We use the definition of a fractional integral, recently proposed by Katugampola, to establish a generalization of the reverse Minkowski's inequality. We show two new theorems associated with this inequality, as well as state and show other inequalities related to this fractional operator.
Citation: J. Vanterler da C. Sousa, E. Capelas de Oliveira. The Minkowski’s inequality by means of a generalized fractional integral[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2018, 3(1): 131-147. doi: 10.3934/Math.2018.1.131
[1] | Alina Alb Lupaş, Georgia Irina Oros . Differential sandwich theorems involving Riemann-Liouville fractional integral of q-hypergeometric function. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 4930-4943. doi: 10.3934/math.2023246 |
[2] | Alina Alb Lupaş, Shujaat Ali Shah, Loredana Florentina Iambor . Fuzzy differential subordination and superordination results for q -analogue of multiplier transformation. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 15569-15584. doi: 10.3934/math.2023794 |
[3] | Ekram E. Ali, Nicoleta Breaz, Rabha M. El-Ashwah . Subordinations and superordinations studies using q-difference operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 18143-18162. doi: 10.3934/math.2024886 |
[4] | Ekram E. Ali, Georgia Irina Oros, Abeer M. Albalahi . Differential subordination and superordination studies involving symmetric functions using a q-analogue multiplier operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 27924-27946. doi: 10.3934/math.20231428 |
[5] | Ekram E. Ali, Miguel Vivas-Cortez, Rabha M. El-Ashwah . New results about fuzzy γ-convex functions connected with the q-analogue multiplier-Noor integral operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 5451-5465. doi: 10.3934/math.2024263 |
[6] | Madan Mohan Soren, Luminiţa-Ioana Cotîrlǎ . Fuzzy differential subordination and superordination results for the Mittag-Leffler type Pascal distribution. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 21053-21078. doi: 10.3934/math.20241023 |
[7] | Ekram E. Ali, Rabha M. El-Ashwah, Abeer M. Albalahi, R. Sidaoui, Abdelkader Moumen . Inclusion properties for analytic functions of q-analogue multiplier-Ruscheweyh operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 6772-6783. doi: 10.3934/math.2024330 |
[8] | K. Saritha, K. Thilagavathi . Differential subordination, superordination results associated with Pascal distribution. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(4): 7856-7864. doi: 10.3934/math.2023395 |
[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, Rabha M. El-Ashwah, R. Sidaoui . Application of subordination and superordination for multivalent analytic functions associated with differintegral operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 11440-11459. doi: 10.3934/math.2023579 |
We use the definition of a fractional integral, recently proposed by Katugampola, to establish a generalization of the reverse Minkowski's inequality. We show two new theorems associated with this inequality, as well as state and show other inequalities related to this fractional operator.
More and more fields of research have used fractional calculus to develop and find new applications. Similarly, q-calculus is involved in several engineering domains, physics, and in mathematics. The combination of fractional and q-calculus in geometric functions theory and some interesting applications were obtained by Srivastava [1].
Jackson [2,3] established the q-derivative and the q-integral in the field of mathematical analysis via quantum calculus. The foundations of quantum calculus in the theory of geometric functions were laid by Srivastava [4]. Continued research in this field has led to the obtaining of numerous q-analogue operators, such as the q-analogue of the Sălăgean differential operator [5], giving new applications in [6,7,8]; the q-analogue of the Ruscheweyh differential operator introduced by Răducanu and Kanas [9] and studied by Mohammed and Darus [10] and Mahmood and Sokół [11]; and the q -analogue of the multiplier transformation [12,13].
This study involves an operator defined by applying the Riemann-Liouville fractional integral to the q-analogue of the multiplier transformation. Many operators have been defined and studied in recent years by using the Riemann-Liouville or Atagana-Baleanu fractional integrals.
First, we recall the classically used notations and notions from geometric functions theory.
Working on the open unit disc U={z∈C:|z|<1}, we establish here the class of analytic functions denoted by H(U) and its subclasses H[a,n] containing the functions f∈H(U) defined by f(z)=a+anzn+an+1zn+1+…, with z∈U, a∈C, n∈N, as well as An, containing the functions f∈H(U) of the form f(z)=z+an+1zn+1+…, z∈U. When n=1, the notation A1=A is used.
We also recall the Riemann-Liouville fractional integral definition introduced in [13,15]:
Definition 1. ([13,15]) The fractional integral of order λ applied to the analytic function f in a simply-connected region of the z -plane which contains the origin is defined by
D−λzf(z)=1Γ(λ)∫z0f(t)(z−t)1−λdt, |
where λ>0 and the multiplicity of (z−t)λ−1 is removed by the condition that log(z−t) is real when (z−t)>0.
The q-analogue of the multiplier transformation is defined below.
Definition 2 ([13]) The q-analogue of the multiplier transformation, denoted by Im,lq, has the following form:
Im,lqf(z)=z+∞∑j=2([l+j]q[l+1]q)majzj, |
where q∈(0,1), m,l∈R, l>−1, and f(z)=z+∑∞j=2ajzj∈A, z∈U.
Remark 1. We notice that limq→1Im,lqf(z)=limq→1(z+∑∞j=2([l+j]q[l+1]q)majzj)=z+∑∞j=2(l+jl+1)majzj =I(m,1,l). The operator I(m,1,l) was studied by Cho and Srivastava [16] and Cho and Kim [17]. The operator I(m,1,1) was studied by Uralegaddi and Somanatha [18], and the operator I(α,λ,0) was introduced by Acu and Owa [19]. Cătaş [20] studied the operator Ip(m,λ,l) which generalizes the operator I(m,λ,l). Alb Lupaş studied the operator I(m,λ,l) in [21,22,23].
Now, we introduce definitions from the differential subordination and differential superordination theories.
Definition 3. ([24]) Between the analytic functions f and g there is a differential subordination, denoted f(z)≺g(z), if there exists ω, a Schwarz analytic function with the properties |ω(z)|<1, z∈U and ω(0)=0, such that f(z)=g(ω(z)), ∀ z∈U. In the special case where g is an univalent function in U, the above differential subordination is equivalent to f(U)⊂g(U) and f(0)=g(0).
Definition 4. ([24]) Considering a univalent function h in U and ψ:C3×U→C, when the analytic function p satisfies the differential subordination
ψ(p(z),zp′(z),z2p′′(z);z)≺h(z), z∈U, | (1.1) |
then p is a solution of the differential subordination. When p≺g for all solutions p, the univalent function g is a dominant of the solutions. A dominant ˜g with the property ˜g≺g for every dominant g is called the best dominant of the differential subordination.
Definition 5. ([25]) Considering an analytic function h in U and φ:C3ׯU→C, when p and φ(p(z),zp′(z),z2p′′(z);z) are univalent functions in U fulfilling the differential superordination
h(z)≺φ(p(z),zp′(z),z2p′′(z);z), | (1.2) |
then p is a solution of the differential superordination. When g≺p for all solutions p, the analytic function g is a subordinant of the solutions. A subordinant ˜g with the property g≺˜g for every subordinant g is called the best subordinant of the differential superordination.
Definition 6. ([24]) Q denotes the class of injective functions f analytic on ¯U∖E(f), with the property f′(ζ)≠0 for ζ∈∂U∖E(f), when E(f)={ζ∈∂U:limz→ζf(z)=∞}.
The obtained results from this paper are constructed based on the following lemmas.
Lemma 1. ([24]) Considering the univalent function g in U and the analytic functions θ, η in a domain D⊃g(U), such that η(w)≠0, ∀ w∈g(U), define the functions G(z)=zg′(z)η(g(z)) and h(z)=θ(g(z))+G(z). Assuming that G is starlike univalent in U and Re(zh′(z)G(z))>0, ∀ z∈U, when the analytic function p having the properties p(U)⊆D and p(0)=g(0), satisfies the differential subordination θ(p(z))+zp′(z)η(p(z))≺θ(g(z))+zg′(z)η(g(z)), for z∈U, then p≺g and g is the best dominant.
Lemma 2. ([26]) Considering the convex univalent function g in U and the analytic functions θ, η in a domain D⊃g(U), define the function G(z)=zg′(z)η(g(z)). Assuming that G is starlike univalent in U and Re(θ′(g(z))η(g(z)))>0, ∀ z∈U, when p∈H[g(0),1]∩Q, with p(U)⊆D, the function θ(p(z))+zp′(z)η(p(z)) is univalent in U, and the differential superordination θ(g(z))+zg′(z)η(g(z))≺θ(p(z))+zp′(z)η(p(z)) is satisfied, then g≺p and g is the best subordinant.
The operator obtained by applying the the Riemann-Liouville fractional integral to the q-analogue of the multiplier transformation is written as follows:
Definition 7. Let q,m,l be real numbers, q∈(0,1), l>−1, and λ∈N. The fractional integral applied to the q-analogue of the multiplier transformation is defined by
D−λzIm,lqf(z)=1Γ(λ)∫z0Im,lqf(t)(z−t)1−λdt= | (2.1) |
1Γ(λ)∫z0t(z−t)1−λdt+∞∑j=2([l+j]q[l+1]q)maj∫z0tj(z−t)1−λdt. |
After a laborious computation, we discover that the fractional integral applied to the q-analogue of the multiplier transformation takes the following form:
D−λzIm,lqf(z)=1Γ(λ+2)zλ+1+∞∑j=2([l+j]q[l+1]q)mΓ(j+1)Γ(j+λ+1)ajzj+λ, | (2.2) |
when f(z)=z+∑∞j=2ajzj∈A. We note that D−λzIm,lqf(z)∈H[0,λ+1].
Remark 2. When q→1, we obtain the classical case, and the fractional integral applied to the multiplier transformation is defined by
D−λzI(m,1,l)f(z)=1Γ(λ)∫z0I(m,1,l)f(t)(z−t)1−λdt= | (2.3) |
1Γ(λ)∫z0t(z−t)1−λdt+∞∑j=2(l+jl+1)maj∫z0tj(z−t)1−λdt, |
which, after several calculus can be written in the form
D−λzI(m,1,l)f(z)=1Γ(λ+2)zλ+1+∞∑j=2(l+jl+1)mΓ(j+1)Γ(j+λ+1)ajzj+λ, | (2.4) |
when f(z)=z+∑∞j=2ajzj∈A. We note that D−λzI(m,1,l)f(z)∈H[0,λ+1].
The main subordination result product regarding the operator introduced in Definition 7 is exposed in the following theorem:
Theorem 1. Consider f∈A and g an analytic function univalent in U with the property that g(z)≠0, ∀ z∈U, with real numbers q,m,l, q∈(0,1), l>−1, and λ,n∈N. Assuming that zg′(z)g(z) is a starlike function univalent in U and
Re(1+bdg(z)+2cd(g(z))2−zg′(z)g(z)+zg′′(z)g′(z))>0, | (2.5) |
for a,b,c,d∈C, d≠0, z∈U, denote
ψm,l,qλ(n,a,b,c,d;z):=a+b[D−λzIm,lqf(z)z]n+ | (2.6) |
c[D−λzIm,lqf(z)z]2n+dn[z(D−λzIm,lqf(z))′D−λzIm,lqf(z)−1]. |
If the differential subordination
ψm,l,qλ(n,a,b,c,d;z)≺a+bg(z)+c(g(z))2+dzg′(z)g(z), | (2.7) |
is satisfied by the function g, for a,b,c,d∈C, d≠0, then the differential subordination
(D−λzIm,lqf(z)z)n≺g(z), | (2.8) |
holds and g is the best dominant for it.
Proof. Setting p(z):=(D−λzIm,lqf(z)z)n, z∈U, z≠0, and differentiating with respect to z, we get
p′(z)=n(D−λzIm,lqf(z)z)n−1[(D−λzIm,lqf(z))′z−D−λzIm,lqf(z)z2]= |
n(D−λzIm,lqf(z)z)n−1(D−λzIm,lqf(z))′z−nzp(z) |
and
zp′(z)p(z)=n[z(D−λzIm,lqf(z))′D−λzIm,lqf(z)−1]. |
Defining the functions θ and η by θ(w):=a+bw+cw2 and η(w):=dw, it can be easily certified that θ is analytic in C, η is analytic in C∖{0}, and that η(w)≠0, w∈C∖{0}.
Considering the functions G(z)=zg′(z)η(g(z))=dzg′(z)g(z) and
h(z)=θ(g(z))+G(z)=a+bg(z)+c(g(z))2+dzg′(z)g(z),
we deduce that G(z) is starlike univalent in U.
Differentiating the function h with respect to z we get
h′(z)=bg′(z)+2cg(z)g′(z)+d(g′(z)+zg′′(z))g(z)−z(g′(z))2(g(z))2 |
and
zh′(z)G(z)=zh′(z)dzg′(z)g(z)=1+bdg(z)+2cd(g(z))2−zg′(z)g(z)+zg′′(z)g′(z). |
The condition
Re(zh′(z)G(z))=Re(1+bdg(z)+2cd(g(z))2−zg′(z)g(z)+zg′′(z)g′(z))>0 |
is satisfied by relation (2.5), and we deduce that
a+bp(z)+c(p(z))2+dzp′(z)p(z)=a+b[D−λzIm,lqf(z)z]n+ |
c[D−λzIm,lqf(z)z]2n+dγ[z(D−λzIm,lqf(z))′D−λzIm,lqf(z)−1]=ψm,l,qλ(n,a,b,c,d;z), |
which is the function from relation (2.6).
Rewriting the differential subordination (2.7), we obtain
a+bp(z)+c(p(z))2+dzp′(z)p(z)≺a+bg(z)+c(g(z))2+dzg′(z)g(z). |
The hypothesis of Lemma 1 being fulfilled, we get the conclusion p(z)≺g(z), written as
(D−λzIm,lqf(z)z)n≺g(z) |
and g is the best dominant.
Corollary 1. Suppose that the relation (2.5) is fulfilled for real numbers q,m,l, q∈(0,1), l>−1, and λ,n∈N. If the differential subordination
ψm,l,qλ(n,a,b,c,d;z)≺a+bαz+1βz+1+c(αz+1βz+1)2+d(α−β)z(αz+1)(βz+1) |
is verified for a,b,c,d∈C, d≠0, −1≤β<α≤1, and the function ψm,l,qλ is given by relation (2.6), then the differential subordination
(D−λzIm,lqf(z)z)n≺αz+1βz+1 |
is satisfied with the function g(z)=αz+1βz+1 as the best dominant.
Proof. Considering in Theorem 1 the function g(z)=αz+1βz+1, with −1≤β<α≤1, the corollary is verified.
Corollary 2. Assume that relation (2.5) is satisfied for real numbers q,m,l, q∈(0,1), l>−1, and λ,n∈N. If the differential subordination
ψm,l,qλ(n,a,b,c,d;z)≺a+b(z+11−z)s+c(z+11−z)2s+2sdz1−z2 |
holds for a,b,c,d∈C, 0<s≤1, d≠0, and the function ψm,l,qλ is defined by relation (2.6), then the differential subordination
(D−λzIm,lqf(z)z)n≺(z+11−z)s |
is satisfied with the function g(z)=(z+11−z)s as the best dominant.{}
Proof. Considering in Theorem 1 the function g(z)=(z+11−z)s, with 0<s≤1, the corollary is obtained.
When q→1 in Theorem 1, we get the classical case:
Theorem 2. Consider f∈A and g an analytic function univalent in U with the property that g(z)≠0, ∀ z∈U, with real numbers m,l, l>−1, and λ,n∈N. Assuming that zg′(z)g(z) is a starlike function univalent in U and
Re(1+bdg(z)+2cd(g(z))2−zg′(z)g(z)+zg′′(z)g′(z))>0, | (2.9) |
for a,b,c,d∈C, d≠0, z∈U, denote
ψm,l,λ(n,a,b,c,d;z):=a+b[D−λzI(m,1,l)f(z)z]n+ | (2.10) |
c[D−λzI(m,1,l)f(z)z]2n+dn[z(D−λzI(m,1,l)f(z))′D−λzI(m,1,l)f(z)−1]. |
If the differential subordination
ψm,l,λ(n,a,b,c,d;z)≺a+bg(z)+c(g(z))2+dzg′(z)g(z), | (2.11) |
is satisfied by the function g, for a,b,c,d∈C, d≠0, then the differential subordination
(D−λzI(m,1,l)f(z)z)n≺g(z) | (2.12) |
holds and g is the best dominant for it.
Proof. The proof of the theorem follows the same steps as the proof of Theorem 1 and it is omitted.
The corresponding superordination results regarding the operator introduced in Definition 7 are exposed in the following:
Theorem 3. Consider f∈A and g an analytic function univalent in U with the properties g(z)≠0 and zg′(z)g(z) is starlike univalent in U, with real numbers q,m,l, q∈(0,1), l>−1, and λ,n∈N. Assuming that
Re(2cd(g(z))2+bdg(z))>0,forb,c,d∈C,d≠0 | (2.13) |
and the function ψm,l,qλ(n,a,b,c,d;z) is defined in relation (2.6), if the differential superordination
a+bg(z)+c(g(z))2+dzg′(z)g(z)≺ψm,l,qλ(n,a,b,c,d;z) | (2.14) |
is fulfilled for the function g, for a,b,c,d∈C, d≠0, then the differential superordination
g(z)≺(D−λzIm,lqf(z)z)n | (2.15) |
holds and g is the best subordinant for it.
Proof. Set p(z):=(D−λzIm,lqf(z)z)n, z∈U, z≠0.
Defining the functions θ and η by θ(w):=a+bw+cw2 and η(w):=dw, it is evident that η(w)≠0, w∈C∖{0} and we can certify that θ is analytic in C and η is analytic in C∖{0}.
With easy computation, we get that
θ′(g(z))η(g(z))=g′(z)[b+2cg(z)]g(z)d |
and relation (2.13) can be written as
Re(θ′(g(z))η(g(z)))=Re(2cd(g(z))2+bdg(z))>0, |
for b,c,d∈C, d≠0.
Following the same computations as in the proof of Theorem 1, the differential superordination (2.14) can be written as
a+bg(z)+c(g(z))2+dzg′(z)g(z)≺a+bp(z)+c(p(z))2+dzp′(z)p(z). |
The hypothesis of Lemma 2 being fulfilled, we obtain the conclusion
g(z)≺p(z)=(D−λzIm,lqf(z)z)n |
and g is the best subordinant.
Corollary 3. Assume that relation (2.13) is verified for real numbers q,m,l, q∈(0,1), l>−1, and λ,n∈N. If the differential superordination
a+bαz+1βz+1+c(αz+1βz+1)2+d(α−β)z(αz+1)(βz+1)≺ψm,l,qλ(n,a,b,c,d;z) |
is satisfied for a,b,c,d∈C, d≠0, −1≤β<α≤1, and the function ψm,l,qλ is defined by the relation (2.6), then the differential superordination
αz+1βz+1≺(D−λzIm,lqf(z)z)n |
holds with the function g(z)=αz+1βz+1 as the best subordinant.
Proof. Considering in Theorem 3 the function g(z)=αz+1βz+1, with −1≤β<α≤1, the corollary is proved.
Corollary 4. Suppose that relation (2.13) is fulfilled for real numbers q,m,l, q∈(0,1), l>−1, and λ,n∈N. If the differential superordination
a+b(z+11−z)s+c(z+11−z)2s+2sdz1−z2≺ψm,l,qλ(n,a,b,c,d;z) |
is satisfied for a,b,c,d∈C, 0<s≤1, d≠0, and the function ψm,l,qλ is given by the relation (2.6), then the differential superordination
(z+11−z)s≺(D−λzIm,lqf(z)z)n |
is satisfied with the function g(z)=(z+11−z)s as the best subordinant.
Proof. Considering in Theorem 3 the function g(z)=(z+11−z)s, with 0<s≤1, the corollary is obtained.
When q→1 in Theorem 3, we get the classical case:
Theorem 4. Consider f∈A and g an analytic function univalent in U with the properties g(z)≠0 and zg′(z)g(z) is starlike univalent in U, with real numbers m,l, l>−1, and λ,n∈N. Assuming that
Re(2cd(g(z))2+bdg(z))>0,forb,c,d∈C,d≠0, | (2.16) |
and the function ψm,l,λ(n,a,b,c,d;z) is defined in relation (2.10), if the differential superordination
a+bg(z)+c(g(z))2+dzg′(z)g(z)≺ψm,l,λ(n,a,b,c,d;z) | (2.17) |
is fulfilled for the function g, for a,b,c,d∈C, d≠0, then the differential superordination
g(z)≺(D−λzI(m,1,l)f(z)z)n | (2.18) |
holds and g is the best subordinant for it.
Proof. The proof of the theorem follows the same steps as the proof of Theorem 3 and it is omitted.
The sandwich-type result is obtained by combining Theorems 1 and 3.
Theorem 5. Consider f∈A and g1, g2 analytic functions univalent in U with the properties that g1(z)≠0, g2(z)≠0, ∀ z∈U, and, respectively, zg′1(z)g1(z), zg′2(z)g2(z) are starlike univalent, with real numbers q,m,l, q∈(0,1), l>−1, and λ,n∈N. Assuming that relation (2.5) is verified by the function g1 and the relation (2.13) is verified by the function g2, and the function ψm,l,qλ(n,a,b,c,d;z) defined by relation (2.6) is univalent in U, if the sandwich-type relation
a+bg1(z)+c(g1(z))2+dzg′1(z)g1(z)≺ψm,l,qλ(n,a,b,c,d;z)≺a+bg2(z)+c(g2(z))2+dzg′2(z)g2(z) |
is satisfied for a,b,c,d∈C, d≠0, then the below sandwich-type relation
g1(z)≺(D−λzIm,lqf(z)z)n≺g2(z) |
holds for g1 as the best subordinant and g2 the best dominant.
Considering in Theorem 5 the functions g1(z)=α1z+1β1z+1, g2(z)=α2z+1β2z+1, with −1≤β2<β1<α1<α2≤1, the following corollary holds.
Corollary 5. Suppose that relations (2.5) and (2.13) are fulfilled for real numbers q,m,l, q∈(0,1), l>−1, and λ,n∈N. If the sandwich-type relation
a+bα1z+1β1z+1+c(α1z+1β1z+1)2+d(α1−β1)z(α1z+1)(β1z+1)≺ψm,l,qλ(n,a,b,c,d;z) |
≺a+bα2z+1β2z+1+cχ(α2z+1β2z+1)2+d(α2−β2)z(α2z+1)(β2z+1) |
is satisfied for a,b,c,d∈C, d≠0, −1≤β2≤β1<α1≤α2≤1, and the function ψm,l,qλ is defined by the relation (2.6), then the following sandwich-type relation
α1z+1β1z+1≺(D−λzIm,lqf(z)z)n≺α2z+1β2z+1 |
holds for g1(z)=α1z+1β1z+1 as the best subordinant and g2(z)=α2z+1β2z+1 the best dominant.
Considering in Theorem 5 the functions g1(z)=(z+11−z)s1, g2(z)=(z+11−z)s2, with 0<s1,s2≤1, the following corollary holds.
Corollary 6. Assume that the relations (2.5) and (2.13) are satisfied for real numbers q,m,l, q∈(0,1), l>−1, and λ,n∈N. If the sandwich-type relation
a+b(z+11−z)s1+c(z+11−z)2s1+2s1dz1−z2≺ψm,l,qλ(n,a,b,c,d;z) |
≺a+b(z+11−z)s2+v(z+11−z)2s2+2s2dz1−z2 |
holds for a,b,c,d∈C, d≠0, −1≤β2≤β1<α1≤α2≤1, and the function ψm,l,qλ is defined by the relation (2.6), then the following sandwich-type relation
(z+11−z)s1≺(D−λzIm,lqf(z)z)n≺(z+11−z)s2 |
is satisfied for g1(z)=(z+11−z)s1 as the best subordinant and g2(z)=(z+11−z)s2 the best dominant.
The sandwich-type result is obtained by combining Theorems 2 and 4 for the classical case when q→1.
Theorem 6. Consider f∈A and g1, g2 analytic functions univalent in U with the properties that g1(z)≠0, g2(z)≠0, ∀ z∈U, and, respectively, zg′1(z)g1(z), zg′2(z)g2(z) are starlike univalent, with real numbers m,l, l>−1, and λ,n∈N. Assuming that relation (2.9) is verified by the function g1 and relation (2.16) is verified by the function g2, and the function ψm,l,λ(n,a,b,c,d;z) from relation (2.10) is univalent in U, if the sandwich-type relation
a+bg1(z)+c(g1(z))2+dzg′1(z)g1(z)≺ψm,l,λ(n,a,b,c,d;z)≺a+bg2(z)+c(g2(z))2+dzg′2(z)g2(z), |
is satified for a,b,c,d∈C, d≠0, then the below sandwich-type relation
g1(z)≺(D−λzI(m,1,l)f(z)z)n≺g2(z) |
holds for g1 as the best subordinant and g2 the best dominant.
The results presented in this paper are determined as applications of fractional calculus combined with q-calculus in geometric functions theory. We obtain a new operator described in Definition 7 by applying a fractional integral to the q-analogue of the multiplier transformation. The new fractional q-analogue of the multiplier transformation operator introduced in this paper yields new subordination and superordination results.
The subordination theory used in Theorem 1 gives the best dominant of the differential subordination and, considering well-known functions in geometric functions theory as the best dominant, some illustrative corollaries are obtained. Using the duality, the superordination theory used in Theorem 3 gives the best subordinant of the differential superordination, and illustrative corollaries are established taking the same well-known functions. Combining Theorem 1 and Theorem 3, we present a sandwich-type theorem involving the two dual theories of differential subordination and superordination. Considering the functions studied in the previous corollaries, we establish the other sandwich-type results. The classical case when q→1 is also presented.
For future studies, using the fractional integral of the q-analogue of the multiplier transformation introduced in this paper, and following [27] and [28], we can define q- subclasses of univalent functions and study some properties, such as coefficient estimates, closure theorems, distortion theorems, neighborhoods, radii of starlikeness, convexity, and close-to-convexity of functions belonging to the defined subclass.
The authors declare that they have not used Artificial Intelligence tools in the creation of this article.
The publication of this research was supported by the University of Oradea, Romania and Mustansiriyah University (www.uomustansiriyah.edu.iq) in Baghdad, Iraq. All thanks to their support.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
[1] | C. Bandle, A. Gilányi, L. Losonczi, et al. Inequalities and Applications: Conference on Inequalities and Applications Noszvaj (Hungary), vol. 157, Springer Science & Business Media, 2008. |
[2] | D. Bainov, P. Simeonov, Integral Inequalities and Applications, vol. 57, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. |
[3] | A. A. Kilbas, H. M. Srivastava, J. J. Trujillo, Theory and Applications of Fractional Differential Equations, vol. 204, North-Holland Mathematics Studies, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2006. |
[4] | O. Hutník, On Hadamard type inequalities for generalized weighted quasi-arithmetic means, Journal of Inequalities in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 7 (2006), 1–10. |
[5] | E. Set, M. Özdemir, S. Dragomir, On the Hermite-Hadamard inequality and other integral inequalities involving two functions, J. Inequal. Appl., 2010 (2010), 148102. |
[6] | W. Szeligowska, M. Kaluszka, On Jensen's inequality for generalized Choquet integral with an application to risk aversion, eprint arXiv: 1609. 00554,2016. |
[7] | L. Bougoffa, On Minkowski and Hardy integral inequalities, Journal of Inequalities in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 7 (2006), 1–3. |
[8] | R. A. Adams, J. J. F. Fournier, Sobolev spaces, vol. 140, Academic press, 2003. |
[9] | D. Idczak, S. Walczak, Fractional Sobolev spaces via Riemann-Liouville derivatives, J. Funct. Space. Appl., 2013 (2013), 1–15. |
[10] | T. Krainer, B. W. Schulze, Weighted Sobolev spaces, vol. 138, Springer, 1985. |
[11] | V. Gol'dshtein, A. Ukhlov, Weighted Sobolev spaces and embedding theorems, T. Am. Math. Soc., 361 (2009), 3829–3850. |
[12] | O. Hutnök, Some integral inequalities of H¨older and Minkowski type, Colloq. Math-Warsaw, 108 (2007), 247–261. |
[13] | P. R. Beesack, Hardys inequality and its extensions, Pac. J. Math., 11 (1961), 39–61. |
[14] | C. O. Imoru, New generalizations of Hardy's integral inequality, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 241 (1987), 73–82. |
[15] | R. Herrmann, Fractional calculus: An Introduction for Physicists, World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore, 2001. |
[16] | I. Podlubny, Fractional Differential Equation, vol. 198, Mathematics in Science and Engineering, Academic Press, San Diego, 1999. |
[17] | U. N. Katugampola, A new approach to generalized fractional derivatives, Bull. Math. Anal. Appl., 6 (2014), 1–15. |
[18] | J. Vanterler da C. Sousa, E. Capelas de Oliveira, On the ψ-Hilfer fractional derivative, Commun. Nonlinear Sci., 60 (2018), 72–91. |
[19] | R. Khalil, M. Al Horani, A. Yousef, et al. A new definition of fractional derivative, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 264 (2014), 65–70. |
[20] | T. Abdeljawad, On conformable fractional calculus, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 279 (2015), 57–66. |
[21] | M. Bohner, T. Matthews, The Grüss inequality on time scales, Commun. Math. Anal., 3 (2007), 1–8. |
[22] | D. R. Anderson, Taylors Formula and Integral Inequalities for Conformable Fractional Derivatives, Contr. Math. Eng., 2014 (2016), 25–43. |
[23] | M. E. Özdemir, M. Avci, H. Kavurmaci, Hermite-Hadamard-type inequalities via (α, m)-convexity, Comput. Math. Appl., 61 (2011), 2614–2620. |
[24] | F. Chen, Extensions of the Herminte–Hadamard inequality for convex functions via fractional integrals, J. Math. Inequal., 10 (2016), 75–81. |
[25] | J. Wang, X. Li, M. Fekan, et al. Hermite-Hadamard-type inequalities for Riemann-Liouville fractional integrals via two kinds of convexity, Appl. Anal., 92 (2013), 2241–2253. |
[26] | H. Chen, U. N. Katugampola, Hermite-Hadamard and Hermite-Hadamard-Fejér type inequalities for generalized fractional integrals, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 446 (2017), 1274–1291. |
[27] | I. İşcan, On generalization of different type inequalities for harmonically quasi-convex functions via fractional integrals, Appl. Math. Comput., 275 (2016), 287–298. |
[28] | I. İşcan, S. Wu, Hermite-Hadamard type inequalities for harmonically convex functions via fractional integrals, Appl. Math. Comput., 238 (2014), 237–244. |
[29] | F. Chen, Extensions of the Hermite-Hadamard inequality for harmonically convex functions via fractional integrals, Appl. Math. Comput., 268 (2015), 121–128. |
[30] | H. Shiow-Ru, Y. Shu-Ying and T. Kuei-Lin, Refinements and similar extensions of Hermite-Hadamard inequality for fractional integrals and their applications, Appl. Math. Comput., 249 (2014), 103–113. |
[31] | M. Z. Sarikaya, H. Budak, New inequalities of Opial type for conformable fractional integrals, Turk. J. Math., 41 (2017), 1164–1173. |
[32] | J. Vanterler da C. Sousa and E. Capelas de Oliveira, A Gronwall inequality and the Cauchy-type problem by means of ψ-Hilfer operator, arXiv: 1709. 03634,2017. |
[33] | U. N. Katugampola, New fractional integral unifying six existing fractional integrals, arXiv. org/abs/1612. 08596,2016. |
[34] | E. Set, M. Özdemir, S. Dragomir, On the Hermite-Hadamard Inequality and Other Integral Inequalities Involving Two Functions, J. Inequal. Appl., 2010 (2010), 148102. |
[35] | Z. Dahmani, On Minkowski and Hermite-Hadamard integral inequalities via fractional integration, Ann. Funct. Anal., 1 (2010), 51–58. |
[36] | V. L. Chinchane, D. B. Pachpatte, New fractional inequalities via Hadamard fractional integral, Internat. J. Functional Analysis, Operator Theory and Application, 5 (2013), 165–176. |
[37] | S. S. Dragomir, Hermite-Hadamards type inequalities for operator convex functions, Appl. Math. Comput., 218 (2011), 766–772. |
[38] | H. Yildirim, Z. Kirtay, Ostrowski inequality for generalized fractional integral and related inequalities, Malaya Journal of Matematik, 2 (2014), 322–329. |
[39] | R. F. Camargo, E. Capelas de Oliveira, Fractional Calculus (In Portuguese), Editora Livraria da Física, São Paulo, 2015. |
[40] | S. Taf, K. Brahim, Some new results using Hadamard fractional integral, Int. J. Nonlinear Anal. Appl., 7 (2015), 103–109. |
[41] | V. L. Chinchane, D. B. Pachpatte, New fractional inequalities involving Saigo fractional integral operator, Math. Sci. Lett., 3 (2014), 133–139. |
[42] | V. L. Chinchane, New approach to Minkowski's fractional inequalities using generalized kfractional integral operator, arXiv: 1702. 05234,2017. |
[43] | W. T. Sulaiman, Reverses of Minkowski's, Hölders, and Hardys integral inequalities, Int. J. Mod. Math. Sci., 1 (2012), 14–24. |
[44] | B. Sroysang, More on Reverses of Minkowski's Integral Inequality, Math. Aeterna, 3 (2013), 597–600. |
[45] | E. Kreyszig, Introductory Functional Analysis with Applications, vol. 1, Wiley, New York, 1989. |
[46] | J. Vanterler da C. Sousa, D. S. Oliveira, E. Capelas de Oliveira, Grüss-type inequality by mean of a fractional integral, arXiv: 1705. 00965,2017. |
[47] | J. Vanterler da C. Sousa, E. Capelas de Oliveira, A new truncated M-fractional derivative unifying some fractional derivatives with classical properties, International Journal of Analysis and Applications, 16 (2018), 83–96. |