FOM: Set theory vs category theory
awodey at cmu.edu
Wed Jan 28 12:17:09 EST 1998
In reply to:
>Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:58:20 +0100 (MET)
>From: Soren Moller Riis <smriis at brics.dk>
>Subject: FOM: Set theory vs category theory
>I am wondering: Why is there no representation theorem for category theory?
Where did you get this idea? The well-known Cayley representation for
groups is a special case of a representation theorem for categories
(indeed, groups are special categories): Every category is isomorphic to a
category of sets and functions. (For the proof, associate to each object c
in a category C the set C_c of all arrows with codomain c, and send each
arrow f:c -> d in C to the function Cf : C_c -> C_d given by C_f(g) = fg.)
I don't suppose your question has anything to do with the issues of size
that sometimes come up in category theory.
>are many different categories with many different properties. If the
>axioms of a
>category are well stated there ought to be a representation theorem.
>Or is this against the ideology?
Ignoring the non sequitur, why do you question whether the axioms for
categories are well-stated? Of course they are. And what is meant by
"ideology" here? If there is there an "algebraic ideology" espoused by
such theories as that of semi-groups and lattices, then the theory of
categories adheres to it too, but beyond that I can make no sense of your
More information about the FOM