  Having assimilated Socrates’ day analogy to the Piece-of-Pie Model, Parmenides turns to a criticism of this second version of the Pie Model. Suppose, then, the same three sensible F things—A, B, and C—in separate places at the same time. According to Causality, A, B, and C are F by virtue of partaking of the F, and hence A, B, and C partake of the F. Given the Piece-of-Pie Model, there is a part of the F in each of A, B, and C. If the same absurdity generated from the Whole Pie Model is to be avoided, we must suppose that the part of the F that is in A is numerically distinct from the part of the F that is in B and from the part of the F that is in C, and also that the part of the F that is in B must be numerically distinct from the part of the F that is in C. (Otherwise we would have the same part of the F existing, as a whole, in separate places at the same time; and hence we would have something that is separate from itself.) Thus the F must have numerically distinct parts, and must therefore be divided (or, at least, divisible). Parmenides concludes from this that the F cannot be one, a conclusion that clearly contradicts Oneness.