Skip to main content

Advertisement

We’d like to understand how you use our websites in order to improve them. Register your interest.

Coincidence and fixed point results for generalized weak contractions in the sense of Berinde on partial metric spaces

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce the notion of a generalized (ϕ,L)-weak contraction and we prove some common fixed point results for self-mappings T and S and some fixed point results for a single mapping T by using a (c)-comparison function and a comparison function in the sense of Berinde in a partial metric space. Also, we introduce an example to support the useability of our results.

MSC:47H10, 54H25.

1 Introduction and preliminaries

The contraction principle of Banach is one of the most important results in nonlinear analysis. After Banach established his existence and uniqueness result, many authors established important fixed point theorems in the literature. For the development of our research, in this article, the article by Matthews [1] is the background.

In 1994, in his elegant article [1], Matthews introduced the notion of a partial metric space and proved the contraction principle of Banach in this new framework. After then, many fixed point theorems in partial metric spaces have been given by several authors (for example, please see [224]).

Following Matthews [1], the notion of a partial metric space is given as follows.

Definition 1.1 [1]

A partial metric on a nonempty set X is a function p:X×X R + such that for all x,y,zX:

  • (p1) x=yp(x,x)=p(x,y)=p(y,y),

  • (p2) p(x,x)p(x,y),

  • (p3) p(x,y)=p(y,x),

  • (p4) p(x,y)p(x,z)+p(z,y)p(z,z).

A partial metric space is a pair (X,p) such that X is a nonempty set and p is a partial metric on X.

It is clear that each partial metric p on X generates a T 0 topology τ p on X. The set { B p (x,ε):xX,ε>0}, where B p (x,ε)={yX:p(x,y)<p(x,x)+ε} for all xX and ε>0, forms the base of τ p .

It is remarkable that if p is a partial metric on X, then the functions

p s :X×X R + , p s (x,y)=2p(x,y)p(x,x)p(y,y)
(1.1)

and

p w :X×X R + , p w (x,y)=2p(x,y)min { p ( x , x ) , p ( y , y ) }
(1.2)

are ordinary equivalent metrics on X.

Definition 1.2 [1]

Let (X,p) be a partial metric space. Then:

  1. (1)

    A sequence { x n } in a partial metric space (X,p) converges to a point xX if and only if p(x,x)= lim n p(x, x n ).

  2. (2)

    A sequence { x n } in a partial metric space (X,p) is called a Cauchy sequence if there exists (and is finite) lim n , m p( x n , x m ).

  3. (3)

    A partial metric space (X,p) is said to be complete if every Cauchy sequence { x n } in X converges, with respect to τ p , to a point xX such that p(x,x)= lim n , m p( x n , x m ).

The following lemma is crucial in proving our main results.

Lemma 1.1 [1]

Let (X,p) be a partial metric space.

  1. (1)

    { 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 ).

  2. (2)

    A partial metric space (X,p) is complete if and only if the metric space (X, p s ) is complete. Furthermore, lim n p s ( x n ,x)=0 if and only if

    p(x,x)= lim n p( x n ,x)= lim n , m p( x n , x m ).

The definition of a 0-complete partial metric space is given by Romaguera [19] as follows.

Definition 1.3 [19]

A sequence { x n } in a partial metric space (X,p) is called 0-Cauchy if lim n , m + p( x n , x m )=0. We say that (X,p) is 0-complete if every 0-Cauchy sequence in X converges, with respect to τ p , to a point xX such that p(x,x)=0.

We need the following useful lemma in the proof of our main result.

Lemma 1.2 [2]

Assume that x n z as n+ in a partial metric space (X,p) such that p(z,z)=0. Then lim n + p( x n ,y)=p(z,y) for every yX.

In [25], Berinde introduced the nonlinear type weak contraction using a comparison function. A map ϕ:[0,+)[0,+) is called a comparison function if it satisfies:

  1. (i)

    ϕ is monotone increasing,

  2. (ii)

    lim n + ϕ n (t)=0 for all t0.

If ϕ satisfies (i) and

  1. (iii)

    n = 0 ϕ n (t) converges for all t0,

then ϕ is said to be a (c)-comparison function.

It is an easy matter to see that if ϕ is a comparison function or a (c)-comparison function, then ϕ(t)<t for all t>0 and ϕ(0)=0.

Berinde [26, 27] initiated the concept of weak contraction mappings, the concept of almost contraction mappings and the concepts of (ϕ,L)-weak contractions. Berinde [2532] studied many interesting fixed point theorems for weak contraction mappings, almost contraction mappings and (ϕ,L)-weak contraction mappings in metric spaces. We have to recall the following definition.

Definition 1.4 [25]

A single-valued mapping f:XX is called a Ćirić strong almost contraction if there exist a constant α[0,1) and some L0 such that

d(fx,fy)αmax { d ( x , y ) , d ( x , f x ) , d ( y , f y ) , d ( x , f y ) + d ( y , f x ) 2 } +Ld(y,fx)

for all x,yX.

For some theorems of almost contractive mappings in the sense of Berinde on metric spaces, we refer the reader to [3342].

Very recently, Ishak Altun and Özlem Acar initiated the notions of a (δ,L)-weak contraction and a (ϕ,L)-weak contraction in partial metric spaces as follows.

Definition 1.5 [43]

Let (X,p) be a partial metric space. A map T is called a (δ,L)-weak contraction if there exist a δ[0,1) and some L0 such that

p(Tx,Ty)δp(x,y)+L p w (y,Tx).
(1.3)

Because of the symmetry of the distance, the (δ,L)-weak contraction condition implicitly includes the following dual one:

p(Tx,Ty)δp(x,y)+L p w (x,Ty).
(1.4)

Thus by (1.3) and (1.4), the (δ,L)-weak contraction condition can be replaced by the following condition:

p(Tx,Ty)δp(x,y)+Lmin { p w ( y , T x ) , p w ( x , T y ) } .
(1.5)

Definition 1.6 [43]

Let (X,p) be a partial metric space. A map T is called (ϕ,L)-weak contraction if there exist a comparison function ϕ and some L0 such that

p(Tx,Ty)ϕ ( p ( x , y ) ) +L p w (y,Tx).
(1.6)

As above, because of the symmetry of the distance, the (ϕ,L)-weak contraction condition implicitly includes the following dual one:

p(Tx,Ty)ϕ ( p ( x , y ) ) +L p w (x,Ty).
(1.7)

Thus, by (1.6) and (1.7), the (ϕ,L)-weak contraction condition can be replaced by the following condition:

p(Tx,Ty)δϕ ( p ( x , y ) ) +Lmin { p w ( y , T x ) , p w ( x , T y ) } .
(1.8)

Altun and Acar [43] proved the following interesting theorems.

Theorem 1.1 [43]

Let (X,p) be a 0-complete partial metric space and T:XX be a (ϕ,L)-weak contraction mapping with a (c)-comparison function, then T has a fixed point.

Theorem 1.2 [43]

Let (X,p) be a 0-complete partial metric space and T:XX be a (ϕ,L)-weak contraction mapping. Suppose T also satisfies the following condition: There exist a comparison function ϕ 1 and some L 1 0 such that

p(Tx,Ty) ϕ 1 ( p ( x , y ) ) + L 1 p w (x,Tx)

for all x,yX. Then T has a unique fixed point.

In this paper, we introduce the notion of a generalized (δ,L)-weak contraction mapping and a generalized (ϕ,L)-weak contraction mapping in partial metric spaces. Then after, we prove some fixed point results for two mappings S and T and some fixed point results for a single mapping T. Our results generalize Theorems 1.1 and 1.2.

2 The main result

We start our work by introducing the following two concepts.

Definition 2.1 Let (X,p) be a partial metric space and T,S:XX be two mappings. The pair (T,S) is called a generalized (δ,L)-weak contraction if there exist δ[0,1) and some L0 such that

p ( T x , S y ) δ max { p ( x , y ) , p ( x , T x ) , p ( y , T y ) , 1 2 ( p ( x , S y ) + p ( T x , x ) ) } + L min { p w ( x , S y ) , p w ( T x , y ) }
(2.1)

for all x,yX.

Definition 2.2 Let (X,p) be a partial metric space and T,S:XX be two mappings. Then the pair (T,S) is called a generalized (ϕ,L)-weak contraction if there exist a control function ϕ and some L0 such that

p ( T x , S y ) ϕ ( max { p ( x , y ) , p ( x , T x ) , p ( y , S y ) , 1 2 ( p ( T x , y ) + p ( x , S y ) ) } ) + L min { p w ( x , S y ) , p w ( T x , y ) }
(2.2)

for all x,yX.

Now, we give and prove our first result.

Theorem 2.1 Let (X,p) be a 0-complete partial metric space and T,S:XX be two mappings such that the pair (T,S) is a generalized (ϕ,L)-weak contraction. If ϕ is a (c)-comparison function, then T and S have a common fixed point.

Proof Choose x 0 X. Put x 1 =T x 0 . Again, put x 2 =S x 1 . Continuing this process, we construct a sequence ( x n ) in X such that x 2 n + 1 =T x 2 n and x 2 n + 2 =S x 2 n + 1 . Suppose p( x n , x n + 1 )=0 for some nN. Without loss of generality, we assume n=2k for some kN. Thus p( x 2 k , x 2 k + 1 )=0. Now, by (2.2), we have

Since ϕ(t)<t for all t>0, we conclude that p( x 2 k + 1 , x 2 k + 2 )=0. By (p1) and (p2) of the definition of partial metric spaces, we have x 2 k + 1 = x 2 k + 2 . So, x 2 k = x 2 k + 1 = x 2 k + 2 . Therefore x 2 k =T x 2 k =S x 2 k and hence x k is a fixed point of T and S. Thus, we may assume that p( x n , x n + 1 )0 for all nN. Given nN. If n is even, then n=2t for some tN. By (2.2), we have

Using (p4) of the definition of partial metric spaces and the definition of p w , we arrive at

p ( x 2 t , x 2 t + 1 ) ϕ ( max { p ( x 2 t , x 2 t 1 ) , p ( x 2 t , x 2 t + 1 ) , 1 2 ( p ( x 2 t 1 , x 2 t ) + p ( x 2 t , x 2 t + 1 ) ) } ) ϕ ( max { p ( x 2 t , x 2 t 1 ) , p ( x 2 t , x 2 t + 1 ) } ) .
(2.3)

If max{p( x 2 t , x 2 t 1 ),p( x 2 t , x 2 t + 1 )}=p( x 2 t , x 2 t + 1 ), then (2.3) yields a contradiction. Thus, max{p( x 2 t , x 2 t 1 ),p( x 2 t , x 2 t + 1 )}=p( x 2 t , x 2 t 1 ) and hence

p( x 2 t , x 2 t + 1 )ϕ ( p ( x 2 t , x 2 t 1 ) ) .
(2.4)

If n is odd, then n=2t+1 for some tN{0}. By similar arguments as above, we can show that

p( x 2 t + 1 , x 2 t + 2 )ϕ ( p ( x 2 t , x 2 t + 1 ) ) .
(2.5)

By (2.4) and (2.5), we have

p( x n , x n + 1 )ϕ ( p ( x n 1 , x n ) ) .
(2.6)

By repeating (2.6) n-times, we get p( x n , x n + 1 ) ϕ n (p( x 0 , x 1 )). For n,mN with m>n, we have

p ( x n , x m ) i = n m 1 p ( x i , x i + 1 ) i = n m 2 p ( x i + 1 , x i + 1 ) i = n m 1 p ( x i , x i + 1 ) i = n m 1 ϕ i ( p ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) i = n ϕ i ( p ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) .

Since ϕ is (c)-comparison, we have i = 0 ϕ i (p( x 0 , x 1 )) converges and hence

lim n + i = n ϕ i ( p ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) =0.

So, lim n , m + p( x n , x m )=0. Thus ( x n ) is a 0-Cauchy sequence in X. Since X is 0-complete, there exists zX such that x n z with p(z,z)=0. So,

lim n , m + p( x n , x m )= lim n + p( x n ,z)=p(z,z)=0.
(2.7)

Now, we prove that Sz=z and Tz=z. Since p( x 2 n + 1 ,z)p(z,z)=0 and p( x 2 n + 2 ,z)p(z,z)=0, then by Lemma 1.2 we get

lim n + p( x 2 n + 1 ,Sz)=p(z,Sz)
(2.8)

and

lim n + p( x 2 n + 2 ,Tz)=p(z,Tz).
(2.9)

By using (2.2), we have

p ( x 2 n + 1 , S z ) = p ( T x 2 n , S z ) ϕ ( max { p ( x 2 n , z ) , p ( x 2 n , T x 2 n ) , p ( z , S z ) , 1 2 ( p ( T x 2 n , z ) + p ( x 2 n , S z ) ) } ) + L min { p w ( T x 2 n , z ) , p w ( x 2 n , S z ) } = ϕ ( max { p ( x 2 n , z ) , p ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) , p ( z , S z ) , 1 2 ( p ( x 2 n + 1 , z ) + p ( x 2 n , S z ) ) } ) + L min { p w ( x 2 n + 1 , z ) , p w ( x 2 n , S z ) } .

On letting n+ in the above inequality and using (2.7) and (2.8), we get that p(z,Sz)ϕ(p(z,Sz)). Since ϕ(t)<t for all t>0, we conclude that p(z,Sz)=0. By using (p1) and (p2) of the definition of partial metric spaces, we get that Sz=z. By similar arguments as above, we may show that Tz=z. □

The common fixed point of S and T in Theorem 2.1 is unique if we replaced min{ p w (x,Sy), p w (Tx,y)} by min{ p w (x,Tx), p w (x,Sy), p w (Tx,y)} in (2.2). So, we have the following result.

Theorem 2.2 Let (X,p) be a 0-complete partial metric space and T,S:XX be two mappings such that

p ( T x , S y ) ϕ ( max { p ( x , y ) , p ( x , T x ) , p ( y , S y ) , 1 2 ( p ( T x , y ) + p ( x , S y ) ) } ) + L min { p w ( x , T x ) , p w ( x , S y ) , p w ( T x , y ) }
(2.10)

for all x,yX. If ϕ is a (c)-comparison function, then the common fixed point of T and S is unique.

Proof The existence of the common fixed point of T and S follows from Theorem 2.1. To prove the uniqueness of the common fixed point of T and S, we let u, v be two common fixed points of T and S. Then Tu=Su=u and Tv=Sv=v. Now, we will show that u=v. By (2.10), we have

p ( u , v ) = p ( T u , S v ) ϕ ( max { p ( u , v ) , p ( u , T u ) , p ( v , S v ) , 1 2 ( p ( T u , v ) + p ( v , T u ) ) } ) + L min { p w ( u , T u ) , p w ( T u , v ) , p w ( v , T u ) } = ϕ ( max { p ( u , v ) , p ( u , u ) , p ( v , v ) , 1 2 ( p ( u , v ) + p ( v , u ) ) } ) + L min { p w ( u , u ) , p w ( u , v ) , p w ( v , u ) } = ϕ ( p ( u , v ) ) .

Since ϕ(t)<t for all t>0, we conclude that p(u,v)=0. By (p1) and (p2) of the definition of partial metric spaces, we get that u=v. □

Taking T=S in Theorems 2.1 and 2.2, we have the following results.

Corollary 2.1 Let (X,p) be a 0-complete partial metric space and T:XX be a mapping such that

p ( T x , T y ) ϕ ( max { p ( x , y ) , p ( x , T x ) , p ( y , T y ) , 1 2 ( p ( T x , y ) + p ( x , T y ) ) } ) + L min { p w ( x , T y ) , p w ( T x , y ) }

for all x,yX. If ϕ is a (c)-comparison function, then T has a fixed point.

Corollary 2.2 Let (X,p) be a 0-complete partial metric space and T:XX be a mapping such that

p ( T x , T y ) ϕ ( max { p ( x , y ) , p ( x , T x ) , p ( y , T y ) , 1 2 ( p ( T x , y ) + p ( x , T y ) ) } ) + L min { p w ( x , T x ) , p w ( x , T y ) , p w ( T x , y ) }

for all x,yX. If ϕ is a (c)-comparison function, then T has a unique fixed point.

By the aid of Lemma 2.1 of Ref. [44], we have the following consequence results of Corollaries 2.1 and 2.2.

Corollary 2.3 Let (X,p) be a partial metric space and T,S:XX be two mappings such that

p ( T x , T y ) ϕ ( max { p ( S x , S y ) , p ( S x , T x ) , p ( S y , T y ) , 1 2 ( p ( T x , S y ) + p ( S x , T y ) ) } ) + L min { p w ( S x , T y ) , p w ( S y , T x ) }

for all x,yX. Also, suppose that

  1. (1)

    TXSX.

  2. (2)

    SX is a 0-complete subspace of the partial metric space X.

If ϕ is a (c)-comparison function, then T and S have a coincidence point. Moreover, the point of coincidence of T and S is unique.

Corollary 2.4 Let (X,p) be a partial metric space and T,S:XX be two mappings such that

p ( T x , T y ) ϕ ( max { p ( S x , S y ) , p ( S x , T x ) , p ( S y , T y ) , 1 2 ( p ( T x , S y ) + p ( S x , T y ) ) } ) + L min { p w ( T x , S x ) , p w ( S x , T y ) , p w ( S y , T x ) }

for all x,yX. Also, suppose that

  1. (1)

    TXSX.

  2. (2)

    SX is a 0-complete subspace of the partial metric space X.

If ϕ is a (c)-comparison function, then the point of coincidence of T and S is unique; that is, if Tu=Su and Tv=Sv, then Tu=Tv=Sv=Su.

By taking ϕ(t)=kt, k[0,1) in Corollaries 2.1 and 2.2, we have the following results.

Corollary 2.5 Let (X,p) be a 0-complete partial metric space and T:XX be a mapping such that

p ( T x , T y ) k max { p ( x , y ) , p ( x , T x ) , p ( y , T y ) , 1 2 ( p ( T x , y ) + p ( x , T y ) ) } + L min { p w ( x , T y ) , p w ( T x , y ) }

for all x,yX. If 0k<1, then T has a fixed point.

Corollary 2.6 Let (X,p) be a 0-complete partial metric space and T:XX be a mapping such that

p ( T x , T y ) k max { p ( x , y ) , p ( x , T x ) , p ( y , T y ) , 1 2 ( p ( T x , y ) + p ( x , T y ) ) } + L min { p w ( x , T x ) , p w ( x , T y ) , p w ( T x , y ) }

for all x,yX. If k[0,1), then T has a unique fixed point.

By the aid of Lemma 2.1 of Ref. [44], we have the following consequence results of Corollaries 2.5 and 2.6.

Corollary 2.7 Let (X,p) be a partial metric space and T,S:XX be two mappings such that

p ( T x , T y ) k max { p ( S x , S y ) , p ( S x , T x ) , p ( S y , T y ) , 1 2 ( p ( T x , S y ) + p ( S x , T y ) ) } + L min { p w ( S x , T y ) , p w ( S y , T x ) }

for all x,yX. Also, suppose that

  1. (1)

    TXSX.

  2. (2)

    SX is a 0-complete subspace of the partial metric space X.

If k[0,1), then T and S have a coincidence point.

Corollary 2.8 Let (X,p) be a partial metric space and T,S:XX be two mappings such that

p ( T x , T y ) ϕ ( max { p ( S x , S y ) , p ( S x , T x ) , p ( S y , T y ) , 1 2 ( p ( T x , S y ) + p ( S x , T y ) ) } ) + L min { p w ( T x , S x ) , p w ( S x , T y ) , p w ( S y , T x ) }

for all x,yX. Also, suppose that

  1. (1)

    TXSX.

  2. (2)

    SX is a 0-complete subspace of the partial metric space X.

If k[0,1), then the point of coincidence of T and S is unique; that is, if Tu=Su and Tv=Sv, then Tu=Tv=Sv=Su.

The (c)-comparison function in Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 can be replaced by a comparison function if we formulated the contractive condition to a suitable form. For this instance, we have the following result.

Theorem 2.3 Let (X,p) be a 0-complete partial metric space and T:XX be a mapping such that

p ( T x , T y ) ϕ ( max { p ( x , y ) , p ( x , T x ) , p ( y , T y ) } ) + L min { p w ( x , T x ) , p w ( x , T y ) , p w ( y , T x ) }
(2.11)

for all x,yX. If ϕ is a comparison function, then T has a unique fixed point.

Proof Choose x 0 X. Put x 1 =T x 0 . Again, put x 2 X such that x 2 =T x 1 . Continuing the same process, we can construct a sequence ( x n ) in X such that x n + 1 =T x n . If p( x k , x k + 1 )=0 for some kN, then by the definition of partial metric spaces, we have x k = x k + 1 =T x k , that is, x k is a fixed point of T. Thus, we assume that p( x n , x n + 1 )0 for all nN. By (2.11), we have

p ( x n , x n + 1 ) = p ( T x n 1 , T x n ) ϕ ( max { p ( x n 1 , x n ) , p ( x n 1 , T x n 1 ) , p ( x n , T x n ) } ) + L min { p w ( x n 1 , T x n ) , p w ( x n 1 , T x n ) , p w ( x n , T x n 1 ) } = ϕ ( max { p ( x n 1 , x n ) , p ( x n , x n + 1 ) } ) + L min { p w ( x n 1 , x n + 1 ) , p w ( x n , x n ) } = ϕ ( max { p ( x n 1 , x n ) , p ( x n , x n + 1 ) } ) .

If

max { p ( x n 1 , x n ) , p ( x n , x n + 1 ) } =p( x n , x n + 1 ),

then

p( x n , x n + 1 )ϕ ( p ( x n , x n + 1 ) ) <p( x n , x n + 1 ),

a contradiction. Thus,

max { p ( x n 1 , x n ) , p ( x n , x n + 1 ) } =p( x n 1 , x n )

and hence

p( x n , x n + 1 )ϕ ( p ( x n 1 , x n ) ) nN.
(2.12)

Repeating (2.12) n times, we get that

p( x n , x n + 1 ) ϕ n ( p ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) .

Now, we will prove that ( x n ) is a Cauchy sequence in the partial metric space (X,p). For this, given ϵ>0, since 1 2 + L (ϵϕ(ϵ))>0 and lim n + ϕ n (p( x 0 , x 1 ))=0, there exists kN such that p( x n , x n + 1 )< 1 2 + L (ϵϕ(ϵ)) for all nk. Now, given m,nN with m>n. Claim: p( x n , x m )<ϵ for all m>nk. We prove our claim by induction on m. Since k+1>k, then

p( x k , x k + 1 )< 1 2 + L ( ϵ ϕ ( ϵ ) ) <ϵ.

The last inequality proves our claim for m=k+1. Assume that our claim holds for m=k. To prove our claim for m=k+1, we have

p ( x n , x k + 1 ) p ( x n , x n + 1 ) + p ( x n + 1 , x k + 1 ) p ( x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) p ( x n , x n + 1 ) + p ( x n + 1 , x k + 1 ) = p ( x n , x n + 1 ) + p ( T x n , T x k ) .
(2.13)

By (2.11), we have

p ( T x n , T x k ) ϕ ( max { p ( x n , x k ) , p ( x n , T x n ) , p ( x k , T x k ) } ) + L min { p ( x n , T x n ) , p ( x n , T x k ) , p ( x k , T x n ) } = ϕ ( max { p ( x n , x k ) , p ( x n , x n + 1 ) , p ( x k , x k + 1 ) } ) + L min { p ( x n , x n + 1 ) , p ( x n , x k + 1 ) , p ( x k , x n + 1 ) } ϕ ( max { p ( x n , x k ) , p ( x n , x n + 1 ) , p ( x k , x k + 1 ) + L p ( x n , x n + 1 ) .

If max{p( x n , x k ),p( x n , x n + 1 ),p( x k , x k + 1 )}=p( x n , x k ), then by (2.13) we have

p ( x n , x k + 1 ) p ( x n , x n + 1 ) + ϕ ( p ( x n , x k ) ) + L p ( x n , x n + 1 ) < 1 + L 2 + L ( ϵ ϕ ( ϵ ) ) + ϕ ( ϵ ) < ϵ .

If max{p( x n , x k ),p( x n , x n + 1 ),p( x k , x k + 1 )}=p( x n , x n + 1 ), then by (2.13) we have

p ( x n , x k + 1 ) p ( x n , x n + 1 ) + ϕ ( p ( x n , x n + 1 ) ) + L p ( x n , x n + 1 ) < ( 2 + L ) p ( x n , x n + 1 ) < ϵ ϕ ( ϵ ) < ϵ .

If max{p( x n , x k ),p( x n , x n + 1 ),p( x k , x k + 1 )}=p( x k , x k + 1 ), then by (2.13) we have

p ( x n , x k + 1 ) p ( x n , x n + 1 ) + ϕ ( p ( x k , x k + 1 ) ) + L p ( x n , x n + 1 ) < ( 1 + L ) p ( x n , x n + 1 ) + p ( x k , x k + 1 ) < 1 + L 2 + L ( ϵ ϕ ( ϵ ) ) + 1 2 + L ( ϵ ϕ ( ϵ ) ) < ϵ .

Thus ( x n ) is a 0-Cauchy sequence in X. Since X is 0-complete, then ( x n ) converges, with respect to τ p , to a point z for some zX such that

lim n , m + p( x n , x m )= lim n + p( x n ,z)=p(z,z)=0.
(2.14)

Now, assume that p(z,Tz)>0. By using (p4) of the definition of partial metric spaces and (2.11), we have

p ( z , T z ) p ( z , x n + 1 ) + p ( x n + 1 , T z ) = p ( z , x n + 1 ) + p ( T x n , T z ) p ( z , x n + 1 ) + ϕ ( max { p ( x n , z ) , p ( x n , T x n ) , p ( z , T z ) } ) + L min { p w ( x n , T x n ) , p w ( x n , T z ) , p w ( T x n , z ) } = p ( z , x n + 1 ) + ϕ ( max { p ( x n , z ) , p ( x n , x n + 1 ) , p ( z , T z ) } ) + L min { p w ( x n , x n + 1 ) , p w ( x n , T z ) , p w ( x n + 1 , S z ) } .
(2.15)

Since

lim n , m + p( x n , x n + 1 )= lim n + p( x n ,z)=0

and p(z,Tz)>0, we can choose n 0 N such that

max { p ( x n , z ) , p ( x n , x n + 1 ) , p ( z , T z ) } =p(z,Tz)

for all n n 0 . Thus (2.15) becomes

p(z,Tz)p(z, x n + 1 )+ϕ ( p ( z , T z ) ) +Lmin { p w ( x n , x n + 1 ) , p w ( x n , T z ) , p w ( x n + 1 , z ) } ,

for all n n 0 . On letting n+ in the above inequality and using 2.14, we get that p(z,Tz)ϕ(p(z,Tz))<p(z,Tz), a contradiction. Thus p(z,Tz)=0. By using (p1) and (p2) of the definition of a partial metric space, we get that z=Tz; that is, z is a fixed point of T. To prove that the fixed point of T is unique, we assume that u and v are fixed points of T. Thus, we have Tu=u and Tv=v. By (2.11), we have

p ( u , v ) = p ( T u , T v ) ϕ ( max { p ( u , v ) , p ( u , T u ) , p ( v , T v ) } ) + L min { p ( u , T u ) , p ( u , T v ) , p ( v , T u ) } = ϕ ( p ( u , v ) ) .

Since ϕ(t)<t for all tN, we have p(u,v)=0. By (p1) and (p2), we have u=v. □

By the aid of Lemma 2.1 of Ref. [44], we have the following consequence result of Theorem 2.3.

Corollary 2.9 Let (X,p) be a partial metric space and T,S:XX be two mappings such that for some L0, we have

p ( T x , T y ) ϕ ( max { p ( S x , S y ) , p ( S x , T x ) , p ( S y , T y ) } ) + L min { p w ( S x , T x ) , p w ( S x , T y ) , p w ( S y , T x ) }

for all x,yX. Also, suppose that

  1. (1)

    TXSX.

  2. (2)

    SX is a 0-complete subspace of the partial metric space X.

If ϕ is a comparison function, then T and S have a coincidence point. Moreover, the point of coincidence of T and S is unique.

The uniqueness of a common fixed point of T and S in Theorem 2.1 can be proved under an additional contractive condition based on a comparison function ϕ 1 .

Corollary 2.10 Let (X,p) be a 0-complete partial metric space and T,S:XX be two mappings. Assume there exists a (c)-comparison function ϕ such that the pair (T,S) is a generalized (ϕ,L)-weak contraction. Also, suppose that there exist a comparison function ϕ 1 and L 1 0 such that

p ( T x , S y ) ϕ 1 ( max { p ( x , y ) , p ( x , T x ) , p ( y , S y ) , 1 2 ( p ( T x , y ) + p ( x , S y ) ) } ) + L p ( x , T x )
(2.16)

for all x,yX. Then T and S have a unique common fixed point.

Proof The existence of the common fixed point of T and S follows from Theorem 2.1. To prove the uniqueness of the fixed point, we assume that u and v are two fixed points of T and S. Then by (2.16), we have

p ( u , v ) = p ( T u , S v ) ϕ 1 ( max { p ( u , v ) , p ( u , T u ) , p ( v , S v ) , 1 2 ( p ( T u , v ) + p ( u , S v ) ) } ) + L 1 p ( u , T u ) = ϕ 1 ( p ( u , v ) ) .

Since ϕ 1 (t)<t for all t>0, we get p(u,v)=0 and hence u=v. □

Taking S=T in Corollary 2.10, we have the following result.

Corollary 2.11 Let (X,p) be a 0-complete partial metric space and T:XX be a mapping. Assume there exists a (c)-comparison function ϕ such that

p(Tx,Ty)ϕ ( max { p ( x , y ) , p ( x , T x ) , p ( y , T y ) , 1 2 ( p ( T x , y ) + p ( x , T y ) ) } ) +Lp(x,Tx)

for all x,yX. Also, suppose that there exist a comparison function ϕ 1 and L 1 0 such that

p ( T x , S y ) ϕ 1 ( max { p ( x , y ) , p ( x , T x ) , p ( y , S y ) , 1 2 ( p ( T x , y ) + p ( x , S y ) ) } ) + L p ( x , T x )

for all x,yX. Then T has a unique fixed point.

By the aid of Lemma 2.1 of [44], we have the following result.

Corollary 2.12 Let (X,p) be a partial metric space and T,S:XX be two mappings. Suppose there exist a (c)-comparison function ϕ and L0 such that

p ( T x , T y ) ϕ ( max { p ( S x , S y ) , p ( S x , T x ) , p ( S y , T y ) , 1 2 ( p ( T x , S y ) + p ( S x , T y ) ) } ) + L min { p w ( S x , T y ) , p w ( S y , T x ) }

for all x,yX. Also, assume that there exist a comparison function ϕ 1 and L 1 0 such that

p ( T x , T y ) ϕ ( max { p ( S x , S y ) , p ( S x , T x ) , p ( S y , T y ) , 1 2 ( p ( T x , S y ) + p ( S x , T y ) ) } ) + L p ( S x , T x )

for all x,yX. Moreover, assume that

  1. (1)

    TXSX.

  2. (2)

    SX is a 0-complete subspace of the partial metric space X.

Then the point of coincidence of T and S is unique.

Now, we introduce an example satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem 2.3 to support the useability of our results.

Example 2.1 Let X=[0,1]. Define a partial metric p:X×X[0,+) by the formula p(x,y)=max{x,y}. Also, define T:XX by Tx= x 1 + x and the comparison function ϕ:[0,+)[0,+) by ϕ(t)= t 1 + t . Then, we have

  1. (1)

    (X,p) is a 0-complete partial metric space.

  2. (2)

    For any L0, the inequality

    p(Tx,Ty)ϕ ( max { p ( x , y ) , p ( x , T x ) , p ( y , T y ) } ) +Lmin { p w ( x , T x ) , p w ( x , T y ) , p w ( y , T x ) }

    holds for all x,yX.

  3. (3)

    There are no (c)-comparison function ϕ and L0 such that the inequality

    p(Tx,Ty)ϕ ( p ( x , y ) ) +Lmin { p w ( x , T y ) , p w ( y , T x ) }

    holds for all x,yX.

Proof To prove (2), given x,yX. Without loss of generality, we may assume that yx. Thus, we have

p ( T x , T y ) = p ( x 1 + x , y 1 + y ) = x 1 + x = ϕ ( x ) ϕ ( max { p ( x , y ) , p ( x , T x ) , p ( y , T y ) } ) + L min { p w ( x , T x ) , p w ( x , T y ) , p w ( y , T x ) } .

To prove (3), we assume that there exist a (c)-comparison function ϕ and some L0 such that

p(Tx,Ty)ϕ ( p ( x , y ) ) +Lmin { p w ( x , T y ) , p w ( y , T x ) }

holds for all x,yX.

Thus,

p ( T 1 n , T 1 n + 1 ) ϕ ( p ( 1 n , 1 1 + n ) ) +Lmin { p w ( 1 n , T 1 n + 1 ) , p w ( 1 n + 1 , T 1 n ) }

holds for all nN. Hence

p ( 1 n + 1 , 1 n + 2 ) ϕ ( p ( 1 n , 1 1 + n ) ) +Lmin { p w ( 1 n , 1 n + 2 ) , p w ( 1 n + 1 , 1 n + 1 ) }

holds for all nN. Therefore, for nN, we have

1 1 + n ϕ ( 1 n ) .

By induction on n, we can show that

1 1 + n ϕ n (1)

holds for all nN. Since n = 0 1 1 + n diverges, we have n = 0 ϕ n (1) diverges. So, ϕ is not a (c)-comparison function. □

Remark Example 2.1 satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 2.3 and does not satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem 3 and Theorem 4 of [43].

Remarks

  1. (1)

    Theorem 1.1 [[43], Theorem 3] is a special case of Corollary 2.1.

  2. (2)

    [[43], Corollary 1] is a special case of Corollary 2.5.

  3. (3)

    Theorem 1.2 [[43], Theorem 4] is a special case of Corollary 2.10.

3 Conclusion

In this paper, we introduced the notion of a generalized (ϕ,L)-weak contraction. In the first part of this paper, we utilized our definition to derive a common fixed point of two self-mappings T and S under a (c)-comparison function ϕ. Also, we used Lemma 2.1 of Ref. [44] to derive a common fixed point of two self-mappings T and S. In the second part of this paper, we generalized the main result (Theorem 3) of [43] by proving Theorem 2.3 under a comparison function. Also, we utilized Lemma 2.1 of Ref. [44] to derive a common coincidence point of two self-mappings T and S. Finally, we closed our paper by introducing Example 2.1 which satisfies the hypotheses of our result Theorem 2.3 and does not satisfy the hypotheses of Theorems 3, 4 of [43].

References

  1. 1.

    Matthews SG: Partial metric topology. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 728. Papers on General Topology and Applications (Flushing, NY, 1992) 1994, 183–197.

  2. 2.

    Abdeljawad T, Karapinar E, Taş K: Existence and uniqueness of a common fixed point on partial metric spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 2011, 24(11):1900–1904. 10.1016/j.aml.2011.05.014

  3. 3.

    Abdeljawad T, Karapinar E, Taş K: A generalized contraction principle with control functions on partial metric spaces. Comput. Math. Appl. 2012, 63(3):716–719. 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.11.035

  4. 4.

    Abdeljawad T: Fixed points for generalized weakly contractive mappings in partial metric spaces. Math. Comput. Model. 2011, 54(11–12):2923–2927. 10.1016/j.mcm.2011.07.013

  5. 5.

    Altun I, Erduran A: Fixed point theorems for monotone mappings on partial metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2011., 2011: Article ID 508730

  6. 6.

    Altun I, Simsek H: Some fixed point theorems on dualistic partial metric spaces. J. Adv. Math. Stud. 2008, 1(1–2):1–8.

  7. 7.

    Altun I, Simsek H: Some fixed point theorems on ordered metric spaces and application. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 6214469

  8. 8.

    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

  9. 9.

    Altun I, Sadarangani K: Corrigendum to ‘Generalized contractions on partial metric spaces’ [Topology Appl. 157 (2010) 2778–2785]. Topol. Appl. 2011, 158(13):1738–1740. 10.1016/j.topol.2011.05.023

  10. 10.

    Aydi H: Some fixed point results in ordered partial metric spaces. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 2011, 4(2):1–12.

  11. 11.

    Aydi H: Some coupled fixed point results on partial metric spaces. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2011., 2011: Article ID 647091

  12. 12.

    Aydi H: Fixed point theorems for generalized weakly contractive condition in ordered partial metric spaces. J. Nonlinear Anal. Optim. 2011, 2(2):33–48.

  13. 13.

    Aydi H, Karapinar E, Shatanawi W:Coupled fixed point results for (ψ,φ)-weakly contractive condition in ordered partial metric spaces. Comput. Math. Appl. 2011, 62: 4449–4460. 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.10.021

  14. 14.

    Ćirić L, 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

  15. 15.

    Golubović Z, Kadelburg Z, Radenović S: Coupled coincidence points of mappings in ordered partial metric spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 192581

  16. 16.

    Karapınar E, Erhan I: Fixed point theorems for operators on partial metric spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 2011, 24: 1894–1899. 10.1016/j.aml.2011.05.013

  17. 17.

    Nashine HK, Kadelburg Z, Radenović S: Common fixed point theorems for weakly isotone increasing mappings in ordered partial metric spaces. Math. Comput. Model. 2011. doi:10.10016/j.mcm.2011.12.019

  18. 18.

    Oltra S, Valero O: Banach’s fixed point theorem for partial metric spaces. Rend. Ist. Mat. Univ. Trieste 2004, 36(1–2):17–26.

  19. 19.

    Romaguera S: A Kirk type characterization of completeness for partial metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 493298

  20. 20.

    Romaguera S: Fixed point theorems for generalized contractions on partial metric spaces. Topol. Appl. 2012, 159: 194–199. 10.1016/j.topol.2011.08.026

  21. 21.

    Samet B, Rajović M, Lazović R, Stoiljković R: Common fixed point results for nonlinear contractions in ordered partial metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2011., 2011: Article ID 71

  22. 22.

    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.

  23. 23.

    Shatanawi W, Nashine HK, Tahat N: Generalization of some coupled fixed point results on partial metric spaces. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2012., 2012: Article ID 686801

  24. 24.

    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

  25. 25.

    Berinde V: Approximating fixed points of weak ϕ -contractions using the Picard iteration. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2003, 4(2):131–142.

  26. 26.

    Berinde V: Approximating fixed points of weak contractions using the Picard iteration. Nonlinear Anal. Forum 2004, 9(1):43–53.

  27. 27.

    Berinde V: On the approximation of fixed points of weak contractive mappings. Carpath. J. Math. 2003, 19(1):7–22.

  28. 28.

    Berinde V: General constructive fixed point theorems for Ćirić-type almost contractions in metric spaces. Carpath. J. Math. 2008, 24(2):10–19.

  29. 29.

    Berinde V: Approximating common fixed points of noncommuting discontinuous weakly contractive mappings in metric spaces. Carpath. J. Math. 2009, 25(1):13–22.

  30. 30.

    Berinde V: Some remarks on a fixed point theorem for Ćirić-type almost contractions. Carpath. J. Math. 2009, 25(2):157–162.

  31. 31.

    Berinde V: Approximating common fixed points of noncommuting almost contractions in metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010, 11(2):179–188.

  32. 32.

    Berinde V: Common fixed points of noncommuting almost contractions in cone metric spaces. Math. Commun. 2010, 15(1):229–241.

  33. 33.

    Babu GVR, Sandhya ML, Kameswari MVR: A note on a fixed point theorem of Berinde on weak contractions. Carpath. J. Math. 2008, 24(1):8–12.

  34. 34.

    Pǎcurar M: Sequences of almost contractions and fixed points. Carpath. J. Math. 2008, 24(2):101–109.

  35. 35.

    Pǎcurar M: Iterative Methods for Fixed Point Approximation. Editura Risoprint, Cluj-Napoca; 2009.

  36. 36.

    Pǎcurar M: Remark regarding two classes of almost contractions with unique fixed point. Creat. Math. Inform. 2010, 19(2):178–183.

  37. 37.

    Pǎcurar M: Fixed point theory for cyclic Berinde operators. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2011, 12(2):419–428.

  38. 38.

    Samet B, Vetro C: Berinde mappings in orbitally complete metric space. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2011, 44(12):1075–1079. 10.1016/j.chaos.2011.08.009

  39. 39.

    Sintunavarat W, Kumam P:Weak condition for generalized multi-valued (f,α,β)-weak contraction mappings. Appl. Math. Lett. 2011, 24(4):460–465. 10.1016/j.aml.2010.10.042

  40. 40.

    Shatanawi W: Some fixed point results for a generalized ψ -weak contraction mappings in orbitally metric spaces. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2012, 45: 520–526. 10.1016/j.chaos.2012.01.015

  41. 41.

    Shatanawi W, Al-Rawashdeh A:Common fixed points of almost generalized (ψ,ϕ)-contractive mappings in ordered metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 80

  42. 42.

    Suzuki T: Fixed point theorems for Berinde mappings. Bull. Kyushu Inst. Technol., Pure Appl. Math. 2011, 58: 13–19.

  43. 43.

    Altun I, Acar Ö: Fixed point theorems for weak contractions in the sense of Berinde on partial metric spaces. Topol. Appl. 2012, 159: 2642–2648. 10.1016/j.topol.2012.04.004

  44. 44.

    Haghi RH, Rezapour S, Shahzad N: Some fixed point generalizations are not real generalizations. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 1799–1803. 10.1016/j.na.2010.10.052

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editor and the referees for their useful comments and remarks.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mihai Postolache.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

Both authors contributed equally and significantly in writing this article. Both 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.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shatanawi, W., Postolache, M. Coincidence and fixed point results for generalized weak contractions in the sense of Berinde on partial metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2013, 54 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2013-54

Download citation

Keywords

  • partial metric space
  • weak contraction
  • fixed point