Skip to main content

Modified α-ψ-contractive mappings with applications

Abstract

The aim of this work is to modify the notions of α-admissible and α-ψ-contractive mappings and establish new fixed point theorems for such mappings in complete metric spaces. Presented theorems provide main results of Karapinar and Samet (Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012:793486, 2012) and Samet et al. (Nonlinear Anal. 75:2154-2165, 2012) as direct corollaries. Moreover, some examples and applications to integral equations are given here to illustrate the usability of the obtained results.

MSC:46N40, 47H10, 54H25, 46T99.

1 Introduction and preliminaries

Metric fixed point theory has many applications in functional analysis. The contractive conditions on underlying functions play an important role for finding solutions of metric fixed point problems. The Banach contraction principle is a remarkable result in metric fixed point theory. Over the years, it has been generalized in different directions by several mathematicians (see [125]). In 2012, Samet et al. [24] introduced the concepts of α-ψ-contractive and α-admissible mappings and established various fixed point theorems for such mappings in complete metric spaces. Afterwards Karapinar and Samet [19] generalized these notions to obtain fixed point results. The aim of this paper is to modify further the notions of α-ψ-contractive and α-admissible mappings and establish fixed point theorems for such mappings in complete metric spaces. Our results are proper generalizations of the recent results in [19, 24]. Moreover, some examples and applications to integral equations are given here to illustrate the usability of the obtained results.

Denote with Ψ the family of nondecreasing functions ψ:[0,+)[0,+) such that n = 1 ψ n (t)<+ for all t>0, where ψ n is the n th iterate of ψ.

The following lemma is obvious.

Lemma 1.1 If ψΨ, then ψ(t)<t for all t>0.

Definition 1.1 [24]

Let T be a self-mapping on a metric space (X,d) and let α:X×X[0,+) be a function. We say that T is an α-admissible mapping if

x,yX,α(x,y)1α(Tx,Ty)1.

Definition 1.2 [24]

Let T be a self-mapping on a metric space (X,d). We say that T is an α-ψ-contractive mapping if there exist two functions α:X×X[0,+) and ψΨ such that

α(x,y)d(Tx,Ty)ψ ( d ( x , y ) )

for all x,yX.

For the examples of α-admissible and α-ψ-contractive mappings, see [19, 24] and the examples in the next section.

2 Main results

We first modify the concept of α-admissible mapping.

Definition 2.1 Let T be a self-mapping on a metric space (X,d) and let α,η:X×X[0,+) be two functions. We say that T is an α-admissible mapping with respect to η if

x,yX,α(x,y)η(x,y)α(Tx,Ty)η(Tx,Ty).

Note that if we take η(x,y)=1, then this definition reduces to Definition 1.1. Also, if we take α(x,y)=1, then we say that T is an η-subadmissible mapping.

Our first result is the following.

Theorem 2.1 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let T be an α-admissible mapping with respect to η. Assume that

x,yX,α(x,y)η(x,y)d(Tx,Ty)ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) ,
(2.1)

where ψΨ and

M(x,y)=max { d ( x , y ) , d ( x , T x ) + d ( y , T y ) 2 , d ( x , T y ) + d ( y , T x ) 2 } .

Also, suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    there exists x 0 X such that α( x 0 ,T x 0 )η( x 0 ,T x 0 );

  2. (ii)

    either T is continuous or for any sequence { x n } in X with α( x n , x n + 1 )η( x n , x n + 1 ) for all nN{0} and x n x as n+, we have α( x n ,x)η( x n ,x) for all nN{0}.

Then T has a fixed point.

Proof Let x 0 X be such that α( x 0 ,T x 0 )η( x 0 ,T x 0 ). Define a sequence { x n } in X by x n = T n x 0 =T x n 1 for all nN. If x n + 1 = x n for some nN, then x= x n is a fixed point for T and the result is proved. Hence, we suppose that x n + 1 x n for all nN. Since T is a generalized α-admissible mapping with respect to η and α( x 0 ,T x 0 )η( x 0 ,T x 0 ), we deduce that α( x 1 , x 2 )=α(T x 0 , T 2 x 0 )η(T x 0 , T 2 x 0 )=η( x 1 , x 2 ). Continuing this process, we get α( x n , x n + 1 )η( x n , x n + 1 ) for all nN{0}. Now, by (2.1) with x= x n 1 , y= x n , we get

d(T x n 1 ,T x n )ψ ( M ( x n 1 , x n ) ) .

On the other hand,

M ( x n 1 , x n ) = max { d ( x n 1 , x n ) , d ( x n 1 , T x n 1 ) + d ( x n , T x n ) 2 , d ( x n 1 , T x n ) + d ( x n , T x n 1 ) 2 } = max { d ( x n 1 , x n ) , d ( x n 1 , x n ) + d ( x n , x n + 1 ) 2 , d ( x n 1 , x n + 1 ) 2 } max { d ( x n 1 , x n ) , d ( x n 1 , x n ) + d ( x n , x n + 1 ) 2 } max { d ( x n 1 , x n ) , d ( x n , x n + 1 ) } ,

which implies

d( x n , x n + 1 )ψ ( max { d ( x n 1 , x n ) , d ( x n , x n + 1 ) } ) .

Now, if max{d( x n 1 , x n ),d( x n , x n + 1 )}=d( x n , x n + 1 ) for some nN, then

d( x n , x n + 1 )ψ ( max { d ( x n 1 , x n ) , d ( x n , x n + 1 ) } ) =ψ ( d ( x n , x n + 1 ) ) <d( x n , x n + 1 ),

which is a contradiction. Hence, for all nN, we have

d( x n , x n + 1 )ψ ( d ( x n 1 , x n ) ) .

By induction, we have

d( x n , x n + 1 ) ψ n ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) .

Fix ϵ>0, there exists NN such that

n N ψ n ( d ( x n , x n + 1 ) ) <ϵfor all nN.

Let m,nN with m>nN. Then, by the triangular inequality, we get

d( x n , x m ) k = n m 1 d( x k , x k + 1 ) n N ψ n ( d ( x n , x n + 1 ) ) <ϵ.

Consequently, lim m , n , + d( x n , x m )=0. Hence { x n } is a Cauchy sequence. Since X is complete, there is zX such that x n z as n. Now, if we suppose that T is continuous, then we have

Tz= lim n T x n = lim n x n + 1 =z.

So, z is a fixed point of T. On the other hand, since

α( x n , x n + 1 )η( x n , x n + 1 )

for all nN{0} and x n z as n, we get

α( x n ,z)η( x n ,z)

for all nN{0}. Then from (2.1) we have

d( x n + 1 ,Tz)ψ ( M ( x n , z ) ) ,

where

M( x n ,z)=max { d ( x n , z ) , d ( x n , x n + 1 ) + d ( z , T z ) 2 , d ( x n , T z ) + d ( z , x n + 1 ) 2 } .

Since M( x n ,z)>0, then

d( x n + 1 ,Tz)ψ ( M ( x n , z ) ) <M( x n ,z).

By taking limit as n in the above inequality, we have

d(z,Tz)= lim n d( x n + 1 ,Tz) lim n M( x n ,z)= d ( z , T z ) 2 ,

which implies d(z,Tz)=0, i.e., z=Tz. □

By taking η(x,y)=1 in Theorem 2.1, we have the following result.

Corollary 2.1 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let T be an α-admissible mapping. Assume that for ψΨ,

x,yX,α(x,y)1d(Tx,Ty)ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) .

Also, suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    there exists x 0 X such that α( x 0 ,T x 0 )1;

  2. (ii)

    either T is continuous or for any sequence { x n } in X with α( x n , x n + 1 )1 for all nN{0} and x n x as n+, we have α( x n ,x)1 for all nN{0}.

Then T has a fixed point.

By taking α(x,y)=1 in Theorem 2.1, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 2.2 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let T be an η-subadmissible mapping. Assume that for ψΨ,

x,yX,η(x,y)1d(Tx,Ty)ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) .

Also, suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    there exists x 0 X such that η( x 0 ,T x 0 )1;

  2. (ii)

    either T is continuous or for any sequence { x n } in X with η( x n , x n + 1 )1 for all nN{0} and x n x as n+, we have η( x n ,x)1 for all nN{0}.

Then T has a fixed point.

Clearly, Corollary 2.1 implies the following results.

Corollary 2.3 (Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.2 of [24])

Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let T be an α-admissible mapping. Assume that for ψΨ,

α(x,y)d(Tx,Ty)ψ ( d ( x , y ) )

holds for all x,yX. Also, suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    there exists x 0 X such that α( x 0 ,T x 0 )1;

  2. (ii)

    either T is continuous or for any sequence { x n } in X with α( x n , x n + 1 )1 for all nN{0} and x n x as n+, we have α( x n ,x)1 for all nN{0}.

Then T has a fixed point.

Corollary 2.4 (Theorem 2.3 and Theorem 2.4 of [19])

Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let T be an α-admissible mapping. Assume that for ψΨ,

α(x,y)d(Tx,Ty)ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) x,yX,

where

M(x,y)=max { d ( x , y ) , d ( x , T x ) + d ( y , T y ) 2 , d ( x , T y ) + d ( y , T x ) 2 } .

Also, suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    there exists x 0 X such that α( x 0 ,T x 0 )1;

  2. (ii)

    either T is continuous or for any sequence { x n } in X with α( x n , x n + 1 )1 for all nN{0} and x n x as n+, we have α( x n ,x)1 for all nN{0}.

Then T has a fixed point.

Example 2.1 Let X=[0,) be endowed with the usual metric d(x,y)=|xy| for all x,yX and let T:XX be defined by

Tx={ x 2 ( x + 1 ) if  x [ 0 , 1 ] , ln x + | sin x | if  x ( 1 , ) .

Define also α:X×X[0,+) and ψ:[0,)[0,) by

α(x,y)={ 4 if  x , y [ 0 , 1 ] , 0 otherwise andψ(t)= 1 2 t.

We prove that Corollary 2.1 can be applied to T. But Theorem 2.2 of [24] and Theorem 2.4 of [19] cannot be applied to T.

Clearly, (X,d) is a complete metric space. We show that T is an α-admissible mapping. Let x,yX, if α(x,y)1, then x,y[0,1]. On the other hand, for all x[0,1] we have Tx1. It follows that α(Tx,Ty)1. Hence, the assertion holds. In reason of the above arguments, α(0,T0)1.

Now, if { x n } is a sequence in X such that α( x n , x n + 1 )1 for all nN{0} and x n x as n+, then { x n }[0,1] and hence x[0,1]. This implies that α( x n ,x)1 for all nN.

Let α(x,y)1. Then x,y[0,1]. We get

d ( T x , T y ) = T y T x = y 2 ( y + 1 ) x 2 ( x + 1 ) = y x 2 ( 1 + x ) ( 1 + y ) y x 2 = 1 2 d ( x , y ) 1 2 M ( x , y ) = ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) .

That is,

α(x,y)1d(Tx,Ty)ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) .

All of the conditions of Corollary 2.1 hold. Hence, T has a fixed point. Let x=0 and y=1, then

α(0,1)d(T0,T1)=1>1/2=ψ ( d ( 0 , 1 ) ) .

That is, Theorem 2.2 of [24] cannot be applied to T.

Also, by a similar method, we can show that Theorem 2.4 of [19] cannot be applied to T.

By the following simple example, we show that our results improve the results of Samet et al. [24] and the results of Karapinar and Samet [19].

Example 2.2 Let X=[0,) be endowed with the usual metric d(x,y)=|xy| for all x,yX and let T:XX be defined by Tx= 1 4 x. Also, define α: X 2 [0,) by α(x,y)=3 and ψ:[0,)[0,) by ψ(t)= 1 2 t.

Clearly, T is an α-admissible mapping. Also, α(x,y)=31 for all x,yX. Hence,

d(Tx,Ty)= 1 4 |xy| 1 2 |xy|=ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) .

Then the conditions of Corollary 2.1 hold and T has a fixed point. But if we choose x=4 and y=8, then

α(4,8)d(T4,T8)=3>2=ψ ( d ( 4 , 8 ) ) .

That is, Theorem 2.2 of [24] cannot be applied to T. Similarly, we can show that Theorem 2.4 of [19] cannot be applied to T. Further notice that the Banach contraction principle holds for this example.

Example 2.3 Let X=[0,) be endowed with the usual metric d(x,y)=|xy| for all x,yX and let T:XX be defined by

Tx={ 1 4 x 2 if  x [ 0 , 1 ] , 2 x 3 + 1 if  x ( 1 , ) .

Define also α,η:X×X[0,+) and ψ:[0,)[0,) by

η(x,y)={ 1 if  x , y [ 0 , 1 ] , 4 otherwise andψ(t)= 1 2 t.

We prove that Corollary 2.2 can be applied to T. But the Banach contraction principle cannot be applied to T.

Clearly, (X,d) is a complete metric space. We show that T is an η-subadmissible mapping. Let x,yX, if η(x,y)1, then x,y[0,1]. On the other hand, for all x[0,1], we have Tx1. It follows that η(Tx,Ty)1. Also, η(0,T0)1.

Now, if { x n } is a sequence in X such that η( x n , x n + 1 )1 for all nN{0} and x n x as n+, then { x n }[0,1] and hence x[0,1]. This implies that η( x n ,x)1 for all nN.

Let η(x,y)1. Then x,y[0,1]. We get

d(Tx,Ty)= 1 4 |xy||x+y| 1 2 |xy| 1 2 M(x,y)=ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) .

That is,

η(x,y)1d(Tx,Ty)ψ ( M ( x , y ) ) .

Then the conditions of Corollary 2.2 hold. Hence, T has a fixed point. Let x=2, y=3 and r[0,1). Then

d(T2,T3)=38>1>r=rd(2,3).

That is, the Banach contraction principle cannot be applied to T.

From our results, we can deduce the following corollaries.

Corollary 2.5 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let T be an α-admissible mapping. Assume that

( α ( x , y ) + ) d ( T x , T y ) ( 1 + ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) )
(2.2)

holds for all x,yX, where ψΨ and >0. Also, suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    there exists x 0 X such that α( x 0 ,T x 0 )1;

  2. (ii)

    either T is continuous or for any sequence { x n } in X with α( x n , x n + 1 )1 for all nN{0} and x n x as n+, we have α( x n ,x)1 for all nN{0}.

Then T has a fixed point.

Proof Let α(x,y)1. Then by (2.2) we have

( 1 + ) d ( T x , T y ) ( α ( x , y ) + ) d ( T x , T y ) ( 1 + ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) .

Then d(Tx,Ty)ψ(d(x,y)). Hence, the conditions of Corollary 2.1 hold and f has a fixed point. □

Similarly, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 2.6 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let T be an α-admissible mapping. Assume that

( d ( T x , T y ) + ) α ( x , y ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) +
(2.3)

hold for all x,yX, where ψΨ and >0. Also, suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    there exists x 0 X such that α( x 0 ,T x 0 )1;

  2. (ii)

    either T is continuous or for any sequence { x n } in X with α( x n , x n + 1 )1 for all nN{0} and x n x as n+, we have α( x n ,x)1 for all nN{0}.

Then T has a fixed point.

Notice that the main theorem of Dutta and Choudhury [9] remains true if ϕ is lower semi-continuous instead of continuous (see, e.g., [1, 8]).

We assume that

Ψ 1 = { ψ : [ 0 , ) [ 0 , )  such that  ψ  is non-decreasing and continuous }

and

Φ= { φ : [ 0 , ) [ 0 , )  such that  φ  is lower semicontinuous } ,

where ψ(t)=φ(t)=0 if and only if t=0.

Theorem 2.2 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let T be an α-admissible mapping with respect to η. Assume that for ψ Ψ 1 and φΦ,

x , y X , α ( x , T x ) α ( y , T y ) η ( x , T x ) η ( y , T y ) ψ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) φ ( d ( x , y ) ) .
(2.4)

Also, suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    there exists x 0 X such that α( x 0 ,T x 0 )η( x 0 ,T x 0 );

  2. (ii)

    either T is continuous or for any sequence { x n } in X with α( x n , x n + 1 )η( x n , x n + 1 ) for all nN{0} and x n x as n+, we have α(x,Tx)η(x,Tx) for all nN{0}.

Then T has a fixed point.

Proof Let x 0 X such that α( x 0 ,T x 0 )η( x 0 ,T x 0 ). Define a sequence { x n } in X by x n = T n x 0 =T x n 1 for all nN. If x n + 1 = x n for some nN, then x= x n is a fixed point for T and the result is proved. We suppose that x n + 1 x n for all nN. Since T is an α-admissible mapping with respect to η and α( x 0 ,T x 0 )η( x 0 ,T x 0 ), we deduce that α( x 1 , x 2 )=α(T x 0 , T 2 x 0 )η(T x 0 , T 2 x 0 )=η( x 1 , x 2 ). By continuing this process, we get α( x n , x n + 1 )η( x n , x n + 1 ) for all nN{0}. Clearly,

α( x n 1 ,T x n 1 )α( x n ,T x n )η( x n 1 ,T x n 1 )η( x n ,T x n ).

Now, by (2.4) with x= x n 1 , y= x n , we have

ψ ( d ( T x n 1 , T x n ) ) ψ ( d ( x n 1 , x n ) ) φ ( d ( x n 1 , x n ) ) ,

which implies

ψ ( d ( x n , x n + 1 ) ) ψ ( d ( x n 1 , x n ) ) φ ( d ( x n 1 , x n ) ) ψ ( d ( x n 1 , x n ) ) .
(2.5)

Since ψ is increasing, we get

d( x n , x n + 1 )d( x n 1 , x n )

for all nN. That is, { d n :=d( x n , x n + 1 )} is a non-increasing sequence of positive real numbers. Then there exists r0 such that lim n d n =r. We shall show that r=0. By taking the limit infimum as n in (2.5), we have

ψ(r)ψ(r)φ(r).

Hence ϕ(r)=0. That is, r=0. Then

lim n d( x n , x n + 1 )=0.
(2.6)

Suppose, to the contrary, that { x n } is not a Cauchy sequence. Then there is ε>0 and sequences {m(k)} and {n(k)} such that for all positive integers k,

n(k)>m(k)>k,d( x n ( k ) , x m ( k ) )εandd( x n ( k ) , x m ( k ) 1 )<ε.

Now, for all kN, we have

ε d ( x n ( k ) , x m ( k ) ) d ( x n ( k ) , x m ( k ) 1 ) + d ( x m ( k ) 1 , x m ( k ) ) < ε + d ( x m ( k ) 1 , x m ( k ) ) .

Taking limit as k+ in the above inequality and using (2.6), we get

lim k + d( x n ( k ) , x m ( k ) )=ε.
(2.7)

Since

d( x n ( k ) , x m ( k ) )d( x m ( k ) , x m ( k ) + 1 )+d( x m ( k ) + 1 , x n ( k ) + 1 )+d( x n ( k ) + 1 , x n ( k ) )

and

d( x n ( k ) + 1 , x m ( k ) + 1 )d( x m ( k ) , x m ( k ) + 1 )+d( x m ( k ) , x n ( k ) )+d( x n ( k ) + 1 , x n ( k ) ),

then by taking the limit as k+ in the above inequality, and by using (2.6) and (2.7), we deduce that

lim k + d( x n ( k ) + 1 , x m ( k ) + 1 )=ε.
(2.8)

On the other hand,

α( x n ( k ) ,T x n ( k ) )α( x m ( k ) ,T x m ( k ) )η( x n ( k ) ,T x n ( k ) )η( x m ( k ) ,T x m ( k ) ).

Then, by (2.4) with x= x n ( k ) and y= x m ( k ) , we get

ψ ( d ( x n ( k ) + 1 , x m ( k ) + 1 ) ) ψ ( d ( x n ( k ) , x m ( k ) ) ) φ ( d ( x n ( k ) , x m ( k ) ) ) .

By taking limit as k in the above inequality and applying (2.7) and (2.8), we obtain

ψ(ε)ψ(ε)φ(ε).

That is, ε=0, which is a contradiction. Hence { x n } is a Cauchy sequence. Since X is complete, then there is zX such that x n z. First we assume that T is continuous. Then we deduce

Tz= lim n T x n = lim n x n + 1 =z.

So, z is a fixed point of T. On the other hand, since

α( x n , x n + 1 )η( x n , x n + 1 )

for all nN0 and x n z as n, so

α(z,Tz)η(z,Tz),

which implies

α( x n , x n + 1 )α(z,Tz)η( x n , x n + 1 )η(z,Tz).

Now, by (2.4) we get

ψ ( d ( x n + 1 , T z ) ) =ψ ( d ( T x n , T z ) ) ψ ( d ( x n , z ) ) φ ( d ( x n , z ) ) .

Passing limit inf as n in the above inequality, we have

ψ ( d ( z , T z ) ) = lim n ψ ( d ( x n + 1 , T z ) ) =0.

That is, z=Tz. □

By taking η(x,y)=1 in Theorem 2.2, we deduce the following corollary.

Corollary 2.7 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let T be an α-admissible mapping. Assume that for ψ Ψ 1 and φΦ,

x,yX,α(x,Tx)α(y,Ty)1ψ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) φ ( d ( x , y ) ) .

Also, suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    there exists x 0 X such that α( x 0 ,T x 0 )1;

  2. (ii)

    either T is continuous or for any sequence { x n } in X with α( x n , x n + 1 )1 for all nN{0} and x n x as n+, we have α(x,Tx)1.

Then T has a fixed point.

By taking α(x,y)=1 in Theorem 2.2, we deduce the following corollary.

Corollary 2.8 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let T be an η-subadmissible mapping. Assume that for ψ Ψ 1 and φΦ,

x,yX,η(x,Tx)η(y,Ty)1ψ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) φ ( d ( x , y ) ) .

Also, suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    there exists x 0 X such that η( x 0 ,T x 0 )1;

  2. (ii)

    either T is continuous or for any sequence { x n } in X with η( x n , x n + 1 )1 for all nN{0} and x n x as n+, we have η(x,Tx)1.

Then T has a fixed point.

Example 2.4 Let X=[0,) be endowed with the usual metric

d(x,y)={ max { x , y } if  x y , 0 if  x = y

for all x,yX, and let T:XX be defined by

Tx={ x x 2 2 if  x [ 0 , 1 ] , 2 x if  x ( 1 , ) .

Define also α:X×X[0,+) and ψ,φ:[0,)[0,) by

α(x,y)={ 1 if  x , y [ 0 , 1 ] , 1 2 otherwise , ψ(t)=tandφ(t)= 1 2 t.

We prove that Corollary 2.7 can be applied to T, but the main theorem in [9] cannot be applied to T.

By a similar proof to that of Example 2.1, we show that T is an α-admissible mapping. Assume that α(x,Tx)α(y,Ty)1. Now, if x[0,1], then α(x,Tx)= 1 2 and so α(x,Tx)α(y,Ty)<1, which is contradiction. If y[0,1]. Similarly, α(x,Tx)α(y,Ty)<1, which is contradiction. Hence, α(x,Tx)α(y,Ty)1 implies x,y[0,1]. Therefore, we get

ψ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) =max { x x 2 2 , y y 2 2 } 1 2 max{x,y}=ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) φ ( d ( x , y ) ) .

That is,

α(x,Tx)α(y,Ty)1ψ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) φ ( d ( x , y ) ) .

The conditions of Corollary 2.7 are satisfied. Hence, T has a fixed point. Let x=2 and y=3, then

ψ ( d ( T 2 , T 3 ) ) =6>1/2=ψ ( d ( 2 , 3 ) ) φ ( d ( 2 , 3 ) ) .

That is, the main theorem in [9] cannot be applied to T.

Example 2.5 Let X=[0,) be endowed with the usual metric d(x,y)=|xy| for all x,yX, and let T:XX be defined by

Tx={ 1 5 ( 1 x 3 ) if  x [ 0 , 1 ] , | sin ( π 2 x ) | if  x ( 1 , ) .

Define also η:X×X[0,+) and ψ,φ:[0,)[0,) by

η(x,y)={ 1 if  x , y [ 0 , 1 ] , 7 otherwise , ψ(t)=tandφ(t)= 2 5 t.

We prove that Corollary 2.8 can be applied to T, but the main theorem in [9] cannot be applied to T.

By a similar proof to that of Example 2.3, we can show that T is an η-subadmissible mapping.

Assume that η(x,Tx)η(y,Ty)1. Now, if x[0,1], then η(x,Tx)η(y,Ty)>1, which is a contradiction. Similarly, y[0,1] is a contradiction. Hence, η(x,Tx)η(y,Ty)1 implies x,y[0,1]. We get

ψ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) = 1 5 |xy| | x 2 + x y + y 2 | 3 5 |xy|=ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) φ ( d ( x , y ) ) .

That is,

η(x,Tx)η(y,Ty)1d(Tx,Ty)ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) φ ( d ( x , y ) ) .

Then the conditions of Corollary 2.8 hold and T has a fixed point. Let x=2, y=3. Then T2=0 and T3=1, which implies

ψ ( d ( T 2 , T 3 ) ) =1> 3 5 =ψ ( d ( 2 , 3 ) ) φ ( d ( 2 , 3 ) ) .

That is, the main theorem in [9] cannot be applied to T.

In 1984 Khan et al. [20] proved the following theorem.

Theorem 2.3 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let T be a self-mapping on X. Assume that

ψ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) cψ ( d ( x , y ) ) x,yX,

where ψ Ψ 1 and 0<c<1. Then T has a unique fixed point.

Theorem 2.4 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let T be a generalized α-admissible mapping with respect to η. Assume that

x,yX,α(x,x)α(y,y)η(x,x)η(y,y)ψ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) cψ ( d ( x , y ) ) ,
(2.9)

where ψ Ψ 1 and 0<c<1. Also, suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    there exists x 0 X such that α( x 0 , x 0 )η( x 0 , x 0 );

  2. (ii)

    either T is continuous or for any sequence { x n } in X with α( x n , x n )η( x n , x n ) for all nN{0} and x n x as n+, we have α(x,x)η(x,x).

Then T has a fixed point.

Proof Let x 0 X such that α( x 0 , x 0 )η( x 0 , x 0 ). Define a sequence { x n } in X by x n = T n x 0 =T x n 1 for all nN. If x n + 1 = x n for some nN, then x= x n is a fixed point for T and the result is proved. Hence, we suppose that x n + 1 x n for all nN. Since T is a generalized α-admissible mapping with respect to η and α( x 0 , x 0 )η( x 0 , x 0 ), we deduce that α( x 1 , x 1 )=α(T x 0 ,T x 0 )η(T x 0 ,T x 0 )=η( x 1 , x 1 ). By continuing this process, we get α( x n , x n )η( x n , x n ) for all nN{0}. Clearly,

α( x n 1 , x n 1 )α( x n , x n )η( x n 1 , x n 1 )η( x n , x n ).

Now, by (2.9) with x= x n 1 , y= x n , we have

ψ ( d ( x n , x n + 1 ) ) =ψ ( d ( T x n 1 , T x n ) ) cψ ( d ( x n 1 , x n ) ) <ψ ( d ( x n 1 , x n ) ) .
(2.10)

Since, ψ is increasing, we get

d( x n , x n + 1 )d( x n 1 , x n )

for all nN. That is, { d n :=d( x n , x n + 1 )} is a non-increasing sequence of positive real numbers. Then there exists r0 such that lim n d n =r. We shall show that r=0. By taking the limit as n in (2.10), we have

ψ(r)cψ(r),

which implies ψ(r)=0, i.e., r=0. Then

lim n d( x n , x n + 1 )=0.
(2.11)

Suppose, to the contrary, that { x n } is not a Cauchy sequence. Proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 2.2, there exists ϵ>0 such that for all kN there exist n(k),m(k)N with m(k)>n(k)k such that

lim k + d( x n ( k ) , x m ( k ) )=ε
(2.12)

and

lim k + d( x n ( k ) + 1 , x m ( k ) + 1 )=ε.
(2.13)

Clearly,

α( x n ( k ) , x n ( k ) )α( x m ( k ) , x m ( k ) )η( x n ( k ) , x n ( k ) )η( x m ( k ) , x m ( k ) ).

Then, by (2.9) with x= x n ( k ) and y= x m ( k ) , we get

ψ ( d ( x n ( k ) + 1 , x m ( k ) + 1 ) ) =ψ ( d ( T x n ( k ) , T x m ( k ) ) ) cψ ( d ( x n ( k ) , x m ( k ) ) ) .

Taking limit as k in the above inequality and applying (2.12) and (2.13), we get

ψ(ϵ)cψ(ϵ),

and so ϵ=0, which is a contradiction. Hence { x n } is a Cauchy sequence. Since X is complete, then there is zX such that x n z. First, we assume that T is continuous. Then, we deduce

Tz= lim n T x n = lim n x n + 1 =z.

So, z is a fixed point of T. On the other hand, since

α( x n , x n )η( x n , x n )

for all nN{0} and x n z as n, we get

α(z,z)η(z,z),

which implies

α(z,z)α( x n , x n )η(z,z)η( x n , x n ).

Then by (2.12) we deduce

ψ ( d ( x n + 1 , T z ) ) =ψ ( d ( T x n , T z ) ) cψ ( d ( x n , z ) ) .

Taking limit as n in the above inequality, we have

ψ ( d ( z , T z ) ) ψ(0)=0

and then z=Tz. □

Corollary 2.9 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let T be an α-admissible mapping. Assume that

x,yX,α(x,x)α(y,y)1ψ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) cψ ( d ( x , y ) ) ,

where ψ Ψ 1 and 0<c<1. Also, suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    there exists x 0 X such that α( x 0 , x 0 )1;

  2. (ii)

    either T is continuous or for any sequence { x n } in X with α( x n , x n )1 for all nN{0} and x n x as n+, we have α(x,x)1.

Then T has a fixed point.

Corollary 2.10 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let T be a generalized α-admissible mapping with respect to η. Assume that

x,yX,η(x,x)η(y,y)1ψ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) cψ ( d ( x , y ) ) ,

where ψ Ψ 1 and 0<c<1. Also, suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    there exists x 0 X such that η( x 0 , x 0 )1;

  2. (ii)

    either T is continuous or for any sequence { x n } in X with η( x n , x n )1 for all nN0 and x n x as n+, we have η(x,x)1.

Then T has a fixed point.

Example 2.6 Let X=[0,) be endowed with the usual metric

d(x,y)={ max { x , y } if  x y , 0 if  x = y

for all x,yX, and let T:XX be defined by

Tx={ x 3 x 5 8 if  x [ 0 , 1 ] , 2 x 2 + | ( x 2 ) ( x 3 ) | if  x ( 1 , ) .

Define also α:X×X[0,+) and ψ,φ:[0,)[0,) by

α(x,y)={ 1 if  x , y [ 0 , 1 ] , 1 2 otherwise andψ(t)= t 2 .

We prove that Corollary 2.9 can be applied to T. But Theorem 2.3 cannot be applied to T.

By a similar proof to that of Example 2.1, we show that T is an α-admissible mapping. Assume that α(x,x)α(y,y)1. Now, if x[0,1], then α(x,x)= 1 2 and so α(x,x)α(y,y)<1, which is contradiction. If y[0,1]. Similarly, α(x,x)α(y,y)<1, which is contradiction. Hence, α(x,x)α(y,y)1 implies x,y[0,1]. Therefore, we get

ψ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) = ( max { x 3 x 5 8 , y 3 y 5 8 } ) 2 1 16 ( max { x , y } ) 2 = 1 16 ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) .

That is,

α(x,x)α(y,y)1ψ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) 1 16 ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) .

Then the conditions of Corollary 2.9 hold. Hence, T has a fixed point. Let x=2 and y=3, then T2=8 and T3=18, and hence

ψ ( d ( T 2 , T 3 ) ) =100> 1 16 = 1 16 ψ ( d ( 2 , 3 ) ) .

That is, Theorem 2.3 cannot be applied to T.

3 Application to the existence of solutions of integral equations

Integral equations like (3.1) were studied in many papers (see [2, 11] and references therein). In this section, we look for a nonnegative solution to (3.1) in X=C([0,T],R). Let X=C([0,T],R) be the set of real continuous functions defined on [0,T] and let d:X×X R + be defined by

d(x,y)= x y

for all x,yX. Then (X,d) is a complete metric space.

Consider the integral equation

x(t)=p(t)+ 0 T S(t,s)f ( s , x ( s ) ) ds,
(3.1)

and let F:XX defined by

F(x)(t)=p(t)+ 0 T S(t,s)f ( s , x ( s ) ) ds.
(3.2)

We assume that

  1. (A)

    f:[0,T]×RR is continuous;

  2. (B)

    p:[0,T]R is continuous;

  3. (C)

    S:[0,T]×R[0,+) is continuous;

  4. (D)

    there exist ψΨ and θ:X×XR such that if θ(x,y)0 for x,yX, then for every s[0,T] we have

    0 f ( s , x ( s ) ) f ( s , y ( s ) ) ψ ( max { | x ( s ) y ( s ) | , 1 2 [ | x ( s ) F ( x ( s ) ) | + | y ( s ) F ( y ( s ) ) | ] , 1 2 [ | x ( s ) F ( y ( s ) ) | + | y ( s ) F ( x ( s ) ) | ] } ) ;
  5. (F)

    there exists x 0 X such that θ( x 0 ,F( x 0 ))0;

  6. (G)

    if θ(x,y)0, x,yX, then θ(Fx,Fy)0;

  7. (H)

    if { x n } is a sequence in X such that θ( x n , x n + 1 )0 for all nN{0} and x n x as n+, then θ( x n ,x)0 for all nN{0};

  8. (J)

    0 T S(t,s)ds1 for all t[0,T] and sR.

Theorem 3.1 Under assumptions (A)-(J), the integral equation (3.1) has a solution in X=C([0,T],R).

Proof Consider the mapping F:XX defined by (3.2).

By the condition (D), we deduce

| F ( x ) ( t ) F ( y ) ( t ) | = | 0 T S ( t , s ) [ f ( s , x ( s ) ) f ( s , y ( s ) ) ] d s | 0 T S ( t , s ) | f ( s , x ( s ) ) f ( s , y ( s ) ) | d s 0 T S ( t , s ) [ ψ ( max { | x ( s ) y ( s ) | , 1 2 [ | x ( s ) F ( x ( s ) ) | + | y ( s ) F ( y ( s ) ) | ] , 1 2 [ | x ( s ) F ( y ( s ) ) | + | y ( s ) F ( x ( s ) ) | ] } ) ] d s 0 T S ( t , s ) [ ψ ( max { x ( s ) y ( s ) , 1 2 [ x ( s ) F ( x ( s ) ) + y ( s ) F ( y ( s ) ) ] , 1 2 [ x ( s ) F ( y ( s ) ) + y ( s ) F ( x ( s ) ) ] } ) ] d s = ( 0 T S ( t , s ) d s ) ψ ( max { x ( s ) y ( s ) , 1 2 [ x ( s ) F ( x ( s ) ) + y ( s ) F ( y ( s ) ) ] , 1 2 [ x ( s ) F ( y ( s ) ) + y ( s ) F ( x ( s ) ) ] } ) ψ ( max { x ( s ) y ( s ) , 1 2 [ x ( s ) F ( x ( s ) ) + y ( s ) F ( y ( s ) ) ] , 1 2 [ x ( s ) F ( y ( s ) ) + y ( s ) F ( x ( s ) ) ] } ) .

Then

F x F y ψ ( max { x ( s ) y ( s ) , 1 2 [ x ( s ) F ( x ( s ) ) + y ( s ) F ( y ( s ) ) ] , 1 2 [ x ( s ) F ( y ( s ) ) + y ( s ) F ( x ( s ) ) ] } ) .

Now, define α:X×X[0,+) by

α(x,y)={ 1 if  θ ( x , y ) 0 , 0 otherwise .

That is, α(x,y)1 implies

F x F y ψ ( max { x ( s ) y ( s ) , 1 2 [ x ( s ) F ( x ( s ) ) + y ( s ) F ( y ( s ) ) ] , F x F y 1 2 [ x ( s ) F ( y ( s ) ) + y ( s ) F ( x ( s ) ) ] } ) , F x F y ψ ( max { x y , 1 2 [ x F ( x ) + y F ( y ) ] , F x F y 1 2 [ x F ( y ) + y F ( x ) ] } ) .

All of the hypotheses of Corollary 2.1 are satisfied, and hence the mapping F has a fixed point that is a solution in X=C([0,T],R) of the integral equation (3.1). □

References

  1. Abbas M, Dorić D: Common fixed point theorem for four mappings satisfying generalized weak contractive condition. Filomat 2010, 24(2):1–10. 10.2298/FIL1002001A

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Agarwal RP, Hussain N, Taoudi M-A: Fixed point theorems in ordered Banach spaces and applications to nonlinear integral equations. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 245872

    Google Scholar 

  3. Akbar F, Khan AR: Common fixed point and approximation results for noncommuting maps on locally convex spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2009., 2009: Article ID 207503

    Google Scholar 

  4. Berinde V, Vetro F: Common fixed points of mappings satisfying implicit contractive conditions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 105

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ćirić LB: A generalization of Banach’s contraction principle. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1974, 45: 267–273.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ćirić L, Hussain N, Cakic N: Common fixed points for Ćiric type f -weak contraction with applications. Publ. Math. (Debr.) 2010, 76(1–2):31–49.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ćirić L, Abbas M, Saadati R, Hussain N: Common fixed points of almost generalized contractive mappings in ordered metric spaces. Appl. Math. Comput. 2011, 217: 5784–5789. 10.1016/j.amc.2010.12.060

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dorić D:Common fixed point for generalized (ψ,ϕ)-weak contractions. Appl. Math. Lett. 2009, 22: 1896–1900. 10.1016/j.aml.2009.08.001

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dutta PN, Choudhury BS: A generalization of contraction principle in metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2008., 2008: Article ID 406368

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hussain N, Berinde V, Shafqat N: Common fixed point and approximation results for generalized ϕ -contractions. Fixed Point Theory 2009, 10: 111–124.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Hussain N, Khan AR, Agarwal RP: Krasnosel’skii and Ky Fan type fixed point theorems in ordered Banach spaces. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2010, 11(3):475–489.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Hussain N, Khamsi MA, Latif A: Common fixed points for JH -operators and occasionally weakly biased pairs under relaxed conditions. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 2133–2140. 10.1016/j.na.2010.11.019

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hussain N, Kadelburg Z, Radenovic S, Al-Solamy FR: Comparison functions and fixed point results in partial metric spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 605781

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hussain N, Dorić D, Kadelburg Z, Radenović S: Suzuki-type fixed point results in metric type spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 126

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hussain N, Karapinar E, Salimi P, Akbar F: α -Admissible mappings and related fixed point theorems. J. Inequal. Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 114

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hussain N, Karapinar E, Salimi P, Vetro P: Fixed point results for G m -Meir-Keeler contractive and G - (α,ψ) -Meir-Keeler contractive mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 34

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jachymski J: Equivalent conditions and the Meir-Keeler type theorems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1995, 194(1):293–303. 10.1006/jmaa.1995.1299

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kadelburg Z, Radenović S: Meir-Keeler-type conditions in abstract metric spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 2011, 24(8):1411–1414. 10.1016/j.aml.2011.03.021

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Karapinar E, Samet B: Generalized α - ψ contractive type mappings and related fixed point theorems with applications. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 793486

    Google Scholar 

  20. Khan MS, Swaleh M, Sessa S: Fixed point theorems by altering distances between the points. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 1984, 30: 1–9. 10.1017/S0004972700001659

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Latif A, Albar WA: Fixed point results in complete metric spaces. Demonstr. Math. 2008, XLI(1):145–150.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Latif A, Abdou AAN: Multivalued generalized nonlinear contractive maps and fixed points. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 1436–1444. 10.1016/j.na.2010.10.017

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Latif A, Al-Mezel SA: Fixed point results in quasimetric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2011., 2011: Article ID 178306

    Google Scholar 

  24. Samet B, Vetro C, Vetro P: Fixed point theorem for α - ψ contractive type mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2012, 75: 2154–2165. 10.1016/j.na.2011.10.014

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Suzuki T: A generalized Banach contraction principle that characterizes metric completeness. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2008, 136: 1861–1869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the referees for their valuable comments and suggestions. This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah. Therefore, the second and third authors acknowledge with thanks DSR, KAU for financial support. The first author is thankful for support of Astara Branch, Islamic Azad University, during this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdul Latif.

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

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.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Salimi, P., Latif, A. & Hussain, N. Modified α-ψ-contractive mappings with applications. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2013, 151 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2013-151

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2013-151

Keywords

  • Integral Equation
  • Fixed Point Theorem
  • Positive Real Number
  • Cauchy Sequence
  • Fixed Point Theory