# Common Fixed Point Theorems for a Finite Family of Discontinuous and Noncommutative Maps

- Lai-Jiu Lin
^{1}Email author and - Sung-Yu Wang
^{1}

**2011**:847170

https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/847170

© Lai-Jiu Lin and Sung-Yu Wang. 2011

**Received: **30 December 2010

**Accepted: **20 February 2011

**Published: **13 March 2011

## Abstract

We study common fixed point theorems for a finite family of discontinuous and noncommutative single-valued functions defined in complete metric spaces. We also study a common fixed point theorem for two multivalued self-mappings and a stationary point theorem in complete metric spaces. Throughout this paper, we establish common fixed point theorems without commuting and continuity assumptions. In contrast, commuting or continuity assumptions are often assumed in common fixed point theorems. We also give examples to show our results. Results in this paper except those that generalized Banach contraction principle and those improve and generalize recent results in fixed point theorem are original and different from any existence result in the literature. The results in this paper will have some applications in nonlinear analysis and fixed point theory.

## Keywords

## 1. Introduction and Preliminaries

Let be a metric space and be a multivalued map. We say that is a stationary point of if . The existence theorem of stationary point was first considered by Dancs et al. [1]. If is a self-mapping (multivalued or single valued) defined on , we denote the collection of all the fixed points of . In this paper,we need the following definitions.

Definition 1.1.

*weakly contractive*if there exists a lower semicontinuous and nondecreasing function with if and only if such that

for some constant and function .

The result of Zhang and Song [8] generalized the results in [2, 3, 5, 6]. Motivated by Chang [7], Zhang and Song [8], it is natural to ask whether there is a common fixed point of and in satisfy inequality (1.5) with . In this paper, we give a positive answer to this question in complete metric spaces.

Here, is the identity map defined on and . We show that have a unique common fixed point if is complete. As a special case of this result, we give a common fixed point theorem in complete metric spaces under the assumption that inequality (1.5) holds with . One of our results generalized Banach contraction principle, an example is given (Example 2.12) to show that the maps above need not to be continuous. The assumption of continuity is often used in the existence theorems of fixed points [6, 9–14]. We also give an example to show that the family above is not necessary to be commuting, and in contrast that the commutativity assumption is often used in the existence theorems of common fixed points [9, 10, 13, 15, 16]. Finally, we generalize some of our results to the case of multivalued maps.

for some (where denotes the Hausdorff metric). In fact, under the hypothesis that inequality (1.10) holds, we can show that and for all if and have nonempty closed bounded values. Further we give a new stationary point theorem in complete metric spaces and illustrate with examples (Examples 3.4 and 3.8).

## 2. Fixed Point Theorems

Throughout this paper, let be a complete metric space and let be the set of all positive integers. In this section, all the self-maps on are single valued. The following theorem is the main result in this section.

Theorem 2.1.

is the identity map defined on and .

Then, have a unique common fixed point.

Proof.

We consider the following two cases:

This yields a contradiction.

Then . This also yields a contradiction.

Therefore, and is a Cauchy sequence in . Since is complete, converges to a point in , say .

In order to show that is the unique common fixed point of . We first claim that , for all .

We consider the following three cases:

Continuing in this process, we show that . By the same argument as in the case above, we see that .

Then, and . Therefore, is the unique fixed point of and we complete the proof.

- (a)
The sequence approaching to the unique common fixed point in Theorem 2.1 is different from those in [8, 11, 12, 16–19].

- (b)
The finite family of self-mappings in Theorem 2.1 is neither commuting nor continuous, which are often assumed in common fixed point theorems, see [6, 9–16]. In fact, the commuting and continuity assumptions are not needed throughout this paper and we will give examples (Examples 2.12–2.15) to show this fact.

As special cases of Theorem 2.1, we have the following theorems and corollaries.

Theorem 2.3.

for all . Then and have a unique common fixed point.

Proof.

Take , and in Theorem 2.1, then Theorem 2.3 follows from Theorem 2.1.

Corollary 2.4.

Then and have a unique common fixed point.

Corollary 2.5.

Then has a unique fixed point.

Proof.

Take in Theorem 2.3, then Corollary 2.4 follows from Corollary 2.4.

- (b)
Corollary 2.4 is equivalent to Corollary 2.5.

Proof.

Theorem 2.7.

and is the identity map defined on and .

Then have a unique common fixed point.

Proof.

Take for all , then Theorem 2.7 follows from Theorem 2.1.

Theorem 2.8.

for all . Then and have unique common fixed point.

Proof.

Take, , and in Theorem 2.7, then Theorem 2.8 follows from Theorem 2.7.

Corollary 2.9.

Then, and have a unique common fixed point.

Corollary 2.10.

Then has a unique fixed point.

Proof.

Take in Corollary 2.9, then Corollary 2.10 follows from Corollary 2.9.

- (i)
If is contractive, then there exists such that for all , but the converse is not true. It is obvious that Corollary 2.9 is a special case of Corollaries 2.4 and 2.10 is a generalization of Banach contraction principle. Further we see that Corollary 2.9 is equivalent to Corollary 2.10 by the same argument as in Remark 2.6.

- (ii)
A map satisfies for all and for some is neither continuous nor nonexpansive. We give an example (Example 2.12) to show this fact.

Example 2.12.

Then, for all and is not continuous.

Proof.

We consider the following three cases:

and, hence . It is obvious that is not continuous at but for all .

Example 2.13.

Let be the same as in Example 2.12. and take for all . Since for all . By Example 2.12 and Corollary 2.10, we see that has a unique common fixed point. But for each , is not continuous, the results in [13, 16] do not work in this example. Further it is obvious that the family have a unique common fixed point 0.

Example 2.14.

Let and define maps by and . Then and we see that and have a unique common fixed point.

Proof.

We have to consider the following two cases:

If we take , then by Theorem 2.8, we see that and have a unique common fixed point. In fact, 0 is the unique common fixed point of and .

By the same argument as in Example 2.14, we give the following example to show that the maps and in Theorem 2.8 are not necessary to be commuting.

Example 2.15.

Let and define maps by and . Then and are not commuting and we see that and have a unique common fixed point.

Proof.

We have to consider the following two cases:

If we take , then by Theorem 2.8, we see and have a unique common fixed point. In fact, 0 is the unique common fixed point of and .

## 3. A Common Fixed Point Theorem of Set-Valued Maps and a Stationary Point Theorem

In this section, we study a fixed point theorem and a stationary point theorem which generalize a fixed point theorem in Section 2.

In this section, let be the class of all nonempty bounded closed subsets of and for , let be the Hausdorff metric of and and let for all .

Lemma 3.1 (see [20]).

For all , and , there exists such that .

Theorem 3.2.

Proof.

To complete the proof, it suffices to show the following four cases:

This shows that . Till now, we see that and for all .

- (a)
If one of and in Theorem 3.2 is single valued, then the set is singleton and the maps and have a unique common fixed point in . Therefore, Theorem 3.2 is a generalization of Corollary 2.9, but Theorem 3.2 is not a generalization of Theorem 5 Nadler [20].

- (b)
The sequence approaches to the common fixed point of and in Theorem 3.2 is different from those in [20–25].

- (c)
By Example 2.12, we see that both and in Theorem 3.2 are neither to be upper semicontinuous nor to be lower semicontinuous (multivalued maps). Further the maps and are not necessary to be commuting. We give an example below.

Example 3.4.

Let and let maps be defined by and . Then we see that and have a unique common fixed point.

Proof.

We have to consider the following two cases:

If we take , then by Theorem 3.2, we see and have a unique common fixed point. In fact, 0 is the unique common fixed point of and .

Corollary 3.5.

Similarly, we have the following existence theorem of stationary points.

Theorem 3.6.

Then has a unique stationary point, say . In fact, and .

Proof.

This yields a contradiction. Therefore and is a Cauchy sequence in . By the completeness of , converges to a point in , say .

- (a)
The single valued map in Theorem 3.6 is not necessary to be continuous (see Example 2.12), but the continuity assumption is used in Theorem 3.2 [21, 22, 25] and Theorem 2.1 Ćirić and Ume [23]. We give an example to show that and in Theorem 3.6 are not necessary to be commuting.

- (b)
Theorems 3.2 and 3.6 are different and Theorem 3.6 is also a generalization of Corollary 2.9.

Example 3.8.

Let and let maps and be defined by and . Then we see that has a unique stationary point.

Proof.

We have to consider the following two cases:

If we take . Then by Theorem 3.6, we see has a unique stationary point. In fact, 0 is the unique stationary point of .

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Dancs S, Hegedüs M, Medvegyev P:
**A general ordering and fixed-point principle in complete metric space.***Acta Scientiarum Mathematicarum*1983,**46**(1–4):381–388.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Banach S:
**Sur les operations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux equations integrales.***Fundamenta Mathematican*1922,**3:**133–181.MATHGoogle Scholar - Kannan R:
**Some results on fixed points—II.***The American Mathematical Monthly*1969,**76:**405–408. 10.2307/2316437MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Ćirić LB:
**A generalization of Banach's contraction principle.***Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society*1974,**45:**267–273.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Rhoades BE:
**A comparison of various definitions of contractive mappings.***Transactions of the American Mathematical Society*1977,**226:**257–290.MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Rhoades BE:
**Some theorems on weakly contractive maps.***Nonlinear Analysis. Theory, Methods & Applications*2001,**47:**2683–2693. 10.1016/S0362-546X(01)00388-1MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Chang SS:
**Random fixed point theorem in probabilistic analysis.***Nonlinear Analysis*1981,**5**(2):113–122. 10.1016/0362-546X(81)90037-7MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Zhang Q, Song Y:
**Fixed point theory for generalized**φ**-weak contractions.***Applied Mathematics Letters*2009,**22**(1):75–78. 10.1016/j.aml.2008.02.007MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Al-Thagafi MA:
**Common fixed points and best approximation.***Journal of Approximation Theory*1996,**85**(3):318–323. 10.1006/jath.1996.0045MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Ilić D, Rakočević V:
**Common fixed points for maps on cone metric space.***Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*2008,**341**(2):876–882. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.10.065MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Ishikawa S:
**Fixed points by a new iteration method.***Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society*1974,**44:**147–150. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1974-0336469-5MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Ishikawa S:
**Fixed points and iteration of a nonexpansive mapping in a Banach space.***Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society*1976,**59**(1):65–71. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1976-0412909-XMATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Kaewcharoen A, Kirk WA:
**Nonexpansive mappings defined on unbounded domains.***Fixed Point Theory and Applications*2006,**2006:**-13.Google Scholar - Oliveira P:
**Two results on fixed points.***Nonlinear Analysis. Theory, Methods & Applicationsand Methods*2001,**47:**2703–2717. 10.1016/S0362-546X(01)00390-XMATHView ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Kuczumow T, Reich S, Shoikhet D:
**The existence and non-existence of common fixed points for commuting families of holomorphic mappings.***Nonlinear Analysis. Theory, Methods & Applications*2001,**43**(1):45–59. 10.1016/S0362-546X(99)00175-3MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Xiao J-Z, Zhu X-H:
**Common fixed point theorems on weakly contractive and nonexpansive mappings.***Fixed Point Theory and Applications*2008,**2008:**-8.Google Scholar - Kirk WA:
**On successive approximations for nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces.***Glasgow Mathematical Journal*1971,**12:**6–9. 10.1017/S0017089500001063MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Pant RP:
**Common fixed point theorems for contractive maps.***Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*1998,**226**(1):251–258. 10.1006/jmaa.1998.6029MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Shimizu T, Takahashi W:
**Strong convergence to common fixed points of families of nonexpansive mappings.***Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*1997,**211**(1):71–83. 10.1006/jmaa.1997.5398MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Nadler, SB Jr.:
**Multi-valued contraction mappings.***Pacific Journal of Mathematics*1969,**30:**475–488.MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Ahmad A, Imdad M:
**Some common fixed point theorems for mappings and multi-valued mappings.***Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*1998,**218**(2):546–560. 10.1006/jmaa.1997.5738MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Ahmed A, Khan AR:
**Some common fixed point theorems for non-self-hybrid contractions.***Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*1997,**213**(1):275–286. 10.1006/jmaa.1997.5537MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Ćirić LB, Ume JS:
**Some common fixed point theorems for weakly compatible mappings.***Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*2006,**314**(2):488–499. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.04.007MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Daffer PZ, Kaneko H:
**Fixed points of generalized contractive multi-valued mappings.***Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*1995,**192**(2):655–666. 10.1006/jmaa.1995.1194MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Imdad M, Khan L:
**Fixed point theorems for a family of hybrid pairs of mappings in metrically convex spaces.***Fixed Point Theory and Applications*2005, (3):281–294.MATHGoogle Scholar

## Copyright

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.