On S-convexity and a few of our results

I.M.R. Pinheiro∗

July 5, 2009

Abstract
In this paper, we review a few of our results, those which have been
published in the prestigious academic vehicles IJMA, NZJM, and DG-
DS. As a side dish, we discuss some fundamental issues on basics such
as epigraph and possible connections between convex shapes, convex
sets, and convex functions.

AMS (2000): 26A51

Key-words: Analysis, Convexity, Definition, S-convexity.

I. Introduction
• Definitions & Symbols;

• List of our published results and due remarks;

• Epigraph;

• Discussion on Jensen’s Inequality;

• New result;

• Updated results;

• Conclusions;

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

1
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])

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) (1)
holds ∀x, y ∈ X, ∀λ ∈ [0, 1], where X ⊆ <+ .

Definition 2. 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 3. 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 1. If1 the inequality is obeyed in the reverse situation by f then f

is said to be s2 −concave.
1
This remark applies to both definitions preceding it.

2
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:

Lx (s) ≥ sup(Lx (s) − f (x)) ≥ sup(Lx (s) − f (x)).

J ∂J

III. List of results and due remarks

1. [4] 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.

Pointed problems: None.

2. [4] 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: We had a bit of difficulty deciding on whether

we would simply extend the concept for convex sets or not because the
concept for convex sets seems to match perfectly well the concept for
convex shapes, but the concept of convex functions seem to have little
in common with the other two. If the concept of convex functions were
to be harmonized with that of convex sets and shapes then we would
need to consider that a convex function would be only the straight
line containing the convex combination of two initial function values,
what seems weird, to the least. It must have been the case that the
concepts of convex shape and convex set were developed in a time
preceding that of the creation of the concept of convex functions and,
by the time they create the concept for convex functions, they first

3
 had the geometric need to then associate to the ‘closest’ geometric
idea which existed in the scientific literature. This because we did
not find enough coherence between all the other convex notions and
that of convex functions. Notice that the graph of a convex function
should have to do with the definition of convex shapes. Problem is that
not mattering what you try there, you end up reaching the conclusion
that the only thing which could make univocal sense with the shape
concept would be the function with graphical representation being the
straight line, otherwise any logical reason supporting a concave curve
to be the representation for a convex function could also be supporting
a convex curve to be such. Notwithstanding, we will simply accept
the existing literature for not finding better alternative and keep our
previously presented concept for S-convex sets in this paper, having
already extended the concept for convex functions in the distant past
respecting the existing definition for convex functions when doing so.

3. ([4]) 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.

Pointed problems: The same remarks, exposed for the second case
of S-convexity, will apply here. We are having problems in accepting
this definition because the function which is the basis of it departs
from vectors and reaches real numbers. Of course it is very possible
to create even a Cartesian correspondence between those vectors from
the domain and the real numbers from the counter-domain (for ex-
ample, locating the first coordinate of the vector in the ‘x’ axis and
then ‘walking’ the distance corresponding to all the other coordinates
together, like, for instance, the coordinates put one after the other in
a decimal number). However, we do not know enough on the existence
of such a system of representation to then come up with an extension
which should, first of all, respect the geometric idea of convexity.

4. ([4]) 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.

4
 Pointed problems: The definition must be adapted to the evolution
in our definitions. We will have to split this definition into two cases.
To make it worse, this definition bears several mistakes of different
orders. It has been inspired by other people’s work, published work,
once more, also publishers of weight (see [5], p. 77, for instance).
However, it is clearly the case that one cannot mix the dimensions as
it is done in this definition, or in the original alike definition for convex
functions, in which we have based ourselves. Notice that the line is the
limit for the case in two dimensions (from which we only mention one
in the definition, the graph being in two) and, in general, in Topology
(a convex graphical object is that which does contain, in itself, every
segment formed between any two points of it (see, for instance, p.
38 of [5])). According to [6], p.37, this definition should be about
convex sets, rather than functions. However, in [7], for instance, we
have a new variation of this same sort of definition, with a completely
different concept, when compared to all definitions we have mentioned
this far here, but more coherent with the initial idea for two dimensions.
Basically, we feel as if there is not enough either coherent, or consistent,
literature pieces providing similar references for the concept we should
be ‘extending’, only, here. This way, we will refrain from working
with several dimensions by now. We will have a similar definition
using multiple domain points instead to replace this one (see Jensen’s
inequality).

5. ([2]) 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

Pointed problems: The proof presented by us for this theorem is

wrong because we have based ourselves in the equivocated ‘extension’
of the definition of Convexity to several dimensions in the domain of the
function (only there). We have recently noticed another major problem
in the mathematical literature so far as well. This problem regards
deciding on whether Jensen’s Inequality is about several dimensions or
about several points in < and a usual bidimensional graph, with a one
dimensional function. We will prove this result, however, as we prove
Jensen’s extended inequality for S-convex functions, later on, in this
very paper.

5
6. ([2]) For a real 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 p .
i=1 ai ( i=1 ai )s
Pointed problems: The same remarks, made for the previous item,
apply here.

7. ([3]) If f is an s1 −convex, non-negative, function and (x1 , x2 , ..., 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

Pointed problems: None so far.

8. ([3]) If f is an s2 −convex, non-negative, function and (x1 , x2 , ..., 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
Pointed problems: None so far. At most, we could try to create a
similar inequality for the second case of the definition of s2 −convex
functions, that is, for when they are non-positive.

9. ([3]) If f is an s1 −convex, non-negative, function and (a1 , a2 , ..., an )

lies in its domain, then:

(ns −1)[f (b1 )+f (b2 )+...+f (bn )] ≤ ns [f (a1 )+f (a2 )+...+f (an )]−nf (a),
1
a1 +a2 +...+an n s a−ai
where a = 1 and bi = 1 , i = 1, ..., n.
ns (n−1) s

Pointed problems: None so far.

6
10. ([3]) If f is an s2 −convex, non-negative, function and (a1 , a2 , ..., an )
lies in its domain, then:

(n−1)s [f (b1 )+f (b2 )+...+f (bn )] ≤ n[f (a1 )+f (a2 )+...+f (an )]−ns f (a),
a1 +a2 +...+an na−ai
where a = n and bi = n−1 , i = 1, ..., n.

Pointed problems: None so far (the same remark, made above, ap-
plies).

11. [4] 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 →
−
v1 + λs2 →
−
v2 + ... + λsn −
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.

Pointed problems: First of all, the wording in this definition is not

the best, it may be improved substantially. Second, the notion does
not seem to make much sense when compared to the concept of convex
combinations. Reasons are plenty. Just for starters, with convexity
both sides of the inequality contain the ‘same’ alignment elements (co-
efficients), so that there is no choice to be made, in terms of which
combination we will write about. The same obviously does not hap-
pen with S-convexity. As a third remark, the algebraic meaning is the
same, it is just the exponent which is inserted as a novelty. Geometri-
cally, none of the definitions seem to make much sense with the concept
of S-convexity (convexity included), unless we have vectors starting al-
ways from some fixed point, such as it happens with the Complex
Numbers in the Argand Diagram, which apparently is also erroneously
called Argand Diagram, deserving being called Wessel’s Diagram in-
stead, as for the historical events surrounding its appearance in the
mathematical literature ([12]). Basically, it would be best, for us all,
from Mathematics, that this definition did not exist and we simply
stuck to linear combinations instead (see [13], for instance). The ma-
jor issue we would like to raise here, even though we will improve the
wording of the concepts and re-list them in this paper, is that of how
suitable the term ‘S-convex (convexity included)’ is for this specific
situation of limitation of a linear combination to coefficients which are
not only located between zero and one, as if in the ijk basis for vectors,
but also sum one (interesting that the ijk basis also sums one for each

7
 coordinate if we sum the basis vectors). Notice that convex combina-
tions are directly related to convex sets and convex shapes because by
making convex combinations of the elements of a set, or points in a
space, we will reach convex sets or shapes.

12. [4] The set of all s1 −convex combinations of the vectors is their s1 −convex
span denoted by SCS1 (→ −
v1 , →
−
v2 , ..., −
v→
n ).

Pointed problems: None.

13. [4] 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
p=1 λp = 1 and λp ≥ 0, ∀p/p ∈ N, 1 ≤ p ≤ n, is an s2 -convex combi-
nation of vectors.

Pointed problems: The same remarks, made for s1 -convex combi-

nations, apply here.

14. [4] The set of all s2 −convex combinations of the vectors is their s2 -
convex span denoted by SCS2 (→ −v1 , →
−
v2 , ..., −
v→
n ).

Pointed problems: None.

15. [4] A finite set is s1 -convexly independent if none of the points is an

s1 -convex combination of the others. A finite set, which is not s1 -
convexly independent, is s1 -convexly dependent.

Pointed problems: We have reassessed the definition of the phe-

nomenon S-convexity in Mathematics and have proved that continuity
is a necessity, having therefore automatically excluded any cases of fi-
nite sets or discontinuous functions from our realm of possibilities. For
this reason, we will be both adding a more suitable definition for con-
vexly independent sets to our own produced scientific literature and
withdrawing this one from our list of results in this paper.

16. [4] A finite set is s2 -convexly independent if none of the points is an

s2 -convex combination of the others. A finite set, which is not s2 -
convexly independent, is s2 -convexly dependent.

8
 Pointed problems: We have reassessed the definition of the phe-
nomenon S-convexity in Mathematics and have proved that continuity
is a necessity, having therefore automatically excluded any cases of fi-
nite sets or discontinuous functions from our realm of possibilities. For
this reason, we will be both adding a more suitable definition for con-
vexly independent sets to our own produced scientific literature and
withdrawing this one from our list of results in this paper.

17. [4] The closure of an s1 −convex set is s1 −convex.

Pointed problems: None.

18. [4] The closure of an s2 −convex set is s2 −convex.

Pointed problems: None.

19. [4] f : X ⊂ <+ − > < is considered s1 −convex iff the epigraph of f
is s1 −convex, that is, iff epi(f ) = {(x, t)/x ∈ X, t ∈ <, t ≥ f (x)} is
s1 −convex.

Pointed problems: We were very unfortunate with the choice of this

theorem and the literature we have researched in terms of epigraph
proofs and definitions in the past. Basically, the definition we have
used is incompatible with the generalized understanding of the con-
cept, as for the majority of the scientific literature available. In this
particular definition, we notice that epigraph would be a set of ‘pairs’,
somehow ordered, once first you have the set element and next you
hold a real constant. However, it is not an ordered pair, as in Carte-
sian notation, for when you read the proofs involving the concept, only
one coordinate is used. It is also not a set because both the delimiters
being inappropriate for a set and the proofs never dealing with the
couple as a set, or subset. The generalized understanding of the con-
cept, as for every mathematical proof we have found in the literature
so far, returns what we have proposed as understanding in our proof as
well. But the adequate statement of the definition would then have to
be something else, which we shall introduce in this paper, along with
a more adequate proof.

20. [4] f : X ⊂ <+ − > < is considered s2 −convex iff the epigraph of f
is s2 −convex, that is, iff epi(f ) = {(x, t)/x ∈ X, t ∈ <, t ≥ f (x)} is

9
 s2 −convex.

Pointed problems: The same remarks, as for the previous item,

apply here.

21. [4] The interior of an s1 −convex set is also an s1 −convex set.

Pointed problems: None.

22. [4] The interior of an s2 −convex set is also an s2 −convex set.

Pointed problems: None.

23. [4] For every E ⊂ V , where V is a vector space, the union, s1 ch(E), of
all s1 -convex combinations of the elements of E, that is,

XN N
X
s
s1 ch(E) = { λj xj ; λj ≥ 0; λsj = 1; xj ∈ E; N = 1, 2, ...},
0 0

is an s1 −convex set.

Pointed problems: None.

24. [4] For every E ⊂ V , where V is a vector space, the union, s2 ch(E), of
all s2 -convex combinations of the elements of E, that is,

XN N
X
s2 ch(E) = { λsj xj ; λj ≥ 0; λj = 1; xj ∈ E; N = 1, 2, ...},
0 0

is an s2 −convex set.

Pointed problems: None.

IV. Epigraph
From [14], p.74 (partial copy): Given f : <n − > <
S
∞, the epigraph of f
is the nonempty set

epif = {(x, r) ∈ <n × < : r ≥ f (x)}.

10
Pointed problems: What they probably meant was several elements from
<, or multiple, rather than vectors, therefore they have mistakenly swapped
the domain of f from < to <n . This is the same mistake we have observed
before regarding our possible ‘several dimensions’ definition for Convexity.
The notation (x, r) is inadequate, for we already know they do not mean
an ordered pair, and this notation is not adequate for subsets, or even sets,
either. It basically should mean at most interval in Mathematics, but it is
also not the case. It is impossible to accept this definition.
From [15], p. 3: The epigraph of a function f : C− > < is the (n +
1)−dimensional set

{(x, τ )/f (x) ≤ τ, x ∈ C, τ ∈ <}.

Pointed problems: Here, things could have got better with the introduc-
tion of the Complex numbers in place of the multidimensional vectors, but
then it is missing referring to the modulus for the Complex numbers some-
how in the definition. Assuming you could be dealing with only the real
part of the complex numbers also does not help because we still have the
equivocated symbol for what is neither a set nor an ordered pair...
From [16], p. 8 of Chapter 3, we get a proof which is similar to what we usu-
ally find for epigraphs regarding the theorem “f convex ⇐⇒ epif convex.”

Proof. Given {(X, u), (Y, v)} ⊂ epif , we must show for all µ ∈ [0, 1] that
µ(X, u) + (1 − µ)(Y, v) ∈ epif ; id est, we must show f (µX + (1 − µ)Y ) <M
+
µu+(1−µ)v (any constant, basically. As long as we get a constant to this
side, such would be enough)2 . Yet, this holds by definition because

f (µX + (1 − µ)Y )  µf (X) + (1 − µ)f (Y )

(and f (X) ≤ u, f (Y ) ≤ v, by assumption of the proof).

The converse also holds.

See that, when making the proof, all which counts is actually the fact that X
and Y are obeying the rules for convexity. What they obviously mean with
epigraph is what we will describe below, in accurate mathematical terms,
instead of what they have been stating this far.

2
Notice that the original definition allows even for this constant to be infinity, so that
there is no chance we will not get it!

11
Definition 5. Given a function f : X ⊂ <− > <, the epigraph of f ,
denoted by epif , is the set of elements of X grouped by a limiting constant
determining the sub-level set (see [14], p. 2, for instance) for the element,
that is:
epitn f = {x ∈ X/tn ≥ f (x)}.
epif = {epit1 , epit2 , ..., epitn },
where n may be infinity and we consider our extended counter-domain sets,
rather than the counter-domain sets, for consistency purposes.

What they should have meant, for what is above is not compatible with all
the proofs they have been using, is only the epitn notion above. And because
no convex, or S-convex function, will have any point with image in infinity,
but even infinity would have got a level set (special one, acquired via ‘ex-
tension’ of the functions, as it is in the literature), all domain points of such
functions will be part of some level set. In this case, we would need to prove
that it is possible to form convex, or S-convex, combinations with each couple
of domain points and with them always get to obey the rule for classification
of the level set as convex, or even S-convex, in order to prove that if a func-
tion is convex, or S-convex, then the epigraph of the function is a convex,
or S-convex, set. Notice that if we disregard all traditional rules of Maths
and accept a set of sets as a set of usual elements instead, where therefore
the delimiters are ‘decoration’, it is obvious that this will be true. Notice, as
well, that k ≥ f (x1 )∧k ≥ f (x2 ) ⇐⇒ λk ≥ λf (x1 )∧(1−λ)k ≥ (1−λ)f (x2 ).
Once f ∈ K11 , f (λx1 +(1−λ)x2 ) ≤ λf (x1 )+(1−λ)f (x2 ) ≤ λk+(1−λ)k = k.
Therefore, λx1 + (1 − λ)x2 ∈ epik as we wanted to show.
Notice that the converse is not actually true. There is no direct implica-
tion between the epigraph of the function being convex and the function
being convex. However, if they ‘confound’ the reader and state that the
epigraph is epif instead, one may think that once the deductions would lead
to λf (x1 ) + (1 − λ)f (x2 ) ∈ epi2k f while λx1 + (1 − λ)x2 ∈ epik f then it is
all in epif (provided the initial mistake, gross mistake, on the foundations
of Maths, is preserved), the mix, and then f is convex. It is just confusional
thoughts, and all is deriving from the fact that someone would like to con-
nect the notion of convex sets to that of convex functions, what we ALSO
have felt the need of doing, having already been through this. Thus, it is
actually the case that f convex =⇒ epif convex but not the converse and,
even so, one must understand that epif we refer to should be the fixed epif ,
our old epitn f .
Notice, as well, that we can only assert then that f ∈ Ks1 =⇒ epif is

12
s1 −convex, nothing else, once we would need the coefficients to sum one to
have similar proof for Ks2 or, alternatively, less than one. Once more, in the
‘confusional’ epif , any condition will always be preserved, trivially, making
the notion not only something irrelevant, trivial, in the mathematical liter-
ature, but something blatantly wrong in the foundations of the Maths (we
may invent, but never disregarding what has already been built in Maths).

V. Discussion on Jensen’s Inequality

The biggest drama in understanding Jensen’s Inequality regards a clear di-
vergence, in the foundations of Mathematics, as to what Jensen has actually
stated: While a few researchers seem to consider that Jensen has proposed
an inequality for functions with domain set containing vectors, therefore
of possibly several dimensions, other researchers seem to think that Jensen
has proposed an inequality for functions with domain set containing real
numbers, therefore one dimension. The dimensions are, by no means, like
anything in Mathematics, something irrelevant, in fact they are one of the
most relevant factors in mathematical concepts in general, with us having
the trouble of dedicating a whole paper to fix the dimensions problem in
the definition of convex functions in the recent past. We will here try to
reproduce the different ways Jensen’s Inequality is found mentioned in the
scientific literature. Hopefully, we will be able to provide our readers with
the actual inequality intended by Jensen, which is probably only one of the
versions presented so far by the literature items.
Theorem 5.1. ([8]) Let f be a convex function on an open interval I in <.
Then for any x1 , ..., xn ∈ I and λ1 , ..., λn ∈ [0, 1] such that λ1 + ... + λn = 1,
we have
f (λ1 x1 + ... + λn xn ) ≤ λ1 f (x1 ) + ... + λn f (xn ).
Theorem 5.2. ([9]) If f : <n − > < is convex then
X p  Xp
i
f λi x ≤ λi f (xi ).
i=1 i=1

Theorem 5.3. ([10]) For convex functions f , the inequality

X n  X n
f λ i xi ≤ λi f (xi ),
1 1

where the xi are arbitrary values in theP

region on which f is convex and the
λi are nonnegative numbers satisfying n1 λi = 1.

13
Given the poverty of the literature available on the life and works of Jensen
(we actually have not been able to work out not even who Jensen was: Ac-
cording to some sources, he was a statistician, and according to others he was
both an engineer and a mathematician), when compared to everyone else’s
in Mathematics we know of, we will have to limit ourselves to ‘guessing’ who
would be righter about what Jensen has actually created, or stated, regard-
ing convex functions. Common sense tells us that sticking to the last version
of the inequality should return more value in research and applications than
not. If anything, it suffices that we change the name of the theorist in the
future. Region obviously includes vectors of several dimensions as domain
elements as well as lonely real values.
Now that we have defined what Jensen’s Inequality actually is, we need to
decide on a sound proof for it. Notice that the statements we have pre-
sented, collected from the scientific literature, bring Jensen’s Inequality as
an inequality for convex functions. Therefore, it is not an actual definition,
in case we can find a proof to it, but a property of the convex functions, or
an implied result from the fact that we hold a convex function, what makes
it impossible for us to think of simply ‘extending’ it to S-convexity, like it
should be more complex than that.
Proof of Jensen we have chosen (from [8], p. 320):

Proof. Let the n points x1 , x2 , ..., xn in I be so numbered

Pn that x1 ≤ x2 ≤
... ≤Pxn . Let λ1 , λ2 , ..., λn ∈ [0, 1] be such that i=1 λi = 1. If we let
ξ = ni=1 λi xi then ξ ∈ [x1 , xn ] ⊂ I. Take an arbitrary real number m ∈
[(Dl f )(ξ), (Dr f )(ξ)]. By (b) of Theorem 14.8, we have f (x) ≥ m(x−ξ)+f (ξ)
for x ∈ I. Then
n
X n
X
λk f (xk ) ≥ λk {m(xk − ξ) + f (ξ)}
k=1 k=1

n
X
=m λk (xk − ξ) + f (ξ)
k=1
n
X
= f (ξ) = f ( λi xi ).
i=1

We will need to reproduce the theorem which is mentioned in this proof and
the proof for it as well to make it complete, so there we go:

14
Theorem 5.4. (Theorem 14.8) Let f be a convex function on an interval
I in <. Then we have: ...(b) For every xo ∈ I and every real number
m ∈ [(Dl f (xo ), Dr f (xo )], we have f (x) ≥ m(x − xo ) + f (xo ) for x ∈ I.

Proof. Let xo ∈ I and let m ∈ [(Dl f )(xo ), (Dr f )(xo )]. Let x ∈ I. If x < xo ,
then by (3) of Theorem 14.5, we have f (x)−f (xo )
x−xo ≤ (Dl f )(xo ) ≤ m. Then
since x − xo < 0, we have f (x) − f (xo ) ≥ m(x − xo ). On the other hand, if
x ≥ xo , then by (3) of Theorem 14.5, we have f (x)−f x−xo
(xo )
≥ (Dr f )(xo ) ≥ m
so that f (x) − f (xo ) ≥ m(x − xo ). Thus, we have shown that for x ∈ I
such that x 6= xo , we have f (x) − f (xo ) ≥ m(x − xo ). This inequality holds
trivially for x = xo . We then have f (x) ≥ m(x − xo ) + f (xo ) for x ∈ I.

Theorem 5.5. (Theorem 14.5) Let f be a convex function on an interval I

in <. Then we have: ...(3) (Dr f )(x1 ) ≤ f (xx22)−f
−x1
(x1 )
≤ (Dl f (x2 )).

Proof. To prove the right differentiability of f at any xo ∈ I, let x1 , x2 ∈ I

be such that xo < x1 < x2 . Identifying xo , x1 , x2 respectively with u, v, w
in the first inequality in Proposition 14.4, we have f (xx11)−f
−xo
(xo )
≤ f (xx22)−f
−xo
(xo )
.
f (x)−f (xo )
This shows that x−xo ↓ as x ↓ xo so that the right derivative of f at
xo , that is, (Dr f )(xo ) = limx↓xo f (x)−f
x−xo
(xo )
exists in < and moreover we have
(Dr f )(xo ) ≤ f (x)−f
x−xo
(xo )
for any x > xo . This proves the first inequality in (3).
Let u, x ∈ I be such that u < xo < x. Identifying u, xo , x respectively with
u, v, w in the Proposition 14.4, we have f (xxoo)−f −u
(u)
≤ f (x)−f
x−xo
(xo )
. Thus, for
f (x)−f (xo ) f (xo )−f (u)
x > xo , x−xo is bounded below by the constant xo −u . Therefore,
we have (Dr f )(xo ) = limx↓xo f (x)−f (xo )
∈ < and f is right-differentiable at
x−xo
xo . Similar proof does for left-differentiability.

Theorem 5.6. (Proposition 14.4) Let f be a convex function on an interval

I in <. Then, for any u, v, w ∈ I such that u < v < w, we have

f (v) − f (u) f (w) − f (u) f (w) − f (v)

≤ ≤ .
v−u w−u w−v
Proof. Since v ∈ (u, w), ∃λ ∈ (0, 1) such that v = λu+(1−λ)w. Solving this
w−v v−u
equation for λ, we have λ = w−u and then 1 − λ = w−u . By the convexity
condition satisfied by f , we have
w−v v−u
f (v) ≤ λf (u) + (1 − λ)f (w) = f (u) + f (w)
w−u w−u
and then

15
 (1) (w − u)f (v) ≤ (w − v)f (u) + (v − u)f (w).
To derive the first inequality of the Proposition, let us write (1) as

(w − u)f (v) ≤ [(w − u) − (v − u)]f (u) + (v − u)f (w).

Then we have

(w − u)(f (v) − f (u)) ≤ (v − u)(f (w) − f (u)).

Cross-multiplying, we have the first inequality of the Proposition. To derive

the second inequality of the Proposition, rewrite (1) as

(w − u)f (v) ≤ (w − v)f (u) + [(w − u) − (w − v)]f (w)

and then
(w − u)(f (v) − f (w)) ≤ (w − v)f (u) − f (w).
Cross-multiplying and then multiplying by -1 we have the second inequality
of the Proposition.

The proof above may be adapted to fit s1 −convexity easily. See:

Theorem 5.7. Let f be an s1 −convex function on an interval I in <. Then

for any x1 , ..., xn ∈ I and λ1 , ..., λn ∈ [0, 1] such that λs1 + ... + λsn = 1, we
have
f (λ1 x1 + ... + λn xn ) ≤ λs1 f (x1 ) + ... + λsn f (xn ).

Proof. We assume our s1 −convex function, f , is non-decreasing. Therefore,

choosing xo , x1 , x2 from Df , such that x2 < x1 < xo , we get f (x2 ) ≤ f (x1 ) ≤
f (xo ). Thus:
1 1
• x2 < x1 < xo =⇒ xo − x1 < xo − x2 =⇒ xo −x1 > xo −x2 ;

f (x2 )−f (xo ) f (x1 )−f (xo ) f (xo )−f (x2 )

• f (x2 ) ≤ f (x1 ) ≤ f (xo ) =⇒ xo −x2 ≤ xo −x1 =⇒ xo −x2 ≥
f (xo )−f (x1 )
xo −x1 ;
1 1
• x1 < u < xo =⇒ xo − x1 > xo − u =⇒ xo −x1 < xo −u ;

f (u)−f (xo ) f (x1 )−f (xo ) f (xo )−f (u)

• f (x1 ) ≤ f (u) ≤ f (xo ) =⇒ xo −u ≥ xo −x1 =⇒ xo −u ≤
f (xo )−f (x1 )
xo −x1 ;

16
• Given the second item above, we hold a monotonic non-decreasing se-
quence, as for the ratio of the differences forming our limit for our
derivative in the point xo . Given the fourth item above, the sequence
is also limited from above, therefore it converges by the trivial conse-
quences of the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem ([11]). As the points con-
sidered approach xo from below, we do have a left differential and we
may assert that n ∈ N, n 6= o, xn < xo =⇒ f (xxnn)−f
−xo
(xo )
≤ Dl f (xo ) =
M;
1 1
• xo < x1 < x2 =⇒ x1 − x0 < x2 − xo =⇒ x1 −xo > x2 −xo ;

f (xo )−f (x2 ) f (xo )−f (x1 ) f (x2 )−f (xo )

• f (xo ) ≤ f (x1 ) ≤ f (x2 ) =⇒ x2 −xo ≤ x1 −xo =⇒ x2 −xo ≥
f (x1 )−f (xo )
x1 −xo ;
1 1 1
• xo < u < x1 =⇒ x1 − xo > u − xo =⇒ x1 −xo < u−xo =⇒ xo −x1 >
1
xo −u ;

f (u)−f (xo ) f (x1 )−f (xo ) f (xo )−f (u)

• f (xo ) ≤ f (u) ≤ f (x1 ) =⇒ xo −u ≤ xo −x1 =⇒ xo −u ≥
f (xo )−f (x1 )
xo −x1 ;

• Given the second item above, we hold a monotonic non-decreasing se-

quence, as for the ratio of the differences forming our limit for our
derivative in the point xo . Given the fourth item above, the sequence
is also limited from above, therefore it converges by the trivial con-
sequences of the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem ([11]). As the points
considered approach xo from above, we do have a right differential
and we may assert that n ∈ N, n 6= o, xn > xo =⇒ f (xxnn)−f (xo )
−xo ≥
Dr f (xo ) = M 0 ;
Having proved the same needed lemmas for Ks1 , we just need to extend
the proof to this set of classes now. See:

Let the n points x1 , x2 , ..., xn in I ⊂ <+ be so numbered P that x1 ≤

x2 ≤ ... ≤ xnP . Let λ1 , λ2 , ..., λn ∈ [0, 1] be such that ni=1 λsi = 1.
If we let ξ = ni=1 λsi xi then ξ ∈ [x1 , xn ] ⊂ I. Take an arbitrary real
number m ∈ [(Dl f )(ξ), (Dr f )(ξ)]. Notice that because our assumption
is that f never decreases, we know that m ≥ 0, for if it is negative the
function must have changed the slope in a negative direction, that is,
the point which comes later went further down than the point before it,
so that the subtraction of the numerator of the ratio determining the
derivative would return a negative value. Also notice that if all domain

17
 points are equal the inequality is trivially verified. By the analogous
for Ks1 of (b) of Theorem 14.8, we have f (x) ≥ m(x − ξ) + f (ξ) for
x ∈ I. Then f (x) ≥ m(x − ξ) + f (ξ) for x ∈ I. Then
n
X n
X
λsk f (xk ) ≥ λsk [m(xk − ξ) + f (ξ)]
k=1 k=1

n
X
=m λsk [(xk − ξ)] + f (ξ)
k=1
n
X
= f (ξ) = f ( λsi xi )
i=1

Because f is non-decreasing, we actually reach our result:

n
X n
X n
X
λsk f (xk ) ≥ f( λsi xi ) ≥ f( λi xi ).
k=1 i=1 i=1

The same lemmas used for the proof of the extension of Jensen’s to Ks1
functions may easily be considered valid for the monotonic cases, all of them,
as well as for any f which is differentiable, at most subtle changes being due
in the proofs for the Ks2 functions. On the other hand, if we prove that no
s2 -convex function will ever be short of lateral limits, we get the extension
guaranteed for our second type of S−convex functions, the proof being then
made below and the theorem also being stated below, with due adaptations.
Lemma 1. Every non-negative s2 −convex function has got both lateral lim-
its, as for differential calculus, in all its domain points.

Proof. Suppose that a certain s2 −convex function does not hold either the
lateral limit to the left or the lateral limit to the right of a certain point
xo of its domain, as for differential
 calculus.  We then hold at least one
 f (xk )−f (xo ) 
xk ∈ Df /|xk − xo | <  but  xk −xo − L > δ(), ∀δ(). It happens
that, by using the definition of s2 −convex function, we may get any point
as close to the other as we wish in the domain and we still get an upper
limit for the ratio. See: Consider xk . We then have xo < xk < xk+1 , or any
variation of this triplet which preserves order. Such implies, by the definition
of s2 −convexity majorized for the right bound, f (xk ) ≤ f (xo )+f (xk+1 ) =⇒

18
f (xk )−f (xo ) k+1 f (x )
xk −xo ≤ xk −x o
. Subtracting L from both sides, and evaluating the
right member, we get our guaranteed δ(), with  interfering with the size of
the element to the right of the inequality. Therefore contradiction and such
is impossible.
Theorem 5.8. Let f be an s2 −convex function on an interval I in <+ .
Then for any x1 , ..., xn ∈ I and λ1 , ..., λn ∈ [0, 1] such that λ1 + ... + λn = 1,
we have
f (λ1 x1 + ... + λn xn ) ≤ λs1 f (x1 ) + ... + λsn f (xn ).
Proof. Let the n points x1 , x2 , ..., xn in I ⊂ <+ be so numbered
Pn that x1 ≤
x2 ≤ ... P
≤ xn . Let λ1 , λ2 , ..., λn ∈ [0, 1] be such that i=1 λi = 1. If we
n
let ξ = i=1 λi xi then ξ ∈ [x1 , xn ] ⊂ I. Take an arbitrary real number
m ∈ [(Dl f )(ξ), (Dr f )(ξ)]. By the analogous for Ks2 of (b) of Theorem 14.8,
we have f (x) ≥ m(x − ξ) + f (ξ) for x ∈ I. Then f (x) ≥ m(x − ξ) + f (ξ) for
x ∈ I. Then
X n Xn Xn
s
λk f (xk ) ≥ λk f (xk ) ≥ λk {m(xk − ξ) + f (ξ)}
k=1 k=1 k=1
n
X
=m λk (xk − ξ) + f (ξ)
k=1
n
X
= f (ξ) = f ( λi xi ).
i=1

Theorem 5.9. Let f be an s2 −convex function on an interval I in <− .

Then for any x1 , ..., xn ∈ I and λ1 , ..., λn ∈ [0, 1] such that λ1 + ... + λn = 1,
we have 1 1
f (λ1 x1 + ... + λn xn ) ≤ λ1s f (x1 ) + ... + λns f (xn ).
1
1 1 1
Pk Pk−1 pis
Proof. s s s
i=1 pi f (xi ) = pk f (xk )+(1−pk ) i=1 p00i f (xi ), where p00i = 1 .
(1−pks )
By induction, suppose that it is true for the sum up to (k − 1) that
k−1 1
X k−1
X 
pis f (xi ) ≥ f pi xi .
i=1 i=1
Pk 1 1 1 Pk−1
pi
Then: Make p0i = 1 to get s
i=1 pi f (xi ) = pks f (xk )+(1−pks ) i=1 p00i f (xi ) ≥
(1−pks )s
1 1
k−1
p0i xi ) ≥ f ( ki=1 pi xi ), once f ∈ Ks2 .
P P
pks f (xk ) + (1 − pk )f ( s
i=1

19
VI. New result
Definition 6. Given a function f : X ⊂ <− > <, the epigraph of f ,
denoted by epif , is the set of elements of X grouped by a limiting constant
determining the sub-level set for the elements, that is:

epitn f = {x ∈ X, tn ∈ </tn ≥ f (x)}

where n may be infinity.

VII. Updated results

1. 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;

2. 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;

3. 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. For a real non-negative 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=1
p ≤ P p ;
i=1 ai ( i=1 ai )s
5. Let f be an s1 −convex function on an interval I in <. Then for any
x1 , ..., xn ∈ I and λ1 , ..., λn ∈ [0, 1] such that λs1 + ... + λsn = 1, we have

f (λ1 x1 + ... + λn xn ) ≤ λs1 f (x1 ) + ... + λsn f (xn );

20
 6. Let f be an s2 −convex function on an interval I in <+ . Then for any
x1 , ..., xn ∈ I and λ1 , ..., λn ∈ [0, 1] such that λ1 + ... + λn = 1, we have

f (λ1 x1 + ... + λn xn ) ≤ λs1 f (x1 ) + ... + λsn f (xn );

7. Let f be an s2 −convex function on an interval I in <− . Then for any

x1 , ..., xn ∈ I and λ1 , ..., λn ∈ [0, 1] such that λ1 + ... + λn = 1, we have
1 1
f (λ1 x1 + ... + λn xn ) ≤ λ1s f (x1 ) + ... + λns f (xn );

8. An s1 −convex combination of a set of vectors → −

v1 , →
−
v2 , ..., −
v→
n is a special
linear combination of those vectors in which the coefficients, which ap-
pear with a fixed exponent ‘s’, 0 < s ≤ 1, are all nonnegative and, put
together
Pnin a sum, they give us one as result, that is: λs1 →−v1 + λs2 →
−
v2 + ... +
s →
− s
λn v , p=1 λp = 1, λp ≥ 0, is an s1 -convex combination of vectors;
9. The set of all s1 −convex combinations of the vectors is their s1 −convex
span denoted by SCS1 (→ −
v1 , →
−
v2 , ..., −
v→
n );
10. An s −convex combination of a set of vectors →
2
−
v ,→
−
v , ..., −
v→ is a special
1 2 n
linear combination of those vectors in which the coefficients, which ap-
pear with a fixed exponent ‘s’, 0 < s ≤ 1, are all nonnegative and, put
together in a sum, they give us one as result, that is: λs1 →
−
v1 + λs2 →
−
v2 + ... +
→
− n
λn v , p=1 λp = 1, λp ≥ 0, is an s2 -convex combination of vectors3 ;
s
P

11. The set of all s2 -convex combinations of the vectors is their s2 −convex
span denoted by SCS2 (→ −
v1 , →
−
v2 , ..., −
v→
n );
12. If f is an s1 −convex, non-negative, function and {x1 , x2 , ..., xn } ⊂ Df
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
13. If f is an s2 −convex, non-negative, function and {x1 , x2 , ..., xn } ⊂ Df
then:
n  
X x1 + x2 + ... + xn
f (xi ) − f
n
i=1
3
The remark from p. 259 of [4] and the definitions for S-convexly independent sets are
to simply be kept as they appear there, so that we will not repeat them here

21
 2s−1 (ns − 1)
      
x1 + x2 xn−1 + xn xn + x1
≥ f + ... + f +f ;
ns 2 2 2
14. If f is an s1 −convex, non-negative, function and {a1 , a2 , ..., an } ⊂ Df
then:

(ns −1)[f (b1 )+f (b2 )+...+f (bn )] ≤ ns [f (a1 )+f (a2 )+...+f (an )]−nf (a),
1
a1 +a2 +...+an n s a−ai
where a = 1 and bi = 1 , i = 1, ..., n;
ns (n−1) s
15. If f is an s2 −convex, non-negative, function and {a1 , a2 , ..., an } ⊂ Df
then:

(n−1)s [f (b1 )+f (b2 )+...+f (bn )] ≤ n[f (a1 )+f (a2 )+...+f (an )]−ns f (a),
a1 +a2 +...+an na−ai
where a = n and bi = n−1 , i = 1, ..., n;
16. The closure of an s1 −convex set is s1 -convex;
17. The closure of an s2 −convex set is s2 -convex;
18. The interior of an s1 −convex set is also an s1 −convex set;
19. The interior of an s2 −convex set is also an s2 −convex set;
20. For every E ⊂ V , where V is a vector space, the union, s1 ch(E), of all
s1 -convex combinations of the elements of E, that is,

Xn n
X
s1 ch(E) = { λsj xj ; λj ≥ 0; λsj = 1; xj ∈ E; n = 1, 2, ...},
0 j=0

is an s1 −convex set;
21. For every E ⊂ V , where V is a vector space, the union, s2 ch(E), of all
s2 -convex combinations of the elements of E, that is,

Xn n
X
s2 ch(E) = { λsj xj ; λj ≥ 0; λj = 1; xj ∈ E; n = 1, 2, ...},
0 0

is an s2 −convex set;
22. ([17], p. 117-118, re-worded) Let E be a vector space over <. Denote
by conv(.) the operation of taking the convex hull of a subset of E. In
other words, for any set X ⊂ E, conv(X) denotes the smallest convex
set in E containing X. Let Z ⊂ E. We shall say that Z is convexly
independent (in E) if, for each point z ∈ Z, we have z 6∈ conv(Z\{z});

22
23. The operation s1 ch(.), the equivalent to the previous notion for s1 −convex
sets, is redundant because the results are the same as in conv(.), that
is, for any set X ⊂ E, where E is a vector space over <, s1 ch(X) ≡
conv(X);
24. The operation s2 ch(.), the equivalent to the previous notion for s2 −convex
sets, is trivial, for it will always give the closure of < as a result (every
time one considers all possible S-convex combinations between the el-
ements of a set, one ends up with an expansion, which would become
the smallest S-convex set were it not the case that the expansion will
generate a larger necessary smallest set again, the smallest set itself
becoming a delusional concept).

VIII. Conclusions
In this paper, we have been able to review, and update, our past research
results, communicated through three of the most prestigious mathematical
journals of nowadays. Besides, we also have discussed a few ideas of meaning
and weight, providing inspirational writing to researchers in the concerned
fields.

23
IX. References
[1] M. R. Pinheiro. On S-convexity and our paper with Aequationes Mathe-
maticae. Submitted. 2009.

[2] M.R. Pinheiro. Jensen’s Inequality in Detail and S-Convex Functions.

International Journal of Mathematical Analysis, V. 3, no. 1 − 4, (2009), pp.
95 − 98.

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

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

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

[5] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe. Convex Optimization. Cambridge Uni-

versity Press. ISBN-10: 0521833787. ISBN-13: 978 − 0521833783, (2004).

[6] L. Hormander. Notions of Convexity. Springer. ISBN: 9780817645847,

(2007).

[7] H. Blumberg. On Convex Functions. Transactions of the American Math-

ematical Society, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Jan., 1919), pp. 40-44. Accessed online in
June of 2009 at http : //www.jstor.org/pss/1988982.

[8] J. Yeh. Real analysis : theory of measure and integration. World Scien-
tific, 2nd ed., ISBN: 9812566538 (hbk.), 9812566546 (pbk.), (2006).

[9] S. Zlobec. Jensen’s inequality for nonconvex functions. Mathematical

Communications, V. 9, pp. 119-124, (2004).

[10] R. C. James. Mathematics dictionary. Chapman & Hall, 5th ed., ISBN:
0412990415 (pbk.), (1992).

[11] T. Rowland and E. W. Weisstein, Eric W. MathWorld–A Wolfram Web

Resource. http : //mathworld.wolf ram.com/Bolzano − W eierstrassT heo
rem.html, accessed online on the 27th of June of 2009.

[12] E. W. Weisstein. “Argand Diagram.” From MathWorld–A Wolfram

Web Resource. http : //mathworld.wolf ram.com/ArgandDiagram.html.

24
Accessed on the 29th of June of 2009, (1999).

[13] J. O. Smith III. DSPRelated.com. http : //www.dsprelated.com/dspbooks/

mdf t/LinearC ombinationV ectors.html. Accessed on the 29th of June of
2009, (1999).

[14] J.-B. Hiriart-Urruty and C. Lemarchal. Fundamentals of convex analy-

sis. Springer, ISBN: 3540422056, (2001).

[15] E. de Klerk. Interior Point Methods: Slides week 2, http : //stuwww.uvt.nl

/ edeklerk/ipms lidesw eek2.pdf . Accessed on the 2nd July 2009.

[16] J. Dattorro. Convex Optimization & Euclidean Distance Geometry.

Meboo Publishing USA, ISBN 0-9764013-0-4 (English), ISBN 978-1-84728-
064-0 (International), (2006).

[17] A. B. Kharazishvili. Nonmeasurable sets and functions. 1st ed, Elsevier,

ISBN: 0444516263, (2004).

25