different nature, we can predicate nothing of it. But supposing that
the one that is not and nothing else is not, then it must
participate in the predicate "that," and in many others.

  Certainly.

  And it will have unlikeness in relation to the others, for the
others being different from the one will be of a different kind.

  Certainly.

  And are not things of a different kind also other in kind?

  Of course.

  And are not things other in kind unlike?

  They are unlike.

  And if they are unlike the one, that which they are unlike will
clearly be unlike them?

  Clearly so.

  Then the one will have unlikeness in respect of which the others are
unlike it?

  That would seem to be true.

  And if unlikeness to other things is attributed to it, it must
have likeness to itself.

  How so?

  If the one have unlikeness to one, something else must be meant; nor
will the hypothesis relate to one; but it will relate to something
other than one?

  Quite so.

  But that cannot be.

  No.

  Then the one must have likeness to itself?

  It must.

  Again, it is not equal to the others; for if it were equal, then
it would at once be and be like them in virtue of the equality; but if
one has no being, then it can neither be nor be like?

  It cannot.

  But since it is not equal to the others, neither can the others be
equal to it?

  Certainly not.

  And things that are not equal are unequal?

  True.

  And they are unequal to an unequal?

  Of course.

  Then the one partakes of inequality, and in respect of this the
others are unequal to it?

  Very true.

  And inequality implies greatness and smallness?

  Yes.

  Then the one, if of such a nature, has greatness and smallness?

  That appears to be true.

  And greatness and smallness always stand apart?

  True.

  Then there is always something between them?

  There is.

  And can you think of anything else which is between them other
than equality?

  No, it is equality which lies between them.

  Then that which has greatness and smallness also has equality, which
lies between them?

  That is clear.

  Then the one, which is not, partakes, as would appear, of
greatness and smallness and equality?