Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm looking for a way to express A being true does not imply B. I know that A implied B can be written as $A \rightarrow B$, but what about A does not imply B? $A \not\rightarrow B$?

share|cite|improve this question
Simply write $A\land\neg B$, though that is probably not what you are after. I think you want something like "$p$ is prime does not imply in general that $p$ is odd", right? – Hagen von Eitzen Nov 17 '12 at 17:38
May be this link help you… – Babak S. Nov 17 '12 at 17:40
@BabakSorouh That tells me how to write the symbol in LaTeX, but not what the symbol means (except possibly by its name). – gerrit Nov 17 '12 at 17:56
@HagenvonEitzen Yes, it's the latter I'm after. – gerrit Nov 17 '12 at 17:57
up vote 3 down vote accepted

If you use a generic $\to$ or $\Rightarrow$ for imply then slash through for the not-imply.

But you can perhaps do better. If you actually mean syntactic entailment (so non-implication is a matter of there being no proof from $A$ to $B$ in the relevant proof system) then $A \nvdash B$ is available and absolutely standard.

If you actually mean semantic entailment (so non-implication is a matter of there being a valuation which makes $A$ true without making $B$ true) then $A \nvDash B$ is available and quite standard.

share|cite|improve this answer

Usually, we use double arrows for implications: $A\Rightarrow B$. You can use a crossed out double arrow for does not imply: $A\nRightarrow B$. In LaTeX, these are "\Rightarrow" and "\nRightarrow", respectively.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.