Sandwich/Sandwiches

[JimBentley]

It's two sandwiches. I could have something like a baguette, except thirty feet long, then insert various delicious fillings all the way along its length and I'd have made a very long sandwich. Obviously this would be impractical in an eating-type situation so it would be sensible to cut it into smaller pieces, maybe forty pieces each nine inches long. I'd call that forty sandwiches.

[Jon Corby]

7-9 in favour of "2 sandwiches"? Retards.

Are you not the retard for getting that the wrong way round?
Or am I the retard for reading something wrong?
I think what is clear is that one of us is a retard.

Oh yeah it was me. Changed it now!

[Jon Corby]

Of course, if you were going for a universal decree on whether it's definitely one or the other, this requires lots more reasoning. In shops today (and people have mentioned this before me), for example supermarkets, your average sandwich is a two-triangle affair.

Are you referring to the two triangles as being pieces of bread (ie so a standard pack contains two sandwiches) or are you calling that one? Sorry, I'm unclear.

If it helps:

[George Jenkins]

However, I fear that we'll never know what the major chains think as they don't do square sandwiches, as far as I know.

Greggs do a small range of rectangular sandwiches but I have never tried them. Like I said I'm a triangle man.

Rectangular sandwiches offend me because they look like they're meant to insult people. Just the way they look leads me to believe they are wrong. I think that if anyone offered someone a rectangular sandwich, they would just walk away because it's the right thing to do. I just can't eat one without making myself feel really bad.

I eat food to live. Anything except White cabbage stalks. But I'd eat them if I was hungry enough.
It must be because of my training before the war, when on one Xmas day we had a plate of boiled rice for our Xmas dinner.

[Neil Zussman]

Each of the packs in Corby's picture clearly contains 3 sandwiches- just imagine if they were a variety pack, containing say one egg sandwich one tuna sandwich and one jam sandwich- that's 3 sandwiches. So if you got 2 slices of bread and made, say, an egg sandwich, then cut it in half, you'd have two triangles. Let's say you then packed it and sold it. You'd be selling 2 sandwiches, in the same way as the packages in the picture contain 3 sandwiches. You can't say they both contain one sandwich! Hence the first option in the poll is correct. QED.

Hilarious thread incidentally.

Next week: How long is a piece of string?

[Simon Myers]

It seems that the problem of sandwich/sandwiches is a contentious issue. If we are careful we can easily see how this is actually a false dichotomy. Allow me to explain.

I propose some sort of axiomatic sandwich theory from which we can build a unifying notion of what it means to be a sandwich. Sandwiches are quite complicated, so we will need to build some auxiliary structures before getting to the filling of the definition.

• The trivial element of bread is the crumb.
• The binary operation defined on crumbs is composition of crumbs (perhaps requiring some sort of formative action such as baking). After this formation has taken place, the object formed is called a loaf of bread.
• A slice is defined as a cohesive unit of composed crumbs created by the deliberate slicing of a loaf of bread.
• A sandwich is therefore a closed union of two slices joined via juxtaposition, potentially via some substrate (filling).

Thus we have defined a sandwich (at least, the particular kind brought up here - baguettes, baps, buns, rolls, etc can be dealt with separately).

So now back to the original argument. What does it mean when you cut a sandwich (as defined above) in half? So let us extend our definition:

• A subsandwich is a sandwich which was formed by the slicing of a sandwich into any number of equal and symmetric parts, or the folding thereof (this deals with sandwiches formed from folding one slice of bread).

Therefore, a sandwich cut into two halves is both two halves of a sandwich (actually two subsandwiches) and two sandwiches in their own right. Note that this definition covers both sandwiches cut into rectangles and those cut along the diagonal.

"Ah!" You say, "What about sandwiches that have the crusts cut off?", or "I like to cut my sandwiches differently!" While this is out of the scope of the original post we can see how these might be dealt with appropriately:

• A semisandwich is a sandwich which was formed by any irregular (where irregular means not into equal, symmetric parts) slicing of a sandwich which does not produce a majority of crust.

The definition of crust is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Michael Wallace]

Each of the packs in Corby's picture clearly contains 3 sandwiches- just imagine if they were a variety pack, containing say one egg sandwich one tuna sandwich and one jam sandwich- that's 3 sandwiches. So if you got 2 slices of bread and made, say, an egg sandwich, then cut it in half, you'd have two triangles. Let's say you then packed it and sold it. You'd be selling 2 sandwiches, in the same way as the packages in the picture contain 3 sandwiches. You can't say they both contain one sandwich! Hence the first option in the poll is correct. QED.

But that's precisely the discussion that's been had - cf. Phil's comments in particular. I think most of us agree that if you buy a packet of sandwiches, you have multiple sandwiches - but the question is if *you* have a sandwich and *you* cut it in half, what do you call it. That's what the poll asks, not whether you think two triangles in a packet in Sainsbury's is two sandwiches or one.

[Ian Volante]

I think it's bloody amazing that there's a market for pre-packed sarnies at two or three pounds per pack. You could buy a loaf and enough cheese/ham/veganity to feed a family for a day for that price.

Sorry, is my Yorkshireness showing again?

[Michael Wallace]

I think it's bloody amazing that there's a market for pre-packed sarnies at two or three pounds per pack. You could buy a loaf and enough cheese/ham/veganity to feed a family for a day for that price.

Sorry, is my Yorkshireness showing again?

Nah, I think the same. The only times you'll catch me buying a pre-packed sandwich are if a) it's reduced to about 20p. or ii) if I'm about to get on a coach at Victoria and need to eat something *and* am feeling in need of something nicer than a bagel or something (I usually find it very hard to convince my self in such circumstances that £1.10 for the cheapest form of sandwich is better value than a couple of 20p bagels).

[Ian Volante]

It seems that the problem of sandwich/sandwiches is a contentious issue. If we are careful we can easily see how this is actually a false dichotomy. Allow me to explain.

I propose some sort of axiomatic sandwich theory from which we can build a unifying notion of what it means to be a sandwich. Sandwiches are quite complicated, so we will need to build some auxiliary structures before getting to the filling of the definition.

• The trivial element of bread is the crumb.
• The binary operation defined on crumbs is composition of crumbs (perhaps requiring some sort of formative action such as baking). After this formation has taken place, the object formed is called a loaf of bread.
• A slice is defined as a cohesive unit of composed crumbs created by the deliberate slicing of a loaf of bread.
• A sandwich is therefore a closed union of two slices joined via juxtaposition, potentially via some substrate (filling).

Thus we have defined a sandwich (at least, the particular kind brought up here - baguettes, baps, buns, rolls, etc can be dealt with separately).

So now back to the original argument. What does it mean when you cut a sandwich (as defined above) in half? So let us extend our definition:

• A subsandwich is a sandwich which was formed by the slicing of a sandwich into any number of equal and symmetric parts, or the folding thereof (this deals with sandwiches formed from folding one slice of bread).

Therefore, a sandwich cut into two halves is both two halves of a sandwich (actually two subsandwiches) and two sandwiches in their own right. Note that this definition covers both sandwiches cut into rectangles and those cut along the diagonal.

"Ah!" You say, "What about sandwiches that have the crusts cut off?", or "I like to cut my sandwiches differently!" While this is out of the scope of the original post we can see how these might be dealt with appropriately:

• A semisandwich is a sandwich which was formed by any irregular (where irregular means not into equal, symmetric parts) slicing of a sandwich which does not produce a majority of crust.

The definition of crust is left as an exercise for the reader.

Prove, by induction or otherwise, why Marmite tastes of bum no matter how the bread is cut.

[Matt Morrison]

I think most of us agree that if you buy a packet of sandwiches, you have multiple sandwiches

I have a funny feeling (if any of you have packets close to hand, do divulge) that most of the major supermarkets would refer to the overall packet as a, for example, "Cheese and Onion sandwich", they wouldn't write "Cheese and Onion sandwiches" on the packet. It's been a while since I bought one admittedly, but I am sure that's the case?

[Matt Morrison]

The only times you'll catch me buying a pre-packed sandwich are...

See, took all of a few minutes before it became an individual sandwich again

[Michael Wallace]

The only times you'll catch me buying a pre-packed sandwich are...

See, took all of a few minutes before it became an individual sandwich again

I said 'most of us agree' - I didn't say I was in the subset of 'us' who does agree

[Neil Zussman]

Each of the packs in Corby's picture clearly contains 3 sandwiches- just imagine if they were a variety pack, containing say one egg sandwich one tuna sandwich and one jam sandwich- that's 3 sandwiches. So if you got 2 slices of bread and made, say, an egg sandwich, then cut it in half, you'd have two triangles. Let's say you then packed it and sold it. You'd be selling 2 sandwiches, in the same way as the packages in the picture contain 3 sandwiches. You can't say they both contain one sandwich! Hence the first option in the poll is correct. QED.

But that's precisely the discussion that's been had - cf. Phil's comments in particular. I think most of us agree that if you buy a packet of sandwiches, you have multiple sandwiches - but the question is if *you* have a sandwich and *you* cut it in half, what do you call it. That's what the poll asks, not whether you think two triangles in a packet in Sainsbury's is two sandwiches or one.

But consider the person who made the sandwich. They performed the task I outlined earlier- making a sandwich and cutting it in two. By your argument they still have one sandwich. Now they put it in a packet. We just agreed that if you went into a shop and bought said packet, you'd have two sandwiches. So there must have been two sandwiches to start with, as soon as they were in their current form (i.e. after the cutting). Or are you saying that the same entity can be viewed by two different people as two entirely different things?

[Michael Wallace]

But consider the person who made the sandwich. They performed the task I outlined earlier- making a sandwich and cutting it in two. By your argument they still have one sandwich. Now they put it in a packet. We just agreed that if you went into a shop and bought said packet, you'd have two sandwiches. So there must have been two sandwiches to start with, as soon as they were in their current form (i.e. after the cutting). Or are you saying that the same entity can be viewed by two different people as two entirely different things?

Well first off I don't think two half sandwiches in a packet are two sandwiches. I can just understand that view more than considering a sandwich you've cut in half yourself to be two sandwiches (cf. the platter argument).

However, that doesn't invalidate your argument, because the platter argument still holds. I would instead say that it's the intent that's important, so to begin with they are one or the other. If one's mind is changed about the intent for the sandwiches then I reckon it's retrospectively altered, since, from our perspective, there is only one actual outcome for any one (set of) sandwich(es). I went to a seminar recently discussing this idea, actually.

[Matt Morrison]

are you saying that the same entity can be viewed by two different people as two entirely different things?

I have a funny feeling that that is exactly what everyone has been saying since post one

[Phil Reynolds]

• A sandwich is therefore a closed union of two slices joined via juxtaposition, potentially via some substrate (filling).

Thus we have defined a sandwich

No you haven't. You've defined a round of sandwiches. The sandwiches themselves only become defined by the action of cutting up the round. Once you have divided the round into two, or four, or however many (or even, as a special case, left the round as one large and unwieldy food item), the items you have made are sandwiches. If you subsequently cut one of them in two, you have two half sandwiches.

What's the difference? you may say. It's partly a question of intent, and partly a sense of perceived completeness of the task. What size sandwiches did you set out to make - two per round? four per round? At what point in the preparation do you feel that you have finished making the sandwiches? (The second point is important because you may set out to make a round comprising two sandwiches, but change your mind at some point and cut the round into four instead.) Whatever the route by which you got there, at some point you will have deemed the preparation to be complete and the sandwiches ready for consumption. At that point (and not before), each separate piece you have made is a sandwich. If you subsequently cut them in half, you are making half sandwiches.

[Michael Wallace]

Phil talks a lot of sense for a poofter.

[Matt Morrison]

No you haven't. You've defined a round of sandwiches. The sandwiches themselves only become defined by the action of cutting up the round. Once you have divided the round into two, or four, or however many (or even, as a special case, left the round as one large and unwieldy food item), the items you have made are sandwiches.

Hang on. Are you now denying that slice-filling-slice is a sandwich if it hasn't been cut?

[Ralph Gillions]

The difficulties of describing and defining a sandwich have gone on for decades.
Over many years with my family and in workplaces people who have asked
for a sandwich have in return been asked:
"Is that one round or two" or
"2 halves or 4 quarters?" or more usually
"How many slices of bread?"
It seems "a sandwich" has too many variables and so needs to be decribed.

[Phil Reynolds]

No you haven't. You've defined a round of sandwiches. The sandwiches themselves only become defined by the action of cutting up the round. Once you have divided the round into two, or four, or however many (or even, as a special case, left the round as one large and unwieldy food item), the items you have made are sandwiches.

Hang on. Are you now denying that slice-filling-slice is a sandwich if it hasn't been cut?

There's no "now" about it. My assertion is unchanged. What you call "slice-filling-slice" is not a sandwich until it's been cut unless the uncut round is what you set out to make and intend to serve.

[Matt Morrison]

No you haven't. You've defined a round of sandwiches. The sandwiches themselves only become defined by the action of cutting up the round. Once you have divided the round into two, or four, or however many (or even, as a special case, left the round as one large and unwieldy food item), the items you have made are sandwiches.

Hang on. Are you now denying that slice-filling-slice is a sandwich if it hasn't been cut?

There's no "now" about it. My assertion is unchanged. What you call "slice-filling-slice" is not a sandwich until it's been cut unless the uncut round is what you set out to make and intend to serve.

Yeah that's okay. I'll accept your comment with the italic disclaimer added.
Clearly despite all our arguments about cutting, the thing that makes it a sandwich is the sandwiching of a filling between two filling-containers (generally slices of bread).
I thought you were trying to be some cutting fascist... I very rarely bother cutting my sandwiches.

[Simon Myers]

• A sandwich is therefore a closed union of two slices joined via juxtaposition, potentially via some substrate (filling).

Thus we have defined a sandwich

No you haven't. You've defined a round of sandwiches. The sandwiches themselves only become defined by the action of cutting up the round. Once you have divided the round into two, or four, or however many (or even, as a special case, left the round as one large and unwieldy food item), the items you have made are sandwiches. If you subsequently cut one of them in two, you have two half sandwiches.

What's the difference? you may say. It's partly a question of intent, and partly a sense of perceived completeness of the task. What size sandwiches did you set out to make - two per round? four per round? At what point in the preparation do you feel that you have finished making the sandwiches? (The second point is important because you may set out to make a round comprising two sandwiches, but change your mind at some point and cut the round into four instead.) Whatever the route by which you got there, at some point you will have deemed the preparation to be complete and the sandwiches ready for consumption. At that point (and not before), each separate piece you have made is a sandwich. If you subsequently cut them in half, you are making half sandwiches.

Yes I have, by definition. You may make your own definition if you wish but using the axioms I defined, my definition of sandwich is valid (irrespective of unrelated mistakes I've probably made - I did only spend 5 minutes on it after all).

By analogy, if you take the group of the integers under addition and "cut it into half" to make the group of even integers, it is both a subgroup of the integers and a full-fledged group by itself. The axioms for a sandwich and the axioms for groups don't care about your intention, but often you can find them presented in a context where they can unambiguously be referred to in a specific light ("take the group 2Z of even integers" instead of "take the subgroup of Z, 2Z of even integers", "fancy a sandwich from the buffet plate?" instead of "fancy a quarter-sandwich from the buffet plate?").

[Phil Reynolds]

Phil talks a lot of sense for a poofter.

Lucidity of thought processes is a well known side effect of not having a lapful of squirming babies.

[Paul Howe]

This is going to be more popular than GOTW

I knew this would happen

Get a rock, bash it with an axe, and you have two rocks. Bash those rocks and you get more rocks, until eventually you get down to stones and pebbles.

Cut a sandwich in half, and both halves have open faces, some crusts (unless you're a deviant) and a delicious filling, i.e. they're sandwiches, regardless of this obfuscatory bollocks about the intent of the sandwich creator. I think both "half a sandwich" and "sandwich" are correct descriptions - there's no inconsitency as sandiwches are effectively composed of smaller sandwiches, until you get down to an atomic sandwich which can't be further cut without degenerating into pile of crumbs and filling (i.e. rocks and pebbles). As a side effect, you should be able to do induction on sandwiches.

[Phil Reynolds]

By analogy, if you take the group of the integers under addition and "cut it into half" to make the group of even integers, it is both a subgroup of the integers and a full-fledged group by itself. The axioms for a sandwich and the axioms for groups don't care about your intention, but often you can find them presented in a context where they can unambiguously be referred to in a specific light ("take the group 2Z of even integers" instead of "take the subgroup of Z, 2Z of even integers", "fancy a sandwich from the buffet plate?" instead of "fancy a quarter-sandwich from the buffet plate?").

You can talk as prettily as you like - I'm not having sex with you and that's that.

[Kirk Bevins]

I don't like this half a sandwich shit. I give you a sandwich and you say "ah it's a sandwich" and I'd agree. Then someone comes over and says "haha, fooled you, it's actually half a sandwich as this is the other half" (holding up half of the sandwich he nicked earlier). Even though you're looking at half a sandwich, you were perfectly happy to call it a sandwich.

Therefore, cutting a sandwich in half creates two sandwiches, not half-sandwiches (as we haven't defined a specific size for a sandwich).

[Jon Corby]

Fuck sandwiches, where has the missing 1% of poll answers gone?

[Michael Wallace]

Fuck sandwiches, where has the missing 1% of poll answers gone?

Haha, I wonder if it takes the integer part rather than the nearest integer (since 14/27 = 0.518 recurring).

[Kirk Bevins]

Fuck sandwiches, where has the missing 1% of poll answers gone?

Haha, nicely inserted. Not sure how you did that. Yeah, 14/27 is 0.518 recurring and thus should read 52%. Silly forum.

Edit: Was beaten by seconds by corona boy.

[Michael Wallace]

Haha, nicely inserted. Not sure how you did that. Yeah, 14/27 is 0.518 recurring

That's what YOUR MOM said.

[Phil Reynolds]

Get a rock, bash it with an axe, and you have two rocks.

You can't compare a sandwich with a rock. It's more like a sculpted piece of stone. A sculptor starts with a lump of formless stone and chips away at until he is satisfied the sculpture is complete. At some point we might look at it and say, yes, that's a sculpture; but the sculptor himself may still be planning to chip a few more millimetres off the nose, or even to rework the sculpture into two smaller ones. It's only truly a sculpture once the sculptor declares that he's finished. If some clod then breaks it in half, it's two half sculptures.

Anyway, why has no one yet addressed the far more controversial question I posed earlier, viz: is it a "sand-widge" or a "sand-witch"?

[Matt Morrison]

is it a "sand-widge" or a "sand-witch"?

"sand-widge"... though to be honest, having just said it aloud a few times, I think my 'd' in the middle is fairly silent, more like "sam-widge" but not quite THAT silent.
Hmm, can I spell it with half a 'd'?

Anyway, glad you re-posted that question - I thought I was going to have to work on some disgusting joke about your "lapful of squirming babies".

[Ian Volante]

Get a rock, bash it with an axe, and you have two rocks.

You can't compare a sandwich with a rock. It's more like a sculpted piece of stone. A sculptor starts with a lump of formless stone and chips away at until he is satisfied the sculpture is complete. At some point we might look at it and say, yes, that's a sculpture; but the sculptor himself may still be planning to chip a few more millimetres off the nose, or even to rework the sculpture into two smaller ones. It's only truly a sculpture once the sculptor declares that he's finished. If some clod then breaks it in half, it's two half sculptures.

Anyway, why has no one yet addressed the far more controversial question I posed earlier, viz: is it a "sand-widge" or a "sand-witch"?

More sam-wij for me really.

[Paul Howe]

Get a rock, bash it with an axe, and you have two rocks.

You can't compare a sandwich with a rock. It's more like a sculpted piece of stone. A sculptor starts with a lump of formless stone and chips away at until he is satisfied the sculpture is complete. At some point we might look at it and say, yes, that's a sculpture; but the sculptor himself may still be planning to chip a few more millimetres off the nose, or even to rework the sculpture into two smaller ones. It's only truly a sculpture once the sculptor declares that he's finished. If some clod then breaks it in half, it's two half sculptures.

Anyway, why has no one yet addressed the far more controversial question I posed earlier, viz: is it a "sand-widge" or a "sand-witch"?

Bloody hell Phil, you're going to create 4 factions instead of 2. This is how intractable religious wars start. And it's sand-widge.

I think a sand-widge is more like a rock than a sculpture, but I'm sensing I may be taking the first steps into an intractable philosophical labyrinth with that one.

Intractable intractable intractable. I really like that word.

[David Roe]

If you have a sandwich in your hand, and you eat half of it, what are you left with? Half a sandwich, or a sandwich? Half, surely.

If you eat a sandwich in 12 bites, how many sandwiches have you eaten? 1, or 12? 1, surely.

So far, I've agreed with every word Phil has said. (I think I need professional help. )

[David Roe]

Anyway, why has no one yet addressed the far more controversial question I posed earlier, viz: is it a "sand-widge" or a "sand-witch"?

Neither. In this case, you are utterly wrong. Never in the field of human conflict has any man or woman ever pronounced the 'd' in sanwitch.

(or sanwidge.)

[Phil Reynolds]

Hmm. Only two thirds of a bottle of red wine downed tonight, and I cannot for the life of me say "an intractable philosophical labyrinth" aloud. No wonder I can't get voiceover work.

[Matt Morrison]

Off-topic from sandwiches, but on-topic in terms of this post, does anyone know if this is (or is about to be) the most popular ever thread on C4C in terms of most posts in the first 24 hours? Ok, 'popular' isn't quite the right word but it will do for now. Anyway, I'm not going to go and search - figured I'd ask first as some of you guys who've been around for a lot longer than me might know where to look for other candidates for this prestigious acclaim.

[Phil Reynolds]

No wonder I can't get voiceover work.

Speaking of which, you will almost certainly recognise the voice of Peter Dickson, the bowler-hatted gentleman in this video, even if his face is unfamiliar.

[Paul Howe]

Off-topic from sandwiches, but on-topic in terms of this post, does anyone know if this is (or is about to be) the most popular ever thread on C4C in terms of most posts in the first 24 hours? Ok, 'popular' isn't quite the right word but it will do for now. Anyway, I'm not going to go and search - figured I'd ask first as some of you guys who've been around for a lot longer than me might know where to look for other candidates for this prestigious acclaim.

If it's not it must be close. 100 posts is about half of what you'd get in an entire month (a slow month, anyway) of the c4c and gevincountdown mailing lists that preceded this place. Bizarre to think how things have moved on.

Phil, when I'm a wealthy man I'll pay you to follow me round and do my dialogue (since Jeremy Irons is too expensive, and you're the next best thing).

[Daniel O'Dowd]

Re the sandwich debate; I plump for 2 sandwiches, on the grounds that we can reverse the problem thus:
If you take one single slice of bread, spread it and top it, then cut that in half, you quite obviously have one sandwich. It is plainly ludicrous to call this a half-sandwich, since you haven't used a half of anything; you've used one whole slice.
Hence, when you cut a 2-slicer, you're effectively making the equivalent of two, single-slice sandwiches, which you folded over. And isn't it always tastier when you fold the bread over instead of a clean cut?

I don't agree with your argument at all.

Take two slices, put a filling in between, cut into four squares.
Everyone else is arguing about whether to call this four sandwiches or four quarters of a sandwich, whereas by your 'slices logic' this would still be a quite nonsensical two sandwiches. And would remain two sandwiches no matter how many times you keep cutting them.

On the contrary; what you've said is in fact precisely what I meant. I mentioned that cutting 2 slices of bread into 2 pieces IMO makes two sandwiches; thus cutting into 4 makes 4. I meant to say in my first part that if you cut one slice in half and put those halves together; you have one sandwich.

[Jon Corby]

Off-topic from sandwiches, but on-topic in terms of this post, does anyone know if this is (or is about to be) the most popular ever thread on C4C in terms of most posts in the first 24 hours?

Roxanne's "dress code" thread might run this one close, but I'd also like to claim the credit for that one.

[Matt Morrison]

Off-topic from sandwiches, but on-topic in terms of this post, does anyone know if this is (or is about to be) the most popular ever thread on C4C in terms of most posts in the first 24 hours?

Roxanne's "dress code" thread might run this one close, but I'd also like to claim the credit for that one.

Why am I not surprised you're doing this for the fame Jon? For a moment, I really thought you cared about the sandwiches.

[Matt Morrison]

Roxanne's "dress code" thread might run this one close.

Just had a quick look - didn't count posts but within 24 hours that thread was 3/5ths the way down the 2nd page. It currently stands at 121 posts, over 3 pages.
This one already has 100 with a couple of hours to go, a definite winner.
By the way, how many posts to a page? I'd presumed it was 50 when I checked 'dress code' (121 posts, 3 pages) but this one has over 100 and hasn't hit the 3rd page yet.

[Jon Corby]

By the way, how many posts to a page? I'd presumed it was 50 when I checked 'dress code' (121 posts, 3 pages) but this one has over 100 and hasn't hit the 3rd page yet.

The fact that there's only one post on the 3rd page of the 121-post "dress code" thread suggests 60.

[John Bosley]

Supposing it's a baguette......?

... is the sort of thing I (and perhaps Jon Corby) were getting at. What if your so-called sandwich is made from a roll or a pitta bread or a bap or a muffin - anything with a defined boundary - then cutting it in half will clearly have you ending up with half a sandwich (or whatever you call it)

The Earl of Sandwich or whoever it was who invented it has something to answer for here. This is how wars start.

Charlie also makes the point that however many times you cut it you end up with 'a sandwich' - or perhaps a handful of crumbs if you have gone too far.

[Jon Corby]

Supposing it's a baguette......?

... is the sort of thing I (and perhaps Jon Corby) were getting at. What if your so-called sandwich is made from a roll or a pitta bread or a bap or a muffin - anything with a defined boundary - then cutting it in half will clearly have you ending up with half a sandwich (or whatever you call it)

Not really. Delicatessens will almost always offer their filled 'baguettes' actually as part-baguettes (from a much larger baguette cut into many lengths) without making the distinction clear in their product description. But that's getting off-topic a bit, that's probably for another thread.

And it's pronounced 'sammidge'.

[Nicky]

No one has yet mentioned the temporal aspect of sandwichhood. If I cut the sandwich in half in order to eat both halves myself, and I eat them at the same time (well, consecutively, not simultaneously, cos that's just silly!) it would be one sandwich (ie two halves); but if I do so in order to have one now and one later, it becomes two sandwiches. But, interestingly*, if I cut one of those halves into halves again, and only ate three quarters of the original sandwich - I have saved half a sandwich. Which should be impossible - logically, it should be classed either a quarter or a whole sandwich.

Unless the person who is eating it is on a diet. In which case it is ALWAYS only half (or quarter) of a sandwich. Even if it's a double decker sandwich. And adding salad or using brown bread makes it a healthy option - no matter what the filling is.

And now I'm going to make lunch.

*or possibly not.

[Kevin Thurlow]

To give a more serious answer.... I make 2 sandwiches for my lunch at work, viz. 4 slices of bread and 2 fillings. These are then cut into 8 approximate rectangles to fit in the sandwich box. It is still two sandwiches.....

If I have a similar lunch at home, I cut the two sandwiches with either one diagonal cut to make a right-angled triangle, or two diagonal cuts to make isosceles triangles.

But even if you use a dalek-shaped bread cutter, you still end up with two sandwiches.

But what about panini? What about triple-deckers, where there are three slices of bread and two fillings....?

An ex-colleague has a large wine glass, big enough to take a bottle of wine, but when he has finished drinking it, he has still drunk a bottle of wine, not a glass.

[Nicky]

An ex-colleague has a large wine glass, big enough to take a bottle of wine, but when he has finished drinking it, he has still drunk a bottle of wine, not a glass.

You're saying he HASN'T drunk a glass of wine? But clearly he has. If he was drinking a bottle of wine, he'd just swig it from the bottle (like me - classy ain't I? )

That's actually a great way of demonstrating that both options can be correct simultaneously. He has had both a bottle and a glass of wine. Like you could have both a can of beer and a glass of beer - if you pour it into a pint glass. Just like you have both 2 and 8 sandwiches for your lunch. Schrödinger's lunchbox anyone?

[Matt Morrison]

By the way, how many posts to a page? I'd presumed it was 50 when I checked 'dress code' (121 posts, 3 pages) but this one has over 100 and hasn't hit the 3rd page yet.

The fact that there's only one post on the 3rd page of the 121-post "dress code" thread suggests 60.

That is definitely the sort of thing I should have checked myself. Oops. Still, 60 is an odd number isn't it?
and if you're quoting this post in order to make the "no, it's an even number" joke, then HA!

[Charlie Reams]

It was 50, and then at some point I felt that was too low and changed it to 60. Because I'm just kerrrrazy like that.

[Michael Wallace]

It was 50, and then at some point I felt that was too low and changed it to 60. Because I'm just kerrrrazy like that.

Clearly this is too much power for just one man.

[Jon Corby]

and if you're quoting this post in order to make the "no, it's an even number" joke, then HA!

Haha, I'll admit you got me

[Matt Morrison]

and if you're quoting this post in order to make the "no, it's an even number" joke, then HA!

Haha, I'll admit you got me

I reckon I got Charlie too, he's just too proud to admit it!

[Naomi Laddiman]

A sandwich cut in 2 becomes 2 sandwiches, but a piece of toast cut in 2 becomes 2 halves. I have no explanation, it just is!
Were you bored at work yesterday Jon? You've obviously got too much time on your hands coming up with this thread!
It's sanwidges for me.

[Charlie Reams]

and if you're quoting this post in order to make the "no, it's an even number" joke, then HA!

Haha, I'll admit you got me

I reckon I got Charlie too, he's just too proud to admit it!

Actually I didn't quote your message for some reason, which is a shame, because that's kind of cool. I hope when this forum is studied by anthropologists in thousands of years, one of them notices your subtextual comment and gets a PhD for it.

[Michael Wallace]

Actually I didn't quote your message for some reason, which is a shame, because that's kind of cool. I hope when this forum is studied by anthropologists in thousands of years, one of them notices your subtextual comment and gets a PhD for it.

Wait, so if I could build a time machine then all I'd have to do is point that out to get a PhD? Clearly I've been wasting my time on this statistics lark.

[Matt Morrison]

I'm down with that, so long as I get some kind of honorary posthumous degree out of it too
Just hope I haven't started a trend of people trying to protect themselves against cheesy jokes being made, Corby would be out of a job.