Abstract
In the article “A note on the Brück conjecture” (Arch. Math. 95 (2010), 257–268), the proofs of our results Theorem 1.4 and Theorem 1.6 mainly depend on Lemma 2.6, which is wrong. In this corrigendum, we give a correct proof of Theorem 1.4. Theorem 1.6 can be proved similarly; so we omit its proof.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Z. X. Chen The growth of solutions of f′′ + e −z f′ + Q(z)f = 0 where the order of Q = 1, Science in China (Ser.A) 45 (2002), 290–300.
Li S., Gao Z.S.: A note on the Brück Conjecture. Arch. Math. 95, 257–268 (2010)
C. C. Yang and H. X. Yi, Uniqueness theory of meromorphic functions, Kluwer Academic publishers, The Newtherlands, 2003.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1007/s00013-010-0165-6.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, S., Gao, Z. Erratum to: A note on the Brück conjecture. Arch. Math. 99, 255–259 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00013-012-0413-z
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00013-012-0413-z