Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access

Fixed point results for G m -Meir-Keeler contractive and G - ( α , ψ ) -Meir-Keeler contractive mappings

  • Nawab Hussain1Email author,
  • Erdal Karapınar2,
  • Peyman Salimi3 and
  • Pasquale Vetro4
Fixed Point Theory and Applications20132013:34

https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2013-34

Received: 15 November 2012

Accepted: 6 February 2013

Published: 21 February 2013

Abstract

In this paper, first we introduce the notion of a G m -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping and establish some fixed point theorems for the G m -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping in the setting of G-metric spaces. Further, we introduce the notion of a G c m -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping in the setting of G-cone metric spaces and obtain a fixed point result. Later, we introduce the notion of a G - ( α , ψ ) -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping and prove some fixed point theorems for this class of mappings in the setting of G-metric spaces.

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

Keywords

G m -Meir-Keeler contractive mappingG-metric space G c m -Meir-Keeler contractive mappingG-cone metric space G - ( α , ψ ) -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping

1 Introduction

In nonlinear functional analysis, the study of fixed points of given mappings satisfying certain contractive conditions in various abstract spaces has been at the center of vigorous research activity in the last decades. The Banach contraction mapping principle is one of the initial and crucial results in this direction: In a complete metric space each contraction has a unique fixed point. Following this celebrated result, many authors have devoted their attention to generalizing, extending and improving this theory. For this purpose, the authors consider to extend some well-known results to different abstract spaces such as symmetric spaces, quasi-metric spaces, fuzzy metric, partial metric spaces, probabilistic metric spaces and a G-metric space (see, e.g., [19]). Several authors have reported interesting (common) fixed point results for various classes of functions in the setting of such abstract spaces (see, e.g., [6, 7, 1032]).

In this paper, we consider especially a G-metric space and cone metric spaces which are introduced by Mustafa-Sims [9] and Huang-Zhang [3], respectively. Roughly speaking, a G-metric assigns a real number to every triplet of an arbitrary set. On the other hand, a cone metric space is obtained by replacing the set of real numbers by an ordered Banach space. Very recently, a number of papers on these concepts have appeared [9, 3348].

One of the remarkable notions in fixed point theory is Meir-Keeler contractions [49] which have been studied by many authors (see, e.g., [5056]). In this paper, first we introduce the notion of a G m -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping and establish some fixed point theorems for the G m -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping in the setting of G-metric spaces. In Section 4, we introduce the notion of a G c m -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping in the setting of cone G-metric spaces and establish a fixed point result. Later, we introduce the notion of a G - ( α , ψ ) -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping and prove some fixed point theorems for this class of mappings in the setting of G-metric spaces.

2 Preliminaries

We present now the necessary definitions and results in G-metric spaces which will be useful; for more details, we refer to [9, 57]. In the sequel, , R + and denote the set of real numbers, the set of nonnegative real numbers and the set of positive integers, respectively.

Definition 1 Let X be a nonempty set. A function G : X × X × X R + is called a G-metric if the following conditions are satisfied:
  1. (G1)

    if x = y = z , then G ( x , y , z ) = 0 ;

     
  2. (G2)

    0 < G ( x , y , y ) for any x , y X with x y ;

     
  3. (G3)

    G ( x , x , y ) G ( x , y , z ) for any points x , y , z X , with y z ;

     
  4. (G4)

    G ( x , y , z ) = G ( x , z , y ) = G ( y , z , x ) =  , symmetry in all three variables;

     
  5. (G5)

    G ( x , y , z ) G ( x , a , a ) + G ( a , y , z ) for any x , y , z , a X .

     

Then the pair ( X , G ) is called a G-metric space.

Definition 2 Let ( X , G ) be a G-metric space, and let { x n } be a sequence of points of X. A point x X is said to be the limit of the sequence { x n } if lim n , m + G ( x , x m , x n ) = 0 , and we say that the sequence { x n } is G-convergent to x and denote it by x n x .

We have the following useful results.

Proposition 3 (see [44])

Let ( X , G ) be a G-metric space. Then the following are equivalent:
  1. (1)

    { x n } is G-convergent to x;

     
  2. (2)

    lim n + G ( x n , x n , x ) = 0 ;

     
  3. (3)

    lim n + G ( x n , x , x ) = 0 .

     

Definition 4 ([44])

Let ( X , G ) be a G-metric space, the sequence { x n } is called G-Cauchy if for every ε > 0 , there is k N such that G ( x n , x m , x l ) < ε for all n , m , l k , that is, G ( x n , x m , x l ) 0 as n , m , l + .

Proposition 5 ([44])

Let ( X , G ) be a G-metric space. Then the following are equivalent:
  1. (1)

    the sequence { x n } is G-Cauchy;

     
  2. (2)

    for every ε > 0 , there is k N such that G ( x n , x m , x m ) < ε for all n , m k .

     

Definition 6 ([44])

A G-metric space ( X , G ) is called G-complete if every G-Cauchy sequence in ( X , G ) is G-convergent in ( X , G ) .

Proposition 7 (see [44])

Let ( X , G ) be a G-metric space. Then, for any x , y , z , a X , it follows that
  1. (i)

    if G ( x , y , z ) = 0 , then x = y = z ;

     
  2. (ii)

    G ( x , y , z ) G ( x , x , y ) + G ( x , x , z ) ;

     
  3. (iii)

    G ( x , y , y ) 2 G ( y , x , x ) ;

     
  4. (iv)

    G ( x , y , z ) G ( x , a , z ) + G ( a , y , z ) ;

     
  5. (v)

    G ( x , y , z ) 2 3 [ G ( x , y , a ) + G ( x , a , z ) + G ( a , y , z ) ] ;

     
  6. (vi)

    G ( x , y , z ) G ( x , a , a ) + G ( y , a , a ) + G ( z , a , a ) .

     

Proposition 8 (see [44])

Let ( X , G ) be a G-metric space. Then the function G ( x , y , z ) is jointly continuous in all three of its variables.

Now, we introduce the following notion of a G m -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping.

Definition 9 Let ( X , G ) be a G-metric space. Suppose that f : X X is a self-mapping satisfying the following condition:

For each ε > 0 , there exists δ > 0 such that for all x , y X and for all m N , we have
ε G ( x , f ( m ) x , y ) < ε + δ implies G ( f x , f ( m + 1 ) x , f y ) < ε .
(2.1)

Then f is called a G m -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping.

Remark 10 If f : X X is a G m -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping on a G-metric space X, then
G ( f x , f ( m + 1 ) x , f y ) < G ( x , f ( m ) x , y )
(2.2)
holds for all x , y X and for all m N when G ( x , f ( m ) x , y ) > 0 . On the other hand, if G ( x , f ( m ) x , y ) = 0 , by Proposition 7, x = f ( m ) x = y , and so G ( f x , f ( m + 1 ) x , f y ) = 0 . Hence, for all x , y X and for all m N , we have
G ( f x , f ( m + 1 ) x , f y ) G ( x , f ( m ) x , y ) .
(2.3)

3 Fixed point result for G m -Meir-Keeler contractive mappings

Now, we are ready to state and prove our main result.

Theorem 11 Let ( X , G ) be a G-complete G-metric space and let f be a G m -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping on X. Then f has a unique fixed point.

Proof Define the sequence { x n } in X as follows:
x n = f x n 1 for all  n N .
(3.1)
Suppose that there exists n 0 such that x n 0 = x n 0 + 1 . Since x n 0 = x n 0 + 1 = f x n 0 , then x n 0 is the fixed point of f. Hence, we assume that x n x n + 1 for all n N { 0 } , and so
G ( x n , x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) > 0 for all  n N { 0 } .
(3.2)
By Remark 10 with m = 1 , we get
G ( x n + 1 , x n + 2 , x n + 2 ) = G ( f x n , f 2 x n , f x n + 1 ) < G ( x n , f x n , x n + 1 ) = G ( x n , x n + 1 , x n + 1 )
for all n N { 0 } . Define s n = G ( x n , x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) . Then { s n } is a strictly decreasing sequence in R + and so it is convergent, say, to s R + . Now, we show that s must be equal to 0. Suppose, to the contrary, that s > 0 . Clearly, we have
0 < s < G ( x n , x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) for all  n N { 0 } .
(3.3)
Assume ε = s > 0 . Then by hypothesis, there exists a convenient δ ( ε ) > 0 such that (2.1) holds. On the other hand, by the definition of ε, there exists n 0 N such that
ε < s n 0 = G ( x n 0 , x n 0 + 1 , x n 0 + 1 ) < ε + δ .
(3.4)
Now, by condition (2.1) with m = 1 and (3.4), we get
s n 0 + 1 = G ( x n 0 + 1 , x n 0 + 2 , x n 0 + 2 ) = G ( f x 0 , f 2 x 0 , f x n 0 + 1 ) < ε = s ,
(3.5)

which contradicts (3.3). Hence s = 0 , that is, lim n + s n = 0 .

We will show that { x n } is a G-Cauchy sequence. For all ε > 0 , by the hypothesis, there exists a suitable δ ( ε ) > 0 such that (2.1) holds. Without loss of generality, we assume δ < ε . Since s = 0 , there exists N N such that
s n 1 = G ( x n 1 , x n , x n ) < δ for all  n N .
(3.6)
We assert that for any fixed k N , the condition
G ( x k , x k + l , x k + l ) ε for all  l N
(3.7)
holds. To prove it, we use the method of induction. By Remark 10 and (3.6), assertion (3.7) is satisfied for l = 1 . Suppose that (3.7) is satisfied for l = 1 , 2 , , m for some m N . Now, for l = m + 1 , using (3.6), we obtain
G ( x k 1 , f ( m + 1 ) x k 1 , x k + m ) = G ( x k 1 , x k + m , x k + m ) G ( x k 1 , x k , x k ) + G ( x k , x k + m , x k + m ) < ε + δ .
(3.8)
If G ( x k 1 , x k + m , x k + m ) ε , then by (2.1) we get
G ( x k , x k + m + 1 , x k + m + 1 ) = G ( f x k 1 , f ( m + 2 ) x k 1 , f x k + m ) < ε

and hence (3.7) is satisfied.

If G ( x k 1 , x k + m , x k + m ) = 0 , then x k 1 = x k + m and hence x k = f x k 1 = f x k + m = x k + m + 1 . This implies
G ( x k , x k + m + 1 , x k + m + 1 ) = G ( x k , x k , x k ) = 0 < ε

and (3.7) is satisfied.

If 0 < G ( x k 1 , x k + m , x k + m ) < ε , by Remark 10, we obtain
G ( x k , x k + m + 1 , x k + m + 1 ) = G ( f x k 1 , f ( m + 2 ) x k 1 , f x k + m ) < G ( x k 1 , x k + m , x k + m ) < ε .
Consequently, (3.7) is satisfied for l = m + 1 and hence
G ( x n , x m , x m ) < ε for all  m n N .
(3.9)
Now, if n > m N , by (3.9) and Proposition 7, we have
G ( x n , x m , x m ) 2 G ( x m , x n , x n ) < 2 ε .
Hence, for all m , n N , the following holds:
G ( x n , x m , x m ) < 2 ε .
Thus { x n } is a G-Cauchy sequence. Since ( X , G ) is G-complete, there exists z X such that { x n } is G-convergent to z. Now, by Remark 10 with m = 1 , we have
G ( x n + 1 , x n + 2 , f z ) = G ( f x n , f ( 2 ) x n , f z ) G ( x n , f x n , z ) = G ( x n , x n + 1 , z ) .
(3.10)
By taking the limit as n + in the above inequality and using the continuity of the function G, we get
G ( z , z , f z ) = lim n + G ( x n + 1 , x n + 2 , f z ) = 0
and hence, z = f z , that is, z is a fixed point of f. To prove the uniqueness, we assume that w X is another fixed point of f such that z w . Then G ( z , f ( m ) z , w ) = G ( z , z , w ) > 0 . Now, by Remark 10, we get
G ( z , z , w ) = G ( f z , f ( m + 1 ) z , f w ) < G ( z , f ( m ) z , w ) = G ( z , z , w ) ,

which is a contradiction and hence z = w . □

Example 12 Let X = [ 0 , ) and
G ( x , y , z ) = { 0 , if  x = y = z , max { x , y } + max { y , z } + max { x , z } , otherwise
be a G-metric on X. Define f : X X by f x = 1 2 x . Then f m x = 1 2 m x . Assume that x y . Then
G ( x , f m x , y ) = max { x , f m x } + max { f m x , y } + max { x , y } = x + 2 y
and
G ( f x , f m + 1 x , f y ) = max { f x , f m + 1 x } + max { f m + 1 x , f y } + max { f x , f y } = f x + 2 f y = 1 2 ( x + 2 y ) .

Let, ϵ > 0 . Then, for any δ = ϵ , condition (2.1) holds. Similarly, condition (2.1) holds when y x . That is, f is a G m -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping. The condition of Theorem 11 holds, and so f has a unique fixed point.

4 Fixed point for G - ( α , ψ ) -Meir-Keeler contractive mappings

In this section we introduce a notion of a G - ( α , ψ ) -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping and establish some results of a fixed point for such class of mappings.

Denote with Ψ the family of nondecreasing functions ψ : [ 0 , + ) [ 0 , + ) continuous in t = 0 such that

  • ψ ( t ) = 0 if and only if t = 0 ;

  • ψ ( t + s ) ψ ( t ) + ψ ( s ) .

Samet, Vetro and Vetro [19] introduced the following concept.

Definition 13 Let f : X X and α : X × X R + . We say that f is an α-admissible mapping if
α ( x , y ) 1 implies α ( f x , f y ) 1 , x , y X .

Now, we apply this concept in the following definition.

Definition 14 Let ( X , G ) be a G-metric space and ψ Ψ . Suppose that f : X X is an α-admissible mapping satisfying the following condition:

For each ε > 0 , there exists δ > 0 such that
ε ψ ( G ( x , y , z ) ) < ε + δ implies α ( x , x ) α ( y , y ) α ( z , z ) ψ ( G ( f x , f y , f z ) ) < ε
(4.1)

for all x , y , z X . Then f is called a G - ( α , ψ ) -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping.

Remark 15 Let f be a G - ( α , ψ ) -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping. Then
α ( x , x ) α ( y , y ) α ( z , z ) ψ ( G ( f x , f y , f z ) ) < ψ ( G ( x , y , z ) )
for all x , y X when G ( x , y , z ) > 0 . Also, if G ( x , y , z ) = 0 , then x = y = z , which implies G ( f x , f y , f z ) = 0 , i.e.,
α ( x , x ) α ( y , y ) α ( z , z ) ψ ( G ( f x , f y , f z ) ) ψ ( G ( x , y , z ) )

for all x , y , z X .

Theorem 16 Let ( X , G ) be a G-complete G-metric space. Suppose that f is a continuous G - ( α , ψ ) -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping and that there exists x 0 X such that α ( x 0 , x 0 ) 1 . Then f has a fixed point.

Proof Let x 0 X and define the sequence { x n } by x n = f n x 0 for all n N . Since f is an α-admissible mapping and α ( x 0 , x 0 ) 1 , we deduce that α ( x 1 , x 1 ) = α ( f x 0 , f x 0 ) 1 . By continuing this process, we get α ( x n , x n ) 1 for all n N { 0 } . If x n 0 = x n 0 + 1 for some n 0 N { 0 } , then obviously f has a fixed point. Hence, we suppose that
x n x n + 1
(4.2)
for all n N { 0 } . By (G2), we have
G ( x n , x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) > 0
(4.3)
for all n N { 0 } . Now, define s n = ψ ( G ( x n , x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) ) . By Remark 15, we deduce that for all n N { 0 } ,
which implies
ψ ( G ( x n + 1 , x n + 2 , x n + 2 ) ) < ψ ( G ( x n , x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) ) .
Hence, the sequence { s n } is decreasing in R + and so it is convergent to s R + . We will show that s = 0 . Suppose, to the contrary, that s > 0 . Hence, we have
0 < s < ψ ( G ( x n , x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) ) for all  n N { 0 } .
(4.4)
Let ε = s > 0 . Then by hypothesis, there exists a δ ( ε ) > 0 such that (4.10) holds. On the other hand, by the definition of ε, there exists n 0 N such that
ε < s n 0 = ψ ( G ( x n 0 , x n 0 + 1 , x n 0 + 1 ) ) < ε + δ .
Now, by (4.10) we have
s n 0 + 1 = ψ ( G ( x n 0 + 1 , x n 0 + 2 , x n 0 + 2 ) ) α ( x n 0 + 1 , x n 0 + 1 ) α ( x n 0 + 2 , x n 0 + 2 ) α ( x n 0 + 2 , x n 0 + 2 ) ψ ( G ( x n 0 + 1 , x n 0 + 2 , x n 0 + 2 ) ) = α ( x n 0 + 1 , x n 0 + 1 ) α ( x n 0 + 2 , x n 0 + 2 ) α ( x n 0 + 2 , x n 0 + 2 ) ψ ( G ( f x n 0 , f x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) ) < ε = s ,
which is a contradiction. Hence s = 0 , that is, lim n + s n = 0 . Now, by the continuity of ψ in t = 0 , we have
lim n + G ( x n , x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) = 0 .
For given ε > 0 , by the hypothesis, there exists a δ = δ ( ε ) > 0 such that (4.10) holds. Without loss of generality, we assume δ < ε . Since s = 0 , then there exists N N such that
s n 1 = ψ ( G ( x n 1 , x n , x n ) ) < δ for all  n N .
(4.5)
We will prove that for any fixed k N 0 ,
ψ ( G ( x k , x k + l , x k + l ) ) ε for all  l N
(4.6)
holds. Note that (4.6), by (4.5), holds for l = 1 . Suppose condition (4.10) is satisfied for some m N . For l = m + 1 , by (G5) and (4.5), we get
ψ ( G ( x k 1 , x k + m , x k + m ) ) ψ ( G ( x k 1 , x k , x k ) + G ( x k , x k + m , x k + m ) ) ψ ( G ( x k 1 , x k , x k ) ) + ψ ( G ( x k , x k + m , x k + m ) ) < ε + δ .
(4.7)
If ψ ( G ( x k 1 , x k + m , x k + m ) ) ε , then by (4.10) we get

and hence (4.6) holds.

If ψ ( G ( x k 1 , x k + m , x k + m ) ) < ε , by Remark 15, we get
Consequently, (4.6) holds for l = m + 1 . Hence, ψ ( G ( x k , x k + l , x k + l ) ) ε for all k N 0 and l 1 , which means
G ( x n , x m , x m ) < ε for all  m n N 0 .
(4.8)
Then, for all n > m N 0 , by (4.8) and Proposition 7, we have
ψ ( G ( x n , x m , x m ) ) ψ ( 2 G ( x m , x n , x n ) ) = 2 ψ ( G ( x m , x n , x n ) ) < 2 ε .
That is, for all m , n N 0 , the following condition holds:
ψ ( G ( x n , x m , x m ) ) < 2 ε .
Consequently, lim m , n + ψ ( G ( x n , x m , x m ) ) = 0 . By the continuity of ψ in t = 0 , we get lim n + G ( x n , x m , x m ) = 0 . Hence { x n } is a G-Cauchy sequence. Since ( X , G ) is G-complete, there exists z X such that
lim n G ( x n , z , z ) = lim n + G ( x n , x n , z ) = 0 .
(4.9)
Also, by the continuity of f, we have
lim n + G ( x n , f z , f z ) = 0
and hence
G ( z , f z , f z ) lim n + G ( z , x n , x n ) + lim n + G ( x n , f z , f z ) = 0 ,

that is, z = f z . □

Theorem 17 Let ( X , G ) be a G-complete G-metric space and let f be a G - ( α , ψ ) -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping. If the following conditions hold:
  1. (i)

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

     
  2. (ii)

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

     

then f has a fixed point.

Proof Let x 0 X such that α ( x 0 , x 0 ) 1 . Define the sequence { x n } in X by x n = f n x 0 for all n N . Following the proof of Theorem 16, we say that α ( x n , x n ) 1 for all n N { 0 } and that there exists z X such that x n z as n + . Hence, from (ii) α ( z , z ) 1 . By Remark 15, we have
ψ ( G ( f z , z , z ) ) ψ ( G ( f z , f x n , f x n ) + G ( f x n , z , z ) ) ψ ( G ( f z , f x n , f x n ) ) + ψ ( G ( f x n , z , z ) ) α ( z , z ) α ( x n , x n ) α ( x n , x n ) ψ ( G ( f z , f x n , f x n ) ) + ψ ( G ( f x n , z , z ) ) ψ ( G ( z , x n , x n ) ) + ψ ( G ( x n + 1 , z , z ) ) .

By taking limit as n + , in the above inequality, we get ψ ( G ( f z , z , z ) ) 0 , that is, G ( f z , z , z ) = 0 . Hence f z = z . □

Theorem 18 Assume that all the hypotheses of Theorem  16 (and 17) hold. Adding the following conditions:
  1. (iii)

    α ( z , z ) 1 for all z X ,

     

we obtain the uniqueness of the fixed point of f.

Proof Suppose that z and z are two fixed points of f such that z z . Then G ( z , z , z ) > 0 . Now, by Remark 15, we have
ψ ( G ( z , z , z ) ) α ( z , z ) α ( z , z ) α ( z , z ) ψ ( G ( f z , f z , f z ) ) < ψ ( G ( z , z , z ) ) ,

which is a contradiction. Hence, z = z . □

If in Theorems 17 and 18 we take α ( x , y ) = a and ψ ( t ) = t where a 1 , then we have the following corollary.

Corollary 19 Let ( X , G ) be a G-complete G-metric space. Suppose that f : X X is a mapping satisfying the following condition:

For each ε > 0 , there exists δ > 0 such that
ε G ( x , y , z ) < ε + δ implies a G ( f x , f y , f z ) < ε
(4.10)

for all x , y , z X where a 1 . Then f has a unique fixed point.

5 Fixed point in G-cone metric spaces

In this section we recall the notion of a cone G-metric [36], we introduce the notion of a G c m -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping and establish the result of a fixed point for such class of mappings.

Definition 20 ([3])

Let E be a real Banach space with θ as the zero element and with the norm . A subset P of E is called a cone if and only if the following conditions are satisfied:
  1. (i)

    P is closed, nonempty and P { θ } ;

     
  2. (ii)

    a , b 0 and x P implies a x + b y P ;

     
  3. (iii)

    x P and x P implies x = θ .

     

Let P E be a cone, we define a partial ordering on E with respect to P by x y if and only if y x P ; we write x y whenever x y and x y , while x y will stand for y x int P (the interior of P). The cone P E is called normal if there is a positive real number K such that for all x , y E , θ x y x K y . The least positive number satisfying the above inequality is called the normal constant of P. If K = 1 , then the cone P is called monotone.

Definition 21 Let ( E , ) be a real Banach space with a monotone solid cone P. A mapping G c : X × X × X E satisfying the following conditions:
  1. (F1)

    if x = y = z , then G c ( x , y , z ) = θ ;

     
  2. (F2)

    θ G c ( x , y , y ) for any x , y X with x y ;

     
  3. (F3)

    G c ( x , x , y ) G c ( x , y , z ) for any points x , y , z X , with y z ;

     
  4. (F4)

    G c ( x , y , z ) = G c ( x , z , y ) = G c ( y , z , x ) =  , symmetry in all three variables;

     
  5. (F5)

    G c ( x , y , z ) G c ( x , a , a ) + G c ( a , y , z ) for any x , y , z , a X

     

is a cone G-metric on X and ( X , G c ) is a cone G-metric space.

Lemma 22 ([8, 41])

Let ( E , ) be a real Banach space with a monotone solid cone P. Then
θ x y x < y .

Proposition 23 ([8])

Let ( E , ) be a real Banach space with a monotone solid cone P. If G c : X × X × X E is a G-cone metric on X, then the function G : X × X × X [ 0 , + ) defined by G ( x , y , z ) = G c ( x , y , z ) is a G-metric on X and ( X , G ) a G-metric space.

Definition 24 Let ( E , ) be a real Banach space with a monotone solid cone P and ( X , G c ) be a cone G-metric space. Suppose that f : X X is a self-mapping satisfying the following condition:

For each ϒ int P , there exists Δ int P such that for all x , y X and for all m N ,
{ ϒ G c ( x , f ( m ) x , y ) int P , G c ( x , f ( m ) x , y ) ( ϒ + Δ ) P , G c ( f x , f ( m + 1 ) x , f y ) ϒ .
(5.1)

Then f is called a G c m -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping.

Theorem 25 Let ( E , ) be a real Banach space with a monotone solid cone P and ( X , G c ) be a G-complete G-cone metric space and f be a G c m -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping on X. Then f has a unique fixed point.

Proof For a given ε > 0 , let ε G ( x , f ( m ) x , y ) , where G = G c . This implies
ε H H G c ( x , f ( m ) x , y ) int P
(5.2)
for given H int P . Indeed, if ε H H G c ( x , f ( m ) x , y ) int P , then
G c ( x , f ( m ) x , y ) ε H H

and so by Lemma 22, we get G ( x , f ( m ) x , y ) < ε , which is a contradiction. Therefore (5.2) holds.

Now suppose that G ( x , f ( m ) x , y ) < ε + δ . This implies
G c ( x , f ( m ) x , y ) ( ε H H + δ H H ) P .
(5.3)
Indeed if
G c ( x , f ( m ) x , y ) ( ε H H + δ H H ) P ,
then
( ε + δ ) H H = ε H H + δ H H G c ( x , f ( m ) x , y )

and so ε + δ G ( x , f ( m ) x , y ) , which is a contradiction. This implies that (5.3) holds.

Now, by (5.4), (5.2) and (5.3), we have
G c ( f x , f ( m + 1 ) x , f y ) ε H H .
Again, by Lemma 22, we get
G ( f x , f ( m + 1 ) x , f y ) < ε .

Thus f is a G m -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping, and by Theorem 11, f has a unique fixed point. □

Similarly, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 26 Let ( E , ) be a real Banach space with a monotone solid cone P and ( X , G c ) be a G-complete G-cone metric space and f be a mapping such that for each ϒ int P , there exists Δ int P such that
{ ϒ G c ( x , y , z ) int P , G c ( x , y , z ) ( ϒ + Δ ) P , a G c ( f x , f y , f z ) ϒ
(5.4)

for all x , y X , where a 1 . Then f has a unique fixed point.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah. The first author acknowledges with thanks DSR, KAU for financial support. The authors would like to thank the editor and the referees for their suggestions to improve the presentation of the paper. The 3rd author is thankful for support of Islamic Azad University, Astara, during this research.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Mathematics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
(2)
Department of Mathematics, Atilim University, İncek, Turkey
(3)
Department of Mathematics, Astara Branch, Islamic Azad University, Astara, Iran
(4)
Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo, Italy

References

  1. Aydi H, Karapınar E, Salimi P: Some fixed point results in GP -metric spaces. J. Appl. Math. 2012., 2012: Article ID 891713Google Scholar
  2. Hadžić O, Pap E: Fixed Point Theory in Probabilistic Metric Spaces. Kluwer Academic, London; 2001.Google Scholar
  3. Huang LG, Zhang X: Cone metric spaces and fixed point theorems of contractive mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 332: 1468–1476. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.03.087MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Hussain N, Abbas M: Common fixed point results for two new classes of hybrid pairs in symmetric spaces. Appl. Math. Comput. 2011, 218: 542–547. 10.1016/j.amc.2011.05.098MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.2010.11.019MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Karapınar E, Salimi P: Fixed point theorems via auxiliary functions. J. Appl. Math. 2012., 2012: Article ID 792174Google Scholar
  7. Matthews SG: Partial metric topology. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 728. Proc. 8th Summer Conference on General Topology and Applications 1994, 183–197.Google Scholar
  8. Moradlou, F, Salimi, P, Vetro, P: Some new extensions of Edelstein-Suzuki-type fixed point theorem to G-metric and G-cone metric spaces. Acta Math. Sci. (accepted)Google Scholar
  9. Mustafa Z, Sims B: A new approach to generalized metric spaces. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2006, 7(2):289–297.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Aydi H, Abbas M, Vetro C: Partial Hausdorff metric and Nadler’s fixed point theorem on partial metric spaces. Topol. Appl. 2012, 159: 3234–3242. 10.1016/j.topol.2012.06.012MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Berinde V, Vetro F: Common fixed points of mappings satisfying implicit contractive conditions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 105Google Scholar
  12. Ćirić LB: A generalization of Banach’s contraction principle. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1974, 45: 267–273.Google Scholar
  13. 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.2010.12.060MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Bari C, Vetro P: Fixed points for weak φ -contractions on partial metric spaces. Int. J. Eng., Contemp. Math. Sci. 2011, 1: 5–13.Google Scholar
  15. Di Bari C, Kadelburg Z, Nashine H, Radenović S: Common fixed points of g -quasicontractions and related mappings in 0-complete partial metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 113Google Scholar
  16. Paesano D, Vetro P: Suzuki’s type characterizations of completeness for partial metric spaces and fixed points for partially ordered metric spaces. Topol. Appl. 2012, 159: 911–920. 10.1016/j.topol.2011.12.008MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Radenović S, Salimi P, Pantelic S, Vujaković J: A note on some tripled coincidence point results in G -metric spaces. Int. J. Math. Sci. Eng. Appl. 2012, 6: 23–38. ISNN 0973–9424Google Scholar
  18. Ran ACM, Reurings MC: A fixed point theorem in partially ordered sets and some applications to matrix equations. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2004, 132: 1435–1443. 10.1090/S0002-9939-03-07220-4MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Samet B, Vetro C, Vetro P: Fixed point theorems for α - ψ -contractive type mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2012, 75: 2154–2165. 10.1016/j.na.2011.10.014MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Suzuki T: A new type of fixed point theorem in metric spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 5313–5317. 10.1016/j.na.2009.04.017MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Vetro F, Radenović S: Nonlinear ψ -quasi-contractions of Ćirić-type in partial metric spaces. Appl. Math. Comput. 2012. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2012.07.061Google Scholar
  22. Abbas M, Khan AR, Nazir T: Coupled common fixed point results in two generalized metric spaces. Appl. Math. Comput. 2011, 217: 6328–6336. 10.1016/j.amc.2011.01.006MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Abbas M, Khan AR, Nazir T: Common fixed point of multivalued mappings in ordered generalized metric spaces. Filomat 2012, 26: 1045–1053.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Sintunavarat W, Cho YJ, Kumam P: Common fixed point theorems for c -distance in ordered cone metric spaces. Comput. Math. Appl. 2011, 62: 1969–1978. 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.06.040MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Common fixed point theorems for a pair of weakly compatible mappings in fuzzy metric spaces. J. Appl. Math. 2011., 2011: Article ID 637958Google Scholar
  26. Abbas M, Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Coupled fixed point of generalized contractive mappings on partially ordered G -metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 31Google Scholar
  27. Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Common fixed points for R -weakly commuting in fuzzy metric spaces. Ann. Univ. Ferrara 2012, 58: 389–406. 10.1007/s11565-012-0150-zMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Generalized common fixed point theorems in complex valued metric spaces and applications. J. Inequal. Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 84Google Scholar
  29. Aydi H, Vetro C, Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Coincidence and fixed points for contractions and cyclical contractions in partial metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 124Google Scholar
  30. Aydi H, Abbas M, Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Tripled fixed point of W -compatible mappings in abstract metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 134Google Scholar
  31. Agarwal RP, Karapinar E: Remarks on some coupled fixed point theorems in G -metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 2Google Scholar
  32. Abbas M, Ali B, Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Tripled fixed point and tripled coincidence point theorems in intuitionistic fuzzy normed spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 187Google Scholar
  33. Abbas M, Nazir T, Vetro P: Common fixed point results for three maps in G -metric spaces. Filomat 2011, 25(4):1–17. 10.2298/FIL1104001AMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Altun I, Durmaz G: Some fixed point theorems on ordered cone metric spaces. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 2009, 58: 319–325. 10.1007/s12215-009-0026-yMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Aydi H, Shatanawi W, Vetro C: On generalized weak G -contraction mapping in G -metric spaces. Comput. Math. Appl. 2011, 62: 4223–4229.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Beg I, Abbas M, Nazir T: Generalized cone metric spaces. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 2010, 3: 21–31.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. Di Bari C, Vetro P: φ -pairs and common fixed points in cone metric spaces. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 2008, 57: 279–285. 10.1007/s12215-008-0020-9MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Di Bari C, Vetro P: Weakly φ -pairs and common fixed points in cone metric spaces. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 2009, 58: 125–132. 10.1007/s12215-009-0012-4MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Di Bari C, Vetro P: Common fixed points in cone metric spaces for MK -pairs and L -pairs. Ars Comb. 2011, 99: 429–437.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. Di Bari C, Saadati R, Vetro P:Common fixed points in cone metric spaces for C J M -pairs. Math. Comput. Model. 2011, 54: 2348–2354. 10.1016/j.mcm.2011.05.043MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Farajzadeh AP, Amini-Harandi A, Baleanu D: Fixed point theory for generalized contractions in cone metric space. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 2012, 17: 708–712. 10.1016/j.cnsns.2011.01.016MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Mustafa Z, Obiedat H: A fixed point theorem of Reich in G -metric spaces. CUBO 2010, 12(1):83–93. 10.4067/S0719-06462010000100008MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Mustafa Z, Shatanawi W, Bataineh M: Existence of fixed point results in G -metric spaces. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2009., 2009: Article ID 283028Google Scholar
  44. Mustafa Z, Sims B: Fixed point theorems for contractive mappings in complete G -metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2009., 2009: Article ID 917175Google Scholar
  45. Saadati R, Vaezpour SM, Vetro P, Rhoades BE: Fixed point theorems in generalized partially ordered G -metric spaces. Math. Comput. Model. 2010, 52: 797–801. 10.1016/j.mcm.2010.05.009MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Shatanawi W: Fixed point theory for contractive mappings satisfying Φ-maps in G -metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 181650Google Scholar
  47. Shatanawi W: Some fixed point theorems in ordered G -metric spaces and applications. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2011., 2011: Article ID 126205Google Scholar
  48. Vetro P: Common fixed points in cone metric spaces. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 2007, 56: 464–468. 10.1007/BF03032097MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Meir A, Keeler E: A theorem on contraction mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1969, 28: 326–329. 10.1016/0022-247X(69)90031-6MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Aydi H, Vetro C, Karapınar E: Meir-Keeler type contractions for tripled fixed points. Acta Math. Sci. 2012, 32(6):2119–2130.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Aydi H, Karapınar E: A Meir-Keeler common type fixed point theorem on partial metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 26Google Scholar
  52. Aydi H, Karapınar E: New Meir-Keeler type tripled fixed point theorems on ordered partial metric spaces. Math. Probl. Eng. 2012., 2012: Article ID 409872Google Scholar
  53. Erhan IM, Karapınar E, Türkoglu AD: Different types Meir-Keeler contractions on partial metric spaces. J. Comput. Anal. Appl. 2012, 14(6):1000–1005.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  54. Jachymski J: Equivalent conditions and the Meir-Keeler type theorems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1995, 194(1):293–303. 10.1006/jmaa.1995.1299MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Kadelburg Z, Radenović S: Meir-Keeler-type conditions in abstract metric spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 2011, 24(8):1411–1414. 10.1016/j.aml.2011.03.021MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Suzuki T: Fixed-point theorem for asymptotic contractions of Meir-Keeler type in complete metric spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2006, 64: 971–978. 10.1016/j.na.2005.04.054MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Mustafa, Z: A new structure for generalized metric spaces with applications to fixed point theory. PhD Thesis, University of Newcastle, Australia (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright

© Hussain et al.; licensee Springer. 2013

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.

Advertisement