Mdthbs

I would say it depends on the situation. Specifically, it depends on whether the person asking you the question wants to know whether you have at least $100, or exactly $100. The question could literally mean either, and only the context can decide. The former situation is likely much more common, and includes the example you mention, in which the person wishes to borrow $100.

But consider a similar example. Suppose I tell you I have five coins in my pocket, and then I take one out and throw it away. How many coins do I have left in my pocket? Wouldn't you consider it odd if in fact I have nine, because I had ten to start with?

This is one of those cases where in order to understand the meaning of an utterance you need to judge the speaker's intention in making it. If I volunteer the information that I have five coins in my pocket, it is a reasonable presumption that I am intending to tell you exactly how many I have. But depending on the context, some other intention may be obvious. If we are standing in front of the entrance to some building that charges five coins for admission, then my saying "I have five coins in my pocket" would more likely express the intended meaning that I have enough money to afford the entrance fee, and hence that I have at least five.

This can be understood as an example of Grice's theory of conversational implicature. The speaker's intention may differ from the literal semantic meaning of a sentence, because the utterance needs to be interpreted by its audience in the light of the co-operative principle. In this case, the ambiguity in the question is resolved by what is relevant to the conversation. ("Be relevant" is one of the maxims of the co-operative principle.)

Your question is about lying by omission, and this requires that you define lying. The definition I use is a communication with the intent to deceive. Thus, whether or not you are lying is a function of your intent, more than the actual quantity of cash you have on your person.

Let's examine two cases. In the first, you have $200, and when asked you state no knowing full well that there is $200 in your wallet. In this case, yes, it is a lie.

But here's another circumstance. Let's say while transferring a $100 bill from your safe to your wallet, you accidentally grabbed a second one (they were brand new and stuck together). Now, when asked the question, if you reply yes, despite the fact that you have $200, you have not lied, omission or otherwise. This is because you committed a mistake and were not aware of this mistake. As your intention is to communicate your sincere belief, then this is simply not a lie.

If someone asks you if you have $100 and you in fact do have $100 then you are telling the truth.

The only way you could falsify that statement is if you do not have $100 which would mean you have less than that amount. It doesn't matter if you have more that $100.

Here is the question:

If you had $200, and I asked you if you had $100, would the correct answer be yes (always), no (always), or it depends on the situation?

I would agree with the OP. The answer is yes. Always. There is no lying involved.

No, You won't be lying. Why this question is raised is because of the common misunderstanding (by the person who asks for money or anything like that).

Let's build the logic (ignoring the context/situation):

• Person A: Do you have a car?


• Person B: [Has two cars] Yes.

This would clearly not be considered as lie in any situation.

So, If you say Yes for the Question asked in OP. You won't be lying as you [truly] possess $100, no matter how much more you have.

tl;dr- It's a lie if the speaker intends to deceive the listener(s).

More specifically, it's a lie-by-omission if the speaker intends to deceive the listener(s) by neglecting to mention something that, absent their intent to deceive, they'd have otherwise said.

Lies are communications intended to deceive recipients.

It depends on if there's intent to deceive.

Examples:

1. 
   

   Not lying:
   Despite having more than $100, Person B can truthfully answer that they have $100.

   
   
   

   
   

   Person A: I need to borrow some money! Do you have $100?
   Person B: Yes.

   
   

   
   


2. 
   

   Lying:
   Despite having $100, Person F can deceptively claim to have $100.

   
   
   

   
   

   Person A: I got you all presents! Open them up!
   Person B: [Opens present to find $100.] I got $100!
   Person C: [Opens present to find $100.] I got $100!
   Person D: [Opens present to find $100.] I got $100!
   Person E: [Opens present to find $100.] I got $100!
   Person F: [Opens present to find $200, then fearing that this was an error that might be corrected, hesitates to say anything.]
   Person E: Hey, Person F, do you have $100?
   Person F: Yes.

   
   

   
   

Since lying-by-omission means deceiving someone by not saying something, it typically comes up in a context in which a reasonable person wouldn't expect omission from an honest person.

In the above example, an honest Person F could've called attention to the fact that they received $200 while everyone else only got $100, perhaps asking Person A if this was a mistake and offering to return the money. A reasonable person could've expected Person F to at least point out that they got $200 when prompted by Person E.

Because Person F crafted their communication in a manner intended to deceive, they lied.

Because Person F's mode of lying was not providing information that a reasonable listener would've expected an honest speaker to provide, it was a lie-by-omission.

Reference: Related concepts.

There're a few things that might be confused with lies. Here I'll mention a few to help draw a line between them.

Not lies:

1. 
   

   Honest mistakes.
   A person can say something that creates a false impression in listener(s) without lying if they did so based on their own misunderstanding of what's true.

   
   
   

   
   

   Person A: I just got $100 in my gift envelope! Do you have $100?
   Person B: [Actually received two $100-bills, but thought it was only one.] Yes.

   
   

   
   


2. 
   

   Misunderstandings.
   A person can say something that creates a false impression in listener(s) without lying if they did so without intent to cause that false impression.

   
   
   

   
   

   Person A: [Asking in a context in which they mean exactly $100, assuming that Person B understands this.] Do you have $100?
   Person B: [Has $200.] Yes.

   
   

   
   


3. 
   

   Miscommunications.
   A person can say something that creates a false impression in listener(s) without lying if they did so without intent to cause that false impression.

   
   
   

   
   

   Person A: [Sends a text-message to Person B.] Do you have $100?
   Person B: [Tries to hit the auto-suggested response for "no", but accidentally hits the auto-suggested response for "yes".] Yes.

   
   

   
   


4. 
   

   Non-true statements not intended to deceive (e.g., hyperbole or sarcasm).
   A person can intentionally say something untrue without lying if the untrue statement isn't intended to deceive.

   
   
   

   
   

   Person A: Do either of you have $100?
   Person B: I've got a trillion dollars!
   Person C: I've got a trillion-zillion-infinity dollars!

   
   

   
   
   

   Here, Person B said something that was untrue (and false), but it wasn't a lie because there was no deceptive intent. Likewise, Person C said something that was untrue (and gibberish), but it also wasn't a lie because it also lacked deceptive intent.

   
   
   

   Note: Above, I'm distinguishing between two types of non-true statements: falsehoods and gibberish.

   
   
   
   
   
   • 
     

     A false statement asserts something that isn't true. For example:

     
     
     

     
     

     Person B: I've got a trillion dollars!

     
     

     
     
   
   
   • 
     

     A gibberish statement ("not even false") doesn't assert anything because it doesn't mean anything. For example:

     
     
     

     
     

     Person C: I've got a trillion-zillion-infinity dollars!

     
     

     
     
   
   
   
   


5. 
   

   Secrets.
   A person can keep a secret without lying by not intentionally causing a false impression in listener(s).

   
   
   

   
   

   Person A: Do you have $100?
   Person B: I'm not telling you.

   
   

   
   

To note it, it's not generally possible to be honest while keeping secrets. The specific problem is that an asker can craft questions which are just about impossible to respond to without either revealing the secret or responding deceptively.

For example:

1. 
   

   Lying to keep a secret:
   Sometimes a secret-keeper doesn't have the option of honestly keeping a secret since a non-response or refusal to respond would be interpreted in a way that compromises the secret.

   
   
   

   
   

   Person A: Did you steal the cookies from the cookie jar?
   Person B: [Did steal the cookies from the cookie jar.] No, not me!

   
   

   
   


2. 
   

   Failing to keep a secret through honesty:
   Sometimes a secret-keeper can fail to keep a secret through honestly not revealing it.

   
   
   

   
   

   Person A: Did you steal the cookies from the cookie jar?
   Person B: [Did steal the cookies from the cookie jar.] I'm not telling you.

   
   

   
   
   

   This is like a partial break in cryptography: since Person B didn't confess, Person A may not be certain that Person B is guilty, but they still have more information about the secretive matter than before they asked.

   
   


3. 
   

   Failing to keep a secret despite lying:
   Sometimes a secret-keeper can fail to keep a secret despite lying in an attempt to maintain the secret.

   
   
   

   
   

   Person A: Did you steal the cookies from the cookie jar?
   Person B: [Did steal the cookies from the cookie jar.] No, I was out of town that night!
   Person A: No, you weren't. We have you on camera near the kitchen that night.

   
   

   
   
   

   Here, Person B did lie in an attempt to maintain the secret, but ended up leaking the secret despite their lie.

   
   

It's also possible to lie without deceiving listener(s) if the speaker intended to deceive listener(s). For example, in the above example,

• 
  

  Person A: Did you steal the cookies from the cookie jar?
  Person B: [Did steal the cookies from the cookie jar.] No, I was out of town that night!
  Person A: No, you weren't. We have you on camera near the kitchen that night.

  
  

, Person B lied despite not deceiving Person A because they intended to deceive Person A. This is, Person B's lie was still a lie despite Person A seeing through it.

Conclusion: It's a lie if it's said with intent to deceive.

In short, a communication is a lie if-and-only-if there's intent-to-deceive.