When we deal with usual category $\mathbf A$ we require that Ob$(\mathbf A)$ (i.e., collection of objects of category $\mathbf A$) and Mor$(\mathbf A)$ (i.e., collection of morphisms between objects in category $\mathbf A$) form a class (proper or no).

Then if we deal with metacategory $\mathbf A$ we say that Ob$(\mathbf A)$ is a conglomerate and Mor$(\mathbf A)$ so is.

To form a conglomerate we require:

  1. every class is a conglomerate,
  2. for every “property” P, one can form the conglomerate of all classes with property P,
  3. conglomerates are closed under analogues of the usual set-theoretic constructions, and
  4. the Axiom of Choice for Conglomerates; namely for each surjection between conglomerates $f:X\rightarrow Y$, there is an injection $g:Y\rightarrow X$ with $f\circ g=id_Y$.

So the question is: can we continue this hierarchy further to form the metacategory of all metacategories and so on?

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This use of the term "quasicategory" is horribly archaic; please avoid it. $\endgroup$ Oct 5, 2017 at 15:48
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Mike is too polite to self-advertise, but he wrote a great exposition on (set-theoretical) foundational issues in category theory: arxiv.org/abs/0810.1279 $\endgroup$
    – Myself
    Oct 5, 2017 at 16:05
  • $\begingroup$ @Myself, i’ve never seen this paper, so i’ll check it! $\endgroup$
    – A. G
    Oct 5, 2017 at 19:11
  • $\begingroup$ You should also be careful with the adjective "regular" here. Perhaps "usual" would be more appropriate. It's not a big deal, but I was a bit puzzled at first. $\endgroup$
    – Arnaud D.
    Oct 6, 2017 at 12:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PeterHeinig, yes, I’ve talked about the operations which I mentioned in my question, so you are right. $\endgroup$
    – A. G
    Oct 7, 2017 at 9:16


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.