AAA Abstract and Applied Analysis 1687-0409 1085-3375 Hindawi Publishing Corporation 491542 10.1155/2012/491542 491542 Research Article Fixed Point Theory for Cyclic Generalized Weak ϕ-Contraction on Partial Metric Spaces Karapınar Erdal Yuce I. Savas Reich Simeon Department of Mathematics Atılım University 06836 İncek Turkey atilim.edu.tr 2012 1 7 2012 2012 28 03 2012 14 05 2012 2012 Copyright © 2012 Erdal Karapınar and I. Savas Yuce. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

A new fixed point theorem is obtained for the class of cyclic weak ϕ-contractions on partially metric spaces. It is proved that a self-mapping T on a complete partial metric space X has a fixed point if it satisfies the cyclic weak ϕ-contraction principle.

1. Introduction and Preliminaries

Fixed point theorems analyze the conditions on maps (single or multivalued) under which the existence of a solution for the equation d(x,Tx)=0 can be guaranteed. The Banach contraction mapping principle  is one of the earliest, widely known, and important results in this direction. After this pivotal principle, a number of remarkable results started to appear in the literature published by many authors (see, e.g., ). In this trend, one of the distinguished contributions was announced by Kirk et al.  in 2003. They introduced the notion of cyclic contraction, which is defined as follows.

Let A and B be two subsets of a metric space (X,d). A self-mapping T on AB is called cyclic provided that T(A)B and T(B)A. In addition, if for some k(0,1), the mapping T satisfies the inequality (1.1)d(Tx,Ty)kd(x,y)+(1-k)dist(A,B)xA,yB, then it is called cyclic contraction where dist(A,B)=inf{d(x,y):xA,yB}. In their outstanding paper , the authors also proved that if A and B are closed subsets of a complete metric space with AB, then the cyclic contraction T has a unique fixed point in AB.

The notion of Φ-contraction was defined by Boyd and Wong : A self-mapping T on a metric space X is called Φ-contraction if there exists an upper semi-continuous function Φ:[0,)[0,) such that (1.2)d(Tx,Ty)Φ(d(x,y))x,yX. This concept was generalized by Alber and Guerre-Delabriere , by introducing weak ϕ-contraction. A self-mapping T on a metric space X is called weak ϕ-contraction if ϕ:[0,)[0,) is a strictly increasing map with ϕ(0)=0 and (1.3)d(Tx,Ty)d(x,y)-ϕ(d(x,y)),x,yX.

Păcurar and Rus  gave a characterization of Φ-contraction mappings in the context of cyclic operators and proved some fixed point results for such mappings on a complete metric space. As a natural next step, Karapınar  generalized the results in  by replacing the notion of cyclic φ-contraction mappings with cyclic weak ϕ-contraction mappings. For more results for cyclic mapping analysis we refer to [3, 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 2123] and the references therein.

Recently, in fixed point theory, one of the celebrated subjects is the partial metric spaces. The notion of a partial metric space was defined by Matthews  in 1992 as a generalization of usual metric spaces. The motivation behind the theory of partial metric spaces is to transfer mathematical techniques into computer science to develop the branches of computer science such as domain theory and semantics (see, e.g., [35, 3846]).

Definition 1.1 (see [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B32">37</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B33">47</xref>]).

A partial metric on a nonempty set X is a function p:X×X[0,) such that for all x,y,zX

p(x,y)=p(y,x) (symmetry),

if p(x,x)=p(x,y)=p(y,y), then x=y (equality),

p(x,x)p(x,y) (small self-distances),

p(x,z)+p(y,y)p(x,y)+p(y,z) (triangularity).

The pair (X,p) is called a partial metric space (abbreviated by PMS).

Remark 1.2.

If x=y, then p(x,y) may not be 0.

Example 1.3 (see [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B33">47</xref>]).

Let X={[a,b]:a,b,,ab}, and define p([a,b],[c,d])=max{b,d}min{a,c}. Then, (X,p) is a partial metric space.

Example 1.4 (see [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B33">47</xref>]).

Let X:=[0,1][2,3], and define p:X×X[0,) by(1.4)p(x,y)={max{x,y}if{x,y}[2,3],|x-y|if{x,y}[0,1]. Then, (X, p) is a complete partial metric space.

Example 1.5 (see [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B46">48</xref>]).

Let (X,d) and (X,p) be a metric space and a partial metric space, respectively. Mappings ρi:X×X+ (i{1,2,3}) defined by (1.5)ρ1(x,y)=d(x,y)+p(x,y)ρ2(x,y)=d(x,y)+max{ω(x),ω(y)}ρ3(x,y)=d(x,y)+a induce partial metrics on X, where ω:X+ is an arbitrary function and a0.

Each partial metric p on X generates a T0 topology τp on X which has the family of open p-balls {Bp(x,ɛ),xX,ɛ>0} as a base, where Bp(x,ɛ)={yX:p(x,y)<p(x,x)+ɛ} for all xX and ɛ>0.

If p is a partial metric on X, then the function dp:X×X[0,) given by (1.6)dp(x,y)=2p(x,y)-p(x,x)-p(y,y) is a metric on X. Furthermore, it is possible to observe that the following (1.7)dm(x,y)=max{p(x,y)-p(x,x),p(x,y)-p(y,y)}, also defines a metric on X. In fact, dp and dm are equivalent (see, e.g., ).

Example 1.6 (see, e.g., [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">5</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">27</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">30</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B33">47</xref>]).

Consider X=[0,) with p(x,y)=max{x,y}. Then, (X,p) is a partial metric space. It is clear that p is not a (usual) metric. Note that in this case dp(x,y)=|x-y|=dm(x,y).

For our purposes, we need to recall some basic topological concepts in partial metric spaces (for details see, e.g., [5, 8, 27, 30, 37, 47]).

Definition 1.7.

(1) A sequence {xn} in the PMS (X,p) converges to a limit point x if and only if p(x,x)=limnp(x,xn).

(2) A sequence {xn} in the PMS (X,p) is called a Cauchy sequence if limn,mp(xn,xm) exists and is finite.

(3)   A PMS (X,p) is called complete if every Cauchy sequence {xn} in X converges, with respect to τp, to a point xX such that p(x,x)=limn,mp(xn,xm).

(4) A mapping F:XX is said to be continuous at x0X if, for every ϵ>0, there exists δ>0 such that F(Bp(x0,δ))Bp(Fx0,ϵ).

Lemma 1.8.

(1) A sequence {xn} is a Cauchy sequence in the PMS (X,p) if and only if it is a Cauchy sequence in the metric space (X,dp).

(2) A PMS (X,p) is complete if and only if the metric space (X,dp) is complete. Moreover, (1.8)limndp(x,xn)=0p(x,x)=limnp(x,xn)=limn,mp(xn,xm).

In , Romaguera introduced the concepts of a 0-Cauchy sequence in a partial metric space and of a 0-complete partial metric space as follows.

Definition 1.9.

A sequence {xn} in a partial metric space (X,p) is called 0-Cauchy if limn,mp(xn,xm)=0. A partial metric space (X,p) is said to be 0-complete if every 0-Cauchy sequence in X converges, with respect to τp, to a point xX such that p(x,x)=0. In this case, p is said to be a 0-complete partial metric on X.

Remark 1.10 (see [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B38">32</xref>]).

Each 0-Cauchy sequence in (X,p) is a Cauchy sequence in (X,p), and each complete partial metric space is 0-complete.

The following example shows that there exists a 0-complete partial metric space that is not complete.

Example 1.11 <xref ref-type="statement" rid="ex11">1.11</xref> (see [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B38">32</xref>]).

Let ([0,),p) be a partial metric space, where denotes the set of rational numbers and the partial metric p is given by p(x,y)=max{x,y}.

Now, we state a number of simple but useful lemmas that can be derived by manipulating the properties (P1)-(P4).

Lemma 1.12.

Let (X,p) be a PMS. Then, the following statements hold true:

if limnp(xn,z)=p(z,z) and p(z,z)=0, then limnp(xn,y)=p(z,y) for every yX (see [5, 27, 30]),

if limnp(xn,y)=p(y,y), limnp(xn,z)=p(z,z), and p(y,y)=p(z,z), then y=z (see ),

if p(x,y)=0 then x=y (see [27, 30]),

if xy, then p(x,y)>0 (see [27, 30]).

One of the implications of Lemma 1.12 can be stated as follows.

Remark 1.13.

If {xn} converges to x in (X,p), then limnp(xn,y)p(x,y) for all yX.

We would like to point out that the topology induced by a partial metric differs from the topology induced by a metric in certain aspects. The following remark and example highlight one of these aspects.

Remark 1.14.

Limit of a sequence {xn} in a partial metric space (X,p) may not be unique.

Example 1.15.

Consider X=[0,) with p(x,y)=max{x,y}. Then, (X,p) is a partial metric space. Clearly, p is not a metric. Observe that the sequence {1+(1/1+n)} converges to both x=5 and y=6, for example. Therefore, there is no uniqueness of the limit in this partial metric space.

2. Main Results

In this section we aim to state and prove our main results. These results are more general in the sense that they are applicable to chains of cyclic representations and related generalized weak ϕ-contractions introduced in the following two definitions.

Definition 2.1 (see, e.g., [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">13</xref>]).

Let X be a nonempty set, m, a positive integer, and T:XX an operator. The union X=i=1mXi is called a cyclic representation of X with respect to T if

each Xi is a nonempty set for i=1,,m,

T(X1)X2,,T(Xm-1)Xm, T(Xm)X1.

Definition 2.2 (cf. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">13</xref>]).

Let (X,p) be a partial metric space, m be a positive integer, A1,,Am closed nonempty subsets of X and Y=i=1mAi. An operator T:YY is called a cyclic generalized weak ϕ-contraction if

i=1mAi is a cyclic representation of Y with respect to T,

there exists a continuous, nondecreasing function ϕ:[0,)[0,) with ϕ(t)>0 for every t(0,) and ϕ(0)=0, such that (2.1)p(Tx,Ty)M(x,y)-ϕ(M(x,y)),

where (2.2)M(x,y)=max{p(x,y),p(Tx,x),p(y,Ty)}, for any xAi,yAi+1 for i=1,2,,m with Am+1=A1.

Our main theorem in this work is stated below.

Theorem 2.3.

Let (X,p) be a 0-complete partial metric space, m a positive integer, and A1,,Am be closed non-empty subsets of X. Let Y=i=1mAi be a cyclic representation of Y with respect to T. Suppose that T is a cyclic generalized weak ϕ-contraction. Then, T has a unique fixed point zi=1mAi.

Proof.

First we show that if T has a fixed point, then it is unique. Suppose on the contrary that there exist z,wi=1mAi such that Tz=z and w=Tw with zw. Due to (2.1), we have (2.3)p(z,w)=p(Tz,Tw)M(z,w)-ϕ(M(z,w)), which is equivalent to (2.4)p(z,w)=p(Tz,Tw)p(z,w)-ϕ(p(z,w)) by (PM3) in Definition 1.1. This is a contradiction because p(z,w)>0 by Lemma 1.12 and ϕ(t)>0 for all t>0. Hence, T has a unique fixed point.

Next we prove the existence of a fixed point of T. Let x0Y=i=1mAi and xn+1=Txn be the Picard iteration. If there exists n0 such that xn0=xn0+1, then the theorem follows. Indeed, we get xn0=xn0+1=Txn0 and, therefore, x0 is a fixed point of T. Thus, we may assume that xnxn+1 for all n where we have (2.5)p(xn,xn+1)>0, by Lemma 1.12.

Since T is cyclic, for any n0, there is in{1,2,,m} such that xnAin and xn+1Ain+1. Then, by (2.1), we have (2.6)p(xn+1,xn+2)=p(Txn,Txn+1)M(xn,xn+1)-ϕ(M(xn,xn+1)), where (2.7)M(xn,xn+1)=max{p(xn,xn+1),p(Txn,xn),p(xn+1,Txn+1)}=max{p(xn,xn+1),p(xn+1,xn+2)}. If we assume M(xn,xn+1)=p(xn+1,xn+2), then (2.6) turns into (2.8)p(xn+1,xn+2)p(xn+1,xn+2)-ϕ(p(xn+1,xn+2)), which is a contradiction. Because when we let t=p(xn+1,xn+2), which is positive by (2.5), we get ϕ(t)=ϕ(p(xn+1,xn+2))>0, we need to take M(xn,xn+1)=p(xn,xn+1). Define tn=p(xn,xn+1). Then, the inequality in (2.6) turns into (2.9)tn+1tn-ϕ(tn)tn. Therefore, {tn} is a nonnegative nonincreasing sequence. Hence, {tn} converges to L0. We aim to show that L=0. Suppose on the contrary that L>0. Letting n in (2.9), we get that (2.10)LL-limnϕ(tn)L. Thus, we obtain that (2.11)limnϕ(tn)=0. Since L=inf{tn=p(xn,xn+1):n}, then 0<Ltn for n=0,1,2,. Taking n in the previous inequality, we derive (2.12)0<ϕ(L)limnϕ(tn), which contradicts with (2.11). Thus, we have limnp(xn+1,xn)=0.

We claim that {tn} is a 0-Cauchy sequence. In order to prove this assertion, we first prove the following statement.

For every ϵ>0, there exists n0 such that if s,qn0 with s-q1(m), then p(xs,xq)<ϵ.

Assume the contrary that there exists ϵ>0 such that for any n we can find s>qn with s-q1(m) satisfying the inequality p(xs,xq)ϵ. Then, we have (2.13)ϵp(xs,xq)p(xs,xs+1)+p(xs+1,xq+1)+p(xq+1,xq)=p(xs,xs+1)+p(Txs,Txq)+p(xq+1,xq), by the triangular inequality. Since xs and xq lie in different adjacently labeled sets Ai and Ai+1 for certain 1im, from (2.13) we get (2.14)ϵp(xs,xq)p(xs,xs+1)+M(xs,xq)-ϕ(M(xs,xq))+p(xq+1,xq)p(xs,xs+1)+M(xs,xq)-ϕ(p(xs,xq))+p(xq+1,xq) by using the contractive condition in (2.1), where (2.15)M(xs,xq)=max{p(xs,xq),p(xs,xs+1),p(xq+1,xq)}.

If M(xs,xq) is equal to either p(xq+1,xq) or p(xs,xs+1), then letting s,q in (2.14) yields that (2.16)ϵlims,qp(xs,xq)-lims,qϕ(p(xs,xq)) is a contradiction. Hence, M(xs,xq)=p(xs,xq) and inequality (2.14) give (2.17)ϕ(p(xs,xq))p(xs,xs+1)+p(xq+1,xq). As ϵp(xs,xq) and ϕ is nondecreasing, we have (2.18)0<ϕ(ϵ)ϕ(p(xs,xq)) Inequalities (2.17) and (2.18) give us(2.19)0<ϕ(ϵ)ϕ(p(xs,xq))p(xs,xs+1)+p(xq+1,xq). Letting s,q with s-q1(m) and since limnp(xn,xn+1)=0, we have (2.20)0<ϕ(ϵ)lims,qϕ(p(xs,xq))0s-q1(m), which is a contradiction. Therefore, (A) is proved.

Now, in order to prove that {xn} is a Cauchy sequence, we fix an ϵ>0. Using (A), we find n0 such that if s,qn0 with s-q1(m), (2.21)p(xs,xq)ϵm. On the other hand, since limnp(xn,xn+1)=0, we also find n1 such that (2.22)p(xn,xn+1)ϵm, for any nn1. We take k,lmax{n0,n1} with l>k. Then, there exists K{1,2,,m} such that l-kK(m). Therefore, l-k+j1(m) for j=m-K+1, and so (2.23)p(xk,xl)p(xk,xl+j)+p(xl+j,xl+j-1)++p(xl+1,xl). From (2.21) and (2.22) and the last inequality, (2.24)p(xk,xl)ϵm+(j-1)ϵm=jϵmϵ. Hence, (2.25)limk,lp(xk,xl)=0. This prove that {tn} is a 0-Cauchy sequence.

Since X is a 0-complete partial metric space, there exists xX such that limnp(xn,x)=p(x,x). Now, we will prove that x is a fixed point of T. In fact, since {xn} converges to x and Y=i=1mAi is a cyclic representation of Y with respect to T, the sequence {xn} has infinite number of terms in each Ai for i{1,2,,m}. Regarding that Ai is closed for i{1,2,,m}, we have xi=1mAi. Now fix i{1,2,,m} such that xAi and TxAi+1. We take a subsequence {xnk} of {xm} with xnkAi-1 (the existence of this subsequence is guaranteed by the mentioned comment above). Using the triangular inequality and the contractive conditions, we can obtain (2.26)p(x,Tx)p(x,xnk+1)+p(xnk+1,Tx)=p(x,xnk+1)+p(Txnk,Tx)p(x,xnk+1)+M(xnk,x)-ϕ(M(xnk,x)), where M(x,xnk)={p(x,Tx),p(xnk,xnk+1),p(x,xnk)}. If M(x,xnk) is equal to either p(xnk,xnk+1) or p(x,xnk), then by letting k, inequality (2.26) implies (2.27)p(x,Tx)0. Therefore, p(x,Tx)=0, that is, x is a fixed point of T by Lemma 1.12. If M(x,xnk)=p(x,Tx) then (2.26) turns into (2.28)p(x,Tx)p(x,xnk+1)+p(x,Tx)-ϕ(p(x,Tx))ϕ(p(x,Tx))p(x,xnk+1). Letting k, we get that limkϕ(p(x,Tx))=0. Hence, by the properties of ϕ we have p(x,Tx)=0.

Theorem 2.4.

Let T:YY be a self-mapping as in Theorem 2.3. Then, the fixed point problem for T is well posed, that is, if there exists a sequence {yn} in Y with p(yn,Tyn)0, as n, then p(yn,z)0 as n.

Proof.

Due to Theorem 2.3, we know that for any initial value yY, zi=1mAi is the unique fixed point of T. Thus, p(yn,z) is well defined. Consider (2.29)p(yn,z)p(yn,Tyn)+p(Tyn,Tz)p(yn,Tyn)+M(yn,z)-ϕ(M(yn,z)), where M(yn,z)={p(yn,z),p(yn,Tyn),p(z,Tz)}. There are three cases to consider: if M(yn,z)=p(yn,z), then (2.29) is equivalent to (2.30)0p(yn,Tyn)-ϕ(p(yn,z))ϕ(p(yn,z))p(yn,Tyn). Since we are given p(yn,Tyn)0 as n, we derive that ϕ(p(yn,z))0. Regarding the definition of ϕ, we obtain that p(yn,z)0. The theorem follows.

If it is the case that M(yn,z)=p(yn,Tyn), then the right-hand side of (2.29) tends to 0 as n tends to infinity. Hence, the theorem follows again.

As the last case, we have M(yn,z)=p(z,Tz). Similarly we conclude that the right-hand side of (2.29) tends to 0 as n tends to infinity because we know that p(z,Tz)=0 by Theorem 2.3 and p(yn,Tyn)0, which completes the proof.

Theorem 2.5.

Let T:YY be a self-mapping as in Theorem 2.3. Then, T has the limit shadowing property, that is, if there exists a convergent sequence {yn} in Y with p(yn+1,Tyn)0 and p(yn,Tyn)0, as n, then there exists xY such that p(yn,Tnx)0 as n.

Proof.

As in the proof of Theorem 2.4, we observe that for any initial value xY, zi=1mAi is the unique fixed point of T. Thus, p(yn,z),p(yn+1,z) are well defined. Set y as a limit of a convergent sequence {yn} in Y. Consider (2.31)p(yn+1,z)p(yn+1,Tyn)+p(Tyn,Tz)p(yn+1,Tyn)+M(yn,z)-ϕ(M(yn,z)), where M(yn,z)={p(yn,z),p(yn,Tyn),p(z,Tz)}. There are three cases to consider: If M(yn,z)=p(yn,z), then (2.31) is equivalent to (2.32)p(y,z)p(y,z)-ϕ(p(y,z)), as n. This is possible only if ϕ(p(y,z))=0, which implies that p(y,z)=0 and thus y=z. Thus, we have p(yn,Tnx)p(y,z)=0, as n.

If it is the case that M(yn,z)=p(yn,Tyn), then the right-hand side of (2.31) tends to 0 as n tends to infinity. Hence, the theorem follows again.

As the last case, we have M(yn,z)=p(z,Tz). Similarly we conclude that the right-hand side of (2.31) tends to 0 as n tends to infinity because we know that p(z,Tz)=0 by Theorem 2.3 and p(yn+1,Tyn)0, which completes the proof.

Theorem 2.6.

Let X be a non-empty set, (X,p) and (X,ρ) partial metric spaces, m a positive integer, and A1,A2,,Am closed non-empty subsets of X and Y=i=1mAi. Suppose that

Y=i=1mAi is a cyclic representation of Y with respect to T.

p(x,y)ρ(x,y) for all x,yY,

(Y,p) is a complete partial metric space,

T:(Y,p)(Y,ρ) is continuous,

T:(Y,p)(Y,ρ) is a cyclic weak ϕ-contraction where ϕ:[0,)[0,) with ϕ(t)>0 is a lower semicontinuous function for t(0,) and ϕ(0)=0.

Then, {Tnx0} converges to z in (Y,p) for any x0Y and z is the unique fixed point of T.

Proof.

Let x0Y. As in Theorem 2.3, assumption (5) implies that {Tnx0} is a Cauchy sequence in (Y,ρ). Taking (2) into account, {Tnx0} is a Cauchy sequence in (Y,d), and due to (3) it converges to z in (Y,ρ) for any x0Y. Condition (4) implies the uniqueness of z.

Definition 2.7 (cf. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">2</xref>]).

Let (X,p) be a partial metric space, m a positive integer, and A1,,Am closed non-empty subsets of X and Y=i=1mAi. An operator T:YY is called a cyclic generalized φ-contraction if

i=1mAi is a cyclic representation of Y with respect to T, and

there exists a continuous, non-decreasing function φ:[0,)[0,) with φ(t)>0 for every t(0,) and φ(0)=0, such that (2.33)p(Tx,Ty)φ(M(x,y)),

where (2.34)M(x,y)=max{p(x,y),p(Tx,x),p(y,Ty)}

for any xAi,yAi+1 for i=1,2,,m with Am+1=A1.

The following is an analog of the main theorem in .

Corollary 2.8.

Let (X,p) be a 0-complete partial metric space, m a positive integer, and A1,,Am closed non-empty subsets of X. Let Y=i=1mAi be a cyclic representation of Y with respect to T. Suppose that T is a cyclic generalized φ-contraction. Then, T has a unique fixed point zi=1mAi.

Proof.

It follows from Theorem 2.3 by taking ϕ(t)=t-φ(t).

Banach S. Sur les operations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux equation-sitegrales Fundamenta Mathematicae 1922 3 133 181 Abbas M. Nazir T. Romaguera S. Fixed point results for generalized cyclic contraction mappings in partial metric spaces Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas. In press 10.1007/s13398-011-0051-5 Abdeljawad T. Karapınar E. Quasi-cone metric spaces and generalizations of Caristi Kirk's theorem Fixed Point Theory and Applications 2009 2009 10.1155/2009/574387 574387 Abdeljawad T. Fixed points for generalized weakly contractive mappings in partial metric spaces Mathematical and Computer Modelling 2011 54 11-12 2923 2927 10.1016/j.mcm.2011.07.013 2841834 Abdeljawad T. Karapınar E. Taş K. Existence and uniqueness of common fixed point on partial metric spaces Applied Mathematics Letters 2011 24 1894 1899 Abdeljawad T. Karapınar E. Taş K. A generalized contraction principle with control functions on partial metric spaces Computers & Mathematics with Applications 2012 63 3 716 719 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.11.035 2871671 Alber Y. I. Guerre-Delabriere S. Principle of weakly contractive maps in Hilbert spaces New Results in Operator Theory and Its Applications 1997 98 Basel, Switzerland Birkhäuser 7 22 1478463 Altun I. Sola F. Simsek H. Generalized contractions on partial metric spaces Topology and Its Applications 2010 157 18 2778 2785 10.1016/j.topol.2010.08.017 2729337 Altun I. Erduran A. Fixed point theorems for monotone mappings on partial metric spaces Fixed Point Theory and Applications 2011 2011 10 10.1155/2011/508730 508730 2755443 Aydi H. Karapınar E. Shatanawi W. Coupled fixed point results for (ψ, φ)-weakly contractive condition in ordered partial metric spaces Computers & Mathematics with Applications 2011 62 12 4449 4460 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.10.021 2855587 Boyd D. W. Wong J. S. W. On nonlinear contractions Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 1969 20 458 464 0239559 Hussain N. Jungck G. Common fixed point and invariant approximation results for noncommuting generalized (f, g)-nonexpansive maps Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2006 321 2 851 861 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.08.045 2241159 Karapınar E. Fixed point theory for cyclic weak ϕ-contraction Applied Mathematics Letters 2011 24 6 822 825 10.1016/j.aml.2010.12.016 2776142 Karapınar E. Sadarangani K. Corrigendum to “Fixed point theory for cyclic weak imagecontraction” Applied Mathematics Letters [Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 14, no. 6, Article ID 822825, 2011], In press Kirk W. A. Srinivasan P. S. Veeramani P. Fixed points for mappings satisfying cyclical contractive conditions Fixed Point Theory 2003 4 1 79 89 2031823 Petruşel G. Cyclic representations and periodic points Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai. Studia. Mathematica 2005 50 3 107 112 2244669 Rus I. A. Cyclic representations and fixed points Annals of the Tiberiu Popoviciu 2005 3 171 178 Rhoades B. E. Some theorems on weakly contractive maps Nonlinear Analysis. Theory, Methods & Applications 2001 47 4 2683 2693 Păcurar M. Rus I. A. Fixed point theory for cyclic φ-contractions Nonlinear Analysis. Theory, Methods & Applications 2010 72 3-4 1181 1187 10.1016/j.na.2009.08.002 2577518 Berinde V. Contractii Generalizate şi Aplicatii 1997 2 Editura Cub Press viii+159 1869546 Song Y. Coincidence points for noncommuting f-weakly contractive mappings International Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 2007 2 1 51 57 2388137 Song Y. Xu S. A note on common fixed-points for Banach operator pairs International Journal of Contemporary Mathematical Sciences 2007 2 21–24 1163 1166 2373911 Zhang Q. Song Y. Fixed point theory for generalized φ-weak contractions Applied Mathematics Letters 2009 22 1 75 78 10.1016/j.aml.2008.02.007 2484285 Rus I. A. Fixed point theory in partial metric spaces Analele Universiatii de Vest 2008 46 2 149 160 2798567 Ilić D. Pavlović V. Rakočević V. Some new extensions of Banach's contraction principle to partial metric space Applied Mathematics Letters 2011 24 8 1326 1330 10.1016/j.aml.2011.02.025 2793626 Ilić D. Pavlović V. Rakoçević V. Extensions of the Zamfirescu theorem to partial metric spaces Mathematical and Computer Modelling 2012 55 34 801 809 Karapınar E. Erhan M. Fixed point theorems for operators on partial metric spaces Applied Mathematics Letters 2011 24 11 1894 1899 10.1016/j.aml.2011.05.013 2812233 Karapınar E. A note on common fixed point theorems in partial metric spaces Miskolc Mathematical Notes 2011 12 2 185 191 Karapinar E. Weak ϕ-contraction on partial metric spaces and existence of fixed points in partially ordered sets Mathematica Aeterna 2011 1 3-4 237 244 2805925 Karapınar E. Generalizations of Caristi Kirk's Theorem on Partial metric Spaces Fixed Point Theory and Applications 2011 2011, article 4 10.1186/1687-1812-2011-4 Karapinar E. Shobkolaei N. Sedghi S. Vaezpour S. M. A common fixed point theorem for cyclic operators on partial metric spaces FILOMAT 2012 26 2 407 414 Romaguera S. A Kirk type characterization of completeness for partial metric spaces Fixed Point Theory and Applications 2010 2010 6 10.1155/2010/493298 493298 2575152 Romaguera S. Fixed point theorems for generalized contractions on partial metric spaces Topology and its Applications 2012 159 1 194 199 10.1016/j.topol.2011.08.026 2852962 Romaguera S. Matkowski's type theorems for generalized contractions on (ordered) partial metric spaces Applied General Topology 2011 12 2 213 220 2864012 Romaguera S. Schellekens M. Weightable quasi-metric semigroup and semilattices 40 Proceedings of the MFCSIT 2003 Elsevier Electronic Notes of Theoretical computer science Samet B. Rajović M. Lazović R. Stoiljković R. Common fixed point results for nonlinear contractions in ordered partial metric spaces Fixed Point Theory and Applications 2011 2011, article 71 Matthews S. G. Partial metric topology Research Report 1992 212 Department of Computer Science. University of Warwick Kopperman R. Matthews S. G. Pajoohesh H. What do partial metrics represent? Spatial representation: discrete vs. continuous computational models Proceedings of the Dagstuhl Seminar Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum fr Informatik (IBFI '05) 2005 Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany 1714180 Künzi H.-P. A. Pajoohesh H. Schellekens M. P. Partial quasi-metrics Theoretical Computer Science 2006 365 3 237 246 10.1016/j.tcs.2006.07.050 2269455 O'Neill S. J. Two topologies are better than one 1995 Coventry, UK University of Warwick Heckmann R. Approximation of metric spaces by partial metric spaces Applied Categorical Structures 1999 7 1-2 71 83 10.1023/A:1008684018933 1714180 Schellekens M. P. A characterization of partial metrizability: domains are quantifiable Theoretical Computer Science 2003 305 1–3 409 432 10.1016/S0304-3975(02)00705-3 2013579 Schellekens M. P. The correspondence between partial metrics and semivaluations Theoretical Computer Science 2004 315 1 135 149 10.1016/j.tcs.2003.11.016 2072993 Schellekens M. The Smyth completion: a common foundation for denotational semantics and complexity analysis Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics 1995 1 Amsterdam, The Netherlands Elsevier 535 556 Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 1486864 Waszkiewicz P. Partial metrisability of continuous posets Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 2006 16 2 359 372 10.1017/S0960129506005196 2228941 Waszkiewicz P. Quantitative continuous domains Applied Categorical Structures 2003 11 1 41 67 10.1023/A:1023012924892 1993109 Matthews S. G. Partial metric topology 728 Proceedings of the 8th Summer Conference on General Topology and Applications 1994 183 197 Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Shobkolaei N. Vaezpour S. M. Sedghi S. A common fixed point theorem on ordered partial metric spaces Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research 2011 1 12 3433 3439