to infinity is correct. It's not about finding the COMPLETE number of stars; it's about stating that there ARE stars in the sky in the first place. You have to give a "correct answer."

Twilight always got it wrong because she only said a number, instead of that there were stars in the sky.

Get it?"

I don't get it. I watched it twice, and while there probably is an answer, I'm not clever enough to get it.