Dear Andre, You are absolutely right that the equality relation is inseparable from the idea of a set. What is being proposed, however, is that a category doesn't need to have a *set* of objects. In fact, the objects of a category don't need to form an object of any category at all, so I think your proposed test is misguided. The formulation of category theory in dependent type theory which Richard, Toby, I, and others are proposing makes perfect sense without any equality predicate for the objects. Best, Mike Joyal wrote:
Dear All,
I cannot imagine a category without an equality relation between the objects of this category. Ok, I may have been brainwashed by my training in mathematics at an early age. But more seriously, I think that the equality relation is inseparable from the idea of a set. I do not understand what a preset is:
http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/preset
Two things are equal if they are the same, if they coincide (whatever that mean!). Without this notion, an element of a set has no identity, no individuality. Of course, a set is often constructed from other sets, as in arithmetic with congruence classes. I am fully aware that the equality relation between the objects of a category is not preserved by equivalences in general. But the art of category theory consists partly in knowing which construction on the objects and arrows of a category is invariant under equivalences.
I would like to propose a test for verifying if the notion of category can be freed from the equality relation on its set of objects. The equality relation on an ordinary set S is defined by the diagonal S-->S times S. The objects of a symmetric monoidal category have no diagonal in general, ie no coalgebra structure.
The test: Can we define a notion of category internal to a symmetric monoidal category without using a coalgebra structure on the object of objects?
Best, André
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]