- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Geometric characterization of the generalized Lommel–Wright function in the open unit disc
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2024, Article number: 32 (2024)
Abstract
The present investigation aims to examine the geometric properties of the normalized form of the combination of generalized Lommel–Wright function \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}(z):=\Gamma ^{m}(\lambda +1) \Gamma (\lambda +\mu +1)2^{2\lambda +\mu}z^{1-(\nu /2)-\lambda} \mathcal{J}_{\lambda ,\mu }^{\nu ,m}(\sqrt{z})\), where the function \(\mathcal{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\) satisfies the differential equation \(\mathcal{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}(z):=(1-2\lambda -\nu )J_{ \lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}(z)+z (J_{\lambda ,\mu }^{\nu ,m}(z) )^{\prime}\) with
for \(\lambda \in \mathbb{C}\setminus \mathbb{Z}^{-}\), \(\mathbb{Z}^{-}:= \{ -1,-2,-3,\ldots \}\), \(m\in \mathbb{N}\), \(\nu \in \mathbb{C}\), and \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}_{0}:=\mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}\). In particular, we employ a new procedure using mathematical induction, as well as an estimate for the upper and lower bounds for the gamma function inspired by Li and Chen (J. Inequal. Pure Appl. Math. 8(1):28, 2007), to evaluate the starlikeness and convexity of order α, \(0\leq \alpha <1\). Ultimately, we discuss the starlikeness and convexity of order zero for \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu} ^{\nu ,m}\), and it turns out that they are useful to extend the range of validity for the parameter λ to \(\lambda \geq 0\) where the main concept of the proofs comes from some technical manipulations given by Mocanu (Libertas Math. 13:27–40, 1993). Our results improve, complement, and generalize some well-known (nonsharp) estimates.
1 Introduction and mathematical preliminaries
It is widely known that many functions could be called “special”. These include certain elementary functions like the exponential, trigonometric, hyperbolic functions and their inverses, logarithmic functions and poly-logarithms, but the class also expands into transcendental functions like Bessel, Lamé, and Mathieu functions. Some of them play a supplemental role, while others, such as the Bessel and Legendre functions, are of primary importance. These functions appear as solutions of the differential equations and systems used as mathematical models of scientific and other phenomena, particularly those systems that change with time and space. We will restrict our present study to the generalized Lommel–Wright function, which could be of particular interest in concrete problems in mechanics, physics, astronomy, and engineering.
Geometric function theory is an area of complex analysis that investigates the geometric properties of analytic functions. It is a mathematical field characterized by a combination of geometry and complex analysis, and its origin began in the nineteenth century. More recently, geometric function theory has become highly significant as the way of algebraic geometry; in addition, the function theory on compact Riemann surfaces has found some results by creating a finite-gap solutions to nonlinear integrable systems, which can be an area of mathematics with a link to mathematical physics.
The theory of univalent functions is one of the greatest and most interesting fields in geometric function theory. Its origin starts from 1851, when the well-known mapping theorem was constructed by Riemann in his doctoral thesis, and which can be regarded as one of the most useful theorems in classical complex analysis. From a planar topology perspective, it is well known that there exist simply connected domains with rough boundaries, and for these domains, there are no clear homeomorphisms between them. However, the Riemann mapping theorem states that such simply connected domains are not only homeomorphic but are also biholomorphic. The Riemann mapping theorem states that if D is a nonempty domain that is a simply connected open subset in the complex plane \(\mathbb{C}\), then there exists an injective and holomorphic mapping f that maps D onto the open unit disc \(\mathbb{U}:= \{ z\in \mathbb{C}:|z|<1 \}\). This function is known as the Riemann mapping. Nevertheless, his proof was incomplete, while the proof was given completely in 1912 by Carathéodory using the Riemann surfaces. It was simplified by Koebe after two years in a way that did not require these (see, for example, [1, 11, 13, 20, 23]).
In more recent years, significant efforts have been made to study the geometric properties of certain (normalized) special functions such as close-to-convexity, starlikeness, and convexity mostly within \(\mathbb{U}\). For additional details, we refer, for example, to [18, 24–26] for hypergeometric function, to [8, 9] for Bessel function, to [21, 30, 33] for generalized Struve function, to [29] for Lommel function, to [32, 34] for generalized Lommel–Wright function, and to [17] for Fox–Wright function. In addition, some radii problems for the Bessel, q-Bessel, Struve, and Lommel functions of the first kind were investigated in [2–7] and in the references therein. It was shown that these radii are actually solutions of some transcendental equations. These results could be important to deduce some of the geometric properties of complex functions.
The contents of the present paper are summarized as follows. We outline first various well-known mathematical facts that will be used in the subsequent sections. Moreover, we examine the geometric properties of \(\mathfrak{J} _{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\), including the starlikeness and convexity of order \(\alpha , 0\leq \alpha <1\), using the mathematical induction, as well as an estimate for the upper and lower bounds for the gamma function inspired by [16]. In addition, we discuss the starlikeness and convexity of order zero for \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\), and it turns out that they are useful to extend the range of validity for the parameter λ where the leading concept of the proofs comes from some technical manipulations by [19]. Our results improve, complement, and generalize some well-known (nonsharp) estimates.
An analytic function f is called univalent (or schlicht) in a domain \(D\subset \mathbb{C}\), which is a subset of the complex plane, if it is injective in D. Without loss of generality, we will assume that f is normalized by the conditions \(f(0)=f^{\prime}(0)-1=0\) and is defined on \(\mathbb{U}\), that is, an analytic function having the Maclaurin series expansion of the form
This class of functions is denoted by \(\mathcal{A}\), while the subclass of \(\mathcal{A}\) consisting of univalent functions in \(\mathbb{U}\) is denoted by \(\mathcal{S}\). The most classic example of a function in \(\mathcal{S}\) is the Koebe function, that is,
It maps the unit disc \(\mathbb{U}\) onto \(\mathbb{C}\) slit along the negative real axis from \(-1/4\) to −∞, i.e., \(k (\mathbb{U} ) =\mathbb{C}\setminus (-\infty ,-1/4]\). It is well known that this function plays the extremal role in many problems in the univalent function theory.
Besides, if \(g\in \mathcal{A}\) has the form \(g(z)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty }B_{k}z^{k}\), \(z\in \mathbb{U}\), with \(B_{1}=1\), then the convolution of two power series f and g is given by \((f\ast g)(z):=\sum_{k=1} ^{\infty}A_{k}B_{k}z^{k}\), \(z\in \mathbb{U}\). The aforementioned definition of the convolution arises from the integration (see [11])
We are now in a position to recall the most important subclasses of the class of analytic functions, which can be regarded as the cornerstone in the theory of univalent functions, that is, the subclasses of starlike and convex functions (these classes were introduced by Robertson in 1936).
If \(f(\mathbb{U})\) is a starlike domain with respect to the origin, then \(f\in \mathcal{S}\) is called starlike with respect to the origin (or briefly, starlike), denoted by \(\mathcal{S}^{\ast}\). We shall recall that the domain \(D\subset \mathbb{C}\) is starlike with respect to an interior point \(z_{0}\in D\) if the line segment that joins \(z_{0}\) to any other point of D lies entirely in D. In particular, if \(z_{0}=0\), then the domain D is called starlike domain. A function \(f\in \mathcal{A}\) belongs to the class \(\mathcal{S}^{\ast}\) if and only if \(\operatorname{Re}(zf^{\prime }(z)/f(z))>0\), \(z\in \mathbb{U}\). The Koebe function and its rotations are an example of starlike functions, and this function is extremal for the class \(\mathcal{S}^{\ast}\).
Moreover, if \(f(\mathbb{U})\) is a convex domain, then \(f\in \mathcal{S}\) is called convex, denoted by \(\mathcal{K}\). It is well known that the domain \(D\subset \mathbb{C}\) is convex if the line segment joining any two points of D lies entirely in D. Analytically, the convex functions \(f\in \mathcal{A}\) can be represented as \(\operatorname{Re}(zf^{\prime \prime }(z)/f^{\prime}(z))+1>0\), \(z\in \mathbb{U}\). The main branch of the function \(f(z)=-\log (1-z)\in \mathcal{K}\) since \(1+\operatorname{Re}(zf^{\prime \prime }(z)/f^{\prime}(z))=1+ \operatorname{Re}(z/(1-z))>1/2>0\) for all \(z\in \mathbb{U}\).
Additionally, a function \(f\in \mathcal{A}\) is starlike of order α, \(0\leq \alpha <1\), if and only if \(\operatorname{Re}(zf^{\prime }(z)/f(z))>\alpha \), \(z\in \mathbb{U}\), and it belongs to the class of convex functions of order α, denoted by \(\mathcal{K}(\alpha )\), if and only if \(\operatorname{Re}(zf^{\prime \prime}(z)/f^{\prime} (z))+1>\alpha \), \(z\in \mathbb{U}\). As is well known, \(\mathcal{S}^{\ast }(\alpha )\subset \mathcal{S}^{\ast}(0)=: \mathcal{S}^{\ast}\), \(\mathcal{K} (\alpha )\subset \mathcal{K}(0)=:\mathcal{K}\) and \(\mathcal{K}\subset \mathcal{S}^{\ast}\subset \mathcal{S}\).
Oteiza et al. in [10] introduced the generalized Lommel–Wright function \(J_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\) as
for \(\lambda ,\nu \in \mathbb{\mathbb{C}}\), \(m\in \mathbb{N}:= \{ 1,2,\ldots \}\), and \(\mu >0\). Here, \(_{p}\Psi _{q}\) stands for the Fox–Wright function defined by
where
with \(A_{i},B_{j}\in \mathbb{R}^{+}\) \((i=1,\ldots ,p, j=1,\ldots ,q)\) and \(\alpha _{i},\beta _{j}\in \mathbb{C}\). It is observable that (1.3) is absolutely convergent in the entire complex z–plane when \(\Omega :=\sum_{j=1}^{q}B_{j}-\sum_{i=1}^{p}A_{i}>-1\), while if \(\Omega =-1\), it converges absolutely for \(\vert z \vert <\rho \) and \(\vert z \vert =\rho \) under the condition \(\operatorname{Re} (\sigma )>1/2\), where
We refer for additional information regarding the Fox–Wright functions to [15] and the references therein.
We are now in a position to deduce certain special cases of the generalized Lommel–Wright function. If we set \(m=1\) in (1.2), we get the Bessel–Maitland function introduced by Pathak [22], which has the form
for \(\mu >0\) and \(\lambda ,\nu \in \mathbb{C}\). Putting \(\lambda =1/2\) and \(m=\mu =1\) in (1.2), we have the Struve function defined by
For \(\lambda =0\) and \(m=\mu =1\) in (1.2), we get the Bessel function that has the power series expansion
where \(z\in \mathbb{C}\setminus \{0\}\), \(\nu \in \mathbb{C}\) with \(\operatorname{Re}\nu >-1\).
In the following part of the paper, we need the next definition.
Definition 1.1
The normalized form of the combination of generalized Lommel–Wright function is defined by
where the function \(\mathcal{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\) satisfies the differential equation \(\mathcal{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}(z):=(1-2\lambda -\nu )J_{ \lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}(z)+z (J_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}(z) ) ^{\prime}\) for \(\lambda \in \mathbb{C}\setminus \mathbb{Z}^{-} \), \(\mathbb{Z} ^{-}:= \{-1,-2,-3,\ldots \}\), \(m\in \mathbb{N}\), \(\nu \in \mathbb{C}\), and \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}_{0}\). Clearly, \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\) can be written as
where \((r)_{k}\) denotes the Pochhammer symbol given by
Remark 1.1
1. First, we will determine sufficient conditions such that \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\) given by (1.4) is well defined.
2. According to the definition of Pochhammer symbol, we should assume that \(k\mu \in \mathbb{N}\) for all \(k\in \mathbb{N}\), that it is equivalent to \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\).
3. We should assume that the denominator of the above definition formula is not vanishing for any \(k\in \mathbb{N}\), which is equivalent to
4. Moreover, we should prove that the power series of (1.4) converges in the whole open unit disc \(\mathbb{U}\). The radius of convergence of this power series is
Using assumptions (1.5) and the fact that \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), the second of the above limits is +∞, while the first one is
Therefore, \(R\geq 1\) if and only if \(m\geq 0\) and (1.5) is satisfied. Concluding, the power series defined by (1.4) is correctly defined and converges in \(\mathbb{U}\) only if we make the following assumptions:
2 Sufficient conditions for starlikeness and convexity of order α
This section aims to investigate a fascinating aspect regarding the geometric properties of the function defined by (1.4), such as starlikeness and convexity of order α, \(0\leq \alpha <1\), inside the open unit disc using mathematical induction, as well as an estimation for the upper and lower bounds for the gamma function inspired by [16]. Our results improve, complement, and generalize some well-known (nonsharp) estimates given in the literature.
Theorem 2.1
Let \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\nu \geq 0\), and \(m\in \mathbb{N}\). If
or, equivalently,
then \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\in \mathcal{S}^{\ast}(\alpha )\), \(0\leq \alpha <1\).
Proof
To prove that \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\in \mathcal{S}^{\ast} (\alpha )\), \(0\leq \alpha <1\), it is sufficient to show that
By making use of the maximum modulus principle of an analytic function as well as the triangle inequality, together with assumptions (1.6) and the fact that \(\Gamma (\zeta +1)=\zeta \Gamma (\zeta )\), \(\operatorname{Re} \zeta >0\), we get
since \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\) and \(\nu \geq 0\). Define \(F:[1,+\infty )\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) by
where we assumed in addition, and according to the above assumptions, that \(\lambda >0\) and \(\lambda +\nu >0\). Differentiating logarithmically both sides of (2.4) to get
where ψ is the well-known digamma function defined by \(\psi (z):=\Gamma ^{\prime} (z )/\Gamma (z)\). Assume in addition that \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\) to use in the further proof the induction method.
Now, to prove that \(G(\lambda )<0\) for all \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\), we will use the mathematical induction. For \(\lambda =1\), we have
Using the fact that \(\nu \geq 0\) and since we already know that \(t\geq 1\), \(\mu \geq 1\), we have \(\nu +t\mu +2\geq t\mu +2\geq t+2\geq 3\), and using the fact that the digamma function ψ is a strictly increasing function on \((0,+\infty )\), it follows that \(\psi (t+2 )\geq \psi ( 3 )\), \(\psi ( \nu +t\mu +2 )\geq \psi (3 ) \). Thus, because \(t\geq 1\), \(\nu \geq 0\), \(\mu \geq 1\), and \(m\in \mathbb{N}\), we obtain that
and we will prove that \((5/3)-(m+\mu )\psi (3 )<0\). For this purpose, using the relation
and the fact that \(\psi (1)=-\gamma \), where γ is the Euler–Mascheroni constant given by
we obtain
for \(\mu \geq 1\) and \(m\geq (1/3)(1+6\gamma )/(3-2\gamma )=0.8061280444\ldots\) . Therefore, \(G(1)<0\), whenever \(t\geq 1\), \(\nu \geq 0\), \(\mu \geq 1\), and \(m\geq (1/3)(1+6\gamma )/(3-2\gamma )=0.8061280444\ldots\) .
Further, assuming that \(G(\lambda _{0})<0\) for some \(\lambda _{0}\in \mathbb{N}\) and using (2.6), we have
where \(t\geq 1\), \(\nu \geq 0\), \(\mu \geq 1\), and \(m\geq 0\). It follows that \(G(\lambda _{0}+1)< G(\lambda _{0})<0\), therefore \(G(\lambda )<0\) for all \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\). The well-known relation
leads to \(F(t)>0\) for all \(t\in {}[ 1,+\infty )\).
Finally, using that \(F(t)>0\) for all \(t\geq 1\) and the fact that \(G(\lambda )<0 \) for all \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\), from (2.5) it follows that \(F^{\prime}(t)<0\), \(t\in [1,+\infty )\), hence the function F is strictly decreasing on \([1,+\infty )\).
Consequently, the right-hand side of (2.3) implies that
and so
On the other hand, from the maximum modulus theorem of an analytic function, it finds
and the above inequality could be rewritten as
If we define \(G:[1,+\infty )\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) by \(G(t):=F(t)/t\) where F is defined by (2.4), since we already proved that F is a strictly decreasing function on \([1,+\infty )\), it follows that G is also a strictly decreasing on the same interval. Therefore, the above inequality leads to
From inequalities (2.9) and (2.10) we deduce that
and a simple computation shows that the right-hand side of the above inequality is less or equal than \(1-\alpha \) if and only if (2.1) holds, or equivalently (2.2). □
Theorem 2.2
Let \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\nu \geq 0\), and \(m\in \mathbb{N}\setminus \{1\}\). If
or, equivalently,
then \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\in \mathcal{K}(\alpha )\), \(0\leq \alpha <1\).
Proof
We would like to find sufficient conditions such that \(\mathfrak{J} _{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\in \mathcal{K}(\alpha )\), \(0\leq \alpha <1\), with \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\) given by (1.4) under the assumptions of Theorem 2.1 that are \(\lambda ,\mu ,m\in \mathbb{N}\) and \(\nu \geq 0\). To prove the required result, it is sufficient to show that
Using the maximum modulus principle of the analytic functions and the triangle inequality, we obtain
Consider the function \(H:[1,+\infty )\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) defined by
Differentiating logarithmically both sides of (2.14), we get
where ψ stands for the digamma function.
Now, using the mathematical induction, we will prove that \(L(\lambda )<0\) for all \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\). For \(\lambda =1\), we have
According to the assumptions that \(\nu \geq 0\), \(t\geq 1\), and \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), we get \(\nu +t\mu +2\geq t\mu +2\geq t+2\geq 3\), and using again the fact that ψ is a strictly increasing function on \((0,+\infty )\), we deduce that \(\psi (t+2 ) \geq \psi (3 )\), \(\psi ( \nu +t\mu +2 ) \geq \psi (3 ) \), hence
Moreover, \((13/6)-(m+\mu )\psi (3 )<0\) because by using (2.6) and the fact that \(\psi (1)=-\gamma \) we get
and this last inequality holds under our assumptions \(\mu \geq 1\) and \(m\geq (2/3)(2+3\gamma )/(3-2\gamma )=1.347966458\ldots\) . Consequently, \(L(1)<0 \), whenever \(t\geq 1\), \(\nu \geq 1\), \(\mu \geq 1\), and \(m\geq (2/3)(2+3\gamma )/(3-2\gamma )=1.347966458\ldots\) .
Assuming that \(L(\lambda _{0})<0\) for some \(\lambda _{0}\in \mathbb{N}\), we have
where \(t\geq 1\), \(\nu \geq 0\), \(\mu \geq 1\), and \(m\geq 0\). It follows that \(L(\lambda _{0}+1)< L(\lambda _{0})<0\), therefore \(L(\lambda )<0\) for all \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\). Using again relation (2.8), we get that \(H(t)>0\) for all \(x\geq 1\), and from relation (2.15) and the fact that \(L(\lambda )<0\) for all \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\), we conclude that \(H^{\prime }(t)<0\), \(t\in [1,+\infty )\). Therefore, the function H is strictly decreasing on \([1,+\infty )\), hence from (2.13) we have
and (2.13) leads to the inequality
From the maximum modulus principle of an analytic function, we get
and the above inequality could be rewritten as
If we define the function \(L:[1,+\infty )\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) by \(L(t):=H(t)/t\), where H is given by (2.14), since we already proved that H is a strictly decreasing function on \([1,+\infty )\), it follows that L is also strictly decreasing on the same interval. Therefore, the above inequality implies that
From inequalities (2.16) and (2.17) we conclude that
and a simple computation shows that the right-hand side of the above inequality is less or equal to \(1-\alpha \) if and only if (2.11) holds, which is equivalent to (2.12). □
Example 2.1
If we take in Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 the particular values \(\lambda =1\), \(\mu =3\), \(m=2\), and \(\nu =0.5\), we get that
where
and the image of the open unit disc \(\mathbb{U}\) by \(\mathfrak{J} _{1,3}^{0.5,2}\) is shown in Fig. 1(a).
Example 2.2
For the special case \(\lambda =\mu =1\), \(m=3\), and \(\nu =0.2\), Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 lead to
with
while the image of \(\mathfrak{J}_{1,1}^{0.2,3}(\mathbb{U})\) is presented in Fig. 1(b).
Using Theorem 1 of [27], we obtain in the following result a sufficient condition for the parameters \(\lambda \ge 1\), \(\mu ,m\in \mathbb{N}\), and \(\nu \geq 0\) such that \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\in \mathcal{S} ^{\ast}(\alpha )\), which extends Theorem 2.1, where we assumed that \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\).
Theorem 2.3
Suppose that \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\lambda \geq 1\), \(\nu \geq 0\), and \(m\in \mathbb{N}\). If
or, equivalently,
then \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\in \mathcal{S}^{\ast}(\alpha )\).
Proof
As is well known from [27, Theorem 1], if f is of the form (1.1) and satisfies \(\sum_{k=2}^{\infty} ( k-\alpha ) \vert A_{k} \vert \leq 1-\alpha \), then \(f\in \mathcal{S}^{\ast} (\alpha ) \). Thus, according to (1.4), it is enough to prove that
Since \(\lambda >-1\) and \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), we have
Consider the function \(U:[1,+\infty )\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) defined by
Now, we would like to show that \(U(t+1)< U(t)\) for \(t\geq 1\), hence we will give a negative upper bound for
In Theorem 1 of [16], it was proved that
but
therefore, we conclude that
where γ is the Euler–Mascheroni constant given by (2.7), relation (2.20) becomes
where
and could be written as
Since \(\lambda \geq 1\), \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), \(m\geq 1\), and \(\nu \geq 0\), we have
where, using the same above assumptions, we have
It is well known that
and replacing \(t:=y/\mu \), since \(\mu \geq 1\), we get
From the assumption \(\mu \geq 1\), using the second of the above inequalities, it follows
and since the function B is strictly increasing on \([\mu +2,+\infty )\), we have
Using the MAPLE™ computer software code “\(\mathtt{minimize}(\Phi ,\mu \geq 1)\)”, we obtain that
which leads to \(A(y)>1.2381\), \(y\geq \mu +2\). Therefore, using (2.23) we deduce
or
where
A simple computation shows that
hence \(U_{2}\) is a strictly decreasing function on \([1,+\infty )\) that implies
and according to (2.24) this inequality implies \(U_{1}(t)<0\) for all \(t\geq 1\). Therefore, taking into the account inequality (2.22), we obtain that \(U(t+1)< U(t)\) for \(t\geq 1\). Consequently, since \(U(k+1)< U(k)\) for all \(k\in \mathbb{N}\), for the first term of the sum (2.19), we deduce that
To evaluate the second term of the sum (2.19), we will define the function \(V:[1,+\infty )\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) by
Since
and because we already proved that \(U(t+1)-U(t)<0\) for all \(t\geq 1\), it follows that \(V(t+1)-V(t)<0\), \(t\geq 1\). Similarly, for the second term of the sum (2.19), we have
Using relation (2.19) combined with inequalities (2.25) and (2.26), it follows that
and from assumption (2.18) it follows that \(H_{1}\leq 1-\alpha \), thus \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\in \mathcal{S}^{\ast}(\alpha )\). □
Using similar reasons, the next theorem gives us sufficient conditions such that \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\in \mathcal{K}(\alpha )\) for a much weaker assumption on λ, that is, only \(\lambda \ge 1\).
Theorem 2.4
Suppose that \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\lambda \geq 1\), \(\nu \geq 0\), and \(m\in \mathbb{N}\). If
or, equivalently,
then \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\in \mathcal{K}(\alpha )\).
Proof
As is well known, a function f of the form (1.1) belongs to the class \(\mathcal{K}(\alpha )\) if and only if \(zf^{\prime}(z)\in \mathcal{S} ^{\ast}(\alpha )\).
Since
with
according to [27, Theorem 1], to prove our result, we will show that \(\sum_{k=2}^{\infty}(k-\alpha ) \vert B_{k} \vert \leq 1-\alpha \). A simple computation leads to the fact that this inequality is equivalent to
Using that \(\lambda >-1\) and \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), it follows
Consider the functions \(\widehat{U}:[1,+\infty )\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) and \(\widehat{V}:[1,+\infty )\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) defined by
and
respectively.
First, we would like to show that \(\widehat{U}(t+1)<\widehat{U}(t)\) for \(t\geq 1\), hence we will try to find a negative upper bound for the difference
Using again the double inequality (2.21), from relation (2.29) it follows that
where
or
Since \(\lambda \geq 1\), \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), \(m\geq 1\), and \(\nu \geq 0\), we get
where, using again the above mentioned assumptions, we deduce that
Since \(\widehat{A}(y)\) has the same form like in the proof of Theorem 2.3, using the MAPLE™ computer software, we obtain \(\widehat{A}(y)>1.2381\), \(y\geq \mu +2\), and from inequality (2.31) we get
or
where
Since \(\widehat{U}_{2}(t)=0\) if \(t\in \{ -0.9575518016, 1.265241003 \}\), it follows that
and according to (2.32) and (2.30) it follows that \(\widehat{U}(t+1)<\widehat{U}(t)\) for \(t\geq 2\).
To show that the last inequality holds also for \(t=1\), we should prove that
for \(\lambda \geq 1\), \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), \(m\geq 1\), and \(\nu \geq 0\) or, equivalently,
Since \(\lambda \geq 1\), \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), \(m\geq 1\), and \(\nu \geq 0\), we have
therefore
Hence, the inequality \(\widehat{U}(t+1)<\widehat{U}(t)\) holds also for \(t=1\), therefore \(\widehat{U}(t+1)<\widehat{U}(t)\) for \(t\in \{1\}\cup [ 2,+\infty )\).
For the second term of sum (2.28), we see that for the previously defined function V̂ we have
and because we already proved that \(\widehat{U}(t+1)-\widehat{U}(t)<0\) for all \(t\in \{1\}\cup [2,+\infty )\), it follows that \(\widehat{V}(t+1)-\widehat {V}(t)<0\), \(t\in \{1\}\cup [2,+\infty )\).
Consequently, since \(\mathbb{N}\subset \{1\}\cup {}[ 2,+\infty )\), like in the proof of Theorem 2.3, the above results yield that
and
It follows that for both terms of the sums that appeared in (2.28) we have
and
Finally, from relation (2.28) together with inequalities (2.33) and (2.34), we deduce that
and from assumption (2.27) it follows that \(H_{2}\leq 1-\alpha \), therefore \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\in \mathcal{K}(\alpha )\). □
Using Theorems 2.3 and 2.4, in the next two examples we find the order of starlikeness and convexity for the functions \(\mathfrak{J} _{1.5,2.5}^{3,2}\) and \(\mathfrak{J}_{0.2,3.5}^{2,2}\), and we emphasize that \(\lambda \notin \mathbb{N}\), hence these results cannot be obtained from Theorems 2.1 and 2.2, respectively.
Example 2.3
Taking in Theorems 2.3 and 2.4 the values \(\lambda =2.5\), \(\mu =3\), \(m=2\), and \(\nu =1.5\), we get that
where
and the image of the open unit disc \(\mathbb{U}\) by \(\mathfrak{J} _{2.5,3}^{1.5,2}\) is presented in Fig. 2 (a).
Example 2.4
Putting \(\lambda =3.5\), \(\mu =m=2\), and \(\nu =0.2\), Theorems 2.3 and 2.4 lead to
with
and the image of \(\mathfrak{J}_{3.5,2}^{0.2,2}(\mathbb{U})\) is shown in Fig. 2(b).
Remark 2.1
1. We could see that Theorems 2.3 and 2.4 are more general than Theorems 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. That is because in the first case we replace the assumption \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\) with \(\lambda \ge 1\), while in the second case the assumptions \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\) and \(m\in \mathbb{N}\setminus \{1\}\) were replaced by \(\lambda \ge 1\) and \(m\in \mathbb{N}\) only.
2. Remark that
under the assumptions of Theorems 2.1 and 2.3, hence if the parameters satisfy the conditions of these two theorems, then \(\mathfrak{J} _{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\in \mathcal{S}(2/3)\). Also,
under the assumptions of Theorems 2.2 and 2.4, respectively. Thus, if the parameters satisfy the conditions of Theorem 2.2, then \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\in \mathcal{K}(2/3)\), while if they satisfy the assumptions of Theorem 2.4, then \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\in \mathcal{K}(0)=:\mathcal{K}\).
3 Sufficient conditions for starlikeness and convexity
In this section we give sufficient conditions for the starlikeness and convexity of \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\) by using the next results, respectively.
Lemma 3.1
[19, Corollary 1.2] If \(f(z)=z+a_{k+1}z^{k+1}+\cdots \) , \(k\geq 1\), is analytic in \(\mathbb{U}\) and
then \(f\in \mathcal{S}^{\ast}\).
Remark that for \(k=1\) the above result was previously obtained by [28, Theorem 3], and we will use it in our next first result.
Lemma 3.2
[19, Theorem 2] If \(f(z)=z+a_{k+1}z^{k+1}+\cdots \) , \(k\geq 1\), is analytic in \(\mathbb{U}\) and
then \(\vert f^{\prime \prime}(z)/f^{\prime}(z) \vert \leq 1\), \(z\in \mathbb{U}\), and hence \(f\in \mathcal{K}\). This result is sharp.
Theorem 3.1
Let \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\lambda \ge 0\), \(\nu \in \mathbb{R}\) with \(\lambda +\nu +\mu \ge 1\), \(\lambda +\nu \notin \mathbb{Z}^{-}\), and \(m\in \mathbb{N}\). If
and
then \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\in \mathcal{S}^{\ast}\).
Proof
To prove the above result, we will use Lemma 3.1 for the particular case \(k=1\). Thus, to obtain \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\in \mathcal{S}^{\ast}\), it is sufficient to show that
Like in the proof of Theorem 2.1, from the assumptions of the parameters we have that
If we define the function \(K:[1,+\infty )\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) by
then
On the other hand, by using the left-hand side of the inequality (see [14, Lemma 1])
followed by the left-hand side of (see [12, ineq. (13)])
since \(\lambda \geq 0\), \(m\geq 0\), and \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), it follows that
under assumption (3.1). Since K̂ is a strictly decreasing function on \([1,+\infty )\), then \(\widehat{K}(t)\leq \widehat {K}(1)<0\), \(t\geq 1\), and using that \(K(t)>0\), \(t\geq 1\), relation (3.5) leads to \(K^{\prime}(t)<0\), \(t\geq 1\). This last inequality implies that K is also a strictly decreasing function on \([1,+\infty )\), and from (3.4) we get
A simple computation shows that under assumption (3.2) the right-hand side of the above inequality is less or equal than \(2/\sqrt{5}\). Thus, according to (3.3), the required result follows. □
Theorem 3.2
Let \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\lambda \ge 0\), \(\nu \in \mathbb{R}\) with \(\lambda +\nu +\mu \ge 1\), \(\lambda +\nu \notin \mathbb{Z}^{-}\), and \(m\in \mathbb{N}\). If
and
then \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\in \mathcal{K}\).
Proof
To use Lemma 3.2 for \(k=1\), we should prove that under our assumption we have
Using similar computations like in the proof of Theorem 2.2, we get
If we define the function \(Q:[1,+\infty )\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) by
then
Like in the proof of Theorem 3.1, using (3.6), (3.7) and the facts that \(m,\mu \geq 0\), we obtain
under assumption (3.8). Since Q̂ is a strictly decreasing function on \([1,+\infty )\), then \(\widehat{Q}(t)\leq \widehat {Q}(1)<0\), \(x\geq 1\), and using that \(Q(t)>0\), \(t\geq 1\), relation (3.12) yields that \(Q^{\prime}(t)<0\), \(t\geq 1\). This last inequality implies that Q is also a strictly decreasing function on \([1,+\infty )\), and from (3.11) we get
Consequently, assumption (3.9) implies that the right-hand side of the above inequality is less or equal than \(1/2\), and according to (3.10), we obtain our result. □
Example 3.1
In this example we will show that Theorem 3.1 is useful if \(\alpha =0\) for the case \(\lambda \ge 0\), which is not included in the assumptions of Theorems 2.1 or 2.3, where it was assumed that \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\) or \(\lambda \ge 1\), respectively. We mention that for \(\alpha =0\) assumption (3.2) is stronger than (2.18), but with the additional condition (3.1) we could obtain the starlikeness of some functions like \(\mathfrak{J}_{0.8,1}^{0.2,3}\).
Thus, if we put in Theorem 3.1 the values \(\lambda =0.2\), \(\mu =1\), \(m=3\), and \(\nu =0.1\), we get that
and the image of \(\mathbb{U}\) by \(\mathfrak{J}_{0.2,1}^{0.1,3}\) is shown in Fig. 3(a).
Taking in Theorem 3.1 the values \(\lambda =0.1\), \(\mu =1\), \(m=2\), and \(\nu =0.8\), we get that
and the image of \(\mathfrak{J}_{0.1,1}^{0.8,2}(\mathbb{U})\) is shown in Fig. 3(b).
Example 3.2
Next we will show that Theorem 3.2 is useful for \(\alpha =0\) for the case \(\lambda \ge 0\), which is not included in the assumptions of Theorems 2.2 or 2.4, where we assumed that \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\) or \(\lambda \ge 1\), respectively. We emphasize that for \(\alpha =0\) assumption (3.9) is stronger than (2.27), but adding condition (3.8) we could obtain the convexity of some functions like \(\mathfrak{J}_{0.7,1}^{0.8,2}\).
Taking in Theorem 3.2 the values \(\lambda =0.7\), \(\mu =1\), \(m=2\), and \(\nu =0.8\), we have
and the image of \(\mathbb{U}\) by \(\mathfrak{J}_{0.7,1}^{0.8,2}\) is shown in Fig. 4(a).
Putting in Theorem 3.1 the values \(\lambda =0.5\), \(\mu =1.5\), \(m=3\), and \(\nu =0.7\), we get that
while the image of \(\mathfrak{J}_{0.5,1.5}^{0.7,3}(\mathbb{U})\) is shown in Fig. 4(b).
Note that all the figures of this article were made by using the MAPLE™computer software.
4 Concluding remarks and outlook
In the present section the highlights of the paper are listed below:
1. In Theorem 2.1 we have used the principle of mathematical induction to generate the starlikeness of order \(\alpha _{s}\), given by (2.1), for the function \(\mathfrak{J}_{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}(z)\) defined by (1.4) for \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\nu \geq 0\), and \(m\in \mathbb{N}\). Further, in Theorem 2.2, the mathematical induction was also used to obtain the convexity of order \(\alpha _{c}\) for \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\lambda \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\nu \geq 0\), and \(m\in \mathbb{N} \setminus \{1\}\);
2. In Theorems 2.3 and 2.4, an estimate for the upper and lower bounds for the gamma function inspired by [16] has been used to evaluate the orders \(\alpha _{s}\) for \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\lambda \geq 1\), \(\nu \geq 0\), \(m\in \mathbb{N}\), and \(\alpha _{c}\) for \(\mu \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\lambda \geq 1\), \(\nu \geq 0\), and \(m\in \mathbb{N}\);
3. It could be seen that in [31] and [34] the authors investigated the orders of starlikeness and convexity of order \(\alpha _{s}\) and \(\alpha _{c}\), respectively, using some well-known estimation for gamma, digamma, and Fox–Wright functions. It is worth mentioning that our results in this paper slightly improve the results in [31] and [34];
4. Finally, the starlikeness and convexity of order zero for \(\mathfrak{J} _{\lambda ,\mu}^{\nu ,m}\) are studied using some technical manipulations proved by [19] that if \(f(z)=z+a_{n+1}z^{n+1}+\cdots \) , \(n\geq 1\) is analytic in \(\mathbb{U}\) and \(\vert f^{\prime}(z)-1 \vert <(n+1)/\sqrt{(n+1)^{2} +1}\), \(z\in \mathbb{U}\), and \(\vert f^{\prime \prime}(z) \vert \leq n/(n+1)\), \(z\in \mathbb{U}\), then \(f\in \mathcal{S}^{\ast}\) and \(f\in \mathcal{K}\), respectively. These results are useful to extend the range of validity for the parameter λ to \(\lambda \geq 0\).
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
Ahlfors, L.V.: Complex Analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York (1953)
Aktaş, I., Baricz, Á.: Bounds for radii of starlikeness of some q-Bessel functions. Results Math. 72, 947–963 (2017). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00025-017-0668-6
Aktaş, I., Baricz, Á., Singh, S.: Bounds for radii of starlikeness and convexity of some special functions. Turk. J. Math. 42(1), 211–226 (2018). https://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1829&context=math
Aktaş, I., Baricz, Á., Singh, S.: Geometric and monotonic properties of hyper-Bessel functions. Ramanujan J. 51, 275–295 (2020). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11139-018-0105-9
Aktaş, I., Baricz, Á., Yağmur, N.: Bounds for the radii of univalence of some special functions. Math. Inequal. Appl. 20(3), 825–843 (2017). https://files.ele-math.com/articles/mia-20-52.pdf
Aktaş, I., Orhan, H.: Bounds for radii of convexity of some q-Bessel functions. Bull. Korean Math. Soc. 57(2), 355–369 (2020). https://bkms.kms.or.kr/journal/view.html?uid=3087
Aktaş, I., Toklu, E., Orhan, H.: Radii of k-starlikeness of order α of Struve and Lommel functions. Miskolc Math. Notes 22(1), 5–15 (2021). http://mat76.mat.uni-miskolc.hu/mnotes/contents/22/1
Baricz, Á.: Bessel transforms and Hardy space of generalized Bessel functions. Mathematica (Cluj) 48(71)(2), 127–136 (2006). https://math.ubbcluj.ro/~mathjour/fulltext/2006-2/baricz.pdf
Baricz, Á., Ponnusamy, S.: Starlikeness and convexity of generalized Bessel functions. Integral Transforms Spec. Funct. 21(9), 641–653 (2010). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10652460903516736
de Oteiza, M.B.M., Kalla, S., Conde, S.: Un estudio sobre la función Lommel-Maitland. Rev. Téc. Fac. Ing., Univ. Zulia 9(2), 33–40 (1986)
Duren, P.L.: Univalent Functions. Springer, New York (1983)
Ghosh, A.: An asymptotic formula for the Chebyshev theta function. Notes Number Theory Discrete Math. 25(4), 1–7 (2019). https://nntdm.net/volume-25-2019/number-4/1-7/
Graham, I., Kohr, G.: Geometric Function Theory in One and Higher Dimensions. Dekker, New York (2003)
Guo, B.-N., Qi, F.: Refinements of lower bounds for polygamma functions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 141(3), 1007–1015 (2013). https://www.ams.org/journals/proc/2013-141-03/S0002-9939-2012-11387-5/S0002-9939-2012-11387-5.pdf
Kilbas, A.A., Saigo, M., Trujillo, J.J.: On the generalized Wright function. Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 5(4), 437–460 (2002). https://www.diogenes.bg/fcaa/volume5/fcaa54/aKST_MAI.pdf
Li, X., Chen, C.-P.: Inequalities for the gamma function. J. Inequal. Pure Appl. Math. 8(1), Article 28 (2007). https://www.emis.de/journals/JIPAM/images/264_06_JIPAM/264_06.pdf
Mehrez, K.: Some geometric properties of a class of functions related to the Fox-Wright functions. Banach J. Math. Anal. 14, 1222–1240 (2020). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43037-020-00059-w
Miller, S.S., Mocanu, P.T.: Univalence of Gaussian and confluent hypergeometric functions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 110(2), 333–342 (1990). https://www.ams.org/journals/proc/1990-110-02/S0002-9939-1990-1017006-8/S0002-9939-1990-1017006-8.pdf
Mocanu, P.T.: Some simple criteria for starlikeness and convexity. Libertas Math. 13, 27–40 (1993). https://system.lm-ns.org/index.php/lm/article/view/627/499
Nehari, Z.: Conformal Mapping. McGraw-Hill, New York (1952)
Orhan, H., Yağmur, N.: Geometric properties of generalized Struve functions. An. Ştiinţ. Univ. ‘Al.I. Cuza’ Iaşi, Mat. 63(2), 229–244 (2017). https://www.math.uaic.ro/~annalsmath/pdf-uri_anale/F2(2017)/Orhan_Yagmur_pg229.pdf
Pathak, R.S.: Certain convergence theorems and asymptotic properties of a generalization of Lommel and Maitland transformations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., India A-36(1), 81–86 (1966)
Pommerenke, C.: Univalent Functions. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen (1975)
Ponnusamy, S.: The Hardy space of hypergeometric functions. Complex Var. Theory Appl. 29(1), 83–96 (1996). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17476939608814876
Ponnusamy, S., Rønning, F.: Geometric properties for convolutions of hypergeometric functions and functions with the derivative in a halfplane. Integral Transforms Spec. Funct. 8(1–2), 121–138 (1999). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10652469908819221
Ponnusamy, S., Vuorinen, M.: Univalence and convexity properties for confluent hypergeometric functions. Complex Var. Theory Appl. 36(1), 73–97 (1998). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17476939808815101
Silverman, H.: Univalent functions with negative coefficients. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 51(1), 109–116 (1975). https://www.ams.org/journals/proc/1975-051-01/S0002-9939-1975-0369678-0/S0002-9939-1975-0369678-0.pdf
Singh, V.: Univalent functions with bounded derivative in the unit disc. Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. 8(11), 1370–1377 (1977). https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.205676/2015.205676.Indian-Journal_djvu.txt
Yağmur, N.: Hardy space of Lommel functions. Bull. Korean Math. Soc. 52(3), 1035–1046 (2015). https://koreascience.kr/article/JAKO201517058945935.pdf
Yağmur, N., Orhan, H.: Hardy space of generalized Struve functions. Complex Var. Elliptic Equ. 59(7), 929–936 (2014). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17476933.2013.799148
Zayed, H.M., Bulboacă, T.: On some geometric properties for the combination of generalized Lommel-Wright function. J. Inequal. Appl. 2021, 158 (2021). https://journalofinequalitiesandapplications.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13660-021-02690-z
Zayed, H.M., Bulboacă, T.: Normalized generalized Bessel function and its geometric properties. J. Inequal. Appl. 2022, 158 (2022). https://journalofinequalitiesandapplications.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13660-022-02891-0
Zayed, H.M., Bulboacă, T., Morais, J.: The geometric characterizations for a combination of generalized Struve functions. Comput. Methods Funct. Theory 22, 699–714 (2022). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40315-021-00421-5
Zayed, H.M., Mehrez, K.: Generalized Lommel–Wright function and its geometric properties. J. Inequal. Appl. 2022, 115 (2022). https://journalofinequalitiesandapplications.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13660-022-02851-8
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the referees for the valuable remarks, comments, and advices that helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Funding
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Both authors contributed equally to the writing of this paper. They read and approved the final version of the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zayed, H.M., Bulboacă, T. Geometric characterization of the generalized Lommel–Wright function in the open unit disc. J Inequal Appl 2024, 32 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-024-03108-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-024-03108-2