The paradox of Schrödinger (1935)’s cat is a particularly striking way of stating the unresolved difficulties associated with the first measurement problem in standard (i.e., textbook) quantum mechanics. It corresponds to using the framework \(\FC_u\), \eqref{eqn21} in subsection 7.2, with \(\ket{\Psi_2}\) the superposition of dead and live cat states. The histories approach addresses this paradox by first noting that there is nothing wrong from the point of view of fundamental quantum theory (principle R2 of subsection 5.1) with using \(\FC_u\), but it is a serious misunderstanding to suppose that \(\ket{\Psi_2}\) or the corresponding property \([\Psi_2]\) represents a cat which is both dead and alive. First, the projectors, let us call them \(P_d\) and \(P_a\), that correspond to the cat being dead and alive do not commute with \([\Psi_2]\), so they cannot, by the single framework rule, be brought into the discussion (and, indeed, it is doubtful that any projector associated with what one might call “catness” will commute with \([\Psi_2]\)). Second, since \(P_d P_a=0\) (distinct macroscopic states)  both properties cannot be true simultaneously, so it is false to say that the cat is both dead and alive. In addition the historian may remark that the existence of other frameworks in no way invalidates a discussion based on the quasiclassical one that lies behind the ordinary language discussion of cats, which is distinguished by its utility and not by some framework selection rule, see subsection 11.3. In this case a useful framework is the counterpart of \(\FC_1\), \eqref{eqn22} in subsection 7.2, with quasiclassical projectors \(P_d\) and \(P_a\) at time \(t_2\), and \(\ket{\Psi_2}\) understood not as a property but as a pre-probability useful for assigning probabilities that the cat is dead or alive. At this point the paradox has disappeared.