Summary of progresses on S-convexity and update

of past results
I.M.R. Pinheiro∗

June 10, 2009

Abstract
In this paper, we summarize our results on the S-convexity phenomenon,
the ones already published in journals. Besides, we update all of them
to account for the latest fixing of ours over the definitions (articles yet
not published) as well as to account for our possible previous typos,
bad wordings, and inaccuracies, hoping to reach perfection some day
in every element of our proposed mathematical pieces of theory.

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.
So far, we have produced quite a few articles on S-convexity. This paper,
however, is based solely on the articles published by mathematical journals
up to this date. We follow this sequence of presentation:

• Definitions & Symbols;

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

1
 • List of results;

• Nullified results;

• Theorems in need of being re-stated;

• Fixed Theorems for S-convexity;

• Results which were not analyzed in this paper;

• Confirmed results;

• 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], [9])

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 ⊂ <+ .

2
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).
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 have:
L(s) ≥ sup(L − f ) ≥ sup(L − f )
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. ([8]) Let f be a function from <m to <. Then f is s1 -convex iff
f (λ1 x1 + ... + λm xm ) ≤ λs1 f (x1 ) + ... + λsm f (xm )
whenever λ1 ≥ 0, ..., λm ≥ 0, m s
P
p=1 λp = 1. In this paper, we will not
revise any result for s1 −convexity, they will all remain as they are
found.
1
This remark applies to both definitions preceding it.

3
2. ([8]) (Factor X) Let f be a function from <m to <. Then f is s2 -convex
iff
f (λ1 x1 + ... + λm xm ) ≤ λs1 f (x1 ) + ... + λsm f (xm )
whenever λ1 ≥ 0, ..., λm ≥ 0, m
P
p=1 λp = 1.
Pointed problems: The definition must be adapted to the evolution in
our definitions. We will have to split this definition into two cases.

3. ([5]) For a real s1 −convex function Φ, numbers xi in its domain, and

positive weights ai , we have

 Pp 1  Pp
s
i=1 ai xi a Φ(xi )
Pp i
Φ Pp 1 ≤ i=1 ;
( i=1 ai ) s i=1 ai

4. ([5]) For a real s2 -convex function Φ, numbers xi in its domain, and

positive weights ai , we have:
 Pp  Pp s
ai xi i=1 ai Φ(xi )
Φ Pi=1p ≤ P p ;
i=1 ai ( i=1 ai )s

5. ([4]) Midpoint inequalities:

 
2 u+v f (u)+f (v)
• f ∈ Ks =⇒ f 2 ≤ 2s ;

6. ([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;

7. ([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)).

1
Old proof with due remarks added: f ∈ Ks1 =⇒ f (a1 u+(1−as1 ) s v) ≤
as1 f (u) + (1 − as1 )f (v). But, f ∈ Ks2 =⇒ 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)).

4
 The last inequality allows us to state that f ◦ f ∈ Ks2 instead of what
we had previously stated, all configuring a typo.

8. ([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, all
reducing to one of the sides of the graph only, 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 verified
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 [6]: Notice that fm 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,

5
 or even any other property, attributed to f (x), being passive of exten-
sion to the ‘family’ of functions created via insertion of at least one
more dimension and one constant in the old rule of definition. 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 Convex-
ity, 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 constant
instead. This certainly eliminates any assertion involving any of those
properties and the function A(t) or the function S(t). Unfortunately,
in this theorem, also the proof for the supreme is equivocated, for it
trivially involved considering the argument of the function as the argu-
ment 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.

9. ([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).

6
 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 Analysis
(usually we see f (x) or similar) appears to be attractive, but it is not
only confusing, also generates horrible mathematical mistakes.

10. ([4]) Consider a sum S of s2 -convex functions,

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

where 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 re-
marks 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
names we chose remind us of constants, but the p-condition demands
those elements to be variables instead. Therefore, the item is com-
pletely 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 men-
tioned problems will appear here as well, this theorem is also waste,
deserving full nullification.

7
11. ([6]) For any f : [a, b]− > <, f being convex and continuous in [a, b],
it is always true that
Z b
1 f (a) + f (b)
f (λa + (1 − λ)b) ≤ f (t)dt ≤ ,
b−a a 2

for each pre-determined value of λ ∈ [0, 1];

Pointed problems: We have only deduced this result because of the
proof presented in the paper of McAndrew and Dragomir, reproduced
in the page 567 of [6]. However, that proof of theirs is ALSO wrong and
contains the same basic mistakes of the other proofs which have been
pointed by us throughout time, originating in the work of Dragomir et
al. Notice that in the proof, contained in the page 567 of [6], a basic
problem is found: To start their proof, Dragomir et al. make use of
a severely well known consequence of the definition of derivative of a
function. However, y, there, is obviously a variable, and the theorem
can only be stated with that condition, that y is a variable. Unfortu-
nately, by the seventh line of our reproduction of that proof, Dragomir
et al. replace a variable with a constant value, 0.5(a + b), what is
obviously absolutely unacceptable and unsound in Real Analysis. Be-
cause the proof where we have based ourselves is wrong, our result is
also wrong, in principle. In reading our result more carefully, it is in-
deed the case that simple geometric reasoning tells us it should be an
unacceptable result (left side). Oh, well, if we would like to ‘pervert’
the rules of Mathematics a bit, and assume we could write generi-
cally about derivatives over a point, rather than deriving the function
generically first then apply the derivative function to that point, we
would also have to adapt it all for the x in the formula, trivially, what
would have to mean that x would not belong to (a, b) anymore, but
to (a, 0.5(a + b)) instead, at most, once there is an assumption that
x 6= y (otherwise the ratio would not be defined) and y > x in the
derivative formula. This way, the resulting inequality would not be
what we expected to achieve.
On the other hand, one can easily notice that the HH inequality may
be proved geometrically with not much difficulty, just based on the
geometric idea of the integral...there is no need to think of anything
else, then, for the basic rule of Science is ‘making it simple if it can
be’, not the opposite. This result will be, then, entirely nullified.

12. ([6]) Let f be a s−convex function, in the second sense, in an interval

8
 I ⊂ [0, ∞) and let {a, b} ⊂ I with a < b. Then:
Z b
1 f (a) + f (b)
(In.1) 2s−1 f (0.5(a + b)) ≤ f (x)dx ≤ .
b−a a s+1

Proof of the right side: Because f ∈ Ks2 , we have

f ((1−λ)x+λ(x+δ)) ≤ (1−λ)s f (x)+λs f (x+δ), ∀λ ∈ [0, 1], x ∈ Df , δ > 0.

As a special instance of this inequality, once a ∈ Df , and b ∈ Df , we

may have:

f ((1 − λ)a + λb) ≤ (1 − λ)s f (a) + λs f (b), ∀λ ∈ [0, 1], δ > 0.

There is some huge hesitation here, by time of this step, present in

many deductions of Dragomir et al.: We now would like to make of
λ, previously treated by us as a constant, a variable. However, if it
is just swapping its name from constant to variable, why would we
not have called it variable at the first statement of the definition?
Basically, in the definition of Convexity, we are supposed to have x,
at most y (already proved by us to be equivocated designation), as
variables, when it comes to Cartesian graphs. If λ were a variable,
we would then be obliged to have our domain at least in some part
of <2 (rigorously, before our correction of y to x + λ, of <3 then).
Notice that f is not a function of λ, λ is used in order for us to get
a domain member for f , which will be a function of another variable,
usually our x, which has disappeared by means of insertion of a and
b. Because λ is not the variable of f , to integrate f we need to do it
over an unknown variable by us, in the situation we find f in the above
inequality. Therefore, unfortunately, we cannot proceed from here the
way we suggested before, and the way it has been done in [10]. As
any other reasoning would lead to a different upper bound than the
one we currently hold, we’d better nullify this result. There was also
a fundamental mistake, a typo, in our published theorem: While our
deduction involves 0 and 1 as limits for our integral, we actually have
used a and b in our original statement of the definition instead.

13. ([6]) For any choice of couple of elements of the domain of any convex
function, which is continuous almost everywhere, we have:
Z x2
1 f (x1 ) + f (x2 )
f (x)dx ≤ .
x 2 − x 1 x1 s+1

9
 Pointed problems: The same problems as the previous nullified theo-
rem appear here. Therefore, we should also nullify this one.

14. ([6]) Via geometric deduction

Z b
1 f (0.5(a + b))
f (x)dx ≤ .
b−a a 2s−1

Pointed problems: Unfortunately, the result above does not make any
mathematical sense. We provide no justification for why half the do-
main interval would bring an upper boundary for the integral. Perhaps,
with a lot of good will, f (a) + f (b), but never what we have written
there. The largest trapezoid available is not a bad idea, but we must
start over if willing to state a truthful result in Analysis following that
reasoning. Nullified.

15. ([6]) Let f be an S−convex function, in the second sense, in an interval

I ⊂ [0, ∞) and let {a, b} ⊂ I with a < b. Then:
Z b
1
(In.1) 2s−1 f (0.5(a + b)) ≤ f (x)dx ≤ 21−s f (0.5(a + b)).
b−a a

Pointed problems: The right side of this inequality has already been
’demolished’ by ourselves in this paper. Therefore the inequality, in
itself, is nullified.

16. ([6]) f : [a, a + λ]− > <, λ ≤ 1, f being convex, it is always true that
  Z a+λ
2a + λ 1
f ≤ f (t)dt ≤ (a + 0.5λ)λf (x) + (1 − 0.5λ − a)λf (y).
2 λ a

Pointed problems: This theorem has been obtained using the same
equivocated reasoning of making of λ, from the definition of S−convexity,
become a ’variable’. Another atrocious step in our proof has been re-
writing, following [10], our constants a and b as a function of λ, own a,
and own b, obviously absurdity of no dimension in Analysis. Therefore,
this result must be entirely nullified.

17. ([6]) Let f be an S−convex function, in the second sense, in an interval

I ⊂ [0, ∞) and let {a, b} ⊂ I with a < b. Then:
  Z b
a+b 1 f (a) + f (b)
(In.10 ) f ≤ f (x)dx ≤ .
2 b−a a s+1

10
 Pointed problems: The right side has already been opposed to by us in
this very paper. The left side, however, may be saved, for s2 −convexity
is an extension to the concept of Convexity, implying that whatever is
less than the integral involving the area under a convex function curve
should be less than the integral involving a larger area, that is, the
area under a s2 −convex function curve. We will then drop only the
right bound for this inequality.

18. ([6]) Let f be a s1 −convex function in an interval I ⊂ [0, ∞) and let

{a, b} ⊂ I with a < b. Then:
Z b
1
(In.2) f (a) ≤ f (x)dx ≤ f (b).
b−a a

19. ([7]) If f is a s1 −convex, non-negative, function and (xn ) lies in its

domain, then:
n  
X x1 + x2 + ... + xn
f (xi ) − f 1
i=1 ns
      
n−1 x1 + x2 xn−1 + xn xn + x1
≥ f 1 + ... + f 1 +f 1 ;
n 2s 2s 2s
20. ([7]) If f is a s2 −convex, non-negative, function and (xn ) lies in its
domain, then:

n  
X x1 + x2 + ... + xn
f (xi ) − f
n
i=1

2s−1 (ns − 1)
      
x1 + x2 xn−1 + xn xn + x1
≥ f + ... + f + f ;
ns 2 2 2

21. ([7]) If f is a s1 −convex, non-negative, function and (xn ) lies in its

domain, then:

(ns − 1)[f (b1 ) + ... + f (bn )] ≤ ns [f (a1 ) + ... + f (an )] − nf (a),

1
a1 +...+an n s a−ai
where a = 1 and bi = 1 , i = 1, ..., n;
ns (n−1) s

11
22. ([7]) If f is a s2 −convex, non-negative, function and (an ) lies in its
domain, then:

(n − 1)s [f (b1 ) + ... + f (bn )] ≤ n[f (a1 ) + ... + f (an )] − ns f (a),

a1 +...+an na−ai
where a = n and bi = n−1 , i = 1, ..., n;

23. ([8]) Let V be a vector space over <. A subset X ⊂ V is called

s1 −convex if every s1 -convex curve, defined by λs x1 +(1−λs )x2 , ∀x1 , x2 ∈
X, intersects X in an interval, that is:

(λs x1 + (1 − λs )x2 ) ⊂ X

when 0 < λ < 1 and x1 , x2 ∈ X;

24. ([8]) Let V be a vector space over <. A subset X ⊂ V is called

s2 −convex if every s2 -convex curve, defined by λs x1 +(1−λ)s x2 , ∀x1 , x2 ∈
X, intersects X in an interval, that is:

(λs x1 + (1 − λ)s x2 ) ⊂ X

when 0 < λ < 1 and x1 , x2 ∈ X.

Pointed problems: It is necessary now to split this definition for the
two cases of possible domain for a function which is S-convex in the
second sense, given our progresses in our studies of the definition of
the phenomenon.

25. ([8]) An s1 −convex combination of a set of vectors → −

v1 , →
−
v2 , ...−
v→
n is a
linear combination of those vectors in which the coefficients are all
nonnegative, and the individual raise to a power ’s’Presults in their
sum being one, that is: λs1 →
− v2 + ... + λsn −
v1 + λs2 →
− v→
n , with
n s
p=1 λp = 1 and
λp ≥ 0, ∀p/p ∈ N, 1 ≤ p ≤ n, is an s1 -convex combination of vectors;

26. ([8]) An s2 −convex combination of a set of vectors → −

v1 , →−
v2 , ...−v→n is a
‘bent’ combination of those vectors in which the coefficients are all
nonnegative
Pn and hold sum one, that is: λs1 →
−
v1 + λs2 →
−
v2 + ... + λsn −v→ n , with
λ
p=1 p = 1 and λ p ≥ 0, ∀p/p ∈ N, 1 ≤ p ≤ n, is an s 2 -convex
combination of vectors;
Pointed problems: Once more, with our update of definition, we need
to split this definition into two other definitions.

12
IV. Fixed Theorems for S-convexity
1. ([8]) Let f be a function from <m to <+ . Then f is s2 -convex iff

f (λ1 x1 + ... + λm xm ) ≤ λs1 f (x1 ) + ... + λsm f (xm )

whenever λ1 ≥ 0, ..., λm ≥ 0, m
P
p=1 λp = 1;

2. ([8]) Let f be a function from <m to <− . Then f is s2 -convex iff

1 1
f (λ1 x1 + ... + λm xm ) ≤ λ1s f (x1 ) + ... + λm
s
f (xm )

whenever λ1 ≥ 0, ..., λm ≥ 0, m
P
p=1 λp = 1;

3. ([5]) For a real, and non-negative2 , s2 -convex function Φ, numbers xi

in its domain, and positive weights ai , we have:
 Pp  Pp s
i=1 ai xi i=1 ai Φ(xi )
Φ Pp ≤ P ;
i=1 ai ( pi=1 ai )s

4. (new) For a real, and negative, s2 -convex function Φ, numbers xi in

its domain, and positive weights ai , we have:

 Pp  Pp 1

i=1 ai xi i=1 ais Φ(xi )

Φ Pp ≤ Pp 1 ;
i=1 ai ( i=1 ai ) s

5. ([4]) Midpoint inequalities:

 
u+v f (u)+f (v)
• f∈ Ks2 , f ∈ <+ =⇒ f 2 ≤ 2s ;
 
u+v f (u)+f (v)
• f∈ Ks2 , f ∈ <− =⇒ f 2 ≤ 1 ;
2s

6. ([4]) f ∈ Ks1 ∩ Ks2 , f ∈ <+ , as1 + bs1 = 1, a2 + b2 = 1 =⇒ f (a1 u + b1 v) ≤

as1 f (u) + bs1 f (v) ≤ as2 f (u) + bs2 f (v) (most trivial proof involves picking
a2 = as1 and b2 = bs1 );

7. ([4]) f ∈ Ks1 ∩ Ks2 ∧ Df ≡ Imf =⇒ f ◦ f is s2 -convex;

2
Also, in the proof we have written for this piece, the wrong theorem is mentioned
as allowing us to get the result. The right theorem would be the one for more than one
dimension in the domain, that is, (Factor X), instead.

13
 8. ([4]) Consider the function F : [0, 1]− > I, I ⊂ <, defined by
Z bZ b
1
F (t) = f (tx + (1 − t)y)dxdy,
(b − a)2 a a

where f : [a, b]− > I ⊂ <+ ∨I ⊂ <− 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);

9. ([4]) Consider the functions Fg1 : [0, 1]− > I ⊂ <, defined by
Z bZ b
Fg1 (t) = f (tx + (1 − t)y)g(x)g(y)dxdy,
a a

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

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

• 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 .

10. ([4]) Consider

n Z bZ
X b
S(x, y) = fm (tx + (1 − t)y)dxdy,
m=1 a a

fm (x, y) ∈ Ks2 , and t ∈ [0, 1]. In this context, we have:

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

P P

• S is s2 -convex (special case of the previous theorem, with g ≡ 1).

14
 11. ([6]) Let f be an S−convex function, in the second sense, in an interval
I ⊂ [0, ∞) and let {a, b} ⊂ I with a < b. Then:
  Z b
0 a+b 1
(In.1 ) f ≤ f (x)dx.
2 b−a a

12. ([8]) Let V be a vector space over <+ . A subset X ⊂ V is called

s2 −convex if every s2 -convex curve, defined by λs x1 +(1−λ)s x2 , ∀x1 , x2 ∈
X, intersects X in an interval, that is:

(λs x1 + (1 − λ)s x2 ) ⊂ X

when 0 < λ < 1 and x1 , x2 ∈ X.

13. ([8]) Let V be a vector space over <− . A subset X ⊂ V is called

1 1
s2 −convex if every s2 -convex curve, defined by λ s x1 +(1−λ) s x2 , ∀x1 , x2 ∈
X, intersects X in an interval, that is:

(λs x1 + (1 − λ)s x2 ) ⊂ X

when 0 < λ < 1 and x1 , x2 ∈ X.

14. ([8]) An s2 −convex combination of a set of vectors → −

v1 , →
−
v2 , ...−
v→
n , in which
no negative coordinate is found, is a ‘bent’ combination of those vectors
in which the coefficients are allP nonnegative and hold sum one, that is:
s →
− s →
− s −
→
λ1 v1 + λ2 v2 + ... + λn vn , with np=1 λp = 1 and λp ≥ 0, ∀p/p ∈ N, 1 ≤
p ≤ n, where vi ∈ <m + , is an s2 -convex combination of vectors;****

15. ([8]) An s2 −convex combination of a set of vectors → −

v1 , →
−
v2 , ...−
v→
n , in which
no positive coordinate is found, is a ‘bent’ combination of those vec-
tors in which the coefficients are all nonnegative and hold sum one,
s →
− s →
− s −
→ Pn
that is: λ1 v1 + λ2 v2 + ... + λn vn , with p=1 λp = 1 and λp ≥ 0,
∀p/p ∈ N, 1 ≤ p ≤ n, where vi ∈ <m − , is an s2 -convex combination
of vectors.****(don’t think it makes sense, better s1convex as com-
bination and nothing else,sum one is more important than anything
else)

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:

15
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 sci-
entific journals, in S-convexity. Our revision does imply the nullification 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.

16
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. Jensen’s Inequality in Detail and S-Convex Functions.

International Journal of Mathematical Analysis, V. 3, no. 1-4, (2009), pp.
9598.

[6] 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.

[7] M.R. Pinheiro. Lazhar’s Inequalities and the S-convex Phenomenon. New
Zealand Journal of Mathematics, V. 38, (2008), pp. 57-62.

[8] M.R. Pinheiro. S-convexity: Foundations for Analysis. Differential Ge-

ometry - Dynamical Systems, V. 10, (2008), pp. 257-262.

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

the Convexity, phenomenon. Submitted. 2009.

[10] S. S. Dragomir, S. Fitzpatrick. The Hadamard inequalities for S-convex

functions in the second sense. Demonstratio Mathematica, VXXXII, no. 4,
(1999).

17