Skip to main content

# Best proximity point results for modified Suzuki α-ψ-proximal contractions

## Abstract

In this paper, we introduce a modified Suzuki α-ψ-proximal contraction. Then we establish certain best proximity point theorems for such proximal contractions in metric spaces. As an application, we deduce best proximity and fixed point results in partially ordered metric spaces. The results presented generalize and improve various known results from best proximity and fixed point theory. Moreover, some examples are given to illustrate the usability of the obtained results.

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

## 1 Introduction and Preliminaries

In the last decade, the answers of the following question has turned into one of the core subjects of applied mathematics and nonlinear functional analysis. Is there a point $x 0$ in a metric space $(X,d)$ such that $d( x 0 ,T x 0 )=d(A,B)$ where A, B are non-empty subsets of a metric space X and $T:A→B$ is a non-self-mapping where $d(A,B)=inf{d(x,y):x∈A,y∈B}$? Here, the point $x 0 ∈X$ is called the best proximity point. The object of best proximity theory is to determine minimal conditions on the non-self-mapping T to guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a best proximal point. The setting of best proximity point theory is richer and more general than the metric fixed point theory in two senses. First, usually the mappings considered in fixed point theory are self-mappings, which is not necessary in the theory of best proximity. Secondly, if one takes $A=B$ in the above setting, the best proximity point becomes a fixed point. It is well known that fixed point theory combines various disciplines of mathematics, such as topology, operator theory, and geometry, to show the existence of solutions of the equation $Tx=x$ under proper conditions. On the other hand, if T is not a self-mapping, the equation $Tx=x$ could have no solutions and, in this case, it is of basic interest to determine an element x that is in some sense closest to Tx. One of the most interesting results in this direction is the following theorem due to Fan .

Theorem F Let K be a non-empty compact convex subset of a normed space X and $T:K→X$ be a continuous non-self-mapping. Then there exists an x such that $∥x−Tx∥=d(K,Tx)=inf{∥Tx−u∥:u∈K}$.

Many generalizations and extensions of this result have appeared in the literature (see  and references therein).

In fact best proximity point theory has been studied to find necessary conditions such that the minimization problem $min x ∈ A d(x,Tx)$ has at least one solution. For more details on this approach, we refer the reader to  and [5, 1425].

One of the interesting generalizations of the Banach contraction principle which characterizes the metric completeness is due to Suzuki [26, 27] (see also [28, 29]). Recently, Abkar and Gabeleh  studied best proximity point results for Suzuki contractions. The aim of this paper is to introduce modified Suzuki α-ψ-proximal contractions and establish certain best proximity point theorems for such proximal contractions in metric spaces. As an application, we deduce best proximity and fixed point results in partially ordered metric spaces. The presented results generalize and improve various known results from best proximity and fixed point theory. Moreover, some examples are given to illustrate the usability of the obtained results.

We recollect some essential notations, required definitions and primary results to coherence with the literature. Suppose that A and B are two non-empty subsets of a metric space $(X,d)$. We define

Under the assumption of $A 0 ≠∅$, we say that the pair $(A,B)$ has the P-property  if the following condition holds:

${ d ( x 1 , y 1 ) = d ( A , B ) , d ( x 2 , y 2 ) = d ( A , B ) , ⟹d( x 1 , x 2 )=d( y 1 , y 2 )$

for all $x 1 , x 2 ∈A$ and $y 1 , y 2 ∈B$.

In 2012, Samet et al.  introduced the concepts of α-ψ-contractive and α-admissible mappings and established various fixed point theorems for such mappings in complete metric spaces.

Samet et al.  defined the notion of α-admissible mappings as follows.

Definition 1.1 Let T be a self-mapping on X and $α:X×X→[0,+∞)$ be a function. We say that T is an α-admissible mapping if

$x,y∈X,α(x,y)≥1⟹α(Tx,Ty)≥1.$

Salimi et al.  modified and generalized the notion of α-admissible mappings in the following way.

Definition 1.2  Let T be a self-mapping on X and $α,η:X×X→[0,+∞)$ be two functions. We say that T is an α-admissible mapping with respect to η if

$x,y∈X,α(x,y)≥η(x,y)⟹α(Tx,Ty)≥η(Tx,Ty).$

Note that if we take $η(x,y)=1$, then this definition reduces to Definition 1.1.

Definition 1.3 

A non-self-mapping T is called α-proximal admissible if

${ α ( x 1 , x 2 ) ≥ 1 , d ( u 1 , T x 1 ) = d ( A , B ) , d ( u 2 , T x 2 ) = d ( A , B ) , ⟹α( u 1 , u 2 )≥1$

for all $x 1 , x 2 , u 1 , u 2 ∈A$, where $α:A×A→[0,∞)$.

Clearly, if $A=B$, T is α-proximal admissible implies that T is α-admissible.

Recently Hussain et al.  generalized the notion of α-proximal admissible as follows.

Definition 1.4 Let $T:A→B$ and $α,η:A×A→[0,∞)$ be functions. Then T is called α-proximal admissible with respect to η if

${ α ( x 1 , x 2 ) ≥ η ( x 1 , x 2 ) , d ( u 1 , T x 1 ) = d ( A , B ) , d ( u 2 , T x 2 ) = d ( A , B ) , ⟹α( u 1 , u 2 )≥η( u 1 , u 2 )$

for all $x 1 , x 2 , u 1 , u 2 ∈A$. Note that if we take $η(x,y)=1$ for all $x,y∈A$, then this definition reduces to Definition 1.3.

A function $ψ:[0,∞)→[0,∞)$ is called Bianchini-Grandolfi gauge function [17, 18, 30] if the following conditions hold:

1. (i)

ψ is non-decreasing;

2. (ii)

there exist $k 0 ∈N$ and $a∈(0,1)$ and a convergent series of nonnegative terms $∑ k = 1 ∞ v k$ such that

$ψ k + 1 (t)≤a ψ k (t)+ v k ,$

for $k≥ k 0$ and any $t∈ R +$.

In some sources, the Bianchini-Grandolfi gauge function is known as the $(c)$-comparison function (see e.g. ). We denote by Ψ the family of Bianchini-Grandolfi gauge functions. The following lemma illustrates the properties of these functions.

Lemma 1.1 (See )

If $ψ∈Ψ$, then the following hold:

1. (i)

$( ψ n ( t ) ) n ∈ N$ converges to 0 as $n→∞$ for all $t∈ R +$;

2. (ii)

$ψ(t), for any $t∈(0,∞)$;

3. (iii)

ψ is continuous at 0;

4. (iv)

the series $∑ k = 1 ∞ ψ k (t)$ converges for any $t∈ R +$.

## 2 Best proximity point results in metric spaces

We start this section with the following definition.

Definition 2.1 Suppose that A and B are two non-empty subsets of a metric space $(X,d)$. A non-self-mapping $T:A→B$ is said to be modified Suzuki α-ψ-proximal contraction, if

$d ∗ (x,Tx)≤α(x,y)d(x,y)⇒d(Tx,Ty)≤ψ ( d ( x , y ) )$
(2.1)

for all $x,y∈A$ where $d ∗ (x,y)=d(x,y)−d(A,B)$, $α:A×A→[0,∞)$ and $ψ∈Ψ$.

The following is our first main result of this section.

Theorem 2.1 Suppose that A and B are two non-empty closed subsets of a complete metric space $(X,d)$ with $A 0 ≠∅$. Let $T:A→B$ be a modified Suzuki α-ψ-proximal contraction satisfying the following conditions:

1. (i)

$T( A 0 )⊆ B 0$ and $(A,B)$ satisfies the P-property;

2. (ii)

T is α-proximal admissible with respect to $η(x,y)=2$;

3. (iii)

the elements $x 0$ and $x 1$ in $A 0$ with

4. (iv)

T is continuous.

Then T has a unique best proximity point.

Proof As $A 0$ is non-empty and $T( A 0 )⊆ B 0$, there exist elements $x 0$ and $x 1$ in $A 0$ such that $d( x 1 ,T x 0 )=d(A,B)$ and by (iii) $α( x 0 , x 1 )≥2$. Owing to the fact that $T( A 0 )⊆ B 0$, there exists $x 2 ∈ A 0$ such that

$d( x 2 ,T x 1 )=d(A,B).$

Since T is α-proximal admissible, we have $α( x 1 , x 2 )≥2$. Again, by using the fact that $T( A 0 )⊆ B 0$, there exists $x 3 ∈ A 0$ such that

$d( x 3 ,T x 2 )=d(A,B).$

So we conclude that

$d( x 2 ,T x 1 )=d(A,B),d( x 3 ,T x 2 )=d(A,B),α( x 1 , x 2 )≥2.$

As T is α-proximal admissible, we derive that $α( x 2 , x 3 )≥2$, that is,

$d( x 3 ,T x 2 )=d(A,B),α( x 2 , x 3 )≥2.$

By repeating this process, we observe that

(2.2)

By the triangle inequality, we have

$d( x n − 1 ,T x n − 1 )≤d( x n , x n − 1 )+d( x n ,T x n − 1 )=d( x n , x n − 1 )+d(A,B),$

which implies

$d ∗ ( x n − 1 ,T x n − 1 )≤d( x n , x n − 1 )≤2d( x n , x n − 1 )≤α( x n , x n − 1 )d( x n , x n − 1 ).$

From (2.1), we derive that

$d(T x n − 1 ,T x n )≤ψ ( d ( x n − 1 , x n ) ) .$
(2.3)

Due the fact that the pair $(A,B)$ has the P-property together with (2.2), we conclude that

Consequently, from (2.3), we obtain

(2.4)

If $x n 0 = x n 0 + 1$ for some $n 0 ∈N$, then (2.2) implies that

$d( x n 0 ,T x n 0 )=d( x n 0 + 1 ,T x n 0 )=d(A,B),$

that is, $x n 0$ is a best proximity point of T. Hence, we assume that

(2.5)

By using the fact that ψ is non-decreasing together with the assumption (2.1), inductively, we conclude that

Fix $ϵ>0$; there exists $N∈N$ such that

Let $m,n∈N$ with $m>n≥N$. By the triangle inequality, we have

$d( x n , x m )≤ ∑ k = n m − 1 d( x k , x k + 1 )≤ ∑ k = n m − 1 ψ k ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) < ∑ n ≥ N ψ n ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) <ϵ$

which yields $lim m , n , → + ∞ d( x n , x m )=0$. Hence, ${ x n }$ is a Cauchy sequence. Since X is complete, there is $z∈X$ such that $x n →z$. By the continuity of T, we derive that $T x n →Tz$ as $n→∞$. Hence, we get the desired result:

$d(A,B)= lim n → ∞ d( x n + 1 ,T x n )=d(z,Tz).$

We now show that T has a unique best proximity point. Suppose, on the contrary, that $y,z∈ A 0$ are two best proximity points of T with $y≠z$, that is,

$d(y,Ty)=d(z,Tz)=d(A,B).$
(2.6)

By applying the P-property and (2.6) we get

$d(y,z)=d(Ty,Tz).$
(2.7)

Also from (2.6) we get

$d ∗ (y,Ty)=d(y,Ty)−d(A,B)=0,$

which implies that $d ∗ (y,Ty)=0≤α(y,z)d(y,z)$. Applying (2.1), we have

$d(Ty,Tz)≤ψ ( d ( y , z ) ) .$

From (2.7) we deduce

$d(y,z)≤ψ ( d ( y , z ) )

which is a contradiction. Hence, $y=z$. This completes the proof of the theorem. □

In the following theorem, we replace the continuity condition on Suzuki α-ψ-proximal contraction T by regularity of the space $(X,d)$.

Theorem 2.2 Suppose that A and B are two non-empty closed subsets of a complete metric space $(X,d)$ with $A 0 ≠∅$. Let $T:A→B$ be a modified Suzuki α-ψ-proximal contraction satisfying the following conditions:

1. (i)

$T( A 0 )⊆ B 0$ and $(A,B)$ satisfies the P-property;

2. (ii)

T is α-proximal admissible with respect to $η(x,y)=2$;

3. (iii)

there exist elements $x 0$ and $x 1$ in $A 0$ with

4. (iv)

if ${ x n }$ is a sequence in A such that $α( x n , x n + 1 )≥2$ and $x n →x∈A$ as $n→∞$, then $α( x n ,x)≥2$ for all $n∈N$.

Then T has a unique best proximity point.

Proof Following the lines of proof of Theorem 2.1, we obtain a Cauchy sequence ${ x n }$ which converges to $z∈X$. Suppose that the condition (iv) holds, that is, $α( x n ,z)≥2$ for all $n∈N$. From (2.4) and (2.5) we obtain

$d( x n , x n + 1 )

for all $n∈N$. By using (2.2), we have

$d ∗ ( x n , T x n ) = d ( x n , T x n ) − d ( A , B ) ≤ d ( x n , x n + 1 ) + d ( x n + 1 , T x n ) − d ( A , B ) = d ( x n , x n + 1 )$
(2.8)

and

$d ∗ ( x n + 1 , T x n + 1 ) = d ( x n + 1 , T x n + 1 ) − d ( A , B ) ≤ d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) + d ( x n + 1 , T x n ) − d ( A , B ) = d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) = d ( x n + 1 , x n + 2 ) < d ( x n , x n + 1 ) .$
(2.9)

Hence, (2.8) and (2.9) imply that

$d ∗ ( x n ,T x n )+ d ∗ ( x n + 1 ,T x n + 1 )<2d( x n , x n + 1 ).$
(2.10)

We suppose that the inequalities

$d ∗ ( x n ,T x n )>α( x n ,z)d( x n ,z)≥2d( x n ,z)$

and

$d ∗ ( x n + 1 ,T x n + 1 )>α( x n + 1 ,z)d( x n + 1 ,z)≥2d( x n + 1 ,z)$

hold for some $n∈N$. Then, by using (2.10) we can write

$2 d ( x n , x n + 1 ) ≤ 2 d ( x n , z ) + 2 d ( x n + 1 , z ) < d ∗ ( x n , T x n ) + d ∗ ( x n + 1 , T x n + 1 ) ≤ 2 d ( x n , x n + 1 ) ,$

a contradiction. Hence, for all $n∈N$, we have either

$d ∗ ( x n ,T x n )≤α( x n ,z)d( x n ,z),$

or

$d ∗ ( x n + 1 ,T x n + 1 )≤α( x n + 1 ,z)d( x n + 1 ,z).$

Using (2.1), we obtain either

$d(T x n ,Tz)≤ψ ( d ( x n , z ) ) ,$

or

$d(T x n + 1 ,Tz)≤ψ ( d ( x n + 1 , z ) ) .$

If we take the limit as $n→+∞$ in each of these inequalities, we have

Consequently, there exists a subsequence ${ x n k }$ of ${ x n }$ such that $T x n k →Tz$ as $x n k →z$. Therefore,

$d(A,B)= lim k → ∞ d( x n k + 1 ,T x n k )=d(z,Tz).$

The uniqueness of best proximity point follows as in the proof of Theorem 2.1. □

Example 2.1 Let $X=R$ and $d(x,y)=|x−y|$ be a usual metric on X. Suppose $A=(−∞,−1]$ and $B=[5/4,+∞)$. Define $T:A→B$ by

Also, define $α: X 2 →[0,∞)$ by

and $ψ:[0,∞)→[0,∞)$ by $ψ(t)= 1 2 t$. Clearly, $d(A,B)=9/4$. Now we have:

Also, $T( A 0 )⊆ B 0$ and clearly, the pair $(A,B)$ has the P-property. Suppose

${ α ( x 1 , x 2 ) ≥ 1 , d ( u 1 , T x 1 ) = d ( A , B ) = 9 / 4 , d ( u 2 , T x 2 ) = d ( A , B ) = 9 / 4 ,$

then

${ x 1 , x 2 ∈ [ − 2 , − 1 ] , d ( u 1 , T x 1 ) = 9 / 4 , d ( u 2 , T x 2 ) = 9 / 4 .$

Note that $Tw∈[5/4,3/2]$ for all $w∈[−2,−1]$. Hence, $u 1 = u 2 =−1$, i.e., $α( u 1 , u 2 )≥2$. That is, T is a α-proximal admissible mapping with respect to $η(x,y)=2$. Also, assume that $α( x n , x n + 1 )≥2$ for all $n∈N∪{0}$ and $x n →x$ as $n→∞$. Then ${ x n }⊆[−2,−1]$ and hence $x∈[−2,−1]$. That is, $α( x n ,x)≥2$ for all $n∈N∪{0}$. If $x,y∈[−1,−2]$, then

$d(Tx,Ty)= 1 4 |x−y|≤ 1 2 |x−y|=ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) .$

Otherwise, $α(x,y)=0$. That is, $1 2 d ∗ (x,Tx)>α(x,y)d(x,y)=0$. Hence,

$d ∗ (x,Tx)≤α(x,y)d(x,y)⇒d(Tx,Ty)≤ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) .$

All conditions of Theorem 2.2 hold for this example and there is a unique best proximity point $z=−1$ such that $d(−1,T(−1))=d(A,B)$. Note that in this example the contractive condition of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 of Jleli and Samet  is not satisfied and so these are not applicable here. Indeed, if, $x=−2$ and $y=−1$, then we have

$α(−2,−1)d ( T ( − 2 ) , T ( − 1 ) ) =4× 1 4 =1>1/2=ψ ( d ( − 2 , − 1 ) ) .$

The following results are nice consequences of Theorem 2.2.

Theorem 2.3 Let A and B be non-empty closed subsets of a complete metric space $(X,d)$ such that $A 0$ is non-empty. Assume $T:A→B$ is a non-self-mapping satisfying the following assertions:

1. (i)

$T( A 0 )⊆ B 0$ and $(A,B)$ satisfies the P-property;

2. (ii)

for a function $δ:[0,1)→(0,1/2]$, there exists $r∈[0,1)$ such that

$δ(r) d ∗ (x,Tx)≤d(x,y)impliesd(Tx,Ty)≤ψ ( d ( x , y ) )$
(2.11)

for $x,y∈A$ where $d ∗ (x,y)=d(x,y)−d(A,B)$ and $ψ∈Ψ$.

Then T has a unique best proximity point.

Proof First, we fix r and define $α r :A×A→[0,∞)$ by $α r (x,y)= 1 δ ( r )$ for all $x,y∈A$. Since $1 δ ( r ) ≥2$ for all $r∈[0,1)$, $α r (w,v)≥2$ for all $w,v∈A$. Now, since $α r (w,v)$ is constant and $α r (w,v)≥2$ for all $w,v∈A$, T is an $α r$-proximal admissible mapping with respect to $η(x,y)=2$ and hence conditions (ii)-(iv) of Theorem 2.2 hold. Furthermore, if

$d ∗ (x,Tx)≤ α r (x,y)d(x,y),$

then

$δ(r) d ∗ (x,Tx)≤d(x,y)$

and so by (2.11) we deduce $d(Tx,Ty)≤ψ(d(x,y))$. Hence all conditions of Theorem 2.2 hold and T has a unique best proximity point. □

If we take $ψ(t)=rt$ in Theorem 2.3, where $0≤r<1$, then we obtain the following result.

Corollary 2.1 Let A and B be non-empty closed subsets of a complete metric space $(X,d)$ such that $A 0$ is non-empty. Assume $T:A→B$ is a non-self-mapping satisfying the following assertions:

1. (i)

$T( A 0 )⊆ B 0$ and $(A,B)$ satisfies the P-property;

2. (ii)

for a function $δ:[0,1)→(0,1/2]$, there exists $r∈[0,1)$ such that

$δ(r) d ∗ (x,Tx)≤d(x,y)impliesd(Tx,Ty)≤rd(x,y)$
(2.12)

for $x,y∈A$.

Then T has a unique best proximity point.

Corollary 2.2 Let A and B be non-empty closed subsets of a complete metric space $(X,d)$ such that $A 0$ is non-empty. Assume $T:A→B$ is a non-self-mapping satisfying the following assertions:

1. (i)

$T( A 0 )⊆ B 0$ and $(A,B)$ satisfies the P-property;

2. (ii)

define a non-increasing function $θ:[0,1)→(1/2,1]$ by

(2.13)

Assume that there exists $r∈[0,1)$ such that

$1 2 θ(r) d ∗ (x,Tx)≤d(x,y)impliesd(Tx,Ty)≤rd(x,y)$

for $x,y∈A$ where $d ∗ (x,y)=d(x,y)−d(A,B)$.

Then T has a unique best proximity point.

Proof If we take $δ(r)= 1 2 θ(r)$ in Corollary 2.1, we obtain the required result. □

If we take $δ(r)= 1 2 ( 1 + r )$ in Corollary 2.1, we obtain the main result of  in the following form.

Corollary 2.3 Let A and B be non-empty closed subsets of a complete metric space $(X,d)$ such that $A 0$ is non-empty. Assume $T:A→B$ is a non-self-mapping satisfying the following assertions:

1. (i)

$T( A 0 )⊆ B 0$ and $(A,B)$ satisfies the P-property;

2. (ii)

define a non-increasing function $β:[0,1)→(1/2,1]$ by

$β(r)= 1 2 ( 1 + r ) .$
(2.14)

Assume that there exists $r∈[0,1)$ such that

$β(r) d ∗ (x,Tx)≤d(x,y)impliesd(Tx,Ty)≤rd(x,y)$

for $x,y∈A$.

Then T has a unique best proximity point.

If we take $δ(r)= 1 2$ in Corollary 2.1 we have following result.

Corollary 2.4 Let A and B be non-empty closed subsets of a complete metric space $(X,d)$ such that $A 0$ is non-empty. Assume $T:A→B$ is a non-self mapping satisfying the following assertions:

1. (i)

$T( A 0 )⊆ B 0$ and $(A,B)$ satisfies the P-property;

2. (ii)
$1 2 d ∗ (x,Tx)≤d(x,y)⇒d(Tx,Ty)≤rd(x,y)$

for all $x,y∈A$.

Then T has a unique best proximity point.

## 3 Best proximity point results in partially ordered metric spaces

Fixed point theorems for monotone operators in ordered metric spaces are widely investigated and have found various applications in differential and integral equations (see [2, 9, 32] and references therein). The existence of best proximity and fixed point results in partially ordered metric spaces has been considered recently by many authors [4, 7, 21, 33, 34]. The aim of this section is to deduce some best proximity and fixed point results in the context of partially ordered metric spaces. Moreover, we obtain certain recent fixed point results as corollaries in partially ordered metric spaces.

Definition 3.1  A mapping $T:A→B$ is said to be proximally order-preserving if and only if it satisfies the condition

${ x 1 ⪯ x 2 , d ( u 1 , T x 1 ) = d ( A , B ) , d ( u 2 , T x 2 ) = d ( A , B ) , ⟹ u 1 ⪯ u 2$

for all $x 1 , x 2 , u 1 , u 2 ∈A$.

Clearly, if $B=A$, then the proximally order-preserving map $T:A→A$ reduces to a non-decreasing map.

Theorem 3.1 Let A and B be two non-empty closed subsets of a partially ordered complete metric space $(X,d,⪯)$ with $A 0 ≠∅$. Suppose that $T:A→B$ is a non-self-mapping satisfying the following conditions:

1. (i)

$T( A 0 )⊆ B 0$ and $(A,B)$ satisfies the P-property;

2. (ii)

T is proximally order-preserving;

3. (iii)

there exist elements $x 0$ and $x 1$ in $A 0$ with

4. (iv)

T is continuous;

5. (v)
$1 2 d ∗ (x,Tx)≤d(x,y)⇒d(Tx,Ty)≤ψ ( d ( x , y ) )$

for all $x,y∈A$ with $x⪯y$ where $d ∗ (x,y)=d(x,y)−d(A,B)$ and $ψ∈Ψ$.

Then T has a unique best proximity point.

Proof Define $α:A×A→[0,+∞)$ by

Now we prove that T is a α-proximal admissible mapping with respect to $η(x,y)=2$. For this, assume

${ α ( x , y ) ≥ 2 , d ( u , T x ) = d ( A , B ) , d ( v , T y ) = d ( A , B ) .$

So

${ x ⪯ y , d ( u , T x ) = d ( A , B ) , d ( v , T y ) = d ( A , B ) .$

Now, since T is proximally order-preserving, $u⪯v$. Thus, $α(u,v)≥2$. Furthermore, by (iii) the elements $x 0$ and $x 1$ in $A 0$ with

Let $d ∗ (x,Tx)≤α(x,y)d(x,y)$. Then for all $x,y∈A$ with $x⪯y$, we have $α(x,y)≥2$, and hence

$1 2 d ∗ (x,Tx)≤d(x,y).$

From (v) we get $d(Tx,Ty)≤ψ(d(x,y))$. That is, T is a modified Suzuki α-ψ-proximal contraction. Thus all conditions of Theorem 2.1 hold and T has a unique best proximity point. □

Corollary 3.1 Let A and B be two non-empty closed subsets of a partially ordered complete metric space $(X,d,⪯)$ with $A 0 ≠∅$. Suppose that $T:A→B$ be a non-self-mapping satisfying the following conditions:

1. (i)

$T( A 0 )⊆ B 0$ and $(A,B)$ satisfies the P-property;

2. (ii)

T is proximally ordered-preserving;

3. (iii)

there exist elements $x 0$ and $x 1$ in $A 0$ with

4. (iv)

T is continuous;

5. (v)
$1 2 d ∗ (x,Tx)≤d(x,y)⇒d(Tx,Ty)≤r ( d ( x , y ) )$

for all $x,y∈A$ with $x⪯y$ where $d ∗ (x,y)=d(x,y)−d(A,B)$ and $0≤r<1$.

Then T has a unique best proximity point.

Theorem 3.2 Suppose that A and B are two non-empty closed subsets of partially ordered complete metric space $(X,d,⪯)$ with $A 0 ≠∅$. Let $T:A→B$ be a non-self mapping satisfying the following conditions:

1. (i)

$T( A 0 )⊆ B 0$ and $(A,B)$ satisfies the P-property;

2. (ii)

T is proximally order-preserving;

3. (iii)

the elements $x 0$ and $x 1$ in $A 0$ with

4. (iv)

if ${ x n }$ is a non-decreasing sequence in A such that $x n →x∈A$ as $n→∞$, then $x n ⪯x$ for all $n∈N$;

5. (v)
$1 2 d ∗ (x,Tx)≤d(x,y)⇒d(Tx,Ty)≤ψ ( d ( x , y ) )$
(3.1)

for all $x,y∈A$ with $x⪯y$ where $d ∗ (x,y)=d(x,y)−d(A,B)$ and $ψ∈Ψ$.

Then T has a unique best proximity point.

Proof Defining $α:X×X→[0,∞)$ as in the proof of Theorem 3.1, we find that T is an α-proximal admissible mapping with respect to $η(x,y)=2$ and is modified Suzuki α-ψ-proximal contraction. Assume $α( x n , x n + 1 )≥2$ for all $n∈N$ such that $x n →x$ as $n→∞$. Then $x n ⪯ x n + 1$ for all $n∈N$. Hence, by (iv) we get $x n ⪯x$ for all $n∈N$ and so $α( x n ,x)≥1$ for all $n∈N$. That is, all conditions of Theorem 2.2 hold and T has a unique best proximity point. □

Corollary 3.2 Suppose that A and B are two non-empty closed subsets of partially ordered complete metric space $(X,d,⪯)$ with $A 0 ≠∅$. Let $T:A→B$ be a non-self-mapping satisfying the following conditions:

1. (i)

$T( A 0 )⊆ B 0$ and $(A,B)$ satisfies the P-property;

2. (ii)

T is proximally ordered-preserving;

3. (iii)

there exist elements $x 0$ and $x 1$ in $A 0$ with

4. (iv)

if ${ x n }$ is a non-decreasing sequence in A such that $x n →x∈A$ as $n→∞$, then $x n ⪯x$ for all $n∈N$;

5. (v)
$1 2 d ∗ (x,Tx)≤d(x,y)⇒d(Tx,Ty)≤r ( d ( x , y ) )$
(3.2)

for all $x,y∈A$ with $x⪯y$ where $d ∗ (x,y)=d(x,y)−d(A,B)$ and $0≤r<1$.

Then T has a unique best proximity point.

## 4 Applications

As an application of our results, we deduce new fixed point results for Suzuki-type contractions in the set up of metric and partially ordered metric spaces.

If we take $A=B=X$ in Theorems 2.1 and 2.2, then we deduce the following result.

Theorem 4.1 Let $(X,d)$ be a complete metric space and $T:X→X$ be an α-admissible mapping with respect to $η(x,y)=2$ such that

$d(x,Tx)≤α(x,y)d(x,y)⇒d(Tx,Ty)≤ψ ( d ( x , y ) )$

for all $x,y∈X$ where $ψ∈Ψ$. Also suppose that the following assertions holds:

1. (i)

there exists $x 0 ∈X$ such that $α( x 0 ,T x 0 )≥2$;

2. (ii)

either T is continuous or if ${ x n }$ is a sequence in X such that $α( x n , x n + 1 )≥2$ and $x n →x∈X$ as $n→∞$, then $α( x n ,x)≥2$ for all $n∈N$.

Then T has a unique fixed point.

If we take $ψ(t)=kt$ in Theorem 4.1, where $0≤k<1$, then we conclude to the following theorem.

Theorem 4.2 Let $(X,d)$ ba a complete metric space and let $T:X→X$ be an α-admissible mapping with respect to $η(x,y)=2$ such that

$d(x,Tx)≤α(x,y)d(x,y)⇒d(Tx,Ty)≤kd(x,y)$

for all $x,y∈X$ where $k∈[0,1)$. Also suppose that the following assertions hold:

1. (i)

there exists $x 0 ∈X$ such that $α( x 0 ,T x 0 )≥2$;

2. (ii)

either T is continuous or if ${ x n }$ is a sequence in X such that $α( x n , x n + 1 )≥2$ and $x n →x∈X$ as $n→∞$, then $α( x n ,x)≥2$ for all $n∈N$.

Then T has a unique fixed point.

As a consequence of Theorem 4.2, by taking $α(x,y)=2/θ(r)$, we derive the following theorem.

Theorem 4.3 Let $(X,d)$ be a complete metric space and T be a self-mapping on X. Define a non-increasing function $θ:[0,1)→(1/2,1]$ by

(4.1)

Assume that there exists $r∈[0,1)$ such that

$1 2 θ(r)d(x,Tx)≤d(x,y)impliesd(Tx,Ty)≤rd(x,y)$
(4.2)

for all $x,y∈X$. Then T has a unique fixed point.

Furthermore, if we take $A=B=X$ in Theorems 3.1 and 3.2, then we deduce the following results.

Theorem 4.4 Suppose that $(X,d,⪯)$ is a partially ordered complete metric space and $T:X→X$ is a mapping satisfying the following conditions:

1. (i)

T is non-decreasing;

2. (ii)

there exists $x 0$ in X such that $x 0 ⪯T x 0$;

3. (iii)

T is continuous;

4. (iv)
$1 2 d(x,Tx)≤d(x,y)⇒d(Tx,Ty)≤ψ ( d ( x , y ) )$
(4.3)

for all $x,y∈X$ with $x⪯y$ where $ψ∈Ψ$.

Then T has a unique fixed point.

Theorem 4.5 Suppose that $(X,d,⪯)$ is a partially ordered complete metric space and let $T:X→X$ be a mapping satisfying the following conditions:

1. (i)

T is non-decreasing;

2. (ii)

there exists $x 0$ in X such that $x 0 ⪯T x 0$;

3. (iii)

if ${ x n }$ is a non-increasing sequence in X such that $x n →x∈X$ as $n→∞$, then $x n ⪯x$ for all $n∈N$;

4. (iv)
$1 2 d(x,Tx)≤d(x,y)⇒d(Tx,Ty)≤ψ ( d ( x , y ) )$
(4.4)

for all $x,y∈X$ with $x⪯y$ where $ψ∈Ψ$.

Then T has a unique fixed point.

## References

1. 1.

Ky F: Extensions of two fixed point theorems of F. E. Browder. Math. Z. 1969, 112: 234–240. 10.1007/BF01110225

2. 2.

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

3. 3.

Hussain N, Khan AR: Applications of the best approximation operator to -nonexpansive maps in Hilbert spaces. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 2003, 24(3–4):327–338. 10.1081/NFA-120022926

4. 4.

Hussain N, Kutbi MA, Salimi P: Best proximity point results for modified α - ψ -proximal rational contractions. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2013., 2013: Article ID 927457

5. 5.

Sehgal VM, Singh SP: A generalization to multifunctions of Fan’s best approximation theorem. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1988, 102: 534–537.

6. 6.

Takahashi W: Fan’s Existence Theorem for Inequalities Concerning Convex Functions and Its Applications. In Minimax Theory and Applications. Edited by: Ricceri B, Simons S. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht; 1998:597–602.

7. 7.

Abkar A, Gabeleh M: Best proximity points for cyclic mappings in ordered metric spaces. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2011, 150(1):188–193. 10.1007/s10957-011-9818-2

8. 8.

Abkar A, Gabeleh M: A best proximity point theorem for Suzuki type contraction non-self mappings. Fixed Point Theory 2013, 14(2):281–288.

9. 9.

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

10. 10.

Amini-Harandi A, Hussain N, Akbar F: Best proximity point results for generalized contractions in metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 164

11. 11.

Amini-Harandi A, Fakhar M, Hajisharifi HR, Hussain N: Some new results on fixed and best proximity points in preordered metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 263

12. 12.

Anuradha J, Veeramani P: Proximal pointwise contraction. Topol. Appl. 2009, 156: 2942–2948. 10.1016/j.topol.2009.01.017

13. 13.

Basha SS, Veeramani P: Best proximity pair theorems for multifunctions with open fibres. J. Approx. Theory 2000, 103: 119–129. 10.1006/jath.1999.3415

14. 14.

Jleli M, Samet B: Best proximity points for α - ψ -proximal contractive type mappings and applications. Bulletin des Sciences Mathématiques 2013. 10.1016/j.bulsci.2013.02.003

15. 15.

De la Sen M: Fixed point and best proximity theorems under two classes of integral-type contractive conditions in uniform metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 510974

16. 16.

Pragadeeswarar V, Marudai M: Best proximity points: approximation and optimization in partially ordered metric spaces. Optim. Lett. 2013. 10.1007/s11590-012-0529-x

17. 17.

Proinov PD: A generalization of the Banach contraction principle with high order of convergence of successive approximations. Nonlinear Anal. 2007, 67: 2361–2369. 10.1016/j.na.2006.09.008

18. 18.

Proinov PD: New general convergence theory for iterative processes and its applications to Newton Kantorovich type theorems. J. Complex. 2010, 26: 3–42. 10.1016/j.jco.2009.05.001

19. 19.

Raj VS, Veeramani P: Best proximity pair theorems for relatively nonexpansive mappings. Appl. Gen. Topol. 2009, 10: 21–28.

20. 20.

Raj VS: A best proximity theorem for weakly contractive non-self mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 4804–4808. 10.1016/j.na.2011.04.052

21. 21.

Sadiq Basha S: Best proximity point theorems on partially ordered sets. Optim. Lett. 2012. 10.1007/s11590-012-0489-1

22. 22.

Salimi P, Latif A, Hussain N: Modified α - ψ -contractive mappings with applications. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 151

23. 23.

Samet B: Some results on best proximity points. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2013. 10.1007/s10957-013-0269-9

24. 24.

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

25. 25.

Suzuki T, Kikkawa M, Vetro C: The existence of best proximity points in metric spaces with the property UC. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 2918–2926. 10.1016/j.na.2009.01.173

26. 26.

Suzuki T: A new type of fixed point theorem in metric spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71(11):5313–5317. 10.1016/j.na.2009.04.017

27. 27.

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

28. 28.

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

29. 29.

Shobe N, Sedghi S, Roshan JR, Hussain N: Suzuki-type fixed point results in metric-like spaces. J. Funct. Spaces Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 143686

30. 30.

Bianchini RM, Grandolfi M: Transformazioni di tipo contracttivo generalizzato in uno spazio metrico. Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei, Rend. Lincei, Mat. Appl. 1968, 45: 212–216.

31. 31.

Berinde V: Iterative Approximation of Fixed Points. Springer, Berlin; 2007.

32. 32.

Hussain N, Taoudi MA: Krasnosel’skii-type fixed point theorems with applications to Volterra integral equations. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 196

33. 33.

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

34. 34.

Hussain N, Al-Mezel S, Salimi P: Fixed points for ψ -graphic contractions with application to integral equations. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2013., 2013: Article ID 575869

Download references

## Acknowledgements

This article was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah. Therefore, the authors acknowledge with thanks DSR, for technical and financial support.

## Author information

Authors

### Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdul Latif.

## Additional information

### Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

### Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed equally and significantly in writing this article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

## Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

## About this article

### Cite this article

Hussain, N., Latif, A. & Salimi, P. Best proximity point results for modified Suzuki α-ψ-proximal contractions. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2014, 10 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2014-10

Download citation

• Received:

• Accepted:

• Published:

### Keywords

• α-proximal admissible map
• Suzuki α-ψ-proximal contraction
• best proximity point 