Theorem 1.1
8SFNIf g\in \Sigma, then we have
Equality holds in (1.1) if and only if g is a full mapping.
In this paper, motivated by the Prawitz area theorem and the work of Aharonov, we introduce the mixed Aharonov sequence associated with a locally univalent analytic function. By using the mixed Aharonov sequence, we establish a new univalence criterion for the locally univalent analytic functions in the unit disk, which generalizes some related results of Aharonov in [Ah]. We also prove some new properties about the (mixed) Aharonov sequence, in particular, a new inequality for the Aharonov sequence is established for the univalent functions with a quasiconformal extension.
If g\in \Sigma, then we have
Equality holds in (1.1) if and only if g is a full mapping.
Here we say g is a full mapping if the Lebesgue measure of \widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus g(\mathbb{D}_e) is zero.
If f\in S, then we have
Where
Equality holds in (1.3) if and only if f is a full mapping.
Here we say f is a full mapping if the Lebesgue measure of \mathbb{C}\setminus f(\mathbb{D}) is zero.
Let \lambda>0. Let g\in \Sigma with g(z)\neq0 for all z\in \mathbb{D}_e. Then we have
Where
Equality holds in (1.5) if and only if g is a full mapping.
Let \lambda>0. Let f\in S. Then we have
Where
Equality holds in (1.6) if and only if f is a full mapping.
From the above arguments, we see that Prawitz’s inequality (?) holds for all f\in \mathcal{U}(\mathbb{D}). The inequaity (?) has appeared in [HS-1], where (?) was used to study the integral means spectrum of univalent analytic functions in \mathbb{D}.
When \lambda=1, (?) reduces to
Here
is known as Grunsky kernel. We set
It is known that U(f; z,w) and U_f(z) also play an important role in the study of univalent analytic (meromorphic) functions and the universal Teichmüller space, see for example [Ba], [Ha], [Sh-1], [Sh-2], [TT].
For a locally univalent analytic (or meromorphic) function f in the unit disk \mathbb{D}, what additional conditions on f allow one to conclude that f is univalent?
When f\in \mathcal{M}(\mathbb{D}) has a first order pole z, we can define \phi_n(f; z) in view of (?) and (?) for all n \geq 1.
Let f\in \mathcal{M}(\mathbb{D}). Then f is univalent meromorphic in \mathbb{D} if and only if, for all \zeta\in \mathbb{D}, it holds that
Let f\in \mathcal{M}(\mathbb{D}). Then f is univalent meromorphic and a full mapping in \mathbb{D}, if and only if, for all \zeta\in \mathbb{D}, it holds that
Let f\in \mathcal{M}(\mathbb{D}). Then f is univalent meromorphic in \mathbb{D} if and only if, for all \zeta\in \mathbb{D}, there is a positive constant C(\zeta) such that for all n\geq 1,
In the above theorems, the combinatorial number \binom{\alpha}{m} is defined as
Where \alpha\in \mathbb{R} and m is a non-negative integer number. In particular, we have
It should be pointed out that, in the recent paper [Su], Sugawa has reformulated above univalence criterion by using projective Schwarzian derivatives of higher order.
We get from (?) that \Phi_n(n\geq 0) is affine invariant in the sense that
for all affine transformation \chi(z)=az+b since \phi_0 is affine invariant and \phi_n(n\geq 1) is Möbius invariant. From this fact, we see that we can’t define \Phi_n(f; z) if f belongs to \mathcal{M}(\mathbb{D}) and z is a pole of f. We will call \{\Phi_n(f; z)\} as mixed Aharonov sequence. (?) explicitly shows how the mixed sequence is determined by the classical Aharonov invariants.
Let \lambda>0 and f \in \mathcal{L}(\mathbb{D}). Then f is univalent analytic in \mathbb{D} if and only if, for all \zeta\in \mathbb{D}, it holds that
We first prove the only if part. We assume that f\in \mathcal{U}(\mathbb{D}). Let w, \zeta\in \mathbb{D} be fixed and let z=\frac{w+\zeta}{1+\bar{\zeta}w}. We set \mathbf{F}(w)=f(z). Then we have
by Lemma 3.2, and
by Lemma 3.1 since \mathbf{F} is also univalent analytic in \mathbb{D}. Thus (2.8) follows by (Proof) and (Proof) and the only if part of Theorem 2.8 is proved.
When \lambda\in (0,1), (Proof) implies that
for all \zeta\in \mathbb{D}, n\geq 1.
When \lambda\geq1, there is a positive integer \mathbf{N} such that \mathbf{N}\leq \lambda < \mathbf{N}+1. Then (Proof) yields that
for all \zeta\in \mathbb{D}, n\geq \mathbf{N}+1. Here
Meanwhile, it’s obvious that
for all n \in [1, \mathbf{N}].
Then, from (Proof), we find that (2.10) is true for all \zeta\in \mathbb{D}, n\geq 1, when we take
for \lambda\in (0,1), and
for \lambda\geq 1. The only if part of Theorem 2.10 is proved.
We proceed to prove the if part. We assume that (2.10) holds. If f is not univalent analytic in \mathbb{D}, then there are two different points \zeta, \alpha in \mathbb{D} with f(\zeta)=f(\alpha). We let
Here \sigma_{\zeta} is defined as in (?). Then we get that
It is easy to see that \beta \neq 0 since \zeta \neq \alpha.
On the other hand, from (?), we have
Also, we see from the assumption and (Proof) that
for all n\geq 1. It follows from (Proof) and (Proof) that
This contradicts (Proof) so that f is univalent analytic in \mathbb{D}. The if part of Theorem 2.10 is proved and the proof of Theorem 2.10 is finished.
Next, we assume that (2.8) holds, then we know from the above arguments that (2.10) holds with C(\lambda, \zeta)=\sqrt{\lambda/(1-\lambda)} when \lambda\in (0,1), and C(\lambda, \zeta)=\mathbf{E}_1(\lambda, \zeta)+\mathbf{E}_2(\lambda, \zeta) when \lambda\geq 1. By using the if part of Theorem 2.10, we see that f is univalent analytic in \mathbb{D}. The proof of Theorem 2.8 is complete.
Let \lambda>0 and f \in \mathcal{L}(\mathbb{D}). Then f is univalent analytic and a full mapping in \mathbb{D}, if and only if, for all \zeta\in \mathbb{D}, it holds that
First, noting that \mathbf{F} is a full mapping if f is a full mapping, we see from the Prawitz area theorem that (2.9) holds if f is univalent analytic and a full mapping. The only if part of Theorem 2.9 is proved.
We then assume (2.9) holds. By Theorem 2.8 or 2.10, we get that f is univalent analytic in \mathbb{D}. Taking \zeta=0 in (2.9), we see that
It follows from Lemma 3.1 that f is a full mapping. The if part of Theorem 2.9 is proved.
Let \lambda>0 and f \in \mathcal{L}(\mathbb{D}). Then f is univalent analytic in \mathbb{D} if and only if, for all \zeta\in \mathbb{D}, there is a positive constant C(\lambda, \zeta) such that for all n\geq 1,
Note that (2.8) can be equivalently written as
This formulation has the advantage that both sides consist of non‑negative terms, making the role of low‑order coefficients explicit.
Due to the arbitrariness of \lambda>0, our new criteria are more flexible than the classical Aharonov criterion (which corresponds to the special case \lambda=1. The unified formulation also reveals a previously unnoticed connection between the Prawitz area theorem and Aharonov’s univalence criterion. It is hoped that the mixed Aharonov sequence and these criteria will find applications in future research.
Let \lambda>0 and f\in \mathcal{U}(\mathbb{D}). Then we have
Equality holds in (3.1) if and only if f is a full mapping.
We may assume that f\in S since \Phi_n(n\geq 0) is affine invariant. Noticing that
Then the lemma follows by using Theorem 1.6. The proof of Lemma 3.1 is complete.
Let \lambda>0 and f\in \mathcal{L}(\mathbb{D}). Let w, \zeta\in \mathbb{D} be fixed and let z=\sigma_{\zeta}(w)=\frac{w+\zeta}{1+\bar{\zeta}w}. We set
Then we have
Choose \Delta z with |\Delta z| small enough, we define \Delta w by
Then we get that
and
It follows that
and
Thus we obtain that
On the other hand, from (Proof), we have
Then we get that the coefficient of (\Delta w)^j in (Proof) is
Note that
It follows that the coefficient of (\Delta w)^n in the right side of (Proof) is
Thus, from (Proof), we find that (3.2) holds. The lemma is proved.
For the well-known Koebe function
a simple computation yields that
which implies that
It follows from (Proof) and (2.9) with \zeta=0 that
for all \lambda>0. Here, the equality follows from the fact that \kappa is a full mapping. This means that our criterion reduces to an identity for all \lambda>0, while Aharonov’s original criterion only covers the single case \lambda=1. This also reveals the underlying role of the Prawitz area theorem.
We first remark that our results generalize some related ones of Aharonov in [Ah]. Let f\in \mathcal{L}(\mathbb{D}). When \lambda=1, from (?) and (?), we have
It follows that \Phi_n(f; z)=\phi_{n-1}(f; z) for n\geq 1. Then we see from [Ah, Theorem 2] that the inequality (2.3) is equivalent to
Where \mathbf{F} is defined as in Lemma 3.2.
On the other hand, when \lambda=1, we see from Lemma 3.2 that the inequality (2.8) is equivalent to
From these, we can see Theorem 2.8 as a generalization of Theorem 2.3 if we assume that f belongs to \mathcal{L}(\mathbb{D}). By the same reason, Theorem 2.9 and 2.10 also can be seen as some kind of extensions of Theorem 2.4 and 2.5, respectively.
In 1982, Harmelin proved the following property for the Aharonov sequence, see [Ha-1, Theorem 1].
Let f\in \mathcal{U}(\mathbb{D}). Then we have
We shall prove a similar result for the mixed Aharonov sequence \{\Phi_n\}.
Let \lambda\in (0,1) and f\in \mathcal{U}(\mathbb{D}). Then we have
For fixed \zeta \in \mathbb{D}. We set
and
Then we see that f(z)={\bf F}_1 \circ \sigma_\zeta(z). Consequently, by Lemma 3.2, we get that, for n\geq 0,
Take \zeta=-z in (4.2), we obtain that, for n\geq 0,
On the other hand, from (Proof), we know that, for any n\geq 1, \Phi_{n}(\mathbf{F}_{1}; 0)\leq \frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{\sqrt{n-\lambda}}. Also, noting that \Phi_{0}(\mathbf{F}_{1}; 0)=1, so we can write, for any n\geq 0,
Then (4.2) follows by (4.2) and (4.2). The proposition is proved.
Let f\in \mathcal{U}(\mathbb{D}). Then we have
Let \lambda\in (0,1) and f\in \mathcal{U}(\mathbb{D}). Then we have
For fixed \zeta \in \mathbb{D}. We set
and
Then we see that f(z)={\bf F}_1 \circ \sigma_\zeta(z). Consequently, by Lemma 3.2, we get that, for n\geq 0,
Take \zeta=-z in (4.2), we obtain that, for n\geq 0,
On the other hand, from (Proof), we know that, for any n\geq 1, \Phi_{n}(\mathbf{F}_{1}; 0)\leq \frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{\sqrt{n-\lambda}}. Also, noting that \Phi_{0}(\mathbf{F}_{1}; 0)=1, so we can write, for any n\geq 0,
Then (4.2) follows by (4.2) and (4.2). The proposition is proved.
For \lambda\in(0,1), the estimate in Proposition 4.2 reveals that the growth rate of |\Phi_n(f;z)| as |z|\to 1^- is at most (1-|z|^2)^{-n}, and the explicit bound is universal, depending only on n, |z|, and \lambda, not on the specific univalent function f.
The following result was obtained in [Ha-1, Lemma 5] by Harmelin.
Let f be a univalent function in \mathbb{D}, which can be extended to a quasiconformal mapping(still denoted by f) in \widehat{\mathbb{C}}. Let \|\mu_f\|_{\infty} be the norm of the complex dilatation \mu_f(z) of f. Then, for all \zeta\in \mathbb{D}, it holds that
By using (?) and (?), we can get the following inequality similar to (4.6).
Let k=\|\mu_f\|_{\infty}. Then it follows from (4.6) that
Here the last equality follows from the well-known integral
Let f be a univalent function in \mathbb{D}, which can be extended to a quasiconformal mapping(still denoted by f) in \widehat{\mathbb{C}}. Let \|\mu_f\|_{\infty} be the norm of the complex dilatation \mu_f(z) of f. Then, for all \zeta\in \mathbb{D}, it holds that
From (?), we see that, for any n \geq 1, it holds that
It is known that we can use the Schwarzian derivative S_f(z)=-\frac{6\Psi_1(f; z)}{(1-|z|^2)^2} and the quantity U_f(z) to describe some subclasses of the universal Teichmüller space. For example, the little Teichmüller space, see [GS], [Sh-1], [Sh-2]; Weil-Petersson Teichmüller space, see [B-1], [Sh-2], [Sh-3], [TT]; BMO(VMO)-Teichmüller space, see [AZ], [SW]. It is natural to study
Characterize the subclasses of the universal Teichmüller space in terms of \Psi_n\,(n\geq 2).
Characterize the subclasses of the universal Teichmüller space in terms of \Psi_n\,(n\geq 2).
Find Prawitz’s inequality, analogue to the inequality (?), for the univalent analytic functions in \mathbb{D} with a quasiconformal extension to the whole complex plane.
If we can obtain an analogue inequality to (?), then we may use it to establish some new results about the theory of integral means spectrum.
The text on this page is from arXiv:2308.08081v4 by Jianjun Jin, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2308/2308.08081.jsonl.