Research Article | Open Access

# Some Subordination Results on -Analogue of Ruscheweyh Differential Operator

**Academic Editor:**Sergei V. Pereverzyev

#### Abstract

We derive the -analogue of the well-known Ruscheweyh differential operator using the concept of -derivative. Here, we investigate several interesting properties of this -operator by making use of the method of differential subordination.

#### 1. Introduction

Recently, the area of -analysis has attracted the serious attention of researchers. This great interest is due to its application in various branches of mathematics and physics. The application of -calculus was initiated by Jackson [1, 2]. He was the first to develop -integral and -derivative in a systematic way. Later, from the 80s, geometrical interpretation of -analysis has been recognized through studies on quantum groups. It also suggests a relation between integrable systems and -analysis. In ([3–5]) the -analogue of Baskakov Durrmeyer operator has been proposed, which is based on -analogue of beta function. Another important -generalization of complex operators is -Picard and -Gauss-Weierstrass singular integral operators discussed in [6–8]. The authors studied approximation and geometric properties of these -operators in some subclasses of analytic functions in compact disk. Very recently, other -analogues of differential operators have been introduced in [9]; see also ([10, 11]). These -operators are defined by using convolution of normalized analytic functions and -hypergeometric functions, where several interesting results are obtained. From this point, it is expected that deriving -analogues of operators defined on the space of analytic functions would be important in future. A comprehensive study on applications of -analysis in operator theory may be found in [12].

We provide some notations and concepts of -calculus used in this paper. All the results can be found in [12–14]. For , we define

As , and this is the bookmark of a -analogue: the limit as recovers the classical object.

For complex parameters , the -analogue of Gauss’s hypergeometric function is defined by where is the -analogue of Pochhammer symbol defined by

The -derivative of a function is defined by and . For a function observe that then , where is the ordinary derivative.

Next, we state the class of all functions of the following form: which are analytic in the open unit disk . If and are analytic functions in , we say that is subordinate to ; written , if there is a function analytic in , with , for all , such that for all . If is univalent, then if and only if and .

For each and such that , we define the function It is well known that for is the conformal map of the unit disk onto the disk symmetrical with respect to the real axis having the center for and radius . The boundary circle cuts the real axis at the points and .

*Definition 1. *Let . Denote by the -analogue of Ruscheweyh operator defined by
where and are defined in (1).

From the definition we observe that, if , we have where is Ruscheweyh differential operator which was defined in [15] and has been studied by many authors, for example [16–18].

It can also be shown that this -operator is hypergeometric in nature as where is the -analogue of Gauss hypergeometric function defined in (2), and the symbol stands for the Hadamard product (or convolution).

The following identity is easily verified for the operator :

#### 2. Main Results

Before we obtain our results, we state some known lemmas.

Let be the class of functions of the form which are analytic in and satisfy the following inequality:

Lemma 2 (see [19]). *Let be given by (12), where ; then
**
and the bound is the best possible.*

Lemma 3 (see [20]). *Let the function , given by (12), be in the class . Then
*

Lemma 4 (see [21]). *The function , is univalent in if and only if is either in the closed disk or in the closed disk .*

We now generalize the lemmas introduced in [22] and [23], respectively, using -derivative.

Lemma 5. *Let be analytic and convex univalent in and and let be analytic in . If
**
Then, for ,
*

*Proof. *Suppose that is analytic and convex univalent in and is analytic in . Letting in (16), we have

Then, from Lemma in [22], we obtain

Lemma 6. *Let be univalent in and let and be analytic in a domain containing with when . Set and suppose that *(1)* is starlike univalent in ;*(2)*.**
If is analytic in , with , and
**
then and is the best dominant.*

The proof is similar to the proof of Lemma 5.

Theorem 7. *Let , , and . If satisfies
**
then
**
The result is sharp.*

*Proof. *Let
for . Then the function is analytic in . By using logarithmic -differentiation on both sides of (23) and multiplying by , we have
by making use of identity (11), we obtain

Taking into account that , we obtain

From (11), (23), and (26), we get

Now, applying Lemma 5, we have
or by the concept of subordination

In view of and , it follows from (29) that
with the aid of the elementary inequality for and . Hence, inequality (22) follows directly from (30). To show the sharpness of (22), we define by

For this function, we find that

This completes the proof.

Corollary 8. *Let , where and . If satisfies
*

*then*

*Proof. *Following the same steps as in the proof of Theorem 7 and considering , the differential subordination (27) becomes

Therefore,

Theorem 9. *Let and . Let be a complex number with and satisfy either or . If satisfies the condition
**
then
**
where is the best dominant.*

*Proof. *Let
Then, by making use of (11), (37), and (39), we obtain

We now assume that
then is univalent by condition of the theorem and Lemma 4. Further, it is easy to show that , and satisfy the conditions of Lemma 6. Note that the function
is univalent starlike in and

Combining (40) and Lemma 6 we get the assertion of Theorem 9.

Theorem 10. *Let and . If each of the functions satisfies the following subordination condition,
**
then,
**
where
*

*Proof. *we define the function by
we have , where . By making use of (11) and (48), we obtain
which, in the light of (46), can show that
where, for convenience,

Note that, by using Lemma 2, we have , where .

Now, with an application of Lemma 3, we have
which shows that the desired assertion of Theorem 10 holds.

#### Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests regarding the publication of this paper.

#### Authors’ Contribution

Huda Aldweby and Maslina Darus read and approved the final manuscript.

#### Acknowledgments

The work presented here was partially supported by AP-2013-009 and DIP-2013-001. The authors also would like to thank the referees for the comments made to improve this paper.

#### References

- F. H. Jackson, “On $q$-definite integrals,”
*The Quarterly Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics*, vol. 41, pp. 193–203, 1910. View at: Google Scholar - F. H. Jackson, “On $q$-functions and a certain difference operator,”
*Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh*, vol. 46, pp. 253–281, 1908. View at: Google Scholar - A. Aral and V. Gupta, “On $q$-Baskakov type operators,”
*Demonstratio Mathematica*, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 109–122, 2009. View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet - A. Aral and V. Gupta, “Generalized $q$-Baskakov operators,”
*Mathematica Slovaca*, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 619–634, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet - A. Aral and V. Gupta, “On the Durrmeyer type modification of the $q$-Baskakov type operators,”
*Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications*, vol. 72, no. 3-4, pp. 1171–1180, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet - G. A. Anastassiou and S. G. Gal, “Geometric and approximation properties of some singular integrals in the unit disk,”
*Journal of Inequalities and Applications*, Article ID 17231, 19 pages, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet - G. A. Anastassiou and S. G. Gal, “Geometric and approximation properties of generalized singular integrals in the unit disk,”
*Journal of the Korean Mathematical Society*, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 425–443, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet - A. Aral, “On the generalized Picard and Gauss Weierstrass singular integrals,”
*Journal of Computational Analysis and Applications*, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 249–261, 2006. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet - A. Mohammed and M. Darus, “A generalized operator involving the $q$-hypergeometric function,”
*Matematichki Vesnik*, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 454–465, 2013. View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet - H. Aldweby and M. Darus, “A subclass of harmonic univalent functions associated with $q$-analogue of Dziok-Srivastava operator,”
*ISRN Mathematical Analysis*, vol. 2013, Article ID 382312, 6 pages, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet - H. Aldweby and M. Darus, “On harmonic meromorphic functions associated with basic hypergeometric functions,”
*The Scientific World Journal*, vol. 2013, Article ID 164287, 7 pages, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar - A. Aral, V. Gupta, and R. P. Agarwal,
*Applications of q-Calculus in Operator Theory*, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | MathSciNet - G. Gasper and M. Rahman,
*Basic Hypergeometric Series*, vol. 35 of*Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990. View at: MathSciNet - H. Exton,
*q-Hypergeometric Functions and Applications*, Ellis Horwood Series: Mathematics and Its Applications, Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK, 1983. View at: MathSciNet - S. Ruscheweyh, “New criteria for univalent functions,”
*Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society*, vol. 49, pp. 109–115, 1975. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet - M. L. Mogra, “Applications of Ruscheweyh derivatives and Hadamard product to analytic functions,”
*International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences*, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 795–805, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet - K. Inayat Noor and S. Hussain, “On certain analytic functions associated with Ruscheweyh derivatives and bounded Mocanu variation,”
*Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*, vol. 340, no. 2, pp. 1145–1152, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet - S. L. Shukla and V. Kumar, “Univalent functions defined by Ruscheweyh derivatives,”
*International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences*, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 483–486, 1983. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet - G. S. Rao and R. Saravanan, “Some results concerning best uniform coap- proximation,”
*Journal of Inequalities in Pure and Applied Math*, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 24, 2002. View at: Google Scholar - G. S. Rao and K. R. Chandrasekaran, “Characterization of elements of best coapproximation in normed linear spaces,”
*Pure and Applied Mathematical Sciences*, vol. 26, pp. 139–147, 1987. View at: Google Scholar - M. S. Robertson, “Certain classes of starlike functions,”
*The Michigan Mathematical Journal*, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 135–140, 1985. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet - S. S. Miller and P. T. Mocanu, “Differential subordinations and univalent functions,”
*The Michigan Mathematical Journal*, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 157–172, 1981. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet - S. S. Miller and P. T. Mocanu, “On some classes of first-order differential subordinations,”
*The Michigan Mathematical Journal*, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 185–195, 1985. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet

#### Copyright

Copyright © 2014 Huda Aldweby and Maslina Darus. 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.