1. Introduction and Preliminaries
Let denote the class of analytic functions in the unit disc of the complex plane, with the usual normalization . The class consists of all normalized and univalent functions in .
A function belongs to the class of starlike functions, or to the class of convex functions, if f maps conformally the unit disc onto the domains that are starlike with respect to the origin, or convex, and the analytical characterization of these classes are given by and in , respectively.
If
f and
g are two analytic functions on
, we say
fis subordinated tog, written
, if
for some analytic function
, with
. If
g is univalent in
, then
if, and only if,
, and
(cf. ([
1] p. 90); see also [
2]).
Let
, and let
h be univalent in
. If
p is analytic in
and satisfies the differential subordination
then
p is called a
solution of the differential subordination. The univalent function
q is called a
dominant of the solutions of the differential subordination, or more simply a dominant, if
for all
p satisfying (
1). A dominant
that satisfies
for all dominants
q of (
1) is said to be the
best dominant (for details see [
2]).
For a convex univalent function
h defined on
with
,
,
, in 1985 Padmanabhan and Parvatham [
3], and Shanmugam [
4] in 1989, introduced and studied certain subclasses defined in terms of convolution and subordination as follows, respectively:
where
,
, and
where
g is a fixed function. For
and
, the corresponding subclasses
are denoted by
and
, respectively.
If
h is a univalent function with positive real part, which maps
onto a domain symmetric with respect to the real axis and starlike with respect to
and
, in 1992 Ma and Minda [
5] studied growth, distortion, and coefficient estimates for functions belonging to the above mentioned classes,
and
. In recent years, many researchers have taken specific functions and studied numerous subordination implications that provide sufficient conditions for functions to belong to various subclasses of Ma-Minda starlike functions (see
Table 1).
In 1996, Sokół and Stankiewicz [
6] studied the radius of convexity of some subclasses of strongly starlike functions. Raina and Sokół in [
7] have discussed certain geometric properties of the functions belonging to the class
, while in [
8] the authors have obtained sharp radii for functions belonging to the class
. In [
9,
10,
11], the authors used the method of differential subordination to obtain sufficient conditions for functions of the class
to belong to Ma-Minda subclasses of starlike functions.
On the other hand, subordination implications and subclasses of analytic functions have been recently studied in literature, such as [
16] and [
17].
Motivated by their works, in the
Section 2, we have used the subordination as a tool to obtain bounds on
M for an analytic function
p, with
, such that
implies the function
p is subordinate to each of the following functions:
In the
Section 3, in connection with [
18,
19], we determine the pre-Schwarzian norm estimates for function belonging to the classes
and
where
, and
is an analytic function in
, with
and
for all
; also,
. Moreover, norm estimates for various classes mentioned in the
Table 1 are obtained.
In the
Section 4, using the Gronwall’s inequality [
20] we obtained a sufficient condition involving the Schwarzian derivative, such that a given function belongs to a certain class associated with
.
2. Subordination Results for Some Special Dominants
To obtain bounds on
M for an analytic function
p, with
, such that
implies the function
p is subordinate to each of the following functions mentioned in (
2) the following lemma will be used to prove our main results.
Lemma 1. ([2]) Let q be univalent in and let ϕ and ν be analytic in a domain D containing , with when . Set and . Suppose that: (i) either h is convex or Q is starlike univalent in ,
and
(ii) for .
Let p be analytic in with and . If p satisfies then , and q is the best dominant of the above subordination.
Theorem 1. Let p be an analytic function in , with , such that Then, the following subordination results hold:
- (a)
, for ;
- (b)
, for ;
- (c)
, for ;
- (d)
, for ;
- (e)
, for ;
- (f)
, with , for ;
- (g)
, for ;
- (h)
, for ;
- (i)
, for .
The bounds of M are the best possible.
Proof. If we let the function
defined by
then
is a solution for the first order differential equation
. If we take
in Lemma 1, then we have
Since the function Q is starlike, and , , from Lemma 1 it follows that the subordination assumption implies .
Each of the conclusions in all the parts of this theorem are of the form , for appropriate choices of , whenever the subordination holds.
(a) Letting
, then
implies
A simple calculation yields that the above double inequality holds whenever
. Therefore, according to the
Figure 1a made by MAPLE™ software, we see that
, and since
, it follows that
, hence the subordination
is proved.
(b) If
, then
implies
that holds whenever
. From the
Figure 1b made by MAPLE™ software, since we see that
, and combining with
, it follows that
, thus the subordination
is holds.
For proving the items (c)–(i) we proceed similarly and obtain the required results.
The bounds are the best possible in each cases because, such as in the cases (a) and (b) presented above, the left and right hand side inequalities are attained for the mentioned values of M, respectively. □
For , such that for , if we let in Theorem 1, we obtain the following special cases:
Corollary 1. If and the function satisfies the subordination then:
- (a)
, for ;
- (b)
, for ;
- (c)
, for ;
- (d)
, for ;
- (e)
, with , for ;
- (f)
, for ;
- (g)
, for ;
- (h)
, for .
The bounds of M are the best possible.
Taking in Corollary 1 we obtain the next sufficient condition for the function to belong to various Ma-Minda type subclasses:
Remark 1. If the function satisfies the subordination The bounds of M are the best possible.
3. Norm Estimates for the Classes and
In this section, we derive pre-Schwarzian norm estimate for the classes
and
defined by (
3) and (
4), respectively, followed by certain applications of the main results. Additionally, inclusion criteria for various subclasses of analytic function are obtained using Gronwall’s inequality.
The
pre-Schwarzian derivative of a locally univalent function
f in the unit disc
, i.e.,
and the
Schwarzian derivative
and their respective norms
play a crucial role in the theory of Teichmüller spaces [
21]. The Teichmüller space can be associated with the set of Schwarzian derivatives of univalent functions on
with quasiconformal extensions to the Riemann sphere,
. Moreover, for
, if
f extends to a
k-quasiconformal mapping of
, then
, and, conversely, if
, then
f is a
k-quasiconformal mapping of
.
It is well known that for and that for , and, conversely, for , implies (the well-known Becker’s theorem).
Yamashita [
22] showed that if
(i.e.,
f is starlike of order alpha), then
.
Let
denote the class of analytic functions
,
, and for a given
let
. The
Dieudonné Lemma ([
1] p. 198) which plays a pivotal role in the proof of our next results states that for a fixed pair of points
with
, the value
belongs the closed disc centered at
with radius
. Moreover, if
lies on the boundary of this disc, then
w has the form:
where
with
.
Kim and Sugawa [
19] obtained the pre-Schwarzian norm estimate for some close-to-convex functions of specified type. Additionally,
and the sharp inequality for
was obtained in [
19].
The following two lemmas will be used to prove Theorem 2:
Lemma 2 ([
19] Proposition 2.4., (2.3) and (2.4)).
For a continuous function F defined on the interval , the maximal function of F, denoted by , and defined by Lemma 3 ([
19] Corollary 2.5., (2.3) and (2.4)).
For two functions , we have Theorem 2. For a function we have Proof. For a function
, from the definition of the subordination we have
where the function
w is analytic in
, such that
,
, and
. According to the definition of the class
, since
for all
, it follows that
f is locally univalent in
.
By taking derivative on both sides of the last equation, a simple computation yields
which implies
Generally, for a function
g analytic in
let define
, and
be the maximal function of
. Additionally, we denote
For a fixed point
with
, let
. Therefore, from the well-known
Schwarz lemma we have
, hence
. From the above inequality, using (
6) it follows that
From here, using Lemma 2 and Lemma 3, we obtain
that is (
7) holds for all
. □
Remark 2. The inequality (7) of Theorem 2 gives an estimation for the upper bound of the norm of the pre-Schwarzian derivative for the functions that belong to the class . Since this estimation is not the best possible, to find the sharp result remains still an open question. Taking the function
,
, the parameter
in Theorem 2 and using Lemma 4.2 of [
19] we obtain the next result:
Corollary 2. For , if , then If we consider in Corollary 2, then with , and we obtain the following norm estimate for the class :
Example 1. For , if , then Letting in Theorem 2 the special case and , we will obtain the norm estimate for , as follows.
A simple computation shows that
and
where
and
We obtain that
and
hence
..., and next result holds:
Remark 3. For and various specializations of the function ψ, we know that the class represents various Ma-Minda type starlike subclasses showed in the Table 1. Additionally, as given in the above corollary, we can obtain estimates for the pre-Schwarzian norm for the functions belonging to , , , , , , , and . Theorem 3. For a function we have and the estimate is sharp if the inequality hold for all , where with .
Proof. If
, then
hence
where the function
w is analytic in
, such that
,
, and
. Therefore,
and denote
As in the proof of Theorem 2, let us define , and be the maximal function of .
For a fixed point
with
, let
. Thus, from the well-known
Schwarz lemma we have
, hence
. From the above inequality we have
btain
hence (
9) holds for all
. Since the remaining part of the proof concerning the sharpness is similar to that proved for the Theorem 2 it will be omitted. □
Example 2. We will prove that the function belongs to the class . Thus, denoting like we could see in the Figure 2 we have The function P is analytic in , hence is a harmonic function in , and thus it attains its extremal values of the boundary of . Therefore, this inequality combined with leads to hence . Since and φ is a univalent function in , we conclude that , that is .
Since for we have and using the inequality (7) it follows that a simple computation shows that hence .
Example 3. We will prove that the function belongs to the class . Letting Since , using similar reasons like in the proof of Example 2, the above inequality implies that is .
Using (10) from the inequality (7) we obtain 4. An Application of the Gronwall Inequality
Suppose that
and
are two linearly independent solutions with initial conditions
of the second order differential equation
where
, and
is the Schwarzian derivative of the function
, that is
Thus, the function
f has the following representation (see also ([
1] p. 259), [
23,
24])
hence
An important tool used in this section is the following Gronwall’s inequality.
Lemma 4 ([
20] p. 19).
Suppose that P and q are non-negative continuous real functions for . If is a constant, then the inequality Using the integral representation of the fundamental solutions of (
11) we have
and using the Gronwall’s inequality in [
25] the author proved that if
, whenever
for all
, where
and
, then
for all
(for details see [
24,
25]).
Using the Gronwall’s inequality Chiang [
25] investigated conditions involving the Schwarzian derivatives for a function
to belong to the class of strongly starlike functions, and to the class of convex functions. In [
24], the authors have obtained inclusion criteria for various subclasses of analytic functions.
The subclass which is of interest in the next study is defined as follows:
where
, and
.
Consequently, this class reduces to the class of starlike functions, and to the class of convex functions of order
for specified values of
and
. For instance, if
and
we obtain the class of strongly
-Bazilevič functions of order
studied by Gao [
26].
The next result represents a sufficient condition for a function to belong to the class .
Theorem 4. Let and . For , let and satisfy the relation and δ satisfies the inequality then .
Proof. First, the condition (
17) assures the existence of a real number
satisfying the inequality (
18). This follows from the fact that, taking
the assumption (
17) shows that there exists a real number
such that the inequality (
18) holds for
.
Representing the function
f as in (
12) in terms of the linearly independent solutions
and
of the differential equation (
11), and using (
13) we obtain
Additionally, for
we have that
implies
. Using this implication combined with the inequalities (
15) and (16), the above inequality leads to
Since
following the method of proof given in ([
24] Theorem 3.3, p. 69) we obtain
hence
Therefore, using the inequalities (
19) and (
20), from the assumption (
18) we obtain
which implies
. □
Taking in Theorem 4, the sufficient condition for a function to belong to the class , with , is given by the following corollary.
Corollary 4. Let and . For , let and satisfy the relation and δ satisfies the inequality then .
Remark 4.(i) If we choose of , with , and in Theorem 4 we obtain the result of ([24] Theorem 3.2, p. 68). (ii) For , if or we obtain the sufficient conditions for a function to be strongly starlike and strongly convex of order γ, with , respectively.