There is a misprint due to an extra prime in the denominator of (4). Also, the exchange stiffness is silently defined as , where is the conventional exchange stiffness in (or in CGS). Finally, the integration in (4) is better expressed directly in terms of the complex variable . To fix the misprint and to use the conventional definition of the exchange stiffness, the inline formula for the exchange length on the second page of the paper should read as and Eqs. (2) and (4) as
(2)
(4)
Expression (5) then properly follows from these corrected formulas. These changes do not alter the results, discussion, or conclusions of the paper.1
REFERENCES
1.
K. L.
Metlov
, J. Appl. Phys.
113
, 223905
(2013
). © 2019 Author(s).
2019
Author(s)