this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
56 points (93.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43290 readers
784 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm of the view that this is a semantic question where we have a word, "pile", that describes a general amount but doesn't have a specified quantity to it, and so the only way we can determine the amount of units required to constitute a pile at the bare minimum, is through public consensus on the most commonly shared idea we generally have when we think of a pile.

I also think it's possible for there to be a "range of graduation" between a non-pile and a pile, so for example "a non-pile becomes a pile somewhere between x grains and x grains" (depending on what most people think this range is), and if a given number of grains falls below this range, it would necessarily be only a minority of people that would still accept it to be a pile.

So I plan to count the answers here and see if we can come to some kind of consensus or at least most common or average opinion. For sake of not skewing the results, I won't suggest my opinion on what I think the number or range of grains is upon which a non-pile becomes a pile. What do you think it is?

all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 32 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I understand "pile" more as an orientation than an amount. You could have a million grains of sand all in a row and I'd call it something like a "line" of sand rather than a "pile". To that end I'd say the minimum would maybe be 4 grains arranged in a triangular pyramid?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

A "layer" of sand is not a pile. 2 or more sand grains stacked could be a pile but it's barely visible.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It becomes a pile at the point where any further grains dropped are likely to come to rest on top of existing grains. So there's not a specific number, but a statistical change in behaviour to be a pile.

My 2c.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

I agree with @spittingimage. "Pile" implies height.

I would call it a pile as soon as it reaches pile-shape. Shape, not quantity, is the determining factor.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (2 children)

My 2Β’:

  1. If there is only one "pile":
  • then 4 grains makes a pile. 3 grains form a base and 1 grain on top, making it three dimensional.
  1. If there is more than one "pile":
  • then 2 separated grains makes a pile each. Because you can point to each singular grain and say "this pile..", for example.

Thoughts?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I just replied to another comment before reading yours with basically the same thought with regard to a single "pile", so I'm going to say we're on to something lol

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Ship it πŸš€

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

2 grains side by side with a grain on top perpendicular makes a 3 pile. Two rocks balanced on top of each other is a pile, yes?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I added an extra grain for a stable base. In my opinion it would be difficult to balance with only two grains for a base but it's possible.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

But if you did balance it, wouldn't it be a pile, albeit a delicate one?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago

It's a famous problem which cannot be answered. It is meant to illustrate the vagueness of natural language and the need for structured communication for technical subjects where precision matters

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Three. Just two grains is a stack.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

That's very arrangement dependent!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What if they are side by side

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

they are not a stack then

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

As many others have said, "pile" is not about number: it's about distribution. I'd suggest trying to specify the overall slope of a number of objects or something: if it rises at a certain rate it becomes a pile rather than a layer, up until it becomes a tower. Or something like that.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I was always taught 138 but that's just me.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

What the fuck??

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

138 gang assemble!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I don't think there is a specific number of grains where something becomes a pile. The state of being a pile is determined by qualities that are correlated but not strictly proportional to the number of grains.

In this way, two sets of sand grains could have the same number of grains, but not both be considered a "pile", depending on their arrangement etc. Similarly, you could take a pile of sand grains and make it no longer a pile by changing its configuration (while keeping the grain count constant).

You could still ask what the minimum number of grains would be for something to ever be considered a pile. This is only measurable empirically, and is subjective.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

As many as it takes to stack the grains, so it least 2.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

I was thinking that, but then I thought - would I call 2 apples next to each other, or even stacked on top of the other, a "pile"? I don't think so. So I would say a stack that has a solid base, so probably at least 4 - at least 3 to form a base, and then at least one more to sit on the base, forming the "pile"

But that's just my stoned brain rambling, so make of it what you will lol

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Minimum number of grains of sand for a pile is four.

Three for the base layer, one for the second layer that makes it a pile.

Beyond that, whether it’s a pile depends on whether the sand is actually piled up.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

You only need three if you can balance one grain of sand on two

–πŸͺ¨

πŸͺ¨πŸͺ¨

Man I can't get this spacing right. You get what I mean

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Nah that doesnt count. It cant be just one grain thick (from the side), it has to be roughly cone-shaped.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Lmao even among those of us willing to push the definition of a "pile" to its absolute limits, there are differences

Imo, if you can stack one grain of sand onto another, you can have a pile of 2

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

If you think about it, every grain of sand is resting on itself

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

When the sands of the hour glass feel like the days of our time.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

We should focus on the circumference-to-height ratio.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

At what point is a sauce not a curry, soup or drink?

Bug your indian friends by calling Ketchup a tomato curry.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

A pile of sand has to be cone shaped. Anybody who didn't take a conical shape in mind for their answers should be disqualified instantly, i.e. 3. As it would take at least 4 grains of sand to get to a piramidal shape. Which would be somewhat close to conical. But still unrecognisable as a pile. I think a minimal height of 5 grains should be achieved. At an angle of 34 degrees, that's around 500 grains.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Every pile is also grains, and every grain is a bit like a pile, in that it sits on something and has one or more peaks. I'd say a pile and a grain are just separate simplifications of sand. A very small collection of grains, say 100, may be best captured by one or the other depending on application.

Why yes, I do like the pragmatist school of philosophy, why do you ask? /s

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

When you give up and stop counting, it becomes a pile.

Edi: And if you give up without even attempting to count, then it's officially a "shitload".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I'd call it a pile almost no matter how small it was.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I think it's safe to say that when you can no longer look at the grains of sand and immediately know how many grains it is, it starts being a pile. For me, that number is around a dozen. Let's just put it at 10 for a nice clean round number.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I want to know the exact count of grains that fit into a Butt

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Depends how fine the grains are