 The central idea of the alternative interpretation is that for Frege, the question whether a given thought is logically entailed by a collection of thoughts is sensitive not just to the formal structure of the sentences used to express those thoughts, but also to the contents of the simple (e.g., geometric) terms that appear in those sentences. If this is correct, then we see immediately that the consistency of \(\textit{AX}_{R}\) need not entail the consistency of \(\textit{AX}_{G}\), since the question whether \(\textit{AX}_{G}\) logically entails a contradiction may turn in part on the specifically geometric parts of the thoughts in question, i.e., on the usual geometric meanings of AX’s geometric terms. To choose an illustrative example, though not one that Frege himself gives, consider the pair of sentences