I asked that question in Mathoverflow, 4 years ago, but it was qualified as an off-topic, and they sent me here.

Here's the question: MacLane, as well as probably any other category book, does not hesitate to define a product of two categories as a category consisting of pairs of objects, etc.

Now my question is: what law of nature or logic or anything allows to create such pairs? Pair creation may be an axiom, say, in Set Theory. In category theory there's no such thing; they seem to just fall from heaven, keeping in mind that category theory is not based on sets at all. It looks pretty suspicious to me; but maybe I'm wrong.

An even curiouser question is about disjoint union of two (non-small) categories.

  • We can always talk about the categorial products and coproducts, at most some don't exist. However, I guess, these will (implicitly assumed to) exist in any foundational framework. – Berci Jun 13 at 18:41
  • 3
    " keeping in mind that category theory is not based on sets at all" : this is where you are wrong. Most of the time, mathematicians build category theory on top of some set theory, at least a naive one where forming pairs is completely allowed. Alternative foundations, as dependent type theory, will allow pairs as well. – Pece Jun 14 at 15:27

The answer to your question depend strictly on the foundational theory you work with.

Assuming your are using a set theory with large enough collections such as NBG or TG, and so you categories are made of classes (and in som cases even sets) objects and classes of morphisms the product categories are build via cartesian products of the classes of objects and morphisms, hence the existance of product categories follows by usual set theoretic axioms.

Clearly the same works for coproduct categories.

  • I read your answer as confirming that we only can build products (and coproducts) in the case where they are provided by some foundation axioms. Nothing like this gives us Set x Set, right? Or Set x Cat. – Vlad Patryshev Oct 2 at 20:52
  • @VladPatryshev I would say yes, but consider that for instance in ZFC $\mathbf{Set}$ is not a category, so it would be meaningless to talk about things such $\mathbf{Set}\times\mathbf{Set}$. – Giorgio Mossa Oct 3 at 10:24
  • I'm totally confused. How come a ZFC Set is not a category? What is missing there? Sets as object, functions (functional relations) as arrows; id is there, composition is defined and is associative. What's missing? – Vlad Patryshev Oct 5 at 20:31
  • @VladPatryshevVlad $\mathbf{Set}$ is a locally small category, meaning the its collection of objects is bot a set, thus $\mathbf{Set}$ it cannot be a category inside ZFC, exactly like $\mathbf{Set}\times\mathbf{Set}$ or the other examples you're interested in. – Giorgio Mossa Oct 7 at 3:51

Your Answer

 

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.