not-B

For suppose we are given the following premises: A; and if A, then either not-A or not-B.

Logical Form Pietroski, Paul 2009

We can safely infer that either not-A or not-B; and since we were given that A, we can safely infer that not-B.

Logical Form Pietroski, Paul 2009

In “An Attempt at a Proof of the Ontological Principle of Contradiction” (1912) Leśniewski argues that ˜No object is able to be both B and not-B™ is true but disagrees with the equivalence (now generally accepted) that

Stanisław Leśniewski Simons, Peter 2007

Consider two binary distinctions, both A versus not-A, and B versus not-B.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Opposite and Negation: 2007

Lists like this play up a current trend in us/them politics: "Anything that touches on A, B, C is us, because them are all not-A, not-B, and not-C".

right side of the dial 2006

˜Not (A and not-B)™ to stress that the conditional should not be thought of as being a strong one, but rather the weak Philonian conditional (the modern material conditional) according to which ˜If A then B™ was equivalent to ˜Not (A and not-B)™.

Sorites Paradox Hyde, Dominic 2005

Thus they see not-A and not-B. (iv) Finally, if Box 1 is open and Box 2 is closed, a particle leaves Box 1, but none is received by Box 2.

Backward Causation Faye, Jan 2005

'All not-A is not-B' is the contrapositive, not of 'All A is B,' but of its simple converse 'All B is A.'

Deductive Logic St. George William Joseph Stock

All not-A is not-B, an erroneous form of immediate inference for which there is no special name, but which involves the vice of simple conversion of A, since

Deductive Logic St. George William Joseph Stock

In this case it will be true that 'No not-B is not-A,' which contradicts the attempted inference.

Deductive Logic St. George William Joseph Stock