From: Todd Wilson <twilson@csufresno.edu>
To: categories@mta.ca
Subject: Re: Categories ridiculously abstract
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:52:58 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <14886.48682.377864.620074@goedel.engr.csufresno.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10011291140560.18590-100000@triples.math.mcgill.ca>
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Michael Barr wrote:
> And here is a question: are categories more abstract or less
> abstract than sets?
There is a trap lurking in this question, and it has to do with
understanding the term "abstract": different notions of "abstract"
can lead to different answers to the question. In the case of sets
and categories, since these are of different similarity types,
something other than inclusion of classes of models is meant. For
example "abstract", applied to sets and categories, might mean:
1. Having wider applicability. In this case, we can observe that the
theorems of category theory (e.g., products are unique up to unique
isomorphism) are generally more widely applicable than theorems of
set theory (e.g., the powerset of a set has greater cardinality
than the set itself), and so we would be inclined to say that
categories are more abstract than sets on this criterion.
2. Having more general conditions for being an instance. In order to
specify a set, we need only give (list, characterize) its members.
To specify a category we need to do the same thing for both the
collection of objects and the collection of arrows, and then we
need to specify the composition law. (Even in an arrows-only
formulation of category theory, we still need to specify both the
collection of arrows and the composition law.) So, on this
criterion, sets come out as more abstract.
Some time ago, on the Foundations of Mathematics mailing list (FOM),
there was a long and sometimes heated debate on alternative
foundations of mathematics (where alternative meant non-set-theoretic)
-- in particular on the viability of some kind of category-theoretic
foundation for mathematics (e.g., elementary topos theory + some
additional axioms) -- and the majority view seemed to be that
- Set theory is more all-encompassing. The standard arguments about
the bi-interpretability of category theory and set theory were met
with the challenge (unanswered, as far as I know) to produce, in a
category-theoretic foundation, a natural linearly-ordered sequence
of axioms of higher infinity that can be used to "calibrate" the
existential commitments of extensions to the basic axioms comparable
to the large cardinal axioms of set theory, where the naturality
requirement supposedly precludes the slavish translation of these
large cardinal axioms into the language of category theory. (Recall
that all known large cardinal axioms for set theory fall into a very
nice linear hierarchy that can be used to gauge the consistency
strength of a theory.)
- Set theory is conceptually simpler. Set theory axiomatizes a
single, very basic concept (membership), expressed using a single
binary relation, and posits a natural set of axioms for this
relation that are (more or less) neatly justified in terms of a
fairly (some would say perfectly) clear semantic conception, the
cumulative hierarchy. Category theory, the view goes, could only
approach the scope of set theory, if at all, by adding many axioms
that are unnatural and quite complicated to state and work with
without the aid of multiple layers of definitions and definitional
theorems (for products, exponentials, power-objects/subobject
classifier, higher replacement-like closure conditions on the
category, etc.).
The arguments put forward in support of these views were very similar
to those that are implicit in the labeling of category theory as
"ridiculously abstract", and there are no doubt many readers of this
list who would disagree with part or all of these views (me, for one).
However, my intention in reporting them here is *not* to start another
set-theory vs category theory thread, but rather to point out that,
although category theorists have yet to make a convincing case -- at
least I haven't seen one -- that category theory is more fundamental
or foundational in any important sense (sorry, Paul), recent research
in cognitive science on the embodied and metaphorical nature of our
thinking indicates that category theory may well be able to make such
a claim after all. See the books
G. Lakoff and M. Johnson. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied
Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books, 1999.
G. Lakoff and R. Nuñez. Where Mathematics Comes From: How the
Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. Basic Books, 2000.
for a popular account of this research. I should mention, of course,
that, closer to home, the book
F.W. Lawvere and S.H. Schanuel, Conceptual Mathematics: A First
Introduction to Category Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
is certainly a step in this direction.
--
Todd Wilson A smile is not an individual
Computer Science Department product; it is a co-product.
California State University, Fresno -- Thich Nhat Hanh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-11-30 20:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-11-29 13:39 John Duskin
2000-11-29 16:48 ` Michael Barr
2000-11-30 20:52 ` Todd Wilson [this message]
2000-11-30 17:30 Tom Leinster
2000-12-01 22:19 ` Michael MAKKAI
2000-12-06 19:18 ` DR Mawanda
2000-12-02 13:34 ` Robert J. MacG. Dawson
2000-12-04 5:30 Vaughan Pratt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=14886.48682.377864.620074@goedel.engr.csufresno.edu \
--to=twilson@csufresno.edu \
--cc=categories@mta.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).