Re: Misclassification of packages; "libs" and "doc" sections
Eray Ozkural <erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr> writes:
> Maybe so, but I guess the philosophical status of Category Theory
> is not well established. As I said, what I like in Category Theory
> is its formal nature. It has many interesting repercussions in the
> fundamental questions such as whether there are any universals or
> the nature of reference. I might have worded these wrongly, so please
> correct me as the philosopher on duty here. :) Categorical Logic,
> Categorial Grammar, and computational interpretations of Category
> Theory are all very interesting but quite difficult to compare with
> former theories of "Category".
Um, no, it just doesn't. Category Theory in mathematics just doesn't
talk about the "nature of reference" or other things like that in
interesting philosophical ways. The relationship of Category Theory
in math to the philosophical notion of "Categories" is rather like the
relationship of "color" in Quantum Chromodynamics to that in painting.
There is no connection except a vague allusional one between the
mathematical and philosophical notions of a "category". "Category" in
math is a technical term for a particular kind of structure, and
doesn't say much about where the notion came from. You can't learn
anything about making jewelry from studing Rings in math, and you
can't learn about philosophical Categories from studying mathematical
Category Theory.
Thomas
Reply to: