Category Theory I

"It should be observed first that the whole concept of a category is essentially an auxiliary one; our basic concepts are essentially those of a functor and of a natural transformation […]. The idea of a category is required only by the precept that every function should have a definite class as domain and a definite class as range, for the categories are provided as the domains and ranges of functors. Thus one could drop the category concept altogether […]" (Samuel Eilenberg & Saunders Mac Lane, "A general theory of natural equivalences", Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 58, 1945)

"The subject of group theory is essentially the study of those constructions of groups which behave in a covariant or contravariant manner under induced homomorphisms. More precisely, group theory studies functors defined on well specified categories of groups, with values in another such category." (Samuel Eilenberg & Saunders Mac Lane, "A general theory of natural equivalences", Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 58, 1945)

"The theory [of categories] also emphasizes that, whenever new abstract objects are constructed in a specified way out of given ones, it is advisable to regard the construction of the corresponding induced mappings on these new objects as an integral part of their definition. The pursuit of this program entails a simultaneous consideration of objects and their mappings (in our terminology, this means the consideration not of individual objects but of categories). This emphasis on the specification of the type of mappings employed gives more insight onto the degree of invariance of the various concepts involved." (Samuel Eilenberg & Saunders Mac Lane, "A general theory of natural equivalences", Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 58, 1945)

"The notion of an abstract group arises by consideration of the formal properties of one-to-one transformations of a set onto itself. Similarly, the notion of a category is obtained from the formal properties of the class of all transformations y : X → Y of any one set into another, or of continuous transformations of one topological space into another, or of homomorphisms, of one group into another, and so on." (Saunders Mac Lane, "Duality for groups", Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 56, 1950)

"Categorical algebra has developed in recent years as an effective method of organizing parts of mathematics. Typically, this sort of organization uses notions such as that of the category G of all groups. [...] This raises the problem of finding some axiomatization of set theory - or of some foundational discipline like set theory - which will be adequate and appropriate to realizing this intent. This problem may turn out to have revolutionary implications vis-`a-vis the accepted views of the role of set theory." (Saunders Mac Lane, "Categorical algebra and set-theoretic foundations", 1967)

"The point is simply that when explaining the general notion of structure and of particular kinds of structures such as groups, rings, categories, etc., we implicitly presume as understood the ideas of operation and collection." (Solomon Feferman, "Categorical foundations and foundations of category theory", 1975)

"[…] it would be technically possible to give a purely category-theoretic account of all mathematical notions expressible within axiomatic set theory, and so formally possible for category theory to serve as a foundation for mathematics insofar as axiomatic set theory does." (John L Bell, "Category theory and the foundations of mathematics", The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 32(4), 1981)

"It is a remarkable empirical fact that mathematics can be based on set theory. More precisely, all mathematical objects can be coded as sets (in the cumulative hierarchy built by transfinitely iterating the power set operation, starting with the empty set). And all their crucial properties can be proved from the axioms of set theory. (. . . ) At first sight, category theory seems to be an exception to this general phenomenon. It deals with objects, like the categories of sets, of groups etc. that are as big as the whole universe of sets and that therefore do not admit any evident coding as sets. Furthermore, category theory involves constructions, like the functor category, that lead from these large categories to even larger ones. Thus, category theory is not just another field whose set-theoretic foundation can be left as an exercise. An interaction between category theory and set theory arises because there is a real question: What is the appropriate set-theoretic foundation for category theory?" (Andreas Blass, "The interaction between category theory and set theory", 1983)

"What was clearly useful was the use of diagrams to prove certain results either in algebraic topology, homological algebra or algebraic geometry. It is clear that doing category theory, or simply applying category theory, implies manipulating diagrams: constructing the relevant diagrams, chasing arrows by going via various paths in diagrams and showing they are equal, etc. This practice suggests that diagram manipulation, or more generally diagrams, constitutes the natural syntax of category theory and the category-theoretic way of thinking. Thus, if one could develop a formal language based on diagrams and diagrams manipulation, one would have a natural syntactical framework for category theory. However, moving from the informal language of categories which includes diagrams and diagrammatic manipulations to a formal language based on diagrams and diagrammatic manipulations is not entirely obvious." (Jean-Pierre Marquis, "From a Geometrical Point of View: A Study of the History and Philosophy of Category Theory", 2009)

"Category theory has developed classically, beginning with definitions and axioms and proceeding to a long list of theorems. Category theory is not topology (and so will not be described here), but it can be used to understand some of the relationships that exist among classes of topological spaces. It can be used to bring unity to diversity. [...] the theory of categories is not complete, it may not be completable, but it is a step forward in understanding foundational questions in mathematics." (John Tabak, "Beyond Geometry: A new mathematics of space and form", 2011)