Paper Menu >>
Journal Menu >>
![]() Advances in Pure Mathematics, 2012, 2, 6-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/apm.2012.21002 Published Online January 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/apm) A Note on the Paper “Generalized -Contraction for a Pair of Mappings on Cone Metric Spaces” Mohamed Abd El-Rahman Ahmed Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt Email: [email protected] Received August 10, 2011; revised September 20, 2011; accepted September 28, 2011 ABSTRACT We note that Theorem 2.3 [1] is a consequence of the same theorem for one map. Keywords: Generalized -Contraction; Weakly Compatible; Solid Cone 1. Introduction Huang and Zhang [2 ] initiated fixed po int theory in cone metric spaces. On the other hand, the authors [3] gave a lemma and show ed that some fixed point generalizations are not real generalizations. In this note, we show that Theorem 2.3 [1 ] is so. Following [2], let E be a real Banach space and be the zero vector in E, and . P is called cone iff PE P1) P is closed, nonempty and by P ,, 2) for all ax x yP and nonnegative real numbers a, b, 3) PP . For a given cone P, we define a partial ordering with respect to P by x y iff y xP . x y (resp. x y) stands for x y and x y (resp. yx in ), where denotes the interior of P. In the paper we always assume that P is solid, i.e., tP int P int P . It is clear that x y leads to x y >0K but the reverse need not to be true. The cone P is called normal if there exists a number such that for all , x yE , x y implies x Ky E . The least positive number satisfying above is called the normal constant of P. Definition 1.1 [2]. Let X be a nonempty set. A func- tion is called cone metric iff :dX X 1 M , ,ydx 2 M dxy ,yx,d iff x y, 3 M , ,,y dyxdx 4 M , dxy d ,,,xz dzy for all ,, x yz X , d : is said to be a cone metric space. In [3], the authors gave the following important lem- ma. Lemma 1.1 Let X be a nonempty and f XX X . Then there exists a subset Y such that fY f X: and f YX is one-to-one. ,Definition 1.2 [4]. Let X d ,: be a cone metric space and f gX XzX be mappings. Then, is called a coincidence point of f and g iff f zgz. Definition 1.3 [1]. Let X ,d ,: be a cone metric space. The mappings f gX XzX are weakly compatible iff for every coincid ence point of f and g, f gx gfx :PP . Definition 1.4 (see [1]). Let P be a solid cone in a real Banach space E. A nondecreasing function is called a compari son function iff xP x x for 1) , X and ; int P int implies x x xP lim n ; 2) 0 nx xP for all 3) . In [1], the authors established the following fixed point theorem. ,Theorem 1.1 Let X d ,: be a cone metric space, P a solid cone and , f gX X. Assume that f g is a generalized -contraction; i.e., ,dfx fyu , for all x yX and some u where ,, ,, ,, ,, . 2 udgxgydfxgx dgxf ydgyfx dfygy XgX , f f X or g Suppose that X is a complete subspace of X, and f and g are weakly compati- C opyright © 2012 SciRes. APM ![]() M. ABD EL-R. AHMED 7 ble. Then the mappings f and g have a unique common fixed poi n t in X. f X or g 2. Main Result In Theorem 1.1, if we choose X g I (X I := the identity map on X), then we have the following theorem. Theorem 2.1 Let , X d : be a cone metric space, P a solid cone and f XX. Assume that f is a general- ized -contraction; i.e., fy u ,dfx for all , x yX and some u where ,, ,, ,, 2 udxydxfx dxfx dyf , , . dyfy y Suppose that f X YX or X is a complete subspace of X. Then the mapping f has a unique fixed point in X. Now, we state and prove our main result in the fol- lowing way. Theorem 2.2 Theorem 1.1 is a consequence of Theo- rem 2.1. Proof. By Lemma 1.1, there exists such that g YgX and : g YX is one-to-one. Define a map :hgYgY by xf xhg for each x gY . Since g is one-to-one on Y, then h is well- defined. u ,dfx fy for all , x yX and some u where Since YgX is complete, by us- ing Theorem 2.1, there exists 0 x X such that hgxgxf x 000 . Hence, f and g have a point of coincidence which is also unique. Since f and g are weakly compatible, then f and g have a unique common fixed poi nt. Remark 2.1 Since Theorem 1 [4] is a special case of Theorem 1.1, then it is a consequence of Theorem 2.1, too. REFERENCES [1] A. Razani, V. Rakocevic and Z. Goodarzi, “Generalized -Contraction for a Pair of Mappings on Cone Metric Spaces,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 217, No. 22, 2011, pp. 8899-8906. [2] 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, 2007, pp. 1468-1476. doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.03.087 [3] R. H. Haghi, Sh. Rezapour and N. Shahzad, “Some Fixed Point Generalizations Are Not Real Generalizations,” Nonlinear Analysi s, Vol. 74, 2011, pp. 1799-1803. [4] C. D. Bari and P. Vetro, “ -Pairs and Common Fixed Points in Cone Metric Spaces,” Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo, Vol. 57, No. 2, 2008, pp. 279- 285. doi:10.1007/s12215-008-0020-9 ,, ,, ,, 2 udgxgydfxgx dgxf ydg dfygy ,, . yfx Copyright © 2012 SciRes. APM |



