- Research
- Open Access

# Generalized common fixed point theorems in complex valued metric spaces and applications

- Wutiphol Sintunavarat
^{1}and - Poom Kumam
^{1}Email author

**2012**:84

https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2012-84

© Sintunavarat and Kumam; licensee Springer. 2012

**Received:**21 January 2012**Accepted:**13 April 2012**Published:**13 April 2012

## Abstract

Recently, Azam et al. introduced new spaces called the complex valued metric spaces and established the existence of fixed point theorems under the contraction condition. In this article, we extend and improve the condition of contraction of the results of Azam et al. and also apply the main result to the unique common solution of system of Urysohn integral equation.

**Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)**: 47H09; 47H10.

## Keywords

- complex valued metric spaces
- fixed points
- common fixed points
- weakly compatible mappings

## 1. Introduction

Fixed point theory became one of the most interesting area of research in the last fifty years for instance research about optimization problem, control theory, differential equations, economics, and etc. The fixed point theorem, generally known as the Banach contraction mapping principle, appeared in explicit form in Banach's thesis in 1922 [1]. Since its simplicity and usefulness, it became a very popular tool in solving many problems in mathematical analysis. Later, a number of articles in this field have been dedicated to the improvement and generalization of the Banach's contraction mapping principle in several ways in many spaces (see [2–17]).

In the other hand, the study of metric spaces expressed the most important role to many fields both in pure and applied science such as biology, medicine, physics, and computer science (see [18, 19]). Many authors generalized and extended the notion of a metric spaces such as a vector-valued metric spaces of Perov [20], a *G*-metric spaces of Mustafa and Sims [21], a cone metric spaces of Huang and Zhang [22], a modular metric spaces of Chistyakov [23], and etc.

Recently, Azam et al. [24] first introduced the complex valued metric spaces which is more general than well-know metric spaces and also gave common fixed point theorems for mappings satisfying generalized contraction condition.

**Theorem 1.1**(Azam et al. [24]).

*Let*(

*X, d*)

*be a complete complex valued metric space and S, T*:

*X*→

*X. If S and T satisfy*

*for all x, y* ∈ *X, where λ, μ are nonnegative reals with λ* + *μ* < 1*. Then S and T have a common fixed point*.

The aim of this article is to extend and improve the conditions of contraction of this theorem from the constant of contraction to some control functions and establish the common fixed point theorems which are more general than the result of Azam et al. [24] and also give the results for weakly compatible mappings in complex valued metric spaces. As applications, we claim that the existence of common solution of system of Urysohn integral equation by using our results.

## 2. Preliminaries

*z*

_{1},

*z*

_{2}∈ ℂ. Define a partial order ≾ on ℂ as follows:

that is *z*_{1} ≾ *z*_{2} if one of the following holds

**(C1):** Re(*z*_{1}) = Re(*z*_{2}) and Im(*z*_{1}) = Im(*z*_{2});

**(C2):** Re(*z*_{1}) < Re(*z*_{2}) and Im(*z*_{1}) = Im(*z*_{2});

**(C3):** Re(*z*_{1}) = Re(*z*_{2}) and Im(*z*_{1}) *<* Im(*z*_{2});

**(C4):** Re(*z*_{1}) < Re(*z*_{2}) and Im(*z*_{1}) < Im(*z*_{2}).

In particular, we will write *z*_{1} ⋨ *z*_{2} if *z*_{1} ≠ *z*_{2} and one of (C2), (C3), and (C4) is satisfied and we will write *z*_{1} ≺ *z*_{2} if only (C4) is satisfied.

**Remark 2.1**. We obtained that the following statements hold:

- (i)
*a, b*∈ ℝ and*a*≤*b*⇒*az*≾*bz*∀*z*∈ ℂ. - (ii)
0 ≾

*z*_{1}⋨*z*_{2}⇒ |*z*_{1}| < |*z*_{2}|, - (iii)
*z*_{1}≾*z*_{2}and*z*_{2}≺*z*_{3}⇒*z*_{1}≺*z*_{3}.

**Definition 2.2**([24]). Let

*X*be a nonempty set. Suppose that the mapping

*d*:

*X*×

*X*→ ℂ satisfies the following conditions:

- (i)
0 ≾

*d*(*x, y*), for all*x, y*∈*X*and*d*(*x, y*) = 0 if and only if*x*=*y;* - (ii)
*d*(*x, y*) =*d*(*y, x*) for all*x, y*∈*X*; - (iii)
*d*(*x, y*) ≾*d*(*x, z*) +*d*(*z, y*), for all*x, y, z*∈*X*.

Then *d* is called a *complex valued metric* on *X* and (*X, d*) is called a *complex valued metric space*.

**Example 2.3**. Let

*X*= ℂ. Define the mapping

*d*:

*X*×

*X*→ ℂ by

where *k* ∈ ℝ. Then (*X, d*) is a complex valued metric space.

**Definition 2.4**([24]). Let (

*X, d*) be a complex valued metric space.

- (i)A point
*x*∈*X*is called*interior point*of a set*A*⊆*X*whenever there exists 0 ≺*r*∈ ℂ such that$B\left(x,r\right):=\left\{y\in X|d\left(x,y\right)\prec r\right\}\subseteq A.$ - (ii)A point
*x*∈*X*is called a*limit point*of*A*whenever for every 0 ≺*r*∈ ℂ,$B\left(x,r\right)\cap \left(A-X\right)\ne \varnothing .$ - (iii)
A subset

*A*⊆*X*is called*open*whenever each element of*A*is an interior point of*A*. - (iv)
A subset

*A*⊆*X*is called*closed*whenever each limit point of*A*belongs to*A*. - (v)A
*sub-basis*for a Hausdorff topology*τ*on*X*is a family$F=\left\{B\left(x,r\right)|x\in X\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}\text{and}\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}0\prec r\right\}.$

**Definition 2.5**([24]). Let (

*X, d*) be a complex valued metric space, {

*x*

_{ n }} be a sequence in

*X*and

*x*∈

*X*.

- (i)
If for every

*c*∈ ℂ, with 0 ≺*c*there is*N*∈ ℕ such that for all*n*>*N, d*(*x*_{ n },*x*) ≺*c*, then {*x*_{ n }} is said to be*convergent*, {*x*_{ n }} converges to*x*and*x*is the limit point of {*x*_{ n }}. We denote this by $\underset{n\to \infty}{\text{lim}}{x}_{n}=x$ or {*x*_{ n }} →*x*as*n*→ ∞. - (ii)
If for every

*c*∈ ℂ, with 0 ≺*c*there is*N*∈ ℕ such that for all*n*>*N, d*(*x*_{ n },*x*_{n+m}) ≺*c*, where*m*∈ ℕ, then {*x*_{ n }} is said to be*Cauchy sequence*. - (iii)
If every Cauchy sequence in

*X*is convergent, then (*X, d*) is said to be a*complete complex valued metric space*.

**Lemma 2.6** ([24]). *Let* (*X, d*) *be a complex valued metric space and let* {*x*_{
n
}} *be a sequence in X. Then* {*x*_{
n
}} *converges to x if and only if* |*d*(*x*_{
n
}, *x*)| → 0 *as n* → ∞.

**Lemma 2.7** ([24]). *Let* (*X, d*) *be a complex valued metric space and let* {*x*_{
n
}} *be a sequence in X. Then* {*x*_{
n
}} *is a Cauchy sequence if and only if* |*d*(*x*_{
n
}, *x*_{n+m})| → 0 *as n* → ∞*, where m* ∈ ℕ.

Here, we give some notions in fixed point theory.

**Definition 2.8**. Let

*S*and

*T*be self mappings of a nonempty set

*X*.

- (i)
A point

*x*∈*X*is said to be a*fixed point*of T if*Tx*=*x*. - (ii)
A point

*x*∈*X*is said to be a*coincidence point*of*S*and*T*if*Sx*=*Tx*and we shall called*w*=*Sx*=*Tx*that a*point of coincidence*of*S*and*T*. - (iii)
A point

*x*∈*X*is said to be a*common fixed point*of*S*and*T*if*x*=*Sx*=*Tx*.

In 1976, Jungck [25] introduced concept of commuting mappings as follows:

for all *x* ∈ *X*.

Afterward, Sessa [26] introduced concept of weakly commuting mappings which are more general than commuting mappings as follows:

**Definition 2.10**([26]). Let

*S*and

*T*be mappings from a metric space (

*X, d*) into itself. The mappings

*S*and

*T*are said to be

*weakly commuting*if

for all *x* ∈ *X*.

In 1986, Jungck [27] introduced the more generalized commuting mappings in metric spaces, called compatible mappings, which also are more general than the concept of weakly commuting mappings as follows:

**Definition 2.11**([27]). Let

*S*and

*T*be mappings from a metric space (

*X, d*) into itself. The mapping

*S*and

*T*are said to be

*compatible*if

whenever {*x*_{
n
}} is a sequence in *X* such that lim_{n→∞}*Sx*_{
n
}= lim_{n→∞}*Tx*_{
n
}= *z* for some *z* ∈ *X*.

**Remark 2.12**. In general, commuting mappings are weakly commuting and weakly commuting mappings are compatible, but the converses are not necessarily true and some examples can be found in [25, 27–29].

In 1996, Jungck introduced the concept of weakly compatible mappings as follows:

**Definition 2.13** ([30]). Let *S* and *T* be self mappings of a nonempty set *X*. The mapping *S* and *T* are weakly compatible if *STx* = *TSx* whenever *Sx* = *Tx*.

We can see an example to show that there exists weakly compatible mappings which are not compatible mappings in metric spaces in Djoudi and Nisse [31].

The following lemma proved by Haghi et al. [32] is useful for our main results:

**Lemma 2.14** ([32]). *Let X be a nonempty set and T : X* → *X be a function. Then there exists a subset E* ⊆ *X such that T*(*E*) = *T*(*X*) *and T : E* → *X is one-to-one*.

## 3. Main results

**Theorem 3.1**. *Let* (*X, d*) *be a complete complex valued metric space and S, T : X* → *X. If there exists a mapping* Λ, Ξ : *X* → [0,1) *such that for all x, y* ∈ *X:*

**(i):** Λ(*Sx*) ≤ Λ(*x*) *and* Ξ(*Sx*) ≤ Ξ(*x*);

**(ii):** Λ(*Tx*) ≤ Λ(*x*) *and* Ξ(*Tx*) ≤ Ξ(*x*);

**(iii):** (Λ + Ξ)(*x*) < 1;

**(iv):**$d\left(Sx,Ty\right)\precsim \Lambda \left(x\right)d\left(x,y\right)+\frac{\Xi \left(x\right)d\left(x,Sx\right)d\left(y,Ty\right)}{1+d\left(x,y\right)}$.

*Then S and T have a unique common fixed point*.

*Proof*. Let

*x*

_{0}be an arbitrary point in

*X*. Since

*S*(

*X*) ⊆

*X*and

*T*(

*X*) ⊆

*X*, we can construct the sequence {

*x*

_{ k }} in

*X*such that

*k*≥ 0. From hypothesis and (3.1) we get

*n*∈ ℕ. Now, for any positive integer

*m*and

*n*with

*m > n*, we have

*α*∈ [0,1), if we taking limit as

*m, n*→ 0, then |

*d*(

*x*

_{ n },

*x*

_{ m })| → 0, which implies that {

*x*

_{ n }} is a Cauchy sequence. By completeness of

*X*, there exists a point

*z*∈

*X*such that

*x*

_{ k }→

*z*as

*k*→ ∞. Next, we claim that

*Sz*=

*z*. By the notion of a complex valued metric

*d*, we have

Taking *k* → ∞, we have |*d*(*z, Sz*)| = 0, which implies that *d*(*z, Sz*) = 0. Thus, we get *z* = *Sz*. It follows similarly that *z* = *Tz*. Therefore, *z* is a common fixed point of *S* and *T*.

*z*is a unique common fixed point of

*S*and

*T*. Assume that there exists another common fixed point

*z*

_{1}that is

*z*

_{1}=

*Sz*

_{1}=

*Tz*

_{1}. It follows from

that |*d*(*z, z*_{1})| ≤ Λ(*z*)|*d*(*z, z*_{1})|.

Since Λ(*z*) ∈ [0, 1), we have |*d*(*z, z*_{1})| = 0. Therefore, we have *z* = *z*_{1} and thus *z* is a unique common fixed point of *S* and *T*.

**Corollary 3.2**. [[24],

*Theorem 4] Let*(

*X, d*)

*be a complete complex valued metric space and S, T*:

*X*→

*X. If S and T satisfy*

*for all x, y* ∈ *X, where λ, μ are nonnegative reals with* λ + *μ* < 1. *Then S and T have a unique common fixed point*.

*Proof*. We can prove this result by applying Theorem 3.1 by setting Λ(*x*) = λ and Ξ(*x*) = *μ*.

**Corollary 3.3**. *Let* (*X, d*) *be a complete complex valued metric space and T : X* → *X. If there exists a mapping* Λ, Ξ : *X* → [0,1) *such that for all x, y* ∈ *X:*

**(i):** Λ(*Tx*) ≤ Λ(*x*) *and* Ξ(*Tx*) ≤ Ξ(*x*);

**(ii):** (Λ + Ξ) (*x*) < 1;

**(iii):**$d\left(Tx,Ty\right)\precsim \Lambda \left(x\right)d\left(x,y\right)+\frac{\Xi \left(x\right)d\left(x,Tx\right)d\left(y,Ty\right)}{1+d\left(x,y\right)}$.

*Then T has a unique fixed point*.

*Proof*. We can prove this result by applying Theorem 3.1 with *S* = *T*.

**Corollary 3.4**. [[24],

*Corollary 5] Let*(

*X, d*)

*be a complete complex valued metric space and T*:

*X*→

*X. If T satisfies*

*for all x, y* ∈ *X, where λ, μ are nonnegative reals with* λ + *μ* < 1. *Then T has a unique fixed point*.

*Proof*. We can prove this result by applying Corollary 3.3 with Λ(*x*) = λ and Ξ(*x*) = *μ*.

**Theorem 3.5**. *Let* (*X, d*) *be a complete complex valued metric space and T : X* → *X. If there exists a mapping* Λ, Ξ : *X* → [0,1) *such that for all x, y* ∈ *X and for some n* ∈ ℕ:

**(i):** Λ(*T*^{
n
}*x*) ≤ Λ(*x*) *and* Ξ(*T*^{
n
}*x*) ≤ Ξ(*x*);

**(ii):** (Λ + Ξ) (*x*) < 1;

**(iii):**$d\left({T}^{n}x,{T}^{n}y\right)\precsim \Lambda \left(x\right)d\left(x,y\right)+\frac{\Xi \left(x\right)d\left(x,{T}^{n}x\right)d\left(y,{T}^{n}y\right)}{1+d\left(x,y\right)}$.

*Then T has a unique fixed point*.

*Proof*. From Corollary 3.3, we get

*T*

^{ n }has a unique fixed point

*z*. It follows from

that *Tz* is a fixed point of *T*^{
n
}. Therefore *Tz* = *z* by the uniqueness of a fixed point of *T*^{
n
}and then *z* is also a fixed point of *T*. Since the fixed point of *T* is also fixed point of *T*^{
n
}, the fixed point of *T* is unique.

**Corollary 3.6**. [[24],

*Corollary 6] Let*(

*X, d*)

*be a complete complex valued metric space and S, T*:

*X*→

*X. If T satisfy*

*for all x, y* ∈ *X for some n* ∈ ℕ, *where λ, μ are nonnegative reals with* λ + *μ* < 1. *Then T has a unique fixed point*.

*Proof*. We can prove this result by applying Theorem 3.5 with Λ(*x*) = λ and Ξ(*x*) = *μ*.

Next, we prove a common fixed point theorem for weakly compatible mappings in complex valued metric spaces.

**Theorem 3.7**. *Let* (*X, d*) *be a complex valued metric space, S, T* : *X* → *X such that T*(*X*) ⊆ *S*(*X*) *and S*(*X*) *is complete. If there exists two mappings* Λ, Ξ : *X* → [0,1) *such that for all x, y* ∈ *X:*

**(i):** Λ(*Tx*) ≤ Λ(*Sx*) *and* Ξ(*Tx*) ≤ Ξ(*Sx*);

**(ii):** (Λ + Ξ) (*Sx*) < 1;

**(iii):**$d\left(Tx,Ty\right)\precsim \Lambda \left(Sx\right)d\left(Sx,Sy\right)+\frac{\Xi \left(Sx\right)d\left(Sx,Tx\right)d\left(Sy,Ty\right)}{1+d\left(Sx,Sy\right)}$.

*Then S and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if S and T are weakly compatible, then S and T have a unique common fixed point in X*.

*Proof*. By Lemma 2.14, there exists

*E*⊆

*X*such that

*S*(

*E*) =

*S*(

*X*) and

*S*:

*E*→

*X*is one-to-one. Since

*S*(

*E*) →

*S*(

*E*) by

*S*is one-to-one on

*E*, then Θ is well-defined. From (i) and (3.15), we have

for all *Sx, Sy* ∈ *S*(*E*). From *S*(*E*) = *S*(*X*) is complete and (3.16) and (3.17) are holds, we use Corollary 3.3 with a mapping Θ, then there exists a unique fixed point *z* ∈ *S*(*X*) such that Θ*z* = *z*. Since *z* ∈ *S*(*X*), we have *z* = *Sw* for some *w* ∈ *X*. So Θ(*Sw*) = *Sw* that is *Tw* = *Sw*. Therefore, *T* and *S* have a unique point of coincidence.

*S*and

*T*have a common fixed point. Since

*S*and

*T*are weakly compatible and

*z*=

*Tw*=

*Sw*, we get

Hence *Sz* = *Tz* is a point of coincidence of *S* and *T*. Since *z* is the only point of coincidence of *S* and *T*, we get *z* = *Sz* = *Tz* which implies that *z* is a common fixed point of *S* and *T*.

*z*is a unique common fixed point of

*S*and

*T*. Assume that

*t*be another common fixed point that is

Thus *t* is also a point of coincidence of *S* and *T*. However, we know that *z* is a unique point of coincidence of *S* and *T*. Therefore, we get *t* = *z* that is *z* is a unique common fixed point of *S* and *T*.

## 4. Applications

In this section, we apply Theorem 3.1 to the existence of common solution of the system of Urysohn integral equations.

**Theorem 4.1**.

*Let X*=

*C*([

*a, b*], ℝ

^{ n }),

*where*[

*a, b*] ⊆ ℝ

^{+}

*and d*:

*X*×

*X*→ ℂ

*is define by*

*Consider the Urysohn integral equations*

*where t* ∈ [*a, b*] ⊂ ℝ *and x, g, h* ∈ *X*.

*Suppose that K*

_{1}

*, K*

_{2}: [

*a, b*] × [

*a, b*] × ℝ

^{ n }→ ℝ

^{ n }

*are such that F*

_{ x },

*G*

_{ x }∈

*X for all x*∈

*X, where*

*and*

*for all t* ∈ [*a, b*].

*If there exists two mappings*Λ,Ξ :

*X*→ [0,1)

*such that for all x, y*∈

*X the following holds:*

- (i)
Λ(

*F*_{ x }+*g*) ≤ Λ(*x*)*and*Ξ(*F*_{ x }+*g*) ≤ Ξ(*x*); - (ii)
Λ(

*G*_{ x }+*h*) ≤ Λ(*x*)*and*Ξ(*G*_{ x }+*h*) ≤ Ξ(*x*); - (iii)
(Λ + Ξ)(

*x*) < 1; - (iv)${\u2225{F}_{x}\left(t\right)-{G}_{y}\left(t\right)+g\left(t\right)-h\left(t\right)\u2225}_{\infty}\sqrt{1+{a}^{2}}{e}^{i{\text{tan}}^{-1}a}\precsim \Lambda \left(x\right)A\left(x,y\right)\left(t\right)+\Xi \left(x\right)B\left(x,y\right)\left(t\right)$
*, where*$A\left(x,y\right)\left(t\right)={\u2225x\left(t\right)-y\left(t\right)\u2225}_{\infty}\sqrt{1+{a}^{2}}{e}^{i{\text{tan}}^{-1}a}$,$B\left(x,y\right)\left(t\right)=\frac{{\u2225{F}_{x}\left(t\right)+g\left(t\right)-x\left(t\right)\u2225}_{\infty}{\u2225{G}_{y}\left(t\right)+h\left(t\right)-y\left(t\right)\u2225}_{\infty}}{1+d\left(x,y\right)}\sqrt{1+{a}^{2}}{e}^{i{\text{tan}}^{-1}a},$

*then the system of integral Equations (4.1) and (4.2) have a unique common solution*.

*Proof*. It is easily to check that (

*X, d*) is a complex valued metric space. Define two mappings

*S, T*:

*X*×

*X*→

*X by Sx*=

*F*

_{ x }+

*g and Tx*=

*G*

_{ x }+

*h*. Then

*x, y*∈

*X*, we have

- (i)
Λ(

*Sx*) ≤ Λ(*x*) and Ξ(*Sx*) ≤ Ξ(*x*); - (ii)
Λ(

*Tx*) ≤ Λ(*x*) and Ξ(*Tx*) ≤ Ξ(*x*); - (iii)
$d\left(Sx,Ty\right)\precsim \Lambda \left(x\right)d\left(x,y\right)+\frac{\Xi \left(x\right)d\left(x,Sx\right)d\left(y,Ty\right)}{1+d\left(x,y\right)}$.

*S*and

*T*have a common fixed point. Thus there exists a unique point

*x*∈

*X*such that

*x*=

*Sx*=

*Tx*. Now, we have

Therefore, we can conclude that the Urysohn integral (4.1) and (4.2) have a unique com mon fixed point

## 5. Conclusion

In this article, we modified and generalized a contraction mapping of Azam et al. [24] and proved some fixed point and common fixed point theorems for new generalization contraction mappings in a complex valued metric space. Although, Theorem 1.1 of Azam et al. [24] is an essential tool in the complex valued metric space to claim the existence of common fixed points of some mappings. However, it is the most interesting to define such mappings Λ and Ξ as another auxiliary tool to claim the existence of a fixed point. In fact, all the main results in this article are some of choices for solving problems in a complex valued metric space. Our results may be the motivation to other authors for extending and improving these results to be suitable tools for their applications.

## Declarations

### Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express his sincere thanks to the anonymous referee for their valuable comments and useful suggestions in improving the manuscript. W. Sintunavarat would like to thank the Research Professional Development Project Under the Science Achievement Scholarship of Thailand (SAST) and the Faculty of Science, KMUTT for financial support during the preparation of this manuscript for the Ph.D. Program at KMUTT. This research was supported by the Higher Education Research Promotion and National Research University Project of Thailand, Office of the Higher Education Commission (NRU-CSEC No. 54000267).

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Banach S: Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leurs applications aux équations intégrales.
*Fund Math*1922, 3: 133–181.Google Scholar - Abbas M, Cho YJ, Nazir T: Common fixed point theorems for four mappings in TVS-valued cone metric spaces.
*J Math Inequal*2011, 5: 287–299.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Cho YJ: Fixed points for compatible mappings of type (
*A*).*Math Japon*1993, 18: 497–508.Google Scholar - Cho YJ, Saadati R, Wang S: Common fixed point theorems on generalized distance in order cone metric spaces.
*Comput Math Appl*2011, 61: 1254–1260. 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.01.004MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Graily E, Vaezpour SM, Saadati R, Cho YJ: Generalization of fixed point theorems in ordered metric spaces concerning generalized distance.
*Fixed Point Theory Appl*2011, 2011: 30. 10.1186/1687-1812-2011-30MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Kaewkhao A, Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Common fixed point theorems of
*c*-distance on cone metric spaces.*J Nonlinear Anal Appl*2012, 2012: 11.Google Scholar - Marsh MM: Fixed point theorems for partially outward mappings.
*Topol Appl*2006, 153: 3546–3554. 10.1016/j.topol.2006.03.019MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Mongkolkeha C, Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Fixed point theorems for contraction mappings in modular metric spaces.
*Fixed Point Theory Appl*2011, 2011: 93. 10.1186/1687-1812-2011-93MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Marsh MM, Prajs JR: Brush spaces and the fixed point property.
*Topol Appl*2011, 158: 1085–1089. 10.1016/j.topol.2011.03.004MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Shahzad N: Fixed point results for multimaps in CAT(0) spaces.
*Topol Appl*2009, 156: 997–1001. 10.1016/j.topol.2008.11.016MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Weak condition for generalized multi-valued (
*f, α, β*)-weak contraction mappings.*Appl Math Lett*2011, 24: 460–465. 10.1016/j.aml.2010.10.042MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Gregus type fixed points for a tangential multi-valued mappings satisfying contractive conditions of integral type.
*J Inequal Appl*2011, 2011: 3. 10.1186/1029-242X-2011-3View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Common fixed point theorems for hybrid generalized multi-valued contraction mappings.
*Appl Math Lett*2012, 25: 52–57. 10.1016/j.aml.2011.05.047MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Sintunavarat W, Kumam P:Common fixed point theorems for generalized $\mathcal{J}\mathscr{H}$-operator classes and invariant approximations.
*J Inequal Appl*2011, 2011: 67. 10.1186/1029-242X-2011-67View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Common fixed point theorem for cyclic generalized multi-valued contraction mappings.
*Appl Math Lett*2012, in press.Google Scholar - Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Common fixed points for
*R*-weakly commuting in fuzzy metric spaces.*Annali dell'Universita di Ferrara*2012, in press.Google Scholar - Zhao X: Fixed point classes on symmetric product spaces.
*Topol Appl*2010, 157: 1859–1871. 10.1016/j.topol.2010.02.022View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Kirk WA: Some recent results in metric fixed point theory.
*J Fixed Point Theory Appl*2007, 2: 195–207. 10.1007/s11784-007-0031-8MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Semple C, Steel M: Phylogenetics, Oxford Lecture Ser. In
*Math Appl*.*Volume 24*. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford; 2003.Google Scholar - Perov AI: On the Cauchy problem for a system of ordinary difierential equations.
*Pvi-blizhen Met Reshen Diff Uvavn*1964, 2: 115–134.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Mustafa Z, Sims B: A new approach to generalized metric spaces.
*J Nonlinear Convex Anal*2006, 7(2):289–297.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Huang LG, Zhang X: Cone metric spaces and fixed point theorems of contractive mappings.
*J Math Anal Appl*2007, 332: 1468–1476. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.03.087MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Chistyakov VV: Modular metric spaces, I: basic concepts.
*Nonlinear Anal*2010, 72: 1–14. 10.1016/j.na.2009.04.057MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Azam A, Brian F, Khan M: Common Fixed Point Theorems in Complex Valued Metric Spaces.
*Numer Funct Anal Optim*2011, 32(3):243–253. 10.1080/01630563.2011.533046MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Jungck G: Commuting maps and fixed points.
*Am Math Monthly*1976, 83: 261–263. 10.2307/2318216MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Sessa S: On a weak commutativity condition of mappings in fixed point consideration.
*Publ Inst Math*1982, 32(46):149–153.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Jungck G: Compatible mappings and common fixed points.
*Int J Math Math Sci*1986, 9: 771–779. 10.1155/S0161171286000935MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Jungck G: Compatible mappings and common fixed points (2).
*Int J Math Math Sci*1988, 11: 285–288. 10.1155/S0161171288000341MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Jungck G: Common fixed points of commuting and compatible maps on compacta.
*Proc Am Math Soc*1988, 103: 977–983. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1988-0947693-2MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Jungck G: Common fixed points for non-continuous non-self mappings on a non-numeric spaces.
*Far East J Math Sci*1996, 4(2):199–212.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Djoudi A, Nisse L: Gregus type fixed points for weakly compatible maps.
*Bull Belg Math Soc Simon Stevin*2003, 10(3):369–378.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Haghi RH, Rezapour Sh, Shahzadb N: Some fixed point generalizations are not real generalizations.
*Nonlinear Anal*2011, 74: 1799–1803. 10.1016/j.na.2010.10.052MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar

## Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.