Research Article | Open Access

# Inclusion Properties of New Classes of Analytic Functions

**Academic Editor:**Yuqiang Feng

#### Abstract

The purpose of the present paper is to introduce certain new subclasses of analytic functions defined by Srivastava-Attiya operator and study their inclusion relationships and to obtain some interesting consequences of the inclusion relations.

#### 1. Introduction, Definitions, and Preliminaries

Let be the class of analytic functions defined on the unit disk , normalized by the conditions . Let be the subclass of consisting of univalent functions. Let denote the class of analytic convex univalent functions defined in satisfying the conditions and for all .

For any two analytic functions and defined in the unit disc , we say that is subordinate to in , denoted by , if is univalent in , and .

The convolution or the Hadamard product of two analytic functions with power series representations convergent in is the function , with power series representation The following classes of functions were defined by Shanmugam [1].

For a fixed analytic function and , We note that .

When and , , the class of starlike functions; , the class of convex functions; and , the class of close to convex functions.

The generalized Hurwitz-Lerch Zeta function is defined as
where* *.

This function contains, as its special cases, functions such as the Riemann and Hurwitz zeta function, Lerch zeta function, the polylogarithmic function, and the Lipschitz Lerch zeta function.

Several interesting properties and characteristics of the Hurwitz-Lerch zeta function can be found in the recent investigations by Choi and Srivastava [2], Ferreira and López [3], Garg et al. [4], Lin and Srivastava [5], and Lin et al. [6].

Using this function, Srivastava and Attiya [7] introduced the following family of linear operator , defined by where the function is given by Using (6) in (5), we get For and , where denotes Alexander transform [8] and denotes Bernardi integral operator [9].

By (7), Srivastava and Attiya obtained the following relation: In order to obtain our main results, we need the following lemmas.

Lemma 1 (see [10]). *Let and be constants. Let be convex univalent in with and for in . Let be analytic in with . Then
*

Lemma 2 (see [11]). *Let and be constants. Let be convex univalent in with and for in . Let be analytic in with . Let be analytic in with . Then
*

Lemma 3 (see [12]). *Let a function be analytic in and . If there exists a point such that and , then
**
where
**
and .*

#### 2. Main Results

First we will define a subclass as follows.

*Definition 4. *For a fixed analytic function and a real ,

*Remark 5. *When , , and , reduces to the class .

Theorem 6. *For , .*

*Proof. *Let and .

Note that is analytic and .

Then,
Hence
where
Since .

Thus, by using Lemma 2,
That is, .

In the following, we obtain an inclusion relation of the class .

Theorem 7. *For .*

*Proof. *Let .

Then
and by Theorem 6,
Thus,
Since is a convex domain,
where .

That is,
Let . Then and (23) implies that .

Theorem 8. *Let . If then , for .*

*Proof. *Let .

We prove the result by mathematical induction on .

When , .

When , set
Clearly, is analytic and .

From (9), we get
By logarithmic differentiation and multiplication by , we get
As , by Lemma 1, we get .

That is, .

Suppose that .

Set
Clearly, is analytic and .

From (9), we get
By logarithmic differentiation and multiplication by , we get
Hence, by Lemma 1, , for .

That is, , which proves the result.

Theorem 9. *Let . If then , for .*

*Proof. *Let .

Then

*Remark 10. *The Bernardi integral operator preserves both the classes and whenever .

Corollary 11. *Let , , and .*(i)*If then .*(ii)*If then .*

Theorem 12. *Let and
**
Then
*

*Proof. *Let .

From (9), we get
From Theorem 8, for all.

Hence,

Let
Then for ,
This completes the proof.

In the following, we introduce certain classes of analytic functions defined by Srivastava-Attiya operator and investigate their inclusion relationships.

Let and .

*Definition 13. *For and , let

*Definition 14. *For and , let

*Remark 15. *Clearly, if and only if .

*Definition 16. *For and , let

*Remark 17. *We note that

Theorem 18. *If , then .*

*Proof. *Let . Then,
Let
where is analytic and .

Using (42) in (9), we get
On logarithmic differentiation and multiplication by , we arrive at
Since is convex univalent in with and , Lemma 1 and the subordination relation (44) gives
proving the theorem.

Theorem 19. *If , then .*

*Proof. *Let .

Then

Theorem 20. *If , then .*

*Proof. *Let . Then, by Definition 16, there exists a function such that
Using Theorem 18, we get .

Thus,
where is analytic.

Let
where is analytic and .

Now, making use of (9),
Simplifying the above, using (48) and (49), and then using (47) we arrive at
Since is convex univalent in with and , Lemma 2 and the subordination relation (51) gives
proving the assertion.

Now, we consider certain interesting consequences of the above inclusion relationships.

Corollary 21. *Suppose that .*(i)*If then .*(ii)*If then .*(iii)*If then .*

Corollary 22. *Suppose that and . *(i)*If then .*(ii)*If then .*(iii)*If then .*

In a similar manner one can obtain many applications of Theorems 18, 19, and 20.

Using Srivastava-Attiya integral operator, we introduce some classes of analytic functions, analogous to the class of strongly starlike functions of order and the class of strongly convex functions of order , and study the properties of the newly defined classes.

Let , , , , and .

*Definition 23. *Let

*Definition 24. *Let

*Remark 25. *Clearly, if and only if .

*Remark 26. *For , , is the class of strongly starlike functions of order and is the class of strongly convex functions of order .

Now we prove inclusion relationships for the above defined classes.

Theorem 27. *Suppose that . Then for each .*

*Proof. *Let .

We set
where is analytic in , and for all .

Using (9) and (55), we have
On logarithmic differentiation and multiplication by , we get
Suppose that there exists a point such that
Then, applying Lemma 3, we can write
Thus, if , then from (57)
This implies that
which contradicts the condition that .

Similarly, if arg , then we obtain that
which also contradicts the condition that .

Thus we have
That is,

Theorem 28. *Suppose that . Then , for .*

*Proof. *Let .

Then

#### Conflict of Interests

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

#### References

- T. N. Shanmugam, “Convolution and differential subordination,”
*International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences*, vol. 12, pp. 333–340, 1989. View at: Google Scholar - J. Choi and H. M. Srivastava, “Certain families of series associated with the Hurwitz-Lerch Zeta function,”
*Applied Mathematics and Computation*, vol. 170, no. 1, pp. 399–409, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar - C. Ferreira and J. L. López, “Asymptotic expansions of the Hurwitz-Lerch zeta function,”
*Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*, vol. 298, no. 1, pp. 210–224, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar - M. Garg, K. Jain, and H. M. Srivastava, “Some relationships between the generalized Apostol-Bernoulli polynomials and Hurwitz-Lerch Zeta functions,”
*Integral Transforms and Special Functions*, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 803–815, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar - S.-D. Lin and H. M. Srivastava, “Some families of the Hurwitz-Lerch Zeta functions and associated fractional derivative and other integral representations,”
*Applied Mathematics and Computation*, vol. 154, no. 3, pp. 725–733, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar - S.-D. Lin, H. M. Srivastava, and P.-Y. Wang, “Some expansion formulas for a class of generalized Hurwitz-Lerch Zeta functions,”
*Integral Transforms and Special Functions*, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 817–827, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar - H. M. Srivastava and A. A. Attiya, “An integral operator associated with the Hurwitz-Lerch Zeta function and differential subordination,”
*Integral Transforms and Special Functions*, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 207–216, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar - J. W. Alexander, “Functions which map the interior of the unit circle upon simple regions,”
*Annals of Mathematics*, vol. 17, pp. 12–22, 1915-1916. View at: Google Scholar - S. D. Bernardi, “Convex and starlike univalent functions,”
*Transactions of the American Mathematical Society*, vol. 135, pp. 429–446, 1969. View at: Google Scholar - P. Eeningenburg, S. S. Miller, P. T. Mocanu, and M. O. Reade, “On a briot boquet differential subordination,” in
*General Inequalities 3: 3rd International Conference on General Inequalities*, vol. 64, pp. 339–348, 1983. View at: Google Scholar - K. S. Padmanabhan and R. Parvatam, “Some applications of differential subordination,”
*Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society*, vol. 37, pp. 321–330, 1985. View at: Google Scholar - M. Nunokawa, “On the order of strongly starlikeness of strongly convex functions,”
*Proceedings of the Japan Academy A*, vol. 69, pp. 234–237, 1993. View at: Google Scholar

#### Copyright

Copyright © 2014 Mohan Das 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.