Acta Mathematica Scientia 2012,32B(3):929941

http://actams.wipm.ac.cn
SANDWICH-TYPE THEOREMS FOR
MEROMORPHIC MULTIVALENT FUNCTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIU-SRIVASTAVA
OPERATOR

Nak Eun Cho

Department of Applied Mathematics, Pukyong National University, Busan 608-737, Korea
E-mail: necho@pknu.ac.kr
Abstract The purpose of this article is to obtain some subordination and superordi-
nation preserving properties of meromorphic multivalent functions in the punctured open
unit disk associated with the Liu-Srivastava operator. The sandwich-type results for these
meromorphic multivalent functions are also considered.
Key words Subordination; superordination; meromorphic multivalent function; Liu-
Srivastava operator; sandwich-type result
2000 MR Subject Classication 30C80; 30C45; 30D30
1 Introduction
Let H = H(U) denote the class of analytic functions in the open unit disk
U = {z C : |z| < 1}.
For n N = {1, 2, } and a C, let
H[a, n] = {f H : f(z) = a + a
n
z
n
+ a
n+1
z
n+1
+ }.
Let f and F be members of H. The function f is said to be subordinate to F, or F is
said to be superordinate to f, if there exists a function w analytic in U, with w(0) = 0 and
|w(z)| < 1 (z U), such that f(z) = F(w(z)) (z U).
In such a case, we write
f F (z U) or f(z) F(z) (z U).

Received April 15, 2010; revised November 23, 2010. This research was supported by the Basic Science Re-
search Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education,
Science and Technology (2010-0017111).
930 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.32 Ser.B
If the function F is univalent in U, then we have (cf. [1])
f F (z U) f(0) = F(0) and f(U) F(U).
Denition 1 [1] Let : C
2
C and let h be univalent in U. If p is analytic in U and
satises the dierential subordination:
(p(z), zp

(z)) h(z) (z U), (1.1)

then p is called a solution of the dierential subordination. The univalent function q is called a
dominant of the solutions of the dierential subordination, or more simply a dominant, if p q
for all p satisfying (1.1). A dominant q that satises q q for all dominants q of (1.1) is said
to be the best dominant.
Denition 2 [2] Let : C
2
C and let h be analytic in U. If p and (p(z), zp

(z)) are
univalent in U and satisfy the dierential superordination:
h(z) (p(z), zp

(z)) (z U), (1.2)

then p is called a solution of the dierential superordination. An analytic function q is called a
subordinant of the solutions of the dierential superordination, or more simply a subordinant if
q p for all p satisfying (1.2). A univalent subordinant q that satises q q for all subordinants
q of (1.2) is said to be the best subordinant.
Denition 3 [2] Denote by Q the class of functions f that are analytic and injective on
U\E(f), where
E(f) =
_
U : lim
z
f(z) =
_
,
and are such that
f

() = 0 ( U\E(f)).
Let
p
denote the class of functions of the form
f(z) = z
p
+

k=1
a
k
z
kp
(p N = {1, 2, }), (1.3)
which are analytic and p-valent in the punctured unit disk D = U\{0} with the following
additional condition:
lim
z0
(z
p
f(z))

= 0 (z D). (1.4)
For functions f
p
given by (1.3), and g
p
given by
g(z) = z
p
+

k=1
b
k
z
kp
(p N),
dene the Hadamard product (or convolution) of f and g by
(f g)(z) := z
p
+

k=1
a
k
b
k
z
kp
.
No.3 Nak Eun Cho: SANDWICH-TYPE THEOREMS 931
For parameters
j
C (j = 1, , l) and
j
C\Z

0
(Z

0
:= 0, 1, 2, ; j = 1, , m),
the generalized hypergeometric function
l
F
m
(
1
, ,
l
;
1
, ,
m
; z) is dened by the follow-
ing innite series (cf. [35]):
l
F
m
(
1
, ,
l
;
1
, ,
m
; z) :=

k=0
(
1
)
k
(
l
)
k
(
1
)
k
(
m
)
k
z
k
k!
(l m + 1; l, m N
0
:= N {0}; z U),
where ()
k
is the Pochhammer symbol (or the shifted factorial) dened (in terms of the Gamma
function) by
()
k
:=
( + k)
()
=

1 if k = 0 and C\{0},
( + 1) ( + k 1) if k N and C.
Corresponding to a function F
p
(
1
, ,
l
;
1
, ,
m
; z) dened by
F
p
(
1
, ,
l
;
1
, ,
m
; z) := z
p
l
F
m
(
1
, ,
l
;
1
, ,
m
; z),
the Liu-Srivastava operator H
l,m
p
(
1
, ,
l
q;
1
, ,
m
) :
p

p
is dened by the fol-
lowing Hadamard product (or convolution):
H
l,m
p
(
1
, ,
l
;
1
, ,
m
)f(z) := F
p
(
1
, ,
l
;
1
, ,
m
; z) f(z).
We observe that, for a function f given by (1.3), we have
H
l,m
p
(
1
, ,
l
;
1
, ,
m
)f(z) =
1
z
p
+

k=1
(
1
)
k
(
l
)
k
(
1
)
k
(
m
)
k
a
k
k!
z
kp
.
To make the notation simple, we write
H
l,m
p
(
1
) := H
l,m
p
(
1
, ,
l
;
1
, ,
m
) (l m + 1; l, m N
0
). (1.5)
The operator H
l,m
p
(
1
) was dened and studied by Liu and Srivastava [6]. We also note that
the denition of operator H
l,m
p
(
1
) was motivated essentially by Dziok and Srivastava [3].
Some interesting developments involving the Dziok-Srivastava operator were considered by (for
example) Dziok and Srivastava ([7], also see [812]) and Liu and Srivastava [5, 13, 14].
Using the principle of subordination, various subordination theorems involving certain in-
tegral operators for analytic functions in U were established in Bulboaca [15], Miller et al [16]
and Owa and Srivastava [17]. Recently, Miller and Mocanu [2] also considered dierential su-
perordinations, as the dual problem of dierential subordinations (see, also [18]). It should be
also remarked that, in recent years, several authors obtained many interesting results involving
various linear and nonlinear operators associated with dierential subordination and superordi-
nation [1925]. In this article, we investigate the subordination and superordination preserving
properties of the linear operator H
l,m
p
(
1
) dened by (1.5) with the sandwich-type theorems.
932 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.32 Ser.B
2 A Set of Lemmas
The following lemmas will be required in our present investigation.
Lemma 1 [1] Let p Q with p(0) = a and let
q(z) = a + a
n
z
n
+
be analytic in U with
q(z) a and n 1.
If q is not subordinate to p, then there exist points
z
0
= r
0
e
i
U and
0
U\E(f),
for which
q(U
r0
) p(U), q(z
0
) = p(
0
) and z
0
q

(z
0
) = m
0
p

(
0
) (m n).
A function L(z, t) dened on U [0, ) is the subordination chain (or L owner chain) if
L(, t) is analytic and univalent in U for all t [0, ), L(z, ) is continuously dierentiable on
[0, ) for all z U and L(z, s) L(z, t) (z U; 0 s < t).
Lemma 2 [2] Let q H[a, 1] and : C
2
C. Also set
(q(z), zq

(z)) h(z) (z U).

If L(z, t) = (q(z), tzq

(z)) is a subordination chain and p H[a, 1] Q, then,

h(z) (p(z), zp

(z)) (z U).
implies that
q(z) p(z) (z U).
Furthermore, if (q(z), zp

(z)) = h(z) has a univalent solution q Q, then q is the best

subordinant.
Lemma 3 [26] Suppose that the function H : C
2
C satises the following condition:
R{H(is, t)} 0
for all real s and
t n(1 + s
2
)/2 (n N).
If the function p(z) = 1 + p
n
z
n
+ is analytic in U and
R{H(p(z), zp

(z))} > 0 (z U),

then,
R{p(z)} > 0 (z U).
Lemma 4 [27] Let , C with = 0 and let h H(U) with h(0) = c. If
R{h(z) + } > 0 (z U),
No.3 Nak Eun Cho: SANDWICH-TYPE THEOREMS 933
then, the solution of the dierential equation
q(z) +
zq

(z)
q(z) +
= h(z) (z U; q(0) = c)
is analytic in U and satises the inequality
R{q(z) + } > 0 (z U).
Lemma 5 [28] The function L(z, t) = a
1
(t)z + with a
1
(t) = 0 and lim
t
|a
1
(t)| =
is a subordination chain if and only if
R
_
zL(z,t)
z
L(z,t)
t
_
> 0 (z U; 0 t < ).
3 Main Results
We begin with proving the following subordination theorem involving the operator H
l,m
p
(
1
)
dened by (1.5).
Theorem 1 Let f, g
p
. Suppose that
R
_
1 +
z

(z)

(z)
_
> (3.1)
_
(z) :=
p
p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
+ 1)g(z) +

p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g(z);
1
> 0; 0 < p; z U
_
,
where
=
(p )
2
+ p
2

2
1
|(p )
2
p
2

2
1
|
4p(p )
1
(0 < 1/2). (3.2)
Then, the following subordination relation
p
p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
+ 1)g(z) +

p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z) (z) (z U) (3.3)
implies that
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z) z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g(z) (z U). (3.4)
Moreover, the function z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g(z) is the best dominant.
Proof Let us dene the functions F and G, respectively, by
F(z) := z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z) and G(z) := z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g(z). (3.5)
We rst show that, if the function q is dened by
q(z) := 1 +
zG

(z)
G

(z)
(z U), (3.6)
then,
R{q(z)} > 0 (z U).
Taking the logarithmic dierentiation on both sides of the second equation in (3.5) and
using the equation
z(H
l,m
p
(
1
)g(z))

=
1
H
l,m
p
(
1
+ 1)g(z) (
1
+ p)H
l,m
p
(
1
)g(z),
934 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.32 Ser.B
we obtain
p
1
(z) = p
1
G(z) + (p )zG

(z). (3.7)
Now, by dierentiating both sides of (3.7), we obtain the relationship:
1 +
z

(z)

(z)
= 1 +
zG

(z)
G

(z)
+
zq

(z)
q(z) + p
1
/(p )
= q(z) +
zq

(z)
q(z) + p
1
/(p )
h(z). (3.8)
We also note from (3.1) that
R
_
h(z) +
p
1
p
_
> 0 (z U),
and so by Lemma 4, we conclude that the dierential equation (3.8) has a solution q H(U)
with
q(0) = h(0) = 1.
Let us put
H(u, v) = u +
v
u + p
1
/(p )
+ , (3.9)
where is given by (3.2). From (3.1), (3.8), and (3.9), we obtain
R{H(q(z), zq

(z))} > 0 (z U).

Now, we proceed to show that
R{H(is, t)} 0
_
s R; t
1
2
(1 + s
2
)
_
. (3.10)
Indeed, From (3.9), we have
R{H(is, t)} = R
_
is +
t
is + p
1
/(p )
+
_
=
tp
1
/p
|p
1
/(p ) + is|
2
+
E

(s)
2|p
1
/(p ) + is|
2
, (3.11)
where
E

(s) :=
_
p
1
p
2
_
s
2

p
1
p
_
2
p
1
p
1
_
. (3.12)
For given by (3.2), we can prove easily that the expression E

(s) given by (3.12) is greater

than or equal to zero. Hence, from (3.9), we see that (3.10) holds true. Thus, using Lemma 3,
we conclude that
R{q(z)} > 0 (z U).
Moreover, we see that the condition:
G

(0) = 0
is satised. Hence, the function G dened by (3.5) is convex in U.
No.3 Nak Eun Cho: SANDWICH-TYPE THEOREMS 935
Next, we prove that the subordination condition (3.3) implies that
F(z) G(z) (z U) (3.13)
for the functions F and G dened by (3.5). Without loss of generality, we can assume that G
is analytic and univalent on U and
G

() = 0 ( U).
For this purpose, we consider the function L(z, t) given by
L(z, t) := G(z) +
(p )(1 + t)
p
1
zG

(z) (z U; 0 t < ; 0 < 1).

We note that
L(z, t)
z

z=0
= G

(0)
_
p
1
+ (p )(1 + t)

1
_
= 0 (0 t < ;
1
> 0; 0 < 1).
This shows that the function
L(z, t) = a
1
(t)z +
satises the condition
a
1
(t) = 0 (0 t < ).
Furthermore, we have
R
_
zL(z, t)/z
L(z, t)/t
_
= R
_
p
1
p
+ (1 + t)
_
1 +
zG

(z)
G

(z)
__
> 0.
Therefore, by virtue of Lemma 5, L(z, t) is a subordination chain. We observe from the
denition of subordination chain that
L(, t) L(U, 0) = (U) ( U; 0 t < ).
Now, suppose that F is not subordinate to G, then by Lemma 1, there exists points z
0
U
and
0
U, such that
F(z
0
) = G(
0
) and z
0
F(z
0
) = (1 + t)
0
G

(
0
) (0 t < ).
Hence, we have
L(
0
, t) = G(
0
) +
(p )(1 + t)
p
1

0
G

(
0
) = F(z
0
) +
p
p
1
z
0
F

(z
0
)
=
p
p
z
0
(H
l,m
p
(
1
+ 1)f(z
0
)) +

p
z
0
(H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z
0
)) (U),
by virtue of the subordination condition (3.3). This contradicts the above observation L(
0
, t)
(U). Therefore, the subordination condition (3.3) must imply the subordination given by
(3.13). Considering F(z) = G(z), we see that the function G is the best dominant. This
evidently completes the proof of Theorem 1.
936 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.32 Ser.B
We next provide a dual problem of Theorem 1, in the sense that the subordinations are
replaced by superordinations.
Theorem 2 Let f, g
p
. Suppose that
R
_
1 +
z

(z)

(z)
_
>
_
(z) :=
p

z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
+ 1)g(z) +

p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g(z);
1
> 0; 0 < p; z U
_
,
where is given by (3.2), and
p

z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
+ 1)f(z) +

p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z)
is univalent in U and z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z) H[1, 1]Q. Then, the following superordination relation
(z)
p

z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
+ 1)f(z) +

p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z) (z U) (3.14)
implies that
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g(z) z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z) (z U).
Moreover, the function z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g(z) is the best subordinant.
Proof The rst part of the proof is similar to that of Theorem 1 and so we will use the
same notation as in the proof of Theorem 1.
Now, let us dene the functions F and G by (3.5). We rst note that, if the function q is
dened by (3.6), using (3.7), then we obtain
(z) = G(z) +
p
p
1
zG

(z) =: (G(z), zG

(z)). (3.15)
Then using the same method as in the proof of Theorem 1, we can prove that
R{q(z)} > 0 (z U),
that is, G dened by (3.5) is convex(univalent) in U.
Next, we prove that the subordination condition (3.14) implies that
G(z) F(z) (z U) (3.16)
for the functions F and G dened by (3.5). Now, consider the function L(z, t) dened by
L(z, t) := G(z) +
(p )t
p
1
zG

(z) (z U; 0 t < ).
As G is convex and p
1
/(p ) > 0, we can prove easily that L(z, t) is a subordination
chain as in the proof of Theorem 1. Therefore, according to Lemma 2, we conclude that the
superordination condition (3.14) must imply the superordination given by (3.16). Furthermore,
as the dierential equation (3.15) has the univalent solution G, it is the best subordinant of the
given dierential superordination. Therefore, we complete the proof of Theorem 2.
If we combine Theorems 1 and 2, then, we obtain the following sandwich-type theorem.
No.3 Nak Eun Cho: SANDWICH-TYPE THEOREMS 937
Theorem 3 Let f, g
k

p
(k = 1, 2). Suppose that
R
_
1 +
z

k
(z)

k
(z)
_
> (3.17)
_

k
(z) : =
p
p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
+ 1)g
k
(z) +

p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g
k
(z);
k = 1, 2;
1
> 0; 0 < p; z U
_
,
where is given by (3.2), and
p
p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
+ 1)f(z) +

p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z)
is univalent in U and z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z) H[1, 1] Q. Then, the following relation

1
(z)
p
p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
+ 1)f(z) +

p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z)
2
(z) (z U)
implies that
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g
1
(z) z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z) z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g
2
(z) (z U).
Moreover, the functions z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g
1
(z) and z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g
2
(z) are the best subordinant
and the best dominant, respectively.
The assumption of Theorem 3, that the functions
p
p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
+ 1)f(z) +

p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z) and z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z)
need to be univalent in U, may be replaced by another condition in the following result.
Corollary 1 Let f, g
k

p
(k = 1, 2). Suppose that condition (3.17) is satised and
R
_
1 +
z

(z)

(z)
_
> (3.18)
_
(z) :=
p
p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
+ 1)f(z) +

p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z);
1
> 0; 0 < p; z U
_
,
where is given by (3.2). Then, the following relation

1
(z)
p
p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
+ 1)f(z) +

p
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z)
2
(z) (z U)
implies that
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g
1
(z) z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z) z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g
2
(z) (z U).
Moreover, the functions z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g
1
(z) and z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g
2
(z) are the best subordinant
and the best dominant, respectively.
Proof To prove Corollary 1, we have to show that condition (3.18) implies the univalence
of (z) and
F(z) := z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z).
938 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.32 Ser.B
As 0 < 1/2 from Theorem 1, condition (3.18) means that is a close-to-convex function
in U (see [29]) and hence is univalent in U. Furthermore, using the same techniques as in
the proof of Theorem 1, we can prove the convexity(univalence) of F and so the details may be
omitted here. Therefore, by applying Theorem 3, we obtain Corollary 1.
Taking q = s + 1,
1
= = p,
i
=
i
(i = 2, 3, , s),
s+1
= 1, and = 0 in Theorem
3, we have the following result.
Corollary 2 Let f, g
p
. Suppose that
R
_
1 +
z

k
(z)

k
(z)
_
>
1
2p
(z U;
k
(z) := z
p
(zg

k
(z) + (1 + p)g
k
(z)); k = 1, 2) ,
and z
p
(zf

(z) + (1 + p)f(z)) is univalent in U, and z

p
f(z) H[1, 1] Q. Then,
z
p
(zg

1
(z) + (1 + p)g
1
(z)) z
p
(zf

(z) + (1 + p)f(z)) z
p
(zg

2
(z) + (1 + p)g
2
(z)) (z U)
implies that
z
p
g
1
(z) z
p
f(z) z
p
g
2
(z) (z U).
Moreover, the functions z
p
g
1
(z) and z
p
g
2
(z) are the best subordinant and the best domi-
nant, respectively.
The proof of Theorem 4 below is similar to that of Theorem 3 using (1.6), and so it is
omitted.
Theorem 4 Let f, g
k

p
(k = 1, 2). Suppose that
R
_
1 +
z

k
(z)

k
(z)
_
>
_

k
(z) : =
p
p
z
p+1
H
l,m
p
(
1
+ 1)g
k
(z) +

p
z
p+1
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g
k
(z);
k = 1, 2;
1
> (p )/p; 0 < p; z U
_
,
where
=
(p )
2
+ (p(
1
1) + )
2
|(p )
2
(p(
1
1) + )
2
|
4(p )(p(
1
1) + )
,
and
p
p
z
p+1
H
l,m
p
(
1
+ 1)f(z) +

p
z
p+1
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z)
is univalent in U and z
p+1
(H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z)) H[0, 1] Q. Then, the following relation

1
(z)
p
p
z
p+1
H
l,m
p
(
1
+ 1)f(z) +

p
z
p+1
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z)
2
(z) (z U)
implies that
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g
1
(z) z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z) z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g
2
(z) (z U).
Moreover, the functions z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g
1
(z) and z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g
2
(z) are the best subordinant
and the best dominant, respectively.
No.3 Nak Eun Cho: SANDWICH-TYPE THEOREMS 939
Next, we consider the integral operator F

( > 0) dened by (cf. [3032])

F
u
(f)(z) :=

z
+p
_
z
0
t
+p1
f(t)dt (f
p
; > 0) (3.19)
Now, we obtain the following result involving the integral operator dened by (3.19).
Theorem 5 Let f, g
k

p
(k = 1, 2). Suppose also that
R
_
1 +
z

k
(z)

k
(z)
_
>
_

k
(z) := z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)g
k
(z); k = 1, 2; z U
_
, (3.20)
where
=
1 +
2
|1
2
|
4
( > 0), (3.21)
and z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z) is univalent in U and z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)F

(f)(z) H[1, 1] Q. Then, the follow-

ing relation

1
(z) z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z)
2
(z) (z U)
implies that
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)F

(g
1
)(z) z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)F

(f)(z) z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)F

(g
2
)(z) (z U).
Moreover, the functions z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)F

(g
1
)(z) and z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)F

(g
2
)(z) are the best sub-
ordinant and the best dominant, respectively.
Proof Let us dene the functions F and G
k
(k = 1, 2) by
F(z) := z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)F

(f)(z) and G
k
(z) := z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)F

(g
k
)(z),
respectively. Without loss of generality, as in the proof of Theorem 1, we can assume that G
k
is analytic and univalent on U and
G

k
() = 0 ( U).
From the denition of the integral operator F

dened by (3.19), we obtain

z(H
l,m
p
(
1
)F

(f)(z))

= H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z) ( + p)H
l,m
p
(
1
)F

(f)(z). (3.22)
Then, from (3.20) and (3.22), we have

k
(z) = G
k
(z) + zG

k
(z). (3.23)
Setting
q
k
(z) = 1 +
zG

k
(z)
G

k
(z)
(k = 1, 2; z U)
and dierentiating both sides of (3.23), we obtain
1 +
z

k
(z)

k
(z)
= q
k
(z) +
zq

k
(z)
q
k
(z) +
.
The remaining part of the proof is similar to that of Theorem 1 and so is omitted the proof
involved.
940 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.32 Ser.B
Using the same methods as in the proof of Corollary 1, we have the following result.
Corollary 3 Let f, g
k

p
(k = 1, 2). Suppose that condition (3.20) is satised and
R
_
1 +
z

(z)

(z)
_
>
_
(z) := z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z) : z U
_
,
where is given by (3.21). Then,

1
(z) z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)f(z)
2
(z) (z U)
implies that
z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)F

(g
1
)(z) z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)F

(f)(z) z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)F

(g
2
)(z) (z U).
Moreover, the functions z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)F

(g
1
)(z) and z
p
H
l,m
p
(
1
)F

(g
2
)(z) are the best sub-
ordinant and the best dominant, respectively.
Taking q = s + 1,
1
=
1
= p,
i
=
i
(i = 2, 3, , s), and
s+1
= 1 in Theorem 5, we
have the following result.
Corollary 4 Let f, g
k

p
(k = 1, 2). Suppose also that
R
_
1 +
z

k
(z)

k
(z)
_
> (z U;
k
(z) := z
p
g
k
(z); k = 1, 2) ,
where is given by (3.21), and z
p
f(z) is univalent in U and z
p
(F

(f)(z)) H[1, 1] Q, then,

z
p
g
1
(z) z
p
f(z) z
p
g
2
(z) (z U)
implies that
z
p
(F

(g
1
)(z)) z
p
(F

(f)(z)) z
p
(F

(g
2
)(z)) (z U).
Moreover, the functions z
p
(F

(g
1
)(z)) and z
p
(F

(g
2
)(z)) are the best subordinant and the
best dominant, respectively.
References
[1] Miller S S, Mocanu P T. Dierential Subordination, Theory and Applications. New York, Basel: Marcel
Dekker Inc, 2000
[2] Miller S S, Mocanu P T. Subordinants of dierential superordinations. Complex Var Theory Appl, 2003,
48: 815826
[3] Dziok J, Srivastava H M. Classes of analytic functions associated with the generalized hypergeometric
function. Appl Math Comput, 1999, 103: 113
[4] Dziok J, Srivastava H M. Certain subclasses of analytic functions associated with the generalized hyper-
geometric function. Integral Transforms Spec Funct, 2003, 14: 718
[5] Liu J L, Srivastava H M. Certain properties of the Dziok-Srivastava operator. Appl Math Comput, 2004,
159: 485493
[6] Liu J L, Srivastava H M. Classes of meromorphically multivalent functions associated with the generalized
hypergeometric function. Math Comput Modelling, 2004, 39: 2134
[7] Dziok J, Srivastava H M. Some subclasses of analytic functions with xed argument of coecients associ-
ated with the generalized hypergeometric function. Adv Stud Contemp Math, 2002, 5: 115125
[8] Liu J L. On subordinations for certain analytic functions associated with the Dziok-Srivastava linear
operator. Taiwanese J Math, 2009, 13: 349357
[9] Patel J, Mishra A K, Srivastava H M. Classes of multivalent analytic functions involving the Dziok-
Srivastava operator. Comput Math Appl, 2007, 54: 599616
No.3 Nak Eun Cho: SANDWICH-TYPE THEOREMS 941
[10] Ramachandran C, Shanmugam T N, Srivastava H M, Swaminathan A. A unied class of k-uniformly
convex functions dened by the Dziok-Srivastava operator. Appl Math Comput, 2007, 190: 16271636
[11] Srivastava H M, Owa S. Some characterizations and distortions theorems involving fractional calculus,
generalized hypergeometric functions, Hadamard products, linear operators, and certain subclasses of
analytic functions. Nagoya Math J, 1987, 106: 128
[12] Owa S, Srivastava H M. Univalent and starlike generalized hypergeometric functions. Canad J Math, 1987,
39: 10571077
[13] Liu J L, Srivastava H M. A linear operator and associated families of meromorphically multivalent func-
tions. J Math Anal Appl, 2001, 259: 566581
[14] Liu J L, Srivastava H M. Certain properties of the Dziok-Srivastava operator. Appl Math Comput, 2004,
159: 485493
[15] Bulboaca T. Integral operators that preserve the subordination. Bull Korean Math Soc, 1997, 32: 627636
[16] Miller S S, Mocanu P T, Reade M O. Subordination-preserving integral operators. Trans Amer Math Soc,
1984, 283: 605615
[17] Owa S, Srivastava H M. Some subordination theorems involving a certain family of integral operators.
Integral Transforms Spec Funct, 2004, 15: 445454
[18] Bulboaca T. A class of superordination-preserving integral operators. Indag Math N S, 2002, 13: 301311
[19] Ali R M, Ravichandran V, Seenivasagan N. Subordination and superordination of the Liu-Srivastava linear
operator on meromorphic functions. Bull Malays Math Sci Soc (2), 2008, 31(2): 192207
[20] Ali R M, Ravichandran V, Seenivasagan N. Subordination and superordination on Schwarzian derivatives.
J Inequal Appl, 2008, Art. ID 712328, 18 pp
[21] Ali R M, Ravichandran V, Seenivasagan N. Dierential subordination and superordination of analytic
functions dened by the multiplier transformation. Math Inequal Appl, 2009, 12: 123139
[22] Ali R M, Ravichandran V, Seenivasagan N. Dierential subordination and superordination for meromorphic
functions dened by certain multiplier transformation. Bull Malays Math Sci Soc (2), 2010, 33(2): 311324
[23] Cho N E, Kwon O S, Owa S, Srivastava H M. A class of integral operators preserving subordination and
superordination for meromorphic functions. Appl Math Comput, 2007, 193: 463474
[24] Cho N E, Kwon O S. A class of integral operators preserving subordination and superordination. Bull
Malays Math Sci Soc (2), 2010, 33(3): 429437
[25] Wang Z G, Xiang R G, Darus M. A family of integral operators preserving subordination and superordi-
nation. Bull Malays Math Sci Soc (2), 2010, 33(1): 121131
[26] Miller S S, Mocanu P T. Dierential subordinations and univalent functions. Michigan Math J, 1981, 28:
157171
[27] Miller S S, Mocanu P T. Univalent solutions of Briot-Bouquet dierential equations. J Dierent Eq, 1985,
567: 297309
[28] Pommerenke C. Univalent Functions. Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht: Gottingen, 1975
[29] Kaplan W. Close-to-convex schlicht functions. Michigan Math J, 1952, 2: 169185
[30] Goel R M, Sohi N S. On a class of meromorphic functions. Glas Mat, 1982, 17(37): 1928
[31] Kumar V, Shukla S L. Certain integrals for classes of p-valent functions. Bull Austral Math Soc, 1982,
25: 8597
[32] Srivastava H M, Owa S. Current Topics in Analytic Function Theory. Singapore, New Jersey, London,
and Hong Kong: World Scientic Publishing Company, 1992