On S-convexity and our Aequationes Mathematicae

paper
I.M.R. Pinheiro∗

June 17, 2009

Abstract
In this paper, we review our results which have been published in the
prestigious academic vehicle Aequationes Mathematicae. The commu-
nications are very sad, and we do apologize for them. Substantial part
of our work will have to be nullified regarding that paper. Most of the
time, the mistakes were inherited from other people’s work, other au-
thors, so that we are also providing argumentation for the nullification
of their results in an indirect way.

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

I. Introduction
We have been working on refining and improving, as well as fixing, the def-
initions 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.
We follow this sequence of presentation:

• Definitions & Symbols;

• List of results from our paper with Aequationes Mathematicae 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;

• 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 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) (2)

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) (3)
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 reverse 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 , that is, for every compact
interval J ⊂ I, with I being the domain of f , J having boundary ∂J, and a
special function, of image curve L, L being of curvature Ψ, determined by
s2 ∈ (0, 1), we have2 :

Lx (s) ≥ sup(Lx (s) − f (x)) ≥ sup(Lx (s) − f (x))

J ∂J

Definition 5. (p-function) p : <− > [0, +∞) such that p(λx + (1 − λ)y) ≤
p(x) + p(y) for all λ ∈ (0, 1), {x, y} ⊂ < .

III. List of results and due criticisms to each one of

them
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 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 , 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 in Mathematics,

at most s1 -convex. 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). But 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, 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, usually

happening over a point, but also possible over a line or other shapes,
depending on how many dimensions the function messes up with. For
instance, the parabola deriving from the graph of f (x) = x2 is sym-
metric 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,

4
all reducing to one of the sides of the graph, as if truncated by x = 0.
However, nothing like this happens with our function here, for while
F (t) returns a numerical value always, when passive of evaluation, f
is an unknown s2 -convex function. Besides, nice remembering as well,
once so many journals have published these results, that not even Con-
vexity implies symmetry of the curve representing the function. The
item is not a suitable remark for Mathematics, and is also inaccurate.
We will simply eliminate such an item from our previous theorem, as
we re-state it. On the other hand, it is easy to notice that in either
one of the new definitions for s2 −convexity, the other items are veri-
fied with no change of wording being necessary, considering the proofs
we had before this paper. Another suitable remark is similar to the
one we have made in [5]: Notice that f demands a domain at least in
<2 , once it has got 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, attributed to f (x), being passive of auto-
matic extension to the ‘family’ of functions created via insertion of at
least one more dimension and one constant in the old rule of defini-
tion. This way, we would also need to add that it is f (tx + (1 − t)y),
as a whole, which 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 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 the most equivocated statement of argument ever
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 made for F (t), from the previous
theorem, will apply here, the whole theorem deserving nullifica-
tion. 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 Anal-
ysis (usually we see f (x) or similar) appears to be attractive, but it
is not only confusing, also 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, with g ≡ 1).

Pointed problems: The new problem which 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 the fact that t is itself a constant and should be between
the real number 0 and the real number 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
such that it occurs to each and all of them;

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) (2)

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) (3)
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 reverse 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 which 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 the evolution in the definition
of 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. Basic note on the definition of s2 −convexity. Submitted.

2009.

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

2009.

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

ematicae, Acc. 2006, V. 74, I.3, (2007), pp. 201209.

[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. Submitted. 2009.