 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Some sharp inequalities for integral operators with homogeneous kernel
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2016, Article number: 114 (2016)
Abstract
One goal of this paper is to show that a big number of inequalities for functions in \(L^{p}(R_{+})\), \(p\geq1\), proved from time to time in journal publications are particular cases of some known general results for integral operators with homogeneous kernels including, in particular, the statements on sharp constants. Some new results are also included, e.g. the similar general equivalence result is proved and applied for \(0< p<1\). Some useful new variants of these results are pointed out and a number of known and new HardyHilbert type inequalities are derived. Moreover, a new PólyaKnopp (geometric mean) inequality is derived and applied. The constants in all inequalities in this paper are sharp.
Introduction
Let \(p>0\) and denote by \(p^{\prime}\) the conjugate parameter defined by \(\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p^{\prime}}=1\) (\(p^{\prime}=\infty\) when \(p=1\)). We also let f and g denote arbitrary measurable positive functions on \((0,\infty)\). The constants in all inequalities below and in all of this paper are sharp.
Hilbert’s inequality: The inequality
is called Hilbert’s inequality. It can equivalently be written in the form
Remark 1
Hilbert himself considered only the case \(p=2\) and the corresponding discrete form of (1) (see his paper [1] from 1906 and also [2, 3] and the historical description in [4]). \(L^{p}\)spaces with \(p\neq2\) appeared only later (around 1920). Concerning the equivalence of (1) and (2) see our Lemma 15 for a more general statement.
Hardy’s inequality: The first weighted form of Hardy’s inequality can be written in the following way:
where \(p\geq1\), \(\alpha< p1\). The (equivalent) dual form of (3) reads
where \(p\geq1\), \(\alpha>p1\).
Remark 2
For the case \(\alpha=0\) (3) is the classical Hardy inequality. The almost 10 years of research until Hardy finally proved this inequality in 1925 (see [5]) is described in detail in [4]. In particular, it is completely clear that Hardy’s motivation was to find an elementary proof of Hilbert’s inequality for the discrete case. Also the weighted variant (3) was first proved by Hardy (see [6]). The further development of inequalities (3) and (4) to what today is called Hardytype inequalities is very extensive and still a very active area of research (see e.g. the monographs [7] and [8] and [9]) and the references given there.
HardyHilbert type inequalities for homogeneous kernels: The inequalities (2)(4) can all be written in the unified form
with different kernels \(k(x,y) \)which are homogeneous of degree −1. A kernel \(k(x,y)\) is said to be homogeneous of degree λ, \(\lambda \in R\), if
It is also well known that the inequality (5) can be equivalently rewritten in the form
with the same sharp constant C.
Remark 3
There are a huge number of papers devoted to the proof of (5) and (6) for concrete kernels \(k(x,y)\) other than the classical Hilbert kernel \(k(x,y)=1/(x+y)\). In this connection we refer to the monograph [10] and the references there. Moreover, we announce that by using a standard dilation argument in (5)(6) we see that such kernels must be homogeneous of degree −1. One weakness with many of these results is that the authors do not refer to the fact that already in 1999 (see [11] and also [12]) it was given necessary and sufficient conditions for (5) to hold and with sharp constant and general kernel of degree −1. See Theorem 5.
One main aim of this paper is to discuss, complete, and apply this result to get an overview of the current situation partly described in Remark 3. See Theorem 5 and the discussion in Remark 6. Moreover, the following new results are included:

(a)
A general reversed version of the inequalities described in Remark 3 yielded for \(0< p<1\). See Theorem 7.

(b)
A corresponding equivalence theorem for homogeneous kernels of any order λ but with the righthand sides in Theorem 5 and Remark 6 replaced by some corresponding weighted \(L^{p}\)spaces so that our main results can be used. See Theorem 10 and Remark 11.

(c)
In order to be able to cover also some other results in the literature we derive a version for ‘skew symmetric’ kernels of order −1 (for the definition see (21)). See Theorem 13 and Remark 14.

(d)
A completely new geometric mean (PólyaKnopp) type inequality is derived (see Theorem 30). Moreover, we present a number of applications of this, which seems to be new too.

(e)
As applications a number of new (and also wellknown) sharp inequalities are presented.
Remark 4
The inequality
is just a limit case as \(p\rightarrow\infty\) of the Hardy inequality
In fact, just replace \(f(x)\) by \(( f(x) ) ^{1/p}\) in (8) and use the fact that (the scale of power means) \(( \frac{1}{x}\int_{0}^{x}f ( y ) ^{1/p}\,dy ) ^{p}\) converges to the geometric mean
Sometimes (7) is called Knopp’s inequality with reference to his paper [13] from 1928 but Hardy himself in his 1925 paper [5] said that Pólya pointed out this argument to him so we prefer to call the inequality (7) the PólyaKnopp inequality.
The paper is organized as follows: Some main results are presented and commented in Section 2. The detailed proofs are given in Section 3. Some applications concerning Hardy and HardyHilbert type inequalities are presented in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 is reserved for another main result, namely the announced new PólyaKnopp type inequality. Some applications of this result are also given. All inequalities in this paper have sharp constants.
Main results
We consider the integral operator K defined by
with nonnegative kernel \(k(x,y)\) (a measurable function on \(R_{+}\times R_{+} \)), which is homogeneous of degree −1, i.e.
For such kernels we also define the constant
Here and in the sequel \(\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p^{\prime}}=1\) when \(p\neq1\), and \(p^{\prime}=\infty\) when \(p=1\) (e.g. \(x^{1/p^{\prime }}=1 \) when \(p=1\)).
Our first main results reads as follows.
Theorem 5
Let \(p\geq1\), the kernel \(k(x,y)\) satisfy (10) and \(\kappa_{p}\) be the constant defined by (11). Then the following three statements are equivalent:
 (i):

The constant \(\kappa_{p}<\infty\).
 (ii):

The inequality
$$ \int_{0}^{\infty} \int_{0}^{\infty}k(x,y)f(x)g(y)\,dx\,dy\leq C\Vert f \Vert _{p}\Vert g\Vert _{p^{\prime}} $$(12)holds for some finite constant C for all \(f\in L_{p}\) and \(g\in L_{p^{\prime}}\).
 (iii):

The inequality
$$ \int_{0}^{\infty} \biggl( \int_{0}^{\infty}k(x,y)f(x)\,dx \biggr) ^{p} \,dy\leq C^{p} \int_{0}^{\infty}f^{p}(x)\,dx $$(13)holds for the same finite constant C as in (12) and all \(f\in L_{p}\).
Moreover, the constant \(C=\kappa_{p}\) is sharp in both (12) and (13).
Remark 6
The proof of (12) under the condition \(\kappa _{p}<\infty\) was given already in the book [14], Theorem 3.19. Apart from the original proof in [14], this sufficiency part may be derived, via a change of variables, from the Young theorem for convolutions in R, for details see [12] and [11]. In this way the sharpness of the constant is derived from the fact that the Young inequality \(\Vert h\ast f\Vert _{p}\leq \Vert h\Vert _{1}\Vert f\Vert _{p}\) holds with the sharp constants \(\Vert h \Vert _{1}\) when h is nonnegative. Hence, by using the results in [12] and [11] and the equivalence result in Lemma 15, Theorem 5 is essentially known even if it has not been formulated in this way before. However, to make our paper selfcontained we include a proof which also guides us how to prove the other results in this section.
For the case \(0< p<1\) it is expected that the inequalities (12) and (13) hold in the reversed direction but now with the natural restrictions
and
so the reversed inequalities (12) and (13) make sense. We also need the following minor technical condition:
for some \(\varepsilon_{0}>0\).
Theorem 7
Let \(0< p<1\) and the kernel \(k(x,y)\) satisfy (10). Moreover, assume that (14)(16) hold. Then all the statements in Theorem 5 hold with inequalities (12) and (13) holding in reversed direction.
Since \(p^{\prime}<0\) in this case we have \(\Vert g\Vert _{p^{\prime}}= ( \int_{0}^{\infty} \vert g ( y ) \vert ^{p/(p1)}\,dy ) ^{\frac{p1}{p}}\) and we assume that \(0<\Vert g\Vert _{p^{\prime}}<\infty\) here and in the sequel.
Remark 8
For the proof of the fact that \(\kappa_{p}<\infty\) implies the equivalent reversed conditions (12) and (13) we do not need the restriction (16).
A kernel \(k(x,y)\) is said to be homogeneous of degree \(\lambda_{0}\) if
Remark 9
By using a standard dilation argument it is seen that the inequalities considered in Theorem 5 can hold if and only if \(\lambda=1\). However, by changing the norms in the lefthand sides in (12) and (13) to powerweighted norms we can from our result obtain a similar result for homogeneous kernels of any degree λ. In order to be able to compare with a result in [15] we formulate this result as follows.
Theorem 10
Let \(p\geq1\) and \(\alpha,\beta\in R\). Let the kernel \(k_{\lambda_{0}}(x,y)\) satisfy (17) for \(\lambda_{0}=1+\alpha +\beta\), and define
Then the following three conditions are equivalent:
 (i^{∗}):

The constant \(\kappa_{p,\beta}<\infty\).
 (ii^{∗}):

The inequality
$$ \int_{0}^{\infty} \int_{0}^{\infty}k_{\lambda _{0}}(x,y)f(x)g(y)\,dx\,dy \leq C\Vert f\Vert _{p,x^{\alpha}} \Vert g\Vert _{p^{\prime },x^{\beta}} $$(19)holds for some finite constant C for all \(f\in L_{p,x^{\alpha}}\) and \(g\in L_{p^{\prime},x^{\beta}}\).
 (iii^{∗}):

The inequality
$$ \int_{0}^{\infty} \biggl( y^{\beta} \int_{0}^{\infty}k(x,y)f(x)\,dx \biggr) ^{p} \,dy\leq C^{p} \int_{0}^{\infty}f^{p}(x)x^{\alpha p}\,dx $$(20)holds for the same finite constant C as in (19) and all \(f\in L_{p,x^{\alpha}}\).
 (iv^{∗}):

The constant \(C=\kappa_{p,\beta}\) (defined by (18)) is sharp in both (19) and (20).
Remark 11
By choosing \(\lambda=\lambda_{0}\), \(\alpha=1\frac{ \lambda}{r}\frac{1}{p}\), \(\beta=1\frac{\lambda}{s}\frac {1}{p^{\prime}}\) (\(=\frac{\lambda}{s}+\frac{1}{p}\)) with \(s>1\), \(\frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{s}=1\) we can compare with Theorem 2.1 in [15]. For the case \(p>1\), \(\lambda _{0}>0\) the equivalence in (ii^{∗}) and (iii^{∗}) were established already in this Theorem and also the sharpness in (iv^{∗}) for these cases. However, the necessity pointed out in (i^{∗}) was not explicitly pointed out in this paper.
Remark 12
By using our Theorem 7 and making similar calculations as in the proof of Theorem 10 we can obtain a similar complement and strengthening of Theorem 2.2 in [15] yielding for \(0< p<1\) and kernels of any homogeneity \(\lambda_{0}\in R\).
In order to cover even more direct applications we finally also state another consequence (but also formal generalization) of Theorem 5. We consider here (skewsymmetric) kernels with the following generalized homogeneity of order −1:
Theorem 13
Let \(p\geq1\) and let the kernel \(k(x,y)\) satisfy (21) with (generalized duality) condition \(\frac{a}{p^{\prime }}+\frac{b}{p}=1\) and define
Then the following conditions are equivalent:
 (i):

The constant \(\kappa_{p}(a,b)<\infty\).
 (ii):

The inequality
$$ \int_{0}^{\infty} \int_{0}^{\infty}k(x,y)f(x)g(y)\,dx\,dy\leq C\Vert f \Vert _{p}\Vert g\Vert _{p^{\prime}} $$(22)holds for some finite constant C for all \(f\in L_{p}\) and \(g\in L_{p^{\prime}}\).
 (iii):

The inequality
$$ \int_{0}^{\infty} \biggl( \int_{0}^{\infty}k(x,y)f(x)\,dy \biggr) ^{p} \,dx\leq C^{p} \int_{0}^{\infty}f^{p}(x)\,dx $$(23)holds for the same finite constant C as in (22) and all \(f\in L_{p}\).
 (iv):

The sharp constant in both (22) and (23) is \(C=\kappa_{p}(a,b)\).
Remark 14
By using a similar proof to that of Theorem 13 we can obtain a similar consequence (and formal extension) also of our Theorem 7.
For the proof of these Theorems we need a lemma of independent interest, which we state and prove in a little more general form. Let \(k(x,y)\) denote a positive kernel on \(R_{+}\times R_{+}\).
Lemma 15

(a)
Let \(p\geq1\). The following statements are equivalent:

(i)
The inequality
$$ \int_{0}^{\infty} \int_{0}^{\infty}k(x,y)f(x)g(y)\,dx\,dy\leq C\Vert f \Vert _{p}\Vert g\Vert _{p^{\prime}} $$(24)holds for some finite constant C and all \(f\in L_{p}\) and \(g\in L_{p^{\prime}}\).

(ii)
The inequality
$$ \int_{0}^{\infty} \biggl( \int_{0}^{\infty}k(x,y)f(x)\,dx \biggr) ^{p} \,dy\leq C^{p} \int_{0}^{\infty}f^{p}(x)\,dx $$(25)holds for the same finite constant C as in (24) and all \(f\in L_{p}\).

(i)

(b)
Let \(0< p<1\). A similar equivalence to that in (a) holds also in this case but with the inequalities in (24) and (25) reversed (here we use the same convention concerning \(\Vert g\Vert _{p^{\prime}}\) as before, see the sentence after Theorem 7).
Remark 16
The statement in (a) is well known and follows from a more general statement in functional analysis. However, we give here another simple direct proof which works also to prove that part (b) holds, which seems not to have been explicitly stated before.
Proofs
Proof of Lemma 15
(a) Let \(p>1\). Assume that (25) holds. Then, by using Hölder’s inequality, we find that
so (24) holds. Now assume that (24) holds and choose
With this choice
Thus, by (24),
Hence,
so (25) holds.
Let \(p=1\) so \(p^{\prime}=\infty\). By applying (24) with \(g(y)\equiv1\) we see that (24) implies (25). Moreover, by using that \(g(y)\leq \Vert g\Vert _{\infty} \), \(y\in (0,\infty) \), we find that (25) implies (24).
(b) Hölder’s inequality holds in the reversed direction in this case. Hence, the proof of (b) only consists of obvious modifications of the proof of (a). □
Proof of Theorem 5
Let \(p>1\) and assume that i) holds. Then, by Hölder’s inequality and K defined by (9), we have
In \(I_{1}\) we change the variable y to yx and use (10) and (11) to obtain
We conclude that
We now change the variable x to xy using (10) and (11) to find that
Hence, by (11), (26), and the Fubini theorem,
which means that (13) holds with \(C={\kappa}_{p}^{p}\) for any \(f\in L_{p}\).
Next we assume that (13) holds for some \(C<\infty\) and all \(f\in L_{p}\). By using the sharpness in Hölder’s inequality we have the following representation formula:
Let \(\varepsilon>0\) and consider the following test function:
Moreover, let
which has the property \(\Vert \Psi \Vert _{p^{\prime}}=1\).
We note that
Moreover,
Furthermore, by changing the variable y to yx and using (10) we find that
We insert this into (29) and use Fubini’s theorem to obtain
Hence, by using (12), (27), (28), together with this inequality, we conclude that
Thus, by letting \(\varepsilon\rightarrow0^{+}\) in (30) and using the Fatou lemma, we see that (i) holds and
The proof of the equivalence of (i) and (iii) is complete including the fact that \(C={\kappa}_{p}^{p}\) is the sharp constant in (13).
Moreover, by using Lemma 15, we see that statements (i) and (ii) are equivalent including the fact that the constant \(C= {\kappa}_{p}\) is sharp also in (12). We have thus also proved that statement (iv) is correct.
For the case \(p=1\) we again change the variable x to yx and use (10) to obtain
i.e. (13) holds even with equality with constant \({\kappa}_{1}\) and all \(f\in L_{1}\). In particular, the equivalence of (i) and (iii) is proved. The equivalence of (ii) and (iii) follows from Lemma 15 and the statement (iv) is obvious. The proof is complete. □
Proof of Theorem 7
First we note that Hölder’s inequality holds in the reversed direction so the proof of the necessity part follows exactly as in the proof of Theorem 5. For the proof of the sufficiency part instead of the representation formula (27) in the case \(0< p<1\) we use the corresponding representation formula,
with the same interpretation of \(\Vert \Psi \Vert _{p^{\prime}}\) as mentioned just after Theorem 7. By using the same test function \(f_{\varepsilon}\) and the corresponding \(\Psi_{\varepsilon }\) we now come to that (30) holds in the reversed direction but the problem is now that we cannot use the Fatou lemma. However, according to (16) we have
This shows that the constant \(C={\kappa}_{p}^{p}\) is sharp in the reversed form of (13). The remaining part of the proof follows by applying Lemma 15(b). □
Proof of Theorem 10
Consider Theorem 5 with f replaced by \(fx^{\alpha}\), g replaced by \(gx^{\beta}\), and the kernel
which is homogeneous of degree −1. Hence, Theorem 10 follows from Theorem 5. (Note that \(k(1,y)=k_{\lambda _{0}}(1,y)y^{\beta}\).) □
Proof of Theorem 13
Introduce the auxiliary kernel \(k_{1}(x,y) := k(a^{a},y^{b})\) which obviously is homogeneous of order −1 in usual sense. Moreover, in (22) we make the changes of variables \(x=u^{a}\) and \(y=v^{b}\) and define
and
This leads us to consider the kernel
In order that also this kernel shall have homogeneity −1 we must assume that
We now apply Theorem 5 with f and g replaced by F and G and with the kernel \(k_{2}(u,v)\) and the proof follows. □
Examples of inequalities covered by the results in Section 3
First we present two simple standard examples.
Example 17
Let \(f(x,y)=\frac{1}{x+y}\) and \(p>1\). Then Theorem 5 guarantees that the following equivalent inequalities hold:
and
with the sharp constant
In a similar way we can get a great number of so called HardyHilbert type inequalities by using other related kernels of homogeneous type −1. For example, if \(\lambda p^{\prime}>1\) we have the following equivalent inequalities:
and
with sharp constant
Remark 18
Inequalities of the type (31) and (32) are in several papers called HardyHilbert or Hilbert type inequalities. As we have pointed out they are a consequence of Theorem 5 and can be obtained if and only if the kernel \(k(x,y)\) is homogeneous of type −1. A great number of examples have been presented in the literature but most such results can also be derived from Theorem 5 for \(1\leq p<\infty\) and from the reversed forms from Theorem 7 for \(0< p<1\).
Example 19
Let \(k(x,y)=x^{\alpha1}y^{\alpha}\), \(0< y\leq x\), \(k(x,y)=0\), \(y>x\). Then Theorem 5 implies the following equivalent inequalities:
and
with the sharp constant
By instead using the kernel \(k(x,y)=x^{\alpha1}y^{\alpha}\), \(y\geq x\), \(k(x,y)=0\), \(0< y< x\), Theorem 5 implies the equivalent inequalities
and
with the sharp constant
Remark 20
The inequality (33) is the first weighted form of Hardy’s original inequality proved by Hardy himself in 1928 (see [6]). Equation (34) is sometimes called the dual form of (33), in fact these inequalities are in a sense equivalent.
In our next example we unify and generalize the inequalities in Examples 17 and 19 by presenting a scale of inequalities between these inequalities (a genuine HardyHilbert inequality).
Example 21
Apply Theorem 5 with the kernel
We find that the (HardyHilbert type) inequality
where \(0< a\leq\infty\), holds with the sharp constant
where \(0< a\leq\infty\), \(1\leq p\leq\infty\),
and \(B_{z}(u,v)\) denotes the incomplete betafunction
Remark 22
Concerning (35) note especially that
 (∗):

if \(a=1\), \(\beta=0\), we obtain the Hardy inequality (33) in Example 19,
 (∗∗):

if \(a=\infty\), \(\beta=1\), \(\alpha=0\) we get the Hilbert inequality in Example 17,
 (∗∗∗):

in all (Hardy like) cases \(\beta=0\) we have the sharp constant
$$ \frac{a^{\frac{1}{p^{\prime}}\alpha}}{\frac{1}{p^{\prime}}\alpha },\quad \alpha< \frac{1}{p^{\prime}}. $$
Remark 23
Recall also that the incomplete betafunction is a particular case of the Gauss hypergeometric function: \(B_{z}(u,v)= ( \frac{z^{u}}{u} ){} _{2}F_{1} (u,1v;u+1;z)\), which gives an alternative expression for the sharp constant
Making use of the various known properties of the Gauss function, one can produce further particular cases of the above HardyHilbert inequality with ‘nice’ sharp constants. For instance, it is known that
see [16], formula 9.12.6. Then, under the choice \(\beta=1\) and \(\alpha=\frac{1}{p}\) in (35), this yields the following particular case of (35):
with the sharp constant \(\varkappa_{p}=\ln ( 1+a ) \), \(0< a<\infty\).
The following example is a dual counterpart to Example 21.
Example 24
Applying Theorem 5 with the kernel
and we find that
where \(0\leq a<\infty\), with the sharp constant
where \(0\leq a<\infty\), \(1\leq p\leq\infty\), and
Example 25
(HardyLittlewood inequality [17])
We have
with the sharp constant
The following example is also a particular case of Theorem 5.
Example 26
We have
with the sharp constant
As a simple generalization of Example 17, the next example also easily follows from Theorem 5.
Example 27
(Hilbert type inequality)
We have
under the assumption that
This constant \(\varkappa_{p}\) is sharp when \(a(y)\geq0\). In particular,
with the sharp constant
and
with the sharp constant
We finish this section by also giving the following application of our Theorem 13.
Example 28
Let \(\alpha>0\), \(p>1\), and λ, μ satisfy that
Then the following inequalities hold and are equivalent:

(i)
\(\int_{0}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\infty} ( \frac{1}{x^{\lambda }+y^{\mu}} ) ^{\alpha}f ( x ) g ( y ) \,dx\,dy\leq C\Vert f\Vert _{p}\Vert g\Vert _{p^{\prime}}\) for all \(f\in L_{p} \)and \(g\in L_{p^{\prime}}\).

(ii)
\(\int_{0}^{\infty} ( \int_{0}^{\infty} ( \frac{1}{x^{\lambda}+y^{\mu}} ) ^{\alpha}f ( x ) \,dy ) ^{p}\,dx\leq C^{p}\int_{0}^{\infty}f^{p} ( x ) \,dx\) for all \(f\in L_{p}\).
The sharp constant C in both (i) and (ii) is
with \(a_{0}=\frac{1}{p} ( 2\alpha\frac{1}{\mu} ) \) and \(a_{1}=\alphaa_{0}\).
In fact, the proof follows by just using Theorem 13 with \(a=\frac{1}{\lambda\alpha}\), \(b=\frac{1}{\mu\alpha}\) and making some straightforward calculations.
Remark 29
In the classical Hilbert case \(\alpha=\lambda=\mu=1\) we obtain
so that (i) coincides with the classical form (1) of Hilbert’s inequality.
A new general geometric mean type inequality
In addition to the constant \(\varkappa_{p}\) defined in (11), we also introduce the constants
and
assuming that \(k ( x,y ) \geq0\) and maybe zero only on a set of measure zero.
Our new general geometric mean inequality reads as follows.
Theorem 30
Let \(f(x)\geq0\), let \(\varkappa_{\infty}<\infty \) for some \(p>1\). If \(\varkappa^{\ast}<\infty\), then
and the constant \(e^{\varkappa^{\ast}}\) is sharp.
Proof
First we observe that
because
Therefore, we can apply the inequality (13) for all sufficiently large p.
We rewrite this inequality as
Here, we replace \(f(x)\) by \(f(x)^{\lambda}\), and also p by \(\frac{1}{ \lambda}\), where λ is an arbitrarily small positive number, and we make use of the relation
We get
Denote
Since \(\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow0} ( g_{\lambda} ( x ) ) =1\) for almost all x we have
Similarly
and from (37) we arrive at (36). □
Example 31
(Generated by a weighted Hardy inequality)
Take \(k(x,y)=\frac{x^{a1}}{y^{\alpha}}\) when \(y\leq x\) and \(k(x,y)=0\) otherwise, where \(\alpha<1\). Then \(\varkappa_{\infty}=\frac{1}{1\alpha}\) and
and (36) turns into
with \(e^{\frac{1}{1\alpha}}\) as the sharp constant. For \(\alpha=0\) this is the classical PólyaKnopp inequality (see (7)).
Example 32
(Generated by weighted Hilbert inequality)
Take \(k(x,y)= ( \frac{x}{y} ) ^{\alpha}\frac{1}{x+y}\) where \(0<\alpha <1\). Then
To calculate \(\varkappa^{\ast}\) we differentiate the last equality in α and get
so that \(\varkappa^{\ast}=\pi\cot\alpha\pi\) and (36) turns into the sharp inequality
Example 33
(Generated by the HardyLittlewood inequality)
Take \(k(x,y)=\frac{1}{x^{\alpha} ( xy ) ^{1\alpha}}\) when \(y< x\) and \(k(x,y)=0\) otherwise, where \(\alpha>0\). Then \(\varkappa_{\infty}=\frac {1}{\alpha}\). Via integration by parts and some additional tricks it may be shown that
where \(\psi(z)=\frac{\Gamma^{\prime}(z)}{\Gamma(z)}\) is the Euler psi function and we find that (36) turns into the PólyaKnopp type inequality
Note that in the case \(\alpha=1\) the inequality (38) turns into the classical PólyaKnopp inequality (see (7)) with the sharp constant e in view of the property \(\psi(2)=\psi ( 1 ) +1\) of the psi function.
References
 1.
Hilbert, D: Grundzüge einer allgemeiner Theorier der linearen Integralgleichungen. Göttingen Nachr. 157227 (1906)
 2.
Hilbert, D: Grundzüge einer allgemeiner Theorie der linearen Integralgleichungen. Teubner, Leipzig (1912)
 3.
Weyl, H: Singulare Integralgleichungen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Fourierschen Integral theoremes. PhD dissertation, Göthingen (1908)
 4.
Kufner, A, Maligranda, L, Persson, LE: The prehistory of the Hardy inequality. Am. Math. Mon. 113(8), 715732 (2006)
 5.
Hardy, GH: Notes on some points in the integral calculus, LX. An inequality between integrals. Messenger Math. 54, 150156 (1925)
 6.
Hardy, GH: Notes on some points in the integral calculus, LXIV. Messenger Math. 57, 1216 (1928)
 7.
Kokilashvili, V, Meskhi, A, Persson, LE: Weighted Norm Inequalities for Integral Transforms with Product Weights. Nova Science Publishers, New York (2010)
 8.
Kufner, A, Maligranda, L, Persson, LE: The Hardy Inequality  About Its History and Some Related Results. Vydavatelsky Servis Publishing House, Pilsen (2007)
 9.
Kufner, A, Persson, LE: Weighted Inequalities of Hardy Type. World Scientific, River Edge (2003)
 10.
Krnić, M, Pečarić, J, Perić, I, Vuković, P: Recent Advances in HilbertType Inequalities. Element, Zagreb (2012)
 11.
Karapetiants, NK, Samko, SG: Multidimensional integral operators with homogeneous kernels. Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 2(1), 6796 (1999)
 12.
Karapetiants, NK, Samko, SG: Equations with Involutive Operators. Birkhäuser, Boston (2001)
 13.
Knopp, K: Über Reihen mit positive Gliedern. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 3, 205211 (1928)
 14.
Hardy, GH, Littlewood, JE, Pólya, G: Inequalities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1934)
 15.
Zhong, W: The Hilberttype integral inequalities with a homogeneous kernel of −λdegree. J. Inequal. Appl. 2008, Article ID 917392 (2008)
 16.
Gradshtein, IS, Ryzhik, IM: Tables of Integrals, Sums, Series and Products, 5th edn. Academic Press, San Diego (1994)
 17.
Hardy, GH, Littlewood, JE: Some properties of fractional integrals, I. Math. Z. 27(4), 565606 (1928)
Acknowledgements
For the third author the research was supported by grant No. 150102732 of the Russian Fund of Basic Research.
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors have on an equal level discussed and contributed to the proofs of the theorems in this paper. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Rights and permissions
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Lukkassen, D., Persson, LE. & Samko, S.G. Some sharp inequalities for integral operators with homogeneous kernel. J Inequal Appl 2016, 114 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1366001610379
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
MSC
 26D10
 26D15
Keywords
 inequalities
 Hardy type inequalities
 HardyHilbert type inequalities
 homogeneous kernels
 sharp constants