added the following to the list of references:

In Gottfried Leibniz’s unpublished but famous manuscript on logic (from some time in 1683-1716), reproduced In English translation in

- Clarence I. Lewis, Appendix (p. 373) of:
*A Survey of Symbolic Logic*, University of California (1918) [pdf]

it says, after statement of the identity of indiscernibles and then the indiscernibility of identicals, that

$A$ and $A$ are, of course, said to be the same

]]>

Sorry, I was using Nikolaj’s notation (at least as I guessed what it meant): $A \to 0$ is the function type, ie $Hom(A,0)$…… ./… ….

….

:-(

Blerg, obviously wrong. Never mind, it was just some random emission… :-/ (Edit: Was travelling last night on the train at the end of a long day of travelling, and didn’t think before I posted)

]]>David, could you explain what you meant in your last comment? What is meant by $A \to 0$?

A side remark is that any cartesian closed category with zero object $0$ is trivial (i.e., equivalent to the terminal category). For any object $A$ we have $A \times 0 \cong 0$ since $0$ is initial and $A \times -$ has a right adjoint; we also have $A \times 0 \cong A$ since $0$ is terminal. Thus $A \cong 0$ for every $A$.

]]>~~In the setting of a category with zero object you have $A\simeq (A\to 0)$. I guess one should point to AT-category.~~

Makes me think of when is one thing equal to some other thing?.

The formulation of the second law on the Wikipedia page is something I haven’t encountered, $a\neq\neg a$.

Makes me wonder if $a\cong(a\to 0)$, e.g. in particular $*\cong(*\to 0)$, doesn’t make sense somewhere.

]]>created *first law of thought*