New Sharp Ostrowski-Type Inequalities and Generalized Trapezoid-Type Inequalities For Riemann-Stieltjes Integrals and Their Applications

Ukrainian Mathematical Journal, Vol. 65, No. 7, December, 2013 (Ukrainian Original Vol. 65, No.
7, July, 2013)
NEW SHARP OSTROWSKI-TYPE INEQUALITIES AND GENERALIZED

TRAPEZOID-TYPE INEQUALITIES FOR RIEMANNSTIELTJES
INTEGRALS AND THEIR APPLICATIONS
M. W. Alomari
UDC 517.5
We prove new sharp weighted generalizations of Ostrowski-type and generalized trapezoid-type inequalities for RiemannStieltjes integrals. Several related inequalities are deduced and investigated. New
Simpson-type inequalities are obtained for the RS -integral. Finally, as an application, we estimate the error of a general quadrature rule for the RS -integral via the Ostrowskigeneralized-trapezoid-quadrature
formula.
1. Introduction
Z
f (t)du(t), Dragomir [12] introduced the following
In order to approximate the RiemannStieltjes integral

a
(general) quadrature rule:
Zb
D (f, u; x) := f (x) [u (b) u(a)]
f (t)du(t).
a
Later, numerous authors studied this quadrature rule under various assumptions imposed on the integrands and
integrators. In what follows, we present a summary of these results. Let f, u : [a, b] R be as follows:
(1) f is of the r -Hf -Holder type on [a, b], where Hf > 0 and r (0, 1] are given;
(1 0 ) u is of the s-Hu -Holder type on [a, b], where Hu > 0 and s (0, 1] are given;
(2) f is of bounded variation on [a, b];
(2 0 ) u is of bounded variation on [a, b];
(3) f is Lf -Lipschitz on [a, b];
(3 0 ) u is Lu -Lipschitz on [a, b];
(4) f is monotonically nondecreasing on [a, b];
(4 0 ) u is monotonically nondecreasing on [a, b];
(5) f is L1,f -Lipschitz on [a, x] and L2,f -Lipschitz on [x, b];
(5 0 ) u is L1,u -Lipschitz on [a, x] and L2,u -Lipschitz on [x, b];
(6) f is monotonically nondecreasing on [a, x] and [x, b];
(6 0 ) u is monotonically nondecreasing on [a, x] and [x, b];
(7) f is absolutely continuous on [a, b];
(8) |f 0 | is convex on [a, b].
Jerash University, Jordan.
Published in Ukrainskyi Matematychnyi Zhurnal, Vol. 65, No. 7, pp. 894916, July, 2013. Original article submitted May 31, 2012.
0041-5995/13/65070995
c 2013

Springer Science+Business Media New York
995
M. W. A LOMARI
996
Then the following inequalities hold under the corresponding assumptions:
r

Wb

a
+
b
b
(1), (20 ) [13]

+ x
Hf
a (u) ,

2
2
Wb
1 Wx
1 Wb

s
s
[(x a) + (b x) ]
a (f ) x (f ) ,
a (f ) +
2
2
p i1/p
W
h

Wx
p
b
qs
qs 1/q
,
(10 ), (2) [14]
(f
)
[(x
a)
+
(b
x)
]
(f
))
+
(
x
a
Hu
1 1
p > 1,
+ = 1,
p q
s
b a
Wb
a
+
b
+ x
a (f ),
2
2
Lu Hf h
r+1
r+1
(x
a)
+
(b
x)
,
(1), (30 ) [6]
r
+
1
Lf Hu h
s+1
s+1
(x
a)
+
(b
x)
,
(10 ), (3) [6]
s
+
1
!2
a+b
x 2
1
(b a)2 ,
(3), (30 ) [6]

Lu Lf +
4
ba

a + b
b a
[f (b) f (a)] ,
+ x
|D (f, u; x)|
(1.1)
2
2
(50 ), (6) [6]

max {L1,u , L2,u }
f (b) f (a) 1
f (a) + f (b)
+ f (x)
(b a) ,
2
2
2
b a
a + b
[u(b) u(a)] ,
+ x
(5), (60 ) [6]

max {L1,f , L2,f }

u(b) u(a) 1
u(a) + u(b)
+ u(x)
(b a) ,
2
2
2

a + b r
b a
Hf
(1), (40 ) [11]
+ x
[u(b) u(a)] ,
2
2

a + b s
b a
(10 ), (4) [11]

+ x
Hu
[f (b) f (a)] ,
2
2
W
W
sup {(x t) (f ; x, t)} xa (u) + sup {(t x) (f ; x, t)} bx (u), (20 ), (7) [7]
t[a,x]
t[x,b]
h
i
Wb
W
1
x
0k
0k
(u)
kf
(u)
kf
+
(b
x)
(x
a)
x
,[x,b]
a
,[a,x]
i
h
W
W
1
+ |f 0 (x)| (x a) xa (u) + (b x) bx (u) .

(20 ), (7), (8) [7]
2
N EW S HARP O STROWSKI -T YPE I NEQUALITIES AND G ENERALIZED T RAPEZOID -T YPE I NEQUALITIES
997
For the detailed desription of each inequality presented above, the reader is referred to the corresponding
references (and the references therein).
From a different view point, the authors of [14] considered the problem of approximation of the Stieltjes
Z b
f (t)du(t) by using the following generalized trapezoid rule:
integral
a
Zb
T (f, u; x) := [u(x) u(a)] f (a) + [(b) u(x)] f (b)
f (t)du(t),
a
r

Wb

b
a
a
+
b
Hu
+ x
a (f ) ,
2
2
Wb
1 Wx
1 Wb

s
s
[(x a) + (b x) ]
a (u) x (u) ,
a (u) +
2
2

p i1/p
W
hW
p
b
x
qs
qs 1/q
|T (f, u; x)|
,
(u)
(u))
+
[(x
a)
+
(b
x)
]
(
x
a
Hf
1 1
+ = 1,
p > 1,
p
q
b a
a + b s Wb
+
x

a (u) .

2
2
(10 ), (2) [15]
(1), (20 ) [8]
(1.2)
For new quadrature rules involving the RS -integral, see the recent works [1, 2]. For the other results concerning various approximations for RS -integrals under various assumptions on f and u, see [3, 4, 8, 9, 1518] and
the references therein.
In the recent work [19], Z. Liu proved the following sharp generalization of the weighted Ostrowski-type
inequality for mappings of bounded variation (see also [20]):
Theorem 1.1. Let f : [a, b] R be a mapping of bounded variation and let be g : [a, b] [0, ) continuous and positive on (a, b). Then, for any x [a, b] and [0, 1], we have
b

Z
Zb
Zx
Zb

f (t)g(t)dt (1 ) f (x) g(t)dt + f (a) g (t) dt + f (b) g(t)dt

x
Z
b

Zb
Zb

_
1
1
1 1
+
g(t)dt + g(t)dt
g(t)dt (f ),
2
2
2
2

a

where
Wb
constant.
a (f )

denotes to the total variation of f over [a, b]. The constant
(1.3)

1 1
+ is the best possible
2
2
For recent results concerning the Ostrowski inequality for mappings of bounded variation, see [11, 1923].
M. W. A LOMARI
998
The main aim of thie present paper is to introduce and discuss new weighted generalizations of the Ostrowski
and the generalized trapezoid inequalities for the RiemannStieltjes integrals.
2. Main Results
We begin with the following result:
Theorem 2.1. Let g, u : [a, b] [0, ) be such that g is continuous and positive on [a, b] and u is monotonically increasing on [a, b]. If f : [a, b] R is a mapping of bounded variation on [a, b], then, for any x [a, b]
and [0, 1], the following inequality is true:

(1 )f (x)

(a+b)/2
Z
Zb
g(s)du(s) + f (a + b x)
a
g(s)du(s)
(a+b)/2
Zb
Zx
g(s)du(s)
g(s)du(s) + f (b)
+ f (a)
Zb

f (t)g(t)du(t)

x

b
Z
b

Z
Zb

_
1
1 1
1

g(t)du(t) + g(t)du(t)
g(t)du(t) (f ),
+
2
2
2
2

a

where
Wb
a (f ) denotes to the total variation of f over [a, b] and

1 1
+ is the best possible constant.
2
2
Proof. We define a mapping
Z t
Zt
(1 )
t [a, x] ,
g(s)du(s) + g(s)du(s),
Z t
Zt
Kg,u (t; x) := (1 )
g(s)du(s) + g(s)du(s), t (x, a + b x] ,
(a+b)/2
Z t
Zt
(1 )
t (a + b x, b] .
g(s)du(s) + g(s)du(s),
b
x
Integrating by parts, we arrive at the following identity:

Zx
Zb
(1 )
Kg,u (t; x) df (t) =

a
Zt
Zt
a+bx
Z
Zt
(1 )
+
x
g(s)du(s)df (t)
g(s)du(s) +
(a+b)/2
(2.1)
Zt
g(s)du(s)df (t)
g(s)du(s) +
x
Zb
Zt
(1 )
g(s)du(s)df (t)
g(s)du(s) +
x
a+bx
Zt
(a+b)/2
Z
= (1 ) f (x)
Zb
g(s)du(s) + f (a + b x)
a
g(s)du(s)
(a+b)/2
Zb
Zx
999
g(s)du(s)
g(s)du(s) + f (b)
+ f (a)
f (t)g(t)du(t).
a
Zb
Note that, for a continuous function p : [a, b] R and a function : [a, b] R of bounded variation, the
Z b
RiemannStieltjes integral
p(t)d(t) exists and the following inequality is true:
a
b

Z

b
_

p(t)d(t) sup |p(t)| () .

t[a,b]
a
(2.2)
Since f is of bounded variation on [a, b], by virtue of (2.2), we find

(1 ) f (x)

(a+b)/2
Z
Zb
g(s)du(s) + f (a + b x)
a
g(s)du(s)
(a+b)/2
Zb
Zx
sup |Kg,u (t; x)|

t[a,b]
b
_
Zb
g(s)du(s)
g(s)du(s) + f (b)
+ f (a)

f (t)g(t)du(t)

(f ).
(2.3)
We now define mappings p, q : [a, b] R by the formulas

Zt
Zt
p1 (t) := (1 )
Zt
(a+b)/2
t [a, x] ,
p2 (t) := (1 )
g (s) du(s),
g(s)du(s) +
Zt
g(s)du(s),
g(s)du(s) +
x
t (x, a + b x] ,
M. W. A LOMARI
1000
Zt
p3 (t) := (1 )
Zt
t (a + b x, b] ,
g (s) du(s),
g(s)du(s) +
x
for all [0, 1] and x [a, b]. Since g is positive and continuous and u is monotonically increasing on [a, b], we
Z b
conclude that the RiemannStieltjes integral
g(s)du(s) exists and is positive. In addition, since the derivative
a
of the monotonically increasing function u is always positive and, hence, (gu0 ) (t) > 0 a.e., we conclude that,
p01 (t), p02 (t), p03 (t) > 0 almost everywhere in their corresponding domains. Thus, we get
Zx
Zx
Zx
1 1

g(s)du(s),
+
sup |Kg,u (t; x)| = max (1 ) g(s)du(s), g(s)du(s) =
2
2
t[a,x]
sup
|Kg,u (t; x)| = max (1 )
t(x,a+bx]
(a+b)/2
Z
(a+b)/2
Z
g(s)du(s),
a+bx
Z
g(s)du(s) +
(a+b)/2
g(s)du(s)

a+bx

Z

g(s)du(s) ,
g(s)du(s) + (1 )

(a+b)/2
a+bx
Z
x
and
Zb
Zb
sup
|Kg,u (t; x)| = max (1 ) g(s)du(s), g(s)du(s)
t(a+bx,b]
x

Z b

1 1
=
g(s)du(s).
+
2
2

Hence,
x

Zb
Z

1 1
g(s)du(s), g(s)du(s)
+ max
sup |Kg,u (t; x)| =
2
2
t[a,b]

Z

Z b
Zb

1
1 1
1
=
g(s)du(s) + g(s)du(s)
g(s)du(s) .
+
2
2
2
2

(2.4)

1 1
Therefore, by virtue of (2.3) and (2.4), we get (2.1). To prove that + is the best possible constant
2
2
for all [0, 1], we take u(t) = t for all t [a, b] and consider (1.3). Thus, the sharpness of the estimate follows
from (1.3) (we consider f and g defined as in [19]). Hence, the proof is established and we omit the details.
1001
Corollary 2.1. Let = 0 in relation (2.1). This yields

Zb
Zb

f (x) g(t)du(t) f (t)g(t)du(t)

a
1
2
Zb
a
x

Z
b
Zb

_
1

g(t)du(t) (f ).
2

a
(2.5)
A general weighted version of the Ostrowski inequality for RS -integrals presented above can be deduced as
follows:
Z b

Z x

_

g(t)du(t)
f (t)g(t)du(t)

b

1
1
a
a
+ Z
(f )
f (x) Z
2 b

b
2 a

g(t)du(t)
g(t)du(t)

a
(2.6)
provided that g(t) 0 for almost all t [a, b] and

Zb
g(t)du(t) 6= 0.
a
Remark 2.1. Choosing = 1 in (2.1), we find

Zb
Zb
Zx

f (a) g(s)du(s) + f (b) g(s)du(s) f (t)g(t)du(t)

a
1
2
Zb
a
x

Z
b
Zb

_
1

g(t)du(t) (f ).
2

a
a
(2.7)
This is the generalized trapezoid inequality for RS -integrals.

Corollary 2.2. In relation (2.1), let g(t) = 1 for all t [a, b]. Then the following inequality is true:

Zb

[(u(x) u(a)) f (a) + ((b) u(x)) f (b)] + (1 ) [u(b) u(a)] f (x) f (t)du(t)

a
b

u(b) u(a)
u(a) + u(b) _
1 1

+
+ u(x)
(f ),

2 2
2
2
a

1 1
where
2
2

(2.8)
M. W. A LOMARI
1002
In particular,
if = 0, then we get

_

Zb

b

[u(b) u(a)] f (x) f (t)du(t) u(b) u(a) + u(x) u(a) + (b)
(f );

2
2

a
(2.9)
1
if = , then
3

Zb
1

{[u(x) u(a)] f (a) + 2 [u(b) u(a)] f (x) + [u(b) u(x)] f (b)} f (t)du(t)
3

a

b

2 u(b) u(a)
u(a) + u(b) _
(f );
+ u(x)

3
2
2
a
(2.10)
1
if = , then
2

Zb

1
{[u(x) u(a)] f (a) + [u(b) u(a)] f (x) + [u(b) u(x)] f (b)} f (t)du(t)

2

a
b

1 u(b) u(a)
u(a) + u(b) _
(f );
+ u(x)

2
2
2
a
(2.11)
if = 1, then

Zb

[u(x) u(a)] f (a) + [u(b) u(x)] f (b) f (t)du(t)

a
b

u(a) + (b) _
u(b) u(a)
(f ).
+ u(x)

2
2
a

(2.12)
Proof. The results follow from Theorem 2.1. It remains to prove the sharpness of (2.8). Suppose that
1
0 and that (2.8) holds with a constant C1 > 0, i.e.,
2

Zb

[(u(x) u(a)) f (a) + ((b) u(x)) f (b)]+ (1 ) [u(b) u(a)] f (x) f (t)du(t)

a

C1
b

u(a) + u(b) _
u(b) u(a)
(f ).
+ u(x)

2
2
a
1003
(2.13)
Let f, u : [a, b] R be defined as follows: u(t) = t and
f (t) =
This yields
Wb
a (f ) = 1 and
0,
t [a, b] \
1,
2
t=

,
a+b
.
2
f (t)du(t) = 0. We now set x =

a
(1 )
a+b
2
a+b
. It follows from (2.13) that
2
ba
ba
C1
,
2
2
1
which proves that C1 1 . Hence, 1 is the best possible constant for all 0 .
2
1
We now assume that 1 and (2.8) holds with a constant C2 > 0, i.e.,
2

Zb


a

C2
b

u(a) + u(b) _
u(b) u(a)
(f ).
+ u(x)

2
2
a
(2.14)
Let f, u : [a, b] R be defined as follows: u(t) = t and
f (t) =
This yields
Wb
a (f ) = 1 and
0,
t (a, b],
1,
t = a.
f (t)du(t) = 0. Setting x =
a
a+b
, by (2.14), we find
2
ba
ba
C2
,
2
2
1
which proves that C2 and, therefore, is the best possible constant for all 1. This enables us to
2

1 1

conclude conclude that
+ is the best possible constant for all [0, 1].
2 2
M. W. A LOMARI
1004
Corollary 2.3. Let x =

integral is true:
a+b
in (2.10). The following Simpson-type inequality for the RiemannStieltjes
2

1
a+b
a+b

u
u(a) f (a) + 2 [u(b) u(a)] f
3
2
2

+ u(b) u
a+b
2

Zb

f (b)

f (t)du(t)

b

u(a) + u(b) _
a+b
2 u(b) u(a)
(f ).
+ u

3
2
2
2
a
Here,
(2.15)
2
is the best possible constant.
3
Remark 2.2. For recent three-point quadrature rules and the corresponding inequalities for RiemannStieltjes
integrals, we refer the reader to [2].
Corollary 2.4. In (2.8), let u(t) = t for all t [a, b]. Then

Zb

((x a) f (a) + (b x) f (b)) + (1 ) (b a) f (x) f (t)dt

a
b

ba
1 1
a + b _

(f ).
+
+ x
2 2
2
2 a

For x =
(2.16)
a+b
, the following inequality is true:
2

Zb

a
+
b
f
(a)
+
f
(b)
(b a)
f (t) dt
+ (1 ) f

2
2

a

b
ba_
1 1
(f ).
+
2
2
2 a
(2.17)
Remark 2.3. Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.1, a weighted generalization of the Montgomery-type
identity for RiemannStieltjes integrals can be deduced as follows:
f (x) = Z
Kg,u (t; x) df (t) + Z
g(s)du(s)
a
Zb
f (t)g(t)du(t)
g(s)du(s)
Zb
a
1005
for all x [a, b], where
Kg,u (t; x) :=
Z t
a g(s)du(s),
t [a, x],
Z t
g(s)du(s),
t (x, b] ,
g(s)du(s) 6= 0.
provided that
a
3. On L-Lipschitz Integrators
Theorem 3.1. Let g be as in Theorem (2.1). Let u : [a, b] [0, ) be of bounded variation on [a, b]. If
f : [a, b] R is L-Lipschitzian on [a, b], then, for any x [a, b] and [0, 1],

Zb
Zx

f (a) g(s)du(s) + f (b) g(s)du(s)

x
Zb
Zb
g(s)du(s)
+ (1 ) f (x)

f (t)g(t)du(t)

b
_
(u),
L max (x a) sup {M (t)}, (b x) sup {N (t)}
t[a,x]
t[x,b]
where
(
M (t) := max (1 ) sup |g(s)|, sup |g(s)|

s[a,t]
s[t,x]
and
(
N (t) := max (1 ) sup |g(s)|, sup |g(s)| .

s[t,b]
s[t,x]
Proof. By Theorem 2.1, we arrive at the identity

Zb
g(s)du(s)
g(s)du(s) + f (b)
Kg,u (t; x) df (t) = f (a)

a
Zb
Zx
Zb
Zb
g(s)du(s)
+ (1 ) f (x)
a
f (t)g(t)du(t).
a
(3.1)
M. W. A LOMARI
1006
Note that, for a Riemann integrable function p : [c, d] R and a L-Lipschitzian function : [c, d] R, the
following inequality is true:
d

Z

Zd

p(t)d(t) L |p(t)| dt.

(3.2)
Since f is a L-Lipschitz mapping on [a, b], by (3.2), we obtain

b

x
Z

Zb
Z
Zb

Kg,u (t; x) df (t) L |Kg,u (t; x)| dt = L |p(t)| dt + |q(t)| dt.

x
(3.3)
However, since u is of bounded variation on [a, b] and g is continuous, by (2.2), we find

t
t

Z
Z

|p(t)| (1 ) g(s)du(s) + g(s)du(s)

a
(1 ) sup |g(s)|
t
x
_
_
(u) + sup |g(s)| (u)
s[a,t]
s[t,x]
x
_
(u)
max (1 ) sup |g(s)| , sup |g(s)|
s[a,t]
:= M (t)
s[t,x]
x
_
(u).
(3.4)
Similarly, we get
(
|q(t)| max (1 ) sup |g(s)|, sup |g(s)|

s[t,b]
s[t,x]
b
b
_
_
(u) := N (t) (u).
x
(3.5)
Thus, in view of (3.3)(3.5), we obtain

b
x

Z
Zb
Z

Kg,u (t; x) df (t) L |p(t)| dt + |q(t)| dt

x
Zx
Z
x
b
_
_
M (t)dt (u) + N (t)dt (u)
"
L (x a) sup {M (t)}
t[a,x]
x
_
b
_
(u) + (b x) sup {N (t)} (u)
t[x,b]
L max (x a) sup {M (t)}, (b x) sup {N (t)}

t[a,x]
t[x,b]
1007
b
_
(u),
a
which gives the required result.

Remark 3.1. In Theorem 3.1, if g(t) = 1 for all t [a, b], then

M (t) = N (t) =

1 1
+
2
2
for all t [a, b].
Corollary 3.1. In estimate (3.1), let g(t) = 1 for all t [a, b]. Then the following inequality is true:

Zb


a

b
ba
a + b _
1 1

(u),
+
+ x
L
2 2
2
2 a

(3.6)

1 1
where
2
2
Thus, in particular,

if = 0, then we get

_

Zb
b

[u(b) u(a)] f (x) f (t)du(t) L b a + x a + b
(u);

2
2 a

(3.7)
1
if = , then
3

Zb

1
{[u(x) u(a)] f (a) + 2 [u (b) u(a)] f (x) + [u(b) u(x)] f (b)} f (t)du(t)

3

a

b

2
a + b _
b a
L
(u);
+ x
3
2
2 a
1
if = , then
2

Zb
1

2

a
(3.8)
M. W. A LOMARI
1008
b

b a
a + b _
1
(u);
+ x
L
2
2
2 a
(3.9)
if = 1, then

b

Zb

_

[u(x) u(a)] f (a) + [u(b) u(x)] f (b) f (t)du(t) L b a + x a + b
(u). (3.10)

2
2 a

a
Proof. The results follow from Theorem 3.1. It remains to prove the sharpness of (3.6). Suppose that
1
0 and that (3.6) holds with a constant C1 > 0, i.e.,
2

Zb


a

LC1
b

a + b _
b a
(u).
+ x
2
2 a
Let f, u : [a, b] R be defined as follows f (t) = t b and let
u(t) =
Hence, f is L-Lipschitz with L = 1,
Wb
a (u)
0,
t [a, b),
1,
t = b.
= 1, and
Zb
f (t)du(t) = 0.
a
Thus, in view of (3.11), by setting x =
a+b
, we find
2
(1 )
ba
ba
C1
.
2
2
1
This proves that C1 1 and, therefore 1 is the best possible constant for all 0 .
2
1
We now suppose that 1 and inequality (3.6) holds with a constant C2 > 0, i.e.,
2

Zb


a
(3.11)

LC2
1009
b

a + b _
b a
(u).
+ x
2
2 a
(3.12)
Let f, u : [a, b] R be defined as follows: f (t) = t a and
u(t) =
Hence, f is L-Lipschitz with L = 1 and
0,
t [a, b] \
1,
2
t=
Wb
a (u)

a+b
,
2
a+b
.
2
= 1 and
Zb
f (t)du(t) = 0.
a
Setting x =
a+b
, in view of (3.12), we find
2
ba
ba
C2
,
2
2
1
1. Thus, we can
which proves that C2 and, therefore, is the best possible constant for all
2

1 1
conclude that
2
2
Corollary 3.2. In (3.8), let x =
a+b
. Then the following Simpson-type inequality for RS -integrals is true:
2

1
a+b
a+b

u
u(a)
f
(a)
+
2
[u(b)
u(a)]
f
3
2
2

+ u(b) u
a+b
2

Zb
f (b)
a

f (t)du(t)

_
1
L (b a) (u),
3
a
where
(3.13)
1
3

Zb


a
M. W. A LOMARI
1010

ba
1 1
a
+
b
.
L (b a)
+
+ x
2
2
2
2

For x =
(3.14)
a+b
, the following inequality is true:
2

Zb

(b a)2
1 1
(b a) f (a) + f (b) + (1 ) f a + b

L
f
(t)
dt
.

2
2
2 2
2

(3.15)
4. On Monotonic Nondecreasing Integrators

Theorem 4.1. Let g and u be as in Theorem 3.1. If f : [a, b] R is monotonically nondecreasing on [a, b],
then, for any x [a, b] and [0, 1],

Zb
Zx

f (a) g(s)du(s) + f (b) g(s)du(s)

a
Zb
Zb
g(s)du(s)
+ (1 ) f (x)
sup {M (t)} [f (x) f (a)]

t[a,x]

f (t)g(t)du(t)

x
b
_
_
(u) + sup {N (t)} [f (b) f (x)] (u),
t[x,b]
(4.1)
where M (t) and N (t) are defined in Theorem (3.1).

Proof. We now use the identity
Zb
Zx
g(s)du(s)
g(s)du(s) + f (b)
f (a)
a
g(s)du(s)
+ (1 ) f (x)
Zb
Zb
Zb
Kg,u (t; x) df (t).
f (t)g(t)du(t) =
a
It is well known that, for a monotonic nondecreasing function : [a, b] R and a continuous function
p : [a, b] R, the following inequality is true:
b

Z
Zb

p(t)d(t) |p(t)| d(t).

a
(4.2)
1011
As f is monotonically nondecreasing on [a, b], by (4.2), we get

b

Z
Zb
Zb
Zx

Kg,u (t; x) df (t) |Kg,u (t; x)| df (t) = |p(t)| df (t) + |q(t)| df (t).

x
(4.3)
Further, since u is of bounded variation on [a, b] and g is continuous, by (3.4) and (3.5), we obtain
|p(t)| M (t)
x
_
(u),
a
(4.4)
|q(t)| N (t)
b
_
(u).
Thus, by (4.3) and (4.4), we find

b

Z
Zx
Zb

Kg,u (t; x) df (t) |p(t)| df (t) + |q(t)| df (t)

x
x
Z
Z
b
x
_
_
N (t)df (t)
(u) +
(u)
M (t)df (t)
sup {M (t)} [f (x) f (a)]

t[a,x]
x
b
_
_
(u) + sup {N (t)} [f (b) f (x)] (u),
a
t[x,b]
which gives the required result.

Corollary 4.1. In Theorem (4.1), let g(t) = 1 for all t [a, b]. Then the following inequality is true:

Zb


a
)

(
x
b
_
_

1 1
+ [f (x) f (a)] (u) + [f (b) f (x)] (u)

2 2
a
x

b

f (b) f (a)
1 1
f (a) + f (b) _

(u).
+
+ f (x)

2 2
2
2
a

1 1
For the last inequality,
2
2

(4.5)
M. W. A LOMARI
1012
Thus, in particular,
if = 0, then we get

Zb
x
b
_
_

[u(b) u(a)] f (x) f (t)du(t) [f (x) f (a)] (u) + [f (b) f (x)] (u)

a
x
a
b

f (b) f (a)
f (a) + f (b) _
(u);
+ f (x)

2
2
a

(4.6)
1
if = , then
3

Zb

1
{[u(x) u(a)] f (a) + 2 [u (b) u(a)] f (x) + [u(b) u(x)] f (b)} f (t)du(t)

3

a
)
x
b
_
_
[f (x) f (a)] (u) + [f (b) f (x)] (u)
b

2 f (b) f (a)
f (a) + f (b) _
(u);
+ f (x)

3
2
2
a
(4.7)
1
if = , then
2

Zb

1

2

a
(
[f (x) f (a)]
x
_
a
b
_
(u) + [f (b) f (x)] (u)
b

f (a) + f (b) _
1 f (b) f (a)
+ f (x)
(u).

2
2
2
a
if = 1, then

Zb

[u(x) u(a)] f (a) + [u(b) u(x)] f (b) f (t)du(t)

a
(4.8)
[f (x) f (a)]
1013
x
b
_
_
(u) + [f (b) f (x)] (u)
a
b

f (b) f (a)
f (a) + f (b) _
(u).
+ f (x)

2
2
a

(4.9)
Proof. The required results follow from Theorem 4.1. It remains to prove the sharpness of (4.5). Suppose
1
that 0 and that (4.5) holds with a constant C1 > 0, i.e.,
2

[(u(x) u(a)) f (a) + ((b) u(x)) f (b)]

Zb
+ (1 ) [u(b) u(a)] f (x)
a

C1

f (t)du(t)

b

f (b) f (a)
f (a) + f (b) _
(u).
+ f (x)

2
2
a
(4.10)
Let f, u : [a, b] R be defined as follows:
f (t) =
1,
t = a,
0,
t = (a, b],
and
u(t) =
0,
t [a, b) ,
1,
t = b.
Thus, f is monotonically nondecreasing on [a, b],
Wb
a (u)
= 1, and
Zb
f (t)du(t) = 0.
a
Setting x = a, in view of (4.10), we conclude that 1 C1 . This proves that 1 is the best possible constant
1
for all 0 .
2
1
We now assume that 1 and (4.5) holds with a constant C2 > 0, i.e.,
2

[(u(x) u(a)) f (a) + ((b) u(x)) f (b)]

M. W. A LOMARI
1014
Zb
+ (1 ) [u(b) u(a)] f (x)
a

C2

f (t)du(t)

b

f (b) f (a)
f (a) + f (b) _
(u).
+ f (x)

2
2
a
Let f, u : [a, b] R be defined as f (t) above and let u(t) = t. This yields
Wb
a (u)
(4.11)
= b a and
Zb
f (t)du(t) = 0.
a
Thus, setting x = b, by (4.11), we see that

C2 and, therefore, is the best possible constant for all

1
1 1
1. Hence, we conclude that
2
2
2
Corollary 4.2. In (4.7), let x =
a+b
. Then the following Simpson-type inequality for RS -integrals is true:
2

1
a+b
a+b

u
u(a) f (a) + 2 [u(b) u(a)] f
3
2
2

+ u(b) u
a+b
2

Zb

f (b) f (t)du(t)

a

(a+b)/2
_

b
_
a+b
a+b
2
f
f (a)
(u) + f (b) f
(u)
3
2
2
a
(a+b)/2

b

f (a) + f (b) _
2 f (b) f (a)
a+b
(u).
+ f

3
2
2
2
a
For the last inequality,
2
3

Zb


a

1 1
+ {(x a) [f (x) f (a)] + (b x) [f (b) f (x)]}

2
2

(4.12)

f (b) f (a)
1 1
f
(a)
+
f
(b)
(b a) .
+
+ f (x)

2
2
2
2
1015
For x =
(4.13)
a+b
,
2

Zb

(b a) f (a) + f (b) + (1 ) f a + b

f
(t)
dt

2
2

a

1
1 1
(b a)
+ [f (b) f (a)]
2
2
2

f (b) f (a)
f (a) + f (b)
a+b
1 1

+
+ f
(b a) .
2 2
2
2
2

(4.14)
Remark 4.1. Note that, in Theorems 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, one may get various new inequalities by replacing the
assumptions imposed on u, e.g., by the assumptions of bounded variation, Lu -Lipschitz, or monotonically nondecreasing behavior on [a, b]. In some cases, this gives inequalities dual to the inequalities established above.
It remains to note that, in Theorem 3.1 and according to the assumptions imposed on u, one may obtain several
estimations for the functions p(t) and q(t) which, therefore, gives different functions M (t) and N (t).
Remark 4.2. In Theorems 2.1, 3.1, and 4.1, different result(s) in terms of the Lp norms can be formulated if
we apply the well-known Holder integral inequality and note that
d

Z

p
g(s)du(s) q u (d) u (c)

c
where p > 1 and
v
u d
uZ
u
p
t
|g(s)|p du (s),
c
1 1
+ = 1.
p q
Remark 4.3. We can now obtain some results for the Riemann integral of a product in terms of L1 -, Lp -,
and L -norms by using the reasoning similar to that considered in [12] (see also [1, 2]).
5. Applications to the Ostrowski Generalized Trapezoid Quadrature Formula for RS -Integrals
Let In : a = x0 < x1 < s < xn = b be a partition of the interval [a, b]. We define the general Riemann
Stieltjes sum as follows:
S (f, u, In , ) =
n1
X
{[u(i ) u(xi )] f (xi ) + [u(xi+1 ) u(i )] f (xi+1 )}
i=0
+ (1 ) [u(xi+1 ) u(xi )] f (i ) .
(5.1)
In what follows, we establish the upper bound for the error of approximation of the RiemannStieltjes integral
Z
f (t)du(t) by its RiemannStieltjes sums S (f, u, In , ). As an example, we apply inequality (2.8).

a
M. W. A LOMARI
1016
Theorem 5.1. Under the assumptions of Corollary (2.2), the following equality is true:
Zb
f (t)du(t) = S (f, u, In , ) + R (f, u, In , ) ,
a
where S (f, u, In , ) is given in (5.1) and the remainder R (f, u, In , ) has the bound

b
_

1 1
|R (f, u, In , )|
+ [u(b) u(a)] (f ).
2
2
a

(5.2)
Proof. Applying Corollary 2.2 on the intervals [xi , xi+1 ], we conclude that

{[u(i ) u(xi )] f (xi ) + [u(xi+1 ) u(i )] f (xi+1 )}

x
Zi+1
+ (1 ) [u (xi+1 ) u(xi )] f (i )
xi

f (t)du(t)

xi+1

u(xi+1 ) u(xi )
u(xi ) + u(xi+1 ) _
1 1

(f )
+
+ u(i )

2 2
2
2
x

for all i {0, 1, 2, s, n 1}.

We now sum this inequality over i from 0 to n 1 and apply the generalized triangle inequality. This gives

{[u(i ) u(xi )] f (xi ) + [u (xi+1 ) u(i )] f (xi+1 )}
|R (f, u, In , )| =

i=0

n1
X
x
Zi+1
+ (1 ) [u (xi+1 ) u(xi )] f (i )
xi

f (t)du(t)

xi+1

n1

X u (xi+1 ) u(xi )
u(xi ) + u (xi+1 ) _
1 1

(f )
+
+ u (i )

2 2
2
2
x

i=0
# n1 xi+1

"n1

X
X _
X u (xi+1 ) u(xi ) n1
u(x
)
+
u(x
)
1 1
i
i+1

u(i )
+
+
(f )

2
2
2
2
x

i=0
i=0
i=0
# b

"
_

u(b) u(a)
u(x
)
+
u
(x
)
1 1
i
i+1

u(i )
+
+
sup
(f )

2
2
2
2
i=0,1,...,n1
a

1017

b
_

1 1
+ [u(b) u(a)] (f ).
2
2
a

Since

u(xi ) + u (xi+1 )
u(b) u(a)
u(xi+1 ) u(xi )

u(i )
sup
sup
=
,

2
2
2
i=0,1,...,n1
i=0,1,...,n1
we get
n1
i+1
X x_
i=0 xi
b
_
(f ) = (f ).
a
This completes the proof.

Remark 5.1. Note that one can use the remaining inequalities from Section 2 to establish other bounds for
R (f, u, In , ). We omit the details.
REFERENCES
Z
f (t)du(t), where f is of
1. M. W. Alomari, A companion of Ostrowskis inequality for the RiemannStieltjes integral

a
r - H -Holder type and u is of bounded variation and applications, submitted, Available at: http://ajmaa.org/RGMIA/papers/
v14/v14a59.pdf.
Z b
f (t)du(t), where f is of bounded
2. M. W. Alomari, A companion of Ostrowskis inequality for the RiemannStieltjes integral
a
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
variation and u is of r - H -Holder type and applications, Appl. Math. Comput., 219, 47924799 (2013).
G. A. Anastassiou, Univariate Ostrowski inequalities, Monatsh. Math., 135, No 3, 175189 (2002).
N. S. Barnett, S. S. Dragomir, and I. Gomma, A companion for the Ostrowski and the generalised trapezoid inequalities, Math.
Comput. Modelling, 50, 179187 (2009).
N. S. Barnett, W.-S. Cheung, S. S. Dragomir, and A. Sofo, Ostrowski and trapezoid type inequalities for the Stieltjes integral with
Lipschitzian integrands or integrators, Comput. Math. Appl., 57, 195201 (2009).
P. Cerone, W. S. Cheung, and S. S. Dragomir, On Ostrowski type inequalities for Stieltjes integrals with absolutely continuous
integrands and integrators of bounded variation, Comput. Math. Appl., 54, 183191 (2007).
P. Cerone and S. S. Dragomir, New bounds for the three-point rule involving the RiemannStieltjes integrals, Adv. Statist. Combinator. Related Areas, World Sci. Publ. (2002), pp. 5362.
P. Cerone and S. S. Dragomir, Approximating the RiemannStieltjes integral via some moments of the integrand, Math. Comput.
Modelling, 49, 242248 (2009).
P. Cerone, S. S. Dragomir, and C. E. M. Pearce, A generalized trapezoid inequality for functions of bounded variation, Turk. J.
Math., 24, 147163 (2000).
W.-S. Cheung and S. S. Dragomir, Two Ostrowski-type inequalities for the Stieltjes integral of monotonic functions, Bull. Austral.
Math. Soc., 75, 299311 (2007).
S. S. Dragomir, Ostrowski integral inequality for mappings of bounded variation, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc., 60, 495508 (1999).
Z b
S. S. Dragomir, On the Ostrowski inequality for RiemannStieltjes integral
f (t)du(t), where f is of Holder type and u is of
a
13.
14.
15.
16.
bounded variation and applications, J. KSIAM, 5, 3545 (2001).

S. S. Dragomir, On the Ostrowskis inequality for RiemannStieltes integral and applications, Korean J. Comput. Appl. Math., 7,
611627 (2000).
S. S. Dragomir, C. Buse, M. V. Boldea, and L. Braescu, A generalisation of the trapezoid rule for the RiemannStieltjes integral
and applications, Nonlin. Anal. Forum, 6, No 2, 33351 (2001).
S. S. Dragomir, Some inequalities of midpoint and trapezoid type for the RiemannStieltjes integral, Nonlinear Anal., 47, No 4,
23332340 (2001).
S. S. Dragomir, Refinements of the generalised trapezoid and Ostrowski inequalities for functions of bounded variation, Arch.
Math., 91, 450460 (2008).
1018
M. W. A LOMARI
17. S. S. Dragomir, Approximating the RiemannStieltjes integral in terms of generalised trapezoidal rules, Nonlin. Anal. TMA, 71,
e62e72 (2009).
18. S. S. Dragomir, Approximating the RiemannStieltjes integral by a trapezoidal quadrature rule with applications, Math. Comput.
Modelling, 54, 243260 (2011).
19. Z. Liu, Another generalization of weighted Ostrowski type inequality for mappings of bounded variation, Appl. Math. Lett., 25,
393397 (2012).
20. W.-J. Liu, Some weighted integral inequalities with a parameter and applications, Acta Appl. Math., 109, 389400 (2010).
21. K. L. Tseng, S. R. Hwang, and S. S. Dragomir, Generalizations of weighted Ostrowski-type inequalities for mappings of bounded
variation and their applications, Comput. Math. Appl., 55, 17851793 (2008).
22. K. L. Tseng, Improvements of some inequalites of the Ostrowski type and their applications, Taiwan. J. Math., 12, No 9, 2427
2441 (2008).
23. K. L. Tseng, S. R. Hwang, G. S. Yang, and Y. M. Chou, Improvements of the Ostrowski integral inequality for mappings of bounded
variation I, Appl. Math. Comput., 217, 23482355 (2010).

New Sharp Ostrowski-Type Inequalities and Generalized Trapezoid-Type Inequalities For Riemann-Stieltjes Integrals and Their Applications

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

New Sharp Ostrowski-Type Inequalities and Generalized Trapezoid-Type Inequalities For Riemann-Stieltjes Integrals and Their Applications

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Ukrainian Mathematical Journal, Vol. 65, No. 7, December, 2013 (Ukrainian Original Vol. 65, No.

NEW SHARP OSTROWSKI-TYPE INEQUALITIES AND GENERALIZED

f (t)du(t), Dragomir [12] introduced the following

In order to approximate the RiemannStieltjes integral

(general) quadrature rule:

Springer Science+Business Media New York

Then the following inequalities hold under the corresponding assumptions:

(1), (20 ) [13]

(3), (30 ) [6]

(50 ), (6) [6]

(5), (60 ) [6]

(10 ), (4) [11]

+ |f 0 (x)| (x a) xa (u) + (b x) bx (u) .

N EW S HARP O STROWSKI -T YPE I NEQUALITIES AND G ENERALIZED T RAPEZOID -T YPE I NEQUALITIES

(10 ), (2) [15]

(1), (20 ) [8]

a (f ) denotes to the total variation of f over [a, b] and

Proof. We define a mapping

Integrating by parts, we arrive at the following identity:

Kg,u (t; x) df (t) =

N EW S HARP O STROWSKI -T YPE I NEQUALITIES AND G ENERALIZED T RAPEZOID -T YPE I NEQUALITIES

Since f is of bounded variation on [a, b], by virtue of (2.2), we find

sup |Kg,u (t; x)|

We now define mappings p, q : [a, b] R by the formulas

N EW S HARP O STROWSKI -T YPE I NEQUALITIES AND G ENERALIZED T RAPEZOID -T YPE I NEQUALITIES

Corollary 2.1. Let = 0 in relation (2.1). This yields

provided that g(t) 0 for almost all t [a, b] and

Remark 2.1. Choosing = 1 in (2.1), we find

This is the generalized trapezoid inequality for RS -integrals.

N EW S HARP O STROWSKI -T YPE I NEQUALITIES AND G ENERALIZED T RAPEZOID -T YPE I NEQUALITIES

Let f, u : [a, b] R be defined as follows: u(t) = t and

f (t)du(t) = 0. We now set x =

Let f, u : [a, b] R be defined as follows: u(t) = t and

Corollary 2.3. Let x =

Kg,u (t; x) df (t) + Z

N EW S HARP O STROWSKI -T YPE I NEQUALITIES AND G ENERALIZED T RAPEZOID -T YPE I NEQUALITIES

for all x [a, b], where

M (t) := max (1 ) sup |g(s)|, sup |g(s)|

N (t) := max (1 ) sup |g(s)|, sup |g(s)| .

Proof. By Theorem 2.1, we arrive at the identity

Kg,u (t; x) df (t) = f (a)

Since f is a L-Lipschitz mapping on [a, b], by (3.2), we obtain

However, since u is of bounded variation on [a, b] and g is continuous, by (2.2), we find

|q(t)| max (1 ) sup |g(s)|, sup |g(s)|

Thus, in view of (3.3)(3.5), we obtain

N EW S HARP O STROWSKI -T YPE I NEQUALITIES AND G ENERALIZED T RAPEZOID -T YPE I NEQUALITIES

L max (x a) sup {M (t)}, (b x) sup {N (t)}

which gives the required result.

for all t [a, b].

Let f, u : [a, b] R be defined as follows f (t) = t b and let

Hence, f is L-Lipschitz with L = 1,

Thus, in view of (3.11), by setting x =

N EW S HARP O STROWSKI -T YPE I NEQUALITIES AND G ENERALIZED T RAPEZOID -T YPE I NEQUALITIES

Let f, u : [a, b] R be defined as follows: f (t) = t a and

Hence, f is L-Lipschitz with L = 1 and

4. On Monotonic Nondecreasing Integrators

sup {M (t)} [f (x) f (a)]

where M (t) and N (t) are defined in Theorem (3.1).

Kg,u (t; x) df (t).

N EW S HARP O STROWSKI -T YPE I NEQUALITIES AND G ENERALIZED T RAPEZOID -T YPE I NEQUALITIES

As f is monotonically nondecreasing on [a, b], by (4.2), we get

Thus, by (4.3) and (4.4), we find

Thus, setting x = b, by (4.11), we see that