Your mistake becomes still clearer in its consequences; viz. when you try to say “there is an individual”. You are aware of the fact that the supposition of there being no individual makes
(x) . x = x E
“absolute nonsense”. But if E is to say “there is an individual”
3)
~E says: “there is no individual”. Therefore from ~E follows that E is nonsense. Therefore ~E must be nonsense itself, and therefore again so must be E.
            The case lies as before. E, according to your definition of the sign “ = ” may be a tautology right enough, but does not say “there is an individual”. Perhaps you will answer: of course it does not say “there is an individual” but it shows what we really mean when we say “there is an individual”. But this is not shown by E, but simply by the legitimate use of the symbol (x).. , and therefore just as well (and as badly) by the expression ~(x) . x = x. The same, of course, applies to your expressions “there are at least two individuals” and so on.