then, it _is_ natural to express _x_Q * _x_R, by "If _anything_ has Q, then _that thing_ has R." And logicians may, I think, have falsely inferred that _since_ it is natural to express "_x_Q * _x_R" by "If _anything_ has Q, then _that thing_ has R," it _must_ be natural to express "AQ * AR" by "If AQ, then AR," and therefore also by "AQ implies AR." If this has been their reason for expressing "_p * q_" by "_p_ implies _q_" then obviously their reason is a fallacy. And, whatever the reason may have been, it seems to me quite certain that "AQ * AR" cannot be properly expressed either by "AQ implies AR" or by "If AQ, then AR," although "_r_Q * _x_R" can be properly expressed by "If anything has Q, then that thing has R." I am going, then, to express the universal proposition, with regard to two particular properties Q and R, which asserts that "Whatever has Q, has R" or "If anything has Q, it has R," without asserting that anything has Q, by _x_Q * _x_R --a means of expressing it, which since we have adopted the convention that "_p_ * _q_" is to mean the same as "It is not the case that _p_ is true and _q_ false," brings out the important fact that this proposition is either identical with or logically equivalent to the proposition that of _every_ such pair of propositions as AQ and AR, it is true that it is not the case that the first is true and the second false. And having adopted this convention, we can now see how, in accordance with it, the proposition, with regard to a particular property P, that P is _internal_ to _everything_ which possesses it, is to be expressed. We saw that P is _internal_ to A is to be expressed by °_xP_° entails (°_x_ = A°) or by the logically equivalent proposition (_x =_ A) entails _xP_ And we have now only to express the proposition that _anything_ that has P, has also the property that P is _internal_ to it. The required expression is obviously as follows. Just as "Anything that has Q, has R" is to be expressed by _x_Q * _x_R so "Anything that has P, has also the property that P is internal to it" will be expressed by _x_P * {°_y_P° entails (°_y x_°)} or by _x_P * {(_v x_) entails _y_P}. We have thus got, in the case of any particular property P, a means of expressing the proposition that it is _internal_ to _every_ term that possesses it, which is both short and brings out clearly the notions that are involved in it. And we do not need, I think, any further special convention for symbolising the proposition that _every_ relational property is internal to any term which possesses it--the proposition, namely, which I called (2) above (pp. 289, 290), and which on p. 287, I called the most important consequence of the dogma of internal relations. We can express it simply enough as follows:-- (2) = "What we assert of P when we say _xP_ * {°_y_P° entails (°_y = x_°)} can be truly asserted of every relational property."