Angular Estimates for Class of Analytic Functions

Abstract
Angular estimates play a fundamental role in the analytic of functions within various mathematical
domains. In this paper, we are going to drive the class of analytic function in the open unit disk U = {z ∈
∁: |𝑧| < 1}. Our research focuses on determining bounds and properties related to the angular behavior of
these functions, and estimation the functions that are belonging to this class. We derive the conditions for
class that shows the strongest of convex of order α in the open unit disk. This aims to provide valuable
insights into their characteristics and applications. By investigating the distribution and variation of angles
at different points, we unravel fundamental characteristics and explore the relationships between these
functions and their angular dynamics. Our findings not only contribute to a deeper understanding of this
class of analytic functions but also offer potential applications in diverse areas such as signal processing,
image analysis, and complex systems modeling.
Keywords: Analytic Functions, Angular Estimates, Convex Functions, Starlike Functions, Strongly
Starlike, Strongly Convex, Univalent Functions.
Mathematics Subject Classification: 30C45.
*- corresponding author

1 Definition and Introduction

Let 𝒜 represent the class of functions in the form
∞
𝑓(z) = z + ∑k=2 ak z k , ak represents a complex number (1.1)

this denotes analytic in the open unit disc U = {z ∈ ∁∶ |z| < 1} at a complex plane ∁. Then we can describe
the basic ideas for the familiar subclasses of 𝒜 that consists of functions that are starlike of order α in U,
convex of order α in U, strongly starlike of order α in U, and strongly convex of order α in U. So, from
the definition, we have a function 𝑓 which is belonging to 𝒜, and this is said to be starlike of order α if it
is satisfied the following equation:
𝑧 𝑓′ (𝑧)
ℛ𝑒 ( 𝑓 (𝑧)
) >α (z ∈ U), (1.2)

so, there exist some values for α (0 ≤ α < 1). This is depicted by 𝑠 ∗ (α) the subclass of 𝒜 which is
consisting of functions that are starlike of α in U. In addition, the function 𝑓 is belonging to 𝒜 and it is
said to be convex of order α if it is satisfied the following inequality:
𝑧𝑓′′
ℛ𝑒 (1 + 𝑓′ (𝑧)) > α (z ∈ U), (1.3)
for some values of α (0 ≤ α < 1). We denote that 𝒞(α) the subclass of 𝒜 is comprised of functions that
are convex of order α in U. In particular if α =0, we have the classes 𝑠 ∗ (0), and 𝒞(0) = 𝒞 that are known
as classes of starlike and convex functions respectively.
If the function 𝑓 is belonging to 𝒜, and satisfy the following:
𝑧𝑓′ (𝑧) Πα
|𝑎𝑟𝑔 ( )| < (z ∈ U), (1.4)
𝑓(𝑧) 2

for some values of α (0 < α ≤ 1), the function 𝑓 is considered strongly starlike of order α in U, and this
class is denoted by 𝑠̅∗ (α) the subclass of similar functions.
If the function 𝑓 is belonging to 𝒜, and it is satisfied the inequality shown below:
𝑧𝑓′′ (𝑧) Πα
|𝑎𝑟𝑔 (1 + )| < (z ∈ U), (1.5)
𝑓′ (𝑧) 2

for some values of α (0 < α ≤ 1), we can denote that the function f is considered strongly convex of
order α in U, and this class is depicted by 𝒞̅ (α) which is the class of all such functions.

Now, let μ(λ , α) be the subclass of 𝒜 which was introduced by Frasin and Jahangiri [4] as follows.
Definition 1.1: A function 𝑓 in 𝒜 that is considered to be a member of the class μ(λ , α) if and only if
𝑧
|𝑓 ′ ( 𝑓 )λ − 1| < 1 − α, (1.6)

for some values of α (0 ≤ α < 1 ) , λ ≥ 0 , and all z ∈ U. Remember that the condition (1.6) is satisfied.
𝑧 𝜆
ℛe (𝑓 ′ (𝑓) ) > α. (1.7)

The paper is aimed to describe the subclass μ(λ , α) and studying different properties for functions relating
to this class.
To derive the main results, we are going to recall the preliminary lemmas should be used to extract our
proof.

2 Preliminary Results
To disseminate the main results the following lemmas are used:
Lemma 2.1: Assume the function 𝑓 in 𝒜 satisfies the following conditions as depicted in [1] and [6].
𝑧 2 𝑓′ (𝑧)
| − 1| < 1, (𝑧𝜖𝑈), (2.1)
𝑓2 (𝑧)

then the function f is said to be univalent in U.

Lemma 2.2: let w(z) be an analytical function in U, such that w (0) =0, then it is noted that if |w(z)| attains
its maximum value on the circle |z| = r < 1 at a point such that z0 ∈ U as described in [5]. So we have
z0 w ′ (z0 ) = kw(z0 ) (2.2)
such that k ≥ 1 is a real number.
Lemma 2.3: let p(z) be an analytical function in U, such that p(0) =1, and p(z)≠ 0, ( 𝑧 ∈ U) as shown in
[7], and there exists a point z0 ∈ U such that
Πα Πα
|𝑎𝑟𝑔(p(z))| < for |z| < |z0 |, |𝑎𝑟𝑔(p(z))| < , (2.3)
2 2

within (0 < α ≤ 1), the following formula is produced.

(z0 p′(z0 ))
= i k α, (2.4)
p(z0 )

where
1 1 Π
k ≥ 2 (a + a) ≥ 1 when 𝑎𝑟𝑔(p(z0 )) = 2 α,
−1 1 Π
k≤ (a + a) ≤ −1 when 𝑎𝑟𝑔(p(z0 )) = − 2 α
2
1
(p(z0 ))α = ± α i , (a > 0)
We start with the statements and the proof to get the following results as state below:

3 Results
In this paper, we explore and establish angular estimates for a specific class of analytic functions. By
rigorously analyzing the behavior of these functions within the complex plane, we derive key insights into
their angular distribution and growth properties. The following results are extracted.
Theorem 3.1: If 𝑓 ∈ 𝒜 and it is satisfied the following
𝑧𝑓′′ (𝑧) +𝜆𝑓′ (𝑧) 𝜆𝑧𝑓′ (𝑧) 1−𝛼
− < 2−𝛼 , (𝑧 ∈ 𝑈) (3.1)
𝑓′ (𝑧) 𝑓(𝑧)

for some values for α in (0 ≤ α < 1) and λ ≥ 0 then the function f(𝑧) ∈ μ(λ , α)
Proof. Let 𝑓 ∉ μ (λ, α), and from definition 1.1 the following is produced
𝑧 λ
|𝑓 ′ (𝑧) (𝑓(𝑧)) − 1| ≥ 1 − α,

now, the function w(z) is defined by

𝑧 λ
𝑓 ′ (𝑧) (𝑓(𝑧)) = 1 + (1 − α) w (z). (3.2)

Then w(z) is represented as analytic function in U and w (0)= 0, using the logarithmic differentiations and
from the equation (3.2), we have the following
𝑧𝑓′′ (𝑧) +𝜆𝑓′ (𝑧) 𝜆𝑧𝑓′ (𝑧) (1−α)z𝑤 ′ (𝑧)
− = . (3.3)
𝑓′ (𝑧) 𝑓(𝑧) 1+(1−α)w(z)

Assume there exists a value z0 ∈ U such that.

max|w(z)| = |w(z0 )| = 1, |z| < |z0 |, then from lemma 2.2 we can deduce the following formula:
z0 𝑤 ′ (z0 ) = kw(z0 ), k ≥ 1. (3.4)
Let w(z0 ) = eiθ , and substitute z0 in equation (3.3) to get the following result.

z0 𝑓′′ (z0 ) +𝜆𝑓′ (z0 ) 𝜆z0 𝑓′ (z0 ) (1−α)z 𝑤 ′ (z )

0 0
− = | 1+(1−α)w(z |
𝑓′ (z0 ) 𝑓(z0 ) ) 0

(1 − α)k eiθ
= | |
1 + (1 − α)eiθ

(1 − α)k |eiθ |
≥
1 + (1 − α)|eiθ |
(1−α)
≥ (2−α)
. (3.5)

This is contraindicated with the previous assumption (3.1). Therefore |w(z)| < 1 which holds and
satisfies all the values for z ∈ U, ultimately from equation (3.2) we have.
𝑧 𝜆
|𝑓 ′ (z) (𝑓(𝑧)) − 1| = (1 − α)|w(z)| < 1 − α z ∈ U, (3.6)

this implies 𝑓 ∈ μ(λ , α). The proof of Theorem 3.1 is complete.

If we have α = 0 and λ = 2 in the Theorem 3.1 and using Lemma 2.1 we get the following corollary.

Corollary 3.2: If 𝑓 ∈ 𝒜 and it is satisfied the following

(𝑧𝑓(𝑧))′′ 2 z 𝑓′ (𝑧) 1
| − | < , z ∈𝑈 (3.7)
𝑓′ (𝑧) 𝑓(𝑧) 2

so, this implies that 𝑓 is univalent in U.

Next, we are going to prove the following theorem.

Theorem 3.3: Suppose that 𝑓 ∈ 𝒜 and if 𝑓 ∈ μ(λ , α) then

𝑓(𝑧) 𝜋
|𝑎𝑟𝑔 ( )| < 𝛼 , 𝑧∈𝑈 (3.8)
𝑧 2
2
for some values of α such that (0 < 𝛼 < 1) , 𝜆 ≥ 0 and tan−1 𝛼 − 𝛼(𝜆 − 1) = 1
𝜋
𝑓(𝑧) 𝜋
Proof. Let that the (3.8) is incorrect, that is |𝑎𝑟𝑔 ( )| ≥ 𝛼 we define the function 𝑝(𝑧)by
𝑧 2

𝑓(𝑧)
𝑧
= 𝑝(𝑧) = 1 + 𝑎2 𝑧1 + 𝑎3 𝑧 2 + 𝑎4 𝑧 3 + ⋯ . (3.9)

So, we conclude that 𝑝(𝑧) is analytic in U such that 𝑝(0) = 1 and 𝑝(𝑧) ≠ 0, (z ∈ U). It is follow from
(3.9) that

𝑧 𝜆 𝑧 2 𝑓 ′ (𝑧) 1 𝜆
𝑓 ′ (𝑧) ( ) = 2 = (𝑝(𝑧) + 𝑧 𝑝′ (𝑧)) ( )
𝑓(𝑧) 𝑓 (𝑧) 𝑝(𝑧)
 𝜆−1 ⬚
1 𝑧𝑝′ (𝑧)
=(𝑝(𝑧)) (1 + ). (3.10)
𝑝(𝑧)

If we assume that there exists a point z0 ∈ 𝑈 such that

𝜋 𝜋
|𝑎𝑟𝑔 𝑝(𝑧)| < 𝛼 for |𝑧| < |𝑧0 |, |𝑎𝑟𝑔 𝑝(𝑧0 )| = 𝛼. (3.11)
2 2

So, when we implement lemma 2.3, we get

⬚
𝑧0 𝑝′ (𝑧0 )
=𝑖𝑘𝛼 (3.12)
𝑝(𝑧0 )

such that
1 1 𝜋
𝑘 ≥ 2 (𝑎 + 𝑎) ≥ 1 when 𝑎𝑟𝑔 𝑝(𝑧0 ) = 𝛼,
2
−1 1 𝜋
𝑘≤ (𝑎 + 𝑎) ≤ −1 when 𝑎𝑟𝑔(𝑝(𝑧0 )) = − 2 𝛼,
2
1
(𝑝(𝑧0 ))𝛼 = ±𝑎 𝑖 , (𝑎 > 0). (3.13)
π
When we substitute z0 in equation (3.10) and implement the case 𝑎𝑟𝑔 (p (z0 )) = α we will get
2
the following
𝜆 𝜆−1 ⬚
𝑧 1 𝑧0 𝑝′ (𝑧0 )
𝑓 ′ (z0 ) (𝑓(𝑧0 )) = (𝑝(𝑧 )) (1+ ),
0 0 𝑝(𝑧0 )

1
= (1 + 𝑖 𝑘 𝛼)
(𝑎 𝑖)𝛼
−𝜋𝛼
= (𝑎− 𝛼 𝑒 𝑖 2 ) (1 + 𝑖 𝑘 𝛼). (3.14)

Implies
⬚
𝑧0 𝜆 1 𝜆−1 𝑧0 𝑝′ (z0 )
𝑎𝑟𝑔 (𝑓 ′ (𝑧0 ) ( ) ) = 𝑎𝑟𝑔 [( ) (1+ )],
𝑓(𝑧0 ) 𝑝(𝑧0 ) 𝑝(𝑧0 )
⬚
1 𝑧0 𝑝′ (z0 )
= (𝜆 − 1) arg (𝑝(𝑧 )) + 𝑎𝑟𝑔 ( 1 + ),
0 𝑝(𝑧0 )

−𝜋
= (𝜆 − 1) 𝛼 +𝑎𝑟𝑔(1 + 𝑖 𝑘 𝛼),
2
−𝜋
= (𝜆 − 1) 𝛼 + tan−1 ( 𝑘 𝛼) . (3.15)
2

But, it is clear that tan−1 ( 𝑘 𝛼) ≥ tan−1 𝛼 , where the value of 𝑘 ≥ 1, from equation (3.15) we get
𝑧 𝜆 −𝜋
𝑎𝑟𝑔 (𝑓 ′ (𝑧0 ) (𝑓(𝑧0 )) ) ≥ (𝜆 − 1) 𝛼 + tan−1 𝛼
0 2

𝜋 2 𝜋
= ( tan−1 𝛼 − 𝛼(𝜆 − 1) ) = (3.16)
2 𝜋 2
2
if tan−1 𝛼 − 𝛼(𝜆 − 1) = 1.
𝜋
 −𝜋
Also, we can use the case when arg (p(𝑧0 )) = 𝛼 and apply the previous arguments we obtain
2

𝑧 𝜆 −𝜋
𝑎𝑟𝑔 (𝑓 ′ (𝑧0 ) (𝑓(𝑧0 )) ) ≤ . (3.17)
0 2
𝜋 𝜋
Provided by (𝜆 − 1) 2 𝛼 + tan−1 ( 𝑘 𝛼) ≤ (𝜆 − 1) 2 𝛼 − tan−1 𝛼, where k≤ −1,
2
and if tan−1 𝛼 − ( 𝜆 − 1)α = 1.
𝜋

So the (3.16) and (3.17) are contradict the assumption of the theorem, hence (3.8) is correct.
Then the proof is done. Now, we are going to prove the following theorem.
Theorem 3.4: let p(z) be an analytical function in U, such that p(z) ≠0, and suppose the following is
satisfied.

𝑧 𝜆 𝜋
|𝑎𝑟𝑔 (𝑝(𝑧) + z 𝑓 ′ (𝑧) ( )) 𝑝′ (𝑧))| < 𝛼 , 𝑧∈𝑈 (3.18)
𝑓(𝑧 2

such that 0 < α < 1, 𝜆 ≥ 0 and 𝑓𝜖 μ(λ , α), so we will have the following:
𝜋
|𝑎𝑟𝑔 (𝑝(𝑧))| < 𝛼 , 𝑧 ∈ 𝑈. (3.19)
2

Proof. If we assume that the previous inequality (3.19) is incorrect, that is

𝜋
|𝑎𝑟𝑔 (𝑝(𝑧))| ≥ 𝛼,
2
Now, let 𝑝(𝑧) an analytic function in 𝑈, such that 𝑝(𝑧) ≠ 0 in 𝑈 and assume that there exists a point
𝑧0 𝜖 𝑈 such that
𝜋 𝜋
|𝑎𝑟𝑔 (𝑝(𝑧))| < 𝛼 , for |𝑧| < |𝑧0 |, |𝑎𝑟𝑔 (𝑝(𝑧0 ))| = 𝛼. (3.20)
2 2

By using the previous lemma 2.3, we can extract the following equation:
⬚
𝑧0 𝑝′ (𝑧0 )
= 𝑖 𝑘 𝛼, (3.21)
𝑝(𝑧0 )

where
1 1 𝜋
𝑘 ≥ 2 (𝑎 + 𝑎) ≥ 1 when 𝑎𝑟𝑔 𝑝(𝑧0 ) = 𝛼
2
−1 1 𝜋
𝑘≤ (𝑎 + 𝑎) ≤ −1 when 𝑎𝑟𝑔(𝑝(𝑧0 )) = − 2 𝛼,
2
1
(𝑝(𝑧0 ))𝛼 = ±𝑎 𝑖 , (𝑎 > 0). (3.22)
𝜋
So, we can implement the first case when 𝑎𝑟𝑔 (𝑝(𝑧0 )) = 𝛼, then it follows that
2

𝑧0 𝜆 ′ 𝑧0 𝜆 𝑧0 𝑝′ (𝑧0 )
𝑎𝑟𝑔 (𝑝(𝑧0 ) + 𝑧0 𝑓 ′ (𝑧0 ) ( ) 𝑝 (z0 )) = 𝑎𝑟𝑔 [𝑝(𝑧0 ) (1 + 𝑓 ′ (𝑧0 ) ( ) )],
𝑓(𝑧0 ) 𝑓(𝑧0 ) 𝑝(𝑧0 )

then by (3.21) we have

 𝑧 𝜆 𝑧 𝜆
𝑎𝑟𝑔 (𝑝(𝑧0 ) + 𝑧0 𝑓 ′ (𝑧0 ) (𝑓(𝑧0 )) 𝑝′ (z0 )) =arg [𝑝(𝑧0 ) (1 + 𝑖𝑓 ′ (𝑧0 ) (𝑓(𝑧0 )) 𝑘𝛼)]
0 0

𝑧 𝜆
= arg(𝑝(𝑧0 )) + 𝑎𝑟𝑔 [1 + 𝑖𝑓 ′ (𝑧0 ) (𝑓(𝑧0 )) 𝑘𝛼]
0

𝜋 𝑧 𝜆
= 2 𝛼 + 𝑎𝑟𝑔 [(1 + 𝑖𝑓 ′ (𝑧0 ) (𝑓(𝑧0 )) 𝑘𝛼)] (3.23)
0

𝑧 𝜆
Since 𝑓(𝑧0 ) ∈ μ(λ , α), we have ℛ𝑒 (𝑓 ′ (z0 ) (𝑓(𝑧0 )) ) > 𝛼 , but 𝑘 ≥ 1, and α lies in 0 < 𝛼 < 1, we
0
𝑧 𝜆
have ℛ𝑒 (𝑓 ′ (z0 ) (𝑓(𝑧0 )) 𝑘𝛼) > 𝛼, after that
0

𝑧 𝜆
𝑎𝑟𝑔 [1 + 𝑖𝑓 ′ (𝑧0 ) (𝑓(𝑧0 )) 𝑘𝛼] > 𝛼, (3.24)
0

by substitute (3.23) and (3.24), we get,

𝑧 𝜆 𝜋
𝑎𝑟𝑔 (𝑝(𝑧0 ) + 𝑧0 𝑓 ′ (𝑧0 ) (𝑓(𝑧0 )) 𝑝′ (z0 )) > 2 𝛼. (3.25)
0

𝜋
And similar the following result will be obtained if 𝑎𝑟𝑔 ⬚ (𝑝(𝑧0 )) = − 2 𝛼 and if we adopt the same
arguments, we get that

𝑧 𝜆 𝑧 𝜆 𝜋
𝑎𝑟𝑔 (𝑝(𝑧0 ) + 𝑧0 𝑓 ′ (𝑧0 ) (𝑓(𝑧0 )) 𝑝′ (z0 )) = arg(𝑝(𝑧0 )) + arg (1 + 𝑖𝑓 ′ (𝑧0 ) (𝑓(𝑧0 )) 𝑘𝛼) < − 2 𝛼
0 0

𝑧 𝜆
because ℛ𝑒 (𝑓 ′ (z0 ) (𝑓(𝑧0 )) 𝑘𝛼) < 0, such that 𝑘 ≤ −1 and 0 < 𝛼 < 1 and hence
0

𝑧0 𝜆
𝑎𝑟𝑔 (1 + 𝑖𝑓 ′ (𝑧0 ) ( ) 𝑘𝛼) < 0.
𝑓(𝑧0 )
Thus, (3.24) and (3.25) contradict our assumption (3.18). We will get the following
𝜋
|𝑎𝑟𝑔 (𝑝(𝑧))| < 𝛼, 𝑧 ∈ 𝑈.
2
And complete the proof of Theorem 3.4.
z 𝑓′ (𝑧)
By taking 𝑝(𝑧) = in Theorem 3.4, so we will get the following corollary.
𝑓(𝑧)

Corollary 3.5: If the function 𝑓 ∈ 𝒜 and if it is satisfied the following

′
z 𝑓 ′ (𝑧) 𝑧 𝜆 z 𝑓 ′ (𝑧) 𝜋
|𝑎𝑟𝑔 ( + z 𝑓 ′ (𝑧) ( ) ( ) )| < 𝛼 , 𝑧 ∈ 𝑈,
𝑓(𝑧) 𝑓(𝑧 ) 𝑓(𝑧) 2

where α lies in 0 < α < 1, λ ≥ 0, and if 𝑓 ∈ μ(λ , α), this implies that 𝑓 is strongly
starlike of order 𝛼 𝑖𝑛 𝑈.
𝑧 𝑓(𝑧)′′
By taking 𝑝(𝑧) = 1 + 𝑖n Theorem 3.4, so we will get the following corollary.
𝑓(𝑧)′

Corollary 3.6: if the function 𝑓 ∈ 𝒜 and if it is satisfied the following

′ 2
(z 𝑓′ (𝑧)) 𝑧 𝜆 ′ 𝑧(𝑓′′ (𝑧)) 𝜋
|arg ( +z 𝑓 ′ (𝑧) (𝑓(𝑧 )) ((𝑧𝑓 ′′ (𝑧)) − ))| < 2 𝛼 , 𝑧 ∈ 𝑈,
𝑓′ (𝑧) 𝑓′ (𝑧)

where α lies in 0 < α < 1 , λ ≥ 0, and if 𝑓 ∈ μ(λ , α), this implies that f is strongly convex of order
α in 𝑈.
4 Conclusion and Future work
In this paper, angular estimation for a specific class of analytic functions have been investigated within the
open unit disk U = {z ∈ ∁: |𝑧| < 1}. This research is focused on determining bounds and properties related
to the angular behavior of these functions and estimating the functions that are belonging to this class, and
this includes: starlike, convex, strongly starlike, and strongly convex functions of order α in U. We focused
on several keys and theorems that provide valuable insights into the angular distribution and growth
properties of these functions. Specifically, Theorem 3.1 establishes the conditions under which a function
belongs to the class μ(λ , α) and Corollary 3.2 shows the univalence property for functions that are
satisfying a specific condition. Moreover, Theorem 3.3 demonstrates the relationship between functions in
μ(α, λ) and their angular estimates, and Corollaries 3.5 and 3.6 establish criteria for strong starlikeness and
convexity of functions in the same class. The results of this study can contribute to a deeper understanding
of the analyzed class of analytic functions which have significant potential applications in various areas
such as signal processing, image analysis, and complex systems modeling [3].
We plan to extend our work to include higher dimensions such as functions defined on the unit disk, that
could be an interesting direction for future research. Also, we are going to test other classes. For example,
can the same problem be applied for classes defined in [2]. Finally, this paper could be a guide for
investigation and estimation analytic functions in the open unit disk is an ongoing and evolving area of
research. The s presented results in this paper can be used as a foundation for future studies that delve
deeper into the properties and applications of these functions.

References
[1] Harayzeh, M., & Darus, M. (2010). Angular estimates for certain analytic univalent functions. Int. J.
Open Problems Complex Analysis, 2(3), 211-220.
[2] Harayzeh, M., & Darus, M. (2010). Some inclusion properties for certain subclasses defined by
generalised derivative operator and subordination, Int. J. Open Problems Complex Analysis 2(1), 14-29.

[3] Alzyoud, F., Maqableh, W., & Al Shrouf, F. (2021). A semi smart adaptive approach for trash
classification. International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 16(4).
[4] Frasin, B. A and Jahangiri, Jay M. (2008). A new and comprehensive class of analytic functions.
Analele universitatii_oradea fasc. Matematica , Tom xv (2008), 59-62.

[5] Jack. I. S. (1971). Functions starlike and convex of order 𝛼, J. London Math. Soc. (2)3, 469-474.
[6] Nunokawa, M. (1995). On some angular estimates of analytic functions. Mathematica japonicae, 41(2),
447-452.
[7] Ozaki. S. and Nunokawa. M. (1972). The Schwarzian derivative and univalent functions, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 33, 392-394.