1. Introduction
The theory of differential subordination emerged from the remark that using a real-valued function
f twice continuously differentiable on an interval
and assuming that the differential operator
satisfies
for
, it is obvious that such a function has the property that
for
which can be written in an equivalent form using containment relations related to intervals as
Relation (
1) cannot be reinterpreted using a complex-valued function instead of the real-valued function
but the first containment from (
2) can be stated for the complex-valued function
as
where
U denotes the unit disc of the complex plane and
If a function
satisfies inclusion (
3), then the problem that appears is whether there exists a ”smallest” set
such that
Solving this problem led to the introduction of the notion of differential subordination related to complex valued functions in two papers published by Miller and Mocanu in 1978 [
1] and 1981 [
2].
Later, in 2003 [
3], the dual notion of differential superordination was introduced by the same authors answering the question related to the existence of a “smallest” set
for which
Many interesting outcomes of the study done using the theories of differential subordination and superordination are due to the use of operators. A very interesting function which helps in defining such operators, used by many researchers, was introduced by N.E.Cho and A.M.K. Aouf [
4] named the fractional integral of order
. It is defined as follows:
Definition 1. ([4]) The fractional integral of order λ () is defined for a function f bywhere f is an analytic function in a simply-connected region of the z-plane containing the origin, and the multiplicity of is removed by requiring to be real, when Interesting results were obtained and published recently using this function as it can be seen in [
5,
6]. Inspired by the results obtained by applying fractional integral on different hypergeometric functions seen in papers [
7,
8,
9], we have chosen the confluent (or Kummer) hypergeometric function to extend the study done on it in [
10]. The univalence of confluent Kummer function was also studied in [
11].
The confluent (Kummer) hypergeometric function of the first kind is given in the following definition:
Definition 2. ([12] p. 5) Let a and c be complex numbers with and consider This function is called confluent (Kummer) hypergeometric function, is analytic in and satisfies Kummer’s differential equation If we let
then (
4) can be written in the form
The interest in the study of hypergeometric functions and their connection to the theory of univalent functions reappeared when L. de Branges used hypergeometric functions in the proof of the famous Bieberbach conjecture [
13]. Confluent (Kummer) hypergeometric function was studied lately from many points of view. Conditions related to its univalence were stated in [
10], its applications on certain classes of univalent functions are shown in [
14] and an analytical study on Mittag-Leffler–confluent hypergeometric functions was conducted in [
15] using fractional integral operator. An operator defined using fractional integral is introduced and studied using the theories of differential subordination and superordination in the next section of this paper.
In order to achieve the study, the usual definitions are used.
denotes the class of analytic functions in the unit disc of the complex plane. For n a positive integer and , denotes the subclass of gathering the functions written in the form ..
Next, the definitions of the notions from the theories of differential subordination and superordination used in the present paper are given.
Definition 3. [12] Let the functions f and g be analytic in U. We say that the function f is subordinate to g, written , if there exists a Schwarz function analytic in U, with and , for all such that for all . In particular, if the function g is univalent in U, the above subordination is equivalent to and . Definition 4. [12] Let and h be a univalent function in U. If p is analytic in U and satisfies the second order differential subordinationthen p 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 p satisfying (6). A dominant that satisfies for all dominants q of (6) is said to be the best dominant of (6). The best dominant is unique up to a rotation of U. Definition 5. [3] Let and let h be analytic in U. If p and are univalent in U satisfy the (second-order) differential superordinationthen p 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 p satisfying (7). A subordinant that satisfies for all subordinants q of (7) is said to be the best subordinant of (7). Note that the best subordinant is unique up to a rotation of U. Definition 6. [12] Denote by Q the set of all functions f that are analytic and injective on , where and are such that for . Two lemmas are used in the next section in the proofs of the original results.
Lemma 1. [12] Let the function q be univalent in the unit disc U and θ and ϕ be analytic in a domain D containing with when . Set and . Suppose that Q is starlike univalent in U and for . If p is analytic with , and then and q is the best dominant. Lemma 2. [16] Let the function q be convex univalent in the open unit disc U and ν and ϕ be analytic in a domain D containing . Suppose that for and is starlike univalent in U. If , with and is univalent in U and then and q is the best subordinant. Using the definitions already known, a new operator is introduced connecting the fractional integral of order and the confluent (Kummer) hypergeometric function. By using this operator, the methods of the theory of differential subordination and those of the theory of differential superordination are implemented in order to conduct a study obtaining interesting new differential subordinations and superordinations for which the best dominant and the best subordinant are found, respectively. The Lemmas listed above are part of those classical methods used for obtaining original results related to operators. The most interesting part is the form that the results have due to the operator used. Combining the results of the study done using both theories, a sandwich-type theorem is stated which also generates two corollaries for particular functions involved.
2. Results
The new operator introduced in this paper is defined using Definitions 1 and 2.
Definition 7. Let a and c be complex numbers with and We define the fractional integral of confluent hypergeometric function After a simple calculation, the fractional integral of confluent hypergeometric function has the following form
We note that
The first subordination result obtained using the operator given by (
8) is the following theorem:
Theorem 1. Let and consider a function q analytic and univalent in U with , when , and Suppose that is starlike and univalent function in U. Letfor , , and If function q satisfiesconsidering , thenand q is the best dominant. Proof. Take function
p of the form
By setting
and
it is evidently that
and
are analytic in
, respectively
and
Also, considering
and
is starlike univalent in
U.
Applying Lemma 1 we obtain
,
that is,
and
q is the best dominant. □
Corollary 1. Let and Assume that (10) holds. Iffor , , where is defined in (11), thenand is the best dominant. Proof. The results stated in this corollary are obtained using , in Theorem 1. □
Corollary 2. Let and Assume that (10) holds. Iffor , , where is defined in (11), thenand is the best dominant. Proof. The conclusion of the corollary follows from Theorem 1 by taking , □
Theorem 2. Consider q an analytic function in U with and let be starlike and univalent in U. Assume thatLet and If and is univalent in U, where is as defined in (11), thenimpliesand q is the best subordinant. Proof. By setting
and
it is evidently that
and
are analytic in
, respectively
and
,
Since
it follows that
for
Using Lemma 2, we obtain
and
q is the best subordinant. □
Corollary 3. Let and Assume that (14) holds. If andfor , , where is defined in (11), thenand is the best subordinant. Proof. Using Theorem 2, the conclusion of the corollary derives from setting , . □
Corollary 4. Let and Assume that (14) holds. If andfor , , where is defined in (11), thenand is the best subordinant. Proof. By using Theorem 2 for , we obtain the result. □
Using the conclusions of Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 combined, a sandwich-type theorem can be stated as it follows:
Theorem 3. Consider two analytic and univalent functions and satiasfying and , when , such that and be starlike and univalent functions. Suppose that satisfies (10) and satisfies (14). Let a, c be complex numbers with and If and is as defined in (11) univalent in U, thenfor , impliesand and are the best subordinant and the best dominant, respectively. For , , where , we have the following corollary.
Corollary 5. Let and Assume that (10) and (14) hold. If andfor , , where is defined in (11), thenhence and are the best subordinant and the best dominant, respectively. Corollary 6. Let and Assume that (10) and (14) hold. If andfor , , , where is defined in (11), thenhence and are the best subordinant and the best dominant, respectively.