Talk:Minimal surface

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|

{{WikiProject Mathematics|small=|importance=low}}

}}

Bug: The picture of a soap film on a cubic frame is *not* a minimal surface. The bubble in the center has positive mean curvature, as it must being an enclosed bubble -- its edge angles are 120 degrees by Plateau's laws, which can only happen in a cube with positive curvature (and positive internal pressure). Also, needless to say, it has singularities. Can someone take a picture of a mobius strip film or the like? Would be much more illustrative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.30.6.175 (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge of [[soap film]] into [[minimal surface]]

Oppose. The reason given by Drini for the merge tag is that the article is a one-liner. But these are distinct subjects. Soap films are minimal surfaces, but they are an important class that have been extensively studied; their study also involves non-mathematical aspects. The theory of minimal surfaces in general is not concerned with soap films in particular. Also of concern is that many people are not interested in the theory of minimal surfaces but are looking for information on soap films. An article on soap films could be written in a much more accessible manner. --C S (Talk) 21:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

speed/velocity

Can someone check the definition of how a helicoid is formed in this article? The velocity is obviously continuously changing? Is speed what is meant? I'm unsure if "uniform" is a good word to use here too.. thanks, 213.48.15.234 10:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarify please

This article seems to make no attempt at describing what a minimal surface is. Could someone do that please? -Oreo Priest talk 02:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why revert?

To User:Compsonheir: could you please explain, why did you throw away my contribution to this article? Should I revert back? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Having no answer from User:Compsonheir I revert. I am open to criticism, but I believe that my contribution was not a vandalism and therefore should not be deleted without any explanation, why. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)