From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/8276
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Paul Levy
Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories
Subject: Re: cleavages and choice
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 16:17:32 +0100
Message-ID:
References: <20140730150643.GC19613@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de> <89048344-26F3-448F-8B41-9FF89AE1C892@wanadoo.fr>
Reply-To: Paul Levy
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1407156508 31309 80.91.229.3 (4 Aug 2014 12:48:28 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 12:48:28 +0000 (UTC)
To: Categories list
Original-X-From: majordomo@mlist.mta.ca Mon Aug 04 14:48:23 2014
Return-path:
Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from smtp3.mta.ca ([138.73.1.186])
by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from )
id 1XEHgc-0004iK-DH
for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 14:48:22 +0200
Original-Received: from mlist.mta.ca ([138.73.1.63]:50061)
by smtp3.mta.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
(envelope-from )
id 1XEHfu-0007SY-Lm; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 09:47:38 -0300
Original-Received: from majordomo by mlist.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.71)
(envelope-from )
id 1XEHft-0002nz-IG
for categories-list@mlist.mta.ca; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 09:47:37 -0300
In-Reply-To:
Precedence: bulk
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:8276
Archived-At:
Related to Marco's point:
In order to define the category Set, we have to define Set(X,Y) for
all sets X and Y. There are many isomorphic options, but to get a
category we have to choose one.
Now replace "category" by "category with distinguished binary products
and exponentials.". We shall then have to choose a particular
implementation of X x Y and X -> Y. Why do some people find this
philosophically objectionable? How is it worse than choosing
Set(X,Y)? (Personally, I'd be inclined to make the same choice for X -
> Y as for Hom(X,Y).)
Paul
On 2 Aug 2014, at 11:58, Marco Grandis wrote:
> Dear Eduardo,
>
> I agree with many things in your message, but I think you are taking
> your argument too far.
> Talking of pullbacks you say:
>
>> We precisely teach in category theory courses that you should not
>> work with any
>> particular choice between the choices.
>
> I agree that it is better to avoid such a choice when possible. Yet
> you cannot define a bicategory of spans without assuming that such a
> choice has been made; in the same way as you cannot define the
> (good) monoidal structure of Ab without recurring to a choice of
> tensor products.
> Such a situation, we all know, generally arises in non-strict
> bicategories (and monoidal categories, in particular).
>
> Unless you want to redefine bicategories replacing the composition
> of arrows with an existence property. I still prefer working with a
> choice (eg of pullbacks) to such a complicated structure.
>
> Best regards
>
> Marco
>
--
Paul Blain Levy
School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham
+44 121 414 4792
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~pbl
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]