Next Article in Journal
A Dynamic Study of Biochemical Self-Replication
Previous Article in Journal
Admissible Perturbation of Demicontractive Operators within Ant Algorithms for Medical Images Edge Detection
Open AccessArticle

Hankel Determinants for New Subclasses of Analytic Functions Related to a Shell Shaped Region

1
Department of Mathematics, SAS, Vellore Institute of Technology, Deemed to be University, Vellore 632014, India
2
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Babeş-Bolyai University, 400084 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Dedicated to the memory of Professor Stephan Ruscheweyh 1944–2019.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Mathematics 2020, 8(6), 1041; https://doi.org/10.3390/math8061041
Received: 25 May 2020 / Revised: 23 June 2020 / Accepted: 24 June 2020 / Published: 26 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Complex Analysis and Geometric Function Theory)

Abstract

Using the operator L c a defined by Carlson and Shaffer, we defined a new subclass of analytic functions ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) defined by a subordination relation to the shell shaped function ψ ( z ) = z + 1 + z 2 . We determined estimate bounds of the four coefficients of the power series expansions, we gave upper bound for the Fekete–SzegőSzegő functional and for the Hankel determinant of order two for f ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) .
Keywords: analytic functions; Hadamard (convolution) product; Carathéodory functions; Hankel determinant; Fekete–Szegő problem; Carlson–Shaffer operator; differential subordination analytic functions; Hadamard (convolution) product; Carathéodory functions; Hankel determinant; Fekete–Szegő problem; Carlson–Shaffer operator; differential subordination

1. Introduction

Let H ( D ) be the class of functions which are analytic in the open unit disk D : = { z C : | z | < 1 } , and also let A be the subset of H ( D ) comprising of functions
f ( z ) = z + n = 2 a n z n , z D .
Let f i ( z ) = n = 0 a n , i z n ( i = 1 , 2 ) which are analytic in D , then the well-known Hadamard (or convolution) product of f 1 and f 2 is given by
( f 1 * f 2 ) ( z ) : = n = 0 a n , 1 a n , 2 z n , z D .
For two functions f , g H ( D ) , we say that f is subordinate to g, denoted by f g , if there exists a Schwarz function ϑ H ( D ) with | ϑ ( z ) | < 1 , z D , and ϑ ( 0 ) = 0 , such that f ( z ) = g ( ϑ ( z ) ) for all z D . In particular, if g is univalent in D , then the following equivalence relationship holds true:
f ( z ) g ( z ) f ( 0 ) = g ( 0 ) and f ( D ) g ( D ) .
Let P be the well-known class of Carathéodory functions that is a set of functions ϕ H ( D ) with the power series expansion
ϕ ( z ) = 1 + p 1 z + p 2 z 2 + , z D ,
and such that Re ϕ ( z ) > 0 for all z D .
For the function f A of the form (1), Noonan and Thomas [1] defined q-th Hankel determinant as
H q , n ( f ) : = 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 a 1 = 1 , q , n N : = { 1 , 2 , 3 , } .
In particular,
H 2 , 1 ( f ) = a 1 a 2 a 2 a 3 = a 1 a 3 a 2 2 = a 3 a 2 2 , and H 2 , 2 ( f ) = a 2 a 3 a 3 a 4 = a 2 a 4 a 3 2 .
It is well-known (see Duren [2]) that, if f is given by (1) and is univalent in D , then H 2 , 1 ( f ) 1 occurs, and this result is sharp. The determinant H q , n has also been measured by many authors. For example, the rate of growth of H q , n ( f ) as n for functions f A with bounded boundary was determined. In [3], it has been shown, a fraction of two bounded analytic functions with its Laurent series around the origin having integral coefficients, is rational. The Hankel determinant of meromorphic functions, (see [4]), and various properties of these determinants can be found in [5]). In 1966, the Hankel determinant of areally mean p-valent functions, univalent functions, and starlike functions were extensively studied by Pommerenke [6]. Lately, several authors have investigated H 2 , 1 of innumerable subclasses of univalent and multivalent functions and, for more details on Hankel determinants, one may refer [1,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. For T A , a problem of finding a sharp (best possible) upper bound of a 3 μ a 2 2 for the subclass T is generally called Fekete–Szegő problem for the subclass T , where μ is a real or a complex number. There are some well known subclasses of univalent functions, such that the starlike functions, convex functions, and close-to-convex functions, for which the problem of finding sharp upper bounds for the functional a 3 μ a 2 2 was completely solved (see [15,16,17,18]). For the family of analytic functions R : = { f A : Re f ( z ) > 0 , z D } , Janteng et al. [19] have found the sharp upper bound to H 2 , 2 ( f ) . For initial work on the class R , one may refer to the article of MacGregor [20].
The concept of shell-like domains gained importance in the recent times and it was introduced by Sokół and Paprocki [21]. Recently, for ψ ( z ) = z + 1 + z 2 , Raina and Sokół [22] have widely studied and found some coefficient inequalities for f S ( ψ ) if it satisfies the subordination condition that z f ( z ) / f ( z ) ψ ( z ) , and these results are further improved by Sokół and Thomas [23], the Fekete–Szegő inequality for f C ( ψ ) were obtained and, in view of the Alexander result between the class S * ( ψ ) and C ( ψ ) , the Fekete–Szegő inequality for functions in S * ( ψ ) were also obtained. The function ψ ( z ) : = z + 1 + z 2 maps the unit disc D onto a shell shaped region on the right half plane, and it is analytic and univalent on D . The range ψ ( D ) is symmetric respecting the real axis and ψ ( z ) is a function with positive real part in D , with ψ ( 0 ) = ψ ( 0 ) = 1 . Moreover, it is a starlike domain with respect to the point ψ ( 0 ) = 1 (see [24]), such as Figure 1 shows.
Definition 1.
[22] Let f A be normalized by f ( 0 ) = f ( 0 ) 1 = 0 in the unit disc D . We denote by S * ( ψ ) the class of analytic functions and satisfying the condition that
z f ( z ) f ( z ) z + 1 + z 2 = : ψ ( z ) ,
where the branch of the square root is chosen to be the principal one that is ψ ( 0 ) = 1 .
Now, we recall the Carlson–Shaffer operator [25] L c a : A A defined by
L c a f ( z ) : = Φ ( a , c ; z ) * f ( z ) , z D ,
where
Φ ( a , c ; z ) : = n = 0 ( a ) n ( c ) n z n + 1 = n = 0 φ n z n + 1 , z D , a C , c C \ Z 0 , Z 0 : = { , 2 , 1 , 0 } ,
is the incomplete beta function, and ( t ) n denotes the Pochhammer symbol (or the shifted factorial) defined in terms of the Gamma function by
( t ) n : = Γ ( t + n ) Γ ( t ) = t ( t + 1 ) ( t + 2 ) ( t + n 1 ) , if n N , 1 , if n = 0 .
For f A is given by (1) and by (3), one can get the Carlson and Shaffer operator
L c a f ( z ) : = z + n = 1 ( a ) n ( c ) n a n + 1 z n + 1 = z + n = 1 φ n a n + 1 z n + 1 , z D
where
φ n = ( a ) n ( c ) n , n N ,
and
z L c a f ( z ) = a L c a + 1 f ( z ) ( a 1 ) L c a f ( z ) , z D .
Remark 1.
Next, we will emphasize a few special cases of the operator L ( a , c ) , as follows:
(i) L a a f ( z ) = f ( z ) ;
(ii) L 1 2 f ( z ) = z f ( z ) ;
(iii) L 1 3 f ( z ) = z f ( z ) + 1 2 z 2 f ( z ) ;
(iv) L 1 m + 1 f ( z ) = : D m f ( z ) = z ( 1 z ) m + 1 * f ( z ) , m Z , m > 1 is the well-known Ruscheweyh derivative of f [26];
(v) L 2 δ 2 f ( z ) = : Ω z δ f ( z ) , 0 δ < 1 is the well-known Owa-Srivastava fractional differential operator of f [27].
Motivated by the articles of Raina and Sokół [22], Sokół and Thomas [23], Dziok and Raina [28], and Raina et al. [29], using the concept of subordination and the linear operator L c a , we define a new subclass of A denoted by ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) . For this subclass, we obtained coefficient inequalities, Fekete–Szegő inequality, and upper bound for the Hankel determinant H 2 ( 2 ) .
We define a new subclass ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) of A as below:
Definition 2.
For 0 λ 1 , let ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) , with a C and c C \ Z 0 , denote the subclass of functions f A that satisfies the subordination condition
z L c a f ( z ) ( 1 λ ) L c a f ( z ) + λ z z + 1 + z 2 = ψ ( z ) ,
where the branch of the square root is chosen to be the principal one that is ψ ( 0 ) = 1 .
In the following remark, we prove that ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) is non-empty.
Remark 2.
If we define the function f ˜ : D C by f ˜ ( z ) = z + α z 2 , α C , a simple computation yields to
z L c a f ˜ ( z ) ( 1 λ ) L c a f ˜ ( z ) + λ z = 1 + 2 A z 1 + ( 1 λ ) A z , where A : = a α c .
Considering the circular transformation
Ψ λ ( z ) : = 1 + 2 A z 1 + ( 1 λ ) A z , z D ,
with 0 λ 1 , and assuming that 0 A 1 / 2 , we obtain that Ψ λ maps the unit disc D onto the open disc that is symmetric respecting the real axes connecting the points Ψ λ ( 1 ) and Ψ λ ( 1 ) .
If α = c 4 a , then A = 1 / 4 , and for λ = 1 , λ = 0 , and λ = 1 / 2 , using the MAPLE™ software we get the next images of D by Ψ λ like in the Figure 2:
These show that Ψ λ ( D ) ψ ( D ) , which is Ψ λ ( z ) ψ ( z ) for some values of λ [ 0 , 1 ] that is f ˜ ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) , whenever α = c 4 a , for λ = 1 , λ = 0 , and λ = 1 / 2 . It follows that there exist values of the parameters a C , c C \ Z 0 , and λ [ 0 , 1 ] , such that ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) .
Now, by suitably specializing the parameter λ , we define the new subclasses of ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) as remarked below:
Remark 3.
(i) For λ = 0 , let ML c a ( 0 , ψ ) = : SL c a ( ψ ) denote the subclass of A , the members of which are given by (1) and satisfy the subordination condition
z L c a f ( z ) L c a f ( z ) z + 1 + z 2 .
(ii) For λ = 1 , let ML c a ( 1 , ψ ) = : RL c a ( ψ ) denote the subclass of A , members of which are of the form (1) and if it satisfy the condition
L c a f ( z ) z + 1 + z 2 .
(iii) For the special case for a = c , let ML ( λ ; ψ ) : = ML c c ( λ ; ψ ) , members of which are given by (1) and satisfy the subordination
z f ( z ) ( 1 λ ) f ( z ) + λ z z + 1 + z 2 .
In the all of the above subordinations, and throughout the whole paper, the branch of the square root is chosen at the principal one, which is ψ ( 0 ) = 1 , and a C , c C \ Z 0 .
Using the techniques of Libera and Zlotkiewicz [11] and Koepf [17], combined with the help of MAPLE™ software, we find Fekete–Szegő inequality and Hankel determinant for the function of the class ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) .

2. Preliminaries

To establish our main results, we recall the followings lemmas. The first lemma is the well-known Carathéodory’s lemma (see also [30] Corollary 2.3):
Lemma 1.
[31] If p P and given by (2), then | p k | 2 , for all k 1 , and the result is best possible for ϕ 1 ( z ) = 1 + ρ z 1 ρ z , | ρ | = 1 .
The next lemma gives us a majorant for the coefficients of the functions of the class P , and more details may be found in [32] (Lemma 1):
Lemma 2.
[33] Let ϕ P be given by (2). Then,
p 2 ν p 1 2 2 max 1 ; | 2 ν 1 | , w h e r e ν C .
The result is sharp for the functions given by
ϕ 1 ( z ) = 1 + ρ z 1 ρ z , a n d ϕ 2 ( z ) = 1 + ρ 2 z 2 1 ρ 2 z 2 , w i t h | ρ | = 1 .
Lemma 3.
[32] (Lemma 1 and Remark, pp. 162–163) If ϕ given by (2) is a member of the class P , then
| p 2 υ p 1 2 | 4 υ + 2 , i f υ 0 , 2 , i f 0 v 1 , 4 υ 2 , i f υ 1 .
When υ < 0 or υ > 1 , the equality holds if and only if ϕ is 1 + z 1 z or one of its rotations. If 0 < v < 1 , then equality holds if and only if ϕ is 1 + z 2 1 z 2 or one of its rotations. If υ = 0 , the equality holds if and only if
ϕ 3 ( z ) = 1 2 + η 2 1 + z 1 z + 1 2 η 2 1 z 1 + z , 0 η 1 ,
or one of its rotations. If υ = 1 , the equality holds if and only if ϕ is the reciprocal of one of the functions such that the equality holds in the case of υ = 0 .
Although the above upper bound is sharp, when 0 < υ < 1 , it can be improved as follows:
p 2 υ p 1 2 + υ | p 1 | 2 2 , i f 0 < υ 1 2 ,
and
p 2 υ p 1 2 + ( 1 υ ) | p 1 | 2 2 , i f 1 2 υ < 1 .
We also need the following result:
Lemma 4.
[33] Let ϕ P given by (2). Then,
p 2 = 1 2 p 1 2 + 4 p 1 2 x ,
and
p 3 = 1 4 p 1 3 + 2 4 p 1 2 p 1 x 4 p 1 2 p 1 x 2 + 2 4 p 1 2 ( 1 | x | 2 ) z
for some complex numbers x, z satisfying | x | 1 and | z | 1 .

3. Coefficient Bounds and Fekete–Szegő Inequality

In our first result, we will determine coefficient bounds for f ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) , and this tends to solve the Fekete–Szegő problem for the subclass ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) .
Theorem 1.
If f ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) and is of the form (1), then
| a 2 | c a 1 1 + λ , | a 3 | ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 1 2 + λ max 1 ; λ 3 2 ( 1 + λ ) , | a 4 | ( c ) 3 ( a ) 3 1 2 ( 3 + λ ) .
Proof. 
If f ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) , from (6), it follows that there exists a function w H ( D ) with w ( 0 ) = 0 and | w ( z ) | < 1 , z D , such that
z L c a f ( z ) ( 1 λ ) L c a f ( z ) + λ z = ψ ( w ( z ) ) = w ( z ) + 1 + w 2 ( z ) , z D .
Define the function ϕ by
ϕ ( z ) = 1 + w ( z ) 1 w ( z ) = 1 + p 1 z + p 2 z 2 + p 3 z 3 + , z D ,
which is
w ( z ) = ϕ ( z ) 1 ϕ ( z ) + 1 , z D ,
and, since w H ( D ) with w ( 0 ) = 0 and | w ( z ) | < 1 , z D , it follows that ϕ P .
Substituting the function w from (14) on the right-hand side of (13) and simplifying, we get
1 + ϕ ( z ) 1 ϕ ( z ) + 1 2 + ϕ ( z ) 1 ϕ ( z ) + 1 = 1 + p 1 2 z + p 2 2 p 1 2 8 z 2 + p 3 2 p 1 p 2 4 z 3 + , z D ,
and, by using (4), the left-hand side of (13) will be
z L ( a , c ) f ( z ) ( 1 λ ) L ( a , c ) f ( z ) + λ z = 1 + ( 1 + λ ) φ 1 a 2 z + ( 2 + λ ) φ 2 a 3 + ( λ 2 1 ) φ 1 2 a 2 2 z 2 + ( 3 + λ ) φ 3 a 4 + ( 2 λ 2 + λ 3 ) φ 1 φ 2 a 2 a 3 + ( λ 3 λ 2 λ + 1 ) φ 1 3 a 2 3 z 3 + , z D ,
where φ n , n N , is given by (5).
Hence, replacing (15) and (16) in (13) and comparing the coefficients of z, z 2 and z 3 , we get
a 2 = c a p 1 2 ( 1 + λ ) ,
a 3 = ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 1 2 ( 2 + λ ) p 2 3 λ 1 4 ( 1 + λ ) p 1 2 ,
a 4 = ( c ) 3 ( a ) 3 1 2 ( 3 + λ ) p 3 3 λ 2 + 4 λ 1 2 ( 1 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) p 1 p 2 + 4 λ 2 3 λ 1 8 ( 1 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) p 1 3 .
Thus, from Lemma 1, we have
| a 2 | c a 1 1 + λ , | a 3 | ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 1 2 ( 2 + λ ) p 2 3 λ 1 4 ( 1 + λ ) p 1 2 ,
and, according to Lemma 2, it follows that
| a 3 | ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 ( 2 + λ ) max 1 ; λ 3 2 ( 1 + λ ) ,
and
a 4 = ( c ) 3 ( a ) 3 1 2 ( 3 + λ ) p 3 3 λ 2 + 4 λ 1 2 ( 1 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) p 1 p 2 + 4 λ 2 3 λ 1 8 ( 1 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) p 1 3 .
Replacing the values of p 2 and p 3 given by the relations (11) and (12) in (20), respectively, and, denoting p : = p 1 , we get
a 4 = ( c ) 3 ( a ) 3 1 2 ( 3 + λ ) × 3 λ 2 λ + 4 8 ( 1 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) p 3 2 λ 2 + λ + 3 2 ( 1 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) 4 p 2 p x 1 4 4 p 2 p x 2 + 1 2 4 p 2 ( 1 | x | 2 ) z ,
for some complex numbers x and z, with | x | < 1 and | z | 1 . Using the triangle’s inequality and substituting | x | = y , we get
| a 4 | ( c ) 3 ( a ) 3 1 4 ( 3 + λ ) × 3 λ 2 λ + 4 8 ( 1 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) p 3 + 2 λ 2 + λ + 3 2 ( 1 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) 4 p 2 p y + 1 4 4 p 2 p y 2 + 1 2 4 p 2 1 y 2 = : F ( p , y ) , ( 0 p 2 , 0 y 1 ) .
Now, we will find the maximum of the function F ( p , y ) on the closed rectangle [ 0 , 2 ] × [ 0 , 1 ] . Denoting
H ( p , y ) : = 3 λ 2 λ + 4 8 ( 1 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) p 3 + 2 λ 2 + λ + 3 2 ( 1 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) 4 p 2 p y + 1 4 4 p 2 p y 2 + 1 2 4 p 2 1 y 2 ,
and using the MAPLE™ software for the following code
[> H :=(3*l^2-l+4)*p^3/(8*(1+l)*(2+l))-
(2*l^2+l-3)*(-p^2+4)*p*y/(2*(1+l)*(2+l))
- 1/4*(-p^2+4)*p*y+1/2*(-p^2+4)*(-y^2+1);
[> maximize(H, p=0 .. 2, y=0 .. 1, location);
we get
max(2, (3*l^2-l+4)/((1+l)*(2+l))),
{[{p=2}, (3*l^2-l+4)/((1+l)*(2+l))],
[{p=0, y=0}, 2]}
that is
max H ( p , y ) : ( p , y ) [ 0 , 2 ] × [ 0 , 1 ] = max 2 ; 3 λ 2 λ + 4 ( 1 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) ,
and
2 = H ( 0 , 0 ) , 3 λ 2 λ + 4 ( 1 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) = H ( 2 , y ) .
A simple computation shows that 2 > 3 λ 2 λ + 4 ( 1 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) whenever λ 0 ; therefore,
max H ( p , t ) : ( p , t ) [ 0 , 2 ] × [ 0 , 1 ] = 2 = H ( 0 , 0 ) ,
which implies that
max F ( p , y ) : ( p , y ) [ 0 , 2 ] × [ 0 , 1 ] = ( c ) 3 ( a ) 3 1 2 ( 3 + λ ) = F ( 0 , 0 ) ,
and the proof of our theorem is complete.  □
Theorem 2.
If f ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) is of the form (1), then, for any μ C , we have
a 3 μ a 2 2 | ( c ) 2 | | ( a ) 2 | 1 2 + λ max 1 ; ( λ 3 ) ( 1 + λ ) a ( c + 1 ) + 2 μ ( 2 + λ ) c ( a + 1 ) 2 ( 1 + λ ) 2 | a ( c + 1 ) | .
Proof. 
If f ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) is of the form (1), from (17) and (18), we get
a 3 μ a 2 2 = 1 2 ( 2 + λ ) ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 p 2 ν p 1 2 ,
where
ν = ( 3 λ 1 ) ( λ + 1 ) a ( c + 1 ) + 2 μ ( 2 + λ ) c ( a + 1 ) 4 ( 1 + λ ) 2 a ( c + 1 ) .
Taking the modules for the both sides of the above relation, with the aid of the inequality (7) of Lemma 2, we easily get the required estimate.  □
For a = c , the above theorem reduces to the following special case:
Corollary 1.
If f ML ( λ ; ψ ) is given by (1) then, for any μ C , we have
a 3 μ a 2 2 1 2 + λ max 1 ; | ( λ 3 ) ( 1 + λ ) + 2 μ ( 2 + λ ) | 2 ( 1 + λ ) 2 .
Remark 4.
If f ML ( λ ; ψ ) is given by (1) then, for the special case μ = 1 , we get
a 3 a 2 2 1 2 + λ max 1 ; λ 2 + 1 2 ( 1 + λ ) 2 = 1 2 + λ .
If we take μ R in Theorem 2, we get the next special case:
Theorem 3.
1. If the function f ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) is given by (1), a ( c + 1 ) c ( a + 1 ) > 0 and μ R , then
a 3 μ a 2 2 a ( c + 1 ) ( 3 λ ) ( λ + 1 ) 2 μ c ( a + 1 ) ( 2 + λ ) 2 a ( c + 1 ) ( λ + 1 ) 2 ( 2 + λ ) ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 , i f μ δ 1 , 1 2 + λ ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 , i f δ 1 μ δ 2 , a ( c + 1 ) ( λ 3 ) ( λ + 1 ) + 2 μ c ( a + 1 ) ( 2 + λ ) 2 a ( c + 1 ) ( λ + 1 ) 2 ( 2 + λ ) ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 , i f μ δ 2 ,
where
δ 1 : = ( 3 λ 1 ) ( λ + 1 ) 2 ( 2 + λ ) a ( c + 1 ) c ( a + 1 ) and δ 2 : = ( λ + 1 ) ( λ + 5 ) 2 ( 2 + λ ) a ( c + 1 ) c ( a + 1 ) .
2. Furthermore, if δ 1 < μ δ 3 , then
| a 3 μ a 2 2 | + ( 3 λ 1 ) ( λ + 1 ) a ( c + 1 ) + 2 μ ( 2 + λ ) c ( a + 1 ) 2 ( 2 + λ ) c ( a + 1 ) | a 2 | 2 | ( c ) 2 | | ( a ) 2 | 1 2 + λ .
If δ 3 μ < δ 2 , then
| a 3 μ a 2 2 | + ( λ + 1 ) ( λ + 5 ) a ( c + 1 ) 2 μ ( 2 + λ ) c ( a + 1 ) 2 ( 2 + λ ) c ( a + 1 ) | a 2 | 2 | ( c ) 2 | | ( a ) 2 | 1 2 + λ ,
where
δ 3 : = ( λ + 1 ) ( 3 λ ) 2 ( 2 + λ ) a ( c + 1 ) c ( a + 1 ) .
These results are sharp.
Proof. 
If f ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) is given by (1), from (17) and (18), we get
a 3 μ a 2 2 = 1 2 ( 2 + λ ) ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 p 2 ν p 1 2 ,
where
ν = ( 3 λ 1 ) ( λ + 1 ) a ( c + 1 ) + 2 μ ( 2 + λ ) c ( a + 1 ) 4 ( 1 + λ ) 2 a ( c + 1 ) = 3 λ 1 4 ( 1 + λ ) + μ 2 + λ 2 ( 1 + λ ) 2 c ( a + 1 ) a ( c + 1 ) .
From the assumptions, using the second above equality, it follows that ν R . We have
4 ν 2 = a ( c + 1 ) ( λ 3 ) ( λ + 1 ) + 2 μ c ( a + 1 ) ( 2 + λ ) a ( c + 1 ) ( λ + 1 ) 2 ,
ν 1 is equivalent to μ δ 2 , and ν 0 is equivalent to μ δ 1 .
Then, taking the modules for both sides of the above equality, with the aid of the inequality (8) of Lemma 3, we obtain the first estimates of Theorem 3.
For the proof of the second part, first we see that 0 < ν 1 / 2 is equivalent to δ 1 < μ δ 3 . Using the relations (23) and (17), and then applying the inequality (9) of Lemma 3, we get
| a 3 μ a 2 2 | + ( μ δ 1 ) | a 2 2 | = | a 3 μ a 2 2 | + | μ δ 1 | | a 2 2 | = 1 2 ( 2 + λ ) ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 | p 2 ν a 1 2 | + ν | p 1 2 | 1 2 + λ ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 ,
which represents the required inequality (21).
Furthermore, we easily check that 1 / 2 ν < 1 is equivalent to δ 3 μ < δ 2 . From the relations (23) and (17), and then applying the inequality (10) of Lemma 3, we obtain
| a 3 μ a 2 2 | + ( δ 2 μ ) | a 2 2 | = | a 3 μ a 2 2 | + | δ 2 μ | | a 2 2 | = 1 2 ( 2 + λ ) ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 | p 2 ν a 1 2 | + ( 1 ν ) | p 1 2 | 1 2 + λ ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 ,
which is the inequality (21).
To prove that the bounds are sharp, we define the functions F η and G η , 0 η 1 , respectively, with F η ( 0 ) = 0 = F η ( 0 ) 1 and G η ( 0 ) = 0 = G η ( 0 ) 1 by
z L c a F η ( z ) ( 1 λ ) L c a F η ( z ) + λ z = ψ z ( z + η ) 1 + η z ,
and
z ( L c a G η ( z ) ) ( 1 λ ) L c a G η ( z ) + λ z = ψ z ( z + η ) 1 + η z ,
respectively. Clearly, K ψ n ( z ) : = ψ ( z n 1 ) , F η , G η ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) . In addition, we write K ψ 2 ( z ) : = K ψ ( z ) = z + 1 + z 2 .
If μ < δ 1 or μ > δ 2 , then the equality holds if and only if f is K ψ or one of its rotations. When δ 1 < μ < δ 2 , then the equality holds if and only if f is K ψ 3 ( z ) = z 2 + 1 + z 4 or one of its rotations. If  μ = δ 1 , then the equality holds if and only if f is F η or one of its rotations. If μ = δ 2 , then the equality holds if and only if f is G η or one of its rotations.  □

4. Hankel Determinant Result for f ML c a ( λ ; ψ )

The next result deals with an upper bound of H 2 , 2 ( f ) for the subclass ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) :
Theorem 4.
If f ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) is given by (1) and
1 ( c + 1 ) 2 ( a + 1 ) 2 27 20 ,
then
a 2 a 4 a 3 2 ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 2 1 2 ( 2 + λ ) 2 .
Proof. 
If f ML c a ( λ ; ψ ) , using a similar proof like in the proof of Theorem 1, from (17), (18), and (19), we get
a 2 a 4 a 3 2 = k 1 p 1 4 + k 2 p 1 2 p 2 + k 3 p 1 p 3 + k 4 p 2 2 ,
where
k 1 = c ( c ) 3 a ( a ) 3 4 λ 2 3 λ 1 32 ( 1 + λ ) 2 ( 3 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 2 1 4 ( 2 + λ ) 2 3 λ 1 4 ( 1 + λ ) 2 , k 2 = 3 λ 1 8 ( 2 + λ ) 2 ( 1 + λ ) ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 2 c a ( c ) 3 ( a ) 3 3 λ 2 + 4 λ 1 4 ( 1 + λ ) 2 ( 2 + λ ) ( 3 + λ ) , k 3 = c a ( c ) 3 ( a ) 3 1 4 ( 1 + λ ) ( 3 + λ ) , k 4 = ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 2 1 4 ( 2 + λ ) 2 .
Using the relations (11) and (12) of Lemma 4, we get
a 2 a 4 a 3 2 = A p 1 4 + B 4 p 1 2 x p 1 2 + k 4 4 4 p 1 2 k 3 4 p 1 2 4 p 1 2 x 2 + k 3 2 p 1 4 p 1 2 1 | x | 2 z ,
with | x | 1 , | z | 1 , and
A : = 1 4 4 k 1 + 2 k 2 + k 3 + k 4 = 1 64 ( 2 + λ ) 2 ( 1 + λ ) 2 ( 3 + λ ) × 2 s ( 4 λ 2 3 λ 1 ) 2 + λ ( a ) 2 2 + 20 s ( a ) 2 2 ( c ) 2 2 λ 3 + 60 s ( a ) 2 2 + 3 ( a ) 2 2 λ 2 + 24 s ( a ) 2 2 + 9 ( c ) 2 2 λ + 32 s ( a ) 2 2 27 ( c ) 2 2 , B : = 1 2 k 2 + k 3 + k 4 = 4 ( a ) 2 2 + ( c ) 2 2 λ 3 + 10 s ( a ) 2 2 + ( c ) 2 2 λ 2 + 2 s ( a ) 2 2 9 ( c ) 2 2 λ + 12 s ( a ) 2 2 9 ( c ) 2 2 16 1 + λ 2 3 + λ 2 + λ 2 ( a ) 2 2
where s = c ( c ) 3 a ( a ) 3 . Since ϕ P , it follows that ϕ e i arg p 1 z P , hence we may assume without loss of generality that p : = p 1 0 , and, according to Lemma 1, it follows that p [ 0 , 2 ] . Now, using the triangle’s inequality in (26) and substituting | x | = t , we get
a 2 a 4 a 3 2 A p 4 + B 4 p 2 p 2 t + | k 4 | 4 4 p 2 2 t 2 + | k 3 | 4 p 2 4 p 2 t 2 + | k 3 | 2 p 4 p 2 ( 1 t 2 ) = : G ( p , t ) , ( 0 p 2 , 0 t 1 ) .
Next, we will find maximum of G ( p , t ) on the closed rectangle [ 0 , 2 ] × [ 0 , 1 ] . Using the MAPLE™ software for the following code, where we denoted C : = k 4 and D 1 = E : = k 3 ,
[>G :=abs(A)*p^4+abs(B)*(-p^2+4)*p^2*t+1/4*abs(C)*(-p^2+4)^2*t^2
+1/4*abs(D1)*p^2*(-p^2+4)*t^2+1/2*abs(E)*p*(-p^2+4)*(-t^2+1);
[> maximize(G, p=0 .. 2, t=0 .. 1, location);
max(16*abs(A), 4*abs(C)),
{[{p=2}, 16*abs(A)], [{p=0, t=1}, 4*abs(C)]}
or
max(16|A|, 4|C|), {[{p=2}, 16|A|], [{p=0, t=1}, 4|C|]},
which is
max G ( p , t ) : ( p , t ) [ 0 , 2 ] × [ 0 , 1 ] = max { 16 | A | ; 4 | C | } ,
and
16 | A | = G ( 2 , t ) , 4 | C | = G ( 0 , 1 ) .
We will prove that, under our assumption we have 4 | C | 16 | A | , and therefore
max G ( p , t ) : ( p , t ) [ 0 , 2 ] × [ 0 , 1 ] = 4 | C | = 4 k 4 = G ( 0 , 1 ) .
Letting α : = c a ( c ) 3 ( a ) 3 and β : = ( c ) 2 ( a ) 2 2 , from (24), it follows that α β > 0 . A simple computation shows that
4 A = 4 k 1 + 2 k 2 + k 3 + k 4 = α M β N ,
where
M : = 5 ( 1 λ ) 8 ( 1 + λ ) 2 ( 2 + λ ) ( 3 + λ ) 0 , λ [ 0 , 1 ] , and N : = ( λ 3 ) 2 16 [ ( 1 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) ] 2 .
Since
A = α M β N 4 = 10 α ( 1 λ ) ( 2 + λ ) β ( λ 3 ) 2 ( 3 + λ ) 64 ( 1 + λ ) 2 ( 2 + λ ) 2 ( 3 + λ ) , λ [ 0 , 1 ] ,
then A 0 if and only if the inequality 10 α ( 1 λ ) ( 2 + λ ) β ( λ 3 ) 2 ( 3 + λ ) 0 holds for all λ [ 0 , 1 ] . This last inequality is equivalent to
α β = ( c + 1 ) 2 ( a + 1 ) 2 ( λ 3 ) 2 ( λ + 3 ) 10 ( λ + 2 ) ( 1 λ ) = : t ( λ ) , λ [ 0 , 1 ] ,
and a simple computation shows that t ( λ ) t ( 0 ) = 27 20 for all t [ 0 , 1 ] . Therefore, the above inequality holds whenever the assumption (24) is satisfied, hence A 0 . Since C < 0 , we have
16 | A | 4 | C | = 16 A + 4 C = α 5 ( 1 λ ) 2 ( 3 + λ ) ( 1 + λ ) 2 ( 2 + λ ) + β ( λ 3 ) 2 4 [ ( 1 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) ] 2 β 1 ( 2 + λ ) 2 = α U β V 4 ( 3 + λ ) [ ( 1 + λ ) ( 2 + λ ) ] 2 ,
with
U : = 10 ( λ 1 ) ( λ + 2 ) 0 , λ [ 0 , 1 ] , and V : = ( 3 λ 1 ) ( λ + 3 ) ( λ + 5 ) .
Since
U V = 3 λ 3 13 λ 2 27 λ 5 < 0 , λ [ 0 , 1 ] ,
we have U < V .
If λ 0 , 1 / 3 , then V 0 , and using the inequality α β > 0 , we get α U β V < 0 . If λ 1 / 3 , 1 , then V 0 , and, because U 0 , α , β > 0 , it follows that α U β V < 0 .
Therefore, for all λ [ 0 , 1 ] , we have 16 | A | < 4 | C | . Since (27) was proved, the upper bound of G ( p , t ) on the closed rectangle [ 0 , 2 ] × [ 0 , 1 ] is attained at p = 0 and t = 1 , which implies the inequality (25).  □
Remark 5.
By suitably specializing the parameter λ, one can deduce the above results for the subclasses of SL c a ( λ ; ψ ) , and RL c a ( λ ; ψ ) , which are defined, respectively, in Remark 3 (i) and (ii). Furthermore, by taking a = c , we can easily state the result for the function class ML ( λ , ψ ) given in Remark 3 (iii). The details involved may be left as an exercise for the interested reader.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.M. and T.B.; methodology, G.M. and T.B.; investigation, G.M. and T.B.; resources, G.M. and T.B.; writing—original draft preparation, G.M. and T.B.; writing—review and editing, G.M. and T.B.; supervision, G.M. and T.B.; project administration, G.M. and T.B.. The authors contributed equally to this work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the reviewers of this article who gave valuable remarks, comments, and advice, in order to revise and improve the results of the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Noonan, J.W.; Thomas, D.K. On the second Hankel determinant of areally mean p-valent functions. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1976, 223, 337–346. [Google Scholar]
  2. Duren, P.L. Univalent Functions; Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, 259; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  3. Cantor, D.G. Power series with integral coefficients. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 1963, 69, 362–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wilson, R. Determinantal criteria for meromorphic functions. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 1954, 4, 357–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vein, R.; Dale, P. Determinants and Their Applicatons im Mathematical Physics; Applied Mathematical Sciences; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1999; Volume 134. [Google Scholar]
  6. Pommerenke, C. On the coefficients and Hankel determinant of univalent functions. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 1966, 41, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ehrenborg, R. The Hankel determinant of exponential polynomials. Am. Math. Mon. 2000, 107, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hayami, T.; Owa, S. Generalized Hankel determinant for certain classes. Int. J. Math. Anal. 2010, 4, 2573–2585. [Google Scholar]
  9. Janteng, A.; Halim, S.A.; Darus, M. Hankel determinant for starlike and convex functions. Int. J. Math. Anal. 2007, 1, 619–625. [Google Scholar]
  10. Layman, J.W. The Hankel transform and some of its properties. J. Integer Seq. 2001, 4, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  11. Libera, R.J.; Zlotkiewicz, E.J. Early coefficients of the inverse of a regular convex function. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1982, 85, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mishra, A.K.; Gochhayat, P. Second Hankel determinant for a classes of analytic functions defined by fractional derivatives. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2008, 2008, 153280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mohamed, N.; Mohamed, D.; Cik Soh, S. Second Hankel determinant for certain generalized classes of analytic functions. Int. J. Math. Anal. 2012, 6, 807–812. [Google Scholar]
  14. Noor, K.I. Hankel determinant problem for the class of functions with bounded boundary rotation. Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl. 1983, 28, 731–739. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fekete, M.; Szegő, G. Eine Bemerkung über ungerade schlichte Funktionen. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 1933, 8, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. 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]
  17. Koepf, W. On the Fekete–Szegő problem for close-to-convex functions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1987, 101, 89–95. [Google Scholar]
  18. Koepf, W. On the Fekete–Szegő problem for close-to-convex functions-II. Arch. Math. 1987, 49, 420–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Janteng, A.; Halim, S.A.; Darus, M. Coefficient inequality for a function whose derivative has a positive real part. JIPAM. J. Inequal. Pure Appl. Math. 2006, 7, 50. [Google Scholar]
  20. MacGregor, T.H. Functions whose derivative have a positive real part. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1962, 104, 532–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Paprocki, E.; Sokół, J. The extremal problems in some subclass of strongly starlike functions. Zeszyty Nauk. Politech. Rzeszowskiej Mat. 1996, 20, 89–94. [Google Scholar]
  22. Raina, R.K.; Sokół, J. On Coefficient estimates for a certain class of starlike functions. Hacet. J. Math. Stat. 2015, 44, 1427–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sokół, J.; Thomas, D.K. Further results on a class of starlike functions related to the Bernoulli lemniscate. Houston J. Math. 2018, 44, 83–95. [Google Scholar]
  24. Raina, R.K.; Sokół, J. On a class of analytic functions governed by subordination. Acta Univ. Sapientiae Math. 2019, 11, 144–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Carlson, B.C.; Shaffer, D.B. Starlike and prestarlike hypergeometric functions. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 1984, 15, 737–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ruscheweyh, S. New criteria for univalent functions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1975, 49, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Owa, S.; Srivastava, H.M. Univalent and starlike generalized hypergeometric functions. Can. J. Math. 1987, 39, 1057–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dziok, J.; Raina, R.K.; Sokół, J. Differential subordinations and alpha-convex functions. Acta Math. Sci. Ser. B Engl. Ed. 2013, 33 B, 609–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Raina, R.K.; Sharma, P.; Sokół, J. Certain classes of analytic functions related to the crescent-shaped regions. J. Contemp. Math. Anal. 2018, 53, 355–362. [Google Scholar]
  30. Pommerenke, C. Univalent Functions; Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen, Germany, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  31. Carathéodory, C. Über den Variabilitätsbereich der Fourier’schen Konstanten von positiven harmonischen Funktionen. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 1911, 32, 193–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ma, W.C.; Minda, D. A unified treatment of some special classes of univalent functions. In Proceedings of the Conference on Complex Analysis (Tianjin, 1992); Li, Z., Ren, F., Yang, L., Zhang, S., Eds.; International Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994; pp. 157–169. [Google Scholar]
  33. Libera, R.J.; Zlotkiewicz, E.J. Coefficient bounds for the inverse of a function with derivative in P. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1983, 87, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The image of D under ψ ( z ) = 1 + z 2 + z .
Figure 1. The image of D under ψ ( z ) = 1 + z 2 + z .
Mathematics 08 01041 g001
Figure 2. The images of Ψ λ ( e i θ ) and ψ ( e i θ ) , θ [ 0 , 2 π ) .
Figure 2. The images of Ψ λ ( e i θ ) and ψ ( e i θ ) , θ [ 0 , 2 π ) .
Mathematics 08 01041 g002
Back to TopTop