# Value Distributions and Uniqueness of Difference Polynomials

- Kai Liu
^{1}Email author, - Xinling Liu
^{1}and - TingBin Cao
^{1}

**2011**:234215

https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/234215

© Kai Liu et al. 2011

**Received: **21 January 2011

**Accepted: **7 March 2011

**Published: **15 March 2011

## Abstract

We investigate the zeros distributions of difference polynomials of meromorphic functions, which can be viewed as the Hayman conjecture as introduced by (Hayman 1967) for difference. And we also study the uniqueness of difference polynomials of meromorphic functions sharing a common value, and obtain uniqueness theorems for difference.

## Keywords

## 1. Introduction

A meromorphic function means meromorphic in the whole complex plane. Given a meromorphic function , recall that , is a small function with respect to , if , where is used to denote any quantity satisfying , as outside a possible exceptional set of finite logarithmic measure. We use notations , to denote the order of growth of and the exponent of convergence of the poles of , respectively. We say that meromorphic functions and share a finite value IM (ignoring multiplicities) when and have the same zeros. If and have the same zeros with the same multiplicities, then we say that and share the value CM (counting multiplicities). We assume that the reader is familiar with standard notations and fundamental results of Nevanlinna Theory [1–3].

As we all know that a finite value is called the Picard exception value of , if has no zeros. The Picard theorem shows that a transcendental entire function has at most one Picard exception value, a transcendental meromorphic function has at most two Picard exception values. The Hayman conjecture [4], is that if is a transcendental meromorphic function and , then takes every finite nonzero value infinitely often. This conjecture has been solved by Hayman [5] for , by Mues [6] for , by Bergweiler and Eremenko [7] for . From above, it is showed that the Picard exception value of may only be zero. Recently, for an analog of Hayman conjecture for difference, Laine and Yang [8, Theorem 2] proved the following.

Theorem A.

Let be a transcendental entire function with finite order and be a nonzero complex constant. Then for , assumes every nonzero value infinitely often.

Remark 1.1.

Theorem A implies that the Picard exception value of cannot be nonzero constant. However, Theorem A does not remain valid for meromorphic functions. For example, , , . Thus, we get that never takes the value −1, and never takes the value 1.

As the improvement of Theorem A to the case of meromorphic functions, we first obtain the following theorem. In the following, we assume that and are small functions with respect of , unless otherwise specified.

Theorem 1.2.

Let be a transcendental meromorphic function with finite order and be a nonzero complex constant. If , then the difference polynomial has infinitely many zeros.

Remark 1.3.

has finitely many zeros. We have given the example when in Remark 1.1 to show that may have finitely many zeros. But we have not succeed in reducing the condition to in Theorem 1.2.

In the following, we will consider the zeros of other difference polynomials. Using the similar method of the proof of Theorem 1.2 below, we also can obtain the following results.

Theorem 1.4.

Let be a transcendental meromorphic function with finite order and be a nonzero complex constant. If , then the difference polynomial has infinitely many zeros.

Theorem 1.5.

Let be a transcendental meromorphic function with finite order and be a nonzero complex constant. If , , then the difference polynomial has infinitely many zeros.

Remark 1.6.

The above two theorems also are not true when is of infinite order, which can be seen by function , , where in Theorem 1.4 and in Theorem 1.5.

Theorem 1.7.

Let be a transcendental meromorphic function with finite order and be a nonzero complex constant. If , , then the difference polynomial has infinitely many zeros.

Corollary 1.8.

where and , are rational functions.

Remark 1.9.

Some results about the zeros distributions of difference polynomials of entire functions or meromorphic functions with the condition can be found in [9–12]. Theorem 1.7 is a partial improvement of [11, Theorem 1.1] for is an entire function and is also an improvement of [13, Theorem 1.1] for the case of .

The uniqueness problem of differential polynomials of meromorphic functions has been considered by many authors, such as Fang and Hua [14], Qiu and Fang [15], Xu and Yi [16], Yang and Hua [17], and Lahiri and Rupa [18]. The uniqueness results for difference polynomials of entire functions was considered in a recent paper [15], which can be stated as follows.

Theorem B (see [19, Theorem 1.1]).

Let and be transcendental entire functions with finite order, and be a nonzero complex constant. If , and share CM, then for a constant that satisfies .

Theorem C (see [19, Theorem 1.2]).

Let and be transcendental entire functions with finite order, and be a nonzero complex constant. If , and share 1 CM, then or for some constants and that satisfy and .

In this paper, we improve Theorems B and C to meromorphic functions and obtain the following results.

Theorem 1.10.

Let and be transcendental meromorphic functions with finite order. Suppose that is a nonzero constant and . If , and share 1 CM, then or , where .

Theorem 1.11.

Under the conditions of Theorem 1.10, if , and share 1 IM, then or , where .

Remark 1.12.

Let and , . Thus, and share the value 1 CM. From above, the case , where may occur in Theorems 1.10 and 1.11.

From the proof of Theorem 1.11 and (2.7) below, we obtain easily the next result.

Corollary 1.13.

Let and be transcendental entire functions with finite order, and be a nonzero complex constant. If , and share 1 IM, then or , where .

## 2. Some Lemmas

The difference logarithmic derivative lemma of functions with finite order, given by Chiang and Feng [20, Corollary 2.5], Halburd and Korhonen [21, Theorem 2.1], plays an important part in considering the difference Nevanlinna theory. Here, we state the following version.

Lemma 2.1 (see [22, Theorem 5.6]).

for all outside of a set of finite logarithmic measure.

Lemma 2.2 (see [20, Theorem 2.1]).

For the proof of Theorem 1.4, we need the following lemma.

Lemma 2.3.

Proof.

thus, we get the (2.3).

In order to prove Theorem 1.5 and Corollary 1.13, we also need the next result.

Lemma 2.4.

Proof.

Moreover, follows by Lemma 2.2. Thus (2.7) is proved.

Lemma 2.5 (see [17, Lemma 3]).

- (i)
- (ii)
- (iii)

where denotes the counting function of zeros of such that simple zeros are counted once and multiple zeros are counted twice.

For the proof of Theorem 1.11, we need the following lemma.

Lemma 2.6 (see [16, Lemma 2.3]).

## 3. Proof of the Theorems

Proof of Theorem 1.2.

So the condition implies that must have infinitely many zeros.

Proof of Theorem 1.7.

Since , then (3.8) implies that has infinitely many zeros, completing the proof.

Remark 3.1.

which implies that in Theorem 1.7.

Proof of Theorem 1.10.

which is a contradiction with . Hence must be a constant, which implies that , thus, and .

Let , similar as above, must be a constant. Thus , follows; we have completed the proof.

Proof of Theorem 1.11.

In the following, we will prove that or .

which is also a contradiction.

Similarly, we also can get a contradiction. Thus, follows, implies that . Thus, we get and .

Similarly, we get a contradiction, follows. Thus, we get also implies , . Thus, we have completed the proof.

## Declarations

### Acknowledgments

The authors thank the referee for his/her valuable suggestions to improve the present paper. This work was partially supported by the NNSF (no. 11026110), the NSF of Jiangxi (nos. 2010GQS0144 and 2010GQS0139) and the YFED of Jiangxi (nos. GJJ11043 and GJJ10050) of China.

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Hayman WK:
*Meromorphic Functions, Oxford Mathematical Monographs*. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK; 1964:xiv+191.Google Scholar - Laine I:
*Nevanlinna Theory and Complex Differential Equations, de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics*.*Volume 15*. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, Germany; 1993:viii+341.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Yang C-C, Yi H-X:
*Uniqueness Theory of Meromorphic Functions, Mathematics and Its Applications*.*Volume 557*. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands; 2003:viii+569.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Hayman WK:
*Research Problems in Function Theory*. The Athlone Press, London, UK; 1967:vii+56.MATHGoogle Scholar - Hayman WK:
**Picard values of meromorphic functions and their derivatives.***Annals of Mathematics*1959,**70:**9-42. 10.2307/1969890MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Mues E:
**Über ein Problem von Hayman.***Mathematische Zeitschrift*1979,**164**(3):239-259. 10.1007/BF01182271MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Bergweiler W, Eremenko A:
**On the singularities of the inverse to a meromorphic function of finite order.***Revista Matemática Iberoamericana*1995,**11**(2):355-373.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Laine I, Yang C-C:
**Value distribution of difference polynomials.***Proceedings of the Japan Academy. Series A*2007,**83**(8):148-151. 10.3792/pjaa.83.148MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Liu K, Yang L-Z:
**Value distribution of the difference operator.***Archiv der Mathematik*2009,**92**(3):270-278. 10.1007/s00013-009-2895-xMathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Liu K: Value distribution of differences of meromorphic functions. Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics. In pressGoogle Scholar
- Liu K, Laine I:
**A note on value distribution of difference polynomials.***Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society*2010,**81**(3):353-360. 10.1017/S000497270900118XMathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Zhang J:
**Value distribution and shared sets of differences of meromorphic functions.***Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*2010,**367**(2):401-408. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2010.01.038MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Liu K:
**Zeros of difference polynomials of meromorphic functions.***Results in Mathematics*2010,**57**(3-4):365-376. 10.1007/s00025-010-0034-4MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Fang ML, Hua XH:
**Entire functions that share one value.***Nanjing Daxue Xuebao*1996,**13**(1):44-48.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Qiu HL, Fang ML:
**On the uniqueness of entire functions.***Bulletin of the Korean Mathematical Society*2004,**41**(1):109-116.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Xu JF, Yi HX:
**Uniqueness of entire functions and differential polynomials.***Bulletin of the Korean Mathematical Society*2007,**44**(4):623-629. 10.4134/BKMS.2007.44.4.623MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Yang C-C, Hua XH:
**Uniqueness and value-sharing of meromorphic functions.***Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ*1997,**22**(2):395-406.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Lahiri I, Pal R:
**Non-linear differential polynomials sharing 1-points.***Bulletin of the Korean Mathematical Society*2006,**43**(1):161-168.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Qi X-G, Yang L-Z, Liu K:
**Uniqueness and periodicity of meromorphic functions concerning the difference operator.***Computers & Mathematics with Applications*2010,**60**(6):1739-1746. 10.1016/j.camwa.2010.07.004MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Chiang Y-M, Feng S-J:
**On the Nevanlinna characteristic of****and difference equations in the complex plane.***Ramanujan Journal*2008,**16**(1):105-129. 10.1007/s11139-007-9101-1MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Halburd RG, Korhonen RJ:
**Difference analogue of the lemma on the logarithmic derivative with applications to difference equations.***Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*2006,**314**(2):477-487. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.04.010MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Halburd RG, Korhonen RJ:
**Meromorphic solutions of difference equations, integrability and the discrete Painlevé equations.***Journal of Physics. A*2007,**40**(6):R1-R38. 10.1088/1751-8113/40/6/R01MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Mohon'ho AZ: The Nevanlinna characteristics of certain meromorphic functions. Teoriya Funktsiu i, Funktional'nyu i Analiz i ikh Prilozheniya 1971, (14):83-87.Google Scholar

## Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.