Book, Paragraph

 1   I, 1 |       vaguely a sort of whole: its definition analyses this into its particular
 2   I, 2 |           sense of having the same definition, like "raiment" and "dress",
 3   I, 2 |          is" may be many either in definition (for example "to be white"
 4   I, 3 |          which is white" differ in definition, not in the sense that they
 5   I, 3 |            also "white". Since the definition of the latter is different (
 6   I, 3 |      consider the mere nature of a definition. For instance, if "man"
 7   I, 3 |           subject or that in whose definition the subject of which it
 8   I, 3 |             snubness" contains the definition of "nose", to which we attribute
 9   I, 3 |   attribute snubness. Further, the definition of the whole is not contained
10   I, 3 |    possibly not be "biped", or the definition of "man" must come into
11   I, 3 |            man" must come into the definition of "biped"-which is impossible,
12   I, 7 |            as the "this"), and the definition was one as we agreed; then
13   I, 9 |       before coming to be. (For my definition of matter is just this-the
14  II, 1 |          which is specified in the definition of the thing.~For the word "
15  II, 1 |          the form specified in the definition, which we name in defining
16  II, 3 |      number), and the parts in the definition.~Again (3) the primary source
17  II, 7 | mathematics, to the "what" (to the definition of "straight line" or "commensurable", &
18  II, 9 |           sake of which" is in the definition.~Necessity in mathematics
19  II, 9 |          beginning starts from the definition or essence; as in artificial
20  II, 9 |   necessary is present also in the definition. For if one defines the
21  II, 9 |          it is of iron. For in the definition too there are some parts
22 III, 1 |       Examples will elucidate this definition of motion. When the buildable,
23 III, 1 |     without qualification, i.e. in definition, the fulfilment of bronze
24 III, 2 |            2~The soundness of this definition is evident both when we
25 III, 2 |         then the suggested mode of definition, namely that it is a sort
26 III, 3 |           they are not the same in definition (as "raiment" and "dress"),
27 III, 3 |         only such as have the same definition. But indeed it by no means
28 III, 3 |         the action of X" differ in definition.~What then Motion is, has
29 III, 3 |             healing, &c. A similar definition will apply to each of the
30 III, 5 |       bounded by a surface" is the definition of body there cannot be
31 III, 6 |         new part is different.~Our definition then is as follows:~A quantity
32  IV, 1 |           it), nor as the form and definition of things, nor as end, nor
33  IV, 3 |         the specific form "in" the definition of the specific form.~(5)
34  IV, 11|      motion yet differs from it in definition, and is not identical with
35  IV, 11|           but because it is one in definition: for this determines the
36   V, 1 |       change from not-being.~Now a definition of motion has been given
37   V, 3 |          extremities are two. This definition makes it plain that continuity
38   V, 3 |        property of things prior in definition, e.g. numbers, while contact
39   V, 4 |   locomotion: for according to our definition there can be continuity
40  VI, 2 |             in conformity with the definition sometimes given of "the
41  VI, 2 |         and if we take this as the definition of continuous, it follows
42  VI, 6 |             This is clear from our definition of "primary", in which the
43 VIII, 1|          fact, even apart from the definition of motion, every one would
44 VIII, 9|            the order of nature, of definition, and of time alike the complete