 However, these are not the only responses to Frege’s puzzle. Just as the Russellian responded to the problem posed by  (15) and (16)  by holding that two sentences with the same intension can differ in meaning, one might respond to the problem posed by  (19)  and  (20)  by holding that two names which refer to the same object can differ in meaning, thus making room for (19) and (20) to differ in truth-value. This is to endorse a Fregean response to Frege’s puzzle, and to abandon the Russellian approach to semantics (or, at least, to abandon Millian-Russellian semantics).