# Normality Criteria of Lahiri's Type and Their Applications

- Xiao-Bin Zhang
^{1}, - Jun-Feng Xu
^{1, 2}Email author and - Hong-Xun Yi
^{1}

**2011**:873184

https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/873184

© Xiao-Bin Zhang et al. 2011

**Received: **22 September 2010

**Accepted: **9 February 2011

**Published: **7 March 2011

## Abstract

We prove two normality criteria for families of some functions concerning Lahiri's type, the results generalize those given by Charak and Rieppo, Xu and Cao. As applications, we study a problem related to R. Brück's Conjecture and obtain a result that generalizes those given by Yang and Zhang, Lü, Xu and Chen.

## 1. Introduction and Main Results

Let denote the complex plane, and let be a nonconstant meromorphic function in . It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the standard notion used in the Nevanlinna value distribution theory such as the characteristic function , the proximity function , the counting function (see, e.g., [1–4]), and denotes any quantity that satisfies the condition as outside of a possible exceptional set of finite linear measure. A meromorphic function is called a small function with respect to , provided that .

Let and be two nonconstant meromorphic functions. Let and be small functions of and . means and have the same zeros (counting multiplicity) and means that and have the same poles (counting multiplicity). If whenever , we write . If and , we write . If , then we say that and share .

where , are nonnegative integers. is called the differential monomial of and is called the degree of .

Let be a family of meromorphic functions defined in a domain . is said to be normal in , in the sense of Montel, if for any sequence , there exists a subsequence such that converges spherically locally uniformly in , to a meromorphic function or .

According to Bloch's principle, every condition which reduces a meromorphic function in to a constant makes a family of meromorphic functions in a domain normal. Although the principle is false in general, many authors proved normality criteria for families of meromorphic functions starting from Picard type theorems, for instance.

Theorem A (see [5]).

Let be an integer, and . If, for a meromorphic function , for all , then must be a constant.

Let be an integer, , , and let , be a family of meromorphic functions in a domain . If for all , then is a normal family.

In 2005, Lahiri [8] got a normality criterion as follows.

Theorem C.

If there exists a positive constant such that for all whenever , then is a normal family.

In 2009, Charak and Rieppo [9] generalized Theorem C and obtained two normality criteria of Lahiri's type.

Theorem D.

If there exists a positive constant such that for all whenever , then is a normal family.

Theorem E.

If there exists a positive constant such that for all whenever , then is a normal family.

Very recently, Xu and Cao [10] further extended Theorems D and E by replacing with ; they got

Theorem F.

If there exists a positive constant such that for all whenever , then is a normal family.

Theorem G.

If there exists a positive constant such that for all whenever , then is a normal family.

To prove Theorems D–G, the authors used a key lemma (Lemma 2.4 in this paper) besides Zalcman-Pang's Lemma. It's natural to ask whether such normality criteria of Lahiri's type still hold for the general differential monomial . We study this problem and obtain the following theorem

Theorem 1.1.

If there exists a positive constant such that for all whenever , then is a normal family.

Theorem 1.2.

If there exists a positive constant such that for all whenever , then is a normal family.

As an application of Theorem 1.1, we obtain the following theorem.

Theorem 1.3.

Let be a family of holomorphic functions in a domain , for every , all zeros of have multiplicity at least . Let be two finite values and be nonnegative integers with , , . For every , all zeros of have multiplicity at least , if , then is normal in .

Example 1.4.

Let and . If , let . For each function , and share 0 in . However, it can be easily verified that is not normal in . Example 1.4 shows that the condition in Theorem 1.3 is sharp.

Example 1.5.

Let and . If , let , where is the root of . For each function , , in . However, it can be easily verified that is not normal in . Example 1.5 shows that the multiplicity restriction on zeros of in Theorem 1.3 is sharp (at least for ).

## 2. Preliminary Lemmas

Lemma 2.1 (see [11]).

Let be a family of meromorphic functions on the unit disc , all of whose zeros have the multiplicity at least , then if is not normal, there exist, for each

such that locally uniformly with respect to the spherical metric, where is a nonconstant meromorphic function on , all of whose zeros have multiplicity at least , such that . Here, as usual, is the spherical derivative.

Lemma 2.2 (see [1, page 158]).

Let be a family of meromorphic functions in a domain . Then is normal in if and only if the spherical derivatives of functions are uniformly bounded on each compact subset of .

Lemma 2.3 (see [12]).

Let be an entire function and a positive integer. If for all , then has the order at most one.

Lemma 2.4 (see [13]).

Take nonnegative integers with , and define . Let be a transcendental meromorphic function with the deficiency . Then for any nonzero value , the function has infinitely many zeros. Moreover, if , the deficient condition can be omitted.

The following two lemmas can be seen as supplements of Lemma 2.4.

Lemma 2.5.

Take nonnegative integers with , and define . Let be a transcendental meromorphic function whose zeros have multiplicity at least . Then for any nonzero value , the function has infinitely many zeros, provided that and when . Specially, if is transcendental entire, the function has infinitely many zeros.

Proof.

If , then , this case has been considered (see [5, 12–20]).

If and if , we immediately get the conclusion from Lemma 2.4. Next we consider the case .

If , then ; this case has been proved as mentioned above (see [13–16]).

If , then we have ; the conclusion is evident.

If , note that and we deduce that , thus the conclusion holds.

In view of and , we get , thus we immediately obtain the conclusion. This completes the proof of Lemma 2.5.

Lemma 2.6.

Take nonnegative integers with , , and define . Let be a nonconstant rational function whose zeros have multiplicity at least . Then for any nonzero value , the function has at least one finite zero.

Proof.

Since the case has been proved by Charak and Rieppo [9], we only need to consider .

Case 1.

If is a nonconstant polynomial, since the zeros of have multiplicity at least , we know that is also a nonconstant polynomial, so has at least one zero, which contradicts our assumption.

Case 2.

where is a nonzero constant and , .

Moreover, is not a constant, or else, we get is a constant for . The leading coefficient of is .

which implies , a contradiction with the assumption .

which is a contradiction since .

Hence has at least one finite zero.

This proves Lemma 2.6.

Remark 2.7.

Lemma 2.6 is a generalization of Lemma 2.2 in [10]. The proof of Lemma 2.6 is quite different from its proof. Actually, the proof of Lemma 2.2 in [10] is incorrect. The main problem appears at (2.2) in [10]. Since has only zero with multiplicity at least , then each zero of is of multiplicity at least , but this does not mean that each zero of is of multiplicity at least because the zeros of may not be the zeros of , and thus their multiplicity may less than . Therefore, the inequality of (2.2) in [10] is not valid, which implies that the proof of Lemma 2.2 in [10] is not correct.

Lemma 2.8.

Proof.

has always a nonzero solution, say . By Lemmas 2.5 and 2.6, the differential monomial cannot avoid it and thus there exists such that .

This proves Lemma 2.8.

Lemma 2.9 (see [2, page 51]).

where denotes the central-index of .

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1.1

Since is not a pole of , there exists a positive number such that in some neighborhood of we get .

which is a contradiction since as .

This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.

## 4. Proof of Theorem 1.2

We can arrive at a contradiction by using the same argument as in the latter part of proof of Theorem 1.1.

This completes the proof of Theorem 1.2.

## 5. Applications

Proof of Theorem 1.3.

We shall divide our argument into two cases.

and for all whenever ; by Lemmas 2.5 and 2.6, using the similar proof of Theorem 1.1, we obtain the conclusion.

For , if for , since , we have , which is a contradiction, hence .

If for , since , we immediately get and hence , which is still a contradiction, hence .

Suppose that is not normal in , by Lemma 2.1, there exist , , , and such that locally uniformly with respect to the spherical metric, where is a nonconstant entire function, all of whose zeros have multiplicity at least . By Hurwitz's theorem, we have

but by Lemmas 2.5 and 2.6 we get a contradiction again.

This proves Theorem 5.1.

Further more, using Theorem 1.3, we obtain a uniqueness theorem related to R. Brück's Conjecture. Firstly, we recall this conjecture.

R. Brück's Conjecture

*Let*

*be a nonconstant entire function such that the hyper-order*

*is not a positive integer and*

*. If*

*and*

*share a finite value*

*CM, then*

Since then, many results related to this conjecture have been obtained. We refer the reader to Brück [23], Gundersen and Yang [24], Yang [25], Chen and Shon [26], Li and Gao [27], and Wang [28].

It's interesting to ask what happens if is replaced by in Brück's Conjecture. Recently, Yang and Zhang [29] considered this problem and got the following theorem.

Theorem H.

Lü et al. [30] improves Theorem H and obtained the following theorem.

Theorem I.

We obtain a more general result as follows.

Theorem 5.1.

where is a nonzero constant. Specially, if , then , where is a nonzero constant, is the root of .

Proof of Theorem 5.1.

for all . Hence by Lemma 2.3, has the order at most 1.

hence and . , is the root of .

This completes the proof of Theorem 5.1.

## Declarations

### Acknowledgments

The authors thank the referees for reading the manuscript very carefully and making a number of valuable suggestions to improve the readability of the paper. The authors were supported by NSF of China (no. 10771121), NSF of Shandong Province (no. Z2008A01) and NSF of Guangdong Province (no. 9452902001003278).

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Hayman WK:
*Meromorphic Functions, Oxford Mathematical Monographs*. Oxford University Press, London, UK; 1964:xiv+191.Google Scholar - Laine I:
*Nevanlinna Theory and Complex Differential Equations, de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics*.*Volume 15*. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany; 1993:viii+341.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Yang C-C, Yi H-X:
*Uniqueness Theory of Meromorphic Functions, Mathematics and Its Applications*.*Volume 557*. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Dordrecht, The Netherlands; 2003:viii+569.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Yang L:
*Value Distribution Theory*. Springer, Berlin, Germany; 1993:xii+269.MATHGoogle Scholar - Hayman WK:
**Picard values of meromorphic functions and their derivatives.***Annals of Mathematics*1959,**70:**9–42. 10.2307/1969890MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Pang XC:
**Bloch's principle and normal criterion.***Science in China*1989,**32**(7):782–791.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Pang XC:
**On normal criterion of meromorphic functions.***Science in China*1990,**33**(5):521–527.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Lahiri I:
**A simple normality criterion leading to a counterexample to the converse of the Bloch principle.***New Zealand Journal of Mathematics*2005,**34**(1):61–65.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Charak KS, Rieppo J:
**Two normality criteria and the converse of the Bloch principle.***Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*2009,**353**(1):43–48. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.11.066MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Xu J, Cao W:
**Some normality criteria of meromorphic functions.***Journal of Inequalities and Applications*2010,**2010:**-10.Google Scholar - Pang X, Zalcman L:
**Normal families and shared values.***The Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society*2000,**32**(3):325–331. 10.1112/S002460939900644XMathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Clunie J, Hayman WK:
**The spherical derivative of integral and meromorphic functions.***Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici*1966,**40:**117–148.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Yang CC, Hu PC:
**On the value distribution of**.*Kodai Mathematical Journal*1996,**19**(2):157–167. 10.2996/kmj/1138043595MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Alotaibi A:
**On the zeros of****for**.*Computational Methods and Function Theory*2004,**4**(1):227–235.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Bergweiler W, Eremenko A:
**On the singularities of the inverse to a meromorphic function of finite order.***Revista Matemática Iberoamericana*1995,**11**(2):355–373.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Chen HH, Fang ML:
**The value distribution of**.*Science in China*1995,**38**(7):789–798.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Hayman WK:
*Research Problems in Function Theory*. The Athlone Press, London, UK; 1967:vii+56.MATHGoogle Scholar - Mues E:
**Über ein problem von Hayman.***Mathematische Zeitschrift*1979,**164**(3):239–259. 10.1007/BF01182271MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Pang X, Zalcman L:
**On theorems of Hayman and Clunie.***New Zealand Journal of Mathematics*1999,**28**(1):71–75.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Wang JP:
**A fundamental inequality of the theory of meromorphic functions and its applications.***Acta Mathematica Sinica. Chinese Series*2006,**49**(2):443–450.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Hu P-C, Li P, Yang C-C:
*Unicity of Meromorphic Mappings, Advances in Complex Analysis and Its Applications*.*Volume 1*. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands; 2003:x+467.Google Scholar - Jank G, Volkmann L:
*Einführung in die Theorie der Ganzen und Meromorphen Funktionen mit Anwendungen auf Differentialgleichungen*. Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland; 1985:256.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Brück R:
**On entire functions which share one value CM with their first derivative.***Results in Mathematics*1996,**30**(1–2):21–24.View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Gundersen GG, Yang L-Z:
**Entire functions that share one value with one or two of their derivatives.***Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*1998,**223**(1):88–95. 10.1006/jmaa.1998.5959MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Yang L-Z:
**Solution of a differential equation and its applications.***Kodai Mathematical Journal*1999,**22**(3):458–464. 10.2996/kmj/1138044097MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Chen Z-X, Shon KH:
**On conjecture of R. Brück concerning the entire function sharing one value CM with its derivative.***Taiwanese Journal of Mathematics*2004,**8**(2):235–244.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Li X-M, Gao C-C:
**Entire functions sharing one polynomial with their derivatives.***Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences*2008,**118**(1):13–26. 10.1007/s12044-008-0002-zMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Wang J:
**Uniqueness of entire function sharing a small function with its derivative.***Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*2010,**362**(2):387–392. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2009.09.052MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Yang L-Z, Zhang J-L:
**Non-existence of meromorphic solutions of a Fermat type functional equation.***Aequationes Mathematicae*2008,**76**(1–2):140–150. 10.1007/s00010-007-2913-7MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Lü F, Xu J, Chen A:
**Entire functions sharing polynomials with their first derivatives.***Archiv der Mathematik*2009,**92**(6):593–601. 10.1007/s00013-009-3075-8MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar

## Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. 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.