Is there a counterpart of "sufficient"/"enough" meaning "not more than the needed maximum"?

Question

I understand the meaning of the word sufficient like defined in Merriam-Webster:

sufficient = enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end

So mathematically said:

not less than the needed minimum

Is there an "upside-down counterpart"?

not more than the needed maximum

It should be of the same style as sufficient or enough, expressing the same concept (being within limits and not being under the maximum).

Let's have an example of a chemical reaction. In order the reaction can start, you need at least 5% concentration of a given substance. So if the concentration is 6%, we say that the concentration is sufficient. (Also suggesting that no more concentration increasing is needed.)

However, what if the requirement is that in order the reaction can start, the concentration of the given substance should be at most 95%. So if we have 94%, the concentration is ...? Sufficient here sounds funny...

Analogically, it should also bear the notion of no more concentration decreasing is needed.

I am searching for a single word in the same common style as enough of sufficient, not for a mathematical expression.

N.B.: I do not mean the same as in the related question Can "sufficient" be used in a negative sense?

Answer 1

I think “sufficient” covers the whole range between insufficiently low (too low) and insufficiently high (too high), but I do agree that “sufficient” (and especially “enough”) can imply that the lower end of that range has been (just barely?) reached.

Just as, imo, “sufficient” covers the whole acceptable/sufficient range (with a bias towards the low end), so does “tolerable” cover the whole acceptable/tolerable range, but perhaps with the bias towards the high end that you are seeking.

“Tolerable”: adjective/ bearable, endurable, supportable, acceptable. (Oxford Dictionnaires)

Step 1: Insufficiently low/intolerably low (too low) = insufficient/intolerable/unacceptable);

Step 2: Sufficiently high/tolerably low (high enough/not too low) = sufficient/tolerable/acceptable;

Step 3: Tolerably high/sufficiently low (not too high/low enough) = tolerable/sufficient/acceptable;

Step 4: Intolerably high/insufficiently high (too high) = intolerable/insufficient/unacceptable.

The above steps are trying to show that “insufficient, sufficient, tolerable, and intolerable” can be used at both ends of the range of acceptability, but please note that the bolded words in each step are, in my opinion, ‘best suited for’/most often associated with that step.

Both “insufficiently” and “intolerably” use “low” in Step 1 and “high” in Step 4 to convey the meaning of those two Steps, which could mean that the bias towards either the low end (sufficient) or the high end (tolerable) that I perceive in these two words disappears when discussing unacceptable levels below and above the acceptable range.

Within the range of acceptability, however, “high” and “low” must be flipped to make sense of “tolerable” and “sufficient” as they are used in Steps 2 and 3, which, imo, supports the bias that I perceive and perhaps supports “tolerable” as the best one-word answer to your question.

Answer 2

Quite simply "not in excess".

Since excess means:

An amount of something that is more than necessary, permitted, or desirable:

and in excess means:

Exceeding the proper amount or degree

(from ODO)

So if something is in excess then it is more than sufficient.

Answer 3

This can also be referred to as an appropriate. It is a general word, not necessarily meaning that levels are in the desired range, but given the context, I think it is clear. suitable might serve well as well.

appropriate

adjective

(ə-prō′prē-ĭt)

Suitable for a particular person, condition, occasion, or place; fitting.

Source: TheFreeDictionary.com

Answer 4

By the same definition you have given:

sufficient = enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end

But in my opinion that does not translate to:

not less than the needed minimum

But rather to:

not less than the needed minimum AND no more than the allowed maximum

As in your case, exceeding such limit doesn't allow you to meet the needs or requirements of your situation. So I would still say that 94% concentration is sufficient. However, if you prefer, you could say that the concentration is within parameters o within limits. Also, perhaps you can say that it is an acceptable, tolerable or adequate concentration, to imply that it is within limits.

Answer 5

You could say the 94% concentration is effective. However, this doesn't really address whether it's possible to have too much, or too little, or both. It won't lead to any incorrect interpretations, though.

Answer 6

The closest word I can think of off the top of my head is requisite, which in my mind implies an exactness of quantity (as opposed to enough/sufficient or more than enough/plentiful). That said, the literal definition of requisite in the dictionary includes an allusion to the word necessary, thereby leaning towards "above the minimum" and not necessarily answering your question.

Answer 7

Unless I miss my guess, you're looking for a word from the 'common' language (using as models 'sufficient' and 'enough') that means 'at least X but no more than Y'.

That word is 'competent':

competent

adjective

...

2. Being what is needed without being in excess

(competent. (n.d.) The American Heritage Roget’s Thesaurus. (2014). Retrieved September 12 2015 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/competent).

So, paraphrasing the the example you give,

concentrations from 5% to 95% are competent to produce the reaction

and

a concentration of 6% is competent to produce the reaction

as well as

a concentration of 94% is competent to produce the reaction

In each case the intended meaning of 'enough but no more than enough' is expressed by 'competent'.

Answer 8

Since you mention mathematics, it is worth mentioning that sufficient usually is contrasted with necessary. A simple example: Let A be the statement

The function f is continuous,

and B the statement

The function f is differentiable.

Then B implies A, i e B is the stronger property of f. This can be expressed as:

B is sufficient for A.

Another way to say this is:

A is necessary for B.

Answer 9

I think the word you are looking for is maximal. As in the maximal concentration of the substance for the reaction is 94%.

of or constituting a maximum; as great or as large as possible.

Answer 10

How about "in range". It states not to exceed the maximum (nor the minimum, if any). It doesn't imply being near the maximum though, which you seem to be searching for.

"The 94% concentration is in (the) range to start the reaction"

Answer 11

One word that comes up somewhat regularly in scientific contexts is parsimonious:

1: exhibiting or marked by parsimony; especially : frugal to the point of stinginess

2: sparing, restrained

parsimony:

a : the quality of being careful with money or resources : thrift

b : the quality or state of being stingy

2: economy in the use of means to an end; especially : economy of explanation in conformity with Occam's razor

(from Merriam-Webster)

A parsimonious theory is one which doesn't involve any extraneous features. A parsimonious evolutionary tree is one which minimizes the number of evolutionary "events" (mutations) which occurred.

So a "parsimonious concentration of reactant" would be interpreted as being the bare minimum needed to show the desired effect, with none extra or "wasted".

(All that said, I will admit I've never heard "parsimonious" used to describe compound concentrations, although I can't ever recall a situation where such a single word phrasing would have been needed.)

Answer 12

i strongly believe that there is something very, very, very wrong with the "needed maximum" wording in the first place.

Different story if you said: the maximum allowed, which means that if you pour more, things will go wrong.

If you persist in such ill wordings, i believe you'll end up entangled in the quest for a language chimera that will haunt you for life.

Answer 13

When discussing the amount of food (or alcohol) that I’ve just consumed/am consuming, I often talk in terms of the progression from 1) “too little/not enough,” to 2) “enough,” to 3) “full,” and finally to 4) “too much,” where “full” might fit somewhere in your nice graphs.

However, although “full” (or the fancier “saturated" in non-chemical contexts) does convey that no more increasing is possible, permitted, or needed; it admittedly doesn’t bear the notion you're after that “no more decreasing is needed.” (The Free Dictionary)

Answer 14

I would say you want a moderate amount:

Kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense

(From Dictionary.com)

You could also say that you want just enough of something (though this is a phrase rather than a single word).

Answer 15

Presumably, the "needed maximum" you refer to is so needed because it describes an arbitrary limit less than the "possible maximum". For example, when you're filling your car's gas tank, the "needed maximum" gas to dispense is equal to the tank's capacity, while the "possible maximum" gas to dispense is limited by how much fuel the station has in storage. If you fill your gas tank to the "needed maximum", you can say you've filled it to capacity, and if you continue to dispense gas beyond that point, you can say you've overfilled the tank.

Therefore, a term that satisfies your requirements is capacity. You could also use limit (e.g. "filled to its limits"), extent (e.g. "prosecuted to the extent of the law"), and so on in the same manner.

Answer 16

In object relations theory, one writes of and holds in high esteem the "good enough" mother, or the "ordinary devoted mother," meaning a mother who is adequate to the task of mothering, not perfect or, pejoratively, perfectionistic. Competent and adequate work well as synonyms; the antonym would be inadequate.