Abstract
Survey of Grunsky coefficient methods for obtaining estimates of logarithmic coefficients and Hankel determinants for general univalent functions, with applications to coefficient difference bounds.
Results & Lemmas (12)
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. Let and be given by (1). Then - (i) ([20]); (ii) ([16]).
Theorem 1. Let $f \in \mathcal{S}$ and be given by (1). Then
- (i) $|\gamma_3| \le 0.5566178...$ ([20]); (ii) $|\gamma_4| \le 0.51059...$ ([16]).
Theorem 2
Theorem 2. [19] Let, and be the logarithmic coefficients of function. Then and
Theorem 2. [19] Let $\gamma_2$ , $\gamma_3$ and $\gamma_4$ be the logarithmic coefficients of function $f \in \mathcal{S}$ . Then
$$|\gamma_3| - |\gamma_2| \le \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}$$
and $|\gamma_4| - |\gamma_3| \le \frac{1}{\sqrt{7}}$
Theorem 3
Theorem 3. [15] For the class S we have, where and, where In [21] the authors improved these results by proving:
Theorem 3. [15] For the class S we have
$$|H_{2,2}(f)| \le A$$
, where $1 \le A \le \frac{11}{3} = 3,66...$
and
$$|H_{3,1}(f)| \le B$$
, where $\frac{4}{9} \le B \le \frac{32 + \sqrt{285}}{15} = 3.258796 \cdots$
In [21] the authors improved these results by proving:
Theorem 4 · coeff
Theorem 4. [21] For the class S we have the next estimations: - (i); - The modulus of was estimated In [17] for the case of vanishing and…
Theorem 4. [21] For the class S we have the next estimations:
- (i) $|H_{2,2}(f)| \leq 1.3614...$ ;
- $(ii) |H_{3,1}(f)| \leq 1.6787...$
The modulus of $H_{2,3}(f)$ was estimated In [17] for the case of vanishing and non-vanishing second coefficient:
Theorem 5 · coeff
Theorem 5. [17] Let is given by (1). Then - (i) if; (ii) for every. In the next theorem we give the upper bound of the modulus of the…
Theorem 5. [17] Let $f \in \mathcal{S}$ is given by (1). Then
- (i) $|H_{2,3}(f)| \le 2.02757...$ if $a_2 = 0$ ; (ii) $|H_{2,3}(f)| \le 4.8986977...$ for every $f \in \mathcal{S}$ .
In the next theorem we give the upper bound of the modulus of the second and the third Hankel determinant for the inverse functions of the functions from the class $\mathcal{S}$ (sharp for the second order determinant). The proof of the later is included since it differs from the previous ones.
Theorem 6
Theorem 6. ([23]). Let and be its inverse function. Then - (i) and the result is the best possible; -
Theorem 6. ([23]). Let $f \in \mathcal{S}$ and $f^{-1}$ be its inverse function. Then
- (i) $|H_{2,2}(f^{-1})| \leq 3$ and the result is the best possible;
- $|H_{3,1}(f^{-1})| \leq 2.36639...$
Theorem 7 · coeff
Theorem 7. Let. Then the following estimates are sharp: - (i); - (ii) Proof. (i) From (25) we receive that for any function, since and (see…
Theorem 7. Let $f \in S$ . Then the following estimates are sharp:
- (i) $|H_{2,2}(f^{-1}) H_{2,2}(f)| \le 4$ ;
- (ii) $|H_{3,1}(f^{-1}) H_{3,1}(f)| \le 1.$
Proof.
(i) From (25) we receive that for any function $f \in \mathcal{S}$ ,
$$|H_{2,2}(f^{-1}) - H_{2,2}(f)| = |a_2|^2 |a_3 - a_2^2| \le 4,$$
since $|a_2| \le 2$ and $|a_3 - a_2^2| \le 1$ (see [2]). The above estimate is sharp since for the Koebe function we have $H_{2,2}(k) = 2 \cdot 4 - 3^2 = -1$ and $H_{2,2}(k^{-1}) = (-2) \cdot (-14) - 5^2 = 3$ , so that $H_{2,2}(k^{-1}) - H_{2,2}(k) = 4$ .
(ii) From the definition of the third Hankel determinant we have
$$H_{3,1}(f^{-1}) = A_3(A_2A_4 - A_3^2) - A_4(A_4 - A_2A_3) + A_5(A_3 - A_2^2).$$
Using the relations (22), after some calculations, we receive
$$H_{3,1}(f^{-1})$$
= $a_3(a_2a_4 - a_3^2) - a_4(a_4 - a_2a_3) + a_5(a_3 - a_2^2) - (a_3 - a_2^2)^3$
= $H_{3,1}(f) - (a_3 - a_2^2)^3$ ,
and further, for $f \in \mathcal{S}$ ,
$$|H_{3,1}(f^{-1}) - H_{3,1}(f)| = |a_3 - a_2^2|^3 \le 1,$$
for every $f \in \mathcal{S}$ . The above inequality is also sharp as the function $f_1(z) = \frac{z}{1-z^2} = z + z^3 + z^5 + \cdots$ with $a_2 = a_4 = 0$ and $a_3 = a_5 = 1$ shows. Indeed, from (22) we receive $A_2 = A_4 = 0$ , $A_3 = -1$ , $A_5 = 2$ , i.e., $H_{3,1}(f_1) = 0$ , $H_{3,1}(f_1^{-1}) = -1$ and $|H_{3,1}(f_1^{-1}) - H_{3,1}(f_1)| = 1$ .
The following estimate (non-sharp) of the modulus of $H_{3,2}(f^{-1})$ was given in [19]:
Theorem 8 · coeff
Theorem 8. [19] Let is given by (1) and let. Then Finally, in [20] an estimate of the second Hankel dterminant for the logarithmic…
Theorem 8. [19] Let $f \in \mathcal{S}$ is given by (1) and let $a_2 = 0$ . Then
$$|H_{3,2}(f^{-1})| \le \frac{\sqrt{3}}{6\sqrt{7}} + 2\sqrt{3} = 3.57321\dots$$
Finally, in [20] an estimate of the second Hankel dterminant for the logarithmic coefficients wa given:
Theorem 9
Theorem 9. ([20]). Let is given by (1). Then
Theorem 9. ([20]). Let $f \in \mathcal{S}$ is given by (1). Then
$$|H_{2,1}(F_f/2)| = |\gamma_1 \gamma_3 - \gamma_2^2| \le \frac{1}{3}.$$
Theorem 10 · coeff
Theorem 10. Let and be given by (1) with. Then - (i) ([14]), - (ii) - (iii) ([22]), - - (v).
Theorem 10. Let $f \in \mathcal{S}$ and be given by (1) with $a_2 = 0$ . Then
- (i) $|a_3| \le 1$ ([14]),
- (ii) $|a_4| \le \frac{2}{2} = 0.666 \dots ([14]),$
- (iii) $|a_5| \leq \frac{3}{4} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{7}} = 1.12796...$ ([22]),
- $(iv) |H_{2,2}(f)| \le 1 ([14]),$
- (v) $|H_{3,1}(f)| \le 1.026 \dots (22)$ .
Theorem 11 · coeff
Theorem 11. ([22]). Let and be given by (1), with. Then - - (ii) - - A long standing problem in the theory of univalent functions is to…
Theorem 11. ([22]). Let $f \in \mathcal{S}$ and be given by (1), with $a_3 = 0$ . Then
- $(i) |a_2| \leq 1,$
- (ii) $|a_4| \le \frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{21}{5}} + \frac{5}{8} = 1.1373...,$
- $(iii) |a_5| \le 1.674896577...,$
- $(iv) |H_{2,2}(f)| \leq 1.1373...,$
A long standing problem in the theory of univalent functions is to find sharp upper and lower bounds for $|a_{n+1}| - |a_n|$ , when $f \in \mathcal{S}$ . Since the Keobe function has coefficients $a_n = n$ , it is natural to conjecture that $||a_{n+1}| - |a_n|| \le 1$ . As early as 1933, this was shown to be false even when n=2, when Fekete and Szegö [3] obtained the sharp bounds
$$-1 \le |a_3| - |a_2| \le \frac{3}{4} + e^{-\lambda_0} (2e^{-\lambda_0} - 1) = 1.029...,$$
where $\lambda_0$ is the unique value of $\lambda$ in $0 < \lambda < 1$ , satisfying the equation $4\lambda = e^{\lambda}$ .
Hayman [6] showed that if $f \in \mathcal{S}$ , then $||a_{n+1}| - |a_n|| \leq C$ , where C is an absolute constant. The exact value of C is unknown, the best estimate to date being C = 3.61... [4], which because of the sharp estimate above when n = 2, cannot be reduced to 1.
Theorem 12 · coeff
Theorem 12. Let and be given by (1). Then - (i) ([22]), (ii) if f is an odd function ([22]), - - Remark 2. We believe that is true for the…
Theorem 12. Let $f \in \mathcal{S}$ and be given by (1). Then
- (i) $|a_4| |a_3| \le 1.75185...$ ([22]), (ii) $|a_5| |a_3| \le \frac{2}{\sqrt{7}} = 0.7559...$ if f is an odd function ([22]),
- $(iii) |a_2a_3 a_4| \le 2.10064... ([20]),$
- $(iv) |a_5| |a_4| \le 2.3297 \dots ([16]).$
Remark 2. We believe that $|a_2a_3 - a_4| \leq 2$ is true for the class S.
Function classes studied:
Coefficient bounds & claims (12)
Machine-extracted from the paper text - useful for cross-referencing, not a verified fact.
coefficient_bound
|gamma_3| ≤ 0.5566178 for class S [Theorem 1(i)]
coefficient_bound
|gamma_4| ≤ 0.51059 for class S [Theorem 1(ii)]
coefficient_bound
|gamma_3| - |gamma_2| ≤ 1/sqrt(5) for class S [Theorem 2]
coefficient_bound
|gamma_4| - |gamma_3| ≤ 1/sqrt(7) for class S [Theorem 2]
coefficient_bound
|H_{2,2}(f)| ≤ 1.3614 for class S [Theorem 4(i)]
coefficient_bound
|H_{3,1}(f)| ≤ 1.6787 for class S [Theorem 4(ii)]
coefficient_bound
|H_{2,2}(f^{-1})| ≤ 3 for class S (sharp) [Theorem 6(i)]
coefficient_bound
|H_{3,1}(f^{-1})| ≤ 2.36639 for class S [Theorem 6(ii)]
coefficient_bound
|H_{2,2}(f^{-1}) - H_{2,2}(f)| ≤ 4 for class S (sharp) [Theorem 7(i)]
coefficient_bound
|H_{3,1}(f^{-1}) - H_{3,1}(f)| ≤ 1 for class S (sharp) [Theorem 7(ii)]
coefficient_bound
|H_{2,1}(F_f/2)| ≤ 1/3 for class S [Theorem 9]
function_family
Class S: class of holomorphic normalised univalent functions on D
Related Papers