Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access

Common fixed point theorems in modified intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces with common property (E.A.)

  • Mohammad Tanveer1Email author,
  • Mohammad Imdad2,
  • Dhananjay Gopal3 and
  • Deepesh Kumar Patel3
Fixed Point Theory and Applications20122012:36

https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2012-36

Received: 24 May 2011

Accepted: 6 March 2012

Published: 6 March 2012

Abstract

In this article, we utilize the notions of the property (E.A.) and common property (E.A.) in the setting of modified intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces to prove a result interrelating the property (E.A.) with common property (E.A.). Also using the common property (E.A.), we prove some common fixed point theorems in modified intuition-istic fuzzy metric spaces satisfying an implicit relation. Some related results are also derived besides furnishing an illustrative example.

AMS Subject Classification (2000): Primary 54H 25; Secondary 47H 10.

Keywords

modified intuitionistic fuzzy metric spacethe property (E.A.)the common property (E.A.)

1 Introduction and preliminaries

The concept of fuzzy set was introduced in 1965 by Zadeh [1]. Since then, with a view to utilize this concept in topology and analysis, many authors have extensively developed the theory of fuzzy sets along with their applications (e.g., [29], 39). In 1986, with similar endeavor, Atanassov [10] introduced and studied the concept of intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Using the idea of intuitionistic fuzzy set, a generalization of fuzzy metric space was introduced by Park [11] which is now known as modified intuitionistic fuzzy metric space wherein notions of continuous t-norm and continuous t-conorm are employed.

Fixed point theory is one of the most fruitful and effective tools in mathematics which has enormous applications in several branches of science especially in chaos theory, game theory, theory of differential equations, etc. Intuitionistic fuzzy metric notion is also useful in modeling some physical problems wherein it is necessary to study the relationship between two probability functions as noticed in [12]. For instance, it has a concrete physical visualization in the context of two-slit experiment as the foundation of E-infinity theory of high energy physics whose details are available in El Naschie in [1315]. Since the topology induced by intuitionistic fuzzy metric coincides with the topology induced by fuzzy metric (see [12]), Saadati et al. [16] reframed the idea of intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces and proposed a new notion under the name of modified intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces by introducing the idea of continuous t-representable.

In 1986, Jungck [17] introduced the notion of compatible mappings in metric spaces and utilized the same (as a tool) to improve commutativity conditions in common fixed point theorems. This concept has frequently been employed to prove existence theorems on common fixed points. In recent past, several authors (e.g., [1831]) proved various fixed point theorems employing relatively more general contractive conditions. However, the study of common fixed points of non-compatible mappings is also equally interesting which was initiated by Pant [32]. Recently, Aamri and Moutawakil [33] and Liu et al. [34] respectively, defined the property (E.A.) and common property (E.A.) and utilize the same to prove common fixed point theorems in metric spaces. Most recently, Kubiaczyk and Sharma [35] defined the property (E.A.) in Menger PM spaces and utilize the same to prove results on common fixed points wherein the authors claim their results for strict contractions which are merely valid upto contractions. Similar results are also proved by Imdad et al. [23] via common property (E.A). The aim of this article is to utilize the no tion of the property (E.A.) and common property (E.A) to prove some common fixed point theorems in modified intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces. Our results generalize several previously known results in various spaces which include results in intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces and metric spaces. Some related results are also derived besides furnishing an illustrative example.

Lemma 1.1. [36] Consider the set L* and operation L * defined by
L * = { ( x 1 , x 2 ) : ( x 1 , x 2 ) [ 0 , 1 ] 2 and x 1 + x 2 1 }

( x 1 , x 2 ) L * ( y 1 , y 2 ) x 1 y 1 and x2y2, for every (x1, x2), (y1, y2) L*. Then ( L * , L * ) is a complete lattice.

Definition 1.1. [10] An intuitionistic fuzzy set A ζ , η in a universe U is an object A ζ , η = { ( ζ A ( u ) , η A ( u ) u U ) } , where, for all u U , ζ A ( u ) [ 0 , 1 ] and η A ( u ) [ 0 , 1 ] are called the membership degree and the non-membership degree, respectively, of u A ζ , η , and furthermore they satisfy ζ A ( u ) + η A ( u ) 1 .

For every z i = (x i , y i ) L*, if c i [0,1] such that j = 1 n c j = 1 then it is easy to see that
c 1 ( x 1 , y 1 ) + + c n ( x n , y n ) = j = 1 n c j ( x j , y j ) = j = 1 n c j x j , j = 1 n c j y j L * .

We denote its units by 0 L * = ( 0 , 1 ) and 1 L * = ( 1 , 0 ) . Classically, a triangular norm * = T on [0,1] is defined as an increasing, commutative, associative mapping T : [0,1]2 → [0,1] satisfying T(1, x) = 1 * x = x, for all x [0,1]. A triangular co-norm S = is defined as an increasing, commutative, associative mapping S : [0,1]2 → [0,1] satisfying S(0, x) = 0x = x, for all x [0,1]. Using the lattice ( L * , L * ) these definitions can straightforwardly be extended.

Definition 1.2. [37] A triangular norm (t-norm) on L* is a mapping T : ( L * ) 2 L * satisfying the following conditions:
  1. (I)

    ( x L * ) ( T ( x , 1 L * ) = x ) (boundary condition),

     
  2. (II)

    ( ( x , y ) ( L * ) 2 ) ( T ( x , y ) = T ( y , x ) ) (commutativity),

     
  3. (III)

    ( ( x , y , z , ) ( L * ) 3 ) ( T ( x , T ( y , z ) ) = T ( T ( x , y ) , z ) ) (associativity),

     
  4. (IV)

    ( ( x , x , y , y ) ( L * ) 4 ) ( x L * x ) and ( y L * y T ( x , y ) L * T ( x , y ) ) (monotonic-ity).

     
Definition 1.3. [36, 37] A continuous t-norm on L* is called continuous t-representable if and only if there exist a continuous t-norm * and a continuous t-conorm on [0,1] such that, for all x = (x1, x2), y = (y1, y2) L*,
T ( x , y ) = ( x 1 * y 1 , x 2 y 2 ) .
Now, we define a sequence { T n } recursively by { T 1 = T } and
T n ( x ( 1 ) , . . . , x ( n + 1 ) ) = T ( T n - 1 ( x ( 1 ) , . . . , x ( n ) ) , x ( n + 1 ) )

for n ≥ 2 and x(i) L*.

Definition 1.4. [36, 37] A negator on L* is any decreasing mapping N : L * L * satisfying N ( 0 L * ) = 1 L * and N ( 1 L * ) = 0 L * . If N ( N ( x ) ) = x , for all x L*, then is called an involutive negator. A negator on [0,1] is a decreasing mapping N : [0,1] → [0,1] satisfying N(0) = 1 and N(1) = 0. N s denotes the standard negator on [0,1] defined as (for all x [0,1])N s (x) = 1-x.

Definition 1.5. [16] Let M, N are fuzzy sets from X2 × (0, ∞) to [0,1] such that M(x, y, t) + N(x, y, t) ≤ 1 for all x, y X and t > 0. The 3-tuple ( X , M , N , T ) is said to be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space if X is an arbitrary (non-empty) set, is a continuous t-representable and M , N is a mapping X2 × (0, ∞) → L* (an intuitionistic fuzzy set, see Definition 1.1) satisfying the following conditions for every x, y X and t, s > 0:
  1. (I)

    M , N ( x , y , t ) > L * 0 L * ,

     
  2. (II)

    M , N ( x , y , t ) = 1 L * if and only if x = y,

     
  3. (III)

    M , N ( x , y , t ) = M , N ( y , x , t ) ,

     
  4. (IV)

    M , N ( x , y , t + s ) L * T ( M , N ( x , z , t ) , M , N ( z , y , s ) ) ,

     
  5. (V)

    M , N ( x , y , . ) : ( 0 , , ) L * is continuous.

     
In this case M , N is called an intuitionistic fuzzy metric. Here,
M , N ( x , y , t ) = ( M ( x , y , t ) , N ( x , y , t ) ) .

Remark 1.1. [38] In an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space ( X , M , N , T ) , M ( x , y , . ) is non-decreasing and N(x, y,.) is non-increasing for all x, y X. Hence ( X , M , N , T ) is non-decreasing function for all x, y X.

Example 1.1. [16] Let (X, d) be a metric space. Denote T ( a , b ) = ( a 1 b 1 , min { a 2 + b 2 , 1 } ) for all a = (a1, a2) and b = (b1, b2) L* and let M and N be fuzzy sets on X2 × (0, ∞) defined as follows:
M , N ( x , y , t ) = ( M ( x , y , t ) , N ( x , y , t ) ) = h t n h t n + m d ( x , y ) , m d ( x , y ) h t n + m d ( x , y )

for all h, m, n, t R+. Then ( X , M , N , T ) is an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space.

Example 1.2. [16] Let X = . Denote T ( a , b ) = ( max { 0 , a 1 + b 1 - 1 } , a 2 + b 2 - a 2 b 2 ) for all a = (a1, a2) and b = (b1, b2) L* and let M and N be fuzzy sets on X2 × (0, ∞) defined as follows:
M , N ( x , y , t ) = ( M ( x , y , t ) , N ( x , y , t ) ) = x y , y - x y if x y y x , x - y x if y x ,

for all x, y X and t > 0. Then ( X , M , N , T ) is an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space.

Definition 1.6. [16] Let ( X , M , N , T ) be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. For t > 0, define the open ball B(x, r, t) with center x X and radius 0 < r < 1, as
B ( x , r , t ) = { y X : M , N ( x , y , t ) > L * ( N s ( r ) , r ) } .

A subset A X is called open if for each x A, there exist t > 0 and 0 < r < 1 such that B(x, r, t) A. Let τ M , N denote the family of all open subsets of X. τ M , N is called the topology induced by intuitionistic fuzzy metric.

Note that this topology is Hausdorff (see Remark 3.3 and Theorem 3.5 of [11]).

Definition 1.7. [16] A sequence {x n } in an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space ( X , M , N , T ) is called a Cauchy sequence if for each 0 < ϵ < 1 and t > 0, there exists n0 such that
M , N ( x n , y m , t ) > L * ( N s ( ε ) , ε )

and for each n, mn0 here N s is the standard negator. The sequence {x n } is said to be convergent to x X in the intuitionistic fuzzy metric space ( X , M , N , T ) and denoted by x n M , N x if M , N ( x n , x , t ) 1 L * whenever n → ∞ for every t > 0. An intuitionistic fuzzy metric space is said to be complete if and only if every Cauchy sequence is convergent.

Lemma 1.2. [9] Let M , N be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric. Then, for any t > 0 , M , N ( x , y , t ) is non-decreasing with respect to t, in ( L * , L * ) , for all x, y X.

Definition 1.8. [16] Let ( X , M , N , T ) be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. is said to be continuous on X × X × (0, ∞) if
lim n M , N ( x n , y n , t n ) = M , N ( x , y , t ) ,
whenever a sequence {(x n , y n , t n )} in X × X × (0, ∞) converges to a point (x, y, t) X × X × (0, ∞), i.e.,
lim n M , N ( x n , x , t ) = lim n M , N ( y n , y , t ) = 1 L * and lim n M , N ( x , y , t n ) = M , N ( x , y , t ) .

Lemma 1.3. [16] Let ( X , M , N , T ) be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. Then is continuous function on X × X × (0, ∞).

Proof. The proof is similar to that of fuzzy metric space case (see Proposition 1 of [39]).

Definition 1.9. [16] Let f and g be mappings from an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space ( X , M , N , T ) into itself. Then the pair of these mappings is said to be weakly compatible if they commute at their coincidence point, that is, fx = gx implies that fgx = gfx.

Definition 1.10. [16] Let f and g be mappings from an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space ( X , M , N , T ) into itself. Then the mappings are said to be compatible if
lim n M , N ( f g x n , g f x n , t ) = 1 L * , t > 0
whenever {x n } is a sequence in X such that
lim n f x n = lim n g x n = x X .

Definition 1.11. Let f and g be mappings from an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space ( X , M , N , T ) into itself. Then the mappings are said to be non-compatible if there exists at least one sequence {x n } in X such that lim n f x n = lim n g x n = x X but lim n M , N ( f g x n , g f x n , t ) 1 L * or non-existent for at least one t > 0.

Proposition 1.1. [16] If self-mappings f and g of an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space ( X , M , N , T ) are compatible, then they are weakly compatible.

The converse is not true as seen in following example.

Example 1.3. [16] Let ( X , M , N , T ) be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space, where X = [0,2] and M , N ( x , y , t ) = 1 t + d ( x , y ) , d ( x , y ) t + d ( x , y ) for all t > 0 and x, y X. Denote T ( a , b ) = ( a 1 b 1 , min { a 2 + b 2 , 1 } ) for all a = (a1, a2) and b = (b1, b2) L*. Define self-maps f and g on X as follows:
f ( x ) = 2 if 0 x 1 x 2 if 1 < x 2 , g ( x ) = 2 if x = 1 x + 3 5 if x 1 .
Then we have g 1 = f 1 = 2 and g 2 = f 2 = 1. Also gf 1 = fg 1 = 1 and gf 2 = fg 2 = 2. Thus pair (f, g) is weakly compatible. Again, f x n = 1 - 1 4 n , g x n = 1 - 1 10 n . Thus fx n → 1, gx n → 1. Further g f x n = 4 5 - 1 20 n , f g x n = 2 . Now
lim n M , N ( f g x n , g f x n , t ) = lim n M , N ( 2 , 4 5 - 1 20 n , t ) = t t + 6 5 , 6 5 t + 6 5 < L * 1 L * t > 0 .

Hence the pair (f, g) is not compatible.

Motivated by Aamri and Moutawakil [33], we have

Definition 1.12. [16] Let f and g be two self-mappings of an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space ( X , M , N , T ) . We say that f and g satisfy the property (E.A.) if there exists a sequence {x n } in X such that
lim n M , N ( f x n , u , t ) = lim n M , N ( g x n , u , t ) = 1 L *

for some u X and t > 0.

Example 1.4. [16] Let ( X , M , N , T ) be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space, where X = and M , N ( x , y , t ) = 1 t + x - y , x - y t + x - y for every x, y X and t > 0. Define self-maps f and g on X as follows:
f x = 2 x + 1 , g x = x + 2 .
Consider the sequence x n = 1 + 1 n , n = 1 , 2 , . . . . Thus we have
lim n M , N ( f x n , 3 , t ) = lim n M , N ( g x n , 3 , t ) = 1 L *

for every t > 0. Then f and g satisfy the property (E.A.).

In the next example, we show that there do exist pairs of mappings which do not share the property (E.A.).

Example 1.5. [16] Let ( X , M , N , T ) be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space, where X = and M , N ( x , y , t ) = 1 t + x - y , x - y t + x - y for every x, y X and t > 0. Define self-maps f and g on X as fx = x + 1, gx = x + 2. In case a sequence {x n } such that
lim n M , N ( f x n , u , t ) = lim n M , N ( g x n , u , t ) = 1 L *
for some u X, then
lim n M , N ( f x n , u , t ) = lim n M , N ( x n + 1 , u , t ) = lim n M , N ( x n , u - 1 , t ) = 1 L *
and
lim n M , N ( g x n , u , t ) = lim n M , N ( x n + 2 , u , t ) = lim n M , N ( x n , u - 2 , t ) = 1 L * ,

so that x n u - 1 and x n u - 2 which is a contradiction. Hence f and g do not satisfy the property (E.A.).

Motivated by Liu et al. [34] and Imdad et al. [23, 24], we also have

Definition 1.13. Two pairs (f, S) and (g, T) of self-mappings of an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space ( X , M , N , T ) are said to satisfy the common property (E.A.) if there exist two sequences {x n } and {y n } in X such that
lim n M , N ( f x n , u , t ) = lim n M , N ( S x n , u , t ) = lim n M , N ( g y n , u , t ) = lim n M , N ( T y n , u , t ) = 1 L *

for some u X and t > 0.

Definition 1.14. [40] Two finite families of self-mappings { f i } i = 1 m and { g k } i = 1 n of a set X are said to be pairwise commuting if:
  1. (i)

    f i f j = f j f i i, j {1, 2,...,m},

     
  2. (ii)

    g k g l = g l g k k, l {1,2,...,n},

     
  3. (iii)

    f i g k = g k f i i {1,2,...,m} and k {1,2,...,n}.

     

2 Implicit relations

Let Ψ be the set of all continuous functions F(t1, t2,..., t6) : L * 6 L * , satisfying the following conditions (for all u, v, 1 L*, u = (u1, u2), v = (v1, v2) and 1 = 1 L * = ( 1 , 0 ) ):

(F1) : for all u , v > L * 0 L * , F ( u , v , u , v , v , u ) L * 0 L * , or F ( u , v , v , u , u , v ) L * 0 L * , implies that u L * v .

(F2) : F ( u , u , 1 , 1 , u , u ) L * 0 L * implies that u L * 1 .

Example 2.1. Define F(t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, t6) = 15t1 - 13t2 + 5t3 - 7t4 + t5 - t6. Then F Ψ.

Example 2.2. Define F ( t 1 , t 2 , t 3 , t 4 , t 5 , t 6 ) = t 1 - 1 2 t 2 - 5 6 t 3 + 1 3 t 4 + t 5 - t 6 . Then F Ψ.

3 Results

The following lemma is proved to interrelate the property (E.A.) with common property (E.A.) in the setting of modified intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces:

Lemma 3.1. Let A, B, S and T be four self-mappings of a modified IFMS ( X , M , N , T ) satisfying the following conditions:
  1. (I)

    the pair (A, S) (or (B, T)) satisfies the property (E.A.),

     
  2. (II)

    A(X) T(X) (or B(X) S(X)),

     
  3. (III)

    B(y n ) converges for every sequence y n in X whenever T(y n ) converges (or A(x n ) converges for every sequence x n in X whenever S(x n ) converges),

     
  4. (IV)
    for all x, y X, s > 0, F Ψ,
    F M , N ( A x , B y , s ) , M , N ( S x , T y , s ) , M , N ( T y , B y , s ) , M , N ( S x , A x , s ) , M , N ( A x , T y , s ) , M , N ( B y , S x , s ) L * 0 L * .
    (3.1)
     

Then the pairs (A, S) and (B, T) share the common property (E.A.).

Proof. Since the pair (A, S) enjoys the property (E.A.), there exists a sequence {x n } in X such that
lim n A x n = lim n S x n = z , for some z X ,
implying thereby lim n M , N ( A x n , S x n , s ) = 1 L * . Since A(X) T(X), therefore for each {x n } there exists {y n } in X such that Ax n = Ty n . Therefore, lim n A x n = lim n T y n = z . Thus, in all we have Ax n z, Sx n z and Ty n z. Now, we show that lim n M , N ( B y n , z , s ) = 1 L * . On using inequality (3.1), we have
F M , N ( A x n , B y n , s ) , M , N ( S x n , T y n , s ) , M , N ( T y n , B y n , s ) , M , N ( S x n , A x n , s ) , M , N ( A x n , T y n , s ) , M , N ( B y n , S x n , s ) L * 0 L *
which on making n → ∞, reduces to
F M , N ( z , lim n B y n , s ) , 1 L * , M , N ( z , lim n B y n , s ) , 1 L * , M , N ( lim n B y n , z , s ) L * 0 L * .

Using (F1), we get M , N ( lim n B y n , z , s ) 1 L * , for all s > 0 so that M , N ( lim n B y n , z , s ) = 1 L * , i.e., lim n B y n = z which shows that the pairs (A, S) and (B, T) share the common property (E.A.).

Our next result is a common fixed point theorem via the common property (E.A.).

Theorem 3.1. Let A, B, S and T be four self-mappings of a modified IFMS ( X , M , N , T ) satisfying the condition (3.1). Suppose that
  1. (I)

    the pairs (A, S) and (B, T) share the common property (E.A.) and

     
  2. (II)

    S(X) and T(X) are closed subsets of X.

     

Then the pair (A, S) as well as (B, T) have a coincidence point. Moreover, A, B, S and T have a unique common fixed point in X provided both the pairs (A, S) and (B, T) are weakly compatible.

Proof. Since the pairs (A, S) and (B, T) share the common property (E.A.), there exist two sequences {x n } and {y n } in X such that
lim n A x n = lim n S x n = lim n B y n = lim n T y n = z , for some z X .
Since S(X) is a closed subset of X, therefore lim n S x n = z S ( X ) . Also, there exists a point u X such that Su = z. Now, we show that M , N ( A u , z , s ) = 1 L * . On using inequality (3.1), we have
F M , N ( A u , B y n , s ) , M , N ( S u , T y n , s ) , M , N ( T y n , B y n , s ) , M , N ( S u , A u , s ) , M , N ( A u , T y n , s ) , M , N ( B y n , S u , s ) L * 0 L *
which on making n → ∞, reduces to
F M , N ( A u , z , s ) , 1 L * , 1 L * , M , N ( z , A u , s ) , M , N ( A u , z , s ) , 1 L * L * 0 L * .

Using (F1), we get M , N ( A u , z , s ) 1 L * , for all s > 0 so that M , N ( A u , z , s ) = 1 L * , that is Au = z = Su. Thus, u is a coincidence point of the pair (A, S).

Since T(X) is a closed subset of X, therefore lim n T y n = z T ( X ) . Also, there exists a point w X such that Tw = z. Now, we show that M , N ( B w , z , s ) = 1 L * . On using inequality (3.1), we have
F M , N ( A x n , B w , s ) , M , N ( S x n , T w , s ) , M , N ( T w , B w , s ) , M , N ( S x n , A x n , s ) , M , N ( A x n , T w , s ) , M , N ( B w , S x n , s ) L * 0 L *
which on making n → ∞, reduces to
F M , N ( z , B w , s ) , 1 L * , M , N ( z , B w , s ) , 1 L * , 1 L * , M , N ( B w , z , s ) L * 0 L * .

Using (F1), we get M , N ( z , B w , s ) 1 L * , for all s > 0 so that M , N ( B w , z , s ) = 1 L * , that is Bw = z = Tw. Thus, w is a coincidence point of the pair (B, T).

Since Au = Su and the pair (A, S) is weakly compatible, therefore Az = ASu = SAu = Sz. Now we need to show that z is a common fixed point of the pair (A, S). Now, we show that M , N ( A z , z , s ) = 1 L * . On using inequality (3.1), we have
F M , N ( A z , B w , s ) , M , N ( S z , T w , s ) , M , N ( T w , B w , s ) , M , N ( S z , A z , s ) , M , N ( A z , T w , s ) , M , N ( B w , S z , s ) L * 0 L *
implying thereby
F M , N ( A z , z , s ) , M , N ( A z , z , s ) , 1 L * , 1 L * , M , N ( A z , z , s ) , M , N ( A z , z , s ) L * 0 L * .

Using (F2), we get M , N ( A z , z , s ) 1 L * , for all s > 0 so that M , N ( A z , z , s ) = 1 L * , that is Az = z which shows that z is a common fixed point of the pair (A, S).

Also Bw = Tw and the pair (B, T) is weakly compatible, therefore Bz = BTw = TBw = Tz. Next, we show that z is a common fixed point of the pair (B, T). To accomplish this, we show that M , N ( B z , z , s ) = 1 L * . On using inequality (3.1), we have
F M , N ( A u , B z , s ) , M , N ( S u , T z , s ) , M , N ( T z , B z , s ) , M , N ( S u , A u , s ) , M , N ( A u , T z , s ) , M , N ( B z , S u , s ) L * 0 L *
or
F M , N ( z , B z , s ) , M , N ( z , B z , s ) , 1 L * , 1 L * , M , N ( z , B z , s ) , M , N ( B z , z , s ) L * 0 L * .

Using (F2), we get M , N ( B z , z , s ) 1 L * , for all s > 0 so that M , N ( B z , z , s ) = 1 L * , that is Bz = z which showsthat z is a common fixed point of the pair (B, T). Uniqueness of the common fixed point is an easy consequence of the inequality (3.1) (in view of condition (F2)).

Theorem 3.2. The conclusions of Theorem 3.1 remain true if the condition (II) of Theorem 3.1 is replaced by the following.

(II') A ( X ) ¯ T ( X ) and B ( X ) ¯ S ( X ) .

As a corollary of Theorem 3.2, we can have the following result which is also a variant of Theorem 3.1.

Corollary 3.1. The conclusions of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 remain true if the conditions (II) and (II') are replaced by following.

(II") A(X) and B(X) are closed subset of X provided A(X) T(X) and B(X) S(X).

Theorem 3.3. Let A, B, S and T be four self-mappings of a modified IFMS ( X , M , N , T ) satisfying the condition (3.1). Suppose that
  1. (I)

    the pair (A, S) (or (B, T)) satisfies the property (E.A.),

     
  2. (II)

    A(X) T(X) (or B(X) S(X)),

     
  3. (III)

    B(y n ) converges for every sequence y n in X whenever T(y n ) converges (or A(x n ) converges for every sequence x n in X whenever S(x n ) converges), and

     
  4. (IV)

    S(X) (or T(X)) be closed subset of X.

     

Then the pair (A, S) as well as (B, T) have a coincidence point. Moreover, A, B, S and T have a unique common fixed point in X provided that the pairs (A, S) and (B, T) are weakly compatible.

Proof. In view of Lemma 3.1, the pairs (A, S) and (B, T) share the common property (E.A.), i.e., there exist two sequences {x n } and {y n } in X such that
lim n A x n = lim n S x n = lim n B y n = lim n T y n = z , for some z X .
As S(X) is a closed subset of X, on the lines of Theorem 3.1, one can show that the pair (A, S) has a point of coincidence, say u, i.e., Au = Su. Since A(X) T(X) and Au T(X), there exists w X such that Au = Tw. Now, we show that M , N ( B w , z , s ) = 1 L * . On using inequality (3.1), we have
F M , N ( A x n , B w , s ) , M , N ( S x n , T w , s ) , M , N ( T w , B w , s ) , M , N ( S x n , A x n , s ) , M ( A x n , T w , s ) , M , N ( B w , S x n , s ) L * 0 L *
which on making n → ∞, reduces to
F M , N ( z , B w , s ) , 1 L * , M , N ( z , B w , s ) , 1 L * , 1 L * , M , N ( B w , z , s ) L * 0 L * .

Using (F1), we get M , N ( z , B w , s ) 1 L * , for all s > 0, so that M , N ( B w , z , s ) = 1 L * , that is Bw = z. Hence Bw = z = Tw. Therefore, w is a coincidence point of the pair (B, T). The rest of the proof can be completed on the lines of Theorem 3.1.

By choosing A, B, S, and T suitably, one can deduce corollaries for a pair as well as triod of mappings. As a simple we drive the following corollary for a pair of mappings.

Corollary 3.2. Let A and S be two self-mappings of a modified IFMS ( X , M , N , T ) satisfying the following conditions:
  1. (I)

    the pair (A, S) satisfies the property (E.A.) and A(x n ) converges for every sequence {x n } in X whenever S(x n ) converges,

     
  2. (II)

    S(X) is closed subset of X and

     
  3. (III)
    for all x, y X, s > 0, F Ψ,
    F M , N ( A x , A y , s ) , M , N ( S x , S y , s ) , M , N ( S y , A y , s ) , M , N ( S x , A x , s ) , M , N ( A x , S y , s ) , M , N ( A y , S x , s ) L * 0 L * .
     

Then the pair (A, S) has a coincidence point. Moreover, A and S have a unique common fixed point in X provided that the pair (A, S) is weakly compatible.

As an application of Theorem 3.1, we can have the following result for four finite families of self-mappings. While proving this result, we utilize Definition 1.14 which is a natural extension of commutativity condition to two finite families of mappings.

Theorem 3.4. Let {A1, A2,...,A m },{B1, B2,...,B p },{S1, S2,...,S n } and {T1, T2,...,T q } be four finite families of self-mappings of a modified IFMS ( X , M , N , T ) with A = A1A2... A m , B = B1B2...B p , S = S1S2...S n and T = T1T2...T q satisfying inequality (3.1) and the pairs (A, S) and (B, T) share the common property (E.A). If S(X) and T(X) are closed subsets of X, then the pairs (A, S) and (B, T) have a coincidence point each.

Moreover, A i , S k , B r and T t have a unique common fixed point provided the pairs of families ({A i }, {S k }) and ({B r },{T t }) commute pairwise, where i {1,..., m }, k {1,...,n }, r {1,...,p } and t {1,...,q }.

Proof. The proof follows on the lines of Theorem 4.1 due to Imdad and Ali [41] and Theorem 3.1 due to Imdad et al. [40].

By setting A1 = A2 = = A m = A, B1 = B2 = = B p = B, S1 = S2 = = S n = S and T1 = T2 = = T q = T in Theorem 3.4, we deduce the following:

Corollary 3.3. Let A, B, S and T be four self-mappings of an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space ( X , M , N , T ) such that the pairs (A m , S n ) and (B p , T q ) share the common property (E.A.) and also satisfy the condition (for all x, y X, s > 0, F Ψ),
F ( M , N ( A m x , B p y , s ) , M , N ( S n x , T q y , s ) , M , N ( B p y , T q y , s ) , M , N ( A m x , S m x , s ) , M , N ( A m x , T q y , s ) , M , N ( S m x , B p y , s ) ) L * 0 L *

where m, n, p and q are positive integers. If S n (X) and T q (X) are closed subsets of X, then A, B, S and T have a unique common fixed point provided AS = SA and BT = TB.

Finally, we conclude this article with the following example.

Example 3.1. Let ( X , M , N , T ) be a modified IFMS, where X = [0, 1], T ( a , b ) = ( a 1 b 1 , min { a 2 + b 2 , 1 } ) for all a = (a1, a2) and b = (b1, b2) L* with
M , N ( x , y , t ) = t t + x - y , x - y t + x - y , t > 0 .
Define A, B, S and T by Ax = Bx = 1,
S ( x ) = T ( x ) = 1 , if x [ 0 , 1 ] Q 1 3 , if x [ 0 , 1 ] Q .
Also define
F ( t 1 , t 2 , t 3 , t 4 , t 5 , t 6 ) = 15 t 1 - 13 t 2 + 5 t 3 - 7 t 4 + t 5 - t 6 .
Also, A2(X) = {1} = S2(X) whereas for all x, y X and s > 0
F ( t 1 , t 2 , t 3 , t 4 , t 5 , t 6 ) = 15 ( 1 , 0 ) - 13 ( 1 , 0 ) + 5 ( 1 , 0 ) - 7 ( 1 , 0 ) + ( 1 , 0 ) - ( 1 , 0 ) = ( 0 , 0 ) L * 0 L * = ( 0 , 1 )
or
0 0 and 0 1 which is always a reality .

This demonstrates the verification of the esteemed implicit function. The remaining requirements of Corollary 3.3 can be easily verified. Notice that 1 is the unique common fixed point of A, B, S, and T.

However, this implicit function does not hold for the maps A, B, S, and T in respect of Theorem 3.1. Otherwise, with x = 0 and y = 1 2 , we get
F ( t 1 , t 2 , t 3 , t 4 , t 5 , t 6 ) = 15 ( 1 , 0 ) - 13 t t + 2 3 , 2 3 t + 2 3 + 5 t t + 2 3 , 2 3 t + 2 3 - 7 ( 1 , 0 ) t t + 2 3 , 2 3 t + 2 3 - ( 1 , 0 )

which contradicts the definition of L*. Thus Corollary 3.3 is a partial generalization of Theorem 3.1 and can be situationally useful.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to both the learned referees for their deep observations and pertinent suggestions which greatly helped us to improve the article significantly. We also thank to Prof. D. Mihet for some useful suggestions in the course of revision of this manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
School of Computer & Systems Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
(2)
Department of Mathematics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
(3)
Department of Applied Mathematics and Humanities, S. V. National Institute of Technology Surat, Gujarat, India

References

  1. Zadeh LA: Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 1965, 8: 338–353. 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-XMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Deng Z: Fuzzy pseudometric spaces. J Math Anal Appl 1982, 86: 74–95. 10.1016/0022-247X(82)90255-4MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Erceg MA: Metric spaces in fuzzy set theory. J Math Anal Appl 1979, 69: 205–230. 10.1016/0022-247X(79)90189-6MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Fang JX: On fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1992, 46: 107–113. 10.1016/0165-0114(92)90271-5View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. George A, Veeramani P: On some results in fuzzy metric spaces. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1994, 64: 395–399. 10.1016/0165-0114(94)90162-7MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Grabiec M: Fixed points in fuzzy metric spaces. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1988, 27: 385–389. 10.1016/0165-0114(88)90064-4MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Klement EP: Operations on fuzzy sets-an axiomatic approach. Inf Sci 1982, 27: 221–232. 10.1016/0020-0255(82)90026-3MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Kramosil I, Michalek J: Fuzzy metrics and statistical metric spaces. Kybernetika 1975, 11: 336–344.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Saadati R, Park JH: On the intuitionistic topological spaces. Chaos Solitons and Fractals 2006, 27: 331–344. 10.1016/j.chaos.2005.03.019MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Atanassov KT: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1986, 20: 87–96. 10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Park JH: Intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces. Chaos Solitons and Fractals 2004, 22: 1039–1046. 10.1016/j.chaos.2004.02.051MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Gregori V, Romaguera S, Veereamani P: A note on intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces. Chaos Solitons and Fractals 2006, 28: 902–905. 10.1016/j.chaos.2005.08.113MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. El Naschie MS: A review of E-infinity theory and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics. Chaos Solitons and Fractals 2004, 19: 209–236. 10.1016/S0960-0779(03)00278-9View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. El Naschie MS: The idealized quantum two-slit Gedanken experiment revisited-criticism and reinterpretation. Chaos Solitons and Fractals 2006, 27: 843–849. 10.1016/j.chaos.2005.06.002View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. El Naschie MS: On two new fuzzy Kahler manifolds, Klein modular space and t Hooft holographic principles. Chaos Solitons and Fractals 2006, 29: 876–881. 10.1016/j.chaos.2005.12.027View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Saadati R, Sedgi S, Shobe N: Modified intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces and some fixed point theorems. Chaos Solitons and Fractals 2008, 38: 36–47. 10.1016/j.chaos.2006.11.008MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Jungck G: Compatible mappings and common fixed points. Int J Math Math Sci 1986, 9(4):771–779. 10.1155/S0161171286000935MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Aliouche A: A common fixed point theorem for weakly compatible mappings in symmetric spaces satisfying a contractive condition of integral type. J Math Anal Appl 2006, 322(2):796–802. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.09.068MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Altun I, Turkoglu D, Rhoades BE: Fixed Points of weakly compatible maps satisfying a general contractive conditions of integral type. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2007, 2007: 9. Article ID 17301MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Altun I, Turkoglu D: Some fixed point theorems for weakly compatible mappings satisfying an implicit relation. Taiwan J Math 2009, 13(4):1291–1304.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Branciari A: A fixed point theorem for mappings satisfying a general contractive condition of integral type. Int J Math Math Sci 2002, 29(9):531–536. 10.1155/S0161171202007524MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Djoudi A, Aliouche A: Common fixed point theorems of Gregus type for weakly compatible mappings satisfying contractive conditions of integral type. J Math Anal Appl 2007, 329(1):31–45. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.06.037MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Imdad M, Tanveer M, Hasan M: Some common fixed point theorems in Menger PM spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2010, 2010: 14. Article ID 819269MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Imdad M, Ali J, Hasan M: Common fixed point theorems in modified intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces. Iranian J fuzzy system, in press.Google Scholar
  25. Miheţ D: A generalization of a contraction principle in probabilistic metric spaces (II). Int J Math Math Sci 2005, 5: 729–736.Google Scholar
  26. Miheţ D: Fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces using property E.A. Nonlinear Anal 2010, 73: 2184–2188. 10.1016/j.na.2010.05.044MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Rhoades BE: Two fixed-point theorems for mappings satisfying a general contractive condition of integral type. Int J Math Math Sci 2003, 63: 4007–4013.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Singh B, Jain S: Semicompatibility and fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric space using implicit relation. Int J Math Math Sci 2005, 16: 2617–2629.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Suzuki T: Meir-Keeler contractions of integral type are still Meir-Keeler contractions. Int J Math Math Sci 2007, 2007: 6. Article ID 39281View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Turkoglu D, Altun I: A common fixed point theorem for weakly compatible mappings in symmetric spaces satisfying an implicit relation. Bol Soc Mat Mexicana 2007, 13(3):195–205.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. Vijayaraju P, Sajath ZMI: Some common fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces. Int J Math Anal 2009, 3(13–16):701–710.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. Pant RP: Common fixed points of noncommuting mappings. J Math Anal Appl 1994, 188: 436–440. 10.1006/jmaa.1994.1437MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Aamri M, El Moutawakil D: Some new common fixed point theorems under strict contractive conditions. J Math Anal Appl 2002, 270: 181–188. 10.1016/S0022-247X(02)00059-8MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu Y, Jun Wu, Li Z: Common fixed points of single-valued and multi-valued maps. Int J Math Math Sci 2005, 19: 3045–3055.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Kubiaczyk I, Sharma S: Some common fixed point theorems in Menger space under strict contractive conditions. Southeast Asian Bul Math 2008, 32: 117–124.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Deschrijver G, Kerre EE: On the relationship between some extensions of fuzzy set theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst 2003, 133: 227–235. 10.1016/S0165-0114(02)00127-6MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Deschrijver G, Cornelis C, Kerre EE: On the representation of intuitionistic fuzzy t -norms and t -conorms. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 2004, 12: 45–61. 10.1109/TFUZZ.2003.822678View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Turkoglu D, Alaca C, Cho YJ, Yildiz C: Common fixed point theorems in intuition-istic fuzzy metric spaces. J Appl Math Comput 2006, 22(1–2):411–424. 10.1007/BF02896489MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Rodriguez Lopez J, Ramaguera S: The Hausdorff fuzzy metric on compact sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 2004, 147: 273–283. 10.1016/j.fss.2003.09.007View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Imdad M, Ali J, Tanveer M: Coincidence and common fixed point theorems for nonlinear contractions in Menger PM spaces. Chaos Solitons and Fractals 2009, 42: 3121–3129. 10.1016/j.chaos.2009.04.017MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Imdad M, Ali J: Some common fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces, Mathematical Communications. Mathematical Communications 2006, 11: 153–163.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Tanveer et al; 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.

Advertisement