Prog Appl Sci Tech.

2023; 13(2):26-37

Research Article Theorems on Common Fixed Point of 𝝓-Weakly

Received: March 28, 2023
Expansive Mappings in Dislocated Metric Spaces
Revised: July 06, 2023
Accepted: August 04, 2023 Pheerachate Bunpatcharacharoen1*, Porntep Hemmaranon2,
Kamonwan Khaonongbua3, Pornchanok Sakorn4,
Pattraporn Wijarnpon5, Rujira Pranee6 and Natnaree Bomrungwong7
1
DOI: 10.14456/past.2023.14 Department of Mathematics, Rambhai Barni Rajabhat University,
Chanthaburi 22000, Thailand
2
Saritdidet school, Muang, Chanthaburi 22000, Thailand
3
Phlew School, Laemsing, Chanthaburi 22190, Thailand
4
Wadtokprom school, Khlung, Chanthaburi 22110, Thailand
5
AnubanChanthaburi School, Tambon Talad, Amphoe Mueang,
Chanthaburi 22000, Thailand
6
Watnongsinga school, Nayaiam,Chanthaburi 22170, Thailand
7
Bantaleaw School, Chantaburi 22170, Thailand
*E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
In this study, we will demonstrate a common fixed point theory for two weakly compatible
self-maps 𝐺 and 𝐻 on a dislocated metric space (𝑀, 𝑑 ∗ ) that satisfy the E.A. property and (CLR)
property as well as the following 𝜙-weakly expansive mappings.

Keywords: Common Fixed Point Theorem, Weakly Compatible, Weakly Expansive

1. Introduction Next, The 𝜙-weakly expansive

In 1922, Banach (1) established a mapping were introduced by Kang et al. (4) as
common fixed point theorem, which guarantees follows
the existence and uniqueness of a fixed point
under certain conditions. Banach's result is 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑦) ≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) + 𝜙(𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)),
known as the Banach contraction principle or (1.2)
Banach's fixed point theorem. In various ways,
many authors have extended, generalized, and where 𝐺 and 𝐻 are two self-mappings of a metric
improved on Banach's fixed point theorem. space (𝑀, 𝑑 ∗ ) for all 𝑥, 𝑦 ∈ 𝑀.
In order to generalize the Banach fixed Let 𝜙: [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) be a continuous mapping
point theorem, Jungck (2) established a common with 𝜙(0) = 0 and 𝜙(𝑡) > 𝑡 for all 𝑡 > 0.
fixed point theorem for commuting maps. This Kim et al. (5) extended (1.2) for find a
theorem has a wide range of applications. common fixed point of two self maps satisfying
The idea of expansive mapping was ξ-weakly expansive mappings in dislocated
first put forth by Wang et al. (3) as follows metric space and researchers in (6) and (7) are
study in dislocated quasi-metric spaces.
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑦) ≥ 𝑎𝑑 ∗ (𝑥, 𝑦), (1.1) Motivated and inspired by above, we
will show that two weakly compatible self-maps
where 𝐻 is a self-mapping of a metric space 𝐺 and 𝐻 on a dislocated metric space (𝑀, 𝑑 ∗ )
(𝑀, 𝑑 ∗ ) for all 𝑥, 𝑦 ∈ 𝑀 and 𝑎 > 1.
© 2023 Faculty of Science and Technology, RMUTT Prog Appl Sci Tech
Prog Appl Sci Tech. 2023; 13(2):26-37 27

that satisfy the 𝜙-weakly expansive condition where

have a common fixed point theorem. 𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐻𝑥), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑦, 𝐻𝑦),
2. Preliminaries 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦))
Definition 2.1 (5) Let 𝑑 ∗ : 𝑀 × 𝑀 → [0, ∞) be a
,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐺𝑦)
∗ ∗
𝑑 (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦)(1+𝑑 (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥))
function with 𝑀 ≠ ∅ and for all 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧 ∈ 𝑀, the
following conditions are satisfied ,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑦)
(a) 𝑑 ∗ (𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦, 𝑥) 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦)
(b) 𝑑 ∗ (𝑥, 𝑦) = 0, then 𝑥 = 𝑦 }
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐺𝑦)+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑦)
(c) 𝑑 ∗ (𝑥, 𝑦) ≤ 𝑑∗ (𝑥, 𝑢) + 𝑑 ∗ (𝑢, 𝑦).
Then 𝑑 ∗ is called dislocated metric (or simply
for all 𝑥, 𝑦 ∈ 𝑀.
𝑑 ∗ -metric) on 𝑀 and the pair (𝑀, 𝑑 ∗ ) is called
If 𝐺 and 𝐻 are weakly compatible and 𝐺𝑀 or
dislocated metric space.
𝐻𝑀 is complete, then 𝐺 and 𝐻 have a unique
common fixed point.
Definition 2.2 (6) Two self-mappings 𝐺 and 𝐻
defined on a metric space 𝑀 are said to be
Proof. Let 𝑥0 be an arbitrary point of 𝑀. We can
weakly compatible if they commute at their
define a sequence {𝑥𝑗 } based on (2.1), such that
coincidence points.

Definition 2.3 (7) Two self-mappings 𝐺 and 𝐻 𝐺𝑥𝑗 = 𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 ,

of a metric space (𝑀, 𝑑∗ ) are said to satisfy E.A.
property if there exists a sequence {𝑥𝑗 } ∈ 𝑀 such because 𝐺𝑀 ⊆ 𝐻𝑀. Define a {𝑦𝑗 } sequence in
that 𝑀 by

lim 𝐻 𝑥𝑗 = lim 𝐺 𝑥𝑗 = 𝑠 𝑦𝑗 = 𝐺𝑥𝑗 = 𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 . (3.3)

𝑗→∞ 𝑗→∞

for some 𝑠 ∈ 𝑀. There is nothing to prove if 𝑦𝑗 = 𝑦𝑗+1 , ∃𝑗 ∈ ℕ.

Now, assume that 𝑦𝑗 ≠ 𝑦𝑗+1 , ∀𝑗 ∈ ℕ. We prove
Definition 2.4 (8) Two self-mappings 𝐺 and 𝐻 that
of a metric space (𝑀, 𝑑∗ ) are said to satisfy
(𝐶𝐿𝑅𝐻 ) property if there exists a sequence {𝑥𝑗 } lim 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗+1 ) = 0. (3.4)
𝑗→∞
in 𝑀 such that

lim 𝐻 𝑥𝑗 = lim 𝐺 𝑥𝑗 = 𝐻𝑥 Letting 𝑥 = 𝑥𝑗 , 𝑦 = 𝑥𝑗+1 in (3.2) and using

𝑗→∞ 𝑗→∞ (3.3), we obtain

for some 𝑥 ∈ 𝑀. 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗−1 , 𝑦𝑗 ) = 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥𝑗 , 𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 )

≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 ) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 ))
3. Main Results = 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗+1 ) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗+1 )), (3.5)
Theorem 3.1 Let (𝑴, 𝒅∗ ) be a dislocated metric
space and let 𝑮 and 𝑯 be two self-maps on 𝑴
where
satisfying
𝛶(𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗+1 ) = 𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 )
𝐺𝑀 ⊆ 𝐻𝑀. (3.1)
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 ), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐻𝑥𝑗 ),
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 , 𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 ),
There exists a continuous mapping 𝜙: [0, ∞) →
[0, ∞) with 𝜙(0) = 0 and 𝜙(𝑡) > 𝑡 for all 𝑡 > 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗 )(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 ))
,
0 such that 1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 ,𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 )
𝑑 (𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 )(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗 ))
∗

𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑦) ≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)), ,

1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥𝑗 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 )
(3.2)
© 2023 Faculty of Science and Technology, RMUTT Prog Appl Sci Tech.
28 Prog Appl Sci Tech. 2023; 13(2):26-37

𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗 )𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 ) lim 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗+1 ) = 0. (3.7)

} 𝑗→∞
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 ,𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 )+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥𝑗 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 )
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗+1 ), 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗−1 ), Next, we prove that {𝑦𝑗 } is a 𝑑∗ -Cauchy
𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗+1 , 𝑦𝑗 ), sequence. Assume that {𝑦𝑗 } is not a 𝑑 ∗ -Cauchy
𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 ,𝑦𝑗−1 )(1+𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑗+1 ,𝑦𝑗 )) sequence. Then there exists 𝜀 > 0, such that for
, 𝑛 ∈ ℕ, there are 𝑗(𝑖), 𝑘(𝑖) ∈ ℕ with 𝑘(𝑖) >
1+𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑗 ,𝑦𝑗+1 )
𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑗+1 ,𝑦𝑗 )(1+𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑗 ,𝑦𝑗−1 )) 𝑗(𝑖) > 𝑖 satisfying
, (a): 𝑘(𝑖) and 𝑗(𝑖) are positive integers.
1+𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑗−1 ,𝑦𝑗 ) (b): 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖) , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖) ) > 𝜀.
𝑑 (𝑦𝑗 ,𝑦𝑗−1 )𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑗+1 ,𝑦𝑗 )
∗
(c): 𝑘(𝑖) is the smallest even number such that
}
1+𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑗 ,𝑦𝑗+1 )+𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑗−1 ,𝑦𝑗 ) the condition (b) holds, that is,
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗+1 ), 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗−1 )}. 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖) , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖) −1 ) ≤ 𝜀.
Thus,

If 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗+1 ) < 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗−1 , 𝑦𝑗 ) and (3.5) then

𝜖 < 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖) , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖) )
≤ 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖) , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−1 ) + 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−1 , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖) )
𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗−1 , 𝑦𝑗 ) > 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗+1 ) + 𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑗−1 , 𝑦𝑗 ). ≤ 𝜖 + 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−1 , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖) ). (3.8)

That is Taking 𝑖 → ∞, we obtain

𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗+1 ) < 0, lim 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖) , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖) ) = 𝜀. (3.9)

𝑖→∞

which is a contradiction.
We now have

If 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗−1 , 𝑦𝑗 ) < 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗+1 ) and (3.5) then

𝜖 < 𝑑 ∗ ( 𝑦𝑗(𝑖)−1 , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−1 )
≤ 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖)−1 , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−2 )
𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗−1 , 𝑦𝑗 ) +𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−2 , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−1 )
> 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗+1 ) + 𝜙(𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗+1 )). (3.6) ≤ 𝜖 + 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−2 , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−1 ). (3.10)

This mean that Taking 𝑖 → ∞, we obtain

𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑗−1 , 𝑦𝑗 ) > 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗+1 ) lim 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖)−1 , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−1 ) = 𝜀. (3.11)

𝑖→∞

Thus, the sequence {𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗+1 )} is strictly Letting 𝑥 = 𝑥𝑗(𝑖) and 𝑦 = 𝑥𝑘(𝑖) in (3.2), we
decreasing and bounded below. obtain

So, there exists 𝛾 ≥ 0, such that 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖)−1 , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−1 ) = 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥𝑗(𝑖) , 𝐻𝑥𝑘(𝑖) )

≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗(𝑖) , 𝐺𝑥𝑘(𝑖) ) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗(𝑖) , 𝐺𝑥𝑘(𝑖) ))
lim 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗 , 𝑦𝑗+1 ) = 𝛾, ≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖) , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖) ) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝑦𝑗(𝑖) , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖) )), (3.12)
𝑗→∞

taking 𝑗 → ∞ in (3.6), we get where

𝛾 ≥ 𝛾 + 𝜙(𝛾), 𝛶(𝑦𝑗(𝑖) , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖) )=𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗(𝑖) , 𝐺𝑥𝑘(𝑖) )

= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗(𝑖) , 𝐺𝑥𝑘(𝑖) ),
which is a contradiction, hence we have 𝛾 = 0.
Hence,

Prog Appl Sci Tech © 2023 Faculty of Science and Technology, RMUTT
Prog Appl Sci Tech. 2023; 13(2):26-37 29

𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗(𝑖) , 𝐻𝑥𝑗(𝑖) ), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑘(𝑖) , 𝐻𝑥𝑘(𝑖) ), 𝛶 (𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ) = 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ),

𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥 𝑗(𝑖) ,𝐻𝑥𝑗(𝑖) )(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥 𝑘(𝑖) ,𝐻𝑥𝑘(𝑖) )) 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 , 𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 ), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺ℊ ∗ , 𝐻ℊ ∗ ),
, 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 )(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺ℊ∗ ,𝐻ℊ∗ ))
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥
𝑗(𝑖) ,𝐺𝑥𝑘(𝑖) )
,
𝑑 (𝐺𝑥𝑘(𝑖) ,𝐻𝑥𝑘(𝑖) )(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗(𝑖) ,𝐻𝑥𝑗(𝑖) ))
∗ 1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 ,𝐺ℊ∗ )
,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥𝑗(𝑖) ,𝐻𝑥𝑘(𝑖) ) 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺ℊ∗ ,𝐻ℊ∗ )(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 ))
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗(𝑖) ,𝐻𝑥𝑗(𝑖) )𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑘(𝑖) ,𝐻𝑥𝑘(𝑖) ) 1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 ,𝐻ℊ∗ )
}
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥 𝑗(𝑖) ,𝐺𝑥𝑘(𝑖) )+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥 𝑗(𝑖) ,𝐻𝑥𝑘(𝑖) ) 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥 ∗ ∗ ∗
𝑗+1 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 )𝑑 (𝐺ℊ ,𝐻ℊ )
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖) , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖) ), }.
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 ,𝐺ℊ∗ )+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 ,𝐻ℊ∗ )
𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖) , 𝑦𝑗(𝑖)−1 ), 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑘(𝑖) , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−1 ),
𝑑 ∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖) ,𝑦𝑗(𝑖)−1 )(1+𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑘(𝑖) ,𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−1 )) Letting limit as 𝑗 → ∞, we have
,
1+𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖) ,𝑦𝑘(𝑖) )
𝑑 (𝑦𝑘(𝑖) ,𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−1 )(1+𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖) ,𝑦𝑗(𝑖)−1 ))
∗ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐻ℊ ∗ )
, ≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ) + lim 𝜙 (𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 , 𝐺ℊ ∗ )),
1+𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖)−1 ,𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−1 ) 𝑗→∞
𝑑 (𝑦𝑗(𝑖) ,𝑦𝑗(𝑖)−1 )𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑘(𝑖) ,𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−1 )
∗ (3.15)
}.
1+𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖) ,𝑦𝑘(𝑖) )+𝑑∗ (𝑦𝑗(𝑖)−1 ,𝑦𝑘(𝑖)−1 )
where
Taking limit as 𝑖 → ∞, we have ∗
lim 𝛶(𝐺 𝑥𝑗+1 , 𝐺 ℊ∗ ) = 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 (𝐻ℊ∗ , 𝐺ℊ∗ ),
𝑗→∞
lim 𝛶(𝑦𝑗(𝑖) , 𝑦𝑘(𝑖) ) 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐻ℊ ∗ ), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺ℊ ∗ , 𝐻ℊ ∗ ),
𝑖→∞
𝜀(1 + 𝜀) 𝜀(1 + 𝜀) 𝜀∙𝜀 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ∗ ,𝐻ℊ∗ )(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺ℊ∗ ,𝐻ℊ∗ ))
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝜀, 𝜀, 𝜀, , , } ,
1+𝜀 1+𝜀 1+𝜀+𝜀 1+𝑑∗ (𝐻ℊ∗ ,𝐺ℊ∗ )
= 𝜀. 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺ℊ∗ ,𝐻ℊ∗ )(1+𝑑∗ (𝐻ℊ∗ ,𝐻ℊ∗ ))
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻ℊ∗ ,𝐻ℊ∗ )
From (3.12), we obtain 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ∗ ,𝐻ℊ∗ )𝑑∗ (𝐺ℊ∗ ,𝐻ℊ∗ )
}
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻ℊ∗ ,𝐺ℊ∗ )+𝑑∗ (𝐻ℊ∗ ,𝐻ℊ∗ )
𝜀 ≥ 𝜀 + 𝜙(𝜀), = 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐻ℊ ∗ )}.

which is a contradiction, from 𝜙(𝜀) ≥ 0. This Next, we consider two cases.

implies that {𝑦𝑗 } is a 𝑑 ∗ -Cauchy sequence in 𝑀.
Now, from 𝐻𝑀 is complete, there exists a point Case (a): Let 𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ) = 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ).
𝑧 in 𝐻𝑀 such that
Using (3.14), we obtain
lim 𝑦𝑗 = lim 𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 = ℊ = lim 𝐺𝑥𝑗 . (3.13)
𝑗→∞ 𝑗→∞ 𝑗→∞
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐻ℊ ∗ ) ≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ) + 𝜙(𝑑∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ))
Since ℊ ∈ 𝐻𝑀, we can find ℊ∗ in 𝑀 such that > 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ) + 𝑑∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ ∗ )
𝐻ℊ ∗ = ℊ. = 2𝑑∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ).

Now, we claim that 𝐻ℊ ∗ = 𝐺ℊ ∗ , let if possible Using triangular inequality, we obtain

𝐻ℊ ∗ ≠ 𝐺ℊ ∗ . Letting 𝑥 = 𝑥𝑗+1 and 𝑦 = ℊ ∗ in
(3.2), we obtain 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐻ℊ ∗ ) ≤ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ) + 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ ∗ )
= 2𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ),
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐻 ℊ∗ ) = 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥𝑗+1 , 𝐻 ℊ∗ )
which is a contradiction.
≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 , 𝐺ℊ ∗ )), (3.14)
Case (b): Let 𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗+1 , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ) = 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐻ℊ ∗ ).
where
© 2023 Faculty of Science and Technology, RMUTT Prog Appl Sci Tech.
30 Prog Appl Sci Tech. 2023; 13(2):26-37

Using (3.14), we obtain 𝑑∗ (𝐺ℊ,𝐺ℊ)(1+𝑑∗ (ℊ,ℊ))

,
1+𝑑∗ (ℊ,𝐻ℊ)
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐻ℊ ∗ ) 𝑑 ∗ (ℊ,ℊ)𝑑∗ (𝐺ℊ,𝐺ℊ)
≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ) + 𝜙(𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , Hℊ ∗ ))
}
1+𝑑∗ (ℊ,𝐺ℊ)+𝑑∗ (ℊ,𝐺ℊ)
≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ) + 𝑑∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐻ℊ ∗ ).
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, 𝐺ℊ), 0, 𝑑∗ (𝐺ℊ, 𝐺ℊ), 0,
This means that
𝑑∗ (𝐺ℊ,𝐺ℊ)
∗ ∗ ∗ , 0}
𝑑 (𝐻ℊ , 𝐺ℊ ) < 0, 1+𝑑∗ (ℊ,𝐻ℊ)

which is a contradiction. Therefore, = 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, 𝐺ℊ), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺ℊ, 𝐺ℊ)}.

𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ ∗ ) = 0. This mean that
We currently have two cases:
𝐻ℊ ∗ = 𝐺ℊ ∗ = ℊ. (3.16)
Case (i): Let 𝛶(𝐺ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ) = 𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, 𝐺ℊ).
Thus, ℊ is a coincidence point of 𝐺 and 𝐻.
From (3.16), we obtain
Now, we show that there exists a common fixed
point of 𝐺 and 𝐻. Because 𝐺 and 𝐻 are weakly
𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, 𝐺ℊ) ≥ 𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, 𝐺ℊ) + 𝜙(𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, 𝐺ℊ))
compatible, using (3.16), we get
> 𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, 𝐺ℊ) + 𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, 𝐺ℊ)
= 2𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, 𝐺ℊ),
𝐺𝐻ℊ ∗ = 𝐻𝐺ℊ ∗ and 𝐺ℊ ∗ = 𝐺𝐻ℊ ∗ = 𝐻𝐺ℊ ∗ =
𝐻ℊ.
which is a contradiction.

Consider
Case (ii): Let 𝛶(𝐺ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ) = 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺ℊ, 𝐺ℊ).

𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, 𝐺ℊ) = 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻ℊ ∗ , 𝐻ℊ)

From (3.16), we obtain
≥ 𝑑∗ (𝐺ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ))
= 𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, 𝐺ℊ) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ)), (3.17)
𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, 𝐺ℊ) ≥ 𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, 𝐺ℊ) + 𝜙(𝑑 ∗ (𝐺ℊ, 𝐺ℊ))
> 𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, 𝐺ℊ) + 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺ℊ, 𝐺ℊ)
Where
= 𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, 𝐺ℊ),

𝛶(𝐺ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ)
which is again a contradiction. Thus,
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺ℊ ∗ , 𝐺ℊ), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺ℊ ∗ , 𝐻ℊ ∗ ),
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺ℊ, 𝐻ℊ),
𝐻ℊ = 𝐺ℊ = ℊ. This mean that ℊ is common
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺ℊ∗ ,𝐻ℊ∗ )(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺ℊ,𝐻ℊ)) fixed point of 𝐺 and 𝐻.
,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺ℊ∗ ,𝐺ℊ)
∗ ∗ ∗
𝑑 (𝐺ℊ,𝐻ℊ)(1+𝑑 (𝐺ℊ ,𝐻ℊ )) ∗ For the uniqueness, let 𝑢 be common fixed
, point of 𝐺 and 𝐻 and 𝑢∗ be another common
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻ℊ∗ ,𝐻ℊ)
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺ℊ∗ ,𝐻ℊ∗ )𝑑∗ (𝐺ℊ,𝐻ℊ) fixed point of 𝐺 and 𝐻, such that 𝑢 ≠ 𝑢∗ . Then
}
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺ℊ∗ ,𝐺ℊ)+𝑑∗ (𝐻ℊ∗ ,𝐻ℊ)
𝑑 ∗ (𝑢, 𝑢∗ ) = 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑢, 𝐻𝑢∗ )
≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ ) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ ))
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, 𝐺ℊ), 𝑑 ∗ (ℊ, ℊ), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺ℊ, 𝐺ℊ), = 𝑑 ∗ (𝑢, 𝑢∗ ) + 𝜙(𝑑∗ (𝑢, 𝑢∗ ))
> 𝑑 ∗ (𝑢, 𝑢∗ ) + 𝑑 ∗ (𝑢, 𝑢∗ ),
𝑑 ∗ (ℊ,ℊ)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺ℊ,𝐻ℊ))
,
1+𝑑∗ (ℊ,𝐺ℊ)

Prog Appl Sci Tech © 2023 Faculty of Science and Technology, RMUTT
Prog Appl Sci Tech. 2023; 13(2):26-37 31

which is a contradiction, so 𝑢 = 𝑢∗ . Thus, we 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗 )𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑞,𝐻𝑞)

proves the uniqueness of the common fixed }
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 ,𝐺𝑞)+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥𝑗 ,𝐻𝑞)
point.
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐺𝑞), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐻𝑞), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞, 𝐻𝑞),
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞,𝐻𝑞)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑞,𝐻𝑞))
Theorem 3.2 Let (𝑴, 𝒅∗ ) be a dislocate metric ,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑞,𝐺𝑞)
space and let 𝑮 and 𝑯 be two self-maps on 𝑴 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞,𝐻𝑞)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑞,𝐻𝑞))
satisfying (3.2) and the followings: ,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑞,𝐻𝑞)
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞,𝐻𝑞)𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑞,𝐻𝑞)
𝐺 and 𝐻 are weakly compatible, (3.18) }
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑞,𝐺𝑞)+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑞,𝐻𝑞)
𝐺 and 𝐻 satisfy the E.A. property. (3.19)
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐺𝑞), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐻𝑞)}.
If either 𝐺𝑀 or 𝐻𝑀 is a complete subspace of
𝑀, then 𝐺 and 𝐻 have a unique common fixed Now two cases arise:
point in 𝑀.
Case (a): lim 𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑞) = 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐺𝑞).
𝑗→∞
Proof. From 𝐺 and 𝐻 satisfy the E.A. property,
there exists a sequence {𝑥𝑗 } in 𝑀 such that
From (3.20), we obtain
lim 𝐻𝑥𝑗 = lim 𝐺𝑥𝑗 = 𝑥, ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝑀. (3.20)
𝑗→∞ 𝑗→∞ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐻𝑞) ≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐺𝑞) + 𝜙(𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐺𝑞))
> 𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐺𝑞) + 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐺𝑞)
Now, assume 𝐻𝑀 is complete subspace of 𝑀. = 2𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐺𝑞).
Then, there exists 𝑞 in 𝑀 such that 𝑥 = 𝐻𝑞.
After that, we obtain Using triangular inequality, we obtain

lim 𝐻𝑥𝑗 = lim 𝐺𝑥𝑗 = 𝑥 = 𝐻𝑞. 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐻𝑞) ≤ 𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐺𝑞) + 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞, 𝐻𝑞)
𝑗→∞ 𝑗→∞
= 2𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐺𝑞),
Now, we show that 𝐺𝑞 = 𝐻𝑞.
which is a contradiction.
From (3.2), we obtain
Case (b): lim 𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑞) = 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐻𝑞).
𝑗→∞
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥𝑗 , 𝐻𝑞) ≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑞) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑞)).
From (3.21), we obtain
Taking 𝑗 → ∞, we obtain
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐻𝑞) ≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐺𝑞) + 𝜙(𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐻𝑞))
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐻𝑞) > 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐺𝑞) + 𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐻𝑞),
≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐺𝑞) + lim 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑞)), (3.21)
𝑗→∞
which implies that
where
𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐺𝑞) < 0,
lim 𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑞)
𝑗→∞ which is a contradiction. Thus,
= lim 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑞), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐻𝑥𝑗 ),
𝑗→∞
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞, 𝐻𝑞), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐺𝑞) = 0 or 𝐻𝑞 = 𝐺𝑞.
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗 )(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑞,𝐻𝑞))
,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 ,𝐺𝑞) From 𝐺 and 𝐻 are weakly compatible,
𝑑 (𝐺𝑞,𝐻𝑞)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗 ))
∗
,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥𝑗 ,𝐻𝑞) 𝐺𝐻𝑞 = 𝐻𝐺𝑞 implies that

© 2023 Faculty of Science and Technology, RMUTT Prog Appl Sci Tech.
32 Prog Appl Sci Tech. 2023; 13(2):26-37

𝐻𝐻𝑞 = 𝐻𝐺𝑞 = 𝐺𝐻𝑞 = 𝐺𝐺𝑞. 𝛶(𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ )

Now, we claim that 𝐺𝑞 is the common fixed = 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ ), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐻𝑢),
point of 𝐺 and 𝐻. Using (3.2), we obtain 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢∗ , 𝐻𝑢∗ ),
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢,𝐻𝑢)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢∗ ,𝐻𝑢∗ ))
,
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞, 𝐺𝐺𝑞) = 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑞, 𝐻𝐻𝑞) 1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢,𝐺𝑢 ∗ )
≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞, 𝐺𝐺𝑞) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑞, 𝐺𝐺𝑞)), 𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢∗ ,𝐻𝑢∗ )(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢,𝐻𝑢))
(3.22) ,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑢,𝐻𝑢 ∗ )
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢,𝐻𝑢)𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢 ∗ ,𝐻𝑢∗ )
where }
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢,𝐺𝑢∗ )+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑢,𝐻𝑢∗ )
∗ (𝐺𝑢, ∗ ).
𝛶(𝐺𝑞, 𝐺𝐺𝑞) =𝑑 𝐺𝑢
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞, 𝐺𝐺𝑞), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞, 𝐻𝑞),
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝐺𝑞, 𝐻𝐺𝑞), From (3.23), we obtain
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞,𝐻𝑞)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝐺𝑞,𝐻𝐺𝑞))
, 𝑑 ∗ (𝑢, 𝑢∗ )
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑞,𝐺𝐺𝑞)
∗ ∗
𝑑 (𝐺𝐺𝑞,𝐻𝐺𝑞)(1+𝑑 (𝐺𝑞,𝐻𝑞)) ≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ ) + 𝜙(𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ ))
, > 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ ) + 𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ )
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑞,𝐻𝐺𝑞)
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞,𝐻𝑞)𝑑∗ (𝐺𝐺𝑞,𝐻𝐺𝑞) = 2𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ )
} = 2𝑑∗ (𝑢, 𝑢∗ ),
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑞,𝐺𝐺𝑞)+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑞,𝐻𝐺𝑞)
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞, 𝐺𝐺𝑞), 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}.
which is a contradiction. So 𝑢 = 𝑢∗ . Thus, we
This implies that proves the uniqueness of common fixed point.

𝛶(𝐺𝑞, 𝐺𝐺𝑞) = 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞, 𝐺𝐺𝑞). Theorem 3.3 Let (𝑀, 𝑑 ∗ ) be a dislocated

metric space, let 𝐺 and 𝐻 be self-maps on 𝑀
satisfying (3.2) and (3.18). If 𝐺 and 𝐻 satisfy
Now, using (3.22), we obtain
(𝐶𝐿𝑅𝐻 ) property, then 𝐺 and 𝐻 have a unique
common fixed point in 𝑀.
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞, 𝐺𝐺𝑞)
≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞, 𝐺𝐺𝑞) + 𝜙(𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞, 𝐺𝐺𝑞))
Proof. From 𝐺 and 𝐻 satisfy the (𝐶𝐿𝑅𝐻 )
> 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞, 𝐺𝐺𝑞) + 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑞, 𝐺𝐺𝑞)
property, there exists a sequence {𝑥𝑗 } in 𝑀 such
= 2𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑞, 𝐺𝐺𝑞),
that

which implies that

lim 𝐻𝑥𝑗 = lim 𝐺𝑥𝑗 = 𝐻𝑥, ∃𝑥 ∈ 𝑀.
𝑗→∞ 𝑗→∞
𝐺𝑞 = 𝐺𝐺𝑞 = 𝐻𝐺𝑞.
First, we claim that 𝐻𝑥 = 𝐺𝑥. Let 𝐻𝑥 ≠ 𝐺𝑥.
Thus, 𝐺𝑞 is common fixed point of 𝐺 and 𝐻. Then from (3.2), we get

For the uniqueness, let 𝑢 be common fixed 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥𝑗 , 𝐻𝑥)

point of 𝐺 and 𝐻 and 𝑢∗ be another common ≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑥) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑥)), (3.24)
fixed point of 𝐺 and 𝐻. Then, using (3.2), we
obtain where

𝑑 ∗ (𝑢, 𝑢∗ ) = 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑢, 𝐻𝑢∗ ) 𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑥)

≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ ) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ )), (3.23) = 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑥), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐻𝑥𝑗 ),
𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗 )(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥))
Where 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐻𝑥), ,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 ,𝐺𝑥)

Prog Appl Sci Tech © 2023 Faculty of Science and Technology, RMUTT
Prog Appl Sci Tech. 2023; 13(2):26-37 33

𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗 )) which is a contradiction. This implies

,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥𝑗 ,𝐻𝑥)
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐺𝑥) = 0
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 ,𝐻𝑥𝑗 )𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)
}.
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥𝑗 ,𝐺𝑥)+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥𝑗 ,𝐻𝑥) which is a contradiction. Thus, 𝐻𝑥 = 𝐺𝑥.
Let 𝑦 = 𝐻𝑥 = 𝐺𝑥. From 𝐻𝐺𝑥 = 𝐺𝐻𝑥 implies
Letting limit as 𝑗 → ∞, we get that

lim 𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑥) 𝐻𝑦 = 𝐻𝐺𝑥 = 𝐺𝐻𝑥 = 𝐺𝑦.

𝑗→∞
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐺𝑥), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑥), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐻𝑥),
Now, we claim that 𝐺𝑦 = 𝑦. From (3.2), we get
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑥)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥))
,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐺𝑥)
∗ ∗
𝑑 (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)(1+𝑑 (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑥)) 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑦, 𝐻𝑥)
, ≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)),
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑥)
(3.25)
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑥)𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)
}
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐺𝑥)+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑥)
where
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐺𝑥), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑥)}.

Now, two cases arise: 𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)

= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐻𝑥), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑦, 𝐻𝑦),
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦))
Case (a): lim 𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑥) = 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐺𝑥). ,
𝑗→∞ 1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐺𝑦)
𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥))
,
From (3.24), we obtain 1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑦)
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦)
}
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑥) 1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐺𝑦)+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑦)
≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐺𝑥) + 𝜙(𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐺𝑥))
> 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐺𝑥) + 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐺𝑥) = 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝑦, 𝐺𝑦), 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}
= 2𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐺𝑥).
= 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑦, 𝑦).
Using triangular inequality, we obtain
Using (3.24), we get
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑥) ≤ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐺𝑥) + 𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐻𝑥)
= 2𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐺𝑥),
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑦, 𝑦) ≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦, 𝐺𝑦) + 𝜙(𝑑 ∗ (𝑦, 𝐺𝑦))
> 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦, 𝐺𝑦) + 𝑑 ∗ (𝑦, 𝐺𝑦)
which is a contradiction. = 2𝑑 ∗ (𝑦, 𝐺𝑦)

Case (b): lim 𝛶(𝐺𝑥𝑗 , 𝐺𝑥) = 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑥).

𝑗→∞ this is possible only when 𝐺𝑦 = 𝑦. Thus, 𝐻𝑦 =
𝐺𝑦 = 𝑦. Hence, 𝑦 is the common fixed point of
From (3.24), we obtain 𝐺 and 𝐻.

𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑥) For the uniqueness, let 𝑢 be common fixed

≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐺𝑥) + 𝜙(𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑥)) point of 𝐺 and 𝐻 and 𝑢∗ be another common
> 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐺𝑥) + 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑥), fixed point of 𝐺 and 𝐻. Using (3.2), we obtain

which implies that 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑢, 𝐻𝑢∗ )

≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ ) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ )), (3.26)
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐺𝑥) < 0,
where

© 2023 Faculty of Science and Technology, RMUTT Prog Appl Sci Tech.
34 Prog Appl Sci Tech. 2023; 13(2):26-37

𝛶(𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ ) Clearly 𝐻(0) = 𝐺(0) = 0 and 𝐻𝐺(0) =

= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ ), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐻𝑢), 𝐺𝐻(0) = 0 for all 𝑥, 𝑦 ∈ 𝑀, this show that 𝐺
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢∗ , 𝐻𝑢∗ ), and 𝐻 are weakly compatible.
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢,𝐻𝑢)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢∗ ,𝐻𝑢∗ ))
,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢,𝐺𝑢 ∗ ) Now, we have to check the inequality of
𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢∗ ,𝐻𝑢∗ )(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢,𝐻𝑢)) Theorem 3.1 for the following cases
,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑢,𝐻𝑢 ∗ )
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢,𝐻𝑢)𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢 ∗ ,𝐻𝑢∗ ) Case (I): Let 𝑥 = 0 and 𝑦 = 0, we get
}
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢,𝐺𝑢∗ )+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑢,𝐻𝑢∗ )
= 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ ).
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑦) = 0, 𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) = 0 and
𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) = 0. Also, 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)) = 0,
From (3.25), we have
hence
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑢, 𝐻𝑢∗ )
≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ ) + 𝜙(𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ ))
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑦) ≥ 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)).
> 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ ) + 𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ )
= 2𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑢, 𝐺𝑢∗ ),
Case (II): Let 𝑥 ≠ 0 and 𝑦 = 0, we get
which is a contradiction, so 𝑢 = 𝑢∗ .
Thus, we
proves the uniqueness of common fixed point. 3𝑥
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑦) = 𝑑∗ ( , 0)
4
3𝑥 3𝑥
Example Let 𝑀 = [0,3] be equipped with the = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 { , 0} =
4 4
dislocated metric space and 𝑥
𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) = 𝑑 ∗ ( , 0)
4
𝑥 𝑥
𝑑 ∗ (𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑚𝑎𝑥{|𝑥|, |𝑦|} for all 𝑥, 𝑦 ∈ 𝑀. = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 { , 0} = ,
4 4
Define, 𝐺, 𝐻: 𝑀 → 𝑀 by
where
0, 𝑖𝑓 𝑥 = 0
𝐺𝑥 = { 𝑥 𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)
, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐻𝑥), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑦, 𝐻𝑦),
4
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦))
,
and 1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐺𝑦)
𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥))
,
0, 𝑖𝑓 𝑥 = 0 1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑦)
𝐻𝑥 = { 3𝑥
, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒. 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦)
4 }
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐺𝑦)+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑦)
3 9
Then we have 𝐺𝑀 = [0, ] ⊂ [0, ] = 𝐻𝑀.
4 4 𝑥 𝑥 3𝑥
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ ( , 0), 𝑑 ∗ ( , ) , 𝑑 ∗ (0,0),
4 4 4
1 𝑥 3𝑥
Let {𝑥𝑛 } be a sequence in 𝑀 such that {𝑥𝑛 } = 𝑑 ∗ ( , ) (1 + 𝑑 ∗ (0,0))
𝑛 4 4 ,
for each 𝑛 and 𝜙 ∶ [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) be define 𝑥
1 + 𝑑 ∗ ( , 0)
by 4
𝑥 3𝑥
𝑑 ∗ (0,0)(1+𝑑∗ ( , ))
4 4
𝑡 𝑥 3𝑥 ,
, 𝑖𝑓 𝑡 > 0 1+𝑑∗ ( , )
4 4
𝜙(𝑡) = { 9
0, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒.

Prog Appl Sci Tech © 2023 Faculty of Science and Technology, RMUTT
Prog Appl Sci Tech. 2023; 13(2):26-37 35

𝑥 3𝑥 ∗ 𝑥 3𝑥 ∗
𝑑∗( , )𝑑 (0,0) 𝑑∗( , )𝑑 (0,0)
4 4 4 4
𝑥 3𝑥 } 𝑥 3𝑥 }
1+𝑑∗ ( ,0)+𝑑∗ ( ,0) 1+𝑑∗ ( ,0)+𝑑∗ ( ,0)
4 4 4 4

3𝑥 3𝑦
𝑥 3𝑥 y 3𝑦
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{ , , 0, 4 𝑥 , 0,0} = 𝑚𝑎𝑥{ , 0, , 0, 4 , 0}
4 4 1+ 4 4 3𝑦
4 1+
4
𝑥 3𝑥 3𝑥 3𝑦
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{ , , 0, , 0,0} = .
4 4 4 4
3𝑥 1 3𝑦 𝑦
= .
4 So, 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)) = ( ) = , clearly
9 4 12
1 3𝑥 𝑥
So, 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)) = ( ) = , clearly
9 4 12
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑦) > 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)).
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑦) > 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)).
Case (IV): Let 𝑥 ≠ 0 and 𝑦 ≠ 0, we discuss
three subcases:
Case (III): Let 𝑥 = 0 and 𝑦 ≠ 0, we get

3𝑦 Case (i): If 𝑥 > 𝑦, we get

𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑦) = 𝑑∗ (0, )
4
3𝑦 3𝑦 3𝑥 3𝑦
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥 {0, } = 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑦) = 𝑑∗ ( , )
4 4 4 4
𝑦 3𝑥 3𝑦 3𝑥
𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) = 𝑑 ∗ (0, ) = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 { , } = ,
4 4 4 4
𝑦 𝑦 𝑥 𝑦
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥 {0, } = , 𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) = 𝑑 ∗ ( , )
4 4 4 4
𝑥 𝑦 𝑥
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥 { , } = ,
4 4 4
where
where
𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐻𝑥), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑦, 𝐻𝑦),
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦)) 𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)
, = 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐻𝑥), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑦, 𝐻𝑦),
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐺𝑦) 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦))
𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)) ,
, 1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐺𝑦)
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑦) ∗ ∗
𝑑 (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦)(1+𝑑 (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥))
,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑦)
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦)
}
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐺𝑦)+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑦) 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦)
}
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐺𝑦)+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑦)
𝑦 𝑦 3𝑦
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (0, ), 𝑑∗ (0,0), 𝑑 ∗ ( , )
4 4 4
𝑦 3𝑦 𝑥 𝑦 𝑥 3𝑥 𝑦 3𝑦
𝑑 ∗ (0,0)(1+𝑑∗ ( , )) = 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ ( , ), 𝑑 ∗ ( , ) , 𝑑∗ ( , )
4 4
𝑦 , 4 4 4 4 4 4
1+𝑑∗ (0, ) 𝑥 3𝑥 𝑦 3𝑦
4 𝑑 ∗ ( , )(1+𝑑 ∗ ( , ))
4 4 4 4
𝑥𝑦 ,
𝑦 3𝑦 1+𝑑 ∗ ( , )
𝑑∗ ( , )(1+𝑑∗ (0,0)) 44
4 4
3𝑦 ,
1+𝑑∗ (0, ) 𝑦 3𝑦 𝑥 3𝑥
4
𝑑∗( , )(1+𝑑 ∗ ( , ))
4 4 4 4
3𝑥 3𝑦 ,
1+𝑑 ∗ ( , )
4 4

© 2023 Faculty of Science and Technology, RMUTT Prog Appl Sci Tech.
36 Prog Appl Sci Tech. 2023; 13(2):26-37

𝑥 3𝑥 𝑦 3𝑦 𝑥 3𝑥 𝑦 3𝑦
𝑑 ∗ ( , )𝑑 ∗ ( , ) 𝑑 ∗ ( , )𝑑 ∗ ( , )
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
𝑥 𝑦 3𝑥 3𝑦 } 𝑥 𝑦 3𝑥 3𝑦 }
1+𝑑 ∗ ( 4, 4 )+𝑑 ∗ ( 4 , 4 ) 1+𝑑 ∗ ( 4, 4 )+𝑑 ∗ ( 4 , 4 )

3𝑥 3𝑦 3𝑦 3𝑥 3𝑥 3𝑦 3𝑦 3𝑥
𝑥 3𝑥 3𝑦 4 (1 + 4 ) 4 (1 + 4 ) 𝑦 3𝑥 3𝑦 4 (1 + 4 ) 4 (1 + 4 )
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{ , , , 𝑥 , , = 𝑚𝑎𝑥{ , , , 𝑦 , ,
4 4 4 1+ 3𝑥 4 4 4 1+ 3𝑦
4 1+ 4 1+
4 4
3𝑥 3𝑦 3𝑥 3𝑦
( ) ( )
4 4 } 4 4 }
𝑥 3𝑥 𝑦 3𝑦
1+ + 1+ +
4 4 4 4
3𝑥 3𝑦
= . = .
4 4
1 3𝑥 𝑥 1 3𝑦 𝑦
So, 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)) = ( ) = 12, clearly So, 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)) = ( )= , clearly
9 4 9 4 12

𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑦) > 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)). 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑦) > 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)).

Case (ii): If 𝑥 < 𝑦, we get Case (iii): If 𝑥 = 𝑦 ≠ 0, we get

3𝑥 3𝑦 3𝑥 3𝑦
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑦) = 𝑑∗ ( , ) 𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑦) = 𝑑∗ ( , )
4 4 4 4
3𝑥 3𝑦 3𝑦 3𝑥 3𝑥 3𝑥
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥 { , } = , = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 { , } = ,
4 4 4 4 4 4
∗ ∗
𝑥 𝑦 𝑥 𝑦
𝑑 (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) = 𝑑 ( , ) 𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) = 𝑑 ∗ ( , )
4 4 4 4
𝑥 𝑦 𝑦 𝑥 𝑦 𝑥
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥 { , } = , = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 { , } = ,
4 4 4 4 4 4

where where

𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) 𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)

= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐻𝑥), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑦, 𝐻𝑦), = 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐻𝑥), 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑦, 𝐻𝑦),
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦)) 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)(1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦))
, ,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐺𝑦) 1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐺𝑦)
𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦)(1+𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)) ∗ ∗
𝑑 (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦)(1+𝑑 (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥))
, ,
1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑦) 1+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑦)

𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦) 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐻𝑥)𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑦,𝐻𝑦)

} }
1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐺𝑦)+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑦) 1+𝑑∗ (𝐺𝑥,𝐺𝑦)+𝑑∗ (𝐻𝑥,𝐻𝑦)

∗ 𝑥 𝑦 𝑥 3𝑥 𝑦 3𝑦 ∗ 𝑥 𝑥 𝑥 3𝑥 𝑥 3𝑥
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ( , ), 𝑑 ∗ ( , ) , 𝑑∗ ( , ) = 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑑 ( , ), 𝑑 ∗ ( , ) , 𝑑∗ ( , )
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
𝑥 3𝑥 𝑦 3𝑦 𝑥 3𝑥 𝑥 3𝑥
𝑑 ∗ ( , )(1+𝑑 ∗ ( , )) 𝑑 ∗ ( , )(1+𝑑 ∗ ( , ))
4 4 4 4
𝑥𝑦 , 4 4
𝑥𝑥
4 4
,
1+𝑑 ∗ ( , ) 1+𝑑 ∗ ( , )
44 44

𝑦 3𝑦 𝑥 3𝑥 𝑦 3𝑦 𝑥 3𝑥
𝑑∗( , )(1+𝑑 ∗ ( , )) 𝑑∗( , )(1+𝑑 ∗ ( , ))
4 4 4 4
∗ 3𝑥 3𝑦 , 4 4
3𝑥 3𝑥
4 4
,
1+𝑑 ( , ) 1+𝑑 ∗ ( , )
4 4 4 4
Prog Appl Sci Tech © 2023 Faculty of Science and Technology, RMUTT
Prog Appl Sci Tech. 2023; 13(2):26-37 37

𝑥 3𝑥 𝑥 3𝑥 5. Kim JK, Kumar M, Preeti, Poonam, Lim,

𝑑 ∗ ( , )𝑑 ∗ ( , )
4 4 4 4 WH. Common fixed point theorems for two
∗ 𝑥𝑥 ∗ 3𝑥 3𝑥 } self maps satisfying ξ-weakly expansive
1+𝑑 ( 4,4)+𝑑 ( 4 , 4 )
mappings in dislocated metric space.
Nonlinear Funct. Anal. Appl. 2022;27(2):
3𝑥 3𝑥 3𝑥 3𝑥 271-287.
𝑥 3𝑥 3𝑥 4 (1 + 4 ) 4 (1 + 4 ) 6. Padcharoen A, Gopal D, Akkasriworn N.
= 𝑚𝑎𝑥{ , , , 𝑥 , ,
4 4 4 1+ 3𝑥 Hardy-Rogers Type Mappings on
4 1+
4 Dislocated Quasi Metric Spaces. Journal of
3𝑥 3𝑥
( ) Nonlinear Analysis and Optimization:
4 4 }
𝑥 3𝑥 Theory & Applications. 2017;8(2):95-108.
1+ + 7. Suthisung N, Muangchoo K,
4 4
3𝑥 Suwanbamrung P, Wisedsing W,
= .
4 Prabpayak C, Padcharoen A. Geraghty type
1 3𝑥 𝑥 generalized F-contraction for dislocated
So, 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)) = ( )= , clearly
quasi-metric spaces. Int. J. Math. Comput.
9 4 12
Sci. 2023;18(2):359-367.
𝑑 ∗ (𝐻𝑥, 𝐻𝑦) > 𝑑 ∗ (𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦) + 𝜙(𝛶(𝐺𝑥, 𝐺𝑦)). 8. Hitzler P, Seda AK. Dislocated Topologies.
J. Electr. Engg. 2000;51(12):3-7.
9. Jungck G. Common fixed points for non-
Therefore, the inequality of Theorem 3.1 holds continuous non-self maps on non-metric
for all the cases. spaces. Far East J. Math.Sci. 1996;4(2):199-
212.
Acknowledgements 10. Aamri M, Moutawakil DEl. Some new
The authors would like to thank the Research and common fixed point theorems under strict
Development Institute of Rambhai Barni contractive conditions. J. Math. Anal. Appl.
Rajabhat University, Saritdidet school, Phlew 2002;270:181-188.
School, Wadtokprom school, Bantaleaw School Sintunavarat W, Kumam P. Common fixed
AnubanChanthaburi School, and Watnongsinga point theorem for a pair of weakly
school. compatible mappings in fuzzy metric space,
J. Appl. Math. 2011; 14 pages. Article ID
Declaration of conflicting interests 637958.
The authors declared that they have no conflicts
of interest in the research, authorship, and this
article's publication.

References
1. Banach S. Sur les operatons dans les
ensembles abstraits et leur application aux
equations integrales. Fund. Math. 1922;3:
133-181.
2. Jungck G. Commuting mappings and fixed
points. Amer. Math. Monthly. 1976;83(4).
3. Wang SZ, Li BY, Gao ZM, Iseki K. Some
fixed point theorems on expansion
mappings. Math. Japon. 1984;29:631-636.
4. Kang SM, Kumar M, Kumar P, Kumar S.
Fixed point theorems for 𝜙-weakly
expansive mappings in metric space. Int. J.
Pure Appl. Math. 2014;90(2):143-152.

© 2023 Faculty of Science and Technology, RMUTT Prog Appl Sci Tech.