Open Access

Value Distributions and Uniqueness of Difference Polynomials

Advances in Difference Equations20112011:234215

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

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.

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 [13].

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.

The restriction of finite order in Theorem 1.2 cannot be deleted. This can be seen by taking , , is a nonconstant polynomial, and is a nonzero rational function. Then is of infinite order and has finitely many poles, while
(1.1)

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.

There is no transcendental finite order meromorphic solution of the nonlinear difference equation
(1.2)

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 [912]. 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]).

Let be a transcendental meromorphic function of finite order, and let . Then
(2.1)

for all outside of a set of finite logarithmic measure.

Lemma 2.2 (see [20, Theorem  2.1]).

Let be a transcendental meromorphic function of finite order. Then,
(2.2)

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

Lemma 2.3.

Let be a transcendental meromorphic function of finite order. Then,
(2.3)

Proof.

Assume that , then
(2.4)
Using the first and second main theorems of Nevanlinna theory and Lemma 2.1, we get
(2.5)

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.

Let be a transcendental meromorphic function with finite order, . Then
(2.6)
If is a transcendental entire function with finite order, and , , then
(2.7)

Proof.

We deduce from Lemma 2.1 and the standard Valiron-Mohon'ko [23] theorem,
(2.8)
Thus, (2.6) follows from (2.8). If is entire and , , then from above, we get
(2.9)

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

Lemma 2.5 (see [17, Lemma  3]).

Let and be two nonconstant meromorphic functions. If and share 1 CM, then one of the following three cases holds:
  1. (i)

    ,

     
  2. (ii)

    ,

     
  3. (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]).

Let and be two nonconstant meromorphic functions, and and share 1 IM. Let
(2.10)
If , then
(2.11)

3. Proof of the Theorems

Proof of Theorem 1.2.

Since is a transcendental meromorphic function, assume that , then we can get
(3.1)
Using the second main theorem, we have
(3.2)

So the condition implies that must have infinitely many zeros.

Proof of Theorem 1.7.

Let
(3.3)
We proceed to prove that has infinitely many zeros, which implies that has infinitely many zeros. We first prove that
(3.4)
Applying the first main theorem and Lemma 2.2, we observe that
(3.5)
From (3.5), we easily obtain the inequality (3.4). Concerning the zeros and poles of , we have
(3.6)
(3.7)
Using the second main theorem, Lemma 2.2, (3.6) and (3.7), we get
(3.8)

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

Remark 3.1.

It is easy to know that if , then (3.7) can be replaced by
(3.9)

which implies that in Theorem 1.7.

Proof of Theorem 1.10.

Let and . Thus, and share the value 1 CM. Suppose first that and . From the beginning of the proof of Theorem 1.2, we obtain
(3.10)
Moreover, from Lemma 2.2, it is easy to get
(3.11)
Using the second main theorem, we have
(3.12)
Thus,
(3.13)
Similarly, we obtain
(3.14)
Therefore, from (3.13) and (3.14), follows. From the definition of , we get
(3.15)
Similarly, we can get
(3.16)
(3.17)
(3.18)
Thus,
(3.19)
Then, from (3.10), and (3.19), we have
(3.20)
which is in contradiction with .Therefore, applying Lemma 2.5, we must have either or . If , thus, . Let . Assume that is not a constant. Then we get
(3.21)
Thus, from Lemma 2.2, we get
(3.22)

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

If , implies that
(3.23)

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

Proof of Theorem 1.11.

Let and , let be defined in Lemma 2.6. Using the similar proof as the proof of Theorem 1.10 up to (3.18), combining with Lemma 2.6 and
(3.24)
we can get
(3.25)
which is in contradiction with . Thus, we get . The following is standard. For the convenience of reader, we give a complete proof here. By integratiing (2.10) twice, we have
(3.26)
which implies . From (3.10)-(3.11), thus,
(3.27)
(3.28)

In the following, we will prove that or .

Case 1 ( ).

If , then by (3.26), we get
(3.29)
Combining the Nevanlinna second main theorem with Lemma 2.4 and (3.27), we have
(3.30)
This implies , which is in contradiction with . Thus, , hence
(3.31)
Using the same method as above,
(3.32)

which is also a contradiction.

Case 2 ( , ).

From (3.26), we have
(3.33)

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

Case 3 ( , ).

From (3.26), we obtain
(3.34)

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

(1)
Department of Mathematics, Nanchang University

References

  1. Hayman WK: Meromorphic Functions, Oxford Mathematical Monographs. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK; 1964:xiv+191.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Hayman WK: Research Problems in Function Theory. The Athlone Press, London, UK; 1967:vii+56.MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Hayman WK: Picard values of meromorphic functions and their derivatives. Annals of Mathematics 1959, 70: 9-42. 10.2307/1969890MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Mues E: Über ein Problem von Hayman. Mathematische Zeitschrift 1979,164(3):239-259. 10.1007/BF01182271MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Liu K: Value distribution of differences of meromorphic functions. Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics. In pressGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Fang ML, Hua XH: Entire functions that share one value. Nanjing Daxue Xuebao 1996,13(1):44-48.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Qiu HL, Fang ML: On the uniqueness of entire functions. Bulletin of the Korean Mathematical Society 2004,41(1):109-116.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Yang C-C, Hua XH: Uniqueness and value-sharing of meromorphic functions. Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ 1997,22(2):395-406.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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

© Kai Liu et al. 2011

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.