Meromorphic Functions

Lectures on Meromorphic Functions
By
W.K. Hayman
Notes by
K.N. Gowrisankaran
and
K. Muralidhara Rao
Contents
1 Basic Theory
1.1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2
The Poisson-Jensen Formula . . . . .
1.3
The Characteristic Function . . . . .
1.4
Some Inequalities . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.6
The Ahlfors-Shimizu Characteristic: .
1.7
Functions in the plane . . . . . . . .
1.8
Representation of a function.... . . . .
1.9
Convergence of Weierstrass products
2 Nevanlinnas Second Fundamental Theorem
2.1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2
Estimation of the error term . . .
2.3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4
Applications . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5
Picard values of meromorphic... .
2.6
Elimination of N(r, f ) . . . . . .
2.7
Consequences . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
1
5
11
13
15
23
29
33
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
41
44
52
54
61
68
71
3 Univalent Functions
73
3.1
Schlicht functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.2
Asymptotic behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
iii
Part I
Basic Theory
1.1
We shall develop in this course Nevanlinnas theory of meromorphic

functions. This theory has proved a tool of unparallelled precision for
the study of the roots of equations f (z) = a, f (1) (z) = b, etc. whether
single or multiple and their relative frequency. Basic to this study is the
Nevanlinna Characteristic T (r) which is an indication of the growth of
the function f (z). We shall see in Theorem 2 that for every a T (r) is,
apart from a bounded term, the sum of two components m(r, a) + N(r, a)
of which the second measures the number of roots of the equation f (z) =
a in |z| < r and the first the average closeness of f (z) to a on |z| = r.
The second fundamental theorem shows that in general the second term
dominates and many applications giving well beyond Picards theorem
result.
1.2 The Poisson-Jensen Formula

We shall start with Poisson-Jensen formula which plays a fundamental
role in our study.
Theorem 1. If f (z) is meromorphic in |z| R and has there zeros a p
and poles b and if = rei , f () , 0, then for 0 r R we have
1
log f (re ) =
2
i
Z2
0

X
R( a )
log |(Rei )|(R2 r2 )dr
+
log 2
R a
R2 2Rr cos ( ) + r2
Basic Theory
2
(1.1)

R( b )
log
R2 b
Proof. Let f (z) , 0, in |z| 1. Then, since we can define an analytic

branch of log f (z) in |z| 1, we have by the residue theorem
Z
dz
1
log f (z) = log f (0)
2i
z
|z|=1
By change of variable,
1
2
Z2
log f (ei )d = log f (0)
and now taking real part on both sides

1
2
Z2
log | f (ei )|d = log | f (0)|
For any with || < 1, we effect the conformal transformation w =

R
dz
z
for the integral
log f (z) . This in turn becomes,
z
1 z
|z|=1
Z
1
2i
log (w)
dw
= log f () where (w) = f {z(w)}
w
|w|=1
so that (0) = f (). Substituting in the integral z = ei and taking real

part we get,
1
2
Z2
log | f (ei )|
(1 r2 ) d = log | f ()|, = rei
1 2r cos( ) + r2
Basic Theory
Now for the function f (z) with poles b and zeros a none of them
being on |z| = 1, let us define
(z) = f (z)
(z b )
(1 b z)
(z a )
(1 a z)
On |z| = 1, |(z)| = | f (z)| and the function has no zeros or poles in |z| 1. 3
By the above result,
1
2
Z2
log |(ei )|
(1 r2 )
d = log |()|
1 2r cos( ) + r2
= rei , r < 1
Substitution for gives the theorem for R = 1. In the case when there
are poles and zeros on the circumference of the unit circle we proceed
as follows. We have only to show that if f (z) has no zeros or poles in
|z| < 1, but has poles and zeros on |z| = 1, then
1
2i
log f (z)
dz
= log f (0)
z
|z|=1
For if f (z) has zeros and poles in |z| < 1 we can consider (z), in place
of f (z). Further we can assume that there is only one zero (the case of
pole being treated in the same manner) on |z| = 1. For the case when
f (z) has a finite number (it can have at most only a finite number) of
zeros (poles) can be treated similarly.
Let therefore z = a, |a| = 1 be a zero of f (z) on |z| = 1. Let P be
the point z = a and consider a circle of radius < 1 about P, being
small. Consider the contour S QR (fig.)
R Inside it f (z) has no zeros or
poles. Hence by the residue
theorem, log f (z) dz = log f (0). Thus it
R
is enough to prove that log f (z) dz tends to zero as tends to zero.
QR
Basic Theory
Let z = a be zero of order k. Then f (z) = (z a)k (z), (a) , 0, in

a certain neighbourhood of a; and we can assume the choice of such
that this expansion is valid within and on the circle of radius about P.
Z
Z
Z
dz
dz
dz
log f (z) = k log(z a) + log (z)
z
z
z
QR
QR
Since (z) remains bounded the second integral tends to zero. So we

R
dz
have only to prove that log(z a) tends to zero as 0, Now,
z
QR

(
)

Z
log(z a) dz max log |(z a)|

z
|z|

QR
[log(1/) + 0(1)] 0 if
1
2
This proves the result, in the case when the function f (z) has zeros or
poles on the unit circle. In case R , 1, we consider the function f (Rz)
instead of f (z) and arrive at the result. Hence the theorem is proved
completely.
Corollary. In the special case when = 0 we get the Jensens formula
1
(1.2) log | f (0)| =
2
Z2
0
log | f (Rei )|d +

X
a
b
log
log
R
R
the summation ranging over poles and zeros of f (z) in |z| R. The above
formula does not hold if zero is a pole or a zero of f (z). If f (0) = 0 or
Basic Theory
and f (z) is not identically constant then f (z) = C z + + . Consider

f (z)/zg . This has neither zero nor pole at zero. Hence we get,
1
log |C | =
2
Z2
1
2
Z2

X
|a | X
f (Rei )
|b |
log
log
d
+
log

R
R
R
log | f (Rei )|d +
log
|a | X
|b |
log
log R
R
R
where sums are taken over zeros and poles of f (z) in 0 |z| R.
1.3 The Characteristic Function

Set for x, real and positive,
log+ x = log x if x > 1,
log+ x = 0
if x 1,
Then clearly log x = log+ x log+ (1/x). So

Z2
log | f (Re )|d =
Z2
log | f (Re )|d
Z2
log+
1
d
| f (Rei )|
We note that the first term represents the contribution when f is large
and the second term when f is small.
Let 0 < r1 r2 . . . rn R be the moduli of the poles in the
order of increasing magnitude. Let n(r) denote the number of poles in
|z| < r of f (z). Then the Riemann-Stieljes integral,
ZR
0
log
X
1
R
dn(t) =
log
t
|b
|
given on integrating by parts,

R R
+
n(t) log
t 0
ZR
0
n(t)
dt X
=
log(R/|b |)
t
Basic Theory
The first term is zero, in consequence of the fact n(t) = 0, near zero.
We write n(r, f ) for the number of poles of f (z) in |z| r, so that
n(r, 1/ f ) is equal to the number of zeros of f (z) in |z| r. We define
N(r, f ) to be
Zr
(3)
n(t, f )
dt
t
If f (0) = we define N(r, f ) =
Rr
[n(t, f ) n(0, f )]
dt
+ n(0, f ) log r.
t
Then the formula (1.2) becomes, for f (0) , 0,

1
log | f (0)| =
2
Z2
1
log | f (re )|d
2
+
Z2
log+
1
d + N(r. f )
| f (rei )|
N(r, 1/ f ).
We define,
(1.4)
T (r, f ) = N(r, f ) + m(r, f )
where,
(1.5)
1
m(r, f ) =
2
Z2
log+ | f (rei )|d
Again (1.2) takes the form, for f (0) , 0,

(1.2 )
T (r, f ) = T (r, 1/ f ) + log | f (0)|
If f (z) C Z near z = 0, where , 0, then we obtain

T (r, f ) = T (r, 1/ f ) + log |C |. In future such modifications will be taken
for granted.
The function T (r, f ) is called the Characteristic Function of f (z).
This is the Nevanlinna characteristic function.
Theorem 2. First fundamental theorem.
Basic Theory
For any finite complex a,

T (r, f ) = T [r, 1/( f a)] + log | f (0) a| + (a)
where |(a)| log+ |a| + log 2.
Proof. We note that log+ |z1 + z2 | log+ z1 | + log+ |z2 | + log 2
and log+ |z1 z2 | log+ |z1 | log+ |z2 | log 2. Whence,
log+ | f (z) a| log+ | f (z)| log 2 + log+ |a|
Integrating we get,
log 2 log+ |a| + m(r, f a) m(r, f ) log 2 + log+ |a| + m(r, f a)
Since f and f a have the same poles,
N(r, f ) = N(r, f a).
Therefore,
T (r, f a) log+ |a| log 2 T (r, f ) log 2 + log+ |a| + T (r, f a)
That is, |T (r, f ) T (r, f a)| log 2 + log+ |a|
T (r, f ) + T (r, f a) + (a), where |(a)| log 2 + log+ |a|
From (1.2 ) we have,
T (r, f ) = T r,
!
1
+ log | f (0) a| + (a)
f a
where |(a)| log 2 + log+ |a|. Hence the theorem is proved.

!
!
1
1
If we write m(r, a), N(r, a) for m r,
, N r,
, then m(r, a)
f a
f a
represents the average degree of approximation of f (z) to the value a on
the circle |z| = r and N(r, a) the term involving the numbers of zeros
of f (z) a. Their sum can be regarded as the total affinity of f (z) for
the value a and we see than apart from a bounded term the total affinity
for every value of a. However, the relative size of the two terms m, N
remains in doubt. We shall see in the second fundamental theorem that
in general it is N(r, a) that is the larger component. The value of a for
which this is not the case will be called exceptional.
Basic Theory
8
Let us now consider some examples
8
1. Let f (z) = P(z)/Q(z), P(z) and Q(z) being polynomials of degrees

m and n respectively, and prime to each other, that is have no
common roots.
Then for large r, | f (z)| Crmn .
So if m is greater than n, m(r, f ) = (m n) log r + 0(1) and since
log+ x = 0, for 0 < x 1, m(r, 1/ f ) = 0
(1.6)
and
m(r, 1/( f a)) = 0.
for large r and fixed a. Since f (z) = has n roots in the open
plane, n(t, f ) = n, for t > t0 and N(r, f ) = n log r + 0(1). Again
T (r, f ) = m(r, f ) + N(r, f ) which is equal to m log r + 0(1) for a
finite again by "(1.6) and theorem
2, N(r,
!
# 1/( f a)) = m log r+0(1),
1
/T (r, f ) 1 as r . In this case
a finite. Thus N r,
f a
a = is the only exceptional value.
Similar conclusions follow if m is less than n by taking 1/ f in
place of f in the above discussion. In this case a = 0 = f () is
the only exceptional value.
If m is equal to n, f = c + 0(z ) (say). Or writing, f c b(z ),
we see that m(r, 1/( f c)) = log r + 0(1)
m(r, 1/( f a)) = 0(1), when a , c
m(r, f ) = 0(1), N(r, f ) = n log r + 0(1)
Thus T (r, f ) = n log r + 0(1) and,
N(r, a) = n log r + 0(1), a , c
N(r, c) = (n ) log r + 0(1).
Thus in any case
T (r, f ) = (Max . m, n) log r + 0(1)
i.e., T (r, f ) (Max . m, n) log r.
Basic Theory
9
Thus in the case of a rational function there is always only one

exceptional value, viz., f ()
2. Let f (z) = ez . In this case the value of m(r, f ) is,
m(r, f ) = 1/2
= 1/2
Z2
log+ er cos d
0
Z/2
cos d
/2
= r/
because cos 0 in /2 , 3/2 /2 and so
log+ er cos is equal to zero.
Since ez has no poles, N(r, f ) = 0. Consequently T (r, f ) is equal to
m(r, f ) which in turn is equal to r/.
We employ the notation m(r, a) = m(r, 1/( f a)) for finite a and
m(r, ) = m(r, f ), and similarly with the functions n, N, and T . We
have |ez a| ||ez | |a|| = |er cos |a|| if z = rei . If a , 0, we have
for large r e r < |a| < er . Therefore |a| = er cos for 0 . Thus
R2
1
d
2m(r, a) = log+ z
|e a|
0
Z2
log+
|er cos
1
d
er cos |
= 2 log
1
er cos
+2
Z2
log+
1
d
|er(cos cos ) 1|
If cos cos 0, we have |er(cos cos ) 1|

= r(cos cos ) +
r2
(cos cos )2 + r(cos cos )
2
10
Basic Theory
10
(cos cos ) if r 1.
If 12 < |er(cos cos ) 1| and cos cos > 0 we have er(cos cos ) >
or 0 < r(cos cos ) < 1. Since 1 ex = xex we have
1
2
|er(cos cos ) 1| = 1 er(cos cos ) r(cos cos )er(cos cos )

r(cos cos ) cos cos
2
2
Thus if |er(cos cos ) 1| <
1
2
we have
|er(cos cos ) 1| |
cos cos
|.
2
Let E be the set of at which

1
|er(cos cos ) 1| .
2
Then
Z
1
1
+ 2 log+ r(cos cos )
d
2m(r, a) 2 log
|a|
|e
1|
E
Z

1
d
+2
log+ r(cos cos )
|e
1
[0,]E
Z
Z
2
1
+
+
+ 2 log 2d + 2
log+
d.
2 log
|a|
| cos cos |
+
2 log+
1
+ 4 log 2 + 2
|a|
[0,]E
Z
log
2
d
| cos cos |
11
2
d is a continuous function of in
| cos cos |
0
0 and hence is bounded. Thus
Further
log
m(r, a) = 0(1)
Basic Theory
11
Hence
T (r, a) = T (r, f ) + 0(1) = r/ + 0(1).
i.e. N(r, a) + m(v, a) = r/ + 0(1).
i.e. N(r, a) = r/ + 0(1).
This shows that
N(r, a)
1.
T (r)
1.4 Some Inequalities

We have already seen that
log+ z1 + z2 log+ z1 + log+ |z2 | + log 2
More generally,

=n

X

log+ z log+ |n max |z | log+ n + log+ | max |z |
=1
=n
X
+
log n +
log+ |z |
=1
Hence,
N
X
m r,
n=1
Now F =
N
P
n=N
X
m(r, fn ) + log N
fn
n=1
fn (z) has poles only where the fn (z) have poles and
n=1
the multiplicity of such pole is at most the maximal multiplicity of the

poles of fn (z) which is not greater than the sum of the multiplicities.
This gives
N(r, F)
N
X
N(r, fn )
n=1
and
N
N
X X
T (r, fn ) + log N
fn
T r,
n=1
n=1
Basic Theory
12
Again if |a1 a2 . . . an | 1
12
log+ |a1 a2 . . . an | = 0
n
X
log+ |a |
If |a1 a2 . . . an | > 1, log+ |a1 a2 . . . an | = log |a1 a2 . . . an |, which is in turn

is equal to sum of log |ai | i = 1 to m, and hence less than or equal to
n
P
log+ |ai |.
i=1
Therefore we get
m(r, fn )
T (r, fn )
because
N(r, fn )
m(r, fn )
T (r, fn )
N(r, fn ).
We remark that in all cases equality is not excluded. For example take
a1 = a2 = . . . = a and |a| > 1, then log+ |a1 a2 . . . an | is equal to
n
P
log+ |ai |.
i=1
Example
If a, b, c, d are constants with ad bc , 0,
T (r, (a f + b)/(c f + d)) = T (r, f ) + 0(1)
For,
T (r, (a f + b)/(c f + d)) = T (r, a/c + bc ad)/(c f + d)c)
= T (r, k/( f + k )) + 0(1)
and by the first fundamental theorem,
= T (r, ( f + k )/k) + 0(1)
T (r, f + k ) + 0(1)
T (r, f ) + 0(1)
Similarly we get T (r, (a f + b)/(c f + d)) T (r, f ) + 0(1).
Basic Theory
13
1.5
13
Theorem 3 (H. Cartan). We have T (r, f ) = (1/2)
R2
N(r, ei )d
log+ | f (0)| that is, T (r, f ) apart from a constant term is the average of
N(r, a), for a on the circle |a| = 1.
For the proof we require the following lemma.
Lemma 1. If a is complex,
1/2
Z2
log |a ei |d = log+ |a|
This can be proved in various ways. If |a| 1, z a has no zeroes in

|z| < 1, and apply Poisson formula with f (a) = z a, R = 1.
Then
1
2
Z2
log |ei a|d = log |a| = log+ |a|, |a| 1
If
|a| < 1 write, |a ei | = |a||1 ei /a| = |a||1 ei /a|
= |a||ei i/a|

1
and we get by the first part, since > 1,
a
1
2
Z2
0

1
log |e a|d = log |a| + log = 0 = log+ |a|.
a
i
To prove the theorem consider now Jensens formula applied to f (z)ei ,

1
log | f (0) e | =
2
i
Z2
0
log | f (rei ) ei |d + N(r, f ) N(r, 1/( f ei ))
Basic Theory
14
14
since N(r, f ) = N(r, f ei ) ( f and f ei have the same poles). Now

integrate both sides with respect to and invert the order of integration
in the first term in the right hand side which we can do by Fubinis
Theorem, because the integrand is bounded above by log+ [| f (rei )| + 1]
and this is positive, integrable and independent of .
1
2
Z2
1
log | f (0) e |d =
2
i
Z2
1
d
2
1
2
Z2
N(r, f )d
log | f (rei ) ei |d
1
2
Z2
Z2
N(r, ei )d
and by the previous lemma,

1
log | f (0)| =
2
+
Z2
1
log | f (e )|d + N(r, f )
2
+
Z2
N(r, ei )d
= T (r, f )
1
2
Z2
N(r, ei )d
which gives the result.

Corollary 1. T (r, f ) is an increasing convex function of log r. It is also
easily seen that m(r, f ) need not be either an increasing or a convex
function of log r (e.g. by considering rational functions). In fact from
theorem 3,
1
d
d(T (r))
=
d log r
d log r 2
Z2
0
Zr
1
dt
n(t, e ) =
t
2
Z2
n(r, ei )d
and the right hand side is non-negative and non-decreasing with r.

Corollary 2.
1 R2
m(r, ei )d log 2.
2 0
Basic Theory
15
In fact by theorem 2,
1
m(r, e ) + N(r, e ) = T r,
f ei
i
= T (r, f ) log | f (0) ei )|+ < log 2 >

where < > denotes any quantity that is less than in modulus.
Integrating,
1
2
Z2
1
m(r, e )d +
2
i
Z2
N(r, ei )d
= T (r, f ) log | f (0)|+ < log 2 >

by the lemma.
So
1
2
Z2
m(r, ei )d + T (r, f ) log+ | f (0)|
= T (r, f )+ < log 2 > log+ | f (0)|

which is the required result. i.e.
1
2
Z2
m(r, ei )d =< log 2 >
1.6 The Ahlfors-Shimizu Characteristic:

We have defined the Nevalinna characteristic function of a meromorphic
function f (z). We now proceed to define the characteristic function after
Ahlfors [1] and Shimizu [1]. Prior to that let us prove the following
lemma.
Lemma 2 (Spencer). Suppose that D is a bounded domain in the complex plane, whose boundary is composed of a finite number of analytic
15
Basic Theory
16
curves, , and that G(R) is twice continuously differentiable on the set

of values R assumed by | f (z)| in D and on , f (z) being regular in D and
on . Then
"
Z
G(| f (z)|)ds =
g(| f (z)|)| f (z)|2 dx dy
n
16
where g(R) = G (R)+(1/R)G (R) and we differentiate out of the domain
along the normal in .

n
Let us make use of Greens formula which under the hypothesis of
the lemma gives,
Z
"
2
2
G(| f |)ds =
2 [G(| f |)]dx dy 2 = 2 + 2
n
x
y
Suppose first that f (z) has no zeros for z in D. Put u = log | f |, in order
to facilitate the easy calculation of 2 G(| f |). u is a harmonic function.
Therefore, 2 u = 0. Now | f | = eu , G(| f |) = G(eu ). Calculating the
partial derivatives with respect to x and y we see that,
u
2
[G(eu )] =
2
x
x
!2 n
o
2 u
eu G (eu ) + e2u G (eu ) + euG (eu ) 2
x

2
u
G(eu ) =
2
y
y
!2 n
o
2 u
eu G (eu ) + e2u G (eu ) + G (eu )eu 2
y
and
u
d
u
i
= (log f ) = f / f .
y
y dz
Hence on addition we get,
And u = Rl. log f (z) and
2 [G(eu )] =
since 2 u = 0.

| f (z)|2 u u
e G (e ) + eu G (eu )
2
| f (z)|
Basic Theory
17
Writing | f (z)| = R,
2 [G(R)] = | f (z)|2 [G (R) + RG (R)]/R
= g(R)| f (z)|2
where g(R) = (1/R)G (R) + G (R).
17
This establishes the result provided that f (z) , 0 for z in D. Otherwise, exclude the zeros (which are necessarily finite in number) of f (z)
G(| f |) is bounded, since

in D, by circles of small radii, and in these
n
by hypothesis G(R) is continuously differentiable near R = 0. Hence the
contribution to the left hand side of the formula tends to zero with the
radii of the circles, and so the lemma is proved.
Let us now specialise with G(R) = 12 log(1 + R2 ) and f (z) a meromorphic function in |z|, r with no poles on |z| = r. Exclude the poles in
|z| < r by circles of radii (small). Let us apply the lemma to the region
D consisting of |z| < r with the poles excluded. We find in this case,
g(R) = (1/R)G (R) + G (R) = 2/(1 + R2 )2 , and
"
Z
G(| f |dx =
g(| f |)| f (z)|2 dx dy.
n
consists of the circumference of |z| = r and the smaller circles. Near a

pole z0 of order k, of f (z)
| f (z)| |0|/k
|z z0 | =
and
G(| f |) =
1
log(1 + | f |2 ) = log | f | + 0(1).
2
that is,
G(R) = k log + 0(1)
Therefore,
!
1
[G(R)] =
k log
+ 0(1)
n
Basic Theory
18
is along the normal directed out of

since in the lemma the derivative
n
the region and hence here into the circle (isolating z0 ).
18
[G(R)] = k/ + 0(1).
n
Hence the contribution to the left hand side in the lemma is 2[k/ +
0(1)], that is, 2k + 0(). Adding over all the circles and letting tend
to zero,
Z
1
2n(r, f ) +
[log(1 + | f |2 ) 2 ]ds
n
|z|=r
"
2| f (z)|2
dx dy
[1 + | f (z)|2 ]2
|z|<r
that is again,
#
Z2 "
q
1
i
2
n(r, f ) +
log 1 + | f (re )| r d
2
r
0
"
| f (z)|2
1
dx dy.
=
[1 + f (z)2 ]2
|z|<r
We call the right hand side A(r).

Integrate both sides from 0 to r with respect to r after dividing by
r throughout to get,
1
N(r, f ) +
2
Z2
log(1 + | f (rei )|2 ) 2 d log(1 + | f (0)|2 ) 2
(1.7)
Zr
A(t)dt
.
t
The integration is justified since both sides are continuous and have
equal derivatives except for the isolated values of r for which |z| = r
Basic Theory
19
1
19
contains poles of the function f (z). Now log+ R log(1 + R2 ) 2

1
log R + 12 log 2, if R 1 so that log(1 + R2 ) 2 log+ R+ < 21 log 2 > and
1
if R 1, 0 log(1 + R2 ) 2 12 log 2 = 21 log 2 + log+ R so that in all
1
1
cases log(1 + R2 ) 2 log+ R+ < 21 log 2 >. Hence log[1 + | f (rei )|2 ] 2 =
< 12 log 2 > + log+ | f (rei )| substituting,
Zr
dt
1
A(t) =
t
2
Z2
log+ ( f (rei )|d + N(r, f )+ <
1
log 2 > log+ | f (0)|
2
= m(r, f ) + N(r, f )+ <

= T (r, f )+ <
1
log 2 > log+ | f (0)|
2
1
log 2 > log+ | f (0)|
2
Now if we put,
T 0 (r, f ) =
Zr
A(t)
dt
t
We get
T 0 (r, f ) = T (r, f )+ <
1
log 2 > log+ | f (0)|
2
Definition. T 0 (r, f ) is called Ahlfors-Shimizu Characteristic function of

f (z).
Interpretation of (1.7)
Basic Theory
20
20
Consider the Riemann Sphere of diameter one lying over the w-plane
and touching it at w = 0. To every point w corresponds the point P(w)
in which the line Nw (fig) intersects the sphere. From the figure NP =
1
cos = 1/(1 + R2 ) 2 , R = |w|. NP is called the chordal distance between
w and and is denoted by [w, ].
Then
1
2
Z2
0
1
log[1 + | f (re )| ] d =
2
i 2
1
2
Z2
log
1
d
[ f (z), ]
and so is the average of the chordal distances between f (z) and infinity,
when z runs over |z| = r. The left hand side of the above equation is an
alternative for m(r, f ) in the sense that it differs from m(r, f ) by less than
1
2 log 2.
It is easy to see that if ds is an element of length in the plane
and d the corresponding element on the Riemann-sphere then d =
ds/(1 + R2 ). Hence if du dv is an element of area in the w-plane, then
the corresponding element of area on the sphere is du dv/(1 + R2 )2 . If
dx dy is an element of area in z-circle, |z| < r, its image in the w-plane is
| f (z)|2 dx dy, since the element of length is multiplied by | f (z)|. Thus
the element of area corresponding to dx dy on the Riemann-w-sphere
is precisely | f (z)|2 dx dy/[1 + | f (z)|2 ]2 . Therefore, we interpret A(r)
as the area on the Riemann-w-sphere of the image, with due count of
multiplicity (the map w = f (z) may not be one-one, and more than one
lement of arc x in the z-plane may go into the same element of arc x in
the w-plane) of |z| < r by w = f (z). Since the area of the sphere is , A(r)
itself being the area of the image divided by the area of the sphere may
be interpreted as the average number of roots in |z| < r of the equation
f (z) = w, as w moves over the Riemann sphere.
21
1
We have seen above that A(r) = area of image of |z| < r by f (z) on the
Riemann Sphere. So that A(r) can be interpreted as the average value

of the number n(r, a) of roots of f (z) = a, in |z| < r as a runs over the
complex plane.
Basic Theory
21
Let us now rotate the sphere. This corresponds to a one-one conformal map of the closed plane onto itself and in fact to a bilinear map of
the type w = ei (1 + aw)/(w a) (for the proof refer Caratheodery, [1]).
Further under this rotation A(r) will remain unaltered.
Set (z) = ei [1 + a f (z)]/[ f (z) a], and observe that [(z), ] =
[ f (z), a], where w, a is the chordal distance between the points corresponding to w and a on the Riemann Sphere. In particular [w, ] =
1
{1 + |w|2 } 2 . If we apply our previous result to (z), we get
Zr
dt
1
A(t) = N(r, ) +
t
2
Z2
log
1
1
d log
i
[(0), ]
[(re ), ]
1
2
Z2
log
1
1
.
d log
i
[ f (0), a]
[ f (re ), a]
= N(r, a) +
Thus we have proved the theorem.

Theorem. For every complex a and a =
Zr
dt
1
A(t) = N(r, a) +
t
2
Z2
log
1
1
.
d log
i
[ f (0), a]
[ f (re ), a]
The new chordal distance is

|w a|
1
=
[w, a] =
1
2 21

[(1 + |a|2 )(1 + |w|2 )] 2
1 + aw

1 +

wa
Thus in this above theorem, the expression m0 (r, a) replaces m(r, a) of

the Theorem 2, where,
1
m0 (r, a) =
2
Z2
log[(1 + |a|2 )(1 + | f (rei )|2 )] 2

d
| f (rei ) a|
Unlike theorem 2 theorem 2 is exact. Notice that m0 (r, a) is always nonnegative because the chordal distance between any two points is always
is less or equal to one.
22
Basic Theory
22
Corollary. If f (z) is meromorphic in the plane then
Zr
dt
n(t, a)
t
Zr
A(t)
dt
+ C.
t
for all a where C is independent of a and r(> 1) but may depend on f .

Proof.
Zr
A(t)
dt
= N(r, a) + m0 (r, a) m0 (0, a)
t
Z1
A(t)
dt
= N(1, a) + m0 (1, a) m0 (0, a)
t
Rr
n(t, a)
dt
n(t, a) =
t
Zr
A(t)
dt
+ m0 (1, a) m0 (r, a)
t
Zr
A(t)
dt
+ max m0 (1, a)
a
t
subtracting, since N(r, a) =
Zr
dt
,
t
23
since m0 (r, a) is greater or equal to zero.

The maximum on the right is finite. In fact, for variable a and fixed
r m0 (r, a) is continuous in a and is bounded as a moves over the Riemann
sphere. This is evident if the function f (z) , a on |z| = r. If f (z) = a, at
a finite number of points the argument is similar to that in the PoissonJensen formula. Putting C = Maxa m0 (1, a) the result is obtained.

Remark. By an inequality for real positive functions due to W.K. Hayman and F.M. Stewart [1] and using corollary 1 we deduce that if f (z) is
meromorphic and not constant in the plane and
n(r) = sup n(r, a)
a
and
> 0,
Basic Theory
23
then
(1.8)
n(r) < (e + )A(r) . . .
...
...
on a set E of r having the following property. If E(r) is the part of E in

R dt
[1, r] then
c() log r for all large r, where c() depends only on
E(r) t
.
The following are some open problems:
(a) Can e be replaced by a smaller constant and in particular by one
in (1.8)?
(b) Does (1.8) hold for all large r; or for all large r except a small set? 24
(c) Can we assert
Zr
n(t)
dt
< (constant). A(r)
t
for some arbitrarily large r?
1.7 Functions in the plane

25
Let S (r) be a real function 0, and increasing for 0 r . The order

k and the lower order of the function S (r) are defined as
)
k
= lim [log S (r)]/ log r.
r
The order and the lower orders of the function always satisfy the relation, 0 k .
If 0 < k < , we distinguish the following possibilities,
(a) S (r) is maximal type if
C = limS (R)/Rk = infinity.
Basic Theory
24
(b) S (r) is of mean type of order k if 0 < C < .
(c) S (r) is of minimal type if C = 0.
(d) S (r) is of convergence class if,
Z
S (t)dt/tk+1
converges.
Note that if S (r) is of order k and > 0,

S (r) < rk+ for all large r.
and
S (r) > rk for some large r.
(This follows from the definition of order of S (r).)
It can be seen that if S (r) is of order k and of convergence type
i.e., (d) then it is of minimal type, (c). In fact in this case
Z
S (r)
dr <
rk+1
if r0 > t()
r0
26
Then
Z2r0
S (r)
dr <
rk+1
r0
and since S (r) increases with r,

Z2r0
r0
S (r0 )
S (r)
dr
r0
k+1
r
(2r0 )k+1
and
S (r0 )2(k+1) /r0 k <
for
that is,
lim S (r)/rk = 0.
r0 > t()
Basic Theory
25
So if (d) holds S (r) is of minimal type. We also note that if k is greater

than the order of S (r) then,
Z
S (r)dr/rk +1
converges.
and if k is less than k
R S (r)
rk +1
dr diverges.
We have next
Theorem 4. If f (z) is a regular function for |z| R and
M(r, f ) = Max|z|=r f (z) then,
r+R
T (R, f ) for
T (r, f ) log+ M(r, f )
Rr
0 < r < R.
Proof. Since f (z) is regular in |z| R and r < R we have,

1
T (r, f ) = T (r) = m(r, f ) =
2
Z2
log+ | f (rei )|d
Max|z|=r log+ | f (rei )|2

2
= log+ M(r, f )
To prove the other side of the above inequality of the theorem we dis- 27
tinguish between the two cases (i) M(r) < 1 or (ii) M(r) 1. In the case
(i), log+ M(r) = 0 and T (r, f ) (R + r)/(R r) being non-negative the
inequality holds good. Hence we can now suppose that M(r) 1, and
in which case log+ M(r) = log M(r).
The Poisson-Jensen formula gives, for z = rei
1
log | f (z)| =
2
Z2
0
log | f (Rei )|
(R2 r2 )
d.
R2 + 2Rr cos( ) + r2
Basic Theory
26

log

a z)

R(z a )
+ (R
in the above equality a runs through all the zeros of f (z). For, as regards
the zeros with modulus less or equal to R
2
2
2

(R
(R
(R
a
z)
a
z)
a
z)

= log
since
log+
1.
R(z a )
R(z a )
(z a )R
and for the zeros a with modulus greater than R,

2
+ (R a z)
=0
log
R(z a )
and Poissons formula is unaffected.
Clearly,
log | f |
(R2 r2 )
(R2 r2 )
+
log
|
f
|
R2 2Rr cos( ) + r2
R2 2Rr cos( ) + r2
R+r
R+r
log+ f
log+ f
Rr
Rr
28
1
log | f (z)|
2
Z2
(R2 r2 )
log+ | f (Rei )|d
(r2 + R2 2Rr)
Z2
= (1/2) (R + r/(R r)) log+ | f (Rei )|d
0
log | f (z)| (R + r/(R r))T (R, f ).

This being true for all z, |z| = r, holds good for the z at which f (z) takes
the maximum M(r, f ).
Hence,
log M(r, f ) (R + r/R r)T (R, f ).
Basic Theory
27
Corollary. If f (z) is an integral function, the order and type (a, b, c or

d defined in the last article) of T (r) and log+ M(r) are the same.
From the left hand side of the inequality of Theorem 4, it follows
that the order and type of T (r, f ) are not bigger than those of log+ M(r).
In order to prove the reverse, let us substitute R = 2r in the right side of
the theorem. We get,
log+ M(r, f ) 3T (2r, f )
Suppose k is the order of T (r, f ), then given > 0, T (r, f ) < rk+ for all
r > r0 by the definition of order. Hence combining the two inequalities,
log+ M(r, f ) 3T (2r, f ) < 3(2r)k+
for
r > r0 .
This implies that the order of log+ M(r, f ) is less or equal to k. If T (r)
has mean type, we may take = 0. If T (r) has minimal type, we may 29
in addition take c arbitrarily small. Hence T (r, f ) and log+ M(r, f ) both
have same order and belong to the same order type a, b or c. In order to
complete the corollary, we have to consider the case when T (r, f ) is of
(d) i.e., convergence type. Consider,
Z
log+ M(r)
dr
rk+1
r0
log+ M(r)
dr
rk+1
3T (2r)
dr
rk+1
r0
r0
k being the order of T (r, f ).

=
3.2k
T (r)dr
rk+1
2r0
by change of variable.
Since T (r) is of convergence type, it follows from the above inequality that log+ M(r) also belongs to the same class. It is clear that this
relation holds good in the reverse direction.
Basic Theory
28
We now proceed to define the order and the order type of a function
f (z) meromorphic in the plane on the above analogy.
Definition . The order and type of a function f (z) meromorphic in the
plane are defined as the order and type of T (r, f ).
We note that this coincides with that of order and type of
log M(r, f ) if f (z) is an entire function.
+
30
Example. (1) If the function f (z) = ez , log M(r) = r and T (r) = r/.
The function has order one, mean type. In this case log+ M(r) and
T (r) are of the same type, viz., mean type, though the values of
the type are different. More precisely, for T (r), lim T (r)/r = 1/
r
(the order being 1) and for log+ M(r), lim (1/r) log+ M(r) = 1.
r
In the above example the ratio of the two super. limites that is,
T (r)
rk
=1
+
log M(r)
lim
r
rk
lim
In general case for a function of order k and mean type this ratio is
bounded by 1. But it is still an open problem to find the best possible lower bound. It can be shown easily from theorem 4, taking
R = r[1 + (1/k)], that a lower bound is 1/e(2k + 1). In this connection
P.B. Kennedy [1] has given a counter example of a function of order k
mean type in | arg z| < /2k, and bounded for /2k arg z , provided
k > 21 , such that
log+ | f (rei )| rk cos k for || < /2k
|| <
log+ | f (rei )| = 0(1)
2k
Hence T (r, f ) rk /k, log M(r) rk . Thus e(2k + 1) cannot be replaced
by any constant less than k if k > 12 .
Basic Theory
29
Remark . For functions of infinite order T (r) and log+ M(r) no longer
have necessarily the same order of magnitude. Actually it has been
shown by W.K. Hayman and F.M. Stewart [1] that if > 0, log M(r) <
z
(2e + )[T (r) + A(r)] for some large r. As an example consider f (z) = ee 31
log M(r) = er
and
1
T (r) er (23 ) 2 /r 2 .
1.8 Representation of a function in terms of its zeros and poles

32
Definition. For any complex number z, and any integer q > 0,

1 2
E(z, q) = (1 z)ez+ 2 z
++ q1 zq
Theorem 5 (Nevanlinna). If f (z) is meromorphic in the plane with zeros

a and poles b and f (z) being of order at most q of the minimal type
then,
!
Q
z
E
,q 1
a
1a |<R
p Pq1 (z)
f (z) = z e
lim
!
R Q
z
,q 1
E
b
1b |<R
where p is a suitable integer and Pq1 (z) is a polynomial of degree at
most q 1.
Note that the theorem only asserts that the limit on the right exists,
but it does not indicate whether the products are convergent or divergent.
In fact if f (z) only satisfies the weaker condition that lower limit as
r tends to infinity of T (r)/rq is equal to zero (instead of the condition
assumed in the theorem viz., upper limit of the same is zero.), the result
still holds provided that R is allowed to tend to infinity through a suitable
sequence of values, instead of all values.
To start with let us assume that the function f (z) has no zero or pole 33
Basic Theory
30
at zero. The Poisson-Jensen formula gives,
Z2

X
R(z a )
(R2 r2 ) log | f (Rei )|
d +
log 2
(R a z)
R2 2Rr cos( ) + r2
|a
|<R
0
2

X
R b z
i
z = re
+
log
R(z b )
|b |<R
1
log | f (z)| =
2
Both the sides are equal harmonic functions v(z) (say) of z near the point
v v
i on both the sides.
z = rei where f (rei ) , 0, . Let us operate
x y
We assume that R is such that f (z) , 0, on |z| = R. Differentiating
under the integral sign and observing that
!
(R2 r2 )
Rei + z
=
Real
Rei z
R2 2Rr cos( ) + r2
We deduce,
f (z)
1
=
f (z)
2
Z2
log | f (Rei )|
2Rei
d
(Rei z)
#
a
1
(a z) (R2 a z)
|a |<R
X 1
2 b z)
(b
z)
(R
|b |<R
X "
34
provided that there are no zeros or poles on |z| = R. Differentiating this

q 1 times,
d
dz
!q1
!
Z2
log | f (Rei )|Rei
f (z)
1
=
f (z)
(Rei z)q+1
0
q
X
b
1
+ (q 1)
q
2 b z)q
(b
z)
(R
|b |<R
Basic Theory
31
X
+ (q 1)
|a |<R
T (2r)/(r)q
q
a
2
q
(a z)
(R za )q
Suppose now that

tends to zero as r tends to either through
all values or through a suitable sequence of values, say Rk (which tends
to with k). Such a sequence of values exists by our assumptions. Also
by decreasing Rk slightly if necessary we may assume that f (z) , 0,
on z = Rk , we take R = Rk in (1).
Then since m(r, f ) 0,
Z2Rk
dt
T (2Rk , f ) N(2Rk , f )
n(t, f ) n(Rk , f ) log 2.
t
Rk
Thus n(Rk , f )Rk tends to zero as k tends to . Similarly, n(Rk , 1/ f )/Rk

q
0, as k ) since, T (Rk , 1/ f ) = T (Rk , f ) + 0(1) and T (Rk , f )/Rk
0. Our aim now is to show that some of the terms on the right of the
equation 11.9 including the integral tend to zero uniformly for z on any
bounded set as k tends to infinity. Then letting k tend to infinity, we get
a modified equation integrating which q times we will get the result.
1
1
Now suppose that |z| < Rk . Then, |b z| < Rk Rk for |b | < Rk . 35
2
2
and
1
|R2k b z| R2k |b z| R2k
2
Hence,

q
q

Rk
b
2q
<

= q
1
(R2k b z)
Rk
( R2k )q
2
this inequality being true for all poles b with |b | < Rk . Therefore,
summing up for all poles b , |b | < Rk

q
q
n(Rk , f )2q
X
X
b
b
<

q
Rk

(R2k b z)q
(R2k b z)
and hence the right hand side tends to zero uniformly as k tends to infinity for z in any bounded set. A similar result holds good in the case
of the zeros of the function.
Basic Theory
32
Now coming to the integral,
|Rk ei z)|
1
Rk
2
1
|z| < Rk .
2
for
Hence the modulus of the integral on the right of (1.9) is at most,

Z2
log | f (R ei )| d
k
Rk 2q+1
(q!)
Rq+1
k
(q!) 2q+1
Rqk
< (q!)
2
Z2
Z
1
+
i
+
d
log | f (Re )|d + log

i
| f (Re )|
0
q+2
2
[m(Rk , f ) + m(Rk , 1/ f )]
Rk
< (Const.)
T (2Rk , f )
T (Rk , f )
< (Const.)
0
q
q
Rk
Rk
as k .
36
Now the equation (1.9) takes the form,

d
dz
!q1
f (z)
= lim S k (z)
f (z) k
Where
1
1
X
q
q
S k (z) = (q 1)!
(a z)
|b |<Rk (b z)
|a |<Rk
the convergence being uniform for any bounded set of values of z not
containing any of the zeros or poles of f (z).
By the uniform convergence we may therefore, integrate both sides
(q 1) times along a suitable path from 0 to z to get,
X
f (z)
= lim
f (z) k |b |<R
1
z
zq2
2 q1
(b z) b b
b
k
Basic Theory
33
1
zq2
1
+ pq2 (z)
q1
(a z) a
a
|a |<Rk
where Pq2 (z) is a polynomial of degree at most q 2. Now integrate

both the sides once more from 0 to z, and take exponentials,
! z z2
zq1
z a + 2a2 ++ (q1)aq1
1
e
a
|a |<Rk
f (z) = Pq1 (z) lim
!
q1
z
1
k
Q
z bz + q1
b
e
1
b
|b |<Rk
Q
Hence the result in the case when f (0) , 0, . In case zero is a pole or 37
zero of the function of order p, consider the function f (z)/z p and apply
the result just obtained to get the theorem in its final form.
1.9 Convergence of Weierstrass products

38
Let a1 , a2 , . . . an . . . be a sequence of complex numbers (none 0) with

moduli r1 , r2 , . . . , rn , . . . in the increasing order of magnitude. Let n(r)
be defined as
n(r) = Sup. k.
rk <r
Then follows the result:

Rr n(t)
dt then N(r) and n(r) have the same order and
t
0
P
type; and for any k, such that 0 < k < , the series 1/rnk and the
R n(r)
R
dr
integrals
N(r) k+1 converge or diverge together.
dr,
and
k+1
r
r
0
0
Lemma. If N(r) =
Proof. By Riemann-Stieltjes integrals,

X
rn <R
1/rnk
ZR
0
1
dn(t)
tk
Basic Theory
34
=k
ZR
n(t)
dt
tk+1
+ n(R)/Rk because n(t) = 0
dR
is less than infinity. n(R) has at
Rk+1
0
most convergence type of order k. (Hence it is also of minimal type).
P
Therefore upper limit of n(r)/rk as r tends to infinity = zero, and 1/rnk
converges to k(I1 ). The convergence of the series implies the convergence of the integral, because n(R)/Rk 0.

near 0. Suppose now I1 =
n(R)
Now consider the integral,
39
ZR
dr
N(r) k+1 = N(R)/(k)Rk +
r
ZR
dN(r)/krk
= N(R)/kRk +
ZR
n(r)
dr/rk+1
k
From this inequality we get that the integrals

R
N(r)dr/rk+1 and
n(r)dr/rk+1 will converge or diverge together, due to the following
dr
implies that lim N(R)/Rk = 0,
k+1
R
r
0
R
dr
hence the convergence of n(r) k+1 follows. On the other hand if
r
0
RR
R
dr
n(r)dr/rk+1 converges N(r) k+1 at once by comparison.
r
0
0
Therefore it remains to be proved that n(r) and N(r) have the same
order and type. Suppose n(r) has order k, then given > 0, n(r) < crk+
for r greater than r0
reason. The convergence of
N(r) =
Zr
0
n(t)
dt
t
N(r)
Basic Theory
35
N(r)
Zr0
dt
n(t) +
t
0
Zr0
dt
n(t) +
t
Zr
n(t)
Zr
crk1 dr for r > r0
dt
t
for
r > r0
r0
r0
constant + crk+ /(k + ) for r > r0 .

This implies that order of N(r) is not greater than that of n(r), and if
n(r) has got mean or minimal type so has N(R). The result for convergence or divergence class follows from earlier inequalities. The estimate 40
for n(r) in terms of N(r) follows from
n(r) (1/ log 2)
Z2r
n(t)
dt
N(2r)/ log 2.
t
From this inequality it can be derived in the same way as before, that
the order of n(r) is not greater than that of N(r) etc.
Definition . The order and type of n(r) or N(r) (being the same) are
called the order and type of the sequence (an ). The order of n(r) is also
sometimes called exponent of convergence of the sequence.
P
We note that 1/rnk converges if and only if n(r) has order less than
k, or order k of convergence type. (This is a consequence of lemma 3)
Next let us state the theorem,

Theorem 6. Suppose that an is a sequence having at most order q + 1
Q
(a positive integer) convergence class. Then the product (z) =
n=1
E(z/an , q) converges absolutely and uniformly in any bounded region,

and for |z| = r,
Zr
Z
dt
dt
q
q+1
r
n(t)
log |(z)| < A(q)
+
r
n(t)
q+1
q+2
t
t
Basic Theory
36
Proof.
q
1 2
++ uq
E(u, q) = (1 u)eu+ 2 u
1
uq
log E(u, q) = log(1 u) + u + u2 + +
2
q
X
k
=
u /k
q+1
41
P |u|k
1
2|u|q+1 if |u| since log |E(u, q)| is the
2
q+1 k
1
real part of log E(u, q) we get log |E(u, q)| q + 1 if |u| . Suppose
2
1
|u| 1. Then
2
1
|u|q
log |E(u, q)| log |(1 u)| + |u| + |u|2 + +
2
q
|u|q
1 2
.
|u| + |u| + |u| + +
2
q
so that | log E(u, q)|
1
, |u|q1 1/2q1 , 2q1 |u|q1 |u|. So that since |u| 1,
2
|u|q |u| 2q1 |u|q and
Also |u|
log |E(u, q)| 2q1 |u|q + q2q1 |u|q = A(q)|u|q < 2A(q).
A(q) being a constant depending only on q.
Thus for |u| 1, log |E(u, q)| A(q)|u|q+1 .
Let
1
uq
|u| 1, then log |E(u, q)| |u| + |u| + |u|2 + +
2
q
q
(q + 1)|u|
Now u = z/zn . Let |z| = r, |zn | = rn and N the least integer for which
rn r. Then |u| 1. Thus
N1
X
n=1
log |E(z/zn , q)| A(q)rq
N1
X
1
rn
Basic Theory
and
37
log E(z/zn , q) B(q)r
q+1
n+1
q1
rn
n+1
Thus
X
1
N1
X
X q
q1
q
q+1
log |E(z/zn , q)| C r
rn + r
rn
N
1
Zr
1
1
q+1
dn(t)
+
r
dn(t)
= C rq
tq
tq+1
r
0
Z
Zr
1
1
q+1
= K rq
n(t)dt
+
r
n(t)dt
tq+1
tq+2
r
K depending only on q. This proves the theorem.

We also see that for large n,

!
!q+1

z
r
,
q
,
log
E
<
A(q)

zn
rn
P (q+1)
and, the product converges since rn
converges. Our Theorem 6
shows that if in Theorem 5 f (z) has at most order q convergence class,
then the two products converge separately, uniformly and absolutely on
every bounded set.
As a consequence of the theorem we have
Theorem 7. If a sequence an defined as in the last theorem, has order
n=
Q
, q 1 < q, q an integer, then a (z) =
E(z/an , q 1) has order
n=1
Q
and further if is not an integer, (z) has the same type class as (an ).
a
Hence if f (z) is meromorphic of finite non-integral order, then the

roots of f (z) = a, have the same order and type class as f (z) except for
at most one value of a on the Riemann sphere.
42
Basic Theory
38
Proof. If n(t) < ct+ for t > t0 where > 0
r
q1
Zr
dt
n(t) q rq1
t
0(r
43
q1
)+C
Zt0
n(t)dt/t + r
0
+1q+
r
+ 1 + q +
q1
Zr
ct+ dt/tq
t0
q1
=0 r
q1
Cr+
+
+ +1q
and the result regarding the order of the first integral follows. The
second integral is treated similarly and then the first part follows from
Theorem 6.
If > q 1 and f (z) is of mean type or minimal type of order we
can take = 0, and in the case of minimal type c small and the results
for the type at once follow. Suppose for instance that n(t) has order less
than q so that n(t) < cr+ for t > t0 . Then for large r,
r
Z
r
n(t)dt
< crq
tq+1
t+
cr+
dt
=
(q )
tq+1
if
< q .
and the integral is 0(r+ ) and is 0(r ) if n(r) = 0(r ) as required.
Suppose now that f (z) is a meromorphic function of finite nonintegral order and q such that q 1 < < q. Then,
f (z) = ePq1 (z) 1 (z)/2 (z)
44
where 1 (z) and 2 (z) are the products over the zeros and poles respectively. Now if both have a smaller order and type than f (z), so does their
ratio. since
T (r, 1 /2 ) T (r, 1 ) + T (r, 1/2 )
= T (r, 1 ) + T (r, 2 ) + 0(1).
and ePq1 (z) has order q 1 < , so we should get a contradiction. Hence
at least one of the 1 (z) or 2 (z) and so either zeros or the poles have
the same order and type as the function f (z).
Basic Theory
39
If for instance the poles do not have the order and type of f (z) then
since f (z) a has the same poles as f (z) (for every finite a), the roots of
f (z) = a that is the zeros of f (z) a have the order and type of f (z).
This kind of argument was used to show that Riemann-Zeta function
has an infinity of zeros.
We now illustrate the above by means of an example.
If f (z) is meromorphic in the plane and lim T (r, f )/ log r<+ then
f (z) is rational.
In this case f (z) has lower order zero, and lower limit of N(r, f )/
log r as r tends to is less than . [T (r, f ) N(r, f )].
Similarly,
N(r, 1/ f )
<
lim
log r
further,
N(R, f )
ZR
n(t, f )
R
dt
n(r, f ) log
t
r
N(r2 ,
f)
= 0(1) for a sequence of n . So f (z)
log r
has only a finite number of zeros and poles. Hence from theorem 5 45
f (z) = z p ((1 z/a )/(1 z/b ) where both the products are finite.
Thus for all transcendental meromorphic functions T (r, f )/ log r tends
to infinity as r tends to infinity.
so that n(r, f )
1
2
Part II
Nevanlinnas Second
Fundamental Theorem
2.1
46
As the name indicates this theorem is most fundamental in the study

of meromorphic functions. It is an extension of Picards Theorem, but
goes much farther. We develop the theorem in theorems 8 and 9 of this
chapter, and then proceed systematically to explore some of its consequences.
Theorem 8. Suppose that f (z) is a non-constant meromorphic function
in |z| r. Let a1 , a2 , . . . , aq be distinct finite complex numbers, > 0
such that |a a | for 1 q. Then,
m(r, f ) +
=q
X
m(r, a ) 2T (r, f ) N1 (r) + S (r)
=1
where N1 (r) is positive and is given by

N1 (r) = N(r, 1/ f ) + 2N(r, f ) N(r, f )
and
f /( f a )
S (r) = m(r, f / f ) + m r,
=1
41
Nevanlinnas Second Fundamental Theorem
42
+ q log
!
3q
+ log 2 + log+ 1/| f (0)|
with modifications if f (0) = 0 or , f (0) = 0.

Proof. Let a new function F be defined as follows
F(z) =
=q
X
1/[ f (z) a ]
=1
and suppose that for some , | f (z) a | < /3q. Then for , ,
| f (z) a | |a a | | f (z) a |
/3q
> 2/3.
(q 1)
Therefore,
1/| f (z) a | < 3/2
for
< (1/2q)[1/| f (z) a |]

47
Again,
|F(z)| 1/| f (z) a |
1/ f (z) a |
[1/| f (z) a |][1 (q 1)/2q]

1/2| f (z) a |
Hence
log+ |F(z)| log+ 1/| f (z) a | log 2.
In this case,
log+ |F(z)|
q
X
log+ 1/| f (z) a | q log+ 2/ log 2
q
X
log+
=1
=1
1
q log+ 3q log 2.
| f (z) a |
43
since all the term for , are at most log+ 2/. This is true if | f (z)
a | < /3q for some q. This inequality is true evidently for at most
one (with the condition |a a | ). If it is not true for any value
then we have trivially,
log+ |F(z)|
q
X
log+ 1/ f (z) a | q log+ 3q/ log 2
=1
(because, log |F(z)| 0). So the last relationship holds good in all
cases.

Taking integrals we deduce,
(2.1)
m(r, F)
q
X
m(r, 1/ f a ) q log+
=1
3q
log 2
Again to get an inequality in the other direction,

!
1 f
f F
m(r, F) = m r,
f f
By equation (1.2 ) of 1.2 i.e. ,
T (r, f ) = T (r, 1/ f ) + log | f (0)|
m(r, f / f ) = m(r, f / f ) + N(r, f / f ) N(r, f / f ) + log[| f (0)|/| f (0)|]
m(r, 1/ f ) = T (r, f ) N(r, 1/ f ) + log 1/| f (0)|
Hence we get finally,
48
m(r, F) T (r, f ) N(r, 1/ f ) + log 1/| f (0)| + m(r, f / f )

+ N(r, f / f ) N(r, f / f ) + log | f (0)|/| f (0)| + m(r, f F)
The above inequality, combined with (2.1) gives
q
P
m(r, a ) q log+
=1
3q/ log 2 Right hand side of the above inequality. Add to both the
sides m(r, f ), we get the inequality,
m(r, f ) +
q
X
=1
m(r, a ) T (r, f ) + [m(r, f ) + N(r, f )] N(r, f )
44
+ m(r, f / f ) + log 1/| f (0)| + log 2
f /( f a ) + q log+ 3q/ N(r, 1/ f )

+ m r,
=1
+ N(r, f / f ) N(r, f / f ).
2
= 2T (r, f ) N1 (r) + m(r, f / f ) + log
| f (0)|
q
f
3q
+ q log+
+ m r,
( f, a )
=1
where, N1 (r) = N(r, f ) + N(r, 1/ f ) + N(r, f / f ) N(r, f / f ). Now for

any two functions f (z) and g(z) Jensens formula gives
1
N(r, f /g) N(r, g/ f ) =
2
Z2
1
2
0
Z2

g(rei )
log
d log |g(0)/ f (0)|
f (rei )
log |g(rei )|d log |g(0)|
1
+
2
Z2
log
1
d + log | f (0)|
| f (rei )|
= N(r, 1/g) N(r, g) + N(r, f ) N(r, 1/ f )

49
Thus
N1 (r) = N(r, f ) + N(r, 1/ f ) + N(r, 1/ f )
+ N(r, f ) N(r, f ) N(r, 1/ f )
= 2N(r, f ) + N(r, 1/ f ) N(r, f )
as required.
2.2 Estimation of the error term

We shall firstly prove some lemmas.
45
Lemma 1. Suppose that f (z) is meromorphic in the |z| R and that

0 < r < R. Let = 12 (r + R) and (z) the distance of z from the nearest
pole or zero of f (z) in |z| < . Then,
m(r, f / f ) < log+ T (R, f ) + 2 log+ [1/(R r)] + 2 log+ R
1
+
2
Z2
log+
1
d + 0(1)
(rei )
0(1) depending only on the behaviour of f (z) at z = 0.

Proof. We have by differentiation of Poisson formula as in theorem 5,
Z2
2ei
d
(ei z)2
0
# X
X"
1
a
1
b
+
+
2
(b z) (2 b z)
( a z) (a z)
1
f (z)/ f (z) =
2
log | f (ei )|
where the sums as usual run over the zeros a and poles b in |z| < .
From |2 a z| 2 |z| = 2 r = ( r) for |z| = r we get
|a |
1
2
=
and by definition of (z)
2
| a z| r ( r)

1
1
1 1

,

(a z) (z) b z (z)
Hence
"

# X
1
a
X
b
1

(b z) 2 b z
(2 a z) (a z)
#
"
1
1
+
[n(, f ) + n(, 1/ f )]
(z) ( r)
We now estimate n(, f ) and n(, 1/ f ). For this we have,
ZR
n(t, f )dt/t N(R, f ) T (R, f )
50
46
and since n(t, f )/t n(, f )/R for t greater than ,
RR
n(t, f )dt/t
n(, f )(R f )/R. Therefore [n(, f )](R )/R T (R, f ) or n(, f )

RT (R, f )/(R ) = 2RT (R, f )/(R r) since 2 = (R + r).
Similarly n(, 1/ f ) 2RT (R, 1/ f )/(Rr) = 2R[T (R, f )+0(1)]/(R
r). 0(1) depends only on the behaviour of f (z) at z = 0. Thus
n(, f ) + n(, 1/ f )
4R
[T (R, f ) + 0(1)]
(R r)
and so
"

# X
1

a
X
b
1

(b z) (2 b z)
2 a z (a z)
"
#
1
2
4R
[T (R, f ) + 0(1)]
+
(R r)
(z) (R r)
Further,

Z2
i
1
2e
i
log | f (e )| i
d
2
(e z)2
0
2
1
2 ( r)2
Z2
log | f (ei )|d
51
for,
|ei z| ||ei | |z|| = ( r)
2
Z2
Z
1
1 4
+
i
+
=
d
log | f (e )d + log
i
2
(R r)
| f (e )|
0
8
8
=
[m(, f ) + m(, 1/ f )]
[2T (, f ) + 0(1)]
2
(R r)
(R r)2
16
16R
=
[T (, f ) + 0(1)]
[T (R, f ) + 0(1)]
2
(R r)
(R r)2
47
0(1) depending only on the behaviour of f (2) at z = 0. Thus from the

above inequalities and the equation for f (z)/ f (z) we get finally,
"
#
2
4R
1
| f (z)/ f (z)|
[T (R, f ) + 0(1)]
+
(R r)
(R r) (z)
16R
+
[T (R, f ) + 0(1)]
(R r)2
"
#
(R r)
4R
Rr
6T (R, f ) + T (R, f )
=
+ 0(1) + 0(1)
(z)
(z)
(R r)2
"
#
Rr
4R
6+
[T (R, f ) + 0(1)]
2
(z)
(R r)
Hence,
+
log | f (z)/ f (z)| log
+ 0(1) log+ R 2 log+

2 log+ R + log+
!
4R
Rr
+
+ log+ T (R, f )
+ log 6 +
(z)
(R r)2
1
(R r)
+ log+ T (R, f ) log+
+ 0(1)
(R r)
(z)
1
+ 2 log+
+ log+ T (R, f ) + 0(1)
(R r)
1
(z)
0(1) depending only on the behaviour of f (z) at z = 0. Integrating the 52

above inequality on the circle |z| = r,
1
2
Z2
1
log | f (re )/ f (re )|d 2 log R +
2
i
Z2
log+
1
d
(rei )
1
+2 log+
+ log+ T (R, f ) + 0(1)
(R r)
which gives the lemma.
Lemma 2. Let z be any complex number and 0 < r < . Let Ek be the
set of all such that |z rei | < kr where 0 < k < 1. Then
!
#
"
Z
1
i
+1
log[r/|(z re )|]d < log
k
Ek
48
Proof. We may after rotation assume z real and positive. For if z = 0 Ek

is obviously void and there is nothing to prove. So let z > 0. Then for
in Ek |z rei | | Im(z rei )| = r sin and Ek is contained in an interval
of the form || < 0 where r sin 0 kr, that is, sin 0 k. So,
Z
log[r/|re z|]d 2
Now, <
1
d
Sin
log+
Ek
53
Z0
for when || , |z rei | > |rei | = r. Thus

2
2
sin 2
|| < 0 we get
log[r/|rei z|]d 2
Ek
Z0
log
d
2
=2
Z0
log
Z0
log d
d
2
because 0 <
Z
or
> 1.
2
2
log[r/|(rei z)|]d 2
Ek
Z0
log d 2
2
= 20 log 20 log 0 + 20
2

Lemma 3. With the hypothesis of lemma 1,
m(r, f / f ) 3 log+ T (R, f )+4 log+ R+4 log+ [1/(Rr)]+log + (1/r)+0(1)
Proof. Notations being the same as in the proof of lemma 1, write,
1
1
r
[1/(z)] = [r/(z)] (1/r). Then log
log log
. So
(z)
r
(z)
1
2
Z2
0
1
1
1
log
d log+ +
r 2
(rei )
+
Z2
0
log+
r
d
(rei )
49
r
Let E denote the set of in (0, 2) for which (rei ) < 2 where n =
n
n(, f ) + n(, 1/ f ). (If n = 0 so that there are no zeros and poles we can
put (z) = + and there is nothing to prove. So assume n 1). For each
point in E there is a zero or pole z such that (rei ) = |z rei | < r/n2 54
and then
log+ [r/(z)] = log+ [r/|rei z |]
Now write log0 x = log x if x n2 and log0 x = 0 otherwise. Then since
n 1, log0 x 0 always.
Also for in E log+ [r/(z)] = log+ [r/|(rei z )|] for some Since,
1 < n2 < [r/|rei z |],
X
r
r
r
= log0 i
log0 i
log+ i
|re z |
|re z |
|re z|
where the sum is taken over all zeros and poles z in |z| < . Thus
Z
XZ
r
r
+
log0 i
d
d
log
i
(re )
|re z |
E
E
X
[log n2 + 1] = [2 log n + 1] A.
2
n
n
by lemma 2 with k = 1/n2 , and where A is an absolute constant.

Also on the complement of E, (rei ) r/n2 and,
Z
r
d
log
(rei )
+
Z2
log n2 d = 2 log n2
compl. of E
Adding we obtain
1
2
Z2
log+
r
d [2 log n + A]
(rei )
1
2
Z2
0
1
1
log
d =
2
|(rei )|
+
Z2
0
log+
r
1
d
r |(rei )|
50
1
Z2
log
r
1
d + log+
i
r
|(re )|
2 log+ n + log+ 1/r + A.

55
where n = n(, f ) + n(, 1/ f ).

We have from (2.2)
n = n(, f ) + n(, 1/ f ) 4R[T (R, f ) + 0(1)]/(R r).
Hence,
log+ n log+ R + log+ 1/(R r) + log+ T (R, f ) + 0(1),
giving
1
2
Z2
log
1
1
1
+ 2 log+ R
d log+ + 2 log+
i
r
Rr
|(re )|
+ 2 log+ T (R, f ) + 0(1)

From this and lemma 1, lemma (3) follows. That is,
m(r, f / f ) < 3 log+ T (R, f ) + 4 log+ 1/(R r) + 4 log+ R + log+ 1/r 0(1).

Lemma 4 (Borel).
(i) Suppose T (r) is continuous, increasing and
T (r) 1 for r0 r < . Then we have
(2.3)
T [r + 1/T (r)] < 2T (r)
outside a set E of r which has length (that is) linear measure at

most 2.
56
(ii) If T (r) is continuous and increasing for r0 r < 1 and T (r) 1

then we have
(2.4)
T [r + (1 r)/(eT (r))] < 2T (r)

outside a set E of r such that
51
dr/(1 r) 2. In particular
T [r + (1 r)/eT (r)] < 2T (r) for some r such that < r < if
r0 < < 1 and 1 < (1 )/e2 .
Proof. We prove first (i) [that is in the plane]. Let r1 be the lower bound
of all r for which (2.3) is false. If there are no such r there is nothing to
prove. We now define by induction a sequence of numbers rn . Suppose
that rn has been defined and write rn = rn + 1/T (rn ). Define then rn+1 as
the lower bound of all r rn for which (2.3) is false. We have already
defined r1 and so we obtain the sequence (rn ). Note that by continuity of
T (r) (2.3) is false for r = rn , for n = 1, 2, 3, . . . that is rn belongs to E0 ,
E0 being the exceptional set. From the definition of rn+1 is follows that
there are no points of E in (rn , rn+1 ) and that the set of closed intervals
[rn , rn ] contains E0 . If there are an infinity of rn , (rn ) cannot tend to a
finite limit r. For then since rn < rn rn+1 , rn tends to r also. But
rn rn = 1/T (rn ) which is greater or equal to 1/T (r) > 0, since T (r) is
increasing, for all m which is a contradiction.

P
It remains to be shown that (rn rn ) 2. Now T (rn ) = T [rn +
1/T (rn )] 2T (rn ) since rn belongs to E. And so T (rn+1 ) T (rn )
2T (rn ). Therefore, T (rn+1 ) 2T (rn ) . . . 2n T (r1 ) 2n since T (r) 57
P
P
P
1. Thus T (rn ) 2n1 . Now (rn rn ) = 1/T (rn ) 21n 2.
To prove part (ii) of the theorem, set R log[1/(1 r)] getting r = 1
eR and put T (r) = (R)(R) then is continuous and increasing for R0 =
log[1/(1 r0 )] R < and (R) 1. Apply then the first part to (R).
Then we have [R+1/(R)] < 2(R)
R for R R> log[1/(1r0 )] outside a set
P
E of R such that 2 (Rn Rn ) = dR = dr/(1r). Translating back
E
to r, R = R + 1/(R) becomes log[1/(1 r )] = log[1/(1 r)] + 1/T (r).

1
That is (1 r ) = (1 r)e T (r) and T (r ) < 2T (r). By the first mean
value theorem f (b) = f (a) + (b a) f (x), where a x b. Since T (r)
increases with r, T [r R+ (1 r)/eT (r)] < 2T (r) outside the exceptional
set E of r for which dr/(1 r) 2. If E contains the whole of the
E
R
R
interval < r < then dr/(1 r) dr/(1 r) 2, that is

E
log(1 )/(1 ) 2, and so (1 )/(1 ) e2 as required.
52
2.3
Theorem 9. If f (z) is meromorphic and non-constant in the plane and
S (r, f ) denotes the error term in Theorem 8 then we have
(2.5)
S (r, f ) = O[log T (r, f )] + O(log r)
as r tends to infinity through all values if f (z) has finite order, and
through all values outside a set of finite linear measure otherwise.
(ii) If f (z) is meromorphic (non-constant) in |z| < 1 and the
lim{T (r, f )/ log[1/(1 r)]} = , then we have S (r, f ) = O[T (r, f )]
r1
R
as r tends to one on a set E such that dr/(1 r) = .
E
Proof. If (z) =
q
Q
[ f (z) a ] then
=1
S (r, f ) = m(r, f / f ) + m[r, /] + O(1)

58
because S (r, f ) = m(r, f / f )+m(r,
q
P
f /( f a ))+O(1) and
=1
q
P
f /( f
=1
by logarithmic differentiation. Therefore from the lemma 3,
for any R > r we have,
a ) =
S (r, f ) 3 log+ T (R, f ) + 4 log+ R + 4 log+ [1/(R r)]

+ log+ (1/r) + 3 log+ T (R, )
4 log+ R + 4 log+ 1/(R r) + log+ (1/r) + 0(1)
Also
(2.6)
T (r, )
q
X
T (r, f a ) T (r, f ) + O(1), . . .
=1
Thus
S (r, f ) 3(1 + q) log+ T (R, f ) + 8 log+ R + 8 log+ [1/(R r)]
+2 log+ (1/r) + O(1)
53
If r is greater than 1 (we are considering S (r, f ) for large r) log+ (1/r) =
0. Now suppose that f (z) is meromorphic of finite order so that T (r, f ) <
r K for r greater than r!0 . Also choose R = r2 and r 2 so that R r > 1.
1
= 0. We get
Then log+
Rr
S (r, f ) 3(1 + q) log+ T (R, f ) + 8 log+ R + O(1),
log+ T (R, f ) < k log+ R < 2k log+ r = 2k log r
since R = r2 and r > 1. We thus have finally, S (r, f ) 6(1 + q)K log r +
16 log r + O(1) showing that S (r, f ) = 0(log r) which gives (2.5) since
log+ T (r, f ) = O(log r).

Note that by our examples T (r, f )/ log r tends to infinity unless f (z) 59
is a rational function in which case S (r, f ) is bounded because f / f 0
as z for any polynomial and hence for any rational function. Thus
if f (z) has finite order S (r, f )/T (r, f ) 0 as r .
If f (z) has infinite order take R = [r + 1/T (r)], then log+ R
log r[since T (r) ] log+ 1/(R r) = log+ T (r) and log 1/r = 0
finally. Outside the exceptional set of lemma 4, T (R, f ) < 2T (r, f ) and
so, log+ T (R, f ) log+ T (r, f ) + log 2. Hence again we have (2.5) outside the exceptional set. This completely proves i) In order
! to prove
1
as
(ii) denote by rn a sequence such that T (rn , f )/ log
1 rn
n and by taking a sub sequence if necessary we can assume that
1 rn
1 rn+1 <
. Then let rn be defined by 1 rn = (1 rn )/10 so that
10
Rrn dr
rn < rn < rn+1 < 1. Then since

= log(1 rn )/(1 rn ) = log 10 >
rn 1 r
R dr
= +.
2 the union E1 of all the intervals (rn , rn ) is such that
E1 1 r
Further each such interval contains a point
not in the excepR
tional set E, for T (r, f ) because by lemma 4 dr/(1 r) 2, proE
vided only that T (r1 ) > 1. For a not exceptional point r of E1 take
54
R = r + (1 r)/eT (r), then
log+
60
1
eT (r)
1
= log+
< log+ T (r) + log+
+1
Rr
1r
1r
and log+ T (R) < log+ T (r) + log 2, Thus by (2.6)

S (r, f ) < 3(1 + q) log+ T (R, f ) + 8 log+ R + 8 log+
< (3 + 3q + 8) log+ T (r) + 8 log+
1
+ O(1)
(R r)
1
+ O(1)
(1 r)
1
10
< log+ 1r
+ 0(1) =
Also, log+ [1/(1 r)] < log+ 1/(1 rn ) + log+ (1r
n)
n
O[T (rn )] + O(1) = O[T (r)].
So since log T (r, f ) = O T (r) we get S (r, f ) = O T (r). This proves
R dr
(ii) for a set E1 of r such that
= + and containing at least one
E1 1 r
point in each interval rn < r < rn . In face E comprises all the r in the
sequence of intervals [rn , rn ], n > 1 except possibly a set E0 such that
R dr
2.
E0 1 r
2.4 Applications
61
Definition . Let n(t, a) denote the number of roots of f (z) = a in |z|

t, the multiple roots being counted according to their multiplicity and
n(t, a) the number of roots of f (z) = a in |z| < t with the multiple roots
Rr
counted simply. Further let N(t, a) = n(t, a) n(0, a)dt/t. [ n(0, a) is
0
equal to one if f (0) = a and zero otherwise]; and N(r, a) as before with
n(t, a) instead of n(t, a). Let now the function f (z) be meromorphic, and
non-constant in |z| < R, 0 < R and suppose that f (z) satisfies the
hypotheses of theorem 9, so that lim [S (r, f )/T (r)] = 0 and T (r) tends
rR
to infinity as r tends to R.
Now write (a) = lim [m(r, a)/T (r)] = 1 lim [N(r, a)/T (r)] because
rR
rR
[m(r, a) + N(r, a)]/T (r) = [T (r) + 0(1)]/T (r) 1;
55
thus
lim [m(r, a)/T (r)] = lim 1 +
rR
rR
N(r, a)
= 1 + lim N(r, a)/T (r)
T (r)
rR
= 1 lim N(r, a)/T (r)
rR
Again write,
(a) = lim [N(r, a) N(r, a)]/T (r)
rR
and
(a) = 1 lim N(r, a)/T (r) = lim [1 N(r, a)/T (r)].
rR
rR
Clearly, (a), (a) and (a) lie in the closed interval [0, 1]. Also
N
N NN
=1 +
T
T
T

N N
N
N
+ lim
lim 1 lim 1
T rR
T
T
rR
rR
1
i.e. (a) (a) + (a).

62
The quantity (a) is called the defect of a and (a) the Branching
index (Verzweigungsindex) of a. Now we have the defect relation of
Nevanlinna. This is the second fundamental theorem in its most effective form and is very important in the theory.
Theorem 10. If f (z) satisfies the hypotheses of the Theorem 9, then
(a) = 0 except possibly for a finite or countable sequence a of values
P
of a and for these (a ) 2.
Proof. From theorem 8, for any q distinct values a , of a including a1 =
q
X
m(r, a ) < 2T (r, f ) N1 (r) + S (r)
=1
and adding
q
P
N(r, a ) to both sides and using first fundamental theorem
=1
T (r, a) = T (r, f ) + O(1), we get

qT (r, f ) < 2T (r, f ) N1 (r) +
q
X
=1
N(r, a ) + S (r, f ) + 0(1)
56
(q 2)T (r, f ) <
q
X
N(r, a ) N1 (r) + S (r) + 0(1).
=1
63
Now, N1 (r) = 2N(r, f ) N(r, f ) + N(r, 1/ f ), and since by definition

N(r, f ) = N(r, ), N(r, ) N1 (r) = N(r, a1 ) N1 (r) = N(r, f )
N(r, f ) N(r, 1/ f ).
So,
(q 2)T (r, f ) <
q
X
N(r, a ) + N(r, f ) N(r, f ) N(r, 1/ f ) + S (r) + 0(1)
=1
If f (z) has a pole of order p at z0 , f (z) has a pole of order p + 1 at z0

so that n(t, f ) n(t, f ) = n(t, f ) and so N(r, f ) N(r, f ) = N(r, f ),.
Similarly if a is anyone of a2 , a3 , . . . , aq (finite) and f (z) = a has a root
of multiplicity p, f (z) has there a zero of order p 1. Thus
q
X
N(r, a ) N(r, 1/ f ) =
=2
q
X
N(r, a ) N0 (r, 1/ f )
=2
where N0 (r, 1/ f ) refers to zeros of f (z) at points other than the roots
of f (z) = a.
Hence we get,
(q 2)T (r, f ) <
i.e. (q 2)T (r, f ) <
q
X
=2
q
X
N(r, a ) N0 (r, 1/ f ) + S (r) + N(r, ) + 0(1)

N(r, a ) N0 (r, 1/ f ) + S (r, f ) + 0(1)
=1
q
X
N(r, a )
S (r, f ) + 0(1)
i.e.
(q 2)
since N0 (r, 1/ f ) 0
T
(r)
T
(r)
=1
since lim S (r, f )/T (r) = 0 and T (r, f ) as r R

rR
#
q
X
N(r, a )
O(1) + S (r)
(q 2)
= 0. Thus lim
lim
rR
rR
T (r)
T (r)
=1
"

and afortiori
q
X
=1
that is,
lim
rR
57
N(r, a )
q2
T (r)
q
X
[1 (a )] (q 2)
64
as required.
=1
This shows that (a) > (1/n) at most for 2n values of a and so (a) > 0
for at most a countable number of a. If these as are arranged in a
q
P
sequence
(ar ) 2 for any finite q, and so to infinity.

r=1
Consequences
P
(1) Since (a) (a) we have (a ) 2 and thus there exists
at most two values of a for which (a) = 1, or more generally
(a) > 32 . Thus if the equation f (z) = a has only a finite number
of roots in the plane, N(r, a) = 0(log r) as r tends to infinity, and
we should have
T (r)
< .
r log r
lim log[r/T (r)] > 0, i.e. lim
i.e., f (z) is rational. Thus if f (z) is transcendental in the plane

(a) < 1 the equation f (z) = a has infinitely many roots. The
same is true in all cases if R is finite, since otherwise N(r, a) =
0(1) and so lim T (r) < + that is T (r) = 0(1) as r tends to R,
rR
since T (r) is increasing. This would contradict

!
1
lim T (r)/ log
= +.
rR
1r
This result thus contains Picards theorem as a special case.
(2) in relation to N and N. Suppose that the function f (z) = a has 65
only multiple roots of multiplicity k 2. Then
N(r, a) (1/k)N(r, a) (1/k)[T (r, f ) + 0(1)]
58
Hence in this case,
lim N(r, a)/T (r) (1/k)
rR
(a) = 1 lim N(r, a)/T (r) 1 (1/k)

rR
1
2
If a1 , a2 , . . . , aq are q such values with k = k for a , we have

P
P
since (a ) 2, [1 (1/k )] 2.
In particular there can be at the most four such values a of a for

[1 (1/k )] 12 .
If f (z) is regular m(r, f ) = T (r, f ) and () = limm(r, f )/T (r, f ) =
P
1. and so () = 1 because () () = 1. So, (a ) 1 for
any finite number of finite a s. So that there can be only two such values a which are taken multiply. Such values are called fully branched
(Vollstandig Verzweight). These results are best possible, for sin z and
cos z, have the values 1 fully branched. Again for the Wierstrassian
elliptic function P(z) which satisfies the differential equation
[P (z)]2 = (P(z) e1 )(P(z) e2 )(P(z) e3 )
66
where e1 , e2 , e3 are distinct finite numbers the values e1 e2 and e3 are

evidently fully branched and so is infinity. If P(z) has a pole of order k,
P(z) A(z)k and [P (z)]2 P(z)3 A3 (z)3k from the differential
equation.
But
[P (z)]2 A z2k2 i.e.,
2k 2 = 3k
Hence we have k = 2 so all the poles are double and infinity is fully
branched.
Qq
We also note that the equation w2 = =1 (z a ) can have no parametric solution z = (t), w = (t) which are integral functions of t if
q 3 or which are meromorphic if q 5. Because if (t0 ) = a1 for
instance then w2 = 2 (t) has a zero at t0 and so (t) has a zero and 2 (t)
has at least a double zero at t0 . Hence also (t)a1 has at least a double zero at t0 and all roots of (t) = a therefore will be multiple and
q
P
(a ) 2 for (t), a contradiction.
=1
59
We just remark that this result extends to a general equation

g(z, w) = 0 of genus greater than 1.
67
Theorem 11. Suppose f (z) is meromorphic of finite order in the plane

and (a1 ) = (a2 ) = 1, a1 , a2 . Then if a is not equal to a1 , a2 ,
N(r, a) T (r) as r tends to infinity.
Proof. In fact we have if f (z) is not rational
T (r, f ) < N(r, a1 ) + N(r, a2 ) + N(r, a) + S (r, f ) + O(1)
and in this case S (r, f ) = O[T (r)], (even S (r) = 0(log r)). By hypothesis since (ai ) = 1 lim[N(r, a)/T (r)], N(r, ai ) = 0[T (r)] i = 1, 2.
Therefore [1 + 0(1)]T (r, f ) < N(r, a) as r .
N(r, a)
That is lim [N(r, a)/T (r)] 1, and evidently lim
1 that
r
T (r)
r
is, N(r, a)/T (r) 1, as r tends to infinity. Similarly since N(r, a)
N(r, a), lim N(r, a)/T (r) 1 and again N(r, a) T (r). If f (z) is rational
r
these results follow by elementary methods; in fact in this case there is

at most one a namely a = f () for which N(r, a) = OT (r) unless f is a
constant.

Theorem 12. If a (z) for = 1, 2, 3 are three functions satisfying
T (r, a ) = O[T (r, f )] as r R, and f (z) is as in theorem 10, then
we have
!
3
X
1
[1 + O(1)]T (r, f ) <
N r,
f ai (z)
i=1
as r tends to R through a suitable sequence of values.
Proof. Set
68
f (z) a1 (z) a2 (z) a3 (z)

(z) =
f (z) a3 (z) a2 (z) a1 (z)
It is easy to see using T (r, ai ) = O[T (r, f )] that T (r, ) = T (r, f ) =
[1 + O(1)]T (r, f ), also = 0, 1, , only if f a1 (z), f a2 (z), f a3 (z)
60
are zero or if two suitable as are equal.

"
#
1
N r,
T [r, 1/(a2 a3 )] = T [r, a2 a3 ] + O(1)
a2 a3
T (r, a2 ) + T (r, a3 ) + O(1) = O[T (r)]
!
1
So, N(r, 1/) N r,
+ O[T (r, f )] etc. by Jensens formula and
f a1
hypothesis.

In the course of the proof of theorem 10 we obtained,
(q 2)T (r, f ) <
q
X
N(r, ai ) N0 (r, 1/ f ) + S (r, f ) + O(1)
<
q
X
N(r, ai ) + S (r, f ) + O(1).
i=1
i=1
Take f = , and a1 = , a2 = 0, a3 = 1 to get

!
!
1
1
+ N r,
+ O[T (r, )]
T (r, ) < N(r, ) + N r,
1
That is,
[1 + O(1)]T (r, ) < N(r, ) + N r,
69
!
!
1
1
+ N r,
for a suitable sequence! of r tending to !R. = 0, only !if either f = a1 ,

1
1
1
or a2 = a3 . So N r,
+ N r,
which is equal
N r,
f a1
a2 a3
!
!
1
1
+ O[T (r)]. Similar reasoning gives N r,
+ N(r, ) +
to N r,
f ! a1
!
3
P
1
1
N r,
+ O[T (r)]. Thus since T (r, ) = [1 +
<
N r,
1
f ai
i=1
O(1)]T (r) the result follows.
Remark . Note that the same reasoning cannot be applied to more than
three functions. In fact it is not known whether the analogous result is
still true if we take more than three functions.
61
2.5 Picard values of meromorphic functions and their derivatives:
70
A function f (z) will be called admissible if it satisfies the hypothesis of

theorem 9 in a circle |z| < R and also f (z) is transcendental if R = .
Note that if f (l) (z) lth derivative of f (z), all the poles of f (1) (z) have
multiplicity at least l + 1. Therefore, N[r, f (l) ] N(r, f (l) )/(l + 1) and
!
l
N(r, f (l) )
1 N(r, f (l) )
() = lim 1
lim
(l)
(l)
(l + 1) T (r, f ) (l + 1)
T (r, f )
We obtain for f (l) (z), since
q
P
q
P
(a ) 2, if a1 , . . . , aq , are distinct and
1
. Thus there can be at most one finite value
l+1
1
which is taken only a finite number of times or more generally for which
3
(a) > .
4
Write now (z) = a0 (z) + f (z) + + al (z) f l (z)ai (z) being functions
satisfying T [r, ai (z)] = OT (r, f ) and we assume (z) is not identically
constant. Then we have the following sharpened form of a theorem of
Milloux.
finite,
(a ) 1 +
Theorem 13. If f (z) is admissible in |z| < R then,

"
#
1
T (r, f ) < N(r, f ) + N(r, 1/ f ) + N r,
N0 (r, 1/ ) + S 1 (r, f )
1
where N0 (r, 1/ ) indicates that zeros of corresponding to the repeated roots of = 1 are to be omitted, and lim S 1 (r, f )/T (r, f ) = 0.
rR
Note that this reduces to the second fundamental theorem for q = 3

when = f .
71
Firstly let us prove some lemmas.
62
Lemma 5. If l is a positive integer and f (z) admissible in |z| < R, such

0 < r < < R then,
" (l) #
#
"
f
1
m r,
+ log+ (1/r) + O(1)
< A(l) log+ T (, f ) + log+ + log+
f
r
A(l) being a constant depending only on l.

Proof. The proof is by induction. The result is true for l = 1, by Lemma
3 of section 2.1. Take 1 = 21 ( + r) and assume that result for l. Now,
T [l , f 1 (z)] = m[1 , f l (z)] + N[1 , f l (z)]
m[1 , f ] + m(1 , f (l) / f ) + (l + 1)N(1 , f )
since at a pole of f of order k, f (l) has a pole of order k + l k(l + 1).
By our induction hypothesis the right hand side is less than
"
(l + 1)T (1 , f ) + A(l) log+ T (, f ) + log+
#
1
+ 1
+
+ log
+ O(1)
+ log
1
1
#
"
1
+ 1
+
+
+ log
+ O(1)
< [l + 1 + A(l)]T (, f ) + A(l) log + log
1
1
So,
+
(l)
1
log
1
+
log T [1 , f ] < log T (, f ) + log (log ) + log

!
+
+ 1
+ O(1)
+ log log
1
1
1
< log+ T (, f ) + log+ + log+
+ log+
+ O(1)
1
1
72
Also by Lemma 3 applied to f (l) ,

!
h
i
1
f l+1
m r, l < 3 log+ T 1 , f (l) + 4 log+ 1 + log+
r
f
1
+ O(1)
+ 4 log+
1 r
63
1
1
+ 2 log+ + O(1)
< 3 log+ T (, f ) + 7 log+ + 7 log+
r
r
#
"
+ 1
+
+
+ 1
+ log
+ O(1)
< A log T (, f ) + log + log
r
r
because,
1
1 r = 1 = ( r)( > 1 > r)
2
Therefore, since
#
" l+1 #
h
i
f l+1
f
m r,
< m r, (l) + m r, f (l) / f .
f
f
"
!
f l+1
m r, l is less than
f
"
[A + A(l)] log+ T (, f ) + log+
#
1
+ log+ (1/r) + O(1) + log+
r
completing the inductive proof.
Lemma 6. If (z) is defined as in theorem 13, and 0 < r < < R, then
1
+ log+ ] + O(1)
m(r, / f ) < O[T (r, f )] + A(l)[log+ T (, f ) + log+
r
as r R in any manner.
Proof.
m(r, / f )
l
X
l
X
i=0
f (i)
(z)
m r, ai
+ log(l + 1).
f
m[r, ai (z)] +
i=0
= O[T (r)] +
l
X
m[r, f (i) / f ] + log(l + 1) + (l + 1) log 2.
i=0
l
X
m[r, f (i) / f ] + O(1)
i=0
#
1
+
+ log + O(1)
< O[T (r)] + A(l) log T (, f ) + log
r
"
from the lemma 5 and because m[r, ai (z)] T [r, ai (z)] = O[T (r)], and 73
log+ (1/r) remains bounded as r tends to R.
64
Lemma 7. If (z) is defined as above then as r R in any manner

while 0 < r < < R,
T (r, ) < [l + 1 + O(1)]T (r, f ) + A(l)
"
!
#
1
+
+
+
log T (, f ) + log
+ log + O(1) .
r
Proof. m(r, ) m(r, / f )+m(r, f ). If f has a pole of order K at a point
and a (z) a pole of order K then a (z) f () has a pole of order + K + K ,
P
and so (z) has a pole or of order Max . ( + K + K ) (l + 1)K + K .
This gives
X
N(r, ) (l + 1)N(r, f ) +
N(r, a )
(l + 1)N(r, f ) + O[T (r, f )]

Adding the above two inequalities,
T (r, ) [l + 1 + O(1)]T (r, f ) + m(r, / f ),
and now the lemma follows from the previous lemma.
Lemma 8. If S (r, ) is defined as in Theorem 8 with instead of f then

if 0 < r < < R and r tends to R,
!
#
"
1
+
+
+
+ log + O(1) .
S (r, ) < A log T (, f ) + log
r
Proof. Let 1 = 21 ( + r). Lemma 3 gives then
!
#
"
1
+
+
+
+ log 1 + O(1) .
S (r, ) < A log T (1 , ) + log
1 r
By lemma 7 since log+ x x,
"
T (1 , ) < A(l) T (, f ) +
74
!
#
1
+ + O(1)
1
1
+ log+ + O(1).
1
Substituting this and remembering that r < 1 < , 1 = 1 r =
1
(
r) we get the result.

2
that is, log+ T (1 , ) < log+ T (, f ) + log+
Now we are ready to prove theorem 13.
65
Proof of theorem 2.13. We have from theorem 8,

!
!
1
1
+ m r,
2T (r, ) N1 (r, ) + S (r, )
m(r, ) + m r,
1
i.e.
!
!
1
1
T r,
+ T r,
T (r, ) N1 (r, ) + S (r, )
1
!
!
1
1
+ N r,
+ N(r, ) + N r,
1
i.e.
T (r, ) N(r, ) N1 (r, ) + N r,
!
!
1
1
+ N r,
+ S (r, ) + O(1)
also
!
1
N(r, ) N1 (r, ) = N(r, ) N r,
and
!
!
!
!
1
1
1
1
N r, = N r,
N0 r, . Hence
N r,
1
Thus,
!
1
N0 (r, 1/1) + S (r, ) + O(1)
T (r, )N(r, ) + N(r, 1/ ) + N r,
1
where N0 (r, 1/ ) denotes the fact that zeros of at multiple roots
of 1 are omitted. Thus, since T (r,
! ) = m(r, 1/) + N(r, 1/) +
1
O(1)m(r, 1/) N(r, ) + N r,
N0 (r, 1/ ) + S (r, ) + O(1).
1
Note again that poles of occur only at poles of f or of a (z), and in N 75
each pole is counted only once. Then
X
N(r, ) N(r, f ) +
N(r, a )
66
N(r, f ) + OT (r, f ).
Again,
T (r, f ) = m(r, 1/ f ) + N(r, 1/ f ) + O(1)
m(r, / f ) + m(r, 1/) + N(r, 1/ f ) + O(1).
Substituting we obtain,
[O(1) + 1]T (r, f ) N(r, f ) + N r,
!
1
+ N(r, 1/ f ) N0 (r, 1/ )
1
+S (r, ) + m(r, / f ),
since f (z) being admissible O(1) = O[T (r)]. Now if 0 < r < < R
lemmas 6 and 8 give
#
"
1
+ log+ + O(1) .
m(r, / f ) + S (r, ) < A(l) log+ T (, f ) + log+
r
and now the result is completed just as in theorem 9 by means of lemma
4. Hence theorem 13.
Consequences.
Theorem 14 (Milloux). If f (z) is admissible in |z| < R and is regular
there then either f (z) assumes every finite value infinitely often or every derivative of f (z) assumes every finite value except possibly zero,
infinitely often.
76
Proof. Suppose f (z) = a, f (l) (z) = b have only a finite number of roots
f (l) (z)
g(l) (z)
=
in theorem
where b , 0. Choose g(z) = f (z) a, (z) =
b
b
13. Then since N(r, g) = 0, g being regular
"
#
1
[1 + 0(1)]T (r, g) < N r, (l)
+ N(r, 1/g) + S 1 (r)
g (z) b
where lim S 1 (r)/T (r, g) = 0.
rR
67
If R = this gives lim T (r, g)/ log r < + by assumptions that

r
"
#
1
n t, (l)
and n(t, 1/g) are finite as r tends to infinity so that g(z)
f (z) b
is rational and so is f (z). That is f (z) is a polynomial.

If R is less than infinity we obtain, lim T (r, g) < , and so since
rR
T (r, g) increases with r lim T (r, g) < and the same result applies to
f (z) giving a contradiction to admissibility.
Theorem 15 (Saxer). If f (z) is meromorphic in the plane and f , f , f
have only a finite number of zeros and poles then f (z) = P1 (z)/P2 (z)
eP3 (z) P1 , P2 , P3 being polynomials. If f , f , f have no zeros and poles
then f (z) = ea+bz where a, b are constants.
Proof. Set g(z) = f (z)/ f (z). Then g (z) = 1 [ f (z) f (z)/ f 2 (z)]. Suppose that g(z) is transcendental and so admissible in the plane. Now
g = 0, only when f = 0, on f = 0, that is a finite number of times
and so, N(r, g) + N(r, 1/g) =! O(log r). Next g (z) = 1 only for f = 0
1
= O(log r) by hypothesis. Now theorem
or f = 0 that is N r,
g 1
13 applied to g(z) gives for a sequence of r tending to infinity, taking
= g ,
[1 + O(1)]T (r, g) = O(log r).
This implies g(z) is rational, i.e. a contradiction. Hence g(z) is rational 77
so that f / f = g is rational. Now f / f has simple poles with integer
residues at the poles and zeros of f (z). Since f / f is rational by expanding it in partial fractions we get,
X
f / f =
kr /(z zr ) + P(z)
r
with k integers and P(z) a polynomial. Integrating the above,

Z
Y
k
f (z) =
(z zr )
P(z)dz
r
This proves the first part and if f (z) has no zeros or poles the product
term disappears and f = eP(z) , f (z) = P (z)eP(z) and f (z) , 0 implies
P (z) , 0, which gives P(z) = a + bz.
68
Remark . Note that we cannot do the same thing with f (z) and f (z).
For if f (z) = eg(z) , f (z) = g (z)eg(z) and if we put Rg (z) = eh(z) where
h(z) is an arbitrary integral function, so that g(z) = eh(z) dz and f (z) =
i
hR
exp eh(z) dz . Then f is an integral function with f , 0, and f , 0.
So in theorem
15 we cannot leave out the restriction on f . Further
R
F(z) = f (z)dz is a function for which F , 0, F , 0 and so we
cannot leave the restriction on f .
78
But we will show that we can leave out the restriction on f . This is
precisely Theorem 19.
In connection with theorem 15 we also quote the following extension by Csillag [1].
Theorem 16. If l and m are different positive integers and f (z) an integral function such that f (z) , 0, f (l) (z) , 0 and f (m) (z) , 0, then f (z) is
equal to eaz+b .
2.6 Elimination of N(r, f )

We shall prove the following theorem
Theorem 17. If f (z) is admissible in |z| < R, and l 1 then,
!
1
+ S 2 (r, f ),
T (r, f ) < [2 + (1/l)]N(r, 1/ f ) + 2[1 + (1/l)]N r, (l)
f 1
where lim S 2 (r, f )/T (r) = 0.
rR
Let us set (z) = f (l) (z) in theorem 13 (Th. of Milloux), to get

(2.7)
!
!
1
1
T (r, f ) < N(r, f ) + N(r, 1/ f ) + N r, (l)
N0 r, (l+1) + S 1 (r, f )
f 1
f
!
1
where in N0 r, (l+1) zeros of f (l+1) at multiple roots of f (l) (z) = 1 are
f
to be omitted.
Further we need,
69
h
il+1
/[1 f (l) (z)]l+2 then
Lemma 9. If g(z) = f (l+1) (z)
!
!
1
1
+ N0 r, (l+1) + m(r, g /g)
lN1 (r, f ) N 2 (r, f ) + N r, (l)
f 1
f
(2.8)
+ log |g(0)/g (0)|
where N1 (r, f ) stands for the N-sum over the simple poles of f (z); 79
N 2 (r, f ) for the N sum over multiple poles of f (z), with each pole counted
only once. Thus N(r, f ) = N1 (r, f ) + N2 (r, f ).
Now at a simple pole z0 of f (z), f (z) = O(1) + [a/(z z0 )] where a
is not equal to zero.
Differentiating l times,
1 f (l) (z) =
al!(1)l+1
+ O(1)
(z z0 )l+1
This can be written as

1 f (l) (z) =
al!(1)l+1
[1 + O{(z z0 )l+1 }]
l+1
(z z0 )
The differentiation of both the sides again gives,

h
i a(l + 1)!(1)l+1
f (l+1) (z) = 1 + O{(z z0 )l+2 }
(z z0 )l + 2
Hence,
g(z) =
(1)l+1 (l + 1)l+1
[1 + O{(z z0 )l+1 }]
a(l)!
So, g(z0 ) , 0, but g (z) has a zero of order at least l at z = z0 . Now

we have
N(r, g/g ) N(r, g /g) = m(r, g /g) m(r, g/g ) + log |g(0)/g (0)|
from Jensens formula. As we saw at the end of section 2 the left hand 80
side is
N(r, g) + N(r, 1/g ) N(r, g ) N(r, 1/g)
70
= N(r, 1/g ) N(r, 1/g) N(r, g)

= N0 (r, 1/g ) N(r, 1/g) N(r, g)
where in N0 (r, 1/g ) only zeros of g which are not zeros of g are to be
considered. By our above analysis,
lN1 (r, f ) N0 (r, 1/g )
N(r, 1/g) + N(r, g) + m(r, g /g) + log |g(0)/g (0)|
Then note that g = 0, only at poles of f (z) which must be multiple, at
zeros of f (l) (z)1, and zeros of f (l+1) (z) which are not zeros of f (l) (z)1.
This gives lemma 9.
Now (2.7) gives on writing T (r, f ) = m(r, f ) + N(r, f )
(2.9)
!
!
1
1
N(r, f ) N(r, f ) < N(r, 1/ f ) + N r, (l+1) N0 r, (l+1) + S 1 (r, f )
f
f
On the left the contribution of each multiple pole to the sum being
counted once for N, but at least twice for N. So,
(2.10)
N2 (r, f ) N(r, f ) N(r, f )
Also N(r, f ) = N 2 (r, f ) + N1 (r, f ). Hence it follows from lemma 9 that,

N(r, f ) [1 + (1/l)]N2 (r, f )
!
#
!
"
1
1
|g(0)|
1
1
+ N0 r, (l+1) + m(r, g /g) + log

+ N r, (l)
l
l
|g (0)|
f 1
f
81
By the inequalities (2.9) and (2.10) it is at the most,

!
#
!"
1
1
1+
N(r, 1/ f ) + N(r, 1/( f (l) 1)) N0 r, (l+1) + S 1 (r, f )
l
f
"
!
!
#
1
1
+ (1/l) N r, (l)
+ N0 r, (l+1) + m(r, g /g) + log |g(0)/g (0)|
f 1
f
= (1 + 1/l)N(r, 1/ f ) + (1 + 2/l)N(r, 1/( f (l) 1))
!
1
N0 r, (l+1) + S 3 (r)
f
71
where
S 3 (r) = [1 + (1/l)]S 1 (r, f ) + (1/l)[m(r, g /g) + log |g(0)/g (0)|].
Substituting for N(r, f ) in (2.7) we obtain,
T (r, f ) < [2 + (1/l)]N(r, 1/ f ) + 2[1 + (1/l)]
!
!
1
1
N r, (l)
2N0 r, (l+1) + S 1 (r, f ) + S 3 (r, f )
f 1
f
We observe that the above gives the result of theorem 17, provided we
pose
S 2 (r, f ) = S 1 (r, f ) + S 3 (r, f )
= [2 + (1/l)]S 1 (r, f ) + (1/l)[m(r, g /g) + log |g(0)/g (0)|]
and in order to complete the proof it is sufficient to prove that if r < <
R, and r tends to R,
m(r, g /g) < A[log+ T (, f ) + log+ 1/( r) + log+ + 0(1)]
The above inequality is true for,
log g(z) = (l + 1) log f (l+1) (z) (l + 2) log[1 f (l) (z)]
h
i
g /g = (l + 1) f (l+2) / f (l+1) + (l + 2) f (l+1) /(1 f (l) )

m(r, g /g) m(r, f (l+2) / f (l+1) ) + m r, f (l+1) /( f (l) 1) + O(1)
Now the result follows from Lemma 8, with = f (l) 1 or f (l+1) . Hence 82
the proof of theorem 17 is complete.
2.7 Consequences
Theorem 18. The result of theorem 14 extends to meromorphic functions without any further hypothesis. To be precise, if f (z) is admissible
in |z| < R and is meromorphic there, then either f (z) assumes every finite value infinitely often or every derivative of f (z) assumes every finite
value except possibly zero infinitely often.
72
The proof is as before by the consideration of g(z) = [ f (z) a]/b

instead of f (z); if the equations f (z) = a and f (l) = b have only a finite
number of roots. For then g = 0 and g(l) = 1 have only finite number of
roots and we can use Theorem 17.
Theorem 19. Theorem 15 (Saxers theorem) still holds if the hypothesis
of f (z) is omitted. That is, if f (z) is meromorphic in the plane and f ,
and f have only a finite number of zeros and poles then,
f (z) = P1 (z)/P2 (z)eP3 (z)
P1 , P2 , P3 being polynomials. If f , f have no zeros and poles then
f (z) = eaz+b , a and b being constants.
83
Proof. If f (z) and f (z) have only a finite number of zeros and poles,
put g(z) = f (z)/ f (z). Then g (z) = 1 { f (z) f /[ f (z)]2 }g(z) has only
finite number of zeros and so does g (z) 1 = f f / f 2 namely at the
poles of f and at the zeros of f and f . Hence by Theorem 18, g(z)
is rational and now the proof is completed as in Saxers theorem. If
f (z) and f (z) have no zeros or poles, f (z) = eP(z) where P(z) is a
polynomial. Therefore, f (z) equals [P (z) + P (z)2 ]eP(z) , and if P (z)
has degree n greater than or equal to 1, then P (z)2 , P (z) have degree
2n, n 1, respectively, so that f (z) has 2n zeros. Thus P (z) = a =
const. P(z) = az + b.

A slightly more delicate analysis shows that if f (z), f (z) have no
zeros but f (z) may have a finite number of poles, then f (z) = eaz+b or
(az + b)n , where n is a positive integer.
Part III
Univalent Functions
3.1 Schlicht functions
84
Definition. A function f (z) regular in a domain D is said to be univalent

(Schlicht, Simple) if f (z) takes different values at different points of D.
Then f (z) maps D, one-one conformally into a domain .
Since f (z) takes no value more than once, if f (z) is Schlicht in the
plane, the function A(r) (area on the Riemann sphere) is less or equal
to one and T 0 (r) log r. So f (z) is rational and is in fact a polynomial
which must be linear. We consider functions f (z) univalent in |z| < 1.
P
If f (z) =
an zn , ( f (z) a0 )/a1 is also univalent. In fact a1 cannot be
n=0
zero, for otherwise f (z) would assume values at least twice near z = 0,
a1 , 0. Hence we may assume f (z) to be of the form
(2)
z+
an zn
n=2
The class of functions, univalent in |z| < 1 with the expansion (2) is
called S .
The first two results are,
Theorem 1. If f (z) S , |a2 | 2, and equality is possible only for
z
, and
f (z) = f (z) =
[1 zei ]2
73
Univalent Functions
74
Theorem 2. If f (z) S and w is a value not taken by f (z) then |w| 41 ,

again equality is possible only for f (z) = f (z).
85
Both results in the above form are due to Biberbach, theorem 2 with
a smaller constant than 14 is due to Koebe though it seems we had the
proof eventually form
Note that f (z) S , takes all values with modulus < 41 . We shall
prove theorem 1 first and then deduce theorem 2 from it. For that we
need
Lemma 1. Suppose f (z) is regular and univalent in the annulus r1 <
P
|z| < r2 then the area of the image of the annulus is n|an |2 (r22n r12n ),
where f (z) has the expansion
an
zn
in the annulus.
Proof. The area of the image is clearly
Rr2
r dr
r1
gral
Z2
i 2
| f (re )| d =
Z2
R2
| f (rei )|2 d. The inte-
f (rei ) f (rei )d
Z2 hX
nan rn1 ei(n1)
i hX
mam rm1 ei(m1)
Since the multiplication of the two series and then term by term integra
R2
m , n,
0,
tions are valid, and ei(mn) d =
2, m = n.
0
Z2
0
86
Area of image
i 2
| f (re )| d = 2
n2 |an |2 r2n2
Univalent Functions
75
Zr2
r dr
r1
= 2
Z2
| f (rei )|2 d
Zr2 X
+
n2 |an |2 r2n1 dt.
r1
Again since integration term by term is valid,

=
+
X
n|an |2 (r22n r12n )
Hence the lemma.
We now proceed to prove the theorem.

Consider the function f (z) S .
f (z) = z +
an z ,
let
" 2 #2
i 12
f (z )
F(z) = f (z ) = z
z2
21
2n2
= z 1 +
an z
f (z)
f (z)
is not zero
has a one valued square root which is a
z
z
" 2 # 12
f (z )
is a power series in z2 .
power series in z and hence
z2
Since
1
F(z) = z + a2 z3 +
2
F(z) is odd. Also F(z) is univalent. For if F(z1 ) = F(z2 ), then
h
i1
i1 h
f (z21 ) 2 = f (z22 ) 2
i.e.,
87
f (z21 ) = f (z22 ) = z21 = z22 .
Univalent Functions
76
z1 = z2 .
But F(z1 ) = F(z1 ) , F(z1 ) unless z1 = 0. So z1 = z2 . Now set
g(z) =
h
i 1 1
1
= f (z2 ) 2 = + b1 z + b3 z3 +
F(z)
2
X
1
bn zn
= +
z
1
where b1 = 21 a2 .
And g(z) is univalent in 0 < |z| < 1. Let J(r) be the curve which is
the image of |z| = r by g(z), 0 < r < 1 and A(r) the area inside it. Then
for 0 < r1 < r2 < 1 we have by the lemma
X
1

1
n|bn |2 (r22n r12n )

A(r1 ) A(r2 ) = 2 2 +
r1 r2
1
88
Since J(r1 ) and J(r2 ) do not cross, the left hand side and hence the right
hand side is different from zero. So A(r) is monotonic. Further for small
r, A(r) 2 which tends to as r 0. Hence A(r) decreases. The

r
left hand side is therefore positive and the quantity inside the brackets is
positive and so we take the positive sign.
1 P
Set S (r) = 2 |bn |2 nr2n .
r
1
Then A(r) = S (r) + C, C being a constant. We want to prove that
S (r) 0 for 0 < r < 1.
Suppose now that b1 i.e. a2 is real Otherwise if a2 = |a2 |ei we consider ei f (zei ) in place of f (z) and then
ei f (zei ) = z + ei a2 e2i z2 +
= z + |a2 |z2 +
Thus there is no loss of generality in assuming a2 real and positive. Now

1
+ b1 z + b3 z3 + , so if, z = rei
z
!
!
1
1
i
+ b1 r cos + i b1 r sin + O(r3 ).
g(re ) =
r
r
g(z) =
Univalent Functions
77
We have then

1

|Rl. g(re )| + b1 r + O(r3 )
r
!

1
1

3
i
b1 r + O(r3 )
| Im .g(re )| b1 r| + O(r ) =
r
r
i
(since a2 > 0, b1 < 0) so that the image

of |z| = r by g(z) is contained
!
1
1
in the ellipse of semi-axes
b1 r + O(r3 ), | + b1 r| + O(r3 ). Hence
r
r
area inside the image A(r) satisfies
!
1
2 2
A(r) 2 b1 r + O(r2 ) = 2 + O(r2 ).
r
r
Thus
S (r) + C
But
S (r) =
so that
+ O(r2 ).
r2
1
+ O(r2 )
r2
1
+ O(r)2 + C 2 + O(r2 )
2
r
r
or
C + O(r2 ) O(r2 )
letting r 0 we see that C 0. This proves that C + A(r) = S (r) 0
since, C 0, A(r) 0. Thus for 0 < r < 1 S (r) 0. [Actually a little
more refined argument shows that A(r) = S (r)].
Therefore,
1 X 2 2n
|bn | nr
r2
1
and letting r 1, 1
n|bn |2 . Thus
|b1 | 1 or
|a2 | 2
89
Univalent Functions
78
Equality can hold only if bn = 0 for n > 1 i.e. g(z) =

i.e. F(z) =
1
zei .
z
1
z
= [ f (z2 )] 2
1 z2 ei
Thus
z
= f (z).
[1 zei ]2
This proves the theorem provided we show f (z) S . To deduce theow f (z)
rem 2, set g(z) =
where f (z) , w for |z| < 1.
w f (z)
Then
!
z a2 z2
w(z + a2 z2 + )
2
=
(z
+
a
z
+
)
1
+
g(z) =
+
+
2
w
w
w (z + a2 z2 + .)
f (z) =
90
by expansion
!
1 2
= z + a2 +
z + higer powers of z.
w
Since the map is bi-linear, g(z) is also univalent. In fact g(z1 ) = g(z2 )
implies, f (z1 ) = f (z2 ) from which it follows that z1 = z2 . Further
g(z) S . Hence by the above theorem,

!

1
+ a2 2
w

1 2 + |a |
2
w
4
1
|w| and equality is possible only if |a2 | = 2, i.e. f (z) = f (z).
4
Note that
"
#
1 (1 + z)2
z
=
1
f0 (z) =
(1 z)2 4 (1 z)2
1+z
then by this linear transformation |z| < 1 corresponds to
1z
real > 0 i.e., Z = 2 gives the plane cut along the negative axis. So
if =
Univalent Functions
79
1
f0 (z) is univalent and in fact f0 (z) maps onto the plane cut from
4
to along the real axis. Hence f0 (z) is univalent possessing such an
expansion defined for elements of S and so does f (z) = ei f0 (zei ).
1
1
Also f (z) , ei because f0 (z) , . Note also that
4
4
f (z) = z +
nzn ei(n1)
so that |an | = n for all n.

Theorem 3. Suppose f (z) S and |z| = r, 0 < r < 1 then the following 91
inequalities hold.
r
r
| f (z)|
2
(1 + r)
(1 r)2
1r
1+r
| f (z)|
3
(1 + r)
(1 r)3

(1 r)
f (z)
1+r

r(1 r) f (z) r(1 r)
where equality is possible only for functions f (z) defined already.

Proof. Assume |z0 | < 1 and set
"
#
z0 + z
(z) = f
= b0 + b1 z +
1 + z0 z
z0 + z
= w is a bi-linear map of the unit circle onto itself. (z) is
1 + z0 z
(z) b0
S.
univalent in |z| < 1 and so
b1
Applying theorem 1 we deduce,

b2 2
b1
|b2 | 2|b1 |
Since
Univalent Functions
80
we have
#
!"
z + z0
(z0 + z)z0
1
1 + z0 z 1 + z0 z (1 + z0 z)2
"
#(
)
1 (z0 )2
z + z0
= f
1 + z0 z (1 + zz0 )2
(z) = f
92
and
!"
#2
1
(z0 + z)z0
z + z0
(z) = f
1 + z0 z 1 + z0 z (1 + z0 z)2
#
!"
(1 |z0 |2 )z0
z + z0
2f
1 + z0 z
(1 + zz0 )2
Thus
b1 = (0) = (1 |z0 |2 ) f (z0 )
1
1
b2 = (0) = [1 |z0 |2 ]2 f (z0 ) f (z0 )z0 (1 |z0 |2 ).
2
2
We have seen |b2 | 2|b1 | i.e.
(3.1)
| f (z0 )(1 |O|2 )2 2z0 f (z0 )(1 |z0 |2 )| 4(1 |z0 |2 )| f (z0 )|
If z0 = ei this gives

f (z0 )
22
4
z0
, < 1

f (z0 )
1 2 1 2
Now for any complex function
w
dw i
=
e . If z = rei , and so
r
dz
[log f (z)] = ei . Thus the above inequality is

r
f

4
22
, (z0 ei = ),

log f (z)
2
1
1 2
i.e.
2 4
2 + 4
[log | f (ei )]
2
1
1 2
Univalent Functions
81
because log | f (z)| = Rl. log f (z).

Now integrate the above with regard to ,
log
1
1
2 log
2 log(1 + ) log | f (ei )|
2
1
1
1
1
+ 2 log
+ 2 log(1 + ).
log
2
1
1
1
1+
| f (z)|
, z = ei .
3
(1 + )
(1 )3
This gives bounds for f (z).

Again,

Zr
Zr
Zr
1+
r

i
i
| f (e )|d
d =
| f (re )| = f (e )d
3
(1 )
(1 r)2

0
0
0
93
To get the lower bound for w = f (ei!), we suppose |w| < 41 , since for
1
|w| 14 the result is trivial (1+)

. Thus by theorem 2 (Section 3)
2 <
4
the line segment [0, w] lies entirely in the image of |z| < 1 by w = f (z).
If is this line segment, the corresponding curve in the z-plane
|w| =
Z
Z
1
dw
|dz|
d.
|dw| =
dz
(1 + )3
( + )2

1
dw
because |dz|
d if d is positive since d < |dz|, if d < 0
dz
(1 + )3
the result is even more evident.
(z) b0
S , we obtain,
94
Since
b1

(ei ) b0

.

2

b1
(1 + )
(1 )2
Now z0 = ei .
Univalent Functions
82
Then (z0 ) = 0, b0 = f (z0 ), b1 = [1 |z0 |2 ] f (z0 )

| f (z0 )|
|z0 |
|z0 |
| f (z0 )|
2
2
1 + |z0 |
[1 |z0 | ]
1 |z0 |2

r(1 r) f (z) r(1 + r)

.
1+r
f (z)
1r
i.e.

f
This gives the bounds for since equality holds in (3.1) only for
f
(z) = f (z) it can be shown that for all the inequalities of theorem 3
equality is possible only for this function.
Theorem 4 (Littlewood, Paley, Spencer). Suppose f (z) S and for any
0 set
Z
1
| f (rei )| d
(3.2)
I (r, f ) =
2
S (r) = r
d
I (r).
dr
Then
(3.3)
2
S (r) =
2
Zr
0
| f (ei )|2 | f (ei )|2 d
Thus
(3.4)
r
,
(1 r)2
Zr
Zr
S ()d
d
I (r) =
M(, f )
S (r) M(r, f )
(3.5)
95
A()[1 r]12 , > 12
A log 1
= 21
A()
<
2
Univalent Functions
83
Proof. Suppose
n1
an z
f (z) = z 1 +
2
Set
/2
(z) = [ f (z)]
=z
1
2
n
1 +
bn z
1
This is possible since
f (z)
is regular and non-zero in |z| < 1 and
z
th power which is also regular. For definiteness we take the

2
principal value of z/2 , | arg z| < .

P

1
We have (z) =
n + bn zn+ 2 1 .
2
0
so has a
1
2
1
| (e )| d =
2
i 2

X
2
|bn |2 2n+2
d =
n+
2
n=0

exactly as in lemma 1 (Section 3)

1
I (r, f ) =
2
1
|(re )| d =
2
i 2
d =
|bn |2 2n+
X
d
(2n + )|bn |2 r2n+ .
S (r, f ) = r I (r, f ) =
dr
Further
Zr
Now =
96
| (ei )d =
(2n + )|bn |2 r2n+ = S (r, f ).

2
2
1
f f 2
2
| |2 =
2 2 2
|f | |f |
4
Univalent Functions
84
Thus
2
S (r, f ) =
2
Zr
0
| f (ei )|2 | f (ei )|2 d.
giving (3.3).
We now interpret the above formula. d d is an element of area
in |z| < 1, | f |2 dd is the corresponding area in the image plane at
w = Rei and | f |2 | f |2 d d the mass of the area, if we imagine a
mass density R2 on the circle |w| = R in the image plane. Then our
integral is the total mass of the image. Since the image covers no point
more than once and lies in |w| < M(r, f ) = M say, the mass of image
total mass of the circle which is
ZM
2R R2 dR =
2
M and so
S (r)
r
2 2
M = M
2
(1 r)2
This gives (3.4), because from theorem 3,

M(r, f )
97
r
.
(1 r)2
Thus
I (r)
Zr
I (r)
Zr
1
d. If 1, 1 1 and so
2
(1 theta)
1
(1 r)12 .
d
2 1
(1 )2
Assume that < 1. Then

I (r)
Zr
0
r
Zr
1

2
d
=
d.
(1 )2
(1 )2
(1 )2+1
0
Univalent Functions
85
r
2
(1 r)2
Zr
d since if 0 1
(1 )2+1
r
=
+ 2
(1 r)2
Zr
1
d 2
(1 )2
Zr
1
d
(1 )2+1
2
2
1
+ 1 if 2 , 1.
(1 r)12
2 1
2 1 (1 r)2
(1
2
2
2
(1 r)12
+1
(1 r)12
2 1
2 1
2 1
r)2
2
Hence if 1 2 > 0, (1 r)12 1, I (r)
.
2 1
r
r
R d
R
1
d =
If 2 = 1, I (r) 21
1
2
0 1
0 2 (1)
=
98
1
1
1+r 1
1 r2
1
1
log
= log
log
= log
2
2
2
1r 2
2
(1 r)
(1 r)
(1 r)
Thus
(1 r)12 if >
2 1
2
1
1
I (r)
if
=
log
1r
2
1
2
if <
2 1
2
This proves the theorem completely.
Theorem 5 (Littlewood). If f (z) = z +
an zn S then |an | < e for
n 2.

R
1
Proof. We have |an | = 2
|z|=
1
2n

f (z)dz

zn+1
| f (ei )|d =
I1 (, f )
n
Univalent Functions
86
By inequality (3.5)
I1 (, f )
dt
.
=
2
1
(1 t)
1
1
. We choose so that n1
is minimal
n1 (1 )
(1 )
n n1
n1
i.e. put = 1 =
n
to get |an | <
n
n1
!n1
1
i.e., |an | < 1 +
n < en
n1
Thus |an | <
99
This completes theorem 5.
Remark. Bazilevic [1] improved this to I1 (, f ) <

we get
+ 0.55 so that
1 2
1
|an | < en + 1.51
2
Theorem 6. Suppose f (z) S and set
(z) = [ f (z)]
n
(z) = z an, z .

Then if > 41 , |an, | < A()n21 . In particular if f (z) = z + ak+1 zk+1 +

+akn+1 zkn+1 + S , then |a2n+1 | < A1 if k = 2 and |a3n+1 | < A2 n1/3
if k = 3, A1 and A2 are absolute constants.

R (z)dz
1

Proof. Now (n + )|an, | = 2i
|z|= zn+
(3.6)
I1 (,
n+1
with the notation of theorem 4.
)...
Univalent Functions
87
Since = f 2 f
I1 (, ) =
2
Z2
| f (ei )|| f (ei )|1 d
Z2
| f (ei )|| f (ei )|t1 | f (ei )|t d
for any t
12
Z2
I1 (, )
| f (ei )|2 | f (ei )|2t2 d
2
21
Z2
1
| f (ei )|22t d

(3.7)
by Schwarz inequality.
100
1
Since > , we choose t sufficiently small but positive such that
4
1
1
2 2t > 2 ; for example t = 21 ( ) can be a choice of t. By theorem
4
4
1
1
Z 2n
1 1n
Z2
i 2
i 2t2
| f (e )| | f (e )|
1
d 2 S 2t 1 , f
2n
2t
A(t)n4t
Suppose
2 =
min.
1
1 1n 1 2n
Z
0
| f (ei )|2 | f (ei )|2t2 d
Univalent Functions
88
Hence
(3.8)
A(t)n4t
1
1
R 2n
A(t)n4t+1
1 1n
Also by theorem 4,
Z2
| f (ei )|22t d A(, t)(1 )4+4t+1 since 2 2t
1
2
(3.9)
101
A()n44t1
since t depends upon .

Hence for this value from (3.7),
1
I1 (, ) A()n(4t+1+44t1) 2 = A()n2
Therefore from (3.6) it follows
A()n2
1
(n + )|an, | n+1 < 1
n
!n
A()n2
A()n2
A() just standing for a constant depending upon . Hence the result
|an, | < A()n21 follows.
P
Suppose now that g(z) = z +
akn+1 zkn+1 S . Then so does
n=1
!k
P
1/k
k
n
f (z) = [g(z )] = z 1 +
akn+1 z . For clearly f (z) is regular in
n=1
|z| < 1. f (0) = 0, f (0) = 1. Suppose f (z1 ) = f (z2 ). Then
1 k 1 k
1
1
1
g z1k
= g z2k
= g z1k = g z2k = g z2k
1
where is a kth root of unity. But g(z) S , and we have z1k = z2k =
z1 = z2 .
Univalent Functions
89
Thus
1
g z k = [ f (z)]1/k
n
1/k
akn+1 z
= z 1 +
n=1
Hence applying the first part, with = 1/k (provided k = 1, 2, 3)

|akn+1 | < A(k)n
i.e.
102
as required
|an+1 | < A1 n if k = 1
|a2n+1 | < A2
if k = 2
1/3
|a3n+1 | < A3 n
if
k=3
This inequality is false for large k as was shown by Little wood [1]
even if f (z) is continuous in |z| 1. We do not know whether it is
P
true for any k 4. If f (z) = z + an zn is bounded and univalent
2
then the area of the image of |z| < 1 is at most M 2 where M is the
P
least upper bound of | f (z)|. Hence n|an |2 M 2 and it follows that
1
|an | = O(n 2 ) as n . Nothing stronger than this is known. For
further discussion see Hayman Chapter 3. This is the correct order for
mean-valent functions and probably for f (z) S also. The best example
due to Clunie (unpublished) gives |an | > n13/14 for some large n, so that
1
there is a gap between and 13/14. It can be shown that in theorem 6
2
the conclusion that |an | = O(1) obtains for all n if |an | = O(1) for some
sequence of n with constant common difference. We do not know if this
conclusion is till true i.e. if |an | = O(1) for a sequence n = nk such that
nk+1 nk < constant.
In this connection Biernacki [1] has shown that for every f (z) S ,
||an+1 | |an || < A[log(n)]3/2
for
n 2.
Hence if an = 0 for a sequence n = nk , with nk+1 nk < const. |an | = 103

O(log n)3/2 for the intermediate coefficients. It is still to be found out
whether O(1) can replace O(log n)3/2 .
Univalent Functions
90
Examples for theorem 6.
z
(1 z)2
X
z
=
=
an,k zkn+1
(1 zk )2/k
f (z) =
fk (z) = [ f (zk )]1/k
where
an,k =
2
k
2
k

+ 1 . . . . . . 2k + n 1
1 2 . . . . . . n
2
n + 2k
n k 1
=
(n + 1)(2/k) (2/k)
so that theorem 6 is best possible.

Theorem 7 (Rogosinski, Deudonne, Szasz). If f (z) = z +
an zn be-
longs to S and has real coefficients then |an | n.
104
Proof. Let f = u + iv. We have since an are real f (z) = f (z). z = x + iy,
y , 0 implies v , 0 for otherwise if v = 0 for z = x + iy, y , 0 then
f (z) = f (z) = u which contradicts uni valency. Further we assert that for
z such that y > 0 v must have constant sign. For if instead we have v(z1 )
positive and v(z2 ) negative z1 and z2 having the imaginary part positive,
v(z) would be zero somewhere on the line joining z1 and z2 , which is
not possible. Clearly by considering f (z)/z for small z v > 0 for z with
Im z > 0. The proof of the theorem essentially depends on this nature of
the sign of v.

Now v(rei ) =
an rn sin n since an are real where a1 = 1.
Hence we have on integration,
R
0
v(rei ) sin n d =
n
r an since the
2
other terms vanish.

Also | sin n| n sin for 0 .
It is enough to show this inequality for 0 since | sin n(

2
)| = | sin n|, sin( ) = sin .
Univalent Functions
91
Sin
decreases in 0 < .
Hence if n i.e.
2
2n
sin n sin
which gives the inequality for .

2n
In particular when
n =
sin 2n
sin 2
2 2
2n
1.
2n n
Hence if
.
2n
2
or sin
105
| sin n| 1 n sin
n sin
2n
Hence follows the inequality | sin n| n sin 0 .

Z

2
|an | = n
v(rei ) sin n d
r

0
Now making use of the fact that v > 0 for the range of
2
|an | n
r
v(rei )| sin n|d
2
rn
v(rei )n sin d
n
rn1
a1 =
n
rn1
Let us make r 1,
|an | n
as required.
Univalent Functions
92
z
S has real coefficients, and satisfies an = n.
(1 z)2
Thus our inequality is sharp.
We next proceed to prove another special case of Bieberbachs conjecture. For this we need the definition:
The function
Definition . A domain D is said to be star-like w.r.t. the origin O if for

any point P D, OP lies entirely in D.
106
Theorem 8 (Nevanlinna). If w = f (z) = z+
an zn S and maps |z| < 1
onto a domain D star-like with respect to w = 0 then |an | n. Equality

is possible only when f (z) = f (z) defined already.
Before proceeding with the proof of the theorem let us prove the
following lemma due to Borel.
Lemma 2. If (z) = 1 +
bn zn satisfies Rl(z) 0 for z 0 then
n=1
|bn | 2, equality holds only for (z) =
P
1+z
= 1 + 2zn .
1z
1
(z) 1
. By hypothesis (z) has real part +ve
(z) + 1
which clearly implies |(z) 1| < |(z) + 1| and so |(z)| < 1 and further
(0) = 0.
Hence now applying Schwarzs lemma
Consider (z) =
| (0)| 1. Equality holds only if (z) = zei .

Near
z = 0 (z) =
bn
2+
zn
bn zn
b1
z +
2
n=1
which gives that |b1 | 2. In order to deduce the inequality for bn ,

consider
k (z) = 1 + bk z + b2k z2 + + bnk zn +
Univalent Functions
93
k
1X
(wr z1/k )
k r=1
wr running through the kth roots of unity and for a fixed value of z1/k .
2i
For wr = wr where w = e k . If we set
k
= z1/k ,
1 X r 1/k
1X
(w z ) = 1 +
bn n [wn + + wkn ]
k r=1
k n=1
=1+
bnk nk
=1+
bnk zn
n=1
as w + + w
kn
= 0 if k does not divide n

= k if k divides n.
Clearly Rl k (z) 0 since Rl(wr z1/k ) 0 for every. Hence applying 107
previous part to k (z), |bk | 2.
Proof of theorem 3.8. Note first that if Gr denotes the image of |z| < r
by f (z) then if G1 is star-like so is Gr for 0 < r 1.
Consider = (z) = f 1 [t f (z)] 0 < t < 1. Then since G1 is star-like
t f (z) lies in the image of |z| < 1 by f (z) and so f 1 [t f (z)] is a well
defined point in || < 1, and clearly = 0 corresponds to z = 0. Thus
|(z)| < 1 (0) = 0 and hence by Schwarzs lemma
|(z)| |z|
t f (z) = f () where || |z| and so if |z| < r, f () Gr i.e. t f (z) Gr .
This being true for any t, 0 < t < 1, Gr is star-like.
Since Gr is star-like its boundary r meets any ray from 0 to in 108
only one point. The limiting case when r contains a line segment in
such a ray is excluded since r is a simple closed analytic curve. Thus
arg . f (rei ) increases with for any fixed r, 0 < r < 1. Let
log f (rei ) = u + iv = log | f (rei )| + i arg . f (rei )
Univalent Functions
94
and arg . f (rei ) is increasing for any fixed r implies

i.e.,
i.e.,
In other words,
Rl.
v
0.
[log f (rei )] 0
#
"
i
i f (re )
0
Im . ire
f (rei )
rei f (rei )
Rl.
0
f (rei )
Im .
z f (z)
0,
f (z)
0 |z| < 1
Now applying the lemma with (z) = z f (z)/ f (z) and observing, that
this function satisfies the hypothesis of the lemma, (for (z) = 1 + O(z)
near z = 0) Rl.(z) 0 and so if
(z) =
X
z f (z)
=1+
bn zn
f (z)
1
then |bn | 2.
Again
z f (z) =
X
1
109
X
X
bn zn
nan zn = (z) f (z) = an zn 1 +
1
n=1
with a1 = 1.
Equating coefficient of zn on either side,
nan = an + b1 an1 + b2 an2 + + bn1 a1

i.e.
(n 1)an = b1 an1 + b2 an2 + + bn1 a1

(n 1)an 2[1 + |a2 | + |a3 | + + |an1 |] by the lemma.
Suppose we now assume that |a | for n 1 then we have,

(n 1)|an | 2[1 + 2 + + n 1]
n(n 1)
Univalent Functions
95
|an | n.
and by theorem 1, |a2 | 2. Hence the proof is complete by induction on

n. Further equality is possible for n 2 only if |a2 | = 2 i.e. for functions
f (z) = (1zez i )2 .
For extensions of this result to a more general class of image domains see Kaplan, W. [1].
3.2 Asymptotic behaviour

(1 r)2
M(r, f )
Theorem 9. If f (z) S and unless f (z) f (z) we have
r
decreasing steadily with increasing r and so tends to where 0 < 1
as r 1.
To prove this we require
Lemma 3. Suppose f (z) S and for fixed f (rei ) = R(r)ei(r) . Suppose 110
further that 0 < r1 < r2 < 1 and r = r1 , r2 correspond to R = R1 , R2 .
Then
R1 (1 r1 )2 r1
R2 (1 r2 )2
log
log
r2
r1
4
Zr2
(1 r)[ (r)]2 dr.
r1
Proof. We have
d
d
f (rei )
.
log(Rei ) =
log f (rei ) = ei
dr
dr
f (rei )
On the other hand
d
1 dR
log(Rei ) =
+ i (r)
dr
R dr
By theorem 3
i
f (re )
1+r

i
r(1 r)
f (re )
so that
Univalent Functions
96
"
1 dR
r dr
#2
+ [ (r)]2
(1 r)2
,
r2 (1 r)2
say a2 + b2 c2 i.e. |a|2 + |b|2 c2 .

This can be written as
(|c| |a|)(|c| + |a|) b2
or
|c| |a|
since |c| |a|. So |a| |c|
b2
b2
|c| + |a| 2|c|
b2
. Since a |a| we get
2|c|
1 dR
1r
r(1 r) 2
[ (r)] .
R dr
r(1 r) 2(1 + r)
r1
1+r
(1 r)[ (r)]2
r(1 r) 4
111
since r1 r for the range r1 r r2 and 1 + r < 2. Integrating from r1

to r2
log R2 log R1
Zr2
1+r
r1
dr
r(1 r)
4
r1
Zr2
1
dr +
r(1 r)
r1
Zr2
r1
Zr2
(1 r)[ (r)]2 .
r1
dr
r1
4
Zr2
(1 r)[ (r)]2 dr.
r1
r1
r1
r2
log
= log
2
2
4
(1 r2 )
(1 r1 )
Zr2
(1 r)[ (r)]2 dr.
r1
Thus
R1 (1 r1 )2 r1
R2 (1 r2 )2
log
log
r2
r1
4
giving the lemma
Zr2
(1 r)[ (r)]2 dr
r1
Univalent Functions
97
(1 r)2
M(r, f ). Suppose that is so
r
chosen that f (r2 ei ) = M(r2 , f ) = R2 . Then lemma 3 gives
Proof of theorem 3.9. Set (r) =
(1 r1 )2 R1 r1
log (r2 ) log
r1
4
log (r1 )
r1
4
Zr2
Zr2
(1 r)[ (r)]2 dr.
r1
(1 r)[ (r)]2 dr.
r1
since R1 M(r1 , f ).
112
Hence (r2 ) (r1 ) showing that (r) decreases (weakly) with r. If
(r1 ) = (r2 ) then (r) = a constant for r1 r r2 and
Zr2
(1 r)[ (r)]2 dr = 0.
r1
Since 1 r > 0 therefore (r) = 0 or (r) = constant for r1 r r2 .

(1 r)2
| f (rei )| = constant = (say) for
Also (r) = constant gives
r
(1 r)2
r1 r r2 . Because from the lemma
| f (rei )| decreases with
r
increasing r for fixed . Therefore if 1 is such that f (r2 ei1 ) = M(r2 , f )
we see that
(1 r2 )2
(1 r2 )2
M(r2 , f ) =
| f (r2 ei1 )|
r2
r2
(1 r1 )2
(1 r1 )2
| f (r1 ei1 )|
M(r1 , f )
r1
r1
(1 r2 )2
M(r2 , f ) because (r) = constant.
=
r2
(1 r)2
| f (rei )| is constant for r1 r r2 .
Hence
r
Now
f (rei ) = Rei =
r
(rei )ei()
i
e
=
(1 r)2
[1 ei rei ]2
Univalent Functions
98
113
ei() z
for z = rei , r1 < r < r2 .
(1 zei )2
Hence by analytic continuation this equation holds in |z| < 1 and
since f (z) S , ei() = 1 and so f (z) f (z) as required.
Or f (z) =
In all other cases (r) decreases strictly with increasing r and

lim (r) = 1 = lim
r0
M(r, f )
.
r
Thus (r) < 1, 0 < r < 1 and since (r) decreases = lim (r) exists
r1
!
1
< 1.
and
2
Theorem 10. If f (z) S and = 0 in theorem 9 then with the notation
1
of theorem 6 we have for > an, = O(n21 ) as n and in
4
an
0 as n tends to infinity.
particular if an are the coefficients of f ,
n
Proof. We recall the proof of theorem 6 and the notations of that theorem. We proved
1
I1 (, )
n+1
12
Z
1

i 2
i 2t2
| f (e )| | f (e )|
f (ei )22t d ] 2
I1 (, )
2
2
(n + )|an, |
We can find such that 1

1
2
114
1
1
n
1
2n
and

1
,f
S 2t 1 2n
1
| f (ei )|2 | f (ei )|2t2 d
2
2 4t2
1
1
1 n1
2 1 2n
By theorem 4
S 2t (r, f ) 2tM(r, f )2t = O[(1 r)]4t
Univalent Functions
99

as r 1. So in the above inequality the right hand side is n O[n4t ] =
O[n4t+1 ] instead of O(n4t+1 ).
Just as before (Ch. (3.9) of section 3.1)
Z
h
i
| f (ei )|22t d = O n1+44t
and so we now get

1
n|an, | (n + )|an, | = O n+ 2 (1+4t+4t+41)
= O(n2 ) as required.

The case > 0.
Suppose then from now on > 0 in theorem 9 and we shall develop
a series of asymptotic formulae by a form of the Hardy-Little wood
method, culminating in a formula for the an, . We have first
Theorem 11. There exists 0 in 0 0 2 such that (1r)2 | f (rei0 )|
as r 1.
1
Proof. Set rn = 1 and choose n so that f (rn ein ) = M(rn , f ).
n
Then from lemma 3 we have for 0 < r < rn
(1 r)2
(1 rn )2
| f (rein )|
| f (rn ein )| = Bn
r
rn
(say)
Let now 0 be a limit point of the n and choose a fixed r in 0 < r < 1. 115
Then
(1 r)2
(1 r)2
| f (rei0 )| = lim
| f (rein ) lim Bn
r
r
as n tends to infinity through a suitable sequence for which n 0 ,
(1 r)2
| f (rein )| Bn . Also lim Bn =
since after some n, r < rn and
r
(1 r)2
M(r, f ) as r 1.

since
r
Univalent Functions
100
r
and this is true for 0 < r < 1. Thus
(1 r)2
Hence | f (rei0 )|
lim(1 r)2 | f (rei0 )|

r1
On the other hand lim(1 r)2 | f (rei0 )| lim(1 r)2 M(r, f ) = .
r1
Thus lim(1 r)2 | f (rei0 )| = as required.
r1
Theorem 12. If 0 is as in theorem 11 and f (rei0 ) = R(r)ei(r) then

Z1
(1 r)[ (r)]2 dr
converges.
1
Hence if r 1 and 1 while r < < (1 + r) we have uniformly
2
(1 r)2 f (rei0 )
1.
(1 )2 f (ei0 )
Proof. We have by lemma 3 for 0 < r1 < r2 < 1
r1
4
Zr2
(1 r)[ (r)]2 dr log
r1
116
R2 (1 r2 )2
R1 (1 r1 )2
log
r1
r2
Letting r2 1 and by theorem 11 we get

r1
4
Z1
(1 r)[ (r)]dr log
r1
R1 (1 r1 )2
r1
proving convergence, since (r) is bounded in 0 r r1 . Now suppose

that r is so near 1 that
Z1
r
(1 t)[ (t)]2 dt
and
1
r < < (r + 1)
2
Univalent Functions
101
Then

12
12
Z
Z
Z

dt
|() (r)| = (t)dt

(1 t)[ (t)] dt
1 t
(by Schwarz inequality).
"
1r
|() (r)| log
1
# 12
( log 2) 2
So |() (r)| 0 if r, 1 being related as in the theorem. Thus

arg
and
(1 r)2 f (rei0 )
= (r) () 0
(1 )2 f (ei0 )

(1 r)2 f (rei0 )
= 1.

i
2
(1 ) f (e 0 )
by the previous theorem. The result follows.
117
Theorem 13. Suppose f (z) S . [By the hypothesis of theorem 9, =

(1 r)2
M(r, f ) and]. Suppose > 0 and 0 as defined in theorem
lim
r1
r
11, [0 such that 0 0 2 and (1 r)2 | f (rei0 )| as r 1] and
P
1
(z) = f (z) = z
an, zn . Then if >
4
n=0
nan, ei(+n)0
"
! #
1 i0
1 e
n
(2)
as n .
Assuming the theorem let us first deduce some corollaries.

n21
as n where 1. Equality
(2)
is possible only in the case when f (z) = f (z) defined in theorem 1.
Corollary 1. We have |an, |
Univalent Functions
102
Proof. Taking moduli for the result of the theorem,

h

i
| 1 1n ei0 |
n|an, |
as n
(2)
h

i
| f 1 1n ei0 | (n2 )
=
(2)
(2)
after theorem 11.
For, the choice of 0 is such that (1 r)2 f (rei0 ) as r 1.

!2 "
! #
1
1 i0
Precisely we get
f 1 e as n .
n
n
n21
. This is corollary 1.
Hence we get |an, |
(2)
Corollary 2. If fk (z) = z +
akn+1 zkn+1 belongs to S , and if k = 1, 2
n=1
or 3 then,
(n + 2/k)
for n n0 .
(n + 1)(2/k)
z
and all n, otherwise strict inEquality holds for f (z) =
k
(1 z ei )2/k
equality holds for n > n0 ( f ).
|akn+1 |
118
To prove this note that

f (z) = [ fk (z1/k )]k S
and
1/k
fk (z
1/k
)=z
X
( akn+1 zn ) = [ f (z)]1/k .
0
z
and so
(1 zei )2
X
z
=
Akn+1 zkn+1 ein = fk (z)
=
(1 zk e1 )2/k
Now either f (z) =
Univalent Functions
103
where
Akn+1 =
Akn+1 =
2
k
2
k

+ 1 . . . . . . 2k + n 1
1 2 . . . . . . n
2k + n
(2/k)(n + 1)
2
n k 1
(2/k)
Alternatively since in every other case < 1 for f (z) so by corollary 1,
1
|akn+1 |
k n k 1
(2/k)
and since < 1,

|akn+1 | < Akn+1 for large n.
Note that if k = 1 we have |an+1 | < n + 1 finally and if k = 2, |a2n+1 | < 1. 119
Let us now go to the proof of theorem 13. We suppose without loss
of generality that 0 = (0) in theorem 13 for otherwise we can consider
ei0 f (zei0 ) instead!of f (z) and ei0 [ f (zei0 )] instead of (z).
1
Set rn = 1 . Given > 0 we define a domain n = n () = {z :
n

f (rn )
1
< |1 z| < | arg(1 z)| < 2 and n = 2 so that |n |

n
n
n
as n by theorem 11.
n
Suppose now fn (z) =
(1 z)2
Univalent Functions
104
Lemma 4. We have as n uniformly for z n (), f (z) fn (z) and

f (z) fn (z).
1
1
Proof. Put z = ln (w) = rn + w, so that (1 z) = (1 w).
n
n
Then by this n () in the z-plane corresponds to 1 () in the w plane.
Define a function gn (z) as
f [ln (w)]
gn (w) = (1 w)2
f (rn )
Note that for a fixed , n () lies in |z| < 1 for large n. Hence gn (w) is
defined in 1 () for sufficiently large n.

120
Further |gn (w)| = O(1) for w 1 () and n > n0 . In fact if n (),

n ( 21 ), n ( 41 ) are denoted by n , n and d is the distance from 1 to
the outside of
1 , the distance between n and the exterior of n is
exactly d/n.
d
and
So if
n lies in |z| < 1
n lies in |z| < 1. n lies in |z| < 1
n
d
r
; |z| = r and so if |z| < 1 < 1;
for all large n. Now | f (z)|
n
(1 r)2
d
1 |z| .
n
!
n2
Hence in n | f (z)| = O 2 = O(n2 ) as n and f (rn ) =

d
!
1
n2 by theorem 11 as n and hence it follows that
f 1
n
O(n2 )
f [ln (w)]
= O(1) as n uniformly for w in 1 . i.e., gn (w)
=
f (rn )
n2
is bounded in 1 for large n.
1
1
Next choose 1 < w < 0 so that w is real and rn + w = 1 (1w) =
n
n
ln (w). After theorem 12.
1
(1 rn )2
f [ln (w)]
=
1
2
f (rn )
(1 w)2
(1 w)
n2
as n
for the hypothesis of theorem 12 is satisfied because,

1
1 1

|z| = 1 + w < rn < |(z + 1)|, rn 1 as
n n
2
Univalent Functions
105
in this manner ensuring the above asymptotic equality.

Therefore it follows on bringing (1w)2 to the left hand side gn (w) =
f [ln (w)]
(1 w)2
tends to one as n , for real w satisfying 0 > w >
f (rn )
1.
Thus we have obtained gn (w) = O(1) as w ranges in 1 and gn (w) 121
1 as n on a set of w having a limit in 1 . Hence by Vitalis convergence theorem (see Titchmarsh p.p. 168) gn (w) 1, gn (w) 0
uniformly in 1 which is contained in 1 and satisfies the condition that
it is bounded by a contour that is interior to 1 .
f (z)
tends to 1 as n tends to
Now translating back into z, n2 (1 z)2
f (rn )
infinity for z n ().
i.e. by the definition of fn (z)
f (z)
1 for
fn (z)
Also
z n ()
as n .
d
f [ln (w)]
(1 w)2
0
dw
f (rn )
since n(1 z) = (1 w);
1
n
d 2
f (z)
n (1 z)2
0
dz
f (rn )
f (z)
d
(1 z)2
0
dz
f (rn )
d
(1 z)2 f (z) = O(n) since f (rn ) n2 as n .
dz
for z in n ().
1
Note that in n () and (1 z) have the same order of magnitude.
n
Thus, (1 z)2 f (z) 2(1 z) f (z) = 0(n), z n () as n
2 f (z)
+ O(n3 ), z n () as n .
(1 z)
2 fn (z)
+ O(n3 )
=
(1 z)
f (z) =
122
Univalent Functions
106
= fn (z) + O(n3 ) = fn (z)[1 + O(1)]

because
2n
= O(n3 ).
(1 z)
Therefore, f (z) fn (z) uniformly for z n () as n . This
completes the proof of the lemma.
fn (z) =
Lemma 5. With the notation of theorem 4, for > 0,

S (r, f ) = S [r, (1 z)2 ] + O(1 r)2 as r 1
and if >
1
2
I (r, f ) = I [r, (1 z)2 ] + O(1 r)12 as r 1

n2
, n (z) = fn (z) = n (1 z)2 and n () as
2
defined in the previous lemma. Note that n (z) maps n () onto the
sector
4 Rn < |w| < Rn , | arg(w) arg n | < ( 2)
!
The area of the image =
|n (z)|2 dx dy
Proof. Let Rn = |n |
123
n ()
8
= ( 2)R2
n [1 ]
(3.2.1)
Also in n (), fn (z) f (z) and fn (z) f (z) and so

n (z) = fn (z)[ fn (z)]1 f (z)[ f (z)]1 = (z)
So we have
(3.2.2)
"
8
|n (z)|2 dx dy ( 2)R2
n (1 )
n ()
Also since |n (z)| < Rn in n () we have by lemma 4,

|(z)| < Rn (1 + )
there for large n.
Now choose n so that Rn1 < M(r, f ) < Rn . This is possible at least if r
is sufficiently near 1, since Rn with n.
Univalent Functions
107
Let E0 be the set of points of |z| < r outside n (). Then in E0 ,

|(z)| < Rn , and in n (), |(z)| < (1 + )Rn . The image of |z| < 1 by f (z)
contains no point more than once, and so the length of the image over
any circle |w| = is at the most 2.
If we cut the unit circle along the negative real axis, then the image
by f (z) covers any circle, |w| = , with length at the most 2. So
the area of the image of the union of E0 and n () by (z) is at most
2
R2
n (1 + ) .
That gives,
124
"
2
| (z)|2 dx dy R2
n (1 + )
E0 n ()
Also by (3.2.2), we have for large n

"
| (z)|2 dx dy > (1 )(1 8 )R2
n
n ()
[Note the terms of r.h.s. of this inequality and (3.2.2)]

So
"
h
i
2
8
| (z)|2 dx dy < R2
(1
+
)
(1
)(1
)
n
E0
< 1 R2
n
where 1 is small if is small.
Similarly,
"
|n (z)|2 dx dy < R2
n
E0
By theorem 4
2
S 2 (r, f ) =
2
Zr
2
2
"
|z|<r
| f (ei )|22 | f (ei )|2 d
| f (ei )|22 | f (ei )|2 dx dy
Univalent Functions
108
1
=
2
"
| (z)|2 dx dy.
|z|<r
125
Hence
2
S 2 (r, f ) S 2 (r, fn ) =
"
|z|<r

| (z)|2 |n (z)|2 dx dy
Z Z
2
= +
E1
E0
where E1 is the part of |z| < r within n (). Since in E1 n (z) (z)
Z
Z

2
| (z)| |n (z)| dx dy = O |n (z)|2 dx dy
E1
E1
=O
=
n ()
O(R2n )
|n (z)|2 dx dy
by (3.2.1)
Also
Z
Z
Z

2
| (z)| |n (z)| dx dy|
|
|n (z)| dx dy + | (z)|2 dx dy
E0
E0
E0
( +
)R2n .
Since and can be made as small as we please by suitable choice of

,
S 2 (r, f ) = S 2 (r, fn ) + O(R2
n )
= S 2 (r, fn ) + O(R2
n1 ) as
Rn Rn1
= S 2 (r, fn ) + OM(r, f )2 .
126
i.e. S 2 (r, f ) = S 2 (r, fn ) + O(1 r)4 as r 1 (by theorem 3).
Univalent Functions
109
Hence we get
2
4
S 2 (r, f ) = |2
n |S 2 [r, (1 z) ] + O(1 r)
as
r 1.
which is the first result. Integrating the above from 0 to r, w.r.t. r after
dividing by r, we get
I2 (r, f ) = ||2 I [r, (1 z)2 ] + O(1 r)14 as r 1, if >
1
.
4
Hence we get the lemma [replacing 2 by ]

I (r, f ) = I [r, (1 z)2 ] + O(1 r)12 as r 1
if >
1
.
2
1
Lemma 6. If > 0 and >
we can choose k > 0 so that if
4
1
1
r0 < r < 1, 1 r 1
n
2n
Z

| f (rei )|2 + | fn (rei )|2 d < (1 r)14
k(1r)||
Let and be the arcs || k(1 r) and k(1 r) || on

|z| = r. If k is any fixed number, we can choose so small that the arc 127
1
1
for large n (see Hayman [1]).
lies in n () for 1 r 1
n
2n
Hence
Z
Z
2
| fn (z)| d
| f (z)|2 d
| fn | d
| f | d = O
| f |2 d
= O{I2 (r, f )}
= O(1 r)14
Univalent Functions
110
1
and also I2 (r, f )I2 (r, fn ) =
2
by the application of theorem 4, as 2 >
O[(1 r)14 ] by the previous lemma.

Hence subtraction gives,
Z
Z
2
(3.2.3)
| f | d | fn |2 d = O[(1 r)14 ]
Now the integral

Z
| fn | d
|n |2 d
(1 2r cos + r2 )2
k(1r)
Z
d
(r sin /2)4
k(1r)
A()
d
4
k(1r)
1
1
sin /2 A in that range.

2
2
(1 2r cos + r ) (r sin /2)2
Z
(4)
| fn |2 d A()[k(1 r)]14
<
128
1
(1 r)14
3
by properly choosing k sufficiently large. Hence in virtue of the relation

(2) we deduce same for f (z) and hence the lemma.
We now proceed to prove theorem 13. We have as in lemma 5,
n (z) = fn (z) =
n (1
z)
X
0
2(2 + 1) . . . . . . (2 + m 1)
bm =
m!
bm zm
Univalent Functions
111
(m + 1 + 2) m21
(2)(m + 1) (2)
and as already defined
m
(z) = z 1 +
am, z

m=1
Hence by considering the coefficients of (z) and n (z),

Z
1
(z) n (z)
(n + )an, nbn n =
n dz
2
z
zn+
|z|=r
Z2

(n + )an, nbn 1 1
n
2 rn+1

(rei ) rei n (rei ) d
1
1
We shall choose r in the range 1 r 1
as usual. For a k to be
n
2n
determined, let and be the arcs || k(1 r) and k(1 r) ||

respectively on |z| = r.
, n (n )(r ei ) = O(1 r)12 as r 1.
and so
129
(n )(r ei ) = O(1 r)12 = O(n2+1 ) as r 1 or as n

!
1
The length of the path of integration of = O(1 r) = O
n
Z

(rei ) r ei n (rei ) d = O(n2 )
this being true for any fixed k.
Again,
Z

|
(rei ) r ei n (rei ) d|
Univalent Functions
112
| (re )|d +
r |n (rei )|d
1
We now proceed as in theorem 6, choose t such that 2 2t > and
2
using Schwarzs Inequality.
Z
Z
i
| (re )|d = | f (rei )|| f (rei )|1 d
21
Z
i 2
i 2t2
| f (re )| | f (re )|
d
21
| f (rei )|22t d
By the same method as of theorem 6, we can choose r such that the first
integral is O(n4t+1 ).
By what we have just seen in lemma 6 the second integral can be
made less that (1 r)14+4t i.e. (const.) n44t1 and can be made
as small as we please. So
Z
| (rei )|d < n2
130
using the inequality (8) of theorem 6.
R can be made as small as we please by choosing k large enough

n (rei )d can be dealt with similarly.
So finally we see that

Z2
|[ (rei ) r ei n (rei )]d [2 + O(1)]n2
and since can be made as small as we please the right hand side is
O(n2 ).
Univalent Functions
113
That gives
nbn n
+ O(n21 )
n+
n f (rn ) n21
=
+ O(n21 )
n + n2 (2)
an, =
Therefore,
nan,
f (rn )
as required.
(2)
This completes the proof of theorem 13. For an extension of the

result to p-valent functions and further results see for example W.K.
Hayman [1], [2].
Bibliography
[1] Ahlfors, L. [1]: Beitrage Zur Theorie der meromorphen Funktionen 7, Congr. Math. Scand. Oslo 1929.
[2] Bazilevic, I.E. [1]: On distortion theorem and coefficients of univalent functions. Mat. Sbornik N.S. 28 (70), 283-292 (1951).
[3] Biernacki, M. [1]: Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. Cl.III 4 (1956) 5-8
[4] Caratheodory, C. [2]: Theory of Functions of one variable Vol.I
Translated by Steinhardt
[5] Csillag, P. [1]: Math. Annalen 110 (1935) pp. 745-52.
[6] Hayman, W.K. [1]: Proc. L.M.S. 1955 p.p. 257-284.
[7] Hayman, W.K. [2]: Multivalent Functions Cambridge University Press.
[8] Hayman, W.K. and Stewart, F.M. [1]:
1954.
Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.
[9] Kaplan, W. [1]: (close to convex Schlicht functions) Michigan

Math. J. 1(1953) 169-85.
[10] Kennedy, P.B. [1]: Proc. L.M.S. Vol. 6 1956.
[11] Little wood, D. [1]: Q.J. of Maths. Vol.9 (1938)
[12] Shimizu, T. [1]: On the Theory of Meromorphic Functions Jap. J.
Maths. 6 (1929).
115
131

Meromorphic Functions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meromorphic Functions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lectures on Meromorphic Functions

We shall develop in this course Nevanlinnas theory of meromorphic

1.2 The Poisson-Jensen Formula

Proof. Let f (z) , 0, in |z| 1. Then, since we can define an analytic

log f (ei )d = log f (0)

and now taking real part on both sides

log | f (ei )|d = log | f (0)|

For any with || < 1, we effect the conformal transformation w =

so that (0) = f (). Substituting in the integral z = ei and taking real

Let z = a be zero of order k. Then f (z) = (z a)k (z), (a) , 0, in

Since (z) remains bounded the second integral tends to zero. So we

log | f (Rei )|d +

and f (z) is not identically constant then f (z) = C z + + . Consider

1.3 The Characteristic Function

Then clearly log x = log+ x log+ (1/x). So

log | f (Re )|d =

log | f (Re )|d

given on integrating by parts,

If f (0) = we define N(r, f ) =

Then the formula (1.2) becomes, for f (0) , 0,

T (r, f ) = N(r, f ) + m(r, f )

log+ | f (rei )|d

Again (1.2) takes the form, for f (0) , 0,

T (r, f ) = T (r, 1/ f ) + log | f (0)|

If f (z) C Z near z = 0, where , 0, then we obtain

For any finite complex a,

where |(a)| log 2 + log+ |a|. Hence the theorem is proved.

1. Let f (z) = P(z)/Q(z), P(z) and Q(z) being polynomials of degrees

m(r, 1/( f a)) = 0.

Thus in the case of a rational function there is always only one

If cos cos 0, we have |er(cos cos ) 1|

|er(cos cos ) 1| = 1 er(cos cos ) r(cos cos )er(cos cos )

Let E be the set of at which

1.4 Some Inequalities

the multiplicity of such pole is at most the maximal multiplicity of the

If |a1 a2 . . . an | > 1, log+ |a1 a2 . . . an | = log |a1 a2 . . . an |, which is in turn

Theorem 3 (H. Cartan). We have T (r, f ) = (1/2)

log |a ei |d = log+ |a|

This can be proved in various ways. If |a| 1, z a has no zeroes in

log |ei a|d = log |a| = log+ |a|, |a| 1

To prove the theorem consider now Jensens formula applied to f (z)ei ,

log | f (rei ) ei |d + N(r, f ) N(r, 1/( f ei ))

since N(r, f ) = N(r, f ei ) ( f and f ei have the same poles). Now

and by the previous lemma,

which gives the result.

and the right hand side is non-negative and non-decreasing with r.

= T (r, f ) log | f (0) ei )|+ < log 2 >

= T (r, f ) log | f (0)|+ < log 2 >

m(r, ei )d + T (r, f ) log+ | f (0)|

= T (r, f )+ < log 2 > log+ | f (0)|

m(r, ei )d =< log 2 >

1.6 The Ahlfors-Shimizu Characteristic:

curves, , and that G(R) is twice continuously differentiable on the set

where g(R) = G (R)+(1/R)G (R) and we differentiate out of the domain

along the normal in .

And u = Rl. log f (z) and

G(| f |) is bounded, since

consists of the circumference of |z| = r and the smaller circles. Near a

is along the normal directed out of

We call the right hand side A(r).

log(1 + | f (rei )|2 ) 2 d log(1 + | f (0)|2 ) 2

contains poles of the function f (z). Now log+ R log(1 + R2 ) 2

log+ ( f (rei )|d + N(r, f )+ <

= m(r, f ) + N(r, f )+ <