categories - Category Theory list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Shulman <shulman@uchicago.edu>
To: joyal.andre@uqam.ca, categories@mta.ca
Subject: Re: A challenge to all
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:28:54 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1NV5Di-0002us-Ls@mailserv.mta.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1NUq5m-0004Mh-UB@mailserv.mta.ca>

Dear Andre,

You are absolutely right that the equality relation is inseparable from
the idea of a set.  What is being proposed, however, is that a category
doesn't need to have a *set* of objects.  In fact, the objects of a
category don't need to form an object of any category at all, so I think
your proposed test is misguided.  The formulation of category theory in
dependent type theory which Richard, Toby, I, and others are proposing
makes perfect sense without any equality predicate for the objects.

Best,
Mike

Joyal wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> I cannot imagine a category without an equality relation between the objects of this category.
> Ok, I may have been brainwashed by my training in mathematics at an early age.
> But more seriously, I think that the equality relation is inseparable 
> from the idea of a set. I do not understand what a preset is:
> 
> http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/preset
> 
> Two things are equal if they are the same, if they coincide (whatever that mean!).
> Without this notion, an element of a set has no identity, no individuality.
> Of course, a set is often constructed from other sets, 
> as in arithmetic with congruence classes. 
> I am fully aware that the equality relation between the objects of a 
> category is not preserved by equivalences in general.
> But the art of category theory consists partly in knowing
> which construction on the objects and arrows of
> a category is invariant under equivalences. 
> 
> I would like to propose a test for verifying if the 
> notion of category can be freed from the equality relation
> on its set of objects. The equality relation on an ordinary 
> set S is defined by the diagonal S-->S times S.
> The objects of a symmetric monoidal category have no diagonal in general,
> ie no coalgebra structure.
> 
> The test: Can we define a notion of category internal to
> a symmetric monoidal category without using a coalgebra structure
> on the object of objects?
> 
> 
> Best, André 

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


  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-01-13  2:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-01-03  7:23 the definition of "evil" Peter Selinger
2010-01-03 17:10 ` Claudio Hermida
2010-01-03 17:53 ` John Baez
2010-01-04 17:14   ` Michael Shulman
2010-01-04  9:24 ` Urs Schreiber
2010-01-05 20:04 ` dagger not evil Joyal, André
2010-01-06  8:40   ` Toby Bartels
2010-01-07  5:50     ` Peter Selinger
2010-01-08  0:45     ` Joyal, André
     [not found]   ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E370F5672@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
     [not found]     ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E370F5673@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
2010-01-09  3:29       ` equality is beautiful Joyal, André
2010-01-10 17:17         ` Steve Vickers
     [not found]           ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E370F5677@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
2010-01-12 10:25             ` A challenge to all Steve Vickers
2010-01-12 16:24             ` Joyal, André
2010-01-13  0:03               ` David Roberts
2010-01-13  0:47               ` burroni
     [not found]                 ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E370F5688@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
     [not found]                   ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E370F568B@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
     [not found]                     ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E370F568D@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
     [not found]                       ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E370F568F@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
2010-01-15 19:33                         ` Joyal, André
2010-01-20  5:52                           ` Michael Shulman
2010-01-13  1:02               ` Jeff Egger
2010-01-13  2:28               ` Michael Shulman [this message]
2010-01-13 20:53                 ` equality Dusko Pavlovic
2010-01-14 14:23                   ` equality Colin McLarty
2010-01-13 23:43               ` A challenge to all Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
2010-01-15 19:40               ` Thomas Streicher
2010-01-10 19:54         ` equality is beautiful Vaughan Pratt
2010-01-11  2:26         ` Richard Garner
2010-01-13 11:53         ` lamarche
2010-01-13 21:29           ` Michael Shulman
     [not found] ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E370F565E@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
2010-01-06 15:44   ` dagger not evil (2) Joyal, André

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=E1NV5Di-0002us-Ls@mailserv.mta.ca \
    --to=shulman@uchicago.edu \
    --cc=categories@mta.ca \
    --cc=joyal.andre@uqam.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).