The two singulars are a composite form, just as the human form is based on animality and speech, so I said in it there is a speaking animal. Composing the two singulars by prescribing one over the other does not produce anything. Rather, it is a claim whose claimant lacks evidence of its validity so that the news about the subject is confirmed by what he told about it, so that is taken from us as a given if it is in a private lawsuit. By way of giving an example, for fear of lengthening, this book of mine is not a place for a balance of meanings, but rather that depends on the science of logic, for every singular must be known, and what it tells about the subject singular must also be known, either through sensory, intuitive, or theoretical proof that refers to them, then another introduction is required that works. It contains what you did in the first, and one of the two items must be mentioned in the two introductions, so they are four in the form of composition, and they are three in the meaning for what we mention, God willing, and if it is not like that, then it does not produce a basis, so you say in this issue that we represented in the other introduction, and the world is an accident, and you ask for it. Of knowledge by definition of the singular in it is what you asked for in the first premise of knowing what the world is and assigning the occurrence to it when you say an accident. This event, which is predicated in this introduction, was a subject in the first when you attributed the cause to it, so [Page 171 of the Cairo edition] the occurrence is repeated in the two introductions, which is the link. If they are linked, that connection is called the evidence, and it is called their meeting