Theaet. You mean that I mistook the letters and misspelt the
syllables?

  Soc. Yes.

  Theaet. To be sure; I perfectly remember, and I am very far from
supposing that they who are in this condition, have knowledge.

  Soc. When a person, at the time of learning writes the name of
Theaetetus, and thinks that he ought to write and does write Th and e;
but, again meaning to write the name of Theododorus, thinks that he
ought to write and does write T and e-can we suppose that he knows the
first syllables of your two names?

  Theaet. We have already admitted that such a one has not yet
attained knowledge.

  Soc. And in like manner be may enumerate without knowing them the
second and third and fourth syllables of your name?

  Theaet. He may.

  Soc. And in that case, when he knows the order of the letters and
can write them out correctly, he has right opinion?

  Theaet. Clearly.

  Soc. But although we admit that he has right opinion, he will
still be without knowledge?

  Theaet. Yes.

  Soc. And yet he will have explanations, as well as right opinion,
for he knew the order of the letters when he wrote; and this we
admit be explanation.

  Theaet. True.

  Soc. Then, my friend, there is such a thing as right opinion
united with definition or explanation, which does not as yet attain to
the exactness of knowledge.

  Theaet. It would seem so.

  Soc. And what we fancied to be a perfect definition of knowledge
is a dream only. But perhaps we had better not say so as yet, for were
there not three explanations of knowledge, one of which must, as we
said, be adopted by him who maintains knowledge to be true opinion
combined with rational explanation? And very likely there may be found
some one who will not prefer this but the third.