 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Some new common fixed point results through generalized altering distances on partial metric spaces
Fixed Point Theory and Applications volume 2012, Article number: 120 (2012)
Abstract
We establish common fixed point results for two pairs of weakly compatible mappings on a partial metric space, satisfying a weak contractive condition involving generalized control functions. The presented theorems extend and unify various known fixed point results. Examples are given to show that our results are proper extensions of the known ones.
MSC:47H10, 54H25, 54H10.
1 Introduction
In [1], Matthews introduced the notion of a partial metric space as a part of the study of denotational semantics of dataflow networks. He showed that the Banach contraction mapping theorem can be generalized to the partial metric context for applications in program verification.
Subsequently, several authors (see, e.g., Altun and Erduran [2], Oltra et al. [3], Romaguera and Schellekens [4], Romaguera and Valero [5], Rus [6], Djukić et al. [7], Nashine et al. [8], Di Bari and Vetro [9], Paesano and Vetro [10], Shatanawi et al. [11], Shatanawi and Nashine [12], Aydi et al. [13]) derived fixed point theorems in partial metric spaces.
Altering distance functions (also called control functions) were introduced by Khan et al. [14]. Subsequently, they were used by many authors to obtain fixed point results, including those in partial metric spaces (e.g., Abdeljawad [15], Abdeljawad et al. [16, 17], Altun et al. [18], Ćirić et al. [19], Karapinar and Yüksel [20]). Generalized altering distance functions with several variables were used on metric spaces by Berinde [21], Choudhury [22] and Rao et al. [23].
In this paper, an attempt has been made to derive some common fixed point theorems for two pairs of weakly compatible mappings on partial metric spaces, satisfying a weak contractive condition involving generalized control functions. The presented theorems extend and unify various known fixed point results. Examples are given to show that our results are proper extensions of the known ones.
2 Preliminaries
The following definitions and details about partial metrics can be seen, e.g., in [1, 24–28].
Definition 1 A partial metric on a nonempty set X is a function p:X\times X\to {\mathbb{R}}^{+} such that for all x,y,z\in X:
(p_{1}) x=y\u27fap(x,x)=p(x,y)=p(y,y),
(p_{2}) p(x,x)\le p(x,y),
(p_{3}) p(x,y)=p(y,x),
(p_{4}) p(x,y)\le p(x,z)+p(z,y)p(z,z).
The pair (X,p) is called a partial metric space.
It is clear that, if p(x,y)=0, then from (p_{1}) and (p_{2}), it follows that x=y. But p(x,x) may not be 0.
Each partial metric p on X generates a {T}_{0} topology {\tau}_{p} on X which has as a base the family of open pballs \{{B}_{p}(x,\epsilon ):x\in X,\epsilon >0\}, where {B}_{p}(x,\epsilon )=\{y\in X:p(x,y)<p(x,x)+\epsilon \} for all x\in X and \epsilon >0. A sequence \{{x}_{n}\} in (X,p) converges to a point x\in X, with respect to {\tau}_{p}, if {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}p(x,{x}_{n})=p(x,x). This will be denoted as {x}_{n}\to x, n\to \mathrm{\infty} or {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{x}_{n}=x. If (X,p) is a partial metric space, and T:X\to X is a mapping, continuous at {x}_{0}\in X (in {\tau}_{p}) then, for each sequence \{{x}_{n}\} in X, we have
Clearly, a limit of a sequence in a partial metric space need not be unique. Moreover, the function p(\cdot ,\cdot ) need not be continuous in the sense that {x}_{n}\to x and {y}_{n}\to y implies p({x}_{n},{y}_{n})\to p(x,y).
Definition 2 Let (X,p) be a partial metric space. Then:

1
A sequence \{{x}_{n}\} in (X,p) is called a Cauchy sequence if {lim}_{n,m\to \mathrm{\infty}}p({x}_{n},{x}_{m}) exists (and is finite).

2
The space (X,p) is said to be complete if every Cauchy sequence \{{x}_{n}\} in X converges, with respect to {\tau}_{p}, to a point x\in X such that p(x,x)={lim}_{n,m\to \mathrm{\infty}}p({x}_{n},{x}_{m}).
It is easy to see that every closed subset of a complete partial metric space is complete.
If p is a partial metric on X, then the function {p}^{s}:X\times X\to {\mathbb{R}}^{+} given by
is a metric on X. Furthermore, {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{p}^{s}({x}_{n},x)=0 if and only if
Lemma 1 Let (X,p) be a partial metric space.

(a)
\{{x}_{n}\} is a Cauchy sequence in (X,p) if and only if it is a Cauchy sequence in the metric space (X,{p}^{s}).

(b)
The space (X,p) is complete if and only if the metric space (X,{p}^{s}) is complete.
A function \psi :[0,+\mathrm{\infty}{)}^{n}\to [0,+\mathrm{\infty}) is said to be a generalized altering distance function if:

1
ψ is continuous;

2
ψ is increasing in each of its variables;

3
\psi ({t}_{1},\dots ,{t}_{n})=0 if and only if {t}_{1}=\dots ={t}_{n}=0.
The set of generalized altering distance functions with n variables will be denoted by {\mathcal{F}}_{n}. If \psi \in {\mathcal{F}}_{n}, we will write \mathrm{\Psi}(t)=\psi (t,t,\dots ,t) (obviously, this function belongs to {\mathcal{F}}_{1}).
Simple examples of generalized altering distance functions with, say, four variables are:
Recall also the following notions. Let X be a nonempty set and {T}_{1},{T}_{2}:X\to X be given selfmaps on X. If w={T}_{1}x={T}_{2}x for some x\in X, then x is called a coincidence point of {T}_{1} and {T}_{2}, and w is called a point of coincidence of {T}_{1} and {T}_{2}. The pair \{{T}_{1},{T}_{2}\} is said to be weakly compatible if {T}_{1}{T}_{2}t={T}_{2}{T}_{1}t, whenever {T}_{1}t={T}_{2}t for some t in X.
3 Results
3.1 Some auxiliary results
Assertions similar to the following lemma (see, e.g., [29]) were used (and proved) in the course of proofs of several fixed point results in various papers.
Lemma 2 Let (X,d) be a metric space and let \{{y}_{n}\} be a sequence in X such that \{d({y}_{n+1},{y}_{n})\} is nonincreasing and
If \{{y}_{2n}\} is not a Cauchy sequence, then there exist \epsilon >0 and two sequences \{m(k)\} and \{n(k)\} of positive integers such that n(k)>m(k)>k and the following four sequences tend to ε when k\to \mathrm{\infty}:
As a corollary (putting d={p}^{s} for a partial metric p), we obtain
Lemma 3 Let (X,p) be a partial metric space and let \{{y}_{n}\} be a sequence in X such that \{p({y}_{n+1},{y}_{n})\} is nonincreasing and
If \{{y}_{2n}\} is not a Cauchy sequence in (X,p), then there exist \epsilon >0 and two sequences \{{m}_{k}\} and \{n(k)\} of positive integers such that n(k)>m(k)>k and the following four sequences tend to ε when k\to \mathrm{\infty}:
3.2 Main results
Theorem 1 Let (X,p) be a complete partial metric space. Let T,S,I,J:X\to X be given mappings satisfying for every pair (x,y)\in X\times X:
where {\psi}_{1}\in {\mathcal{F}}_{4} and {\psi}_{2}\in {\mathcal{F}}_{3} are generalized altering distance functions, and {\mathrm{\Psi}}_{1}(t)={\psi}_{1}(t,t,t,t). Suppose that

(i)
TX\subseteq IX and SX\subseteq JX;

(ii)
one of the ranges IX, JX, TX and SX is a closed subset of (X,p).
Then

(a)
I and S have a coincidence point,

(b)
J and T have a coincidence point.
Moreover, if the pairs \{I,S\} and \{J,T\} are weakly compatible, then I, J, T and S have a unique common fixed point.
Proof Let {x}_{0} be an arbitrary point in X. Since TX\subseteq IX and SX\subseteq JX, we can define sequences \{{x}_{n}\} and \{{y}_{n}\} in X by
Without loss of the generality, we may assume that
If not, then p({y}_{2n},{y}_{2n+1})=0 and hence {y}_{2n}={y}_{2n+1}, for some n. Taking x={x}_{2n} and y={x}_{2n+1}, from (3.4) and the considered contraction condition (3.3), we have
since
Suppose that p({y}_{2n+1},{y}_{2n+2})>0. Using (3.6) together with p({y}_{2n},{y}_{2n+1})=0 and the properties of the generalized altering distance functions {\psi}_{1},{\psi}_{2}, we get
which is a contradiction. It follows that p({y}_{2n+1},{y}_{2n+2})=0 and hence {y}_{2n+1}={y}_{2n+2}. Following similar arguments, we obtain {y}_{2n+2}={y}_{2n+3}. Thus \{{y}_{n}\} becomes an eventually constant sequence and {y}_{2n} is a point of coincidence of I and S, while {y}_{2n+1} is a point of coincidence of J and T.
Assume further that (3.5) holds. We claim that
Suppose that, for some n\in \mathbb{N},
Using this together with the properties of generalized altering distance functions {\psi}_{1}, {\psi}_{2}, we get from (3.6) that
This implies that
which yields that p({y}_{2n+1},{y}_{2n})=0. Hence, we obtain a contradiction with (3.5). We deduce that
By a similar reasoning, we obtain that
Combining (3.8) and (3.9), we obtain
Then, \{p({y}_{n+1},{y}_{n+2})\} is a nonincreasing sequence of positive real numbers. This implies that there exists r\ge 0 such that
By (3.6), we have
Letting n\to \mathrm{\infty} in (3.11) and using continuity of {\mathrm{\Psi}}_{1} and {\psi}_{2}, we obtain
which implies that {\psi}_{2}(r,r,r)=0, and thus r=0. Hence, (3.7) is proved.
Next, we claim that \{{y}_{n}\} is a Cauchy sequence in the space (X,p) (and also in the metric space (X,{p}^{s}) by Lemma 1). For this it is sufficient to show that \{{y}_{2n}\} is a Cauchy sequence. Suppose that this is not the case. Then, using Lemma 3 we get that there exist \epsilon >0 and two sequences \{m(i)\} and \{n(i)\} of positive integers such that n(i)>m(i)>i and sequences (3.2) tend to ε when i\to \mathrm{\infty}. Applying condition (3.3) to elements x={x}_{2m(i)} and y={x}_{2n(i)1}, we get that
Passing to the limit as i\to \mathrm{\infty} in the last inequality (and using the continuity of the functions {\psi}_{1}, {\psi}_{2}), we obtain
which implies that {\psi}_{2}(\epsilon ,0,0)=0, that is a contradiction since \epsilon >0. We deduce that \{{y}_{n}\} is a Cauchy sequence.
Finally, we prove the existence of a common fixed point of the four mappings I, J, S and T.
Since (X,p) is complete, then from Lemma 1, (X,{p}^{s}) is a complete metric space. Therefore, the sequence \{{y}_{n}\} {p}^{s}converges to some z\in X that is, {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{p}^{s}({y}_{n},z)=0. From (2.2), we have
Moreover, since \{{y}_{n}\} is a Cauchy sequence in the metric space (X,{p}^{s}), then {lim}_{n,m\to \mathrm{\infty}}{p}^{s}({y}_{n},{y}_{m})=0. On the other hand, by (p_{2}) and (3.7), we have p({y}_{n},{y}_{n})\le p({y}_{n},{y}_{n+1})\to 0, n\to \mathrm{\infty} and hence
Thus from the definition of {p}^{s} and (3.13), we have {lim}_{m\ge n\to \mathrm{\infty}}p({y}_{n},{y}_{m})=0. Therefore, from (3.12), we have
This implies that
Thus we have
and
Now we can suppose, without loss of generality, that IX is a closed subset of the partial metric space (X,p). From (3.15), there exists u\in X such that z=Iu. We claim that Su=z. Suppose, to the contrary, that p(Su,z)>0. By (p_{4}) we get
It follows by (3.15) that
Then, since {\mathrm{\Psi}}_{1} is increasing and continuous, we get that
Now, from (3.3)
Passing to the upper limit as n\to \mathrm{\infty} in (3.17), we obtain using (3.14) and the continuity of {\psi}_{1}, {\psi}_{2} that
Therefore, from (3.16) we have
which is a contradiction. Thus we deduce that
We get that Su=Iu=z, so u is a coincidence point of I and S.
From SX\subset JX and (3.18), we have z\in JX. Hence we deduce that there exists v\in X such that z=Jv. We claim that Tv=z. Suppose, to the contrary, that p(Tv,z)>0. From (3.3), we have
which is a contradiction. Then, we deduce that
We get that Jv=Tv=z, so v is a coincidence point of J and S.
Since the pair \{S,I\} is weakly compatible, from (3.18), we have Sz=SIu=ISu=Iz. We claim that Sz=z. Suppose, to the contrary, that p(Sz,z)>0. Then we have
Again from (3.15) we get that
Then, since {\mathrm{\Psi}}_{1} is increasing and continuous, we get
Now, from (3.3)
Passing to the upper limit as n\to \mathrm{\infty}, we obtain (since p(Sz,Sz)\le p(Sz,z))
Therefore, from (3.20) we have
a contradiction. This implies that
Hence, we have
Since the pair \{T,J\} is weakly compatible, from (3.19), we have Tz=TJv=JTv=Jz. We claim that Tz=z. Suppose, to the contrary, that p(Tz,z)>0, then by (3.3), we have
Therefore, {\psi}_{2}(p(Tz,z),0,p(Tz,Tz))=0. Hence, we have p(z,Tz)=0 and
Now, combining (3.21) and (3.22), we deduce
so z is a common fixed point of the four mappings I, J, S and T.
We claim that there is a unique common fixed point of S, T, I and J. Assume on contrary that, Su=Tu=Iu=Ju=u and Sv=Tv=Iv=Jv=v with p(u,v)>0. By supposition, we can replace x by u and y by v in (3.3) to obtain
a contradiction. Hence p(u,v)=0, that is, u=v. We conclude that S, T, I and J have only one common fixed point in X. The proof is complete. □
It is easy to state the corollary of Theorem 1 involving a contraction of integral type.
Corollary 1 Let T, S, I and J as well as {\psi}_{1}, {\psi}_{2} satisfy the conditions of Theorem 1, except that condition (3.3) is replaced by the following: there exists a positive Lebesgue integrable function u on {\mathbb{R}}^{+} such that {\int}_{0}^{\epsilon}u(t)\phantom{\rule{0.2em}{0ex}}dt>0 for each \epsilon >0 and that
for all x,y\in X. Then, S, T, I and J have a unique common fixed point.
If in Theorem 1 I=J is the identity mapping on X, then we have the following consequence:
Theorem 2 Let (X,p) be a complete partial metric space. Let T,S:X\to X be given mappings satisfying for every pair (x,y)\in X\times X
where {\psi}_{1}\in {\mathcal{F}}_{4} and {\psi}_{2}\in {\mathcal{F}}_{3} are altering distance functions, and {\mathrm{\Psi}}_{1}(t)={\psi}_{1}(t,t,t,t). Then T and S have a unique common fixed point.
Remark 1 Several corollaries of Theorems 1 and 2 could be derived for particular choices of {\psi}_{1} and {\psi}_{2}. We state some of them.
Putting {\psi}_{1}({t}_{1},{t}_{2},{t}_{3},{t}_{4})=\psi (max\{{t}_{1},{t}_{2},{t}_{3},{t}_{4}\}) and {\psi}_{2}({t}_{1},{t}_{2},{t}_{3})=\varphi (max\{{t}_{1},{t}_{2},{t}_{3}\}) for \psi ,\varphi \in {\mathcal{F}}_{1}, [15], Theorem 9] is obtained.
It is clear from the proof of Theorem 1 that condition (3.3), resp. (3.23), can be replaced by
resp.
where {\psi}_{2}\in {\mathcal{F}}_{4}. Hence, Theorem 1 can be considered an extension of [23], Theorem 2.1] to the frame of partial metric spaces (since semicompatible mappings are weakly compatible).
Putting {\psi}_{1}({t}_{1},{t}_{2},{t}_{3},{t}_{4})=max\{{t}_{1},{t}_{2},{t}_{3},{t}_{4}\} and {\psi}_{2}=(1r){\psi}_{1}, with 0\le r<1, in Theorem 2 (with condition (3.25)), we obtain [20], Theorem 8]. The same substitution in Theorem 1 (with (3.24)) gives an improvement of [20], Theorem 12] (since only weak compatibility and not commutativity of the respective mappings is assumed).
Putting {\psi}_{1}({t}_{1},{t}_{2},{t}_{3},{t}_{4})=max\{{t}_{1},{t}_{2},{t}_{3},{t}_{4}\} and {\psi}_{2}=\phi \circ {\psi}_{1} for \phi \in {\mathcal{F}}_{1} in Theorem 2 (with condition (3.25)), [16], Theorem 5] is obtained.
Of course, several known results from the frame of standard metric spaces (see, e.g., [30] and [31]) are also special cases of these theorems. For example, the following corollary can be obtained as a consequence of Theorem 2, which is a generalization and extension of [31], Corollary 3.2].
Corollary 2 Let (X,p) be a complete partial metric space. Let T,S:X\to X be given mappings satisfying for every pair (x,y)\in X\times X
where m and n are positive integers, {\psi}_{1}\in {\mathcal{F}}_{4} and {\psi}_{2}\in {\mathcal{F}}_{3} are altering distance functions, and {\mathrm{\Psi}}_{1}(t)={\psi}_{1}(t,t,t,t). Then T and S have a unique common fixed point.
Remark 2 However, it is not possible to use {\psi}_{1},{\psi}_{2}\in {\mathcal{F}}_{5} in Theorems 1 and 2, as the following example, adapted from [23], Example 2.3], shows.
Example 1 Let X=\{1,2,3,4\} and p:X\times X\to X be given by p(x,x)=\frac{1}{2} for x\in X, p(1,2)=p(3,4)=2, p(1,3)=p(2,4)=1, p(1,4)=p(2,3)=\frac{3}{2} and p(y,x)=p(x,y) for x,y\in X. Then (X,p) is a (complete) partial metric space. Consider the mappings S,T:X\to X defined by
and the functions {\psi}_{1},{\psi}_{2}\in {\mathcal{F}}_{5} given as {\psi}_{1}({t}_{1},{t}_{2},{t}_{3},{t}_{4},{t}_{5})=max\{{t}_{1},{t}_{2},{t}_{3},{t}_{4},{t}_{5}\} and {\psi}_{2}=\frac{1}{4}{\psi}_{1}. It is easy to check that
holds for all x,y\in X. However, these mappings have no common fixed points; hence, condition (3.23) (or (3.25)) of Theorem 2 cannot be replaced by the respective condition with 5 variables. At the same time, condition (3.25) is not satisfied since, for x=3, y=1, p(Sx,Ty)=p(1,4)=\frac{3}{2} and
hence,
whatever {\psi}_{2}\in {\mathcal{F}}_{4} is chosen.
This example also shows (as in [23], Remark 2.4]) the importance of the second generalized altering distance function {\psi}_{2} in Theorems 1 and 2.
The next example shows that Theorems 1 and 2 are proper extensions of the respective results in standard metric spaces.
Example 2 Let X=[0,1] be endowed with the partial metric p(x,y)=max\{x,y\}. Consider the mappings S,T:X\to X defined by
and the functions {\psi}_{1},{\psi}_{2}\in {\mathcal{F}}_{4}, given by
Take arbitrary elements, say y\le x, from X. Then
On the other hand,
and
Hence, condition (3.25) is satisfied, as well as other conditions of Theorem 2. Mappings S,T have a common fixed point z=0.
On the other hand, consider the same problem in the standard metric d(x,y)={p}^{s}(x,y)=xy and take x=1 and y=\frac{1}{2}. Then
and
and hence
Thus, condition (3.25) for p=d does not hold and the existence of a common fixed point of these mappings cannot be derived from [23], Theorem 2.1].
References
Matthews SG: Partial metric topology. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 728. Proc. 8th Summer Conference on General Topology and Applications 1994, 183–197.
Altun I, Erduran A: Fixed point theorems for monotone mappings on partial metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2011., 2011: Article ID 508730
Oltra S, Romaguera S, SánchezPérez EA: The canonical partial metric and the uniform convexity on normed spaces. Appl. Gen. Topol. 2005, 6(2):185–194.
Romaguera S, Schellekens M: Partial metric monoids and semivaluation spaces. Topol. Appl. 2005, 153(5–6):948–962. 10.1016/j.topol.2005.01.023
Romaguera S, Valero O: A quantitative computational model for complete partial metric spaces via formal balls. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 2009, 19(3):541–563. 10.1017/S0960129509007671
Rus IA: Fixed point theory in partial metric spaces. An. Univ. Timiş., Ser. Mat.Inform. (Online) 2008, 46(2):149–160.
Djukić D, Kadelburg Z, Radenović S: Fixed points of Geraghtytype mappings in various generalized metric spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2011., 2011: Article ID 561245. doi:10.1155/2011/561245
Nashine HK, Kadelburg S, Radenović S: Common fixed point theorems for weakly isotone increasing mappings in ordered partial metric spaces. Math. Comput. Model. 2011. doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2011.12.019
Di Bari C, Vetro P: Fixed points for weak φ contractions on partial metric spaces. Int. J. Eng. Contemp. Math. Sci. 2011, 1: 5–12.
Paesano D, Vetro P: Suzuki’s type characterizations of completeness for partial metric spaces and fixed points for partially ordered metric spaces. Topol. Appl. 2012, 159: 911–920. 10.1016/j.topol.2011.12.008
Shatanawi W, Samet B, Abbas M: Coupled fixed point theorems for mixed monotone mappings in ordered partial metric spaces. Math. Comput. Model. 2012, 55: 680–687. 10.1016/j.mcm.2011.08.042
Shatanawi W, Nashine HK: A generalization of Banach’s contraction principle for nonlinear contraction in a partial metric space. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 2012, 5: 37–43.
Aydi H, Karapinar E, Shatanawi W:Coupled fixed point results for (\psi ,\phi )weakly contractive condition in ordered partial metric spaces. Comput. Math. Appl. 2011, 62: 4449–4460. 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.10.021
Khan MS, Swaleh M, Sessa S: Fixed point theorems by altering distances between the points. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 1984, 30: 1–9. 10.1017/S0004972700001659
Abdeljawad T: Fixed points for generalized weakly contractive mappings in partial metric spaces. Math. Comput. Model. 2011, 54: 2923–2927. 10.1016/j.mcm.2011.07.013
Abdeljawad T, Karapinar E, Taş K: Existence and uniqueness of a common fixed point on partial metric spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 2011, 24: 1900–1904. 10.1016/j.aml.2011.05.014
Abdeljawad T, Karapinar E, Taş K: A generalized contraction principle with control functions on partial metric spaces. Comput. Math. Appl. 2012, 63: 716–719. 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.11.035
Altun I, Sola F, Simsek H: Generalized contractions on partial metric spaces. Topol. Appl. 2010, 157(18):2778–2785. 10.1016/j.topol.2010.08.017
Ćirić LjB, Samet B, Aydi H, Vetro C: Common fixed points of generalized contractions on partial metric spaces and an application. Appl. Math. Comput. 2011, 218: 2398–2406. 10.1016/j.amc.2011.07.005
Karapinar E, Yüksel U: Some common fixed point theorems in partial metric spaces. J. Appl. Math. 2011., 2011: Article ID 263621
Berinde V: A common fixed point theorem for compatible quasi contractive self mappings in metric spaces. Appl. Math. Comput. 2009, 213: 348–354. 10.1016/j.amc.2009.03.027
Choudhury BS: A common unique fixed point result in metric spaces involving generalized altering distances. Math. Commun. 2005, 10: 105–110.
Rao KPR, Ravi Babu G, Vasu Babu D: Common fixed point theorems through generalized altering distance functions. Math. Commun. 2008, 13: 67–73.
Heckmann R: Approximation of metric spaces by partial metric spaces. Appl. Categ. Struct. 1999, 7: 71–83. 10.1023/A:1008684018933
Oltra S, Valero O: Banach’s fixed point theorem for partial metric spaces. Rend. Ist. Mat. Univ. Trieste 2004, 36: 17–26.
O’Neill SJ: Partial metrics, valuations and domain theory. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 806. Proc. 11th Summer Conference on General Topology and Applications 1996, 304–315.
Romaguera S: A Kirk type characterization of completeness for partial metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 493298
Valero O: On Banach fixed point theorems for partial metric spaces. Appl. Gen. Topol. 2005, 6(2):229–240.
Radenović, S, Kadelburg, Z, Jandrlić, D, Jandrlić, A: Some results on weak contraction maps. Bull. Iran. Math. Soc. (2012, to appear). Online from 30 March 2011
Abbas M, Djorić D: Common fixed point theorem for four mappings satisfying generalized weak contractive conditions. Filomat 2010, 24(2):1–10. 10.2298/FIL1002001A
Choudhury BS, Konor P, Rhoades BE, Metiya N: Fixed point theorems for generalized weakly contractive mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 2116–2126. 10.1016/j.na.2010.11.017
Acknowledgements
The first and second author would like to acknowledge the financial support received from University Kebangsaan Malaysia under the research grant OUPUKMFST2012. The fourth and fifth author are thankful to the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of Serbia.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally and significantly to writing this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Ahmad, A.G.B., Fadail, Z.M., Nashine, H.K. et al. Some new common fixed point results through generalized altering distances on partial metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2012, 120 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/168718122012120
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/168718122012120
Keywords
 partial metric space
 generalized altering distance
 coincidence point
 common fixed point
 weakly compatible mappings