Next Article in Journal
The Violation of Bell-CHSH Inequalities Leads to Different Conclusions Depending on the Description Used
Next Article in Special Issue
Disturbance-Observer-Based U-Control (DOBUC) for Nonlinear Dynamic Systems
Previous Article in Journal
QKD Based on Symmetric Entangled Bernstein-Vazirani
Previous Article in Special Issue
Existence of a Unique Solution to a Fractional Partial Differential Equation and Its Continuous Dependence on Parameters
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Some Integral Inequalities Involving Metrics

1
Department of Mathematics, Texas A & M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX 78363, USA
2
Department of Mathematics, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Entropy 2021, 23(7), 871; https://doi.org/10.3390/e23070871
Submission received: 29 June 2021 / Revised: 2 July 2021 / Accepted: 4 July 2021 / Published: 8 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Nonlinear Dynamics and Analysis)

Abstract

:
In this work, we establish some integral inequalities involving metrics. Moreover, some applications to partial metric spaces are given. Our results are extension of previous obtained metric inequalities in the discrete case.

1. Introduction

Metric inequalities provide powerful tools for the investigation of several problems from different branches of mathematics and sciences. In particular, from entropy and information theory (see e.g., [1,2,3]), fixed point theory (see e.g., [4,5,6,7,8]), geometry (see e.g., [9,10,11]) and telecommunication networks (see e.g., [12,13]).
In [14], Dragomir and Gosa established a polygonal type inequality and provided some applications to normed linear spaces and inner product spaces. We recall below the main result obtained in [14]. Let X be a nonempty set and ρ : X × X [ 0 , + ) be a metric on X (see [15]), that is, for all a , b , c X ,
  • ρ ( a , b ) = 0 if and only if a = b ;
  • ρ ( a , b ) = ρ ( b , a ) ;
  • ρ ( a , b ) ρ ( a , c ) + ρ ( c , b ) .
Let n 2 be a natural number, { x i } i = 1 n X , and { μ i } i = 1 n [ 0 , + ) with μ 1 + μ n = 1 . Then
1 i < j n μ i μ j ρ ( x i , x j ) inf x X i = 1 n μ i ρ ( x i , x ) .
It was shown also that (1) is sharp in the following sense: there exists n 2 and { μ i } i = 1 n [ 0 , + ) with μ 1 + μ n = 1 such that, if
1 i < j n μ i μ j ρ ( x i , x j ) c inf x X i = 1 n μ i ρ ( x i , x )
for some c > 0 , then c 1 . Inequality (1) can be interpreted as follows: If P is a polygon having q vertices and M is a point in the space, then the sum of all edges and diagonals of P is less than q-times the sum of the distances from M to the vertices of P .
Recently, inequality (1) has been extended by some authors. In [16], Karapinar and Noorwali derived a b-metric version of (1). In [17], Aydi and Samet proved (under the above assumptions) that
1 2 1 i < j n μ i μ j [ ρ ( x i , x j ) ] m inf x X 2 i = 1 n μ i [ ρ ( x i , x ) ] m + k = 1 m 1 ( m k ) i = 1 n μ i [ ρ ( x i , x ) ] k i = 1 n μ i [ ρ ( x i , x ) ] m k ,
where m 1 is a natural number. In [18] (see also [19]) Dragomir improved inequality (1) by proving that for all α > 0 ,
1 i < j n μ i μ j [ ρ ( x i , x j ) ] α a α inf x X i = 1 n μ i ( 1 μ i ) [ ρ ( x i , x ) ] α ,
where
a α = 2 α 1 if α 1 , 1 if 0 < α < 1 .
In this paper, our goal is to derive continuous versions of inequality (2). In the next section, we recall some basic definitions. In Section 3, we present and prove our obtained results. Finally, in Section 4, some applications to partial metric spaces are provided.

2. Some Definitions

Let ω : [ 0 , + ) [ 0 , + ) be a given function. We say that ω is sub-additive, if
ω ( y + z ) ω ( y ) + ω ( z ) , for   all   y , z 0 .
Some examples of sub-additive functions are given below:
  • ω α ( y ) = y α , y 0 , 0 α 1 .
  • ω ( y ) = | sin y | , y 0 .
  • ω ( y ) = arctan y , y 0 .
  • ω ( y ) = inf { y , 1 } , y 0 .
  • ω ( y ) = 1 + y 2 , y 0 .
  • ω ( y ) = exp ( y ) , y 0 .
We say that ω is convex, if
ω ( ϕ y + ( 1 ϕ ) z ) ϕ ω ( y ) + ( 1 ϕ ) ω ( z ) ,
for all 0 < ϕ < 1 and y , z 0 .
We say that ω is log-convex, if
ω ( ϕ y + ( 1 ϕ ) z ) [ ω ( y ) ] ϕ [ ω ( z ) ] 1 ϕ ,
for all 0 < ϕ < 1 and y , z 0 . Notice that, if ω is log-convex, then it is convex, but the converse is not true in general (see [20]).
We say that ω is σ -Lipschitzian, σ > 0 , if
| ω ( y ) ω ( z ) | σ | y z | , for   all   y , z 0 .

3. Results and Proofs

Let ( X , ρ ) be a metric space. Let x : [ 0 , A ] X , A > 0 , be a continuous mapping. Let μ : [ 0 , A ] [ 0 , + ) be a function satisfying the following conditions:
(H1)
μ is continuous.
(H2)
0 A μ ( s ) d s = 1 .

3.1. The Case: ω Is Sub-Additive

Theorem 1.
Let ω : [ 0 , + ) [ 0 , + ) be a continuous, nondecreasing, and sub-additive function. Then
0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) d s d t inf u X 0 A μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( s ) , u ) d s .
Proof. 
Let u X be fixed. Then, for every t , s [ 0 , A ] ,
ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) + ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) .
Since ω is nondecreasing, the above inequality leads to
ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) + ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) .
Due to the sub-additivity of ω , it holds that
ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) + ω ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) .
Multiplying the above inequality by μ ( t ) μ ( s ) (notice that μ 0 ) and integrating over [ 0 , A ] × [ 0 , A ] , we obtain
0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) d t d s 0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) d t d s + 0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( u , x ( s ) d t d s .
On the other hand, by (H2), we have
0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) d t d s = 0 A μ ( s ) d s 0 A μ ( t ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) d t = 0 A μ ( t ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) d t .
Similarly,
0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) d t d s = 0 A μ ( s ) ω ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) d s .
Combining the above inequalities, we obtain
0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) d t d s + 0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) d t d s = 2 0 A μ ( s ) ω ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) d s .
Moreover, we have
0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) d t d s = 0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) d s d t + 0 A μ ( t ) t A μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) d s d t .
On the other hand, using Fubini’s theorem and the symmetry of ρ , we obtain
0 A μ ( t ) t A μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) d s d t = 0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) d s d t .
Therefore, by (7) and (8), we deduce that
0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) d t d s = 2 0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) d s d t .
Finally, (4) follows from (5), (6) and (9). □
Next, we study some special cases of ω . In the case ω ( y ) = y α , 0 < α 1 , we deduce from Theorem 1 the
Corollary 1.
Let 0 < α 1 . Then
0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) α d s d t inf u X 0 A μ ( s ) ρ ( x ( s ) , u ) α d s .
In the special case when ω ( y ) = α + y 2 , α > 0 , we deduce from Theorem 1 the
Corollary 2.
Let α > 0 . Then
0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) α + [ ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) ] 2 d s d t inf u X 0 A μ ( s ) α + [ ρ ( x ( s ) , u ) ] 2 d s .
In the case when ω ( y ) = arctan   y , we deduce from Theorem 1 the
Corollary 3.
The following inequality holds:
0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) arctan ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) d s d t inf u X 0 A μ ( s ) arctan ρ ( x ( s ) , u ) d s .

3.2. The Case: ω Is Convex

Theorem 2.
Let ω : [ 0 , + ) [ 0 , + ) be a nondecreasing and convex function. Then
0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) 2 d s d t 1 2 inf u X 0 A μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( s ) , u ) d s .
Proof. 
Fix u X . Since ω is nondecreasing, we have
ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) 2 ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) + ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) 2 .
Due to the convexity of ω , the above inequality leads to
ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) 2 1 2 ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) + ω ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) .
Multiplying the above inequality by μ ( t ) μ ( s ) and integrating over [ 0 , A ] × [ 0 , A ] , we obtain
0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) 2 d t d s 1 2 0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) d t d s + 1 2 0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( u , x ( s ) d t d s .
Proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 1, we obtain
0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) 2 d t d s = 2 0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) 2 d s d t
and
1 2 0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) d t d s + 1 2 0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( u , x ( s ) d t d s = 0 A μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( s ) , u ) d s .
Finally, combining (11), (12), and (13), (10) follows. □
In the special case when ω ( y ) = y α , α > 1 , by Theorem 2, we deduce the following result.
Corollary 4.
Let α > 1 . Then
0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) α d s d t 2 α 1 inf u X 0 A μ ( s ) ρ ( x ( s ) , u ) α d s .

3.3. The Case: ω Is log-Convex

Theorem 3.
Let ω : [ 0 , + ) [ 0 , + ) be a nondecreasing and log-convex function. Then
0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) 2 d s d t 1 2 inf u X 0 A μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( s ) , u ) d s 2 .
Proof. 
Fix u X . Since ω is nondecreasing, we have
ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) 2 ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) + ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) 2 .
Due to the log-convexity of ω , the above inequality leads to
ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) 2 ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) ω ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) .
Multiplying the above inequality by μ ( t ) μ ( s ) and integrating over [ 0 , A ] × [ 0 , A ] , we obtain
0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) 2 d t d s 0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) ω ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) d t d s .
On the other hand,
0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) ω ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) d t d s = 0 A μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( s ) , u ) d s 2 .
Hence, using (12), (15) and (16), (14) follows. □
Consider the special case ω ( y ) = exp ( y α ) , α 1 . By Theorem 3, we obtain the
Corollary 5.
Let α 1 . Then
0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) exp ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) 2 α d s d t 1 2 inf u X 0 A μ ( s ) exp ρ ( x ( s ) , u ) α d s 2 .

3.4. The Case: ω Is σ-Lipschitzian

Theorem 4.
Let ω : [ 0 , + ) [ 0 , + ) be a nondecreasing and σ-Lipschitzian function, σ > 0 . Then
0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) d s d t σ inf u X 0 A μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( s ) , u ) d s + ω ( 0 ) 2 .
Proof. 
Let u X be fixed. Then, for every t , s [ 0 , A ] ,
ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) + ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) .
Since ω is nondecreasing, the above inequality leads to
ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) + ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) .
On the other hand, since ω is σ -Lipschitzian, we have
ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) + ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) = ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) + ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) ω ( 0 ) + ω ( 0 ) σ ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) + ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) + ω ( 0 ) .
Hence, it holds that
ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) σ ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) + ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) + ω ( 0 ) .
Multiplying the above inequality by μ ( t ) μ ( s ) and integrating over [ 0 , A ] × [ 0 , A ] , we obtain
0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) d t d s σ 0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) d t d s + σ 0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( u , x ( s ) d t d s + ω ( 0 ) 0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) d t d s = σ 0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , u ) d t d s + σ 0 A 0 A μ ( t ) μ ( s ) ω ρ ( u , x ( s ) d t d s + ω ( 0 ) .
Next, using (6), (9) and (18), we deduce that
2 0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) d s d t 2 σ 0 A μ ( s ) ω ρ ( u , x ( s ) ) d s + ω ( 0 ) ,
which yields (17). □

3.5. The Case: μ A 1

Consider now the case when
μ ( t ) = A 1 , for   all   t [ 0 , A ] .
Then by Theorems 1–4, we deduce the following inequalities.
Corollary 6.
Let ω : [ 0 , + ) [ 0 , + ) be a continuous, nondecreasing, and sub-additive function. Then
0 A 0 t ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) d s d t A inf u X 0 A ω ρ ( x ( s ) , u ) d s .
Corollary 7.
Let ω : [ 0 , + ) [ 0 , + ) be a nondecreasing and convex function. Then
0 A 0 t ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) 2 d s d t A 2 inf u X 0 A ω ρ ( x ( s ) , u ) d s .
Corollary 8.
Let α > 0 . Then
0 A 0 t ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) α d s d t a α A inf u X 0 A ρ ( x ( s ) , u ) α d s ,
where a α is given by (3).
Corollary 9.
Let ω : [ 0 , + ) [ 0 , + ) be a nondecreasing and log-convex function. Then
0 A 0 t ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) 2 d s d t 1 2 inf u X 0 A ω ρ ( x ( s ) , u ) d s 2 .
Corollary 10.
Let ω : [ 0 , + ) [ 0 , + ) be a nondecreasing and σ-Lipschitzian function, σ > 0 . Then
0 A 0 t ω ρ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) d s d t σ A inf u X 0 A ω ρ ( x ( s ) , u ) d s + A 2 ω ( 0 ) 2 .

4. Applications to Partial Metrics

Let X be a nonempty set and ξ : X × X [ 0 , + ) be a partial metric on X (see e.g., [21]), i.e., for all x , y , z X ,
  • ξ ( x , y ) = ξ ( x , x ) = ξ ( y , y ) = 0 if and only if x = y ;
  • ξ ( x , x ) ξ ( x , y ) ;
  • ξ ( x , y ) = ξ ( y , x ) ;
  • ξ ( x , y ) ξ ( x , z ) + ξ ( z , y ) ξ ( z , z ) .
Let x : [ 0 , A ] X , A > 0 , be a continuous mapping. Let μ : [ 0 , A ] [ 0 , + ) be a function satisfying (H1) and (H2).
Corollary 11.
Let ω : [ 0 , + ) [ 0 , + ) be a continuous, nondecreasing, and sub-additive function. Then
0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) ω 2 ξ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) ξ ( x ( t ) , x ( t ) ) ξ ( x ( s ) , x ( s ) ) d s d t inf u X 0 A μ ( s ) ω 2 ξ ( x ( s ) , u ) ξ ( x ( s ) , x ( s ) ) ξ ( u , u ) d s .
Proof. 
Observe that the mapping ρ : X × X [ 0 , + ) defined by
ρ ( u , v ) = 2 ξ ( u , v ) ξ ( u , u ) ξ ( v , v ) , ( u , v ) X × X ,
is a metric on X . Hence, applying Theorem 1 with ρ defined as above, (19) follows. □
Similarly, by Theorems 2–4, we obtain the following inequalities.
Corollary 12.
Let ω : [ 0 , + ) [ 0 , + ) be a nondecreasing and convex function. Then
0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) ω 2 ξ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) ξ ( x ( t ) , x ( t ) ) ξ ( x ( s ) , x ( s ) ) 2 d s d t 1 2 inf u X 0 A μ ( s ) ω 2 ξ ( x ( s ) , u ) ξ ( x ( s ) , x ( s ) ) ξ ( u , u ) d s .
Corollary 13.
Let ω : [ 0 , + ) [ 0 , + ) be a nondecreasing and log-convex function. Then
0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) ω 2 ξ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) ξ ( x ( t ) , x ( t ) ) ξ ( x ( s ) , x ( s ) ) 2 d s d t 1 2 inf u X 0 A μ ( s ) ω 2 ξ ( x ( s ) , u ) ξ ( x ( s ) , x ( s ) ) ξ ( u , u ) d s 2 .
Corollary 14.
Let ω : [ 0 , + ) [ 0 , + ) be a nondecreasing and σ-Lipschitzian function, σ > 0 . Then
0 A μ ( t ) 0 t μ ( s ) ω 2 ξ ( x ( t ) , x ( s ) ) ξ ( x ( t ) , x ( t ) ) ξ ( x ( s ) , x ( s ) ) d s d t σ inf u X 0 A μ ( s ) ω 2 ξ ( x ( s ) , u ) ξ ( x ( s ) , x ( s ) ) ξ ( u , u ) d s + ω ( 0 ) 2 .

5. Conclusions

Metric inequalities provide powerful tools for the study of several problems from different branches of mathematics and sciences. New integral inequalities involving metrics, sub-additive, convex, log-convex, and σ -Lipschitzian functions are established in this work, and some applications to partial metric spaces are provided. The obtained results are continuous versions of some discrete metric inequalities obtained in [14,18,19].

Author Contributions

All authors contribute equally to this paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The third author is supported by Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP-2021/4), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cichocki, A.; Cruces, S.; Amari, S.I. Log-Determinant Divergences Revisited: Alpha-Beta and Gamma Log-Det Divergences. Entropy 2015, 17, 2988–3034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Liu, S.; Lu, M.; Liu, G.; Pan, Z. A Novel Distance Metric: Generalized Relative Entropy. Entropy 2017, 19, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Reeb, D.; Kastoryano, M.J.; Wolf, M.M. Hilbert’s projective metric in quantum information theory. J. Math. Phys. 2011, 52, 082201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Ansari, A.H.; Kumam, P.; Samet, B. A fixed point problem with constraint inequalities via an implicit contraction. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2017, 19, 1145–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jleli, M.; Samet, B. A fixed point problem under two constraint inequalities. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2016, 18, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Mitrovic, Z.D.; Aydi, H.; Noorani, M.S.; Qawaqneh, H. The weight inequalities on Reich type theorem in b-metric spaces. J. Math. Comput. Sci. 2019, 19, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Simić, S.; Radenović, S. A functional inequality. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1996, 117, 489–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Suzuki, T. Basic inequality on a b-metric space and its applications. J. Inequal. Appl. 2017, 2017, 256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Gromov, M. Metric inequalities with scalar curvature. Geom. Funct. Anal. 2018, 28, 645–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Lángi, Z. On the perimeters of simple polygons contained in a disk. Monatsh. Math. 2011, 162, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Witsenhausen, H.S. Metric inequalities and the zonoid problem. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1973, 40, 517–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mattia, S. Solving survivable two-layer network design problems by metric inequalities. Comput. Optim. Appl. 2012, 51, 809–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Mattia, S. The robust network loading problem with dynamic routing. Comp. Opt. Appl. 2013, 54, 619–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dragomir, S.S.; Gosa, A.C. An inequality in metric spaces. J. Indones. Math. Soc. 2005, 11, 33–38. [Google Scholar]
  15. Agarwal, R.P.; O’Regan, D.; Sahu, D.R. Fixed Point Theory for Lipschitzian-Type Mappings with Applications; Topological Fixed Point Theory and Its Applications; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; Volume 6. [Google Scholar]
  16. Karapinar, E.; Noorwali, M. Dragomir and Gosa type inequalities on b-metric spaces. J. Inequal. Appl. 2019, 2019, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Aydi, H.; Samet, B. On some metric inequalities and applications. J. Funct. Space 2020, 2020, 3842879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dragomir, S.S. Refined inequalities for the distance in metric spaces. Prepr. RGMIA Res. Rep. Coll. 2020, 23, 119. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dragomir, S.S. Inequalities for the forward distance in metric spaces. Repr. RGMIA Res. Rep. Coll. 2020, 23, 122. [Google Scholar]
  20. Pečarić, J.E.; Proschan, F.; Tong, Y.L. Convex Functions, Partial Orderings, and Statistical Applications; Mathematics in Science and Engineering; Academic Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1992; Volume 187. [Google Scholar]
  21. Vetro, C.; Vetro, F. Common fixed points of mappings satisfying implicit relations in partial metric spaces. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 2013, 6, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Agarwal, R.P.; Jleli, M.; Samet, B. Some Integral Inequalities Involving Metrics. Entropy 2021, 23, 871. https://doi.org/10.3390/e23070871

AMA Style

Agarwal RP, Jleli M, Samet B. Some Integral Inequalities Involving Metrics. Entropy. 2021; 23(7):871. https://doi.org/10.3390/e23070871

Chicago/Turabian Style

Agarwal, Ravi P., Mohamed Jleli, and Bessem Samet. 2021. "Some Integral Inequalities Involving Metrics" Entropy 23, no. 7: 871. https://doi.org/10.3390/e23070871

APA Style

Agarwal, R. P., Jleli, M., & Samet, B. (2021). Some Integral Inequalities Involving Metrics. Entropy, 23(7), 871. https://doi.org/10.3390/e23070871

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