Open Access

Round-off stability for multi-valued maps

Fixed Point Theory and Applications20122012:12

https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2012-12

Received: 1 April 2011

Accepted: 8 February 2012

Published: 8 February 2012

Abstract

An iterative procedure for a map T is said to be stable if the approximate sequence arising in numerical praxis converges to the point anticipated by the theoretical sequence. The study of stability of iterative procedures plays a vital role in computational analysis, game theory, computer programming, and fractal geometry. In generation of fractals, a sequence of approximations produces a stable set attractor only if the corresponding iterative procedure shows a stable behavior. The purpose of this article is to discuss stability of the Picard iterative procedure for a map T satisfying Zamfirescu multi-valued contraction on a metric space.

MSC (2010): 47H10; 54H25; 65D15; 65D18.

Keywords

fixed pointstability of iterative proceduresPicard iterative procedureZamfirescu contractionfractals

1 Introduction

Let (X, d) be a metric space and T: XX. The solution of a fixed point equation Tx = x for any x X, is usually approximated by a sequence {x n } in X generated by an iterative procedure f(T, x n ) that converges to a fixed point of T. However, in actual computations, we obtain an approximate sequence {y n } instead of the actual sequence {x n }. Indeed, the approximate sequence {y n } is calculated in the following manner. First, we choose an initial approximation x0 X. Then we compute x1 = f(T, x0). But, due to rounding off or discretization of the function, we get an approximate value y1, say, which is close enough to x1, i.e., y1x1. Consequently, when computing x2, we actually compute y2x2. In this way, we obtain an approximate sequence {y n } instead of the actual sequence {x n }. The iterative procedure f(T, x n ) is considered to be numerically stable if and only if the approximate sequence {y n } still converges to the desired solution of the equation Tx = x. Urabe [1] initiated the study of this problem. The study of stability of iterative procedures plays a significant role in numerical mathematics due to chaotic behavior of functions and discretization of computations in computer programming. For a detailed discussion on the role of stability of iterative procedures, one may refer to Czerwik et al. [2, 3], Harder and Hicks [46], Lim [7], Matkowski and Singh [8], Ortega and Rheinboldt [9], Osilike [10, 11], Ostrowski [12], Rhoades [13, 14], Rus et al. [15] and Singh et al. [16].

However, Ostrowski [12] was the first to obtain the following classical stability result on metric spaces.

Theorem 1.1. Let (X, d) be a complete metric space and T: XX a Banach contraction with contraction constant q, i.e., d(Tx, Ty) ≤ qd(x, y) for all x, y X, where 0 ≤ q < 1. Let p be the fixed point of T. Let x0 X and xn+1= Tx n , n = 0, 1, 2,.... Suppose that {y n } is a sequence in X and ε n = d(yn+1, Ty n ). Then
d ( p , y n + 1 ) d ( p , x n + 1 ) + q n + 1 d ( x 0 , y 0 ) + j = 0 n q n - j ε j .

Moreover, lim n y n = p if and only if lim n ε n = 0.

This result has found a respectable place in numerical analysis and computer programming and further extended by Harder and Hicks [5, 6], Jachymski [17], Osilike [10, 11, 18], Osilike and Udomene [19], Rhoades [13, 14], Czerwik et al. [2] and Zhou [20].

The classical result on stability due to Ostrowski has been extended to multi-valued maps by Singh and Chadha [21] and further extended by Singh and Bhatnagar [22] and Singh et al. [23].

Furhter, stability of iterative procedures has a remarkable importance in fractal graphics while generating fractals. Its usefulness lies in the fact that in fractal graphics, fractal objects are generated by an infinite recursive process of successive approximations. An itertive procedure produces a sequence of results and tends towards one final object called a set attractor (fractal), which is independent of the initial choice. This stable character of set attractor is due to the stability of iterative procedure, else the system of underlying successive approximations would show chaotic behavior and never settle into a stationary state. However, fractals themselves have a variety of applications in digital imaging, mobile computing, architecture and construction, various branches of engineering and applied sciences. For recent potential applications of fractal geometry in related fields, one may refer to Batty and Longley [24], Buser et al. [25], Lee and Hsieh [26], Mistakeidis and Panagouli [27], Shaikh et al. [28] and Zmeskal et al. [29]. For connections of the round-off stability with the concept of limit shadowing for a fixed point problem involving multi-valued maps, one may refer to Petrusel and Rus [30].

The purpose of this article is to discuss the stability of Picard iterative procedure, i.e., xn+1 f(T, x n ) = Tx n for a map T satisfying Zamfirescu multi-valued contraction (cf. Definition 2.2).

2 Preliminaries

This section is primarily devoted to notations and definitions to be used in the sequel.

2.1 Multivalued contractions

Let (X, d) be a metric space and

CB(X) = {A: A is a nonempty closed bounded subset of X},

CL(X) = {A: A is a nonempty closed subset of X}.

For A, B CL(X) and ε > 0,
N ( ε , A ) = { x X : d ( x , a ) < ε f o r s o m e a A } , E A , B = { ε > 0 : A N ( ε , B ) , B N ( ε , A ) } ,
H ( A , B ) = i n f E A , B if E A , B ϕ , + if E A , B = ϕ .

H is called the generalized Hausdorff metric (resp. Hausdorff metric) for CL(X) (resp. CB(X)) induced by d. For any nonempty subsets A, B of X, d(A, B) will denote the gap between the subsets A and B, while we write d(a, B) for d(A, B) when A = {a}.

An orbit O(x0) of a multi-valued map T at a point x0 is a sequence {x n : x n Txn-1, n = 1, 2,...}. For a single-valued map T, this orbit is {x n : x n = Txn-1, n = 1, 2,...}. A space X is said to be T-orbitally complete [31, 32] if every Cauchy sequence which is contained in O(x0) for some initial point x0 X converges in X.

The study of fixed point theorems for multi-valued contractions was initiated by Markin [33] and Nadler [34]. The notion of multi-valued contractions have been generalized by many authors. For a good discussion on fixed point theorems for multi-valued contractions, one may refer to Ćirić [31, 32], Czerwik [35, 36], Neammanee and Kalwkhao [37] and Rus and Petrusel [15, 30]. However for the sake of comparison, we consider the following three conditions.

Let (X, d) be a complete metric space and let T: XCL(X). Then

Definition 2.1. (Nadler [34, 38])

A map T: XCL(X) is called a Nadler multi-valued contraction if
H ( T x , T y ) q d ( x , y )

for all x, y X, where 0 ≤ q < 1.

Definition 2.2. (Zamfirescu [39])

A map T: XCL(X) is called a Zamfirescu multi-valued contraction if there exist real numbers α, β, and γ satisfying 0 ≤ α < 1, 0 β < 1 2 and 0 γ < 1 2 such that for each x, y X at least one of the following is true:
  1. (i)

    H(Tx, Ty) ≤ αd(x, y),

     
  2. (ii)

    H(Tx, Ty) ≤ β[d(x, Tx) + d(y, Ty)],

     
  3. (iii)

    H(Tx, Ty) ≤ γ[d(x, Ty) + d(y, Tx)].

     

Definition 2.3. (Ćirić [31])

A map T: XCL(X) is called a Ćirić generalized multi-valued contraction if there exists a nonnegative number q such that
H ( T x , T y ) q max d ( x , y ) , d ( x , T x ) , d ( y , T y ) , 1 2 ( d ( x , T y ) + d ( y , T x ) )
(2.1)

for all x, y X.

We remark that a Nadler multi-valued contraction (cf. Definition 2.1) is continuous, while T in Definition 2.2 need not be continuous. If we take T: XX, then (i) Definition 2.1 is the classical Banach contraction, (ii) Definition 2.2 is due to Zamfirescu [39] and (iii) Definition 2.3 is due to Ćirić [40]. In a comprehensive comparison of contractive maps, Rhoades [41] has listed 25 conditions for a single-valued map in a metric space. We remark that, for T: XX, the conditions given in Definition 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 are respectively the conditions (1), (19), and (21'). For a comparison of contractive conditions for single valued maps more general than (21'), one may refer to Park [42] and see also Sessa and Cho [43]. Evidently, Nadler multi-valued contraction Zamfirescu multi-valued contraction Ćirić generalized multi-valued contraction.

We cite the following result due to Ćirić [31].

Theorem 2.1. Let T: XCL(X) be a Ćirić generalized multi-valued contraction such that X is T-orbitally complete. Then:

(i) for each x0 X, there exists an orbit {x n } of T at x0and a point p X such that lim n x n = p;

(ii) p Tp.

2.2 Stability of multivalued operators

Let X be a metric space and T: XCL(X). For a point x0 X, let
x n + 1 f ( T , x n )
(2.2)
denote some iteration procedure. Let the sequence {x n } be convergent to a fixed point p of T. Let {y n } be an arbitrary sequence in X and set
ε n = H ( y n + 1 , f ( T , y n ) ) , n = 0 , 1 , 2 , .

If lim n ε n = 0 implies that lim n y n = p then the iteration process defined in (2.2) is said to be T-stable or stable with respect to T (cf. [21]).

Ostrowski's stablity theorem [12] says that Picard iterative procedure for (single-valued) Banach contraction is stable. Following is the extension of this theorem to multivalued contractions given by Singh and Chadha [21].

Theorem 2.2. Let X be a complete metric space and T: XCL(X) such that the condition given in Definition 2.1 holds for all x, y X. Let x0be an arbitrary point in X and { x n } n = 1 an orbit for T at x0such that { x n } n = 1 is convergent to a fixed point p of T. Let {y n } be a sequence in X, and set
ε n = H ( y n + 1 , T y n ) , n = 0 , 1 , 2 , .
Then
d ( p , y n + 1 ) d ( p , x n + 1 ) + q n + 1 d ( x 0 , y 0 ) + j = 0 n q n - j ε j .
Further, if Tp is singleton then
lim n y n = p i f a n d o n l y i f lim n ε n = 0 .

We shall need the following result.

Lemma 2.1. (Harder and Hicks [6])

If c is a real number such that 0 < | c | < 1 and { b k } k = 0 is a sequence of real numbers such that lim k b k = 0 , then lim n ( k = 0 n c n - k b k ) = 0 .

3 Main results

Theorem 3.1. Let X be a complete metric space and T: XCL(X) a Zamfirescu multi-valued contraction (cf. Definition 2.2). Let x0be an arbitrary point in X and { x n } n = 1 an orbit for T at x0such that { x n } n = 1 is convergent to a fixed point p of T. Let { y n } n = 1 be a sequence in X and set ε n = H(yn+1, Ty n ), n = 0, 1, 2,.... Then

(I) d ( p , y n + 1 ) d ( p , x n + 1 ) + k = 0 n 2 δ n + 1 - k H ( x k , T x k ) + δ n + 1 d ( x 0 , y 0 ) + k = 0 n δ n - k ε k ,

where δ = m a x { α , β 1 - β , γ 1 - γ } and n = 0, 1, ....

Further, if Tp is singleton then

(II) lim n y n = p if and only if lim n ε n = 0 .

Proof: Let x, y X. Since T is a Zamfirescu multi-valued contraction, T satisfies one of (i), (ii), and (iii). If (ii) holds, then
H ( T x , T y ) β [ d ( x , T x ) + d ( y , T y ) ] β [ H ( x , T x ) + H ( y , T y ) ] β [ H ( x , T x ) + H ( y , x ) + H ( x , T x ) + H ( T x , T y ) ] = β [ 2 H ( x , T x ) + d ( y , x ) + H ( T x , T y ) ] .
So,
H ( T x , T y ) 2 β 1 - β H ( x , T x ) + β 1 - β d ( x , y ) .
If (iii) holds, then
H ( T x , T y ) γ [ d ( x , T y ) + d ( y , T x ) ] γ [ H ( x , T y ) + H ( y , T x ) ] γ [ H ( x , T x ) + H ( T x , T y ) + H ( y , x ) + H ( x , T x ) ] = γ [ 2 H ( x , T x ) + d ( x , y ) + H ( T x , T y ) ] ,
that is
H ( T x , T y ) 2 γ 1 - γ H ( x , T x ) + γ 1 - γ d ( x , y ) .

Thus at least one of the following is true for any x, y X:

(i) H(Tx, Ty) ≤ αd(x, y),

(ii') H ( T x , T y ) 2 β 1 - β H ( x , T x ) + β 1 - β d ( x , y ) .

(iii') H ( T x , T y ) 2 γ 1 - γ H ( x , T x ) + γ 1 - γ d ( x , y ) .

Let δ = max { α , β 1 - β , γ 1 - γ } . Then

(i*) H(Tx, Ty) ≤ 2δH(x, Tx) + δd(x, y)

for any x, y X.

Let n be a nonnegative integer. Since
d ( p , y n + 1 ) d ( p , x n + 1 ) + d ( x n + 1 , y n + 1 ) ,
(3.1)
we have
d ( x n + 1 , y n + 1 ) H ( T x n , y n + 1 ) H ( T x n , T y n ) + H ( T y n , y n + 1 ) 2 δ H ( x n , T x n ) + δ d ( x n , y n ) + ε n .
(3.2)
Consequently
d ( x n , y n ) 2 δ H ( x n - 1 , T x n - 1 ) + δ d ( x n - 1 , y n - 1 ) + ε n - 1 .
(3.3)
Therefore using (3.2) and (3.3) in (3.1), we obtain
d ( p , y n + 1 ) d ( p , x n + 1 ) + 2 δ H ( x n , T x n ) + ε n + δ [ 2 δ H ( x n - 1 , T x n - 1 ) + δ d ( x n - 1 , y n - 1 ) + ε n - 1 ] = d ( p , x n + 1 ) + 2 [ δ H ( x n , T x n ) + δ 2 H ( x n - 1 , T x n - 1 ) ] + δ 2 d ( x n - 1 , y n - 1 ) + ( ε n + δ ε n - 1 ) .
Repeat this process (n - 1) times to obtain
d ( p , y n + 1 ) d ( p , x n + 1 ) + k = 0 n 2 δ n + 1 - k H ( x k , T x k ) + δ n + 1 d ( x 0 , y 0 ) + k = 0 n δ n - k ε k .

This proves (I).

By (i*), we have
ε n = H ( y n + 1 , T y n ) d ( y n + 1 , p ) + H ( p , T p ) + H ( T p , T y n ) d ( y n + 1 , p ) + H ( p , T p ) + 2 δ H ( p , T p ) + δ d ( p , y n ) .

This yields ε n → 0 as n → ∞, since Tp = {p} by hypothesis.

Conversly, suppose that ε n → 0 as n → ∞.

First, we assert that lim k H ( x k , T x k ) = 0 , if Tp = {p}. For
H ( x k , T x k ) H ( x k , { p } ) d ( x k , { p } ) + H ( T p , T x k ) .
(3.4)

Since T is a Zamfirescu multi-valued contraction, it follows from (i), (ii), and (iii), (cf. Definition 2.2), that {Tx k } is a Cauchy sequence. Consequently, Tx k Tp as k → ∞. So making k → ∞, (3.4) yields the assertion.

Note that 0 ≤ δ < 1.

If δ = 0, then (I) yields lim n y n = p . So assume that 0 < δ < 1.

Then δn+1d(x0, y0) → 0 as n → ∞.

Since lim k H ( x k , T x k ) = 0 , lim k ε k = 0 . Therefore, by Lemma (2.1),
k = 0 n 2 δ n + 1 k H ( x k , T x k ) 0 and k = 0 n δ n k ε k 0 as n .

Hence from (I), lim n y n = p .□

We remark that the second term on the right-hand side of the conclusion (I) vanishes when β = γ = 0. So we have the following.

Corollary 3.1. Theorem 2.2.

Proof: It comes from Theorem 3.1 when α = q and β = γ = 0.

Corollary 3.2. (Harder and Hicks [6])

Let (X, d) be a complete metric space and let T: XX be a Zamfirescu contraction. Let p be the fixed point of T. Let x0 X, and put xn+1= Tx n for n = 0, 1, 2,..., so that lim n x n = p . Let { y n } n = 0 be a sequence in X and set ε n = d(yn+1, Ty n ), n = 0, 1, 2,.. .. Then

(Ia) d ( p , y n + 1 ) d ( p , x n + 1 ) + k = 0 n 2 δ n + 1 k d ( x k , x k + 1 ) + δ n + 1 d ( x 0 , y 0 ) + k = 0 n δ n k ε k , where δ = m a x { α , β 1 - β , γ 1 - γ } and n= 0, 1,....

Further, if Tp is singleton then

(IIa) lim n y n = p if and only if lim n ε n = 0 .

Proof: It is exactly derivable from Theorem 3.1 when ε n = H(yn+1, Ty n ) = d(yn+1, Ty n ) when T is single valued. Further, H(x n , Tx n ) = d(x n , xn+1), if the map T is single-valued.

We remark that p X in (II) of Theorem 3.1, is not required to be the unique fixed point of T. The related condition emphasizes that Tp contains just one point.

The following, due to an idea of Singh and Whitfield [[44], p. 226] and Singh and Chadha [[21], p. 190], is another extension of Corollary 3.1.

Theorem 3.2. Let all the hypotheses of Theorem 3.1 hold, wherein the definition of ε n is replaced as follows:
ε n = d ( y n + 1 , p n ) , p n T y n , n = 0 , 1 , 2 . . . .

Then

(III) d ( p , y n + 1 ) d ( p , x n + 1 ) + k = 0 n 2 δ n + 1 - k H ( x k , T x k ) + δ n + 1 d ( x 0 , y 0 ) + k = 0 n δ n - k ( ε k + H k ) , where H k = H(xk+1, Tx k ).

Further, if Tp is singleton then

(IVa) lim n y n = p then lim n ε n = 0 ,

(IVb) If T is continuous and lim n ε n = 0 then lim n y n = p .

Proof: Since T is Zamfirescu multi-valued contraction in Theorem 3.2, we recall by (i*) the following property: H(Tx n , Ty n ) ≤ 2δH(x n , Tx n ) + δd(x n , y n )

for any x n , y n X. Therefore for any nonnegative integer n,
d ( x n + 1 , y n + 1 ) d ( x n + 1 , p n ) + d ( p n , y n + 1 ) H ( x n + 1 , T y n ) + ε n H ( x n + 1 , T x n ) + H ( T x n , T y n ) + ε n H n + 2 δ H ( x n , T x n ) + δ d ( x n , y n ) + ε n H n + 2 δ H ( x n , T x n ) + δ [ H n - 1 + 2 δ H ( x n - 1 , T x n - 1 ) + δ d ( x n - 1 , y n - 1 ) + ε n - 1 ] + ε n δ 2 d ( x n - 1 , y n - 1 ) + 2 δ [ H ( x n , T x n ) + δ H ( x n - 1 , T x n - 1 ) ] + δ ( H n - 1 + ε n - 1 ) + ( H n + ε n ) .
Inductively,
d ( x n + 1 , y n + 1 ) k = 0 n 2 δ n + 1 - k H ( x k , T x k ) + δ n + 1 d ( x 0 , y 0 ) + k = 0 n δ n - k ( H k + ε k ) ,

and the relation (III) follows as in the proof of (I).

To prove (IVa), first assume that y n p as n → ∞.

Then ε n = d(yn+1, p n ) ≤ H(yn+1, Ty n ).

This, as in proof of Theorem 3.1, gives lim n ε n = 0.

Now assume that T is continuous and lim n ε n = 0. From (III),
d ( p , y n + 1 ) d ( p , x n + 1 ) + k = 0 n 2 δ n + 1 - k H ( x k , T x k ) + δ n + 1 d ( x 0 , y 0 ) + k = 0 n δ n - k t k ,
where t k = (ε k + H k ). In view of the (corresponding part of the) proof of Theorem 3.1, it is sufficient to show that the sequence {t k } is convergent to 0. Since, by one of the assumptions, the sequence {ε k } is convergent to 0, it is enough to show that {H n } is also convergent to 0. Since T is continuous,
lim n H n = lim n H ( x n + 1 , T x n ) = H ( p , T p ) = 0 .

This completes the proof.□

Corollary 3.3. (Singh and Chadha [21, Theorem 3])

Let all the hypotheses of Theorem 2.2 hold, wherein the definition of ε n is replaced by the following
ε n = d ( y n + 1 , p n ) , p n T y n , n = 0 , 1 , 2 .
Then
d ( p , y n + 1 ) d ( p , x n + 1 ) + q n + 1 d ( x 0 , y 0 ) + k = 0 n q n - k ( H k + ε k ) ,
where H k = H(xk+1, Tx k ). Further, if Tp is singleton then
lim n y n = p i f a n d o n l y i f lim n ε n = 0 .

Proof: Recall that a Nadler multi-valued contraction is continuous. So it comes from the fact that Definition 2.1 implies Definition 2.2.

It seems interesting to answer the following

Question: Can one replace Zamfirescu multi-valued contraction in Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 by the Ćirić generalized multi-valued contraction?

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the referees for their appreciation, deep understanding of the subject and useful suggestions to improve upon the article. S. L. Singh acknowledges the support of the University Grants Commission, New Delhi under Emeritus Fellowship.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Mathematics, Pt. L. M. S. Govt. Postgraduate College (Autonomous)
(2)
Department of Mathematics, Walter Sisulu University
(3)
Department of Information Technology, Amity University

References

  1. Urabe M: Convergence of numerical iteration in solution of equations. J Sci Hirishima Univ Sér A 1956, 19: 479–489.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Czerwik S, Dlutek K, Singh SL: Round-off stability of iteration procedures for operators in b -metric spaces. J Natur Phys Sci 1997, 11: 87–94.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Czerwik S, Dlutek K, Singh SL: Round-off stability of iteration procedures for set-valued operators in b-metric spaces. J Natur Phys Sci 2001, 15(1–2):1–8.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Harder AM: Fixed point theory and stability results for fixed point iterative procedures. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ of Missouri-Rolla 1987.Google Scholar
  5. Harder AM, Hicks TL: A stable iteration procedure for non-expansive mappings. Math Japon 1988, 33: 687–692.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Harder AM, Hicks TL: Stability results for fixed point iteration procedures. Math Japon 1988, 33: 693–706.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Lim TC: On fixed point stability for set-valued contractive mappings with applications to generalized differential equations. J Math Anal Appl 1985, 110: 436–441. 10.1016/0022-247X(85)90306-3MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Matkowski J, Singh SL: Round-off stability of functional iterations on product spaces. Indian J Math 1997, 39(3):275–286.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Ortega JM, Rheinboldt WC: Iterative Solution of Nonlinear Equations in Several Variables. Academic Press, New York; 1970.Google Scholar
  10. Osilike MO: Stability results for fixed point iteration procedures. J Nigerian Math Soc 1995, 14: 17–29.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Osilike MO: Stability results for the Ishikawa fixed point iteration procedure. Indian J Pure Appl Math 1995, 26: 937–945.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Ostrowski AM: The round-off stability of iterations. Z Angew Math Mech 1967, 47: 77–81. 10.1002/zamm.19670470202MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Rhoades BE: Fixed point theorems and stability results for fixed point iteration procedures. Indian J Pure Appl Math 1990, 21: 1–9.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Rhoades BE: Fixed point theorems and stability results for fixed point iteration procedures-II. Indian J Pure Appl Math 1993, 24: 697–703.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Rus IA, Petrusel A, Petrusel G: Fixed Point Theory 1950–2000: Romanian Contributions. House of the Book of Science, Cluj-Napoca; 2002.Google Scholar
  16. Singh SL, Mishra SN, Chadha V: Round-off stability of iterations on product spaces. C R Math Rep Acad Sci Canada 1994, 16(3):105–109.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Jachymski JR: An extension of A. Ostrowski's theorem on the round-off stability of iterations. Aequations Math 1997, 53: 242–253. 10.1007/BF02215974MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Osilike MO: Iterative solution of nonlinear equations of f-strongly accretive type. J Math Anal Appl 1996, 200: 259–271. 10.1006/jmaa.1996.0203MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Osilike MO, Udomene A: Short proofs of stability results for fixed point iteration procedures for a class of contractive type mappings. Indian J Pure Appl Math 1999, 30(12):1229–1234.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhou HY: Stable iteration procedures for strong pseudocontractions and nonlinear equations involving accretive operators without Lipschitz assumption. J Math Anal appl 1999, 230: 1–10. 10.1006/jmaa.1998.6108MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Singh SL, Chadha V: Round-off stability of iterations for multivalued operators. C R Math Rep Acad Sci Canada 1995, 17(5):187–192.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Singh SL, Bhatnagar C: Stability of iterative procedures for multivalued operators. In Proc of the Conference on Recent Trends in Mathematics and Its Applications. Ind. Soc. Math. Math. Sci., Gorakhpur; 2003:25–34.Google Scholar
  23. Singh SL, Bhatnagar C, Hashim AM: Round-off stability of Picard iterative procedure for multivalued operators. Nonlinear Anal Forum 2005, 10(1):13–19.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Batty M, Longley P: Fractal cities: a geometry of form and function. Academic Press, London; 1994.Google Scholar
  25. Buser P, Tosan E, Weinand Y: Fractal Geometry and its applications in the field of construction. Available at: http://150.217.71.164/ambientlab2010/docs/105c06_project_plan.pdf
  26. Lee WL, Hsieh KS: A robust algorithm for the fractal dimension of images and its applications to the classification of natural images and ultrasonic liver images. Signal Process 2010, 90(6):1894–1904. 10.1016/j.sigpro.2009.12.010View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Mistakeidis ES, Panagouli OK: Strength evaluation of retrofit shear wall elements with interfaces of fractal geometry. Eng Struct 2002, 24(5):649–659. 10.1016/S0141-0296(01)00131-6View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Shaikh YH, Khan AR, Pathan JM, Patil A, Behere SH: Fractal pattern growth simulation in electrodeposition and study of the shifting of center of mass. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2009, 42(5):2796–2803. 10.1016/j.chaos.2009.03.192View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Zmeskal O, Vala M, Weiter M, Stefkova P: Fractal-cantorian geometry of space-time. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2009, 42(3):1878–1892. 10.1016/j.chaos.2009.03.106View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Petrusel A, Rus IA: The theory of a metric fixed point theorem for multivalued operators. In Proc Ninth International Conference on Fixed Point Theory and its Applications, Changhua, Taiwan, July 16–22 (2009). Yokohama Publ; 2011:161–175.Google Scholar
  31. Ćirić LB: Fixed points for generalized multi-valued contractions. Mat Vesnik 1972, 9(24):265–272.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. Ćirić LB: A generalization of Banach's contraction principle. Proc Am Math Soc 1974, 45: 267–273.Google Scholar
  33. Markin JT: A fixed point theorem for set-valued mappings. Bull Am Math Soc 1968, 74: 639–640. 10.1090/S0002-9904-1968-11971-8MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Nadler SB Jr: Multivalued contraction mappings. Pacific J Math 1969, 30: 475–488.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Czerwik S: A fixed point theorem for a system of multi-valued transformations. Proc Am Math Soc 1976, 55: 215–219.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Czerwik S: Fixed point theorems and special solutions of functional equations. Silesian University, Katowice 1980, 428: 1–83.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. Neammanee K, Kalwkhao A: Fixed point theorems of multi-valued Zamfirescu mapping. J Math Res 2010, 2(2):150–156.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Nadler SB Jr: Hyperspaces of Sets. Marcel-Dekker, New York; 1978.Google Scholar
  39. Zamfirescu T: Fixed point theorems in metric spaces. Arch Math (Basel) 1972, 23: 292–298. 10.1007/BF01304884MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Ćirić LB: Generalized contractions and fixed-point theorens. Publ Inst Math (Beograd) (NS) 1971, 12(26):19–26.Google Scholar
  41. Rhoades BE: A comparison of various definitions of contractive mappings. Am Math Soc 1977, 226: 257–290.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Park S: On general contractive type conditions. J Korean Math Soc 1980, 17(1):131–140.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. Sessa S, Cho YJ: Compatible mappings and a common fixed point theorem of Chang type. Publ Math Debrecen 1993, 43(3–4):289–296.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. Singh SL, Whitfield JHM: Contractors and fixed points. Colloq Math 1988, 55(2):219–228.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Singh et al; 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.