Criteria for univalence, Integral means and Dirichlet integral for Meromorphic functions
Bappaditya Bhowmik, Firdoshi Parveen

TL;DR
This paper establishes criteria for univalence of certain meromorphic functions with a pole, and derives exact and sharp bounds for Dirichlet integrals and integral means within these classes.
Contribution
It provides the first sufficient condition for univalence in a class of meromorphic functions with a pole and computes exact extremal values for associated Dirichlet integrals.
Findings
Derived a sufficient univalence criterion for functions in the class (p).
Computed the exact maximum of the Dirichlet integral elta(r,z/f) for univalent functions.
Established sharp estimates for Dirichlet integrals and integral means in subclasses of (p).
Abstract
Let be the class consisting of functions that are holomorphic in , possessing a simple pole at the point with nonzero residue and normalized by the condition . In this article, we first prove a sufficient condition for univalency for functions in . Thereafter, we consider the class denoted by that consists of functions that are univalent in . We obtain the exact value for , where the Dirichlet integral is given by We also obtain a sharp estimate for whenever belongs to certain subclasses of . Furthermore, we obtain sharp estimates of the integral means for the aforementioned…
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.
FILE: 1705.03663.tex, printed: 2024-3-18, 20.56
Criteria for univalence, Integral means and Dirichlet integral for Meromorphic functions
Bappaditya Bhowmik
Bappaditya Bhowmik, Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur - 721302, India.
and
Firdoshi Parveen
Firdoshi Parveen, Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur - 721302, India.
Abstract.
Let be the class consisting of functions that are holomorphic in , possessing a simple pole at the point with nonzero residue and normalized by the condition . In this article, we first prove a sufficient condition for univalency for functions in . Thereafter, we consider the class denoted by that consists of functions that are univalent in . We obtain the exact value for , where the Dirichlet integral is given by
[TABLE]
We also obtain a sharp estimate for whenever belongs to certain subclasses of . Furthermore, we obtain sharp estimates of the integral means for the aforementioned classes of functions.
Key words and phrases:
Meromorphic function, Concave function, Starlike function, Dirichlet finite integral, Integral mean
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
30C45, 30C70
1. Introduction
We use the following notations throughout the discussion of this article. Let be the open unit disc where is the whole complex plane. Let denote the set . We now recall the following basic classes of functions which are the main objects of study of many function theorists for several years now. Let be the family of analytic functions in and be the subfamily of consisting of functions that satisfy the normalization . We consider the class . Clearly . Let and be the subclasses of which are convex ( is a convex set) and starlike ( is a starlike set with respect to the origin) respectively. We also consider the class of meromorphic univalent functions in having a simple pole at infinity with residue . We now discuss about the motivation and background of the problems that we consider in this article. Let . We denote the area of the image of the disk under by , where and
[TABLE]
The above integral is popularly known as Dirichlet integral. Each function has the Taylor expansion in and consequently, we have . It is now a simple exercise to compute
[TABLE]
Moreover, if , we have , and
[TABLE]
Now an application of Gronwall’s area theorem applied to the above function will yield . For , we have the following expansion for :
[TABLE]
Now considering the above form of , an application of the Gronwall’s area inequality () along with the fact that , S. Yamashita (compare [14, Theorem 1]) obtained:
Theorem A. * For , we have*
[TABLE]
*For each , the maximum is attained only by the rotation of the Koebe function , . *
In the same article (compare [14, p. 438]), Yamashita conjectured that
[TABLE]
where the maximum is attained only by the rotations of the function , . This conjecture has recently been settled by M. Obradovic et.al. in [10]. In a recent article (see [13]), Ponnusamy and Abu Muhanna have obtained sharp estimates for the generalized Yamashita functional i.e. for the class of concave univalent functions with opening angle , at infinity, where is a Schwarz function.
In this article, we would like to consider meromorphic univalent functions with pole at . Let be the class consisting of functions that are holomorphic in , possessing a simple pole at the point with nonzero residue and normalized by the condition . Let . We organize the paper as follows. In the next Section, i.e. in Section 2, before we present our main results, we first establish a sufficient condition for univalence for functions in and we feel that it will be useful to present the absolute estimates for the Dirichlet integrals and for and . We also verify that these results coincide with those of Yamashita in [14] for the analytic case as we take the limit .
Another interesting subclass of has recently been introduced by the authors of the present article in [4]. This class is denoted by and consists of all functions such that for some where
[TABLE]
It has been shown in [4] that and the interested reader may look at this article for many other results on this newly defined class of functions. Now if , then and . Therefore each function has the following Taylor expansion:
[TABLE]
It is now natural to consider the following problems of maximizing the Yamashita functionals:
[TABLE]
We answer the above problems in Section 3. Thereafter, we consider another problem that deals with finding the estimates of integral means for the class and its subclass . Now, consider and for such functions define the integral means where
[TABLE]
We remark here that each has angular limits on the unit circle. The above integral originated from a special case of integral means considered by Gromova and Vasilev in 2002 (see f.i. [7]). The estimate for this integral has special applications in certain problems in fluid mechanics (compare [15, 16]). Recently Ponnusamy and Wirths obtained sharp estimates of integral means for some subclasses of (compare [12]) which settled one of the open problems of Gromova and Vasil’ev described in [7]. We find sharp estimates for whenever and its subclass . These are also the contents of Section 3.
2. Criteria for univalency and some preliminary results
Let and be analytic in . Now, a function is said to be subordinate to , written as , if there exists a function analytic in with and , and such that . If is univalent, then if and only if and . In the following theorem we prove a sufficient condition for univalence for .
Theorem 1**.**
Let with for . If
[TABLE]
then is univalent in .
Proof. Let and since is nonvanishing in , then is analytic in and has an expansion of the form (1.2). From the given hypothesis,
[TABLE]
Therefore from the above inequality and applying the definition of subordination, we have
[TABLE]
Now for , let
[TABLE]
Therefore, is analytic in . Also it is a simple exercise to see that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Now, by (2.1) we get
[TABLE]
By a consequence of a well known result of T. Suffridge (compare [9, p. 76, Theorem 3.1d.]), we have
[TABLE]
From the above inequality, we conclude that is univalent in by applying [4, Theorem 1]. ∎
We now move on to present the absolute estimates for the Dirichlet integrals and whenever and . We consider the sub-disc . We see that each has the Taylor expansion of the form
[TABLE]
In 1962, Jenkins ([8]) proved that if and has the form (2.2), then
[TABLE]
Equality holds in the above inequality for the function . Now for we see that is analytic in . Therefore we consider the area problem for the functions whenever and . By using the Taylor expansion (2.2) for and the Taylor coefficient estimate (2.3) for , we have for ,
[TABLE]
Equality holds in the above inequality for the function . Thus we infer that,
[TABLE]
and the maximum is attained by the function . Here we observe that
[TABLE]
which is same as the estimate obtained by Yamashita in (see [14, p.435]) for . We also compute for ,
[TABLE]
As we pass through the limit , the right hand side of the above expression becomes . We see that this estimate is same as the estimate obtained by Yamashita for the class (Compare [14, (4), p.436]).
3. Main Results
We are now ready to state our first result after all the above discussion.
Theorem 2**.**
Let and have a Taylor expansion of the form in . Then for each , we have
[TABLE]
and the maximum is attained by the function .
Proof. Let . We define where . It is easy to see that , and has the following Taylor expansion
[TABLE]
Let , then and takes the form
[TABLE]
Therefore, from the well known Gronwall’s area theorem applied to the above function , we have
[TABLE]
We also observe from the expansion (1.2) and (2.2) that . Now using the inequality (2.3) for , we have . Therefore by (1.1) and the expansion (1.2) we get
[TABLE]
Equality holds in the above inequality for the function . This can be easily seen if we observe that for this function , we have and for . Therefore, we conclude that
[TABLE]
∎
Remark. As , the Dirichlet estimate in the above theorem is same as that of [14, Theorem 1].
In the following theorem we prove a sharp estimate for the integral mean where .
Theorem 3**.**
Let and have the form . Then we have
[TABLE]
and the inequality is sharp.
Proof. Let and have an expansion of the form (1.2). Then
[TABLE]
Equality holds in the above inequality for the function . ∎
Now in a similar fashion, we can deduce a sharp estimate for the integral mean where . This is the content of the following theorem.
Theorem 4**.**
Let and have the form . Then we have
[TABLE]
and the result is sharp.
Proof. Let and have the expansion . We then have from [6, Theorem 11, p.193. Vol.2]
[TABLE]
Here we note that and from Bieberbach’s theorem we know that , with equality if and only if is a rotation of the Koebe function i.e. where is real. Therefore from , we get
[TABLE]
Equality holds in the above inequality for the function . ∎
Remark. Here we remark that as , the integral mean in Theorem 3 is same as the integral mean that we obtain in Theorem 4 for the class .
We now move on to the class and consider similar problems. In doing so, we first prove the following Lemma which will be used to prove our main results for this function class. We follow here the modified proof of [11, Lemma 1] and provide the details for the sake of completeness.
Lemma 1**.**
Let and have expansion of the form for some and let . Then we have
[TABLE]
Proof. Suppose that . Then we have (see [4, Corollary 1])
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Now by the expansion (1.2) and the above inequality we get
[TABLE]
Therefore, for and ,
[TABLE]
From the above inequality we get that for each , the inequality
[TABLE]
is true. Now, we consider these inequalities for , and multiply the -th inequality by the factor and for , the -th inequality by the factor
[TABLE]
Now after adding all these modified inequalities, we get in the left hand side of the inequality
[TABLE]
and in the right hand side of the inequality, we get
[TABLE]
As a result, we obtain the following inequality
[TABLE]
Finally, letting , we have
[TABLE]
which proves the lemma. ∎
After plugging in in the above Lemma, we get
[TABLE]
and , we get
[TABLE]
We are now in a position to state the following Theorem:
Theorem 5**.**
Let and have the form . Then we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The results are sharp for the function
[TABLE]
Proof. Let . Then we have, (Compare [4, Theorem 5]). Now by (1.1) and (3.3) we have
[TABLE]
To prove the sharpness assertion, we observe that and for the same function and for . Therefore it can be easily seen that equality occurs in the above inequality for the function . Next we wish to prove the second part of the theorem. In order to do so, we compute using (1.3) and (3.2) that
[TABLE]
We also see here that the above inequality is sharp for the function . ∎
Likewise for the analytic case, we also consider the classes of meromorphically convex ( abbreviated as concave) and meromorphically starlike univalent functions in which we denote by and respectively. We clarify here that for , the set is a compact convex set and for , the compact set is starlike with respect to a point . The detailed discussion about these classes of functions can be found from [1, 2, 3, 6]. Now we can deduce the following
Remark. Let . Therefore,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
As we know that , both the aforementioned results are sharp. Same conclusion can be drawn for as also belongs to the class where (see [5]).
Acknowledgement: The authors thank Karl-Joachim Wirths for his suggestions and careful reading of the manuscript.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] F.G. Avkhadiev, Ch. Pommerenke and K.-J. Wirths , On the coefficient of concave univalent functions, Math. Nachr. , 271 (2004), 3-9.
- 2[2] F.G. Avkhadiev, Ch. Pommerenke and K.-J. Wirths , Sharp inequalities for the coefficient of concave schlicht functions, Comment. Math. Helv. , 81 (2006), 801-807.
- 3[3] F.G. Avkhadiev and K.-J. Wirths , A proof of the Livingston conjecture, Forum math. , 19 (2007), 149-158.
- 4[4] B. Bhowmik and F. Parveen , On a subclass of meromorphic univalent functions, Complex Var. Elliptic Equ. , 62 (2017), 494-510.
- 5[5] B. Bhowmik and S. Ponnusamy , Coefficient inequalities for concave and meromorphically starlike univalent functions, Ann. Polon Math. , 93.2 (2008), 177-186.
- 6[6] A. W. Goodman , Univalent Functions , Vol-1 and Vol-2, Mariner, Tampa, FL, (1983).
- 7[7] L. Gromova and A. Vasil’ev , On integral means of star-like functions, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Math. Sci.) , 112(4) (2002), 563–570.
- 8[8] J. A. Jenkins , On a conjecture of Goodman concerning meromorphic univalent functions, Michigan Math. J. , 9 (1962), 25-27.
