Talk:Topology

message: I am not an expert on the subject, but it seems to me that the Topological Insulator article would be a good addition to the applications section of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deansg (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention topological insulator under applications 

message: Thanks to the authors of this article, for giving me knowledge. I was actually able to come here as a subject matter novice, and gain a core understanding about the subject from the first paragraphs.  BTW, I have a PhD in theoretical and applied Physics.
Other WP Mathematics articles (e.g., Christoffel_symbolshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoffel_symbols, Vector_bundlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_bundle, I could name tens of them) are as useless to a beginner or outsider like myself as MS offline help: The article subject is defined in arcane terms that are linked to other Mathematics pages that are also defined in more arcane terms that link to other... ad infinitum.  The linkage path has infinite depth, forms multiple loops, and sometimes the links just fizzle as impertinent. I invariably end up with ten or twenty tabs open, just trying to understand the leading paragraph of that first article.  I have wasted tens of hours over a few years of re-tries on re-reading those pages, hoping that eventually I will accumulate a "critical mass" of knowledge to where their words will begin to efficiently add to my knowledge and understanding. Then today I read the talk section on one of those pages, and realized these pages are barely more decipherable to their authors than they are to a subject matter novice like myself.
You authors of this Topology article seem to 1) know what you are talking about, and 2) care about subject matter Newbies actually gaining working understanding of your subject, from reading what you have written.  The other pages' authors seem at times to be either 1) hiding their ignorance behind obfuscating terminology, or 2) trying to impress each other or readers with their brilliance rather that to impart understanding. 
Suggestion:
The leading section or paragraphs of a Mathematics WP article should only use special terminology that links to other articles with lower-order linkage than itself, meaning that following those links will eventually bottom-out in articles with no links to other articles.  There should be no loops in the linkage, and the depth of links should be small.
I hope this counts as on-topic.
Pqmos (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a group effort and a work-in-progress, so naturally there are many articles in a state of flux.  If you have a Ph.D. in theoretical and applied physics, you can help by revising articles for accuracy, completeness, and readability.  A good way to begin is to read each article's talk page, familiarize yourself with the issues, and start a dialogue with other editors.—Anita5192 (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Mathematics article is Understandable. 

message: Cows, like all vertebrates, have a passage going right through them from the mouth to the anus.  Contrary to the rather good animation in the article, cows are therefore doughnuts, not spheres. SpinningSpark 14:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but the cow's mouth is closed, and let's say its anus is rather...erm...clenched, so it's in fact hollow, and therefore at least homotopy equivalent to a sphere, if not actually homeomorphic.  It's the nostrils you have to worry about.  But seriously, as just a gentle hand-wavy depiction of things, it's probably okay, especially given that it's likely a nod to the spherical cow joke.  Maybe just a footnote in the caption or something would suffice to clarify.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree somewhat with both arguments:  the cow-into-sphere homeomorphism is not perfect.  In fact, mammals have many orifices, pores, etc.  I think the mug-into-doughnut homeomorphism is appropriate and arguably a classic, but I think the cow-into-sphere homeomorphism should be removed from this article.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A cow is a doughnut 

message: In the sentence "If we change the definition of open set, we change what continuous functions, compact sets, and connected sets are", there are too many words between the "what" and the "are".  It is difficult to read.  That's why I changed it to: "If we change the definition of open set, we change the nature of continuous functions, compact sets, and connected sets".  "The nature of x" is as close to synonymous as possible with "what x is".  There was also another editor back in February who noticed that this sentence is awkward. Jrheller1 (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward sentence 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Tapology. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 1#Tapology until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tapology" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The introduction gives the reader who is unfamiliar with topology the impression that topology is just about squishing and bending shapes. Yes, we can use topology to describe how we can deform surfaces but this is just one side of the very diverse field and I find this overgeneralisation kind of hideous and cruel to those who are interested in studying topology. I know that I myself was under the impression that "topology is when holes and funny shapes" when I first read this article and knew nothing about it so that is how I know that this sort of water-downed explanation does not benefit anybody.
I think it would better to introduce topology as a way to generalise/formalise concepts like open and closed-ness, connectedness, continuity etc and talk about its usefulness in areas like analysis. Then we can move on to the part about continuous deformation. I'm not saying it is necessary to be super formal and technical but we should not sacrifice accuracy to make the reader feel like they understand it when they don't. Raccoon bestie (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: that's certainly a reasonable idea. WP:LEDE says the intro is supposed to introduce the topic and summarize or at least identify the main ideas of the article. Wanna take a shot at writing what you are envisioning? It sounds like you're proposing a major overhaul of the intro, not just a little word-smithing, so maybe it's a good idea to hash it out here on the talkpage rather than on the live article. DMacks (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I agree with this as these appear to be the topics in an introductory book of topology. The intro should at least be rewritten to say there's a bit more to it than bending shapes. MartensCedric (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading introduction 

message: ... crumpling, and bending; that is, without closing holes,  opening holes, tearing, gluing, or passing through itself. I think these terms need to be refined before the opening paragraph is made sufficiently rigorous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.98.105 (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: I might have expected it, no? Not that I'm a mathematician. --MilkMiruku (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the word "topos"?