Neither categorical nor set-theoretic foundations

Review of Symbolic Logic 6 (1):16-23 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

First we review highlights of the ongoing debate about foundations of category theory, beginning with Fefermantop-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

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,449

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Learning from questions on categorical foundations.Colin McLarty - 2005 - Philosophia Mathematica 13 (1):44-60.
Some proposals for the set-theoretic foundations of category theory.Lorenzo Malatesta - 2011 - Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Analitica Junior 2 (2):41-58.
Abstractionist Categories of Categories.Shay Allen Logan - 2015 - Review of Symbolic Logic 8 (4):705-721.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-12-09

Downloads
69 (#316,882)

6 months
13 (#197,488)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Geoffrey Hellman
University of Minnesota

Citations of this work

Category theory.Jean-Pierre Marquis - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Classical Continuum without Points – CORRIGENDUM.G. Hellman & S. Shapiro - 2013 - Review of Symbolic Logic 6 (3):571-571.

Add more citations