Meromorphic solutions of Painlevé III difference equations with Borel exceptional values
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2014, Article number: 330 (2014)
In this paper, we investigate the properties of meromorphic solutions of Painlevé III difference equations. In particular, the difference equation with μ being a non-zero 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 does not have nonconstant rational solution, where λ () is a constant.
Let w be a meromorphic function in the complex plane. The z-dependence is supposed by writing and . We assume that the reader is familiar with the standard notations and results of Nevanlinna value distribution theory (see, e.g., [1–3]). , and denote the order, the exponents of convergence of zeros and poles of w, respectively. Furthermore, we denote by any quantity satisfying 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 . For example, if a difference equation has only rational coefficients, then all non-rational 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  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 ()
Assume that the equation
has an admissible meromorphic solution w of hyper-order less than one, where is rational and irreducible in w and meromorphic in z, then either w satisfies a difference Riccati equation
where are algebroid functions, or equation (1.1) can be transformed to one of the following equations:
In (1.2a), the coefficients satisfy , , and one of the following:
In (1.2b), and . In (1.2c), the coefficients satisfy one of the following:
and either or ;
, , ;
where and . In (1.2d), and , .
In 2010, Chen and Shon  started the topic of researching the properties of finite-order meromorphic solutions of difference Painlevé I and II equations. In fact, they showed that if w is a transcendental finite-order meromorphic solution of the equation
where () are constants with , then w has at most one non-zero finite Borel exceptional value.
The present author and Yang  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 ()
If w is a transcendental finite-order meromorphic solution of
where η (≠0), λ () are constants, then
w has at most one non-zero Borel exceptional value for .
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 , we will consider the following special cases.
Theorem 1.1 Suppose that w is a nonconstant rational solution of
where μ is a non-zero constant. Then 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 . From the proof of Theorem 1.1, we shall see that the degrees of numerator and denominator of must be 2. Here, the coefficient is determined. We think that it is because there is a −1 in (1.3).
Theorem 1.2 Suppose that w is a transcendental finite-order meromorphic solution of (1.3). Then
w has at most one Borel exceptional value for .
Example 1.3 The function is a solution of the difference equation . It is easy to see that . Since , then is a Picard exceptional value of . This shows that the conclusions of Theorem 1.2 may occur.
Remark In in Example 1.3, the function can be replaced by any finite-order function with period 1. For example, , and so on.
Theorem 1.4 Suppose that w is a nonconstant meromorphic solution of
where λ () is a constant. Then w must be transcendental.
Theorem 1.5 Suppose that w is a transcendental finite-order meromorphic solution of (1.4). If a and b are two Borel exceptional values of w, then
w satisfies the difference Riccati equation .
Example 1.6 The transcendental function is a solution of both the difference equation and the Riccati equation . Noting that 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  and Chiang and Feng  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 ()
Let f be a transcendental meromorphic solution of finite order ρ of a difference equation of the form
where , and are difference polynomials such that the total degree in and its shifts, and . If contains just one term of maximal total degree in and its shifts, then, for each ,
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 is a difference polynomial in . If for a meromorphic function , then
We conclude this section by the following lemma.
Lemma 2.3 (see, e.g., [, pp.79-80])
Let () () be meromorphic functions, () be entire functions. If
is not a constant for ;
for and ,
3 Proofs of theorems
Proof of Theorem 1.1 Suppose that , where and 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 and are a and 1 respectively. Let .
If , then as z tends to infinity, where a is a non-zero constant. And (3.1) gives
which is a contradiction since the left-hand side of the above equation goes to infinity as r tends to infinity, while the right-hand side is a constant.
If , we have and as z tends to infinity. Equation (3.1) yields
which contradicts .
Thus and . Noting that the zeros of are not the zeros of and , we get from (3.1) that all the zeros of are the zeros of . As the degrees of and are both 2p, we obtain
Now, we aim to prove that the orders of all the zeros of are even. Otherwise, assume that is a zero of with the order k, and k is an odd integer. Then has the term , and has the term
caused by . It means that and are both zeros of with the order at least k.
On the other hand, it follows from (3.3) that has the term exactly. Suppose that and have the terms and respectively, where m and l are non-negative integers satisfying . Then has term exactly, i.e., has the term . By (3.2), has the term
Without loss of generality, assume that . Obviously, and . Then is a zero of with the order , which is a contradiction by (3.4). Therefore, all the zeros of have even orders.
Denote , where
Noting that the coefficient of the highest degree term of is 1, it is easy to see from (3.2) and (3.3) that and . Let
Then . If , substituting r by (3.6) in the right-hand side of the last equation, we have that the coefficients of terms , and of are
We deduce from that . And then , thus . Let . Then
and . □
Proof of Theorem 1.4 Assume to the contrary that w is a nonconstant rational function. Denote , where and 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 . We also assume that the coefficients of the highest degree terms of and are a and 1 respectively. Let , it follows from (3.7) that
Obviously, . Rewriting (3.7) as
and noting that the degrees of and are both p, we have
Suppose that is a zero of with the order k, and k is an odd integer. Then is a zero of with the order k. However, since all the zeros of have even orders by (3.8), must be a zero of with the odd order l. Thus, is a zero of with the odd order l. Therefore, are all zeros of by induction, which is impossible. Then all the zeros of have even orders. Similarly, all the zeros of have even orders too.
Denote and , 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 and , we have and
It is easy to see that by . Then
Combining the above equation with (3.8), we get that or , a contradiction. □
Proof of Theorem 1.5 Rewriting the difference equation (1.4) as
we have from Lemma 2.1 that , then and ∞ is not the Borel exceptional value of w. Thus, a and b are finite complex numbers.
It is easy to see that . Lemma 2.2 tells us that
and then .
Then , and . Since f is of finite order, we suppose that
where d (≠0) is a constant, n (≥1) is an integer, is meromorphic and satisfies
where and .
We get from (3.13) that . By (1.4) and (3.16), we have
From (3.15), we apply Lemma 2.3 to (3.17), resulting in all the coefficients vanish. We deduce from and that
Define , and . 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
From , and (3.18), we have
If , we get from (3.18) that , which is a contradiction to . Then . Noting that , the last two equations yield
Combining with the last two equations, we have , which means, with , that
From (3.14) and (3.16), it is easy to see that and . We deduce from (3.13) that
Case 2. Suppose that
Then and . Without loss of generality, we assume
From , and (3.19), we have
If or , we get from (3.19) that , which is a contradiction. Then and . Noting that , the last two equations mean
We deduce from the above two equations that , which is , and both are equal to by the last equation. From (3.14) and (3.16), we obtain that
which yield , a contradiction since .
Case 3. Suppose that
Then . Since , it is easy to see that and by (3.20). Noting that , we get from , and that
Combining (3.21) with (3.22) and (3.23) respectively, we obtain
which is . Thus . Substituting a by in the first equation of (3.20), we get that or , both are impossible. □
Proof of Theorem 1.2 Let . Then . We deduce from Lemma 2.2 that , and then . Thus .
Assume to the contrary that w has two Borel exceptional values a and b (≠a). Obviously, by . Let f be given by (3.13). Then we still have (3.14)-(3.16). Substituting in (1.3), we obtain
Lemma 2.3 tells us that all the coefficients of (3.24) vanish. By a similar way to the above, we deduce from and that
Denote , and . From , and (3.25), and noting that , we have
Since the last two equations are both homogeneous, there exist two non-zero constants α and β such that and . Then
If , then by (3.26) and (3.27), which is a contradiction. Thus . On the other hand, combining (3.14) with (3.16), we have
which yield . It follows from (3.26) and (3.27) that
which means , a contradiction. □
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 and difference equations in the complex plane. Ramanujan J. 2008, 16: 105-129. 10.1007/s11139-007-9101-1
Halburd RG, Korhonen RJ: Difference analogue of the lemma on the logarithmic derivative with applications to difference equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2006, 314: 477-487. 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: 556-566. 10.1112/jlms/jdm073
Halburd RG, Korhonen RJ: Finite order solutions and the discrete Painlevé equations. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 2007, 94: 443-474.
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: 556-566. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2009.10.021
Zhang JL, Yang LZ: Meromorphic solutions of Painlevé III difference equations. Acta Math. Sin. 2014, 57: 181-188.
Zhang JL, Yi HX: Properties of meromorphic solutions of Painlevé III difference equations. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2013. 2013: Article ID 256
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 YWF-14-SXXY-008, YWF-ZY-302854 of Beihang University. This research was also supported by the youth talent program of Beijing No. 29201443.
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
The author drafted the manuscript, read and approved the final manuscript.
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/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-330