Open Access

Common fixed point theorem for two pairs of non-self-mappings satisfying generalized Ćirić type contraction condition in cone metric spaces

Fixed Point Theory and Applications20142014:157

https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2014-157

Received: 7 March 2014

Accepted: 27 June 2014

Published: 22 July 2014

Abstract

In this paper, we prove a common fixed point theorem for two pairs of non-self-mappings satisfying the generalized contraction condition of Ćirić type in cone metric spaces. Our result generalizes and extends some recent results related to non-self-mappings in the setting of cone metric spaces.

MSC:47H10, 54H25.

Keywords

cone metric spacescommon fixed pointnon-self-mappingscontraction condition of Ćirić type

1 Introduction and preliminaries

Recently, Huang and Zhang [1] generalized the concept of a metric space, replacing the set of real numbers by ordered Banach space and obtained some fixed point theorems for mappings satisfying different contractive conditions. Subsequently, the study of fixed point theorems in such spaces is followed by some other mathematicians; see [224]. The study of fixed point theorems for non-self-mappings in metrically convex metric spaces was initiated by Assad and Kirk [25]. Utilizing the induction method of Assad and Kirk [25], many authors like Assad [26], Ćirić [2736], Ćirić et al. [3742], Kumam et al. [43], Hadžić [44], Hadžić and Gajić [45], Imdad and Kumar [46], Rhoades [47, 48] have obtained common fixed point in metrically convex spaces. Recently, Ćirić and Ume [49] defined a wide class of multi-valued non-self-mappings which satisfy a generalized contraction condition and proved a fixed point theorem which generalizes the results of Itoh [50] and Khan [51].

Very recently, Radenović and Rhoades [15] extended the fixed point theorem of Imdad and Kumar [46] for a pair of non-self-mappings to non-normal cone metric spaces. Huang et al. [6] proved a fixed point theorem for four non-self-mappings in cone metric spaces which generalizes the result of Radenović and Rhoades [15]. Janković et al. [9] proved new common fixed point results for a pair of non-self-mappings defined on a closed subset of metrically convex cone metric space which is not necessarily normal by adapting Assad-Kirk’s method. Sumitra et al. [20] generalized the fixed point theorems of Ćirić and Ume [49] for a pair of non-self-mappings to non-normal cone metric spaces. In the same time, Sumitra et al.’s [20] results extended the results of Radenović and Rhoades [15] and Janković et al. [9]. The aim of this paper is to prove a common fixed point theorem for two pairs of non-self-mappings on cone metric spaces in which the cone need not be normal and the condition is weaker. This result generalizes the result of Sumitra et al. [20] and Huang et al. [6].

Consistent with Huang and Zhang [1], the following definitions and results will be needed in the sequel.

Let E be a real Banach space. A subset P of E is called a cone if and only if:
  1. (a)

    P is closed, nonempty and P { θ } ;

     
  2. (b)

    a , b R , a , b 0 , x , y P implies a x + b y P ;

     
  3. (c)

    P ( P ) = { θ } .

     
Given a cone P E , we define a partial ordering with respect to P by x y if and only if y x P . A cone P is called normal if there is a number K > 0 such that for all x , y E ,
θ x y implies x K y .

The least positive number satisfying the above inequality is called the normal constant of P, while x y stands for y x int P (interior of P).

Definition 1.1 [1]

Let X be a nonempty set. Suppose that the mapping d : X × X E satisfies:

(d1) θ d ( x , y ) for all x , y X and d ( x , y ) = θ if and only if x = y ;

(d2) d ( x , y ) = d ( y , x ) for all x , y X ;

(d3) d ( x , y ) d ( x , z ) + d ( z , y ) for all x , y , z X .

Then d is called a cone metric on X and ( X , d ) is called a cone metric space.

The concept of a cone metric space is more general than that of a metric space.

Example 1.1 [1]

Let E = R 2 , P = { ( x , y ) E x , y 0 } , X = R , and d : X × X E be such that d ( x , y ) = ( | x y | , α | x y | ) , where α 0 is a constant. Then ( X , d ) is a cone metric space.

Definition 1.2 [1]

Let ( X , d ) be a cone metric space. We say that { x n } is:
  1. (e)

    a Cauchy sequence if for every c E with θ c , there is an N such that for all n , m > N , d ( x n , x m ) c ;

     
  2. (f)

    a convergent sequence if for every c E with θ c , there is an N such that for all n > N , d ( x n , x ) c for some fixed x X .

     

A cone metric space X is said to be complete if for every Cauchy sequence in X is convergent in X. It is well known that { x n } converges to x X if and only if d ( x n , x ) θ as n . It is a Cauchy sequence if and only if d ( x n , x m ) θ ( n , m ).

Remark 1.1 [52]

Let E be an ordered Banach (normed) space. Then c is an interior point of P, if and only if [ c , c ] is a neighborhood of θ.

Corollary 1.1 [16]
  1. (1)

    If a b and b c , then a c .

    Indeed, c a = ( c b ) + ( b a ) c b implies [ ( c a ) , c a ] [ ( c b ) , c b ] .

     
  2. (2)

    If a b and b c , then a c .

     
Indeed, c a = ( c b ) + ( b a ) c b implies [ ( c a ) , c a ] [ ( c b ) , c b ] .
  1. (3)

    If θ u c for each c int P then u = θ .

     

Remark 1.2 [10, 15]

If c int P , θ a n , and a n θ , then there exists an n 0 such that for all n > n 0 we have a n c .

Remark 1.3 [16, 17]

If E is a real Banach space with cone P and if a k a where a P and 0 < k < 1 , then a = θ .

Definition 1.3 [2]

Let f and g be self-maps on a set X (i.e., f , g : X X ). If w = f x = g x for some x in X, then x is called a coincidence point of f and g, and w is called a point of coincidence of f and g. Self-maps f and g are said to be weakly compatible if they commute at their coincidence point; i.e., if f x = g x for some x X , then f g x = g f x .

2 Main results

The following theorem is Sumitra et al.’s [20] generalization of Ćirić and Ume’s [49] result in cone metric spaces.

Theorem 2.1 Let ( X , d ) be a complete cone metric space, C a nonempty closed subset of X such that for each x C and y C there exists a point z C (the boundary of C) such that
d ( x , z ) + d ( z , y ) = d ( x , y ) .
Suppose that f , g : C X are two non-self-mappings satisfying, for all x , y C with x y ,
d ( g x , g y ) α d ( f x , f y ) + β u + γ v ,
(2.1)
where u { d ( f x , g x ) , d ( f y , g y ) } , v { d ( f x , g x ) + d ( f y , g y ) , d ( f x , g y ) + d ( f y , g x ) } , and α, β, γ are nonnegative real numbers such that
α + 2 β + 3 γ + α γ < 1 .
(2.2)
Also assume that
  1. (i)

    C f C , g C C f C ,

     
  2. (ii)

    f x C implies that g x C ,

     
  3. (iii)

    fC is closed in X.

     

Then the pair ( f , g ) has a coincidence point in C. Moreover, if the pair ( f , g ) is weakly compatible, then f and g have a unique common fixed point in C.

Remark 2.1 From the proof of this theorem, it is easy to see that condition (2.2) can be weakened to α + β + 2 γ < 1 .

The purpose of this paper is to extend the above theorem for two pairs of non-self-mappings in cone metric spaces with a weaker condition.

We state and prove our main result as follows.

Theorem 2.2 Let ( X , d ) be a complete cone metric space, C a nonempty closed subset of X such that for each x C and y C there exists a point z C such that
d ( x , z ) + d ( z , y ) = d ( x , y ) .
Suppose that F , G , S , T : C X are two pairs of non-self-mappings satisfying, for all x , y C with x y ,
d ( F x , G y ) α d ( T x , S y ) + β u + γ v ,
(2.3)
where u { d ( T x , F x ) , d ( S y , G y ) } , v { d ( T x , F x ) + d ( S y , G y ) , d ( T x , G y ) + d ( S y , F x ) } , and α, β, γ are nonnegative real numbers such that
α + β + 2 γ < 1 .
(2.4)
Also assume that
  1. (I)

    C S C T C , F C C S C , G C C T C ,

     
  2. (II)

    T x C implies that F x C , S x C implies that G x C ,

     
  3. (III)

    SC and TC (or FC and GC) are closed in X.

     
Then
  1. (IV)

    ( F , T ) has a point of coincidence,

     
  2. (V)

    ( G , S ) has a point of coincidence.

     

Moreover, if ( F , T ) and ( G , S ) are weakly compatible pairs, then F, G, S, and T have a unique common fixed point.

Proof Firstly, we proceed to construct two sequences { x n } and { y n } in the following way.

Let x C be arbitrary. Then (due to C T C ) there exists a point x 0 C such that x = T x 0 . Since T x C implies that F x C , one concludes that F x 0 F C C S C . Thus, there exists x 1 C such that y 1 = S x 1 = F x 0 C . Since y 1 = F x 0 there exists a point y 2 = G x 1 such that
d ( y 1 , y 2 ) = d ( F x 0 , G x 1 ) .
Suppose y 2 C . Then y 2 G C C T C , which implies that there exists a point x 2 C such that y 2 = T x 2 . otherwise, if y 2 C , then there exists a point p C such that
d ( S x 1 , p ) + d ( p , y 2 ) = d ( S x 1 , y 2 ) .
Since p C T C there exists a point x 2 C with p = T x 2 so that
d ( S x 1 , T x 2 ) + d ( T x 2 , y 2 ) = d ( S x 1 , y 2 ) .
Let y 3 = F x 2 be such that d ( y 2 , y 3 ) = d ( G x 1 , F x 2 ) . Thus, repeating the foregoing arguments, one obtains two sequences { x n } and { y n } such that
  1. (a)

    y 2 n = G x 2 n 1 , y 2 n + 1 = F x 2 n ,

     
  2. (b)
    y 2 n C implies that y 2 n = T x 2 n or y 2 n C implies that T x 2 n C and
    d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) + d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n ) = d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) ,
     
  3. (c)
    y 2 n + 1 C implies that y 2 n + 1 = S x 2 n + 1 or y 2 n + 1 C implies that S x 2 n + 1 C and
    d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) + d ( S x 2 n + 1 , y 2 n + 1 ) = d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) .
     
We denote
P 0 = { T x 2 i { T x 2 n } : T x 2 i = y 2 i } , P 1 = { T x 2 i { T x 2 n } : T x 2 i y 2 i } , Q 0 = { S x 2 i + 1 { S x 2 n + 1 } : S x 2 i + 1 = y 2 i + 1 } , Q 1 = { S x 2 i + 1 { S x 2 n + 1 } : S x 2 i + 1 y 2 i + 1 } .

Note that ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) P 1 × Q 1 , as if T x 2 n P 1 , then y 2 n T x 2 n and one infers that T x 2 n C , which implies that y 2 n + 1 = F x 2 n C . Hence y 2 n + 1 = S x 2 n + 1 Q 0 . Similarly, one can argue that ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) Q 1 × P 1 .

Now, we distinguish the following three cases.

Case 1. If ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) P 0 × Q 0 , then from (2.3)
d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) = d ( F x 2 n , G x 2 n 1 ) α d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n 1 ) + β u 2 n + γ v 2 n ,
where
u 2 n { d ( T x 2 n , F x 2 n ) , d ( S x 2 n 1 , G x 2 n 1 ) } = { d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) , d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) } , v 2 n { d ( T x 2 n , F x 2 n ) + d ( S x 2 n 1 , G x 2 n 1 ) , d ( T x 2 n , G x 2 n 1 ) + d ( S x 2 n 1 , F x 2 n ) } v 2 n = { d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) + d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) , d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n + 1 ) } .
Clearly, there are infinitely many n such that at least one of the following four cases holds:
  1. (1)
    If u 2 n = d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) and v 2 n = d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) + d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) , then
    d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) α d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n 1 ) + β d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) + γ ( d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) + d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) ) = α d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n 1 ) + β d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) + γ d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) + γ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) .

    It implies that d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) α + γ 1 β γ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) .

     
  2. (2)
    If u 2 n = d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) and v 2 n = d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n + 1 ) , then
    d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) α d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n 1 ) + β d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) + γ d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n + 1 ) α d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n 1 ) + β d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) + γ ( d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) + d ( y 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) ) = α d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n 1 ) + β d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) + γ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) + γ d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) .
     
It implies that d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) α + γ 1 β γ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) .
  1. (3)
    If u 2 n = d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) and v 2 n = d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) + d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) , then
    d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) α d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n 1 ) + β d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) + γ ( d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) + d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) ) = α d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n 1 ) + β d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) + γ d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) + γ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) .
     
It implies that d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) α + β + γ 1 γ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) .
  1. (4)
    If u 2 n = d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) and v 2 n = d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n + 1 ) , then
    d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) α d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n 1 ) + β d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) + γ d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n + 1 ) α d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n 1 ) + β d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) + γ ( d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) + d ( y 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) ) = α d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n 1 ) + β d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) + γ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) + γ d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) .
     

It implies that d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) α + β + γ 1 γ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) .

From (1), (2), (3), (4) it follows that
d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) λ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) ,
(2.5)

where λ = max { α + γ 1 β γ , α + β + γ 1 γ } < 1 by (2.4).

Similarly, if ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) Q 0 × P 0 , we have
d ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) = d ( F x 2 n , G x 2 n + 1 ) λ d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) .
(2.6)
If ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) Q 0 × P 0 , we have
d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) = d ( F x 2 n 2 , G x 2 n 1 ) λ d ( T x 2 n 2 , S x 2 n 1 ) .
(2.7)
Case 2. If ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) P 0 × Q 1 , then S x 2 n + 1 Q 1 and
d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) + d ( S x 2 n + 1 , y 2 n + 1 ) = d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) ,
(2.8)
which in turns yields
d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) = d ( y 2 n , y 2 n + 1 )
(2.9)
and hence
d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) d ( y 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) = d ( F x 2 n , G x 2 n 1 ) .
(2.10)

Now, proceeding as in Case 1, we see that (2.5) holds.

If ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) Q 1 × P 0 , then T x 2 n P 0 . We show that
d ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) λ d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n 1 ) .
(2.11)
Using (2.8), we get
d ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) d ( S x 2 n + 1 , y 2 n + 1 ) + d ( y 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) = d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) + d ( y 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) .
(2.12)
By noting that T x 2 n + 2 , T x 2 n P 0 , one can conclude that
d ( y 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) = d ( y 2 n + 1 , y 2 n + 2 ) = d ( F x 2 n , G x 2 n + 1 ) λ d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 )
(2.13)
and
d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) = d ( y 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) = d ( F x 2 n , G x 2 n 1 ) λ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) ,
(2.14)

in view of Case 1.

Thus,
d ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) λ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) ( 1 λ ) d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) λ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) ,

and we proved (2.11).

Case 3. If ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) P 1 × Q 0 , then S x 2 n 1 Q 0 . We show that
d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) λ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n 2 ) .
(2.15)
Since T x 2 n P 1 , then
d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) + d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n ) = d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) .
(2.16)
From this, we get
d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) d ( T x 2 n , y 2 n ) + d ( y 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) = d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) + d ( y 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) .
(2.17)
By noting that S x 2 n + 1 , S x 2 n 1 Q 0 , one can conclude that
d ( y 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) = d ( y 2 n , y 2 n + 1 ) = d ( F x 2 n , G x 2 n 1 ) λ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n )
(2.18)
and
d ( S x 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) = d ( y 2 n 1 , y 2 n ) = d ( F x 2 n 2 , G x 2 n 1 ) λ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n 2 ) ,
(2.19)

in view of Case 1.

Thus,
d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) λ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n 2 ) ( 1 λ ) d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) λ d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n 2 ) ,

and we proved (2.15).

Similarly, if ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) Q 0 × P 1 , then T x 2 n + 2 P 1 , and
d ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) + d ( T x 2 n + 2 , y 2 n + 2 ) = d ( S x 2 n + 1 , y 2 n + 2 ) .
From this, we have
d ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) d ( S x 2 n + 1 , y 2 n + 2 ) + d ( y 2 n + 2 , T x 2 n + 2 ) d ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) d ( S x 2 n + 1 , y 2 n + 2 ) + d ( S x 2 n + 1 , y 2 n + 2 ) d ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) d ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) = 2 d ( S x 2 n + 1 , y 2 n + 2 ) d ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) d ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) d ( S x 2 n + 1 , y 2 n + 2 ) .
By noting that S x 2 n + 1 Q 0 , one can conclude that
d ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) d ( S x 2 n + 1 , y 2 n + 2 ) = d ( F x 2 n , G x 2 n + 1 ) λ d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) ,
(2.20)

in view of Case 1.

Thus, in all cases (1)-(3), there exists w 2 n { d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) , d ( T x 2 n 2 , S x 2 n 1 ) } such that
d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) λ w 2 n
and there exists w 2 n + 1 { d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n ) , d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) } such that
d ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) λ w 2 n + 1 .
Following the procedure of Assad and Kirk [25], it can easily be shown by induction that, for n 1 , there exists w 2 { d ( T x 0 , S x 1 ) , d ( S x 1 , T x 2 ) } such that
d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n + 1 ) λ n 1 2 w 2 and d ( S x 2 n + 1 , T x 2 n + 2 ) λ n w 2 .
(2.21)
From (2.21) and by the triangle inequality, for n > m we have
d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 m + 1 ) d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 n 1 ) + d ( S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n 2 ) + + d ( T x 2 m + 2 , S x 2 m + 1 ) ( λ m + λ m + 1 2 + + λ n 1 ) w 2 λ m 1 λ w 2 θ , as  m .

From Remark 1.2 and Corollary 1.1(1), it follows that d ( T x 2 n , S x 2 m + 1 ) c .

Thus, the sequence { T x 0 , S x 1 , T x 2 , S x 3 , , S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n , S x 2 n 1 , } is a Cauchy sequence. Then, as noted in [45], there exists at least one subsequence, { T x 2 n k } or { S x 2 n k + 1 } , which is contained in P 0 or Q 0 , respectively, and one finds its limit z C . Furthermore, subsequences { T x 2 n k } and { S x 2 n k + 1 } both converge to z C as C is a closed subset of complete cone metric space ( X , d ) . We assume that there exists a subsequence { T x 2 n k } P 0 for each k N , then T x 2 n k = y 2 n k = G x 2 n k 1 C G C T C Since TC as well as SC are closed in X and { T x 2 n k } is Cauchy in TC, it converges to a point z T C . Let w T 1 z , then T w = z . Similarly, { T x 2 n k } and { S x 2 n k + 1 } being a subsequence of a Cauchy sequence, { T x 0 , S x 1 , T x 2 , S x 3 , , S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n , S x 2 n 1 , } also converges to z as SC is closed. Let θ c , then d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) c 2 α + γ 1 β γ , where α, β, γ are nonnegative real numbers with α + β + 2 γ < 1 .

Using (2.3), one can write
d ( F w , z ) d ( F w , G x 2 n k 1 ) + d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) α d ( T w , S x 2 n k 1 ) + β u w + γ v w + d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) = α d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + β u w + γ v w + d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) ,
where
u w { d ( T w , F w ) , d ( S x 2 n k 1 , G x 2 n k 1 ) } = { d ( z , F w ) , d ( S x 2 n k 1 , G x 2 n k 1 ) } , v w { d ( T w , F w ) + d ( S x 2 n k 1 , G x 2 n k 1 ) , d ( T w , G x 2 n k 1 ) + d ( F w , S x 2 n k 1 ) } v w = { d ( z , F w ) + d ( S x 2 n k 1 , G x 2 n k 1 ) , d ( z , G x 2 n k 1 ) + d ( F w , S x 2 n k 1 ) } .
Let θ c . Clearly at least one of the following four cases holds for infinitely many n:
  1. (1)
    If u w = d ( z , F w ) and v w = d ( z , F w ) + d ( S x 2 n k 1 , G x 2 n k 1 ) , then
    d ( F w , z ) α d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + β d ( z , F w ) d ( F w , z ) + γ ( d ( z , F w ) + d ( S x 2 n k 1 , G x 2 n k 1 ) ) + d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) d ( F w , z ) α d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + β d ( z , F w ) + γ d ( z , F w ) d ( F w , z ) + γ ( d ( S x 2 n k 1 , z ) + d ( z , G x 2 n k 1 ) ) + d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) d ( F w , z ) = ( α + γ ) d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + ( β + γ ) d ( z , F w ) + ( γ + 1 ) d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) d ( F w , z ) α + γ 1 β γ d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + γ + 1 1 β γ d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) d ( F w , z ) α + γ 1 β γ c 2 α + γ 1 β γ + γ + 1 1 β γ c 2 γ + 1 1 β γ = c .
     
  2. (2)
    If u w = d ( z , F w ) and v w = d ( z , G x 2 n k 1 ) + d ( F w , S x 2 n k 1 ) , then
    d ( F w , z ) α d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + β d ( z , F w ) d ( F w , z ) + γ ( d ( z , G x 2 n k 1 ) + d ( F w , S x 2 n k 1 ) ) + d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) d ( F w , z ) α d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + β d ( z , F w ) + γ d ( z , G x 2 n k 1 ) d ( F w , z ) + γ ( d ( F w , z ) + d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) ) + d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) d ( F w , z ) = ( α + γ ) d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + ( β + γ ) d ( z , F w ) + ( γ + 1 ) d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) d ( F w , z ) α + γ 1 β γ d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + γ + 1 1 β γ d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) d ( F w , z ) α + γ 1 β γ c 2 α + γ 1 β γ + γ + 1 1 β γ c 2 γ + 1 1 β γ = c .
     
  3. (3)
    If u w = d ( S x 2 n k 1 , G x 2 n k 1 ) and v w = d ( z , F w ) + d ( S x 2 n k 1 , G x 2 n k 1 ) , then
    d ( F w , z ) α d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + β d ( S x 2 n k 1 , G x 2 n k 1 ) d ( F w , z ) + γ ( d ( z , F w ) + d ( S x 2 n k 1 , G x 2 n k 1 ) ) + d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) d ( F w , z ) α d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + β ( d ( S x 2 n k 1 , z ) + d ( z , G x 2 n k 1 ) ) + γ d ( z , F w ) d ( F w , z ) + γ ( d ( S x 2 n k 1 , z ) + d ( z , G x 2 n k 1 ) ) + d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) d ( F w , z ) = ( α + β + γ ) d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + γ d ( z , F w ) + ( β + γ + 1 ) d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) d ( F w , z ) α + β + γ 1 γ d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + β + γ + 1 1 γ d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) d ( F w , z ) α + β + γ 1 γ c 2 α + β + γ 1 γ + β + γ + 1 1 γ c 2 β + γ + 1 1 γ = c .
     
  4. (4)
    If u w = d ( S x 2 n k 1 , G x 2 n k 1 ) and v w = d ( z , G x 2 n k 1 ) + d ( F w , S x 2 n k 1 ) , then
    d ( F w , z ) α d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + β d ( S x 2 n k 1 , G x 2 n k 1 ) d ( F w , z ) + γ ( d ( z , G x 2 n k 1 ) + d ( F w , S x 2 n k 1 ) ) + d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) d ( F w , z ) α d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + β ( d ( S x 2 n k 1 , z ) + d ( z , G x 2 n k 1 ) ) + γ d ( z , G x 2 n k 1 ) d ( F w , z ) + γ ( d ( F w , z ) + d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) ) + d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) d ( F w , z ) = ( α + β + γ ) d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + γ d ( z , F w ) + ( β + γ + 1 ) d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) d ( F w , z ) α + β + γ 1 γ d ( z , S x 2 n k 1 ) + β + γ + 1 1 γ d ( G x 2 n k 1 , z ) d ( F w , z ) α + β + γ 1 γ c 2 α + β + γ 1 γ + β + γ + 1 1 γ c 2 β + γ + 1 1 γ = c .
     

In all cases we obtain d ( F w , z ) c for each c int P . Using Corollary 1.1(3) it follows that d ( F w , z ) = θ or F w = z . Thus, F w = z = T w , that is, z is a coincidence point of F, T.

Further, since Cauchy sequence { T x 0 , S x 1 , T x 2 , S x 3 , , S x 2 n 1 , T x 2 n , S x 2 n 1 , } converges to z C and z = F w , z F C C S C , there exists b C such that S b = z . Again using (2.3), we get
d ( S b , G b ) = d ( z , G b ) = d ( F w , G b ) α d ( T w , S b ) + β u w + γ v w = β u w + γ v w ,
where
u w { d ( T w , F w ) , d ( S b , G b ) } = { θ , d ( S b , G b ) } , v w { d ( T w , F w ) + d ( S b , G b ) , d ( T w , G b ) + d ( S b , F w ) } v w = { d ( S b , G b ) , d ( z , G b ) } = { d ( S b , G b ) } .
Hence, we get the following cases:
d ( S b , G b ) β θ + γ d ( S b , G b ) = γ d ( S b , G b ) and d ( S b , G b ) ( β + γ ) d ( S b , G b ) .

Since 0 γ β + γ < 1 α γ 1 , using Remark 1.3 and Corollary 1.1(3), it follows that S b = G b , therefore, S b = z = G b , that is, z is a coincidence point of ( G , S ) .

In case FC and GC are closed in X, then z F C C S C or z G C C T C . The analogous arguments establish (IV) and (V). If we assume that there exists a subsequence { S x 2 n k + 1 } Q 0 with TC as well SC are closed in X, then noting that { S x 2 n k + 1 } is a Cauchy sequence in SC, the foregoing arguments establish (IV) and (V).

Suppose now that ( F , T ) and ( G , S ) are weakly compatible pairs, then
z = F w = T w F z = F T w = T F w = T z and z = G b = S b G z = G S b = S G b = S z .
Then, from (2.3),
d ( F z , z ) = d ( F z , G b ) α d ( T z , S b ) + β u + γ v = α d ( F z , z ) + β u + γ v ,
where
u { d ( T z , F z ) , d ( S b , G b ) } = { d ( F z , F z ) , d ( z , z ) } = { θ } , v { d ( T z , F z ) + d ( S b , G b ) , d ( T z , G b ) + d ( S b , F z ) } v = { θ , d ( F z , z ) + d ( z , F z ) } = { θ , 2 d ( F z , z ) } .
Hence, we get the following cases:
d ( F z , z ) α d ( F z , z ) and d ( F z , z ) α d ( F z , z ) + 2 γ d ( F z , z ) = ( α + 2 γ ) d ( z , F z ) .

Since 0 α α + 2 γ < 1 β 1 , using Remark 1.3 and Corollary 1.1(3), it follows that F z = z . Thus, F z = z = T z .

Similarly, we can prove G z = z = S z . Therefore z = F z = G z = S z = T z , that is, z is a common fixed point of F, G, S, and T.

Uniqueness of the common fixed point follows easily from (2.3). □

The following example shows that in general F, G, S, and T satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem 2.2 need not have a common coincidence justifying the two separate conclusions (IV) and (V).

Example 2.1 Let E = C 1 ( [ 0 , 1 ] , R ) , P = { φ E : φ ( t ) 0 , t [ 0 , 1 ] } , X = [ 0 , + ) , C = [ 0 , 2 ] , and d : X × X E defined by d ( x , y ) = | x y | φ , where φ P is a fixed function, e.g., φ ( t ) = e t . Then ( X , d ) is a complete cone metric space with a non-normal cone having a nonempty interior. Define F, G, S, and T : C X as
F x = x + 4 5 , G x = x 2 + 4 5 , T x = 5 x and S x = 5 x 2 , x C .

Since C = { 0 , 2 } . Clearly, for each x C and y C there exists a point z = 2 C such that d ( x , z ) + d ( z , y ) = d ( x , y ) . Further, S C T C = [ 0 , 20 ] [ 0 , 10 ] = [ 0 , 10 ] { 0 , 2 } = C , F C C = [ 4 5 , 14 5 ] [ 0 , 2 ] = [ 4 5 , 2 ] S C , G C C = [ 4 5 , 24 5 ] [ 0 , 2 ] = [ 4 5 , 2 ] T C , and, SC, TC, FC, and GC are closed in X.

Also,
T 0 = 0 C F 0 = 4 5 C , S 0 = 0 C G 0 = 4 5 C , T ( 2 5 ) = 2 C F ( 2 5 ) = 6 5 C , S ( 2 5 ) = 2 C G ( 2 5 ) = 6 5 C .
Moreover, for each x , y C ,
d ( F x , G y ) = | x y 2 | φ = 1 5 d ( T x , S y ) ,

that is, (2.3) is satisfied with α = 1 5 , β = γ = 0 .

Obviously, 1 = T ( 1 5 ) = F ( 1 5 ) 1 5 and 1 = S ( 1 5 ) = G ( 1 5 ) 1 5 . Notice that two separate coincidence points are not common fixed points as F T ( 1 5 ) T F ( 1 5 ) and S G ( 1 5 ) G S ( 1 5 ) , which shows the necessity of the weakly compatibility property in Theorem 2.2.

Next, we furnish an illustrate example in support of our result. In doing so, we are essentially inspired by Imdad and Kumar [46].

Example 2.2 Let E = C 1 ( [ 0 , 1 ] , R ) , P = { φ E : φ ( t ) 0 , t [ 0 , 1 ] } , X = [ 1 , + ) , C = [ 1 , 3 ] , and d : X × X E defined by d ( x , y ) = | x y | φ , where φ P is a fixed function, e.g., φ ( t ) = e t . Then ( X , d ) is a complete cone metric space with a non-normal cone having the nonempty interior. Define F, G, S, and T : C X as
F x = { x 2 if  1 x 2 , 2 if  2 < x 3 , T x = { 4 x 4 3 if  1 x 2 , 13 if  2 < x 3 , G x = { x 3 if  1 x 2 , 2 if  2 < x 3 and S x = { 4 x 6 3 if  1 x 2 , 13 if  2 < x 3 .

Since C = { 1 , 3 } . Clearly, for each x C and y C there exists a point z = 3 C such that d ( x , z ) + d ( z , y ) = d ( x , y ) . Further, S C T C = [ 1 , 253 ] [ 1 , 61 ] = [ 1 , 61 ] { 1 , 3 } = C , F C C = [ 1 , 4 ] [ 1 , 3 ] = [ 1 , 3 ] S C , and G C C = [ 1 , 8 ] [ 1 , 3 ] = [ 1 , 3 ] T C .

Also,
T 1 = 1 C F 1 = 1 C , S 1 = 1 C G 1 = 1 C , T ( 3 2 4 ) = 3 C F ( 3 2 4 ) = 3 2 C , S ( 3 2 6 ) = 3 C G ( 3 2 6 ) = 3 2 C .
Moreover, if x [ 1 , 2 ] and y [ 2 , 3 ] , then
d ( F x , G y ) = | x 2 2 | φ = | x 4 4 | | x 2 + 2 | φ = 4 | x 4 4 | 4 | x 2 + 2 | φ = 1 4 ( x 2 + 2 ) d ( T x , S y ) .
Next, if x , y ( 2 , 3 ] , then
d ( F x , G y ) = 0 = α d ( T x , S y ) .
Finally, if x , y [ 1 , 2 ] , then
d ( F x , G y ) = | x 2 y 3 | φ = | x 4 y 6 | | x 2 + y 3 | φ = 4 | x 4 y 6 | 4 | x 2 + y 3 | φ = 1 4 ( x 2 + y 3 ) d ( T x , S y ) .

Therefore, condition (2.3) is satisfied if we choose α = max { 1 4 ( x 2 + 2 ) , 1 4 ( x 2 + y 3 ) } ( 0 , 1 4 ) , β = γ = 0 . Moreover, 1 is a point of coincidence as T 1 = F 1 as well as S 1 = G 1 , whereas both pairs ( F , T ) and ( G , S ) are weakly compatible as T F 1 = 1 = F T 1 and S G 1 = 1 = G S 1 . Also, SC, TC, FC, and GC are closed in X. Thus, all the conditions of Theorem 2.2 are satisfied and 1 is the unique common fixed point of F, G, S, and T. One may note that 1 is also a point of coincidence for both pairs ( F , T ) and ( G , S ) .

Remark 2.2 1. Setting G = F = g and T = S = f in Theorem 2.2, one deduces Theorem 2.1 due to Sumitra et al. [20] with weaker condition.
  1. 2.

    Setting G = F = g and T = S = I X in Theorem 2.2, we obtain the following result.

     
Corollary 2.1 Let ( X , d ) be a complete cone metric space, and C a nonempty closed subset of X such that for each x C and y C there exists a point z C such that
d ( x , z ) + d ( z , y ) = d ( x , y ) .
Suppose that g : C X satisfies, for all x , y C with x y ,
d ( g x , g y ) α d ( x , y ) + β u + γ ,
where
u { d ( x , g x ) , d ( y , g y ) } , v { d ( x , g x ) + d ( y , g y ) , d ( x , g y ) + d ( y , g x ) } ,

and α, β, γ are nonnegative real numbers such that α + β + 2 γ < 1 and g has the additional property that if, for each x C , g x C , then g has a unique fixed point in C.

Corollary 2.2 Let ( X , d ) be a complete cone metric space, C a nonempty closed subset of X such that for each x C and y C there exists a point z C such that
d ( x , z ) + d ( z , y ) = d ( x , y ) .
Let F , G , S , T : C X be such that
d ( F x , G y ) α d ( T x , S y )
(2.22)

for some α ( 0 , 1 ) and for all x , y C with x y .

Suppose, further, that F, G, S, T, and C satisfy the following conditions:
  1. (I)

    C S C T C , F C C S C , G C C T C ,

     
  2. (II)

    T x C F x C , S x C G x C ,

     
  3. (III)

    SC and TC (or FC and GC) are closed in X.

     
Then
  1. (IV)

    ( F , T ) has a point of coincidence,

     
  2. (V)

    ( G , S ) has a point of coincidence.

     

Moreover, if ( F , T ) and ( G , S ) are weakly compatible pairs, then F, G, S, and T have a unique common fixed point.

Corollary 2.3 Let ( X , d ) be a complete cone metric space, C a nonempty closed subset of X such that for each x C and y C there exists a point z C such that
d ( x , z ) + d ( z , y ) = d ( x , y ) .
Let F , G , S , T : C X be such that
d ( F x , G y ) γ ( d ( T x , F x ) + d ( S y , G y ) )
(2.23)

for some γ ( 0 , 1 / 2 ) and for all x , y C with x y .

Suppose, further, that F, G, S, T, and C satisfy the following conditions:
  1. (I)

    C S C T C , F C C S C , G C C T C ,

     
  2. (II)

    T x C F x C , S x C G x C ,

     
  3. (III)

    SC and TC (or FC and GC) are closed in X.

     
Then
  1. (IV)

    ( F , T ) has a point of coincidence,

     
  2. (V)

    ( G , S ) has a point of coincidence.

     

Moreover, if ( F , T ) and ( G , S ) are weakly compatible pairs, then F, G, S, and T have a unique common fixed point.

Corollary 2.4 Let ( X , d ) be a complete cone metric space, C a nonempty closed subset of X such that for each x C and y C there exists a point z C such that
d ( x , z ) + d ( z , y ) = d ( x , y ) .
Let F , G , S , T : C X be such that
d ( F x , G y ) γ ( d ( T x , F y ) + d ( F x , S y ) )
(2.24)

for some γ ( 0 , 1 / 2 ) and for all x , y C with x y .

Suppose, further, that F, G, S, T, and C satisfy the following conditions:
  1. (I)

    C S C T C , F C C S C , G C C T C ,

     
  2. (II)

    T x C F x C , S x C G x C ,

     
  3. (III)

    SC and TC (or FC and GC) are closed in X.

     
Then
  1. (IV)

    ( F , T ) has a point of coincidence,

     
  2. (V)

    ( G , S ) has a point of coincidence.

     

Moreover, if ( F , T ) and ( G , S ) are weakly compatible pairs, then F, G, S, and T have a unique common fixed point.

Remark 2.3 Setting G = F = f and T = S = g in Corollaries 2.2-2.4, we obtain the following results.

Corollary 2.5 Let ( X , d ) be a complete cone metric space, C a nonempty closed subset of X such that for each x C and y C there exists a point z C such that
d ( x , z ) + d ( z , y ) = d ( x , y ) .
Let f , g : C X be such that
d ( f x , f y ) α d ( g x , g y )
(2.25)
for some α ( 0 , 1 ) and for all x , y C . Suppose, further, that f, g, and C satisfy the following conditions:
  1. (I)

    C g C , f C C g C ,

     
  2. (II)

    g x C f x C ,

     
  3. (III)

    gC is closed in X.

     

Then the pair ( f , g ) has a coincidence point in C. Moreover, if the pair ( f , g ) is weakly compatible, then f and g have a unique common fixed point in C.

Corollary 2.6 Let ( X , d ) be a complete cone metric space, C a nonempty closed subset of X such that for each x C and y C there exists a point z C (the boundary of C) such that
d ( x , z ) + d ( z , y ) = d ( x , y ) .
Let f , g : C X be such that
d ( f x , f y ) γ ( d ( f x , g x ) + d ( f y , g y ) )
(2.26)
for some γ ( 0 , 1 / 2 ) and for all x , y C . Suppose, further, that f, g, and C satisfy the following conditions:
  1. (I)

    C g C , f C C g C ,

     
  2. (II)

    g x C f x C ,

     
  3. (III)

    gC is closed in X.

     

Then the pair ( f , g ) has a coincidence point in C. Moreover, if the pair ( f , g ) is weakly compatible, then f and g have a unique common fixed point in C.

Corollary 2.7 Let ( X , d ) be a complete cone metric space, C a nonempty closed subset of X such that for each x C and y C there exists a point z C (the boundary of C) such that
d ( x , z ) + d ( z , y ) = d ( x , y ) .
Let f , g : C X be such that
d ( f x , f y ) γ ( d ( f x , g y ) + d ( f y , g x ) )
(2.27)
for some γ ( 0 , 1 / 2 ) and for all x , y C . Suppose, further, that f, g, and C satisfy the following conditions:
  1. (I)

    C g C , f C C g C ,

     
  2. (II)

    g x C f x C ,

     
  3. (III)

    gC is closed in X.

     

Then the pair ( f , g ) has a coincidence point in C. Moreover, if the pair ( f , g ) is weakly compatible, then f and g have a unique common fixed point in C.

Remark 2.4 Corollaries 2.5-2.7 are the corresponding theorems of Abbas and Jungck from [2] in the case that f, g are non-self-mappings.

There have been a number of papers written about fixed points for non-self-maps. One of the most general papers involving two maps is that in [30]. For cone metric spaces, the four-function analog of this result would have the contractive condition.

Suppose that F , G , S , T : C X are two pairs of non-self-mappings satisfying, for all x , y C with x y ,
d ( F x , G y ) h w ,
(2.28)

where w { d ( T x , S y ) a , d ( T x , F x ) , d ( S y , G y ) , d ( T x , G y ) + d ( S y , F x ) a + h } , a is a positive real number satisfying a 1 + 2 h 2 1 + h and 0 < h < 1 .

Note that if F, G, S, and T satisfy condition (2.28), then F, G, S, and T satisfy condition (2.3), but the implication is not reversible.

Indeed, there are four cases to consider:
  1. (1)

    If w = d ( T x , S y ) a in (2.28), then d ( F x , G y ) h a d ( T x , S y ) . So setting α = h a h 1 + 2 h 2 1 + h = h 2 + h 2 h 2 + h + 1 = 1 2 1 h 2 ( 2 h 2 + h + 1 ) < 1 2 , β = γ = 0 in (2.3), it follows that d ( F x , G y ) α d ( T x , S y ) .

     
  2. (2)

    If w = d ( T x , F x ) in (2.28), then d ( F x , G y ) h d ( T x , F x ) . So setting β = h < 1 , α = γ = 0 , u = d ( T x , F x ) in (2.3), it follows that d ( F x , G y ) β u , where u = d ( T x , F x ) .

     
  3. (3)

    If w = d ( S y , G y ) in (2.28), then d ( F x , G y ) h d ( S y , G y ) . So setting β = h < 1 , α = γ = 0 , u = d ( S y , G y ) in (2.3), it follows that d ( F x , G y ) β u , where u = d ( S y , G y ) .

     
  4. (4)

    If w = d ( T x , G y ) + d ( S y , F x ) a + h in (2.28), then d ( F x , G y ) h a + h [ d ( T x , G y ) + d ( S y , F x ) ] . So setting γ = h ( a + h ) h 1 + 2 h 2 1 + h + h = h 2 + h 3 h 2 + 2 h + 1 = 1 3 1 h 3 ( 3 h 2 + 2 h + 1 ) < 1 3 , α = β = 0 , v = d ( T x , G y ) + d ( S y , F x ) in (2.3), it follows that d ( F x , G y ) γ v , where v = d ( T x , G y ) + d ( S y , F x ) .

     

Therefore, in all cases we find that F, G, S, and T satisfy condition (2.28), then F, G, S, and T satisfy condition (2.3).

Now, we give an example to show that condition (2.3) is more general than condition (2.28) above.

Example 2.3 Let E = C 1 ( [ 0 , 1 ] , R ) , P = { φ E : φ ( t ) 0 , t [ 0 , 1 ] } , X = [ 0 , + ) , C = [ 3 5 , 1 ] , and let d : X × X E be defined by d ( x , y ) = | x y | φ , where φ P is a fixed function, e.g., φ ( t ) = e t . Then ( X , d ) is a complete cone metric space with a non-normal cone having a nonempty interior. Define F, G, S, and T : C X as
F ( x ) = 2 x 1 + x , G ( x ) = 2 x 2 1 + x 2 , T ( x ) = x , S ( x ) = x 2 , x C .
(2.29)
Note that for all x , y C with x y ,
d ( F x , G y ) = | 2 x 1 + x 2 y 2 1 + y 2 | φ = | 2 x 2 y 2 | φ ( 1 + x ) ( 1 + y 2 ) = d ( T x , S y ) 1 2 ( 1 + x ) ( 1 + y 2 ) .
(2.30)

Therefore, condition (2.3) is satisfied if we choose α = 1 1 2 ( 1 + x ) ( 1 + y 2 ) [ 1 2 , 125 144 ] , β = γ = 0 .

Next, we shall see that the inequality (2.28) is not satisfied for all 0 < h < 1 and a 1 + 2 h 2 1 + h by taking x = 1 and y = 3 5 .

Indeed, d ( F ( 1 ) , G ( 3 5 ) ) = | 1 1 2 | φ = 1 2 φ and w { d ( T ( 1 ) , S ( 3 5 ) ) a , d ( T ( 1 ) , F ( 1 ) ) , d ( S ( 3 5 ) , G ( 3 5 ) ) , d ( T ( 1 ) , G ( 3 5 ) ) + d ( S ( 3 5 ) , F ( 1 ) ) a + h } = { 1 a 16 25 φ , 0 , 7 50 φ , 1 a + h 57 50 φ } .

Since h a < 1 2 and h a + h < 1 3 , d ( F ( 1 ) , G ( 3 5 ) ) h w for all possible cases of w, 0 < h < 1 , and a 1 + 2 h 2 1 + h , that is, (2.3) is more general than (2.28).

So, we can obtain the following corollary.

Corollary 2.8 Let ( X , d ) be a complete cone metric space, C a nonempty closed subset of X such that for each x C and y C there exists a point z C such that
d ( x , z ) + d ( z , y ) = d ( x , y ) .
Suppose that F , G , S , T : C X are two pairs of non-self-mappings satisfying, for all x , y C with x y ,
d ( F x , G y ) h w ,
(2.31)
where w { d ( T x , S y ) a , d ( T x , F x ) , d ( S y , G y ) , d ( T x , G y ) + d ( S y , F x ) a + h } , a is a positive real number satisfying a 1 + 2 h 2 1 + h and 0 < h < 1 . Also assume that
  1. (I)

    C S C T C , F C C S C , G C C T C ,

     
  2. (II)

    T x C F x C , S x C G x C ,

     
  3. (III)

    SC and TC (or FC and GC) are closed in X.

     
Then
  1. (IV)

    ( F , T ) has a point of coincidence,

     
  2. (V)

    ( G , S ) has a point of coincidence.

     

Moreover, if ( F , T ) and ( G , S ) are weakly compatible pairs, then F, G, S, and T have a unique common fixed point.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to the referees for their very helpful suggestions and kind comments. Project was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11361042 and 11326099) and supported partly by the Provincial Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi, China (20142BAB201005) and the Science and Technology Project of Educational Commission of Jiangxi Province, China (GJJ11294).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Mathematics, Nanchang University
(2)
Department of Computer Science, Nanchang University

References

  1. Huang LG, Zhang X: Cone metric spaces and fixed point theorems of contractive mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 332(2):1468–1476. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.03.087View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbas M, Jungck G: Common fixed point results for noncommuting mappings without continuity in cone metric spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2008, 341(1):416–420. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.09.070View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Abbas M, Rhoades BE: Fixed and periodic point results in cone metric spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 2009, 22(4):511–515. 10.1016/j.aml.2008.07.001View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Altun I, Damjanović B, Djorić D: Fixed point and common fixed point theorems on ordered cone metric spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 2010, 23(3):310–316. 10.1016/j.aml.2009.09.016View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Choudhury B, Metiya N: Fixed points of weak contractions in cone metric spaces. Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl. 2010, 72(3–4):1589–1593. 10.1016/j.na.2009.08.040View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Huang XJ, Zhu CX, Wen X: Common fixed point theorem for four non-self mappings in cone metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 983802Google Scholar
  7. Ilić D, Rakočević V: Common fixed points for maps on cone metric space. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2008, 341(2):876–882. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.10.065View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Janković S, Kadelburg Z, Radenović S: On cone metric spaces: a survey. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 2591–2601. 10.1016/j.na.2010.12.014View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Janković S, Kadelburg Z, Radenović S, Rhoades BE: Assad-Kirk-type fixed point theorems for a pair of nonself mappings on cone metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2009., 2009: Article ID 761086Google Scholar
  10. Jungck G, Radenović S, Radojević S, Rakočević V: Common fixed point theorems for weakly compatible pairs on cone metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2009., 2009: Article ID 643840Google Scholar
  11. Kadelburg Z, Radenović S, Rakočević V: A note on the equivalence of some metric and cone metric fixed point results. Appl. Math. Lett. 2011, 24: 370–374. 10.1016/j.aml.2010.10.030View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaekhao A, Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Common fixed point theorems of c -distance on cone metric spaces. J. Nonlinear Anal. Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID jnaa-00137Google Scholar
  13. Karapinar E, Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Coupled fixed point theorems in cone metric spaces with a c -distance and applications. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 194Google Scholar
  14. Radenović S: A pair of non-self mappings in cone metric spaces. Kragujev. J. Math. 2012, 36(2):189–198.Google Scholar
  15. Radenović S, Rhoades BE: Fixed point theorem for two non-self mappings in cone metric spaces. Comput. Math. Appl. 2009, 57(10):1701–1707. 10.1016/j.camwa.2009.03.058View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Rezapour S: A review on topological properties of cone metric spaces. Analysis, Topology and Applications 2008. Vrnjacka Banja, Serbia, 30 May-4 JuneGoogle Scholar
  17. Rezapour S, Hamlbarani R: Some notes on the paper ‘Cone metric spaces and fixed point theorems of contractive mappings’. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2008, 345(2):719–724. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.04.049View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Sintunavarat W, Cho YJ, Kumam P: Common fixed point theorems for c -distance in ordered cone metric spaces. Comput. Math. Appl. 2011, 62: 1969–1978. 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.06.040View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Common fixed points of f -weak contractions in cone metric spaces. Bull. Iran. Math. Soc. 2012, 38(2):293–303.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Sumitra R, Rhymend Uthariaraj V, Hemavathy R, Vijayaraju P: Common fixed point theorem for non-self mappings satisfying generalized Ćirić type contraction condition in cone metric space. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 408086Google Scholar
  21. Turkoglu D, Abuloha M: Cone metric spaces and fixed point theorems in diametrically contractive mappings. Acta Math. Sin. 2010, 26(3):489–496. 10.1007/s10114-010-8019-5View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Turkoglu D, Abuloha M, Abdeljawad A: KKM mappings in cone metric spaces and some fixed point theorems. Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl. 2010, 72(1):348–353. 10.1016/j.na.2009.06.058View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Vetro P: Common fixed points in cone metric spaces. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 2007, LVI: 464–468.View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Wardowski D: Endpoints and fixed points of set-valued contractions in cone metric space. Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl. 2009, 71(1–2):512–516. 10.1016/j.na.2008.10.089View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Assad N, Kirk W: Fixed point theorems for set valued mappings of contractive type. Pac. J. Math. 1972, 43(3):553–562. 10.2140/pjm.1972.43.553View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. Assad N: On a fixed point theorem of Kannan in Banach spaces. Tamkang J. Math. 1976, 7(1):91–94.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Ćirić L: Non-self mappings satisfying non-linear contractive condition with applications. Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl. 2009, 71(7–8):2927–2935. 10.1016/j.na.2009.01.174View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Ćirić L: Generalized contractions and fixed-point theorems. Publ. Inst. Math. (Belgr.) 1971, 12(26):19–26.Google Scholar
  29. Ćirić L: Fixed-points for generalized multi-valued mappings. Mat. Vesn. 1972, 9(24):265–272.Google Scholar
  30. Ćirić L: A remark on Rhoades fixed point theorem for non-self maps. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 1993, 16: 397–400. 10.1155/S016117129300047XView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Ćirić L: On some mappings in metric spaces and fixed point theorems. Bull. Cl. Sci., Acad. R. Belg. 1995, 6(1–6):81–89.Google Scholar
  32. Ćirić L: Quasi-contraction non-self mappings on Banach spaces. Bull. - Acad. Serbe Sci. Arts, Cl. Sci. Math. Nat. 1998, 23: 25–31.Google Scholar
  33. Ćirić L: Fixed point theorems for set-valued non-self mappings. Math. Balk. 2006, 20(2):207–217.Google Scholar
  34. Ćirić L: Contractive-type non-self mappings on metric spaces of hyperbolic type. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2006, 317: 28–42. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.11.025View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. Ćirić L: Common fixed point theorems for a family of non-self mappings in convex metric spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71(5–6):1662–1669. 10.1016/j.na.2009.01.002View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Ćirić L: Non-self mappings satisfying nonlinear contractive condition with applications. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 2927–2935. 10.1016/j.na.2009.01.174View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. Ćirić L, Ume J: Common fixed point theorems for multi-valued non-self mappings. Publ. Math. (Debr.) 2002, 60(3–4):359–371.Google Scholar
  38. Ćirić L, Ume J: On an extension of a theorem of Rhoades. Rev. Roum. Math. Pures Appl. 2004, 49: 103–112.Google Scholar
  39. Ćirić L, Cakić N: On common fixed point theorems for non-self hybrid mappings in convex metric spaces. Appl. Math. Comput. 2009, 208(1):90–97. 10.1016/j.amc.2008.11.012View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. Ćirić L, Ume J, Nikolić N: On two pairs of non-self hybrid mappings. J. Aust. Math. Soc. 2007, 83(1):17–29. 10.1017/S1446788700036363View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. Ćirić L, Ume J, Khan MS, Pathak HK: On some non-self mappings. Math. Nachr. 2003, 251: 28–33. 10.1002/mana.200310028View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. Ćirić L, Rakočević V, Radenović S, Rajović M, Lazović R: Common fixed point theorems for non-self mappings in metric spaces of hyperbolic type. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2010, 233: 2966–2974. 10.1016/j.cam.2009.11.042View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. Kumam, P, Dung, NV, Sitthithakerngkiet, K: A generalization of Ćirić fixed point theorems. Filomat (2014, in press)Google Scholar
  44. Hadžić O: On coincidence points in convex metric spaces. Univ. Novom Sadu, Zb. Rad. Prir.-Mat. Fak., Ser. Mat. 1989, 19(2):233–240.Google Scholar
  45. Hadžić O, Gajić L: Coincidence points for set-valued mappings in convex metric spaces. Univ. Novom Sadu, Zb. Rad. Prir.-Mat. Fak., Ser. Mat. 1986, 16(1):13–25.Google Scholar
  46. Imdad M, Kumar S: Rhoades-type fixed-point theorems for a pair of nonself mappings. Comput. Math. Appl. 2003, 46(5–6):919–927. 10.1016/S0898-1221(03)90153-2View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. Rhoades BE: A fixed point theorem for some non-self mappings. Math. Jpn. 1978, 23(4):457–459.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. Rhoades BE: A fixed point theorem for non-self set-valued mappings. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 1977, 20(1):9–12.View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. Ćirić L, Ume J: Multi-valued non-self-mappings on convex metric spaces. Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl. 2005, 60(6):1053–1063. 10.1016/j.na.2004.09.057View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Itoh S: Multivalued generalized contractions and fixed point theorems. Comment. Math. Univ. Carol. 1977, 18(2):247–258.Google Scholar
  51. Khan MS: Common fixed point theorems for multivalued mappings. Pac. J. Math. 1981, 95(2):337–347. 10.2140/pjm.1981.95.337View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Wong YC, Ng KF: Partially Ordered Topological Vector Spaces. Clarendon, Oxford; 1973.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Huang et al.; licensee Springer. 2014

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/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.