• 検索結果がありません。

AN EXTENSION OF OZAKI AND NUNOKAWA’S UNIVALENCE CRITERION

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

シェア "AN EXTENSION OF OZAKI AND NUNOKAWA’S UNIVALENCE CRITERION"

Copied!
11
0
0

読み込み中.... (全文を見る)

全文

(1)

Ozaki and Nunokawa’s Univalence Criterion

Horiana Tudor vol. 9, iss. 4, art. 117, 2008

Title Page

Contents

JJ II

J I

Page1of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

AN EXTENSION OF OZAKI AND NUNOKAWA’S UNIVALENCE CRITERION

HORIANA TUDOR

Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics

"Transilvania" University 2200 Bra¸sov, ROMANIA EMail:[email protected]

Received: 11 May, 2008

Accepted: 14 October, 2008 Communicated by: N.E. Cho 2000 AMS Sub. Class.: 30C55.

Key words: Univalent functions, Univalence criteria.

Abstract: In this paper we obtain a sufficient condition for the analyticity and the univalence of the functions defined by an integral operator. In a particular case we find the well known condition for univalency established by S. Ozaki and M. Nunokawa.

(2)

Ozaki and Nunokawa’s Univalence Criterion

Horiana Tudor vol. 9, iss. 4, art. 117, 2008

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page2of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

Contents

1 Introduction 3

2 Preliminaries 4

3 Main Results 5

(3)

Ozaki and Nunokawa’s Univalence Criterion

Horiana Tudor vol. 9, iss. 4, art. 117, 2008

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page3of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

1. Introduction

We denote byUr={z ∈C: |z|< r}a disk of thez-plane, wherer∈(0,1], U1 = U andI = [0,∞). LetAbe the class of functionsf analytic inU such thatf(0) = 0, f0(0) = 1.

Theorem 1.1 ([1]). Letf ∈ A. If for allz ∈U (1.1)

z2f0(z) f2(z) −1

<1, then the functionf is univalent inU.

(4)

Ozaki and Nunokawa’s Univalence Criterion

Horiana Tudor vol. 9, iss. 4, art. 117, 2008

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page4of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

2. Preliminaries

In order to prove our main result we need the theory of Löewner chains; we recall the basic result of this theory, from Pommerenke.

Theorem 2.1 ([2]). LetL(z, t) =a1(t)z+a2(t)z2+· · · , a1(t)6= 0be analytic in Ur, for allt∈I, locally absolutely continuous inI and locally uniform with respect toUr.For almost allt∈I, suppose that

z∂L(z, t)

∂z =p(z, t)∂L(z, t)

∂t , ∀z ∈Ur,

wherep(z, t)is analytic inUand satisfies the conditionRep(z, t)>0, for allz∈U, t ∈I. If|a1(t)| → ∞fort→ ∞and{L(z, t)/a1(t)}forms a normal family inUr, then for eacht ∈ I, the functionL(z, t)has an analytic and univalent extension to the whole diskU.

(5)

Ozaki and Nunokawa’s Univalence Criterion

Horiana Tudor vol. 9, iss. 4, art. 117, 2008

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page5of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

3. Main Results

Theorem 3.1. Letf ∈ Aandα be a complex number,Reα > 0. If the following inequalities

(3.1)

z2f0(z) f2(z) −1

<1 and

(3.2)

z2f0(z) f2(z) −1

|z|+ 21− |z| α

z2f0(z) f2(z) −1

+ (1− |z|)2 α2|z|

z2f0(z) f2(z) −1

+ (1−α)

f(z) z −1

≤1 are true for allz ∈U\ {0}, then the functionFα,

(3.3) Fα(z) =

α

Z z 0

uα−1f0(u)du α1

is analytic and univalent inU, where the principal branch is intended.

Proof. Let us consider the functiong1(z, t)given by g1(z, t) = 1− e2αt−1

α

f(e−tz) e−tz −1

.

For allt ∈I andz ∈U we havee−tz ∈U and becausef ∈ A, the functiong1(z, t) is analytic inU andg1(0, t) = 1. Then there is a disk Ur1, 0 < r1 < 1in which g1(z, t)6= 0, for allt ∈I. For the function

g2(z, t) =α Z e−tz

0

uα−1f0(u)du ,

(6)

Ozaki and Nunokawa’s Univalence Criterion

Horiana Tudor vol. 9, iss. 4, art. 117, 2008

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page6of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

g2(z, t) = zα ·g3(z, t), it can be easily shown that g3(z, t) is analytic in Ur1 and g3(0, t) = e−αt. It follows that the function

g4(z, t) = g3(z, t) +

(eαt−e−αt)

f(e−tz) e−tz

2

g1(z, t)

is also analytic in a diskUr2, 0 < r2 ≤ r1 andg4(0, t) = eαt. Therefore, there is a diskUr3, 0 < r3 ≤ r2 in whichg4(z, t) 6= 0, for allt ∈ I and we can choose an analytic branch of[g4(z, t)]1/α, denoted by g(z, t). We choose the branch which is equal toetat the origin.

From these considerations it follows that the function L(z, t) =z·g(z, t) = etz+a2(t)z2+· · · is analytic inUr3, for allt ∈Iand can be written as follows

(3.4) L(z, t) =

α Z e−tz

0

uα−1f0(u)du+(e2αt−1)e(2−α)tzα−2f2(e−tz) 1−e2αtα−1

f(e−tz) e−tz −1

1 α

.

From the analyticity ofL(z, t)inUr3, it follows that there is a numberr4, 0< r4 <

r3, and a constantK =K(r4)such that

|L(z, t)/et|< K, ∀z ∈Ur4, t∈I,

and then{L(z, t)/et}is a normal family inUr4. From the analyticity of∂L(z, t)/∂t, for all fixed numbersT > 0andr5, 0 < r5 < r4, there exists a constant K1 > 0 (that depends onT andr5) such that

∂L(z, t)

∂t

< K1, ∀z ∈Ur5, t∈[0, T].

(7)

Ozaki and Nunokawa’s Univalence Criterion

Horiana Tudor vol. 9, iss. 4, art. 117, 2008

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page7of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

It follows that the functionL(z, t)is locally absolutely continuous inI, locally uni- form with respect toUr5. We also have that the function

p(z, t) =z∂L(z, t)

∂z

∂L(z, t)

∂t is analytic inUr,0< r < r5, for allt∈I.

In order to prove that the functionp(z, t)has an analytic extension with positive real part inU for allt∈I, it is sufficient to show that the functionw(z, t)defined in Urby

w(z, t) = p(z, t)−1 p(z, t) + 1

can be continued analytically inU and that|w(z, t)|<1for allz ∈U andt ∈I.

By simple calculations, we obtain (3.5) w(z, t)

=

e−2tz2f0(e−tz) f2(e−tz) −1

e−2αt+ 21−e−2αt α

e−2tz2f0(e−tz) f2(e−tz) −1

+(1−e−2αt)2 α2e−2αt

e−2tz2f0(e−tz) f2(e−tz) −1

+ (1−α)

f(e−tz) e−tz −1

. From (3.1) and (3.2) we deduce that the functionw(z, t)is analytic in the unit disk and

(3.6) |w(z,0)|=

z2f0(z) f2(z) −1

<1.

We observe thatw(0, t) = 0. Lettbe a fixed number,t > 0, z ∈ U, z 6= 0. Since

|e−tz| ≤e−t <1for allz ∈ U ={z ∈ C: |z| ≤1}we conclude that the function

(8)

Ozaki and Nunokawa’s Univalence Criterion

Horiana Tudor vol. 9, iss. 4, art. 117, 2008

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page8of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

w(z, t)is analytic in U. Using the maximum modulus principle it follows that for each arbitrary fixedt >0, there existsθ=θ(t)∈Rsuch that

(3.7) |w(z, t)|<max

|ξ|=1|w(ξ, t)|=|w(e, t)|, We denoteu=e−t·e. Then|u|=e−t <1and from (3.5) we get

w(e, t) =

u2f0(u) f2(u) −1

|u|+ 21− |u| α

u2f0(u) f2(u) −1

+(1− |u|)2 α2|u|

u2f0(u) f2(u) −1

+ (1−α)

f(u) u −1

. Since u ∈ U, the inequality (3.2) implies that |w(e, t)| ≤ 1and from (3.6) and (3.7) we conclude that|w(z, t)|<1for allz ∈U andt≥0.

From Theorem2.1it results that the functionL(z, t)has an analytic and univalent extension to the whole diskU for each t ∈ I, in particular L(z,0). ButL(z,0) = Fα(z). Therefore the function Fα(z) defined by (3.3) is analytic and univalent in U.

If in Theorem3.1we takeα = 1we obtain the following corollary which is just Theorem1.1, namely Ozaki-Nunokawa’s univalence criterion.

Corollary 3.2. Letf ∈ A. If for allz ∈U, the inequality (3.1) holds true, then the functionf is univalent inU.

Proof. Forα= 1we haveF1(z) = f(z)and the inequality (3.2) becomes (3.8)

z2f0(z)

f2(z) −1 |z|2+ 2(1− |z|2) + (1− |z|2)2

|z|2

=

z2f0(z) f2(z) −1

· 1

|z|2

≤1.

(9)

Ozaki and Nunokawa’s Univalence Criterion

Horiana Tudor vol. 9, iss. 4, art. 117, 2008

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page9of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

It is easy to check that if the inequality (3.1) is true, then the inequality (3.8) is also true. Indeed, the functiong,

g(z) = z2f0(z) f2(z) −1

is analytic in U, g(z) = b2z2 +b3z3 +· · · , which shows that g(0) = g0(0) = 0.

In view of (1.1) we have |g(z)| < 1 and using Schwarz’s lemma we get |g(z)| <

|z|2.

Example 3.1. Letnbe a natural number,n≥2, and the function

(3.9) f(z) = z

1− zn+1n . Thenf is univalent inU andFn+1

2 is analytic and univalent inU, where

(3.10) Fn+1

2 (z) =

n+ 1 2

Z z 0

un−12 f0(u)du n+12

. Proof. We have

(3.11) z2f0(z)

f2(z) −1 =zn+1 and

(3.12) f(z)

z −1 = zn+1 n−zn+1.

It is clear that condition (3.1) of Theorem 3.1 is satisfied, and the function f is univalent inU.

(10)

Ozaki and Nunokawa’s Univalence Criterion

Horiana Tudor vol. 9, iss. 4, art. 117, 2008

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page10of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

Taking into account (3.11) and (3.12), condition (3.2) of Theorem3.1becomes

|z|2(n+1)+ 4

n+ 1|z|n+1(1− |z|n+1) + 4

(n+ 1)2(1− |z|n+1)2 +2(1−n)

(n+ 1)2(1− |z|n+1)2 1 n− |z|n+1

≤ 1

(n+ 1)2

(n+ 1)2|z|2(n+1)+ 4(n+ 1)(1− |z|n+1) + 6(1− |z|n+1)2

= 1

(n+ 1)2

(n2−2n+ 3)|z|2(n+1)+ (4n−8)|z|n+1+ 6

≤1, because the greatest value of the function

g(x) = (n2−2n+ 3)x2+ (4n−8)x+ 6,

for x ∈ [0,1], n ≥ 2 is taken for x = 1 and is g(1) = (n+ 1)2. Therefore the functionFn+1

2 is analytic and univalent inU.

(11)

Ozaki and Nunokawa’s Univalence Criterion

Horiana Tudor vol. 9, iss. 4, art. 117, 2008

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Page11of 11 Go Back Full Screen

Close

References

[1] S. OZAKI AND M. NUNOKAWA, The Schwartzian derivative and univalent functions, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 33(2) (1972), 392–394.

[2] Ch. POMMERENKE, Univalent Functions, Vandenhoech Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1975.

参照

関連したドキュメント

Our main theorem has applications to lower estimates of the inner radius of univalence for a strongly starlike domain (see [15]) and for a round annulus (see [14]).. Indeed,

In this paper we define a subclass of α -uniform convex functions by using the S’al’agean differential operator and we obtain some properties of this class.. this operator

Thus, we use the results both to prove existence and uniqueness of exponentially asymptotically stable periodic orbits and to determine a part of their basin of attraction.. Let

We then present a proof of Theorem 1, followed by independent proofs that there are no nice vectors for the cases n = 4 and n = 6, which are the two smallest cases not covered

Becker, L¨ownersche Differentialgleichurg und quasikonform fortset- zbare schichte Functionen, J.. Pommerenke, Uber die Subordination-analytischer Functionen ¨

Abstract. gave an univalence condition of the integral operator G n,α introduced in [2]. The purpose of this paper is to generalize the definition of G n,α by means of the

In this paper, using the Riemann-Liouville fractional integral, we establish some new integral inequalities for the Chebyshev functional in the case of two synchronous functions..

Then it follows immediately from a suitable version of “Hensel’s Lemma” [cf., e.g., the argument of [4], Lemma 2.1] that S may be obtained, as the notation suggests, as the m A