thrice one three?

  Certainly.

  There are two, and twice, and therefore there must be twice two; and
there are three, and there is thrice, and therefore there must be
thrice three?

  Of course.

  If there are three and twice, there is twice three; and if there are
two and thrice, there is thrice two?

  Undoubtedly.

  Here, then, we have even taken even times, and odd taken odd
times, and even taken odd times, and odd taken even times.

  True.

  And if this is so, does any number remain which has no necessity
to be?

  None whatever.

  Then if one is, number must also be?

  It must.

  But if there is number, there must also be many, and infinite
multiplicity of being; for number is infinite in multiplicity, and
partakes also of being: am I not right?

  Certainly.

  And if all number participates in being, every part of number will
also participate?

  Yes.

  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.

  True.

  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?

  Impossible.

  But if it is at all and so long as it is, it must be one, and cannot
be none?

  Certainly.

  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?

  True.

  But reflect:-an one in its entirety, be in many places at the same
time?

  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.

  True.

  And that which has parts will be as many as the parts are?

  Certainly.

  Then we were wrong in saying just now, that being was distributed
into the greatest number of parts. For it is not distributed into
parts more than the one, into parts equal to the one; the one is never
wanting to being, or being to the one, but being two they are co-equal
and coextensive.

  Certainly that is true.

  The one itself, then, having been broken up into parts by being,
is many and infinite?

  True.

  Then not only the one which has being is many, but the one itself