We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact us so we can address the problem.

# Results on the Existence and Convergence of Best Proximity Points

- Ali Abkar
^{1}and - Moosa Gabeleh
^{1}Email author

**2010**:386037

https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/386037

© A. Abkar and M. Gabeleh. 2010

**Received:**24 February 2010**Accepted:**10 June 2010**Published:**6 July 2010

## Abstract

We first consider a cyclic -contraction map on a reflexive Banach space and provide a positive answer to a question raised by Al-Thagafi and Shahzad on the existence of best proximity points for cyclic -contraction maps in reflexive Banach spaces in one of their works (2009). In the second part of the paper, we will discuss the existence of best proximity points in the framework of more general metric spaces. We obtain some new results on the existence of best proximity points in hyperconvex metric spaces as well as in ultrametric spaces.

## Keywords

- Nonempty Subset
- Closed Ball
- Common Fixed Point
- Convergent Subsequence
- Reflexive Banach Space

## 1. Introduction

Let
be a metric space, and let
be two subsets of
. A mapping
is said to be *cyclic* provided that
and
. In [1] Kirk et al. proved the following interesting extension of the Banach contraction principle:

Theorem 1.1 (see [1]).

for some and for all . Then has a unique fixed point in .

Later on, Eldred and Veeramani [2] considered the class of cyclic contractions.

Definition 1.2 (see [2]).

We recall that a point
is said to be a *best proximity point* for
provided that
.

In the case that is a uniformly convex Banach space, Eldred and Veeramani established the following theorem.

Theorem 1.3 (see [2]).

Let and be two nonempty closed convex subsets of a uniformly convex Banach space , and let be a cyclic contraction map. For , define for each . Then there exists a unique such that and .

In 2009, Al-Thagafi and Shahzad introduced a new class of mappings, namely, the class of cyclic -contraction maps. This new class contains the class of cyclic contraction maps.

Definition 1.4 (see [3]).

In [3] the authors were able to establish some existence and convergence results for these mappings. Moreover, they proved the existence of a best proximity point for a cyclic contraction map in a reflexive Banach space (see [3, Theorems , ]). In this way they answered a question raised by Eldred and Veeramani in the affirmative. We recall that Theorem 1.3 above was proved in the setting of a uniformly convex Banach space. The authors of [3] then asked if the result stands true if we assume that is a reflexive Banach space, rather than being uniformly convex.

Al-Thagafi and N. Shahzad then stated it was interesting to ask whether Theorems and (resp., Theorems and ) held true for cyclic -contraction maps when the Banach space in question is only reflexive (resp., reflexive and strictly convex).

In this paper we first take up these questions. It turns out that under some conditions the answer is positive. In the last section we study the existence of best proximity points in spherically complete ultrametric spaces, as well as in hyperconvex metric spaces. More precisely, we will see that best proximity points exist for cyclic -contraction maps on hyperconvex metric spaces. We will also provide an existence theorem for a cyclic map which satisfies some contractive condition on an ultrametric space.

## 2. Cyclic -Contraction Maps

In this section we first provide a positive answer to the question raised by the authors of [3]. Then we present some consequences and applications. Among other things, is a common fixed point theorem for two maps. We will begin with the following lemma.

Lemma 2.1 (see [3, Lemma ]).

Let and be two nonempty subsets of a metric space and let be a cyclic -contraction map. For , define for each . Then one has

Now we state and prove the following lemma which is key to the proof of the main result of this section.

Lemma 2.2.

Let and be two nonempty subsets of a metric space , and let be a cyclic -contraction map. For , define for each . Then the sequences , and are bounded if either of the following conditions holds:

Proof.

contradicting the hypothesis that .

which contradicts the fact that is strictly increasing.

and that both terms on the right-hand side are bounded, we conclude that is bounded.

Similarly, by considering the sequence we can prove that the sequence is bounded.

We now come to the first main result of this paper generalizing Theorem of [3] to cyclic -contraction maps.

Theorem 2.3.

Let and be two nonempty weakly closed subsets of a reflexive Banach space and let be a cyclic -contraction map satisfying either of the following:

Proof.

Remark 2.4.

If we assume that the function satisfies either of the conditions (i) or (ii) of Lemma 2.2, then all three theorems (Theorems , 11, and 12 of [3] can be generalized to cyclic -contraction maps. We omit the details.

Theorem 2.5.

Let and be two nonempty subsets of a reflexive Banach space such that is weakly closed. Let be a cyclic -contraction map which is weakly continuous on . For , define for each . If then has a unique fixed point and .

Proof.

As in the proof of Theorem 2.3 we conclude that . The proof of uniqueness part is a verbatim repetition of the proof of Theorem in [3]. We omit the details.

As an application of Theorem 2.5, we will prove a theorem on the existence and approximation of common fixed points for two maps.

Theorem 2.6.

Let be a nonempty subset of a reflexive Banach space and be two maps such that is weakly closed in and . Let be a cyclic -contraction map that satisfies this property that if there exist such that , then commutes with in . Then have a common fixed point in . Moreover, if , and for each then the sequence converges to a common fixed point of .

Proof.

That is, is a fixed point for . Since the fixed point of is unique, we must have . Therefore is a fixed point of . Similarly we can show that is a fixed point of . Consequently is a common fixed point for . According to Theorem 2.5 the sequence converges to .

Example 2.7.

Let and . Let and define with and . Also consider by . Then is cyclic contraction and satisfies the conditions of Theorem 2.6. Therefore have a common fixed point. It is clear that this common fixed point is .

## 3. Cyclic -Contraction Maps in Metric Spaces

In this section we discuss the existence of best proximity points for cyclic -contraction maps in metric spaces. Indeed we prove two existence theorems on best proximity points in hyperconvex spaces, as well as in ultrametric spaces.

Lemma 3.1.

Let be two nonempty subsets of a metric space , and Let be a cyclic -contraction map. If there exists such that , then has a best proximity point.

Proof.

In the following definition we will use the notation for the Kuratowski measure of noncompactness of a given set . For more information see the book written by Khamsi and Kirk [4].

Definition 3.2.

Let be a subset of a metric space . A mapping is said to be condensing if is bounded and continuous, moreover , for every bounded subset of for which .

Definition 3.3 (see [4]).

it is necessarily the case that

We recall that for a given set , the notation denotes the family of all admissible subsets of , that is, the family of subsets of that can be written as the intersection of a family of closed balls centered at points of . For further information on the subject we refer the reader to [4]. We now state and prove the first main result of this section.

Theorem 3.4.

Let be a hyperconvex metric space, and be two nonempty subsets of such that . Suppose is a cyclic -contraction map. Put and . If is a condensing map then has a best proximity point.

Proof.

Since is a hyperconvex metric space, and since , it follows from Proposition of [5] that is a hyperconvex metric space too. On the other hand, is a condensing map, thus by Theorem of [5], or has a fixed point. It now follows from Lemma 3.1 that has a best proximity point.

Definition 3.5.

For example if is a discrete metric space then is an ultrametric space. Ultrametric spaces arise in the study of non-Archimedean analysis, and in particular in the study of Banach space over non-Archimedean valuation fields (see [4]).

Remark 3.6.

It is immediate from Definition 3.5 that if and are two closed balls in an ultrametric space, with , then either or In particular if , then

Definition 3.7.

An ultrametric space
is said to be *spherically complete* if every chain of closed balls in
has nonempty intersection.

As a consequence of Remark 3.6, the admissible sets of coincide with the closed balls of . Here we state and prove the second main result of this section.

Theorem 3.8.

for each and for some Then has a best proximity point.

Proof.

Therefore . This argument shows that has a best proximity point.

Therefore , which means that has a best proximity point.

In the following example we will see that the condition that is spherically complete is necessary.

Example 3.9.

for some . Thus which is impossible. We claim that the ultrametric space is not spherically complete.

which is a contradiction.

## Declarations

### Acknowledgment

After the appearance of this paper on the current journal home page, the authors have been informed by Nasser Shahzad and Shahram Rezapour that they already published paper [7], answering a question raised by the authors of [3]. The current authors would like to thank them for this piece of information.

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Kirk WA, Srinivasan PS, Veeramani P:
**Fixed points for mappings satisfying cyclical contractive conditions.***Fixed Point Theory*2003,**4**(1):79–89.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Eldred AA, Veeramani P:
**Existence and convergence of best proximity points.***Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*2006,**323**(2):1001–1006. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.10.081MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Al-Thagafi MA, Shahzad N:
**Convergence and existence results for best proximity points.***Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications*2009,**70**(10):3665–3671. 10.1016/j.na.2008.07.022MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Khamsi MA, Kirk WA:
*An Introduction to Metric Spaces and Fixed Point Theory, Pure and Applied Mathematics*. Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY, USA; 2001:x+302.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Jachymski J:
**A note on a paper of I. D. Aradelović on asymptotic contractions.***Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*2009,**358**(2):491–492. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2009.05.012MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Suzuki T, Kikkawa M, Vetro C:
**The existence of best proximity points in metric spaces with the property UC.***Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications*2009,**71**(7–8):2918–2926. 10.1016/j.na.2009.01.173MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Rezapour Sh, Derafshpour M, Shahzad N:
**Best proximity points of cyclic -contractions on reflexive Banach spaces.***Fixed Point Theory and Applications*2010, Article ID 946178**2010:**-7.Google Scholar

## Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.