8
$\begingroup$

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

  • 0
    So that's how you write not-arrow in MathJax!2018-03-22

2 Answers 2

7

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.

  • 0
    Is there a way to formulate $A \nvdash B$ with just and's, or's, and not's?2016-09-14
5

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.