On some $n$-starlike integral operators
K. O. Babalola

TL;DR
This paper proves that certain generalized integral operators preserve $n$-starlikeness in the unit disk, extending and improving upon previous results in geometric function theory.
Contribution
It completes a lemma of Babalola and Opoola and demonstrates that these operators maintain $n$-starlikeness, broadening the scope of known preservation results.
Findings
Generalized integral operators preserve $n$-starlikeness in the unit disk.
The results extend and improve previous theorems in the field.
The paper completes a key lemma to establish these properties.
Abstract
By a completion of a lemma of Babalola and Opoola \cite{KT}, we prove that certain generalized integral operators preserve -starlikeness in the open unit disk . Our results generalize, extend and improve many known ones.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAnalytic and geometric function theory · Holomorphic and Operator Theory
On some -starlike integral operators
K. O. BABALOLA
Abstract.
By a completion of a lemma of Babalola and Opoola [3], we prove that certain generalized integral operators preserve -starlikeness in the open unit disk . Our results generalize, extend and improve many known ones.
1. Introduction
Let be the class of functions
[TABLE]
which are analytic in . A function is said to be starlike of order , if and only if, for ,
[TABLE]
Also a function is said to be convex of order , if and only if, for ,
[TABLE]
Let and denote, as usual, the classes of starlike and convex functions of order respectively. Salagean [17] introduced the operator , as:
[TABLE]
with and used it to generalize the concepts of starlikeness and convexity of functions in the unit disk as follows: a function is said to belong to the classes if and only if
[TABLE]
For , we have the classes of starlike and convex functions respectively. We refer to functions of the classes as -starlike functions in the unit disk. For we simply write , and .
Let , be real numbers, and complex constants with . For , the generalized integral operator
[TABLE]
and its many special cases (for example: , ; , ; , and ) have been studied repeatedly in many literatures [1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18] where belongs to some favoured classes of functions. More general integral operators were studied in [13] where the authors used a new method of analysis to obtain results that are both more general and sharper than many earlier ones.
Let , be real numbers, and complex constants such that . Define , and for define
[TABLE]
where Re and
[TABLE]
also with +Re .
The integrals are similar to the Jung-Kim-Srivastava one-parameter families of integral operators [7]. However, only in the case and real, then are special cases of those in [7]. Furthermore if , both integrals yield the integral operator (2).
In the present paper, we will study the integrals for belonging to the classes . Furthermore, if and are real constants we will obtain the best possible inclussion for given that . Natural corollaries to the main results of this work are that: (i) for all real number , , the integrals , preserve starlikeness and convexity in the open unit disk and that (ii) our result will improve and extend many known ones for all the many special cases. The main results are presented in Section 3 while we discuss the many special cases arising from taking in Section 4.
In the next section we give some lemmas necessary for the proof of our results.
2. Preliminary Lemmas
Let denote the class of functions which are regular in and satisfy Re , . We shall need the following lemmas.
Lemma 1** ([2]).**
Let , and a complex-valued function satisfying:
(a)* is continuous in a domain of ,*
(b)* and Re,*
(c)* Re when and for real number .*
If such that and for , then in .
The above lemma is an abridged form of a more detail one in [2].
Lemma 2** ([6]).**
Let and be complex constants and a convex univalent function in satisfying , and . Suppose satisfies the differential subordination:
[TABLE]
If the differential equation:
[TABLE]
has univalent solution in , then and is the best dominant in .
The formal solution of (4) is given as
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
(see [12, 19]). The authors in [12] gave sufficient conditions for the univalence of the solution, , of (4) as well as some generalised univalent solutions for some given .
The second part of the next lemma is the completion of Lemma 2.2 in [3].
Lemma 3** ([3]).**
Let and be real.
(i)* If for , is independent of , then*
[TABLE]
(ii)* The equality also holds if is independent of , .*
Proof.
The proof of the first part of the above lemma was presented in [3]. As for (ii), let assume the same value for all . For , the assertion is easy to verify. Let . Then
[TABLE]
Since we have
[TABLE]
Now suppose (5) holds for some integer . Then
[TABLE]
Since has the same value for each , we can write (6) as
[TABLE]
which implies
[TABLE]
Thus the lemma follows by induction. ∎
Remark 1*.*
Let . Then there exists such that
[TABLE]
independent of . Hence for , the assertion of Lemma 2 holds. Thus we have
[TABLE]
In particular, if , then for we have Re if and only if Re .
3. Main Results
Theorem 1**.**
Let . Suppose for , the real number is defined such that . If , then , .
Proof.
Let have the form (1). If , then by evaluation using the Beta and Gamma functions. Thus the result holds trivially in this case. Suppose , then we can write
[TABLE]
where , , depends on the coefficients of and the index . Thus evaluating the integrals in series form, also using the Beta and Gamma functions and noting that
[TABLE]
we obtain
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
From the above series expansions we can see that , are well defined. Also from the series expansions we find the recurssive relation
[TABLE]
where and for and and if . Furthermore let . Now applying the operator on (7) we have
[TABLE]
Let . Then
[TABLE]
Define for . Obviously satisfies the conditions (a) and (b) of Lemma 1. Now let . Then so that Re . If , then Re if and only if . This is true if Re since is nonegative. Thus by Lemma 1, if Re , then Re implies Re . That is
[TABLE]
Since we have Re Re Re and so on for all . By Lemma 2, we have: Re Re Re and so on for all . By setting we have Theorem 1. ∎
The next theorem will leads us to the best possible inclusion relations.
Theorem 2**.**
Let . Suppose for , the real number is defined such that . If
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and for and for .
Proof.
As in the preceeding theorem, the case holds trivially. Now for , let and suppose
[TABLE]
Then from (8), we have
[TABLE]
Now by considering the differential equation
[TABLE]
whose univalent solution is given by (9) (see [12]), then by Lemma 2 we have the subordination
[TABLE]
where is the best dominant, which proves the theorem. ∎
4. The special case
In this section we discuss the integral (2), which coincides with the case of both integrals . In particular we take . In this case, our first corollary, a simple one from Theorem 1, is the following:
Corollary 1**.**
The classes is closed under .
This result is more genral than the result of Miller et-al [13] (Theorem 2, pg. 162) in which case . A major breakthrough with our method is the fact that the integral (2) passes through, preserving all the goemetry (starlikeness and convexity for example) of without having to drop any member of the sets on which the parameters and were defined, which was not the case in many earlier works. This will become more evident in the following more specific cases (cf. [13]).
(i) If , we have
Corollary 2**.**
If , then
[TABLE]
also belongs to .
(ii) If , and , we have
Corollary 3**.**
If , then
[TABLE]
also belongs to .
(iii) If , we have
Corollary 4**.**
If , then
[TABLE]
also belongs to .
From the above corollary, we can obtain various sequences of starlike and convex functions (and more generally, of functions): For example if , and ; and if , and we obtain, respectively, the following sequences of functions:
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
For starlike functions, the above sequences are due to Miller et-al [13].
Next we consider the best possible inclusion for the integral for two cases . For these two cases, we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
But Re for . Thus we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Letting , we have Re (say), . Since , we have Re . By Lemma 3, this implies Re so that the following best possible inclusions follow.
Corollary 5**.**
Let . If is a real number and , then
[TABLE]
belongs to .
Corollary 6**.**
Let . If is a real number and , then
[TABLE]
belongs to .
On the final note, if we take in Corollaries 5 and 6 we then have the following special cases
Corollary 7**.**
Let . If is a real number and , then
[TABLE]
belongs to .
Corollary 8**.**
Let . If is a real number and , then
[TABLE]
belongs to .
Miller et-al [13] proved that if , then and also if , then , which our last corollary has now raised to their best-possible status.
Acknowledgements. This work was carried out at the Centre for Advanced Studies in Mathematics, CASM, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan during the author’s postdoctoral fellowship at the Centre. The author is indebted to all staff of CASM for their hospitality.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Abdulhalim, S. , On a class of analytic functions involving the Salagean differential operator , Tamkang J. Math., 23 (1) (1992), 51–58.
- 2[2] Babalola, K. O. and Opoola, T. O. , Iterated integral transforms of Caratheodory functions and their applications to analytic and univalent functions , Tamkang J. Math., 37 (4) (Winter 2006), 355–366.
- 3[3] Babalola, K. O. and Opoola, T. O. , Radius problem for a certain family of analytic and univalent functions , Advances in Inequalities for Series, Nova Science Publishers (http://www.novapublishers.com) (Edited by S. S. Dragomir and A. Sofo) (2008), 19–24.
- 4[4] Bernardi, S. D. , Convex and starlike functions , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 135 (1969), 429–446.
- 5[5] Causey, W. M. , The univalence of an integral , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 27 (3) (1971), 500–502.
- 6[6] Eenigenburg, P., Miller, S. S., Mocanu, P. T. and Reade, M. O. , On a Briot-Bouquet differential surbordination , Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl., 29 (1984), 567–573.
- 7[7] Jung, I. B., Kim, Y. C. , and Srivastava, H. M. , The Hardy space of analytic functions associated with certain one-parameter families of integral operators , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 176 (1993), 138–147.
- 8[8] Lewandowski, Z., Miller, S. , and Zlotkiewicz, E. , Genereating functions for some classes of univalent functions , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 56 (1) (1976), 111–117.
