Timeline for How should we define "locally small"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2 at 22:28 | comment | added | Zhen Lin | For working with specific categories, perhaps NBG is sufficient. But as a category theorist I work with categories as abstract objects and I find it highly inconvenient to not have access to the full suite of tools (power sets, function spaces, transfinite induction...) other mathematicians have for studying their objects of interest. | |
| Dec 2 at 19:19 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | @DenisT We are well aware of Scott's trick but classes are not sufficient for foundational matters of category theory. See the great article by Mike Set theory for category theory for example. Also you might think again about the tone of your comment. | |
| Dec 2 at 18:17 | comment | added | Alec Rhea | @DenisT I think mainly because aesthetic tendencies these decades are leaning towards type theory as a result of more and more high profile mathematicians working with computers, and this type of stuff is something type theorists like to feel superior about. Acknowledging that set theory can do everything type theory can takes a bit of the wind out of their sails ;^). | |
| Dec 2 at 16:51 | history | edited | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 23 characters in body
|
| Dec 2 at 16:44 | history | edited | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 109 characters in body
|
| Dec 2 at 16:37 | history | answered | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |