Abstract
In this paper, the errors of the two inequalities in Theorem 3.4.20 in the classic “Analytic Inequalities” by Mitrinovic are corrected, and the corresponding inequalities for circular functions and hyperbolic functions are rebuilt.
Keywords: Circular functions, Hyperbolic functions, Frame’s inequalities, Cusa–Huygens inequalities
Introduction
The classic “Analytic Inequalities” by Mitrinovic [1] has been hailed all over the world since it was published in 1970. The influence of this book on the various branches of mathematics cannot be overestimated and will last forever. As the author says in the introduction of his book, “The greater part of the results included have been checked, although this could not, of course, be done for all the results which appear in the book. We hope, however, that there are not many errors, but the very nature of this book is such that it seems impossible to expect it to be entirely free of them.” I find some errors in “Analytic Inequalities” and announce the specific contents.
The following conclusions are on p. 241 in [1].
Proposition 1
([1, Theorem 3.4.20])
For every ,
| 1.1 |
| 1.2 |
It is not difficult to find that these two inequalities above on the common interval are wrong. I read carefully the only one citation [2] by Frame in [1] for Theorem 3.4.20, which was published in the 1944 issue of “The American Mathematical Monthly” in the form of the report of the Mathematical Seminar. We judge that the object of Frame [2] is a right triangle, so the t must be the other two acute angles of a right triangle, that is, . We can only find the related contents of (1.1) in [2] is the item “(7)”, but the one (1.2) at least did not appear in [2].
By using the analytic method, this paper has come to the corresponding conclusions of (1.1) and (1.2); specifically, these are, in the form of (1.1) and (1.2), the first of two inequalities holds for hyperbolic functions, while the second one must be reconstructed, and reversely for circular functions on the interval .
Theorem 1
Let . Then
| 1.3 |
and
| 1.4 |
hold, and are the best constants in (1.3) and (1.4), respectively.
Theorem 2
Let . Then
| 1.5 |
and
| 1.6 |
hold, where is the best constant in (1.5).
Lemmas
Lemma 1
(Mitrinovic–Adamovic inequality [3])
The inequality
| 2.1 |
holds for all , and the exponent 3 is best possible.
Lemma 2
(Lazarevic’s inequality [4])
Let . Then
| 2.2 |
holds, and the exponent 3 is best possible.
Lemma 3
([5])
Let , and be the even-indexed Bernoulli numbers (see [6]), we have the following power series expansion:
| 2.3 |
Lemma 4
([7])
Let and () be real numbers, and let the power series and be convergent for (). If for , and if is strictly increasing (or decreasing) for , then the function is strictly increasing (or decreasing) on ().
Lemma 5
([8])
Let be the even-indexed Bernoulli numbers. Then the double inequality
| 2.4 |
holds for .
Lemma 6
Let be the even-indexed Bernoulli numbers. Then the series
| 2.5 |
is increasing for .
Proof
By Lemma 5 we have
In order to prove for it suffices to show
that is,
| 2.6 |
Let . Then, for , we show
| 2.7 |
Let
Then
| 2.8 |
and
| 2.9 |
for .
It follows from (2.9) and that for . Therefore, Lemma 6 follows from (2.6), (2.7) and (2.8). □
Lemma 7
The function
is increasing on . In particular, we have
-
(i)The double inequality
holds for all , the constants and are best possible.2.10 -
(ii)The inequality
holds for all , and the constant is best possible.2.11
Proof
Let
Then by (2.3) we obtain
and
where
Since
we know , and is increasing by Lemma 6. So is increasing, and is increasing on by Lemma 4. In view of
this completes the proof of Lemma 6. □
In order to prove (1.6), we need the following lemmas. We introduce a useful auxiliary function . For , let f and g be differentiable on and on . Then the function is defined by
The function has some good properties and plays an important role in the proof of a monotonicity criterion for the quotient of power series.
Lemma 8
([9])
Let and be two real power series converging on () and for all k. Suppose that, for certain , the non-constant sequence is increasing (resp. decreasing) for and decreasing (resp. increasing) for . Then the function is strictly increasing (resp. decreasing) on if and only if (resp. ≤) 0. Moreover, if (resp. >) 0, then there exists such that the function is strictly increasing (resp. decreasing) on and strictly decreasing (resp. increasing) on .
Lemma 9
Let
Then the function has a minimum point , and
In particular, we see that the double inequality
| 2.12 |
holds for all , the constant θ is best possible.
Proof
Let
Then by using the infinite series of sinhx and coshx we obtain
and
where
Setting
we have
and is increasing since
for . So
We compute
and we find that there exists such that the function is strictly decreasing on and strictly increasing on by Lemma 8. Let . We calculate
and see that there exists such that . So
and
Obviously, implies (2.12). □
The proof of Theorem 1
The proof of the inequality (1.3)
Let
Then
In order to prove holds for , it suffices to show
| 3.1 |
Since
| 3.2 |
we have
| 3.3 |
Let . Then (3.3) is equivalent to
| 3.4 |
In fact, when letting
| 3.5 |
then
| 3.6 |
By Lemma 1, we have
| 3.7 |
which implies
| 3.8 |
So holds for , and
| 3.9 |
Since
this completes the proof of the inequality (1.3). □
The proof of the inequality (1.4)
Let
Then , and
| 3.10 |
In order to prove holds for , it suffices to prove
| 3.11 |
Via (3.2) we have
and (3.11) is equivalent to
| 3.12 |
So (3.12) holds for when proving
| 3.13 |
or
| 3.14 |
Let . Then , and (3.14) is equivalent to
| 3.15 |
or
| 3.16 |
In fact, by Lemma 7 we have
| 3.17 |
for all due to .
Since
this completes the proof of the inequality (1.4). □
So the proof of Theorem 1 is complete.
The proof of Theorem 2
The proof of the inequality (1.5)
Let
Then
In order to prove that holds for , it suffices to show
| 4.1 |
Since
| 4.2 |
we have
| 4.3 |
Let . Then (4.3) is equivalent to
| 4.4 |
In fact, when letting
| 4.5 |
we have
| 4.6 |
By Lemma 2 we can obtain
| 4.7 |
which implies
| 4.8 |
So holds for , and
| 4.9 |
Since
this completes the proof of the inequality (1.5). □
The proof of the inequality (1.6)
Let , and
Then , and
We have
where . In fact, by (2.12) in Lemma 9 we have
The last inequality holds for due to
Therefore , and holds for .
So the proof of Theorem 2 is complete. □
Remarks
Remark 1
The inequalities (1.3) and (1.4) are obviously better than the famous Cusa–Huygens inequality (see [10–13]):
| 5.1 |
Remark 2
Mortici [14] strengthened (5.1) to
| 5.2 |
It is in Frame [2] that the following double inequality was also given:
| 5.3 |
or
| 5.4 |
In order to compare the three inequalities (1.4), (5.2), and the right hand side of (5.4), we rewrite (1.4) as
| 5.5 |
(i) We first compare two inequalities (5.5) and (5.2) on the same interval . We compute
where
Numerical results show that for all and for all . That is, the upper estimate in (5.5) is smaller than the one in (5.2) on the interval , meanwhile the upper estimate in (5.2) is smaller than the one in (5.5) on the interval . So these two inequalities (1.4) and (5.2) are not included in each other.
(ii) Then we compare the two inequalities (5.5) and the right hand side of (5.4) on the same interval . Let us check the function
where
Numerical results show that for all and for all . That is, the upper estimate in (5.5) is smaller than the one in the right hand side of (5.4) on the interval , meanwhile the upper estimate in the right hand side of (5.4) is smaller than the one in (5.5) on the interval . So these two inequalities (1.4) and the right hand side of (5.4) are not included in each other.
In a word, inequality (1.4) is not contained in the other improved Cusa–Huygens inequalities showed in [14] and [2] and is stronger than those ones near .
Remark 3
Using the methods in [15–17] and in [18], one can directly prove the inequalities (1.3) and (1.4), (1.5) and (1.6), respectively. A different approach based on the power series expansions, to proving, refinements and generalizations of inequalities of the similar type can be found in [19].
Conclusions
In the present study, we find that there are two wrong inequalities for circular functions in the famous monograph “Analytic Inequalities” by Mitrinovic, and we reestablish two inequalities on this topic and create two corresponding inequalities for hyperbolic functions. These new inequalities are the generalization of the famous Cusa–Huygens inequality, one of them is not contained in other improved Cusa–Huygens inequalities showed in [14] and [2] and is stronger than the ones near .
Authors’ contributions
The author provided the questions and gave the proof for the main results. He read and approved the manuscript.
Funding
The author’s research is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China grants No. 11471285 and the Natural Science Foundation of China grants No. 61772025.
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Mitrinovic D.S. Analytic Inequalities. Berlin: Springer; 1970. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Frame J.S. Some trigonometric, hyperbolic and elliptic approximations. Am. Math. Mon. 1954;61:623–626. doi: 10.2307/2307677. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mitrinovic D.S., Adamovic D.D. Complement à l’article “Sur une inégalité élémentaire où interviennent des fonctions trigonométriques”. Publ. Elektroteh. Fak. Univ. Beogr., Ser. Mat. Fiz. 1966;166:31–32. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Lazarevic I. Neke nejednakosti sa hiperbolickim funkcijama. Publ. Elektroteh. Fak. Univ. Beogr., Ser. Mat. Fiz. 1966;170:41–48. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Li J.-L. An identity related to Jordan’s inequality. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2006;6:76782. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Scharlau W., Opolka H. From Fermat to Minkowski. New York: Springer; 1985. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Biernacki M., Krzyz J. On the monotonicity of certain functionals in the theory of analytic functions. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, Sect. A. 1955;2:134–145. [Google Scholar]
- 8. Qi, F.: A double inequality for ratios of the Bernoulli numbers. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/264418049. 10.13140/RG.2.1.3461.2641
- 9.Yang Z.H., Chu Y.M., Wang M.K. Monotonicity criterion for the quotient of power series with applications. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2015;428(1):587–604. doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2015.03.043. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Campan F.T. The Story of Number π. Romania: Ed. Albatros; 1977. [Google Scholar]
- 11. Iuskevici, A.P.: History of Mathematics in 16th and 16th Centuries, Moskva (1961)
- 12.Cajori F. A History of Mathematics. 2. New York: MacMillan; 1929. [Google Scholar]
- 13. Huygens, C.: Oeuvres Complètes. Publiées par la Societé Hollandaise des Science. Haga 1888–1940 (20 volumes)
- 14.Mortici C. The natural approach of Wilker–Cusa–Huygens inequalities. Math. Inequal. Appl. 2011;14(3):535–541. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Malesevic B., Makragic M. A method for proving some inequalities on mixed trigonometric polynomial functions. J. Math. Inequal. 2016;10(3):849–876. doi: 10.7153/jmi-10-69. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Lutovac T., Malesevic B., Mortici C. The natural algorithmic approach of mixed trigonometric-polynomial problems. J. Inequal. Appl. 2017;2017:116. doi: 10.1186/s13660-017-1392-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Malesevic, B., Lutovac, T., Banjac, B.: A proof of an open problem of Yusuke Nishizawa for a power-exponential function. J. Math. Inequal. (2018, in press)
- 18.Makragic M. A method for proving some inequalities on mixed hyperbolic-trigonometric polynomial functions. J. Math. Inequal. 2016;11(3):817–829. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Malesevic B., Lutovac T., Rasajski M., Mortici C. Extensions of the natural approach to refinements and generalizations of some trigonometric inequalities. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2018;2018:90. doi: 10.1186/s13662-018-1545-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
