text:
Albert, King of Saxony

Albert (23 April 1828 – 19 June 1902) was King of Saxony from 29 October 1873 until his death in 1902.

He was the eldest son of Prince John (who succeeded his brother Frederick Augustus II on the Saxon throne as King John in 1854) by his wife Amalie Auguste of Bavaria.

Albert had a successful military career, leading Saxon troops that participated in the First Schleswig War, the Austro-Prussian War, and the Franco-Prussian War.

Early life
Albert's education, as usual with German princes, concentrated to a great extent on military matters, but he attended lectures at the University of Bonn. His first experience of warfare came in 1849, when he served as a captain in the First War of Schleswig against Denmark.

When the Austro-Prussian War broke out in 1866, Albert, then Crown Prince (German: Kronprinz), took up the command of the Saxon forces opposing the Prussian Army of Prince Friedrich Karl of Prussia. No attempt was made to defend Saxony, and the Saxons fell back into Bohemia and effected a junction with the Austrians. They took a prominent part in the battles by which the Prussians forced the line of the Jizera and in the Battle of Jičín. The Crown Prince, however, succeeded in effecting the retreat in good order, and in the decisive Battle of Königgrätz (3 July 1866), he held the extreme left of the Austrian position. The Saxons maintained their post with great tenacity but were involved in the disastrous defeat of their allies.

During the operations, the Crown Prince won the reputation of a thorough soldier. After peace was made and Saxony had entered the North German Confederation, he gained the command of the Saxon army, which had now become the XII army corps of the North German army, and in that position, he carried out the necessary reorganisation. He proved a firm adherent of the Prussian alliance. On the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, he again commanded the Saxons, who were included in the 2nd army under Prince Friedrich Karl of Prussia, his old opponent. At the Battle of Gravelotte, they formed the extreme left of the German army, and with the Prussian Guard carried out the attack on St Privat, the final and decisive action in the battle.

In the reorganisation of the army which accompanied the march towards Paris, the Crown Prince gained a separate command over the 4th army (Army of the Meuse) consisting of the Saxons, the Prussian Guard corps, and the IV (Prussian Saxony) corps. He was succeeded in command of the XII corps by his brother Prince George, who had served under him in Bohemia.

Albert took a leading part in the operations which preceded the battle of Sedan, the 4th army being the pivot on which the whole army wheeled round in pursuit of MacMahon; and the actions of Buzancy and Beaumont on 29 and 30 August 1870 were fought under his direction. In the Battle of Sedan itself (1 September 1870), with the troops under his orders, Albert carried out the envelopment of the French on the east and the north.

Albert's conduct in the engagements won for him the complete confidence of the army, and during the Siege of Paris, his troops formed the north-east section of the investing force. During the siege, he blocked French attempts to break out of the encirclement at Le Bourget and Villiers. After the conclusion of the Treaty of Frankfurt (1871), he was left in command of the German army of occupation, a position which he held till the fall of the Paris Commune. On the conclusion of peace, he was made an inspector-general of the army and a field marshal.

King
On the death of his father, King John on 29 October 1873, the Crown Prince succeeded to the throne as King Albert. His reign proved uneventful, and he took little public part in politics, devoting himself to military affairs, in which his advice and experience were of the greatest value, not only to the Saxon corps but also to the German army in general. During his reign, the Saxon monarchy became constitutional.

In the 1870s, Albert initiated the construction of a Dresden suburb, the Albertstadt. It was then the largest garrison in Germany. Near the former suburb other buildings and places still bear his name: the Albertbrücke, the Alberthafen, the Albertplatz and the Albertinum.

In 1879, he initiated the reconstruction of the Saint Afra School in Meissen. In 1897, he was appointed arbitrator between the claimants for the Principality of Lippe.

Marriage and succession
In Dresden on 18 June 1853, Albert married Princess Carola, daughter of Gustav, Prince of Vasa and granddaughter of Gustav IV Adolf, the second to last king of Sweden of the House of Holstein-Gottorp. The marriage was childless although Carola miscarried many times. They included:
 * A miscarriage of a daughter in the 4th month of pregnancy (19 December 1853).
 * A miscarriage of a daughter in the 6th month of pregnancy (16 August 1854).
 * A miscarriage in the 1st month of pregnancy (22 January 1855).
 * A miscarriage of a son in the 4th and a half month of pregnancy (17 January 1856).
 * A miscarriage in the 1st month of pregnancy (4 December 1856).
 * A miscarriage in the 1st month of pregnancy (30 January 1857).
 * A miscarriage in the 1st month of pregnancy (30 March 1857).
 * A miscarriage of a son in the 5th and a half month of pregnancy (11 January 1858).
 * A miscarriage of a son in the 4th and a half month of pregnancy (20 March 1859).
 * A miscarriage in the 1st month of pregnancy (30 March 1860).

Albert died at his Sibyllenort Palace on 19 June 1902 and was succeeded by his brother, who became King George. He was buried in Dresden on 23 June, among the mourners present were both the German Emperor Wilhelm II and the Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph I.

Honours, decorations and awards
The King of Saxony bird-of-paradise was named in Albert's honour; the Queen Carola's parotia was named for his wife.

German honours
• undefined:

• * Knight of the Rue Crown, 1831

• * Knight of the Military Order of St. Henry, 22 April 1849; Grand Cross, 16 July 1866

• * Grand Cross of the Albert Order

•  Prussia:

• * Knight of the Black Eagle, with Collar, 21 September 1844; with Collar, 1861

• * Pour le Mérite (military), 21 June 1849; with Oak Leaves, 6 December 1870; with Crown, 15 July 1899

• * Iron Cross, 1st and 2nd Classes; Grand Cross, 22 March 1871

• * Grand Commander's Cross of the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern, 6 September 1876

•    Ernestine duchies: Grand Cross of the Saxe-Ernestine House Order, June 1846

•  undefined: Grand Cross of the Royal Guelphic Order, 1849

•  Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach: Grand Cross of the White Falcon, 1 February 1850

•  undefined:

• * Knight of St. Hubert, 1850

• * Grand Cross of the Military Order of Max Joseph, 14 April 1871

• * Grand Cross of the Military Merit Order, with Swords

•  Hesse and by Rhine:

• * Grand Cross of the Ludwig Order, 9 June 1851

• * Military Merit Cross, 9 July 1871

•  Baden:

• * Knight of the House Order of Fidelity, 1853

• * Grand Cross of the Zähringer Lion, 1853

• * Grand Cross of the Military Karl-Friedrich Merit Order, 1871

•  Hesse-Kassel: Knight of the Golden Lion, 6 October 1854

•  Nassau: Knight of the Gold Lion of Nassau, November 1858

•  Württemberg:

• * Grand Cross of the Württemberg Crown, 1864

• * Grand Cross of the Military Merit Order, 30 November 1870

•  Oldenburg: Grand Cross of the Order of Duke Peter Friedrich Ludwig, with Golden Crown and Swords, 18 January 1871

•  Anhalt: Grand Cross of Albert the Bear, 1879

Foreign honours
• Austrian Empire:

• * Grand Cross of St. Stephen, 1849

• * Knight of the Golden Fleece, 1850

• * Knight of the Military Order of Maria Theresa, 1866

•  Kingdom of Sardinia:

• * Knight of the Annunciation, 11 April 1850

• * Grand Cross of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, 1850

•  Russian Empire:

• * Knight of St. Andrew, 20 July 1851

• * Knight of St. Alexander Nevsky, 20 July 1851

• * Knight of St. George, 2nd Class, September 1870 – for his defeat of McMahon at the Battle of Beaumont on 30 August

• 🇧🇪 Belgium: Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold, 25 May 1853

•  undefined: Grand Cross of the Order of Charles III, 4 March 1856; with Collar, 8 October 1883

•  French Empire: Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour, August 1867

• 🇸🇪 🇳🇴 Sweden-Norway:

• * Knight of the Seraphim, 2 June 1875

• * Grand Cross of St. Olav, 19 July 1888

• 🇩🇰 Denmark: Knight of the Elephant, 14 June 1878

• 🇳🇱 Netherlands: Grand Cross of the Military William Order, 9 July 1878

•  undefined: Stranger Knight Companion of the Garter, 20 February 1882

•  Empire of Japan: Grand Cordon of the Order of the Chrysanthemum, 27 November 1882

•  Siam: Knight of the Order of the Royal House of Chakri, 24 August 1897

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Albert, King of Saxony


text:
François d'Aguilon

François d'Aguilon (also d'Aguillon or in Latin Franciscus Aguilonius) (4 January 1567 – 20 March 1617) was a Jesuit, mathematician, physicist, and architect from the Spanish Netherlands.

D'Aguilon was born in Brussels; his father was a secretary to Philip II of Spain. He became a Jesuit in Tournai in 1586. In 1598 he moved to Antwerp, where he helped plan the construction of the Saint Carolus Borromeus church. In 1611, he started a special school of mathematics in Antwerp, fulfilling a dream of Christopher Clavius for a Jesuit mathematical school; in 1616, he was joined there by Grégoire de Saint-Vincent. The notable geometers educated at this school included Jean-Charles della Faille, André Tacquet, and Theodorus Moretus.

His book, Opticorum Libri Sex philosophis juxta ac mathematicis utiles, or Six Books of Optics, is useful for philosophers and mathematicians. It was published by Balthasar I Moretus in Antwerp in 1613 and illustrated by the famous painter Peter Paul Rubens. It included one of the first studies of binocular vision. It also gave the names we now use to stereographic projection and orthographic projection, although the projections themselves were likely known to Hipparchus. This book inspired the works of Desargues and Christiaan Huygens.

He died in Antwerp, aged 50.

Six Books of Optics
Francois d'Aguilon's Six Books of Optics concerns geometrical optics, which at the time in the Jesuit school was a subcategory of geometry. He taught logic, syntax, and theology while being charged with organizing the teaching of geometry and science which would be useful for geography, navigation, architecture and the military arts in Belgium. His superiors wanted him to synthesize the work of Euclid, Alhazen, Vitello, Roger Bacon and others. Although he died before completing the book, it still consists of six in-depth books, called Opticorum Libri Sex.

Perception and the horopter
D'Aguilon extensively studied stereographic projection, which he wanted to use a means to aid architects, cosmographers, navigators and artists. For centuries, artists and architects had sought formal laws of projection to place objects on a screen. Aguilon's Opticorum libri sex successfully treated projections and the errors in perception. D'Aguillon adopted Alhazen's theory that only light rays orthogonal to the cornea and lens surface are clearly registered. Aguilon was the first to use the term horopter, which is the line drawn through the focal point of both eyes and parallel to the line between the eyes. In other words, it describes how only objects on the horopter are seen in their true location. He then built an instrument to measure the spacing of double images in the horopter as he saw fit.

D'Aguilon expanded on the horopter by saying in his book: "If objects fall upon different rays it can happen that things at different distances can be seen at equal angles. If point C be directly opposite the eyes, A and B, with a circle drawn through the three points, A, B, and C. By theorem 21 of Euclid's Third book, any other point D on its circumference which lies closer to the observer than C, will subend an angle ADB which will equal angle ACB. Therefore, objects at C and at D are judged equally far from the eye. But this is false, because point C is farther away than D. Therefore a judgment of distance is false when based on the angles between converged axes, quod erat probandum."

At first glance, it seems that Aguillon discovered the geometrical horopter more than 200 years before Prevost and Vieth and Muller. The horopter was then used by architect Girard Desargues, who in 1639 published a remarkable treatise on the conic sections, emphasizing the idea of projection.

Similarity to other theorists
In Aguilon's book there are elements of perspectivities as well as the stereographic projections of Ptolemy and Hipparchus. Unaware that Johannes Kepler had already published optical theories years before him, Aguilon decided to share his insights on geometric optics. At the age of 20, the Dutch poet Constantijn Huygens read Aguilon's and was enthralled by it. He later said that it was the best book he had ever read in geometrical optics, and he thought that Aguilon should be compared to Plato, Eudoxus and Archimedes. In fact the title of Constantijn Huygens' first publication imitated Aguilon's title (omitting letters p and c): Otiorum Libri Sex (1625).

Accompanying art
In Aguilon's book the beginning of each section had works of the Flemish Baroque painter, Peter Paul Rubens. The frontispiece at the beginning of the book shows an eagle, referring to Aguilon's name and a variety of optical and geometrical images. On either side of the title stands Mercury holding the head of Argus with a hundred eyes, and Minerva holding a shield reflecting the head of Medusa. Then, at the beginning of each of six sections are Rubens' drawings describing Aguilon's experiments, one of which is the first known picture of a photometer This is one of six experiments drawn by Rubens and shows how intensity of light varies with the square of distance from the source. The experiment was later taken up by Mersenne and another Jesuit, Claude de Chales, and eventually led to Bouguer's more famous photometer. It is evident, from the detail that he put into his drawings, how enthused Rubens was about the subject matter, perspective geometry and optical rules.

title: François d'Aguilon


text:
Hyphanet

Hyphanet (until mid-2023: Freenet ) is a peer-to-peer platform for censorship-resistant, anonymous communication. It uses a decentralized distributed data store to keep and deliver information, and has a suite of free software for publishing and communicating on the Web without fear of censorship. Both Freenet and some of its associated tools were originally designed by Ian Clarke, who defined Freenet's goal as providing freedom of speech on the Internet with strong anonymity protection.

The distributed data store of Freenet is used by many third-party programs and plugins to provide microblogging and media sharing, anonymous and decentralised version tracking, blogging, a generic web of trust for decentralized spam resistance, Shoeshop for using Freenet over sneakernet, and many more.

History
The origin of Freenet can be traced to Ian Clarke's student project at the University of Edinburgh, which he completed as a graduation requirement in the summer of 1999. Ian Clarke's resulting unpublished report "A distributed decentralized information storage and retrieval system" (1999) provided foundation for the seminal paper written in collaboration with other researchers, "Freenet: A Distributed Anonymous Information Storage and Retrieval System" (2001). According to CiteSeer, it became one of the most frequently cited computer science articles in 2002.

Freenet can provide anonymity on the Internet by storing small encrypted snippets of content distributed on the computers of its users and connecting only through intermediate computers which pass on requests for content and sending them back without knowing the contents of the full file. This is similar to how routers on the Internet route packets without knowing anything about files —except Freenet has caching, a layer of strong encryption, and no reliance on centralized structures. This allows users to publish anonymously or retrieve various kinds of information.

Release history
Freenet has been under continuous development since 2000.

Freenet 0.7, released on 8 May 2008, is a major re-write incorporating a number of fundamental changes. The most fundamental change is support for darknet operation. Version 0.7 offered two modes of operation: a mode in which it connects only to friends, and an opennet-mode in which it connects to any other Freenet user. Both modes can be run simultaneously. When a user switches to pure darknet operation, Freenet becomes very difficult to detect from the outside. The transport layer created for the darknet mode allows communication over restricted routes as commonly found in mesh networks, as long as these connections follow a small-world structure. Other modifications include switching from TCP to UDP, which allows UDP hole punching along with faster transmission of messages between peers in the network.

Freenet 0.7.5, released on 12 June 2009, offers a variety of improvements over 0.7. These include reduced memory usage, faster insert and retrieval of content, significant improvements to the FProxy web interface used for browsing freesites, and a large number of smaller bugfixes, performance enhancements, and usability improvements. Version 0.7.5 also shipped with a new version of the Windows installer.

As of build 1226, released on 30 July 2009, features that have been written include significant security improvements against both attackers acting on the network and physical seizure of the computer running the node.

As of build 1468, released on 11 July 2015, the Freenet core stopped using the db4o database and laid the foundation for an efficient interface to the Web of Trust plugin which provides spam resistance.

Freenet has always been free software, but until 2011 it required users to install Java. This problem was solved by making Freenet compatible with OpenJDK, a free and open source implementation of the Java Platform.

On 11 February 2015, Freenet received the SUMA-Award for "protection against total surveillance".

Features and user interface
Freenet served as the model for the Japanese peer to peer file-sharing programs Winny, Share and Perfect Dark, but this model differs from p2p networks such as Bittorrent and emule. Freenet separates the underlying network structure and protocol from how users interact with the network; as a result, there are a variety of ways to access content on the Freenet network. The simplest is via FProxy, which is integrated with the node software and provides a web interface to content on the network. Using FProxy, a user can browse freesites (websites that use normal HTML and related tools, but whose content is stored within Freenet rather than on a traditional web server). The web interface is also used for most configuration and node management tasks. Through the use of separate applications or plugins loaded into the node software, users can interact with the network in other ways, such as forums similar to web forums or Usenet or interfaces more similar to traditional P2P "filesharing" interfaces.

While Freenet provides an HTTP interface for browsing freesites, it is not a proxy for the World Wide Web; Freenet can be used to access only the content that has been previously inserted into the Freenet network. In this way, it is more similar to Tor's onion services than to anonymous proxy software like Tor's proxy.

Freenet's focus lies on free speech and anonymity. Because of that, Freenet acts differently at certain points that are (directly or indirectly) related to the anonymity part. Freenet attempts to protect the anonymity of both people inserting data into the network (uploading) and those retrieving data from the network (downloading). Unlike file sharing systems, there is no need for the uploader to remain on the network after uploading a file or group of files. Instead, during the upload process, the files are broken into chunks and stored on a variety of other computers on the network. When downloading, those chunks are found and reassembled. Every node on the Freenet network contributes storage space to hold files and bandwidth that it uses to route requests from its peers.

As a direct result of the anonymity requirements, the node requesting content does not normally connect directly to the node that has it; instead, the request is routed across several intermediaries, none of which know which node made the request or which one had it. As a result, the total bandwidth required by the network to transfer a file is higher than in other systems, which can result in slower transfers, especially for infrequently accessed content.

Since version 0.7, Freenet offers two different levels of security: opennet and darknet. With opennet, users connect to arbitrary other users. With darknet, users connect only to "friends" with whom they previously exchanged public keys, named node-references. Both modes can be used together.

Content
Freenet's founders argue that true freedom of speech comes only with true anonymity and that the beneficial uses of Freenet outweigh its negative uses. Their view is that free speech, in itself, is not in contradiction with any other consideration—the information is not the crime. Freenet attempts to remove the possibility of any group imposing its beliefs or values on any data. Although many states censor communications to different extents, they all share one commonality in that a body must decide what information to censor and what information to allow. What may be acceptable to one group of people may be considered offensive or even dangerous to another. In essence, the purpose of Freenet is to ensure that no one is allowed to decide what is acceptable.

Reports of Freenet's use in authoritarian nations is difficult to track due to the very nature of Freenet's goals. One group, Freenet China, used to introduce the Freenet software to Chinese users starting from 2001 and distribute it within China through e-mails and on disks after the group's website was blocked by the Chinese authorities on the mainland. It was reported that in 2002 Freenet China had several thousand dedicated users. However, Freenet opennet traffic was blocked in China around the 2010s.

Technical design
The Freenet file sharing network stores documents and allows them to be retrieved later by an associated key, as is now possible with protocols such as HTTP. The network is designed to be highly survivable. The system has no central servers and is not subject to the control of any one individual or organization, including the designers of Freenet. The codebase size is over 192.000 lines of code. Information stored on Freenet is distributed around the network and stored on several different nodes. Encryption of data and relaying of requests makes it difficult to determine who inserted content into Freenet, who requested that content, or where the content was stored. This protects the anonymity of participants, and also makes it very difficult to censor specific content. Content is stored encrypted, making it difficult for even the operator of a node to determine what is stored on that node. This provides plausible deniability; which, in combination with request relaying, means that safe harbor laws that protect service providers may also protect Freenet node operators. When asked about the topic, Freenet developers defer to the EFF discussion which says that not being able to filter anything is a safe choice.

Distributed storage and caching of data
Like Winny, Share and Perfect Dark, Freenet not only transmits data between nodes but actually stores them, working as a huge distributed cache. To achieve this, each node allocates some amount of disk space to store data; this is configurable by the node operator, but is typically several GB (or more).

Files on Freenet are typically split into multiple small blocks, with duplicate blocks created to provide redundancy. Each block is handled independently, meaning that a single file may have parts stored on many different nodes.

Information flow in Freenet is different from networks like eMule or BitTorrent; in Freenet:

 * 1) A user wishing to share a file or update a freesite "inserts" the file "to the network"
 * 2) After "insertion" is finished, the publishing node is free to shut down, because the file is stored in the network. It will remain available for other users whether or not the original publishing node is online. No single node is responsible for the content; instead, it is replicated to many different nodes.

Two advantages of this design are high reliability and anonymity. Information remains available even if the publisher node goes offline, and is anonymously spread over many hosting nodes as encrypted blocks, not entire files.

The key disadvantage of the storage method is that no one node is responsible for any chunk of data. If a piece of data is not retrieved for some time and a node keeps getting new data, it will drop the old data sometime when its allocated disk space is fully used. In this way Freenet tends to 'forget' data which is not retrieved regularly (see also Effect).

While users can insert data into the network, there is no way to delete data. Due to Freenet's anonymous nature the original publishing node or owner of any piece of data is unknown. The only way data can be removed is if users don't request it.

Network
Typically, a host computer on the network runs the software that acts as a node, and it connects to other hosts running that same software to form a large distributed, variable-size network of peer nodes. Some nodes are end user nodes, from which documents are requested and presented to human users. Other nodes serve only to route data. All nodes communicate with each other identically – there are no dedicated "clients" or "servers". It is not possible for a node to rate another node except by its capacity to insert and fetch data associated with a key. This is unlike most other P2P networks where node administrators can employ a ratio system, where users have to share a certain amount of content before they can download.

Freenet may also be considered a small world network.

The Freenet protocol is intended to be used on a network of complex topology, such as the Internet (Internet Protocol). Each node knows only about some number of other nodes that it can reach directly (its conceptual "neighbors"), but any node can be a neighbor to any other; no hierarchy or other structure is intended. Each message is routed through the network by passing from neighbor to neighbor until it reaches its destination. As each node passes a message to a neighbor, it does not know whether the neighbor will forward the message to another node, or is the final destination or original source of the message. This is intended to protect the anonymity of users and publishers.

Each node maintains a data store containing documents associated with keys, and a routing table associating nodes with records of their performance in retrieving different keys.

Protocol

The Freenet protocol uses a key-based routing protocol, similar to distributed hash tables. The routing algorithm changed significantly in version 0.7. Prior to version 0.7, Freenet used a heuristic routing algorithm where each node had no fixed location, and routing was based on which node had served a key closest to the key being fetched (in version 0.3) or which is estimated to serve it faster (in version 0.5). In either case, new connections were sometimes added to downstream nodes (i.e. the node that answered the request) when requests succeeded, and old nodes were discarded in least recently used order (or something close to it). Oskar Sandberg's research (during the development of version 0.7) shows that this "path folding" is critical, and that a very simple routing algorithm will suffice provided there is path folding.

The disadvantage of this is that it is very easy for an attacker to find Freenet nodes, and connect to them, because every node is continually attempting to find new connections. In version 0.7, Freenet supports both "opennet" (similar to the old algorithms, but simpler), and "darknet" (all node connections are set up manually, so only your friends know your node's IP address). Darknet is less convenient, but much more secure against a distant attacker.

This change required major changes in the routing algorithm. Every node has a location, which is a number between 0 and 1. When a key is requested, first the node checks the local data store. If it's not found, the key's hash is turned into another number in the same range, and the request is routed to the node whose location is closest to the key. This goes on until some number of hops is exceeded, there are no more nodes to search, or the data is found. If the data is found, it is cached on each node along the path. So there is no one source node for a key, and attempting to find where it is currently stored will result in it being cached more widely. Essentially the same process is used to insert a document into the network: the data is routed according to the key until it runs out of hops, and if no existing document is found with the same key, it is stored on each node. If older data is found, the older data is propagated and returned to the originator, and the insert "collides".

But this works only if the locations are clustered in the right way. Freenet assumes that the darknet (a subset of the global social network) is a small-world network, and nodes constantly attempt to swap locations (using the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm) in order to minimize their distance to their neighbors. If the network actually is a small-world network, Freenet should find data reasonably quickly; ideally on the order of $$O\left(\left[log\left(n\right)\right]^2\right)$$ hops in Big O notation. However, it does not guarantee that data will be found at all.

Eventually, either the document is found or the hop limit is exceeded. The terminal node sends a reply that makes its way back to the originator along the route specified by the intermediate nodes' records of pending requests. The intermediate nodes may choose to cache the document along the way. Besides saving bandwidth, this also makes documents harder to censor as there is no one "source node".

Effect
Initially, the locations in darknet are distributed randomly. This means that routing of requests is essentially random. In opennet connections are established by a join request which provides an optimized network structure if the existing network is already optimized. So the data in a newly started Freenet will be distributed somewhat randomly.

As location swapping (on darknet) and path folding (on opennet) progress, nodes which are close to one another will increasingly have close locations, and nodes which are far away will have distant locations. Data with similar keys will be stored on the same node.

The result is that the network will self-organize into a distributed, clustered structure where nodes tend to hold data items that are close together in key space. There will probably be multiple such clusters throughout the network, any given document being replicated numerous times, depending on how much it is used. This is a kind of "spontaneous symmetry breaking", in which an initially symmetric state (all nodes being the same, with random initial keys for each other) leads to a highly asymmetric situation, with nodes coming to specialize in data that has closely related keys.

There are forces which tend to cause clustering (shared closeness data spreads throughout the network), and forces that tend to break up clusters (local caching of commonly used data). These forces will be different depending on how often data is used, so that seldom-used data will tend to be on just a few nodes which specialize in providing that data, and frequently used items will be spread widely throughout the network. This automatic mirroring counteracts the times when web traffic becomes overloaded, and due to a mature network's intelligent routing, a network of size n should require only log(n) time to retrieve a document on average.

Keys
Keys are hashes: there is no notion of semantic closeness when speaking of key closeness. Therefore, there will be no correlation between key closeness and similar popularity of data as there might be if keys did exhibit some semantic meaning, thus avoiding bottlenecks caused by popular subjects.

There are two main varieties of keys in use on Freenet, the Content Hash Key (CHK) and the Signed Subspace Key (SSK). A subtype of SSKs is the Updatable Subspace Key (USK) which adds versioning to allow secure updating of content.

A CHK is a SHA-256 hash of a document (after encryption, which itself depends on the hash of the plaintext) and thus a node can check that the document returned is correct by hashing it and checking the digest against the key. This key contains the meat of the data on Freenet. It carries all the binary data building blocks for the content to be delivered to the client for reassembly and decryption. The CHK is unique by nature and provides tamperproof content. A hostile node altering the data under a CHK will immediately be detected by the next node or the client. CHKs also reduce the redundancy of data since the same data will have the same CHK and when multiple sites reference the same large files, they can reference to the same CHK.

SSKs are based on public-key cryptography. Currently Freenet uses the DSA algorithm. Documents inserted under SSKs are signed by the inserter, and this signature can be verified by every node to ensure that the data is not tampered with. SSKs can be used to establish a verifiable pseudonymous identity on Freenet, and allow for multiple documents to be inserted securely by a single person. Files inserted with an SSK are effectively immutable, since inserting a second file with the same name can cause collisions. USKs resolve this by adding a version number to the keys which is also used for providing update notification for keys registered as bookmarks in the web interface. Another subtype of the SSK is the Keyword Signed Key, or KSK, in which the key pair is generated in a standard way from a simple human-readable string. Inserting a document using a KSK allows the document to be retrieved and decrypted if and only if the requester knows the human-readable string; this allows for more convenient (but less secure) URIs for users to refer to.

Scalability
A network is said to be scalable if its performance does not deteriorate even if the network is very large. The scalability of Freenet is being evaluated, but similar architectures have been shown to scale logarithmically. This work indicates that Freenet can find data in $$O(\log^2 n)$$ hops on a small-world network (which includes both opennet and darknet style Freenet networks), when ignoring the caching which could improve the scalability for popular content. However, this scalability is difficult to test without a very large network. Furthermore, the security features inherent to Freenet make detailed performance analysis (including things as simple as determining the size of the network) difficult to do accurately. As of now, the scalability of Freenet has yet to be tested.

Darknet versus opennet
As of version 0.7, Freenet supports both "darknet" and "opennet" connections. Opennet connections are made automatically by nodes with opennet enabled, while darknet connections are manually established between users that know and trust each other. Freenet developers describe the trust needed as "will not crack their Freenet node". Opennet connections are easy to use, but darknet connections are more secure against attackers on the network, and can make it difficult for an attacker (such as an oppressive government) to even determine that a user is running Freenet in the first place.

The core innovation in Freenet 0.7 is to allow a globally scalable darknet, capable (at least in theory) of supporting millions of users. Previous darknets, such as WASTE, have been limited to relatively small disconnected networks. The scalability of Freenet is made possible by the fact that human relationships tend to form small-world networks, a property that can be exploited to find short paths between any two people. The work is based on a speech given at DEF CON 13 by Ian Clarke and Swedish mathematician Oskar Sandberg. Furthermore, the routing algorithm is capable of routing over a mixture of opennet and darknet connections, allowing people who have only a few friends using the network to get the performance from having sufficient connections while still receiving some of the security benefits of darknet connections. This also means that small darknets where some users also have opennet connections are fully integrated into the whole Freenet network, allowing all users access to all content, whether they run opennet, darknet, or a hybrid of the two, except for darknet pockets connected only by a single hybrid node.

Tools and applications

Unlike many other P2P applications Freenet does not provide comprehensive functionality itself. Freenet is modular and features an API called Freenet Client Protocol (FCP) for other programs to use to implement services such as message boards, file sharing, or online chat.

Communication
Freenet Messaging System (FMS)
 * FMS was designed to address problems with Frost such as denial of service attacks and spam. Users publish trust lists, and each user downloads messages only from identities they trust and identities trusted by identities they trust. FMS is developed anonymously and can be downloaded from the FMS freesite within Freenet. It does not have an official site on the normal Internet. It features random post delay, support for many identities, and a distinction between trusting a user's posts and trusting their trust list. It is written in C++ and is a separate application from Freenet which uses the Freenet Client Protocol (FCP) to interface with Freenet.

Frost
 * Frost includes support for convenient file sharing, but its design is inherently vulnerable to spam and denial of service attacks. Frost can be downloaded from the Frost home page on SourceForge, or from the Frost freesite within Freenet. It is not endorsed by the Freenet developers. Frost is written in Java and is a separate application from Freenet.

Sone
 * Sone provides a simpler interface inspired by Facebook with public anonymous discussions and image galleries. It provides an API for control from other programs is also used to implement a comment system for static websites in the regular internet.

Utilities
jSite
 * jSite is a tool to upload websites. It handles keys and manages uploading files.

Infocalypse
 * Infocalypse is an extension for the distributed revision control system Mercurial. It uses an optimized structure to minimize the number of requests to retrieve new data, and allows supporting a repository by securely reuploading most parts of the data without requiring the owner's private keys.

Libraries
FCPLib
 * FCPLib (Freenet Client Protocol Library) aims to be a cross-platform natively compiled set of C++-based functions for storing and retrieving information to and from Freenet. FCPLib supports Windows NT/2K/XP, Debian, BSD, Solaris, and macOS.

lib-pyFreenet
 * lib-pyFreenet exposes Freenet functionality to Python programs. Infocalypse uses it.

Vulnerabilities
Law enforcement agencies have claimed to have successfully infiltrated Freenet opennet in order to deanonymize users but no technical details have been given to support these allegations. One report stated that, "A child-porn investigation focused on ... [the suspect] when the authorities were monitoring the online network, Freenet." A different report indicated arrests may have been based on the BlackICE project leaks, that are debunked for using bad math and for using an incorrectly calculated false positives rate and a false model.

A court case in the Peel Region of Ontario, Canada R. v. Owen, 2017 ONCJ 729 (CanLII), illustrated that law enforcement do in fact have a presence, after Peel Regional Police located who had been downloading illegal material on the Freenet network. The court decision indicates that a Canadian Law Enforcement agency operates nodes running modified Freenet software in the hope of determining who is requesting illegal material.

 * Routing Table Insertion (RTI) Attack

Notability
Freenet has had significant publicity in the mainstream press, including articles in The New York Times, and coverage on CNN, 60 Minutes II, the BBC, The Guardian, and elsewhere.

Freenet received the SUMA-Award 2014 for "protection against total surveillance".

Freesite
A "freesite" is a site hosted on the Freenet network. Because it contains only static content, it cannot contain any active content like server-side scripts or databases. Freesites are coded in HTML and support as many features as the browser viewing the page allows; however, there are some exceptions where the Freenet software will remove parts of the code that may be used to reveal the identity of the person viewing the page (making a page access something on the internet, for example).

Comparable software

 * GNUnet
 * I2P
 * InterPlanetary File System
 * Java Anon Proxy (also known as JonDonym)
 * Osiris
 * Perfect Dark – also creates a distributed data store shared by anonymous nodes; the successor to Share, which itself is the successor of Winny
 * Tahoe-LAFS
 * ZeroNet

title: Hyphanet


text:
Fortified wine

Fortified wine is a wine to which a distilled spirit, usually brandy, has been added. In the course of some centuries, winemakers have developed many different styles of fortified wine, including port, sherry,  madeira,  Marsala, Commandaria wine, and the aromatised wine vermouth.

Production

One reason for fortifying wine was to preserve it, since ethanol is also a natural antiseptic. Even though other preservation methods now exist, fortification continues to be used because the process can add distinct flavors to the finished product.

Although grape brandy is most commonly added to produce fortified wines, the additional alcohol may also be neutral spirit that has been made from grapes, grain, sugar beets or sugarcane. Regional appellation laws may dictate the types of spirit that are permitted for fortification. For example, in the U.S. only spirits made from the same fruit as the wine may be added.

The source of the additional alcohol and the method of its distillation can affect the flavour of the fortified wine. If neutral spirit is used, it is usually produced with a continuous still, rather than a pot still.

When added to wine before the fermentation process is complete, the alcohol in the distilled beverage kills the yeast and leaves residual sugar behind. The result is a wine that is both sweeter and stronger, normally containing about 20% alcohol by volume (ABV).

During the fermentation process, yeast cells in the must continue to convert sugar into alcohol until the must reaches an alcohol level of 16–18%. At this level, the alcohol becomes toxic to the yeast and stalls its metabolism. If fermentation is allowed to run to completion, the resulting wine is (in most cases) low in sugar and is considered a dry wine. Adding alcohol earlier in the fermentation process results in a sweeter wine. For drier fortified wine styles, such as sherry, the alcohol is added shortly before or after the end of the fermentation.

In the case of some fortified wine styles (such as late harvest and botrytized wines), a naturally high level of sugar inhibits the yeast, or the rising alcohol content due to the high sugar kills the yeast. This causes fermentation to stop before the wine can become dry.

Commandaria wine
Commandaria is made in Cyprus' unique AOC region north of Limassol from high-altitude vines of Mavro and Xynisteri, sun-dried and aged in oak barrels. Recent developments have produced different styles of Commandaria, some of which are not fortified.

Madeira wine
Madeira is a fortified wine made in the Madeira Islands. The wine is produced in a variety of styles ranging from dry wines which can be consumed on their own as an aperitif, to sweet wines more usually consumed with dessert. Madeira is deliberately heated and oxidised as part of its maturation process, resulting in distinctive flavours and an unusually long lifespan once a bottle is opened.

Marsala wine
Marsala wine is a wine from Sicily that is available in both fortified and unfortified versions. It was first produced in 1772 by an English merchant, John Woodhouse, as an inexpensive substitute for sherry and port, and gets its name from the island's port, Marsala. The fortified version is blended with brandy to make two styles, the younger, slightly weaker Fine, which is at least 17% abv and aged at least four months; and the Superiore, which is at least 18%, and aged at least two years. The unfortified Marsala wine is aged in wooden casks for five years or more and reaches a strength of 18% by evaporation.

Mistelle
Mistelle (mistella; mistelle; Spanish, Portuguese, Galician and mistela, from Latin / "mix") is sometimes used as an ingredient in fortified wines, particularly Vermouth, Marsala and Sherry, though it is used mainly as a base for apéritifs such as the French Pineau des Charentes. It is produced by adding alcohol to non-fermented or partially fermented grape juice (or apple juice to make pommeau). The addition of alcohol stops the fermentation and, as a consequence Mistelle is sweeter than fully fermented grape juice in which the sugars turn to alcohol.

Moscatel de Setúbal
Moscatel de Setúbal is a Portuguese wine produced around the Setúbal Municipality on the Península de Setúbal. The wine is made primarily from the Muscat of Alexandria grape and is typically fortified with aguardente. The style was believed to have been invented by José Maria da Fonseca, the founder of the oldest table wine company in Portugal dating back to 1834.

Port wine
Port wine (also known simply as port) is a fortified wine from the Douro Valley in the northern provinces of Portugal. It is typically a sweet red wine, but also comes in dry, semi-dry and white or rosé styles.

Sherry
Sherry is a fortified wine made from white grapes that are grown near the town of Jerez, Spain. The word "sherry" itself is an anglicisation of Jerez. In earlier times, sherry was known as sack (from the Spanish saca, meaning "a removal from the solera"). In the European Union "sherry" is a protected designation of origin; therefore, all wine labelled as "sherry" must legally come from the Sherry Triangle, which is an area in the province of Cádiz between Jerez de la Frontera, Sanlúcar de Barrameda and El Puerto de Santa María.

After fermentation is complete, sherry is fortified with brandy. Because the fortification takes place after fermentation, most sherries are initially dry, with any sweetness being added later. In contrast, port wine (for example) is fortified halfway through its fermentation, which stops the process so that not all of the sugar is turned into alcohol.

Sherry is produced in a variety of styles, ranging from dry, light versions such as finos to much darker and sometimes sweeter versions known as olorosos. Cream sherry is always sweet.

Vermouth
Vermouth is a fortified wine flavoured with aromatic herbs and spices ("aromatised" in the trade) using closely guarded recipes (trade secrets). Some of the herbs and spices used may include cardamom, cinnamon, marjoram, and chamomile. Some vermouth is sweetened. Unsweetened or dry vermouth tends to be bitter. The person credited with the second vermouth recipe, Antonio Benedetto Carpano from Turin, Italy, chose to name his concoction "vermouth" in 1786 because he was inspired by a German wine flavoured with wormwood, an herb most famously used in distilling absinthe. Wine flavoured with wormwood goes back to ancient Rome. The modern German word Wermut (Wermuth in the spelling of Carpano's time) means both wormwood and vermouth. The herbs were originally used to mask raw flavours of cheaper wines, imparting a slightly medicinal "tonic" flavor.

Vins doux naturels
Vins doux naturels (VDN) are lightly fortified wines typically made from white Muscat grapes or red Grenache grapes in the south of France. As the name suggests, Muscat de Beaumes-de-Venise, Muscat de Rivesaltes and Muscat de Frontignan are all made from the white Muscat grape, whilst Banyuls and Maury are made from red Grenache. Other wines, like those of Rivesaltes AOC, can be made from red or white grapes. Regardless of the grape, fermentation is stopped by the addition of up to 10% of a 190 proof (95% abv) grape spirit. The Grenache vins doux naturels can be made in an oxidised or unoxidised style whereas the Muscat wines are protected from oxidation to retain their freshness.

Vins de liqueur
A vin de liqueur is a sweet fortified style of French wine that is fortified by adding brandy to unfermented grape must. The term vin de liqueur is also used by the European Union to refer to all fortified wines. Vins de liqueur take greater flavour from the added brandy but are also sweeter than vin doux.

Examples include Floc de Gascogne which is made using 1/3 armagnac to 2/3 grape juice from the same vineyard, Pineau des Charentes in the Cognac zone, Macvin in Jura; there is also Pommeau similarly made by blending apple juice and apple brandy.

Low-end fortified wines
Inexpensive fortified wines, such as Thunderbird and Wild Irish Rose, became popular during the Great Depression for their relatively high alcohol content. The term wino was coined during this period to describe impoverished alcoholics of the time.

These wines continue to be associated with the homeless, mainly because marketers have been aggressive in targeting low-income communities as ideal consumers of these beverages; organisations in cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland have urged makers of inexpensive fortified wine, including E & J Gallo Winery, to stop providing such products to liquor stores in impoverished areas. In 2005, the Seattle City Council asked the Washington State Liquor Control Board to prohibit the sale of certain alcohol products in an impoverished "Alcohol Impact Area." Among the products sought to be banned were over two dozen beers, and six fortified wines: Cisco, Gino's Premium Blend, MD 20/20, Night Train, Thunderbird, and Wild Irish Rose. The Liquor Control Board approved these restrictions on 30 August 2006.

Gwaha-ju
Gwaha-ju is a fortified rice wine made in Korea. Although rice wine is not made from grapes, it has a similar alcohol content to grape wine, and the addition of the distilled spirit, soju, and other ingredients like ginseng, jujubes, ginger, etc., to the rice wine, bears similarity to the above-mentioned fortified wines.

Terminology
Fortified wines are often termed dessert wines in the United States to avoid association with hard drinking. The term "vins de liqueur" is used by the French.

Under European Union legislation, a liqueur wine is a fortified wine that contains 15–22% abv, with Total Alcoholic Strength of no less than 17.5%, and that meets many additional criteria. Exemptions are allowed for certain quality liqueur wines.

title: Fortified wine


text:
Talk:Hyphanet

freenetproject.org is down
external links may need to be updated. news about the current development, as well.

Freenet content
Just some random feedback here. I hope this is the right spot...

I was reading the article and the major heading 'Technical design' mentions 'darknet' and 'opennet' several times. These are not concepts that I, a random article reader, understood. I was pleased to discover a discussion of these concepts in a subsequent major heading, but had to reread 'Technical design.' This makes is fairly clear to me that the 'Darknet versus Opennet' heading should be above 'Technical design,' so rereading is not required. I didn't want to change it right away, but if someone doesn't tell me otherwise, I plan on changing things around within a few weeks.

Meson537 (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Freenet actually -is- being used for child porn? I admit, reading the faqs page, as noted in the criticism dicussions below, basically says that if you use freenet, your computer will have child porn on it, regardless of whether you want it to or not. Which is rather disturbing, but...I have a hard time believing that could actually be the case, because I'm a naive idealist, but I'm -certainly- not willing to download the program to find out. Regardless of its potentials...what bad things is this program being used for right now? And why is that just on the talk page and not in the actual article? Hewhorulestheworld (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just seems to be a fact that there is no censorship of any kind in the freenet, so any content could be there or not be there. Off2riorob (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the past Freenet featured one or more (I don't remember) open index pages on the main parge. There where child porn sites listet. Todey they only feature manged index lists (CP Free). So there was child porn in the past. Today? .. Maybe. --95.88.250.251 (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You do not understand the nature of freenet. If there was childporn, there is childporn, and will always be chilporn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.205.127.229 (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 * That is incorrect. Freenet do not store files or websites "forever". They may be kept there if someone keeps accessing them, but if the major lists drop them, people won't surf into them and they won't be propagated anymore. When that happens, the files will slowly disappear from the network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.254.60 (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The sites sty avaailable as long as people watch them. That’s why freenet users don’t even check them. Depravity-Voyeurism in freenet has the effect it has in real life (strengthenes the subject), but in freenet you know it. Draketo (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I just checked it out and there are still a few OK cp sites on there, but most don't work too well. I think most pedos now use Frost or something, but I can't get that to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.171.175.30 (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're an idiot...You just admitted to deliberately accessing child pornography on Freenet and attempting to access it on Frost, and your IP is public. rzrscm (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * hahahahah major fail.--216.240.249.73 (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I just went on freenet in the light of the wikileaks-US stuff going on. After five minutes I noticed a lot of posts referring to 'darker material', '<11', 'explicit stuff, not picky', etc. WTF people?! Sick. AbHowitzer (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * yeah, i'm the same way. i was just interested to see what kind of "underground" material freenet has that would even make it necessary, and all i see is CP this, CP that. should have seen that coming, i suppose, but i didn't.--216.240.249.73 (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 * All Freenet bookmars to "Indexes of freesites" are without links to CP. Even on Freenet you need find right place, where CP is shared (i am not talking about Frost, which is spammed with messages making illusion about CP everywhere). And do not forget, "freedom of speech exist" and "freedom of speech doesn't exist", nothing else between that.... because you don't need protect something what is widely accepted by people and is not against law. --Lukastek (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms?
I'd love to see a section that provides a critical discussion of freenet: a summary of both strengths and weaknesses. What is it best at? what is it worst at? What uses are are recommended? what uses would it not be suitable for? What answers to the above questions are expected to change over time? Basically, why would an interested newbie invest the time to install & use this, in plain, practical terms (as opposed to technical/political terms)? 67.52.129.61 (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that those would be helpful, but we can only add material for which we have sources.   Will Beback    talk    02:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Such discussion would be par for the course in the academic papers - it'd be an odd crypto/CS paper which didn't discuss the perceived advantages (and disadvantages) of its proposed scheme. --Gwern (contribs) 02:44 5 January 2011 (GMT)

And no mention that Freenet 0.5 still exists and is much more anonymous than 0.7; there was mention, but it seems to have been killed.Paganize (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I never heard that Freenet 0.5 are more anonymous than 0.7. If there is a source for it then it should be added back.Belorn (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not an unrelted source, but: http://new-wiki.freenetproject.org/Security_summary Draketo (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone please correct me because I want clarification on this too. I thought the concerns that 0.5 users had were eventually addressed in 0.7, and that 0.5 or FCON (a fork of 0.5) have now become irrelevant.  I thought the main concern was that in 0.5 users had to manually ask peers for node connection info, like they had to join an IRC chat channel and request node reference exchanges.  0.7 has an option for automatically connecting to strangers, operating in manual trusted-peers-only mode, or both, so that both desires were addressed.  Even if you are connecting to strangers, I thought the strengths of anonymity were still largely preserved even in 0.7 since a node, or even your ISP still couldn't determine if a data request came from your node or if it originated from somewhere else.  If this is not the case and there are code changes which are claimed to be less secure in 0.7 in comparison to 0.5, it would be important to discuss and mention them in the criticism section. Yfrwlf (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are other concerns, but the primary one I know of is Darknet; it should not be implemented by default & should have adequate warnings before it is possible to use it instead of a random opennet. When in a Darknet, other freenet users who share your interests will send and receive packets specifically to your node. If, for instance, your interests include whistle-blowing, a hostile government only has to arrest one member of a Darknet to have a pretty good idea which Freenet nodes share the arrested persons interests. In 0.5 & FCON, only the very first time that you run it do you need a node reference, upon connecting to the network it begins storing the address of all discovered nodes. Upon verification that the nodes are up, all packets sent out are sent randomly to nodes that have been discovered; this was the essentially basic concept of how anonymity could be assured. I have read that in the days just prior to the release of 0.7, there was talk (now deleted, and unprovable) by the developers that 0.5 was too anonymous, and something had to be done to limit illegal activity. Paganize (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn’t the case: People share not only one interest. The information you get by seeing that two people have a darknet connection is just information you already have: that the two people know each other. While it wasn’t public knowledge in 2007 that this is the case (though we already knew about Echelon back then), it should nowadays be perfectly clear that any somewhat dedicated attacker can find almost everyone you know — except where you only know each other through anonymous channels (but then you would not connect over darknet — darknet connections are for childhood/school/university friends, family, colleagues, members of the same club and so on). Draketo (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Does it run on free software too?
I know that Freenet is free software, but does it require any non-free software?

It requires Java. Do the free Java implementations suffice? Gronky (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, Freenet ran on OpenJDK, but you get a warning indicating that it unsupported by Freenet. It was a while since I last tried it, so they might very well have changed it.Belorn (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A friend has mentioned that it's in Gentoo. Seems there's been progress made indeed.  I'll try to put it into the article somewhere. Gronky (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It runs fine in OpenJDK, so no, no non-free software is required. Yfrwlf (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Freenet 0.5 vs Freenet 0.7
If someone could expand on the history of the Freenet 0.5 to Freenet 0.7 fork and differences in communities, that would be appreciated. johndoe32102002 (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I certainly COULD expand on it quite a bit, as the founder of the FCON fork, but I'd have no references for any of it.... 108.34.184.161 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

 * FCON looks as dead : http://sourceforge.net/projects/fcon/ (last commit 2010-09-20), IMHO the 0.5 section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.227.202.205 (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong link in Libraries FCPLib
Link leads to CppFCPLib. It is C++ and not C libraries, as described. For now i have found just this link for FCPLib http://freenet.googlecode.com/svn/branches/legacy/apps/fcptools/ezFCPlib/. 213.87.240.158 (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freenet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/6PziWlikV?url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/nov/26/dark-side-internet-freenet with https://web.archive.org/web/20130908073158/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/nov/26/dark-side-internet-freenet on https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/nov/26/dark-side-internet-freenet

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Freenet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053414/https://freenetproject.org/people.html to https://freenetproject.org/people.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111120194346/http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Infocalypse to http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Infocalypse
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111120194346/http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Infocalypse to http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Infocalypse
 * Added tag to https://github.com/freenet/lib-CppFCPLib-official

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Bengali
Hiii 2409:4060:2E9C:9404:0:0:6009:4803 (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hyphanet
I used Freenet many years ago and just remembered it today. It seems like the Freenet project has a new project, which I assume is to replace the existing one. The new project was called Locutus, but has been renamed to Freenet. And the original Freenet has been renamed to Hyphanet. This is probably worth adding to the page, or even renaming the page and creating a new one for either the old or the new project. But I don't know what the best thing to do would be. If nobody does anything after a few weeks I might look into doing something about it. Capturts (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 * There was a very heated discussion on the Mailling list about that. I don't know what exactly the current status is. There was no announcement from the developers themselves (if I'm not mistaken), only from the Locutus developers.
 * Maybe it would be good to create an extra page for Locutus and redirect Hyphanet to the currently existing page?
 * You could alternatively / additionally also make a new section "Name conflict"?! Mark22k (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What I personally find very confusing is that the name is not changed everywhere - which is probably quite difficult with a program that is several years old. The official page of Freenet in Freenet ( http://127.0.0.1:8888/USK@0iU87PXyodL2nm6kCpmYntsteViIbMwlJE~wlqIVvZ0,nenxGvjXDElX5RIZxMvwSnOtRzUKJYjoXEDgkhY6Ljw,AQACAAE/freenetproject-mirror/515/ ) for example still carries the name "Freenet". Also all instructions, which I find on the Internet / Freenet, do not refer to Locutus, but to the original Freenet. Mark22k (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This was deliberate on Ian Clarke's part, from reading the discussion (what he didn't delete), and talking to the developers. It feels like brand poisoning, except in reverse?  I mean why could he possibly want that name associated with his new stuff?  2600:100C:B256:8E66:2088:2AF1:E86E:4D47 (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason for the rebranding is explained in the Freenet blog: https://freenet.org/faq#faq-4
 * Based on this description of events the redirect seems inappropriate. 2605:A601:A085:D900:C8:FE08:FC86:7B6B (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that the FAQ entry also directly addresses the controversy. 2605:A601:A085:D900:C8:FE08:FC86:7B6B (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hyphanet


text:
Talk:Field (mathematics)

What element does not have a multiplicative inverse?
The use of 0 and 1 for multiplicative and additive identities is distracting and redirects the reader down the wrong path of thinking. This should be expressed more abstractly. The reason is because Im still not sure what element does not have a multiplicative inverse or why. It is said that 0 does not have a multiplicative inverse but Im trying to understand why, what is so unique about 0, that makes this statement true under arbitrary binary operations and arbitrary sets. 0 is the additive identity. Is it the case that the additive identity doesnt have a multiplicative inverse in any field, or just in this particular field? Or perhaps multiplicative invertibility has nothing to do with the additive identity at all, and that is just coincidental? Perhaps there is something else unique about 0 under multiplication that prohibits its invertibility? There is an unfortunate and I think false tie being drawn between what element is not invertible under multiplication and what element is the additive identity. 50.251.241.179 (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The definition, as written, is (a) correct and (b) standard. We cannot change it to something unsourced.
 * Surely, there is something unique about 0 under multiplication that prohibits its invertibility. Here is it. Assume existence of $$a$$ such that $$0\cdot a=1.$$ Then $$1=0\cdot a=(0+0)\cdot a=0\cdot a+0\cdot a=1+1,$$ whence $$0=1$$ and therefore $$x=x\cdot1=x\cdot0=0$$ for all $$x.$$ Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is by definition that every element but zero has to be invertible; otherwise all you have is a commutative ring. See division by zero.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding some explicitness to Boris Tsirelson: the multiplication and the addition are not freely moving around their respective domains, decreeing arbitrarily their unities, but they are both confined to almost the same domain by the distributive laws, which also take care of the minus × minus is plus. Purgy (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably you mean $$(-1)\times(-1)=1;$$ generally a field is not ordered, and then, what are "plus" and "minus"? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did; I apologize for having been carried away to using just popular, but never the less inappropriate lingo :). Thanks. Purgy (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Tell me if Im wrong, but what I have come to understand is that 0 is an absorption element under multiplication. Thus for all x in the Field, 0*x = x*0 = 0. So if 0*x = 0 and 0*y = 0 then there is no unique inverse of 0, as inv(0)*0 must be x and y.  Thus either the inverse is not unique or its application to 0 under the binary operation does not produce a unique result, and is not a function.  This is why 0 is not invertible under multiplication and why we remove it from consideration of invertible elements.  Thus a Field is any commutative ring with unity (F,+,*), and Z is a set of absorption elements in the monoid (F,*) and (F\Z,*) is a group. And it would seem then that there is no immediately obvious tie between the identity element 0 under + and the absorption element 0 under *. The nice thing is that I dont have to invoke distributivity or the addition operator to make this argument. As a side note, notice how concise my definition of a Field is. Something else nice about this definition is that I dont to name specific elements 0,1, etc., nor do I risk confusing the reader into thinking numbers specifically.  I also avoid the risk of drawing a false parallel between the additive identity and the element we reject for multiplicative inverses.  Tell me what you think. I dont know anything about "freely moving" elements. 50.35.97.238 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To be correct, your definition of a field should be rewritten as "a field is a commutative ring such that the elements different from the additive identity form a group under multiplication". This is certainly concise, but not more than the definition given in the article, if one adds to it the definition of the linked terms. Also, giving this definition in the article would be useful only for people who know commutative rings and do not know fields. As such people are very rare, there is no reason for giving this definition in the article. D.Lazard (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe youve missed the entire point of this discussion. Different from the additive identity? Why? This whole conversation was about precisely that point. That the additive identity is irrelevant.  The definition in the article has like 20 different bullet point criterion to be met.  Far more verbose and convoluted. Why would anyone be studying fields without knowing rings first, since after all most of the required properties of the field precisely define it as a ring. It would be far easier for the layman to learn what a ring is first, dont you think? 50.35.97.238 (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the point is that you are not satisfied by the standard definition of a field (this is your right), and you want changing the definition that appears in all algebra textbooks. There is no hope that you will succeed. D.Lazard (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 * @50.35.97.238, I think the comment above by Boris Tsirelson gives a connection between the identity of addition and the non-invertible/absorbing of multiplication. This is also the point I tried to hint to with my informal (I beg pardon) attribute of "freely moving".
 * I share your opinion about defining a field via more elaborate algebraic structures (group, ring) being more clearly laid out, but I oppose to estimating this as more accessible to non-experts.
 * Finally, you have no chance of inserting something into WP that is so much off a well known mainstream, and furthermore, not prominently (second) sourced, not even as a viable alternative. Purgy (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Edits on April 13-14, 2019
has recently done two edits in section "Classic definition", and has redone them after being reverted. By WP:BRD they must wait for a consensus here before redo them again. IMO, these edits do not improve the article and cannot be accepted for the following reasons. Both edits concern the heading of field axioms.

The first edit insert the word "division", with a link to a disambiguation page. This is wrong, as division is a binary operation, while the axiom is about multiplicative inversion, which is a unary operation.

The second edit replaces "Additive inverses" by "Additive invertibility". This breaks the symmetry with the other existential axioms, which are all implicitly preceded by "Existence of". On the other hand, "invertibility" introduces a term that is not defined in the linked article. Moreover "invertibility" does not apply to a binary operation; one may talk only of the invertibility of the addition by a fixed element. So the use of "invertibility" may be confusing for some readers. D.Lazard (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

 * By WP:BRD they must wait for a consensus here before redo them again.
 * Must? Indeed, BRD "does not encourage reverting" (ibid.). However, the process of BRD "is not mandated by Wikipedia policy" (ibid.).
 * Additionally, I'm not reverting now, but rather editing the section anew - according to a fair compromise, for keeping all main interests of both parties.

 * these edits do not improve the article.
 * Indeed, you can claim my original version contains some defects your version does not, but you can't claim my original version improves nothing - while it actually removes some defects the version supported by you does contain; unless you haven't read my old edit summery, where I explained why my original version is an improvement.

 * The first edit insert the word "division", with a link to a disambiguation page.
 * This technical problem can easily be fixed, by linking to division.

 * This is wrong, as division is a binary operation, while the axiom is about multiplicative inversion, which is a unary operation.
 * You ignore the last comment in my old edit summery, about division ring, whose special axiom (besides the other axioms of regular rings) is about multiplicative inversion - which is a unary operation - while division is a binary operation...
 * Actually, the reason for using the term "division" in division ring, instead of the term "multiplicative inverse ring", is because the latter is wrong, because: Just as the title of the property "additive inverse" (in a ring) - means that every element has an additive inverse, so the title of the property "multiplicative inverse" (in a ring) - should mean that every element has a multiplicative inverse. Hence the name of such a ring, shouldn't be "multiplicative inverse ring", but rather a division ring. The same is true for defining the field: As long as the title of the property "additive inverses" means - that every element has an additive inverse, also the title of the property "multiplicative inverses" should mean - that every element has a multiplicative inverse. Hence that property shouldn't be titled: "multiplicative inverses".

 * The second edit replaces "Additive inverses" by "Additive invertibility". This breaks the symmetry with the other existential axioms, which are all implicitly preceded by "Existence of" .
 * Please notice, that also the definition of division ring leans on an existential axiom about - the existence of a multiplicative inverse - for almost every element unless it's zero. However, the name of this ring breaks the symmetry you're talking about, so that ring - is not called "multiplicative inverse ring" - but rather division ring.
 * However, I definitely understand your (legitimate) interest, of titling the multiplicative property by a title that reflects the existential quantifier; but you, too, should understand my (legitimate) interest, of titling this property by a title that reflects the difference between - this title about the existence of "multiplicative inverses" which is not a universal phenomenon (for every element) - as opposed to the title "additives inverses" about a universal phenomenon (for every element).
 * If we want to keep the main interests of both parties, we can agree on the following compromise: The additive property should be titled: "additive inverses universally" (thus reflecting also the universal quantifier that precedes the existential one), while the multiplicative property should be titled: "multiplicative inverses almost-universally", enabling "division". Too long? I know that, but your short one is defective. To avoid lengthiness, I'd written "division" in one word, as it appears also in the term "division ring" (instead of a longer name: "multiplicative-inverse-of-every-nonzero-element ring")...

 * On the other hand, "invertibility" introduces a term that is not defined in the linked article.
 * It seems you ignore many mathematical articles in Wikipedia (e.g. Outline of algebraic structures), that use the term "invertibility" while linking to inverse element.

 * Moreover "invertibility" does not apply to a binary operation; one may talk only of the invertibility of the addition by a fixed element. So the use of "invertibility" may be confusing for some readers.
 * This technical problem can easily be fixed, by adding "universally" after "additive inverses", and by replacing my original phrase "Division (i.e multiplicative invertibility of every nonzero element)", by the phrase: "multiplicative inverses almost-universally" enabling "division". Too long? I know that. See above. This what sometimes happens with compromises.
 * HOTmag (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I think WP:COMMONNAME covers this situation. This attempt to replace common terminology by undocumented "proper terminology" is blatant OR. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Is vector field a field?
At the end of the article, in the section, there is a figure with an example of vector field, and I think it's out of place, because a) vector field is not mentioned anywhere else in the article b) vector field is not a field in this sense. I could fix it, but I'm not sure if it's better to remove it or to explain the relation between vector field and field. Micha7a (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 * No, a vector field is not a field and not related to the notion of a field. (In other languages the two meanings of field use different words, for example corps (=field in algebra) and champs (=field in the sense of vector field) in French.) I don't think it is necessary and / or a good idea to remove the illustration; the fact that a vector field is not a field is clearly discernible from the linked subpage, don't you think? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I personally found it confusing, that's why I wrote here. For me it wasn't clear that they are different things until I read the definitions, and I was able to do it quickly, but for someone new to algebra this might be an exercise to make sure that those are different things. I'm not saying it is wrong to have the illustration, I just don't really see what is the point in the first place. If the point is to show that there exist a different concept also called "field" then why not state it explicitly? Micha7a (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 * No, the point of the picture is to illustrate the hairy ball theorem, which is not a theorem about fields, but rather is meant to convey some geometric ideas about division algebras.
 * I think the article has to be meaningful for a variety of readers. In the beginning, everything is explained very slowly, but as the article progresses, it is (IMO rightly so) the case that some concepts are merely mentioned. (E.g. in the section on topological fields.) From this point of view I find it natural that the article in the end merely mentions (i.e., does not explain) vector fields.
 * If we were to include an explanation that there are two different senses of the (mathematical) word "field" I think it should be included much further up, but I am not sure we have to do this here. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * At least three senses. Grad students in physics are regularly told they must take a class in "field theory", and cautioned to not accidentally sign up for the one the math dept gives! 😁😁😁 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are much more meanings, even in mathematics only. This is the reason for the hatnote at the top of the article.
 * I have edited the hatnote for making clearer that the two meanings are unrelated, and do not limiting the "other uses" to mathematics. D.Lazard (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

On a condition of field morphisms
It is written that :

"Field homomorphisms are maps $f: E → F$ between two fields such that $f(e_{1} + e_{2}) = f(e_{1}) + f(e_{2})$, $f(e_{1}e_{2}) = f(e_{1})f(e_{2})$, and $f(1_{E}) = 1_{F}$, where $e_{1}$ and $e_{2}$ are arbitrary elements of $E$. "

Why such a condition is given to be a field homomorphism ? It is a consequence of : $f(e_{1} e_{2}) = f(e_{1}) f(e_{2})$ for every $e_{1}$ and $e_{2}$ in $E$.

Parenthesis in the distribution axiom
Can we throw the Parenthesis in the right side of the phrase, becuase we can rely on the fact that multiplication has priority over addition. Or because this is a "pure" definition of a field, we first have to use the parenthesis in the distribution, and only then talk about a convention that in a field, multiplication has priority over addition? 93.173.65.88 (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Field of rational functions?
This article states, "as fields of rational functions." However, this reference from nLab states "Rational functions on a field do not form a field. This comes from the fact that the reciprocal function is not a multiplicative inverse of the identity function $$f(x)= \frac{x}{x} \ne 1 $$, due to the fact that f(x) is undefined at 0, and thus has a different domain than the constant function 1, which is the multiplicative unit." The rational function link is actually to rational fractions. I recommend changing "rational function" to "rational fraction." Any comments or suggestions? https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/rational+function#:~:text=Properties-,Rational%20functions%20on%20a%20field%20do%20not%20form%20a%20field,which%20is%20the%20multiplicative%20unit. TMM53 (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)TMM53 (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your source seems to be assuming that the multiplication is pointwise. That's not necessarily the case.  If you follow the link to field of fractions, you'll see (after a little unpacking) that we're talking about formal quotients of polynomials, with the multiplication defined in terms of the product of the numerators by the product of the denominators, up to a certain equivalence relation.  If you evaluate the result at a point, it will agree with the pointwise product, provided all subterms are defined, but the definition per se is not pointwise, and is not refutable by the argument your link gives. --Trovatore (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with the summarized definition
"This may be summarized by saying: a field has two commutative operations, called addition and multiplication; it is a group under addition with 0 as the additive identity; the nonzero elements are a group under multiplication with 1 as the multiplicative identity; and multiplication distributes over addition."

If the nonzero elements are a group under multiplication with 1 as the multiplicative identity then one has a field : I agree.

But I think that the converse needs explanation. Because it is not clear that the set of nonzero elements is stable under multiplication (that is : it is not clear that the product of two nonzero elements is a nonzero element). 2A01:CB08:8607:CC00:7C0A:14D4:51F9:DC0A (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. It is very easy to derive from the given axioms that the product of nonzero elements is nonzero, but it isn't obvious from just reading the axioms. This problem could be addressed by adding a proof, but it seems to me preferable to avoid putting proofs in the definition section. That being so, I see two possible solutions: add another axiom to cover this, or reword the statement, so that instead of stating that the second version is merely a summary of the first definition, it describes it as an alternative and equivalent definition. I prefer the latter, and propose to make that change. JBW (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick answer. I am interested by a reference for the proof that the product of two nonzero elements is nonzero. 2A01:CB08:8607:CC00:15BC:2EE1:4CB8:F98A (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Suppose there are two nonzero elements, $a$ and $b$, such that $ab$ = 0. Then $a^{−1}$$a$$b$ = ($a^{−1}$$a$)$b$ = 1$b$ = $b$, but also $a^{−1}$$a$$b$ = $a^{−1}$($a$$b$) = $a^{−1}$0 = 0, which is a contradiction, as b is nonzero. That makes use of the fact that $x$0 = 0 for any $x$, but that follows immediately from $x$0 = $x$(0 + 0) = $x$0 + $x$0. JBW (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I just realize that the first part of your proof lies some lines later in the article: every field is an integral domain. So, adding here the second part ( That makes use of the fact that x0 = 0 for any x, but that follows immediately from x0 = x(0 + 0) = x0 + x0. ) it seems to me that the four last lines of the section "Classical definition" have their natural place in the section "Consequences of the definition" :
 * "An equivalent, and more succinct, definition is: a field has two commutative operations, called addition and multiplication; it is a group under addition with 0 as the additive identity; the nonzero elements are a group under multiplication with 1 as the multiplicative identity; and multiplication distributes over addition.
 * Even more succinct: a field is a commutative ring where and all nonzero elements are invertible under multiplication.". 2A01:CB08:8607:CC00:5AEE:AA1D:1B8F:205B (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The proof above shows that for any field F, (F/{0},.) is a multiplicative group. Therefore, by Gödel's completeness theorem, it is a theorem of field Theory. It seems strange to me that a so simply formulated theorem needs a so sophisticated proof! Do you know a simpler one ? 2A01:CB08:8607:CC00:8DB5:AA47:A0B7:45B (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Can field-of-functions section use F for its field?
This whole article uses capital $$F$$ to represent an arbitrary field, except for this one specific section, § Geometry: field of functions, which uses lower-case $$k$$ instead (but without mentioning the difference). This seems unnecessarily confusing. Is there some reason it can't also use $$F$$ or at least capital $$K$$? –jacobolus (t) 19:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * None that I can see, so I have replaced $$k$$ by $$F$$. JBW (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

What does the tag mean?
I have tried for 5 minutes to understand the meaning of the tag you recently placed on this article, but failed. Following the link to MOS:MATHSPECIAL was not illuminating. What's the problem supposed to be? --JBL (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This article uses Unicode character in math blocks. According to MOS:MATHSPECIAL, those should be converted to  markup using \setminus or \smallsetminus for this character. I was not sure which is best, which is why I left the conversion to a math expert. (Looking back now, I do see \setminus in  blocks already in the article, so maybe that's our answer.) The rest of the math blocks containing this character also need to be converted to avoid complaints from other editors who think (and I agree) nesting  blocks inside math is too messy and hard to untangle. In doing these conversions, I find Help:Displaying a formula and general LaTeX syntax guides helpful. -- Beland (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There is no distinction of meaning between \setminus and \smallsetminus, it's just a matter of authorial preference how to write it (similar to the various forms of lowercase epsilon or phi).  Personally I like smallsetminus.  I believe I've got every copy of the unicode character, but perhaps you could double check that I didn't miss any.  --JBL (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good; thanks for your help! -- Beland (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

0 ≠ 1 discrepancy
In the Classic Definition, there is no restriction forbidding a field over the 0 ring.

However, in the commutative ring definition just below, it stipulates that 0≠1.

Either this stipulation should be removed from the latter definition, or added to the former Farkle Griffen (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 * In the first definition, the third axiom says explicitely that 0 and 1 are distinct. In the second one the nonzero elements are supposed to form a group with 1 as identity; that is 1 is nonzero. If you remove the condition 0≠1, you state that the zero ring is a field, which contradicts all textbooks that define fields. D.Lazard (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Field (mathematics)