- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Best proximity points and extension of Mizoguchi-Takahashi’s fixed point theorems
Fixed Point Theory and Applications volume 2013, Article number: 242 (2013)
Abstract
In this paper, we introduce a multi-valued cyclic generalized contraction by extending the Mizoguchi and Takahashi’s contraction for non-self mappings. We also establish a best proximity point for such type contraction mappings in the context of metric spaces. Later, we characterize this result to investigate the existence of best proximity point theorems in uniformly convex Banach spaces. We state some illustrative examples to support our main theorems. Our results extend, improve and enrich some celebrated results in the literature, such as Nadler’s fixed point theorem, Mizoguchi and Takahashi’s fixed point theorem.
MSC:41A65, 46B20, 47H09, 47H10.
Dedication
Dedicated to Prof. W Takahashi on the occasion of his 70th birthday
1 Introduction
It is evident that the fixed point theory is one of the fundamental tools in nonlinear functional analysis. The celebrated Banach contraction mapping principle [1] is the most known and crucial result in fixed point theory. It says that each contraction in a complete metric space has a unique fixed point. This theorem not only guarantees the existence and uniqueness of the fixed point but also shows how to evaluate this point. By virtue of this fact, the Banach contraction mapping principle has been generalized in many ways over the years (see e.g., [2–5]).
Investigation of the existence and uniqueness of a fixed point of non-self mappings is one of the interesting subjects in fixed point theory. In fact, given nonempty closed subsets A and B of a complete metric space , a contraction non-self-mapping does not necessarily yield a fixed point . In this case, it is very natural to investigate whether there is an element x such that is minimum. A notion of best proximity point appears at this point. A point x is called best proximity point of if
where is a metric space, and A, B are subsets of X. A best proximity point represents an optimal approximate solution to the equation whenever a non-self-mapping T has no fixed point. It is clear that a fixed point coincides with a best proximity point if . 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’s contraction principle.
In 1969, Fan [6] introduced the notion of a best proximity and established a classical best approximation theorem. More precisely, if is a continuous mapping, then there exists an element such that , where A is a nonempty compact convex subset of a Hausdorff locally convex topological vector space B. Subsequently, many researchers have studied the best proximity point results in many ways (see in [7–14] and the references therein).
In the same year, Nadler [15] gave a useful lemma about Hausdorff metric. In paper [15], the author also characterized the celebrated Banach fixed point theorem in the context of multi-valued mappings.
Lemma 1.1 (Nadler [15])
If and , then for each , there exists such that .
Theorem 1.2 (Nadler [15])
Let be a complete metric space and . If there exists such that
for all , then T has at least one fixed point, that is, there exists such that .
The theory of multi-valued mappings has applications in many areas such as in optimization problem, control theory, differential equations, economics and many branches in analysis. Due to this fact, a number of authors have focused on the topic and have published some interesting fixed point theorems in this frame (see [16–19] and references therein). Following this trend, in 1989, Mizoguchi and Takahashi [17] proved a generalization (Theorem 1.3 below) of Theorem 1.2; see Theorem 2 in Alesina et al. [20]. Theorem 2 is a partial answer of Problem 9 in Reich [21]. See also [22–24].
Theorem 1.3 (Mizoguchi and Takahashi [17])
Let be a complete metric space and . Assume that
for all , where is -function (or ℛ-function), i.e.,
for all . Then T has at least one fixed point, that is, there exists such that .
Remark 1.4 In original statement of Mizoguchi and Takahashi [17], the domain α is . However both are equivalent, because implies that .
Remark 1.5 We obtain that if is a nondecreasing function or a nonincreasing function, then α is a -function. Therefore, the class of -functions is a rich class, and so this class has been investigated heavily by many authors.
In 2007, Eldred et al. [25] claimed that Theorem 1.3 is equivalent to Theorem 1.2 in the following sense:
If a mapping satisfies (1.2), then there exists a nonempty complete subset M of X satisfying the following:
-
(i)
M is T-invariant, that is, for all ,
-
(ii)
T satisfies (1.1) for all .
Very recently, Suzuki [26] gave an example which says that Mizoguchi-Takahashi’s fixed point theorem for multi-valued mappings is a real generalization of Nadler’s result. In his remarkable paper, Suzuki also gave a very simple proof of Mizoguchi-Takahashi’s theorem.
On the other hand, Kirk-Srinavasan-Veeramani [27] introduced the concept of a cyclic contraction.
Let A and B be two nonempty subsets of a metric space , and let be a mapping. Then T is called a cyclic map if and . In addition, if T is a contraction, then T is called cyclic contraction.
The authors [27] give a characterization of Banach contraction mapping principle in complete metric spaces. After this initial paper, a number of papers has appeared on the topic in literature (see, e.g., [27–39]).
In this paper, we introduce the notion of a generalized multi-valued cyclic contraction pair, which is an extension of Mizoguchi-Takahashi’s contraction mappings for non-self version and establish a best proximity point of such mappings in metric spaces via property UC∗ due to Sintunavarat and Kumam [40]. Further, by applying the main results, we investigate best proximity point theorems in a uniformly convex Banach space. We also give some illustrative examples, which support our main results. Our results generalize, improve and enrich some well-known results in literature.
2 Preliminaries
In this section, we recall some basic definitions and elementary results in literature. Throughout this paper, we denote by ℕ the set of all positive integers, by ℝ the set of all real numbers and by the set of all nonnegative real numbers. We denote by the class of all nonempty closed bounded subsets of a metric space . The Hausdorff metric induced by d on is given by
for every , where is the distance from a to .
Remark 2.1 The following properties of the Hausdorff metric induced by d are well known:
-
(i)
H is a metric on .
-
(ii)
If and is given, then for every , there exists such that .
Definition 2.2 Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a metric space and let be a multi-valued mapping. A point is said to be a best proximity point of a multi-valued mapping T if it satisfies the condition that
We notice that a best proximity point reduces to a fixed point for a multi-valued mapping if the underlying mapping is a self-mapping.
A Banach space X is said to be
-
(i)
strictly convex if the following implication holds for all :
-
(ii)
uniformly convex if for each ϵ with , there exists such that the following implication holds for all :
It is easy to see that a uniformly convex Banach space X is strictly convex, but the converse is not true.
Definition 2.3 [41]
Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a metric space . The ordered pair is said to satisfy the property UC if the following holds:
If and are sequences in A, and is a sequence in B such that and , then .
Example 2.4 [41]
The following are examples of a pair of nonempty subsets satisfying the property UC.
-
(i)
Every pair of nonempty subsets A, B of a metric space such that .
-
(ii)
Every pair of nonempty subsets A, B of a uniformly convex Banach space X such that A is convex.
-
(iii)
Every pair of nonempty subsets A, B of a strictly convex Banach space, where A is convex and relatively compact and the closure of B is weakly compact.
Definition 2.5 [40]
Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a metric space . The ordered pair satisfies the property UC∗ if has property UC, and the following condition holds:
If and are sequences in A, and is a sequence in B satisfying
-
(i)
.
-
(ii)
For every , there exists such that
for all ,
then .
Example 2.6 The following are examples of a pair of nonempty subsets satisfying the property UC∗.
-
(i)
Every pair of nonempty subsets A, B of a metric space such that .
-
(ii)
Every pair of nonempty closed subsets A, B of uniformly convex Banach space X such that A is convex (see Lemma 3.7 in [42]).
3 Best proximity point for multi-valued mapping theorems
In this section, we investigate the existence and convergence of best proximity points for generalized multi-valued cyclic contraction pairs and obtain some new results on fixed point theorems for such mappings. We begin by introducing the notion of multi-valued cyclic contraction.
Definition 3.1 Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a metric space and . The ordered pair is said to be a generalized multi-valued cyclic contraction if there exists a function with
for each such that
for all and .
Note that if is a generalized multi-valued cyclic contraction, then is also a generalized multi-valued cyclic contraction. Here, we state the main results of this paper on the existence of best proximity points for a generalized multi-valued cyclic contraction pair, which satisfies the property UC∗ in metric spaces.
Theorem 3.2 Let A and B be nonempty closed subsets of a complete metric space X such that and satisfy the property UC∗. Let and . If is a generalized multi-valued cyclic contraction pair, then T has a best proximity point in A, or S has a best proximity point in B.
Proof We consider two cases separately.
Case 1. Suppose that . Define the function by
for . Then we obtain that
for all .
Now, we will construct the sequence in X. Let be an arbitrary point. Since , we can choose . If , we have , and then is a best proximity point of T. Also, it follows from (3.1) with and that . This implies that . Therefore, is a best proximity point of S, and we finish the proof. Otherwise, if , by Lemma 1.1, there exists such that
If , we have , and then is a best proximity point of S. Also, it follows from (3.1) with and that . This implies that . Therefore, is a best proximity point of T, and we finish the proof. Otherwise, if , by Lemma 1.1, there exists such that
By repeating this process, we can find such that
for all .
Thus, for fixed , we can define a sequence in X satisfying
such that
for . Therefore, is a strictly decreasing sequence in . So converges to some nonnegative real number ρ. Since and , there exist and such that for all . We can take such that
for all with . Then since
for with , we have
that is, is a Cauchy sequence. Since X is complete, converges to some point . Clearly, the subsequences and converge to the same point z. Since A and B are closed, we derive that . We consider that
Hence we get . Analogously, we also obtain .
Case 2. We will show that T or S have best proximity points in A and B, respectively, under the assumption of . Suppose, to the contrary, that for all , and for all , .
Next, we define a function by
for all . So we derive and for all .
For each and , we have
Therefore,
and then we get
Since is a generalized multi-valued cyclic contraction pair, by (3.2), we conclude
for all and .
Similarly, we obtain that for each and , we have
Next, we will construct the sequence in . Let be an arbitrary point in A and . From (3.3), there exists such that
Since and , from (3.4), we can find such that
Analogously, we can define the sequence in such that
and
for all . Since and for all , we get
for all . Therefore, is a strictly decreasing sequence in and bounded below. So the sequence converges to some nonnegative real number d. Since and , there exist and such that for all . Now, we can take such that
for all . From (3.7), we have
for all . By the same consideration, we obtain
for all . Since , we get
From (3.11), we conclude that
and
Since and are two sequences in A, and is sequence in B with satisfies the property UC∗, we derive that
Since satisfies the property UC∗, and by (3.11), we find that
Next, we show that for each , there exists such that for all , we have
Suppose, to the contrary, that there exists such that for each , there is such that
Further, corresponding to , we can choose in such a way that it is the smallest integer with satisfying (3.17). Then we have
and
From (3.18), (3.19) and the triangle inequality, we have
Using the fact that . Letting in (3.20), we have
From (3.8), (3.9) and is a generalized multi-valued cyclic contraction pair, we get
Letting in (3.22) and using (3.14), (3.15) and (3.21), we have
which is a contradiction. Therefore, (3.16) holds.
Since (3.12) and (3.16) hold, by using property UC∗ of , we have . Therefore, is a Cauchy sequence. By the completeness of X and since A is closed, we get
for some . But
for all . From (3.11) and (3.23),
Since
for all . By (3.23) and (3.24), we get
In a similar mode, we can conclude that the sequence is a Cauchy sequence in B. Since X is complete, and since B is closed, we have
for some . Since
for all . It follows from (3.11) and (3.27) that
Since
for all , then by (3.27) and (3.28), we have
From (3.26) and (3.30), we have a contradiction. Therefore, T has a best proximity point in A or S has a best proximity point in B. This completes the proof. □
Remark 3.3 If , then Theorem 3.2 yields existence of a fixed point in of two multi-valued non-self mappings S and T. Moreover, if and , then Theorem 3.2 reduces to Mizoguchi-Takahashi’s fixed point theorem [17].
Note that every pair of nonempty closed subsets A, B of a uniformly convex Banach space such that A is convex satisfies the property UC∗. Therefore, we obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 3.4 Let A and B be nonempty closed convex subsets of a uniformly convex Banach space and . If is a generalized multi-valued cyclic contraction pair, then T has a best proximity point in A or S has a best proximity point in B.
Next, we give some illustrative examples of Corollary 3.4.
Example 3.5 Consider the uniformly convex Banach space with Euclidean norm. Let and . Then A and B are nonempty closed and convex subsets of X and . Since A and B are convex, we have and satisfy the property UC∗.
Let and be defined as
for all and
for all .
Let be defined by for all . Next, we show that is a generalized multi-valued cyclic contraction pair with for all .
For each and , we have
Therefore, all assumptions of Corollary 3.4 are satisfied, and then T has a best proximity point in A, that is, a point . Moreover, S also has a best proximity point in B, that is, a point .
Example 3.6 Consider the uniformly convex Banach space with Euclidean norm. Let
and
Then A and B are nonempty closed and convex subsets of X and . Since A and B are convex, we have and satisfy the property UC∗.
Let and be defined as
and
for all .
Let define by for all . Next, we show that is a generalized multi-valued cyclic contraction pair with mapping for all .
For each and , we have
Therefore, all assumptions of Corollary 3.4 are satisfied, and then T has a best proximity point in A that is a point . Furthermore, S also has a best proximity point in B that is a point .
Open problems
-
In Theorem 3.2, can we replace the property UC∗ by a more general property?
-
In Theorem 3.2, can we drop the property UC∗?
-
Can we extend the result in this paper to another spaces?
References
Banach S: Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leurs applications aux équations intégrales. Fundam. Math. 1922, 3: 133–181.
Arvanitakis AD: A proof of the generalized Banach contraction conjecture. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2003, 131(12):3647–3656. 10.1090/S0002-9939-03-06937-5
Boyd DW, Wong JSW: On nonlinear contractions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1969, 20: 458–464. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1969-0239559-9
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-X
Suzuki T: A generalized Banach contraction principle that characterizes metric completeness. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2008, 136(5):1861–1869.
Fan K: Extensions of two fixed point theorems of FE Browder. Math. Z. 1969, 112: 234–240. 10.1007/BF01110225
Di Bari C, Suzuki T, Vetro C: Best proximity points for cyclic Meir-Keeler contractions. Nonlinear Anal. 2008, 69: 3790–3794. 10.1016/j.na.2007.10.014
Mongkolkeha C, Kumam P: Best proximity point theorems for generalized cyclic contractions in ordered metric spaces. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2012, 155(1):215–226. 10.1007/s10957-012-9991-y
Mongkolkeha C, Cho YJ, Kumam P: Best proximity points for generalized proximal C -contraction mappings in metric spaces with partial orders. J. Inequal. Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 94
Mongkolkeha C, Cho YJ, Kumam P: Best proximity points for Geraghty’s proximal contraction mapping mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 180
Nashine HK, Vetro C, Kumam P: Best proximity point theorems for rational proximal contractions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 95
Sanhan W, Mongkolkeha C, Kumam P: Generalized proximal ψ -contraction mappings and Best proximity points. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 896912
Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: The existence theorems of an optimal approximate solution for generalized proximal contraction mappings. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2013., 2013: Article ID 375604
Vetro C: Best proximity points: convergence and existence theorems for p -cyclic mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 73(7):2283–2291. 10.1016/j.na.2010.06.008
Nadler SB Jr.: Multivalued contraction mappings. Pac. J. Math. 1969, 30: 475–488. 10.2140/pjm.1969.30.475
Daffer PZ, Kaneko H: Fixed points of generalized contractive multi-valued mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1995, 192: 655–666. 10.1006/jmaa.1995.1194
Mizoguchi N, Takahashi W: Fixed point theorems for multi-valued mappings on complete metric space. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1989, 141: 177–188. 10.1016/0022-247X(89)90214-X
Petrusel A: On Frigon-Granas-type multifunctions. Nonlinear Anal. Forum 2002, 7: 113–121.
Reich S: A fixed point theorem for locally contractive multi-valued functions. Rev. Roum. Math. Pures Appl. 1972, 17: 569–572.
Alesina A, Massa S, Roux D: Punti uniti di multifunzioni con condizioni di tipo Boyd-Wong. Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. 1973, 4(8):29–34.
Reich S: Some problems and results in fixed point theory. Contemp. Math. 1983, 21: 179–187.
Daffer PZ, Kaneko H, Li W: On a conjecture of S. Reich. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1996, 124: 3159–3162. 10.1090/S0002-9939-96-03659-3
Jachymski J: On Reich’s question concerning fixed points of multimaps. Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. 1995, 7(9):453–460.
Semenov PV: Fixed points of multivalued contractions. Funct. Anal. Appl. 2002, 36: 159–161. 10.1023/A:1015682926496
Eldred AA, Anuradha J, Veeramani P: On equivalence of generalized multi-valued contractions and Nadler’s fixed point theorem. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 336: 751–757. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.01.087
Suzuki T: Mizoguchi-Takahashi’s fixed point theorem is a real generalization of Nadler’s. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2008, 340: 752–755. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.08.022
Kirk WA, Srinavasan PS, Veeramani P: Fixed points for mapping satisfying cyclical contractive conditions. Fixed Point Theory 2003, 4: 79–89.
Agarwal RP, Alghamdi MA, Shahzad N: Fixed point theory for cyclic generalized contractions in partial metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 40
Eldered AA, Veeramani P: Convergence and existence for best proximity points. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2006, 323: 1001–1006. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.10.081
Eldered AA, Veeramani P: Proximal pointwise contraction. Topol. Appl. 2009, 156: 2942–2948. 10.1016/j.topol.2009.01.017
Chen CM: Fixed point theorems for cyclic Meir-Keeler type mappings in complete metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 41
Karapinar E: Fixed point theory for cyclic weak ϕ -contraction. Appl. Math. Lett. 2011, 24: 822–825. 10.1016/j.aml.2010.12.016
Karapinar E, Sadarangani K:Fixed point theory for cyclic contractions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2011., 2011: Article ID 69
Karapinar E, Erhan İM, Ulus AY: Fixed point theorem for cyclic maps on partial metric spaces. Appl. Math. Inform. Sci. 2012, 6: 239–244.
Karpagam S, Agrawal S: Best proximity points theorems for cyclic Meir-Keeler contraction maps. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 1040–1046. 10.1016/j.na.2010.07.026
Kosuru, GSR, Veeramani, P: Cyclic contractions and best proximity pair theorems (29 May 2011). arXiv:1012.1434v2 [math.FA]. e-printatarXiv.org
Petruşel G: Cyclic representations and periodic points. Stud. Univ. Babeş–Bolyai, Math. 2005, 50: 107–112.
Rezapour S, Derafshpour M, Shahzad N: Best proximity point of cyclic φ -contractions in ordered metric spaces. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 37: 193–202.
Rus IA: Cyclic representations and fixed points. Ann. “Tiberiu Popoviciu” Sem. Funct. Equ. Approx. Convexity 2005, 3: 171–178.
Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Coupled best proximity point theorem in metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 93
Suzuki T, Kikkawa M, Vetro C: The existence of best proximity points in metric spaces with the property UC. Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl. 2009, 71(7–8):2918–2926. 10.1016/j.na.2009.01.173
Eldred AA, Veeramani P: Existence and convergence of best proximity points. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2006, 323: 1001–1006. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.10.081
Acknowledgements
Poom Kumam was supported by the Commission on Higher Education, the Thailand Research Fund and the King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (Grant No. MRG5580213).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally and significantly in writing this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Kumam, P., Aydi, H., Karapınar, E. et al. Best proximity points and extension of Mizoguchi-Takahashi’s fixed point theorems. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2013, 242 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2013-242
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2013-242