If two cookies are fused together on the pan, but have a clear cleavage between them, is it one or two cookies

Question

they are freshly baked, but touching with a clear cleavage between them. They would break apart if picked up warm, but stay together if let to cool first. I am in a huge arguement with my roomate about this, and we have taken to physics to make new points, but this is a better forum.

V=it all depends on what and how much they share to me it would be one kid with four arms. if the nachos are stuck together is one nacho! so if i was to eat that that would be one cookie.
B=I disagree. There are clearly two cookies, the cleavage between them cells the story. I mean if you have two babies attached at the feet, is it one our two kids? I say one. When you can clearly see the seperation that is supose to be between two entirely seperate objects, there are two instead of one.and on another note, of you were to pick up say cookie by either left of right side, it would seperate at the crease. therefore, without extending yourself into unheard of boundaries of manual cookie manipulation, you would have to agree that there was two cookies instead of one.
V=A hot crossed bun is one bun and not four. This here cookie is like a chocolate bar of cookies. bar of chocolate is a single chocolate entity and can be separated into smaller pieces.

more-
b=well we could calculate both the density and the cookie-cookie fusion ratios using simpe mathmetics. By taking into account the amount of powders (x) with butter (y) and chocolate pudding (z), we could create a ratio of non-adhesive to adhesive ingredients. Using the length of the pan as a template, the size of the cookie can be solved using a simple ratio of size in a program such as image J. Next, we would need to calculate the sheer force generated be lifting one side of the cookie, causing a fulcrum at the aforementioned cleavage. This can be tested using the formula , t=2UG/V where
V = shear force at that location G=gravity, and U=the constant. Now if the adhesion of the cookies is greater than the shear stress created by the manual lifting, the cookie will stay together. But if the opposite is the case, as I would expect judging by the limited depth and the meltedness of the chocolate chips, there would be two distinct cookies, meaning vic is wrong and bradley is right

v=see your formula might be correct if you were dealing with cookie dough but since this is a cookie you forgot about baking which decreases density by increasing volume and at the same time strengthens the bond between the two cookies.
B=Ok, just consulted with some experts in the field of cookie baking dynamics, or in science terms koekjeology (latin for small sweet cake science). While conceding that the baking soda in the batter would inevitivly lead to an enlarging of the dough and an overall decreased densisty, they argue that the adhesion between said ingredients would decrease. The heat from the oven would liquify most materials, leaving them inbetween the molten and solid state. In addition to this, I have remembered that the pan that the cookies were on was not greased or oiled, and judging by its rustic appearance, it was not a new teflon coated non-stick pan. This brings us to an interesting point. As the cookies cool, they will inevitivly shrink to a smaller size,

as most compounds do as they advance from a molten to solid state. This shrinking force would cause tension in between the two cookies enough to break them apart if they were held still. Now if the static friction holding the cookie to the pan is greater than the attraction forces in the cleavage between the cookies (which I would say was the case), the cookies would fracture at the cleavage, leaving us with two distinct cookies, instead on one siamese cookie!!
V=who in their right mind would peel a cookie from the baking sheet! when have you not used a spatula. THe saptula therefore carefully seperates the cookies from the pan and therefore makes the sticking of the cookie to the pan minimal and therefore irrelevant. the only factor that should be considered is the effect of gravity on the strenght of the cookie-cookie cleavege point. I'am currently in the process of testimng my hypothesis at the Attkins Institue of Cookie Dynamics.

Although we are using oatmeal cookies with chocolate chips this is a valid experiment because the actual density of the otameal cookies is much greater then that of the cookie in question. This would therefore prooe that my hypothesis is infact correct

Answer 1

It's a cake now..... Or what ever you like.

Answer 2

Forget physics, you should apply biology!
The cookies share the same DNA, therefore they are genetically identical. There has been medical/philosophical debate for many years as to whether conjoined twins should be separated and I think you are facing the same ethical dilemma.
At the moment you have conjoined cookies, actually quite common in the cookie kingdom.
From a medical and surgical perspective, can each cookie survive independently?
The risk is that one or both cookies may die on the operating table. Is the risk acceptable?
Have you spoken with the cookies next of kin (that would be the other cookies) and taken their wishes into account?
Twins also often have a "sixth sense" about each other, if one cookie survives, will it cope without the other?
Perhaps euthanasia is the best option. Respect the cookie, give thanks for the cookie, and eat the cookie!

Answer 3

This is a great question. I can see how a debate would ensue. Let's look at this from a biological perspective. If a child was born with two fully developed fingers fused together in the womb they would function as one finger. However, a simple procedure can separate them into two fully functioning fingers post-delivery.

Once separated, the two fingers like the two cookies have all the necessary characteristics of a whole. If an non-fused cookie or finger were divided in two they would not possess all of the characteristics of a whole.

In conclusion, albeit deformed, the two cookies are still two cookies fused or separated.

Answer 4

depends how much they have fused together, If the fuse is larger than say, one quarter the circumference then I would call them two seperae cookies, however X can be broken into Y and Z without disfigurement then it would still count as two.

Or if the two sides are not balanced then its probably best that you call it one then feed it to your dog or you will probably spend the next term debating over who eats which.

Answer 5

1 cookie

Answer 6

Think of them as Siamese Cookies, you know, kind of like Siamese Twins! They are two separate cookies in one cookie body. You both win.

Answer 7

Are siamese twins 1 or 2 people?

You have 2 cookies.... :)

Answer 8

You said in the question that those are two cookies.

But to be sure, look up the definition of a cookie and see if what you have matches it.

Answer 9

I think it is two cookies, just my view point. Also, I would just break it apart when unloading it from the pan. This is a really good question, and also a very important topic to dicuss with others like roomates!
ok, im this kid's older sister and i think that there is only one cookie. it's just oddly shaped duh!!!! but seriously this is interesting so im gonna star this!!!!!!
~who is gonna eat it/them????

Answer 10

1 cookie.

Answer 11

hmmm very hard decision, I'd say two because they were intended to be two but it would be great to have a very large cookie because then there would be more!! Hmmm I want a cookie now!! lol