Talk:Paraboloid/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Paraboloid. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Copyright
well all i can say is that the parabaloid is the shap of a pringle,. pringles are copywrited so does that mean any one who uses a parabaloid is liable to be sued — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.130.193 (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2005 (UTC)
different equation
Las monday on my algebra class we learned this equation for a paraboloid: x^2+y^2=z
what's up with that?--Fito 01:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Sure it wasn't a parabola? If that's even the equation for a parabola. I'm too lazy to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.14.212 (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's a special elliptic paraboloid of revolution with a=b=1. You get it by rotating the parabola z = x^2 around the z axis.--Syd Henderson 05:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Daily life example
"A daily life example of a hyperbolic paraboloid is the shape of a Pringles potato chip." -surely this sentence could be edited to not require a citation? For example "The Pringles potato chip gives a good phyisical approximation to the shape of a (truncated) hyperbolic paraboloid." This is a fairly self evident statement if you've read the introduction and have seen the picture of the paraboloid on the right.
128.250.24.104 (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Idiosyncrasies
I have removed two of them and corrected some minor ones, but the whole sections on "curvature" and the "multiplication table" look very odd. The section on curvature simply states the Gaussian and mean curvatures of the elliptic and hyperbolic paraboloids, but for what purpose, it remains unclear. The other section is even stranger: the header is most confusing and the content can be reduced to two sentences and perhaps a displayed formula, at most. Arcfrk (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Article seems generally poor
For instance the terms A and B in the very first equation are never defined, and it seems that you would have to be very well read in math to understand most of the article. A math prof should have a go at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimGregg (talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've added some clarification of the symbols in the first couple of equations. Does that help? LightYear (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)