﹖ G.E.M. (used in Tractatus, p. 158–9, but with W–F instead of a–b)

It seems at first sight as if the a–b notation must be wrong, because it seems to treat true & false as on exactly the same level. The symbolism must its S Some more fact about the symbo It must be possible to see from the symbols themselves that there is some ˇessential difference between the poles, if the notation is to be right; & it seems as if in fact this was impossible.

Why
How

in fact it is ob possible is ˇbecause by by giving the symbol for a tautology which we at once shews a difference an asymmetry between the poles. The notion true & false, wh. seems to disappear, re-appears here in the notion ‘tautological’.

The interpretation of a symbolism must not depend upon giving a different interpretation to symbols of the same types. True
How asymmetry is introduced is by giving a description of a particular form of symbol which we call a ‘tautology’, & thus, the fact that this The description of the a–b symbol alone is symmetrical with respect to a & b; but this description & the ˇfact that what satisfies the description of

a
the

tautology ˇis a tautology is asymmetrical with regard to them. (To say that a description was symmetrical with regard to 2 symbols, would mean that

we
one

could substitute one for the other, & yet the description remain the same,) i.e. mean the same.)

(2015–) Wittgenstein Source Bergen Nachlass Edition (WS-BNE). Edited by the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen under the direction of Alois Pichler. In: Wittgenstein Source, curated by Alois Pichler (2009–) and Joseph Wang-Kathrein (2020–). (N) Bergen: WAB.