The Importance of Developing a Foundation for Naive Category Theory

Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 4 (4):237-242 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Recently Feferman has outlined a program for the development of a foundation for naive category theory. While Ernst has shown that the resulting axiomatic system is still inconsistent, the purpose of this note is to show that nevertheless some foundation has to be developed before naive category theory can replace axiomatic set theory as a foundational theory for mathematics. It is argued that in naive category theory currently a ‘cookbook recipe’ is used for constructing categories, and it is explicitly shown with a formalized argument that this “foundationless” naive category theory therefore contains a paradox similar to the Russell paradox of naive set theory

Similar books and articles

Naïve Type Theory.Thorsten Altenkirch - 2019 - In Stefania Centrone, Deborah Kant & Deniz Sarikaya (eds.), Reflections on the Foundations of Mathematics: Univalent Foundations, Set Theory and General Thoughts. Springer Verlag. pp. 101-136.
Another Paradox In Naive Set-Theory.Loïc Colson - 2007 - Studia Logica 85 (1):33-39.
Remarks on naive set theory based on lp.Hitoshi Omori - 2015 - Review of Symbolic Logic 8 (2):279-295.
Naïve set theory is innocent!A. Weir - 1998 - Mind 107 (428):763-798.
The Consistency of The Naive Theory of Properties.Hartry Field - 2004 - Philosophical Quarterly 54 (214):78-104.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-09-28

Downloads
539 (#3,072)

6 months
110 (#157,798)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Marcoen J. T. F. Cabbolet
Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

General Theory of Natural Equivalences.Saunders MacLane & Samuel Eilenberg - 1945 - Transactions of the American Mathematical Society:231-294.
What is required of a foundation for mathematics?John Mayberry - 1994 - Philosophia Mathematica 2 (1):16-35.
Category theory: The language of mathematics.Elaine Landry - 1999 - Philosophy of Science 66 (3):27.

View all 7 references / Add more references