> I just realized that I defined salri so that when its order is
> then integral is meant, but this word (nifkemtemsalri) so that when
> order of the differintegral that is applied to the displacement is
> positive, then derivatives thereof are meant. These definitions are
> incompatible. However, but are pretty natural, but also a matter of
> We must choose which one we want: do positive-order differintegrals refer
> to integrals or derivatives?
> I personally prefer positive orders to mean integrals, in which case the
> definition of nifkemtemsalri must change. The downside is that, when
> discussing velocity, one will need to specify -1 (two words) as the
> argument of the order terbri for this word, as opposed to merely 1
> one word is acceptable (although I personally dislike the asymmetry) and
> this is much easier to infer from context/as 'default' of sorts if it is
> not explicitly specified, especially later). But repeated usage can
> be fixed via zmico and/or sei'au, or can be inferred from context after
> an initial introduction. Another downside is that one will count downward
> (toward negative infinity) through derivatives, which are useful
> quantities, frequently even while the positive quantities will almost
> be mentioned (the integral of displacement with respect to time is not
> useful). Counting down through negatives is, I think, slightly harder
> counting upward through positive numbers; it is also weird to always have
> negatives involved (and never have positives). But it is also
> 'symbolic'/'pictorially intuitive' and may be fixed/righted/countered in
> given discourse via zmico and/or sei'au. Additionally, it allows one to
> discuss taking the integral of velocity as 'building up' displacement,
> which is more intuitive than 'descending to'/'building down' the same.
> is: integration of derivatives increases the differintegral order of the
> base quantity involved, in a way that implies 'increase', 'summation', or
> 'building' (and differentiation is 'breaking apart', 'dividing', or
> 'narrowing', which has an intuition of negativity about/to it).
> But, again, all of this is merely conventional and I might be biased by
> culture, at the least. This stuff that makes sense to me may not at all
> intuitive to other people, who indeed may find the exact opposite to be
> more intuitive. Nonetheless, my vote is for positive order to be for
> integrals and negative ones to be derivatives.
> We need to fix a convention. So, what say you?
I have edited this definition so as to comply with my preference (negative
orders correspond to derivatives of displacement with respect to time).
This clears up the issues of incompatibility and inconsistency between
definitions, but it does not fix an underlying concern of whether or not we
want our conventions to default in this manner by definition itself.