Thanks to art, instead of seeing one world only, our own, we see that world multiply itself and we have at our disposal as many worlds as there are original artists …
☙ Marcel Proust
Precursors Of Category Theory
When it comes to looking for the continuities of the category concept across different systems and systematizers, we don’t expect to find their kinship in the names or numbers of categories, since those are legion and their divisions deployed on widely different planes of abstraction, but in their common function.
Aristotle
Things are equivocally named, when they have the name only in common, the definition (or statement of essence) corresponding with the name being different. For instance, while a man and a portrait can properly both be called animals (ζωον), these are equivocally named. For they have the name only in common, the definitions (or statements of essence) corresponding with the name being different. For if you are asked to define what the being an animal means in the case of the man and the portrait, you give in either case a definition appropriate to that case alone.
Things are univocally named, when not only they bear the same name but the name means the same in each case — has the same definition corresponding. Thus a man and an ox are called animals. The name is the same in both cases; so also the statement of essence. For if you are asked what is meant by their both of them being called animals, you give that particular name in both cases the same definition.
— Aristotle, Categories, 1.1a1–12.
Translator’s Note. “Ζωον in Greek had two meanings, that is to say, living creature, and, secondly, a figure or image in painting, embroidery, sculpture. We have no ambiguous noun. However, we use the word ‘living’ of portraits to mean ‘true to life’.”
In the logic of Aristotle categories are adjuncts to reasoning designed to resolve ambiguities and thus to prepare equivocal signs, otherwise recalcitrant to being ruled by logic, for the application of logical laws. The example of ζωον illustrates the fact that we don’t need categories to make generalizations so much as we need them to control generalizations, to reign in abstractions and analogies that are stretched too far.
References
- Aristotle, “The Categories”, Harold P. Cooke (trans.), pp. 1–109 in Aristotle, Volume 1, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, UK, 1938.
- Karpeles, Eric (2008), Paintings in Proust, Thames and Hudson, London, UK.
for 
for 
is a boolean function 
defined as follows:
if and only if exactly one of the arguments 
equals 
via functional composition but the rest of the family is worth keeping around for many practical purposes.
may be written for 
since the number of arguments determines the rank of the operator. In some contexts even the letter 
may be omitted, writing just the argument list 
in which case it helps to use a distinctive typeface for the list delimiters, as 
arguments can be expressed in terms of minimal negation operators as 
and this is conveniently abbreviated as a concatenation of arguments 
is a triadic relation of the form 
where 
is a set of formal objects under consideration and 
and 
are two formal languages used to denote those objects. It is common practice to cut one’s teeth on the special case 
before moving on to more solid diets.
