You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
Nicola Gambino (May 03 2024 at 12:12):Hello, Does anyone have a copy that they can share of the following paper?
F. Borceux, A propos d'un théorème de Barr, Séminaire de mathématique (nouvelle série) Rapport 28 - Mai 1983, Institute de Mathematique Pure et Appliqee, Univ. Cath. de Louvain.
Thank you.
Cole Comfort (May 03 2024 at 12:37):I wanted to challenge myself to find this, and it appears to be published in volume 97, issue 2 of "Annales de la Société scientifique de Bruxelles. Série I: Sciences mathématiques, astronomiques et physiques" which appears to be archived in the national library of Australia.
https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/678354
Probably not the easiest way to get a hold of it.
Nathanael Arkor (May 03 2024 at 17:53):I think it would be worth contacting Francis Borceux directly to see whether he still has a copy. (If so, I would also be interested in seeing the paper!)
Mike Shulman (May 03 2024 at 18:49):Interlibrary loan?
Cole Comfort (May 03 2024 at 19:21):It may even be possible have the librarian scan it if they aren't busy. Once I was curious about some non mathematical fact, and a museum curator transcribed 2 pages of a 200 year old instruction booklet because I asked nicely.
Mike Shulman (May 03 2024 at 19:24):In my experience, nowadays most interlibrary loan is delivered electronically. Presumably this involves someone scanning it if it wasn't already done.
Mike Shulman (May 03 2024 at 19:25):I mean, ILL of papers. When I request an entire book, usually I get to borrow a physical copy.
Nicola Gambino (May 03 2024 at 19:57):Thanks, folks. I asked my library to find the article, as suggested by @Mike Shulman . In the Elephant, Peter Johnstone writes that the Borceux's proof is similar to the he uses to prove classical completeness for regular logic, so this will do for now.