Optimal bounds for a Gaussian Arithmetic-Geometric type mean by quadratic and contraharmonic means
Junxuan Shen

TL;DR
This paper determines optimal bounds for a Gaussian arithmetic-geometric mean type using quadratic and contraharmonic means, providing new inequalities and bounds for elliptic integrals.
Contribution
It introduces the best possible parameters for inequalities involving the Gaussian arithmetic-geometric mean and classical means, extending bounds for elliptic integrals.
Findings
Established optimal parameters for inequalities involving AG_{Q,C}(a,b).
Derived new bounds for the complete elliptic integral of the first kind.
Extended classical mean inequalities to a Gaussian mean context.
Abstract
In this paper, we present the best possible parameters and such that the double inequalities \begin{align*} \alpha_1Q(a,b)+(1-\alpha_1)C(a,b)&<AG_{Q,C}(a,b)<\beta_1Q(a,b)+(1-\beta_1)C(a,b),\\ \qquad\ Q^{\alpha_2}(a,b)C^{1-\alpha_2}(a,b)&<AG_{Q,C}(a,b)<Q^{\beta_2}(a,b)C^{1-\beta_2}(a,b),\\ \frac{Q(a,b)C(a,b)}{\alpha_3Q(a,b)+(1-\alpha_3)C(a,b)}&<AG_{Q,C}(a,b)<\frac{Q(a,b)C(a,b)}{\beta_3Q(a,b)+(1-\beta_3)C(a,b)},\\ C\left(\sqrt{\alpha_4a^2+(1-\alpha_4)b^2},\sqrt{(1-\alpha_4)a^2+\alpha_4b^2}\right)&<AG_{Q,C}(a,b)<C\left(\sqrt{\beta_4a^2+(1-\beta_4)b^2},\sqrt{(1-\beta_4)a^2+\beta_4b^2}\right) \end{align*} hold for all with , where , and are the quadratic, contraharmonic and Arithmetic-Geometric means, and . As consequences, we present new bounds for theβ¦
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMathematical Inequalities and Applications Β· Analytic and geometric function theory
Optimal bounds for a Gaussian Arithmetic-Geometric type mean by quadratic and contraharmonic means
Junxuan Shen [email protected] Hangzhou Foreign Languages School, Hangzhou 310023, China
Abstract
In this paper, we present the best possible parameters and such that the double inequalities
[TABLE]
hold for all with , where , and are the quadratic, contraharmonic and Arithmetic-Geometric means, and . As consequences, we present new bounds for the complete elliptic integral of the first kind.
keywords:
Arithmetic-Geometric mean\sepComplete elliptic integral\sepQuadratic mean\sepContraharmonic mean. \MSC26E60\sep33E05.
1 Introduction
The classical arithmetic-geometric mean of two positive numbers and is defined by starting with and then iterating
[TABLE]
for until two sequences and converge to the same number, where and are arithmetic and geometric means, respectively.
The well-known Gauss identity AVV shows that
[TABLE]
for , where () is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind. By use of the homogeneity of (1.1) and (1.2), can be written explicitly as
[TABLE]
Let and , then the complete elliptic integral of the second kind is given by . We clearly see that is strictly increasing from onto and is strictly decreasing from onto . Moreover, and satisfy the following Landen identities and derivatives formulas (see (AVV, , Appendix E, p.474-475))
[TABLE]
Two special values and will be used later, which can be expressed as (see (AVV, , Theorem 1.7))
[TABLE]
where is the classical Eulerβs gamma function.
The special bivariate mean derived from Arithmetric-Geometric mean for any bivariate means and of positive numbers a, b is given by
[TABLE]
which is called a Arithmetric-Geometric type mean. We denote the pairs of means the generating means of the Arithmetric-Geometric type mean defined in (1.4).
It is well known that the elliptic elliptic integrals and and the Gaussian arithmetic-geometric mean have many applications in mathematics, physics, mechanics, and engineering Ca ; EBJ ; Le ; Ho ; MF ; Ma . Recently, the Arithmetric-Geometric mean has been the subject of intensive research. The double inequalities
[TABLE]
hold for all with , where , and . The left inequality of (1.5) was first proposed by Carlson and Vuorinen CV and also was proved by different methods in Sa ; NS ; Ya . Vamanamurthy and Vuorinen VV proved that for all with . The second inequality of (1.5) was proved by Borwein BB and Yang Ya . Very recently, Ding and Zhao DZ showed that for all with , where and are the best possible lower and upper generalized logarithmic mean bounds, respectively.
In Ku , KΓΌhnau refined the double inequality (1.6) and obtained the improved upper bound . Qiu and Vamanamurthy QV presented the new lower and upper bounds for with , which are and , respectively.
Alzer and Qiu AQ proved that the double inequality
[TABLE]
holds for all with if and only if and .
Chu and Wang CW proved that the double inequality
[TABLE]
for all with if and only if , where and is the th Gini mean of and . In YSC , Yang et al. proved that inequalities
[TABLE]
hold for all and with , where is the Stolarsky mean YCZ of and .
Very recently, optimal bounds for by several convex combinations of their generating means were established. Explicitly, Wang et al. WQC presented the best possible parameters such that the double inequalities
[TABLE]
hold for all with , where is the quadratic mean of and .
Let is the contraharmonic mean, then it is easy to verify that the function is continuous and strictly increasing on . Note that
[TABLE]
Motivated by inequality (1.10) and the results of WQC , it is natural to ask what are the best possible parameters and such that the double inequalities
[TABLE]
hold for all with The main purpose of this paper is to answer this question.
2 Lemmas
In order to prove the desired theorem, we need several lemmas which we present this section.
Lemma 2.1**.**
(see (AVV, , Theorem 1.25)) For , let be continuous on , and be differetiable on , let on (a,b). If is increasing (decreasing) on , then so are
[TABLE]
If is strictly monotone, then the monotonicity in the conclusion is also strict.
Lemma 2.2**.**
- (1)
* is strictly increasing from onto ;* 2. (2)
For each , the function is decreasing from onto ; 3. (3)
* is strictly decreasing on ;* 4. (4)
* is strictly increasing on .*
Proof.
Parts (1)-(4) follow from (AVV, , Exercise 3.43 (11) and (46), Theorem 3.21 (1) and (7)). β
Lemma 2.3**.**
Let and
[TABLE]
then is strictly increasing from onto .
Proof.
Let and , then we clearly see that and
[TABLE]
It follows from Lemma 2.2 (1) and (2) that and are strictly increasing on . This conjunction with (2.1) implies that is strictly increasing on .
Therefore, Lemma 2.3 follows immediately from Lemma 2.1 and the limiting values and . β
Lemma 2.4**.**
Let and
[TABLE]
then is strictly decreasing from onto .
Proof.
Let and , then we clearly see that and
[TABLE]
It follows from Lemma 2.2 (3) and (2.2) that is strictly increasing on .
Therefore, Lemma 2.4 follows from Lemma 2.1 and the limiting values and . β
Lemma 2.5**.**
Let and
[TABLE]
then is strictly increasing from onto .
Proof.
Let and , then it is easy to see that and
[TABLE]
Lemma 2.2 (4) and (2.3) lead to the conclusion that is strictly increasing on .
Therefore, Lemma 2.5 follows easily from Lemma 2.1 and the limiting values and . β
Lemma 2.6**.**
The inequality
[TABLE]
holds for .
Proof.
In order to prove this lemma, it suffices to show the inequality
[TABLE]
holds for .
Let , and , then we clearly see that
[TABLE]
Taking the derivative of and yieds
[TABLE]
It follows from (2.6) and Lemma 2.2 (1) together with the monotonicity of that is strictly increasing on . This conjunction with (2.5) and Lemma 2.1 implies that is strictly increasing on .
Therefore, the desired inequality (2.4) follows from and the monotonicity of . β
Lemma 2.7**.**
The function is strictly decreasing from onto .
Proof.
Let and , then it is easy to see that and
[TABLE]
where and .
Observe that . Taking the derivative of and yields
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
An easy computation leads to
[TABLE]
for .
It follows from (JDZ, , Corollary 2.7) that for . This can be rewritten as
[TABLE]
for .
Lemma 2.6 and (2.11) lead to the conclusion that
[TABLE]
for . This conjunction with (2.10) implies that is strictly increasing on . Since can be rewritten as , we conclude easily from Lemma 2.2 (2) and (4) that is strictly decreasing on .
Moreover, it follows easily from (2.9) that and for . This conjunction with (2.8) together with the monotonicity of and implies that is strictly decreasing on .
Therefore, Lemma 2.4 follows immediately from (2.7) and Lemma 2.1 together with the limiting values and .
β
Note that , then the following corollary follows directly from Lemma 2.7.
Corollary 2.8**.**
The double inequality
[TABLE]
holds for .
Lemma 2.9**.**
Let , and
[TABLE]
which is defined as in (JDZ, , Lemma 2.8), then the following statements are true:
- (1)
* holds for ;* 2. (2)
* is strictly decreasing on ;* 3. (3)
* is strictly decreasing on .*
Proof.
(1) In order to prove that for , by squaring both sides of the inequality and simplifying, it suffices to show
[TABLE]
holds for .
The difference of both sides squares of (2.12) leads to
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
An easy calculation yields
[TABLE]
It follows from (2.14) and (2.15) that for . This conjunction with (2.13) completes the proof of Lemma 2.9 (1).
(2) It suffices to determine the sign of the derivate of . An easy computation yields
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
It follows from Lemma 2.2 (1) and the monotonicity of that is strictly increasing on . As a consequence, we obtain
[TABLE]
for .
Therefore, we conclude from (2.16) and (2.17) that is strictly decreasing on .
(3) Let and , then we clearly see that for and .
Easy computations lead to
[TABLE]
for . It follows from (2.18) and (2.19) that and are strictly increasing on . Moreover, the monotonicity property of composite function leads to the conculsion that is strictly decreasing on . These properties imply that
[TABLE]
for .
Therefore, Lemma 2.9 (3) follows directly from (2.20). β
3 Main results
Theorem 3.1**.**
The double inequality
[TABLE]
holds for all with if and only if and .
Proof.
Since and are symmetric and homogeneous of degree 1, without loss of generality, we may assume that . Let , then we clearly see from (1.2) and (1.3) together with the definition of and that
[TABLE]
It follows from (3.1) and (3.2) that
[TABLE]
where is defined as in Lemma 2.3.
Therefore, Theorem 3.1 follows easily from (3.3) and Lemma 2.3 .
β
Theorem 3.2**.**
The double inequality
[TABLE]
holds for all with if and only if and .
Proof.
Without loss of generality, we assume that . Let , then from (3.1) and (3.2) we clearly see that
[TABLE]
where is defined as in Lemma 2.4.
Therefore, Theorem 3.2 follows directly from (3.4) and Lemma 2.4.
β
Theorem 3.3**.**
The double inequality
[TABLE]
holds for all with if and only if and .
Proof.
In order to prove the double inequality in Theorem 3.3, it suffices to find and such that
[TABLE]
holds for all with .
Without loss of generality, we assume that . Let , then (3.1) and (3.2) lead to
[TABLE]
where is defined as in Lemma 2.5.
Therefore, Theorem 3.3 follows directly from (3.5), (3.6) and Lemma 2.5. β
Theorem 3.4**.**
Let , then the double inequality
[TABLE]
holds for all with if and only if and .
Proof.
Since and are symmetric and homogeneous of degree one, we assume that . Let , then (3.2) and the definition of lead to
[TABLE]
where is defined as in Lemma 2.9.
It is easy to be verified that is continuous and strictly increasing on with respect to for fixed with .
We divide the proof into three cases.
Case 1. . We clearly see from (JDZ, , Lemma 2.8 (1)) that
[TABLE]
for .
It follows from Corollary 2.8 and (3.8) that
[TABLE]
for .
Therefore, follows from (3.7) and (3.9).
Case 2. . Then from Corollary 2.8 and Lemma 2.9 (1) we clearly see that
[TABLE]
for .
Furthermore, it follows from Lemma 2.9 (2) and (3) that is strictly decreasing on . As a consequence,
[TABLE]
for .
It follows from (3.11) that
[TABLE]
for .
Therefore, follows from (3.7), (3.10) and (3.12).
Case 3. . On the one hand, if , then making use of Taylor series yields
[TABLE]
Equations (3.7) and (3.13) lead to the conclusion that there exists small enough such that for all with .
On the other hand, it follows from
[TABLE]
for that
[TABLE]
is strictly decreasing on with respect to . This implies that
[TABLE]
Equations (3.7) and (3.14) lead to the conclusion that there exists small enough such that for all with . β
4 Applications
In this section, we will present new bounds for the complete elliptic integrals and on .
Theorem 4.1 follows from Theorem 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 immediately.
Theorem 4.1**.**
Let and
[TABLE]
where and are defined as in Lemmas 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.9, respectively. Then the double inequality
[TABLE]
holds for all .
Observed that the double inequality
[TABLE]
for was presented in AVV . It follows easily from (4.1) that
[TABLE]
for .
The following theorem is derived from Theorem 4.1 and (4.2) immediately.
Theorem 4.2**.**
Suppose that are defined as in Theorem 4.1, then the double inequality
[TABLE]
holds for all .
Acknowledgement
I am grateful to Professor Xingjiang Lu, Professor Shoufeng Shen, Doctor Zhengchao Ji for helpful conversations.
Academic Integrity Statement
My signature below constitutes my pledge that all of the writing is my own work, with the exception of those portions which are properly documented.
I understand and accept the following definition of plagiarism:
1.Plagiarism includes the literal repetition without acknowledgment of the writings of another author. All significant phrases, clauses, or passages in this paper which have been taken directly from source material have been enclosed in quotation marks and acknowledged in the text itself as well as in the list of Works Cited or Bibliography.
2.Plagiarism includes borrowing anotherβs ideas and representing them as my own. To paraphrase the thoughts of another writer without acknowledgment is to plagiarize. Plagiarism also includes inadequate paraphrasing. Paraphrased passages (those put into my own words) have been properly acknowledged in the text and in the bibliography.
3.Plagiarism includes using another person or organization to prepare this paper and then submitting it as my own work.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1(1) H. Alzer and S.-L. Qiu, Monotonicity theorems and inequalities for the complete elliptic integrals, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 172 (2004), 289-312.
- 2(2) G. D. Anderson, M. K. Vamanamurthy, M. K. Vuorinen, Conformal Invariants, Inequalities, and Quasiconformal Maps , John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, (1997).
- 3(3) J. M. Borwein and P. B. Borwein, Inequalities for compound mean iterations with logarithmic asymptotes, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 177 (1993), 572-582.
- 4(4) B. C. Carlson, Hidden symmetries of special functions, SIAM Review, 12 (1970), 332-345.
- 5(5) Y.-M. Chu and M.-K. Wang, Inequalities between arithmetic-geometric, Gini, and Toader means, Abstract and Applied Analysis, 2012 (2012), Article ID 830585.
- 6(6) B. C. Carlson and M. K.Vuorinen, Inequality of the AGM and the logarithmic mean, SIAM Review. 33 (1991), 653-654.
- 7(7) Q. Ding and T. H. Zhao, Optimal bounds for arithmetic-geometric and Toader means in terms of generalized logarithmic mean , J. Inequal. Appl. 2017 (2017), 1-12.
- 8(8) I. Elishakoff, V. Birman, and J. Singer, Influence of initial imperfections on nonlinear free vibration of elastic bars, Acta Mechanica, 55 (1985), 191-202.
