Abstract
Thus, to be is to be related and the “essence” of an “entity” is given by its relations to its “environment”. This claim is striking: it seems to describe perfectly well the way objects of a category are characterized and studied. Consider, for instance, the fundamental notion of product in a category C: a product for two objects A and B of C is an object C with two morphisms p 1: C → A and p 2: C → B such that for any other pair of morphisms f: D → A and g:D→B, there is a unique morphism h:D→C such that f = p 1h and g = p 2h. What is crucial in this specification is the pair of morphisms <p 1,p 2> and the universal property expressed by the condition, for it is those which are used in proofs involving products. Thus to be a product is, in an informal sense, to be a position in a category. It is to be related in a certain manner to the other objects or positions in the category. Moreover, a product for two objects is defined up to isomorphism and it does not make sense to ask what is the product of two objects. It simply does not matter as far as mathematical properties are concerned. Now, if mathematics can be developed within category theory and if we can show that all the crucial concepts are given by universal properties, or, equivalently, come from adjoint situations, then we would have substantiated the above claim considerably.
“In mathematics, I claim, we do not have objects with an ‘internal’ composition arranged in structures, we have only structures. The objects of mathematics, that is, the entities which our mathematical constants and quantifiers denote, are structureless points or positions in structures. As positions in structures, they have no identity of features outside of a structure”2 (Resnik, 1981, 530).
The author would like to thank the SSHRC and FCAR for their financial support while this work was done.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Barbut, M. [1970] On the meaning of the word’ structure’ in Mathematics, in: Structuralism: a reader, M. Lane, (ed.), London: Jonathan Cape, 367–388.
Barr, M. [1986] Models of sketches, Cahiers de topologie et de géométrie différentielle catégorique, 27,93–107.
Barr, M. and Wells, C. [1985] Toposes, triples an theories, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Barr, M. and Wells, C. [1988] The formal description of data types using sketches, in: Mathematical Foundations of Programming Language Semantics, M. Main et. al., (eds.), pp. 490–529.
Barr, M. and Wells, C. [1990] Category Theory for computing science, Prentice Hall.
Bastiani, A. and Ehresmann, C. [1972] Categories of sketched structures, Cahiers de topologie et de géométrie différentielle, 13–2,105–214.
Chihara, C. [1990], Constructibility and mathematical existence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corry, L. [1990] Reflexive thinking in mathematics — formal and informal aspects, in: Structures in mathematical theories, A. Diaz and J. Echeverria and A. Ibarra, (eds.), Servicio Editorial Universidad del Pais Vasco, 343–348.
Corry, L. [1992] Nicolas Bourbaki and the concept of mathematical structure, Synthese, 92, 315–348.
Girard, J-Y. [1987] Proof Theory and Logical Complexity, Vol. I, Napoli: Bibliopolis.
Guitart, R. [1986] On the geometry of computations, Cahiers de topologie et géométrie différentielle catéegorique, 27,4,107–136.
Makkai, M. [1993] The syntax of categorical logic, [Preprint], McGill University.
Makkai, M. and Paré, R. [1990] Accessible categories: the foundations of categorical model theory, AMS: Contemporary Mathematics, 104.
Mathias, A. R. D. [1992] The ignorance of Bourbaki, in: The Mathematical Intelligencer, 14,3,4–13.
Parsons, C. [1990] The structuralist view of mathematical objects, Synthese, 84,303–346.
Resnik, M. [1975] Mathematical knowledge and pattern cognition, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, V, 1,25–39.
Resnik, M. [1981] Mathematics as a science of patterns: Ontology and reference, Noús, XV, 529–550.
Resnik, M. [1982] Mathematics as a science of patterns: Epistemology, Noús, XVI, 95–105.
Resnik, M. [1988] Mathematics from the structural point of view, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 42,400–424.
Wells, C. [1990] A generalization of the concept of sketch, Theoretical Computer Science, 70, 159–178.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marquis, JP. (1997). Category Theory and Structuralism in Mathematics: Syntactical Considerations. In: Agazzi, E., Darvas, G. (eds) Philosophy of Mathematics Today. Episteme, vol 22. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5690-5_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5690-5_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6400-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-5690-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive