 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Unified fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces via common limit range property
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2013, Article number: 182 (2013)
Abstract
The object of this paper is to utilize the notion of common limit range property to prove unified fixed point theorems for weakly compatible mappings in fuzzy metric spaces satisfying an implicit relation due to Rao et al. (Hacet. J. Math. Stat. 37(2):97106, 2008). Some illustrative examples are furnished which demonstrate the validity of the hypotheses and degree of utility of our results. As an application to our main result, we prove an integral type fixed point theorem in fuzzy metric space.
MSC:54H25, 47H10.
1 Introduction
The concept of a fuzzy set was introduced by Zadeh [1] in his seminal paper in 1965. In the last two decades, there has been a tremendous development and growth in fuzzy mathematics. In 1975, Kramosil and Michalek [2] introduced the concept of fuzzy metric space, which opened an avenue for further development of analysis in such spaces. Further, George and Veeramani [3] modified the concept of fuzzy metric space introduced by Kramosil and Michalek [2] with a view to obtain a Hausdorff topology on it. Fuzzy set theory has applications in applied sciences such as neural network theory, stability theory, mathematical programming, modeling theory, engineering sciences, medical sciences (medical genetics, nervous system), image processing, control theory, communication, etc.
Mishra et al. [4] extended the notion of compatible mappings to fuzzy metric spaces and proved common fixed point theorems in presence of continuity of at least one of the mappings, completeness of the underlying space and containment of the ranges amongst involved mappings. Further, Singh and Jain [5] weakened the notion of compatibility by using the notion of weakly compatible mappings in fuzzy metric spaces and showed that every pair of compatible mappings is weakly compatible but reverse is not true. Many mathematicians used different contractive conditions on selfmappings and proved several fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces (see [5–13]). However, the study of common fixed points of noncompatible mappings is also of great interest due to Pant [14]. In 2002, Aamri and Moutawakil [15] defined the notion of property (E.A) for a pair of selfmappings which contains the class of noncompatible mappings. In an interesting paper of Ali and Imdad [16], it was pointed out that property (E.A) allows replacing the completeness requirement of the space with a more natural condition of closedness of the range. Afterward, Liu et al. [17] defined a new property which contains the property (E.A) and proved some common fixed point theorems under hybrid contractive conditions. It was observed that the notion of common property (E.A) relatively relaxes the requirement on containment of the range of one mapping into the range of other which is utilized to construct the sequence of joint iterates. Subsequently, there are a number of results proved for contraction mappings satisfying property (E.A) and common property (E.A) in fuzzy metric spaces (see [18–26]). In 2011, Sintunavarat and Kumam [27] coined the idea of ’common limit range property’ (also see [28–32]), which relaxes the condition of closedness of the underlying subspace. Recently, Imdad et al. [33] extended the notion of common limit range property to two pairs of selfmappings without any requirement on closedness of the underlying subspaces. Several common fixed point theorems have been proved by many researchers in framework of fuzzy metric spaces via implicit relations (see [5, 18, 23, 34]).
In this paper, by using an implicit relation due to Rao et al. [12], we prove some common fixed point theorems for weakly compatible mappings with common limit range property. Some related results are also derived besides furnishing illustrative examples. We also present an integral type common fixed point theorem in fuzzy metric space. Our results improve, extend and generalize a host of previously known results including the ones contained in Rao et al. [12].
2 Preliminaries
Definition 2.1 [35]
A triangular norm ∗ (shortly tnorm) is a binary operation on the unit interval [0,1] such that for all a,b,c,d\in [0,1] and the following conditions are satisfied:

(1)
a\ast 1=a,

(2)
a\ast b=b\ast a,

(3)
a\ast b\le c\ast d whenever a\le c and b\le d,

(4)
(a\ast b)\ast c=a\ast (b\ast c).
Two typical examples of continuous tnorms are a\ast b=min\{a,b\} and a\ast b=ab.
Definition 2.2 [3]
A 3tuple (X,M,\ast ) is said to be a fuzzy metric space if X is an arbitrary set, ∗ is a continuous tnorm and M is a fuzzy set on {X}^{2}\times (0,\mathrm{\infty}) satisfying the following conditions: for all x,y,z\in X, t,s>0,

(1)
M(x,y,t)>0,

(2)
M(x,y,t)=1 iff x=y,

(3)
M(x,y,t)=M(y,x,t),

(4)
M(x,z,t+s)\ge M(x,y,t)\ast M(y,z,s),

(5)
M(x,y,\cdot ):(0,\mathrm{\infty})\to (0,1] is continuous.
Then M is called a fuzzy metric on X whereas M(x,y,t) denotes the degree of nearness between x and y with respect to t.
Let (X,M,\ast ) be a fuzzy metric space. For t>0, the open ball \mathcal{B}(x,r,t) with center x\in X and radius 0<r<1 is defined by
Now let (X,M,\ast ) be a fuzzy metric space and τ the set of all A\subset X with x\in A if and only if there exist t>0 and 0<r<1 such that \mathcal{B}(x,r,t)\subset A. Then τ is a topology on X induced by the fuzzy metric M.
In the following example (see [3]), we know that every metric induces a fuzzy metric.
Example 2.1 Let (X,d) be a metric space. Denote a\ast b=ab (or a\ast b=min\{a,b\}) for all a,b\in [0,1] and let {M}_{d} be fuzzy sets on {X}^{2}\times (0,\mathrm{\infty}) defined as follows:
Then (X,{M}_{d},\ast ) is a fuzzy metric space and the fuzzy metric M induced by the metric d is often referred to as the standard fuzzy metric.
Lemma 2.1 [36]
Let (X,M,\ast ) be a fuzzy metric space. Then M(x,y,t) is nondecreasing for all x,y\in X.
Definition 2.3 [4]
A pair (A,S) of selfmappings of a fuzzy metric space (X,M,\ast ) is said to be compatible iff M(AS{x}_{n},SA{x}_{n},t)\to 1 for all t>0, whenever \{{x}_{n}\} is a sequence in X such that A{x}_{n},S{x}_{n}\to z for some z\in X as n\to \mathrm{\infty}.
Definition 2.4 [37]
A pair (A,S) of selfmappings of a nonempty set X is said to be weakly compatible (or coincidentally commuting) if they commute at their coincidence points, that is, if Az=Sz some z\in X, then ASz=SAz.
Remark 2.1 [37]
Two compatible selfmappings are weakly compatible but the converse is not true. Hence, the notion of weak compatibility is more general than compatibility.
Definition 2.5 [19]
A pair (A,S) of selfmappings of a fuzzy metric space (X,M,\ast ) is said to satisfy the property (E.A), if there exists a sequence \{{x}_{n}\} in X for some z\in X such that
for some z\in X.
Note that weak compatibility and property (E.A) are independent to each other (see [[38], Examples 2.12.2]).
Remark 2.2 From Definition 2.3, it is inferred that a pair (A,S) of selfmappings of a fuzzy metric space (X,M,\ast ) is said to be noncompatible iff there exists at least one sequence \{{x}_{n}\} in X such that {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}A{x}_{n}={lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}S{x}_{n}=z for some z\in X, but for some t>0, {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}M(AS{x}_{n},SA{x}_{n},t) is either less than 1 or nonexistent.
Therefore, in view of Definition 2.5, a pair of noncompatible mappings of a fuzzy metric space (X,M,\ast ) satisfies the property (E.A) but the converse need not be true (see [[38], Remark 4.8]).
Definition 2.6 [19]
Two pairs (A,S) and (B,T) of selfmappings of a fuzzy metric space (X,M,\ast ) are said to satisfy the common property (E.A), if there exist two sequences \{{x}_{n}\}, \{{y}_{n}\} in X such that
for some z\in X.
Definition 2.7 [27]
A pair (A,S) of selfmappings of a fuzzy metric space (X,M,\ast ) is said to satisfy the common limit range property with respect to mapping S (briefly, ({\mathit{CLR}}_{S}) property), if there exists a sequence \{{x}_{n}\} in X such that
where z\in S(X).
Definition 2.8 [28]
Two pairs (A,S) and (B,T) of selfmappings of a fuzzy metric space (X,M,\ast ) are said to satisfy the common limit range property with respect to mappings S and T (briefly, ({\mathit{CLR}}_{\mathit{ST}}) property), if there exist two sequences \{{x}_{n}\}, \{{y}_{n}\} in X such that
where z\in S(X)\cap T(X).
Definition 2.9 [39]
Two families of selfmappings {\{{A}_{i}\}}_{i=1}^{m} and {\{{S}_{k}\}}_{k=1}^{n} are said to be pairwise commuting if

(1)
{A}_{i}{A}_{j}={A}_{j}{A}_{i} for all i,j\in \{1,2,\dots ,m\},

(2)
{S}_{k}{S}_{l}={S}_{l}{S}_{k} for all k,l\in \{1,2,\dots ,n\},

(3)
{A}_{i}{S}_{k}={S}_{k}{A}_{i} for all i\in \{1,2,\dots ,m\} and k\in \{1,2,\dots ,n\}.
Lemma 2.2 [4]
Let (X,M,\ast ) be a fuzzy metric space with t\ast t\ge t for all t\in [0,1]. If there exists a constant k\in (0,1) such that
for all x,y\in X, then x=y.
3 Implicit function
Following by Rao et al. [12], let {\mathrm{\Phi}}_{6} denote the set of all continuous functions \varphi :{[0,1]}^{6}\to \mathbb{R} satisfying the conditions:
({\varphi}_{1}) ϕ is decreasing in {t}_{2}, {t}_{3}, {t}_{4}, {t}_{5} and {t}_{6}.
({\varphi}_{2}) \varphi (u,v,v,v,v,v)\ge 0 implies u\ge v for all u,v\in [0,1].
Example 3.1 \varphi ({t}_{1},{t}_{2},{t}_{3},{t}_{4},{t}_{5},{t}_{6})={t}_{1}min\{{t}_{2},{t}_{3},{t}_{4},{t}_{5},{t}_{6}\}.
Example 3.2 \varphi ({t}_{1},{t}_{2},{t}_{3},{t}_{4},{t}_{5},{t}_{6})={t}_{1}^{2}min\{{t}_{i}{t}_{j}:i,j\in \{2,3,4,5,6\}\}.
Example 3.3 \varphi ({t}_{1},{t}_{2},{t}_{3},{t}_{4},{t}_{5},{t}_{6})={t}_{1}^{3}min\{{t}_{i}{t}_{j}{t}_{k}:i,j,k\in \{2,3,4,5,6\}\}.
4 Results
We begin with the following observation.
Lemma 4.1 Let (X,M,\ast ) be a fuzzy metric space with t\ast t\ge t for all t\in [0,1]. Let A, B, S and T be mappings from X into itself satisfying:

(1)
The pair (A,S) (or (B,T)) satisfies the ({\mathit{CLR}}_{S}) (or ({\mathit{CLR}}_{T})) property,

(2)
A(X)\subset T(X) (or B(X)\subset S(X)),

(3)
T(X) (or S(X)) is a closed subset of X,

(4)
B({y}_{n}) converges for every sequence \{{y}_{n}\} in X whenever T({y}_{n}) converges (or A({x}_{n}) converges for every sequence \{{x}_{n}\} in X whenever S({x}_{n}) converges),

(5)
there exists a constant k\in (0,1) such that
\varphi \left(\begin{array}{c}M(Ax,By,kt),M(Sx,Ty,t),M(Ax,Sx,t),\\ M(By,Ty,t),M(Ax,Ty,t),M(By,Sx,t)\end{array}\right)\ge 0(4.1)
for all x,y\in X, t>0 and \varphi \in {\mathrm{\Phi}}_{6}.
Then the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) share the ({\mathit{CLR}}_{\mathit{ST}}) property.
Proof Since the pair (A,S) enjoys the ({\mathit{CLR}}_{S}) property, there exists a sequence \{{x}_{n}\} in X such that
where z\in S(X). By (2), A(X)\subset T(X), and for each sequence \{{x}_{n}\} there exists a sequence \{{y}_{n}\} in X such that A{x}_{n}=T{y}_{n}. Therefore, due to the closedness of T(X),
where z\in S(X)\cap T(X). Thus, we have A{x}_{n}\to z, S{x}_{n}\to z and T{y}_{n}\to z as n\to \mathrm{\infty}. By (4), the sequence \{B{y}_{n}\} converges and in all we need to show that B{y}_{n}\to z as n\to \mathrm{\infty}. Let, on the contrary that B{y}_{n}\to {z}^{\mathrm{\prime}} (≠z) as n\to \mathrm{\infty}. On using inequality (4.1) with x={x}_{n}, y={y}_{n}, we have
Taking the limit as n\to \mathrm{\infty}, we have
or, equivalently,
Since ϕ is decreasing in {t}_{2},\dots ,{t}_{6}, we get
From ({\varphi}_{2}), we have M(z,{z}^{\mathrm{\prime}},kt)\ge M(z,{z}^{\mathrm{\prime}},t). Appealing to Lemma 2.2, we obtain z={z}^{\mathrm{\prime}}. Therefore, {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}B{y}_{n}=z and hence the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) satisfy the ({\mathit{CLR}}_{\mathit{ST}}) property. □
Remark 4.1 The converse of Lemma 4.1 is not true in general. For a counter example, we refer to Example 4.1.
Theorem 4.1 Let (X,M,\ast ) be a fuzzy metric space with t\ast t\ge t for all t\in [0,1]. Let A, B, S and T be mappings from X into itself satisfying inequality (4.1). Suppose that the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) enjoy the ({\mathit{CLR}}_{\mathit{ST}}) property. Then the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) have a coincidence point each. Moreover, A,B, S and T have a unique common fixed point provided both the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) are weakly compatible.
Proof Since the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) satisfy the ({\mathit{CLR}}_{\mathit{ST}}) property, there exist two sequences \{{x}_{n}\} and \{{y}_{n}\} in X such that
where z\in S(X)\cap T(X). Since z\in S(X), there exists a point u\in X such that Su=z. First we show that Au=Su, by putting x=u and y={y}_{n} in (4.1), we get
which on making n\to \mathrm{\infty}, reduces to
and so,
From ({\varphi}_{1}) and ({\varphi}_{2}), we have M(Au,z,kt)\ge M(Au,z,t). In view of Lemma 2.2, Au=z, and hence Au=Su=z which shows that u is a coincidence point of the pair (A,S).
Also z\in T(X), there exists a point v\in X such that Tv=z. Now we assert that Bv=Tv. On using (4.1) with x=u, y=v, we have
which reduces to
or, equivalently,
From ({\varphi}_{1}) and ({\varphi}_{2}), we have M(z,Bv,kt)\ge M(z,Bv,t). On employing Lemma 2.2, we have z=bv. Hence, Bv=Tv=z which shows that v is a coincidence point of the pair (B,T).
Since the pair (A,S) is weakly compatible and Au=Su, hence Az=ASu=SAu=Sz. Now, we show that z is a common fixed point of the pair (A,S). Putting x=z and y=v in (4.1), we have
and so
or, equivalently,
From ({\varphi}_{1}) and ({\varphi}_{2}), we have M(Az,z,kt)\ge M(Az,z,t). Owing Lemma 2.2, Az=z=Sz, which shows that z is a common fixed point of the pair (A,S).
Also the pair (B,T) is weakly compatible and Bv=Tv, then Bz=BTv=TBv=Tz. On using (4.1) with x=u, y=z, we have
which reduces to
and so
From ({\varphi}_{1}) and ({\varphi}_{2}), we have M(z,Bz,kt)\ge M(z,Bz,t). In view of Lemma 2.2, Bz=z=Tz. Hence, z is a common fixed point of the pair (B,T). Therefore, z is a common fixed point of the mappings A, B, S and T. The uniqueness of common fixed point is an easy consequence of the inequality (4.1) in view of ({\varphi}_{1}) and ({\varphi}_{2}). □
Remark 4.2 Theorem 4.1 improves the results of Aalam et al. [[18], Theorem 3.1], Rao et al. [[12], Theorem 3.1] and Chauhan and Kumar [[20], Theorem 3.1] as Theorem 4.1 never requires conditions on completeness (or closedness) of the underlying space (or subspace), continuity of the involved mappings and containment amongst range sets of the involved mappings.
Example 4.1 Let (X,M,\ast ) be a fuzzy metric space, where X=[1,15), with tnorm defined a\ast b=min\{a,b\} for all a,b\in [0,1] and
for all t>0 and x,y\in X. Define the selfmappings A, B, S and T by
We have A(X)=\{1,14\}\u2288[1,13)=T(X) and B(X)=\{1,5\}\u2288[1,4)=S(X) which shows that S(X) and T(X) are not closed subsets of X. Consider \varphi :{[0,1]}^{6}\to \mathbb{R} as defined in Examples 3.13.3. If we choose two sequences \{{x}_{n}\}=\{3+\frac{1}{n}\}, \{{y}_{n}\}=\{1\} (or \{{x}_{n}\}=\{1\}, \{{y}_{n}\}=\{3+\frac{1}{n}\}), then clearly
Hence, both the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) satisfy the ({\mathit{CLR}}_{\mathit{ST}}) property. By a routine calculation, one can verify the inequality (4.1). Thus, all the conditions of Theorem 4.1 are satisfied for some fixed k\in (0,1) and 1 is a unique common fixed point of the pairs (A,S) and (B,T), which also remains a point of coincidence as well. Also, all the involved mappings are even discontinuous at their unique common fixed point 1.
Theorem 4.2 Let (X,M,\ast ) be a fuzzy metric space with t\ast t\ge t for all t\in [0,1]. Let A, B, S and T be mappings from X into itself. Suppose that the inequality (4.1) and the following hypotheses hold:

(1)
the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) satisfy the common property (E.A),

(2)
S(X) and T(X) are closed subsets of X.
Then the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) have a coincidence point each. Moreover, A, B, S and T have a unique common fixed point provided both the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) are weakly compatible.
Proof Since the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) enjoy the common property (E.A), there exist two sequences \{{x}_{n}\} and \{{y}_{n}\} in X such that
for some z\in X. Since S(X) is a closed subset of X, hence {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}S{x}_{n}=z\in S(X). Therefore, there exists a point u\in X such that Su=z. Also, T(X) is a closed subset of X, {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}T{y}_{n}=z\in T(X). Therefore, there exists a point v\in X such that Tv=z. The rest of the proof runs on the lines of the proof of Theorem 4.1. □
Example 4.2 In the setting of Example 4.1, replace the selfmappings A, B, S and T by the following besides retaining the rest:
Then we have A(X)=\{1,14\}\u2288[1,13]=T(X) and B(X)=\{1,5\}\u2288[1,4]=S(X), hence S(X) and T(X) are closed subsets of X.
Consider two sequences as in Example 4.1, one can see that both the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) enjoy the common property (E.A), that is,
Therefore, all the conditions of Theorem 4.2 are satisfied for some fixed k\in (0,1) and 1 is a unique common fixed point of the pairs (A,S) and (B,T), which also remains a point of coincidence as well.
Theorem 4.3 Let (X,M,\ast ) be a fuzzy metric space with t\ast t\ge t for all t\in [0,1]. Let A, B, S and T be mappings from X into itself satisfying all the hypotheses of Lemma 4.1. Then the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) have a coincidence point each. Moreover, A, B, S and T have a unique common fixed point provided both the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) are weakly compatible.
Proof In view of Lemma 4.1, the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) satisfy the ({\mathit{CLR}}_{\mathit{ST}}) property, there exist two sequences \{{x}_{n}\} and \{{y}_{n}\} in X such that
where z\in S(X)\cap T(X). The rest of the proof can be completed on the lines of the proof of Theorem 4.1. □
Example 4.3 In the setting of Example 4.1, replace the selfmappings A, B, S and T by the following besides retaining the rest:
We obtain A(X)=\{1,5\}\subset [1,13]=T(X) and B(X)=\{1,4\}\subset [1,4]=S(X), which shows that S(X) and T(X) are closed subsets of X. By a routine calculation, one can easily verify the inequality (4.1) for all x,y\in X and for some fixed k\in (0,1). Thus, all the conditions of Theorem 4.3 are satisfied and 1 is a unique common fixed point of (A,S) and (B,T), which also remains a point of coincidence as well.
Here, it is worth noting that the majority of earlier proved results Theorem 4.1 cannot be used in the context of this example as Theorem 4.1 never requires any condition on the containment of ranges amongst involved mappings.
Remark 4.3 The conclusions of Lemma 4.1, Theorem 4.1, Theorem 4.2, Corollary 4.1 and Theorem 4.3 remain true if we define \varphi ({t}_{1},{t}_{2},{t}_{3},{t}_{4},{t}_{5},{t}_{6}) as in Examples 3.13.3.
Remark 4.4 Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 4.3 (in view of Example 3.1) improve and generalize the results of Mishra et al. [[4], Theorem 1].
By choosing A, B, S and T suitably, we can drive a multitude of common fixed point theorems for a pair or triod of mappings. As a sample, we deduce the following natural result for a pair of selfmappings.
Corollary 4.1 Let (X,M,\ast ) be a fuzzy metric space with t\ast t\ge t for all t\in [0,1]. Let A and S be mappings from X into itself satisfying the following conditions:

(1)
the pair (A,S) satisfies the ({\mathit{CLR}}_{S}) property,

(2)
there exists a constant k\in (0,1) such that
\varphi \left(\begin{array}{c}M(Ax,Ay,kt),M(Sx,Sy,t),M(Ax,Sx,t),\\ M(Ay,Sy,t),M(Ax,Sy,t),M(Ay,Sx,t)\end{array}\right)\ge 0(4.2)
for all x,y\in X, t>0 and \varphi \in {\mathrm{\Phi}}_{6}.
Then A and S have a coincidence point. Moreover, if the pair (A,S) is weakly compatible, then A and S have a unique common fixed point.
Remark 4.5 Corollary 4.1 (in view of Example 3.1) generalizes the results of Miheţ [[25], Theorem 3.1].
As an application of Theorem 4.2, we have the following result involving four finite families of selfmappings.
Theorem 4.4 Let (X,M,\ast ) be a fuzzy metric space with t\ast t\ge t for all t\in [0,1]. Let {\{{A}_{i}\}}_{i=1}^{m}, {\{{B}_{r}\}}_{r=1}^{n}, {\{{S}_{k}\}}_{k=1}^{p} and {\{{T}_{g}\}}_{g=1}^{q} be four finite families from X into itself such that A={A}_{1}{A}_{2}\cdots {A}_{m}, B={B}_{1}{B}_{2}\cdots {B}_{n}, S={S}_{1}{S}_{2}\cdots {S}_{p} and T={T}_{1}{T}_{2}\cdots {T}_{q} which satisfy the inequality (4.1). If the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) satisfy the ({\mathit{CLR}}_{\mathit{ST}}) property, then (A,S) and (B,T) have a point of coincidence each.
Moreover, {\{{A}_{i}\}}_{i=1}^{m}, {\{{B}_{r}\}}_{r=1}^{n}, {\{{S}_{k}\}}_{k=1}^{p} and {\{{T}_{g}\}}_{g=1}^{q} have a unique common fixed point provided the pairs of families (\{{A}_{i}\},\{{S}_{k}\}) and (\{{B}_{r}\},\{{T}_{g}\}) are commute pairwise, where i\in \{1,2,\dots ,m\}, k\in \{1,2,\dots ,p\}, r\in \{1,2,\dots ,n\} and g\in \{1,2,\dots ,q\}.
Proof The proof of this theorem is similar to that of Theorem 3.1 contained in Imdad et al. [39], hence details are avoided. □
Now, we indicate that Theorem 4.4 can be utilized to derive common fixed point theorems for any finite number of mappings. As a sample for five mappings, we can derive the following by setting one family of two members while the remaining three of single members.
Corollary 4.2 Let (X,M,\ast ) be a fuzzy metric space with t\ast t\ge t for all t\in [0,1]. Let A, B, R, S and T be mappings from X into itself and satisfy the following conditions:

(1)
the pairs (A,SR) and (B,T) share the ({\mathit{CLR}}_{(SR)(T)}) property,

(2)
there exists a constant k\in (0,1) such that
\varphi \left(\begin{array}{c}M(Ax,By,kt),M(SRx,THy,t),M(Ax,SRx,t),\\ M(By,THy,t),M(Ax,THy,t),M(By,SRx,t)\end{array}\right)\ge 0(4.3)
for all x,y\in X, t>0 and \varphi \in {\mathrm{\Phi}}_{6}.
Then the pairs (A,SR) and (B,T) have a coincidence point each. Moreover, A, B, R, S and T have a unique common fixed point provided the pairs (A,SR) and (B,T) commute pairwise (that is, AS=SA, AR=RA, SR=RS and BT=TB).
Similarly, we can derive a common fixed point theorem for six mappings by setting two families of two members while the rest two of single members.
Corollary 4.3 Let (X,M,\ast ) be a fuzzy metric space with t\ast t\ge t for all t\in [0,1]. Let A, B, R, S, H and T be mappings from X into itself and satisfy the following conditions:

(1)
the pairs (A,SR) and (B,TH) enjoy the ({\mathit{CLR}}_{(SR)(TH)}) property,

(2)
there exists a constant k\in (0,1) such that
\varphi \left(\begin{array}{c}M(Ax,By,kt),M(SRx,THy,t),M(Ax,SRx,t),\\ M(By,THy,t),M(Ax,THy,t),M(By,SRx,t)\end{array}\right)\ge 0(4.4)
for all x,y\in X, t>0 and \varphi \in {\mathrm{\Phi}}_{6}.
Then the pairs (A,SR) and (B,TH) have a coincidence point each. Moreover, A, B, R, S, H and T have a unique common fixed point provided the pairs (A,SR) and (B,TH) commute pairwise (that is, AS=SA, AR=RA, SR=RS, BT=TB, BH=HB and TH=HT).
By setting {A}_{1}={A}_{2}=\cdots ={A}_{m}=A, {B}_{1}={B}_{2}=\cdots ={B}_{n}=B, {S}_{1}={S}_{2}=\cdots ={S}_{p}=S and {T}_{1}={T}_{2}=\cdots ={T}_{q}=T in Theorem 4.4, we deduce the following.
Corollary 4.4 Let (X,M,\ast ) be a fuzzy metric space with t\ast t\ge t for all t\in [0,1]. Let A, B, S and T be mappings from X into itself such that the pairs ({A}^{m},{S}^{p}) and ({B}^{n},{T}^{q}) share the ({\mathit{CLR}}_{{S}^{p},{T}^{q}}) property. Suppose that there exists a constant k\in (0,1) such that
for all x,y\in X, t>0, \varphi \in {\mathrm{\Phi}}_{6} and m, n, p, q are fixed positive integers.
Then the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) have a point of coincidence each. Further, A, B, S and T have a unique common fixed point provided both the pairs ({A}^{m},{S}^{p}) and ({B}^{n},{T}^{q}) commute pairwise.
Remark 4.6 Theorem 4.4 and Corollary 4.4 generalize and extend the results of Abbas et al. [[19], Theorem 2.3, Corollary 2.5] to finite families of weakly compatible mappings.
5 Related results for contractive conditions of integral type
A study of contractive conditions of integral type has been initiated by Branciari [40], giving an integral version of the Banach contraction principle. Subsequently, several authors proved common fixed point theorems satisfying contractive conditions of integral type (e.g. [41–44]). In this section, we state and prove an integral analogue of Theorem 4.1. First, we need to prove the following lemma in fuzzy metric spaces which is motivated by Altun et al. [45].
Lemma 5.1 Let (X,M,\ast ) be a fuzzy metric space with t\ast t\ge t for all t\in [0,1]. If there exists a constant k\in (0,1) such that for all x,y\in X and all t>0,
where \phi :[0,\mathrm{\infty})\to [0,\mathrm{\infty}) is a summable nonnegative Lebesgue integrable function such that
for each \u03f5\in [0,1), then x=y.
Proof From (5.1), we have
implies
similarly, we can inductively write for n\in \mathbb{N}
as n\to \mathrm{\infty}. Therefore,
and so
or, equivalently,
implying M(x,y,t)\ge 1 for all t\ge 0. Then we get x=y. □
Remark 5.1 By setting \phi (s)=1 for each s\ge 0 in (5.1), we have
which shows that Lemma 5.1 is a generalization of the Lemma 2 contained in [4].
Theorem 5.1 Let (X,M,\ast ) be a fuzzy metric space with t\ast t\ge t for all t\in [0,1]. Let A, B, S and T be mappings from X into itself. Suppose that there exists a function \varphi \in {\mathrm{\Phi}}_{6} satisfying
where \phi :[0,\mathrm{\infty})\to [0,\mathrm{\infty}) is a summable nonnegative Lebesgue integrable function such that for each \u03f5\in [0,1)
implies u\ge v for all u,v\in [0,1]. Suppose that the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) share the ({\mathit{CLR}}_{\mathit{ST}}) property. There exists a constant k\in (0,1) such that
for all x,y\in X and t>0, then the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) have a point of coincidence each. Moreover, A, B, S and T have a unique common fixed point provided both the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) are weakly compatible.
Proof Since the pairs (A,S) and (B,T) share the ({\mathit{CLR}}_{\mathit{ST}}) property, there exist two sequences \{{x}_{n}\} and \{{y}_{n}\} in X such that
where z\in S(X)\cap T(X). Since z\in S(X), there exists a point u\in X such that Su=z. Now we assert that Au=Su. On using (5.3) with x=u, y={y}_{n}, we have
Taking the limit as n\to \mathrm{\infty}, we have
and so
Since ϕ is decreasing in {t}_{2},\dots ,{t}_{6}, we get
From (5.2), we have M(Au,z,kt)\ge M(Au,z,t). Now appealing to Lemma 4.1, Au=z and hence Au=Su=z which shows that u is a coincidence point of the pair (A,S).
Also z\in T(X), therefore, there exists a point v\in X such that Tv=z. Now we show that Bv=Tv. On using (5.3) with x=u, y=v, we have
or, equivalently,
and so
Since ϕ is decreasing in {t}_{2},\dots ,{t}_{6}, we get
From (5.2), we have M(z,Bv,kt)\ge M(z,Bv,t). Owing Lemma 4.1, Bv=z and henceforth Bv=Tv=z. Therefore, v is a coincidence point of the pair (B,T).
Since the pair (A,S) is weakly compatible and Au=Su, therefore, Az=ASu=SAu=Sz. Putting x=z, y=v in (5.3), we get
and so
or, equivalently,
Since ϕ is decreasing in {t}_{2},\dots ,{t}_{6}, we obtain
From (5.2), we have M(Az,z,kt)\ge M(Az,z,t). Using Lemma 4.1, we have Az=z=Sz which shows that z is a common fixed point of the pair (A,S).
Also the pair (B,T) is weakly compatible and Bv=Tv, hence Bz=BTv=TBv=Tz. Now we show that z is a common fixed point of the pair (B,T). In order to accomplish this, putting x=u, y=z in (5.3), we have
and so
which reduces to
Since ϕ is decreasing in {t}_{2},\dots ,{t}_{6}, we get
From (5.2), we have M(z,Bz,kt)\ge M(z,Bz,t). Appealing to Lemma 4.1, we have Bz=z=Tz which shows that z is a common fixed point of the pair (B,T). Hence z is a common fixed point of mappings A, B, S and T. Uniqueness of common fixed point is an easy consequence of the inequality (5.3). □
Remark 5.2 Results similar to Theorem 4.2, Theorem 4.3, Theorem 4.4, Corollary 4.1, Corollary 4.2 and Corollary 4.3 can be outlined in views of Theorem 5.1, but we do not include the details due to repetition. Earlier proved results can also be described in view of Examples 3.13.3 (using Lemma 5.1) which improve the results of Chauhan and Kumar [[20], Theorem 4.1].
Remark 5.3 Theorem 5.1 (in view of Remark 5.2) improves the results of Bhatia [[41], Theorem 3.1], Shao [[43], Theorem 3.2], Murthy et al. [[42], Theorems 2, 3, 5] and extend the result of Sedghi and Shobe [[44], Theorem 2.2].
References
Zadeh LA: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 1965, 8: 338–353. 10.1016/S00199958(65)90241X
Kramosil I, Michálek J: Fuzzy metric and statistical metric spaces. Kybernetika 1975, 11(5):336–344.
George A, Veeramani P: On some result in fuzzy metric space. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1994, 64: 395–399. 10.1016/01650114(94)901627
Mishra SN, Sharma N, Singh SL: Common fixed points of maps on fuzzy metric spaces. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 1994, 17(2):253–258. 10.1155/S0161171294000372
Singh B, Jain S: Semicompatibility and fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric space using implicit relation. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2005, 16: 2617–2629.
Balasubramaniam P, Muralisankar S, Pant RP: Common fixed points of four mappings in a fuzzy metric space. J. Fuzzy Math. 2002, 10(2):379–384.
Beg I, Sedghi S, Shobe N: Fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces. Int. J. Anal. 2013., 2013: Article ID 934145
Chauhan S, Pant BD: Common fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces. Bull. Allahabad Math. Soc. 2012, 27(1):27–43.
Cho YJ: Fixed points in fuzzy metric spaces. J. Fuzzy Math. 1997, 5(4):949–962.
Imdad M, Ali J: Common fixed point theorems in complete fuzzy metric spaces. Math. Commun. 2006, 11(2):153–163.
O’Regan D, Abbas M: Necessary and sufficient conditions for common fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric space. Demonstr. Math. 2009, 42(4):887–900.
Rao KPR, Babu GVR, Fisher B: Common fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces under implicit relations. Hacet. J. Math. Stat. 2008, 37(2):97–106.
Sharma S: Common fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2002, 127(3):345–352. 10.1016/S01650114(01)001129
Pant RP: Common fixed points of four mappings. Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc. 1998, 90(4):281–286.
Aamri M, El Moutawakil D: Some new common fixed point theorems under strict contractive conditions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2002, 270: 181–188. 10.1016/S0022247X(02)000598
Ali J, Imdad M: An implicit function implies several contraction conditions. Sarajevo J. Math. 2008, 17(4):269–285.
Liu Y, Wu J, Li Z: Common fixed points of singlevalued and multivalued maps. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2005, 19: 3045–3055. doi:10.1155/IJMMS.2005.3045
Aalam I, Kumar S, Pant BD: A common fixed point theorem in fuzzy metric space. Bull. Math. Anal. Appl. 2010, 2(4):76–82.
Abbas M, Altun I, Gopal D: Common fixed point theorems for non compatible mappings in fuzzy metric spaces. Bull. Math. Anal. Appl. 2009, 1(2):47–56.
Chauhan S, Kumar S: Coincidence and fixed points in fuzzy metrtc spaces using common property (E.A). Kochi J. Math. 2013, 8: 135–154.
Gopal D, Imdad M, Vetro C: Impact of common property (E.A.) on fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2011., 2011: Article ID 297360. doi:10.1155/2011/297360
Imdad M, Ali J, Hasan M: Common fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces employing common property (E.A.). Math. Comput. Model. 2012, 55(3–4):770–778. 10.1016/j.mcm.2011.09.002
Kumar S, Fisher B: A common fixed point theorem in fuzzy metric space using property (E.A.) and implicit relation. Thai J. Math. 2010, 8(3):439–446.
Kumar S, Chauhan S: Common fixed point theorems using implicit relation and property (E.A) in fuzzy metric spaces. Ann. Fuzzy Math. Inform. 2013, 5(1):107–114.
Miheţ D: Fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces using property (E.A). Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 73(7):2184–2188. 10.1016/j.na.2010.05.044
Pant V, Pant RP: Fixed points in fuzzy metric space for noncompatible maps. Dōngwú Shùlı̌xué Bào 2007, 33(4):647–655.
Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Common fixed point theorems for a pair of weakly compatible mappings in fuzzy metric spaces. J. Appl. Math. 2011., 2011: Article ID 637958
Chauhan S: Fixed points of weakly compatible mappings in fuzzy metric spaces satisfying common limit in the range property. Indian J. Math. 2012, 54(3):375–397.
Chauhan, S, Bhatnagar, S, Radenović, S: Common fixed point theorems for weakly compatible mappings in fuzzy metric spaces. Le Matematiche (2013, in printing)
Chauhan S, Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Common fixed point theorems for weakly compatible mappings in fuzzy metric spaces using (JCLR) property. Appl. Math. 2012, 3(9):976–982. doi:10.4236/am.2012.39145 10.4236/am.2012.39145
Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Common fixed points for R weakly commuting in fuzzy metric spaces. Ann. Univ. Ferrara 2012, 58(2):389–406. 10.1007/s115650120150z
Singh SL, Pant BD, Chauhan S: Fixed point theorems in nonArchimedean Menger PMspaces. J. Nonlinear Anal. Optim. 2012, 3(2):153–160.
Imdad M, Pant BD, Chauhan S:Fixed point theorems in Menger spaces using the ({\mathit{CLR}}_{\mathit{ST}}) property and applications. J. Nonlinear Anal. Optim. 2012, 3(2):225–237.
Imdad M, Ali J: A general fixed point theorem in fuzzy metric spaces via an implicit function. J. Appl. Math. Inform. 2008, 26(3–4):591–603.
Schweizer B, Sklar A NorthHolland Series in Probability and Applied Mathematics. In Probabilistic Metric Spaces. NorthHolland, New York; 1983.
Grabiec M: Fixed points in fuzzy metric spaces. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1988, 27(3):385–389. 10.1016/01650114(88)900644
Jungck G: Common fixed points for noncontinuous nonself maps on nonmetric spaces. Far East J. Math. Sci. 1996, 4(2):199–215.
Pathak HK, López RR, Verma RK: A common fixed point theorem using implicit relation and property (E.A) in metric spaces. Filomat 2007, 21(2):211–234. 10.2298/FIL0702211P
Imdad M, Ali J, Tanveer M: Coincidence and common fixed point theorems for nonlinear contractions in Menger PM spaces. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2009, 42(5):3121–3129. 10.1016/j.chaos.2009.04.017
Branciari A: A fixed point theorem for mappings satisfying a general contractive condition of integral type. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2002, 29(9):531–536. 10.1155/S0161171202007524
Bhatia SS, Manro S, Kumar S: Fixed point theorem for weakly compatible maps using E.A. property in fuzzy metric spaces satisfying contractive condition of integral type. Int. J. Contemp. Math. Sci. 2010, 5(51):2523–2528.
Murthy PP, Kumar S, Taş K: Common fixed points of self maps satisfying an integral type contractive condition in fuzzy metric spaces. Math. Commun. 2010, 15(2):521–537.
Shao X, Hu X: Common fixed point under integral type contractive condition in fuzzy metric spaces. Third Internat. Workshop on Adv. Comput. Intel. 2010, 131–134.
Sedghi S, Shobe N: Common fixed point theorems for weakly compatible mappings satisfying contractive condition of integral type. J. Adv. Res. Appl. Math. 2011, 3(4):67–78. doi:10.5373/jaram.821.030711 10.5373/jaram.821.030711
Altun I, Tanveer M, Miheţ D, Imdad M: Common fixed point theorems of integral type in Menger PM spaces. J. Nonlinear Anal. Optim. 2012, 3(1):55–66.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
SC, MAK and SK contributed equally. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Chauhan, S., Khan, M.A. & Kumar, S. Unified fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces via common limit range property. J Inequal Appl 2013, 182 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029242X2013182
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029242X2013182
Keywords
 fuzzy metric space
 compatible mappings
 weakly compatible mappings
 common limit range property
 fixed point