14

24

Our absurdity has hitherto consisted in [say ??] that every member
of a triplet is identical with a
member of a pair. But there was not need
of introducing the relation of identity here. It
is equally absurd to say that every member
of a triplet is [checked ??] off against a member
of a pair, provided it be essential to the idea
of "checking off" that if two objects not identical
are checked off, then the objects against which they
are checked off are not identical. Let us use
this [relation ??] of checking off. Only in the definition
of it, we must replace the relation of
non-identity by that same reciprocal
relation which we have hither to used.
We shall [thus ??] have this graph sufficiently
defining checking off, which we

24

Our absurdity has hitherto consisted in [say ??] that every member
of a triplet is identical with a
member of a pair. But there was not need
of introducing the relation of identity here. It
is equally absurd to say that every member
of a triplet is [checked ??] off against a member
of a pair, provided it be essential to the idea
of "checking off" that if two objects not identical
are checked off, then the objects against which they
are checked off are not identical. Let us use
this [relation ??] of checking off. Only in the definition
of it, we must replace the relation of
non-identity by that same reciprocal
relation which we have hither to used.
We shall [thus ??] have this graph sufficiently
defining checking off, which we