FOM: Re: Picturing categorical set theory, reply to Silver

[Charles Silver]

To Colin McLarty:

Colin McLarty wrote:
>         Responding to my sketch of motives for categorical set theory,
> when I asked if it made sense


C. Silver wrote:
> >	I think so.  But, I'm looking for something slightly different. 
> >Perhaps what I'm looking for isn't there.  The kind of thing I'm looking
> >for is an underlying *conception* of function that is *explicated* by
> >category theory.

Colin McLarty:
>         Well, don't confuse general category theory (or even categorical
> foundations) with the much more specific topic of categorical set theory.
> You'll end up calling me a squid throwing ink in your eyes. (Actually, I
> adore squid, so if you are what you eat I may be guilty...) Certainly no
> specific picture motivates general category theory, where the whole idea is
> to have a huge range of applications. 
> 
>         To get much more specific would mean to give actual axioms, as I
> have done in various articles and my book.

	I think I may be confusing a number of distinct things.  I'll try
to locate a copy of your book around here.  I think that if I go through
at least a couple of chapters in an elementary category theory book I may
be able to figure out an answer to my questions. 

	Thanks again,

Charlie Silver
Smith College