Instruct: Identify the main and secondary category of Arxiv papers based on the titles and abstracts
Query: Why Not Categorical Equivalence?   In recent years philosophers of science have explored categorical equivalence
as a promising criterion for when two (physical) theories are equivalent. On
the one hand, philosophers have presented several examples of theories whose
relationships seem to be clarified using these categorical methods. On the
other hand, philosophers and logicians have studied the relationships,
particularly in the first order case, between categorical equivalence and other
notions of equivalence of theories, including definitional equivalence and
generalized definitional (aka Morita) equivalence. In this article, I will
express some skepticism about this approach, both on technical grounds and
conceptual ones. I will argue that "category structure" (alone) likely does not
capture the structure of a theory, and discuss some recent work in light of
this claim.

33
The categories of this paper are: plasm-ph
29
The categories of this paper are: funct-an
2
The categories of this paper are: math
19
The categories of this paper are: eess
32
The categories of this paper are: atom-ph
12
The categories of this paper are: nucl-th
20
The categories of this paper are: acc-phys
30
The categories of this paper are: q-alg
22
The categories of this paper are: chao-dyn
7
The categories of this paper are: hep-th
10
The categories of this paper are: q-bio
25
The categories of this paper are: patt-sol
15
The categories of this paper are: nucl-ex
31
The categories of this paper are: ao-sci
26
The categories of this paper are: bayes-an
17
The categories of this paper are: q-fin