Open Access

Coupled best proximity point theorem in metric Spaces

Fixed Point Theory and Applications20122012:93

DOI: 10.1186/1687-1812-2012-93

Received: 4 November 2011

Accepted: 7 June 2012

Published: 7 June 2012

Abstract

In this article the concept of coupled best proximity point and cyclic contraction pair are introduced and then we study the existence and convergence of these points in metric spaces. We also establish new results on the existence and convergence in a uniformly convex Banach spaces. Furthermore, we give new results of coupled fixed points in metric spaces and give some illustrative examples. An open problems are also given at the end for further investigation.

1 Introduction

The Banach contraction principle [1] states that if (X, d) is a complete metric space and T : XX is a contraction mapping (i.e., d(Tx, Ty) ≤ αd(x, y) for all x, y X, where α is a non-negative number such that α < 1), then T has a unique fixed point. This principle has been generalized in many ways over the years [215].

One of the most interesting is the study of the extension of Banach contraction principle to the case of non-self mappings. In fact, given nonempty closed subsets A and B of a complete metric space (X, d), a contraction non-self-mapping T : AB does not necessarily has a fixed point.

Eventually, it is quite natural to find an element x such that d(x, Tx) is minimum for a given problem which implies that x and Tx are in close proximity to each other.

A point x in A for which d(x, Tx) = d(A, B) is call a best proximity point of T . Whenever a non-self-mapping T has no fixed point, a best proximity point represent an optimal approximate solution to the equation Tx = x. Since a best proximity point reduces to a fixed point if the underlying mapping is assumed to be self-mappings, the best proximity point theorems are natural generalizations of the Banach contraction principle.

In 1969, Fan [16] introduced and established a classical best approximation theorem, that is, if A is a nonempty compact convex subset of a Hausdorff locally convex topological vector space B and T : AB is a continuous mapping, then there exists an element x A such that d(x, Tx) = d(Tx, A). Afterward, many authors have derived extensions of Fan's Theorem and the best approximation theorem in many directions such as Prolla [17], Reich [18], Sehgal and Singh [19, 20], Wlodarczyk and Plebaniak [2124], Vetrivel et al. [25], Eldred and Veeramani [26], Mongkolkeha and Kumam [27] and Sadiq Basha and Veeramani [2831].

On the other hand, Bhaskar and Lakshmikantham [32] introduced the notions of a mixed monotone mapping and proved some coupled fixed point theorems for mappings satisfying the mixed monotone property. They have observation that their theorem can be used to investigate a large class of problems and discussed the existence and uniqueness of a solution for a periodic boundary value problem. For several improvements and generalizations see in [3336] and reference therein.

The purpose of this article is to first introduce the notion of coupled best proximity point and cyclic contraction pair. We also establish the existence and convergence theorem of coupled best proximity points in metric spaces. Moreover, we apply this results in uniformly convex Banach space. We also study some results on the existence and convergence of coupled fixed point in metric spaces and give illustrative examples of our theorems. An open problem are also given at the end for further investigations.

2 Preliminaries

In this section, we give some basic definitions and concepts related to the main results of this article. Throughout this article we denote by the set of all positive integers and by the set of all real numbers. For nonempty subsets A and B of a metric space (X, d), we let
d ( A , B ) : = inf { d ( x , y ) : x A  and  y B }

stands for the distance between A and B.

A Banach space X is said to be
  1. (1)
    strictly convex if the following implication holds for all x, y X:
    x = y = 1  and  x y x + y 2 < 1 .
     
  2. (2)
    uniformly convex if for each ε with 0 < ε ≤ 2, there exists δ > 0 such that the following implication holds for all x, y X:
    | | x | | 1 , | | y | | 1  and  | | x - y | | ε x + y 2 < 1 - δ .
     

It easily to see that a uniformly convex Banach space X is strictly convex but the converse is not true.

Definition 2.1. [37] Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a metric space (X, d). The ordered pair (A, B) satisfies the property UC if the following holds:

If {x n } and {z n } are sequences in A and {y n } is a sequence in B such that d(x n , y n ) → d(A, B) and d(z n , y n ) → d(A, B), then d(x n , z n ) → 0.

Example 2.2. [37]The following are examples of a pair of nonempty subsets (A, B) satisfying the property UC.

(1) Every pair of nonempty subsets A, B of a metric space (X, d) such that d(A, B) = 0.

(2) Every pair of nonempty subsets A, B of a uniformly convex Banach space X such that A is convex.

(3) Every pair of nonempty subsets A, B of a strictly convex Banach space which A is convex and relatively compact and the closure of B is weakly compact.

Definition 2.3. Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a metric space (X, d) and T : AB be a mapping. A point x A is said to be a best proximity point of T if it satisfies the condition that
d ( x , T x ) = d ( A , B ) .

It can be observed that a best proximity point reduces to a fixed point if the underlying mapping is a self-mapping.

Definition 2.4. [32] Let A be a nonempty subset of a metric space X and F : A X AA. A point (x, x') A × A is called a coupled fixed point of F if
x  =  F ( x , x ) and  x = F ( x , x ) .

3 Coupled best proximity point theorem

In this section, we study the existence and convergence of coupled best proximity points for cyclic contraction pairs. We begin by introducing the notion of property UC* and a coupled best proximity point.

Definition 3.1. Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a metric space (X, d). The ordered pair (A, B) satisfies the property UC* if (A, B) has property UC and the following condition holds:

If {x n } and {z n } are sequences in A and {y n } is a sequence in B satisfying:
  1. (1)

    d(z n , y n ) → d(A, B).

     
  2. (2)
    For every ε > 0 there exists N such that
    d ( x m , y n ) d ( A , B ) + ε
     

for all m > nN,

then, for every ε > 0 there exists N1 such that
d ( x m , z n ) d ( A , B ) + ε

for all m > nN1.

Example 3.2. The following are examples of a pair of nonempty subsets (A, B) satisfying the property UC*.

(1) Every pair of nonempty subsets A, B of a metric space (X, d) such that d(A, B) = 0.

(2) Every pair of nonempty closed subsets A, B of a uniformly convex Banach space X such that A is convex [[38], Lemma 3.7].

Definition 3.3. Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a metric space X and F : A × AB. A point (x, x') A × A is called a coupled best proximity point of F if
d ( x , F ( x , x ) ) = d ( x , F ( x , x ) ) = d ( A , B ) .

It is easy to see that if A = B in Definition 3.3, then a coupled best proximity point reduces to a coupled fixed point.

Next, we introduce the notion of a cyclic contraction for a pair of two binary mappings.

Definition 3.4. Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a metric space X, F : A × AB and G : B × BA. The ordered pair (F, G) is said to be a cyclic contraction if there exists a non-negative number α < 1 such that
d ( F ( x , x ) , G ( y , y ) ) α 2 [ d ( x , y ) + d ( x , y ) ] + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B )

for all (x, x') A × A and (y, y') B × B.

Note that if (F, G) is a cyclic contraction, then (G, F ) is also a cyclic contraction.

Example 3.5. Let X = with the usual metric d(x, y) = |x - y| and let A = [2,4] and B = [-4, -2]. It easy to see that d(A, B) = 4. Define F : A × AB and G : B × BA by
F ( x , x ) = - x - x - 4 4
and
G ( x , x ) = - x - x + 4 4 .
For arbitrary (x, x') A × A and (y, y') B × B and fixed α = 1 2 , we get
d ( F ( x , x ) , G ( y , y ) ) = - x - x - 4 4 - - y - y + 4 4 | x - y | + | x - y | 4 + 2 = α 2 [ d ( x , y ) + d ( x , y ) ] + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) .

This implies that (F, G) is a cyclic contraction with α = 1 2 .

Example 3.6. Let X = 2with the metric d((x, y), (x', y')) = max{|x - x'|, |y - y'|} and let A = {(x, 0): 0 ≤ x ≤ 1} and B = {(x, 1): 0 ≤ x ≤ 1}. It easy to prove that d(A, B) = 1. Define F : A × AB and G : B × BA by
F ( ( x , 0 ) , ( x , 0 ) ) = x + x 2 , 1
and
G ( ( x , 1 ) , ( x , 1 ) ) = ( x + x 2 , 0 ) .
We obtain that
d ( F ( ( x , 0 ) , ( x , 0 ) ) , G ( ( y , 1 ) , ( y , 1 ) ) ) = d ( ( x + x 2 , 1 ) , ( y + y 2 , 0 ) ) = 1
Also for all α > 0, we get
α 2 [ d ( ( x , 0 ) , ( y , 1 ) ) + d ( ( x , 0 ) , ( y , 1 ) ) ] + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) = α 2 [ max { | x - y | , 1 } + max { | x - y | , 1 } ] + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) = α 2 × 2 + ( 1 - α ) = 1 .

This implies that (F, G) is cyclic contraction.

The following lemma plays an important role in our main results.

Lemma 3.7. Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a metric space X, F : A × AB, G : B × BA and (F, G) be a cyclic contraction. If ( x 0 , x 0 ) A × A and we define
x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) , x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n )
and
x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 ) , x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 )

for all n {0}, then d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) d ( A , B ) , d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) d ( A , B ) , d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) d ( A , B ) and d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) d ( A , B ) .

Proof. For each n {0}, we have
d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) = d ( x 2 n , F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) ) = d ( G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) , F ( G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) , G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) ) ) α 2 [ d ( x 2 n - 1 , G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) ) + d ( x 2 n - 1 , G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) ) ] + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) = α 2 d ( F ( x 2 n - 2 , x 2 n - 2 ) , G ( F ( x 2 n - 2 , x 2 n - 2 ) , F ( x 2 n - 2 , x 2 n - 2 ) ) ) + d ( F ( x 2 n - 2 , x 2 n - 2 ) , G ( F ( x 2 n - 2 , x 2 n - 2 ) , F ( x 2 n - 2 , x 2 n - 2 ) ) ) + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) α 2 α 2 [ d ( x 2 n - 2 , F ( x 2 n - 2 , x 2 n - 2 ) ) + d ( x 2 n - 2 , F ( x 2 n - 2 , x 2 n - 2 ) ) + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) ] + α 2 [ d ( x 2 n - 2 , F ( x 2 n - 2 , x 2 n - 2 ) ) + d ( x 2 n - 2 , F ( x 2 n - 2 , x 2 n - 2 ) ) + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) = α 2 2 [ d ( x 2 n - 2 , F ( x 2 n - 2 , x 2 n - 2 ) ) + d ( x 2 n - 2 , F ( x 2 n - 2 , x 2 n - 2 ) ) ] + ( 1 - α 2 ) d ( A , B ) .
By induction, we see that
d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) α 2 n 2 [ d ( x 0 , F ( x 0 , x 0 ) ) + d ( x 0 , F ( x 0 , x 0 ) ) ] + ( 1 - α 2 n ) d ( A , B ) .
Taking n, we obtain
d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) d ( A , B ) .
(3.1)
For each n {0}, we have
d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) = d ( x 2 n + 1 , G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 ) ) = d ( F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) , G ( F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) , F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) ) ) α 2 [ d ( x 2 n , F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) ) + d ( x 2 n , F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) ) ] + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) = α 2 d ( G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) , F ( G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) , G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) ) ) + d ( G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) , F ( G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) , G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) ) ) + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) α 2 α 2 [ d ( x 2 n - 1 , G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) ) + d ( x 2 n - 1 , G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) ) + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) ] + α 2 [ d ( x 2 n - 1 , G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) ) + d ( x 2 n - 1 , G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) ) + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) = α 2 2 [ d ( x 2 n - 1 , G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 2 ) ) + d ( x 2 n - 1 , G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) ) ] + ( 1 - α 2 ) d ( A , B ) .
By induction, we see that
d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) α 2 n 2 [ d ( x 1 , G ( x 1 , x 1 ) ) + d ( x 1 , G ( x 1 , x 1 ) ) ] + ( 1 - α 2 n ) d ( A , B ) .
Setting n, we obtain
d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) d ( A , B ) .
(3.2)

By similar argument, we also have d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) d ( A , B ) and d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) d ( A , B ) for all n {0}.    □

Lemma 3.8. Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a metric space X such that (A, B) and (B, A) have a property UC, F : A × AB, G : B × BA and let the ordered pair (F, G) is a cyclic contraction. If ( x 0 , x 0 ) A × A and define
x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) , x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n )
and
x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 ) , x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 )
for all n {0}, then for ε > 0, there exists a positive integer N0such that for all m > nN0,
1 2 [ d ( x 2 m , x 2 n + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m , x 2 n + 1 ) ] < d ( A , B ) + ε .
(3.3)
Proof. By Lemma 3.7, we have d(x2n, x2n+1) → d(A, B) and d(x2n+1, x2n+2) → d(A, B). Since (A, B) has a property UC, we get d(x2n, x2n+2) → 0. A similar argument shows that d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 2 ) 0 . As (B, A) has a property UC, we also have d(x2n+1, x2n+3) → 0 and d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 3 ) 0 . Suppose that (3.3) does not hold. Then there exists ε' > 0 such that for all k , there is m k > n k k satisfying
1 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) ] d ( A , B ) + ε .
and
1 2 [ d ( x 2 m k - 2 , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k - 2 , x 2 n k + 1 ) ] < d ( A , B ) + ε .
Therefore, we get
d ( A , B ) + ε 1 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) ] 1 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k - 2 ) + d ( x 2 m k - 2 , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k - 2 ) + d ( x 2 m k - 2 , x 2 n k + 1 ) ] < 1 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k - 2 ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k - 2 ) ] + d ( A , B ) + ε .
Letting k, we obtain to see that
1 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) ] d ( A , B ) + ε .
(3.4)
By using the triangle inequality we get
1 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) ] 1 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 m k + 2 , x 2 n k + 3 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k 2 , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 m k + 2 , x 2 n k + 3 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) ] = 1 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( G ( x 2 m k + 1 , x 2 m k + 1 ) , F ( x 2 n k + 2 , x 2 n k + 2 ) ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( G ( x 2 m k + 1 , x 2 m k + 1 ) , F ( x 2 n k + 2 , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) ] 1 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + α 2 [ d ( x 2 m k + 1 , x 2 n k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 m k + 1 , x 2 n k + 2 ) ] + ( 1 α ) d ( A , B ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k 2 , x 2 m k + 2 ) + α 2 [ d ( x 2 m k + 1 , x 2 n k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 m k + 1 , x 2 n k + 2 ) ] + ( 1 α ) d ( A , B ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) ] = 1 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) ] + α 2 [ d ( x 2 m k + 1 , x 2 n k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 m k + 1 , x 2 n k + 2 ) ] + ( 1 α ) d ( A , B ) = 1 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) ] + α 2 [ d ( F ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k ) , G ( x 2 n k + 1 , x 2 n k + 1 ) ) + d ( F ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k ) , G ( x 2 n k + 1 , x 2 n k + 1 ) ) ] + ( 1 α ) d ( A , B ) 1 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) ] + α 2 [ α 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k + 1 , x 2 n k + 1 ) + ( 1 α ) d ( A , B ) ] + α 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k + 1 , x 2 n k + 1 ) + ( 1 α ) d ( A , B ) ] ] + ( 1 α ) d ( A , B ) = 1 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) ] + α 2 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) ] + ( 1 α 2 ) d ( A , B ) .
Taking k, we get
d ( A , B ) + ε α 2 [ d ( A , B ) + ε ] + ( 1 - α 2 ) d ( A , B ) = d ( A , B ) + α 2 ε

which contradicts. Therefore, we can conclude that (3.3) holds.    □

Lemma 3.9. Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a metric space X, (A, B) and (B, A) satisfy the property UC*. Let F : A × AB, G : B × BA and (F, G) be a cyclic contraction. If ( x 0 , x 0 ) A × A and define
x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) , x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n )
and
x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 ) , x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 )

for all n {0}, then {x2n}, { x 2 n } , {x2n+1} and { x 2 n + 1 } are Cauchy sequences.

Proof. By Lemma 3.7, we have d(x2n, x2n+1) → d(A, B) and d(x2n+1, x2n+2) → d(A, B). Since (A, B) has a property UC*, we get d(x2n, x2n+2) → 0. As (B, A) has a property UC*, we also have d(x2n+1, x2n+3) → 0.

We now show that for every ε > 0 there exists N such that
d ( x 2 m , x 2 n + 1 ) d ( A , B ) + ε
(3.5)

for all m > nN.

Suppose (3.5) not, then there exists ε > 0 such that for all k there exists m k > n k k such that
d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) > d ( A , B ) + ε .
(3.6)
Now we have
d ( A , B ) + ε < d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k - 1 ) + d ( x 2 n k - 1 , x 2 n k + 1 ) d ( A , B ) + ε + d ( x 2 n k - 1 , x 2 n k + 1 )

Taking k, we have d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) d ( A , B ) + ε .

By Lemma 3.8, there exists N such that
1 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) ] < d ( A , B ) + ε
(3.7)
for all m > nN. By using the triangle inequality we get
d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 m k + 2 , x 2 n k + 3 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) = d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( G ( x 2 m k + 1 , x 2 m k + 1 ) , F ( x 2 n k + 2 , x 2 n k + 2 ) ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + α 2 [ d ( x 2 m k + 1 , x 2 n k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 m k + 1 , x 2 n k + 2 ) ] + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) = α 2 [ d ( F ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k ) , G ( x 2 n k + 1 , x 2 n k + 1 ) ) + d ( F ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k ) , G ( x 2 n k + 1 , x 2 n k + 1 ) ) ] + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) α 2 α 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) ] + α 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) ] + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) = α 2 1 2 [ d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 n k + 1 ) ] + ( 1 - α 2 ) d ( A , B ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) < α 2 ( d ( A , B ) + ε ) + ( 1 - α 2 ) d ( A , B ) + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 ) = d ( A , B ) + α 2 ε + d ( x 2 m k , x 2 m k + 2 ) + d ( x 2 n k + 3 , x 2 n k + 1 )
Taking k, we get
d ( A , B ) + ε d ( A , B ) + α 2 ε

which contradicts. Therefore, condition (3.5) holds. Since (3.5) holds and d(x2n, x2n+1) → d(A, B), by using property UC* of (A, B), we have {x2n} is a Cauchy sequence. In similar way, we can prove that { x 2 n } , {x2n+1} and { x 2 n + 1 } are Cauchy sequences.    □

Here we state the main results of this article on the existence and convergence of coupled best proximity points for cyclic contraction pairs on nonempty subsets of metric spaces satisfying the property UC*.

Theorem 3.10. Let A and B be nonempty closed subsets of a complete metric space X such that (A, B) and (B, A) satisfy the property UC*. Let F : A × AB, G : B × BA and (F, G) be a cyclic contraction. Let ( x 0 , x 0 ) A × A and define
x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) , x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n )
and
x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 ) , x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 )
for all n {0}. Then F has a coupled best proximity point (p, q) A × A and G has a coupled best proximity point (p', q') B × B such that
d ( p , p ) + d ( q , q ) = 2 d ( A , B ) .

Moreover, we have x2np, x 2 n q , x2n+1p' and x 2 n + 1 q .

Proof. By Lemma 3.7, we get d(x2n, x2n+1) → d(A, B). Using Lemma 3.9, we have {x2n} and { x 2 n } are Cauchy sequences. Thus, there exists p, q A such that x2np and x 2 n q . We obtain that
d ( A , B ) d ( p , x 2 n - 1 ) d ( p , x 2 n ) + d ( x 2 n , x 2 n - 1 ) .
(3.8)
Letting n in (3.8), we have d(p, x2n-1) → d(A, B). By a similar argument we also have d ( q , x 2 n - 1 ) d ( A , B ) . It follows that
d ( x 2 n , F ( p , q ) = d ( G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) , F ( p , q ) ) α 2 [ d ( x 2 n - 1 , p ) + d ( x 2 n - 1 , q ) ] + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) .

Taking n, we get d(p, F (p, q)) = d(A, B). Similarly, we can prove that d(q, F (q, p)) = d(A, B). Therefore, we have (p, q) is a coupled best proximity point of F.

In similar way, we can prove that there exists p', q' B such that x2n+1p' and x 2 n + 1 q . Moreover, we also have d(p', G(p', q')) = d(A, B) and d(q', G(q', p')) = d(A, B) and so (p', q') is a coupled best proximity point of G.

Finally, we show that d(p, p') + d(q, q') = 2d(A, B). For n {0}, we have
d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) = d ( G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) , F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) ) α 2 [ d ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n ) + d ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n ) ] + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) .
Letting n, we have
d ( p , p ) α 2 [ d ( p , p ) + d ( q , q ) ] + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) .
(3.9)
For n {0}, we have
d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) = d ( G ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n - 1 ) , F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) ) α 2 [ d ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n ) + d ( x 2 n - 1 , x 2 n ) ] + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) .
Letting n, we have
d ( q , q ) α 2 [ d ( q , q ) + d ( p , p ) ] + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) .
(3.10)
It follows from (3.9) and (3.10) that
d ( p , p ) + d ( q , q ) α [ d ( p , p ) + d ( q , q ) ] + 2 ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) .
which implies that
d ( p , p ) + d ( q , q ) 2 d ( A , B ) .
(3.11)
Since d(A, B) ≤ d(p, p') and d(A, B) ≤ d(q, q'), we have
2 d ( A , B ) d ( p , p ) + d ( q , q ) .
(3.12)
From (3.11) and (3.12), we get
d ( p , p ) + d ( q , q ) = 2 d ( A , B ) .

This complete the proof.    □

Note that every pair of nonempty closed subsets A, B of a uniformly convex Banach space X such that A is convex satisfies the property UC*. Therefore, we obtain the following corollary.

Corollary 3.11. Let A and B be nonempty closed convex subsets of a uniformly convex Banach space X, F : A × AB, G : B × BA and (F, G) be a cyclic contraction. Let ( x 0 , x 0 ) A × A and define
x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) , x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n )
and
x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 ) , x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 )
for all n {0}. Then F has a coupled best proximity point (p, q) A × A and G has a coupled best proximity point (p', q') B × B such that
d ( p , p ) + d ( q , q ) = 2 d ( A , B ) .

Moreover, we have x2np, x 2 n q , x2n+1p' and x 2 n + 1 q .

Next, we give some illustrative example of Corollary 3.11.

Example 3.12. Consider uniformly convex Banach space X = with the usual norm. Let A = [1,2] and B = [-2, -1]. Thus d(A, B) = 2. Define F : A × AB and G : B × BA by
F ( x , x ) = - x - x - 2 4
and
G ( x , x ) = - x - x + 2 4 .
For arbitrary (x, x') A × A and (y, y') B × B and fixed α = 1 2 , we get
d ( F ( x , x ) , G ( y , y ) = - x - x - 2 4 - - y - y + 2 4 | x - y | + | x - y | 4 + 1 = α 2 [ d ( x , y ) + d ( x , y ) ] + 1 ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) .
This implies that (F, G) is a cyclic contraction with α = 1 2 . Since A and B are convex, we have (A, B) and (B, A) satisfy the property UC*. Therefore, all hypothesis of Corollary 3.11 hold. So F has a coupled best proximity point and G has a coupled best proximity point. We note that a point (1, 1) A × A is a unique coupled best proximity point of F and a point (- 1, - 1) B × B is a unique coupled best proximity point of G. Furthermore, we get
d ( 1 , - 1 ) + d ( 1 , - 1 ) = 4 = 2 d ( A , B ) .
Theorem 3.13. Let A and B be nonempty compact subsets of a metric space X, F : A×AB, G : B × BA and (F, G) be a cyclic contraction pair. If ( x 0 , x 0 ) A × A and define
x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) , x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n )
and
x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 ) , x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 )
for all n {0}, then F has a coupled best proximity point (p, q) A × A and G has a coupled best proximity point (p', q') B × B such that
d ( p , p ) + d ( q , q ) = 2 d ( A , B ) .
Proof. Since x0, x 0 A and
x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) , x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n )
and
x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 ) , x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 )
for all n {0}, we have x2n, x 2 n A and x2n+1, x 2 n + 1 B for all n {0}. As A is compact, the sequence {x2n} and { x 2 n } have convergent subsequences { x 2 n k } and { x 2 n k } , respectively, such that
x 2 n k p A and  x 2 n k q A .
Now, we have
d ( A , B ) d ( p , x 2 n k - 1 ) d ( p , x 2 n k ) + d ( x 2 n k , x 2 n k - 1 ) .
(3.13)
By Lemma 3.7, we have d ( x 2 n k , x 2 n k - 1 ) d ( A , B ) . Taking k in (3.13), we get d ( p , x 2 n k - 1 ) d ( A , B ) . By a similar argument we observe that d ( q , x 2 n k - 1 ) d ( A , B ) . Note that
d ( A , B ) d ( ( x 2 n k , F ( p , q ) ) = d ( G ( x 2 n k - 1 , x 2 n k - 1 ) , F ( p , q ) ) α 2 [ d ( x 2 n k - 1 , p ) + d ( x 2 n k - 1 , q ) ] + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) .

Taking k, we get d(p, F (p, q)) = d(A, B). Similarly, we can prove that d(q, F(q, p)) = d(A, B). Thus F has a coupled best proximity (p, q) A × A. In similar way, since B is compact, we can also prove that G has a coupled best proximity point in (p', q') B × B. For d(p, p') + d(q, q') = 2d(A, B) similar to the final step of the proof of Theorem 3.10. This complete the proof.    □

4 Coupled fixed point theorem

In this section, we give the new coupled fixed point theorem for a cyclic contraction pair.

Theorem 4.1. Let A and B be nonempty closed subsets of a complete metric space X, F : A × AB, G : B × BA and (F, G) be a cyclic contraction. Let ( x 0 , x 0 ) A × A and define
x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) , x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n )
and
x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 ) , x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 )

for all n {0}. If d(A, B) = 0, then F and G have a unique common coupled fixed point (p, q) A ∩ B × A ∩ B. Moreover, we have x2np, x 2 n q , x2n+1p and x 2 n + 1 q .

Proof. Since d(A, B) = 0, we get (A, B) and (B, A) have the property UC*. Therefore, by Theorem 3.10 claim that F has a coupled best proximity point (p, q) A × A that is
d ( p , F ( p , q ) ) = d ( q , F ( q , p ) ) = d ( A , B )
(4.1)
and G has a coupled best proximity point (p', q') B × B that is
d ( p , G ( p , q ) ) = d ( q , G ( q , p ) ) = d ( A , B ) .
(4.2)
Moreover, we have
d ( p , p ) + d ( q , q ) = 2 d ( A , B ) .
(4.3)
From (4.1) and d(A, B) = 0, we conclude that
p = F ( p , q ) and  q = F ( q , p )
that is (p, q) is a coupled fixed point of F . It follows from (4.2) and d(A, B) = 0, we get
p = G ( p , q ) and  q = G ( q , p )
that is (p', q') is a coupled fixed point of G. Using (4.3) and the fact that d(A, B) = 0, we have
d ( p , p ) + d ( q , q ) = 0

which implies that p = p' and q = q'. Therefore, we conclude that (p, q) A ∩ B × A ∩ B i s a common coupled fixed point of F and G.

Finally, we show the uniqueness of common coupled fixed point of F and G. Let ( p ^ , q ^ ) be another common coupled fixed point of F and G. So p ^ = G ( p ^ , q ^ ) and q ^ = G ( q ^ , p ^ ) . Now, we obtain that
d ( p , p ^ ) = d ( F ( p , q ) , G ( p ^ , q ^ ) ) α 2 [ d ( p , p ^ ) + d ( q , q ^ ) ]
(4.4)
and also
d ( q , q ^ ) = d ( F ( q , p ) , G ( q ^ , p ^ ) ) α 2 [ d ( q , q ^ ) + d ( p , p ^ ) ] .
(4.5)
It follows from (4.4) and (4.5) that
d ( p , p ^ ) + d ( q , q ^ ) α [ d ( p , p ^ ) + d ( q , q ^ ) ] ,

which implies that d ( p ^ , q ^ ) + d ( q , q ^ ) = 0 and so d ( p , p ^ ) = 0 and d ( q , q ^ ) = 0 . Therefore, (p, q) is a unique common coupled fixed point in A ∩ B × A ∩ B.    □

Example 4.2. Consider X = with the usual metric, A = [- 1, 0] and B = [0,1] . Define F : A × AB by F ( x , y ) = - x + y 4 and G ( x , y ) = - x + y 8 . Then d(A, B) = 0 and (F, G) is a cyclic contraction with α = 1 2 . Indeed, for arbitrary(x, x') A × A and (y, y') B × B, we have
d ( F ( x , x ) , G ( y , y ) ) = - x + x 4 + y + y 4 - x + x 4 + 2 y + 2 y 8 = 1 4 ( | x - y | + | x - y | ) = α 2 [ d ( x , y ) + d ( x , y ) ] + ( 1 - α ) d ( A , B ) .

Therefore, all hypothesis of Theorem 4.1 hold. So F and G have a unique common coupled fixed point and this point is (0, 0) A ∩ B × A ∩ B.

If we take A = B in Theorem 4.1, then we get the following results.

Corollary 4.3. Let A be nonempty closed subsets of a complete metric space X, F : A×AA and G : A×AA and let the order pair (F, G) is a cyclic contraction. Let ( x 0 , x 0 ) A × A and define
x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n ) , x 2 n + 1 = F ( x 2 n , x 2 n )
and
x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 ) , x 2 n + 2 = G ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 )

for all n {0}. Then F and G have a unique common coupled fixed point (p, q) A×A. Moreover, we have x2np, x 2 n q , x2n+1p and x 2 n + 1 q

We take F = G in Corollary 4.3, then we get the following results.

Corollary 4.4. Let A be nonempty closed subsets of a complete metric space X, F : A×AA and
d ( F ( x , x ) , F ( y , y ) ) α 2 [ d ( x , y ) + d ( x , y ) ]
(4.6)

for all (x, x'), (y, y') A × A. Then F has a unique coupled fixed point (p, q) A × A.

Example 4.5. Consider X = with the usual metric and A = [ 0 , 1 2 ] . Define F : A×AA by
F ( x , y ) = x 2 - y 2 4 ; x y 0 ; x < y .

We show that F satisfies (4.6) with α = 1 2 . Let (x, x'), (y, y') A × A.

Case 1: If x < x' and y < y', then
d ( F ( x , x ) , F ( y , y ) ) = 0 1 4 [ | x - y | + | x - y | ] = α 2 [ d ( x , y ) + d ( x , y ) ] .
Case 2: If x < x' and yy', then
d ( F ( x , x ) , F ( y , y ) ) = 0 - y 2 - y 2 4 1 4 [ | y - y | | y + y | ] 1 4 | y - y | = 1 4 ( y - y ) < 1 4 [ ( y - y ) + ( x - x ) ] 1 4 [ x - y + x - y ] = α 2 [ d ( x , y ) + d ( x , y ) ] .

Case 3: If xx' and y < y'. In this case we can prove by a similar argument as in case 2.

Case 4: If xx' and yy', then
d ( F ( x , x ) , F ( y , y ) ) = x 2 - x 2 4 - y 2 - y 2 4 1 4 [ | x - x | | x + x | + | y - y | | y + y | ] 1 4 [ | x - x | + | y - y | ] = α 2 [ d ( x , y ) + d ( x , y ) ] .

Thus condition (4.6) holds with α = 1 2 . Therefore, by Corollary 4.4 F has the unique coupled fixed point in A that is a point (0, 0).

Open problems:

  • In Theorem 3.10, can be replaced the property UC* by a more general condition ?

  • In Theorem 3.10, can be drop the property UC* ?

  • Can be extend the result in this article to another spaces ?

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The first author would like to thank the Research Professional Development Project Under the Science Achievement Scholarship of Thailand (SAST) for some financial support. Furthermore, the second author was supported by the Commission on Higher Education, the Thailand Research Fund and the King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi for financial support during the preparation of this manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT)

References

  1. Banach S: Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leurs applications auxéquations intégrales. Fund Math 1922, 3: 133–181.Google Scholar
  2. Arvanitakis AD: A proof of the generalized Banach contraction conjecture. Proc Am Math Soc 2003, 131(12):3647–3656. 10.1090/S0002-9939-03-06937-5MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd DW, Wong JSW: On nonlinear contractions. Proc Am Math Soc 1969, 20: 458–464. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1969-0239559-9MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Choudhury BS, Das KP: A new contraction principle in Menger spaces. Acta Math Sin 2008, 24(8):1379–1386. 10.1007/s10114-007-6509-xMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Kaewkhao A, Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Common fixed point theorems of c -distance on cone metric spaces. J Nonlinear Anal Appl 2012, 2012: 11. (Article ID jnaa-00137), doi:10.5899/2012/jnaa-00137Google Scholar
  6. Merryfield J, Rothschild B, Stein JD Jr: An application of Ramsey's theorem to the Banach contraction principle. Proc Am Math Soc 2002, 130(4):927–933. 10.1090/S0002-9939-01-06169-XMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Mongkolkeha C, Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Fixed point theorems for contraction mappings in modular metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2011, 2011: 93. 10.1186/1687-1812-2011-93MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Weak condition for generalized multi-valued ( f , α , β )-weak contraction mappings. Appl Math Lett 2011, 24: 460–465. 10.1016/j.aml.2010.10.042MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Gregus type fixed points for a tangential multi-valued mappings satisfying contractive conditions of integral type. J Inequal Appl 2011, 2011: 3. 10.1186/1029-242X-2011-3View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Sintunavarat W, Cho YJ, Kumam P: Common fixed point theoremsfor c -distance in ordered cone metric spaces. Comput Math Appl 2011, 62: 1969–1978. 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.06.040MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Common fixed point theorems for a pair of weakly compatible mappings in fuzzy metric spaces. J Appl Math 2011, 2011: 14. (Article ID 637958)MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Common fixed point theorems for hybrid generalized multivalued contraction mappings. Appl Math Lett 2012, 25: 52–57. 10.1016/j.aml.2011.05.047MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Sintunavarat W, Kumam P:Common fixed point theorems for generalized J H -operator classes and invariant approximations. J Inequal Appl 2011, 2011: 67. 10.1186/1029-242X-2011-67View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Generalized common fixed point theorems in complex valued metric spaces and applications. J Inequal Appl 2012, 2012: 84. 10.1186/1029-242X-2012-84View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Suzuki T: A generalized Banach contraction principle that characterizes metric completeness. Proc Am Math Soc 2008, 136(5):1861–1869.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Fan K: Extensions of two fixed point theorems of F. E. Browder. Math Z 1969, 112: 234–240. 10.1007/BF01110225MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Prolla JB: Fixed point theorems for set valued mappings and existence of best approximations. Numer Funct Anal Optim 1982–1983, 5: 449–455.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Reich S: Approximate selections, best approximations, fixed points and invariant sets. J Math Anal Appl 1978, 62: 104–113. 10.1016/0022-247X(78)90222-6MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Sehgal VM, Singh SP: A generalization to multifunctions of Fan's best approximation theorem. Proc Am Math Soc 1988, 102: 534–537.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Sehgal VM Singh SP: A theorem on best approximations. Numer Funct Anal Optim 1989, 10: 181–184. 10.1080/01630568908816298MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Wlodarczyk K, Plebaniak R, Banach A: Best proximity points for cyclic and noncyclic set-valued relatively quas-asymptotic contractions in uniform spaces. Nonlinear Anal 2009, 70(9):3332–3342. 10.1016/j.na.2008.04.037MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Wlodarczyk K, Plebaniak R, Banach A: Erratum to: best proximity points for cyclic and noncyclic set-valued relatively quas-asymptotic contractions in uniform spaces. Nonlinear Anal 2009, 71: 3583–3586.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Wlodarczyk K, Plebaniak R, Banach A: Best proximity points for cyclic and noncyclic set-valued relatively quasi-asymptotic contractions in uniform spaces. Nonlinear Anal 2009, 70: 3332–3341. 10.1016/j.na.2008.04.037MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Wlodarczyk K, Plebaniak R, Obczynski C: Convergence theorems, best approximation and best proximity for set-valued dynamic systems of relatively quasi-asymptotic contractions in cone uniform spaces. Nonlinear Anal 2010, 72: 794–805. 10.1016/j.na.2009.07.024MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Vetrivel V, Veeramani P, Bhattacharyya P: Some extensions of Fan's best approxomation theorem. Numer Funct Anal Optim 1992, 13: 397–402. 10.1080/01630569208816486MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Eldred AA, Veeramani P: Existence and convergence of best proximity points. J Math Anal Appl 2006, 323: 1001–1006. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.10.081MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Mongkolkeha C, Kumam P: Best proximity point Theorems for generalized cyclic contractions in ordered metric spaces. J Opt Theory Appl 2012, in press.Google Scholar
  28. Sadiq Basha S: Best proximity point theorems generalizing the contraction principle. Nonlinear Anal 2011, 74: 5844–5850. 10.1016/j.na.2011.04.017MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Sadiq Basha S, Veeramani P: Best approximations and best proximity pairs. Acta Sci Math (Szeged) 1997, 63: 289–300.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. Sadiq Basha S, Veeramani P: Best proximity pair theorems for multifunctions with open fibres. J Approx Theory 2000, 103: 119–129. 10.1006/jath.1999.3415MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Sadiq Basha S, Veeramani P, Pai DV: Best proximity pair theorems. Indian J Pure Appl Math 2001, 32: 1237–1246.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. Bhaskar TG, Lakshmikantham V: Fixed point theorems in partially orderedmetric spaces and applications. Nonlinear Anal TMA 2006, 65: 1379–1393. 10.1016/j.na.2005.10.017MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Abbas M, Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Coupled fixed point in partially ordered G -metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2012, 2012: 31. 10.1186/1687-1812-2012-31View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Sintunavarat W, Cho YJ, Kumam P: Coupled coincidence point theorems for contractions without commutative condition in intuitionistic fuzzy normed spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2011, 2011: 81. 10.1186/1687-1812-2011-81MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Sintunavarat W, Cho YJ, Kumam P: Coupled fixed point theorems for weak contraction mapping under F -invariant set. Abstr Appl Anal 2012, 2012: 15. (Article ID 324874)MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Coupled coincidence and coupled common fixed point theorems in partially ordered metric spaces. Thai J Math, in press.
  37. Suzuki T, Kikkawa M, Vetro C: The existence of best proximity points in metric spaces with the property UC. Nonlinear Anal 2009, 71: 2918–2926. 10.1016/j.na.2009.01.173MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Anthony Eldred A, Veeramani P: Existence and convergence of best proximity points. J Math Anal Appl 2006, 323: 1001–1006. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.10.081MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Sintunavarat and Kumam; licensee Springer. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.