categories - Category Theory list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* categories are beautiful
@ 2010-01-10 19:10 Eduardo J. Dubuc
  2010-01-12  7:26 ` Vaughan Pratt
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Eduardo J. Dubuc @ 2010-01-10 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Categories list


At the beginning Ehresmann arrived to the notion of category from groupoids,
even topological  groupoids. These are "internal and small". They do not even
have objects (just a partially defined operation with enough neutral elements).

At the beginning Eilemberg-MacLane arrived to the notion of category from the
categories of Sets, Groups, etc. They have objects, and are "external and
large". They were not even aware that groupoids were categories.

They are two very different things, that happen (by chance ?) to satisfy the
same axiomatic definition of category, which is a beautiful definition.

Bob Pare is so much right telling us that the distinction is not of size.
Clearly the small categories of finitely presented rings, of finite groups,
etc, etc, and even the groupoid of finite sets and bijective functions (in
Joyal's theory of species for example) are in spirit Eilember-MacLane's
"large" categories, and not Ehreshmann's "small" categories.

e.d.


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: categories are beautiful
  2010-01-10 19:10 categories are beautiful Eduardo J. Dubuc
@ 2010-01-12  7:26 ` Vaughan Pratt
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Vaughan Pratt @ 2010-01-12  7:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Categories list

Eduardo J. Dubuc wrote:
> Bob Pare is so much right telling us that the distinction is not of size.
> Clearly the small categories of finitely presented rings, of finite groups,
> etc, etc, and even the groupoid of finite sets and bijective functions (in
> Joyal's theory of species for example) are in spirit Eilember-MacLane's
> "large" categories, and not Ehreshmann's "small" categories.

Let me try out an analogy here.  Atmospheric pressure bears down on our
skin with several tonnes, but we don't notice this because our insides
push back with equal pressure.  Only when we disturb the difference by
swimming ten feet underwater or climbing a 20,000 foot mountain does
pressure come to our attention.

It seems to me that the size of Set is less important than our
day-to-day choices of set-valued functors.  The size of Set is like the
tonnes of atmosphere pressing down on our skin.  The choice of functor
is more like the little variations we make to the equilibrium across our
skin.

Vaughan


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2010-01-12  7:26 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-01-10 19:10 categories are beautiful Eduardo J. Dubuc
2010-01-12  7:26 ` Vaughan Pratt

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).