sorry, i first lag behind with reading, and then rush with writing before i
have read everything that was said. i hope the first paragraph of what i
wrote will reawake confusion. it is just a slight variation to what thomas
said more precisely. sorry about not reading first :) -- dusko

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 9:16 AM Thomas Streicher <
streicher@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote:

> Have sorted out off line with Jon Sterling what I meant.
> I am working in ZFC together wit the axiom that every set is element
> of a Grothendieck universe. So I do not use class choice at all but
> instead choice in all Grothendieck universes.
>
> What I meant is that one should not reduce choice to the first
> universe but instead have it for all sets irrespective of the universe
> they live in!
>
> I always found this the most convient setting to work in. But not many
> people do it. But if you work in it then there is no need for class
> choice anymore.
>
> Sorry for not having expanded my general implicit assumptions beforehand.
> I do see that my view is not the majority view.
>
> But it is the most convenient setting for doing category theory in my
> eyes and it is weaker than real large cardinal axioms that set theorists
> study consider.
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> ----------
>
> You're receiving this message because you're a member of the Categories
> mailing list group from Macquarie University.
>
> Leave group:
>
> https://url.au.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/JYQgCE8wlRCr3MGkHNht4i?domain=outlook.office365.com
>