全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

On a Subclass of Analytic Functions Related to a Hyperbola

DOI: 10.1155/2014/570361

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

The object of the present investigation is to solve Fekete-Szeg? problem and determine the sharp upper bound to the second Hankel determinant for a new class of analytic functions in the unit disk. We also obtain a sufficient condition for an analytic function to be in this class. 1. Introduction and Preliminaries Let be the class of functions of the form: which are analytic in the open unit disk . A function is said to be starlike function of order and convex function of order , respectively, if and only if and , for and for all . By usual notations, we denote these classes of functions by and , respectively. We write and , the familiar subclasses of starlike functions and convex functions in . Furthermore, a function is said to in the class , if it satisfies the inequality: Note that is a subclass of close-to-convex functions of order in . Let denote the class of analytic functions of the form: satisfying the condition in . Let the functions and be analytic in . We say that is subordinate to , written as or , if there exists a Schwarz function , which (by definition) is analytic in with and . Furthermore, if the function is univalent in , then we have the following equivalence relation (cf., e.g., [1]): For the functions analytic in and given by the power series their Hadamard product (or convolution), denoted by is defined as Note that is analytic in . The Gauss hypergeometric function is defined by the infinite series where denotes the Pochhammer symbol (or shifted factorial) given, in terms of the Gamma function , by We note that the series, given by (7), converges absolutely for and hence the function represents an analytic function in the unit disc [2]. We further observe that the Gauss hypergeometric function plays an important role in the study of various properties and characteristics of subclasses of univalent/multivalent functions in geometric function theory (cf., e.g. [3–5]). In our present investigation, we consider the incomplete beta function , defined by By making use of the Hadamard product and the function , Carlson and Shaffer [6] defined the linear operator by If is given by (1), then it follows from (10) that The operator extends several operators introduced and studied by earlier researchers in geometric function theory.??For example, , the well-known Ruscheweyh derivative operator [7] of and , the familiar Owa-Srivastava fractional differential operator [8] of . With the aid of the linear operator , we introduce a subclass of as follows. Definition 1. A function is said to be in the class , if it satisfies the following

References

[1]  S. S. Miller and P. T. Mocanu, Differential Subordinations: Theory and Applications, vol. 225 of Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, USA, 2000.
[2]  E. T. Whittaker and G. N. Watson, A Course on Modern Analysis: An Introduction to the General Theory of Infinite Processes and Analytic Functions; With an Account of the Principal Transcendental Functions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 4th edition, 1927.
[3]  P. H?st?, S. Ponnusamy, and M. Vuorinen, “Starlikeness of the Gaussian hypergeometric functions,” Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations, vol. 55, no. 1–3, pp. 173–184, 2010.
[4]  S. S. Miller and P. T. Mocanu, “Univalence of Gaussian and confluent hypergeometric functions,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 333–342, 1990.
[5]  S. Ponnusamy and M. Vuorinen, “Univalence and convexity properties for Gaussian hypergeometric functions,” The Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 327–353, 2001.
[6]  B. C. Carlson and D. B. Shaffer, “Starlike and prestarlike hypergeometric functions,” SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 737–745, 1984.
[7]  S. Ruscheweyh, “New criteria for univalent functions,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 49, pp. 109–115, 1975.
[8]  S. Owa and H. M. Srivastava, “Univalent and starlike generalized hypergeometric functions,” Canadian Journal of Mathematics, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1057–1077, 1987.
[9]  M. Fekete and G. Szeg?, “Eine bemerkung über ungerade schlichte funktionen,” The Journal of the London Mathematical Society, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 85–89, 1933.
[10]  P. L. Duren, Univalent Functions, vol. 259 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 1983.
[11]  B. Bhowmik, S. Ponnusamy, and K.-J. Wirths, “On the Fekete-Szeg? problem for concave univalent functions,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 373, no. 2, pp. 432–438, 2011.
[12]  J. H. Choi, Y. C. Kim, and T. Sugawa, “A general approach to the Fekete-Szeg? problem,” Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 707–727, 2007.
[13]  F. R. Keogh and E. P. Merkes, “A coefficient inequality for certain classes of analytic functions,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 20, pp. 8–12, 1969.
[14]  W. Koepf, “On the Fekete-Szeg? problem for close-to-convex functions. II,” Archiv der Mathematik, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 420–433, 1987.
[15]  W. Koepf, “On the Fekete-Szeg? problem for close-to-convex functions,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 89–95, 1987.
[16]  R. R. London, “Fekete-Szeg? inequalities for close-to-convex functions,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 117, no. 4, pp. 947–950, 1993.
[17]  A. Pfluger, “The Fekete-Szeg? inequality by a variational method,” Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Series A I. Mathematica, vol. 10, pp. 447–454, 1985.
[18]  A. Pfluger, “The Fekete-Szeg? inequality for complex parameters,” Complex Variables. Theory and Application, vol. 7, no. 1–3, pp. 149–160, 1986.
[19]  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, pp. 1–5, 2006.
[20]  A. Janteng, S. A. Halim, and M. Darus, “Estimate on the second Hankel functional for functions whose derivative has a positive real part,” The Journal of Quality Measurement and Analysis, vol. 4, pp. 189–195, 2008.
[21]  T. H. MacGregor, “Functions whose derivative has a positive real part,” Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 532–537, 1962.
[22]  R. J. Libera and E. J. Z?otkiewicz, “Early coefficients of the inverse of a regular convex function,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 225–230, 1982.
[23]  R. J. Libera and E. J. Z?otkiewicz, “Coefficient bounds for the inverse of a function with derivative in ,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 251–257, 1983.
[24]  W. C. Ma and D. Minda, “A unified treatment of some special classes of univalent functions,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Complex Analysis (Tianjin, 1992), Z. Li, F. Ren, L. Yang, and S. Zhang, Eds., pp. 157–169, International Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1994.
[25]  I. S. Jack, “Functions starlike and convex of order ,” Journal of the London Mathematical Society, vol. 3, pp. 469–474, 1971.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133