On the order and hyper-order of meromorphic solutions of higher order linear differential equations (Q383981)

The standard notation of the value distribution theory is used. Let \[ \rho_p(f)=\limsup _{r\to \infty} \frac{\log _{p} T(r,f)}{\log r}, \; \lambda_p (f)=\limsup _{r\to \infty} \frac{\log _{p} N(r,1/f)}{\log r},\quad p \in {\mathbf N} \] be the iterated order of a meromorphic function \(f\), and the iterated exponent of convergence for zeros of \(f\), respectively, \(\bar \lambda_p(f)\) be the iterated exponent of convergence for distinct zeros of \(f\). \textit{I. Laine} and \textit{J. Rieppo} [Complex Variables, Theory Appl. 49, No. 12, 897--911 (2004; Zbl 1080.34076)] proved the following theorem: Theorem A. Let \(A\) be a transcendental meromorphic function of finite order \(\rho_p(A)=\rho>0\) such that \(\delta(\infty,A)>0\) and let \(f\) be a transcendental meromorphic solution of the equation \(f'' +Af=0\). Suppose, moreover, that either (1) all poles of \(f\) are of uniformly bounded multiplicity or that (2) \(\delta(\infty, f)>0\). Then \(\rho_{p+1}(f)=\rho_p(A)=\rho\). Moreover, let \(P[f]=\sum_{j=0}^r p_j f^{(j)}\), where coefficients \(\rho_{p+1}(p_j)< \rho\), assuming that at least one of the coefficients \(p_j\) does not vanish identically. Then for the fixed points of \(P[f]\), we have \(\bar \lambda_{p+1}(P[f]-z)=\rho\), provided that neither \(P[f]\) nor \(P[f]-z\) vanishes identically. The paper studies the growth of meromorphic solutions of the higher order linear differential equation \[ f^{(k)}+ \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} (h_j e^{P_j(z)} +d_j)f^{(j)}=0, \tag{1} \] where \(P_j\) are nonconstant polynomials, \(h_j\), \(d_j\) are meromorphic functions. The following theorem is a typical result of the paper. Theorem 1.1. Let \(P_j(z)=\sum_{i=0}^n a_{i,j} z^i\) \((j=0,1, \dots, k-1)\), where \(a_{0,j}, a_{1,j}\), \dots , \(a_{n,j}\) are complex numbers such that \(a_{n,j} a_{n,0} \neq 0\) \((j=0, 1, \dots, k-1)\), let \(h_j\), \(d_j\) \((j=0, 1, \dots, k-1)\) be meromorphic functions with \(h_0\not\equiv 0\). Suppose that \(a_{n,j}\neq a_{n,0}\) for all \(j=0, 1, \dots, k-1\) and \(\rho=\max_j \{ \rho_1(h_j), \rho_1(d_j)\} <d\). Then the following statements hold: (i) Every meromorphic solution \(f\not\equiv 0\) of (1) is transcendental. (ii) For every meromorphic solution \(f\) of (1) with infinite order \(\rho_1(f)=\infty\), we have if \(\lambda_1(1/f)<n\) and \(\lambda_1(f)<n\), then \(\rho_2(f)=n\).