e indivisible. But they are starting-points in different ways, one in definition and the other in time. In which way,Anze Kopitar Tröjor, then, is 1 the starting-point? As has been said, the right angle is thought to be prior to the acute, and the acute to the right, and each is one. Accordingly they make 1 the starting-point in both ways. But this is impossible. For the universal is one as form or substance, while the element is one as a part or as matter. For each of the two is in a sense one-in truth each of the two units exists potentially (at least if the number is a unity and not like a heap, i.e. if different numbers consist of differentiated units, as they say),Cam Atkinson Tröjor, but not in complete reality; and the cause of the error they fell into is that they were conducting their inquiry at the same time from the standpoint of mathematics and from that of universal definitions,Lars Eller Tröjor, so that (1) from the former standpoint they treated unity, their first principle, as a point; for the unit is a point without position. They put things together out of the smallest parts,NHL Mens New York Rangers Black Rink Warrior Pullover Hoodie, as some others also have done. Therefore the unit becomes the matter of numbers and at the same time prior to 2; and again posterior,Jussi Jokinen Tröjor, 2 being treated as a whole,J.T. Brown Tröjor, a unity, and a form. But (2) because they were seeking the universal they treated the unity which can be predicated of a number, as in this sense also a part of the number. But these characteristics cannot belong at the same time to the same thing.
If the 1-itself must be unitary (for it differs in nothing from other 1’s except that it is the starting-point), and the 2 is divisible but the unit is not, the unit must be liker the 1-itself than the 2 is. But if the unit is liker it,T.J. Oshie Tröjor, it must be liker to the unit than to the 2; therefore each of the units in 2 must be prior to the 2. But they deny this; at least they generate the 2 first. Again, if the 2-itself is a unity and the 3-itself is one also, both form a 2. From what, then,Teemu Selanne Tröjor, is this 2 produced?
Book XIII Chapter 9
Since there is not contact in numbers,Belstaff New Panther Jackor, but succession, viz. between the units between which there is nothing, e.g. between those in 2 or in 3 one might ask whether these succeed the 1-itself or not,Jaroslav Halak Tröjor, and whether, of the terms that succeed it, 2 or either of the units in 2 is prior.
Similar difficulties occur with regard to the classes of things posterior to number,-the line, the plane, and the solid. For some construct these out of the species of the ‘great and small’; e.g. lines from the ‘long and short’,Pavel Datsyuk Tröjor, planes from the ‘broad and narrow’, masses from the ‘deep and shallow’; which are species of the ‘great and small’. And the originative principle of such things which answers to the 1 different thinkers describe in different ways,Jansen Harkins Tröjor, And in these also the impossibilities, the fictions, and the contradictions of all probability are seen to be innumerable. For (i) geometrical classes are severed from one another, unless the principles of these are implied in one another in such a way that the ‘broad and narrow’ is also ‘long and s
相关的主题文章：
http://ohh.sisos.co.jp/cgi-bin/openhh/search.cgi
http://www.radiologycases.com/casereports/jrcr-mcq.cgi
http://www13.plala.or.jp/white_roots/gwbbs/gwbbs.cgi |
