International Journal of Differential EquationsVolume 2011 (2011), Article ID 902830, 19 pagesdoi:10.1155/2011/902830

Research Article

Differential Subordination and Superordination for Srivastava-Attiya Operator

Maisarah Haji Mohd and Maslina Darus

School of Mathematical Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor D. Ehsan, Malaysia

Received 28 March 2011; Accepted 1 June 2011

Academic Editor: Khalil Ezzinbi

Copyright © 2011 Maisarah Haji Mohd and Maslina Darus. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Due to the well-known Srivastava-Attiya operator, we investigate here some results relating the p-valent of the operator with differential subordination and subordination. Further, we obtain some interesting results on sandwich-type theorem for the same.

1. Introduction and Motivation

Let be the class of analytic functions in the open unit disc and let be the subclass of consisting functions of the form , with and . For two functions and analytic in , the function is subordinate to , or superordinate to , written as if there exists a function , analytic in with and such that . In particular, if the function is univalent in , then is equivalent to and .

Let and . If and are univalent and satisfies the second-order differential subordination then is called a solution of the differential subordination. The univalent function is called a dominant if for all satisfying (1.1). Miller and Mocanu discussed many interesting results containing the above mentioned subordination and also many applications of the field of differential subordination in [1]. In that direction, many differential subordination and differential superordination problems for analytic functions defined by means of linear operators were investigated. See [2–11] for related results.

Let denote the class of functions of the form which are analytic and p-valent in . For satisfying (1.2), let the generalized Srivastava-Attiya operator [12] be denoted by where with and the symbol (*) denotes the usual Hadamard product (or convolution). From the equations, we can see that Note that for in (1.6), coincides with the Srivastava-Attiya operator [13]. Further, observe that for proper choices of and , the operator coincides with the following: (i), (ii) [14],(iii) [15, 16],(iv) [17],(v) [18].

Since the above mentioned operator, the generalized Srivastava-Attiya operator, reduces to the well-known operators introduced and studied in the literature by suitably specializing the values of and and also in view of the several interesting properties and characteristics of well-known differential subordination results, we aim to associate these two motivating findings and obtain certain other related results. Further, we consider the differential superordination problems associated with the same operator. In addition, we also obtain interesting sandwich-type theorems.

The following definitions and theorems were discussed and will be needed to prove our results.

Definition 1.1 (see [1], Definition 2.2b, page 21). Denote by the set of all functions that are analytic and injective on where and are such that for . Further let the subclass of for which be denoted by , , and .

Definition 1.2 (see [1], Definition 2.3a, page 27). Let be a set in , and let be a positive integer. The class of admissible functions consists of those functions that satisfy the admissibility condition whenever , and , and . Let .

Definition 1.3 (see [19], Definition 3, page 817). Let be a set in , with . The class of admissible functions consists of those functions that satisfy the admissibility condition  whenever , and , and . Let .

Theorem 1.4 (see [1], Theorem 2.3b, page 28). Let with . If the analytic function satisfies then .

Theorem 1.5 (see [19], Theorem 1, page 818). Let with . If and is univalent in , then implies .

2. Subordination Results Associated with Generalized Srivastava-Attiya Operator

Definition 2.1. Let be a set in and . The class of admissible functions consists of those functions that satisfy the admissibility condition: whenever , and .

Theorem 2.2. Let . If satisfies then

Proof. The following relation obtained in [13] is equivalent to and hence Define the analytic function in by and then we get Further, let us define the transformations from to by Let The proof will make use of Theorem 1.4. Using (2.8) and (2.9), from (2.12) we obtain Hence (2.3) becomes Note that and since the admissibility condition for is equivalent to the admissibility condition for as given in Definition 1.2, hence , and by Theorem 1.4, or

In the case , we have the following example.

Example 2.3. Let the class of admissible functions consist of those functions that satisfy the admissibility condition: , and and . If satisfies then

If is a simply connected domain, then for some conformal mapping of onto and the class is written as . The following result follows immediately from Theorem 2.2.

Theorem 2.4. Let . If satisfies then

The next result occurs when the behavior of on is not known.

Corollary 2.5. Let , be univalent in and . Let for some where . If and then

Proof. From Theorem 2.2, we see that and the proof is complete.

Theorem 2.6. Let and be univalent in , with and set and . Let satisfy one of the following conditions: (1), for some , or(2)there exists such that , for all . If satisfies (2.21), then

Proof. The proof is similar to the one in [1] and therefore is omitted.

The next results give the best dominant of the differential subordination (2.21).

Theorem 2.7. Let be univalent in . Let . Suppose that the differential equation has a solution with and satisfy one of the following conditions: (1) and ,(2) is univalent in and , for some , or(3) is univalent in and there exists such that , for all . If satisfies (2.21), then and is the best dominant.

Proof. Following the same arguments in [1], we deduce that is a dominant from Theorem 2.4 and Theorem 2.6. Since satisfies (2.26), it is also a solution of (2.21) and therefore will be dominated by all dominants. Hence is the best dominant.

Definition 2.8. Let be a set in and . The class of admissible functions consists of those functions that satisfy the admissibility condition: whenever , and .

Theorem 2.9. Let . If satisfies then

Proof. Define the analytic function in by Using the relations (2.5) and (2.32), we get Further, let us define the transformations from to by Let The proof will make use of Theorem 1.4. Using (2.32) and (2.33), from (2.35) we obtain Hence (2.30) becomes Note that and since the admissibility condition for is equivalent to the admissibility condition for as given in Definition 1.2, hence , and by Theorem 1.4, or

In the case , we have the following example.

Example 2.10. Let the class of admissible functions consist of those functions that satisfy the admissibility condition: , and and . If satisfies then

If is a simply connected domain, then for some conformal mapping of onto and the class is written as . The following result follows immediately from Theorem 2.9.

Theorem 2.11. Let . If satisfies then

Definition 2.12. Let be a set in and . The class of admissible functions consists of those functions that satisfy the admissibility condition: whenever , and .

Theorem 2.13. Let . If satisfies then

Proof. Define the analytic function in by Differentiating (2.50) yields From the relation (2.5) we get and hence Further computations show that Let us define the transformations from to by Let The proof will make use of Theorem 1.4. Using (2.50), (2.53) and (2.54), from (2.56) we obtain Hence (2.48) becomes Note that and since the admissibility condition for is equivalent to the admissibility condition for as given in Definition 1.2, hence and by Theorem 1.4, or

If is a simply connected domain, then for some conformal mapping of onto and the class is written as . The following result follows immediately from Theorem 2.13.

Theorem 2.14. Let . If satisfies then

3. Superordination Results Associated with Generalized Srivastava-Attiya Operator

Definition 3.1. Let be a set in and with . The class of admissible functions consists of those functions that satisfy the admissibility condition: whenever , and .

Theorem 3.2. Let . If , and is univalent in , then implies that

Proof. From (2.13) and (3.4), we have From (2.10), we see that the admissibility condition for is equivalent to the admissibility condition for as given in Definition 1.3. Hence , and by Theorem 1.5, or

If is a simply connected domain, then for some conformal mapping of onto and the class is written as . The next result follows immediately from Theorem 3.2.

Theorem 3.3. Let be analytic in and . If , and is univalent in , then and then

Theorems 3.2 and 3.3 can only be used to obtain subordinants for differential superordination of the form (3.4) and (3.9). The following theorems prove the existence of the best subordinant of (3.9) for certain .

Theorem 3.4. Let be analytic in and . Suppose that the differential equation has a solution . If , , , and is univalent in , then implies that and is the best subordinant.

Proof. The result can be obtained by similar proof of Theorem 2.7.

The next result, the sandwich-type theorem follows from Theorems 2.4 and 3.3.

Corollary 3.5. Let   and   be analytic in , and let   be univalent function in ,   with and . If , , and is univalent in , then implies that

Definition 3.6. Let be a set in and with . The class of admissible functions consists of those functions that satisfy the admissibility condition: whenever , and .

The following result is associated with Theorem 2.9.

Theorem 3.7. Let . If , , and is univalent in , then implies that

Proof. From (2.36) and (3.21), we have From (2.34), we see that the admissibility condition for is equivalent to the admissibility condition for as in Definition 1.3. Hence , and by Theorem 1.5, or

If is a simply connected domain, then for some conformal mapping of onto and the class is written as . The next result follows immediately from Theorem 3.7.

Theorem 3.8. Let , and let be analytic on , and let . If , , and is univalent in , then implies that

Combining Theorems 2.11 and 3.8, we obtain the following sandwich-type theorem.

Corollary 3.9. Let and be analytic in , let be univalent function in , with , and . If , , and is univalent in , then implies that

Definition 3.10. Let be a set in and , and . The class of admissible functions consists of those functions that satisfy the admissibility condition: whenever , and .

The following result is associated with Theorem 2.13.

Theorem 3.11. Let . If , and is univalent in , then implies that

Proof. From (2.57) and (3.34), we have From (2.55), we see that the admissibility condition for is equivalent to the admissibility condition for as in Definition 1.3. Hence , and by Theorem 1.5, or

If is a simply connected domain, then for some conformal mapping of onto and the class is written as . The next result follows immediately from Theorem 3.11 as in the previous section.

Theorem 3.12. Let , let be analytic in , and let . If and is univalent in , then implies that

Combining Theorems 2.14 and 3.12, we obtain the following sandwich-type theorem.

Corollary 3.13. Let   and be analytic in , let be univalent function in , with , and . If , and is univalent in , then implies that

Other work related to certain operators concerning the subordination and superordination can be found in [20–25].

Acknowledgment

The work presented here was partially supported by UKM-ST-FRGS-0244-2010.

References

S. S. Miller and P. T. Mocanu, Differential Subordinations, vol. 225 of Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, NY, USA, 2000.

R. Aghalary, R. M. Ali, S. B. Joshi, and V. Ravichandran, “Inequalities for analytic functions defined by certain linear operators,” International Journal of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 267–274, 2005.

R. M. Ali, R. Chandrashekar, S. K. Lee, V. Ravichandran, and A. Swaminathan, “Differential sandwich theorem for multivalent analytic fucntions associated with the Dziok-Srivastava operator,” Tamsui Oxford Journal of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 27, no. 3, 2011.

R. M. Ali, R. Chandrashekar, S. K. Lee, V. Ravichandran, and A. Swaminathan, “Differential sandwich theorem for multivalent meromorphic fucntions associated with the Liu-Srivastava operator,” Kyungpook Mathematical Journal, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 217–232, 2011.

R. M. Ali, V. Ravichandran, and N. Seenivasagan, “Differential subordination and superordination of analytic functions defined by the multiplier transformation,” Mathematical Inequalities & Applications, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 123–139, 2009.

R. M. Ali, V. Ravichandran, and N. Seenivasagan, “Subordination and superordination on Schwarzian derivatives,” Journal of Inequalities and Applications, Article ID 712328, 18 pages, 2008.

R. M. Ali, V. Ravichandran, and N. Seenivasagan, “On subordination and superordination of the multiplier transformation for meromorphic functions,” Bulletin of the Malaysian Mathematical Sciences Society. Second Series, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 311–324, 2010.

R. M. Ali, V. Ravichandran, and N. Seenivasagan, “Subordination and superordination of the Liu-Srivastava linear operator on meromorphic functions,” Bulletin of the Malaysian Mathematical Sciences Society. Second Series, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 193–207, 2008.

R. M. Ali, V. Ravichandran, and N. Seenivasagan, “Differential subordination and superordination of analytic functions defined by the Dziok-Srivastava linear operator,” Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 347, no. 9, pp. 1762–1781, 2010.

M. K. Aouf, H. M. Hossen, and A. Y. Lashin, “An application of certain integral operators,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 248, no. 2, pp. 475–481, 2000.

Y. C. Kim and H. M. Srivastava, “Inequalities involving certain families of integral and convolution operators,” Mathematical Inequalities & Applications, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 227–234, 2004.

J. L. Liu, “Subordinations for certain multivalent analytic functions associated with the generalized Srivastava-Attiya operator,” Integral Transforms and Special Functions, vol. 19, no. 11-12, pp. 893–901, 2008.

H. M. Srivastava and A. A. Attiya, “An integral operator associated with the Hurwitz-Lerch zeta function and differential subordination,” Integral Transforms and Special Functions, vol. 18, no. 3-4, pp. 207–216, 2007.

J. W. Alexander, “Functions which map the interior of the unit circle upon simple regions,” Annals of Mathematics. Second Series, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 12–22, 1915.

S. D. Bernardi, “Convex and starlike univalent functions,” Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 135, pp. 429–446, 1969.

R. J. Libera, “Some classes of regular univalent functions,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 16, pp. 755–758, 1965.

I. B. Jung, Y. C. Kim, and H. M. Srivastava, “The Hardy space of analytic functions associated with certain one-parameter families of integral operators,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 176, no. 1, pp. 138–147, 1993.

J. Patel and P. Sahoo, “Some applications of differential subordination to certain one-parameter families of integral operators,” Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 1167–1177, 2004.

S. S. Miller and P. T. Mocanu, “Subordinants of differential superordinations,” Complex Variables. Theory and Application, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 815–826, 2003.

O. Al-Refai and M. Darus, “An extension to the Owa-Srivastava fractional operator with applications to parabolic starlike and uniformly convex functions,” International Journal of Differential Equations, Article ID 597292, 18 pages, 2009.

O. Al-Refai and M. Darus, “Main differential sandwich theorem with some applications,” Lobachevskii Journal of Mathematics, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2009.

R. G. Xiang, Z. G. Wang, and M. Darus, “A family of integral operators preserving subordination and superordination,” Bulletin of the Malaysian Mathematical Sciences Society. Second Series, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 121–131, 2010.

R. W. Ibrahim and M. Darus, “Subordination and superordination for functions based on Dziok-Srivastava linear operator,” Bulletin of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 15–26, 2010.

M. Darus, I. Faisal, and M. A. M. Nasr, “Differential subordination results for some classes of the family zeta associate with linear operator,” Acta Universitatis Sapientiae-Mathematica, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 184–194, 2010.

R. Ibrahim and M. Darus, “Differential subordination results for new classes of the family ,” Journal of Inequalities in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 1, article 8, p. 9, 2009.