검색
Article Search

JMB Journal of Microbiolog and Biotechnology

OPEN ACCESS eISSN 0454-8124
pISSN 1225-6951
QR Code

Article

Kyungpook Mathematical Journal 2021; 61(4): 745-763

Published online December 31, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5666/KMJ.2021.61.4.745

Copyright © Kyungpook Mathematical Journal.

Class of Meromorphic Functions Partially Shared Values with Their Differences or Shifts

Molla Basir Ahamed

Department of Mathematics, Kalipada Ghosh Tarai Mahavidyalaya, Bagdogra, West Bengal, 734014, India
e-mail : bsrhmd117@gmail.com, basir_math_kgtm@yahoo.com
Present Address: Department of Mathematics, Jadavpur University, Kolkata-700032, West Bengal, India
e-mail : mbahamed.math@jadavpuruniversity.in

Received: October 17, 2020; Accepted: August 10, 2021

For a value s{}, two meromorphic functions f and g are said to share the value s, CM , (or IM), provided that f(z)s and g(z)-s have the same set of zeros, counting multiplicities, (respectively, ignoring multiplicities). We say that a meromorphic function f shares sS^ partially with a meromorphic function g if E(s,f)E(s,g). It is easy to see that "partially shared values CM" are more general than "shared values CM". With the help of partially shared values, in this paper, we prove some uniqueness results between a non-constant meromorphic function and its generalized differences or shifts. We exhibit some examples to show that the result of Charak et al. [8] is not true for k=2 or k=3. We find some gaps in proof of the result of Lin et al. [24]. We not only correct these resuts, but also generalize them in a more convenient way. We give a number of examples to validate certain claims of the main results of this paper and also to show that some of conditions are sharp. Finally, we pose some open questions for further investigation.

Keywords: Meromorphic function, uniqueness problems, Partially shared values, shift or difference operator, periodic function

We assume that the reader is familiar with the elementary Nevanlinna theory, for detailed information, we refer the reader [15, 16, 22] and references therein. Meromorphic functions are non-constant unless otherwise specified. For such a function f and a¯=:{}, each z with f(z)=a will be called a-point of f. We will use here some standard definitions and basic notations from this theory. In particular, N(r,a;f) (N¯(r,a;f)) is the counting function (reduced counting function) of a-points of f, T(r,f) is the Nevanlinna characteristic function of f, and S(r,f) is any function of smaller order than T(r,f) when r. We also denote *:={0}.

For a meromorphic function f, the order ρ(f) and the hyper-order ρ2(f) of f are defined by

ρ(f)=limsuprlog+T(r,f)logr,ρ2(f)=limsuprlog+log+T(r,f)logr. 

For a{}, we also define

Θ(a;f)=1limsupr+N¯r,1/(fa)T(r,f).

We denote by S(f) the family of all meromorphic functions s for which T(r,s)=o(T(r,f)), where r outside of a possible exceptional set of finite logarithmic measure. Moreover, we also include all constant functions in S(f), and let S^(f)=S(f){}. For sS^(f), we say that two meromorphic functions f and g share s CM when f-s and g-s have the same zeros with the same multiplicities. If multiplicities are not taking into account, then we say that f and g share s IM.

The five-point and four-point uniqueness theorems of Nevanlinna [30] are classical uniqueness results in the theory of meromorphic functions. The five-point theorems states that if two meromorphic functions f, g share five distinct values in the extended complex plane IM, then fg. The beauty of this result lies in the fact that there is no counterpart of this result in case of real valued functions. On the other hand, four-point theorem states that if two meromorphic functions f,g share four distinct values in the extended complex plane CM, then fTg, where T is a Möbius transformation.

These results initiated the study of uniqueness of two meromorphic functions f and g. The study of such uniqueness becomes more interesting if the function g has some expressions in terms of f.

The following definition will be used later.

Definition 1.1. f and g be two meromorphic functions such that f and g share the value a with weight k where a{}. We denote by N¯E(k+1r,1/(fa) the counting function of those a-points of f and g where p=q≥ k+1, each point in this counting function is counted only once.

In what follows, let c be a non-zero constant. For a meromorphic function f, let us now denote its shift Icf and difference operators Δcf, respectively, by Icf(z)=f(z+c) and Δcf(z)=(Ic1)f(z)=f(z+c)f(z).

For finite ordered meromorphic functions, Halburd and Korhonen [17], and independently Chiang and Feng [13], developed parallel difference versions of the famous Nevanlinna theory. As applications of this theory, we refer the reader to such articles as [3, 4, 7, 6, 9, 36]) for set sharing problems, as [1, 27, 32] for finding solutions to the Fermat-type difference equations, as [14] for Nevanlinna theory of the Askey–Wilson divided difference operators, and as [28] and references therein for meromorphic solutions to the difference equations of Malmquist type.

Regarding periodicity of meromorphic functions, Heittokangas et al. [20, 21] have considered the problem of value sharing between meromorphic functions and their shifts and obtained the following results.

Theorem A.([20]) Let f be a meromorphic function of finite order, and let c*. If f(z) and f(z+c) share three distinct periodic functions s1,s2,s3S^(f) with period cCM, then f(z)f(z+c) for all z.

In 2009, Heittokangas et al. [21] improved Theorem A by replacing "sharing three small functions CM" by "2CM+1IM" as follows.

Theorem B.([21]) Let f be a meromorphic function of finite order, and let c*. Let s1,s2,s3S^(f) be three distinct periodic function with period c. If f(z) and f(z+c) share s1,s2S^(f) CM and s3 IM , then f(z)f(z+c) for all z.

In 2014, Halburd et al. [19] extended some results in this direction to meromorphic functions f whose hyper-order ρ2(f) is less than one. One may get much more information (see [1, 4, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26] and the references therein) about the relationship between a meromorphic function f(z) and it shift f(z+c).

In 2016, in this direction, Li and Yi [23] obtained a uniquenessresult of meromorphic functions f sharing four values with their shifts f(z+c).

Theorem C.([23]) Let f be a non-constant meromorphic function of hyper-order ρ2(f)<1and c*. Suppose that f and f(z+c) share 0, 1, η IM, and share ∞ CM, where η is a finite value such that η0,1. Then f(z)f(z+c) for all z.

We now recall here the definition of partially shared values by two meromorphic functions f and g.

Definition 1.2.([10]) Let f and G be non-constant meromorphic functions and s{}. Denote the set of all zeros of f-s by E(s,f) , where a zero of multiplicity m is counted m times. If E(s,f)E(s,g), then we say that f and g partially share the value s CM. Note that E(s,f)=E(s,g) is equivalent to f and g share the value s CM. Therefore, it is easy to see that the condition "partially shared values CM" is more general than the condition"shared value CM".

In addition, let E¯(s,f) denote the set of zeros of f-s, where a zero is counted only once in the set, and E¯k)(s,f) denote the set of zeros of f-s with multiplicity lk, where a zero with multiplicity l is counted only once in the set. The reduced counting function corresponding to to E¯k)(s,f) are denoted by N¯k)(r,1/(fs)).

Charak et al. [8] gave the following definition of partial sharing.

Definition 1.3.([8]) We say that a meromorphic function f share sS^ partially with a meromorphic function g if E¯(s,f)E¯(s,g), where E¯(s,f) is the set of zeros of f(z)-s(z), where each zero is counted only once.

Let f and g be two non-constant meromorphic functions and s(z)S^(f)S^(g). We denote by N¯0(r,s;f,g) the counting function of common solutions of f(z)-s(z)=0 and g(z)s(z)=0, each counted only once. Put

N¯12(r,s;f,g)=N¯r,1fs+N¯r,1gs2N¯0(r,s;f,g).

It is easy to see that N¯12(r,s;f,g) denoted the counting function of distinct solutions of the simultaneous equations f(z)-s(z)=0 and g(z)s(z)=0.

In 2016, Charak et al. [8] introduced the above notion of partial sharing of values and applying this notion of sharing, they have obtained the following interesting result.

Theorem D.([8]) Let f be a non-constant meromorphic function of hyper order ρ2(f)<1, and c*. Let s1,s2,s3,s4S^(f) be four distinct periodic functions with period c. If δ(s,f)>0 for some sS^(f) and

E¯(sj,f)E¯(sj,f(z+c)),j=1, 2, 3, 4,

then f(z)=f(z+c) for all z.

In 2018, Lin et al. [24] investigated further on the result of Charak et al. [8] replacing the condition "partially shared value E¯(s,f)E¯(s,f(z+c))" by the condition "truncated partially shared value E¯k)(s,f)E¯k)(s,f(z+c))", k is a positive integer. By the following example, Lin et. al. [24] have shown thatthe result of Charak et. al. [8] is not be true for k=1 if truncated partially shared values is considered.

Example 1.4.([24]) Let f(z)=2ez/(e2z+1) and c=π i, s1=1, s2=-1, s3=0, s4= and k=1. It is easy to see that f(z+πi)=2ez/(e2z+1) and f(z) satisfies all the otherconditions of Theorem D, but f(z)f(z+c).

However, after a careful investigation, we find that Theorem D is not valid in fact for each positive integer k although f(z) and f(z+c) share value s{s1,s2,s3,s4} CM. We give here only two examples to show that the result of Charak et al. [8] is not true for k=2 and k=3.

Example 1.5. Let f(z)=aez(e2z+3)/3e2z+1, c=πi and s1=a, s2=-a, where a*, s3=0, s4= and k1=2=k2 . It i easy to see that f(z+πi)=aez(e2z+3)/3e2z+1 and f(z) satisfies all the conditions of Theorem D, but f(z)f(z+c).

Example 1.6. Let f(z)=4aez(e2z+1)/e4z+6e2z+1 and c=πi, s1=a, s2=-a, where a*, s3=0, s4= and k1=3=k2. Then clearly f(z+πi)=4aez(e2z+1)/e4z+6e2z+1 and f(z) satisfies all the conditions of Theorem D, but f(z)f(z+c).

In 2018, Lin et al. [24] established thefollowing result considering partially sharing values.

Theorem E.([24]) Let f be a non-constant meromorphic function of hyper-order ρ2(f)<1 and c*. Let k1, k2 be two positive integers, and let s1,s2S(f){0}, and s3,s4S^(f) be four distinct periodic functions with period c such that f and f(z+c) share s3,s4 CM and

E¯kj)(sj,f)E¯kj)(sj,f(z+c)),j=1,2.

If Θ(0,f)+Θ(;f)>2/(k+1), where k=min{k1,k2}, then f(z)f(z+c) for all z.

As a consequence of Theorem E, Lin et al. [24] have obtained the following result.

Theorem F.([24]) Let f be a non-constant meromorphic function of hyper order ρ2(f)<1, Θ(,f)=1 and c*. Let s1,s2,s3S(f) be three distinct periodic functions with period c such that f(z) and f(z+c) share s3 CM and

E¯k)(sj,f)E¯k)(sj,f(z+c)),j=1,2.

If k2, then f(z)f(z+c) for all z.

The authors have showed that number "k= 2" is sharp for the function f(z)=sinz and c=π. It is easy to see that f(z+c) and f(z) share the value 0 CM and E¯1)(1,f(z))=E¯1)(1,f(z+c))=ϕ and E¯1)(1,f(z))=E¯1)(1,f(z+c))=ϕ but f(z+c)f(z). Since Theorem F is true for k2, hence Lin et al. [24] investigated further to explore the situation when k=1 and obtained the result.

Theorem G([24]) Let f be a non-constant meromorphic function of hyper order ρ2(f)<1, Θ(,f)=1 and c*. Let s1,s2,s3S(f) be three distinct periodic functions with period c such that f(z) and f(z+c) share s3 CM and

E¯1)(sj,f)E¯1)(sj,f(z+c)),j=1,2.

Then f(z)f(z+c) or f(z)f(z+c) for all z. Moreover, the later occurs only if s1+s2=2s3.}

Remark 1.7. We find that in the proof of [24, Theorem 1.6], the authors Lin et al. made a mistake. In Theorem 1.6, they have obtained f(z+c)f(z) as one of the conclusion when s1+s2=2s3, where originally it will be f(z+c)f(z)+2s3. One can easily understand it from the following explanation. In [24, Proof of Theorem 1.6, page - 476] the authors have obtained α=1, where α, the way they have defined, finally will be numerically equal with f(z+c)s3/f(z)s3=α, when s1+s2=2s3.Hence after combining, it is easy to see that f(z+c)s3f(z)s3=1 and this implies that f(z+c)f(z)+2s3.

In this paper, our aim is to take care of these points. We also want to extend the above results with certain suitable setting. Henceforth, for a meromorphic function f and c*, we recall here (see [2]) Lc(f):=c1f(z+c)+c0f(z), where c1(0),c0. Clearly, Lc(f) is a generalization of shift f(z+c) as well as the difference operator Δcf.

In this paper, to give a correct version of the result of Lin et al. with a general setting, we are mainly interested to find the affirmative answers of the following questions.

Question 1.8. Is it possible to extend f(z+c) upto Lc(f), in all the above mentioned results?

Question 1.9. Can we obtained a similar result of Theorem E, replacing the condition Θ(0;f)+Θ(;f)>2/(k+1), where k=min{k1,k2} by a more general one?

If answers of the above questions are found to be affirmative, then it is natural to raise the following questions.

Question 1.10. Is the new general condition, so far obtained, sharp?

Question 1.11. Can we find the class of all the meromorphic function which satisfies the difference equation Lc(f)f?

Answering the above questions is the main objective of this paper. We organize the paper as follows: In Section 2, we state the main results of this paper and exhibit several examples pertinent with the different issues regarding the main results. In Section 3, key lemmas have been stated and proved some of them. Section 4 is devoted specially to prove the main results of this paper. In Section 5, some questions have raised for further investigations on the main results of this paper.

We prove the following result generalizing that of Lin et al. [24].

Theorem 2.1. Let f be a non-constant meromorphic function of hyper order ρ2(f)<1 and c,c1*. Let k1, k2 be two positive integers, and s1, s2S{0}, s3, s4S^(f) be four distinct periodic functions with period c such that f and Lc(f) share s3, s4 CM and

E¯kj)(sj,f)E¯kj)(sj,Lc(f)),j=1,2. 

If

Θ(0;f)+Θ(;f)>1k1+1+1k2+1, 

then Lc(f)f. Furthermore, f assumes the following form

f(z)=1c0c1zcg(z),

where g(z) is a meromorphic function such that g(z+c)=g(z), for all z.

Remark 2.2. The following examples show that the condition

Θ(0;f)+Θ(;f)>1k1+1+1k2+1

in Theorem 2.1 is sharp.

Example 2.3. Let f(z)=aez(e2z+3)/3e2z+1, c=πi and s1=a, s2=-a, where a*, s3=0, s4= and k1=2=k2. It is easy to see that Lπi(f)=aez(e2z+3)/3e2z+1, where c1=c0+1, c0,c1*, and f(z) satisfies all the conditions of Theorem 2.1 and

Θ(0;f)+Θ(;f)=23=1k1+1+1k2+1,

where Θ(0,f)=1/3=Θ(,f), but Lπi(f)f.

Example 2.4. Let f(z)=4aez(e2z+1)/e4z+6e2z+1, c=πi, s1=a, s2=-a, where a*, s3=0 , s4= and k1=3=k2 . Then clearly Lπi(f)=4aez(e2z+1)/e4z+6e2z+1, where c1=c0+1, c0,c1*, and f(z) satisfies all the conditions of Theorem 2.1 and

Θ(0;f)+Θ(;f)=12=1k1+1+1k2+1,

where Θ(0,f)=1/2, Θ(,f)=0 but we see that Lπi(f)f.

As the consequence of Theorem 2.1, we obtain the following result.

Theorem 2.5. Let f be a non-constant meromorphic function of hyper-order ρ2(f)<1, Θ(,f)=1 and c,c1*. Let s1,s2,s3S^(f) be three distinct periodic functions with period c such that f and Lc(f) share s3 CM and

E¯kj)(sj,f)E¯kj)(sj,Lc(f)),j=1,2.

If k1,k22, then Lc(f)f. Furthermore, f assumes the following form

f(z)=1c0c1zcg(z),

where g(z) is a meromorphic function such that g(z+c)=g(z), for all z.

The following example shows that the number k1=2=k2 is sharp in Theorem 2.5.

Example 2.6. We consider f(z)=acosz, where a*, s1=a,s2=a and s3=0. We choose Lπ(f)=c1f(z+π)+c0f(z), where c1,c0* with c1=c0+1. Clearly f and Lπ(f) share s3 CM, Θ(,f)=1, E¯1)(a,f)=ϕ=E¯1)(a,Lπ(f)) and E¯1)(a,f)=ϕ=E¯1)(a,Lπ(f)), but f(z)Lπ(f).

Naturally, we are interested to explore the situation when k1=1=k2 and hence, we obtain the following result.

Theorem 2.7. Let f be a non-constant meromorphic function of hyper-order ρ2(f)<1 with Θ(,f)=1 and c,c1*. Let s1,s2,s3S^(f) be three distinct periodic functions with period c such that f and Lc(f) share s3 CM and

E¯1)(sj,f)E¯1)(sj,Lc(f)),j=1,2.

Then Lc(f)f or Lc(f)f+2s3. Furthermore,

  • (i) If Lc(f)f, then

    f(z)=1c0c1zcg(z).

  • (ii) If Lc(f)f+2s3, then

    f(z)=1c0c1zcg(z)+2s3,forallz,

where g(z) is a meromorphic function such that g(z+c)=g(z). Moreover, Lc(f)f+2s3 occurs only if s1+s2=2s3.

Remark 2.8. We see that Theorems 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 directly improved, respectively, Theorems E, F and G.

Remark 2.9. We see from Example 2.3 that, in Theorem 2.3, the possibility Lc(f)f+2s3 could be occurred.

The following example shows that the restrictions on the growth of f in our above results are necessary and sharp.

Example 2.10. Let f(z)=eg(z), where g(z) is an entire function with ρ(g)=1, and hence for c1=1/2=c0, it is easy to see that Lπ(z)=e2g(z)+1/2eg(z). We choose s1=1,s2=1 and s3=. Clearly Θ(,f)=1, ρ2(f)=1, f and Lπ(f) share s3 CM and E¯1)(1,f)E¯1)(1,Lπ(z)) and E¯1)(1,f)E¯1)(1,Lπ(z)) but we see that neither Lπ(z)f nor Lπ(z)f+2s3. Also the function has not the specific form.

Remark 2.11. The next example shows that the condition Θ(,f)=1 in Theorem 2.3 can not be omitted.

Example 2.12. Let f(z)=1/cosz, c1=1, c0=0, s1=1, s2=-1 and s3=0. Clearly Θ(,f)=0, f and L3π/2(f) share s3 CM, E¯1)(1,f)E¯1)(1,L3π/2(z)) and E¯1)(1,f)E¯1)(1,L3π/2(z)).However, one may observe that neither L3π/2(z)f nor L3π/2(z)f+2s3. Also the function has not the specific form.

In this section, we present some necessary lemmas which will play a key role in proving the main results. Henceforth, for a non-zero complex number c and for integers n≥ 1, we define the higher order difference operators Δcnf:=Δcn1(Δcf).

Lemma 3.1.([34]) Let c, n, let f be a meromorphic function of finite order. Then any small periodic function aa(z)S(f)

mr,Δcnff(z)a(z)=S(r,f), 

where the exponential set associated with S(r,f) is of at most finite logarithmic measure.

Lemma 3.2. ([29, 31]) If R(f) is rational in f and has small meromorphic coefficients, then

T(r,R(f))=degf(R)T(r,f)+S(r,f).

Lemma 3.3.([35]) Suppose that h is a non-constant entire function such that f(z)=eh(z), then ρ2(f)=ρ(h).

In [13, 17], the first difference analogue of the lemma on the logarithmic derivative was proved and for the hyper-order ρ2(f)<1, the following is the extension, see [19].

Lemma 3.4.([19]) Let f be a non-constant finite order meromorphic function and c. If c is of finite order, then

mr,f(z+c)f(z)=OlogrrT(r,f)

for all r outside of a set E with zero logarithmic density. If the hyper order ρ2(f)<1, then for each ϵ>0, we have

mr,f(z+c)f(z)=0T(r,f)r1ρ2ϵ

for all r outside of a set of finite logarithmic measure.

Lemma 3.5.([33]) Let f be a non-constant meromorphic function, sjS^(f), j=1,2,...,q,(q3). Then for any positive real number ϵ, we have

(q2ϵ)T(r,f) j=1qN¯r,1fsj,rE,

where E[0,) and satisfies Edloglogr<.

We now prove the following lemma, a similar proof of this lemma can also be found in [2].

Lemma 3.6. Let f be a non-constant meromorphic function such that

E¯(sj,f)E¯(sj,c1f(z+c)+c0f(z)),j=1,2,

where s1,s2S(f), c,c0,c1(0)*, then f is not a rational.

Proof We wish to prove this lemma by the method of contradiction. Let f be a rational function. Then f(z)=P(z)/Q(z) where P and Q are two polynomials relatively prime to each other and P(z)Q(z)0. Hence

E(0,P)E(0,Q)=ϕ

It is easy to see that

c1f(z+c)+c0f(z)=c1P(z+c)Q(z+c)+c0P(z)Q(z)        =c1P(z+c)Q(z)+c0P(z)Q(z+c)Q(z+c)Q(z)        =P1(z)Q1(z),(say)

where P1 and Q1 are two relatively prime polynomials and P1(z)Q1(z)0.

Since E¯(s1,f)E¯(s1,c1f(z+c)+c0f(z)) and f is a rational function, there must exists a polynomial h(z) such that

c1f(z+c)+c0f(z)s1=(fs1)h(z)

which can be re-written as

c1P(z+c)Q(z)+c0P(z)Q(z+c)Q(z+c)Q(z)s1P(z)Q(z)s1h(z).

We now discuss the following cases:

Case 1. Let P(z) is non-constant.

Then by the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, there exists z0 such that P(z0)=0. Then it follows from (3.2) that

c1P(z0+c)Q(z0+c)(1h(z0))s10, 

where s10=s1(z0).

Subcase 1.1. Let z0 be such that s1(z0)=0.

Then from (3.3), it is easy to see that P(z0+c)=0. Then we can deduce from (3.1) that P(z0+mc)=0 for all positive integer m. However, this is impossible, and hence we conclude that the polynomial P(z) is a non-zero constant.

Subcase 1.2. Let z0 be such that s1(z0)0.

Then from (3.3), we obtain

P(z0+c)s10c1(1h(z0))Q(z0+c).

Next proceeding exactly same way as done in above, we obtain

P(z0+mc)s10c1(1h(z0))Q(z0+mc).

In view of (3.3) and (3.4), a simple computation shows that

P(z0+c)Q(z0+c)=P(z0+mc)Q(z0+mc)forallpositiveintegersm, 

which contradicts the fact that E(0,P)E(0,Q)=ϕ.

Therefore, it is easy to see that f(z) takes the form f(z)=η/Q(z), where P(z)=η=constant(0).

Case 2. Let Q(z) be non-zero constant.

Now

c1f(z+c)+c0f(z)=c1ηQ(z)+c0ηQ(z+c)Q(z+c)Q(z).

Since E(s2,f)=E(s2,c1f(z+c)+c0f(z)), hence there must exists a polynomial h1(z) such that c1f(z+c)+c0f(z)s2=(fs2)h1(z), which can be written as

c1Q(z)+c0Q(z+c)ηs2Q(z)dh1(z)Q(z+c).

Since Q(z), and hence Q(z+c) are a non-constant polynomials, hence by the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, there must exist z0 and z1 such that Q(z0)=0=Q(z1+c).

Subcase 2.1. When Q(z0)=0, then from (3.6), we see that h1(z0)=c0/η, which is absurd.

Subcase 2.2. When Q(z1+c)=0, then from (3.6), we get Q(z1)=0 , which is not possible.

Therefore, we conclude that Q(z) is a non-zero constant, say η2. Thus we have f(z)=η/η2, a constant, which is a contradiction. This completes the proof.

Lemma 3.7.([19]) Let T:[0,+][0,+] be a non-decreasing continuous function, and let s(0,+). If the hyper-order of T is strictly less than one, i.e.,

limsupr+log+log+T(r)logr=ρ2<1,

then

T(r+s)=T(r)+oT(r)r1ρ2ϵ,

where ϵ>0 and r, outside of a set of finite logarithmic measure.

In this section, we give the proofs of our main results.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. First of all we suppose that sj, j=1,2,3,4. By the assumption of the theorem, f(z) and Lc(f)=c1f(z+c)+c0f(z) share s3, s4 CM, hence we must have

fs3Lc(f)s4fs4Lc(f)s3=eh(z),

where h(z) is an entire function with ρ(h)<1 by Lemma 3.3. In view of Lemma 3.4, we obtain

Tr,eh=S(r,f). 

Next we suppose that z0E¯k)(s1,f)E¯k)(s2,f). Then from (3.1), one may easily deduce that eh(z0)=1. For the sake of convenience, we setγ:=eh(z) and

S(r):=S(r,L(f))=S(r,f).

We now split the problem into two cases.

Case 1. Let eh(z)1.

A simple computation shows that that

N¯k1)r,1fs1Nr,1γ1T(r,γ)+O(1)S(r)

and

N¯k2)r,1fs2Nr,1γ1T(r,γ)+O(1)S(r). 

Without loss of generality, we may assume that s3, s4S(f){0}. By Lemma 3.5, for

ϵ0,13Θ(0;f)+Θ(;f)1k1+11k2+1,

we obtain

(4ϵ)T(r,f)N¯(r,f)+N¯r,1f+ j=14 N ¯ r,1fsj+S(r,f).

With the help of (4.2) and (4.3), it follows from (4.4) that

(2ϵ)T(r,f)N¯(r,f)+N¯r,1f+ j=12 N ¯(kj+1r,1fsj+S(r,f) 

which gives

Θ(0;f)+Θ(;f)1k1+1+1k2+1

and this contradicts

Θ(0;f)+Θ(;f)>1k1+1+1k2+1.

Case 2. Therefore, we have eh(z)1 and hence

(fs3)(Lc(f)s4)(fs4)(Lc(f)s3)=1.

On simplification, it is easy to obtain Lc(f)f(z), for all z.

We are now to find the class of all the meromorphic functions satisfying the difference equation Lc(f)f. By assumption of the result, and using Lemma 3.6, it is easy to see that f is not a rational function. Therefore f(z) must be a transcendentalmeromorphic function.

We also see that f(z) and f(z+c) are related by

f(z+c)=1c0c1f(z). 

Let f1(z) and f2(z) be two solutions of (4.5) (see [2] for more details). Then it is easy to see that

f1(z+c)=1c0 c1 f1(z) f2(z+c)=1c0 c1 f2(z).

We set h(z):=f1(z)/f2(z). Then in view of (4.6) and (4.7), we obtain

h(z+c)=f1(z+c)f2(z+c)=1c0c1f1(z)1c0c1f2(z)=f1(z)f2(z)=h(z),

for all z. Therefore, it is easy to verify that

f2(z)=1c0 c1 zcg2(z),

where g2(z) is a meromorphic function with g2(z+c)=g2(z), is a solution of (4.5). Hence, it is also easy to verify that f1(z)=f2(z)h(z), a solution of (4.5). Thus the linear combination

a1f1(z)+a2f2(z)=1c0c 1zca1h(z)+a2g2(z)        =1c0c 1zcσ(z),

where σ(z)=a1h(z)+a2g2(z) is such that σ(z+c)=σ(z), for all z, is the general solution of (4.5). Hence, the precise form of the function f is the following

f(z)=1c0c1zcg(z),

where g(z) is a meromorphic function with g(z+c)=g(z), for all z.

This completes the proof.

Proof of Theorem 2.3 Let us suppose that g(z) is the canonical product of the poles of f. Then by Lemma 3.4, we obtain

mr,g(z+c)g(z)=S(r,f). 

Since Θ(;f)=1, hence it is easy to see that

limsupr+N¯(r,f)T(r,f)=0.

Therefore, it follows from (4.8) that

Tr,g(z+c)g(z)=S(r,f).

Since f and Lc(f) share s3 CM, by Lemma 3.3, we obtain

Lc(f)s3fs3=eH(z)g(z)g(z+c),

where H(z) is an entire function with ρ(H)<1. By Lemma 3.4, we also obtain

Tr,eH(z)g(z)g(z+c)=S(r,f).

Therefore, by Lemma 3.2 and (4.11), a simple computation shows that T(r,Lc(f))=T(r,f)+S(r,f). For the sake convenience, we set

β:=eH(z)g(z)g(z+c)andS(r):=S(r,Lc(f))=S(r,f)

If Lc(f)f(z). i.e., if β1, then with the help of (4.10) and from the assumption, we obtain

N¯1)r,1fs1Nr,1β1T(r,β)+O(1)=S(r).

and

N¯1)r,1fs2Nr,1β1T(r,β)+O(1)=S(r).

By Lemma 3.7, and using (4.12) and (4.13), by a simple computation, we obtain

N¯1)r,1Lc (f)s1 N¯1)r,1fs1 +S(r)=S(r).

and

N¯1)r,1Lc (f)s2 N¯1)r,1fs1 +S(r)=S(r).

On the other hand, it follows from (4.10) that

Lc(f)s1=(s3s1)+β(fs3)    =βfs1+(β1)s3β

Similarly, we obtain

Lc(f)s2=βfs2 +(β1)s3 β.

It is easy to see that

Nr,1Lc(f)s1=Nr,1fs1+(β1)s3β+S(r). 

and

Nr,1Lc(f)s2=Nr,1fs2+(β1)s3β+S(r).

Now our aim is to deal with the following three cases.

Case 1. Suppose that (β1)s3+s1/βs2.

Since (β1)s3+s1/βs1 and Θ(;f)=1, hence by Lemma 3.5 for ϵ0,1/2, it follows from (4.10), (4.12), (4.13), (4.14) and (4.18) that

(2ϵ)T(r,f)N¯(r,f)+N¯r,1f+N¯r,1fs2+N¯r,1f(β1)s3+s1β N ¯ (2r,1fs1+ N ¯ (2r,1fs2+ N ¯ (2r,1Lc(f)s112T(r,f)+12T(r,f)+12T(r,f)+S(r)=32T(r,f)+S(r,f),

which is a contradiction.

Case 2. Suppose that (β1)s3+s2/βs1c.

Since (β1)s3+s2/βs2 and Θ(;f)=1, hence by applying the same argument as in Case 1, we arrive at a contradiction.

Therefore, we must have Lc(f)f, and hence following the proof of Theorem 2.1, we obtain the precise form of the function.

Case 3. Suppose that

(β1)s3+s2β=s1

and

(β1)s3+s1β=s2.

An elementary calculation shows that β =-1, so that 2s3=s1+s2. Therefore, from (4.10), we have Lc(f)f(z)+2s3 and by the same argument used in the previous cases, it is not hard to show that f(z) will take the form

f(z)=1c0c1zcg(z)+2s3,for allz,

where g(z) is a meromorphic function with period c. This completes the proof.

Let us suppose that Lc(f)f, where f is a non-constant meromorphic functions. Since f can not be rational function (see [2] for detailed information), hence f must be transcendental and hence f(z) takes the precise form

f(z)=1c0c1zcg(z),

where g(z) is a meromorphic periodic function c. We can write f(z)=αzcg(z), where α is a root of the equation c1z+c0=1.

For more generalization of Lc(f), we define Lcn(f):=cnf(z+nc)++c1f(z+c)+c0f(z) (see [5] for details), where cn(0),c1,c0. For particular values of the constants cj=(1)njn j for j=0,1,,n, it is easy to see that Lcn(f)=Δcn(f).

One can verify that f(z)=2zcg(z), where g is a meromorphic function of period c, solves the difference equation Δcn(f)f. We are mainly interested to find the precise form of the function f when it solves the difference equation Lcn(f)f. However, regarding the complete solution, we conjecture the following.

Conjecture 5.1. Let f be a meromorphic function such that Lcn(f)f, then f assumes the form

f(z)=αnz/cgn(z)++α1z/cg1(z),

where gj(j=1,2,,n) are meromorphic functions of period c, and αj(j=1,2,,n) are roots of the equation cnzn++c1z+c0=1.

Based on the above discussions, we also pose the following question for future investigations on the main results of the paper.

Question 5.2. Keeping all other conditions intact, for a meromorphic function f, is it possible to get a corresponding result of Theorems 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 for Lcn(f)?

The author would like to thank the referees for their constructive comments that led to better presentation of the paper.

  1. M. B. Ahamed, On the Fermat-type difference equation f3(z)+[c1f(z+c)+c0f(z)]3 = eαz+β, J. Contemp. Math. Anal., 56(5)(2021), 255-269.
  2. M. B. Ahamed, An investigation on the conjecture of Chen and Yi, Results Math., 74(3)(2019), 122.
    CrossRef
  3. M. B. Ahamed, On the periodicity of meromorphic functions when sharing two sets IM, Stud. Univ. Babés-Bolyai Math., 64(3)(2019), 497-510.
    CrossRef
  4. M. B. Ahamed and G. Haldar, Uniqueness of di erence-di erential polynomials of meromorphic functions sharing a small function IM, J. Anal., (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41478-021-00336-3.
    CrossRef
  5. A. Banerjee and M. B. Ahamed, Results on meromorphic functions sharing two sets with its linear c-shift operators, J. Contemp. Math. Anal., 55(3)(2020), 143-155.
    CrossRef
  6. A. Banerjee and M. B. Ahamed, Uniqueness of meromorphic function with its shift operator under the purview of two or three shared sets, Math. Slovaca, 69(3)(2019), 557-572.
    CrossRef
  7. A. Banerjee and M. B. Ahamed, On Some Sufficient Conditions for Periodicity of Meromorphic Function Under New Shared Sets, Filomat, 33(18)(2019), 6055-6072.
    CrossRef
  8. K. S. Charak, R. J. Korhonen and G. Kumar, A note on partial sharing of values of meromorphic function with their shifts, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 435(2)(2016), 1241-1248.
    CrossRef
  9. B. Q. Chen and Z. X. Chen, Meromorphic functions sharing two sets with its Difference Operator, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc., 35(3)(2012), 765-774.
  10. S. J. Chen, On Uniqueness of Meromorphic Functions and Their Difference Operators with Partially Shared Values, Comput. Methods Funct. Theory, 18(3)(2018), 529-536.
    CrossRef
  11. S. J. Chen and W. C. Lin, Periodicity and uniqueness of meromorphic functions concerning three sharing values, Houston J. Math. 2016, Preprint.
  12. S. J. Chen and A. Z. Xu, Periodicity and unicity of meromorphic functions with three shared values, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 385(1)(2012), 485-490.
    CrossRef
  13. Y. M. Chiang and S. J. Feng, On the Nevanlinna characteristic of f(z + η) and difference equations in the complex plane, Ramanujan J, 16(1)(2008), 105-129.
    CrossRef
  14. Y.-M. Chiang and S. Feng, Nevanlinna theory of the AskeyWilson divided difference operator, Advances Math., 329(2018), 217-272.
    CrossRef
  15. A. Goldberg and I. Ostrovskii, Value Distribution of Meromorphic Functions, Transl. Math. Monogr., vol. 236, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2008, translated from the 1970 Russian original by Mikhail Ostrovskii, with an appendix by Alexandre Eremenko and James K. Langley.
  16. W. K. Hayman, Meromorphic functions, The Clarendon Press, Oxford (1964).
  17. R. G. Halburd and R. j. Korhonen, Difference analogue of the lemma on the log-arithmic derivative with applications to difference equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 314(2)(2006), 477-487.
    CrossRef
  18. R. G. Halburd and R. j. Korhonen, Nevanlinna theory for the difference operator, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math., 31(2)(2006), 463-478.
  19. R. G. Halburd, R. Korhonen and K. Tohge, Holomorphic curves with shift invariant hyperplane preimages, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 366(8)(2014), 4267-4298.
    CrossRef
  20. J. Heittokangas, R. Korhonen, I. Laine and J. Rieppo, Uniqueness of meromorphic functions sharing values with their shifts, Complex Var. Elliptic Equ., 56(1-4)(2001), 81-92.
    CrossRef
  21. J. Heittokangas, R. Korhonen, I. Laine and J. Rieppo, Value sharing results for shifts of meromorphic functions, and sufficient conditions for periodicity, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 355(1)(2009), 352-363.
    CrossRef
  22. I. Laine, Nevanlinna Theory and Complex Di erential Equations, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1993.
    CrossRef
  23. X. M. Li and H. X. Yi, Meromorphic functions sharing four values with their difference operators or shifts, Bull. Korean Math. Soc., 53(4)(2016), 1213-1235.
    CrossRef
  24. W. C. Lin, X. Q. Lin and A. Wu, Meromorphic functions partially shared values with their shifts, Bull. Korean Math. Soc., 55(2)(2018), 469-478.
  25. K. Liu, Meromorphic functions sharing a set with applications to difference equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 359(1)(2009), 384-393.
    CrossRef
  26. K. Liu and L. Z. Yang, Value distribution of the difference operator, Arch. Math.(Basel), 92(3)(2009), 270-278.
    CrossRef
  27. K. Liu, T. B. Cao and H. Z. Cao, Entire solutions of Fermat type differential-difference equations, Arch. Math., 99(2012), 147-155.
    CrossRef
  28. F. Lü, Q. Han and W. Lü, On the unicity of meromorphic solutions to difference equations of Malmquist type, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc., 93(2016), 92-98.
    CrossRef
  29. A. Z. Mohonko, The nevanlinna characteristics of certain meromorphic functions, Teor. Funktsii Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen, 14(1971), 83{87 (Russian).
  30. R. Nevanlinna. Le thorme de PicardBorel et la thorie des fonctions mromorphes. Paris: GauthiersVillars; 1929.
  31. G. Valiron, Sur la dérivée des fonctions algébroides., Bull. Soc. Math. France, 59(1931), 17-39.
    CrossRef
  32. L. Xu and T. B. Cao, Solutions of complex Fermat-type partial difference and differential-difference equations, Mediterranean J. Math., 15(2018), Article number: 227.
    CrossRef
  33. K. Yamanoi, The second main theorem for small functions and related problems, Acta Math., 192(2)(2004), 225-294.
    CrossRef
  34. N. Yanagihara, Meromorphic solutions of some difference equations, Funkcialaj Ek-vacioj, 23(1980), 309-326.
  35. C. C. Yang and H. X. Yi, Uniqueness theory of meromorphic functions, Mathematics and its Applications, 557, Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Dordrecht, 2003.
    CrossRef
  36. J. Zhang, Value distribution and sets of difference of meromorphic functions, J. Math. Anal. Math., 367(2)(2010), 401-408.
    CrossRef