<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">AJCM</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>American Journal of Computational Mathematics</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2161-1203</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ajcm.2015.52009</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">AJCM-56618</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Physics&amp;Mathematics</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  A Common Fixed Point Theorem for Two Pairs of Mappings in Dislocated Metric Space
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>inesh</surname><given-names>Panthi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kanhaiya</surname><given-names>Jha</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Pavan</surname><given-names>Kumar Jha</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>P.</surname><given-names>Sumati Kumari</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Natural Sciences (Mathematics), Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel, Nepal</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>Department of Mathematics, K L University, Vaddeswaram, India</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Mathematics, Valmeeki Campus, Nepal Sanskrit University, Kathmandu, Nepal</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Department of Mathematics, Amrit Science Campus, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>panthid06@gmail.com(IP)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>13</day><month>05</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><volume>05</volume><issue>02</issue><fpage>106</fpage><lpage>112</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>14</day>	<month>March</month>	<year>2015</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>accepted</day>	<month>22</month>	<year>May</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>25</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2015</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Dislocated metric space differs from metric space for a property that self distance of a point needs not to be equal to zero. This property plays an important role to deal with the problems of various disciplines to obtain fixed point results. In this article, we establish a common fixed point theorem for two pairs of weakly compatible mappings which generalize and extend the result of Brain Fisher [1] in the setting of dislocated metric space with replacement of contractive constant by contractive modulus for which continuity of mappings is not necessary and compatible mappings by weakly compatible mappings.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>d-Metric Space</kwd><kwd> Common Fixed Point</kwd><kwd> Weakly Compatible</kwd><kwd> Contractive Modulus</kwd><kwd> Cauchy Sequence</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>In 1922, S. Banach [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56618-ref2">2</xref>] established a fixed point theorem for contraction mapping in metric space. Since then a number of fixed point theorems have been proved by many authors and various generalizations of this theorem have been established. In 1982, S. Sessa [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56618-ref3">3</xref>] introduced the concept of weakly commuting maps and G. Jungck [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56618-ref4">4</xref>] in 1986, initiated the concept of compatibility. In 1998, Jungck and Rhoades [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56618-ref5">5</xref>] initiated the notion of weakly compatible maps and pointed that compatible maps were weakly compatible but not conversely.</p><p>The study of common fixed point of mappings satisfying contractive type conditions has been a very active field of research activity. In 1986, S. G. Matthews [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56618-ref6">6</xref>] introduced the concept of dislocated metric space under the name of metric domains in domain theory. In 2000, P. Hitzler and A. K. Seda [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56618-ref7">7</xref>] generalized the famous Banach Contraction Principle in dislocated metric space. The study of dislocated metric plays very important role in topology, logic programming and in electronics engineering.</p><p>The purpose of this article is to establish a common fixed point theorem for two pairs of weakly compatible mappings in dislocated metric spaces which generalize and improve similar results of fixed point in the literature.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Preliminaries</title><p>We start with the following definitions, lemmas and theorems.</p><p>Definition 1. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56618-ref7">7</xref>] Let X be a non empty set and let <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x5.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> be a function satisfying the following conditions:</p><p>1)<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x6.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>2) <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x7.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>implies <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x8.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>3) <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x9.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>for all<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x10.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>Then d is called dislocated metric (or d-metric) on X and the pair <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x11.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is called the dislocated metric space (or d-metric space).</p><p>Definition 2. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56618-ref7">7</xref>] A sequence <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x12.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> in a d-metric space <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x13.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is called a Cauchy sequence if for given<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x14.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, there corresponds <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x15.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> such that for all <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x16.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> , we have<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x17.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>Definition 3. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56618-ref7">7</xref>] A sequence in d-metric space converges with respect to d (or in d) if there exists <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x18.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> such that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x19.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> as <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x20.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>In this case, x is called limit of <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x21.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> (in d)and we write <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x21.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x22.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>Definition 4. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56618-ref7">7</xref>] A d-metric space <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x23.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is called complete if every Cauchy sequence in it is convergent with respect to d.</p><p>Definition 5. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56618-ref7">7</xref>] Let <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x24.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> be a d-metric space. A map <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x24.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x25.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is called contraction if there exists a number <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x24.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x25.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x26.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> with <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x24.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x25.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x26.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x27.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> such that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x24.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x25.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x26.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x27.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x28.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>We state the following lemmas without proof.</p><p>Lemma 1. Let <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x29.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> be a d-metric space. If <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x29.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x30.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is a contraction function, then <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x29.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x30.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x31.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is a Cauchy sequence for each <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x29.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x30.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x31.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x32.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>Lemma 2. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56618-ref7">7</xref>] Limits in a d-metric space are unique.</p><p>Theorem 1. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56618-ref7">7</xref>] Let <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x33.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> be a complete d-metric space and let <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x33.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x34.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> be a contraction mapping, then T has a unique fixed point.</p><p>Definition 6. Let A and S be two self mappings on a set X. Mappings A and S are said to be commuting if <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x35.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x35.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x36.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>Definition 7. Let A and S be two self mappings on a set X. If <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x37.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> for some<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x37.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x38.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, then x is called coincidence point of A and S.</p><p>Definition 8. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56618-ref5">5</xref>] Let A and S be mappings from a metric space <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x39.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> into itself. Then, A and S are said to be weakly compatible if they commute at their coincident point; that is, <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x39.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x40.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>for some <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x39.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x40.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x41.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> implies <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x39.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x40.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x41.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x42.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>Definition 9. A function <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x43.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is said to be contractive modulus if <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x43.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x44.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x43.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x44.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x45.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>Definition 10. A real valued function <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x46.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> defined on <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x46.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x47.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is said to be upper semicontinuous if</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1982"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x48.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>for every sequence <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x49.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> with <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x49.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x50.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> as <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x49.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x50.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x51.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>It is clear that every continuous function is upper semicontinuous but converse may not be true.</p><p>In 1983, B. Fisher [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.56618-ref1">1</xref>] established the following theorem in metric space.</p><p>Theorem 2. Suppose that S, P, T and Q are four self maps of a complete metric space (X, d) satisfying the following conditions</p><p>1) <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x52.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>and<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x52.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x53.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>2) Pairs (S, P) and (T, Q) are commuting.</p><p>3) One of S, P, T and Q is continuous.</p><p>4) <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x54.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>where <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x54.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x55.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> for all <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x54.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x55.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x56.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x54.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x55.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x56.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x57.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>Then S, P, T and Q have a unique common fixed point<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x58.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Also, z is the unique common fixed point of pairs (S, P) and (T, Q).</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Main Results</title><p>Theorem 3. Let (X, d) be a complete d-metric space. Suppose that A, B, S and T are four self mappings of X satisfying the following conditions</p><p>i) <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x59.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>ii) <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x60.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>where <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x60.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x61.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is an upper semicontinuous contractive modulus and</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1983"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x62.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>iii) The pairs <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x63.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x63.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x64.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> are weakly compatible, then A, B, S and T have an unique common fixed point.</p><p>Proof. Let <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x65.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> be an arbitrary point of X and define a sequence <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x65.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x66.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> in X such that</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1984"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x67.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Now by condition ii), we have</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1985"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x68.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1986"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x69.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x70.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>is not possible since <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x70.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x71.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is a contractive modulus, so</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1987"><label>(1)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x72.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Since <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x73.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is upper semicontinuous, contractive modulus the Equation (1) implies that the sequence <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x73.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x74.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is monotonic decreasing and continuous.</p><p>Hence there exists a real number <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x75.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> such that</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1988"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x76.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Taking limit in (1) we obtain <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x77.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> which is possible if<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x77.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x78.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, sice <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x77.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x78.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x79.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is contractive modulus. therfore</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1989"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x80.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>We claim that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x81.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is a cauchy sequence.</p><p>if possible, let <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x82.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is not a cauchy sequence. Then there exists a real number <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x82.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x83.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and subsequences <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x82.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x83.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x84.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x82.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x83.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x84.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x85.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> such that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x82.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x83.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x84.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x85.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x86.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1990"><label>(2)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x87.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>so that</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1991"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x88.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Hence</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1992"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x89.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Now</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1993"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x90.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Taking limit as <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x91.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> we have</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1994"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x92.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>So by contractive condition ii) and (2)</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1995"><label>(3)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x93.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1996"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x94.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Now taking limit as <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x95.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> we get</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1997"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x96.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Therefore from (3) we have <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x97.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> which is a contradiction, since <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x97.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x98.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is contractive modulus.</p><p>Hence <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x99.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is a cauchy sequence.</p><p>Since X is complete, there exists a point u in X such that<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x100.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. So,</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1998"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x101.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Hence, <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x102.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>Since <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x103.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> there exists a point <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x103.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x104.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> such that<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x103.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x104.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x105.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Now by condition ii)</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula1999"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x106.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula2000"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x107.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Taking limit as <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x108.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> we have</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula2001"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x109.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Thus <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x110.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> implies <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x110.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x111.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> which is a contradiction, since <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x110.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x111.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x112.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is a contractive modulus. Thus<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x110.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x111.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x112.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x113.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Hence <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x110.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x111.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x112.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x113.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x114.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> which represents that v is the coincidence point of A and S.</p><p>Since the pair <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x115.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> are weakly compatible, so <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x115.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x116.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>Again, since <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x117.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> there exists a point <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x117.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x118.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> such that<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x117.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x118.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x119.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Then by condition ii) we have,</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula2002"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x120.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula2003"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x121.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>If <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x122.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> then <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x122.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x123.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> which implies</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula2004"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x124.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>a contradiction, since <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x125.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is a contractive modulus.</p><p>Again if <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x126.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> then</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula2005"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x127.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>a contradiction. Hence, <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x128.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>Which implies<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x128.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x129.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Therefore<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x128.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x129.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x130.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Thus w is the coinci- dence point of B and T.</p><p>Since the pair <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x131.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> are weakly compatible, so<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x131.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x132.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Now we show that u is the fixed point of S.</p><p>By condition ii), we have</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula2006"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x133.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where,</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula2007"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x134.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>If <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x135.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> then,</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula2008"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x136.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>a contradiction since <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x137.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is contractive modulus.</p><p>If <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x138.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> or<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x138.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x139.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, one can observe that there are contradictions for both cases. Hence we conclude that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x138.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x139.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x140.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> which implies that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x138.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x139.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x140.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x141.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>Therefore, <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x142.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>Now we show that u is the fixed point of T. Again by condition ii),</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula2009"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x143.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where,</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula2010"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x144.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>If <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x145.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> then,</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula2011"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x146.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>a contradiction.</p><p>If <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x147.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x147.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x148.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> one can observe that there are contradictions for both cases. Hence we conclude that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x147.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x148.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x149.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> which implies that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x147.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x148.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x149.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x150.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>Therefore <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x151.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>Hence, <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x152.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>i.e. u is the common fixed point of the mappings <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x152.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x153.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and T.</p><p>Uniqueness:</p><p>If possible let u and z <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x154.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> are two common fixed points of the mappings <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x154.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x155.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and T. By condition ii) we have,</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula2012"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x156.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where,</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula2013"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x157.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>If <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x158.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> then,</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula2014"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x159.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>a contradiction, since <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x160.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is a contractive modulus.</p><p>Again if <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x161.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x161.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x162.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> one can observe that there are contradictions for both cases. Hence we conclude that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x161.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x162.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x163.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> which implies that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x161.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x162.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x163.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x164.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>Therefore, u is the unique common fixed point of the four mappings <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x165.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and T. This completes the proof of the theorem.</p><p>Now we have the following corollaries:</p><p>Corollary 1. Let (X, d) be a complete dislocated metric space. Suppose that A, S and T are three self map- pings of X satisfying the following conditions:</p><p>1) <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x166.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>and<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x166.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x167.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>2) <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x168.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>where <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x168.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x169.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is an upper semicontinuous contractive modulus and</p><p><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x170.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>3) The pairs <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x171.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x171.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x172.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> are weakly compatible, then A, S and T have an unique common fixed point.</p><p>Proof. If we take <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x173.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> in theorem (3) and follow the similar proof we get the required result.</p><p>Corollary 2. Let (X, d) be a complete dislocated metric space. Suppose that A and S are two self mappings of X satisfying the following conditions.</p><p>1)<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x174.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>2) <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x175.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>where <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x175.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x176.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is an upper semicontinuous contractive modulus and</p><p><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x177.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>3) The pair <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x178.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is weakly compatible, then A and S have an unique common fixed point.</p><p>Proof. If we take <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x179.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x179.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x180.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> in theorem (3) and follow the similar proof we get the required result.</p><p>Corollary 3. Let (X, d) be a complete dislocated metric space. Suppose that S and T are two self mappings of X satisfying the following conditions</p><p>1) <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x181.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>where <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x181.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x182.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is an upper semicontinuous contractive modulus and</p><p><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x183.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>2) The pairs <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x184.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x184.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x185.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> are weakly compatible, then S and T have an unique common fixed point.</p><p>Proof. If we take <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x186.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> in theorem (3) and follow the similar proof we get the required result.</p><p>Corollary 4 Let (X, d) be a complete dislocated metric space. Let <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x187.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> be a map satisfying the following conditions</p><p><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x188.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>where <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x188.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x189.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is an upper semicontinuous contractive modulus and</p><disp-formula id="scirp.56618-formula2015"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x190.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>then the map S has a unique fixed point.</p><p>Proof. If we take <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1100423x191.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> in corollary (3) and follow the similar proof we get the required result.</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.56618-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Fisher</surname><given-names> B. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1983</year>)<article-title>Common Fixed Point of Four Mappings</article-title><source> Bulletin of the Institute of Mathematics Academia Sinica</source><volume> 11</volume>,<fpage> 103</fpage>-<lpage>113</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56618-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Banach</surname><given-names> S. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1922</year>)<article-title>Sur les operations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur applications aux equations integrals</article-title><source> Fundamenta Mathematicae</source><volume> 3</volume>,<fpage> 133</fpage>-<lpage>181</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56618-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sessa</surname><given-names> S. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1982</year>)<article-title>On a Weak Commutativity Condition of Mappings in a Fixed Point Considerations</article-title><source> Publications de l’Institut Mathematique (Beograd)</source><volume> 32</volume>,<fpage> 149</fpage>-<lpage>153</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56618-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jungck, G. (1986) Compatible Mappings and Common Fixed Points. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, 9, 771-779.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/S0161171286000935</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56618-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jungck, G. and Rhoades, B.E. (1998) Fixed Points for Set Valued Functions without Continuity. The Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 29, 227-238.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56618-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Matthews, S.G. (1986) Metric Domains for Completeness. Technical Report 76, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick, Coventry.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.56618-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hitzler, P. and Seda, A.K. (2000) Dislocated Topologies. Journal of Electrical Engineering, 51, 3-7.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>