[wildandcrazyrussian]

I must have missed the article about the logic error you are discussing.

The statement "I think, therefore I am" IS logically equivalent to "I am not, therefore I do not think".

Just the same way "I am {Felos, Greer, MS}, therefore I am evil" is logically equivalent to "I am not evil, therefore I am not {Felos, Greer, MS}". It is NOT equivalent to "I am not {Felos, Greer, MS}, therefore I am not evil".

[syriacus]

What you say about Felos, Greer, and MS could be true. And I think, facts exposing their evil intentions will eventually come out.

Statement B, "I don't think, therefore, I am not"
cannot be proven true from Statement A, "I think, therefore, I am,"
because Statement B is merely the inverse of the Cartesian Statement A.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I must have missed the article about the logic error you are discussing.
The statement "I think, therefore I am" IS logically equivalent to "I am not, therefore I do not think".

See #973. You have reversed premise and conclusion.