Theonewasshowntobeinitselfwhichwasawhole？
True。
Andalsoinotherthings？
Yes。
Insofarasitisinotherthingsitwouldtouchotherthings，butinsofarasitisinitselfitwouldbedebarredfromtouchingthem，andwouldtouchitselfonly。
Clearly。
Thentheinferenceisthatitwouldtouchboth？
Itwould。
Butwhatdoyousaytoanewpointofview？Mustnotthatwhichistotouchanotherbenexttothatwhichitistotouch，andoccupytheplacenearesttothatinwhichwhatittouchesissituated？
True。
Thentheone，ifitistotouchitself，oughttobesituatednexttoitself，andoccupytheplacenexttothatinwhichitselfis？
Itought。
Andthatwouldrequirethattheoneshouldbetwo，andbeintwoplacesatonce，andthis，whileitisone，willneverhappen。
No。
Thentheonecannottouchitselfanymorethanitcanbetwo？
Itcannot。
Neithercanittouchothers。
Whynot？
Thereasonis，thatwhateveristotouchanothermustbeinseparationfrom，andnextto，thatwhichitistotouch，andnothirdthingcanbebetweenthem。
True。
Twothings，then，attheleastatenecessarytomakecontactpossible？
Theyare。
Andiftothetwoathirdbeaddedindueorder，thenumberoftermswillbethree，andthecontactstwo？
Yes。
Andeveryadditionaltermmakesoneadditionalcontact，whenceitfollowsthatthecontactsareonelessinnumberthantheterms;thefirsttwotermsexceededthenumberofcontactsbyone，andthewholenumberoftermsexceedsthewholenumberofcontactsbyoneinlikemanner;andforeveryonewhichisafterwardsaddedtothenumberofterms，onecontactisaddedtothecontacts。
True。
Whateveristhewholenumberofthings，thecontactswillbealwaysoneless。
True。
Butiftherebeonlyone，andnottwo，therewillbenocontact？
Howcantherebe？
Anddowenotsaythattheothersbeingotherthantheonearenotoneandhavenopartintheone？
True。
Thentheyhavenonumber，iftheyhavenooneinthem？
Ofcoursenot。
Thentheothersareneitheronenortwo，noraretheycalledbythenameofanynumber？
No。
One，then，aloneisone，andtwodonotexist？
Clearlynot。
Andiftherearenottwo，thereisnocontact？
Thereisnot。
Thenneitherdoestheonetouchtheothers，northeotherstheone，ifthereisnocontact？
Certainlynot。
Forallwhichreasonstheonetouchesanddoesnottouchitselfandtheothers？
True。
Further—istheoneequalandunequaltoitselfandothers？
Howdoyoumean？
Iftheoneweregreaterorlessthantheothers，ortheothersgreaterorlessthantheone，theywouldnotbegreaterorlessthaneachotherinvirtueoftheirbeingtheoneandtheothers;but，ifinadditiontotheirbeingwhattheyaretheyhadequality，theywouldbeequaltooneanother，oriftheonehadsmallnessandtheothersgreatness，ortheonehadgreatnessandtheotherssmallness—whicheverkindhadgreatnesswouldbegreater，andwhicheverhadsmallnesswouldbesmaller？
Certainly。
Thentherearetwosuchideasasgreatnessandsmallness;foriftheywerenottheycouldnotbeopposedtoeachotherandbepresentinthatwhichis。
Howcouldthey？
If，then，smallnessispresentintheoneitwillbepresenteitherinthewholeorinapartofthewhole？
Certainly。
Supposethefirst;itwillbeeitherco—equalandco—extensivewiththewholeone，orwillcontaintheone？
Clearly。
Ifitbeco—extensivewiththeoneitwillbecoequalwiththeone，orifcontainingtheoneitwillbegreaterthantheone？
Ofcourse。
Butcansmallnessbeequaltoanythingorgreaterthananything，andhavethefunctionsofgreatnessandequalityandnotitsownfunctions？
Impossible。
Thensmallnesscannotbeinthewholeofone，but，ifatall，inapartonly？
Yes。
Andsurelynotinallofapart，forthenthedifficultyofthewholewillrecur;itwillbeequaltoorgreaterthananypartinwhichitis。
Certainly。
Thensmallnesswillnotbeinanything，whetherinawholeorinapart;norwilltherebeanythingsmallbutactualsmallness。
True。
Neitherwillgreatnessbeintheone，forifgreatnessbeinanythingtherewillbesomethinggreaterotherandbesidesgreatnessitself，namely，thatinwhichgreatnessis;andthistoowhenthesmallitselfisnotthere，whichtheone，ifitisgreat，mustexceed;
this，however，isimpossible，seeingthatsmallnessiswhollyabsent。
True。
Butabsolutegreatnessisonlygreaterthanabsolutesmallness，andsmallnessisonlysmallerthanabsolutegreatness。
Verytrue。
Thenotherthingsnotgreaterorlessthantheone，iftheyhaveneithergreatnessnorsmallness;norhavegreatnessorsmallnessanypowerofexceedingorbeingexceededinrelationtotheone，butonlyinrelationtooneanother;norwilltheonebegreaterorlessthanthemorothers，ifithasneithergreatnessnorsmallness。
Clearlynot。
Theniftheoneisneithergreaternorlessthantheothers，itcannoteitherexceedorbeexceededbythem？
Certainlynot。
Andthatwhichneitherexceedsnorisexceeded，mustbeonanequality;andbeingonanequality，mustbeequal。
Ofcourse。
Andthiswillbetruealsooftherelationoftheonetoitself;
havingneithergreatnessnorsmallnessinitself，itwillneitherexceednorbeexceededbyitself，butwillbeonanequalitywithandequaltoitself。
Certainly。
Thentheonewillbeequaltobothitselfandtheothers？
Clearlyso。
Andyettheone，beingitselfinitself，willalsosurroundandbewithoutitself;and，ascontainingitself，willbegreaterthanitself;and，ascontainedinitself，willbeless;andwillthusbegreaterandlessthanitself。
Itwill。
Nowtherecannotpossiblybeanythingwhichisnotincludedintheoneandtheothers？
Ofcoursenot。
But，surely，thatwhichismustalwaysbesomewhere？
Yes。
Butthatwhichisinanythingwillbeless，andthatinwhichitiswillbegreater;innootherwaycanonethingbeinanother。
True。
Andsincethereisnothingotherorbesidestheoneandtheothers，andtheymustbeinsomething，musttheynotbeinoneanother，theoneintheothersandtheothersintheone，iftheyaretobeanywhere？
Thatisclear。
Butinasmuchastheoneisintheothers，theotherswillbegreaterthantheone，becausetheycontaintheone，whichwillbelessthantheothers，becauseitiscontainedinthem;andinasmuchastheothersareintheone，theoneonthesameprinciplewillbegreaterthantheothers，andtheotherslessthantheone。
True。
Theone，then，willbeequaltoandgreaterandlessthanitselfandtheothers？
Clearly。
Andifitbegreaterandlessandequal，itwillbeofequalandmoreandlessmeasuresordivisionsthanitselfandtheothers，andifofmeasures，alsoofparts？
Ofcourse。
Andifofequalandmoreandlessmeasuresordivisions，itwillbeinnumbermoreorlessthanitselfandtheothers，andlikewiseequalinnumbertoitselfandtotheothers？
Howisthat？
Itwillbeofmoremeasuresthanthosethingswhichitexceeds，andofasmanypartsasmeasures;andsowiththattowhichitisequal，andthatthanwhichitisless。
True。
Andbeinggreaterandlessthanitself，andequaltoitself，itwillbeofequalmeasureswithitselfandofmoreandfewermeasuresthanitself;andifofmeasuresthenalsoofparts？
Itwill。
Andbeingofequalpartswithitself，itwillbenumericallyequaltoitself;andbeingofmoreparts，more，andbeingofless，lessthanitself？
Certainly。
Andthesamewillholdofitsrelationtootherthings;inasmuchasitisgreaterthanthem，itwillbemoreinnumberthanthem;andinasmuchasitissmaller，itwillbelessinnumber;andinasmuchasitisequalinsizetootherthings，itwillbeequaltotheminnumber。
Certainly。
Oncemorethen，aswouldappear，theonewillbeinnumberbothequaltoandmoreandlessthanbothitselfandallotherthings。
Itwill。
Doestheonealsopartakeoftime？Andisitanddoesitbecomeolderandyoungerthanitselfandothers，andagain，neitheryoungernorolderthanitselfandothers，byvirtueofparticipationintime？
Howdoyoumean？
Ifoneis，beingmustbepredicatedofit？
Yes。
Buttobe（einai）isonlyparticipationofbeinginpresenttime，andtohavebeenistheparticipationofbeingatapasttime，andtobeabouttobeistheparticipationofbeingatafuturetime？
Verytrue。
Thentheone，sinceitpartakesofbeing，partakesoftime？
Certainly。
Andisnottimealwaysmovingforward？
Yes。
Thentheoneisalwaysbecomingolderthanitself，sinceitmovesforwardintime？
Certainly。