Talk:Costa's minimal surface

Please do not revert my edit - Costa's surface is an example of a minimal surface, which is a geometrical object, not a topological one (I won't try to explain the difference. See the corresponding pages if you don't understand). I've changed the wording now to simply read "In mathematics," which is the same wording used on the minimal surfaces page. It's less specific than "geometry", but unlike "topology" is at least accurate.

For similar reasons, the "topology-related stub" probably doesn't belong, but I won't remove it since it's possibly correct for some extremely liberal definition of "related." The "Differential geometry" category is much more appropriate. And note: the references to topology in the description of the surface are correct. The object does have an underlying topology which is correctly described, but that does not make the surface itself a topological object, which it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.156.81.22 (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Finite topology
The article says that the surface is of finite topology but by the referenced article Finite topology this would mean that the surface only has a finite number of points, which it obviously does not. So the link to the article Finite topology is misleading. Jaan Vajakas (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Problematic video
The video of Costa's minimal surface starts out with a very useful visualization, by just rotating around so we can view it from various angles.

Unfortunately it then segues abruptly to a completely useless, increasingly cut-away view.

All of this in eight seconds.

The video would be 1000 times better if it a) just stuck to rotating the surface so we can see it from various angles and b) were about three times as long. Even if it just repeated the same footage three times over. 2601:200:C082:2EA0:FC93:AEEF:D2D1:88B0 (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)