 The reference to the Tractatus is suggestive. Of course, it might be objected that the Tractatus does not have propositions in the sense of that word figuring here: that is, it does not recognize Russellian propositions (propositions at the level of reference). Nor indeed does it appear to recognize Fregean thoughts. In the Tractatus, as we have noted  (§2),  declarative sentences (Sätze) are facts (arrangements of names), and states of affairs (Sachlagen, Sachverhalte, Tatsachen) are also facts (arrangements of objects). Even so, Candlish’s allusion to the Tractatus reminds us that propositions (in our sense) are Tractarian inasmuch as they are structured arrangements of entities, namely objects and properties. (Correlatively, thoughts are structured arrangements of senses.) False propositions (and false thoughts) will equally be arrangements of objects and properties (respectively, senses). So the difficulty that Cartwright and Candlish have identified can be put like this. Plausibly any proposition, whether or not it is true, is identical with some fact or other given that a proposition is an arrangement of entities of the appropriate sort. But if propositions just are facts, then every proposition is identical with some fact—at the very least, with itself—whether it is true or false. So the right-to-left direction of (11) looks incorrect.