scispace - formally typeset

Journal ArticleDOI

A common fixed point theorem using implicit relation and property (E.A) in metric spaces

01 Jan 2007-Filomat (National Library of Serbia)-Vol. 21, Iss: 2, pp 211-234

Abstract: In this paper, we prove a common fixed point theorem for a quadruple of mappings by using an implicit relation [6] and property (E.A) [1] under weak compatibility. Our theorem improves and generalizes the main Theorems of Popa [6] and Aamri and Moutawakil [1] .Various examples verify the importance of weak compatibility and property (E.A) in the existence of common fixed point and examples are also given to the implicit relation and to validate our main Theorem. We also show that property (E.A) and Meir-Keeler type contractive condition are independent to each other. .
Topics: Fixed-point theorem (66%), Fixed-point property (64%), Coincidence point (60%), Metric space (52%)

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, University of Niˇs, Serbia
Available at: http://www.pmf.ni.ac.yu/filomat
Filomat 21:2 (2007), 211–234
A COMMON FIXED POINT THEOREM
USING IMPLICIT RELATION
AND PROPERTY (E.A) IN METRIC SPACES
H. K. Pathak, RosanaRodr´ıguez-L´opez and R. K. Verma
Abstract
In this paper, we prove a common fixed point theorem for a quadru-
ple of mappings by using an implicit relation [6] and property (E.A)
[1] under weak compatibility.Our theorem improves and generalizes the
main Theorems of Popa [6] and Aamri and Moutawakil [1].Various ex-
amples verify the importance of weak compatibility and property (E.A)
in the existence of common fixed point and examples are also given to
the implicit relation and to validate our main Theorem. We also show
that prop erty (E.A) and Meir-Keeler type contractive condition are
independent to each other.
1. Introduction
The concept of weakly commuting mappings of Sessa [7] is sharpened by
Jungck [3] and further generalized by Jungck and Rhoades [4]. Similarly,
noncompatible mapping is generalized by Aamri and Moutawakil [1] called
property (E.A). Noncompatibility is also important to study the fixed point
theory. There may be pairs of mappings which are noncompatible but weakly
compatible (see Example 1 of Popa [6] p. 34, and Example 2.1below).
Let A and S be two self-maps of a metric space (X, d). Mappings A and
S are said to be weakly commuting[7] if
d(SAx, ASx) d(Ax, Sx), for all x X, (1.1)
compatible [3] if
lim
n→∞
d(ASx
n
, SAx
n
) = 0, (1.2)
whenever there exists a sequence {x
n
} in X such that lim
n→∞
Ax
n
=
lim
n→∞
Sx
n
= t, for some t X.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 47H10, 54H25.
Key words and phrases. Compatible mappings, implicit relation, noncompatible map-
pings, property (E.A), weakly compatible mappings.
Received: March 30, 2007

212 H. K. Pathak, Rosana Rodr´ıguez-L´opez and R. K. Verma
noncompatible if there exists a sequence{x
n
} in X such that lim
n→∞
Ax
n
=
lim
n→∞
Sx
n
= t, for some t X and
lim
n→∞
d(ASx
n
, SAx
n
) is either nonzero or nonexistent, (1.3)
and weakly compatible if they commute at their coincidence points, i.e.,
ASu = SAu whenever Au = Su, for some u X. (1.4)
2. Preliminaries
Property (E.A) [1]. Let A and S be two self-maps of a metric space (X, d)
then they are said to satisfy property (E.A), if there exists a sequence {x
n
}
in X such that
lim
n→∞
Ax
n
= lim
n→∞
Sx
n
= t, for some t X. (2.1)
Notice that weakly compatible and property (E.A) are independent to each
other:
Example 2.1. Consider X = [0, 1] equipped with the usual metric d. De-
fine f, g : X X by:
f(x) = 1 x, if x [0,
1
2
] and f(x) = 0, if x (
1
2
, 1],
g(x) =
1
2
, if x [0,
1
2
] and g(x) =
3
4
, if x (
1
2
, 1].
Then, for the sequence {x
n
} = {
1
2
1
n
}, n 2, we have
lim
n→∞
f(
1
2
1
n
) = lim
n→∞
1
2
+
1
n
=
1
2
= lim
n→∞
g(
1
2
1
n
). Thus, the
pair (f, g) satisfies property (E.A). Further, f and g are weakly compatible
since x =
1
2
is their unique coincidence point and fg(1/2) = f(1/2) =
g(1/2) = gf(1/2). We further observe that lim
n→∞
d(fg(
1
2
1
n
), gf(
1
2
1
n
)) = lim
n→∞
d(f(
1
2
), g(
1
2
+
1
n
)) = d(
1
2
,
3
4
) 6= 0,showing that the pair (f, g)
is noncompatible.
Example 2.2. Let X =
R
+
and d be the usual metric on X. Define
f, g : X X by:
fx = 0, if 0 < x 1 and f x = 1, if x > 1 or x = 0; and
gx = [x], the greatest integer that is less than or equal to x, x X.
Consider a sequence {x
n
} = {1 +
1
n
}
n2
in (1, 2), then we have
lim
n→∞
fx
n
= 1 = lim
n→∞
gx
n
. Similarly for the sequence {y
n
} = {1
1
n
}
n2
in (0, 1), we have lim
n→∞
fy
n
= 0 = lim
n→∞
gy
n
. Thus the pair
(f, g) satisfies(E.A). However, f and g are not weakly compatible; as each
u
1
(0, 1) and u
2
(1, 2) are coincidence points of f and g, where they do
not commute. Moreover, they commute at x = 0, 1, 2, ... but none of these
points are coincidence points of f and g. Further, (f, g) is noncompatible.
Hence, (E.A) 6= weak compatibility.

Common fixed point theorem using implicit relation and property... 213
3. Implicit relation
Let
R
and
R
+
denote the set of real and non-negative real numbers,
respectively. We now state an implicit relation [6] as follows:
Let F be the set of all continuous functions F with F (t
1
, ..., t
6
) : R
+
6
R
satisfying the following conditions:
(F
1
) : F (u, 0, u, 0, 0, u) 0 = u = 0, (3.1)
(F
2
) : F (u, 0, 0, u, u, 0) 0 = u = 0. (3.2)
The function F (t
1
, ..., t
6
) : R
+
6
R
is said to satisfy condition (F
u
) if:
(F
u
) : F (u, u, 0, 0, u, u) 0, u > 0. (3.3)
The following are examples of the implicit relation defined above. Another
examples can be found in [5-6].
Example 3.1. Let F (t
1
, ..., t
6
) = pt
1
qt
2
r(t
3
+ t
4
) s(t
5
+ t
6
), where
p, q, r, s 0, 0 r + s < p and 0 q + 2s p, then:
(F
1
) : F (u, 0, u, 0, 0, u) = u(p r s) 0 implies u = 0;
(F
2
) : F (u, 0, 0, u, u, 0) = u(p r s) 0 implies u = 0 and
(F
u
) : F (u, u, 0, 0, u, u) = u(p q 2s) 0, u > 0.
Example 3.2. Let F (t
1
, ..., t
6
) = pt
1
max{qt
2
, (t
3
+ t
4
)/2, s(t
5
+ t
6
)/2},
where 0 s < q < 1/2 < p, then:
(F
1
) : F (u, 0, u, 0, 0, u) = pu max{u/2, su/2} = u(p 1/2) 0 u = 0;
(F
2
) : F (u, 0, 0, u, u, 0) = pu max{u/2, su/2} = u(p 1/2) 0 u = 0;
(F
u
) : F (u, u, 0, 0, u, u) = pu max{qu, 0, su} = u(p q) 0, u > 0.
Example 3.3. Let F (t
1
, ..., t
6
) = t
1
max{qt
2
, r(t
3
+ t
4
)/2, (t
5
+ t
6
)/2},
where 0 q < 1 r < 2, then:
(F
1
) : F (u, 0, u, 0, 0, u) = u max{0, ru/2, u/2} = u(1 r/2) 0 u = 0;
(F
2
) : F (u, 0, 0, u, u, 0) = u max{0, ru/2, u/2} = u(1 r/2) 0 u = 0;
(F
u
) : F (u, u, 0, 0, u, u) = u max{qu, 0, u} = u u = 0, u > 0.
Example 3.4. Let F (t
1
, ..., t
6
) = t
1
h max{t
2
, t
3
, t
4
, t
5
, t
6
}, where 0
h < 1, then:
(F
1
) : F (u, 0, u, 0, 0, u) = u h max{0, u, 0, 0, u} = u(1 h) 0 u = 0;
(F
2
) : F (u, 0, 0, u, u, 0) = u h max{0, 0, u, u, 0} = u(1 h) 0 u = 0;
(F
u
) : F (u, u, 0, 0, u, u) = u h max{u, 0, 0, u, u} = u(1 h) 0, u > 0.
Example 3.5. Let F (t
1
, ..., t
6
) = t
2
1
at
2
2
t
3
t
4
bt
2
5
ct
2
6
where a, b, c 0

214 H. K. Pathak, Rosana Rodr´ıguez-L´opez and R. K. Verma
and 0 < a + b + c < 1 then:
(F
1
) : F (u, 0, u, 0, 0, u) = u
2
(1 c) 0 u = 0;
(F
2
) : F (u, 0, 0, u, u, 0) = u
2
(1 b) 0 u = 0 and
(F
u
) : F (u, u, 0, 0, u, u) = u
2
(1 a b c) 0, u > 0.
Example 3.6. Let F (t
1
, ..., t
6
) = t
3
1
k(t
3
2
+ t
3
3
+ t
3
4
+ t
3
5
+ t
3
6
), where
0 k 1/3,then:
(F
1
) : F (u, 0, u, 0, 0, u) = u
3
(1 2k) 0 u = 0;
(F
2
) : F (u, 0, 0, u, u, 0) = u
3
(1 2k) 0 u = 0 and
(F
u
) : F (u, u, 0, 0, u, u) = u
3
(1 3k) 0, u > 0.
The following lemma is useful to prove the existence of common fixed point.
Lemma 3.7 [6]. Let (X, d) be a metric space and A, B, S and T be four
self-mappings on Xsatisfying:
F (d(Ax, By), d(Sx, T y), d(Ax, Sx), d(By, T y), d(By, Sx), d(Ax, T y)) < 0,
for all x, y X, where F satisfies property (F
u
). Then A, B, S and T have
at most one common fixed point.
The following theorem was proved by Popa [6] for a Meir-Keeler type
contractive condition using the implicit relation:
Theorem A. ([6]) Let A, B, S and T be self-mappings of a metric space
(X, d) such that
(a) A(X) T (X), B(X) S(X),
(b) given ² > 0, there exists δ > 0 such that
² max {d(Sx, T y), d(Ax, Sx), d(By, T y),
1
2
[d(By, Sx) + d(Ax, T y))]} <
² + δ = d(Ax, By) < ²,
(c) there exists F F such that the inequality:
F (d(Ax, By), d(Sx, T y), d(Ax, Sx), d(By, T y), d(By, Sx), d(Ax, T y)) < 0,
holds for all x, y X.
If one of A(X), B(X), S(X) or T (X) is a complete subspace of X then,
(d) A and S have a coincidence point.
(e) B and T have a coincidence point.
Moreover, if the pairs (A, S) and (B, T ) are weakly compatible, then A,
B, S and T have a unique common fixed point.

Common fixed point theorem using implicit relation and property... 215
The following theorem was proved by Aamri and Moutawakil [1] under
property (E.A)using a contractive condition:
Theorem B. ([1]) Let A, B, S and T be self-mappings of a metric space
(X, d) such that
(a) d(Ax, By) φ(max {d(Sx, T y), d(By, Sx), d(By, T y)}, (x, y)
X
2
,
where φ :
R
+
R
+
is a non-decreasing function on
R
+
such that 0 < φ(t) <
t, for each t (0, ).
(b) (A, S) and (B, T ) are weakly compatible,
(c) (A, S) or (B, T ) satisfy property (E.A),
(d) A(X) T (X), B(X) S(X).
If the range of one of the mappings is a complete subspace of X, then A,
B, Sand T have a unique common fixed point.
In this paper, we intend to unify Theorem A and Theorem B by imposing
property (E.A).Theorem A uses the Meir-Keeler type contractive condition
which is to be removed by an independent notion viz. property (E.A). Sim-
ilarly, Theorem B uses a φ-contractive condition which is to be removed by
its generalized condition viz. implicit relation. Thus we will use property
(E.A) of [1] and implicit relation of [6] to unify under property(E.A) and
implicit relation.
The following two examples show that Meir-Keeler type contractive con-
dition and property (E.A) are independent to each other.
Example 3.8. Let A, B, S and T be four self-mappings of the metric space
([0, 1], d) with the usual metric d defined by
Ax = Bx = 0, if x = 0 or x = 1, Ax = Bx =
1
n+1
,if
1
n+1
x <
1
n
, n N;
and
Sx = T x = x, x X.
The Meir-Keeler type contractive condition is defined by:
given ² > 0, there exists a δ > 0 such that for all x, y X,
² M (x, y) < ² + δ = d(Ax, By) < ². (MKC)
where
M(x, y) = max {d(Sx, T y), d(Ax, Sx), d(By, T y),
1
2
[d(By, Sx)+d(Ax, T y))]}.
Let us discuss property (E.A) and MKC condition for various cases.
Here, (B, T ) satisfies property (E.A). Indeed, taking {
1
n+1
} [0, 1], we
getlim
n→∞
B(
1
n+1
) = lim
n→∞
1
n+1
= 0 = lim
n→∞
T (
1
n+1
) = lim
n→∞
1
n+1
.
Similarly, (A,S) satisfies property (E.A).
Next, we check that property MKC is not valid.

Citations
More filters

Journal ArticleDOI
Wutiphol Sintunavarat1, Poom Kumam1Institutions (1)
TL;DR: The notion of generalized multi-valued f -weak contraction is extended and introduced and some coincidence and common fixed point theorems with generalizedmulti-valued ( f , α , β ) -weak contracting mappings are established.
Abstract: In 2007, Kamran [T. Kamran, Multivalued f -weakly Picard mappings, Nonlinear Anal. 67 (2007) 2289–2296] extended the notion of multi-valued mapping from weak contraction and generalized ( α , L ) -weak contraction to f -weak contraction and generalized multi-valued f -weak contraction. He also obtained some common fixed point theorems with the notion of T -weakly commuting at a coincidence point of a hybrid pair. In this paper, we can drop the condition of T -weakly commuting in Theorems 2.9 and 3.5 in [5] . We further extend the notion of generalized multi-valued f -weak contraction and introduce the notion of generalized multi-valued ( f , α , β ) -weak contraction. We also establish some coincidence and common fixed point theorems with generalized multi-valued ( f , α , β ) -weak contraction mappings. Our results extend and generalize several common fixed point theorems of many authors.

68 citations


Journal Article
Abstract: Abstract In 2007, Kamran [T. Kamran, Multivalued f -weakly Picard mappings, Nonlinear Anal. 67 (2007) 2289–2296] extended the notion of multi-valued mapping from weak contraction and generalized ( α , L ) -weak contraction to f -weak contraction and generalized multi-valued f -weak contraction. He also obtained some common fixed point theorems with the notion of T -weakly commuting at a coincidence point of a hybrid pair. In this paper, we can drop the condition of T -weakly commuting in Theorems 2.9 and 3.5 in [5] . We further extend the notion of generalized multi-valued f -weak contraction and introduce the notion of generalized multi-valued ( f , α , β ) -weak contraction. We also establish some coincidence and common fixed point theorems with generalized multi-valued ( f , α , β ) -weak contraction mappings. Our results extend and generalize several common fixed point theorems of many authors.

65 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: In this paper, we prove a common fixed point theorem for a pair of weakly compatible mappings in fuzzy metric space using the joint common limit in the range property of mappings called (JCLR) property. An example is also furnished which demonstrates the validity of main result. We also extend our main result to two finite families of self mappings. Our results improve and generalize results of Cho et al. [Y. J. Cho, S. Sedghi and N. Shobe, “Generalized fixed point theorems for compatible mappings with some types in fuzzy metric spaces,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol. 39, No. 5, 2009, pp. 2233-2244.] and several known results existing in the literature.

56 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Dorel Miheţ1Institutions (1)
Abstract: We prove two common fixed point theorems for a pair of weakly compatible maps in fuzzy metric spaces both in the sense of Kramosil and Michalek and in the sense of George and Veeramani, by using E.A. property.

55 citations


Journal Article
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to prove a common fixed point theorem for a pair of weakly compatible mappings in fuzzy metric space by using the (CLRg) property. An example is also furnished which demonstrates the validity of our main result. As an application to our main result, we present a fixed point theorem for two finite families of self mappings in fuzzy metric space by using the notion of pairwise commuting. Our results improve the results of Sedghi, Shobe and Aliouche [A common fixed point theorem for weakly compatible mappings in fuzzy metric spaces, Gen. Math. 18(3) (2010), 3-12 MR2735558].

47 citations


References
More filters

Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: A common fixed point theorem of S.L. and S.P. Singh is generalized by weakening commutativity hypotheses and by increasing the number of functions involved.

1,207 citations


"A common fixed point theorem using ..." refers background in this paper

  • ...1) compatible [3] if limn→∞d(ASxn, SAxn) = 0, (1....

    [...]

  • ...The concept of weakly commuting mappings of Sessa [7] is sharpened by Jungck [3] and further generalized by Jungck and Rhoades [4]....

    [...]

  • ...Introduction The concept of weakly commuting mappings of Sessa [7] is sharpened by Jungck [3] and further generalized by Jungck and Rhoades [4]....

    [...]


Journal Article

642 citations


"A common fixed point theorem using ..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Mappings A and S are said to be weakly commuting[7] if d(SAx, ASx) ≤ d(Ax, Sx), for all x ∈ X, (1....

    [...]

  • ...The concept of weakly commuting mappings of Sessa [7] is sharpened by Jungck [3] and further generalized by Jungck and Rhoades [4]....

    [...]

  • ...Introduction The concept of weakly commuting mappings of Sessa [7] is sharpened by Jungck [3] and further generalized by Jungck and Rhoades [4]....

    [...]


Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: The main purpose of this paper is to give some new common fixed point theorems under strict contractive conditions for mappings satisfying a new property

525 citations


"A common fixed point theorem using ..." refers background or methods or result in this paper

  • ...Therefore our main Theorem 4.1 extends Theorem B of Aamri and Moutawakil, since they considered ψ to be nondecreasing and such that 0 < ψ(t) < t,t > 0, which clearly implies ψ(0) = 0....

    [...]

  • ...([1]) Let A, B, S and T be self-mappings of a metric space (X, d) such that (a) d(Ax,By) ≤ φ(max {d(Sx, Ty), d(By, Sx), d(By, Ty)}, ∀(x, y) ∈ X(2), where φ : R+ → R+ is a non-decreasing function on R+ such that 0 < φ(t) < t, for each t ∈ (0,∞)....

    [...]

  • ...Compare it with condition (ii) in Theorem 1 [1]....

    [...]

  • ...Our theorem improves and generalizes the main Theorems of Popa [6] and Aamri and Moutawakil [1]....

    [...]

  • ...A) of [1] and implicit relation of [6] to unify under property(E....

    [...]


Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: In this paper, we proved a common fixed point theorem for weakly compatible mappings in symmetric spaces satisfying a contractive condition of integral type and a property (E.A) introduced in [M. Aamri, D. El Moutawakil, Some new common fixed point theorems under strict contractive conditions, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 270 (2002) 181–188]. Our theorem generalizes Theorem 2.2 of [M. Aamri, D. El Moutawakil, Common fixed points under contractive conditions in symmetric spaces, Appl. Math. E-Notes 3 (2003) 156–162] and Theorem 2 of [M. Aamri, D. El Moutawakil, Some new common fixed point theorems under strict contractive conditions, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 270 (2002) 181–188].

132 citations


"A common fixed point theorem using ..." refers background in this paper

  • ...For a related problem, see Theorem 1 and Corollary 3 in [2]....

    [...]


Journal ArticleDOI
Xian Zhang1Institutions (1)
Abstract: In this paper, some new generalized contractive type conditions for a pair of mappings in metric space are defined. Some common fixed point results for these mappings are presented.

63 citations


"A common fixed point theorem using ..." refers background in this paper

  • ...F (d(Ax, By), d(x, y), d(Ax, x), d(By, y), d(By, x), d(Ax, y)) ≤ 0, for all x, y ∈ X, where F must satisfy all the conditions of implicit relation (see [8])....

    [...]

  • ...≤ ψ(G(max{d(x, y), d(Ax, x), d(By, y), 1 2 (d(By, x) + d(Ax, y))})), for all x, y ∈ X, which is similar to condition in Theorem 1 [8]....

    [...]

  • ...As a particular case, we can consider G(u) = ∫ u 0 φ(s) ds, where φ ≥ 0 is Lebesgue-integrable and such that ∫ 2 0 φ(t)dt > 0, for every 2 > 0, and ψ(t) = kt, with 0 ≤ k < 1 (see [8])....

    [...]


Performance
Metrics
No. of citations received by the Paper in previous years
YearCitations
20191
20184
20175
20164
20156
20146