Next Article in Journal
Corn Disease Recognition Based on Attention Mechanism Network
Next Article in Special Issue
On Holomorphic Contractibility of Teichmüller Spaces
Previous Article in Journal
Degenerate Fubini-Type Polynomials and Numbers, Degenerate Apostol–Bernoulli Polynomials and Numbers, and Degenerate Apostol–Euler Polynomials and Numbers
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Hadamard Compositions of Gelfond–Leont’ev Derivatives

Department of Mechanics and Mathematics, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, 79000 Lviv, Ukraine
Axioms 2022, 11(9), 478; https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11090478
Submission received: 19 August 2022 / Revised: 14 September 2022 / Accepted: 16 September 2022 / Published: 18 September 2022

Abstract

:
For analytic functions f j ( z ) = n = 0 a n , j z n , 1 j p , the notion of a Hadamard composition ( f 1 f p ) m = n = 0 k 1 + + k p = m c k 1 k p a n , 1 k 1 · · a n , p k p z n of genus m is introduced. The relationship between the growth of the Gelfond–Leont’ev derivative of the Hadamard composition of functions f j and the growth Hadamard composition of Gelfond–Leont’ev derivatives of these functions is studied. We found conditions under which these derivatives and the composition have the same order and a lower order. For the maximal terms of the power expansion of these derivatives, I describe behavior of their ratios.

1. Introduction

Let
f ( z ) = n = 0 a n z n
and
f j ( z ) = n = 0 a n , j z n , 1 j p
be analytic functions. As in [1], I say that the function is similar to the Hadamard composition of the functions f j if a n = w ( a n , 1 , , a n , p ) for all n, where w : C p C is a continuous function. Clearly, if p = 2 and w ( a n , 1 , a n , 2 ) = a n , 1 a n , 2 , then f = ( f 1 f 2 ) is [2] the Hadamard composition (product) of the functions f 1 and f 2 . Obtained by J. Hadamard, the properties of this composition find the applications [3,4] in the theory of the analytic continuation of the functions represented by a power series.
Here, I consider the case when w is a homogeneous polynomial. Recall that a polynomial is named homogeneous if all monomials with nonzero coefficients have the identical degree. A polynomial P ( x 1 , , x p ) is homogeneous to the degree m if, and only if, P ( t x 1 , , t x p ) = t m P ( x 1 , , x p ) for all t from the field above that a polynomial is defined. Function (1) is called a Hadamard composition of genus m 1 of functions (2) if a n = P ( a n , 1 , , a n , p ) , where
P ( x 1 , , x p ) = k 1 + + k p = m c k 1 k p x 1 k 1 · · x p k p , k j Z +
is a homogeneous polynomial of degree m 1 with constant fixed coefficients c k 1 k p . I remark that the usual Hadamard composition is a special case of the Hadamard composition of the genus m = 2 . The Hadamard composition of genus m 1 of functions f j I denote by ( f 1 f p ) m , i.e.,
( f 1 f p ) m ( z ) = n = 0 a n z n = n = 0 k 1 + + k p = m c k 1 k p a n , 1 k 1 · · a n , p k p z n .
For a power series (1) with the convergence radius R [ f ] [ 0 , + ] and a power series l ( z ) = n = 0 l n z n with the convergence radius R [ l ] [ 0 , + ] and coefficients l n > 0 for all n 0 the power series
D l ( k ) f ( z ) = n = 0 l n l n + k a n + k z n
is called [5] Gelfond–Leont’ev derivative of the n-th order. If l ( z ) = e z , then D l ( k ) f ( z ) = f ( k ) ( z ) is the usual derivative of the n-th order. The Gelfond–Leont’ev derivative is a very interesting object of investigations (see [6,7,8]). These derivatives found applications in the theory of univalent analytic functions. They allows researchers to describe the growth of these functions in other terms [7].
There are many papers on the Hadamard composition of analytic functions and the Dirichlet series [9,10,11]. For example, A. Gaisin and T. Belous [10] studied the maximal term of the Hadamard composition of the Dirichlet series with real exponents. Alower estimate for the sum of a Dirichlet series over a curve arbitrarily approaching the convergence line was obtained. Moreover, in [11] they established a criterion for the logarithm of the maximal term of a Dirichlet series whose absolute convergence domain is a half-plane to be equivalent to the logarithm of the maximal term of its Hadamard composition with another Dirichlet series of some class on the asymptotic set. S. Vakarchuk [9] investigated an interpolation problem for classes of analytic functions generated of the Hadamard compositions and obtained upper and lower bounds for various n-widths for these classes.
If R [ f ] > 0 , then, for 0 r R [ f ] , let M ( r , f ) = max { | f ( z ) | : | z | = r } and μ ( r , f ) = max { | a n | r n : n 0 } be the maximal term of series (1). M. K. Sen [12,13] researched a connection between the growth of the maximal term of the derivative ( f 1 f 2 ) ( k ) of the usual Hadamard composition f 1 f 2 of entire functions f and g and the growth of the maximal term of derivative f 1 ( k ) f 2 ( k ) . In particular, he proved [13] that if the function has the order ϱ and the lower order λ then, for every ε > 0 and all r r 0 ( ε ) ,
r ( k + 2 ) λ 1 ε μ ( r , f ( k + 1 ) g ( k + 1 ) ) μ ( r , ( f g ) ( k ) ) r ( k + 2 ) ϱ 1 + ε .
The research of M.K. Sen was continued in [14], where, instead of ordinary derivatives, the Gelfond–Leont’ev derivatives are considered. In particular, in [14] (see also [15] p. 128), the following lemma is proved.
Lemma 1
([14]). In order for an arbitrary series (1) the equalities R [ f ] = + and R [ D l ( k ) f ] = + to be equivalent, it is necessary and sufficient that
0 < q = lim ̲ n l n / l n + 1 n lim ¯ n l n / l n + 1 n = Q < + ,
and, for the equivalence of the equalities R [ f ] = 1 and R [ D l ( k ) f ] = 1 , it is necessary and sufficient that
lim n l n / l n + 1 n = 1 .
The generalization of the results from [14] to the case of Hadamard compositions of genus m 1 has become an actual problem. It allows researchers to study the growth properties of these function classes and consider their applications in geometric function theory as it is achieved for usual the Gelfond–Leont’ev derivatives of univalent analytic functions in [6,7,8].

2. Convergence of Hadamard Compositions of Genus m

Clearly, if function (1) is a Hadamard composition of genus m of functions (2) then
| a n | k 1 + + k p = m | c k 1 k p | | a n , 1 | k 1 · · | a n , p | k p .
From R [ f ] , I denote the radius of the convergence of series (1) and suppose that R [ f j ] = R > 0 for all 1 j p . Then from the Cauchy–Hadamard formula, I have lim ¯ n | a n , j | n = 1 / R [ f j ] = 1 / R and, thus, | a n , j | ( 1 / R + ε ) n for every ε > 0 and all n n 0 ( ε ) . Therefore, (6) implies
| a n | k 1 + + k p = m | c k 1 k p | 1 R + ε n k 1 · · 1 R + ε n k p = 1 R + ε n m k 1 + + k p = m | c k 1 k p | ,
whence, | a n | n ( 1 + o ( 1 ) ) ( 1 / R + ε ) m as n , i.e., 1 / R [ f ] ( 1 / R + ε ) m . In view of the arbitrariness of ε , I obtain the inequality R [ F ] R m .
Hence, it follows that, if R [ f j ] = + for all j, then R [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] = + , and, if R [ f j ] = 1 for all j, then R [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] 1 .
In order for R [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] = 1 , additional conditions on a n , j are required. For example, I say that the function f 1 is dominant if | c m 0 0 | | a n , 1 | m > 0 for all n 0 and | a n , j | = o ( | a n , 1 | ) as n for all 2 j p .
We put
Σ n = k 1 + + k p = m , k 1 m c k 1 k p a n , 1 k 1 · · a n , p k p = k 1 + + k p = m c k 1 k p a n , 1 k 1 · · a n , p k p c m 0 0 a n , 1 m .
Since, for each monomial of the polynomial Σ n , the sum of the exponents is equal to m, I have
| a n , 1 | k 1 · · | a n , p | k p | a n , 1 | m = | a n , 2 | k 2 · · | a n , p | k p | a n , 1 | m k 1 0 , n ,
and, thus, Σ n = o ( | a n , 1 | m ) as n + .
Since
| c m 0 0 | | a n , 1 | m | Σ n | | a n | | c m 0 0 | | a n , 1 | m + | Σ n | ,
we have | a n | = ( 1 + o ( 1 ) ) | c m 0 0 | | a n , 1 | m as n , whence
1 = 1 R [ f j ] 1 R [ f 1 ] = lim ̲ n | a n | | c m 0 0 | n m = lim ̲ n | a n | n 1 / m = 1 R [ f ] 1 / m ,
i.e., R [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] 1 and, thus, R [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] = 1 .
It is easy to check that
D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ( z ) = n = 0 l n l n + k k 1 + + k p = m c k 1 k p a n + k , 1 k 1 · · a n + k , p k p z n
is the Gelfond–Leont’ev derivative of the Hadamard composition of genus m, and
( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ( z ) = n = 0 l n l n + k m k 1 + + k p = m c k 1 k p a n + k , 1 k 1 · · a n + k , p k p z n
is the Hadamard composition of genus m of the Gelfond–Leont’ev derivatives.
Lemma 2.
If condition (4) holds, then the equalities R [ ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ] = + and R [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] = + are equivalent, and, if condition (5) holds, then the equalities R [ ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ] = 1 and R [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] = 1 are equivalent.
Proof. 
Indeed, using the Cauchy–Hadamard formula from (7) and (8) with
a n + k = k 1 + + k p = m c k 1 k p a n + k , 1 k 1 · · a n + k , p k p ,
we have
1 R [ ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ] = lim ¯ n | a n + k | l n l n + k l n l n + 1 m 1 n
lim ¯ n | a n + k | l n l n + k n lim ̲ n l n l n + 1 m 1 n = 1 R [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] lim ̲ n l n l n + k ( m 1 ) / n
and, similarly,
1 R [ ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ] 1 R [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] lim ¯ n l n l n + k ( m 1 ) / n .
The last inequality yields the validity of Lemma 2. □

3. Hadamard Compositions of Gelfond–Leont’ev Derivatives of Entire Functions

We will remind that the most widely-used descriptions of entire transcendental function f are the lower order λ [ f ] = lim ̲ r + ln ln M ( r , f ) ln r and the order ϱ [ f ] = lim ¯ r + ln ln M ( r , f ) ln r . In view of the Cauchy inequality, I have
μ ( r , f ) M ( r , f ) n = 0 | a n | ( 2 r ) n 2 n 2 μ ( 2 r , f ) ,
whence it follows that λ [ f ] = lim ̲ r + ln ln μ ( r , f ) ln r and ϱ [ f ] = lim ¯ r + ln ln μ ( r , f ) ln r .
Proposition 1.
If condition (4) holds, then for every k
λ [ ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ] = λ [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] = λ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ]
and
ϱ [ ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ] = ϱ [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] = ϱ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] .
Proof. 
At first, let k = 1 . From condition (4), the existence of the numbers 0 < q 1 q 2 < + follows such that q 1 n l n / l n + 1 q 2 n for all n 0 . Therefore, using (9), I obtain
r μ ( r , D l ( 1 ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) = max l n l n + 1 | a n + 1 | r n + 1 : n 0
1 q 2 max | a n + 1 | ( q 2 r ) n + 1 : n 0 μ ( q 2 r , ( f 1 f p ) m ) q 2
and, by analogy,
r μ ( r , D l ( 1 ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) μ ( q 1 r , ( f 1 f p ) m ) q 1
for all large-enough r.
ln r = o ( ln μ ( r , f ) ) as r + for each entire transcendental function, hence, I obtain
( 1 + o ( 1 ) ) ln μ ( q 1 r , ( f 1 f p ) m ) ln μ ( r , D l ( 1 ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) ( 1 + o ( 1 ) ) ln μ ( q 2 r , ( f 1 f p ) m )
as r + . Hence, it follows that λ [ D l ( 1 ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] = λ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] and ϱ [ D l ( 1 ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] = ϱ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] .
Since D l ( k + 1 ) f ( z ) = D l ( 1 ) D l ( k ) f ( z ) , the equalities λ [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] = λ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] and ϱ [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] = ϱ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] are proved.
On the other hand,
μ ( r , ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ) = max l n l n + k m 1 l n l n + k | a n + k | r n : n 0
max q 1 n ( m 1 ) l n l n + k | a n + k | r n : n 0 = max l n l n + k | a n + k | ( q 1 ( m 1 ) r ) n : n 0 =
= μ ( q 1 ( m 1 ) r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m )
and, by analogy,
μ ( r , ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ) μ ( q 1 ( m 1 ) r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) ,
whence, as above, I obtain λ [ ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ] = λ [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] and ϱ [ ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ] = ϱ [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] . □
Now let me establish a connection between the growth of a function f = ( f 1 f p ) m and the growth of functions f j . Since | a n | k 1 + + k p = m | c k 1 k p | | a n , 1 | k 1 · · | a n , p | k p , I have
| a n | r m n k 1 + + k p = m | c k 1 k p | ( | a n , 1 | r n ) k 1 · · ( | a n , p | r n ) k p ,
i.e.,
μ ( r m , f ) k 1 + + k p = m | c k 1 k p | μ ( r , f 1 ) k 1 · · μ ( r , f p ) k p ,
whence, for all r large enough, I get
ln μ ( r m , f ) k 1 + + k p = m ln ( | c k 1 k p | μ ( r , f 1 ) k 1 · · μ ( r , f p ) k p ) + K 1 =
= k 1 + + k p = m ( ln | c k 1 k p | + k 1 ln μ ( r , f 1 ) + + k p ln μ ( r , f p ) ) + K 1
k 1 + + k p = m ( k 1 ln μ ( r , f 1 ) + + k p ln μ ( r , f p ) ) + K 2 , ( K j const > 0 ) .
Let max { ϱ [ f j ] : 1 j p } = ϱ < + . Then, ln μ ( r , f j ) r ϱ + ε for every ε > 0 all r r 0 ( ε ) and all j. Therefore, in view of (10)
ln μ ( r m , f ) r ϱ + ε k 1 + + k p = m ( k 1 + + k p ) + K 2 ,
whence
ϱ [ f ] = lim ¯ r + ln ln μ ( r m , f ) ln r m = lim ¯ r + ln ln μ ( r m , f ) m ln r ϱ + ε m ,
and, in view of the arbitrariness of ε , I obtain m ϱ [ f ] ϱ .
Suppose now that the function f 1 is dominant. Then | a n | = ( 1 + o ( 1 ) ) | c m 0 0 | | a n , 1 | m as n and, thus, | a n | r m n = ( 1 + o ( 1 ) ) | c m 0 0 | ( | a n , 1 | r n ) m as n , whence it follows that
A 1 μ ( r , f 1 ) m μ ( r m , f ) A 2 μ ( r , f 1 ) m , ( A 1 , A 2 = const > 0 ) .
Using (11), as above, I obtain m ϱ [ f ] = ϱ [ f 1 ] and m λ [ f ] = λ [ f 1 ] . Thus, the following statement is proved.
Proposition 2.
Let f 1 , , f p be entire transcendental functions, and condition (4) holds. If ϱ [ f 1 ] = = ϱ [ f p ] = ϱ , then m ϱ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] ϱ , and, if among functions f 1 , , f p there is a dominant function f 1 , then m ϱ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] = ϱ . Moreover, if among functions f 1 , , f p there is a dominant function f 1 then m λ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] = λ [ f 1 ] .
Let us now examine the growth of the ratio μ ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) , j k . Let ν ( r , f ) = max { n : | a n | r n = μ ( r , f ) } be the central index of series (1). Then, μ ( r , f ) = | a ν ( r , f ) | r ν ( r , f ) and, therefore,
μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) = l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k | a ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k | r ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) =
= l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f + k j ) m 1 l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j ×
× l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j + j m | a ν ( r , D l ( k ) ) + k j + j | r ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j r j k
l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j m 1 l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j r j k μ ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m )
and
μ ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) =
= l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m + j m | a ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) + j | r ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m =
= l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m + j m | a ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) + j k + k | r ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m + j k r k j
= l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m + j m 1 l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m + j k ×
× l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m + j k l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m + j | a ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) + j k + k | r ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m + j k r k j
l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m + j m 1 l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m + j k r k j μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) .
Hence, it follows that
l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k m 1 l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) r j k μ ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m )
l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m + j m 1 l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m + j k .
Using (12), I prove such a theorem.
Theorem 1.
Let f j be entire transcendental functions, 1 j p , and (4) hold with q > 1 . Then, for each j k
lim ̲ r + 1 ln r ln ln r j k μ ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) = λ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ]
and
lim ¯ r + 1 ln r ln ln r j k μ ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) = ϱ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] .
Proof. 
From condition (4), with q > 1 the existence of numbers 1 < q 1 q 2 < + , it follows such that q 1 n k l n / l n + k q 2 n k for all n n 0 . Therefore,
l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k m 1 l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) q 1 ( m 1 ) ( ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j ) j q 1 ( ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j ) ( j k ) =
= q 1 ( m j k ) ( ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j ) ,
l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) + j m 1 l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) + j k
q 2 ( m 1 ) ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) q 2 ( j k ) ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) = q 2 ( j m k ) ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) ,
and, thus, (12) implies
( m j k ) ( ν ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) + k j ) ln q 1 ln r j k μ ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m )
( m j k ) ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) ln q 2 .
It is well known ([16], p. 13) that
ln μ ( r , f ) = ln μ ( 1 , f ) + 1 r ν ( t , f ) t d t .
Hence, I get ln μ ( r , f ) ln μ ( 1 , f ) + ν ( r , f ) ln r , ln μ ( r , f ) ln μ ( 1 , f ) + ν ( r / 2 , f ) ln 2 and, thus, λ [ f ] = lim ̲ r + ln ν ( r , f ) ln r , ϱ [ f ] = lim ¯ r + ln ν ( r , f ) ln r . Therefore, by Proposition 1
lim ̲ r + ln ν ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) ln r = λ [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] = λ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] ,
lim ¯ r + ln ν ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) ln r = ϱ [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] = ϱ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] ,
and these equalities hold good if, instead of D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m , it is possible to put ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m . From this and (15), I obtain (13) and (14). Theorem 1 is proved. □
For j = k , Theorem 1 implies the following statement.
Corollary 1.
Let f j be entire functions, 1 j p , and (4) holds with q > 1 . Then, for each k 1
lim ̲ r + 1 ln r ln ln μ ( r , ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) = λ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ]
and
lim ¯ r + 1 ln r ln ln μ ( r , ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) = ϱ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] .
From Corollary 1 and Proposition 2, I obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 2.
Suppose that, among entire functions f 1 , , f p , there is a dominant function f 1 . If condition (4) holds with q > 1 then, for each k 1 ,
lim ̲ r + 1 ln r ln ln μ ( r , ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) = λ [ f 1 ] m
and
lim ¯ r + 1 ln r ln ln μ ( r , ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) = ϱ [ f 1 ] m .
Let us now consider the case when, instead of condition (5), the stronger condition
0 < lim ¯ n l n ( n + 1 ) l n + 1 lim ¯ n l n ( n + 1 ) l n + 1 < +
is fulfilled.
Theorem 2.
Let f j be entire functions, 1 j p , and (17) hold, then, for each j k ,
lim ̲ r + 1 ln r ln μ ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) = ( m j k ) λ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] + k j
and
lim ¯ r + 1 ln r ln μ ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) = ( m j k ) ϱ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] + k j .
Proof. 
From condition (17), the existence of numbers 0 < h 1 h 2 < + follows such that ( h 1 n ) k l n / l n + k ( h 2 n ) k . Therefore,
l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k m 1 l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f )
h 1 ( m 1 ) j ( ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j ) ( m 1 ) j h 1 j k ( ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j ) j k =
= h 1 m j k ( ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j ) m j k ,
l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) + j m 1 l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) l ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) + j k
( h 2 ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) ) j ( m 1 ) ( h 2 ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) ) j k =
= ( h 2 ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) ) m j k ,
and, thus, (12) implies
( m j k ) ln ( ν ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) ) + k j ) + ( m j k ) ln h 1
( j k ) ln r + ln r j k μ ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m )
( m j k ) ln ( ν ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m + ( m j k ) ln h 2 .
Hence, as above, I obtain
j k + lim ̲ r + 1 ln r ln μ ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) = ( m j k ) λ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ]
and
j k + lim ¯ r + 1 ln r ln μ ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) = ( m j k ) ϱ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] ,
i.e., (18) and (19) hold. Theorem 2 is proved. □
For j = k + 1 , Theorem 2 implies the following statement.
Corollary 3.
Let f j be entire functions, 1 j p , and (17) hold, then, for each k 1 ,
lim ̲ r + 1 ln r ln μ ( r , ( D l ( k + 1 ) f 1 D l ( k + 1 ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) = ( ( m 1 ) k + m ) λ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] 1
and
lim ¯ r + 1 ln r ln μ ( r , ( D l ( k + 1 ) f 1 D l ( k + 1 ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) = ( ( m 1 ) k + m ) ϱ [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] 1 .
Choosing l n = 1 / n ! and m = 2 from Corollary 3, I get the above result of M.K. Sen [12], i.e., Lemma 1.

4. Hadamard Compositions of Gelfond–Leont’ev Derivatives for Functions Analytic in a Disk

For the functions analytic in the disk U = { z : | z | < 1 } , the lower order λ U [ f ] and the order ϱ U [ f ] are defined as
λ U [ f ] = lim ̲ r 1 ln + ln M ( r , f ) ln ( 1 r ) , ϱ U [ f ] = lim ¯ r 1 ln + ln M ( r , f ) ln ( 1 r ) .
Since
μ ( r , f ) M ( r , f ) n = 0 | a n | 1 + r 2 n 2 r 1 + r n 1 + r 1 r μ 1 + r 2 , f ,
and in view of (16) for r 1 / e
ν 1 + r 2 , f 1 / e ( 1 + r ) / 2 ν ( t , f ) t d t = ln μ 1 + r 2 , f ln μ 1 2 , f
r ( 1 + r ) / 2 ν ( t , f ) t d t ν ( r , f ) ln 1 + r 2 r = ( 1 + o ( 1 ) 1 r 2 ν ( r , f ) , r 1 ,
I obtain
lim ̲ r 1 ln + ln μ ( r , f ) ln ( 1 r ) = λ U [ f ] , lim ¯ r 1 ln + ln μ ( r , f ) ln ( 1 r ) = ϱ U [ f ]
and
λ U [ f ] lim ̲ r 1 ln + ν ( r , f ) ln ( 1 r ) λ U [ f ] + 1 , ϱ U [ f ] lim ¯ r 1 ln + ν ( r , f ) ln ( 1 r ) ϱ U [ f ] + 1 .
Proposition 3.
If condition (17) holds, then, for every k,
λ U [ ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ] = λ U [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] = λ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ]
and
ϱ U [ ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ] = ϱ U [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] = ϱ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] .
Proof. 
At first, I remark that, for each function f and analytic in U, the equalities λ U [ f ] = λ U [ f ] and ϱ U [ f ] = ϱ U [ f ] are true.
Indeed, from Cauchy formula f ( z ) = 1 2 π i | τ z | = ( 1 | z | ) / 2 f ( τ ) d τ ( τ z ) 2 I have M ( r , f ) 2 M ( ( 1 + r ) / 2 , f ) / ( 1 r ) , and since f ( z ) f ( 0 ) = 0 z f ( τ ) d τ , the inequality M ( r , f ) M ( r , f ) + | f ( 0 ) | holds, from which the necessary equalities follow.
Now, in view of (17) h 1 ( n + 1 ) l n / l n + 1 h 2 ( n + 1 ) , I have, for k = 1 ,
μ ( r , D l ( 1 ) ( ( f 1 f p ) m ) ) = max l n l n + 1 | a n + 1 | r n : n 0
h 2 max { ( n + 1 ) | a n + 1 | r n : n 0 } = h 2 μ ( r , ( ( f 1 f p ) m ) )
and by analogy μ ( r , D l ( 1 ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) h 1 μ ( r , ( ( f 1 f p ) m ) ) . Hence, it follows that λ U [ D l ( 1 ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] = λ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] and ϱ U [ D l ( 1 ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] = ϱ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] and, thus, λ U [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] = λ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] and ϱ U [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] = ϱ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] .
Since l n / l n + 1 h 1 ( n + 1 ) h 1 , I have ( l n / l n + k ) m 1 h 1 k ( m 1 ) , i. e.
μ ( r , ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ) = max l n l n + k m 1 l n l n + k | a n + k | r n : n 0
h 1 k ( m 1 ) μ ( r , D l ( 1 ) ( ( f 1 f p ) m ) )
and, thus, λ U [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] λ U [ ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ] and ϱ U [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] ϱ U [ ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ] .
On the other hand,
l n l n + k m 1 h 2 k ( n + 1 ) ( n + k ) m 1
h 2 k ( m 1 ) ( n + 1 ) ( n + k ) ( n + k + 1 ) ( n + 2 k ) ( n + ( m 2 ) k + 1 ) ( n + ( m 1 ) k ) .
Therefore,
μ ( r , ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ) h 2 k ( m 1 ) max ( n + 1 ) ( n + ( m 1 ) k ) l n l n + k | a n + k | r n : n 0 =
= h 2 k ( m 1 ) max l n l n + k | a n + k | r n + ( m 1 ) k ( ( m 1 ) k ) : n 0 =
= h 2 k ( m 1 ) max r k ( m 1 ) l n l n + k | a n + k | r n ( k ( m 1 ) ) : n 0 = h 2 k ( m 1 ) μ ( r , F ( k ( m 1 ) ) ) ,
where F ( z ) = z k ( m 1 ) D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ( z ) . Hence it follows that λ U [ ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ] λ U [ F ( k ( m 1 ) ) ] = λ U [ F ] = λ U [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] and ϱ U [ ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ] ϱ U [ D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ] . Proposition 3 is proved. □
The following statement is an analog of Proposition 2.
Proposition 4.
Let f 1 , , f p be functions analytic in U and condition (17) holds. If ϱ U [ f 1 ] = = ϱ U [ f p ] = ϱ , then ϱ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] m ϱ , and if. among functions f 1 , , f p . there is a dominant function f 1 , then ϱ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] = m ϱ . Moreover, if, among functions f 1 , , f p , there is a dominant function f 1 , then λ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] = m λ U [ f 1 ] .
Proof. 
Indeed, since ϱ U [ f 1 ] = = ϱ U [ f p ] = ϱ , for every ε > 0 and all r [ r 0 ( ε , 1 ) I have ln μ ( r , f j ) ( 1 / ( 1 r ) ) ϱ + ε , and (10) implies ln μ ( r m , f ) C ( 1 / ( 1 r ) ) ϱ + ε for r [ r 0 ( ε , 1 ) , where C = const . Therefore,
ϱ U [ f ] = lim ¯ r 1 ln + ln μ ( r m , f ) ln ( 1 r m ) ( ϱ + ε ) lim ¯ r 1 ln ( 1 r ) ln ( 1 r m ) ( ϱ + ε ) lim ¯ r 1 1 r m 1 r = ( ϱ + ε ) m ,
and, in view of the arbitrariness of ε , I obtain ϱ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] m ϱ .
If the function f 1 is dominant, then, from (11), I obtain ϱ U [ f ] = m ϱ U [ f 1 ] and λ U [ f ] = m λ U [ f 1 ] . □
Using (12) and (20), I can investigate the growth of the ratio μ ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) in the case of analytic functions in U. I will not dwell on this, but rather study the growth of the ratio μ ( r , D l ( j ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) for j > k and the ratio μ ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m ) for j > k .
As above, I have
μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) = l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k | a ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k | r ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) =
= l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j + j | a ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j + j | r ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j r j k
l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j r j k μ ( r , D l ( j ) ( f 1 f p ) m )
and, similarly,
μ ( r , D l ( j ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) l ν ( r , D l ( j ) f ) l ν ( r , D l ( j ) f ) + j k r k j μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) .
Therefore,
l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) r j k μ ( r , D l ( j ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) l ν ( r , D l ( j ) f ) l ν ( r , D l ( j ) f ) + j k .
Using (21), I prove following theorem.
Theorem 3.
Let f j be analytic functions in U, 1 j p , and let (17) hold, then, for each j k ,
( j k ) λ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] lim ̲ r 1 1 ln ( 1 r ) ln μ ( r , D l ( j ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) ( j k ) ( λ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] + 1 )
and
( j k ) ϱ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] lim ¯ r 1 1 ln ( 1 r ) ln μ ( r , D l ( j ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) ( j k ) ( ϱ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] + 1 ) .
Proof. 
Since ( h 1 n ) k l n / l n + k ( h 2 n ) k , I have
l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) = l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j + j k ( h 1 ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j ) j k
and
l ν ( r , D l ( j ) f ) l ν ( r , D l ( j ) f ) + j k ( h 2 ν ( r , D l ( j ) f ) ) j k .
Therefore, (21) implies
( 1 + o ( 1 ) ) ( j k ) ln ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) ln μ ( r , D l ( j ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) ( 1 + o ( 1 ) ) ( j k ) ln ν ( r , D l ( j ) f )
as r 1 , i.e., in view of (20) and Proposition 3, I obtain
( j k ) λ U [ f ] lim ̲ r 1 1 ln ( 1 r ) ln μ ( r , D l ( j ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) ( j k ) ( λ U [ f ] + 1 )
and
( j k ) ϱ U [ f ] lim ¯ r 1 1 ln ( 1 r ) ln μ ( r , D l ( j ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) ( j k ) ( ϱ U [ f ] + 1 ) .
Q.E.D. □
Since series (8) differs from series (7), only that instead l k / l k + 1 , it contains ( l k / l k + 1 ) m , I will easily prove the inequalities
l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) + k j l ν ( r , D l ( k ) f ) ) m r j k μ ( r , D l ( j ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) μ ( r , D l ( k ) ( f 1 f p ) m ) l ν ( r , D l ( j ) f ) l ν ( r , D l ( j ) f ) + j k m ,
whence, as in the proof of Theorem 3, I will come to the next theorem.
Theorem 4.
Let f j be analytic functions in U, 1 j p , and let (17) hold, then, for each j k ,
m ( j k ) λ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] lim ̲ r 1 1 ln ( 1 r ) ln μ ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m )
m ( j k ) ( λ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] + 1 )
and
m ( j k ) ϱ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] lim ¯ r 1 1 ln ( 1 r ) ln μ ( r , ( D l ( j ) f 1 D l ( j ) f p ) m ) μ ( r , ( D l ( k ) f 1 D l ( k ) f p ) m )
m ( j k ) ( ϱ U [ ( f 1 f p ) m ] + 1 ) .

5. Discussion

In conclusion, I note that, in addition to the analytic continuation of functions, the usual Hadamard composition was used in other aspects of complex analysis (in particular, in the geometric function theory). One can naturally hope that the Hadamard composition of the genus m will also find applications in similar areas of mathematics.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

I cordially thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, which have significantly improved the text.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mulyava, O.M.; Sheremeta, M.M. Compositions of Dirichlet series similar to the Hadamard compositions, and convergence classes. Mat. Stud. 2019, 51, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hadamard, J. Theoreme sur le series entieres. Acta Math. 1899, 22, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hadamard, J. La serie de Taylor et son prolongement analitique. Sci. Phys.-Math. 1901, 12, 43–62. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bieberbach, L. Analytische Fortzetzung; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1955. [Google Scholar]
  5. Gel’fond, A.O.; Leont’ev, A.F. On a generalization of Fourier series. Matem. Sb. 1951, 29, 477–500. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  6. Patel, J.; Kapoor, G.P. Analytic functions with some univalent Gelfond–Leontev derivatives II. Period. Math. Hung. 1993, 27, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kapoor, G.P.; Juneja, O.P.; Patel, J. Growth of Entire Functions With Some Univalent Gelfond–Leontev Derivatives. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 1989, 12, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Juneja, O.P.; Shah, S.M. Univalent functions with univalent Gelfond–Leontev derivatives. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 1984, 29, 329–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vakarchuk, S.B. Estimates of the Values of n-Widths of Classes of Analytic Functions in the Weight Spaces H2,γ(D). Math. Notes 2020, 108, 775–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gaisin, A.M.; Belous, T.I. Estimation over curves of the functions given by Dirichlet series on a half-plane. Sib. Math. J. 2003, 44, 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gaisin, A.M.; Belous, T.I. B-stability of the maximal term of the Hadamard composition of two Dirichlet series. Sib. Math. J. 2002, 43, 1027–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sen, M.K. On the maximum term of a class of integral functions and its derivatives. Ann. Pol. Math. 1970, 22, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Sen, M.K. On some properties of an integral function fg. Riv. Mat. Univ. Parma 1967, 8, 317–328. [Google Scholar]
  14. Luhova, L.L.; Mulyava, O.M.; Sheremeta, M.M. Properties of Hadamard’s composition of Gelfond–Leont’ev derivatives for analytic functions. Ufim. Mat. Zh. 2010, 2, 90–101. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  15. Mulyava, O.M.; Sheremeta, M.M. Convergence Classes of Analytic Functions: Monograph; Publishing Lira-K: Kyiv, Ukraine, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  16. Polya, G.; Szego, G. Aufgaben und Lehrsatze aus der Analysis; Springer: Berlin/Gottingen/Heidelberg, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 1964; 432p. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sheremeta, M. Hadamard Compositions of Gelfond–Leont’ev Derivatives. Axioms 2022, 11, 478. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11090478

AMA Style

Sheremeta M. Hadamard Compositions of Gelfond–Leont’ev Derivatives. Axioms. 2022; 11(9):478. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11090478

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sheremeta, Myroslav. 2022. "Hadamard Compositions of Gelfond–Leont’ev Derivatives" Axioms 11, no. 9: 478. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11090478

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop