We have now got everything which is required for expressing, in a short symbolic form, the proposition, with regard to a given thing A and a given relational property P, which A in fact possesses, that P is _internal_ to A. The required expression is _xP_ entails (°_x_ = A°) which is to mean the same as "Every proposition which asserts of any given thing that it has not got P _entails_ the proposition, with regard to the thing in question, that it is other than A." And this proposition is, of course, logically equivalent to (_x_ = A) entails _x_ P where we are using "logically equivalent," in such a sense that to say of any proposition _p_ that it is logically equivalent to another proposition _q_ is to say that both _p_ entails _q_ and _q_ entails _p._ This last proposition again, is, so far as I can see, either identical with or logically equivalent to the propositions expressed by "anything which were identical with A would, in any conceivable universe, necessarily have P" or by "A could not have existed in any possible world without having P"; just as the proposition expressed by "In any possible world a right angle must be an angle" is, I take it, either identical with or logically equivalent to the proposition "(_x_ is a right angle) entails (r is an angle)." We have now, therefore, got a short means of symbolising, with regard to any particular thing A and any particular property P, the proposition that P is _internal_ to A in the second of the two senses distinguished on p. 286. But we still require a means of symbolising the general proposition that _every_ relational property is internal to any term which possesses it--the proposition, namely, which was referred to on p. 287, as the most important consequence of the dogma of internal relations, and which was called (2) on p. 289.