It is assumed that we can assert that something is not the case. A simple alternative would be to deny that thing instead. The equivalence thesis, however, says that denial is simply equivalent to asserting the negation, and hence we do not need a separate act of denial in addition to assertion. We have seen, however, that such a move leads directly to an insoluble problem of finding truthmakers for negative truths. Instead, the equivalence thesis could be rejected, and there are some reasonable grounds to do so. Denial has distinct functions from the functions of assertion. Assertion requires a truthmaker and is relatively determinate. Denial, in contrast, is conventionally responsive and directly registers incompatibility. This suggests that denial is prior to negation, though the latter has become the standard way of marking the former. The account tells us that, rather than assert not-P, we are better simply denying P.