- Research
- Open Access

# Results on meromorphic solutions of linear difference equations

- Sheng Li
^{1}and - Baoqin Chen
^{1}Email author

**2012**:203

https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1847-2012-203

© Li and Chen; licensee Springer 2012

**Received: **3 September 2012

**Accepted: **7 November 2012

**Published: **27 November 2012

## Abstract

In this paper, we investigate meromorphic solutions of linear difference equations and prove a number of results. We give estimates for the growth of meromorphic solutions under some special cases and provide some examples to show that the answer to a question of Laine and Yang is not always positive. The zeros, poles and fixed points of finite order solutions are also studied.

**MSC:**39A13, 39A22, 30D35.

## Keywords

- difference equations
- growth
- fixed points

## 1 Introduction and results

*e.g.*, [1–3]). We use the notations $\rho (f)$, $\lambda (f)$, $\lambda (1/f)$ to denote the order of growth of

*f*, the exponent of convergence of the poles of

*f*and the exponent of convergence of the zeros of

*f*, respectively, and we define them as follows:

Thirty years ago, some results on the existence of meromorphic solutions for certain difference equations were proved by Shimomura [4] and Yanagihara [5].

Recently, numbers of papers (see, *e.g.*, [6–16]) are devoted to considering the complex difference equations and difference analogues of Nevanlinna theory. For the growth of meromorphic solutions of difference equations, Chiang and Feng [8, 9] considered the polynomial coefficients case and got

*Let*${A}_{0}(z),{A}_{1}(z),\dots ,{A}_{n}(z)$

*be polynomials such that there exists an integer*

*l*, $0\le l\le n$,

*such that*

*Suppose that*$f(z)$

*is a meromorphic solution to*

*then we have* $\rho (f)\ge 1$.

The following result shows that the polynomial coefficients in Theorem A can be extended to rational functions.

**Theorem 1.1**

*Let*${A}_{0}(z),{A}_{1}(z),\dots ,{A}_{n}(z)$

*be rational functions having no common zeros or poles*.

*For*$j=0,\dots ,n$,

*set*${A}_{j}(z)={p}_{j}(z)/{q}_{j}(z)$,

*where*${p}_{j}(z)$, ${q}_{j}(z)$

*are irreducible polynomials*.

*If there exists an integer*

*l*, $0\le l\le n$,

*such that*

*then*, *for any meromorphic solution* $f(z)$ *to* (1.1), *we have* $\rho (f)\ge 1$.

**Remark**Set ${B}_{j}={p}_{j}{\prod}_{k=0}^{n}{q}_{k}/{q}_{j}$, then we see that ${B}_{0}(z),{B}_{1}(z),\dots ,{B}_{n}(z)$ are all polynomials and

And hence Theorem 1.1 follows from Theorem A. We omit the details of its proof.

For the case that some coefficients are transcendental meromorphic functions, the following two results were proved by Chaing and Feng [8] and Laine and Yang [16], respectively.

**Theorem B** [8]

*Let*${A}_{0}(z),{A}_{1}(z),\dots ,{A}_{n}(z)$

*be entire functions such that there exists an integer*

*l*, $0\le l\le n$,

*such that*

*If* $f(z)$ *is a meromorphic solution to* (1.1), *then* $\rho (f)\ge \rho ({A}_{l})+1$.

**Theorem C** [16]

*Let* ${A}_{0}(z),{A}_{1}(z),\dots ,{A}_{n}(z)$ *be entire functions of finite order such that among those coefficients having the maximal order* $\rho :={max}_{0\le j\le n}\rho ({A}_{j})$, *exactly one has its type strictly greater than the others*. *Then*, *for any meromorphic solution* $f(z)$ *to* (1.1), *we have* $\rho (f)\ge \rho +1$.

In Theorems B and C, there is always some dominating coefficient ${A}_{l}$ such that $\rho ({A}_{l})>0$. A natural question is what happens if the dominating coefficient ${A}_{l}$ is of order zero? Another question raised by Laine and Yang in [16] is whether all meromorphic solutions $f(z)$ of (1.1) satisfy $\rho (f)\ge {max}_{0\le j\le n}\rho ({A}_{j})+1$, even if there is no dominating coefficient. For the first question, we get the following result.

**Theorem 1.2** *Let* ${A}_{0}(z),{A}_{1}(z),\dots ,{A}_{n}(z)$ *be meromorphic functions such that there exists an integer* *l*, $0\le l\le n$, *such that* ${A}_{l}(z)$ *is a transcendental entire function*, *while* ${A}_{j}(z)$, $j\ne l$, *are all rational functions*. *If* $f(z)$ *is a meromorphic solution to* (1.1), *then* $\rho (f)\ge \rho ({A}_{l})+1$.

Considering Laine and Yang’s question, we get the following example which indicates that the answer to their question is not always positive.

**Example**For a given positive integer

*k*, $f(z)={e}^{z}$ is an entire solution of the equation

In this example, the relationship between $\rho (f)$ and ${max}_{0\le j\le n}\rho ({A}_{j})+1=k+1$ exactly depends on *k*.

However, the answer may be positive in some special case. In fact, we prove the following results, in which there is still some coefficient dominating in some angle.

**Theorem 1.3**

*Let*

*k*

*be a positive integer*,

*p*

*be a nonzero real number and*$f(z)$

*be a nonconstant meromorphic solution of the difference equation*

*where* ${A}_{0},{A}_{1},\dots ,{A}_{n},{B}_{0},{B}_{1}$ *are all entire functions such that* ${A}_{0}{A}_{1}\ne 0$ *and* $max\{\rho ({B}_{0}),\rho ({B}_{1}),\rho ({A}_{j}):0\le j\le n\}=\sigma <k$. *Then we have* $\rho (f)\ge k+1$.

**Theorem 1.4** *Under exactly one of assumptions for the coefficients of* (1.1) *in Theorems * A-C *and Theorems* 1.1 *and* 1.2, *if* $f(z)$ *is a finite order meromorphic solution to* (1.1), *then* $\lambda (f-z)=\rho (f)$. *What is more*, *either* $\rho +1\le \rho (f)\le max\{\lambda (f),\lambda (1/f)\}+1$ *or* $\rho (f)=\rho +1>max\{\lambda (f),\lambda (1/f)\}+1$, *where* $\rho :={max}_{0\le j\le n}\rho ({A}_{j})$.

**Theorem 1.5** *Under the assumption for the coefficients of* (1.2) *in Theorem * 1.3, *if* $f(z)$ *is a finite order meromorphic solution to* (1.2), *then* $\lambda (f-z)=\rho (f)$. *What is more*, *either* $k+1\le \rho (f)\le max\{\lambda (f),\lambda (1/f)\}+1$ *or* $\rho (f)=k+1>max\{\lambda (f),\lambda (1/f)\}+1$.

The following examples show the sharpness of the estimates in Theorems 1.4 and 1.5.

**Examples**(1) The gamma function $\mathrm{\Gamma}(z)$ is a meromorphic solution to the equation

which satisfies the assumptions in Theorem A and Theorem 1.1. We see that $\lambda (\mathrm{\Gamma}-z)=\rho (\mathrm{\Gamma})$ and $1=\rho (\mathrm{\Gamma})<\lambda (1/\mathrm{\Gamma})+1$ .

which satisfies the assumptions in Theorems B and C and Theorem 1.2. We have $\lambda ({f}_{1}-z)=\rho ({f}_{1})$, $\lambda ({f}_{2}-z)=\rho ({f}_{2})$ and $\rho ({f}_{1})=2>\lambda ({f}_{1})+1$, $\rho ({f}_{2})=2=\lambda ({f}_{2})+1$.

which satisfies the assumptions in Theorem 1.3. We have $\lambda ({f}_{1}-z)=\rho ({f}_{1})$, $\lambda ({f}_{2}-z)=\rho ({f}_{2})$ and $\rho ({f}_{1})=2=1+\lambda ({f}_{1})$ and $\rho ({f}_{2})=2>\lambda ({f}_{2})+1$.

## 2 Proof of Theorem 1.2

We first recall a key lemma used to prove Theorems A and B and the pointwise estimates for difference quotient which are counterparts to Gundersen’s logarithmic derivative estimates [17] (see [8], Corollary 2.6, Theorem 8.3).

**Lemma 2.1** [8]

*Let*$f(z)$

*be a meromorphic function of finite order*

*ρ*,

*ε*

*be a positive constant*, ${\eta}_{1}$

*and*${\eta}_{2}$

*be two distinct nonzero complex constants*.

*Then*

*and there exists a subset*$E\subset (1,+\mathrm{\infty})$

*of finite logarithmic measure such that*,

*for all*

*z*

*satisfying*$|z|=r\notin [0,1]\cup E$,

*and as*$r\to \mathrm{\infty}$

*sufficiently large*,

*Proof of Theorem 1.2* If $\rho ({A}_{l})>0$, the assertion follows from Theorem B. We next consider the case that $\rho ({A}_{l})=0$.

*r*, we have

a contradiction. Our proof is thus finished. □

## 3 Proof of Theorem 1.3

Our tools to prove Theorem 1.3 include the following Lemma 3.1 in which the upper bound is given by Gundersen [17] while the lower bound by Chen [18].

*Let*$f(z)$

*be a meromorphic function with finite order*

*ρ*.

*Then*,

*for any given*$\epsilon >0$,

*there exists a set*$E\subset (1,+\mathrm{\infty})$

*of finite linear measure such that*,

*for all*

*z*

*satisfying*$|z|=r\notin [0,1]\cup E$

*and*

*r*

*sufficiently large*,

*Proof of Theorem 1.3*Without loss of generality, we assume that $p=1$. Suppose that (1.2) admits a nontrivial entire solution $f(z)$ such that $\rho (f)=\rho <k+1$. Then by Lemma 2.1, for any given

*ε*such that $0<2\epsilon <max\{k+1-\rho ,k-\sigma \}$, we have

for all *r* outside of a possible exceptional set ${E}_{1}$ with finite logarithmic measure.

for all *r* outside of a possible exceptional set ${E}_{2}$ with finite linear measure.

a contradiction. And hence we have $\rho (f)\ge k+1$. □

## 4 Proofs of Theorems 1.4 and 1.5

**Lemma 4.1** [3]

*Let*${f}_{j}(z)$ ($j=1,2,\dots ,n$, $n\ge 2$)

*be meromorphic functions and*${g}_{j}(z)$ ($j=1,2,\dots ,n$, $n\ge 2$)

*be entire functions such that*

- 1.
${\sum}_{j=1}^{n}{f}_{j}(z){e}^{{g}_{j}(z)}\equiv 0$,

- 2.
${g}_{j}(z)-{g}_{k}(z)$

*are not constant functions for*$1\le j<k\le n$. - 3.
$T(r,{f}_{j})=o(T(r,{e}^{{g}_{h}-{g}_{k}}))$ ($r\to \mathrm{\infty}$, $r\notin E$),

*where**E**is an exceptional set of finite linear measure*, $1\le j\le n$*and*$1\le h<k\le n$.

*Then* ${f}_{j}(z)\equiv 0$ ($j=1,2,\dots ,n$).

*Proofs of Theorems 1.4 and 1.5* In fact, we only give the proof of Theorem 1.5 since the proof of Theorem 1.4 is similar.

Obviously, we have $\rho (D)\le k$.

Then $\lambda (f-z)=\rho (f)$ follows.

Next, we assert that either $k+1\le \rho (f)\le max\{\lambda (f),\lambda (1/f)\}+1$ or $\rho (f)=k+1$. If the assertion does not hold, we have $max\{k,\lambda (f),\lambda (1/f)\}+1<\rho (f)<\mathrm{\infty}$.

*m*. Applying the Hadamard factorization of a meromorphic function, we write $f(z)$ as follows:

where ${P}_{1}(z)$, ${P}_{2}(z)$ are entire functions such that $\rho ({P}_{1})=\lambda (f)$, $\rho ({P}_{1})=\lambda (1/f)$ and $Q(z)$ is a polynomial such that $degQ(z)=q>max\{k,\lambda (f),\lambda (1/f)\}+1$.

for $3\le j\le n+1$. Notice that $deg(Q(z+h)-Q(z+k))=q-1>\rho ({h}_{j})$ for $1\le h<k\le n$ and $0\le j\le n$. Thus, Lemma 4.1 is valid for (4.1) and hence we get that ${h}_{j}(z)\equiv 0$ for $j=0,1,\dots ,n$, a contradiction to our assumption. This completes our proof. □

## Declarations

### Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editor and the referees for their constructive comments to improve the readability of our paper. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11226091) and the Natural Science Research Projects of GDOU (No. 1212331).

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Hayman WK:
*Meromorphic Functions*. Clarendon, Oxford; 1964.MATHGoogle Scholar - Laine I:
*Nevanlinna Theory and Complex Differential Equations*. de Gruyter, Berlin; 1993.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Yang CC, Yi HX Math. Appl. 557. In
*The Uniqueness Theory of Meromorphic Functions*. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht; 2003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Shimomura S: Entire solutions of a polynomial difference equation.
*J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. IA Math.*1981, 28: 253–266.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Yanagihara N: Meromorphic solutions of some difference equations.
*Funkc. Ekvacioj*1980, 23: 309–326.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Ablowitz M, Halburd RG, Herbst B: On the extension of the Painlevé property to difference equations.
*Nonlinearity*2000, 13: 889–905. 10.1088/0951-7715/13/3/321MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Bergweiler W, Langley JK: Zeros of differences of meromorphic functions.
*Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc.*2007, 142: 133–147. 10.1017/S0305004106009777MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Chiang YM, Feng SJ:On the Nevanlinna characteristic $f(z+\eta )$ and difference equations in the complex plane.
*Ramanujan J.*2008, 16: 105–129. 10.1007/s11139-007-9101-1MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Chiang YM, Feng SJ: On the growth of logarithmic differences, difference quotients and logarithmic derivatives of meromorphic functions.
*Trans. Am. Math. Soc.*2009, 361(7):3767–3791. 10.1090/S0002-9947-09-04663-7MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Halburd RG, Korhonen RJ: Difference analogue of the lemma on the logarithmic derivative with applications to difference equations.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*2006, 314: 477–487. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.04.010MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Halburd RG, Korhonen RJ: Existence of finite-order meromorphic solutions as a detector of integrability in difference equations.
*Physica D*2006, 218: 191–203. 10.1016/j.physd.2006.05.005MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Halburd RG, Korhonen RJ: Nevanlinna theory for the difference operator.
*Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn., Ser. A 1 Math.*2006, 31: 463–478.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Halburd RG, Korhonen RJ: Finite-order meromorphic solutions and the discrete Painlevé equations.
*Proc. Lond. Math. Soc.*2007, 94: 443–474.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Halburd RG, Korhonen RJ: Meromorphic solutions of difference equations, integrability and the discrete Painlevé equations.
*J. Phys. A, Math. Theor.*2007, 40: R1-R38. 10.1088/1751-8113/40/6/R01MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Heittokangas J, Korhonen R, Laine I, Rieppo J, Tohge K: Complex difference equations of Malmquist type.
*Comput. Methods Funct. Theory*2001, 1: 27–39.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Laine I, Yang CC: Clunie theorems for difference and
*q*-difference polynomials.*J. Lond. Math. Soc.*2007, 76(2):556–566.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Gundersen GG: Estimates for the logarithmic derivative of a meromorphic function, plus similar estimates.
*J. Lond. Math. Soc.*1988, 37(2):88–104.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Chen ZX: The growth of solutions of a class of second-order differential equations with entire coefficients.
*Chin. Ann. Math., Ser. B*1999, 20(1):7–14. in Chinese 10.1142/S0252959999000035View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar

## Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.