1
1 Introduction
If
and
, then we have the following Hardy-Hilbert’s inequality (cf. Hardy et al., 1934):
(1)
with the best possible constant factor
. The Mulholland’s inequality with the same best possible constant factor
was provided as follows (cf. Theorem 343 of Hardy et al. (1934), replacing
by
):
(2)
Inequalities (1) and (2) are important in analysis and its applications (cf. Hardy et al., 1934; Mitrinović et al., 1991).
In 2007, a Hilbert-type integral inequality in the whole plane was given as follows (cf. Wang and Yang, 2011):
(3)
where the constant factor
is the best possible. Some new results on inequalities (1)–(3) were obtained by Gao and Yang (1998), Yang et al. (2011), Krnić and Pečarić (2005), Perić and Vuković (2011), He (2015), Adiyasuren et al. (2016), Yang (2007), Li and He (2007), Krnić and Vukovic (2012), Huang (2015), Huang and Yang (2013), Huang et al. (2014a,b), Huang (2010). In 2016, Yang and Chen gave a more accurate extension of (1) in the whole plane as follows (cf. Zhong et al., 2017):
(4)
where the constant factor
is the best possible. Another result on this kind of inequalities was provided by Xin et al. (2016).
In this paper, by introducing independent parameters, applying the weight coefficients, we give a Mulholland-type inequality in the whole plane with a best possible constant factor similar to (4) and the main result of Xin et al. (2016). Moreover, the equivalent forms, a few particular cases and the operator expressions are considered.
2
2 Some lemmas
In the following, we agree that
,
, satisfying
or
, and
(5)
Remark 1
With regards to the above assumptions, it follows that
or
. In particular, for
, we have
and
.
For
(or
, we set
and the following function:
Definition 1
Define two weight coefficients as follows:
(6)
(7)
where
.
Lemma 1
(cf. Xin et al., 2016) Suppose that
is strictly decreasing in
, satisfying
. We have
(8)
If
, then we have the following Hermite-Hadamard’s inequality (cf. Chen and Yang, 2016):
(9)
Lemma 2
The following inequalities are valid for
:
(10)
where
(11)
Proof
For
, we put
wherefrom
We find
(12)
In virtue of
, and
, we find that for
,
are strictly decreasing in
. By (12) and (8), we find
Setting
in the above first (second) integral, in view of Remark 1, by simplifications, we obtain
By (12) and (8), in the same way, we still have
where
is indicated by (11). It follows that for
,
Hence, (10) and (11) are valid. □
In the same way, we still have.
Lemma 3
The following inequalities are valid for
:
(13)
where
(14)
Lemma 4
If
(or
, then for
, we have
(15)
Proof
By (9), we find
By (8), we still can find that
Hence, we prove that (15) is valid. □
3
3 Main results and a few particular cases
We set
(16)
Theorem 1
Suppose that
, satisfy
We have the following equivalent inequalities:
(17)
(18)
In particular, (i) for
, we have the following equivalent inequalities similar to (4):
(19)
(20)
(ii) For
, we have the following equivalent inequalities:
(21)
(22)
Proof
By Hölder’s inequality with weight (cf. Kuang, 2010) and (7), we find
By (13), it follows that
(23)
By (10) and (16), we have (18).
Using Hölder’s inequality again, we have
(24)
and then by (18), we have (17).
On the other hand, assuming that (17) is valid, we set
and find
By (23), it follows that
. If
, then (18) is trivially valid; if
, then we have
Hence, (18) is valid, which is equivalent to (17). □
Theorem 2
With regards to the assumptions of Theorem 1, the constant factor
in (17) and (18) is the best possible.
Proof
For
, we set
, and
By (15) and (13), we find
If there exists a positive number
, such that (17) is still valid when replacing
by K, then in particular, we have
Hence, in view of the above results, it follows that
and then
namely,
Hence,
is the best possible constant factor in (17).
The constant factor
in (18) is still the best possible. Otherwise we would reach a contradiction by (24)’ that the constant factor in (17) is not the best possible. □
4
4 Operator expressions and a remark
Setting
wherefrom,
, we define the following real weighted normed function spaces:
For
, putting
and
, it follows by (18 ) that
, namely
.
Definition 2
Define a Mulholland-type operator T:
as follows: For
, there exists a unique representation
. We also define the following formal inner product of Ta and
as follows:
(25)
Hence, we may rewrite (17) and (18) in the following operator expressions:
(26)
(27)
It follows that the operator T is bounded with
(28)
Since the constant factor
in (18) is the best possible, we have
(29)
Remark 2
(i) For
in (19), we have the following inequality:
(30)
It follows that (19) is an extension of (30).
(ii) If
and
, then (19) reduces to
(31)
In particular, for
, we have the following new Mulholland-type inequality:
(32)