Abstract
In the article, we discuss the monotonicity properties of the function \(x\rightarrow (1-e^{-ax^{p}} )^{1/p}/\int_{0}^{x}e^{-t^{p}}\,dt\) for \(a, p>0\) with \(p\neq1\) on \((0, \infty)\) and prove that the double inequality \(\Gamma(1+1/p) (1-e^{-a x^{p}} )^{1/p} <\int_{0}^{x}e^{-t^{p}}\,dt<\Gamma(1+1/p) (1-e^{-b x^{p}} )^{1/p}\) holds for all \(x>0\) if and only if \(a\leq\min\{1, \Gamma^{-p}(1+1/p)\}\) and \(b\geq\max\{1, \Gamma^{-p}(1+1/p)\}\).
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
Let \(a>0\) and \(x>0\). Then the classical gamma function \(\Gamma(x)\), incomplete gamma function \(\Gamma(a, x)\), and psi function \(\psi(x)\) are defined by
respectively. It is well known that the identity
holds for all \(x, p>0\).
Recently, the bounds for the integral \(\int_{0}^{x}e^{-t^{p}}\,dt\) have attracted the interest of many researchers. In particular, many remarkable inequalities for the integral \(\int_{0}^{x}e^{-t^{p}}\,dt\) can be found in the literature [1–12]. Let
Then we clearly see that \(I_{1}(x)=1-e^{-t}\) and that \(I_{p}(x)\) diverges if \(p\leq0\). The functions \(I_{3}(x)\) and \(I_{4}(x)\) can be used to study the heat transfer problem [13] and electrical discharge in gases [14], respectively.
Komatu [15] and Pollak [16] proved the double inequality
for all \(x>0\).
Gautschi [17] proved that the double inequality
holds for all \(x>0\) and \(p>1\) if and only if \(a\geq2\) and \(b\leq\Gamma ^{p/(1-p)} (1+1/p )\).
An application of inequality (1.3) in radio propagation mode was given in [18].
Alzer [19] proved that \(a=\min\{1, \Gamma^{-p}(1+1/p)\}\) and \(b=\max\{ 1, \Gamma^{-p}(1+1/p)\}\) are the best possible parameters such that the double inequality
holds for all \(x>0\) and \(p>0\) with \(p\neq1\).
Motivated by the Alzer’s inequality (1.4), in this paper, we discuss the monotonicity of the function
and provide an alternative proof of Alzer’s inequality (1.4).
2 Lemmas
In order to prove our main results, we first introduce an auxiliary function. Let \(-\infty\leq a< b\leq\infty\), f and g be differentiable on \((a,b)\), and \(g'\neq0\) on \((a,b)\). Then the function \(H_{f, g}\) [20, 21] is defined by
Lemma 2.1
(See [21], Theorem 8)
Let \(\infty\leq a< b\leq\infty\), f and g be differentiable on \((a,b)\) with \(f(a^{+})=g(a^{+})=0\) and \(g^{\prime}(x)>0\) on \((a,b)\), and \(H_{f, g}\) be defined by (2.1). Then the following statements are true:
-
(1)
If \(H_{f, g}(b^{-})>0\) and there exists \(\lambda\in(a, b)\) such that \(f^{\prime}(x)/g^{\prime}(x)\) is strictly decreasing on \((a, \lambda)\) and strictly increasing on \((\lambda, b)\), then there exists \(\mu\in(a, b)\) such that \(f(x)/g(x)\) is strictly decreasing on \((a, \mu )\) and strictly increasing on \((\mu, b)\);
-
(2)
If \(H_{f, g}(b^{-})<0\) and there exists \(\lambda^{\ast}\in(a, b)\) such that \(f^{\prime}(x)/g^{\prime}(x)\) is strictly increasing on \((a, \lambda^{\ast})\) and strictly decreasing on \((\lambda^{\ast}, b)\), then there exists \(\mu^{\ast}\in(a, b)\) such that \(f(x)/g(x)\) is strictly increasing on \((a, \mu^{\ast})\) and strictly decreasing on \((\mu^{\ast}, b)\).
Lemma 2.2
(See [22], Theorem 1.25)
Let \(-\infty< a< b<\infty\), \(f,g:[a,b]\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}\) be continuous on \([a,b]\) and differentiable on \((a,b)\), and \(g'(x)\neq0\) on \((a,b)\). If \(f^{\prime}(x)/g^{\prime}(x)\) is increasing (decreasing) on \((a,b)\), then so are the functions
If \(f^{\prime}(x)/g^{\prime}(x)\) is strictly monotone, then the monotonicity in the conclusion is also strict.
Lemma 2.3
We have
for all \(x\in(0, 1)\), and the above inequality is reversed for all \(x\in (1, \infty)\).
Proof
Let \(x>0\), \(\gamma=0.577215\cdots\) be the Euler-Mascheroni constant, and
Then simple computations lead to
It follows from the identity
for all \(x>0\).
Inequality (2.6) implies that \(f(x)\) is strictly concave and \(f^{\prime }(x)\) is strictly decreasing on the interval \((0, \infty)\).
From the concavity of \(f(x)\) and monotonicity of \(f^{\prime}(x)\) on the interval \((0, \infty)\), together with (2.3) and (2.4), we clearly see that
for all \(x\in(0, 1)\) and
for all \(x\in(1, \infty)\).
Therefore, Lemma 2.3 follows easily from (2.2), (2.7), and (2.8). □
Lemma 2.4
Let \(a, p>0\), \(I_{p}(x)\) and \(H_{f, g}\) be respectively defined by (1.2) and (2.1), and
Then the following statements are true:
-
(1)
\(H_{f, I_{p}}(\infty)=\infty\) if \(a<1\);
-
(2)
\(H_{f, I_{p}}(\infty)=-1\) if \(a>1\).
Proof
From (1.2), (2.1), and (2.9) we get
□
3 Main results
Theorem 3.1
Let \(a, p>0\) with \(p\neq1\), and \(R(a, p; x)\) be defined by (1.5). Then the following statements are true:
-
(1)
if \(a\leq\min\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\), then the function \(x\rightarrow R(a, p; x)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, \infty)\);
-
(2)
if \(a\geq\max\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\), then the function \(x\rightarrow R(a, p; x)\) is strictly decreasing on \((0, \infty)\);
-
(3)
if \(\min\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}< a<\max\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\) and \(p<1\) (\(p>1\)), then there exists \(x_{0}\in(0, \infty)\) such that the function \(x\rightarrow R(a, p; x)\) is strictly decreasing (increasing) on \((0, x_{0})\) and strictly increasing (decreasing) on \((x_{0}, \infty)\).
Proof
Let \(x>0\), \(u=x^{p}>0\), \(I_{p}(x)\) and \(f(x)\) be respectively defined by (1.2) and (2.9), and
Then it follows from (1.2), (1.5), (2.9), and (3.1) that
We divide the proof into four cases.
Case 1: \(a\leq\min\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\). From \(p\neq1\) and (3.9) we know that \(h^{\prime}(u)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, \infty)\). Then (3.5), (3.6), and (3.8) lead to the conclusion that \(f^{\prime }(x)/I^{\prime}_{p}(x)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, \infty)\). Therefore, \(R(a, p; x)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, \infty)\), as follows from Lemma 2.2, (3.2), and (3.3) together with the monotonicity of \(f^{\prime}(x)/I^{\prime}_{p}(x)\).
Case 2: \(a\geq\max\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\). From \(p\neq1\) and (3.9) we know that \(h^{\prime}(u)\) is strictly decreasing on \((0, \infty)\). Then (3.5), (3.6), and (3.8) lead to the conclusion that \(f^{\prime }(x)/I^{\prime}_{p}(x)\) is strictly decreasing on \((0, \infty)\). Therefore, \(R(a, p; x)\) is strictly decreasing on \((0, \infty)\), as follows from Lemma 2.2, (3.2), and (3.3) together with the monotonicity of \(f^{\prime}(x)/I^{\prime}_{p}(x)\).
Case 3: \(\min\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}< a<\max\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\) and \(p<1\). Then we clearly see that \(2p/(p+1)< a<1\), and (3.1) and (3.7) lead to
Let
Then we clearly see that \(u_{0}\in(0, \infty)\), and (3.9) leads to the conclusion that \(h^{\prime}(u)\) is strictly decreasing on \((0, u_{0})\) and strictly increasing on \((u_{0}, \infty)\).
It follows from (3.8) and (3.11) together with the piecewise monotonicity of \(h^{\prime}(u)\) that there exists \(u_{1}\in(0, \infty )\) such that \(h(u)\) is strictly decreasing on \((0, u_{1})\) and strictly increasing on \((u_{1}, \infty)\). From (3.5), (3.6), and (3.10) together with the piecewise monotonicity of \(h(u)\) we know that there exists \(\lambda\in(0, \infty)\) such that \(f^{\prime}(x)/I^{\prime}_{p}(x)\) is strictly decreasing on \((0, \lambda)\) and strictly increasing on \((\lambda, \infty)\).
Therefore, there exists \(x_{0}\in(0, \infty)\) such that the function \(x\rightarrow R(a, p; x)\) is strictly decreasing on \((0, x_{0})\) and strictly increasing on \((x_{0}, \infty)\), as follows from Lemma 2.1(1), Lemma 2.4(1), (3.2), (3.3), and the piecewise monotonicity of \(f^{\prime }(x)/I^{\prime}_{p}(x)\).
Case 4: \(\min\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}< a<\max\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\) and \(p>1\). Then we clearly see that \(1< a<2p/(p+1)\), and (3.1) and (3.7) lead to
Let \(u_{0}\in(0, \infty)\) be defined by (3.12). Then from (3.9) we clearly see that \(h^{\prime}(u)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, u_{0})\) and strictly decreasing on \((u_{0}, \infty)\). It follows from (3.5), (3.6), (3.8), (3.13), (3.14), and the piecewise monotonicity of \(h^{\prime}(u)\) that there exists \(\mu\in(0, \infty)\) such that \(f^{\prime}(x)/I^{\prime }_{p}(x)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, \mu)\) and strictly decreasing on \((\mu, \infty)\).
Therefore, there exists \(x_{0}\in(0, \infty)\) such that the function \(x\rightarrow R(a, p; x)\) is strictly increasing on \((0, x_{0})\) and strictly decreasing on \((x_{0}, \infty)\), as follows from Lemma 2.1(2), Lemma 2.4(2), (3.2), (3.3), and the piecewise monotonicity of \(f^{\prime }(x)/I^{\prime}_{p}(x)\). □
Remark 3.2
Let \(R(a, p; x)\) be defined by (1.5). Then from (1.2), (2.9), and (3.2)-(3.4) we clearly see that
From Theorem 3.1 and Remark 3.2 we immediately get Corollary 3.3.
Corollary 3.3
Let \(a, p>0\) with \(p\neq1\), \(I_{p}(x)\) and \(R(a, p; x)\) be respectively defined by (1.2) and (1.5), and \(x_{0}\) be the unique solution of the equation \(d[R(a, p; x)]/dx=0\) on the interval \((0, \infty)\) in the case of \(\min\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}< a<\max\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\). Then the following statements are true:
(1) if \(a\leq\min\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\), then we have the double inequality
for all \(x>0\);
(2) if \(a\geq\max\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\), then we have the double inequality
for all \(x>0\);
(3) if \(\min\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}< a<\max\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\) and \(p<1\), then we have the double inequality
for all \(x>0\);
(4) if \(\min\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}< a<\max\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\) and \(p>1\), then we have the double inequality
for all \(x>0\).
Next, we prove Alzer’s inequality (1.4) by using Theorem 3.1, Remark 3.2, and Corollary 3.3.
Theorem 3.4
Let \(a, b, p>0\) with \(p\neq1\), \(a_{0}=\min\{1, \Gamma^{-p}(1+1/p)\}\), \(b_{0}=\max\{1, \Gamma^{-p}(1+1/p)\}\), and \(I_{p}(x)\) be defined by (1.2). Then the double inequality
holds for all \(x>0\) if and only if \(a\leq a_{0}\) and \(b\geq b_{0}\).
Proof
Let \(R(a, p; x)\) be defined by (1.5). Then we divide the proof into four steps.
Step 1: \(p<1\). We prove that the inequality
holds for all \(x>0\) if and only if \(a\leq a_{0}\).
From \(p\in(0, 1)\) and Lemma 2.3 we clearly see that
If inequality (3.15) holds for all \(x>0\), then (1.5) and Remark 3.2, together with (3.16), lead to the conclusion that
Next, we prove inequality (3.15) for all \(x>0\) if \(a\leq a_{0}\). We divide the proof into two cases.
Case 1.1: \(a\leq2p/(1+p)\). Then from (3.16) and Corollary 3.3(1) we clearly see that \(a\leq\min\{1, 2p/(1+p)\}\) and inequality (3.15) holds for all \(x>0\).
Case 1.2: \(2p/(1+p)< a\leq a_{0}=\Gamma^{-p}(1+1/p)\). Then (3.16) and Corollary 3.3(3) lead to the conclusion that \(\min\{1, 2p/(1+p)\}< a<\max \{1, 2p/(1+p)\}\) and
for all \(x>0\).
Step 2: \(p>1\). We prove that inequality (3.15) holds for all \(x>0\) if and only if \(a\leq a_{0}\).
From \(p\in(0, 1)\) and Lemma 2.3 we clearly see that
If \(a\leq a_{0}\), then inequality (3.17) and Corollary 3.3(1) lead to the conclusion that \(a\leq\min\{1, 2p/(1+p)\}\) and inequality (3.15) holds for all \(x>0\).
Next, we prove by contradiction that \(a\leq a_{0}\) if inequality (3.15) holds for all \(x>0\). We divide the proof into two cases.
Case 2.1: \(a\geq2p/(p+1)\). Then (3.17) and Corollary 3.3(2) lead to the conclusion that \(a\geq\max\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\) and the opposite direction inequality of (3.15) holds for all \(x>0\).
Case 2.2: \(1=a_{0}< a<2p/(p+1)\). Then inequality (3.17) and Theorem 3.1(3), together with Remark 3.2, lead to the conclusion that \(\min\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}< a<\max\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\) and there exists \(x_{0}\in(0, \infty )\) such that
for \(x\in(x_{0}, \infty)\), which contradicts with (3.15).
Step 3: \(p<1\). We prove that the inequality
holds for all \(x>0\) if and only if \(a\geq b_{0}\).
From \(p<1\) and Lemma 2.3 we clearly see that
If \(a\geq b_{0}\), then (3.19) and Corollary 3.3(2) lead to the conclusion that \(a\geq\max\{1, 2p/ (p+1)\}\) and inequality (3.18) holds for all \(x>0\).
Next, we prove by contradiction that \(a\geq b_{0}\) if inequality (3.18) holds for all \(x>0\). We divide the proof into two cases.
Case 3.1: \(a\leq2p/(1+p)\). Then (3.19) and Corollary 3.3(1) lead to the conclusion that \(a\leq\min\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\) and the opposite direction inequality of (3.18) holds for all \(x>0\).
Case 3.2: \(2p/(p+1)< a< b_{0}=1\). Then (3.19) and Theorem 3.1(3), together with Remark 3.2, lead to the conclusion that \(\min\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}< a<\max\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\) and there exists \(x_{0}\) such that the opposite direction inequality of (3.18) holds for \(x\in(x_{0}, \infty)\).
Step 4: \(p>1\). We prove that inequality (3.18) holds for all \(x>0\) if and only if \(a\geq b_{0}\).
From \(p>1\) and Lemma 2.3 we clearly see that
If inequality (3.18) holds for all \(x>0\), then (1.2), (1.5), Remark 3.2, and (3.20) lead to
Next, we prove that inequality (3.18) holds for all \(x>0\) if \(a\geq b_{0}\). We divide the proof into two cases.
Case 4.1: \(a\geq2p/(p+1)\). Then (3.20) and Corollary 3.3(2) lead to the conclusion that \(a\geq\max\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\) and inequality (3.18) holds for all \(x>0\).
Case 4.2: \(b_{0}\leq a<2p/(p+1)\). Then (3.20) and Corollary 3.3(4) lead to the conclusion that \(\min\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}< a<\max\{1, 2p/(p+1)\}\) and
for all \(x>0\). □
Let \(q=1/p\), and \(u=x^{p}\). Then (1.1) and (1.2), together with Corollary 3.3, lead to Corollary 3.5.
Corollary 3.5
Let \(a>0\), \(q>0\) with \(q\neq1\), and \(u_{0}\) be the unique solution of the equation
on the interval \((0, \infty)\) in the case of \(\min\{1, 2/(q+1)\}< a<\max \{1, 2/(q+1)\}\). Then the following statements are true:
(1) if \(a\leq\min\{1, 2/(q+1)\}\), then we have the double inequality
for all \(u>0\);
(2) if \(a\geq\max\{1, 2/(q+1)\}\), then we have the double inequality
for all \(u>0\);
(3) if \(\min\{1, 2/(q+1)\}< a<\max\{1, 2/(q+1)\}\) and \(q>1\), then we have the double inequality
for all \(u>0\);
(4) if \(\min\{1, 2/(q+1)\}< a<\max\{1, 2/(q+1)\}\) and \(q<1\), then we have the double inequality
for all \(u>0\).
Note that
Let \(Ei(u)=\Gamma(0, u)\) be the exponential integral. Then Corollary 3.5(1) and (2), together with (3.21) and (3.22), immediately lead to Corollary 3.6.
Corollary 3.6
We have the double inequality
for all \(u>0\) and \(0< a\leq1\), and inequality (3.23) is reversed for all \(u>0\) if \(a\geq2\).
References
Neuman, E: Inequalities and bounds for the incomplete gamma function. Results Math. 63(3-4), 1209-1214 (2013)
Alzer, H, Baricz, Á: Functional inequalities for the incomplete gamma function. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 385(1), 167-178 (2013)
Borwein, JM, Chan, OY: Uniform bounds for the complementary incomplete gamma function. Math. Inequal. Appl. 12(1), 115-121 (2009)
Ismall, MEH, Laforgia, A: Functional inequalities for incomplete gamma and related functions. Math. Inequal. Appl. 9(2), 299-302 (2006)
Laforgia, A, Natalini, P: Supplements to known monotonicity results and inequalities for the gamma and incomplete gamma function. J. Inequal. Appl. 2006, Article ID 48727 (2006)
Paris, RB: Error bounds for the uniform asymptotic expansion of the incomplete gamma function. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 147(1), 215-231 (2002)
Qi, F: Monotonicity results and inequalities for the gamma and incomplete gamma functions. Math. Inequal. Appl. 5(1), 61-67 (2002)
Elbert, Á, Laforgia, A: An inequality for the product of two integrals related to the incomplete gamma function. J. Inequal. Appl. 5(1), 39-51 (2000)
Natalini, P, Palumbo, B: Inequalities for the incomplete gamma function. Math. Inequal. Appl. 3(1), 69-77 (2000)
Qi, F, Mei, J-Q: Some inequalities of the incomplete gamma and related functions. Z. Anal. Anwend. 18(3), 793-799 (1999)
Qi, F, Guo, S-L: Inequalities for the incomplete gamma and related functions. Math. Inequal. Appl. 2(1), 47-53 (1999)
Gupta, SS, Waknis, MN: A system of inequalities for the incomplete gamma function and the normal integral. Ann. Math. Stat. 36, 139-149 (1965)
Yamagata, K: A contribution to the theory of non-isothermal laminar flow of fluids inside a straight tube of circular cross section. Mem. Fac. Eng., Kyushu Imp. Univ. 8, 365-449 (1940)
Schumann, WO: Elektrische Durchbruchfeldstäke von Gasen. Springer, Berlin (1923)
Komatu, Y: Elementary inequalities for Mills’ ratio. Rep. Stat. Appl. Res. UJSE 4, 69-70 (1955)
Pollak, HO: A remark on “Elementary inequalities for Mills’ ratio” by Yûsaku Komatu. Rep. Stat. Appl. Res. UJSE 4, 110 (1956)
Gautschi, W: Some elementary inequalities relating to the gamma and incomplete gamma function. J. Math. Phys. 38, 77-81 (1959/60)
Montgomery, GF: On the transmission error function for meteor-burst communication. Proc. IRE 46, 1423-1424 (1958)
Alzer, H: On some inequalities for the incomplete gamma function. Math. Comput. 66(218), 771-778 (1997)
Yang, Z-H, Chu, Y-M, Wang, M-K: Monotonicity criterion for the quotient of power series with applications. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 428(1), 587-604 (2015)
Yang, Z-H: A new way to prove L’Hospital monotone rules with applications. arXiv:1409.6408 [math.CA]. Available online at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.6408v1.pdf
Anderson, GD, Vamanamurthy, MK, Vuorinen, M: Conformal Invariants, Inequalities, and Quasiconformal Maps. Wiley, New York (1997)
Fichtenholz, GM: Differential-und Integralrechnung II. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin (1966)
Acknowledgements
The research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants 61374086, 11371125, and 11401191.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally to the writing of this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, ZH., Zhang, W. & Chu, YM. Monotonicity of the incomplete gamma function with applications. J Inequal Appl 2016, 251 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-016-1197-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-016-1197-7