Re: Not invariant but good

However, in the absence of the axiom of choice, the naive definition of "functor" is not very well-behaved; it's better to use "anafunctors,"

Nothing against anafunctors but it is an exaggeration to say that in absence of choice the usual notion of functor is not well-behaved. One just loses that full and faithful and essential surjective entails equivalence. That's like abandoning the notion of surjective map in case we can't split them all. Thomas [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]