The popular view according to which category theory provides a support for mathematical structuralism is erroneous. Category-theoretic foundations of mathematics require a different philosophy of mathematics. While structural mathematics studies ‘invariant form’ (Awodey) categorical mathematics studies covariant and contravariant transformations which, generally, have no invariants. In this paper I develop a non-structuralist interpretation of categorical mathematics.

We can learn from questions as well as from their answers. This paper urges some things to learn from questions about categorical foundations for mathematics raised by Geoffrey Hellman and from ones he invokes from Solomon Feferman.

Abstraction principles provide implicit definitions of mathematical objects. In this paper, an abstraction principle defining categories is proposed. It is unsatisfiable and inconsistent in the expected ways. Two restricted versions of the principle which are consistent are presented.

This paper considers the nature and role of axioms from the point of view of the current debates about the status of category theory and, in particular, in relation to the "algebraic" approach to mathematical structuralism. My aim is to show that category theory has as much to say about an algebraic consideration of meta-mathematical analyses of logical structure as it does about mathematical analyses of mathematical structure, without either requiring an assertory mathematical or meta-mathematical background theory as a "foundation", (...) or turning meta-mathematical analyses of logical concepts into "philosophical" ones. Thus, we can use category theory to frame an interpretation of mathematics according to which we can be structuralists all the way down. (shrink)

_Stefania Centrone, Deborah Kant_, and _Deniz Sarikaya_, eds, _ Reflections on the Foundations of Mathematics: Univalent Foundations, Set Theory, and General Thoughts _. Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science; 407. Springer, 2019. Pp. xxviii + 494. ISBN: 978-3-030-15654-1 ; 978-3-030-15655-8. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15655-8† †.

Following a discussion of various forms of set-theoretical foundations of category theory and the controversial question of whether category theory does or can provide an autonomous foundation of mathematics, this article concentrates on the question whether there is a foundation for “unlimited” or “naive” category theory. The author proposed four criteria for such some years ago. The article describes how much had previously been accomplished on one approach to meeting those criteria, then takes care of one important obstacle that had (...) been met in that approach, and finally explains what remains to be done if one is to have a fully satisfactory solution. (shrink)

The big question at the end of Feferman is: Is it possible to find a foundation for unlimited category theory? I show that the answer is no by showing that unlimited category theory is inconsistent.

Two topics figure prominently in recent discussions of mathematical structuralism: challenges to the purported metaphysical insight provided by sui generis structuralism and the significance of category theory for understanding and articulating mathematical structuralism. This article presents an overview of central themes related to these topics.

Hellman [2003] raises interesting challenges to categorical structuralism. He starts citing Awodey [1996] which, as Hellman sees, is not intended as a foundation for mathematics. It offers a structuralist framework which could denned in any of many different foundations. But Hellman says Awodey's work is 'naturally viewed in the context of Mac Lane's repeated claim that category theory provides an autonomous foundation for mathematics as an alternative to set theory' (p. 129). Most of Hellman's paper 'scrutinizes the formulation of category (...) theory' specifically in 'its alleged role as providing a foundation' (p. 130). I will also focus on the foundational question. Page numbers in parentheses are page references to Hellman [2003]. (shrink)

The current conception of the plurality of worlds is founded on a set theoretic understanding of possibilia. This paper provides an alternative category theoretic conception and argues that it is at least as serviceable for our understanding of possibilia. In addition to or instead of the notion of possibilia conceived as possible objects or possible individuals, this alternative to set theoretic modal realism requires the notion of possible morphisms, conceived as possible changes, processes or transformations. To support this alternative conception (...) of the plurality of worlds, I provide two examples where a category theoretic account can do work traditionally done by the set theoretic account: one on modal logic and another on paradoxes of size. I argue that the categorial account works at least as well as the set theoretic account, and moreover suggest that it has something to add in each case: it makes apparent avenues of inquiry that were obscured, if not invisible, on the set theoretic account. I conclude with a plea for epistemological humility about our acceptance of either a category-like or set-like realist ontology of modality. (shrink)

This paper considers the nature and role of axioms from the point of view of the current debates about the status of category theory and, in particular, in relation to the “algebraic” approach to mathematical structuralism. My aim is to show that category theory has as much to say about an algebraic consideration of meta-mathematical analyses of logical structure as it does about mathematical analyses of mathematical structure, without either requiring an assertory mathematical or meta-mathematical background theory as a “foundation”, (...) or turning meta-mathematical analyses of logical concepts into “philosophical” ones. Thus, we can use category theory to frame an interpretation of mathematics according to which we can be algebraic structuralists all the way down. (shrink)