🧭 New here?
Take a guided tour of the site.
← Back to Papers

Continue from this paper

Indexing is not verification. Extracted statements should be checked against the source.

Abstract

Sharp upper and lower bounds of the Hermitian Toeplitz determinants of the second and third orders are found for various subclasses of close-to-convex functions.

Results & Lemmas (8)

Each result is auto-extracted from the paper via OCR - the math is shown verbatim and may carry occasional transcription artifacts. Click to expand the full statement.

Theorem 1 Theorem 1 ([11]) Let F be a subclass of A such that f ∈F: a2 = 0 ̸= ∅and A2(F):= max |a2|: f ∈F exists. Then 1 −A2 2(F) ≤det T2,1( f ) ≤1.…
Theorem 1 ([11]) Let F be a subclass of A such that { f ∈F : a2 = 0} ̸= ∅and A2(F) := max{|a2| : f ∈F} exists. Then 1 −A2 2(F) ≤det T2,1( f ) ≤1. Both inequalities are sharp. We next define the classes of close-to-convex functions considered in this paper. First denote by S∗the subclass of S consisting of the starlike functions, i.e., f ∈S∗if and only if f ∈A and Re zf ′(z) f (z) > 0, z ∈D. A function f ∈A is called close-to-convex if there exist g ∈S∗and δ ∈R such that Re eiδzf ′(z) g(z) > 0,
Lemma 1 Lemma 1 If p ∈P is of the form (5), then |cn| ≤2, n ∈N. (6) 123
Lemma 1 If p ∈P is of the form (5), then |cn| ≤2, n ∈N. (6) 123
Theorem 2 Theorem 2 If f ∈F1, then −5 4 ≤det T2,1( f ) ≤1. Both inequalities are sharp. We now find the upper and lower bounds of det T3,1( f ) in the…
Theorem 2 If f ∈F1, then −5 4 ≤det T2,1( f ) ≤1. Both inequalities are sharp. We now find the upper and lower bounds of det T3,1( f ) in the class F1, first noting that det T3,1( f ) =  1 a2 a3 a2 1 a2 a3 a2 1  = 2 Re
Theorem 3 Theorem 3 If f ∈F1, then −1 ≤det T3,1( f ) ≤1. (14) Both inequalities are sharp.
Theorem 3 If f ∈F1, then −1 ≤det T3,1( f ) ≤1. (14) Both inequalities are sharp.
Theorem 4 Theorem 4 If f ∈F2, then −5 4 ≤det T2,1( f ) ≤1. Both inequalities are sharp. Now we estimate det T3,1( f ) for functions in the class F2.
Theorem 4 If f ∈F2, then −5 4 ≤det T2,1( f ) ≤1. Both inequalities are sharp. Now we estimate det T3,1( f ) for functions in the class F2.
Theorem 5 Theorem 5 If f ∈F2, then det T3,1( f ) ≤11 9. (43) The inequality is sharp.
Theorem 5 If f ∈F2, then det T3,1( f ) ≤11 9 . (43) The inequality is sharp.
Theorem 3 Repeated OCR label — verify against source Theorem 3, the inequality (15) holds with the function F(x, y):= 2x2y −2x2 −y2 + 1, (x, y) ∈[0, 3/2] × [0, 5/3]. Repeating argumentation in…
Theorem 3, the inequality (15) holds with the function F(x, y) := 2x2y −2x2 −y2 + 1, (x, y) ∈[0, 3/2] × [0, 5/3]. Repeating argumentation in the proof of Theorem 3, we see that the function F does not have any relative maxima in (0, 3/2) × (0, 5/3). We consider F on the boundary of [0, 3/2] × [0, 5/3]. (1) On the side x = 0, F(0, y) = 1 −y2 ≤1, 0 ≤y ≤5 3. (2) On the side x = 3/2, F 3 2, y 
Theorem 6 Theorem 6 If f ∈F2, then det T3,1( f ) ≥1 44
Theorem 6 If f ∈F2, then det T3,1( f ) ≥1 44
Function classes studied:

Related Papers

Zalcman Conjecture for Starlike Mappings in Higher Dimensions
2026
Generalized Zalcman Conjecture for Starlike Mappings in Several Complex Variable
2026
On the logarithmic coefficients of Ma-Minda type convex functions
2026
Logarithmic Coefficients Problems of Geometric Subclass of Closed-to-convex Func
2026
The sharp refined Bohr inequalities for a subclass of close-to-convex harmonic m
2026
↑↓ navigate↵ openesc closeall results
✦ 293 explorers have wandered the registry - thanks for stopping by. Tell us what you'd like to see →
Usage & privacy

We use first-party site metrics to improve navigation: page visits, internal clicks, search result counts (not search terms), and approximate active time. A random tab ID groups events for seven days; GPC/DNT turns this off. The separate visitor count uses a self-hosted pseudonymous fingerprint and also respects GPC/DNT.

💬 Feedback