Several authors have introduced various conditions which can be used in order to prove common fixed point results. However, it became clear recently that some of these conditions, though formally distinct from each other, actually coincide in the case when the given mappings have a unique point of coincidence. Hence, in fact, new common fixed point results cannot be obtained in this way. We make a review of such connections and results in this paper.
1. Introduction
The simplest common fixed point results for mappings A,S:X→X can be obtained if A and S commute (Jungck, [1]). Obviously, this condition is too strong, and so it is natural to seek for weaker assumptions. Hence, several authors have introduced various other conditions (we will call them compatible-type conditions) which can be used in order to prove common fixed point results. Some of these conditions were given in [2–19]. These (and other) conditions were used in other papers cited in the references. A review of the relationship between various compatible-type conditions introduced until 2001 was given in [20].
However, it became clear recently that some of these conditions, though formally distinct from each other, actually coincide in the case when the given mappings have a unique point of coincidence. Hence, in fact, new common fixed point results cannot be obtained in this way. We make a review of such connections and results in this paper.
2. Definitions and Relations between Various Types of Pairs
Most of the notions and results that follow can be formulated and proved in various types of spaces—metric, symmetric, cone metric, b-metric, probabilistic metric, and so forth. For the sake of simplicity, we will stay within the framework of metric spaces.
Let (X,d) be a metric space, and let A,S:X→X. We will denote by C(A,S) the set of coincidence points (CP) of A and S, that is,
(1)C(A,S)={x∈X∣Ax=Sx},
by PC(A,S) the set of points of coincidence (POC) of A and S, that is,
(2)PC(A,S)={y∈X∣y=Ax=Sx,forsomex∈X},
and by ℒ(A,S) the set of sequences (xn) in X satisfying limn→∞Axn=limn→∞Sxn, that is,
(3)ℒ(A,S)={(xn)∣limn→∞Axn=limn→∞Sxn}.
The following are definitions of some of the multitude of compatible-type conditions, introduced and used for establishing common fixed point results in recent decades.
Definition 1.
It is said that the pair (A,S) is
weakly commuting [2] if, for all x∈X, d(ASx,SAx)≤d(Ax,Sx);
said to satisfy the property (E.A) [7] if ℒ(A,S)≠∅ (i.e., if there exists a sequence (xn) in X such that limn→∞Axn=limn→∞Sxn);
compatible [3] if, for all (xn), (xn)∈ℒ(A,S) implies that limn→∞d(ASxn,SAxn)=0;
noncompatible [4] if, for some (xn)∈ℒ(A,S), limn→∞d(ASxn,SAxn)≠0 or does not exist;
subcompatible [15] if, for some (xn)∈ℒ(A,S), limn→∞d(ASxn,SAxn)=0;
conditionally compatible [6] if ℒ(A,S)≠∅ implies that for some (xn)∈ℒ(A,S), limn→∞d(ASxn,SAxn)=0;
weakly compatible [5] if, for all x∈X, Ax=Sx implies that ASx=SAx (i.e., if, for all x∈X, x∈C(A,S) implies that Ax∈C(A,S));
occasionally weakly compatible [8] (see also [21–23]) if, for some x∈X, Ax=Sx and ASx=SAx (i.e., if, for some x∈C(A,S), Ax∈C(A,S));
conditionally commuting [9] if C(A,S)≠∅ implies that there exists ∅≠Y⊆C(A,S) such that, for all y∈Y, ASy=SAy;
faintly compatible [16] if it is conditionally compatible and conditionally commuting (i.e., (6) and (9) hold);
reciprocally continuous [13] if, for all (xn)∈ℒ(A,S), limn→∞Axn=limn→∞Sxn=z implies that limn→∞ASxn=Az and limn→∞SAxn=Sz;
subsequentially continuous [15] if, for some (xn)∈ℒ(A,S), limn→∞Axn=limn→∞Sxn=z and limn→∞ASxn=Az, limn→∞SAxn=Sz;
conditionally reciprocal continuous [19] if ℒ(A,S)≠∅ implies that, for some (xn)∈ℒ(A,S), limn→∞Axn=limn→∞Sxn=z, limn→∞ASxn=Az, and limn→∞SAxn=Sz;
a 𝒫-operator pair [10] if, for some x∈C(A,S), d(x,Ax)≤diamC(A,S);
a 𝒥ℋ-operator pair [11] if, for some x∈C(A,S), d(x,Ax)≤diamPC(A,S);
a generalized 𝒥ℋ-operator pair of order n∈ℕ [12] if, for some x∈C(A,S), d(x,Ax)≤(diamPC(A,S))n;
a 𝒫𝒟-operator pair [14] if, for some x∈C(A,S), d(ASx,SAx)≤diamPC(A,S);
S-biased [17] if, for all (xn)∈ℒ(A,S), αd(Sxn,SAxn)≤αd(Axn,ASxn), where α=limsup or α=liminf;
weakly S-biased [17] if, for all x∈X, x∈C(A,S) implies that d(SAx,Sx)≤d(ASx,Ax);
occasionally weakly S-biased [11, 18] if, for some x∈C(A,S), d(SAx,Sx)≤d(ASx,Ax);
Note that the conditions (7), (8), and (9) are purely set-theoretical and do not depend on the metric structure of (X,d). All other conditions are metrical and could change if the metric of the space is changed (or some other structure of the space is applied).
In Table 1, we state which of these properties trivially hold (or can never hold) if one (or both) of the sets C(A,S) and ℒ(A,S) is empty or nonempty. Also, some of implications between these conditions obviously hold in some of these cases. Note that ℒ(A,S)=∅⇒C(A,S)=∅ (and hence, C(A,S)≠∅⇒ℒ(A,S)≠∅).
Counter examples for some of the reverse implications are given in [8, Example in Section 2], [14, Example 3.1], [21, Example], and [24, Example 2.12].
The following are some other implications (mostly clear from definitions) that hold between the introduced notions. When it is not obvious that the reverse implication does not hold, a reference for a counterexample is given.
(1)⇒(3). For the reverse implication see [3, Examples 2.1 and 2.2].
(4)⇒(2). For the reverse implication see [25, Example 1].
(3)∧(2)⇒(5) and (6)∧(2)⇒(5). For the reverse implications see [26, Example 2.3].
(3)⇒(6). For the reverse implication see [16, Example 1.2].
(5)⇒(6) (for the reverse implication take arbitrary mappings satisfying ℒ(A,S)=∅) and (5)⇒(2).
(2) and (7) are independent of each other (see [27, Examples 2.1-2.2]).
(3)⇒(7). For the reverse implication see, for example, [28, Example 2.3] (note that a part of the definition of the mapping A in this example is missing; it should be, for example, Ax=(x+5)/5 for 5<x≤20).
(6) does not imply (7) (see [16, Example 1.3]).
(3) and (8) are independent (in one direction take any pair with ℒ(A,S)=∅, and for the reverse see [9, Example 1.1]).
(4) and (8) are independent of each other (see [9, Examples 1.1–1.3]).
(8)⇒(5). For the reverse implication see [15, Example 1.2].
(8)⇒(6) and (8)⇒(9). For the reverse implications take arbitrary mappings satisfying ℒ(A,S)=∅ (and hence, C(A,S)=∅).
(9) does not imply (7) (see [9]).
(3)⇒(10). For the reverse implication see [16, Example 1.4].
(4) and (10) are independent of each other. An example of a noncompatible pair which is not faintly compatible is [16, Example 1.5] (see also [9, Example 1.1]). Any pair of commuting that maps with C(A,S)≠∅ is faintly compatible and not noncompatible.
(8)⇒(10). For the reverse implication see [16, Example 1.7] or [29, Example 2.1].
(11) and (12) are independent conditions, (in one direction, take arbitrary pair satisfying ℒ(A,S)=∅, and in the other see [15, Example 1.4]).
(11)⇒(13) and (12)⇒(13). For the reverse implications see [19, Example 6].
(7)⇒(14) and (8)⇒(14). Indeed, it follows from (8) that there exists x∈C(A,S) such that ASx=SAx; that is, Ax=Sx∈C(A,S). But then d(x,Ax)≤diamC(A,S).
(14) and (15) (together) do not imply either (7), or (8) (see [10, Example A]), or (17) (see [14, Example 3.3]).
(15)⇒(16) (for the reverse implication and that (16) does not imply (8) see [12, Example 3.2]).
(17) does not imply (14), and (17) does not imply (15) (see [14, Example 3.4]).
(3)⇒(18). For the reverse implication see [17].
(18)⇒(19). For the reverse implication see [17].
(7)⇒(19) and (8)⇒(20). For the reverse implications see [30, Example 2.3] and [18, Example 3.2].
(19) does not imply (8) (see [30, Example 2.4]) and (20) does not imply (19) (see [18, Example 3.2]).
Finally, if PC(A,S) is a singleton, then
(8)⇒(7) [31, Proposition 2.2],
(5)⇒(7) [32, Proposition 2.22], and
(20)⇒(19) [24, Proposition 2.11].
3. Reducing Common Fixed Point Results to the Case of Weak Compatibility
The following simple result can be used to show that several common fixed point theorems obtained recently are actually not generalizations of previously known results.
Proposition 2.
Let (X,d) be a metric space, and let A,S:X→X. Let the pair (A,S) have exactly one point of coincidence; that is,
(4)PC(A,S)={w}.
Then conditions (7), (8), (9), and (17) are equivalent, and equivalent with the condition that the pair (A,S) has a unique common fixed point.
Proof.
Note first that PC(A,S)≠∅ implies that C(A,S)≠∅ and ℒ(A,S)≠∅ (just take xn=x, where x∈C(A,S), for all n∈ℕ) Consider the following.
(7)⇒(8) holds because C(A,S)≠∅.
(8)⇒(7) follows by [31, Proposition 2.2].
(8)⇔(9) holds because C(A,S)≠∅.
(7)⇒(17) was proved in [14], and (17)⇒(8) follows because diamPC(A,S)=diam{w}=0.
In the case that (A,S) has a unique POC, it was proved in [22] that condition (8) implies that (A,S) has a unique common fixed point. The converse is obvious.
An easy example of mappings Ax=3x-2 and Sx=x2 on X=[1,+∞), when PC(A,S) has two elements, shows that the condition that PC(A,S) is a singleton cannot be removed from the previous proposition, neither does this proposition hold when PC(A,S)=∅, as [19, Example 6] shows.
When considering two pairs of mappings, the following is a direct consequence of Proposition 2.
Corollary 3.
Let (A,S) and (B,T) be two pairs of self-maps on a metric space (X,d), satisfying
(5)PC(A,S)=PC(B,T)={w}.
Then the following conditions are equivalent.
(A,S) and (B,T) both satisfy condition (7).
(A,S) and (B,T) both satisfy condition (8).
(A,S) and (B,T) both satisfy condition (17).
A, B, S, and T have a unique common fixed point.
Applying Proposition 2 or Corollary 3, it is easy to show that a lot of the results of papers cited in the references are actually not generalizations of previously known ones.
As a sample, consider Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 of [16]. PC(A,S) in these assertions is a singleton. Further, mappings A and S have a unique common fixed point. By Proposition 2, it follows that the pair (A,S) is weakly compatible (condition (4)). Hence, using formally weaker assumption (10) does not produce a more general assertion.
Similarly, in Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 and Corollaries 2.1–2.6 of [33], applying Corollary 3, we get that the pairs (f,S) and (g,T) are weakly compatible.
In the same way, it can be concluded that the following results are actually not generalizations of previously known ones: [6, Theorems 1.4 and 1.5]; [8, Theorem 2.1]; [19, Theorems 1–3 of Section 2]; [11, Theorems 2.8–2.12]; [14, Theorems 4.1, 4.4, 4.6, 4.8, 4.10, 4.12 and 5.1]; [18, Theorems 4.1, 4.6, 5.6, 6.2; Corollaries 4.3, 4.4]; [22, Lemma 1; Theorems 1–5; Corollaries 1–5]; [30, Theorem 2.5; Corollary 2.7]; [34, Theorems 1–4 and Corollaries 1–3]; [35, Theorems 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6; Corollaries 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11]; [36, Theorems 2.2 and 2.6]; [37, Theorems 2.1–2.3 and 3.1–3.4; Corollary 2.1]; [38, Theorem 1.1]; [39, Theorems 2.1 and 2.3; Corollaries 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5]; [40, Theorems 3.1–3.3]; [41, Theorems 2.1 and 2.2; Corollaries 2.1–2.3]; [42, Theorems 3.1–3.3 and 4.1–4.3]; [43, Theorems 2.1 and 2.2]; [44, Theorem 3.2; Corollaries 3.1 and 3.2]; [45, Theorems 2.3]; [46, Theorem 11; Corollary 13]; [47, Theorems 2.2 and 2.3]; [48, Theorems 2.1–2.5]; [49, Theorems 2.1, 2.4, and 2.10]; [50, Theorems 4.1, 4.2, and 5.1–5.5].
A different kind of conclusions can be made for the results from [28, 51, 52].
Again, as a sample, consider [52, Theorem 2.1], which (abbreviated) reads as follows.
Let f and g be two pseudoreciprocal continuous self-mappings of a complete metric space (X,d) such that fX⊆gX and satisfying certain contractive condition. If the pair (f,g) is conditionally sequential absorbing, then f and g have a unique common fixed point.
It can be reformulated as follows.
Under the previous conditions, the pair (f,g) is weakly compatible (i.e., satisfies condition (7)).
Indeed, the proof of [52, Theorem 2.1] shows that f and g have a unique common fixed point. The contractive condition easily implies that they also have a unique POC (i.e., PC(f,g) is a singleton). Then, Proposition 2 implies that (f,g) is weakly compatible (and occasionally weakly compatible, of the type PD, conditionally commuting). Hence, weak compatibility is again a natural (and the weakest possible) assumption for this kind of results.
Similar conclusions can be made for the following results: [28, Corollary 2.1]; [51,Theorems 1–3]; [52, Theorems 2.2 and 2.3].
Several very interesting results were also obtained for multivalued mappings. We just note [53–55].
It is interesting that in the case of hybrid pairs of mappings (one single-valued and one multivalued) conclusions similar to those from this paper cannot be made. Namely, it was shown in [31, Example 2.5] that in this case Proposition 2 no longer holds. Hence, for example, results from the papers [56–59] cannot be directly obtained from previously known ones.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgment
The first and the second authors are grateful to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Serbia. The third author acknowledges with thanks the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University Jeddah, for financial support.
JungckG.Commuting mappings and fixed points1976834261263MR040019610.2307/2318216ZBL0321.54025SessaS.On a weak commutativity condition of mappings in fixed point considerations19823246149153MR710984ZBL0523.54030JungckG.Compatible mappings and common fixed points19869477177910.1155/S0161171286000935MR870534PantR. P.Common fixed point theorems for contractive maps1998226125125810.1006/jmaa.1998.6029MR1646430ZBL0916.54027JungckG.Common fixed points for noncontinuous nonself maps on nonmetric spaces199642199215MR1426938ZBL0928.54043PantR. P.BishtR. K.Occasionally weakly compatible mappings and fixed points2012194655661MR3009027ZBL1256.54079AamriM.El MoutawakilD.Some new common fixed point theorems under strict contractive conditions2002270118118810.1016/S0022-247X(02)00059-8MR1911759ZBL1008.54030Al-ThagafiM. A.ShahzadN.Generalized I-nonexpansive selfmaps and invariant approximations200824586787610.1007/s10114-007-5598-xMR2403120PantV.PantR. P.Common fixed points of conditionally commuting maps2010111113118MR2656011ZBL1225.54025PathakH. K.HussainN.Common fixed points for P-operator pair with applications201021773137314310.1016/j.amc.2010.08.046MR2733756HussainN.KhamsiM. A.LatifA.Common fixed points for JH-operators and occasionally weakly biased pairs under relaxed conditions20117462133214010.1016/j.na.2010.11.019MR2781744SintunavaratW.KumamP.Common fixed point theorems for generalized JH-operator classes and invariant approximations20112011, article 6710.1186/1029-242X-2011-67MR2837921PantR. P.Common fixed points of Lipschitz type mapping pairs1999240128028310.1006/jmaa.1999.6559MR1728194ZBL0933.54031PathakH. K.DeepmalaCommon fixed point theorems for PD-operator pairs under relaxed conditions with applications201323910311310.1016/j.cam.2012.09.008MR2991961BouhadjeraH.Godet-ThobieC.Common fixed theorems for pairs of subcompatible mapshttp://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3159BishtR. K.ShahzadN.Faintly compatible mappings and common fixed points20132013, article 15610.1186/1687-1812-2013-156MR3077977JungckG.PathakH. K.Fixed points via ‘biased maps’199512372049206010.2307/2160940MR1283555ZBL0824.47045BouhadjeraH.DjoudiA.Fixed point for occasionally weakly biased maps2012364489500MR3005153PantR. P.BishtR. K.Common fixed point theorems under a new continuity condition201258112714110.1007/s11565-011-0141-5MR2915343MurthyP. P.Important tools and possible applications of metric fixed point theory20014734793490Al-ThagafiM. A.ShahzadN.A note on occasionally weakly compatible maps200931–45558MR2517562ZBL1181.54045JungckG.RhoadesB. E.Fixed point theorems for occasionally weakly compatible mappings200672287296MR2284600ZBL1118.47045JungckG.RhoadesB. E.Erratum: Fixed point theorems for occasionally weakly compatible mappings20089383384Fixed Point Theory, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 287–296, 2006AlghamdiM. A.RadenovićS.ShahzadN.On some generalizations of commuting mappings20122012695205210.1155/2012/952052MR2872317ZBL06021008FangJ.-X.GaoY.Common fixed point theorems under strict contractive conditions in Menger spaces200970118419310.1016/j.na.2007.11.045MR2468228ZBL1170.47061RouzkardF.ImdadM.NashineH. K.New common fixed point theorems and invariant approximation in convex metric spaces2012192311328MR2977234ZBL06050941PathakH. K.Rodríguez-LópezR.VermaR. K.A common fixed point theorem using implicit relation and property (E.A) in metric spaces200721221123410.2298/FIL0702211PMR2360891ZBL1141.54018GopalD.ImdadM.AbbasM.Metrical common fixed point theorems without completeness and closedness20122012, article 1810.1186/1687-1812-2012-18MR2899783ZBL06208296ImdadM.AliJ.TanveerM.Remarks on some recent metrical common fixed point theorems20112471165116910.1016/j.aml.2011.01.045MR2784176ZBL05883277HussainN.PathakH. K.Subweakly biased pairs and Jungck contractions with applications201132101067108210.1080/01630563.2011.587627MR2826096ZBL1242.47044ĐorićD.KadelburgZ.RadenovićS.A note on occasionally weakly compatible mappings and common fixed points2012132475479MR3024331AbbasM.GopalD.RadenovićS.A note on recent introduced commutative conditionsIndian Journal of Mathematics (IJM) Bulletin of the Allahabad Mathematical Society. In pressJainM. K.RhoadesB. E.SalujaA. S.Fixed point theorems for occasionally weakly compatible expansive mappings2012525458MR3024741ZBL1270.47043AbbasM.RhoadesB. E.Common fixed point theorems for occasionally weakly compatible mappings satisfying a generalized contractive condition2008132295301MR2488678ZBL1175.47050AlioucheA.PopaV.Common fixed point theorems for occasionally weakly compatible mappings via implicit relations20082229910710.2298/FIL0802099AMR2484200ZBL1199.54200BabuG. V. R.AlemayehuG. N.Common fixed point theorems for occasionally weakly compatible maps satisfying property (E.A) using an inequality involving quadratic terms201124697598110.1016/j.aml.2011.01.008MR2776170ZBL1261.54033BhattA.ChandraH.SahuD. R.Common fixed point theorems for occasionally weakly compatible mappings under relaxed conditions201073117618210.1016/j.na.2010.03.011MR2645842ZBL1227.47034BishtR. K.PantR. P.A critical remark on ‘Fixed point theorems for ocasionally weakly compatible mappings’201310.1016/j.joems.2013.03.010BouhadjeraH.On unique common fixed point theorems for three and four self mappings2009233115123ChandraH.BhattA.Fixed point theorems for occasionally weakly compatible maps in probabilistic semi-metric space200939–12563570MR2553969ZBL1176.54029ChauhanS.PantB. D.Common fixed point theorems for occasionally weakly compatible mappings using implicit relation2010771–41321MR2724019ZBL1228.54035ĆirićL. B.SametB.VetroC.Common fixed point theorems for families of occasionally weakly compatible mappings2011535-663163610.1016/j.mcm.2010.09.015MR2769436ZBL1217.54042HussainN.ShahM. H.RadenovićS.Fixed points of weakly contractions through occasionally weak compatibility2012133532543ImdadM.AliJ.PopaV.Impact of occasionally weakly compatible property on common fixed point theorems for expansive mappings2011252798910.2298/FIL1102079IMR2920252ImdadM.SolimanA. H.Some common fixed point theorems for a pair of tangential mappings in symmetric spaces201023435135510.1016/j.aml.2009.10.009MR2594841ZBL1213.54066PantB. D.ChauhanS.Common fixed point theorem for occasionally weakly compatible mappings in Menger space2011617MR2832553PantR. P.BishtR. K.Common fixed point of pseudo compatible maps201310.1007/s13398-013-0119-5SastryK. P. R.NaiduG. A.PrasadP. V. S.Madhavi LathaV.SastriS. S. A.A critical look at fixed point theorems for occasionally weakly compatible maps in probabilistic semi-metric spaces2010425–2813411348MR2665637ZBL1235.54053ShahM. H.SimićS.HussainN.SretenovićA.RadenovićS.Common fixed points theorems for occasionally weakly compatible pairs on cone metric type spaces2012142290297MR2933468ZBL1256.54081DeepmalaPathakH. K.Some common fixed point theorems for D-operator pair with applications to nonlinear integral equations201318205218PantR. P.BishtR. K.AroraD.Weak reciprocal continuity and fixed point theorems201157118119010.1007/s11565-011-0119-3MR2821376ZBL1223.54068PatelD. K.KumamP.GopalD.Some discussion on the existence of common fixed points for a pair of maps20132013, article 18710.1186/1687-1812-2013-187MR3095318DuW.-Sh.KarapinarE.ShahzadN.The study of fixed point theory for various multivalued non-self maps20132013910.1155/2013/938724938724KhojastehF.RakočevićV.Some new common fixed point results for generalized contractive multi-valued non-self-mappings201225328729310.1016/j.aml.2011.07.021MR2855974ZBL1242.54024RouhaniB. D.MoradiS.Fixed point of multi-valued generalized Φ-weak contractive mapping2010201070898410.1155/2010/708984AbbasM.RhoadesB. E.Common fixed point theorems for hybrid pairs of occasionally weakly compatible mappings satisfying generalized contractive condition of integral type20072007910.1155/2007/5410154101MR2346334ZBL1153.54307AbbasM.RhoadesB. E.Common fixed point theorems for hybrid pairs of occasionally weakly compatible mappings satisfying generalized contractive condition of integral type20082008210.1155/2008/274793274793MR2457461AlioucheA.PopaV.General common fixed point theorems for occasionally weakly compatible hybrid mappings and applications200939189109MR2598624ZBL1265.54149ChauhanS.KumamP.Common fixed point theorem for occasionally weakly compatible mappings in probabilistic metric spaces2013112285292MR3065441