arxiv: v1 [math.ca] 5 May 2014

Transcription

1 ON CLASSICAL INEQUALITIES OF TRIGONOMETRIC AND HYPERBOLIC FUNCTIONS BARKAT ALI BHAYO AND JÓZSEF SÁNDOR arxiv: v1 [math.ca] 5 May 2014 Abstract This article is the collection of the si research papers, recently written by the authors. In these papers authors refine the inequalities of trigonometric and hyperbolic functions such as Adamović- Mitrinovic inequality, Cusa-Huygens inequality, Lazarević inequality, Huygens inequality, Jordan s inequality, Carlson s inequality, Wilker s inequality, Redheffer s inequality, Wilker-Anglesio inequality, Becker- Stark inequality, Kober s inequality, Shafer s inequality and Shafer- Fink s inequality. The relation between trigonometric and hyperbolic functions has been built too. In the last paper, the sharp upper and lower bounds for the classical beta function has been established by studying the Jordan s inequality. For the introduction of the above mentioned inequalities we refer to reader to see the book Analytic Inequalities, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1970 by D.S. Mitrinović. Also for the historical background of the inequalities reader is referredto see A. Fink: An Essay on the History of Inequalities, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 249 (2000) and the references therein Mathematics Subject Classification: 26D05, 26D07, 26D99, 33B15. Keywords and phrases: Trigonometric functions, hyperbolic functions, inequalities, monotonicity theorem, Jordan s inequality, Cusa- Huygens inequality, Redheffer s inequality, Wilker s inequality and Becker-Stark in- equality, Carlsons inequality, Shafers inequality, inverse trigonometric and hyperbolic functions, Kober s inequality, new proofs, Euler gamma function, beta function. 1

2 List of papers I. On certain old and new trigonometric and hyperbolic inequalities. II. On Jordan s, Redheffer s and Wilker s inequality. III. On Carlson s and Shafer s inequalities. IV. On Jordan s, Cusa-Huyggens and Kober s inequality. V. On an inequality of Redheffer. VI. On the inequalities for Beta function. 2

3 ON CERTAIN OLD AND NEW TRIGONOMETRIC AND HYPERBOLIC INEQUALITIES BARKAT ALI BHAYO AND JÓZSEF SÁNDOR arxiv: v1 [math.ca] 5 May 2014 Abstract. In this paper we study the two sided inequalities of the trigonometric and hyperbolic functions. 1. Introduction Since last one decate many authors got interest to study the following inequalities (1.1) (cos) 1/3 < sin < cos+2, 3 for 0 < < π/2. The first inequality is due to by D.D. Adamović and D.S. Mitrinovic [10, p.238], and the second one was obtained by N. Cusa and C. Huygens [22]. The hyperbolic version of (1.1) is given as (1.2) (cosh) 1/3 < sinh < cosh+2, 3 for 0. The first inequality in (1.2) was obtained by Lazarević [10, p. 270], and the second inequality is called sometime hyperbolic Cusa-Huygens inequality [15]. There are many results on the refinement of the inequalities (1.1) and (1.2) in the literature, e.g, see [3, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 17, 20, 21, 22] and the references therein. In this paper, we give the simple proofs of some known results, and establish the new inequalities as well as. The main result of this paper reads as follows Theorem. For (0, π/2), the following inequalities (1.4) 3/2 2(sin) 1/2 < tan 2 < 2/α 2(sin) 2/α 1 hold true, where α = 2log(π/2)/log(2) Theorem. For (0, π/2), the following inequalities ( 1 ( )) 1 < ep 1 < sin ((log tan(/2) 2 tan < ep π )( )) 2 tan 1 hold true Theorem. For (0, ), the following inequalities ( 1 ( )) 1 < ep 1 < sinh tanh(/2) 2 tanh 1 < ep (( tanh 1 ))

4 2 B.A BHAYO AND J. SÁNDOR hold true. The second inequality in Theorem 1.5 and 1.6 is known [19]. For these, however, here a new method of proof is offered. 2. Preliminaries In this section we give few lemmas, they will be used in the proof of theorems. For < π, the following power series epansions can be found in [8, (2)-(3)], (2.1) cot = 1 (2.2) cot = 1 and n=1 n=1 (2.3) coth = 1 + n=1 2 2n (2n)! B 2n 2n, 2 2n (2n)! B 2n 2n 1, 2 2n (2n)! B 2n 2n 1, where B 2n are the even-indeed Bernoulli numbers, see [7, p. 231]. The following epansions can be obtained directly from (2.2) and (2.3), (2.4) 1 (sin) = 2 (cot) = n 2 (2n)! B 2n (2n 1) 2n 2, n=1 (2.5) 1 (sinh) = 2 (coth) = 1 2 2n 2 (2n)! (2n 1) B 2n 2n 2. The following result is due to Biernacki and Krzyż [4], which will be very useful in studying the monotonicity of certain power series. This result was also simply proved in [6] by Heikkala et al Lemma. For 0 < R. Let A() = n=0 a n n and B() = n=0 b n n be two real power series converging on the interval ( R,R). If the sequence {a n /b n } is increasing (decreasing) and b n > 0 for all n, then the function A()/B() is also increasing (decreasing) on (0, R). In [2], Anderson et al. proved the following result, which is sometime called Monotone l Hôpital rule. n=1

5 ON CERTAIN OLD AND NEW TRIGONOMETRIC AND HYPERBOLIC INEQUALITIES Lemma. For < a < b <, let f,g : [a,b] R be continuous on [a,b], and be differentiable on (a,b). Let g () 0 on (a,b). If f ()/g () is increasing (decreasing) on (a,b), then so are f() f(a) g() g(a) and f() f(b) g() g(b). If f ()/g () is strictly monotone, then the monotonicity in the conclusion is also strict Lemma. (1) The function f() = +sin 2 tan(/2) is strictly increasing from (0,π/2) onto (0,c), c = (4 + 2π π 2 )/ In paticular, 1+ sin c < sin < 1+ tan(/2), for (0,π/2). (2) The function g() = 1 ( cos )( cos sin 1 sin + 1 ) sin is strictly increasing from (0, π/2) onto ( 4/3, 4/π). Proof. For the proof of (1), we get f () = 1 ( ) 2 1 ( sin) 2 > 0, 2 sin(/2) the limiting values are clear. For (2), derivation gives ( g () = +sin 1 2 (1 cos) 2 tan(/2) which is positive by part (1), and limiting values follow from l Hôpital rule. This completes the proof Lemma. (1) The function f() = cos ) 3/2 (1 2 3 is strictly decreasing from (0,π/2) onto (0,c 1 ), where c 1 = (12 π 2 ) 3/2 /(24 3) In particular, for (0,π/2) ), (2.10) (1 2 3 ) 3/2 c 1 < cos < (1 2 3 ) 3/2,

6 4 B.A BHAYO AND J. SÁNDOR (2) For (0,π/2), we have (2.11) (3) For (0, ), we have (2.12) 4 4 ( 5 2 ) < tan 2tan 2. ( ) 5 2 < tanh 2tanh 2. Proof. By utilizing the inequality (1 2 /6) < (sin)/ from [9, Theorem 3.1], we get which is negative, because f () = (1 2 /3) 1/2 sin < ( (1 2 /3) 1/2 (1 2 /6) ) = g(), g () = 3 ( ) 1 1 < 0, (1 2 /3) 1/2 and g() = 0. This implies that f is decreasing, and limiting values are clear. For the proof of part (2), we use the indentity tan(/2) = (1 cos)/sin and write the inequality (2.11) as (2.13) Let sin < 8(1 cos)+2 cos, (0,π/2). 5 2 h() = 5sin 8(1 cos)+ 2 cos, (0,π/2). Applying the inequality (cos) 1/3 < sin/, we get h () = 3cos (3 2 )sin < (3cos (3 2 )(cos) 1/3 ) )) = 3(cos) ((cos) 1/3 2/3 (1 2, 3 which is negative by part (1), and h(0) = 0. The proof of part (3) is similar to the proof of part (2), if we use the indentity tanh/2 = (cosh 1)/sinh. 3. Proofs of the theorems 3.1. Proof of Theorem 1.3. Let f() = f 1 ()/f 2 (), where f 1 () = log(/sin), f 2 () = log(1/ (1+cos)/2), and clearly f 1 () = f 2 () = 0. We get f 1() f 2 () = 1 ( cos sin 1 )( cos sin + 1 sin ),

7 ON CERTAIN OLD AND NEW TRIGONOMETRIC AND HYPERBOLIC INEQUALITIES 5 which is strictly decreasing by Lemma 2.8(2). Hence the function f is strictly decreasing by Lemma 2.7, and by l Hôpital rule lim 0 f() = 4/3 and lim π/2 f() = 2log(π/2)/log(2) = = α. This implies the following inequalities (3.2) ( 1+cos 2 ) 4/3 < sin < ( ) α 1+cos. 2 By utilizing the indentity tan/2 = (sin)/(1+cos) we get (1.4). In [18], it is proved that sin 1+cos (1+cos)/2+2 (3.3) < 2 3 = t1/2 (t 1/2 +2) 3 = t+2t1/2, 3 if one denotes t = (cos + 1)/2. The right side of (3.2) cannot be compared with inequality (3.3), and this inequality improves the Cusa-Huygens inequality (sin)/ < (cos+2)/3 = (2t+1)/3. The following theorem is known [20]. Here another proof appears, but both proofs use Lemma Theorem. The function f() = log((sinh)/) log(cosh(/2)) is strictly decreasing from (0, ) onto (4/3, 2). In particular, ( ) 2/3 1+cosh < sinh ( ) 1+cosh <. 2 2 Proof. Let f 1 () = log((sinh)/), f 2 () = log((cosh)/), and f 1 (0) = f 2 (0) = 0. We get f 1() f 2 () = 2g 1(), where Differentiation gives, ( g 1 () = 1+ cosh ) sinh ( 1 cosh + sinh ). (sinh) 2 g 1 () = 1 2 2g 2(), where g 2 () = 2 cosh(/2) ( sinh(/2) + 1 cosh(/2) ), (sinh(/2)) 2 sinh(/2) which is positive because g 2 () = 2(sinh(/2)) 4((2+cosh) 3sinh) > 0

8 6 B.A BHAYO AND J. SÁNDOR by inequalitiy (sinh)/ < (2+cosh)/3, and g 2 tends to 0 as tends to 0. This implies that f 1 /f 2 is increasing, Hence by Lemma 2.7 f is increasing, and limiting values follow from l Hôpital rule. This completes the proof Corollary. For (0, ), we have ( ) 2/3 1+cosh (cosh) 1/3 < < sinh 2 < 1+cosh 2 ( ) 4 2+cosh(/2) <. 3 Proof. The proof of the first inequality is trivial, because it can be simplified as 0 < (1 cosh) 2. The second and third inequality follow from Theorem 3.4. For the proof of the fourth inequality, it is enough to prove that the function ( ) 1/4 ( ) 1/2 y +2 y +1 h(y) = is negative for y (0, ). We get where h () = 3 3/4 4(1+y) 1/2 Now we prove that h 1 is negative, we get ( h 1 (y) h 1 () = (1+y)1/2 (2+y) 3/4. ) 2, 3 3/4 (log(h 2 (y))) y 1 = 4(2+3y +y 2 ) < 0, and h 2 (1) = 2/3 3/4. This implies that h is decreasing, and h tends to 0 when y tends to 1, hence the proof of fourth inequality is completed Proof of Theorem 1.5. It is well known that L(a, b) < (a + b)/2, where L(a,b) = (b a)/(logb loga) denotes the Logarithmic mean of two distint real numbers a and b. Particularly, L(t,1) < (t + 1)/2, for t > 1. This inequality can be written as logt > 2(t 1)/(t+1). Letting t = tan(/2)/( tan(/2)) > 1 and using (2.11), we get log ( tan(/2) tan(/2) ) > 2(tan(/2) ) > tan 2tan, this implies the proof of first inequality. For the proof of second and third ienquality, we define f() = f 1 ()/f 2 (), (0,π/2), where f 1 () = log(/sin), f 2 () = 1 /tan, and clearly f 1 (0) = f 2 (0) = 0. Differentiation with respect gives f 1 () f 2() = A() B(),

9 where ON CERTAIN OLD AND NEW TRIGONOMETRIC AND HYPERBOLIC INEQUALITIES 7 A() = 1 cos sin By (2.1) and (2.4), we get A() = and B() = n=1 n=1 and B() = 2 sin 2 cos sin. 2 2n (2n)! B 2n 2n = 2 2n 2n (2n)! B 2n 2n = a n 2n, n=1 b n 2n. The function c n = a n /b n = 1/(2n) is decreasing in n = 1,2,... This implies from Lemma 2.6 that f 1/f 2 is decreasing, and the function f is decreasing in (0,π/2) by Lemma 2.7. By l Hôpital rule, we get lim 0 f() = 1/2 and lim π/2 f() = log(π/2), this completes the proof of the second and the third inequality Proof of Theorem 1.6. The proof of the first inequality is similar to the proof of the first inequality of Theorem 1.5 if we use (2.12). For the proof of second and thirdinequality, wedefinethefunctiong() = g 1 ()/g 2 (), (0, ),whereg 1 () = log(sinh()/) and g 2 () = /tanh() 1, and g 1 (0) = g 2 (0) = 0. Differentiating g with respect we get g () = A() B(), where A() = 1 coth() and B() = (/sinh) 2 coth. Now the monotonicty of g follows from (2.2), (2.5), Lemma 2.6 and 2.7. Applying the l Hôpital rule, we get lim 0 g() = 1/2 and lim = 1, this completes the proof. The second inequality of Theorem 1.5 can be written as ( ) log < sin cos, sin 2sin and this appears in [19]. The similar is true for the second inequality of Theorem 1.6, which appears in [19] as ( ) sinh log < cosh sinh. 2sinh n= Corollary. The following relations hold true, ( ( ) 1 (1) tan < log < 2) tan, (0,π/2), cos 2 (2) 2 (3) 2 tanh < log(cosh) < 2 2, (0, ), sinhtanh tanh < log(cosh) <, (0, ). 2

10 8 B.A BHAYO AND J. SÁNDOR Proof. Applying the Hadamard inequalities (see [17]) to the conve function tan t, we get: ( ) +0 tan = tan(/2) < tantdt < (tan+tan) = tan(/2), so (1) follows. For part (2), it is sufficient to prove that the functions m() = log(cosh) (/2)tanh and n() = 2 /2log(cosh) are strictly increasing for > 0. This follows from m () = (sin /cos)/(2cos) > 0 and n () = 1 1/(cosh) 2 > 0. It is interesting to note that, the right side of (2) cannot be compared to right side of (3) Lemma. The following inequalities hold, ( ) 1 (1) log < 12 ( cos sintan, 0, π ), 2 ( ) (2) log > sin cos (, 0, π ), ( sin ) 2 2 sinh (3) log < cosh sinh, > 0, ( ) 2 sinh (4) log > cosh sinh, > 0. 2sinh Proof. Letting ( 1 log t() = sintan 2 cos we get t () = sin(cos 1) 2 /(cos) 2 > 0. Hence t is strictly increasing, this implies (1). As the logarithmic mean of t and 1 is L(t,1) = (t 1)/logt, from logt > 1 1/t for t > 1, we get L(t,1) < t. Putting t = /sin, we obtain log(/sin) > 1 (sin)/. Thus, it is sufficient to prove that 1 sin > sin 2 cos 2, which is equivalent to write (sin)/ < (cos + 2)/3. This is a known inequality, namely the so-called Cusa-Huygens inequality (1.1), thus (2) follows. For the proof of (3) we use the similar method as in the circular case: By inequality logt < t 1 for t > 1 applied to t = (sinh)/, to deduce (3) it is sufficient to prove that: sinh 1 < cosh sinh 2 2. But thisisequivalent to(sinh)/ < (cosh+2)/3, which isknown asthehyperbolic Cusa-Huygens inequality (1.2). For the proof of (4), see [20]. ), The last inequality of Theorem 1.6 can be written as ( ) sinh (3.10) log < cosh sinh. sinh We observe that the inequality (3) in Lemma 3.9 can not be compared with (3.10).

11 ON CERTAIN OLD AND NEW TRIGONOMETRIC AND HYPERBOLIC INEQUALITIES Theorem. The following functions F 1 () = log(/sin) log(cosh), F 2() = log(cosh) log(cos), F 3() = log(/sin) log(cos ) are strictly increasing in (0,π/2). Theproofofthefunctions F 1 canbefoundin[16]. TheproofofF 2 isaconsequence of Corollary 3.8, by considering the derivative F 2() = tanhlog(cos)+coslog(cosh) > 0. The proof for the F 3 can be found in [12], here we give a simple proof. Let F 3 () = u()/v(), the proof follows if (u()/v()) is negative or one has to show that u ()v() < u()v (). This is equivalent to (3.12) log ( 1 cos )( ) sin cos sin ( ) < log tan. sin The inequalitiy (3.12) follows immediately from Lemma (3.9) (1) and (2). This completes the proof Corollary. For (0,π/2), one has 3sin 2+cos < 8sin(/2) sin 3 < < sin ((cos+1)/2) 2/3. Proof. By applying the Mitrinovic-Adamovic inequality (sint)/t > (cost) 1/3 for t = /2, we get ( ) 3 2sin(/2)cos(/2) > (cos/2) 4 by multiplying both sides with cos(/2). Since cos(/2) = (1+cos) 1/2, we get the inequality: (sin)/ > ((cos+1)/2) 2/3. By putting /2 in the Cusa-Huygens inequality (sin)/ < (cos+2)/3, we get (3.14) sin(/2) /2 < cos(/2)+2. 3 Clearly, (cos 1) 2 > 0, t = cos(/2), this implies cost+2 3 (3.15) < 3 4 cost. By (3.14) and (3.15), one has 3 sin(/2) < 2(4 cos(/2)), this is stronger than the Cusa-Huygens inequality (sin)/ < (2+cos)/3. Indeed, we will prove that: 3sin (3.16) 2+cos < 1 3 (8sin(/2) sin).

12 10 B.A BHAYO AND J. SÁNDOR By letting t = cos(/2) in (3.16), after some simple transformations, we have to prove that 2t 3 8t 2 +10t 4 < 0, this is equivalent to (t 1) 2 (t 2) < 0, which is obvious Remark. The first two inequalities of Corollary 3.13 offer an improvement of the Cusa-Huygens inequality, while the last inequality is in fact the first relation of (3.2), with an elementary proof. The authors have found in a book on history of number π, that the second inequality of Corollary 3.13 was discovered by geometric and heuristic arguments (see [5]) by C. Huygens. References [1] M. Abramowitz, I. Stegun, eds.: Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs and mathematical tables, National Bureau of Standards, Dover, New York, [2] G. D. Anderson, M. K. Vamanamurthy, and M. Vuorinen: Monotonicity Rules in Calculus, Amer. Math. Month. Vol. 113, No. 9 (2006), pp [3] G. D. Anderson, M. K. Vamanamurthy, and M. Vuorinen: Monotonicity of some functions in calculus, preprint, [4] M. Biernacki, J. Krzyż: On the monotonicity of certain functionals in the theory of analytic functions, Ann. Univ. Mariae. Curie-Sklodowska 2 (1955) [5] F.T. Campan: The history of number pi (Romanian), second ed., 1977, Albatros ed., Romania. [6] V. Heikkala, M. K. Vamanamurthy, and M. Vuorinen: Generalized elliptic integrals, [7] K. Ireland, M. Rosen: A Classical Introduction to Modern Number Theory, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, Berlin, Heidelberg, [8] A. Jeffrey: Handbook of Mathematical Formulas and Integrals, 3rd ed., Elsevier Academic Press, [9] R. Klén, M. Visuri and M. Vuorinen: On Jordan type inequalities for hyperbolic functions, J. Ineq. Appl., vol. 2010, pp. 14. [10] D.S. Mitrinović: Analytic Inequalities, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, [11] E. Neuman: Refinements and generalizations of certain inequalities involving trigonometric and hyperbolic functions, Advances in Inequalities and Applications, 1 (2012), No. 1, [12] E. Neuman: On some means derived from the Schwab-Borchardt mean II, JMI accepted. [13] E. Neuman: Inequalities Involving Hyperbolic Functions and Trigonometric Functions, Bull. Int. Math. Vir. Int. Vol. 2(2012), [14] E. Neuman: Inequalities involving jacobian elliptic trigonometric and hyperbolic functions, J. Ineq. Spec. Funct. Vol. 3, 2(2012), [15] E. Neuman and J. Sándor: On some inequalities involving trigonometric and hyperbolic functions with emphasis on the Cusa-Huygens, Wilker, and Huygens inequalities, Math. Inequal. Appl. Vol. 13, Number 4 (2010), [16] E. Neuman and J. Sándor: Optimal inequalities for hyperbolic and trigonometric functions, Bull. Math. Analysis Appl. 3(2011), no. 3, [17] J. Sándor: On new refinements of Kobers and Jordans trigonometric inequalities, Notes Number Theory Discrete Math. Vol. 19, 2013, No. 1, [18] J. Sándor: On certain inequalities for means III, Arch.Math.(Basel), 76(2001),

13 ON CERTAIN OLD AND NEW TRIGONOMETRIC AND HYPERBOLIC INEQUALITIES 11 [19] J. Sándor: Two sharp inequalities for trigonometric and hyperbolic functions, MIA 15(2012), no.2, [20] J. Sándor: Sharp Cusa-Huygens and related inequalities, Notes Number Theory Discrete Math. Vol. 19, 2013, No. 1, [21] J. Sándor and R. Oláh-Gál: On Cusa-Huygens type trigonometric and hyperbolic inequalities, Acta Univ. Sapientiae, Mathematica, 4, 2 (2012) [22] J. Sándor and M. Bencze: On Huygens trigonometric inequality, RGMIA Res. Rep. Collection, 8 (2005), No. 3, Art. 14.

14 ON JORDAN S REDHEFFER S AND WILKER S INEQUALITY BARKAT ALI BHAYO AND JÓZSEF SÁNDOR arxiv: v1 [math.ca] 5 May 2014 Abstract. In this paper, the authors offer new Jordan, Redheffer and Wilker type inequalities, along with refinements and converses. Connections with Euler s gamma function are pointed out, too. 1. Introduction In the recent years, the refinements of the inequalities of trigonometric functions such as Adamović-Mitrinović, Cusa-Huygens, Jordan inequality, Redheffer inequality, Becker-Stark inequality, Wilker inequality, Huygens inequality, and Kober inequality have been studied etremely by numerous authors, e.g., see [4, 5, 10, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36] and the references therein. Motivated by these rapid studies, in this paper we make a contribution to the subject by refining the Cusa- Huygens, Jordan and Redheffer inequality, and establish a Wilker type inequality. In all cases, we give the upper and lower bound of sin()/ in terms of simple functions. Meanwhile, we give some Redheffer type inequalities for trigonometric functions, which refine the eisting results in the literature. For the representation of trigonometric functions in terms of gamma function, we define for,y > 0 the classical gamma function Γ, the digamma function ψ and the beta function B(, ) by Γ() = 0 e t t 1 dt, ψ() = Γ () Γ()Γ(y), B(,y) = Γ() Γ(+y), respectively. We denote the trigamma function ψ by K, and defined as, 1 1 (1.1) K() = (+n) 2, K () = 2 (+n) 3. n=0 We refer to reader to see [40, 41, 42, 44] for more properties and relations of K. The functions Γ and ψ satisfy the recurrence relation n=0 (1.2) Γ(1+z) = zγ(z), ψ(1+z) = zψ(z). The following relation (1.3) ψ(1+z) ψ(z) = 1 z follows from (1.2). Differentiating both sides of (1.3), one has (1.4) K(1+z) K(z) = 1 z 2. 1

15 2 B.A BHAYO AND J. SÁNDOR The following Euler s reflection formula [1, ] (1.5) Γ(t)Γ(1 t) = π sin(πt), 0 < t < 1, can be written as (1.6) (1+ sin() = Γ ) ( Γ 1 ) ( = B 1+ π π π,1 ), 0 < < π. π The logarithmic differentiation to both sides of (1.5) gives the following reflection formula, (1.7) ψ(1 t) ψ(t) = Replacing t by t+1/2 in (1.5), we get cos() = ( 1 π Γ 2 + π (1.8) ) Γ π tan(πt). ( 1 2 ), 0 < < π π 2. Net we recall the Adamović-Mitrinović [21, p.238] and Cusa-Huygens [36] inqualities (1.9) (cos) 1/3 < sin < cos+2, 0 < < π 3 2, For the refinement of (1.9), see [18, 23, 25, 35, 36, 52]. Our first main result refines the inequalities in (1.9) as follows: Theorem. For (0, π), the following inequalities hold, (1.11) 2 (/π) 3 +cos() 3 < sin() < 2 (/π)4 +cos(). 3 In [47], Wilker asked a question to find the largest constant c such that the inequality (1.12) a() > cb(), 0 < < π 2, holds true, where ( ) 2 sin() a() = + tan() 2, and b() = 3 tan(). The inequality (1.12) is known as the Wilker inequality in the literature. Anglesio [45] proved that the ratio a()/b() is decreasing in (0,π/2), and he answered the question by showing the following two sided inequality, (1.13) 2+ 8 ( ) 2 sin() 45 3 tan() < + tan() < π 43 tan(),

16 ON JORDAN S REDHEFFER S AND WILKER S INEQUALITY 3 with the best possible constants 8/45 and 16/π 4. For the new proofs and refinement of (1.13), see[13, 28, 51, 50, 53, 56]. Thereafter the following Wilker type inequalities, tan() < 2 sin() + tan() < tan(), 0 < < π π 43 2, 2+ 2 ( ) sin() < + ( 2 sin() tan() < 2+ π 16 ) 3 sin(), 0 < < π π 3 2, ( ) 2 sinh() + tanh() > tanh(), > 0, ( ) 2 + sinh() tanh() < sinh(), > 0, were established by Chen-Sándor [11], Wang [51], Zhu [57], and Sun-Zhu [58], respectively. We establish an other Wilker type inequality by giving the following result Theorem. For (0,π), we have ( 3+ π ) 4 sin() < 2 sin() + tan() < 3+ ( π The following inequality (1.15) 2 sin() + tan() > 2, 0 < < π 2, ) 3 sin(). has been recently established by Wu and Srivastava [49], which is sometime known as the second Wilker inequality [25]. Inequality (1.15) can be written as, sin() < 1 2 ( sin() +cos()), 0 < < π 2. It was shown in [25] that this inequality is weaker than the Cusa-Huygens inequality (1.9), as follows: sin() < 2+cos() < 1 ( ) 3 2 sin() +cos(), 0 < < π 2, here second inequality is equivalent to (1.16) 3 sin() +cos() > 4, 0 < < π 2. Recently, Mortici [22] refined this inequality (1.16) as follows: (1.17) 3 sin() +cos() > , 0 < < π 2. We establish the following sharp result as a counterpart of (1.17).

17 4 B.A BHAYO AND J. SÁNDOR Theorem. For (0,π), we have 2 4 π < 3 sin() cos() < π 3. The well-know Jordan s inequality [21] states, π 2 sin(), 0 < π 2, equality with = π/2. In [12], Debnath and Zhao refined the Jordan s inequality as below, (1.19) dz l () = 2 π π (π2 4 2 ) sin(), (1.20) DZ l () = 2 π ) sin() π 3(π2, for (0,π/2), equality in both inequalities with = π/2. The following inequality (1.21) O l () = 2 π (π 3) )+ ( π ) 2 sin() π 3(π2 π 3 2, for (0,π/2) is due to Özban [27], equality with = π/2. In [55], Zhu proved that (1.22) sin() for (0,π/2). For the following inequalities (1.23) J l () = 2 π + π π + (π 2)(π2 4 2 ) π 3 < sin() 2π 5 (0,π/2), see [14]. In [18, Theorem 1.3], Klén et al. proved that = Z u (), < 2 π + (π 2)(π ) π 5 = J u (), (1.24) < sin() < π 2, for ( π/2, π/2). The following inequality refines the second inequality in (1.24), (1.25) sin() for (0,π), see [19]. Our first main result reads as follows: Theorem. For (0,π/2), we have 1 2 /π 2 1+3(/π) 4, C l () < sin() < C u (),

18 where ON JORDAN S REDHEFFER S AND WILKER S INEQUALITY 5 C l () = (1 2 π 2 ) π 2 /6 ) 3/2 and C u () = (1 2. The right side of the following theorem can not be compared with the corresponding side of Theorem 1.26, and the second inequality is weaker than the above result Theorem. For (0,π), we have where D l () = 1 ( 2 ( 2 π) ) π D l () < sin() < D u (), and D u () = π 2 ( ( 2 ( ) 2 3. π) π) It is not difficult to see that Theorem 1.27 refines the inequalities (1.24) and (1.25). Obviously, one can see that dz l () < DZ l () < O l (), J l () < DZ l (), and Z u () < J u () for (0,π/2). Now it is natural to compare our result with (1.21) and (1.22). For this purpose we give the following inequalities by using the Mathematica Software R [31], O l () < C l (), (0, ), O l () < D l (), (0, ), C u () < Z u (), (0, ), D u () < Z u (), (0, ). We see that our result refines (1.21) and (1.22) in the given interval of. The following result is the consequence of Theorem Theorem. For y (0,1), we have (1) B(,y) < 1 +y y1+y, 0 < < 1, 1 +y (2) < B(,y), 1 < <. y1+y It is worth to mention that the part (1) of Theorem 1.28 recently appeared in [16] as a one of the main results. The proof of the claim is based on [16, Lemma 2.5], and the proof of the lemma is invalid. The following Redheffer inequality [30] π 2 2 (1.29) π 2 + sin 2, 0 < π, was proved by Williams [48]. Chen et al. [10] obtained the three Redheffer-type inequalities forcos, coshand(sinh)/. Sun andzhu[19, 46] proved theredheffertype two-sided inequalities for trigonometric and hyperbolic functions. The inequalities appeared in [19] were refined in [55], and read as follows:

19 6 B.A BHAYO AND J. SÁNDOR (1.30) (1.31) ( π 2 2 π ) π2 /6 < sin() < ( π 2 2 π ), 0 < < π, ( ) π π2 /6 ( ) π /4 < cos() <, 0 < < π π π (1.32) ( ) 1/2 ( π < tan() π4 +48 < 4 π π ) π 2 /6, 0 < < π 2. One can see easily that the first inequality in Theorem 1.27 refines the (1.29). Our following theorem refines (1.30), as well as Cusa-Huygens inequality, and also gives a new upper bound for the right side of (1.9) Theorem. For (0,π/2) one has (1.34) sin() < π2 2 π 2 +α < 2+cos() 2 3 < π2 2 π 2 +β 2, with best possible constants α = π 2 / and β = 1/ Theorem. The function g(t) = log((1+t2 )/(1 t 2 )) log(1/ cos(πt/2)) is strictly decreasing from (0,1) on (α,β). In particular, for (0,π) cos(/2) α < π2 2 π < cos(/2)β, with the best possible constants α = 16/π and β = 1. In the following theorem we refine the inequalities given in (1.31) Theorem. The following function h(t) = 1 4t2 t 2 cos(πt) 1 t 2 is strictly increasing from (0,1/2) onto ((π 2 8)/2,16/π 4). In particular, for (0,π/2) π π 2 +α < cos() < π π 2 +β 2, with the best possible constants α = 16/π and β = (π 2 8)/ The paper is organized into three sections as follows. Section 1, contains the introduction and the statements of our main results. In Section 2, we give some lemmas, which will be used in our proofs. Section 3 is consists of the proofs of the main results and some corollaries.

20 ON JORDAN S REDHEFFER S AND WILKER S INEQUALITY 7 2. Preliminaries The following result is sometime called the Monotone l Hôpital rule, which is due to Anderson et al. [4] Lemma. For < a < b <, let f,g : [a,b] R be continuous on [a,b], and be differentiable on (a,b). Let g () 0 on (a,b). If f ()/g () is increasing (decreasing) on (a,b), then so are f() f(a) g() g(a) and f() f(b) g() g(b). If f ()/g () is strictly monotone, then the monotonicity in the conclusion is also strict Lemma. For a (0,1) and > 0, the following inequality holds, 1 a +a < ψ(1+) ψ(+a). Proof. It is well-known that the function f() = ψ(), > 0 is strictly conve [44, Theorem 6]. This implies that, f(ar +(1 a)s) < af(r)+(1 a)f(s), r,s > 0, a (0,1). Setting r = 1+ and s = in the above inequality, we get (a+)ψ(a+) < (a+a)ψ(1+)+(1 a)ψ()), now the proof follows easily if we replace ψ() = ψ(1+) 1/ Lemma. For (1, ) and y (0,1), we have Proof. Let Γ(1+)Γ(1+y) Γ(1++y) > 1 1+y. f y () = log(γ(1+))+log(γ(1+y)) log(γ(1++y))+log((1+y)), for (1, ) and y (0,1), clearly f y (1) = 0. Differentiating f with respect to and using the formula (1.3), we get f y() y = 1+y +ψ(1+) ψ(1++y) y = 1+y 1 +y +ψ(1+) ψ(+y) > y 1+y 1 +y + 1 y +y = y(1 y)( 1) (+y)(1+y) > 0, by Lemma 2.2. Thus, f is strictly increasing, and f y () > f y (1) = 0, this implies the proof of part (1). For the proof of part (2), see [16, (3.2)].

21 8 B.A BHAYO AND J. SÁNDOR 2.4.Remark. Itiseasytoseethattheconveity ofthefunction log(γ()), > 0, implies the following inequality, ( ) 2 1 +y (2.5) < Γ()Γ(y) y 2 Γ((+y)/2) 2. Replacing by 1 /π and y by 1 /π in (2.5), and applying (1.5), we get sin() (2.6) < π2 2, 0 < < π. π 2 This improves the following inequality ( ) sin() π 2 2 1/2, 0 < π, π which was proved in [43]. 3. Proof of the main results In this section we will give the proofs of the main results highlighted in the first section, as well as some corollaries are being established. Proof of Theorem The proof of the first inequality is trivial. For the proof of the second and the third inequality, we define f() = 2+cos() 3sin()/ 4, for (0,π). Wewillprovethatf isstrictlydecreasing from(0,π)onto(1/π 4,1/60). One has, 6 f() = 2 sin() 7cos()+15sin() 8 = f 1 (), f 1() = 5sin()+8cos() 2 cos() 8, f 2() = 3sin()+3cos()+ 2 sin(), f 1 () = (cos() sin()) < 0. Thus f 1 () < f 1 (0) = 0, f 1 () < f 1 (0) = 0, and f 1() < f 1 (0) = 0. The limiting values can be achieved by l Hôpital rule. Similarly, for the proof of the first inequality we will prove that the function g() = 2+cos() 3sin()/ 3 is strictly increasing from (0,π) onto (0,1/π 3 ). One has 5 g () = ( 2 )sin() 6cos()+12sin() 6 = h(), h () = 4sin() 2 cos()+6cos() 6, h () = 2cos()+ 2 sin() 2sin(), h () = 2 cos(). Thus h () is positive in (0,π/2) and negative in (π/2,π). Since h (π/2) = π 2 /4 2 > 0 and h (π) = 2π < 0, and h () is strictly increasing (resp. decreasing) in (0,π/2) (resp. (π/2,π)). There eists a unique 0 in (π/2,π) such that h ( 0 ) = 0. Thus h () > 0, (0, 0 ) and h () < 0, ( 0,π). This implies

22 ON JORDAN S REDHEFFER S AND WILKER S INEQUALITY 9 that h () is strictly increasing in (0, 0 ) and strictly decreasing in ( 0,π). As h (0) = 0, one has h ( 0 ) > 0. By h (π) = π 2 12 < 0, we get that there eists a unique 1 in ( 0,π) such that h ( 1 ) = 0. We get that h() is strictly increasing in (0, 1 ), and decreasing in ( 1,π), with h(0) = 0 and h(π) = 0. Thus h() > h(0) = 0, (0, 1 ) and h() > h(π) = 0, ( 1,π). Hence, in all cases, one has h() > 0. This completes the proof of the second inequality. It follows from the proof of the second inequality of Theorem 1.10 that f < 1/60 and f 1 < 0. This implies the following result Corollary. For (0,π), we have (1) M 1 = 2 4 /60+cos() < sin() 3 (2) 2 sin() + 4 < 3+ tan() 60sin(), (3) (8/7) sin() + tan() > < 8+7cos() 15 2 = M 2, Recently, the following inequalities appeared in [52], ( ) a (3.2) Y l = cos < sin() ( ) 5/3 < cos = Y u for (0,π/2) with a = log(2/π)/log(cos( 5π/10)) By using Mathematica Software R [31], one can see that Y l < M 1, (0, ) and Y u M 2 (0, ), (0,π/2). Proof of Theorem 1.14 & The proof of both theorems follow immediately from Theorem Proof of Theorem Let us consider the application ( ) f() = log clog(1/(1 2 /π 2 )), sin() for (0,π/2). A simple computation gives One has Finally, sin()(π 2 2 )f () = (sin cos)(π 2 2 ) 2c 2 sin() = g(). g ()/ = (π 2 2 4c)sin()+(2 2c)cos() 2 sin() = h(). h () = (π 2 6c)cos() (4 2c)sin() 2 cos(). Now, if we select c = π 2 /6, then, as π 2 6c = 0 and 4 2c = 4 π 2 /3 > 0, we get h () < 0, so this finally leads to f() < 0. Hence, the first inequality follows.

23 10 B.A BHAYO AND J. SÁNDOR For the proof of the second inequality, let c = 3/2, then one has g ()/ = (π 2 8)sin() cos()( 2 )sin() = h(). Since h(π/2) < 0, h(π/4) > 0, there eists an in (π/4,π/2) such that h( ) = 0. We ll show that is unique. One has h()/sin() = π 2 8 s(), where s() = 2 +/tan(). Now, s ()sin() 2 = 2sin() 2 +cos()sin() = p(). Here p () = 4sin()cos() > 0, which shows that p() > p(0) = 0, so s () > 0, finally: s() is a strictly increasing function. Thus the equation s() = π 2 8 has a single root (which is ), so h() > 0 for (0, ) and h() < 0 for (,π/2). Thus g is increasing, resp. decreasing in the above intervals, and g(0) = g(π/2) = 0, so g() > 0 for (0,π/2). This completes the proof of the second inequality Corollary. For (0,π/2) one has π 2 2 π 2 2 /3 π 2 2 < tan() < π2 4 2 π 2 2. Proof. After simplification the derivative of the function ( ) f c () = log clog(1/(1 2 /π 2 )), sin() can be written as f c() = 1 2cπ2 2 1 tan(). BytheproofofTheorem1.26, f π 2 /6 () < 0andf 3/2 () > 0. Clearly, f π 2 /6 = 0 = f 3/2. Now the proof of the inequalities is obvious. The second inequality in Corollary 3.3 improves the first inequality in (1.32). Proof of Theorem For t (0,1), let f(t) = πt(t3 +1) sin(πt), g(t) = πt(2+t4 ) 2sin(πt). πt 3 πt 3 By Theorem 1.10, we get and f () = 3πt3 +π(t 3 +1) πcos(πt) πt 3 = 3 t 3 ( sin(πt) πt g () = 2t 2 t 2 ( cos(πt) t = 2 t 3 ( sin(πt) πt 2 t3 +cos(πt) 3 sin(πt) ) πt 2 2 t4 +cos(πt) 3 3(πt(t3 +1) sin(πt)) ) πt 4 > 0, + 4 ( sin(πt) t 3 πt ) < 0. ) 1

24 ON JORDAN S REDHEFFER S AND WILKER S INEQUALITY 11 Thus, the functions f and g are strictly increasing and decreasing in t (0,1), respectively. Hence, the proof follows easily if we use the inequalities, f(t) < lim t 1 = 2, g(t) > lim t 1 g(t) = 3, and replace t by /π. Proof of Theorem Utilizing (1.5), the first inequality in Theorem 1.27 is equivalent to 1+/π /π Γ(1+/π)Γ(1 /π) > (1 /π)(1+/π (/π)2 ). Γ(1+/π /π) Replacing by /π and y by 1 /π we get (1). Similarly, the second inequality in Theorem 1.27 can be written as, 1+/π +1 /π (1 (/π) 2 )(2+(/π) 2 ) < Γ(1+/π)Γ(1 /π). Γ(1+/π /π) If we replace by 1 + /π and y by 1 /π then we get the proof of part (2) for 1 < < 2. The rest of proof follows from Lemma 2.3. Proof of Theorem Let f(t) = f 1 (t)/f 2 (t), t (0,1/2), where A simple calculation gives f 1 (t) = 1 3t 2 cos(πt) and f 2 (t) = t 2 (2+cos(πt)). f 1 (t) = 6t πsin(πt) < 0, and f 2 (t) = t(4+2cos(πt) πtsin(πt)) > 0. Thus, f is the product of two positive strictly decreasing functions, this implies that f is strictly decreasing in t (0,1/2). Applying l Hôpital rule, we get lim t 1/2 f(t) = 1/2 < f(t) < α = lim t 0 f(t) = π 2 /6 1. Here the first inequality implies which is equivalent to 3(1 t 2 ) 2+cos(πt) 1 < αt2, 2+cos(πt) 3 > 1 t2 1+αt 2. Letting πt = (0,π/2), we get the second inequality of (1.34), and the third inequality of (1.34) follows similarly. For the proof of the first inequality, see [2, (2.5)] Corollary. For (0,1), we have (3.5) 4 π t 1 t 2 < tan ( ) πt < π 2 2 t 1 t 2.

25 12 B.A BHAYO AND J. SÁNDOR Proof. Let f(t) = t/(tan(πt/2)(1 t 2 )), t (0,1/2). We get f (t) = (1+t2 )sin(πt) πt(1 t 2 ) 2(1 t 2 ) 2 sin(πt/2) 2, which is positive by (1.29). By l Hôpital rule, we get lim t 0 f(t) = 2/π < f(t) < π/4 = lim t 1/2 f(t). This completes the proof. For 0 < t < 1, letting = (πt)/2 in (3.5), we get (3.6) 8 π 2 4 < tan() 2 < π 2 π 2 4 2, which is so-called Becker-Stark inequality[8]. Thus, Corollary 3.4 gives a simple proof of Becker-Stark inequality. It is easy to see that the second inequality in Corollary 3.3 improves the first inequality in (3.6). Proof of Theorem Write g(t) = g 1 (t)/g 2 (t), 0 < t < 1, where ( ) ( ) 1+t 2 1 g 1 (t) = log, g 1 t 2 2 (t) = log. cos(πt/2) We get, One has, g 1(t) g 2 (t) = 8 t π(1 t 4 )tan(πt/2) = 8 π g 3(t). g 3(t) = sin(πt)(1+3t4 ) πt(1 t 4 ), 2sin(πt/2) 2 (1 t 4 ) 2 which is negative by (1.30). Clearly g 1 (0) = 0 = g 2 (0), thus g is strictly decreasing by Lemma 2.1. Using l Hôpital rule, we get lim t 0 g(t) = 16/π 2 > g(t) > 1 = lim t 1 g(t). Replacing πt by, we get the desired inequalities Corollary. For (0,π), one has ( ) π 2 2 4/(3β) ( ) ( ) 4/3 sin() π 2 2 4/(3α) < cos < <, π π where α and β are as in Theorem Proof. The proof of the first inequality follows from Theorem 1.35, and the second inequality is also well known [25]. The third inequality is just (1.30) Theorem. For (0,π/2), we have (3.9) 2 π + π 2 cos() < sin() π, (3.10) ( ) 2/3 1+cos < sin() 2 < 2 22/3 π ( 1+cos 2 ) 2/3 < 4 π 1+cos(). 2

26 ON JORDAN S REDHEFFER S AND WILKER S INEQUALITY 13 Proof. The inequality (3.9) may be rewritten as f() = πsin() (π 2)cos() 2 > 0, for (0,π/2). Clearly, f(0) = f(π/2) = 0. On the other hand, f() = 2(cos() 1)+(π 2)sin() = 4sin(/2) 2 +2(π 2)sin(/2)cos(/2). This implies that f ()/(4sin(/2)cos(/2)) = (π 2)/2 tan(/2) = g() for > 0. As tan(/2) is strictly increasing, there is a unique in (0,π/2) such that g( ) = 0. Also, g() > 0 for (0, ) and g() < 0 for (,π/2); i.e. is a maimum point of f(). This gives f() > f(0) = 0 for (0, ) and f() > f(π/2) = 0 for (,π/2). This completes the proof of (3.9). For the proof of (3.10), let ( j() = log sin() 2 ) 2, 31+cos() (0,π/2). One has j () = 1 cot() 2 sin() 31+cos() = 1 cot() 2 1 cos() = j 1 (), 3 sin() which is negative, because the inequality j 1 () < 0 can be written as sin()/ < (2 + cos())/3, which is so-called Cusa-Huygens inequality [21]. Thus, j() is strictly decreasing, and lim j() = 0 > j() > log(π) (5/3)log(2) = lim j(π/2) >0 π/2 By these inequalities we get cos(/2) 4/3 < sin() < ep((5/3)log(2) log(π))cos(/2) 4/3. The proof of the first and second inequality is completed, and the proof of the third inequality is trivial. The inequality (3.9) improves the following one (3.11) 1 2 π 2 < sin() π 2, 0 < < π, which was proved in [38] as an application of the concavity of sin()/. Indeed, the inequality 1 2 π 2 < 2 π 2 π + π 2 cos(), π

27 14 B.A BHAYO AND J. SÁNDOR is equivalent to (3.12) cos() > 1 2 π, 0 < < π 2, which is Kober s inequality, see [21, 37]. Proof of Theorem For (0,π/2), let We get, where One has, f() = (π ) sin() (2 π) (2 π) 2. f () = 16π2 cos() (2 π) 3 sin() 2g(), g() = tan() sin()2 cos(). g () = sin()2 cos() (sin()2 sin() 2) < 0, as 0 < sin() < 1, and g() = 0. Thus, g < 0, and in result f () < 0, this implies that f is strictly decreasing. By l Hôpital rule we get this implies the proof. lim f() = π2 8 < f() < limf() = 16 π/2 2 0 π 4, Replacing by π/2 in the inequalities of Theorem 1.36, we get the following corollary as a result Corollary. For (0,π/2), we have 16(π ) 4π 2 +α(2 π) < sin() 2 where α and β are as in Theorem < 16(π ) 4π 2 +β(2 π) 2, References [1] M. Abramowitz, and I. Stegun, eds.: Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs and mathematical tables, National Bureau of Standards, Dover, New York, [2] D. Aharonov, and U. Elias: Improved inequalities for trigonometric functions via Dirichlet and Zeta functions, Math. Ineq. Appl. vol. 16, no. 3 (2013), [3] H. Alzer: On some inequality of gamma and psi function, Math. Comp. Vol. 66, 217 (1997), [4] G.D. Anderson, M.K. Vamanamurthy, and M. Vuorinen: Monotonicity Rules in Calculus, Amer. Math. Month. Vol. 113, No. 9 (2006), pp

28 ON JORDAN S REDHEFFER S AND WILKER S INEQUALITY 15 [5] G.D. Anderson, M.K. Vamanamurthy, and M. Vuorinen: Monotonicity of some functions in calculus, preprint, [6] G.D. Anderson, M. Vuorinen, and X. Zhang: Topics in special functions III., [7] Á. Baricz: Redheffer Type Inequality for Bessel Functions, JIPAM. Vol. 8, 1, Art 11, [8] M. Becker, and E.L. Strak: On a hierarchy of quolynomial inequalities for tan(), Univ. Beograd. Publ. Elektrotehn Fak Ser Mat Fiz. No (1978), p [9] M. Biernacki, J. Krzyż: On the monotonicity of certain functionals in the theory of analytic functions, Ann. Univ. Mariae. Curie-Sklodowska 2 (1955) [10] C.-P. Chen, J.-W. Zhao, and F. Qi: Three inequalities involving hyperbolically trigonometric functions, RGMIA Res. Rep. Coll. 6 (3) (2003) Art. 4. [11] C.-P. Chen, J. Sándor: Inequality chains for Wilker, Huygens and Lazarević type inequalities, [12] L. Debnath, and C.-J. Zhao: New strengthened Jordan s inequality and its applications, Appl. Math. Lett., vol. 16, no. 4, 2003, pp [13] B.-N. Guo, B.-M. Qiao, F. Qi, and W. Li: On new proofs of Wilkers inequalities involving trigonometric functions, Math. Ineq. Appl. 6 (2003) [14] W.-D. Jiang, and H. Yun: Sharpening of Jordans Inequality and its Applications, J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 7(3) Art. 102, [15] V. Heikkala, M.K. Vamanamurthy, and M. Vuorinen: Generalized elliptic integrals, Comput. Methods and Function Theory April 2009, Vol. 9, Issue 1, pp [16] P. Ivády: On a beta function inequality, J. Math. Inequal., 6, 3 (2012) [17] A. Jeffrey: Handbook of Mathematical Formulas and Integrals, 3rd ed., Elsevier Academic Press, [18] R. Klén, M. Visuri, and M. Vuorinen: On Jordan type inequalities for hyperbolic functions, J. Ineq. Appl., vol. 2010, pp. 14. [19] J.-L. Li, and Y.-L. Li: On the Strengthened Jordan s Inequality, J. Ineq. Appl. 2007, Art. ID 74328, pp. 8. [20] L. Li, and J. Zhang: A new proof on Redheffer-Williams inequality, Far East J. Math. Sci., 56(2011), no.2, [21] D.S. Mitrinović: Analytic Inequalities, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, [22] C. Mortici: The natural approach of Wilker-Cusa-Huygens inequalities, Math. Inequal. Appl., 14, 3 (2011) [23] E. Neuman: Refinements and generalizations of certain inequalities involving trigonometric and hyperbolic functions, Advances in Inequalities and Applications, 1 (2012), No. 1, [24] E. Neuman: Inequalities Involving Hyperbolic Functions and Trigonometric Functions, Bull. Int. Math. Vir. Int. Vol. 2(2012), [25] E. Neuman, and J. Sándor: On some inequalities involving trigonometric and hyperbolic functions with emphasis on the Cusa-Huygens, Wilker, and Huygens inequalities, Math. Inequal. Appl. Vol. 13, Number 4 (2010), [26] E. Neuman, and J. Sándor: Optimal inequalities for hyperbolic and trigonometric functions, Bull. Math. Anal. Appl. 3(2011), no. 3, [27] A. Y. Özban: A new refined form of Jordan s inequality and its applications, Appl. Math. Lett., vol. 19 (2006), , [28] I. Pinelis: L Hospital Rules for Monotonicity and the Wilker-Anglesio Inequality, Amer. Math. Monthly 111 (10) (2004)

29 16 B.A BHAYO AND J. SÁNDOR [29] F. Qi: Etensions and sharpenings of Jordan s and Kober s inequality, Journal of Mathematics for Technology (in Chinese), 4 (1996), [30] R. Redheffer: Problem 5642, Amer. Math. Monthly 76 (1969) 422. [31] H. Ruskeepää: Mathematica R Navigator. 3rd ed. Academic Press, [32] J. Sándor: On new refinements of Kober s and Jordan s trigonometric inequalities, Notes Number Theory Discrete Math. Vol. 19, 2013, No. 1, [33] J. Sándor: Two sharp inequalities for trigonometric and hyperbolic functions, MIA 15(2012), no.2, [34] J. Sándor: Sharp Cusa-Huygens and related inequalities, Notes Number Theory Discrete Math. Vol. 19, 2013, No. 1, [35] J. Sándor, and R. Oláh-Gál: On Cusa-Huygens type trigonometric and hyperbolic inequalities, Acta Univ. Sapientiae, Mathematica, 4, 2 (2012) [36] J. Sándor, and M. Bencze: On Huygens trigonometric inequality, RGMIA Res. Rep. Collection, 8 (2005), No. 3, Art. 14. [37] J. Sándor: On new refinements of Kober s and Jordan s trigonometric inequalities, Notes Number Th. Discr. Math. 19(2013), no.1, [38] J. Sándor: On the concavity of sin()/, Octogon Math. Mag., 13(2005), no.1, [39] J. Sándor: Trigonometric and hyperbolic inequalities, [40] J. Sándor: Some integral inequalities, Elem. Math. 43(1988), [41] J. Sándor: Sur la fonction Gamma, P.C.R. Math. Pures Neuchâtel, Serie I, 21(1989), 4 7. [42] J. Sándor: On the Gamma function II, P.C.R. Math. Pures Neuchâtel, Serie I, 28(1997), [43] J. Sándor: On the Open problem OQ. 532, Octogon Math. Mag. 9(2001), No.1B, [44] J. Sándor: On the gamma function III, P.C.R. Math. Pures Neuchâtel, Serie 2, 19(2001), [45] J.S. Sumner, A.A. Jagers, M. Vowe, and J. Anglesio: Inequalities involving trigonometric functions, Amer. Math. Monthly 98 (1991), [46] J. Sun and L. Zhu: Si new Redheffer-type inequalities for circular and hyperbolic functions, Comput. Math. Appl. 56, 2 (2008) [47] J.B. Wilker: Problem E3306, Amer. Math. Monthly 96 (1989) 55. [48] J.P. Williams: Solution of problem 5642, Amer. Math. Monthly 76 (1969) [49] S.-H. Wu and H.M. Srivastava: A weighted and eponential generalization of Wilkers inequality and its applications, Integral Transforms and Spec. Funct. 18 (2007), No. 8, [50] S.-H. Wu and H.M. Srivastava: A further refinement of Wilker s inequality, Integral Transforms and Spec. Funct. 19 (2008), No, 10, [51] Z.-H.Wang: A new Wilker-type inequality, Journal of Yibing University, vol. 6, pp. 2122, [52] Z.-H. Yang: Refinements of a two-sided inequality for trigonometric functions, J. Math. Inequal., 7, 4 (2013) [53] L. Zhang and L. Zhu: A new elementary proof of Wilker s inequalities, Math. Ineq. Appl. vol , No. 1, [54] L. Zhu: Sharpening Redheffer-type inequalities for circular functions, App. Math. Lett. 22 (2009), [55] L. Zhu: Sharpening Jordan s inequality and the Yang Le inequality, Appl. Math. Lett., 19 (2006), [56] L. Zhu: A new simple proof of Wilker s inequality, Math. Ineq. Appl., vol. 8 (2005) No. 4,

30 ON JORDAN S REDHEFFER S AND WILKER S INEQUALITY 17 [57] L. Zhu: On Wilker-type inequalities, Math. Ineq. Appl. Vol. 10 (2007) No. 4, [58] Z. Sun and L. Zhu: On new Wilker-type inequalities, ISRN Math. Anal. Vol. 2011, Article ID , 7 pp.

31 ON CARLSON S AND SHAFER S INEQUALITIES BARKAT ALI BHAYO AND JÓZSEF SÁNDOR arxiv: v1 [math.ca] 5 May 2014 Abstract. In this paper authors refine the Carlson s inequalities for inverse cosine function, and the Shafer s inequalities for inverse tangent function. 1. Introduction During the past fifteen years, numerous authors have studied various inequalities for trigonometric functions [4, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 44]. Thus, some classical and also more recent inequalities, such as inequalities of Jordan, Cusa- Huygens, Shafer-Fink, and Wilker have been refined and generalized. One of the key methods in these studies has been so called monotone l Hospital Rule from [4] and an etensive survey of the related literature is given in [5]. This Rule is formulated as Lemma 2.1 and it will be also applied here. Motivated by these studies, in this paper we make a contribution to the topic by sharpening the Carlson s and Shafer s inequalities, and our inequalities refine the eisting results in the literature. We start our discussion with the following well-known inequalities, (1.1) cos(t) 1/3 < sin(t) < cos(t)+2, t 3 for0 < t < π/2. ThefirstinequalityisduetobyD.D.AdamovićandD.S.Mitrinović [19, p.238], while the second inequality was obtained by N. Cusa and C. Huygens [14]. These inequalities can be written as, 3sin(t) 2+cos(t) < t < sin(t) cos(t) 1/3. For the further studies and refinements of inequalities in (1.1), e.g., see [5, 15, 20, 21, 32, 33, 39] and the references therein. For the easy references we recall the following inequalities (1.2) cos ( ) 4/3 t < sin(t) 2 t < cos ( ) 3 t, 3 the first inequality holds for t (0,π/2) [21], while the second one is valid for t ( 27/5, 27/5), and was proved by Klén et al. [15]. The first inequality in (1.2) refines the following one t < 2sin(t) 1+cos(t), 0 < < π 2, which was constructed in [26] by using the Chebyshev s integral inequality. 1

32 2 B.A BHAYO AND J. SÁNDOR The Oppenheim s problem [22, 23, 19] states that: to determine the greatest a 2 and least a 3 as a function of a 1 > 0, such that the following inequalities (1.3) a 2 sin() 1+a 1 cos() < < a 3sin() 1+a 1 cos(), hold for all (0,π/2). A partial solution of this problem was given by Oppenheim and Carver [23], they showed that (1.3) holds for all a 1 (0,1/2) and (0,π/2) when a 2 = 1+a 1 anda 3 = π/2. In2007, Zhu[45, Theorem 7]solved theoppenheim s problem completely by proving that the inequalities in (1.3) hold if a 1, a 2 and a 3 are as follows: (1) if a 1 (0,1/2), then a 2 = 1+a 1 and a 3 = π/2, (2) if a 1 (1/2,π/2 1), then a 2 = 4a 1 (1 a 2 1) and a 3 = π/2, (3) if a 1 (π/2 1,2/π), then a 2 = 4a 1 (1 a 2 1 ) and a 3 = 1+a 1, (4) if a 1 > 2/π, then a 2 = π/2 and a 3 = 1+a 1, where a 2 and a 3 are the best possible constants in (1) and (4), while a 3 is the best possible constant in (2) and (3). Thereafter, the Carver s solution was etended to the Bessel functions for the further results by Baricz [6, 7]. On the basis of computer eperiments we came up that the following lower and upper bounds for, (1.4) (π/2) sin() 1+(2/π)cos() < < πsin() 2+(π 2)cos() are the best possible bounds, and can be obtained from case (4) and (3), respectively. Recently, Qi et al. [28] have given a new proof of Oppenheim s problem, and deduced the following inequalities, (1.5) (π/2) sin() 1+(2/π)cos() for (0,π/2). It is obvious that which is equivalent to < < (π +2)sin() π +2cos(). ((π 2) 4)(1 cos()) < 0, πsin() 2+(π 2)cos() < (π +2)sin() π +2cos(). This implies that the second inequality of (1.4) is better than the corresponding inequality of (1.5). Our first main result reads as follows, which refines the inequalities in (1.4) Theorem. For (0,π/2), we have (1.7) C α < < C β

33 where ON CARLSON S AND SHAFER S INEQUALITIES 3 C α = 8sin(/2) sin() α and C β = 8sin(/2) sin(), β with the best possible constants α = 3 and β = (8 2 2)/π By using Mathematica Software R [30], one can see that Theorem 1.6 refines the inequalities in (1.4) as follows: Z l () < C α (), for (0, ), Z u () < C β (), for (0, ). It is worth to mention that the first inequality in Theorem 1.6 was discovered heuristically by Huygens [9], here we have given a proof. In 1970, Carlson [10] established the following inequalities, (1.8) 6(1 ) 1/2 2 2+(1+) 1/2 < arccos() < 41/3 (1 ) 1/2 (1+) 1/6, 0 < < 1. These inequalities are known as Carlson s inequalities in the literature. Thereafter, several authors studied these inequalities, and gave some generalization and partial refinement, e.g., see [11, 12, 40, 43]. It is interesting to observe that the Adamović-Mitrinović and Cusa-Huygens inequality (1.1) implies the second and the first inequality of (1.8), respectively, with the transformation = arccos(t), 0 < t < π/4. For 0 < < 1, Guo and Qi [12, 40] gave the following inequalities, (1.9) (1.10) 2)(1 ) 1/2 π(1 ) 1/2 (1/2+ < arccos() < 2 (1+) 1/6 2, 2+(1+) 1/2 4 1/π (1 ) 1/2 (1+) (4 π)/(2π) < arccos() < π(1 ) 1/2 2(1+) (4 π)/(2π). They concluded that these inequalities doesn t refine (1.8) in the whole interval (0, 1) of. Chen et al. [11] established the lower bound for arccos as follows, (1.11) π(1 ) (π+2)/π2 < arccos(), 0 < < 1. 2 (1+) (π 2)/π2 The inequality (1.11) refines the first inequality of (1.8) for (0, ). In [43], Zhu proved that for p 1 and (0,1) 2 3 1/p 1 (1.12) ((2 2) p +( 1+) p ) < arccos() < 2π 1 1/p ((2 2) p +(π p 2 p )( 1+) p ) 1/p, inequalities reverse for p [0, 4/5]. We give the following theorem, which refines the Carlson s inequality, see Figure 1.