The sum in the second case is, of course, not so obvious as it is in the of 2 plus 2. But again, this makes no difference. To be analytic it is not required that it be obvious What obvious to one person is not obvious to another, and what is obvious to a person at one time may not be at another time. What may not be obvious to you and me may well be obvious to a mathematical genius. Obviousness is a psychological characteristic that is i no way involved in the conception of being analytic. Propositions of arithmetic are analytic because their denial is self-contradictory, whether the self-contradictoriness is immediately obvious or not. To a being with very great mathematical powers the sum of very large numbers would be as obvious as "2 2 4" is to us. 3. "But the meaning of the two is not the same: 40694 and 27593 are not a part of the meaning of "68287.' When you ask me what I mean by this number, I don't give the other two-or any of the other sets of numbers that when added together would yield it. So how can the statement be analytic if the one is not all or even a part of the meaning of the other? But it doesn't need to be a part of the meaning, in the sense of what we mean when we say it. A may be B although "B" may not be what we mean when we say "A." 68287 may not be what we mean by 40694 and 27493 but it is the sum of those two numbers just the same. It is still a necessary truth, and the denial of it would still be self-contradictory.