I understand you are looking for a technical word that expresses in common English the opposite predicate (function returning true or false) of contains. The verb occupy might work in real life examples, but does not seem exactly applicable to your use case with a graph.

I would suggest a solution by using a little lateral thinking. We can start with an analogy: in a programming language, you would express this with a function named is_in or belongs_to.

We could "not mind manoeuvers and go straight at them", i.e. use the same device in normal English:

This bottle contains the bee; The bee is-in this bottle.

 

Europe contains France; France is-in Europe.

 

France contains Paris; Paris is-in France.

 

The forest contains the temple; the temple is-in the forest.

Non-technical people might initially frown at the hyphen, but would understand the meaning at once.

But for people in the know, it would work exactly as a transitive verb like occupy. Let me justify this usage by calling it an idiom (phrasal verb): in principle "be in" means just "be + in". But in your mind it would be transitive phrasal verb (neologism) that means:

be-in (transitive): in a graph, to connect a mentioned node to a mentioning node (opposite of contain).

(I apologize for the awkward definition and you might find a better one.)

The hyphen is optional, but it would convey this phrasal nature of your expression without ambiguity, and would be self-evident to your readers.

The justification here is expediency, shortness, and the requirement of being understood, in a technical paper. In any case, that would require a definition note in any formal paper (and needless to say, it might be considered anathema in other contexts).

I understand you are looking for a technical word that expresses in common English the opposite predicate (function returning true or false) of contains. The verb occupy might work in real life examples, but does not seem exactly applicable to your use case with a graph.

I would suggest a solution by using a little lateral thinking. We can start with an analogy: in a programming language, you would express this with a function named is_in or belongs_to.

We could "not mind manoeuvers and go straight at them", i.e. use the same device in normal English:

This bottle contains the bee; The bee is-in this bottle.

Europe contains France; France is-in Europe.

France contains Paris; Paris is-in France.

The forest contains the temple; the temple is-in the forest.

Non-technical people might initially frown at the hyphen, but would understand the meaning at once.

But for people in the know, it would work exactly as a transitive verb like occupy. Let me justify this usage by calling it an idiom (phrasal verb): in principle "be in" means just "be + in". But in your mind it would be transitive phrasal verb (neologism) that means:

be-in (transitive): in a graph, to connect a mentioned node to a mentioning node (opposite of contain).

(I apologize for the awkward definition and you might find a better one.)

The hyphen is optional, but it would convey this phrasal nature of your expression without ambiguity, and would be self-evident to your readers.

The justification here is expediency, shortness, and the requirement of being understood, in a technical paper. In any case, that would require a definition note in any formal paper (and needless to say, it might be considered anathema in other contexts).

I understand you are looking for a technical word that expresses in common English the opposite predicate (function returning true or false) of contains. The verb occupy might work in real life examples, but does not seem exactly applicable to your use case with a graph.

I would suggest a solution by using a little lateral thinking. We can start with an analogy: in a programming language, you would express this with a function named is_in or belongs_to.

We could "not mind manoeuvers and go straight at them", i.e. use the same device in normal English:

This bottle contains the bee; The bee is-in this bottle.

Europe contains France; France is-in Europe.

France contains Paris; Paris is-in France.

The forest contains the temple; the temple is-in the forest.

Non-technical people might initially frown at the hyphen, but would understand the meaning at once.

But for people in the know, it would work exactly as a transitive verb like occupy. Let me justify this usage by calling it an idiom (phrasal verb): in principle "be in" means just "be + in". But in your mind it could be phrasal verb (neologism) which is transitive and means:

be-in (transitive): in a graph, to connnect a derived node to a primary node (opposite of contain).

The hyphen is optional, but it would convey this phrasal nature of your expression without ambiguity, and would be self-evident to your readers.

The justification here is expediency, shortness, and the requirement of being understood, in a technical paper. Needless to say, this might be considered anathema in other contexts.

I understand you are looking for a technical word that expresses in common English the opposite predicate (function returning true or false) of contains. The verb occupy might work in real life examples, but does not seem exactly applicable to your use case with a graph.

I would suggest a solution by using a little lateral thinking. We can start with an analogy: in a programming language, you would express this with a function named is_in or belongs_to.

We could "not mind manoeuvers and go straight at them", i.e. use the same device in normal English:

This bottle contains the bee; The bee is-in this bottle.

Europe contains France; France is-in Europe.

France contains Paris; Paris is-in France.

The forest contains the temple; the temple is-in the forest.

Non-technical people might initially frown at the hyphen, but would understand the meaning at once.

But for people in the know, it would work exactly as a transitive verb like occupy. Let me justify this usage by calling it an idiom (phrasal verb): in principle "be in" means just "be + in". But in your mind it would be transitive phrasal verb (neologism) that means:

be-in (transitive): in a graph, to connect a mentioned node to a mentioning node (opposite of contain).

(I apologize for the awkward definition and you might find a better one.)

The hyphen is optional, but it would convey this phrasal nature of your expression without ambiguity, and would be self-evident to your readers.

The justification here is expediency, shortness, and the requirement of being understood, in a technical paper. In any case, that would require a definition note in any formal paper (and needless to say, it might be considered anathema in other contexts).