circumstantial and dependent aren't related...

circumstantial -> tardiness

The usefulness of circumstantial evidence depends on other evidence/facts.
Dependent was the most recent participant word.

Singular

(A matrix is singular iff its rows/columns are linearly dependent)

^I think you're skipping a step the same with that guy...

Obviously you're correct in that something circumstantial is dependent on different things but that's step three. Something needs to be circumstantial before we can say the word dependent. I thought about this before I wrote that. I should've wrote directly related above.

I can say the word "dependent" when ever I want. This is word association, the existence of an inference as is guaranteed by something being circumstantial implies a dependence; hence, they may be associated. Note that I give no formulaic rules on what it means to associate a word with another; it is a matter of opinion (ultimately mine or that of any OP using the rules in the first post). But, if you think you can convince me of why "dependent" cannot be associated with "circumstantial", do go on.

I already stated above that something that's circumstantial is dependent but this is after the fact. First, imo, something that is circumstantial needs to be specified in order for the word dependent to be put into play. And you can't say the word dependent at any time... not if it's been said recently per the rules you made in the original post. I think the main issue I'm having is that they're both adjectives and shouldn't directly lead to each other like I said before.

I will again attempt to resolve the conflict by using a word that I think can relate to both possibilities, though if I am wrong on the relativeness (?) then call me on it, as I tend not to be very sure in this game.
particular

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I look at it differently. Having studied primarily mathematics, I don't know the conventions in other fields, but in mathematics, if something can be generalized it usually is. For instance, if for all x, P(x), then one would just speak of P without referencing a specific x, since even though it is a predicate it cannot be conceived of not being true.

At any rate, for the sake of keeping this moving, I will accept particular.

Existence

Aliens

ROBOTS!

Destruction

extinction

Dodo

I'm not sure how this thread will ever end...

I'm used to cause and effect.... not cause, effect, and back to cause.

(e.g. AB -> A + B compared to AB -> A + B -> C ... where C would be another reactant not directly related to A and B other than it being another subject/noun/group/adjective...)

stupid

GOOGLE