International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences

Volume 2009, Article ID 450632, 16 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2009/450632

## Some Properties of Fractional Calculus and Linear Operators Associated with Certain Subclass of Multivalent Functions

^{1}Department of Mathematics, Pune University, 411007 Pune, India^{2}Department of Mathematics, Fergusson College, 411004 Pune, India^{3}Department of Mathematical Sciences, Kent State University, 14111 Claridon Troy Road, Burton, Ohio 44021-9500, USA

Received 27 March 2009; Accepted 25 July 2009

Academic Editor: Narendra Kumar Govil

Copyright © 2009 Sh. Khosravianarab 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.

#### Abstract

We investigate several distortion inequalities involving fractional calculus, Ruscheweyh derivatives, and some well-known integral operators. In special cases, the results presented in this paper provide new approaches to several previously known results.

#### 1. Introduction

Let denote the class of functions of the form which are analytic in the open unit disc Also, let denote the subclass of consisting of all functions of the form For functions , given by the Hadamard product (or convolution) of and is defined by The Ruscheweyh derivative of of order is defined by where is given by (1.1) and . The Ruscheweyh derivative has been studied by several authors; for example, see [1, 2].

For , , and , let consist of functions so that for some . In [3], the authors obtained four containment results for the class . We denote . The class was studied by Swaminathan [4–6], Barnard et al. [7], Kim and Rønning [8], and others.

In the present paper, we investigate several distortion inequalities involving fractional calculus, Ruscheweyh derivative, and some well-known integral operators defined on the class . In special cases, the results presented here provide new approaches to some previously known results.

*Remark 1.1. *Throughout this section, we assume that .

#### 2. Definitions and Lemmas

For the function given by (1.2), we define It is easy to verify that

Lemma 2.1. *Let the function be given by (1.2). Then if and only if
**
for some .*

*Proof. *Using the fact that if and only if , it suffices to show that
where is defined by (2.1). Letting
and assuming (2.3), we obtain
where . By (2.3), the desired inequality (2.4) follows at once. Conversely, if , then
or, equivalently (2.4). This yields
which implies that
Squaring the above inequality, choosing the value of on the half line and letting through this line, we obtain
Hence we get
which reduces to
So the desired inequality (2.3) follows upon using (2.5).

Setting and in Lemma 2.1, we get the following result.

Corollary 2.2 ([5, Theorem 2.4]). *Let be of the form (1.2). Then necessary and sufficient condition for to be in is
*

Throughout this paper, we define

As an immediate consequence of Lemma 2.1, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 2.3. *Let the function be defined by (1.2). If , then
**
for some .*

Let and (, ) be complex numbers such that for . The generalized hypergeometric function is given by where denotes the Pochhammer symbol defined by The operator has recently been studied by several authors; for example, [3, 5]. For , the above series give rise to the Gaussian hypergeometric series .

In [9], Hohlov introduced the convolution operator by Motivated by the operator , the authors in [3] defined the convolution operators and as follows: where , and . For , the operator was introduced in [7].

In Section 3, we will make use of the following well-known fractional calculus operators , and . For an analytic function defined in a simply connected region of the complex -plane containing the origin, these operators are defined as follows (See [1, 10]): where multiplicity of is removed by requiring to be real when ; where the multiplicity of is removed, as in the definition of ; By virtue of (2.21), (2.22), (2.23) and in terms of Gamma function, it is wellknown (see for details [11]) that

where , , and for .

In Section 4, we will investigate the integral operator defined by where , and . For and , the operator was first defined by Bernardi [12]. Later on several authors studied the operator ; for example, see [1, 5].

#### 3. Distortion Inequalities of Convolution Operators

Theorem 3.1. *Let the function defined by (1.2) be in the class . Then
**
for some . Here, and are defined, respectively, by (2.1) and (2.14).*

*Proof. *From (2.2), we have
Making use of Lemma 2.1, we get
for some . Similarly,
for some . This completes the proof.

We next obtain distortion inequalities for the fractional operaters and .

Theorem 3.2. *Suppose and . If , then for some , one has
**
where , , , and the operator was defined by (2.19).*

*Proof. *By using (2.19), we deduce that
Then
where
Since is a decreasing function of , when , then
Also, according to Lemma 2.1 and , we have
for some . Then
for some . From (3.7) and (3.9), we obtain
In view of (3.11), we conclude that
for some , and
for some , which yield (3.5).

By letting and in Theorem 3.2, we deduce the following consequence.

Corollary 3.3. *If , then for , , and some *

Theorem 3.4. *Let , and . If , then
**
for some . The operator was defined by (2.19).*

*Proof. *In view of (2.19) and (2.22), we have
where
Since is a decreasing function of , it follows that
By using (3.11), (3.18), and (3.20), we get
for some . The last two inequalities yield (3.16) and (3.17), respectively.

Letting , and in Theorem 3.4, we get the following result.

Corollary 3.5. *Let be defined by (2.19). If , then
**
for some , , , and .*

We next prove the distortion theorems involving fractional calculus and generalized convolution operator defined by (2.20).

Theorem 3.6. *Suppose , , and . Also, let , and . If , then
**
for some . Here, the operator is defined by (2.20).*

*Proof. *By making use of (2.20), we have
It is easy to verify that
This implies that
where
Since is a decreasing function of , when , and , we get
From Lemma 2.1 and , we obtain
for some . It follows from (3.26) and (3.28) that
for some , which yield (3.23).

We state an obvious variant of Theorem 3.6 as follows.

Corollary 3.7. *Let the function defined by (1.2) be in the class . Also let , , and . Then
**
for some , , and .*

The proof of Theorem 3.8 is much akin to that of Theorem 3.6, and so it is omitted here.

Theorem 3.8. *Let , and . Also, let , and . If , then
**
for some . *

Next we prove the following.

Theorem 3.9. *Let , and . Also, let , and . If , then
**
for some . *

*Proof. *We have
where
Therefore
So, from (3.25), we have
where is defined by (3.27). Since is a decreasing function of , when and , then
From (3.37), (3.38), and Lemma 2.1, we find that
for some . The above inequalities lead us to the desired inequalities (3.33).

The proof of the following theorem is similar to Theorem 3.9, and so it is omitted here.

Theorem 3.10. *Let , and . Also, let , and . If , then
**
for some .*

Upon setting and in Theorems 3.6, 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10, we arrive at the following result.

Corollary 3.11. *Let , , , and . If , then
**
for some and . Furthermore
**
for some and .*

*Remark 3.12. *Under the hypothesis of Corollary 3.11, and are included in disks with its center at origin and radii and , respectively, given by

#### 4. Distortion Inequalities of Integral Operator

In this section, we obtain the distortion theorems involving the integral operator of functions in the class and fractional calculus operator.

Theorem 4.1. *Let , and . If then
**
for some . The operator is defined by (2.21).*

*Proof. *Using the definition (2.25), for function of the form (1.2), we have
So
Therefore, we obtain
where
Since is a decreasing function of , when , then
By using (3.11), (4.4), and (4.6), we get
for some , which prove the inequalities (4.1).

The proof of the following theorem is similar to Theorem 4.1, and so it is omitted here.

Theorem 4.2. *Let , , and . If , then
**
for some . *

#### Acknowledgment

The authors thank the referee for some useful suggestions for improvement of the article.

#### References

- M. K. Aouf, H. Silverman, and H. M. Srivastava, “Some families of linear operators associated with certain subclasses of multivalent functions,”
*Computers & Mathematics with Applications*, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 535–549, 2008. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - H. M. Srivastava, S. Owa, and O. P. Ahuja, “A new class of analytic functions associated with the Ruscheweyh derivatives,”
*Proceedings of the Japan Academy. Series A*, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 17–20, 1988. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - Sh. Khosravian-Arab, S. R. Kulkarni, and J. M. Jahangiri, “Certain properties of multivalent functions associated with Ruscheweyh derivative,” in
*Proceeding Book of the International Symposium on 2007 “Geometric Function Theory and Applications“*, pp. 153–160, Istanbul Kültür University Publications, 2008. View at Google Scholar - A. Swaminathan, “Inclusion theorems of convolution operators associated with normalized hypergeometric functions,”
*Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics*, vol. 197, no. 1, pp. 15–28, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - A. Swaminathan, “Certain sufficiency conditions on Gaussian hypergeometric functions,”
*Journal of Inequalities in Pure and Applied Mathematics*, vol. 5, no. 4, article 83, pp. 1–10, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - A. Swaminathan, “Sufficiency for hypergeometric transforms to be associated with conic regions,”
*Mathematical and Computer Modelling*, vol. 44, no. 3-4, pp. 276–286, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - R. W. Barnard, S. Naik, and S. Ponnusamy, “Univalency of weighted integral transforms of certain functions,”
*Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics*, vol. 193, no. 2, pp. 638–651, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - Y. C. Kim and F. Rønning, “Integral transforms of certain subclasses of analytic functions,”
*Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*, vol. 258, no. 2, pp. 466–489, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - Y. E. Hohlov, “Convolution operators preserving univalent functions,”
*Ukrainskiĭ Matematicheskiĭ Zhurnal*, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 220–226, 1985. View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet - T. Sekine, S. Owa, and K. Tsurumi, “Integral means of certain analytic functions for fractional calculus,”
*Applied Mathematics and Computation*, vol. 187, no. 1, pp. 425–432, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - H. M. Srivastava and S. Owa, Eds.,
*Univalent Functions, Fractional Calculus, and Their Applications*, Ellis Horwood Series: Mathematics and Its Applications, Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK; John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1989. View at MathSciNet - P. K. Bernardi, “Convex and starlike univalent functions,”
*Transactions of the American Mathematical Society*, vol. 135, pp. 429–446, 1969. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet