REVISIONAL WORKS FOR PREVIOUS RESULTS

INVOLVING Ks2

I.M.R. PINHEIRO

Abstract. In this paper, we get to criticize a few results attained by

Dragomir et al. in 1999 for the classes Ks2 , and unfortunately nullify
them in vast majority. As a side dish, we get to refine our definitions,
probably for the last time, now in terms of the supreme we had added as
minima domain intervals mark.

1. Introduction
So far, our definitions, for the phenomenon of the s2 -convexity, resume to
([Pinheiro 2009]):
Definition 1. A function f : X− > <, where |f (x)| = f (x), is told to belong
to Ks2 if the inequality
f (λx + (1 − λ)(x + δ))
≤ λ f (x) + (1 − λ)s f (x + δ) (1)
s

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

a ∈ [0, 1].
Definition 2. 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) (2)
1
holds ∀λ ∈ [0, 1], ∀x ∈ X, s = s2 /0 < s2 ≤ 1, ∀δ; δ ≥ sup (a − a s ), X ⊆ <, a ∈
[0, 1].
Remark 1. If the inequality is obeyed in the reverse situation by f , then f is
told to be s2 −concave.
In [Dragomir 1999], we find the following results for the above mentioned group
of functions:
Theorem 1. Let1 f be a function on [a, b] which is s-convex in the second
sense. Then for a < y < z < b we have
 
s f (b) f (a)
|f (y) − f (z)| ≤ (z − y) max , (3)
(b − y)s (z − a)s

1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. AMS 30C45.

Key words and phrases. convex, S−convex,s1 −convex, dragomir, pearce, function,
s−convex.
1Theorem 1.4, p. 688, from [Dragomir 1999].

1
2 I.M.R. PINHEIRO

so the f is locally Holder continuous of order s on (a, b). Thus, f is Riemann

integrable on [a, b].
Theorem 2. Let2 f be a function on [a, b] which is s-convex in the second
sense. If f (c) = 0 for some c ∈ [a, b] then f (x) ≤ f (y) if c ≤ x ≤ y ≤ b and
f (x) ≥ f (y) if a ≤ x ≤ y ≤ c (4).
Let f be Lebesgue integrable on [a, b].
Definition 3. RbRb
a a
f (tx + (1 − t)y)dxdy
F (t) = (5)
(b − a)2
for3 t ∈ [0, 1].
Theorem 3. Let4 f be s-convex in the second sense on [a, b]. Then F is also
1 1
s-convex in the second sense and F ( 2+t ) = F ( 2−t ) for t ∈ [0, 1] (6).
We go through the following presentation sequence:
• Criticisms;
• Refinement on the definition of s2 -convexity;
• Conclusion;
• References.

2. Criticisms
The worst problems of all seem to originate from the proofs contained in
[Dragomir 1999], but the theorems also suffer from some serious problems,
which are all found besetting their soundness. In the lines below, we copy the
proof in the paper by Dragomir et al. up to the point in which we find impos-
sible that Mathematics supports their claims, abandoning then the rest of the
proof and making remarks about it.

• In (3), we find t = z−y

b−y , which is supposed to become the parameter
for the application of the definition of s2 -convexity. However, even
though this definition for t does return a value which is certainly less
than one, once a < y < z < b in the theorem heading, t will not ever
equate 0 or 1. Notwithstanding, if it applies to all values of t ∈ [0, 1],
it also applies for those values inside of the interval, so that it is not
immediately absurd. However, on top, t should be a constant each
time the definition is applied, not a variable in itself. It also cannot
be mentioned this way, in the same definition application which uses
y, the same y to define t as a variable.
The next basic problem is with z = (1 − t)y + tb replacing the left
hand side of the definition inequality for s2 −convexity. Notice that
b is the upper limit of the domain interval for f in the sequence of
reasoning exposed by Dragomir et al. However, the left side of the
definition inequality demands a variable to run over the domain slice
2Theorem 1.5, p. 688, from [Dragomir 1999].
3This definition is found in the page 692, [Dragomir 1999].
4Theorem 4.1, p. 692, from [Dragomir 1999].
 REVISIONAL WORKS FOR PREVIOUS RESULTS INVOLVING Ks2 3

under consideration, duty which a constant may not commit to, unless
applying the definition for a purpose which is not generalization over it.
What follows that is mathematical nonsense, therefore nullifying that
result until someone else may come up with a reasonable mathematical
proof on it;
• In (4), we read, in the proof, that c ≤ x ≤ y ≤ b implies f (x) ≤ ts f (c)+
(1 − t)s f (y) if x = tc + (1 − t)y. Notice that the same mistake, just
pointed out by us, has happened here. Once more, we have a constant
(c) with variable (y), what does not match the definition inequality
for s2 conditions, therefore also nullifying their result unless someone
else is able to come up with a mathematically sound proof for it. The
problem is the absence of care with the elements being used in the
proof. Simple detailed, or accurate, mathematical specifications, would
reveal the nonsense: Notice, for instance, that c should be a constant
but becomes a variable given how it appears, therefore same sort of
problem once more;
• In (5), it is all nonsense. Of course that, just for starters, we would
have to propose a few restrictions to all: f must be non-negative and
[a, b] = [0, 1], so that just the basics of the intentions get secured.
However, t is defined as a constant and, therefore, cannot serve the
purposes of a linear combination of two variables, as the definition of
S-convexity would demand;
• In (6), it also seems that all there is nonsense. There is no way we
can assert, even imagining we could be replacing t with each and every
member of the interval [0, 1], that F has got the same nature as f ,
for it is impossible to prove anything without having to impose further
restrictions to f , for a single definition application for Ks2 will demand
at least three domain members to be involved in the same inequality,
what would be impossible to do given what we know about f . It is
true, however, that F (0.5 + t) = F (0.5 − t), trivially.

3. Refinement on the definition of s2 −convexity

• sup (as − a): Simple reasoning would lead us to the obvious value for a
so that the supreme for this subtraction would be reached. Basically,
while a lives in the straight line world, as lives above that world, in a
curved shape, as we have proved in [Pinheiro2 2009]. Therefore, the
maximum distance will have to be achieved, if we are drawing a ninety
degree line from the straight line, when a = 0.5, that is, when the
maximum for the curved line function is reached, as also proven there;
1 1
• sup (a − a s ): Once more, a lives in the straight line world but a s lives
in the curved line world, and the maximum distance is again achieved
at a = 0.5.

4. Conclusion
In this paper, we have managed to nullify three major results by Dragomir et
al. regarding s2 −convexity, believing to be meaningfully contributing to the
progress of Mathematics in general in an actual way.
4 I.M.R. PINHEIRO

We also got to produce what seems to be our last refinement in the definition
of the s2 −convexity phenomenon:
Definition 4. A function f : X− > <, where |f (x)| = f (x), is told to belong
to Ks2 if the inequality
f (λx + (1 − λ)(x + δ))
≤ λ f (x) + (1 − λ)s f (x + δ) (1)
s

holds ∀λ ∈ [0, 1], ∀x ∈ X, s = s2 /0 < s2 ≤ 1, ∀δ; (sup X − x) ≥ δ ≥ (0.5s − 0.5),

X ⊆ <.
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))
1 1
≤ λ s f (x) + (1 − λ) s f (x + δ) (2)
holds ∀λ ∈ [0, 1], ∀x ∈ X, s = s2 /0 < s2 ≤ 1, ∀δ; (sup X − x) ≥ δ ≥ (0.5 −
1
0.5 s ), X ⊆ <.

5. References
[Dragomir 1999] S.S. Dragomir, S. Fitzpatrick. The Hadamard Inequalities
For s-convex Functions in the Second Sense. Demonstratio Mathematica. Vol.
XXXII, No. 4, 1999.
[Pinheiro 2009] M. R. Pinheiro. Minima Domain Intervals and the S-convexity,
as well as the Convexity, Phenomenon. Submitted, 2009.
[Pinheiro2 2009] M. R. Pinheiro. Short note on the definition of s2 -convexity.
Submitted, 2009.

PO BOX 12396, A’BECKETT ST, MELBOURNE, VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA, 8006

E-mail address: illmrpinheiro@gmail.com