Open Access

The Optimal Convex Combination Bounds for Seiffert's Mean

Journal of Inequalities and Applications20112011:686834

https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/686834

Received: 28 November 2010

Accepted: 28 February 2011

Published: 13 March 2011

Abstract

We derive some optimal convex combination bounds related to Seiffert's mean. We find the greatest values , and the least values , such that the double inequalities and hold for all with . Here, , , , and denote the contraharmonic, geometric, harmonic, and Seiffert's means of two positive numbers and , respectively.

1. Introduction

For with , the Seiffert't mean was introduced by Seiffert [1] as follows:
(1.1)
Recently, the inequalities for means have been the subject of intensive research. In particular, many remarkable inequalities for can be found in the literature [26]. Seiffert's mean can be rewritten as (see [5, equation (2.4)])
(1.2)
Let , and be the contraharmonic, arithmetic, geometric and harmonic means of two positive real numbers and with . Then
(1.3)
In [7], Seiffert proved that
(1.4)

for all with .

In [8], the authors found the greatest value and the least value such that the double inequality
(1.5)

holds for all with .

For more results, see [923].

The purpose of the present paper is to find the greatest values and the least values such that the double inequalities
(1.6)

hold for all with .

2. Main Results

Firstly, we present the optimal convex combination bounds of contraharmonic and geometric means for Seiffert's mean as follows.

Theorem 2.1.

The double inequality holds for all with if and only if and .

Proof.

Firstly, we prove that
(2.1)

for all with .

Without loss of generality, we assume that . Let and . Then (1.1) leads to
(2.2)
where
(2.3)
Simple computations lead to
(2.4)
where
(2.5)

We divide the proof into two cases.

Case 1 ( ).

In this case,
(2.6)
Therefore, the second inequality in (2.1) follows from (2.2)–(2.6). Notice that in this case, the second equality in (2.4) becomes
(2.7)

Case 2 ( ).

From (2.5), we have that
(2.8)
(2.9)
(2.10)
(2.11)
(2.12)
(2.13)
(2.14)
(2.15)
(2.16)
(2.17)
(2.18)
From (2.17) and (2.18), we clearly see that for ; hence is strictly increasing in , which together with (2.16) implies that there exists such that for and for ; and hence is strictly decreasing in and strictly increasing for . From (2.14) and the monotonicity of , there exists such that for and for ; hence is strictly decreasing in and strictly increasing for . As this goes on, there exists such that is strictly decreasing in and strictly increasing in . Note that if , then the second equality in (2.4) becomes
(2.19)

Thus for all . Therefore, the first inequality in (2.1) follows from (2.2) and (2.3).

Secondly, we prove that is the best possible lower convex combination bound of the contraharmonic and geometric means for Seiffert's mean.

If , then (2.5) (with in place of ) leads to
(2.20)
From this result and the continuity of we clearly see that there exists such that for . Then the last equality in (2.4) implies that for . Thus is decreasing for . Due to (2.4), for , which is equivalent to, by (2.2),
(2.21)

for .

Finally, we prove that is the best possible upper convex combination bound of the contraharmonic and geometric means for Seiffert's mean.

If , then from (1.1) one has
(2.22)
Inequality (2.22) implies that for any there exists such that
(2.23)

for .

Secondly, we present the optimal convex combination bounds of the contraharmonic and harmonic means for Seiffert's mean as follows.

Theorem 2.2.

The double inequality holds for all with if and only if and .

Proof.

Firstly, we prove that
(2.24)

for all with .

Without loss of generality, we assume that . Let and . Then (1.1) leads to
(2.25)
where
(2.26)
Simple computations lead to
(2.27)
where
(2.28)

We divide the proof into two cases.

Case 1 ( ).

In this case,
(2.29)
Therefore, the first inequality in (2.24) follows from (2.25)–(2.29). Notice that in this case, the second equality in (2.27) becomes
(2.30)

Case 2 ( ).

From (2.28) we have that
(2.31)
(2.32)
(2.33)
(2.34)
(2.35)
(2.36)
(2.37)
(2.38)
(2.39)
(2.40)
(2.41)
From (2.40) and (2.41) we clearly see that for ; hence is strictly decreasing in , which together with (2.39) implies that there exists such that for and for , and hence is strictly increasing in and strictly decreasing for . From (2.37) and the monotonicity of , there exists such that for and for ; hence is strictly increasing in and strictly decreasing for . As this goes on, there exists such that is strictly increasing in and strictly decreasing in . Notice that if , then the second equality in (2.27) becomes
(2.42)

Thus for all . Therefore, the second inequality in (2.24) follows from (2.25) and (2.26).

Secondly, we prove that is the best possible upper convex combination bound of the contraharmonic and harmonic means for Seiffert's mean.

If , then (2.28) (with in place of ) leads to
(2.43)
From this result and the continuity of we clearly see that there exists such that for . Then the last equality in (2.27) implies that for . Thus is increasing for . Due to (2.27), for , which is equivalent to, by (2.25),
(2.44)

for .

Finally, we prove that is the best possible lower convex combination bound of the contraharmonic and harmonic means for Seiffert's mean.

If , then from (1.1) one has
(2.45)
Inequality (2.45) implies that for any there exists such that
(2.46)

for .

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the anonymous referees for their very careful reading of the paper and fruitful comments and suggestions. This research is partly supported by N S Foundation of Hebei Province (Grant A2011201011), and the Youth Foundation of Hebei University (Grant 2010Q24).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
College of Mathematics and Computer Science, Hebei University
(2)
Department of Mathematics, Baoding College

References

  1. Seiffert H-J: Problem 887. Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde 1993,11(2):176.Google Scholar
  2. Seiffert H-J: Aufgabe 16. Die Wurzel 1995, 29: 221–222.Google Scholar
  3. Hästö PA: Optimal inequalities between Seiffert's mean and power means. Mathematical Inequalities & Applications 2004,7(1):47–53.MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Neuman E, Sándor J: On certain means of two arguments and their extensions. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences 2003, (16):981–993.Google Scholar
  5. Neuman E, Sándor J: On the Schwab-Borchardt mean. Mathematica Pannonica 2003,14(2):253–266.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Hästö PA: A monotonicity property of ratios of symmetric homogeneous means. Journal of Inequalities in Pure and Applied Mathematics 2002,3(5, article 71):1–54.Google Scholar
  7. Seiffert H-J: Ungleichungen für einen bestimmten mittelwert. Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde 1995,13(2):195–198.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Chu Y-M, Qiu Y-F, Wang M-K, Wang G-D: The optimal convex combination bounds of arithmetic and harmonic means for the Seiffert's mean. Journal of Inequalities and Applications 2010, -7.Google Scholar
  9. Wang M-K, Chu Y-M, Qiu Y-F: Some comparison inequalities for generalized Muirhead and identric means. Journal of Inequalities and Applications 2010, 2010:-10.Google Scholar
  10. Wang M-K, Qiu Y-F, Chu Y-M: Sharp bounds for Seiffert means in terms of Lehmer means. Journal of Mathematical Inequalities 2010,4(4):581–586.MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Wang S, Chu Y: The best bounds of the combination of arithmetic and harmonic means for the Seiffert's mean. International Journal of Mathematical Analysis 2010,4(22):1079–1084.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Zong C, Chu Y: An inequality among identric, geometric and Seiffert's means. International Mathematical Forum 2010,5(26):1297–1302.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Long B-Y, Chu Y-M: Optimal inequalities for generalized logarithmic, arithmetic, and geometric means. Journal of Inequalities and Applications 2010, 2010:-10.Google Scholar
  14. Long B-Y, Chu Y-M: Optimal power mean bounds for the weighted geometric mean of classical means. Journal of Inequalities and Applications 2010, 2010:-6.Google Scholar
  15. Xia W-F, Chu Y-M, Wang G-D: The optimal upper and lower power mean bounds for a convex combination of the arithmetic and logarithmic means. Abstract and Applied Analysis 2010, 2010:-9.Google Scholar
  16. Chu Y-M, Long B-Y: Best possible inequalities between generalized logarithmic mean and classical means. Abstract and Applied Analysis 2010, 2010:-13.Google Scholar
  17. Shi M-Y, Chu Y-M, Jiang Y-P: Optimal inequalities among various means of two arguments. Abstract and Applied Analysis 2009, 2009:-10.Google Scholar
  18. Chu Y-M, Xia W-F: Two sharp inequalities for power mean, geometric mean, and harmonic mean. Journal of Inequalities and Applications 2009, 2009:-6.Google Scholar
  19. Chu Y-M, Xia W-F: Inequalities for generalized logarithmic means. Journal of Inequalities and Applications 2009, 2009:-7.Google Scholar
  20. Wen J, Wang W-L: The optimization for the inequalities of power means. Journal of Inequalities and Applications 2006, 2006:-25.Google Scholar
  21. Hara T, Uchiyama M, Takahasi S-E: A refinement of various mean inequalities. Journal of Inequalities and Applications 1998,2(4):387–395. 10.1155/S1025583498000253MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Neuman E, Sándor J: On the Schwab-Borchardt mean. Mathematica Pannonica 2006,17(1):49–59.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Jagers AA: Solution of problem 887. Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde 1994, 12: 230–231.Google Scholar

Copyright

© H. Liu and X.-J. Meng. 2011

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.