Determining the number of epochs by e.g. averaging the number of epochs for the folds and use it for the test run later on?
Shortest possible answer: Yes!
But let me add some context...
I believe you are referring to Section 7.8, pages 246ff, on Early Stopping in the Deep Learning book. The described procedure there, however, is significantly different from yours. Goodfellow et al. suggest to split your data in three sets first: a training, dev, and test set. Then, you train (on the training set) until the error from that model increases (on the dev set), at which point you stop. Finally, you use the trained model that had the lowest dev set error and evaluate it on the test set. No cross-validation involved at all.
However, you seem to be trying to do both early stopping (ES) and cross-validation (CV), as well as model evaluation all on the same set. That is, you seem to be using all your data for CV, training on each split with ES, and then using the average performance over those CV splits as your final evaluation results. If that is the case, that indeed is stark over-fitting (and certainly not what is described by Goodfellow et al.), and your approach gives you exactly the opposite result of what ES is meant for -- as a regularization technique to prevent over-fitting. If it is not clear why: Because you've "peaked" at your final evaluation instances during training time to figure out when to ("early") stop training; That is, you are optimizing against the evaluation instances during training, which is (over-) fitting your model (on that evaluation data), by definition.
So by now, I hope to have answered your other [two] questions.
The answer by the higgs broson (to your last question, as cited above) already gives a meaningful way to combine CV and ES to save you some training time: You could split your full data in two sets only - a dev and a test set - and use the dev set to do CV while applying ES on each split. That is, you train on each split of your dev set, and stop once the lowest error on the training instances you set aside for evaluating that split has been reached [1]. Then you average the number of epochs needed to reach that lowest error from each split and train on the full dev set for that (averaged) number of epochs. Finally, you validate that outcome on the test set you set aside and haven't touched yet.
[1] Though unlike the higgs broson I would recommend to evaluate after every epoch. Two reasons for that: (1), comparative to training, the evaluation time will be negligible. (2), imagine your min. error is at epoch 51, but you evaluate at epoch 50 and 60. It isn't unlikely that the error at epoch 60 will be lower than at epoch 50; Yet, you would choose 60 as your epoch parameter, which clearly is sub-optimal and in fact even going a bit against the purpose of using ES in the first place.
Best Answer
You can use both approaches, i.e. use the same validation split for early stopping and for hyperparameter tuning or have two validation splits, one for hyperparameter validation and one for early stopping.
The first option will give you somewhat biased results since you report the validation error of a network that has "seen" the validation data during the training (in the form of choosing the optimal early stopping point using this data). On the other hand, it is easier to implement and requires less data. If you are aware of this bias and its implications, using this approach may be acceptable.
However, the second option (two separate validation splits) is more precise and thus preferable.