Irremissible stimulate on ‘Unified fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces via common limit range property’
© Roldán-López-de-Hierro et al.; licensee Springer. 2014
Received: 4 March 2014
Accepted: 6 June 2014
Published: 22 July 2014
One of the goals of this short note is to alert researchers as regards some mistakes that appeared in a recent paper (Chauhan, Khan and Kumar in J. Inequal. Appl. 2013:182, 2013). This entails main proofs based on a false result, which invalidates all statements. We also give a complete revision of the antecedents of this work in order to find the main reasons of the mistakes. Finally, the main aim of this note is to propose a correct, more general version of the main theorems in the paper mentioned.
In 2011, Sintunavarat and Kumam  first introduced the concept of ‘common limit range property’ (or (CLR) property) in metric spaces and fuzzy metric spaces and also improved the results of Mihet . It is observed that the concept of (CLR) property never requires the condition of closedness of the subspace, while other properties such as the E.A. property requires this condition for the existence of the fixed point. Afterward, several mathematicians have proved common fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces for different contractive conditions.
Very recently, Chauhan et al. announced in  a common fixed point theorem in the setting of fuzzy metric spaces for weakly compatible pairs and (where are self-mappings on a fuzzy metric space ). This result involves the following notion.
The contractivity property that the pairs and verify is the following one.
for all , and .
In that paper, denoted the set of all continuous functions satisfying the conditions:
() ϕ is decreasing in , , , and .
() implies , for all .
Using the previous preliminaries, Chauhan et al. announced the following result.
Theorem 2 (Chauhan et al. , Theorem 4.1)
Let A, B, S and T be mappings from X into itself satisfying inequality (4.1). Suppose that the pairs and enjoy the () property. Then the pairs and have a coincidence point each. Moreover, A, B, S and T have a unique common fixed point provided both the pairs and are weakly compatible.
The proof given by the authors is decisively based on the following result.
Lemma 3 (Chauhan et al. , Lemma 2.2)
However, Lemma 3 is wrong in two senses: firstly, it is incorrectly enunciated in  and, furthermore, it is false (therefore, it was not proved in ). As a consequence, all results in the mentioned paper were not correctly proved.
The main aim of this paper is to present alternative hypotheses to give validity to the main results in .
In this paper, we start giving a counterexample of Lemma 3, showing why it is incorrectly enunciated. Then we investigate the antecedents of this mistake, and we show some other papers that presented the same mistake. In addition to this, we explain how hypothesis (1) is not interesting in the setting of fuzzy metric spaces, because it yields a very restricted kind of fuzzy metrics. Finally, we replace this hypothesis by a more convenient condition and we prove similar results to the ones presented in .
Before presenting our main claims, we need to introduce some concepts and basic results. For instance, the notion of triangular norm plays a key role in different fields of study.
Definition 4 (Schweizer and Sklar )
(that is, ∗ is associative);
(that is, ∗ is commutative);
whenever and .
A continuous t-norm is a t-norm which is also continuous as a mapping.
For instance, , for all , is a well-known continuous t-norm, called the minimum t-norm. A continuous t-norm is one of the most important ingredients of the notion of fuzzy metric space. There are two definitions of the concept of fuzzy metric space that have attracted much attention in the last decades. Firstly, inspired by Zadeh fuzzy sets  and the concept of Menger probabilistic metric space , in 1975, Kramosil and Michálek  presented a new model that lets one apply fuzzy behavior to real situations and they defined a Hausdorff topology on these spaces.
Definition 5 (Kramosil and Michálek )
A 3-tuple is said to be a fuzzy metric space if X is an arbitrary set, ∗ is a continuous t-norm and M is a fuzzy set on satisfying the following conditions: for all , ,
(KM-2) if and only if ,
(KM-5) is left-continuous.
Later, George and Veeramani  slightly modified the concept of fuzzy metric space introduced by Kramosil and Michálek, defined a Hausdorff topology, and proved some known results including Baire’s theorem (see also ).
Definition 6 (George and Veeramani )
A 3-tuple is said to be a fuzzy metric space if X is an arbitrary set, ∗ is a continuous t-norm, and M is a fuzzy set on satisfying the following conditions: for all , ,
(FM-2) if and only if ,
(FM-5) is continuous.
Then M is called a fuzzy metric on X whereas denotes the degree of nearness between x and y with respect to t.
The following result holds in both classes of fuzzy metric spaces.
Lemma 7 If is a fuzzy metric space and , then the mapping is non-decreasing.
3 A counterexample of Lemma 3
then ’. However, as we show in the following example, the condition ‘, for all ’ is not strong enough to guarantee that the thesis of Lemma 3 holds. Notice that the following example is valid for fuzzy metric spaces in the sense of both Definitions 5 and 6.
Then is a fuzzy metric space in the sense of Kramosil and Michálek. Furthermore, the restriction of M to defines a fuzzy metric on X in the sense of George and Veeramani. In addition to this, condition (2) holds, for all and all even though .
4 A correct version of Lemma 3
In the sequel, unless it is stated otherwise, we will only refer to fuzzy metric spaces in the sense of George and Veeramani (but similar properties are valid in Kramosil and Michálek’s spaces).
Property (3) is not coherent with the idea that denotes the degree of nearness between x and y with respect to t and it leads to no very good properties. In order to avoid the condition (3), it is usual to consider additionally the axiom.
(FM-6) For all , we have .
Lemma 9 Let be a fuzzy metric space verifying (FM-6) and let . If there exists such that , for all , then .
As we have just seen in Example 8, this property is clearly false if the fuzzy metric does not satisfy axiom (FM-6).
Therefore, which proves that . Thus, is constant in . Using axiom (FM-6), , for all , and using axiom (FM-2) we conclude that . □
As we have just showed, the hypothesis ‘, for all ’ (which we can find in Lemma 3) is not strong enough to guarantee that the thesis of Lemma 3 holds. Moreover, we are going to prove that it is a very restrictive hypothesis, because there is an unique example of t-norm (not necessarily continuous) verifying this property.
is the minimum t-norm.
Proof Let be arbitrary. Without loss of generality, we can suppose that . Since and ∗ is non-decreasing on each argument, it follows that . Combining these inequalities with the assumption , we derive . Therefore, , for all . □
In both senses, Lemma 3 is wrong and, therefore, researchers always try to avoid condition (4) in the setting of fuzzy metric spaces.
5 The antecedents of Lemma 3
To better understand our way to improve the results in , we must review some previous papers, paying especially attention to Lemma 9. In , Remark 4.2, the authors announced that their results improved some theorems by other researchers. For instance, they mentioned Rao et al. [, Theorem 3.1]. In this paper, we can find a version of Lemma 9 avoiding the hypothesis (FM-6) (see [, Lemma 1.7]). Therefore, it is false. Later, Rao et al. advised that they had found a gap in a result by Cho , which used condition (4). Unfortunately, hypothesis (4) was not supposed on any main result in . In that paper, we can also find Lemma 10, but there is also included a version of Lemma 9 avoiding the hypothesis (FM-6) (see [, Lemma 2.7]), which is false. Based on Cho’s paper, Rao et al. proved some results in which we can found condition (4) as a hypothesis. Therefore, their results are very restrictive because they are only valid in fuzzy metric spaces under the minimum t-norm. Furthermore, their proofs are not valid because they are based on a version of Lemma 9 without axiom (FM-6).
In , the authors also announced that their results also improved some theorem by Aalam et al. . In that paper, we can also found a version of Lemma 9 avoiding the hypothesis (FM-6) (see [, Lemma 1.1]), which is false. Therefore, the proofs of their main results are not correct. Precisely, at this point, we can find the reason of all gaps: these authors referred to Mishra et al.  to include this lemma in their preliminaries, but they did not realize that Mishra et al.’s paper is based on Kramosil and Michálek’s fuzzy metric spaces that, additionally, verify axiom (FM-6).
Taking into account these preliminaries and trying to improve different papers, Chauhan et al. collected in  two gaps: from , they assumed that Lemma 9 holds, avoiding the hypothesis (FM-6), which is false; and from , they supposed condition (4) in their main results, which is not necessary.
6 Correct versions of results given in 
To sum up the previous considerations, we must remark the following facts.
On the one hand, the proofs given by the authors of the main results in  are incorrect because they are based on Lemma 3, which is false. We have investigated the origin of this mistake.
On the other hand, we advise that the only t-norm (not necessarily continuous) that verifies property (4) is the minimum t-norm, which is a very restrictive hypothesis. All researchers in this field try to avoid it because it produces no very general results.
The main aim of this paper is to provide different conditions to give validity to the main results given in . For instance, in order to overcome the mentioned drawbacks, we propose to replace the condition , for all , using axiom (FM-6). In this case, the following result holds.
Theorem 11 The main results in are valid if we replace the condition ‘ for all ’ by axiom (FM-6).
In fact, the same proofs, based on Lemma 9, can be followed through point by point.
The first author has been partially supported by Junta de Andalucía by project FQM-268 of the Andalusian CICYE. The third author was supported by the Higher Education Research Promotion and National Research University Project of Thailand, Office of the Higher Education Commission (NRU57).
- Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Common fixed point theorems for a pair of weakly compatible mappings in fuzzy metric spaces. J. Appl. Math. 2011. Article ID 637958, 2011: Article ID 637958Google Scholar
- Mihet M: Fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces using property E. A. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 73: 2184-2188. 10.1016/j.na.2010.05.044MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Chauhan S, Khan MA, Kumar S: Unified fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces via common limit range property. J. Inequal. Appl. 2013. Article ID 182, 2013: Article ID 182Google Scholar
- Schweizer B, Sklar A: Probabilistic Metric Spaces. Dover, New York; 2005.Google Scholar
- Zadeh LA: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 1965, 8: 338-353. 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-XMathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Menger K: Statistical metrics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1942, 28: 535-537. 10.1073/pnas.28.12.535MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Kramosil I, Michálek J: Fuzzy metrics and statistical metric spaces. Kybernetika 1975, 11: 336-344.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- George A, Veeramani P: On some results in fuzzy metric spaces. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1994, 64: 395-399. 10.1016/0165-0114(94)90162-7MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Roldán A, Martínez-Moreno J, Roldán C: On interrelationships between fuzzy metric structures. Iran. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2013,10(2):133-150.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Mishra SN, Sharma N, Singh SL: Common fixed point of maps on fuzzy metric spaces. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 1994, 17: 253-258. 10.1155/S0161171294000372MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Cho YJ: Fixed points in fuzzy metric spaces. J. Fuzzy Math. 1997,5(4):949-962.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Sharma S: Common fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2002, 127: 345-352. 10.1016/S0165-0114(01)00112-9View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Liu Y, Li Z: Coincidence point theorems in probabilistic and fuzzy metric spaces. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2007, 158: 58-70. 10.1016/j.fss.2006.07.010View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Roldán A, Martínez-Moreno J, Roldán C, Cho YJ: Multidimensional coincidence point results for compatible mappings in partially ordered fuzzy metric spaces. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2013. 10.1016/j.fss.2013.10.009Google Scholar
- Klement EP, Mesiar R, Pap E: Triangular Norms. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht; 2000.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- 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.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Cho SH: On common fixed points in fuzzy metric spaces. Int. Math. Forum 2006,1(10):471-479.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Aalam I, Kumar S, Pant BD: A common fixed point theorem in fuzzy metric space. Bull. Math. Anal. Appl. 2010,2(4):76-82.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
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/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.