Sorry. I did misunderstand that. But I still do not understand it. What is a "formal basis" of a theory T? Is any subtheory of T? Or is it any conceptually significant subtheory? (In the latter case I would not call it a "formal" basis.) Is it supposed to be a general rule that if a theory T has a "formal basis" then T cannot be a satisfactory foundation? The Eilenberg-MacLane axioms are a subtheory of CCAF and also have a natural, conceptually central interpretation in CCAF. I consider this an insight, Bill's insight, and I do not see how it becomes any kind of objection to CCAF. best, Colin 2009/11/13 <Andre.Rodin@ens.fr>:
Selon Colin McLarty <colin.mclarty@case.edu>:
2009/11/12 <Andre.Rodin@ens.fr>:
writes
ETCS is the formal basis of CCAF.
I did NOT write this. I wrote "ETC is the formal basis of CCAF", please check my message. By ETC I mean the Elementary Theory of Categories. (You might take my ETC for a typo perhaps.)
best Andrei
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]