Why is this statement false?

G Your questions are bubbly. The solution is Myoho, where Myo is the indivisible, ho is the divisible, and they are not separate.

This refers to the myth that the sum of the parts is equal to the whole.

Such might apply to mathematics however, when one is dealing with living entities or being, dividing and disassembling the same not only leave you with less than the whole but also kills the being and ends its physical, functional existence.

As an example, does one learn more about a butterfly by simple observation or by dissection?

A better example may be the bumble bee. If one were to only look at the physical characteristics and design, it would be surmised that the bumble bee can not fly however, by observation we know that the bumble bee can fly.

If you dissect or divide a person you may learn of the existence of internal organ, muscle skeletal structure and the like however you will have learned nothing of the human emotions.

If one tries to dissect an emotion intellectually, the same may well loose its intensity and beauty.

The sum of the parts does not equal the whole, undivided being.

namaste

It's partially true to a degree, but almost entirely false.

It's true because taking a story (for example) apart, helps people analyze and interpret different meanings that the story is made of.

But it is also false, because you need all pieces which are divided in order to conclude the bigger picture to completely understand something.

It is false because you cannot prove anything such as a News story, a fact, or an incident without all the information.

It's also false because that statement is backwards. It should be: Nothing can be analyzed or 'understood' completely without first dividing it apart.

Something like that :)

Superficially it's false because divisibility is being analysed in the sentence which says it cannot be analysed (i.e. broken down).

However it's not false. It's nonsense. Concepts are not things which are indestructible or destructible.

It's also incomplete. "Common property" of what class of object?

(It sounds like it came out of some theological text.)

The analytical thought is a private matter to reconsider on the basis of its work which is its sole responsibility in the interaction on its constituents in the line of the analytical procedures.

So, the name for its sake is a separate entity in recognition of the works without that is boiling within for its applications as in its society stature.

Thereby, divisibility has nothing to do within of its existence from without... but of the analytical imposition on the identified property.

Divisibility is an element of analysis but the lack of it doesn't preclude analysis. It's also not unchanging and it is common but not universal.

Its a paradox. Its neither true nor false.

Because it's the other way around!0!

Seriously, it's not false, it's just easier the other way around, WAY easier. Now, the question is: Which way is the other way around?

Good luck!