The purpose of the present paper is to investigate some strong differential subordination and superordination implications involving the Komatu integral operator which are obtained by considering suitable classes of admissible functions. The sandwich-type theorems for these operators are also considered.
MSC: 30C80, 30C45, 30A20.
Keywords:strong differential subordination; strong differential superordination; univalent function; convex function; Komatu integral operator
Let and be members of ℋ. The function is said to be subordinate to , or is said to be superordinate to , if there exists a function analytic in , with and , and such that . In such a case, we write or . If the function F is univalent in , then if and only if and (cf.).
Following Komatu , we introduce the integral operator defined by
Moreover, from (1.2), it follows that
In particular, the operator is closely related to the multiplier transformation studied earlier by Flett . Various interesting properties of the operator have been studied by Jung et al. and Liu .
Let be analytic in and let be analytic and univalent in . Then the function is said to be strongly subordinate to , or is said to be strongly superordinate to , written as , if for , as the function of z is subordinate to . We note that if and only if and .
then is called a solution of the strong differential subordination. The univalent function is called a dominant of the solutions of the strong differential subordination, or more simply a dominant, if for all satisfying (1.4). A dominant that satisfies for all dominants of (1.4) is said to be the best dominant.
Recently, Oros  introduced the following strong differential superordinations as the dual concept of strong differential subordinations.
then is called a solution of the strong differential superordination. An analytic function is called a subordinant of the solutions of the strong differential superordination, or more simply a subordinant, if for all satisfying (1.5). A univalent subordinant that satisfies for all subordinants of (1.5) is said to be the best subordinant.
Definition 1.4 ()
Definition 1.5 ()
For the above two classes of admissible functions, Oros and Oros proved the following theorems.
Theorem 1.1 ()
Theorem 1.2 ()
In the present paper, making use of the differential subordination and superordination results of Oros and Oros [8,9], we determine certain classes of admissible functions and obtain some subordination and superordination implications of multivalent functions associated with the Komatu integral operator defined by (1.1). Additionally, new differential sandwich-type theorems are obtained. We remark in passing that some interesting developments on differential subordination and superordination for various operators in connection with the Komatu integral operator were obtained by Ali et al.[11-14] and Cho et al..
2 Subordination results
From (2.2) with the relation (1.3), we get
Further computations show that
Using equations (2.2), (2.3) and (2.4), from (2.6), we obtain
Hence, (2.1) becomes
which evidently completes the proof of Theorem 2.1. □
Proof The proof is similar to that of [, Theorem 2.3d] and so is omitted. □
The next theorem yields the best dominant of the differential subordination (2.7).
andqis the best dominant.
Proof Following the same arguments as in [, Theorem 2.3e], we deduce that q is a dominant from Theorem 2.2 and Theorem 2.4. Since q satisfies (2.9), it is also a solution of (2.8) and therefore q will be dominated by all dominants. Hence, q is the best dominant. □
3 Superordination and sandwich-type results
The dual problem of differential subordination, that is, differential superordination of the Komatu integral operator defined by (1.1), is investigated in this section. For this purpose, the class of admissible functions is given in the following definition.
Proof From (2.7) and (3.1), we have
which evidently completes the proof of Theorem 3.1. □
If is a simply connected domain, then for some conformal mapping h of onto Ω. In this case, the class is written as . Proceeding similarly as in the previous section, the following result is an immediate consequence of Theorem 3.1.
Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 3.2 can only be used to obtain subordinants of differential superordination of the form (3.1) or (3.2). The following theorem proves the existence of the best subordinant of (3.2) for certain ϕ.
andqis the best subordinant.
Proof The proof is similar to that of Theorem 2.5 and so is omitted. □
Combining Theorem 2.2 and Theorem 3.2, we obtain the following sandwich-type theorem.
The author declares that they have no competing interests.
The author worked on the results and he read and approved the final manuscript.
Dedicated to Professor Hari M Srivastava.
This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (No. 2012-0002619).
Flett, TM: The dual of an inequality of Hardy and Littlewood and some related inequalities. J. Math. Anal. Appl.. 38, 746–765 (1972). Publisher Full Text
Jung, IB, Kim, YC, Srivastava, HM: The Hardy space of analytic functions associated with certain one-parameter families of integral operators. J. Math. Anal. Appl.. 176, 138–147 (1993). Publisher Full Text
Liu, JL: A linear operator and strongly starlike functions. J. Math. Soc. Jpn.. 54, 975–981 (2002). Publisher Full Text
Antonino, JA: Strong differential subordination to Briot-Bouquet differential equations. J. Differ. Equ.. 114, 101–105 (1994). Publisher Full Text
Miller, SS, Mocanu, PT: Subordinants of differential superordinations. Complex Var. Theory Appl.. 48, 815–826 (2003). Publisher Full Text
Ali, RM, Ravichandran, V, Seenivasagan, N: Differential subordination and superordination of analytic functions defined by the Dziok-Srivastava linear operator. J. Franklin Inst.. 347, 1762–1781 (2010). Publisher Full Text
Cho, NE, Kwon, OS, Srivastava, HM: Strong differential subordination and superordination for multivalently meromorphic functions involving the Liu-Srivastava operator. Integral Transforms Spec. Funct.. 21, 589–601 (2010). Publisher Full Text