In the present paper, we derive the third-order differential subordination and superordination results for some analytic univalent functions defined in the unit disc. These results are associated with generalized Struve functions and are obtained by considering suitable classes of admissible functions. As a consequence, the dual problems which yield the sandwich type relations are presented.
[[antonion], Definition 1, p.440]. Let \psi:\mathbb{C}^{4} \times \mathcal{U}\longrightarrow \mathbb{C} and the function h(z) be univalent in \mathcal{U}. If the function p(z) is analytic in \mathcal{U} and satisfies the following third-order differential subordination
then p(z) is called a solution of the differential subordination.
[tang] Let \psi:\mathbb{C}^{4} \times \mathcal{U}\longrightarrow \mathbb{C} and the function h(z) be univalent in \mathcal{U}. If the function p(z) and
are univalent in \mathcal{U} and satisfies the following third-order differential superordination
then p(z) is called a solution of the differential superordination. An analytic function q(z) is called a subordinant of the solutions of the differential superordination, or more simply a subordinant, if q(z) \prec p(z) for all p(z) satisfying (2).
[[antonion], Definition 2, p.441]. Let \mathcal{Q} denote the set of functions q that are analytic and univalent on the set \overline{\mathcal{U}}\setminus E(q), where E(q)=\{\xi:\xi \in \partial \mathcal{U}:\lim_{z\rightarrow \xi}q(z)= \infty\}, and are such that \min \mid q^{\prime}(\xi) \mid=\rho >0 for \xi \in \partial \mathcal{U} \setminus E(q). Further, let the subclass of \mathcal{Q} for which q(0)=\kappa be denoted by \mathcal{Q}(\kappa),\mathcal{Q}(0)=\mathcal{Q}_{0} and \mathcal{Q}(1)=\mathcal{Q}_{1}.
[[antonion], Definition 3, p.449]. Let \Omega be a set in \mathbb{C} and q \in \mathcal{Q} and n \in \mathbb{N} \setminus \{1\}. The class of admissible functions \Psi_{n}[\Omega,q] consists of those functions \psi:\mathbb{C}^{4} \times \mathcal{U}\longrightarrow \mathbb{C} achieving the following admissibility conditions:
whenever
and
where z \in \mathcal{U},\zeta \in \partial \mathcal{U} \setminus E(q), and k\geq n.
[[antonion], Theorem 1, p.449]. Let p \in \mathcal{H}[\kappa,n] with n\geq 2, and q \in \mathcal{Q}(\kappa) achieving the following conditions:
where z \in \mathcal{U},\zeta \in \partial \mathcal{U} \setminus E(q), and k\geq n. If \Omega is a set in \mathbb{C},\psi \in \Psi_{n}[\Omega,q] and
then
[tang] Let \Omega be a set in \mathbb{C} and q \in \mathcal{H}[\kappa,n] and q^{\prime}(z)\neq 0. The class of admissible functions \Psi_{n}^{\prime}[\Omega,q] consists of those functions \psi:\mathbb{C}^{4} \times \mathcal{\overline{U}}\longrightarrow \mathbb{C} that satisfy the following admissibility conditions:
whenever
and
where z \in \mathcal{U},z \in \partial \mathcal{U} and m\geq n \geq 2.
[tang] Let p \in \mathcal{H}[\kappa,n] with \psi \in \Psi_{n}^{\prime}[\Omega,q]. If
is univalent in \mathcal{U} and p \in \mathcal{Q}(\kappa) satisfying the following conditions:
where z \in \mathcal{U},\zeta \in \partial \mathcal{U}, and m\geq n \geq 2, then
implies that
Let \Omega be a set in \mathbb{C} and q \in \mathcal{Q}_{0}\bigcap \mathcal{H}_{0}. The class of admissible function \Phi_{\mathit{S}}[\Omega,q] consists of those functions \phi:\mathbb{C}^{4}\times \mathcal{U}\longrightarrow\mathbb{C} that satisfy the following admissibility conditions:
whenever
and
where z \in \mathcal{U},\zeta \in \partial \mathcal{U} \setminus E(q), and k\geq 2.
Let \phi \in \Phi_{S}[\Omega,q]. If the function f \in \mathcal{A} and q \in \mathcal{Q}_{0} satisfy the following conditions:
and
then
Define the analytic function p(z) in \mathcal{U} by
From equation (9) and (?), we have
By similar argument yields,
and
Define the transformation from \mathbb{C}^{4} to \mathbb{C} by
and
Let
The proof will make use of Lemma 5. Using equations (9) to (9), and from (9), we have
Hence,(9) becomes
Note that
and
Thus, the admissibility condition for \phi \in \Phi_{\mathcal{I}}[\Omega,q] in Definition 8 is equivalent to the admissibility condition for \psi \in \Psi_{2}[\Omega,q] as given in Definition 4 with n=2. Therefore, by using (9) and Lemma 5, we have
This completes the proof of theorem.
Define the analytic function p(z) in \mathcal{U} by
From equation (9) and (?), we have
By similar argument yields,
and
Define the transformation from \mathbb{C}^{4} to \mathbb{C} by
and
Let
The proof will make use of Lemma 5. Using equations (9) to (9), and from (9), we have
Hence,(9) becomes
Note that
and
Thus, the admissibility condition for \phi \in \Phi_{\mathcal{I}}[\Omega,q] in Definition 8 is equivalent to the admissibility condition for \psi \in \Psi_{2}[\Omega,q] as given in Definition 4 with n=2. Therefore, by using (9) and Lemma 5, we have
This completes the proof of theorem.
Let \Omega \subset \mathbb{C} and let the function q be univalent in \mathcal{U} with q(0)=0. Let \phi \in \Phi_{S}[\Omega,q_{\rho}] for some \rho \in (0,1), where q_{\rho}(z)=q(\rho z). If the function f \in \mathcal{A} and q_{\rho} satisfy the following conditions
and
then
From Theorem 9, then S_{a+1,c}f(z)\prec q_{\rho}(z). The result asserted by Corollary 10 is now deduced from the following subordination property q_{\rho}(z)\prec q(z)\qquad(z \in \mathcal{U}).
Let \phi \in \Phi_{S}[h,q]. If the function f \in \mathcal{A} and q \in \mathcal{Q}_{0} satisfy the following conditions:
and
then
Let \Omega \subset \mathbb{C} and let the function q be univalent in \mathcal{U} with q(0)=0. Let \phi \in \Phi_{S}[h,q_{\rho}] for some \rho \in (0,1), where q_{\rho}(z)=q(\rho z). If the function f \in \mathcal{A} and q_{\rho} satisfy the following conditions
and
then
Let the function h be univalent in \mathcal{U} and let \phi : \mathbb{C}^{4}\times \mathcal{U}\longrightarrow \mathbb{C} and \psi be given by (9). Suppose that the differential equation
has a solution q(z) with q(0)=0, which satisfy condition (9). If the function f \in \mathcal{A} satisfies condition (11) and
is analytic in \mathcal{U}, then
and q(z) is the best dominant.
Let \Omega be a set in \mathbb{C} and M>0. The class of admissible function \Phi_{S}[\Omega,M] consists of those functions \phi:\mathbb{C}^{4}\times \mathcal{U}\longrightarrow\mathbb{C} such that
where z \in \mathcal{U},\Re(Le^{-i\theta})\geq (k-1)kM, and \Re(Ne^{-i\theta})\geq 0 for all \theta \in \mathbb{R} and k \geq 2.
Let \phi \in \Phi_{S}[\Omega,M]. If the function f \in \mathcal{A} satisfies
and
then
Let \phi \in \Phi_{S}[M]. If the function f \in \mathcal{A} satisfies
and
then
Let \Re(a)\geq \frac{1-k}{2},\quad k \geq 2 and M>0. If f \in \mathcal{A} satisfies
then
This follows from Corollary 16 by taking \phi(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta;z)=\beta=\frac{k+a-1}{a}Me^{i\theta}.
This follows from Corollary 16 by taking \phi(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta;z)=\beta=\frac{k+a-1}{a}Me^{i\theta}.
For f(z)=\frac{z}{1-z} in Corollary 17, we have
which is a generalization of result given by Prajapat [prajapat].
Let 0 \neq a \in \mathbb{C},k\geq 2 and M>0. If f \in \mathcal{A} satisfies
and
then
Let \phi(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta;z)=\beta-\alpha and \Omega=h(\mathcal{U}), where h(z)=\frac{Mz}{a},~~M>0. In order to use Corollary 15, we need to show that \phi \in \Phi_{S}[\Omega,M], that is, the admissibility condition (14) is satisfied. This follows since
whenever z \in \mathcal{U}, \theta \in \mathbb{R} and k \geq 2. The required result now follows from Corollary 15.
Theorem 13 shows that the result is sharp. The differential equation z q^{\prime}(z)=Mz has a univalent solution q(z)=Mz. It follows from Theorem 13 that q(z)=Mz is the best dominant.
Let \phi(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta;z)=\beta-\alpha and \Omega=h(\mathcal{U}), where h(z)=\frac{Mz}{a},~~M>0. In order to use Corollary 15, we need to show that \phi \in \Phi_{S}[\Omega,M], that is, the admissibility condition (14) is satisfied. This follows since
whenever z \in \mathcal{U}, \theta \in \mathbb{R} and k \geq 2. The required result now follows from Corollary 15.
Theorem 13 shows that the result is sharp. The differential equation z q^{\prime}(z)=Mz has a univalent solution q(z)=Mz. It follows from Theorem 13 that q(z)=Mz is the best dominant.
For p=\pm 1/2, ~b=1 and c=-1, we have U_{2,-1}(z)=zU_{1/2,1,-1}(z)=2(\cosh(\sqrt{z})-1) and U_{1,-1}(z)=zU_{-1/2,1,-1}(z)=\sqrt{z}\sinh\sqrt{z}, where U_{p,b,c} is given by (?). Further more, taking f(z)=\frac{z}{1-z} in Corollary 19, we get
Let \Omega be a set in \mathbb{C}, q \in \mathcal{Q}_{0} \cap \mathcal{H}_{0}. The class of admissible functions \Phi_{S,1}[\Omega,q] consists of those function \phi:\mathbb{C}^{4}\times \mathcal{U}\longrightarrow \mathbb{C} that satisfy the following admissibility condition
whenever
and
where z \in \mathcal{U},\zeta \in \partial \mathcal{U} \setminus E(q), and k\geq 2.
Let \phi \in \Phi_{S,1}[\Omega,q]. If the function f \in \mathcal{A} and q \in \mathcal{Q}_{0} satisfy the following conditions:
and
then
Define the analytic function p(z) in \mathcal{U} by
From equation (?) and (22), we have
Similar arguments, yields
and
Define the transformation from \mathbb{C}^{4} to \mathbb{C} by
and
Let
The proof will make use of Lemma 5. Using equations (22) to (22) and from (22), we have
Hence, (22) becomes
Note that
and
Thus, the admissibility condition for \phi \in \Phi_{S,1}[\Omega,q] in Definition 21 is equivalent to the admissibility condition for \psi \in \Psi_{2}[\Omega,q] as given in Definition 4 with n=2. Therefore, by using (22) and Lemma 5, we have
This completes the proof of theorem.
Define the analytic function p(z) in \mathcal{U} by
From equation (?) and (22), we have
Similar arguments, yields
and
Define the transformation from \mathbb{C}^{4} to \mathbb{C} by
and
Let
The proof will make use of Lemma 5. Using equations (22) to (22) and from (22), we have
Hence, (22) becomes
Note that
and
Thus, the admissibility condition for \phi \in \Phi_{S,1}[\Omega,q] in Definition 21 is equivalent to the admissibility condition for \psi \in \Psi_{2}[\Omega,q] as given in Definition 4 with n=2. Therefore, by using (22) and Lemma 5, we have
This completes the proof of theorem.
Let \phi \in \Phi_{S,1}[h,q].If the function f \in \mathcal{A} and q \in \mathcal{Q}_{0} satisfy the following conditions:
and
then
Let \Omega be a set in \mathbb{C}, a \in \mathbb{C} \setminus \{0,1,2\} and M>0. The class of admissible function \Phi_{S,1}[\Omega,M] consists of those functions \phi:\mathbb{C}^{4}\times \mathcal{U}\longrightarrow\mathbb{C} such that
whenever z \in \mathcal{U},\Re(Le^{-i\theta})\geq (k-1)kM, and \Re(Ne^{-i\theta})\geq 0 for all \theta \in \mathbb{R} and k \geq 2.
Let \phi \in \Phi_{S,1}[\Omega,M]. If the function f \in \mathcal{A} satisfies
and
then
Let \phi \in \Phi_{S,1}[M]. If the function f \in \mathcal{A} satisfies
and
then
Let \Re(a) \geq \frac{-k}{2}, 0 \neq a \in \mathbb{C}, k \geq 2 and M>0. If f \in \mathcal{A} satisfies
then
This follows from Corollary 25 by taking \phi(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta;z)=\beta-1.
This follows from Corollary 25 by taking \phi(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta;z)=\beta-1.
For f(z)=\frac{z}{1-z} in Corollary 27, we have
which is given by Andras and Baricz [andras].
For p=\pm 1/2, ~b=1 and c=1, we have U_{2,1}(z)=zU_{1/2,1,1}(z)=2(1-\cos(\sqrt{z})) and U_{1,1}(z)=zU_{-1/2,1,1}(z)=\sqrt{z}\sin\sqrt{z}, where U_{p,b,c} is given by (?). Therefore, from Remark 28, we get
Let a \in \mathbb{C}\setminus \{0,1,-2\},k \geq 2 and M>0. If f \in \mathcal{A} satisfies
then
This follows from Corollary 25 by taking \phi(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta;z)=\gamma-\beta.
This follows from Corollary 25 by taking \phi(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta;z)=\gamma-\beta.
Let \Omega be a set in \mathbb{C} and q \in \mathcal{Q}_{1} \cap \mathcal{H}_{1}. The class of admissible functions \Phi_{S,2}[\Omega,q] consists of those functions \phi: \mathbb{C}^{4} \times\mathcal U \longrightarrow \mathbb{C} that satisfy the following admissibility conditions
whenever
and
where z \in \mathcal{U},\zeta \in \partial\mathcal{U} \setminus E(q) and k\geq 2.
Let \phi \in \Phi_{S,2}[\Omega,q]. If the function f \in \mathcal{A} and q \in \mathcal{Q}_{1} satisfy the following conditions
then
Define the analytic function p(z) in \mathcal{U} by
From equation (?) and (32), we have
Similar computation yields:
and
where
Define the transformation from \mathbb{C}^{4} to \mathbb{C} by
and
where
Let
The proof will make use of Lemma 5. Using equations (32) to (32), and from (32), we have
Hence, (32) becomes
Note that
and
Thus, the admissibility condition for \phi \in \Phi_{S,2}[\Omega,q] in Definition 2 is equivalent to the admissibility condition for \psi \in \Psi_{2}[\Omega,q] as given in Definition 4 with n=2. Therefore, by using (32) and Lemma 5, we have
This completes the proof of theorem.
Define the analytic function p(z) in \mathcal{U} by
From equation (?) and (32), we have
Similar computation yields:
and
where
Define the transformation from \mathbb{C}^{4} to \mathbb{C} by
and
where
Let
The proof will make use of Lemma 5. Using equations (32) to (32), and from (32), we have
Hence, (32) becomes
Note that
and
Thus, the admissibility condition for \phi \in \Phi_{S,2}[\Omega,q] in Definition 2 is equivalent to the admissibility condition for \psi \in \Psi_{2}[\Omega,q] as given in Definition 4 with n=2. Therefore, by using (32) and Lemma 5, we have
This completes the proof of theorem.
Let \phi \in \Phi_{S,2}[h,q].If the function f \in \mathcal{A} and q \in \mathcal{Q}_{1} satisfy the following conditions (\ref{e30}) and
then
Let \Omega be a set in \mathbb{C} and q \in \mathcal{H}_{0} with q^{\prime}(z) \neq 0. The class of admissible function \Phi_{S}^{\prime}[\Omega,q] consists of those functions \phi:\mathbb{C}^{4}\times \overline{\mathcal{U}}\longrightarrow\mathbb{C} that satisfy the following admissibility conditions:
whenever
and
where z \in \mathcal{U},\zeta \in \partial \mathcal{U} \setminus E(q), and m\geq 2.
Let \phi \in \Phi_{S}^{\prime}[\Omega,q].If the function f \in \mathcal{A} and S_{a+1,c}f(z)\in \mathcal{Q}_{0} and q \in \mathcal{H}_{0} with q^{\prime}(z)\neq 0 satisfy the following conditions:
and
is univalent in \mathcal{U},then
implies that
Let the function p(z) be defined by (9) and \psi by (9). Since \phi \in \Phi_{S}^{\prime}[\Omega,q]. From (9) and (35) yield
From (9) and (9), we see that the admissibility condition for \phi \in \Phi_{S}^{\prime}[\Omega,q] in Definition 34 is equivalent to the admissibility condition for \psi \in \Psi_{2}[\Omega,q] as given in Definition 6 with n=2. Hence \psi \in \Psi_{2}^{\prime}[\Omega,q] and by using (35) and Lemma 7, we have
This completes the proof of theorem.
Let \phi \in \Phi_{S}^{\prime}[h,q] and h be analytic in \mathcal{U}. If the function f \in \mathcal{A},~S_{a+1,c}f(z)\in\mathcal Q_0 and q \in \mathcal{H}_{0} with q ^{\prime}(z)\neq 0 satisfy the following conditions (35) and
is univalent in \mathcal{U}, then
implies that
Let the function h be univalent in \mathcal{U} and let \phi : \mathbb{C}^{4}\times \overline{\mathcal{U}}\longrightarrow \mathbb{C} and \psi be given by (9). Suppose that the differential equation
has a solution q(z) \in \mathcal{Q}_{0}. If the function f \in \mathcal{A},~S_{a+1,c}f(z)\in\mathcal Q_0 and q \in \mathcal{H}_{0} with q^{\prime}(z) \neq 0, which satisfy the following condition (35) and
is analytic in \mathcal{U}, then
implies that
and q(z) is the best dominant.
Let \Omega be a set in \mathbb{C}, q \in \mathcal{H}_{0} with q'(z)\neq 0. The class of admissible functions \Phi_{S,1}^{\prime}[\Omega,q] consists of those functions \phi:\mathbb{C}^{4}\times \overline{\mathcal{U}}\longrightarrow \mathbb{C} that satisfy the following admissibility condition
whenever
and
where z \in \mathcal{U},\zeta \in \partial \mathcal{U} \setminus E(q), and m\geq 2.
Let \phi \in \Phi_{S,1}^{\prime}[\Omega,q]. If the function f \in \mathcal{A}, \frac{S_{a+1,c}f(z)}{z} \in \mathcal{Q}_{0} and q \in \mathcal{H}_{0} with q^{\prime}(z) \neq 0 satisfy the following conditions:
and
is univalent in \mathcal{U}, then
implies that
Let the function p(z) be defined by (22) and \psi by (22). Since \phi \in \Phi _{S,1}^{\prime}[\Omega,q], (22) and (39) yield
From equations (22) and (22), we see that the admissible condition for \phi \in \Phi_{S,1}^{\prime}[\Omega,q] in Definition 38 is equivalent to the admissible condition for \psi as given in Definition 6 with n=2. Hence \psi \in \Psi _{2}^{\prime}[\Omega,q] and by using (39) and Lemma 7, we have
This completes the proof of theorem.
Let the function p(z) be defined by (22) and \psi by (22). Since \phi \in \Phi _{S,1}^{\prime}[\Omega,q], (22) and (39) yield
From equations (22) and (22), we see that the admissible condition for \phi \in \Phi_{S,1}^{\prime}[\Omega,q] in Definition 38 is equivalent to the admissible condition for \psi as given in Definition 6 with n=2. Hence \psi \in \Psi _{2}^{\prime}[\Omega,q] and by using (39) and Lemma 7, we have
This completes the proof of theorem.
Let \phi \in \Phi_{S,1}^{\prime}[h,q]. If the function f \in \mathcal{A}, \frac{S_{a+1,c}f(z)}{z} \in \mathcal{Q}_{0} and q \in \mathcal{H}_{0} with q^{\prime}(z)\neq 0 satisfy the following conditions:
and
is univalent in \mathcal{U}, then
implies that
Let \Omega be a set in \mathbb{C} and q \in \mathcal{H}_{1} with q^{\prime}(z)\neq 0. The class of admissible functions \Phi_{S,2}^{\prime}[\Omega,q] consists of those functions \phi: \mathbb{C}^{4} \times \overline{\mathcal{U}}\longrightarrow \mathbb{C} that satisfy the following admissibility conditions
whenever
and
where z \in \mathcal{U},\zeta \in \partial \mathcal{U} \setminus E(q) and m\geq 2.
Let \phi \in \Phi_{S,2}^{\prime}[\Omega,q]. If the function f \in \mathcal{A} and \frac{S_{a,c}f(z)}{S_{a+1,c}f(z)} \in \mathcal{Q}_{1} and q \in \mathcal{H}_{1} with q^{\prime}(z)\neq 0 satisfy the following conditions
and
is univalent in \mathcal{U}, then
then
Let the function p(z) be defined by (32) and \psi by (32). Since \phi \in \Phi_{S,2}^{\prime}[\Omega,q], (32) and (42) yield
From equations (32) and (32), we see that the admissible condition for \phi \in \Phi_{S,2}^{\prime}[\Omega,q] in Definition 41 is equivalent to the admissible condition for \psi as given in Definition 6 with n=2. Hence \psi \in \Psi_{2}^{\prime}[\Omega,q], and by using (42) and Lemma 7, we have
This completes the proof of theorem.
Let the function p(z) be defined by (32) and \psi by (32). Since \phi \in \Phi_{S,2}^{\prime}[\Omega,q], (32) and (42) yield
From equations (32) and (32), we see that the admissible condition for \phi \in \Phi_{S,2}^{\prime}[\Omega,q] in Definition 41 is equivalent to the admissible condition for \psi as given in Definition 6 with n=2. Hence \psi \in \Psi_{2}^{\prime}[\Omega,q], and by using (42) and Lemma 7, we have
This completes the proof of theorem.
Let \phi \in \Phi_{S,2}^{\prime}[\Omega,q]. If the function f \in \mathcal{A} and \frac{S_{a,c}f(z)}{S_{a+1,c}f(z)} \in \mathcal{Q}_{1} and q \in \mathcal{H}_{1} with q^{\prime}(z)\neq 0 satisfy the following conditions
and
is univalent in \mathcal{U}, then
then
Let h_{1} and q_{1} be analytic functions in \mathcal{U}, h_{2} be univalent function in \mathcal{U}, q_{2} \in \mathcal{Q}_{0} with q_{1}(0)=q_{2}(0)=0 and \phi \in \Phi_{S}[h_{2},q_{2}]\cap \Phi_{S}^{\prime}[h_{1},q_{1}]. If the function f \in \mathcal{A}, S_{a+1,c} \in \mathcal{Q}_{0}\cap \mathcal{H}_{0}, and
is univalent in \mathcal{U}, and the condition (9) and (35) are satisfied, then
implies that
Let h_{1} and q_{1} be analytic functions in \mathcal{U}, h_{2} be univalent function in \mathcal{U}, q_{2} \in \mathcal{Q}_{0} with q_{1}(0)=q_{2}(0)=0 and \phi \in \Phi_{S,1}[h_{2},q_{2}]\cap \Phi_{S,1}^{\prime}[h_{1},q_{1}]. If the function f \in \mathcal{A},\frac{S_{a+1,c}f(z)}{z} \in \mathcal{Q}_{0}\cap \mathcal{H}_{0}, and
is univalent in \mathcal{U}, and the condition (22) and (39) are satisfied, then
implies that
Let h_{1} and q_{1} be analytic functions in \mathcal{U}, h_{2} be univalent function in \mathcal{U}, q_{2} \in \mathcal{Q}_{1} with q_{1}(0)=q_{2}(0)=1 and \phi \in \Phi_{S,1}[h_{2},q_{2}]\cap \Phi_{S,1}^{\prime}[h_{1},q_{1}]. If the function f \in \mathcal{A},\frac{S_{a,c}f(z)}{S_{a+1,c}f(z)} \in \mathcal{Q}_{1}\cap \mathcal{H}_{1}, and
is univalent in \mathcal{U}, and the condition (32) and (42) are satisfied, then
implies that
For special cases all of above results, we can obtain the corresponding results for the operators \mathfrak{S}, \mathfrak{I}, which are defined by (?), and (?), respectively.
The text on this page is from arXiv:1809.06512v1 by P. Gochhayat and A. Prajapati, under the licence CC0 1.0. 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/1809/1809.06512.jsonl.