You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Axioms
  • Article
  • Open Access

26 May 2022

General Opial Type Inequality and New Green Functions

,
and
1
Elementary School Fra Pavla Vučkovića, 21230 Sinj, Croatia
2
Faculty of Textile Technology, University of Zagreb, Prilaz Baruna Filipovića 28a, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
3
Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Trg Nikole Šubića Zrinskog 11, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Special Functions and Polynomials: Theory, Practice, Applications, and Modeling

Abstract

In this paper we provide many new results involving Opial type inequalities. We consider two functions—one is convex and the other is concave—and prove a new general inequality on a measure space ( Ω , Σ , μ ) . We give an new result involving four new Green functions. Our results include Grüss and Ostrowski type inequalities related to the generalized Opial type inequality. The obtained inequalities are of Opial type because the integrals contain the function and its integral representation. They are not a direct generalization of the Opial inequality.
MSC:
26D15; 26A51

1. Introduction

First, we start with the Opial inequality. Opial [1] proved in 1960 the following inequality: If f C 1 [ 0 , h ] is such that f ( 0 ) = f ( h ) = 0 and f ( x ) > 0 for x ( 0 , h ) , then:
0 h | f ( x ) f ( x ) | d x h 4 0 h [ f ( x ) ] 2 d x ,
where h / 4 is the best possible.
This inequality has been generalized and extended in many different directions (for more details see e.g., [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
Now we continue with the following result. In 2009, Krulić, K. et al., in [10] observed two measure spaces ( Ω 1 , Σ 1 , μ 1 ) , ( Ω 2 , Σ 2 , μ 2 ) and the general integral operator A k defined by:
A k f ( x ) = 1 K ( x ) Ω 2 k ( x , y ) f ( y ) d μ 2 ( y ) , x Ω 1 ,
where f : Ω 2 R is a measurable function, k : Ω 1 × Ω 2 R is measurable and non-negative, and
K ( x ) = Ω 2 k ( x , y ) d μ 2 ( y ) > 0 , x Ω 1 .
The authors proved the weighted inequality by using Jensen’s inequality and Fubini’s theorem. Their result is:
Ω 1 u ( x ) Φ ( A k f ( x ) ) d μ 1 ( x ) Ω 2 v ( y ) Φ ( f ( y ) ) d μ 2 ( y ) ,
where u : Ω 1 R is a non-negative measurable function, x u ( x ) k ( x , y ) K ( x ) is integrable on Ω 1 for each fixed y Ω 2 , v is defined on Ω 2 by
v ( y ) = Ω 1 u ( x ) k ( x , y ) K ( x ) d μ 1 ( x ) ,
Φ is a convex function on an interval I R , and f : Ω 2 R is such that f ( y ) I for all y Ω 2 . We mention that inequality (4) unifies and generalizes many of the results of this type (including the classical ones by Hardy, Hilbert and Godunova).
In the sequel, let ( Ω , Σ , μ ) be a measure space and let k : Ω × Ω R be a symmetric non-negative or nonpositive function such that K ( x ) is defined by:
K ( x ) : = Ω k ( x , y ) d μ ( y ) , K ( x ) 0 , a . e . x Ω ,
and | K ( x ) | < . In the rest of the paper we assume that all integrals are well defined. We continue with the following result that is given in [11].
Theorem 1.
Let k : Ω × Ω R be a symmetric nonpositive or non-negative function. If f is a positive convex function, and g a positive concave function on an interval I R , v : Ω R is either nonpositive or non-negative, such that I m | v | I and u is defined by:
u ( x ) : = Ω k ( x , y ) v ( y ) d μ ( y ) < .
The following inequality:
Ω | K ( x ) | f u ( x ) K ( x ) g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f ( | v ( x ) | ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x )
holds, where K is defined by (6).
In our main results, we will use the following generalized Montgomery identity:
Theorem 2
([12]). Let n N , ϕ : I R be such that ϕ n 1 is absolutely continuous, I R an open interval, α , β I and α < β . Then the following identity holds:
ϕ x = 1 β α α β ϕ t d t + k = 0 n 2 ϕ k + 1 α k ! k + 2 x α k + 2 β α k = 0 n 2 ϕ k + 1 β k ! k + 2 x β k + 2 β α + 1 n 1 ! α β T n x , s ϕ n s d s ,
where
T n x , s = x s n n β α + x α β α x s n 1 , α s x , x s n n β α + x β β α x s n 1 , x < s β .
In case n = 1 the sum k = 0 n 2 is empty, so the identity (9) reduces to the well-known: Montgomery identity
ϕ x = 1 β α α β ϕ t d t + α β P x , s ϕ s d s ,
where P x , s is the Peano kernel, defined by:
P x , s = s α β α , α s x , s β β α , x < s β .
Now we recall the definition of new Green functions. For any function ϕ : [ α , β ] R , ϕ C 2 ( [ α , β ] ) , we can easily show by integrating by parts that the following is valid:
ϕ ( u ) = ϕ ( α ) + ( u α ) ϕ ( β ) + α β G 1 ( u , s ) ϕ ( s ) d s ,
where the function G 1 : [ α , β ] × [ α , β ] R is Green’s function of the boundary value problem
z = 0 , z ( α ) = z ( β )
and is defined by:
G 1 ( u , s ) = α s , s u ; α u , u s .
The function G 1 is convex under u and s, it is a symmetric nonpositive function and it is continuous under s and continuous under u.
Here we give three new types of Green’s functions defined on [ α , β ] × [ α , β ] as follows:
G 2 ( u , s ) = u β , s u ; s β , u s .
G 3 ( u , s ) = u α , s u ; s α , u s .
G 4 ( u , s ) = β s , s u ; β u , u s .
All three functions are continuous, symmetric and convex with respect to both variables u and s.
Lemma 1.
Let G k ( · , s ) , s [ α , β ] , k = 2 , 3 , 4 be defined by (13)–(15). Then for every function ϕ C 2 ( [ α , β ] ) , it holds that:
ϕ ( u ) = ϕ ( β ) + ( u β ) ϕ ( α ) + α β G 2 ( u , s ) ϕ ( s ) d s ,
ϕ ( u ) = ϕ ( β ) + ( β α ) ϕ ( β ) + ( u α ) ϕ ( α ) + α β G 3 ( u , s ) ϕ ( s ) d s ,
ϕ ( u ) = ϕ ( α ) + ( β α ) ϕ ( α ) ( β u ) ϕ ( β ) + α β G 4 ( u , s ) ϕ ( s ) d s .
In paper [11], you can see results involving the Green function defined by:
G ( t , s ) = ( t β ) ( s α ) β α , α s t ; ( t α ) ( s β ) β α , t s β .
Motivated by those results we give general Opial type inequalities. The new inequalities are not direct generalizations of the Opial inequality. They are of Opial type because the integrals contain function and its integral representation. There are many papers involving Green functions; here we mention only a few of them. In [13] you can find results involving Sherman’s inequality and new Green’s functions. Here we also mention new results about Hilbert-type inequalities; see [14,15,16]. This paper is organized in the following way: after the Introduction, where we recall the original Opial inequality from 1960 and also provide newer results involving two measure spaces, Section 2 follows. There we give our main results. They contain two functions—convex and concave—and four new Green’s functions. In this section there are many new results, six new Theorems and many new Corollaries. In Section 3, titled Grüss and Ostrowski type inequalities related to the generalized Opial type inequality, we also provide many new results. We conclude our paper with the Discussion.

2. The Main Results

We give our first result, which involves two functions, one positive convex and the other a positive concave function.
Theorem 3.
Let f be a positive convex function and g a positive concave function on an interval I R . Then the inequality:
a b ( x 2 2 + b x + a 2 2 a b ) f | ϕ ( x ) ϕ ( a ) ( x a ) ϕ ( b ) | x 2 2 + b x + a 2 2 a b g ( | ( ϕ ) ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) a b ( x 2 2 + b x + a 2 2 a b ) f ( | ϕ ( x ) | ) g | ϕ ( x ) ϕ ( a ) ( x a ) ϕ ( b ) | x 2 2 + b x + a 2 2 a b d μ ( x )
holds for all nonpositive or non-negative functions ϕ : [ a , b ] R , ϕ C 2 ( [ a , b ] ) .
Proof. 
Function G 1 defined by (12) is a nonpositive symmetric function so we can apply Theorem 1. Let Ω = [ a , b ] , k ( x , s ) = G 1 ( x , s ) , v ( s ) = φ ( s ) . Then
u ( x ) = a b G 1 ( x , s ) ϕ ( s ) d s = ϕ ( x ) ϕ ( a ) ( x a ) ϕ ( b ) ,
| K ( x ) | = a b | G 1 ( x , s ) | d s = a x ( s a ) d s + x b ( x a ) d s = x 2 2 + b x + a 2 2 a b
and inequality (8) becomes (20) so the proof is complete. □
Now we give a special case of Theorem 3 for ϕ ( a ) = ϕ ( b ) = 0 .
Remark 1.
If ϕ ( a ) = ϕ ( b ) = 0 then inequality (20) becomes:
a b ( x 2 2 + b x + a 2 2 a b ) f | ϕ ( x ) | x 2 2 + b x + a 2 2 a b g ( | ( ϕ ) ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) a b ( x 2 2 + b x + a 2 2 a b ) f ( | ϕ ( x ) | ) g | ϕ ( x ) | x 2 2 + b x + a 2 2 a b d μ ( x ) .
We continue with the other three new Green’s functions. We will give the result without the proof since the proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 3.
Corollary 1.
If f is a positive convex function and g is a positive concave function on an interval I R , then the following inequalities:
a b ( x 2 2 + b x + a 2 2 a b ) f | ϕ ( x ) ϕ ( b ) ( x b ) ϕ ( a ) | x 2 2 + a x + b 2 2 a b g ( | ( ϕ ) ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) a b ( x 2 2 + a x + b 2 2 a b ) f ( | ϕ ( x ) | ) g | ϕ ( x ) ϕ ( b ) ( x b ) ϕ ( a ) | x 2 2 + a x + b 2 2 a b d μ ( x )
a b ( x 2 2 a x + a 2 + b 2 2 a b ) f | ϕ ( x ) ϕ ( b ) ( b a ) ϕ ( b ) ( x a ) ϕ ( a ) | x 2 2 a x + a 2 + b 2 2 a b · g ( | ( ϕ ) ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) a b ( x 2 2 a x + a 2 + b 2 2 a b ) f ( | ϕ ( x ) | ) · g | ϕ ( x ) ϕ ( b ) ( b a ) ϕ ( b ) ( x a ) ϕ ( a ) | x 2 2 a x + a 2 + b 2 2 a b d μ ( x )
a b ( x 2 2 b x + a 2 2 + b 2 a b ) f | ϕ ( x ) ϕ ( a ) ( b a ) ϕ ( a ) ( b x ) ϕ ( b ) | x 2 2 b x + a 2 2 + b 2 a b · g ( | ( ϕ ) ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) a b ( x 2 2 b x + a 2 2 + b 2 a b ) f ( | ϕ ( x ) | ) · g | ϕ ( x ) ϕ ( a ) ( b a ) ϕ ( a ) ( b x ) ϕ ( b ) | x 2 2 b x + a 2 2 + b 2 a b d μ ( x )
hold for all nonpositive or non-negative functions ϕ : [ a , b ] R , ϕ C 2 ( [ a , b ] ) .
The results given in Theorem 3 and Corollary 1 are new. Similar results can be found in paper [11].
We continue with the following result.
Theorem 4.
Let k : Ω × Ω R be a symmetric nonpositive or non-negative function. If f is a positive convex function f C 2 ( [ a , b ] ) , g a positive concave function on an interval [ a , b ] R , v : Ω R is either nonpositive or non-negative, such that I m | v | [ a , b ] , u defined by (7), K ( x ) is defined by (6) and G 1 ( . , s ) is defined by (12). Then the following result follows:
Ω | K ( x ) | a b G 1 ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) f ( s ) d s d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | a b G 1 u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) f ( s ) d s d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f ( a ) g ( | v ( x ) | g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f ( b ) ( | v ( x ) | a ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) u ( x ) K ( x ) a g ( | v ( x ) | d μ ( x ) .
Proof. 
For every function f C 2 ( [ a , b ] ) , the following is valid:
f ( u ) = f ( a ) + ( u a ) f ( b ) + a b G 1 ( u , s ) f ( s ) d s ,
where G 1 is Green’s function defined by (12). Now we insert (26) to (8) and we get:
Ω | K ( x ) | f ( | v ( x ) | ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f u ( x ) K ( x ) g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) = Ω | K ( x ) | f ( a ) + ( | v ( x ) | a ) f ( b ) + a b G 1 ( | v ( x ) | , s ) f ( s ) d s g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f ( a ) + u ( x ) K ( x ) a f ( b ) + a b G 1 u ( x ) K ( x ) , s f ( s ) d s g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) 0 .
Now we rearrange the integrals and get (25). □
Remark 2.
If f ( a ) = f ( b ) = 0 the inequality (25) becomes:
Ω | K ( x ) | a b G 1 ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) f ( s ) d s d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | a b G 1 u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) f ( s ) d s d μ ( x ) 0 .
We continue with analogue results with three other Green functions.
Corollary 2.
If k : Ω × Ω R is a symmetric nonpositive or non-negative function, f a positive convex function f C 2 ( [ a , b ] ) , g a positive concave function on an interval [ a , b ] R , v : Ω R is either nonpositive or non-negative, such that I m | v | [ a , b ] , u is defined by (7), K ( x ) is defined by (6) and G i ( . , s ) , i = 2 , 3 , 4 are defined by (13)–(15), then the following results follow:
(i)
Ω | K ( x ) | a b G 2 ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) f ( s ) d s d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | a b G 2 u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) f ( s ) d s d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f ( b ) g ( | v ( x ) | g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f ( a ) ( | v ( x ) | b ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) u ( x ) K ( x ) b g ( | v ( x ) | d μ ( x ) ;
(ii)
Ω | K ( x ) | a b G 3 ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) f ( s ) d s d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | a b G 3 u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) f ( s ) d s d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f ( b ) g ( | v ( x ) | g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f ( a ) ( | v ( x ) | a ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) u ( x ) K ( x ) a g ( | v ( x ) | d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | ( b a ) f ( b ) g ( | v ( x ) | g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) ;
(iii)
Ω | K ( x ) | a b G 4 ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) f ( s ) d s d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | a b G 4 u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) f ( s ) d s d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f ( a ) g ( | v ( x ) | g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f ( b ) ( b | v ( x ) | ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) b u ( x ) K ( x ) g ( | v ( x ) | d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | ( b a ) f ( a ) g ( | v ( x ) | g u ( x ) K ( x ) .
Proof. 
Similar to the proof of Theorem 4. □
Remark 3.
If f ( a ) = f ( b ) = 0 the inequalities (29)–(31) reduce to:
Ω | K ( x ) | a b G i ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) f ( s ) d s d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | a b G i u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) f ( s ) d s d μ ( x ) 0 , i = 2 , 3 , 4 .
We continue with the following result. It holds only for G 3 and G 4 since they are non-negative functions.
Theorem 5.
If f is a positive convex function f C 2 ( [ a , b ] ) such that f ( a ) = f ( b ) = 0 , g a positive concave function on an interval [ a , b ] R , v : Ω R is either non-negative or nonpositive such that I m | v | [ a , b ] , u is defined by (7), K ( x ) is defined by (6) and G i ( . , s ) , i = 3 , 4 are defined by (14) and (15) then the following statements are equivalent:
(i)
Ω | K ( x ) | f u ( x ) K ( x ) g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f ( | v ( x ) | ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) ;
(ii)
Ω | K ( x ) | G i u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | G i ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) ,
where
i = 3 , 4 .
Proof. 
We only give the proof for i = 3 ; the proof for i = 4 is similar.
(i) ⇒ (ii): Let (i) hold. We consider the Green function G 3 defined by (14). We know that function G 3 ( . , s ) , s [ a , b ] is positive and convex on [ a , b ] , so (34) holds for G 3 ( . , s ) ;
(ii) ⇒ (i): Let (ii) holds. Every function f : a , b R , f C 2 ( [ a , b ] ) , can be written in the form (16). Therefore by some simple calculations, we deduce:
Ω | K ( x ) | f ( | v ( x ) | ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f u ( x ) K ( x ) g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) = Ω | K ( x ) | a b G 3 ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) f ( s ) d s d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | a b G 3 u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) f ( s ) d s d μ ( x ) + Ω | K ( x ) | f ( b ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) g ( | v ( x ) | d μ ( x ) + Ω | K ( x ) | f ( a ) ( | v ( x ) | a ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) u ( x ) K ( x ) a g ( | v ( x ) | d μ ( x ) + Ω | K ( x ) | ( b a ) f ( b ) g ( | v ( x ) | g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) .
Since f ( a ) = f ( b ) = 0 (36) reduces to:
Ω | K ( x ) | f ( | v ( x ) | ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f u ( x ) K ( x ) g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) = Ω | K ( x ) | a b G 3 ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) f ( s ) d s d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | a b G 3 u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) f ( s ) d s d μ ( x ) .
Since f is convex, therefore f ( s ) 0 for s a , b . Furthermore, if for every s a , b the inequality (34) holds, then the right hand side of (37) is non-negative and hence (36) holds. □
Now we continue with the following result.
Theorem 6.
Let n N , n 4 , ϕ : I R be such that ϕ n 1 is absolutely continuous, I R is an open interval, a , b I , a < b . Let f be a positive convex function f C 2 ( [ a , b ] ) such that f ( a ) = f ( b ) = 0 , g is a positive concave function on an interval [ a , b ] R , v : Ω R is either non-negative or nonpositive, such that I m | v | [ a , b ] , u defined by (7), K ( x ) is defined by (6), G i ( . , s ) , i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 are defined by (12)–(15) and T n is defined by (10). Then the following results follow:
(i)
Ω | K ( x ) | f ( | v ( x ) | ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f u ( x ) K ( x ) g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) = a b Ω | K ( x ) | G i ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | G i u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) × k = 1 n 1 k ( k 1 ) ! f ( k ) a s a k 1 f ( k ) b s b k 1 b a d s + 1 n 3 ! a b a b Ω | K ( x ) | G i ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | G i u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) · · T ˜ n 2 s , t ϕ n t d t d s ,
where
T ˜ n 2 s , t = 1 b a s t n 2 n 2 + s a s t n 3 , a t s , 1 b a s t n 2 n 2 + s b s t n 3 , s < t b . ;
(ii)
Ω | K ( x ) | f ( | v ( x ) | ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f u ( x ) K ( x ) g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) = f ( b ) f ( a ) b a a b Ω | K ( x ) | G i ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | G i u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) d s
+ a b Ω | K ( x ) | G i ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | G i u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) × k = 3 n 1 k 2 ( k 1 ) ! f ( k ) a s a k 1 f ( k ) b s b k 1 b a d s + 1 n 3 ! a b a b Ω | K ( x ) | G i ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | G i u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) T n 2 ( s , t ) f ( n ) ( t ) d t d s .
Proof. 
Fix i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 . Using (11), (16)–(18) in
Ω | K ( x ) | f ( | v ( x ) | ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f u ( x ) K ( x ) g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x )
we obtain:
Ω | K ( x ) | f ( | v ( x ) | ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f u ( x ) K ( x ) g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) = a b | K ( x ) | G i ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | G i u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) f ( s ) d s ,
(i)
Differentiating (9) twice with respect to s and rearranging the terms, we get:
f s = k = 1 n 1 k ( k 1 ) ! f ( k ) a s a k 1 f ( k ) b s b k 1 b a + 1 n 3 ! a b T ˜ n 2 s , t f n t d t .
Substituting (43) in (42) we obtain (38);
(ii)
Replacing f with f and then n with n 2 in (9), we have:
f s = 1 b a a b f s d s + k = 0 n 4 f k + 3 a k ! k + 2 s a k + 2 b a k = 0 n 4 f k + 3 b k ! k + 2 s b k + 2 b a + 1 n 3 ! a b T n 2 s , t f n t d t ;
this implies that:
f s = f ( b ) f ( a ) b a + k = 3 n 1 k 2 ( k 1 ) ! f ( k ) a s a k 1 f ( k ) b s b k 1 b a + 1 n 3 ! a b T n 2 s , t f n t d t .
Combining (44) with (42), we get (40). □
Notice that in Theorem 6 we calculated, under some conditions, the difference between the right-hand and left-hand side of inequality 8.
Theorem 7.
Suppose that all assumptions of Theorem 6 hold. Let for even n the function f : I R be n-convex and
Ω | K ( x ) | G i ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | G i u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) 0 , for i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 .
Then the following inequalities hold:
(i)
Ω | K ( x ) | f ( | v ( x ) | ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f u ( x ) K ( x ) g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) a b Ω | K ( x ) | G i ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | G i u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) × k = 1 n 1 k ( k 1 ) ! f ( k ) a s a k 1 f ( k ) b s b k 1 b a d s ;
(ii)
Ω | K ( x ) | f ( | v ( x ) | ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f u ( x ) K ( x ) g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) f ( b ) f ( a ) b a a b Ω | K ( x ) | G i ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | G i u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) d s + a b Ω | K ( x ) | G i ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x )
Ω | K ( x ) | G i u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) × k = 3 n 1 k 2 ( k 1 ) ! f ( k ) a s a k 1 f ( k ) b s b k 1 b a d s .
Proof. 
(i)
Since the function f is n-convex, we have f ( n ) 0 . It is also obvious that if n is even then T ˜ n 2 0 because:
Case I: If a t s , then s t 0 and hence ( s t ) n 2 n 2 0 . Also ( s a ) 0 and ( s t ) n 3 0 . So in this case from (39) we have T ˜ n 2 0 .
Case II: If s < t b , then ( s t ) n 3 and ( t b ) are non positive. As n is even so we have ( t b ) ( s t ) n 3 0 ; also ( s t ) n 2 n 2 0 . So in this case from (39) we have T ˜ n 2 0 .
Now using (45) and the positivity of T ˜ n 2 and f ( n ) in (38) we get (46);
(ii)
The proof is similar to the proof of part (i).
   □
We continue with the last result in this section.
Theorem 8.
Let n N , n 4 , f : I R be such that f n 1 is absolutely continuous, I R an open interval, a , b I , a < b and f ( a ) = f ( b ) = 0 . Let g be a positive concave function on an interval [ a , b ] R , v : Ω R is either non-negative or nonpositive, such that I m | v | [ a , b ] , u is defined by (7), K ( x ) is defined by (6) and G i ( . , s ) , i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 are defined by (12)–(15). If n is even and f is an n-convex function, then (46) and (47) hold. Moreover, if (46) and (47) hold and the functions defined by:
L 1 ( . , s ) = a b G w ( . , s ) × k = 2 n 1 k ( k 1 ) ! f ( k ) a s a k 1 f ( k ) b s b k 1 b a d s ,
L 2 ( . , s ) = f ( b ) f ( a ) b a a b G w ( . , s ) d s + a b G w ( . , s ) × k = 3 n 1 k 2 ( k 1 ) ! f ( k ) a s a k 1 f ( k ) b s b k 1 b a d s ,
where ω = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 are convex on [ a , b ] , then
Ω | K ( x ) | f u ( x ) K ( x ) g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | f ( | v ( x ) | ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) .
Proof. 
Since the functions G w ( . , t ) , w { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } , t [ a , b ] , are convex, so it holds that
Ω | K ( x ) | G ω u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | G ω ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) ,
s [ a , b ] . Applying Theorem 6, we obtain (46) and (47).
Since (46) holds, the right hand side of (46) can be rewritten in the form:
Ω | K ( x ) | L 1 u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | L 1 ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) ,
where L 1 is defined by (49). Since L 1 is convex, therefore by Theorem 1 we have:
Ω | K ( x ) | L 1 ( | v ( x ) | , s ) g u ( x ) K ( x ) d μ ( x ) Ω | K ( x ) | L 1 u ( x ) K ( x ) , s g ( | v ( x ) | ) 0 ,
i.e., the right hand side of (46) is non-negative, so the inequality (8) immediately follows. Similarly, we may get (8) by using the convexity of L 2 .  □

4. Discussion

In this paper we provide many new results involving Opial type inequalities. In paper [11] we considered the Green function defined by (19). Here we gave an analogous result involving four new Green functions. In Section 3 we present Grüss and Ostrowski type inequalities related to the generalized Opial type inequality. There are many papers with those types of result but involving different inequalities, see e.g., [13]. There you can find results involving Sherman’s inequality. We are motivated by those results and in this paper our goal was to provide those types of results for Opial type inequalities. We consider this paper to be a natural sequel of the paper [11]. In our next papers we plan to present new results involving Green functions and Hardy’s inequality. Results proved in this paper are theoretical but we are open to all suggestions involving applications and further investigation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.P., A.G. and K.K.H.; Writing—original draft, J.P., A.G. and K.K.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Zagreb Research Funding (PP3/22).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Opial, Z. Sur une inéqalité. Ann. Polon. Math. 1960, 8, 29–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Agarwal, R.P. Sharp Opial-type inequalities involving-derivatives and their applications. Tôhoku Math. J. 1995, 47, 567–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Agarwal, R.P.; Pang, P.Y.H. Opial Inequalities with Applications in Differential and Difference Equations; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Boston, MA, USA; London, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  4. Anastassiou, G.A. Balanced fractional Opial inequalities. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2009, 42, 1523–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Anastassiou, G.A. General fractional Opial type inequalities. Acta Appl. Math. 1998, 54, 303–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Anastassiou, G.A. Opial type inequalities involving fractional derivatives of functions. Nonlinear Stud. 1999, 6, 207–230. [Google Scholar]
  7. Anastassiou, G.A.; Goldstein, J.A. Fractional Opial type inequalities and fractional differential equations. Results Math. 2002, 41, 197–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fink, A.M. On Opial’s inequality for f(n). Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1992, 115, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pang, P.Y.H.; Agarwal, R.P. On an Opial type inequality due to Fink. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1995, 196, 748–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Krulić, K.; Pečarić, J.; Persson, L.-E. Some new Hardy type inequalities with general kernels. Math. Inequal. Appl. 2009, 12, 473–485. [Google Scholar]
  11. Barbir, A.; Krulić Himmelreich, K.; Pečarić, J. General Opial type inequality. Aequ. Math. 2015, 89, 641–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Aljinović, A.A.; Pexcxarixcx, J.; Vukelić, A. On some Ostrowski type inequalities via Montgomery identity and Taylor’s formula II. Tamkang J. Math. 2005, 36, 279–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  13. Khan, M.A.; Khan, J.; Pećarixcx, J. Generalization of Sherman’s theorem by Montgomery identity and new Green functions. Adv. Stud. Contemp. Math. 2017, 27, 495–514. [Google Scholar]
  14. Abd El-Hamid, H.A.; Rezk, H.M.; Ahmed, A.M.; AlNemer, G.; Zakarya, M.; El Saify, H.A. Some dynamic Hilbert-type inequalities for two variables on time scales. J. Inequal. Appl. 2021, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. AlNemer, G.; Saied, A.I.; Zakarya, M.; Abd El-Hamid, H.A.; Bazighifan, O.; Rezk, H.M. Some New Reverse Hilbert’s Inequalities on Time Scales. Symmetry 2021, 13, 2431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rezk, H.M.; AlNemer, G.; Abd El-Hamid, H.A.; Abdel-Aty, A.H.; Nisar, K.S.; Zakarya, M. Hilbert-type inequalities for time scale nabla calculus. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2020, 619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cerone, P.; Dragomir, S.S. Some new Ostrowski-type bounds for the Cebysev functional and applications. J. Math. Inequal. 2014, 8, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.