Russell further states that definite descriptions are incomplete symbols. These expressions which do not have meanings in isolation, but are only significant and definable in certain contexts are considered to be incomplete symbols. For example, 'The present king of France' has no meaning because it does not stand for any particular individual. But if I assert, "The present king of France is bald" then it makes an assertion, which is meaningful but in reality it is false. It is so because on the account of Russell, to assert the present king of France is bald is simply to assert that a man is presently the king of France and he is bald, a conjunction which is false by virtue of the falsity of its first conjunct. There is no monarchy found in France at present.

Let's examine the following sentences in the light of above discussion.

1. The difference between A and B does not subsist.
2. There is no such thing as unicorn.
3. Either the present king of France is bald or the present king of France is not bald.
4. George the IV wished to know whether Mr. Scott is the author of Waverley.

By considering the above sentences we encounter three puzzles. They are:

1. The problem of 'ostensive reference'.
2. The problem of excluded middle.
3. The problem of identity (the relation between definite description and proper name).