 Research
 Open Access
Some coincidence theorems for generalized nonlinear contractions in ordered metric spaces with applications
 Aftab Alam^{1},
 Abdur Rauf Khan^{2} and
 Mohammad Imdad^{1}Email author
https://doi.org/10.1186/168718122014216
© Alam et al.; licensee Springer. 2014
 Received: 8 July 2014
 Accepted: 26 September 2014
 Published: 22 October 2014
Abstract
In this article, we prove some existence and uniqueness results on coincidence points for gincreasing mappings satisfying generalized φcontractivity conditions in ordered metric spaces. As an application of one of our newly proved results, we indicate the formulation of a coupled coincidence theorem. Our results generalize, extend, modify, improve, sharpen, enrich, and complement several wellknown results of the existing literature. Also, we point out that a recent coincidence point result proved in Dalal et al. (J. Adv. Math. 7(1):10841094, 2014) contains errors and omissions.
MSC:47H10, 54H25.
Keywords
 ordered metric spaces
 gmonotone mappings
 MCB property
 Ocompatible pair
 generalized φcontractions
1 Introduction
In 2004, Ran and Reurings [1] extended the Banach contraction principle in ordered metric spaces for continuous monotone mappings with some applications to matrix equations wherein the involved contractive condition is required to hold merely on elements which are comparable in the underlying partial ordering. Thereafter, Nieto and RodríguezLópez [2] slightly modified Ran and Reurings’ fixed point theorem for an increasing mapping not necessarily continuous by assuming an additional hypothesis on the ordered metric space and also proved some related results on ordered metric spaces besides giving some applications to ordinary differential equations. In the same development, Nieto and RodríguezLópez [3] analogously proved a fixed point theorem for a decreasing mapping in ordered metric space and also gave some applications of their results to ordinary differential equations. In recent years, Nieto and RodríguezLópez’s (cf. [2]) fixed point theorems were further extended and refined by many authors (e.g. [4–17]).
The idea of the coupled fixed point was initiated by Guo and Lakshmikantham [18] in 1987, which was well followed by Bhaskar and Lakshmikantham [19] where the authors introduced the notion of mixed monotone property for a linear contraction (mapping) $F:{X}^{2}\to X$ (wherein X is an ordered metric space) and utilized the same to prove some theorems on the existence and uniqueness of coupled fixed points, which can also be viewed as a coupled formulation of certain results of Nieto and RodríguezLópez [2]. In 2009, Lakshmikantham and Ćirić [20] generalized these results for nonlinear contraction mappings by introducing the notions of coupled coincidence point and mixed gmonotone property. In recent years, the existence results on coupled fixed points were generalized and improved by various authors (e.g. [21–27]). Very recently, Samet et al. [28] have shown that the coupled fixed results can be more easily obtained using wellknown fixed point theorems on ordered metric spaces (see also [29–31]). For further details, one can consult [32–40].
 (1)
We observe that a φcontraction indicated in Boyd and Wong [41] (later used by Jotić [42]) generalizes several wellknown φcontractions due to Browder [43], Mukherjea [44], Lakshmikantham and Ćirić [20] and similar others.
 (2)
We extend some fixed point results of Nieto and RodríguezLópez [2] to a pair $(f,g)$ of mappings such that f is gincreasing mapping satisfying generalized nonlinear contractive condition of Boyd and Wong [41] on an ordered metric space X in two different directions namely: in case X is complete or alternately one of the subspaces $f(X)$ or $g(X)$ is complete while the whole space X may or may not be complete. Some illustrative examples are also furnished to demonstrate our results.
 (3)
Following the techniques of Samet et al. [28], we indicate a coupled coincidence theorem which can be obtained as an application of our newly established result.
 (4)
We consolidate several weaker results on ordered metric spaces (especially those obtained in Nieto and RodríguezLópez [2], Wu and Liu [17], Radenović [29], AlMezel et al. [30], Ćirić et al. [6], Dalal et al. [31], Choudhury and Kundu [21], Hussain et al. [22] and Sintunavarat and Kumam [23]) besides correcting errors in a recent coincidence point result proved in Dalal et al. [31].
2 Preliminaries
In this section, to make our exposition self contained, we recall some basic definitions, relevant notions and auxiliary results:
Definition 1 [45]
Analogously, we also write:
$x\prec y$ means $x\u2aafy$ and $x\ne y$, which is read ‘x strictly precedes y’,
$x\u2ab0y$ means $y\u2aafx$, which is read ‘x succeeds y’,
$x\succ y$ means $y\prec x$, which is read ‘x strictly succeeds y’.
As usual, the notations ⋠, ⊀, ⋡ and ⊁ are selfexplanatory.
Definition 2 [45]
Let $(X,\u2aaf)$ be an ordered set and $x,y\in X$. We say that x and y are comparable if either $x\u2aafy$ or $x\u2ab0y$. For brevity, we denote it by $x\prec \succ y$.
Remark 1 [13]
The relation ≺≻ is reflexive and symmetric, but not transitive in general.
Definition 3 [45]
Definition 4 [45]
Definition 5 [5]
A triplet $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ is called an ordered metric space if $(X,d)$ is a metric space and $(X,\u2aaf)$ is an ordered set.
 (i)f is increasing or isotone or orderpreserving if for any $x,y\in X$$x\u2aafy\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\Rightarrow \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}f(x)\u2aaff(y),$
 (ii)f is decreasing or antitone or orderreversing if for any $x,y\in X$$x\u2aafy\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\Rightarrow \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}f(x)\u2ab0f(y),$
 (iii)
f is monotone if it is either increasing or decreasing.
Definition 7 [6]
 (i)f is gincreasing if for any $x,y\in X$$g(x)\u2aafg(y)\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\Rightarrow \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}f(x)\u2aaff(y),$
 (ii)f is gdecreasing if for any $x,y\in X$$g(x)\u2aafg(y)\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\Rightarrow \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}f(x)\u2ab0f(y),$
 (iii)
f is gmonotone if f is either gincreasing or gdecreasing.
Notice that under the restriction $g=I$, the identity mapping on X, Definition 7 reduces to Definition 6.
Proposition 1 Let f and g be a pair of self mappings defined on an ordered set $(X,\u2aaf)$. If f is gmonotone and $g(x)=g(y)$, then $f(x)=f(y)$.
□
Definition 8 [52]
 (i)increasing or ascending if for any $m,n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}$,$m\le n\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\Rightarrow \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}{x}_{m}\u2aaf{x}_{n},$
 (ii)decreasing or descending if for any $m,n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}$,$m\le n\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\Rightarrow \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}{x}_{m}\u2ab0{x}_{n},$
 (iii)
monotone if it is either increasing or decreasing,
 (iv)bounded above if there is an element $u\in X$ such that${x}_{n}\u2aafu\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\},$
 (v)bounded below if there is an element $l\in X$ such that${x}_{n}\u2ab0l\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\},$
so that l is a lower bound of $\{{x}_{n}\}$.
 (i)an element $x\in X$ is called a coincidence point of f and g if$g(x)=f(x),$
 (ii)
if $x\in X$ is a coincidence point of f and g and $\overline{x}\in X$ such that $\overline{x}=g(x)=f(x)$, then $\overline{x}$ is called a point of coincidence of f and g,
 (iii)
if $x\in X$ is a coincidence point of f and g such that $x=g(x)=f(x)$, then x is called a common fixed point of f and g,
 (iv)the pair $(f,g)$ is said to be commuting if$g(fx)=f(gx)\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}x\in X,$
 (v)the pair $(f,g)$ is said to be weakly compatible or coincidentally commuting if f and g commute at their coincidence points, i.e.,$g(fx)=f(gx)\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\text{whenever}g(x)=f(x).$
Further, for the sake of brevity, we record the following fact in the form of a proposition:
Proposition 2 If the pair $(f,g)$ is weakly compatible, then every point of coincidence of f and g is also a coincidence point of f and g.
which implies that $\overline{x}$ is a coincidence point of f and g. □
 (i)the pair $(f,g)$ is said to be weakly commuting if$d(gfx,fgx)\le d(gx,fx),$
 (ii)the pair $(f,g)$ is said to be compatible if$\underset{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{lim}d(gf{x}_{n},fg{x}_{n})=0$
Evidently, in an ordered metric space, commutativity ⇒ weak commutativity ⇒ compatibility ⇒ Ocompatibility ⇒ weak compatibility but reverse implications are not true in general as substantiated by the following examples.
Example 1 [55]
Consider $X=[0,1]$ with the usual metric. Define the functions $f:X\to X$ and $g:X\to X$ by $f(x)=\frac{x}{2}$ and $g(x)=\frac{x}{2}+x$ $\mathrm{\forall}x\in X$. Then the pair $(f,g)$ is weakly commutative but not commutative.
Example 2 [56]
Consider $X=\mathbb{R}$ with the usual metric. Define the functions $f:X\to X$ and $g:X\to X$ by $f(x)={x}^{3}$ and $g(x)=2{x}^{3}$ $\mathrm{\forall}x\in X$. Then the pair $(f,g)$ is compatible but not weakly commutative.
Example 3 [57]
Then the pair $(f,g)$ is Ocompatible but not compatible.
Here 1 is the only coincidence point of f and g and f(g1)=g(f1)=1. Therefore $(f,g)$ is a weakly compatible pair.
Consider a sequence $\{{x}_{n}\}\subset X$, where ${x}_{n}=3+\frac{1}{n}$ $\mathrm{\forall}n\in \mathbb{N}$ then $f({x}_{n})=1$ and $g({x}_{n})=1+\frac{1}{n}$. Hence $\{g{x}_{n}\}$ is decreasing and ${lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}g({x}_{n})={lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}f({x}_{n})=1$. Also, $f(g{x}_{n})=f(1+\frac{1}{n})=5$ and $g(f{x}_{n})=g(1)=1$, which implies that ${lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}d(gf{x}_{n},fg{x}_{n})=4\ne 0$. It follows that the pair $(f,g)$ is not Ocompatible.
 (i)
if $\{{x}_{n}\}$ is increasing and ${x}_{n}\stackrel{d}{\to}x$ then we denote it symbolically by ${x}_{n}\uparrow x$,
 (ii)
if $\{{x}_{n}\}$ is decreasing and ${x}_{n}\stackrel{d}{\to}x$ then we denote it symbolically by ${x}_{n}\downarrow x$.
In the following lines, we formulate some definitions using certain properties utilized by earlier authors especially from [2, 6, 19, 20] besides some other ones.
 (i)$(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the ICU (increasingconvergenceupper bound) property if every increasing convergent sequence $\{{x}_{n}\}$ in X is bounded above by its limit (as an upper bound), i.e.,${x}_{n}\uparrow x\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\Rightarrow \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}{x}_{n}\u2aafx\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\},$
 (ii)$(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the DCL (decreasingconvergencelower bound) property if every decreasing convergent sequence $\{{x}_{n}\}$ in X is bounded below by its limit (as a lower bound), i.e.,${x}_{n}\downarrow x\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\Rightarrow \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}{x}_{n}\u2ab0x\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\},$
 (iii)
$(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the MCB (monotoneconvergenceboundedness) property if X has the ICU as well as the DCL property.
Remark 2 It is warranted to mention that the terminologies utilized in Definition 12 are available under different names as adopted by various authors in their respective papers. Instead of saying that X has the ICU property, alternately Turinici [58] said that $(\u2aaf)$ is dselfclosed, Jleli et al. [15] said that X is regular and Kutbi et al. [59] said that X is nondecreasingregular. Similarly, instead of saying that X has the DCL property, alternately Turinici [58] said that $(\u2ab0)$ is dselfclosed and Kutbi et al. [59] said that X is nonincreasingregular. Also, instead of saying that X has the MCB property, alternately Jleli et al. [15] said that X is ↑↓regular, Berzig and Samet [60] said that X is regular and Roldan et al. [61] said that X has sequential monotone property.
 (i)$(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the gICU property if gimage of every increasing convergent sequence $\{{x}_{n}\}$ in X is bounded above by gimage of its limit (as an upper bound), i.e.,${x}_{n}\uparrow x\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\Rightarrow \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}g({x}_{n})\u2aafg(x)\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\},$
 (ii)$(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the gDCL property if gimage of every decreasing convergent sequence $\{{x}_{n}\}$ in X is bounded below by gimage of its limit (as a lower bound), i.e.,${x}_{n}\downarrow x\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\Rightarrow \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}g({x}_{n})\u2ab0g(x)\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\},$
 (iii)
$(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the gMCB property if it has the gICU as well as the gDCL property.
Notice that under the restriction $g=I$, the identity mapping on X, Definition 13 reduces to Definition 12.
Now, we summarize some basic definitions related to coupled coincidence points.
Definition 14 [20]
Notice that under the restriction $g=I$, the identity mapping on X, Definition 14 reduces to the definition of mixed monotone property of F.
Definition 15 [20]
Notice that under the restriction $g=I$, the identity mapping on X, $(x,y)$ is called a coupled fixed point of F.
Definition 16 [20]
Definition 17 [21]
Definition 18 [57]
Finally, we list the following known results needed in the proof of our main results.
Lemma 1 [11]
 (i)
${n}_{k}>{m}_{k}\ge k$,
 (ii)
$d({x}_{{m}_{k}},{x}_{{n}_{k}})\ge \u03f5$,
 (iii)
$d({x}_{{m}_{k}},{x}_{{n}_{k}1})<\u03f5$,
 (iv)the following four sequences tend to ϵ when $k\to \mathrm{\infty}$:$d({x}_{{m}_{k}},{x}_{{n}_{k}}),\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}d({x}_{{m}_{k}+1},{x}_{{n}_{k}}),\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}d({x}_{{m}_{k}},{x}_{{n}_{k}+1}),\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}d({x}_{{m}_{k}+1},{x}_{{n}_{k}+1}).$
Lemma 2 [62]
Let X be a nonempty set and g a self mapping on X. Then there exists a subset $E\subseteq X$ such that $g(E)=g(X)$ and $g:E\to X$ is onetoone.
3 Existing control functions and possible interrelations
The following properties of control functions are needed in the subsequent discussion.
 (a)
If φ is right continuous, then ${lim}_{r\to {t}^{+}}\phi (r)<t$ for each $t>0$.
 (b)
If φ is rightupper semicontinuous, then ${lim\hspace{0.17em}sup}_{r\to {t}^{+}}\phi (r)<t$ for each $t>0$.
In a similar manner we can prove (b). For an arbitrary $t>0$, using rightupper semicontinuity of φ, we have ${lim\hspace{0.17em}sup}_{r\to {t}^{+}}\phi (r)\le \phi (t)$, which on using $\phi (t)<t$ implies that ${lim\hspace{0.17em}sup}_{r\to {t}^{+}}\phi (r)<t$ for each $t>0$. □
Now, we present our main result of this section as follows:
Proposition 4 The class Ω enlarges the classes Ψ, Θ, ℑ and Φ.
Hence from (3) and (4), it follows that Ω enlarges the rest of all the above families of control functions. □
The following property of $\phi \in \mathrm{\Omega}$ in the form of a lemma is used in our main results.
Lemma 3 Let $\phi \in \mathrm{\Omega}$. If $\{{a}_{n}\}\subset (0,\mathrm{\infty})$ is a sequence such that ${a}_{n+1}\le \phi ({a}_{n})$ $\mathrm{\forall}n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}$, then ${lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{a}_{n}=0$.
which is a contradiction, so that $a=0$. □
4 Results on coincidence points
We prove one of our main results as follows:
 (a)
$f(X)\subseteq g(X)$,
 (b)
f is gincreasing,
 (c)
there exists ${x}_{0}\in X$ such that $g({x}_{0})\u2aaff({x}_{0})$,
 (d)(e)there exists $\phi \in \mathrm{\Omega}$ such that$d(fx,fy)\le \phi (d(gx,gy))\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}x,y\in X\mathit{\text{with}}g(x)\prec \succ g(y),$
(e1) $(X,d)$ is complete,
(e2) $(f,g)$ is Ocompatible pair,
(e3) g is continuous,
(e4) either f is continuous or $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the gICU property,
or alternately
(e′)
(e′1) either $(gX,d)$ or $(fX,d)$ is complete,
(e′2) either f and g are continuous or $(gX,d,\u2aaf)$ has the ICU property.
Then f and g have a coincidence point.
If our contractivity condition is satisfied for first possibility, then in view of symmetry of d, it must be satisfied for the second possibility and vice versa. Therefore on imposing our contractivity condition these two possibilities are equivalent and hence we use only the first possibility to prove our result.
Thus, by induction, (8) holds for all $n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}$.
which is a contradiction. Therefore $\{g{x}_{n}\}$ is a Cauchy sequence. Now, we use assumptions (e) or (e′) to accomplish the proof.
Thus $z\in X$ is a coincidence point of f and g and hence we are through.
 (i)
$d(gg{x}_{n},gz)=0$ $\mathrm{\forall}n\in {\mathbb{N}}^{0}$,
 (ii)
$d(gg{x}_{n},gz)>0$ $\mathrm{\forall}n\in {\mathbb{N}}^{+}$.
In case (i), on using Proposition 1, we get $d(fg{x}_{n},fz)=0$ $\mathrm{\forall}n\in {\mathbb{N}}^{0}$ and hence (21) holds for all $n\in {\mathbb{N}}^{0}$. In case (ii), owing to the definition of Ω, we have $d(fg{x}_{n},fz)\le \phi (d(gg{x}_{n},gz))<d(gg{x}_{n},gz)$ $\mathrm{\forall}n\in {\mathbb{N}}^{+}$ and hence (21) holds for all $n\in {\mathbb{N}}^{+}$. Thus (21) holds for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$.
Thus $z\in X$ is a coincidence point of f and g and hence we are through.
Thus $u\in X$ is a coincidence point of f and g and hence we are done.
 (i)
$d(g{x}_{n},gu)=0$ $\mathrm{\forall}n\in {\mathbb{N}}^{0}$,
 (ii)
$d(g{x}_{n},gu)>0$ $\mathrm{\forall}n\in {\mathbb{N}}^{+}$.
In case (i), on using Proposition 1, we get $d(f{x}_{n},fu)=0$ $\mathrm{\forall}n\in {\mathbb{N}}^{0}$, which in view of (7), gives rise $d(g{x}_{n+1},fu)=0$ $\mathrm{\forall}n\in {\mathbb{N}}^{0}$ and hence (26) holds for all $n\in {\mathbb{N}}^{0}$. In case (ii), by the definition of Ω, we have $d(g{x}_{n+1},fu)\le \phi (d(g{x}_{n},gu))<d(g{x}_{n},gu)$ $\mathrm{\forall}n\in {\mathbb{N}}^{+}$ and hence (26) holds for all $n\in {\mathbb{N}}^{+}$. Thus (26) holds for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$.
Hence $u\in X$ is a coincidence point of f and g. This completes the proof. □
Corollary 1 If in addition to the hypotheses (a)(d) of Theorem 1, one of the following conditions holds:
(f1) $(X,d)$ is complete,
(f2) either f or g is onto,
(f3) either f and g are continuous or $(gX,d,\u2aaf)$ has the ICU property;
(f′)
(f′1) $(X,d)$ is complete,
(f′2) either $f(X)$ or $g(X)$ is closed,
(f′3) either f and g are continuous or $(gX,d,\u2aaf)$ has the ICU property;
(f^{′′})
(f^{′′}1) $(X,d)$ is complete,
(f^{′′}2) $(f,g)$ is Ocompatible pair,
(f^{′′}3) g is continuous and increasing,
(f^{′′}4) $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the ICU property,
then f and g have a coincidence point.
Proof Suppose that (f) hold. By (f2), we get either $f(X)=X$ or $g(X)=X$, so that (f1) implies that either $f(X)$ or $g(X)$ is complete and hence assumption (e′) is applicable.
Suppose that (f′) hold. We know that closed subset of a complete metric space is complete. It follows, from (f′1) and (f′2), that either $f(X)$ or $g(X)$ is complete and hence assumption (e′) is applicable.
Suppose that (f^{′′}) hold. Now g is increasing and $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the ICU property, this implies that $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the gICU property. Hence, in this case, assumption (e) is applicable. □
Next, we present a result dual to Theorem 1.
Theorem 2 Theorem 1 remains true if we replace conditions (c), (e4), and (e′2) by the conditions (c)′, (e4)′ and ${({\mathrm{e}}^{\prime}2)}^{\prime}$, respectively (besides retaining the rest of the hypotheses):
(c)′ there exists ${x}_{0}\in X$ such that $g({x}_{0})\u2ab0f({x}_{0})$,
(e4)′ either f is continuous or $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the gDCL property,
${({\mathrm{e}}^{\prime}2)}^{\prime}$ either f and g are continuous or $(gX,d,\u2aaf)$ has the DCL property.
Proof The scheme of the proof is similar to the one followed in the proof of Theorem 1. Following the lines of the proof of Theorem 1, we can show that the sequence $\{g{x}_{n}\}$ is decreasing and also Cauchy.
and hence proceeding along the lines of the proof of Theorem 1, the result can be proved.
and hence proceeding along the lines of the proof of Theorem 1, the result can be proved. □
On combining Theorem 1 and Theorem 2, we obtain the following result.
 (a)
$f(X)\subseteq g(X)$,
 (b)
f is gincreasing,
 (c)
there exists ${x}_{0}\in X$ such that $g({x}_{0})\prec \succ f({x}_{0})$,
 (d)there exists $\phi \in \mathrm{\Omega}$ such that$d(fx,fy)\le \phi (d(gx,gy))\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}x,y\in X\mathit{\text{with}}g(x)\prec \succ g(y),$
(e) (e1) $(X,d)$ is complete,
(e2) $(f,g)$ is Ocompatible pair,
(e3) g is continuous,
(e4) either f is continuous or $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the gMCB property,
or alternately
(e′)
(e′1) either $(gX,d)$ or $(fX,d)$ is complete,
(e′2) either f and g are continuous or $(gX,d,\u2aaf)$ has the MCB property.
Then f and g have a coincidence point.
Analogously, we can prove results similar to Corollary 1 corresponding to Theorems 2 and 3.
As commutativity ⇒ weak commutativity ⇒ compatibility ⇒ Ocompatibility for a pair of mappings, the following consequence of Theorem 1 (also of Theorem 2 or Theorem 3) trivially holds.
Corollary 2 Theorem 1 (also Theorem 2 or Theorem 3) remains true if we replace condition (e2) by one of the following conditions (besides retaining the rest of the hypotheses):
(e2)′ $(f,g)$ is commuting pair,
(e2)^{′′} $(f,g)$ is weakly commuting pair,
(e2)^{′′′} $(f,g)$ is compatible pair.
On setting $\phi (t)=\alpha t$ with $\alpha \in [0,1)$, in Theorem 1 (also in Theorem 2 or Theorem 3), we get the following result:
Corollary 3 Theorem 1 (also Theorem 2 or Theorem 3) remains true if we replace condition (d) by the following condition (besides retaining the rest of the hypotheses):
On setting $g=I$, the identity mapping on X, in Theorems 1, 2, and 3, we get, respectively, the following corresponding fixed point results.
 (a)
either $(fX,d)$ or $(X,d)$ is complete,
 (b)
f is increasing,
 (c)
either f is continuous or $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the ICU property,
 (d)
there exists ${x}_{0}\in X$ such that ${x}_{0}\u2aaff({x}_{0})$,
 (e)there exists $\phi \in \mathrm{\Omega}$ such that$d(fx,fy)\le \phi (d(x,y))\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}x,y\in X\mathit{\text{with}}x\prec \succ y.$
Then f has a fixed point.
Notice that Corollary 4 improves Theorem 2.1 of Wu and Liu [17]. Here it is mentioned that in Theorem 2.1 of [17], the authors used Φ instead of Ω besides (in view of hypothesis (a)) the completeness of X.
Corollary 5 Corollary 4 remains true if the conditions (c) and (d) are replaced by the conditions (c)′ and (d)′, respectively (besides retaining the rest of the hypotheses):
(c)′ either f is continuous or $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the DCL property,
(d)′ there exists ${x}_{0}\in X$ such that ${x}_{0}\u2ab0f({x}_{0})$.
Corollary 6 Corollary 4 remains true if the conditions (c) and (d) are replaced by the conditions (c)^{′′} and (d)^{′′}, respectively (besides retaining the rest of the hypotheses):
(c)^{′′} either f is continuous or $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the MCB property,
(d)^{′′} there exists ${x}_{0}\in X$ such that ${x}_{0}\prec \succ f({x}_{0})$.
On setting $\phi (t)=\alpha t$ with $\alpha \in [0,1)$, in Corollary 4 (also in Corollary 5 or Corollary 6), we get respectively the following results.
Corollary 7 Corollary 4 (also Corollary 5 or Corollary 6) remains true if the condition (e) is replaced by the following condition (besides retaining the rest of the hypotheses):
Notice that Corollary 7 covers Theorems 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4 of Nieto and RodríguezLópez [2]. Here we observe that in Nieto and RodríguezLópez’s theorems the completeness of X is not necessary, it can alternately be replaced by the completeness of $f(X)$.
Now, we make some observations on several wellknown results in ordered metric spaces available in the existing literature.
The following result of Radenović [29] is a consequence of Theorem 1.
Corollary 8 (Radenović [29])
 (i)
f is gincreasing and $f(X)\subseteq g(X)$,
 (ii)
there exists ${x}_{0}\in X$ such that $g({x}_{0})\u2aaff({x}_{0})$,
 (iii)
f and g are continuous and compatible and $(X,d)$ is complete, or
 (iv)
$(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the MCB property and one of $f(X)$ or $g(X)$ is complete.
Then f and g have a coincidence point.
Here, it can be pointed out that Radenović [29] call X to be regular instead of saying that X has MCB property. On taking Φ instead of Ω and compatibility instead of Ocompatibility in Theorem 1, we obtain a sharpened version of Corollary 8 which are worth noting in the following respects:

In the context of hypothesis (iii), the continuity of f is not necessary as it can alternately be replaced by the condition that $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the gICU property.

In the context of hypothesis (iv), there is no point to use the MCB property on X as a relatively lighter ICU property can serve the desired purpose (see lines 38 and 39 on p.370 in [29]). Moreover, there is no need to take the ICU property on the whole space X, it suffices to take it merely on $g(X)$. Also this condition (i.e. the ICU property of $g(X)$) is not necessary as it can alternately be replaced by continuity requirements on f and g both.
The following result of AlMezel et al. [30] is a consequence of Theorem 1 and Corollary 1.
Corollary 9 (AlMezel et al. [30])
 (i)
$f(X)\subseteq g(X)$,
 (ii)
f is gincreasing,
 (iii)
there exists ${x}_{0}\in X$ such that $g({x}_{0})\u2aaff({x}_{0})$,
 (iv)there exists $\phi \in \mathrm{\Phi}$ such that$d(fx,fy)\le \phi (d(gx,gy))\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}x,y\in X\mathit{\text{with}}g(x)\u2aafg(y).$
 (a)
$(X,d)$ is complete, f and g are continuous and the pair $(f,g)$ is Ocompatible,
 (b)
$(X,d)$ is complete and f and g are continuous and commuting,
 (c)
$(gX,d)$ is complete and $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the ICU property,
 (d)
$(X,d)$ is complete, $g(X)$ is closed and $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the ICU property,
 (e)
$(X,d)$ is complete, g is continuous and increasing, the pair $(f,g)$ is Ocompatible and $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the ICU property.
Then f and g have, at least, a coincidence point.
Notice that AlMezel et al. [30] call X to be nondecreasingregular instead of saying that X has the ICU property. On taking Φ instead of Ω in Theorem 1 (including Corollary 1 with assumptions (f′) and (f^{′′})), we obtain a sharpened version of Corollary 9 which are worth noting in the following respects:

In the context of hypotheses (a) and (b), the continuity of f is not necessary as it can alternately be replaced by the condition that $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the gICU property.

In the context of hypotheses (c) and (d), there is no need to take the ICU property on the whole space X, it suffices to take merely on $g(X)$. Also this condition (i.e. the ICU property on $g(X)$) is not necessary as it can alternately be replaced by continuity requirements on both f and g.

In the context of hypothesis (c), the completeness of $g(X)$ is not necessary as it can alternately be replaced by the completeness of $f(X)$.

In the context of hypothesis (d), the closedness of $g(X)$ is not necessary as it can alternately be replaced by closedness of $f(X)$.

In the context of hypothesis (e), it is clear that increasing requirement on g together with the ICU property implies the gICU property, therefore it is more natural to use the gICU property as opposed to the ICU property together with increasing requirement on g.
The following consequence of Corollary 1 is a special case of Theorem 2.2 of Ćirić et al. [6].
 (i)
$(X,d)$ is complete,
 (ii)
$g(X)$ is closed,
 (iii)
$f(X)\subseteq g(X)$,
 (iv)
f is gincreasing,
 (v)
$(gX,d,\u2aaf)$ has the ICU property,
 (vi)
there exists ${x}_{0}\in X$ such that $g({x}_{0})\u2aaff({x}_{0})$,
 (vii)there exists $\phi \in \mathrm{\Im}$ such that$d(fx,fy)\le \phi (d(gx,gy))\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}x,y\in X\mathit{\text{with}}g(x)\u2ab0g(y).$
Then f and g have a coincidence point.
$\mathrm{\forall}x,y\in X$ with $g(x)\u2ab0g(y)$. On taking ℑ instead of Ω in Corollary 1 (with assumption (f′) only), we obtain an improved version of Corollary 10, which are worth noting in the following considerations:

In the context of hypothesis (ii), the closedness of $g(X)$ is not necessary as it can alternately be replaced by the closedness of $f(X)$.

In the context of hypothesis (v), the ICU property on $g(X)$ is not necessary as it can alternately be replaced by continuity requirements on f and g both.
The following result of Dalal et al. [31] (with correction) is a consequence of Corollary 2.
Corollary 11 (Dalal et al. [31])
 (i)
f is gincreasing and $f(X)\subseteq g(X)$,
 (ii)
g is continuous and commutes with f,
 (iii)there exists ${x}_{0}\in X$ such that $g({x}_{0})\u2aaff({x}_{0})$, (iv) there exists $\phi \in \mathrm{\Phi}$ such that$d(fx,fy)\le \phi (d(gx,gy))\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}x,y\in X\mathit{\text{with}}g(x)\u2aafg(y)\mathit{\text{or}}g(x)\u2ab0g(y).$
 (a)
f is continuous, or
 (b)
$(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the MCB property.
Then f and g have a coincidence point.
Notice that Dalal et al. [31] use the term sequential monotone property instead of the MCB property. Firstly, we point out that Dalal et al. [31] used the completeness of X in their proof but failed to mention the same in the hypotheses. Also, owing to the MCB property on X, Dalal et al. [31] observed that $g({x}_{n})\u2aafz$ (see line 14 on p.1092) which can not ensure the comparability of $g(g{x}_{n})$ and $g(z)$. But Dalal et al. [31] used the same while writing $d(fg{x}_{n},fz)\le \phi (d(gg{x}_{n},gz))$ (see lines 17 and 18 on p.1092 in Dalal et al. [31]). Hence, one needs to replace the MCB property by the gICU property which ensures that $g(g{x}_{n})\u2aafg(z)$, so that the given proof can work. Thus Corollary 11 contains some errors and omissions. In fact on taking Φ instead of Ω in Corollary 2 (with assumption (e2)′ only), we obtain correct form of Corollary 11.
Now, as an application of Theorem 1, using the techniques of Samet et al. [28], one can easily obtain the following coupled coincidence theorem, which is indeed the coupled formulation of Theorem 1.
 (a)
$F({X}^{2})\subseteq g(X)$,
 (b)
F has the mixed gmonotone property,
 (c)
there exist ${x}_{0},{y}_{0}\in X$ such that $g({x}_{0})\u2aafF({x}_{0},{y}_{0})$ and $g({y}_{0})\u2ab0F({y}_{0},{x}_{0})$,
 (d)there exists $\phi \in \mathrm{\Omega}$ such that$d(F(x,y),F(u,v))\le \phi \left(\frac{d(gx,gu)+d(gy,gv)}{2}\right)$
$\mathrm{\forall}x,y,u,v\in X$ with $g(x)\u2aafg(u)$ and $g(y)\u2ab0g(v)$,
e(e1) $(X,d)$ is complete,
(e2) $(F,g)$ is Ocompatible pair,
(e3) g is continuous,
(e4) either F is continuous or $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the gMCB property,
or alternately
(e′)
(e′1) either $(gX,d)$ or $(F{X}^{2},d)$ is complete,
(e′2) either F and g are continuous or $(gX,d,\u2aaf)$ has the MCB property.
Then F and g have a coincidence point.
The following two coupled coincidence theorems directly follow from Theorem 4.
Corollary 12 (Choudhury and Kundu [21])
 (i)
$(X,d)$ is complete,
 (ii)
$F({X}^{2})\subseteq g(X)$,
 (iii)
F has the mixed gmonotone property,
 (iv)
$(F,g)$ is a compatible pair,
 (v)
g is continuous and increasing,
 (vi)
either F is continuous or $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the MCB property,
 (vii)
there exist ${x}_{0},{y}_{0}\in X$ such that $g({x}_{0})\u2aafF({x}_{0},{y}_{0})$ and $g({y}_{0})\u2ab0F({y}_{0},{x}_{0})$,
 (viii)there exists $\phi \in \mathrm{\Phi}$ such that$d(F(x,y),F(u,v))\le \phi \left(\frac{d(gx,gu)+d(gy,gv)}{2}\right)$
$\mathrm{\forall}x,y,u,v\in X$ with $g(x)\u2aafg(u)$ and $g(y)\u2ab0g(v)$.
Then F and g have a coupled coincidence point
On taking Φ instead of Ω and compatibility instead of Ocompatibility in Theorem 4 (with assumption (e) only), we obtain a sharpened version of Corollary 12. Notice that there is no need of increasing requirement on g in Corollary 12 if F is continuous and this property is used only when X has MCB property. As the requirement of increasing on g together with the MCB property implies gMCB property, it is more natural to use the gMCB property as opposed to the MCB property together with the requirement of increasing on g.
Corollary 13 (Husain et al. [22], Sintunavarat and Kumam [23])
 (i)
$(gX,d)$ is complete,
 (ii)
$F({X}^{2})\subseteq g(X)$,
 (iii)
F has the mixed gmonotone property,
 (iv)
g is continuous,
 (v)
either F is continuous or $(X,d,\u2aaf)$ has the MCB property,
 (vi)
there exist ${x}_{0},{y}_{0}\in X$ such that $g({x}_{0})\u2aafF({x}_{0},{y}_{0})$ and $g({y}_{0})\u2ab0F({y}_{0},{x}_{0})$,
 (vii)there exists $\phi \in \mathrm{\Phi}$ such that$d(F(x,y),F(u,v))\le \phi \left(\frac{d(gx,gu)+d(gy,gv)}{2}\right)$
$\mathrm{\forall}x,y,u,v\in X$ with $g(x)\u2aafg(u)$ and $g(y)\u2ab0g(v)$.
Then F and g have a coupled coincidence point.
On taking Φ instead of Ω in Theorem 4 (with assumption (e′) only), we obtain a sharpened version of Corollary 13, for which it is worth noting in following features:

In the context of hypothesis (i), the completeness of $g(X)$ is not necessary as it can alternately be replaced by the completeness of $F({X}^{2})$.

In the context of hypothesis (v), there is no need to take the MCB property on the whole space X, it suffices to take it merely on $g(X)$.

In the context of hypotheses (iv) and (v), the continuity of g is unnecessary, when the MCB property on $g(X)$ holds. It is required only when F is continuous.
5 Uniqueness results
In this section, we state and prove the results regarding the uniqueness of a point of coincidence, coincidence point and common fixed point corresponding to previous results. For a pair of self mappings f and g on a nonempty set X, we denote the following sets:
$\mathrm{C}(f,g)=\{x\in X:gx=fx\}$, i.e., the set of all coincidence points of f and g,
$\overline{\mathrm{C}}(f,g)=\{\overline{x}\in X:\overline{x}=gx=fx,x\in X\}$, i.e., the set of all points of coincidence of f and g.
Theorem 5 In addition to the hypotheses (a)(d) along with (e′) of Theorem 1 (resp. Theorem 2 or Theorem 3), if the following condition holds:
(u_{0}): for all $x,y\in X$, $\mathrm{\exists}z\in X$ such that $g(x)\prec \succ g(z)$ and $g(y)\prec \succ g(z)$,
then f and g have a unique point of coincidence.
Now two cases arise. Firstly, suppose that ${t}_{{n}_{0}}=d(gx,g{z}_{{n}_{0}})=0$ for some ${n}_{0}\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}$, then by Proposition 1, we obtain $d(fx,f{z}_{{n}_{0}})=0$. Consequently on using (27) and (28), we get ${t}_{{n}_{0}+1}=d(gx,g{z}_{{n}_{0}+1})=d(fx,f{z}_{{n}_{0}})=0$. Thus by induction, we get ${t}_{n}=0$ $\mathrm{\forall}n\ge {n}_{0}$, yielding thereby ${lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{t}_{n}=0$. Hence, in this case, (30) is proved.
Thus, f and g have a unique point of coincidence. □
Corollary 14 Theorem 5 remains true if we replace the condition (u _{0}) by one of the following conditions (besides retaining rest of the hypotheses):
(${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{1}$): for all $x,y\in X$, $\mathrm{\exists}z\in X$ such that $g(x)\prec \succ f(z)$ and $g(y)\prec \succ f(z)$,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{2}$): for all $x,y\in X$, $\mathrm{\exists}z\in X$ such that $f(x)\prec \succ g(z)$ and $f(y)\prec \succ g(z)$,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{3}$): for all $x,y\in X$, $\mathrm{\exists}z\in X$ such that $f(x)\prec \succ f(z)$ and $f(y)\prec \succ f(z)$,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{4}$): every pair of elements of $g(X)$ has a lower bound or an upper bound in $g(X)$,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{5}$): every pair of elements of $f(X)$ has a lower bound or an upper bound in $g(X)$,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{6}$): every pair of elements of $f(X)$ has a lower bound or an upper bound in $f(X)$,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{7}$): $(fX,\u2aaf)$ is totally ordered,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{8}$): $(gX,\u2aaf)$ is totally ordered,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{9}$): $(X,\u2aaf)$ is totally ordered.
Proof As $f(X)\subseteq g(X)$, for $x,y,z\in X$ $\mathrm{\exists}u,v,w\in X$ such that $f(x)=g(u)$, $f(y)=g(v)$, $f(z)=g(w)$. Hence, we have
(${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{1}$) ⇒ $g(x)\prec \succ f(z)=g(w)$, $g(y)\prec \succ f(z)=g(w)$,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{2}$) ⇒ $g(u)=f(x)\prec \succ g(z)$, $g(v)=f(y)\prec \succ g(z)$,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{3}$) ⇒ $g(u)=f(x)\prec \succ f(z)=g(w)$, $g(v)=f(y)\prec \succ f(z)=g(w)$,
which amounts to saying that, in each case, (u_{0}) holds and hence Theorem 5 is applicable. □
It is easy to check that (${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{4}$) ⇒ (${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{5}$), (${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{6}$) ⇒ (${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{5}$), (${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{5}$) ⇒ (${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{2}$), so that the results follow due to availability of the result under condition (${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{2}$).
Again, (${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{9}$) ⇒ (${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{8}$) ⇒ (${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{7}$) ⇒ (${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{3}$) and hence such results follow due to availability of the result corresponding to (${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{3}$).
Theorem 6 In addition to the hypotheses of Theorem 5, if the following condition holds:
(u_{1}): one of f and g is oneone,
then f and g have a unique coincidence point.
□
Theorem 7 In addition to the hypotheses of Theorem 5, if the following condition holds:
(u_{2}): $(f,g)$ is weakly compatible pair,
then f and g have a unique common fixed point.
Hence we are through. □
Theorem 8 In addition to the hypotheses (a)(e) of Theorem 1 (resp. Theorem 2 or Theorem 3), if the condition (u_{0}) (of Theorem 5) holds, then f and g have a unique common fixed point.
Proof We know that in an ordered metric space, every Ocompatible pair is weakly compatible, so that (u_{2}) trivially holds. Hence similar to the lines of proof of Theorems 5 and 7 our result follows. □
Theorem 8 asserts that assumption (u_{0}) together with Corollary 2 provides the uniqueness of common fixed point.
Remark 3 Theorem 8 remains true if condition (u_{0}) is replaced by any one of the conditions (${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{1}$)(${\mathrm{u}}_{0}^{9}$) (of Corollary 14) besides retaining rest of the hypotheses.
Remark 4 If the sets $\mathrm{C}(f,g)$ and $\overline{\mathrm{C}}(f,g)$ are known then in view of the proofs of Theorem 5, Theorem 8 and Corollary 14, it is clear that (u_{0}) can be replaced by one of the following conditions, which are relatively weaker than the assumptions mentioned in these results:
(${\overline{\mathrm{u}}}_{0}^{1}$): for all $x,y\in \mathrm{C}(f,g)$, $\mathrm{\exists}z\in X$ such that $f(x)=g(x)\prec \succ g(z)$ and $f(y)=g(y)\prec \succ g(z)$,
(${\overline{\mathrm{u}}}_{0}^{2}$): for all $x,y\in \mathrm{C}(f,g)$, $\mathrm{\exists}z\in X$ such that $g(x)=f(x)\prec \succ f(z)$ and $g(y)=f(y)\prec \succ f(z)$,
(${\overline{\mathrm{u}}}_{0}^{3}$): every pair of elements of $\overline{\mathrm{C}}(f,g)$ has a lower bound or an upper bound in $g(X)$,
(${\overline{\mathrm{u}}}_{0}^{4}$): every pair of elements of $\overline{\mathrm{C}}(f,g)$ has a lower bound or an upper bound in $f(X)$,
(${\overline{\mathrm{u}}}_{0}^{5}$): $\overline{\mathrm{C}}(f,g)$ is totally ordered set with respect to ⪯.
Remark 5 Under the arguments of Remark 4, one can replace assumption (u_{1}) (of Theorem 6) by the following condition, which is weaker:
(${\overline{\mathrm{u}}}_{1}$): $g=f:\mathrm{C}(f,g)\to \overline{\mathrm{C}}(f,g)$ is a bijection.
By setting $g=I$ (the identity mapping on X) in Theorems 58, we deduce the following unique fixed point results, which are indeed the uniqueness results corresponding to Corollaries 47.
Corollary 15 In addition to the hypotheses of Corollary 4 (resp. Corollary 5, Corollary 6 or Corollary 7), if one of the following conditions holds:
(${\mathrm{u}}_{1}^{\prime}$): for all $x,y\in X$, there exists $z\in X$ such that $x\prec \succ z$ and $y\prec \succ z$,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{2}^{\prime}$): for all $x,y\in X$, $\mathrm{\exists}z\in X$ such that $x\prec \succ f(z)$ and $y\prec \succ f(z)$,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{3}^{\prime}$): for all $x,y\in X$, $\mathrm{\exists}z\in X$ such that $f(x)\prec \succ z$ and $f(y)\prec \succ z$,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{4}^{\prime}$): for all $x,y\in X$, $\mathrm{\exists}z\in X$ such that $f(x)\prec \succ f(z)$ and $f(y)\prec \succ f(z)$,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{5}^{\prime}$): every pair of elements of X has a lower bound or an upper bound,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{6}^{\prime}$): every pair of elements of $f(X)$ has a lower bound or an upper bound,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{7}^{\prime}$): $(fX,\u2aaf)$ is totally ordered,
(${\mathrm{u}}_{8}^{\prime}$): $(X,\u2aaf)$ is totally ordered,
then f has a unique fixed point.
6 Examples
In this section, we furnish two examples, which illustrate Theorem 1 and Theorems 58.
Thus f, g and φ satisfy assumption (d) of Theorem 1. By a routine calculation, one can verify all the conditions mentioned in (e) of Theorem 1. Hence all the conditions of Theorem 1 are satisfied and f and g have a coincidence point in X. Moreover, here (u_{0}) holds and therefore, in view of Theorem 8, f and g have a unique common fixed point (namely: $x=0$).
Thus f, g and φ satisfy assumption (d) of Theorem 1. Also, the pair $(f,g)$ is not Ocompatible and hence (e) does not hold. But the subspace $g(X)=[8,\mathrm{\infty})$ is complete and f and g are continuous, i.e., all the conditions mentioned in $({e}^{\prime})$ are satisfied. Hence by Theorem 1, f and g have a coincidence point in X. Further, in this example (u_{0}) holds and therefore, in view of Theorem 5, f and g have a unique point of coincidence (namely: $\overline{x}=1$). Notice that neither f nor g is oneone, i.e., (u_{1}) does not hold and hence, we cannot apply Theorem 6, which guarantees the uniqueness of coincidence point. Notice that there are two coincidence points (namely: $x=3$ and $x=3$). Also, the pair $(f,g)$ is not weakly compatible, i.e., (u_{2}) does not hold and, hence, we cannot apply Theorem 7, which ensures the uniqueness of common fixed point. Notice that there is no common fixed point of f and g.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
All the authors are grateful to three learned referees for their critical readings and pertinent comments on the earlier version of the manuscript.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Ran ACM, Reurings MCB: A fixed point theorem in partially ordered sets and some applications to matrix equations. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2004, 132(5):1435–1443. 10.1090/S0002993903072204View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Nieto JJ, RodríguezLópez R: Contractive mapping theorems in partially ordered sets and applications to ordinary differential equations. Order 2005, 22(3):223–239. 10.1007/s1108300590185View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Nieto JJ, RodríguezLópez R: Existence and uniqueness of fixed point in partially ordered sets and applications to ordinary differential equation. Acta Math. Sin. Engl. Ser. 2007, 23(12):2205–2212. 10.1007/s1011400507690View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Agarwal RP, ElGebeily MA, O’Regan D: Generalized contractions in partially ordered metric spaces. Appl. Anal. 2008, 87(1):109–116. 10.1080/00036810701556151View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 O’Regan D, Petrusel A: Fixed point theorems for generalized contractions in ordered metric spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2008, 341(2):1241–1252. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.11.026View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Ćirić L, Cakić N, Rajović M, Ume JS: Monotone generalized nonlinear contractions in partially ordered metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2008., 2008: Article ID 131294Google Scholar
 Harjani J, Sadarangani K: Fixed point theorems for weakly contractive mappings in partially ordered sets. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71(7–8):3403–3410. 10.1016/j.na.2009.01.240View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Harandi AA, Emami H: A fixed point theorem for contraction type maps in partially ordered metric spaces and application to ordinary differential equations. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 72(5):2238–2242. 10.1016/j.na.2009.10.023View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Harjani J, Sadarangani K: Generalized contractions in partially ordered metric spaces and applications to ordinary differential equations. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 72: 1188–1197. 10.1016/j.na.2009.08.003View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Altun I, Simsek H: Some fixed point theorems on ordered metric spaces and application. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 621469Google Scholar
 Caballero J, Harjani J, Sadarangani K: Contractivelike mapping principles in ordered metric spaces and application to ordinary differential equations. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 916064Google Scholar
 Jachymski J: Equivalent conditions for generalized contractions on (ordered) metric spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74(3):768–774. 10.1016/j.na.2010.09.025View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Turinici M: RanReurings fixed point results in ordered metric spaces. Libertas Math. 2011, 31: 49–55.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Turinici M: NietoLopez theorems in ordered metric spaces. Math. Stud. 2012, 81(1–4):219–229.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Jleli M, Rajić VĆ, Samet B, Vetro C: Fixed point theorems on ordered metric spaces and applications to nonlinear elastic beam equations. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012, 12: 175–192. 10.1007/s1178401200814View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Nashine HK, Altun I: A common fixed point theorem on ordered metric spaces. Bull. Iran. Math. Soc. 2012, 38(4):925–934.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Wu J, Liu Y: Fixed point theorems for monotone operators and applications to nonlinear elliptic problems. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 134Google Scholar
 Guo D, Lakshmikantham V: Coupled fixed points of nonlinear operators with applications. Nonlinear Anal. 1987, 11(5):623–632. 10.1016/0362546X(87)900770View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Bhaskar TG, Lakshmikantham V: Fixed point theorems in partially ordered metric spaces and applications. Nonlinear Anal. 2006, 65(7):1379–1393. 10.1016/j.na.2005.10.017View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Lakshmikantham V, Ćirić L: Coupled fixed point theorems for nonlinear contractions in partially ordered metric spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70: 4341–4349. 10.1016/j.na.2008.09.020View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Choudhury BS, Kundu A: A coupled coincidence point result in partially ordered metric spaces for compatible mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 73: 2524–2531. 10.1016/j.na.2010.06.025View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Hussain N, Latif A, Shah MH: Coupled and tripled coincidence point results without compatibility. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 77Google Scholar
 Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Coupled fixed point results for nonlinear integral equations. J. Egypt. Math. Soc. 2013, 21(3):266–272. 10.1016/j.joems.2013.03.006View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Hung NM, Karapinar E, Luong NV: Coupled coincidence point theorem in partially ordered metric spaces via implicit relation. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 796964Google Scholar
 Gülyaz S, Karapinar E, Yüce IS: A coupled coincidence point theorem in partially ordered metric spaces with an implicit relation. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 38Google Scholar
 Chandok S, Karapinar E, Khan MS: Existence and uniqueness of common coupled fixed point results via auxiliary functions. Bull. Iran. Math. Soc. 2014, 40(1):199–215.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Alsulami HH, Karapinar E, Roldan A: Imperative remarks for on common coupled fixed point theorems and an answer to question: how to smooth away it. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2014., 2014: Article ID 730268Google Scholar
 Samet B, Karapinar E, Aydi H, Rajić VĆ: Discussion on some coupled fixed point theorems. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 50Google Scholar
 Radenović S: A note on tripled coincidence and tripled common fixed point theorems in partially ordered metric spaces. Appl. Math. Comput. 2014, 236: 367–372.View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 AlMezel SA, Alsulami HH, Karapinar E, Roldan A: Discussion on ‘Multidimensional coincidence points’ via recent publications. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2014., 2014: Article ID 287492Google Scholar
 Dalal S, Khan LA, Masmali I, Radenović S: Some remarks on multidimensional fixed point theorems in partially ordered metric spaces. J. Adv. Math. 2014, 7(1):1084–1094.Google Scholar
 Carl S, Heikkilä S: Fixed Point Theory in Ordered Sets and Applications: From Differential and Integral Equations to Game Theory. Springer, New York; 2011.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Rus IA: Generalized Contractions and Applications. Cluj University Press, ClujNapoca; 2001.Google Scholar
 Matkowski J: Integrable solutions of functional equations. Diss. Math. 1975, 127: 1–68.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Karapinar E: Fixed point theory for cyclic weak ϕ contraction. Appl. Math. Lett. 2011, 24(6):822–825. 10.1016/j.aml.2010.12.016View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Karapinar E: Weak ϕ contraction on partial contraction. J. Comput. Anal. Appl. 2012, 14(2):206–210.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Aydi H, Karapinar E: A MeirKeeler common type fixed point theorem on partial metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 26Google Scholar
 Karapinar E: A note on common fixed point theorems in partial metric spaces. Miskolc Math. Notes 2011, 12(2):185–191.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Aydi H, Karapinar E, Shatanawi W: Tripled coincidence point results for generalized contractions in ordered generalized metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 101Google Scholar
 Imdad M, Kumar S, Khan MS: Remarks on some fixed point theorems satisfying implicit relations. Rad. Mat. 2002, 11(1):135–143.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Boyd DW, Wong JSW: On nonlinear contractions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1969, 20: 458–464. 10.1090/S00029939196902395599View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Jotić N: Some fixed point theorems in metric spaces. Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. 1995, 26: 947–952.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Browder FE: On the convergence of successive approximations for nonlinear functional equations. Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet., Ser. A, Indag. Math. 1968, 30: 27–35.View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Mukherjea A: Contractions and completely continuous mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 1977, 1(3):235–247. 10.1016/0362546X(77)900335View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Lipschutz S: Schaum’s Outlines of Theory and Problems of Set Theory and Related Topics. McGrawHill, New York; 1964.Google Scholar
 Tarski A: A latticetheoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications. Pac. J. Math. 1955, 5: 285–309. 10.2140/pjm.1955.5.285View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Kurepa D: Fixpoints of decreasing mappings of ordered sets. Publ. Inst. Math. (Belgr.) 1975, 18(32):111–116.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 DeMarr R: Common fixed points for isotone mappings. Colloq. Math. 1964, 13: 45–48.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Wong JSW: Common fixed points of commuting monotone mappings. Can. J. Math. 1967, 19: 617–620. 10.4153/CJM19670544View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 McShane EJ Ann. Math. St. 31. In OrderPreserving Maps and Integration Processes. Princeton University Press, Princeton; 1953.Google Scholar
 Björner A: Orderreversing maps and unique fixed points in complete lattices. Algebra Univers. 1981, 12: 402–403. 10.1007/BF02483901View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Turinici M: Abstract comparison principles and multivariable GronwallBellman inequalities. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1986, 117(1):100–127. 10.1016/0022247X(86)902519View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Jungck G: Commuting maps and fixed points. Am. Math. Mon. 1976, 83(4):261–263. 10.2307/2318216View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Jungck G: Common fixed points for noncontinuous nonself maps on nonmetric spaces. Far East J. Math. Sci. 1996, 4: 199–215.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Sessa S: On a weak commutativity condition of mappings in fixed point considerations. Publ. Inst. Math. (Belgr.) 1982, 32: 149–153.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Jungck G: Compatible mappings and common fixed points. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 1986, 9(4):771–779. 10.1155/S0161171286000935View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Luong NV, Thuan NX: Coupled points in ordered generalized metric spaces and application to integro differential equations. An. Univ. ‘Ovidius’ Constanţa, Ser. Mat. 2013, 21(3):155–180.Google Scholar
 arXiv: 1110.3079v1Google Scholar
 Kutbi MA, Roldan A, Sintunavarat W, MartinezMoreno J, Roldan C: F Closed sets and coupled fixed point theorems without the mixed monotone property. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 330Google Scholar
 Berzig M, Samet B: An extension of coupled fixed point’s concept in higher dimension and applications. Comput. Math. Appl. 2012, 63(8):1319–1334. 10.1016/j.camwa.2012.01.018View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Roldan A, MartinezMoreno J, Roldan C: Multidimensional fixed point theorems in partially ordered complete metric spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2012, 396(2):536–545. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2012.06.049View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Haghi RH, Rezapour S, Shahzad N: Some fixed point generalizations are not real generalizations. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 1799–1803. 10.1016/j.na.2010.10.052View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Banach S: Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux équations intégrales. Fundam. Math. 1922, 3: 133–181.Google Scholar
Copyright
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.
Comments
View archived comments (1)