It has always been Carnap's view that predicate signs represent something; and without hesitation he correlates equal signs with one and the same entity. This, of course, is not a new approach, but falls in line with Russell's view. However, something else can be learnt from Carnap: namely that the reality represented by predicate signs must have an intensional content. Although Carnap prefers to restrict himself to extensions, he is nevertheless forced to take intensions into account. The way in which his views have developed over the years, provides us with an excellent example of how precise formulation and clear thinking can bring about the abandonment of restrictively narrow schemata and lead to real progress.¹