A criticism on Kripke's Critique of Frege's Theory of Meaning in the Process of Signification and Confirmation of the Reference

In Gottlub Frege's theory of the meaning of particular names and his descriptions of the meaning-making process of that, and subsequently, the process of conformation and fixing the references through the proposed meaning, Kripke introduces criticism. By misrepresenting the dual processes of Frege's theory, and consequently Russell's, Kripke argues that this theory is ineffective and misleading.My main purpose is to discuss Kripke's most important description of the theory, which is reflected in "naming and necessity" and to challenge Kripke's critique. Accordingly, I believed that Kripke's criticism of Frege for the confusion between the two processes of fixing and meaning-making in a sense in the theory is incorrect, and Kripke created this view and mistakenly attributes this idea to Frege at first. Actually, Kripke made this idea for Frege and from his theories in Sence and Reference. But Frege never mentioned this misleading in the process of fixing the sense for the references. Kripke after this creation began to critique on Frege in this.For this conclusion, we first need to explain Frege's theory of meaning and then we will research in terms of two processes of references and meaning fixation. This article claims that the two cannot be traced in the Frege's views, and Kripke has not used sufficient precision, deliberately or inadvertently, in his description of this theory.