Reports of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR
Unknown
Submitted 1963-01-01 | RussiaRxiv: ru-196301.98930 | Translated from Russian

Abstract

Full Text

Reports of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR

  1. Volume 152, No. 5

MATHEMATICS

A. A. GOL’DBERG

ON THE GROWTH OF AN ENTIRE FUNCTION ALONG A RAY

(Presented by Academician M. A. Lavrent’ev on 9 V 1963)

Let \(f(z)\) be an entire function of order \(\rho\), and let \(T(r)\) be its Nevanlinna characteristic:

\[ T(r)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\ln^{+}|f(re^{i\varphi})|\,d\varphi . \]

In the present note the growth of \(\ln |f(re^{i\varphi})|\) for fixed \(\varphi\) is compared with the growth of \(T(r)\). Without loss of generality we shall assume that the fixed ray is \(\varphi=0\), i.e. the positive real axis. Pólya \({}^{(1)}\) constructed examples of entire functions of arbitrary order \(\rho\), \(0\leq \rho\leq \infty\), for which

\[ \limsup_{r\to\infty}\ln |f(r)|/T(r)=\infty . \]

We shall supplement this result by showing that the following estimate always holds:

\[ \liminf_{r\to\infty}\frac{\ln |f(r)|}{T(r)} \leq \begin{cases} \pi\rho\cosec \pi\rho, & 0\leq \rho\leq {1}/{2},\\ \pi\rho, & \rho>{1}/{2}. \end{cases} \tag{1} \]

The fact that estimate (1) cannot be improved follows from consideration of the well-known Mittag-Leffler function \(E_{\rho}(z)\). Estimate (1) for \(\rho=\infty\) is trivial, and for \(0\leq \rho\leq {1}/{2}\) follows at once from an inequality obtained almost simultaneously by Valiron and Valiron \({}^{(2-4)}\); the new result is estimate (1) for \({1}/{2}<\rho<\infty\).

The proof of (1) (for \({1}/{2}<\rho<\infty\)) uses several lemmas.

Lemma 1. Let the functions \(h(r)\) and \(g(r)\) be continuous for \(a\leq r<\infty\), with \(g(r)>0\) for \(a\leq r<\infty\). Let \(K(\eta,r)\geq 0\) be continuous for \(0\leq \eta<\eta_{0}\) and \(a\leq r<\infty\), and let the integrals

\[ \int_{a}^{\infty} h(r)K(\eta,r)\,dr,\qquad \int_{a}^{\infty} g(r)K(\eta,r)\,dr>0 \]

converge for \(0<\eta<\eta_{0}\), while

\[ \int_{a}^{\infty} g(r)K(0,r)\,dr=\infty . \]

Then

\[ \limsup_{r\to\infty}\frac{h(r)}{g(r)} \geq \limsup_{\eta\to 0+} \frac{\displaystyle\int_{a}^{\infty} h(r)K(\eta,r)\,dr} {\displaystyle\int_{a}^{\infty} g(r)K(\eta,r)\,dr}, \]

\[ \liminf_{r\to\infty}\frac{h(r)}{g(r)} \leq \liminf_{\eta\to 0+} \frac{\displaystyle\int_{a}^{\infty} h(r)K(\eta,r)\,dr} {\displaystyle\int_{a}^{\infty} g(r)K(\eta,r)\,dr}. \]

A function \(\rho(r)\), differentiable on \([1,\infty)\), is called a refined order \({}^{(5)}\) for an entire function \(f(z)\) of order \(\rho\), if the following conditions are satis-

the following conditions are fulfilled: a) \(\lim_{r\to\infty}\rho(r)=\rho\); b) \(\lim_{r\to\infty} r\rho'(r)\ln r=0\); c) \(\limsup_{r\to\infty} T(r)r^{-\rho(r)}=1\).

Lemma 2. If \(\rho(r)\) is a proximate order for an entire function \(f(z)\) of order \(\rho>0\), then

\[ \int_1^\infty T(r)r^{-\rho(r)-1}\,dr=\infty . \]

Lemma 3. For every entire function \(f(z)\) of order \(\rho\), \(1/2<\rho<\infty\), one can find a proximate order \(\rho(r)\) such that for \(1\le R<\infty\) the following holds:

\[ \limsup_{\eta\to 0+} \frac{ \displaystyle \int_R^\infty r^{-\rho(r)-\eta-1}\ln^+|f(r)|\,dr }{ \displaystyle \int_R^\infty r^{-\rho(r)-\eta-1}T(r)\,dr } \le \pi\rho+\omega(R), \tag{2} \]

where \(\lim_{R\to\infty}\omega(R)=0\).

From Lemma 1, putting \(h(r)=\ln^+|f(r)|\), \(g(r)=T(r)\), \(K(\eta,r)=r^{-\rho(r)-\eta-1}\), \(a=R\), we have

\[ \liminf_{r\to\infty}\ln^+|f(r)|/T(r)\le \pi\rho+\omega(R), \]

whence, letting \(R\to\infty\), we obtain (1).

In the case when \(f(z)\) is an entire function of order \(1/2<\rho<\infty\) of the divergence class \((^5,\text{ p. }495)\), inequality (2) was obtained by Rauch \((^6)\) with \(\rho(r)\equiv \rho\), \(\omega(R)\equiv 0\)*, and the results of Valiron \((^8)\) were used essentially. Our proof of Lemma 3 follows basically the same path, but the consideration of proximate order complicates all the calculations.

In the case \(0\le \rho\le 1/2\), the inequality of Wiman and Valiron \((^{2-4})\) implies an inequality stronger than (1):

\[ \liminf_{r\to\infty}\ln M(r)/T(r)\le \pi\rho\cosec\pi\rho,\qquad M(r)=\max_{|z|=r}|f(z)|. \]

Pólya \((^1)\) conjectured that for \(\rho>1/2\) the inequality

\[ \liminf_{r\to\infty}\ln M(r)/T(r)\le \pi\rho, \tag{3} \]

is valid, but we have not been able to prove it. If, however, one additionally assumes that for some fixed \(\varphi_0\) one has
\(\ln|f(re^{i\varphi_0})|\sim \ln M(r)\), then (3) follows from (1) for \(\rho>1/2\) and, as a special case, a result of I. V. Ostrovskii \((^9,\text{ p. }31)\).

Uzhgorod State University

Received
18 IV 1963

References

  1. R. E. A. C. Paley, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc., 28, 262 (1932).
  2. Wahlund, Ark. Math., Astr. och Fys., 21A, No. 23, (1929).
  3. G. Valiron, Opuscula math. A. Wiman dedicata, 1 1930.
  4. G. Valiron, Mathematica, 11, 264 (1935).
  5. B. Ya. Levin, Distribution of zeros of entire functions, Moscow, 1956.
  6. A. Rauch, C. R., 206, 1076 (1938).
  7. A. Rauch, Bull. sci. math., 63, 66 (1939).
  8. G. Valiron, J. math. pures et appl., 10, 457 (1931).
  9. I. V. Ostrovskii, Zap. Mekh.-Mat. Fak. Kharkov State Univ. and Kharkov Math. Soc., 28, 23 (1961).

* In fact, A. Rauch asserts in \((^6)\) the existence of the limit on the left-hand side of (2) (under the assumptions he made), but this assertion is not justified by anything. In \((^7)\) Rauch attempts to prove an even stronger inequality than in \((^6)\), but his arguments contain gross errors.

Submission history

Reports of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR