Abstract
In this paper, we describe the properties of entire solutions of a nonlinear differential-difference equation and a Fermat type equation, and improve several previous theorems greatly. In addition, we also deduce a uniqueness result for an entire function f(z) that shares a set with its shift , which is a generalization of a result of Liu.
Keywords: Difference equation, Meromorphic function, Logarithmic order, Nevanlinna theory, Difference polynomials
Introduction and main result
The complex oscillation theory of meromorphic solutions of differential equations is an important topic in complex analysis. Some results can be found in Yi and Yang (2003), where Nevanlinna theory is an effective research tool. Recently, many results on meromorphic solutions of difference equations have been rapidly obtained. In this note, we are interested in the properties of entire solutions of difference and differential-difference equations.
Before proceeding, we spare the reader for a moment and assume some familiarity with the basics of Nevanlinna theory of meromorphic functions in such as the first and second main theorems, and the usual notations such as the characteristic function T(r, f), the proximity function m(r, f) and the counting function N(r, f). S(r, f) denotes any quantity satisfying as , except possibly on a set of finite logarithmic measure—not necessarily the same at each occurrence. Let a, f be meromorphic functions on . a is said to be a small function of f whenever . S(f) denotes the family of all the small functions of f. denotes the exponent of convergence of zeros of f, denotes the order of f. A differential polynomial of f means that it is a polynomial in f and its derivatives with coefficients that are small functions of f. A differential-difference polynomial of f means that it is a polynomial in f, its derivatives and its shifts with coefficients that are small functions of f.
For a meromorphic function f and a set , we define
We say that f and g share a set S counting multiplicities (CM), provided that .
Recently, there has been a renewed interest in studying meromorphic solutions of differential-difference equations, see Peng and Chen (2013), Yang and Laine (2010) and Zhang and Liao (2011). Xu et al. (2015) considered a general differential-difference equation to obtain the following theorem.
Theorem A
Consider the nonlinear differential-difference equation
| 1 |
whereare two nonzero polynomials, are two nonzero entire functions of finite order, are two nonconstant polynomials, is an integer. Suppose that an entire functionfsatisfies any one of the following two conditions:
, ;
-
.
Thenfcan not be an entire solution of (1).
After studying Theorem A, we ask whether the conclusion still holds if the condition is omitted in (1). In the paper, we consider the problem and give an affirmative answer.
Theorem 1
Suppose that an entire functionfsatisfies the following condition:
Thenfcan not be an entire solution of (1).
Liu (2009) used the idea of shared set (see Lü and Xu 2008) and studied the uniqueness problem of entire function f(z) shares a set with its difference shift as follows.
Theorem B
Letfbe a transcendental entire function of finite order, cis nonzero complex number, and letbe a non-vanishing periodic entire function with periodc. If f(z) and f(z+c) share the setCM, then f(z) must take one of the following conclusions:
, where, , andis a polynomial.
Note that the form of conclusion (3) is not similar to (1) and (2). So, it is necessary to further study the problem. In the paper, we consider Theorem B again. Due to the different method of proof we employ, we obtain the following result.
Theorem 2
Under the conditions of Theorem B, then
-
(I)
;
-
(II)
.
Examples
Below, we provide two examples to show that the cases (I) and (II) occur.
(a) Let and . Then for any , we notice that f(z) and share {} and we can easily see that . This example satisfies (I) of Theorem 2.
(b) Let and . Then for any , we notice that f(z) and share {}. Furthermore, we can easily obtain . This example satisfies case (II) of Theorem 2.
Tang and Liao (2007) considered the entire solutions of a differential equation. Liu and Cao (2013) considered a q-difference analogue of the above differential equation. Liu and Yang (2013) further generalized the result of Tang and Liao (2007) from differential equations to difference equations. They deduced the entire solutions of generalization of Fermat type equation and obtain below result.
Theorem C
Letbe two nonzero polynomial. If the difference equation
| 2 |
admits a transcendental entire solution of finite order, thenandQ(z) reduces to a constant q. Thus, whereBis a constant and, where k is an integer.
At the end of the paper, by considering a different proof of Theorem C, we generalize Theorem C from polynomial P to small function P as follows.
Theorem 3
Under the conditions of Theorem C and suppose thatP(z) is nonzero small entire function off, then the conclusions of Theorem C still hold.
Some lemmas
In this section, we state some results that we employ in our proofs.
Lemma 1
(Halburd and Korhonen 2006, Theorem 2.1) Letfbe a meromorphic function with a finite order, and letcbe complex number, . Then
wherefor allroutside of a possible exceptional setEwith finite logarithmic measure.
Lemma 2
(Yang and Laine 2010, Theorem 2.3) Letfbe a transcendental entire function, Q(z) is the canonical product offconstructed by the zeros off. Then.
The Hadamard theorem of entire functions of infinite order with has been proved in Jank and Volkmann (1985). In the following proof, we need to remove the condition . Similar to the proof of the Hadamard theorem, we prove the following result.
Lemma 3
Letfbe an entire function of infinite order with. Thenfcan be represented as
whereQ(z) is the canonical product offconstructed by the zeros off, g(z) is a transcendental entire function such that
Proof
Let
Then F(z) is entire with a Picard exceptional value 0, and hence , where g(z) is an entire function.
Since Q(z) is the canonical product of f constructed by the zeros of f, then . By Lemma 2, we have .
Note that , we have .
Proof of Theorem 1
Suppose that f is an entire solution of Eq. (1) and satisfying . By Theorem A, it is suffice to prove Theorem 1 for the case .
By Lemma 3, we can set
where Q is an entire function, g is a transcendental entire function such that
From the condition , we have . So .
Substituting into (1) we obtain that
| 3 |
where H(z) is a differential polynomial in and .
Set , then (3) becomes
which implies
| 4 |
Let . It is easy to see that and are of finite order. So and are two small functions of , which means that
Obviously, . Note that H is a differential polynomial in and , so . Rewrite (4) as
| 5 |
Next we show that . Suppose , then (1) becomes
which implies that , a contradiction. Thus, .
Suppose that . By using the second main theorem and (5), we have
which is a contradiction. So , which implies , a contradiction.
Thus, we finish the proof of Theorem 1.
Proof of Theorem 2
Since f(z) is an entire function of finite order and f(z), share the set {}, then,
| 6 |
where is a polynomial. Since a is a periodic entire function with period c, we infer by Lemma 1 that
| 7 |
and
| 8 |
| 9 |
Let , then (6) can be rewritten as
which implies
| 10 |
Dividing (10) with , we get
| 11 |
that is, all zeros of are the zeros of . Since F(z) just has multiple zeros, we have just has multiple zeros.
Rewrite (10) as
which implies
| 12 |
So has multiple zeros.
From (9)–(12), it follows that F(z), and just have multiple zeros.
Suppose that the three functions 0, and are distinct from each other.
By using the second main theorem, we obtain
a contradiction.
Then two of the above three functions must be equal.
-
(i)
If , then , which implies or . Furthermore, it leads to the case (I).
-
(ii)
If , then , which implies , we get the same conclusion of (i).
-
(iii)If , then
which implies that . Then, a calculation leads to is a constant and . So, .If , then we get the same conclusion of (i) and (ii).
If , then
Furthermore,
which implies . We obtain or , which is (I) or (II).Thus, we finish the proof of Theorem 2.
Proof of Theorem 3
Suppose that f is a transcendental entire solution of finite order of (2). Set
| 13 |
then (2) can be rewritten as , which implies
| 14 |
Thus all the zeros of H(z) are the zeros of . Since H just has multiple zeros, just has multiple zeros.
From (13), we have . Then
| 15 |
Note that just has multiple zeros. Then, it follows from the above equation that just has multiple zeros.
From (13)–(15), we obtain G, , just have multiple zeros.
Suppose that the three functions 0, Q(z), are distinct from each other. Then, by using the second main theorem, we obtain
a contradiction. Then two of the above three functions must be equal.
Since , we have , which implies
Because Q(z) is a nonzero polynomial, we have and Q(z) reduces to a constant. Furthermore, by Liu et al. (2012, Theorem 1.1), we obtain the desired result.
Thus, we finish the proof of Theorem 3.
Conclusions
This paper provides three results. Firstly, we consider the existence of the solutions of a nonlinear differential-difference equation under a general condition. Secondly, we prove a uniqueness theorem of entire function f(z) shares a set with its difference shift . At last, we obtain the entire function solutions of a general Fermat type equation. The above three results were obtained by the different proofs, which can be used later.
Authors' contributions
CPL, FL and JFX completed the main part of this article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
The research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province Youth Fund Project (ZR2012AQ021), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (15CX08011A,15CX05063A), the training plan for the Outstanding Young Teachers in Higher Education of Guangdong (Nos. Yq2013159, SYq2014002) and NSF of Guangdong Province (Nos. 2016A030313002, 2015A030313644).
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Contributor Information
Cuiping Li, Email: upclicuiping@163.com.
Feng Lü, Email: lvfeng18@gmail.com.
Junfeng Xu, Email: xujfmath@163.com.
References
- Halburd RG, Korhonen RJ. Nevanlinna theory for the difference operator. Ann Acad Sci Fenn Math. 2006;31:463–478. [Google Scholar]
- Jank G, Volkmann L. Meromorphe funktionen und differentialgleichungen. Basel-Boston: Birkhäuser; 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Liu K. Meromorphic functions sharing a set with applications to difference equations. J Math Anal Appl. 2009;359:384–393. doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2009.05.061. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Liu K, Cao TB. Entire solutions of fermat type -difference differential equations. Electron J Differ Equ. 2013;2013(59):1–10. doi: 10.14232/ejqtde.2013.1.45. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Liu K, Cao TB, Cao HZ. Entire solutions of Fermat type differential-difference equations. Arch Math. 2012;99:147–155. doi: 10.1007/s00013-012-0408-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Liu K, Yang LZ. On entire solutions of some differential-difference equations. Comput Methods Funct Theory. 2013;13:433–447. doi: 10.1007/s40315-013-0030-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Lü F, Xu JF. Sharing set and normal families of entire functions and their derivatives. Houst J Math. 2008;34(4):1213–1223. [Google Scholar]
- Peng CW, Chen ZX. On a conjecture concerning some nonlinear difference equations. Bull Malays Math Sci Soc. 2013;36:221–227. [Google Scholar]
- Tang JF, Liao LW. The transcendental meromorphic solutions of a certain type of nonlinear differential ential equations. J Math Anal Appl. 2007;334:517–527. doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.12.075. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Xu N, Cao TB, Liu K. Entire solutions for nonlinear differential-difference equations. Electron J Differ Equ. 2015;22:1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Yang CC, Laine I. On analogies between nonlinear difference and differential equations. Proc Jpn Acad Ser A. 2010;86:10–14. doi: 10.3792/pjaa.86.10. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Yi HX, Yang CC. Uniqueness theory of meromorphic functions. New York: Kluwer; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang J, Liao LW. On entire solutions of a certain type of nonlinear differential and difference equations. Taiwan J Math. 2011;15:2145–2157. [Google Scholar]
