Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-67gxp Total loading time: 0.249 Render date: 2021-03-08T10:21:26.672Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }
EnglishFrançais
The Review of Symbolic Logic The Review of Symbolic Logic

Article contents

FOUNDATIONS OF UNLIMITED CATEGORY THEORY: WHAT REMAINS TO BE DONE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2012

SOLOMON FEFERMAN
SOLOMON FEFERMAN
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Stanford University
Corresponding
E-mail address:
feferman@stanford.edu
Get access
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following a discussion of various forms of set-theoretical foundations of category theory and the controversial question of whether category theory does or can provide an autonomous foundation of mathematics, this article concentrates on the question whether there is a foundation for “unlimited” or “naive” category theory. The author proposed four criteria for such some years ago. The article describes how much had previously been accomplished on one approach to meeting those criteria, then takes care of one important obstacle that had been met in that approach, and finally explains what remains to be done if one is to have a fully satisfactory solution.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 6 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.
If you should have access and can't see this content please contact technical support.

References

Ehrenfeucht, A., & Mostowski, A. (1956). Models of axiomatic theories admitting automorphisms. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 43, 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eilenberg, S., & Mac Lane, S. (1945). General theory of natural equivalences. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 58, 231–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeler, E., & Röhrl, H. (1969). On the problem of foundations of category theory. Dialectica, 23, 58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. (1969). Set-theoretical foundations for category theory (with an appendix by G. Kreisel). In Barr, M., et al. ., editors. Reports of the Midwest Category Seminar III, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 106. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 201–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. (1974). Some formal systems for the unlimited theory of structures and categories. Unpublished MS, available online athttp://math.stanford.edu/ ∼ feferman/papers/Unlimited.pdf. Abstract in Journal of Symbolic Logic, 39(1974), 374–375.
Feferman, S. (1975). A language and axioms for explicit mathematics. In Algebra and Logic, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 450. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 87–139.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1977). Categorical foundations and foundations of category theory. In Butts, R. E., and Hintikka, J., editors. Logic, Foundations of Mathematics and Computability Theory, Vol. 1. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel, pp. 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. (2004). Typical ambiguity: Trying to have your cake and eat it too. In Link, G., editor. One Hundred Years of Russell’s Paradox. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 135–151.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (2006). Enriched stratified systems for the foundations of category theory. In Sica, G., editor. What is Category Theory? Monza, Italy: Polimetrica. Reprinted in (G. Sommaruga, ed.) Foundational Theories of Classical and Constructive Mathematics (2011). Berlin: Springer, pp. 127–143.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (2009). Operational set theory and small large cardinals. Information and Computation, 207, 971–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freyd, P. (1964). Abelian Categories. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. (2003). Does category theory provide a framework for mathematical structuralism?. Philosophia Mathematica III, 11, 129–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, R. (1969). On the consistency of a slight (?) modification of Quine’s New Foundations. In Davidson, D., and Hintikka, J., editors. Words and Objections. Essays on the work of W.V.O. Quine. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel, pp. 278–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kock, A. (1991). Synthetic Differential Geometry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lawvere, F. W. (1964). An elementary theory of the category of sets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 52, 1506–1511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawvere, F. W. (1966). The category of all categories as a foundation for mathematics. In Proceedings of the La Jolla Conference on Categorical Algebra. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Linnebo, ø., & Pettigrew, R. (2011). Category theory as an autonomous foundation. Philosophia Mathematica III, 19, 227–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1961). Locally small categories and the foundations of mathematics. In Infinitistic Methods. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 25–43.Google Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1969). One universe as a foundation for category theory. In Barr, M., et al. ., editors. Reports of the Midwest Category Seminar III, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 106. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1971). Categories for the Working Mathematician. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Second edition, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1986). Mathematics: Form and Function. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLarty, C. (1991). Axiomatizing a category of categories, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 56, 1243–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberschelp, A. (1973). Set theory over classes, Dissertationes Mathematicae (Rozprawy Matematyczne), 106, 1–62.Google Scholar
Osius, G. (1974). Categorical set theory: A characterization of the category of sets. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 4, 79–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1937). New foundations for mathematical logic. American Mathematical Monthly, 44, 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shulman, M. (2008). Set theory for category theory. arXiv:0810.1279v2 [math.CT] 7 Oct 2008.
Specker, E. (1962). Typical ambiguity in logic, In Nagel, E., et al. ., editors. Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 116–123.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 104 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 8th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

9 Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

FOUNDATIONS OF UNLIMITED CATEGORY THEORY: WHAT REMAINS TO BE DONE
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

FOUNDATIONS OF UNLIMITED CATEGORY THEORY: WHAT REMAINS TO BE DONE
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

FOUNDATIONS OF UNLIMITED CATEGORY THEORY: WHAT REMAINS TO BE DONE
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *