Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:27:11.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NEITHER CATEGORICAL NOR SET-THEORETIC FOUNDATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2012

GEOFFREY HELLMAN
GEOFFREY HELLMAN*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
*
*UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, 831 HELLER HALL, 271-19TH AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55455 E-mail:[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

First we review highlights of the ongoing debate about foundations of category theory, beginning with Feferman’s important article of 1977, then moving to our own paper of 2003, contrasting replies by McLarty and Awodey, and our own rejoinders to them. Then we offer a modest proposal for reformulating a theory of category of categories that would actually meet the objections of Feferman and Hellman and provide a genuine alternative to set theory as a foundation for mathematics. This proposal is more modest than that of our (2003) in omitting modal logic and in permitting a more “top-down” approach, where particular categories and functors need not be explicitly defined. Possible reasons for resisting the proposal are offered and countered. The upshot is to sustain a pluralism of foundations along lines actually foreseen by Feferman (1977), something that should be welcomed as a way of resolving this long-standing debate.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 16 - 23
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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Awodey, S. (2004). An answer to Hellman’s question: ‘Does category theory provide a framework for mathematical structuralism? ’. Philosophia Mathematica, 12, 54–64.CrossRefGoogle 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. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel, pp. 149–169.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. (1989). Mathematics without Numbers: Towards a Modal-Structural Interpretation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. (2003). Does category theory provide a framework for mathematical structuralism? Philosophia Mathematica, 11, 129–157.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. (2006). What is categorical structuralism? In van Benthem, J., Heinzmann, G., Rebuschi, M., and Visser, H., editors. The Age of Alternative Logics. Assessing Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics Today. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Joyal, A., & Moerdijk, I. (1995). Algebraic Set Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1991). Parts of Classes. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, Appendix on Pairing, pp. 121–149.Google Scholar
McLarty, C. (2004). Exploring categorical structuralism. Philosophia Mathematica, 12, 37–53.Google Scholar
Osius, G. (1974). Categorical set theory: A characterization of the category of sets. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 4, 79–119.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1967). Mathematics without foundations. Journal of Philosophy, 64, 1.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1991). Foundations without Foundationalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zermelo, E. (1930). On boundary numbers and set domains: New investigations in the foundations of set theory. In Ewald, W., editor. From Kant to Hilbert: Readings in the Foundations of Mathematics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 1208–1233. Translated: M. Hallett, from the German original, Über Grenzzahlen und Mengenbereiche: Neue Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 16, 29–47.Google Scholar