 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Common fixed point theorems for two hybrid pairs of mappings satisfying the common property (E.A) in Menger PMspaces
Fixed Point Theory and Applications volume 2013, Article number: 25 (2013)
Abstract
In this paper, a new concept of the common property (E.A) for two hybrid pairs of mappings is introduced in Menger PMspaces. Utilizing this concept, some common fixed point theorems, which shed some new light on the study of fixed point results for hybrid pairs in Menger PMspaces, are obtained under strict contractive conditions. The corresponding results in metric spaces which generalize many known results are also obtained. Finally, an example is also given to exemplify our main results.
1 Introduction
The concept of a probabilistic metric space was initiated and studied by Menger which is a generalization of the metric space notion [1, 2]. The theory of a probabilistic metric space is an active field and has applications in many other branches of mathematics such as cluster analysis, mathematical statistics and chaos theory [3, 4]. It has also been applied to quantum particle physics in connection with both string and {\u03f5}^{\mathrm{\infty}} theory [5].
Fixed point theory in a probabilistic metric space is an important branch of probabilistic analysis, which is closely related to the existence and uniqueness of solutions of differential equations and integral equations [6, 7]. Many results on the existence of fixed points or solutions of nonlinear equations under various types of conditions in Menger spaces have been extensively studied by many scholars (see, e.g., [8, 9]).
Jungck [10] introduced the concept of compatible mappings in metric spaces and proved some common fixed point theorems. In [11], the concept of weakly compatible mappings was given. The concept of compatible mappings in a Menger space was initiated by Mishra [12], and since then many fixed point results for compatible mappings and weakly compatible mappings have been studied [13–16]. The study for noncompatible mappings is also interesting. This was initiated and studied by Pant first in metric spaces [17–20]. In 2002, Aamri and Moutawakil defined a new property for a pair of mappings, i.e., the socalled property (E.A), which is a generalization of noncompatibility [21]. Using this property, some common fixed point theorems under strict contractive conditions in metric spaces have been given. In 2004, Kamran introduced the concept of the property (E.A) in a hybrid case in metric spaces and obtained some coincidence and fixed points theorems for hybrid strict contractions [22]. However, Sintunavarat and Kumam pointed out that one condition in one of their main results is superfluous [23]. Liu et al. defined the concept of the common property (E.A) for singlevalued as well as hybrid pairs of mappings in metric spaces and obtained many interesting results [24]. Utilizing these concepts, many authors studied the existence of coincidence and fixed points in symmetric spaces [25–28].
On the other hand, fixed point results for mappings under strict contractive conditions in probabilistic metric spaces are not very fruitful. In 2009, Fang defined the property (E.A) for two singlevalued mappings in Menger PMspaces and studied the existence of common fixed points in such spaces [29]. In 2011, Ali et al. obtained some common fixed point results for strict contractions in Menger PMspaces using the common property (E.A) for two pairs of singlevalued mappings [30].
The purpose of this paper is to introduce the concept of the common property (E.A) for two hybrid pairs of mappings in Menger PMspaces and study the existence of coincidence and common fixed points for pairs of mappings satisfying such a property under strict contractive conditions. We also obtain some corresponding results under strict contractive conditions in metric spaces.
2 Preliminaries
A mapping F:\mathbb{R}\to {\mathbb{R}}^{+} is called a distribution function if it is nondecreasing leftcontinuous with {sup}_{t\in \mathbb{R}}F(t)=1 and {inf}_{t\in \mathbb{R}}F(t)=0.
We will denote by \mathcal{D} the set of all distribution functions, while H will always denote the specific distribution function defined by
Let {F}_{1},{F}_{2}\in \mathcal{D}. The algebraic sum {F}_{1}\oplus {F}_{2} is defined by
for all t\in \mathbb{R}.
Let f and g be two functions defined on ℝ with positive values. The notation f>g means that f(t)\ge g(t) for all t\in \mathbb{R}, and there exists at least one {t}_{0}\in \mathbb{R} such that f({t}_{0})>g({t}_{0}).
A mapping \mathrm{\Delta}:[0,1]\times [0,1]\to [0,1] is called a triangular norm (for short, a tnorm) if the following conditions are satisfied:

(1)
\mathrm{\Delta}(a,1)=a;

(2)
\mathrm{\Delta}(a,b)=\mathrm{\Delta}(b,a);

(3)
\mathrm{\Delta}(a,c)\ge \mathrm{\Delta}(b,d) for a\ge b, c\ge d;

(4)
\mathrm{\Delta}(a,\mathrm{\Delta}(b,c))=\mathrm{\Delta}(\mathrm{\Delta}(a,b),c).
Definition 2.1 [4]
A triplet (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) is called a Menger probabilistic metric space (for short, a Menger PMspace) if X is a nonempty set, Δ is a tnorm and ℱ is a mapping from X\times X into \mathcal{D} satisfying the following conditions (we denote \mathcal{F}(x,y) by {F}_{x,y}):
(MS1) {F}_{x,y}(t)=H(t) for all t\in R if and only if x=y;
(MS2) {F}_{x,y}(t)={F}_{y,x}(t) for all t\in R;
(MS3) {F}_{x,y}(t+s)\ge \mathrm{\Delta}({F}_{x,z}(t),{F}_{z,y}(s)) for all x,y,z\in X and t,s\ge 0.
Remark 2.1 In [7], it is pointed out that if (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) satisfies the condition {sup}_{0<t<1}\mathrm{\Delta}(t,t)=1, then (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) is a Hausdorff topological space in the (\u03f5,\lambda )topology \mathcal{T}, i.e., the family of sets \{{U}_{x}(\u03f5,\lambda ):\u03f5>0,\lambda \in (0,1]\} (x\in X) is a basis of neighborhoods of a point x for \mathcal{T}, where {U}_{x}(\u03f5,\lambda )=\{y\in X:{F}_{x,y}(\u03f5)>1\lambda \}.
By virtue of this topology \mathcal{T}, a sequence \{{x}_{n}\} is said to be \mathcal{T}convergent to x\in X (we write {x}_{n}\stackrel{\mathcal{T}}{\to}x) if for any given \u03f5>0 and \lambda \in (0,1], there exists a positive integer N=N(\u03f5,\lambda ) such that {F}_{{x}_{n},x}(\u03f5)>1\lambda whenever n\ge N, which is equivalent to {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{F}_{{x}_{n},x}(t)=1 for all t>0; \{{x}_{n}\} is called a \mathcal{T}Cauchy sequence in (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) if for any given \u03f5>0 and \lambda \in (0,1], there exists a positive integer N=N(\u03f5,\lambda ) such that {F}_{{x}_{n},{x}_{m}}(\u03f5)>1\lambda whenever n,m\ge N; (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) is said to be \mathcal{T}complete if each \mathcal{T}Cauchy sequence in X is \mathcal{T}convergent in X. Note that in a Menger PMspace, when we write {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{x}_{n}=x, it means that {x}_{n}\stackrel{\mathcal{T}}{\to}x.
Let (X,\mathcal{F}) be a PMspace and A be a nonempty subset of X. Then the function
is called the probabilistic diameter of A. If {sup}_{t>0}{D}_{A}(t)=1, then A is said to be probabilistically bounded.
Let (X,d) be a metric space, CB(X) be the family of all nonempty bounded closed subsets of X and δ be the Hausdorff metric induced by d, that is,
for any A,B\in CB(X), where d(x,A)={inf}_{y\in A}d(x,y).
Let (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) be a Menger space and Ω be the family of all nonempty probabilistically bounded \mathcal{T}closed subsets of X. For any A,B\in \mathrm{\Omega}, define the distribution functions as follows:
where \tilde{\mathcal{F}} is called the MengerHausdorff metric induced by ℱ.
Remark 2.2 [7]

(1)
(CB(X),\delta ) is a metric space. If (X,d) is complete, then (CB(X),\delta ) is complete.

(2)
Let (X,d) be a metric space. Define a mapping \mathcal{F}:X\times X\to \mathcal{D} by
\mathcal{F}(x,y)(t)={F}_{x,y}(t)=H(td(x,y)),\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}x,y\in X,t\in \mathbb{R}.Then (X,\mathcal{F},{\mathrm{\Delta}}_{min}) is a Menger PMspace induced by (X,d) with {\mathrm{\Delta}}_{min}(a,b)=min\{a,b\}, \mathrm{\forall}a,b\in [0,1]. If (X,d) is complete, then (X,\mathcal{F},{\mathrm{\Delta}}_{min}) is \mathcal{T}complete.

(3)
If we define \tilde{\mathcal{F}}:CB(X)\times CB(X)\to \mathcal{D} as follows:
\tilde{\mathcal{F}}(A,B)(t)={\tilde{F}}_{A,B}(t)=H(t\delta (A,B)),\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}A,B\in CB(X),t\in \mathbb{R},
then \tilde{\mathcal{F}} is the MengerHausdorff metric induced by ℱ. Moreover, if (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) is a \mathcal{T}complete Menger PMspace with the tnorm \mathrm{\Delta}\ge {\mathrm{\Delta}}_{m}, where {\mathrm{\Delta}}_{m}(a,b)=max\{a+b1,0\}, \mathrm{\forall}a,b\in [0,1], then (\mathrm{\Omega},\tilde{\mathcal{F}},\mathrm{\Delta}) is also a \mathcal{T}complete Menger PMspace.
The following lemmas play an important role in proving our main results in Section 3.
Lemma 2.1 [7]
Let (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) be a Menger PMspace. Then for any A,B,C\in \mathrm{\Omega} and any x,y\in X, we have the following:

(i)
{\tilde{F}}_{A,B}(t)=1 if and only if A=B;

(ii)
{F}_{x,A}(t)=1 if and only if x\in A;

(iii)
For any x\in A, {F}_{x,B}(t)\ge {\tilde{F}}_{A,B}(t) for all t\ge 0;

(iv)
{F}_{x,A}({t}_{1}+{t}_{2})\ge \mathrm{\Delta}({F}_{x,y}({t}_{1}),{F}_{y,A}({t}_{2})) for all {t}_{1},{t}_{2}\ge 0;

(v)
{F}_{x,A}({t}_{1}+{t}_{2})\ge \mathrm{\Delta}({F}_{x,B}({t}_{1}),{F}_{A,B}({t}_{2})) for all {t}_{1},{t}_{2}\ge 0;

(vi)
{\tilde{F}}_{A,C}({t}_{1}+{t}_{2})\ge \mathrm{\Delta}({\tilde{F}}_{A,B}({t}_{1}),{\tilde{F}}_{B,C}({t}_{2})) for all {t}_{1},{t}_{2}\ge 0.
Lemma 2.2 [7]
Let (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) be a Menger PMspace with a continuous tnorm Δ on [0,1]\times [0,1], x,y\in X, \{{x}_{n}\},\{{y}_{n}\}\subset X and {x}_{n}\stackrel{\mathcal{T}}{\to}x, {y}_{n}\stackrel{\mathcal{T}}{\to}y. Then {lim\hspace{0.17em}inf}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{F}_{{x}_{n},{y}_{n}}(t)\ge {F}_{x,y}(t) for all t>0. Particularly, if {F}_{x,y}(\cdot ) is continuous at the point {t}_{0}, then {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{F}_{{x}_{n},{y}_{n}}({t}_{0})={F}_{x,y}({t}_{0}).
Imitating the proof of Lemma 2.2 and using Lemma 2.1, we can easily obtain the following two lemmas.
Lemma 2.3 Let (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) be a Menger PMspace with a continuous tnorm Δ on [0,1]\times [0,1] and (\mathrm{\Omega},\tilde{\mathcal{F}},\mathrm{\Delta}) be the induced Menger PMspace, x\in X, P\in \mathrm{\Omega}, \{{x}_{n}\}\subset X, \{{P}_{n}\}\subset \mathrm{\Omega} and {x}_{n}\stackrel{\mathcal{T}}{\to}x, {P}_{n}\stackrel{\mathcal{T}}{\to}P. Then {lim\hspace{0.17em}inf}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{F}_{{x}_{n},{P}_{n}}(t)\ge {F}_{x,P}(t) for all t>0. Particularly, if {F}_{x,P}(\cdot ) is continuous at the point {t}_{0}, then {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{F}_{{x}_{n},{P}_{n}}({t}_{0})={F}_{x,P}({t}_{0}).
Lemma 2.4 Let (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) be a Menger PMspace with a continuous tnorm Δ on [0,1]\times [0,1] and (\mathrm{\Omega},\tilde{\mathcal{F}},\mathrm{\Delta}) be the induced Menger PMspace, P,Q\in \mathrm{\Omega}, \{{P}_{n}\},\{{Q}_{n}\}\subset \mathrm{\Omega} and {P}_{n}\stackrel{\mathcal{T}}{\to}P, {Q}_{n}\stackrel{\mathcal{T}}{\to}Q. Then {lim\hspace{0.17em}inf}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\tilde{F}}_{{P}_{n},{Q}_{n}}(t)\ge {\tilde{F}}_{P,Q}(t) for all t>0. Particularly, if {\tilde{F}}_{P,Q}(\cdot ) is continuous at the point {t}_{0}, then {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\tilde{F}}_{{P}_{n},{Q}_{n}}({t}_{0})={\tilde{F}}_{P,Q}({t}_{0}).
We recall the definition of compatibility in a hybrid case and weakly compatibility in both singlevalued and hybrid case in Menger PMspaces.
Definition 2.2 [15]
Let (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) be a Menger PMspace and (\mathrm{\Omega},\tilde{\mathcal{F}},\mathrm{\Delta}) be the induced Menger PMspace. Then f:X\to X and F:X\to \mathrm{\Omega} are said to be compatible if fFx\in \mathrm{\Omega} for all x\in X and {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\tilde{F}}_{fF{x}_{n},Ff{x}_{n}}(t)=1 for all t>0 whenever \{{x}_{n}\} is a sequence in X such that {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}f{x}_{n}=a\in A and {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}F{x}_{n}=A\in \mathrm{\Omega}.
Definition 2.3 [13]
Let (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) be a Menger PMspace. Then f:X\to X and F:X\to X are said to be weakly compatible if they commute at their coincidence points, i.e., fFx=Ffx whenever fx=Fx.
Definition 2.4 [15]
Let (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) be a Menger PMspace, (\mathrm{\Omega},\tilde{\mathcal{F}},\mathrm{\Delta}) be the induced Menger PMspace. Then f:X\to X and F:X\to \mathrm{\Omega} are said to be weakly compatible if they commute at their coincidence points, i.e., fFx=Ffx whenever fx\in Fx.
In the sequel, we will denote by C(f,F) the set of all coincidence points of f and F.
We first give the definition of the property (E.A) for a hybrid pair of mappings in Menger PMspaces.
Definition 2.5 Let (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) be a Menger PMspace, (\mathrm{\Omega},\tilde{\mathcal{F}},\mathrm{\Delta}) be the induced Menger PMspace, f:X\to X be a selfmapping and F:X\to \mathrm{\Omega} be a multivalued mapping. A pair of mappings (f,F) is said to satisfy the property (E.A) if there exists a sequence \{{x}_{n}\} in X and some a\in X and A\in \mathrm{\Omega} such that {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}f{x}_{n}=a\in A={lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}F{x}_{n}.
Remark 2.3 Similar to the arguments in [29], by this definition, we can also see that in a hybrid case, any noncompatible mappings satisfy the property (E.A). But the following example shows that the converse is not true.
Example 2.1 Let X=[0,+\mathrm{\infty}). Define \mathcal{F}:X\times X\to \mathcal{D} and \tilde{\mathcal{F}}:CB(X)\times CB(X)\to \mathcal{D} as follows:
Then by Remark 2.2, we know that (X,\mathcal{F},{\mathrm{\Delta}}_{min}) and (\mathrm{\Omega},\tilde{\mathcal{F}},{\mathrm{\Delta}}_{min}) are both Menger PMspaces. Define f:X\to X and F:X\to \mathrm{\Omega} as fx=3x,Fx=[0,1+2x] and take {x}_{n}=\frac{1}{n}. Then f{x}_{n}\stackrel{\mathcal{T}}{\to}0, F{x}_{n}\stackrel{\mathcal{T}}{\to}[0,1], which implies that {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}f{x}_{n}=0\in [0,1]={lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}F{x}_{n}, and so (f,F) satisfies the property (E.A). On the other hand, suppose that \{{x}_{n}\} is an arbitrary sequence in X satisfying {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}f{x}_{n}=a\in A={lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}F{x}_{n} for some a\in X and A\in \mathrm{\Omega}. Then fF{x}_{n}=Ff{x}_{n}=[0,1+2{x}_{n}], which implies that {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\tilde{F}}_{fF{x}_{n},Ff{x}_{n}}(t)={\tilde{F}}_{[0,1+2{x}_{n}],[0,1+2{x}_{n}]}(t)=1 for all t>0. So, f and F are compatible mappings.
We now give the definition of the common property (E.A) for two hybrid pairs of mappings in Menger PMspaces.
Definition 2.6 Let (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) be a Menger PMspace and (\mathrm{\Omega},\tilde{\mathcal{F}},\mathrm{\Delta}) be the induced Menger PMspace, f,g:X\to X and F,G:X\to \mathrm{\Omega}. Two pairs of mappings (f,F) and (g,G) are said to satisfy the common property (E.A) if there exist two sequences \{{x}_{n}\}, \{{y}_{n}\} in X and some u\in X and A,B\in \mathrm{\Omega} such that
Example 2.2 Let (X,d) be a metric space, X=[1,+\mathrm{\infty}), (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) and (\mathrm{\Omega},\tilde{\mathcal{F}},\mathrm{\Delta}) be two Menger PMspaces induced by (X,d) and (CB(X),\delta ), respectively (as in Remark 2.2). Define f,g:X\to X and F,G:X\to \mathrm{\Omega} as follows:
Consider the sequence \{{x}_{n}\}=\{3+\frac{1}{n}\}, \{{y}_{n}\}=\{2+\frac{1}{n}\} and denote A=[1,5], B=[3,4].
Since {\tilde{F}}_{F{x}_{n},A}(t)=H(t\delta (F{x}_{n},A)), while \delta (F{x}_{n},A)=\frac{1}{n}\to 0 (n\to \mathrm{\infty}), we have {\tilde{F}}_{F{x}_{n},A}(t)\to 1, \mathrm{\forall}t>0, i.e., F{x}_{n}\stackrel{\mathcal{T}}{\to}A. Similarly, we have {\tilde{F}}_{G{y}_{n},B}(t)\to 1, \mathrm{\forall}t>0, i.e., G{y}_{n}\stackrel{\mathcal{T}}{\to}B.
On the other hand, since {F}_{f{x}_{n},3}(t)=H(td(f{x}_{n},3)), while d(f{x}_{n},3)=\frac{1}{3n}\to 0 (n\to \mathrm{\infty}), we have {F}_{f{x}_{n},3}(t)\to 1, \mathrm{\forall}t>0, i.e., f{x}_{n}\stackrel{\mathcal{T}}{\to}3\in A\cap B as n\to \mathrm{\infty}. Similarly, we have {F}_{g{y}_{n},3}(t)\to 1, \mathrm{\forall}t>0, i.e., g{y}_{n}\stackrel{\mathcal{T}}{\to}3\in A\cap B as n\to \mathrm{\infty}. Thus, the pairs of mappings (f,F) and (g,G) satisfy the common property (E.A).
3 Main results
In this section, we will give the main results of this paper. We first present the following common fixed point theorem for two hybrid pairs of mappings in Menger PMspaces.
Theorem 3.1 Let (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) be a Menger PMspace with Δ a continuous tnorm on [0,1]\times [0,1] and (\mathrm{\Omega},\tilde{\mathcal{F}},\mathrm{\Delta}) be the induced Menger PMspace. Suppose that f,g:X\to X and F,G:X\to \mathrm{\Omega} are mappings satisfying the following conditions:

(i)
(f,F) and (g,G) satisfy the common property (E.A);

(ii)
f(X) and g(X) are \mathcal{T}closed subsets of X;

(iii)
For any x,y\in X with Fx\ne Gy and some 1\le k<2,
{\tilde{F}}_{Fx,Gy}>min\{{F}_{fx,gy}{,}_{\frac{2}{k}}[{F}_{fx,Fx}\oplus {F}_{fx,Gy}]{,}_{\frac{2}{k}}[{F}_{gy,Gy}\oplus {F}_{gy,Fx}]\},(3.1)
where {}_{a}f(t) means f(at). Then (f,F) and (g,G) each has a coincidence point. Moreover, if ffv=fv for v\in C(f,F) and ggv=gv for v\in C(g,G), then f, g, F and G have a common fixed point in X.
Proof Since (f,F) and (g,G) satisfy the common property (E.A), there exist \{{x}_{n}\},\{{y}_{n}\}\subset X and some u\in X, A,B\in \mathrm{\Omega} such that
Since f(X) is \mathcal{T}closed, there exists some v\in X such that u=fv. We claim that fv\in Fv. Suppose this is not true, that is, fv\notin Fv. Then from u=fv\in B, we have B\ne Fv. Thus, there exists some {t}_{0}>0 such that
(Otherwise, \mathrm{\forall}t>0, {F}_{Fv,B}(t)={F}_{Fv,B}(\frac{2t}{k})=\cdots ={F}_{Fv,B}({(\frac{2}{k})}^{n}t)\to 1 as n\to \mathrm{\infty}, that is, {F}_{Fv,B}(t)=1, \mathrm{\forall}t>0, which is a contradiction.)
Without loss of generality, we can assume that {t}_{0} is a continuous point of {\tilde{F}}_{Fv,B}(\cdot ). In fact, by the left continuity of the distribution function, we know that there exists some \delta >0 such that
Since the distribution function is nondecreasing, the discontinuous points are at most a countable set. Thus, when {t}_{0} is not a continuous point of {\tilde{F}}_{Fv,B}, we can always choose a point {t}_{1} in ({t}_{0}\delta ,{t}_{0}] to replace {t}_{0}.
Noting that {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}f{x}_{n}=u\notin Fv and u\in B={lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}G{y}_{n}, we have Fv\ne {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}G{y}_{n}, so there exists some {n}_{0}\in N such that for all n\ge {n}_{0}, G{y}_{n}\ne Fv.
From (3.1) we know that
It is easy to verify that
In fact, for any \delta \in (0,\frac{2}{k}{t}_{0}), we have
Since fv=u\in B={lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}G{y}_{n}, by Lemma 2.3 and Lemma 2.1(ii), we get
Letting \delta \to 0, by the left continuity of the distribution function, we obtain (3.5). Similarly, we can prove that
Noting that {t}_{0} is the continuous point of {\tilde{F}}_{Fv,B}(\cdot ), by Lemma 2.4, we have
Thus, letting n\to \mathrm{\infty} in (3.4) and using (3.5) and (3.6), we obtain
that is,
But since fv\in B, by Lemma 2.1(iii), (3.3) implies that
which is a contradiction. So, we get fv\in Fv.
On the other hand, since g(X) is \mathcal{T}closed, there exists some w\in X such that u=gw. We claim that gw\in Gw. Suppose this is not true, that is, gw\notin Gw. Noting that u=gw\in A, we have A\ne Gw. Similarly, we know that there exists some {s}_{0}>0 such that
Similarly, without loss of generality, we can assume that {s}_{0} is a continuous point of {\tilde{F}}_{A,Gw}(\cdot ).
Noting that {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}g{y}_{n}=u\notin Gw and u\in A={lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}F{x}_{n}, we have {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}F{x}_{n}\ne Gw, so there exists some {n}_{0}\in N such that for all n\ge {n}_{0}, F{x}_{n}\ne Gw.
From (3.1) we know that
It is easy to verify that
In fact, for any \delta \in (0,\frac{2}{k}{s}_{0}), we have
Since gw=u\in A={lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}F{x}_{n}, by Lemma 2.3 and Lemma 2.1(ii), we get
Letting \delta \to 0, by the left continuity of the distribution function, we obtain (3.9). Similarly, we can prove that
Noting that {s}_{0} is the continuous point of {\tilde{F}}_{A,Gw}(\cdot ), by Lemma 2.4, we have
Thus, letting n\to \mathrm{\infty} in (3.8) and using (3.9) and (3.10), we obtain
that is,
But since gw\in A, by Lemma 2.1(iii), (3.7) implies that
which is a contradiction. So, we get gw\in Gw. Therefore, we have proved u=fv\in Fv, and u=gw\in Gw, i.e., v is a coincidence point of (f,F) and w is a coincidence point of (g,G).
Since v\in C(f,F) and w\in C(g,G), we have u=fv=ffv=fu\in Fv and u=gw=ggw=gu\in Gw. Next, we prove that Fv=Fu and Gw=Gu.
First, we assert that Fv=Gw. In fact, suppose that Fv\ne Gw. Then by (3.1), there exists some {t}_{1}>0 such that
This implies that
which is a contradiction, and thus we have Fv=Gw.
Similarly, we can prove that Fu=Gw. In fact, suppose that Fu\ne Gw. Then by (3.1), there exists some {t}_{2}>0 such that
This implies that
which is a contradiction, and thus we have Fu=Gw. Combining these two facts yields Fv=Fu.
Next, we assert that Fv=Gu. Suppose that Fv\ne Gu. Again by (3.1), there exists some {t}_{3}>0 such that
This implies that
which is a contradiction, and so we have Fv=Gu. Combining this with Fv=Gw, we obtain Gw=Gu.
Thus, we have u=fu\in Fu and u=gu\in Gu, that is, u is the common fixed point of f, g, F and G. This completes the proof. □
From the proof of Theorem 3.1, we can similarly prove the following result.
Theorem 3.2 Let (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) be a Menger PMspace with Δ a continuous tnorm on [0,1]\times [0,1] and let (\mathrm{\Omega},\tilde{\mathcal{F}},\mathrm{\Delta}) be the induced Menger PMspace. Suppose that f,g:X\to X and F,G:X\to \mathrm{\Omega} are mappings satisfying the conditions (i)(ii) of Theorem 3.1 and the following:
(iii)′ For any x,y\in X with Fx\ne Gy and some 1\le k<2,
where {}_{a}f(t) means f(at). Then (f,F) and (g,G) each has a coincidence point. Moreover, if ffv=fv for v\in C(f,F) and ggv=gv for v\in C(g,G), then f, g, F and G have a common fixed point in X.
Setting f=g in Theorem 3.1, we obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 3.1 Let (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) be a Menger space with Δ a continuous tnorm on [0,1]\times [0,1] and let (\mathrm{\Omega},\tilde{\mathcal{F}},\mathrm{\Delta}) be the induced Menger space. Suppose that f:X\to X and F,G:X\to \mathrm{\Omega} are mappings satisfying the following conditions:

(i)
(f,F) and (f,G) satisfy the common property (E.A);

(ii)
f(X) is a \mathcal{T}closed subset of X;

(iii)
For any x,y\in X with Fx\ne Gy and some 1\le k<2,
{\tilde{F}}_{Fx,Gy}>min\{{F}_{fx,fy}{,}_{\frac{2}{k}}[{F}_{fx,Fx}\oplus {F}_{fx,Gy}]{,}_{\frac{2}{k}}[{F}_{fy,Gy}\oplus {F}_{fy,Fx}]\},(3.12)
where {}_{a}f(t) means f(at). Then f, F and G have a coincidence point. Moreover, if ffv=fv for v\in C(f,F) and v\in C(f,G), then f, F and G have a common fixed point in X.
Setting f=g and F=G, we have the following corollary.
Corollary 3.2 Let (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) be a Menger space with Δ a continuous tnorm on [0,1]\times [0,1] and let (\mathrm{\Omega},\tilde{\mathcal{F}},\mathrm{\Delta}) be the induced Menger space. Suppose that f:X\to X and F:X\to \mathrm{\Omega} are mappings satisfying the following conditions:

(i)
(f,F) satisfies the property (E.A);

(ii)
f(X) is a \mathcal{T}closed subset of X;

(iii)
For any x,y\in X with x\ne y and some 1\le k<2,
{\tilde{F}}_{Fx,Fy}>min\{{F}_{fx,fy}{,}_{\frac{2}{k}}[{F}_{fx,Fx}\oplus {F}_{fx,Fy}]{,}_{\frac{2}{k}}[{F}_{fy,Fy}\oplus {F}_{fy,Fx}]\},(3.13)
where {}_{a}f(t) means f(at). Then f and F have a coincidence point. Moreover, if ffv=fv for v\in C(f,F), then f and F have a common fixed point in X.
If f, g, F and G are all singlevalued mappings, then we have the following corollary.
Corollary 3.3 Let (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) be a Menger space with Δ a continuous tnorm on [0,1]\times [0,1]. Suppose that f,g,F,G:X\to X are selfmappings satisfying the following conditions:

(i)
(f,F) and (g,G) satisfy the common property (E.A);

(ii)
f(X) and g(X) are \mathcal{T}closed subsets of X;

(iii)
For any x,y\in X with Fx\ne Gy and some 1\le k<2,
{\tilde{F}}_{Fx,Gy}>min\{{F}_{fx,gy}{,}_{\frac{2}{k}}[{F}_{fx,Fx}\oplus {F}_{fx,Gy}]{,}_{\frac{2}{k}}[{F}_{gy,Gy}\oplus {F}_{gy,Fx}]\},(3.14)
where {}_{a}f(t) means f(at). Then (f,F) and (g,G) each has a coincidence point. Moreover, if ffv=fv for v\in C(f,F) and ggv=gv for v\in C(g,G), then f, g, F and G have a common fixed point in X.
Remark 3.1 We would like to point out here that in the condition (iii), we use ‘for any x,y\in X with Fx\ne Gy’ instead of ‘for any x,y\in X with x\ne y’ as in Theorem 2.1 of [30] when we consider two pairs of mappings. Moreover, comparing our Corollary 3.3 with Theorem 2.1 of [30], one can find that we use the condition ‘ffv=fv for v\in C(f,F) and ggv=gv for v\in C(g,G)’ instead of weakly compatibility condition for two hybrid pairs. In fact, in a hybrid case, even if (f,F) and (g,G) are weakly compatible, we still cannot obtain the conclusion.
Remark 3.2 Similarly, some other corresponding corollaries can be obtained from Theorem 3.2. For simplicity, we omit them here. Also, it is worth mentioning that in all of the above theorems and corollaries, we do not need any condition on the continuity or the containment of the ranges of involved mappings.
4 Common fixed point results in metric spaces
In this section, we use the results in Section 3 to get some corresponding results in metric spaces.
Theorem 4.1 Let (X,d) be a metric space. Suppose that f,g:X\to X and F,G:X\to CB(X) are mappings satisfying the following conditions:

(i)
(f,F) and (g,G) satisfy the common property (E.A);

(ii)
f(X) and g(X) are closed subsets of X;

(iii)
For any x,y\in X with Fx\ne Gy and some 1\le k<2,
(4.1)
Then (f,F) and (g,G) each has a coincidence point. Moreover, if ffv=fv for v\in C(f,F) and ggv=gv for v\in C(g,G), then f, g, F and G have a common fixed point in X.
Proof Let (X,\mathcal{F},{\mathrm{\Delta}}_{min}) be the induced Menger space by (X,d) and (\mathrm{\Omega},\tilde{\mathcal{F}},{\mathrm{\Delta}}_{min}) be the induced Menger space by (CB(X),\delta ). Then by Remark 2.2, it is easy to see that Theorem 4.1(i) and (ii) imply Theorem 3.1(i) and (ii). Now we show that Theorem 4.1(iii) implies Theorem 3.1(iii).
We first verify that for any x,y\in X with Fx\ne Gy and t>0, the following holds:
If t>\delta (Fx,Gy), then {\tilde{F}}_{Fx,Gy}(t)=1, and thus (4.2) obviously holds.
If t\le \delta (Fx,Gy), we consider the following three cases:
Case (I): t<d(fx,gy). In this case, {F}_{fx,gy}(t)=0, and thus (4.2) holds.
Case (II): t<\frac{k}{2}[d(fx,Fx)+d(fx,Gy)], that is, \frac{2}{k}t<d(fx,Fx)+d(fx,Gy). Then for any {t}_{1},{t}_{2}>0 with {t}_{1}+{t}_{2}=\frac{2}{k}t, we have d(fx,Fx)>{t}_{1} or d(fx,Gy)>{t}_{2}, which implies that {F}_{fx,Fx}({t}_{1})=0 or {F}_{fx,Gy}({t}_{2})=0. Hence,
and so (4.2) holds.
Case (III): t<\frac{k}{2}[d(gy,Gy)+d(gy,Fx)]. Similar to Case (II), we can prove that [{F}_{gy,Gy}\oplus {F}_{gy,Fx}](\frac{2}{k}t)=0, so (4.2) holds.
From the above discussions, we conclude that (4.2) is always true.
Next, by (4.1), there exists some {t}_{0}>0 such that
This implies that {\tilde{F}}_{Fx,Gy}({t}_{0})=1 and
which yields that
Combining (4.2) with (4.3), we know that (3.1) holds. □
Similarly, from Theorem 3.2, we can obtain the following theorem.
Theorem 4.2 Let (X,d) be a metric space. Suppose that f,g:X\to X and F,G:X\to CB(X) are mappings satisfying the following conditions:

(i)
(f,F) and (g,G) satisfy the common property (E.A);

(ii)
f(X) and g(X) are closed subsets of X;

(iii)
For any x,y\in X with Fx\ne Gy and some 1\le k<2,
(4.4)
Then (f,F) and (g,G) each has a coincidence point. Moreover, if ffv=fv for v\in C(f,F) and ggv=gv for v\in C(g,G), then f, g, F and G have a common fixed point in X.
Remark 4.1 Note that when k=1, then (4.4) becomes (2.3) in Theorem 2.3 of [24]. Similar to Remark 3.1, we should state ‘for any x,y\in X with Fx\ne Gy’ here instead of ‘for any x,y\in X with x\ne y’ as in [24]. Moreover, we only need ‘ffv=fv for v\in C(f,F) and ggv=gv for v\in C(g,G)’ to guarantee the existence of common fixed points of f, g, F and G. In fact, the condition ‘f is Fweakly commuting for v\in C(f,F) and g is Gweakly commuting for v\in C(g,G)’ is superfluous in Theorem 2.3 of [24].
Remark 4.2 By Corollary 3.1Corollary 3.3 and Remark 3.2, we can also obtain some other corresponding corollaries for common fixed point theorems in metric spaces, which are the generalizations of many known results (e.g., [22, 23]). For the sake of simplicity, we omit them here.
5 An application
In this section, we will provide an example to exemplify the validity of the main result of this paper.
Example 5.1 Consider X=(1,1) and define {F}_{x,y}(t)=\frac{t}{t+xy} for all x,y\in X with t>0. Also, let CB(X) be the family of nonempty bounded closed subsets of X and define {\tilde{F}}_{A,B}(t)=\frac{t}{t+\delta (A,B)} for all A,B\in CB(X) with t>0. Then (X,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{\Delta}) and (\mathrm{\Omega},\tilde{\mathcal{F}},\mathrm{\Delta}) are both Menger PMspaces with \mathrm{\Delta}(a,b)=min\{a,b\}, where Ω is the family of all nonempty probabilistically bounded \mathcal{T}closed subsets of X. Define f,g:X\to X and F,G:X\to \mathrm{\Omega} as follows:
Consider the sequences \{{x}_{n}=\frac{1}{n+1}\} and \{{y}_{n}=\frac{1}{n+1}\} in X, then
which shows that (f,F) and (g,G) satisfy the common property (E.A). Also, f(X) and g(X) are \mathcal{T}closed subsets of X. By a routine calculation, one can verify the inequality (3.1) for any x,y\in X with Fx\ne Gy and some 1\le k<2.
In fact, if x\in (1,\frac{1}{2})\cup (\frac{1}{2},1) and y\in [\frac{1}{2},0], then for t>0, we have
If x\in (1,\frac{1}{2})\cup (\frac{1}{2},1) and y\in [0,\frac{1}{2}], then for t>0, we have
Similarly, it is easy to verify (3.1) for other cases. Thus, all the conditions of Theorem 3.1 are satisfied and 0 is the unique coincidence point of (f,F) and (g,G). Furthermore, noting that ff0=f0 and gg0=g0, 0 remains the common fixed point of (f,F) and (g,G).
It is worth pointing out that many theorems in some corresponding published papers cannot be applied to this example since Theorem 3.1 does not require any condition on the containment of the ranges of involved mappings, and in this example we also do not require such containment.
References
Menger K: Statistical metrics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1942, 28: 535–537. 10.1073/pnas.28.12.535
Schweizer B, Sklar A: Statistical metric spaces. Pac. J. Math. 1960, 10: 313–334. 10.2140/pjm.1960.10.313
Schweizer B, et al.: Commentary on probabilistic geometry. 2. In Karl Menger, Selecta Mathematica. Edited by: Schweizer B, Sklar A, Sigmund K. Springer, New York; 2003:409–432.
Schweizer B, Sklar A: Probabilistic Metric Spaces. NorthHolland, Amsterdam; 1983.
El Naschie MS: A review of applications and results of Einfinity theory. Int. J. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 2007, 8: 11–20.
Hadz̆ić O, Pap E: Fixed Point Theory in Probabilistic Metric Spaces. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht; 2001.
Chang SS, Cho YJ, Kang SM: Nonlinear Operator Theory in Probabilistic Metric Spaces. Nova Science Publishers, New York; 2001.
Zhu CX: Several nonlinear operator problems in the Menger PN space. Nonlinear Anal. 2006, 65: 1281–1284. 10.1016/j.na.2005.10.019
Zhu CX: Research on some problems for nonlinear operators. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 4568–4571. 10.1016/j.na.2009.03.014
Jungck G: Compatible mappings and common fixed points. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 1986, 9: 771–779. 10.1155/S0161171286000935
Jungck G: Common fixed points for non continuous non self maps on non metric spaces. Far East J. Math. Sci. 1996, 4: 199–215.
Mishra SN: Commond fixed points of compatible mappings in PMspaces. Math. Jpn. 1991, 36: 436–440.
Singh B, Jain S: A fixed point theorem in Menger space through weak compatibility. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2005, 301: 439–448. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2004.07.036
Razani A, Shirdaryazdi M: A common fixed point theorem of compatible maps in Menger space. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2007, 32: 26–34. 10.1016/j.chaos.2005.10.096
Wu ZQ, Zhu CX, Chen XL: Fixed point theorems and coincidence point theorems for hybrid contractions in PMspaces. Acta Anal. Funct. Appl. 2008, 10(4):339–345. (in Chinese)
Fang JX: Common fixed point theorems of compatible and weakly compatible maps in Menger spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 1833–1843. 10.1016/j.na.2009.01.018
Pant RP: Common fixed points of contractive maps. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1998, 226: 251–258. 10.1006/jmaa.1998.6029
Pant RP: Rweakly commutativity and common fixed points. Soochow J. Math. 1999, 25: 37–42.
Pant RP, Pant V: Common fixed under strict contractive conditions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2000, 248: 327–332. 10.1006/jmaa.2000.6871
Pant RP, Pant V, Jha K: Note on common fixed points under strict contractive conditions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2002, 274: 879–880. 10.1016/S0022247X(02)003098
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
Kamran T: Coincidence and fixed points for hybrid strict contractions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2004, 299: 235–241. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2004.06.047
Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Coincidence and common fixed points for hybrid strict contraction without the weakly commuting condition. Appl. Math. Lett. 2009, 22: 1877–1881. 10.1016/j.aml.2009.07.015
Liu YC, Wu J, Li ZX: Common fixed points of singlevalued and multivalued maps. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2005, 19: 3045–3055.
Imdad M, Ali J, Khan L: Coincidence and fixed points in symmetric spaces under strict contractions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2006, 320: 352–360. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.07.004
Imdad M, Ali J, Khan L: Corrigendum to ‘Coincidence and fixed points in symmetric spaces under strict contractions’ [J. Math. Anal. Appl. 320 (2006) 352–360]. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 329: 752. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.06.057
Aliouche A: A common fixed point theorem for weakly compatible mappings in symmetric spaces satisfying a contractive condition of integral type. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2006, 322: 796–802. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.09.068
Djoudi A, Aliouche A: Common fixed point theorems of Gregus type for weakly compatible mappings satisfying contractive conditions of integral type. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 329: 31–45. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.06.037
Fang JX, Gang Y: Common fixed point theorems under strict contractive conditions in Menger spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70: 184–193. 10.1016/j.na.2007.11.045
Ali J, Imdad M, Mihet D, Tanveer M: Common fixed points of strict contractions in Menger spaces. Acta Math. Hung. 2011, 132(4):367–386. 10.1007/s1047401101053
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editor and the referees for their constructive comments and suggestions. The research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (11071108), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province of China (2010GZS0147, 20114BAB201003), and partly supported by the Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (12YJC630091) and the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province of China (LQ12G02007).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors 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
Wu, Z., Zhu, C. & Li, J. Common fixed point theorems for two hybrid pairs of mappings satisfying the common property (E.A) in Menger PMspaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2013, 25 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/16871812201325
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/16871812201325