1997
DOI: 10.1155/s0161171298000398
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fixed points for non‐surjective expansion mappings

Abstract: The contractive conditions of Popa (Demonstr. Math. 1990, 23, 213-218) were further improved for four non-surjective expansion mappings, and some common fixed point theorems under semi-compatible pairs of mappings are proved. Our main findings bring improvements to a number of results in the non-metric setting. Some implications for mathematical physics are raised with respect to physical invariants.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Saliga [9] and Sharma et. al [10] proved some interesting fixed point results using implicit real functions and semicompatibility in d-complete topological spaces. Recently, Popa in [8] used the family F 4 of implicit real functions to find the fixed points of two pairs of semicompatible maps in a d-complete topological space.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Saliga [9] and Sharma et. al [10] proved some interesting fixed point results using implicit real functions and semicompatibility in d-complete topological spaces. Recently, Popa in [8] used the family F 4 of implicit real functions to find the fixed points of two pairs of semicompatible maps in a d-complete topological space.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Saliga [9] and Sharma et. al [10] proved some interesting fixed point results using implicit real functions and semicompatibility in d-complete topological spaces. Recently, Popa in [8] used the family of implicit real functions to find the fixed points of two pairs of semicompatible maps in a d-complete topological space.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By putting 2,nxxyw== in (4) We obtain ()()()(){}2222,,min,,,,,,,,nnnnMAxBwktMSxTwtMAxSxtMBwT wkt≥ Taking limit as and using (5) we get n→∞ ()(){},,min1,1,,,MuBwktMBwukt≥ We have for all (),,MuBukt≥ 0t> Hence (),,MuBut= Thus u Bw= Therefore BwTwu== Since is weak compatible. (,BT We get TBwBTw= that is (10) .BuTu=…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%