Third-Order Differential Subordination and Superordination Results for Meromorphically Multivalent Functions Associated with the Liu-Srivastava Operator

Tang, Huo; Srivastava, H. M.; Li, Shu-Hai; Ma, Li-Na

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/792175

Abstract and Applied Analysis

On this page

Abstract Preliminaries Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Analytic and Harmonic Univalent Functions

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2014 | Article ID 792175 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/792175

Third-Order Differential Subordination and Superordination Results for Meromorphically Multivalent Functions Associated with the Liu-Srivastava Operator

Huo Tang,^1,2H. M. Srivastava,³Shu-Hai Li,¹and Li-Na Ma¹

Academic Editor: Om P. Ahuja

Received14 Apr 2014

Revised07 Jun 2014

Accepted08 Jun 2014

Published08 Jul 2014

Abstract

There are many articles in the literature dealing with the first-order and the second-order differential subordination and superordination problems for analytic functions in the unit disk, but only a few articles are dealing with the above problems in the third-order case (see, e.g., Antonino and Miller (2011) and Ponnusamy et al. (1992)). The concept of the third-order differential subordination in the unit disk was introduced by Antonino and Miller in (2011). Let Ω be a set in the complex plane . Also let be analytic in the unit disk and suppose that . In this paper, we investigate the problem of determining properties of functions that satisfy the following third-order differential superordination: . As applications, we derive some third-order differential subordination and superordination results for meromorphically multivalent functions, which are defined by a family of convolution operators involving the Liu-Srivastava operator. The results are obtained by considering suitable classes of admissible functions.

1. Introduction, Definitions, and Preliminaries

Let be the class of functions which are analytic in the open unit disk: For and , let and suppose that .

Let and be members of the analytic function class . The function is said to be subordinate to , or is superordinate to , if there exists a Schwarz function , analytic in with such that In such a case, we write Furthermore, if the function is univalent in , then we have the following equivalence (see, for details, [1]):

Let denote the class of functions of the form which are analytic and multivalent in the punctured unit disk:

For the function given by (7) and the function given by the Hadamard product (or convolution) of the functions and is defined by

For parameters and , the generalized hypergeometric function is defined by (see, for example, [2, 3]) where denotes the Pochhammer symbol defined, in terms of Gamma function, by

Recently, Tang et al. [4] introduced a function defined by

In particular, when , we obtain which was introduced and studied by Liu and Srivastava [5].

Corresponding to the function given by (13), we consider a convolution operator defined by the following Hadamard product (or convolution): For the sake of convenience, we write

It is easily verified from definition (16) that

We note that, for , the operator reduces to the Liu-Srivastava operator (see [5, 6]; see also [7]), while the Liu-Srivastava operator is the meromorphic analogous of the Dziok-Srivastava operator (see [8–10]; see also [11, 12]), which includes (as its special cases) the meromorphic analogous of the Carlson-Shaffer convolution operator (see [13, 14]), the meromorphic analogous of the Ruscheweyh derivative operator (see [15]), and the operator studied by Uralegaddi and Somanatha [16].

Let be any set in . Also let be analytic in and suppose that . Recently, Antonino and Miller [17] have extended the theory of second-order differential subordinations in introduced by Miller and Mocanu [1] to the third-order case. They determined properties of functions that satisfy the following third-order differential subordination:

We will now recall some definitions and a theorem due to Antonino and Miller [17], which are required in our next investigations.

Definition 1 (see [17], p. 440, Definition 1). Let and be univalent in . If is analytic in and satisfies the following third-order differential subordination: then is called a solution of the differential subordination. A univalent function is called a dominant of the solutions of the differential subordination or, more simply, a dominant if for all satisfying (22). A dominant that satisfies for all dominants of (22) is said to be the best dominant.

Definition 2 (see [17], p. 441, Definition 2). Let denote the set of functions that are analytic and univalent on the set , where is such that for . Further, let the subclass of for which be denoted by and

Definition 3 (see [17], p. 449, Definition 3). Let be a set in , , and . The class of admissible functions consists of those functions that satisfy the following admissibility condition: whenever where , , and .

Theorem 4 (see [17], p. 449, Theorem 1). Let with . Also let and satisfy the following conditions where , , and . If is a set in , and then

In this paper, following the theory of second-order differential superordinations in the unit disk introduced by Miller and Mocanu [18], we consider the dual problem of determining properties of functions that satisfy the following third-order differential superordination: In other words, we determine the conditions on , , and for which the following implication holds true: where is any set in .

If either or is a simply connected domain, then (32) can be rephrased in terms of superordination. If is univalent in , and if is a simply connected domain with , then there is a conformal mapping of onto such that . In this case, (32) can be rewritten as follows: If is also a simply connected domain with , then there is a conformal mapping of onto such that . In addition, if the function is univalent in , then (33) can be rewritten as There are three key ingredients in the implication relationship (33): the differential operator , the set , and the “dominating” function . If two of these entities were given, one would hope to find conditions on the third entity so that (33) would be satisfied. In this paper, we start with a given set and a given function , and we then determine a set of “admissible” operators so that (33) holds true.

We first introduce the following definition.

Definition 5. Let and the function be analytic in . If the functions and are univalent in and satisfy the following third-order differential superordination: then is called a solution of the differential superordination. An analytic function is called a subordinant of the solutions of the differential superordination or more simply a subordinant if for satisfying (37). A univalent subordinant that satisfies the condition for all subordinants of (37) is said to be the best subordinant. We note that the best subordinant is unique up to a rotation of .
For a set in , with and as given in Definition 5, we suppose that (37) is replaced by Although this more general situation is a “differential containment,” yet we also refer to it as a differential superordination, and the definitions of solution, subordinant, and best subordinant as given above can be extended to this more general case.
We will use the following lemma [[17], p. 445, Lemma D] from the theory of third-order differential subordinations in to determine subordinants of the third-order differential superordinations.

Lemma 6 (see [17]). Let , and let be analytic in with and . If is not subordinate to , then there exists points and , and an for which ,(i), (ii) and ,(iii) ,(iv) , (v) .

2. Admissible Functions and a Fundamental Result

We next define the class of admissible functions referred to in the preceding section.

Definition 7. Let be a set in , and . The class of admissible functions consists of those functions that satisfy the following admissibility condition: whenever where , , and .
If and , then the admissibility condition (41) reduces to the following form:
If and with , then the admissibility condition (41) reduces to the following form: whenever , , and
The next theorem is a foundation result in the theory of the third-order differential superordinations in .

Theorem 8. Let and . If is univalent in and satisfy the following conditions: then implies that

Proof. Suppose that Then, by the above lemma, there exists points and , and an that satisfy conditions (i)–(v) of the above lemma. Using these conditions with , , , , and in Definition 7, we obtain which contradicts (48), so we have

In the special case when is a simply connected domain and is a conformal mapping of onto , we denote this class by . The following result is an immediate consequence of Theorem 8.

Theorem 9. Let . Also let the function be analytic in and suppose that . If satisfies condition (47) and is univalent in , then implies that

Theorems 8 and 9 can only be used to obtain subordinants of the third-order differential superordination of the forms (48) or (54).

Theorem 10. Let the function be analytic in and let . Suppose that the differential equation has a solution . If , , and is univalent in , then (54) implies that and is the best subordinant.

Proof. Since , by applying Theorem 9, we deduce that is a subordinant of (54). Since satisfies (56), it is also a solution of the differential superordination (54). Therefore, all subordinants of (54) will be subordinate to . It follows that will be the best subordinant of (54).

In the next two sections, by making use of the third-order differential subordination results of Antonino and Miller [17] in the unit disk and the third-order differential superordination results in obtained in Section 2 (see, for details, Theorems 8, 9, and 10), we determine certain appropriate classes of admissible functions and investigate some third-order differential subordination and differential superordination properties of meromorphically multivalent functions associated with the operator defined by (16). It should be remarked in passing that, in recent years, several authors obtained many interesting results involving various linear and nonlinear convolution operators associated with (second-order) differential subordination and superordination, and the interested reader may refer to several earlier works including (for example) [19] to [20–23].

3. Third-Order Differential Subordination of the Operator

We first define the following class of admissible functions, which are required in proving the differential subordination theorem involving the operator defined by (16).

Definition 11. Let be a set in and . The class of admissible functions consists of those functions that satisfy the following admissibility condition: whenever where , , , and .

Theorem 12. Let . If the functions and satisfy the following conditions: then

Proof. Define the analytic function in by Then, differentiating (64) with respect to and using (18), we have Further computations show that We now define the transformation from to by Let The proof will make use of Theorem 4. Using (64) to (67), we find from (70) that Hence, clearly, (62) becomes We note that Thus, the admissibility condition for in Definition 11 is equivalent to the admissibility condition for as given in Definition 3 with . Therefore, by using (61) and Theorem 4, we have or, equivalently, which evidently completes the proof of Theorem 12.

Our next result is an extension of Theorem 12 to the case where the behavior of on is not known.

Corollary 13. Let and let the function be univalent in with . Suppose also that for some , where . If the functions and satisfy the following conditions: then

Proof. We note from Theorem 12 that The result asserted by Corollary 13 is now deduced from the following subordination property:

If is a simply connected domain, then for some conformal mapping of onto . In this case, the class is written as . The following two results are immediate consequences of Theorem 12 and Corollary 13.

Theorem 14. Let . If the functions and satisfy the following conditions: then

Corollary 15. Let and let the function be univalent in with . Suppose also that for some , where . If the functions and satisfy the following conditions: then

Our next theorem yields the best dominant of the differential subordination (70).

Theorem 16. Let the function be univalent in . Also let and be given by (70). Suppose that the differential equation has a solution with , which satisfies condition (61). If the function satisfies condition (81) and the function is analytic in , then and is the best dominant.

Proof. By applying Theorem 12, we deduce that is a dominant of (81). Since satisfies (85), it is also a solution of (81). Therefore, will be dominated by all dominants. Hence is the best dominant.

In view of Definition 11, in the particular case when , the class of admissible functions, denoted simply by , is described below.

Definition 17. Let be a set in , , and . The class of admissible functions consists of those functions such that whenever , and for all and .

Corollary 18. Let . If the function satisfies the following conditions: then

In the special case when the class is denoted, for brevity, by . Corollary 18 can now be rewritten in the following form.

Corollary 19. Let . If the function satisfies the following conditions: then

Corollary 20. Let with and . If the function satisfies the following conditions: then

Proof. Corollary 20 follows from Corollary 19 by setting

Corollary 21. Let , , and . If the function satisfies the following conditions then

Proof. Let where In order to use Corollary 18, we need to show that ; that is, the admissibility condition (88) is satisfied. This follows easily, since whenever , , and for all and . The required result now follows from Corollary 18.

4. Third-Order Differential Superordination of the Operator

In this section, we obtain the third-order differential superordination results for meromorphically multivalent functions associated with the operator defined by (16). Because of this, the class of admissible functions is given in the following definition.

Definition 22. Let be a set in and with . The class of admissible functions consists of those functions that satisfy the following admissibility condition: whenever where , , , and .

Theorem 23. Let . If the functions and satisfy the following conditions: is univalent implies that

Proof. Let the function be defined by (64) and by (70). Since , (71) and (106) yield We see from (68) and (69) that the admissible condition for in Definition 22 is equivalent to the admissible condition for as given in Definition 7 with . Hence , and by using (104) and Theorem 8, we have or, equivalently, which evidently completes the proof of Theorem 23.

If is a simply connected domain and for some conformal mapping of onto , then the class is written simply as . With proceedings similar as in the preceding section, the following result is an immediate consequence of Theorem 23.

Theorem 24. Let . Also let the function be analytic in . If the functions and satisfy condition (104) and is univalent in , then implies that

Theorems 23 and 24 can only be used to obtain subordinations involving the third-order differential superordination of the forms (106) or (112). The following theorem proves the existence of the best subordinant of (112) for a suitable chosen .

Theorem 25. Let the function be analytic in , and let and be given by (70). Suppose that the differential equation has a solution . If the functions and satisfy condition (104) and is univalent in , then implies that and is the best subordinant.

Proof. The proof of Theorem 25 is similar to that of Theorem 16 and it is being omitted here.

By combining Theorems 14 and 24, we obtain the following sandwich-type result.

Corollary 26. Let the functions and be analytic functions in . Also let the function be univalent in , with and . If the function , and is univalent in , and the conditions (61) and (104) are satisfied, then implies that

Remark 27. By setting in all results of this paper, we can obtain the corresponding results for the well-known Liu-Srivastava operator .

5. Concluding Remarks and Observations

In our present investigation, we have derived several third-order differential subordination and superordination results for meromorphically multivalent functions in the punctured unit disk involving the operator defined by (16) with respect to the parameter , which is associated with the Liu-Srivastava operator . Our results have been obtained by considering suitable classes of admissible functions. Furthermore, if we use relation (19), we can obtain the corresponding third-order differential subordination and superordination results for the operator with respect to the parameter and here we choose to omit the details involved.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

The research was partly supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 11271045, the Higher School Doctoral Foundation of China under Grant 20100003110004, the Natural Science Foundation of Inner Mongolia of China under Grant 2010MS0117, and the Higher School Foundation of Inner Mongolia of China under Grant NJZY13298. The authors would like to thank Professors Om P. Ahuja and V. Ravichandran for their valuable suggestions and the referees for their careful reading and helpful comments to improve their paper.

References

S. S. Miller and P. T. Mocanu, Differential Subordinations: Theory and Applications, vol. 225 of Series on Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, No. 225, Marcel Dekker Incorporated, New York, NY, USA, 2000.
View at: MathSciNet
S. Owa and H. M. Srivastava, “Univalent and starlike generalized hypergeometric functions,” Canadian Journal of Mathematics, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1057–1077, 1987.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
H. M. Srivastava and S. Owa, “Some characterization and distortion theorems involving fractional calculus, generalized hypergeometric functions, Hadamard products, linear operators, and certain subclasses of analytic functions,” Nagoya Mathematical Journal, vol. 106, pp. 1–28, 1987.
View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
H. Tang, M. K. Aouf, and G. T. Deng, “Majorization problems for certain subclasses of meromorphic multivalent functions associated with the Liu-Srivastava operator,” Filomat. In press.
View at: Google Scholar
J.-L. Liu and H. M. Srivastava, “Classes of meromorphically multivalent functions associated with the generalized hypergeometric function,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 21–34, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
J.-L. Liu and H. M. Srivastava, “Subclasses of meromorphically multivalent functions associated with a certain linear operator,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 35–44, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
N. E. Cho, O. S. Kwon, and H. M. Srivastava, “Strong differential subordination and superordination for multivalently meromorphic functions involving the Liu-Srivastava operator,” Integral Transforms and Special Functions, vol. 21, no. 7-8, pp. 589–601, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
J. Dziok and H. M. Srivastava, “Classes of analytic functions associated with the generalized hypergeometric function,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
J. Dziok and H. M. Srivastava, “Some subclasses of analytic functions with fixed argument of coefficients associated with the generalized hypergeometric function,” Advanced Studies in Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 115–125, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
J. Dziok and H. M. Srivastava, “Certain subclasses of analytic functions associated with the generalized hypergeometric function,” Integral Transforms and Special Functions, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 7–18, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
J.-L. Liu and H. M. Srivastava, “Certain properties of the Dziok-Srivastava operator,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 159, no. 2, pp. 485–493, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
J. Patel, A. K. Mishra, and H. M. Srivastava, “Classes of multivalent analytic functions involving the Dziok-Srivastava operator,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 599–616, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
J.-L. Liu, “A linear operator and its applications on meromorphic $p$ -valent functions,” Bulletin of the Institute of Mathematics. Academia Sinica, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 23–32, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
J.-L. Liu and H. M. Srivastava, “A linear operator and associated families of meromorphically multivalent functions,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 259, no. 2, pp. 566–581, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
D. Yang, “On a class of meromorphic starlike multivalent functions,” Bulletin of the Institute of Mathematics. Academia Sinica, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 151–157, 1996.
View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
B. A. Uralegaddi and C. Somanatha, “New criteria for meromorphic starlike univalent functions,” Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 137–140, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
J. A. Antonino and S. S. Miller, “Third-order differential inequalities and subordinations in the complex plane,” Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 439–454, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
S. S. Miller and P. T. Mocanu, “Subordinants of differential superordinations,” Complex Variables. Theory and Application, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 815–826, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
R. M. Ali, V. Ravichandran, and N. Seenivasagan, “Subordination and superordination on Schwarzian derivatives,” Journal of Inequalities and Applications, vol. 2008, Article ID 712328, 18 pages, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
R. M. Ali, V. Ravichandran, and N. Seenivasagan, “On subordination and superordination of the multiplier transformation for meromorphic functions,” Bulletin of the Malaysian Mathematical Sciences Society. Second Series, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 311–324, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
N. E. Cho, O. S. Kwon, S. Owa, and H. M. Srivastava, “A class of integral operators preserving subordination and superordination for meromorphic functions,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 193, no. 2, pp. 463–474, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
N. E. Cho and H. M. Srivastava, “A class of nonlinear integral operators preserving subordination and superordination,” Integral Transforms and Special Functions, vol. 18, no. 1-2, pp. 95–107, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
T. N. Shanmugam, S. Sivasubramanian, and H. Srivastava, “Differential sandwich theorems for certain subclasses of analytic functions involving multiplier transformations,” Integral Transforms and Special Functions, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 889–899, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet

Copyright

Copyright © 2014 Huo Tang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1603

Downloads

1608

Citations