Abstract
In this paper, we derive a number of interesting results concerning subordination and superordination relations for certain analytic functions associated with an extension of the Mittag–Leffler function.
Keywords:
analytic function; Mittag–Leffler function; differential subordination; differential superordination MSC:
30C45; 33E12
1. Definitions and Preliminaries
Let be the class of analytic functions in the open unit disc . Also, let denote the subclass of the functions of the form
Furthermore, let
Moreover, assume that which is the subclass of the functions of the form
For , we say that the function f is subordinate to g, written symbolically as follows:
if there exists a Schwarz function w, which (by definition) is analytic in with and , such that for all . In particular, if the function g is univalent in , then we have the following equivalence relation (cf., e.g., [1,2]; see also [3]):
Let and h be two analytic functions in , suppose
If and are univalent functions in and if satisfies the second-order superordination
then is called to be a solution of the differential superordination (3). (If f is subordinate to F, then F is superordination to f). An analytic function is called a subordinant of (3), if for all the functions satisfying (3). A univalent subordinant that satisfies for all of the subordinants of (3), is called the best subordinant (cf., e.g., [2], see also [3]).
Miller and Mocanu [4] obtained sufficient conditions on the functions h, and for which the following statement holds:
The results of Miller and Mocanu [4] and Bulboaca [5] considered certain families of first-order differential superordination whenever superordination preserves integral operators [6]. Moreover, Ali et al. [7], used Bulboaca’s results [5] and obtained the sufficient conditions for normalized analytic functions f to satisfy
where and are given univalent functions in with Also, Shanmugam et al. [8] obtained sufficient conditions for normalized analytic functions f to satisfy
and
where and are given univalent functions in with and , while Obradovic and Owa [9] obtained some results of subordinations associated with .
Let Attiya [10] introduced the operator , where is defined by
with and . Also, when ; Here, is the generalized Mittag–Leffler function defined by [11], see also [10] and the symbol denotes the Hadamard product or convolution.
Due to the importance of Mittag–Leffler function, it is involved in many problems in natural and applied science.
A detailed investigation of Mittag–Leffler function has been studied by many authors see e.g., [11,12,13,14,15,16].
Attiya [10] noted that
In order to derive our results, we will use the following known definitions and lemmas.
Definition 1.
Ref [4]. Denote by μ the set of all functionsthat are analytic and injective on, where
with for .
Lemma 1.
Ref [3]. Let the function μ be univalent in the unit disc , and let θ and φ be analytic in a domain D containing , with when . Set , and suppose that
- (i)
- μ is a starlike function in (i.e, ),
- (ii)
If λ is analytic in with , and
then , and μ is the best dominant.
Lemma 2.
Ref [6].Let μ be a convex univalent function in the unit disc and let ϑ and φ be analytic in a domain D containing . Suppose that
- (i)
- for ;
- (ii)
- is starlike in .
If with , and is univalent in , and
then , and μ is the best subordinant.
Lemma 3.
Ref [4]. Let μ be a convex function in and let with with
If λ is analytic in , and
then , and μ is the best dominant.
Lemma 4.
Ref [17] Let μ be convex univalent in and let , with . If and is univalent in , then
implies
and μ is the best subordinant.
In this paper we drive a number of interesting results concerning subordination and superordination relations for the operator . Also, some of interesting sandwich results of the operator have been obtained.
2. Subordination and Superordination Results with
Theorem 1.
Let μ be convex univalent in , with ,. Suppose satisfies
Ifsatisfies the following subordination relation
then
andis the best dominant of (14).
Proof.
Define the function by
The function is analytic in and . Differentiating the function with respect to z logarithmically, we have
In the resulting equation by using the identity (7), we have
Therefore,
It follows from (14) that
Thus, an application of Lemma 3 with and we obtain (15). □
In view of (8), and by using the similar method of proof the Theorem 1, we get the proof of Theorem 2.
Theorem 2.
Let μ be convex univalent in , with ,. Suppose satisfies (13). If satisfies the subordination
then
and is the best dominant of (18).
Theorem 3.
Let (ξ is a real number) and μ be convex univalent in , with , and assume that satisfies
Suppose that is starlike univalent in . Also, if satisfies the following subordination relation:
where
then
and is the best dominant of (20).
Proof.
Define the function by
The function is analytic in and we note that .
By setting
we see that is analytic in the complex plane and is analytic in also, , . Moreover
and
It is clear that is starlike univalent in
Thus, from Lemma 1, we have By using (22), we obtain the required result. □
In view of (8), and by using the similar method of proof of Theorem 3, we get the proof of Theorem 4
Theorem 4.
then
andis the best dominant of (20).
Theorem 5.
then
andis the best dominant of (20).
Proof.
Define the function by
Then the function is analytic in and .
We note that
where is given by (25).
The remaining part of the proof of Theorem 5 is similar to that of Theorem 3 and hence we omit it. □
In view of (8), and by using the similar method of proof of Theorem 5, we get the proof Theorem 6.
Theorem 6.
then
andis the best dominant of (20).
Remark 1.
Superordination results associated with can be done analogously by using Lemmas 2 and 4.
3. Sandwich Results
Combining results of differential subordinations and superordinations, we get the following sandwich theorem.
Theorem 7.
Let and be convex univalent in , with . Suppose satisfies (13), and Let satisfies
and
be univalent in. If
then
and and are respectively the best subordinate and best dominant.
Theorem 8.
Let and be convex univalent in , with . Suppose satisfies (13), and Let satisfies
and
be univalent in. If
then
and and are respectively the best subordinate and best dominant.
Theorem 9.
Let and be convex univalent functions in , with . Suppose satisfies
then
and and are respectively the best subordinate and best dominant.
Theorem 10.
Let and be convex univalent in , with . Suppose satisfies (29), and satisfies (19). Let satisfies and is univalent in where is given by (24). If (30) has been satisfied,
then
and and are respectively the best subordinate and best dominant.
Theorem 11.
Let and be convex univalent in , with . Suppose satisfies (29), and satisfies (19). Let satisfies and is univalent in where is given by (25). If (30) has been satisfied,
then
and and are respectively the best subordinate and best dominant.
Theorem 12.
Let and be convex univalent in , with . Suppose satisfies (29), and satisfies (19). Let satisfies and is univalent in where is given by (28). If (30) has been satisfied,
then
and and are respectively the best subordinate and best dominant.
Remark 2.
By specifying the function Ω and selecting the particular values of and k we can derive a number of known results. Some of them are given below.
- (i)
- If we put and in Theorem 1, we obtain the results obtained by Murugusundaramoorthy and Magesh ([18], Corollary 3.3),
- (ii)
- If we put and in Theorem 7 we obtain the results obtained by Raducanu and Nechita ([19], Corollary 3.10 ).
4. Conclusions
We obtained a number of interesting results concerning subordination and superordination relations for the operator of analytic functions associated with an extension of the Mittag–Leffler function in the open unit disk . Also, some of interesting sandwich results of the operator have been obtained.
Author Contributions
The authors contributed equally to the writing of this paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research has been funded by Scientific Research Deanship at University of Hai’l-Saudi Arabia through project number RG-20020.
Acknowledgments
This research has been funded by Scientific Research Deanship at University of Hai’l- Saudi Arabia through project number RG-20020. The authors would like to thank the referees for their valuable comments.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Bulboacă, T. Differential Subordinations and Superordinations New Results; House of Scientific Boook Publ.: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, S.S.; Mocanu, P.T. Differential subordinations and univalent functions. Mich. Math. J. 1981, 28, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Miller, S.S.; Mocanu, P.T. Differential Subordinations Theory and Applications; Series on Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, No. 225; Marcel Dekker Inc.: New York, NY, USA; Basel, Switzerland, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, S.S.; Mocanu, P.T. Subordinations of differential superordinations. Complex Var. 2003, 48, 815–826. [Google Scholar]
- Bulboacă, T. Classes of first-order differential subordinations. Demonstr. Math. 2002, 35, 287–392. [Google Scholar]
- Bulboacă, T. A class of superordination preserving integral operators. Indag. Math. New Ser. 2002, 13, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ali, R.M.; Ravichandran, V.; Khan, M.H.; Subramaniam, K.G. Differential sandwich theorems for certain analytic functions. Far East J. Math. Sci. 2004, 15, 87–94. [Google Scholar]
- Shanmugam, T.N.; Ravichandran, V.; Sivasubramanian, S. Differential sandwich theorems for some subclasses of analyitc functions. Austral. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2006, 3, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Obradovic, M.; Owa, S. On certain properties for some classes of starlike functions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1990, 145, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Attiya, A.A. Some Application of Mittag–Leffler Function in the unit disk. Filomat 2016, 30, 2075–2081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Srivastava, H.M.; Tomovski, Z. Fractional calculus with an itegral operator containing a generalized Mittag–Leffler function in the kernal. Appl. Math Comp. 2009, 211, 198–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Aouf, M.K.; Seoudy, T.M. Certain subclasses of multivalently non-Bazilevic functions involving a generalized Mittag–Leffler function. ROMAI J. 2019, 15, 13–24. [Google Scholar]
- Aouf, M.K.; Mostafa, A.O. Certain inequalities of meromorphic univalent functions associated with the Mittag–Leffler function. J. Appl. Anal. 2019, 25, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Yassen, M.F. Subordination results for certain class of analytic functions associated with Mittag–Leffler function. J. Comp. Anal. Appl. 2019, 26, 738–746. [Google Scholar]
- Yassen, M.F.; Attiya, A.A.; Agarwal, P. Subordination and Superordination Properties for Certain Family of Analytic Functions Associated with Mittag–Leffler Function. Symmetry 2020, 12, 1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zayed, H.M.; Aouf, M.K. Subclasses of analytic functions of complex order associated with q-Mittag Leffler function. J. Egypt. Math. Soc. 2018, 26, 278–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Libera, R.J. Some classes of regular univalent functions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1965, 16, 755–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murugusundaramoorthy, G.; Magesh, N. Differential subordinations and superordinations for analytic functions defined by Dziok-Srivastava linear operator. J. Ineq. Pure Appl. Math. 2006, 7, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Rducanu, D.; Nechita, V.O. A differential sandwich theorem for analytic functions defined by the generalized Salagean operator. Aust. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2012, 9, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).