Talk:Grünwald–Letnikov derivative
WikiProject Mathematics  (Rated Startclass, Lowpriority)  


I know you're just starting (and it's a very good initial page), so maybe you already plan to get to these things, but most of the notation isn't clear, or I should say, it assumes the reader knows a lot. In the general derivative formula near the end, someone might not know what the binomial coefficient notation means outside of the standard context. Also, I'm not sure myself what R(q) is, should it just be q instead? Revolver
 Is it supposed to be something like q∈R and q<0 or something? Dysprosia 05:32, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I got that notation from one of the books listed on the fractional calculus page. I don't know how "proper" it is (But the text I got the notation from is pretty authoritative), but it's pretty straightforward, and I think that that's what's important.
Regarding the binomial coefficient: Yes, I intend to get to that. Thanks for pointing that out. I figure I'd insert something like what's on the Basic rules of differintegration page. Don't be shy to do it yourself, thou. I got some stuff I need o work on first, and I prefer other people to edit the pages that I focus on.
I was thinking of putting a lot of the info here on the differintegral page, such that there's a construction for the gunwaldletnikov differintegral on that page which is roughly the same size as that of the riemmanlouiville. Also, taking out the Weyl differintegral, as it's just the riemannlouiville with different bounds of integration. Opinions?
And speaking of "q", the grunwaldletnikov as defined here is a differentation and not an integration, the problem being: there's no method for specifying the region of integration. So perhaps it should only be valid for q>=0?
Kevin Baas 2003.12.14
The simpler form at the end is actually a trivial substitution: does that section reflect common usage and definitions (in particular the choice of capital delta for a symbol) or is it arbitrary streamof consciousness math?
 If you are asking whether it's original research, no. The sources
areshould be listed at the bottom of the article page. They are listed on the main fractional calculus page. Kevin Baas^{talk} 14:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)