Talk:Topological order

NPOV

I question the NPOV of this article in many places.

>> Could you give some examples? Except for the adjective "beautiful" on category theory, a quick read revealed only rather well-established facts.

Relevant New Scientist article: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19325954.200&feedId=online-news_rss20

Examples can now also be found in the new references to this entry that were introduced as part of

WP:PHYS; no inline citations--that were necessary and requested by admins-- were found previously; therefore, such necessary inline references were introduced in the sections, along with appropriate additions and also more recent updates than the bibliography initially available to Wikipedia readers.----Bci2 (talk

) 08:30 AM, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Tensor category theory

Should that instead be a link to Monoidal category? --Hurkyl (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion by

WP:PHYS

.

Introduction could be improved

I suspect the introduction would be quite hard to read for a lay reader: "non-Abelian" is a bit heavy to throw in in the first sentence. I don't really know the physics (only the math), or I would do it myself. --Dylan Thurston (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded...with extreme prejudice. This sort of jargon-laden, *non*-encyclopedic introduction has become epidemic in STEM articles on Wikipedia. This encyclopedia-killing problem needs nothing less than top-down attention & repair. It is elitist snobbery to make articles such as this virtually inaccessible, and all on account of someone's or some group of people's notion of effete technical accuracy. Any fool can make things complex -- it takes genius to make (and keep) them simple. --2600:1700:80:5AD0:B90E:BB8D:C504:F9A4 (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of reference, this article provides a vastly better approach to this particular topic (topological order). --2600:1700:80:5AD0:B90E:BB8D:C504:F9A4 (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction very lacking

Statements like: "Microscopically, topological order corresponds to patterns of long-range quantum entanglement," suggest a need to sound important without actually saying anything meaningful. Simply because it is in a published paper does not mean it's worth repeating.

I could say the same thing about any ordered solid. It says nothing.Wikibearwithme (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Topological order. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]