Single word to replace “allowed to be missing”
I want to express my knowledge about the presence of absence of something. My knowledge is divided into three different cases:
- I know that the thing doesn't exist.
- I don't know whether the thing exists.
- I know that the thing exists.
Sadly, neither of those is the negation of another one. However, I can define four cases, where each case is the negation of another case:
- Something is allowed to exist. (allowed)
- Something is allowed to be missing. (???)
- Something is guaranteed to exist. (guaranteed)
- Something is guaranteed to be missing. (prohibited)
I want to describe each of these cases by a single word, which is supposed to clearly distinguish it from the other three cases. As you can see, I already found three of the words. However, in the second case I am unable to find one.
Let me expand on what I mean by the negation. Consider the following table:
| phrase | single word | doesn't exist | don't know | exists |
|--------------------------|:-----------:|:-------------:|:----------:|:------:|
| allowed to exist | allowed | no | yes | yes |
| allowed to be missing | ??? | yes | yes | no |
| guaranteed to exist | guaranteed | no | no | yes |
| guaranteed to be missing | prohibited | yes | no | no |
Note, that the first and the fourth case are supposed to be negations of each other, just like the second and the third case. Thus, if I say that something is not allowed to exist (allowed), then it is guaranteed to be missing (prohibited). Also, if I say that something is not allowed to be missing (???), then it is guaranteed to exist (guaranteed).
Thus, my question is: Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing"?
This question can be rephrased to: Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?
single-word-requests terminology science logic
New contributor
Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
|
show 12 more comments
I want to express my knowledge about the presence of absence of something. My knowledge is divided into three different cases:
- I know that the thing doesn't exist.
- I don't know whether the thing exists.
- I know that the thing exists.
Sadly, neither of those is the negation of another one. However, I can define four cases, where each case is the negation of another case:
- Something is allowed to exist. (allowed)
- Something is allowed to be missing. (???)
- Something is guaranteed to exist. (guaranteed)
- Something is guaranteed to be missing. (prohibited)
I want to describe each of these cases by a single word, which is supposed to clearly distinguish it from the other three cases. As you can see, I already found three of the words. However, in the second case I am unable to find one.
Let me expand on what I mean by the negation. Consider the following table:
| phrase | single word | doesn't exist | don't know | exists |
|--------------------------|:-----------:|:-------------:|:----------:|:------:|
| allowed to exist | allowed | no | yes | yes |
| allowed to be missing | ??? | yes | yes | no |
| guaranteed to exist | guaranteed | no | no | yes |
| guaranteed to be missing | prohibited | yes | no | no |
Note, that the first and the fourth case are supposed to be negations of each other, just like the second and the third case. Thus, if I say that something is not allowed to exist (allowed), then it is guaranteed to be missing (prohibited). Also, if I say that something is not allowed to be missing (???), then it is guaranteed to exist (guaranteed).
Thus, my question is: Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing"?
This question can be rephrased to: Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?
single-word-requests terminology science logic
New contributor
Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
7
I'm not clear how "allowed to exist" and "allowed to be missing" differ.
– Chaim
yesterday
1
@StefanDollase I don't understand the function of the "don't know" column. It seems to me that if something is "allowed to exist" then it has a choice of existing or not existing, and if something is "allowed to not exist" then it has the same two options. How does "don't know" really figure in? If it's intended to be "I am not sure if it exists or not", then "I know it does not exist" must also become a valid state for it at some point.
– Hellion
21 hours ago
1
@StefanDollase In other words, your distinction is really coming down to "allowed" meaning "either it exists but I don't know about it, or it exists and I do know about it", which means it exists, regardless of your knowledge state. To me, therefore, this seems like a pointless distinction and the first two states (allowed and ???) are really the same: it can exist, or it can not exist.
– Hellion
21 hours ago
2
Your table muddies things up in my opinion. In your first row, "allowed to exist", why do you have a "yes" in the column "exists"? Something that is allowed to exist could just as easily have a "no" in the column "exists". Vice versa, for "allowed to be missing", why do you have a "no" for "exists"? It could be "yes" - the item could be there, it's only allowed to be missing, not guaranteed. In my mind you're confusing the epistemological question with the ontological question.
– Mark Beadles
20 hours ago
1
I would not say that "guaranteed to be missing" is a negation of "allowed to exist". For example, marijuana is prohibited in my state, but it nevertheless exists.
– indot_brad
17 hours ago
|
show 12 more comments
I want to express my knowledge about the presence of absence of something. My knowledge is divided into three different cases:
- I know that the thing doesn't exist.
- I don't know whether the thing exists.
- I know that the thing exists.
Sadly, neither of those is the negation of another one. However, I can define four cases, where each case is the negation of another case:
- Something is allowed to exist. (allowed)
- Something is allowed to be missing. (???)
- Something is guaranteed to exist. (guaranteed)
- Something is guaranteed to be missing. (prohibited)
I want to describe each of these cases by a single word, which is supposed to clearly distinguish it from the other three cases. As you can see, I already found three of the words. However, in the second case I am unable to find one.
Let me expand on what I mean by the negation. Consider the following table:
| phrase | single word | doesn't exist | don't know | exists |
|--------------------------|:-----------:|:-------------:|:----------:|:------:|
| allowed to exist | allowed | no | yes | yes |
| allowed to be missing | ??? | yes | yes | no |
| guaranteed to exist | guaranteed | no | no | yes |
| guaranteed to be missing | prohibited | yes | no | no |
Note, that the first and the fourth case are supposed to be negations of each other, just like the second and the third case. Thus, if I say that something is not allowed to exist (allowed), then it is guaranteed to be missing (prohibited). Also, if I say that something is not allowed to be missing (???), then it is guaranteed to exist (guaranteed).
Thus, my question is: Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing"?
This question can be rephrased to: Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?
single-word-requests terminology science logic
New contributor
Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I want to express my knowledge about the presence of absence of something. My knowledge is divided into three different cases:
- I know that the thing doesn't exist.
- I don't know whether the thing exists.
- I know that the thing exists.
Sadly, neither of those is the negation of another one. However, I can define four cases, where each case is the negation of another case:
- Something is allowed to exist. (allowed)
- Something is allowed to be missing. (???)
- Something is guaranteed to exist. (guaranteed)
- Something is guaranteed to be missing. (prohibited)
I want to describe each of these cases by a single word, which is supposed to clearly distinguish it from the other three cases. As you can see, I already found three of the words. However, in the second case I am unable to find one.
Let me expand on what I mean by the negation. Consider the following table:
| phrase | single word | doesn't exist | don't know | exists |
|--------------------------|:-----------:|:-------------:|:----------:|:------:|
| allowed to exist | allowed | no | yes | yes |
| allowed to be missing | ??? | yes | yes | no |
| guaranteed to exist | guaranteed | no | no | yes |
| guaranteed to be missing | prohibited | yes | no | no |
Note, that the first and the fourth case are supposed to be negations of each other, just like the second and the third case. Thus, if I say that something is not allowed to exist (allowed), then it is guaranteed to be missing (prohibited). Also, if I say that something is not allowed to be missing (???), then it is guaranteed to exist (guaranteed).
Thus, my question is: Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing"?
This question can be rephrased to: Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?
single-word-requests terminology science logic
single-word-requests terminology science logic
New contributor
Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 22 hours ago
Stefan Dollase
New contributor
Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Stefan DollaseStefan Dollase
1424
1424
New contributor
Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Stefan Dollase is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
7
I'm not clear how "allowed to exist" and "allowed to be missing" differ.
– Chaim
yesterday
1
@StefanDollase I don't understand the function of the "don't know" column. It seems to me that if something is "allowed to exist" then it has a choice of existing or not existing, and if something is "allowed to not exist" then it has the same two options. How does "don't know" really figure in? If it's intended to be "I am not sure if it exists or not", then "I know it does not exist" must also become a valid state for it at some point.
– Hellion
21 hours ago
1
@StefanDollase In other words, your distinction is really coming down to "allowed" meaning "either it exists but I don't know about it, or it exists and I do know about it", which means it exists, regardless of your knowledge state. To me, therefore, this seems like a pointless distinction and the first two states (allowed and ???) are really the same: it can exist, or it can not exist.
– Hellion
21 hours ago
2
Your table muddies things up in my opinion. In your first row, "allowed to exist", why do you have a "yes" in the column "exists"? Something that is allowed to exist could just as easily have a "no" in the column "exists". Vice versa, for "allowed to be missing", why do you have a "no" for "exists"? It could be "yes" - the item could be there, it's only allowed to be missing, not guaranteed. In my mind you're confusing the epistemological question with the ontological question.
– Mark Beadles
20 hours ago
1
I would not say that "guaranteed to be missing" is a negation of "allowed to exist". For example, marijuana is prohibited in my state, but it nevertheless exists.
– indot_brad
17 hours ago
|
show 12 more comments
7
I'm not clear how "allowed to exist" and "allowed to be missing" differ.
– Chaim
yesterday
1
@StefanDollase I don't understand the function of the "don't know" column. It seems to me that if something is "allowed to exist" then it has a choice of existing or not existing, and if something is "allowed to not exist" then it has the same two options. How does "don't know" really figure in? If it's intended to be "I am not sure if it exists or not", then "I know it does not exist" must also become a valid state for it at some point.
– Hellion
21 hours ago
1
@StefanDollase In other words, your distinction is really coming down to "allowed" meaning "either it exists but I don't know about it, or it exists and I do know about it", which means it exists, regardless of your knowledge state. To me, therefore, this seems like a pointless distinction and the first two states (allowed and ???) are really the same: it can exist, or it can not exist.
– Hellion
21 hours ago
2
Your table muddies things up in my opinion. In your first row, "allowed to exist", why do you have a "yes" in the column "exists"? Something that is allowed to exist could just as easily have a "no" in the column "exists". Vice versa, for "allowed to be missing", why do you have a "no" for "exists"? It could be "yes" - the item could be there, it's only allowed to be missing, not guaranteed. In my mind you're confusing the epistemological question with the ontological question.
– Mark Beadles
20 hours ago
1
I would not say that "guaranteed to be missing" is a negation of "allowed to exist". For example, marijuana is prohibited in my state, but it nevertheless exists.
– indot_brad
17 hours ago
7
7
I'm not clear how "allowed to exist" and "allowed to be missing" differ.
– Chaim
yesterday
I'm not clear how "allowed to exist" and "allowed to be missing" differ.
– Chaim
yesterday
1
1
@StefanDollase I don't understand the function of the "don't know" column. It seems to me that if something is "allowed to exist" then it has a choice of existing or not existing, and if something is "allowed to not exist" then it has the same two options. How does "don't know" really figure in? If it's intended to be "I am not sure if it exists or not", then "I know it does not exist" must also become a valid state for it at some point.
– Hellion
21 hours ago
@StefanDollase I don't understand the function of the "don't know" column. It seems to me that if something is "allowed to exist" then it has a choice of existing or not existing, and if something is "allowed to not exist" then it has the same two options. How does "don't know" really figure in? If it's intended to be "I am not sure if it exists or not", then "I know it does not exist" must also become a valid state for it at some point.
– Hellion
21 hours ago
1
1
@StefanDollase In other words, your distinction is really coming down to "allowed" meaning "either it exists but I don't know about it, or it exists and I do know about it", which means it exists, regardless of your knowledge state. To me, therefore, this seems like a pointless distinction and the first two states (allowed and ???) are really the same: it can exist, or it can not exist.
– Hellion
21 hours ago
@StefanDollase In other words, your distinction is really coming down to "allowed" meaning "either it exists but I don't know about it, or it exists and I do know about it", which means it exists, regardless of your knowledge state. To me, therefore, this seems like a pointless distinction and the first two states (allowed and ???) are really the same: it can exist, or it can not exist.
– Hellion
21 hours ago
2
2
Your table muddies things up in my opinion. In your first row, "allowed to exist", why do you have a "yes" in the column "exists"? Something that is allowed to exist could just as easily have a "no" in the column "exists". Vice versa, for "allowed to be missing", why do you have a "no" for "exists"? It could be "yes" - the item could be there, it's only allowed to be missing, not guaranteed. In my mind you're confusing the epistemological question with the ontological question.
– Mark Beadles
20 hours ago
Your table muddies things up in my opinion. In your first row, "allowed to exist", why do you have a "yes" in the column "exists"? Something that is allowed to exist could just as easily have a "no" in the column "exists". Vice versa, for "allowed to be missing", why do you have a "no" for "exists"? It could be "yes" - the item could be there, it's only allowed to be missing, not guaranteed. In my mind you're confusing the epistemological question with the ontological question.
– Mark Beadles
20 hours ago
1
1
I would not say that "guaranteed to be missing" is a negation of "allowed to exist". For example, marijuana is prohibited in my state, but it nevertheless exists.
– indot_brad
17 hours ago
I would not say that "guaranteed to be missing" is a negation of "allowed to exist". For example, marijuana is prohibited in my state, but it nevertheless exists.
– indot_brad
17 hours ago
|
show 12 more comments
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
This is commonly denoted as optional:
available as a choice but not required
(source: Merriam-Webster)
Another example:
The definition of a method, constructor, indexer, or delegate can specify that its parameters are required or that they are optional. Any call must provide arguments for all required parameters, but can omit arguments for optional parameters.
1
Thanks for your suggestion! However, I think it fails to draw a clear line between the first and the second case. I edited the question to clarify the difference.
– Stefan Dollase
yesterday
22
@StefanDollase That's because there is no difference between the first and second case. If it's "allowed to be there (but doesn't have to be)", that's the same exact thing as "allowed to be missing (but could be there)". Literally the same thing. In English, we call this optional. "Omissable" is likely to confuse some people, whereas "optional" would be immediately understood by everyone. This is by far the best answer, and probably the only answer that fits.
– only_pro
20 hours ago
3
@only_pro This is what I thought, which confused me. "Allowed" and "unnecessary" logically mean the same thing, but pragmatically don't. If a teacher says "you are allowed to bring a calculator to the test", that most likely means something different from "It's unnecessary to bring a calculator to the test." In both cases the calculator is "allowed", but the meaning intended by the teacher is likely difference, ie., maybe something like "It might be a good idea to use a calculator" versus "You really won't need a calculator because it's easy."
– Zebrafish
15 hours ago
@Zebrafish I think what you need to compare is "You are allowed to bring a calculator to the test." versus "You are allowed to not bring a calculator to the test." both mean the same thing logically (second one sounds odd but it's the case of "allowed to be missing") or you can just insert text books and class to the sentence. "You are allowed to use text books in the class." versus "You are allowed to not use text books in the class." they're the same thing. The underlying implication has nothing to do with the logic of the matter.
– John Hamilton
2 hours ago
@JohnHamilton No, I don't think so. I saw this question after the answer of "optional" had been given, with the OP saying that it isn't different enough from "allowed". I was confused about this and was about to write a comment exactly as only_pro did and that their request didn't make sense. I then realised maybe the OP is after a word that has just this pragmatically nuanced difference, be it "unnecessary" or "omissible" or take your pick. I think the attempt to write up a logic truth table has confused things, because on a logical level I agree that word 2 is essentially the same as word 1.
– Zebrafish
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
Something that is allowed to be missing is omissible. Wordreference.com defines omissible as:
capable of being or allowed to be omitted
https://www.wordreference.com/definition/omissible
In English grammar the object relative pronoun is omissible:
The book (that) I wanted to buy was sold-out.
I think this is a good one. However, I will wait to accept your answer for a few days, hoping to receive several more suggestions.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
add a comment |
The usual mathematical terms for these things (from the study of modal logic) are 'necessary' (for your 'guaranteed') and 'possible' (for your 'allowed'). All you need is negation to get all four possiblities.
- necessary - it must exist
- possible - it may exist
- not necessary - it may not exist
- not possible - it cannot exist
Depending on your (choice of) logic those two in the middle may be the same.
For a logic of probabilities, where 0 <= p <= 1:
- necessary: p=1
- possible: p > 0
- not necessary: p < 1
- not possible: p = 0
For example, you can see that 'not possible' is the same is the complement of 'possible'.
This mathematical use of these words follows our informal meaning.
So to your specific questions:
Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing?
With respect to probability, this means that it could be any probability. So any combination that covers all possibilities, 'necessary or not necessary'
Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?
By negation, there are two possibilities that informal English allows. 1) the set complement, 2) the other point extreme of the spectrum.
- For the set complement it is 'not necessary'.
- for the other extreme it is 'not possible'.
5
It's worth noting that both "not necessary" and "not possible" have single-word equivalents if truly needed ("unnecessary" and "impossible").
– Kamil Drakari
20 hours ago
Thanks for the detailed answer. Even though I don't work with probabilities, the four cases match my four cases (allowed = possible, not necessary = ???, guaranteed = necessary, prohibited = not possible). Here, the not directly clarifies which case is a negation of which other case, so that is nice. By exact negation I meant the set complement, so the case I was looking for is "not necessary". I was hoping to find a single word for each of these cases. However, allowed is already confusing. So maybe I will stick with (not) possible/necessary. They at least seem to be clear. Thanks =)
– Stefan Dollase
19 hours ago
single words: unnecessary, impossible (but unnecessary implies something about not being wanted, which the others don't have).
– Mitch
19 hours ago
add a comment |
This question is confusing as hell, but I think "unnecessary" or any of its synonyms might fit, depending on what you mean exactly, as I'm confused.
Something is allowed. (allowed to exist)
Something is
unnecessary (allowed to be missing)
You also have the condition:
Also, if I say that something is not ??? (allowed to be missing), then
it is guaranteed (guaranteed to exist).
If you place "unnecessary" or "unrequired" or "unneeded" where you placed the question marks, does that satisfy your needs? In other words, if something is not "unnecessary", or not "unrequired", or not "unneeded", does it make then make it guaranteed? I don't know.
Thanks for your suggestions. These seem to be fitting. However, they all start with "un", so they really are the negation of another word, which generally does not help to understand complex sentences which contain several more logical connectors. What I mean to say is: These are negative terms to express the requested meaning. However, I am looking for positive words.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
add a comment |
dispensable
"More than you need and therefore not necessary; that can be got rid of."
Cambridge Dictionary
1
And its cousin, nonindispensible.
– Owen
11 hours ago
add a comment |
I would say RELEASED.
According to Macmillan Dictionary
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/release_1?q=Release+#release_1__28:
RELEASE
FORMAL
to allow someone not to have to do something
release someone from something:
We were released from our classes in order to take part in the celebration.
Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think it fits my use case. I want to talk about the presence or absence of a thing, but I don't feel like Something is released to exist. is a proper sentence. However, I am not a native English speaker, so please let me know whether this is actually proper English.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
@StefanDollase You're right; "released to exist" doesn't work. One could say "released from the requirement of existing", but this reads as stilted.
– Chemomechanics
12 hours ago
add a comment |
I think the word you probably want is absent. If something is absent that means it is not here, and that can either be because it exists elsewhere, or because it does not have the existence necessary to be present anywhere, per the Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia's definitions:
- Not in a certain place at a given time; not in consciousness or thought at a certain time; away: opposed to present.
- Not existing; wanting; not forming a part or attribute of: as, among them refinement is absent; revenge is entirely absent from his mind.
Although it uses the nominal form of the word rather than the adjectival form, a phrase that very nicely demonstrates this is "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which is a popular phrase in our current century according to Seth Augenstein, in the online Forensic Magazine article When is the Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence?
The phrase itself is a good example because absence is used both ways. In the first case, we simply do not have the evidence to prove something exists at this point in time, yet that does not necessarily mean it is nowhere to be found as suggested by the second. It is a common rebuttal to the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, particularly where somebody wishes to furnish the missing evidence. Consider this explanation excerpted from chapter 13 of Political Argumentation in the United States: Historical and Contemporary Studies. Selected Essays by David Zarefsky for instance:
Ordinarily the argument from ignorance is regarded as a fallacy in reasoning. It was first given the name argumentum ad ignorantiam by John Locke, and is one of the group of "ad-fallacies" that appeal to irrelevant considerations in order to warrant an inference. The fact that we do not know A to be true is no more reason to conclude that it is false than to regard it as true. The fallacy converts extistential doubt into a conclusive assertion of either truth or falsity.
The only problem with it, in my opinion, is that it is simply an adjective, rather than a past participle (in summary: a verb inflected in past tense form to be used as an adjective) so it would seem out of place among the other examples, but I think an actual adjective should suffice for all practical intents and purposes or at least for the table.
add a comment |
My initial thought was excused, just from reading the title alone. A person is excused if permitted to be absent.
However, I think exempt (or exempted) is a better fit. Wiktionary has a nice, concise definition:
Free from a duty or obligation.
In this case, free from the duty or obligation to exist.
add a comment |
Based on your table, it seems you have 2 booleans, existence and knowledge, giving 4 combinations. You want to name these 4 combinations, but this only makes sense from the perspective of a knowledgable 3rd party.
For example, if I had a ball and a screen and two people sitting on opposite sides of table. Person A either places the ball on the table or not and either places a screen in front of person B or not. From Person A's perspective:
Ball Screen Word(s)
YES NO Guaranteed / Exposed
NO NO Prohibited / Voided
YES YES Cloaked / Obscured
NO YES Evoked / Hinted
evoke: To cause the manifestation of something (emotion, picture, etc.) in someone's mind or imagination. [ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evoke#English ]
New contributor
aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I would use the word...omitted
New contributor
user332558 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Stefan Dollase is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481627%2fsingle-word-to-replace-allowed-to-be-missing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is commonly denoted as optional:
available as a choice but not required
(source: Merriam-Webster)
Another example:
The definition of a method, constructor, indexer, or delegate can specify that its parameters are required or that they are optional. Any call must provide arguments for all required parameters, but can omit arguments for optional parameters.
1
Thanks for your suggestion! However, I think it fails to draw a clear line between the first and the second case. I edited the question to clarify the difference.
– Stefan Dollase
yesterday
22
@StefanDollase That's because there is no difference between the first and second case. If it's "allowed to be there (but doesn't have to be)", that's the same exact thing as "allowed to be missing (but could be there)". Literally the same thing. In English, we call this optional. "Omissable" is likely to confuse some people, whereas "optional" would be immediately understood by everyone. This is by far the best answer, and probably the only answer that fits.
– only_pro
20 hours ago
3
@only_pro This is what I thought, which confused me. "Allowed" and "unnecessary" logically mean the same thing, but pragmatically don't. If a teacher says "you are allowed to bring a calculator to the test", that most likely means something different from "It's unnecessary to bring a calculator to the test." In both cases the calculator is "allowed", but the meaning intended by the teacher is likely difference, ie., maybe something like "It might be a good idea to use a calculator" versus "You really won't need a calculator because it's easy."
– Zebrafish
15 hours ago
@Zebrafish I think what you need to compare is "You are allowed to bring a calculator to the test." versus "You are allowed to not bring a calculator to the test." both mean the same thing logically (second one sounds odd but it's the case of "allowed to be missing") or you can just insert text books and class to the sentence. "You are allowed to use text books in the class." versus "You are allowed to not use text books in the class." they're the same thing. The underlying implication has nothing to do with the logic of the matter.
– John Hamilton
2 hours ago
@JohnHamilton No, I don't think so. I saw this question after the answer of "optional" had been given, with the OP saying that it isn't different enough from "allowed". I was confused about this and was about to write a comment exactly as only_pro did and that their request didn't make sense. I then realised maybe the OP is after a word that has just this pragmatically nuanced difference, be it "unnecessary" or "omissible" or take your pick. I think the attempt to write up a logic truth table has confused things, because on a logical level I agree that word 2 is essentially the same as word 1.
– Zebrafish
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
This is commonly denoted as optional:
available as a choice but not required
(source: Merriam-Webster)
Another example:
The definition of a method, constructor, indexer, or delegate can specify that its parameters are required or that they are optional. Any call must provide arguments for all required parameters, but can omit arguments for optional parameters.
1
Thanks for your suggestion! However, I think it fails to draw a clear line between the first and the second case. I edited the question to clarify the difference.
– Stefan Dollase
yesterday
22
@StefanDollase That's because there is no difference between the first and second case. If it's "allowed to be there (but doesn't have to be)", that's the same exact thing as "allowed to be missing (but could be there)". Literally the same thing. In English, we call this optional. "Omissable" is likely to confuse some people, whereas "optional" would be immediately understood by everyone. This is by far the best answer, and probably the only answer that fits.
– only_pro
20 hours ago
3
@only_pro This is what I thought, which confused me. "Allowed" and "unnecessary" logically mean the same thing, but pragmatically don't. If a teacher says "you are allowed to bring a calculator to the test", that most likely means something different from "It's unnecessary to bring a calculator to the test." In both cases the calculator is "allowed", but the meaning intended by the teacher is likely difference, ie., maybe something like "It might be a good idea to use a calculator" versus "You really won't need a calculator because it's easy."
– Zebrafish
15 hours ago
@Zebrafish I think what you need to compare is "You are allowed to bring a calculator to the test." versus "You are allowed to not bring a calculator to the test." both mean the same thing logically (second one sounds odd but it's the case of "allowed to be missing") or you can just insert text books and class to the sentence. "You are allowed to use text books in the class." versus "You are allowed to not use text books in the class." they're the same thing. The underlying implication has nothing to do with the logic of the matter.
– John Hamilton
2 hours ago
@JohnHamilton No, I don't think so. I saw this question after the answer of "optional" had been given, with the OP saying that it isn't different enough from "allowed". I was confused about this and was about to write a comment exactly as only_pro did and that their request didn't make sense. I then realised maybe the OP is after a word that has just this pragmatically nuanced difference, be it "unnecessary" or "omissible" or take your pick. I think the attempt to write up a logic truth table has confused things, because on a logical level I agree that word 2 is essentially the same as word 1.
– Zebrafish
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
This is commonly denoted as optional:
available as a choice but not required
(source: Merriam-Webster)
Another example:
The definition of a method, constructor, indexer, or delegate can specify that its parameters are required or that they are optional. Any call must provide arguments for all required parameters, but can omit arguments for optional parameters.
This is commonly denoted as optional:
available as a choice but not required
(source: Merriam-Webster)
Another example:
The definition of a method, constructor, indexer, or delegate can specify that its parameters are required or that they are optional. Any call must provide arguments for all required parameters, but can omit arguments for optional parameters.
answered yesterday
GlorfindelGlorfindel
6,75783440
6,75783440
1
Thanks for your suggestion! However, I think it fails to draw a clear line between the first and the second case. I edited the question to clarify the difference.
– Stefan Dollase
yesterday
22
@StefanDollase That's because there is no difference between the first and second case. If it's "allowed to be there (but doesn't have to be)", that's the same exact thing as "allowed to be missing (but could be there)". Literally the same thing. In English, we call this optional. "Omissable" is likely to confuse some people, whereas "optional" would be immediately understood by everyone. This is by far the best answer, and probably the only answer that fits.
– only_pro
20 hours ago
3
@only_pro This is what I thought, which confused me. "Allowed" and "unnecessary" logically mean the same thing, but pragmatically don't. If a teacher says "you are allowed to bring a calculator to the test", that most likely means something different from "It's unnecessary to bring a calculator to the test." In both cases the calculator is "allowed", but the meaning intended by the teacher is likely difference, ie., maybe something like "It might be a good idea to use a calculator" versus "You really won't need a calculator because it's easy."
– Zebrafish
15 hours ago
@Zebrafish I think what you need to compare is "You are allowed to bring a calculator to the test." versus "You are allowed to not bring a calculator to the test." both mean the same thing logically (second one sounds odd but it's the case of "allowed to be missing") or you can just insert text books and class to the sentence. "You are allowed to use text books in the class." versus "You are allowed to not use text books in the class." they're the same thing. The underlying implication has nothing to do with the logic of the matter.
– John Hamilton
2 hours ago
@JohnHamilton No, I don't think so. I saw this question after the answer of "optional" had been given, with the OP saying that it isn't different enough from "allowed". I was confused about this and was about to write a comment exactly as only_pro did and that their request didn't make sense. I then realised maybe the OP is after a word that has just this pragmatically nuanced difference, be it "unnecessary" or "omissible" or take your pick. I think the attempt to write up a logic truth table has confused things, because on a logical level I agree that word 2 is essentially the same as word 1.
– Zebrafish
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
Thanks for your suggestion! However, I think it fails to draw a clear line between the first and the second case. I edited the question to clarify the difference.
– Stefan Dollase
yesterday
22
@StefanDollase That's because there is no difference between the first and second case. If it's "allowed to be there (but doesn't have to be)", that's the same exact thing as "allowed to be missing (but could be there)". Literally the same thing. In English, we call this optional. "Omissable" is likely to confuse some people, whereas "optional" would be immediately understood by everyone. This is by far the best answer, and probably the only answer that fits.
– only_pro
20 hours ago
3
@only_pro This is what I thought, which confused me. "Allowed" and "unnecessary" logically mean the same thing, but pragmatically don't. If a teacher says "you are allowed to bring a calculator to the test", that most likely means something different from "It's unnecessary to bring a calculator to the test." In both cases the calculator is "allowed", but the meaning intended by the teacher is likely difference, ie., maybe something like "It might be a good idea to use a calculator" versus "You really won't need a calculator because it's easy."
– Zebrafish
15 hours ago
@Zebrafish I think what you need to compare is "You are allowed to bring a calculator to the test." versus "You are allowed to not bring a calculator to the test." both mean the same thing logically (second one sounds odd but it's the case of "allowed to be missing") or you can just insert text books and class to the sentence. "You are allowed to use text books in the class." versus "You are allowed to not use text books in the class." they're the same thing. The underlying implication has nothing to do with the logic of the matter.
– John Hamilton
2 hours ago
@JohnHamilton No, I don't think so. I saw this question after the answer of "optional" had been given, with the OP saying that it isn't different enough from "allowed". I was confused about this and was about to write a comment exactly as only_pro did and that their request didn't make sense. I then realised maybe the OP is after a word that has just this pragmatically nuanced difference, be it "unnecessary" or "omissible" or take your pick. I think the attempt to write up a logic truth table has confused things, because on a logical level I agree that word 2 is essentially the same as word 1.
– Zebrafish
1 hour ago
1
1
Thanks for your suggestion! However, I think it fails to draw a clear line between the first and the second case. I edited the question to clarify the difference.
– Stefan Dollase
yesterday
Thanks for your suggestion! However, I think it fails to draw a clear line between the first and the second case. I edited the question to clarify the difference.
– Stefan Dollase
yesterday
22
22
@StefanDollase That's because there is no difference between the first and second case. If it's "allowed to be there (but doesn't have to be)", that's the same exact thing as "allowed to be missing (but could be there)". Literally the same thing. In English, we call this optional. "Omissable" is likely to confuse some people, whereas "optional" would be immediately understood by everyone. This is by far the best answer, and probably the only answer that fits.
– only_pro
20 hours ago
@StefanDollase That's because there is no difference between the first and second case. If it's "allowed to be there (but doesn't have to be)", that's the same exact thing as "allowed to be missing (but could be there)". Literally the same thing. In English, we call this optional. "Omissable" is likely to confuse some people, whereas "optional" would be immediately understood by everyone. This is by far the best answer, and probably the only answer that fits.
– only_pro
20 hours ago
3
3
@only_pro This is what I thought, which confused me. "Allowed" and "unnecessary" logically mean the same thing, but pragmatically don't. If a teacher says "you are allowed to bring a calculator to the test", that most likely means something different from "It's unnecessary to bring a calculator to the test." In both cases the calculator is "allowed", but the meaning intended by the teacher is likely difference, ie., maybe something like "It might be a good idea to use a calculator" versus "You really won't need a calculator because it's easy."
– Zebrafish
15 hours ago
@only_pro This is what I thought, which confused me. "Allowed" and "unnecessary" logically mean the same thing, but pragmatically don't. If a teacher says "you are allowed to bring a calculator to the test", that most likely means something different from "It's unnecessary to bring a calculator to the test." In both cases the calculator is "allowed", but the meaning intended by the teacher is likely difference, ie., maybe something like "It might be a good idea to use a calculator" versus "You really won't need a calculator because it's easy."
– Zebrafish
15 hours ago
@Zebrafish I think what you need to compare is "You are allowed to bring a calculator to the test." versus "You are allowed to not bring a calculator to the test." both mean the same thing logically (second one sounds odd but it's the case of "allowed to be missing") or you can just insert text books and class to the sentence. "You are allowed to use text books in the class." versus "You are allowed to not use text books in the class." they're the same thing. The underlying implication has nothing to do with the logic of the matter.
– John Hamilton
2 hours ago
@Zebrafish I think what you need to compare is "You are allowed to bring a calculator to the test." versus "You are allowed to not bring a calculator to the test." both mean the same thing logically (second one sounds odd but it's the case of "allowed to be missing") or you can just insert text books and class to the sentence. "You are allowed to use text books in the class." versus "You are allowed to not use text books in the class." they're the same thing. The underlying implication has nothing to do with the logic of the matter.
– John Hamilton
2 hours ago
@JohnHamilton No, I don't think so. I saw this question after the answer of "optional" had been given, with the OP saying that it isn't different enough from "allowed". I was confused about this and was about to write a comment exactly as only_pro did and that their request didn't make sense. I then realised maybe the OP is after a word that has just this pragmatically nuanced difference, be it "unnecessary" or "omissible" or take your pick. I think the attempt to write up a logic truth table has confused things, because on a logical level I agree that word 2 is essentially the same as word 1.
– Zebrafish
1 hour ago
@JohnHamilton No, I don't think so. I saw this question after the answer of "optional" had been given, with the OP saying that it isn't different enough from "allowed". I was confused about this and was about to write a comment exactly as only_pro did and that their request didn't make sense. I then realised maybe the OP is after a word that has just this pragmatically nuanced difference, be it "unnecessary" or "omissible" or take your pick. I think the attempt to write up a logic truth table has confused things, because on a logical level I agree that word 2 is essentially the same as word 1.
– Zebrafish
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
Something that is allowed to be missing is omissible. Wordreference.com defines omissible as:
capable of being or allowed to be omitted
https://www.wordreference.com/definition/omissible
In English grammar the object relative pronoun is omissible:
The book (that) I wanted to buy was sold-out.
I think this is a good one. However, I will wait to accept your answer for a few days, hoping to receive several more suggestions.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
add a comment |
Something that is allowed to be missing is omissible. Wordreference.com defines omissible as:
capable of being or allowed to be omitted
https://www.wordreference.com/definition/omissible
In English grammar the object relative pronoun is omissible:
The book (that) I wanted to buy was sold-out.
I think this is a good one. However, I will wait to accept your answer for a few days, hoping to receive several more suggestions.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
add a comment |
Something that is allowed to be missing is omissible. Wordreference.com defines omissible as:
capable of being or allowed to be omitted
https://www.wordreference.com/definition/omissible
In English grammar the object relative pronoun is omissible:
The book (that) I wanted to buy was sold-out.
Something that is allowed to be missing is omissible. Wordreference.com defines omissible as:
capable of being or allowed to be omitted
https://www.wordreference.com/definition/omissible
In English grammar the object relative pronoun is omissible:
The book (that) I wanted to buy was sold-out.
answered 22 hours ago
ShoeShoe
25.3k43786
25.3k43786
I think this is a good one. However, I will wait to accept your answer for a few days, hoping to receive several more suggestions.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
add a comment |
I think this is a good one. However, I will wait to accept your answer for a few days, hoping to receive several more suggestions.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
I think this is a good one. However, I will wait to accept your answer for a few days, hoping to receive several more suggestions.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
I think this is a good one. However, I will wait to accept your answer for a few days, hoping to receive several more suggestions.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
add a comment |
The usual mathematical terms for these things (from the study of modal logic) are 'necessary' (for your 'guaranteed') and 'possible' (for your 'allowed'). All you need is negation to get all four possiblities.
- necessary - it must exist
- possible - it may exist
- not necessary - it may not exist
- not possible - it cannot exist
Depending on your (choice of) logic those two in the middle may be the same.
For a logic of probabilities, where 0 <= p <= 1:
- necessary: p=1
- possible: p > 0
- not necessary: p < 1
- not possible: p = 0
For example, you can see that 'not possible' is the same is the complement of 'possible'.
This mathematical use of these words follows our informal meaning.
So to your specific questions:
Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing?
With respect to probability, this means that it could be any probability. So any combination that covers all possibilities, 'necessary or not necessary'
Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?
By negation, there are two possibilities that informal English allows. 1) the set complement, 2) the other point extreme of the spectrum.
- For the set complement it is 'not necessary'.
- for the other extreme it is 'not possible'.
5
It's worth noting that both "not necessary" and "not possible" have single-word equivalents if truly needed ("unnecessary" and "impossible").
– Kamil Drakari
20 hours ago
Thanks for the detailed answer. Even though I don't work with probabilities, the four cases match my four cases (allowed = possible, not necessary = ???, guaranteed = necessary, prohibited = not possible). Here, the not directly clarifies which case is a negation of which other case, so that is nice. By exact negation I meant the set complement, so the case I was looking for is "not necessary". I was hoping to find a single word for each of these cases. However, allowed is already confusing. So maybe I will stick with (not) possible/necessary. They at least seem to be clear. Thanks =)
– Stefan Dollase
19 hours ago
single words: unnecessary, impossible (but unnecessary implies something about not being wanted, which the others don't have).
– Mitch
19 hours ago
add a comment |
The usual mathematical terms for these things (from the study of modal logic) are 'necessary' (for your 'guaranteed') and 'possible' (for your 'allowed'). All you need is negation to get all four possiblities.
- necessary - it must exist
- possible - it may exist
- not necessary - it may not exist
- not possible - it cannot exist
Depending on your (choice of) logic those two in the middle may be the same.
For a logic of probabilities, where 0 <= p <= 1:
- necessary: p=1
- possible: p > 0
- not necessary: p < 1
- not possible: p = 0
For example, you can see that 'not possible' is the same is the complement of 'possible'.
This mathematical use of these words follows our informal meaning.
So to your specific questions:
Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing?
With respect to probability, this means that it could be any probability. So any combination that covers all possibilities, 'necessary or not necessary'
Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?
By negation, there are two possibilities that informal English allows. 1) the set complement, 2) the other point extreme of the spectrum.
- For the set complement it is 'not necessary'.
- for the other extreme it is 'not possible'.
5
It's worth noting that both "not necessary" and "not possible" have single-word equivalents if truly needed ("unnecessary" and "impossible").
– Kamil Drakari
20 hours ago
Thanks for the detailed answer. Even though I don't work with probabilities, the four cases match my four cases (allowed = possible, not necessary = ???, guaranteed = necessary, prohibited = not possible). Here, the not directly clarifies which case is a negation of which other case, so that is nice. By exact negation I meant the set complement, so the case I was looking for is "not necessary". I was hoping to find a single word for each of these cases. However, allowed is already confusing. So maybe I will stick with (not) possible/necessary. They at least seem to be clear. Thanks =)
– Stefan Dollase
19 hours ago
single words: unnecessary, impossible (but unnecessary implies something about not being wanted, which the others don't have).
– Mitch
19 hours ago
add a comment |
The usual mathematical terms for these things (from the study of modal logic) are 'necessary' (for your 'guaranteed') and 'possible' (for your 'allowed'). All you need is negation to get all four possiblities.
- necessary - it must exist
- possible - it may exist
- not necessary - it may not exist
- not possible - it cannot exist
Depending on your (choice of) logic those two in the middle may be the same.
For a logic of probabilities, where 0 <= p <= 1:
- necessary: p=1
- possible: p > 0
- not necessary: p < 1
- not possible: p = 0
For example, you can see that 'not possible' is the same is the complement of 'possible'.
This mathematical use of these words follows our informal meaning.
So to your specific questions:
Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing?
With respect to probability, this means that it could be any probability. So any combination that covers all possibilities, 'necessary or not necessary'
Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?
By negation, there are two possibilities that informal English allows. 1) the set complement, 2) the other point extreme of the spectrum.
- For the set complement it is 'not necessary'.
- for the other extreme it is 'not possible'.
The usual mathematical terms for these things (from the study of modal logic) are 'necessary' (for your 'guaranteed') and 'possible' (for your 'allowed'). All you need is negation to get all four possiblities.
- necessary - it must exist
- possible - it may exist
- not necessary - it may not exist
- not possible - it cannot exist
Depending on your (choice of) logic those two in the middle may be the same.
For a logic of probabilities, where 0 <= p <= 1:
- necessary: p=1
- possible: p > 0
- not necessary: p < 1
- not possible: p = 0
For example, you can see that 'not possible' is the same is the complement of 'possible'.
This mathematical use of these words follows our informal meaning.
So to your specific questions:
Which single word is able to replace the phrase "allowed to be missing?
With respect to probability, this means that it could be any probability. So any combination that covers all possibilities, 'necessary or not necessary'
Which single word is the exact negation of "guaranteed to exist"?
By negation, there are two possibilities that informal English allows. 1) the set complement, 2) the other point extreme of the spectrum.
- For the set complement it is 'not necessary'.
- for the other extreme it is 'not possible'.
edited 20 hours ago
answered 20 hours ago
MitchMitch
51.2k15103212
51.2k15103212
5
It's worth noting that both "not necessary" and "not possible" have single-word equivalents if truly needed ("unnecessary" and "impossible").
– Kamil Drakari
20 hours ago
Thanks for the detailed answer. Even though I don't work with probabilities, the four cases match my four cases (allowed = possible, not necessary = ???, guaranteed = necessary, prohibited = not possible). Here, the not directly clarifies which case is a negation of which other case, so that is nice. By exact negation I meant the set complement, so the case I was looking for is "not necessary". I was hoping to find a single word for each of these cases. However, allowed is already confusing. So maybe I will stick with (not) possible/necessary. They at least seem to be clear. Thanks =)
– Stefan Dollase
19 hours ago
single words: unnecessary, impossible (but unnecessary implies something about not being wanted, which the others don't have).
– Mitch
19 hours ago
add a comment |
5
It's worth noting that both "not necessary" and "not possible" have single-word equivalents if truly needed ("unnecessary" and "impossible").
– Kamil Drakari
20 hours ago
Thanks for the detailed answer. Even though I don't work with probabilities, the four cases match my four cases (allowed = possible, not necessary = ???, guaranteed = necessary, prohibited = not possible). Here, the not directly clarifies which case is a negation of which other case, so that is nice. By exact negation I meant the set complement, so the case I was looking for is "not necessary". I was hoping to find a single word for each of these cases. However, allowed is already confusing. So maybe I will stick with (not) possible/necessary. They at least seem to be clear. Thanks =)
– Stefan Dollase
19 hours ago
single words: unnecessary, impossible (but unnecessary implies something about not being wanted, which the others don't have).
– Mitch
19 hours ago
5
5
It's worth noting that both "not necessary" and "not possible" have single-word equivalents if truly needed ("unnecessary" and "impossible").
– Kamil Drakari
20 hours ago
It's worth noting that both "not necessary" and "not possible" have single-word equivalents if truly needed ("unnecessary" and "impossible").
– Kamil Drakari
20 hours ago
Thanks for the detailed answer. Even though I don't work with probabilities, the four cases match my four cases (allowed = possible, not necessary = ???, guaranteed = necessary, prohibited = not possible). Here, the not directly clarifies which case is a negation of which other case, so that is nice. By exact negation I meant the set complement, so the case I was looking for is "not necessary". I was hoping to find a single word for each of these cases. However, allowed is already confusing. So maybe I will stick with (not) possible/necessary. They at least seem to be clear. Thanks =)
– Stefan Dollase
19 hours ago
Thanks for the detailed answer. Even though I don't work with probabilities, the four cases match my four cases (allowed = possible, not necessary = ???, guaranteed = necessary, prohibited = not possible). Here, the not directly clarifies which case is a negation of which other case, so that is nice. By exact negation I meant the set complement, so the case I was looking for is "not necessary". I was hoping to find a single word for each of these cases. However, allowed is already confusing. So maybe I will stick with (not) possible/necessary. They at least seem to be clear. Thanks =)
– Stefan Dollase
19 hours ago
single words: unnecessary, impossible (but unnecessary implies something about not being wanted, which the others don't have).
– Mitch
19 hours ago
single words: unnecessary, impossible (but unnecessary implies something about not being wanted, which the others don't have).
– Mitch
19 hours ago
add a comment |
This question is confusing as hell, but I think "unnecessary" or any of its synonyms might fit, depending on what you mean exactly, as I'm confused.
Something is allowed. (allowed to exist)
Something is
unnecessary (allowed to be missing)
You also have the condition:
Also, if I say that something is not ??? (allowed to be missing), then
it is guaranteed (guaranteed to exist).
If you place "unnecessary" or "unrequired" or "unneeded" where you placed the question marks, does that satisfy your needs? In other words, if something is not "unnecessary", or not "unrequired", or not "unneeded", does it make then make it guaranteed? I don't know.
Thanks for your suggestions. These seem to be fitting. However, they all start with "un", so they really are the negation of another word, which generally does not help to understand complex sentences which contain several more logical connectors. What I mean to say is: These are negative terms to express the requested meaning. However, I am looking for positive words.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
add a comment |
This question is confusing as hell, but I think "unnecessary" or any of its synonyms might fit, depending on what you mean exactly, as I'm confused.
Something is allowed. (allowed to exist)
Something is
unnecessary (allowed to be missing)
You also have the condition:
Also, if I say that something is not ??? (allowed to be missing), then
it is guaranteed (guaranteed to exist).
If you place "unnecessary" or "unrequired" or "unneeded" where you placed the question marks, does that satisfy your needs? In other words, if something is not "unnecessary", or not "unrequired", or not "unneeded", does it make then make it guaranteed? I don't know.
Thanks for your suggestions. These seem to be fitting. However, they all start with "un", so they really are the negation of another word, which generally does not help to understand complex sentences which contain several more logical connectors. What I mean to say is: These are negative terms to express the requested meaning. However, I am looking for positive words.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
add a comment |
This question is confusing as hell, but I think "unnecessary" or any of its synonyms might fit, depending on what you mean exactly, as I'm confused.
Something is allowed. (allowed to exist)
Something is
unnecessary (allowed to be missing)
You also have the condition:
Also, if I say that something is not ??? (allowed to be missing), then
it is guaranteed (guaranteed to exist).
If you place "unnecessary" or "unrequired" or "unneeded" where you placed the question marks, does that satisfy your needs? In other words, if something is not "unnecessary", or not "unrequired", or not "unneeded", does it make then make it guaranteed? I don't know.
This question is confusing as hell, but I think "unnecessary" or any of its synonyms might fit, depending on what you mean exactly, as I'm confused.
Something is allowed. (allowed to exist)
Something is
unnecessary (allowed to be missing)
You also have the condition:
Also, if I say that something is not ??? (allowed to be missing), then
it is guaranteed (guaranteed to exist).
If you place "unnecessary" or "unrequired" or "unneeded" where you placed the question marks, does that satisfy your needs? In other words, if something is not "unnecessary", or not "unrequired", or not "unneeded", does it make then make it guaranteed? I don't know.
answered 23 hours ago
ZebrafishZebrafish
9,19931333
9,19931333
Thanks for your suggestions. These seem to be fitting. However, they all start with "un", so they really are the negation of another word, which generally does not help to understand complex sentences which contain several more logical connectors. What I mean to say is: These are negative terms to express the requested meaning. However, I am looking for positive words.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for your suggestions. These seem to be fitting. However, they all start with "un", so they really are the negation of another word, which generally does not help to understand complex sentences which contain several more logical connectors. What I mean to say is: These are negative terms to express the requested meaning. However, I am looking for positive words.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
Thanks for your suggestions. These seem to be fitting. However, they all start with "un", so they really are the negation of another word, which generally does not help to understand complex sentences which contain several more logical connectors. What I mean to say is: These are negative terms to express the requested meaning. However, I am looking for positive words.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
Thanks for your suggestions. These seem to be fitting. However, they all start with "un", so they really are the negation of another word, which generally does not help to understand complex sentences which contain several more logical connectors. What I mean to say is: These are negative terms to express the requested meaning. However, I am looking for positive words.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
add a comment |
dispensable
"More than you need and therefore not necessary; that can be got rid of."
Cambridge Dictionary
1
And its cousin, nonindispensible.
– Owen
11 hours ago
add a comment |
dispensable
"More than you need and therefore not necessary; that can be got rid of."
Cambridge Dictionary
1
And its cousin, nonindispensible.
– Owen
11 hours ago
add a comment |
dispensable
"More than you need and therefore not necessary; that can be got rid of."
Cambridge Dictionary
dispensable
"More than you need and therefore not necessary; that can be got rid of."
Cambridge Dictionary
edited 34 mins ago
answered 12 hours ago
Pedro LobitoPedro Lobito
1314
1314
1
And its cousin, nonindispensible.
– Owen
11 hours ago
add a comment |
1
And its cousin, nonindispensible.
– Owen
11 hours ago
1
1
And its cousin, nonindispensible.
– Owen
11 hours ago
And its cousin, nonindispensible.
– Owen
11 hours ago
add a comment |
I would say RELEASED.
According to Macmillan Dictionary
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/release_1?q=Release+#release_1__28:
RELEASE
FORMAL
to allow someone not to have to do something
release someone from something:
We were released from our classes in order to take part in the celebration.
Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think it fits my use case. I want to talk about the presence or absence of a thing, but I don't feel like Something is released to exist. is a proper sentence. However, I am not a native English speaker, so please let me know whether this is actually proper English.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
@StefanDollase You're right; "released to exist" doesn't work. One could say "released from the requirement of existing", but this reads as stilted.
– Chemomechanics
12 hours ago
add a comment |
I would say RELEASED.
According to Macmillan Dictionary
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/release_1?q=Release+#release_1__28:
RELEASE
FORMAL
to allow someone not to have to do something
release someone from something:
We were released from our classes in order to take part in the celebration.
Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think it fits my use case. I want to talk about the presence or absence of a thing, but I don't feel like Something is released to exist. is a proper sentence. However, I am not a native English speaker, so please let me know whether this is actually proper English.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
@StefanDollase You're right; "released to exist" doesn't work. One could say "released from the requirement of existing", but this reads as stilted.
– Chemomechanics
12 hours ago
add a comment |
I would say RELEASED.
According to Macmillan Dictionary
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/release_1?q=Release+#release_1__28:
RELEASE
FORMAL
to allow someone not to have to do something
release someone from something:
We were released from our classes in order to take part in the celebration.
I would say RELEASED.
According to Macmillan Dictionary
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/release_1?q=Release+#release_1__28:
RELEASE
FORMAL
to allow someone not to have to do something
release someone from something:
We were released from our classes in order to take part in the celebration.
answered 22 hours ago
user307254user307254
3,478515
3,478515
Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think it fits my use case. I want to talk about the presence or absence of a thing, but I don't feel like Something is released to exist. is a proper sentence. However, I am not a native English speaker, so please let me know whether this is actually proper English.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
@StefanDollase You're right; "released to exist" doesn't work. One could say "released from the requirement of existing", but this reads as stilted.
– Chemomechanics
12 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think it fits my use case. I want to talk about the presence or absence of a thing, but I don't feel like Something is released to exist. is a proper sentence. However, I am not a native English speaker, so please let me know whether this is actually proper English.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
@StefanDollase You're right; "released to exist" doesn't work. One could say "released from the requirement of existing", but this reads as stilted.
– Chemomechanics
12 hours ago
Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think it fits my use case. I want to talk about the presence or absence of a thing, but I don't feel like Something is released to exist. is a proper sentence. However, I am not a native English speaker, so please let me know whether this is actually proper English.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think it fits my use case. I want to talk about the presence or absence of a thing, but I don't feel like Something is released to exist. is a proper sentence. However, I am not a native English speaker, so please let me know whether this is actually proper English.
– Stefan Dollase
22 hours ago
@StefanDollase You're right; "released to exist" doesn't work. One could say "released from the requirement of existing", but this reads as stilted.
– Chemomechanics
12 hours ago
@StefanDollase You're right; "released to exist" doesn't work. One could say "released from the requirement of existing", but this reads as stilted.
– Chemomechanics
12 hours ago
add a comment |
I think the word you probably want is absent. If something is absent that means it is not here, and that can either be because it exists elsewhere, or because it does not have the existence necessary to be present anywhere, per the Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia's definitions:
- Not in a certain place at a given time; not in consciousness or thought at a certain time; away: opposed to present.
- Not existing; wanting; not forming a part or attribute of: as, among them refinement is absent; revenge is entirely absent from his mind.
Although it uses the nominal form of the word rather than the adjectival form, a phrase that very nicely demonstrates this is "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which is a popular phrase in our current century according to Seth Augenstein, in the online Forensic Magazine article When is the Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence?
The phrase itself is a good example because absence is used both ways. In the first case, we simply do not have the evidence to prove something exists at this point in time, yet that does not necessarily mean it is nowhere to be found as suggested by the second. It is a common rebuttal to the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, particularly where somebody wishes to furnish the missing evidence. Consider this explanation excerpted from chapter 13 of Political Argumentation in the United States: Historical and Contemporary Studies. Selected Essays by David Zarefsky for instance:
Ordinarily the argument from ignorance is regarded as a fallacy in reasoning. It was first given the name argumentum ad ignorantiam by John Locke, and is one of the group of "ad-fallacies" that appeal to irrelevant considerations in order to warrant an inference. The fact that we do not know A to be true is no more reason to conclude that it is false than to regard it as true. The fallacy converts extistential doubt into a conclusive assertion of either truth or falsity.
The only problem with it, in my opinion, is that it is simply an adjective, rather than a past participle (in summary: a verb inflected in past tense form to be used as an adjective) so it would seem out of place among the other examples, but I think an actual adjective should suffice for all practical intents and purposes or at least for the table.
add a comment |
I think the word you probably want is absent. If something is absent that means it is not here, and that can either be because it exists elsewhere, or because it does not have the existence necessary to be present anywhere, per the Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia's definitions:
- Not in a certain place at a given time; not in consciousness or thought at a certain time; away: opposed to present.
- Not existing; wanting; not forming a part or attribute of: as, among them refinement is absent; revenge is entirely absent from his mind.
Although it uses the nominal form of the word rather than the adjectival form, a phrase that very nicely demonstrates this is "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which is a popular phrase in our current century according to Seth Augenstein, in the online Forensic Magazine article When is the Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence?
The phrase itself is a good example because absence is used both ways. In the first case, we simply do not have the evidence to prove something exists at this point in time, yet that does not necessarily mean it is nowhere to be found as suggested by the second. It is a common rebuttal to the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, particularly where somebody wishes to furnish the missing evidence. Consider this explanation excerpted from chapter 13 of Political Argumentation in the United States: Historical and Contemporary Studies. Selected Essays by David Zarefsky for instance:
Ordinarily the argument from ignorance is regarded as a fallacy in reasoning. It was first given the name argumentum ad ignorantiam by John Locke, and is one of the group of "ad-fallacies" that appeal to irrelevant considerations in order to warrant an inference. The fact that we do not know A to be true is no more reason to conclude that it is false than to regard it as true. The fallacy converts extistential doubt into a conclusive assertion of either truth or falsity.
The only problem with it, in my opinion, is that it is simply an adjective, rather than a past participle (in summary: a verb inflected in past tense form to be used as an adjective) so it would seem out of place among the other examples, but I think an actual adjective should suffice for all practical intents and purposes or at least for the table.
add a comment |
I think the word you probably want is absent. If something is absent that means it is not here, and that can either be because it exists elsewhere, or because it does not have the existence necessary to be present anywhere, per the Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia's definitions:
- Not in a certain place at a given time; not in consciousness or thought at a certain time; away: opposed to present.
- Not existing; wanting; not forming a part or attribute of: as, among them refinement is absent; revenge is entirely absent from his mind.
Although it uses the nominal form of the word rather than the adjectival form, a phrase that very nicely demonstrates this is "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which is a popular phrase in our current century according to Seth Augenstein, in the online Forensic Magazine article When is the Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence?
The phrase itself is a good example because absence is used both ways. In the first case, we simply do not have the evidence to prove something exists at this point in time, yet that does not necessarily mean it is nowhere to be found as suggested by the second. It is a common rebuttal to the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, particularly where somebody wishes to furnish the missing evidence. Consider this explanation excerpted from chapter 13 of Political Argumentation in the United States: Historical and Contemporary Studies. Selected Essays by David Zarefsky for instance:
Ordinarily the argument from ignorance is regarded as a fallacy in reasoning. It was first given the name argumentum ad ignorantiam by John Locke, and is one of the group of "ad-fallacies" that appeal to irrelevant considerations in order to warrant an inference. The fact that we do not know A to be true is no more reason to conclude that it is false than to regard it as true. The fallacy converts extistential doubt into a conclusive assertion of either truth or falsity.
The only problem with it, in my opinion, is that it is simply an adjective, rather than a past participle (in summary: a verb inflected in past tense form to be used as an adjective) so it would seem out of place among the other examples, but I think an actual adjective should suffice for all practical intents and purposes or at least for the table.
I think the word you probably want is absent. If something is absent that means it is not here, and that can either be because it exists elsewhere, or because it does not have the existence necessary to be present anywhere, per the Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia's definitions:
- Not in a certain place at a given time; not in consciousness or thought at a certain time; away: opposed to present.
- Not existing; wanting; not forming a part or attribute of: as, among them refinement is absent; revenge is entirely absent from his mind.
Although it uses the nominal form of the word rather than the adjectival form, a phrase that very nicely demonstrates this is "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which is a popular phrase in our current century according to Seth Augenstein, in the online Forensic Magazine article When is the Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence?
The phrase itself is a good example because absence is used both ways. In the first case, we simply do not have the evidence to prove something exists at this point in time, yet that does not necessarily mean it is nowhere to be found as suggested by the second. It is a common rebuttal to the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, particularly where somebody wishes to furnish the missing evidence. Consider this explanation excerpted from chapter 13 of Political Argumentation in the United States: Historical and Contemporary Studies. Selected Essays by David Zarefsky for instance:
Ordinarily the argument from ignorance is regarded as a fallacy in reasoning. It was first given the name argumentum ad ignorantiam by John Locke, and is one of the group of "ad-fallacies" that appeal to irrelevant considerations in order to warrant an inference. The fact that we do not know A to be true is no more reason to conclude that it is false than to regard it as true. The fallacy converts extistential doubt into a conclusive assertion of either truth or falsity.
The only problem with it, in my opinion, is that it is simply an adjective, rather than a past participle (in summary: a verb inflected in past tense form to be used as an adjective) so it would seem out of place among the other examples, but I think an actual adjective should suffice for all practical intents and purposes or at least for the table.
edited 21 hours ago
answered 21 hours ago
TonepoetTonepoet
3,52011527
3,52011527
add a comment |
add a comment |
My initial thought was excused, just from reading the title alone. A person is excused if permitted to be absent.
However, I think exempt (or exempted) is a better fit. Wiktionary has a nice, concise definition:
Free from a duty or obligation.
In this case, free from the duty or obligation to exist.
add a comment |
My initial thought was excused, just from reading the title alone. A person is excused if permitted to be absent.
However, I think exempt (or exempted) is a better fit. Wiktionary has a nice, concise definition:
Free from a duty or obligation.
In this case, free from the duty or obligation to exist.
add a comment |
My initial thought was excused, just from reading the title alone. A person is excused if permitted to be absent.
However, I think exempt (or exempted) is a better fit. Wiktionary has a nice, concise definition:
Free from a duty or obligation.
In this case, free from the duty or obligation to exist.
My initial thought was excused, just from reading the title alone. A person is excused if permitted to be absent.
However, I think exempt (or exempted) is a better fit. Wiktionary has a nice, concise definition:
Free from a duty or obligation.
In this case, free from the duty or obligation to exist.
answered 11 hours ago
GooseberryGooseberry
21113
21113
add a comment |
add a comment |
Based on your table, it seems you have 2 booleans, existence and knowledge, giving 4 combinations. You want to name these 4 combinations, but this only makes sense from the perspective of a knowledgable 3rd party.
For example, if I had a ball and a screen and two people sitting on opposite sides of table. Person A either places the ball on the table or not and either places a screen in front of person B or not. From Person A's perspective:
Ball Screen Word(s)
YES NO Guaranteed / Exposed
NO NO Prohibited / Voided
YES YES Cloaked / Obscured
NO YES Evoked / Hinted
evoke: To cause the manifestation of something (emotion, picture, etc.) in someone's mind or imagination. [ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evoke#English ]
New contributor
aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Based on your table, it seems you have 2 booleans, existence and knowledge, giving 4 combinations. You want to name these 4 combinations, but this only makes sense from the perspective of a knowledgable 3rd party.
For example, if I had a ball and a screen and two people sitting on opposite sides of table. Person A either places the ball on the table or not and either places a screen in front of person B or not. From Person A's perspective:
Ball Screen Word(s)
YES NO Guaranteed / Exposed
NO NO Prohibited / Voided
YES YES Cloaked / Obscured
NO YES Evoked / Hinted
evoke: To cause the manifestation of something (emotion, picture, etc.) in someone's mind or imagination. [ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evoke#English ]
New contributor
aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Based on your table, it seems you have 2 booleans, existence and knowledge, giving 4 combinations. You want to name these 4 combinations, but this only makes sense from the perspective of a knowledgable 3rd party.
For example, if I had a ball and a screen and two people sitting on opposite sides of table. Person A either places the ball on the table or not and either places a screen in front of person B or not. From Person A's perspective:
Ball Screen Word(s)
YES NO Guaranteed / Exposed
NO NO Prohibited / Voided
YES YES Cloaked / Obscured
NO YES Evoked / Hinted
evoke: To cause the manifestation of something (emotion, picture, etc.) in someone's mind or imagination. [ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evoke#English ]
New contributor
aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Based on your table, it seems you have 2 booleans, existence and knowledge, giving 4 combinations. You want to name these 4 combinations, but this only makes sense from the perspective of a knowledgable 3rd party.
For example, if I had a ball and a screen and two people sitting on opposite sides of table. Person A either places the ball on the table or not and either places a screen in front of person B or not. From Person A's perspective:
Ball Screen Word(s)
YES NO Guaranteed / Exposed
NO NO Prohibited / Voided
YES YES Cloaked / Obscured
NO YES Evoked / Hinted
evoke: To cause the manifestation of something (emotion, picture, etc.) in someone's mind or imagination. [ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evoke#English ]
New contributor
aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 5 hours ago
aepryusaepryus
1113
1113
New contributor
aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
aepryus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
I would use the word...omitted
New contributor
user332558 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I would use the word...omitted
New contributor
user332558 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I would use the word...omitted
New contributor
user332558 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I would use the word...omitted
New contributor
user332558 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user332558 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 22 mins ago
user332558user332558
1
1
New contributor
user332558 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user332558 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user332558 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Stefan Dollase is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Stefan Dollase is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Stefan Dollase is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Stefan Dollase is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481627%2fsingle-word-to-replace-allowed-to-be-missing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
7
I'm not clear how "allowed to exist" and "allowed to be missing" differ.
– Chaim
yesterday
1
@StefanDollase I don't understand the function of the "don't know" column. It seems to me that if something is "allowed to exist" then it has a choice of existing or not existing, and if something is "allowed to not exist" then it has the same two options. How does "don't know" really figure in? If it's intended to be "I am not sure if it exists or not", then "I know it does not exist" must also become a valid state for it at some point.
– Hellion
21 hours ago
1
@StefanDollase In other words, your distinction is really coming down to "allowed" meaning "either it exists but I don't know about it, or it exists and I do know about it", which means it exists, regardless of your knowledge state. To me, therefore, this seems like a pointless distinction and the first two states (allowed and ???) are really the same: it can exist, or it can not exist.
– Hellion
21 hours ago
2
Your table muddies things up in my opinion. In your first row, "allowed to exist", why do you have a "yes" in the column "exists"? Something that is allowed to exist could just as easily have a "no" in the column "exists". Vice versa, for "allowed to be missing", why do you have a "no" for "exists"? It could be "yes" - the item could be there, it's only allowed to be missing, not guaranteed. In my mind you're confusing the epistemological question with the ontological question.
– Mark Beadles
20 hours ago
1
I would not say that "guaranteed to be missing" is a negation of "allowed to exist". For example, marijuana is prohibited in my state, but it nevertheless exists.
– indot_brad
17 hours ago