Skip to main content

Fixed points of cyclic weakly (ψ,φ,L,A,B)-contractive mappings in ordered b-metric spaces with applications

Abstract

We introduce the notion of ordered cyclic weakly (ψ,φ,L,A,B)-contractive mappings, and we establish some fixed and common fixed point results for this class of mappings in complete ordered b-metric spaces. Our results extend several known results from the context of ordered metric spaces to the setting of ordered b-metric spaces. They are also cyclic variants of some very recent results in ordered b-metric spaces with even weaker contractive conditions. Some examples support our results and show that the obtained extensions are proper. Moreover, an application to integral equations is given here to illustrate the usability of the obtained results.

MSC:47H10, 54H25.

1 Introduction and preliminaries

The Banach contraction principle is a very popular tool for solving problems in nonlinear analysis. One of the interesting generalizations of this basic principle was given by Kirk et al. [1] in 2003 by introducing the following notion of cyclic representation.

Definition 1 [1]

Let A and B be non-empty subsets of a metric space (X,d) and T:ABAB. Then T is called a cyclic map if T(A)B and T(B)A.

The following interesting theorem for a cyclic map was given in [1].

Theorem 1 Let A and B be nonempty closed subsets of a complete metric space (X,d). Suppose that T:ABAB is a cyclic map such that

d(Tx,Ty)kd(x,y)

for all xA and yB, where k[0,1) is a constant. Then T has a unique fixed point u and uAB.

It should be noted that cyclic contractions (unlike Banach-type contractions) need not be continuous, which is an important gain of this approach. Following the work of Kirk et al., several authors proved many fixed point results for cyclic mappings, satisfying various (nonlinear) contractive conditions.

Berinde initiated in [2] the concept of almost contractions and obtained several interesting fixed point theorems. This has been a subject of intense study since then, see, e.g., [37]. Some authors used related notions as ‘condition (B)’ (Babu et al. [8]) and ‘almost generalized contractive condition’ for two maps (Ćirić et al. [9]), and for four maps (Aghajani et al. [10]). See also a note by Pacurar [11]. Here, we recall one of the respective definitions.

Definition 2 [9]

Let f and g be two self-mappings on a metric space (X,d). They are said to satisfy almost generalized contractive condition, if there exist a constant δ(0,1) and some L0 such that

d ( f x , g y ) δ max { d ( x , y ) , d ( x , f x ) , d ( y , g y ) , d ( x , g y ) + d ( y , f x ) 2 } + L min { d ( x , f x ) , d ( y , g y ) , d ( x , g y ) , d ( y , f x ) }

for all x,yX.

Khan et al. [12] introduced the concept of an altering distance function as follows.

Definition 3 [12]

A function φ:[0,+)[0,+) is called an altering distance function if the following properties hold:

  1. 1.

    φ is continuous and non-decreasing.

  2. 2.

    φ(t)=0 if and only if t=0.

So far, many authors have studied fixed point theorems, which are based on altering distance functions.

The concept of a b-metric space was introduced by Bakhtin in [13], and later used by Czerwik in [14, 15]. After that, several interesting results about the existence of fixed points for single-valued and multi-valued operators in b-metric spaces have been obtained (see, e.g., [1628]). Recently, Hussain and Shah [29] obtained some results on KKM mappings in cone b-metric spaces.

Consistent with [15] and [28], the following definitions and results will be needed in the sequel.

Definition 4 [15]

Let X be a (nonempty) set, and let s1 be a given real number. A function d:X×X R + is a b-metric if for all x,y,zX, the following conditions hold:

(b1) d(x,y)=0 iff x=y,

(b2) d(x,y)=d(y,x),

(b3) d(x,z)s[d(x,y)+d(y,z)].

In this case, the pair (X,d) is called a b-metric space.

It should be noted that the class of b-metric spaces is effectively larger than the class of metric spaces, since a b-metric is a metric if (and only if) s=1. Here, we present an easy example to show that in general, a b-metric need not necessarily be a metric (see also [[28], p.264]).

Example 1 Let (X,ρ) be a metric space and d(x,y)= ( ρ ( x , y ) ) p , where p>1 is a real number. Then d is a b-metric with s= 2 p 1 . Condition (b3) follows easily from the convexity of the function f(x)= x p (x>0).

The notions of b-convergent and b-Cauchy sequences, as well as of b-complete b-metric spaces are introduced in an obvious way (see, e.g., [18]).

It should be noted that in general, a b-metric function d(x,y) for s>1 need not be jointly continuous in both variables. The following example (corrected from [22]) illustrates this fact.

Example 2 Let X=N{}, and let d:X×XR be defined by

d(m,n)={ 0 , if  m = n , | 1 m 1 n | , if one of  m , n  is even and the other is even or  , 5 , if one of  m , n  is odd and the other is odd  ( and  m n )  or  , 2 , otherwise .

Then considering all possible cases, it can be checked that for all m,n,pX, we have

d(m,p) 5 2 ( d ( m , n ) + d ( n , p ) ) .

Thus, (X,d) is a b-metric space (with s=5/2). Let x n =2n for each nN. Then

d(2n,)= 1 2 n 0as n,

that is, x n , but d( x n ,1)=25=d(,1) as n.

Aghajani et al. [16] proved the following simple lemma about the b-convergent sequences.

Lemma 1 Let (X,d) be a b-metric space with s1, and suppose that { x n } and { y n } b-converge to x, y, respectively. Then we have

1 s 2 d(x,y) lim inf n d( x n , y n ) lim sup n d( x n , y n ) s 2 d(x,y).

In particular, if x=y, then lim n d( x n , y n )=0. Moreover, for each zX, we have

1 s d(x,z) lim inf n d( x n ,z) lim sup n d( x n ,z)sd(x,z).

The existence of fixed points for mappings in partially ordered metric spaces was first investigated in 2004 by Ran and Reurings [30], and then by Nieto and Lopez [31]. Afterwards, this area was a field of intensive study of many authors.

Shatanawi and Postolache proved in [32] the following common fixed point results for cyclic contractions in the framework of ordered metric spaces.

Theorem 2 [32]

Let (X,,d) be a complete ordered metric space, and let A, B be closed nonempty subsets of X with X=AB. Let f,g:XX be two mappings, which are (A,B)-weakly increasing (see further Definition 6). Assume that

  1. (a)

    AB is a cyclic representation of X w.r.t. the pair (f,g), i.e., f(A)B and g(B)A;

  2. (b)

    there exist 0<δ<1 and an altering distance function ψ such that for any two comparable elements x,yX with xA and yB, we have

    ψ ( d ( f x , g y ) ) δψ ( max { d ( x , y ) , d ( x , f x ) , d ( y , g y ) , 1 2 ( d ( x , g y ) + d ( y , f x ) ) } ) ;
  3. (c)

    f or g is continuous, or

(c′) the space (X,,d) is regular.

Then f and g have a common fixed point.

Here, the ordered metric space (X,,d) is called regular if for any non-decreasing sequence { x n } in X such that x n xX, as n, one has x n x for all nN.

By an ordered b-metric space, we mean a triple (X,,d), where (X,) is a partially ordered set, and (X,d) is a b-metric space. Fixed points in such spaces were studied, e.g., by Aghajani et al. [16] and Roshan et al. [27]. In the last mentioned paper, the following common fixed point results for contractions in ordered b-metric spaces were proved.

Theorem 3 [27]

Let (X,,d) be a complete ordered b-metric space, and let f,g:XX be two weakly increasing mappings. Suppose that there exist two altering distance functions ψ, φ and a constant L0 such that the inequality

ψ ( s 4 d ( f x , g y ) ) ψ ( M s ( x , y ) ) φ ( M s ( x , y ) ) +Lψ ( N ( x , y ) )

holds for all comparable x,yX, where

M s (x,y)=max { d ( x , y ) , d ( x , f x ) , d ( y , g y ) , d ( x , g y ) + d ( y , f x ) 2 s }

and

N(x,y)=min { d ( y , g y ) , d ( x , g y ) , d ( y , f x ) } .

If either [f or g is continuous], or the space (X,,d) is regular, then f and g have a common fixed point.

In this paper, we introduce the notion of ordered cyclic weakly (ψ,φ,L,A,B)-contractions and then derive fixed point and common fixed point theorems for these cyclic contractions in the setup of complete ordered b-metric spaces. Our results extend some fixed point theorems from the framework of ordered metric spaces, in particular Theorem 2. On the other hand, they are cyclic variants of Theorem 3 with even weaker contractive conditions.

We show by examples that the obtained extensions are proper. Moreover, an application to integral equations is given here to illustrate the usability of the obtained results.

2 Common fixed point results

In this section, we introduce the notion of ordered cyclic weakly (ψ,φ,L,A,B)-contractive pair of self-mappings and prove our main results.

Definition 5 Let (X,,d) be an ordered b-metric space, let f,g:XX be two mappings, and let A and B be nonempty closed subsets of X. The pair (f,g) is called an ordered cyclic weakly (ψ,φ,L,A,B)-contraction if

  1. (1)

    X=AB is a cyclic representation of X w.r.t. the pair (f,g); that is, fAB and gBA;

  2. (2)

    there exist two altering distance functions ψ, φ and a constant L0, such that for arbitrary comparable elements x,yX with xA and yB, we have

    ψ ( s 2 d ( f x , g y ) ) ψ ( M s ( x , y ) ) φ ( M s ( x , y ) ) +Lψ ( N ( x , y ) ) ,
    (2.1)

where

M s (x,y)=max { d ( x , y ) , d ( x , f x ) , d ( y , g y ) , d ( x , g y ) + d ( y , f x ) 2 s }
(2.2)

and

N(x,y)=min { d ( y , g y ) , d ( x , g y ) , d ( y , f x ) } .
(2.3)

Definition 6 [32]

Let (X,) be a partially ordered set, and let A and B be closed subsets of X with X=AB. Let f,g:XX be two mappings. The pair (f,g) is said to be (A,B)-weakly increasing if fxgfx for all xA and gyfgy for all yB.

Theorem 4 Let (X,,d) be a complete ordered b-metric space, and let A and B be closed subsets of X. Let f,g:XX be two (A,B)-weakly increasing mappings with respect to . Suppose that

  1. (a)

    the pair (f,g) is an ordered cyclic weakly (ψ,φ,L,A,B)-contraction;

  2. (b)

    f or g is continuous.

Then f and g have a common fixed point uAB.

Proof Let us divide the proof into two parts.

First part. We prove that uAB is a fixed point of f if and only if u is a fixed point of g. Suppose that u is a fixed point of f. As uu and uAB, by (2.1), we have

ψ ( s 2 d ( u , g u ) ) = ψ ( s 2 d ( f u , g u ) ) ψ ( max { d ( u , f u ) , d ( u , g u ) , 1 2 s ( d ( u , g u ) + d ( u , f u ) ) } ) φ ( max { d ( u , f u ) , d ( u , g u ) , 1 2 s ( d ( u , g u ) + d ( u , f u ) ) } ) + L min { d ( u , g u ) , d ( u , f u ) } = ψ ( d ( u , g u ) ) φ ( d ( u , g u ) ) ψ ( s 2 d ( u , g u ) ) φ ( d ( u , g u ) ) .

It follows that φ(d(u,gu))=0. Therefore, d(u,gu)=0, and hence gu=u. Similarly, we can show that if u is a fixed point of g, then u is a fixed point of f.

Second part (construction of a sequence by iterative technique).

Let x 0 A, and let x 1 =f x 0 . Since fAB, we have x 1 B. Also, let x 2 =g x 1 . Since gBA, we have x 2 A. Continuing this process, we can construct a sequence { x n } in X such that x 2 n + 1 =f x 2 n , x 2 n + 2 =g x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n A and x 2 n + 1 B. Since f and g are (A,B)-weakly increasing, we have

x 1 = f x 0 g f x 0 = x 2 = g x 1 f g x 1 = x 3 x 2 n + 1 = f x 2 n g f x 2 n = x 2 n + 2 .

If x 2 n = x 2 n + 1 , for some nN, then x 2 n =f x 2 n . Thus, x 2 n is a fixed point of f. By the first part of proof, we conclude that x 2 n is also a fixed point of g. Similarly, if x 2 n + 1 = x 2 n + 2 , for some nN, then x 2 n + 1 =g x 2 n + 1 . Thus, x 2 n + 1 is a fixed point of g. By the first part of proof, we conclude that x 2 n + 1 is also a fixed point of f. Therefore, we assume that x n x n + 1 for all nN. Now, we complete the proof in the following steps.

Step 1. We will prove that

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

As x 2 n and x 2 n + 1 are comparable and x 2 n A and x 2 n + 1 B, by (2.1), we have

ψ ( d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) ) ψ ( s 2 d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) ) = ψ ( s 2 d ( f x 2 n , g x 2 n + 1 ) ) ψ ( M s ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) ) φ ( M s ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) ) + L ψ ( N ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) ) ,

where

M s ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) = max { d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) , d ( x 2 n , f x 2 n ) , d ( x 2 n + 1 , g x 2 n + 1 ) , d ( f x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) + d ( x 2 n , g x 2 n + 1 ) 2 s } = max { d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) , d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) , d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 2 ) 2 s } max { d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) , d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) , s [ d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) + d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) ] 2 s } = max { d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) , d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) } ,

and

N ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) = min { d ( x 2 n + 1 , g x 2 n + 1 ) , d ( x 2 n + 1 , f x 2 n ) , d ( x 2 n , g x 2 n + 1 ) } = min { d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) , d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 1 ) , d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 2 ) } = 0 .

Hence, we have

ψ ( d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) ) ψ ( max { d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) , d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) } ) φ ( max { d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) , d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) } ) .
(2.4)

If

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

then (2.4) becomes

ψ ( d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) ) ψ ( d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) ) φ ( d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) ) < ψ ( d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) ) ,

which gives a contradiction. So,

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

and hence, (2.4) becomes

ψ ( d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n + 2 ) ) ψ ( d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) ) φ ( d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) ) < ψ ( d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) ) .
(2.5)

Similarly, we can show that

ψ ( d ( x 2 n + 1 , x 2 n ) ) <ψ ( d ( x 2 n , x 2 n 1 ) ) .
(2.6)

By (2.5) and (2.6), we get that {d( x n , x n + 1 ):nN} is a non-increasing sequence of positive numbers. Hence, there is r0 such that

lim n d( x n , x n + 1 )=r.

Letting n in (2.5), we get

ψ(r)ψ(r)φ(r),

which implies that φ(r)=0, and hence r=0. So, we have

lim n d( x n , x n + 1 )=0.
(2.7)

Step 2. We will prove that { x n } is a b-Cauchy sequence. Because of (2.7), it is sufficient to show that { x 2 n } is a b-Cauchy sequence. Suppose on the contrary, i.e., that { x 2 n } is not a b-Cauchy sequence. Then there exists ε>0, for which we can find two subsequences { x 2 m i } and { x 2 n i } of { x 2 n } such that n i is the smallest index, for which

n i > m i >i,d( x 2 m i , x 2 n i )ε.
(2.8)

This means that

d( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 2 )<ε.
(2.9)

From (2.8) and using the triangular inequality, we get

εd( x 2 m i , x 2 n i )sd( x 2 m i , x 2 m i + 1 )+sd( x 2 m i + 1 , x 2 n i ).

Using (2.7) and taking the upper limit as i, we get

ε s lim sup i d( x 2 m i + 1 , x 2 n i ).
(2.10)

On the other hand, we have

d( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 )sd( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 2 )+sd( x 2 n i 2 , x 2 n i 1 ).

Using (2.7), (2.9) and taking the upper limit as i, we get

lim sup i d( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 )εs.
(2.11)

Again, using the triangular inequality, we have

d ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i ) s d ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 2 ) + s d ( x 2 n i 2 , x 2 n i ) s d ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 2 ) + s 2 d ( x 2 n i 2 , x 2 n i 1 ) + s 2 d ( x 2 n i 1 , x 2 n i )

and

d( x 2 m i + 1 , x 2 n i 1 )sd( x 2 m i + 1 , x 2 m i )+sd( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 ).

Taking the upper limit as i in the above inequalities, and using (2.7), (2.9) and (2.11), we get

lim sup i d( x 2 m i , x 2 n i )εs
(2.12)

and

lim sup i d( x 2 m i + 1 , x 2 n i 1 )ε s 2 .
(2.13)

Since x 2 m i and x 2 n i 1 are comparable and x 2 m i A and x 2 n i 1 B, using (2.1) we have

ψ ( s 2 d ( x 2 m i + 1 , x 2 n i ) ) = ψ ( s 2 d ( f x 2 m i , g x 2 n i 1 ) ) ψ ( M s ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 ) ) φ ( M s ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 ) ) + L ψ ( N ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 ) ) ,
(2.14)

where

M s ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 ) = max { d ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 ) , d ( x 2 m i , x 2 m i + 1 ) , d ( x 2 n i 1 , x 2 n i ) , d ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i ) + d ( x 2 m i + 1 , x 2 n i 1 ) 2 s }
(2.15)

and

N( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 )=min { d ( x 2 n i 1 , x 2 n i ) , d ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i ) , d ( x 2 n i 1 , x 2 m i + 1 ) } .
(2.16)

Taking the upper limit in (2.15) and using (2.7) and (2.11)-(2.13), we get

lim sup i M s ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 ) = max { lim sup i d ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 ) , 0 , 0 , lim sup i d ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i ) + lim sup i d ( x 2 m i + 1 , x 2 n i 1 ) 2 s } max { ε s , ε s + ε s 2 2 s } = ε s .

Hence, we have

lim sup i M s ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 )εs,
(2.17)

and, from (2.16),

lim sup i N( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 )=0.
(2.18)

Now, taking the upper limit as i in (2.14) and using (2.10), (2.17) and (2.18), we have

ψ ( ε s ) = ψ ( s 2 ε s ) ψ ( s 2 lim sup i d ( x 2 m i + 1 , x 2 n i ) ) ψ ( lim sup i M s ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 ) ) φ ( lim inf i M s ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 ) ) ψ ( ε s ) φ ( lim inf i M s ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 ) ) ,

which implies that φ( lim inf i M s ( x 2 m i , x 2 n i 1 ))=0. By (2.15), it follows that lim inf i d( x 2 m i , x 2 n i )=0, which is in contradiction with (2.8). Hence { x n } is a b-Cauchy sequence in X.

Step 3 (existence of a common fixed point).

As { x n } is a b-Cauchy sequence in X which is a b-complete b-metric space, there exists uX such that x n u as n, and

lim n x 2 n + 1 = lim n f x 2 n =u.

Now, without loss of generality, we may assume that f is continuous. Using the triangular inequality, we get

d(u,fu)sd(u,f x 2 n )+sd(f x 2 n ,fu).

Letting n, we get

d(u,fu)s lim n d(u,f x 2 n )+s lim n d(f x 2 n ,fu)=0.

Hence, we have fu=u. Thus, u is a fixed point of f and, since A and B are closed subsets of X, uAB. By the first part of proof, we conclude that u is also a fixed point of g. □

The assumption of continuity of one of the mappings f or g in Theorem 4 can be replaced by another condition, which is often used in similar situations. Namely, we shall use the notion of a regular ordered b-metric space, which is defined analogously to the case of the standard metric (see the paragraph following Theorem 2).

Theorem 5 Let the hypotheses of Theorem 4 be satisfied, except that condition (b) is replaced by the assumption

(b′) the space (X,,d) is regular.

Then f and g have a common fixed point in X.

Proof Repeating the proof of Theorem 4, we construct an increasing sequence { x n } in X such that x n u for some uX. As A and B are closed subsets of X, we have uAB. Using the assumption (b′) on X, we have x n u for all nN. Now, we show that fu=gu=u. By (2.1), we have

ψ ( s 2 d ( x 2 n + 1 , g u ) ) = ψ ( s 2 d ( f x 2 n , g u ) ) ψ ( M s ( x 2 n , u ) ) φ ( M s ( x 2 n , u ) ) + L ψ ( N ( x 2 n , u ) ) ,
(2.19)

where

M s ( x 2 n , u ) = max { d ( x 2 n , u ) , d ( x 2 n , f x 2 n ) , d ( u , g u ) , d ( x 2 n , g u ) + d ( f x 2 n , u ) 2 s } = max { d ( x 2 n , u ) , d ( x 2 n , x 2 n + 1 ) , d ( u , g u ) , d ( x 2 n , g u ) + d ( x 2 n + 1 , u ) 2 s }
(2.20)

and

N ( x 2 n , u ) = min { d ( u , g u ) , d ( u , f x 2 n ) , d ( x 2 n , g u ) } = min { d ( u , g u ) , d ( u , x 2 n + 1 ) , d ( x 2 n , g u ) } .
(2.21)

Letting n in (2.20) and (2.21) and using Lemma 1, we get

lim sup i M s ( x 2 n ,u)max { d ( u , g u ) , s d ( u , g u ) 2 s } =d(u,gu),
(2.22)

and N( x 2 n ,u)0. Now, taking the upper limit as n in (2.19) and using Lemma 1 and (2.22), we get

ψ ( s d ( u , g u ) ) = ψ ( s 2 1 s d ( u , g u ) ) ψ ( s 2 lim sup n d ( x 2 n + 1 , g u ) ) ψ ( lim sup n M s ( x 2 n , u ) ) φ ( lim inf n M s ( x 2 n , u ) ) ψ ( s d ( u , g u ) ) φ ( lim inf n M s ( x 2 n , u ) ) .

It follows that φ( lim inf n M s ( x 2 n ,u))=0, and hence, by (2.20), that d(u,gu)=0. Thus, u is a fixed point of g. On the other hand, similar to the first part of the proof of Theorem 4, we can show that fu=u. Hence, u is a common fixed point of f and g. □

3 Consequences and examples

As consequences, we have the following results.

By putting A=B=X in Theorems 4 and 5, we obtain improvements of the main results (Theorems 5 and 6) of Roshan et al. [27], i.e., of Theorem 3 of the present paper (note that we have s 2 instead of s 4 in the contractive condition).

Taking φ=(1δ)ψ, 0<δ<1 in Theorems 4 and 5, we get the following.

Corollary 1 Let (X,,d) be a complete ordered b-metric space, and let A and B be closed subsets of X. Let f,g:XX be two (A,B)-weakly increasing mappings with respect to . Suppose that

  1. (a)

    X=AB is a cyclic representation of X w.r.t. the pair (f,g);

  2. (b)

    there exist 0<δ<1, L0 and an altering distance function ψ such that for any comparable elements x,yX with xA and yB, we have

    ψ ( s 2 d ( f x , g y ) ) δψ ( M s ( x , y ) ) +Lψ ( N ( x , y ) ) ,
    (3.1)

where M s (x,y) and N(x,y) are given by (2.2) and (2.3), respectively;

  1. (c)

    f or g is continuous, or

(c′) the space (X,,d) is regular.

Then f and g have a common fixed point uAB.

Taking s=1 and L=0 in Corollary 1, we obtain Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 of Shatanawi and Postolache [32] (Theorem 2 in this paper).

Taking ψ(t)=t for t[0,+) in Corollary 1, we get the following.

Corollary 2 Let (X,,d) be a complete ordered b-metric space. Let A and B be nonempty closed subsets of X, and let f,g:XX be two (A,B)-weakly increasing mappings with respect to such that f(A)B and g(B)A. Suppose that there exist δ(0,1) and L0 such that

d ( f x , g y ) δ s 2 max { d ( x , y ) , d ( x , f x ) , d ( y , g y ) , d ( x , g y ) + d ( f x , y ) 2 s } + L s 2 min { d ( y , g y ) , d ( x , g y ) , d ( y , f x ) }

for all comparable elements x,yX with xA and yB. If either f or g is continuous, or the space (X,,d) is regular, then f and g have a common fixed point.

Putting f=g in Theorems 4 and 5, the following corollary is obtained which extends and improves Theorems 3 and 4 in [27].

Corollary 3 Let (X,,d) be a complete ordered b-metric space, and let A and B be closed subsets of X. Let f:XX be a mapping such that f is non-decreasing with respect to . Assume the following:

  1. (a)

    AB is a cyclic representation of X w.r.t. f, that is, fAB, fBA;

  2. (b)

    there exist two altering distance functions ψ, φ, and L0 such that

    ψ ( s 2 d ( f x , f y ) ) ψ ( M s ( x , y ) ) φ ( M s ( x , y ) ) +Lψ ( N ( x , y ) )
    (3.2)

for all comparable x,yX with xA and yB, where

M s (x,y)=max { d ( x , y ) , d ( x , f x ) , d ( y , f y ) , d ( x , f y ) + d ( y , f x ) 2 s }

and

N(x,y)=min { d ( x , f x ) , d ( x , f y ) , d ( y , f x ) } .
  1. (c)

    f is continuous, or

(c′) the space (X,,d) is regular.

If there exists x 0 X such that x 0 f x 0 , then f has a fixed point.

Again, taking φ=(1δ)ψ, 0<δ<1 in Corollary 3, we get the following.

Corollary 4 Let (X,,d) be a complete ordered b-metric space, let and A and B be closed subsets of X. Let f:XX be a non-decreasing map with respect to . Suppose that

  1. (a)

    X=AB is a cyclic representation of X w.r.t. f;

  2. (b)

    there exist 0<δ<1, L0 and an altering distance function ψ such that for any comparable elements x,yX with xA and yB, we have

    ψ ( s 2 d ( f x , f y ) ) δψ ( M s ( x , y ) ) +Lψ ( N ( x , y ) ) ,
    (3.3)

where M s (x,y) and N(x,y) are given in Corollary 3;

  1. (c)

    f is continuous, or

(c′) the space (X,,d) is regular.

Then f has a fixed point uAB.

Remark 1 (Common) fixed points of the given mappings in Theorems 4 and 5 and Corollaries 3 and 4 need not be unique (see further Example 4). However, it is easy to show that they must be unique in the case that the respective sets of (common) fixed points are well ordered (recall that a subset W of a partially ordered set is said to be well ordered if every two elements of W are comparable).

We illustrate our results with the following two examples.

Example 3 Consider the b-metric space (X,d) given in Example 2, ordered by natural ordering and a mapping f:XX given as

fn={ 8 n , if  n N , , if  n = .

If A={n:nN}{} and B={8n:nN}{}, then AB is a cyclic representation of X with respect to f. Take ψ:[0,+)[0,+) given as ψ(t)= t , δ=5/4 2 (<1) and L0 arbitrary. In order to check the contractive condition (3.3), consider the following cases.

If x,yN, then

ψ ( s 2 d ( f x , f y ) ) = ψ ( ( 5 2 ) 2 d ( 8 x , 8 y ) ) = 5 2 2 2 8 | 1 x 1 y | 5 4 2 ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) δ ψ ( M s ( x , y ) ) + L ψ ( N ( x , y ) )

and (3.3) holds. If x= and y is an even integer, then

ψ ( s 2 d ( f x , f y ) ) = ψ ( ( 5 2 ) 2 d ( , 8 y ) ) = 5 2 2 2 8 1 y 5 4 2 ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) δ ψ ( M s ( x , y ) ) + L ψ ( N ( x , y ) ) .

Finally, if x= and y is an odd integer, then d(x,y)=5 and (3.3) trivially holds.

Hence, all the conditions of Corollary 4 are satisfied. Obviously, f has a (unique) fixed point ∞, belonging to AB.

We now present an example showing that there are situations where our results can be used to conclude about the existence of (common) fixed points, while some other known results cannot be applied.

Example 4 Let X={0,1,2,3,4} be equipped with the following partial order:

:= { ( 0 , 0 ) , ( 1 , 1 ) , ( 1 , 2 ) , ( 2 , 2 ) , ( 3 , 2 ) , ( 3 , 3 ) , ( 4 , 2 ) , ( 4 , 4 ) } .

Define a b-metric d:X×X R + by

d(x,y)={ 0 , if  x = y , ( x + y ) 2 , if  x y .

It is easy to see that (X,d) is a b-complete b-metric space with s=49/25. Set A={0,1,2,3,4} and B={0,2}, and define self-maps f and g by

f=( 0 1 2 3 4 0 2 2 2 2 ),g=( 0 1 2 3 4 0 2 2 4 3 ).

It is easy to see that f and g are (A,B)-weakly increasing mappings with respect to , and that f and g are continuous. Also, AB=X, f(A)B and g(B)A.

Define ψ:[0,)[0,) by ψ(t)= t . One can easily check that the pair (f,g) satisfies the requirements of Corollary 1, with any δ and L0, as the left-hand side of the contractive condition (3.1) is equal to 0 for all comparable x, y such that xA and yB. Hence, f and g have a common fixed point. Indeed, 0 and 2 are two common fixed points of f and g. (Note that the ordered set ({0,2},) is not well ordered).

However, take x=1A and y=0B (which are not comparable). Then

ψ ( s 2 d ( f 1 , g 0 ) ) = s 2 ( 2 + 0 ) 2 = 2 s > 3 > 3 δ + L 0 = δ ψ ( M s ( 1 , 0 ) ) + L ψ ( N ( 1 , 0 ) ) ,

where 0<δ<1 and L0 are arbitrary, since

M s (1,0)=max { d ( 1 , 0 ) , d ( 1 , 2 ) , d ( 0 , 0 ) , d ( 1 , 0 ) + d ( 0 , 2 ) 2 s } = 3 2

and

N(1,0)=min { d ( 0 , 0 ) , d ( 1 , 0 ) , d ( 0 , 2 ) } =0.

Hence, this result cannot be applied in the context of b-metric spaces without order.

4 Application to existence of solutions of integral equations

Integral equations like (4.1) have been studied in many papers (see, e.g., [22, 33] and the references therein). In this section, we look for a nonnegative solution to (4.1) in X=C([0,T],R).

Consider the integral equation

u(t)= 0 T G(t,s)f ( s , u ( s ) ) dsfor all t[0,T],
(4.1)

where T>0, f:[0,T]×RR and G:[0,T]×[0,T][0,) are continuous functions.

Let X=C([0,T]) be the set of real continuous functions on [0,T]. We endow X with the b-metric

D(u,v)= max t [ 0 , T ] ( u ( t ) v ( t ) ) 2 for all u,vX.

Clearly, (X,D) is a complete b-metric space (with the parameter s =2). We endow X with the partial order given by

xyx(t)y(t)for all t[0,T].

Clearly, the space (X,,D) is regular.

Let α,βX and α 0 , β 0 R such that

α 0 α(t)β(t) β 0 for all t[0,T].
(4.2)

Assume that for all t[0,T], we have

α(t) 0 T G(t,s)f ( s , β ( s ) ) ds
(4.3)

and

β(t) 0 T G(t,s)f ( s , α ( s ) ) ds.
(4.4)

Let for all s[0,T], f(s,) be a decreasing function, that is,

x,yR,xyf(s,x)f(s,y).
(4.5)

Assume that γ>0 is such that

4γ ( max t [ 0 , T ] 0 T G ( t , s ) d s ) 2 <1.
(4.6)

Define a mapping T:XX by

Tu(t)= 0 T G(t,s)f ( s , u ( s ) ) dsfor all t[0,T].

Suppose that for all s[0,T] and for all comparable x,yX with (x(s) β 0 and y(s) α 0 ) or (x(s) α 0 and y(s) β 0 ),

0 f ( s , x ( s ) ) f ( s , y ( s ) ) ( γ max { | x ( s ) y ( s ) | 2 , | x ( s ) T x ( s ) | 2 , | y ( s ) T y ( s ) | 2 , | x ( s ) T y ( s ) | 2 + | y ( s ) T x ( s ) | 2 4 } ) 1 2 .
(4.7)

Theorem 6 Under the assumptions (4.2)-(4.7), the integral equation (4.1) has a solution in the set {uC([0,T]):αuβ}.

Proof Define closed subsets of X, A 1 and A 2 by

A 1 ={uX:uβ}and A 2 ={uX:uα}.

Consider the mapping T:XX defined above. We will prove that

T( A 1 ) A 2 andT( A 2 ) A 1 .
(4.8)

Suppose that u A 1 , that is,

u(s)β(s)for all s[0,T].

Applying, condition (4.5), since G(t,s)0 for all t,s[0,T], we obtain that

G(t,s)f ( s , u ( s ) ) G(t,s)f ( s , β ( s ) ) for all t,s[0,T].

The above inequality with condition (4.3) implies that

0 T G(t,s)f ( s , u ( s ) ) ds 0 T G(t,s)f ( s , β ( s ) ) dsα(t)

for all t[0,T]. Thus, we have Tu A 2 .

Similarly, let u A 2 , that is,

u(s)α(s)for all s[0,T].

Using condition (4.5), since G(t,s)0 for all t,s[0,T], we obtain that

G(t,s)f ( s , u ( s ) ) G(t,s)f ( s , α ( s ) ) for all t,s[0,T].

The above inequality with condition (4.4) implies that

0 T G(t,s)f ( s , u ( s ) ) ds 0 T G(t,s)f ( s , α ( s ) ) dsβ(t)

for all t[0,T]. Hence, we have Tu A 1 . Thus, (4.8) holds.

Now, let (u,v) A 1 × A 2 , that is, for all t[0,T],

u(t)β(t),v(t)α(t).

This implies from condition (4.2) that for all t[0,T],

u(t) β 0 ,v(t) α 0 .

Also, if xy, then by (4.7), we have

Ty(t)Tx(t)= 0 T G(t,s) [ f ( s , y ( s ) ) f ( s , x ( s ) ) ] ds0

for all t[0,T]. That is, TxTy. Hence, T is increasing.

Now, by the conditions (4.6) and (4.7), we have for all t[0,T] and for all

comparable x A 1 and y A 2 ,

( T x ( t ) T y ( t ) ) 2 = ( 0 T G ( t , s ) [ f ( s , x ( s ) ) f ( s , y ( s ) ) ] d s ) 2 ( 0 T G ( t , s ) [ f ( s , x ( s ) ) f ( s , y ( s ) ) ] d s ) 2 ( 0 T G ( t , s ) ( γ max { | x ( s ) y ( s ) | 2 , | x ( s ) T x ( s ) | 2 , | y ( s ) T y ( s ) | 2 , | x ( s ) T y ( s ) | 2 + | y ( s ) T x ( s ) | 2 4 } ) 1 2 d s ) 2 ( 0 T G ( t , s ) ( γ max { max s [ 0 , T ] | x ( s ) y ( s ) | 2 , max s [ 0 , T ] | x ( s ) T x ( s ) | 2 , max s [ 0 , T ] | y ( s ) T y ( s ) | 2 , max s [ 0 , T ] | x ( s ) T y ( s ) | 2 + max s [ 0 , T ] | y ( s ) T x ( s ) | 2 4 } ) 1 2 d s ) 2 = γ ( 0 T G ( t , s ) d s ) 2 max { D ( x , y ) , D ( x , T x ) , D ( y , T y ) , D ( x , T y ) + D ( y , T x ) 2 s } ,

which implies that

D(Tx,Ty) δ 2 s max { D ( x , y ) , D ( x , T x ) , D ( y , T y ) , D ( x , T y ) + D ( y , T x ) 2 s }

with δ=4γ ( max t [ 0 , T ] 0 T G ( t , s ) d s ) 2 <1.

Now, all the conditions of Corollary 2 (with T=g=f and L=0) hold, and T has a fixed point z in

A 1 A 2 = { u C ( [ 0 , T ] ) : α ( t ) u ( t ) β ( t ) ,  for all  t [ 0 , T ] } .

That is, z A 1 A 2 is the solution to (4.1). □

References

  1. 1.

    Kirk WA, Srinivasan PS, Veeramani P: Fixed points for mappings satisfying cyclical contractive conditions. Fixed Point Theory 2003, 4(1):79–89.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Berinde V: Approximating fixed points of weak contractions using the Picard iteration. Nonlinear Anal. Forum 2004, 9: 43–53.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Berinde V: Some remarks on a fixed point theorem for Ćirić-type almost contractions. Carpath. J. Math. 2009, 25: 157–162.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Berinde V: Common fixed points of noncommuting almost contractions in cone metric spaces. Math. Commun. 2010, 15: 229–241.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Berinde V: Approximating common fixed points of noncommuting almost contractions in metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory 2010, 11: 179–188.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Pacurar M: Fixed point theory for cyclic Berinde operators. Fixed Point Theory 2012, 11: 419–428.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Suzuki T: Fixed point theorems for Berinde mappings. Bull. Kyushu Inst. Technol., Pure Appl. Math. 2011, 58: 13–19.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Babu GVR, Sandhya ML, Kameswari MVR: A note on a fixed point theorem of Berinde on weak contractions. Carpath. J. Math. 2008, 24: 8–12.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    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  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Aghajani A, Radenović S, Roshan JR:Common fixed point results for four mappings satisfying almost generalized (S,T)-contractive condition in partially ordered metric spaces. Appl. Math. Comput. 2012, 218: 5665–5670. 10.1016/j.amc.2011.11.061

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Pacurar M: Remark regarding two classes of almost contractions with unique fixed point. Creative Math. 2010, 19: 178–183.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    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  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bakhtin IA: The contraction principle in quasimetric spaces. 30. In Functional Analysis. Ul’yanovsk. Gos. Ped. Inst., Ul’yanovsk; 1989:26–37. (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Czerwik S: Contraction mappings in b -metric spaces. Acta Math. Inform. Univ. Ostrav. 1993, 1: 5–11.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Czerwik S: Nonlinear set-valued contraction mappings in b -metric spaces. Atti Semin. Mat. Fis. Univ. Modena 1998, 46(2):263–276.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Aghajani, A, Abbas, M, Roshan, JR: Common fixed point of generalized weak contractive mappings in partially ordered b-metric spaces. Math. Slovaca (2012, in press)

  17. 17.

    Aydi H, Bota M-F, Karapinar E, Moradi S: A common fixed point for weak ϕ -contractions on b -metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory 2012, 13(2):337–346.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Boriceanu M: Fixed point theory for multivalued contraction on a set with two b -metrics. Creative Math. 2008, 17: 326–332.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Boriceanu M: Strict fixed point theorems for multivalued operators in b -metric spaces. Int. J. Mod. Math. 2009, 4(3):285–301.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Bota M: Multivalued fractals in b -metric spaces. Cent. Eur. J. Math. 2010, 8: 367–377. 10.2478/s11533-010-0009-4

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Bota M, Molnar A, Varga C: On Ekeland’s variational principle in b -metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory 2011, 12: 21–28.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Hussain N, Ðorić D, Kadelburg Z, Radenović S: Suzuki-type fixed point results in metric type spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 126 10.1186/1687-1812-2012-126

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Khamsi MA: Remarks on cone metric spaces and fixed point theorems of contractive mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 315398 10.1155/2010/315398

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Khamsi MA, Hussain N: KKM mappings in metric type spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 73(9):3123–3129. 10.1016/j.na.2010.06.084

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Pacurar M: Sequences of almost contractions and fixed points in b -metric spaces. An. Univ. Vest. Timiş., Ser. Mat.-Inform. 2010, 3: 125–137.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Roshan, JR, Shobkolaei, N, Sedghi, S, Abbas, M: Common fixed point of four maps in b-metric spaces. Hacet. J. Math. Stat. (2013, in press)

  27. 27.

    Roshan JR, Parvaneh V, Sedghi S, Shobkolaei N, Shatanawi W: Common fixed points of almost generalized ( ψ , φ ) s -contractive mappings in ordered b -metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 159 10.1186/1687-1812-2013-159

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Singh SL, Prasad B: Some coincidence theorems and stability of iterative procedures. Comput. Math. Appl. 2008, 55: 2512–2520. 10.1016/j.camwa.2007.10.026

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Hussain N, Shah MH: KKM mappings in cone b -metric spaces. Comput. Math. Appl. 2011, 62: 1677–1684. 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.06.004

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Ran ACM, Reurings MCB: A fixed point theorem in partially ordered sets and some application to matrix equations. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2004, 132: 1435–1443. 10.1090/S0002-9939-03-07220-4

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Nieto JJ, Lopez RR: Contractive mapping theorems in partially ordered sets and applications to ordinary differential equations. Order 2005, 22: 223–239. 10.1007/s11083-005-9018-5

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Shatanawi W, Postolache M: Common fixed point results of mappings for nonlinear contraction of cyclic form in ordered metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 60 10.1186/1687-1812-2013-60

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    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 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are highly indebted to the referees of this paper who helped us to improve it in several places. This article was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah. Therefore, the first author acknowledges with thanks DSR, KAU for financial support. The fourth author is thankful to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Serbia.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nawab Hussain.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed equally and significantly in writing this paper. 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

Hussain, N., Parvaneh, V., Roshan, J.R. et al. Fixed points of cyclic weakly (ψ,φ,L,A,B)-contractive mappings in ordered b-metric spaces with applications. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2013, 256 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2013-256

Download citation

Keywords

  • common fixed point
  • cyclic contraction
  • almost contraction
  • ordered b-metric space
  • altering distance function