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?
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?
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 2¢:
- 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 🚀
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
So, not really and answer to this specific question, but if you like this kind of problem I suggest looking up “emergent phenomena.” It’s basically about how scale can gradually but drastically change the behavior of a system. Going back to sand, for example. At an atomic level, sand is a solid, and just a couple of grains of sand behave very much like particles. But, when you get enough sand together, it starts behaving like a liquid.
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!
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
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.
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.
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
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
We should focus on the circumference-to-height ratio.
When the sands of the hour glass feel like the days of our time.
At what point is a sauce not a curry, soup or drink?
Bug your indian friends by calling Ketchup a tomato curry.
73.5
