- Research
- Open Access

# Edelstein type fixed point theorems

- Erdal Karapınar
^{1}Email author

**2012**:107

https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2012-107

© Karapınar; licensee Springer 2012

**Received:**6 January 2012**Accepted:**13 June 2012**Published:**27 June 2012

## Abstract

In this manuscript, we investigate certain conditions that imply the existence of fixed points for almost contraction mappings defined on compact metric spaces. Furthermore we introduce a criteria establishing the uniqueness of fixed points for the mentioned operators. As a result we obtain generalized results by unifying some recent related fixed point theorems on the topic.

## Keywords

- Fixed Point Theorem
- Point Theory
- Contraction Mapping
- Previous Theorem
- Fixed Point Theory

## 1 Introduction and Preliminaries

In nonlinear functional analysis, fixed point theory is being investigated increasingly by reason of the fact that it has a wide range of applications in fields such as economics (see *e.g.* [1, 2]), computer science (see *e.g.* [3–7]), and many others. One of the pioneering theorems in this direction is the Banach contraction mapping principle [8] which states that each contraction defined on a complete metric space *X* has a unique fixed point. Banach’s result is the origin and antecedents results by the fact that he not only proved the existence and uniqueness of a fixed point of a contraction, but also showed how to evaluate this point. After this celebrated result[8], a number of authors have observed various other types of contraction mappings and proved related fixed point theorems (see *e.g.* such as Kannan [9], Reich [10], Hardy and Rogers [11], Ćirić [12–14], Zamfirescu [15], Arshad *et al.* [16]). By following this trend Suzuki recently proved the following fixed point theorems:

**Theorem 1** (Suzuki [17])

*Let* $(X,d)$ *be a compact metric space and let* *T* *be a mapping on X*. *Assume that* $\frac{1}{2}d(x,Tx)<d(x,y)$ *implies* $d(Tx,Ty)<d(x,y)$ *for all* $x,y\in X$. *Then* *T* *has a unique fixed point*.

**Theorem 2** (Suzuki [18])

*Define a non*-

*increasing function*

*θ*

*from*[0,1)

*onto*(1/2,1]

*by*

*Then for a metric space*$(X,d)$,

*the followings are equivalent*:

- 1.
*X**is complete*; - 2.
*Every mapping**T**on**X**satisfying the following has a fixed point*:*There exists*$r\in [0,1)$*such that*$\theta (r)d(x,Tx)\le d(x,y)$*implies*$d(Tx,Ty)\le rd(x,y)$*for all*$x,y\in X$.

In the literature Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 attracted considerable attention from many authors (see *e.g.* [19–23]). Notice that these theorems are inspired by Edelstein’s Theorem [24]:

**Theorem 3** *Let* $(X,d)$ *be a compact metric space and let* *T* *be a mapping on* *X*. *Assume* $d(Tx,Ty)<d(x,y)$ *for all* $x,y\in X$ *with* $x\ne y$. *Then* *T* *has a unique fixed point*.

Motivated by these developments in this area, in this manuscript, we combine well-known results of Suzuki [17], Edelstein [24] and Berinde [25] to complement a multitude of related results from the literature. For the sake of completeness we include the results of Berinde as well:

**Theorem 4** (See [25])

*Let*$(X,d)$

*be a complete metric space and*$T:X\to X$

*be an almost contraction*,

*that is*,

*a mapping for which there exist a constant*$k\in [0,1)$

*and some*$L\ge 0$

*such that*

*for all* $x,y\in X$. *Then* $Fix(T)=\{x\in X:Tx=x\}\ne \mathrm{\varnothing}$.

**Theorem 5** (See [25])

*Let*$(X,d)$

*be a complete metric space and*$T:X\to X$

*be an almost contraction*,

*that is*,

*a mapping for which there exist a constant*$k\in (0,1)$

*and some*$L\ge 0$

*such that*

*for all* $x,y\in X$. *Then has a unique fixed point*.

## Main Theorems

We start this section by proving the following theorem:

*for all* $x,y\in X$ *with* $x\ne y$ *and* $L>0$. *Then*, *T* *has a fixed point* $z\in X$, *that is*, $Tz=z$.

*Proof* Set $\theta =inf\{d(x,Tx):x\in X\}$ and choose a sequence $\{{x}_{n}\}$ in *X* such that ${lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}d({x}_{n},T{x}_{n})=\theta $. Regarding that *X* is compact, without loss of generality, assume that $\{{x}_{n}\}$ and $\{T{x}_{n}\}$ converge to the points *z* and *w* in *X*, respectively.

*θ*is equal to zero. To show this, assume to the contrary that $\theta >0$. Observe that we have

*θ*into account, we conclude that $d(w,Tw)=\theta $. Notice that the inequality $\frac{1}{2}d(w,Tw)<d(w,Tw)$ always holds. By applying the condition (3) again, we find

which is equivalent to the inequality $d(Tw,{T}^{2}w)<d(Tw,w)=\theta $. This contradicts with the definition of *θ*. Hence, we conclude that $\theta =0$.

*T*has a fixed point. We use the method of Reductio ad absurdum to show this assertion. Suppose that

*T*has no fixed points. Since the inequality $0<\frac{1}{2}d(T{x}_{n},{x}_{n})<d(T{x}_{n},{x}_{n})$ holds for each

*n*, we derive, for every $n\in \mathbb{N}$, that

Hence, $\{{T}^{2}{x}_{n}\}$ too converges to *z*.

- (i)
there is an infinite subset

*I*of ℕ so that the inequality (14) holds for all $n\in I$, or, - (ii)
there is an infinite subset

*J*of ℕ so that the inequality (15) holds for all $n\in J$.

Thus, we reach the conclusion $Tz=z$ again. This contradicts with the assumption that *T* has no fixed point. Hence, *T* has a fixed point. □

*for all* $x,y\in X$ *with* $x\ne y$ *and* $L>0$. *Then*, *T* *has a unique fixed point* $z\in X$, *that is*, $Tz=z$.

*Proof* The proof of Theorem 6 applies, mutatis mutandis, to show the existence of a fixed point. Let $z\in X$ be a fixed point of *T*.

*z*is the unique fixed point of

*T*. Suppose, to the contrary that, there exists $y\in X$ so that $y\ne z$ and $Ty=y$. Then the inequalities $d(y,z)>0$ and $0=\frac{1}{2}d(z,Tz)<d(z,y)$ are satisfied. Due to (3), we have

which is a contradiction. Hence, *z* is the unique fixed point of *T*. □

*for all* $x,y\in X$ *with* $x\ne y$ *and* $L>0$. *Then*, *T* *has a fixed point* $z\in X$, *that is*, $Tz=z$.

*Proof* The proof of Theorem 6 applies, mutatis mutandis, to prove Theorem 8. □

*for all* $x,y\in X$ *with* $x\ne y$ *and* $L>0$. *Then*, *T* *has a unique fixed point* $z\in X$, *that is*, $Tz=z$.

*Proof* The proof of Corollary 7 applies, mutatis mutandis, to prove Corollary 9. □

*for all* $x,y\in X$ *with* $x\ne y$ *and* $L>0$. *Then*, *T* *has a fixed point* $z\in X$, *that is*, $Tz=z$.

*Proof* As in the proof of Theorem 6, we set $\theta =inf\{d(x,Tx):x\in X\}$ and choose a sequence $\{{x}_{n}\}$ in *X* such that ${lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}d({x}_{n},T{x}_{n})=\theta $. Since *X* is compact, without loss of generality, we assume that $\{{x}_{n}\}$ and $\{T{x}_{n}\}$ converge to the points *z* and *w* in *X*, respectively.

*θ*is equal to zero. Let assume the contrary. Recall that

*θ*into account. Since we always have the inequality $\frac{1}{2}d(w,Tw)<d(w,Tw)$, we obtain

by applying (21). But this is equivalent to stating that $d(Tw,{T}^{2}w)<d(Tw,w)=\theta $. This contradicts with the definition of *θ*. So, we find $\theta =0$.

*T*has a fixed point. We shall use the method of Reductio ad absurdum again. Suppose that

*T*has no fixed point. Since the inequality $0<\frac{1}{2}d(T{x}_{n},{x}_{n})<d(T{x}_{n},{x}_{n})$ is true for each

*n*, the expression

*z*. Assume that

- (a)there is an infinite subset
*I*of ℕ so that$\begin{array}{rcl}d(T{x}_{n},Tz)& <& \frac{1}{3}[d({x}_{n},z)+d({x}_{n},T{x}_{n})+d(z,Tz)]\\ +Lmin\{d(z,T{x}_{n}),d({x}_{n},Tz),d({x}_{n},z)\},\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\text{for all}n\in I\text{or},\end{array}$ - (b)there is an infinite subset
*J*of ℕ so that$\begin{array}{rcl}d({T}^{2}{x}_{n},Tz)& <& \frac{1}{3}[d(T{x}_{n},z)+d({T}^{2}{x}_{n},T{x}_{n})+d(Tz,z)]\\ +Lmin\{d(z,{T}^{2}{x}_{n}),d(T{x}_{n},Tz),d(T{x}_{n},z)\},\end{array}$

for all $n\in J$ holds.

Thus, we reach the same conclusion, that is, $Tz=z$. This contradicts with assumption that *T* has no fixed point. Hence, *T* has a fixed point, say $z\in X$. □

*for all* $x,y\in X$ *with* $x\ne y$ *and* $L>0$. *Then*, *T* *has a unique fixed point* $z\in X$, *that is*, $Tz=z$.

*Proof* The proof of Corollary 13 follows, mutatis mutandis, from the proofs of Corollary 7, Corollary 9 and Corollary 11. Therefore *T* has a fixed point, say $z\in X$.

*z*is the unique fixed point of

*T*. Suppose, to the contrary that, there exists $y\in X$ such that $y\ne z$ and $Ty=y$. Then, we have $d(y,z)>0$ and $0=\frac{1}{2}d(z,Tz)<d(z,y)$. By (21), we see that

which in turn implies that $d(z,Ty)<d(z,y)$. So *y* is not a fixed point of *T*. Hence, *z* is the unique. □

Combining Theorem 6, Theorem 8 and Theorem 10 yields the following:

*for all* $x,y\in X$. *Then*, *T* *has a fixed point* $z\in X$, *that is*, $Tz=z$.

Combining Corollary 7, Corollary 9 and Corollary 11 yields the following:

*for all* $x,y\in X$. *Then*, *T* *has a unique fixed point* $z\in X$, *that is*, $Tz=z$.

The result below is a corollary of Theorem 6-Theorem 12:

*for all* $x,y\in X$. *Then*, *T* *has a fixed point* $z\in X$, *that is*, $Tz=z$.

*Proof* The proof of Theorem 12 follows from the proofs of the previous theorems verbatim. □

*for all* $x,y\in X$. *Then*, *T* *has a unique fixed point* $z\in X$, *that is*, $Tz=z$.

*Proof* The proof of Corollary 13 follows from the proofs of the previous theorems verbatim. □

**Example 16** (*cf.* [17])

*d*be the discrete metric

Each self-mapping *T* on *X* satisfying (18) has a unique fixed point. It is clear that $(X,d)$ is complete, but it is not a compact metric space. Let *T* be a self-mapping on *X*. If *T* has a fixed point, it is sufficient to prove that it is unique.

*T*, we take $y\in X$ where $y\ne z$. Thus the inequalities $d(y,z)=1>0$ and $0=\frac{1}{2}d(z,Tz)<d(z,y)$ are satisfied. Due to (18), we have

*y*is not a fixed point of

*T*. Hence,

*z*is the unique fixed point of

*T*. Suppose

*T*has no fixed point. Then, we have

Due to (18), the inequality $d(Tx,Ty)<\frac{1}{2}[d(Tx,x)+d(Ty,y)]+Lmin\{d(x,Tx),d(y,Ty),d(x,y)\}=1$ holds. In other words, we get $d(Tx,Ty)=0$. Thus the image of *T* on the domain *X* consists of only one point which is clearly a unique fixed point. This is a contradiction.

**Remark 17** Example 16 can be modified for Theorem 8-Theorem 10 just by replacing the condition (3) with the relevant one. It is clear that proofs are obtained by apply the necessary manipulations in Example 16.

The following theorem is a generalization of [[17], Theorem 5].

**Theorem 18**

*Let*

*T*

*be a self mapping on a metric space*$(X,d)$.

*Suppose that there exist*$k\in [0,1)$

*and a*

*T*-

*invariant complete subset*

*K*

*of*

*X*

*such that*

*for all* $x,y\in K$ *with* $x\ne y$, *and* $z,w\in X$ *with* $z\ne w$ *and* $L>0$. *Then*, *T* *has a unique fixed point* $u\in X$, *that is*, $Tu=u$.

*Proof*Due to Banach [8], there exists a unique fixed point $u\in K$. Consider

In other words, for all $z\in (X\setminus K)$ is not a fixed point of *T*. Hence, *u* is the unique fixed point of *T* on *X*. □

## Declarations

### Acknowledgements

The author express his gratitude to the referees for constructive and useful remarks and suggestions.

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Border KC:
*Fixed Point Theorems with Applications to Economics and Game Theory*. Cambridge University Press, New York; 1985.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Ok EA:
*Real Analysis with Economic Applications*. Princeton University Press, Princeton; 2007.Google Scholar - Karapınar E: Generalizations of Caristi Kirk’s theorem on partial metric spaces.
*Fixed Point Theory Appl.*2011., 2011: Article ID 4Google Scholar - Karapınar E: A note on common fixed point theorems in partial metric spaces.
*Miskolc Math. Notes*2011, 12(2):185–191.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Mathews, GS: Partial metric topology. Reseach Report 212, Dept. of Computer Science University of Warwick (1992)Google Scholar
- Romaguera S, Valero O: A quantitative computational model for complete partialmetric spaces via formal balls.
*Math. Struct. Comput. Sci.*2009, 19(3):541–563. 10.1017/S0960129509007671MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Schellekens MP: The correspondence between partial metrics and semivaluations.
*Theor. Comput. Sci.*2004, 315: 135–149. 10.1016/j.tcs.2003.11.016MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Banach S: Sur les operations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux equations itegrales.
*Fundam. Math.*1922, 3: 133–181.Google Scholar - Kannan R: Some results on fixed points.
*Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc.*1968, 60: 71–76.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Reich S: Kannan’s fixed point theorem.
*Boll. Unione Mat. Ital.*1971, 4(4):1–11.Google Scholar - Hardy GE, Rogers TD: A generalization of a fixed point theorem of Reich.
*Can. Math. Bull.*1973, 16: 201–206. 10.4153/CMB-1973-036-0MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Ćirić LB: A generalization of Banach principle.
*Proc. Am. Math. Soc.*1974, 45: 727–730.Google Scholar - Ćirić LB: Coincidence and fixed points for maps on topological spaces.
*Topol. Appl.*2007, 154: 3100–3106. 10.1016/j.topol.2007.08.004View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Ćirić L: Some new results for Banach contractions and Edelstein contractive mappings on fuzzy metric spaces.
*Chaos Solitons Fractals*2009, 42: 146–154. 10.1016/j.chaos.2008.11.010MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Zamfirescu T: Fix point theorems in metric spaces.
*Arch. Math.*1972, 23: 292–298. 10.1007/BF01304884MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Arshad M, Azam A, Vetro P: Some common fixed point results in cone metric spaces.
*Fixed Point Theory Appl.*2009., 2009: Article ID 493965Google Scholar - Suzuki K: A new type of fixed point theorem in metric spaces.
*Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl.*2009, 71(11):5313–5317. 10.1016/j.na.2009.04.017View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Suzuki K: A generalized Banach contraction principle that characterizes metric completeness.
*Proc. Am. Math. Soc.*2008, 136: 1861–1869.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Altun I, Erduran A: A Suzuki type fixed-point theorem.
*Int. J. Math. Math. Sci.*2011., 2011: Article ID 736063Google Scholar - Doric D, Lazovic R: Some Suzuki type fixed point theorems for generalized multivalued mappings and applications.
*Fixed Point Theory Appl.*2011., 2011: Article ID 40Google Scholar - Karapınar E:Remarks on Suzuki $(C)$-condition.
*Dynamical Systems and Methods*2012, 227–243.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Karapınar E, Tas K:Generalized $(C)$-conditions and related fixed point theorems.
*Comput. Math. Appl.*2011, 61(11):3370–3380. 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.04.035MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Singh SL, Pathak HK, Mishra SN: On a Suzuki type general fixed point theorem with applications.
*Fixed Point Theory Appl.*2010., 2010: Article ID 234717Google Scholar - Edelstein M: On fixed and periodic points under contractive mappings.
*J. Lond. Math. Soc.*1962, 37: 74–79. 10.1112/jlms/s1-37.1.74MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Berinde V: Approximation fixed points of weak contractions using the Picard iteration.
*Nonlinear Anal. Forum*2004, 9(1):43–53.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

## Copyright

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.