Minima Domain Intervals and the S-convexity, as

well as the Convexity, Phenomenon

I.M.R. Pinheiro∗

January 26, 2009

Minima Domain Intervals and the

S-convexity, as well as the
Convexity, Phenomenon
Abstract
In this paper, we get to propose further change for the definition of S-
convexity, one branch of it extending Convexity, so that it is all found
analytically sounder.

AMS: 26A15
keywords: Analysis, Convexity, Definition, S-convexity.

I. Introduction
We have been working on refining and improving, as well as fixing, the de-
finitions for S-convexity for a while now. As at least one branch of it deals
with a proper extension of the concept of Convexity (made proper by our
paper on the definition), we end up refining the definition for Convexity as
well.
This piece of work regards our criticism to the absence of an explicit reference
to a minimum necessary interval of domain in order to both test S-convexity
accurately and define it, with analytical soundness, as a set of classes.
We follow this sequence of presentation:

∗
RGMIA, e-mail: illmrpinheiro, Address: PO BOX 12396, A’BECKETT ST, MEL-
BOURNE, VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA, 8006

1
 • Definitions, both geometric and analytical;

• Criticisms to the present definition as to the absence of a minimum

domain length;

• Proposed fixing;

• Conclusion;

• References.

II. Definitions & Symbols

Symbols ([2])

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

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

• 0 < s ≤ 1 is the index designating one of the classes for S-convexity;

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

• s1 , s2 stand for the s value designating either a class in Ks1 or a class

in Ks2 .

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

Definition 1. A function f : X− > < is told to be s1 −convex if the in-

equality
1
f (λx + (1 − λs ) s y)
≤ λs f (x) + (1 − λs )f (y) (1)
holds ∀λ ∈ [0, 1]; ∀x, y ∈ X; s = s1 /0 < s1 ≤ 1; X ⊂ <+ .

Remark 1. If the inequality is obeyed in the reverse situation by f , then f

is said to be s1 −concave1 .
1
We have replaced the term ‘complementary’ because it wrongly implies all else which
is in Mathematics. The way we have worded it now sees to be more scientific.

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

f (λx + (1 − λ)y)

≤ λs f (x) + (1 − λ)s f (y) (2)

holds ∀λ ∈ [0, 1]; ∀x, y ∈ X; s = s2 /0 < s2 ≤ 1; X ⊆ <.
Definition 3. A function f : X− > <, where |f (x)| = −f (x), is told to
belong to Ks2 if the inequality

f (λx + (1 − λ)y)
1 1
≤ λ s f (x) + (1 − λ) s f (y) (3)
holds ∀λ ∈ [0, 1]; ∀x, y ∈ X; s = s2 /0 < s ≤ 1; X ⊆ <.
Remark 2. If the inequality is obeyed in the reverse situation by f , then f
is said to be s2 −concave.

III. Criticisms
The major criticism to both 1-convexity and S-convexity in general is that
there is clear inconsistency found when putting the geometric definition
against the analytical one: One must notice that there is mention to a lim-
iting geometrical line in each case, or a special limiting geometrical line for
each value of s between zero and one, Convexity bringing the shortest lim-
iting line of all, a straight line.
However, one needs more than one point to form a line; In fact, an infinite
number of points is needed, therefore an interval, a minimum interval. Once
we do not find mention to such an interval so far in the definitions, there is
a clear omission in the analytical definition of S-convexity, therefore in the
own Convexity definition.
The necessity of the minimum interval is delivered by the fact that x must be
different from y in all definitions (coherence with the geometric definition)
and the mention to a piece X, from the real numbers, does imply, usually, a
non-degenerated interval. Nothing could be more appropriate than adding
a ‘distance element’ to the current analytical definition in order to express
that idea, then, say this element is now called ’δ’, δ > 0, for well-posedness
sake.
Another interesting technical observation is that the current definition of S-
convexity deals with a vector in <2 . However, its current domain is in < and

3
so we want it to be in order to have the analytical definition matching the
geometrical one. If the left side of the inequality involves two place holders,
or variables, the equivocated implication of a domain in <2 should already
constitute enough reason to drop the second variable existence, that is, the
existence of y there.
The abundant literature sources disregarding such a basic fact, even though
implying it, containing it as enthymeme, leads us to believe that this is one
of the most important improvements in the definitions regarding the phe-
nomenon of S-convexity achieved this far by us.
If Dragomir et al. had our definitions as basis (the ones we propose here) by
the time they write about the first type of S-convexity not being compatible
with decreasing functions (see [1], for instance), they would not have gone
wrong in their proof, as for the analytical theory2 .
The first basic idea, then, is that x 6= y in all definitions, for each one of the
S-convexity classes, therefore also for the own Convexity.
The geometric definition DOES imply that the right side of the inequality
forms a line, not mattering if curved or straight. As stated before, the only
way to generate this line, minimum condition of existence for it, is that
x 6= y, therefore X 6= {x}, ∀x ∈ <. While to guarantee the formation of
a straight line x 6= y suffices, therefore for the Convexity definition, in a
curved line it is necessary that we have a bit more of guaranteed domain in
order to account for the formation of a limiting curve.
In the case of the second sense of S-convexity, for instance, the minimum
length has to be the difference between the straight and the curved line, that
1
is, (as − a) or (a − a s ), for each value of s chosen, between zero and one,
and each value of a chosen, therefore the supreme of the length being the
measure we are looking for here for each value of s chosen, all depending on
the moduli of f (x).
In the first sense of S-convexity, this minimum distance amounts to (as − a)
at least (so far, without having worked enough on its definition).

IV. Fixed Definitions for S-convexity

Definition 4. A function f : X− > < is said to be s1 −convex if the in-
equality
1
f (λx + (1 − λs ) s (x + δ))
2
We refer to the mandatory minimum interval each time the definition for S-convexity
is being applied or tested, making it absurd that x = y, as we see happening in the proof
at [1].

4
 ≤ λs f (x) + (1 − λs )f (x + δ) (4)
holds ∀λ ∈ [0, 1]; ∀x ∈ X; s = s1 /0 < s1 ≤ 1; δ ≥ sup (as − a); X ⊂ <+ , a ∈
[0, 1].

Remark 3. If the inequality is obeyed in the reverse situation by f , then f

is said to be s1 −concave.

Definition 5. A function f : X− > <, 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) (5)

holds ∀λ ∈ [0, 1]; ∀x ∈ X; s = s2 /0 < s2 ≤ 1; ∀δ ≥ sup (as − a); X ⊆ <,
a ∈ [0, 1].

Definition 6. A function f : X− > <, 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) (6)
1
holds ∀λ ∈ [0, 1]; ∀x ∈ X; s = s2 /0 < s2 ≤ 1; ∀δ ≥ sup (a − a s ); X ⊆ <, a ∈
[0, 1].

Remark 4. If the inequality is obeyed in the reverse situation by f , then f

is said to be s2 −concave.

V. Conclusion
In this one more short note, we have managed to fix at least the second sense
of S-convexity, in its analytical definition, to probably all which needs to be
fixed so that it becomes ‘analytically sound’, missing perhaps some further
study on the supreme, which appears related to the minimum distance in it.
Ks1 , however, will demand more work and we have just made a quick move
on the reach for its best analytical standing.

5
VI. References
[1] C. E. M. Pearce, S. S. Dragomir. p. 278−279, Selected Topics on Hermite-
Hadamard Inequalities and Applications. RGMIA, Monographs, located at
http : //rgmia.vu.edu.au/monographs/ hermitehadamard.html, and last
seen on the 20th of August of 2007, written in 2000.

[2] M. R. Pinheiro. Convexity Secrets. Trafford Publishing. 2008. ISBN:

1425138217.

[3] M. R. Pinheiro. Basic note on the definition of s2 −convexity. Submitted.

2009.
[4] M. R. Pinheiro. Short note on the definition of s2 −convexity. Submitted.
2009.