On the growth of composite entire and meromorphic functions (Q1766355)

The authors give many theorems on the growth of composite entire (or meromorphic) functions. The first of those results states: Let \(f\) and \(g\) be two non-constant entire functions of finite lower orders \(\lambda_f\) and \(\lambda_g\), respectively and let \(\rho_f\) denote the order of \(f\). Then \[ \text{(i)}\quad \liminf_{r\to\infty}\frac{\log T(r,f\circ g)}{T(r,g)}\leq 3\rho_f 2^{\lambda_g}, \qquad \text{(ii)}\quad\limsup_{r\to\infty}\frac{\log T(r,f\circ g)}{T(r,g)}\geq \frac{\lambda_f}{4^{\lambda_g}}. \] The same result as (i) is found in their paper [``On the growth properties of composite entire and meromorphic functions''. Indian J. Math. 45, No. 2, 177--193 (2003; Zbl 1043.30012)]. The lemmas used to prove theorems and functions illustrating necessity of their assumptions look almost the same in the two papers. The statements in Theorems 1, 2 and 4 in the paper under review coincide partially to Theorems 1, 2 and 3 in the paper mentioned above, respectively. Some of the theorems in one paper seem to correct their counterparts in the other paper, and vice versa. On the other hand, in Theorems 3 and 5--9, the authors compare the growths of composite functions and each \(k\)th derivative of their right or left factors. In the proof of those results, they use the fact that both values of the order and the lower order of the \(k\)th derivative are independent of the number \(k\) \((k=0, 1,2, \dots)\), and hence so is the reasoning itself. One sees also that a small modification in the proof makes it possible to extend some statements concerning entire compositions into those on meromorphic ones.