Next Article in Journal
A Second-Order Well-Balanced Finite Volume Scheme for the Multilayer Shallow Water Model with Variable Density
Next Article in Special Issue
Coefficient Related Studies for New Classes of Bi-Univalent Functions
Previous Article in Journal
Singular Special Curves in 3-Space Forms
Previous Article in Special Issue
On The Third-Order Complex Differential Inequalities of ξ-Generalized-Hurwitz–Lerch Zeta Functions
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

New Criteria for Meromorphic Starlikeness and Close-to-Convexity

1
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Urmia University, Urmia 5756151818, Iran
2
Department of Applied Mathematics, College of Natural Sciences, Pukyong National University, Busan 608-737, Korea
3
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Bursa Uludag University, Bursa 16059, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Mathematics 2020, 8(5), 847; https://doi.org/10.3390/math8050847
Submission received: 23 March 2020 / Revised: 4 May 2020 / Accepted: 20 May 2020 / Published: 23 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Geometrical Theory of Analytic Functions)

Abstract

:
The main purpose of current paper is to obtain some new criteria for meromorphic strongly starlike functions of order α and strongly close-to-convexity of order α . Furthermore, the main results presented here are compared with the previous outcomes obtained in this area.

1. Introduction and Preliminaries

For two analytic functions f and F in U : = z : z C and | z | < 1 , it is stated that the function fis subordinate to the function F in U , written as f ( z ) F ( z ) , if there exists a Schwarz function ϖ , which is analytic in U with
ϖ ( 0 ) = 0 and | ϖ ( z ) | < 1 ( z U ) ,
such that f ( z ) = F ϖ ( z ) for all z U . In particular, if F be a univalent function in U , then we have below equivalence:
f ( z ) F ( z ) f ( 0 ) = F ( 0 ) and f ( U ) F ( U ) .
Let Σ n denote the category of all functions analytic in the punctured open unit disk U * given by
U * : = z : z C and 0 < | z | < 1 = U \ { 0 } ,
which have the form
f ( z ) = 1 z + k = n a k 1 z k 1 ( n N : = { 1 , 2 , } ) .
A function f Σ , where Σ is the union of Σ n for all positive integers n, is said to be in the class MS ˜ * ( α ) of meromorphic strongly starlike functions of order α if we have the condition
arg z f ( z ) f ( z ) < α π 2 ( z U * ; 0 < α 1 ) .
In particular, MS * : = MS ˜ * ( 1 ) is the class of meromorphic starlike functions in the open unit disk U .
Let A n be the category of all functions analytic in U which have the following form
f ( z ) = z n + k = n + 1 a k z k ( n N ) .
The class A 1 is denoted by A .
Let S ˜ * ( α ) be the subcategory of A defined as follows
S ˜ * ( α ) : = f : f A and arg z f ( z ) f ( z ) < α π 2 ( z U ; 0 < α 1 ) .
The classes S ˜ * ( α ) will be called the class of strongly starlike functions of order α . In particular, S * : = S ˜ * ( 1 ) is the class of starlike functions in U .
By means of the principle of subordination between analytic functions, the above definition is equivalent to
S ˜ * ( α ) : = f : f A and z f ( z ) f ( z ) 1 + z 1 z α ( z U ; 0 < α 1 ) .
Furthermore, let CC ˜ ( α ) denote the category of all functions in A which are strongly close-to-convex of order α in U if there exists a function g S * such that
arg z f ( z ) g ( z ) < α π 2 ( z U ; 0 < α 1 ) .
In particular, CC : = CC ˜ ( 1 ) is the class of close-to-convex functions in U .
In the year 1978, Miller and Mocanu [1] introduced the method of differential subordinations. Because of the interesting properties and applications possessed by the Briot-Bouquet differential subordination, there have been many attempts to extend these results. Then, in recent years, several authors obtained several applications of the method of differential subordinations in geometric function theory by using differential subordination associated with starlikeness, convexity, close-to-convexity and so on (see, for example, [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]). Furthermore, based on the generalized Jack lemma, the well-known lemma of Nunokawa and so on, certain sufficient conditions were derived in [14,15,16] considering concept of arg, real part and imaginary part for function to be p-valently starlike and convex one in the unit disk.
The aim of the current paper is to obtain some new criteria for univalence, strongly starlikeness and strongly close-to-convexity of functions in the normalized analytic function class A n in the open unit disk U and meromorphic strongly starlikeness in the punctured open unit disk U * by using a lemma given by Nunokawa (see [17,18]). Further, the current results are compared with the previous outcomes obtained in this area.
In order to prove our main results, we require the following lemma.
Lemma 1
(see [17,18]). Let the function p ( z ) given by
p ( z ) = 1 + n = m c n z n ( c m 0 ; m N )
be analytic in U with
p ( 0 ) = 1 and p ( z ) 0 ( z U ) .
If there exists a point z 0 (with | z 0 | < 1 ) such that
| arg p ( z ) | < γ π 2 ( | z | < | z 0 | )
and
| arg p ( z 0 ) | = γ π 2
for some γ > 0 , then
z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = i k γ ( i = 1 ) ,
where
k m ( a + a 1 ) 2 m when arg p ( z 0 ) = γ π 2
and
k m ( a + a 1 ) 2 m when arg p ( z 0 ) = γ π 2 ,
where
p ( z 0 ) 1 / γ = ± i a and a > 0 .

2. Main Results

Theorem 1.
Let p be an analytic function in U , given by
p ( z ) = 1 + n = m c n z n ( c m 0 ; m 2 )
and p ( z ) 0 for z U . Let α 0 is the only root of the equation
arctan ( 2 m α ) π α = 0 .
If
| arg p 2 ( z ) 2 p ( z ) z p ( z ) | < π 2 2 π arctan ( 2 m α ) 2 α ,
where 0 < α < α 0 , then
| arg p ( z ) | < α π 2 ( z U ) .
Proof. 
To prove our result we suppose that there exists a point z 0 U so that
| arg p ( z ) | < α π 2 for | z | < | z 0 |
and
| arg p ( z 0 ) | = α π 2 .
Then, Lemma 1, gives us that
z p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = i k α ,
where [ p ( z 0 ) ] 1 α = ± i a ( a > 0 ) and k is given by (3) or (4).
For the case arg p ( z 0 ) = α π 2 when
[ p ( z 0 ) ] 1 α = i a ( a > 0 ) ,
with k m , we have
arg p 2 ( z 0 ) 2 p ( z 0 ) z 0 p ( z 0 ) = arg p 2 ( z 0 ) 1 2 z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = arg p 2 ( z 0 ) + arg 1 2 z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = 2 arg p ( z 0 ) + arg 1 i 2 k α α π arctan ( 2 m α ) = π 2 2 π arctan ( 2 m α ) 2 α ,
which contradicts with condition (5).
Next, for the case arg p ( z 0 ) = α π 2 when
[ p ( z 0 ) ] 1 α = i a ( a > 0 ) ,
with k m , applying the similar method as the above, we can get
arg p 2 ( z 0 ) 2 p ( z 0 ) z 0 p ( z 0 ) α π + arctan ( 2 m α ) = π 2 2 π arctan ( 2 m α ) 2 α ,
which is a contradiction to (5).
Therefore, from the two mentioned contradictions, we obtain
| arg p ( z ) | < α π 2 ( z U ) .
This completes our proof. □
Let ψ ( r , s , t ; z ) : C 3 × U C and let h be univalent in U . If p is analytic in U and satisfies the (second order) differential subordination
ψ ( p ( z ) , z p ( z ) , z 2 p ( z ) ; z ) h ( z ) ,
then p is called a solution of the differential subordination. The univalent function q is called a dominant of the solution of the differential subordination or more simply a dominant, if p q for all p satisfying (6). A dominant q ˜ satisfying q ˜ q 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 . If p ( z ) = 1 + a n z n + a n + 1 z n + 1 + be analytic in U , then p will be called a ( 1 , n ) -solution, q a ( 1 , n ) -dominant, and q ˜ the best ( 1 , n ) -dominant.
The following result, which is one of the types of differential subordinations was expressed in [1].
Theorem 2
([19], Theorem 3.1e, p. 77).Lethbe convex in U , with h ( 0 ) = 1 and Re h ( z ) > 0 . Let also p ( z ) = 1 + a n z n + a n + 1 z n + 1 + be analytic in U . Ifpsatisfies
p 2 ( z ) + 2 p ( z ) z p ( z ) h ( z ) ,
then
p ( z ) q ( z ) = Q ( z ) ,
where
Q ( z ) = 1 n z 1 n 0 z h ( t ) t 1 n 1 d t
and the functionqis the best ( 1 , n ) -dominant.
Remark 1.
The form (5) cannot be used to obtain in inequality (7). Therefore, Theorem 1 is a small extension of Theorem 2.
For m = 2 in Theorem 1 we have
σ 2 ( α ) = : 2 π arctan ( 4 α ) 2 α > 0
for α ( 0 , α 0 ) which α 0 = 1 / 4 is the smallest positive root of the equation σ 2 ( α ) . So we have the following results
Remark 2.
Suppose that f Σ 1 with
p ( z ) : = z f ( z ) f ( z ) 0 ,
and 0 < α < 1 / 4 satisfy the following inequality
| arg z f ( z ) f ( z ) 2 1 2 1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) z f ( z ) f ( z ) | < σ 2 ( α ) π 2 ,
where σ 2 ( α ) is given by (8). Then f is meromorphic strongly starlike function of order α.
Remark 3.
Suppose that f A 2 with
p ( z ) : = f ( z ) z 0 ,
and 0 < α < 1 2 satisfy the following inequality
| arg 2 f ( z ) z f ( z ) | < σ 2 ( α ) π 2 ,
where σ 2 ( α ) is given by (8). Then
| arg f ( z ) z | < α π 2 ( z U ) .
Since σ 2 ( α ) given by (8) takes its maximum value at α = ( 4 π ) / 16 π , we obtain the following result.
Corollary 1.
Let p be an analytic function in U , given by
p ( z ) = 1 + n = 2 c n z n
and p ( z ) 0 for z U . Let
| arg p 2 ( z ) 2 p ( z ) z p ( z ) | < σ 2 4 π 16 π π 2 0 . 071125 ,
then
| arg p ( z ) | < 4 π 16 π π 2 0 . 20528 ( z U ) .
Theorem 3.
Let p be an analytic function in U , given by
p ( z ) = 1 + n = 2 c n z n
and p ( z ) 0 for z U . Let α 0 be the smallest positive root of the equation
2 π arctan 2 α 1 2 α 1 + 2 α ( 1 + 2 α ) / 2 cos π α 1 2 α 2 α 1 2 α 1 + 2 α ( 1 + 2 α ) / 2 sin π α α = 0 .
Suppose that
arg p ( z ) z p ( z ) [ p ( z ) ] 2 < δ ( α ) π 2 ,
where
δ ( α ) = 2 π arctan 2 α 1 2 α 1 + 2 α ( 1 + 2 α ) / 2 cos π α 1 2 α 2 α 1 2 α 1 + 2 α ( 1 + 2 α ) / 2 sin π α α
and 0 < α < α 0 . Then
| arg p ( z ) | < α π 2 ( z U ) .
Proof. 
First, let us define
δ ( α ) = 2 π arctan n ( α ) m ( α ) α
where
n ( α ) = 2 α 1 2 α 1 + 2 α ( 1 + 2 α ) / 2 cos π α and m ( α ) = 1 2 α 2 α 1 2 α 1 + 2 α ( 1 + 2 α ) / 2 sin π α ,
then we have δ ( 0 ) = 0 , δ ( α ) α 1 / 2 = 1 / 2 , and δ ( 0 ) > 0 . Therefore, there exists in 0 , 1 / 2 the smallest positive root α 0 of the equality (9), so that δ ( α ) > 0 for α ( 0 , α 0 ) .
Now we suppose that there exists a point z 0 U such that
| arg p ( z ) | < α π 2 for | z | < | z 0 |
and
| arg p ( z 0 ) | = α π 2 .
Then, from Lemma 1, it follows that
z p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = i k α ,
where [ p ( z 0 ) ] 1 α = ± i a ( a > 0 ) and k is given by (3) or (4) for m = 2 .
For the case arg p ( z 0 ) = α π 2 when
[ p ( z 0 ) ] 1 α = i a ( a > 0 ) ,
we have
arg p ( z 0 ) z p ( z 0 ) [ p ( z 0 ) ] 2 = arg p ( z 0 ) 1 z p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) 1 [ p ( z 0 ) ] 2 = arg p ( z 0 ) + arg 1 i k α 1 ( i a ) 2 α = arg p ( z 0 ) + arg 1 + k α a 2 α e i π ( 1 + 2 α ) / 2 .
Since
k α a 2 α α ( a 1 2 α + a 1 2 α ) ,
we now define a real function g by
g ( a ) = a 1 2 α + a 1 2 α ( a > 0 ) .
Then this function takes on the minimum value for a given by
a = 1 + 2 α 1 2 α .
Therefore, from the above inequality we obtain
k α a 2 α α 1 + 2 α 1 2 α ( 1 2 α ) / 2 + 1 + 2 α 1 2 α ( 1 2 α ) / 2 = 2 α 1 2 α 1 2 α 1 + 2 α ( 1 + 2 α ) / 2 = : l ( α ) .
Therefore
arg p ( z 0 ) z p ( z 0 ) [ p ( z 0 ) ] 2 α π 2 + arctan l ( α ) cos π α 1 l ( α ) sin π α = α π 2 arctan l ( α ) cos π α 1 l ( α ) sin π α = δ ( α ) π 2 ,
which is contradict with condition (10).
Next, for the case arg p ( z 0 ) = α π 2 when
[ p ( z 0 ) ] 1 α = i a ( a > 0 ) ,
with
k α a 2 α α ( a 1 2 α + a 1 2 α ) ,
applying the similar method as the above, we can get
arg p ( z 0 ) z p ( z 0 ) [ p ( z 0 ) ] 2 = arg p ( z 0 ) + arg 1 i k α 1 ( i a ) 2 α = arg p ( z 0 ) + arg 1 k α a 2 α e i π ( 1 + 2 α ) / 2 α π 2 + arctan l ( α ) cos π α 1 l ( α ) sin π α = δ ( α ) π 2 ,
which is a contradiction to condition (10).
Therefore, from the two mentioned contradictions, we obtain
| arg p ( z ) | < α π 2 ( z U ) .
This completes the proof of Theorem 3. □
Theorem 4
([19], Corollary 3.4a.3, p. 124).Let β and γ be complex numbers with β 0 and letpandhbe analytic in U with p ( 0 ) = h ( 0 ) . If P ( z ) = β h ( z ) + γ satisfies
( i ) Re P 2 ( z ) > 0
( i i ) Por P 1 is convex, then
p ( z ) + z p ( z ) · [ β p ( z ) + γ ] 2 h ( z ) ,
implies p ( z ) h ( z ) .
The condition (10) can be written as a generalized Briot-Bouquet differential subordination. However, It is remarkable that the condition (12) among the outcomes on the generalized Briot-Bouquet differential subordination collected in ([19], Ch. 3) is not taken into account the case γ = 0 , β = i which we have in (10).
Corollary 2.
Let f Σ 2 with
p ( z ) : = z f ( z ) f ( z ) 0
and 0 < α < α 0 satisfy the following inequality
arg f ( z ) z f ( z ) 1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) z f ( z ) f ( z ) 1 < δ ( α ) π 2 ,
where δ ( α ) is given by ( 11 ) . Then f is meromorphic strongly starlike function of order α.
Theorem 5.
Let p be an analytic function in U , given by
p ( z ) = 1 + n = m c n z n ( c m 0 ; m N )
and p ( z ) 0 for z U . Let α > 0 and β > 0 satisfy the inequality
arctan ( m α ) > π α 2 β .
Suppose that
| arg p ( z ) 1 z p ( z ) p ( z ) β | < π 2 2 β π arctan ( m α ) α .
Then
| arg p ( z ) | < α π 2 ( z U ) .
Proof. 
Suppose that there exists a point z 0 U such that
| arg p ( z ) | < α π 2 for | z | < | z 0 |
and
| arg p ( z 0 ) | = α π 2 .
Then, from Lemma 1, it follows that
z p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = i k α ,
where [ p ( z 0 ) ] 1 α = ± i a ( a > 0 ) and k is given by (3) or (4).
For the case arg p ( z 0 ) = α π 2 when
[ p ( z 0 ) ] 1 α = i a ( a > 0 ) ,
with k m , we have
arg p ( z 0 ) 1 z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) β = arg p ( z 0 ) + β arg 1 z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = arg p ( z 0 ) + β arg 1 i k α α π 2 β arctan ( m α ) = π 2 2 β π arctan ( m α ) α ,
which contradicts our hypothesis in ( 13 ) .
Next, for the case arg p ( z 0 ) = α π 2 when
[ p ( z 0 ) ] 1 α = i a ( a > 0 ) ,
with k m , applying the similar method as the above, we can get
arg p ( z 0 ) 1 z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) β α π 2 + β arctan ( m α ) = π 2 2 β π arctan ( m α ) α ,
which is a contradiction to ( 13 ) .
Therefore, from the two mentioned contradictions, we obtain
| arg p ( z ) | < α π 2 ( z U ) .
This completes the proof of Theorem 5. □
Remark 4.
By choosing m = 2 and β = 1 in Theorem 5, we have the result obtained by Nunokawa and Sokół in ([11], Theorem 2.4).
By choosing
p ( z ) : = z f ( z ) f ( z ) 0 ,
in Theorem 6, we obtain a sufficient condition for strongly meromorphic starlikeness as follows.
Corollary 3.
Let f Σ 2 with
p ( z ) : = z f ( z ) f ( z ) 0 .
Let α > 0 and β > 0 satisfy the inequality
arctan ( 2 α ) > π α 2 β .
Suppose that
| arg z f ( z ) f ( z ) 1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) 1 + z f ( z ) f ( z ) β | < π 2 2 β π arctan ( 2 α ) α .
Then f is meromorphic strongly starlike function of order α.
Theorem 6.
Let p be an analytic function in U with p ( 0 ) = 1 , p ( 0 ) 0 and p ( z ) 0 for z U that satisfies the following inequality
arg p ( z ) p ( z ) + z p ( z ) p ( z ) β z p ( z ) < ξ ( α ) π 2 ,
where
ξ ( α ) = α + 2 π arctan α + arctan β α ( α > 0 ; β 0 ) .
Then
| arg p ( z ) | < α π 2 ( z U ) .
Proof. 
To prove the result asserted by Theorem 6, we suppose that there exists a point z 0 U such that
| arg p ( z ) | < α π 2 for | z | < | z 0 |
and
| arg p ( z 0 ) | = α π 2 .
Then, from Lemma 1, it follows that
z p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = i k α ,
where [ p ( z 0 ) ] 1 α = ± i a ( a > 0 ) and k is given by (3) or (4) for m = 1 .
For the case
arg p ( z 0 ) = α π 2 ,
where [ p ( z 0 ) ] 1 α = i a ( a > 0 ) and k 1 , we have
arg p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) β z 0 p ( z 0 ) = arg p ( z 0 ) 1 + z p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) 1 β z p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) = arg p ( z 0 ) + arg 1 + i k α 1 i β k α = arg p ( z 0 ) + arg 1 + i k α arg 1 i β k α = α π 2 + arctan k α arctan β k α = α π 2 + arctan k α + arctan β k α α π 2 + arctan α + arctan β α = ξ ( α ) π 2 ,
which contradicts our hypothesis in Theorem 6.
Next, for the case
arg p ( z 0 ) = α π 2 ,
where [ p ( z 0 ) ] 1 α = i a ( a > 0 ) and k 1 , applying the similar method as the above, we can get
arg p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) + z 0 p ( z 0 ) p ( z 0 ) β z 0 p ( z 0 ) = arg p ( z 0 ) + arg 1 + i k α 1 i β k α = α π 2 + arctan k α + arctan β k α α π 2 arctan α arctan β α = ξ ( α ) π 2 ,
which is a contradiction to the assumption of Theorem 6.
Therefore, from the two mentioned contradictions, we obtain
| arg p ( z ) | < α π 2 ( z U ) .
This completes the proof of Theorem 6. □
Remark 5.
(i) 
If β α 2 < 1 in Theorem 6, then ( 15 ) is equal to
ξ = α + 2 π arctan α ( 1 + β ) 1 β α 2 .
(i) 
By setting β = 0 and p ( z ) : = f ( z ) 0 in Theorem 6, we have the result obtained by Nunokawa et al. in ([20], Theorem 3).
By setting
p ( z ) : = z f ( z ) g ( z ) 0 ,
in Theorem 6, we obtain a sufficient condition for strongly close-to-convexity as follows.
Corollary 4.
For g S * and f A such that 2 f ( 0 ) g ( 0 ) , suppose that the following inequality
arg 2 f ( z ) 2 f ( z ) g ( z ) f ( z ) g ( z ) z f ( z ) g ( z ) < ξ ( α ) π 2
is satisfied, where
ξ ( α ) = α + 2 π arctan α + arctan β α ( α > 0 , β 0 ) .
Then
| arg z f ( z ) g ( z ) | < α π 2 ( z U ) .
Remark 6.
Similar to Corollary 4 by setting
p ( z ) : = z f ( z ) f ( z ) 0 ,
in Theorem 6, (or g = : f in Corollary 4), we can obtain a sufficient condition for strongly starlikeness.

Author Contributions

Investigation: A.E., N.E.C., E.A.A. and S.Y. 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).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Miller, S.S.; Mocanu, P.T. Second-order differential inequalities in the complex plane. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1978, 65, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Ali, R.M.; Cho, N.E.; Ravichandran, V.; Kumar, S.S. Differential subordination for functions associated with the lemniscate of Bernoulli. Taiwanese J. Math. 2012, 16, 1017–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Adegani, E.A.; Bulboacă, T.; Motamednezhad, A. Simple sufficient subordination conditions for close-to-convexity. Mathematics 2019, 7, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Bulboacă, T. On some classes of differential subordinations. Studia Univ. Babeş-Bolyai Math. 1986, 31, 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cho, N.E.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, V.; Ravichandran, V.; Srivastava, H.M. Starlike functions related to the Bell numbers. Symmetry 2019, 11, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Cho, N.E.; Srivastava, H.M.; Adegani, E.A.; Motamednezhad, A. Criteria for a certain class of the Carathéodory functions and their applications. J. Inequal. Appl. 2020, 2020, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kargar, R.; Ebadian, A.; Trojnar-Spelina, L. Further results for starlike functions related with Booth lemniscate. Iran J. Sci. Technol. A 2019, 43, 1235–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Kim, I.H.; Sim, Y.J.; Cho, N.E. New criteria for Carathéodory functions. J. Inequal. Appl. 2019, 2019, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Masih, V.S.; Ebadian, A.; Najafzadeh, S. On applications of Nunokawa and Sokół theorem for p-valency. Bull. Iran. Math. Soc. 2020, 46, 471–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nunokawa, M.; Sokół, J. On the order of strong starlikeness and the radii of starlikeness for of some close-to-convex functions. Anal. Math. Phys. 2019, 9, 2367–2378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Nunokawa, M.; Sokół, J. On meromorphic and starlike functions. Complex Var. Elliptic Equ. 2015, 60, 1411–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nunokawa, M.; Sokół, J. On multivalent starlike functions and Ozaki condition. Complex Var. Elliptic Equ. 2019, 64, 78–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Srivastava, H.M.; Răducanu, D.; Zaprawa, P. A certain subclass of analytic functions defined by means of differential subordination. Filomat 2016, 30, 3743–3757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cang, Y.-L.; Liu, J.-L. Some sufficient conditions for starlikeness and convexity of order α. J. Appl. Math. 2013, 2013, 869469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nunokawa, M.; Sokół, J.; Tuneski, N.; Jolevska-Tuneska, B. On multivalent starlike functions. Stud. Univ. Babeş-Bolyai Math. 2019, 64, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Nunokawa, M.; Sokół, J. Conditions for starlikeness of multivalent functions. Results Math. 2017, 72, 359–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nunokawa, M. On properties of non-Carathéodory functions. Proc. Jpn. Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 1992, 68, 152–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nunokawa, M. On the order of strongly starlikeness of strongly convex functions. Proc. Jpn. Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 1993, 69, 234–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Miller, S.S.; Mocanu, P.T. Differential Subordinations. Theory and Applications; Marcel Dekker Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  20. Nunokawa, M.; Owa, S.; Polatoğlu, Y.; Çağlar, M.; Duman, E.M. Some sufficient conditions for starlikeness and convexity. Turk. J. Math. 2010, 3, 333–338. [Google Scholar]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ebadian, A.; Cho, N.E.; Adegani, E.A.; Yalçın, S. New Criteria for Meromorphic Starlikeness and Close-to-Convexity. Mathematics 2020, 8, 847. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8050847

AMA Style

Ebadian A, Cho NE, Adegani EA, Yalçın S. New Criteria for Meromorphic Starlikeness and Close-to-Convexity. Mathematics. 2020; 8(5):847. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8050847

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ebadian, Ali, Nak Eun Cho, Ebrahim Analouei Adegani, and Sibel Yalçın. 2020. "New Criteria for Meromorphic Starlikeness and Close-to-Convexity" Mathematics 8, no. 5: 847. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8050847

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop