Next Article in Journal
Commutativity of a 3-Prime near Ring Satisfying Certain Differential Identities on Jordan Ideals
Previous Article in Journal
Numerical Analysis of an Osseointegration Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Approximation by Generalized Lupaş Operators Based on q-Integers

Mathematics 2020, 8(1), 88; https://doi.org/10.3390/math8010088

Article
Argument and Coefficient Estimates for Certain Analytic Functions
1
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Arak University, Arak 38156-8-8349, Iran
2
Department of Applied Mathematics, College of Natural Sciences, Pukyong National University, Busan 608-737, Korea
3
Faculty of Mathematical Sciences, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood P.O. Box 316-36155, Iran
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 3 December 2019 / Accepted: 2 January 2020 / Published: 5 January 2020

Abstract

:
The aim of the present paper is to introduce a new class G α , δ of analytic functions in the open unit disk and to study some properties associated with strong starlikeness and close-to-convexity for the class G α , δ . We also consider sharp bounds of logarithmic coefficients and Fekete-Szegö functionals belonging to the class G α , δ . Moreover, we provide some topics related to the results reported here that are relevant to outcomes presented in earlier research.
Keywords:
starlike function; subordinate; univalent function
MSC:
Primary 30C45; Secondary 30C80

1. Introduction and Preliminaries

Let U denote the open unit dick in the complex plane C . A function ω : U C is called a Schwarz function if ω is a analytic function in U with ω ( 0 ) = 0 and | ω ( z ) | < 1 for all z U . Clearly, a Schwarz function ω is the form
ω ( z ) = w 1 z + w 2 z 2 + .
We denote by Ω the set of all Schwarz functions on U .
Let A be consisting of all analytic functions of the following normalized form:
f ( z ) = z + n = 2 a n z n ,
in the open unit disk U . An analytic function f is said to be univalent in a domain if it provides a one-to-one mapping onto its image: f ( z 1 ) = f ( z 2 ) z 1 = z 2 . Geometrically, this means that different points in the domain will be mapped into different points on the image domain. Also, let S be the class of functions f A which are univalent in U . A domain D in the complex plane C is called starlike with respect to a point w 0 D , if the line segment joining w 0 to every other point w D lies in the interior of D. In other words, for any w D and 0 t 1 , t w 0 + ( 1 t ) w D . A function f A is starlike if the image f ( D ) is starlike with respect to the origin.
For two analytic functions f and F in U , we say that the function f is subordinate to the function F in U and we write f ( z ) F ( z ) , if there exists a Schwarz function ω such that f ( z ) = F ω ( z ) for all z U . Specifically, if the function F is univalent in U , then we have the next equivalence:
f ( z ) F ( z ) f ( 0 ) = F ( 0 ) and f ( U ) F ( U ) .
The logarithmic coefficients γ n of f S are defined with the following series expansion:
log f ( z ) z = 2 n = 1 γ n ( f ) z n , z U .
These coefficients are an important factor in studying diverse estimates in the theory of univalent functions. Note that we use γ n instead of γ n ( f ) . The concept of logarithmic coefficients inspired Kayumov [1] to solve Brennan’s conjecture for conformal mappings. The importance of the logarithmic coefficients follows from Lebedev-Milin inequalities [2] (Chapter 2), see also [3,4], where estimates of the logarithmic coefficients were used to find bounds on the coefficients of f. Milin [2] conjectured the inequality
m = 1 n k = 1 m k | γ k | 2 1 k 0 ( n = 1 , 2 , 3 , ) ,
which implies Robertson’s conjecture [5], and hence, Bieberbach’s conjecture [6]. This is the famous coefficient problem in univalent function theory. L. de Branges [7] established Bieberbach’s conjecture by proving Milin’s conjecture.
Definition 1.
Let q , n N . The q t h Hankel determinant is denote by H q ( n ) and defined by
H q ( n ) = a n a n + 1 a n + q 1 a n + 1 a n + 2 a n + q a n + q 1 a n + q a n + 2 q 2 ,
where a k ( k = 1 , 2 , ) are the coefficients of the Taylor series expansion of a function f of the form (1). Note that a 1 = 1 .
The Hankel determinant H q ( n ) was defined by Pommerenke [8,9] and for fixed q , n the bounds of | H q ( n ) | have been studied for several subfamilies of univalent functions. Different properties of these determinants can be observed in [10] (Chapter 4). The Hankel determinants H 2 ( 1 ) = a 3 a 2 2 and H 2 ( 2 ) = a 2 a 4 a 3 2 , are well-known as Fekete-Szegö and second Hankel determinant functionals, respectively. In addition, Fekete and Szegö [11] introduced the generalized functional a 3 λ a 2 2 , where λ is a real number. Recently, Hankel determinants and other problems for various classes of bi-univalent functions have been studied, see [12,13,14,15,16].
For α [ 0 , 1 ) , we denote by S * ( α ) the subclass of A including of all f A for which f is a starlike function of order α in U , with
Re z f ( z ) f ( z ) > α ( z U ) .
Also, for α ( 0 , 1 ] , we denote by S ˜ * ( α ) the subclass of A consisting of all f A for which f is a strongly starlike function of order α in U , with
Arg z f ( z ) f ( z ) < α π 2 ( z U ) .
Note that S ˜ * ( 1 ) = S * ( 0 ) = S * , the class of starlike functions in U .
For α ( 0 , 1 ] , we denote by C ˜ ( α ) the subclass of A including all of f A for which
Arg f ( z ) < α π 2 ( z U ) .
Note that C ˜ ( 1 ) = C , the subclass of close-to-convex functions in U . Here we understand that Arg w is a number in ( π , π ] .
For α ( 0 , 1 ] , Nunokawa and Saitoh in [17] defined the more general class G ( α ) consisting of all f A satisfying
Re 1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) < 1 + α 2 ( z U ) .
They proved that G ( α ) is a subclass of S * . Ozaki in [18] showed that every function G ( 1 ) is univalent in the unit disk U . In the following, Umezawa [19], Sakaguchi [20] and Singh and Singh [21] obtained some geometric properties of G ( 1 ) including, convex in one direction, close-to-convex and starlike, respectively. Obradović et al. in [22] proved the sharp coefficient bounds for the moduli of the Taylor coefficients a n of f G ( α ) and determined the sharp bound for the Fekete-Szegö functional for functions in G ( α ) with complex parameter λ . Also, Ponnusamy et al. [22,23] studied bounds for the logarithmic coefficients for functions in G ( α ) .
Here, we introduce a class as follows:
Definition 2.
For α , δ ( 0 , 1 ] , we define the subclass G α , δ of A as the following:
G α , δ : = f A : | Arg 2 + α α 2 α 1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) | < δ π 2 ( z U ) .
It is clear that G α , 1 = G ( α ) for α ( 0 , 1 ] . Let α , δ ( 0 , 1 ] , identity function on U belongs to G α , δ which implies that G α , δ . By means of the principle of subordination between analytic functions, we deduce
G α , δ : = f A : 1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) α 2 1 + z 1 z δ + 2 + α 2 : = ϕ ( z ) ( z U ) .
Since the function f defined by
f ( z ) = 0 z exp 0 x α 2 1 + t 1 t δ + α 2 t d t d x ( z U )
satisfies
1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) = ϕ ( z ) ϕ ( z ) ,
we deduce f G α , δ .
The aim of the present paper is to study some geometric properties for the class G α , δ such as strongly starlikeness and close-to-convexity. Also we investigate sharp bounds on logarithmic coefficients and Fekete-Szegö functionals for functions belonging to the class G α , δ , which incorporate some known results as the special cases.

2. Some Properties of the Class G α , δ

We denote by Q the class of all complex-valued functions q for which q is univalent at each U ¯ \ E ( q ) and q ( ξ ) 0 for all ξ U \ E ( q ) where
E ( q ) = ξ U : lim z ξ q ( z ) = .
The following lemmas will be required to establish our main results.
Lemma 1
([24] (Lemma 2.2d (i))). Let q Q with q ( 0 ) = a and let p ( z ) = a + p n z n + be analytic in U with p ( z ) 1 and n 1 . If p is not subordinate to q in U then there exist z 0 U and ξ 0 U \ E ( q ) such that p z : z U , | z | < | z 0 | q ( U ) ,
p ( z 0 ) = q ( ξ 0 ) .
Lemma 2.
(see [25,26]) Let the function p given by
p ( z ) = 1 + n = 1 c n z n
be analytic in U with p ( 0 ) = 1 and p ( z ) 0 for all z U . If there exists a point z 0 U with
| arg p ( z ) | < β π 2 ( | z | < | z 0 | )
and
| arg p ( z 0 ) | = β π 2 ,
for some β > 0 , then
z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = i k β ( i = 1 ) ,
where
k a + a 1 2 1 when arg p ( z 0 ) = β π 2
and
k a + a 1 2 1 when arg p ( z 0 ) = β π 2 ,
where
p ( z 0 ) 1 / β = ± i a and a > 0 .
Theorem 1.
Let α , β ( 0 , 1 ] . If f A satisfies the condition
| Arg 2 + α α 2 α 1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) | < Arctan 4 β 2 + α ,
then
| Arg z f ( z ) f ( z ) | < β π 2 ( z U ) .
Proof. 
Let f A and define the function p : U C by
p ( z ) = z f ( z ) f ( z ) = 1 + n = 1 c n z n ( z U ) .
Then it follows that p is analytic in U , p ( 0 ) = 1 ,
1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) = p ( z ) + z p ( z ) p ( z ) ( z U )
and p ( z ) 0 for all z U . In fact, if p has a zero z 0 U of order m, then we may write
p ( z ) = ( z z 0 ) m p 1 ( z ) ( m N = 1 , 2 , 3 , ) ,
where p 1 is analytic in U with p 1 ( z 0 ) 0 . Then
2 + α α 2 α p ( z ) + z p ( z ) p ( z ) = 2 + α α 2 α p ( z ) + z p 1 ( z ) p 1 ( z ) + m z z z 0 .
Thus, choosing z z 0 , suitably the argument of the right-hand of the above equality can take any value between π and π , which contradicts (7).
Define the function q : U ¯ \ { 1 } C by
q ( z ) = 1 + z 1 z β ( z U ¯ \ { 1 } ) .
Then q Q , q ( 0 ) = 1 and E ( q ) = { 1 } . It is clear that | Arg p ( z ) | < β π 2 for all z U if and only if p q on U . Let | Arg p ( z 1 ) | β π 2 for some z 1 U . Then p is not subordinate to q. By Lemma 1 there exists z 0 U and ξ 0 U \ { 1 } such that p z : z U , | z | < | z 0 | q ( U ) and p ( z 0 ) = q ( ξ 0 ) . Therefore,
| Arg p ( z ) | < β π 2 ,
for all z U with | z | < | z 0 | and
| Arg p ( z 0 ) | = β π 2 .
Then, Lemma 2, gives us that
z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = i k β ,
where [ p ( z 0 ) ] 1 β = ± i a ( a > 0 ) and k is given by (5) or (6).
Define the function g : ( 0 , a ) R by
g ( t ) = 2 2 + α t β sin ( β π 2 ) + β 1 2 2 + α t β cos β π 2 t ( 0 , a ) .
Then g is a differentiable function on ( 0 , a ) and g ( t ) > 0 for all t ( 0 , a ) . This implies that the function h : ( 0 , a ) R defined by
h ( t ) = Arctan g ( t ) t ( 0 , a ) ,
is a non-decreasing function on ( 0 , a ) . Thus
h ( a ) lim t 0 + h ( t ) = Arctan 2 β 2 + α .
Therefore, we have
Arctan 2 2 + α a β sin β π 2 + β 1 2 2 + α a β cos β π 2 Arctan 2 β 2 + α .
Now we consider six cases for estimation of Arg p ( z 0 ) as follows:
Case 1. Arg p ( z 0 ) = β π 2 and 1 2 2 + α a β cos β π 2 > 0 . In this case we have [ p ( z 0 ) ] 1 β = i a ( a > 0 ) , and k 1 . Therefore,
Arg 2 + α α 1 2 2 + α p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = Arg 1 2 2 + α a β cos β π 2 i 2 2 + α a β sin β π 2 + k β = Arctan 2 2 + α a β sin β π 2 + k β 1 2 2 + α a β cos β π 2 Arctan 2 2 + α a β sin β π 2 + β 1 2 2 + α a β cos β π 2 = Arctan 2 2 + α a β sin β π 2 + β 1 2 2 + α a β cos β π 2 = h ( a ) Arctan 2 β 2 + α .
Now applying (8) and (9) we get
Arg 2 + α α 1 2 2 + α p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = Arg 1 2 2 + α p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = Arg 1 2 2 + α 1 + z 0 f ( z 0 ) f ( z 0 ) Arctan 2 2 + α a β sin β π 2 + β 1 2 2 + α a β cos β π 2 Arctan 2 β 2 + α ,
which contradicts (7).
Case 2. Arg p ( z 0 ) = β π 2 and 1 2 2 + α a β cos β π 2 = 0 . In this case, we have p ( z 0 ) = a β ( cos β π 2 + i sin β π 2 ) and k 1 . Thus 2 2 + α a β sin β π 2 + k β < 0 and so
Arg 2 + α α 1 2 2 + α p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = Arg i 2 2 + α a β sin β π 2 + k β = π 2 < Arctan 2 β 2 + α ,
which contradicts (7).
Case 3. Arg p ( z 0 ) = β π 2 and 1 2 2 + α a β cos β π 2 < 0 . In this case, we have p ( z 0 ) = a β ( cos β π 2 + i sin β π 2 ) and k 1 . Thus
2 2 + α a β sin β π 2 + k β 1 2 2 + α a β cos β π 2 > 0 .
Therefore,
Arg 2 + α α 1 2 2 + α p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = Arg 1 2 2 + α a β cos β π 2 i 2 2 + α a β sin β π 2 + k β = π + Arctan 2 2 + α a β sin β π 2 + k β 1 2 2 + α a β cos β π 2 < π + π 2 = π 2 < Arctan 2 β 2 + α ,
which contradicts (7).
Case 4. Arg p ( z 0 ) = β π 2 and 1 2 2 + α a β cos β π 2 > 0 . In this case we have p ( z 0 ) = a β ( cos β π 2 i sin β π 2 ) and k 1 . Thus 2 2 + α a β sin β π 2 + k β < 0 . Now, applying (8) we get
Arg 2 + α α 1 α 2 + α p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = Arg 1 2 2 + α a β e i β π 2 + i k β = Arctan 2 2 + α a β sin β π 2 + k β 1 2 2 + α a β cos β π 2 Arctan 2 2 + α a β sin β π 2 β 1 2 2 + α a β cos β π 2 = Arctan 2 2 + α a β sin β π 2 + β 1 2 2 + α a β cos β π 2 Arctan 2 β 2 + α ,
which contradicts (7).
For other cases applying the same method in Case 2. and Case 3. with k 1 we obtain
Arg 2 + α α 1 2 2 + α p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) Arctan 2 β 2 + α ,
which contradicts (7). Hence the proof is completed. □
Corollary 1.
Let α , β ( 0 , 1 ] and δ = 2 π Arctan 2 β 2 + α . If f G α , δ , then f S ˜ * ( β ) .
Theorem 2.
Let α , β ( 0 , 1 ] . If f A and
| Arg 2 + α α 2 α 1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) | < Arctan 2 β α ,
then
| Arg f ( z ) | < β π 2 ( z U ) .
Proof. 
Define the function p : U C by
p ( z ) = f ( z ) = 1 + n = 1 c n z n ( z U ) .
Then p is analytic in U , p ( 0 ) = 1 ,
1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) = 1 + z p ( z ) p ( z ) .
and p ( z ) 0 for all z U . If there exists a point z 0 U such that
| Arg p ( z ) | < β π 2 ,
for all z U with | z | < | z 0 | and
| Arg p ( z 0 ) | = β π 2 .
Then, Lemma 2, gives us that
z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = i k β ,
where [ p ( z 0 ) ] 1 β = ± i a ( a > 0 ) and k is given by (5) or (6).
For the case Arg p ( z 0 ) = α π 2 when
p ( z 0 ) ] 1 β = i a ( a > 0 )
and k 1 , we have
Arg 2 + α α 1 2 2 + α 1 + z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = Arg 1 2 2 + α 1 + z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = Arg 1 2 2 + α 1 + i k β = Arctan 2 k β α Arctan 2 β α ,
which contradicts (10).
Next, for the case Arg p ( z 0 ) = α π 2 when
p ( z 0 ) = i a ( a > 0 )
and k 1 , using the same method as before, we can obtain
Arg 2 + α α 1 2 2 + α 1 + z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = Arg 1 2 2 + α 1 + z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = Arg 1 2 2 + α 1 + i k β = Arctan 2 k β α Arctan 2 β α ,
which is a contradicts (10).
Consequently, from the two above-discussed contradictions, it follows that
| Arg f ( z ) | < β π 2 ( z U ) .
and hence the proof is completed. □
Corollary 2.
Let α , β ( 0 , 1 ] and δ = 2 π Arctan 2 β α . If f G α , δ , then f C ˜ ( β ) . In other words, if f G α , δ , then f ( z ) is close-to-convex (univalent) in U .

3. Coefficient Bounds

In this section, we give a the general problem of coefficients in the class G α , δ like the estimates of coefficients for membership of this, bounds of logarithmic coefficients and the Fekete-Szegö problem with sharp inequalities. In order to achieve our aim we need to establish some knowledge.
Lemma 3
([27] (p. 172)). Let ω Ω with ω ( z ) = n = 1 w n z n for all z U . Then | w 1 | 1 and
| w n | 1 | w 1 | 2 for   all n N with n 2 .
Lemma 4
([28] (Inequality 7, p. 10)). Let ω Ω with ω ( z ) = n = 1 w n z n for all z U . Then
| w 2 t w 1 2 | max { 1 , | t | } for   all t C .
The inequality is sharp for the functions ω ( z ) = z 2 or ω ( z ) = z .
Lemma 5
([29]). If ω Ω with ω ( z ) = n = 1 w n z n ( z U ) , then for any real numbers q 1 and q 2 , we have the following sharp estimate:
| p 3 + q 1 w 1 w 2 + q 2 w 1 3 | H ( q 1 ; q 2 ) ,
where
H ( q 1 ; q 2 ) = 1 if ( q 1 , q 2 ) D 1 D 2 { ( 2 , 1 ) } , | q 2 | if ( q 1 , q 2 ) k = 3 7 D k , 2 3 ( | q 1 | + 1 ) | q 1 | + 1 3 ( | q 1 | + 1 + q 2 ) 1 2 if ( q 1 , q 2 ) D 8 D 9 , q 2 3 q 1 2 4 q 1 2 4 q 2 q 1 2 4 3 ( q 2 1 ) 1 2 if ( q 1 , q 2 ) D 10 D 11 \ { ( 2 , 1 ) } , 2 3 ( | q 1 | 1 ) | q 1 | 1 3 ( | q 1 | 1 q 2 ) 1 2 if ( q 1 , q 2 ) D 12 ,
and the sets D k , k = 1 , 2 , , 12 are stated as given below:
D 1 = ( q 1 , q 2 ) : | q 1 | 1 2 , | q 2 | 1 , D 2 = ( q 1 , q 2 ) : 1 2 | q 1 | 2 , 4 27 ( | q 1 | + 1 ) 3 ( | q 1 | + 1 ) q 2 1 , D 3 = ( q 1 , q 2 ) : | q 1 | 1 2 , q 2 1 ,
D 4 = ( q 1 , q 2 ) : | q 1 | 1 2 , | q 2 | 2 3 ( | q 1 | + 1 ) , D 5 = ( q 1 , q 2 ) : | q 1 | 2 , q 2 1 , D 6 = ( q 1 , q 2 ) : 2 | q 1 | 4 , q 2 1 12 ( q 1 2 + 8 ) , D 7 = ( q 1 , q 2 ) : | q 1 | 4 , q 2 2 3 ( | q 1 | 1 ) , D 8 = ( q 1 , q 2 ) : 1 2 | q 1 | 2 , 2 3 ( | q 1 | + 1 ) q 2 4 27 ( | q 1 | + 1 ) 3 ( | q 1 | + 1 ) , D 9 = ( q 1 , q 2 ) : | q 1 | 2 , 2 3 ( | q 1 | + 1 ) q 2 2 | q 1 | ( | q 1 | + 1 ) q 1 2 + 2 | q 1 | + 4 , D 10 = ( q 1 , q 2 ) : 2 | q 1 | 4 , 2 | q 1 | ( | q 1 | + 1 ) q 1 2 + 2 | q 1 | + 4 q 2 1 12 ( q 1 2 + 8 ) , D 11 = ( q 1 , q 2 ) : | q 1 | 4 , 2 | q 1 | ( | q 1 | + 1 ) q 1 2 + 2 | q 1 | + 4 q 2 2 | q 1 | ( | q 1 | 1 ) q 1 2 2 | q 1 | + 4 , D 12 = ( q 1 , q 2 ) : | q 1 | 4 , 2 | q 1 | ( | q 1 | 1 ) q 1 2 2 | q 1 | + 4 q 2 2 3 ( | q 1 | 1 ) .
We assume that φ is a univalent function in the unit disk U satisfying φ ( 0 ) = 1 such that it has the power series expansion of the following form
φ ( z ) = 1 + B 1 z + B 2 z 2 + B 3 z 3 + , z U , with B 1 0 .
Lemma 6
([30] (Theorem 2)). Let the function f K ( φ ) . Then the logarithmic coefficients of f satisfy the inequalities
| γ 1 | | B 1 | 4 ,
| γ 2 | | B 1 | 12 if | 4 B 2 + B 1 2 | 4 | B 1 | , | 4 B 2 + B 1 2 | 48 if | 4 B 2 + B 1 2 | > 4 | B 1 | ,
and if B 1 , B 2 , and B 3 are real values,
| γ 3 | | B 1 | 24 H ( q 1 ; q 2 ) ,
where H ( q 1 ; q 2 ) is given by Lemma 5, q 1 = B 1 + 4 B 2 B 1 2 and q 2 = B 2 + 2 B 3 B 1 2 . The bounds (12) and (13) are sharp.
Theorem 3.
Let f G α , δ . Then
| a 2 | α δ 2 , | a 3 | α δ 6 , | a 4 | α δ 12 H ( q 1 ; q 2 ) ,
where H ( q 1 ; q 2 ) is given by Lemma 5,
q 1 = 3 α δ 2 + 2 δ and q 2 = δ 2 3 α 2 + α 2 2 + 2 3 + 1 3 .
The first two bounds are sharp.
Proof. 
Set g ( z ) = : z f ( z ) , where f G α , δ and suppose that g ( z ) = z + n = 2 b n z n . Hence b n = n a n for n 1 . Then from (4), it follows that
z g ( z ) g ( z ) α 2 1 + z 1 z δ + 2 + α 2 = : ϕ ( z ) = 1 α δ z α δ 2 z 2 1 3 α δ ( 2 δ 2 + 1 ) z 3 + : = 1 + B 1 z + B 2 z 2 + B 3 z 3 + .
Now, by the definition of the subordination, there is a ω Ω with ω ( z ) = n = 1 w n z n so that
z g ( z ) g ( z ) = ϕ ( ω ( z ) ) = 1 + B 1 w 1 z + ( B 1 w 2 + B 2 w 1 2 ) z 2 + ( B 1 w 3 + 2 w 1 w 2 B 2 + B 3 w 1 3 ) z 3 + .
From the above equality, it concludes that
b 2 = B 1 w 1 2 b 3 b 2 2 = B 1 w 2 + B 2 w 1 2 3 b 4 3 b 2 b 3 + b 2 3 = B 1 w 3 + 2 w 1 w 2 B 2 + B 3 w 1 3 .
First, for b 2 , from Lemma 3 we get | b 2 | α δ , and so | a 2 | α δ 2 . Next, utilizing Lemma 3 for b 3 and using | B 2 + B 1 2 | | B 1 | , we have
| b 3 |   | B 1 | ( 1 | w 1 | 2 ) + | B 2 + B 1 2 | | w 1 | 2 2 = | B 1 | + | B 2 + B 1 2 | | B 1 | | w 1 | 2 2 | B 1 | 2 = α δ 2 .
Ultimately, utilizing Lemma 5 for a 4 , we have
| b 4 |   B 1 3 | c 3 + 3 2 B 1 + 2 B 2 B 1 w 1 w 2 + 3 2 B 2 + 1 2 B 1 2 + B 3 B 1 w 1 3 | B 1 3 H ( q 1 ; q 2 ) ,
where
q 1 = 3 2 B 1 + 2 B 2 B 1 = 3 α δ 2 + 2 δ and q 2 = 3 2 B 2 + 1 2 B 1 2 + B 3 B 1 = δ 2 3 α 2 + α 2 2 + 2 3 + 1 3 .
The extremal functions for the initial coefficients a n ( n = 2 , 3 ) are of the form:
f n ( z ) = 0 z exp 0 x ϕ ( t n ) 1 t d t d x = z α β n ( n + 1 ) z n + 1 + α β 2 ( α / n 1 ) 2 n ( 2 n + 1 ) z 2 n + 1 + ,
obtained by taking ω ( z ) = z n in (4). Therefore, this completes the proof. □
Theorem 4.
Let f G α , δ . Then
| γ 1 | α δ 4 , | γ 2 | α δ 12 , | γ 3 | α δ 24 H ( q 1 ; q 2 ) ,
where H ( q 1 ; q 2 ) is given by Lemma 5, q 1 = α δ + 4 δ 2 , and q 2 = α δ 2 + 2 ( 2 δ 2 + 1 ) 3 2 . The first two bounds are sharp.
Proof. 
The results are concluded from Theorem 6 by setting φ : = ϕ . Also, two first bounds are sharp for f n ( z ) for n = 1 , 2 , respectively. Therefore, this completes the proof. □
Theorem 5.
Let f G α , δ . Then we have sharp inequalities for complex parameter μ
| a 3 μ a 2 2 |   α δ 2 6 1 α + 3 μ 2 α f o r μ + 2 3 α ( 1 α ) 2 3 α δ , α δ 6 f o r μ + 2 3 α ( 1 α ) < 2 3 α δ .
Proof. 
Let f G α , δ , then from (4), by the definition of the subordination, there is a ω Ω with ω ( z ) = n = 1 w n z n so that
1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) = ϕ ( ω ( z ) ) = 1 + B 1 w 1 z + ( B 1 w 2 + B 2 w 1 2 ) z 2 + .
Therefore, we get that
2 a 2 = B 1 w 1 and 6 a 3 4 a 2 2 = B 1 w 2 + B 2 w 1 2 .
Form the above equalities, we have
| a 3 μ a 2 2 | = 1 6 | B 1 | | w 2 + ν w 1 2 | .
The results are obtained by the application of Lemma 4 with ν = B 2 B 1 + B 1 ( 1 3 μ 2 ) , where B 1 = α δ and B 2 = α δ 2 . Equality is attained in the first inequality by the function f = f 1 and in the second inequality for f = f 2 . □
Remark 1.
(i) 
Taking into account δ = 1 in Theorem 3, we get the result obtained in [31] (Theorem 1) for n = 2 , 3 , 4 .
(ii) 
Setting δ = 1 in Theorem 3, we have the result obtained in [23] (Theorem 2.10).
(iii) 
Letting δ = 1 in Theorem 4, we obtain a correction of the result presented in [31] (Theorem 2).

Author Contributions

Investigation, D.A., N.E.C., E.A.A. and A.M.; Writing—original draft, E.A.A.; Writing—review and editing, N.E.C. The authors contributed equally to this work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The second author was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (No. 2019R1I1A3A01050861).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the referees for many valuable suggestions regarding a previous version of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kayumov, I.R. On Brennan’s conjecture for a special class of functions. Math. Notes 2005, 78, 498–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Milin, I.M. Univalent Functions and Orthonormal Systems; Amer Mathematical Society, Translations of Mathematical Monographs: Proovidence, RI, USA, 1977; Volume 49. [Google Scholar]
  3. Milin, I.M. On a property of the logarithmic coefficients of univalent functions. In Metric Questions in the Theory of Functions; Naukova Dumka: Kiev, Ukraine, 1980; pp. 86–90. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  4. Milin, I.M. On a conjecture for the logarithmic coefficients of univalent functions. Zap. Nauch. Semin. Leningr. Otd. Mat. Inst. Steklova 1983, 125, 135–143. (In Russian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Robertson, M.S. A remark on the odd-schlicht functions. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1936, 42, 366–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bieberbach, L. Über die Koeffizienten derjenigen Potenzreihen, welche eine schlichte Abbildung des Einheitkreises vermitteln. Sitz. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 1916, 138, 940–955. [Google Scholar]
  7. De Branges, L. A proof of Bieberbach conjecture. Acta Math. 1985, 154, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pommerenke, C. On the coefficients and Hankel determinant of univalent functions. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 1966, 41, 111–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pommerenke, C. On the Hankel determinants of univalent functions. Mathematika 1967, 14, 108–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vein, R.; Dale, P. Determinants and Their Applications in Mathematical Physics. In Applied Mathematical Sciences; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1999; Volume 134. [Google Scholar]
  11. Fekete, M.; Szegö, G. Eine Bemerkung Über Ungerade Schlichte Funktionen. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 1933, 8, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Analouei Adegani, E.; Cho, N.E.; Motamednezhad, A.; Jafari, M. Bi-univalent functions associated with Wright hypergeometric functions. J. Comput. Anal. Appl. 2020, 28, 261–271. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cho, N.E.; Analouei Adegani, E.; Bulut, S.; Motamednezhad, A. The second Hankel determinant problem for a class of bi-close-to-convex functions. Mathematics 2019, 7, 986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Deniz, E.; Çağlar, M.; Orhan, H. Second Hankel determinant for bi-starlike and bi-convex functions of order β. Appl. Math. Comput. 2015, 271, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kanas, S.; Analouei Adegani, E.; Zireh, A. An unified approach to second Hankel determinant of bi-subordinate functions. Mediterr. J. Math. 2017, 14, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Motamednezhad, A.; Bulboacă, T.; Adegani, E.A.; Dibagar, N. Second Hankel determinant for a subclass of analytic bi-univalent functions defined by subordination. Turk. J. Math. 2018, 42, 2798–2808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nunokawa, M.; Saitoh, H. On certain starlike functions. Srikaisekikenkysho Kkyroku 1996, 963, 74–77. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ozaki, S. On the theory of multivalent functions, II. Sci. Rep. Tokyo Bunrika Daigaku. Sect. A 1941, 4, 45–87. [Google Scholar]
  19. Umezawa, T. Analytic functions convex in one direction. J. Math. Soc. Jpn. 1952, 4, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sakaguchi, K. A property of convex functions and an application to criteria for univalence. Bull. Nara Univ. Ed. Nat. Sci. 1973, 22, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  21. Singh, R.; Singh, S. Some sufficient conditions for univalence and starlikeness. Colloq. Math. 1982, 47, 309–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Obradović, M.; Ponnusamy, S.; Wirths, K.-J. Logarithmic coeffcients and a coefficient conjecture for univalent functions. Monatshefte Math. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ponnusamy, S.; Sharma, N.L.; Wirths., K.-J. Logarithmic coefficients problems in families related to starlike and convex functions. J. Aust. Math. Soc. 2019, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Miller, S.S.; Mocanu, P.T. Differential Subordinations. Theory and Applications; Marcel Dekker Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2000; ISBN 0-8247-0029-5. [Google Scholar]
  25. Nunokawa, M. On properties of non-Carathéodory functions. Proc. Jpn. Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 1992, 68, 152–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nunokawa, M. On the order of strongly starlikeness of strongly convex functions. Proc. Jpn. Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 1993 69, 234–237. [CrossRef]
  27. Nehari, Z. Conformal Mapping; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1952. [Google Scholar]
  28. Keogh, F.R.; Merkes, E.P. A coefficient inequality for certain classes of analytic functions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1969, 20, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Prokhorov, D.V.; Szynal, J. Inverse coefficients for (α;β)-convex functions. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Sklodowska Sect. A 1984, 35, 125–143. [Google Scholar]
  30. Analouei Adegani, E.; Cho, N.E.; Jafari, M. Logarithmic coefficients for univalent functions defined by subordination. Mathematics 2019, 7, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Obradović, M.; Ponnusamy, S.; Wirths, K.-J. Coefficient characterizations and sections for some univalent functions. Sib. Math. J. 2013, 54, 679–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Back to TopTop