Being non-numerically one, then, is presumably compatible both with being accidentally numerically one in any one instantiation, and accidentally numerically many in more than one instantiation).
After all, the formal unity of the nature is compatible with division into numerically many instances; some other unity must be the basis for the assertion that humanity is not many natures or species (Fonseca, In Met. V, c. 28, q. 3, sect. 1 [Fonseca (1599), vol. 2, col. 959F]).
According to Cajetan, common natures in themselves have "formal" unity: indivisibility into further more specific kinds, compatible with division into numerically many instances or subjective parts (Cajetan [CBE], nn. 134 155 [nn. 55 62]; see Fonseca, In Met. V, c. 28, q. 3, sect. 4 [Fonseca (1599), vol. 2, col. 967B, D-E]).
(Note that the denominative numerical singularity of the nature in the particular is still compatible with the common nature's being numerically one in some other particular, and this is because the nature in itself (not as in this or that particular) is less-than-numerically one (Scotus, Ordinatio II, d. 3, p. 1, q. 1, n. 34 (Scotus [OO], 7 404-405; Spade (1994), 64)).
However, because of the small number of patient, this percentage, although numerically close to the 14% threshold described as compatible with an 'active agent' by Van Glabbeke et al (2002), is not statistically different from the 8% rate given for 'inactive agents'.
By suitably enlarging the size of the set of numerically generated data, we are able to reconstruct the Wigner function of the linear superposition within errors that are compatible with the theoretical bounds.
They ranked each submission numerically.
Intellectually compatible?
Numerically, we should be level pegging.
Does the merchandise speak to you numerically?
