On Uniformly Convex Functions
On Uniformly Convex Functions
POLONICI MATHEMATICI
LVI.1 (1991)
These are normalized functions regular and univalent in E : |z| < 1, for
which f (E) is a convex domain.
Definition 1. A function f (z) is said to be uniformly convex in E if
f (z) is in CV and has the property that for every circular arc γ contained
in E, with center ζ also in E, the arc f (γ) is a convex arc. We let UCV
denote the class of all such functions.
A directed arc Γ (t), a < t < b, is said to be convex if the argument of
the tangent to Γ (t) is a nondecreasing function of t [2, Vol. I, pp. 109–110].
In our case the direction of Γ (t) = f (γ) is the one dictated by the direction
of γ which is the usual counterclockwise direction on a circle.
In [2, p. 110] we proved that if any arc γ is given by z(t), then f (γ) is
convex iff
00
z (t) f 00 (z) 0
(1.2) Im 0 + 0 z (t) ≥ 0
z (t) f (z)
for all z on γ.
4. The sets UST and UCV. We recall the classic Alexander Theorem
that if f (z) is given by (1.1), then f (z) is in CV iff
(4.1) F (z) ≡ zf 0 (z)
is in ST, where CV and ST are the usual normalized families of convex and
starlike functions. What is the situation when we prefix the word “uni-
formly”?
To prove that (4.1) does not give a one-to-one correspondence between
the sets UST and UCV we need two examples.
On uniformly convex functions 91
√
Lemma 1. The function F (z) ≡ z − Bz 2 is in UST iff |B| ≤ 3/4.
P r o o f. If f (z) = z − Az 2 , then
00
f (z) −2A(z − ζ)
1 + Re (z − ζ) = 1 + Re .
f 0 (z) 1 − 2Az
But for 0 < A < 1/2,
−2A(z − ζ) 2A(z − ζ) 4A
(4.2) 1 + Re ≥1− ≥1−
1 − 2Az 1 − 2Az 1 − 2A
and hence in E × E
f 00 (z) 1 − 6A
1 + Re 0
(z − ζ) ≥ ≥0
f (z) 1 − 2A
iff A ≤ 1/6. But equality can occur when z = 1 and ζ = −1.
√
Now set F (z) = z−Bz 2 where B = √ 3/4 and hence F (z) is in
√UST. Then
(4.1) gives f (z) = z − Az 2 where A = 3/8 ≈ 0.216. Since 3/8 > 1/6,
the corresponding f (z) is not in UCV. The converse relation may hold. It
may be that f (z) in UCV implies that F (z) = zf 0 (z) is in UST, but I have
not been able to prove or disprove this statement.
5. A sufficient
P∞ condition. It is well-known [1] that if f (z) is given
by (1.1) and n=2 n|an | ≤ 1, then f (z) is in ST. In [3] we proved that if
∞ √
X 2
(5.1) n|an | ≤ ,
n=2
2
then
√ f (z) is in UST. However,
√ it was conjectured in [3] that the constant
2/2 can be replaced by 3/2 in (5.1).
then f (z) is in UCV. Further , the constant 1/3 in (5.2) cannot be replaced
by a larger number.
92 A. W. Goodman
P∞
P r o o f. If (5.2) is satisfied, then n=2 n|an | ≤ 1/3. Hence in E × E
∞
X
n(n − 1)|an | |z n−2 |
00
f (z) n=2
(5.3) 1 + Re (z − ζ) ≥ 1 − ∞ |z − ζ|
f 0 (z) X
n−1
1− n|an | |z |
n=2
2/3
≥1− = 0.
1 − 1/3
But equality is attained in (5.3) when f (z) = z − z 2 /6, z = 1 and ζ = −1.
References
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33620-5700
U.S.A.