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?

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.

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.

2. 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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Bug your indian friends by calling Ketchup a tomato curry.

73.5

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.

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

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".

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

Depends how fine the grains are

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