Available online at http://scik.

org
J. Math. Comput. Sci. 11 (2021), No. 4, 5012-5030
https://doi.org/10.28919/jmcs/5838
ISSN: 1927-5307

RESULTS ON MEROMORPHIC AND ENTIRE FUNCTIONS SHARING CM AND

IM WITH THEIR DIFFERENCE OPERATORS

V. HUSNA∗ , VEENA

Department of Mathematics, School of Engineering, Presidency University, Bengaluru-560 064, India

Copyright © 2021 the author(s). 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. In this paper, we study the value distribution of finite order meromorphic, entire functions and their
difference operators sharing CM and IM. Our results in this paper improve and generalizes the corresponding
results from Dong-Mei Wei and Zhi-Gang Huang.
Keywords: meromorphic functions; entire functions; difference operator; uniqueness.
2010 AMS Subject Classification: 30D35.

1. I NTRODUCTION

Whole of this article, every function like meromorphic function, integral function are defined
on complex plane C be a open complex plane and two functions f and g are non constant
meromorphic functions in C. The fundamentals of value distribution theory of meromorphic
function can be read in [10], [17]. For a meromorphic function f , the order and the lower order
of f is given by
log+ T (r, f ) log+ T (r, f )
σ ( f ) = lim log r and µ( f ) = lim log r
r→∞ r→∞
While
log+ N(r, 1f ) 1
m(r, f −α ) 1
N(r, f −α )
λ ( f ) = lim log r and δ (α, f ) = lim T (r, f ) =1 − lim T (r, f )
r→∞ r→∞ r→∞

∗ Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: husna@presidencyuniversity.in, husnav43@gmail.com
Received April 09, 2021
5012
 MEROMORPHIC AND ENTIRE FUNCTIONS WITH THEIR DIFFERENCE OPERATORS 5013

stand for the exponent of convergence of zero sequence of f and the deficiency of f at the
point α, respectively. For a non constant meromorphic function v, we denote by T (r, v) the
Nevanlinna characteristic of v and by S(r, v) any quantity satisfying S(r, v) = o(T (r, v)), as r
runs to infinity outside of a set E ⊂ (0, +∞) of finite linear measure. We say that v is a small
function of f if T (r, v) = S(r,v).
Let b be a small function and k be a positive integer, then denote N(k (r, b; f ) the counting
function for zeros of f (z) − b with multiplicity atleast k, and N (k (r, b; f ) if multiplicity is not
counted and Nk) (r, b; f ) is the counting function for zeros of f (z) − b with multiplicity at most
k and N k) (r, b; f ) if multiplicity is not counted.

2. P RELIMINARIES

Definition 1. [12] Let k be a non-negative integer or infinity. For α ∈ C ∪ {∞}, we denote by

Ek (α; f ) the set of all α points of f (z) where an α point of multiplicity m is counted m times if
m ≤ k and k + 1 times if m > k. If Ek (α; f ) = Ek (α; g), then we say that f , g share the value α
with weight k.

We write f and g share (α, k) to mean that f , g share the value α with weight k.

1
Definition 2. [12] If s is a positive integer, then we denote by N(r, f −α |= s) the counting
function of those α points of f whose multiplicity is s, where each α point is counted according
to its multiplicity. For a positive integer m, denote by N(r, α; f |≥ m) the counting function
of those α points of f whose multiplicities are not less than m where each α point is counted
according to its multiplicity.

1 1 1
Definition 3. [13] Denote by N2 (r, f −α ) the sum of N(r, f −α ) + N(r, f −α |≥ 2).

The classical four point and five point theorems of Nevanlinna [15] show f is a Mobius
transformation of g if two meromorphic functions f and g share four distinct values CM, and
f = g if f and g share five distinct values IM. The assumption 4 CM of the four point theorem
and 5 IM of the five-point theorem have been improved to 2 CM+2 IM and 3 CM+1 IM , while
1 CM+3 IM remains an open problem.
Some researchers also considered whether the conditions of shared values can be replaced by
5014 V. HUSNA, VEENA

other conditions. Ozawa [16] obtained the following.

Theorem A. Let f and g be non constant entire functions of finite order such that f and
g share 0 and 1 CM. If δ (0, f ) > 21 , then f . g = 1 or f = g.

Removing the order restriction Ueda [19] and Yi [22] obtained some improvements of
Theorem A. Especially, Yi [23] obtained the following.

Theorem B. [23] Suppose that f and g are non constant meromorphic functions. If f , g
share 0, 1, ∞ CM and N(r, 1f ) + N(r, f ) < (d + o(1))T (r, f ) for r ∈ 1 and r ∈ ∞, where d is a
positive number satisfying 0 < d < 12 , while I ⊂ (0, +∞) is a subset of infinite linear measure,
then f . g = 1 or f = g.

For the sake of relaxing the nature of sharing of values and improving Theorem B, Lahiri in
[12] obtained the following result in terms of the weighted value sharing.

Theorem C. [12] Suppose that f and g are non constant meromorphic functions. Let f
and g share (0,1), (∞, 0), (1, ∞). If

 
1
N r, |= 1 + 4N(r, f ) < (d + o(1))T (r, f ),
f −α

then either f . g = 1 or f = g.

Rubel and Yang [18] in 1977 initiated the study of entire functions sharing values with their
derivatives instead of studying the problem of sharing value of two meromorphic functions f
and g.

Theorem D. Let f be a non constant entire function. If f shares two distinct finite val-
ues CM with f 0 , then f ≡ f 0 .
 MEROMORPHIC AND ENTIRE FUNCTIONS WITH THEIR DIFFERENCE OPERATORS 5015

More results on the uniqueness of f 0 with its nth derivative f (n) were obtained by several
authors; see [[1], [8], [20]]. In view of the progress on the difference analogues of classical
Nevanlinna theory of meromorphic functions [[4], [9]], it is quite natural to investigate the
uniqueness problems of meromorphic functions and their difference operators; see [3], [6],
[11], [25]. So a natural question arises, that is, how about the uniqueness of the derivatives and
the difference operators of f (z)?
In 2018, Qi et al. [17] obtained some results in the case that f 0 (z) shares values with 4 f or
f (z + c).

Theorem E. Let f be a meromorphic function of finite order. Suppose that f 0 and 4 f share
a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 IM, where a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 are four distinct finite values. Then f 0 = 4 f .

Theorem F. Let f be a transcendental entire function of finite order, and α be a nonzero

finite value. If f 0 (z) and f (z + c) share 0, α CM, then f 0 (z) = f (z + c) for all z ∈ C.

In 2020 Dong-Mei Wei and Zhi-Gang Huang proved the 1st result which investigates the
uniqueness of meromorphic functions in terms of weighted value sharing and 2nd and 3rd
results on difference operators of f (z) shares some values with its derivatives.

Theorem G. [26] Let f and g be meromorphic functions with finite order, and let c ∈ C \ {0}.
Suppose that f n and gn share (R(z), l), where R(z) is a rational function and l, n are integer. If
one of the following cases holds:
(1) l = 0, n ≥ 15;
(2) l = 1, n ≥ 10;
(3) l ≥ 2, n ≥ 9,
then f = tg or f . g = tα, where t n = 1, α n = R2 .

Theorem H. [26] Let f be a non constant entire function of finite order with periodic η 6= 0
such that µ( f ) > 1, where η is a finite nonzero value, and let a1 and a2 be two distinct finite
5016 V. HUSNA, VEENA

values, and k be a positive integer. If 4 f and f (k) share a1 CM, 4 f and f (k) share a2 IM, then
4 f = f (k) .

Theorem I. [26] Let f be a non constant meromorphic function of finite order, and let c be a
finite nonzero value, let k be a positive integer satisfying k ≥ 2, and let a1 , a2 , a3 be three finite
1
values such that a1 6= 0, a2 6= 0 and N(r, f −a3 ) = S(r, f ). If f (z + c) and f (k) (z) share a1 CM
and a2 IM, then f (z + c) = f (k) (z) for all z ∈ C.

3. M AIN R ESULTS

Theorem 1. Let f and g be meromorphic functions with finite order, and let c ∈ C \ {0}.
Suppose that f n P( f ) and gn P(g) share (R(z), l), where R(z) is a rational function and l, m, n
are integers. If one of the following cases holds:
(1) l = 0, n ≥ 13m + 15;
(2) l = 1, n ≥ 8m + 10;
(3) l ≥ 2, n ≥ 7m + 9,
then f = tg or f . g = tα, where t n+m = 1, α n+m = R2 .

Theorem 2. Let f be a non constant entire function of finite order with periodic η 6= 0 such that
µ( f ) > 1, where η is a finite nonzero value, and let a1 and a2 be two distinct finite values, and k
be a positive integer. If 4( f n P( f )) and f (k) share a1 CM, 4( f n P( f )) and f (k) share a2 IM, then

4( f n P( f )) = f (k) .

Theorem 3. Let f be a non constant meromorphic function of finite order, and let c be a finite
nonzero value, let k be a positive integer satisfying k ≥ 2, and let a1 , a2 , a3 be three finite values
1
such that a1 6= 0, a2 6= 0 and N(r, f −a3 ) = S(r, f ). If f n (z + c)P( f ) and f (k) (z) share a1 CM and
a2 IM, then

f n (z + c)P( f ) = f (k) (z)

for all z ∈ C.
 MEROMORPHIC AND ENTIRE FUNCTIONS WITH THEIR DIFFERENCE OPERATORS 5017

4. L EMMAS

Let F and G be two non constant meromorphic functions defined in C. The function H is
defined by:
 F 00 2F 0   G00 2G0 
H= − − − .
F0 F −1 G0 G − 1
The following Lemmas are used to prove the main results of this paper.

Lemma 1. [2] Let F and G be two non constant meromorphic functions sharing (1,0) and
H 6= 0. Then
     
1 1 1
T (r, F) ≤ N2 r, + N2 r, + N2 (r, F) + N2 (r, G) + 2N r,
F G F
 
1
+ N r, + 2N(r, F) + N(r, G) + S(r, F) + S(r, G)
G

and the same inequality holds for T (r, G).

Lemma 2. [2] Let F and G be two non constant meromorphic functions, sharing (1,1) and
H 6= 0. Then
     
1 1 1 1 1
T (r, F) ≤ N2 r, + N2 r, + N2 (r, F) + N2 (r, G) + N r, + N(r, F)
F G 2 F 2
+ S(r, F) + S(r, G)

and the same inequality holds for T (r, G).

Lemma 3. [12] Let f and g be two non constant meromorphic functions sharing (1,2). Then
one of the following cases holds:
i) T (r) ≤ N2 (r, 1f ) + N2 (r, g1 ) + N2 (r, f ) + N2 (r, g) + S(r),
ii) f = g,
iii) f g = 1,
where T (r) = max{T (r, f ), T (r, g)} and S(r) = o{T (r)}, as r 6∈ E, where E ⊂ (0, +∞) is a
subset of finite linear measure.

Lemma 4. [7] Let f and g be two meromorphic functions, and let k be a positive integer. If
Ek (1; f ) = Ek (1; g), then one of the following cases must occur:
5018 V. HUSNA, VEENA

1 1
(i) T (r, f ) + T (r, g) ≤ N2 (r, ) + N2 (r, ) + N2 (r, f ) + N2 (r, g)
f g
       
1 1 1 1
+ N r, + N r, − N11 r, + N (k+1 r,
f −1 g−1 f −1 f −1
 
1
+ N (k+1 r, + S(r, f ) + S(r, g);
g−1
(b + 1)g + (a − b − 1)
(ii) f = , where a(6= 0), b are two constants.
bg + (a − b)

Lemma 5. [21] Let f be a meromorphic function. If

af +b
g= ,
cf +d
where a, b, c, d ∈ S( f ) and ad − bc 6= 0, then

T (r, g) = T (r, f ) + S(r, f ).

Lemma 6. [4] Let f be a non constant meromorphic function, let ε > 0 and let c ∈ C. If f is of
finite order, then there exists a set E = E( f , ε) ⊂ (0, +∞) satisfying
R dt
E∩[1,r) t
lim ≤ ε,
r→∞ log r
i.e, of logarithmic density at most ε, such that
   
f (z + c) log r
m r, =O T (r, f (z))
f (z) r
for all out of the set E. If ρ2 = ρ2 < 1 and ε > 0, then
   
f (z + c) T (r, f (z))
m r, =o
f (z) r1−ρ2 −ε
for all r ∈ (0, +∞) outside of a set of finite logarithmic measure.

Lemma 7. ([1], Lemma 3) Let k be a positive integer, and let f be a non constant meromorphic
 
function such that f (k+1) 6≡ 0. If N r, 1f = S(r, f ), then
   
1 1
kN1) (r, f ) ≤ N (2 (r, f ) + N1) r, (k) + N r, (k+1) + S(r, f ).
f −1 f

Lemma 8. [24] Let f be a meromorphic function such that f (k) is not constant. Then
     
1 1 1
T (r, f ) ≤ N r, ) + N1) r, (k) + N(r, f ) − N r, (k+1) + S(r, f ).
f f −1 f
 MEROMORPHIC AND ENTIRE FUNCTIONS WITH THEIR DIFFERENCE OPERATORS 5019

Lemma 9. [24] Let f be a transcendental meromorphic function. Then, for each positive real
number ε and for each positive integer n,
 
1
(n − 1)N(r, f ) ≤ (1 + ε)N r, (n) + (1 + ε)(N(r, f ) − N(r, f )) + S(r, f ).
f

Lemma 10. [4] Let f be a non constant meromorphic function of finite order and c ∈ C. Then

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

N(r, f (z + c)) = N(r, f ) + S(r, f ),

 1   1 
N r, = N r, + S(r, f ),
f (z + c) f (z)
N(r, f (z + c)) = N(r, f ) + S(r, f ),
 1   1 
N r, = N r, + S(r, f ).
f (z + c) f (z)

5. P ROOF OF M AIN R ESULTS

Proof of Theorem 1
f n P( f ) gn P(g)
Set F = R , G= R , clearly, F and G share (1, l). Write T (r) = max{T (r, f ), T (r, g)}
and S(r) = o(T (r)) as r 6∈ E and r → ∞, where E ⊂ (0, +∞) is a subset of finite linear measure.
Case 1. l = 0 and n ≥ 13m + 15
Assume that H 6= 0. By Lemma 1, we have
     
1 1 1
T (r, F) ≤ N2 r, + N2 r, + N2 (r, F) + N2 (r, G) + 2N r,
F G F
 
1
+ N r, + 2N(r, F) + N(r, G) + S(r, F) + S(r, G).
G
Clearly,
   
1 1
(n + m)T (r, f ) ≤ 4N r, + 3N r, + 4N(r, F) + 3N(r, G) + S(r, F) + S(r, G)
F G
   
1 1
≤ 4N r, n + 3N r, n + 4N(r, f n P( f )) + 3N(r, gn P(g))
f P( f ) g P(g)
+ S(r, f ) + S(r, g)

(1) (n + m)T (r, f ) ≤ 8(1 + m)T (r, f ) + 6(1 + m)T (r, g) + S(r, f ) + S(r, g).
5020 V. HUSNA, VEENA

Similarly, we have

(2) (n + m)T (r, g) ≤ 8(1 + m)T (r, g) + 6(1 + m)T (r, f ) + S(r, f ) + S(r, g).

Now (1) and (2) yield

(n − 13m − 14)(T (r, f ) + T (r, g)) ≤ S(r, f ) + S(r, g).

Hence
(n − 13m − 14)T (r) ≤ S(r),

which contradicts n ≥ 13m + 15.

Therefore, H ≡ 0 and we have
 00
2F 0
  00
2G0

F G
(3) − − − = 0.
F0 F − 1 G0 G − 1
It follows from (3) that
1 A
(4) = + B,
F −1 G−1
where A 6= 0, B are constants.
G−1+A
Subcase 1.1. If B = 0, then (4) leads to F = A and G = AF − (A − 1). Suppose that A = 1.
n n t n+m = 1. If A 6= 1, then we have
 F = G,
Clearly, we have  and thus f P( f ) = tg P(g), where

N r, G1 = N r, F−1A−1 and N r, F1 = N r, G+(A−1) 1



.
A
By Nevanlinna’s second fundamental theorem,
  !
1 1
T (r, F) ≤ N r, + N r, + N(r, F) + S(r, F)
F F − A−1
A
   
1 1
≤ N r, + N r, + N(r, F) + S(r, F).
F G
Thus,
 
1
(n + m)T (r, f ) ≤ N r, + N(r, gP(g)) + N(r, f P( f )) + S(r, f )
(5) f P( f )
≤ 2(1 + m)T (r, f ) + (1 + m)T (r, g) + S(r, f ).

Similarly, we have

(6) (n + m)T (r, g) ≤ 2(1 + m)T (r, g) + (1 + m)T (r, f ) + S(r, g).
 MEROMORPHIC AND ENTIRE FUNCTIONS WITH THEIR DIFFERENCE OPERATORS 5021

Combining (5) and (6), we obtain

(m + n − 3 − 3m)(T (r, f ) + T (r, g)) ≤ S(r, f ) + S(r, g)

(n − 2m − 3)T (r) ≤ S(r)

Clearly, it is a contradiction by n ≥ 13m + 15,

Subcase 1.2 B 6= 0.
(B+1)G−(B−A+1)
If A 6= B, then we have F = BG+(A−B) . Applying Nevanlinna’s second fundamental the-
orem to F with considering 0 point, 1 point, and ∞ point, we can also get a contradiction by
similar discussion as in Subcase 1.1.
Case 2. l = 1 and n ≥ 8m + 10.
Assume that H 6= 0. By Lemma 2, we have
     
1 1 1 1 1
T (r, F) ≤ N2 r, + N2 r, + N2 (r, F) + N2 (r, G) + N r, + N(r, F)
F G 2 F 2
+ S(r, F) + S(r, G)
   
5 1 5 n 1
≤ N r, n + N(r, f P( f )) + 2N r, n + 2N(r, gn P(g))
2 f P( f ) 2 g P(g)
+ S(r, f ) + S(r, g).

Thus,

(7) (n + m)T (r, f ) ≤ 5(1 + m)T (r, f ) + 4(1 + m)T (r, g) + S(r, f ) + S(r, g).

Similarly, we have

(8) (n + m)T (r, g) ≤ 5(1 + m)T (r, g) + 4(1 + m)T (r, f ) + S(r, f ) + S(r, g).

Combining (7) and (8) yields

(m + n − 9 − 9m)(T (r, f ) + T (r, g)) ≤ S(r, f ) + S(r, g),

which contradicts n ≥ 8m + 10.

Therefore, H ≡ 0. We can deduce the same conclusion by similar discussion as in case 1.
Case 3. l ≥ 2 and n ≥ 7m + 9.
5022 V. HUSNA, VEENA

Subcase 3.1. l = 2.
From Lemma 3, if (i) holds, then we deduce that

   
1 1
(9) max{T (r, F), T (r, G)} ≤ N2 r, + N2 r, + N2 (r, F) + N2 (r, G) + S(r, F) + S(r, G).
F G

That is,

(m + n)T (r) = (m + n) max{T (r, F), T (r, G)}

   
1 1
≤ 2N r, n + 2N r, n + 2N(r, f n P( f ))
f P( f ) g P(g)
+ 2N(r, gn P(g)) + S(r, f ) + S(r, g)

≤ 8(1 + m)T (r) + S(r).

Therefore, (m + n − 8 − 8m)T (r) ≤ S(r), which contradicts n ≥ 7m + 9. Thus we have F = G

or FG = 1. If F = G, then f n P( f ) = gn P(g), which yields f = tg, where t n+m = 1. If FG = 1,
then ( f n P( f )gn P(g)) = R2 , which yields ( f g)n+m = R2 , f g = tα, where t n+m = 1, α n+m = R2 .
Subcase 3.2. l ≥ 3.
By Lemma 4, either (i) or (ii) holds. If (i) holds, then we obtain

   
1 1
T (r, F) + T (r, G) ≤ N2 r, + N2 r, + N2 (r, F) + N2 (r, G)
F G
       
1 1 1 1
+ N r, + N r, − N11 r, + N (k+1 r,
F −1 G−1 F −1 F −1
 
1
+ N (k+1 r, + S(r, F) + S(r, G)
G−1
     
1 1 1 1
≤ N2 (r, F) + N2 (r, G) + N2 r, + N2 r, + N r,
F G 2 F −1
 
1 1
+ N r, + S(r, F) + S(r, G)
2 G−1
   
1 1
≤ N2 (r, F) + N2 (r, G) + N2 r, + N2 r,
F G
+ T (r, F) + T (r, G) + S(r, F) + S(r, G).
 MEROMORPHIC AND ENTIRE FUNCTIONS WITH THEIR DIFFERENCE OPERATORS 5023

Therefore, we get
 
1 1 1
T (r, F) + T (r, G) ≤ 2N(r, f P( f )) + 2N(r, gP(g)) + 2N r,
2 2 f P( f )
(10)  
1
+ 2N r, + S(r, f ) + S(r, g).
gP(g)
Consequently,
1
(m + n){T (r, f ) + T (r, g)} ≤ 4(1 + m){T (r, f ) + T (r, g)} + S(r, f ) + S(r, g),
2
which leads to
 
1
(m + n) − 4(1 + m) {T (r, f ) + T (r, g)} ≤ S(r, f ) + S(r, g).
2
This is a contradiction since n ≥ 7m + 9
Hence, (ii) holds, which means
(b + 1)G + (a − b − 1)
F= ,
bG + (a − b)
where a 6= 0, b are constants.
Suppose that b = 0. Then we have F = G when a − 1 = 0, that is, f = tg, where t n+m = 1. If
a − 1 6= 0, then we obtain F = G+a−1 and G = a F + 1−a , and so N r, F1 = N r, G+a−1
1




a a ,
 
N r, G1 = N r, F+11−a . By Nevanlinna’s second fundamental theorem we get


a
   
1 1
T (r, G) ≤ N r, + N r, + N(r, G) + S(r, G).
G G+a−1
This yields
(m + n)T (r, g) ≤ 2(1 + m)T (r, g) + (1 + m)T (r, f ) + S(r, g).

Similarly, we have

(m + n)T (r, f ) ≤ 2(1 + m)T (r, f ) + (1 + m)T (r, g) + S(r, f ).

Thus we obtain (n − 2m − 3)(T (r, f ) + T (r, g)) ≤ S(r, f ) + S(r, g), which is a contradiction with
n ≥ 7m + 9. Suppose that b = −1. If a + 1 = 0, then F. G ≡ 1. Hence f .g = tα, where t n+m = 1,
α n+m = R2 . If a + 1 6= 0, similarly to above, then we can obtain a contradiction. Suppose b 6= 0
and b 6= −1. By similar reasoning to the case b = 0, we can also obtain a contradiction.
This completes the proof of Theorem 1.
5024 V. HUSNA, VEENA

Proof of Theorem 2
Without loss of any generality, we can assume a1 = 0, a2 = 1. Since 4( f n (z)P( f )), f (k) share
0 CM, we have

4( f n (z)P( f ))
(11) (k)
= eR ,
f
Where R is a polynomial of degree n + m.
Since the period of f is c ∈ C \ {0}, we have eR(z) = eR(z+c) .
Consequently, eR(z+c)−R(z) = 1, which leads to R0 (z + c) = R0 (z). Then R0 (z) has a period c and
R0 (z) must be a constant.
Now write

R(z) = f n+m (z)am + f n+m−1 (z)am−1 + ... + a0 .

Where a, n, m are constants.

Since 4( f n (z)P( f )), f (k) share 1 IM, we get

4( f n (z)P( f )) − 1
(12) = α(z),
f (k) − 1
where α is a meromorphic functin.
By (11), (12) and R(z) = f n+m (z)am + f n+m−1 (z)am−1 + ... + a0 , we deduce

f (k) eR − 1
(13) α(z) = .
f (k) − 1
By Lemma 5, we obtain

(14) T (r, α) = T (r, f (k) ) + S(r, f ) = (k + 1)T (r, f ) + S(r, f ).

Now we estimate the number of zeros, poles of α. From the assumption that µ( f ) > 1, we
know that T (r, eR ) = S(r, f ).
Since 4( f n (z)P( f )), f (k) share 1 IM, it follows from (13) that the zero of 4( f n (z)P( f )) − 1
and f (k) − 1 must be the zero of eR − 1. Noting that f (k) − 1 have the same poles with f (k) eR − 1,
then by (12), we have
   
1 1
N(r, α) = N r, (k)
≤ N r, R
= S(r, f )
f −1 e −1
 MEROMORPHIC AND ENTIRE FUNCTIONS WITH THEIR DIFFERENCE OPERATORS 5025

and
     
1 1 1
N r, = N r, ≤ N r, R = S(r, f ).
α 4( f n P( f ) − 1 e −1
Therefore, from the Nevanlinna second fundamental theorem, we obtain
   
1 1
(15) T (r, α) ≤ N(r, α) + N r, + N r, + S(r, α).
α α − eR
4( f n (z)P( f ))−1 n (z)P( f ))
Combining (11) and (12), we may write α − eR = f (k) −1
− 4( f f (k)
= eR −1
f (k) −1
.
Then, by (15), we conclude that
 
1
(16) T (r, α) ≤ 3N r, + S(r, f ) = S(r, f ).
eR − 1
It contradicts (14).
Therefore, 4( f n P( f )) = f (k) . This completes the proof of Theorem 2.

Proof of Theorem 3
Some ideas of our proof come from [1], [26]. Without loss of generality, we assume that
 
f n (z + c)P( f ) and f (k) (z) share 1 CM and ∞ IM, and N r, 1f = S(r, f ). For the general
z−a3 a2 −a1
case, we take the transformation T (z) = z−a1 a2 −a3 , and so T (a1 ) = ∞, T (a2 ) = 1, T (a3 ) = 0.
Suppose that f n (z + c)P( f ) 6≡ f (k) (z). Set
!
1 f (k+1)(z) ( f n (z + c)P( f ))0
(17) G(z) = n −
f (z + c)P( f ) f (k) (z) − 1 f n (z + c)P( f ) − 1

(18) !
f (k) (z) f (k+1)(z) f (k+1) (z) ( f n (z + c)P( f )0 ( f n (z + c)P( f ))0
 
G(z) = n − − −
f (z + c)P( f ) f (k) (z) − 1 f (k) (z) f n (z + c)P( f ) − 1 f n (z + c)P( f )

It follows from the lemma of the logarithmic derivative, Lemma 6 and (18) that m(r, G) =
S(r, f ).
By (17), we see that the possible poles of G can occur at the zeros of f n (z + c)P( f ), the 1-
points of f n (z + c)P( f ) and f (k) (z), and the poles of f n (z + c)P( f ) and f (k) (z). If z0 is a 1-
point of f n (z + c)P( f ), then by a short calculation with Laurent series and (17) we see that
G(z) is analytic at z0 . Since f n (z + c)P( f ) and f (k) (z) share 1 CM, we know the 1 points
of f n (z + c)P( f ) and f (k) (z) are not the poles of G(z). If f n (z + c)P( f ) has a pole z0 with
multiplicity (n + m)p (≥ 1), we need to consider two cases: (i) z0 is also a pole of f (k) (z), then
5026 V. HUSNA, VEENA

by (17) G(z) = O((z − z0 )(n+m)p−1 ); (ii) z0 is not a pole of f (k) (z), and hence z0 is not a pole of
f (k+1) (z). Then we also have G(z) = O((z − z0 )(n+m)p−1 ). Similarly, the poles of f (k) (z) are not
also the poles of G(z). Therefore, the poles of F can only occur at the zeros of f n (z+c)P( f ). By
   
1 1
Lemma 7 and the hypothesis of Theorem 3, it follows that N r, f n (z+c)P( f) = N r, f n (z+c) +
 
N r, P(1f ) + S(r, f ) = S(r, f ), and so we have N(r, G) = S(r, f ). Thus,

(19) T (r, G) = S(r, f ).

If G ≡ 0, then, by (17), we find that f (k) (z) − 1 = t( f n (z + c)P( f ) − 1), with t 6= 0 constant.
 (k)   n   
Thus, (1 − t)m(r, 1f ) ≤ m r, f f (z)(z) + m r, f (z+c)P(
f n P( f )
f)
= S(r, f ). Since N r, 1f = S(r, f ), we
 
have T r, 1f = S(r, f ). It is a contradiction. Then G 6≡ 0. And so we deduce from (17) and
(19) that
!

1

f (k+1)(z) ( f n (z + c)P( f ))0
m(r, f n (z + c)P( f )) ≤ m r, + m r, (k) −
G f (z) − 1 f n (z + c)P( f ) − 1
(20)
≤ T (r, G) + S(r, f )

= S(r, f ).

If z0 is a pole of f n (z + c)P( f ) of multiplicity (n + m)p ≥ 2, then by (17) we know that z0 is

possible a zero of G with multiplicity (n + m)p − 1. Consequently, it follows from (19) that
 
n 1
(21) N(2 (r, f (z + c)P( f )) ≤ 2N r, ≤ 2T (r, G) + O(1) = S(r, f ).
G

Let z0 be a simple pole of f n (z + c)P( f ). Set

f (k+1) (z)( f n (z + c)P( f ) − 1)

(22) H(z) = .
( f n (z + c)P( f ))0 ( f (k) (z) − 1)

By a short calculation with Laurent series, it follows that H(z0 ) = k + 1. If H(z) ≡ k + 1, then
we have f (k) (z) − 1 = t( f n (z + c)P( f ) − 1)k+1 with t 6= 0 constant. This is a contradiction, since
f (k) (z) and f n (z + c)P( f ) share 1 CM. Thus H 6≡ k + 1, and so,
 
n 1
(23) N1) (r, f (z + c)P( f )) ≤ N r, ≤ T (r, H) + O(1).
H − (k + 1)

We now estimate the poles of H. Clearly, the poles of H can only occur at the 1 points of
f (k) (z), the zeros of ( f n (z + c)P( f ))0 , and the poles of f n (z + c)P( f ) and f (k+1) (z). Since
 MEROMORPHIC AND ENTIRE FUNCTIONS WITH THEIR DIFFERENCE OPERATORS 5027

f (k) (z), ( f n (z + c)P( f )) share 1 CM and ∞ IM, H is holomorphic at the 1 points of f (k) (z) and
the poles of f n (z + c)P( f ) and f (k+1) (z). Thus
 
1
(24) N(r, H) ≤ N0 r, + S(r, f ),
( f (z + c)P( f ))0
n

 
where N0 r, ( f n (z+c)P( f ))0 denotes the zeros of ( f n (z + c)P( f ))0 which are not zeros of
1

f n (z + c)P( f ) − 1. Again by (22), we see that

(25) m(r, H) = S(r, f ),

From this, (23) and (24) we find that

 
n 1
(26) N1) (r, f (z + c)P( f )) ≤ N0 r, + S(r, f ).
( f n (z + c)P( f ))0

Combining this, Nevanlinna’s second fundamental theorem ( [10], Theorem 3.2]) for
 
n 1
f (z + c)P( f ) , (21) and the hypothesis N r, f (z) = S(r, f ) we have

(27)
   
n 1 1
T (r, f (z + c)P( f )) ≤ N r, + N r, n + N(r, f n (z + c)P( f ))
f n (z + c)P( f ) f (z + c)P( f ) − 1
 
1
− N0 r, n 0
+ S(r, f n (z + c)P( f ))
( f (z + c)P( f ))
 
1
≤ N r, n + S(r, f )
f (z + c)P( f ) − 1
   
1 1
≤ N1) r, n + N (2 r, n + S(r, f ).
f (z + c)P( f ) − 1 f (z + c)P( f ) − 1

From this and Nevanlinna’s first fundamental theorem, it is easy to deduce that
(28)
     
1 1 1
m r, +N(2 r, n ≤ N (2 r, n +S(r, f ),
f n (z + c)P( f ) − 1 f (z + c)P( f ) − 1 f (z + c)P( f ) − 1

which implies
   
1 1
(29) m r, + N(2 r, n = S(r, f ).
f n (z + c)P( f ) − 1 f (z + c)P( f ) − 1
5028 V. HUSNA, VEENA

From (29), we see that

   
n 1 1
T (r, f (z + c)P( f )) = m r, + N1) r, n
f n (z + c)P( f ) − 1 f (z + c)P( f ) − 1
 
1
(30) + N(2 r, n + S(r, f )
f (z + c)P( f ) − 1
 
1
= N1) r, n + S(r, f ).
f (z + c)P( f ) − 1

Since f n (z + c)P( f ) and f (k) (z) share 1 CM, it follows from Lemma 7 and (21) that
 
n 1
(31) (k − 1)N1) (r, f (z + c)P( f )) ≤ N r, (k+1) + S(r, f ).
f (z)

By Lemma 8, (29) (30) and (21), we have

(32)
     
1 1 n 1
N r, ≤ N r, + N1) (r, f (z + c)P( f )) + N r, n
f (k+1) (z + c) f n (z + c)P( f ) f (z + c)P( f ) − 1

− T (r, f n (z + c)P( f )) + S(r, f n (z + c)P( f ))

≤ N1) (r, f n (z + c)P( f )) + S(r, f ).

It follows from Lemma 10 that

   
1 1
N r, (k+1) = N r, (k+1) + S(r, f )
f (z) f (z + c)

From this, (31) and (32), we see that (k − 2)N1) (r, f n (z + c)P( f )) = S(r, f ). If k ≥ 3, then
N1) (r, f n (z + c)P( f )) = S(r, f ). Combining this, (20) and (21), we have T (r, f n (z + c)P( f )) =
S(r, f ), which is a contradiction.
Let k = 2.
Case 1. If f (z) is transcendental, then by Lemma 9, for a positive constant ε < 1 we have
 
n 1
2N1) (r, f (z + c)P( f )) ≤ (1 + ε)N r, (k+1) + (1 + ε)[N(r, f n (z + c)P( f ))
(33) f (z + c)
− N(r, f n (z + c)P( f ))] + S(r, f )

From this and (21) we have

(1 − ε)N1) (r, f n (z + c)P( f )) = S(r, f ).

 MEROMORPHIC AND ENTIRE FUNCTIONS WITH THEIR DIFFERENCE OPERATORS 5029

Combining this, (20) and (21), we have T (r, f n (z + c)P( f )) = S(r, f ). This is contradiction.
 
Case 2. If f (z) is rational, then by N r, 1f = S(r, f ) we know that f has no zeros, and hence
1
we can write f n (z + c)P( f ) = P(z) , where P(z) is a non constant polynomial. Set

f (k+1) (z) ( f n (z + c)P( f ))0 ( f n (z + c)P( f ))0

Φ= − − 2 .
f (k) (z) − 1 f n (z + c)P( f )) − 1 f n (z + c)P( f )
Clearly T (r, Φ) = S(r, f ). Combining this and (17), we have

(34) 2( f n (z + c)P( f ))0 = G f 2 − Φ f .

Substituting f n (z + c)P( f ) = 1
P(z) into (34) we obtain −2P0 = G − ΦP. This shows that
T (r, P0 ) = T (r, P) + S(r, f ) and so T (r, P) = S(r, f ). This is a contradiction.
Therefore, f n (z + c)P( f ) = f (k) (z). This completes the proof of Theorem 3.

C ONFLICT OF I NTERESTS

The author(s) declare that there is no conflict of interests.

R EFERENCES

[1] A.H.H. Al-Khaladi, Meromorphic functions that share one finite value CM or IM with their k-th derivative,
Results Math. 63 (2013), 95–105.
[2] A. Banerjee, Meromorphic functions sharing one value, Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2005 (2005), 3587–3598.
[3] B. Chen, Z. Chen, S. Li, Uniqueness of difference operators of meromorphic functions, J. Inequal. Appl.
2012 (2012), 48.
[4] Y.-M. Chiang, S.-J. Feng, On the Nevanlinna characteristic of f (z + η) and difference equations in the com-
plex plane, Ramanujan J. 16 (2008), 105–129.
[5] V. Husna, Results on difference polynomials of an entire function and its k th derivative shares a small
function, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1597 (2020), 012016.
[6] B. Deng, C. Lei, M. Fang, Meromorphic Function Sharing Sets with Its Difference Operator or Shifts, Chin.
Ann. Math. Ser. B. 40 (2019), 331–338.
[7] C.-Y. Fang, M.-L. Fang, Uniqueness of meromorphic functions and differential polynomials, Comput. Math.
Appl. 44 (2002), 607–617.
[8] G. Frank, G. Weißenborn, Meromorphe Funktionen, die mit einer ihrer Ableitungen Werte teilen, Complex
Var. Theory Appl. 7 (1986), 33–43.
[9] R.G. Halburd, R.J. Korhonen, Difference analogue of the lemma on the logarithmic derivative with applica-
tions to difference equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 314 (2006), 477–487.
5030 V. HUSNA, VEENA

[10] W.K. Hayman, Meromorphic functions, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1964.
[11] J. Heittokangas, R. Korhonen, I. Laine, J. Rieppo, J. Zhang, Value sharing results for shifts of meromorphic
functions, and sufficient conditions for periodicity, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 355 (2009), 352–363.
[12] I. Lahiri, Weighted sharing and uniqueness of meromorphic functions, Nagoya Math. J. 161 (2001), 193–206.
[13] I. Lahiri, Weighted value sharing and uniqueness of meromorphic functions, Complex Var. Theory Appl. 46
(2001), 241–253.
[14] T. Li, N. Pintus, G. Viglialoro, Properties of solutions to porous medium problems with different sources and
boundary conditions, Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 70 (2019), 86.
[15] R. Nevanlinna, Einige Eindeutigkeitssätze in der Theorie der Meromorphen Funktionen, Acta Math. 48
(1926), 367–391.
[16] M. Ozawa, Unicity theorems for entire functions, J. Anal. Math. 30 (1976), 411–420.
[17] X. Qi, N. Li, L. Yang, Uniqueness of meromorphic functions concerning their differences and solutions of
difference Painlevé equations, Comput. Methods Funct. Theory, 18 (2018), 567–582.
[18] L.A. Rubel, C.-C. Yang, Values shared by an entire function and its derivative, in: J.D. Buckholtz, T.J.
Suffridge (Eds.), Complex Analysis, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1977: pp. 101–103.
[19] H. Ueda, On the zero-one-pole set of a meromorphic function. II, Kodai Math. J. 13 (1990), 134–142.
[20] J. Wang, Uniqueness of entire function sharing a small function with its derivative, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 362
(2010), 387–392.
[21] C.-C. Yang, H.-X. Yi, Uniqueness theory of meromorphic functions, Mathematics and its Applications,
Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Dordrecht, 2003.
[22] H.X. Yi, Meromorphic functions that share three values, Chinese Ann. Math. Ser. A. 9 (1988), 434–439.
[23] H.X. Yi, Meromorphic functions that share two or three values, Kodai Math. J. 13 (1990), 363–372.
[24] H.-X. Yi, X.-M. Li, Meromorphic functions sharing four values, Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 83
(2007), 123–128.
[25] J. Zhang, L. Liao, Entire functions sharing some values with their difference operators, Sci. China Math. 57
(2014), 2143–2152.
[26] D.-M. Wei, Z.-G. Huang, Uniqueness of meromorphic functions concerning their difference operators and
derivatives, Adv. Difference Equ. 2020 (2020), 480.
[27] P.W. Harina, V. Husna, Results on uniqueness of product of certain type of difference polynomials, Adv.
Stud. Contemp. Math. 31 (2021), 67–74
[28] V. Husna, S. Rajeshwari, S.H. Naveen Kumar, A note on uniqueness of transcendental entire functions con-
cerning differential-difference polynomials of finite order, Electron. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 9 (2021), 248–260.
[29] V. Husna, S. Rajeshwari, S.H. Naveen Kumar, Results on Uniqueness of product of certain type of shift
polynomials, Poincare J. Anal. Appl. 7 (2020), 197-210.