"Niether necessary nor sufficient"
Lars Eighner
<19980930210106...@ng03.aol.com>
the lovely and talented rush...@aol.com (Rushtown)
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
| This phrase, "niether necessary nor sufficient" is catching on
| nowadays.
And has been catching on for at least 40 years that I know of.
|And I want to protest that it does not clarify things.
Perhaps you are hearing it misused. Correctly used it could
hardly make its meaning clearer.
|It seems to be a sort of affectation. It's said or written to
| demonstrate erudition.
Yeah, educated people speaking as if they were educated. How gross!
| But it does the opposite of what new catch
| phrases are suppose to do---it doesn't clarify. You have to sit back
| and think, "What does he mean?"
Perhaps you do have to sit back.
| Why not use plain English and say,
| "It help's, but is not necessarily enough." A bit longer, but at
| least clear.
If that is what you take it to mean there's little wonder you are
perplexed.
--
Lars Eighner*700 Hearn #101*Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com FreeBSD2.2.7stable
(512)474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
Please visit my web bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstor.html
A Blueberry is purple, except when green it is red!
Robert Lieblich
>
Rushtown <said>
>
> | This phrase, "niether necessary nor sufficient" is catching on
> | nowadays.
>
> And has been catching on for at least 40 years that I know of.
>
> |And I want to protest that it does not clarify things.
>
> Perhaps you are hearing it misused. Correctly used it could
> hardly make its meaning clearer.
How about an example: "Being celibate is neither necessary nor
sufficient for election to the US Presidency." You don't have to be
celibate to get elected (even after Clinton), nor is being celibate all
it takes to get you elected. Neither necessary nor sufficient.
I'm a lawyer, and I have used the phrase several times over the years in
professional writing, particularly when arguing legal points to a court.
It may not be an exact fit very often, but when it does fit there's no
better way of saying it.
Every locution we use was once new to us. A given locution may strike
someone as clever on first encounter, and the person will use it until
everyone around is thoroughly sick of it. Another locution may for some
reason seem somehow offensive to the newcomer, even though the rest of
the world may have been using it, unremarked, for decades or even
centuries. When you encounter something new, tuck it away, dust it off
periodically, watch for recurrences, and fairly soon you should be able
to tell not only how you feel about it but how the rest of the world
feels. Complaining about something that's standard usage may make you
feel good for a while, but those who hear your complaining are more
likely to wonder what's wrong with you than to abandon the locution.
FWIW.
Bob Lieblich
Rushtown
This phrase, "niether necessary nor sufficient" is catching
things. It seems to be a sort of affectation. It's said or
written to demonstrate erudition.
But it does the opposite of what new catch phrases are
suppose to do---it doesn't clarify. You have to sit back and
think, "What does he mean?"
Rushtown
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: "Niether necessary nor sufficient"
>From: Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com>
>Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 21:37 EDT
>Message-id: <8790j16...@lizbeth.io.com>
>
>In our last episode
><19980930210106...@ng03.aol.com>
> the lovely and talented rush...@aol.com (Rushtown)
> broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>
>| nowadays.
>
>
>
>hardly make its meaning clearer.
>
>| demonstrate erudition.
>
>
>| phrases are suppose to do---it doesn't clarify. You have to sit back
>| and think, "What does he mean?"
>
>
>| "It help's, but is not necessarily enough." A bit longer, but at
>| least clear.
>
>perplexed.
Yes I realize that it also means that there are
other things that help, and that therefore the
thing we are talking about is not vital or
solely necessary. And this thing we are talking about isn't enough on it's
own.
But the impression the whole term gives is
that the item we are talking about isn't important. Usually this impression is
incorrect.
Example: "Having an atomic bomb is neither
necessary nor sufficient to being a world
power"
Yes the phrase has been around for decades--it's just that it's being overused
a lot
nowadays.
And do I detect a little envy in the opening
at all the attention I'm getting. (ie longest thread ever in aue, the one re
Brits). Well
don't worry, We see you, Lars, We see you.
Rushtown
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: "Neither necessary nor sufficient"
>From: Robert Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com>
>Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 22:12 EDT
>Message-id: <3612E5...@erols.com>
>
>Lars Eighner wrote:
>>
>Rushtown <said>
>>
>> | nowadays.
>>
>> And has been catching on for at least 40 years that I know of.
>>
>> |And I want to protest that it does not clarify things.
>>
>> Perhaps you are hearing it misused. Correctly used it could
>> hardly make its meaning clearer.
>
>sufficient for election to the US Presidency." You don't have to be
>celibate to get elected (even after Clinton), nor is being celibate all
>it takes to get you elected. Neither necessary nor sufficient.
>
>I'm a lawyer, and I have used the phrase several times over the years in
>professional writing, particularly when arguing legal points to a court.
>It may not be an exact fit very often, but when it does fit there's no
>better way of saying it.
The phrase has been around for a long
time, but I saw it used 7 times in one news
magazine.
It's fine if lawyers use it; they're smart enough
to understand that it means: " This thing helps,
but it is not the only thing that helps, and it
alone is not necessarily enough."
I've seen it misused about half the time in the
paper.
When it's used correctly I do have to sit back
for a minute and contemplate what the writer
meant, and then I see that the phrase is
correctly used.
But this is a case where more words will
result in more clarity. "Having a high IQ is
neither necessary nor sufficient to be
an able Judge." Huh? er, why not explain.
And if you explain skip this phrase, it sounds
like showing off.
Truly Donovan
>>| This phrase, "niether necessary nor sufficient" is catching on
>>| nowadays.
>>
>>|And I want to protest that it does not clarify things.
>>| But it does the opposite of what new catch
>>| phrases are suppose to do---it doesn't clarify. You have to sit back
>>| and think, "What does he mean?"
And then it wrote some more:
>But the impression the whole term gives is
>that the item we are talking about isn't important. Usually this impression is
>incorrect.
>Example: "Having an atomic bomb is neither
>necessary nor sufficient to being a world
>power"
If you have to sit back and think "What does it mean?" then how do you
know that the whole gives the impression that the subject is
unimportant?
The meaning of your example is exquisitely clear and has nothing to do
with importance, per se; it has to do with the specific conditions
attendant to world powerhood:
You don't have to have an atomic bomb to be a world power (neither
necessary).
Having an atomic bomb doesn't make you a world power (nor sufficient).
Perfectly clear, and making no implications about the importance (or
lack thereof) of having an atomic bomb, except as it might affect
one's eligibility for world powerhood. Ask the people who own one.
Now, having a great many nuclear bombs and the ability and will to
deliver them where they will be effective in achieving one's
objectives *could* be a factor, but that wasn't the subject under
discussion.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
Truly Donovan
>The phrase has been around for a long
>time, but I saw it used 7 times in one news
>magazine.
>It's fine if lawyers use it; they're smart enough
>to understand that it means:
A lot of us are smart enough to understand what it means; maybe you
should be choosing a newsmagazine written to your level of
comprehension. Have you considered "My Weekly Reader"?
>" This thing helps,
>but it is not the only thing that helps, and it
>alone is not necessarily enough."
>I've seen it misused about half the time in the
>paper.
>When it's used correctly I do have to sit back
>for a minute and contemplate what the writer
>meant, and then I see that the phrase is
>correctly used.
Let me see if I have this right -- when it is misused (according to
you), you don't have any problem with it, but when it is used
correctly (according to you), you have to stop and think about what it
must mean to see that it is correctly used.
Strange indeed.
>But this is a case where more words will
>result in more clarity. "Having a high IQ is
>neither necessary nor sufficient to be
>an able Judge." Huh? er, why not explain.
>And if you explain skip this phrase, it sounds
>like showing off.
Explain what? If you want to know *why* it is neither necessary nor
sufficient, that's another matter, but that doesn't alter the
simplicity or clarity of the statement.
It's exactly the same as the atom bomb example you complained about
earlier:
You don't have to have a high IQ to be an able judge.
Having a high IQ alone isn't enough to be an able judge.
Stylistically, "neither necessary nor sufficient" is a lot more
effective.
Charles Riggs
>In our last episode
><19980930210106...@ng03.aol.com>
> the lovely and talented rush...@aol.com (Rushtown)
> broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>
>| This phrase, "niether necessary nor sufficient" is catching on
>| nowadays.
>
>And has been catching on for at least 40 years that I know of.
>
>|And I want to protest that it does not clarify things.
>
>Perhaps you are hearing it misused. Correctly used it could
>hardly make its meaning clearer.
>
>|It seems to be a sort of affectation. It's said or written to
>| demonstrate erudition.
I find it's meaning clear. I think it is a play on words taken from an
often used expression by mathematicians in mathematical proofs. It
wouldn't seem an affectation to them, but as necessary and logical. In
ordinary English I think it has a humorous ring.
Charles
Murray Arnow
>> | nowadays.
>>
>> And has been catching on for at least 40 years that I know of.
>>
>> |And I want to protest that it does not clarify things.
>>
>> Perhaps you are hearing it misused. Correctly used it could
>> hardly make its meaning clearer.
>
>sufficient for election to the US Presidency." You don't have to be
>celibate to get elected (even after Clinton), nor is being celibate all
>it takes to get you elected. Neither necessary nor sufficient.
>
>I'm a lawyer, and I have used the phrase several times over the years in
>professional writing, particularly when arguing legal points to a court.
>It may not be an exact fit very often, but when it does fit there's no
>better way of saying it.
>
This phrase seems to be a direct borrowing from the mathematical usage of
"necessary and sufficient." "Necessary and sufficient" has been used in math
for one hell of a long time and is used to describe a condition that is not
only required for a logical truth, but it is the only condition that
necessary. "Necessary and sufficient" is sometimes referred to as "if and only
if." "Neither necessary nor sufficient" is a sort of obverse stating of
"necessary and sufficient."
Charles Strauss
>On 1 Oct 1998 04:25:34 GMT, rush...@aol.com (Rushtown) wrote:
>
>
>>>| nowadays.
>
>>>
The phrase has been used in mathematics for a very long time. One of the
motivating principles in modern mathematics is trying to prove theorems
from minimal and/or weakened given conditions, and so the connection between
the given conditions and the proven (or not proven) results is of particular
interest. A lot of discussion goes on as to whether a particular given
condition is necessary (for the result to hold), sufficient (for the result
to hold), both necessary and sufficient (...) or neither necessary nor
sufficient (...).
/C.M. Strauss
Martin A. Mazur
>The phrase has been around for a long
>time, but I saw it used 7 times in one news
>magazine.
>It's fine if lawyers use it; they're smart enough
>but it is not the only thing that helps, and it
>alone is not necessarily enough."
>I've seen it misused about half the time in the
>paper.
>When it's used correctly I do have to sit back
>for a minute and contemplate what the writer
>meant, and then I see that the phrase is
>correctly used.
>result in more clarity. "Having a high IQ is
>neither necessary nor sufficient to be
>an able Judge." Huh? er, why not explain.
>And if you explain skip this phrase, it sounds
>like showing off.
Rushtown, you've already shown twice that you have no idea what the phrase
under discussion means. The phrase "A is neither necessary nor sufficient for
B" is neither necessary not sufficient for indicating whether A "helps" B. It
could be the speaker's way of saying A has nothing whatever to do with B. It
could be used ironically to indicate that A is irrelevant to B (and vice
versa).
--
Martin A. Mazur | 3rd Century thoughts on MTV:
| "There is no public entertainment which
Representing only himself. | does not inflict spiritual damage"
| - Tertullian
|
Rushtown
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: "Niether necessary nor sufficient"
>Date: Thu, Oct 1, 1998 09:43 EDT
>Message-id: <6v00tj$b1t$1...@ron.uri.edu>
And I'm sure that every time it's used you
have to pause for a minute to figure out
what is meant. In math or law I'm sure it's a
very useful phrase that results in more accuracy. What I'm protesting is it's
recent
overuse when it's use does not promote
clarity.
Rushtown
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: "Neither necessary nor sufficient"
>Date: Thu, Oct 1, 1998 05:34 EDT
>Message-id: <36264be9....@news.anu.ie>
>
>On 30 Sep 1998 20:37:18 -0500, Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>In our last episode
>><19980930210106...@ng03.aol.com>
>> the lovely and talented rush...@aol.com (Rushtown)
>> broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>>
>>| nowadays.
>>
>>
>>
>>hardly make its meaning clearer.
>>
>>| demonstrate erudition.
>
>I find it's meaning clear. I think it is a play on words taken from an
>often used expression by mathematicians in mathematical proofs. It
>wouldn't seem an affectation to them, but as necessary and logical. In
>ordinary English I think it has a humorous ring.
Humorous and a little pretentious, too.
Try telling your gardner that you feel it
is niether necessary nor sufficient to use
fertilizer. I guarantee a puzzled look.
Rushtown
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: "Neither necessary nor sufficient"
>Date: Thu, Oct 1, 1998 03:34 EDT
>Message-id: <36272e03...@news3.ibm.net>
>
>On 1 Oct 1998 04:32:32 GMT, rush...@aol.com (Rushtown) wrote:
>
>
>>The phrase has been around for a long
>>time, but I saw it used 7 times in one news
>>magazine.
>>It's fine if lawyers use it; they're smart enough
>>to understand that it means:
>
>should be choosing a newsmagazine written to your level of
>comprehension. Have you considered "My Weekly Reader"?
>
>>but it is not the only thing that helps, and it
>>alone is not necessarily enough."
>>I've seen it misused about half the time in the
>>paper.
>>When it's used correctly I do have to sit back
>>for a minute and contemplate what the writer
>>meant, and then I see that the phrase is
>>correctly used.
>
>you), you don't have any problem with it, but when it is used
>correctly (according to you), you have to stop and think about what it
>must mean to see that it is correctly used.
>
>Strange indeed.
>
>>result in more clarity. "Having a high IQ is
>>neither necessary nor sufficient to be
>>an able Judge." Huh? er, why not explain.
>>And if you explain skip this phrase, it sounds
>>like showing off.
>
>sufficient, that's another matter, but that doesn't alter the
>simplicity or clarity of the statement.
>
>It's exactly the same as the atom bomb example you complained about
>earlier:
>
>You don't have to have a high IQ to be an able judge.
>
>Having a high IQ alone isn't enough to be an able judge.
>
>effective.
You've just made my point with two clear
sentences about being a judge. And if you
can say something that both the readers of
"My Weekly Reader" and "The Economist" can understand, why not?
Rushtown
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: "Neither necessary nor sufficient"
>Date: Thu, Oct 1, 1998 09:49 EDT
>Message-id: <6v015n$2g...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>
>
>In article <19981001003232...@ng111.aol.com>, rush...@aol.com
>(Rushtown) wrote:
>>The phrase has been around for a long
>>time, but I saw it used 7 times in one news
>>magazine.
>>It's fine if lawyers use it; they're smart enough
>>but it is not the only thing that helps, and it
>>alone is not necessarily enough."
>>I've seen it misused about half the time in the
>>paper.
>>When it's used correctly I do have to sit back
>>for a minute and contemplate what the writer
>>meant, and then I see that the phrase is
>>correctly used.
>>result in more clarity. "Having a high IQ is
>>neither necessary nor sufficient to be
>>an able Judge." Huh? er, why not explain.
>>And if you explain skip this phrase, it sounds
>>like showing off.
>
>under discussion means. The phrase "A is neither necessary nor sufficient for
>
>B" is neither necessary not sufficient for indicating whether A "helps" B. It
>
>could be the speaker's way of saying A has nothing whatever to do with B. It
>could be used ironically to indicate that A is irrelevant to B (and vice
>versa).
>
>--
>Martin A. Mazur
If I don't understand it, being a University
graduate, perhaps the problem is with this
phrase. You've supported the point I was
trying to make---this phrase is too hard to understand for many; leads to
confusion; and can easily be replaced with a clearer explanation.
John Davies
<rush...@aol.com> writes
>
>This phrase, "niether necessary nor sufficient" is catching
>things. It seems to be a sort of affectation. It's said or
>written to demonstrate erudition.
>But it does the opposite of what new catch phrases are
>suppose to do---it doesn't clarify. You have to sit back and
>think, "What does he mean?"
>enough." A bit longer, but at least clear.
This phrase has its origin in the study of logic. Consider the
following:
[Proposition A] if and only if [proposition B]
-- then B is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for A to be
true.
[Proposition A] if [proposition B] or [proposition C]
-- then B and C are both sufficient conditions for A to be true, but
neither is a necessary condition.
[Proposition A] if and only if [[proposition B] and [proposition c]]
-- then B and C are both necessary conditions to A, but neither is
sufficient.
Unlike most of the others who have responded, I'm inclined to agree with
you that "neither necessary nor sufficient" is often used as an over-
elaborate way of saying "X has bugger all to do with Y". To my mind,
"necessary and/or sufficient" is best kept for contexts in which one
wants to be precise about conditional relationships.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
Rushtown
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: "Niether necessary nor sufficient"
>Date: Thu, Oct 1, 1998 10:04 EDT
>Message-id: <WmDdrHAy...@redwoods.demon.co.uk>
THANK YOU!
Lars Eighner
<19981001102552...@ng10.aol.com>
| ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: "Neither necessary nor sufficient" From:
| >ri...@anu.ie (Charles Riggs) Date: Thu, Oct 1, 1998 05:34 EDT
| >Message-id: <36264be9....@news.anu.ie>
| >
| >On 30 Sep 1998 20:37:18 -0500, Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote:
| >
| >>In our last episode <19980930210106...@ng03.aol.com> the
| >>lovely and talented rush...@aol.com (Rushtown) broadcast on
| >>alt.usage.english:
| >>
| >>| This phrase, "niether necessary nor sufficient" is catching on
| >>|nowadays.
| >> And has been catching on for at least 40 years that I know of.
| >>
| >>|And I want to protest that it does not clarify things.
| >> Perhaps you are hearing it misused. Correctly used it could hardly
| >>make its meaning clearer.
| >>
| >>|It seems to be a sort of affectation. It's said or written to
| >>|demonstrate erudition.
| > I find it's meaning clear. I think it is a play on words taken from
| >an often used expression by mathematicians in mathematical proofs. It
| >wouldn't seem an affectation to them, but as necessary and
| >logical. In ordinary English I think it has a humorous ring.
|
| Humorous and a little pretentious, too. Try telling your gardner that
| you feel it is niether necessary nor sufficient to use fertilizer. I
| guarantee a puzzled look.
Possibly. "Neither necessary nor sufficient" is a relation between two
propositions. Your expression may be too elliptical as you have put it.
Your gardener, who speaks English, will be very likely to understand you
if you say "It is not necessary to apply fertilizer." The gardener will
also understand "It is not sufficient to apply fertilizer." Why wouldn't
the gardener understand "It is neither necessary nor sufficient to apply
fertilizer"?
True enough, the gardener still does not know what you do want done. But
that is not a matter of misunderstanding; you simply haven't said.
Gardener: "Shall I weed?"
You: "That is necessary."
Gardener: "Shall I weed and prune?"
You: "That is necessary, but not sufficient."
Gardener: "What if I were to weed, prune, and water?"
You: "That is necessary and would be sufficient."
Gardener: "And applying fertilizer?"
You: "Neither necessary nor sufficient."
Do you really think the gardener will give another thought to applying
fertilizer?
This business of something or the other being supposed to be pretentious
strikes me as extremely patronizing. Really, aren't you saying that we
must all talk down to common people? "Necessary" and "sufficient" are
not arcane jargon. They are perfectly common English words.
--
Lars Eighner*700 Hearn #101*Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com FreeBSD2.2.7stable
(512)474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
Please visit my web bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstor.html
I've got a mind like a.. a.. what's that thing called?
Ralph Jones
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: "Neither necessary nor sufficient"
> >From: tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan)
[...snip...]
> >It's exactly the same as the atom bomb example you complained about
> >earlier:
> >
> >You don't have to have a high IQ to be an able judge.
> >
> >Having a high IQ alone isn't enough to be an able judge.
> >
> >Stylistically, "neither necessary nor sufficient" is a lot more
> >effective.
>
> You've just made my point with two clear
> sentences about being a judge. And if you
> can say something that both the readers of
> "My Weekly Reader" and "The Economist" can understand, why not?
I would presume that the readers of "The Economist" would have no problem
with "My Weekly Reader" but why in the world would you even think about
dumbing down "The Economist".
By the way, this thread will probably split into two because of the
spelling correction in the header. I sort of liked the misspelling, it gave
the original posting more perspective.
Ralph Jones
> If I don't understand it, being a University
> graduate, perhaps the problem is with this
> phrase. You've supported the point I was
> trying to make---this phrase is too hard to understand for many; leads to
> confusion; and can easily be replaced with a clearer explanation.
Perhaps? I suppose it could be, theoretically. But in this case, I find it hard to
believe that you could have taken any courses in Logic or any mathematics courses
that involved proving theorems. I understand that it's possible to acquire a
degree nowadays without understanding some things that would have been considered
necessary, if not sufficient, in earlier times.
Ralph Jones
Rushtown wrote:
> Humorous and a little pretentious, too.
> Try telling your gardner that you feel it
> is niether necessary nor sufficient to use
> fertilizer. I guarantee a puzzled look.
OK, but why would you ever say that to your gardener?
You might tell him that it was necessary and sufficient to use fertilizer
if that was the only thing he needed to do.
K. Edgcombe
>
>>But this is a case where more words will
>>result in more clarity. "Having a high IQ is
>>neither necessary nor sufficient to be
>>an able Judge." Huh? er, why not explain.
>>And if you explain skip this phrase, it sounds
>>like showing off.
>
>sufficient, that's another matter, but that doesn't alter the
>simplicity or clarity of the statement.
>
>earlier:
>
>You don't have to have a high IQ to be an able judge.
>
>Having a high IQ alone isn't enough to be an able judge.
>
>Stylistically, "neither necessary nor sufficient" is a lot more
>effective.
I agree. However, I do find that my students (who are supposed to be seriously
bright, and mathematicians to boot) do hesitate from time to time when
confronted with "necessary but not sufficient" or "sufficient but not
necessary". It is nearly as easy to get these the wrong way up as it is to get
confused about which way to shift everything when your travel agent has quoted
your aircraft departure time in the wrong time zone.
Katy
Truly Donovan
>You've just made my point with two clear
>sentences about being a judge. And if you
>can say something that both the readers of
>"My Weekly Reader" and "The Economist" can understand, why not?
Because I'm not interested in the Weekly Reader audience and I don't
want to bore the Economist audience (and myself) to death with
simple-minded stylistically impoverished prose that takes more words
than necessary to communicate a thought far less effectively.
Truly Donovan
>If I don't understand it, being a University
>graduate, perhaps the problem is with this
>phrase. You've supported the point I was
>trying to make---this phrase is too hard to understand for many; leads to
>confusion; and can easily be replaced with a clearer explanation.
This college dropout gets it. Maybe the fault isn't with the phrase
after all.
Truly Donovan
>On 30 Sep 1998 20:37:18 -0500, Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>In our last episode
>><19980930210106...@ng03.aol.com>
>> the lovely and talented rush...@aol.com (Rushtown)
>> broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>>
>>| This phrase, "niether necessary nor sufficient" is catching on
>>| nowadays.
>>
>>And has been catching on for at least 40 years that I know of.
>>
>>|And I want to protest that it does not clarify things.
>>
>>Perhaps you are hearing it misused. Correctly used it could
>>hardly make its meaning clearer.
>>
>>|It seems to be a sort of affectation. It's said or written to
>>| demonstrate erudition.
>
>I find it's meaning clear. I think it is a play on words taken from an
>often used expression by mathematicians in mathematical proofs. It
>wouldn't seem an affectation to them, but as necessary and logical. In
>ordinary English I think it has a humorous ring.
I don't think it is a "play on words" from some particular discipline
so much as it is a useful description of a set of conditions that
comes into play in a number of disciplines -- including both
mathematics and law, for example.
Michael Cargal
>If I don't understand it, being a University
>graduate, perhaps the problem is with this
>phrase. You've supported the point I was
>trying to make---this phrase is too hard to understand for many; leads to
>confusion; and can easily be replaced with a clearer explanation.
It seems that most people in this group (all but one) have no problem
understanding the phrase, so perhaps the problem is not in the phrase.
Are there any other words, phrases, or concepts you don't understand,
so we can avoid them to keep from confusing you?
--
Michael Cargal car...@cts.com
Michael Cargal
>
>><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: "Neither necessary nor sufficient"
>>From: ri...@anu.ie (Charles Riggs)
>>Date: Thu, Oct 1, 1998 05:34 EDT
>>Message-id: <36264be9....@news.anu.ie>
>>
>>On 30 Sep 1998 20:37:18 -0500, Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In our last episode
>>><19980930210106...@ng03.aol.com>
>>> the lovely and talented rush...@aol.com (Rushtown)
>>> broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>>>
>>>| This phrase, "niether necessary nor sufficient" is catching on
>>>| nowadays.
>>>
>>>And has been catching on for at least 40 years that I know of.
>>>
>>>|And I want to protest that it does not clarify things.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you are hearing it misused. Correctly used it could
>>>hardly make its meaning clearer.
>>>
>>>|It seems to be a sort of affectation. It's said or written to
>>>| demonstrate erudition.
>>
>>I find it's meaning clear. I think it is a play on words taken from an
>>often used expression by mathematicians in mathematical proofs. It
>>wouldn't seem an affectation to them, but as necessary and logical. In
>>ordinary English I think it has a humorous ring.
>
>Humorous and a little pretentious, too.
>Try telling your gardner that you feel it
>is niether necessary nor sufficient to use
>fertilizer. I guarantee a puzzled look.
The puzzlement might come from his wondering why you think it is not
necessary to use fertilizer.
--
Michael Cargal car...@cts.com
K1912
John Davies wrote:
>In article <19980930210106...@ng03.aol.com>, Rushtown
><rush...@aol.com> writes
>>
>>This phrase, "niether necessary nor sufficient" is catching
>>on nowadays. And I want to protest that it does not clarify
>>things. It seems to be a sort of affectation. It's said or
>>written to demonstrate erudition.
>>But it does the opposite of what new catch phrases are
>>suppose to do---it doesn't clarify. You have to sit back and
>>think, "What does he mean?"
>>Why not use plain English and say, "It help's, but is not necessarily
>>enough." A bit longer, but at least clear.
>
>This phrase has its origin in the study of logic. Consider the
>following:
>
>[Proposition A] if and only if [proposition B]
>-- then B is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for A to be
>true.
>
>[Proposition A] if [proposition B] or [proposition C]
>-- then B and C are both sufficient conditions for A to be true, but
>neither is a necessary condition.
>
>[Proposition A] if and only if [[proposition B] and [proposition c]]
>
>-- then B and C are both necessary conditions to A, but neither is
>sufficient.
>
>Unlike most of the others who have responded, I'm inclined to agree with
>you that "neither necessary nor sufficient" is often used as an over-
>elaborate way of saying "X has bugger all to do with Y". To my mind,
>"necessary and/or sufficient" is best kept for contexts in which one
>wants to be precise about conditional relationships.
Hear, hear!
If manure, for instance, is not necessary, then the question of how much manure
would be sufficient is immaterial.
George
K1912
Curtis Cameron
>If manure, for instance, is not necessary, then the question of how much manure
>would be sufficient is immaterial.
But that's not true. Manure is not necessary to fertilize my garden (I
can use chemical granules). However, if I choose to use manure, I need
to know how much to use. A sufficient amount, although it's not
necessary.
-Curtis Cameron
WGS-84 33.033N, 96.724W
Robert Bryan Lipton
>
>
>>If I don't understand it, being a University
>>graduate, perhaps the problem is with this
>>phrase. You've supported the point I was
>>trying to make---this phrase is too hard to understand for many; leads to
>>confusion; and can easily be replaced with a clearer explanation.
Could it be that you weren't paying attention? Without reference to you or
your university, I think that I might find myself using 'not necessary or
sufficient' in discussing, say, economic theory with a friend of mine who is
a theoretical physicist. As both use -- or purport to use -- higher math,
it makes sense. On the other hand, when we're discussing beer, the phrase
rarely comes up, even when discussing hops, which are necessary and not
sufficient for good beer.
Language varies according to the speaker, the audience and the subject. I
rarely use metaphors drawn from Bluegrass music when discussing the comedies
of Aristophanes and have little opportunity to drop in the remnants of
Latin I retain when musing on Newt Gingrich. I would never use the word
'contraindicated' to my cousin's five-year-old boy, Toby, but it cropped up
when Toby's father, a doctor, threw me in the hospital and told me I had TB.
"You mean Consumption?" I asked, aware that he was sufficiently educated to
know the old name. Some time later, 'contraindicated' was used.
While I believe in making my writer clear and precise, there are times, when
discussing technical issues, where jargon becomes useful. I first
encountered the pairing of 'necesssary' and 'sufficient' in their varying
permutations in eighth grade math. It has, therefore, gone into the
disorganized junk drawer of my mind, to be dragged out occasionally. When
I examine it, I find it to be of limited utility -- do not administer to
children: requires education. From which we can now derive that a
university degree is not sufficient to make the usage clear tofay.... and it
was never necessary.
Bob
Robert Bryan Lipton
Raymot
says...
>If I don't understand it, being a University
>graduate, perhaps the problem is with this
>phrase.
Perhaps the problem is with the universities
or, more likely, with the education system as
a whole.
I've heard that the universities in the US have
given up on expecting their graduates to be
literate, and that the standard required to pass
one's course is way below that required to put
a correct English sentence together.
It's becoming that way here too, so I'm not
just America-bashing. Given that both the US
and Australia have a large number of foreign
students with barely adequate English, it's
possible that the universities don't like to
fail students simply for substandard English.
In Australia most universities are publicly
funded, however foreign (usually Asian)
students pay full price for their degrees.
It's not in the financial interests of the
uni to expect both money and literacy.
Ciao,
Raymot
=======
Brisbane, Australia
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Robert Lieblich
<snip>
> And I'm sure that every time it's used you
> have to pause for a minute to figure out
> what is meant. In math or law I'm sure it's a
> very useful phrase that results in more accuracy. What I'm protesting is it's
> recent
> overuse when it's use does not promote
> clarity.
If only we'd known this thirty or so postings ago! If we agree that
it's okay to use the phrase where it clarifies and not okay to use it
where it doesn't, we have accomplished no more than a truism. Shall we
all stipulate (yeah, I'm a lawyer) that a locution should be used only
where it will promote clarity and never where it won't? Very well.
Thank you one and all. Next case, please.
Of course, there remains the somewhat more difficult question of
identifying those circumstances in which a given phrase clarifies and
those in which it does not. This thread has revealed a fairly wide
spectrum of views on that topic with respect to the phrase in question
(as well as at least two disparate views on the spelling of the first
word of the phrase), and I doubt we will get any closer to the right
answer (if there is one) than we were when we started.
Me, I use it when it promotes clarity and not otherwise. Don't we all?
Bob Lieblich
P&DSchultz
> You have smarter gardeners in Scandanavia.
> In America all the smart people go to college and as a result we have dumb
> gardeners and
> dumb car mechanics over here. I'm not being
> facetious. It's true. In the 1950's there were
> very smart car mechanics and very smart
> Japanese gardners--now there kids have taken over the University of California
Bull. Our gardener has a college degree; a good one too, because he got
it a while back. His kids go to college, but they'll turn out more
ignorant than their gardener father because of the degeneration of
American education.
//P. Schultz
Ralph Jones
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: "Neither necessary nor sufficient"
> >From: Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com>
>
[...snip...]
> >This business of something or the other being supposed to be pretentious
> >strikes me as extremely patronizing. Really, aren't you saying that we
> >must all talk down to common people? "Necessary" and "sufficient" are
> >not arcane jargon. They are perfectly common English words.
>
> You have smarter gardeners in Scandanavia.
> In America all the smart people go to college and as a result we have dumb
> gardeners and
> dumb car mechanics over here. I'm not being
> facetious. It's true. In the 1950's there were
> very smart car mechanics and very smart
> Japanese gardners--now there kids have taken over the University of California
This has got to be a troll, and not BM either. I don't believe that BM would
confuse Scandinavia with Texas.
These gross gratuities will be best ignored.
Jitze Couperus
Edgcombe) wrote:
>
> I agree. However, I do find that my students (who are supposed to be
seriously
> bright, and mathematicians to boot) do hesitate from time to time when
> confronted with "necessary but not sufficient" or "sufficient but not
> necessary". It is nearly as easy to get these the wrong way up as it is
to get
> confused about which way to shift everything when your travel agent has quoted
> your aircraft departure time in the wrong time zone.
>
If they are mathematicians or logicians, they're probably worried about
how De Morgan's law applies here.
If we negate the original "necessary and sufficient" to where it becomes
not(necessary and sufficient) and then we want to express this
without parentheses (because perhaps we are speaking rather than writing)
we prepend the word "Neither" and then linguistic instinct drives us to
change the "or" to "nor". But being aware of the laws of logic, we know
we should probably use the word "nand", or at least we have to think twice
about it...
Ordinary folks don't have this nagging doubt.
Jitze
Rushtown
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: "Neither necessary nor sufficient"
>Date: Thu, Oct 1, 1998 15:10 EDT
>Message-id: <6v0kmq$knr$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>>rush...@aol.com (Rushtown) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If I don't understand it, being a University
>>>graduate, perhaps the problem is with this
OK I can agree with all of the above. Maybe
I should have said, "Don't use the phrase 'necessary or sufficient' when it is
niether necessary or sufficient to use it."
Rushtown
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: "Neither necessary nor sufficient"
>Date: Thu, Oct 1, 1998 11:29 EDT
>Message-id: <877lykb...@lizbeth.io.com>
>| >Message-id: <36264be9....@news.anu.ie>
>| >
>| >On 30 Sep 1998 20:37:18 -0500, Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote:
>| >
>| >>In our last episode <19980930210106...@ng03.aol.com> the
>| >>lovely and talented rush...@aol.com (Rushtown) broadcast on
>| >>alt.usage.english:
>| >>
>| >>|nowadays.
>| >>
>| >>make its meaning clearer.
>| >>
>| >>|demonstrate erudition.
>| >an often used expression by mathematicians in mathematical proofs. It
>| >wouldn't seem an affectation to them, but as necessary and
>| >logical. In ordinary English I think it has a humorous ring.
>|
>| Humorous and a little pretentious, too. Try telling your gardner that
>| you feel it is niether necessary nor sufficient to use fertilizer. I
>| guarantee a puzzled look.
>
>
>propositions. Your expression may be too elliptical as you have put it.
>
>Your gardener, who speaks English, will be very likely to understand you
>if you say "It is not necessary to apply fertilizer." The gardener will
>also understand "It is not sufficient to apply fertilizer." Why wouldn't
>the gardener understand "It is neither necessary nor sufficient to apply
>fertilizer"?
>
>True enough, the gardener still does not know what you do want done. But
>that is not a matter of misunderstanding; you simply haven't said.
>
>Gardener: "Shall I weed?"
>You: "That is necessary."
>Gardener: "Shall I weed and prune?"
>You: "That is necessary, but not sufficient."
>Gardener: "What if I were to weed, prune, and water?"
>You: "That is necessary and would be sufficient."
>Gardener: "And applying fertilizer?"
>You: "Neither necessary nor sufficient."
>
>Do you really think the gardener will give another thought to applying
>fertilizer?
>
Rushtown
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: "Niether necessary nor sufficient"
>Date: Thu, Oct 1, 1998 15:27 EDT
>Message-id: <19981001152729...@ng15.aol.com>
>
>
>John Davies wrote:
>
>
>
>>In article <19980930210106...@ng03.aol.com>, Rushtown
>><rush...@aol.com> writes
>>>
>>>things. It seems to be a sort of affectation. It's said or
>>>written to demonstrate erudition.
>>>But it does the opposite of what new catch phrases are
>>>suppose to do---it doesn't clarify. You have to sit back and
>>>think, "What does he mean?"
>>>Why not use plain English and say, "It help's, but is not necessarily
>>>enough." A bit longer, but at least clear.
>>
>>This phrase has its origin in the study of logic. Consider the
>>following:
>>
>>[Proposition A] if and only if [proposition B]
>>-- then B is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for A to be
>>true.
>>
>>[Proposition A] if [proposition B] or [proposition C]
>>-- then B and C are both sufficient conditions for A to be true, but
>>neither is a necessary condition.
>>
>>[Proposition A] if and only if [[proposition B] and [proposition c]]
>>
>>-- then B and C are both necessary conditions to A, but neither is
>>sufficient.
>>
>>Unlike most of the others who have responded, I'm inclined to agree with
>>you that "neither necessary nor sufficient" is often used as an over-
>>elaborate way of saying "X has bugger all to do with Y". To my mind,
>>"necessary and/or sufficient" is best kept for contexts in which one
>>wants to be precise about conditional relationships.
>
>Hear, hear!
>
>manure
>would be sufficient is immaterial.
>
Manure may not be necessary because something else will do. But it's possible
that
a certain quantity of manure may or may not
be sufficient and that might need explaining.
Sometimes a large load of Steer Manure is
all that's needed, if it's high quality..
Larry Phillips
> If I don't understand it, being a University
> graduate, perhaps the problem is with this
> phrase. You've supported the point I was
> trying to make---this phrase is too hard to understand for many;
> leads to confusion; and can easily be replaced with a clearer
> explanation.
I was refraining from comment on this thread, because I didn't think
I had anything to say that other have already said, and as well or
better than I could. I cannot let this comment pass, though.
A university education is apparently neither necessary nor sufficient
for understanding the phrase under discussion. I base this on your
claim that you are a university graduate, and on the fact that I
am not, and that I had no trouble with the phrase whatsoever.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Sixty billion gigabits can do much. It even does windows.
-- Fred Pohl, Beyond the Blue Event Horizon, 1980
Larry Phillips
> Humorous and a little pretentious, too.
> Try telling your gardner that you feel it
> is niether necessary nor sufficient to use
> fertilizer. I guarantee a puzzled look.
Are you claiming that all gardeners would be puzzled? I think you
are applying a stereotype here, in assuming that gardeners must,
of necessity, must not be educated or intelligent.
Larry Phillips
>
> And I'm sure that every time it's used you have to pause for a minute
> to figure out what is meant. In math or law I'm sure it's a
> very useful phrase that results in more accuracy.
> What I'm protesting is it's recent overuse when it's use does not
> promote clarity.
That has not, so far, been your argument.
Charles Riggs
Kahn) wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 11:14:13 -0500, Ralph Jones <RMJ...@hal-pc.org>
>wrote:
>
>>By the way, this thread will probably split into two because of the
>>spelling correction in the header. I sort of liked the misspelling, it gave
>>the original posting more perspective.
>
>Meow.
Sorry. Guilty as charged. :-)
Charles
Charles Riggs
>
>><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: "Neither necessary nor sufficient"
>>From: ri...@anu.ie (Charles Riggs)
>>Date: Thu, Oct 1, 1998 05:34 EDT
>>Message-id: <36264be9....@news.anu.ie>
>>
>>On 30 Sep 1998 20:37:18 -0500, Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In our last episode
>>><19980930210106...@ng03.aol.com>
>>> the lovely and talented rush...@aol.com (Rushtown)
>>> broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>>>
>>>| This phrase, "niether necessary nor sufficient" is catching on
>>>| nowadays.
>>>
>>>And has been catching on for at least 40 years that I know of.
>>>
>>>|And I want to protest that it does not clarify things.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you are hearing it misused. Correctly used it could
>>>hardly make its meaning clearer.
>>>
>>>|It seems to be a sort of affectation. It's said or written to
>>>| demonstrate erudition.
>>
>>I find it's meaning clear. I think it is a play on words taken from an
>>often used expression by mathematicians in mathematical proofs. It
>>wouldn't seem an affectation to them, but as necessary and logical. In
>>ordinary English I think it has a humorous ring.
>
>Humorous and a little pretentious, too.
>Try telling your gardner that you feel it
>is niether necessary nor sufficient to use
>fertilizer. I guarantee a puzzled look.
Well, if I were pretentious enough to have a gardener I would hope he
would both understand it, be amused by it and also know how to spell
the name of his profession along with the word "neither". (Especially
since the later is right in the header of this thread!)
Charles
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>>I find it's meaning clear. I think it is a play on words taken from an
>>often used expression by mathematicians in mathematical proofs. It
>>wouldn't seem an affectation to them, but as necessary and logical. In
>>ordinary English I think it has a humorous ring.
>
>I don't think it is a "play on words" from some particular discipline
>so much as it is a useful description of a set of conditions that
>comes into play in a number of disciplines -- including both
>mathematics and law, for example.
I take back my remark. It is only *sometimes* used in a humorous vein,
for it is useful expression in many walks of life. Am I in trouble
now?
Charles
Charles Riggs
>If I don't understand it, being a University
>graduate, perhaps the problem is with this
>phrase. You've supported the point I was
>trying to make---this phrase is too hard to understand for many; leads to
>confusion; and can easily be replaced with a clearer explanation.
Please tell us then what that expression would be. I am all ears.
Charles
Charles Riggs
>You have smarter gardeners in Scandanavia.
>In America all the smart people go to college and as a result we have dumb
>gardeners and
>dumb car mechanics over here. I'm not being
>facetious. It's true. In the 1950's there were
>very smart car mechanics and very smart
>Japanese gardners--now there kids have taken over the University of California
"All the smart people go to college"?! Then there are no smart people
in America who haven't attended college? Holy shit, I didn't know
that.
Charles
Brian J Goggin
[...]
>But it's possible that
>a certain quantity of manure may or may not
>be sufficient and that might need explaining.
True.
bjg
Perchprism
>Message-id: <36299803....@news.anu.ie>
<snip>
[sorry, lost the attribution]
>>Humorous and a little pretentious, too.
>>Try telling your gardner that you feel it
>>is niether necessary nor sufficient to use
>>fertilizer. I guarantee a puzzled look.
>
>Well, if I were pretentious enough to have a gardener I would hope he
>would both understand it, be amused by it and also know how to spell
>the name of his profession along with the word "neither". (Especially
>since the later is right in the header of this thread!)
Another splendid example of Skitt's Law: The mistake you're correcting in
another's post will appear in yours.
Perchprism
"Of two cigars, pick the longest and the strongest." Winston Churchill
John Davies
<lieb...@erols.com> writes
>Rushtown wrote:
>
>Me, I use it when it promotes clarity and not otherwise. Don't we all?
We all do. Trouble is, some of "them" don't.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
Ralph Jones
De Morgan's Law states that "the negation of a conjunction is equal to the
disjunction of the negation of the original conjuncts". This means that the negation
of (p AND q) is (~p OR ~q) where the OR is inclusive.
--
So what's the big deal? Was it a Cuban cigar?
Charles Strauss
That this is true is debatable (and debated). But C.P. Snow (in "The Two
Cultures and the Scientific Revolution"), Herrnstein and Murray in "The
Bell Curve" and Micky Kaus in "The End of Equality" all discuss this trend
as an inevitable consequence of meritocracy.
/C.M. Strauss
Ralph Jones
> ri...@anu.ie (Charles Riggs) writes:
>
> >On 2 Oct 1998 01:41:46 GMT, rush...@aol.com (Rushtown) wrote:
>
> >>In America all the smart people go to college
>
> >"All the smart people go to college"?! Then there are no smart people
> >in America who haven't attended college? Holy shit, I didn't know
> >that.
>
> It's a difficult target to hit. In order to make sure that *all* the
> smart people go to college you have to let an awful lot of idiots
> through as well. Since there still seem to be a few smart Americans
> who haven't been to college, it's clear that they're still not letting
> enough idiots in.
They are trying very hard.
--
Don't raise the bridge, lower the water.
Ralph Jones
The following is from an early posting by Rushtown in this very
thread. It's the last paragraph of the posting and it's just an
aside but it does seem to say something about the motivation of
Rushtown.
And do I detect a little envy in the opening
at all the attention I'm getting. (ie longest thread ever in aue,
the one re
Brits). Well don't worry, We see you, Lars, We see you.
Rushtown
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: "Neither necessary nor sufficient"
>Date: Fri, Oct 2, 1998 05:38 EDT
>Message-id: <36289731....@news.anu.ie>
It wouldn't be one expression. It would be
two sentences in plain English.
"It's not necessary, but it helps"
"It's alone won't do the whole job."
"There are other things that can help"
Er, OK three sentences. Eh, Eh, Yea, I'm
beginning to see your point here.
Donna Richoux
> On 1 Oct 1998 14:44:11 GMT, rush...@aol.com (Rushtown) wrote:
>
> >If I don't understand it, being a University
> >graduate, perhaps the problem is with this
> >phrase. You've supported the point I was
> >trying to make---this phrase is too hard to understand for many; leads to
> >confusion; and can easily be replaced with a clearer explanation.
>
> Please tell us then what that expression would be. I am all ears.
Can I take a stab at it? "Necessary and sufficient" is logically the
same as "if and only if," something we discussed here a year or so ago
and also confused people. Both are logically equivalent to having a
statement and its converse to be true.
If A is true, then B is true AND
if B is true, then A is true.
As I say, this is the same as
A is true if and only if B is true
And it is the same as
A is necessary and sufficient for B.
Example. Suppose a weather forecaster had this theory:
If the wind changes, it always brings rain, AND
If it rains, it must be that the wind just changed.
This is the same as
The wind changes if and only if rain comes
And it the same as
A wind change is necessary and sufficient for rain to come.
Anytime you see the "necessary and sufficient" phrase, it means you
could identify the two "If A, then B, and if B, then A" statements. And
it means you have two ideas that are very closely tied together.
Best wishes --- Donna Richoux
Martin A. Mazur
>You have smarter gardeners in Scandanavia.
>In America all the smart people go to college and as a result we have dumb
>gardeners and
>dumb car mechanics over here. I'm not being
>facetious. It's true. In the 1950's there were
>very smart car mechanics and very smart
>Japanese gardners--now there kids have taken over the University of California
A college degree is neither necessary nor sufficient for being smart.
--
Martin A. Mazur | 3rd Century thoughts on MTV:
| "There is no public entertainment which
Representing only himself. | does not inflict spiritual damage"
| - Tertullian
|
Martin A. Mazur
>
>>Please tell us then what that expression would be. I am all ears.
>
>two sentences in plain English.
>"It's not necessary, but it helps"
>"It's alone won't do the whole job."
>"There are other things that can help"
>Er, OK three sentences. Eh, Eh, Yea, I'm
>beginning to see your point here.
Just as you have been insistent about spelling "neither" incorrectly, you
have been obstinate in your misunderstanding of the phrase "neither necessary
nor sufficient". I wouldn't use you as a bellwether for determining if the use
of a phrase is presumptuous, affected, pretentious, or anything else.
N.Mitchum
-----
> A college degree is neither necessary nor sufficient for being smart.
It is, on the other hand, often necessary and sufficient for
being *thought* smart.
----NM [If replying by e-mail, please heed my address]
Michael Cargal
>In America all the smart people go to college and as a result we have dumb
>gardeners and
>dumb car mechanics over here. I'm not being
>facetious. It's true. In the 1950's there were
>very smart car mechanics and very smart
>Japanese gardners--now there kids have taken over the University of California
If you are truly not being facetious, you are being stupid, and it's
no wonder you don't understand "necessary and sufficient," the
difference between "there" and 'their," and standard punctuation. Just
what "University" was it that you graduated from?
--
Michael Cargal car...@cts.com
K1912
rushtown wrote:
>>Subject: Re: "Niether necessary nor sufficient"
>>From: k1...@aol.com (K1912)
>>Date: Thu, Oct 1, 1998 15:27 EDT
>>Message-id: <19981001152729...@ng15.aol.com>
>>
>>
>>John Davies wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In article <19980930210106...@ng03.aol.com>, Rushtown
>>><rush...@aol.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>This phrase, "niether necessary nor sufficient" is catching
>>>>on nowadays. And I want to protest that it does not clarify
>>>>things. It seems to be a sort of affectation. It's said or
>>>>written to demonstrate erudition.
>Manure may not be necessary because something else will do. But it's
>possible
>that
>a certain quantity of manure may or may not
>be sufficient and that might need explaining.
>Sometimes a large load of Steer Manure is
>all that's needed, if it's high quality..
>
>The phrase was "neither necessary nor sufficient." If something is not
*necessary* then it is immaterial what quantity would be "sufficent." Whether
you use artifical fertilizer or the real McCoy is also irrelevant to the
argument. Only if you choose to fertilize does fertilizer become *necessary*
and the question of how much (or what kind) would be *sufficient* pertain.
George
K1912
Donna Richoux
> rush...@aol.com (Rushtown) wrote:
> >
> >Humorous and a little pretentious, too.
> >Try telling your gardner that you feel it
> >is niether necessary nor sufficient to use
> >fertilizer. I guarantee a puzzled look.
>
> The puzzlement might come from his wondering why you think it is not
> necessary to use fertilizer.
Oh, it could be true, say if by fertilizer one meant chemical products
purchased in bags, as opposed to natural compost.
Are we all agreed that the sentence means:
If you want a good garden, it is not necessary to use fertilizer,
and, furthermore,
if you use fertilizer, it will not guarantee a good garden.
Note symmetrical structure: If A, not B, and if B, not A.
I've got to agree with Rushtown, it is a confusing phrase, especialy in
the negative. The "not necessary" part is easily grasped, but the "not
sufficient" part tends to slide right past you.
Best ---- Donna Richoux
David McMurray
> In article <19981002101254...@ng142.aol.com>, rush...@aol.com
> (Rushtown) wrote:
[...]
> >Eh, Eh, Yea, I'm beginning to see your point here.
>
> Just as you have been insistent about spelling "neither" incorrectly, you
> have been obstinate in your misunderstanding of the phrase "neither necessary
> nor sufficient". I wouldn't use you as a bellwether for determining if the use
> of a phrase is presumptuous, affected, pretentious, or anything else.
So much for the dawning of understanding.
Nice one, Martin.
--
David
Eric The Read
> These gross gratuities will be best ignored.
What, somebody sneezed on the tip? Depending on the size of the thing, I
might or might not agree with you.
-=Eric
Henry Tickner
pc.org> writes
>De Morgan's Law states that "the negation of a conjunction is equal to the
>disjunction of the negation of the original conjuncts".
This is music. The apparent inversion [negation ... conjunction ->
disjunction ... negation ( A B : B' A)], the dawning realisation of
fragmentation into rondo with "original" [ A B : B' : A C ], the perfect
codetta transforming it into a simultaneous sesquialtera of the first
apparent pattern [ A B : B' : A C : B" ]; and withal it states a basic
truth.
I'm going in search of my old calligraphy pen.
--
Henry Tickner
The 'nospam' is my ISP's domain, the 'boudoir' is mine.
Donna Richoux
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> If manure, for instance, is not necessary, then the question of how much
> manure would be sufficient is immaterial.
Actually this isn't right. Something can be "sufficient" without being
"necessary."
It may be true that a good garden does not need any manure (not
"necessary"). But it may also be true that a good shot of manure will
guarantee a good garden ("sufficient"). So the upshort is that manure is
not the only way to achieve a good garden, but it is an effective one.
Necessary and sufficient are independent of each other.
Best --- Donna Richoux
K1912
Donna Richoux wrote:
[...]
>> If manure, for instance, is not necessary, then the question of how much
>> manure would be sufficient is immaterial.
>
>Actually this isn't right. Something can be "sufficient" without being
>"necessary."
But, according to the phrase ("neither necessary nor sufficent"), it is *not*
necessary to fertilize (to stay with the example); therefore, as long as the
fertilizer is *unnecessary,* whether you have a "sufficient"or an insufficient
amount to do the job is immaterial, as you are not going to use it.
>It may be true that a good garden does not need any manure (not
>"necessary"). But it may also be true that a good shot of manure will
>guarantee a good garden ("sufficient"). So the upshort is that manure is
>not the only way to achieve a good garden, but it is an effective one.
True, but how to achieve a good garden is not the issue, nor is what is the
most effective fertilizer.
>Necessary and sufficient are independent of each other.
They are, I believe, in the phrase "neither necessary nor sufficent."
Best to you, Donna--
George
K1912
Robert Lieblich
>
> Donna Richoux wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> If manure, for instance, is not necessary, then the question of how much
> >> manure would be sufficient is immaterial.
> >
> >Actually this isn't right. Something can be "sufficient" without being
> >"necessary."
>
> But, according to the phrase ("neither necessary nor sufficent"), it is *not*
> necessary to fertilize (to stay with the example); therefore, as long as the
> fertilizer is *unnecessary,* whether you have a "sufficient"or an insufficient
> amount to do the job is immaterial, as you are not going to use it.
George, George. Forget about quantities. If manure is the only
fertilizer you use (assuming the correct quantity), will your garden
flourish? If so, manure is sufficient. If you can get good results
using other fertilizers, manure is not necessary. It is not necessary,
but it is sufficient.
Maybe -- gasp! -- Rushtown was right that some of us just don't get it.
Bob Lieblich
George F. Hardy
>
>Something can be "sufficient" without being "necessary."
Yes. "Necessary and sufficient" is the same as "if and only if".
If you understand the English language you know which word means
"if" and which one means "only if".
GFH
K1912
Robert Lieblich wrote:
>K1912 wrote:
>>
>> Donna Richoux wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> If manure, for instance, is not necessary, then the question of how much
>> >> manure would be sufficient is immaterial.
>> >
>> >Actually this isn't right. Something can be "sufficient" without being
>> >"necessary."
>>
>> But, according to the phrase ("neither necessary nor sufficent"), it is
>*not*
>> necessary to fertilize (to stay with the example); therefore, as long as
>the
>> fertilizer is *unnecessary,* whether you have a "sufficient"or an
>insufficient
>> amount to do the job is immaterial, as you are not going to use it.
>
>George, George. Forget about quantities. If manure is the only
>fertilizer you use (assuming the correct quantity), will your garden
>flourish? If so, manure is sufficient. If you can get good results
>using other fertilizers, manure is not necessary. It is not necessary,
>but it is sufficient.
>
>Maybe -- gasp! -- Rushtown was right that some of us just don't get it.
Bob, Bob. Forget about any kind of fertilizer-- the real McCoy or synthetic.
It's not going to be used because--it's "neither necessary nor sufficient."
Therefore it makes no difference even if you *have* a sufficient quantity of
the stuff on hand. The garden doesn't need to be fertilized; presumably it's
already flourishing and the tomatoes are as big as a lawyer's head. So even if
you had enough fertilizer to fertilize ten times over (which you don't) it's of
no consequence if it's not going to be used. (Besides, too much fertilizer
makes the lettuce go soft in the head.)
No maybe about it--gasp!--Rushtown is right.
George, which means farmer in Greek.
K1912
Robert Lieblich
<snip>
> Bob, Bob. Forget about any kind of fertilizer-- the real McCoy or synthetic.
> It's not going to be used because--it's "neither necessary nor sufficient."
> Therefore it makes no difference even if you *have* a sufficient quantity of
> the stuff on hand. The garden doesn't need to be fertilized; presumably it's
> already flourishing and the tomatoes are as big as a lawyer's head.
Now youu've gone too far (redundancy alert) -- Farmer George. NOTHING
is as big as a lawyer's head. . . . Although the ultimate standard of
comparison fr size is a trial lawyer's ego.
> So even if
> you had enough fertilizer to fertilize ten times over (which you don't) it's of
> no consequence if it's not going to be used. (Besides, too much fertilizer
> makes the lettuce go soft in the head.)
And the lawyer, it appears.
>
> No maybe about it--gasp!--Rushtown is right.
Too fast the reading, too confused the response.
>
> George, which means farmer in Greek.
Ask R. Aman what Lieblich means in German. (Anticipatory blush)
Bob Lieblich
K1912
Robert Lieblich wrote:
[...]
>Now youu've gone too far (redundancy alert) -- Farmer George. NOTHING
>is as big as a lawyer's head. . . . Although the ultimate standard of
>comparison fr size is a trial lawyer's ego.
>
>
Bob, are you familiar with "The Rodent"? If so, do you think the author is a
man or a woman?
George
K1912
Donna Richoux
> But, according to the phrase ("neither necessary nor sufficent"), it is *not*
> necessary to fertilize (to stay with the example); therefore, as long as the
> fertilizer is *unnecessary,* whether you have a "sufficient"or an insufficient
> amount to do the job is immaterial, as you are not going to use it.
I see what you are saying, and under the laws of ordinary speech you are
right. If no fertilizer is needed to do the job, then it is silly to
talk about whether that means one bag or two bags, etc.
But in the area mathematics and formal logic, "sufficient" does not
refer to "amount" or "degree" or "how much." It is more of a binary
condition, on/off. Either something is sufficient to yield a result, or
it is not sufficient. Either/or.
> >It may be true that a good garden does not need any manure (not
> >"necessary"). But it may also be true that a good shot of manure will
> >guarantee a good garden ("sufficient"). So the upshort is that manure is
> >not the only way to achieve a good garden, but it is an effective one.
>
> True, but how to achieve a good garden is not the issue, nor is what is the
> most effective fertilizer.
In the mathematical/logical use of the phrase, there has to be *some*
outcome. There must be a "then" to follow an "if." "To have a good
garden" seems like the logical one here. I have lost the original
Rushtown quote about speaking to a gardener, but I think it is more or
less the same. It was something like "fertilizer is neither necessary
nor sufficient for a garden."
I repeat what I said in another thread, "sufficient" in "necessary and
sufficient" seems to be a difficult idea for the average person to
grasp. I think you may have identified why, in that it sounds like it
means amount or quantity rather than a simple condition.
Curtis Cameron
> Bob, Bob. Forget about any kind of fertilizer-- the real McCoy or synthetic.
> It's not going to be used because--it's "neither necessary nor sufficient."
> Therefore it makes no difference even if you *have* a sufficient quantity of
> the stuff on hand. The garden doesn't need to be fertilized...
But this isn't accurate. Consider:
"Manure is not necessary in your garden - chemical fertilizer will
work fine. But if you are planning to use it, ten pounds won't be
sufficient - you'll need at least fifty pounds."
Ten pounds of manure is neither necessary nor sufficient for the
garden in question. But we still might be concerned with what quantity
is sufficient.
-Curtis Cameron
WGS-84 33.033N, 96.724W
K1912
But *if and only if* "you are planning to use it." But we are not because
presumably the garden, with the corn as high as an elephant's eye, doesn't need
fertilizing. If we are*not* going to fertilize, it is plain that the fertilizer
is *unnecessary.* Therefore we need not trouble ourselves with what would be a
"sufficient" amount of fertilizer with which to fertilize the garden.
But if we are going to fertilize, then you are of course correct: "we still
might be concerned with what quantity is sufficient." In fact we *will* be
concerned because the amount on hand, according to the phrase ("neither
necessary nor sufficient"), is insufficient. Therefore we need more manure. How
much more I will leave for others to calculate--all of a sudden for some
strange reason I'm too tired to even _look_ at the garden. In fact I'm thinking
of quiting farming altogether. Perhaps I'll go into the counterfeiting
game--that's where the real money is.
George
K1912
K1912
Donna Richoux wrote:
Yes, I agree with everything you say here. I'll add only that I don't believe
that Rushtown was thinking of the "mathematical/logical use of the phrase." I
believe the objection to the phrase was, as you say, "under the laws of
ordinary speech." And of course it is these laws that AUE is primarily
concerned with. (Or should it be "... laws with which AUE is primarily
concerned." <g>
George
K1912
Peter Moylan
>In article <1dgdygp.15s...@p001.hlm.euronet.nl>, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) says:
>>
>
>If you understand the English language you know which word means
>"if" and which one means "only if".
Much as I hate to admit it, I think that Rushtown has a point here.
"Necessary and sufficient" is mathematicians' jargon that has
leaked into everyday English. You can work out what it means by
stopping and thinking about the meanings of the words, but many
people do have to stop and think; the meaning doesn't become clear
until you've analysed it.
I can remember struggling with this when I was doing my Master's
degree. I was working in the area of mathematical systems theory,
I had an excellent background in mathematics, but I still had to
pause each time I encountered the words "necessary" and "sufficient".
It wasn't good enough to tell myself that these words had their
ordinary dictionary meaning. They still hadn't worked their way
well enough into my unconscious. I have no trouble with them now,
but I did back then.
Let's consider the four possibilities:
1. "A is necessary and sufficient for B." OK, this is the easy one,
and I presume its meaning is obvious even to someone like
Rushtown. It means that A implies B and that B implies A.
It's a symmetrical relationship.
2. "A is neither necessary nor sufficient for B." Still not too
hard to understand. It means "If you think there's a causal
relationship between A and B, you're fooling yourself. Neither
condition is implied by the other."
3. "A is necessary but not sufficient for B."
4. "A is sufficient but not necessary for B."
This is where I ran into trouble. These are non-symmetrical
relationships, and I had a lot of difficulty trying to keep
track of which was which.
In brief, I don't think any native English speaker - with or
without a mathematical education - would have any real trouble with
"necessary and sufficient" or with "neither necessary nor sufficient".
The other two, however, require a conscious effort to understand.
They are likely to remain forever elusive to the sort of people who
dislike putting their brains into gear.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au