 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Uniqueness of meromorphic functions concerning their difference operators and derivatives
Advances in Difference Equations volume 2020, Article number: 480 (2020)
Abstract
Let f and g be two nonconstant meromorphic functions. Shared value problems related to f and g are investigated in this paper. We give sufficient conditions in terms of weighted value sharing which imply that f is a linear transformation or inversion transformation of g. We also investigate the uniqueness problem of meromorphic functions with their difference operators and derivatives sharing some values.
1 Introduction and main results
Throughout this paper, a meromorphic function is assumed to be meromorphic in the whole complex plane. The basic notations and results of Nevanlinna value distribution theory of meromorphic function are assumed to be known to the reader; see, e.g., [10, 21]. For a meromorphic function \(f(z)\), we define the order and the lower order of \(f(z)\) by
while
stand for the exponents of convergence of zero sequence of f and the deficiency of f at the point a, respectively. For a nonconstant meromorphic function h, we denote by \(T(r,h)\) the Nevanlinna characteristic of h and by \(S(r,h)\) any quantity satisfying \(S(r,h)=o(T(r,h))\), as r runs to infinity outside of a set \(E\subset (0,+\infty )\) of finite linear measure. We say that h is a small function of f if \(T(r,h) = S(r, f)\). In the following, we denote by I a set of infinite linear measure not necessarily the same in all its occurrences.
We say that f and g share the value a IM (ignoring multiplicities), if f and g have the same a point. If f and g have the same a point with the same multiplicities, then we say f, g share the value a CM (counting multiplicities). Let k be a positive integer, we denote by \(N_{k)}(r,\frac{1}{fa})\) the counting function of a points of f with multiplicity ≤k and by \(N_{(k+1}(r,\frac{1}{fa})\) the counting function of a points of f with multiplicity >k, where each a point is counted according to its multiplicity. Similarly we define \(\overline{N}_{k)}(r,\frac{1}{fa})\) and \(\overline{N}_{(k+1}(r,\frac{1}{fa})\) where in counting the a points of f we ignore the multiplicities.
Definition 1
([12])
Let k be a nonnegative integer or infinity. For \(a\in \mathbb{C}\cup \{\infty \}\), we denote by \(E_{k}(a;f)\) the set of all a points of \(f(z)\) where an a point of multiplicity m is counted m times if \(m\leq k\) and \(k+1\) times if \(m>k\). If \(E_{k}(a;f)=E_{k}(a;g)\), then we say that f, g share the value a with weight k.
We write f and g share \((a,k)\) to mean that f, g share the value a with weight k.
Definition 2
([12])
If s is a positive integer, then we denote by \(N(r,\frac{1}{fa}\vert =s)\) the counting function of those a points of f whose multiplicity is s, where each a point is counted according to its multiplicity. For a positive integer m, denote by \(N(r,a; f \vert \ge m)\) the counting function of those a points of f whose multiplicities are not less than m where each a point is counted according to its multiplicity.
Definition 3
([13])
Denote by \(N_{2}(r,\frac{1}{fa})\) the sum of \(\overline{N}(r,\frac{1}{fa} )+\overline{N}(r,\frac{1}{fa} \vert \ge 2)\).
The classical four point and five point theorems of Nevanlinna [15] show f is a Möbius 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 4CM of the fourpoint theorem and 5IM of the fivepoint theorem have been improved to 2CM+2IM and 3CM+1IM, while 1CM+3IM remains an open problem.
Some researchers also considered whether the conditions of shared values can be replaced by other conditions. Ozawa [16] obtained the following.
Theorem A
Let f and g be nonconstant entire functions of finite order such that f and g share 0 and 1 CM. If \(\delta (0,f)>\frac{1}{2}\), then \(f\cdot g=1\)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 \(f(z)\)and \(g(z)\)are nonconstant meromorphic functions. If f, g share \(0,1,\infty \)CM and \(\overline{N}(r,\frac{1}{f})+\overline{N}(r,f)<(d+o(1))T(r,f)\)for \(r\in I\)and \(r\in \infty \), where d is a positive number satisfying \(0< d<\frac{1}{2}\), while \(I\subset (0,+\infty )\)is a subset of infinite linear measure, then \(f=g\)or \(f\cdot g=1\).
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 \(f(z)\)and \(g(z)\)are nonconstant meromorphic functions. Let f and g share \((0,1)\), \((\infty ,0)\), \((1,\infty )\). If
then either \(f=g\)or \(f\cdot g=1\).
Our first result shall follow this direction and investigate the uniqueness of meromorphic functions in terms of weighted value sharing.
Theorem 1.1
Let f and g be meromorphic functions with finite order, and let \(c\in \mathbb{C}\setminus \{0\}\). Suppose that \(f^{n}\)and \(g^{n}\)share \((R(z),l)\), where \(R(z)\)is a rational function and l, n are integer. If one of the following cases holds:

(1)
\(l=0\), \(n\geq 15\);

(2)
\(l=1\), \(n\geq 10\);

(3)
\(l\geq 2\), \(n\geq 9\),
then \(f=t g\)or \(f\cdot g=t\alpha \), where \(t^{n}=1\), \(\alpha ^{n}=R^{2}\).
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 nonconstant entire function. If f shares two distinct finite values CM with \(f'\), then \(f\equiv f'\).
More results on the uniqueness of \(f'\) 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 \(f'(z)\) shares values with Δf or \(f(z+c)\).
Theorem E
Let f be a meromorphic function of finite order. Suppose that \(f'\)and Δf share \(a_{1}\), \(a_{2}\), \(a_{3}\), \(a_{4}\)IM, where \(a_{1}\), \(a_{2}\), \(a_{3}\), \(a_{4}\)are four distinct finite values. Then \(f'=\Delta f\).
Theorem F
Let f be a transcendental entire function of finite order, and a be a nonzero finite value. If \(f'(z)\)and \(f(z+c)\)share 0, a CM, then \(f'(z)=f(z+c)\)for all \(z\in \mathcal{C}\).
Regarding Theorems E and F, one may ask the following question:
Question 1
What can be said when the difference operators of \(f(z)\) shares some values with its derivatives?
In this direction, we will prove the following results.
Theorem 1.2
Let f be a nonconstant entire function of finite order with periodic \(\eta \neq 0\)such that \(\mu (f)>1\), where η is a finite nonzero value, and let \(a_{1}\)and \(a_{2}\)be two distinct finite values, and k be a positive integer. If Δf and \(f^{(k)}\)share \(a_{1}\)CM, Δf and \(f^{(k)}\)share \(a_{2}\)IM, then \(\Delta f=f^{(k)}\).
If we replace \(\Delta f(z)\) by the shift \(f(z+c)\), we can obtain the following.
Theorem 1.3
Let f be a nonconstant meromorphic function of finite order, and let c be a finite nonzero value, let k be a positive integer satisfying \(k\geq 2\), and let \(a_{1}\), \(a_{2}\), \(a_{3}\)be three finite values such that \(a_{1}\ne 0\), \(a_{2}\ne 0\)and \(N(r,\frac{1}{fa_{3}})=S(r,f)\). If \(f(z+c)\)and \(f^{(k)}(z)\)share \(a_{1}\)CM and \(a_{2}\)IM, then \(f(z+c)=f^{(k)}(z)\)for all \(z\in \mathcal{C}\).
Remark
The results obtained in this manuscript have many applications in the qualitative analysis of differential equations with piecewise constant arguments and porous medium problems; see [5, 14]. The following example shows that the assumption \(\mu (f)>1\) of Theorem 1.2 is the best possible.
Example 1
Let \(f(z)=e^{Az}\), where \(A\ne 0\) is a constant. Then \(f^{(k)}=A^{k}e^{Az}\) and \(\Delta (f)=f(z+1)f(z)=(e^{A}1)e^{Az}\). Clearly, \(\Delta (f)\) and \(f^{(k)}\) share 0 CM and ∞ IM, and that \(\mu (f)=1\). We can choose A such that \(e^{A}1\ne A^{k}\), and so \(f'\not \equiv \Delta (f)\).
2 Preliminaries
First we denote by H the following function:
where and in what follows, F and G are some two distinct nonconstant meromorphic functions.
Next we introduce some lemmas needed in the proofs of the main results of this paper.
Lemma 2.1
([2])
Let F and G be two nonconstant meromorphic functions sharing \((1,0)\)and \(H\neq 0\). Then
and the same inequality holds for \(T(r,G)\).
Lemma 2.2
([2])
Let F and G be two nonconstant meromorphic functions sharing \((1,1)\)and \(H\neq 0\). Then
and the same inequality holds for \(T(r,G)\).
Lemma 2.3
([12])
Let f and g be two nonconstant meromorphic functions sharing \((1,2)\). Then one of the following cases holds:

(i)
\(T(r)\leq N_{2}(r,\frac{1}{f})+N_{2}(r,\frac{1}{g})+N_{2}(r,f)+N_{2}(r,g)+S(r)\),

(ii)
\(f=g\),

(iii)
\(fg=1\), where \(T(r)=\max \{T(r,f),T(r,g)\}\)and \(S(r)=o\{T(r)\}\), as \(r\notin E\), where \(E\subset (0,+\infty )\)is a subset of finite linear measure.
Lemma 2.4
([7])
Let f and g be two meromorphic functions, and let k be a positive integer. If \(E_{k}(1;f)=E_{k}(1;g)\), then one of the following cases must occur:

(i)
$$\begin{aligned}& T(r,f)+T(r,g) \\& \quad \leq N_{2}\biggl(r,\frac{1}{f} \biggr)+N_{2}\biggl(r,\frac{1}{g}\biggr)+N_{2}(r,f)+N_{2}(r,g) \\& \quad\quad {} +\overline{N}\biggl(r,\frac{1}{f1}\biggr)+\overline{N}\biggl(r, \frac{1}{g1}\biggr)N_{11}\biggl(r, \frac{1}{f1}\biggr)+ \overline{N_{(k+1}}\biggl(r,\frac{1}{f1}\biggr) \\& \quad\quad {} +\overline{N_{(k+1}}\biggl(r,\frac{1}{g1} \biggr)+S(r,f)+S(r,g); \end{aligned}$$

(ii)
\(f=\frac{(b+1)g+(ab1)}{bg+(ab)}\), where a (≠0), b are two constants.
Lemma 2.5
([21])
Let f be a meromorphic function. If
where \(a, b, c, d\in S(f)\)and \(adbc\neq 0\), then \(T(r,g)=T(r,f)+S(r,f)\).
Lemma 2.6
([4])
Let f be a nonconstant meromorphic function, let \(\varepsilon >0\)and let \(c\in \mathbb{C}\). If f is of finite order, then there exists a set \(E=E(f,\varepsilon )\subset (0,+\infty )\)satisfying
i.e., of logarithmic density at most ε, such that
for all out of the set E. If \(\rho _{2}=\rho _{2}<1\)and \(\varepsilon >0\), then
for all \(r\in (0,+\infty )\)outside of a set of finite logarithmic measure.
Lemma 2.7
([1, Lemma 2.3])
Let k be a positive integer, and let f be a nonconstant meromorphic function such that \(f^{(k+1)}\not \equiv 0\). If \(\overline{N}(r,\frac{1}{f})=S(r,f)\), then
Lemma 2.8
([24])
Let f be a meromorphic function such that \(f^{(k)}\)is not constant. Then
Lemma 2.9
([24])
Let f be a transcendental meromorphic function. Then, for each positive real number ε and for each positive integer n,
Lemma 2.10
([4])
Let f be a nonconstant meromorphic function of finite order and \(c\in \mathbb{C}\). Then
and
3 Proof of Theorem 1.1
Set \(F=\frac{ f^{n}}{R}\), \(G=\frac{g^{n}}{R}\). Clearly, F and G share \((1,l)\). Write \(T(r)=\max \{T(r, f(z)),T(r, g(z))\}\) and \(S(r)=o\{T(r)\}\) as \(r\notin E\) and \(r\rightarrow \infty \), where \(E\subset (0,+\infty )\) is a subset of finite linear measure.
Case 1. \(l=0\) and \(n\ge 15\).
Assume that \(H\neq 0\). By Lemma 2.1, we have
Clearly,
Similarly, we have
Hence
which contradicts \(n\geq 15\).
Therefore, \(H\equiv 0\) and we have
It follows from (3) that
where \(A\neq 0\), B are constants.
Subcase 1.1. If \(B=0\), then (4) leads to \(F=\frac{G1+A}{A}\) and \(G=AF(A1)\). Suppose that \(A=1\). Clearly, we have \(F=G\), and thus \(f=t g\), where \(t^{n}=1\). If \(A\neq 1\), then we have \(\overline{N}(r,\frac{1}{G})=\overline{N}(r,\frac{1}{F\frac{A1}{A}})\) and \(\overline{N}(r,\frac{1}{F})=\overline{N}(r,\frac{1}{G+(A1)})\). By Nevanlinna’s second fundamental theorem,
Thus,
Similarly, we have
Combining (7) and (8), we obtain
Clearly, it is a contradiction by \(n\geq 15\).
Subcase 1.2 \(B\neq 0\).
If \(A\neq B\), then we have \(F=\frac{(B+1)G(BA+1)}{BG+(AB)}\). Applying Nevanlinna’s second fundamental theorem 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 \(n\ge 10\).
Assume that \(H\neq 0\). By Lemma 2.2., we have
Thus,
Similarly, we have
which contradicts \(n\geq 10\).
Therefore, \(H\equiv 0\). We can deduce the same conclusion by similar discussion as in Case 1.
Case 3. \(l\ge 2\) and \(n\ge 9\).
Subcase 3.1. \(l=2\).
From Lemma 2.3, if (i) holds, then we deduce that
That is,
Therefore, \((n8)T(r)\leq S(r)\), which contradicts \(n\geq 9\). Thus we have \(F=G\) or \(FG=1\). If \(F=G\), then \(f^{n}=g^{n}\), which yields \(f=tg\), where \(t^{n}=1\). If \(FG=1\), then \((fg)^{n}=(R)^{2}\), which yields \(fg=t\alpha \), where \(t^{n}=1\), \(\alpha ^{n}=R^{2}\).
Subcase 3.2. \(l\geq 3\).
By Lemma 2.4, either (i) or (ii) holds. If (i) holds, then we obtain
Therefore, we get
Consequently,
which leads to
This is a contradiction since \(n\geq 9\).
Hence, (ii) holds, which means
where \(a\neq 0\), b are constants.
Suppose that \(b=0\). Then we have \(F=G\) when \(a1=0\), that is, \(f=t g\), where \(t^{n}=1\). If \(a1\neq 0\), then we obtain \(F=\frac{G+a1}{a}\) and \(G=a(F+\frac{1a}{a})\), and so \(\overline{N}(r,\frac{1}{F})=\overline{N}(r,\frac{1}{G+a1})\), \(\overline{N}(r,\frac{1}{G})=\overline{N}(r,\frac{1}{F+\frac{1a}{a}})\). By Nevanlinna’s second fundamental theorem we get
This yields
Similarly, we have
Thus we obtain \((n3)(T(r, f)+T(r, g))\leq S(r, f)+S(r, g)\), which is a contradiction with \(n\geq 9\). Suppose that \(b=1\). If \(a+1=0\), then \(F\cdot G\equiv 1\). Hence \(f\cdot g=t\alpha \), where \(t^{n}=1\), \(\alpha ^{n}=R^{2}\). If \(a+1\neq 0\), similarly to above, then we can obtain a contradiction. Suppose \(b\neq 0\) and \(b\neq 1\). By a similar reasoning to the case \(b=0\), we can also obtain a contradiction.
This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.
4 Proof of Theorem 1.2
Without loss of any generality, we can assume \(a_{1}=0\), \(a_{2}=1\). Since \(\Delta f(z)\), \(f^{(k)}\) share 0 CM, we have
where Q is a polynomial.
Since the period of f is \(c\in \mathbb{C}\setminus \{0\}\), we have \(e^{Q(z)}=e^{Q(z+\eta )}\).
Consequently, \(e^{Q(z+\eta )Q(z)}=1\), which leads to \(Q'(z+\eta )=Q'(z)\). Then \(Q'(z)\) has a period η and \(Q'(z)\) must be a constant.
Now write
where a, b are constants.
Since Δf, \(f^{(k)}\) share 1 IM, we get
where α is a meromorphic function.
By (11), (12) and \(Q(z)=az+b\), we deduce
By Lemma 2.5, we obtain
Now we estimate the number of zeros, poles of α. From the assumption that \(\mu (f)>1\), we know that \(T(r,e^{Q})=S(r,f)\).
Since Δf, \(f^{(k)}\) share 1 IM, it follows from (13) that the zero of \(\Delta f(z)1\) and \(f^{(k)}1\) must be the zero of \(e^{az+b}1\). Noting that \(f^{(k)}1\) have the same poles with \(f^{(k)}e^{az+b}1\), then, by (12), we have
and
Therefore, from the Nevanlinna second fundamental theorem, we obtain
Combining (11) and (12), we may write \(\alpha e^{Q}=\frac{\Delta ff^{(k)}}{(f^{(k)}1)f^{(k)}}= \frac{e^{Q}1}{f^{(k)}1}\). Then, by (15), we conclude that
It contradicts (14).
Therefore, \(\Delta f=f^{(k)}\). This completes the proof of Theorem 1.2.
5 Proof of Theorem 1.3
Some ideas of our proof come from [1, 26]. Without loss of generality, we assume that \(f(z+c)\) and \(f^{(k)}(z)\) share 1 CM and ∞ IM, and \(N(r,\frac{1}{f})=S(r,f)\). For the general case, we take the transformation \(T(z)=\frac{za_{3}}{za_{1}}\frac{a_{2}a_{1}}{a_{2}a_{3}}\), and so \(T(a_{1})=\infty \), \(T(a_{2})=1\), \(T(a_{3})=0\). Suppose that \(f(z+c)\not \equiv f^{(k)}(z)\). Set
It follows from the lemma of the logarithmic derivative, Lemma 2.6 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 \(f(z+c)\), the 1 points of \(f(z+c)\) and \(f^{(k)}(z)\), and the poles of \(f(z+c)\) and \(f^{(k)}(z)\). If \(z_{0}\) is a 1 point of \(f(z+c)\), then by a short calculation with Laurent series and (17) we see that \(G(z)\) is analytic at \(z_{0}\). Since \(f(z+c)\) and \(f^{(k)}(z)\) share 1 CM, we know the 1 points of \(f(z+c)\) and \(f^{(k)}(z)\) are not the poles of \(G(z)\). If \(f(z+c)\) has a pole \(z_{0}\) with multiplicity p (≥1), we need to consider two cases: (i) \(z_{0}\) is also a pole of \(f^{(k)}(z)\), then by (17) \(G(z)=O((zz_{0})^{p1})\); (ii) \(z_{0}\) is not a pole of \(f^{(k)}(z)\), and hence \(z_{0}\) is not a pole of \(f^{(k+1)}(z)\). Then we also have \(G(z)=O((zz_{0})^{p1})\). 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 \(f(z+c)\). By Lemma 2.7 and the hypothesis of Theorem 1.3, it follows that \(N(r,\frac{1}{f(z+c)})=N(r,\frac{1}{f})+S(r,f)=S(r,f)\), and so we have \(N(r,G)=S(r,f)\). Thus,
If \(G\equiv 0\), then, by (17), we find that \(f^{(k)}(z)1=t(f(z+c)1)\), with \(t\ne 0\) constant. Thus, \((1t)m(r,\frac{1}{f})\le m(r,\frac{f^{(k)}(z)}{f(z)})+m(r, \frac{f(z+c)}{f(z)})=S(r,f)\). Since \(N(r,\frac{1}{f})=S(r,f)\), we have \(T(r,\frac{1}{f})=S(r,f)\). It is a contradiction. Then \(G\not \equiv 0\). And so we deduce from (17) and (19) that
If \(z_{0}\) is a pole of \(f(z+c)\) of multiplicity \(p\ge 2\), then by (17) we know that \(z_{0}\) is possible a zero of G with multiplicity \(p1\). Consequently, it follows from (19) that
Let \(z_{0}\) be a simple pole of \(f(z+c)\). Set
By a short calculation with Laurent series, it follows that \(H(z_{0})=k+1\). If \(H(z)\equiv k+1\), then we have \(f^{(k)}(z)1=t(f(z+c)1)^{k+1}\) with \(t\ne 0\) constant. This a contradiction, since \(f^{(k)}(z)\) and \(f(z+c)\) share 1 CM. Thus \(H\not \equiv k+1\), and so
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 \(f'(z+c)\), and the poles of \(f(z+c)\) and \(f^{(k+1)}(z)\). Since \(f^{(k)}(z)\), \(f(z+c)\) share 1 CM and ∞ IM, H is holomorphic at the 1 points of \(f^{(k)}(z)\) and the poles of \(f(z+c)\) and \(f^{(k+1)}(z)\). Thus
where \(N_{0}(r,\frac{1}{f'(z+c)})\) denotes the zeros of \(f'(z+c)\) which are not zeros of \(f(z+c)1\). Again by (22), we see that
from this, (23) and (24) we find that
Combining this, Nevanlinna’s second fundamental theorem (see [10, Theorem 3.2])for \(f(z+c)\), (21) and the hypothesis \(N(r,\frac{1}{f(z)})=S(r,f)\) we have
From this and Nevanlinna’s first fundamental theorem, it is easy to deduce that
which implies
From (29), we see that
Since \(f(z+c)\) and \(f^{(k)}(z)\) share 1 CM, it follows from Lemma 2.7 and (21) that
By Lemma 2.8, (29) (30) and (21), we have
It follows from Lemma 2.10 that
From this, (31) and (32), we see that \((k2)N_{1)}(r,f(z+c))=S(r,f)\). If \(k\ge 3\), then \(N_{1)}(r,f(z+c))=S(r,f)\). Combining this, (20) and (21), we have \(T(r,f(z+c))=S(r,f)\), which is a contradiction.
Let \(k=2\).
Case 1. If \(f(z)\) is transcendental, then, by Lemma 2.9, for a positive constant \(\varepsilon <1\) we have
From this and (21) we have
Combining this, (20) and (21), we have \(T(r,f(z+c))=S(r,f)\). This is a contradiction.
Case 2. If \(f(z)\) is rational, then by \(N(r,\frac{1}{f})=S(r,f)\) we know that f has no zeros, and hence we can write \(f(z+c)=\frac{1}{P(z)}\), where \(P(z)\) is a nonconstant polynomial. Set \(\Phi =\frac{f^{(k+1)}(z)}{f^{(k)}(z)1}\frac{f'(z+c)}{f(z+c)1}2 \frac{f'(z+c)}{f(z+c)}\). Clearly \(T(r,\Phi )=S(r,f)\). Combining this and (17), we have
Substituting \(f(z+c)=\frac{1}{P(z)}\) into (34) we obtain \(2P'=G\Phi P\). This shows that \(T(r,P')=T(r,P)+S(r,f)\) and so \(T(r,P)=S(r,f)\). This is a contradiction.
Therefore, \(f(z+c)=f^{(k)}(z)\). This completes the proof of Theorem 1.3.
References
AlKhaladi, A.H.H.: Meromorphic functions that share one finite value CM or IM with their kth derivatives. Results Math. 63, 95–105 (2013)
Banerjee, A.: Meromorphic functions sharing one value. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 22, 3587–3598 (2005)
Chen, B., Li, S., Chen, Z.X.: Uniqueness of difference operators of meromorphic functions. J. Inequal. Appl. 2012, 48 (2012)
Chiang, Y.M., Feng, S.J.: On the Nevanlinna characteristic of \(f(z+\eta )\) and difference equations in the complex plane. Ramanujan J. 16, 105–129 (2008)
Chiu, K.S., Li, T.: Oscillatory and periodic solutions of differential equations with piecewise constant generalized mixed arguments. Math. Nachr. 292, 2153–2164 (2019)
Deng, B.M., Lei, C.L., Fang, M.L.: Meromorphic function sharing sets with its difference operator or shifts. Chin. Ann. Math., Ser. B 40(3), 331–338 (2019)
Fang, C.Y., Fang, M.L.: Uniqueness of meromorphic functions and differential polynomials. Comput. Math. Appl. 44, 607–617 (2002)
Frank, G., Weissenborn, G.: Meromorphic funktionen, die mit einer ihrer Ableitungen Werte teilen. Complex Var. Theory Appl. 7, 33–43 (1986)
Halburd, R.G., Korhonen, R.J.: Difference analogue of the lemma on the logarithmic drivative with applications to difference equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 314, 477–487 (2006)
Hayman, W.K.: Meromorphic Functions, Clarendon, Oxford (1964)
Heittokangas, J., Korhonen, R., Laine, I., Rieppo, J., Zhang, J.: Value sharing results for shifts of meromorphic function and sufficient conditions for periodicity. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 355, 352–363 (2009)
Lahiri, I.: Weighted sharing and uniqueness of meromorphic functions. Nagoya Math. J. 161(3), 193–206 (2001)
Lahiri, I.: Weighted value sharing and uniqueness of meromorphic functions. Complex Var. Theory Appl. 46(3), 241–253 (2001)
Li, T., Pintus, N., Viglialoro, G.: Properties of solutions to porous medium problems with different sources and boundary conditions. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 70, Article ID 86, 1–18 (2019)
Nevanlinna, R.: Einige Eindeutigkeitssätze in der Theorie der meromorphen Funktionen. Acta Math. 48, 367–391 (1926)
Ozawa, M.: Unicity theorems for entire functions. J. Anal. Math. 30, 411–420 (1976)
Qi, X.G., Li, N., Yang, L.Z.: Uniqueness of meromorphic functions concerning their differences and solutions of difference Painleve equations. Comput. Methods Funct. Theory 18, 567–582 (2018)
Rubel, L.A., Yang, C.C.: Values shared by an entire function and its derivative. In: Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 599, pp. 101–103. Springer, New York (1977)
Ueda, H.: On the zeroonepole set of a meromorphic function II. Kodai Math. J. 13, 134–142 (1990)
Wang, J.: Uniqueness of entire function sharing a small function with its derivative. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 362(2), 387–392 (2010)
Yang, C.C., Yi, H.X.: Uniqueness Theory of Meromorphic Functions. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2003)
Yi, H.X.: Meromorphic functions that share three values. Chin. Ann. Math. 9, 434–440 (1988)
Yi, H.X.: Meromorphic functions that share two or three values. Kodai Math. J. 13, 363–372 (1990)
Yi, H.X., Li, X.M.: Meromorphic functions sharing four values. Proc. Jpn. Acad., Ser. A, Math. Sci. 83, 123–128 (2007)
Zhang, J.J., Liao, L.W.: Entire functions sharing some values with their difference operators. Sci. China Math. 57, 2143–2152 (2014)
Zhang, Q.C.: Uniqueness of meromorphic functions with their derivatives. Acta Math. Sin. 45(9), 871–876 (2002)
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the referees for their valuable suggestions and comments which have improved the clarity of the paper.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Funding
The work was supported by NNSF of China (No.11971344).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Each of the authors contributed to each part of this study equally and approved the final version of this manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wei, DM., Huang, ZG. Uniqueness of meromorphic functions concerning their difference operators and derivatives. Adv Differ Equ 2020, 480 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662020029399
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662020029399
MSC
 30D35
 39A05
Keywords
 Meromorphic function
 Difference operator
 Shared values
 Periodic function
 Finite order