 Fine (1982: 51–2) has suggested an answer that invokes the independently motivated idea that the identity of some objects is explained in terms of the identity of other objects (see also Fine 1995; Bynoe 2011: 99–100; and Keller 2013: 669). Consider Fine’s example of the singleton of 1. The singleton of 1 is the set whose sole member is 1. The singleton of 1 is ontologically dependent on 1 because its identity depends on the identity of 1. We explain what the singleton is by appealing to 1, but not the other way around. Similarly, the identity of (atomic) states of affairs is explained in terms of objects and properties. Fine (1982: 52) takes basic states of affairs—propositions in his terminology—to be the results of the application of the operation of predication to particulars and properties. We say what the state of affairs a’s being F is by saying that it is the result of predicating being F to a. Hence, the state of affairs a’s being F depends on predicating being F to a. Complex states of affairs are the result of the application of such operations as conjunction and disjunction to basic states of affairs (on Operationalism as a general approach see Fine 2010: 564ff). The notion of predication gives rise to several questions and we will come back to it in the next section.