• Nem Talált Eredményt

ON AN UPPER BOUND FOR JENSEN’S INEQUALITY

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Ossza meg "ON AN UPPER BOUND FOR JENSEN’S INEQUALITY"

Copied!
11
0
0

Teljes szövegt

(1)

On An Upper Bound Slavko Simic vol. 10, iss. 2, art. 60, 2009

Title Page

Contents

JJ II

J I

Page1of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

ON AN UPPER BOUND FOR JENSEN’S INEQUALITY

SLAVKO SIMIC

Mathematical Institute SANU, Kneza Mihaila 36 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

EMail:ssimic@turing.mi.sanu.ac.rs

Received: 25 May, 2007

Accepted: 16 November, 2007

Communicated by: S.S. Dragomir 2000 AMS Sub. Class.: 26B25.

Key words: Jensen’s discrete inequality, global bounds, generalized A-G inequality.

Abstract: In this paper we shall give another global upper bound for Jensen’s discrete in- equality which is better than existing ones. For instance, we determine a new converse for the generalizedAGinequality.

(2)

On An Upper Bound Slavko Simic vol. 10, iss. 2, art. 60, 2009

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page2of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

Contents

1 Introduction 3

2 Results 5

3 Proofs 8

(3)

On An Upper Bound Slavko Simic vol. 10, iss. 2, art. 60, 2009

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page3of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

1. Introduction

Throughout this paper,x˜ = {xi} is a finite sequence of real numbers belonging to a fixed closed intervalI = [a, b], a < b, andp˜= {pi},P

pi = 1is a sequence of positive weights associated withx. If˜ f is a convex function on I, then the well- known Jensen’s inequality [1,4] asserts that:

(1.1) 0≤X

pif(xi)−fX pixi

.

One can see that the lower bound zero is of global nature since it does not depend on

˜

pandx˜but only onf and the intervalI, whereuponf is convex.

An upper global bound (i.e. depending on f andI only) for Jensen’s inequality is given by Dragomir [3].

Theorem 1.1. Iff is a differentiable convex mapping onI, then we have

(1.2) X

pif(xi)−fX pixi

≤ 1

4(b−a)(f0(b)−f0(a)) :=Df(a, b).

In [5] we obtain an upper global bound without a differentiability restriction on f. Namely, we proved the following:

Theorem 1.2. Ifp,˜ x˜are defined as above, we have

(1.3) X

pif(xi)−fX pixi

≤f(a) +f(b)−2f

a+b 2

:=Sf(a, b), for anyf that is convex overI := [a, b].

In many cases the boundSf(a, b)is better thanDf(a, b).

(4)

On An Upper Bound Slavko Simic vol. 10, iss. 2, art. 60, 2009

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page4of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

For instance, forf(x) = −xs,0 < s < 1; f(x) = xs, s > 1;I ⊂ R+, we have that

(1.4) Sf(a, b)≤Df(a, b),

for eachs∈(0,1)S

(1,2]S

[3,+∞).

In this article we establish another global boundTf(a, b)for Jensen’s inequality, which is better than both of the aforementioned boundsDf(a, b)andSf(a, b).

Finally, we determineTf(a, b)in the case of the generalizedA−Ginequality.

(5)

On An Upper Bound Slavko Simic vol. 10, iss. 2, art. 60, 2009

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page5of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

2. Results

Our main result is contained in the following

Theorem 2.1. Letf, p,˜ x˜be defined as above andp, q >0, p+q = 1. Then Xpif(xi)−fX

pixi

≤max

p [pf(a) +qf(b)−f(pa+qb)]

(2.1)

:=Tf(a, b).

Remark 1. It is easy to see thatg(p) :=pf(a) + (1−p)f(b)−f(pa+ (1−p)b)is concave for0 ≤p≤ 1withg(0) =g(1) = 0. Hence, there exists a unique positive maxpg(p) = Tf(a, b).

The next theorem demonstrates that the inequality(2.1)is stronger than(1.2)or (1.3).

Theorem 2.2. Letbe the domain of a convex functionf andI := [a, b]⊂I. Then˜ I. Tf(a, b)≤Df(a, b);

II. Tf(a, b)≤Sf(a, b), for eachI ⊂I˜.

The following well knownA−Ginequality [4] asserts that

(2.2) A(˜p,x)˜ ≥G(˜p,x),˜

where

(2.3) A(˜p,x) :=˜ X

pixi; G(˜p,x) :=˜ Y xpii,

(6)

On An Upper Bound Slavko Simic vol. 10, iss. 2, art. 60, 2009

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page6of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

are generalized arithmetic, i.e., geometric means, respectively.

Applying Theorems 2.1 (cf [2]) and 2.2 with f(x) = −logx, one obtains the following converses of theA−Ginequality:

(2.4) 1≤ A(˜p,x)˜

G(˜p,x)˜ ≤exp

(b−a)2 4ab

and

(2.5) 1≤ A(˜p,x)˜

G(˜p,x)˜ ≤ (a+b)2 4ab .

Since1 +x≤ex, x∈R, puttingx= (b−a)4ab2, one can see that the inequality (2.5) is stronger than (2.4) for eacha, b∈R+.

An even stronger converse of theA−Ginequality can be obtained by applying Theorem2.1.

Theorem 2.3. Letp,˜ x, A(˜˜ p,x), G(˜˜ p,x)˜ be defined as above and xi ∈ [a, b], 0 <

a < b.

Denoteu:= log(b/a); w:= (eu−1)/u. Then

(2.6) 1≤ A(˜p,x)˜

G(˜p,x)˜ ≤ w e exp 1

w :=T(w).

Comparing the boundsD, S andT,i.e.,(2.4),(2.5)and(2.6)for arbitraryp˜and xi ∈[a,2a], a >0, we obtain

(2.7) 1≤ A(˜p,x)˜

G(˜p,x)˜ ≤e1/8 ≈1.1331,

(2.8) 1≤ A(˜p,x)˜

G(˜p,x)˜ ≤9/8 = 1.125,

(7)

On An Upper Bound Slavko Simic vol. 10, iss. 2, art. 60, 2009

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page7of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

and

(2.9) 1≤ A(˜p,x)˜

G(˜p,x)˜ ≤2(elog 2)−1 ≈1.0615 respectively.

Remark 2. One can see thatT(w) = S(t), where Specht’s ratioS(t)is defined as

(2.10) S(t) := t1/(t−1)

elogt1/(t−1) witht=b/a.

It is known [6,7] thatS(t)represents the best possible upper bound for theA−G inequality with uniform weights, i.e.

(2.11) S(t)(x1x2· · ·xn)n1 ≥ x1+x2+· · ·+xn

n

≥(x1x2· · ·xn)1n . Therefore Theorem 2.3 shows that Specht’s ratio is the best upper bound for the generalizedA−Ginequality also.

(8)

On An Upper Bound Slavko Simic vol. 10, iss. 2, art. 60, 2009

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page8of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

3. Proofs

Proof of Theorem2.1. Sincexi ∈ [a, b], there is a sequence{λi}, λi ∈ [0,1], such thatxiia+ (1−λi)b.

Hence

Xpif(xi)−fX pixi

=X

pif(λia+ (1−λi)b)−fX

piia+ (1−λi)b)

≤X

piif(a) + (1−λi)f(b))−f(aX

piλi+bX

pi(1−λi)

=f(a)X piλi

+f(b)

1−X piλi

−fh

aX

piλi +b

1−X

piλii . DenotingP

piλi :=p; 1−P

piλi :=q, we have that0≤p, q ≤1, p+q= 1.

Consequently,

Xpif(xi)−fX pixi

≤pf(a) +qf(b)−f(pa+qb)

≤max

p [pf(a) +qf(b)−f(pa+qb)]

:=Tf(a, b), and the proof of Theorem2.1is complete.

Proof of Theorem2.2.

Part I.

Sincef is convex (and differentiable, in this case), we have (3.1) ∀x, t∈I : f(x)≥f(t) + (x−t)f0(t).

(9)

On An Upper Bound Slavko Simic vol. 10, iss. 2, art. 60, 2009

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page9of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

In particular,

(3.2) f(pa+qb)≥f(a) +q(b−a)f0(a); f(pa+qb)≥f(b) +p(a−b)f0(b).

Therefore

pf(a) +qf(b)−f(pa+qb) = p(f(a)−f(pa+qb)) +q(f(b)−f(pa+qb))

≤p(q(a−b)f0(a)) +q(p(b−a)f0(b))

=pq(b−a)(f0(b)−f0(a)).

Hence

Tf(a, b) := max

p [pf(a) +qf(b)−f(pa+qb)]

≤max

p [pq(b−a)(f0(b)−f0(a))]

= 1

4(b−a)(f0(b)−f0(a)) :=Df(a, b).

Part II.

We shall prove that, for each0≤p, q, p+q= 1,

(3.3) pf(a) +qf(b)−f(pa+qb)≤f(a) +f(b)−2f

a+b 2

.

Indeed,

pf(a) +qf(b)−f(pa+qb) = f(a) +f(b)−(qf(a) +pf(b))−f(pa+qb)

≤f(a) +f(b)−(f(qa+pb) +f(pa+qb))

(10)

On An Upper Bound Slavko Simic vol. 10, iss. 2, art. 60, 2009

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page10of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

≤f(a) +f(b)−2f 1

2(qa+pb) + 1

2(pa+qb)

=f(a) +f(b)−2f

a+b 2

.

Since the right-hand side of the above inequality does not depend onp, we immedi- ately get

(3.4) Tf(a, b)≤Sf(a, b).

Proof of Theorem2.3. By Theorem2.1, applied withf(x) =−logx, we obtain 0≤logA(˜p,x)˜

G(˜p,x)˜

≤Tlogx(a, b)

= max

p [log(pa+qb)−ploga−qlogb].

Using standard arguments it is easy to find that the unique maximum is attained at the pointp:

(3.5) p= b

b−a − 1

logb−loga.

Since0< a < b, we get0< p <1and after some calculations, it follows that (3.6) 0≤log A(˜p,x)˜

G(˜p,x)˜ ≤log

b−a logb−loga

+ alogb−bloga b−a −1.

Puttinglog(b/a) := u, (eu −1)/u := w and taking the exponent, one obtains the result of Theorem2.3.

(11)

On An Upper Bound Slavko Simic vol. 10, iss. 2, art. 60, 2009

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page11of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

References

[1] P.R. BEESACKANDJ. PE ˇCARI ´C, On Jensen’s inequality for convex functions, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 110 (1985), 536–552.

[2] I. BUDIMIR, S.S. DRAGOMIR AND J. PE ˇCARI ´C, Further reverse results for Jensen’s discrete inequality and applications in information theory, J. Inequal.

Pure Appl. Math., 2(1) (2001), Art. 5. [ONLINE:http://jipam.vu.edu.

au/article.php?sid=121]

[3] S.S. DRAGOMIR, A converse result for Jensen’s discrete inequality via Gruss inequality and applications in information theory, Analele Univ. Oradea. Fasc.

Math., 7 (1999-2000), 178–189.

[4] D.S. MITRINOVI ´C, Analytic Inequalities, Springer, New York, 1970.

[5] S. SIMI ´C, Jensen’s inequality and new entropy bounds, submitted to Appl. Math.

Letters.

[6] W. SPECHT, Zur Theorie der elementaren Mittel, Math. Z., 74 (1960), 91–98.

[7] M. TOMINAGA, Specht’s ratio in the Young inequality, Sci. Math. Japon., 55 (2002), 583–588.

Hivatkozások

KAPCSOLÓDÓ DOKUMENTUMOK

This way we obtain a novel and short proof for the bound of Delsarte-Goethals-Seidel on spherical s-distance sets and a generalization of a bound by Bannai-Kawasaki- Nitamizu-Sato

Given a set of planar curves (Jordan arcs), each pair of which meets – either crosses or touches – exactly once, we establish an upper bound on the number of touchings5. We show

In this paper, our main contribution is to develop admission control solutions under multiple performance requirements: i.e., provide an upper bound average network travel time and

This weak sandwich theorem is the immediate consequence of the sandwich theorem, Brooks’ theorem (concerning an upper bound on the chromatic number), and the counterpart of

In this paper we investigate the same problem to the general Liénard-type system 1.3, and we obtain an explicit upper bound for the amplitude of the unique limit cycle of 1.3 under

Various attempts have been made to give an upper bound for the solutions of the delayed version of the Gronwall–Bellman integral inequality, but the obtained estimations are not

In this paper we give a new upper bound for the degree of a class of transver- sal to infinity invariant algebraic curves for polynomial Kukles systems of arbitrary de- gree..

The idea behind this lemma is that the fractional covering ratio is an upper bound on the covering ratio, and if the starting pebble distribution has only integer number of