Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2018 Jun 27;2018(1):146. doi: 10.1186/s13660-018-1739-2

Some majorization integral inequalities for functions defined on rectangles

Shanhe Wu 1, Muhammad Adil Khan 2, Abdul Basir 2, Reza Saadati 3,
PMCID: PMC6019462  PMID: 30008534

Abstract

In this paper, we first prove an integral majorization theorem related to integral inequalities for functions defined on rectangles. We then apply the result to establish some new integral inequalities for functions defined on rectangles. The results obtained are generalizations of weighted Favard’s inequality, which also provide a generalization of the results given by Maligranda et al. (J. Math. Anal. Appl. 190:248–262, 1995) in an earlier paper.

Keywords: Convex function, Coordinate convex function, Rectangle, Majorization, Favard’s inequality

Introduction

There is a certain intuitive appeal to the vague notion that the components of an n-tuple x are less spread out, or more nearly equal, than the components of an n-tuple y. The notion arises in a variety of contexts, and it can be made precise in a number of ways. In remarkably many cases, the appropriate statement is that x is majorized by y (or y majorizes x). Namely, for two n-tuples x=(x1,x2,,xn) and y=(y1,y2,,yn), x is said to be majorized by y (denoted xy) if i=1mx[i]i=1my[i] for m=1,2,,n1 and i=1nxi=i=1nyi, where x[1]x[2]x[n] and y[1]y[2]y[n] are rearrangements of x and y in descending order. A mathematical origin of majorization is illustrated by the work of Schur [35] on Hadamard’s determinant inequality. Many mathematical characterization problems are known to have solutions that involve majorization. Complete and superb references on the subject are the books [9, 28]. The comprehensive survey by Ando [7] provides alternative derivations, generalizations, and a different viewpoint.

The following theorem is known in the literature as the majorization theorem (see [20, 22, 23, 33, 35]).

Theorem 1.1

Let f:IR be a continuous convex function on the interval I, and let x=(x1,x2,,xn) and y=(y1,y2,,yn) be two n-tuples such that xi,yiI (i=1,2,,n). If x is majorized by y, then

i=1nf(xi)i=1nf(yi). 1.1

The inequality asserted by Theorem 1.1 is also called majorization inequality. It is an inequality in elementary algebra for convex real-valued functions defined on an interval of the real line, and it generalizes the finite form of Jensen’s inequality. This majorization ordering is equivalently described in Kemperman’s review [25]. An extension of this fact for arbitrary real weights and decreasing n-tuples x and y can be found in [19]. General results of this type are obtained by Dragomir [17] and Niezgoda [30]. In recent years, many formulas such as Taylor formula, Hermite interpolating, Montgommery identities and inequalities for means, etc. have been used and generalized by majorization inequalities for n-convex functions; see [18, 1015, 21, 24, 29, 31, 36, 37, 4145] and references therein.

Recently, it has come to our attention that certain integral majorization theorems, we begin with recalling some relevant results. In 1947, Fuchs [19] gave the following integral majorization theorem for convex functions and two monotonic sequences.

Theorem 1.2

([19])

Let κ(τ),ν(τ):[a,b]R be continuous and increasing functions, and let μ:[a,b]R be a function of bounded variation.

  • (i)
    If
    xbκ(τ)dμ(τ)xbν(τ)dμ(τ)for x[a,b]
    and
    abκ(τ)dμ(τ)=abν(τ)dμ(τ),
    then for every continuous convex function ϕ, we have
    abϕ[κ(τ)]dμ(τ)abϕ[ν(τ)]dμ(τ). 1.2
  • (ii)
    If
    xbκ(τ)dμ(τ)xbν(τ)dμ(τ)for x[a,b],
    then for every continuous increasing convex function ϕ, we have
    abϕ[κ(τ)]dμ(τ)abϕ[ν(τ)]dμ(τ). 1.3

In 1995, Maligranda, Pečarić, and Persson [27] established the following analogue of the Fuchs inequality.

Theorem 1.3

([27])

Let w be a weight function, and let f and g be positive integrable functions on [a,b]. Suppose that φ:[0,)R is a convex function and that

axf(t)w(t)dtaxg(t)w(t)dtfor x[a,b]

and

abf(t)w(t)dt=abg(t)w(t)dt.
  • (i)
    If f is a decreasing function on [a,b], then
    abφ[f(t)]w(t)dtabφ[g(t)]w(t)dt. 1.4
  • (ii)
    If g is an increasing function on [a,b], then
    abφ[g(t)]w(t)dtabφ[f(t)]w(t)dt. 1.5

In 1933, Favard [18] proved the following results.

Theorem 1.4

Let Φ be a nonnegative continuous concave function on [a,b], not identically zero, and let ϒ be a convex function on [0,Φ˜], where

Φ˜=2baabΦ(x)dx.

Then

1baabϒ[Φ(x)]dx01ϒ(sΦ˜)ds. 1.6

As a consequence of Theorem 1.4, the following inequality was also established in [18].

Theorem 1.5

Let Φ be a concave nonnegative function on [a,b]R. If q>1, then

1baabΦq(x)dx2qq+1(1baabΦ(x)dx)q. 1.7

Maligranda, Pečarić, and Persson [27] gave the following generalization of the Favard inequality.

Theorem 1.6

([27])

  • (i)
    Let Φ be a positive increasing concave function on [a,b], and let ϒ be a convex function on [0,Φ˜], where
    Φ˜=(ba)abΦ(t)w(t)dt/ab(ta)w(t)dt.
    Then
    1baabϒ[Φ(t)]w(t)dt01ϒ(sΦ˜)w[a(1s)+bs]ds. 1.8
  • (ii)
    Let Φ be a positive decreasing concave function on [a,b], and let ϒ be a convex function on [0,Φ˜], where
    Φ˜=(ba)abΦ(t)w(t)dt/ab(bt)w(t)dt.
    Then
    1baabϒ[Φ(t)]w(t)dt01ϒ(sΦ˜)w[as+b(1s)]ds. 1.9

For further results related to generalizations, extensions, and refinements of the integral inequalities of majorization type, we refer the reader to [16, 26, 28, 32, 34, 3840, 4648].

In this paper, we extend majorization and Favard inequalities from functions defined on intervals to functions defined on rectangles. The results presented in this paper generalize the results of Maligranda, Pečarić, and Persson [27].

Preliminaries

In this section, we introduce some notions and lemmas.

Definition 2.1

A function ϕ:ΩR defined on a convex subset Ω of Rn is said to be convex if

ϕ(λx+(1λ)y)λϕ(x)+(1λ)ϕ(y) 2.1

for all x,yΩ and λ[0,1].

In this paper, convex functions considered are supposed to be twice differentiable. It is well know that if the function ϕ is convex, then

ϕ(x)ϕ(y)+ϕ(y)(xy)for all x,yΩ, 2.2

where

+ϕ(y)(xy)=ϕ+(y)y,(xy),ϕ+(y)y=(ϕ+(y)y1,ϕ+(y)y2,,ϕ+(y)yn),

x=(x1,x2,,xn), y=(y1,y2,,yn)Ω, and , is the usual inner product in Rn.

In the literature, there are many generalizations of convex functions in different directions. One of them is coordinate convex functions introduced by Dragomir [16].

Definition 2.2

([16])

Let us consider a bidimensional interval S=[a,b]×[c,d]R2. A function ϕ:SR is said to be coordinate convex if the partial functions ϕy:[a,b]R defined as ϕy(u)=ϕ(u,y) and ϕx:[c,d]R defined as ϕx(v)=ϕ(x,v) are convex where defined for all y[c,d] and x[a,b].

Lemma 2.3

([16])

Every convex function ϕ:SR is coordinate convex.

Lemma 2.4

([27])

Let v be a weight function on [a,b].

  • (i)
    If h is a decreasing function on [a,b], then
    abh(t)v(t)dtaxv(t)dtaxh(t)v(t)dtabv(t)dtfor x[a,b]. 2.3
  • (ii)
    If h is an increasing function on [a,b], then
    axh(t)v(t)dtabv(t)dtabh(t)v(t)dtaxv(t)dtfor x[a,b]. 2.4

Majorization inequalities for functions defined on rectangles

In this section, we establish some majorization integral inequalities for functions defined on rectangles. The following theorem is a generalization of Theorem 1.3 mentioned in the Introduction.

Theorem 3.1

Let w and p be positive continuous functions on [a,b] and [c,d] respectively, and let f, g and h, k be positive differentiable functions on [a,b] and [c,d] respectively. Suppose that ϕ:[0,)×[0,)R is a convex function and that

axg(t)w(t)dtaxf(t)w(t)dtfor x[a,b],
cyk(s)p(s)dscyh(s)p(s)dsfor y[c,d],
abg(t)w(t)dt=abf(t)w(t)dt,

and

cdk(s)p(s)ds=cdh(s)p(s)ds.
  • (i)
    If g and k are decreasing functions on [a,b] and [c,d] respectively, then
    abcdϕ(g(t),k(s))w(t)p(s)dtdsabcdϕ(f(t),h(s))w(t)p(s)dtds. 3.1
  • (ii)
    If f and h are increasing functions on [a,b] and [c,d] respectively, then
    abcdϕ(f(t),h(s))w(t)p(s)dtdsabcdϕ(g(t),k(s))w(t)p(s)dtds. 3.2

Proof

  • (i)
    Since ϕ:[0,)×[0,)R is a convex function, we have
    ϕ(x,y)ϕ(w,z)+ϕ(w,z),(xw,yz),(x,y),(w,z)[0,)×[0,)ϕ(x,y)ϕ(w,z)ϕ+(w,z)w(xw)+ϕ+(w,z)z(yz).
    Put x=f(t), y=h(s), w=g(t), z=k(s) in the last inequality and assume that
    ψs1(t)=ϕ(u,v)u|u=g(t),v=k(s),ψs3(t)=2ϕ(u,v)2u|u=g(t),v=k(s),ψs2(t)=ϕ(u,v)v|u=g(t),v=k(s),ψs4(t)=2ϕ(u,v)2v|u=g(t),v=k(s).
    Then we have
    ϕ(f(t),h(s))ϕ(g(t),k(s))ψs1(t)(f(t)g(t))+ψs2(t)(h(s)k(s)). 3.3
    Set
    F(x)=ax(f(t)g(t))w(t)dt,x[a,b]
    and
    G(y)=cy(h(s)k(s))p(s)ds,y[c,d].
    Then, from the assumptions in Theorem 3.1 we conclude that
    F(x)0,G(y)0for x[a,b],y[c,d],F(a)=F(b)=G(c)=G(d)=0.
    Multiplying both sides of inequality (3.3) by w(t)p(s), we get
    [ϕ(f(t),h(s))ϕ(g(t),k(s))]w(t)p(s)ψs1(t)[f(t)g(t)]w(t)p(s)+ψs2(t)[h(s)k(s)]w(t)p(s). 3.4
    Integrating both sides of inequality (3.4) gives
    abcd[ϕ(f(t),h(s))ϕ(g(t),k(s))]w(t)p(s)dtdsabcdψs1(t)[f(t)g(t)]w(t)p(s)dtds+abcdψs2(t)[h(s)k(s)]w(t)p(s)dtds.
    By Fubini’s theorem we have
    abcd[ϕ(f(t),h(s))ϕ(g(t),k(s))]w(t)p(s)dtdscdp(s)[abψs1(t)dF(t)]ds+abw(t)[cdψs2(t)dG(s)]dt.
    Using integration by parts, we obtain
    abcd[ϕ(f(t),h(s))ϕ(g(t),k(s))]w(t)p(s)dtdscdp(s)[ψs1(t)F(t)|ababψs3(t)g(t)F(t)dt]ds+abw(t)[ψs2(t)G(s)|cdcdψs4(t)k(s)G(s)ds]dt,
    which yields
    abcd[ϕ(f(t),h(s))ϕ(g(t),k(s))]w(t)p(s)dtdscdabψs3(t)g(t)F(t)p(s)dtdsabcdψs4(t)k(s)G(s)w(t)dsdt. 3.5
    Since ϕ is convex on [0,)×[0,), by Lemma 2.3 we conclude that ϕ is coordinate convex on [0,)×[0,), and thus ψs3(t)0, ψs4(t)0. Also, k and g are decreasing, so that k(s)0 and g(t)0. Thus it follows that
    cdabψs3(t)g(t)F(t)p(s)dtds0 3.6
    and
    abcdψs4(t)k(s)G(s)w(t)dsdt0. 3.7
    Combining (3.5), (3.6), and (3.7) yields
    abcd[ϕ(f(t),h(s))ϕ(g(t),k(s))]w(t)p(s)dtds0,
    which implies the desired inequality (3.1).
  • (ii)

    Inequality (3.2) can be proved in the same way as inequality (3.1). Theorem 3.1 is proved.

 □

Theorem 3.2

Let w and u be positive continuous functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively, and let f, g and k, l be positive differentiable functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively. Suppose that ψ:[0,)×[0,)R is a convex function.

  • (i)
    Let f/g and l/k be decreasing functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively. If f and l are increasing functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively, then
    abcdψ(f(t)abf(t)w(t)dt,l(s)cdl(s)u(s)ds)w(t)u(s)dtdsabcdψ(g(t)abg(t)w(t)dt,k(s)cdk(s)u(s)ds)w(t)u(s)dtds. 3.8
    If g and k are decreasing functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively, then the reverse inequality of (3.8) holds.
  • (ii)
    Let f/g and l/k be increasing functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively. If g and k are increasing functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively, then
    abcdψ(g(t)abg(t)w(t)dt,k(s)cdk(s)u(s)ds)w(t)u(s)dtdsabcdψ(f(t)abf(t)w(t)dt,l(s)cdl(s)u(s)ds)w(t)u(s)dtds. 3.9

If f and l are decreasing functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively, then the reverse inequality of (3.9) holds.

Proof

  • (i)
    Using Lemma 2.4 with substitution v(t)=g(t)w(t) and h(t)=f(t)/g(t) in (2.3), we obtain
    abf(t)w(t)dtaxg(t)w(t)dtaxf(t)w(t)dtabg(t)w(t)dt,x[a,b]. 3.10
    Also, putting v(s)=k(s)u(s) and h(s)=l(s)/k(s) in (2.3) gives
    cdl(s)u(s)dscyk(s)u(s)dscyl(s)u(s)dscdk(s)u(s)ds,y[c,d]. 3.11
    From (3.10) and (3.11) we deduce that
    ax(g(t)abg(t)w(t)dt)w(t)dtax(f(t)abf(t)w(t)dt)w(t)dt,x[a,b], 3.12
    cy(k(s)cdk(s)u(s)ds)u(s)dscx(l(s)cdl(s)u(s)ds)u(s)ds,y[c,d]. 3.13
    Additionally, it is easy to observe that
    ab(g(t)abg(t)w(t)dt)w(t)dt=ab(f(t)abf(t)w(t)dt)w(t)dt, 3.14
    cd(k(s)cdk(s)u(s)ds)u(s)ds=cd(l(s)cdl(s)u(s)ds)u(s)ds. 3.15
    By relations (3.12), (3.13), (3.14), and (3.15), using inequality (3.2) given in Theorem 3.1, we obtain
    abcdψ(f(t)abf(t)w(t)dt,l(s)cdl(s)u(s)ds)w(t)u(s)dtdsabcdψ(g(t)abg(t)w(t)dt,k(s)cdk(s)u(s)ds)w(t)u(s)dtds,
    which is the desired inequality (3.8).

    Using the majorization relations (3.12), (3.13), (3.14), and (3.15) and inequality (3.1), we get the reversed inequality of (3.8).

  • (ii)

    If we perform an interchange fg (gf) and kl (lk), then inequality (3.9) follows immediately from (3.8). The reversed inequality of (3.9) can be deduced from the reversed inequality of (3.8) by using the same interchange. This completes the proof of Theorem 3.2.

 □

Applications to the generalization of Favard’s inequality

As an application of Theorem 3.2, we establish some Favard-type inequalities for functions defined on rectangles, which generalize the results of Theorem 1.4 described in the Introduction.

Corollary 4.1

Let w and u be positive continuous functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively, and let f and l be positive differentiable functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively. Suppose that ψ:[0,)×[0,)R is a convex function.

  • (i)
    Let f(t)/(ta) and l(s)/(sc) be decreasing functions on (a,b] and (c,d], respectively. If f and l are increasing functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively, then
    abcdψ(f(t),l(s))w(t)u(s)dtdsabcdψ(abf(t)w(t)dtab(ta)w(t)dt(ta),cdl(s)u(s)dscd(sc)u(s)ds(sc))w(t)u(s)dtds. 4.1
  • (ii)
    Let f(t)/(bt) and l(s)/(ds) be increasing function on [a,b) and [c,d), respectively. If f and l are decreasing functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively, then
    abcdψ(f(t),l(s))w(t)u(s)dtdsabcdψ(abf(t)w(t)dtab(bt)w(t)dt(bt),cdl(s)u(s)dscd(ds)u(s)ds(ds))w(t)u(s)dtds. 4.2

Proof

Note the simple fact that if ψ(x,y) (ψ:[0,)×[0,)R) is a convex function, then ψ(θ1x,θ2y) (θ1, θ2>0) is also a convex function. Using Theorem 3.2 with substitution

ψ(x,y)ψ((abf(t)w(t)dt)x,(cdl(s)u(s)ds)y)

in inequality (3.8) and choosing g(t)=ta and k(s)=sc, we get the required inequality (4.1). Applying the above substitution to the reverse inequality of (3.9) and choosing g(t)=bt and k(s)=ds, we derive inequality (4.2). □

Corollary 4.2

Let w and u be positive continuous functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively, and let f and l be positive differentiable functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively. Suppose that ψ:[0,)×[0,)R is a convex function.

  • (i)
    Let f(t)/(ta) and l(s)/(sc) be decreasing functions on (a,b] and (c,d], respectively. If f and l are increasing functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively, then
    1(ba)(dc)abcdψ(f(t),l(s))w(t)u(s)dtds0101ψ(ξf˜,ηl˜)w(a(1ξ)+bξ)u(c(1η)+dη)dξdη, 4.3
    where f˜=(ba)abf(t)w(t)dt/ab(ta)w(t)dt and l˜=(dc)cdl(s)u(s)ds/cd(sc)u(s)ds.
  • (ii)
    Let f(t)/(bt) and l(s)/(ds) be increasing functions on [a,b) and [c,d), respectively. If f and l are decreasing functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively, then
    1(ba)(dc)abcdψ(f(t),l(s))w(t)u(s)dtds0101ψ(ξf˜,ηl˜)w(aξ+b(1ξ))u(cη+d(1η))dξdη, 4.4
    where f˜=(ba)abf(t)w(t)dt/ab(bt)w(t)dt and l˜=(dc)cdl(s)u(s)ds/cd(ds)u(s)ds.

Proof

Substituting ξ=taba and η=scdc into the right-hand sides of (4.1), we get

abcdψ(abf(t)w(t)dtab(ta)w(t)dt(ta),cdl(s)u(s)dscd(sc)u(s)ds(sc))w(t)l(s)dtds=0101ψ(ξ(ba)abf(t)w(t)dtab(ta)w(t)dt,η(dc)cdl(s)u(s)dscd(sc)u(s)ds)w(a(1ξ)+bξ)l(c(1η)+dη)dξdη,

which, together with inequality (4.1), leads to the desired inequality (4.3).

Similarly, we can deduce inequality (4.4) by substituting ξ=btba and η=dsdc into the right-hand sides of (4.2). □

Corollary 4.3

Let w and u be positive continuous functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively. Suppose that ψ:[0,)×[0,)R is a convex function.

  • (i)
    If f and l are positive increasing concave functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively, then
    1(ba)(dc)abcdψ(f(t),l(s))w(t)u(s)dtds0101ψ(ξf˜,ηl˜)w(a(1ξ)+bξ)u(c(1η)+dη)dξdη, 4.5

    where f˜=(ba)abf(t)w(t)dt/ab(ta)w(t)dt and l˜=(dc)cdl(s)u(s)ds/cd(sc)u(s)ds.

  • (ii)
    If f and l are positive decreasing concave functions on [a,b] and [c,d], respectively, then
    1(ba)(dc)abcdψ(f(t),l(s))w(t)u(s)dtds0101ψ(ξf˜,ηl˜)w(aξ+b(1ξ))u(cη+d(1η))dξdη, 4.6

where f˜=(ba)abf(t)w(t)dt/ab(bt)w(t)dt and l˜=(dc)cdl(s)u(s)ds/cd(ds)u(s)ds.

Proof

  • (i)

    By the first part of Corollary 4.2, to prove inequality (4.5), it suffices to prove that f(t)/(ta) and l(s)/(sc) are decreasing functions on (a,b] and (c,d], respectively.

    Consider the function
    P(t)=f(t)ta,t(a,b].
    Differentiation of P(t) with respect to t gives
    P(t)=f(t)(ta)f(t)(ta)2=f(t)(ta)f(t)+f(a)(ta)2f(a)(ta)2=f(t)f(t)f(a)tataf(a)(ta)2=f(t)f(θ)taf(a)(ta)2(a<θ<t).

    It follows that P(t)<0 for t(a,b] since f is a positive concave function on [a,b]. Thus we conclude that P(t)=f(t)/(ta) is a decreasing function on (a,b]. In the same way, we can prove that l(s)/(sc) is a decreasing function on (c,d]. This proves inequality (4.5).

  • (ii)
    Similarly, we have
    Q(t)=(f(t)bt)=f(t)f(ζ)bt+f(a)(bt)2(t<ζ<b).
    We deduce that Q(t)>0 for t[a,b), since f is positive concave function on [a,b]. Thus, Q(t)=f(t)/(bt) is an increasing function on [a,b). In the same way, we can prove that l(s)/(ds) is an increasing function on [c,d). Therefore inequality (4.6) follows from the second part of Corollary 4.2.

 □

Final remarks

Obviously, the results of Corollary 4.3 are generalizations of those given in Theorem 1.6 relating to Favard’s inequality. Indeed, if we put w(t)=1, u(s)=1, f=Φ, and ψ(x,y)=ϒ(x) in (4.5) and (4.6), respectively, then we obtain the Favard inequality (1.6). Further, we can deduce the Favard inequality (1.7) by taking ϒ(x)=xq (q>1). It is worth noting that the majorization inequalities asserted in Theorem 3.1 play a key role in proving Theorem 3.2. Further, with the help of Theorem 3.2, we obtain some significant results in Corollaries 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.

Authors’ contributions

SW and MAK finished the proofs of the main results and the writing work. AB and RS gave lots of advice on the proofs of the main results and the writing work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by funds from the International Scientific Research Publications (ISRP) under Grant No. 20180101R and the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian province of China under Grant No. 2016J01023.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Shanhe Wu, Email: shanhewu@163.com.

Muhammad Adil Khan, Email: adilswati@gmail.com.

Abdul Basir, Email: basirbjr@uop.edu.pk.

Reza Saadati, Email: rsaadati@eml.cc.

References

  • 1.Adil Khan M., Khalid S., Pečarić J. Refinements of some majorization type inequalities. J. Math. Inequal. 2013;7(1):73–92. doi: 10.7153/jmi-07-07. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Adil Khan M., Latif N., Pečarić J. Generalization of majorization theorem. J. Math. Inequal. 2015;9(3):847–872. doi: 10.7153/jmi-09-70. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Adil Khan M., Latif N., Pečarić J. Majorization type inequalities via Green function and Hermite polynomial. J. Indones. Math. Soc. 2016;22(1):1–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Adil Khan M., Latif N., Perić I., Pečarić J. On Sapogov’s extension of Čebyšev’s inequality and related results. Thai J. Math. 2012;10(3):617–633. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Adil Khan M., Latif N., Perić I., Pečarić J. On majorization for matrices. Math. Balk. 2013;27(1–2):3–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Adil Khan M., Niezgoda M., Pečarić J. On a refinement of the majorization type inequality. Demonstr. Math. 2011;44(1):49–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ando T. Majorization, doubly stochastic matrices, and comparison of eigenvalues. Linear Algebra Appl. 1989;118:163–248. doi: 10.1016/0024-3795(89)90580-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Barnett N.S., Cerone P., Dragomir S.S. Majorization, doubly stochastic matrices, and comparison of eigenvalues. Appl. Math. Lett. 2009;22:416–421. doi: 10.1016/j.aml.2008.06.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bhatia R. Matrix Analysis. New York: Springer; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chu Y.M., Wang G.D., Zhang X.H. The Schur multiplicative and harmonic convexities of the complete symmetric function. Math. Nachr. 2011;284(5–6):653–663. doi: 10.1002/mana.200810197. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chu Y.M., Wang M.K. Optimal Lehmer mean bounds for the Toader mean. Results Math. 2012;61(3–4):223–229. doi: 10.1007/s00025-010-0090-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chu Y.M., Wang M.K., Qiu S.L. Optimal combinations bounds of root-square and arithmetic means for Toader mean. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci. 2012;122(1):41–51. doi: 10.1007/s12044-012-0062-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chu Y.M., Xia W.F., Zhang X.H. The Schur concavity, Schur multiplicative and harmonic convexities of the second dual form of the Hamy symmetric function with applications. J. Multivar. Anal. 2012;105:412–421. doi: 10.1016/j.jmva.2011.08.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chu Y.M., Zhang X.M. Necessary and sufficient conditions such that the extended mean values are Schur-convex or Schur-concave. J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 2008;48(1):229–238. doi: 10.1215/kjm/1250280982. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chu Y.M., Zhang X.M., Wang G.D. The Schur geometric convexity of the extended mean values. J. Convex Anal. 2008;15(4):707–718. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Dragomir S.S. On the Hadamard’s inequality for convex functions on the co-ordinates in a rectangle from the plane. Taiwan. J. Math. 2001;5(4):775–778. doi: 10.11650/twjm/1500574995. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Dragomir S.S. Some majorization type discrete inequalities for convex functions. Math. Inequal. Appl. 2004;7(2):207–216. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Favard J. Sur les valeurs moyennes. Bull. Sci. Math. 1933;57(2):54–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fuchs L. A new proof of an inequality of Hardy–Littlewood–Pólya. Mat. Tidssker. 1947;13:53–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hardy G.H., Littlewood J.E., Pólya G. Inequalities. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press; 1952. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Inoan D., Rasa I. A majorization inequality for Wright-convex functions revisited. Aequ. Math. 2012;83(3):209–214. doi: 10.1007/s00010-012-0118-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kadelburg Z., Dukić D., Lukić M., Matić I. Inequalities of Karamata, Schur and Muirhead, and some applications. Teach. Math. 2005;VIII(1):31–45. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Karamata J. Sur une inégalité relative aux fonctions convexes. Publ. Math. Univ. Belgrade. 1932;1:145–148. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Karlin S., Studden W.J. Tchebycheff Systems: With Applications in Analysis and Statistics. New York: Interscience; 1966. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kemperman J.H.B. Review: Albert W. Marshall and Ingram Olkin, Inequalities: Theory of majorization and its applications, and Y. L. Tong, Probability inequalities in multivariate distributions. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1981;5(3):319–324. doi: 10.1090/S0273-0979-1981-14945-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Latif N., Pečarić J., Perić I. On majorization, Favard’s and Berwald’s inequalities. Ann. Funct. Anal. 2011;2(1):31–50. doi: 10.15352/afa/1399900260. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Maligranda L., Pečarić J., Persson L.E. Weighted Favard’s and Berwald’s inequalities. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1995;190:248–262. doi: 10.1006/jmaa.1995.1075. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Marshall A.W., Olkin I. Inequalities: The Theory of Majorization and Its Applications. New York: Academic Press; 1979. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Marshall A.W., Olkin I. Inequalities for the trace function. Aequ. Math. 1985;29(1):36–39. doi: 10.1007/BF02189811. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Niezgoda M. Remarks on convex functions and separable sequences. Discrete Math. 2008;308(10):1765–1773. doi: 10.1016/j.disc.2007.04.023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Niezgoda M. Inequalities for convex sequences and nondecreasing convex functions. Aequ. Math. 2017;91(1):1–20. doi: 10.1007/s00010-016-0444-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pečarić J. On some inequalities for functions with nondecreasing increments. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1984;98(1):188–197. doi: 10.1016/0022-247X(84)90287-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pečarić J., Proschan F., Tong Y.L. Convex Functions, Partial Orderings and Statistical Applications. New York: Academic Press; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Qian W.M., Chu Y.M. Sharp bounds for a special quasi-arithmetic mean in terms of arithmetic and geometric means with two parameters. J. Inequal. Appl. 2017;2017:274. doi: 10.1186/s13660-017-1550-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Schur I. Über eine Klasse von Mittelbildungen mit Anwendungen die Determinanten—Theorie Sitzungsber. Berlin Math. Gesellschaft. 1923;22:9–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Shi H.-N., Bencze M., Wu S.-H., Li D.-M. Schur convexity of generalized Heronian means involving two parameters. J. Inequal. Appl. 2008;2008:879273. doi: 10.1155/2008/879273. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Shi H.N., Wu S.H. Majorized proof and refinement of the discrete Steffensen’s inequality. Taiwan. J. Math. 2007;11(4):1203–1208. doi: 10.11650/twjm/1500404813. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wang M.K., Chu Y.M. Landen inequalities for a class of hypergeometric functions with applications. Math. Inequal. Appl. 2018;21(2):521–537. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wang M.K., Li Y.M., Chu Y.M. Inequalities and infinite product formula for Ramanujan generalized modular equation function. Ramanujan J. 2018;46(1):189–200. doi: 10.1007/s11139-017-9888-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wang M.K., Qiu S.L., Chu Y.M. Infinite series formula for Hübner upper bound function with applications to Hersch–Pfluger distortion function. Math. Inequal. Appl. 2018;21(3):629–648. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Wu S. Generalization and sharpness of power means inequality and their applications. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2005;312(2):637–652. doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.03.050. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wu S. Some results on extending and sharpening the Weierstrass product inequalities. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2005;308(2):689–702. doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2004.11.064. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wu S., Debnath L. Inequalities for convex sequences and their applications. Comput. Math. Appl. 2007;54(4):525–534. doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2007.02.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Wu S.H., Shi H.N. A relation of weak majorization and its applications to certain inequalities for means. Math. Slovaca. 2011;61(4):561–570. doi: 10.2478/s12175-011-0028-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Wu S.H., Shi H.N. Schur convexity of the generalized geometric Bonferroni mean and the relevant inequalities. J. Inequal. Appl. 2018;2018:8. doi: 10.1186/s13660-017-1605-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Yang Z.H., Chu Y.M. A monotonicity property involving the generalized elliptic integral of the first kind. Math. Inequal. Appl. 2017;20(3):729–735. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Yang Z.H., Qian W.M., Chu Y.M., Zhang W. On approximating the error function. Math. Inequal. Appl. 2018;21(2):469–479. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Yang Z.H., Qian W.M., Chu Y.M., Zhang W. On approximating the arithmetic-geometric mean and complete elliptic integral of the first kind. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2018;462(2):1714–1726. doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2018.03.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Inequalities and Applications are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES