 Here an ‘I-predicable’ is a binary relation symbol ‘=’ satisfying (W). Geach’s focus at this point is on the need to relativize an \(I\)-predicable to a theory \(T\). Geach then immediately saddles the friend of absolute identity with the view that for “real identity” we need not bring in the ideology of a definite theory. This is Geach’s first strawman. When logicians, in discussing FOL\(^=\), speak of “real identity” — and they often do (see Enderton 2000 or Silver 1994, for example) — they do not mean a relation of universal identity, since the universal set does not exist. Nor do they intend, in formulating LL, to use ‘true of’ in a completely unrestrained way which gives rise to semantic paradox. It is no argument against those who wish to distinguish mere indiscernibility from real identity to say that they “will soon fall into contradictions,” e.g., Grelling’s or Russell’s. The relation \(I(A,x,y)\) is sufficiently relativized. (It is relativized to a set A.)