FOM: Re: Picturing categorical set theory, reply to Silver
csilver at sophia.smith.edu
Thu Jan 22 06:38:07 EST 1998
To Colin McLarty:
Colin McLarty wrote:
> Responding to my sketch of motives for categorical set theory,
> when I asked if it made sense
C. Silver wrote:
> > I think so. But, I'm looking for something slightly different.
> >Perhaps what I'm looking for isn't there. The kind of thing I'm looking
> >for is an underlying *conception* of function that is *explicated* by
> >category theory.
> Well, don't confuse general category theory (or even categorical
> foundations) with the much more specific topic of categorical set theory.
> You'll end up calling me a squid throwing ink in your eyes. (Actually, I
> adore squid, so if you are what you eat I may be guilty...) Certainly no
> specific picture motivates general category theory, where the whole idea is
> to have a huge range of applications.
> To get much more specific would mean to give actual axioms, as I
> have done in various articles and my book.
I think I may be confusing a number of distinct things. I'll try
to locate a copy of your book around here. I think that if I go through
at least a couple of chapters in an elementary category theory book I may
be able to figure out an answer to my questions.
More information about the FOM