What is the mathematical term used for saying if something increases/decreases it has no effect on another thing?

I was thinking along the lines of "X is not linear with Y" however it seems to give the sense that if X increase, Y will increase (though not linearly). This is not the idea I want to convey.

I want the reader to know that an increase/decrease in X does not necessarily mean an increase/decrease in Y.

Well, if you've read the above paragraph you know what I want, but I need the whole idea of that paragraph packed in a single phrase. (I'd have thought a mathematical term would be useful in this sense (since those words are cool), but that's not compulsory of course).

To be sure, I'm not asking for a mathematical term. I'm asking for a catchy term.



| improve this answer | |
  • brilliant! btw how do i use it in a sentence.. X is orthogonal to Y.. X is orthogonal of Y..? – Pacerier Jun 19 '11 at 20:22
  • X is orthogonal to Y, or X and Y are orthogonal. – kindall Jun 19 '11 at 22:14

"Is not dependent on" and "is independent of" are both common usage in statistics.

I'd also suggest "X and Y are not correlated." This is also a commonly used term in stats.

Alternatively, you could use "X and Y are uncorrelated" (as was suggested by Alain), which means the same thing, but might sound a bit more sophisticated.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    +1, that's the best word. Or better: X and Y are uncorrelated (just being nit-picky). – Alain Pannetier Φ Jun 17 '11 at 20:53
  • If there isn't much of any association between X and Y, and you're not explaining the statistics, you might just say they're unrelated. "Cell phone minutes used and bananas consumed are unrelated." – aedia λ Jun 17 '11 at 21:40
  • @aedia for me, unrelated is the best answer. Good one. – Fattie Jun 17 '11 at 21:55
  • Uncorrelated is not only the correct mathematical term, it should also be understood by non-mathematicians. – Peter Shor Jun 17 '11 at 22:22
  • @aedia, @Joe Blow: I agree with you, but evidently OP wants something "catchy" (by which I think he means he would like to sound technical and jargony, while still being understandable). For that, I have to admit that uncorrelated best fits the bill. Independent (which I also think is a fine choice) is perhaps somewhere in between. – John Y Jun 17 '11 at 22:35

I believe it's actually independent. X is an independent variable if it does not depend on Y.

| improve this answer | |

I would use depend, as in:

Y does not depend on X.

| improve this answer | |
  • I was thinking the other way around: X is independent of Y. I think these are both correct. – Kit Z. Fox Jun 17 '11 at 20:35
  • Y does not depend on X has zero catchyness.. – Pacerier Jun 17 '11 at 20:40
  • @Pacerier But accurate and clear, right? – Kit Z. Fox Jun 17 '11 at 20:41

There are many ways of expressing the relationship between two variables, including those in other answers. Another is with "proportional". Some examples of its use:

  • X is directly proportional to Y (i.e. as X increases or decreases, Y does so as well)
  • X is inversely proportional to Y (i.e. as X increases, Y decreases, or vice versa)
  • X is not proportional to Y (i.e. X and Y are unrelated)

This is probably the most precise way to describe two variables' relationship. There are many other types of proportionality.

Another expression is "direct variation", e.g.:

  • X is in direct variation with Y
  • X and Y vary directly (i.e. the value of Y depends on the value of X)
  • X is in not in direct variation with Y
  • X and Y do not vary directly (i.e. the value of Y does not depend on the value of X)
| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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