2.1. Main Result
In [12], assuming only that
, Theorems 1.3 and 1.4 are extended to the setting of cone metric spaces. Thus, proper generalizations of the results of Rhoades [6] (for one map) and of Imdad and Kumar [9] (for two maps) were obtained. Example 1.1 of a nonnormal cone shows that the method of proof used in [6, 8, 9] cannot be fully applied in the new setting.
The purpose of this paper is to extend the previous results to the cone metric spaces, but with new contractive conditions. This is worthwhile, since from [2, 13] we know that self-mappings that satisfy the new conditions (given below) do have a unique common fixed point. Let us note that the questions concerning common fixed points for self-mappings in metric spaces, under similar conditions, were considered in [14]. It seems that these questions were not considered for nonself mappings. This is an additional motivation for studying these problems.
We begin with the following definition.
Definition 2.1.
Let
be a cone metric space, let
be a nonempty closed subset of
, and let
. Denote, for
,
Then
is called a generalized
-contractive mapping of
into
if for some
there exists
such that for all
in 
Our main result is the following.
Theorem 2.2.
Let
be a complete cone metric space, let
be a nonempty closed subset of
such that, for each
and each
there exists a point
such that
Suppose that
is a generalized
-contractive mapping of
into
and
(i)
,
,
(ii)
,
(iii)
is closed in
.
Then there exists a coincidence point
of
in
. Moreover, if the pair
is coincidentally commuting, then
is the unique common fixed point of
and
.
Proof.
We prove the theorem under the hypothesis that neither of the mappings
and
is necessarily a self-mapping. We proceed in several steps.
Step 1 (construction of three sequences).
The following construction is the same as the construction used in [10] in the case of hyperbolic metric spaces. It differs slightly from the constructions in [6, 9].
Let
be arbitrary. We construct three sequences:
and
in
and
in
in the following way. Set
. Since
, by (i) there exists a point
such that
. Since
, from (ii) we conclude that
. Then from (i),
. Thus, there exists
such that
. Set
and
.
If
, then from (i),
and so there is a point
such that
.
If
, then
is a point in
,
such that
. By (i), there is
such that
. Thus
and
.
Now we set
. Since
, from (ii) there is a point
such that
.
Note that in the case
, we have
and
.
Continuing the foregoing procedure we construct three sequences:
,
and
such that:
(a)
;
(b)
;
(c)
if and only if
;
(d)
whenever
and then
and
.
Step 2 (
is a Cauchy sequence).
First, note that if
, then
, which then implies, by (b), (ii), and (a), that
Also,
implies that
since otherwise
, which then implies
.
Proof of Step 2
Now we have to estimate
. If
for some
, then it is easy to show that
for all 
Suppose that
for all
. There are three possibilities:
(1)
and
;
(2)
, but
; and
(3)
in which case
and
.
Note that the estimate of
in this cone version differs from those from [6, 8–11]. In the case of convex metric spaces it can be used that, for each
and each
, it is
. In cone spaces the maximum of the set
needs not to exist. Therefore, besides (2.4), we have to use here the relation "
'', and to consider several cases. In cone metric spaces as well as in metric spaces the key step is Assad-Kirk's induction.
Case 1.
Let
and let
. Then
,
and
(observe that it is not necessarily
). Then from (2.3),
where
Clearly, there are infinitely many
's such that at least one of the following cases holds:
(I)
(II)
contradicting the assumption that
for each
. Hence, (I) holds,
(III)
, that is, (I) holds.
From (I), (II), and (III) it follows that in Case 1
Case 2.
Let
but
. Then
and
. It follows that
that is, according to (2.3),
, where
Again, we obtain the following three cases
(I)
.
(II)
, contradicting the assumption that
for each
. It follows that (I) holds.
(III)
, that is
.
From (2.8), (I), (II), and (III), we have
in Case 2.
Case 3.
Let
Then 
and we have
and
. From this and using (2.4) we get
We have to estimate
and
. Since
, one can conclude that
in view of Case 2. Further,
where
Since
,
, and
, we have that
where
Substituting (2.12) and (2.16) into (2.11) we get
We have now the following four cases:
-
(I)
-
(II)
-
(III)
-
(IV)
It follows from (I), (II), (III), and (IV) that
Thus, in all Cases 1–3,
where
and
It is not hard to conclude that for
,
Now, following the procedure of Assad and Kirk [8], it can be shown by induction that, for
,
where
.
From (2.27) and using the triangle inequality, we have for 
According to the property (
) from the Introduction,
that is,
is a Cauchy sequence.
Step 3 (Common fixed point for
and
).
In this step we use only the definition of convergence in the terms of the relation "
''. The only assumption is that the interior of the cone
is nonempty; so we use neither continuity of vector metric
, nor the Sandwich theorem.
Since
and
is complete, there is some point
such that
. Let
be such that
. By the construction of
, there is a subsequence
such that
and hence
.
We now prove that
. We have
where
From the definition of convergence and the fact that
, as
, we obtain (for the given
with
)
In all the cases we obtain
for each
. According to the property (
), it follows that
, that is,
.
Suppose now that
and
are coincidentally commuting. Then
Then from (2.3),
where
Hence, we obtain the following cases:
which implies that
, that is,
is a common fixed point of
and
.
Uniqueness of the common fixed point follows easily. This completes the proof of the theorem.
2.2. Examples
We present now two examples showing that Theorem 2.2 is a proper extension of the known results. In both examples, the conditions of Theorem 2.2 are fulfilled, but in the first one (because of nonnormality of the cone) the main theorems from [6, 9] cannot be applied. This shows that Theorem 2.2 is more general, that is, the main theorems from [6, 9] can be obtained as its special cases (for
) taking
,
and
.
Example 2.3 (The case of a nonnormal cone).
Let
, let
, and
, and let
. The mapping
is defined in the following way:
, where
is a fixed function, for example,
. Take functions
,
,
, so that
, which map the set
into
. We have that
is a complete cone metric space with a nonnormal cone having the nonempty interior. The topological and "metric'' notions are used in the sense of definitions from [15, 16]. For example, one easily checks the condition (2.4), that is, that for
,
the following holds
The mappings
and
are weakly compatible, that is, they commute in their fixed point
. All the conditions of Theorem 2.2 are fulfilled, and so the nonself mappings
and
have a unique common fixed point
.
Example 2.4 (The case of a normal cone).
Let
, let
, let
, and let
. The mapping
is defined as
,
. Take the functions
,
,
, so that
, which map the set
into
. We have that
is a complete cone metric space with a normal cone having the normal coefficient
, whose interior is obviously nonempty. All the conditions of Theorem 2.2 are fulfilled. We check again the condition (2.4), that is, that for
,
the following holds
The mappings
and
are weakly compatible, that is, they commute in their fixed point
. All the conditions of Theorem 2.2 are again fulfilled. The point
is the unique common fixed point for nonself mappings
and
.
2.3. Further Results
Remark 2.5.
The following definition is a special case of Definition 2.1 when
is a metric space. But when
is a cone metric space, which is not a metric space, this is not true. Indeed, there may exist
such that the vectors
and
are incomparable. For the same reason Theorems 2.2 and 2.7 (given below) are incomparable.
Definition 2.6.
Let
be a cone metric space, let
be a nonempty closed subset of
, and let
. Denote
Then
is called a generalized
-contractive mapping from
into
if for some
there exists
such that for all
in 
Our next result is the following.
Theorem 2.7.
Let
be a complete cone metric space, and let
be a nonempty closed subset of
such that for each
and
there exists a point
such that
Suppose that
is a generalized
-contractive mapping of
into
and
(i)
,
,
(ii)
,
(iii)
is closed in
.
Then there exists a coincidence point
of
and
in
. Moreover, if the pair
is coincidentally commuting, then
is the unique common fixed point of
and
.
The proof of this theorem is very similar to the proof of Theorem 2.2 and it is omitted.
We now list some corollaries of Theorems 2.2 and 2.7.
Corollary 2.8.
Let
be a complete cone metric space, and let
be a nonempty closed subset of
such that, for each
and each
there exists a point
such that
Let
be such that
for some
and for all
.
Suppose, further, that
and
satisfy the following conditions:
(i)
,
,
(ii)
,
(iii)
is closed in
.
Then there exists a coincidence point
of
and
in
. Moreover, if
is a coincidentally commuting pair, then
is the unique common fixed point of
and
.
Corollary 2.9.
Let
be a complete cone metric space, and let
be a nonempty closed subset of
such that, for each
and each
there exists a point
such that
Let
be such that
for some
and for all
.
Suppose, further, that
and
satisfy the following conditions:
(i)
,
,
(ii)
,
(iii)
is closed in
.
Then there exists a coincidence point
of
and
in
. Moreover, if
is a coincidentally commuting pair, then
is the unique common fixed point of
and
.
Corollary 2.10.
Let
be a complete cone metric space, and let
be a nonempty closed subset of
such that, for each
and each
there exists a point
such that
Let
be such that
for some
and for all
.
Suppose, further, that
and
satisfy the following conditions:
(i)
,
,
(ii)
,
(iii)
is closed in
.
Then there exists a coincidence point
of
and
in
. Moreover, if
is a coincidentally commuting pair, then
is the unique common fixed point of
and
.
Remark 2.11.
Corollaries 2.8–2.10 are the corresponding theorems of Abbas and Jungck from [2] in the case that
are nonself mappings.
Remark 2.12.
If
is a metrically convex cone metric space, that is, if for each
there is
such that
, we do not know whether (2.4) holds for every nonempty closed subset
in
(see [8]).