Open Access

An essential remark on fixed point results on multiplicative metric spaces

Fixed Point Theory and Applications20162016:21

Received: 19 September 2015

Accepted: 26 February 2016

Published: 5 March 2016


In this short note, we announce that all the presented fixed point results in the setting of multiplicative metric spaces can be derived from the corresponding existing results in the context of standard metric spaces in the literature.


multiplicative metricfixed point



1 Introduction and preliminaries

Recently, Bashirov et al. [1] announced multiplicative distance as a new distance notion. Following these initial papers, several authors have reported some fixed point results in the framework of multiplicative metric spaces (see e.g. [27] and related references therein).

Definition 1.1

Let X be a non-empty set. A mapping \(d^{\ast} : X \times X \to[0, \infty)\) is said to be a multiplicative metric if it satisfies the following conditions:

\(d^{\ast}(x,y) = 1\) for all \(x, y \in X \),


\(d^{\ast}(x,y) = 1\) if and only if \(x = y\),


\(d^{\ast}(x,y) = d^{\ast}(y, x)\) for all \(x, y \in X\),


\(d^{\ast}(x, z) \leq d^{\ast}(x,y)\cdot d^{\ast}(y, z)\) for all \(x,y,z \in X\) (multiplicative triangle inequality).

Also, \((X, d^{\ast})\) is called a multiplicative metric space.

For the sake of completeness, we shall present the definition of the (standard) metric.

Definition 1.2

Let X be a non-empty set. A mapping \(d : X \times X \to[0, \infty)\) is said to be a (standard) metric if it satisfies the following conditions:

\(d(x,y) = 1\) for all \(x, y \in X \),


\(d(x,y) = 1\) if and only if \(x = y\),


\(d(x,y) = d(y, x)\) for all \(x, y \in X\),


\(d(x, z) \leq d(x,y)+d(y, z)\) for all \(x,y,z \in X\) (standard triangle inequality).

Also, \((X, d)\) is called a (standard) metric space.

Although the multiplicative metric was announced as a new distance notion, we note that composition of the multiplicative metric with a logarithmic function yields a standard metric. Hence, all fixed point results in the context of multiplicative metric spaces can easily be concluded from the corresponding existing famous fixed point results in the context of the standard metric.

2 Main results

Theorem 2.1

Let X be a non-empty set. A mapping \(d^{\ast} : X \times X \to[0, \infty)\) is said to be a multiplicative metric. Then the mapping \(d: X \times X \to[0, \infty)\) with \(d(x,y)= \ln( d^{\ast }(x,y))\) forms a metric.


By using \(d(x,y)= \ln( d^{\ast}(x,y))\), the first three assumptions of Definition 1.2 are obtained trivially. Since a logarithmic function is non-decreasing, (iv) yields
$$\begin{aligned} d(x,y)&=\ln\bigl(d^{\ast}(x, z)\bigr) \\ & \leq\ln\bigl( d^{\ast}(x,y)\cdot d^{\ast}(y, z)\bigr)= \ln \bigl(d^{\ast}(x,y)\bigr)+\ln \bigl(d^{\ast}(y, z)\bigr) \\ & =d(x,y)+d(y, z). \end{aligned}$$

It is clear that all topological notions (convergence, Cauchy, completeness) for multiplicative metric space are consequences of the standard topology of metric space.

Abbas et al. [7] published the following result.

Theorem 2.2


Let \((X,d^{\ast})\) be a complete multiplicative metric space and \(f : X \to X\). Suppose that
$$ \psi \bigl(d^{\ast}(fx,fy) \bigr) \leq\frac{\psi (M^{f}_{d^{\ast }}(x,y) )}{\varphi (M^{f}_{d^{\ast}}(x,y) )} $$
for any \(x,y \in X\), where
$$ M^{f}_{d^{\ast}}(x,y)=\bigl\{ d^{\ast}(x,y),d^{\ast}(fx,x),d^{\ast}(y,fy), \bigl(d^{\ast}(fx,y)d^{\ast}(x,fy)\bigr)^{\frac{1}{2}} \bigr\} $$
and \(\psi: [1,\infty)\rightarrow[1,\infty)\) is continuous, non-decreasing, \(\psi^{-1}(\{1\})=\{1\}\), and \(\varphi:[1,\infty)\rightarrow[1,\infty )\) is lower semi-continuous and \(\varphi^{-1}(\{1\})=\{1\}\). Then f has a unique fixed point.

Dorić [8] reported the following extension of the Banach contraction principle.

Theorem 2.3

Let \((X,d)\) be a complete metric space and let \(f:X\rightarrow X\) be a mapping such that for each pair of points \(x,y\in X\),
$$ \psi\bigl(d(fx,fy)\bigr)\leq\psi\bigl(M^{f}(x,y)\bigr)- \varphi\bigl(M^{f}(x,y)\bigr), $$
$$ M^{f}(x,y)=\biggl\{ d(x,y),d(fx,x),d(y,fy), \frac{1}{2}\bigl[d(fx,y)+d(x,fy)\bigr] \biggr\} $$
and \(\psi: [0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)\) is continuous, non-decreasing, \(\psi^{-1}(\{0\})=\{0\}\), and \(\varphi:[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty )\) is lower semi-continuous and \(\varphi^{-1}(\{0\})=\{0\}\). Then F has a unique fixed point.

Theorem 2.4

Theorem  2.2 is a consequence of Theorem  2.3.


By using \(d(x,y)= \ln( d^{\ast}(x,y))\), we easily see that equation (2.3) yields (2.5). Hence, the inequalities (2.2) implies (2.4). Consequently, Theorem 2.3 provides the existence and uniqueness of the fixed point of f. □

It is clear that one can easily derive the other fixed results in [27] from the relevant existing results in the literature. Regarding the analogy, we shall not list the other results.

3 Conclusion

Some authors misuse the notion of the multiplicative calculus since they misunderstand the place and role of this calculus like other non-Newtonian calculuses. Indeed, it represents the same system of knowledge, only different by the presentation of them with respect to so-called reference function. Notice that in Newtonian calculus, the reference function is linear, whereas the reference function for multiplicative calculus is exponential. Consequently, every definition and also every theorem of Newtonian calculus has an analog in multiplicative calculus and vice versa. Therefore, ordinary and multiplicative fixed point theorems are applicable to the same class of functions. In this paper, we only underline these facts in the framework of fixed point theory. It would be possible to approach the problem globally by the use of the preceding discussion.



The third author is supported by Distinguished Scientist Fellowship Program (DSFP), King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

Department of Mathematics, Texas A&M University-Kingsville
Department of Mathematics, Atilim University
Nonlinear Analysis and Applied Mathematics Research Group (NAAM), King Abdulaziz University
Department of Mathematics, College of Science, King Saud University


  1. Bashirov, A, Kurpınar, E, Ozyapıcı, A: Multiplicative calculus and its applications. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 337(1), 36-48 (2008) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. He, X, Song, M, Chen, D: Common fixed points for weak commutative mappings on a multiplicative metric space. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013, Article ID 48 (2013) MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Abbas, M, Ali, B, Suleiman, YI: Common fixed points of locally contractive mappings in multiplicative metric spaces with application. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2015, Article ID 218683 (2015). doi:10.1155/2015/218683 MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Mongkolkeha, C, Sintunavarat, W: Best proximity points for multiplicative proximal contraction mapping on multiplicative metric spaces. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 8, 1134-1140 (2015) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Kang, SM, Kumar, P, Kumar, S, Nagpal, P, Garg, SK: Common fixed points for compatible mappings and its variants in multiplicative metric spaces. Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 102(2), 383-406 (2015) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Yamaod, O, Sintunavarat, W: Some fixed point results for generalized contraction mappings with cyclic \((\alpha, \beta)\)-admissible mappings in multiplicative metric space. J. Inequal. Appl. 2014, Article ID 488 (2014) MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Abbas, M, De La Sen, M, Nazir, T: Common fixed points of generalized rational type cocyclic mappings in multiplicative metric spaces. Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2015, Article ID 532725 (2015) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Dorić, D: Common fixed point for generalized \((\psi, \phi)\)-weak contractions. Appl. Math. Lett. 22, 1896-1900 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.aml.2009.08.001 MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar


© Agarwal et al. 2016