Abstract
Let f be analytic in the unit disk , and be the subclass of normalized univalent functions given by for . Let be the subset of starlike functions in and the subset of convex functions in . We give sharp upper and lower bounds for for some important subclasses of and .
1. Introduction and Definitions
Let denote the class of analytic functions f in the unit disk normalized by . Then for , has the following representation
Let denote the subclass of all univalent (i.e., one-to-one) functions in .
In 1985, de Branges [1] solved the famous Bieberbach conjecture by showing that if , then for , with equality when , or a rotation. Therefore, it was natural to ask if for , the inequality is true when . This was shown not to be the case even when [2], and that the following sharp bounds hold.
where is the unique value of in , satisfying the equation .
Hayman [3] showed that if , then , where C is an absolute constant. The exact value of C is unknown, the best estimate to date being [4], which because of the sharp estimate above when , cannot be reduced to 1.
Hayman’s seminal result for , was proved in 1963, using his distinctive method developed to study areally mean p-valent functions. A different proof was provided by Milin, using the now well-known Lebedev–Milin inequalities, and an excellent account of this result can be found in Duren’s book [2]. Little progress has been made estimating the value of C. It was shown by Ilina [5] in 1968 that , which, using a modification of Milin’s method, Grispan [4] improved in 1976 to show that for
No other advances appear to have been made in this direction during the intervening years, until a recent result of Obradović, Thomas and Tuneski [6], who, using the Grunsky inequalities, have shown that the upper bound for C can be improved when to .
Thus, apart from the inequalities for above, there appears to be no known sharp upper or lower bounds for when for functions in .
Definition 1.
Let and be given by (1). Denote by the subclass of consisting of starlike functions, i.e., functions f which map onto a set which is star-shaped with respect to the origin. Subsequently, it is well-known that a function if, and only if, for
Without doubt the most complete solution to finding sharp bounds for the difference of successive coefficients is the following theorem of Leung [7], who, in 1978, proved the sharp inequality for , when , the proof of which relies on a lemma concerning functions with positive real, and the third Lebedev–Milin inequality.
Theorem 1.
Let and be given by (1). Subsequently, for with equality for functions of the type , for some γ and ζ, with .
The question therefore arises as to whether there are analogous sharp bounds for for the more significant subclasses of subclasses of such as starlike functions of order , etc. By considering the case , we will demonstrate that no such single bounds exist, by finding distinct sharp lower and upper bounds for the classes of starlike functions of order , and for the class of strongly starlike functions.
We will also demonstrate that a similar situation holds for subclasses of the convex functions, which we define as follows.
Definition 2.
Let and be given by (1). Denote, by , the subclass of consisting of convex functions, i.e., functions f which map onto a set which is convex. Subsequently, it is well-known that a function if, and only if, for
Thus if, and only if, for .
We next define what we consider to be the most significant subclasses of and , as follows.
Definition 3.
Let and be given by (1). Denote by the subclass of consisting of starlike functions of order α i.e., for and ,
Definition 4.
Let and be given by (1). Denote, by , the subclass of consisting of convex functions of order α i.e., for and ,
We next recall the class of strongly starlike functions of order , defined as follows.
Definition 5.
Let and be given by (1). Denote, by , the subclass of consisting of strongly starlike functions order α i.e., for and ,
We finally define the class of strongly convex functions of order , as follows.
Definition 6.
Let and be given by (1). Denote, by , the subclass of consisting of strongly convex functions order α i.e., for and ,
We note at this point, that even though the problem of finding sharp upper and lower bounds is solved for [7] when , obtaining sharp lower bounds for , for when appears to be a difficult problem. Sharp upper bounds for follow at once from the starlike case, and the fact that if, and only if . The only sharp lower bounds to date are due to Ming and Sugawa [8], for and 3. Thus when , finding sharp lower bounds for remains an open problem.
2. Preliminary Lemmas
Denote, by , the class of analytic functions p with positive real part on given by
We will use the following lemmas for the coefficients of functions , given by (3).
Lemma 1
([2], p. 41). For , for The inequalities are sharp.
Lemma 2
([9]). If , then
for some , .
For , the boundary of , there is a unique function with as above, namely,
For and , there is a unique function with and as above, namely,
Lemma 3
([10]). Suppose that , with coefficients given by (3), and
Then for some complex-valued y with
We note at the outset that all of the following classes of functions, and the functional are rotationally invariant. We also note that the proofs of the following theorems are similar, and so we omit some of the details for brevity.
3. Coefficient Differences for
We prove the following, noting that when , we obtain the result in [7].
Theorem 2.
Proof.
We begin by noting that if , then, from (2), we can write
for some
Equating coefficients gives
and so after a rotation so that with we obtain, using Lemma 3 and the fact that
It is now a simple exercise to show that the maximum value of the above expression when and is , which gives the upper bound.
For the lower bound we use Lemma 2, which gives
After a rotation, we can assume that , where and so writing with and we obtain
where is defined by
When , we have
If , then for all , since
Thus, we have
and
which implies that
The upper bound is sharp when is given by
and the lower bound is sharp when is given by
where □
4. Coefficient Differences for
We prove the following, noting that, when gives the inequalities obtained in [8].
Theorem 3.
Proof.
Because if, and only if, , the upper bound follows at once from Theorem 2 on noting that, since , we obtain
For the lower bound, we proceed as in Theorem 2, again use Lemma 2, and after equating coefficients and making a rotation, arrive at the expression
where is defined by
When , we have
If , then for all , and so
When , the function is decreasing on , and so
When , at , and so
The bound is sharp when is given by
and the first lower bound for is sharp when is given by
where , and for the second bound. □
5. Coefficient Differences for
Theorem 4.
Proof.
Note first note that from (5), we can write
for some , and so equating coefficients we obtain, using Lemma 2,
We begin by proving the upper bound. After a rotation, noting that from Lemma 1 that , we can assume that with , and using Lemma 3 obtain, since
Elementary calculus shows that the above expression has a minimum at , and that the maximum value occurs at which gives the required upper bound.
Using Lemma 2, we next establish the lower bound in Theorem 4.
Writing and , so that , , and , using Lemma 2 and (4), we can write
where is defined by
When , we have
If , then for all , since
Thus,
and
which implies
The upper bound is sharp when is given by
and the lower bound is sharp when is given by
where □
6. Coefficient Differences for
We prove the following.
Theorem 5.
Proof.
We proceed as in Theorem 4, first noticing that since if, and only if, , the upper bound follows at once, as in Theorem 2.
For the lower bound, we again follow the method in Theorem 4, to obtain after equating coefficients, applying Lemma 2, and making a rotation, arrive at the following expression.
where is defined by
When , we have
If , then for all , and so
When , the function is increasing on , and so
If , at , and so
If , the function is decreasing on , and so
The first inequality in Theorem 5 is sharp when is given by
the second inequality is sharp when
with , and the third inequality is sharp when
with . □
Author Contributions
Writing—original draft, Y.J.S. and D.K.T.; Writing—review and editing, Y.J.S. and D.K.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The first author was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP; Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning) (No. NRF-2017R1C1B5076778).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Branges, L.D. A proof of the Bieberbach conjecture. Acta Math. 1985, 154, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duren, P.L. Univalent Function; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Hayman, W.K. On successive coefficients of univalent functions. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 1963, 38, 228–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grinspan, A.Z. The sharpening of the difference of the moduli of adjacent coefficients of schlicht functions. In Problems in Modern Function Theory, Proceedings of the Conference on Modern Problems of the Geometric Theory of Functions; Institute of Mathematics, Siberian Branch, Academy of Sciences of the USSR: Novosibirsk, Russia, 1976; pp. 41–45. [Google Scholar]
- Ilina, L.P. The relative growth of nearby coefficients of schlicht functions. Mat. Zametki 1968, 4, 715–722. [Google Scholar]
- Obradović, M.; Thomas, D.K.; Tuneski, N. On the difference of coefficients of univalent functions. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2004.06369. [Google Scholar]
- Leung, Y. Successive coefficients of starlike functions. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 1978, 10, 193–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ming, L.; Sugawa, T. A Note on Successive Coefficients of Convex Functions. Comput. Methods Funct. Theory 2016, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, N.E.; Kowalczyk, B.; Lecko, A. The sharp bounds of some coefficient functionals over the class of functions convex in the direction of the imaginary axis. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 2019, 100, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Libera, R.J.; Złotkiewicz, E.J. Coefficient bounds for the inverse of a function with derivatives in . Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1983, 87, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2020 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/).