Applied Mathematics
Vol.07 No.09(2016), Article ID:66816,14 pages
10.4236/am.2016.79084
Generalization of Uniqueness of Meromorphic Functions Sharing Fixed Point
Harina P. Waghamore, Sangeetha Anand
Department of Mathematics, Jnanabarathi Campus, Bangalore University, Bangalore, India
Copyright © 2016 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Received 7 January 2016; accepted 24 May 2016; published 27 May 2016
ABSTRACT
In this paper, we study the uniqueness problems of entire and meromorphic functions concerning differential polynomials sharing fixed point and obtain some results which generalize the results due to Subhas S. Bhoosnurmath and Veena L. Pujari [1] .
Keywords:
Entire Functions, Uniqueness, Meromorphic Functions, Fixed Point, Differential Polynomials
1. Introduction and Main Results
Let be a non constant meromorphic function in the whole complex plane
. We will use the following standard notations of value distribution theory:
(see [2] [3] ). We de-
note by any function satisfying
as
possibly outside of a set with
finite linear measure.
Let a be a finite complex number and k a positive integer. We denote by the counting function for zeros of
in
with multiplicity
and by
the corresponding one for which multiplicity is not counted. Let
be the counting function for zeros of
in
with multiplicity
and
the corresponding one for which multiplicity is not
counted. Set
Let be a non constant meromorphic function. We denote by
the counting function for
a-points of both and
about which
has larger multiplicity than
, where multiplicity
is not counted. Similarly, we have notation.
We say that f and g share a CM (counting multiplicity) if and
have same zeros with the same multiplicities. Similarly, we say that f and g share a IM (ignoring multiplicity) if
and
have same zeros with ignoring multiplicities.
In 2004, Lin and Yi [4] obtained the following results.
Theorem A. Let f and g be two transcendental meromorphic functions, an integer. If
and
share z CM, then either
or
where h is a non constant meromorphic function.
Theorem B. Let f and g be two transcendental meromorphic functions, an integer. If
and
share z CM, then
.
In 2013, Subhas S. Bhoosnurmath and Veena L. Pujari [1] extended the above theorems A and B with respect to differential polynomials sharing fixed points. They proved the following results.
Theorem C. Let f and g be two non constant meromorphic functions, a positive integer. If
and
share z CM, f and g share ¥ IM, then either
or
where h is a non constant meromorphic function.
Theorem D. Let f and g be two non constant meromorphic functions, a positive integer. If
and
share z CM, f and g share ¥ IM, then
.
Theorem E. Let f and g be two non constant entire functions, an integer. If
and
share z CM, then
.
In this paper, we generalize theorems C, D, E and obtain the following results.
Theorem 1. Let f and g be two non constant meromorphic functions, an integer. If
and
share z CM, f and g share ¥ IM, then
.
For, we get Theorem C.
For, we get Theorem D.
Theorem 2. Let f and g be two non constant entire functions, an integer. If
and
share z CM, then
.
2. Some Lemmas
Lemma 2.1 (see [5] ). Let and
be non constant meromorphic functions such that
. If
and
are linearly independent, then
where and
Lemma 2.2 (see [2] ). Let and
be two non constant meromorphic functions. If
, where
and
are non-zero constants, then
Lemma 2.3 (see [2] ). Let f be a non constant meromorphic function and let k be a non-negative integer, then
Lemma 2.4 (see [6] ). Suppose that is a meromorphic function in the complex plane and
, where
are small meromorphic functions of
. Then
Lemma 2.5 (see [7] ). Let and
be three meromorphic functions satisfying
,
let and
. If
and
are linearly independent then
and
are linearly independent.
Lemma 2.6 (see [8] ). Let, then
where
which are distinct respectively.
The following lemmas play a cardinal role in proving our results.
Lemma 2.7 Let f and g be two non constant meromorphic functions. If and
share z CM and
, then
Proof. Applying Nevanlinna’s second fundamental theorem (see [3] ) to, we have
(1)
By first fundamental theorem (see [3] ) and (1), we have
(2)
We know that,
(3)
Therefore, using Lemma 2.3, (2) becomes
Using we get
(4)
since, we have
This completes the proof of Lemma 2.7.
Lemma 2.8 Let f and g be two non constant entire functions. If and
share z CM and
, then
(5)
Proof. Since f and g are entire functions, we have. Proceeding as in the proof of Lemma 2.7, we can easily prove Lemma 2.8.
3. Proof of Theorems
Proof of Theorem 1. By assumption, and
share z CM, f and g share ¥ IM. Let
(6)
Then, H is a meromorphic function satisfying
By (3), we get
Therefore,
(7)
From (6), we easily see that the zeros and poles of H are multiple and satisy
(8)
Let
(9)
Then, and
denote the maximum of
We have, (10)
(11)
Therefore,
and thus
(12)
Now, we discuss the following three cases.
Case 1. Suppose that neither nor
is a constant. If
and
are linearly independent, then by Lemma 2.1 and 2.4, we have
(13)
Using (8), we note that
since, , We obtain that,
(14)
But, so we get
(15)
Using (14) and (15) in (13), we get
Since f and g share ¥ IM, we have
Using this with (8), we get
(16)
If is a zero of f with multiplicity p, then
is a zero of
with multiplicity
, we have
(17)
Similarly,
(18)
Let
(19)
By Lemma 2.6, we have
Since, we have
By the first fundamental theorem, we have
(20)
we have
(21)
where are distinct roots of algebraic equation,
From (16)-(21), we get
Using Lemma 2.3, we get
(22)
Let
Then. By Lemma 2.5,
and
are linearly independent. In the same manner as above, we get expression for
.
Note that. We have,
Simplifying, we get
(23)
or
(24)
Combining (23) and (24), we get
(25)
By and (12), we get a contradiction. Thus
and
are linearly dependent. Then, there exists three constants
such that
(26)
If from (26)
,
and
On integrating, we get
(27)
Since, we get a contradiction. Thus,
and by (26), we have
Substituting this in, we get
that is,
From (9), we obtain
(28)
Applying Lemma 2.2, to the above equation, we get
(29)
Note that,
Using (29), we get
(30)
By, Lemmas 2.3, 2.4 and (30), we have
We obtain, which contradicts
.
Case 2. Suppose that where c is constant If
then, we have
(31)
Applying Lemma 2.2 to the above equation, we have
(32)
By Lemmas 2.3, 2.4 and (32), we have
Using Lemma 2.7, we get
(33)
Since, we get contradiction
Therefore, and by (6), (8), we have
(34)
On integrating, we get
(35)
We claim that. Suppose that
, then
(36)
We have,
similarly,
Using Lemma 2.4, we have
(37)
Thus,
(38)
similarly,
Therefore, (36) becomes,
which contradicts. Thus we have
(39)
Let substituting
in the above equation, we can easily get
(40)
If h is not a constant, then with simple calculations we get contradiction (refer [9] ). Therefore h is a constant. We have from (40) that, which imply
. Hence
.
Case 3. Suppose that where c is a constant. If
, then
(41)
Applying Lemma 2.2 to above equation, we have
(42)
Using Lemmas 2.4, 2.3 and (42), we have
Using Lemma 2.7, we get
(43)
Since, we get contradiction.
Therefore
Hence,
(44)
Let be a zero of f of order p. From (44) we know that
is a pole of g. Suppose
is a pole of g of order q, from (44), we obtain
Hence,
(45)
Let be a zero of
of order
. From (44) we know that
is a pole of g. (say order
). From (44), we obtain
(46)
Let be a zero of
of order
, that is not zero of
, then from (44),
is a pole of g of order
. From (44), we have
(47)
In the same manner as above, we have similar results for zeros of. From (44)-(47), we have
(48)
(49)
By Nevanlinna’s second fundamental theorem, we have from (45), (46) and (49) that,
(50)
Similarly,
(51)
From (50) and (51), we get
since, we get a contradiction.
This completes the proof of Theorem 1.
Proof of Theorem 2. By the assumption of the theorems, we know that either both f and g are two transcendental entire functions or both f and g are polynomials. If f and g are transcendental entire functions, using and similar arguments as in the proof of Theorem 1, we can easily obtain Theorem 2. If f and g are polynomials,
and
share z CM, we get
(52)
where k is a non-zero constant. Suppose that, (52) can be written as,
(53)
Apply Lemma 2.2 to above equation, we have
Since f is a polynomial, it does not have any poles. Thus, we have
Therefore,
(54)
Using Lemmas 2.4, 2.3 and (54), we have
Using Lemma 2.8, we get
(55)
since, we get a contradiction. Therefore,
. So, (52) becomes
(56)
On Integrating, we get
(57)
We claim that. Suppose that
, then
(58)
Proceeding as in Theorem 1,
we get.
Cite this paper
Harina P. Waghamore,Sangeetha Anand, (2016) Generalization of Uniqueness of Meromorphic Functions Sharing Fixed Point. Applied Mathematics,07,939-952. doi: 10.4236/am.2016.79084
References
- 1. Bhoosnurmath, S.S. and Pujari, V.L. (2013) Uniqueness of Meromorphic Functions Sharing Fixed Point. International Journal of Analysis, 2013, Artical ID: 538027, 12 p.
- 2. Yang, C.-C. and Yi, H.-X. (2003) Uniqueness Theory of Meromorphic Functions, Mathematics and Its Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
- 3. Yang, L. (1993) Value Distribution Theory. Translated and Revised from the 1982 Chinese Original, Springer, Berlin.
- 4. Lin, W.C. and Yi, H.X. (2004) Uniqueness Theorems for Meromorphic Functions Concerning Fixed-Points. Complex Variables, Theory and Application, 49, 793-806.
- 5. Xu, J.-F., Lü, F. and Yi, H.-X. (2010) Fixed-Points and Uniqueness of Meromorphic Functions. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 59, 9-17.
- 6. Yang, C.C. (1972) On Deficiencies of Differential Polynomials, II. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 125, 107-112.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01110921 - 7. Yi, H.X. (1990) Meromorphic Functions That Share Two or Three Values. Kodai Mathematical Journal, 13, 363-372.
- 8. Frank, G. and Reinders, M. (1998) A Unique Range Set for Meromorphic Functions with 11 Elements. Complex Variables, Theory and Application, 37, 185-193.
- 9. Waghamore, H.P. and Shilpa, N. (2014) Generalization of Uniqueness Theorems for Entire and Meromorphic Functions. Applied Mathematics, 5, 1267-1274.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/am.2014.58118