- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Subordination properties for a general class of integral operators involving meromorphically multivalent functions
Advances in Difference Equations volume 2013, Article number: 93 (2013)
Abstract
The purpose of the present paper is to investigate some subordination- and superordination-preserving properties of certain nonlinear integral operators defined on the space of meromorphically p-valent functions in the punctured open unit disk. The sandwich-type theorems associated with these integral operators are established. Relevant connections of the various results presented here with those involving relatively simpler nonlinear integral operators are also indicated.
MSC:30C45, 30C80.
1 Introduction, definitions and preliminaries
Let denote the class of analytic functions in the open unit disk
For and , let
Let f and F be members of ℋ. The function f is said to be subordinate to F, or F is said to be superordinate to f, if there exists a function w analytic in , with
such that
In such a case, we write
Furthermore, if the function F is univalent in , then we have (cf. [1, 2] and [3])
Definition 1 (Miller and Mocanu [1])
Let
and let h be univalent in . If is analytic in and satisfies the differential subordination
then is called a solution of the differential subordination. The univalent function q is called a dominant of the solutions of the differential subordination or, more simply, a dominant if
for all satisfying (1.1). A dominant that satisfies the following condition:
for all dominants q of (1.1) is said to be the best dominant.
Definition 2 (Miller and Mocanu [4])
Let
and let h be analytic in . If p and are univalent in and satisfy the differential superordination
then is called a solution of the differential superordination. An analytic function q is called a subordinant of the solutions of the differential superordination or, more simply, a subordinant if
for all satisfying (1.2). A univalent subordinant that satisfies the following condition:
for all subordinants q of (1.2) is said to be the best subordinant.
Definition 3 (Miller and Mocanu [4])
We denote by the class of functions f that are analytic and injective on , where
and are such that
We also denote the class by
Let denote the class of functions of the form
which are analytic in the punctured open unit disk . Let and be the subclasses of consisting of all functions which are, respectively, meromorphically starlike and meromorphically convex in (see, for details, [1, 5]).
For a function , we introduce the following general integral operator defined by
Several members of the family of integral operators defined by (1) have been extensively studied by many authors (see, for example, [6–10]; see also [11] and [12]) with suitable restrictions on the parameters α, β, γ and δ, and for f belonging to some favored subclasses of meromorphic functions. In particular, Bajpai [6] showed that the integral operator belongs to the classes and , whenever f belongs to the classes and , respectively.
Making use of the principle of subordination between analytic functions, Miller et al. [13] and, more recently, Owa and Srivastava [14] obtained some interesting subordination-preserving properties for certain integral operators. Moreover, Miller and Mocanu [4] considered differential superordinations as the dual concept of differential subordinations (see also [15]). It should be remarked that in recent years several authors obtained many interesting results involving various integral operators associated with differential subordination and superordination (for example, see [5, 16–18]). In the present paper, we obtain the subordination- and superordination-preserving properties of the general integral operator defined by (1) with the sandwich-type theorem.
The following lemmas will be required in our present investigation.
Lemma 1 (Miller and Mocanu [19])
Suppose that the function
satisfies the following condition:
for all real s and for all t with
If the function
is analytic in and
then
Lemma 2 (Miller and Mocanu [20])
Let
If
then the solution of the differential equation
is analytic in and satisfies the following inequality:
Lemma 3 (Miller and Mocanu [1])
Let
and let
be analytic in with
If the function q is not subordinate to , then there exist points
for which
Let
If R is the univalent function defined in by
then the open door function (see [1]) is defined by
Remark 1 The function defined by (1.4) is univalent in , where , and is the complex plane with slits along the half-lines given by
Lemma 4 (Totoi [21])
Let with
If , where
and is defined by (1.4) with , then
and
where is the integral operator defined by (1).
A function defined on is the subordination chain (or Löwner chain) if is analytic and univalent in for all , is continuously differentiable on for all and
Lemma 5 (Miller and Mocanu [4])
Let
Also set
If
is a subordination chain and
then the following subordination condition:
implies that
Furthermore, if
has a univalent solution , then q is the best subordinant.
Lemma 6 (Pommerenke [22])
The function
with
Suppose that is analytic in for all and that is continuously differentiable on for all . If the function satisfies the following inequalities:
and
for some positive constants and , then is a subordination chain.
2 Main results and their corollaries and consequences
We begin by proving a general subordination property involving the integral operator defined by (1), which is contained in Theorem 1 below.
Theorem 1 Let , where is defined by (1.5). Suppose also that
where
Then the subordination relation
implies that
where is the integral operator defined by (1). Moreover, the function
is the best dominant.
Proof Let us define the functions F and G, respectively, by
We first show that if the function q is defined by
then
From the definition of (1), we obtain
We also have
It follows from (2.7) and (2.8) that
Now, by a simple calculation with (2.9), we obtain the following relationship:
Thus, from (2.1), we have
and by using Lemma 2, we conclude that the differential equation (2.10) has a solution with
Put
where ρ is given by (2.2). From (2.1), (2.10) and (2.11), we obtain
We now proceed to show that
Indeed, from (2.11), we have
where
For ρ given by (2.2), we note that the coefficient of in the quadratic expression given by (2.14) is positive or equal to zero and also is a perfect square. Hence from (2.13), we see that (2.12) holds true. Thus, by using Lemma 1, we conclude that
That is, the function defined by (2.5) is convex in .
We next prove that the subordination condition (2.3) implies that
for the functions F and G defined by (2.5). Without loss of generality, we can assume that G is analytic and univalent on and that
We now consider the function defined by
We note that
and
Furthermore, since G is convex, by using the well-known growth and distortion sharp inequalities for convex functions (see [23]), we can prove that the second condition of Lemma 6 is satisfied. Therefore, by virtue of Lemma 6, is a subordination chain. We observe from the definition of a subordination chain that
and
This implies that
We now suppose that F is not subordinate to G. Then, in view of Lemma 3, there exist points and such that
Hence we have
by virtue of the subordination condition (2.3). This contradicts the above observation that
Therefore, the subordination condition (2.3) must imply the subordination given by (2.15). Considering , we see that the function G is the best dominant. This evidently completes the proof of Theorem 1. □
We next prove a solution to a dual problem of Theorem 1 in the sense that the subordinations are replaced by superordinations.
Theorem 2 Let , where is defined by (1.5). Suppose also that
where ρ is given by (2.2) and is univalent in , and
where is the integral operator defined by (1). Then the superordination relation
implies that
Moreover, the function
is the best subordinant.
Proof Let the functions F and G be given by (2.5). We first note from (2.7) and (2.8) that
After a simple calculation, equation (2.17) yields the following relationship:
where the function q is given in (2.6). Then, by using the same method as in the proof of Theorem 1, we can prove that
that is, G defined by (2.5) is convex (univalent) in .
We next prove that the superordination condition (2.16) implies that
For this purpose, we consider the function defined by
Since G is convex and , we can prove easily that is a subordination chain as in the proof of Theorem 1. Therefore, according to Lemma 5, we conclude that the superordination condition (2.16) must imply the superordination given by (2.18). Furthermore, since the differential equation (2.17) has the univalent solution G, it is the best subordinant of the given differential superordination. Hence we complete the proof of Theorem 2. □
If we combine Theorem 1 and Theorem 2, then we obtain the following sandwich-type theorem.
Theorem 3 Let (), where is defined by (1.5). Suppose also that
where ρ is given by (2.2) and the function is univalent in , and
where is the integral operator defined by (1). Then the subordination relation
implies that
Moreover, the functions
are the best subordinant and the best dominant, respectively.
The assumption of Theorem 3, that is, the functions
need to be univalent in , will be replaced by another set of conditions in the following result.
Corollary 1 Let (), where is defined by (1.5). Suppose also that the condition (2.19) is satisfied and
where ρ is given by (2.2). Then the subordination relation
implies that
where is the integral operator defined by (1). Moreover, the functions
are the best subordinant and the best dominant, respectively.
Proof In order to prove Corollary 1, we have to show that the condition (2.20) implies the univalence of and
By noting that from (2.2), we obtain from the condition (2.20) that ψ is a close-to-convex function in (see [24]), and hence is univalent in . Furthermore, by using the same techniques as in the proof of Theorem 3, we can prove the convexity (univalence) of F and so the details may be omitted. Therefore, by applying Theorem 3, we obtain Corollary 1. □
By setting in Theorem 3, we have the following result.
Corollary 2 Let (), where is defined by (1.5) with . Suppose also that
and the function is univalent in , and
where is the integral operator defined by (1) with . Then the subordination relation
implies that
Moreover, the functions
are the best subordinant and the best dominant, respectively.
If we take in Theorem 3, then we are easily led to the following result.
Corollary 3 Let (), where is defined by (1.5) with . Suppose also that
and the function is univalent in , and
where is the integral operator defined by (1) with . Then the subordination relation
implies that
Moreover, the functions
are the best subordinant and the best dominant, respectively.
References
Miller SS, Mocanu PT: Differential Subordinations, Theory and Applications. Dekker, New York; 2000.
Srivastava HM, Owa S (Eds): Univalent Functions, Fractional Calculus, and Their Applications. Wiley, New York; 1989.
Srivastava HM, Owa S (Eds): Current Topics in Analytic Function Theory. World Scientific, Singapore; 1992.
Miller SS, Mocanu PT: Subordinants of differential superordinations. Complex Var. Theory Appl. 2003, 48: 815–826. 10.1080/02781070310001599322
Bulboacă T: Differential subordination and superordination-preserving integral operators. Trans. Inst. Math. Nat. Acad. Sci. Ukraine 2004, 3: 19–28.
Bajpai SK: A note on a class of meromorphic univalent functions. Rev. Roum. Math. Pures Appl. 1977, 22: 295–297.
Bhoosnurmath SS, Swamy SR: Certain integrals for classes of univalent meromorphic functions. Ganit 1993, 44: 19–25.
Dernek A: Certain classes of meromorphic functions. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skl̄odowska, Sect. A 1988, 42: 1–8.
Dwivedi SP, Bhargava GP, Shukla SK: On some classes of meromorphic univalent functions. Rev. Roum. Math. Pures Appl. 1980, 25: 209–215.
Goel RM, Sohi NS: On a class of meromorphic functions. Glas. Mat. 1981, 17(37):19–28.
Sokół J, Noor KI, Srivastava HM: A family of convolution operators for multivalent analytic functions. Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math. 2012, 5: 469–479.
Srivastava HM, Yang D-G, Xu N-E: Subordinations for multivalent analytic functions associated with the Dziok-Srivastava operator. Integral Transforms Spec. Funct. 2009, 20: 581–606. 10.1080/10652460902723655
Miller SS, Mocanu PT, Reade MO: Subordination-preserving integral operators. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1984, 283: 605–615. 10.1090/S0002-9947-1984-0737887-4
Owa S, Srivastava HM: Some subordination theorems involving a certain family of integral operators. Integral Transforms Spec. Funct. 2004, 15: 445–454. 10.1080/10652460410001727563
Bulboacă T: A class of superordination-preserving integral operators. Indag. Math. 2002, 13: 301–311. 10.1016/S0019-3577(02)80013-1
Bulboacă T: Sandwich-type results for a class of convex integral operators. Acta Math. Sci. 2012, 32B: 989–1001.
Cho NE, Srivastava HM: A class of nonlinear integral operators preserving subordination and superordination. Integral Transforms Spec. Funct. 2007, 18: 95–107. 10.1080/10652460601135342
Cho NE, Bulboaca T, Srivastava HM: A general family of integral operators and associated subordination and superordination properties of some special analytic function classes. Appl. Math. Comput. 2012, 219: 2278–2288. 10.1016/j.amc.2012.08.075
Miller SS, Mocanu PT: Differential subordinations and univalent functions. Mich. Math. J. 1981, 28: 157–171.
Miller SS, Mocanu PT: Univalent solutions of Briot-Bouquet differential equations. J. Differ. Equ. 1985, 56: 297–309. 10.1016/0022-0396(85)90082-8
Totoi A: On some classes of meromorphic functions defined by a multiplier transformation. Acta Univ. Apulensis, Mat.-Inform. 2011, 25: 41–52.
Pommerenke C: Univalent Functions. Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen; 1975.
Hallenbeck DJ, MacGregor TH: Linear Problems and Convexity Techniques in Geometric Function Theory. Pitman, London; 1984.
Kaplan W: Close-to-convex schlicht functions. Mich. Math. J. 1952, 2: 169–185.
Acknowledgements
Dedicated to Professor Hari M Srivastava.
This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of the Republic of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (No. 2012-0002619).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
Both authors jointly worked on the results and they read and approved the final manuscript.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Cho, N.E., Srivastava, R. Subordination properties for a general class of integral operators involving meromorphically multivalent functions. Adv Differ Equ 2013, 93 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1847-2013-93
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1847-2013-93