Applied Mathematics, 2010, 1, 510-514
doi:10.4236/am.2010.16067 Published Online December 2010 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/am)
Copyright © 2010 SciRes. AM
Common Fixed Point Theorems in Intuitionistic Fuzzy
Metric Spaces
Saurabh Manro1, Sanjay Kumar2, Shivdeep Singh3
1School of Mathematics and Computer Applications, Thapar University, Patiala, India
2Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram , University of Science and Technology, Sonepat, India
3Vinayaka Missions University, Salem Tamilnadu, India
E-mail: sauravmanro@yahoo.com
Received May 7, 2010; revised October 16, 2010; accepted October 20, 2010
Abstract
In this paper, we introduce the concept of
chainable intuitionistic fuzzy metric space akin to the notion
of chainable fuzzy metric space introduced by Cho, and Jung [1] and prove a common fixed point theo-
rem for weakly compatible mappings in this newly defined space.
Keywords: Chainable Intuitionistic Fuzzy Metric Space, Weakly Compatible Maps.
1. Introduction
The human reasoning involves the use of variable whose
values are fuzzy sets. Description of system behavior in
the language of fuzzy rules lowers the need for precision
in data gathering and data manipulation, and in effect may
be viewed as a form of data compression. But there are
situations when description by a (fuzzy) linguistic va-
riable given in terms of a membership function only,
seems too rough. The use of linguistic variables repre-
sents a physical significant paradigm shift in system
analysis.
Atanassov [2] introduced the notion of intuitionistic
fuzzy sets by generalizing the notion of fuzzy set by
treating membership as a fuzzy logical value rather than a
single truth value. For an intuitionistic set the logical
value has to be consistent (in the sense γA(x) + μA(x) 1).
γA(x) and μA(x) denotes degree of membership and degree
of non-membership, respectively. All results which hold
of fuzzy sets can be transformed Intuitionistic fuzzy sets
but converse need not be true. Intuitionistic fuzzy set
can be viewed in the context as a proper tool for repre-
senting hesitancy concerning both membership and
non-membership of an element to a set. To be more
precise, a basic assumption of fuzzy set theory that if we
specify the degree of membership of an element in a
fuzzy set as a real number from [0, 1], say ‘a’, then the
degree of its non-membership is automatically deter-
mined as ‘(1 – a)’, need not hold for intuitionistic fuzzy
stes. In intuitionistic fuzzy set theory it is assumed that
non-membership should not be more than (1 – a). For
instant, lack of knowledge (hesitancy concerning both
membership and non-membership of an element to a set)
and the temperature of a patient changes and other symp-
toms are not quite clear. The area of intuitionistic fuzzy
image processing is just beginning to develop; there are
hardly few methods in the literature. Intuitionistic fuzzy
set theory has been used to extract information by re-
flecting and modeling the hesitancy present in real-life
situations. The application of Intuitionistic fuzzy sets in-
stead of fuzzy sets means the introduction of another de-
gree of freedom into a set description. By employing in-
tuitionistic fuzzy sets in databases we can express a hesi-
tation concerning examined objects.
Coker [3] introduced the concept of intuitionistic
fuzzy topological spaces. Alaca et al. [4] proved the
well-known fixed point theorems of Banach [5] in the
setting of intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces. Later on,
Turkoglu et al. [6] proved Jungck’s [7] common fixed
point theorem in the setting of intuitionistic fuzzy metric
space. Turkoglu et al. [6] further formulated the notions
of weakly commuting and R-weakly commuting map-
pings in intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces and proved the
intuitionistic fuzzy version of Pant’s theorem [8]. Grego-
ri et al. [9], Saadati and Park [10] studied the concept of
intuitionistic fuzzy metric space and its applications. No
wonder that intuitionistic fuzzy fixed point theory has
become an area of interest for specialists in fixed point
theory as intuitionistic fuzzy mathematics has covered
new possibilities for fixed point theorists. Recently,
S. MANRO ET AL.
Copyright © 2010 SciRes. AM
511
many authors have also studied the fixed point theory in
fuzzy and intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces (see [1],
[11-15]).
In 2006, Cho, Jung [1] introduced the notion of
chainable fuzzy metric space and prove common fixed
point theorems for four weakly compatible mappings. In
a similar mode, we introduce the concept of – chaina-
ble intuitionistic fuzzy metric space and prove common
fixed point theorems for four weakly compatible map-
pings of – chainable intuitionistic fuzzy metric space.
2. Preliminaries
We begin by briefly recalling some definitions and no-
tions from fixed point theory literature that we will use in
the sequel. The concepts of triangular norms (t-norm)
and triangular conorms (t-conorm) were originally in-
troduced by Schweizer and Sklar [16].
Definition 2.1 [16] A binary operation *: [0, 1] × [0, 1]
[0, 1] is continuous t-norm if * is satisfying the fol-
lowing conditions:
1) * is commutative and associative;
2) * is continuous
3) a * 1 = a for all a[0, 1];
4) a * b c * d whenever a c and b d for all
a, b, c, d[0, 1].
Definition 2.2 [16] A binary operation : [0, 1] × [0, 1]
[0, 1] is continuous t-conorm if is satisfying the fol-
lowing conditions:
1) is commutative and associative;
2) is continuous;
3) a 0 = a for all a[0, 1];
4) a b c d whenever a c and b d for all
a, b, c, d[0, 1].
Definition 2.3 [4] A 5-tuple (X, M, N, * , ) is said to
be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space if X is an arbitrary
set, * is a continuous t-norm, is a continuous t-conorm
and M, N are fuzzy sets on X2 × [0, ) satisfying the
following conditions:
1) M(x, y, t) + N(x, y, t) 1 for all x, yX and
t > 0;
2) M(x, y, 0) = 0 for all x, y
X;
3) M(x, y, t) = 1 for all x, y
X and t > 0 if and only if
x = y;
4) M(x, y, t) = M(y, x, t) for all x, yX and t > 0;
5) M(x, y, t) * M(y, z, s) M(x, z, t + s) for all
x, y, zX and s, t > 0;
6) for all x, yX, M(x, y, .) : [0, )[0, 1] is left
continuous;
7) limt→∞M(x, y, t) = 1 for all x, yX and t > 0;
8) N(x, y, 0) = 1 for all x, y
X;
9) N(x, y, t) = 0 for all x, y
X and t > 0 if and only if
x = y;
10) N(x, y, t) = N(y, x, t) for all x, yX and t > 0;
11) N(x, y, t) N(y, z, s) N(x, z, t + s) for all
x, y, z
X and s, t > 0;
12) for all x, y
X, N(x, y, .) : [0, )[0, 1] is right
continuous;
13) limt→∞N(x, y, t) = 0 for all x, y in X.
(M, N) is called an intuitionistic fuzzy metric on X.
The functions M(x, y, t) and N(x, y, t) denote the degree
of nearness and the degree of non-nearness between x
and y with respect to t, respectively.
Remark 2.1 [17] An intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces
with continuous t-norm * and continuous t-conorm
defined by a * a a and (1 – a) (1 – a) (1 – a) for all
a
[0, 1]. Then for all x, yX, M(x, y, *) is non-
decreasing and N(x, y, ) is non-increasing.
Alaca, Turkoglu and Yildiz [4] introduced the follow-
ing notions:
Definition 2.4 [4] Let (X, M, N, * , ) be an intuitio-
nistic fuzzy metric space. Then
1) a sequence {xn} in X is said to be Cauchy sequence
if, for all t > 0 and p > 0, limn→∞M(xn+p, xn, t) = 1,
limn→∞N(xn+p, xn, t) = 0.
2) a sequence {xn} in X is said to be convergent to a
point x
X if, for all t > 0, limn→∞M(xn, x, t) = 1,
limn→∞N(xn, x, t) = 0.
Since * and are continuous, the limit is uniquely de-
termined from 5) and 11) of Definition 2.3, respectively.
An intuitionistic fuzzy metric space (X, M, N, * , ) is
said to be complete if and only if every Cauchy sequence
in X is convergent.
Turkoglu, Alaca and Yildiz [15] introduced the no-
tions of compatible mappings in intuitionistic fuzzy me-
tric space, akin to the concept of compatible mappings
introduced by Jungck [18] in metric spaces as follows:
Definition 2.5 [15] A pair of self-mappings (f, g) of an
intuitionistic fuzzy metric space (X, M, N, * , ) is said
to be compatible if
limn→∞ M(fgxn, gfxn, t) = 1 and
limn→∞N (fgxn, gfxn, t) = 0 for every t > 0,
whenever {xn} is a sequence in X such that
limn→∞fxn = limn→∞gxn = z for some zX.
Definition 2.6 [15] A pair of self-mappings (f, g) of an
intuitionistic fuzzy metric space (X, M, N, * , ) is said
to be non-compatible if limn→∞M(fgxn, gfxn, t) 1 or
non-existent and limn→∞N(fgxn, gfxn, t) 0 or non-
existent for every t > 0, whenever {xn} is a sequence in
X such that limn→∞fxn = limn→∞gxn = z for some z
X.
In 1998, Jungck and Rhoades [19] introduced the
concept of weakly compatible maps as follows:
Definition 2.7 [19] Two self maps f and g are said to
be weakly compatible if they commute at coincidence
points.
Lemma 2.1 Let (X, M, N, * , ) be intuitionistic fuzzy
S. MANRO ET AL.
Copyright © 2010 SciRes. AM
512
metric space and for all x, y in X, t > 0 and if for a num-
ber k in (0, 1),
M(x, y, kt) M(x, y, t) and N(x, y, kt) N(x, y, t)
Then x = y.
Now, we define – chainable intuitionistic fuzzy metric
space as follows:
Definition 2.8 Let (X, M, N, * , ) be intuitionistic
fuzzy metric space. A finite sequence
x = x0, x1, x2,…, xn = y is called – chain from x to y
if there exists a positive number > 0 such that
M(xi, xi-1, t) > 1 – and N(xi, xi-1, t) < 1 –for all
t > 0 and i = 1,2,…,n.
An intuitionistic fuzzy metric space (X, M, N, * , ) is
called – chainable if for any x, yX, there exists an
– chain from x to y.
3. Main Results
Theorem 3.1 Let A, B, S and T be self maps of a com-
plete – chainable intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces
(X, M, N, * , ) with continuous t-norm * and continuous
t-conorm defined by
a * a a and (1 – a) (1 – a) (1 – a) for all a
[0, 1]
satisfying the following condition:
1) A(X) T(X) and B(X)S(X),
2) A and S are continuous,
3) the pairs (A, S) and (B, T) are weakly compatible,
4) there exist q(0, 1) such that
M(Ax, By, qt) M(Sx, Ty, t) * M(Ax, Sx, t) *
M(By, Ty, t) * M(Ax, Ty, t) and
N(Ax, By, qt) N(Sx, Ty, t) N (Ax, Sx, t)
N(By, Ty, t) N(Ax, Ty, t), for every x, y in X and t > 0.
Then A, B, S and T have a unique common fixed point
in X.
Proof. As A(X)T(X), for any x0X, there exists a
point x1X such that Ax0 = Tx1.
Since B(X)S (X), for this point x1, we can choose a
point x2X such that Bx1 = Sx2. Inductively, we can find
a sequence {yn} in X as follows:
y2n-1 = Tx2n-1= Ax2n-2 and y2n = Sx2n = Bx2n-1 for
n = 1, 2,….
By Theorem of Alaca et al. [4], we can conclude that
{yn} is Cauchy sequence in X.
Since X is complete, therefore sequence {yn} in X
converges to z for some z in X and so the sequences
{Tx2n-1}, {Ax2n-2}, {Sx2n} and {Bx2n-1} also converges to
z.
Since X is – chainable, there exists – chain from
xn to xn+1, that is, there exists a finite sequence
xn = y1, y2,…, yl = xn+1 such that
M(yi, yi-1, t) > 1 – and N(yi, yi-1, t) < 1 –
for all
t > 0 and i = 1, 2,…,l. Thus we have
M(xn, xn+1, t) M(y1, y2, t/l) * M(y2, y3, t/l) *…*
M(yl-1, yl, t/l) > (1 –
) * (1 –) *…* (1 –) (1 –
)
and
N(xn, xn+1, t) N(y1, y2, t/l) N(y2, y3, t/l)
N(yl-1, yl, t/l) < (1 –
) (1 –) (1 –) (1 –
)
For m > n,
M(xn, xm, t) M(xn, xn+1, t/m-n) * M(xn+1, xn+2, t/m-n)
*…* M(xm-1, xm, t/m-n) > (1 –)* (1 –)*…*(1 –
)
(1 –
) and
N(xn, xm, t) N(xn, xn+1, t/m-n) N(xn+1, xn+2, t/m-n)
N(xm-1, xm, t/m-n) < (1 –) (1 –) (1 –
)
(1 –
)
Therefore, {xn} is a Cauchy sequence in X and hence
there exists x in X such that xnx. From 2), Ax2n-2Ax,
Sx2nSx as limit n. By uniqueness of limits, we
have Ax = z = Sx. Since pair (A, S) is weakly compatible,
therefore, ASx = SAx and so Az = Sz.
From 2) of Theorem 3.1, we have ASx2nASx and
therefore, ASx2nSz. Also, from continuity of S, we
have, SSx2nSz.
From 4), we get
M(ASx2n, Bx2n-1, qt) M(SSx2n, Tx2n-1, t) *
M(ASx2n, SSx2n, t) * M(Bx2n-1, Tx2n-1, t) *
M(ASx2n, Tx2n-1, t) and
N(ASx2n, Bx2n-1, qt) N(SSx2n, Tx2n-1, t)
N(ASx2n, SSx2n, t) N(Bx2n-1, Tx2n-1, t)
N(ASx2n, Tx2n-1, t)
Proceeding limit as n→∞, we have
M(Sz, z, qt) M(Sz, z, t) * M(Sz, Sz, t) * M(z, z, t) *
M(Sz, z, t) and
N(Sz, z, qt) N(Sz, z, t) N(Sz, Sz, t) N(z, z, t)
N(Sz, z, t).
From Lemma 2.1, we get Sz = z, and hence
Az = Sz = z.
Since A(X)T(X), there exists v in X such that
Tv = Az = z.
From 4), we have
M(Ax2n, Bv, qt) M(Sx2n, Tv, t) * M(Ax2n, Sx2n, t) *
M(Bv, Tv, t) *M(Ax2n, Tv, t) and
N(Ax2n, Bv, qt) N(Sx2n, Tv, t) N(Ax2n, Sx2n, t)
N(Bv, Tv, t) N(Ax2n, Tv, t).
Letting n →∞, we have
M(z, Bv, qt) M(z, Tv, t) * M(z, z, t) * M(Bv, Tv, t) *
M(z, Tv, t)
= M(z, z, t) * M(z, z, t) * M(Bv, z, t) * M(z, z, t)
M(Bv, z, t) and
N(z, Bv, qt) N(z, Tv, t) N(z, z, t) N(Bv, Tv, t)
N(z, Tv, t)
= N(z, z, t) N(z, z, t) N(Bv, z, t) N(z, z, t)
N(Bv, z, t).
By Lemma 2.1, we have Bv = z and therefore, we
have Tv = Bv = z.
Since (B, T) is weakly compatible, therefore, TBv =
BTv and hence Tz = Bz.
S. MANRO ET AL.
Copyright © 2010 SciRes. AM
513
From 4),
M(Ax2n, Bz, qt) M(Sx2n, Tz, t) * M(Ax2n, Sx2n,t) *
M(Bz, Tz, t) * M(Ax2n, Tz, t) and
N(Ax2n, Bz, qt) N(Sx2n, Tz, t) N(Ax2n, Sx2n, t)
N(Bz, Tz, t) N(Ax2n, Tz, t),
Letting n →∞, we have
M(z, Bz, qt) M(z, Tz, t) * M(z, z, t) * M(Bz, Tz, t) *
M(z, Tz, t)
= M(z, Bz, t) * M(z, z, t) * M(Bz, Bz, t) * M(z, Bz, t)
M(z, Bz, t)
and
N(z,Bv,qt) N(z, Tz, t) N(z, z, t) N(Bz, Tz, t)
N(z, Tz, t)
= N(z, Bz, t) N(z, z, t) N(Bz, Bz, t) N(z, Bz, t)
N(z, Bz, t),
which implies that Bz = z .
Therefore, Az = Sz = Bz = Tz = z. Hence A, B, S and
T have common fixed point z in X.
For uniqueness, let w be another common fixed point
of A, B, S and T.
Then M(z, w, qt) = M(Az, Bw, qt) M(Sz, Tw, t) *
M(Az, Sz, t) * M(Bw, Tw, t) * M(Az, Tw, t) M(z, w, t)
and
N(z, w, qt) = N(Az, Bw, qt) N(Sz, Tw, t)
N(Az, Sz, t) N(Bw, Tw, t) N(Az, Tw, t) N(z, w, t).
From Lemma 2.1, we conclude that z = w. Hence A, B,
S and T have unique common fixed point z in X.
Corollary 3.1. Let A, B, S and T be self maps of a
complete – chainable intuitionistic fuzzy metric spac-
es (X, M, N, * , ) with continuous t-norm * and conti-
nuous t-conorm defined by a * a a and (1 – a) (1 – a)
(1 – a) for all a[0, 1] satisfying 1), 2), 3) of Theorem
3.1 the following:
there exists q(0 , 1) such that
M(Ax, By, qt) M(Sx, Ty, t) * M(Ax, Sx, t) *
M(Sx, By, 2t) * M(By, Ty, t) * M(Ax, Ty, t)
and N(Ax, By, qt) N(Sx, Ty, t) N(Ax, Sx, t)
N(Sy, By, 2t) N(By, Ty, t) N(Ax, Ty, t) for every x, y
in X and t > 0.
Then A, B, S and T have a unique common fixed point
in X.
Corollary 3.2. Let A, B, S and T be self maps of a
complete – chainable intuitionistic fuzzy metric spac-
es (X, M, N, * , ) with continuous t-norm * and conti-
nuous t-conorm defined by a * a a and (1 – a) (1 – a)
(1 – a) for all a[0, 1] satisfying 1), 2), 3) of Theorem
3.1 the following:
there exists q(0 , 1) such that
M(Ax, By, qt) M(Sx, Ty, t) and N(Ax, By, qt)
N(Sx, Ty, t)
for every x, y in X and t > 0. Then A, B, S and T have
a unique common fixed point in X.
Corollary 3.3. Let (X, M, N, * , ) be complete
chainable intuitionistic fuzzy metric space and let A and
B be self mappings of X satisfying the following condi-
tion: there exists q
(0, 1) such that
M(Ax, By, qt) M(x, y, t) and N(Ax, By, qt) N(x, y, t)
for every x, y in X and t > 0. Then A and B have a
unique common fixed point in X provided pair (A, B) is
weakly compatible map.
Proof. Take S and T be identity mapping on set X in
Corollary 3.2.
Corollary 3.4. Let (X, M, N, * , ) be complete
chainable intuitionistic fuzzy metric space and let A be
self mappings of X satisfying the following condition:
there exists
q
(0, 1) such that
M(Ax, Ay, qt) M(x, y, t) and N(Ax, Ay, qt) N(x, y, t)
for every x, y in X and t > 0. Then A has a unique
common fixed point in X.
Proof. Take A = B in Corollary 3.3, we get desired
result.
5. References
[1] S. H. Cho and J. H. Jung, “On Common Fixed Point
Theorems in Fuzzy Metric Spaces,” International Ma-
thematical Forum, Vol. 1, No. 29, 2006, pp. 1441-1451.
[2] K. Atanassov, “Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets,” Fuzzy Sets and
System, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1986, pp. 87-96.
[3] D. Coker, “An Introduction to Intuitionistic Fuzzy Topo-
logical Spaces,” Fuzzy Sets and System, Vol. 88, No. 1,
1997, pp. 81-89.
[4] C. Alaca, D. Turkoglu and C. Yildiz, “Fixed Points in
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Metric Spaces,” Chaos, Solitons and
Fractals, Vol. 29, No. 5, 2006, pp. 1073-1078.
[5] S. Banach, “Theorie Les Operations Lineaires, Manograie
Mathematyezne Warsaw Poland,” In French, Z Subwenc-
ji Funduszu Kultury Narodowej, New York, 1932.
[6] D. Turkoglu, C. Alaca, Y. J. Cho and C. Yildiz, “Com-
mon Fixed Point Theorems in Intuitionistic Fuzzy Metric
spaces,” Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing,
Vol. 22, No. 1-2, 2006, pp. 411-424.
[7] G. Jungck, “Commuting Mappings and Fixed Points,”
American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 83, No. 4, 1976,
pp. 261-263.
[8] R. P. Pant, “Common Fixed Points of Noncommuting
Mappings,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Ap-
plications, Vol. 188, No. 2, 1994, pp. 436-440.
[9] V. Gregori, S. Romaguera and P. Veeramani, “A Note on
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Metric Spaces,” Chaos, Solitons and
Fractals, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2006, pp. 902-905.
[10] R. Saadati and J. H. Park, “On the Intuitionistic Fuzzy
Topological Spaces,” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol.
27, No. 2, 2006, pp. 331-344.
[11] M. Grabiec, “Fixed Points in Fuzzy Metric Spaces,”
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1988, pp.
385-389.
S. MANRO ET AL.
Copyright © 2010 SciRes. AM
514
[12] M. Imdad and Javid Ali, “Some Common Fixed Point
Theorems in Fuzzy Metric Spaces,” Mathematical Com-
munication, Vol. 11, No. 12, 2006, pp. 153-163.
[13] J. H. Park, “Intuitionistic Fuzzy Metric Spaces,” Chaos,
Solitons & Fractals, Vol. 22, No. 52004, pp. 1039-1046.
[14] J. S. Park, Y. C. Kwun and J. H. Park, “A Fixed Point
Theorem in the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Metric Spaces,” Far
East Journal of Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 16, No. 2,
2005, pp. 137-149.
[15] D. Turkoglu, C. Alaca and C. Yildiz, “Compatible Maps
and Compatible Maps of Types (α) and (β) in Intuitionis-
tic Fuzzy Metric Spaces,” Demonstration Mathematica,
Vol. 39, No. 3, 2006, pp. 671-684.
[16] B. Schweizer and A. Sklar, “Statistical Metric Spaces,”
Pacic Journal Mathematic, Vol. 10, 1960, pp. 314-334.
[17] C. Alaca, I. Altun and D. Turkoglu, “On Compatible
Mappings of Type (I) and Type (II) in Intuitionistic
Fuzzy Metric Spaces,” Korean Mathematical Society,
Vol. 23, No. 3, 2008, pp. 427-446.
[18] G. Jungck, “Compatible Mappings and Common Fixed
Points,” International Journal of Mathematics and Ma-
thematical Sciences, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1986, pp. 771-779.
[19] G. Jungck and B. E. Rhoades, “Fixed Point for Set Va-
lued Functions without Continuity,” Indian Journal of
Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1998, pp.
227-238.