Book, Paragraph

 1      I, 15|          as meaning that if some single thing A is, B will be: for
 2      I, 23|      thing concerning some other single thing. Thus we must take
 3      I, 25|     drawn not in relation to the single term last added, but in
 4      I, 35|      seek to set out the terms a single word: for we shall often
 5      I, 35|    complexes of words to which a single name is not given. Hence
 6      I, 36|        statement that there is a single science of contraries. Let
 7      I, 36|         stand for "there being a single science", and B for things
 8      I, 36|        the fact of there being a single science of them, but in
 9      I, 36|       contraries that there is a single science of them.~It happens
10      I, 44|        proof that there is not a single faculty can. The latter
11      I, 46|          is good". If then every single statement may truly be said
12     II, 2 |      because A is laid down as a single term, be supposed that it
13     II, 2 |      that it is possible, when a single fact is given, that something
14     II, 15|        cannot be inferred from a single syllogism in such a way
15     II, 21|   mistake about the members of a single series; e.g. suppose A belongs
16     II, 26|          stand for there being a single science, B for contraries.
17     II, 26|     contraries are subjects of a single science, the objection may
18     II, 26|          are never subjects of a single science, and contraries
19     II, 26| unknowable are not subjects of a single science: this proof is in
20     II, 26|       they are the subjects of a single science.~Similarly if the
21     II, 26| contraries are not subjects of a single science, we reply either
22     II, 26|       must reply that there is a single science of all opposites.
23     II, 27|  necessary that it should have a single sign-we shall then be able
24     II, 27|  otherwise, there would not be a single sign correlative with each