NEW QUANTUM ESTIMATES OF SIMPSON-MERCER LIKE

INEQUALITIES VIA CONVEXITY

SAAD IHSAN BUTT

Abstract. The main motivation of article is to develop a new variants of

Simpson-Mercer like inequalities by using convexity in quantum calculus. The
results also gives new bounds for Simpson-Mercer like inequalities by Hölder’s
and Power mean inequality. The discoveries of numerous authors in quantum
and classical calculus were also broadened and expanded in this paper. Hence,
the new results of these inequalities lead us to the generalization of prior
results.

1. Introduction
Integral inequalities is historically viewed as a classical field of research. From
classical to contemporary applications, inequalities have been used in mathematical
analysis. In 1934, Polya and Hardy introduced classical work on inequalities. Inte-
gral inequalities plays a vital role in differential equation theory. Many researchers
have studied integral inequalities in classical calculus along with their applications
(see [1, 2]). Because the value of mathematical inequalities was well established
in past, inequalities such as Hermite-Hadamard, Hölder, Ostrowski, Jensen, Hardy
and Cauchy-Schwards performed an essential role in theory of classical calculus and
quantum calculus [3].
Convexity is a growing area of research that has applications in complex analysis,
number theory and many other fields. Convexity also has a significant impact on
people’s lives with numerous applications [1, 4]. Convex functions are defined as:
Definition 1.1. [1] Let g : [ρ1 , ρ2 ] ⊆ < → < is convex, if for every κ, y ∈ [ρ1 , ρ2 ]
and every λ ∈ [0, 1], we have:
g(λ y + (1 − λ)κ) ≤ λ g(y) + (1 − λ) g(κ).
holds for every κ, y ∈ [ρ1 , ρ2 ] and every λ ∈ [0, 1].
Convexity theory also provides us amazing framework to initiate and develop
numerical tools to tackle and study complicated problems in mathematics. Due to
number of expedient properties, they are magical especially in optimization theory.
The theory of mathematical inequalities and convex functions have a wonderful
relationship. One of the most remarkable inequality that we may say is the natural
extension of convex function g : [ ℘1 , ℘2 ] → < is Jensen’s inequality [1] given as:
N N
! !
X X
g ω κ ≤ ω g (κ ) , (1.1)
=1 =1
P
for all κ ∈ [℘1 , ℘2 ], ω ∈ [0, 1] satisfying ω = 1 for ( = 1, 2, ..., N ). For
N = 2, Jensen’s inequality (1.1) recaptures the definition of convex function. There
are several important applications of Jensen’s inequality in Economics, Finance,

Key words and phrases. Simpson’s inequality; Simpson-Mercer inequalities; Convex functions;
Hölder’s inequality; Power mean inequality.
Corresponding authors: Saad Ihsan Butt.
1
2 SAAD IHSAN BUTT

Statistics and Optimization, but it is the most effective inequality in predicting the
estimations of bounds of distance functions in information theory (see [5, 6, 7]).
In the year 2003, McD Mercer [8] introduced an interesting variant of Jensen’s
inequality which is called Jensen-Mercer inequality as:
N N
!
X X
g ℘1 + ℘2 − ω κ ≤ g (℘1 ) + g (℘2 ) − ω g (κ ) , (1.2)
=1 =1

holds for all finite positive increasing sequence κ ∈ [ ℘1 , ℘2 ] , for ( = 1, 2, ..., )

along with weights ω ∈ [0, 1] defined in (1.1). Many scholars have investigated
and studied the Jensen-Mercer inequality over the years, including bringing it to a
higher dimension, acquiring it for convex operators along with several purifications,
operator variants for super-quadratic functions, improvements and many generali-
sations with applications in information theory (see [9, 10, 11, 12, 13]).
In applied sciences, there are a number of significant inequities. However, we cite
few of them as most convenient like Ostrwoski, Popoviciu, Grüss, Steffensen and
Simpson inequalities (see [14]-[16]).
The present study revolves around the renowned Simpson’s inequality [16] whose
error estimates are narrated as:
   Z ℘2 
1 g (℘1 ) + g (℘2 ) ℘1 + ℘2 1
+ 2g − g (κ) dκ
3 2 2 ℘2 − ℘1 ℘1
1 4
≤ g4 ∞ (℘2 − ℘1 ) ,
2880
where g : [℘1 , ℘2 ] → < is a four times continuously differentiable mapping on
(℘1 , ℘2 ) and g4 ∞ = supκ∈(℘1 ,℘2 ) g4 (κ) < ∞.

Simpson type inequality is a topic of leading interest for many scholars as it has
been explored and study for various classes of functions. Some fractional Simpson’s
results with applications were established in [17, 18, 19].

When there is no limit in calculus, it is referred as q̂-calculus. Euler is the cre-

ator of q̂-calculus and the inventor of the q̂-parameter by using the q̂-parameter
in Newton’s infinite series work. Jackson was the first to present the q̂-calculus
[20]. Jackson began his work in a symmetrical manner in the nineteenth century
and presented q̂-definite integrals [21]. The q̂-fractional derivative was first intro-
duced by Agarwal in 1969 [22]. Al-Salam presented a fractional integral operator
and q̂-analog of Riemann-Liouville fractional integral operator from 1966 to 1967
[23]. The σ1 Dq̂ -difference operator was first presented by Tariboon in 2013 [24]. Q-
calculus is used in a wide range of subjects, including mathematics, number theory,
hyper geometry and physics. One can see in [25, 26, 27, 28] and references therein.
Q-difference operators are of tremendous importance because of their applications
in a variety of mathematical disciplines, including orthogonal polynomials, basic
hypergeometric functions, relativity, combinatorics and mechanics. Many essential
concepts of quantum calculus are covered in Kac and Cheung’s [29] book. These
ideas help us to develop new inequalities, which can be useful in the discovery of
new boundaries.
The basic aim of this paper to give analysis of quantum Simposn’s inequality under
Mercer’s concept. We formulate a quantum auxiliary result. By applying convexity
and related Jensen-Mercer inequality. We give variety of new estimates of Simp-
son’s quantum inequality. The following are some of the fundamental definitions of
quantum calculus.
 3

2. Preliminaries
Now, we first present the definitions of quantum derivatives and quantum inte-
grals.
q̂n − 1
[n]q̂ = .
q̂ − 1
Definition 2.1. [30] The q̂ρ2 -derivative of mapping g : [ρ1 , ρ2 ] → < is defined as:

ρ2 g(q̂κ + (1 − q̂)ρ2 ) − g(κ)

Dq̂ g(κ) = , if κ 6= ρ2 .
(1 − q̂)(ρ2 − κ)
ρ2 ρ2
If κ = ρ2 , Dq̂ g(ρ2 ) = lim Dq̂ g(κ),
κ→ρ2

which is q̂-Jackson derivative.

Definition 2.2. [30] The q̂ρ2 -integral of mapping g : [ρ1 , ρ2 ] → < is defined as:
Z ρ2 ∞
X
g(κ) ρ2 dq̂ κ = (1 − q̂)(ρ2 − ρ1 ) q̂n g(q̂n ρ1 + (1 − q̂n )ρ2 ),
ρ1 n=0

which is q̂-Jackson integral.

Theorem 2.1. [30] If g : [ρ1 , ρ2 ] → < is a convex mapping which is differentiable
that is differentiable on [ρ1 , ρ2 ], then following inequality true:
  Z ρ2
ρ1 + q̂ρ2 1 g(ρ1 ) + q̂g(ρ2 )
g ≤ g(κ) ρ2 dq̂ κ ≤ ,
[2]q̂ ρ2 − ρ1 ρ1 [2]q̂
where q̂ ∈ (0, 1).
Lemma 2.1. We have the equality
Z ρ2
(ρ2 − ρ1 )α+1
(κ − ρ1 )α ρ1 dq̂ κ = ,
ρ1 [α + 1]q̂
for α ∈ <\{−1}.

3. Auxiliary Results
In this section, we discover novel quantum Simpson-Mercer and quantum Newton-
Mercer like identities using q̂ρ2 -integrals.
Lemma 3.1. Let a mapping g : I = [ρ1 , ρ2 ] ⊆ <+ → < is differentiable on (ρ1 , ρ2 )
with ρ2 > ρ1 . If κ Dq̂ g ∈ L[ρ1 , ρ2 ], then for all κ, y ∈ [ρ1 , ρ2 ] and λ ∈ [0, 1], then
the following identity
Z ρ1 +ρ2 −κ
1
g(λ) κ dq̂ λ
y − κ ρ1 +ρ2 −y
   
1 y + q̂κ
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + q̂2 [4]q̂ g ρ1 + ρ2 − + q̂g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
[6]q̂ [2]q̂
Z 1
= q̂(y − κ) ℘(λ) κ Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) dq̂ λ,
0
where:  h 
1
λ −
[6]q̂ , λ ∈ 0, [2]1 q̂
℘(λ) = [5]q̂
h i
λ −
[6]q̂ , λ ∈ [2]1 q̂ , 1 .
4 SAAD IHSAN BUTT

Proof. Taking into account the fundamental properties of quantum integrals, we

have
Z 1
℘(λ) κ Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) dq̂ λ
0
Z 1  
[2]q̂
κ 1
= Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) λ − dq̂ λ
0 [6]q̂
Z 1  
κ [5]q̂
+ Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) λ − dq̂ λ,
1
[2]q̂
[6]q̂
Z 1
q̂[4]q̂ [2]q̂ κ
= Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) dq̂ λ
[6]q̂ 0
Z 1  
[5]q̂ κ
+ λ− Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) dq̂ λ
0 [6]q̂
= I1 + I2 .

1
[2]q̂
g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ))
I1 =
κ−y
0
g[ρ1 + ρ2 − ( [2]1 q̂ )y + (1 − 1
)κ]
g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
[2]q̂
= −
(κ − y) (κ − y)
   
y + q̂κ q̂[4]q̂
= g ρ1 + ρ2 − − g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ) . (3.1)
[2]q̂ [6]q̂ (κ − y)

and
Z 1  
κ [5]q̂
I2 = Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) λ − dq̂ λ
0 [6]q̂
  1
[5]q̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ))
= λ−
[6]q̂ κ−y
0
Z 1
1 [5]q̂
− Dq̂ (λ − )g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (q̂λy + (1 − q̂λ)κ)) dq̂ λ
κ−y 0 [6]q̂
 
[5]q̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) [5]q̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
= 1− + .
[6]q̂ κ−y [6]q̂ κ−y
Z 1
1
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (q̂λy + (1 − q̂λ)κ)) dq̂ λ
κ−y 0
[6]q̂ − [5]q̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) [5]q̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
= + .
[6]q̂ κ−y [6]q̂ κ−y
n n+1
(1 − q̂)Σ∞
n=0 q̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (q̂ y + (1 − q̂n+1 )κ))
−
(κ − y)
q̂5 g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) [5]q̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
= + .
[6]q̂ κ−y [6]q̂ κ−y
n+1
(1 − q̂)Σ∞
n=0 q̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (q̂n+1 y + (1 − q̂n+1 )κ))
−
q̂(κ − y)
q̂5 g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) [5]q̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
= + .
[6]q̂ κ−y [6]q̂ κ−y
 5

ρ1 +ρ2 −κ
(1 − q̂)g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y)
Z
1
+ g(λ) dq̂ λ + .
q̂(κ − y)2 ρ1 +ρ2 −y q̂(κ − y)

q̂(1 + q̂ + q̂2 + q̂3 )

 
y + q̂κ 1
I1 + I2 = g ρ1 + ρ2 − + g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
[6]q̂ (κ − y) 1 + q̂ [6]q̂ (κ − y)
Z ρ1 +ρ2 −κ
1 1
+ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + g(λ) κ dq̂ λ.
[6]q̂ q̂(κ − y) q̂(κ − y)2 ρ1 +ρ2 −y
Multiply by q̂(y − κ) then we get,
q̂2 [4]q̂
 
y + q̂κ 1
I1 + I2 = − g ρ1 + ρ2 − − q̂g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
[6]q̂ [2]q̂ [6]q̂
Z ρ1 +ρ2 −κ
1 1
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + (λ) κ dq̂ λ.
[6]q̂ (y − κ) ρ1 +ρ2 −y
Thus, the required equality is captured here. 
Remark 3.1. If we set ρ1 = κ and ρ2 = y in Lemma 3.1, it can be reduce in to
following equality:
Z y    
1 y 1 2 κ + q̂y
g(λ) dq̂ λ − g(κ) + q̂ [4]q̂ g + q̂g(y)
y−κ κ [6]q̂ [2]q̂
Z 1
= q̂(y − κ) ℘(λ) y Dq̂ g(λκ + (1 − λ)y) dq̂ λ,
0

which proved in [31].

Lemma 3.2. With the suppositions of Lemma 3.1, we have following identity
Z ρ1 +ρ2 −κ
1
g(λ) κ dq̂ λ (3.2)
y − κ ρ1 +ρ2 −y
q̂3 [6]q̂
  
1 y + (1 + q̂)q̂κ
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + g ρ1 + ρ2 −
[8]q̂ 1 + q̂ [3]q̂
!
q̂2 [6]q̂ (1 + q̂)y + q̂2 κ

+ g ρ1 + ρ2 − + q̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ) (3.3)
(1 + q̂) [3]q̂
Z 1
= q̂(y − κ) ℘(λ) κ Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ) dq̂ λ,
0
 h 
1
λ −

 [8]q̂ , λ ∈ 0, [3]1 q̂
 h 
1 [2]
℘(λ) = λ − [2]q̂ , λ ∈ [3]1 q̂ , [3]q̂q̂
 h i
 [7]q̂ [2]
λ −
[8]q̂ , λ ∈ [3]q̂q̂ , 1 .


Proof. By using the fundamental properties of quantum integrals, we have

Z 1
℘(λ) κ Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ) dq̂ λ
0
Z 1  
[3]q̂
κ 1
= Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ) λ − dq̂ λ
0 [8]q̂
[2]q̂  
Z [3]q̂
κ 1
+ Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ) λ − dq̂ λ
1
[3]q̂
[2]q̂
6 SAAD IHSAN BUTT

Z 1  
κ [7]q̂
+ Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ) λ − dq̂ λ
[2]q̂
[3]q̂
[8]q̂

= I1 + I2 + I3 .
The desired results may be attained if the similar steps of Lemma 3.1 are used for
the rest of this proof. 
Remark 3.2. If we set ρ1 = κ and ρ2 = y in Lemma 3.2, it can be reduce in to
following equality:

y
q̂3 [6]q̂
Z   
1 1 y κ + q̂[2]q̂ y
g(λ) dq̂ λ − g(κ) + g
y−κ κ [8]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]q̂
!
q̂2 [6]q̂ (1 + q̂)κ + q̂2 y

+ g + q̂ g(y) ,
(1 + q̂) [3]q̂
which proved in [31].
3.1. Simpson-Mercer 1/3 Formula Type Inequalities.
Theorem 3.1. Let a mapping g : I = [ρ1 , ρ2 ] ⊆ <+ → < is differentiable on
(ρ1 , ρ2 ) with ρ2 > ρ1 . If κ Dq̂ g ∈ L[ρ1 , ρ2 ], then ∀ y, κ ∈ [ρ1 , ρ2 ], λ ∈ [0, 1], then the
following identity
Z ρ1 +ρ2 −κ
1
g(λ) κ dq̂ λ
y − κ ρ1 +ρ2 −y
   
1 y + q̂κ
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + q̂2 [4]q̂ g ρ1 + ρ2 − + q̂g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
[6]q̂ [2]q̂
(1 + [5]2q̂ )
  3
q̂ [3]q̂ − q̂ 1
≤ q̂(y − κ) κ Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) + κ Dq̂ g(ρ2 ) 3 + + 2q̂
[6]q̂ [2]q̂ [2]q̂ [2]q̂ [6]2q̂
[5]q̂ [2]2q̂ − [6]q̂
 
[5]q̂ κ κ
− − − Dq̂ g(y) [c1q̂ + c 2q̂ ] − D q̂ g(κ) [d 1q̂ + d 2q̂ ] , (3.4)
[6]q̂ [6]q̂ [2]3q̂
where:

ω1q̂ = [3]q̂ [6]3q̂ [2]3q̂ ,

ω2q̂ = [3]q̂ [6]3q̂ [2]q̂ .

2q̂2 [2]2q̂ + q̂3 [6]3q̂ [3]q̂

Z 1
[2]q̂ 1
c1q̂ = λ λ− dq̂ λ = ,
0 [6]q̂ ω1q̂
2q̂2 [5]3q̂ [2]2q̂ + [6]3q̂ (1 + [2]3q̂ ) − [3]q̂ [5]q̂ [6]2q̂ (1 + [2]2q̂ )
Z 1
[2]q̂ 1
c2q̂ = (1 − λ) λ − dq̂ λ = ,
0 [6]q̂ ω1q̂
!
1
q̂[3]q̂ [6]q̂ − q̂2
Z
[5]q̂ q̂ q̂ (q̂ + 2)
d1q̂ = λ λ− dq̂ λ = − +2 ,
1
[2]q̂
[6]q̂ [3]q̂ [2]2q̂ [6]q̂ [2]3q̂ ω2q̂
1 q̂[5]2q̂ [6]q̂ [3]q̂ − q̂2 [5]3q̂ q̂2 [6]q̂ − q̂[5]q̂ [3]q̂
Z
[5]q̂
d2q̂ = (1 − λ) λ − dq̂ λ = 2 +
1
[2]q̂
[6]q̂ ω2q̂ [2]q̂ [6]q̂ [3]q̂
" #
[5]q̂ [3]q̂ (2q̂ + q̂2 ) − q̂[2]q̂ [6]q̂
− ,
[2]3q̂ [3]q̂ [6]q̂
 7

and 0 < q̂ < 1.

Proof. By taking the modulus in Lemma 3.1, we have
Z ρ1 ρ2 −κ
1
g(λ) κ dq̂ λ
(y − κ) ρ1 +ρ2 −y
   
1 2 y + q̂κ
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + q̂ [4]q̂ g ρ1 + ρ2 − + q̂g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
[6]q̂ [2]q̂
Z [2]1
q̂ 1 κ
≤ q̂(y − κ) λ− Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) dq̂ λ
0 [6] q̂
Z 1
[5]q̂ κ
+ q̂(y − κ) λ− Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) dq̂ λ.
1
[2]
[6]q̂
q̂

By using convexity of |κ Dq̂ g|, we get

Z [2]1   Z [2]1
q̂ 1 κ κ κ q̂ 1
≤ λ− Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) + Dq̂ g(ρ2 ) − Dq̂ g(y) λ λ− dq̂ λ
0 [6] q̂ 0 [6] q̂
Z [2]1
q̂ 1
− κ Dq̂ g(κ) (1 − λ) λ − dq̂ λ
0 [6]q̂
Z 1   Z 1
[5]q̂ κ κ κ [5]q̂
+ λ− dq̂ λ Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) + Dq g(ρ2 ) − Dq̂ g(y) λ− λ dq̂ λ
1
[2]
[6] q̂ 1
[2]
[6]q̂
q̂ q̂
Z 1
κ 1
− Dq̂ g(κ) (1 − λ) λ − dq̂ λ.
1
[2]q̂
[6]q̂

We also observe that

Z [2]1
q̂ 1 2q̂ q̂3 [3]q̂ − q̂
λ− dq̂ λ = + ,
0 [6]q̂ [2]q̂ [6]2q̂ [6]q̂ [2]3q̂
and by using similar operations, we have
[5]q̂ [2]2q̂ − [6]q̂ [5]2q̂
Z 1
[5]q̂ [5]q̂ 1
λ− dq̂ λ = − + − + 2q̂ .
1
[2]
[6]q̂ [6]q̂ [2]q̂ [6]q̂ [2]3q̂ [2]q̂ [6]2q̂
q̂

q̂3 [3]q̂ − q̂
 
κ κ 1
= q̂(y − κ) Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) + Dq̂ g(ρ2 ) +
[6]q̂ [2]3q̂ [2]q̂
[5]q̂ [2]2q̂ − [6]q̂ (1 + [5]2q̂ )
 
[5]q̂ κ κ
− − 3 + 2q̂ − Dq̂ g(y) [c1q̂ + c2q̂ ] − Dq̂ g(κ) [d1q̂ + d2q̂ ] .
[6]q̂ [6]q̂ [2]q̂ [2]q̂ [6]2q̂
Hence, proof is completed. 
Remark 3.3. If we choose ρ1 = κ and ρ2 = y in Theorem 3.1, then we get Theorem
4 of [31].
Corollary 3.1. With the assumptions of Theorem 3.2 with ρ1 = κ, ρ2 = y and
q̂ → 1− , we have (see [32]):
Z y    
1 1 κ+y
g(y)dλ − g(κ) + 4g + g(y)
(y − κ) κ 6 2
8 SAAD IHSAN BUTT

 00
00

5(y − κ) g κ + g y
≤ . (3.5)
36 2

Theorem 3.2. Let g : [0, ∞) → < be a differential mapping on I 0 such that

℘1
|κ Dq̂ g| ∈ L[y, κ], where y, κ ∈ I with y < κ. If |κ Dq̂ g| ℘1 −1 is convex on [y, κ], for
some fixed λ ∈ (0, 1] and ℘1 > 1 , following inequality holds:
Z ρ1 +ρ2 −κ
1
g(λ) κ dq̂ λ
y−κ ρ1 +ρ2 −y
   
1 y + q̂κ
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + q̂2 [4]q̂ g + q̂g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
[6]q̂ [2]q̂
1
q̂2℘2 [4]℘
!
2 ℘2  ℘1 ℘1
q̂ 1 κ 1 κ
≤ q̂(y − κ) × D q̂ g(ρ 1 ) + D q̂ g(ρ 2 )
[2]℘ q̂
2 +1
[6]℘ q̂
2 [2]q̂ [2]q̂
℘1 ℘1  ℘1
1 κ q̂2 + 2q̂ κ 1
− 3 Dq̂ g(y) − 3 Dq̂ g(κ)
[2]q̂ [2]q̂
! ℘1
[2]℘ 2 +1 5℘2
q̂ − q̂℘2 [4]℘ 2 2 ℘1 ℘1

q̂ q̂ q̂ κ q̂ κ
+ q̂(y − κ) ℘2 +1 ℘2 × D q̂ g(ρ 1 ) + Dq̂ g(ρ2 )
[2]q̂ [6]q̂ [2]q̂ [2]q̂
℘1 ℘1  ℘1
q̂2 + 2q̂ κ q̂3 + q̂2 − q̂ κ 1
− Dq̂ g(y) − Dq̂ g(κ) ,
[2]3q̂ [2]3q̂
1 1
where 0 < q̂ < 1 and ℘1 + ℘2 = 1.

Proof. Applying well-known Hölder’s inequality for q̂ρ2 -integral on the R. H. S. of

Lemma 3.1, it has been discovered that
Z ρ1 +ρ2 −κ
1
g(λ) κ dq̂ λ
(y − κ) ρ1 +ρ2 −y
   
1 2 y + q̂κ
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + q̂ [4]q̂ g ρ1 + ρ2 − + q̂g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
[6]q̂ [2]q̂
Z [2]1 ℘2 ! ℘1
2
q̂ 1
≤ q̂(y − κ) λ− dq̂ λ
0 [6]q̂
Z 1 ! ℘1
[2]q̂
℘1 1
κ
× Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) dq̂ λ
0
  ℘1
℘2 2
Z 1
[5]q̂
+ q̂(y − κ)  λ− dq̂ λ
1
[2]q̂
[6]q̂
  ℘1
℘1 1
Z 1
κ
× Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) dq̂ λ .
1
[2]q̂

By using convexity of |κ Dq̂ g|℘1 , we obtain

Z ρ1 +ρ2 −κ
1
g(λ) κ dq̂ λ
(y − κ) ρ1 +ρ2 −y
 9

   
1 y + q̂κ
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + q̂2 [4]q̂ g ρ1 + ρ2 − + q̂g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
[6]q̂ [2]q̂
1
Z [2]1 ℘2 ! ℘2 Z 1 ℘1
q̂ 1 [2]q̂
κ
≤ q̂(y − κ) λ− dq̂ λ × Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) dq̂ λ
0 [6]q̂ 0
Z [2]1 ℘1 Z [2]1 ℘1 Z [2]1 ℘1  ℘1
q̂ q̂ q̂ 1
κ
+ Dq̂ g(ρ2 ) dq̂ λ − λ dq̂ λ κ Dq̂ g(y) − (1 − λ) dq̂ λ κ Dq̂ g(κ)
0 0 0
  ℘1
℘2 2 ℘1
Z 1 Z 1
[5]q̂ κ
+ q̂(y − κ)  λ− dq̂ λ × Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) dq̂ λ
1
[2]q̂
[6]q̂ 1
[2]q̂

Z 1 ℘1 Z 1 ℘1 Z 1 ℘1  ℘1
1
κ κ κ
+ Dq̂ g(ρ2 ) dq̂ λ − λ dq̂ λ Dq̂ g(y) − (1 − λ)dq̂ λ Dq̂ g(κ) .
1 1 1
[2]q̂ [2]q̂ [2]q̂

To calculate the integrals,

Z [2]1 ℘2 ∞ ℘2
q̂ 1 (1 − q̂) X n q̂n 1
λ− dq̂ λ = q̂ −
0 [6]q̂ [2]q̂ n=0 [2]q̂ [6]q̂
∞ ℘2
(1 − q̂) X n 1 1
≤ q̂ −
[2]q̂ n=0 [2]q̂ [6]q̂
q̂2℘2 [4]q̂℘2
= .
[2]q̂℘2 +1 [6]℘
q̂
2

Similarly,
℘2
1 [2]q̂℘2 +1 q̂5℘2 − q̂℘2 [4]℘ 2
Z
[5]q̂ q̂
λ− dq̂ λ = .
1
[2]q̂
[6]q̂ [2]q̂℘2 +1 [6]℘
q̂
2

For other integrals,

Z 1
[2]q̂ 1
λ dq̂ λ = ,
0 [2]3q̂

1
q̂2 + 2q̂
Z [2]q̂
(1 − λ)dq̂ λ = ,
0 [2]3q̂

1
q̂2 + 2q̂
Z
λ dq̂ λ = ,
1
[2]q̂
[2]3q̂

and
1
q̂3 + q̂2 − q̂
Z
(1 − λ)dq̂ λ = .
1
[2]q̂
[2]3q̂

By substituting these integrals, we get required results.



Remark 3.4. If we put ρ1 = κ and ρ2 = y in Theorem 3.2, then we get Theorem

5 of [31].
10 SAAD IHSAN BUTT

Theorem 3.3. Let g : [0, ∞) → < be a differential mapping on I 0 such that

κ
Dq̂ g ∈ L[y, κ], where y, κ ∈ I with y < κ. If |V |q̂ is convex on [y, κ] and q̂ ≥ 1,
then the following inequality holds:

Z ρ1 +ρ2 −κ
1
g(λ) κ dq̂ λ
(y − κ) ρ1 +ρ2 −y
   
1 y + q̂κ
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + q̂2 [4]q̂ g ρ1 + ρ2 − + q̂g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
[6]q̂ [2]q̂
!1− ℘1
q̂3 [3]q̂ − q̂ 2q̂ 1

≤ q̂(y − κ) +
[6]q̂ [2]3q̂ [2]q̂ [6]2q̂
℘1 ℘1 
q̂3 [3]q̂ − q̂

2q̂ κ κ
× + D q̂ g(ρ 1 ) + D q̂ g(ρ 2 )
[6]q̂ [2]3q̂ [2]q̂ [6]2q̂
! ℘1
℘1 ℘1 1
κ κ
− c1q̂ Dq̂ g(y) − d1q̂ Dq̂ g(κ)

!1− ℘1
1 [5]q̂ [5]q̂ [2]2q̂ − [6]q̂ [5]2q̂ 1

+ − − + 2q̂
[2]q̂ [6]q̂ [6]q̂ [2]3q̂ [2]q̂ [6]2q̂
℘1 ℘1 
[5]q̂ [2]2q̂ − [6]q̂ [5]2q̂

[5]q̂ 1 κ κ
× − − + 2q̂ + Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) + Dq̂ g(ρ2 )
[6]q̂ [6]q̂ [2]3q̂ [2]q̂ [6]2q̂ [2]q̂
! ℘1
℘1 ℘1 1
κ κ
− c2q̂ Dq̂ g(y) − d2q̂ Dq̂ (κ) ,

where 0 < q̂ < 1, c1q̂ , c2q̂ , d1q̂ and d2q̂ are defined in 3.1.

Proof. By applying Power mean inequality on right hand side of Lemma 3.1 then,
we have
Z ρ1 +ρ2 −κ
1
g(λ) κ dq̂ λ
(y − κ) ρ1 +ρ2 −y
   
1 2 y + q̂κ
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + q̂ [4]q̂ g ρ1 + ρ2 − + q̂(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
[6]q̂ [2]q̂
Z [2]1 !1− ℘1
1
q̂ 1
≤ q̂(y − κ) λ− dq̂ λ
0 [6]q̂
Z 1 ! ℘1
℘1 1
[2]q̂ 1 κ
× λ− Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy − (1 − λ)κ)) dq̂ λ
0 [6]q̂
 1− ℘1
Z 1 1
[5]q̂
+ q̂(y − κ)  λ− dq̂ λ 
1
[2]
[6]q̂
q̂
  ℘1
℘1 1
Z 1
[5]q̂ κ
× λ− Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) dq̂ λ .
1
[2]q̂
[6]q̂
 11

Now applying convexity of |κ Dq̂ g|℘1 , we have

Z ρ1 +ρ2 −κ
1
g(λ) κ dq̂ λ
(y − κ) ρ1 +ρ2 −y
   
1 2 y + q̂κ
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + q̂ [4]q̂ g ρ1 + ρ2 − + q̂g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
[6]q̂ [2]q̂
Z [2]1 !1− ℘1
1
q̂ 1
≤ q̂(y − κ) λ− dq̂ λ
0 [6]q̂
Z [2]1  ℘1 ℘1 
q̂ 1 κ κ
λ− dq̂ λ Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) + Dq̂ g(ρ2 )
0 [6]q̂
1 1
! ℘1
℘1 Z ℘1 Z 1
κ
[2]q̂ 1 κ
[2]q̂ 1
− Dq̂ g(y) λ− dq̂ λ − Dq̂ g(κ) (1 − λ) λ − dq̂ λ
0 [6]q̂ 0 [6]q̂
 1− ℘1
1
Z 1
[5]q̂
+q̂(y − κ)  λ− dq̂ λ
1
[2]q̂
[6]q̂
Z 1  ℘1 ℘1 
[5]q̂
× λ− dq̂ λ κ Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) + κ
Dq̂ g(ρ2 )
1
[2]q̂
[6]q̂
! ℘1
℘1 Z 1 ℘1 Z 1 1
κ [5]q̂ κ [5]q̂
− Dq̂ g(y) λ λ− dq̂ λ − Dq̂ g(κ) λ− (1 − λ)dq̂ λ
1
[2]q̂
[6]q̂ 1
[2]q̂
[6]q̂

1
!1− ℘1
Z 1
 ℘1 ℘1
[2]q̂ 1
= q̂(y − κ) λ− dq̂ λ × c3q̂ { κ Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) + κ
Dq̂ g(ρ2 ) }
0 [6]q̂
! ℘1
℘1 ℘1 1
κ κ
− c1q̂ (q̂) Dq̂ g(y) dq̂ λ − d1q̂ Dq̂ g(κ) dq̂ λ

 1− ℘1
1 ℘1 ℘1 
Z 1  
[5]q̂
+ q̂(y − κ)  λ− dq̂ λ × d3q̂ κ Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) + κ
Dq̂ g(ρ2 )
1
[2]q̂
[6]q̂
! ℘1
℘1 ℘1 1
κ κ
− c2q̂ Dq̂ g(y) dq̂ λ − d2q̂ Dq̂ g(κ) dq̂ λ .

By putting the values of integrals, we get required results. 

Remark 3.5. If we put ρ1 = κ and ρ2 = y in Theorem 3.3, then we get Theorem

5 of [31].
Corollary 3.2. With the suppositions of Theorem 3.3 with ρ1 = κ, ρ2 = y and
q̂ → 1− , we have (see [32]):
Z y    
1 1 κ+y
g(λ)dλ − g(κ) + 4g + g(y)
(y − κ) κ 6 2
 1− ℘1
1 5 1
≤ (y − κ) 1
(1296) ℘1 72
12 SAAD IHSAN BUTT

! ℘1 ! ℘1 
1 1

0 ℘1 0 ℘1 0 ℘1 0 ℘1
× 61|v (κ)| + 29|v (y)| + 61|g (κ)| + 29|g (y)| . (3.6)

3.2. Simpson-Mercer 3/8 Formula Type Inequalities.

Theorem 3.4. With the suppositions of Theorem 3.1, we have
Z ρ1 +ρ2 −κ
1
g(λ) κ dq̂ λ
y − κ ρ1 +ρ2 −y
!
q̂3 [6]q̂ q̂2 [6]q̂ [2]q̂ y + κq̂2
  
1 y + q̂[2]q̂ κ
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + g ρ1 + ρ2 − + g ρ1 + ρ2 −
[8]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]q̂

+ q̂g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
 
κ κ q̂[2]q̂ [8]q̂ − [3]q̂ [2]q̂ 1
≤ q̂(y − κ) Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) + Dq̂ g(ρ2 ) − +
[3]2q̂ [2]q̂ [3]2q̂ [8]q̂ [2]q̂
 
2 2 2
2q̂ [8]q̂ + [2]q̂ (1 + [7]q̂ ) 
[7]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]q̂ [7]q̂ − [2]q̂ [8]q̂
− − +
[8]q̂ [3]2q̂ [8]q̂ [2]3q̂ [8]2q̂

κ κ
− Dq̂ g(y) [c3q̂ + c4q̂ + c5q̂ ] − Dq̂ g(κ) [d3q̂ + d4q̂ + d5q̂ ]

where

ω3q̂ = [2]q̂ [3]q̂ [8]3q̂ .

[8]3q̂ [2]q̂ − [3]2q̂ [8]2q̂ + 2q̂2 [3]3q̂

Z 1
[3]q̂ 1
c3q̂ = λ λ− dq̂ λ = ,
0 [8]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]4q̂ [8]3q̂
1 [2]2q̂ (1 + [2]3q̂ ) − [3]2q̂ (1 + [2]2q̂ ) 2q̂2
c4q̂ = λ − (1 − λ)dq̂ λ = + ,
[8]q̂ [2]2q̂ [3]4q̂ [2]4q̂ [3]q̂
[2]q̂
2q̂2 [7]3q̂ [2]q̂ [8]q̂ ([2]3q̂ + [3]3q̂ ) − ([2]3q̂ + [3]3q̂ )[3]2q̂ [7]q̂
Z [3]q̂ 1
c5q̂ = λ λ− dq̂ λ = + ,
1
[3]q̂
[8]q̂ ω3q̂ [2]q̂ [3]4q̂ [8]q̂
[2]q̂
q̂[3]q̂ [8]q̂ − q̂2 1 − [2]q̂ [3]q̂ [3]2q̂ [2]q̂
Z [3]q̂ 1
d3q̂ = (1 − λ) λ − dq̂ λ = 2 + +
1
[3]q̂
[8]q̂ ω3q̂ [2]q̂ [3]2q̂ [8]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]4q̂
Z 1
[7]q̂ 2q̂ [2]q̂
d4q̂ = λ λ− dq̂ λ = 3 − q̂ 2 − c4q̂ ,
[2]q̂
[3]q̂
[8]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]q̂
1 q̂[3]q̂ [7]2q̂ [8]q̂ − q̂2 [7]3q̂ q̂2
Z
[7]q̂ q̂[7]q̂
d5q̂ = [2] (1 − λ) λ − dq̂ λ = 2 + −
[3]
q̂ [8]q̂ ω 3q̂ [2]q̂ [3]q̂ [2]q̂ [8]q̂
q̂

[2]q̂ ([3]2q̂ − [2]2q̂ ) q̂[2]2q̂ [7]q̂

+ − ,
[3]4q̂ [3]2q̂ [8]q̂
and 0 < q̂ < 1.
Proof. Applying modulus on Lemma 3.2, then we attain
Z ρ1 +ρ2 −κ
1
g(λ) κ dq̂ λ
y − κ ρ1 +ρ2 −y
 13

!
q̂3 [6]q̂ q̂2 [6]q̂ [2]q̂ y + κq̂2
  
1 y + q̂[2]q̂ κ
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + g ρ1 + ρ2 − + g ρ1 + ρ2 −
[8]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]q̂

+ q̂g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)
Z 1
[3]q̂ 1 κ
≤ q̂(y − κ) λ− Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) dq̂ λ
0 [8]q̂
[2]q̂
Z [3]q̂ 1 κ
+ q̂(y − κ) λ− | Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ))| dq̂ λ
1
[3]q̂
[8]q̂
Z 1
[7]q̂ κ
+ q̂(y − κ) λ− Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) dq̂ λ.
[2]q̂
[3]q̂
[8]q̂

It is now sufficient to use the similar steps as in the result of Theorem 3.4 to find
the desired outcome. 

Remark 3.6. If we choose ρ1 = κ and ρ2 = y in Theorem 3.4, then we get Theorem

6 of [31].
Theorem 3.5. With the suppositions of Theorem 3.2, we have following inequality
Z ρ1 +ρ2 −κ
1
g(λ) κ dq̂ λ
y − κ ρ1 +ρ2 −y
!
q̂3 [6]q̂ q̂2 [6]q̂ [2]q̂ y + κq̂2
  
1 y + q̂[2]q̂ κ
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + g ρ1 + ρ2 − + g ρ1 + ρ2 −
[8]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]q̂

+ q̂g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)

! ℘1
q̂3℘2 [5]℘
q̂
2 2

≤ q̂(y − κ)
[3]℘
q̂
2 +1
[8]℘
q̂
2

   ℘1 ℘1  ℘1
1 κ κ 1 κ [3]q̂ [2]q̂ − 1 κ
1
× Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) + Dq̂ g(ρ2 ) − Dq̂ g(y) − Dq̂ g(κ)
[3]q̂ [3]2q̂ [2]q̂ [3]2q̂ [2]q̂
! ℘1
q̂℘2 [2]q̂ − q̂2℘2 2

+ q̂(y − κ)
[3]℘
q̂
2 +1
[2]℘
q̂
2

℘1 ℘1  ℘1
[2]2q̂ − 1 [3]q̂ [2]q̂ q̂ − [2]2q̂ + 1
  
q̂ κ κ κ κ
1
× Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) + Dq̂ g(ρ2 ) − Dq̂ g(y) − Dq̂ g(κ)
[3]q̂ [3]2q̂ [2]q̂ [3]2q̂ [2]q̂
! ℘1
q̂7℘2 [2]q̂ ([7]q̂ [3]q̂ − [8]q̂ [2]q̂ )℘2 2

+ q̂(y − κ) −
[8]℘
q̂
2
[8]℘ 2 ℘2 +1
q̂ [3]q̂
℘1
[3]2q̂ − [2]2q̂ κ
 2  
q̂ κ
× Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) + κ Dq̂ g(ρ2 ) − Dq̂ g(y)
[3]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]2q̂
℘1  ℘1
[2]q̂ [3]q̂ q̂2 + [2]2q̂ − [3]2q̂ κ 1
− Dq̂ g(κ) ,
[3]2q̂ [2]q̂

1 1
where ℘1 + ℘2 = 1.
14 SAAD IHSAN BUTT

Proof. By applying Hölder’s inequality in Lemma 3.2, we attain

Z ρ1 +ρ2 −κ
1
g(λ) κ dq̂ λ
y − κ ρ1 +ρ2 −y
!
q̂3 [6]q̂ q̂2 [6]q̂ [2]q̂ y + κq̂2
  
1 y + q̂[2]q̂ κ
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + g ρ1 + ρ2 − + g ρ1 + ρ2 −
[8]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]q̂

+ q̂g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)

1
! ℘1 1
! ℘1
Z ℘2 2 Z ℘1 1
[3]q̂ 1 [3]q̂
κ
≤ q̂(y − κ) λ− dq̂ λ Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) dq̂ λ
0 [8]q̂ 0
 [2]q̂
 ℘1  [2]q̂
 ℘1
Z ℘2 2 Z ℘1 1
[3]q̂ 1 [3]q̂
κ
+ q̂(y − κ)  λ− dq̂ λ  Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) dq̂ λ
1
[3]q̂
[8]q̂ 1
[3]q̂

  ℘1   ℘1
℘2 2 ℘1 1
Z 1 Z 1
[7]q̂ κ
+ q̂(y − κ)  λ− dq̂ λ   Dq̂ g(ρ1 + ρ2 − (λy + (1 − λ)κ)) dq̂ λ .
[2]q̂
[3]q̂
[8]q̂ [2] q̂
[3]q̂

By applying similar method as in the results of Theorem 3.2 to find the desired
outcome. 
Remark 3.7. If we put ρ1 = κ and ρ2 = y in Theorem 3.5, then we get Theorem
8 of [31].
Theorem 3.6. With the suppositions of Theorem 3.3, we have inequality
Z κ
1
g(λ) κ dq̂ λ
y−κ y
!
q̂3 [6]q̂ q̂2 [6]q̂ [2]q̂ y + κq̂2
  
1 y + q̂[2]q̂ κ
− g(ρ1 + ρ2 − y) + g ρ1 + ρ2 − + g ρ1 + ρ2 −
[8]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]q̂

+ q̂g(ρ1 + ρ2 − κ)

!1− ℘1
1
2q̂ [8]q̂ − [3]q̂ [2]q̂
≤ q̂(y − κ) 2 +
[8]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]2q̂ [2]q̂ [8]q̂
! ℘1
  ℘1 ℘1 1
2q̂ [8]q̂ − [3]q̂ [2]q̂ κ κ κ κ
+ Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) + Dq̂ g(ρ2 ) − c3q̂ Dq̂ g(y) − d3 (q̂) Dq̂ g(κ)
[2]q̂ [8]2q̂ [2]q̂ [3]2q̂ [8]q̂
!1− ℘1
2q̂ q̂ 2q̂[2]q̂ + q̂2 1

+ 3 + 2 +
[2]q̂ [3]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]2q̂ [2]q̂
! ℘1
  ℘1 ℘1 1
2q̂ q̂[2]q̂ κ κ κ κ
3 − Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) + Dq̂ g(ρ2 ) − c4q̂ Dq̂ g(y) − d4q̂ Dq̂ g(κ)
[2]q̂ [3]2q̂
!1− ℘1
q̂[7]2q̂ [3]2q̂ + [2]2q̂ [7]q̂ ([3]q̂ + [2]q̂ ) 1

+ 2 + −
[8]2q̂ [2]q̂ [3]2q̂ [2]q̂ [3]q̂ [8]q̂
2q̂[7]2q̂
  
1 [7]q̂ [2]q̂ [3]q̂ [7]q̂ − [2]q̂ [8]q̂ κ κ
+ − − Dq̂ g(ρ1 ) + Dq̂ g(ρ2 )
[2]q̂ [8]2q̂ [2]q̂ [8]q̂ [3]2q̂ [8]q̂
 15

℘1 ℘1  ℘1
1
κ κ
− c5q̂ Dq̂ g(y) − d5q̂ Dq̂ g(κ) ,

c3q̂ , c4q̂ , c5q̂ , d3q̂ , d4q̂ and d5q̂ are defined in 3.4.
Proof. The proof of the Theorem is analogous to proof of Theorem 3.3. 
Remark 3.8. If we put ρ1 = κ and ρ2 = y in Theorem 3.6, then we get Theorem
9 of [31].

4. Conclusion
In this article, we developed a novel Simpson-Mercer’s like inequalities by using
the concept of quantum integration. Newly obtained bounds are the connections
for Simpson-Mercer’s like inequalities. This novel framework is the convolution
of Simpon-Mercer concept and estimation of q̂-definite integral. We extended the
study of quantum Simpson-Mercer using Hölder and Power-mean integral inequali-
ties. It is interesting to extend such findings for other convexities. We presume that
our newly announced concept will be the focus of much research in this fascinating
field of quantum.

References
[1] D. S Mitrinović, J. E. Pečarić and A.M. Fink, Classical and New Inequalities in Analysis,
Mathematics and Its Applications(East and European Series), 61. Kluwer Academic Publish-
ers Group, Dordecht. (1993).
[2] R. P. Agarwal, P. J. Y. Wong, Error Inequalities in Polynomial Interpolation and their
Applications, Kluwer academic Publishers, Dordecht. (1993).
[3] S.I. Butt, M. K. Bakula and J. Pečarić, Steffense-Grüss Inequality, Journal of Mathematical
Inequalities. 15(2) (2021), 799-810.
[4] P. Agarwal, S. S. Dragomir, M. Jleli and B. Samet, Advances in Mathematical Inequalities
and Applications, Springer Singapore. (2018).
[5] N. Mehmood, S. I. Butt, D. Pečarić and J. Pečarić, Generalizations of Cyclic Refinements
of Jensen’s Inequality by Lidstone’s Polynomial with Applications in Information Theory,
Journal of Mathematical Inequalities, 14(1) (2019), 249–271.
[6] S. Khan, M. A. Khan, S. I. Butt and Y. M. Chu, A New Bound for the Jensen Gap Pertaining
Twice Differentiable Functions with Applications, Advances in Difference Equations, (2020).
[7] S. I. Butt, M. K. Bakula, D. Pečarić and J. Pečarić, Jensen-Grüss Inequality and its Appli-
cations for the Zipf-Mandelbrot Law, Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences, 44(2)
(2021), 1664–1673.
[8] A. McD. Mercer, A Variant of Jensens Inequality, Journal of Inequalities in Pure and Applied
Mathematics, 4(4) (2003), Article 73.
[9] M. Kian and M. S. Moslehian, Refinements of the Operator Jensen–Mercer Inequality, The
Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra, 26 (2013), 742–753.
[10] E. Anjidani, Jensen-Mercer Operator Inequalities Involving Superquadratic Functions,
Mediterranean Journel of Mathematics, 15, Article Number: 31, (2018).
[11] H. R. Moradi and S. Furuichi, Improvement and Generalization of Some Jensen-Mercer-Type
Inequalities, Journal of Mathematical Inequalities, 14(2) (2020), 377–383.
[12] M. A. Khan, Z. Husain and Y. M. Chu, New Estimates for Csiszar Divergence and Zipf-
Mandelbrot Entropy Via Jensen-Mercer’s Inequality, Complexity, Article Number: 8928691
(2020), 1-8.
[13] Q. Kang, S. I. Butt, W. Nazeer, M. Nadeem, J. Nasir and H. Yang New Variants of Hermite-
Jensen-Mercer Inequalities Via Riemann-Liouville Fractional Integral Operators, Journal of
Mathematics, (2020).
[14] S. S. Dragomir, T. M. Rassias, Ostrowski Type Inequalities and Applications in Numerical
Integration, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic. (2002).
[15] S. I. Butt, J. Pečarić and A. Vukelić, Generalization of Popoviciu Type Inequalities Via
Fink’ s Identity, Mediterranean Journal of Mathematics, 13(4) (2016), 1495–1511.
[16] S. S. Dragomir, R. P. Agarwal and P. Cerone, On Simpson’s Inequality and Applications,
Journal of Inequalities and Applications, 5 (2000), 533–579.
[17] J. Chen and x. Huang, Some New Inequalities of Simpson’s Type for s−Convex Functions
Via Fractional Integrals, Filomat, 31(15), (2017), 4989-4997.
16 SAAD IHSAN BUTT

[18] E. Set, A. O. Akdemir and M. E. Özdemir, Simpson Type Integral Inequalities for Convex
Functions Via Riemann–Liouville Integrals, Filomat. 31(14) (2017), 4415–4420.
[19] M. Z. Sarikaya, E. Set, H. Yaldiz and N.Basak, Hermite Hadamard’s Inequalities for Frac-
tional Integrals and Related Fractional Inequalities, Mathematical and Computer Modelling,
57(9-10), (2013), 2403-2407.
[20] T. Ernst, The History Of Q-Calculus and New Method, Sweden: Department of Mathematics,
Uppsala University, 2000.
[21] F. H. Jackson, On a q-Definite Integrals, The Quarterly Journal Pure and Applied Mathe-
matics, 41 (1910), 193–203.
[22] R.P. Agarwal, P.J.Y. Wong, Error Inequalities in Polynomial Interpolation and their Appli-
cations, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, (1993).
[23] W. Al-Salam, Some Fractional q-Integrals and q-Derivatives, Proceedings of the Edinburgh
Mathematical Society, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 135–140, 1966/1967.
[24] N. Alp, M. Z. Sarikaya, M. Kunt, I. Iscan, q-Hermite Hadamard Inequalities and Quantum
Estimates for Midpoint Type Inequalities Via Convex and Quasi-convex Functions, Journal
of King Saud University Science, (30)2018, 193-203.
[25] T. Ernst, A Comprehensive Treatment of Q-calculus, Springer Basel. (2012).
[26] A. Bokulich, G. Jaeger, Philosophy of Quantum Information Theory and Entaglement, Cam-
bridge University press. (2010).
[27] F. H. Jackson,On a q-Definite Integrals, Quarterly Pure and Applied Mathematics. 41
(1910),193–203.
[28] W. Al-Salam, Some Fractional q-Integrals and q-Derivatives, Proceedings of the Edinburgh
Mathematical Society. 15 (1966), 135–140.
[29] V. Kac and P. Cheung, Quantum Calculus, Springer. (2001).
[30] S. Bermudo, P. Kórus and J. E. N. Valdes, On q-Hermite-Hadamard Inequalities for General
Convex Functions, Acta Mathematica Hungarica. 162(1), (2020), 364–374.
[31] P.Siricharuanun, S. Erden, M. A. Ali, H. Budhak, S. Chasreechai and T. Sitthiwirattham,
Some New Simpson’s and Newton’s Formulas Type Inequalities for Convex Functions in
Quantum Calculus, Mathematics 9.16 (2021).
[32] M. Alomari, M. Darus, S. S. Dragomir, New Inequalities of Simpson’s Type for s-convex
Functions with Applications, RGMIA Res. Rep. Coll. 2009, 12, 118.

Saad Ihsan Butt COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus, Pakistan

E-mail address: saadihsanbutt@gmail.com