Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mathematicae
I.M.R. Pinheiro∗
Abstract
In this paper, we review the results that have been published in the
prestigious academic vehicle Aequationes Mathematicae. The commu-
nications are very upsetting, so that we would like to apologize for
them. Substantial part of our work will have to be nullified regard-
ing that paper. Quite a few misconceptions have been inherited from
other people’s work, so that we are also providing argumentation for
the nullification of their results in an indirect way here.
MSC(2010): 26A51
Key-words: Analysis, Convexity, Definition, S-convexity.
I. Introduction
We have been working on refining, improving, and fixing, the definitions of
S−convexity for a while now (since 2001). As at least one branch of it deals
with a proper extension of the concept of Convexity (made proper by our
research results), we end up refining the definition of Convexity as well.
We follow this sequence of presentation:
1
• Actual results originating in that paper;
• Side remarks;
• Conclusion;
• References.
• K11 ≡ K12 and both classes are the same as the convex class of functions;
≤ λs f (x) + (1 − λ)s f (x + δ)
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
sup(Lx (s) − f (x)) ≥ max{Lx1 (s) − f (x1 ), Lx2 (s) − f (x2 )}.
J
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 both 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 , and b2 , in the theorem.
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)).
4
determined by the point x = 0, you will have a perfect match between
both sides of it, it all reducing to one of the sides of the graph, as if
truncated by x = 0. Notwithstanding, nothing like that happens with
our function here, for while F (t) should return a numerical value, when
passive of evaluation, f is an unknown s2 -convex function. Besides, it
is nice remembering as well, once so many journals have published
these results, that not even Convexity implies symmetry of the curve
representing the function. The item is not a sound scientific remark.
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 both
definitions for s2 −convexity, the new definitions, 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 [5]: Notice that f demands a domain at least
in <2 , once it has 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 au-
tomatic extension to the ‘family’ of functions created via insertion of
what seems to be at least one more dimension and one constant in the
rule originating in the old definition. This way, we would also need
to add that it is f (tx + (1 − t)y), as a whole, that 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 constant instead. This certainly elimi-
nates any assertion involving any of those properties and the function
F (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 argument to ‘test’ s2 −convexity: A blatantly equivo-
cated move!
We would obviously need to replace t, from the argument of f , with
the items that are necessary for the ‘test’ of the s2 -convexity prop-
erty. 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 in Mathematics, and should
5
be thoroughly nullified.
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:
where
6
Z bZ b
Am (t) = fm (tx + (1 − t)y)dxdy.
a a
In this context, we have:
Pointed problems: The new problem that 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 that t is itself a constant belonging to the real interval [0, 1].
Once all the previously mentioned problems will appear here as well,
this theorem is also waste, deserving full nullification.
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:
≤ λs f (x) + (1 − λ)s f (x + δ)
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).
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 that 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 our own progress in the
refinement, improvement, and fixing, of the definition for 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.