International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication ISSN: 2321-8169

Volume: 5 Issue: 5 1098 1102

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Normality Criteria and Sharing Functions

Shyamali Dewan
Department of Mathematics, BhairabGanguly College
Belghoria, Kolkata 700056
shyamali_dewan@rediffmail.com

Abstract: In this article we have discussed about normality criteria of differential polynomialssharing a holomorphic function. It is a
generalization of the result of Meng and Hu (Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc, 38, 1331-1347, 2015) by taking a linear differential polynomial
instead of a monomial so that the family remains normal.

Keywords: Meromorphic functions, Normal Family, Holomorphic function, Differential Polynomial, Shared Values.

__________________________________________________*****_________________________________________________

I. Introduction
Let be a domain in the complex plane . A family of meromorphic functions defined in is said to be normal in in the
sense of Montel if every sequence has a sub sequence that converges spherically, locally uniformly to a meromorphic
function or [1, 2, 3].
Let be a domain in and let and be two non-constant meromorphic functions in . Also let , be two complex numbers.If
= whenever = then we write = = . If = = and = = we write
= = . If = = we say that and share IM(ignoring multiplicities).

It is more interesting to find normality criteria from the point of view of shared values. In this area Schwick [10] first proved an
interesting result that a family of meromorphic function in a domain is normal if every function in which share three distinct
complex numbers with its first derivative. More results about normality criteria concerning shared values can be found in [12].
Hayman [6] proved that
Theorem A [6]. Let be a transcendental meromorphic function () assumes every value non zero finite number infinitely often.
A normality criteria due to Haymans result is obtained by Gu [5].He proved that
Theorem B [5]. If be a family of meromorphic functions such that for each , () and where , are two
complex numbers, a 0. Then is normal.
Yang [11] and Schwick[10] confirmed that normality criteria due to Gu[5] is true if is replaced by a non-zero holomorphic
function on also.
In 2004 M.L. Fang and L. Zalcman[4] proved
Theorem C [4]. Let be a family of meromorphic functions in and be a positive integer. If for each , , , share the
0 and / and / share a non-zero value in , then is normal in .
In 2008, Q. C. Zhang [15] improved the Theorem D by proving the following result
Theorem D [15]. Let be a family of meromorphic functions in and 2 be integers and if for each , , / and
/ share a non-zero value in , then is normal in .
Jiang [7] proved a result. He replaced the constant by a holomorphic and proved
Theorem E [7]. Let be a family of meromorphic functions such that each pair , satisfies / and / share IM for
2 + 2 where () is a holomorphic function and multiplicities of zeros of are at most then is normal.
In 1999 Pang and Zalcman[9] proved a normality criterion.
Theorem F [9]. If be a family of holomorphic functions such that each have zeros of multiplicities at least and
() for a non-zero number , then is normal in for all .
In 2005, Zhang [14] proved that Theorem F is also true if a is replaced non-vanishing holomorphic functionfor 2.
In 2014, D. W.Meng and P. C. Hu [8] proved
Theorem G [8].If be a family of meromorphic functions in a domain such that multiplicities of zeros of each are at
least + and poles of are at least + 1 where 0 and 1 are integers.Also let 0 be a holomorphic function

1098
IJRITCC | May 2017, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication ISSN: 2321-8169
Volume: 5 Issue: 5 1098 1102
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
with multiplicities of zeros are at most which is divisible by + 1 for integral values of 2. If each pair , such that
() and () share ignoring multiplicities then is normal in .
In this paper we have taken [ + 1 1 + . + 1 / () + 0 ()()] instead of ().
Theorem.Let be a family of meromorphic functions in a domain such that multiplicities of zeros of each are at least
+ and poles of are at least + 1 where 0 and 1 are integers.Also let 0 be a holomorphic function with
multiplicities of zeros are at most which is divisible by + 1 for integral values of 2. If each pair , such that
[()] [ + 1 1 + . + 1 / () + 0 ()()] and [ ()] [ + 1 1 +
/
. + 1 () + 0 ()()] share ignoring multiplicities then is normal in .

II. Lemmas
In this section we consider those lemmas which are required to prove our result.
Lemma 2.1 [13]:Let be a family of meromorphic functions on the unit disc all of whose zeros have multiplicity at least and
suppose that there exists 1 such that | () ()| whenever () = 0. Then if is not normal at 0 , for each (0
),there exist points , 0 and and positive numbers 0 such that
( + ) = () ()
locally uniformly with respect to spherical metric where is a non constant meromorphic function on , all of whose zeros have
multiplicity at least such that # () # (0) = + 1. In particular has order at most 2.
Lemma 2.2[8]: Let 0, 1, and 2 be three integers and let be a nonzero polynomial of degree . If is a non
constant rational function which has only zeros of multiplicity at least + and has only poles of multiplicity at least + 1, then
() () has at least two distinct zeros.
Lemma 2.3 [16]: Let , be two positive integers with 2 and let () 0 be a polynomial. If is a trancendental
meromorphic function in then () () has infinitely zeros.

III. Proof of Theorem

Proof: Without loss of generality we may assume that = { : < 1}. For any point 0 either 0 = 0or 0 0.
Let 0 = 0 .
CaseI:Let 0 0. For contrary let us assume that is not normal at 0 = 0. Then by Lemma 2.1 there exist points 0,
sequence of functions { } and 0 such that

= +1 ( + )
converges spherically uniformly to in . Order of is atmost 2. By Hurwitzs theoremzeros of have at least
multiplicity + .Now, + [ + + 1 + 1 + + . +
0 + ( + )] + =

+
0 .

If 0 then has no zeros and poles. Then there exists constant such that (1 , 2 ) (0,0)and =
0 +1 +2 2
. Since is a non constant meromorphic function of order at most 2 so (0).
The by Lemma 2.2 and 2.3 the function 0 has at least two distinct zeros0 and 0 . We choose 1 = {
0 < } and
2 = { 0 < }such that 1 2 = and 0 has no zero in 1 2 except 0 and 0 . Then by
Hurwitzs theorem points 1 and 2 such that for sufficiently large
+ [

+ + 1 + 1

+ + . +0 + ( + )] = +
and

+

+ + 1 + 1

+ + . + 0 + +
= + .
By hypothesis for each for each pair of and in ,
[ ()] [ + 1 1 + . + 1 / () + 0 ()()]and [ ()] [ + 1 1 +
. + 1 / () + 0 ()()]
share()in D.
So for any positive integer
+ [ + + 1 + 1 + + + 0 + ( + )] +
=0
1099
IJRITCC | May 2017, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication ISSN: 2321-8169
Volume: 5 Issue: 5 1098 1102
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
and

+ [

+ + 1 + 1

+ + + 0 + ( + )]

+ = 0.
Fix and and note that + 0 and + 0 then

0 0 = 0.

Since zeros of

0 0 = 0 have no accumulation point so + = 0and + = 0 = = .

This contradicts that 1 2 = .

Hence is normal at 0 = 0.
Case 2: Let 0 = 0.We assume that 0 = 0 is a zero of of multiplicity .
Then we have by assumption. We can write = () where 0 = 0. Since multiplicities of zeros of are

divisible by + 1then = , is a positive integer.
+1

Consider the family = : . We claim that is normal at = 0. Otherwise if is not normal at = 0 .Then by

Lemma 2.1 points 0, sequence of functions { } and 0 such that

= +1 ( + )
converges spherically uniformly to in . Order of is at most 2 and let
()
= .

We now distinguish two subcases:

Subcase 2.1:Consider such that , a finite number. Thus we have

+

= = = ()
+
+1 +1
and


( )
+
=1


+ =1 ( )
=

converges to ()
.

Subcase 2.2: When as . Then


+ = + +


= + + + + +
=1


= + +1
+ + +1 +

=1

1 ( 1),
where = ,
0 >

are constant. Since , + and 0 so we have

+ [

+ + 1 + 1

+ + . +0 + ( + )]

1100
IJRITCC | May 2017, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication ISSN: 2321-8169
Volume: 5 Issue: 5 1098 1102
_______________________________________________________________________________________________


1
= + +1 + +1 + + 1 + (

=1
+
1 2
2 1

+

) + 2 + ( +
)
=1 + =1 +

+ . . +0 +

where each + ( = 0, 1, , 1), are analytic in D.

Now,
+ [ + + 1 + 1 + + . +0 + ( + )]

( + )


+
1
= +
+ 1 + (
+ + =1 +
1 2

2 2

+

) + 2 + ( +
)
=1 + =1 +

+ . . +0 +

wherelim = 0 and lim +
= 0,on every compact subset of which contains no poles
+

of . Since all zeros of have at least multiplicity + then multiplicity of zeros of are at least . Then from lemmas 2.2
and 2.3 then the function has at least two distinct zeros. By the similar argument in Case 1 we obtain a
contradiction. Hence is normal at = 0.
()
It remains to show that is normal at = 0 . For let = then and since is normal at = 0 then

there exists = { < } and a subsequence of { }( say { })such that { } converges spherically locally
uniformly to a meromorphic function () or in .
We discuss two cases:
1
Case A. Assume when is large, 0. Then 0 = so we have 1 > 0 such that 1 for each (0, 1 ). So

1 1 1 2
is a holomorphic function in 0, 1 . Thus when = we get = = .So by maximum principle and
2 | | 1

Montels criteria there exists a convergent subsequence of { } thus is normal at = 0.

()
Case B. Let = 0. Then we get 0 = 0, since = , hence there exists a positive number , 0 < <

such that is holomorphic in and has a unique zero at = 0 in . Therefore we have in since
converges spherically locally uniformly to a meromorphic function ()in . Thus is normal at = 0.
These shows that is normal in D.

References:
[1] W. Bergweiler and A.Eremenko,On the singularities of the inverse to a meromorphic function of finite order, Rev. Mat.Iberoam,
11(2), 355-373(1995)
[2] J. Chang,M.Fang and L.Zalcman, Normal families of holomorphic functions, Ill.J.Math.48(1)319-337(2004)
[3] B.Chen and Z.Chen, Meromorphicfunction sharing two sets with its difference operator, Bull.Malays Math.Sci. Soc. (2)35(3),765-774
(2012)
[4] M.L.Fang and L.Zalcman, A note on normality and shared values, J. Aust. Math.Soc, 76, 141-150 (2004)
[5] Y.X.Gu, A normal criterion of meromorphicfamilies, Sci.Sin. 1,267-274(1979)
[6] W.K.Hayman,Meromorphic Functions, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1964)
[7] Y. Jiang and Z. Gao, Normal families of meromorphic functions sharing values or functions, Journal of Ineq. and Application, 2011
1101
IJRITCC | May 2017, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication ISSN: 2321-8169
Volume: 5 Issue: 5 1098 1102
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
[8] D. W. Meng and P.C. Hu, Normality criteria of meromorphic functions sharing a holomorphic function, Bull.Malays. Math. Sci.Soc,
38, 1331-1347 (2015).
[9] X.Pang and L.Zalcman, Ontheorems of Hayman and Clunie, N. Z. J. Math. 28(1), 71-75 (1999)
[10] W.Schwick, Exceptional functions and normality, Bull.Lond.Math.Soc.29(4), 425-432(1997)
[11] L. Yang, Normality for families of meromorphic functions, Sci.Sin.Ser.A29 (12),1263-1274(1986)
[12] L. Yang, Value distribution theory, Springer, Berlin, 1993
[13] L. Zalcman, Normal families: New perspectives, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 35(3), 215 230 (1998)
[14] W.H.Zhang, Value distribution of meromorphicfunctions concerning differential polynomial Bull.Malays Math.Sci. Soc.(2)28(2), 117-
123(2005)
[15] Q.C.Zhang, Some normality criteria of meromorphic functions, Complex Var Elliptic Equ, 53 791-795(2008).
[16] Z. L. Zhang, W. Li, Picard exceptional values for two classes of differential polynomials, Acta Math. Sin.37(6) 828 835 (1994).

1102
IJRITCC | May 2017, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________