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?
this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
55 points (92.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43826 readers
866 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- 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.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
A "layer" of sand is not a pile. 2 or more sand grains stacked could be a pile but it's barely visible.
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.
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.
My 2Β’:
- 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.
- 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?
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
Ship it π
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?
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.
But if you did balance it, wouldn't it be a pile, albeit a delicate one?
Yep
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
Three. Just two grains is a stack.
That's very arrangement dependent!
What if they are side by side
they are not a stack then
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.
137
I was always taught 138 but that's just me.
What the fuck??
138 gang assemble!
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 itβs a pile depends on whether the sand is actually piled up.
You only need three if you can balance one grain of sand on two
βπͺ¨
πͺ¨πͺ¨
Man I can't get this spacing right. You get what I mean
Nah that doesnt count. It cant be just one grain thick (from the side), it has to be roughly cone-shaped.
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
If you think about it, every grain of sand is resting on itself
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.
As many as it takes to stack the grains, so it least 2.
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
We should focus on the circumference-to-height ratio.
When the sands of the hour glass feel like the days of our time.
73.5
At what point is a sauce not a curry, soup or drink?
Bug your indian friends by calling Ketchup a tomato curry.
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.
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".
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
Depends how fine the grains are
I'd call it a pile almost no matter how small it was.
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.
I want to know the exact count of grains that fit into a Butt