Identity (n.) cannot be denied of a lamp: say this lamp is different from itself and nothing stirs — unless it shimmers in sunlight.
Identity (n.) written as 'a = a' is rubbish however often written; schoolmasters rightly teach 2 + 2 = 4, not 2 = 2.
Identity (n.) said of two classes means something, but said of two things means nothing, which undoes Russell's definition.
Identity (n.) is the very Devil and immensely important, bound up with the same argument recurring in a function.
Identity (n.) sign 'a = b' says nothing about a or b; it is a mere representational device, licensing one sign to stand in for another.
Identity (n.) is not a relation between objects; identity of object is shown by identity of sign, not said with a sign for identity.
Identity (n.) of indiscernibles may never hold, yet the claim that two objects share all their properties still has sense — which is why Russell's definition of '=' fails.
Identity (n.) said of two things is nonsense, and said of one thing with itself says nothing at all.
Identity (n.) in the identity sign is not an essential part of a correct conceptual notation; in one, 'a = a' cannot even be written down.