When we move from DISTINCT to ADEQUATE, we enter “a possible double way of appropriating and possessing the adequate, the completely analyzed as such” [MFL 63].

“[When every ingredient that makes up a distinct concept is itself known distinctly, or when analysis is carried out to the end, knowledge is adequate]. An adequate knowledge is thoroughly clear knowledge where confusion is not longer possible, where the reduction into marks and moments of marks (requisita) can be managed to the end. Of course, Leibniz immediately adds regarding cognitio adaequata: … [I am not sure that a perfect example of this can be given by man, but our notion of numbers approximates it.]” [MFL 62]. [cf. L lxxi–lxxii]

Adequate: When the marks themselves are also known distinctly, when analysis is carried out to the end. We only have an adequate knowledge of number. When we use symbols (generative function) for the distinctly known marks (in the cases where we can’t intuit the thing totum simul, but must rely on the “natures” “along with it”), we have adequate-symbolic knowledge.

If the marks are clear but no more than clear, then our knowledge is inadequate; but when the marks are also known distinctly (i.e., when analysis is carried out to the end, to the limit of all simples), we have adequate knowledge [MFL 62]. We only have adequate knowledge of “number” [the restriction of distinct and adequate to mathematical knowledge ≈ my AG thesis! Apriority on a purely “formal” basis].

• Arithmetic = adequate
• Geometry = distinct