And now, for the purpose of comparing (2) with (1), and seeing exactly what is involved in my assertion that (2) does not follow from (1), let us try to express (1) by means of the same conventions. Let us first take the assertion with regard to a particular thing A and a particular relational property P that, from the proposition that A has P it _follows_ that nothing which has not got P is identical with A. This is an assertion which is quite certainly true; since, if anything which had not got P were identical with A, it would follow that °AP°; and from the proposition AP, it certainly _follows_ that °AP° is false, and therefore also that "Something which has not got P is identical with A" is false, or that "Nothing which has not got P is identical with A" is true. And this assertion, in accordance with the conventions we have adopted, will be expressed by AP entails {°_x_P° * (°_x_ = A°)} We want, next, in order to express (1), a means of expressing with regard to a particular relational property P, the assertion that, from the proposition, with regard to _anything_ whatever, that that thing has got P, it _follows_ that nothing which has not got P is identical with the thing in question. This also is an assertion which is quite certainly true; since it merely asserts (what is obviously true) that what AP entails {°_x_P° * (°_x_ = A°)} asserts of A, can be truly asserted of anything whatever. And this assertion, in accordance with the conventions we have adopted, will be expressed by _x_P entails {°_y_P° * (°_y_ = x°)}. The proposition, which I meant to call (1), but which I expressed before rather clumsily, can now be expressed by (1) = "What we assert of P, when we say, _x_P entails {°_y_P° * (°y = _x_°)} can be truly asserted of every relational property." This is a proposition which is again quite certainly true; and, in order to compare it with (2), there is, I think, no need to adopt any further convention for expressing it, since the questions whether it is or is not different from (2), and whether (2) does or does not follow from it, will obviously depend on the same questions with regard to the two propositions, with regard to the particular relational property, P, _x_P entails {°_y_P° * (°_y = x_°)} and _x_P * {_y_P entails (_y = x_)} Now what I maintain with regard to (1) and (2) is that, whereas (1) is true, (2) is false. I maintain, that is to say, that the proposition "What we assert of P, when we say _x_P * {°_y_P° entails (°_y = x_°)}.