About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Abstract and Applied Analysis
Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 368321, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/368321
Research Article

Normal Families of Meromorphic Functions Concerning Higher Derivative and Shared Values

1School of Mathematics Sciences, Xinjiang Normal University, Urumqi, Xinjiang 830054, China
2School of Mathematics and Information Sciences, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006, China

Received 3 July 2013; Revised 12 September 2013; Accepted 12 September 2013

Academic Editor: Alberto Fiorenza

Copyright © 2013 Wei Chen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

We study the normal families related to a Hayman conjecture of higher derivative and concerning shared values and get two normal criteria. Our results improve the related theorems which were obtained independently, respectively by Fang and Yuan (2001), Yuan et al. ((2011) and (2012)), Wang et al. (2011), and Qiu et al. (2012). Meanwhile, some examples are given to show the sharpness of our results.

1. Introduction and Main Results

Let and be two nonconstant meromorphic functions in a domain , and let be a finite complex value. We say that and share CM (or IM) in provided that and have the same zeros counting (or ignoring) multiplicity in . When , the zeros of mean the poles of (see [1]). It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the standard notations and the basic results of Nevanlinna’s value-distribution theory ([1] or [24]).

It is very interesting to find normality criteria from the point of view of shared values. In this area, Schwick [5] first proved an interesting result that a family of meromorphic functions in a domain is normal in which every function shares three distinct finite complex numbers with their first derivative. And later, more results about normality criteria concerning shared values have emerged; for instance, see [68]. In recent years, this subject has attracted the attention of many researchers worldwide.

We now first introduce a normality criterion related to a Hayman normal conjecture [9].

Theorem 1. Let be a family of holomorphic (meromorphic) functions defined in a domain, , , and . If does not vanish in for each function and , then is normal in .

The results for the holomorphic case are due to Drasin [10] for , Pang [11] for , Chen and Fang [12] for , Ye [13] for , and Chen and Gu [14] for the generalized result with and replaced by meromorphic functions. The results for the meromorphic case are due to Li [15], Li [16], and Langley [17] for , Pang [11] for , Chen and Fang [12] for , and Zalcman [18] for , obtained independently.

When and is meromorphic, Theorem 1 is not valid in general. Fang and Yuan [19] gave an example to show this and got a special result below.

Example 2. The family of meromorphic functions is not normal in . This is deduced by , as and Marty’s criterion [2], although for any , .

Here denotes the spherical derivative

Theorem 3. Let be a family of meromorphic functions in a domain , and , . If does not vanish in and the poles of are of multiplicity 3 for each , then is normal in .

In 2008, by the ideas of shared values, Zhang [8] proved the following.

Theorem 4. Let be a family of meromorphic (holomorphic) functions in , let be a positive integer and let , be two finite complex numbers such that . If and for every pair of functions and in , and share the value IM, then is normal in .

Example 5 (see [8]). The family of meromorphic functions is not normal in . Obviously . So for each pair of , , and share the value in , but is not normal at the point , since , as .

Remark 6. Example 5 shows that Theorem 4 is not valid when , and the condition is best possible for meromorphic case.

In 2011, Yuan et al. [20] and Wang et al. [21] proved the following theorems, independently, respectively.

Theorem 7 (see [20, 21]). Let be a family of meromorphic functions in and , two finite complex numbers such that . Suppose that each has no simple pole. If and share the value IM for every pair of functions and in , then is normal in .

Theorem 8 (see [20]). Let be a family of meromorphic functions in and and two finite complex numbers such that . Suppose that each admits zeros of multiple and the poles of multiplicity at least 3. If and share the value IM for every pair of functions and in , then is normal in .

Lately, Yuan et al. [22] and Qiu et al. [23] studied this result, independently, respectively, in which the derivative was replaced by th derivative , and they got the following results.

Theorem 9 (see [22]). Let be a family of meromorphic functions in , and let and be two positive integers. Let and be two finite complex numbers. If(i) and share IM in for every pair of functions and in ,(ii) has no simple pole and no zero of multiplicity less than in for every function , then is normal in .

Theorem 10 (see [22, 23]). Let be a family of meromorphic functions in , and be two positive integers. Let and be two finite complex numbers. If(i) and share IM in for every pair of functions and in ,(ii) has no zero of multiplicity less than in for every function , then is normal in .

It is natural to ask whether the condition or in the previous theorems can be reduced. In this paper, we study this problem and get the following results.

Theorem 11 (main theorem). Let be a domain in and let be a family of meromorphic functions in . Let and let , be two finite complex numbers with . Suppose that every has all its zeros of multiplicity at least and all its poles of multiplicity at least . If and share the value IM for every pair of functions of , then is a normal family in .

Remark 12. When or , we have or , respectively. It follows that Theorem 11 generalizes Theorems 4, 7, 9, and 10.

Theorem 13 (main theorem). Let be a domain in and let be a family of meromorphic functions in . Let and , be two finite complex numbers with . Suppose that every has all its zeros of multiplicity at least and all its poles of multiplicity at least . If and share the value IM for every pair of functions of , then is a normal family in .

Remark 14. When , it follows that Theorem 13 generalizes Theorem 8.

Example 15 (see [23]). Let be two positive integers and a nonzero complex constant. The family of meromorphic functions is , . Obviously, for each pair of , , and share the value in , but is not normal.

Example 16. Let be a positive integer and two nonzero complex constants such that . The family of meromorphic functions is , . Obviously, for each pair of and share the value in , but is normal since as .

Remark 17. Example 15 shows that the condition that admits zeros of multiplicity at least is best in Theorem 11. For the case , , Example 5 shows that the condition that admits poles of multiplicity at least is sharp in Theorem 11. For the case , Example 16 shows that the condition that admits poles of multiplicity at least is sharp in Theorem 13. For the case , , Example 2 shows that the condition that admits zeros of multiplicity at least in Theorem 13 is sharp.

2. Preliminary Lemmas

In order to prove our results, we need the following lemmas. The first is the extended version Zalcman’s [24] concerning normal families.

Lemma 1 (see [25]). Let be a family of meromorphic functions on the unit disc satisfying all zeros of functions in having multiplicity ≥p and all poles of functions in having multiplicity ≥q. Let be a real number satisfying . Then is not normal at if and only if there exist (a)a number ;(b)points ;(c)functions ;(d)positive numbers such that converges spherically uniformly on each compact subset of to a nonconstant meromorphic function , whose all zeros have multiplicity ≥p and all poles have multiplicity ≥q and order is at most 2.

Lemma 2. Let be a meromorphic function such that and , with , . If all zeros of are of multiplicity at least and all poles of are of multiplicity at least , then where , as , possibly outside a set with finite linear measure.

Proof. Set
Since , we have . Thus, Hence, So that
On the other hand, (4) gives where denotes the counting function of zeros of both and .
We obtain By (4), we have From (6)~(9), we obtain
Since all zeros and poles of are multiplicities at least and , we get So that

Lemma 3. Let be a transcendental meromorphic function such that . Let and . If all zeros of are of multiplicity at least and all poles of are of multiplicity at least , then has infinitely many zeros.

Proof. Suppose that has only finitely many zeros; then . Clearly, an arbitrary zero of is a zero of since all zeros of are of multiplicity at least ; then we can deduce that has only finite zeros, so .
Set Similarly, with the proof of Lemma 2, we can get
Since all poles of are multiplicities at least , we obtain so that This is contradicting with the fact that is transcendental.
Hence, Lemma 3 is proved completely.

Lemma 4. Let be a nonconstant rational function such that . Let , and with and . If and all poles of are of multiplicity at least , then has at least two zeros.

Proof. Suppose, to the contrary, that has at most one zero.
Since , we get that is a rational but not a polynomial.
Case  1. If has only zero with multiplicity , set where is a nonzero constant and .
For the sake of simplicity, we denote
From (17), we have where is a polynomial such that .
From (17) and (19), we get
By the assumption that has exactly one zero with multiply , we have where is a nonzero constant. Thus,
Differentiating (22), we obtain
For the sake of simplicity, we denote Hence,
Since , we have . But , a contradiction.
Case  2. If has no zeros, then for (21). We have where is a nonzero constant. Thus,
Obviously, is not a constant, a contradiction.
Lemma 4 is proved.

Lemma 5. Let be a rational function and , and with and . If all zeros of are of multiplicity at least and all poles of are of multiplicity at least , then has at least two distinct zeros.

Proof. Suppose, to the contrary, that has at most one zero.
Case  I. When is a nonconstant polynomial, noting that all zeros of have multiplicity at least , we know that must have zeros. We claim that has exactly one zero. Otherwise, we can get that has at least two zeros, which contradicts our assumption.
Set where , is a nonzero constant. Then
Since , we obtain that has at least one zero which is not from (29). Therefore, has at least two distinct zeros, a contradiction.
Case  II. When is rational but not a polynomial, we consider two cases.
Case  1. Suppose that has only zero with multiplicity at least . If , by Lemma 4, we get a contradiction. So has zeros, and then we can deduce that is the only zero of . Otherwise, has at least two distinct zeros, a contradiction.
We set where is a nonzero constant and , .
For the sake of simplicity, we denote
From (31), we have where is a polynomial with .
From (30) and (32), we get
By assumption that has exactly one zero with multiplicity , we have where is a nonzero constant. Thus, Case  1.1. If , from (35), we can deduce that is a zero of , a contradiction.
Case  1.2. If , from (35), it follows that
Differentiating (36), we have
For the sake of simplicity, we denote Thus,
Since , we get , but , a contradiction.
Case  2. If has no zeros, then for (34). Similarly, as the proof of Case  1, we also have a contradiction.
The proof is completed.

3. Proofs of Theorems

Proof. In Theorem 11, suppose that is not normal in . Then there exists at least one point such that is not normal at the point . Without loss of generality, we assume that . By Lemma 1, there exist points , positive numbers , and functions such that locally uniformly with respect to the spherical metric, where is a nonconstant meromorphic function in and whose poles and zeros are of multiplicity at least and , respectively. Moreover, the order of is at most 2.
From (40), we know that also locally uniformly with respect to the spherical metric.
Case  1. If , by Theorems 4 and 7, the Theorem 11 assumes.
Case  2. If , , by Theorems 9 and 10, the Theorem 11 assumes.
Case  3. If , or , (If , by Theorems 9 and 10, we can get Theorem 11).
If , since all poles of have multiplicity at least , we have Therefore, is a constant, a contradiction. So .
By Lemma 2, we have Then If , then (46) gives that is also a constant. Hence, is a nonconstant meromorphic function and has at least one zero.
Next we prove that has just a unique zero. On the contrary, let and be two distinct zeros of , and choose small enough such that , where and . From (42), by Hurwitz’s theorem, there exist points , such that for sufficiently large
By the hypothesis that for each pair of functions and in , and share in , we know that for any positive integer
Fix , take , and note , ; then . Since the zeros of have no accumulation point, so Hence, , . This contradicts , and . So has just a unique zero, which can be denoted by .
Noting that has poles and zeros of multiplicities at least and , respectively, (46) deduces that is a rational function with degree at most .
If is a polynomial, noting that and the multiplicities of zeros are at least , we have and . Hence, there exist and such that , and then has 6 distinct zeros, a contradiction.
Suppose that is not a polynomial, and . Then the multiplicities of poles of are at least , which implies that , a contradiction.
Suppose that is not a polynomial, and ; we distinguish two cases.
Case  i. If has zeros, since all zeros of have multiplicity at least , it follows that , a contradiction.
Case  ii. If , then (46) should be as follows
From (50), we can see that is a rational function with degree at most . Since all poles of have multiplicity at least , which gives that , a contradiction.
This completes the proof of Theorem 11.

Proof. In Theorem 13, suppose that is not normal in . Then there exists at least one point such that is not normal at the point . Without loss of generality, we assume that . By Lemma 1, there exist points , positive numbers , and functions such that locally uniformly with respect to the spherical metric, where is a nonconstant meromorphic function in and whose poles and zeros are of multiplicity at least and , respectively. Moreover, the order of is at most 2.
From (51), we know also locally uniformly with respect to the spherical metric.
If , since all poles of have multiplicity at least , we can deduce that is an entire function easily. Thus, Therefore, is a constant, a contradiction. So . By Lemmas 3, 4, and 5, has at least two distinct zeros. Proceeding as in the later proof of Theorem 11, we will get a contradiction. The proof is completed.

Similarly, as the proof of Theorem 11, when is a holomorphic function, we can get the following theorem which has been gotten in [23].

Theorem 18 (see [23]). Let be a domain in and let be a family of holomorphic functions in . Let , and let , be two finite complex numbers with . Suppose that every has all its zeros of multiplicity at least . If and share the value IM for every pair of functions of , then is a normal family in .

Acknowledgments

This paper is supported by the Nature Science Foundation of China (11271090), Nature Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (S2012010010121), and Graduate Research and Innovation Projects of Xinjiang Province (XJGRI2013131). This work was supported by the Visiting Scholar Program of Chern Institute of Mathematics at Nankai University. The second author would like to express his hearty gratitude to Chern Institute of Mathematics which provided very comfortable research environments to him where he worked as a Visiting Scholar.

References

  1. C. C. Yang and H. X. Yi, Uniqueness Theory of Meromorphic Functions, vol. 557 of Mathematics and Its Applications, Science Press, Beijing, China; Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, NY, USA, 2003. View at MathSciNet
  2. Y. X. Gu, X. C. Pang, and M. L. Fang, Theory of Normal Family and Its Applications, Science Press, Beijing, China, 2007 (Chinese).
  3. W. K. Hayman, Meromorphic Functions, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 1964. View at MathSciNet
  4. L. Yang, Value Distribution Theory, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1993. View at MathSciNet
  5. W. Schwick, “Normality criteria for families of meromorphic functions,” Journal d'Analyse Mathématique, vol. 52, pp. 241–289, 1989. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  6. X. C. Pang and L. Zalcman, “Normal families and shared values,” The Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 325–331, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  7. X. C. Pang and L. Zalcman, “Normality and shared values,” Arkiv för Matematik, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 171–182, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  8. Q. C. Zhang, “Normal families of meromorphic functions concerning shared values,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 338, no. 1, pp. 545–551, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  9. W. K. Hayman, Research Problems in Function Theory, The Athlone Press University of London, London, UK, 1967. View at MathSciNet
  10. D. Drasin, “Normal families and the Nevanlinna theory,” Acta Mathematica, vol. 122, pp. 231–263, 1969. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  11. X. C. Pang, “On normal criterion of meromorphic functions,” Science in China A, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 521–527, 1990. View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  12. H. H. Chen and M. L. Fang, “On a theorem of Drasin,” Advances in Mathematics, vol. 20, pp. 504–504, 1991 (Chinese).
  13. Y. S. Ye, “A new normality criterion and its application,” Chinese Annals of Mathematics A, vol. 12, supplement, pp. 44–49, 1991. View at MathSciNet
  14. H. H. Chen and Y. X. Gu, “An improvement of Marty's criterion and its application,” Science in China A, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 674–681, 1993. View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  15. S. Y. Li, “On normality criterion of a class of the functions,” Journal of Fujian Normal University, vol. 2, pp. 156–158, 1984.
  16. X. J. Li, “Proof of Hayman's conjecture on normal families,” Science in China A, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 596–603, 1985. View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  17. J. K. Langley, “On normal families and a result of Drasin,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh A, vol. 98, no. 3-4, pp. 385–393, 1984. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  18. L. Zalcman, On Some Questions of Hayman, 1994.
  19. M. L. Fang and W. J. Yuan, “On the normality for families of meromorphic functions,” Indian Journal of Mathematics, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 341–351, 2001. View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  20. W. J. Yuan, J. J. Wei, and J. M. Lin, “A note on normal families of meromorphic functions concerning shared values,” Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, vol. 2011, Article ID 463287, 10 pages, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  21. J. H. Wang, Q. Lu, and Q. L. Liao, “Normal criteria and shared values by differential polynomials,” Advances in Pure Mathematics, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 210–217, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  22. W. J. Yuan, Z. R. Li, and J. M. Lin, “Some normality criteria of function families concerning shared values,” Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences, vol. 35, no. 17, pp. 2095–2100, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  23. H. L. Qiu, D. Liu, and M. L. Fang, “Hayman's question concerning normal families and shared values,” Scientia Sinica Mathematica, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 603–610, 2012 (Chinese). View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. L. Zalcman, “A heuristic principle in complex function theory,” The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 82, no. 8, pp. 813–817, 1975. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  25. L. Zalcman, “Normal families: new perspectives,” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 215–230, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet