arxiv: v1 [math.ca] 18 Dec 2018

Transcription

1 Note on constants appearing in refined Young inequalities arxiv: v1 [math.ca] 18 Dec 018 Shigeru Furuichi Department of Information Science, College of Humanities and Sciences, Nihon University, , Sakurajyousui, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, , Japan Abstract. In this short note, we give the refined Young inequality with Specht s ratio by only elementary and direct calculations. The obtained inequality is better than one previously shown by the author in 01. In addition, we give a new property of Specht s ratio. These imply an alternative proof of the refined Young ineqaulity shown by author in 01. We also give a remark on the relation to Kantorovich constant. Finally, we give a proposition for a corresponding general function. Keywords : Young ineqaulity, Specht s ratio, Kantorovich constant 010 Mathematics Subject Classification : 6D07, 6D0 and 15A45 1 Introduction Young inequality, (1 v)a + vb a 1 v b v for a,b > 0 and 0 v 1 has been refined with constants which are greater than 1, in many literatures [1,,4 8]. In this short note, we treat the refinements of Young inequality on ratio type only, although the refinements of Young inequality on difference type has been also studied by many researchers. In [3], we obtained the refined Young inequality with Specht s ratio S(x) is Specht s ratio [9] given by S(x) x 1 x v S(x r ), (x > 0) (1) elogx 1 and r min{v,1 v} for v [0,1]. In this short note, we show the refined Young inequality with Specht s ratio and a new property of Specht s ratio. Then these give an alternative proof of the refined Young inequality (1). Finally we consider the general property for which we showed the property on Specht s ratio and Kantorovich constant. Then we state a sufficient condition that such a general property holds for a general function. Main results Theorem.1 For v [0,1] and x > 0, Proof: We set g(x) = log{} vlogx r furuichi@chs.nihon-u.ac.jp x v S(x) r. () ( ) logx logx 1 log 1

2 (I) We firstly prove g(x) 0 for 0 < x 1. We calculate the deivative of g(x) by x as g (x) = h(x) v(1 v)() 3 logx+r{} h(x) x() {}logx, { } x(logx) +() (x 1)logx. (i) For the case of 0 v 1, h(x) = vh 1(x,v) { } h 1 (x,v) (1 v)() 3 logx+{} x(logx) +() (x 1)logx. Then we have for 0 < x 1 dh 1 (x,v) dv = () { () x()logx+x(logx) } 0 due to Lemma. below. Thus we have h 1 (x,v) h 1 (x,0) with h 1 (x,0) = () 3 logx+x(logx) +() ()(x+1)logx. Since h 1 (1,0) = 0, we assume 0 < x < 1. Then h 1 (x,0) 0 is equivalent to () + xlogx + logx (x+1) 0 dividing the both sides by ()logx 0 for x > 0. From the arithmetic-geometric mean ineqaulity, it is sufficient to prove the ineqaulity () + x (x+1) 0 which is true since (x 1) + x (x + 1) = x( x 1) ( x + ) 0. Thus we have h(x) 0 which implies g (x) 0. Therefore we have g(x) g(1) = 0 for 0 < x 1 and 0 v 1. Note that lim x 1log logx = 0 by lim x 1 logx = 1. (ii) For the case of 1 v 1 and 0 < x 1, h(x) = (1 v)h (x,v) h (x,v) v() 3 logx+{} { x(logx) +() (x 1)logx }. Then we have dh (x,v) dv = ()k (x) k (x) () ()logx+x(logx). Since k (x) = ( x 1 x ) +(logx) 0, we have k (x) k (1) = 0 for 0 < x 1. Thus we have dh (x,v) dv 0 for 0 < x 1 which implies h (x,v) h (x, 1 ). So we here prove h (x, 1 ) = ()3 logx+(x +1) { x(logx) +() (x 1)logx } 0 which is equivalent to () + x(x+1)logx + (x+1)() logx (x+1) dividing the both sides by ()logx 0 for x > 0. From the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality, it is sufficient to prove the inequality () + x(x+1) (x+1) 0 which is simplified as x+1 x and this is trivial. Thus we have h(x) 0 which implies g (x) 0. Therefore we have g(x) g(1) = 0 for 0 < x 1 and 1 v 1.

3 (II) We finally proveg(x) 0for thecase of x 1. From Lemma.3 below, weseeg(x) f(x) ( ) f(x) = log{} vlogx r x+1 1 log. x+1 Then we have f (x) = ()f 1 (x) x(x+1) {} f 1 (x) = v(1 v r)x +(1 v)(v r)x+v(1 v). Since f 1 (x) = v(1 v r)x+(1 v)(v r), we have f 1 (x) = v(1 v)x+v(1 v) 0 for 0 v 1 and x 1, also have f 1 (x) = (1 v)(3v 1) 0 for 1 v 1 and x 1. Thus we have f 1 (x) f 1 (1) = 4v(1 v) r 0. Thus we have f (x) 0 and we then have f(x) f(1) = 0 for x 1. Lemma. For 0 < x 1, we have () +x(logx) x()logx (3) Proof: Since ()logx 0 for 0 < x 1, the ineqaulity (3) is equivalent to the inequality logx + xlogx x. By the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality, we have the first inequality in the following logx + xlogx x x. Lemma.3 For x 1, we have logx logx log x+1 log x+1. Proof: Since the function y logy is decreasing for 0 < y 1, desired result. x+1 logx 1 implies the Remark.4 Since Kantorovich constant K(x) (x+1) 4x is geater than or equal to S(x), we have K(x) r S(x) r for 0 r 1 so that we easily obtain the inequality (1 v)+xv x v K(x) r S(x) r, 0 r 1 from the result in [1]. We also have K(x r ) S(x r ) for x > 0 and 0 r 1. For the convenience of the readers, we give a proof of the inequality K(x) S(x) for x > 0, which ( ) is equivalent to w 1 (x) 0, w 1 (x) log(x + 1) log logx logx log logx. Since logt t 1 t+1 for t > 0, we have only to prove the inequality w (x) 0, w (x) ( log(x + 1) log logx logx log x+1 w (1 x)+(x+1)logx (x) = for x 1, since we use again the relation logt t 1 t+1 ) = 1 logx + log( x+1 x ). Then we have. We easily find w (x+1)() (1) = 0 and w (x) 0 for 0 < x 1 and w (x) 0 for t > 0. 3

4 Remark.5 For x > 0 and 0 r 1, we have the inequality K(x) r K(x r ). The proof is done by the following. The above inequality is equivalent to the inequality g r (x) 0, g r (x) rlog(x+1) log(x r +1) rlog+log. Since g r (x) = r(1 x1 r ) (x+1)(x r +1), we have g r (1) = 0, g r (x) 0 for 0 < x 1 and g r (x) 0 for x 1. Thus we have g r (x) g r (1) = 0. Remark.6 We have no ordering between S(x) r and K(x r ), since we have the following examples. When x = 5 and r = 0., S(x) r K(x r ) When x = 30 and r = 0.49, S(x) r K(x r ) When x = 0.1 and r = 0.4, S(x) r K(x r ) When x = 0.01 and r = 0.49, S(x) r K(x r ) Theorem.7 We have the inequality for x > 0 and 0 r 1. S(x) r S(x r ) To prove Theorem.7, we prepare the following lemma. Lemma.8 Put k(t) (t 1) 3 +3t(t 1)(logt) t(t+1)(logt) 3. Then k(t) 0 for 0 < t 1 and k(t) 0 for t 1. Proof: It is trivial that k(1) = 0. We firstly consider the case of t 1. By calculations, we have k (3) (t) = 3t l(t), l(t) (t 1) +(t 1)logt+(t 1)(logt). Then we have l (t) = t 1 +4t+(3 t 1 )logt+(logt) andl (t) = t {t(t+3)+(t+1)logt} 0fort 1. Thus we have l (t) l (1) = 0 and then l(t) l(1) = 0, namely k (3) (t) 0 for t 1. Thus we havek (t) k (1) = 0, k (t) = t 1{ 6(t 1) +1(t 1)logt 3(t+1)(logt) t(logt) 3}. Andthenk (t) k (1) = 0, k (t) = 3(t 1) +6(t 1)logt+3(t )(logt) (t+1)(logt) 3. Therefore we have k(t) k(1) = 0. Since we have just shown that (t 1) 3 +3t(t 1)(logt) t(t+1)(logt) 3 0, (t 1), we have ( ) 1 3 s ( ) 1 s s 1 (logs) + 1 ( ) 1 s s +1 (logs) 3 0, (0 < s 1) putting t = s 1. Thus we have k(s) 0 for 0 < s 1, by multipying s 3 to both sides in the above inequality. Proof of Theorem.7: We set u(x,r) rlog(s(x)) log(s(x r )) ( ) ( ) logx logx rlogx rlogx = r 1 log x r 1 log 1 x r. 1 Then we have for any x > 0 and 0 r 1 d u(x,r) dr = (xr 1) 3 +3x r (x r 1)(logx r ) x r (x r +1)(logx r ) 3 r (x r 1) 3 0 4

5 by Lemma.8 with t = x r x. With u(x,1) = 0 and lim r 0 u(x,r) = 0 by lim r 1 r 0 r = logx, we have u(x,r) 0 for any x > 0 and 0 r 1. Since it is known that S(x) 1, u(x,r) 0 implies the inequality S(x) r S(x r ) for any x > 0 and 0 r 1. Thus Theorem.1 and Theorem.7 gives an alternative proof of the inequality given in (1). In addition, the inequality in () gives a better bound than one in (1). 3 Concluding remarks It is known that Kantorovich constant and Specht s ratio have similar properties: They take infinity in the limits as x 0 and x. They take 1 when x = 1. They are monotone decreasing functions on (0, 1). They are monotone increasing functions on (1, ). As we have seen in Section, properties K(x) r K(x r ) and S(x) r S(x r ) for x > 0 and 0 x 1, make us to consider the following general result. Proposition 3.1 Define the function f : (0, ) (0, ). If the following conditions hold f(1) = 1, lim x 0 f(x) =, lim x f(x) =, f is a monotone decreasing function on (0,1), f is a monotone increasing function on (1, ) and D(x) f(x)f (x)+x ( f(x)f (x) f (x) ) 0, (x > 0) (4) then we have f(x) r f(x r ) for x > 0 and 0 x 1. Proof: We put g(r,x) rlog(f(x)) log(f(x r )). Then d g(r,x) dr = xr (logx) f(x r ) { f(x r ) ( f (x r )+x r f (x r ) ) x r f (x r ) } 0, by the condition (4). It is easy to check g(0,x) = g(1,x) = 0 so that we have g(r,x) 0 for any x > 0 and 0 r 1. Since f(x) 1 for all x > 0, we obtain the desired result. We can find D(x) = (x+1) 0 for Kantorovich constant K(x). The expression of D(x) is 8x complicated for Specht s ratio S(x). But we could check that it takes non-negative values for x > 0 by the numerical computations. In addition, for the function agr v (x) x defined v for x > 0 with 0 v 1, we find that D(x) = v(1 v)x v 0 so that arg(x) r arg(x r ) for 0 r 1 and x > 0. Note that Kantorovich constant is convex by K (x) = x3 0 but Specht s ratio is not convex in general, since S (10) by numerical computations. If we impose the log-convexity on Proposition 3.1, then the inequality (4) holds only for x 1. However the Kantorovich constant is not log-convex. These show that it may be difficult to simplify the condition (4). However, we used just two conditions f(x) f(1) = 1 and the inequality (4) so that the assumptions in Proposition 3.1 may be simplified. 5

6 Remark 3. In the papers [4,6], we proved the refined Young inequalities for a special case such as 0 < x 1: x v 1 1 v(1 v)(), x v 1+ v v(1 v)() (x+1) v+1 However, the inequality f(x) r f(x r ) for 0 < x 1 does not hold in general for these lower bounds of x. Actually, at least the sufficient conditions given in Proposition 3.1 such that v lim x 0 f(x) = and D(x) 0 for 0 < x 1 do not hold in general for these lower bounds of. They can be checked by numerical computations. x v We conclude this shortnote by stating that a property f(x) r f(x r ) has been studied in [10, 11] in details by the different approach. Such a property is there named as power monotonicity and applied to some known results in the framework of operator theory. Acknowledgement The author (S.F.) was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 16K0557. References [1] S.S. Dragomir, A note on Young s inequality, RACSAM, Vol.111(017), [] S.S. Dragomir, On new refinements and reverse of Young s operator inequality, arxiv: v1. [3] S.Furuichi, Refined Young inequalities with Specht s ratio, J.Egyp.Math.Soc.,Vol.0(01), [4] S.Furuichi, Further improvements of Young inequality, RACSAM (017), /s [5] S. Furuichi and N.Minculete, Alternative reverse inequalities for Young s inequality, J. of Math. Inequal., Vol.5(011), [6] S.Furuichi and H.R.Moradi, On some refinements for mean inequalities, to appear in Rocky Mt. J. Math.. [7] S. Furuichi, H.R. Moradi and M. Sababheh, New sharp inequalities for operator means, Linear and Multilinear Algebra, 018, / [8] W. Liao, J. Wu, J. Zhao, New versions of reverse Young and Heinz mean inequalities with the Kantorovich constant, Taiwanese J. Math., Vol.(015), [9] W. Specht, Zer Theorie der elementaren Mittel, Math. Z., Vol. 74 (1960), [10] S.Wada, Some ways of constructing Furuta-type inequalities, Linear Alg. Appl., Vol.457(014), [11] S.Wada, When does Ando-Hiai inequality hold?, Linear Alg. Appl., Vol.540(018), [1] H.Zuo, G.Shi and M.Fujii, Refined Young inequality with Kantorovich constant, J. Math. Inequal., Vol.5(011),