Does category theory provide a framework for mathematical structuralism?

Philosophia Mathematica 11 (2):129-157 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Category theory and topos theory have been seen as providing a structuralist framework for mathematics autonomous vis-a-vis set theory. It is argued here that these theories require a background logic of relations and substantive assumptions addressing mathematical existence of categories themselves. We propose a synthesis of Bell's many-topoi view and modal-structuralism. Surprisingly, a combination of mereology and plural quantification suffices to describe hypothetical large domains, recovering the Grothendieck method of universes. Both topos theory and set theory can be carried out relative to such domains; puzzles about ‘large categories’ and ‘proper classes’ are handled in a uniform way, by relativization, sustaining insights of Zermelo.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,774

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

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
250 (#103,553)

6 months
14 (#206,486)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Geoffrey Hellman
University of Minnesota

References found in this work

Parts of Classes.David K. Lewis - 1991 - Mind 100 (3):394-397.
Mathematics as a science of patterns.Michael David Resnik - 1997 - New York ;: Oxford University Press.
Truth by Convention.W. V. Quine - 1976 - In Willard Van Orman Quine (ed.), The ways of paradox, and other essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. pp. 90–124.

View all 29 references / Add more references