Common Fixed Point Theorems for Random Multivalued Contractive Mappings with Weak Compatibility

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce more general random multivalued contractive mappings, and we establish the existence and uniqueness of random common fixed points for these random multivalued contractive mappings with weak compatibility. Our results extend, improve and unify the corresponding literatures and single value results.

Share and Cite:

Yan, X. (2026) Common Fixed Point Theorems for Random Multivalued Contractive Mappings with Weak Compatibility. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 14, 3275-3292. doi: 10.4236/jamp.2026.149162.

1. Introduction

The application of fixed point theory in different branches of mathematics, statistics, engineering and economics relating to problems associated with approximation theory, theory of differential equations, theory of integral equations etc. has been recognized in the existing literature [1]-[3]. Progress in the study on fixed points of non-expansive mappings, contractive mappings in various spaces like a metric space, a Banach space, a fuzzy metric space, a cone metric space etc. has been saturated at large. After the initial impetus given by the Prague school of Probability in 1950s, considerable attention has been given to the study of random fixed point theorems. This arises because of the significance of fixed point theorems in probabilistic functional analysis and probabilistic models along with several applications. Issues relating to measurability of solutions, probabilistic and statistical aspects of random solutions have arisen due to the introduction of randomness. It is no denying the fact that random fixed point theorems are stochastic generalizations of classical fixed point theorems that have been described as deterministic results.

Špaček [4] and Hanš [5] first proved random fixed point theorems for random contraction mappings on separable complete metric spaces. The article by Fierro et al. [6] in 2009 attracted the attention of several mathematicians and led to the development of this theory. Špaček and Hanš’s theorems have been extended to multivalued contraction mappings by Itoh [7]. A random version of Schaduer’s fixed point theorem on an atomic probability measure space has been provided by Mukherjee [8]. Itoh [7] obtained random fixed point theorems with an application to random differential equations in Banach spaces. Several random fixed point theorems including random analogue of the classical results have been obtained by many authors [9]-[20]. Kumam [19] proved some random coincidence points and random common fixed point theorems for nonlinear multivalued random operators. They also proved the existence of a random coincidence point for a pair of reciprocally continuous and compatible single-valued and multivalued operators. Later, many scholars have obtained a lot of multi-valued and single valued operator of fixed point results [21]-[27].

Motivated and inspired by the above results, our main objective is to prove some random fixed point theorems in a separable complete metric space for a certain class of random multivalued contractive mappings. The results are stochastic generalizations of deterministic fixed point theorems of single value mappings. The result obtained in this paper will also be useful in application to a random nonlinear integral equation.

Remark 1.1 (Motivation for the contraction condition). The rational expressions m 1 , m 2 , m 3 in (3.2) are introduced to handle situations where the mappings A,B do not necessarily commute with S,T , and where the distances between image sets may vanish. These terms are inspired by the classical rational contraction inequalities of Ćirić and others, and they allow for a unified treatment of both single-valued and multivalued mappings under weak compatibility. The term m 3 captures the product of distances between cross-images, which is essential when the usual triangle inequality fails to provide a contraction. These expressions are not arbitrary; they represent a natural generalization of the standard rational contractive conditions in the random multivalued setting.

In order to make the paper self-contained, we state some important definitions and Lemmas relate to our paper.

2. Preliminaries

Let ( Ω,Σ ) be a measurable space with Σ being a σ -algebra of subsets of Ω, and let ( X,d ) be a complete separable metric space. We denote by CB( X ) the family of all nonempty closed bounded subset of X , and by H the Hausdorff metric on CB( X ) induced by d , that is

H( A,B )=max{ sup aA d( a,B ), sup bB d( b,A ) },

for A,BCB( X ) , where d( x,E )=inf{ d( x,y )|yE } is the distance from x to EX .

Definition 2.1 ([18]). A measurable operator ξ:ΩX is said to be a random fixed point of an operator F:Ω×XCB( X ) if ξ( ω )F( ω,ξ( ω ) ) , for all ωΩ .

Definition 2.2 ([18]). A measurable operator ξ:ΩX is said to be a random coincidence point of g:Ω×XX and F:Ω×XCB( X ) if

g( ω,ξ( ω ) )F( ω,ξ( ω ) ),forallωΩ.

Definition 2.3 ([18]). A measurable operator ξ:ΩX is said to be a random common fixed point of g:Ω×XX and F:Ω×XCB( X ) if

ξ( ω )=g( ω,ξ( ω ) )F( ω,ξ( ω ) ),forallωΩ.

Definition 2.4. The random mapping F:Ω×XCB( X ) and g:Ω×XX are said to be weakly random compatible, if for all ωΩ and xX , the condition g( ω,x )F( ω,x ) implies

g( ω,F( ω,x ) ):={ g( ω,y ):yF( ω,x ) }F( ω,g( ω,x ) ).

Remark 2.1. The notion of “weakly random compatible” is the random analogue of the deterministic “weakly compatible” condition. In this paper, both terms are used interchangeably in the context of random mappings, and they refer to the same compatibility condition.

Lemma 2.1 ([28]). A mapping T:Ω×XCB( X ) is called a multi-valued random operator if for every xX , T( ,x ) is measurable. A mapping s:ΩX is called a measurable selector of a measurable multifunction T:Ω×XCB( X ) if s is measurable and s( ω )T( ω ) , for all ωΩ .

Lemma 2.2 ([28]). Let S,T:ΩCB( X ) be measurable mappings, there is a measurable selector u:ΩX of S , then for any measurable real valued function α:Ω( 1, ) , there exists measurable selector v:ΩX of T such that d( u( ω ),v( ω ) )α( ω )H( S( ω ),T( ω ) ) .

Lemma 2.3 ([6]). A multivalued operator T:Ω×XCB( X ) is called (Σ)-measurable, if for any open subset B of X , T 1 ( B )={ ωΩ:T( ω )B }Σ . The set F( ω ) be the fixed point set of T( ω, ) , if F( ω ):={ xT( ω,x ) } . Then T has a random fixed point.

Recall that T:Ω×XCB( X ) is continuous, if for each fixed ωΩ , the operator T:( ω, )CB( X ) is continuous.

Throughout this paper, we assume that R + =[ 0,+ ) , R=( ,+ ) , N 0 ={ 0 }N , where N denotes the set of all positive integers and we give the following definition.

Definition 2.5. Ψ={ ψ : + + is semi-continuous upper on + \{ 0 } , if and only if lim n r n =0 and ψ( t )<t for each t>0 } , Ψ 1 ={ ψ : + + does not decrease on + , ψ( t )<t and n=1 ψ n ( t ) < for each t>0 } .

3. Main Results

Now we show two random common fixed point theorems for random multivalued contractive mappings in metric spaces.

Theorem 3.1. Let ( X,d ) be a complete separable metric space, let ( Ω,Σ ) be a measurable space, and let S,T:Ω×XCB( X ) and A,B:Ω×XX be mappings such that

(i) A( ω, ),B( ω, ),T( ω, ),S( ω, ) are continuous for all ωΩ ;

(ii) A( ,x ),B( ,x ),T( ,x ),S( ,x ) are measurable for all xX ;

(iii) S( Ω×X )B( Ω×X ) and T( Ω×X )A( Ω×X ) ;

(iv) the pairs { A,S } and { B,T } are weakly random compatible;

(v) one of A( Ω×X ),B( Ω×X ),S( Ω×X ) and T( Ω×X ) is complete and

H( S( ω,x ),T( ω,y ) )ψ( max{ m i ( x,y ):1i4 } ),x,yX, (1)

where ψΨ and

m 1 ( x,y )=d( B( ω,y ),T( ω,y ) ) 1+d( A( ω,x ),S( ω,x ) ) 1+d( A( ω,x ),B( ω,y ) ) , m 2 ( x,y )=d( A( ω,x ),S( ω,x ) ) 1+d( B( ω,y ),T( ω,y ) ) 1+d( A( ω,x ),B( ω,y ) ) , m 3 ( x,y )= d( B( ω,y ),S( ω,x ) ) 1+d( A( ω,x ),B( ω,y ) ) d( A( ω,x ),T( ω,y ) ), m 4 ( x,y )=max{ d( A( ω,x ),B( ω,y ) ), d( A( ω,x ),S( ω,x ) ),d( T( ω,y ),B( ω,y ) ), 1 2 [ d( S( ω,x ),B( ω,y ) )+d( A( ω,x ),T( ω,y ) ) ] }. (2)

Then A,B,S and T have a unique random common fixed point in X .

Proof. Let Θ={ ξ:ΩX } be a family of measurable mappings. Define a function g:Ω×X R + as follows:

g( ω,x )=d( x,T( ω,x ) ).

Since xT( ω,x ) is continuous for all ωΩ , we conclude that g( ω, ) is continuous for all ωΩ . Also, since ωT( ω,x ) is measurable for all xX , we conclude that g( ,x ) is measurable (see Wagner ([29], page 868, 31, 32)) for all ωΩ . Thus g( ω,x ) is the Caratheodory function. Therefore, if ξ:ΩX is a measurable mapping, then ωg( ω,ξ( ω ) ) is also measurable (see [29]). Let ξ 0 Θ be arbitrary. Then the multifunction F,G:ΩCB( X ) defined by F( ω )=B( ω, ξ 0 ( ω ) ),G( ω )=A( ω, ξ 0 ( ω ) ) is measurable [30].

Now we will construct sequences of measurable mappings { y n ( ω ) },{ x n ( ω ) }Θ , the sequence

{ A( ω, x n ( ω ) ) },{ B( ω, x n ( ω ) ) }X, and{ T( ω, x n ( ω ) ) },{ S( ω, x n ( ω ) ) }CB( X ).

By the Kuratowski-Ryll-Nardzewski selector theorem [28], there exists a measurable selector y 1 ( ω )S( ω, x 0 ( ω ) ) . Then, using Lemma 2.2 with α( ω )2 , we obtain a measurable selector y 2 ( ω )T( ω, x 1 ( ω ) ) such that

d( y 1 ( ω ), y 2 ( ω ) )2H( S( ω, x 0 ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 1 ( ω ) ) ).

Since S( Ω×X )B( Ω×X ) and T( Ω×X )A( Ω×X ) , there exist measurable mappings x 1 , x 2 Θ such that

y 1 ( ω )=B( ω, x 1 ( ω ) ), y 2 ( ω )=A( ω, x 2 ( ω ) ).

Continuing this process inductively, and at each step applying Lemma 2.2 to select the next point with a controlled distance estimate, we construct sequences of measurable mappings { y n ( ω ) },{ x n ( ω ) }Θ satisfying

y 2n+1 ( ω )=B( ω, x 2n+1 ( ω ) )S( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ), (3)

y 2n+2 ( ω )=A( ω, x 2n+2 ( ω ) )T( ω, x 2n+1 ( ω ) ),n. (4)

The distance d( y n , y n+1 ) is then controlled by the Hausdorff metric via Lemma 2.2, which justifies the subsequent inequalities involving H( S,T ) . Put d n =d( y n ( ω ), y n+1 ( ω ) ) for each n .

Firstly, we show that A( ω,x ),B( ω,x ),S( ω,x ) and T( ω,x ) have at most a random common fixed point in X , for all ωΩ , xX . Suppose that u( ω ) and v( ω ) are two different random common fixed points of A( ω,x ),B( ω,x ),S( ω,x ) and T( ω,x ) . It follows from (3.1), (3.2), we have

m 1 ( u( ω ),v( ω ) ) =d( B( ω,v( ω ) ),T( ω,v( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω,u( ω ) ),S( ω,u( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω,u( ω ) ),B( ω,v( ω ) ) ) =0,

m 2 ( u( ω ),v( ω ) ) =d( A( ω,u( ω ) ),S( ω,u( ω ) ) ) 1+d( B( ω,v( ω ) ),T( ω,v( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω,u( ω ) ),B( ω,v( ω ) ) ) =0,

m 3 ( u( ω ),v( ω ) ) = d( B( ω,v( ω ) ),S( ω,u( ω ) ) )d( A( ω,u( ω ) ),T( ω,v( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω,u( ω ) ),B( ω,v( ω ) ) ) = d 2 ( u( ω ),v( ω ) ) 1+d( u( ω ),v( ω ) ) ,

m 4 ( u( ω ),v( ω ) ) =max{ d( A( ω,u( ω ) ),B( ω,v( ω ) ) ), d( A( ω,u( ω ) ),S( ω,u( ω ) ) ),d( T( ω,v( ω ) ),B( ω,v( ω ) ) ), 1 2 [ d( S( ω,u( ω ) ),B( ω,v( ω ) ) )+d( A( ω,u( ω ) ),T( ω,v( ω ) ) ) ] } =d( u( ω ),v( ω ) ). (5)

and

d( u( ω ),v( ω ) )H( S( ω,u( ω ) ),T( ω,v( ω ) ) ) ψ( max{ m i ( u( ω ),v( ω ) ):1i4 } ) =ψ( max{ 0,0, d 2 ( u( ω ),v( ω ) ) 1+d( u( ω ),v( ω ) ) ,d( u( ω ),v( ω ) ) } ) =ψ( d( u( ω ),v( ω ) ) )<d( u( ω ),v( ω ) ), (6)

which is a contradiction. Hence A( ω,x( ω ) ),B( ω,x( ω ) ),S( ω,x( ω ) ) and T( ω,x( ω ) ) have at most a random common fixed point in X .

Secondly we show that A( ω,x( ω ) ),B( ω,x( ω ) ),S( ω,x( ω ) ) and T( ω,x( ω ) ) have a random common fixed point A( ω,a( ω ) )X , if there exist a( ω ),b( ω )X satisfying

B( ω,b( ω ) )=A( ω,b( ω ) )S( ω,a( ω ) )=T( ω,a( ω ) ). (7)

Assume that (3.4) holds for some measurable mappings a( ω ),b( ω )Θ , i.e.,

B( ω,b( ω ) )=A( ω,b( ω ) )S( ω,a( ω ) )=T( ω,a( ω ) ).

Put c( ω )=A( ω,a( ω ) )X . Note that (iv) implies that

A( ω,c( ω ) )=A( ω,S( ω,a( ω ) ) )S( ω,c( ω ) )=S( ω,A( ω,a( ω ) ) )

and

B( ω,c( ω ) )=B( ω,T( ω,b( ω ) ) )T( ω,c( ω ) )=T( ω,B( ω,b( ω ) ) ).

Suppose that c( ω )T( ω,c( ω ) ) . In view of (3.1), (3.2), (3.4), (3.5) and ψΨ , we infer that

m 1 ( a( ω ),c( ω ) ) =d( B( ω,c( ω ) ),T( ω,c( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),B( ω,c( ω ) ) ) =0,

m 2 ( a( ω ),c( ω ) ) =d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ) 1+d( B( ω,c( ω ) ),T( ω,c( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),B( ω,c( ω ) ) ) =0,

m 3 ( a( ω ),c( ω ) ) = d( B( ω,c( ω ) ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) )d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),T( ω,c( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),B( ω,c( ω ) ) ) = d( c( ω ),B( ω,c( ω ) ) )d( T( ω,c( ω ) ),c( ω ) ) 1+d( c( ω ),B( ω,c( ω ) ) ) = d 2 ( c( ω ),T( ω,c( ω ) ) ) 1+d( c( ω ),T( ω,c( ω ) ) ) ,

m 4 ( a( ω ),c( ω ) ) =max{ d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),B( ω,c( ω ) ) ), d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ),d( T( ω,c( ω ) ),B( ω,c( ω ) ) ), 1 2 [ d( S( ω,a( ω ) ),B( ω,c( ω ) ) )+d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),T( ω,c( ω ) ) ) ] } =max{ d( c( ω ),B( ω,c( ω ) ) ),0,0, 1 2 [ d( c( ω ),B( ω,c( ω ) ) )+d( T( ω,c( ω ) ),c( ω ) ) ] } =d( c( ω ),T( ω,c( ω ) ) ). (8)

and

d( c( ω ),T( ω,c( ω ) ) ) H( S( ω,a( ω ) ),T( ω,c( ω ) ) ) ψ( max{ m i ( a( ω ),c( ω ) ):1i4 } ) =ψ( max{ 0,0, d 2 ( c( ω ),T( ω,c( ω ) ) ) 1+d( c( ω ),T( ω,c( ω ) ) ) ,d( c( ω ),T( ω,c( ω ) ) ) } ) =ψ( d( c( ω ),T( ω,c( ω ) ) ) ) d( c( ω ),T( ω,c( ω ) ) ). (9)

which is impossible. Consequently, c( ω )=B( ω,c( ω ) )T( ω,c( ω ) ) . Similarly we conclude that c( ω )=A( ω,c( ω ) )S( ω,c( ω ) ) . That is, c( ω ) is a random common fixed point of A( ω,c( ω ) ),B( ω,c( ω ) ),S( ω,c( ω ) ) and T( ω,c( ω ) ) .

Thirdly we show that (3.4) holds for some a( ω ),b( ω )X . In order to prove (3.4), we have to consider three possible cases as follows.

Case1. There exists nN satisfying d 2 n 0 =0 . We claim that d 2 n 0 +1 >0 , otherwise d 2 n 0 +1 =0 . Using (3.1)-(3.3) and ψΨ , we deduce that

m 1 ( x 2 n 0 ( ω ), x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) =d( B( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) ),S( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) ) =d( y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ), y 2 n 0 +2 ( ω ) ) 1+d( y 2 n 0 ( ω ), y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) 1+d( y 2 n 0 ( ω ), y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) = d 2 n 0 +1 ,

m 2 ( x 2 n 0 ( ω ), x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) =d( A( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) ),S( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( B( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) ) =d( y 2 n 0 ( ω ), y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) 1+d( y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ), y 2 n 0 +2 ( ω ) ) 1+d( y 2 n 0 ( ω ), y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) =0,

m 3 ( x 2 n 0 ( ω ), x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) = d( B( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ),S( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) ) d( A( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) ) = d( y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ), y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) )d( y 2 n 0 +2 ( ω ), y 2 n 0 ( ω ) ) 1+d( y 2 n 0 ( ω ), y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) =0,

m 4 ( x 2 n 0 ( ω ), x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) =max{ d( A( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) ), d( A( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) ),S( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) ) ),d( T( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) ), 1 2 [ d( S( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) ) + d( A( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) ) ] } =max{ d( y 2 n 0 ( ω ), y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ),d( y 2 n 0 ( ω ), y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ),d( y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ), y 2 n 0 +2 ( ω ) ), 1 2 [ d( y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ), y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) )+d( y 2 n 0 +2 ( ω ), y 2 n 0 ( ω ) ) ] } =max{ d 2 n 0 , d 2 n 0 +1 }= d 2 n 0 +1 .

(10)

and

d 2 n 0 +1 =d( y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ), y 2 n 0 +2 ( ω ) ) =H( S( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ) ) ψ( max{ m i ( x 2 n 0 ( ω ), x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) ):1i4 } ) =ψ( max{ d 2 n 0 +1 ,0,0, d 2 n 0 +1 } )< d 2 n 0 +1 , (11)

which is a contradiction. Hence d 2 n 0 +1 =0 . It follows that

y 2 n 0 ( ω )= y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω )=A( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) )S( ω, x 2 n 0 ( ω ) ),

and

y 2 n 0 +1 ( ω )= y 2 n 0 +2 ( ω )=T( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) )B( ω, x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) )

Put a( ω )= x 2 n 0 ( ω ) and b( ω )= x 2 n 0 +1 ( ω ) . It is easy to see that (3.4) holds and y 2 n 0 ( ω ) is a random common fixed point of A( ω,x( ω ) ) , B( ω,x( ω ) ) , S( ω,x( ω ) ) and T( ω,x( ω ) ) .

Case2. There exists nN satisfying d 2 n 0 1 =0 . As in the proof of Case1, we infer similarly that (3.4) holds for a( ω )= x 2 n 0 ( ω ) and b( ω )= x 2 n 0 1 ( ω ) and y 2 n 0 1 ( ω ) is a random common fixed point of A( ω,x( ω ) ) , B( ω,x( ω ) ) , S( ω,x( ω ) ) and T( ω,x( ω ) ) .

Case3. y n ( ω ) y n+1 ( ω ) for all nN . Now we claim that d 2n d 2n1 for all nN . Suppose that d 2n d 2n1 for some nN . By virtue of (3.1), (3.2) and ψΨ , we arrive at

m 1 ( x 2n ( ω ), x 2n1 ( ω ) ) =d( B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ),S( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) =d( y 2n1 ( ω ), y 2n ( ω ) ) 1+d( y 2n ( ω ), y 2n+1 ( ω ) ) 1+d( y 2n ( ω ), y 2n1 ( ω ) ) = d 2n1 1+ d 2n 1+ d 2n1 < d 2n ,

m 2 ( x 2n ( ω ), x 2n1 ( ω ) ) =d( A( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ),S( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) =d( y 2n ( ω ), y 2n+1 ( ω ) ) 1+d( y 2n1 ( ω ), y 2n ( ω ) ) 1+d( y 2n ( ω ), y 2n1 ( ω ) ) = d 2n ,

m 3 ( x 2n ( ω ), x 2n1 ( ω ) ) = d( B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ),S( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) d( A( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) = d( y 2n+1 ( ω ), y 2n1 ( ω ) )d( y 2n ( ω ), y 2n ( ω ) ) 1+d( y 2n ( ω ), y 2n1 ( ω ) ) =0,

m 4 ( x 2n ( ω ), x 2n1 ( ω ) ) =max{ d( A( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ), d( A( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ),S( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ) ),d( T( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ), 1 2 [ d( S( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) + d( A( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) ] } =max{ d( y 2n ( ω ), y 2n1 ( ω ) ),d( y 2n ( ω ), y 2n+1 ( ω ) ),d( y 2n1 ( ω ), y 2n ( ω ) ), 1 2 [ d( y 2n+1 ( ω ), y 2n1 ( ω ) )+d( y 2n ( ω ), y 2n ( ω ) ) ] } =max{ d 2n1 , d 2n }= d 2n (12)

and

d 2n =d( y 2n+1 ( ω ), y 2n ( ω ) ) H( S( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) ψ( max{ m i ( x 2n ( ω ), x 2n1 ( ω ) ):1i4 } ) =ψ( max{ d 2n1 1+ d 2n 1+ d 2n1 , d 2n ,0, d 2n } ) =ψ( d 2n )< d 2n , (13)

which is absurd. Hence d 2n d 2n1 for each nN . As in the proofs of (3.6) and (3.7), we infer similarly that d 2n+1 d 2n for all nN . Consequently, { d n } nN is a nonincreasing positive sequence, which means that there exists a constant r0 with

lim n d n =r (14)

Suppose that r>0 . Making use of (2.1), (2.2), (2.6), (2.8) and ψΨ , we get that

d 2n =d( y 2n+1 ( ω ), y 2n ( ω ) ) H( S( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) ψ( max{ m i ( x 2n ( ω ), x 2n1 ( ω ) ):1i4 } ) =ψ( max{ d 2n1 1+ d 2n 1+ d 2n1 , d 2n ,0, d 2n } ),

we take the limit and use the property of ψ ,we get that

r= lim n d 2n lim n ψ( d 2n )ψ( limsup n d 2n )=ψ( r )<r,

which is a contradiction. Hence r=0 . That is,

lim n d n =0. (15)

In order to prove that { y n } nN is a Cauchy sequence, by (3.9) we need only to prove that { y 2n } nN is a Cauchy sequence. Suppose that { y 2n } nN is not a Cauchy sequence. It follows that there exists εÅ>0 such that for each even integer 2k there are even integers 2 m k , 2 n k with 2 n k >2 m k >2k and

d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 m k ( ω ) )ε. (16)

For every even integer 2k , let 2 m k be the least even integer exceeding 2 n k satisfying (3.10). It follows that

d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 m k 2 ( ω ) )<ε. (17)

Note that

d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 m k ( ω ) )d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 m k 2 ( ω ) )+ d 2 m k 2 + d 2 m k 1 , | d( y 2 n k +1 ( ω ), y 2 m k ( ω ) )d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 m k ( ω ) ) | d 2 n k , | d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 m k 1 ( ω ) )d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 m k ( ω ) ) | d 2 m k 1 , | d( y 2 n k +1 ( ω ), y 2 m k 1 ( ω ) )d( y 2 n k +1 ( ω ), y 2 m k ( ω ) ) | d 2 m k 1 . (18)

In terms of (2.9)-(2.12), we know that

ε= lim k d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 m k ( ω ) )= lim k d( y 2 n k +1 ( ω ), y 2 m k ( ω ) ) = lim k d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 m k 1 ( ω ) )= lim k d( y 2 n k +1 ( ω ), y 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ). (19)

In light of (3.1), (3.2), (3.9), (3.13), ψΨ , we deduce that

m 1 ( x 2 n k ( ω ), x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) =d( B( ω, x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω, x 2 n k ( ω ) ),S( ω, x 2 n k ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω, x 2 n k ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) ) =d( y 2 m k 1 ( ω ), y 2 m k ( ω ) ) 1+d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 n k +1 ( ω ) ) 1+d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) 0,ask,

m 2 ( x 2 n k ( ω ), x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) =d( A( ω, x 2 n k ( ω ) ),S( ω, x 2 n k ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( B( ω, x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω, x 2 n k ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) ) =d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 n k +1 ( ω ) ) 1+d( y 2 m k 1 ( ω ), y 2 m k ( ω ) ) 1+d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) 0,ask,

m 3 ( x 2 n k ( ω ), x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) = d( B( ω, x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ),S( ω, x 2 n k ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω, x 2 n k ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) ) d( A( ω, x 2 n k ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) ) = d( y 2 n k +1 ( ω ), y 2 m k 1 ( ω ) )d( y 2 m k ( ω ), y 2 n k ( ω ) ) 1+d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) ε 2 1+ε ,ask,

m 4 ( x 2 n k ( ω ), x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) =max{ d( A( ω, x 2 n k ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) ), d( A( ω, x 2 n k ( ω ) ),S( ω, x 2 n k ( ω ) ) ),d( T( ω, x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) ), 1 2 [ d( S( ω, x 2 n k ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) )+d( A( ω, x 2 n k ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) ) ] } =max{ d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ),d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 n k +1 ( ω ) ),d( y 2 m k 1 ( ω ), y 2 n k ( ω ) ), 1 2 [ d( y 2 n k +1 ( ω ), y 2 m k 1 ( ω ) )+d( y 2 n k ( ω ), y 2 n k ( ω ) ) ] } =max{ d 2 n k 1 , d 2 n k }ε,ask.

and

ε= lim k d( y 2 n k +1 ( ω ), y 2 m k ( ω ) )= lim k d( S( ω, x 2 n k ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ) ) lim k ψ( max{ m i ( x 2 n k ( ω ), x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ):1i4 } ) ψ( limsup n max{ m i ( x 2 n k ( ω ), x 2 m k 1 ( ω ) ):1i4 } ) =ψ( max{ 0,0, ε 2 1+ε ,ε } ) =ψ( ε )<ε,

which is a contradiction. Therefore { y n ( ω ) } nN is a Cauchy sequence, Assume that A( Ω×X ) is complete. Notice that { y n ( ω ) } nN A( Ω×X ) , which implies that { y n ( ω ) } nN converges to a point c( ω )=A( Ω×X ) . Obviously lim n y n ( ω )=c( ω ) . Put a( ω ) A 1 ( ω,c( ω ) ) . It follows that c( ω )A( ω,a( ω ) ) . Suppose that c( ω )S( ω,a( ω ) ) . In view of (3.1)-(3.3), ψΨ , and lim n y n ( ω )=c( ω ) , we infer that

m 1 ( a( ω ), x 2n1 ( ω ) ) =d( B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) =d( y 2n1 ( ω ), y 2n ( ω ) ) 1+d( c( ω ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ) 1+d( c( ω ), y 2n1 ( ω ) ) 0,asn,

m 2 ( a( ω ), x 2n1 ( ω ) ) =d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ) 1+d( B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) =d( c( ω ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ) 1+d( y 2n1 ( ω ), y 2n ( ω ) ) 1+d( c( ω ), y 2n1 ( ω ) ) d( c( ω ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ),asn,

m 3 ( a( ω ), x 2n1 ( ω ) ) = d( B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) d( A( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) = d( S( ω,a( ω ) ), y 2n1 ( ω ) )d( y 2n ( ω ),c( ω ) ) 1+d( c( ω ), y 2n1 ( ω ) ) 0,asn,

m 4 ( a( ω ), x 2n1 ( ω ) ) =max{ d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ), d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ),d( T( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ), 1 2 [ d( S( ω,a( ω ) ),B( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) )+d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2n1 ( ω ) ) ) ] } =max{ d( c( ω ), y 2n1 ( ω ) ),d( c( ω ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ),d( y 2n1 ( ω ), y 2n ( ω ) ), 1 2 [ d( S( ω,a( ω ) ), y 2n1 ( ω ) )+d( y 2n ( ω ),c( ω ) ) ] } d( c( ω ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ),asn,

and

d( S( ω,a( ω ) ),c( ω ) ) = lim n d( S( ω,a( ω ) ), y 2n ( ω ) ) = lim n H( S( ω,a( ω ) ),T( ω, x 2n ( ω ) ) ) limsup n ψ( max{ m i ( a( ω ), x 2n1 ( ω ) ):1i4 } )

=ψ( limsup n max{ m i ( a( ω ), x 2n1 ( ω ) ):1i4 } ) =ψ( max{ 0,d( c( ω ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ),0,d( c( ω ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ) } ) =ψ( d( S( ω,a( ω ) ),c( ω ) ) )<d( S( ω,a( ω ) ),c( ω ) ),

which is a contradiction. Therefore, c( ω )S( ω,a( ω ) ) , which together with (iii) means that c( ω )B( Ω×X ) . Put b( ω ) B 1 ( ω,c( ω ) ) , that is, c( ω )=B( ω,b( ω ) ) . Suppose that c( ω )T( ω,b( ω ) ) . By means of (3.1), (3.2) and ψΨ , we get that

m 1 ( a( ω ),b( ω ) ) =d( B( ω,b( ω ) ),T( ω,b( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),B( ω,b( ω ) ) ) =d( c( ω ),T( ω,b( ω ) ) ),

m 2 ( a( ω ),b( ω ) ) =d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ) 1+d( B( ω,b( ω ) ),T( ω,b( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),B( ω,b( ω ) ) ) =0,

m 3 ( a( ω ),b( ω ) ) = d( B( ω,b( ω ) ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ) 1+d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),B( ω,b( ω ) ) ) d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),T( ω,b( ω ) ) ) =0,

m 4 ( a( ω ),b( ω ) ) =max{ d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),B( ω,b( ω ) ) ), d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),S( ω,a( ω ) ) ),d( T( ω,b( ω ) ),B( ω,b( ω ) ) ), 1 2 [ d( S( ω,a( ω ) ),B( ω,b( ω ) ) )+d( A( ω,a( ω ) ),T( ω,b( ω ) ) ) ] } =max{ 0,0,d( c( ω ),T( ω,b( ω ) ) ), 1 2 [ 0+d( c( ω ),T( ω,b( ω ) ) ) ] } =d( c( ω ),T( ω,b( ω ) ) ), (20)

and

d( c( ω ),T( ω,b( ω ) ) ) H( S( ω,a( ω ) ),T( ω,b( ω ) ) ) ψ( max{ m i ( a( ω ),b( ω ) ):1i4 } ) =ψ( max{ d( c( ω ),T( ω,b( ω ) ) ),0,0,d( c( ω ),T( ω,b( ω ) ) ) } ) =ψ( d( c( ω ),T( ω,b( ω ) ) ) ) <d( c( ω ),T( ω,b( ω ) ) ). (21)

which is impossible. That is, c( ω )T( ω,b( ω ) ) . Hence (3.4) holds.

Assume that T( Ω×X ) is complete. Notice that { y 2n ( ω ) } nN T( Ω×X ) , which implies that { y 2n ( ω ) } nN converges to a point c( ω )T( Ω×X ) . Obviously lim n y n ( ω )=c( ω ) . Put b 1 ( ω ) T 1 ( ω,c( ω ) ) . It follows that c( ω )T( ω, b 1 ( ω ) ) . Observe that T( Ω×X )A( Ω×X ) , which implies that there exists a( ω )X with c( ω )=A( ω,a( ω ) )T( ω,b( ω ) ) . As in the proof of completeness of A( Ω×X ) , we infer that (3.4) holds. Similarly we conclude that (3.4) holds if one of B( Ω×X ) and S( Ω×X ) is complete. This completes the proof.

**Example 3.1 (Concrete application of Theorem 3.1). Let X=[ 0,1 ] with the usual metric, Ω=[ 0,1 ] with the Borel σ -algebra, and define

S( ω,x )={ 0 },T( ω,x )={ x 2 },A( ω,x )=x,B( ω,x )= x 2 .

Then S( Ω×X )={ 0 }B( Ω×X )=[ 0,1/2 ] , and T( Ω×X )=[ 0,1/2 ]A( Ω×X )=[ 0,1 ] . Taking ψ( t )=t/2 , one can verify that condition (3.1)-(3.2) holds. The unique random common fixed point is ξ( ω )=0 for all ωΩ . This example demonstrates that the rational contraction condition is not vacuous and can be satisfied by simple, non-trivial operators.** As in the proof of Theorem 3.1, we have the following result and omit its proof.

Theorem 3.2 Let ( X,d ) be a complete separable metric space, let ( Ω,Σ ) be a measurable space, and let S,T:Ω×XCB( X ) and A,B:Ω×XX be mappings such that

(i) A( ω, ),B( ω, ),T( ω, ),S( ω, ) are continuous for all ωΩ ;

(ii) A( ,x ),B( ,x ),T( ,x ),S( ,x ) are measurable for all xX ;

(iii) S( Ω×X )B( Ω×X ) and T( Ω×X )A( Ω×X ) ;

(iv) the pairs { A,S } and { B,T } are weakly compatible;

(v) one of A( Ω×X ),B( Ω×X ),S( Ω×X ) and T( Ω×X ) is a complete and

H( S( ω,x ),T( ω,y ) )ψ( m 4 ( x,y ) ),x,yX. (22)

Then A,B,S and T have a unique random common fixed point in X .

Remark 3.1. If in Theorem 3.1, A( ω,x )=B( ω,x )=x for all ( ω,x )Ω×X , then we get the following random fixed point theorem.

Theorem 3.3. Let ( X,d ) be a complete separable metric space, let ( Ω,Σ ) be a measurable space, and let S,T:Ω×CB( X )X be mappings such that

(i) T( ω, ),S( ω, ) are continuous for all ωΩ ;

(ii) T( ,x ),S( ,x ) are measurable for all xX ;

(iii) one of S( Ω×X ) and T( Ω×X ) is a complete and

H( S( ω,x ),T( ω,y ) ) ψ( max{ d( x,y ),d( S( ω,x ),x ),d( T( ω,y ),y ), 1 2 [ d( S( ω,x ),y )+d( T( ω,y ),x ) ] } ),x,yX. (23)

Then S and T have a unique random common fixed point in X .

For S( ω,X )=T( ω,X ),A( ω,X )=B( ω,X ) we have the following results as a special case of the above theorem.

Corollary 3.1. Let ( X,d ) be a complete separable metric space, let ( Ω,Σ ) be a measurable space, and let T:Ω×XCB( X ) , A:Ω×XX , be mappings such that

(i) T( ω, ),A( ω, ) are continuous for all ωΩ ;

(ii) T( ,x ),A( ,x ) are measurable for all xX ;

(iii) A( Ω×X ) is a complete and

H( T( ω,x ),T( ω,y ) ) ψ( max{ d( A( ω,x ),A( ω,y ) ),d( A( ω,x ),T( ω,x ) ),d( A( ω,y ),T( ω,y ) ), 1 2 [ d( A( ω,x ),T( ω,y ) )+d( A( ω,y ),T( ω,x ) ) ] } ),x,yX, (24)

then T and A have a unique random common fixed point in X .

Remark 3.2. For ψ( t )=kt , then we obtain the corresponding theorem of [18].

Now we deduce the results for single-valued self-mappings from Theorem 3.1, 3.2.

Theorem 3.4. Let ( X,d ) be a complete separable metric space, let ( Ω,Σ ) be a measurable space, and let S,T:Ω×XX and A,B:Ω×XX be mappings such that

(i) A( ω, ),B( ω, ),T( ω, ),S( ω, ) are continuous for all ωΩ ;

(ii) A( ,x ),B( ,x ),T( ,x ),S( ,x ) are measurable for all xX ;

(iii) S( Ω×X )B( Ω×X ) and T( Ω×X )A( Ω×X ) ;

(iv) the pairs { A,S } and { B,T } are weakly random compatible;

(v) one of A( Ω×X ),B( Ω×X ),S( Ω×X ) and T( Ω×X ) is a complete and

d( S( ω,x ),T( ω,y ) )ψ( max{ m i ( x,y ),1i4 } ),x,yX, (25)

where ψΨ and

m 1 ( x,y )=d( B( ω,y ),T( ω,y ) ) 1+d( A( ω,x ),S( ω,x ) ) 1+d( A( ω,x ),B( ω,y ) ) , m 2 ( x,y )=d( A( ω,x ),S( ω,x ) ) 1+d( B( ω,y ),T( ω,y ) ) 1+d( A( ω,x ),B( ω,y ) ) , m 3 ( x,y )= d( B( ω,y ),S( ω,x ) ) 1+d( A( ω,x ),B( ω,y ) ) d( A( ω,x ),T( ω,y ) ), m 4 ( x,y )=max{ d( A( ω,x ),B( ω,y ) ), d( A( ω,x ),S( ω,x ) ),d( T( ω,y ),B( ω,y ) ), 1 2 [ d( S( ω,x ),B( ω,y ) )+d( A( ω,x ),T( ω,y ) ) ] }. (26)

Then A,B,S and T have a unique random common fixed point in X .

Remark 3.3. For ψ( t )=t, then we obtain the following Corollary.

Corollary 3.2. Let ( X,d ) be a complete separable metric space, let ( Ω,Σ ) be a measurable space, and let S,T:Ω×XX and A,B:Ω×XX be mappings such that

(i) A( ω, ),B( ω, ),T( ω, ),S( ω, ) are continuous for all ωΩ ;

(ii) A( ,x ),B( ,x ),T( ,x ),S( ,x ) are measurable for all xX ;

(iii) S( Ω×X )B( Ω×X ) and T( Ω×X )A( Ω×X ) ;

(iv) the pairs { A,S } and { B,T } are weakly random compatible;

(v) one of A( Ω×X ),B( Ω×X ),S( Ω×X ) and T( Ω×X ) is a complete and

d( S( ω,x ),T( ω,y ) )max{ m i ( x,y ),1i4 },x,yX, (27)

where ψΨ and

m 1 ( x,y )=d( B( ω,y ),T( ω,y ) ) 1+d( A( ω,x ),S( ω,x ) ) 1+d( A( ω,x ),B( ω,y ) ) , m 2 ( x,y )=d( A( ω,x ),S( ω,x ) ) 1+d( B( ω,y ),T( ω,y ) ) 1+d( A( ω,x ),B( ω,y ) ) , m 3 ( x,y )= d( B( ω,y ),S( ω,x ) ) 1+d( A( ω,x ),B( ω,y ) ) d( A( ω,x ),T( ω,y ) ), m 4 ( x,y )=max{ d( A( ω,x ),B( ω,y ) ), d( A( ω,x ),S( ω,x ) ),d( T( ω,y ),B( ω,y ) ), 1 2 [ d( S( ω,x ),B( ω,y ) )+d( A( ω,x ),T( ω,y ) ) ] }. (28)

Then A,B,S and T have a unique random common fixed point in X .

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

References

[1] Bharucha-Reid, A.T. (1972) Random Integral Equations. Academic Press.
[2] Lin, T. (1988) Random Approximations and Random Fixed Point Theorems for Non-self-Maps. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 103, 1129-1135.[CrossRef]
[3] Khan, A.R. and Hussain, N. (2004) Random Coincidence Point Theorem in Fréchet Spaces with Applications. Stochastic Analysis and Applications, 22, 155-167.[CrossRef]
[4] Špaček, A. (1955) Zufällige Gleichungen. Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal, 05, 462-466.[CrossRef]
[5] Hanš, O. (1961) Random Operator Equations. Proceedings of 4th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 2, 185-202.
[6] Fierro, R., Martínez, C. and Morales, C.H. (2009) Fixed Point Theorems for Random Lowersemi-Continuous Mappings. Fixed Point Theory and Applications, 2009, Article ID: 584178.[CrossRef]
[7] Itoh, S. (1979) Random Fixed Point Theorems with an Application to Random Differential Equations in Banach Spaces. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 67, 261-273.[CrossRef]
[8] Mukherjee, A. (1966) Transformation Aleatoires Separable Theorem All Point Fixed Aleatoire. Comptes Rendus de lAcadémie des Sciences de Paris, 263, 393-395.
[9] Zhu, C. and Chen, C. (2008) Calculations of Random Fixed Point Index. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 339, 839-844.[CrossRef]
[10] Zhu, C. and Xu, Z. (2007) Random Ambiguous Point of Random-Set-Contractive Operator. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 328, 2-6.[CrossRef]
[11] Li, G. and Duan, H. (2005) On Random Fixed Point Theorems of Random Monotone Operators. Applied Mathematics Letters, 18, 1019-1026.[CrossRef]
[12] Saha, M. and Ganguly, A. (2012) Random Fixed Point Theorem on a Ćirić-Type Contractive Mapping and Its Consequence. Fixed Point Theory and Applications, 2012, Article No. 209.[CrossRef]
[13] Beg, I. and Abbas, M. (2007) Random Fixed Point Theorems for Caristi Type Random Operators. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing, 25, 425-434.[CrossRef]
[14] Zhu, X. and Xiao, J. (2010) Random Periodic Point and Fixed Point Results for Random Monotone Mappings in Ordered Polish Spaces. Fixed Point Theory and Applications, 2010, Article ID: 723216.[CrossRef]
[15] Fierro, R., Martínez, C. and Morales, C.H. (2011) Random Coincidence Theorems and Applications. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 378, 213-219.[CrossRef]
[16] McShane, E.J. and Warfield, R.B. (1967) On Filippov’s Implicit Functions Lemma. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 18, 41-47.[CrossRef]
[17] Patriche, M. (2014) Random Fixed Point Theorems under Mild Continuity Assumptions. Fixed Point Theory and Applications, 2014, Article No. 89.[CrossRef]
[18] Ćirić, L.B., Ume, J.S. and Ješić, S.N. (2006) On Random Coincidence and Fixed Points for a Pair of Multivalued and Single-Valued Mappings. Journal of Inequalities and Applications, 2006, 1-12.[CrossRef]
[19] Kumam, P. (2011) Random Common Fixed Points of Single-Valued and Multivalued Random Operators in a Uniformly Convex Banach Space. Journal of Computational Analysis and Applications, 13, 368-375.
[20] Ćirić, L. and Lakshmikantham, V. (2009) Coupled Random Fixed Point Theorems for Nonlinear Contractions in Partially Ordered Metric Spaces. Stochastic Analysis and Applications, 27, 1246-1259.[CrossRef]
[21] Jachymski, J. (2010) Equivalent Conditions for Generalized Contractions on (Ordered) Metric Spaces. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, 74, 768-774.[CrossRef]
[22] Sintunavarat, W., Kumam, P. and Patthanangkoor, P. (2009) Common Random Fixed Points for Multivalued Random Operators without S-and T-Weakly Commuting Random Operators. ROSE, 17, 381-388.[CrossRef]
[23] Hussain, N. and Alotaibi, A. (2011) Coupled Coincidences for Multi-Valued Contractions in Partially Ordered Metric Spaces. Fixed Point Theory and Applications, 2011, Article No. 82.[CrossRef]
[24] Abbas, M., Hussain, N. and Rhoades, B.E. (2011) Coincidence Point Theorems for Multivalued F-Weak Contraction Mappings and Applications. Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matematicas, 105, 261-272.[CrossRef]
[25] Nashine, H.K. and Samet, B. (2011) Fixed Point Results for Mappings Satisfying-Weakly Contractive Condition in Partially Ordered Metric Spaces. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, 74, 2201-2209.[CrossRef]
[26] Zhang, X. (2010) Fixed Point Theorems of Multivalued Monotone Mappings in Ordered Metric Spaces. Applied Mathematics Letters, 23, 235-240.[CrossRef]
[27] Moţ, G. and Petruşel, A. (2009) Fixed Point Theory for a New Type of Contractive Multivalued Operators. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, 70, 3371-3377.[CrossRef]
[28] Kuratowski, K. and Ryll-Nardzewski, C. (1965) A General Theorem on Selectors. Bulletin de Lácadémie Polonaise des Sciences, 13, 397-403.
[29] Wagner, D.H. (1977) Survey of Measurable Selection Theorems. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 15, 859-903.[CrossRef]
[30] Rockafellar, R.T. (1969) Measurable Dependence of Convex Sets and Functions on Parameters. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 28, 4-25.[CrossRef]

Copyright © 2026 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.