slug: baricz-ponnusamy-2013-bessel-product-order-log-convexity
bibkey: bariczponnusamy2013turan
doi: null
triage: theorem
motivation_gids:
  - D5/S3/Analytic/BesselProductOrderLogConvexity/Result.result
url: https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.3346

Refutation of order log-convexity for the modified Bessel product

Problem

Á. Baricz and S. Ponnusamy, On Turán type inequalities for modified Bessel functions, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 141(2) (2013), 523–532, arXiv:1010.3346v1, final Conjecture in §3, printed p. 7:

Motivated by Theorems 1 and 2 we conjecture the following.

Conjecture. The function ν ↦ I_ν(u)K_ν(u) is log-convex on (−1, ∞) for all u > 0 fixed.

Formal reading

Lean names below have prefix D5.S3.Analytic.BesselProductOrderLogConvexity.Result, except the reused first-kind function.

For a positive function, convexity of its logarithm implies the midpoint inequality after exponentiation. Restricting the three orders to nonintegers gives a weaker assertion than the conjecture, where the connection formula defines the standard second-kind function. Refuting this weaker assertion therefore refutes the conjecture.

Motivation

The settling declaration is D5/S3/Analytic/BesselProductOrderLogConvexity/Result.result. The source note is D5/L/Asymptotics/bariczponnusamy2013turan. The paper distinguishes order ν from its square-root parametrization. The latter’s log-convexity does not imply log-convexity in ν itself.

Gap

The universal order log-convexity assertion is false. The witness is u=1, ν=−1/2, h=1, so all three orders −1/2, 1/2 and 3/2 are noninteger and lie in (−1,∞). The obstruction is already a strict reversal of the necessary midpoint product inequality.

Route

Writing $c=\sqrt{2/\pi }$, the standard first-kind series gives at u=1

$$I_{-1/2}(1)=c\cosh 1,I_{1/2}(1)=c\sinh 1,$$ $$I_{3/2}(1)=c(\cosh 1-\sinh 1),I_{-3/2}(1)=c(\sinh 1-\cosh 1).$$

The connection formula and the half-integer sine values then give

$$P(1,-1/2)=\frac{1+t}{2},P(1,1/2)=\frac{1-t}{2},P(1,3/2)=2t,t=e^{-2}.$$

Thus the desired product difference is

$$D(t)=(1+t)t-\frac{(1-t{)}^2}{4}=\frac{3t^2+6t-1}{4}.$$

On [0,1] this polynomial is increasing. A rational lower bound on e gives a rational upper bound on t at which D is strictly negative.

Falsifier

One positive argument and one admissible noninteger three-point triple with a strict reversal contradict claim. An error in the first-kind series correspondence, the second-kind connection formula, the half-integer evaluations or the exponential estimate would invalidate the refutation.

Evidence

PROVED. D5.S3.Analytic.BesselProductOrderLogConvexity.Result.result states ¬ claim without additional hypotheses, with the witness u=1, ν=−1/2 and h=1.

The immutable experiment directory contains the following two independent numerical artifacts.

• COMPUTED. python3 bp-cert.py, exit code 0; script bp-cert.py, SHA-256 e550af958da7502fb7aed5356ca5880b4863f6a3ed312ee166e35f6fba0ebf40. Exact rational arithmetic, starting from the lower bound e>2718281828/10⁹, gives t<0.13533528328232172 and D(t)≤D((10⁹/2718281828)²)<0. The displayed upper value of D is approximately −0.03326034590068771. The certificate verifies the rational sign; the lower bound on e and the function evaluations are mathematical inputs to that standalone certificate.
• COMPUTED. python3 bp-scan.py, exit code 0; script bp-scan.py, SHA-256 63f301312fd0c1e1c6215fa604e4a2af3b06f0978743c601b6a96f874f030124. With mpmath dps 40, the half-integer product difference is positive at u∈{0.1,0.5} and negative at u∈{1,2,3,5,10}. The corresponding values are approximately 2.19859, 0.025717795, −0.033260346, −0.0098751548, −0.0027649673, −0.00039800239 and −0.000024999978. The closed forms agree with mpmath’s besseli·besselk at those seven arguments, with summed absolute discrepancies at most 1.33×10⁻³⁹. At u=1 the triple (0,1/2,1) also fails midpoint log-convexity: its logarithmic gap is approximately −0.03033. This scan additionally evaluates endpoint pairs (−0.99,−0.9), (−0.98,−0.8), (−0.95,−0.5), (−0.9,0), (−0.5,0.5), (0,1), at u∈{0.001,0.01,0.1,0.3,1}; these are finite observations.

The supplied literature scope includes ten Semantic Scholar citing works, related papers arXiv:1301.5429, 1401.1430 and 1507.01104, and the supplied repository, Formal Conjectures and conjectures.io checks. No settlement was found in that scope. The OpenAlex citation listing was unavailable in the supplied check. This bounded scope does not establish exhaustive coverage or priority.

Triage

What the settlement shows

• PROVED. The conjecture fails already at u=1 and orders −1/2, 1/2 and 3/2: D5.S3.Analytic.BesselProductOrderLogConvexity.Result.result. The strict midpoint obstruction concerns log-convexity in the order itself. Theorem 1(4), printed p. 4, concerns log-convexity of ν↦I_{√ν}(u)K_{√ν}(u) on (0,∞); this different assertion is not contradicted by the negative-order witness.
• COMPUTED. The sign changes across the seven tested arguments and the failure at the triple (0,1/2,1) have the commands, exact tested scopes and script identities in Evidence. These finite tests do not determine an interval of log-convexity or a classification in u.
• PROVED in prose. Theorem 2’s equation (19), printed p. 6, is also contradicted at its permitted endpoint ν=1/2, u=1. Its left-minus-right difference is $2P(1,1/2)-P(1,-1/2)-P(1,3/2)=(1-7e^{-2})/2>0$. Indeed e>2718281828/10⁹>27/10 implies e²>729/100>7. This explanatory algebra is not a separate Lean theorem. The decreasing-in-order assertion of Theorem 2 is not contradicted by this triple, whose three values strictly decrease. No stronger conclusion about that monotonicity assertion follows here.
• OPEN. The exact set of positive arguments u for which the conjectured log-convexity on (−1,∞) holds is not determined. Neither the square-root assertion nor monotonicity in order supplies the missing midpoint product inequality in the original order.

ASSUMED-UNVERIFIED

Exhaustive literature coverage, citation-index completeness and priority are unverified. The supplied bibliographic search is bounded; no new network search is asserted. The source paper’s DOI is not verified from the supplied text; arXiv:1010.3346 is the verified locator. The finite mpmath scan is not a uniform proof on any continuous parameter region. The discussion of Theorem 2’s equation (19) is an algebraic consequence of the displayed evaluations, rather than an additional formal theorem.