Interesting categories are big
One of the things I found off-putting about category theory when I was first exposed to it was its reliance on the notion of collections" that are not sets. That seemed to place the entire theory on dubious foundations with paradoxes looming around every corner.
It turns out you can mostly ignore such issues in application. You can, for example, talk about the forgetful functor that maps a group to the set of its elements, ignoring the group structure, without having to think deeply about the collection of all sets, which Russell's paradox tells us cannot itself be a set.
And yet issues of cardinality are not entirely avoidable. There is a theorem [1] that says in effect that category theory would be uninteresting without collections too large to be sets.
Every category C with a set of arrows is isomorphic to one in which the objects are sets and the arrows are functions.
If the collection of arrows (morphisms) between objects in C is so small as to be a set, then C is a sub-category of the category of sets. As Awodey explains, the only special properties such categories can possess are ones that are categorically irrelevant, such as features of the objects that do not aect the arrows in any way."
Most categories of interest have too many objects to be a set, and even more morphisms than objects.
Related posts- How category theory is applied
- Universal properties
- Simple example of Kleisli composition
- Category theory without categories
- Category theory and Koine Greek
[1] Category Theory by Steve Awodey. Theorem 1.6.
The post Interesting categories are big first appeared on John D. Cook.