Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations

An International Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcov20

Uniqueness theorems on meromorphic functions

and their difference polynomials

Huifang Liu & Zhiqiang Mao

To cite this article: Huifang Liu & Zhiqiang Mao (2020): Uniqueness theorems on meromorphic
functions and their difference polynomials, Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations, DOI:
10.1080/17476933.2020.1797701

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17476933.2020.1797701

Published online: 26 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 18

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gcov20
COMPLEX VARIABLES AND ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS
https://doi.org/10.1080/17476933.2020.1797701

Uniqueness theorems on meromorphic functions and their

difference polynomials
Huifang Liua and Zhiqiang Maob
a College of Mathematics and Information Science, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, People’s Republic of

China; b School of Mathematics and Computer, Jiangxi Science and Technology Normal University, Nanchang,
People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Let f be a nonconstant meromorphic function of finite order, and Received 4 September 2018
L(z, f ) be a linear difference polynomial in f with small meromor- Accepted 15 July 2020
phic coefficients. Some uniqueness theorems related to f sharing COMMUNICATED BY
three values with L(z, f ) are obtained. We also prove that f is iden- H. Hedenmalm
tical with its difference operator nη f , if they share three values CM.
Some examples are given to show our results are best possible. KEYWORDS
Meromorphic function; small
function; difference operator;
uniqueness
AMS SUBJECT
CLASSIFICATIONS
30D35; 30D30

1. Introduction and main results

In this paper, a meromorphic function always means a nonconstant function meromor-
phic in the complex plane. Nevanlinna proved that if two meromorphic functions f and g
share five distinct values ignoring multiplicities (IM), then f ≡ g; if f and g share four dis-
tinct values counting multiplicities (CM), then f is a Möbius transformation of g. The two
classical results motivate the research on the uniqueness problems of meromorphic func-
tions. Gundersen [1] has proved that the shared value condition 4CM can be improved
to 2CM+2IM. But for the shared value condition 1CM+3IM, it is still an open problem.
Fortunately, If g is related to f in some way, the number of shared values can be reduced.
For example, Gundersen [2] and Mues–Steinmetz [3], respectively, obtained the following
result.

Theorem A ([2, 3]): Let f be a meromorphic function. If f and its derivative f  share two
distinct finite values a, b CM, then f ≡ f  .

Theorem A has been generalized by Frank–Weissenborn [4] with replacing f  by f (k) .

Later on, Frank–Hua [5] and Mues–Reinders [6], respectively, proved that f and its linear
differential polynomial are identical, if they share three distinct values IM. For more details
on this direction, we refer the readers to [7].

CONTACT Huifang Liu liuhuifang73@sina.com

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 H. LIU AND Z. MAO

Recently, the shift and difference analogue of the Nevanlinna theory have been estab-
lished (see, e.g. [8–11]). Lots of researchers [12–16] started to consider the uniqueness of
meromorphic functions sharing values with their shifts or their difference operators. For a
nonzero finite value η, f (z + η) is called the shift of f (z), its difference operators are defined
as

η f (z) = f (z + η) − f (z) and nη f (z) = n−1

η (η f (z)), n ∈ N, n ≥ 2.

It is well known that η f can be regarded as the difference counterpart of f  , so, considering
the difference analogue of Theorem A, Chen–Yi [12] obtained the following result.

Theorem B ([12]): Let f be a transcendental meromorphic function such that its order ρ(f )
is finite but not an integer. If f and η f (≡ 0) share three distinct values a, b, ∞ CM, then
f ≡ η f .
In [12], they conjecture that the condition ‘the order ρ(f ) is not an integer or infinite’ can be
removed. This conjecture has been proved by Li–Yi–Kang [16] and Lü –Lü [17], respectively.

Theorem C ([16,17]): Let f be a nonconstant meromorphic function of finite order. If f and

η f share three distinct values a, b, ∞ CM, then f ≡ η f .
In this paper, we study the uniqueness concerning meromorphic function sharing values
with its linear difference polynomial. Our main purpose is to replace η f in Theorem thmC
by the following difference polynomial


n
L(z, f ) = αj (z)f (z + dj ), (1)
j=0

where n ≥ 1 is a positive integer, dj (j = 0, . . . , n) are distinct finite values, and αj (z)(≡ 0, ∞)

are small meromorphic functions of f in the sense of T(r, αj ) = o(T(r, f )) as r → ∞, possibly
outside of a set of finite linear measure.

Theorem 1.1: Let f be a meromorphic function of finite order, L(z, f ) be defined as (1), and
let  = {j ∈ {0, . . . , n} : f (z + dj ) ≡ f (z)}. If f and L(z, f ) share three distinct values a, b, ∞
CM, and one of the following cases occurs:

(1) ab = 0 and a + b = 0; 
(2) ab = 0 and either  is an empty set or j∈ αj (z) ≡ c for nonempty set , where
c(= 0, 1) is a constant;

(3) a + b = 0 and nj=0 αj (z) ≡ −1.

Then f ≡ L(z, f ).

Remark 1.1: The following examples show that the restriction on αj (z) in Theorem 1.1
cannot be removed.
 Moreover, Example 1.3 also shows that in case 3, although  = ∅, the
restriction nj=0 αj (z) ≡ −1 cannot be removed.

Example 1.1: Let f (z) = (eπz − 1)/(eπz − 2), L(z, f ) = f (z+ i) + 2f (z + 2i) − f (z − i).
Then f and L(z, f ) share 0, 1, ∞ CM, but L(z, f ) ≡ 2f . Here j∈ αj (z) ≡ 2.
 COMPLEX VARIABLES AND ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS 3

Example 1.2: Let f (z) = 1 − 2/(eπiz + 1), L(z, f ) = ϕ(z)f (z + 2) − (1 + ϕ(z))f (z − 2),
where ϕ(≡ 0, ∞) isa small function of f. Then f and L(z, f ) share 1, −1, ∞ CM, but
L(z, f ) ≡ −f . Here nj=0 αj (z) ≡ −1.

Example 1.3: Let f (z) = (e2z + 2ez − 1)/(e2z + 1), L(z, f ) = f (z + π i) − 2f (z − πi).
n f ) share 1, −1, ∞ CM, but L(z, f ) = (−e + 2e + 1)/(e + 1) ≡ f . Here
Then f and L(z, 2z z 2z

 = ∅ and j=0 αj (z) ≡ −1.


When f and the coefficients αj (z) of (1) are entire functions, the restriction on αj (z)
in Theorem 1.1 can be removed. In fact, we obtain the following result.

Theorem 1.2: Let f be an entire function of finite order, L(z, f ) be defined as (1) with small
entire coefficients. If f and L(z, f ) share two distinct finite values a, b CM, then f ≡ L(z, f ).
   n n
Observe that nη f = nj=0 nj (−1)n−j f (z + jη) and j=0 j (−1)
n−j = 0, by

Theorem 1.1, we prove that Theorem C still holds, if replacing η f by nη f .

Theorem 1.3: Let f be a nonconstant meromorphic function of finite order, η be a nonzero

finite value. If f and nη f share three distinct values a, b, ∞ CM, then f ≡ nη f .

2. Lemmas
In the following, we adopt the standard notations of the Nevanlinna theory (see [7,18,19]).
The notation S(r, f ) is defined to be any quantity satisfying S(r, f ) = o(T(r, f )) as r → ∞,
possibly outside a set E of r of finite logarithmic measure.

Lemma 2.1 ([9]): Let T : (0, +∞) → (0, +∞) be a non-decreasing continuous function,
s > 0, β < 1 and let F ⊂ R+ be the set of all r such that T(r) ≤ βT(r + s). If the logarithmic
measure of F is infinite, then
log T(r)
lim = ∞.
r→∞ log r

Let f be a meromorphic function, it is shown in [21, p.66] that for an arbitrary complex
number c = 0, the following inequalities

(1 + o(1))T(r − |c|, f (z)) ≤ T(r, f (z + c)) ≤ (1 + o(1))T(r + |c|, f (z))

hold as r → ∞. So combining the above inequalities and Lemma 2.1, the following result
holds.

Lemma 2.2: Let f be a nonconstant meromorphic function of finite order. Then for an
arbitrary complex number c = 0,

T(r, f (z + c)) = T(r, f (z)) + S(r, f ).

Remark 2.1: Chiang and Feng [8] obtained the following similar result to Lemma 2.2.
4 H. LIU AND Z. MAO

Let f be a transcendental meromorphic function of finite order σ , and let η be a nonzero

constant. Then

T(r, f (z + η)) = T(r, f (z)) + O(r σ −1+ε ) + O(log r)

as r → ∞, where ε is any given positive number.

Lemma 2.3 ([7]): Let f1 , . . . , fn (n ≥ 2) be meromorphic functions, and g1 , . . . , gn be entire

functions satisfying the following conditions:
n gj (z)
(i) j=1 fj (z)e ≡ 0.
(ii) gj (z) − gk (z) are not constants for 1 ≤ j < k ≤ n.
(iii) For 1 ≤ j ≤ n, 1 ≤ t < k ≤ n, T(r, fj ) = o(T(r, egt −gk ))(r → ∞, r ∈ E), where E ⊂
(1, ∞) has finite linear measure or finite logarithmic measure.

Then fj (z) ≡ 0 (j = 1, . . . n).

3. Proofs of the results

Proof of Theorem 1.1: By Lemma 2.2, it follows that L(z, f ) is of finite order. Since f and
L(z, f ) share a, b, ∞ CM, we get

f (z) − a f (z) − b
= eP(z) , = eQ(z) , (2)
L(z, f ) − a L(z, f ) − b

where P, Q are polynomials.

Suppose that f ≡ L(z, f ), then eP ≡ 1, eQ ≡ 1 and eP ≡ eQ . Let R(z) = Q(z) − P(z),
then eR ≡ 1 and by (2), we get

eQ(z) − 1
f (z) = a + (b − a) (3)
eR(z) − 1

and

1 − eR(z)−Q(z)
L(z, f ) = b + (b − a) . (4)
eR(z) − 1

By (1) and (3), we get

 

n 
n
eQ(z+dj ) − 1
L(z, f ) = a αj (z) + (b − a) αj (z) . (5)
j=0 j=0
eR(z+dj ) − 1

Now we discuss the following three cases.

Case 1. deg R > deg Q. By (3), we get

S(r, f ) = S(r, eR ). (6)

 COMPLEX VARIABLES AND ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS 5

Subcase 1.1. eR(z+dj ) ≡ eR(z) holds for each j ∈ {0, . . . , n}. Then deg R = 1 and Q is a con-
stant. So by (3), we get  = {0, . . . , n}. Set c1 = eQ , then c1 = 0, 1. Combining (4) and (5),
we get
⎧ ⎫
⎨  b − a ⎬ R(z) 
a αj (z) − b + e = {c1 a − (c1 − 1)b} αj (z) − a. (7)
⎩ c1 ⎭
j∈ j∈

Then by (6) and (7), we get

 b−a 
a αj (z) − b + ≡ 0, {c1 a − (c1 − 1)b} αj (z) − a ≡ 0.
c1
j∈ j∈

Solving the above equations, we get b = 0, j∈ αj (z) ≡ 1/c1 . This is absurd.
Subcase 1.2. There exist some j0 ∈ {0, . . . , n} such that eR(z+dj0 ) ≡ eR(z) . Set
 
I1 = j ∈ {0, . . . , n} : eR(z+dj ) ≡ eR(z+dj0 ) ,
 
I2 = j ∈ {0, . . . , n} : eR(z+dj ) ≡ eR(z+dj0 ) .

It is obvious that j0 ∈ I1 and I1 ∩ I2 = ∅.

We claim  ∩ I1 = ∅. Otherwise, take one element s ∈  ∩ I1 , we have eR(z+ds ) ≡ eR(z)
and f (z + ds ) ≡ f (z). Then by (3), we get

(eQ(z+ds ) − 1)(eR(z) − 1) = (eR(z+ds ) − 1)(eQ(z) − 1), (8)

that is,

eR(z) {eQ(z+ds ) − 1 − eR(z+ds )−R(z)+Q(z) + eR(z+ds )−R(z) } = eQ(z+ds ) − eQ(z) .

This implies eQ(z+ds ) ≡ eQ(z) . From this equality and (8), we get eR(z+ds ) ≡ eR(z) . This is
absurd.
Note that if eR(z+dj ) ≡ eR(z+dl ) holds for j = l, then Q must be a constant. So (5) can be
rewritten in the form
⎧ ⎫
n ⎨ eQ(z+dj0 ) − 1   e Q(z+dj )
− 1⎬
L(z, f ) = a αj (z) + (b − a) αj (z) + ψ j (z) ,
⎩ eR(z+dj0 ) − 1 eR(z+dj ) − 1 ⎭
j=0 j∈I1 j∈2
(9)

where 2 ⊂ I2 such that eR(z+dl ) ≡ eR(z+dk ) for any distinct l, k ∈ 2 , and ψj (z) ≡ 0 (j ∈

2 ). Here ψ j (z) is the sum of some elements from {α j (z) : j ∈ I 2 } and j∈2 ψj (z) =
j∈I2 αj (z).

If j∈I1 αj (z) ≡ 0, let z0 be a zero of eR(z) − 1/eR(z+dj0 )−R(z) , then z0 is a zero of
eR(z+dj0 ) − 1. So by (9), we know that one of the following cases must occur:

(i) z0 is a pole of L(z, f ). Since f and L(z, f ) share ∞ CM, it follows from (3) that z0 is
a zero of eR(z) − 1. This implies that z0 is a zero of eR(z+dj0 )−R(z) − 1.
6 H. LIU AND Z. MAO


(ii) z0 is not a pole of L(z, f ) and ((eQ(z+dj0 ) − 1)/(eR(z+dj0 ) − 1)) j∈I1 αj (z). Then z0

is a zero of (eQ(z+dj0 ) − 1) j∈I1 αj (z).

(iii) z0 is not a pole of L(z, f ), but a pole of ((eQ(z+dj0 ) − 1)/(eR(z+dj0 ) − 1)) j∈I1 αj (z).

By (9), we know that either z0 is a pole of nj=0 αj (z), or at least there exists some
t ∈ 2 , such that z0 is a zero of (eR(z+dt ) − 1)/ψt (z). Note that when z0 is a zero of
eR(z+dt ) − 1, z0 must be a zero of eR(z+dj0 )−R(z+dt ) − 1.

From the above analyses and (6), we get

⎛ ⎞
1
N ⎝r, ⎠
eR(z) − R(z+dj1 )−R(z)
e 0
 
1
= N r, R(z+d )
e j0 − 1
⎛ ⎞
 
1 1
≤ N r, R(z+d )−R(z) + N ⎝r,   ⎠
e j 0 −1 e Q(z+d )
j0 − 1 αj (z)
j∈I1

  
n
   1
+ N r, αj (z) + N r,
j=0 t∈2
eR(z+dj0 )−R(z+dt ) − 1

= S(r, eR ). (10)

So from the second main theorem related to small functions and (10), we get
⎛ ⎞
 
1 1
T(r, eR ) ≤ N(r, eR ) + N r, R + N ⎝r, 1
⎠ + S(r, eR )
e e R(z) − R(z+dj )−R(z)
e 0

R
= S(r, e ).

This 
is absurd.
If j∈I1 αj (z) ≡ 0, then the set I1 has at least one element different from j0 . So deg R = 1
and Q is a constant. Set c1 = eQ , then (9) can be rewritten in the form
  1
L(z, f ) = a αj (z) + (b − a)(c1 − 1) ψj (z) R(z+dj )
. (11)
j∈I2 j∈2
e −1

Suppose that j∈2 ψj (z)(1/(eR(z+dj ) − 1)) ≡ 0, then by (4) and (11), we get

eR(z) − c1 b − a j∈I2 αj (z)
= .
c1 (eR(z) − 1) b−a

Combining with this T(r, eR ) = S(r, eR ). This is absurd.

 and (6), we getR(z+d j ) − 1)) ≡ 0, if 
Suppose that j∈2 ψj (z)(1/(e 2 only has one element s
)
 
and e R(z+d s ≡ e , then by (3),  ∩ I1 = ∅ and j∈2 ψj (z) ≡ j∈I2 αj (z), we get
R(z)
 COMPLEX VARIABLES AND ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS 7

 
j∈ αj (z)≡ j∈I2 αj (z). Hence by (4) and (11), we get
⎧ ⎫
⎨  b − a ⎬ R(z) 
a αj (z) − b + e = {c1 a − (c1 − 1)b} αj (z) − a.
⎩ c1 ⎭
j∈ j∈

This implies b = 0, j∈ αj (z) ≡ 1/c1 . This is absurd. So there exist some j1 ∈ 2 , such
that eR(z+dj1 ) ≡ eR(z) . Let z0 be a zero of eR(z) − 1/eR(z+dj1 )−R(z) , then z0 is a zero of
eR(z+dj1 ) − 1. So by (11), we know that one of the following cases must occur.

(iv) z0 is a pole of L(z, f ). Since f and L(z, f ) share ∞ CM, it follows from (3) that z0 is a
zero of eR(z) − 1. This implies that z0 is a zero of eR(z+dj1 )−R(z) − 1.
(v) z0 is not a pole of L(z, f ). By (11), we know that if z0 is not a pole of αj (z)(j ∈ I2 ) or
not a zero of ψj1 (z), then at least there exists some t ∈ 2 \ {j1 }, such that z0 is a zero
of eR(z+dt ) − 1. This implies that z0 is a zero of eR(z+dj1 )−R(z+dt ) − 1.

From the above analyses and (6), we get

⎛ ⎞
1
N ⎝r, ⎠
e R(z) − R(z+dj1 )−R(z)
e 1
 
1
= N r, R(z+d )
e j1 − 1

   n  
1   1
≤ N r, R(z+d )−R(z) + N r, αj (z) + N r,
e j1 −1 j=0
ψj1 (z)
  
1
+ N r, R(z+d )−R(z+d )
e j1 t −1
t∈ \{j }
2 1

R
= S(r, e ). (12)
Then from the second main theorem related to small functions and (12), we get T(r, eR ) =
S(r, eR ). This is absurd.
Case 2. deg R < deg Q. By (3), we get
S(r, f ) = S(r, eQ ). (13)
Set
αj (z)
hj (z) = R(z+dj )
, Bj (z) = eQ(z+dj )−Q(z) (j = 0, . . . , n);
e −1
by (13), we get
T(r, hj ) = S(r, eQ ), T(r, Bj ) = S(r, eQ ) (j = 0, . . . , n). (14)
Combining with (4) and (5), we get
⎛ ⎞
n
eR(z) g2 (z)
⎝ Bj (z)hj (z)⎠ eg1 (z) + e
j=0
eR(z) − 1
8 H. LIU AND Z. MAO

⎛  ⎞
a nj=0 αj (z) − b  n
1
+⎝ − hj (z) − R(z) ⎠ eg3 (z) = 0, (15)
b−a j=0
e − 1

where g1 (z) = Q(z), g2 (z) = −Q(z), g3 (z) = 0. Since

deg{gj − gl } = deg Q (1 ≤ j < l ≤ 3), T(r, eR ) = S(r, eQ ),

by (13)–(15) and Lemma 2.3, we get eR(z) /(eR(z) − 1) ≡ 0. This is absurd.

Case 3. deg R = deg Q = m. By (3), we get
m
m ≥ 1, S(r, f ) = S(r, ez ). (16)

Subcase 3.1. deg(R − Q) < m. Next, we divide two cases to derive a contradiction.
Subcase 3.1.1. eR(z+dj ) ≡ eR(z) holds for each j ∈ {0, . . . , n}. Then m = 1 and R−Q is
a constant. So we have eQ(z+dj ) ≡ eQ(z) (j = 0, . . . , n) and  = {0, . . . , n}. Set c2 = eR−Q ,
then c2 = e−P = 0, 1. Combining (4) and (5), we get
⎧ ⎫
⎨  b−a  ⎬ 
a αj (z) − b + αj (z) eR(z) = b αj (z) − a − c2 (b − a). (17)
⎩ c2 ⎭
j∈ j∈ j∈

Then by (16) and (17), we get

 b−a 
a αj (z) − b + αj (z) ≡ 0, b αj (z) − a − c2 (b − a) ≡ 0.
c2
j∈ j∈ j∈


Solving the above equations, we get a = 0, j∈ αj (z) ≡ c2 . This is absurd.
Subcase 3.1.2. There exists some j0 ∈ {0, . . . , n} such that eR(z+dj0 ) ≡ eR(z) . Let I1 , I2
be defined as Subcase 1.2. Note that if eR(z+dj ) ≡ eR(z+dl ) holds for j = l, then eQ(z+dj ) ≡
eQ(z+dl ) . So (9) still holds.
We claim  ∩ I1 = ∅. Otherwise, take one element s ∈  ∩ I1 , we have eR(z+ds ) ≡ eR(z)
and f (z + ds ) ≡ f (z). Then by (3), we still have (8) which implies
 
eR(z)+Q(z) eQ(z+ds )−Q(z) − eR(z+ds )−R(z)
 
= eR(z) 1 + eQ(z+ds )−R(z) − eR(z+ds )−R(z) − eQ(z)−R(z) . (18)

Since max{deg(Q(z + ds ) − Q(z)), deg(R(z + ds ) − R(z)), deg(Q(z + ds ) − R(z))} =

m − 1, deg(R + Q) = deg R = m, by (18) and Lemma 2.3, we get

eQ(z+ds )−Q(z) − eR(z+ds )−R(z) ≡ 0, 1 + eQ(z+ds )−R(z) − eR(z+ds )−R(z) − eQ(z)−R(z) ≡ 0,

implies eQ(z)−R(z) ≡ 1. This is absurd.

which
If j∈I1 αj (z) ≡ 0, let z0 be a zero of eR(z) − 1/eR(z+dj0 )−R(z) , then z0 is a zero of
eR(z+dj0 ) − 1. Using the similar argument to Subcase 1.2, we know that one of cases (i)–(iii)
 COMPLEX VARIABLES AND ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS 9

appeared in Subcase 1.2 must occur, and if z0 is a zero of eQ(z+dj0 ) − 1, then z0 is a zero of
eR(z+dj0 )−Q(z+dj0 ) − 1. So by (16) and deg(R − Q) < m, we get
⎛ ⎞
 
⎝ 1 ⎠ 1
N r, = N r, R(z+d )
eR(z) − R(z+dj1 )−R(z) e j0 − 1
e 0
   
1 1
≤ N r, R(z+d )−R(z) + N r, R(z+d )−Q(z+d )
e j0 −1 e j0 j0 − 1
 
1  
n

+ N r,  + N r, αj (z)
j∈I1 αj (z) j=0
  
1
+ N r, R(z+d )−R(z+d )
e j0 t −1
t∈2

= S(r, eR ). (19)

Then from the second main theorem related to small functions and (19), we get T(r, eR ) =
R ). This is absurd.
S(r, e
If j∈I1 αj (z) ≡ 0, then the set I1 has at least one element different from j0 . So m = 1
and R−Q is a constant. Set c2 = eR−Q , then c2 = 0, 1 and (9) can be rewritten in the form
 b−a  eR(z+dj ) − c2
L(z, f ) = a αj (z) + ψj (z) R(z+d ) . (20)
c2 e j −1
j∈I2 j∈2

Suppose that j∈2 ψj (z)((eR(z+dj ) − c2 )/(eR(z+dj ) − 1)) ≡ 0, then by (4) and (20), we get

(b − a)(1 − c2 ) 
= a αj (z) − b.
eR(z) − 1 j∈I 2

Combining with this and (16), we get T(r, eR ) = S(r, eR ). This is absurd.
Suppose that j∈2 ψj (z)((eR(z+dj ) − c2 )/(eR(z+dj ) − 1)) ≡ 0, if 2 only has one ele-
R(z+ds ) ≡ eR(z) , then by (3),  ∩ I = ∅ and
 
ments and e  1 j∈2 ψj (z) ≡ j∈I2 αj (z), we
get j∈ αj (z) ≡ j∈I2 αj (z). Hence by (4) and (20), we get
⎧ ⎫
⎨  b−a  ⎬ 
a αj (z) − b + αj (z) eR(z) = b αj (z) − a − c2 (b − a).
⎩ c2 ⎭
j∈ j∈ j∈

This implies a = 0, j∈ αj (z) ≡ c2 . This is absurd. So there exists some j1 ∈ 2 , such that
eR(z+dj1 ) ≡ eR(z) . Let z0 be a zero of eR(z) − 1/eR(z+dj1 )−R(z) , then z0 is a zero of eR(z+dj1 ) −
1. So by (20), we know that one of the following cases must occur.

(1) z0 is a pole of L(z, f ). Since f and L(z, f ) share ∞ CM, it follows from (3) that z0 is
a zero of eR(z) − 1. This implies that z0 is a zero of eR(z+dj1 )−R(z) − 1.
(2) z0 is not a pole of L(z, f ) and ψj1 (z)((eR(z+dj1 ) − c2 )/(eR(z+dj1 ) − 1)). Then z0 is a
zero of ψj1 (z).
10 H. LIU AND Z. MAO

(3) z0 is not a pole of L(z, f ), but a pole of ψj1 (z)((eR(z+dj1 ) − c2 )/(eR(z+dj1 ) − 1)).
By (20), we know that either z0 is a pole of αj (z)(j ∈ I2 ), or at least there exists
some t ∈ 2 \ {j1 } such that z0 is a zero of eR(z+dt ) − 1. For the latter, z0 is a zero
of eR(z+dj1 )−R(z+dt ) − 1.

From the above analyses and (16), we get

⎛ ⎞
1
N ⎝r, ⎠
eR(z) − R(z+dj1 )−R(z)
e 1
 
1
= N r, R(z+d )
e j1 − 1

     n
1 1  
≤ N r, R(z+d )−R(z) + N r, + N r, αj (z)
e j 1 −1 ψj1 (z)
j=0
  
1
+ N r, R(z+d )−R(z+d )
e j1 t −1
t∈ \{j }2 1

R
= S(r, e ). (21)

So from the second main theorem related to small functions and (21), we get T(r, eR ) =
S(r, eR ). This is absurd.
Subcase 3.2. deg{R − Q} = m. Set

R(z) = am zm + · · · + a0 , Q(z) = bm zm + · · · + b0 ,
Aj (z) = eR(z+dj )−R(z) (j = 0, . . . , n), (22)

where al , bl (l = 0, . . . , m) are constants such that am bm = 0 and am = bm . Then, we get

m m
eR(z) = γ (z)eam z , eQ(z) = η(z)ebm z , (23)
n 
  n  
eR(z+dj ) − 1 = Aj (z)eR(z) − 1
j=0 j=0

= Cn+1 γ n+1 e(n+1)am z + · · · + C1 γ eam z + C0 ,

m m
(24)
n 
 
eR(z+dl ) − 1 = Djn γ n enam z + · · · + Dj1 γ eam z + Dj0
m m
(j = 0, . . . , n), (25)
l=0
l=j

m m
where γ (z) = eR(z)−am z , η(z) = eQ(z)−bm z , Cl , Djt (l = 0, . . . , n + 1, j, t = 0, . . . , n)
are entire functions satisfying
m m m m
T(r, γ ) = S(r, ez ), T(r, η) = S(r, ez ), T(r, Cl ) = S(r, ez ), T(r, Djt ) = S(r, ez )
(26)
 COMPLEX VARIABLES AND ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS 11

and

n 
n
Cn+1 = Aj , C0 = (−1)n+1 , Djn = Al , Dj0 = (−1)n (j = 0, . . . , n). (27)
j=0 l=0
l=j

By (4), (5), (23)–(25), we get


n+2 
n+1 
n+1
ϕs γ s ηe(sam +bm )z + Ct γ t+1 η−1 e((t+1)am −bm )z = 0,
m m m
gl γ l elam z + (28)
l=0 s=0 t=0

where
n
j=0 αj − b
a
gn+2 = Cn+1 , (29)
b−a

a nj=0 αj − b    n
gl = Cl−1 − Cl − αj (Dj(l−1) − τl Djl ) − Cl (l = 1, . . . , n + 1),
b−a j=0
(30)
n n
a j=0 αj −b 
n b j=0 αj −a
g0 = − C0 + αj Dj0 − C0 = , (31)
b−a j=0
b−a


n
ϕs = αj Bj (s−1 Dj(s−1) − s Djs ) (s = 0, . . . , n + 1); (32)
j=0

here τn+1 Dj(n+1) = 0, τl = 1 (l = 1, . . . , n), n+1 Dj(n+1) = 0, s = 1 (s = 0, . . . , n),

−1 Dj(−1) = 0 and Bj (j = 0, . . . , n) are defined as case 2. By (16), (26), (27), (29)–(32),
we get
m m
T(r, gl ) = S(r, ez ), T(r, ϕs ) = S(r, ez ) (l = 0, . . . , n + 2, s = 0, . . . , n + 1). (33)

Since am = bm , we get

(n + 2)am − bm ∈ {(n + 2)am , (n + 1)am , nam + bm , (t + 1)am − bm : t = 0, . . . , n} .

Now, we discuss the following four cases.

Subcase 3.2.1. (n + 2)am − bm ∈ {lam , sam + bm : l = 0, . . . , n, s = 0, . . . , n − 1, n +
1}. Then by (26), (28), (33) and Lemma 2.3, we get Cn+1 γ n+2 η−1 ≡ 0, which contra-
dicts (27).
Subcase 3.2.2. There exists some l0 ∈ {0, . . . , n} such that (n + 2)am − bm = l0 am . Then
by (28), we get


n+2 
n+1
 
ϕs γ s ηe(s+n+2−l0 )am z + Cn+1 γ n+2 η−1 + gl0 el0 am z
m m m
gl γ l elam z +
l=0 s=0
l=l0


n
Ct γ t+1 η−1 e(t−n−1+l0 )am z = 0.
m
+ (34)
t=0
12 H. LIU AND Z. MAO

Since −n − 1 + l0 ∈ I3 = {l, s + n + 2 − l0 , t − n − 1 + l0 : l = 0, . . . , n + 2, s = 0, . . . ,
n + 1, t = 1, . . . , n}, (34) can be rewritten in the form

C0 γ η−1 e(−n−1+l0 )am z +
m m
Hq eqam z = 0, (35)
q∈3

where 3 is a set consisting of distinct elements from I3 , and by (26), (27), (33) and (34),
m
we get T(r, Hq ) = S(r, ez ) (q ∈ 3 ). Then combining with (35) and Lemma 2.3, we get
C0 γ η−1 ≡ 0, which contradicts (27).
Subcase 3.2.3. There exists some s0 ∈ {0, . . . , n − 1} such that (n + 2)am − bm =
s0 am + bm . Then by (28), we get


n+2 
n+1
ϕs γ s ηe((2s+n+2−s0 )/2)am z
m m
gl γ l elam z +
l=0 s=0
s=s0
 
+ Cn+1 γ n+2 η−1 + ϕs0 γ s0 η e((n+2+s0 )/2)am z
m


n
Ct γ t+1 η−1 e((2t−n+s0 )/2)am z = 0.
m
+ (36)
t=0

Since

−n + s0 2s + n + 2 − s0
∈ I4 = l, ,
2 2

2t − n + s0
: l = 0, . . . , n + 2, s = 0, . . . , n + 1, t = 1, . . . , n ,
2
(36) can be rewritten in the form

C0 γ η−1 e((−n+s0 )/2)am z +
m m
φq eqam z = 0, (37)
q∈4

where 4 is a set consisting of distinct elements from I4 , and by (26), (27), (33) and (36),
m
we get T(r, φq ) = S(r, ez ) (q ∈ 4 ). Then combining with (37) and Lemma 2.3, we get
C0 γ η−1 ≡ 0, which contradicts (27).
Subcase 3.2.4. (n + 2)am − bm = (n + 1)am + bm . Then by (28), we get


n+2 
n+1
  1
l lam zm
Ct γ t+1 η−1 + ϕt γ t η e(t+ 2 )am z = 0.
m
gl γ e + (38)
l=0 t=0

By (26), (27), (33), (38) and Lemma 2.3, we get

gl γ l ≡ 0, Ct γ t+1 η−1 + ϕt γ t η ≡ 0 (l = 0, . . . , n + 2, t = 0, . . . , n + 1). (39)

Then by (39), (27), (29) and (31), we get

 
a nj=0 αj − b b nj=0 αj − a
≡ 0, ≡ 0,
b−a b−a

which implies a + b = 0, nj=0 αj ≡ −1. This is absurd. Thus, Theorem 1.1 is proved. 
 COMPLEX VARIABLES AND ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS 13

Proof of Theorem 1.2: We divide three cases to complete the proof.

Case 1. ab = 0 and a + b = 0. Then by Theorem 1.1, we get f ≡ L(z, f ).
Case 2. ab = 0. Without loss of generality, we assume a = 0. Suppose that f ≡ L(z, f ),
then (2)–(5) still hold, and by (3) and (4), we get

(eR(z) − 1)f (z) = b(eQ(z) − 1), (eR(z) − 1)L(z, f ) = beR(z)−Q(z) (eQ(z) − 1). (40)

Now we discuss the following three subcases.

Subcase 2.1. deg R > deg Q. Let z0 be a zero of eR(z) − 1, by (40), we get z0 is a zero of
e Q(z) − 1. Then from the second main theorem, we get
   
    1 1
T r, eR ≤ N r, eR + N r, R + N r, R + S(r, eR )
e e −1
 
1
≤ N r, Q + S(r, eR ) = S(r, eR ).
e −1

This is absurd.
Subcase 2.2. deg R < deg Q. Using the same proof to case 2 in Theorem 1.1, we get a
contradiction.
Subcase 2.3. deg R = deg Q = m. By (3), we get m ≥ 1. If deg(R − Q) < m, using the
similar proof of Subcase 2.1, we get
   
    1 1
T r, eR ≤ N r, eR + N r, R + N r, R + S(r, eR )
e e −1
 
1
≤ N r, R−Q + S(r, eR ) = S(r, eR ).
e −1

This is absurd. If deg(R − Q) = m, Using the same proof to Subcase 3.2 in Theorem 1.1,
we get a contradiction.
Case 3. a + b = 0. Suppose that f ≡ L(z, f ), using the similar proof to that of
Theorem 1.1, in order to derive a contradiction, we only need to make a further discussion
for Subcase 3.2.4 in Theorem 1.1. By (3) and (4), we get

(eR(z) − 1)f (z) = aeR(z) − 2aeQ(z) + a, (eR(z) − 1)L(z, f ) = 2aeR(z)−Q(z) − aeR(z) − a.

(41)

Let z0 be a zero of eR(z) − 1, by (41), we get z0 is a zero of eR−2Q − 1. Note that eR−2Q − 1 ≡
0. Otherwise, by (3), we get f (z) = (a(eQ(z) − 1))/(eQ(z) + 1), which contradicts that f is
an entire function. Then from the second main theorem and deg(R − 2Q) < deg R, we get
   
    1 1
T r, eR ≤ N r, eR + N r, R + N r, R + S(r, eR )
e e −1
 
1
≤ N r, R−2Q + S(r, eR ) = S(r, eR ).
e −1

This is absurd. Theorem 1.2 is thus proved. 

14 H. LIU AND Z. MAO

4. Some further discussions

In [14], Heittokangas et al. proved the following result.

Theorem D ([14]): Let f be a meromorphic function of finite order, P(f ) = bk (z)f (z +

kc) + · · · + b1 (z)f (z + c) + b0 (z)f (z) with small coefficients bj . If f and P(f ) share three
distinct small functions a1 , a2 , a3 with period c IM, and limr→∞ N(r, f )/T(r, f ) < 1/n, then
f ≡ P(f ), where n ∈ {1, . . . , k + 1} is the number of nonzero coefficients of P(f ) − f .

Note that the shared functions in Theorem D are periodic functions. When removing
this restriction on shared functions, Li–Chen [20] proved the following result.

Theorem E ([20]): Let f be a meromorphic function of hyper-order less than 1, L(z, f ) be

defined as (1), and let a1 , a2 be two distinct small meromorphic functions of f. If f and L(z, f )
share a1 , a2 , ∞ CM and one of the following cases holds:

(1) L(z, a1 ) − a1 = L(z, a2 ) − a2 ≡ 0;

(2) L(z, a1 ) − a1 ≡ 0 or
L(z, a2 ) − a2 ≡ 0 and N(r, f ) < λT(r, f ) for some λ ∈ (0, 1);
(3) its order ρ(f ) ∈ N {∞},

then f ≡ L(z, f ).
But the following example shows that the conditions in Theorems D and E are not sharp.

Example 4.1: Let f (z) = (e2iz + 2eiz )/(e4iz + 1) and L(z, f ) = −f (z + 3π /2) − f (z +
π ) − f (z + π/2), then the following conclusions hold:

(1) f (z) ≡ L(z, f ). So f (z) and L(z, f ) share any distinct functions a1 , a2 , a3 IM.
(2) T(r, f ) = (4r/π )(1 + o(1)) and N(r, f ) = (4r/π )(1 + o(1)).
(3) For any nonzero function b with period π/2, L(z, b) − b = −4b ≡ 0.
(4) ρ(f ) = 1.

So, we may consider the following questions.

Question 4.1: What can be said if the shared value condition 3 CM in Theorem 1.1 is
reduced to 3IM?

Question 4.2: Does Theorem 1.1 still hold, if we replace three shared values by three
shared small functions?

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant numbers
11661044].
 COMPLEX VARIABLES AND ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS 15

References
[1] Gundersen GG. Meromorphic functions that share four values. Trans Amer Math Soc.
1983;277:545–567.
[2] Gundersen GG. Meromorphic functions that share two finite values with their derivatives.
Pacific J Math. 1983;105:299–309.
[3] Mues E, Steinmetz N. Meromorphe funktionen, die mit ihrer ableitung zwei werte teilen. Res
Math. 1983;6:48–55.
[4] Frank G, Weissenborn G. Meromorphe funktionen, die mit einer ihrer ableitungen werte teilen.
Complex Var. 1986;7:33–43.
[5] Frank G, Hua XH. Differential polynomials that share three finite values with their generating
meromorphic function. Michigan Math J. 1999;46:175–186.
[6] Mues E, Reinders M. Meromorphe Funktionen, die mit einem linearen differentialpolynom
drei Werte teilen. Res Math. 1992;22:725–738.
[7] Yang CC, Yi HX. Uniqueness theory of meromorphic functions. New York (NY): Kluwer
Academic Publishers; 2003.
[8] Chiang YM, Feng SJ. On the Nevanlinna characteristic of f (z + η) and difference equations in
the complex plane. Ramanujan J. 2008;16:105–129.
[9] Halburd RG, Korhonen R. Nevanlinna theory for the difference operator. Ann Acad Sci Fenn
Math. 2006;31:463–478.
[10] Halburd RG, Korhonen R. Difference analogue of the lemma on the logarithmic derivative with
applications to difference equations. J Math Anal Appl. 2006;314:477–487.
[11] Laine I, Yang CC. Clunie theorems for difference and q-difference polynomials. J Lond Math
Soc. 2007;76:556–566.
[12] Chen ZX, Yi HX. On sharing values of meromorphic functions and their differences. Res Math.
2013;63:557–565.
[13] Heittokangas J, Korhonen R, Laine I, et al. Value sharing results for shifts of meromorphic
functions, and sufficient conditions for periodicity. J Math Anal Appl. 2009;355:352–363.
[14] Heittokangas J, Korhonen R, Laine I, et al. Uniqueness of meromorphic functions sharing
values with their shifts. Complex Var Elliptic Equ. 2011;56:81–92.
[15] Liu K, Yang LZ. Value distribution of the difference operator. Arch Math. 2009;92:270–278.
[16] Li XM, Yi HX, Kang CY. Results on meromorphic functions sharing three values with their
difference operators. Bull Korean Math Soc. 2015;52:1401–1422.
[17] Lü F, Lü WR. Meromorphic functions sharing three values with their difference operators.
Comput Methods Funct Theory. 2017;17:395–403.
[18] Hayman WK. Meromorphic functions. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1964.
[19] Laine I. Nevanlinna theory and complex differential equations. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter; 1993.
[20] Li S, Chen BQ. Meromorphic functions sharing small functions with their linear difference
polynomials. Adv Differ Equ. 2013;2013:58.
[21] Goldberg AA, Ostrovskii IV. Distribution of values of meromorphic functions. Moscow:
Nauka; 1970.