• deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Unlike children, and some adults, I don’t eat sand, be it in a heap or not, so I’m not entirely convinced that’s the right model either.

    Interesting “paradox” though, as the initial premise of one million grains of sand being a heap falls over as it doesn’t specify the structure of the sand: which is what defines a heap of anything.

    • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      You think that’s a worse fit than: If I replace parts of a thing with SOMETHING ELSE is it still the same thing? The ship of theseus is more well known, but you would need to eat sand to think it’s a good fit IMO.

      As an aside, the structure of the heap has nothing to do with it. The point is simply “when does a heap stop being a heap if I remove one grain at a time?” That is the same is the same as when does food stop being food if you make it poop one bit at a time. If you don’t like “heap” you can call it a pile WLOG.

      • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        If I spread a million grain heap of sand out evenly over a plane such that the grains are still touching it’s no longer a heap. Therefore the heap is a structure not a numeric quantity.

        You think that’s a worse fit than…

        I said no such thing.