that something or other is the state of things, but that something is :
that, however, is not an experience. Logic is prior to every experience--
that something is so . It is prior to the question 'How?' not prior to the
question 'What?'


5.5521 And if this were not so, how could we apply logic? We might put it
in this way: if there would be a logic even if there were no world, how
then could there be a logic given that there is a world?


5.553 Russell said that there were simple relations between different
numbers of things (individuals). But between what numbers? And how is this
supposed to be decided?--By experience? (There is no pre-eminent number.)


5.554 It would be completely arbitrary to give any specific form.


5.5541 It is supposed to be possible to answer a priori the question
whether I can get into a position in which I need the sign for a 27-termed
relation in order to signify something.


5.5542 But is it really legitimate even to ask such a question? Can we set
up a form of sign without knowing whether anything can correspond to it?
Does it make sense to ask what there must be in order that something can be
the case?