Talk:Scherk surface

Proper Spelling of Scherk / Sherck?

Is this supposed to be spelled Scherk or Sherk? I have seen it both ways, and the article also seems to spell it both ways.-dave (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?Typo in the parametric formula for y (Scherk's second surface) -- No typo

I believe that there is a typo in the parametric equation for the value of 'y'. The formula is missing a leading 'ln', which should be there in the same style as for the formula for 'x'. Without this, the value of y can only be positive. The web page at Mathworld.wolfram.com/ScherksMinimalSurfaces.html contains identical text and appears to be the source of this error.

I am not a mathematician, so someone with more competence should confirm this.

Bob Mackay bob.h.mackay@comcast.net

Bobhmackay (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No no, looking at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Enneper-WeierstrassParameterization.html, and evaluating the integral we get no logarithm. (Note that tan^{-1} means arctan.) 151.29.154.203 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried plotting it, and it looks right - it is just that the real parametrisation is terribly awkward, so it is hard to get a good surface. The complex one is much nicer. Anders Sandberg (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]