home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.math
- Path: sparky!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!zurich.ai.mit.edu!ara
- From: ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler)
- Subject: Re: Euclidean domains
- In-Reply-To: steele@isis.cgd.ucar.edu's message of 11 Jan 93 00:53:20 GMT
- Message-ID: <ARA.93Jan10233811@camelot.ai.mit.edu>
- Sender: news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
- Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
- References: <1993Jan11.005320.18929@ncar.ucar.edu>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:38:11 GMT
- Lines: 18
-
-
- Alfred Steele mentions that not everything in Hungerford's Algebra is
- correct. This, of course, is true of many books. One thing that I didn't
- like about Hungerford's books was that he claims to give adequate
- foundations for category theory. But I don't believe that is accurate,
- since my recollection is that he never talks about the category of
- functors from one category to another and I am not convinced that
- the foundations he does give (basically, let the objects form a class in
- Godel-von Neumann-Bernays set theory) are adequate for constructing
- such categories of functors.
-
- Developing category theory without functor categories and saying one is
- thereby giving foundations for category theory is like taking the doctor's
- advice when you tell him it hurts when you move your arm and he tells
- you, "So don't move your arm..."
-
- Allan Adler
- ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu
-