This paper presents a mathematical model governing the dynamics of a morphogenetic vascular endothelial cell (EC) during angiogenesis, and vascular growth formed by EC. Especially, we adopt a multiparticle system for modeling these cells. This model does not distinguish a tip cell from a stalk cell. A formed vessel is modeled using phase-field equation to prevent capillary expansion with time stepping in particular. Numerical simulation reveals that all cells are moving in the direction of high concentration of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and that they are mutually repellent in cases in which they are closer than some threshold.
Citation: Takashi Nakazawa, Sohei Tasaki, Kiyohiko Nakai, Takashi Suzuki. Multicellular model of angiogenesis[J]. AIMS Bioengineering, 2022, 9(1): 44-60. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2022004
[1] | Miguel Vivas-Cortez, Muhammad Aamir Ali, Artion Kashuri, Hüseyin Budak . Generalizations of fractional Hermite-Hadamard-Mercer like inequalities for convex functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(9): 9397-9421. doi: 10.3934/math.2021546 |
[2] | Saad Ihsan Butt, Artion Kashuri, Muhammad Umar, Adnan Aslam, Wei Gao . Hermite-Jensen-Mercer type inequalities via Ψ-Riemann-Liouville k-fractional integrals. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 5193-5220. doi: 10.3934/math.2020334 |
[3] | Miguel Vivas-Cortez, Muhammad Uzair Awan, Muhammad Zakria Javed, Artion Kashuri, Muhammad Aslam Noor, Khalida Inayat Noor . Some new generalized κ–fractional Hermite–Hadamard–Mercer type integral inequalities and their applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 3203-3220. doi: 10.3934/math.2022177 |
[4] | Jia-Bao Liu, Saad Ihsan Butt, Jamshed Nasir, Adnan Aslam, Asfand Fahad, Jarunee Soontharanon . Jensen-Mercer variant of Hermite-Hadamard type inequalities via Atangana-Baleanu fractional operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 2123-2141. doi: 10.3934/math.2022121 |
[5] | Yanping Yang, Muhammad Shoaib Saleem, Waqas Nazeer, Ahsan Fareed Shah . New Hermite-Hadamard inequalities in fuzzy-interval fractional calculus via exponentially convex fuzzy interval-valued function. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(11): 12260-12278. doi: 10.3934/math.2021710 |
[6] | Yamin Sayyari, Mana Donganont, Mehdi Dehghanian, Morteza Afshar Jahanshahi . Strongly convex functions and extensions of related inequalities with applications to entropy. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 10997-11006. doi: 10.3934/math.2024538 |
[7] | Jamshed Nasir, Saber Mansour, Shahid Qaisar, Hassen Aydi . Some variants on Mercer's Hermite-Hadamard like inclusions of interval-valued functions for strong Kernel. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 10001-10020. doi: 10.3934/math.2023506 |
[8] | Tahir Ullah Khan, Muhammad Adil Khan . Hermite-Hadamard inequality for new generalized conformable fractional operators. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(1): 23-38. doi: 10.3934/math.2021002 |
[9] | Shahid Mubeen, Rana Safdar Ali, Iqra Nayab, Gauhar Rahman, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Dumitru Baleanu . Some generalized fractional integral inequalities with nonsingular function as a kernel. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(4): 3352-3377. doi: 10.3934/math.2021201 |
[10] | Paul Bosch, Héctor J. Carmenate, José M. Rodríguez, José M. Sigarreta . Generalized inequalities involving fractional operators of the Riemann-Liouville type. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(1): 1470-1485. doi: 10.3934/math.2022087 |
This paper presents a mathematical model governing the dynamics of a morphogenetic vascular endothelial cell (EC) during angiogenesis, and vascular growth formed by EC. Especially, we adopt a multiparticle system for modeling these cells. This model does not distinguish a tip cell from a stalk cell. A formed vessel is modeled using phase-field equation to prevent capillary expansion with time stepping in particular. Numerical simulation reveals that all cells are moving in the direction of high concentration of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and that they are mutually repellent in cases in which they are closer than some threshold.
For a convex function σ:I⊆R→R on I with ν1,ν2∈I and ν1<ν2, the Hermite-Hadamard inequality is defined by [1]:
σ(ν1+ν22)≤1ν2−ν1∫ν2ν1σ(η)dη≤σ(ν1)+σ(ν2)2. | (1.1) |
The Hermite-Hadamard integral inequality (1.1) is one of the most famous and commonly used inequalities. The recently published papers [2,3,4] are focused on extending and generalizing the convexity and Hermite-Hadamard inequality.
The situation of the fractional calculus (integrals and derivatives) has won vast popularity and significance throughout the previous five decades or so, due generally to its demonstrated applications in numerous seemingly numerous and great fields of science and engineering [5,6,7].
Now, we recall the definitions of Riemann-Liouville fractional integrals.
Definition 1.1 ([5,6,7]). Let σ∈L1[ν1,ν2]. The Riemann-Liouville integrals Jϑν1+σ and Jϑν2−σ of order ϑ>0 with ν1≥0 are defined by
Jϑν1+σ(x)=1Γ(ϑ)∫xν1(x−η)ϑ−1σ(η)dη, ν1<x | (1.2) |
and
Jϑν2−σ(x)=1Γ(ϑ)∫ν2x(η−x)ϑ−1σ(η)dη, x<ν2, | (1.3) |
respectively. Here Γ(ϑ) is the well-known Gamma function and J0ν1+σ(x)=J0ν2−σ(x)=σ(x).
With a huge application of fractional integration and Hermite-Hadamard inequality, many researchers in the field of fractional calculus extended their research to the Hermite-Hadamard inequality, including fractional integration rather than ordinary integration; for example see [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21].
In this paper, we consider the integral inequality of Hermite-Hadamard-Mercer type that relies on the Hermite-Hadamard and Jensen-Mercer inequalities. For this purpose, we recall the Jensen-Mercer inequality: Let 0<x1≤x2≤⋯≤xn and μ=(μ1,μ2,…,μn) nonnegative weights such that ∑ni=1μi=1. Then, the Jensen inequality [22,23] is as follows, for a convex function σ on the interval [ν1,ν2], we have
σ(n∑i=1μixi)≤n∑i=1μiσ(xi), | (1.4) |
where for all xi∈[ν1,ν2] and μi∈[0,1], (i=¯1,n).
Theorem 1.1 ([2,23]). If σ is convex function on [ν1,ν2], then
σ(ν1+ν2−n∑i=1μixi)≤σ(ν1)+σ(ν2)−n∑i=1μiσ(xi), | (1.5) |
for each xi∈[ν1,ν2] and μi∈[0,1], (i=¯1,n) with ∑ni=1μi=1. For some results related with Jensen-Mercer inequality, see [24,25,26].
In view of above indices, we establish new integral inequalities of Hermite-Hadamard-Mercer type for convex functions via the Riemann-Liouville fractional integrals in the current project. Particularly, we see that our results can cover the previous researches.
Theorem 2.1. For a convex function σ:[ν1,ν2]⊆R→R with x,y∈[ν1,ν2], we have:
σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)≤2ϑ−1Γ(ϑ+1)(y−x)ϑ[Jϑ(ν1+ν2−y)+σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)+Jϑ(ν1+ν2−x)−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)]≤σ(ν1)+σ(ν2)−σ(x)+σ(y)2. | (2.1) |
Proof. By using the convexity of σ, we have
σ(ν1+ν2−u+v2)≤12[σ(ν1+ν2−u)+σ(ν1+ν2−v)], | (2.2) |
and above with u=1−η2x+1+η2y, v=1+η2x+1−η2y, where x,y∈[ν1,ν2] and η∈[0,1], leads to
σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)≤12[σ(ν1+ν2−(1−η2x+1+η2y))+σ(ν1+ν2−(1+η2x+1−η2y))]. | (2.3) |
Multiplying both sides of (2.3) by ηϑ−1 and then integrating with respect to η over [0,1], we get
1ϑσ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)≤12[∫10ηϑ−1σ(ν1+ν2−(1−η2x+1+η2y))dη+∫10ηϑ−1σ(ν1+ν2−(1+η2x+1−η2y))dη]=12[2ϑ(y−x)ϑ∫ν1+ν2−x+y2ν1+ν2−y((ν1+ν2−x+y2)−w)ϑ−1σ(w)dw+2ϑ(y−x)ϑ∫ν1+ν2−xν1+ν2−x+y2(w−(ν1+ν2−x+y2))ϑ−1σ(w)dw]=2ϑ−1Γ(ϑ)(y−x)ϑ[Jϑ(ν1+ν2−y)+σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)+Jϑ(ν1+ν2−x)−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)], |
and thus the proof of first inequality in (2.1) is completed.
On the other hand, we have by using the Jensen-Mercer inequality:
σ(ν1+ν2−(1−η2x+1+η2y))≤σ(ν1)+σ(ν2)−(1−η2σ(x)+1+η2σ(y)) | (2.4) |
σ(ν1+ν2−(1+η2x+1−η2y))≤σ(ν1)+σ(ν2)−(1+η2σ(x)+1−η2σ(y)). | (2.5) |
Adding inequalities (2.4) and (2.5) to get
σ(ν1+ν2−(1−η2x+1+η2y))+σ(ν1+ν2−(1+η2x+1−η2y))≤2[σ(ν1)+σ(ν2)]−[σ(x)+σ(y)]. | (2.6) |
Multiplying both sides of (2.6) by ηϑ−1 and then integrating with respect to η over [0,1] to obtain
∫10ηϑ−1σ(ν1+ν2−(1−η2x+1+η2y))dη+∫10ηϑ−1σ(ν1+ν2−(1+η2x+1−η2y))dη≤2ϑ[σ(ν1)+σ(ν2)]−1ϑ[σ(x)+σ(y)]. |
By making use of change of variables and then multiplying by ϑ2, we get the second inequality in (2.1).
Remark 2.1. If we choose ϑ=1, x=ν1 and y=ν2 in Theorem 2.1, then the inequality (2.1) reduces to (1.1).
Corollary 2.1. Theorem 2.1 with
● ϑ=1 becomes [24, Theorem 2.1].
● x=ν1 and y=ν2 becomes:
σ(ν1+ν22)≤2ϑ−1Γ(ϑ+1)(ν2−ν1)ϑ[Jϑν1+σ(ν1+ν22)+Jϑν2−σ(ν1+ν22)]≤σ(ν1)+σ(ν2)2, |
which is obtained by Mohammed and Brevik in [10].
The following Lemma linked with the left inequality of (2.1) is useful to obtain our next results.
Lemma 2.1. Let σ:[ν1,ν2]⊆R→R be a differentiable function on (ν1,ν2) and σ′∈L[ν1,ν2] with ν1≤ν2 and x,y∈[ν1,ν2]. Then, we have:
2ϑ−1Γ(ϑ+1)(y−x)ϑ[Jϑ(ν1+ν2−y)+σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)+Jϑ(ν1+ν2−x)−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)]−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)=(y−x)4∫10ηϑ[σ′(ν1+ν2−(1−η2x+1+η2y))−σ′(ν1+ν2−(1+η2x+1−η2y))]dη. | (2.7) |
Proof. From right hand side of (2.7), we set
ϖ1−ϖ2:=∫10ηϑ[σ′(ν1+ν2−(1−η2x+1+η2y))−σ′(ν1+ν2−(1+η2x+1−η2y))]dη=∫10ηϑσ′(ν1+ν2−(1−η2x+1+η2y))dη−∫10ηϑσ′(ν1+ν2−(1+η2x+1−η2y))dη. | (2.8) |
By integrating by parts with w=ν1+ν2−(1−η2x+1+η2y), we can deduce:
ϖ1=−2(y−x)σ(ν1+ν2−y)+2ϑ(y−x)∫10ηϑ−1σ(ν1+ν2−(1−η2x+1+η2y))dη=−2(y−x)σ(ν1+ν2−y)+2ϑ+1ϑ(y−x)ϑ+1∫ν1+ν2−x+y2ν1+ν2−yσ((ν1+ν2−x+y2)−w)ϑ−1σ(w)dw=−2(y−x)σ(ν1+ν2−y)+2ϑ+1Γ(ϑ+1)(y−x)ϑ+1Jϑ(ν1+ν2−y)+σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2). |
Similarly, we can deduce:
ϖ2=2y−xσ(ν1+ν2−x)−2ϑ+1Γ(ϑ+1)(y−x)ϑ+1Jϑ(ν1+ν2−x)−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2). |
By substituting ϖ1 and ϖ2 in (2.8) and then multiplying by (y−x)4, we obtain required identity (2.7).
Corollary 2.2. Lemma 2.1 with
● ϑ=1 becomes:
1y−x∫ν1+ν2−xν1+ν2−yσ(w)dw−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)=(y−x)4∫10η[σ′(ν1+ν2−(1−η2x+1+η2y))−σ′(ν1+ν2−(1+η2x+1−η2y))]dη. |
● ϑ=1, x=ν1 and y=ν2 becomes:
1ν2−ν1∫ν2ν1σ(w)dw−σ(ν1+ν22)=(ν2−ν1)4∫10η[σ′(ν1+ν2−(1−η2ν1+1+η2ν2))−σ′(ν1+ν2−(1+η2ν1+1−η2ν2))]dη. |
● x=ν1 and y=ν2 becomes:
2ϑ−1Γ(ϑ+1)(ν2−ν1)ϑ[Jϑν1+σ(ν1+ν22)+Jϑν2−σ(ν1+ν22)]−σ(ν1+ν22)=(ν2−ν1)4∫10ηϑ[σ′(ν1+ν2−(1−η2ν1+1+η2ν2))−σ′(ν1+ν2−(1+η2ν1+1−η2ν2))]dη. |
Theorem 2.2. Let σ:[ν1,ν2]⊆R→R be a differentiable function on (ν1,ν2) and |σ′| is convex on [ν1,ν2] with ν1≤ν2 and x,y∈[ν1,ν2]. Then, we have:
|2ϑ−1Γ(ϑ+1)(y−x)ϑ[Jϑ(ν1+ν2−y)+σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)+Jϑ(ν1+ν2−x)−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)]−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)|≤(y−x)2(1+ϑ)[|σ′(ν1)|+|σ′(ν2)|−|σ′(x)|+|σ′(y)|2]. | (2.9) |
Proof. By taking modulus of identity (2.7), we get
|2ϑ−1Γ(ϑ+1)(y−x)ϑ[Jϑ(ν1+ν2−y)+σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)+Jϑ(ν1+ν2−x)−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)]−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)|≤(y−x)4[∫10ηϑ|σ′(ν1+ν2−(1−η2x+1+η2y))|dη+∫10ηϑ|σ′(ν1+ν2−(1+η2x+1−η2y))|dη]. |
Then, by applying the convexity of |σ′| and the Jensen-Mercer inequality on above inequality, we get
|2ϑ−1Γ(ϑ+1)(y−x)ϑ[Jϑ(ν1+ν2−y)+σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)+Jϑ(ν1+ν2−x)−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)]−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)|≤(y−x)4[∫10ηϑ[|σ′(ν1)|+|σ′(ν2)|−(1+η2|σ′(x)|+1−η2)|σ′(y)|]dη+∫10ηϑ[|σ′(ν1)|+|σ′(ν2)|−(1−η2|σ′(x)|+1+η2)|σ′(y)|]dη]=(y−x)2(1+ϑ)[|σ′(ν1)|+|σ′(ν2)|−|σ′(x)|+|σ′(y)|2], |
which completes the proof of Theorem 2.2.
Corollary 2.3. Theorem 2.2 with
● ϑ=1 becomes:
|1y−x∫ν1+ν2−xν1+ν2−yσ(w)dw−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)|≤(y−x)4[|σ′(ν1)|+|σ′(ν2)|−|σ′(x)|+|σ′(y)|2]. |
● ϑ=1, x=ν1 and y=ν2 becomes [27, Theorem 2.2].
● x=ν1 and y=ν2 becomes:
|1ν2−ν1∫ν2ν1σ(w)dw−σ(ν1+ν22)|≤(ν2−ν1)4[|σ′(ν1)|+|σ′(ν2)|2]. |
Theorem 2.3. Let σ:[ν1,ν2]⊆R→R be a differentiable function on (ν1,ν2) and |σ′|q,q>1 is convex on [ν1,ν2] with ν1≤ν2 and x,y∈[ν1,ν2]. Then, we have:
|2ϑ−1Γ(ϑ+1)(y−x)ϑ[Jϑ(ν1+ν2−y)+σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)+Jϑ(ν1+ν2−x)−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)]−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)|≤(y−x)4p√ϑp+1[(|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q−(|σ′(x)|q+3|σ′(y)|q4))1q+(|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q−(3|σ′(x)|q+|σ′(y)|q4))1q], | (2.10) |
where 1p+1q=1.
Proof. By taking modulus of identity (2.7) and using Hölder's inequality, we get
|2ϑ−1Γ(ϑ+1)(y−x)ϑ[Jϑ(ν1+ν2−y)+σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)+Jϑ(ν1+ν2−x)−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)]−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)|≤(y−x)4(∫10ηϑp)1p{(∫10|σ′(ν1+ν2−(1−η2x+1+η2y))|qdη)1q+(∫10|σ′(ν1+ν2−(1+η2x+1−η2y))|qdη)1q}. |
Then, by applying the Jensen-Mercer inequality with the convexity of |σ′|q, we can deduce
|2ϑ−1Γ(ϑ+1)(y−x)ϑ[Jϑ(ν1+ν2−y)+σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)+Jϑ(ν1+ν2−x)−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)]−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)|≤(y−x)4(∫10ηϑp)1p{(∫10|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q−(1−η2|σ′(x)|q+1+η2|σ′(y)|q))1q+(∫10|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q−(1+η2|σ′(x)|q+1−η2|σ′(y)|q))1q}=(y−x)4p√ϑp+1[(|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q−(|σ′(x)|q+3|σ′(y)|q4))1q+(|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q−(3|σ′(x)|q+|σ′(y)|q4))1q], |
which completes the proof of Theorem 2.3.
Corollary 2.4. Theorem 2.3 with
● ϑ=1 becomes:
|1y−x∫ν1+ν2−xν1+ν2−yσ(w)dw−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)|≤(y−x)4p√p+1[(|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q−(|σ′(x)|q+3|σ′(y)|q4))1q+(|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q−(3|σ′(x)|q+|σ′(y)|q4))1q]. |
● ϑ=1, x=ν1 and y=ν2 becomes:
|1ν2−ν1∫ν2ν1σ(w)dw−σ(ν1+ν22)|≤(ν2−ν1)22p(1p+1)1p[|σ′(ν1)|+|σ′(ν2)|]. |
● x=ν1 and y=ν2 becomes:
|2ϑ−1Γ(ϑ+1)(ν2−ν1)ϑ[Jϑν1+σ(ν1+ν22)+Jϑν2−σ(ν1+ν22)]−σ(ν1+ν22)|≤2ϑ−1−2qν2−ν1(1p+1)1p[|σ′(ν1)|+|σ′(ν2)|]. |
Theorem 2.4. Let σ:[ν1,ν2]⊆R→R be a differentiable function on (ν1,ν2) and |σ′|q,q≥1 is convex on [ν1,ν2] with ν1≤ν2 and x,y∈[ν1,ν2]. Then, we have:
|2ϑ−1Γ(ϑ+1)(y−x)ϑ[Jϑ(ν1+ν2−y)+σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)+Jϑ(ν1+ν2−x)−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)]−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)|≤(y−x)4(ϑ+1)[(|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q−(|σ′(x)|q+(2ϑ+3)|σ′(y)|q2(ϑ+2)))1q+(|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q−((2ϑ+3)|σ′(x)|q+|σ′(y)|q2(ϑ+2)))1q]. | (2.11) |
Proof. By taking modulus of identity (2.7) with the well-known power mean inequality, we can deduce
|2ϑ−1Γ(ϑ+1)(y−x)ϑ[Jϑ(ν1+ν2−y)+σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)+Jϑ(ν1+ν2−x)−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)]−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)|≤(y−x)4(∫10ηϑ)1−1q{(∫10ηϑ|σ′(ν1+ν2−(1−η2x+1+η2y))|qdη)1q+(∫10ηϑ|σ′(ν1+ν2−(1+η2x+1−η2y))|qdη)1q}. |
By applying the Jensen-Mercer inequality with the convexity of |σ′|q, we can deduce
|2ϑ−1Γ(ϑ+1)(y−x)ϑ[Jϑ(ν1+ν2−y)+σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)+Jϑ(ν1+ν2−x)−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)]−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)|≤(y−x)4(∫10ηϑ)1−1q{(∫10ηϑ[|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q−(1−η2|σ′(x)|q+1+η2|σ′(y)|q)])1q+(∫10ηϑ[|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q−(1+η2|σ′(x)|q+1−η2|σ′(y)|q)])1q}=(y−x)4(ϑ+1)[(|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q−(|σ′(x)|q+(2ϑ+3)|σ′(y)|q2(ϑ+2)))1q+(|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q−((2ϑ+3)|σ′(x)|q+|σ′(y)|q2(ϑ+2)))1q], |
which completes the proof of Theorem 2.4.
Corollary 5. Theorem 2.4 with
● q=1 becomes Theorem 2.2.
● ϑ=1 becomes:
|1y−x∫ν1+ν2−xν1+ν2−yσ(w)dw−σ(ν1+ν2−x+y2)|≤(y−x)8[(|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q−(|σ′(x)|q+5|σ′(y)|q6))1q+(|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q−(5|σ′(x)|q+|σ′(y)|q6))1q]. |
● ϑ=1, x=ν1 and y=ν2 becomes:
|1ν2−ν1∫ν2ν1σ(w)dw−σ(ν1+ν22)|≤(y−x)8[(5|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q6)1q+(|σ′(ν1)|q+5|σ′(ν2)|q6)1q]. |
● x=ν1 and y=ν2 becomes:
|2ϑ−1Γ(ϑ+1)(ν2−ν1)ϑ[Jϑν1+σ(ν1+ν22)+Jϑν2−σ(ν1+ν22)]−σ(ν1+ν22)|≤(ν2−ν1)4(ϑ+1)[((2ϑ+3)|σ′(ν1)|q+|σ′(ν2)|q2(ϑ+2))1q+(|σ′(ν1)|q+(2ϑ+3)|σ′(ν2)|q2(ϑ+2))1q]. |
Here, we consider the following special means:
● The arithmetic mean:
A(ν1,ν2)=ν1+ν22,ν1,ν2≥0. |
● The harmonic mean:
H(ν1,ν2)=2ν1ν2ν1+ν2,ν1,ν2>0. |
● The logarithmic mean:
L(ν1,ν2)={ν2−ν1lnν2−lnν1,ifν1≠ν2,ν1,ifν1=ν2,ν1,ν2>0. |
● The generalized logarithmic mean:
Ln(ν1,ν2)={[νn+12−νn+11(n+1)(ν2−ν1)]1n,ifν1≠ν2ν1,ifν1=ν2,ν1,ν2>0;n∈Z∖{−1,0}. |
Proposition 3.1. Let 0<ν1<ν2 and n∈N, n≥2. Then, for all x,y∈[ν1,ν2], we have:
|Lnn(ν1+ν2−y,ν1+ν2−x)−(2A(ν1,ν2)−A(x,y))n|≤n(y−x)4[2A(νn−11,νn−12)−A(xn−1,yn−1)]. | (3.1) |
Proof. By applying Corollary 2.3 (first item) for the convex function σ(x)=xn,x>0, one can obtain the result directly.
Proposition 3.2. Let 0<ν1<ν2. Then, for all x,y∈[ν1,ν2], we have:
|L−1(ν1+ν2−y,ν1+ν2−x)−(2A(ν1,ν2)−A(x,y))−1|≤(y−x)4[2H−1(ν21,ν22)−H−1(x2,y2)]. | (3.2) |
Proof. By applying Corollary 2.3 (first item) for the convex function σ(x)=1x,x>0, one can obtain the result directly.
Proposition 3.3. Let 0<ν1<ν2 and n∈N, n≥2. Then, we have:
|Lnn(ν1,ν2)−An(ν1,ν2)|≤n(ν2−ν1)4[A(νn−11,νn−12)], | (3.3) |
and
|L−1(ν1,ν2)−A−1(ν1,ν2)|≤(ν2−ν1)4H−1(ν21,ν22). | (3.4) |
Proof. By setting x=ν1 and y=ν2 in results of Proposition 3.1 and Proposition 3.2, one can obtain the Proposition 3.3.
Proposition 3.4. Let 0<ν1<ν2 and n∈N, n≥2. Then, for q>1,1p+1q=1 and for all x,y∈[ν1,ν2], we have:
|Lnn(ν1+ν2−y,ν1+ν2−x)−(2A(ν1,ν2)−A(x,y))n|≤n(y−x)4p√p+1{[2A(νq(n−1)1,νq(n−1)2)−12A(xq(n−1),3yq(n−1))]1q+[2A(νq(n−1)1,νq(n−1)2)−12A(3xq(n−1),yq(n−1))]1q}. | (3.5) |
Proof. By applying Corollary 2.4 (first item) for convex function σ(x)=xn,x>0, one can obtain the result directly.
Proposition 3.5. Let 0<ν1<ν2. Then, for q>1,1p+1q=1 and for all x,y∈[ν1,ν2], we have:
|L−1(ν1+ν2−y,ν1+ν2−x)−(2A(ν1,ν2)−A(x,y))−1|≤q√2(y−x)4p√p+1{[H−1(ν2q1,ν2q2)−34H−1(x2q,3y2q)]1q+[H−1(ν2q1,ν2q2)−34H−1(3x2q,y2q)]1q}. | (3.6) |
Proof. By applying Corollary 2.4 (first item) for the convex function σ(x)=1x,x>0, one can obtain the result directly.
Proposition 3.6. Let 0<ν1<ν2 and n∈N, n≥2. Then, for q>1 and 1p+1q=1, we have:
|Lnn(ν1,ν2)−An(ν1,ν2)|≤n(ν2−ν1)4p√p+1{[2A(νq(n−1)1,νq(n−1)2)−12A(νq(n−1)1,3νq(n−1)2)]1q+[2A(νq(n−1)1,νq(n−1)2)−12A(3νq(n−1)1,νq(n−1)2)]1q}, | (3.7) |
and
|L−1(ν1,ν2)−A−1(ν1,ν2)|≤q√2(ν2−ν1)4p√p+1{[H−1(ν2q1,ν2q2)−34H−1(ν2q1,3ν2q2)]1q+[H−1(ν2q1,ν2q2)−34H−1(3ν2q1,ν2q2)]1q}. | (3.8) |
Proof. By setting x=ν1 and y=ν2 in results of Proposition 3.4 and Proposition 3.5, one can obtain the Proposition 3.6.
As we emphasized in the introduction, integral inequality is the most important field of mathematical analysis and fractional calculus. By using the well-known Jensen-Mercer and power mean inequalities, we have proved new inequalities of Hermite-Hadamard-Mercer type involving Riemann-Liouville fractional operators. In the last section, we have considered some propositions in the context of special functions; these confirm the efficiency of our results.
We would like to express our special thanks to the editor and referees. Also, the first author would like to thank Prince Sultan University for funding this work through research group Nonlinear Analysis Methods in Applied Mathematics (NAMAM) group number RG-DES-2017-01-17.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
[1] |
Holderfield MT, Hughes CC (2008) Crosstalk between vascular endothelial growth factor, notch, and transforming growth factor-beta in vascular morphogenesis. Circ Res 102: 637-652. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.107.167171 ![]() |
[2] |
De Smet F, Segura I, De Bock K, et al. (2009) Mechanics of vessels branching: filopodia on endothelial tip cells lead the way. Arterioscle Thromb Vasc Biol 29: 639-649. https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.109.185165 ![]() |
[3] |
Armulik A, Abramsson A, Betsholtz C (2005) Endothelial/pericyte interactions. Circ Res 97: 512-523. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.RES.0000182903.16652.d7 ![]() |
[4] |
Gaengel K, Genove G, Armulik A, et al. (2009) Endothelial-mural cell signaling in vascular development and angiogenesis. Arterioscle Thromb Vasc Biol 29: 630-638. https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.107.161521 ![]() |
[5] |
Hellstrom M, Gerhardt H, Kalen M, et al. (2001) Lack of pericytes engenders endothelial hyperplasia and abnormal vascular morphogenesis. J Cell Biol 153: 543-554. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.153.3.543 ![]() |
[6] |
Lafleur MA, Forsyth PA, Atkinson SJ, et al. (2001) Perivascular cells regulate endothelial membrane type-1 matrix metalloprotainase activity. Biochem Biophy Res 282: 463-473. https://doi.org/10.1006/bbrc.2001.4596 ![]() |
[7] |
Liu H, Kennard S, Lilly B (2009) NOTCH3 expression is induced in mural cells through an autoregulatory loop that requires endothelial-expressed JAGGED1. Circ Res 104: 466-475. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.108.184846 ![]() |
[8] |
Frieboes HB, Lowengrub JS, Wise SM, et al. (2007) Computer simulation of glioma and morphology. Neuroimage 37: 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.008 ![]() |
[9] |
Wise SM, Lowengrub JS, Frieboes HB, et al. (2008) Three-dimensional multispecies nonlinear tumor growth – 1: Model and numerical method. J Theor Biol 253: 524-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.03.027 ![]() |
[10] | Frieboes HB, Jin F, Chuang YL, et al. (2010) Three-dimensional multispecies nonlinear tumor growth – 2: tumor invasion and angiogenesis. Neuroimage 264: 1254-1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.02.036 |
[11] |
Lima EA, Oden JT, Almeida RC (2014) A hybrid ten-species phase-field model of tumor growth. Math Models Methods Appl Sci 24: 2569-2599. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218202514500304 ![]() |
[12] |
Perfahl H, Bryne HM, Chen T, et al. (2011) Multiscale modelling of vascular tumor growth in 3D: The role of domain size and boundary conditions. PloS One 6: e14790. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014790 ![]() |
[13] | Alber MS, Kiskowski MA, Glazierz JA, et al. (2003) On cellular automaton approaches to modelling biological cells. Mathematical Systems Theory in Biology, Communications, Computation, and Finance. New York: Springer 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21696-6_1 |
[14] |
McAneney H, O'Rourke SFC (2007) Investigation of various growth mechanisms of solid tumor growth within the linear-quadratic model for radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 52: 1039-1054. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/52/4/012 ![]() |
[15] |
Rejniak KA, Anderson ARA (2010) Hybrid models of tumor growth. Wires SystBiol Med 3: 115-125. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsbm.102 ![]() |
[16] | Boondirek A, Lenbury Y (2006) A stochastic model of cancer growth with immune response. J Kor Phy Phys Soc 4: 1652-1666. |
[17] |
Gerlee P, Anderson ARA (2008) A hybrid cellular automaton model of clonal evolution in cancer: The emergence of the glycolytic phenotype. J Thero Biol 250: 705-722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.10.038 ![]() |
[18] |
Arima S, Nishiyama K, Ko T, et al. (2011) Angeogenesis morphogenesis driven by dynamic and heterogeneous collective endothelial cell movement. Development 138: 4763-4776. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.068023 ![]() |
[19] |
Takubo N, Yura F, Naemura K, et al. (2019) Cohesive and anisotropic vascular endotherial cell motility driving angiogenic morphogenesis. Scientific Reports 9: 9034. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45666-2 ![]() |
[20] |
Cahn JW, Hilliard JE (1958) Free energy of a nonuniform system. I. Interfacial free generic interface. J Chem Phys 28: 258-267. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1744102 ![]() |
[21] | Furihata D, Matsuo T (2011) Discrete Variational Derivative Method: A structure-preserving numerical method for partial differential equations. Nwe York: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b10387 |
[22] |
Feng X, Li Y, Xing Y (2016) Analysis of mixed interior penalty discontinuous Galerkin methods for the Cahn–Hilliard equation and the Hele–Shaw flow. SIAM J Numer Anal 54: 825-847. https://doi.org/10.1137/15M1009962 ![]() |
[23] |
Kovacs M, Larsson S, Mesforsh A (2011) Finite element approximation of the Cahn–Hilliard–Cook equation. SIAM J Numer Anal 49: 2407-2429. https://doi.org/10.1137/110828150 ![]() |
[24] |
Brenner SC, Sung Li-y, Zhang H, et al. (2013) A Morley finite element method for the displacement obstacle problem of clamped Kirchhoff plate. J Comp Appl Math 254: 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2013.02.028 ![]() |
[25] |
Li M, Guan X, Mao S (2014) New error estimates of the Morley element for the plate bending problems. J Comp Appl Math 263: 405-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2013.12.024 ![]() |
[26] |
Hecht F (2012) New development in FreeFem++. J Numerical Math 20: 251-266. https://doi.org/10.1515/jnum-2012-0013 ![]() |
[27] |
Sánchez-Pérez R, Pavan S, Mazzeo R, et al. (2018) Mutation of a bHLH transcription factor allowed almond domestication. Science 364: 1095-1098. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav8197 ![]() |
1. | Tariq A. Aljaaidi, Deepak B. Pachpatte, Ram N. Mohapatra, The Hermite–Hadamard–Mercer Type Inequalities via Generalized Proportional Fractional Integral Concerning Another Function, 2022, 2022, 1687-0425, 1, 10.1155/2022/6716830 | |
2. | Saad Ihsan Butt, Ahmet Ocak Akdemir, Muhammad Nadeem, Nabil Mlaiki, İşcan İmdat, Thabet Abdeljawad, (m,n)-Harmonically polynomial convex functions and some Hadamard type inequalities on the co-ordinates, 2021, 6, 2473-6988, 4677, 10.3934/math.2021275 | |
3. | Ifra Bashir Sial, Nichaphat Patanarapeelert, Muhammad Aamir Ali, Hüseyin Budak, Thanin Sitthiwirattham, On Some New Ostrowski–Mercer-Type Inequalities for Differentiable Functions, 2022, 11, 2075-1680, 132, 10.3390/axioms11030132 | |
4. | Deniz Uçar, Inequalities for different type of functions via Caputo fractional derivative, 2022, 7, 2473-6988, 12815, 10.3934/math.2022709 | |
5. | Soubhagya Kumar Sahoo, Y.S. Hamed, Pshtiwan Othman Mohammed, Bibhakar Kodamasingh, Kamsing Nonlaopon, New midpoint type Hermite-Hadamard-Mercer inequalities pertaining to Caputo-Fabrizio fractional operators, 2023, 65, 11100168, 689, 10.1016/j.aej.2022.10.019 | |
6. | Muhammad Imran Asjad, Waqas Ali Faridi, Mohammed M. Al-Shomrani, Abdullahi Yusuf, The generalization of Hermite-Hadamard type Inequality with exp-convexity involving non-singular fractional operator, 2022, 7, 2473-6988, 7040, 10.3934/math.2022392 | |
7. | Churong Chen, Discrete Caputo Delta Fractional Economic Cobweb Models, 2023, 22, 1575-5460, 10.1007/s12346-022-00708-5 | |
8. | Soubhagya Kumar Sahoo, Ravi P. Agarwal, Pshtiwan Othman Mohammed, Bibhakar Kodamasingh, Kamsing Nonlaopon, Khadijah M. Abualnaja, Hadamard–Mercer, Dragomir–Agarwal–Mercer, and Pachpatte–Mercer Type Fractional Inclusions for Convex Functions with an Exponential Kernel and Their Applications, 2022, 14, 2073-8994, 836, 10.3390/sym14040836 | |
9. | Muhammad Tariq, Sotiris K. Ntouyas, Asif Ali Shaikh, A Comprehensive Review of the Hermite–Hadamard Inequality Pertaining to Fractional Integral Operators, 2023, 11, 2227-7390, 1953, 10.3390/math11081953 | |
10. | Loredana Ciurdariu, Eugenia Grecu, Hermite–Hadamard–Mercer-Type Inequalities for Three-Times Differentiable Functions, 2024, 13, 2075-1680, 413, 10.3390/axioms13060413 | |
11. | Muhammad Aamir Ali, Thanin Sitthiwirattham, Elisabeth Köbis, Asma Hanif, Hermite–Hadamard–Mercer Inequalities Associated with Twice-Differentiable Functions with Applications, 2024, 13, 2075-1680, 114, 10.3390/axioms13020114 | |
12. | Muhammad Aamir Ali, Christopher S. Goodrich, On some new inequalities of Hermite–Hadamard–Mercer midpoint and trapezoidal type in q-calculus, 2024, 44, 0174-4747, 35, 10.1515/anly-2023-0019 | |
13. | Thanin Sitthiwirattham, Ifra Sial, Muhammad Ali, Hüseyin Budak, Jiraporn Reunsumrit, A new variant of Jensen inclusion and Hermite-Hadamard type inclusions for interval-valued functions, 2023, 37, 0354-5180, 5553, 10.2298/FIL2317553S | |
14. | Muhammad Aamir Ali, Zhiyue Zhang, Michal Fečkan, GENERALIZATION OF HERMITE–HADAMARD–MERCER AND TRAPEZOID FORMULA TYPE INEQUALITIES INVOLVING THE BETA FUNCTION, 2024, 54, 0035-7596, 10.1216/rmj.2024.54.331 | |
15. | Bahtiyar Bayraktar, Péter Kórus, Juan Eduardo Nápoles Valdés, Some New Jensen–Mercer Type Integral Inequalities via Fractional Operators, 2023, 12, 2075-1680, 517, 10.3390/axioms12060517 | |
16. | THANIN SITTHIWIRATTHAM, MIGUEL VIVAS-CORTEZ, MUHAMMAD AAMIR ALI, HÜSEYIN BUDAK, İBRAHIM AVCI, A STUDY OF FRACTIONAL HERMITE–HADAMARD–MERCER INEQUALITIES FOR DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS, 2024, 32, 0218-348X, 10.1142/S0218348X24400164 | |
17. | Muhammad Ali, Hüseyin Budak, Elisabeth Köbis, Some new and general versions of q-Hermite-Hadamard-Mercer inequalities, 2023, 37, 0354-5180, 4531, 10.2298/FIL2314531A |