Open Access

Common Fixed Points of Generalized Contractive Hybrid Pairs in Symmetric Spaces

Fixed Point Theory and Applications20092009:869407

https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/869407

Received: 16 April 2009

Accepted: 10 November 2009

Published: 3 December 2009

Abstract

Several fixed point theorems for hybrid pairs of single-valued and multivalued occasionally weakly compatible maps satisfying generalized contractive conditions are established in a symmetric space.

1. Introduction and Preliminaries

In 1968, Kannan [1] proved a fixed point theorem for a map satisfying a contractive condition that did not require continuity at each point. This paper was a genesis for a multitude of fixed point papers over the next two decades. Sessa [2] coined the term weakly commuting maps. Jungck [3] generalized the notion of weak commutativity by introducing compatible maps and then weakly compatible maps [4]. Al-Thagafi and Shahzad [5] gave a definition which is proper generalization of nontrivial weakly compatible maps which have coincidence points. Jungck and Rhoades [6] studied fixed point results for occasionally weakly compatible (owc) maps. Recently, Zhang [7] obtained common fixed point theorems for some new generalized contractive type mappings. Abbas and Rhoades [8] obtained common fixed point theorems for hybrid pairs of single-valued and multivalued owc maps defined on a symmetric space (see also [9]). For other related fixed point results in symmetric spaces and their applications, we refer to [1015]. The aim of this paper is to obtain fixed point theorems involving hybrid pairs of single-valued and multivalued owc maps satisfying a generalized contractive condition in the frame work of a symmetric space.

Definition 1.1.

A symmetric on a set is a mapping such that
(1.1)

A set together with a symmetric is called a symmetric space.

We will use the following notations, throughout this paper, where is a symmetric space, and , and is the class of all nonempty bounded subsets of The diameter of is denoted and defined by

(1.2)

Clearly, For and we write and respectively. We appeal to the fact that if and only if for

Recall that is called a coincidence point (resp., common fixed point) of and if (resp., ).

Definition 1.2.

Maps and are said to becompatible if for each and whenever is a sequence in such that ( ) and for some [21].

Definition 1.3.

Maps and are said to be weakly compatible if whenever

Definition 1.4.

Maps and are said to be owc if and only if there exists some point in such that and

Example 1.5.

Consider with usual metric.
  1. (a)
    Define and as: and
    (1.3)
     
then and are weakly compatible.
  1. (b)
    Define by
    (1.4)
     

It can be easily verified that is coincidence point of and but and are not weakly compatible there, as . Hence and are not compatible. However, the pair is occasionally weakly compatible, since the pair is weakly compatible at

Assume that satisfies the following.

(i) and for each .

(ii) is nondecreasing on

Define, satisfies above

Let satisfy the following.

(iii) for each .

(iv) is nondecreasing on

Define, satisfies above

For some examples of mappings which satisfy we refer to [7].

2. Common Fixed Point Theorems

In the sequel we shall consider, which is defined on where stands for a real number to the left of and assume that the mapping satisfies above.

Theorem 2.1.

Let be self maps of a symmetric space , and let be maps from into such that the pairs and are If
(2.1)
for each for which where
(2.2)

then , and have a unique common fixed point.

Proof.

By hypothesis there exist points in such that , and . Also, Therefore by (2.2) we have
(2.3)
Now we claim that . For, otherwise, by (2.1),
(2.4)
a contradiction and hence Obviously, Thus (2.2) gives
(2.5)
Next we claim that If not, then (2.1) implies
(2.6)

which is a contradiction and the claim follows. Similarly, we obtain Thus , and have a common fixed point. Uniqueness follows from (2.1).

Corollary 2.2.

Let be self maps of a symmetric space and let be maps from into such that the pairs and are If
(2.7)
for each for which where
(2.8)

and , then have a unique common fixed point.

Proof.

Since (2.7) is a special case of (2.1), the result follows from Theorem 2.1.

Corollary 2.3.

Let be self maps of a symmetric space and let be maps from into such that the pairs and are . If
(2.9)
for each for which where
(2.10)

where and Then , and have a unique common fixed point.

Proof.

Note that
(2.11)

So, (2.9) is a special case of (2.1) and hence the result follows from Theorem 2.1.

Corollary 2.4.

Let be a self map on a symmetric space and let be a map from into such that and are . If
(2.12)
for each for which where
(2.13)

Then and have a unique common fixed point.

Proof.

Condition (2.12) is a special case of condition (2.1) with and Therefore the result follows from Theorem 2.1.

Theorem 2.5.

Let be self maps of a symmetric space and let be maps from into such that the pairs and are If
(2.14)
for each for which ,
(2.15)

where , and , then and have a unique common fixed point.

Proof.

By hypothesis there exist points in such that and Therefore by (2.15) we have
(2.16)
Now we show that . Suppose not. Then condition (2.14) implies that
(2.17)
which is a contradiction and hence Note that, Thus (2.15) gives
(2.18)
Now we claim that If not, then condition (2.14) implies that
(2.19)

which is a contradiction, and hence the claim follows. Similarly, we obtain Thus , and have a common fixed point. Uniqueness follows easily from (2.14).

Define such that

) is nondecreasing in the 4th and 5th variables,

) if is such that
(2.20)

then .

Theorem 2.6.

Let be self maps of a symmetric space and let be maps from into such that the pairs and are . If
(2.21)

for all for which where then , and have a unique common fixed point.

Proof.

By hypothesis there exist points in such that , and Also, First we show that . Suppose not. Then condition (2.21) implies that
(2.22)
which, from implies that this further implies that, a contradiction. Hence the claim follows. Also, Next we claim that If not, then condition (2.21) implies that
(2.23)

which, from and implies that this further implies that Hence the claim follows. Similarly, it can be shown that which proves that is a common fixed point of , and . Uniqueness follows from (2.21) and ( ).

A control function is a continuous monotonically increasing function that satisfies and, if and only if

Let be such that for each

Theorem 2.7.

Let be self maps of symmetric space and let be maps from into such that the pairs and are If for a control function one has
(2.24)
for each for which right-hand side of (2.24) is not equal to zero where
(2.25)

then , and have a unique common fixed point.

Proof.

By hypothesis there exist points in such that , and Also, using the triangle inequality, we obtain Therefore by (2.25) we have
(2.26)
Now we show that . Suppose not. Then condition (2.24) implies that
(2.27)
which is a contradiction. Therefore which further implies that, Hence the claim follows. Again, Therefore by (2.25) we have
(2.28)
Next we claim that If not, then condition (2.24) implies
(2.29)

which is a contradiction. Therefore which further implies that Hence the claim follows. Similarly, it can be shown that which proves the result.

Set is continuous and nondecreasing mapping with if and only if

The following theorem generalizes [16, Theorem ].

Theorem 2.8.

Let be self maps of a symmetric space , and let be maps from into such that the pairs and are If
(2.30)

for all , for which right-hand side of (2.30) is not equal to zero where then , and have a unique common fixed point.

Proof.

By hypothesis there exist points in such that , and Also, using the triangle inequality, we obtain, Now we claim that . For, otherwise, by (2.30),
(2.31)
which is a contradiction. Therefore Hence the claim follows. Again, Now we claim that If not, then condition (2.30) implies that
(2.32)

which is a contradiction, and hence the claim follows. Similarly, it can be shown that which, proves that is a common fixed point of , and . Uniqueness follows easily from (2.30).

Example 2.9.

Let Define by
(2.33)

Note that is symmetric but not a metric on .

Define by
(2.34)
and as follows:
(2.35)

Clearly, but and but they show that is not weakly compatible. On the other hand, gives that Hence is occasionally weakly compatible. Note that , , , and they imply that is not weakly compatible Now gives that . Hence is occasionally weakly compatible. As and so is the unique common fixed point of , and

Remark 2.10 s.

Weakly compatible maps are occasionally weakly compatible but converse is not true in general. The class of symmetric spaces is more general than that of metric spaces. Therefore the following results can be viewed as special cases of our results:

(a)([17, Theorem ] and [18, Theorem ]) are special cases of Theorem 2.7.

(b)[19, Theorem ], [20, Theorem ], [21, Theorem ], and [22, Theorem ] are special cases of Corollary 2.2. Moreover, [23, Theorem ] and [24, Theorem ] also become special cases of Corollary 2.2.
  1. (c)

    ([25, Theorem ]) is a special case of Theorem 2.1. Theorem 2.1 also generalizes ([26, Theorem ]) and ( [27, Theorems and ]).

     

(d)[28, Theorem ] becomes special case of Corollary 2.4.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the referees for their critical remarks to improve this paper. The second author gratefully acknowledges the support provided by King Fahad University of Petroleum and Minerals during this research.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Centre for Advanced Studies in Mathematics and Department of Mathematics, Lahore University of Management Sciences
(2)
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals

References

  1. Kannan R: Some results on fixed points. Bulletin of the Calcutta Mathematical Society 1968, 60: 71–76.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Sessa S: On a weak commutativity condition of mappings in fixed point considerations. Publications de l'Institut Mathématique. Nouvelle Série 1982, 32(46): 149–153.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Jungck G: Compatible mappings and common fixed points. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences 1986,9(4):771–779. 10.1155/S0161171286000935MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Jungck G: Common fixed points for noncontinuous nonself maps on nonmetric spaces. Far East Journal of Mathematical Sciences 1996,4(2):199–215.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Al-Thagafi MA, Shahzad N: Generalized -nonexpansive selfmaps and invariant approximations. Acta Mathematica Sinica 2008,24(5):867–876. 10.1007/s10114-007-5598-xMathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Jungck G, Rhoades BE: Fixed point theorems for occasionally weakly compatible mappings. Fixed Point Theory 2006,7(2):287–296.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Zhang X: Common fixed point theorems for some new generalized contractive type mappings. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2007,333(2):780–786. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.11.028MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Abbas M, Rhoades BE: Common fixed point theorems for hybrid pairs of occasionally weakly compatible mappings defined on symmetric spaces. Panamerican Mathematical Journal 2008,18(1):55–62.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Abbas M, Rhoades BE: Common fixed point theorems for occasionally weakly compatible mappings satisfying a generalized contractive condition. Mathematical Communications 2008,13(2):295–301.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Aliouche A: A common fixed point theorem for weakly compatible mappings in symmetric spaces satisfying a contractive condition of integral type. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2006,322(2):796–802. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.09.068MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Chandra H, Bhatt A: Some fixed point theorems for set valued maps in symmetric spaces. International Journal of Mathematical Analysis 2009,3(17):839–846.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Cho S-H, Lee G-Y, Bae J-S: On coincidence and fixed-point theorems in symmetric spaces. Fixed Point Theory and Applications 2008, 2008:-9.Google Scholar
  13. Hicks TL, Rhoades BE: Fixed point theory in symmetric spaces with applications to probabilistic spaces. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications 1999,36(3):331–344. 10.1016/S0362-546X(98)00002-9MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Imdad M, Ali J: Common fixed point theorems in symmetric spaces employing a new implicit function and common property (E.A). Bulletin of the Belgian Mathematical Society. Simon Stevin 2009, 16: 421–433.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Pathak HK, Tiwari R, Khan MS: A common fixed point theorem satisfying integral type implicit relations. Applied Mathematics E-Notes 2007, 7: 222–228.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Beg I, Abbas M: Coincidence point and invariant approximation for mappings satisfying generalized weak contractive condition. Fixed Point Theory and Applications 2006, 2006:-7.Google Scholar
  17. Chang TH: Common fixed point theorems for multivalued mappings. Mathematica Japonica 1995,41(2):311–320.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Shrivastava PK, Bawa NPS, Nigam SK: Fixed point theorems for hybrid contractions. Varāhmihir Journal of Mathematical Sciences 2002,2(2):275–281.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Azam A, Beg I: Coincidence points of compatible multivalued mappings. Demonstratio Mathematica 1996,29(1):17–22.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Kamran T: Common coincidence points of R -weakly commuting maps. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences 2001,26(3):179–182. 10.1155/S0161171201005245MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Jungck G, Rhoades BE: Fixed points for set valued functions without continuity. Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 1998,29(3):227–238.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Hadžić O: Common fixed point theorems for single-valued and multivalued mappings. Review of Research. Faculty of Science. Mathematics Series 1988,18(2):145–151.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaneko H, Sessa S: Fixed point theorems for compatible multi-valued and single-valued mappings. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences 1989,12(2):257–262. 10.1155/S0161171289000293MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaneko H: A common fixed point of weakly commuting multi-valued mappings. Mathematica Japonica 1988,33(5):741–744.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Fisher B: Common fixed points for set-valued mappings. Indian Journal of Mathematics 1983,25(3):265–270.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Sessa S, Fisher B: On common fixed points of weakly commuting mappings and set-valued mappings. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences 1986,9(2):323–329. 10.1155/S0161171286000406MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Fisher B: Common fixed point theorem for commutative mappings and set valued mappings. Journal of University of Kuwait 1984, 11: 15–21.MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Dhage BC: Common fixed point theorems for coincidentally commuting pairs of nonself mappings in metrically convex metric spaces. Analele Ştiinţifice ale Universităţii Al. I. Cuza din Iaşi. Serie Nouă. Matematică 2003,49(1):45–60.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© M. Abbas and A. R. Khan. 2009

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.