Switch to: References

Citations of:

What is categorical structuralism?

In Johan van Benthem, Gerhard Heinzman, M. Rebushi & H. Visser (eds.), The Age of Alternative Logics: Assessing Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics Today. Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer. pp. 151--161 (2006)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Structuralism and Meta-Mathematics.Simon Friederich - 2010 - Erkenntnis 73 (1):67 - 81.
    The debate on structuralism in the philosophy of mathematics has brought into focus a question about the status of meta-mathematics. It has been raised by Shapiro (2005), where he compares the ongoing discussion on structuralism in category theory to the Frege-Hilbert controversy on axiomatic systems. Shapiro outlines an answer according to which meta-mathematics is understood in structural terms and one according to which it is not. He finds both options viable and does not seem to prefer one over the other. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Teoria kategorii i niektóre jej logiczne aspekty (Category theory and some of its logical aspects).Mariusz Stopa - 2018 - Philosophical Problems in Science 64:7-58.
    [The paper is in Polish, an English abstract is given only for information.] This article is intended for philosophers and logicians as a short partial introduction to category theory and its peculiar connection with logic. First, we consider CT itself. We give a brief insight into its history, introduce some basic definitions and present examples. In the second part, we focus on categorical topos semantics for propositional logic. We give some properties of logic in toposes, which, in general, is an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Neither categorical nor set-theoretic foundations.Geoffrey Hellman - 2013 - Review of Symbolic Logic 6 (1):16-23.
    First we review highlights of the ongoing debate about foundations of category theory, beginning with Fefermantop-down” approach, where particular categories and functors need not be explicitly defined. Possible reasons for resisting the proposal are offered and countered. The upshot is to sustain a pluralism of foundations along lines actually foreseen by Feferman (1977), something that should be welcomed as a way of resolving this long-standing debate.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Warum die Mathematik keine ontologische Grundlegung braucht.Simon Friederich - 2014 - Wittgenstein-Studien 5 (1).
    Einer weit verbreiteten Auffassung zufolge ist es eine zentrale Aufgabe der Philosophie der Mathematik, eine ontologische Grundlegung der Mathematik zu formulieren: eine philosophische Theorie darüber, ob mathematische Sätze wirklich wahr sind und ob mathematischen Gegenstände wirklich existieren. Der vorliegende Text entwickelt eine Sichtweise, der zufolge diese Auffassung auf einem Missverständnis beruht. Hierzu wird zunächst der Grundgedanke der Hilbert'schen axiomatischen Methode orgestellt, die Axiome als implizite Definitionen der in ihnen enthaltenen Begriffe zu behandeln. Anschließend wird in Anlehnung an einen Wittgenstein'schen Gedanken (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Homotopy Type Theory and Structuralism.Teruji Thomas - 2014 - Dissertation, University of Oxford
    I explore the possibility of a structuralist interpretation of homotopy type theory (HoTT) as a foundation for mathematics. There are two main aspects to HoTT's structuralist credentials. First, it builds on categorical set theory (CST), of which the best-known variant is Lawvere's ETCS. I argue that CST has merit as a structuralist foundation, in that it ascribes only structural properties to typical mathematical objects. However, I also argue that this success depends on the adoption of a strict typing system which (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark