Re: abstraction of notation from sets.

[Partha Pratim Ghosh <ghosh.parthapratim.ukzn@gmail.com>]

 <peasthope <at> shaw.ca> writes:

>
> When S is a set, the notation "a \epsilon S" is familiar.
> Is this ever extended to CT?  All the texts I recall use
> natural language such as "A is an object of C".  What if
> a more symbolic notation is required?
>
> Thanks,       ... Peter E.
>

Dear Peter,

   There are two types of entities, one called objects and the other called
arrows. However, there are ways to deal away with objects, and one could only
consider the arrows, in which case although in my opinion the presentation
becomes much more formal and less intuitive (?!), one could easily import the
symbols of $\epsilon$; alternatively, one could formulate two classes (one for
objects and other for arrows) and do a similar import; or else one could use a
type theoretic fashion, say "A.Obj" to denote an instance of objects and
"A.Arr" to denote an instance of arrows, and so on. Yet, in some form or the
other one could do this...., but I ponder: why?

   Thus, I could not quite understand the intent of your question. Please could
you elaborate on this.

   With my regards,

partha




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