Subject: categories: Re: Fuzzy categories

From: "Robert J. MacG. Dawson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:54:50 -0400

Steve Stevenson wrote:
> This seems like a natural idea. But the American Math Soc web site
> has no listings. What is a fundamental reference?

	Kelly's "Basic Concepts of Enriched Category Theory"

	http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/reprints/articles/10/tr10.pdf

	Of course, the term "fuzzy categories" is never actually used there.
(You can put the stockwhip down now, Max!) Moreover, it is not clear to
me that "fuzzification" in its usual  cottage-industry sense would be
seen by many categorists as the right level of generality.  But if you
wanted to do it for some reason, that's probably where to start.

	-Robert Dawson

---

From: Graham White <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:54:03 +0000

> wanted to do it for some reason, that's probably where to start.

There has been quite a lot of work on fuzzy sets and topos
theory: a Google search for "fuzzy sets topos", or
"fuzzy logic topos",  will turn up quite a lot of it.
I find it a bit surprising that there is so much
work, given the sociological characteristics of the
communities involved. But it's there anyway.

Graham White