Is there a real difference between "not-self" and "no self", and if so, which one is correct?

Just in case someone is interested, this is a question based on [this thread](https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34340&p=512515#p512515) , but it's not necessary to read such discussion to understand and answer this question. I'd like to know about the differences (if there is any) between the next statements, and to know which one is correct from the perspective of Early Buddhism: >"There is no self to be found" > >"All phenomena are not-self" So, basically, is there any difference between "no self" and "not-self"? And which one corresponds to "anattā"? I'd appreciate any help. Kind regards!