**UPDATE!!! READ BELOW**

Okay so we know that \(f'(x)\) is the first derivative of \(f(x)\), which can be also expressed as \(f^{(1)}(x)\). And we know that if we take another derivative, it'll become \(f^{(2)}(x)\), or \(f^{(1+1)}(x)\).

When we integrate, we ask for the function whose derivative is the integral's argument function. So \(\int{f^{(2)}(x)dx}\) is \(f^{(1)}(x)\), or \(f^{(2-1)}(x)\) (let's ignore \(Cs\) for now).

Thus, we can say that \(f^{(-1)}(x)\) is the antiderivative of \(f(x)\), or its integral. With this in mind,

What is \(f^{(0.5)}(x)\)?

And how about \(f^{(i)}(x)\)?

Okay, so let's see. Well first of all, what would that even look like? Would you draw half a dash for the prime above \(f(x)\)? Would you draw half an integral for \(f^{(-0.5)}(x)\)? Which half, the top half or the bottom half? Well, I think that's the least of the issues.

Here's what I propose:

If we're to stick to basic calculus and only use derivatives and antiderivatives, then, in other words, we're only using integers. So we're trying to get a rational number by using only integer sum and difference. How are we going to do that? We're going to cheat:

Consider the following:

\(\int{\frac{d}{dx}\int{\frac{d}{dx}\int{\frac{d}{dx}}}} ... \int{\frac{d}{dx}}f(x)dx ... dxdxdx\)

\(\Rightarrow f^{\left( \displaystyle \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} {(-1)^n} \right)}(x) = f^{(1-1+1-1+...)}(x)=f^{(0.5)}(x)\).

And yet, I still don't know what \(f^{(0.5)}(x)\) would be (because I can't perform an infinite differentigration). What would it even mean?

Oh, and good luck on \(f^{(i)}(x)\).

**WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU FIGURE THIS OUT:**

\[\left| x \right|<0\] \[\Rightarrow x\in ?\] \[\nearrow\] [I'll tell you what the question mark is.]

**UPDATE: The issue is resolved! View Fractional Calculus**

*Link Idea Credit: Michael Mendrin*

Link 2: Differintegral (what I initially named this note, but then thought Derintegral was more brief. Should've left it ;))

Check out the cool concept application of Derintegrals:

Guess what this is?

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestI think the question mark should be \(\phi\) , an empty set, isn't it?! – Hasan Kassim · 2 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

– John Muradeli · 2 years, 3 months ago

Uum...Log in to reply

– John Muradeli · 2 years, 3 months ago

O_OLog in to reply

This is called "fractional calculus", and for right now, if we say that

\({ f }^{ \left( \frac { 1 }{ 2 } +\frac { 1 }{ 2 } \right) }={ f }^{ (1) }=\dfrac { d }{ dx } \)

then some fractional half differentiation operating twice on any power of \(x\) should return an ordinary differentiation of that power of \(x\). Let's suppose that fractional half differentiation of \({ x }^{ n }\) returns

\({ x }^{ n-\frac { 1 }{ 2 } }\dfrac { \Gamma (n+1) }{ \Gamma (n+\frac { 1 }{ 2 } ) } \)

then doing this twice in succession will in fact return \(n{ x }^{ n-1 }\). Because just about any mathematical expression can be expressed in power series, we can employ this definition of a fractional half differentiation and get consistent results. Getting into other fractions of differentiation and fractions of integration is another matter, and expands on this subject, but this is an already studied matter. This is an interesting subject, and it's too bad that it's not discussed more often. Who says that differentiation and integration only occur discretely? We're already familiar with fractional dimensions, why not fractional calculus? – Michael Mendrin · 2 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

s

Log in to reply

– Michael Mendrin · 2 years, 3 months ago

Yes, fractional dimensions. Get used to it. Look up fractals and fractal geometry.Log in to reply

Do you know any web-link that substantially explains it? I don't care how rigorous it is. Oh, and if it has diagrams, that's better. Hate blocks of text.

Thx – John Muradeli · 2 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

[Fractal Geometry] (http://mdc.nfshost.com/fractals.pdf)

but I must advise you that it's best to first independently study fractional calculus and fractional dimensions, as they've both come from very different origins. What's been happening is that as both are being independently developed, both fields are finding the other becoming useful and relevant to their own. Papers are coming out about "fractal geometry and fractional calculus", but that's not how either got started. – Michael Mendrin · 2 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

– John Muradeli · 2 years, 3 months ago

Hm is Mandelbrot expansion (or zoom or function or whatever) a fractal dimensional object? Looks a lot like thoseLog in to reply

So you're saying it's a new science, eh? Well, I've always wanted to develop my own calculus about dimensions... Looks like someone beat me to it >.<

But there's still hope. I'm still the one who holds

the question mark... – John Muradeli · 2 years, 3 months agoLog in to reply

Fractional Calculus

This is typical---by the time a mathematical subject makes it to Wikipedia, it turns out mathematicians have already been studying it for over a century. This reminds me about the famed High Sierra mountaineer, Norman Clyde, who was famous for leaving evidence of first ascents, disappointing many later climbers thinking they had finally made the first ascent. When confronted with that by some such climbers, Norman said, "Oh, those really weren't first ascents. I usually find stuff left behind by local Indians before me." – Michael Mendrin · 2 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

If there is, make it clear for us! – Hasan Kassim · 2 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

Fractional Calculus – Michael Mendrin · 2 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

But yeah what about what I wrote? Is \(f^{(-1)}(x)\) considered correct to represent integration? I mean, makes a complete sense to me, but y'know... With math you never know.

Cheers, – John Muradeli · 2 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

– Michael Mendrin · 2 years, 3 months ago

The example I provided for "fractional half differentiation" can be generalized to include other fractions of differentiation and integration, but I'll have to think about imaginary differentiation. That does sound like a real interesting idea!Log in to reply

– John Muradeli · 2 years, 3 months ago

WHUUT? Fractional derivatives are a thing?? Hah was I so right to call you Mr. Mathopedia! Man you know everything! Can I get the Michael Mendrin app on the app store? I'd pay for that!Log in to reply

this thing is sick!!! – Incredible Mind · 1 year, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

That would be an updated version of the Schrodinger quantum wave equation. Yeah, it's probably time. – Michael Mendrin · 2 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

– John Muradeli · 2 years, 3 months ago

So this would be considered an application of fractional calculus, right? I gotta read more on the concept when I have time.Log in to reply

– Michael Mendrin · 2 years, 3 months ago

If you'd like to be at the frontiers of mathematics with applications to engineering or physics, this would not be a bad place to look up.Log in to reply

I do like the term "Derintegral", it does stick to the mind, like gum sticks to the shoe. It's kind of like, "Deranged". But when generalized, the concept of differentiation and integration really is nothing more than going opposite directions on the real line. Now, let's see if it's even possible to expand that into the complex direction.

Also, "imaginary fractional calculus" is a thing too, but this is a pretty new, emerging field. – Michael Mendrin · 2 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply