Philosophia Mathematica 19 (3):227-254 (2011)
|Abstract||Does category theory provide a foundation for mathematics that is autonomous with respect to the orthodox foundation in a set theory such as ZFC? We distinguish three types of autonomy: logical, conceptual, and justificatory. Focusing on a categorical theory of sets, we argue that a strong case can be made for its logical and conceptual autonomy. Its justificatory autonomy turns on whether the objects of a foundation for mathematics should be specified only up to isomorphism, as is customary in other branches of contemporary mathematics. If such a specification suffices, then a category-theoretical approach will be highly appropriate. But if sets have a richer `nature' than is preserved under isomorphism, then such an approach will be inadequate.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
M. Kary (2009). (Math, Science, ?). Axiomathes 19 (3):61-86.
Elaine Landry (1999). Category Theory: The Language of Mathematics. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):27.
Stewart Shapiro (2004). Foundations of Mathematics: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Structure. Philosophical Quarterly 54 (214):16 - 37.
O. Linnebo & R. Pettigrew (2011). Category Theory as an Autonomous Foundation. Philosophia Mathematica 19 (3):227-254.
F. A. Muller (2001). Sets, Classes, and Categories. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (3):539-573.
Makmiller Pedroso (2009). On Three Arguments Against Categorical Structuralism. Synthese 170 (1):21 - 31.
Stewart Shapiro (2000). Set-Theoretic Foundations. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 2000:183-196.
Added to index2010-06-08
Total downloads83 ( #9,064 of 549,087 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,152 of 549,087 )
How can I increase my downloads?