English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Like, say an ordered pair can have repeats such as (1,1), whereas a set can't - {1,1} isn't a valid set.

I don't mean a word to describe whether a thing has or has not been repeated, but whether it's possible for a particular thing to be repeated. (1,0) is an ordered pair without any repeat elements, but because it's an ordered pair, it's elements could've been repeated. A set's elements would never have this possibility.

The closest word I could come up with is just "repetitive", but that's not quite right - saying (1,0) was repetitive would likely raise eyebrows, so I've since dismissed it.

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Kris, Hellion, aedia λ, tchrist, MrHen Jan 20 '14 at 18:25

  • This question does not appear to be about English language and usage within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

The Java keyword is Iterable, a related adjective is iterative. – Blessed Geek Jan 17 '14 at 2:27
Not familiar with Java, but, in Python, saying something is Iterable simply means that it can be iterated over, such as in a for loop. More practically, that it is broken into discrete elements. – Kevin Mills Jan 17 '14 at 2:30
Most pythons (if not all?) run on JVM. Therefore, iterable is the same betw Java and Python. – Blessed Geek Jan 17 '14 at 3:31
Jython does, the rest don't. And that doesn't really work because we're talking about concepts - in Python, saying something is iterable says nothing about its potential to repeat elements. – Kevin Mills Jan 17 '14 at 3:33
Recommended migration to math.se – Kris Jan 17 '14 at 7:56
up vote 0 down vote accepted

The usual definition of a set is something along the lines of:

a group of distinct entities regarded as a unit

If it were me, I would just say that something that can't be repeated is distinct, whereas indistinct could refer to something that could or has been repeated. You could also use unique, but I don't have a good one-word term for the opposite, beside non-unique.

You could also just use repeatable, but that doesn't really seem like what you're going for, since I normally don't here that except when describing actions.

That said, if you're talking to people familiar with mathy concepts and you didn't mention specifically that a group was made of unique/distinct elements, it would probably be assumed that the elements could be repeated.

share|improve this answer
I like distinct. The only issue is that I'd like a word that I could use to refer to the collection, rather than it's elements. – Kevin Mills Jan 17 '14 at 3:54
And by that I mean that, with distinct, I would say "the collection's elements are distinct" or something along those lines, rather than "the collection is distinct" because that makes it sound like you're comparing two separate collections and declaring them distinct from each other. – Kevin Mills Jan 17 '14 at 3:55
Then you call it a set ;) – Gob Ties Jan 17 '14 at 3:57
Actually, going from that, you could refer to it as "setlike" or "set-compliant", and it would work. – Kevin Mills Jan 17 '14 at 4:02

I don't get your formulas, zeros and ones, but maybe "recurring" would work? recurrable?

share|improve this answer
Recurring has the same problem as repetitive. Recurrable sounds closer to what I mean, but I can't find any definitions, so I'm not sure if it's actually a commonly used word. – Kevin Mills Jan 17 '14 at 3:41
And, really, the only math you need to know to understand my examples is that both sets and ordered pairs contain numbers, and ordered pairs can repeat the numbers the contain, while sets can't. – Kevin Mills Jan 17 '14 at 3:42
Recurrable isn't a real word, but there are 31,000 google results for it. Will be in the dictionary soon enough :) Repeatable doesn't fit? -- edit: oops this was already suggested. So? – Phantasmix Jan 17 '14 at 4:57
Why do you think this would work, and why it would be a good/ useful answer? – Kris Jan 17 '14 at 8:26

You might be looking for "repeatable"?

possible to do or make again: repeatable test results

source: http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/repeatable

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.