Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

On rational bounds for the gamma function

Journal of Inequalities and Applications20172017:210

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-017-1484-y

Received: 1 May 2017

Accepted: 25 August 2017

Published: 8 September 2017

Abstract

In the article, we prove that the double inequality
$$ \frac{x^{2}+p_{0}}{x+p_{0}}< \Gamma(x+1)< \frac{x^{2}+9/5}{x+9/5} $$
holds for all \(x\in(0, 1)\), we present the best possible constants λ and μ such that
$$ \frac{\lambda(x^{2}+9/5)}{x+9/5}\leq\Gamma(x+1)\leq\frac{\mu (x^{2}+p_{0})}{x+p_{0}} $$
for all \(x\in(0, 1)\), and we find the value of \(x^{\ast}\) in the interval \((0, 1)\) such that \(\Gamma(x+1)>(x^{2}+1/\gamma)/(x+1/\gamma)\) for \(x\in(0, x^{\ast})\) and \(\Gamma(x+1)<(x^{2}+1/\gamma)/(x+1/\gamma )\) for \(x\in(x^{\ast}, 1)\), where \(\Gamma(x)\) is the classical gamma function, \(\gamma=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(\sum_{k=1}^{n}1/k-\log n)=0.577\ldots\) is Euler-Mascheroni constant and \(p_{0}=\gamma/(1-\gamma )=1.365\ldots\) .

Keywords

gamma functionpsi functionrational boundcompletely monotonic function

MSC

41A6033B1526D07

1 Introduction

For \(x>0\), the classical Euler gamma function \(\Gamma(x)\) and its logarithmic derivative, the so-called psi function \(\psi(x)\) [1] are defined by
$$ \Gamma(x)= \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{x-1}e^{-t}\,dt, \qquad\psi(x)=\frac{\Gamma ^{\prime}(x)}{\Gamma(x)}, $$
respectively.

A real-valued function f is said to be completely monotonic [2] on an interval I if f has derivatives of all orders on I and \((-1)^{n}f^{(n)}(x)\geq0\) for all \(n\geq0\) and \(x\in I\). The well-known Bernstein theorem [3] states that a function f on \([0,\infty)\) is completely monotonic if and only if there exists a bounded and non-decreasing function \(\omega(t)\) such that \(f(x)=\int_{0}^{\infty }e^{-xt}\,d\omega(t)\) converges for all \(x\in[0, \infty)\).

Recently, the gamma function have attracted the attention of many researchers. In particular, many remarkable inequalities and properties for \(\Gamma(x)\) can be found in the literature [414].

Due to \(\Gamma(x+1)=x\Gamma(x)\) and \(\Gamma(n+1)=n!\), we will only need to focus our attention on \(\Gamma(x+1)\) with \(x\in(0, 1)\). Gautschi [15] proved that the double inequality
$$ n^{1-s}< \frac{\Gamma(n+1)}{\Gamma(n+s)}< e^{(1-s)\psi(n+1)} $$
(1.1)
holds for all \(s\in(0, 1)\) and \(n\in\mathbb{N}\).
Inequality (1.1) was generalized and improved by Kershaw [16] as follows:
$$ \biggl(x+\frac{s}{2} \biggr)^{1-s}< \frac{\Gamma(x+1)}{\Gamma (x+s)}< e^{(1-s)\psi[x+(1+s)/2]} $$
for all \(x>0\) and \(s\in(0, 1)\).
Elezović, Giordano and Pečarić [17] established the double inequality
$$ \biggl(\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}+x} \biggr)^{1-x}x^{x}< \Gamma (x+1)< 2^{1-x}x^{x} $$
(1.2)
for the gamma function being valid for all \(x\in(0, 1)\), and asked for ‘other bounds for the gamma function in terms of elementary functions’.
Ivády [18] provided the bounds for gamma function in terms of very simple rational functions as follows:
$$ \frac{x^{2}+1}{x+1}< \Gamma(x+1)< \frac{x^{2}+2}{x+2} $$
(1.3)
for all \(x\in(0, 1)\). Inequality (1.3) can be regarded as a simple estimation of the value of the gamma function.
In [19], Zhao, Guo and Qi proved that the function
$$ x\rightarrow Q(x)=\frac{\log\Gamma(x+1)}{\log(x^{2}+1)-\log(x+1)} $$
is strictly increasing on \((0, 1)\). The monotonicity of \(Q(x)\) on the interval \((0, 1)\) and the facts that \(Q(0^{+})=\gamma\) and \(Q(1^{-})=2(1-\gamma)\) lead to the conclusion that
$$ \biggl(\frac{x^{2}+1}{x+1} \biggr)^{2(1-\gamma)}< \Gamma(x+1)< \biggl( \frac {x^{2}+1}{x+1} \biggr)^{\gamma} $$
(1.4)
for all \(x\in(0, 1)\), where \(\gamma=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(\sum_{k=1}^{n}1/k-\log n)=0.577\ldots\) is the Euler-Mascheroni constant.
Let
$$\begin{aligned}& L_{1}(x)=\frac{x^{2}+1}{x+1}, \qquad L_{2}(x)= \biggl( \frac {x^{2}+1}{x+1} \biggr)^{2(1-\gamma)}, \end{aligned}$$
(1.5)
$$\begin{aligned}& U_{1}(x)=\frac{x^{2}+2}{x+2}, \qquad U_{2}(x)= \biggl( \frac {x^{2}+1}{x+1} \biggr)^{\gamma}. \end{aligned}$$
(1.6)
Then we clearly see that
$$ L_{1}(x)< L_{2}(x) $$
(1.7)
for all \(x\in(0, 1)\), and numerical computations show that
$$ \begin{gathered} U_{1}(1/4)=0.916\ldots>U_{2}(1/4)=0.910\ldots, \\ U_{1}(1/8)=0.948\ldots>U_{2}(1/8)=0.942\ldots. \end{gathered}$$
(1.8)
Motivated by (1.3)-(1.8), it is natural to ask what the better parameters p and q on the interval \((1, 2)\) are such that the double inequality
$$ \frac{x^{2}+p}{x+p}< \Gamma(x+1)< \frac{x^{2}+q}{x+q} $$
holds for all \(x\in(0, 1)\). The main purpose of the article is to deal with this questions. Some complicated computations are carried out using the Mathematica computer algebra system.

2 Lemmas

In order to establish our main results we need several lemmas, which we present in this section.

Lemma 2.1

See [20, Theorem 1.25]

Let \(-\infty< a< b<\infty\), \(f,g:[a,b]\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}\) be continuous on \([a,b]\) and differentiable on \((a,b)\), and \(g'(x)\neq0\) on \((a,b)\). If \(f^{\prime}(x)/g^{\prime}(x)\) is increasing (decreasing) on \((a,b)\), then so are the functions
$$ \frac{f(x)-f(a)}{g(x)-g(a)}, \quad\quad\frac{f(x)-f(b)}{g(x)-g(b)}. $$
If \(f^{\prime}(x)/g^{\prime}(x)\) is strictly monotone, then the monotonicity in the conclusion is also strict.

Lemma 2.2

See [21, Lemma 7]

Let \(n\in\mathbb{N}\) and \(m\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}\) with \(n>m\), \(a_{i}\geq0\) for all \(0\leq i\leq n\), \(a_{n}a_{m}>0\) and
$$ P_{n}(t)=-\sum_{i=0}^{m}a_{i}t^{i}+ \sum_{i=m+1}^{n}a_{i}t^{i}. $$
Then there exists \(t_{0}\in(0, \infty)\) such that \(P_{n}(t_{0})=0\), \(P_{n}(t)<0\) for \(t\in(0, t_{0})\) and \(P_{n}(t)>0\) for \(t\in(t_{0}, \infty)\).

Lemma 2.3

See [22, Corollary 3.1]

The inequality
$$ \psi(x+1)< \frac{1}{92}\log \biggl(x^{2}+x+\frac{4}{3} \biggr)+\frac {45}{92}\log \biggl(x^{2}+x+\frac{14}{45} \biggr) $$
holds for all \(x>0\).

Lemma 2.4

See [23, Corollary 3.3(ii)]

The double inequality
$$\begin{aligned} \frac{ (x+\frac{1}{2} ) (x^{2}+x+\frac{23}{21} )}{x^{4}+2x^{3}+\frac{17}{7}x^{2}+\frac{10}{7}x+\frac{12}{35}}&< \psi ^{\prime}(x+1) \\ &< \frac{ (x+\frac{1}{2} ) (x^{2}+x+\frac{\pi^{2}}{15(\pi ^{2}-9)} )}{ x^{4}+2x^{3}+\frac{7\pi^{2}-60}{5(\pi^{2}-9)}x^{2}+\frac{2\pi ^{2}-15}{5(\pi^{2}-9)}x+\frac{1}{5(\pi^{2}-9)}} \end{aligned}$$
holds for all \(x>0\).

Lemma 2.5

The inequalities
$$\begin{aligned}& \frac{1}{x+\frac{1}{2}}-\frac{1}{12 (x+\frac{1}{2} )^{3}}\leq \psi^{\prime}(x+1)\leq \frac{1}{x+\frac{1}{2}}, \end{aligned}$$
(2.1)
$$\begin{aligned}& -\frac{1}{ (x+\frac{1}{2} )^{2}}\leq\psi^{\prime\prime }(x+1)\leq-\frac{1}{ (x+\frac{1}{2} )^{2}} + \frac{1}{4 (x+\frac{1}{2} )^{4}}, \end{aligned}$$
(2.2)
$$\begin{aligned}& \frac{2}{ (x+\frac{1}{2} )^{3}}-\frac{1}{ (x+\frac {1}{2} )^{5}}\leq\psi^{\prime\prime\prime}(x+1) \leq \frac{2}{ (x+\frac{1}{2} )^{3}} \end{aligned}$$
(2.3)
hold for all \(x>-1/2\).

Proof

Let \(x>-1/2\), and \(R_{1}(x)\) and \(R_{2}(x)\) be defined by
$$\begin{aligned}& R_{1}(x)=\psi(x+1)-\log \biggl(x+\frac{1}{2} \biggr), \end{aligned}$$
(2.4)
$$\begin{aligned}& R_{2}(x)=-\psi(x+1)+\log \biggl(x+\frac{1}{2} \biggr)+ \frac{1}{24 (x+\frac{1}{2} )^{2}}, \end{aligned}$$
(2.5)
respectively. Then making use of the well-known formulas
$$ \psi(x)= \int_{0}^{\infty} \biggl(\frac{e^{-t}}{t}- \frac {e^{-xt}}{1-e^{-t}} \biggr)\,dt, \qquad\log x= \int_{0}^{\infty}\frac {e^{-t}-e^{-xt}}{t}\,dt $$
we get
$$\begin{aligned}& \begin{aligned} R_{1}(x)&= \int_{0}^{\infty} \biggl(\frac{e^{-t}}{t}- \frac {e^{-(x+1)t}}{1-e^{-t}} \biggr)\,dt- \int_{0}^{\infty}\frac {e^{-t}-e^{-(x+1/2)t}}{t}\,dt \\ &= \int_{0}^{\infty} \biggl(\frac{1}{t}- \frac{e^{-t/2}}{1-e^{-t}} \biggr)e^{-(x+1/2)t}\,dt \\ &= \int_{0}^{\infty} \biggl(\frac{1}{t}- \frac{1}{2\sinh(t/2)} \biggr)e^{-(x+1/2)t}\,dt \\ &= \int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\sinh(t/2)-t/2}{t\sinh(t/2)}e^{-(x+1/2)t}\,dt, \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(2.6)
$$\begin{aligned}& \begin{aligned}[b] R_{2}(x)&=- \int_{0}^{\infty} \biggl(\frac{1}{t}- \frac{1}{2\sinh (t/2)} \biggr)e^{-(x+1/2)t}\,dt+\frac{1}{24} \int_{0}^{\infty} te^{-(x+1/2)t}\,dt \\ &= \int_{0}^{\infty} \biggl(\frac{(t^{2}-24)\sinh(t/2)+12t}{24t\sinh (t/2)} \biggr)e^{-(x+1/2)t}\,dt, \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(2.7)
where \(\sinh(t)=(e^{t}-e^{-t})/2\) is the hyperbolic sine function.
Note that
$$\begin{aligned}& 6t\sinh(t/2)\frac{(t^{2}-24)\sinh(t/2)+12t}{24t\sinh(t/2)}=\sum_{n=3}^{\infty} \frac{2(n-2)(2n+1)}{(2n-3)!} \biggl(\frac{t}{2} \biggr)^{2n-1}>0, \end{aligned}$$
(2.8)
$$\begin{aligned}& \sinh(t/2)-\frac{t}{2}>0 \end{aligned}$$
(2.9)
for \(t>0\).

It follows from (2.6)-(2.9) and the Bernstein theorem for complete monotonicity property that the two functions \(R_{1}(x)\) and \(R_{2}(x)\) are completely monotonic on the interval \((-1/2, \infty)\).

Therefore, Lemma 2.5 follows easily from (2.4), (2.5) and the complete monotonicity of \(R_{1}(x)\) and \(R_{2}(x)\) on the interval \((-1/2, \infty )\) together with the facts that
$$ \biggl[\log \biggl(x+\frac{1}{2} \biggr) \biggr]^{(n)}= \frac {(-1)^{n-1}(n-1)!}{ (x+\frac{1}{2} )^{n}},\qquad \biggl[\frac{1}{ (x+\frac{1}{2} )^{2}} \biggr]^{(n)}= \frac {(-1)^{n}(n+1)!}{ (x+\frac{1}{2} )^{n+2}}. $$
 □

Lemma 2.6

The double inequality
$$ \biggl(\frac{x^{2}+1}{x+1} \biggr)^{2/(q+1)}< \frac{x^{2}+q}{x+q}< \biggl( \frac{x^{2}+1}{x+1} \biggr)^{1/q} $$
(2.10)
holds for all \(x\in(0, 1)\) and \(q>1\).

Proof

Let \(x\in(0, 1)\), \(q>1\), and \(H_{1}(x)\) and \(H_{2}(x)\) be defined by
$$ H_{1}(x)=\log\bigl(x^{2}+q\bigr)-\log(x+q), \qquad H_{2}(x)=\log\bigl(x^{2}+1\bigr)-\log(x+1), $$
(2.11)
respectively. Then simple computations lead to
$$\begin{aligned}& \lim_{x\rightarrow0^{+}}\frac{H_{1}(x)}{H_{2}(x)}=\frac{1}{q}, \qquad \lim _{x\rightarrow1^{-}}\frac{H_{1}(x)}{H_{2}(x)}=\frac{2}{q+1}, \end{aligned}$$
(2.12)
$$\begin{aligned}& H_{1}\bigl(0^{+}\bigr)=H_{2} \bigl(0^{+}\bigr)=0, \end{aligned}$$
(2.13)
$$\begin{aligned}& H_{1}\bigl(1^{-}\bigr)=H_{2} \bigl(1^{-}\bigr)=0, \end{aligned}$$
(2.14)
$$\begin{aligned}& \frac{H_{1}^{\prime}(x)}{H_{2}^{\prime}(x)}=\frac {(x+1)(x^{2}+1)(x^{2}+2qx-q)}{(x+q)(x^{2}+q)(x^{2}+2x-1)}, \\& \biggl[\frac{H_{1}^{\prime}(x)}{H_{2}^{\prime}(x)} \biggr]^{\prime}=\frac {(q-1)\triangle(x,q)}{(x+q)^{2}(x^{2}+q)^{2}(x^{2}+2x-1)^{2}}, \end{aligned}$$
(2.15)
where
$$ \begin{aligned}[b] \triangle (x,q)={}&\bigl[8x^{5}+4x^{4}+(1-x)^{3} \bigl(4x^{2}+3x+1\bigr)\bigr]q^{2}+4x^{2} \bigl[2x^{4}+4x^{3}+(1-x)^{2}\bigr]q \\ &-x^{4}\bigl(x^{4}-4x^{3}-6x^{2}-4x+1 \bigr) \\ >{}&\triangle (x,1)\\ ={}&(1-x)x^{7}+3x^{7}+10x^{6}+ \bigl(2x^{3}-1\bigr)^{2}+24x^{5} +8x^{4}+2x^{2}(2x-1)^{2}\\ >{}&0. \end{aligned}$$
(2.16)

From (2.15) and (2.16) we clearly see that \(H_{1}^{\prime }(x)/H_{2}^{\prime}(x)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, \sqrt{2}-1)\cup (\sqrt{2}-1, 1)\). We assert that the function \(H_{1}(x)/H_{2}(x)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, 1)\). Indeed, if \(x\in(0, \sqrt{2}-1)\), then \(H_{2}^{\prime}(x)\neq0\), and Lemma 2.1 and (2.13) together with the monotonicity of \(H_{1}^{\prime}(x)/H_{2}^{\prime}(x)\) on \((0, \sqrt {2}-1)\) lead to the conclusion that \(H_{1}(x)/H_{2}(x)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, \sqrt{2}-1)\); if \(x\in(\sqrt{2}-1, 1)\), then \(H_{2}^{\prime}(x)\neq0\), and Lemma 2.1 and (2.14) together with the monotonicity of \(H_{1}^{\prime}(x)/H_{2}^{\prime}(x)\) on \((\sqrt {2}-1, 1)\) lead to the conclusion that \(H_{1}(x)/H_{2}(x)\) is strictly increasing on \((\sqrt{2}-1, 1)\).

Therefore, Lemma 2.6 follows easily from (2.11) and (2.12) together with the monotonicity of the function \(H_{1}(x)/H_{2}(x)\) on \((0, 1)\). □

Let \(p>0\), \(x\in(0, 1)\), and \(f(p; x)\), \(f_{1}(p; x)\), \(f_{2}(p; x)\) and \(f_{3}(p; x)\) be defined by
$$\begin{aligned}& f(p, x)=\log\Gamma(x+1)-\log \biggl(\frac{x^{2}+p}{x+p} \biggr), \end{aligned}$$
(2.17)
$$\begin{aligned}& f_{1}(p, x)=\frac{\partial f(p, x)}{\partial x}=\psi(x+1)-\frac {2x}{x^{2}+p}+ \frac{1}{x+p}, \end{aligned}$$
(2.18)
$$\begin{aligned}& f_{2}(p, x)=\frac{\partial^{2} f(p, x)}{\partial x^{2}}=\psi^{\prime }(x+1)+ \frac{4x^{2}}{(x^{2}+p)^{2}}-\frac{2}{x^{2}+p}-\frac{1}{(x+p)^{2}}, \end{aligned}$$
(2.19)
$$\begin{aligned}& f_{3}(p, x)=\frac{\partial^{3} f(p, x)}{\partial x^{3}}=\psi^{\prime \prime}(x+1)- \frac{16x^{3}}{(x^{2}+p)^{3}}+\frac {12x}{(x^{2}+p)^{2}}+\frac{2}{(x+p)^{3}}. \end{aligned}$$
(2.20)

Lemma 2.7

Let \(f_{2}(p, x)\) be defined by (2.19). Then
$$ f_{2}(p, 1/3)< 0 $$
(2.21)
for \(p\in[8/5, 9/5]\).

Proof

From (2.19) and the second inequality in Lemma 2.4 we have
$$ \begin{aligned}[b] f_{2}(p, 1/3)={}& \biggl[\psi^{\prime}(x+1)+\frac {4x^{2}}{(x^{2}+p)^{2}}- \frac{2}{x^{2}+p}-\frac{1}{(x+p)^{2}} \biggr]_{x=1/3} \\ < {}& \biggl[\frac{ (x+\frac{1}{2} ) (x^{2}+x+\frac{\pi ^{2}}{15(\pi^{2}-9)} )}{ x^{4}+2x^{3}+\frac{7\pi^{2}-60}{5(\pi^{2}-9)}x^{2}+\frac{2\pi ^{2}-15}{5(\pi^{2}-9)}x+\frac{1}{5(\pi^{2}-9)}} \biggr]_{x=1/3} \\ &+ \biggl[\frac{4x^{2}}{(x^{2}+p)^{2}}-\frac{2}{x^{2}+p}-\frac {1}{(x+p)^{2}} \biggr]_{x=1/3} \\ ={}&\frac{15(23\pi^{2}-180)}{2(152\pi^{2}-1\mbox{,}179)}-\frac {9(162p^{3}+171p^{2}+24p-1)}{(3p+1)^{2}(9p+1)^{2}}. \end{aligned}$$
(2.22)
Elaborated computations lead to
$$ \begin{aligned}[b] & \biggl(\frac{15(23\pi^{2}-180)}{2(152\pi^{2}-1\mbox{,}179)}-\frac {9(162p^{3}+171p^{2}+24p-1)}{ (3p+1)^{2}(9p+1)^{2}} \biggr)^{\prime} \\ &\quad=\frac{54(729p^{4}+1\mbox{,}215p^{3}+243p^{2}-27p-8)}{(3p+1)^{3}(9p+1)^{3}}>0 \end{aligned}$$
(2.23)
for \(p\in[8/5, 9/5]\).
From (2.22) and (2.23) we get
$$\begin{aligned} f_{2}(p, 1/3)&< \biggl[\frac{15(23\pi^{2}-180)}{2(152\pi^{2}-1\mbox{,}179)}-\frac {9(162p^{3}+171p^{2}+24p-1)}{(3p+1)^{2}(9p+1)^{2}} \biggr]_{p=9/5} \\ &=\frac{15(23\pi^{2}-180)}{2(152\pi^{2}-1\mbox{,}179)}-\frac {2\mbox{,}167\mbox{,}065}{1\mbox{,}893\mbox{,}376}=-0.047\ldots< 0. \end{aligned}$$
 □

Lemma 2.8

Let \(f_{2}(p, x)\) be defined by (2.19). Then
$$ f_{2}(9/5, 7/50)>0. $$
(2.24)

Proof

From (2.19) and the first inequality in Lemma 2.4 we have
$$\begin{aligned} f_{2}(9/5, 7/50)&= \biggl[\psi^{\prime}(x+1)+\frac {4x^{2}}{(x^{2}+p)^{2}}- \frac{2}{x^{2}+p}-\frac{1}{(x+p)^{2}} \biggr]_{p=9/5, x=7/50} \\ &> \biggl[\frac{ (x+\frac{1}{2} ) (x^{2}+x+\frac {23}{21} )}{x^{4}+2x^{3}+\frac{17}{7}x^{2} +\frac{10}{7}x+\frac{12}{35}}+\frac{4x^{2}}{(x^{2}+p)^{2}}-\frac {2}{x^{2}+p}- \frac{1}{(x+p)^{2}} \biggr]_{p=9/5, x=7/50} \\ &=\frac{84\mbox{,}826\mbox{,}873\mbox{,}256\mbox{,}410\mbox{,}100}{15\mbox{,}239\mbox{,}152\mbox{,}138\mbox{,}614\mbox{,}823\mbox{,}989}>0. \end{aligned}$$
 □

Lemma 2.9

Let \(f_{1}(p, x)\) be defined by (2.18). Then
$$ f_{1}(9/5, x)< 0 $$
for \(x\in(7/50, 1/3)\).

Proof

It follows from Lemma 2.3 and (2.18) that
$$ \begin{aligned}[b] f_{1}(9/5, x)< \frac{1}{92}\log \biggl(x^{2}+x+ \frac{4}{3} \biggr)+\frac {45}{92}\log \biggl(x^{2}+x+ \frac{14}{45} \biggr) -\frac{2x}{x^{2}+9/5}+\frac{1}{x+9/5}. \end{aligned}$$
(2.25)
Elaborated computations lead to
$$ \begin{aligned}[b] & \biggl[\frac{1}{92}\log \biggl(x^{2}+x+\frac{4}{3} \biggr)+\frac {45}{92}\log \biggl(x^{2}+x+\frac{14}{45} \biggr) -\frac{2x}{x^{2}+9/5}+\frac{1}{x+9/5} \biggr]^{\prime} \\ &\quad=\frac{h(x)}{2(5x+9)^{2}(5x^{2}+9)^{2}(3x^{2}+3x+4)(45x^{2}+45x+14)}, \end{aligned}$$
(2.26)
where
$$\begin{aligned}& \begin{aligned} h(x)={}&168\mbox{,}750x^{9}+1\mbox{,}029\mbox{,}375x^{8}+3\mbox{,}923\mbox{,}625x^{7}+7\mbox{,}884\mbox{,}000x^{6}+9\mbox{,}344\mbox{,}775x^{5} \\ &+5\mbox{,}316\mbox{,}100x^{4}+203\mbox{,}355x^{3}-2\mbox{,}426\mbox{,}940x^{2}-544\mbox{,}401x+118\mbox{,}017, \end{aligned} \\& h(7/50)=-\frac{406\mbox{,}357\mbox{,}216\mbox{,}255\mbox{,}013}{156\mbox{,}250\mbox{,}000\mbox{,}000}< 0, \end{aligned}$$
(2.27)
$$\begin{aligned}& \begin{aligned}[b] h^{\prime }(x)={}&1\mbox{,}518\mbox{,}750x^{8}+8\mbox{,}235\mbox{,}000x^{7}+27\mbox{,}465\mbox{,}375x^{6}+47\mbox{,}304\mbox{,}000x^{5}+46\mbox{,}723\mbox{,}875x^{4} \\ &+21\mbox{,}264\mbox{,}400x^{3}+610\mbox{,}065x^{2}-4\mbox{,}853\mbox{,}880x-544\mbox{,}401, \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(2.28)
$$\begin{aligned}& h^{\prime}(1/3)=-\frac{120\mbox{,}000\mbox{,}368}{243}< 0. \end{aligned}$$
(2.29)

From Lemma 2.2, (2.28) and (2.29) we know that \(h(x)\) is strictly decreasing on \((7/50, 1/3)\), then (2.27) leads to the conclusion that \(h(x)<0\) for \(x\in(7/50, 1/3)\).

Therefore,
$$\begin{aligned} f_{1}(9/5,x)< {}& \biggl[\frac{1}{92}\log \biggl(x^{2}+x+ \frac{4}{3} \biggr)+\frac{45}{92}\log \biggl(x^{2}+x+ \frac{14}{45} \biggr) \\ &-\frac{2x}{x^{2}+9/5}+\frac{1}{x+9/5} \biggr]_{x=7/50} \\ ={}&\frac{1}{92}\log\frac{11\mbox{,}197}{7\mbox{,}500}+\frac{45}{92}\log \frac {10\mbox{,}591}{22\mbox{,}500}+\frac{159\mbox{,}550}{441\mbox{,}253} =-0.0026\ldots< 0 \end{aligned}$$
for \(x\in(7/50, 1/3)\) follows from (2.25) and (2.26) together with \(h(x)<0\) for \(x\in (7/50, 1/3)\). □

Lemma 2.10

Let \(p\in[3/2, 2]\) and \(f_{3}(p, x)\) be defined by (2.20). Then there exists \(\eta(p)\in(0, 1)\) such that \(f_{3}(p, x)<0\) for \(x\in (0, \eta(p))\) and \(f_{3}(p, x)>0\) for \(x\in(\eta(p), 1)\).

Proof

Let
$$ g(p,x)=\bigl(x^{2}+p\bigr)^{3}f_{3}(p, x)= \bigl(x^{2}+p\bigr)^{3}\psi^{\prime\prime }(x+1)+ \frac{2(x^{2}+p)^{3}}{(x+p)^{3}}-4x^{3}+12px. $$
(2.30)
Then simple computations lead to
$$\begin{aligned}& g\bigl(p,0^{+}\bigr)=p^{3}\psi^{\prime\prime}(1)+2, \qquad g\bigl(p,1^{-}\bigr)=(p+1)^{3}\psi ^{\prime\prime}(2)+12p-2, \end{aligned}$$
(2.31)
$$\begin{aligned}& \begin{aligned}[b] \frac{\partial g(p,x)}{\partial x}={}&\bigl(x^{2}+p\bigr)^{3} \psi^{\prime\prime \prime}(x+1)+6x\bigl(x^{2}+p\bigr)^{2} \psi^{\prime\prime}(x+1) \\ &-\frac{6(x^{2}+p)^{3}}{(x+p)^{4}}+\frac {12x(x^{2}+p)^{2}}{(x+p)^{3}}-12x^{2}+12p. \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(2.32)
It follows from the first inequalities in (2.2) and (2.3) together with the identity \(\psi^{(n)}(x+1)=\psi^{(n)}(x)+(-1)^{n}n!/x^{n+1}\) that
$$\begin{aligned}& \psi^{\prime\prime}(x+1)=\psi^{\prime\prime}(x+2)-\frac{2}{(x+1)^{3}} \geq- \frac{1}{(x+3/2)^{2}}-\frac{2}{(x+1)^{3}}, \end{aligned}$$
(2.33)
$$\begin{aligned}& \psi^{\prime\prime\prime}(x+1)=\psi^{\prime\prime\prime}(x+2)+\frac {6}{(x+1)^{4}} \geq \frac{2}{(x+3/2)^{3}}-\frac{1}{(x+3/2)^{5}}+\frac{6}{(x+1)^{4}}. \end{aligned}$$
(2.34)
From (2.32)-(2.34) we have
$$ \begin{aligned}[b] \frac{\partial g(p,x)}{\partial x}\geq{}&\bigl(x^{2}+p\bigr)^{3} \biggl[ \frac {2}{(x+3/2)^{3}}-\frac{1}{(x+3/2)^{5}}+\frac{6}{(x+1)^{4}} \biggr] \\ &+6x\bigl(x^{2}+p\bigr)^{2} \biggl[-\frac{1}{(x+3/2)^{2}}- \frac{2}{(x+1)^{3}} \biggr] \\ &-\frac{6(x^{2}+p)^{3}}{(x+p)^{4}}+\frac {12x(x^{2}+p)^{2}}{(x+p)^{3}}-12x^{2}+12p \\ ={}&\frac{2g_{1}(p, x)}{(2x+3)^{5}(x+1)^{4}(x+p)^{4}}, \end{aligned}$$
(2.35)
where
$$ g_{1}(p, x)=\sum_{k=0}^{6}b_{k}x^{k}- \sum_{k=7}^{16}b_{k}x^{k} $$
(2.36)
with
$$\begin{aligned}& b_{0}=\bigl(785p^{4}+1\mbox{,}458p^{2}-729 \bigr)p^{3}, \\& b_{1}=2\bigl(1\mbox{,}375p^{4}+679p^{3}+5\mbox{,}346p^{2}+2\mbox{,}916p-1\mbox{,}944 \bigr)p^{3}, \\& b_{2}=\bigl(3\mbox{,}992p^{5}+5\mbox{,}093p^{4}+32\mbox{,}250p^{3}+41\mbox{,}310p^{2}+2\mbox{,}106p-729 \bigr)p^{2}, \\& b_{3}=2\bigl(1\mbox{,}544p^{5}+3\mbox{,}955p^{4}+27\mbox{,}270p^{3}+60\mbox{,}214p^{2}+30\mbox{,}186p+1\mbox{,}701 \bigr)p^{2}, \\& b_{4}=\bigl(1\mbox{,}352p^{6}+6\mbox{,}520p^{5}+56\mbox{,}049p^{4}+187\mbox{,}562p^{3}+184\mbox{,}880p^{2}+38\mbox{,}070p+2\mbox{,}187 \bigr)p, \\& b_{5}=2\bigl(160p^{6}+1\mbox{,}510p^{5}+16\mbox{,}743p^{4}+78\mbox{,}961p^{3}+128\mbox{,}815p^{2}+54\mbox{,}729p+5\mbox{,}832 \bigr)p, \\& b_{6}=32p^{7}+752p^{6}+8\mbox{,}088p^{5}+44\mbox{,}529p^{4}+135\mbox{,}746p^{3}+123\mbox{,}972p^{2}+19\mbox{,}926p-729, \\& b_{7}=-80p^{6}+3\mbox{,}000p^{5}+47\mbox{,}018p^{4}+106\mbox{,}872p^{3}+27\mbox{,}156p^{2}+9\mbox{,}720p+5\mbox{,}346, \\& b_{8}=2\mbox{,}904p^{5}+60\mbox{,}104p^{4}+245\mbox{,}744p^{3}+259\mbox{,}818p^{2}+99\mbox{,}246p+17\mbox{,}334, \\& b_{9}=864p^{5}+31\mbox{,}572p^{4}+204\mbox{,}464p^{3}+360\mbox{,}816p^{2}+195\mbox{,}790p+34\mbox{,}398, \\& b_{10}=96p^{5}+8\mbox{,}896p^{4}+96\mbox{,}576p^{3}+272\mbox{,}304p^{2}+216\mbox{,}076p+46\mbox{,}726, \\& b_{11}=1\mbox{,}264p^{4}+26\mbox{,}944p^{3}+126\mbox{,}120p^{2}+151\mbox{,}960p+44\mbox{,}884, \\& b_{12}=64p^{4}+4\mbox{,}096p^{3}+35\mbox{,}712p^{2}+69\mbox{,}752p+30\mbox{,}400, \\& b_{13}=256p^{3}+5\mbox{,}664p^{2}+20\mbox{,}320p+14\mbox{,}180, \\& b_{14}=384p^{2}+3\mbox{,}424p+4\mbox{,}336, \\& b_{15}=256p+784, \\& b_{16}=16, \\& \begin{aligned}[b] g_{1}(p,1)={}&{-}199\mbox{,}181-732\mbox{,}767p-813\mbox{,}801p^{2}-48\mbox{,}835p^{3}+408\mbox{,}665p^{4} \\ &+189\mbox{,}699p^{5}+24\mbox{,}733p^{6}+12\mbox{,}319p^{7}, \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(2.37)
$$\begin{aligned}& g_{1}(3/2,1)=\frac{90\mbox{,}546\mbox{,}875}{128}>0. \end{aligned}$$
(2.38)
From Lemma 2.2, (2.37) and (2.38) we clearly see that
$$ g_{1}(p,1)>0 $$
(2.39)
for \(p\in[3/2, 1]\).

Making use of Lemma 2.2 again, and (2.36) and (2.39) together with the facts that \({b_{k}>0}\) for \(p\in[3/2, 1]\) and \(k=0, 1, 2, \ldots, 16\) we know that \(g_{1}(p, x)>0\) for \(p\in[3/2, 1]\) and \(x\in(0, 1)\). Then inequality (2.35) leads to the conclusion that the function \(x\rightarrow g(p, x)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, 1)\) for \(p\in [3/2, 2]\).

From (2.2) and the identity \(\psi^{(n)}(x)=\psi ^{(n)}(x+1)+(-1)^{n+1}n!/x^{n+1}\) we get
$$ \begin{aligned}[b] -\frac{1}{(x+1/2)^{2}}&\leq\psi^{\prime\prime}(x+1)=\psi^{\prime\prime }(x+2)- \frac{2}{(x+1)^{3}} \\ &\leq-\frac{1}{(x+3/2)^{2}}+\frac{1}{4(x+3/2)^{4}}-\frac{2}{(x+1)^{3}}. \end{aligned}$$
(2.40)
Taking \(x=1\) in the first inequality of (2.40) and \(x=0\) in the second inequality of (2.40), one has
$$ \psi^{\prime\prime}(2)\geq-\frac{4}{9}, \qquad\psi^{\prime\prime }(1)\leq- \frac{194}{81}. $$
(2.41)
It follows from (2.31) and (2.41) that
$$\begin{aligned}& g\bigl(p, 0^{+}\bigr)\leq-\frac{194}{81}\times \biggl( \frac{3}{2} \biggr)^{3}+2=-\frac{73}{12}< 0, \end{aligned}$$
(2.42)
$$\begin{aligned}& g\bigl(p, 1^{-}\bigr)\geq-\frac{4}{9}(p+1)^{3}+12p-2 \end{aligned}$$
(2.43)
for \(p\in[3/2, 2]\).
Note that
$$ \biggl[-\frac{4}{9}(p+1)^{3}+12p-2 \biggr]^{\prime}= \frac{4}{3}(p+4) (2-p). $$
(2.44)
Inequality (2.43) and equation (2.44) imply that
$$ g\bigl(p, 1^{-}\bigr)\geq-\frac{4}{9} \biggl( \frac{3}{2}+1 \biggr)^{3}+12\times\frac {3}{2}-2= \frac{163}{18}>0 $$
(2.45)
for \(p\in[3/2, 2]\).

Therefore, Lemma 2.10 follows easily from (2.30), (2.42), (2.45) and the monotonicity of the function \(x\rightarrow g(p, x)\) on the interval \((0, 1)\). □

Lemma 2.11

Let \(p\in[8/5, 9/5]\) and \(f_{2}(p, x)\) be defined by (2.19). Then there exist \(\eta_{1}(p), \eta_{2}(p)\in(0, 1)\) with \(\eta_{1}(p)<\eta _{2}(p)\) such that \(f_{2}(p, x)>0\) for \(x\in(0, \eta_{1}(p))\cup(\eta _{2}(p), 1)\) and \(f_{2}(p, x)<0\) for \(x\in(\eta_{1}(p), \eta_{2}(p))\).

Proof

It follows from (2.19) that
$$\begin{aligned}& f_{2}\bigl(p, 0^{+}\bigr)=\frac{\pi^{2}}{6p^{2}} \biggl(p- \frac{\sqrt{6(\pi ^{2}+6)}+6}{\pi^{2}} \biggr) \biggl(p+\frac{\sqrt{6(\pi^{2}+6)}-6}{\pi^{2}} \biggr)>0, \end{aligned}$$
(2.46)
$$\begin{aligned}& f_{2}\bigl(p, 1^{-}\bigr)=\frac{(\pi^{2}-6)p^{2}+2(\pi^{2}-12)p+\pi^{2}}{6(p+1)^{2}}>0 \end{aligned}$$
(2.47)
for \(p\in[8/5, 9/5]\).
From Lemma 2.10 and \([8/5, 9/5]\subset[3/2, 2]\) we know that there exists \(\eta(p)\in(0, 1)\) such that the function \(x\rightarrow f_{2}(p, x)\) is strictly decreasing on \((0, \eta(p))\) and strictly increasing on \((\eta(p), 1)\). Then Lemma 2.7 leads to the conclusion that
$$ f_{2}\bigl(p, \eta(p)\bigr)\leq f_{2}(p, 1/3)< 0. $$
(2.48)

Therefore, there exist \(\eta_{1}(p)\in(0, \eta(p))\) and \(\eta _{2}(p)\in(\eta(p), 1)\) such that \(f_{2}(p, x)>0\) for \(x\in(0, \eta_{1}(p))\cup(\eta_{2}(p), 1)\) and \(f_{2}(p, x)<0\) for \(x\in(\eta_{1}(p), \eta_{2}(p))\) follow from (2.46)-(2.48) and the piecewise monotonicity of the function \(x\rightarrow f_{2}(p, x)\) on the interval \((0, 1)\). □

3 Main results

Theorem 3.1

Let \(p>0\) and \(p_{0}=\gamma/(1-\gamma)=1.365\ldots\) . Then the inequality
$$ \Gamma(x+1)>\frac{x^{2}+p}{x+p} $$
(3.1)
holds for all \(x\in(0, 1)\) if and only if \(p\leq p_{0}\), and the inequality
$$ \Gamma(x+1)\leq\frac{\mu(x^{2}+p_{0})}{x+p_{0}} $$
(3.2)
holds for all \(x\in(0, 1)\) if and only if \(\mu\geq\mu_{0}\), where
$$ \mu_{0}=\frac{(x_{0}+p_{0})\Gamma (x_{0}+1)}{(x^{2}_{0}+p_{0})}=1.027\ldots $$
(3.3)
and \(x_{0}=0.346\ldots\) is the unique solution of the equation
$$ \psi(x+1)-\frac{2x}{x^{2}+p_{0}}+\frac{1}{x+p_{0}}=0 $$
(3.4)
on the interval \((0, 1)\).

Proof

If inequality (3.1) holds for all \(x\in(0, 1)\), then \(p\leq p_{0}\) follows easily from
$$ \lim_{x\rightarrow1^{-}}\frac{\log\Gamma(x+1)-\log (\frac {x^{2}+p}{x+p} )}{1-x}=-\psi(2)+\frac{1}{1+p}= \gamma-\frac {p}{1+p}\geq0. $$

Next, we prove that inequality (3.1) holds for all \(x\in(0, 1)\) and \(p=p_{0}\) and (3.2) holds for all \(x\in(0, 1)\) if and only if \(\mu\geq \mu_{0}\).

Let \(f(p, x)\), \(f_{1}(p, x)\), \(f_{2}(p, x)\) be defined by (2.17)-(2.19) and
$$ g(x)=\frac{(x^{2}+p_{0})^{2}}{x^{2}}f_{2}(p_{0}, x)=\frac {(x^{2}+p_{0})^{2}}{x^{2}} \psi^{\prime}(x+1)-\frac{2p_{0}}{x^{2}} -\frac{(x^{2}+p_{0})^{2}}{x^{2}(x+p_{0})^{2}}+2. $$
(3.5)
Then elaborated computations lead to
$$\begin{aligned}& f\bigl(p_{0}, 0^{+}\bigr)=f\bigl(p_{0}, 1^{-}\bigr)=0, \end{aligned}$$
(3.6)
$$\begin{aligned}& f_{1}\bigl(p_{0}, 0^{+}\bigr)= \frac{1-\gamma-\gamma^{2}}{\gamma}>0, \qquad f_{1}\bigl(p_{0}, 1^{-}\bigr)=0, \end{aligned}$$
(3.7)
$$\begin{aligned}& g\bigl(0^{+}\bigr)=-\infty, \qquad g\bigl(1^{-}\bigr)= \frac{(\pi^{2}-6)p_{0}^{2}+2(\pi ^{2}-12)p_{0}+\pi^{2}}{6}>0, \end{aligned}$$
(3.8)
$$\begin{aligned}& \begin{aligned}[b] g^{\prime}(x)={}&\frac{(x^{2}+p_{0})^{2}\psi^{\prime\prime }(x+1)}{x^{2}}-\frac{2(p_{0}^{2}-x^{4})\psi^{\prime }(x+1)}{x^{3}} \\ &-\frac{2p_{0} [x^{4}-4x^{3}-6p_{0}x^{2}-2p_{0}(3p_{0}+1)x-(2p_{0}+1)p_{0}^{2} ]}{(x+p_{0})^{3}x^{3}}. \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(3.9)
It follows from the second inequality in (2.1) and the first inequality in (2.2) together with (3.9) that
$$\begin{aligned} g^{\prime}(x)\geq{}&{-}\frac{(x^{2}+p_{0})^{2}}{x^{2}(x+1/2)^{2}}-\frac {2(p_{0}^{2}-x^{4})}{(x+1/2)x^{3}} \\ &-\frac{2p_{0} [x^{4}-4x^{3}-6p_{0}x^{2}-2p_{0}(3p_{0}+1)x-(2p_{0}+1)p_{0}^{2} ]}{(x+p_{0})^{3}x^{3}} \\ ={}&\frac{2}{x^{3}(2x+1)^{2}(x+p_{0})^{3}}g_{1}(x), \end{aligned}$$
where
$$\begin{aligned} g_{1}(x)={}&2x^{8}+2(3p_{0}+1)x^{7}+2p_{0}(3p_{0}-1)x^{6}+2p_{0} \bigl(p_{0}^{2}-3p_{0}+6\bigr)x^{5} \\ &-p_{0}\bigl(10p_{0}^{2}-18p_{0}-15 \bigr)x^{4}-2p_{0}(p_{0}+2) \bigl(2p_{0}^{2}-7p_{0}-1 \bigr)x^{3} \\ &-2p_{0}^{2}\bigl(5p_{0}^{2}-11p_{0}-7 \bigr)x^{2}-2p_{0}^{2}(p_{0}+1) \bigl(3p_{0}^{2}-4p_{0}-1\bigr)x \\ &-p_{0}^{3}\bigl(2p_{0}^{2}-2p_{0}-1 \bigr). \end{aligned}$$

It is easy to verify that all the coefficients of the polynomial \(g_{1}(x)\) are positive, which implies that \(g(x)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, 1)\), then from (3.5) and (3.8) we know that there exists \(\eta\in(0, 1)\) such that the function \(f_{1}(p_{0}, x)\) is strictly decreasing on \((0, \eta)\) and strictly increasing on \((\eta, 1)\).

It follows from (2.18) and (3.7) together with the piecewise monotonicity of the function \(f_{1}(p_{0}, x)\) on the interval \((0, 1)\) that there exists \(x_{0}\in(0, 1)\) such that \(f(p_{0}, x)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, x_{0})\) and strictly decreasing on \((x_{0}, 1)\) and \(x_{0}\) is the unique solution of equation (3.4) on the interval \((0, 1)\).

Therefore, the desired results follow easily from (2.17), (3.3), (3.6) and the piecewise monotonicity of the function \(f(p_{0}, x)\) on the interval \((0, 1)\) together with the fact that the function \(p\rightarrow(x^{2}+p)/(x+p)\) is strictly increasing.

Numerical computations show that \(x_{0}=0.346\ldots\) and \(\mu_{0}=(x_{0}+p_{0})\Gamma(x_{0}+1)/(x^{2}_{0}+p_{0})=1.027\ldots\) . □

Theorem 3.2

The inequality
$$ \Gamma(x+1)>\frac{x^{2}+\frac{1}{\gamma}}{x+\frac{1}{\gamma}} $$
holds for all \(x\in(0, x^{\ast})\), and its reverse inequality
$$ \Gamma(x+1)< \frac{x^{2}+\frac{1}{\gamma}}{x+\frac{1}{\gamma}} $$
holds for all \(x\in(x^{\ast}, 1)\), where \(x^{\ast}=0.385\ldots\) is the unique solution of the equation
$$ \Gamma(x+1)-\frac{x^{2}+\frac{1}{\gamma}}{x+\frac{1}{\gamma}}=0 $$
on the interval \((0, 1)\).

Proof

Let \(f(p, x)\), \(f_{1}(p, x)\) and \(f_{2}(p, x)\) be, respectively, defined by (2.17), (2.18) and (2.19). Then simple computations lead to
$$\begin{aligned}& f \biggl(\frac{1}{\gamma}, 0^{+} \biggr)=f \biggl( \frac{1}{\gamma}, 1^{-} \biggr)=0, \end{aligned}$$
(3.10)
$$\begin{aligned}& f_{1} \biggl(\frac{1}{\gamma}, 0^{+} \biggr)=0, \qquad f_{1} \biggl(\frac {1}{\gamma}, 1^{-} \biggr)= \frac{1-\gamma-\gamma^{2}}{1+\gamma}>0. \end{aligned}$$
(3.11)
From Lemma 2.11 and \(1/\gamma=1.732\ldots\in[8/5, 9/5]\) we know that there exist \(\eta_{1}(1/\gamma), \eta_{2}(1/\gamma)\in(0, 1)\) with \(\eta_{1}(1/\gamma)<\eta_{2}(1/\gamma)\) such that \(f_{1}(1/\gamma, x)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, \eta_{1}(1/\gamma))\cup( \eta _{2}(1/\gamma), 1)\) and strictly decreasing on \((\eta_{1}(1/\gamma), \eta_{2}(1/\gamma))\). We claim that
$$ f_{1}\bigl(1/\gamma, \eta_{2}(1/\gamma)\bigr)< 0. $$
(3.12)

Indeed, if \(f_{1}(1/\gamma, \eta_{2}(1/\gamma))\geq0\), then the piecewise monotonicity of the function \(f_{1}(1/\gamma, x)\) on the interval \((0, 1)\) and (3.11) lead to the conclusion that \(f(1/\gamma, x)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, 1)\), which contradicts (3.10).

It follows from (3.11) and (3.12) together with the piecewise monotonicity of the function \(f_{1}(1/\gamma, x)\) on the interval \((0, 1)\) that there exist \(\eta ^{\ast}_{1}(1/\gamma)\in(\eta_{1}(1/\gamma), \eta_{2}(1/\gamma))\) and \(\eta^{\ast}_{2}(1/\gamma)\in(\eta_{2}(1/\gamma), 1)\) such that \(f(1/\gamma, x)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, \eta^{\ast}_{1}(1/\gamma ))\cup(\eta^{\ast}_{2}(1/\gamma), 1)\) and strictly decreasing on \(( \eta ^{\ast}_{1}(1/\gamma), \eta^{\ast}_{2}(1/\gamma))\).

Therefore, Theorem 3.2 follows easily from (2.17) and (3.10) together with the piecewise monotonicity of \(f(1/\gamma, x)\) on \((0, 1)\). Numerical computations show that \(x^{\ast}=0.385\ldots\) . □

Theorem 3.3

The double inequality
$$ \frac{\lambda ({x^{2}+\frac{9}{5}} )}{x+\frac{9}{5}}\leq\Gamma (x+1)< \frac{{x^{2}+\frac{9}{5}}}{x+\frac{9}{5}} $$
(3.13)
holds for all \(x\in(0, 1)\) with the best possible constant
$$ \lambda=\frac{(5\tau_{0}+9)\Gamma(\tau_{0}+1)}{5{\tau _{0}}^{2}+9}=0.991\ldots, $$
(3.14)
where \(\tau_{0}=0.719\ldots\) is the unique solution of the equation
$$ \psi(x+1)-\frac{2x}{x^{2}+\frac{9}{5}}+\frac{1}{x+\frac{9}{5}}=0 $$
(3.15)
on the interval \((0, 1)\).

Proof

Let \(f(p, x)\), \(f_{1}(p, x)\) and \(f_{2}(p, x)\) be, respectively, defined by (2.17), (2.18) and (2.19). Then simple computations lead to
$$\begin{aligned}& f \biggl(\frac{9}{5}, 0^{+} \biggr)=f \biggl( \frac{9}{5}, 1^{-} \biggr)=0, \end{aligned}$$
(3.16)
$$\begin{aligned}& f_{1} \biggl(\frac{9}{5}, 0^{+} \biggr)= \frac{5}{9}-\gamma< 0, \qquad f_{1} \biggl(\frac{9}{5}, 1^{-} \biggr)=\frac{9}{14}-\gamma>0. \end{aligned}$$
(3.17)
It follows from Lemma 2.11 that there exist \(\eta_{1}(9/5), \eta _{2}(9/5)\in(0, 1)\) with \(\eta_{1}(9/5)<\eta_{2}(9/5)\) such that \(f_{2}(9/5, x)>0\) for \(x\in(0, \eta_{1}(9/5))\cup(\eta_{2}(9/5), 1)\) and \(f_{2}(9/5, x)<0\) for \(x\in(\eta_{1}(9/5), \eta_{2}(9/5))\), and \(f_{1}(9/5, x)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, \eta_{1}(9/5))\cup(\eta_{2}(9/5), 1)\) and strictly decreasing on \((\eta_{1}(9/5), \eta_{2}(9/5))\). Then Lemmas 2.7-2.9 lead to the conclusion that \(\eta_{1}(9/5)\in(7/50, 1/3)\) and
$$ f_{1}\bigl(9/5, \eta_{1}(9/5)\bigr)< 0. $$
(3.18)

From (2.18), (3.17), (3.18) and the piecewise monotonicity of \(f_{1}(9/5, x)\) on \((0, 1)\) we clearly see that there exists \(\tau_{0}\) such that \(\tau_{0}\) is the unique solution of equation (3.15) on the interval \((0, 1)\), and \(f(9/5, x)\) is strictly decreasing on \((0, \tau _{0})\) and strictly increasing on \((\tau_{0}, 1)\).

Equation (3.16) and the piecewise monotonicity of the function \(f(9/5, x)\) on the interval \((0, 1)\) lead to the conclusion that
$$ f(9/5, \tau_{0})\leq f(9/5, x)< 0 $$
(3.19)
for all \(x\in(0, 1)\).

Therefore, inequality (3.13) holds for all \(x\in(0, 1)\) follows from (2.17) and (3.19). We clearly see that the parameter λ given by (3.14) is the best possible constant such that the first inequality in (3.13) holds for all \(x\in(0, 1)\). Numerical computations show that \(\tau _{0}=0.719\ldots\) and \(\lambda=0.991\ldots\) . □

Remark 3.4

From Theorems 3.1 and 3.3 we clearly see that the double inequality
$$ \frac{x^{2}+p_{0}}{x+p_{0}}< \Gamma(x+1)< \frac{x^{2}+p_{1}}{x+p_{1}} $$
(3.20)
holds for all \(x\in(0, 1)\) with \(p_{0}=\gamma/(1-\gamma)=1.365\ldots\) and \(p_{1}=9/5\), the constant \(p_{0}\) appears to be the best possible, but this is not true for \(p_{1}\), and a slightly smaller value for \(p_{1}\) is possible. Unfortunately, we cannot find the best possible constant \(p_{1}\) in the article; we leave this as an open problem for the reader.

Remark 3.5

From the monotonicity of the function \(p\mapsto(x^{2}+p)/(x+p)\) we clearly see that both the upper and lower bounds for \(\Gamma(x+1)\) given in (3.20) are better than that given in (1.3), and the first (second) inequality in Theorem 3.2 is the improvement of the first (second) inequality in (1.3) for \(x\in(0, x^{\ast})\) \((x\in(x^{\ast}, 1))\), where \(x^{\ast}=0.385\ldots\) is given by Theorem 3.2.

Remark 3.6

From Lemma 2.6, \(\gamma+\gamma^{2}<1\), \(1/\gamma>1\), \(\gamma/(1-\gamma )>1\) and \((x^{2}+1)/(x+1)<1\) for \(x\in(0, 1)\) one has
$$\begin{gathered} \frac{x^{2}+\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}}{x+\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}}> \biggl(\frac{x^{2}+1}{x+1} \biggr)^{2(1-\gamma)}, \\\biggl(\frac{x^{2}+1}{x+1} \biggr)^{\gamma}>\frac{x^{2}+\frac{1}{\gamma }}{x+\frac{1}{\gamma}}> \biggl( \frac{x^{2}+1}{x+1} \biggr)^{2\gamma /(1+\gamma)} > \biggl(\frac{x^{2}+1}{x+1} \biggr)^{2(1-\gamma)}. \end{gathered}$$

Therefore, the lower bound for \(\Gamma(x+1)\) given in (3.20) is better than that given in (1.4), the first inequality in Theorem 3.2 is an improvement of the first inequality in (1.4) for \(x\in(0, x^{\ast})\) and the second inequality in Theorem 3.2 is an improvement of the second inequality in (1.4) for \(x\in(x^{\ast}, 1)\), where \(x^{\ast }=0.385\ldots\) is given by Theorem 3.2.

Remark 3.7

It is not difficult to verify that
$$\begin{gathered} \min_{x\in(0,1)} \biggl(\frac{x^{2}+1}{x+1} \biggr)^{\gamma}= \bigl[2(\sqrt {2}-1)\bigr]^{\gamma}=0.897\ldots, \\\min_{x\in(0,1)} \bigl(2^{1-x}x^{x} \bigr)=2e^{-2/e}=0.958\ldots, \\\frac{x^{2}+\frac{9}{5}}{x+\frac{9}{5}}< 0.89 \end{gathered}$$
for \(x\in(0.44, 0.45)\) and
$$ \frac{x^{2}+\frac{9}{5}}{x+\frac{9}{5}}< 0.95 $$
for \(x\in(\theta_{0}, \theta_{1})\), where \(\theta_{0}=(0.95-\sqrt {0.5425})/2=0.106\ldots\) and \(\theta_{1}=(0.95+\sqrt {0.5425})/2=0.843\ldots\) . Therefore, the upper bound \((x^{2}+9/5)/(x+9/5)\) for \(\Gamma(x+1)\) given in (3.20) is better than that given in (1.4) for \(x\in(0.44, 0.45)\), and it is also better than that given in (1.2) for \(x\in(\theta_{0}, \theta_{1})\).

Remark 3.8

Let
$$ L_{3}(x)= \biggl(\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}+x} \biggr)^{1-x}x^{x}, \qquad L_{4}(x)= \frac{x^{2}+\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}}{x+\frac{\gamma }{1-\gamma}}. $$
Then numerical computations show that
$$\begin{gathered} L_{3}(1/8)=0.846\ldots< L_{4}(1/8)=0.926\ldots, \\L_{3}(1/4)=0.814\ldots< L_{4}(1/4)=0.883\ldots, \\L_{3}(3/8)=0.811\ldots< L_{3}(3/8)=0.865\ldots, \\L_{3}(1/2)=0.826\ldots< L_{4}(1/2)=0.865\ldots, \\L_{3}(5/8)=0.794\ldots< L_{4}(5/8)=0.882\ldots, \\L_{3}(3/4)=0.891\ldots< L_{4}(3/4)=0.911\ldots, \\L_{3}(7/8)=0.913\ldots< L_{4}(7/8)=0.951\ldots. \end{gathered}$$

Therefore, there exists \(\delta\in(0, 1/8)\) such that the lower bound for \(\Gamma(x+1)\) given in (3.20) is better than that given in (1.2) for \(x\in(\delta, 1/8+\delta)\cup(1/4-\delta, 1/4+\delta)\cup (3/8-\delta, 3/8+\delta)\cup(1/2-\delta, 1/2+\delta)\cup(5/8-\delta, 5/8+\delta)\cup(3/4-\delta, 3/4+\delta)\cup(7/8-\delta, 7/8+\delta)\).

4 Results and discussion

In this paper, we provide the accurate bounds for the classical gamma function in terms of very simple rational functions, which can be used to estimate the value of the gamma function in the area of engineering and technology.

5 Conclusion

In the article, we present several very simple and practical rational bounds for the gamma function, which can be regarded as a simple estimation of the value of the gamma function. The given results are improvements of some well-known results.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants Nos. 61673169, 61374086, 11371125, 11401191) and the Tianyuan Special Funds of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11626101).

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)
Department of Mathematics, Huzhou University, Huzhou, China
(2)
Customer Service Center, State Grid Zhejiang Electric Power Research Institute, Hangzhou, China
(3)
School of Distance Education, Huzhou Broadcast and TV University, Huzhou, China
(4)
Friedman Brain Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA

References

  1. Anderson, GD, Qiu, S-L: A monotoneity property of the gamma function. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 125(11), 3355-3362 (1997) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Mitrinović, DS, Pečarić, JE, Fink, AM: Classical and New Inequalities in Analysis. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1993) View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Widder, DV: The Laplace Transform. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1941) MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Selliah, JB: An inequality satisfied the gamma function. Can. Math. Bull. 19(1), 85-87 (1990) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Alzer, H: Some gamma function inequalities. Math. Comput. 60(201), 337-346 (1993) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Alzer, H: On a gamma function inequality of Gautschi. Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. (2) 45(3), 589-600 (2002) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Zhang, X-M, Chu, Y-M: A double inequality for gamma function. J. Inequal. Appl. 2009, Article ID 503782 (2009) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Zhao, T-H, Chu, Y-M, Jiang, Y-P: Monotonic and logarithmically convex properties of a function involving gamma functions. J. Inequal. Appl. 2009, Article ID 728612 (2009) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Qi, F: Bounds for the ratio of two gamma functions. J. Inequal. Appl. 2010, Article ID 493058 (2010) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Zhao, T-H, Chu, Y-M: A class of logarithmically completely monotonic functions associated with a gamma function. J. Inequal. Appl. 2010, Article ID 392431 (2010) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Zhao, T-H, Chu, Y-M, Wang, H: Logarithmically complete monotonicity properties related to the gamma function. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2011, Article ID 896483 (2011) MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Laforgia, A, Natalini, P: On an inequality for the ratio of gamma functions. Math. Inequal. Appl. 17(4), 1591-1599 (2014) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Wang, M-K, Chu, Y-M: Refinements of transformation inequalities for zero-balanced hypergeometric functions. Acta Math. Sci. 37B(3), 607-622 (2017) MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Wang, M-K, Li, Y-M, Chu, Y-M: Inequalities and infinite product formula for Ramanujan generalized modular equation function. Ramanujan J. (2017). doi:10.1007/s11139-017-9888-3 Google Scholar
  15. Gautschi, W: Some elementary inequalities relating to the gamma and incomplete gamma function. J. Math. Phys. 38(1-4), 77-81 (1959) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Kershaw, D: Some extensions of W. Gautschi’s inequalities for the gamma function. Math. Comput. 41(164), 607-611 (1983) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Elezović, N, Giordano, C, Pečarić, J: The best bounds in Gautschi’s inequality. Math. Inequal. Appl. 3(2), 239-252 (2000) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Ivády, P: A note on a gamma function inequality. J. Math. Inequal. 3(2), 227-236 (2009) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Zhao, J-L, Guo, B-N, Qi, F: A refinement of a double inequality for the gamma function. Publ. Math. (Debr.) 80(3-4), 333-342 (2012) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Anderson, GD, Vamanamurthy, MK, Vuorinen, M: Conformal Invariants, Inequalities, and Quasiconformal Maps. Wiley, New York (1997) MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Yang, Z-H, Chu, Y-M, Tao, X-J: A double inequality for the trigamma function and its applications. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2014, Article ID 702718 (2014) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Yang, Z-H, Chu, Y-M, Zhang, X-H: Sharp bounds for psi function. Appl. Math. Comput. 268, 1055-1063 (2015) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhao, T-H, Yang, Z-H, Chu, Y-M: Monotonicity properties of a function involving the psi function with applications. J. Inequal. Appl. 2015, Article ID 193 (2015) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2017

Advertisement