You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MathematicsMathematics
  • Article
  • Open Access

7 February 2024

On Some Interesting Classes of Analytic Functions Related to Univalent Functions

,
and
1
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Dicle University, 21280 Diyarbakır, Türkiye
2
Department of Exact Sciences and Engineering, “1 Decembrie 1918” University of Alba Iulia, 510009 Alba Iulia, Romania
3
“1 Decembrie 1918” University of Alba Iulia, 510009 Alba Iulia, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Abstract

Let A ¯ be the new general class of functions f ( z ) of the form f ( z ) = z + k = 1 a 1 + k 2 z 1 + k 2 that are analytic in the open unit disc U . In the present paper, for f ( z ) A ¯ , we consider classes S ¯ ( α ) ,   C ¯ ( α ) and R ¯ ( α ) and obtain some interesting properties of f ( z ) A ¯ concerning S ¯ ( α ) ,   C ¯ ( α ) and R ¯ ( α ) , applying subordinations of f ( z ) .

1. Introduction

Let A ¯ be the class of functions f ( z ) of the form
f ( z ) = z + k = 1 a 1 + k 2 z 1 + k 2
that are analytic in the open unit disc U = z C : | z | < 1 . Here, we take the principal value for z . Let S ¯ ( α ) denote the subclass of A ¯ consisting of f ( z ) , which satisfies
R e z f ( z ) f ( z ) > α , ( z U )
for some real α   ( 0 α < 1 ) . Also, C ¯ ( α ) is the subclass of A ¯ consisting of f ( z ) , which satisfies
R e 1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) > α , ( z U )
for some real α   ( 0 α < 1 ) . With the definitions for S ¯ ( α ) and C ¯ ( α ) , we know that f ( z ) C ¯ ( α ) if and only if z f ( z ) S ¯ ( α ) , and f ( z ) S ¯ ( α ) if and only if 0 z f ( t ) t d t C ¯ ( α ) . If we take a 1 + k 2 = 0 for all odd k = 1 , 3 , 5 , , then f ( z ) can be written by
f ( z ) = z + k = 2 a k z k ,
and we write that f ( z ) A . If f ( z ) A satisfies the condition (2), then we say that f ( z ) S ( α ) , and if f ( z ) A satisfies the condition (3), then we say that f ( z ) C ( α ) . It is well known that
f ( z ) = z 1 z 2 ( 1 α ) = z + k = 2 j = 2 k ( j 2 α ) ( k 1 ) ! z k
is the extremal function for the class S ( α ) and that
f ( z ) = 1 ( 1 z ) 2 α 1 2 α 1 = z + k = 2 j = 2 k ( j 2 α ) k ! z k , ( α 1 2 ) log ( 1 z ) = z + k = 2 1 k z k , ( α = 1 2 )
is the extremal function for the class C ( α ) . For such extremal functions f ( z ) A , we consider a function f ( z ) A ¯ given by
f ( z ) = z 1 z 2 ( 1 α ) = z + k = 1 j = 1 k ( j + 1 2 α ) k ! z 1 + k 2 .
The function f ( z ) given by (5) satisfies
R e z f ( z ) f ( z ) = R e 1 α z 1 z > 1 + α 2 , ( z U )
and f ( z ) S ¯ 1 + α 2 . If we consider f ( z ) A ¯ given by
f ( z ) = 1 1 z 2 ( 1 α ) ,
then f ( z ) satisfies
R e 1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) = R e α + 1 α 1 z > 1 + α 2 , ( z U )
and f ( z ) C ¯ 1 + α 2 .
Next, we consider a function f ( z ) given by
f ( z ) = z 1 z 4 ( 1 α ) = z + k = 1 j = 4 k + 3 ( j 4 α ) k ! z 1 + k 2
for 0 α < 1 . The function f ( z ) given by (6) satisfies
R e z f ( z ) f ( z ) = R e 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z > α , ( z U )
and f ( z ) S ¯ ( α ) . Also, if we take
f ( z ) = 1 ( 1 2 α ) ( 3 4 α ) 1 1 + ( 4 3 α ) z 1 z 3 4 α = z + k = 1 2 j = k k + 3 ( j 4 α ) k ! ( k + 2 ) z 1 + k 2
for 0 α < 1 , we see that
f ( z ) = 1 1 z 4 ( 1 α ) ,
and
R e 1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) = R e 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z > α , ( z U ) .
Therefore, the function f ( z ) given by (7) belongs to the class C ¯ ( α ) . Further, we consider a function
f ( z ) = ( 1 2 α ) z 4 ( 1 α ) z 4 ( 1 α ) log ( 1 z ) = z + 4 ( 1 α ) k = 1 1 k + 2 z 1 + k 2
for 0 α < 1 . The function f ( z ) given by (8) satisfies
R e f ( z ) = R e 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z > α , ( z U ) .
Thus, we say that f ( z ) R ¯ ( α ) if f ( z ) A ¯ satisfies the inequality (9).
For analytic functions f ( z ) and F ( z ) in U , we say that f ( z ) is subordinate to F ( z ) , written as f ( z ) F ( z )   ( z U ) , if there exists a function w ( z ) analytic in U with w ( 0 ) = 0 and | w ( z ) | < 1   ( z U ) , and such that f ( z ) ) = F ( w ( z ) ) .
With the definition for subordinations, if f ( z ) A ¯ satisfies
z f ( z ) f ( z ) 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U , 0 α < 1 )
then f ( z ) S ¯ ( α ) , if f ( z ) A ¯ satisfies
1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U , 0 α < 1 )
then f ( z ) C ¯ ( α ) , and if f ( z ) A ¯ satisfies
f ( z ) 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U , 0 α < 1 )
then f ( z ) R ¯ ( α ) .
The function f ( z ) given by (1) was considered by Owa [1] and Owa et al. [2]. In [1], he considered the coefficient inequalities for the function f ( z ) and in [2], the authors considered the coefficient inequalities for functions in general subclasses. In the present paper, we consider some interesting properties of f ( z ) A ¯ concerning S ¯ ( α ) ,   C ¯ ( α ) and R ¯ ( α ) applying subordinations of f ( z ) .

2. Subordination Properties

We consider some subordination properties for f ( z ) A ¯ . We need the following result by Miller and Mocanu [3]:
Lemma 1.
Let β and γ be complex numbers. Let h ( z ) be convex (univalent) in U such that
R e ( β h ( z ) + γ ) > 0 , ( z U ) .
If p ( z ) is analytic in U with p ( 0 ) = h ( 0 ) and
p ( z ) + z p ( z ) β p ( z ) + γ h ( z ) , ( z U ) ,
then
p ( z ) h ( z ) , ( z U ) .
Furthermore, if the Briot–Bouquet differential equation
g ( z ) + z g ( z ) β g ( z ) + γ = h ( z ) , ( g ( 0 ) = h ( 0 ) )
has a univalent solution g ( z ) , then
p ( z ) g ( z ) h ( z ) , ( z U )
and g ( z ) is said to be the best dominant of (11).
Theorem 1.
If f ( z ) A ¯ satisfies f ( z ) C ¯ ( α ) for 0 < α < 1 , then f ( z ) S ¯ ( α ) .
Proof. 
Let us consider a function p ( z ) = z f ( z ) f ( z ) and a function
h ( z ) = 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( 0 < α < 1 )
for f ( z ) A ¯ . Letting β = 1 and γ = 0 in Lemma 1, we have
R e h ( z ) = α > 0 , ( z U ) .
This shows that
p ( z ) + z p ( z ) p ( z ) = 1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) h ( z ) , ( z U )
by f ( z ) C ¯ ( α ) . Then, we have that
p ( z ) = z f ( z ) f ( z ) 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U ) ,
that is, f ( z ) S ¯ ( α ) .
Theorem 2.
If f ( z ) A ¯ satisfies
f ( z ) + z f ( z ) f ( z ) γ 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U )
for 0 α < 1 and γ α , then f ( z ) R ¯ ( α ) .
Proof. 
We consider p ( z ) = f ( z ) ,   β = 1 and
h ( z ) = 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U )
in Lemma 1. Then,
R e ( h ( z ) γ ) > 0 , ( z U )
and
p ( z ) + z p ( z ) p ( z ) = f ( z ) + z f ( z ) f ( z ) γ h ( z )
by (15). Thus, we have p ( z ) = f ( z ) R ¯ ( α ) .
Further, letting β = 1 ,   γ α ,   p ( z ) = f ( z ) z and
h ( z ) = 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U )
in Lemma 1, we obtain the following theorem.
Theorem 3.
If f ( z ) A ¯ satisfies
f ( z ) z + z f ( z ) + γ z f ( z ) + γ z 2 ( 1 α z ) 1 z , ( z U )
then
f ( z ) z 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U ) .
To consider our next results, we have to use here the following lemma due to Miller and Mocanu [4].
Lemma 2.
Let F ( z ) be analytic in U and G ( z ) be analytic in U and the boundary of U with F ( 0 ) = G ( 0 ) . If F ( z ) is not subordinate to G ( z ) , then there exist points z 0 U and ξ 0 U , and a real m 1 for which F ( | z | < | z 0 | ) G ( U ) ,
( i ) F ( z 0 ) = G ( ξ 0 ) ( i i ) z 0 F ( z 0 ) = m ξ 0 G ( ξ 0 ) .
Now, we derive the following theorem with Lemma 2.
Theorem 4.
Let γ 0 be the solution of
γ π = 3 2 π T a n 1 γ 2
and let
β = γ + 2 π T a n 1 γ 2 , ( 0 < γ γ 0 ) .
If p ( z ) is analytic in U with p ( 0 ) = ( 1 α ) γ and
p ( z ) + z p ( z ) ( 1 α ) 1 + z 1 z β , ( z U )
then
p ( z ) ( 1 α ) 1 + z 1 z γ , ( z U )
where 0 α < 1 .
Proof. 
We follow the same methodology as the proof by Miller and Mocanu (Theorem 5 in [5]). Since (17) gives us that
2 π T a n 1 γ 2 = 3 2 γ ,
we see
γ 3 β , ( 0 < γ γ 0 ) .
Consider
h ( z ) = ( 1 α ) 1 + z 1 z β
and
g ( z ) = ( 1 α ) 1 + z 1 z γ .
Then | arg h ( z ) | < π 2 β and | arg g ( z ) | < π 2 γ . For such functions, we have to prove that p ( z ) g ( z ) ( z U ) . Since p ( 0 ) = g ( 0 ) = ( 1 α ) γ , using Lemma 11, if p ( z ) is not subordinate to g ( z ) , then there exist points z 0 U and ξ 0 U , and a real m 1 for which p ( | z | < | z 0 | ) g ( U ) ,
p ( z 0 ) = g ( ξ 0 )
and
z 0 p ( z 0 ) = m ξ 0 g ( ξ 0 ) .
Let p ( z 0 ) 0 , then g ( ξ 0 ) 0 and ξ 0 ± 1 . For ξ 0 U , we consider
i r = 1 + ξ 0 1 ξ 0 , ( ξ 0 U ) .
Then, using (22) and (23), we see
p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) = g ( ξ 0 ) + m ξ 0 g ( ξ 0 ) = g ( ξ 0 ) 1 + m ξ 0 g ( ξ 0 ) g ( ξ 0 ) = ( i ( 1 α ) r ) γ 1 + m γ ξ 0 1 ξ 0 = ( i ( 1 α ) r ) γ 1 + i m γ 1 + r 2 4 r .
This implies that
arg ( p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) ) = π 2 γ + T a n 1 m γ r + 1 r 4
and
π 2 γ + T a n 1 γ 2 arg ( p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) ) π 2 γ + π 2 .
Further, applying (17) and (18), we see
π 2 β arg ( p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) ) 2 π π 2 β .
Since | arg h ( z ) | < π 2 β , this contradicts the condition (19). Therefore, the subordination (20) is true when p ( z 0 ) 0   ( z 0 U ) . If p ( z 0 ) = 0   ( z 0 U ) following the same reasoning as in the proof by Miller and Mocanu (Theorem 5 in [5]), we prove
π 2 β z 0 p ( z 0 ) 2 π π 2 β
with (21). □
Remark 1.
We know that
R e 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z > α , ( z U ) .
If we take
1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z α = ( 1 α ) 1 + z 1 z ,
we consider functions in (19) and (20).
Letting γ = 2 in Theorem 4, we have the following corollary:
Corollary 1.
If p ( z ) is analytic in U with p ( 0 ) = ( 1 α ) 2 and
p ( z ) + z p ( z ) ( 1 α ) 1 + z 1 z 5 2 , ( z U )
then
p ( z ) ( 1 α ) 1 + z 1 z 2 , ( z U ) .
Considering our next result, we need the following lemma due to Nunokawa, Owa, and Sokol [6]:
Lemma 3.
Let p ( z ) be analytic in U with p ( 0 ) = 1 and p ( z ) 0 in U . If there exists a point z 0 U such that
| arg p ( z ) | < π 2 β , ( | z | < | z 0 | < 1 )
and
| arg p ( z 0 ) | = π 2 β
for some real β > 0 , then
z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = i k β ,
where
k a 2 + 1 2 a 1 , ( a r g p ( z 0 ) = π 2 β )
and
k a 2 + 1 2 a 1 , ( a r g p ( z 0 ) = π 2 β ) ,
where
( p ( z 0 ) ) 1 β = ± i a , ( a > 0 ) .
Theorem 5.
Let p ( z ) be analytic in U with p ( 0 ) = 1 and p ( z ) 0 in U . If
p ( z ) + z p ( z ) p ( z ) 1 + z 1 z β + 2 β z 1 z , ( z U )
then
p ( z ) 1 + z 1 z β , ( z U )
where 0 < β 1 .
Proof. 
Let us suppose that p ( z ) does not satisfy the subordination (31), then there exists a point z 0 U such that
| arg p ( z ) | < π 2 β , ( | z | < | z 0 | < 1 )
and
| arg p ( z 0 ) | < π 2 β .
Applying Lemma 3, we have
z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = i k β ,
where k satisfies (27) and (28). If arg p ( z 0 ) = π 2 β , we see that
p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = ( i a ) β + i k β .
At this time, for boundary point z = e i θ , we know that
1 + z 1 z β + 2 β z 1 z = i s i n θ 2 1 c o s θ 2 β + i β s i n θ 2 .
Therefore, if the subordination (30) is satisfied,
a = s i n θ 2 1 c o s θ 2
and
k a 2 + 1 2 a = 1 s i n θ 2 .
This implies that p ( z ) does not satisfy the subordination (30). If arg p ( z 0 ) = π 2 β , then considering the same way for arg p ( z 0 ) = π 2 β , we also say that p ( z ) does not satisfy the subordination (30). This completes the proof of the theorem. □
Corollary 2.
If f ( z ) A ¯ satisfies
f ( z ) + z f ( z ) f ( z ) 1 + z 1 z β + 2 β z 1 z , ( z U )
then
f ( z ) 1 + z 1 z β , ( z U )
where 0 < β 1 .
Corollary 3.
If f ( z ) A ¯ satisfies
1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) 1 + z 1 z β + 2 β z 1 z , ( z U )
then
z f ( z ) f ( z ) 1 + z 1 z β , ( z U )
where 0 < β 1 .
Further, we have the following corollary.
Corollary 4.
If f ( z ) A ¯ satisfies
1 + 2 f ( z ) + z f ( z ) f ( z ) + z f ( z ) 1 + z 1 z β + 2 β z 1 z , ( z U )
then
1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) 1 + z 1 z β , ( z U )
where 0 < β 1 .
Next, we derive the following theorem.
Theorem 6.
Let p ( z ) be analytic in U with p ( 0 ) = 1 and p ( z ) 0 in U . If
z p ( z ) p ( z ) p ( z ) 1 + z 1 z 2 n + 1 , ( z U )
for some n = 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , , then
p ( z ) 1 + z 1 z 2 n + 1 , ( z U ) .
Proof. 
We consider that p ( z ) does not satisfy the subordination (33). Using Lemma 2, we know that there exist points z 0 U and ξ 0 U , and a real m 1 for which p ( | z | < | z 0 | ) g ( U )
( i ) p ( z 0 ) = g ( ξ 0 ) ( i i ) z 0 p ( z 0 ) = m ξ 0 g ( ξ 0 ) .
where
g ( z ) = 1 + z 1 z 2 n + 1 , ( z U ) .
Thus, we have
z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = g ( ξ 0 ) + m ξ 0 g ( ξ 0 ) g ( ξ 0 ) .
Let us suppose that ξ 0 = e i θ . Then, we have
z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = 1 + e i θ 2 1 e i θ 2 2 n + 1 + m ( 2 n + 1 ) e i θ 2 1 e i θ = ( i ) 2 n + 1 s i n θ 2 1 c o s θ 2 2 n + 1 + i m ( 2 n + 1 ) 1 2 s i n θ 2 = i s i n θ 2 1 c o s θ 2 2 n + 1 + m ( 2 n + 1 ) 1 2 s i n θ 2 .
Since
R e z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = 0 ,
p ( z ) does not satisfy the subordination (32). Thus, p ( z ) should satisfy the subordination given in (33). □
We state the following corollaries with the above theorem.
Corollary 5.
If f ( z ) A ¯ satisfies
f ( z ) + z f ( z ) f ( z ) 1 + z 1 z 2 n + 1 , ( z U )
for some n = 0 , 1 , 2 , , then
f ( z ) 1 + z 1 z 2 n + 1 , ( z U ) .
Corollary 6.
If f ( z ) A ¯ satisfies
1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) 1 + z 1 z 2 n + 1 , ( z U )
for some n = 0 , 1 , 2 , , then
z f ( z ) f ( z ) 1 + z 1 z 2 n + 1 , ( z U ) .
Corollary 7.
If f ( z ) A ¯ satisfies
f ( z ) z + z f ( z ) f ( z ) 1 1 + z 1 z 2 n + 1 , ( z U )
for some n = 0 , 1 , 2 , , then
f ( z ) z 1 + z 1 z 2 n + 1 , ( z U ) .
Finally, we derive the following theorem.
Theorem 7.
Let p ( z ) be analytic in U with p ( 0 ) = 1 . If p ( z ) satisfies
p ( z ) + z p ( z ) 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U )
for some real α ( 0 α < 1 ) , then
p ( z ) 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U ) .
Proof. 
We suppose that p ( z ) is not subordinate to a function
g ( z ) = 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U ) .
Applying Lemma 2, we say that there exist points z 0 U and ξ 0 ( U ) , and a real m 1 for which p ( | z | < | z 0 | ) g ( U ) ,
p ( z 0 ) = g ( ξ 0 )
and
z 0 p ( z 0 ) = m ξ 0 g ( ξ 0 ) .
This gives us the following:
p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) = g ( ξ 0 ) + m ξ 0 g ( ξ 0 ) = 1 + ( 1 2 α ) ξ 0 1 ξ 0 1 + m 2 ( 1 2 α ) ξ 0 1 + ( 1 2 α ) ξ 0 + ξ 0 1 ξ 0 .
Letting ξ 0 = e i θ   ( 0 θ < 2 π ) , we see
p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) = 1 + ( 1 2 α ) e i θ 2 1 e i θ 2 + m 2 ( 1 2 α ) e i θ 2 1 e i θ 2 + e i θ 2 ( 1 + ( 1 2 α ) e i θ 2 ) ( 1 e i θ 2 ) 2 .
Thus, we see
R e ( p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) ) = α m 4 1 2 α + 1 + ( 1 2 α ) c o s θ 2 1 c o s θ 2 .
Consider
g ( t ) = 1 + ( 1 2 α ) t 1 t , ( t = c o s θ 2 ) .
Then
g ( t ) = 2 ( 1 α ) ( 1 t ) 2 > 0
and g ( t ) > α . Thus, we have
R e ( p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) ) < α m ( 1 α ) 4 < α .
Since R e g ( z ) > α   ( z U ) , (36) contradicts our condition (34). Therefore, p ( z ) satisfies the subordination (35). □
Considering p ( z ) = f ( z ) z , we have the following corollary.
Corollary 8.
If f ( z ) A ¯ belongs to the class R ¯ ( α ) , then
f ( z ) z 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U ) .
Letting p ( z ) = f ( z ) , we have the following corollary:
Corollary 9.
If f ( z ) A ¯ satisfies
f ( z ) + z f ( z ) 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U ) .
for some real α ( 0 α < 1 ) , then f ( z ) R ¯ ( α ) .
Further, we have the following:
Corollary 10.
If f ( z ) A ¯ satisfies
R e z f ( z ) f ( z ) 2 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) z f ( z ) f ( z ) 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U ) .
for some real α ( 0 α < 1 ) , then f ( z ) S ¯ ( α ) .
Problem 1.
We consider a function p ( z ) by
p ( z ) + z p ( z ) = 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U ) .
in Theorem 7. Then, we know that
z p ( z ) = 0 z 1 + ( 1 2 α ) t 1 t d t = 2 1 z 1 2 ( 1 α ) u + ( 4 α 3 ) + ( 1 2 α ) u d u
with t = 1 u . It follows that
z p ( z ) = z ( 2 α 1 ) 4 ( 1 α ) z 4 ( 1 α ) z log ( 1 z )
and that
p ( z ) = ( 2 α 1 ) 4 ( 1 α ) z 4 ( 1 α ) z log ( 1 z ) .
Applying Theorem 7, we say that p ( z ) given by (40) satisfies the following:
p ( z ) 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U ) .
To check the subordination (41), we have to check the following:
( 2 α 1 ) 4 ( 1 α ) z 4 ( 1 α ) z log ( 1 z ) 1 + ( 1 2 α ) z 1 z , ( z U ) .
How can we see the above subordination (42)?

3. Conclusions

In this paper, we consider f ( z ) given by
f ( z ) = z + k = 1 a 1 + k 2 z 1 + k 2
that is analytic in the open unit disc U = z C : | z | < 1 and some interesting properties of f ( z ) A ¯ concerning interesting classes S ¯ ( α ) ,   C ¯ ( α ) and R ¯ ( α ) applying subordinations of f ( z ) . Our f ( z ) functions, as given above, represent a novel consideration. So, we believe that our results in this paper will provide a new direction and contribute to developing a new perspective in the studies of geometric function theory.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.Ö.G., D.B., and S.O.; investigation, H.Ö.G., D.B., and S.O.; methodology, H.Ö.G., D.B., and S.O.; writing—original draft, S.O.; writing—review and editing, H.Ö.G. and D.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for the constructive feedback.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Owa, S. An application of Carathéodory functions. Konuralp J. Math. 2017, 5, 19–23. [Google Scholar]
  2. Owa, S.; Srivastava, H.M.; Hayami, T.; Kuroki, K. A new general idea for starlike and convex functions. Tamkang J. Math. 2016, 47, 445–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Miller, S.S.; Mocanu, P.T. Univalent solutions of Briot-Bouquet differential equations. J. Differ. Equ. 1985, 56, 297–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Miller, S.S.; Mocanu, P.T. Differential subordinations and univalent functions. Mich. Math. J. 1981, 28, 157–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Miller, S.S.; Mocanu, P.T. Marx-Strohhäcker differential subordination systems. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1987, 99, 527–534. [Google Scholar]
  6. Nunokawa, M.; Owa, S.; Sokól, J. A criterion for bounded functions. Bull. Korean Math. Soc. 2016, 53, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.