What is the opposite of 'read-only' besides 'writable' and 'editable'?

Question

The context is a PDF form with read-only fields and editable fields. However, those terms are dissimilar. A true opposite would be uneditable and editable. Another true opposite would be read-only and what?

Answer 1

Your question deals with principles of computer science (specifically privilege and permissions), so that should be taken into consideration. "Read" and "write" are not opposites in computer science privilege systems, but rather separate permissions that may be individually granted or denied.

Since "read-only" is itself a computer science term, the best similar term would be "read/write" because it fully communicates the permissions state of the form item. Second to this, "writable" would be a good option, though it falls short in that it omits the fact that read permissions are also granted. It is important to keep in mind that neither of these terms are true opposites of "read-only".

The true opposite of "read-only" depends on the number of permission bits being considered. If only the read bit is being considered, then "readable" and "unreadable" would be true opposites. If both read and write bits are considered, then "write-only" would be the true opposite of "read-only". However, if read, write, and execute are being considered, then "write and execute" is the true opposite of "read-only".

Answer 2

Having "a true opposite" is an erroneous idea, unless you increase the constraints to perform a logic reduction of the scope, to reduce the comparison to a binary pair.

I explained the logical reasoning here: What's the antonym of "stage name"?

For example, what is the "true opposite" of "red"?

In a mathematically simplified picture .... Let us say there is a 10 x 10 matrix [A - J] x [0 - 9].

In that matrix, what is the "true opposite" of cell [C][5]? The answer is, the collection of all cells in the matrix excluding [c][5]. Therefore, "true opposite" of "red" is "not red", because the constraints were insufficient and did not reduce the comparison to a binary condition.

These are the possible (but non-exhaustive) scenarios which have inherent constraints, which you need to specify.

1. You are looking at the permissions x privileges x roles of the file.

   • role - your sys admin has created two roles: [read-only] [none]. Therefore, in that situation, the "true opposite" of [read-only] is [none].
   • but then you want to re-label [none] to a "universally true opposite" of [read only]. That would be a catch: When you declare "universally", you would be removing the boundary conditions that would present any hope of a binary situation.

2. You are looking at the permissions x privileges x roles of the file, which combine to present you (and to you alone) the options of a file: [read-only], [read-write], [delete], [execute].

   • the "true opposite" of [execute] in this set of constraints is the collection [read-only, read-write, delete].
   • But then there exists a "universal" term called "non-executable". Which is every bucket of possible actions in the universe on the file, except [execute].

3. This file sits in the Document Control Dept. As far as the Doc Ctrl Dept is concerned, they present the organisation only two states of a file: [read-only], [untrusted]. Such that because the state of a file is [read-only], it is "trusted". Whereas when a file is not [read-only] and can be mucked around by "anybody", the contents of the file would be "untrustable".

Therefore, state your constraints of the situation, to reduce the situation into a binary pair of possible states.

But then, you would say, "I need a term that can be applied to multiple situations". By even thinking that, would push you into an "evil" situation called "aliasing".

Aliasing is a signal engineering term to describe a situation where one signal masquerades as another signal because they share the same footprint, silhouette, or signature. Aliasing is used by politicians, religious people, real-estate brokers, salespersons, parent-explaining-sex-to-daughter, etc. It is a form of deception by forming an agreement of concept with one group of people within the boundary conditions of that group, and then deceptively pushing this agreement onto another group of people who have a different set of boundary conditions for that concept. For example the terms faith, god, evil, sin, love.