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。