
In the present paper, we investigated some conditions to be in the class of Carathéodory functions by using the concept of the first-order differential subordinations. Moreover, various interesting special cases were considered in the geometric function theory as applications of main results presented here.
Citation: Inhwa Kim, Young Jae Sim, Nak Eun Cho. First-order differential subordinations associated with Carathéodory functions[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 5466-5479. doi: 10.3934/math.2024264
[1] | Jianhua Gong, Muhammad Ghaffar Khan, Hala Alaqad, Bilal Khan . Sharp inequalities for $ q $-starlike functions associated with differential subordination and $ q $-calculus. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 28421-28446. doi: 10.3934/math.20241379 |
[2] | Georgia Irina Oros, Gheorghe Oros, Daniela Andrada Bardac-Vlada . Certain geometric properties of the fractional integral of the Bessel function of the first kind. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 7095-7110. doi: 10.3934/math.2024346 |
[3] | Georgia Irina Oros . Carathéodory properties of Gaussian hypergeometric function associated with differential inequalities in the complex plane. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(12): 13143-13156. doi: 10.3934/math.2021759 |
[4] | Kamaraj Dhurai, Nak Eun Cho, Srikandan Sivasubramanian . On a class of analytic functions closely related to starlike functions with respect to a boundary point. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(10): 23146-23163. doi: 10.3934/math.20231177 |
[5] | Kholood M. Alsager, Sheza M. El-Deeb, Ala Amourah, Jongsuk Ro . Some results for the family of holomorphic functions associated with the Babalola operator and combination binomial series. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 29370-29385. doi: 10.3934/math.20241423 |
[6] | Ahmad A. Abubaker, Khaled Matarneh, Mohammad Faisal Khan, Suha B. Al-Shaikh, Mustafa Kamal . Study of quantum calculus for a new subclass of $ q $-starlike bi-univalent functions connected with vertical strip domain. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 11789-11804. doi: 10.3934/math.2024577 |
[7] | Qaiser Khan, Muhammad Arif, Bakhtiar Ahmad, Huo Tang . On analytic multivalent functions associated with lemniscate of Bernoulli. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(3): 2261-2271. doi: 10.3934/math.2020149 |
[8] | Lina Ma, Shuhai Li, Huo Tang . Geometric properties of harmonic functions associated with the symmetric conjecture points and exponential function. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 6800-6816. doi: 10.3934/math.2020437 |
[9] | Shujaat Ali Shah, Ekram Elsayed Ali, Adriana Cătaș, Abeer M. Albalahi . On fuzzy differential subordination associated with $ q $-difference operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 6642-6650. doi: 10.3934/math.2023336 |
[10] | Ekram E. Ali, Georgia Irina Oros, Rabha M. El-Ashwah, Abeer M. Albalahi . Applications of fuzzy differential subordination theory on analytic $ p $ -valent functions connected with $ \mathfrak{q} $-calculus operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 21239-21254. doi: 10.3934/math.20241031 |
In the present paper, we investigated some conditions to be in the class of Carathéodory functions by using the concept of the first-order differential subordinations. Moreover, various interesting special cases were considered in the geometric function theory as applications of main results presented here.
Let P(α) be the class of analytic functions p of the form p(z)=1+∑∞n=1pnzn in the open unit disk U={z∈C:|z|<1}, with Rep(z)>α for z∈U. The class P≡P(0) is known as the Carathéodory class or the class of functions with positive real part [2,3], pioneered by Carathéodory. The theory of Carathéodory functions plays a very important role in the geometric function theory. For recent developments, the readers may refer to the works of Kim and Cho [5], Kwon and Sim [6], Nunokawa et al. [16], Sim et al. [18] and Wang [22].
Let A denote the class of all functions f analytic in U with the usual normalization f(0)=f′(0)−1=0. If f and g are analytic in U, we say that f is subordinate to g, written f≺g or f(z)≺g(z), if there exists a Schwarz function w(z) in U such that f(z)=g(w(z)).
A function f∈A is said to be strongly starlike of order η (0<η≤1) if, and only if,
zf′(z)f(z)≺(1+z1−z)η(z∈U). | (1.1) |
We note that the conditions (1.1) can be written by
|argzf′(z)f(z)|<π2η(z∈U). |
We denote by S[η] the subclass of A consisting of all strongly starlike functions of order η (0<η≤1). The class S[η] was introduced and studied by Brannan and Kirwan [1] and Stankiewicz [20,21]. We also note that S[1]≡S∗ is the well-known class of all normalized starlike functions in U. The class S[η] and the related classes have been extensively studied by Mocanu [14] and Nunokawa [15]. It is worth noticing that f belongs to S[η] if it satisfies
1+zf"(z)f′(z)≺(1+z1−z)α(η)(z∈U), |
where
α(η)=2πarctan{tanη2π+β(1−η)1−η2(1+η)1+η2cosη2π}. |
Given α∈[0,1), let S∗(α) be the subclass of A, which consists of all starlike functions of order α, namely, f∈A belongs to S∗(α) if, and only if, it satisfies
zf′(z)f(z)≺1+(1−2α)z1−z(z∈U). |
The class S∗(α) was introduced by Robertson [17]. Clearly, it holds that S∗(0)≡S[1]≡S∗. A typical sufficient condition for starlike functions of order α is given by Wilken and Feng [23], which states that if f∈A, then
1+zf"(z)f′(z)≺1+(1−2β)z1−z(z∈U) |
implies f∈S∗(α), where
β=β(α):={1−2α22−2α(1−22α−1),ifα≠1/2,12log2,ifα=1/2. |
Given η∈(0,1], let T[η] be the class of f∈A such that
f(z)z≺(1+z1−z)η(z∈U). |
The class T≡T[1] plays an important role in the theory of univalent functions, although all elements in T are functions that are not necessarily univalent. In [7], several sufficient conditions for functions in T[η] were introduced.
If ψ is analytic in a domain D⊂C2, h is univalent in U and p is analytic in U with (p(z),zp′(z))∈D for z∈U, then p is said to satisfy the first-order differential subordination if
ψ(p(z),zp′(z))≺h(z)(z∈U). | (1.2) |
The univalent function q is said to be a dominant of the differential subordination (1.2) if p≺q for all p satisfying (1.2). If ˜q is a dominant of (1.2) and ˜q≺q for all dominants of (1.2), then ˜q is said to be the best dominant of the differential subordination (1.2). The general theory of the first-order differential subordinations, with many interesting applications, especially in the theory of univalent functions, was developed by Miller and Mocanu [10] (also see [4,8,9,11,12,13]).
In this paper, by applying the result obtained by Miller and Mocanu [10], we will investigate conditions to be in the class of Carathéodory functions. We will also find new sufficient conditions for f∈A to belong to the classes S[η], S∗(α), and T[η] as some applications of the main results presented here. A differential subordination of the Briot-Bouquet type [12] (also see [13]HY__HY, Section 3]) will be considered for conditions for f∈S∗(α) and f∈T[1], and an integral operator related to the differential subordination of this type will be discussed as our additional results. Moreover, more conditions for f∈S[η] and f∈T[η] will be introduced by using a nonlinear first-order differential subordination.
In proving our results, we shall need the following lemma due to Miller and Mocanu [10].
Lemma 1. Let q be univalent in U and let θ and φ be analytic in a domain D containing q(U) with q(ω)≠0 when ω∈q(U). Set Q(z)=zq′(z)φ(q(z)),h(z)=θ(q(z))+Q(z) and suppose that
(ⅰ) Q {is starlike in} U,
(ⅱ) Re{zh′(z)Q(z)}=Re{θ′(q(z))φ(q(z))+zQ′(z)Q(z)}>0(z∈U).
If p is analytic in U with p(0)=q(0), p(U)⊂D, and
θ(p(z))+zp′(z)φ(p(z))≺θ(q(z))+zq′(z)φ(q(z)), | (2.1) |
then p≺q and q is the best dominant of (2.1).
With the help of Lemma 1, we now derive the following Theorem 1.
Theorem 1. Let p be analytic in U with p(0)=1 and β>0, β+γ>0. If
p(z)+zp′(z)βp(z)+γ≠−γβ+ik(z∈U) | (2.2) |
for all k (|k|≥√2(β+γ)+1/β), then
p(z)≺1+(1+(2γ/β))z1−z (z∈U). |
Proof. First, we note that p(z)≠−(γ/β) for z∈U under the condition (2.2). In fact, if βp(z)+γ has a zero z0∈U of order n (n≥1) at a point z0∈U∖{0}, then we may write
βp(z)+γ=(z−z0)nq(z)(n∈N:={1, 2, 3,⋯}), |
where p is analytic in U with q(z0)≠0, then it follows that
βzp′(z)βp(z)+γ=zq′(z)q(z)+nzz−z0. | (2.3) |
Therefore,
limz→z0(z−z0)βzp′(z)βp(z)+γ=nz0≠0. |
Letting z approach z0 in the direction of argz0, the righthand side of (2.3) takes infinite pure imaginary value. This contradicts the assumption (2.2).
Let q(z)=(1+(1+2γ/β)z)/(1−z), θ(ω)=ω, and φ(ω)=1/(βω+γ) in Lemma 1, then θ and φ are analytic in q(U) and φ(ω)≠0 for φ∈q(U). Setting
Q(z)=zq′(z)φ(q(z))=2zβ(1−z2) |
and
h(z)=θ(q(z))+Q(z)=1β{(β+γ)1+z1−z+2z1−z2−γ}, |
the conditions (ⅰ) and (ⅱ) of Lemma 1 can be verified. Therefore, Lemma 1 gives that if
p(z)+zp′(z)βp(z)+γ≺h(z)(z∈U) |
with
h(z)=1β{(β+γ)1+z1−z+2z1−z2−γ}, |
then
p(z)≺q(z) (z∈U). |
Noting that
h(eiθ)=1β{(β+γ)1+eiθ1−eiθ+2eiθ1−ei2θ−γ}(0<|θ|<π), |
we obtain
Reh(eiθ)=−γβ |
and
Imh(eiθ)=1β{(β+γ)sinθ1−cosθ+1sinθ}(0<|θ|<π). |
Meanwhile, since the imaginary part of h(eiθ) is an odd function, we consider only the case 0<θ<π. Putting tan(θ/2)=t (0<θ<π), we have
Imh(eiθ)=1β{(β+γ)sinθ1−cosθ+1sinθ}=t2+2(β+γ)+12βt=g(t). |
Here, the function g(t) has a minimum value at t0=√2(β+γ)+1. Hence we have
|Imh(eiθ)|≥|g(t0)|=√2(β+γ)+1β. |
Applying Lemma 1 and the assumption (2.2), we conclude that
p(z)+zp′(z)βp(z)+γ≺h(z)(z∈U). |
This completes the proof of Theorem 1.
Taking p(z)=zf′(z)/f(z), β=1, and γ=(1/α)−1 (0<α≤1) in Theorem 1, we have the following result.
Corollary 1. Let f∈A and 0<α≤1. If
αz(zf′(z))′+(1−α)zf′(z)αzf′(z)+(1−α)f(z) ≠ α−1+ik(z∈U) |
for all k (|k|≥√(2+α)/α/β), then
zf′(z)f(z)≺1+(1+2(1−α)/α)z1−z(z∈U). |
Proof. Putting
p(z)=zf′(z)f(z), |
we have
αz(zf′(z))′+(1−α)zf′(z)= αzf(z)p′(z)+αzp(z)f′(z)+(1−α)p(z)f(z)=(αzp′(z)+p(z)(αp(z)+1−α))f(z) |
and
αzf′(z)+(1−α)f(z)=(αp(z)+1−α)f(z). |
Hence,
αz(zf′(z))′+(1−α)zf′(z)αzf′(z)+(1−α)f(z) = αzp′(z)+p(z)(αp(z)+1−α)αp(z)+1−α= p(z)+zp′(z)p(z)+(1α−1). |
Therefore, applying Theorem 1, we have Corollary 1.
Corollary 2. Let f∈A and let
F(z)=z1−1αα∫z0t1α−2f(t)dt(0<α≤1). |
If
αz(zf′(z))′+(1−α)zf′(z)αzf′(z)+(1−α)f(z) ≠ α−1+ik(z∈U) |
for all k (|k|≥√(2+α)/α/β), then
αz(zF′(z))′+(1−α)zF′(z)αzF′(z)+(1−α)F(z)≺1+(1+2(1−α)/α)z1−z(z∈U). |
Proof. Differentiating F with respect to z and multiplying by z, we have
αz(zF′(z))′+(1−α)zF′(z)αzF′(z)+(1−α)F(z)=zf′(z)f(z). |
Therefore, the result follows from Corollary 1.
Letting β=1/α (α>0), γ=0, and p(z)=zf′(z)/f(z) in Theorem 1, we have the following result.
Corollary 3. Let f∈A and α>0. If
(1−α)zf′(z)f(z)+α(1+zf′′(z)f′(z))≠ik(z∈U) |
for all k (|k|≥√α(2+α)), then f is starlike in U.
Taking β=1, γ=0, and p(z)=zf′(z)/f(z) in Theorem 1, we have the following result.
Corollary 4. Let f∈A. If
1+zf′′(z)f′(z)≠ik(z∈U) |
for all k (|k|≥√3), then f is a starlike in U.
Example 1. Consider a function ˜f:U→C defined by
˜f(z)=1√3−1(e(√3−1)z−1). |
Then we have
1+z˜f"(z)˜f′(z)=1+(√3−1)z |
and
|1+z˜f"(z)˜f′(z)|<√3,z∈U. |
Therefore, by Corollary 4, ˜f is starlike in U (see also the left side of Figure 1). In fact, we can check that Re{z˜f′(z)/˜f(z)}>0 holds for all z∈U, as shown in the right side of Figure 1.
Letting β=1, γ=0 and p(z)=f(z)/z in Theorem 1, we have the following result.
Corollary 5. Let f∈A. If
f(z)z+zf′(z)f(z)≠1+ik(z∈U) |
for all k with |k|≥√3, then
Ref(z)z>0(z∈U). |
Further, we derive the following corollary.
Corollary 6. Let f∈A and let
F(z)={β+γzγ∫z0tγ−1fβ(t)dt}1β(β>0, β+γ>0). |
If
zf′(z)f(z)≠−γβ+ik(z∈U) |
for all k (|k|≥√2(β+γ)+1/β), then
zF′(z)F(z)≺1+(1+2γβ)z1−z(z∈U). |
Proof. From the definition of F, we have
zF′(z)F(z)+γβ=β+γβfβ(z)Fβ(z). | (2.4) |
Let
p(z)=zF′(z)F(z). |
Taking logarithmic derivatives in (2.4) and multiplying by z, we obtain, after some simple calculations,
p(z)+zp′(z)βp(z)+γ=zf′(z)f(z). |
Therefore, applying Theorem 1, we have the result.
Next, we prove the following theorem.
Theorem 2. Let p be nonzero analytic in U with p(0)=1 and 0<η<1. If
|Im(1−1p(z)+zp′(z)p(z)2)|<C(η)(z∈U) | (2.5) |
where
C(η)=t0ηsinπ2η+η2(t0η−1+t0η+1)cosπ2η | (2.6) |
and
t0=−sinπ2η+√1−η2cos2π2η(1+η)cosπ2η, |
then
|argp(z)|<π2η(z∈U). |
Proof. We choose q(z)=((1+z)/(1−z))η (0<η<1), θ(ω)=1−1/ω, and φ(ω)=1/ω2 in Lemma 1, then we see that θ and φ are analytic in q(U) and φ(ω)≠0 for ω∈q(U). Further,
Q(z)=zq′(z)φ(q(z))=2ηz1−z2(1−z1+z)η |
is starlike, and for the function
h(z)=θ(q(z))+Q(z)=1−(1−z1+z)η+2ηz1−z2(1−z1+z)η, |
we have
Re{zh′(z)Q(z)}=Re{1+zQ′(z)Q(z)}>0(z∈U). |
Note that h(0)=0 and
h(eiθ)=1−(icotθ2)−η+i ηsinθ(icotθ2)−η=1−|cotθ2|−η(cosπ2η−isinπ2η)+i ηsinθ|cotθ2|−η(cosπ2η−isin(±π2η))=(1−|tanθ2|ηcosπ2η+ηsinθ|tanθ2|ηsin(±π2η))+ i(|tanθ2|ηsin(±π2η)+ηsinθ|tanθ2|ηcosπ2η), |
where we take " + " for 0<θ<π, and " - " for −π<θ<0. Since the imaginary part of h(eiθ) is an odd function of θ, we consider only the case 0<θ<π. If we put tan(θ/2)=t (t>0), then we have
Imh(eiθ)=tηsinπ2η+η2(tη−1+tη+1)cosπ2η≡g(t). |
It is easy to see that the function g(t) has the minimum value at the point
t0=−sinπ2η+√1−η2cos2π2η(1+η)cosπ2η. |
Therefore, we conclude that
|Imh(eiθ)|≥t0ηsinπ2η+η2(t0η−1+t0η+1)cosπ2η, |
and so, by assumption (2.5),
1−1p(z)+zp′(z)p2(z)≺h(z) (z∈U). |
Hence, from Lemma 1, we have p(z)≺q(z) (z∈U), and this completes the proof of Theorem 2.
From Theorem 2, we have the following result.
Corollary 7. Let f∈A with f(z)f′(z)/z≠0 for z∈U and 0<η<1. If
|Imf(z)f′′(z)(f′(z))2|<C(η)(z∈U), |
where C(η) is given by (2.6), then
|arg zf′(z)f(z)|<π2η(z∈U). |
Proof. Setting
p(z)=zf′(z)f(z) |
in Theorem 2, we see that p is regular in U, p(0)=1, and p(z)≠0 in U. It can be derived that
f(z)f′′(z)(f′(z))2=1−1p(z)+zp′(z)(p(z))2. |
Thus, from Theorem 2, we immediately have the result.
Example 2. Letting η=1/2 in Corollary 7, we have C(1/2)≑0.72674. Therefore, if
|Imf(z)f′′(z)(f′(z))2|<C(1/2)(z∈U), |
then
|arg zf′(z)f(z)|<π4(z∈U). |
Taking p(z)=f(z)/z in Theorem 2, we have the following corollary.
Corollary 8. Let f∈A with f(z)/z≠0 for z∈U and 0<η<1. If
|Im(1−2zf(z)+z2f′(z)(f(z))2)|<C(η)(z∈U), |
where C(η) is given by (2.6), then
|arg f(z)z|<π2η(z∈U). |
Finally, by using a similar method of the proofs of Theorems 1 and 2, we have Theorem 3 below.
Theorem 3. Let α, β, and η be real numbers satisfying α>0, 0<η≤1, and
C(α, β, η)>|1−β|, | (2.7) |
where
C(α, β, η)={βsinπ2η+αηcosπ2η,ifβcosπ2η>αηsinπ2η,√β2+α2η2,ifβcosπ2η≤αηsinπ2η. | (2.8) |
Let p be analytic in U with p(0)=1. If
|p(z)−β+αzp′(z)p(z)|<C(α, β, η)(z∈U), | (2.9) |
then
|arg p(z)|<π2η(z∈U). |
Proof. We note that the inequality (2.9) is well-defined by (2.7). Applying the same method of the proof in Theorem 1, we can see that p(z)≠0 for z∈U. Let q(z)=((1+z)/(1−z))η (0<η≤1), θ(ω)=ω−β, and φ(ω)=α/ω in Lemma 1, then
Q(z)=zq′(z)φ(q(z))=2αηz1−z2 |
and
h(z)=θ(q(z))+Q(z)=(1+z1−z)η−β+2αηz1−z2. |
Also, the other conditions (ⅰ) and (ⅱ) of Lemma 1 can be checked to be satisfied. Note that
h(eiθ)=(icotθ2)η−β+i αηsinθ(0<|θ|<π), |
and
icotθ2={eiπ2cotθ2,if0<θ<π,−e−iπ2cotθ2,if−π<θ<0. |
Setting t=cot (θ/2) (0<θ<π) without loss of generality, we obtain
|h(eiθ)|2=(tηcosπ2η−β)2+(tηsinπ2η+αη(1+t2)2t)2≥t2η+2(αηsinπ2η−βcosπ2η)tη+β2+α2η2≡g(t),t>0. |
We first consider the case βcos(πη/2)>αηsin(πη/2), then the function g(t) has the minimum value at
t0=(βcosπ2η−αηsinπ2η)1η |
so that
|h(eiθ)|2≥g(t0)=(βsinπ2η+αηcosπ2η)2. |
Hence we see that
|h(eiθ)|≥βsinπ2η+αηcosπ2η=C(α, β, η). |
Therefore, by the assumption (2.9), we have
p(z)−β+αzp′(z)p(z)≺h(z)(z∈U). | (2.10) |
Next, we consider the case βcos(πη/2)≤αηsin(πη/2), then the function g is increasing on (0,∞) and it follows that
|h(eiθ)|2≥g(0)=β2+α2η2. |
Hence, we get
|h(eiθ)|≥√β2+α2η2=C(α, β, η). |
Therefore, by the assumption (2.9), we have (2.10) again. Finally, with the aid of Lemma 1, we obtain p(z)≺q(z) (z∈U), that is, |arg p(z)|<π2η.
Taking β=α in Theorem 3, we have the following result.
Corollary 9. Let α and η be real numbers such that α>0, 0<η≤1, and
sinπ2η+ηcosπ2η>1−αα. |
Let x∗=0.638… be the unique root of the equation x=cot(πx/2). If f∈A satisfies
|αzf′′(z)f′(z)+(1−α)zf′(z)f′(z)|<C(α, η)(z∈U), |
where
C(α, η)={α(sinπ2η+ηcosπ2η),if0<η<x∗,α√1+η2,ifx∗≤η≤1, |
then
|arg zf′(z)f(z)|<π2η(z∈U). |
Example 3. Choosing α=1 and η=1/2 in Corollary 9, we have C(1, 1/2)=3√2/4. Therefore, we obtain that if
|zf′′(z)f′(z)|<3√24(z∈U), |
then
|zf′(z)f(z)|<π4(z∈U). |
Making p(z)=f(z)/z in Theorem 3, we have the following result.
Corollary 10. Let α, β, and η be real numbers satisfying (2.7). If f∈A satisfies
|f(z)z−(β+1)+αzf′(z)f(z)|<C(α, β, η)(z∈U), |
where C(α, β, η) is given by (2.8), then
|arg f(z)z|<π2η(z∈U). |
We remark that, for the case η=1 in Theorem 3, we have C(α, β, 1)=√α2+β2. We end this paper with showing that this quantity can be improved as follows:
Corollary 11. Let α and β be real numbers such that α>0 and √α(α+2)+β2>|1−β|. Let p be analytic in U with p(0)=1. If
|p(z)−β+αzp′(z)p(z)|<√α(α+2)+β2(z∈U), |
then Rep(z)>0 for all z∈U.
Proof. By defining the same functions q, θ, φ, Q, and h with η=1, as in the proof of Theorem 3, we will reach the following equality:
|h(eiθ)|2=β2+(t+α(1+t2)2t)2, | (2.11) |
where t=cot(θ/2) with 0<θ<π. Furthermore, since t>0, we get
t+α(1+t2)2t=12[α⋅t−1+(α+2)t]≥√α(α+2). | (2.12) |
Hence, combining (2.11) and (2.12) leads us to get
|h(eiθ)|≥√α(α+2)+β2(0<θ<π). |
Thus, it follows from the same proof of Theorem 3 that |argp(z)|<π/2 (z∈U), or Rep(z)>0 (z∈U).
The authors declare that they have not used Artificial Intelligence tools in the creation of this article.
The third author 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. 2019R1I1A3A01050861).
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
[1] |
D. A. Brannan, W. E. Kirwan, On some classes of bounded univalent functions, J. Lond. Math. Soc., s2-1 (1969), 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1112/jlms/s2-1.1.431 doi: 10.1112/jlms/s2-1.1.431
![]() |
[2] | C. Carathéodory, Über den variabilitätsbereich der coeffizienten von potenzreihen, die gegebene werte nicht annehmen, Math. Ann., 64 (1907), 95–115. |
[3] | C. Carathéodory, Über den variabilitätsbereich der fourier'schen konstanten von positiven harmonischen funktionen, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo, 32 (1911), 193–217. |
[4] | P. J. Eenigenburg, S. S. Miller, P. T. Mocanu, M. O. Reade, On a Briot-Bouquet differential subordination, General Inequalities 3, International Series of Numerical Mathematics, Basel: Birkh¨auser, 1983,339–348. |
[5] | I. H. Kim, N. E. Cho, Sufficient conditions for Carathéodory functions, Comput. Math. Appl., 59 (2010), 2067–2073. |
[6] | O. S. Kwon, Y. J. Sim, Sufficient conditions for Carathéodory functions and applications to univalent functions, Math. Slovaca, 69 (2019), 1065–1076. |
[7] | M. S. Liu, Y. C. Zhu, Criteria for strongly starlike and Φ-like functions, Complex Var. Elliptic Equ., 53 (2008), 485–500. |
[8] |
S. S. Miller, P. T. Mocanu, Univalent solutions of Briot-Bouquet differential equations, J. Differ. Equ., 56 (1985), 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0396(85)90082-8 doi: 10.1016/0022-0396(85)90082-8
![]() |
[9] | S. S. Miller, P. T. Mocanu, Mark-Strohh¨acker differential subordination systems, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 99 (1987), 527–534. |
[10] | S. S. Miller, P. T. Mocanu, On some classes of first-order differential subordinations, Michigan Math. J., 32 (1985), 185–195. |
[11] | S. S. Miller, P. T. Mocanu, A special differential subordination and its application to univalency conditions, Current Topics in Analytic Function Theory, Singapore, London: World Scientific, 1992,171–185. |
[12] |
S. S. Miller, P. T. Mocanu, Briot-Bouquet differential equations and differential subordinations, Complex Var. Theory Appl.: Int. J., 33 (1997), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/17476939708815024 doi: 10.1080/17476939708815024
![]() |
[13] | S. S. Miller, P. T. Mocanu, Differential Subordinations: Theory and Applications, New York, Basel: Marcel Dekker, 2000. |
[14] | P. T. Mocanu, Alpha-convex integral operators and strongly starlike functions, Studia Univ. Babes-Bolyai Math., 34 (1989), 18–24. |
[15] |
M. Nunokawa, On the order of strongly starlikeness of strongly convex functions, Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci., 69 (1993), 234–237. https://doi.org/10.3792/pjaa.69.234 doi: 10.3792/pjaa.69.234
![]() |
[16] | M. Nunokawa, O. S. Kwon, Y. J. Sim, N. E. Cho, Sufficient conditions for Carathéodory functions, Filomat, 32 (2018), 1097–1106. |
[17] |
M. S. Robertson, On the theory of univalent functions, Ann. Math., 37 (1936), 374–408. https://doi.org/10.2307/1968451 doi: 10.2307/1968451
![]() |
[18] | Y. J. Sim, O. S. Kwon, N. E. Cho, H. M. Srivastava, Some sets of sufficient conditions for Carathéodory functions, J. Comput. Anal. Appl., 21 (2016), 1243–1254. |
[19] | R. Singh, On Bazilevć functions, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 38 (1973), 261–271. |
[20] | J. Stankiewicz, Quelques problèmes extrémaux dans les classes des fonctions α-angularirement étoilées, Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skłodowska Sect. A, 20 (1966), 59–75. |
[21] | J. Stankiewicz, On a family of starlike functions, Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skłodowska Sect. A, 22-24 (1968–1970), 175–181. |
[22] |
L. M. Wang, The tilted Carathéodory class and its applications, J. Korean Math. Soc., 49 (2012), 671–686. http://doi.org/10.4134/JKMS.2012.49.4.671 doi: 10.4134/JKMS.2012.49.4.671
![]() |
[23] |
D. R. Wilken, J. Feng, A remark on convex and starlike functions, J. Lond. Math. Soc., s2-21 (1980), 287–290. https://doi.org/10.1112/jlms/s2-21.2.287 doi: 10.1112/jlms/s2-21.2.287
![]() |