Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access

On α-ψ-Meir-Keeler contractive mappings

Fixed Point Theory and Applications20132013:94

https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2013-94

Received: 23 December 2012

Accepted: 27 March 2013

Published: 12 April 2013

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce the notion of α-ψ-Meir-Keeler contractive mappings via a triangular α-admissible mapping. We discuss the existence and uniqueness of a fixed point of such a mapping in the setting of complete metric spaces. We state a number of examples to illustrate our results.

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

Keywords

Meir-Keeler contractive mappingstriangular α-admissible mappingsfixed points

1 Introduction and preliminaries

Fixed-point theory is one of the most intriguing research fields in nonlinear analysis. The number of authors have published papers and have increased continuously in the last decades. The main reason for this involvement can be observed easily: Application potential. Fixed point theory has an application in many disciplines such as chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and many branches of mathematics. Banach contraction mapping principle or Banach fixed-point theorem is the most celebrated and pioneer result in this direction: In a complete metric space, each contraction mapping has a unique fixed point. Following Banach [1], many authors give various generalizations of this principle in various space (see e.g. [220]). One of the interesting results was given by Samet et al. [21] by defining α-ψ-contractive mappings via admissible mappings, see also [22].

In this paper, we introduce an α-ψ-Meir-Keeler contractive mapping in the setting of complete metric spaces via a triangular α-admissible mapping. We prove the existence and uniqueness of a fixed point of such a mapping. We also consider a number of examples to illustrate our results.

Definition 1 Let f : X X and α : X × X ( , + ) . We say that f is a triangular α-admissible mapping if
  1. (T1)

    α ( x , y ) 1 implies α ( f x , f y ) 1 , x , y X ,

     
  2. (T2)

    { α ( x , z ) 1 , α ( z , y ) 1 , implies α ( x , y ) 1 , x , y , z X .

     

Example 2 Let X = R , f x = x 3 and α ( x , y ) = e x y then f is a triangular α-admissible mapping. Indeed, if α ( x , y ) = e x y 1 then x y which implies f x f y . That is, α ( f x , f y ) = e f x f y 1 . Also, if { α ( x , z ) 1 , α ( z , y ) 1 then { x z 0 , z y 0 . That is, x y 0 and so α ( x , y ) = e x y 1 .

Example 3 Let X = R , f x = e x 7 and α ( x , y ) = x y 5 + 1 . Hence, f is a triangular α-admissible mapping. Again, if α ( x , y ) = x y 5 + 1 1 then x y which implies f x f y . That is, α ( f x , f y ) 1 .

Moreover, if { α ( x , z ) 1 ; α ( z , y ) 1 , then x y 0 , and hence, α ( x , y ) 1 .

Example 4 Let X = [ 0 , + ) , f x = x 4 + ln ( x 2 + 1 ) and
α ( x , y ) = x 3 1 + x 3 y 3 y 3 + 1 + 1 .
Then f is a triangular α-admissible mapping. In fact, if
α ( x , y ) = x 3 1 + x 3 y 3 y 3 + 1 + 1 1
then x y . Hence, f x f y . That is, α ( f x , f y ) 1 . Also,
α ( x , z ) + α ( z , y ) = x 3 1 + x 3 z 3 z 3 + 1 + 1 + z 3 1 + z 3 y 3 y 3 + 1 + 1 = x 3 1 + x 3 y 3 y 3 + 1 + 2 2 ( x 3 1 + x 3 y 3 y 3 + 1 + 1 ) = 2 α ( x , y ) .

Thus, α ( x , z ) + α ( z , y ) 2 α ( x , y ) . Now, if { α ( x , z ) 1 ; α ( z , y ) 1 , then α ( x , y ) 1 .

Example 5 Let X = R , f x = x 3 + x 7 and α ( x , y ) = x 5 y 5 + 1 . Then f is a triangular α-admissible mapping.

Example 6 Let X = [ 0 , + ) , f x = x 2 + e x and
α ( x , y ) = { 1 , if  x , y [ 0 , 1 ] , 0 , otherwise. 

Hence, f is a triangular α-admissible mapping.

Lemma 7 Let f be a triangular α-admissible mapping. Assume that there exists x 0 X such that α ( x 0 , f x 0 ) 1 . Define sequence { x n } by x n = f n x 0 . Then
α ( x m , x n ) 1 for all m , n N with m < n .
Proof Since there exist x 0 X such that α ( x 0 , f x 0 ) 1 then from (T1), we deduce that α ( x 1 , x 2 ) = α ( f x 0 , f 2 x 0 ) 1 . By continuing this process, we get
α ( x n , x n + 1 ) 1 for all  n N 0 .
(1.1)

Suppose that m < n . Since { α ( x m , x m + 1 ) 1 , α ( x m + 1 , x m + 2 ) 1 , then from (T2) we have α ( x m , x m + 2 ) 1 .

Again, since { α ( x m , x m + 2 ) 1 , α ( x m + 2 , x m + 3 ) 1 , then we deduce α ( x m , x m + 3 ) 1 .

By continuing this process, we get α ( x m , x n ) 1 . □

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 ) .

2 Main results

Definition 8 Let ( X , d ) be a metric space and ψ Ψ . Suppose that f : X X is a triangular α-admissible mapping satisfying the following condition: for each ε > 0 there exists δ > 0 such that
ε ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) < ε + δ implies α ( x , y ) ψ ( d ( f x , f y ) ) < ε
(2.1)

for all x , y X . Then f is called an α-ψ-Meir-Keeler contractive mapping.

Remark 9 Let f be an α-ψ-Meir-Keeler contractive mapping. Then
α ( x , y ) ψ ( d ( f x , f y ) ) < ψ ( d ( x , y ) )
for all x , y X when x y . Also, if x = y then d ( f x , f y ) = 0 . i.e.,
α ( x , y ) ψ ( d ( f x , f y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) )

for all x , y X .

Theorem 10 Let ( X , d ) be a complete metric space. Suppose that f is a continuous α-ψ-Meir-Keeler contractive mapping and that there exists x 0 X such that α ( x 0 , f x 0 ) 1 , then f has a fixed point.

Proof Let x 0 X and define a sequence { x n } by x n = f n x 0 for all n N . 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
(2.2)
for all n N { 0 } . We have d ( x n , x n + 1 ) > 0 for all n N { 0 } . Now define s n = ψ ( d ( x n , x n + 1 ) ) . By Remark 9, we deduce that for all n N { 0 } ,
α ( x n , x n + 1 ) ψ ( d ( x n + 1 , x n + 2 ) ) = α ( x n , x n + 1 ) ψ ( d ( f x n , f x n + 1 ) ) < ψ ( d ( x n , x n + 1 ) ) .
Then by applying Lemma 7
ψ ( d ( x n + 1 , x n + 2 ) ) < ψ ( d ( x n , 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 ( d ( x n , x n + 1 ) ) for all  n N { 0 } .
(2.3)
Let ε = s > 0 . Then by hypothesis, there exists a 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 = ψ ( d ( x n 0 , x n 0 + 1 ) ) < ε + δ .
Now by (2.1), we have
s n 0 + 1 = ψ ( d ( x n 0 + 1 , x n 0 + 2 ) ) α ( x n 0 , x n 0 + 1 ) ψ ( d ( x n 0 + 1 , x n 0 + 2 ) ) = α ( x n 0 , x n 0 + 1 ) ψ ( d ( f x n 0 , 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 + d ( x n , x n + 1 ) = 0 . For given ε > 0 , by the hypothesis, there exists a δ = δ ( ε ) > 0 such that (2.1) holds. Without loss of generality, we assume δ < ε . Since s = 0 , then there exists N N such that
s n 1 = ψ ( d ( x n 1 , x n ) ) < δ , for all  n N .
(2.4)
We will prove that for any fixed k N 0 ,
ψ ( d ( x k , x k + l ) ) ε , for all  l N ,
(2.5)
holds. Note that (2.5), by (2.4), holds for l = 1 . Suppose the condition (2.1) is satisfied for some m N . For l = m + 1 , by (2.4), we get
ψ ( d ( x k 1 , x k + m ) ) ψ ( d ( x k 1 , x k ) + d ( x k , x k + m ) ) ψ ( d ( x k 1 , x k ) ) + ψ ( d ( x k , x k + m ) ) < ε + δ .
(2.6)
If ψ ( d ( x k 1 , x k + m ) ) ε , then by (2.1) we get
ψ ( d ( x k , x k + m + 1 ) ) α ( x k 1 , x k + m ) ψ ( d ( x k , x k + m + 1 ) ) = α ( x k , x k + m + 1 ) ψ ( d ( f x k 1 , f x k + m ) ) < ε

and hence (2.5) holds.

If ψ ( d ( x k 1 , x k + m ) ) < ε , by Remark 9, we get
ψ ( d ( x k , x k + m + 1 ) ) α ( x k 1 , x k + m ) ψ ( d ( x k , x k + m + 1 ) ) ψ ( d ( x k 1 , x k + m ) ) < ε .
Consequently, (2.5) holds for l = m + 1 . Hence, ψ ( d ( x k , x k + l ) ) ε for all k N 0 and l 1 , which means
d ( x n , x m ) < ε , for all  m n N 0 .
(2.7)
Hence { x n } is a Cauchy sequence. Since ( X , d ) is complete, there exists z X such that x n z as n . Now, since, f is continuous then
f z = f ( lim n x n ) = lim n x n + 1 = z ,

that is, f has a fixed point. □

Theorem 11 Let ( X , d ) be a complete metric space and let f be a α-ψ-Meir-Keeler contractive mapping. If the following conditions hold:
  1. (i)

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

     
  2. (ii)

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

     

Then f has a fixed point.

Proof Following the proof of the Theorem 10, we say that α ( x n , x n + 1 ) 1 for all n N { 0 } and that there exist z X such that x n z as n + . Hence, from (ii) α ( x n , z ) 1 . By Remark 9, we have
ψ ( d ( f z , z ) ) ψ ( d ( f z , f x n ) + d ( f x n , z ) ) ψ ( d ( f z , f x n ) ) + ψ ( d ( f x n , z ) ) α ( x n , z ) ψ ( d ( f z , f x n ) ) + ψ ( d ( f x n , z ) ) ψ ( d ( z , x n ) ) + ψ ( d ( x n + 1 , z ) ) .

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

Next, we give some examples to validate our main result.

Example 12 Let X = [ 0 , ) and d ( x , y ) = | x y | be a metric on X. Define f : X X by
f x = { x 2 4 , if  x [ 0 , 1 ] , 2 x , if  x ( 1 , ) , and α ( x , y ) = { 1 , if  x , y [ 0 , 1 ] , 1 , otherwise

and ψ ( t ) = 1 4 t . Clearly, ( X , d ) is a complete metric space. We show that f is a triangular α-admissible mapping. Let x , y X , if α ( x , y ) 1 then x , y [ 0 , 1 ] . On the other hand, for all x , y [ 0 , 1 ] we have f x 1 and f y 1 . It follows that α ( f x , f y ) 1 . Also, if α ( x , z ) 1 and α ( z , y ) 1 then x , y , z [ 0 , 1 ] and hence, α ( x , y ) 1 . Thus, the assertion holds by the same arguments. Notice that α ( 0 , f 0 ) 1 .

Now, if { x n } is a sequence in X such that α ( x n , x n + 1 ) 1 for all n N { 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 n N { 0 } . Let x , y [ 0 , 1 ] . Without loss of generality, take x y . Then
Clearly, by taking δ = ε the condition (2.1) holds. Otherwise, α ( x , y ) = 1 . Hence, for given ε > 0 we have α ( x , y ) ψ ( d ( f x , f y ) ) 0 < ε . Hence, conditions of Theorem 11 holds and f has a fixed point. But, if x , y ( 1 , ) and
ε d ( x , y ) < ε + δ ,
where ε > 0 and δ > 0 . Then
d ( f x , f y ) = 2 | x y | = 2 d ( x , y ) d ( x , y ) ε .

That is, the Meir-Keeler theorem cannot applied for this example.

Example 13 Let X = [ 0 , ) and d ( x , y ) = | x y | be a metric on X. Define f : X X by
f x = { 1 2 ( 1 x ) , if  x [ 0 , 1 ] , 4 x 2 2 + sin ( x 2 ) , if  x ( 1 , 2 ] , x 2 3 x 3 + 1 , if  x ( 2 , )
and ψ ( t ) = 1 2 t ,
α ( x , y ) = { 1 , if  x , y , z [ 0 , 1 ] , 1 , otherwise.
Let x , y [ 0 , 1 ] . Without loss of generality, take x y . Then

Clearly, by taking δ = ε the condition (2.1) holds. Otherwise, α ( x , y ) = 1 . Hence, for given ε > 0 we have α ( x , y ) ψ ( d ( f x , f y ) ) 0 < ε . Hence, conditions of Theorem 11 holds and f has a fixed point.

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

  • ψ s t ( t ) = 0 if and only if t = 0 ,

  • ψ s t ( t + s ) ψ s t ( t ) + ψ s t ( s ) .

Definition 14 Let ( X , d ) be a metric space and ψ s t Ψ s t . Suppose that f : X X is a triangular α-admissible mapping satisfying the following condition: for each ε > 0 there exists δ > 0 such that
ε ψ s t ( M ( x , y ) ) < ε + δ implies α ( x , y ) ψ s t ( d ( f x , f y ) ) < ε
(2.8)
for all x , y X where
M ( x , y ) = max { d ( x , y ) , d ( f x , x ) , d ( f y , y ) , 1 2 [ d ( f x , y ) + d ( x , f y ) ] } .

Then f is called generalized an α- ψ s t -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping.

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

for all x , y X .

Proposition 16 Let ( X , d ) be a metric space and f : X X a generalized α- ψ s t -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping, if there exists x 0 X such that α ( x 0 , f x 0 ) 1 . Then lim n d ( f n + 1 x 0 , f n x 0 ) = 0 .

Proof Define a sequence { x n } by x n = f n x 0 for all n N . 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
(2.9)
for all n N { 0 } . Then we have M ( x n + 1 , x n ) > 0 for every n 0 . Then by Lemma 7 and Remark 15, we have
ψ s t ( d ( x n + 1 , x n + 2 ) ) α ( x n , x n + 1 ) ψ s t ( d ( x n + 1 , x n + 2 ) ) = α ( x n , x n + 1 ) ψ s t ( d ( f x n , f x n + 1 ) ) < ψ s t ( M ( x n , x n + 1 ) ) = ψ s t ( max { d ( x n , x n + 1 ) , d ( f x n , x n ) , d ( f x n + 1 , x n + 1 ) , 1 2 [ d ( f x n , x n + 1 ) + d ( x n , f x n + 1 ) ] } ) ψ s t ( max { d ( x n , x n + 1 ) , d ( x n + 1 , x n + 2 ) } ) .
Now, since ψ s t is strictly nondecreasing then, we get
d ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) < max { d ( x n + 1 , x n ) , d ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) } .
Hence, the case where
max { d ( x n + 1 , x n ) , d ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) } = d ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 )
is not possible. Therefore, we deduce that
d ( x n + 2 , x n + 1 ) < d ( x n + 1 , x n )
(2.10)
for all n. That is, { d ( x n + 1 , x n ) } n = 0 is a decreasing sequence in R + and it converges to ε R + , that is,
lim n ψ s t ( d ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) = lim n ψ s t ( M ( x n + 1 , x n ) ) = ψ s t ( ε ) .
(2.11)
Notice that ε = inf { p ( x n , x n + 1 ) : n N } . Let us prove that ε = 0 . Suppose, to the contrary, that ε > 0 . Then ψ ( ε ) > 0 . Regarding (2.11) together with the assumption that f is a generalized α- ψ s t -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping, for ψ s t ( ε ) , there exists δ > 0 and a natural number m such that
ψ s t ( ε ) ψ s t ( M ( x m , x m + 1 ) ) < ψ s t ( ε ) + δ
implies that
ψ s t ( d ( x m + 1 , x m + 2 ) ) α ( x m , x m + 1 ) ψ s t ( d ( x m + 1 , x m + 2 ) ) = α ( x m , x m + 1 ) ψ s t ( d ( f x m , f x m + 1 ) ) < ψ s t ( ε ) .
Now, since ψ s t is strictly nondecreasing then we get
d ( x m + 2 , x m + 1 ) < ε

which is a contradiction since ε = inf { p ( x n , x n + 1 ) : n N } . Then ε = 0 and so lim n d ( x n + 1 , x n ) = 0 . □

Theorem 17 Let ( X , d ) be a complete metric space and f : X X a orbitally continuous generalized α- ψ s t -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping, if there exist x 0 X such that α ( x 0 , f x 0 ) 1 . Then, f has a fixed point.

Proof Define x n + 1 = f n + 1 x 0 for all n 0 . We want to prove that lim m , n d ( x n , x m ) = 0 . If this is not, then there exist ε > 0 and a subsequence { x n ( i ) } of { x n } such that
d ( x n ( i ) , x n ( i + 1 ) ) > 2 ε .
(2.12)
For this ε > 0 , there exists δ > 0 such that ε ψ s t ( M ( x , y ) ) < ε + δ implies that α ( x , y ) ψ s t ( d ( f x , f y ) ) < ε . Put r = min { ε , δ } and s n = d ( x n , x n + 1 ) for all n 1 . From Proposition 16, there exists n 0 such that
s n = d ( x n , x n + 1 ) < r 4
(2.13)
for all n n 0 . Let n ( i ) > n 0 . We get n ( i ) n ( i + 1 ) 1 . If d ( x n ( i ) , x n ( i + 1 ) 1 ) ε + r 2 , then
d ( x n ( i ) , x n ( i + 1 ) ) d ( x n ( i ) , x n ( i + 1 ) 1 ) + d ( x n ( i + 1 ) 1 , x n ( i + 1 ) ) d ( x n ( i ) , x n ( i + 1 ) 1 ) + d ( x n ( i + 1 ) 1 , x n ( i + 1 ) ) < ε + r 2 + s n ( i + 1 ) 1 < ε + 3 r 4 < 2 ε
which contradicts the assumption (2.12). Therefore, there are values of k such that n ( i ) k n ( i + 1 ) and d ( x n ( i ) , x k ) > ε + r 2 . Now if d ( x n ( i ) , x n ( i ) + 1 ) ε + r 2 , then
s n ( i ) = d ( x n ( i ) , x n ( i ) + 1 ) ε + r 2 > r + r 2 > r 4
which is a contradiction with (2.13). Hence, there are values of k with n ( i ) k n ( i + 1 ) such that d ( x n ( i ) , x k ) < ε + r 2 . Choose smallest integer k with k n ( i ) such that d ( x n ( i ) , x k ) ε + r 2 . Thus, d ( x n ( i ) , x k 1 ) < ε + r 2 and so
d ( x n ( i ) , x k ) d ( x n ( i ) , x k 1 ) + d ( x k 1 , x k ) d ( x n ( i ) , x k 1 ) + d ( x k 1 , x k ) < ε + r 2 + r 4 = ε + 3 r 4 .
Now, we can choose a natural number k satisfying n ( i ) k n ( i + 1 ) such that
ε + r 2 d ( x n ( i ) , x k ) < ε + 3 r 4 .
(2.14)
Therefore, we obtain
(2.15)
(2.16)
and
d ( x k , x k + 1 ) = d k < r 4 < ε + r .
(2.17)
Thus, we have
(2.18)
Now, the inequalities (2.15)-(2.18) imply that M ( x n ( i ) , x k ) < ε + r ε + δ and so ψ s t ( M ( x n ( i ) , x k ) ) < ψ s t ( ε + δ ) ψ s t ( ε ) + ψ s t ( δ ) the fact that f is a generalized α- ψ s t -Meir-Keeler contractive mapping yields that,
d ( x n ( i ) + 1 , x k + 1 ) α ( x n ( i ) , x k ) ψ s t ( d ( x n ( i ) + 1 , x k + 1 ) ) < ψ s t ( ε ) .
Then d ( x n ( i ) + 1 , x k + 1 ) < ε . We deduce,
d ( f n ( i ) x 0 , f k x 0 ) d ( f n ( i ) x 0 , f n ( i ) + 1 x 0 ) + d ( f n ( i ) + 1 x 0 , f k x 0 ) d ( f n ( i ) x 0 , f n ( i ) + 1 x 0 ) + d ( f n ( i ) + 1 x 0 , f k x 0 ) d ( f n ( i ) x 0 , f n ( i ) + 1 x 0 ) + d ( f n ( i ) + 1 x 0 , f k + 1 x 0 ) + d ( f k + 1 x 0 , f k x 0 ) .
Hence, from this with (2.14), (2.16) and (2.17), we obtain
d ( x n ( i ) + 1 , x k + 1 ) d ( x n ( i ) , x k ) d ( x n ( i ) , x n ( i ) + 1 ) d ( x k , x k + 1 ) > ε + r 2 r 4 r 4 = ε ,

which is a contradiction. We obtained that lim m , n d ( x n , x m ) = 0 and so { x n = f n x 0 } is a Cauchy sequence. Since, X is complete, then there exists z X such that f n x 0 z as n . Now, since f is orbitally continuous, then z = f z . □

Example 18 Let X = [ 0 , ) and d ( x , y ) = | x y | be a metric on X. Define f : X X by
f x = { x 2 8 , if  x [ 0 , 1 ] , 1 2 + ln x , if  x ( 1 , )
and ψ s t ( t ) = 1 2 t ,
α ( x , y ) = { 1 , if  x , y [ 0 , 1 ] , 0 , otherwise.
Clearly, f is a triangular α-admissible mapping and orbitally continuous. Let x , y [ 0 , 1 ] . Without loss of generality, take x y . Then

Clearly, by taking δ = 3 ε the condition (2.8) holds. Otherwise, α ( x , y ) = 0 . Hence, for given ε > 0 , we have 0 = α ( x , y ) ψ s t ( d ( f x , f y ) ) < ε . Hence, condition of Theorem 17 is held and f has a fixed point.

Theorem 19 Assume that all the hypotheses of Theorem 10 (11 and 17) hold. Adding the following conditions:
  1. (iii)

    for all x y X there exists v X such that α ( x , v ) 1 and α ( v , y ) 1 ,

     

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 α ( z , v ) 1 and α ( v , z ) 1 . Hence, from (T2), we have α ( z , z ) 1 . Now, by Remark 9, we get
d ( z , z ) = d ( f z , f z ) α ( z , z ) d ( f z , f z ) < d ( z , z )

which is a contradiction and so z = z . Similarly, for Theorem 17, we can observe that f has a unique fixed point. □

We can obtain the following corollaries intermediately.

Corollary 20 Let ( X , d ) be a complete metric space and f : X X is self-mapping. Suppose that for each ε > 0 , there exists δ > 0 such that
ε ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) < ε + δ implies ψ ( d ( f x , f y ) ) < ε L ,

where ψ Ψ and L 1 . Then f has a unique fixed points.

Corollary 21 Let ( X , d ) be a complete metric space and f : X X a orbitally continuous self-mapping. Suppose that for each ε > 0 there exists δ > 0 such that
ε ψ s t ( M ( x , y ) ) < ε + δ implies ψ s t ( d ( f x , f y ) ) < ε L ,
where ψ s t Ψ s t , L 1 and
M ( x , y ) = max { d ( x , y ) , d ( f x , x ) , d ( f y , y ) , 1 2 [ d ( f x , y ) + d ( x , f y ) ] } .

Then f has unique fixed points.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the referees for their valuable comments and suggestions. Also, the second author would like to thank the Commission on Higher Education, the Thailand Research Fund and the King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (Grant No. MRG5580213) for financial support during the preparation of this manuscript. The third author is thankful for support of Astara Branch, Islamic Azad University, during this research.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Mathematics, Atilim University, İncek, Ankara, Turkey
(2)
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand
(3)
Department of Mathematics, Astara Branch, Islamic Azad University, Astara, Iran

References

  1. Banach S: Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux equations itegrales. Fundam. Math. 1922, 3: 133–181.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Berinde V: General constructive fixed point theorems for Ciric-type almost contractions in metric spaces. Carpath. J. Math. 2008, 24(2):10–19.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd DW, Wong JSW: On nonlinear contractions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1969, 20: 458–464. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1969-0239559-9MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Chatterjea SK: Fixed point theorems. C. R. Acad. Bulgare Sci. 1972, 25: 727–730.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Ćirić L, Samet B, Aydi H, Vetro C: Common fixed points of generalized contractions on partial metric spaces and an application. Appl. Math. Comput. 2011, 218: 2398–2406. 10.1016/j.amc.2011.07.005MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Edelstein M: On fixed points and periodic points under contraction mappings. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 1962, 37: 74–79.MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Hardy GC, Rogers T: A generalization of fixed point theorem of S. Reich. Can. Math. Bull. 1973, 16: 201–206. 10.4153/CMB-1973-036-0MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Holmes RD: On fixed and periodic points under sets of mappings. Can. Math. Bull. 1969, 12: 813–822. 10.4153/CMB-1969-106-1MATHView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Jaggi DS: Some unique fixed point theorems. Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. 1977, 8(2):223–230.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Kannan R: Some results on fixed points-II. Am. Math. Mon. 1969, 76: 71–76.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Karapinar E: Fixed point theory for cyclic weak ϕ -contraction. Appl. Math. Lett. 2011, 24: 822–825. 10.1016/j.aml.2010.12.016MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Karapınar E: Weak ϕ -contraction on partial metric spaces. J. Comput. Anal. Appl. 2012, 14(2):206–210.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Karapinar E, Erhan IM: Fixed point theorems for operators on partial metric spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 2011, 24: 1894–1899. 10.1016/j.aml.2011.05.013MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Karapınar E: Generalizations of Caristi Kirk’s theorem on partial metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2011., 2011: Article ID 4. doi:10.1186/1687–1812–2011–4Google Scholar
  15. Karapınar E: Some nonunique fixed point theorems of Ciric type on cone metric spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2010., 2010: Article ID 123094Google Scholar
  16. Karapınar E: Fixed point theorems in cone Banach spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2009., 2009: Article ID 609281Google Scholar
  17. Karapınar E, Yuksel U: Some common fixed point theorems in partial metric spaces. J. Appl. Math. 2011., 2011: Article ID 263621Google Scholar
  18. Karapınar E: A note on common fixed point theorems in partial metric spaces. Miskolc Math. Notes 2011, 12(2):185–191.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirk WA, Srinavasan PS, Veeramani P: Fixed points for mapping satisfying cyclical contractive conditions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2003, 4: 79–89.MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Reich S: Some remarks concerning contraction mappings. Can. Math. Bull. 1971, 14: 121–124. 10.4153/CMB-1971-024-9MATHView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.2011.10.014MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Karapinar E, Samet B: Generalized ( α - ψ ) contractive type mappings and related fixed point theorems with applications. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 793486Google Scholar

Copyright

© Karapınar 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