Coefficients of univalent harmonic mappings
Saminathan Ponnusamy, Anbareeswaran Sairam Kaliraj, and Victor V., Starkov

TL;DR
This paper establishes new bounds on the coefficients of univalent harmonic mappings in the class , providing insights into their structure and the radius of univalence of their sections.
Contribution
It introduces explicit coefficient bounds for functions in , advancing understanding of their behavior and univalence properties.
Findings
Coefficient bounds: |a_n| < 5.24e-6 n^{17} and |b_n| < 2.32e-7 n^{17} for n
Derived radius of univalence for sections of these harmonic mappings
Enhanced understanding of the coefficient growth in univalent harmonic functions
Abstract
Let denote the class of all functions that are sense-preserving, harmonic and univalent in the open unit disk . The coefficient conjecture for is still \emph{open} even for . The aim of this paper is to show that if then and for all . Making use of these coefficient estimates, we also obtain radius of univalence of sections of univalent harmonic mappings.
| Value of | Lower bound for | Value of | Lower bound for |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 0.0635798 | 10 | 0.269796 |
| 3 | 0.0952634 | 50 | 0.625779 |
| 4 | 0.12535 | 100 | 0.753905 |
| 5 | 0.153603 | 354 | 0.900055 |
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 · Differential Equations and Boundary Problems · Holomorphic and Operator Theory
Coefficients of univalent
harmonic mappings
Saminathan Ponnusamy
S. Ponnusamy, and A. Sairam Kaliraj, Indian Statistical Institute (ISI), Chennai Centre, SETS, MGR Knowledge City, CIT Campus, Taramani, Chennai 600 113, India.
[email protected], [email protected]; [email protected]
,
Anbareeswaran Sairam Kaliraj
and
Victor V. Starkov
V.V. Starkov, Petrozavodsk State University, 33, Lenin Str., 185910, Petrozavodsk, Republic of Karelia, Russia.
Abstract.
Let denote the class of all functions that are sense-preserving, harmonic and univalent in the open unit disk . The coefficient conjecture for is still open even for . The aim of this paper is to show that if then and for all . Making use of these coefficient estimates, we also obtain radius of univalence of sections of univalent harmonic mappings.
Key words and phrases:
Harmonic functions, harmonic univalent functions, linear invariant family, affine invariant family, coefficient bounds, and partial sums.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary: 31A05; Secondary: 30C45, 30C50, 30C55
File: 1703.02371.tex, printed: 2024-3-15, 15.50
1. Preliminaries and main results
Let denote the open unit disk centered at the origin of the complex plane. The theory of univalent and sense-preserving complex-valued harmonic functions in has attracted a lot of attention since the appearance of the paper by Clunie and Sheil-Small [4] which brought the theory a large step forward. They pointed out that many of the classical results for conformal mappings have clear analogues for harmonic mappings although only few of them have been addressed and used by a number of authors, while others were not because of the higher difficulty level. Besides its interest from the point of view of analysis, it has been recently shown to be of relevance in some problems related to fluid flows. This applied mathematics connection brings new relevance to the issue of coefficient estimates for a family of sense-preserving harmonic mappings since these maps provide an approach towards obtaining explicit solutions to the incompressible two-dimensional Euler equations. For example, A. Aleman and A. Constantin [2] pointed out the importance of harmonic mappings in the Eulerian description of fluid flows and developed a method which is largely based on a detailed study of the governing equations using analytic function theory, and an important role played by the univalence of the labelling map. Also, the authors in [2] presented several examples to illustrate how the classical solutions can be obtained from the more general solution formulas via univalent harmonic mappings. More recently, O. Constantin and M.J. Martín [5] continued this investigation and proposed a different approach that provides a complete solution to the original problem of classifying all two-dimensional ideal fluid flows with harmonic Lagrangian labelling mappings. This approach is based on the ideas from the theory of planar harmonic mappings and thus, provide an illustration of the deep link between the sense-preserving harmonic mappings and fluid flow problems. This newly explored connection renewed our interest in this topic.
In this article, we consider the class of all univalent, sense-preserving harmonic functions of normalized by . Every such function has a unique canonical representation of the form , with and analytic in and . Here and are often referred to as analytic and co-analytic parts of . Let . Clearly, is the class of normalized univalent analytic functions in . A typical element has the form
[TABLE]
Throughout the discussion we shall use this representation. Clunie and Sheil-Small [4] proved that both and are normal whereas only is compact with respect to the topology of uniform convergence on compact subsets of . A function is said to belong to the class , and if is starlike with respect to the origin, convex and close-to-convex, respectively. The corresponding notations for the analytic case are , and , respectively. For basic information about and related geometric subfamilies, one can refer to [4, 6, 7] and the recent expository article of Ponnusamy and Rasila [16].
This article is organized as follows. In Section 1.1, we present a preliminary information on the coefficient conjecture of Clunie and Sheil-Small [4] and present a coefficient estimate for a family of sense-preserving harmonic mappings, which contains the class (Theorem 1). In Section 1.2, we recall some known results on the sections of functions in certain geometric subclasses of univalent harmonic mappings and present our result on the radius of univalence of partial sums of functions in (Theorem 2). Few basic lemmas that are needed for the proofs of these two results are recalled in Section 2. The proofs of our main results are presented in Section 3. Some consequences of them are discussed in Section 4 (Theorems 3 and 4).
1.1. Coefficient conjecture of Clunie and Sheil-Small
Using the method of shearing, Clunie and Sheil-Small [4] obtained an important member of so-called slit mapping , where
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
The function is called the harmonic Koebe function and it maps the unit disk one-to-one onto the slit domain which is indeed convex along horizontal direction, and it plays an extremal role for several extremal problems in and , such as coefficient bounds and covering theorems (see [4, 7, 21]). Due to the extremal role of the harmonic Koebe function in these families, it was natural for Clunie and Sheil-Small [4] to conjecture that if is given by (1), then for all ,
[TABLE]
and equality occurs for . In [4], they also showed that which is sharp, and the non-sharp estimate . Later in 1990, Sheil-Small [21] improved it to , and then Duren [7, p. 96] improved it further to which is again far from the conjectured bound . The above conjecture remains open and little is known for for the class . In [24], it has been proved that
[TABLE]
where . However, finding the explicit value of or even finding a good upper bound itself seems to be a difficult task. Very recently, Abu Muhanna et. al [1] obtained the following result, which is the best known bound so far and this could be used in (2).
Lemma A. [1]* If , then and . *
In [18], it was remarked that the coefficient conjecture of Clunie and Sheil-Small is true if holds, where
[TABLE]
and contains the class of harmonic mappings convex in one direction. However, this conjecture remains open.
Let be a family of sense-preserving harmonic mappings with the power series representation as in (1). Then, the family is called a linear invariant family, if for each , the function defined by
[TABLE]
also belongs to the class for all and . A family is called an affine invariant family, if, in addition, for each , the function defined by
[TABLE]
also belongs to the class for all . The order of an affine and linear invariant family is defined as . Three well-known affine and linear invariant families are the class , its subclasses of convex and of close-to-convex harmonic mappings. It is well known that and . In 2004, Starkov [23] (for details see [22]) introduced the order of a linear invariant family (which is not necessarily affine invariant family) which is defined as follows:
[TABLE]
Corresponding to a linear invariant family , we define the family as
[TABLE]
The following lemma is useful in determining the .
Lemma B. [8]* Let be a linear invariant family of harmonic mappings. Then*
[TABLE]
The family is defined as the union of all affine and linear invariant families of harmonic functions such that Set . It is now appropriate to state our first main result.
Theorem 1**.**
Let with series representation as in (1). Then we have
[TABLE]
Remark 1**.**
We remark that . The new bounds in (4) clearly improves the earlier bounds in (2). From the proof of Theorem 1, we observe that the number in (4) could be replaced by for and by for . The proof of Theorem 1 relies on the bound for . If we use the conjectured bound , then Theorem 1 takes an improved version which is stated in Section 4. **
1.2. Injectivity of sections of univalent harmonic functions
For an analytic function in the unit disk , the -th section/partial sum of is defined by
[TABLE]
In [25], Szegö proved that every section of is univalent in for all . The constant is sharp. If (resp. , and ), then the -th section is known to be univalent and convex (resp. starlike and close-to-convex) in the disk for all (cf. [6, Exercise 7, p. 272]). However, the exact radius of univalence of , , remains an open problem. By making use of Goluzin’s inequality, Jenkins [11] proved that is univalent in for , where is at least for . It is worth pointing out that the result of Jenkins could be improved if we use de Branges [3] coefficient estimates for . More precisely, we can easily obtain that is univalent in for , where is at least for , which seems to be the best known radius so far. We avoid the technical details of this fact for obvious reasons. For related investigations on this topic, see the recent articles [15, 17, 19] and the references therein.
For , and , the sections/partial sums of are defined as
[TABLE]
However, the special case seems to be interesting in its own merit. In 2013, Li and Ponnusamy [12, 13, 14] determined the radius of univalence of sections of functions from certain classes of univalent harmonic mappings. For belonging to , , or the class of harmonic mappings convex in one direction, in [19], the present authors proved that is univalent in the disk , where is the zero of a rational function. In the special case , is univalent in the disk , where
[TABLE]
Moreover, it was also pointed out that , where .
In [19], it was also proved that for , each partial sum is univalent in the disk , where
[TABLE]
In view of the lack of information on the coefficients of the analytic and co-analytic parts of functions in , in contrast to the analytic case, determining the radius of univalence of sections of functions in the class seems to be a difficult task. Nevertheless, in the present article we attempt to consider this problem for the class . This is achieved as an application of Theorem 1.
Theorem 2**.**
Suppose that with the series representation as in (1). For , define
[TABLE]
Then, for , each section is univalent in the disk , where
[TABLE]
On the other hand, for fixed , is univalent in for all , where
[TABLE]
For example, a routine computation gives the following and so we omit the details.
Corollary 1**.**
For , we have
- (1)
* is univalent in the disk whenever .* 2. (2)
* is univalent in the disk whenever .* 3. (3)
* is univalent in the disk whenever .*
From the proof of Theorem 2, it is also clear that the result could be improved, if we knew the exact upper bounds on and for . Therefore it is natural to state an improved form of this result with the assumption on the order of the family considered. This is done in Section 4.
2. Basic lemmas
The following results together with Lemma 1.1 are useful in the proofs of our main results.
Lemma C. [24]* A sense-preserving harmonic function of the form (1) is univalent in if and only if for each and each ,*
[TABLE]
*where , and . *
Lemma D. [10]* If , , , then*
[TABLE]
*where . *
Lemma E. [9]* Suppose that with . For with , and satisfy the bounds*
[TABLE]
3. Proofs of Main Theorems
3.1. Proof of Theorem 1
Let . From the power series representation of given by (1) and Lemma , we obtain that
[TABLE]
where . In particular,
[TABLE]
In order to obtain the minimum value of the right hand side of the inequality, we need to find the point of minimum of the function . We see that
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
is the point of minimum and thus,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
First, we shall prove that for all . Now, we let
[TABLE]
Differentiating with respect to we get that
[TABLE]
where and with
[TABLE]
As and for , it is clear that and will have the same sign whenever . Computation shows that
[TABLE]
These observations show that for and hence, is a increasing function of , whenever . As , we deduce that for all , which is equivalent to
[TABLE]
In particular, this observation gives
[TABLE]
Now, we set , and
[TABLE]
A simple calculation shows that
[TABLE]
for all . Since , the last inequality then gives that
[TABLE]
Hence, by (10) and (11), one obtains that
[TABLE]
By a direct but lengthy computation or by Mathematica, we can easily see that
[TABLE]
Therefore, using these two estimates, the inequality (9) reduces to
[TABLE]
Similarly, from the power series representation of given by (1), one sees that
[TABLE]
where and is defined as in (8). In particular,
[TABLE]
Using similar arguments as above, we get that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Setting
[TABLE]
we obtain that
[TABLE]
Using the fact that for , we get that
[TABLE]
for all . Therefore,
[TABLE]
By a direct computation with the help of Mathematica, one can see that
[TABLE]
Therefore, for all .
3.2. Proof of Theorem 2
Suppose that belongs to . Set for . Then . In view of Lemma , it is clear that is univalent in if and only if is sense-preserving in and the associated harmonic polynomial has the property that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Now, we set and in (6). Note that the function in the right side of the inequality (7) in Lemma decreases with increasing value of , where . As and , we apply Lemma to the function and get that
[TABLE]
In order to find a lower bound for , we need to find an upper bound for
[TABLE]
Using Theorem 1 and the fact that for all and , we get that
[TABLE]
Set , where
[TABLE]
The inequality holds for all , whenever . In [10, Lemma 1] it was shown that is strictly decreasing on . This fact implies that is decreasing in and thus for all , where is the unique positive root of the equation which is less than . It is easy to see that is sense-preserving in provided (see e.g [19]) and hence, is univalent in .
Now, let us consider the special case . In this case reduces to
[TABLE]
From our discussion, it is clear that is univalent in , where is the unique positive root of the equation which is less than . In order to compute the lower bound for , we consider the function . It follows that is a decreasing function of in the interval . Whenever , we have
[TABLE]
Applying integration by parts repeatedly, we obtain that
[TABLE]
Choose large enough so that , where , which implies that
[TABLE]
Hence, we get that
[TABLE]
Using the above inequality and (3.2), we obtain that
[TABLE]
provided for some . Therefore, whenever
[TABLE]
This gives that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
The lower bound for is obtainable for all and this follows from the fact that as and . Similarly, as . Therefore, accepts all values from if , where is some positive constant.
From the above discussion, it is clear that is univalent in , whenever and for some . The inequality holds for any , such that , if we choose . The inequality holds true if we choose with , where
[TABLE]
In this expression, the maximum is reached, because for fixed , as and as . For every , the function continuously depends on . Thus,
[TABLE]
We remark here that is strictly increasing on . In order to prove that, it is enough to show that
[TABLE]
is strictly increasing on . A computation shows that
[TABLE]
Next, for a given , we consider the problem of finding the least positive integer such that is univalent in the disk for all . In order to guarantee the univalency of for all , the number must be greater than or equal to and for all . Using the above arguments, we obtain that
[TABLE]
This completes the proof.
4. Concluding remarks
It is known that the inequality holds for functions in and from Lemma , it follows that . Theorems 3 and 4 below are the analog of Theorem 1 and 2 for the families and , respectively. If for all harmonic mappings as conjectured by Clunie and Sheil-Small, then .
Theorem 3**.**
Suppose that with series representation as in (1). Then for all ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
In particular, the following bounds hold:
[TABLE]
As the proof of Theorem 3 is similar to that of the proof of Theorem 1, we omit the details here. As an application of Theorem 3, we prove the following result:
Theorem 4**.**
Suppose that . Then the partial sums is univalent in the disk . Here is the unique positive root of the equation , where
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
In particular, each section is univalent in the disk , where
[TABLE]
Moreover, , where .
Proof. The first part of the proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 2. Following the proof of Theorem 2, under the hypothesis of Theorem 4, we get that is univalent in the disk , where is the unique positive root of the equation . Here is given by (14). For , we have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The inequality holds if and only if , where
[TABLE]
Now, we show that for every fixed integer , is a increasing function of in the interval . In order to show that is a increasing function of , it is enough to show that is decreasing function of in the interval . Since
[TABLE]
for all , is decreasing and hence is increasing function and for . As , it is clear that the radius of univalence approaches . This suggests that , where is positive and increasing sequence of real numbers such that .
Let us compute the approximate value of for large values of . By setting in , and making use of the fact that for , we get that , where
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
We may set and we observe that only when . Therefore, we consider the case . In order to show that for all , it suffices to prove that for all .
Set
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
This completes the proof of the theorem. ∎
A rough estimate on gives the following which may be compared with Corollary 1.
Corollary 2**.**
*Suppose that . Then is univalent in the disk , where (i) whenever ; (ii) whenever ; and (iii) whenever . *
Better lower bounds for the radius of univalence of (under the assumptions of Theorem 4) for certain values of are listed in Table 1. They are obtained by solving the equation .
Acknowledgements
The research of the first author was supported by the project RUS/RFBR/P-163 under Department of Science & Technology (India) and this author is currently on leave from Indian Institute of Technology Madras. The work of the second author was supported by NBHM (DAE), India. The third author is supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project 17-01-00085) and the Strategic Development Program of Petrozavodsk State University.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Y. Abu-Muhanna, R. M. Ali and S. Ponnusamy, The spherical metric and univalent harmonic mappings , Preprint.
- 2[2] A. Aleman, and A. Constantin, Harmonic maps and ideal fluid flows , Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 204 (2012), 479–513.
- 3[3] L. de Branges, A proof of the Bieberbach conjecture , Acta Math. 154 (1-2) (1985), 137–152.
- 4[4] J. G. Clunie and T. Sheil-Small, Harmonic univalent functions , Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A.I. 9 (1984), 3–25.
- 5[5] O. Constantin and M. J. Martín, A harmonic maps approach to fluid flows , Math. Ann. (2016), DOI: 10.1007/s 00208-016-1435-9
- 6[6] P. Duren, Univalent functions (Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften 259 , New York, Berlin, Heidelberg, Tokyo), Springer-Verlag, 1983.
- 7[7] P. Duren, Harmonic mappings in the plane, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, 156 , Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2004.
- 8[8] E. Ganenkova and V. V. Starkov, Regularity theorems for harmonic functions , J. Appl. Anal. 21 (1)(2015), 1–12.
