Assad-Kirk-Type Fixed Point Theorems for a Pair of Nonself Mappings on Cone Metric Spaces

(1)

Volume 2009, Article ID 761086,16pages doi:10.1155/2009/761086

Research Article

Assad-Kirk-Type Fixed Point Theorems for a Pair of

Nonself Mappings on Cone Metric Spaces

S. Jankovi ´c,

1

_{Z. Kadelburg,}

2

_{S. Radenovi ´c,}

3

_{and B. E. Rhoades}

4

1_{Mathematical Institute SANU, Knez Mihailova 36, 11001 Beograd, Serbia}

2_{Faculty of Mathematics, University of Belgrade, Studentski trg 16, 11000 Beograd, Serbia}

3_{Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Belgrade, Kraljice Marije 16, 11120 Beograd, Serbia} 4_{Department of Mathematics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405-7106, USA}

Correspondence should be addressed to S. Radenovi´c,[email protected]

Received 7 February 2009; Accepted 27 April 2009

Recommended by William A. Kirk

New fixed point results for a pair of non-self mappings defined on a closed subset of a metrically convex cone metric spacewhich is not necessarily normalare obtained. By adapting Assad-Kirk’s method the existence of a unique common fixed point for a pair of non-self mappings is proved, using only the assumption that the cone interior is nonempty. Examples show that the obtained results are proper extensions of the existing ones.

Copyrightq2009 S. Jankovi´c et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Introduction and Preliminaries

Cone metric spaces were introduced by Huang and Zhang in1, where they investigated the

convergence in cone metric spaces, introduced the notion of their completeness, and proved some fixed point theorems for contractive mappings on these spaces. Recently, in2–4, some

common fixed point theorems have been proved for maps on cone metric spaces. However, in1–3, the authors usually obtain their results for normal cones. In this paper we do not

impose the normality condition for the cones.

We need the following definitions and results, consistent with1, in the sequel.

LetEbe a real Banach space. A subsetPofEis aconeif iPis closed, nonempty andP /{0};

iia, b∈R, a, b≥0, andx, y∈Pimplyaxby∈P; iiiP∩−P {0}.

(2)

There exist two kinds of cones: normal and nonnormal cones. A coneP ⊂Eis anormal coneif

infxy:x, y∈P,xy1>0 1.1

or, equivalently, if there is a numberK >0 such that for allx, y∈P,

0≤x≤y impliesx ≤Ky. 1.2

The least positive number satisfying1.2is called the normal constant ofP. It is clear that K≥1.

It follows from1.1thatPisnonnormalif and only if there exist sequencesxn, yn ∈P such that

0≤xn≤xnyn, xnyn−→0 butxn0. 1.3

So, in this case, the Sandwich theorem does not hold.

Example 1.1see5. LetE C1_R0,1withx x_∞x_∞ andP {x ∈ E : xt ≥ 0 on0,1}. This cone is not normal. Consider, for example,

xnt 1−sinnt

n2 , ynt

1sinnt

n2 . 1.4

Thenxnyn1 andxnyn2/n2 → 0.

Definition 1.2see1. LetXbe a nonempty set. Suppose that the mappingd:X×X → E satisfies

d10≤dx, yfor allx, y∈Xanddx, y 0 if and only ifxy; d2dx, y dy, xfor allx, y∈X;

d3dx, y≤dx, z dz, yfor allx, y, z∈X.

Thendis called acone metriconX,andX, dis called acone metric space.

The concept of a cone metric space is more general than that of a metric space, because each metric space is a cone metric space withERandP 0,∞ see1, Example 1and 4, Examples 1.2 and 2.2.

Let{xn}be a sequence inX, and letx∈X. If, for everycinEwith 0c, there is an n0 ∈ Nsuch that for alln > n0,dxn, x c, then it is said thatxn converges tox, and this is denoted by limn→ ∞xn x, orxn → x,n → ∞. If for everycinEwith 0c, there is an n0∈Nsuch that for alln, m > n0,dxn, xmc, then{xn}is called aCauchy sequenceinX. If every Cauchy sequence is convergent inX, thenXis called acomplete cone metric space.

(3)

Let X, d be a cone metric space. Then the following properties are often useful particulary when dealing with cone metric spaces in which the cone needs not to be normal:

p₁ifu≤vandvw, thenuw,

p₂if 0≤ucfor eachc∈intPthenu0, p₃ifa≤bcfor eachc∈intPthena≤b, p₄if 0≤x≤y, anda≥0, then 0≤ax≤ay,

p₅if 0≤xn≤ynfor eachn∈N,and limn→ ∞xnx, limn→ ∞yn y, then 0≤x≤y, p₆if 0≤dxn, x≤bnandbn → 0, thendxn, xcwherexnandxare, respectively,

a sequence and a given point inX,

p₇ifEis a real Banach space with a coneP and ifa≤λawherea∈P and 0< λ <1, thena0,

p₈ifc∈intP, 0≤anandan → 0, then there existsn0such that for alln > n0we have anc.

It follows fromp₈that the sequencexnconverges tox∈Xifdxn, x → 0 asn → ∞ andxn is a Cauchy sequence ifdxn, xm → 0 asn, m → ∞. In the case when the cone is not necessarily normal, we have only one half of the statements of Lemmas 1 and 4 from1.

Also, in this case, the fact thatdxn, yn → dx, yifxn → xandyn → yis not applicable. There exist a lot of fixed-point theorems for self-mappings defined on closed subsets of Banach spaces. However, for applications numerical analysis, optimization, etc. it is important to consider functions that are not self-mappings, and it is natural to search for suﬃcient conditions which would guarantee the existence of fixed points for such mappings. In what follows we suppose only thatEis a Banach space, thatPis a cone inEwith intP /∅and that≤is the partial ordering with respect toP.

Rhoades 6 proved the following result, generalizing theorems of Assad 7 and Assad and Kirk8.

Theorem 1.3. LetX be a Banach space,Ca nonempty closed subset ofX,and letT :C → Xbe a

mapping fromCintoXsatisfying the condition

dTx, Ty≤hmax

dx, y

2 , dx, Tx, d

y, Ty,d

x, Tydy, Tx q

, 1.5

for some0< h <1,q≥12h, and for allx, yinC. LetT have the additional property that for each

x∈∂C,the boundary ofC,Tx∈C. ThenT has the unique fixed point.

Recently Imdad and Kumar9extended this result of Rhoades by considering a pair of maps in the following way.

Theorem 1.4. LetXbe a Banach space, letCbe a nonempty closed subset ofX,and letF, T :C → X

be two mappings satisfying the condition

dFx, Fy≤hmax

dTx, Ty

2 , dTx, Fx, d

Ty, Fy,d

Tx, FydTy, Fx q

(4)

for some0< h <1,q≥12h, and for allx, y∈Cand suppose i∂C⊆TC,FC∩C⊂TC,

iiTx∈∂C⇒Fx∈C, iiiTCis closed inX.

Then there exists a coincidence pointzofF, T inX. Moreover, ifFandT are coincidentally commuting, thenzis the unique common fixed point ofFandT.

Recall that a pairf, gof mappings iscoincidentally commutingsee, e.g.,2if they commute at their coincidence point, that is, iffxgxfor somex∈X, impliesfgxgfx.

In10, 11 these results were extended using complete metric spaces of hyperbolic type, instead of Banach spaces.

2. Results

2.1. Main Result

In12, assuming only that intP /∅, Theorems1.3and1.4are extended to the setting of cone metric spaces. Thus, proper generalizations of the results of Rhoades6 for one mapand of Imdad and Kumar9 for two mapswere obtained.Example 1.1of a nonnormal cone shows that the method of proof used in6,8,9cannot be fully applied in the new setting.

The purpose of this paper is to extend the previous results to the cone metric spaces, but with new contractive conditions. This is worthwhile, since from 2,13 we know that self-mappings that satisfy the new conditionsgiven belowdo have a unique common fixed point. Let us note that the questions concerning common fixed points for self-mappings in metric spaces, under similar conditions, were considered in14. It seems that these questions

were not considered for nonself mappings. This is an additional motivation for studying these problems.

We begin with the following definition.

Definition 2.1. LetX, dbe a cone metric space, letCbe a nonempty closed subset ofX, and letf, g:C → X. Denote, forx, y∈C,

Mf,g₁ C;x, y

dgx, gy, dfx, gx, dfy, gy,d

fx, gydfy, gx 2

. 2.1

Thenfis called ageneralizedgM1-contractive mappingof Cinto Xif for someλ∈0,

√

2−1 there exists

ux, y∈Mf,g₁ C;x, y, 2.2

such that for allx, yinC

dfx, fy≤λ·ux, y. 2.3

(5)

Theorem 2.2. LetX, dbe a complete cone metric space, letCbe a nonempty closed subset ofXsuch that, for eachx∈Cand eachy /∈C,there exists a pointz∈∂Csuch that

dx, z dz, ydx, y. 2.4

Suppose thatfis a generalizedgM1-contractive mapping ofCintoXand

i∂C⊆gC,fC∩C⊂gC, iigx∈∂C⇒fx∈C, iiigCis closed inX.

Then there exists a coincidence pointzoff, ginC. Moreover, if the pairf, gis coincidentally commuting, thenzis the unique common fixed point offandg.

Proof. We prove the theorem under the hypothesis that neither of the mappingsf andg is necessarily a self-mapping. We proceed in several steps.

Step 1 construction of three sequences. The following construction is the same as the construction used in10in the case of hyperbolic metric spaces. It diﬀers slightly from the

constructions in6,9.

Letx∈∂Cbe arbitrary. We construct three sequences:{xn}and{zn}inCand{yn}in fC ⊆ X in the following way. Setz0 x. Sincez0 ∈ ∂C, byithere exists a pointx0 ∈ C such thatz0 gx0. Sincegx0 ∈∂C, fromiiwe conclude thatfx0 ∈C∩fC. Then fromi, fx0 ∈gC. Thus, there existsx1 ∈Csuch thatgx1 fx0 ∈ C. Setz1 y1 fx0 gx1and y2fx1.

Ify2 ∈fC∩C, then fromi,y2 ∈gCand so there is a pointx2 ∈ Csuch thatgx2 y2z2fx1.

If y2 fx1/∈C, then z2 is a point in ∂C,z2/y2 such that dy1, z2 dz2, y2 dy1, y2 dfx0, fx1. Byi, there isx2∈Csuch thatgx2z2. Thusz2∈∂Canddy1, z2 dz2, y2 dy1, y2 dfx0, fx1.

Now we sety3 fx2 z3. Sincefx2 ∈fC∩C⊆gC, fromiithere is a pointx3 ∈C such thatgx3y3.

Note that in the casez2/y2 fx1, we havez1y1fx0andz3 y3fx2.

Continuing the foregoing procedure we construct three sequences:{xn} ⊆C,{zn} ⊂C and{yn} ⊆fC⊂Xsuch that:

aynfxn−1; bzngxn;

cznynif and only ifyn∈C;

dzn/ynwheneveryn/∈Cand thenzn∈∂Canddyn−1, zn dzn, yn dyn−1, yn.

Step 2 {zn} is a Cauchy sequence. First, note that if zn/yn, then zn ∈ ∂C, which then implies, byb,ii, anda, thatzn1 yn1 ∈C.Also,zn/ynimplies thatzn−1 yn−1 ∈C, since otherwisezn−1 ∈∂C, which then impliesznyn∈C.

Proof of

Step 2

(6)

Suppose thatdzn, zn1>0 for alln. There are three possibilities: 1znyn∈Candzn1yn1∈C;

2znyn∈C, butzn1/yn1; and

3zn/yn, in which case zn ∈ ∂C and dyn−1, zn dzn, yn dyn−1, yn dfxn−2, fxn−1.

Note that the estimate ofdzn, zn1in this cone version diﬀers from those from6,8–

11. In the case of convex metric spaces it can be used that, for eachx, y, u ∈ X and each λ∈0,1, it isλdu, x 1−λdu, y≤max{du, x, du, y}. In cone spaces the maximum of the set{du, x, du, y}needs not to exist. Therefore, besides2.4, we have to use here the

relation “∈”, and to consider several cases. In cone metric spaces as well as in metric spaces the key step is Assad-Kirk’s induction.

Case 1. Letzn yn∈C,and letzn1yn1∈C. Thenznynfxn−1,zn1 yn1fxnand zn−1gxn−1observe that it is not necessarilyzn−1yn−1. Then from2.3,

dzn, zn1 d

yn, yn1

dfxn−1, fxn

≤λ·un, 2.5

where

un∈

dgxn−1, gxn

, dfxn−1, gxn−1

, dfxn, gxn

,d

fxn−1, gxn

dfxn, gxn−1

2

dzn−1, zn, d

yn, zn−1

, dyn1, zn

,d

yn, zn

dyn1, zn−1

2

dzn−1, zn, dzn, zn1,

dzn−1, zn1 2

.

2.6

Clearly, there are infinitely manyn’s such that at least one of the following cases holds: Idzn, zn1≤λ·dzn−1, zn,

IIdzn, zn1 ≤ λ·dzn, zn1 ⇒ dzn, zn1 0,contradicting the assumption that dzn, zn1>0 for eachn. Hence,Iholds,

IIIdzn, zn1 ≤ λ · dzn−1, zn1/2 ≤ λ/2dzn−1, zn 1/2dzn, zn1 ⇒ dzn, zn1≤λdzn−1, zn, that is,Iholds.

FromI,II, andIIIit follows that in Case1

dzn, zn1≤λ·dzn−1, zn. 2.7

Case 2. Letzn yn ∈ C butzn1/yn1. Then zn1 ∈ ∂C and dyn, zn1 dzn1, yn1 dyn, yn1. It follows that

dzn, zn1 d

yn, zn1

dyn, yn1

−dzn1, yn1

< dyn, yn1

(7)

that is, according to2.3,dyn, yn1 dfxn−1, fxn≤h·un, where

un∈

dgxn−1, gxn

,dfxn−1, gxn−1

, dfxn, gxn

,d

fxn−1, gxn

dfxn, gxn−1

2

dzn−1, zn, dyn, zn−1

, dyn1, yn

,d

yn1, zn−1

2

dzn−1, zn, dzn, zn−1, d

yn1, yn

,d

yn1, zn−1

2

dzn−1, zn, dyn1, yn

,d

yn1, zn−1

2

.

2.9

Again, we obtain the following three cases Idyn, yn1≤λ·dzn−1, zn.

IIdyn, yn1 ≤ λ·dyn, yn1 ⇒ dyn, yn1 0, contradicting the assumption that dzn, zn1>0 for eachn. It follows thatIholds.

IIIdyn, yn1 ≤ λ · dyn1, zn−1/2 ≤ λ/2dyn1, yn λ/2dyn, zn−1 ≤ 1/2dyn1, yn λ/2dzn, zn−1, that isdyn, yn1≤λ·dzn−1, zn.

From2.8,I,II, andIII, we have

dzn, zn1≤λ·dzn−1, zn, 2.10

in Case2.

Case 3. Letzn/yn.Thenzn∈∂C, dyn−1, zn dzn, yn dyn−1, ynand we havezn1yn1 andzn−1yn−1. From this and using2.4we get

dzn, zn1 d

zn, yn1

≤dzn, yn

dyn, yn1

dyn−1, yn

−dzn−1, zn dyn, yn1

. 2.11

We have to estimatedyn−1, ynand dyn, yn1. Sinceyn−1 zn−1, one can conclude that

dyn−1, yn

≤λ·dzn−2, zn−1, 2.12

in view of Case2. Further,

dyn, yn1

dfxn−1, fxn

(8)

where

un∈

dgxn−1, gxn

, dfxn−1, gxn−1

, dfxn, gxn

,d

fxn−1, gxn

dfxn, gxn−1

2

dzn−1, zn, dyn, yn−1

, dzn, zn1,

dyn, zn

dyn1, zn−1

2

.

2.14

Since

dyn, zn

dyn1, zn−1

2

dyn, zn

dzn1, zn−1 2

d

yn, yn−1

−dzn−1, zn dzn1, zn−1 2

≤ d

yn, yn−1

−dzn−1, zn dzn−1, zn dzn, zn1 2

d

yn, yn−1

dzn, zn1 2 ,

2.15

yn−1zn−1,yn1zn1, anddyn−1, yn≤λ·dzn−2, zn−1, we have that

dyn, yn1

≤λ·un, 2.16

where

un∈ dzn−1, zn, λ·dzn−2, zn−1, dzn1, zn,λ·dzn−2, zn−1₂ dzn, zn1

. 2.17

Substituting2.12and2.16into2.11we get

dzn, zn1≤λ·dzn−2, zn−1−dzn−1, zn λ·un. 2.18

We have now the following four cases: I

dzn, zn1≤λ·dzn−2, zn−1−dzn−1, zn λ·dzn−1, zn

λ·dzn−2, zn−1−1−λdzn−1, zn≤λ·dzn−2, zn−1;

(9)

II

dzn, zn1≤λdzn−2, zn−1−dzn−1, zn λ2dzn−2, zn−1

λλ2dzn−2, zn−1−dzn−1, zn≤

λλ2dzn−2, zn−1;

2.20

III

dzn, zn1≤λ·dzn−2, zn−1−dzn−1, zn λ·dzn, zn1 ⇒1−λdzn, zn1

≤λdzn−2, zn−1 ⇒dzn, zn1≤ λ

1−λdzn−2, zn−1;

2.21

IV

dzn, zn1≤λdzn−2, zn−1−dzn−1, zn λ₂λdzn−2, zn−1 dzn, zn1

≤

λ λ

2

dzn−2, zn−1 1

2dzn, zn1 ⇒dzn, zn1

≤2λλ2dzn−2, zn−1.

2.22

It follows fromI,II,III, andIVthat

dzn, zn1≤μ·dzn−2, zn−1, where

μmax λ, λλ2, λ

1−λ,2λλ 2

max λ

1−λ,2λλ 2

. 2.23

Thus, in all Cases1–3,

dzn, zn1≤μ·wn, 2.24

wherewn∈ {dzn−2, zn−1, dzn−1, zn}and

μmax λ, λ

2−λ, λλ 2_, λ

1−λ,2λλ 2

max λ

1−λ,2λλ 2

(10)

It is not hard to conclude that for 0< λ <√2−1,

max λ

1−λ,2λλ 2

2λλ2<1. 2.26

Now, following the procedure of Assad and Kirk8, it can be shown by induction

that, forn >1,

dzn, zn1≤μn−1/2·w2, 2.27

wherew2∈ {dz0, z1, dz1, z2}.

From2.27and using the triangle inequality, we have forn > m

dzn, zm≤dzn, zn−1 dzn−1, zn−2 · · ·dzm1, zm

≤μn−1/2μn−2/2· · ·μm−1/2·w2

≤ √_μm−1

1− √μ·w2−→0, asm−→ ∞.

2.28

According to the propertyp₈from the Introduction,dzn, zmc; that is,{zn}is a Cauchy sequence.

Step 3 Common fixed point for f and g. In this step we use only the definition of convergence in the terms of the relation “”. The only assumption is that the interior of the coneP is nonempty; so we use neither continuity of vector metricd, nor the Sandwich theorem.

Sincezn gxn ∈ C∩gC andC∩gCis complete, there is some point z ∈ C∩gC such thatzn → z. Letw ∈ Cbe such thatgw z. By the construction of {zn}, there is a subsequence{znk}such thatznkynkfxnk−1and hencefxnk−1 → z.

We now prove thatfwz. We have

dfw, z≤dfw, fxnk−1

dfxnk−1, z≤λ·unkdfxnk−1, z, 2.29

where

unk∈

dgxnk−1, gw,dfxnk−1, gxnk−1

,dfw, gw,d

fxnk−1, gw

dfw, gxnk−1

2

.

(11)

From the definition of convergence and the fact thatznk ynk fxnk−1 → z, as k → ∞, we obtainfor the givenc∈Ewith 0c

1dfw, z≤λ·dgxnk−1, z

dfxnk−1, z

λ· c 2λ

c 2 c;

2dfw, z≤λ·dfxnk−1, gxnk−1

dfxnk−1, z

≤λ·dfxnk−1, z

dz, gxnk−1

dfxnk−1, z

λ1·dfxnk−1, z

λ·dz, gxnk−1

λ1· c

2λ1λ· c 2λ c;

3dfw, z≤λ·dfw, zdfxnk−1, z

⇒dfw, z

≤ 1

1−λ·d

fxnk−1, z

1

1−λ· c

1/1−λ c;

4dfw, z≤λ·d

fxnk−1, z

dfw, gxnk−1

2 d

fxnk−1, z

≤λ·d

fxnk−1, z

dz, gxnk−1

2 1 2d

fw, zdfxnk−1, z; i.e.,

dfw, z≤λ2·dfxnk−1, z

λ·dz, gxnk−1

λ2 c 2λ2λ

c 2λ c.

2.31

In all the cases we obtaindfw, zcfor eachc ∈intP. According to the propertyp₂, it follows thatdfw, z 0, that is,fwz.

Suppose now thatfandgare coincidentally commuting. Then

zfwgw⇒fzfgwgfwgz. 2.32

Then from2.3,

(12)

where

u∈

dgz, gw, dfz, gz, dfw, gw,d

fz, gwdfw, gz 2

dfz, z, dfz, gz, dz, z,d

fz, zdz, fz 2

dfz, z,0.

2.34

Hence, we obtain the following cases:

dfz, z≤λ·dfz, z⇒dfz, z0,

dfz, z≤λ·00⇒dfz, z0, 2.35

which implies thatfzz, that is,zis a common fixed point offandg.

Uniqueness of the common fixed point follows easily. This completes the proof of the theorem.

2.2. Examples

We present now two examples showing thatTheorem 2.2is a proper extension of the known results. In both examples, the conditions of Theorem 2.2 are fulfilled, but in the first one because of nonnormality of the conethe main theorems from6,9cannot be applied. This shows thatTheorem 2.2is more general, that is, the main theorems from6,9can be obtained as its special casesfor 0< λ <√2−1taking · | · |,ERandP 0,∞.

Example 2.3The case of a nonnormal cone. LetX R, letC 0,1, andEC1

R0,1, and

letP {ϕ∈E:ϕt≥0, t∈0,1}. The mappingd:X×X → Eis defined in the following way:dx, y |x−y|ϕ, whereϕ∈Pis a fixed function, for example,ϕt et_{. Take functions} fx ax,gx bx, 0 < a <1< b, so thata/b ≤λ <√2−1, which map the setC 0,1 intoR. We have thatX, dis a complete cone metric space with a nonnormal cone having the nonempty interior. The topological and “metric” notions are used in the sense of definitions from15,16. For example, one easily checks the condition2.4, that is, that forx ∈ 0,1, y /∈0,1the following holds

dx,1 d1, ydx, y⇐⇒ |1−x|ϕy−1ϕ

y−xϕ⇐⇒1−xϕy−1ϕy−xϕ. 2.36

The mappingsfandgare weakly compatible, that is, they commute in their fixed pointx0. All the conditions ofTheorem 2.2are fulfilled, and so the nonself mappingsf andghave a unique common fixed pointx0.

(13)

map the set C 0,1into R. We have that X, d is a complete cone metric space with a normal cone having the normal coeﬃcientK 1, whose interior is obviously nonempty. All the conditions ofTheorem 2.2are fulfilled. We check again the condition2.4, that is, that for

x∈C 0,1,y /∈C 0,1the following holds

dx,1 d1, ydx, y⇐⇒|1−x|, α|1−x| y−1, αy−1 y−x, αy−x⇐⇒1−x y−1

y−x,

α1−x αy−1αy−x.

2.37

The mappingsfandgare weakly compatible, that is, they commute in their fixed pointx0. All the conditions ofTheorem 2.2are again fulfilled. The pointx0 is the unique common fixed point for nonself mappingsfandg.

2.3. Further Results

Remark 2.5. The following definition is a special case of Definition 2.1 when X, d is a metric space. But when X, d is a cone metric space, which is not a metric space, this is not true. Indeed, there may exist x, y ∈ X such that the vectors dfx, gx, dfy, gyand 1/2dfx, gx dfy, gy are incomparable. For the same reason Theorems2.2and 2.7

given beloware incomparable.

Definition 2.6. LetX, dbe a cone metric space, letCbe a nonempty closed subset ofX, and letf, g:C → X. Denote

Mf,g₂ C;x, y

dgx, gy,d

fx, gxdfy, gy 2 ,

dfx, gydfy, gx 2

. 2.38

Thenfis called ageneralizedgM2-contractive mappingfromCintoXif for someλ∈0,

√

2−1 there exists

ux, y∈Mf,g₂ C;x, y, 2.39

such that for allx, yinC

dfx, fy≤λ·ux, y. 2.40

Our next result is the following.

Theorem 2.7. LetX, dbe a complete cone metric space, and letCbe a nonempty closed subset ofX

such that for eachx∈Candy /∈Cthere exists a pointz∈∂Csuch that

(14)

Suppose thatfis a generalizedgM2-contractive mapping ofCintoXand

Then there exists a coincidence point z of f and g in C. Moreover, if the pair f, g is coincidentally commuting, thenzis the unique common fixed point offandg.

The proof of this theorem is very similar to the proof ofTheorem 2.2and it is omitted. We now list some corollaries of Theorems2.2and2.7.

Corollary 2.8. LetX, dbe a complete cone metric space, and letCbe a nonempty closed subset of

Xsuch that, for eachx∈Cand eachy /∈C,there exists a pointz∈∂Csuch that

dx, z dz, ydx, y. 2.42

Letf, g:C → Xbe such that

dfx, fy≤λ·dgx, gy, 2.43

for some0< λ <√2−1and for allx, y∈C.

Suppose, further, thatf, g,andCsatisfy the following conditions:

Then there exists a coincidence pointzoffandginC. Moreover, iff, gis a coincidentally commuting pair, thenzis the unique common fixed point offandg.

dx, z dz, ydx, y. 2.44

dfx, fy≤λ·dfx, gxdfy, gy, 2.45

(15)

dx, z dz, ydx, y. 2.46

dfx, fy≤λ·dfx, gydfy, gx, 2.47

Remark 2.11. Corollaries2.8–2.10are the corresponding theorems of Abbas and Jungck from 2in the case thatf, gare nonself mappings.

Remark 2.12. If X, d is a metrically convex cone metric space, that is, if for each x, y ∈ X, x /ythere isz∈X, x /z /ysuch thatdx, z dx, y dy, z, we do not know whether 2.4holds for every nonempty closed subsetCinXsee8.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by Grant 14021 of the Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection of Serbia.

References

1 L.-G. Huang and X. Zhang, “Cone metric spaces and fixed point theorems of contractive mappings,”

Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 332, no. 2, pp. 1468–1476, 2007.

2 M. Abbas and G. Jungck, “Common fixed point results for noncommuting mappings without continuity in cone metric spaces,”Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 341, no. 1, pp. 416–420, 2008.

3 D. Ili´c and V. Rakoˇcevi´c, “Common fixed points for maps on cone metric space,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 341, no. 2, pp. 876–882, 2008.

4 Sh. Rezapour and R. Hamlbarani, “Some notes on the paper: “Cone metric spaces and fixed point theorems of contractive mappings”,”Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 345, no. 2, pp. 719–724, 2008.

5 K. Deimling,Nonlinear Functional Analysis, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1985.

(16)

7 N. A. Assad, “On a fixed point theorem of Kannan in Banach spaces,”Tamkang Journal of Mathematics, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 91–94, 1976.

8 N. A. Assad and W. A. Kirk, “Fixed point theorems for set-valued mappings of contractive type,”

Pacific Journal of Mathematics, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 553–562, 1972.

9 M. Imdad and S. Kumar, “Rhoades-type fixed-point theorems for a pair of nonself mappings,”

Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 46, no. 5-6, pp. 919–927, 2003.

10 Lj. ´Ciri´c, “Non-self mappings satisfying non-linear contractive condition with applications,”

Nonlinear Analysis, Theory, Methods and Applications, vol. 71, no. 7-8, pp. 2927–2935, 2009.

11 Lj. Gaji´c and V. Rakoˇcevi´c, “Pair of non-self-mappings and common fixed points,”Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 187, no. 2, pp. 999–1006, 2007.

12 S. Radenovi´c and B. E. Rhoades, “Fixed point theorem for two non-self mappings in cone metric spaces,”Computers and Mathematics with Applications, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 1701–1707, 2009.

13 G. Jungck, S. Radenović, S. Radojević, and V. Rakoˇcević, “Common fixed point theorems for weakly compatible pairs on cone metric spaces,”Fixed Point Theory and Applications, vol. 2009, p. 13, 2009.

14 B. E. Rhoades, “A comparison of various definitions of contractive mappings,”Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 226, pp. 257–290, 1977.

15 Z. Kadelburg, S. Radenovi´c, and V. Rakoˇcvi´c, “Remarks on “Quasi-contractions on cone metric spaces”,”Applied Mathematics Letters,2009. In press.