Research  Open  Published:
Best proximity point theorems for reckoning optimal approximate solutions
Fixed Point Theory and Applicationsvolume 2012, Article number: 202 (2012)
Abstract
Given a nonself mapping from A to B, where A and B are subsets of a metric space, in order to compute an optimal approximate solution of the equation $Sx=x$, a best proximity point theorem probes into the global minimization of the error function $x\u27f6d(x,Sx)$ corresponding to approximate solutions of the equation $Sx=x$. This paper presents a best proximity point theorem for generalized contractions, thereby furnishing optimal approximate solutions, called best proximity points, to some nonlinear equations. Also, an iterative algorithm is presented to compute such optimal approximate solutions.
MSC:90C26, 90C30, 41A65, 46B20, 47H10, 54H25.
1 Introduction
Best proximity point theory involves an intertwining of approximation and global optimization. Indeed, it explores the existence and computation of an optimal approximate solution of nonlinear equations of the form $Sx=x$, where S is a nonself mapping in some framework. Such equations are confronted when we attempt the mathematical formulation of several problems. Given a nonself mapping $S:A\u27f6B$, where A and B are nonempty subsets of a metric space, the equation $Sx=x$ does not necessarily have a solution because of the fact that a solution of the preceding equation constrains the equality between an element in the domain and an element in the range of the mapping. In such circumstances, one raises the following questions:

Is it possible to find an optimal approximate solution with the least possible error?

If an approximate solution exists, is there any iterative algorithm to compute such a solution?

Can one have more than one approximate solution with the least possible error?
Best proximity point theory is an outgrowth of attempts in many directions to answer previously posed questions for various families of nonself mappings. In fact, a best proximity point theorem furnishes sufficient conditions for the existence and computation of an approximate solution ${x}^{\ast}$ that is optimal in the sense that the error $d({x}^{\ast},S{x}^{\ast})$ assumes the global minimum value $d(A,B)$. Such an optimal approximate solution is known as a best proximity point of the mapping S. It is straightforward to observe that a best proximity point becomes a solution of the equation in the special case that the domain of the mapping intersects the codomain of the mapping. In essence, a best proximity point theorem delves into the global minimization of the error function $x\u27f6d(x,Sx)$ corresponding to the approximate solutions of the equation $Sx=x$. Many interesting best proximity point theorems for various classes of nonself mappings in different frameworks and best approximation theorems have been elicited in [1–17] and [18–40]. The main objective of this article is to present, in the framework of complete metric spaces, a best proximity point theorem for a new family of nonself mappings, known as generalized contractions, thereby computing an optimal approximate solution to the equation $Sx=x$, where S is a generalized contraction. Further, some results in the literature are realizable as special cases from the preceding result.
2 Preliminaries
Throughout this section, we assume that A and B are nonempty subsets of a metric space. We recall the following notions that will be used in the sequel.
Definition 2.1 ([41])
A mapping $S:A\u27f6B$ is called a generalized contraction if, given real numbers a and b with $0<a\le b$, there exists a real number $\alpha (a,b)\in [0,1)$ such that
for all ${x}_{1}$, ${x}_{2}$ in A.
It is apparent that every generalized contraction is a contractive mapping and hence it must be continuous.
Definition 2.2 An element ${x}^{\ast}$ in A is called a best proximity point of a mapping $S:A\u27f6B$ if it satisfies the condition that
Due to the fact that $d(x,Sx)\ge d(A,B)$ for all x in A, the global minimum of the error function $x\u27f6d(x,Sx)$ corresponding to approximate solutions of the equation $Sx=x$ is attained at any best proximity point. Moreover, if the mapping under consideration is a selfmapping, a best proximity point reduces to a fixed point.
Definition 2.3 ([21])
Given mappings $S:A\u27f6B$ and $T:B\u27f6A$, it is stated that the pair $(S,T)$ satisfies the minmax condition if, for all $x\in A$ and $y\in B$, we have
where $min(Sx,Ty)$ and $max(Sx,Ty)$ are defined as
It is quite easy to observe that the minmax condition is less restrictive so that several classes of pairs of mappings meet this requirement.
Definition 2.4 ([21])
Given nonself mappings $S:A\u27f6B$ and $T:B\u27f6A$, the pair $(S,T)$ is said to be

(a)
a cyclic inequality pair if $d(A,B)<d(x,y)\u27f9d(Sx,Ty)\ne d(x,y)$

(b)
a cyclic contractive pair if $d(A,B)<d(x,y)\u27f9d(Sx,Ty)<d(x,y)$

(c)
a cyclic expansive pair if $d(A,B)<d(x,y)\u27f9d(Sx,Ty)>d(x,y)$
for all $x\in A$ and $y\in B$.
It is remarked that cyclic inequality pairs, cyclic contractive pairs, and cyclic expansive pairs satisfy the minmax condition.
Definition 2.5 Given nonself mappings $S:A\u27f6B$ and $T:B\u27f6A$, the pair $(S,T)$ is said to form a generalized cyclic contraction if, given real numbers a and b with $0<a\le b$, there exists a real number $\alpha (a,b)\in [0,1)$ such that
for all x in A and y in B.
It is straightforward to see that every generalized cyclic contraction forms a cyclic contractive pair and hence satisfies the minmax condition.
3 Generalized contractions
We are now ready to establish the following interesting best proximity point theorem for nonself generalized contractions.
Theorem 3.1 Let A and B be nonempty, closed subsets of a complete metric space. Let $S:A\u27f6B$ and $T:B\u27f6A$ satisfy the following conditions.

(a)
S is a generalized contraction.

(b)
T is a nonexpansive mapping.

(c)
The pair $(S,T)$ satisfies the minmax condition.
Further, for a fixed element ${x}_{0}$ in A, let
Then the sequence $\{{x}_{2n}\}$ must converge to a best proximity point ${x}^{\ast}$ of S and the sequence $\{{x}_{2n+1}\}$ must converge to a best proximity point ${y}^{\ast}$ of T such that
Further, if S has two distinct best proximity points, then $d(A,B)$ does not vanish and hence the sets A and B should be disjoint.
Proof We define a sequence $\{{b}_{n}\}$ of real numbers as follows:
In light of the fact that S is a generalized contraction mapping and T is a nonexpansive mapping, it follows that $\{{b}_{n}\}$ is a bounded below, decreasing sequence of nonnegative real numbers and hence converges to some nonnegative real number, say b. Next, we shall prove that b vanishes. If b is positive, then choose a positive integer N such that
Because S is a generalized contraction mapping and T is a nonexpansive mapping, we have
Similarly, we can prove that
In general, we shall obtain that
Letting $k\u27f6\mathrm{\infty}$, we deduce that b vanishes, which is incompatible with our assumption. Therefore, it can be concluded that ${b}_{n}\u27f60$ as $n\u27f6\mathrm{\infty}$.
Next, we shall prove that $\{{x}_{2n}\}$ is a Cauchy sequence. Let $\u03f5>0$ be given. Since ${b}_{n}\u27f60$, it is possible to choose a positive integer N such that
We define
It suffices to prove that if x is an element of $B[{x}_{2N},\u03f5]$, then $TSx$ must also be an element of $B[{x}_{2N},\u03f5]$. We shall consider two different cases to ascertain the preceding assertion. Let x be an element of $B[{x}_{2N},\u03f5]$. If x satisfies the condition that
then it follows that
On the other hand, if x satisfies the condition that
then it follows that
Therefore, $TSx$ should be an element of $B[{x}_{2N},\u03f5]$. Consequently, ${x}_{2n}\in B[{x}_{2N},\u03f5]$ for all $n\ge N$. Thus, $\{{x}_{2n}\}$ should be a Cauchy sequence. In view of the completeness of the space, the sequence $\{{x}_{2n}\}$ should converge to some element ${x}^{\ast}$ in A. In light of the continuity of S, it results that the sequence $\{{x}_{2n+1}\}$ should converge to some element ${y}^{\ast}$ in B and ${y}^{\ast}=S{x}^{\ast}$. Further, because of the continuity of T, $\{{x}_{2n}\}$ should converge to $T{y}^{\ast}$. So, $T{y}^{\ast}$ and ${x}^{\ast}$ should be identical. Also, we can deduce that $TS{x}^{\ast}={x}^{\ast}$ and $ST{y}^{\ast}={y}^{\ast}$. As a result, we have
On account of the fact that the pair $(S,T)$ satisfies the minmax condition, we obtain that
Thus, we can deduce that
We shall assume that the nonself mapping S has two distinct best proximity points ${x}^{\prime}$ and ${x}^{\u2033}$. Then it follows that
Thus, $d(A,B)>0$ and hence the sets A and B are disjoint. This completes the proof of the theorem. □
We illustrate the preceding best proximity point theorem by means of the following example.
Example 3.2 We shall consider the complete metric space $C[0,2]$ with the supremum metric. For $n=\pm 1,\pm 2,\pm 3,\dots $ , define ${f}_{n}:[0,2]\u27f6\mathbf{R}$ as
Let ${f}_{0}:[0,2]\u27f6\mathbf{R}$ be defined as
Let $A:=\{{f}_{n}:n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\pm 3,\dots \}$ and $B:=\{f:f\in A\}$.
Let $S:A\u27f6B$ be defined as
Let $T:B\u27f6A$ be defined as
Then, it is easy to see that S is a generalized contraction and T is a nonexpansive mapping. Also, the pair $(S,T)$ satisfies the minmax condition. However, $(S,T)$ is neither a cyclic contractive pair nor a cyclic expansive pair. Finally, we can note that the element ${x}^{\ast}={f}_{0}$ in A is a best proximity point of the mapping S and the element ${y}^{\ast}={f}_{0}$ in B is a best proximity point of the mapping T such that $d({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast})=d(A,B)=2$.
One can easily see that best proximity point Theorem 3.1 subsumes the following result.
Corollary 3.3 Let A and B be nonempty, closed subsets of a complete metric space. Let the nonself mappings $S:A\u27f6B$ and $T:B\u27f6A$ satisfy the following conditions.

(a)
S is a generalized contraction.

(b)
T is a nonexpansive mapping.

(c)
$(S,T)$ is a generalized cyclic contraction.
Further, for a fixed element ${x}_{0}$ in A, let
Then the sequence $\{{x}_{2n}\}$ converges to a best proximity point ${x}^{\ast}$ of S and the sequence $\{{x}_{2n+1}\}$ converges to a best proximity point ${y}^{\ast}$ of T such that
Moreover, if S has two distinct best proximity points, then $d(A,B)>0$ and hence the sets A and B must be disjoint.
Best proximity point Theorem 3.1 subsumes the following fixed point theorem, due to Krasnoselskii [41], which in turn extends the most interesting and wellknown contraction principle.
Corollary 3.4 Let X be a complete metric space. If the selfmapping $T:X\u27f6X$ is a generalized contraction, then it has a unique fixed point ${x}^{\ast}$, and for every x in X, the sequence $\{{T}^{n}(x)\}$ converges to ${x}^{\ast}$.
The following best proximity point theorem, due to Basha [19], which extends the contraction principle to the case of nonself mappings, is a special case of Theorem 3.1.
Corollary 3.5 Let A and B be nonempty, closed subsets of a complete metric space. Let $S:A\u27f6B$ and $T:B\u27f6A$ be nonself mappings satisfying the following conditions.

(a)
S is a contraction.

(b)
T is a nonexpansive mapping.

(c)
$(S,T)$ is a cyclic contractive pair.
Further, for a fixed element ${x}_{0}$ in A, let
Then the sequence $\{{x}_{2n}\}$ converges to a best proximity point ${x}^{\ast}$ of S and the sequence $\{{x}_{2n+1}\}$ converges to a best proximity point ${y}^{\ast}$ of T such that
Moreover, if S has two distinct best proximity points, then $d(A,B)>0$ and hence the sets A and B must be disjoint.
References
 1.
Abkar A, Gabeleh M: Generalized cyclic contractions in partially ordered metric spaces. Optim. Lett. 2012. doi:10.1007/s11590–011–0379y
 2.
Abkar A, Gabeleh M: Best proximity points of nonself mappings. Top 2012. doi:10.1007/s11750–012–0255–7
 3.
Abkar A, Gabeleh M: Global optimal solutions of noncyclic mappings in metric spaces. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2012, 153: 298–305. 10.1007/s1095701199664
 4.
Abkar A, Gabeleh M: Best proximity points for cyclic mappings in ordered metric spaces. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2011, 150: 188–193. 10.1007/s109570119810x
 5.
Abkar A, Gabeleh M: Best proximity points for cyclic mappings in ordered metric spaces. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2011, 151: 418–424. 10.1007/s1095701198182
 6.
AlThagafi MA, Shahzad N: Best proximity sets and equilibrium pairs for a finite family of multimaps. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2008., 2008: Article ID 457069
 7.
AlThagafi MA, Shahzad N: Best proximity pairs and equilibrium pairs for Kakutani multimaps. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70: 1209–1216. 10.1016/j.na.2008.02.004
 8.
AlThagafi MA, Shahzad N: Convergence and existence results for best proximity points. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70: 3665–3671. 10.1016/j.na.2008.07.022
 9.
AminiHarandi A: Best and coupled best approximation theorems in abstract convex metric spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 922–926. 10.1016/j.na.2010.09.045
 10.
AminiHarandi A: Best proximity points for proximal generalized contractions in metric spaces. Optim. Lett. 2012. doi:10.1007/s11590–012–0470z
 11.
Eldred AA, Kirk WA, Veeramani P: Proximinal normal structure and relatively nonexpansive mappings. Stud. Math. 2005, 171: 283–293. 10.4064/sm17135
 12.
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
 13.
Anuradha J, Veeramani P: Proximal pointwise contraction. Topol. Appl. 2009, 156(18):2942–2948. 10.1016/j.topol.2009.01.017
 14.
Chandok S, Narang TD: Common fixed points of nonexpansive mappings with applications to best and best simultaneous approximation. J. Appl. Anal. 2012, 18: 33–46.
 15.
Di Bari C, Suzuki T, Vetro C: Best proximity points for cyclic MeirKeeler contractions. Nonlinear Anal. 2008, 69(11):3790–3794. 10.1016/j.na.2007.10.014
 16.
Karpagam S, Agrawal S: Best proximity point theorems for p cyclic MeirKeeler contractions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2009., 2009: Article ID 197308
 17.
Kim WK, Kum S, Lee KH: On general best proximity pairs and equilibrium pairs in free abstract economies. Nonlinear Anal. 2008, 68: 2216–2227. 10.1016/j.na.2007.01.057
 18.
Narang TD: Existence and unicity of best approximation and different types of continuity of proximity maps. Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc. 1977, 69: 39–43.
 19.
Basha SS: Extensions of Banach’s contraction principle. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 2010, 31: 569–576. 10.1080/01630563.2010.485713
 20.
Basha SS: Best proximity points: global optimal approximate solution. J. Glob. Optim. 2011, 49: 15–21. 10.1007/s1089800995210
 21.
Basha SS: Best proximity point theorems. J. Approx. Theory 2011, 163: 1772–1781. 10.1016/j.jat.2011.06.012
 22.
Basha SS: Best proximity point theorems generalizing the contraction principle. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 5844–5850. 10.1016/j.na.2011.04.017
 23.
Basha SS: Best proximity points: optimal solutions. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2011, 151: 210–216. 10.1007/s1095701198694
 24.
Basha SS: Global optimal approximate solutions. Optim. Lett. 2011, 5: 639–645. 10.1007/s1159001002275
 25.
Basha SS, Shahzad N: Best proximity point theorems for generalized proximal contractions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012. doi:10.1186/1687–1812–2012–42
 26.
Basha SS, Shahzad N, Jeyaraj R: Optimal approximate solutions of fixed point equations. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2011., 2011: Article ID 174560. doi:10.1155/2011/174560
 27.
Basha SS, Shahzad N, Jeyaraj R: Best proximity points: approximation and optimization. Optim. Lett. 2011. doi:10.1007/s11590–011–0404–1
 28.
Basha SS: Common best proximity points: global minimal solutions. Top 2011. doi:10.1007/s11750–011–0171–2
 29.
Basha SS: Common best proximity points: global minimization of multiobjective functions. J. Glob. Optim. 2012, 54: 367–373. 10.1007/s1089801197608
 30.
Basha SS, Shahzad N, Jeyaraj R: Common best proximity points: global optimization of multiobjective functions. Appl. Math. Lett. 2011, 24: 883–886. 10.1016/j.aml.2010.12.043
 31.
Shahzad N, Basha SS, Jeyaraj R: Common best proximity points: global optimal solutions. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2011, 148: 69–78. 10.1007/s1095701097457
 32.
Basha SS: Discrete optimization in partially ordered sets. J. Glob. Optim. 2012. doi:10.1007/s10898–011–9774–2
 33.
Basha SS: Global optimization in metric spaces with partial orders. Optimization 2012. doi:10.1080/02331934.2012.685238
 34.
Basha SS: Best proximity point theorems: an exploration of a common solution to approximation and optimization problems. Appl. Math. Comput. 2012, 218: 9773–9780. 10.1016/j.amc.2012.03.033
 35.
Sankar Raj V: A best proximity point theorem for weakly contractive nonselfmappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 4804–4808. 10.1016/j.na.2011.04.052
 36.
Sankar Raj V, Veeramani P: Best proximity pair theorems for relatively nonexpansive mappings. Appl. Gen. Topol. 2009, 10: 21–28.
 37.
Vetro C: Best proximity points: convergence and existence theorems for p cyclic mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 73: 2283–2291. 10.1016/j.na.2010.06.008
 38.
Wlodarczyk K, Plebaniak R, Banach A: Best proximity points for cyclic and noncyclic setvalued relatively quasiasymptotic contractions in uniform spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70: 3332–3341. 10.1016/j.na.2008.04.037
 39.
Wlodarczyk K, Plebaniak R, Banach A: Erratum to: ‘Best proximity points for cyclic and noncyclic setvalued relatively quasiasymptotic contractions in uniform spaces’, [Nonlinear Anal. 70 (2009) 3332–3341, doi:10.1016/j.na.2008.04.037]. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 3583–3586.
 40.
Wlodarczyk K, Plebaniak R, Obczyński C: Convergence theorems, best approximation and best proximity for setvalued dynamic systems of relatively quasiasymptotic contractions in cone uniform spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 72: 794–805. 10.1016/j.na.2009.07.024
 41.
Krasnoselskii MA, Zabrejko P: Geometrical Methods in Nonlinear Analysis. Springer, Berlin; 1984.
Author information
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally and significantly in writing this article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Received
Accepted
Published
DOI
Keywords
 global optimization
 optimal approximate solution
 best proximity point
 fixed point
 contraction
 generalized contraction
 nonexpansive mapping