Differential Subordination for Certian Subclasses of -Valent Functions Assoicated with Generalized Linear Operator
By making use of the differential subordination analytic functions, we investigate inclusion relationships among certain classes of analytic and -valent functions defined by generalized linear operator.
Let denote the class of functions of the form which are analytic and valent in the open unit disc
For functions , given by (1) and given by the Hadamard product (or convolution) of and is defined by
For , we say that the function is subordinate to denoted by , if there exists a Schwarz function , that is, with and , such that for all . It is well known that, if the function is univalent in , then is equivalent to and (see [1, 2]).
Now, we introduce the linear multiplier operator by It is easily verified from (4) that By specializing the parameters , , , , and , we obtain the following operators:(i) (see );(ii) (see [4, 5]); (iii) (see [6, 7]); (iv) (see ); (v) (see [9, 10]);(vi) (see ); (vii) (see ); (viii) (see ); (ix) (see ).
By using the multiplier operator , we define the following classes of functions.
Definition 1. For fixed parameters and , with and , we say that the function is in the class if it satisfies the following subordination condition:
We note that(i) was studied by Cho et al. ; (ii) was studied by Aouf et al. ; (iii) was studied by Patel .
For complex numbers , , and , the Gaussian hypergeometric function is defined by where and . The series (8) converges absolutely for , hence it represents an analytic function in (see [18, Chapter 14]).
If , from the fact that , we deduce that the image is symmetric with respect to the real axis, and that maps the unit disc onto the disc . If , the function maps the unit disc onto the half plan , hence we obtain the following.
Remark 2. The function is in the class if and only if
Definition 3. The function is in the class if it satisfies the following the inequality:
where ; from (9) and (10) it follows, respectively, that
We note that when and , the class was studied by Aouf et al. .
Let us consider the first-order differential subordination
A univalent function is called its dominant, if for all analytic functions that satisfy this differential subordination. A dominant is called the best dominant, if for all dominants . For the general theory of the first-order differential subordination and its applications, we refer the reader to [1, 2].
The object of the present paper is to obtain several inclusion relationships and other interesting properties of functions belonging to the subclasses and by using the theory of differential subordination.
To establish our main results, we will require the following lemmas.
Lemma 4 (see ). Let , and let be a convex function with
If is analytic in , with , then
Lemma 5 (see ). Let , and consider the integral operator defined by
where the powers are the principal ones.
If then the order of starlikeness of the class , that is, the largest number such that , is given by the number , where
Moreover, if , where and with , then where
Lemma 6 (see ). Let be analytic in with and for , and let with , .
(i) Let and satisfy either or . If satisfies then and this is the best dominant.
(ii) Let be such that , and if satisfies then and this is the best dominant.
2. Inclusion Relationships
Unless otherwise mentioned, we assume throughout this paper that and the power is the principal one.
Theorem 7. Let (1)Supposing that for all , then .(2)Moreover, if we suppose in addition that then where the bound is the best possible.
Proof. Let , and put
the function is analytic in , with and . Differentiating (29) logarithmically with respect to , we have
then, using (5) in (30), we obtain
By differentiating both sides of (31) logarithmically with respect to and multiplying by , we have
Combining (32) together with , we obtain that the function satisfies the Briot-Bouquet differential subordination as follows:
Now we will use Lemma 4 for the special case and . Since is a convex function in , a simple computation shows that whenever (25) holds, we have ; that is, . If in addition, we suppose that the inequality (26) holds, then all the assumptions of Lemma 5 are verified for the above values of , , and . Then it follows the inclusion , where the bound given by (28) is the best possible.
From Theorem 7, according to the definitions (7) and (11), we deduce the next inclusions.
Corollary 8. Let , such that (25) holds.(1)Supposing that for all , then
(2)If we suppose in addition that (26) holds, then
where is given by (28). As a consequence of the last inclusion, one has .
For the special case , Theorem 7 reduces to the following.
Corollary 9. Let .(1)Supposing that for all , then(2)If we suppose in addition that then where the bound is the best possible.
Theorem 10. Let , where and , then for , where
Proof. Since , the function given by
is analytic in with and . Using (5) in (42) and taking the logarithmic differentiation in the resulting equation, we obtain
If we denote , then and and substituting in (43) we obtain
By using the well-known results 
together with the inequality (45), we get
Since the right hand side term of the inequality (47) is nonnegative whenever is given by (41), using the fact that the real part of an analytic function is harmonic, we deduce that for .
For a function , let the integral operator defined by Saitoh  and Saitoh et al.  From (4) and (48), we have
We now prove the next result.
Theorem 11. Let and (i)Supposing that for all , then (ii)Moreover, if we suppose in addition that then where the bound is the best possible.
Proof. Let , and suppose that for all . Let
then is analytic in , with and . Taking the logarithmic differentiation in (55), we have
Now, by using (49) in (56), we obtain
By differentiating in both sides of (57) logarithmical with respect to and multiplying by , we have
Since , from (58), we obtain that the function satisfies the Briot-Bouquet differential subordination
Now we will use Lemma 4 for the special case and ; we have , that is, . If we suppose in addition that the inequality (52) holds, then all the assumptions of the Lemma 5 are satisfied for , , and , hence it follows the inclusion , and the bound given by (54) is the best possible.
Taking in Theorem 11, we obtain the next corollary.
Corollary 12. Let and .(1)Supposing that for all , then(2)If we suppose in addition that then where the bound is the best possible.
Theorem 13. Let , and let with and . Suppose that If with for all , then implies where is the best dominant.
Proof. Let us put then is analytic in , with and for all . By differentiating both sides of (68) logarithmical with respect to and using (5), we have Now the assertions of Theorem 13 follows by using Lemma 6 for the special case .
Putting and , in Theorem 13, we obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 14. Assume that satisfies either If with for all , then implies and is the best dominant.
3. Properties Involving the Multiplier Operator
Theorem 15. If , then for all , with , and , the next subordination holds
Proof. If , from (7) it follows that Moreover, the function defined by (74) and the function given by are convex in . By combining a general subordination theorem [25, Theorem 4] with (74), we get For every analytic function in with , we have and thus, from (76) and (77), we deduce This last subordination implies and by simplification, we get the assertion of Theorem 15.
Corollary 16. If , then for the next inequalities hold All of the estimates asserted here are sharp.
Proof. Taking and in (73) and using the definition of subordination, we obtain
where is analytic function in with and for . According to the well-known Schwarz's theorem, we have for all .(i)If , then we find from (83) that
(ii)If , we can easily obtain
This proves the inequality (80) for . Similarly, we can prove the other inequalities in (80) and (81). Now, for and , we observe from (83) that
and for , (82) is a direct consequence of (83).
It is easy to see that all of the estimates in Corollary 16 are sharp, being attained by the function defined by
Remark 17. (i) Putting and in our results, we obtain the results obtained by Aouf et al. .
(ii) By specializing the parameters , and , we obtain various results for different operators defined in Section 1.
The authors thank the referees for their valuable suggestions which led to improvement of this paper.
T. Bulboaca, Differential Subordinations and Superordinations, Recent Results, Hous of Scientific Book, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2005.
S. S. Miller and P. T. Mocanu, Differential Subordinations: Theory and Applications, Series on Monographs and Texbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, no. 225, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, USA, 2000.
S. M. Khairnar and M. More, “On a subclass of multivalent β-uniformly starlike and convex functions defined by a linear operator,” IAENG International Journal of Applied Mathematics, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1–9, 2009.View at: Google Scholar
M. K. Aouf, “Some inclusion relationships associated with the Komatu integral operator,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 50, no. 9-10, pp. 1360–1366, 2009.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. K. Aouf, “The Komatu integral operator and strongly close-to-convex functions,” Bulletin of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, no. 3, pp. 209–219, 2011.View at: Google Scholar
S. Shams, S. R. Kulkarni, and J. M. Jahangiri, “Subordination properties for -valent functions defined by integral operator,” International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, vol. 2006, Article ID 94572, 3 pages, 2006.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ebadian, S. Shams, Z. G. Wang, and Y. Sun, “A class of multivalent analytic functions involving the generalized Jung-Kim-Srivastava operator,” Acta Universitatis Apulensis, vol. 18, pp. 265–277, 2009.View at: Google Scholar
M. K. Aouf, R. M. El-Ashwah, and S. M. El-Deeb, “Some inequalities for certain -valent functions involving extended multiplier transformations,” Proceedings of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 217–221, 2009.View at: Google Scholar
Y. Komatu, “On analytic prolongation of a family of integral operators,” Mathematica (Cluj), vol. 32, no. 55, pp. 141–145, 1990.View at: Google Scholar
R. K. Raina and I. B. Bapna, “On the starlikeness and convexity of a certain integral operator,” Southeast Asian Bulletin of Mathematics, vol. 33, pp. 101–108, 2009.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
A. Ebadian and S. Najafzadeh, “Uniformly starlike and convex univalent functions by using certain integral operator,” Acta Universitatis Apulensis, vol. 20, pp. 17–23, 2009.View at: Google Scholar
F. M. Al-Oboudi, “On univalent functions defined by a generalized Salagean operator,” International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, vol. 27, pp. 1429–1436, 2004.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Sălăgean, “Subclasses of univalent functions,” in Complex Analysis. 5th Romanian-Finnish Seminar, vol. 1013 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pp. 362–372, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1983.View at: Google Scholar
N. E. Cho, O. S. Kwon, and H. M. Srivastava, “Inclusion relationships and argument properties for certain subclasses of multivalent functions associated with a family of linear operators,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 292, no. 2, pp. 470–483, 2004.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. K. Aouf, T. Bulboaca, and A. O. Mostafa, “Subordination properties of subclasses of -valent functions involving certain operators,” Publicationes Mathematicae, vol. 73, no. 3-4, pp. 401–416, 2008.View at: Google Scholar
J. Patel, “Inclusion relations and convolution properties of certain sub-classes of analytic functions defined by a generalized Salagean operator,” Bulletin of the Belgian Mathematical Society Simon Stevin, vol. 15, pp. 33–47, 2008.View at: Google Scholar
E. T. Whittaker and G. N. Watson, A Course of Modern Analysis: An Introduction to the General Theory of infinite Processes and of Analytic Functions; With an Account of the Principal Transcendental Functions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 4th edition, 1927.
P. J. Eenigenburg, S. S. Miller, P. T. Mocanu, and M. O. Reade, “On a Briot-Bouquet differential subordination,” in General Inequalities 3, vol. 64 of International Series of Numerical Mathematics, pp. 339–348, Birkhauser, Basel, Switzerland, 1983.View at: Google Scholar
P. T. Mocanu, D. Ripeanu, and I. Serb, “The order of starlikeness of certain integral operators,” Mathematica (Cluj), vol. 23(46), no. 2, pp. 225–230, 1981.View at: Google Scholar
M. Obradovic and S. Owa, “On certain properties for some classes of starlike functions,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 145, no. 2, pp. 357–364, 1990.View at: Google Scholar
T. H. Macgregor, “Radius of univalence of certain analytic functions,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 14, pp. 514–520, 1963.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Saitoh, “On certain class of multivalent functions,” Mathematica Japonica, vol. 37, pp. 871–875, 1992.View at: Google Scholar
H. Saitoh, S. Owa, T. Sekine, M. Nunokawa, and R. Yamakawa, “An application of a certain integral operator,” Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 21–24, 1992.View at: Google Scholar
St. Ruscheweyh and T. Sheil-Small, “Hadamard products of Schlicht functions and the Pólya-Schoenberg conjecture,” Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 119–135, 1973.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar