From: Perez Garcia Lucia <Lucia.Perez@uv.es>
To: categories@mta.ca
Subject: Gödel and category theory
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 18:53:15 +0100 (MET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <199811110036.UAA11252@mailserv.mta.ca> (raw)
I am interested in the foundations of mathematics -more concretely,
in the claim that category theory can serve as a superior substitute
for set theory in the foundational landscape. In this context, I would
like to point out a footnote which appears in 'What is Cantor's
Continuum Problem?', written by Kurt G?del in 1947, revised and expanded
in 1964, and finally published in Benacerraf P. and Putnam H. (eds.) 1983:
Philosophy of Mathematics. Selected Readings, Cambridge University Press,
pp. 470-485. It reads as follows:
It must be admitted that the spirit of the modern abstract disciplines
of mathematics, in particular of the theory of categories, transcends
this concept of set*, as becomes apparent, e.g., by the self-applicability
of categories (see MacLane, 1961**). It does not seem however, that
anything is lost from the mathematical content of the theory if categories
of different levels are distinguished. If there exist mathematically
interesting proofs that would not go through under this interpretation,
then the paradoxes of set theory would become a serious problem for
mathematics.
*(the concept of set G?del was referring to is the iterative
one).
**(MacLane, S. 1961. "Locally Small Categories and the
Foundations of Set Theory". In Infinitistic Methods,
Proceedings of the Symposium on Foundations of Mathematics
(Warsaw, 1959). London and N.Y., Pergamon Press).
I need some help to grasp the following questions:
- In what sense the self-applicability of categories transcends the concept
of set?. (It is obvious that categories transcend the concept of well-
founded set but, what's the matter with non-well-founded sets?.
- In what sense do you think G?del proposed distinguishing different levels
of categories?. Would it be possible that G?del was thinking of something
like type theory?.
- Do you agree with G?del's intuition that nothing would be lost with such
a distinction?.
- Finally, in the last lines of the note G?del seems to suggest a research
programme for category theory as an alternative foundation of mathematics.
To what extent has it been carried out?.
Thanks for your help.
Regards,
Luc?a P?rez
Dpt.L?gica y Filosof?a de la Ciencia
University of Valencia -Spain-
--
***********************************************
lperez
***********************************************
next reply other threads:[~1998-11-10 17:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1998-11-10 17:53 Perez Garcia Lucia [this message]
1998-11-11 15:03 ` Michael Barr
1998-11-11 21:41 Colin McLarty
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=199811110036.UAA11252@mailserv.mta.ca \
--to=lucia.perez@uv.es \
--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).