From 'No A is B' we cannot infer 'No not-B is not-A.' For, if we could, the contradictory of the latter, namely, 'Some not-B is not-A' would be false. But it is manifest that this is not necessarily false. For when one term is excluded from another, there must be numerous individuals which fall under neither of them, unless it should so happen that one of the terms is the direct contradictory of the other, which is clearly not conveyed by the form of the expression 'No A is B. 'No A is not-A' stands alone among E propositions in admitting of full conversion by contraposition, and the form of that is the same after it as before.
§ 530. Nor can conversion by contraposition be applied at all to I.
[Illustration]
From 'Some A is B' we cannot infer that 'Some not-B is not-A.' For though the proposition holds true as a matter of fact, when A and B are in part mutually exclusive, yet this is not conveyed by the form of the expression. It may so happen that B is wholly contained under A, while A itself contains everything. In this case it will be true that 'No not-B is not-A,' which contradicts the attempted inference. Thus from the proposition 'Some things are substances' it cannot be inferred that 'Some not-substances are not-things,' for in this case the contradictory is true that 'No not-substances are not-things'; and unless an inference is valid in every case, it is not formally valid at all.
§ 531. It should be noticed that in the case of the [nu] proposition immediate inferences are possible by mere contraposition without conversion.
All A is all B.
.'. All not-A is not-B.
For example, if all the equilateral triangles are all the equiangular, we know at once that all non-equilateral triangles are also non-equiangular.
§ 532. The principle upon which this last kind of inference rests is that when two terms are co-extensive, whatever is excluded from the one is excluded also from the other.
CHAPTER VII.
Of other Forms of Immediate Inference.