I agree with your general idea but disagree with the language used.<p>I believe that the quantity known as a &#x27;heap&#x27; has an internet element of vagueness; that is it is not known the precise quantity of the heap.  Or some specific property may be known but not all.<p>You might start by saying:<p>* This is a heap of wheat grain. -- As you know it is wheat the set includes any quantity larger than 0 (for nothing is nothing, though a container for heaps of wheat might be empty it&#x27;s self).<p>* This is a heap of wheat grain weighing a kilogram. -- The number of grains, and possibly the volume and average grain sizes within the &#x27;heap&#x27; are unknown, but now the heap has an additional bound, it weighs, within some range of error, a kilogram.<p>* A pile of 400 grains of wheat is exactly that.  There is sufficient detail (an enumerate of the aggregate) that eliminates the vagueness implied by &#x27;heap&#x27;, though it would not be grammatically incorrect to introduce it thus:<p>This heap of wheat grain is comprised of 400 grains of wheat.