Estimated <to be not><not to be>

[irfan23can]

Hi everybody,
I'm not a native speaker of Eng.. while I'm writing my research paper, I have had a problem, here it is:

Example A was correctly estimated to be not in class A by the machine.
Example A was correctly estimated not to be in class A by the machine.

Example A is estimated. Example A is not in class A. The machine estimated it and found that it is not in class A. and I want to Express this somehow similar to the above sentence. Are the sentences above correct? if not, can u suggest something better?

<-----Additional question removed by moderator (Florentia52)----->

 

[PaulQ]

"By the machine" qualifies "estimated, so the phrase must be close to the verb.

Example A was correctly estimated by the machine not to be in class A .

 

[irfan23can]

thank you so much

 

[Delvo]

I would put "not" before "to be" in most cases. Another option is to say "outside" instead of "not in".

Putting it as "to be not in..." can work, but only in a specific and rather uncommon circumstance: that I need to emphasize the "not" for an audience that probably expects "in" and might not notice that the "not" applies to "in" if I didn't put them together and emphasize their togetherness as "not-in"... but then, even for that, "in" already has a convenient opposite anyway: "outside" is still good for that purpose unless I think emphasis on expectation-breaking is so overwhelmingly important for comprehension that I really desperately need the "not" just so I can make it a "NOT-in".

 

[irfan23can]

Thanks for your detailed answer. But I can understand what <you are> saying if <you> add example sentences of what <you are> explaining. ..


< Edited to write out text abbreviations in full. Cagey, moderator >