Open Access

Some Comparison Inequalities for Generalized Muirhead and Identric Means

Journal of Inequalities and Applications20102010:295620

https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/295620

Received: 21 December 2009

Accepted: 23 January 2010

Published: 28 January 2010

Abstract

For , with , the generalized Muirhead mean with parameters and and the identric mean are defined by and , , , , respectively. In this paper, the following results are established: (1) for all with and ; (2) for all with and ; (3) if , then there exist such that and .

1. Introduction

For , , with , the generalized Muirhead mean with parameters and and the identric mean are defined by

(1.1)
(1.2)

respectively.

The generalized Muirhead mean was introduced by Trif [1], the monotonicity of with respect to or was discussed, and a comparison theorem and a Minkowski-type inequality involving the generalized Muirhead mean were discussed.

It is easy to see that the generalized Muirhead mean is continuous on the domain and differentiable with respect to for fixed with . It is symmetric in and and in and . Many means are special cases of the generalized Muirhead mean, for example,

(1.3)

The well-known Muirhead inequality [2] implies that if are fixed, then is Schur convex on the domain and Schur concave on the domain . Chu and Xia [3] discussed the Schur convexity and Schur concavity of with respect to for fixed with .

Recently, the identric mean has been the subject of intensive research. In particular, many remarkable inequalities for the identric mean can be found in the literature [413].

The power mean of order of the positive real numbers and is defined by

(1.4)

The main properties of the power mean are given in [14]. In particular, is continuous and increasing with respect to for fixed . Let ,

(1.5)
and be the arithmetic, logarithmic, geometric, and harmonic means of two positive numbers and . Then it is well known that
(1.6)

for all with .

The following sharp inequality is due to Carlson [15]:

(1.7)

for all with .

Pittenger [16] proved that

(1.8)

for all with , and and are the optimal upper and lower power mean bounds for the identric mean .

In [8, 9], Sándor established that

(1.9)

for all with .

Alzer and Qiu [5] proved the inequalities

(1.10)

for all with if and only if and .

In [3], Chu and Xia proved that

(1.11)

for all and , and

(1.12)

for all and .

Our purpose in what follows is to compare the generalized Muirhead mean with the identric mean . Our main result is Theorem 1.1 which follows.

Theorem.

Suppose that , and . The following statements hold,

() If , then for all with

() If , then for all with

() If , then there exist such that and .

2. Lemma

In order to prove Theorem 1.1 we need Lemma 2.1 that follows.

Lemma.

Let and be two real numbers such that and . Let one define the function as follows:
(2.1)

then the following statements hold.

(1)If and , then for
  1. (2)

    If , , and , then for

     

(3) If , then for .

Proof.

Simple computations lead to
(2.2)
(2.3)
(2.4)
(2.5)
where
(2.6)
(2.7)
(2.8)
(2.9)
(2.10)
where
(2.11)
(2.12)
(2.13)

( ) We divide the proof of Lemma 2.1( ) into two cases.

Case.

, and . From (2.13), (2.12), (2.9), and (2.4), we clearly see that
(2.14)

Therefore, for easily follows from (2.2), (2.5), (2.7), (2.10), and (2.14).

Case 2.

, and we conclude that
(2.15)

In fact, we clearly see that for , and for and .

Equation (2.15) and imply that

(2.16)

Therefore, for follows from (2.16) together with that can be rewritten as

(2.17)

( ) If , , and , then from (2.13), (2.12), (2.9), and (2.4) we get

(2.18)
Therefore, for easily follows from (2.2), (2.5), (2.7), and (2.10) together with (2.18).
  1. (3)

    If , then we clearly see that inequalities (2.14) again hold, and for follows from (2.2), (2.5), (2.7), and (2.10) together with (2.14).

     

3. Proof of Theorem 1.1

Proof of Theorem 1.1.

For convenience, we introduce the following classified regions in :
(3.1)

Then we clearly see that , and .

Without loss of generality, we assume that . From the symmetry we clearly see that Theorem 1.1 is true if we prove that is positive, negative, and neither positive nor negative with respect to for , and .

Let , then (1.1) and (1.2) lead to

(3.2)
Let
(3.3)
Then simple computations yield
(3.4)
where
(3.5)
Note that
(3.6)
(3.7)

where is defined as in Lemma 2.1.

We divide the proof into three cases.

Case.

. We divide our discussion into two subcases.

Subcase 1.

. From Lemma 2.1(2) we get
(3.8)

for .

Equations (3.3)–(3.8) imply that

(3.9)

for .

Therefore, follows from (3.2) and (3.9).

Subcase 2.

. Then from (1.1), (1.4), and (1.6) together with the monotonicity of the power mean with respect to for fixed , we get
(3.10)

Case.

. We divide our discussion into four subcases.

Subcase 3.

. Then Lemma 2.1(1) leads to
(3.11)

for .

Therefore, follows from (3.2)–(3.7) and (3.11).

Subcase 4.

. Then from (1.1), (1.4), and (1.8) together with the monotonicity of the power mean with respect to for fixed we clearly see that
(3.12)

Subcase 5.

. Then from Lemma 2.1(3) we know that (3.11) holds again; hence, .

Subcase 6.

. Then (1.6) leads to
(3.13)

Case.

. We divide our discussion into two subcases.

Subcase 7.

. Then (2.4) leads to
(3.14)

Inequality (3.14) and the continuity of imply that there exists such that

(3.15)

for .

From (2.2) and (3.15) we clearly see that

(3.16)

for .

Therefore, for follows from (3.2)–(3.7) and (3.16).

On the other hand, from (3.3) we clearly see that

(3.17)

Equations (3.2) and (3.3) together with (3.17) imply that there exists sufficient large such that for .

Subcase 8.

. Then (2.2) and (2.4) together with the continuity of imply that there exists such that
(3.18)

for .

Therefore, for follows from (3.2)–(3.7) and (3.18).

On the other hand, from (3.3) we clearly see that

(3.19)

Equations (3.2) and (3.3) together with (3.19) imply that there exists sufficient large such that for .

Remark.

Let , then . Unfortunately, in this paper we cannot discuss the case of we leave it as an open problem to the readers.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

This research is partly supported by N. S. Foundation of China under grant no. 60850005 and the N. S. Foundation of Zhejiang Province under grants no. D7080080 and no. Y607128.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Mathematics, Huzhou Teachers College

References

  1. Trif T: Monotonicity, comparison and Minkowski's inequality for generalized Muirhead means in two variables. Mathematica 2006, 48(71)(1):99–110.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Hardy GH, Littlewood JE, Pólya G: Inequalties. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; 1934.Google Scholar
  3. Chu Y-M, Xia W-F: The Schur convexity for the generalized Muirhead mean. to appear in Bulletin mathématique de la Société des Sciences Mathématiques de Roumanie to appear in Bulletin mathématique de la Société des Sciences Mathématiques de RoumanieGoogle Scholar
  4. Qi F, Guo B-N: An inequality between ratio of the extended logarithmic means and ratio of the exponential means. Taiwanese Journal of Mathematics 2003, 7(2):229–237.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Alzer H, Qiu S-L: Inequalities for means in two variables. Archiv der Mathematik 2003, 80(2):201–215. 10.1007/s00013-003-0456-2MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Alzer H: Ungleichungen für Mittelwerte. Archiv der Mathematik 1986, 47(5):422–426. 10.1007/BF01189983MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Sándor J: Inequalities for means. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium of Mathematics and Its Applications (Timişoara, 1989), Timişoara, Romania. Romanian Academy; 87–90, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. Sándor J: On the identric and logarithmic means. Aequationes Mathematicae 1990, 40(2–3):261–270.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Sándor J: A note on some inequalities for means. Archiv der Mathematik 1991, 56(5):471–473. 10.1007/BF01200091MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Sándor J: On certain identities for means. Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai. Studia. Mathematica 1993, 38(4):7–14.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Sándor J: On refinements of certain inequalities for means. Archivum Mathematicum 1995, 31(4):279–282.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Sándor J: Two inequalities for means. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences 1995, 18(3):621–623. 10.1155/S0161171295000792MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Sándor J, Raşa I: Inequalities for certain means in two arguments. Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde. Vierde Serie 1997, 15(1–2):51–55.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Bullen PS, Mitrinović DS, Vasić PM: Means and Their Inequalities, Mathematics and Its Applications (East European Series). Volume 31. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands; 1988:xx+459.Google Scholar
  15. Carlson BC: The logarithmic mean. The American Mathematical Monthly 1972, 79: 615–618. 10.2307/2317088MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Pittenger AO: Inequalities between arithmetic and logarithmic means. Publikacije Elektrotehničkog Fakulteta. Serija Matematika i Fizika 1981, 1980(678–715):15–18.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Miao-Kun Wang et al. 2010

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.