ANALYSIS OF A FEW PREVIOUS RESULTS INVOLVING Ks2

I.M.R. PINHEIRO

Abstract. In this paper on the classes Ks2 , we analyze a few results

attained by Dragomir et al. in 1999 and we expose the reasons as to why
we believe that those results should be nullified.

1. Introduction
Our definition for the phenomenon s2 −convexity, which has been updated in
the paper [Pinheiro 2011], and was first mentioned by us in [Pinheiro 2008],
reads:
Definition 1. A function f : X− > <, for which |f (x)| = f (x), is told to
belong to Ks2 , for some allowed and fixed value of s, if the inequality
f (λx + (1 − λ)y) ≤ λs f (x) + (1 − λ)s f (y)
holds ∀λ ∈ [0, 1]; ∀x, y ∈ X; s : 0 < s ≤ 1; X ⊆ <+ .
Definition 2. A function f : X− > <, for which |f (x)| = −f (x), is told to
belong to Ks2 , for some allowed and fixed value of s, if the inequality
1 1
f (λx + (1 − λ)y) ≤ λ s f (x) + (1 − λ) s f (y)
holds ∀λ ∈ [0, 1]; ∀x, y ∈ X; s : 0 < s ≤ 1; X ⊆ <+ .
Remark 1. If the complementary inequality to one of the inequalities above is
verified for some function f then such a function 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
so the f is locally Holder continuous of order s on (a, b). Thus, f is Riemann
integrable on [a, b].

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

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:
• Introduction;
• Criticisms;
• Conclusion;
• References.

2. Criticisms
The worst problems in [Dragomir 1999] seem to be with the proofs, but the
theorems also present unacceptable mathematical proposals, and all the just
mentioned is found besetting the soundness of the claimed mathematical results
originating in such a piece. In the lines below, we copy the proofs contained
in the paper by Dragomir et al. up to the point in which we find it impossible
that Mathematics supports their statements, when we then produce remarks
that we believe to be of quality on it.

• In (3), we find t = z−yb−y as suggestion of parameter for an instance

of application of the definition for s2 -convex function. Even though
this definition for t does return a value that is guaranteed to be less
than one, once a < y < z < b in the theorem heading, t will not ever
equate 0 or 1. If the definition applies to all values of t ∈ [0, 1], it also
applies to those values inside of the interval, so that the statements
contained in the proof this far are not absurd. However, t should be
a constant each time the definition is applied, not a variable, and t
cannot be mentioned this way, in the same instance of application of
the definition that uses y, the same y that has been used 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 −convex functions. 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].
 ANALYSIS OF A FEW PREVIOUS RESULTS INVOLVING Ks2 3

under consideration, duty to which a constant may not commit, unless

we are applying the definition for a specific purpose, that is, we are
not considering, at this point, the generic case. What follows, in the
proof that has been partially exposed here, is mathematical nonsense.
Therefore, we must propose the nullification of that result at least in a
temporary manner (say until we have a reasonable mathematical proof
of 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 a variable (y), what does not match the definition inequality
for s2 . Therefore, we must also propose the nullification of the just
mentioned result at least in a temporary manner (say until we have
a reasonable mathematical proof of 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 (once more, the same sort of problem as before);
• 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 is nonsense. There is no way that we can
assert, even imagining that 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 . It is clearly the case that any instance of application
of the definition for Ks2 demands at least three domain members to be
involved in the same inequality, but we have no means to generically
deal with these possible three domain members given what we know
about f . In considering the assertion F (0.5 + t) = F (0.5 − t), we
face the following problem: The arguments for both F and f seem
to be mathematically unacceptable. This way, the mentioned piece of
theorem also deserves nullification.

3. Conclusion
In this paper, we have proposed the nullification of three major results by
Dragomir et al. regarding s2 −convexity. The proofs of those results have been
criticized in what we believe to be enough mathematical detail to allow for
third parties’ empathy with our intents.
4 I.M.R. PINHEIRO

4. 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 2008] M. R. Pinheiro. Convexity Secrets. Trafford Publishing. 2008.

ISBN: 1425138217.

[Pinheiro 2011] M. R. Pinheiro. Short note on the definition of s2 -convexity.

Advances in Pure Mathematics, 2011, 1, 1 − 2.

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

E-mail address: illmrpinheiro@gmail.com