Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Analysis
Volume 2013, Article ID 542828, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/542828
Research Article

Bounded Nonlinear Functional Derived by the Generalized Srivastava-Owa Fractional Differential Operator

Institute of Mathematical Sciences, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Received 25 November 2012; Revised 6 January 2013; Accepted 6 January 2013

Academic Editor: Alain Miranville

Copyright © 2013 Rabha W. Ibrahim. 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.

Abstract

By making use of the generalized Srivastava-Owa fractional differential operator, a class of analytical functions is imposed. The sharp bound for the nonlinear functional associated with the Hankel determinant is computed. We consider a new technique to prove our results. Important properties such as inclusion, subordination, and Hadamard product are studied. Some recent results are included.

1. Introduction

Fractional calculus (real and complex) is a rapidly growing subject of interest for physicists and mathematicians. The reason for this is that problems may be discussed in a much more stringent and elegant way than using traditional methods. Fractional differential equations have emerged as a new branch of applied mathematics which has been used for many mathematical models in science and engineering. In fact, fractional differential equations are considered as an alternative model to nonlinear differential equations. Several different derivatives were introduced: Riemann-Liouville, Hadamard, Grunwald-Letnikov, Riesz, Erdelyi-Kober operators, and Caputo [17].

Recently, the theory of fractional calculus has found interesting applications in the theory of analytic functions. The classical definitions of fractional operators and their generalizations have fruitfully been employed for imposing, for example, the characterization properties, coefficient estimates [8], distortion inequalities [9], and convolution structures for various subclasses of analytic functions and the works in the research monographs. In [10], Srivastava and Owa defined the fractional operators (derivative and integral) in the complex -plane as follows.

Definition 1. The fractional derivative of order is defined, for a function by where the function is analytical in simply-connected region of the complex -plane containing the origin and the multiplicity of is removed by requiring to be real when .

Definition 2. The fractional integral of order is defined, for a function , by where the function is analytical in simply connected region of the complex -plane containing the origin and the multiplicity of is removed by requiring to be real when .

In [11], the author generalized a formula for the fractional integral as follows: for natural and real , the -fold integral of the form Employing the Dirichlet technique implies Repeating the above step times yields which imposes the fractional operator type where and are real numbers and the function is analytic in simply connected region of the complex -plane containing the origin and the multiplicity of is removed by requiring to be real when . When , we arrive at the standard Srivastava-Owa fractional integral. Further information can be found in [11].

Corresponding to the fractional integral operator, the fractional differential operator is where the function is analytical in simply connected region of the complex -plane containing the origin and the multiplicity of is removed by requiring to be real when . We have

Let denote the class of functions normalized by Also, let and denote the subclasses of consisting of functions which are, respectively, univalent, starlike , and convex in . It is well known that, if the function given by (9) is in the class , then . Moreover, if the function given by (9) is in the class , then .

In our present investigation, we will also make use of the Fox-Wright generalization of the hypergeometric function defined by [12] where for all ,    for all , and for suitable values , and are complex parameters.

It is well known that where and is the generalized hypergeometric function.

Now by making use of the operator (7), we introduce the following extension operator : Obviously, when , we have the extension fractional differential operator defined in [13] ([14] for recent work), which contains the Carlson-Shaffer operator. In term of the Fox-Wright generalized function, where , , and is the Hadamard product. Note that where is the Carlson-Shaffer operator. Moreover, operator (14) can be viewed as a linear operator which is essentially analogous to the Dziok-Srivastava operator whenever used instead of the Fox-Wright generalization of the hypergeometric function.

Recently, various results, such as convolution and inclusion properties, distortion theorem, extreme points, and coefficient estimates, are proposed by many authors for the operators due to Srivastava involving the Wright function, generalized hypergeometric function, and Meijer's -functions. These operators are Dziok-Srivastava, Srivastava-Wright, Cho-Kwon-Srivastava operator, Cho-Saigo-Srivastava operator, Jung-Kim-Srivastava, and Srivastava-Owa operators (see [1524]). Going on in this generalization, we have finally the Erdelyi-Kober operator of fractional integration with three parameters used in [25].

Definition 3 (subordination principal). For two functions and analytical in , we say that the function is subordinated to in and write , if there exists a Schwartz function analytical in with , and , such that . In particular, if the function is univalent in , the above subordination is equivalent to and .

Definition 4. For the function defined by (9), the Hankel determinant of is defined by Now we proceed to define a new class of analytic function involving the operator (13).

Definition 5. The function is said to be in the class , where , if it satisfies the inequality Consequently, from Definition 4, we have where satisfies the following properties [26]: We denote this class by .

Note that (see [27]),(see [28]).

It is well known that, for the univalent function of the form (9), the sharp inequality holds. In the recent paper, we assume the Hankel determinant for and calculate the sharp bound for the functional for . Properties of this class are illustrated, and some well-known results are generalized. For this purpose, we need the following preliminary in the sequel, which can be found in [29].

Lemma 6. Let and be univalent convex in . Then, the Hadamard product is also univalent convex function in .

Lemma 7. Let and be univalent convex in , and and . Then, .

Lemma 8. Let and be starlike of order 12 then, for function satisfying ,

2. Main Results

We have the following result.

Theorem 9. Let the function be in the class . Then where and The estimate (23) is sharp.

Proof. Since , then Comparing the coefficients of (13) and (25), we receive where Therefore, (26) implies By letting and using (i)–(iii), we have By employing the triangle inequality and assuming , and , we obtain Our aim is to maximize in the interior of the domain . Since thus cannot have a maximum in the interior of . Furthermore, where But hence the upper bound of (28) is The equality holds for the functions

Remark 10. Letting , we receive a recent result due to Mishra and Gochhayat [28]; putting , we obtain a result given by Janteng et al. [30].

Theorem 11. Assume that and , with . If the subordination where holds, then

Proof. Let . We rewrite where and is a Pochhammer symbol. Therefore, Assumption (37) implies that is convex (see [31, Theorem 1.9]) and consequently (Marx-Strohhäcker Theorem [32]). Moreover, the function is starlike of order 12, then in view of Lemma 8, we obtain that and consequently .

Remark 12. Condition (37) can be replaced by another condition to obtain the convexity of the function , such that yields that is convex (see [31]).

Theorem 13. Let and . Then .

Proof. By employing the properties of the Hadamard product, we receive Therefore, In virtue of Lemma 8, we have Hence .

Theorem 14. Let . Then the integral is also in .

Proof. It is easy to show that Therefore, But , thus in view of Lemma 8, the proof is complete.

Remark 15. When in Theorems 13 and 14, we have the results given in [28].

Theorem 16. Let . If the subordination holds, then , is univalent convex function.

Proof. Condition (51) yields that is univalent convex (see [31, Theorem 1.9]) and consequently, in view of Lemma 6, is univalent convex function.

Theorem 17. Let . Then where is defined in Theorem 16.

Proof. Since , then we have But is univalent convex function (Theorem 16); thus by an application of Lemma 7, we obtain the desired assertion.

3. Conclusion

We defined a new fractional differential operator which generalized well-known linear and nonlinear operators such as Carlson-Shaffer operator and the Dziok-Srivastava (linear operators) and Srivastava-Owa fractional differential operators (nonlinear operator). By making uses this operator a generalized class of analytic functions is defined and studied. The sharp bound for nonlinear functional based on the second-order Hankel determinant , involving the generalized fractional differential operator, is computed. Several properties, depending on the Hadamard product, are imposed. We have shown that some results are generalized by recent works due to Mishra-Gochhayat, Ling-Ding, and Janteng et al. Furthermore, a new approach is introduced in the proof of Theorems 11 and 16 based on the subordination concept and employing the result due to Ponnusamy and Singh.

References

  1. S. G. Samko, A. A. Kilbas, and O. I. Marichev, Fractional Integrals and Derivatives: Theory and Applications, Gordon and Breach Science, Yverdon, Switzerland, 1993. View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  2. I. Podlubny, Fractional Differential Equations, vol. 198, Academic Press, San Diego, Calif, USA, 1999. View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  3. R. Hilfer, Applications of Fractional Calculus in Physics, World Scientific, Singapore, 2000.
  4. K. Diethelm, The Analysis of Fractional Differential Equations, vol. 2004 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  5. A. A. Kilbas, H. M. Srivastava, and J. J. Trujillo, Theory and Applications of Fractional Differential Equations, vol. 204 of North-Holland Mathematics Studies, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherland, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  6. J. Sabatier, O. P. Agrawal, and J. A. T. Machado, Advance in Fractional Calculus: Theoretical Developments and Applications in Physics and Engineering, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2007.
  7. V. Lakshmikantham, S. Leela, and J. V. Devi, Theory of Fractional Dynamic Systems, Cambridge Scientific, Cambridge, UK, 2009.
  8. M. Darus and R. W. Ibrahim, “Radius estimates of a subclass of univalent functions,” Matematichki Vesnik, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 55–58, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  9. H. M. Srivastava, Y. Ling, and G. Bao, “Some distortion inequalities associated with the fractional derivatives of analytic and univalent functions,” Journal of Inequalities in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 2, no. 2, article 23, 6 pages, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  10. H. M. Srivastava and S. Owa, Univalent Functions, Fractional Calculus, and Their Applications, Halsted Press, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1989.
  11. R. W. Ibrahim, “On generalized Srivastava-Owa fractional operators in the unit disk,” Advances in Difference Equations, vol. 2011, article 55, 10 pages, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  12. H. M. Srivastava and P. W. Karlsson, Multiple Gaussian Hypergeometric Series, Halsted Press, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1985. View at MathSciNet
  13. 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 · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  14. R. W. Ibrahim and M. Darus, “Differential operator generalized by fractional derivatives,” Miskolc Mathematical Notes, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 167–184, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  15. Y. Yang, Y.-Q. Tao, and J.-L. Liu, “Differential subordinations for certain meromorphically multivalent functions defined by Dziok-Srivastava operator,” Abstract and Applied Analysis, vol. 2011, Article ID 726518, 9 pages, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  16. V. Kiryakova, “Criteria for univalence of the Dziok-Srivastava and the Srivastava-Wright operators in the class A,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 218, no. 3, pp. 883–892, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  17. M. Darus and R. W. Ibrahim, “On the existence of univalent solutions for fractional integral equation of Volterra type in complex plane,” ROMAI Journal, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 77–86, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  18. H. M. Srivastava, M. Darus, and R. W. Ibrahim, “Classes of analytic functions with fractional powers defined by means of a certain linear operator,” Integral Transforms and Special Functions, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 17–28, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  19. K. Piejko and J. Sokól, “Subclasses of meromorphic functions associated with the Cho-Kwon-Srivastava operator,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 337, no. 2, pp. 1261–1266, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  20. J. Sokól, “On some applications of the Dziok-Srivastava operator,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 201, no. 1-2, pp. 774–780, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  21. R. W. Ibrahim and M. Darus, “On analytic functions associated with the Dziok-Srivastava linear operator and Srivastava-Owa fractional integral operator,” Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 441–450, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  22. B. A. Frasin, “New properties of the Jung-Kim-Srivastava integral operators,” Tamkang Journal of Mathematics, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 205–215, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  23. Z.-G. Wang, R. Aghalary, M. Darus, and R. W. Ibrahim, “Some properties of certain multivalent analytic functions involving the Cho-Kwon-Srivastava operator,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 49, no. 9-10, pp. 1969–1984, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  24. H. M. Srivastava, “Some Fox-Wright generalized hypergeometric functions and associated families of convolution operators,” Applicable Analysis and Discrete Mathematics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 56–71, 2007, Proceedings of the International Conference on Topics in Mathematical Analysis and Graph Theory (2007). View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  25. V. Kiryakova, “Convolutions of Erdélyi-Kober fractional integration operators,” in Complex Analysis and Applications '87, pp. 273–283, The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria, 1989. View at Google Scholar
  26. R. J. Libera and E. J. Złotkiewicz, “Coefficient bounds for the inverse of a function with derivative in P,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 251–257, 1983. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  27. L. Yi and D. Shusen, “A class of analytic functions defined by fractional derivation,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 186, no. 2, pp. 504–513, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  28. A. K. Mishra and P. Gochhayat, “Second Hankel determinant for a class of analytic functions defined by fractional derivative,” International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, vol. 2008, Article ID 153280, 10 pages, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  29. St. Ruscheweyh and T. Sheil-Small, “Hadamard products of Schlicht functions and the Pólya-Schoenberg conjecture,” Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici, vol. 48, pp. 119–135, 1973. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  30. A. Janteng, S. A. Halim, and M. Darus, “Coefficient inequality for a function whose derivative has a positive real part,” Journal of Inequalities in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 7, no. 2, article 50, 5 pages, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  31. S. Ponnusamy and V. Singh, “Criteria for univalent, starlike and convex functions,” Bulletin of the Belgian Mathematical Society, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 511–531, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  32. S. S. Miller and P. T. Mocanu, Differential Subordinantions: Theory and Applications, vol. 225 of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Dekker, New York, NY, USA, 2000. View at MathSciNet