Abstract
Let and with , be two analytic functions in the unit disk . This paper gives conditions so that the function , a function associated with the Struve function, is univalent, starlike, or convex in the unit disk.
MSC:
30C45
1. Introduction
In light of Louis de Brange using a special function, namely the generalized hypergeometric function, in proving the Bieberbach Conjecture, renewed interest was sparked among the mathematics community in special functions. Following this, many articles were presented in dealing with the geometric properties of different types of special functions including but not limited to generalized hypergeometric function, Gaussian, Kummer hypergeometric functions, Bessel functions, and, most recently, Struve functions [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. Sufficient conditions on the parameters of these special functions were also determined by many authors for them to belong to a certain class of univalent functions [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20].
Let denote the class of analytic functions in the unit disk of the following form:
and normalized by . Denote to be the subclass of consisting of univalent functions. Subsequently, denote and to be subclasses of function which are starlike and convex, respectively, in the unit disk with the following definitions:
Definition 1.
A setin the plane is said to be starlike with respect toan interior point ofif each ray with initial pointintersects the interior ofin a set that is either a line segment or a ray. If a functionmapsonto a domain that is starlike with respect to, then we say thatis starlike with respect to. In the special case that, we say thatis a starlike function.
Definition 2.
A setin the plane is called convex if, for every pair of pointsandin the interior of, the line segment joiningandis also in the interior of. If a functionmapsonto a convex domain, thenis called a convex function.
The analytical definition for the classes of starlike and convex functions are as follows, where denotes the real part of a complex function:
Proposition 1.
Let, thenif and only if
Proposition 2.
Let, thenif and only if
For more insights on these classes, refer to References [21,22].
According to the Alexander theorem [23], every function is convex in the unit disk if and only if is starlike in the unit disk, i.e., .
Given any analytic functions, and , define the convolution function of and , denoted by , as
Trivially, is analytic and it is sometimes referred to as the Hadamard product of and in honour of J. Hadamard, where Hadamard used an alternative representation,
to illustrate the convolution.
Firstly, consider the following differential equation [24]:
where and a particular solution for Equation (2) is
The function is known as the Struve function of order . Next, consider the following differential equation which only differs in the coefficient of :
and a particular solution for Equation (3) is
where is known as the modified Struve function of order . Refer to Reference [25] for a more in-depth discussion on the Struve function. Now, consider the differential equation
where . Note that if and , then Equation (4) reduces to Equation (2), and if and , then Equation (4) reduces to Equation (3). A particular solution for Equation (4), denoted by , is
Similarly to before, if and , then , and if and , then . This generalization allows the study of and together. Thus, is identified as the generalized Struve function of order . Although the series representation of is convergent everywhere in , the function is univalent generally in [26]. Now, consider the function defined as follows:
Utilizing the Pochhammer symbol, , the following form of can be written:
where and
for . The function is analytic in , and satisfies the condition , as well as the differential equation
For more discussion on generalized Struve function, refer to References [26,27,28].
The function is a convolution of and , i.e.,
where and . In Reference [26], Orhan and Yagmur investigated the geometric properties for the function , and this prompts the motivation to seek similar properties for the function . The function was first introduced by Raza and Yagmur [29]. As such, this paper studies univalency, starlikeness, and convexity properties of the function .
2. Preliminaries
The following preliminary results are needed to prove the results in the next section. These results can be found in References [30,31,32,33] respectively except for Lemma 3 which can be found in Reference [16].
Theorem 1.
If, thenfor.
Lemma 1.
Ifsatisfies the inequality
whereis the solution of the equation, then.
Lemma 2.
Ifand, thenis univalent.
Lemma 3.
Ifand
for some fixed,and for all, then.
Proposition 3.
Consider for, the quartic functionof the form
where. Solutions ofare given as follows:
whereandare the coefficients of the second and of the first degree, respectively, in the associated depressed quartic
and where
with
3. Results
Sufficient conditions for to be univalent, starlike, and convex are shown in the theorems below, respectively.
Theorem 2.
Letandbe defined by Equation (5). If,and
whereis the solution the equationand
with
thenfor all.
Proof.
Suppose . Using , the inequalities and for ,
Obviously, the restriction on is . On the other hand, using , the inequalities and for ,
where the restriction on is . Combining Equations (8) and (9) gives
Next, to determine the values of such that it satisfies
where is the solution of the equation , the inequality can be written as
Using Proposition 3 to find ,
Putting
and since gives , the zeros of are
The real roots are given by
which upon simplification, results in the following approximation:
Thus, it can be concluded that for or . Since , then
is the range of values of that satisfies Equation (11). As is an analytic function, then, by Lemma 1, for all . □
Remark 1.
Obviously from Lemma 2, withandsatisfying the constraints given in Theorem 2, the functionis univalent in.
Theorem 3.
Letandbe defined by Equation (5). If , and
where
then is starlike in .
Proof.
Suppose . Similar to the previous result, the aim is to seek constraints on such that is starlike in . Hence, replacing with and with in Equation (11) gives the following:
Once again, using Proposition 3 to find the zeros of ,
Putting
the zeros of are
The real roots are given by
which, upon simplification, results in the following approximation:
Thus, it can be concluded that for or . Since , then
is the range of values of that satisfies Equation (14) which, in turn, implies that is starlike in by Lemma 3 when . □
Theorem 4.
Letanddefined by Equation (5). If , and , then is convex in .
Proof.
Suppose . Using , the inequalities and for ,
Obviously, the restriction on is . Using , the inequalities and for ,
where the restriction on is . Comparing Equations (16) and (17) gives the following:
The next step is to determine the values of such that it satisfies the following:
From Equation (17),
Since , then is the range of values of such that it satisfies Equation (17). Since the range of values of satisfies the condition in Theorem 3, then is starlike in which, in turn, implies that is convex in by the Alexander theorem. □
4. Conclusions
In summary, the bounds on for function to be univalent, starlike, and convex were obtained. Specifically, for , is univalent; for is starlike; and for is convex. The bounds obtained for convexity and starlikeness of the function are in agreement since and all convex functions are starlike. Secondly, the same goes for the function to be univalent and convex since and all convex functions are univalent for . However, since the bounds obtained in and are not necessarily sharp, the relationship between and does not imply the outcome that all starlike functions are univalent in the unit disk. This is probably due to the fact that the approach in establishing Theorem 3 used Lemma 3 (a necessary condition) as opposed to using Proposition 1 (necessary and sufficient). This allows for further research to explore better methods, such as using Proposition 1, to achieve better bounds. Nevertheless, the results attained in this paper are in adherence with the results in Reference [26]. Conducting further research in the future will hopefully produce a sharper result.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed equally in writing this article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Srivastava, H.M.; Manocha, H.L. A Treatise on Generating Functions; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Cesarano, C. Some Special Classes of Bessel Functions and Modified Humbert Functions. Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 2016, 111, 589–604. [Google Scholar]
- Balasubramanian, R.; Ponnusamy, S.; Prabhakarna, D.J. Convexity of Integral Transforms and Functional Spaces. Integr. Transforms Spec. Funct. 2007, 18, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, S.S.; Mocanu, P.T. Univalence of Gaussian and Confluent Hypergeometric Functions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1990, 110, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ponnusamy, S.; Ronning, F. Geometric Properties for Convolutions of Hypergeometric Functions and Functions with the Derivative in a Halfplane. Integr. Transforms Spec. Funct. 1999, 8, 121–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ponnusamy, S.; Vuorinen, M. Univalence and Convexity Properties for Confluent Hypergeometric Functions. Complex Var. Theory Appl. 1998, 36, 73–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ponnusamy, S.; Vuorinen, M. Univalence and Convexity Properties for Gaussian Hypergeometric Functions. Rocky Mt. J. Math. 2001, 31, 327–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ponnusamy, S.; Singh, V.; Vasundra, P. Starlikeness and Convexity of an Integral Transform. Integr. Transforms Spec. Funct. 2004, 15, 267–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baricz, A.; Ponnusamy, S. Integral Transforms and Special Functions. Integr. Transforms Spec. Funct. 2010, 21, 641–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Küstner, R. On the Order of Starlikeness of the Shifted Gauss Hypergeometric Functions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 334, 1363–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruscheweyh, St.; Singh, V. On the Order of Starlikness of Hypergeometric Functions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1986, 113, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silverman, H. Starlike and Convexity Properties for Hypergeometric Functions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1993, 172, 574–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baricz, A. Geometric Properties of Generalized Bessel Functions. Publ. Math. Debreceen 2008, 73, 155–178. [Google Scholar]
- Deniz, E.; Orhan, H.; Srivastava, H.M. Some Sufficient Conditions for Univalence of Certain Families of Integral Operators Involving Generalized Bessel Functions. Taiwanese J. Math. 2011, 15, 883–917. [Google Scholar]
- Deniz, E. Convexity of Integral Operators Involving Generalized Bessel Fucntions. Integr. Transforms Spec. Funct. 2013, 24, 201–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owa, S.; Srivastava, H. Univalent and Starlike Generalized Hypergeometric Functions. Can. J. Math. 1987, 67, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Răducanu, D.; Srivastava, H.M. A New Class of Analytic Functions Defined by means of a Convolution Operator Involving the Hurwitz-Lerch Zeta Function. Integr. Transforms Spec. Funct. 2007, 18, 933–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selinger, V. Geometric Properties of Normalized Bessel Functions. Pure Math. Appl. 1995, 6, 273–277. [Google Scholar]
- Srivastava, H.M.; Yang, D.G.; Xu, N.E. Subordinations for Multivalent Analytic Functions Associated with Dziok-Srivastava Operator. Integr. Transforms Spec. Funct. 2009, 20, 581–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srivastava, H.M. Generalized Hypergeometric Functions and Associated Families of k-uniformity Convex and k-starlike Functions. Gen. Math. 2007, 15, 201–226. [Google Scholar]
- Duren, P.L. Univalent Functions; Springer-Verlak: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Goodman, A.W. Univalent Functions; Mariner Publication Company: Tanpa, FL, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Alexander, J.W. Functions which Map the Interior of the Unit Circle upon Simple Regions. Ann. Math. 1915, 17, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.; Jin, J. Computation of Special Functions; John & Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Watson, G.N. A Treatise on the Theory of Bessel Functions; University Press-Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 1922. [Google Scholar]
- Orhan, H.; Yagmur, N. Geometric Properties of Generalized Struve Functions. Ann. Alexandru Ioan Cuza Univ. Math. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yagmur, N.; Orhan, H. Starlikeness and Convexity of Generalized Struve Functions. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2013, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yagmur, N.; Orhan, H. Hardy Space of Generalized Struve Functions. Complex Var. Elliptic Equ. 2014, 59, 929–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raza, M.; Yagmur, N. Some Properties of a Class of Analytic Functions defined by Geometric Struve Functions. Turkish J. Math. 2015, 39, 931–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branges, L. A Proof of the Bieberbach Conjecture. Acta Math. 1985, 154, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xanthopoulos, X. Subclasses of Starlike Functions with . Studia Univ. Babeş-Boylai Math. 1993, 38, 39–47. [Google Scholar]
- MacGregor, T. Functions whose Derivative has a Positive Real Part. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1962, 104, 532–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardano, G. Artis Magnae, Sive de Regulis Algebraicis Liber Unus; Franco Angeli: Milan, Italy, 1545. [Google Scholar]
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).