Abstract
We consider the differential equation f'' + Af' + Bf = 0 where A(z) and B(z) ≢ 0 are mero-morphic functions. Assume that A(z) belongs to the Edrei-Fuchs class and B(z) has a deficient value ∞, if f ≢ 0 is a meromorphic solution of the equation, then f must have infinite order.
Mathematical Subject Classification 2000: 34M10; 30D35.
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction and main results
In this article, we shall consider the second order linear differential equation
where A(z) and B(z) ≢ 0 are meromorphic functions. We use the standard notations of value distribution theory of meromorphic function (see [1, 2]). In particular, for a meromorphic function f(z), we use the notation ρ(f) and μ(f) to denote its order and lower order, respectively and for a closed domain D in C, we use , if a ≠ ∞; and n(D, f = a) = n(D, f), if a = ∞ to denote the number of zeros for f - a in D, with due count of multiplicities.
It is well known that if A(z) is entire and B(z) is transcendental entire and f1, f2 are two linearly independent solutions of Equation (1.1), then at least one of f1, f2 must have infinite order. However, there are some equations of the form (1.1) that possess a solution f ≢ 0 of finite order; for example, f(z) = ez satisfies f'' + e-zf' - (e-z+ 1)f = 0. Thus, the main problem is that what conditions on A(z) and B(z) can guarantee that every solution f ≢ 0 of the Equation (1.1) has infinite order? There has been much work on this subject (cf. [3–8]). Furthermore, we also mention that if A(z) is entire with finite order having a finite deficient value, and B(z) is transcendental entire with , then every solution f ≢ 0 of the Equation (1.1) has infinite order [8].
It seems that there are few work done on the Equation (1.1), where A(z) and B(z) are mero-morphic functions. It would be interesting to get some relations between the Equation (1.1) and some deep results in value distribution theory of meromorphic functions. To this end, we note that when the zeros and poles of a meromorphic function distributed near some curves, Edrei and Fuchs proved that the number of deficient values can not be infinite. To relate the result of Edrei and Fuchs with the Equation (1.1), we first make some preparations.
In this following we use the notation Ω(θ1, θ2, r) = {z: θ1 < arg z < θ2, |z| < r} and .
Definition. Let f (z) be a meromorphic function in the finite complex plane C of order 0 < ρ(f) < ∞. A ray arg z = θ staring from the origin is called a zero-pole accumulation ray of f (z), if for any given real number ε > 0, the following equality holds
The following result which is a weaker form of the Edrei-Fuchs Theorem [9, 10] will be used later.
Theorem A. [[11], Theorem 3.10] Let f(z) be a meromorphic function in the complex plane C of order 0 < ρ(f) < + ∞. Assume that f(z) has q zero-pole accumulation rays and p deficient values other than 0 and ∞, then p ≤ q.
For simplicity, we shall call the inequality p ≤ q in Theorem A the Edrei-Fuchs inequality. It is easy to see that the Edrei-Fuchs inequality is sharp. In the following, we shall say that a meromorphic function f(z) ∈ EF, called it Edrei-Fuchs Class, if f(z) satisfies the conditions of Theorem A with p = q ≥ 1, that is, f(z) is of finite and positive order and has p zero-pole accumulation rays and p non-zero finite deficient values.
The main result in this article is based on the class EF. Now, we are able to state our result as follows.
Theorem. Let A(z) ∈ EF be a meromorphic function and let B(z) be a transcendental meromorphic function having a deficient value ∞. If f ≢ 0 is a meromorphic solution of Equation (1.1), then ρ(f) = ∞.
As our result depends largely on the EF class, we give some examples below from which we can see the EF class contains many familiar functions.
Example 1. The first example can be constructed as follows.
Clearly, ρ(A) = 1, and ez has two deficient values 0 and ∞. So A(z) has p = 2 deficient values a/c and b/d. On the other hand, for every complex number β ∈ C \ {0} and given constant ε > 0, all the zeros, except for finitely many number of them, of ez - β are in the angular region and . Hence, A(z) has q = 2 zero-pole accumulation rays . So p = q = 2 and A(z) ∈ EF.
Clearly, if A ∈ EF, then 1/A ∈ EF and aA ∈ EF for a ∈ C \ {0}. Similarly, for any α ∈ C \ {0}, we get
In this case, A(αz) has q = 2 zero-pole accumulation rays . Especially, we have
Remark 1. Let A(z) in (1.1) be defined as
where P(z) is a non-constant polynomial. In this case of the degree of P(z) is bigger than 1, then A(z) ∉ EF. But, we can see in the proof of the main theorem that if B(z) is a meromorphic function having deficient value ∞ and f ≢ 0 is a meromorphic solution of Equation (1.1), then ρ(f) = ∞.
A little bit more complicated example can be constructed as follows.
Example 2. Let p be a positive integer and set
where
Then we know that (see [[12], Chap 7]), , A*(z) has p deficient values
and p Borel directions
Hence, we can take two distinct complex numbers b, c, such that b, c ≠ a k , ∞ for all k = 0, 1, ..., p-1 and let
It can be seen that A(z) has p deficient values and p zero-pole accumulation rays θ k , k = 0, 1, ..., p - 1. Hence A(z) ∈ EF.
In the end of this section, we give two easy examples of the Equation (1.1) which satisfy our theorem.
Example 3. Let f (z) = esin z, then ρ(f) = ∞ and f(z) satisfies the following equation
Example 4. Let , then ρ(f) = ∞ and f(z) satisfies the following equation
Furthermore, we also point out that if A(z) ∈ EF and B(z) has no deficient value ∞, our theorem is in general false. The counterexample can be constructed as follows.
Example 5. Let f(z) = ez, then ρ(f) = 1 and f(z) satisfies the following equation
In this case, has only two deficient values 0 and -2, because 0 and -2 are Picard values of B(z).
The article is organized as the following: in Section 2, we shall give and prove some lemmas. In Section 3, we give the proof of Theorem. In Section 4, we give some further results.
2 Lemmas
In this article, for a measurable set E ⊂ [0, ∞), we define the Lebesgue measure of E by m(E) and the logarithmic measure of E ⊂ [1, ∞) by . We also define the upper and lower logarithmic density of E ⊂ [1, ∞), respectively, by
We need serval lemmas to prove our theorem.
Lemma 2.1. [13] Let w(z) be a transcendental meromorphic function of finite order, then there exits a set E ⊂ [0, ∞) that has finite linear measure, such that for all z satisfying |z| ∉ E and for all integers k, j (k > j), we have
Lemma 2.2. [11] Let A(z) be a meromorphic function with ρ(A) < +∞. Then, for any given real constants c > 0 and H > ρ(A), there exists a set E ⊂ (0, ∞) such that , where
and k = cH.
Lemma 2.3. [7] Let T(r) > 1 be a nonconstant increasing function in (0, +∞) of finite order ρ, i.e.
For any η such that 0 ≤ η < ρ, if ρ > 0, and η = 0 if ρ = 0, define
Then .
Lemma 2.4. Let A(z) be a meromorphic function of order 0 < ρ(A) < ∞ having ρ finite deficient values, a1, a2, ..., a p (p ≥ 1) and let B(z) be a meromorphic function with finite order having a deficient value ∞. Suppose that β > 1 and 0 < η < ρ(A) are two constants. Then there exists a sequence {t n } such that
Moreover, for every sufficiently large n, there is a set F n ⊂ [t n , (β+1)t n ] with such that, for all R ∈ [t n , βt n ] \ F n , the arguments θ sets E v (R),(v = 1, 2, ..., p) and E∞(R) satisfying the following inequalities
and
where M1, M2 are two positive constants depending only on A, B, , δ1 = δ(∞, B), β and η.
Proof. For any given constant η and for η < η1 < ρ(A), applying Lemma 2.3 to A(z) with T(r, A), we see that
Let β > 1 be given and let c = log 2(β+2), . Applying Lemma 2.2 to A(z), we deduce that there exists a set E = E(β, η) ⊂ (0, ∞) such that
where . Set E1 = E(η1) ∩ E. Then by simple computation we get
Hence, we can choose a sequence {t n } such that t n ∈ E1 and (2.4) holds.
Now we consider all the zeros and poles of A(z) - a v in |z| ≤ (β + 1)t n , (v = 1, 2, ... p)
where v n = n((β + 1)t n , A - a v ), and l n = n((β + 1)t n , A). At the same time, we let
be all the zeros and poles of B(z) in |z| ≤ (β + 1)t n , respectively, where and q n = n((β + 1)t n , B). By the Boutroux-Cartan theorem, if |z| = r ∈ [t n , βt n ] and z ∉ (γ(1)) n we have
where (γ(1)) n ⊂ {z: |z| ≤ (β + 1)t n } are some disks with the sum of total radius not exceeding 2L where . For every integer n, let F n = {|z|: z ∈ (γ(1)) n } then . Hence, for all R ∈ [t n , βt n ] \ F n , we easily see that .
It follows from (2.9) and the Poisson-Jensen formula, for every 1 ≤ v ≤ p, we have
So, for all n ≥ N0, we get
Denote and
There exists a constant N1 > N0 such that for all n > N1, we have
Hence,
So
This gives (2.5). Similarly, set δ1 = δ(∞, B) and
From (2.10), (2.12) and the Poisson-Jensen formula, we get
This gives (2.6) and the proof of Lemma 2.4 is completed.
Lemma 2.5. [[11], Lemma 3.13] Let f (z) be a meromorphic function of order 0 < ρ(f) < ∞ satisfying
Suppose for any given constant ε, 0 < ε < θ, there exists a sequence {R n } such that
where is a constant and a ≠ 0, ∞ is a complex number and N n > 0 is a real number such that for any given constant η0 > 0, and Rn 1≤ R n ≤ Rn 2, Rn 1→ ∞,
Furthermore, if and z ∉ (γ(2)) n , then
holds for every sufficiently large n where (γ(2)) n are some disks with the sum of total radius not exceeding and 0 < J(α, ε, θ) < +∞ are two constants depending only on α, ε, θ, and 0 < L(θ) < +∞ is a constants depending only on θ.
In the following, we will give the basic property of EF class which is key to the proof of our theorem.
Lemma 2.6 Let A(z) ∈ EF, then for any given ε > 0 (sufficiently small) and β > 1, when n is sufficiently large, there exists a sequence of angular regions , n = 1, 2, 3 ..., v = 1, 2, ... p such that for every 1 ≤ v ≤ p, the following inequalities
holds for , where is defined by Lemma 2.5 with the sum of total radius not exceeding and t n , βt n are defined by Lemma 2.4 and and a v are deficient values of A(z).
Proof. let β > 1 be fixed and for any given constant ε with,
where From (1.2), we get
Now let η0 be fixed such that . Applying Lemma 2.4 to A(z) with η = λ + 4η0 and suppose that [t n , βt n ], E v (R n ), F n are defined in Lemma 2.4 which satisfy the conclusions (2.4) and (2.5) of Lemma 2.4 and
and choose R n ∈ [t n , βt n ] \ F n for every sufficiently large n.
Without loss of generality, let , for every 1 ≤ v ≤ p, there exists a set such that
Furthermore, we also have
Set , Rn 1= t n , Rn 2= βt n , and using Lemma 2.5 for A(z), we have
Note that,
Therefore, if we let , it follows from Lemma 2.5 that, for we have
where is a constant not depending on n, and are some disks with the sum of total radius not exceeding . Thus, if and , then (2.20) gives (2.16). Obviously, there is a unique deficient value a v corresponding to every angular region for n sufficiently large, otherwise this gives a contradiction to (2.16). The proof of Lemma 2.6 is completed.
Remark 2. It can be seen from Lemma 2.6 that if A ∈ EF, then for any given ε > 0, β > 1, there exists a sequence of angular regions , (v = 1, 2, ... p) such that in every angular region, A(z) is close to a deficient value in a uniform way except for those points in some disks with sum of total radii not exceeding . This means that the measure of the the set of values θ ∈ [0, 2π] such that the ray arg z = θ meets the exceptional disks in the angular regions , (v = 1, 2, ... p) is at most .
3 Proof of theorem
Suppose that A(z) has p non-zero finite deficient values, a1, a2, ..., a p with deficiency δ(a v , A) > 0, 1 ≤ v ≤ p and has p zero-pole accumulation rays, 0 ≤ θ1 < θ2 < ... < θ p < θ1 + 2π. From the Equation (1.1), we get
If ρ(B) = ∞, using the standard lemma on the logarithmic derivative in (1.1), we have
According to the assumption, ρ(A) < ∞, we immediately get a contradiction. Hence ρ(f) = ∞ in the case ρ(B) = ∞. Now the rest of proof should be devoted to the case ρ(B) < ∞.
It is easy to see that, the Equation (1.1) can not have any nonzero rational solution by (3.1), (2.6) and A(z) ∈ EF. So now we assume that f ≢ 0 is a transcendental meromorphic solution of Equation (1.1) with ρ(f) < +∞. We shall seek a contradiction.
Applying Lemma 2.1 to f (z), there exists a set E1 ⊂ [0, ∞] with m(E1) < ∞ such that
holds for |z| ∉ E1 ∪ [0,1]. It follows from Lemma 2.4 that, there exists a sequence of closed intervals {[t n , βt n ]} with t n → ∞, tn+1> βt n and a set F n ⊂ [t n , (β + 1)t n ] with and a sequence R n ∈ [t n , βt n ] \ F n such that (2.5) and (2.6) simultaneously hold.
Let and . According to Lemma 2.6, we
choose such that for every n ≥ n0
where are some disks with the sum of total radius not exceeding . Hence, from Lemma 2.6 and (2.16), the following inequalities
holds for n ≥ n1 > n0 and .
On the other hand, from Lemma 2.4, for the sequence , the following equality
also holds for sufficiently large n. Hence, there exists a set such that
Now for sufficiently large n, we choose such that (3.4) and (3.5) hold. From (3.1) to (3.5) we get
So
From (3.7), it implies that B(z) is a rational function. This gives a contradiction. The proof of the theorem is completed.
4 Some further results
Although, Example 5 implies that our theorem is general false for B(z) has no deficient value ∞.
However, our theorem also holds if we give some conditions on B(z).
Now let B(z) be a transcendental meromorphic function which its form is defined below
where P(z) = αzn + ... is a polynomial with degree of n ≥ 1, Q(z) = βzm + ... is also a polynomial with degree m ≥ 0 (α, β ∈ C, |α| + |β| ≠ 0); a(z) ≢ 0, b(z), c(z) and d(z) are entire functions with
Now, we are able to state the theorem as follows.
Theorem 4.1. Let A(z) ∈ EF be a meromorphic function and let B(z) be a transcendental meromorphic function defined by (4.1) and (4.2) satisfying one of the following conditions:
-
(1)
m ≠ n;
-
(2)
m = n, arg α ≠ arg β;
-
(3)
m = n, β = cα, c ∈ (0, 1). If f ≢ 0 is a meromorphic solution of Equation (1.1), then ρ(f) = ∞.
Proof of Theorem 4.1. To prove this theorem, we only need to use Remark 2 and the following Lemma 4.1 and the same methods as the proof of main theorem. Hence, we shall omit its proofs.
Lemma 4.1. [14] Suppose that P(z) = (ξ + iη)zn + · · · (ξ,η are real numbers, |ξ| + |η| ≠ 0) is a polynomial with degree n ≥ 1, and suppose that a(z) ≢ 0 is an entire function with ρ(a) < n. Set g(z) = a(z)eP(z), z = reiθ, δ(P, θ) = ξ cos nθ - η sin nθ. Then for any given ε > 0, there exits a set H1 ⊂ [0, 2π) that has the linear measure zero, such that for any θ ∈ [0, 2π) \ (H1 ∪ H2) there is R = R(θ) > 0 such that for |z| = r > R, we have
-
(i)
if δ(P, θ) > 0, then
-
(ii)
if δ(P, θ) < 0, then
where H2 = {θ ∈ [0, 2π): δ(P, θ) = 0} is a finite set.
It is easy to see that, if a ∈ C \ {0}, b, c, d ∈ C and |c| + |d| ≠ 0 in (4.1), we can obtain the particular situation of Theorem 4.1. But if m = n, β = cα, c ∈ [1, ∞) in Theorem 4.1, then the conclusion is in general false (see Example 5). Another counterexample can be constructed as follows.
Example 6. Let f (z) = ez - 1, then f(z) satisfies the following equation
Furthermore, if P(z) has the degree n = 0 in (4.1), the conclusion is also in general false. The counterexample can be easily constructed as follows.
Example 7. Let f (z) = ez, then f (z) satisfies the following equation
References
Hayman WK: Meromorphic Functions. Clarendon Press, Oxford; 1964.
Laine I: Nevanlinna Theory and Complex Differential Equations. Walter de Gruyter Berlin, NewYork; 1993.
Chen ZX: The growth of solutions of second order linear differential equations with meromorphic coefficients. Kodai Math J 1999, 22: 208–221. 10.2996/kmj/1138044043
Gundersen GG: Finite order solution of second order linear differential equations. Trans Am Math Soc 1988, 305: 415–429. 10.1090/S0002-9947-1988-0920167-5
Hellenstein S, Miles J, Rossi J: On the growth of solutions of f'' + gf' + hf = 0. Trans Am Math Soc 1991, 324: 693–705.
Kwon KH: Nonexistence of finite order solution of certain second order linear differential equations. Kodai Math J 1996, 19: 378–387. 10.2996/kmj/1138043654
Laine I, Wu PC: Growth of solutions of second order linear differential equations. Proc Am Math Soc 2000, 128(9):2693–2703. 10.1090/S0002-9939-00-05350-8
Wu PC, Zhu J: On the growth of solutions of the complex differential equation f'' + Af' + Bf = 0. Sci China (Ser A) 2011, 54(5):939–947. 10.1007/s11425-010-4153-x
Edrei A, Fuchs W: On meromorphic functions with regions free of poles and zeros. Acta Math 1962, 108: 113–145. 10.1007/BF02545766
Edrei A, Fuchs W: Bounds for the number of deficient values of certain classes of meromorphic functions. Proc Lond Math Soc 1962, 12: 315–344. 10.1112/plms/s3-12.1.315
Zhang GH: Theory of entire and meromorphic functions, deficient and asymptotic values and singular directions, Translations of Mathematical Monographs. Am Math Soc 1993., 122:
Yang L: Value Distribution Theory. In Pure Appl Math. Volume 9. Springer-Verlag, Berlin; 1993.
Gundersen GG: Estimates for the logarithmic derivative of a meromorphic function, plus similar estimates. J Lond Math Soc 1988, 37: 88–104.
Chen ZX: The growth of solutions of f'' + e-zf' + Q ( z ) f = 0 where the order ( Q ) = 1. Sci China (Series A) 2002, 45(3):290–300.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the referee for his or her helpful comments and suggestions. This article was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11171080).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions
All authors drafted the manuscript, read and approved the final manuscript.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, P., Wu, S. & Zhu, J. On the growth of solutions of second order complex differential equation with meromorphic coefficients. J Inequal Appl 2012, 117 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2012-117
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2012-117