English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

It has been brought to my attention by Norbert Steinmetz that the symmetry reasoning that is used in the proof of Theorem 2 in [1] to conclude that ußi is symmetric in a and 6" in the third line from the bottom on page 564, and also to conclude that (123) holds on page 565, is not valid. We note that the symmetry reasoning that is used in the sentence in lines 8 and 9 from the bottom on page 564 is valid, because this sentence is meant in the sense of the following sentence: By considering a 6-point that is simple for / and double for g, a similar argument to the above argument (with (61) instead of (60)) will produce 2bw' w" a = --1+ w . o — a w'

Correction to: “Meromorphic functions that share four values” [Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 277 (1983), no. 2, 545–567; MR0694375 (84g:30028)]