JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS 190, 248-262 (1995) Weighted Favard and Berwald Inequalities L. MALIGRANDA, Department of Mathematics, Luled University, S-971 87 Luled, Sweden J. E. Peéari¢ Faculty of Textile Technology, University of Zagreb, Prilaz Baruna Filipovica 126, 41000 Zagreb, Croatia AND L. E. Persson* . 5-971 87 Luled, Sweden Department of Mathematics, Luled Universit Submitted by George Gasper Received June 7, 1993 DEDICATED TO PROFESSOR DRAGOSLAV S. MITRINOVIC ON THE OCCASION OF HIS 85TH BIRTHDAY Weighted versions of the Favard and Berwald inequalities are proved in the class of monotone and concave (convex) functions. Some necessary majorization estimates and a double-weight characterization for a Favard-type inequality are included. © 1995 Academic Press. Ine. INTRODUCTION Favard [6] proved the following result: Let f be a positive,' continuous, and concave function on [a, b] and let yg be a convex function on (0, 2f], where f= (1b — a) f2 f(t) dt. Then * This research was partly supported by a grant of the Swedish Natural Science Council (Contract F-FU 8685-305). In this paper, positive means nonnegative and not identically zero, decreasing means nonincreasing, and increasing means nondecreasing. 248 0022-247X195 $6.00 Copyright © 1995 by Academic Press Ine Allright of reproduction in any form reservedFAVARD AND BERWALD INEQUALITIES 249 be a: f . prall evo ds 37 f 00) dy = [ esh ds Some generalizations of the Favard inequality and its reverse are also given in [7, pp. 412-413]. Moreover, Berwald [3] proved the following generalization of Favard’s inequality (see also [7, pp. 413-414]): Let f be a positive, continuous, and concave function on [a, b] and let be a strictly increasing function on [0, ~). Assume that ¢ is a convex function with respect to w, i.e., g°W | is a convex function on [0, ~). If Z is a positive root of the equation fron ar, then . : 1 ste ff evn s tf ety dy = [' etsay ds. b-a In this paper we give some generalizations of the above results to the weighted case. Our method of proof is working only for monotone con- cave or convex functions f. However, by combining the estimates in our Theorem I (i and ii) we obtain a generalization of Favard's inequality also for the case when the concave function f is increasing on [a, c] and decreasing on {c, b] (a < c < b). We strongly suspect that there exists some sharper version in this more complicated case. The paper is orga- nized in the following way: In Section 1 we prove some very powerful weighted majorization lemmas of independent interest. In Sections 2 and 3 we state and prove the announced weighted Favard and Berwald ineq- ualities, respectively. Finally, Section 4 is reserved for some concluding remarks and further results. In particular, we prove a weighted L2 - L! version of the Favard inequality. In all of this paper v and w denote positive integrable weight functions on (a, 6]. 1. SoME WEIGHTED MAsorIzATION LEMMAS The following weighted versions of the majorization lemmas will be needed in the proofs. Lemma I. Let u be a weight function. If h is an increasing function on (a, b), then250 MALIGRANDA, PECARIC, AND PERSSON . . 6 ' ff ranve dt f* vc de = ff henotn de f° 009 defor all x € ta, bl. If h is a decreasing function on (a, b), then the reverse inequality holds. First Proof. If {{,v(t) dt = 0, then v(t) = 0.4.e. on [a, x] and we obtain the equality. Now assume that {5 v() dt > 0. If h is increasing, then 7 » [ manweo at f vp ae = fi mooie ae [five a+ vo ae = if cows) dt — f° neneco dt| Foc ae + fi acnvte af? v1 at = fF awe at ff ote ae = * piryott) dt [ v(0) dt + fi meno at f° v0 dt = [mown ar [vin at = neo [oto ae foc a + Als) fi oo at f° oo at . . = ff mano at [° 00 at. ‘The proof of the case with a decreasing function is similar. Sevond Proof (see also Lovera (8)). Since h is increasing and (0) = liga’) is decreasing for any fixed x € (a, 6], it follows, by using the classical Chebyshev inequality (cf. [10, p. 40), that [Pow at f° move ae : + = fo arf angtnoen at < | avin de [? gun at = PP ncawen at [009 at. If Ais decreasing, then the above inequality holds in the reverse direction.FAVARD AND BERWALD INEQUALITIES a Lemma 2. Let w be a weight function and let f and g be positive integrable functions on \a, b]. Suppose that ¢: (0, %) — R is a convex function and that [ fowe ds f glOw(t) dt for all x € a,b] and . [pow ar = [P gone at. (i) If fis decreasing on (a, b], then » * Pf eutoneen at = PP eletonen de (ii) if g is increasing on |a, b), then * a f° etecrnorey dt = f° etftonwte at. Proof. \f we prove the inequalities for ¢ € C'(0, ~), then the general case follows from the pointwise approximation of g by smooth functions. Since ¢ is a convex function on (0, *) it follows that Plus) ~ eta) S e'(usMur = uy) for and w, uw If we set F(x) F(a) = F(b) If fis decreasing on (a, 6], then LA) — g(t)}w(s) dt, then F(x) = 0 Wx € [a, 6], and J telior - etecororn at =f) eon - eon at = [evo = grorre tt - [Fo devon = -[) F@ door = 0.252 MALIGRANDA, PECARIC, AND PERSSON Similarly, if g is increasing, then Pi telecon = etftorwin at = | e'leollet) — flowin de =f eet) al-F) = -9 ero + | FO de'teon} J PO dlo'teio)} = 0. The proof is complete. Remark 1. Usually in majorization theorems there are monotonicity assumptions on both of the functions fand g but as we saw in the proof it ‘was enough to assume that only one of them is monotone. A different proof of Lemma 2, in the case when both of the functions are cither decreasing or increasing can be found in [5] and [12]. The discrete version of Lemma 2 in the case when the functions are decreasing is the known Fuchs theorem from 1947 (cf. [10, p. 165]). The idea of our proof here is taken from [9] 2. A WEIGHTED FAVARD INEQUALITY Similarly to the classical Favard result we need to define a number f connected with a positive concave function f. In our weighted situation the numbers f for an increasing function fand f, of a decreasing function f will in general be different. Of course, in the case when w = I these numbers coincide and they are equal to the number fin the Favard result. THeoreM 1. (i) Let f be a positive increasing concave function on la, b). Assume that ¢ is a convex function on (0, 2f), where fi=to- a [ flown de /(2 fa aww ar]. w Then reg evome des f el2sfwlall — 5) + bs} ds. (2)FAVARD AND BERWALD INEQUALITIES a If f is an increasing convex function on (a, b] and fla) = 0, then the reverse inequality in (2) holds. (i) Let f be a positive decreasing concave function on (a, b]. As- sume that ¢ is a convex function on (0, 2fal, where ju = (b - a) [” flowin at /[2 [Po - ow ai]. a’) Then z ft elf) dts f vQsfwlas +b - sds. 2) a Iffis a decreasing convex function on [a,b] and f(b) = 0, then the reverse inequality in (2') holds. Proof. (i) For the positive concave function f, the function h, de- fined by h(t) = f(t ~ a), is decreasing on (a, 6). In fact, for a <= = b we have a) = a £ fits) 2 a Using Lemma I with the weight v(t) = (1 — a)w(s) and with the decreasing function A(t) = f(t)/(t — a) we obtain f= aw at [’ powen des fi flown at [2c ~ awn at Yr Ela, 6). @) According to (1), inequality (3) can be written in the form f= afwen at < [flow de Wx € [a 61. Then using the majorization Lemma 2(ii) we have (only here we are using the assumption that fis increasing) ff etromen ars [Pe (S42) wnat.254 MALIGRANDA, PECARIC, AND PERSSON z : felts * 2) w(t) dt 1 fi cow (a+ y dy = |! eQsfywlatl = 5) + bsl ds a) and our inequality (2) is proved. (ii) For the positive concave function f, the function h, defined by A(t) = F(OMb — 0, is increasing on {a, 6). In fact, for a =) = ~1. Then Theorem I gives that if fis a positive increasing concave function on (0, 1], then 1 alana (a+ 27 (fe J. revere de = f° asfrse as So (fpr at) “ with equality for the function f(r) = 1. If Fis a positive decreasing concave function on (0, 1], then fi fore ars ff esfora = sy as = (a+ Ila + 2°Bp + 1a + 1) (fro a) @) with equality for the function f(q) = 1 - ¢. We note here that Barnard and Wells [1, Theorem 1] stated the256 MALIGRANDA, PECARIC, AND PERSSON weighted inequality (4') for positive concave (not necessarily monotone) functions f, but their constant is not correct in the case —1 MP Ae sup [rf Kit, 3)? wl) at] As Ki, soli) dts C<%, (la) seus where K is the kernel given in (11). If 0

0. Proof, Necessity. it follows at once by taking f(g) = K(r, 8). 8 € (a, b) fixed, in (13) Sufficiency. Let p > 1. It suffices to prove (13) for those functions f having the representation (12), because then standard limiting arguments give the general result. We also assume that the left side of (13) is finite by first taking a suitable dense subset. This restriction again can be removed by limiting procedures. Assuming this, we use the Fubini theorem, Hélder’s inequality, (14), and again the Fubini theorem to obtainFAVARD AND BERWALD INEQUALITIES 261 6 , . [i norweoar = ff stor roto | fe, syutsns at ra = [Pus [f Ki, 9) flo” secoat las =f us) If K(t, srwioate]” [fro PP'w(t) a)" as " » c fas (f Ki, so) a [fo row-ve w(t) dt| ds Cir if Kt, sus) ds| v(dt [frome a” ¢ [Prownar [f° poem ae)” We obtain (14) by dividing both sides with the second integral in the right- hand side and the proof for the case p > | is complete. Also, the proof of the case p = I is similar and simpler (we even need not use Hélder’s inequality). The proof of the case 0

—1 on {0, 1), we have Als) = If K(t, s)Pe a”/f. K(, syte dt = la ra + f a- prea)” / (uses. . s) 2 atl at2 and it is not so easy to find the supremum of h over s € (0, 1) (cf. 1, p. 207] and our Example 2). REFERENCES 1. RW. BaRNarp AND J. WELLS, Weighted inverse Halder inequalities, J. Math, Anal. Appl. 187 (1990), 198-213262 MALIGRANDA, PECARIC, AND PERSSON, 2. E. B, BECKENBACH AND R, BELLMAN, “Inequalities.” Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983. 3. L. BERWALD, Verallgemeirung eines Mittelwertsatzes von J. Favard fiir positive konkave Funktionen, Acta Math. 79 (1947), 17-37. 4. C. Borett, Inverse Holder inequalities in one and seve Appl. A1 (1973), 300-312. 5. C. BOREL, Integral inequalities for generalized concave or convex functions, J. Math Anal. Appl. 43 (1973), 419-440. 6. J. FavaRD, Sur les valeures moyennes, Bull. Sci. Math. $7 (1933), 54~64 7. S. KaRLIn Ab W. J. SruDDEN, ““Tchebycheff Systems: With Applications in Analysis anc Statistics.” Wiley, New York, 1966. 8. P. LoveRa, Sulla Disegualianza di Jensen-Steffensen, Atti. Accad. Sci. Torino 9 (1957), 348-352. 9. L. MALIGRANDA, Concavity and convexity of rearrangement, Comment. Math. Prace Mat. 32 (1992), 85-90, 10, D. S. MiTRINovIc, “Analytic Inequalities,"* Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, 1970. I, J. 5. PeCARIC, On an inequality of L. Berwald and some applications, Akad. Nawk: Unmjet. Bosne Hercegov. Rad. Odjelj. Prired. Mat. Nauka (Sarajevo) 74 (1983), 123— 12&. fin Croatian] 12. EB. Pecanié, On some inequalities for functions with nondecreasing increments. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 98 (1984). 188-197 13. L. STaNKoviC, Extension of Thunsdorff's inequality to the case of convex functions of order n, Univ. Beograd. Publ. Elektrotebn. Fak. Ser. Mat. Fiz. 498-541, pp. 145-148. University of Belgrade, 1975. dimensions, J. Math. Anal.