Logical/semantical inverse of the definition of synchronicity?

[rgbswan]

'Definition' of synchronicity:

"The occurrence of highly improbable coincidences between events where there is no causal link."

What would be the logical/semantical inverse?

- The nonoccurrence of highly probable coincidences between events where there is a causal link.

- The occurrence of highly probable coincidences between events where there is no causal link.

- The occurrence of highly improbable concurrence between events where there is no causal link.

Or another one?

[rgbswan]

"The nonoccurence of concurrence with low probability between events where there is a causal link."

- So, if A then B with a chance close to zero? A happened but B is not happening because the probability is low ...

"The nonoccurence of highly improbable concurrence between events where there is a causal link" ... same as above

"The nonoccurence of highly probable concurrence between events where there is a causal link" ... this one breaks probability.

- If A, then B with a chance close to or exactly 100% but B is not happening. ( it works on my machine and you have the same machine )

"The occurrence of highly probable concurrence between events where there is a causal link."

"The occurrence of highly probable concurrence between events where there is no causal link."

- The last two is just reality, since there either is a causal link or there isn't. (But) stuff is happening (anyways).

I'm wrong about concurrence being the inverse of coincidence, am I not? The only other thing that comes to mind would be scripted events. ( or destiny ... or black swans / self full-filling prophecies aka stuff that people work towards )

[deltasepsilon]

I would say another one. A system does not exhibit synchronicity if: all highly improbable coincidences between events are causally linked.

Although, this question kinda looks like a homework question in a philosophy of logic class.