Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory object of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).

nLab > Latest Changes: ETCS

Bottom of Page

1 to 10 of 10

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2018

    I corrected the date of publication from 1965 to 1964.

    diff, v48, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorThomas Holder
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2021

    Added a reference to

    • ∅ystein Linnebo, Richard Pettigrew, Category theory as an autonomous foundation , Phil. Math. 19 (2011) 227–254.

    diff, v51, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2021

    That sounds interesting, but it’s paywalled. Can anyone send me a copy?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2021

    Just sent it to you.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2021

    There are also preprint versions around, I’ll link to one

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2021

    Corrected the first code point of Øystein Linnebo’s name from 0x2205 EMPTY SET to 0xD8 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER O WITH STROKE. (-:

    diff, v52, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2021

    Thanks! I think that’s actually a really good paper. I’m glad to see philosophers finally understanding the points being made about ETCS by category theorists, and I finally feel like I have some feeling for why some philosophers find it less convincing of a foundation than ZFC.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2021

    So how would HoTT fare according to their three criteria: logical autonomy, conceptual autonomy, and justificatory autonomy? I guess for them it would hinge on “whether the objects for a foundation of mathematics can or indeed should be specified” only up to equivalence.

    Ladyman and Presnell take on the autonomy of HoTT here claiming that:

    the presentation of HoTT given in the HoTT Book is not autonomous since it explicitly depends upon other fields of mathematics, in particular homotopy theory.

    They then argue that a reformulation avoids this debt. I think they were misled by talk of paths.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2021

    Added link to preprint version (pdf) of Linnebo and Pettigrew’s paper.

    diff, v54, current

  10. updated Palmgren reference to

    azerty

    diff, v62, current

1 to 10 of 10

  1.