## Journal of Inequalities and Applications

Impact Factor 0.791

Open Access

# An Inequality for the Beta Function with Application to Pluripotential Theory

Journal of Inequalities and Applications20092009:901397

DOI: 10.1155/2009/901397

Accepted: 22 July 2009

Published: 19 August 2009

## Abstract

We prove in this paper an inequality for the beta function, and we give an application in pluripotential theory.

## 1. Introduction

A correspondence that started in 1729 between LeonhardEuler and Christian Goldbach was the dawn of the gamma function that is given by
(1.1)
(see, e.g., [1, 2]). One of the gamma function's relatives is the beta function, which is defined by
(1.2)
The connection between these two Eulerian integrals is
(1.3)

Since Euler's days the research of these special functions and their generalizations have had great impact on, for example, analysis, mathematical physics, and statistics. In this paper we prove the following inequality for the beta function.

Inequality A.

For all     and all  ( , ) there exists a number  such that
(1.4)

If   , then we have equality in (1.4), and if   , then we have the opposite inequality for all ,

In Section 3 we will give an application of Inequality A within the pluripotential theory.

## 2. Proof of Inequality A

A crucial tool in Lemma 2.2 is the following theorem.

Theorem 2.1.

Let be the digamma function. Then for it holds that
(2.1)

Proof.

Lemma 2.2.

Let be a function defined by
(2.2)

where is the digamma function. Then for all and all ( ). Furthermore, for all .

Proof.

Since we have that , and
(2.3)
From the construction of we also have that . By using (2.3) we get that
(2.4)
From Theorem 2.1 it follows that
(2.5)
Thus,
(2.6)
Furthermore,
(2.7)
and since (Theorem 2.1), we get that
(2.8)
which means that
(2.9)

From (2.6), (2.9), and the fact that , we conclude that for all and all ( ).

Proof.

Case 1 ( ).

The definition
(2.10)
yields that . Thus,
(2.11)

which is precisely the desired equality.

Case 2 ( ).

We will now prove that for all it holds that
(2.12)
Inequality (2.12) is equivalent to
(2.13)
Hence, to complete this case we need to prove that for all we have that
(2.14)
Let be defined by
(2.15)
To obtain (2.14) it is sufficient to prove that . The definition of yields that
(2.16)

Thus,

(a) has a minimum point in ;

(b) is decreasing on ;

(c) is increasing on ;

(d) .

Thus, for .

Case 3 ( ).

Fix . Let be the function defined by
(2.17)
This construction implies that is continuously differentiable, and . To prove this case it is enough to show that . By rewriting with (1.3) the function can be written as
(2.18)
and therefore we get that
(2.19)
Thus
(2.20)

where is the digamma function. This proof is then completed by using Lemma 2.2.

## 3. The Application

We start this section by recalling some definitions and needed facts. A domain is an open and connected set, and a bounded domain is hyperconvex if there exists a plurisubharmonic function such that the closure of the set is compact in , for every ; that is, for every the level set is relatively compact in . The geometric condition that our underlying domain should be hyperconvex is to ensure that we have a satisfying quantity of plurisubharmonic functions. By we denote the family of all bounded plurisubharmonic functions defined on such that
(3.1)
where is the complex Monge-Ampère operator. Next let , , denote the family of plurisubharmonic functions defined on such that there exists a decreasing sequence , , that converges pointwise to on , as tends to , and
(3.2)

If , then ([6, 7]). It should be noted that it follows from [6] that the complex Monge-Ampère operator is well defined on . For further information about pluripotential theory and the complex Monge-Ampère operator we refer to [8, 9].

The convex cone has applications in dynamical systems and algebraic geometry (see, e.g., [10, 11]). A fundamental tool in working with is the following energy estimate (the proof can be found in [12], see also [6, 13, 14]).

Theorem 3.1.

Let , and . Then there exists a constant , depending only on and , such that for any it holds that
(3.3)
Moreover,
(3.4)
and . If , then one follows [12] and interprets (3.3) as
(3.5)

If for all functions in , then the methods in [15] would immediately imply that the vector space , with certain norm, is a Banach space. Furthermore, proofs in [15] (see also [6]) could be simplified, and some would even be superfluous. Therefore, it is important to know for which the constant is equal or strictly greater than one. With the help of Inequality A we settle this question. In Example 3.2, we show that there are functions such that, for all and all ( ), the constant , in (3.3), is strictly greater than .

Example 3.2.

Let be the unit ball, and for set
(3.6)
Hence,
(3.7)
where is the Lebesgue measure on . For we then have that
(3.8)
where is the Lebesgue measure on . If , then
(3.9)
If we assume that in Theorem 3.1, then it holds that
(3.10)
Hence,
(3.11)
In particular, if , then we get that
(3.12)

This contradicts Inequality A. Thus, there are functions such that for all and all ( ).

## Declarations

### Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Leif Persson for fruitful discussions and encouragement. R. Czy was partially supported by ministerial Grant no. N N201 367933.

## Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Natural Sciences, Engineering and Mathematics, Mid Sweden University
(2)
Institute of Mathematics, Jagiellonian University

## References

1. Davis PJ: Leonhard Euler's integral: a historical profile of the gamma function. The American Mathematical Monthly 1959, 66: 849–869. 10.2307/2309786
2. Gautschi W: Leonhard Euler: his life, the man, and his works. SIAM Review 2008,50(1):3–33. 10.1137/070702710
3. Alzer H: On some inequalities for the gamma and psi functions. Mathematics of Computation 1997,66(217):373–389. 10.1090/S0025-5718-97-00807-7
4. Koumandos S: Remarks on some completely monotonic functions. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2006,324(2):1458–1461. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.12.017
5. Qi F, Cui R-Q, Chen C-P, Guo B-N: Some completely monotonic functions involving polygamma functions and an application. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2005,310(1):303–308. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.02.016
6. Cegrell U: Pluricomplex energy. Acta Mathematica 1998,180(2):187–217. 10.1007/BF02392899
7. Cegrell U, Kołodziej S, Zeriahi A: Subextension of plurisubharmonic functions with weak singularities. Mathematische Zeitschrift 2005,250(1):7–22. 10.1007/s00209-004-0714-4
8. Klimek M: Pluripotential Theory, London Mathematical Society Monographs. Volume 6. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA; 1991:xiv+266.
9. Kołodziej S: The complex Monge-Ampère equation and pluripotential theory. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society 2005.,178(840):
10. Åhag P, Cegrell U, Kołodziej S, Pham HH, Zeriahi A: Partial pluricomplex energy and integrability exponents of plurisubharmonic functions. Advances in Mathematics. In press Advances in Mathematics. In pressGoogle Scholar
11. Diller J, Dujardin R, Guedj V: Dynamics of meromorphic maps with small topological degree II: energy and invariant measure. Commentrail Mathematici Helvetici. In press Commentrail Mathematici Helvetici. In pressGoogle Scholar
12. Persson L: A Dirichlet principle for the complex Monge-Ampère operator. Arkiv för Matematik 1999,37(2):345–356. 10.1007/BF02412219
13. Åhag P, Czyż R, Phąm HH: Concerning the energy class for . Annales Polonici Mathematici 2007,91(2–3):119–130. 10.4064/ap91-2-2
14. Cegrell U, Persson L: An energy estimate for the complex Monge-Ampère operator. Annales Polonici Mathematici 1997,67(1):95–102.
15. Åhag P, Czyż R: Modulability and duality of certain cones in pluripotential theory. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. In press Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. In pressGoogle Scholar