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?

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

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

      –🪨

      🪨🪨

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

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 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

  • los_chill@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    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?

  • 200ok@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    My 2¢:

    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?

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      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

    • fishos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      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?

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 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

  • criitz@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 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).

  • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 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”.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 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

  • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 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

  • spittingimage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

    • livus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 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.