And if all number participates in being, every part of number will
Then being is distributed over the whole multitude of things, and
nothing that is, however small or however great, is devoid of it? And,
indeed, the very supposition of this is absurd, for how can that which
is, be devoid of being?
In no way.
And it is divided into the greatest and into the smallest, and
into being of all sizes, and is broken up more than all things; the
divisions of it have no limit.
Then it has the greatest number of parts?
Yes, the greatest number.
Is there any of these which is a part of being, and yet no part?
But if it is at all and so long as it is, it must be one, and cannot
Then the one attaches to every single part of being, and does not
fail in any part, whether great or small, or whatever may be the
size of it?
But reflect:-an one in its entirety, be in many places at the same
No; I see the impossibility of that.
And if not in its entirety, then it is divided; for it cannot be
present with all the parts of being, unless divided.
And that which has parts will be as many as the parts are?
Then we were wrong in saying just now, that being was distributed