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?

  • fishos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 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?

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

      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.

      • fishos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

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