S-convexity revisited (fuzzy): long version

In this revisional article, we criticize (strongly) the use made by Medar et al., and those whose work they base themselves on, of the name 'convexity' in definitions which intend to relate to convex functions, or cones, or sets, but actually seem to be incompatible with the most basic consequences of having the name 'convexity' associated to them. We then believe to have fixed the 'denominations' associated with Medar's (et al.) work, up to a point of having it all matching the existing literature in the field [which precedes their work (by long)]. We also expand his work scope by introducing s(1)-convexity concepts to his group of definitions, which encompasses only convex and its proper extension, s(2)-convex, so far. This article is a long version of our previous review of Medar's work, published by FJMS (Pinheiro, M.R.: S-convexity revisited. FJMS, 26/3, 2007).