 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Meromorphic solutions of Painlevé III difference equations with Borel exceptional values
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2014, Article number: 330 (2014)
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the properties of meromorphic solutions of Painlevé III difference equations. In particular, the difference equation \overline{w}\underline{w}w(w1)=\mu with μ being a nonzero constant is studied. We show that the rational solutions of the equation assume only one form and the transcendental solutions have at most one Borel exceptional value. We also show that the difference equation \overline{w}\underline{w}{(w1)}^{2}={(w\lambda )}^{2} does not have nonconstant rational solution, where λ (\ne 0,1) is a constant.
MSC:30D35, 39A10.
1 Introduction
Let w be a meromorphic function in the complex plane. The zdependence is supposed by writing \overline{w}\equiv w(z+1) and \underline{w}\equiv w(z1). We assume that the reader is familiar with the standard notations and results of Nevanlinna value distribution theory (see, e.g., [1–3]). \rho (w), \lambda (w) and \lambda (1/w) denote the order, the exponents of convergence of zeros and poles of w, respectively. Furthermore, we denote by S(r,w) any quantity satisfying S(r,w)=o(T(r,w)) for all r outside of a set with finite logarithmic measure and by
the field of small functions with respect to w. A meromorphic solution w of a difference equation is called admissible if all coefficients of the equation are in \mathcal{S}(w). For example, if a difference equation has only rational coefficients, then all nonrational meromorphic solutions are admissible; if an admissible solution is rational, then all the coefficients must be constants.
Recently, with the development of Nevanlinna value distribution theory on difference expressions [4–6], Halburd and Korhonen [7] gave the full classification of the family including Painlevé I and II difference equations. As for the family including Painlevé III difference equations, we recall the following.
Theorem A ([8])
Assume that the equation
has an admissible meromorphic solution w of hyperorder less than one, where R(z,w) is rational and irreducible in w and meromorphic in z, then either w satisfies a difference Riccati equation
where \alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \in \mathcal{S}(w) are algebroid functions, or equation (1.1) can be transformed to one of the following equations:
In (1.2a), the coefficients satisfy {\kappa}^{2}\overline{\mu}\underline{\mu}={\mu}^{2}, \overline{\lambda}\mu =\kappa \underline{\lambda}\overline{\mu}, \kappa \overline{\overline{\lambda}}\underline{\lambda}=\underline{\kappa}\lambda \overline{\lambda} and one of the following:
In (1.2b), \eta \overline{\eta}=1 and \overline{\overline{\lambda}}\underline{\lambda}=\lambda \overline{\lambda}. In (1.2c), the coefficients satisfy one of the following:

(1)
\eta \equiv 1 and either \lambda =\overline{\lambda}\underline{\lambda} or {\overline{\lambda}}^{[3]}{\underline{\lambda}}_{[3]}=\overline{\overline{\lambda}}\underline{\underline{\lambda}};

(2)
\overline{\lambda}\underline{\lambda}=\overline{\overline{\lambda}}\underline{\underline{\lambda}}, \overline{\eta}\overline{\lambda}=\overline{\overline{\lambda}}\underline{\eta}, \eta \underline{\eta}=\overline{\overline{\eta}}{\underline{\eta}}_{[3]};

(3)
\overline{\overline{\eta}}\underline{\underline{\eta}}=\eta \underline{\eta}, \lambda =\underline{\eta};

(4)
{\overline{\lambda}}^{[3]}{\underline{\lambda}}_{[3]}=\overline{\overline{\lambda}}\underline{\underline{\lambda}}\lambda, \eta \lambda =\overline{\overline{\eta}}\underline{\underline{\eta}},
where {\overline{\lambda}}^{[3]}\equiv \lambda (z+3) and {\underline{\lambda}}_{[3]}\equiv \lambda (z3). In (1.2d), h\in \mathcal{S}(w) and m\in \mathbb{Z}, m\le 2.
In 2010, Chen and Shon [9] started the topic of researching the properties of finiteorder meromorphic solutions of difference Painlevé I and II equations. In fact, they showed that if w is a transcendental finiteorder meromorphic solution of the equation
where {a}_{j} (1\le j\le 6) are constants with {a}_{1}{a}_{3}{a}_{4}\ne 0, then w has at most one nonzero finite Borel exceptional value.
The present author and Yang [10] improved the above result and verified that w does not have any Borel exceptional value. And they also considered the difference Painlevé III equations (1.2d) with the constant coefficients. The difference equations (1.2b) and (1.2c) are studied by the present author in the following.
Theorem B ([11])
If w is a transcendental finiteorder meromorphic solution of
where η (≠0), λ (\ne 0,1) are constants, then

(i)
\lambda (w)=\rho (w);

(ii)
w has at most one nonzero Borel exceptional value for \rho (w)>0.
The purpose of this paper is to study the remaining difference equation (1.2a) with constant coefficients. As it is complicated to discuss meromorphic solutions of (1.2a) when \lambda \mu \ne 0, we will consider the following special cases.
Theorem 1.1 Suppose that w is a nonconstant rational solution of
where μ is a nonzero constant. Then \mu =\frac{{3}^{3}}{{4}^{4}} and w assumes the only form of
with any constant b.
Remark Equation (1.3) is a special case of (1.2a) in the option (2) as \eta =\lambda =\nu =0. From the proof of Theorem 1.1, we shall see that the degrees of numerator and denominator of w(z) must be 2. Here, the coefficient \frac{3}{4} is determined. We think that it is because there is a −1 in (1.3).
Theorem 1.2 Suppose that w is a transcendental finiteorder meromorphic solution of (1.3). Then

(i)
\lambda (w)=\rho (w);

(ii)
w has at most one Borel exceptional value for \rho (w)>0.
Example 1.3 The function {w}_{1}(z)=\frac{3{({e}^{2\pi iz}+z)}^{2}}{4({e}^{2\pi iz}+z+1)({e}^{2\pi iz}+z1)} is a solution of the difference equation \overline{w}\underline{w}w(w1)=\frac{{3}^{3}}{{4}^{4}}. It is easy to see that \lambda ({w}_{1})=\rho ({w}_{1}). Since {w}_{1}\frac{3}{4}=\frac{3}{4({e}^{2\pi iz}+z+1)({e}^{2\pi iz}+z1)}, then \frac{3}{4} is a Picard exceptional value of {w}_{1}. This shows that the conclusions of Theorem 1.2 may occur.
Remark In {w}_{1} in Example 1.3, the function {e}^{2\pi iz} can be replaced by any finiteorder function with period 1. For example, sin(2\pi z), tan(\pi z) and so on.
Theorem 1.4 Suppose that w is a nonconstant meromorphic solution of
where λ (\ne 0,1) is a constant. Then w must be transcendental.
Theorem 1.5 Suppose that w is a transcendental finiteorder meromorphic solution of (1.4). If a and b are two Borel exceptional values of w, then

(i)
a+b=2, ab=\lambda;

(ii)
\overline{w}=\underline{w};

(iii)
w satisfies the difference Riccati equation \overline{w}=\frac{w\lambda}{w1}.
Example 1.6 The transcendental function {w}_{2}(z)=\frac{3{e}^{i\pi z}1}{{e}^{i\pi z}+1} is a solution of both the difference equation \overline{w}\underline{w}{(w1)}^{2}={(w+3)}^{2} and the Riccati equation \overline{w}=\frac{w+3}{w1}. Noting that {w}_{2}(z) has two Picard exceptional values 3 and −1, we see that the conclusions in Theorem 1.5 may occur.
2 Some lemmas
Halburd and Korhonen [5] and Chiang and Feng [4] investigated the value distribution theory of difference expressions, a key result of which is a difference analogue of the logarithmic derivative lemma. With the help of the lemma, the difference analogues of the Clunie and Mohon’ko lemmas are obtained.
Lemma 2.1 ([6])
Let f be a transcendental meromorphic solution of finite order ρ of a difference equation of the form
where U(z,f), P(z,f) and Q(z,f) are difference polynomials such that the total degree {deg}_{f}U(z,f)=n in f(z) and its shifts, and {deg}_{f}Q(z,f)\le n. If U(z,f) contains just one term of maximal total degree in f(z) and its shifts, then, for each \epsilon >0,
possibly outside of an exceptional set of finite logarithmic measure.
Let w be a transcendental meromorphic solution of finite order of the difference equation
where P(z,w) is a difference polynomial in w(z). If P(z,a)\not\equiv 0 for a meromorphic function a\in \mathcal{S}(w), then
We conclude this section by the following lemma.
Lemma 2.3 (see, e.g., [[3], pp.7980])
Let {f}_{j} (j=1,\dots ,n) (n\ge 2) be meromorphic functions, {g}_{j} (j=1,\dots ,n) be entire functions. If

(i)
{\sum}_{j=1}^{n}{f}_{j}(z){e}^{{g}_{j}(z)}\equiv 0;

(ii)
{g}_{h}(z){g}_{k}(z) is not a constant for 1\le h<k\le n;

(iii)
T(r,{f}_{j})=S(r,{e}^{{g}_{h}(z){g}_{k}(z)}) for 1\le j\le n and 1\le h<k\le n,
then {f}_{j}(z)\equiv 0 (j=1,\dots ,n).
3 Proofs of theorems
Proof of Theorem 1.1 Suppose that w=\frac{P(z)}{Q(z)}, where P(z) and Q(z) are relatively prime polynomials with degrees p and q respectively. It follows from (1.3) that
Without loss of generality, we assume that the coefficients of the highest degree terms of P(z) and Q(z) are a and 1 respectively. Let s=pq.
If s>0, then \frac{P(z)}{Q(z)}=a{z}^{s}(1+o(1)) as z tends to infinity, where a is a nonzero constant. And (3.1) gives
which is a contradiction since the lefthand side of the above equation goes to infinity as r tends to infinity, while the righthand side is a constant.
If s<0, we have \frac{P(z)}{Q(z)}=o(1) and \frac{P(z\pm 1)}{Q(z\pm 1)}=o(1) as z tends to infinity. Equation (3.1) yields
which contradicts \mu \ne 0.
Thus s=0 and p=q. Noting that the zeros of Q(z) are not the zeros of P(z) and P(z)Q(z), we get from (3.1) that all the zeros of {Q}^{2}(z) are the zeros of P(z+1)P(z1). As the degrees of {Q}^{2}(z) and P(z+1)P(z1) are both 2p, we obtain
Now, we aim to prove that the orders of all the zeros of P(z) are even. Otherwise, assume that {z}_{0} is a zero of P(z) with the order k, and k is an odd integer. Then P(z) has the term {(z{z}_{0})}^{k}, and P(z+1)P(z1) has the term
caused by {z}_{0}. It means that {z}_{0}1 and {z}_{0}+1 are both zeros of P(z+1)P(z1) with the order at least k.
On the other hand, it follows from (3.3) that Q(z+1)Q(z1) has the term {(z{z}_{0})}^{k} exactly. Suppose that Q(z+1) and Q(z1) have the terms {(z{z}_{0})}^{m} and {(z{z}_{0})}^{l} respectively, where m and l are nonnegative integers satisfying m+l=k. Then Q(z) has term {(z{z}_{0}1)}^{m}{(z{z}_{0}+1)}^{l} exactly, i.e., {Q}^{2}(z) has the term {(z{z}_{0}1)}^{2m}{(z{z}_{0}+1)}^{2l}. By (3.2), P(z+1)P(z1) has the term
Without loss of generality, assume that m<l. Obviously, 2m<k and 2l>k. Then {z}_{0}+1 is a zero of P(z+1)P(z1) with the order 2m<k, which is a contradiction by (3.4). Therefore, all the zeros of P(z) have even orders.
Denote P(z)=a{r}^{2}(z), where
Noting that the coefficient of the highest degree term of Q(z) is 1, it is easy to see from (3.2) and (3.3) that Q=\overline{r}\underline{r} and a{r}^{2}\overline{r}\underline{r}=(a1)\overline{\overline{r}}\underline{\underline{r}}. Let
Then \varphi (z)\equiv 0. If degr=n\ge 2, substituting r by (3.6) in the righthand side of the last equation, we have that the coefficients of terms {z}^{2n2}, {z}^{2n3} and {z}^{2n4} of \varphi (z) are
We deduce from {B}_{2n2}=0 that a=\frac{3}{4}. And then {B}_{2n4}=3{C}_{n}^{2}\ne 0, thus degr=1. Let r=z+b. Then
and \mu =\frac{{3}^{3}}{{4}^{4}}. □
Proof of Theorem 1.4 Assume to the contrary that w is a nonconstant rational function. Denote w=\frac{P(z)}{Q(z)}, where P(z) and Q(z) are relatively prime polynomials with degrees p and q respectively. It follows from (1.4) that
By the same reasoning as in the proof of Theorem 1.1, we have p=q. We also assume that the coefficients of the highest degree terms of P(z) and Q(z) are a and 1 respectively. Let z\to \mathrm{\infty}, it follows from (3.7) that
Obviously, a\notin \{0,1,\lambda \}. Rewriting (3.7) as
and noting that the degrees of P(z)\lambda Q(z) and P(z)Q(z) are both p, we have
Suppose that {z}_{0} is a zero of P(z) with the order k, and k is an odd integer. Then {z}_{0}1 is a zero of P(z+1) with the order k. However, since all the zeros of P(z+1)P(z1) have even orders by (3.8), {z}_{0}1 must be a zero of P(z1) with the odd order l. Thus, {z}_{0}2 is a zero of P(z) with the odd order l. Therefore, {z}_{0}2m are all zeros of P(z) by induction, which is impossible. Then all the zeros of P(z) have even orders. Similarly, all the zeros of Q(z) have even orders too.
Denote P(z)=a{r}^{2}(z) and Q(z)={t}^{2}(z), where
We obtain from (3.9) and (3.10) that
Substituting r and t by (3.11) and (3.12) respectively in the last two equations and comparing the coefficients of terms {z}^{2n1} and {z}^{2n2}, we have {A}_{n1}={B}_{n1} and
It is easy to see that {A}_{n2}\ne {B}_{n2} by a\ne 1. Then
Combining the above equation with (3.8), we get that a=0 or a=1, a contradiction. □
Proof of Theorem 1.5 Rewriting the difference equation (1.4) as
we have from Lemma 2.1 that m(r,w)=S(r,w), then N(r,w)=T(r,w)+S(r,w) and ∞ is not the Borel exceptional value of w. Thus, a and b are finite complex numbers.
Let
It is easy to see that P(z,0)={\lambda}^{2}\ne 0. Lemma 2.2 tells us that
and then ab\ne 0.
Set
Then \rho (f)=\rho (w), \lambda (f)=\lambda (wa)<\rho (f) and \lambda (1/f)=\lambda (wb)<\rho (f). Since f is of finite order, we suppose that
where d (≠0) is a constant, n (≥1) is an integer, g(z) is meromorphic and satisfies
Then
where {g}_{1}(z)={e}^{nd{z}^{n1}+\cdots +d} and {g}_{2}(z)={e}^{nd{z}^{n1}+\cdots +{(1)}^{n}d}.
We get from (3.13) that w=\frac{bfa}{f1}. By (1.4) and (3.16), we have
where
From (3.15), we apply Lemma 2.3 to (3.17), resulting in all the coefficients vanish. We deduce from A(z)=0 and E=0 that
Thus
Define G=g, {G}_{1}=\overline{g}{g}_{1} and {G}_{2}=\underline{g}{g}_{2}. We discuss the following three cases.
Case 1. Suppose that
It follows from the above equations that a and b are distinct zeros of the equation
Then
From B(z)=0, D(z)=0 and (3.18), we have
If b=1, we get from (3.18) that a=1, which is a contradiction to a\ne b. Then b\ne 1. Noting that ab\ne 0, the last two equations yield
Combining with the last two equations, we have 4{G}_{1}{G}_{2}={({G}_{1}+{G}_{2})}^{2}, which means, with 2G={G}_{1}+{G}_{2}, that
From (3.14) and (3.16), it is easy to see that \overline{f}=\underline{f}=f and \overline{w}=\underline{w}. We deduce from (3.13) that
i.e., \overline{w}=\frac{w\lambda}{w1}.
Case 2. Suppose that
Then {a}^{2}=\lambda and {b}^{2}=\lambda. Without loss of generality, we assume
From B(z)=0, D(z)=0 and (3.19), we have
If a=1 or b=1, we get from (3.19) that \lambda =1, which is a contradiction. Then a\ne 1 and b\ne 1. Noting that ab\ne 0, the last two equations mean
We deduce from the above two equations that {({G}_{1}{G}_{2})}^{2}=0, which is {G}_{1}={G}_{2}, and both are equal to \frac{b1}{a1}G by the last equation. From (3.14) and (3.16), we obtain that
which yield {(a1)}^{2}={(b1)}^{2}, a contradiction since a+b=0.
Case 3. Suppose that
Then {b}^{2}=\lambda. Since \lambda \ne 1, it is easy to see that a\ne 1 and b\ne 1 by (3.20). Noting that ab\ne 0, we get from B(z)=0, C(z)=0 and D(z)=0 that
Combining (3.21) with (3.22) and (3.23) respectively, we obtain
Then
which is a+b=0. Thus a=b=\pm \sqrt{\lambda}. Substituting a by \pm \sqrt{\lambda} in the first equation of (3.20), we get that \lambda =0 or \lambda =1, both are impossible. □
Proof of Theorem 1.2 Let P(z,w)=\overline{w}\underline{w}w(w1)\mu. Then P(z,0)=\mu \ne 0. We deduce from Lemma 2.2 that m(r,1/w)=S(r,w), and then N(r,1/w)=T(r,w)+S(r,w). Thus \lambda (w)=\rho (w).
Assume to the contrary that w has two Borel exceptional values a and b (≠a). Obviously, ab\ne 0 by \lambda (w)=\rho (w). Let f be given by (3.13). Then we still have (3.14)(3.16). Substituting w=\frac{bfa}{f1} in (1.3), we obtain
where
Lemma 2.3 tells us that all the coefficients of (3.24) vanish. By a similar way to the above, we deduce from {A}_{1}(z)=0 and {E}_{1}=0 that
Denote G=g, {G}_{1}=\overline{g}{g}_{1} and {G}_{2}=\underline{g}{g}_{2}. From {B}_{1}(z)=0, {C}_{1}(z)=0 and (3.25), and noting that a\ne b, we have
Since the last two equations are both homogeneous, there exist two nonzero constants α and β such that {G}_{1}=\alpha G and {G}_{2}=\beta G. Then
If \alpha +\beta =0, then a=b=\frac{1}{2} by (3.26) and (3.27), which is a contradiction. Thus \alpha +\beta \ne 0. On the other hand, combining (3.14) with (3.16), we have
which yield \alpha \beta =1. It follows from (3.26) and (3.27) that
which means a=b, a contradiction. □
References
Hayman WK: Meromorphic Functions. Clarendon Press, Oxford; 1964.
Laine I: Nevanlinna Theory and Complex Differential Equations. de Gruyter, Berlin; 1993.
Yang CC, Yi HX: Uniqueness Theory of Meromorphic Functions. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht; 2003.
Chiang YM, Feng SJ:On the Nevanlinna characteristic of f(z+\eta ) and difference equations in the complex plane. Ramanujan J. 2008, 16: 105129. 10.1007/s1113900791011
Halburd RG, Korhonen RJ: Difference analogue of the lemma on the logarithmic derivative with applications to difference equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2006, 314: 477487. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.04.010
Laine I, Yang CC: Clunie theorems for difference and q difference polynomials. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 2007, 76: 556566. 10.1112/jlms/jdm073
Halburd RG, Korhonen RJ: Finite order solutions and the discrete Painlevé equations. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 2007, 94: 443474.
Ronkainen, O: Meromorphic solutions of difference Painlevé equations. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn., Math. Diss. 155, 59pp (2010)
Chen ZX, Shon KH: Value distribution of meromorphic solutions of certain difference Painlevé equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2010, 364: 556566. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2009.10.021
Zhang JL, Yang LZ: Meromorphic solutions of Painlevé III difference equations. Acta Math. Sin. 2014, 57: 181188.
Zhang JL, Yi HX: Properties of meromorphic solutions of Painlevé III difference equations. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2013. 2013: Article ID 256
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the referee for his or her valuable suggestions to the present paper. This research was supported by the NNSF of China Nos. 11201014, 11171013, 11126036 and the YWF14SXXY008, YWFZY302854 of Beihang University. This research was also supported by the youth talent program of Beijing No. 29201443.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Author’s contributions
The author 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 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, J. Meromorphic solutions of Painlevé III difference equations with Borel exceptional values. J Inequal Appl 2014, 330 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029242X2014330
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029242X2014330
Keywords
 meromorphic solution
 difference
 finite order