On S-convexity and our paper with Aequationes

Mathematicae
I.M.R. Pinheiro∗

January 5, 2011

Abstract
In this paper, we review the results that have been published in the
prestigious academic vehicle Aequationes Mathematicae. The commu-
nications are very upsetting, so that we would like to apologize for
them. Substantial part of our work will have to be nullified regard-
ing that paper. Quite a few misconceptions have been inherited from
other people’s work, so that we are also providing argumentation for
the nullification of their results in an indirect way here.

MSC(2010): 26A51
Key-words: Analysis, Convexity, Definition, S-convexity.

I. Introduction
We have been working on refining, improving, and fixing, the definitions of
S−convexity for a while now (since 2001). As at least one branch of it deals
with a proper extension of the concept of Convexity (made proper by our
research results), we end up refining the definition of Convexity as well.
We follow this sequence of presentation:

• Definitions & Symbols;

• List of the results contained in our paper with Aequationes Mathemat-

icae and due remarks;
∗
Postal address: PO Box 12396, A’Beckett st, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 8006.
Electronic address: illmrpinheiro@gmail.com.

1
 • Actual results originating in that paper;

• Side remarks;

• Conclusion;

• References.

II. Definitions & Symbols

Symbols ([1])

• Ks1 stands for the set of S-convex classes of type 1;

• Ks2 stands for the set of S-convex classes of type 2;

• s ∈ </0 < s ≤ 1 is the value used to designate the S-convex class

being dealt with;

• K11 ≡ K12 and both classes are the same as the convex class of functions;

• s1 stands for the s value designating a class in Ks1 ;

• s2 stands for the s value designating a class in Ks2 .

Definitions ([1], [2], [3], [4], [6])

Definition 1. A function f : X− > < is told to be S−convex in the first

sense if
1
f (λx + (1 − λs ) s y) ≤ λs f (x) + (1 − λs )f (y),
∀x, y ∈ X, ∀λ ∈ [0, 1], where X ⊂ <+ .

Definition 2. A function f : X− > I, where |f (x)| = f (x), is told to belong

to Ks2 if the inequality

f (λx + (1 − λ)(x + δ))

≤ λs f (x) + (1 − λ)s f (x + δ)
holds ∀λ/λ ∈ [0, 1]; ∀x/x ∈ X; s = s2 /0 < s2 ≤ 1; X/X ⊆ < ∧ I/I ⊆ < ∧ X =
[a, b]; ∀δ/0 < δ ≤ (b − x).

2
Definition 3. A function f : X− > I, where |f (x)| = −f (x), is told to
belong to Ks2 if the inequality

f (λx + (1 − λ)(x + δ))

1 1
≤ λ s f (x) + (1 − λ) s f (x + δ)
holds ∀λ/λ ∈ [0, 1]; ∀x/x ∈ X; s = s2 /0 < s2 ≤ 1; X/X ⊆ < ∧ I/I ⊆ < ∧ X =
[a, b]; ∀δ/0 < δ ≤ (b − x).

Remark 1. If1 the inequality is obeyed in the supplementary situation by f

then f is said to be s2 −concave.

Definition 4. f is called s2 −convex, s2 6= 1, if the graph lies below the

‘bent chord’ between any two points of the curve for f , corresponding to the
image of x1 and x2 , say, that is: For every interval J ⊆ I, with I being the
domain of f , J = [x1 , x2 ], and a special function, of image curve L, L being
of curvature Ψ, determined by s2 ∈ (0, 1), we have2 that

f (x) ≤ Lx (s).

Definition 5. (p-function) f : Df − > <+ such that f (λx + (1 − λ)y) ≤

f (x) + f (y), ∀λ ∈ (0, 1), ∀{x, y} ⊂ Df , Df ⊆ < .

III. List of results and due remarks

1. ([4]) Midpoint inequalities:
 
1 u+v f (u)+f (v)
• f ∈ Ks =⇒ f 1 ≤ 2 ;
2s
 
2 u+v f (u)+f (v)
• f ∈ Ks =⇒ f 2 ≤ 2s .

Pointed problems: We need to split the result for Ks2 into two other
results in order to account for our update in the definition of the classes
and we also need to mention that both u and v belong to the domain
of the function f .
1
This remark applies to both definitions preceding it.
2
We have refined the wording of this definition and improved its notation. Therefore,
this is an improved version of the geometric definition we had so far in the mentioned
sources, not a reproduction.

3
2. ([4]) f ∈ Ks1 ∩ Ks2 =⇒ f (a1 u + b1 v) ≤ as1 f (u) + bs1 f (v) ≤ as2 f (u) +
bs2 f (v) for some {a1 , b1 , a2 , b2 } ⊂ [0, 1] and such that it occurs to each
and all of them.

Pointed problems: It is missing some further specification regarding

a1 , a2 , b1 , and b2 , in the theorem.

3. ([4]) f ∈ Ks1 ∩ Ks2 ∧ Df ≡ Imf =⇒ f ◦ f is s21 -convex.

Pointed problems: There is no definition of s21 -convex function in

Mathematics; there is at most a definition of s1 -convex function in-
stead. On the other hand, the previous deduction simply looks wrong.

1
Old proof: f (a1 u+(1−as1 ) s v) ≤ as1 f (u)+(1−as1 )f (v) =⇒ f (as1 f (u)+
(1−as1 )f (v)) ≤ (as1 )s f (f (u))+(1−as1 )s f (f (v)) = as2 f (f (u))+bs2 f (f (v)).

Old proof with due remarks added: f ∈ Ks1 , {u, v} ⊂ Df =⇒ f (a1 u +

1
(1 − as1 ) s v) ≤ as1 f (u) + (1 − as1 )f (v). However, f ∈ Ks2 , {as1 , (1 − as1 )} ⊂
[0, 1], as1 + (1 − as1 ) = 1, Df ≡ Imf =⇒ f (as1 f (u) + (1 − as1 )f (v)) ≤
(as1 )s f (f (u)) + (1 − as1 )s f (f (v)) = as2 f (f (u)) + bs2 f (f (v)).

The last inequality allows us to state that f ◦ f ∈ Ks2 instead of what

we had previously stated, it all configuring a typo.

4. ([4]) Consider the function F : [0, 1]− > <, defined by

Z bZ b
1
F (t) = f (tx + (1 − t)y)dxdy,
(b − a)2 a a

where f : [a, b]− > < is s2 −convex. Then:

• F is s2 −convex in [0, 1]. If f is s1 -convex instead then F is

s1 −convex as well;
2
Rb
• 2F (0) = 2F (1) = b−a a f (x)dx is an upper bound for F (t);
• F (t) is symmetric about t = 0.5.

Pointed problems: Symmetry is a property of a few functions and it

usually happens over a point, but it is also possible that it occurs over a
line or other shapes, depending on how many dimensions the function

4
‘messes up with’. For instance, the parabola deriving from the graph
of f (x) = x2 is symmetric over x = 0, once if you fold it over the line
determined by the point x = 0, you will have a perfect match between
both sides of it, it all reducing to one of the sides of the graph, as if
truncated by x = 0. Notwithstanding, nothing like that happens with
our function here, for while F (t) should return a numerical value, when
passive of evaluation, f is an unknown s2 -convex function. Besides, it
is nice remembering as well, once so many journals have published
these results, that not even Convexity implies symmetry of the curve
representing the function. The item is not a sound scientific remark.
We will simply eliminate such an item from our previous theorem as
we re-state it.
Another suitable remark is similar to the one we have made in [5]: No-
tice that f demands a domain at least in <2 , once it has two variables
inside of its brackets. Besides, in f having such a mess as argument,
instead of the usual variables (only), we could come up with a rule such
as f (tx + (1 − t)y) = t2 x2 + (1 − t)3 y for it, which will clearly eliminate
any symmetry thoughts (via values before and after t = 0.5). Notice
that the example also eliminates any thoughts regarding Convexity,
or its proper extension, s2 −convexity, or even any other property, at-
tributed to f (x), being passive of automatic extension to the ‘family’
of functions created via insertion of what seems to be at least one more
dimension and one constant in the rule originating in the old defini-
tion. This way, we would also need to add that it is f (tx + (1 − t)y),
as a whole, that is s2 −convex, or convex, as for the original theorem
we there tried to extend. To make it more atrocious, however, the
Convexity, or s2 -convexity, property will demand that we are able to
use a combination of ‘variables’ as argument for our function. Such
is an impossible task for our F (t), once t has been created as a con-
stant instead. This certainly eliminates any assertion involving any
of those properties and the function F (t). Unfortunately, in this the-
orem, also the proof for the supreme is equivocated, for it trivially
involved considering the argument of the function as the argument to
‘test’ s2 −convexity: A blatantly equivocated move!
We would obviously need to replace t, from the argument of f , with
the items that are necessary for the ‘test’ of the s2 -convexity property.
However, t has been defined as a constant, what makes such a task
impossible. The theorem is waste, has been based in an absolutely
equivocated statement of argument, as for Mathematics, and should
be thoroughly nullified.

5
5. ([4]) Consider the functions Fg1 : [0, 1]− > <, defined by
Z bZ b
Fg1 (t) = f (tx + (1 − t)y)g(x)g(y)dxdy,
a a

where f : [a, b] ⊂ <+ − > < is s1 −convex, and Fg2 : [0, 1]− > <,
defined by
Z bZ b
Fg2 (t) = f (tx + (1 − t)y)g(x)g(y)dxdy,
a a

where f : [a, b] ⊂ <+ − > < is s2 -convex. Then the following is verified:

• Fg1 and Fg2 are both symmetric about t = 0.5;

• Fg2 is s2 -convex in [0, 1];
• We have the upper bound
Z bZ b
2Fg2 (1) = 2 f (x)g(x)g(y)dxdy
a a

for the function Fg2 (t).

Pointed problems: The same remarks regarding F (t), in the pre-

vious theorem, will apply here, with the whole theorem then de-
serving nullification. Notice, to increase understanding, that there
are two variables, instead of one, inside of the brackets, as for f . To
apply the definition for s2 -convexity, however, we need to decide which
variable to use, or use both, what cannot allow us to make use of the
t that was there before as argument. Basically, the exotic notation, as
for Real Analysis (usually we see f (x) or similar) appears to be attrac-
tive, but it is confusing and generates horrible mathematical mistakes,
mistakes which, unfortunately, tend to grow exponentially each time a
paper with such basic mistakes gets approved by any scientific editorial
board for publication.

6. ([4]) Consider a sum S of s2 -convex functions,

n
X
S= Am (t),
m=1

where

6
 Z bZ b
Am (t) = fm (tx + (1 − t)y)dxdy.
a a
In this context, we have:

• Sup(S) = 2 nm=1 Am (0) = 2 nm=1 Am (1);

P P

• S is symmetric about t = 0.5;

• S is a p-function;
• S is s2 -convex (special case of the previous theorem, g ≡ 1).

Pointed problems: The new problem that appears here (when the
remarks opposing the reinforcement of the theorems from F (t) onwards
are considered) is that we have used t1 and t2 both for our Am and
our S during our proof, as seen in [4]. However, Am is created with
the mandatory condition of only accepting ‘constants’ as input. The
values we have chosen as arguments are constants, but the p-condition
demands those elements to be variables instead! Therefore, the item is
completely equivocated, extremely unsound in Mathematics, and will
be eliminated. There is also a major omission in the theorem heading,
which is that t is itself a constant belonging to the real interval [0, 1].
Once all the previously mentioned problems will appear here as well,
this theorem is also waste, deserving full nullification.

IV. Actual results originating in that paper

1. ([4]) Midpoint inequalities:
 
• f∈ Ks1 , {u, v} ⊂ Df =⇒ f u+v
1 ≤ f (u)+f
2
(v)
;
2s
 
• f ∈ Ks2 , f ∈ <+ , {u, v} ⊂ Df =⇒ f 2u+v
≤ f (u)+f
2s
(v)
;
 
• f ∈ Ks2 , f ∈ <− , {u, v} ⊂ Df =⇒ f 2u+v
≤ f (u)+f
1
(v)
;
2s

2. ([4]) f ∈ Ks1 ∩ Ks2 , as1 + bs1 = 1, a2 + b2 = 1 =⇒ f (a1 u + b1 v) ≤

as1 f (u) + bs1 f (v) ≤ as2 f (u) + bs2 f (v) for some {a1 , b1 , a2 , b2 } ⊂ [0, 1] and
the implication is verified for each and every allowed value of a1 and
b1 ;

3. ([4]) f ∈ Ks1 ∩ Ks2 ∧ Df ≡ Imf =⇒ f ◦ f is s2 -convex;

7
V. Side remarks
There is an alternative way of stating the definitions for the second type of
S-convexity, which may be preferred in Mathematics:

Definition 6. A function f : X− > I is told to belong to Ks2 if the inequality

f (λx + (1 − λ)(x + δ))

≤ λs f (x) + (1 − λ)s f (x + δ)
holds ∀λ/λ ∈ [0, 1]; ∀x/x ∈ X; s = s2 /0 < s2 ≤ 1; X/X ⊆ < ∧ I/I ⊆
<+ ∧ X = [a, b]; ∀δ/0 < δ ≤ (b − x).

Definition 7. A function f : X− > I is told to belong to Ks2 if the inequality

f (λx + (1 − λ)(x + δ))

1 1
≤ λ s f (x) + (1 − λ) s f (x + δ)
holds ∀λ/λ ∈ [0, 1]; ∀x/x ∈ X; s = s2 /0 < s2 ≤ 1; X/X ⊆ < ∧ I/I ⊆
<− ∧ X = [a, b]; ∀δ/0 < δ ≤ (b − x).

Remark 2. If3 the inequality is obeyed in the supplementary situation by f

then f is said to be s2 −concave.

VI. Conclusion
In this paper, we have managed to revise our published results, as for Ae-
quationes Mathematicae, in S-convexity. Our revision does imply the nul-
lification of a large amount of previous results by other researchers, given
the horrible mathematical mistakes that have remained ‘unnoticed’ by the
editors of the journals publishing them, as well as by the vast majority of
the scientific community this far. Besides, we have updated our previously
published results, as for journals, to agree with our own progress in the
refinement, improvement, and fixing, of the definition for the S-convexity
phenomenon.

3
This remark applies to both definitions preceding it.

8
VII. References
[1] M. R. Pinheiro. Convexity Secrets. Trafford Publishing. 2008. ISBN:
1425138217.

[2] M. R. Pinheiro. First Note on the Definition of S2 −convexity. Preprint,

http://www.scribd.com/tradutora, accessed on the 23rd of December of
2010.

[3] M. R. Pinheiro. Short Note on the Definition of S2 −convexity. Preprint,

http://www.scribd.com/tradutora, accessed on the 23rd of December of
2010.

[4] M.R. Pinheiro. Exploring the concept of S−convexity. Aequationes Math-

ematicae, Acc. 2006, V. 74, I.3, (2007), pp. 201-209.

[5] M.R. Pinheiro. H-H Inequality for S-Convex Functions. International

Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, V. 44, no. 4, (2008), pp. 563-579.

[6] M. R. Pinheiro. Minima Domain Interval and the S-convexity, as well as

the Convexity, Phenomenon. Preprint, http://www.scribd.com/tradutora,
accessed on the 23rd of December of 2010.