Philosophia Mathematica 11 (2):129-157 (2003)
|Abstract||Category theory and topos theory have been seen as providing a structuralist framework for mathematics autonomous vis-a-vis set theory. It is argued here that these theories require a background logic of relations and substantive assumptions addressing mathematical existence of categories themselves. We propose a synthesis of Bell's many-topoi view and modal-structuralism. Surprisingly, a combination of mereology and plural quantification suffices to describe hypothetical large domains, recovering the Grothendieck method of universes. Both topos theory and set theory can be carried out relative to such domains; puzzles about ‘large categories’ and ‘proper classes’ are handled in a uniform way, by relativization, sustaining insights of Zermelo.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Similar books and articles
Stewart Shapiro (2000). Set-Theoretic Foundations. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 2000:183-196.
Elaine Landry (1999). Category Theory: The Language of Mathematics. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):27.
Elaine Landry (2011). How to Be a Structuralist All the Way Down. Synthese 179 (3):435 - 454.
Andrei Rodin, Toward a Hermeneutic Categorical Mathematics or Why Category Theory Does Not Support Mathematical Structuralism.
Makmiller Pedroso (2009). On Three Arguments Against Categorical Structuralism. Synthese 170 (1):21 - 31.
Julian C. Cole (2010). Mathematical Structuralism Today. Philosophy Compass 5 (8):689-699.
Steve Awodey (2004). An Answer to Hellman's Question: ‘Does Category Theory Provide a Framework for Mathematical Structuralism?’. Philosophia Mathematica 12 (1):54-64.
Elaine Landry & Jean-Pierre Marquis (2005). Categories in Context: Historical, Foundational, and Philosophical. Philosophia Mathematica 13 (1):1-43.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads42 ( #31,695 of 722,871 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,871 )
How can I increase my downloads?