one have participated in being, for the proposition that one is would have
been identical with the proposition that one is one; but our hypothesis is
not if one is one, what will follow, but if one is:--am I not right?

Quite right.

We mean to say, that being has not the same significance as one?

Of course.

And when we put them together shortly, and say 'One is,' that is equivalent
to saying, 'partakes of being'?

Quite true.

Once more then let us ask, if one is what will follow. Does not this
hypothesis necessarily imply that one is of such a nature as to have parts?

How so?

In this way:--If being is predicated of the one, if the one is, and one of
being, if being is one; and if being and one are not the same; and since
the one, which we have assumed, is, must not the whole, if it is one,
itself be, and have for its parts, one and being?

Certainly.

And is each of these parts--one and being--to be simply called a part, or
must the word 'part' be relative to the word 'whole'?