Next Article in Journal
The Stability of Isometry by Singular Value Decomposition
Previous Article in Journal
Testing the Temperature-Mortality Nonparametric Function Change with an Application to Chicago Mortality
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Improved Version of the Parameterized Hardy–Hilbert Inequality Involving Two Partial Sums
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Half-Discrete Hardy–Mulholland-Type Inequality Involving One Multiple Upper Limit Function and One Partial Sum

1
Institute of Applied Mathematics, Longyan University, Longyan 364012, China
2
School of Mathematics, Guangdong University of Education, Guangzhou 510303, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Mathematics 2025, 13(15), 2497; https://doi.org/10.3390/math13152497
Submission received: 5 July 2025 / Revised: 31 July 2025 / Accepted: 1 August 2025 / Published: 3 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Convex Analysis and Inequalities)

Abstract

In this paper, by using the techniques of real analysis, with the help of the Euler–Maclaurin summation formula, Abel’s summation by parts formula, and the differentiation mid-value theorem, we establish a half-discrete Hardy–Mulholland-type inequality involving one multiple upper limit function and one partial sum. Based on the obtained inequality, we characterize the condition of the best possible constant factor related to several parameters. At the end of the paper, we illustrate that some new half-discrete Hardy–Mulholland-type inequalities can be deduced from the special values of the parameters. Our results enrich the current results in the study of half-discrete Hardy–Mulholland-type inequalities.

1. Introduction

Let p > 1 ,   1 p + 1 q = 1 ,   a m , b n 0 ,   0 < m = 1 a m p <   and   0 < n = 1 b n q < . Then,
m = 1 n = 1 a m b n m + n < π sin ( π / p ) m = 1 a m p 1 p n = 1 b n q 1 q ,
where the constant factor π sin ( π / p ) is the best possible. Inequality (1) is known in the literature as the Hardy–Hilbert inequality ([1], Theorem 315). It is interesting that under a similar assumption condition to that above, one has the following Hardy–Mulholland’s inequality ([1], Theorem 343):
m = 2 n = 2 a m b n ln m n < π sin ( π / p ) ( m = 2 a m p m 1 p ) 1 p ( n = 2 b n q n 1 q ) 1 q ,
where the constant factor π sin ( π / p ) is also the best possible.
In 1934, a half-discrete Hilbert-type inequality was presented ([1], Theorem 351), as follows:
0 x p 2 ( n = 1 K ( n x ) a n ) p d x < ϕ p ( 1 q ) n = 1 a n p ,
where K ( t ) ( t > 0 ) is a decreasing function, p > 1 , 1 p + 1 q = 1 , the function ϕ ( s ) is defined as 0 < ϕ ( s ) : = 0 K ( t ) t s 1 d t < , a n 0 and 0 < n = 1 a n p < . Since then, some half-discrete Hilbert-type inequalities have been proposed intermittently; we refer the interested reader to monograph [2] and the references cited therein.
In 2018, Batbold and Azar [3] gave a new form of half-discrete Hilbert inequality for three variables. In 2021, Huang and Yang [4] established a half-discrete Hardy–Mulholland-type inequality involving one multiple upper limit function, F m ( x ) , as follows:
0 n = 2 a n f ( x ) [ x + ln α ( n ξ ) ] λ d x < ( 1 α ) 1 p Γ ( λ + m ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 ) × [ 0 x p ( 1 m λ 1 ) 1 F m p ( x ) d x ] 1 p [ n = 2 ln q ( 1 α λ 2 ) 1 ( n ξ ) ( n ξ ) 1 q a n q ] 1 q ,
where p > 1 , 1 p + 1 q = 1 , λ = λ 1 + λ 2 > 0 , α ( 0 , 1 ] , λ 1 ( 0 , λ ) , λ 2 ( 0 , 1 α ] ( 0 , λ ) , and function F m ( x ) is defined by the form: F i ( x ) = 0 x ( 0 t i 1 0 t 1 F 0 ( t 0 ) d t 0 d t i 2 ) d t i 1   ( i = 1 , 2 , , m ) , F 0 ( x ) = f ( x ) . The constant factor ( 1 α ) 1 p Γ ( λ + m ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 ) in (4) is the best possible. In 2023, Peng et al. [5] provided a reverse half-discrete Hardy–Mulholland-type inequality.
It is important to note that, in 2019, Adiyasuren et al. [6] presented a novel extension of the Hardy–Hilbert inequality by imbedding two partial sums, A m : = k = 1 m a k and B n : = k = 1 n b k ( m , n { 1 , 2 , } ) , in the right series of the following inequality, i.e.:
m = 1 n = 1 a m b n ( m + n ) λ < λ 1 λ 2 B ( λ 1 , λ 2 ) m = 1 m p λ 1 1 A m p 1 p n = 1 n q λ 2 1 B n q 1 q
where λ i ( 0 , 1 ] ( 0 , λ ) ( λ ( 0 , 2 ] ; i = 1 , 2 ) , λ 1 + λ 2 = λ , a m , b n 0 , A m = o ( e t m ) , B n = o ( e t n )   ( t > 0 ; m , n ) . The constant factor λ 1 λ 2 B ( λ 1 , λ 2 ) is the best possible.
To date, there have been lots of papers published on half-discrete Hardy–Hilbert-type and Mulholland-type inequalities (see [2,3,7,8,9]). However, the study of half-discrete Hardy–Mulholland-type inequalities involving partial sums has not been reported yet. This is the main motivation for us to carry out this work.
Hong et al. [10,11,12,13,14,15] gave equivalent parameter conditions for the construction of Hilbert-type integral inequalities. What has caught our attention is that Hong, Zhang, and Xiao [16] improve the condition for constructing a Hilbert-type integral inequality involving upper limit functions.
Inspired by the work of [6,16], in this paper, by replacing the term of series a n with the partial sum A n in the right-hand side of inequality (4), we establish a new half-discrete Hardy–Mulholland-type inequality. Our method is mainly based on the use of the Euler–Maclaurin summation formula, Abel’s partial summation formula, and the differentiation mid-value theorem.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Firstly, we introduce some lemmas on the construction of weight function and related identities and inequalities. Secondly, we establish a half-discrete Hardy–Mulholland-type inequality involving one multiple upper limit function and one partial sum. For the obtained inequality, we deal with the equivalent conditions for the best possible constant factor associated with the parameters. Finally, we illustrate that the main results obtained can generate some new half-discrete Hardy–Mulholland-type inequalities.

2. Preliminaries and Lemmas

For convenience, we first specify the following assumption conditions (H1) because they will be used frequently in the subsequent analysis.
(H1). 
p > 1 ( q > 1 ) ,   1 p + 1 q = 1 , β ( 0 , 1 ] , η [ 0 , 1 4 ] , λ > 0 ,   λ 1 ( 0 , λ ) , λ 2 ( 0 , 8 5 β 1 ] ( 0 , λ ) , λ ^ 1 : = λ λ 2 p + λ 1 q , λ ^ 2 : = λ λ 1 q + λ 2 p . Let f ( x ) be a nonnegative continuous function unless at finite points in R + = ( 0 , ) , m N 0 = { 0 , 1 , 2 , } , F 0 ( x ) = f ( x ) , inductively, for m N , we define the following multiple upper limit functions: F i ( x ) : = 0 x F i 1 ( t ) d t   ( x 0 ) , namely,
F i ( x ) = 0 x ( 0 t i 1 0 t 1 F 0 ( t 0 ) d t 0 d t i 2 ) d t i 1 ( i = 1 , 2 , , m )
which satisfies  m N 0
0 < c i 1 : = 0 t p ( 2 i λ ^ 1 ) 1 F i 1 p ( t ) d t < ( i = 1 , 2 , , m + 1 ) .
Let  b n 0 , B n : = k = 2 n b k ( n N 2 = { 2 , 3 , } ) , which satisfies
B n = o ( e t ln β ( n η ) ) ( t > 0 ; n )   and   0 < n = 2 ln q β λ ^ 2 1 ( n η ) n η B n q < .
Lemma 1. 
(i) ([17], 2.2.13). If k N 0 , ( 1 ) i d i d t i g ( t ) > 0 , t [ k , ) and g ( i ) ( ) = 0 ( i = 0 , 1 ) , P i ( t ) , B i ( i N ) are Bernoulli functions and Bernoulli numbers of i-order, then
m P 2 q 1 ( t ) g ( t ) d t = ε q B 2 q 2 q g ( m ) ( 0 < ε q < 1 ; q = 1 , 2 , ) ,   and
1 8 g ( k ) < k P 1 ( t ) g ( t ) d t < 0 .
(ii) ([17], 2.3.2) If  k N 0 , f ( t ) ( > 0 ) C [ k , ) , f ( i ) ( ) = 0   ( i = 0 , 1 ) ,  then we have the following Euler–Maclaurin summation formula:
i = k n f ( i ) = k n f ( t ) d t + 1 2 ( f ( k ) + f ( n ) ) + k n P 1 ( t ) f ( t ) d t ( n k ) .
Lemma 2. 
Let  η [ 0 , 1 4 ] , s > 0 , s 2 ( 0 , 8 5 β ] ( 0 , s ) , k s ( s 2 ) : = B ( s 2 , s s 2 ) . We can then define the following weight coefficient:
ϖ ( s , η ) ( s 2 , x ) : = x s s 2 n = 2 β ln β s 2 1 ( n η ) [ x + ln β ( n η ) ] s ( n η ) ( x > 0 )
The following inequalities are valid:
0 < k s ( s 2 ) ( 1 O s ( 1 x s 2 ) ) < ϖ ( s , η ) ( s 2 , x ) < k s ( s 2 ) ( x > 0 ) ,
where  O s ( 1 x s 2 ) : = 1 k s ( s 2 ) 0 ln β ( 2 η ) x u s 2 1 ( 1 + u ) s d u > 0 .
Proof. 
For fixed x > 0 , we define a positive function h ( t ) as follows:
h ( t ) : = ln β s 2 1 ( t η ) [ x + ln β ( t η ) ] s ( t η ) ( t > 1 + η ) .
(i) For s 2 ( 0 , 1 β ] ( 0 , s ) , η [ 0 , 1 4 ] , β ( 0 , 1 ] , it is easy to find
h ( t ) = ( 1 β s 2 ) ln β s 2 2 ( t η ) [ x + ln β ( t η ) ] s ( t η ) 2 β s ln β ( s 2 + 1 ) 2 ( t η ) [ x + ln β ( t η ) ] s + 1 ( t η ) 2 ln β s 2 1 ( t η ) [ x + ln β ( t η ) ] s ( t η ) 2 < 0 .
Similarly, we can obtain
h ( t ) = [ ( 1 β s 2 ) ln β s 2 2 ( t η ) [ x + ln β ( t η ) ] s ( t η ) 2 ] [ β s ln β ( s 2 + 1 ) 2 ( t η ) [ x + ln β ( t η ) ] s + 1 ( t η ) 2 ] [ ln β s 2 1 ( t η ) [ x + ln β ( t η ) ] s ( t η ) 2 ] > 0 .
Now, using Hemite–Hadamard’s inequality [18] and the decreasingness property of the series, we deduce that
2 h ( t ) d t < n = 2 h ( n ) < 3 2 h ( t ) d t < 1 + η h ( t ) d t .
(ii) For s 2 ( 1 β , 8 5 β ] ( 0 , s ) , in view of (8) (for n ), we have
n = 2 h ( n ) = 2 h ( t ) d t + 1 2 h ( 2 ) + 2 P 1 ( t ) h ( t ) d t
= 1 + η h ( t ) d t h 0 ( s 2 , η ) , h 0 ( s 2 , η ) : = 1 + η 2 h ( t ) d t 1 2 h ( 2 ) 2 P 1 ( t ) h ( t ) d t .
From the definition of h ( t ) , we derive 1 2 h ( 2 ) = ln β s 2 1 ( 2 η ) 2 [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s ( 2 η ) . Now, setting u = ln β ( t η ) , integrating by parts gives
1 + η 2 h ( t ) d t = 1 β 0 ln β ( 2 η ) n s 2 1 ( x + u ) s d u = 1 β 0 ln β ( 2 η ) d u s 2 s 2 ( x + u ) s = u s 2 β s 2 ( x + u ) s 0 ln β ( 2 η ) 1 β 0 ln β ( 2 η ) u s 2 s 2 d 1 ( x + u ) s = ln β s 2 ( 2 η ) β s 2 [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s + s β s 2 ( s 2 + 1 ) 0 ln β ( 2 η ) d u s 2 + 1 ( x + u ) s + 1 > ln β s 2 ( 2 η ) β s 2 [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s + s β s 2 ( s 2 + 1 ) ln β ( s 2 + 1 ) ( 2 η ) [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s + 1 .
If ( 1 ) i f j ( i 1 ) ( t ) > 0   ( i , j = 1 , 2 ) , then we have the following inequality:
( 1 ) i ( f 1 ( t ) f 2 ( t ) ) ( i 1 ) > 0 ( i = 1 , 2 ) .
Based on the above result, for η [ 0 , 1 4 ] , ln ( t η ) ( t η ) 2 > 0 , ( ln ( t η ) ( t η ) 2 ) = 1 2 ln ( t η ) ( t η ) 3 < 0 ( t > 2 ) , with the aid of (8), it follows that
h ( t ) = ( β s 2 1 ) ln β s 2 2 ( t η ) [ x + ln β ( t η ) ] s ( t η ) 2 β s ln β s 2 ( 3 β ) ( t η ) [ x + ln β ( t η ) ] s + 1 ln ( t η ) ( t η ) 2 ln β s 2 2 ( t η ) [ x + ln β ( t η ) ] s ln ( t η ) ( t η ) 2 , 2 P 1 ( t ) ( β s 2 1 ) ln β s 2 2 ( t η ) [ x + ln β ( t η ) ] s ( t η ) 2 d t > 0 ( 1 < β s 2 8 5 < 2 ) , 2 P 1 ( t ) [ β s ln β s 2 ( 3 β ) ( t η ) [ x + ln β ( t η ) ] s + 1 ln ( t η ) ( t η ) 2 + ln β s 2 2 ( t η ) [ x + ln β ( t η ) ] s ln ( t η ) ( t η ) 2 ] d t > 1 8 [ β s ln β s 2 ( 3 β ) ( 2 η ) [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s + 1 ln ( 2 η ) ( 2 η ) 2 + ln β s 2 2 ( 2 η ) [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s ln ( 2 η ) ( 2 η ) 2 ] ( β s 2 ( 3 β ) 8 5 2 < 0 ) , 2 P 1 ( t ) h ( t ) d t > β s ln β s 2 ( 2 β ) ( 2 η ) 8 [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s + 1 ( 2 η ) 2 ln β s 2 1 ( 2 η ) 8 [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s ( 2 η ) 2 .
Hence, for s 2 ( 1 β , 8 5 β ) ( 0 , s ) , β ( 0 , 1 ] , η [ 0 , 1 4 ] , we deduce that
h 0 ( s 2 , η ) > ln β s 2 ( 2 η ) β s 2 [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s + s β s 2 ( s 2 + 1 ) ln β s 2 ( 2 η ) [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s + 1 ln β s 2 1 ( 2 η ) 2 [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s ( 2 η ) β s ln β ( s 2 + 1 ) 1 ( 2 η ) 8 [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s + 1 ( 2 η ) 2 β ln β s 2 1 ( 2 η ) 8 [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s ( 2 η ) 2 = ln β s 2 1 ( 2 η ) [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s [ ln ( 2 η ) β s 2 1 2 ( 2 η ) 1 8 ( 2 η ) 2 ] + s β ln β ( s 2 + 1 ) 1 ( 2 η ) [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s + 1 [ ln ( 2 η ) β s 2 ( β s 2 + β ) 1 8 ( 2 η ) 2 ] ln β s 2 1 ( 2 η ) [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s [ 5 ln ( 2 1 4 ) 8 1 2 ( 2 1 4 ) 1 8 ( 2 1 4 ) 2 ] + s β ln β ( s 2 + 1 ) 1 ( 2 η ) [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s + 1 [ 25 ln ( 2 1 4 ) 104 1 8 ( 2 1 4 ) 2 ] > 0.023 × ln β s 2 1 ( 2 η ) [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s + 0.093 × s β ln β ( s 2 + 1 ) 2 ( 2 η ) [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s + 1 > 0 .
We still have
n = 2 h ( n ) = 2 h ( t ) d t + 1 2 h ( 2 ) + 2 P 1 ( t ) h ( t ) d t   = 2 h ( t ) d t + h 1 ( s 2 , η ) ,
where h 1 ( s 2 , η ) : = 1 2 h ( 2 ) + 2 P 1 ( t ) h ( t ) d t .
For s 2 ( 1 β , 8 5 β ] ( 0 , s ) , by means of (8), we find
2 P 1 ( t ) ( β s 2 1 ) ln β s 2 2 ( t η ) [ x + ln β ( t η ) ] s ( t η ) 2 d t > ( β s 2 1 ) ln β s 2 2 ( 2 η ) 8 [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s ( 2 η ) 2 ,
2 P 1 ( t ) { β s ln β s 2 ( 3 β ) ( t η ) [ x + ln β ( t η ) ] s + 1 ln ( t η ) ( t η ) 2 + ln β s 2 2 ( t η ) [ x + ln β ( t η ) ] s ln ( t η ) ( t η ) 2 } d t > 0 , 2 P 1 ( t ) h ( t ) d t > ( β s 2 1 ) ln β s 2 2 ( 2 η ) 8 [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s ( 2 η ) 2 .
h 1 ( s 2 , η ) > ln β s 2 1 ( 2 η ) 2 [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s ( 2 η ) ( β s 2 1 ) ln β s 2 2 ( 2 η ) 8 [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s ( 2 η ) 2
= ln β s 2 2 ( 2 η ) 2 [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s ( 2 η ) [ ln ( 2 η ) β s 2 1 4 ( 2 η ) ] ln β s 2 2 ( 2 η ) 2 [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s ( 2 η ) [ ln ( 2 1 4 ) 8 5 1 4 ( 2 1 4 ) ]
> 0.47 × ln β s 2 2 ( 2 η ) 2 [ x + ln β ( 2 η ) ] s ( 2 η ) > 0 .
Hence, we derive inequality (12).
In conclusion, for s 2 [ 1 β , 3 2 β ] ( 0 , s ) , by using (11) and setting u = ln β ( t η ) x , it follows that
ϖ ( s , η ) ( s 2 , x ) = β x s s 2 n = 2 h ( n ) < β x s s 2 1 + η h ( t ) d t = 0 u s 2 1 d u ( 1 + u ) s = B ( s 2 , s s 2 ) = k s ( s 2 ) ,
ϖ ( s , η ) ( s 2 , x ) > β x s s 2 2 h ( t ) d t = ln β ( 2 η ) x u s 2 1 ( 1 + u ) s d u = k s ( s 2 ) ( 1 O s ( 1 x s 2 ) ) > 0 ,
where we indicate that O s ( 1 x s 2 ) = 1 k s ( s 2 ) 0 ln β ( 2 η ) x u s 2 1 ( 1 + u ) s d u which satisfies
0 < 0 ln β ( 2 η ) x u s 2 1 ( 1 + u ) s d u 0 ln β ( 2 η ) x u s 2 1 d u = 1 s 2 [ ln β ( 2 η ) x ] s 2 .
Therefore, we obtain inequality (11). The proof of Lemma 1 is complete. □
Remark 1. 
For η = 0 , 1 < β s 2 12 5 , we can still obtain
h 0 ( s 2 , 0 ) > 0.007 × ln β s 2 1 2 ( x + ln β 2 ) s + 0.05 × s β ln β ( s 2 + 1 ) 2 2 ( x + ln β 2 ) s + 1 > 0 ,
h 1 ( s 2 , 0 ) > 0.5 × ln β s 2 2 2 4 ( x + ln β 2 ) s > 0 .
Thus, inequality (11) is still valid in the case that η = 0 , 0 < β s 2 12 5 .
Lemma 3. 
Under assumption H1, we have the following half-discrete Hardy–Mulholland-type inequality:
I λ + m + 1 : = n = 2 0 ln β 1 ( n η ) [ x + ln β ( n η ) ] λ + m + 1 { n η ) F m ( x ) B n d x < ( 1 β k λ + m + 1 ( λ 2 + 1 ) ) 1 p ( k λ + m + 1 ( λ 1 + m ) ) 1 q × [ 0 x p ( 1 m λ ^ 1 ) 1 F m p ( x ) d x ] 1 p [ n = 2 ln q β λ ^ 2 1 ( n η ) n η B n q ] 1 q .
Proof. 
Setting y = x ln β ( n η ) , for s 1 ( 0 , s ) , we can also obtain the following weight function:
ω ( s , η ) ( s 1 , n ) : = ln β ( s s 1 ) ( n η ) 0 x s 1 1 [ x + ln β ( n η ) ] s d x = 0 y s 1 1 ( y + 1 ) s d y = k s ( s 1 ) : = B ( s 1 , s s 1 ) ( n N 2 ) .
By using Hölder’s inequality [18], we have
I λ + m + 1 = n = 2 0 1 [ x + ln β ( n η ) ] λ + m + 1 [ ln [ β ( λ 2 + 1 ) 1 ] / p ( n η ) ( n η ) 1 / p x ( λ 1 + m 1 ) / q F m ( x ) ] × [ x ( λ 1 + m 1 ) / q ln β ( λ 2 + 1 ) 1 ) / p ( n η ) ln β 1 ( n η ) ( n η ) 1 / q B n ] d x 0 n = 2 1 [ x + ln β ( n η ) ] λ + m + 1 ln β ( λ 2 + 1 ) 1 ( n η ) ( n η ) x ( λ 1 + m 1 ) ( p 1 ) F m p ( x ) d x 1 p × n = 2 0 1 [ x + ln β ( n η ) ] λ + m + 1 x λ 1 + m 1 ln [ β ( λ 2 + 1 ) 1 ] ( q 1 ) ( n η ) ln q ( β 1 ) ( n η ) ( n η ) B n q d x 1 q = 1 β 0 ϖ ( λ + m + 1 , η ) ( λ 2 + 1 , x ) x p ( 1 m λ ^ 1 ) 1 F m p ( x ) d x 1 p × n = 2 ω ( λ + m + 1 , η ) ( λ 1 + m , n ) ln q β λ ^ 2 1 ( n η ) n η B n q .
By utilizing inequalities (11) and (14), based on the condition of parameters s = λ + m + 1 > m + 1 , s 1 = λ 1 + m ( m , λ + m ) , s 2 = λ 2 + 1 ( 1 , 8 5 β ] ( 1 , λ + 1 ) , we have λ > 0 , λ 1 ( 0 , λ ) , λ 2 ( 0 , 8 5 β 1 ] ( 0 , λ ) , and then using (6) (for i = m + 1 ) and (7), we derive inequality (13). This completes the proof of Lemma 3. □
Lemma 4. 
Under assumption H1, for t > 0 , m N 0 , we have the following expression:
0 e t x f ( x ) d x = t m 0 e t x F m ( x ) d x .
Proof. 
For m = 0 since F 0 ( x ) = f ( x ) , equality (15) is naturally valid; for m N , i { 1 , 2 , , m } , by applying Hölder’s inequality and assumption H1, we have
F i ( x ) = 0 x F i 1 ( t ) d t = 0 x ( t 1 q i + 1 λ ^ 1 F i 1 ( t ) ) ( t 1 q + i 1 + λ ^ 1 ) d t [ 0 x t p ( 2 i λ ^ 1 ) 1 F i 1 p ( t ) d t ] 1 p [ 0 x t q ( i 1 + λ ^ 1 ) 1 d t ] 1 q ( c i 1 ) 1 p [ 1 q ( i 1 + λ ^ 1 ) ] 1 q x i 1 + λ ^ 1 ( λ ^ 1 > 0 ) .
It follows that
0 lim x e t x F i ( x ) lim x e t x ( c i 1 ) 1 p [ 1 q ( i 1 + λ ^ 1 ) ] 1 q x i 1 + λ ^ 1 = 0 ,
and then, from F i ( 0 + ) = 0 , we derive e t x F i ( x ) | 0 = 0 . Using integration by parts, we obtain
0 e t x F i 1 ( x ) d x = 0 e t x d F i ( x ) = e t x F i ( x ) | 0 0 F i ( x ) d e t x = t 0 e t x F i ( x ) d x .
Substituting i = 1 , 2 , , m ( m N ) in the above equality, by simplification, we get equality (15). Lemma 4 is proved. □
Remark 2. 
For i = 1 , 2 , , m ( m N ) , by exchanging the assumption 0 < 0 t p ( 2 i λ ^ 1 ) 1 F i 1 p ( t ) d t < for the assumption F i ( x ) = o ( e t x ) ( t > 0 ; x ) , we still have equality (15).
Lemma 5. 
Under assumption H1, for t > 0 , we have the following inequality:
n = 2 e t ln β ( n η ) b n t β n = 2 e t ln β ( n η ) ln β 1 ( n η ) n η B n .
Proof. 
In view of B n e t ln β ( n η ) = o ( 1 )   ( n ) , by using the Abel summation by parts formula, we deduce that
n = 2 e t ln β ( n η ) b n = lim n B n e t ln β ( n η ) + n = 2 B n [ e t ln β ( n η ) e t ln β ( n η + 1 ) ] = n = 2 B n [ e t ln β ( n η ) e t ln β ( n η + 1 ) ] .
We define a function f ( x ) = e t ln β ( x η ) , x ( 1 + η , ) . Then, we obtain
f ( x ) = t β ln β 1 ( x η ) x η e t ln β ( x η ) = t β h ( x ) ,
where β ( 0 , 1 ] , h ( x ) : = ln β 1 ( x η ) x η e t ln β ( x η ) is decreasing in ( 1 + η , ) . By applying the differentiation mid-value theorem, we have the following equality
f ( n + 1 ) f ( n ) = f ( n + θ n ) ( θ n ( 0 , 1 ) , n N 2 )
and then, we have
n = 2 e t ln β ( n η ) b n = n = 2 B n ( f ( n + 1 ) f ( n ) ) = n = 2 B n f ( n + θ n ) = t β n = 2 h ( n + θ n ) B n t β n = 2 h ( n ) B n = t β n = 2 e t ln β ( n η ) ln β 1 ( n η ) n η B n ,
which leads to the required inequality (16). This completes the proof of Lemma 5. □
Lemma 6. 
Under assumption H1, the following inequality holds:
I 0 : = 0 n = 2 b n f ( x ) [ x + ln β ( n η ) ] λ d x β Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) 0 n = 2 ln β 1 ( n η ) B n F m ( x ) [ x + ln β ( n η ) ] λ + m + 1 ( n η ) d x .
Proof. 
With the aid of the expression of the Gamma function [19]
1 [ x + ln β ( n η ) ] λ = 1 Γ ( λ ) 0 t λ 1 e [ x + ln β ( n η ) ] t d t ,
and using the Lebesgue term-by-term theorem [20], from (15) and (16), we deduce that
I 0 = 1 Γ ( λ ) 0 b n f ( x ) 0 t λ 1 e [ x + ln β ( n η ) ] t d t d x = 1 Γ ( λ ) 0 t λ 1 ( 0 e x t f ( x ) d x ) [ n = 2 e t ln β ( n η ) b n ] d t 1 Γ ( λ ) 0 t λ 1 ( t m 0 e x t F m ( x ) d x ) [ t β n = 2 e t ln β ( n η ) ln β 1 ( n η ) n η B n ] d t = β 1 Γ ( λ ) 0 n = 1 ( n η ) β 1 B n F m ( x ) 0 t ( λ + m + 1 ) 1 e [ x + ( n η ) β ] t d t d x = β Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) 0 n = 2 ln β 1 ( n η ) B n [ x + ln β ( n η ) ] λ + m + 1 ( n η ) F m ( x ) d x .
This proves inequality (17). The proof of Lemma 6 is complete. □
Lemma 7. 
Let b ( 1 , 1 ) , n N 2 , then, there exists a constant C such that
k = 2 n ln b k k = ln b + 1 n b + 1 + C + O ( 1 n ln b n ) ( n ) .
Proof. 
Let G ( t ) : = 1 t ln b t ( t 2 ) . Then, one has
G ( t ) = b t 2 ln b 1 t 1 t 2 ln b t = b g 1 ( t ) g 2 ( t ) ,
where g 1 ( t ) : = 1 t 2 ln b 1 t , g 2 ( t ) : = 1 t 2 ln b t ( t 2 ) .
It is easy to see that ( 1 ) i g 1 ( i ) ( t ) > 0 ( t 2 ; i = 0 , 1 ) . Since
b < 1 < 2 ln 2 2 ln t ( t 2 ) , g 2 ( t ) = b 2 ln t t 3 ln b 1 t < 0 ( t 2 ) ,
we deduce that ( 1 ) i g 2 ( i ) ( t ) > 0   ( i = 0 , 1 ) .
In view of (8), we obtain
2 n P 1 ( t ) g j ( t ) d t = ε j 8 g j ( t ) | 2 n ( 0 < ε j < 1 ; j = 0 , 1 ) .
By utilizing (9), it follows that
k = 2 n G ( k ) = 2 n G ( t ) d t + 1 2 ( G ( 2 ) + G ( n ) ) + 2 n P 1 ( t ) G ( t ) d t = 2 n G ( t ) d t + 1 2 ( G ( 2 ) + G ( n ) ) + b 2 n P 1 ( t ) g 1 ( t ) d t 2 n P 1 ( t ) g 2 ( t ) d t .
Substituting the above results, by simplification, we obtain (18), where
C : = 1 b + 1 ln b + 1 2 + ( 1 4 + ε 2 32 ) ln b 2 ε 1 b 32 ln b 1 2 ,   and
O ( 1 n ln b n ) : = ln b n 2 n + ε 1 b 8 n 2 ln b 1 n ε 2 8 n 2 ln b n   ( n ) .
This completes the proof of Lemma 7. □

3. Main Results

Theorem 1. 
Under assumption H1, we have the following inequality:
I 0 = 0 n = 2 b n f ( x ) [ x + ln β ( n η ) ] λ d x < β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) ( k λ + m + 1 ( λ 2 + 1 ) ) 1 p ( k λ + m + 1 ( λ 1 + m ) ) 1 q × 0 x p ( 1 m λ ^ 1 ) 1 F m p ( x ) d x 1 p n = 2 ln q β λ ^ 2 1 ( n η ) n η B n q 1 q . .
In particular, if λ 1 + λ 2 = λ , this implies that
0 < 0 x p ( 1 m λ 1 ) 1 F m p ( x ) d x < , 0 < n = 2 ln q β λ 2 1 ( n η ) n η B n q < ,
and we have the following inequality:
0 n = 2 b n f ( x ) [ x + ln β ( n η ) ] λ d x < β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 + 1 ) × 0 x p ( 1 m λ 1 ) 1 F m p ( x ) d x 1 p n = 2 ln q β λ 2 1 ( n η ) n η B n q 1 q ,
where the constant factor  β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 + 1 )  is the best possible.
Proof. 
By applying inequalities (17) and (13), we acquire inequality (19).
For any 0 < ε < min { p λ 1 , q λ 2 } , we set
F ˜ 0 ( x ) = f ˜ ( x ) : = 0 , 0 < x < 1 , x λ 1 ε p 1 , x 1 , b ˜ n : = 1 n ln β ( λ 2 ε q ) 1 n , n N 2 ,
and for m N, we set
F ˜ m ( x ) : = 0 x ( 0 t m 1 0 t 1 f ˜ ( t 0 ) d t 0 d t m 2 ) d t m 1 = 0 , 0 < x < 1 1 i = 0 m 1 ( λ 1 + i ε p ) ( x λ 1 + m 1 ε p p m 1 ( x ) ) , x 1 0 , 0 < x < 1 1 i = 0 m 1 ( λ 1 + i ε p ) x λ 1 + m 1 ε p , x 1 ,
where p m 1 ( x ) is a positive polynomial of degree m 1 with p m 1 ( 1 ) = 1
We denote p 1 ( x ) : = 0 ,   i = 0 1 ( a + i ) : = 1   ( a > 0 ) . Then, the above expression satisfies m N 0 , with the following assumption:
0 < 0 t p ( 2 i λ ^ 1 ) 1 F ˜ i 1 p ( t ) d t < ( i = 1 , 2 , , m + 1 )
For 1 < b = β ( λ 2 ε q ) 1 < 1 , with the aid of (18), we obtain
0 < B ˜ n : = k = 2 n b ˜ k = k = 2 n 1 k ln β ( λ 2 ε q ) 1 k = 1 β ( λ 2 ε q ) ln β ( λ 2 ε q ) n + C + o 1 ( 1 n ln β ( λ 2 ε q ) 1 n ) ln β ( λ 2 ε q ) n β ( λ 2 ε q ) [ 1 + | C 1 | ln β ( λ 2 ε q ) n + | o 1 ( 1 n ln n ) | ] ,
which satisfies B ˜ n = o ( e t ln β n )   ( t > 0 ; n ) .
Note that for derivable function a ( x ) = o ( 1 )   ( x ) , we have
lim x ( 1 + a ( x ) ) q 1 a ( x ) = lim x q ( 1 + a ( x ) ) q 1 a ( x ) a ( x ) = lim x q ( 1 + a ( x ) ) q 1 = q ,
and then we deduce ( 1 + a ( x ) ) q = 1 + o ( a ( x ) )   ( x ) Hence, we obtain
( 1 + | C 1 | ln β ( λ 2 ε q ) n + | o 1 ( 1 n ln n ) | ) q = 1 + o ( | C 1 | ln β ( λ 2 ε q ) n + | o 1 ( 1 n ln n ) | )   ( n N 2 ; n ) .
Further, it follows that
n = 2 ln q β λ 2 1 n n B ˜ n q 1 β ( λ 2 ε q ) q n = 2 1 n ln β ε 1 n ( 1 + | C 1 | ln β ( λ 2 ε q ) n + | o 1 ( 1 n ln n ) | ) q = 1 β ( λ 2 ε q ) q n = 2 1 n ln β ε 1 n [ 1 + o ( | C 1 | ln β ( λ 2 ε q ) n + | o 1 ( 1 n ln n ) | ) ] = 1 β ( λ 2 ε q ) q n = 2 1 n ln β ε 1 n + n = 2 o ( | C 1 | 1 n ln β ( λ 2 + ε p ) 1 n + | o 1 ( 1 n ln β ε 2 n ) | ) = 1 β ( λ 2 ε q ) q n = 3 1 n ln β ε 1 n + O 1 ( 1 ) < 1 β ( λ 2 ε q ) q 2 ln β ε 1 x d ln x + O 1 ( 1 ) = 1 β ( λ 2 ε q ) q ( 1 β ε ln β ε 2 + O 1 ( 1 ) ) .
If there exists a positive constant M β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 + 1 ) such that inequality (20) is valid when we replace β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 + 1 ) by M , then, in particular, for η = 0 we still have
I ˜ : = 0 n = 2 b ˜ n f ˜ ( x ) ( x + ln β n ) λ d x < M [ 0 x p ( 1 m λ 1 ) 1 F ˜ m p ( x ) d x ] 1 p ( n = 2 ln q β λ 2 1 n n B ˜ n q ) 1 q .
In the following, we prove that β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 + 1 ) M , which means that
M = β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 + 1 )
is the least value that makes (20) valid. In view of (21) and the above results, we acquire
I ˜ < M β ( λ 2 ε q ) i = 0 m 1 ( λ 1 + i ε p ) [ 1 x p ( 1 m λ 1 ) 1 x p ( λ 1 + m 1 ) ε d x ] 1 p ( 1 β ε ln β ε 2 + O 1 ( 1 ) ) 1 q = M β ( λ 2 ε q ) i = 0 m 1 ( λ 1 + i ε p ) ( 1 x ε 1 d x ) 1 p ( 1 β ε ln β ε 2 + O 1 ( 1 ) ) 1 q = M ε β ( λ 2 ε q ) i = 0 m 1 ( λ 1 + i ε p ) ( 1 β ln β ε 2 + ε O 1 ( 1 ) ) 1 q .
By using (10) and (11), and setting η = 0 , s = λ ( 0 , ) , s 2 = λ ˜ 2 : = λ 2 ε q ( 0 , 8 5 β ) ( 0 , λ ) , we get
I ˜ = 1 [ x λ 1 + ε q n = 2 ln β ( λ 2 ε q ) 1 n ( x + ln β n ) λ n ] x ε 1 d x = 1 β 1 ϖ ( λ , 0 ) ( λ ˜ 2 , x ) x ε 1 d x > 1 β k λ ( λ ˜ 2 ) 1 ( 1 O λ ( 1 x λ ˜ 2 ) ) x ε 1 d x = 1 β B ( λ 1 + ε q , λ 2 ε q ) ( 1 ε O ( 1 ) ) .
Based on the above results, we obtain
1 β B ( λ 1 + ε q , λ 2 ε q ) ε O ( 1 ) < ε I ˜ < M β ( λ 2 ε q ) i = 0 m 1 ( λ 1 + i ε p ) ( 1 β ln β ε 2 + ε O 1 ( 1 ) ) 1 q .
For ε 0 + , with the help of the continuous property of the Beta function, we have
β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 + 1 ) = β 1 q λ 2 B ( λ 1 , λ 2 ) i = 0 m 1 ( λ 1 + i ) M .
Consequently, M = β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 + 1 ) is the best possible constant factor in inequality (20). The proof of Theorem 1 is complete. □
Theorem 2. 
Under assumption H1, if the constant factor
β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) ( k λ + m + 1 ( λ 2 + 1 ) ) 1 p ( k λ + m + 1 ( λ 1 + m ) ) 1 q
in (19) is the best possible, then for  λ λ 1 λ 2 q ( 8 5 β 1 λ 2 ) ,  we have  λ 1 + λ 2 = λ .
Proof. 
Since λ ^ 1 = λ λ 2 p + λ 1 q , λ ^ 2 = λ λ 1 λ 2 q + λ 2 , 0 < λ 1 , λ 2 < λ , it follows that λ ^ 1 + λ ^ 2 = λ ,   0 < λ ^ 1 , λ ^ 2 < λ , and B ( λ ^ 1 + m , λ ^ 2 + 1 ) R + .
For λ λ 1 λ 2 q ( 8 5 β 1 λ 2 ) , one has λ ^ 2 8 5 β 1 . Since λ ^ 2 satisfies the condition of λ 2 in (20), then, by virtue of (20), for λ i = λ ^ i ( i = 1 , 2 ) , we derive the following inequality:
0 n = 2 b n f ( x ) [ x + ln β ( n η ) ] λ d x < β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ ^ 1 + m , λ ^ 2 + 1 ) × [ 0 x p ( 1 m λ ^ 1 ) 1 F m p ( x ) d x ] 1 p [ n = 2 ln q β λ ^ 2 1 ( n η ) n η B n q ] 1 q
By applying Hölder’s inequality, we have
B ( λ ^ 1 + m , λ ^ 2 + 1 ) = k λ + m + 1 ( λ 2 p + λ λ 1 q + 1 ) = 0 1 ( 1 + u ) λ + m + 1 u λ 2 p + λ λ 1 q d u = 0 1 ( 1 + u ) λ + m + 1 ( u λ 2 p ) ( u λ λ 1 q ) d u [ 0 1 ( 1 + u ) λ + m + 1 u λ 2 d u ] 1 p [ 0 1 ( 1 + u ) λ + m + 1 u λ λ 1 d u ] 1 q = [ 0 1 ( 1 + u ) λ + m + 1 u λ 2 d u ] 1 p [ 0 1 ( 1 + v ) λ + m + 1 v ( λ 1 + m ) 1 d v ] 1 q = ( k λ + m + 1 ( λ 2 + 1 ) ) 1 p ( k λ + m + 1 ( λ 1 + m ) ) 1 q .
According to the hypothesis that the constant factor
β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) ( k λ + m + 1 ( λ 2 + 1 ) ) 1 p ( k λ + m + 1 ( λ 1 + m ) ) 1 q
in (19) is the best possible, we observe that it is the least value that makes (19) valid. By comparing the constant factors in (19) and (22), we deduce that
β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) ( k λ + m + 1 ( λ 2 + 1 ) ) 1 p ( k λ + m + 1 ( λ 1 + m ) ) 1 q β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ ^ 1 + m , λ ^ 2 + 1 ) ( R + ) ,
which is
B ( λ ^ 1 + m , λ ^ 2 + 1 ) ( k λ + m + 1 ( λ 2 + 1 ) ) 1 p ( k λ + m + 1 ( λ 1 + m ) ) 1 q .
Therefore, we conclude that inequality (23) keeps the form of an equality. Furthermore, we observe that (23) keeps the form of an equality if, and only if, constants A and B exist such that they are not both zero and A u λ 2 = B u λ λ 1 a . e . in R + . Assuming that A 0 , it follows that u λ 2 + λ 1 λ = B A a . e . in R + , which implies that λ 2 + λ 1 λ = 0 . Hence, we acquire λ 1 + λ 2 = λ . This completes the proof of Theorem 2. □

4. Application to Generating New Half-Discrete Hardy–Mulholland-Type Inequalities

As a direct application of the main result, we give here several new half-discrete Hardy–Mulholland-type inequalities by taking the special values of the parameters.
Remark 3. 
(i) Taking η = 0 in (20), in view of Remark 1, we obtain
0 n = 2 b n f ( x ) ( x + ln β n ) λ d x < β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 + 1 ) × [ 0 x p ( 1 m λ 1 ) 1 F m p ( x ) d x ] 1 p [ n = 2 ln q β λ 2 1 n n B n q ] 1 q ,
where  λ 1 ( 0 , λ ) , λ 2 ( 0 , 12 5 β 1 ] ( 0 , λ ) , and the constant factor  β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 + 1 )  is the best possible.
In particular, for  β = λ = 1 , λ 1 = 1 p , λ 2 = 1 q ( 7 5 ) ,  we have
0 n = 2 b n f ( x ) ln e x n d x < π q sin ( π / p ) i = 0 m 1 ( 1 p + i ) [ 0 x p ( 1 m ) 2 F m p ( x ) d x ] 1 p ( n = 2 1 n ln 2 n B n q ) 1 q .
For  β = λ = 1 , λ 1 = 1 q , λ 2 = 1 p ( 7 5 ) ,  we have
0 n = 2 b n f ( x ) ln e x n d x < π p sin ( π / p ) i = 0 m 1 ( 1 q + i ) [ 0 x p m F m p ( x ) d x ] 1 p ( n = 2 1 n ln q n B n q ) 1 q .
For  p = q = 2 , both inequalities (25) and (26) reduce to the following inequality:
0 n = 2 b n f ( x ) ln e x n d x < π ( 2 m 1 ) ! ! 2 m + 1 ( 0 x 2 m F m 2 ( x ) d x n = 2 1 n ln 2 n B n 2 ) 1 2 ,
where the factorial  ( 2 m 1 ) ! !  is defined as  ( 2 m 1 ) ! ! = 1  for  m = 0 ; and  ( 2 m 1 ) ! ! = 1 3 ( 2 m 1 )  for  m N .
(ii) Choosing  η = 1 4 , β = 1  in (20), we acquire the following inequality:
0 n = 2 b n f ( x ) ln λ e x ( n 1 4 ) d x < Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 + 1 ) × [ 0 x p ( 1 m λ 1 ) 1 F m p ( x ) d x ] 1 p [ n = 2 ln q λ 2 1 ( n 1 4 ) n 1 4 B n q ] 1 q ,
where   λ 1 ( 0 , λ ) , λ 2 ( 0 , 3 5 ] ( 0 , λ ) , and the constant factor  Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 + 1 ) is the best possible.
(iii) Taking m = 0 in (20), we have the following inequality involving one partial sum with the best possible constant factor β 1 q λ 2 B ( λ 1 , λ 2 ) :
0 n = 2 b n f ( x ) [ x + ln β ( n η ) ] λ d x < β 1 q λ 2 B ( λ 1 , λ 2 ) × 0 x p ( 1 λ 1 ) 1 f p ( x ) d x 1 p n = 2 ln q β λ 2 1 ( n η ) n η B n q 1 q .
Remark 4. 
For u ( x ) > 0 , u ( x ) > 0   ( x ( b , ) ) with u ( b + ) = 0 , u ( ) = , by replacing x with t in (20) and setting t = u ( x ) , t = u 1 ( x ) , respectively, we obtain the following inequalities with the best possible constant factor β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 + 1 ) :
b n = 2 b n f ( u ( x ) ) u ( x ) [ u ( x ) + ln β ( n η ) ] λ d x < β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 + 1 ) × b ( u ( x ) ) p ( 1 m λ 1 ) 1 u ( x ) F m p ( u ( x ) ) d x 1 p n = 2 ln q β λ 2 1 ( n η ) n η B n q 1 q ,
b n = 2 b n f ( u 1 ( x ) ) u λ 2 ( x ) u ( x ) [ 1 + u ( x ) ln β ( n η ) ] λ d x < β 1 q Γ ( λ + m + 1 ) Γ ( λ ) B ( λ 1 + m , λ 2 + 1 ) × b ( u ( x ) ) p ( m 1 + λ 1 ) 1 u ( x ) F m p ( u 1 ( x ) ) d x 1 p n = 2 ln q β λ 2 1 ( n η ) n η B n q 1 q

5. Conclusions

In this work, by embedding multiple upper limit functions and partial sums, we have provided a new approach to producing an extension of half-discrete Hardy–Mulholland-type inequalities. By the clever use of the Euler–Maclaurin summation formula, Abel’s summation by parts formula, and the differentiation mid-value theorem, we establish a new half-discrete Hardy–Mulholland-type inequality involving one multiple upper limit function and one partial sum in Theorem 1. Then, in Theorem 2, we characterize the condition for the best possible constant factor related to several parameters. Finally, in Remarks 3 and 4, we illustrate that some new half-discrete Hardy–Mulholland-type inequalities can be derived from the special values of the parameters. The main highlight of this work is that we introduce both multiple upper limit functions and partial sums in a half-discrete Hardy-Mulholland-type inequality; such a result has not been reported in previous studies. From the perspective of future research, we shall establish more half-discrete Hardy–Mulholland-type inequalities by constructing new kernel functions and improving the conditions related to the multiple upper limit function and partial sum. This will be interesting and challenging work.

Author Contributions

B.Y. carried out the mathematical studies and drafted the manuscript. S.W. and J.L. participated in the design of the study and performed the numerical analysis. All authors contributed equally to the preparation of this paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Key Construction Discipline Scientific Research Ability Promotion Project of Guangdong Province (No. 2021ZDJS056) and Guangzhou Basic and Applied Basic Research Project (No. 202201011817).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study is available on request from the corresponding authors, and the dataset was jointly completed by the team, so the data is not publicly available.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Hardy, G.H.; Littlewood, J.E.; Pólya, G. Inequalities; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1934. [Google Scholar]
  2. Yang, B.; Debnath, L. Half-Discrete Hilbert-Type Inequalities; World Scientific Publishing: Singapore, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. Batbold, T.; Azar, L.E. New half-discrete Hilbert inequalities for three variables. J. Inequal. Appl. 2018, 2018, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Huang, X.; Yang, B. On a more accurate half-discrete Mulholland-type inequality involving one multiple upper limit function. J. Funct. Space 2021, 2021, 6970158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Peng, L.; Rahim, R.A.; Yang, B. A new reverse half-discrete Mulholland-type inequality with a nonhomogeneous kernel. J. Inequal. Appl. 2023, 2023, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Adiyasuren, V.; Batbold, T.; Azar, L.E. A new discrete Hilbert-type inequality involving partial sums. J. Inequal. Appl. 2019, 2019, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhong, J.; Chen, Q. On a half-discrete reverse Hilbert-type inequality. J. South China Normal Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2013, 5, 28–32. [Google Scholar]
  8. Azar, L.E. Two new forms of half-discrete Hilbert inequality. J. Egypt. Math. Soc. 2014, 22, 254–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Azar, L.E. On a sharper form of half-discrete Hilbert inequality. Tamkang J. Math. 2014, 45, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hong, Y.; Wen, Y. A necessary and sufficient condition of that Hilbert type series inequality with homogeneous kernel has the best constant factor. Anna. Math. 2016, 37A, 329–336. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hong, Y. On the structure character of Hilbert’s type integral inequality with homogeneous kernel and application. J. Jilin Univ. Sci. Ed. 2017, 55, 189–194. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hong, Y.; Huang, Q.; Chen, Q. The parameter conditions for the existence of the Hilbert-type multiple integral inequality and its best constant factor. Annal. Funct. Anal. 2021, 12, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hong, Y.; Chen, Q. Equivalent parameter conditions for the construction of Hilbert-type integral inequalities with a class of non-homogeneous kernels. J. South China Normal Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2020, 52, 124–128. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen, Q.; He, B.; Hong, Y.; Li, Z. Equivalent parameter conditions for the validity of half-discrete Hilbert-type multiple integral inequality with generalized homogeneous kernel. J. Funct. Space 2020, 2020, 7414861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. He, B.; Hong, Y.; Chen, Q. The equivalent parameter conditions for constructing multiple integral half-discrete Hilbert-type inequalities with a class of non-homogeneous kernels and their applications. Open Math. 2021, 19, 400–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hong, Y.; Zhang, L.; Xiao, H. Condition for the construction of a Hilbert-type integral inequality involving upper limit functions. Symmetry 2024, 16, 1682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yang, B. The Norm of Operator and Hilbert-Type Inequalities; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kuang, J. Applied Inequalities; Shangdong Science and Technology Press: Jinan, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  19. Wang, Z.; Guo, D. Introduction to Special Functions; Science Press: Beijing, China, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kuang, J. Real and Functional Analysis; Higher Education Press: Beijing, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, B.; Wu, S.; Liao, J. A Half-Discrete Hardy–Mulholland-Type Inequality Involving One Multiple Upper Limit Function and One Partial Sum. Mathematics 2025, 13, 2497. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13152497

AMA Style

Yang B, Wu S, Liao J. A Half-Discrete Hardy–Mulholland-Type Inequality Involving One Multiple Upper Limit Function and One Partial Sum. Mathematics. 2025; 13(15):2497. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13152497

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Bicheng, Shanhe Wu, and Jianquan Liao. 2025. "A Half-Discrete Hardy–Mulholland-Type Inequality Involving One Multiple Upper Limit Function and One Partial Sum" Mathematics 13, no. 15: 2497. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13152497

APA Style

Yang, B., Wu, S., & Liao, J. (2025). A Half-Discrete Hardy–Mulholland-Type Inequality Involving One Multiple Upper Limit Function and One Partial Sum. Mathematics, 13(15), 2497. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13152497

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop