\not| works well, but \not\big| not. I have also tried \centernot instead of \not without success.

Edit: This is the minimal document producing the problem.

Edit2: I use mathabx package to have the things like \widecheck, \nequiv and some other symbols. But I would like to use \big| and \not\big| at the same time. It seems that mathabx causes conflict.


  • Well, this works for me. Please post a MWE with the minimal code that did not work. – TeXnician May 14 '17 at 10:32
  • @TeXnician i provided a mwe. – Name May 14 '17 at 10:56
  • Related: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/117032/… – egreg May 14 '17 at 10:59
  • Do you really use the symbols |, \big|, \not|, and \not{\big|} all in the same document? Are you sure your readers can pick up the difference between | and \big|? – Mico May 14 '17 at 12:01
  • @Mico I have many expressions like |A| | |B| and would like to use |A| \big| |B| to distinguish between the sign of "divides" and that of carnality. I know there are other variants such as \mid, \divides, but I really prefer \big|. The only problem is that I would also like to adapt this for "not-dividing", hence my question. – Name May 14 '17 at 12:09

A bunch of solutions with stackengine: I defined \big, Big, &c. variants in two series, based on \varnot + \vert or on \ndivides + \vert with a different \not sign. I suppose it is intended to be a (non-)relational symbol.


\usepackage{mathtools, mathabx, xcolor}

\usepackage{stackengine, relsize}


\[ \begin{array}{l*{6}{c}}
\verb+ \nmid series: + & \nmid & \nbmid & \nBmid & \nbbmid & \nBBmid \\[4ex]
\verb+ \ndivides series: + & \ndivides & \bndivides & \Bndivides & \bbndivides & \BBndivides
\end{array} \]


enter image description here

  • Thanks, but it does not work. – Name May 14 '17 at 11:29
  • @Mico: It's only althe initial suggestion which didn't work with mathabx. I've replaced it with a working code. – Bernard May 14 '17 at 13:36
  • Does it means that it is impossible to use $\not\big|$ and mathabx simultaneously? – Name May 14 '17 at 16:47
  • Well, it seems so. I don't know why. Note thet you use mathabx only for a few symbols, you can declare these symbols without having to load the whole font. – Bernard May 14 '17 at 16:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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