It is, perhaps, also immediately obvious that if we have analysed judgment we have solved the problem of truth; for taking the mental factor in a judgment (which is often itself called a judgment), the truth or falsity of this depends only on what proposition it is that is judged, and what we have to explain is the meaning of saying that the judgment is a judgment that "a" has "R" to "b", i.e. is true if "aRb", false if not. We can, if we like, say that it is true if there exists a corresponding fact that "a" has "R" to "b", but this is essentially not an analysis but a periphrasis, for 'The fact that "a" has "R" to "b" exists' is no different from ' "a" has "R" to "b" '.