Timeline for Why do categorical foundationalists want to escape set theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 2, 2011 at 15:08 | answer | added | George C. Modoi | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 1, 2011 at 22:26 | answer | added | paul garrett | timeline score: 12 | |
| Nov 16, 2010 at 23:00 | answer | added | Ben Sprott | timeline score: 7 | |
| May 17, 2010 at 16:08 | vote | accept | Eric | ||
| May 15, 2010 at 17:21 | answer | added | Kiochi | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 15, 2010 at 17:20 | answer | added | Todd Trimble | timeline score: 63 | |
| May 15, 2010 at 16:46 | comment | added | Qfwfq | (continued) Maybe the slogan could be something like "There is no reason to prefer Set to other topoi", and it could be seconded just for aesthetical reasons. (Personally I would still prefer a set theory as foundations, though). | |
| May 15, 2010 at 16:46 | comment | added | Qfwfq | There are categories, called topoi, that resemble the category Set from some viewpoints, but generalize it from others. I think -though I know essentially nothing about these things- that a categorical foundation of mathematics would make appearent that there are several possibilities for the concept of "category of sets", and build this feature from scratch in the very beginning of the process of foundating mathematics. | |
| May 15, 2010 at 16:20 | history | asked | Eric | CC BY-SA 2.5 |