In books on logic, no variables ought to occur, but only the general
propositions which justify the use of variables.
It follows that the so-called definitions of logic are not
definitions, but only schemes of definitions, and instead of these we
ought to put general propositions; and similarly the so-called
primitive ideas (Urzeichen) of logic are not primitive
ideas, but the schemes of them.
The mistaken idea that there
10
are things called facts or complexes and
relations easily leads to the opinion that there must be a relation of
questioning(﹖)
to the facts, and then the question arises whether a relation can hold
between an arbitrary number of things, since a fact can follow from
arbitrary cases.
It is a fact that the proposition which e.g.
expresses that
q follows from
p
and p
⊃ q is this:
p. p
⊃ q.
⊃
p.q.q.