Further study on the Brück conjecture and some non-linear complex differential equations

Pramanik, Dilip Chandra; Roy, Kapil

doi:10.1108/AJMS-08-2020-0047

Purpose

The purpose of this current paper is to deal with the study of non-constant entire solutions of some non-linear complex differential equations in connection to Brück conjecture, by using the theory of complex differential equation. The results generalize the results due to Pramanik et al.

Design/methodology/approach

39B32, 30D35.

Findings

In the current paper, we mainly study the Brück conjecture and the various works that confirm this conjecture. In our study we find that the conjecture can be generalized for differential monomials under some additional conditions and it generalizes some works related to the conjecture. Also we can take the complex number $a$ in the conjecture to be a small function. More precisely, we obtain a result which can be restate in the following way: Let $f$ be a non-constant entire function such that $σ_{2} (f) < \infty$ ⁠, $σ_{2} (f)$ is not a positive integer and $δ (0, f) > 0$ ⁠. Let $M [f]$ be a differential monomial of $f$ of degree $γ_{M}$ and $α (z), β (z) \in S (f)$ be such that $\max {σ (α), σ (β)} < σ (f)$ ⁠. If $M [f] + β$ and $f^{γ_{M}} - α$ share the value 0 CM, then

\frac{M [f] + β}{f^{γ_{M}} - α} = c,

where $c \neq 0$ is a constant.

Originality/value

This is an original work of the authors.

1. Introduction and main results

In this paper, by meromorphic function we shall always mean a meromorphic function in the complex plane. We adopt the standard notations in the Nevanlinna theory of meromorphic functions as explained in [1–4]. It will be convenient to let E denote any set of positive real numbers of finite linear measure, not necessarily the same at each occurrence.

For any non-constant meromorphic function $f (z)$ ⁠, we denote by $S (r, f)$ any quantity satisfying $S (r, f) = o (T (r, f))$ as $r \to \infty, r \notin E$ ⁠, where $T (r, f)$ is the Nevanlinna characteristic function of f. A meromorphic function α is said to be small with respect to $f (z)$ if $T (r, α) = S (r, f)$ ⁠. We denote by $S (f)$ the collection of all small functions with respect to f. Clearly $ℂ \cup^{} {\infty} \subset S (f)$ and $S (f)$ is a field over the set of complex numbers.

For any two non-constant meromorphic functions f and g, and $α \in S (f) \cap S (g)$ ⁠, we say that f and g share α IM(CM) provided that $f - α$ and $g - α$ have the same zeros ignoring(counting) multiplicities.

For any complex number a, the quantity defined by

δ (a, f) = \underset{r \to \infty}{\lim \inf} \frac{m (r, \frac{1}{f - a})}{T (r, f)} = 1 - \underset{r \to \infty}{\lim \sup} \frac{N (r, \frac{1}{f - a})}{T (r, f)}

is called the deficiency of a with respect to the function $f (z)$ ⁠.

We also need the following definitions:

Definition 1.1.

Let $f (z)$ be a non-constant entire function, then the order $σ (f)$ of $f (z)$ is defined by

σ (f) = \underset{r \to + \infty}{\lim \sup} \frac{\log T (r, f)}{\log r} = \underset{r \to + \infty}{\lim \sup} \frac{\log \log M (r, f)}{\log r}

and the lower order $μ (f)$ of $f (z)$ is defined by

μ (f) = \underset{r \to + \infty}{\lim \inf} \frac{\log T (r, f)}{\log r} = \underset{r \to + \infty}{\lim \inf} \frac{\log \log M (r, f)}{\log r} .

The type $τ (f)$ of an entire function $f (z)$ with $0 < σ (f) = σ < + \infty$ is defined by

τ (f) = \underset{r \to + \infty}{\lim \sup} \frac{\log M (r, f)}{r^{σ}},

where and in the sequel

M (r, f) = \max_{| z | = r} | f (z) | .

Definition 1.2.

Let f be a non-constant meromorphic function. Then the hyper-order $σ_{2} (f)$ of $f (z)$ is defined as follows:

σ_{2} (f) = \underset{r \to + \infty}{\lim \sup} \frac{\log \log T (r, f)}{\log r} .

Definition 1.3.

Let f be a non-constant meromorphic function. A differential monomial of f is an expression of the form

M [f] = a_{0} (z) f^{n_{0}} {(f^{(1)})}^{n_{1}} {(f^{(2)})}^{n_{2}} \dots {(f^{(k)})}^{n_{k}},

(1)

where $n_{0}, n_{1}, n_{2}, \dots, n_{k}$ are non-negative integers and $a_{0} (z) \in S (f)$ ⁠. The degree of the differential monomial is given by $γ_{M} = n_{0} + n_{1} + n_{2} + \dots + n_{k}$ ⁠.

Rubel and Yang [5] proved that if a non-constant entire function f and its derivative $f^{'}$ share two distinct finite complex numbers CM, then $f \equiv f^{'}$ ⁠. What will be the relation between f and $f^{'}$ ⁠, if an entire function f and its derivative $f^{'}$ share one finite complex number CM $?$ Brück [6] made a conjecture that if f is a non-constant entire function satisfying $σ_{2} (f)$ $< \infty$ ⁠, where $σ_{2} (f)$ is not a positive integer and if f and $f^{'}$ share one finite complex number a CM, then $f^{'} - a = c (f - a)$ for some finite complex number $c \neq 0$ ⁠. Brück [6] himself proved the conjecture for $a = 0$ ⁠. Brück also proved that the conjecture is true for $a \neq 0$ provided that f satisfies the additional assumption $N (r, \frac{1}{f^{'}}) = S (r, f)$ and in this case the order restriction on f can be omitted. After that many researchers [7–10] have proved the conjecture under different conditions.

In 2017, Pramanik et al. [11] investigated on the non-constant entire solution of some non-linear complex differential equations related to Brück conjecture and proved the following theorems:

Theorem 1.1.

Let $f (z)$ and $α (z)$ be two non-constant entire functions and satisfy $0 < σ (α) = σ (f) < + \infty$ and $τ (f) > τ (α)$ ⁠. Also, let $P (z)$ be a polynomial. If f is a non-constant entire solution of the following differential equation

M [f] - α = (f^{γ_{M}} - α) e^{P (z)},

then $P (z)$ is a constant.

Theorem 1.2.

Let $f (z)$ and $α (z)$ be two non-constant entire functions and satisfy $0 < σ (α) = σ (f) < + \infty$ and $τ (f) > τ (α)$ . Also, let $P (z)$ be a polynomial. If f is a non-constant entire solution of the following differential equation

M [f] + β (z) - α (z) = (f^{γ_{M}} - α (z)) e^{P (z)},

where $β (z)$ is an entire function satisfying $0 < σ (β) = σ (f) < + \infty$ and $τ (f) > τ (β)$ ⁠, then $P (z)$ is a constant.

Theorem 1.3.

Let $f (z)$ and $α (z)$ be two non-constant entire functions satisfying $σ (α) < μ (f)$ and $P (z)$ be a polynomial. If f is a non-constant entire solution of the following differential equation

M [f] + β (z) - α (z) = (f^{γ_{M}} - α (z)) e^{P (z)},

where $β (z)$ is an entire function satisfying $σ (β) < μ (f)$ ⁠. Then $σ_{2} (f) = \deg P$ ⁠.

Regarding Theorems 1.1–1.3, one can ask the the following

What will happen if $P (z)$ is an entire function $?$

In this paper we answer the question by proving the following theorems:

Theorem 1.4.

Let $f (z)$ be a non-constant entire function such that $σ_{2} (f) < \infty$ , $σ_{2} (f)$ is not a positive integer and $δ (0, f) > 0$ ⁠. Let $M [f]$ be a differential monomial of f of degree $γ_{M}$ as defined in (1), $φ (z)$ be an entire function and $α (z) \in S (f)$ be such that $σ (α) < σ (f)$ ⁠. If f is a solution of the following differential equation

M [f] - α (z) = (f^{γ_{M}} - α (z)) e^{φ (z)},

(2)

then $\frac{M [f] - α (z)}{f^{γ_{M}} - α (z)} = c$ ⁠, where $c \neq 0$ is a constant.

Theorem 1.5.

Let f be a non-constant entire function such that $σ_{2} (f) < \infty$ , $σ_{2} (f)$ is not a positive integer and $δ (0, f) > 0$ ⁠. Let $M [f]$ be a differential monomial of f of degree $γ_{M}$ as defined in (1), $φ (z)$ be an entire function and $α (z), β (z) \in S (f)$ be such that $σ (α) < σ (f)$ and $σ (β) < σ (f)$ . If f is a solution of the following differential equation

M [f] + β (z) = (f^{γ_{M}} - α (z)) e^{φ (z)},

(3)

then $\frac{M [f] + β (z)}{f^{γ_{M}} - α (z)} = c$ ⁠, where $c \neq 0$ is a constant.

2. Preparatory lemmas

In this section we state some lemmas needed to prove the theorems.

Lemma 2.1.

[2] Let $f (z)$ be a transcendental entire function, $ν (r, f)$ be the central index of $f (z)$ ⁠. Then there exists a set $E \subset (1, + \infty)$ with finite logarithmic measure such that $r \notin [0, 1] \cup E$ , consider z with $| z | = r$ and $| f (z) | = M (r, f)$ ⁠, we get

\frac{f^{(j)} (z)}{f (z)} = {\frac{ν (r, f)}{z}}^{j} (1 + o (1)), for j \in N .

Lemma 2.2.

[12] Let $f (z)$ be an entire function of finite order $σ (f) = σ < + \infty$ , and let $ν (r, f)$ be the central index of f. Then

\underset{r \to + \infty}{\lim \sup} \frac{\log ν (r, f)}{\log r} = σ (f) .

And if f is a transcendental entire function of hyper order

σ_{2} (f)

⁠, then

\underset{r \to + \infty}{\lim \sup} \frac{\log \log ν (r, f)}{\log r} = σ_{2} (f) .

Lemma 2.3.

[13] Let $f (z)$ be a transcendental entire function and let $E \subset [1, + \infty)$ be a set having finite logarithmic measure. Then there exists ${z_{n} = r_{n} e^{i θ_{n}}}$ such that $| f (z_{n}) | = M (r_{n}, f), θ_{n} \in [0,2 π), \lim_{n \to + \infty} θ_{n} = θ_{0} \in [0, 2 π], r_{n} \notin E$ and if $0 < σ (f) < + \infty$ , then for any given $ε > 0$ and sufficiently large $r_{n}$ ,

r_{n}^{σ (f) - ε} < ν (r_{n}, f) < r_{n}^{σ (f) + ε} .

If $σ (f) = + \infty$ ⁠, then for any given large $K > 0$ and sufficiently large $r_{n}$ ⁠,

ν (r_{n}, f) > r_{n}^{K} .

Lemma 2.4.

[2] Let $P (z) = b_{n} z^{n} + b_{n - 1} z^{n - 1} + \dots + b_{0}$ with $b_{n} \neq 0$ be a polynomial. Then for every $ε > 0$ ⁠, there exists $r_{0} > 0$ such that for all $r = | z | > r_{0}$ the inequalities

(1 - ε) | b_{n} | r^{n} \leq | P (z) | \leq (1 + ε) | b_{n} | r^{n}

hold.

Lemma 2.5.

[14] Let $f (z)$ and $A (z)$ be two entire functions with $0 < σ (f) = σ (A) = σ < + \infty, 0 < τ (A) = τ (f) < + \infty$ , then there exists a set $E \subset [1, + \infty)$ that has infinite logarithmic measure such that for all $r \in E$ and a positive number $κ > 0$ ⁠, we have

\frac{M (r, A)}{M (r, f)} < \exp {- κ r^{σ}} .

Lemma 2.6.

[14] Let $g : (0, \infty) \to ℝ, h : (0, \infty) \to ℝ$ be monotone increasing functions such that $g (r) \leq h (r)$ outside an exceptional set E with finite linear measure, or $g (r) \leq h (r)$ , $r \notin H \cup (0, 1]$ ⁠, where $H \subset (1, \infty)$ is a set of finite logarithmic measure. Then for any $α > 1$ ⁠, there exists $r_{0}$ such that $g (r) \leq h (α r)$ for all $r \geq r_{0}$ .

3. Proof of main theorems

In this section we present the proofs of the main results of the paper.

3.1 Proof of Theorem 1.4

We will consider the following two cases:

Case I: Let $α (z) \equiv 0$ ⁠. Then

\frac{M [f]}{f^{γ_{M}}} = e^{φ (z)} .

(4)

Now,

\begin{matrix} \frac{M [f]}{f^{γ_{M}}} = \frac{a_{0} (z) f^{n_{0}} {(f^{(1)})}^{n_{1}} \dots {(f^{(k)})}^{n_{k}}}{f^{n_{0} + n_{1} + \dots + n_{k}}} \\ = a_{0} (z) {(\frac{f^{(1)}}{f})}^{n_{1}} {(\frac{f^{(2)}}{f})}^{n_{2}} \dots {(\frac{f^{(k)}}{f})}^{n_{k}} . \end{matrix}

(5)

From (4) and (5), it follows that

\begin{matrix} T (r, e^{φ}) = m (r, e^{φ}) = m (r, \frac{M [f]}{f^{γ_{M}}}) \\ \leq \sum_{i = 1}^{k} n_{i} m (r, \frac{f^{(i)}}{f}) + m (r, a_{0}) \\ = O (log (r T (r, f))), \end{matrix}

outside an exceptional set $E_{0}$ of finite linear measure.

Thus there exists a constant K such that

T (r, e^{φ}) \leq K \log (r T (r, f)) for r \notin E_{0} .

By Lemma 2.6 there exists $r_{0} > 0$ such that for $r \geq r_{0}$ ⁠, we have

T (r, e^{φ}) \leq K \log (η r T (η r, f)) for η > 1.

(6)

From (6), we can deduce that $σ (e^{φ}) \leq σ_{2} (f) < \infty$ and hence $φ (z)$ is a polynomial.

Proceeding similarly as in [11], Theorem 3, we obtain that $σ_{2} (f) = deg φ$ ⁠, which is a contradiction to our assumption that $σ_{2} (f)$ is not a positive integer. Hence $φ (z)$ is only a constant.

Case II: Let $α (z) ≢ 0$ and $d = γ_{M}$ ⁠. Taking the logarithmic derivative of (2), we get

φ^{'} (z) = \frac{M^{'} [f] - α^{'} (z)}{M [f] - α (z)} - \frac{d f^{d - 1} f^{'} - α^{'} (z)}{f^{d} - α (z)} .

(7)

Subcase I: Let $φ^{'} (z) \equiv 0$ ⁠. Then $φ (z) = c_{1}, c_{1}$ is a constant.

Subcase II: Let $φ^{'} (z) ≢ 0$ ⁠. Then it follows from (7) that

m (r, φ^{'}) = S (r, f) .

(8)

We can rewrite (7) in the following form:

\begin{matrix} φ^{'} = f^{d} [\frac{M [f]}{f^{d}} . \frac{1}{M [f]} . \frac{M^{'} [f] - α^{'} (z)}{M [f] - α (z)} - \frac{1}{f^{d}} \frac{d f^{d - 1} f^{'} - α^{'} (z)}{f^{d} - α (z)}] \\ = \frac{f^{d}}{α (z)} [\frac{M [f]}{f^{d}} . \frac{M^{'} [f] - α^{'} (z)}{M [f] - α (z)} - \frac{M^{'} [f]}{f^{d}} - \frac{d f^{d - 1} f^{'} - α^{'} (z)}{f^{d} - α (z)} + \frac{{d f}^{'}}{f}] . \end{matrix}

(9)

We set

ψ = \frac{M [f]}{f^{d}} . \frac{M^{'} [f] - α^{'} (z)}{M [f] - α (z)} - \frac{M^{'} [f]}{f^{d}} - \frac{d f^{d - 1} f^{'} - α^{'} (z)}{f^{d} - α (z)} + \frac{{d f}^{'}}{f} .

(10)

Then we have

m (r, ψ) = S (r, f) .

Therefore it follows from (9) and (10) that

\frac{α (z)}{f^{d}} = \frac{ψ (z)}{φ^{'} (z)} .

(11)

Since $φ$ is an entire function, then we have

\begin{matrix} m (r, \frac{1}{f^{d}}) \leq m (r, \frac{α (z)}{f^{d}}) + m (r, \frac{1}{α (z)}) \\ \leq m (r, \frac{ψ (z)}{φ^{'} (z)}) + S (r, f) \\ \leq m (r, ψ (z)) + m (r, \frac{1}{φ^{'} (z)}) + S (r, f) \\ = T (r, φ^{'} (z)) + S (r, f) \\ = m (r, φ^{'}) + S (r, f) \\ = S (r, f) \end{matrix}

\Rightarrow m (r, \frac{1}{f}) = S (r, f) .

(12)

It follows from (12) that

δ (0, f) = \underset{r \to \infty}{lim inf} \frac{m (r, \frac{1}{f})}{T (r, f)} = 0,

which contradicts our hypothesis.

Thus the proof is completed.

3.2 Proof of Theorem 1.5

We will consider the following two cases:

Case I: Let $α (z) \equiv 0$ ⁠. Then from (3) it follows that

M [f] + β (z) = f^{γ_{M}} e^{φ (z)}

\Rightarrow e^{φ (z)} = \frac{M [f] + β (z)}{f^{γ_{M}}} .

Proceeding similarly as in Case I of Theorem 1.4, we can prove that $φ (z)$ is a constant.

Case II: Let $α (z) ≢ 0$ and $d = γ_{M}$ ⁠. Eliminating $e^{φ}$ from (3) and its derivative, we get

φ^{'} = \frac{M^{'} [f] + β^{'} (z)}{M [f] + β (z)} - \frac{d f^{d - 1} f^{'} - α^{'} (z)}{f^{d} - α (z)} .

(13)

Subcase I: Let $φ^{'} (z) \equiv 0.$ Then $φ (z) = c_{2}, c_{2}$ is a constant.

Subcase II: Let $φ^{'} (z) ≢ 0$ ⁠. Then it follows from (13) that

m (r, φ^{'}) = S (r, f) .

(14)

Now,

\begin{matrix} \frac{M^{'} [f] + β^{'} (z)}{M [f] + β (z)} = \frac{f^{d}}{β (z)} [\frac{M [f]}{f^{d}} [\frac{1}{M [f]} - \frac{1}{M [f] + β (z)}] (M^{'} [f] + β^{'} (z))] \\ = \frac{f^{d}}{β (z)} [\frac{M^{'} [f] + β^{'} (z)}{f^{d}} - \frac{M [f]}{f^{d}} . \frac{M^{'} [f] + β^{'} (z)}{M [f] + β (z)}], \end{matrix}

(15)

and

\begin{matrix} \frac{d f^{d - 1} f^{'} - α^{'} (z)}{f^{d} - α (z)} = \frac{f^{d}}{α (z)} [\frac{1}{f^{d} - α (z)} - \frac{1}{f^{d}}] (d f^{d - 1} f^{'} - α^{'} (z)) \\ = \frac{f^{d}}{α (z)} [\frac{d f^{d - 1} f^{'} - α^{'} (z)}{f^{d} - α (z)} - \frac{{d f}^{'}}{f} + \frac{α^{'} (z)}{f^{d}}] . \end{matrix}

(16)

Therefore from (13), (15) and (16) we have

\begin{matrix} φ^{'} = \frac{f^{d}}{β (z)} [\frac{M^{'} [f]}{f^{d}} - \frac{M [f]}{f^{d}} . \frac{M^{'} [f] + β^{'} (z)}{M [f] + β (z)} + \frac{β^{'} (z)}{f^{d}}] \\ - \frac{f^{d}}{α (z)} [\frac{d f^{d - 1} f^{'} - α^{'} (z)}{f^{d} - α (z)} - \frac{{d f}^{'}}{f} + \frac{α^{'} (z)}{f^{d}}] \\ = \frac{f^{d}}{β (z)} [\frac{M^{'} [f]}{f^{d}} - \frac{M [f]}{f^{d}} . \frac{M^{'} [f] + β^{'} (z)}{M [f] + β (z)}] - \frac{f^{d}}{α (z)} [\frac{d f^{d - 1} f^{'} - α^{'} (z)}{f^{d} - α (z)} - \frac{{d f}^{'}}{f}] \\ + \frac{β^{'} (z)}{β (z)} - \frac{α^{'} (z)}{α (z)} . \end{matrix}

\begin{array}{l} \Rightarrow φ^{'} - \frac{β^{'} (z)}{β (z)} + \frac{α^{'} (z)}{α (z)} = \frac{f^{d}}{β (z)} [\frac{M^{'} [f]}{f^{d}} - \frac{M [f]}{f^{d}} . \frac{M^{'} [f] + β^{'} (z)}{M [f] + β (z)}] \\ - \frac{f^{d}}{α (z)} [\frac{d f^{d - 1} f^{'} - α^{'} (z)}{f^{d} - α (z)} - \frac{{d f}^{'}}{f}] . \end{array}

(17)

Let

ψ_{1} = \frac{M^{'} [f]}{f^{d}} - \frac{M [f]}{f^{d}} . \frac{M^{'} [f] + β^{'} (z)}{M [f] + β (z)}

and

ψ_{2} = \frac{d f^{d - 1} f^{'} - α^{'} (z)}{f^{d} - α (z)} - \frac{{d f}^{'}}{f} .

Then we have $m (r, ψ_{1}) = S (r, f)$ and $m (r, ψ_{2}) = S (r, f)$ ⁠.

Thus it follows from (17) that

\begin{matrix} φ^{'} - \frac{β^{'} (z)}{β (z)} + \frac{α^{'} (z)}{α (z)} = f^{d} [\frac{ψ_{1}}{β (z)} - \frac{ψ_{2}}{α (z)}] \\ \Rightarrow \frac{1}{f^{d}} = \frac{[\frac{ψ_{1}}{β (z)} - \frac{ψ_{2}}{α (z)}]}{φ^{'} - \frac{β^{'} (z)}{β (z)} + \frac{α^{'} (z)}{α (z)}} . \end{matrix}

(18)

Since $φ$ is an entire function, from (18) we have

\begin{matrix} m (r, \frac{1}{f^{d}}) \leq m (r, \frac{ψ_{1}}{β (z)} - \frac{ψ_{2}}{α (z)}) + m (r, \frac{1}{φ^{'} - \frac{β^{'} (z)}{β (z)} + \frac{α^{'} (z)}{α (z)}}) \\ \leq m (r, ψ_{1}) + m (r, ψ_{2}) + T (r, φ^{'}) + S (r, f) \\ = S (r, f) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \Rightarrow m (r, \frac{1}{f}) = S (r, f) . \end{matrix}

(19)

It follows from (19) that

δ (0, f) = \underset{r \to \infty}{lim inf} \frac{m (r, \frac{1}{f})}{T (r, f)} = 0,

which is a contradiction.

Hence the proof is completed.

Corollary 3.1.

Let $f (z)$ be a non-constant entire function such that $σ_{2} (f) < \infty$ ⁠, $σ_{2} (f)$ is not a positive integer and $δ (0, f) > 0$ ⁠. Let $M [f]$ be a differential monomial of f of degree $γ_{M}$ as defined in (1), $φ (z)$ be an entire function and $α (z) \in S (f)$ be such that $σ (α) < μ (f)$ ⁠. If f is a solution of the following differential equation

M [f] - α (z) = (f^{γ_{M}} - α (z)) e^{φ (z)},

then $\frac{M [f] - α (z)}{f^{γ_{M}} - α (z)} = c$ ⁠, where $c \neq 0$ is a constant.

Corollary 3.2.

Let f be a non-constant entire function such that $σ_{2} (f) < \infty$ ⁠, $σ_{2} (f)$ is not a positive integer and $δ (0, f) > 0$ ⁠. Let $M [f]$ be a differential monomial of f of degree $γ_{M}$ as defined in (1), $φ (z)$ be an entire function and $α (z), β (z) \in S (f)$ be such that $σ (α) < μ (f)$ and $σ (β) < μ (f)$ ⁠. If f is a solution of the following differential equation

M [f] + β (z) = (f^{γ_{M}} - α (z)) e^{φ (z)},

then $\frac{M [f] + β (z)}{f^{γ_{M}} - α (z)} = c$ ⁠, where $c \neq 0$ is a constant.

This research work is supported by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, ExtraMural Research Division, CSIR Complex, Library Avenue, Pusa, New Delhi-110012, India, Under the sanctioned file no. 09/285(0069)/2016-EMR-I.Authors would like to thank referees for their valuable comments and suggestions.

References

[1]

Hayman

WK

,

Meromorphic function

.

Oxford

:

Clarendon Press

;

1964

.

Google Scholar

[2]

Laine

I

.

Nevanlinna theory and complex differential equations

.

Berlin

:

Walter de Gruyter

;

1993

.

Google Scholar

Crossref

[3]

Yang

L

.

Value distributions theory

.

Berlin

:

Springer-Verlag

;

1993

.

Google Scholar

[4]

Yi

HX

,

Yang

CC

.

Uniqueness theory of meromorphic functions

. (

in Chinese

).

Beijing

:

Science Press

;

1995

.

Google Scholar

[5]

Rubel

L

,

Yang

CC

.

Values shared by an entire function and its derivative

.

Lecture Notes Math.

1977

:

599

;

101

-

3

.

Google Scholar

Crossref

[6]

Brück

R

.

On entire functions which share one value CM with their first derivative

.

Results Math.

1996

:

30

;

21

-

24

.

Google Scholar

Crossref

[7]

Al-Khaladi

A

.

On meromorphic functions that share one value with their derivatives

.

Analysis

.

2005

:

25

;

131

-

140

.

Google Scholar

Crossref

[8]

Chang

JM

,

Zhu

YZ

.

Entire functions that share a small function with their derivatives

.

J. Math. Anal. Appl.

2009

:

351

;

491

-

96

.

Google Scholar

Crossref

[9]

Gundersen

GG

,

Yang

LZ

.

Entire functions that share one value with one or two of their derivatives

.

J. Math. Anal. Appl.

1998

:

223

;

85

-

95

.

Google Scholar

Crossref

[10]

Li

XM

,

Cao

CC

.

Entire functions sharing one polynomial with their derivatives

.

Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci.

2008

;

118

:

13

-

26

.

Google Scholar

Crossref

[11]

Pramanik

DC

,

Biswas

M

,

Mandal

R

.

On the study of Brück conjecture and some non-linear complex differential equations

.

Arab J. Math. Sci.

2017

:

23

;

196

-

204

.

Google Scholar

Crossref

[12]

He

YZ

,

Xiao

XZ

.

Algebroid functions and ordinary differential equations

.

Beijing

:

Science press

;

1998

.

Google Scholar

[13]

Mao

ZQ

.

Uniqueness theorems on entire functions and their linear differential polynomials

.

Results Math.

2009

;

55

:

447

-

56

.

Google Scholar

Crossref

[14]

Wang

H

,

Yang

L-Z

,

Xu

H-Y

.

On some complex differential and difference equations concerning sharing function

.

Adv. Differ. Equ.

2014

:

274

;

1

-

10

.

Google Scholar

2020

Dilip Chandra Pramanik and Kapil Roy

Published in Arab Journal of Mathematical Sciences. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Further study on the Brück conjecture and some non-linear complex differential equations

1. Introduction and main results

2. Preparatory lemmas

3. Proof of main theorems

3.1 Proof of Theorem 1.4

3.2 Proof of Theorem 1.5

References

New and popular articles

Email Alerts

Cited By

Further study on the Brück conjecture and some non-linear complex differential equations

1. Introduction and main results

2. Preparatory lemmas

3. Proof of main theorems

3.1 Proof of Theorem 1.4

3.2 Proof of Theorem 1.5

References

New and popular articles

Email Alerts

Recommended for you

Cited By

Sharing Unavailable