Research

# A best-possible double inequality between Seiffert and harmonic means

Yu-Ming Chu1*, Miao-Kun Wang1 and Zi-Kui Wang2

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Mathematics, Huzhou Teachers College, Huzhou, 313000, China

2 Department of Mathematics, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, 310012, China

For all author emails, please log on.

Journal of Inequalities and Applications 2011, 2011:94 doi:10.1186/1029-242X-2011-94

 Received: 12 June 2011 Accepted: 26 October 2011 Published: 26 October 2011

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### Abstract

In this paper, we establish a new double inequality between the Seiffert and harmonic means.

The achieved results is inspired by the papers of Sándor (Arch. Math., 76, 34-40, 2001) and Hästö (Math. Inequal. Appl., 7, 47-53, 2004), and the methods from Wang et al. (J. Math. Inequal., 4, 581-586, 2010). The inequalities we obtained improve the existing corresponding results and, in some sense, are optimal.

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 26E60.

##### Keywords:
harmonic mean; Seiffert mean; inequality

### 1 Introduction

For a, b > 0 with a b, the Seiffert mean P(a, b) was introduced by Seiffert [1] as follows:

(1.1)

Recently, the bivariate mean values have been the subject of intensive research. In particular, many remarkable inequalities for the Seiffert mean can be found in the literature [1-9].

Let H(a, b) = 2ab/(a+b), , L(a, b) = (a - b)/(log a - log b), I(a, b) = 1/e(bb/aa)1/(b-a), A(a, b) = (a+b)/2, C(a, b) = (a2+b2)/(a+b), and Mp(a, b) = ((ap + bp)/2)1/p(p ≠ 0) and be the harmonic, geometric, logarithmic, identric, arithmetic, contraharmonic, and p-th power means of two different positive numbers a and b, respectively. Then, it is well known that

For all a, b > 0 with a b, Seiffert [1] established that L(a, b) < P(a, b) < I(a, b); Jagers [4] proved that M1/2(a, b) < P (a, b) < M2/3(a, b) and M2/3(a, b) is the best-possible upper power mean bound for the Seiffert mean P(a, b); Seiffert [7] established that P(a, b) > A(a, b)G(a, b)/L(a, b) and P(a, b) > 2 A(a, b)/π; Sándor [6] presented that and ; Hästö [3] proved that P(a, b) > Mlog 2/ log π(a, b) and Mlog 2/ log π(a, b) is the best-possible lower power mean bound for the Seiffert mean P(a, b).

Very recently, Wang and Chu [8] found the greatest value α and the least value β such that the double inequality Aα(a, b)H1-α(a, b) < P(a, b) < Aβ(a, b)H1-β(a, b) holds for a, b > 0 with a b; For any α ∈ (0, 1), Chu et al. [10] presented the best-possible bounds for Pα(a, b)G1(a, b) in terms of the power mean; In [2], the authors proved that the double inequality αA(a, b) + (1 - α)H(a, b) < P(a, b) < βA(a, b) + (1 - β)H(a, b) holds for all a, b > 0 with a b if and only if α ≤ 2/π and β ≥ 5/6; Liu and Meng [5] proved that the inequalities

and

hold for all a, b > 0 with a b if and only if α1 ≤ 2/9, β1 ≥ 1/π, α2 ≤ 1/π and β2 ≥ 5/12.

For fixed a, b > 0 with a b and x ∈ [0, 1/2], let

Then, it is not difficult to verify that h(x) is continuous and strictly increasing in [0, 1/2]. Note that h(0) = H(a, b) < P(a, b) and h(1/2) = A(a, b) > P(a, b). Therefore, it is natural to ask what are the greatest value α and least value β in (0, 1/2) such that the double inequality H(αa + (1 - α)b, αb + (1 - α)a) < P(a, b) < H(βa + (1 - β)b, βb + (1 - β)a) holds for all a, b > 0 with a b. The main purpose of this paper is to answer these questions. Our main result is the following Theorem 1.1.

Theorem 1.1. If α, β ∈ (0, 1/2), then the double inequality

holds for all a, b > 0 with a b if and only if and .

### 2 Proof of Theorem 1.1

Proof of Theorem 1.1. Let and . We first prove that inequalities

(2.1)

and

(2.2)

hold for all a, b > 0 with a b.

Without loss of generality, we assume that a > b. Let and p ∈ (0, 1/2); then, from (1.1), one has

(2.3)

Let

(2.4)

(2.5)

(2.6)

and

(2.7)

where

(2.8)

Note that

(2.9)

(2.10)

(2.11)

(2.12)

Let , , , , and . Then, simple computations lead to

(2.13)

(2.14)

(2.15)

(2.16)

(2.17)

(2.18)

(2.19)

(2.20)

(2.21)

(2.22)

(2.23)

(2.24)

and

(2.25)

We divide the proof into two cases.

Case 1. . Then equations (2.6), (2.13), (2.15), (2.17), (2.19), (2.22) and (2.25) become

(2.26)

(2.27)

(2.28)

(2.29)

(2.30)

(2.31)

and

(2.32)

From (2.24), we clearly see that f7(t) is strictly increasing in [1, +∞), and then (2.32) leads to the conclusion that f7(t) > 0 for t ∈ [1, +∞). Thus, f6(t) is strictly increasing in [1, +∞).

It follows from (2.23) and (2.31) together with the monotonicity of f6(t) that there exists t1 > 1 such that f6(t) < 0 for t ∈ (1, t1) and f6(t) > 0 for t ∈ (t1, +∞). Thus, f5(t) is strictly decreasing in [1, t1] and strictly increasing in [t1, +∞).

From (2.20) and (2.30), together with the piecewise monotonicity of f5(t), we clearly see that there exists t2 > t1 > 1 such that f4(t) is strictly decreasing in [1, t2] and strictly increasing in [t2, +∞). Then, equation (2.18) and inequality (2.29) lead to the conclusion that there exists t3 > t2 > 1 such that f3(t) is strictly decreasing in [1, t3] and strictly increasing in [t3, +∞).

It follows from (2.16) and (2.28) together with the piecewise monotonicity of f3(t) we conclude that there exists t4 > t3 > 1 such that f2(t) is strictly decreasing in [1, t4] and strictly increasing in [t4, +∞). Then, equation (2.14) and inequality (2.27) lead to the conclusion that there exists t5 > t4 > 1 such that is strictly decreasing in [1, t5] and strictly increasing in [t5, +∞).

From equations (2.11) and (2.12), together with the piecewise monotonicity of , we know that there exists t6 > t5 > 1 such that f1(t) is strictly decreasing in [1, t6] and strictly increasing in [t6, +∞). Then, equations (2.7)-(2.10) lead to the conclusion that there exists t7 > t6 > 1 such that f(t) is strictly decreasing in [1, t7] and strictly increasing in [t7, +∞).

Therefore, inequality (2.1) follows from equations (2.3)-(2.5) and (2.26) together with the piecewise monotonicity of f(t).

Case 2. . Then, equations (2.13), (2.15), (2.17), (2.19) and (2.21) become

(2.33)

(2.34)

(2.35)

(2.36)

and

(2.37)

for t > 1.

From inequality (2.37), we know that f5(t) is strictly increasing in [1, +∞), and then inequality (2.36) leads to the conclusion that f5(t) > 0 for t ∈ [1, +∞). Thus, f4(t) is strictly increasing in [1, +∞).

It follows from inequality (2.35) and the monotonicity of f4(t) that f3(t) is strictly increasing in [1, +∞).

Therefore, inequality (2.2) follows easily from equations (2.3)-(2.5), (2.7), (2.9), (2.11), (2.33), and (2.34) together with the monotonicity of f3(t).

Next, we prove that is the best-possible parameter such that inequality (2.1) holds for all a, b > 0 with a b. In fact, if , then equation (2.6) leads to

(2.38)

Inequality (2.38) implies that there exists T = T(p) > 1 such that

(2.39)

for t ∈ (T, +∞).

From equations (2.3) and (2.4), together with inequality (2.39), we clearly see that P(a, b) < H(pa + (1 - p)b, pb + (1 - p)a) for a/b ∈ (T2, +∞).

Finally, we prove that is the best-possible parameter such that inequality (2.2) holds for all a, b > 0 with a b. In fact, if , then equation (2.13) leads to

(2.40)

Inequality (2.40) implies that there exists δ = δ (p) > 0 such that

(2.41)

for t ∈ (1, 1 + δ).

Therefore, P(a, b) > H(pa + (1 - p)b, pb + (1 - p)a) for a/b ∈ (1, (1 + δ)2) follows from equations (2.3)-(2.5), (2.7), (2.9), and (2.11) together with inequality (2.41).

### Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

### Authors' contributions

Y-MC provided the main idea in this paper. M-KW carried out the proof of inequality (2.1) in this paper. Z-KW carried out the proof of inequality (2.2) in this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

### Acknowledgements

This study is partly supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 11071069), the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (Grant no. 09JJ6003), and the Innovation Team Foundation of the Department of Education of Zhejiang Province(Grant no. T200924).

### References

1. Seiffert, H-J: Problem 887. Nieuw Arch Wisk (4). 11(2), 176–176 (1993)

2. Chu, Y-M, Qiu, Y-F, Wang, M-K, Wang, G-D: The optimal convex combination bounds of arithmetic and harmonic means for the Seiffert's mean. In: J Inequal Appl. 2010, 7 Article ID 436457

3. Hästö, PA: Optimal inequalities between Seiffert's mean and power means. Math Inequal Appl. 7(1), 47–53 (2004)

4. Jagers, AA: Solution of Problem 887. Nieuw Arch Wisk (4). 12, 230–231 (1994)

5. Liu, H, Meng, X-J: The optimal convex combination bounds for Seiffert's mean. In: J Inequal Appl. 2011, 9 Article ID 686834

6. Sándor, J: On certain inequalities for means III. Arch Math. 76(1), 34–40 (2001). Publisher Full Text

7. Seiffert, H-J: Ungleichungen für einen bestimmten Mittelwert. Nieuw Arch Wisk (4). 13(2), 195–198 (1995)

8. Wang, S-S, Chu, Y-M: The best bounds of the combination of arithmetic and harmonic means for the Seiffert's mean. Int J Math Anal. 4(21-24), 1079–1084 (2010)

9. Wang, M-K, Qiu, Y-F, Chu, Y-M: Sharp bounds for Seiffert means in terms of Lehmer means. J Math Inequal. 4(4), 581–586 (2010)

10. Chu, Y-M, Qiu, Y-F, Wang, M-K: Sharp power mean bounds for the combination of Seiffert and geometric means. In: Abstr Appl Anal. 2010, 12 Article ID 108920