<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Set theory for category theory · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0810.1279/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0810.1279/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Set theory for category theory — mentioned by IngoBlechschmid</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30720166</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:0810.1279:30720166</guid><pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2022 09:39:54 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Working category theorist here. I wouldn&amp;#x27;t subscribe to that statement in this strong form, even though I am convinced that various flavors of type theory are a better foundation for mathematics. But this feature doesn&amp;#x27;t make me despise ZF set theory. In fact, ZF set theory is a beautifully elegant theory. I love it for studying sets. It&amp;#x27;s just not my favorite foundation. Additionally to the reasons listed by my siblings, many important results in category theory cannot be adequately formalized in ZF for size reasons. Too often, we have to or want to deal with results concerning categories…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0810.1279/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.CT</category></item></channel></rss>
