Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INVOLVING Ks2
I.M.R. PINHEIRO
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
1
2 I.M.R. PINHEIRO
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.
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.
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
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.