Online research in philosophy

In a recent paper [Hellman, 2003], we examined to what extent category theory (“CT”) provides an autonomous framework for mathematical structuralism. The upshot of that investigation was that, as it stands, while CT provides many valuable insights into mathematical structure---specific structures and structure in general---, it does not sufficiently address certain key questions of logic and ontology that, in our view, any structuralist framework needs to address. On the positive side, however, a theory of large domains was sketched as a way of supplying answers to those key questions, answers intended to be friendly to CT both in demonstrating its autonomy vis-à-vis set theory and in preserving its “arrows only” methods of describing and interrelating structures and the insights that those methods provide. The “large domains”, hypothesized as logicomathematical possibilities, are intended as suitably rich background universes of discourse relative to which both category-and-topos theory and set theory can be developed side by side, without either emerging as “prior to” the other. Although those domains, as described, resemble natural models of set theory (on an iterative conception) or toposes suitably enriched with an equivalent of the Replacement Axiom, they are defined without set-membership as a primitive, and also without ‘function’ or ‘category’ or ‘functor’ as primitives; all that is required is a combination of ‘part/whole’ and plural quantification (in effect, the resources of monadic second-order logic). This background..

Giandomenico Sica’s volume is a collection of eleven papers on category theory by philosophers, mathematicians, and mathematical physicists. In addition to papers of direct interest to philosophers of mathematics, the volume contains some introductory expositions of category theory along with a valuable discussion of the relationship between category theory and physics by Bob Coecke. While there are several technically difficult papers, the volume as a whole is reasonably accessible to those with some familiarity with the basics of category theory. The importance of the volume lies in the possibility that it will encourage broader interest in category theory among philosophers.

Formal Axiomatic method as exemplified in Hilbert’s Grundlagen der Geometrie is based on a structuralist vision of mathematics and science according to which theories and objects of these theories are to be construed “up to isomorphism”. This structuralist approach is tightly linked with the idea of making Set theory into foundations of mathematics. Category theory suggests a generalisation of Formal Axiomatic method, which amounts to construing objects and theories “up to general morphism” rather than up to isomorphism. It is shown that this category-theoretic method of theorybuilding better fits mathematical and scientific practice. Moreover so since the requirement of being determined up to isomorphism (i.e. categoricity in the usual model-theoretic sense) turns to be unrealistic in many important cases. The category-theoretic approach advocated in this paper suggests an essential revision of the structuralist philosophy of mathematics and science. It is argued that a category should be viewed as a far-reaching generalisation of the notion of structure rather than a particular kind of structure. Finally, I compare formalisation and categorification as two alternative epistemic strategies.

A framework is introduced in which categories play an essential role in the foundations of physics. The work of F.W. Lawvere is exploited to provide axiomatizations for the relevant mathematical objects in a way which does not depend on set-theoretical foundations. An axiomatization of the category of complete atomic Boolean algebras is sketched as an example. These results are then used to give an explication of "truth in a (classical) physical theory" in terms of a commuting diagramme. This explication is then generalized to quantum theory and shown to capture, not truth, but necessity in the sense of van Fraassen.

This paper, accessible for a general philosophical audience having only some fleeting acquaintance with set-theory and category-theory, concerns the philosophy of mathematics, specifically the bearing of category-theory on the foundations of mathematics. We argue for six claims. (I) A founding theory for category-theory based on the primitive concept of a set or a class is worthwile to pursue. (II) The extant set-theoretical founding theories for category-theory are conceptually flawed. (III) The conceptual distinction between a set and a class can be seen to be formally codified in Ackermann's axiomatisation of set-theory. (IV) A slight but significant deductive extension of Ackermann's theory of sets and classes founds Cantorian set-theory as well as category-theory, and therefore can pass as a founding theory of the whole of mathematics. (V) The extended theory does not suffer from the conceptual flaws of the extant set-theoretical founding theories. (VI) The extended theory is not only conceptually but also logically superior to the competing set-theories because its consistency can be proved on the basis of weaker assumptions than the consistency of the competition.

In this paper I argue that category theory ought to be seen as providing the language for mathematical discourse. Against foundational approaches, I argue that there is no need to reduce either the content or structure of mathematical concepts and theories to the constituents of either the universe of sets or the category of categories. I assign category theory the role of organizing what we say about the content and structure of both mathematical concepts and theories. Insofar, then, as the structuralist sees mathematics as talking about structures and their morphology, I contend that category theory furnishes a framework for mathematical structuralism.

The aim of this paper is to clarify the role of category theory in the foundations of mathematics. There is a good deal of confusion surrounding this issue. A standard philosophical strategy in the face of a situation of this kind is to draw various distinctions and in this way show that the confusion rests on divergent conceptions of what the foundations of mathematics ought to be. This is the strategy adopted in the present paper. It is divided into 5 sections. We first show that already in the set theoretical framework, there are different dimensions to the expression foundations of. We then explore these dimensions more thoroughly. After a very short discussion of the links between these dimensions, we move to some of the arguments presented for and against category theory in the foundational landscape. We end up on a more speculative note by examining the relationships between category theory and set theory.

Elementary axioms describe a category of categories. Theorems of category theory follow, including some on adjunctions and triples. A new result is that associativity of composition in categories follows from cartesian closedness of the category of categories. The axioms plus an axiom of infinity are consistent iff the axioms for a well-pointed topos with separation axiom and natural numbers are. The theory is not finitely axiomatizable. Each axiom is independent of the others. Further independence and definability results are proved. Relations between categories and sets, the latter defined as discrete categories, are described, and applications to foundations are discussed.

A systems theoretical thinking on the categorial object and morphism is developed, leading to a reflection on the philosophical and mathematical foundations of category theory, which allows for the introduction of a formal language for category theory and of a categorial calculus as a morphic web-based logical calculus. A formal system, built from such calculus, is proposed and the logical semantics is addressed. Both syntax and semantics are independent from set theory.

Some mathematicians and philosophers contend that set theory plays a foundational role in mathematics. However, the development of category theory during the second half of the twentieth century has encouraged the view that this theory can provide a structuralist alternative to set-theoretical foundations. Against this tendency, criticisms have been made that category theory depends on set-theoretical notions and, because of this, category theory fails to show that set-theoretical foundations are dispensable. The goal of this paper is to show that these criticisms are misguided by arguing that category theory is entirely autonomous from set theory.