>>795
>フォン・ノイマン＝ベルナイス＝ゲーデル集合論
>https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A9%E3%83%B3%E3%83%BB%E3%83%8E%E3%82%A4%E3%83%9E%E3%83%B3%EF%BC%9D%E3%83%99%E3%83%AB%E3%83%8A%E3%82%A4%E3%82%B9%EF%BC%9D%E3%82%B2%E3%83%BC%E3%83%87%E3%83%AB%E9%9B%86%E5%90%88%E8%AB%96
>圏論

ありがとう
なるほどね
なお、英文en.wikipediaをチェックしておくと、下記だね

そうすると、ZFCより NBGの方が 圏論との相性はいいのかも
そして、望月IUTで扱う 楕円曲線の圏論幾何化程度ならば
結局は、集合としては そんなに大きいものを扱っているわけじゃないよね
（楕円曲線をモノイドとして扱うとかだと）

グロタンディーク宇宙など 大きすぎるだろうと思う
（大は小を兼ねるで 大きい方が 議論としては すっきりしていると思うがね）

(参考)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Bernays%E2%80%93G%C3%B6del_set_theory
Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory

Category theory
The ontology of NBG provides scaffolding for speaking about "large objects" without risking paradox. For instance, in some developments of category theory, a "large category" is defined as one whose objects and morphisms make up a proper class. On the other hand, a "small category" is one whose objects and morphisms are members of a set. Thus, we can speak of the "category of all sets" or "category of all small categories" without risking paradox since NBG supports large categories.

However, NBG does not support a "category of all categories" since large categories would be members of it and NBG does not allow proper classes to be members of anything. An ontological extension that enables us to talk formally about such a "category" is the conglomerate, which is a collection of classes. Then the "category of all categories" is defined by its objects: the conglomerate of all categories; and its morphisms: the conglomerate of all morphisms from A to B where A and B are objects.[83] On whether an ontology including classes as well as sets is adequate for category theory, see Muller 2001.