Third note on the shape of Sconvexity

I.M.R. Pinheiro December 31, 2011

Abstract As promised in Second Note on the Shape of Sconvexity, we now discuss the exponent of the piece of denition for Sconvexity that deals with negative real functions.

MSC(2010): 26A51 Key-words: Analysis, Convexity, Denition, S-convexity, geometry, shape.

I. Introduction
In First Note on the Shape of Sconvexity, we conrmed the value of our re-wording of the piece of denition for the phenomenon Sconvexity that deals with non-negative real functions and we proposed a geometric denition for the phenomenon. In Second Note on the Shape of S-convexity, we conrmed that our added piece of denition for the phenomenon Sconvexity, that for negative real functions, is a proper extension of Convexity and we proposed a geometric denition for that case. Besides, we observed that our limiting curve for Sconvexity, when the real
Postal address: PO Box 12396, ABeckett st, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 8006. Electronic address: illmrpinheiro@gmail.com.

function is negative, is a bit bigger than the limiting curve for Sconvexity when the real function is not negative in terms of length, what means that our lift is not the same for both cases. Our perimeters are still close enough, however, the dierence being noticed by the rst decimal digit only and being less than 0.5 in dimension (considering our approximation for pi, our manual calculation, and the approximation for the perimeter via elliptical curve). In Third Note on the Shape of Sconvexity, we study the perimeter of our limiting curve for the phenomenon Sconvexity aiming equal perimeters for geometrically equivalent situations. The limiting curve originates in the application of the denition of the phenomenon. As a consequence, we will be proposing new renements to the denition of the phenomenon at the end of this note. Piece of the analytical denition of the phenomenon Sconvexity that we here deal with (see [2] and Minima Domain Intervals and the Sconvexity, as well as the Convexity, phenomenon, for instance) Denition 1. A function f : X >
2 belong to Ks if the inequality

, where |f (x)| = f (x), is told to

f (x + (1 )(x + ))
1 1

s f (x) + (1 ) s f (x + ) holds / [0, 1]; x/x X; s = s2 /0 < s2 1;X/X

+

X = [a, b];

/0 < (b x). Piece of the geometrical denition that we here deal with Denition 2. A real function f : X > Y , for which |f (x)| = f (x), is called Sconvex if and only if, for all choices (x1 ; y1 ) and (x2 ; y2 ), where {x1 , x2 } X, {y1 , y2 } Y , Y = Imf , x1 = x2 , and y1 = y2 , it happens that the line drawn between (x1 ; y1 ) and (x2 ; y2 ) by means of the expression (1 ) s y1 + s y2 , where [0, 1], does not contain any point with height, measured against the vertical Cartesian axis, that is inferior to the height of its horizontal equivalent in the curve representing the ordered pairs of f in the interval considered for the line in terms of distance from the origin of the Cartesian axis.
1 1

II. Chasing equal lengths for both cases

In First Note on the Shape of Sconvexity, we have reached the following expression for the Arc Length of our limiting curve (non-negative real functions):
1

p
0

1 + [s(1 )s1 y1 + ss1 y2 ]2 d.

In Second Note on the Shape of Sconvexity, the expression for the Arc Length was (negative real functions):
1
1s 1 1 1s 1 + [ (1 ) s y1 + s y2 ]2 d. s s

p
0

Our tables, containing samples of values for s and their respective Arc Lengths, had been put together through approximating values to no decimals in the third listed value for s, 0.25 and through approximating the value of pi to 3.141516 plus the result of the calculation to two decimal digits in the second listed value for s, 0.5. To chase equal lengths for both cases, we rst observe that if the percentage we select inside of the brackets when the denition of the Sconvexity limiting line is used is the same, what commands the result is the value of the function, rst of all, and then the value of the exponent we raise the percentage to. This way, to compare both cases and chase the same result, we should start by nding functions that hold the same value in moduli in the interval we choose to consider. Whilst in the non-negative case we increase the value of the percentage when raising it to a fractionary exponent, given that it is always at most 100% and at least 0%, in the negative case we decrease it if doing the same because increasing the portion we take from a negative value is making the result smaller, not bigger, as it happens with the positive value. That tells the reader why we guessed
1 s

for the second part of our denition.

To chase the equal lengths, we use the convexity limiting line as a reference line for both cases and equate the moduli of the dierence between the limiting line for the extension of convexity and the limiting line for convexity. We choose the constant functions to work with because they are the nicest functions in the group of functions available to us inside of the phenomenon. With this, suppose that g(x) = A, A > 0 (notice that A = 0 implies that 4

the limiting line for convexity is equal to the limiting line for Sconvexity), and h(x) = A. Also suppose that f (cp ) = (1 )A + A, f (scp ) = (1 )s A + s A, f (cn ) = ( 1)A A, and f (scn ) = (1 )1 A 1 A. We then have |f (scp ) f (cp )| = |f (scn ) f (cn )| and, with this, |(1 )s A + s A [(1 )A + A]| = | (1 )1 A 1 A [( 1)A A]|. What follows is: |(1 )s + s 1| = | (1 )1 1 + 1|. Making =
1 2

for practical purposes, we have:

|2s + 2s 1| = | 21 21 + 1|. What follows is: |2 2s 1| = | 2 21 + 1|. Then: (A) 2 2s 1 = 2 21 + 1 or (B) 2 2s 1 = 2 21 1. From A, we get: 21s 1 = 211 + 1 211 = 2 21s 2 1 =
2 . 221s 1 s

A then leads to our

being replaced with log2

2s+1 2s+1 2

and B leads to our

replacement being s. 1 = s will give us a limiting line that is a 180 rotation over the line f (x) = A of our intended limiting line, therefore has to be disregarded. It is then the case that 1 = log2
2s+1 2s+1 2

With this, our new limiting curve is also C . 5

Our new tables1 , for the cases in which our functions are f (x) = 1 and f (x) = 1, just to exemplify, are: Table 1: f(x)=1 s Arc Length 1 1 0.5 1.43 0.25 1.85

Table 2: f(x)=-1 s Arc Length 1 1 0.5 1.43 0.25 1.85

III. Interval of interest

We realize that the more we take from the negative functions the more negative our values will be, so that we need to take less percentage of the negative functions to go up with the line, therefore we need to increase the exponent of the percentage to increase the size of our limiting line. We have reached the maximum limit of our limiting line in terms of length by adopting 1 as exponent and we then can only be interested in at most 1 as exponent. On the other hand, the minimum exponent should be our nice 1 . s We should then be looking for nicer exponents, if interested, in the real
1 The rst value for Arc Length in the table has been attained through simple substitution in the formula. The second and the third values have been attained through using the naive formula from [1].

interval [ 1 , log2 s

2s+1 2s+1 2

].

We think that the best choice for our exponent in the negative case is 1 , however, and we are proposing that it be 1 in this paper.

IV. Conclusion
There might be exponents that are nicer than our chosen 1 and are still acceptable as replacements for it in the denition of our Sconvexity phenomenon for the situation in which the function is negative. In this note, we have provided bounds inside of which to work when searching for those:
1 s

and log2

2s+1 2s+1 2

The exponent that would make more mathematical sense, if we think of geometry, which seems to be the most important thing when considering convexity, is the one we, from now onwards, adopt, log2
2s+1 2s+1 2

, for it

provides us with the same shape of limiting curve for geometrically equivalent situations. We have decided to deal with the phenomenon Sconvexity as if it were an exclusively extensional concept for issues that have to do with practicality and accuracy (we now forbid s to assume the value 1 in our denition). We have extended the domain of the Sconvex functions to because the

denition can only impose limitations to the image of the functions, not to the domain. We have decided to swap the coecients in our denition because = 0 should bring f (x) to life, trivially, not f (x + ). We have added the interval of denition of s to our geometric denition to

make it be independent from the analytical denition. Based on our new ndings and decisions, we produce a new update in our denition for the phenomenon Sconvexity, update that we present below.

Analytical Denition

Denition 3. A function f : X >

2 belong to Ks if the inequality

, where |f (x)| = f (x), is told to

f ((1 )x + (x + ))

(1 )s f (x) + s f (x + ) holds / [0, 1]; x/x X; s = s2 /0 < s2 < 1;X/X /0 < (b x). Denition 4. A function f : X >
2 belong to Ks if the inequality

X = [a, b];

, where |f (x)| = f (x), is told to

f ((1 )x + (x + ))
2s+1 2s+1 2 2s+1 2s+1 2

log2

log2

(1 )

f (x) +

f (x + ) X = [a, b];

holds / [0, 1]; x/x X; s = s2 /0 < s2 < 1;X/X /0 < (b x).

Remark 1. If the inequalities are obeyed in the reverse situation by f , then 8

f is said to be s2 concave.

Geometric Denition

Denition 5. A real function f : X > Y , for which |f (x)| = f (x), is called Sconvex2 if and only if, for all choices (x1 ; y1 ) and (x2 ; y2 ), where {x1 , x2 } X, {y1 , y2 } Y , Y = Imf , x1 = x2 , and y1 = y2 , it happens that the line drawn between (x1 ; y1 ) and (x2 ; y2 ) by means of the expression (1 )s y1 + s y2 , where [0, 1], does not contain any point with height, measured against the vertical Cartesian axis, that is inferior to the height of its horizontal equivalent in the curve representing the ordered pairs of f in the interval considered for the line in terms of distance from the origin of the Cartesian axis. Denition 6. A real function f : X > Y , for which |f (x)| = f (x), is called Sconvex3 if and only if, for all choices (x1 ; y1 ) and (x2 ; y2 ), where {x1 , x2 } X, {y1 , y2 } Y , Y = Imf , x1 = x2 , and y1 = y2 , it happens that the line drawn between (x1 ; y1 ) and (x2 ; y2 ) by means of the expression
log2

(1 )

2s+1 2s+1 2

log2

y1 +

2s+1 2s+1 2

y2 , where [0, 1], does not contain

any point with height, measured against the vertical Cartesian axis, that is inferior to the height of its horizontal equivalent in the curve representing the
s must be replaced, as needed, with a xed constant located between 0 and 1 but dierent from 0 and 1. For instance, if the chosen constant is 0.5, then the function will 1 be 0.5-convex or 2 -convex and s will be 0.5 in the expression that denes the limiting line. 3 s must be replaced, as needed, with a xed constant located between 0 and 1 but dierent from 0 and 1. For instance, if the chosen constant is 0.5, then the function will 1 be 0.5-convex or 2 -convex and s will be 0.5 in the expression that denes the limiting line.
2

ordered pairs of f in the interval considered for the line in terms of distance from the origin of the Cartesian axis. Remark 2. If all the points dening the function are located above the limiting line instead, then f is called sconcave.

V. References
[1] G. P. Michon. Perimeter of an ellipse. From Numericana.com. http://www.numericana.com/answer/ellipse.htm. Accessed on the 12th of December of 2011.

[2] M. R. Pinheiro. First Note on the Denition of S2 convexity. Advances in Pure Mathematics, vol. 1, pp. 1-2, 2011.

10