Open Access

Fixed point of generalized weakly contractive mappings in ordered partial metric spaces

Fixed Point Theory and Applications20122012:1

https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2012-1

Received: 6 July 2011

Accepted: 2 January 2012

Published: 2 January 2012

Abstract

In this article, we prove some fixed point results for generalized weakly contractive mappings defined on a partial metric space. We provide some examples to validate our results. These results unify, generalize and complement various known comparable results from the current literature.

AMS Classification 2010: 47H10; 54H25; 54E50.

Keywords

partial metric spaceweakly contractive conditionnondecreasing mapfixed pointpartially ordered set

1 Introduction and preliminaries

In the past years, the extension of the theory of fixed point to generalized structures as cone metrics, partial metric spaces and quasi-metric spaces has received much attention (see, for instance, [17] and references therein). Partial metric space is generalized metric space in which each object does not necessarily have to have a zero distance from itself [8]. A motivation behind introducing the concept of a partial metric was to obtain appropriate mathematical models in the theory of computation and, in particular, to give a modified version of the Banach contraction principle, more suitable in this context [8, 9]. Salvador and Schellekens [10] have shown that the dual complexity space can be modelled as stable partial monoids. Subsequently, several authors studied the problem of existence and uniqueness of a fixed point for mappings satisfying different contractive conditions (e.g., [1, 2, 1118]).

Existence of fixed points in ordered metric spaces has been initiated in 2004 by Ran and Reurings [19], and further studied by Nieto and Lopez [20]. Subsequently, several interesting and valuable results have appeared in this direction [2128].

The aim of this article is to study the necessary conditions for existence of common fixed points of four maps satisfying generalized weak contractive conditions in the framework of complete partial metric spaces endowed with a partial order. Our results extend and strengthen various known results [8, 2932].

In the sequel, the letters , +, ω and will denote the set of real numbers, the set of nonnegative real numbers, the set of nonnegative integer numbers and the set of positive integer numbers, respectively. The usual order on (respectively, on +) will be indistinctly denoted by ≤ or by ≥.

Consistent with [8, 12], the following definitions and results will be needed in the sequel.

Definition 1.1. Let X be a nonempty set. A mapping p : X × X+ is said to be a partial metric on X if for any x, y, z X, the following conditions hold true:

(P1) p(x, x) = p(y, y) = p(x, y) if and only if x = y;

(P2) p(x, x) ≤ p(x, y);

(P3) p(x, y) = p(y, x);

(P4) p(x, z) ≤ p(x, y) + p(y, z) - p(y, y).

The pair (X, p) is then called a partial metric space. Throughout this article, X will denote a partial metric space equipped with a partial metric p unless or otherwise stated.

If p(x, y) = 0, then (P1) and (P2) imply that x = y. But converse does not hold always.

A trivial example of a partial metric space is the pair (+, p), where p : + × ++ is defined as p(x, y) = max{x, y}.

Example 1.2. [8] If X = {[a, b]: a, b , ab} then p([a, b], [c, d]) = max{b, d} - min{a, c} defines a partial metric p on X.

For some more examples of partial metric spaces, we refer to [12, 13, 16, 17].

Each partial metric p on X generates a T0 topology τ p on X which has as a base the family of open p-balls {B p (x, ε): x X, ε > 0}, where B p (x, ε) = {y X : p(x, y) < p(x, x) + ε}, for all x X and ε > 0.

Observe (see [8, p. 187]) that a sequence {x n } in X converges to a point x X, with respect to τ p , if and only if p ( x , x ) = lim n p ( x , x n ) .

If p is a partial metric on X, then the function p S : X × X+ given by p S (x, y) = 2p(x, y) -p(x, x) -p(y, y), defines a metric on X.

Furthermore, a sequence {x n } converges in (X, p S ) to a point x X if and only if
lim n , m p ( x n , x m ) = lim n p ( x n , x ) = p ( x , x ) .
(1.1)
Definition 1.3. [8] Let X be a partial metric space.
  1. (a)

    A sequence {x n } in X is said to be a Cauchy sequence if lim n , m p ( x n , x m ) exists and is finite.

     
  2. (b)

    X is said to be complete if every Cauchy sequence {x n } in X converges with respect to τ p to a point x X such that lim n p ( x , x n ) = p ( x , x ) . In this case, we say that the partial metric p is complete.

     
Lemma 1.4. [8, 12] Let X be a partial metric space. Then:
  1. (a)

    A sequence {x n } in X is a Cauchy sequence in X if and only if it is a Cauchy sequence in metric space (X, p S ).

     
  2. (b)

    A partial metric space X is complete if and only if the metric space (X, p S ) is complete.

     
Definition 1.5. A mapping f : X - X is said to be a weakly contractive if
d ( f x , f y ) d ( x , y ) - φ ( d ( x , y ) ) , for all  x , y X ,
(1.2)

In 1997, Alber and Guerre-Delabriere [33] proved that weakly contractive mapping defined on a Hilbert space is a Picard operator. Rhoades [34] proved that the corresponding result is also valid when Hilbert space is replaced by a complete metric space. Dutta et al. [35] generalized the weak contractive condition and proved a fixed point theorem for a selfmap, which in turn generalizes Theorem 1 in [34] and the corresponding result in [33].

Recently, Aydi [29] obtained the following result in partial metric spaces.

Theorem 1.6. Let (X, ≤ X ) be a partially ordered set and let p be a partial metric on X such that (X, p) is complete. Let f : XX be a nondecreasing map with respect to ≤ X . Suppose that the following conditions hold: for yx, we have

(i)
p ( f x , f y ) p ( x , y ) - φ ( p ( x , y ) ) ,
(1.3)
where φ : [0, +∞[→ [0, +∞[is a continuous and non-decreasing function such that it is positive in ]0, +∞[, φ(0) = 0 and lim t φ ( t ) = ;
  1. (ii)

    there exist x0 X such that x0 X fx0;

     
  2. (iii)

    f is continuous in (X, p), or;

     
  3. (iii)

    if a non-decreasing sequence {x n } converges to x X, then x n X × for all n.

     

Then f has a fixed point u X. Moreover, p(u, u) = 0.

A nonempty subset W of a partially ordered set X is said to be well ordered if every two elements of W are comparable.

2 Fixed point results

In this section, we obtain several fixed point results for selfmaps satisfying generalized weakly contractive conditions defined on an ordered partial metric space, i.e., a (partially) ordered set endowed with a complete partial metric.

We start with the following result.

Theorem 2.1. Let (X, ) be a partially ordered set such that there exist a complete partial metric p on X and f a nondecreasing selfmap on X. Suppose that for every two elements x, y X with y x, we have
ψ ( p ( f x , f y ) ) ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x , y ) ) ,
(2.1)
where
M ( x , y ) = max { p ( x , y ) , p ( f x , x ) , p ( f y , y ) , p ( x , f y ) + p ( y , f x ) 2 } ,
ψ, ϕ : ++, ψ is continuous and nondecreasing, ϕ is a lower semicontinuous, and ψ(t) = ϕ(t) = 0 if and only if t = 0. If there exists x0 X with x0 fx0 and one of the following two conditions is satisfied:
  1. (a)

    f is continuous self map on (X, p S );

     
  2. (b)

    for any nondecreasing sequence {x n } in (X, ) with lim n p S ( z , x n ) = 0 it follows x n z for all n ,

     

then f has a fixed point. Moreover, the set of fixed points of f is well ordered if and only if f has one and only one fixed point.

Proof. Note that if f has a fixed point u, then p(u, u) = 0. Indeed, assume that p(u, u) > 0. Then from (2.1) with x = y = u, we have
ψ ( p ( u , u ) ) = ψ ( p ( f u , f u ) ) ψ ( M ( u , u ) ) - ϕ ( M ( u , u ) ) ,
(2.2)
where
M ( u , u ) = max { p ( u , u ) , p ( f u , u ) , p ( f u , u ) , p ( u , f u ) + p ( u , f u ) 2 } = max { p ( u , u ) , p ( u , u ) , p ( u , u ) , p ( u , u ) + p ( u , u ) 2 } = p ( u , u ) .
Now we have:
ψ ( p ( u , u ) ) = ψ ( p ( f u , f u ) ) ψ ( p ( u , u ) ) - ϕ ( p ( u , u ) ) ,
ϕ(p(u, u)) ≤ 0, a contradiction. Hence p(u, u) = 0. Now we shall prove that there exists a nondecreasing sequence {x n } in (X, ) with fx n = xn+1for all n , and lim n p ( x n , x n + 1 ) = 0 . For this, let x0 be an arbitrary point of X. Since f is nondecreasing, and x0 fx0, we have
x 1 = f x 0 f 2 x 0 f n x 0 f n + 1 x 0 .
Define a sequence {x n } in X with x n = f n x0 and so xn+1= fx n for n . We may assume that M(xn+1, x n ) > 0, for all n . If not, then it is clear that x k = xk+1for some k, so fx k = xk+1= x k , and thus x k is a fixed point of f. Now, by taking M(xn+1, x n ) > 0 for all n , consider
ψ ( p ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) ) = ψ ( p ( f x n + 1 , f x n ) ) ψ ( M ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) ,
(2.3)
where
M ( x n + 1 , x n ) = max { p ( x n + 1 , x n ) , p ( f x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) , p ( f x n , x n ) , p ( x n + 1 , f x n ) + p ( x n , f x n + 1 ) 2 } = max { p ( x n + 1 , x n ) , p ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) , p ( x n + 1 , x n ) , p ( x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) + p ( x n , x n + 2 ) 2 } max { p ( x n + 1 , x n ) , p ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) , p ( x n , x n + 1 ) + p ( x n + 1 , x n + 2 ) 2 } = max { p ( x n + 1 , x n ) , p ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) } .

Suppose that max{p(xk+1, x k ), p(xk+2, xk+1)} = p(xk+2, xk+1) for some k .

Then ψ(p(xk+2, xk+1)) ≤ ψ(p(xk+2, xk+1)) -ϕ(M(xk+1, x k )) implies ϕ(M (xk+1, x k )) ≤ 0, a contradiction. Consequently
ψ ( p ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) ) ψ ( p ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) ψ ( p ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) ,
for all n . Since ψ is nondecreasing, so the sequence of positive real numbers {p(xn+1, x n )} is nonincreasing, therefore {p(xn+1, x n )} converges to a c ≥ 0. Suppose that c > 0. Then
ψ ( p ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) ) ψ ( M ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) ,
and lower semicontinuity of ϕ gives that
lim sup n ψ ( p ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) ) lim sup n ψ ( M ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) - lim inf n ϕ ( M ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) ,

which implies that ψ(c) ≤ ψ(c) - ϕ(c), a contradiction. Therefore c = 0, i.e., lim n p ( x n + 1 , x n ) = 0 .

Now, we prove that lim n , m p ( x n , x m ) = 0 . If not, then there exists ε > 0 and sequences {n k }, {m k } in , with n k > m k k, and such that p ( x n k , x m k ) ε for all k . We can suppose, without loss of generality that p ( x n k , x m k - 1 ) < ε .

So
ε p ( x m k , x n k ) p ( x n k , x m k - 1 ) + p ( x m k - 1 , x m k ) - p ( x m k - 1 , x m k - 1 )
implies that
lim k p ( x m k , x n k ) = ε .
(2.4)
Also (2.4) and inequality p ( x m k , x n k ) p ( x m k , x m k - 1 ) + p ( x m k - 1 , x n k ) - p ( x m k - 1 , x m k - 1 ) gives that ε lim k p ( x m k - 1 , x n k ) , while (2.4) and inequality p ( x m k - 1 , x n k ) p ( x m k - 1 , x m k ) + p ( x m k , x n k ) - p ( x m k , x m k ) yields lim k p ( x m k - 1 , x n k ) ε , and hence
lim k p ( x m k - 1 , x n k ) = ε .
(2.5)

Also (2.5) and inequality p ( x m k - 1 , x n k ) p ( x m k - 1 , x n k + 1 ) + p ( x n k + 1 , x n k ) - p ( x n k + 1 , x n k + 1 ) implies that ε lim k p ( x m k - 1 , x n k + 1 ) , while inequality p ( x m k - 1 , x n k + 1 ) p ( x m k - 1 , x n k ) + p ( x n k , x n k + 1 ) - p ( x n k , x n k ) yields lim k p ( x m k - 1 , x n k + 1 ) ε , and

hence
lim k p ( x m k - 1 , x n k + 1 ) = ε .
(2.6)
Finally p ( x m k , x n k ) p ( x m k , x n k + 1 ) + p ( x n k + 1 , x n k ) - p ( x n k + 1 , x n k + 1 ) gives that ε < lim k p ( x m k , x n k + 1 ) , and the inequality p ( x m k , x n k + 1 ) p ( x m k , x n k ) + p ( x n k , x n k + 1 ) - p ( x n k , x n k ) gives lim k p ( x m k , x n k + 1 ) ε , and hence
lim k p ( x m k , x n k + 1 ) = ε .
(2.7)
As
M ( x n k , x m k - 1 ) = max { p ( x n k , x m k - 1 ) , p ( f x n k , x n k ) , p ( f x m k - 1 , x m k - 1 ) , p ( x n k , f x m k - 1 ) + p ( x m k - 1 , f x n k ) 2 } = max { p ( x n k , x m k - 1 ) , p ( x n k + 1 , x n k ) , p ( x m k , x m k - 1 ) , p ( x n k , x m k ) + p ( x m k - 1 , x n k + 1 ) 2 } ,
therefore lim k M ( x n k , x m k - 1 ) = max { ε , 0 , 0 , ε } = ε . From (2.1), we obtain
ψ ( p ( x n k + 1 , x m k ) ) = ψ ( p ( f x n k , f x m k - 1 ) ) ψ ( M ( x n k , x m k - 1 ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x n k , x m k - 1 ) ) .
Taking upper limit as k → ∞ implies that ψ(ε) ≤ ψ(ε) - ϕ(ε), which is a contradiction as ε > 0. Thus, we obtain that lim n , m p ( x n , x m ) = 0 , i.e., {x n } is a Cauchy sequence in (X, p), and hence in the metric space (X, p S ) by Lemma 1.4. Finally, we prove that f has a fixed point. Indeed, since (X, p) is complete, then from Lemma 1.4, (X, p S ) is also complete, so the sequence {x n } is convergent in the metric space (X, p S ). Therefore, there exists u X such that lim n p S ( u , x n ) = 0 , equivalently,
lim n , m p ( x n , x m ) = lim n p ( x n , u ) = p ( u , u ) = 0 ,
(2.8)
because lim n , m p ( x n , x m ) = 0 . If f is continuous self map on (X, p S ), then it is clear that fu = u. If f is not continuous, we have, by our hypothesis, that x n u for all n , because {x n } is a nondecreasing sequence with lim n , m p ( x n , x m ) = lim n p ( x n , u ) = p ( u , u ) = 0 , . Now from the following inequalities
p ( f u , u ) M ( u , x n ) = max { p ( u , x n ) , p ( f u , u ) , p ( f x n , x n ) , p ( u , f x n ) + p ( x n , f u ) 2 } = max { p ( u , x n ) , p ( f u , u ) , p ( x n + 1 , x n ) , p ( u , x n + 1 ) + p ( x n , f u ) 2 } max { p ( u , x n ) , p ( f u , u ) , p ( x n + 1 , x n ) , p ( x n + 1 , u ) + p ( x n , u ) + p ( u , f u ) - p ( u , u ) 2 } ,
we deduce, taking limit as n → ∞, that
lim n M ( u , x n ) = p ( f u , u ) .
Hence,
ψ ( p ( f u , f x n + 1 ) ) ψ ( M ( u , x n ) ) - ϕ ( M ( u , x n ) ) .
(2.9)
On taking upper limit as n → ∞, we have
ψ ( p ( f u , u ) ) ψ ( p ( f u , u ) ) - ϕ ( p ( f u , u ) ) ,
and fu = u. Finally, suppose that set of fixed points of f is well ordered. We prove that fixed point of f is unique. Assume on contrary that fv = v and fw = w but vw. Hence
ψ ( p ( v , w ) ) = ψ ( p ( f v , f w ) ) ψ ( M ( v , w ) ) - ϕ ( M ( v , w ) ) ,
(2.10)
where
M ( v , w ) = max { p ( v , w ) , p ( f v , v ) , p ( f w , w ) , p ( v , f w ) + p ( w , f v ) 2 } = max { p ( v , w ) , p ( v , v ) , p ( w , w ) , p ( v , w ) + p ( w , v ) 2 } = p ( v , w ) ,
that is, by (2.10),
ψ ( p ( v , w ) ) = ψ ( p ( f v , f w ) ) ψ ( p ( v , w ) ) - ϕ ( p ( v , w ) ) ,

a contradiction because p(v, w) > 0. Hence v = w. Conversely, if f has only one fixed point then the set of fixed point of f being singleton is well ordered.   □

Consistent with the terminology in [36], we denote ϒ the set of all functions φ: + + , where φ is a Lebesgue integrable mapping with finite integral on each compact subset of +, nonnegative, and for each ε > 0 , 0 ε φ ( t ) d t > 0 (see also, [37]). As a consequence of Theorem 2.1, we obtain following fixed point result for a mapping satisfying contractive conditions of integral type in a complete partial metric space X.

Corollary 2.2. Let (X, ) be a partially ordered set such that there exist a complete partial metric p on X and f a nondecreasing selfmap on X. Suppose that for every two elements x, y X with y x, we have
0 ψ ( p ( f x , f y ) ) φ ( t ) d t 0 ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) φ ( t ) d t - 0 ϕ ( M ( x , y ) ) φ ( t ) d t ,
(2.11)
where φ ϒ,
M ( x , y ) = max { p ( x , y ) , p ( f x , x ) , p ( f y , y ) , p ( x , f y ) + p ( y , f x ) 2 } ,
ψ, ϕ : ++, ψ is continuous and nondecreasing, ϕ is a lower semicontinuous, and ψ(t) = ϕ(t) = 0 if and only if t = 0. If there exists x0 X with x0 fx0 and one of the following two conditions is satisfied:
  1. (a)

    f is continuous self map on (X, p S );

     
  2. (b)

    for any nondecreasing sequence {x n } in (X, ) with lim n p S ( z , x n ) = 0 it follows x n z for all n ,

     

then f has a fixed point.

Proof. Define Ψ: [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) by Ψ ( x ) = 0 x φ ( t ) d t , then from (2.11), we have
Ψ ( ψ ( p ( f x , f y ) ) ) Ψ ( ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) ) - Ψ ( ϕ ( M ( x , y ) ) ) ,
(2.12)
which can be written as
ψ 1 ( p ( f x , f y ) ) ψ 1 ( M ( x , y ) ) - ϕ 1 ( M ( x , y ) ) ,
(2.13)

where ψ1 = Ψ ο ψ and ϕ1 = Ψ ο ϕ. Clearly, ψ1, ϕ1 : ++, ψ1 is continuous and nondecreasing, ϕ1 is a lower semicontinuous, and ψ1(t) = ϕ1(t) = 0 if and only if t = 0. Hence by Theorem 2.1, f has a fixed point. □

If we take ψ(t) = t in Theorem 2.1, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 2.3. Let (X, ) be a partially ordered set such that there exist a complete partial metric p on X and f a nondecreasing selfmap on X. Suppose that for every two elements x, y X with y x, we have
p ( f x , f y ) M ( x , y ) - ϕ ( M ( x , y ) ) ,
(2.14)
where
M ( x , y ) = max p ( x , y ) , p ( f x , x ) , p ( f y , y ) , p ( x , f y ) + p ( y , f x ) 2 ,
ϕ : ++ is a lower semicontinuous and ϕ(t) = 0 if and only if t = 0. If there exists x0 X with x0 fx0 and one of the following two conditions is satisfied:
  1. (a)

    f is continuous self map on (X, p S );

     
  2. (b)

    for any nondecreasing sequence {x n } in (X, ) with lim n p S ( z , x n ) = 0 it follows x n z for all n ∞,

     

then f has a fixed point. Moreover, the set of fixed points of f is well ordered if and only if f has one and only one fixed point.

If we take ϕ(t) = (1 - k)t for k [0, 1) in Corollary 2.3, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 2.4. Let (X, ) be a partially ordered set such that there exist a complete partial metric p on X and f a nondecreasing selfmap on X. Suppose that for every two elements x, y X with y x, we have
p ( f x , f y ) k M ( x , y ) ,
(2.15)
where
M ( x , y ) = max p ( x , y ) , p ( f x , x ) , p ( f y , y ) , p ( x , f y ) + p ( y , f x ) 2 ,
and k [0, 1). If there exists x0 X with x0 fx0 and one of the following two conditions is satisfied:
  1. (a)

    f is continuous self map on (X, p S );

     
  2. (b)

    for any nondecreasing sequence {x n } in (X, ) with lim n p S ( z , x n ) = 0 it follows x n z for all n ∞,

     

then f has a fixed point. Moreover, the set of fixed points of f is well ordered if and only if f has one and only one fixed point.

Corollary 2.5. Let (X, ) be a partially ordered set such that there exist a complete partial metric p on X and f a nondecreasing selfmap on X. Suppose that for every two elements x, y X with y x, we have
ψ ( p ( f x , f y ) ) p ( x , y ) - ϕ ( p ( x , y ) ) ,
(2.16)
where ϕ : ++ is a lower semicontinuous, and ϕ(t) = 0 if and only if t = 0. If there exists x0 X with x0 fx0 and one of the following two conditions is satisfied:
  1. (a)

    f is continuous self map on (X, p S );

     
  2. (b)

    for any nondecreasing sequence {x n } in (X, ) with lim n p S ( z , x n ) = 0 it follows x n z for all n ∞,

     

then f has a fixed point. Moreover, the set of fixed points of f is well ordered if and only if f has one and only one fixed point.

Theorem 2.6. Let (X, ) be a partially ordered set such that there exist a complete partial metric p on X and f a nondecreasing selfmap on X. Suppose that for x, y X with y x, we have
ψ ( p ( f x , f y ) ) ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x , y ) ) ,
(2.17)
Where
M ( x , y ) = a 1 p ( x , y ) + a 2 p ( f x , x ) + a 3 p ( f y , y ) + a 4 p ( f y , x ) + a 5 p ( f x , y ) ,
a1, a2 > 0, a i ≥ 0 for i = 3, 4, 5, and, if a4a5, then a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + a5 < 1, and if a4 < a5, then a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + 2a5 < 1 and ψ, ϕ : ++, ψ is a continuous and nondecreasing, ϕ is a lower semicontinuous, and ψ(t) = ϕ(t) = 0 if and only if t = 0. If there exists x0 X with x0 fx0 and one of the following two conditions is satisfied:
  1. (a)

    f is continuous self map on (X, p S );

     
  2. (b)

    for any nondecreasing sequence {x n } in (X, ) with lim n p S ( z , x n ) = 0 it follows x n z for all n ∞,

     

then f has a fixed point. Moreover, the set of fixed points of f is well ordered if and only if f has one and only one fixed point.

Proof. If f has a fixed point u, then p(u, u) = 0. Assume that p(u, u) > 0. Then from (2.17) with x = y = u, we have
ψ ( p ( u , u ) ) = ψ ( p ( f u , f u ) ) ψ ( M ( u , u ) ) - ϕ ( M ( u , u ) ) ,
(2.18)
where
M ( u , u ) = a 1 p ( u , u ) + a 2 p ( f u , u ) + a 3 p ( f u , u ) + a 4 p ( f u , u ) + a 5 p ( f u , u ) = ( a 1 + a 2 + a 3 + a 4 + a 5 ) p ( u , u ) ,
that is
ψ ( p ( u , u ) ) ψ ( ( a 1 + a 2 + a 3 + a 4 + a 5 ) p ( u , u ) ) - ϕ ( ( a 1 + a 2 + a 3 + a 4 + a 5 ) p ( u , u ) ) ,
ϕ((a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + a5)p(u, u)) ≤ 0, a contradiction. Hence p(u, u) = 0. Now let x0 be an arbitrary point of X: If fx0 = x0, then the proof is finished, so we assume that fx0x0. As in Theorem 2.1, define a sequence {x n } in X with x n = f n x0 and so xn+1= fx n for n . If M (xk+1, x k ) = 0 for some k, then x k is a fixed point of f, as in the proof of Theorem 2.1. Thus we can suppose that
M ( x k + 1 , x k ) > 0 , for all k .
(2.19)
Now form (2.17), consider
ψ ( p ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) ) = ψ ( p ( f x n + 1 , f x n ) ) ψ ( M ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) ,
(2.20)
where
M ( x n + 1 , x n ) = a 1 p ( x n + 1 , x n ) + a 2 p ( f x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) + a 3 p ( f x n , x n ) + a 4 p ( f x n , x n + 1 ) + a 5 p ( f x n + 1 , x n ) = a 1 p ( x n + 1 , x n ) + a 2 p ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) + a 3 p ( x n + 1 , x n ) + a 4 p ( x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) + a 5 p ( x n + 2 , x n ) ( a 1 + a 3 ) p ( x n + 1 , x n ) + a 2 p ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) + a 4 p ( x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) + a 5 [ p ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) + p ( x n + 1 , x n ) - p ( x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) ] = ( a 1 + a 3 + a 5 ) p ( x n + 1 , x n ) + ( a 2 + a 5 ) p ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) + ( a 4 - a 5 ) p ( x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) .
We claim that
p ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) p ( x n + 1 , x n ) ,
(2.21)
for all n . Suppose that it is not true, that is, p(xk+2, xk+1) > p(xk+1, x k ) for some k . Now, since x k xk+1, also if a4a5, then we have
ψ ( p ( x k + 2 , x k + 1 ) ) ψ ( M ( x k + 1 , x k ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x k + 1 , x k ) ) ψ ( ( a 1 + a 3 + a 5 ) p ( x k + 1 , x k ) + ( a 2 + a 5 ) p ( x k + 2 , x k + 1 ) + ( a 4 - a 5 ) p ( x k + 1 , x k + 1 ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x k + 1 , x k ) ) ψ ( ( a 1 + a 2 + a 3 + a 4 + a 5 ) p ( x k + 2 , x k + 1 ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x k + 1 , x k ) ) ψ ( p ( x k + 1 , x k + 2 ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x k + 1 , x k ) ) ,
which implies that ϕ(M(xk+1, x k ) ≤ 0, by the property of ϕ, we have M (xk+1, x k ) = 0, a contradiction. If a4 < a5, then
ψ ( p ( x k + 2 , x k + 1 ) ) ψ ( M ( x k + 1 , x k ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x k + 1 , x k ) ) ψ ( ( a 1 + a 3 + a 5 ) p ( x k + 1 , x k ) + ( a 2 + a 5 ) p ( x k + 2 , x k + 1 ) + ( a 4 - a 5 ) p ( x k + 1 , x k + 1 ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x k + 1 , x k ) ) ψ ( ( a 1 + a 2 + a 3 + a 4 + 2 a 5 ) p ( x k + 2 , x k + 1 ) - ϕ ( M ( x k + 1 , x k ) ) ψ ( p ( x k + 1 , x k + 2 ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x k + 1 , x k ) ) ,
implies that ϕ(M(xk+1, x k ) ≤ 0, a contradiction. Hence p(xn+2, xn+1) ≤ p(xn+1, x n ) for all n and so the sequence of positive real numbers {p(xn+1, x n )} is nonincreasing. Thus {p(xn+1, x n )} converges to a c ≥ 0. Suppose that c > 0. Now, lower semicontinuity of ϕ gives that
lim sup n ψ ( p ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) ) lim sup n ψ ( M ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) - lim inf n ϕ ( M ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) lim sup n ψ ( ( a 1 + a 3 + a 5 ) p ( x n , x n + 1 ) + ( a 2 + a 5 ) p ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) + ( a 4 - a 5 ) p ( x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) ) - lim inf n ϕ ( M ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) ,
which implies that
ψ ( c ) ψ ( c ) - lim inf n ϕ ( M ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) ,

a contradiction since a1 > 0. Therefore c = 0, i.e., lim n p ( x n + 1 , x n ) = 0 . Now we show that the sequence {x n } is a Cauchy sequence in (X, p). Indeed, we first prove that lim n , m p ( x n , x m ) = 0 . Assume the contrary. Then there exists ε > 0 and sequences {n k }, {m k } in ∞, with n k > m k k, and such that p ( x n k , x m k ) ε for all k . We can suppose, without loss of generality, that p ( x n k , x m k - 1 ) < ε .

Follows the similar argument as in Theorem 2.1, we have lim k p ( x m k , x n k ) = ε , lim k p ( x m k - 1 , x n k ) = ε , lim k p ( x m k - 1 , x n k + 1 ) = ε and lim k p ( x m k , x n k + 1 ) = ε . As
M ( x n k , x m k - 1 ) = a 1 p ( x n k , x m k - 1 ) + a 2 p ( f x n k , x n k ) + a 3 p ( f x m k - 1 , x m k - 1 ) + a 4 p ( f x m k - 1 , x n k ) + a 5 p ( f x n k , x m k - 1 ) = a 1 p ( x n k , x m k - 1 ) + a 2 p ( x n k + 1 , x n k ) + a 3 p ( x m k , x m k - 1 ) + a 4 p ( x m k , x n k ) + a 5 p ( x n k + 1 , x m k - 1 ) ,
thus lim k M ( x n k , x m k - 1 ) = ( a 1 + a 4 + a 5 ) ε ε . From (2.17), we obtain
ψ ( p ( x n k + 1 , x m k ) ) = ψ ( p ( f x n k , f x m k - 1 ) ) ψ ( M ( x n k , x m k - 1 ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x n k , x m k - 1 ) ) .
(2.22)
Taking upper limit as k → ∞ implies that
ψ ( ε ) ψ ( ε ) - ϕ ( ( a 1 + a 4 + a 5 ) ε ) ,
which is a contradiction as ε > 0. Thus, we obtain that lim n , m p ( x n , x m ) = 0 , i.e., {x n } is a Cauchy sequence in (X, p), and thus in the metric space (X, p S ) by Lemma 1.4. Since (X, p) is complete, then from Lemma 1.4, (X, p S ) is also complete, so the sequence {x n } is convergent in the metric space (X, p S ). Therefore, there exists u X such that lim n p S ( u , x n ) = 0 , equivalently,
lim n , m p ( x n , x m ) = lim n p ( x n , u ) = p ( u , u ) = 0 ,
(2.23)
because lim n , m p ( x n , x m ) = 0 . If f is continuous selfmap on (X, p S ), then it is clear that fu = u. If f is not continuous, we have, by our hypothesis, that x n u for all n , because {x n } is a nondecreasing sequence with lim n p S ( u , x n ) = 0 . Now from the following inequality
M ( u , x n ) = a 1 p ( u , x n ) + a 2 p ( f u , u ) + a 3 p ( f x n , x n ) + a 4 p ( f x n , u ) + a 5 p ( f u , x n ) = a 1 p ( u , x n ) + a 2 p ( f u , u ) + a 3 p ( x n + 1 , x n ) + a 4 p ( x n + 1 , u ) + a 5 p ( f u , x n ) ,
we deduce, taking limit as n → ∞, that lim n M ( u , x n ) = ( a 2 + a 5 ) p ( f u , u ) . Hence,
ψ ( p ( f u , u ) ) = lim sup n ψ ( p ( f u , f x n + 1 ) ) lim sup n [ ψ ( M ( u , x n ) ) - ϕ ( M ( u , x n ) ) ] = ψ ( ( a 2 + a 5 ) p ( f u , u ) ) - ϕ ( ( a 2 + a 5 ) p ( f u , u ) ) ψ ( p ( f u , u ) ) - ϕ ( ( a 2 + a 5 ) p ( f u , u ) ) .
implies p(fu, u) = 0 and fu = u. Finally, suppose that set of fixed points of f is well ordered. We prove that fixed point of f is unique. Assume on contrary that fu = u and fv = v but uv. Hence
ψ ( p ( u , v ) ) = ψ ( p ( f u , f v ) ) ψ ( M ( u , v ) ) - ϕ ( M ( u , v ) ) ,
(2.24)
where
M ( u , v ) = a 1 p ( u , v ) + a 2 p ( f u , u ) + a 3 p ( f v , v ) + a 4 p ( f v , u ) + a 5 p ( f u , v ) = a 1 p ( u , v ) + a 2 p ( u , u ) + a 3 p ( v , v ) + a 4 p ( v , u ) + a 5 p ( u , v ) = ( a 1 + a 4 + a 5 ) p ( u , v ) ,
that is, by (2.24),
ψ ( p ( u , v ) ) = ψ ( p ( f u , f v ) ) ψ ( a 1 + a 4 + a 5 ) p ( u , v ) ) - ϕ ( a 1 + a 4 + a 5 ) p ( u , v ) ) ψ ( p ( u , v ) ) - ϕ ( a 1 + a 4 + a 5 ) p ( u , v ) ) ,

we arrive at a contradiction because a1p(u, v) > 0. Hence u = v. Conversely, if f has only one fixed point then the set of fixed point of f being singleton is well ordered.    □

Following similar arguments to those given in Corollary 2.2, we obtain following corollary as an application of Theorem 2.6.

Corollary 2.7. Let (X, ) be a partially ordered set such that there exist a complete partial metric p on X and f a nondecreasing selfmap on X. Suppose that for every two elements x, y X with y x, we have
0 ψ ( p ( f x , f y ) ) φ ( t ) d t 0 ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) φ ( t ) d t - 0 ϕ ( M ( x , y ) ) φ ( t ) d t ,
(2.25)
where φ ϒ,
M ( x y ) =  a 1 p ( x y ) +  a 2 p ( f x x ) +  a 3 p ( f y y ) +  a 4 p ( f y x ) +  a 5 p ( f x y ),
a1, a2 > 0, a i ≥ 0 for i = 3, 4, 5, and, if a4a5, then a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + a5 < 1, and if a4 < a5, then a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + 2a5 < 1 with ψ, ϕ : ++, ψ is continuous and nondecreasing, ϕ is a lower semicontinuous, and ψ(t) = ϕ(t) = 0 if and only if t = 0. If there exists x0 X with x0 fx0 and one of the following two conditions is satisfied:
  1. (a)

    f is continuous self map on (X, p S );

     
  2. (b)

    for any nondecreasing sequence {x n } in (X, ) with lim n p S ( z , x n ) = 0 it follows x n z for all n ,

     

then f has a fixed point.

If we take ψ(t) = t in Theorem 2.6, we have following corollary.

Corollary 2.8. Let (X, ) be a partially ordered set such that there exist a complete partial metric p on X and f a nondecreasing selfmap on X. Suppose that for x, y X with y x,
p ( f x , f y ) M ( x , y ) - ϕ ( M ( x , y ) ) ,
(2.26)
where
M ( x y ) =  a 1 p ( x y ) +  a 2 p ( f x x ) +  a 3 p ( f y y ) +  a 4 p ( f x y ) +  a 5 p ( f y x ),
a1, a2 > 0, a i ≥ 0 for i = 3, 4, 5, and, if a4a5, then a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + a5 < 1, and if a4 < a5, then a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + 2a5 < 1 and ϕ : ++ is a lower semicontinuous with ϕ(t) = 0 if and only if t = 0. If there exists x0 X with x0 fx0 and one of the following two conditions is satisfied:
  1. (a)

    f is continuous self map on (X, p S );

     
  2. (b)

    for any nondecreasing sequence {x n } in (X, ) with lim n p S ( z , x n ) = 0 it follows x n z for all n ,

     

then f has a fixed point. Moreover, the set of fixed points of f is well ordered if and only if f has one and only one fixed point.

Corollary 2.9. Let (X, ) be a partially ordered set such that there exist a complete partial metric p on X and f a nondecreasing selfmap on X. Suppose that for x, y X with y x, we have
p ( f x , f y ) M ( x , y ) ,
(2.27)
where
M ( x y ) =  a 1 p ( x y ) +  a 2 p ( f x x ) +  a 3 p ( f y y ) +  a 4 p ( f x y ) +  a 5 p ( f y x ),
a1, a2 > 0, a i ≥ 0 for i = 3, 4, 5, and, if a4a5, then a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + a5 < 1, and if a4 < a5, then a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + 2a5 < 1. If there exists x0 X with x0 fx0 and one of the following two conditions is satisfied:
  1. (a)

    f is continuous self map on (X, p S );

     
  2. (b)

    for any nondecreasing sequence {x n } in (X, ) with lim n p S ( z , x n ) = 0 it follows x n z for all n ,

     

then f has a fixed point. Moreover, the set of fixed points of f is well ordered if and only if f has one and only one fixed point.

Corollary 2.10. Let (X, ) be a partially ordered set such that there exist a complete partial metric p on X and f a nondecreasing selfmap on X. Suppose that for x, y X with y x, we have
p ( f x , f y ) α p ( x , y ) + β [ p ( f x , x ) + p ( f y , y ) ] + γ [ p ( f x , y ) + p ( f y , x ) ] )
(2.28)
where α, β, γ > 0 and α + 2β + 2γ < 1. If there exists x0 X with x0 fx0 and one of the following two conditions is satisfied:
  1. (a)

    f is continuous self map on (X, p S );

     
  2. (b)

    for any nondecreasing sequence {x n } in (X, ) with lim n p S ( z , x n ) = 0 it follows x n z for all n ,

     

then f has a fixed point. Moreover, the set of fixed points of f is well ordered if and only if f has one and only one fixed point.

We conclude the article with some examples which illustrate the obtained results.

Example 2.11. Let X = [0, 1] be endowed with usual order and let p be the complete partial metric on X defined by p(x, y) = max{x, y} for all x, y X. Let f : XX be defined by fx = 2x/3. Define ψ, ϕ : ++ by
ψ ( t ) = 3 t  and  ϕ ( t ) = t / 2 , if  t [ 0 , 1 ] , e 1 - t 2 , if  t > 1 .
Clearly ψ is continuous and nondecreasing, ϕ is a lower semicontinuous, and ψ(t) = ϕ(t) = 0 if and only if t = 0. We show that condition (2.1) is satisfied. If x, y [0, 1] with y x, then we have
ψ ( p ( f x , f y ) ) = ψ max 2 x 3 , 2 y 3 = ψ 2 x 3 = 2 x 5 2 x = 5 2 max 2 x 3 , x = 5 2 p ( f x , x ) 5 2 M ( x , y ) = 3 M ( x , y ) - M ( x , y ) 2 = ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x , y ) ) .

Thus f satisfies all the conditions of Theorem 2.1. Moreover, 0 is the unique fixed point of f.   □

Example 2.12. Let X = be endowed with usual order. Let p : X × X+ be defined by p(x, y) = |x - y| if x, y [0, 1), and p(x, y) = max{x, y} otherwise. It is easy to verify that p is complete partial metric on X. Now let f : XX be given by
f x = 1 2 , if  x < 1 , x 2 , if 1 x < 2 , 1 , otherwise .
Clearly, f is continuous on (X, p S ). Define ψ, ϕ : ++ by
ψ ( t ) = 2 t  and  ϕ ( t ) = t / 6 for all  t + .
Obviously, ψ is a continuous and nondecreasing, ϕ is a lower semicontinuous, and ψ(t) = ϕ(t) = 0 if and only if t = 0. Now, we shall show that f satisfies condition (2.17) of Theorem 2.6, for a1 = a2 = 3/10 and a3 = a4 = a5 = 1/10. We shall distinguish six cases with y x.
  1. (1)

    If x, y [0, 1), then (2.17) is satisfied as p ( f x , f y ) = p ( 1 2 , 1 2 ) = 0 ,

     
  2. (2)
    if y [0, 1), x [1, 2), then p ( f x , f y ) = 1 2 ( x - 1 ) and p(x, y) = x, p(fx, x) = x, p ( f y , y ) = y - 1 2 , p(fy, x) = x, p ( f x , y ) = x 2 - y . Therefore
    ψ ( p ( f x , f y ) ) = ψ 1 2 ( x - 1 ) = x - 1 11 6 3 10 x + 3 10 x 11 6 3 10 x + 3 10 x + 1 10 | y - 1 / 2 | + 1 10 x + 1 10 | x / 2 - y | = 11 6 [ a 1 p ( x , y ) + a 2 p ( f x , x ) + a 3 p ( f y , y ) + a 4 p ( f y , x ) + a 5 p ( f x , y ) ] = 11 6 M ( x , y ) = 2 M ( x , y ) - 1 6 M ( x , y ) = ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x , y ) ) .
     
  3. (3)
    For y [0, 1) and x ≥ 2, then p(fx, fy) = 1 and p(x, y) = x, p(fx, x) = x, p ( f y , y ) = y - 1 2 , p(fy, x) = x, p(fx, y) = 1. Therefore
    ψ ( p ( f x , f y ) ) = ψ ( 1 ) = 2 11 6 3 10 x + 3 10 x 11 6 3 10 x + 3 10 x + 1 10 | y - 1 2 | + 1 10 x + 1 10 = 11 6 [ a 1 p ( x , y ) + a 2 p ( f x , x ) + a 3 p ( f y , y ) + a 4 p ( f y , x ) + a 5 p ( f x , y ) ] = 11 6 M ( x , y ) = 2 M ( x , y ) - 1 6 M ( x , y ) = ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x , y ) ) .
     
  4. (4)
    If x, y [1, 2), then p ( f x , f y ) = p ( x / 2 , y / 2 ) = 1 2 ( x - y ) and p(x, y) = x, p(fx, x) = x, p(fy, y) = y, p(fy, x) = x, p(fx, y) = y. Therefore
    ψ ( p ( f x , f y ) ) = ψ 1 2 ( x - y ) = ( x - y ) 11 6 3 10 x + 3 10 x 11 6 3 10 x + 3 10 x + 1 10 y + 1 10 x + 1 10 y = 11 6 [ a 1 p ( x , y ) + a 2 p ( f x , x ) + a 3 p ( f y , y ) + a 4 p ( f y , x ) + a 5 p ( f x , y ) ] = 11 6 M ( x , y ) = 2 M ( x , y ) - 1 6 M ( x , y ) = ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x , y ) ) .
     
  5. (5)
    If y [1, 2), x ≥ 2, then p(fx, fy) = p(1, y/2) = 1 - y/2 and p(x, y) = x, p(fx, x) = x, p(fy, y) = y, p(fy, x) = x, p(fx, y) = y. Therefore
    ψ ( p ( f x , f y ) ) = ψ ( 1 - y / 2 ) = 2 - y 11 6 3 10 x + 3 10 x 11 6 3 10 x + 3 10 x + 1 10 y + 1 10 x + 1 10 y = 11 6 [ a 1 p ( x , y ) + a 2 p ( f x , x ) + a 3 p ( f y , y ) + a 4 p ( f y , x ) + a 5 p ( f x , y ) ] = 11 6 M ( x , y ) = 2 M ( x , y ) - 1 6 M ( x , y ) = ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x , y ) ) .
     
  6. (6)
    If x, y ≥ 2, then p(fx, fy) = p(1, 1) = 1 and p(x, y) = x, p(fx, x) = x, p(fy, y) = y, p(fy, x) = x, p(fx, y) = y. Therefore
    ψ ( p ( f x , f y ) ) = ψ ( 1 ) = 2 11 6 3 10 x + 3 10 x 11 6 3 10 x + 3 10 x + 1 10 y + 1 10 x + 1 10 y = 11 6 [ a 1 p ( x , y ) + a 2 p ( f x , x ) + a 3 p ( f y , y ) + a 4 p ( f y , x ) + a 5 p ( f x , y ) ] = 11 6 M ( x , y ) = 2 M ( x , y ) - 1 6 M ( x , y ) = ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) - ϕ ( M ( x , y ) ) .
     

Thus all the axioms of Theorem 2.6 are satisfied. Moreover, 1/2 is the unique fixed point of f.   □

3 A homotopy result

Let Φ be denote the set of all functions ϕ : ++ such that ϕ is a nondecreasing, lower semicontinuous, and ϕ(t) = 0 if and only if t = 0.

Now, we state a following homotopy result.

Theorem 3.1. Let (X, ) be a partially ordered set such that there exist a complete partial metric p on X, U be an open subset of X and V be a closed subset of X with U V. Let H : V × [0, 1] → X be a given mapping such that H(., λ): VX is nondecreasing and continuous for each λ [0, 1]. If following conditions hold:
  1. (a)

    xH(x, λ) for every x V\U and λ [0, 1].

     
  2. (b)

    For every x, y V, either H(y, λ) H(x, λ) or H(x, λ) H(y, λ) for each λ [0, 1].

     
  3. (c)
    For all comparable elements x, y in V, there exist ϕ Φ such that
    p ( H ( x , λ ) , H ( y , λ ) ) ) p ( x , y ) - ϕ ( p ( x , y ) ) ,
     
holds for each λ [0, 1].
  1. (d)
    There exists L ≥ 0, such that
    p ( H ( x , s ) , H ( x , t ) ) L | s - t |
     

for each x V and s, t [0, 1].

Then H(., 0) has a fixed point in U if and only if H(., 1) has a fixed point in U provided that there exist x0 X with x0 H(x0, λ) for each λ [0, 1].

Proof. Consider
A = { λ [ 0 , 1 ] : x = H ( x , λ ) for some  x U } .

Now, if H(., 0) has a fixed point in U, then 0 A, so A is nonempty. Now we show that A is both open and closed in [0, 1], which by connectedness of [0, 1] will imply that A = [0, 1]. First, we show that A is closed in [0, 1].

For this, let {λ n } be a sequence in A such that λ n λ for some λ [0, 1] as n → ∞. Since λ n A for n = 1, 2, 3,..., there exists x n U such that x n = H(x n , λ n ). Let n, m . For each λ n [0, 1], x m U, using property (b) and by nondecreasness of H(., λ) for each λ [0, 1], we obtain that x n and x m are comparable. Now
p ( x n , x m ) = p ( H ( x n , λ n ) , H ( x m , λ m ) ) p ( H ( x n , λ n ) , H ( x m , λ n ) ) + p ( H ( x m , λ n ) , H ( x m , λ m ) ) - p ( H ( x m , λ n ) , H ( x m , λ n ) ) p ( H ( x n , λ n ) , H ( x m , λ n ) ) + p ( H ( x m , λ n ) , H ( x m , λ m ) ) p ( x n , x m ) - ϕ ( p ( x n , x m ) ) + L | λ n - λ m | ,
that is
ϕ ( p ( x n , x m ) ) L | λ n - λ m | .
Since λ n λ as n → ∞, so that on taking the upper limit as n → ∞ we obtain that lim n , m p ( x n , x m ) = 0 , that is, {x n } is a Cauchy sequence in (X, p). Since (X, p) is complete, there exist x in V such that p ( x , x ) = lim n p ( x , x n ) = lim n , m p ( x n , x m ) = 0 . As x n U and x V, using property (b) and the nondecreasness of H(., λ) for each λ [0, 1], x and x n are comparable. So we have
p ( H ( x , λ ) , x n ) = p ( H ( x , λ ) , H ( x n , λ n ) ) p ( H ( x , λ ) , H ( x n , λ ) ) + p ( H ( x n , λ ) , H ( x n , λ n ) ) - p ( H ( x n , λ ) , H ( x n , λ ) ) p ( x , x n ) - ϕ ( p ( x n , x ) ) + L | λ - λ n |
which on taking the upper limit as n → ∞ implies
lim sup n p ( x n , H ( x , λ ) ) lim sup n p ( x n , x ) - lim inf n ϕ ( p ( x n , x ) ) + lim sup n L | λ - λ n |
Hence lim n p ( x n , H ( x , λ ) ) = 0 and
lim n p ( x n , H ( x , λ ) ) = p ( x , H ( x , λ ) ) = 0 .
Thus λ A and A is closed in [0, 1]. Next we show that A is an open in [0, 1]. Let λ0 A. Then there exists x0 U such that x0 = H(x0, λ0). Since U is open, there exists r > 0 such that B p (x0, r) U. Now, take δ = inf{p(x0, x): x V\U}. Then we have, r = δ - p(x0, x0) > 0. Fix ε > 0 with ε ϕ ( δ ) L . Let λ (λ0 - ε, λ0 + ε) and x B p ( x 0 , r ) ¯ = { x X : p ( x , x 0 ) r + p ( x 0 , x 0 ) } . Since H(., λ) is nondecreasing for each λ [0, 1], property (b) implies that x and x0 are comparable and
p ( H ( x , λ ) , x 0 ) = p ( H ( x , λ ) , H ( x 0 , λ 0 ) ) p ( H ( x , λ ) , H ( x 0 , λ ) ) + p ( H ( x 0 , λ ) , H ( x 0 , λ 0 ) ) - p ( H ( x 0 , λ ) , H ( x 0 , λ ) ) p ( x , x 0 ) - ϕ ( p ( x , x 0 ) ) + L | λ - λ 0 | r + p ( x 0 , x 0 ) - ϕ ( p ( x , x 0 ) ) + L | λ - λ 0 | r + p ( x 0 , x 0 ) - ϕ ( δ ) + L ε r + p ( x 0 , x 0 ) .

Thus for each fixed λ (λ0 - ε, λ0 + ε), H ( . , λ ) : B p ( x 0 , r ) ¯ B p ( x 0 , r ) ¯ .

Taking V = U ¯ and applying Corollary 2.5, we obtain that H(., λ) has a fixed point in U ¯ . But this fixed point must be in U in the presence of assumption (a). Thus λ A for any λ (λ0 - ε, λ0 + ε), therefore A in open in [0, 1]. Similarly, the reverse implication follows.   □

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the referees for their appreciation and suggestions regarding this work.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Mathematics, Lahore University of Management Sciences

References

  1. Altun I, Erduran A: Fixed point theorems for monotone mappings on partial metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2011., 2011: Article ID 508730, 10Google Scholar
  2. Altun I, Sola F, Simsek H: Generalized contractions on partial metric spaces. Topol Appl 2010, 157: 2778–2785. 10.1016/j.topol.2010.08.017MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Homidan S, Ansari QH, Yao JC: Some generalizations of Ekelandtype variational principle with applications to equilibrium problems and fixed point theory. Nonlinear Anal Theory 2008, 69: 126–139. 10.1016/j.na.2007.05.004MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Karapinar E: Coupled fixed point theorems for nonlinear contractions in cone metric spaces. Comput Math Appl 2010, 59: 3656–3668. 10.1016/j.camwa.2010.03.062MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Karapinar E: Generalizations of Caristi Kirk's theorem on partial metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2011., 2011(4): doi:10.1186/1687–1812–2011–4Google Scholar
  6. Latif A, Al-Mezel SA: Fixed point results in quasi metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2011., 2011: Article ID 178306, 8Google Scholar
  7. Marín J, Romaguera S, Tirado P: Q-functions on quasi-metric spaces and fixed points for multivalued maps. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2011., 2011: Article ID 603861, 10Google Scholar
  8. Matthews SG: Partial metric topology. Proc 8th Summer Conference on General Topology and Applications Ann New York, Acad Sci 1994, 728: 183–197.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Matthews SG: The Topology of Partial Metric Spaces. Research Report RR 1992, 222: University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  10. Romaguera S, Schellekens M: Partial metric monoids and semivaluation spaces. Topol Appl 2005, 153: 948–962. 10.1016/j.topol.2005.01.023MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Abbas M, Nazir T, Romaguera S: Fixed point results for generalized cyclic contraction mappings in partial metric spaces. RACSAM 2011. doi 10.1007/s13398–011–0051–5Google Scholar
  12. Altun I, Simsek H: Some fixed point theorems on dualistic partial metric spaces. J Adv Math Stud 2008, 1: 1–8.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Bukatin MA, Shorina S, Yu , et al.: Partial metrics and co-continuous valuations. In Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structure Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Volume 1378. Edited by: Nivat M. Springer; 1998:125–139. 10.1007/BFb0053546View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Bukatin M, Kopperman R, Matthews S, Pajoohesh H: Partial metric spaces. Am Math Monthly 2009, 116: 708–718. 10.4169/193009709X460831MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Oltra S, Valero O: Banach's fixed theorem for partial metric spaces. Rend Istit Mat Univ Trieste 2004, 36: 17–26.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Romaguera S: A Kirk type characterization of completeness for partial metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2010., 2010: Article ID 493298, 6 pagesGoogle Scholar
  17. Schellekens MP: The correspondence between partial metrics and semivaluations. Theor Comput Sci 2004, 315: 135–149. 10.1016/j.tcs.2003.11.016MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Valero O: On Banach fixed point theorems for partial metric spaces. Appl Gen Topol 2005, 6: 229–240.MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Ran ACM, Reuring MC: A fixed point theorem in partially ordered sets and some applications to matrix equations. Proc Am Math Soc 2004, 132: 1435–1443. 10.1090/S0002-9939-03-07220-4MATHView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Nieto JJ, Rodríguez-López R: Contractive mapping theorems in partially ordered sets and applications to ordinary differential equations. Order 2005, 22: 223–239. 10.1007/s11083-005-9018-5MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Abbas M, Nazir T, Radenović S: Common fixed points of four maps in partially ordered metric spaces. Appl Math Lett 2011, 24: 1520–1526. 10.1016/j.aml.2011.03.038MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Altun I, Simsek H: Some fixed point theorems on ordered metric spaces and application. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2010., 2010: Article ID 621492, 17 pagesGoogle Scholar
  23. Hussain N, Khan AR, Agarwal RP: Krasnosel'skii and Ky Fan type fixed point theorems in ordered Banach Spaces. J Nonlinear Convex Anal 2010, 11: 475–489.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Nieto JJ, Pouso RL, Rodríguez-López R: Fixed point theorems in ordered abstract sets. Proc Am Math Soc 2007, 135: 2505–2517. 10.1090/S0002-9939-07-08729-1MATHView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Nieto JJ, Rodríguez-López R: Existence and uniqueness of fixed points in partially ordered sets and applications to ordinary differential equations. Acta Math Sin (Engl Ser) 2007, 23: 2205–2212. 10.1007/s10114-005-0769-0MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Petruşel A, Rus I: Fixed point theorems in ordered L-spaces. Proc Am Math Soc 2005, 134(2):411–418. 10.1090/S0002-9939-05-07982-7View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. O'Regan D, Petruşel A: Fixed point theorems for generalized contractions in ordered metric spaces. J Math Anal Appl 2008, 341: 1241–1242. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.11.026MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Shatanawi W, Samet B, Abbas M: Coupled fixed point theorems for mixed monotone mappings in ordered partial metric spaces. Math Comput Model 2011. doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2011.08.042Google Scholar
  29. Aydi H: Some fixed point results in ordered partial metric spaces. 2011, 1–8.Google Scholar
  30. Nashine HK, Samet B: Fixed point results for mappings satisfying ( ψ , ϕ )-weakly contractive condition in partially ordered metric spaces. Nonlinear Anal Theory 2011, 74: 2201–2209. 10.1016/j.na.2010.11.024MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Popescu O: Fixed points for ( ψ , ϕ )-weak contractions. Appl Math Lett 2011, 24: 1–4. 10.1016/j.aml.2010.06.024MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang Q, Song Y: Fixed point theory for generalized φ -weak contractions. Appl Math Lett 2009, 22(1):75–78. 10.1016/j.aml.2008.02.007MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Alber Ya, Guerre-Delabrere S: Principle of weakly contractive maps in Hilbert spaces. In New Results in Operator Theory Advances and Applications. Volume 98. Edited by: Gohberg, I, Lyubich, Yu. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel; 1997:7–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Rhoades BE: Some theorems on weakly contractive maps. Nonlinear Anal 2001, 47: 2683–2693. 10.1016/S0362-546X(01)00388-1MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Dutta PN, Choudhury BS: A generalization of contraction principle in metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2008., 2008: Article ID 406368, 8Google Scholar
  36. Radenoviĉ S, Kadelburg Z: Generalized weak contractions in partially ordered metric spaces. Comput Math Appl 2010, 60: 1776–1783. 10.1016/j.camwa.2010.07.008MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Branciari A: A fixed point theorem for mapping satisfying a general contractive condition of integral type. Internat J Math Math Sci 2002, 10: 531–536.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Abbas and Nazir; licensee Springer. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.