Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Convexity and concavity of the complete elliptic integrals with respect to Lehmer mean

Journal of Inequalities and Applications20152015:396

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-015-0926-7

  • Received: 7 September 2015
  • Accepted: 1 December 2015
  • Published:

Abstract

In this paper, the authors present necessary and sufficient conditions for the complete elliptic integrals of the first and second kind to be convex or concave with respect to the Lehmer mean.

Keywords

  • complete elliptic integral
  • generalized convexity
  • Lehmer mean

MSC

  • 33C05
  • 26E60

1 Introduction and main results

1.1 Legendre’s complete elliptic integrals

For \(r\in[0,1]\), Legendre’s complete elliptic integrals of the first and second kind [1, 2] are defined by
$$ {\mathcal{K}}(r)= \int_{0}^{{\pi}/{2}}\bigl(1-r^{2} \sin^{2}\theta\bigr)^{-1/2}\,d \theta $$
(1.1)
and
$$ {\mathcal{E}}(r)= \int_{0}^{{\pi}/{2}}\bigl(1-r^{2} \sin^{2}\theta\bigr)^{1/2}\,d\theta, $$
(1.2)
respectively. Note that \({\mathcal{K}}(0)={\mathcal{E}}(0)={\pi}/2\) and \({\mathcal{K}}(1)=\infty\), \({\mathcal{E}}(1)=1\).

It is well known that the complete elliptic integrals have many important applications in geometric function theory, theory of mean values, number theory, and many other areas of mathematics, as well as physics and engineering [39].

Because of the importance of the complete elliptic integrals, they have been studied extensively by many researchers from different points. The asymptotic behavior of \(\mathcal{K}(r)\) near the singularity \(r=1\) has been explored by Kühnau [10], and Alzer and Qiu [11]. Many remarkable inequalities and monotonicity properties for \({\mathcal{K}}(r)\) and \({\mathcal{E}}(r)\) can be found in the literature [4, 1223]. The generalization of the complete elliptic integrals was first introduced by Vuorinen et al. in [24], and subsequently they were studied intensively in [2529].

1.2 Generalized convexity

In order to introduce the generalized convexity, we first recall the definition of mean function and several classical means.

Definition 1.1

([14], Definition 2.1)

A function \(M:(0,\infty)\times(0,\infty)\rightarrow (0,\infty)\) is said to be a mean function if
  1. (1)

    \(\min(x,y)\leq M(x,y)\leq \max{(x,y)}\),

     
  2. (2)

    \(M(x,x)=x\),

     
  3. (3)

    \(M(x,y)=M(y,x)\),

     
  4. (4)

    \(M(ax,ay)=aM(x,y)\) for all \(a>0\).

     

Example 1.2

  1. (1)

    \(A(x,y)=(x+y)/{2}\) is the arithmetic mean;

     
  2. (2)

    \(G(x,y)=\sqrt{xy}\) is the geometric mean;

     
  3. (3)

    \(H(x,y)=2xy/(x+y)\) is the harmonic mean;

     
  4. (4)

    \(H_{p}(x,y)=[(x^{p}+y^{p})/{2}]^{{1}/{p}}\) if \(p\neq 0\), and \(H_{0}(x,y)=G(x,y)=\sqrt{xy}\) is the pth Hölder (power) mean;

     
  5. (5)

    \(L_{p}(x,y)=(x^{p+1}+y^{p+1})/(x^{p}+y^{p})\) is the pth Lehmer mean.

     

Definition 1.3

([14], Definition 2.3)

Let I be a subinterval of \((0,\infty)\), \(f:I\rightarrow(0,\infty)\) be a continuous function, and M and N be any two mean functions. Then f is said to be \((M,N)\)-convex (concave) on I if
$$ f \bigl(M(x,y) \bigr)\leq(\geq) N\bigl(f(x),f(y)\bigr) $$
(1.3)
for all \(x,y\in I\). Moreover, if the inequality (1.3) is strict except for \(x=y\), then f is said to be strictly \((M,N)\)-convex (concave) on I.
In particular, if both M and N are Hölder means, then (1.3) reduces to
$$ f \bigl(H_{p}(x,y) \bigr)\leq(\geq) H_{q} \bigl(f(x),f(y)\bigr), $$
(1.4)
and f is said to be \(H_{p,q}\)-convex (concave) on I. Also, if inequality (1.4) is strict except for \(x=y\), then f is said to be strictly \(H_{p,q}\)-convex (concave) on I.

Recently, the generalized convexity or concavity has attracted the attention of many mathematicians [3040]. Baricz [30] proved that \(\mathcal{K}(r)\) is strictly \(H_{p,p}\)-convex on \((0,1)\) for \(p\in(0,2]\). Zhang et al. [39] improved Baricz’s result and proved that \(\mathcal{K}(r)\) is strictly \(H_{p,q}\)-convex on \((0,1)\) for \((p,q)\in \{(p,q)|p\leq2, q\geq 0\}\). In [41], the authors presented the least value \(p_{1}\) and greatest value \(p_{2}\) such that \(H_{p}(\mathcal{K}(x),\mathcal{K}(y))\geq \mathcal{K}(H_{p}(x,y))\) or \(H_{p}(\mathcal{E}(x),\mathcal{E}(y))\leq \mathcal{E}(H_{p}(x,y))\) for all \(p\in [p_{1},p_{2}]\) and \(x,y\in(0,1)\). Very recently, the \(H_{p,q}\)-convexity and \(H_{p,q}\)-concavity of the complete elliptic integrals are discussed in [33, 38].

Theorem 1.4

([38], Theorem 1.4)

Let
$$ C(q)=\inf _{r\in(0,1)} \bigl\{ (q-1) \bigl(\mathcal{E}-{r'}^{2} \mathcal{K}\bigr)/\bigl({r'}^{2} \mathcal{K} \bigr)+r^{2}\bigl(2\mathcal{E}-{r'}^{2} \mathcal{K}\bigr)/\bigl[{r'}^{2}\bigl(\mathcal{E}-{r'}^{2} \mathcal{K}\bigr)\bigr] \bigr\} $$
be a continuous function with \(C(q)=2\) for all \(q\geq -7/2\) and \(C(q)<2\) for all \(q<-7/2\). Then the complete elliptic integrals of the first kind \(\mathcal{K}(r)\) is strictly \(H_{p,q}\)-convex if and only if
$$ (p,q)\in D=\bigl\{ (p,q)|p\leq C(q)\bigr\} , $$
and there are no values of p and q for which \(\mathcal{K}(r)\) is \(H_{p,q}\)-concave on \((0,1)\).

Theorem 1.5

([33], Theorem 1.5)

Let
$$ D(q)=\inf _{r\in(0,1)}\bigl\{ r^{2}{\mathcal{E}}/\bigl[{r'}^{2}( \mathcal{K}-\mathcal{E})\bigr]+(1-q) (\mathcal{K}-\mathcal{E})/{\mathcal{E}}\bigr\} $$
be a continuous function with \(D(q)=2\) for all \(q\leq 5/2\) and \(D(q)<2\) for all \(q>5/2\). Then the complete elliptic integrals of the second kind \(\mathcal{E}(r)\) is strictly \(H_{p,q}\)-concave if and only if
$$ (p,q)\in D^{\ast}=\bigl\{ (p,q)|p\leq D(q)\bigr\} , $$
and there are no values of p and q for which \(\mathcal{E}(r)\) is \(H_{p,q}\)-convex on \((0,1)\).

The main purpose of this short note is to establish the necessary and sufficient conditions for the convexity or concavity of the complete elliptic integrals of the first and second kind with respect to the Lehmer mean. Our main results are as follows.

Theorem 1.6

The complete elliptic integral of the first kind \(\mathcal{K}(r)\) is strictly \(L_{\lambda,\lambda}\)-convex on \((0,1)\) if and only if \(\lambda\in[-1,0]\).

Theorem 1.7

The complete elliptic integral of the second kind \(\mathcal{E}(r)\) is strictly \(L_{\lambda,\lambda}\)-concave on \((0,1)\) if and only if \(\lambda\in(-\infty,0]\).

2 A lemma

In order to prove our main results we need a lemma, which we present in this section.

Lemma 2.1

(see [42])

The inequality
$$ H_{2t+1}(x,y)\leq L_{t}(x,y) $$
(2.1)
holds for all \(x,y\in \mathbb{R}^{+}\) if \(t\in(-1,-1/2)\cup (0,+\infty)\), and the inequality
$$ H_{2t+1}(x,y)\geq L_{t}(x,y) $$
(2.2)
holds for all \(x,y\in \mathbb{R}^{+}\) if \(t\in(-\infty,-1)\cup(-1/2,0)\). Inequality (2.1) or (2.2) becomes an equality for all \(x,y\in \mathbb{R}^{+}\) if \(t=-1\), \(-1/2\), or 0; otherwise inequality (2.1) or (2.2) becomes an equality only when \(x=y\). Moreover, \(H_{2t+1}(x,y)\) is the best possible lower (or upper) Hölder mean bound for \(L_{t}(x, y)\) in (2.1) (or (2.2)).

3 Proofs of main results

Proof of Theorem 1.6

Since
$$ L_{0}(x,y)=A(x,y)=H_{1}(x,y),\qquad L_{-1/2}(x,y)=G(x,y)=H_{0}(x,y) $$
and
$$ L_{-1}(x,y)=H(x,y)=H_{-1}(x,y). $$
Therefore, Theorem 1.4 and (1.4) show that \(\{(p,q)|(-1,-1),(0,0),(1,1)\}\subset D\), namely, for \(\lambda=0\), \(-1/2\) or −1, the inequality
$$ \mathcal{K}\bigl(L_{\lambda}(x,y)\bigr)< L_{\lambda}\bigl( \mathcal{K}(x),\mathcal{K}(y)\bigr) $$
holds for all \(x,y\in(0,1)\) with \(x\neq y\). Thus \(\mathcal{K}(r)\) is strictly \(L_{\lambda,\lambda}\)-convex on \((0,1)\) for \(\lambda=0\), \(-1/2\) and −1.

Next, we divide the proof into four cases.

Case 1. \(-1/2<\lambda<0\). Then it follows from Theorem 1.4 and (1.4) that \((2\lambda+1,0)\in D\). Making use of Lemma 2.1 together with the monotonicity of \(\mathcal{K}(r)\) on \((0,1)\), one has
$$ \mathcal{K}\bigl(L_{\lambda}(x,y)\bigr)< \mathcal{K}\bigl(H_{2\lambda+1}(x,y) \bigr)< H_{0}\bigl(\mathcal{K}(x),\mathcal{K}(y)\bigr)< L_{\lambda}\bigl(\mathcal{K}(x),\mathcal{K}(y)\bigr) $$
for all \(x,y\in(0,1)\) with \(x\neq y\).

Therefore, \(\mathcal{K}(r)\) is strictly \(L_{\lambda,\lambda}\)-convex on \((0,1)\) for \(-1/2<\lambda<0\).

Case 2. \(-1<\lambda<-1/2\). Similarly, by Theorem 1.4 and Lemma 2.1 we have \((0,2\lambda+1)\in D\) and
$$ \mathcal{K}\bigl(L_{\lambda}(x,y)\bigr)< \mathcal{K}\bigl(H_{0}(x,y) \bigr)< H_{2\lambda+1}\bigl(\mathcal{K}(x),\mathcal{K}(y)\bigr)< L_{\lambda}\bigl(\mathcal{K}(x),\mathcal{K}(y)\bigr) $$
for all \(x,y\in(0,1)\) with \(x\neq y\). This implies that \(\mathcal{K}(r)\) is strictly \(L_{\lambda,\lambda}\)-convex on \((0,1)\) for \(-1<\lambda<-1/2\).
Case 3. \(\lambda>0\). For any \(0< y<1\), letting \(x\rightarrow 0^{+}\), then we have
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{K}\bigl(L_{\lambda}(x,y)\bigr)-L_{\lambda}\bigl( \mathcal{K}(x),\mathcal{K}(y)\bigr)& =\mathcal{K} \biggl(\frac{x^{\lambda+1}+y^{\lambda+1}}{x^{\lambda}+y^{\lambda}} \biggr) -\frac{\mathcal{K}^{\lambda+1}(x)+\mathcal{K}^{\lambda+1}(y)}{\mathcal{K}^{\lambda}(x)+\mathcal{K}^{\lambda}(y)} \\ &\rightarrow\frac{(\pi/2)^{\lambda}[\mathcal{K}(y)-\pi/2]}{(\pi/2)^{\lambda}+\mathcal{K}^{\lambda}(y)}>0. \end{aligned}$$
(3.1)

It follows from (3.1) that there exists \(x_{0}=x(y)\in(0,1)\) such that \(\mathcal{K}(L_{\lambda}(x,y))>L_{\lambda}(\mathcal{K}(x), \mathcal{K}(y))\) for all \(x\in(0,x_{0})\). Thus \(\mathcal{K}(r)\) is not \(L_{\lambda,\lambda}\)-convex on \((0,1)\) for \(\lambda>0\).

Case 4. \(\lambda<-1\). For \(0< x<1\), letting \(y\rightarrow 1^{-}\), then one has
$$ \mathcal{K}\bigl(L_{\lambda}(x,y)\bigr)-L_{\lambda}\bigl( \mathcal{K}(x),\mathcal{K}(y)\bigr)\rightarrow\mathcal{K} \biggl(\frac{1+x^{\lambda+1}}{1+x^{\lambda}} \biggr)-\mathcal{K}(x)>0, $$
where we unitize \((1+x^{\lambda+1})/(1+x^{\lambda})>x\).

Making use of the analogous arguments in Case 3 we conclude that \(\mathcal{K}(r)\) is not \(L_{\lambda,\lambda}\)-convex on \((0,1)\) for \(\lambda<-1\). □

Proof of Theorem 1.7

Clearly, by Theorem 1.5 we know that
$$ \bigl\{ (p,q)|(-1,-1),(0,0),(1,1)\bigr\} \subset D^{\ast}. $$
Thus, \(\mathcal{E}(r)\) is strictly \(L_{\lambda,\lambda}\)-concave on \((0,1)\) for \(\lambda=0\), \(-1/2\) or −1.

Next, we divide the proof into three cases.

Case I. \(-1/2<\lambda<0\) or \(\lambda<-1\). Then it is easy to check that \((2\lambda+1,2\lambda+1)\in D^{*}\). Thus Theorem 1.5 and Lemma 2.1 together with the monotonicity of \(\mathcal{E}(r)\) lead to the conclusion that
$$ \mathcal{E}\bigl(L_{\lambda}(x,y)\bigr)>\mathcal{E}\bigl(H_{2\lambda+1}(x,y) \bigr)>H_{2\lambda+1}\bigl(\mathcal{E}(x),\mathcal{E}(y)\bigr)>L_{\lambda}\bigl(\mathcal{E}(x),\mathcal{E}(y)\bigr) $$
for all \(x,y\in(0,1)\) with \(x\neq y\).

Therefore, \(\mathcal{E}(r)\) is strictly \(L_{\lambda,\lambda}\)-concave on \((0,1)\) for \(-1/2<\lambda<0\) or \(\lambda<-1\).

Case II. \(-1<\lambda<-1/2\). Then by Theorem 1.5 and Lemma 2.1 we get
$$ \mathcal{E}\bigl(L_{\lambda}(x,y)\bigr)>\mathcal{E}\bigl(H_{0}(x,y) \bigr)>H_{0}\bigl(\mathcal{E}(x),\mathcal{E}(y)\bigr)>L_{\lambda}\bigl(\mathcal{E}(x),\mathcal{E}(y)\bigr) $$
for all \(x,y\in(0,1)\) with \(x\neq y\).

Therefore, \(\mathcal{E}(r)\) is strictly \(L_{\lambda,\lambda}\)-concave on \((0,1)\) for \(-1<\lambda<-1/2\).

Case III. \(\lambda>0\). For any \(0< y<1\), letting \(x\rightarrow0^{+}\), then we have
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{E}\bigl(L_{\lambda}(x,y)\bigr)-L_{\lambda}\bigl( \mathcal{E}(x),\mathcal{E}(y)\bigr) &=\mathcal{E} \biggl(\frac{x^{\lambda+1}+y^{\lambda+1}}{x^{\lambda}+y^{\lambda}} \biggr)- \frac{\mathcal{E}^{\lambda+1}(x)+\mathcal{E}^{\lambda+1}(y)}{ \mathcal{E}^{\lambda}(x)+\mathcal{E}^{\lambda}(y)} \\ &\rightarrow\frac{(\pi/2)^{\lambda}[\mathcal{E}(y)-\pi/2]}{(\pi/2)^{\lambda}+\mathcal{E}^{\lambda}(y)}< 0. \end{aligned}$$
(3.2)

It follows from (3.2) that there exists \(x_{1}=x(y)\in(0,1)\) such that \(\mathcal{E}(L_{\lambda}(x,y))< L_{\lambda}(\mathcal{E}(x),\mathcal{E}(y))\) for all \(x\in(0,x_{1})\). Thus \(\mathcal{E}(r)\) is not \(L_{\lambda,\lambda}\)-concave on \((0,1)\) for \(\lambda>0\). □

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the anonymous referees for their careful reading of the manuscript and their fruitful comments and suggestions. The research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants 11301127, 61374086 and 11171307, and the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province under Grant LY13A010004.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
School of Mathematics and Computation Sciences, Hunan City University, Yiyang, 413000, China
(2)
Department of Mathematics, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, 310036, China

References

  1. Bowman, F: Introduction to Elliptic Functions with Applications. Dover, New York (1961) MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Byrd, PF, Friedman, MD: Handbook of Elliptic Integrals for Engineers and Scientists. Springer, New York (1971) View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, GD, Qiu, S-L, Vamanamurthy, MK: Elliptic integral inequalities, with applications. Constr. Approx. 14(2), 195-207 (1998) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, GD, Vamanamurthy, MK, Vuorinen, M: Conformal Invariants, Inequalities, and Quasiconformal Maps. Wiley, New York (1997) MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, GD, Vamanamurthy, MK, Vuorinen, M: Topics in Special Functions, Papers on Analysis. Rep. Univ. Jyväskylä Dep. Math. Stat., vol. 83, pp. 5-26. University Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä (2001) MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnard, RW, Pearce, K, Schovanec, L: Inequalities for the perimeter of an ellipse. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 260(2), 295-306 (2001) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Borwein, JM, Borwein, PB: Pi and the AGM. Wiley, New York (1987) MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlson, BC: Special Functions of Applied Mathematics. Academic Press, New York (1977) MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Olver, FWJ, Lozier, DW, Boisvert, RF, Clark, CW: NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010) MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Kühnau, R: Eine Methode, die Positivität einer Funktion zu prüfen. Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 74(2), 140-143 (1994) View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Alzer, H, Qiu, S-L: Monotonicity theorems and inequalities for the complete elliptic integrals. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 172(2), 289-312 (2004) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Anderson, GD, Vamanamurthy, MK, Vuorinen, M: Functional inequalities for complete elliptic integrals and their ratios. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 21(2), 536-549 (1990) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Anderson, GD, Vamanamurthy, MK, Vuorinen, M: Functional inequalities for hypergeometric functions and complete elliptic integrals. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 23(2), 512-524 (1992) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Anderson, GD, Vamanamurthy, MK, Vuorinen, M: Generalized convexity and inequalities. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 355(2), 1294-1308 (2007) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. András, S, Baricz, Á: Bounds for complete elliptic integral of the first kind. Expo. Math. 28(4), 357-364 (2010) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Barnard, RW, Pearce, K, Richards, KC: A monotonicity property involving \({}_{3}F_{2}\) and comparisons of the classical approximations of elliptical arc length. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 32(2), 403-419 (2000) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Barnard, RW, Pearce, K, Richards, KC: An inequality involving the generalized hypergeometric function and the arc length of an ellipse. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 31(3), 693-699 (2000) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Chu, Y-M, Wang, M-K: Optimal Lehmer mean bounds for the Toader mean. Results Math. 61(3-4), 223-229 (2012) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Qiu, S-L, Vamanamurthy, MK: Sharp estimates for complete elliptic integrals. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 27(3), 823-834 (1996) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Qiu, S-L, Vamanamurthy, MK, Vuorinen, M: Some inequalities for the growth of elliptic integrals. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 29(5), 1224-1237 (1998) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Toader, G: Some mean values related to the arithmetic-geometric mean. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 218(2), 358-368 (1998) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Vamanamurthy, MK, Vuorinen, M: Inequalities for means. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 183(1), 155-166 (1994) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang, M-K, Chu, Y-M, Qiu, S-L, Jiang, Y-P: Bounds for the perimeter of an ellipse. J. Approx. Theory 164(7), 928-937 (2012) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Anderson, GD, Qiu, S-L, Vamanamurthy, MK, Vuorinen, M: Generalized elliptic integrals and modular equations. Pac. J. Math. 192(1), 1-37 (2000) View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Baricz, Á: Turán type inequalities for generalized complete elliptic integrals. Math. Z. 256(4), 895-911 (2007) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Heikkala, V, Lindén, H, Vamanamurthy, MK, Vuorinen, M: Generalized elliptic integrals and the Legendre \(\mathcal{M}\)-function. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 388(1), 223-243 (2008) View ArticleMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Heikkala, V, Vamanamurthy, MK, Vuorinen, M: Generalized elliptic integrals. Comput. Methods Funct. Theory 9(1), 75-109 (2009) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang, M-K, Chu, Y-M, Qiu, S-L: Sharp bounds for generalized elliptic integrals of the first kind. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 429(2), 744-757 (2015) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhang, X-H, Wang, G-D, Chu, Y-M: Remark on generalized elliptic integrals. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. A 139(2), 417-426 (2009) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Baricz, Á: Convexity of the zero-balanced Gaussian hypergeometric functions with respect to Hölder means. JIPAM. J. Inequal. Pure Appl. Math. 8(2), Article ID 40 (2007) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Baricz, Á: Geometrically concave univariate distributions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 363(1), 182-196 (2010) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Borwein, D, Borwein, J, Fee, G, Girgensohn, R: Refined convexity and special cases of the Blaschke-Santalo inequality. Math. Inequal. Appl. 4(4), 631-638 (2001) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Chu, Y-M, Wang, M-K, Jiang, Y-P, Qiu, S-L: Concavity of the complete elliptic integrals of the second kind with respect to Hölder means. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 395(2), 637-642 (2012) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Matkowski, J, Rätz, J: Convexity of power functions with respect to symmetric homogeneous means. Int. Ser. Numer. Math. 123, 231-247 (1997) MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. Matkowski, J, Rätz, J: Convexity with respect to an arbitrary mean. Int. Ser. Numer. Math. 123, 249-258 (1997) MATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang, G-D, Zhang, X-H, Chu, Y-M: A Hölder mean inequality for the Hersch-Pfluger distortion function. Sci. China Math. 40, 783-786 (2010) (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  37. Wang, G-D, Zhang, X-H, Jiang, Y-P: Concavity with respect to Hölder means involving the generalized Grötzsch function. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 379(1), 200-204 (2011) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang, M-K, Chu, Y-M, Qiu, S-L, Jiang, Y-P: Convexity of the complete elliptic integrals of the first kind with respect to Hölder means. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 388(2), 1141-1146 (2012) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang, X-H, Wang, G-D, Chu, Y-M: Convexity with respect to Hölder mean involving zero-balanced hypergeometric functions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 353(1), 256-259 (2009) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhou, L-M, Qiu, S-L, Wang, F: Inequalities for the generalized elliptic integrals with respect to Hölder means. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 386(2), 641-646 (2012) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Chu, Y-M, Qiu, Y-F, Wang, M-K: Hölder mean inequalities for the complete elliptic integrals. Integral Transforms Spec. Funct. 23(7), 521-527 (2012) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Liu, Z: Remark on inequalities between Hölder and Lehmer means. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 247(1), 309-313 (2000) View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Chu and Zhao 2015

Advertisement