Book, Paragraph

 1      I,  22|       For all such substance is definable, and an infinite series
 2      I,  22|      were infinite would not be definable. Hence they will not be
 3      I,  33|         regards their essential definable nature these objects differ.
 4     II,  3 |         is, and what things are definable. And let us first discuss
 5     II,  3 |         in the first figure are definable, e.g. "every triangle has
 6     II,  3 |       What then? Can everything definable be demonstrated, or not?
 7     II,  3 |         definitions.~But if the definable and the demonstrable are
 8     II,  3 |         no demonstration of the definable? There can be none, because
 9     II,  3 |        emerges that not all the definable is demonstrable nor all
10     II,  3 |        nor all the demonstrable definable; and we may draw the general
11     II,  4 |         e. demonstration-of the definable nature is possible or, as
12     II,  4 |       on the other hand (b) its definable nature is both "peculiar"
13     II,  4 |       do predicate essence-i.e. definable form-C’s definable form
14     II,  4 | essence-i.e. definable form-C’s definable form will appear in the
15     II,  4 |      not on that account be the definable form of C: A will merely
16     II,  4 |      cannot infer that A is the definable form and essence of C: but
17     II,  4 |        the conclusion, what the definable form of C is; so that there
18     II,  5 |         his essential nature or definable form? Again, what guarantee
19     II,  5 |         are constituents of the definable form, and if, postulating
20     II,  6 |       by premising (1) that its definable form is constituted by the "
21     II,  6 |    through the middle term, the definable form is once more assumed
22     II,  6 |         whole and part), so the definable form must not fall within
23     II,  6 |        conclusion proved is the definable form that we have to defend
24     II,  6 | conforming to the definition of definable form which we assumed. Hence
25     II,  6 |       what syllogism is or what definable form is.~The following type
26     II,  6 |        the question. If evil is definable as the divisible, and the
27     II,  6 |      question is begged because definable form is assumed as a premiss,
28     II,  6 |       premiss which is to prove definable form. "But not the same
29     II,  6 |         form. "But not the same definable form", you may object. That
30     II,  7 |       not exist at all would be definable, since even non-existents
31     II,  8 |      any sense demonstrable and definable or in none.~Now to know
32     II,  8 |    property; so that of the two definable natures of a single thing
33     II,  8 |      cannot apprehend a thing’s definable form without apprehending
34     II,  10|      far the same thing is both definable and demonstrable and how
35     II,  11|        are four causes: (1) the definable form, (2) an antecedent
36     II,  13|       or is not demonstrable or definable; so let us now discuss the
37     II,  13|  predicated as constituting the definable form.~Now of the attributes
38     II,  13| biped-animal-tame. For if every definable thing consists of two elements
39     II,  13|         only of elements in the definable form, (2) the arrangement
40     II,  13|         that no elements in the definable form have been omitted:
41     II,  13|    selected are elements in the definable form; and nothing lacking,