Open Access

# Periodic points for the weak contraction mappings in complete generalized metric spaces

Fixed Point Theory and Applications20122012:79

DOI: 10.1186/1687-1812-2012-79

Accepted: 9 May 2012

Published: 9 May 2012

## Abstract

In this article, we introduce the notions of (ϕ - φ)-weak contraction mappings and (ψ - φ)-weak contraction mappings in complete generalized metric spaces and prove two theorems which assure the existence of a periodic point for these two types of weak contraction.

Mathematical Subject Classification: 47H10; 54C60; 54H25; 55M20.

### Keywords

Periodic point Meir-Keeler function (ϕ - φ)-weak contraction mapping (ψ - φ)-weak contraction mapping

## 1 Introduction and preliminaries

Let (X, d) be a metric space, D a subset of X and f : DX be a map. We say f is contractive if there exists α [0, 1) such that for all x, y D,
The well-known Banach's fixed point theorem asserts that if D = X, f is contractive and (X, d) is complete, then f has a unique fixed point in X. It is well known that the Banach contraction principle [1] is a very useful and classical tool in nonlinear analysis. In 1969, Boyd and Wong [2] introduced the notion of ϕ-contraction. A mapping f : XX on a metric space is called ϕ-contraction if there exists an upper semi-continuous function ϕ : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) such that

Generalization of the above Banach contraction principle has been a heavily investigated research branch. (see, e.g., [3, 4]).

In 2000, Branciari [5] introduced the following notion of a generalized metric space where the triangle inequality of a metric space had been replaced by an inequality involing three terms instead of two. Later, many authors worked on this interesting space (e.g. [611]).

Let (X, d) be a generalized metric space. For γ > 0 and x X, we define

Branciari [5] also claimed that {B γ (x): γ > 0, x X} is a basis for a topology on X, d is continuous in each of the coordinates and a generalized metric space is a Hausdorff space. We recall some definitions of a generalized metric space, as follows:

Definition 1 [5] Let X be a nonempty set and d : X × X → [0, ∞) be a mapping such that for all x, y X and for all distinct point u, v X each of them different from × and y, one has

(i) d(x, y) = 0 if and only if × = y;

(ii) d(x, y) = d(y, x);

(iii) d(x, y) ≤ d(x, u) + d(u, v) + d(v, y) (rectangular inequality).

Then (X, d) is called a generalized metric space (or shortly g.m.s).

We present an example to show that not every generalized metric on a set X is a metric on X.

Example 1 Let X = {t, 2t, 3t, 4t, 5t} with t > 0 is a constant, and we define d : X × X → [0, ∞) by
1. (1)

d(x, x) = 0, for all × X;

2. (2)

d(x, y) = d(y, x), for all x, y X;

3. (3)

d(t, 2t) = 3γ;

4. (4)

d(t, 3t) = d(2t, 3t) = γ;

5. (5)

d(t, 4t) = d(2t, 4t) = d(3t, 4t) = 2γ;

6. (6)

,

where γ > 0 is a constant. Then (X, d) be a generalized metric space, but it is not a metric space, because

Definition 2 [5] Let (X, d) be a g.m.s, {x n } be a sequence in X and x X. We say that {x n } is g.m.s convergent to × if and only if d(x n , x) → 0 as n → ∞. We denote by x n x as n → ∞.

Definition 3 [5] Let (X, d) be a g.m.s, {x n } be a sequence in X and x X. We say that {x n } is g.m.s Cauchy sequence if and only if for each ε > 0, there exists such that d(x m , x n ) < ε for all n > m > n0.

Definition 4 [5] Let (X, d) be a g.m.s. Then X is called complete g.m.s if every g.m.s Cauchy sequence is g.m.s convergent in X.

In this article, we also recall the notion of Meir-Keeler function (see [12]). A function ϕ : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) is said to be a Meir-Keeler function if for each η > 0, there exists δ > 0 such that for t [0, ∞) with ηt < η + δ, we have ϕ(t) < η. Generalization of the above function has been a heavily investigated research branch. Praticularly, in [13, 14], the authors proved the existence and uniqueness of fixed points for various Meir-Keeler type contractive functions. In this study, we introduce the below notions of the weaker Meir-Keeler function ϕ : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) and stronger Meir-Keeler function ψ : [0, ∞) → [0, 1).

Definition 5 We call ϕ : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) a weaker Meir-Keeler function if the function ϕ satisfies the following condition

The following provides an example of a weaker Meir-Keeler function which is not a Meir-Keeler function.

Example 2 Let be defined by

Then ϕ is a weaker Meir-Keeler function which is not a Meir-Keeler function.

Definition 6 We call ψ : [0, ∞) → [0, 1) a stronger Meir-Keeler function if the function ψ satisfies the following condition

The following provides an example of a stronger Meir-Keeler function.

Example 3 Let be defined by

Then ψ is a stronger Meir-Keeler function.

The following provides an example of a Meir-Keeler function which is not a stronger Meir-Keeler function.

Example 4 Let be defined by

Then φ is a Meir-Keeler function which is not a stronger Meir-Keeler function.

## 2 Main results

In the sequel, we let the function ϕ : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) satisfies the following conditions:

(ϕ1) ϕ : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) is a weaker Meir-Keeler function;

(ϕ2) ϕ(t) > 0 for t > 0 and ϕ(0) = 0;

(ϕ3) for all t (0, ∞), is decreasing;

(ϕ4) for t n [0, ∞), we have that
1. (a)

if limn→∞t n = γ > 0, then limn→∞ϕ(t n ) < γ, and

2. (b)

if limn→∞t n = 0, then limn→∞ϕ(t n ) = 0.

Let the function ψ : [0, ∞) → [0, 1) satisfies the following conditions:

(ψ1) ψ : [0, ∞) → [0, 1) is a stronger Meir-Keeler function;

(ψ2) ψ(t) > 0 for t > 0 and ϕ(0) = 0.

And, we let the function φ : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) satisfies the following conditions:

(φ1) for all t (0, ∞), limn→∞t n = 0 if and only if limn→∞φ(t n ) = 0;

(φ2) φ(t) > 0 for t > 0 and φ(0) = 0;

(φ3) φ is subadditive, that is, for every μ1, μ2 [0, ∞), φ(μ1 + μ2) ≤ φ(μ1) + φ(μ2).

Using the functions ϕ and φ, we first introduce the notion of the (ϕ-φ)-weak contraction mapping and prove a theorem which assures the existence of a periodic point for the (ϕ-φ)-weak contraction mapping.

Definition 7 Let (X, d) be a g.m.s, and let f : XX be a function satisfying
(1)

for all x, y X. Then f is said to be a (ϕ - φ)-weak contraction mapping.

Theorem 1 Let (X, d) be a Hausdorff and complete g.m.s, and let f be a (ϕ - φ)-weak contraction mapping. Then f has a periodic point μ in X, that is, there exists μ X such that for some .

Proof. Given x0 and define a sequence {x n } in X by
Step 1. We shall prove that
(2)
(3)
Using the inequality (1), we have that for each
and so
Since is decreasing, it must converge to some η ≥ 0. We claim that η = 0. On the contrary, assume that η > 0. Then by the definition of weaker Meir-Keeler function ϕ, corresponding to η use, there exists δ > 0 such that for x0, x1 X with ηφ(d(x0, x1)) < δ + η, there exists such that . Since limn→∞ϕ n (φ(d(x0, x1))) = η, there exists such that ηϕ p (φ(d(x0, x1))) < δ + η, for all pp0. Thus, we conclude that . So we get a contradiction. Therefore limn→∞ϕ n (φ(d(x0, x1))) = 0, that is,
Using the inequality (1), we also have that for each
and so
Since is decreasing, by the same proof process, we also conclude

Next, we claim that {x n } is g.m.s Cauchy. We claim that the following result holds:

Step 2. Claim that , that is, for every ε > 0, there exists such that if p, qn then φ(d(x p , x q )) < ε.

Suppose the above statement is false. Then there exists ε > 0 such that for any , there are with p n > q n n satisfying
Further, corresponding to q n n, we can choose p n in such a way that it the smallest integer with p n > q n n and . Therefore . By the rectangular inequality and (2), (3), we have
Letting n → ∞. Then we get
On the other hand, we have
and
Letting n → ∞. Then we get
Using the inequality (1), we have
Letting n → ∞, by the definitions of the functions ϕ and φ, we have

So we get a contradiction. Therefore , by the condition (φ1), we have . Therefore {x n } is g.m.s Cauchy.

Step 3. We claim that f has a periodic point in X.

Suppose, on contrary, f has no periodic point. Then {x n } is a sequence of distinct points, that is, x p x q for all with pq. By step 2, since X is complete g.m.s, there exists ν X such that x n ν. Using the inequality (1), we have
Letting n → ∞, we have
by the condition (φ1), we get
that is,

As (X, d) is Hausdorff, we have ν = , a contradiction with our assumption that f has no periodic point. Therefore, there exists ν X such that for some . So f has a periodic point in X.   □

Using the functions ψ and φ, we next introduce the notion of the (ψ-φ)-weak contraction mapping and prove a theorem which assures the existence of a periodic point for the (ψ-φ)-weak contraction mapping.

Definition 8 Let (X, d) be a g.m.s, and let f : XX be a function satisfying
(4)

for all x, y X. Then f is said to be a (ψ - φ)-weak contraction mapping.

Theorem 2 Let (X, d) be a Hausdorff and complete g.m.s, and let f be a (ψ - φ)-weak contraction mapping. Then f has a periodic point μ in X.

Proof. Given x0 and define a sequence {x n } in X by
Step 1. We shall prove that
(5)
(6)
Taking into account (4) and the definition of stronger Meir-Keeler function ψ, we have that for each
Thus the sequence {φ(d(x n , xn+1))} is descreasing and bounded below and hence it is con-vergent. Let limn → ∞φ(d(x n , xn+1)) = η ≥ 0. Then there exists and δ > 0 such that for all with nn0
(7)
Taking into account (7) and the definition of stronger Meir-Keeler function ψ, corresponding to η use, there exists γ η [0, 1) such that
Thus, we can deduce that for each with nn0 + 1
and so
Since γ η [0, 1), we get
Taking into account (4) and the definition of stronger Meir-Keeler function ψ, we have that for each
Thus the sequence {φ(d(x n , xn+2))} is descreasing and bounded below and hence it is convergent. By the same proof process, we also conclude

Next, we claim that {x n } is g.m.s Cauchy.

Step 2. Claim that , that is, for every ε > 0, corresponding to above n0 use, there exists with nn0 +1 such that if p, qn then φ(d(x p , x q )) < ε.

Suppose the above statement is false. Then there exists ε > 0 such that for any , there are with p n > q n nn0 + 1 satisfying
Following from Theorem 1, we have that
and
Using the inequality (4), we have
Letting n → ∞, by the definitions of the functions ψ and φ, we have

So we get a contradiction. Therefore , by the condition (φ1), we have . Therefore {x n } is g.m.s Cauchy.

Step 3. We claim that f has a periodic point in X.

Suppose, on contrary, f has no periodic point. Then {x n } is a sequence of distinct points, that is, x p x q for all with pq. By step 2, since X is complete g.m.s, there exists ν X such that x n ν. Using the inequality (4), we have
Letting n → ∞, we have
by the condition (φ1), we get
that is,

As (X, d) is Hausdorff, we have ν = , a contradiction with our assumption that f has no periodic point. Therefore, there exists ν X such that for some . So f has a periodic point in X.   □

In conclusion, by using the new concepts of (ϕ-φ)-weak contraction mappings and (ψ - φ)-weak contraction mappings, we obtain two theorems (Theorems 1 and 2) which assure the existence of a periodic point for these two types of weak contraction in complete generalized metric spaces. Our results generalize or improve many recent fixed point theorems in the literature.

## Declarations

### Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank referee(s) for many useful comments and suggestions for the improvement of the paper.

## Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Applied Mathematics, National Hsinchu University of Education
(2)
Department of Applied Mathematics, Chung Yuan Christian University

## References

1. Banach S: Sur les operations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux equations integerales. Fund Math 1922, 3: 133–181.
2. Boyd DW, Wong SW: On nonlinear contractions. Proc Am Math Soc 1969, 20: 45864.
3. Aydi H, Karapinar E, Shatnawi W: Coupled fixed point results for (( ψ - φ )-weakly contractive condition in ordered partial metric spaces. Comput Math Appl 2011, 62(12):4449–4460. 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.10.021
4. Karapinar E: Weak φ -contraction on partial metric spaces and existence of fixed points in partially ordered sets. Math Aeterna 2011, 1(4):237–244.MathSciNet
5. Branciari A: A fixed point theorem of Banach-Caccioppoli type on a class of generalized metric spaces. Publ Math Debrecen 2000, 57: 31–37.MathSciNet
6. Azam A, Arshad M: Kannan fixed point theorem on generalized metric spaces. J Nonlinear Sci Appl 2008, 1(1):45–48.MathSciNet
7. Das P: A fixed point theorem on a class of generalized metric spaces. Korea J Math Sci 2002, 9: 29–33.
8. Mihet D: On Kannan fixed point principle in generalized metric spaces. J Nonlinear Sci Appl 2009, 2(2):92–96.MathSciNet
9. Samet B: A fixed point theorem in a generalized metric space for mappings satisfying a contractive condition of integral type. Int J Math Anal 2009, 26(3):1265–1271.
10. Samet B: Disscussion on: a fixed point theorem of Banach-Caccioppli type on a class of generalized metric spaces. Publ Math Debrecen 2010, 76(4):493–494.MathSciNet
11. Lakzian H, Samet B: Fixed points for ( ψ , φ )-weakly contractive mappings in general-ized metric spaces. Appl Math Lett 25(5):902–906.
12. Meir A, Keeler E: A theorem on contraction mappings. J Math Anal Appl 1969, 28: 326–329. 10.1016/0022-247X(69)90031-6
13. Anthony Eldred A, Veeramani P: Existence and convergence of best proximity points. J Math Anal Appl 2006, 323: 1001–1006. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.10.081
14. De la Sen M: Linking contractive self-mappings and cyclic Meir-Keeler contractions with Kannan self-mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2010, 2010: 23. Article ID 572057 doi:10.1155/2010/572057