 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Best proximity point results for modified αproximal Ccontraction mappings
Fixed Point Theory and Applications volume 2014, Article number: 99 (2014)
Abstract
First we introduce new concepts of contraction mappings, then we establish certain best proximity point theorems for such kind of mappings in metric spaces. Finally, as consequences of these results, we deduce best proximity point theorems in metric spaces endowed with a graph and in partially ordered metric spaces. Moreover, we present an example and some fixed point results to illustrate the usability of the obtained theorems.
MSC:46N40, 46T99, 47H10, 54H25.
1 Introduction
A wide variety of problems arising in different areas of pure and applied mathematics, such as difference and differential equations, discrete and continuous dynamic systems, and variational analysis, can be modeled as fixed point equations of the form x=Tx. Therefore, fixed point theory plays a crucial role for solving equations of above kind, whose solutions are the fixed points of the mapping T:X\to X, where X is a nonempty set. Areas of potential applications of this theory include physics, economics, and engineering in dealing with the study of equilibrium points (which are fixed points of certain mappings). On the other hand, if T is a nonselfmapping, the above fixed point equation could have no solutions and, in this case, it is of a certain interest to determine an approximate solution x that is optimal in the sense that the distance between x and Tx is minimum. In this context, best proximity point theory is an useful tool in studying such kind of element. We recall the following concept.
Definition 1.1 Let A, B be two nonempty subsets of a metric space (X,d) and T:A\to B be a nonselfmapping. An element x\in A such that d(x,Tx)=d(A,B) is a best proximity point of the nonselfmapping T.
Clearly, if T is a selfmapping, a best proximity point is a fixed point, that is, x=Tx.
From the beginning, best proximity point theory of nonselfmappings has been studied by many authors; see the pioneering papers of Fan [1] and Kirk et al. [2]. The investigation of several variants of conditions for the existence of a best proximity point can be found in [3–12]. In particular, some significant best proximity point results for multivalued mappings are presented in [13]; see also the references therein.
Inspired and motivated by the above facts, in this paper, we introduce new concepts of contraction mappings. Then we establish certain best proximity point theorems for such kind of mappings in metric spaces. As consequences of these results, we deduce best proximity point theorems in metric spaces endowed with a graph and in partially ordered metric spaces. Moreover, we present an example and some fixed point results to illustrate the usability of the obtained theorems.
2 Preliminaries
In this section, we collect some useful definitions and results from fixed point theory.
Samet et al. [14] defined the notion of αadmissible mapping as follows.
Definition 2.1 ([14])
Let \alpha :X\times X\to [0,+\mathrm{\infty}) be a function. We say that a selfmapping T:X\to X is αadmissible if
By using this concept, they proved some fixed point results.
Theorem 2.1 ([14])
Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and T:X\to X be an αadmissible mapping. Assume that the following conditions hold:

(i)
for all x,y\in X we have
\alpha (x,y)d(Tx,Ty)\le \psi (d(x,y)),(1)where \psi :[0,+\mathrm{\infty})\to [0,+\mathrm{\infty}) is a nondecreasing function such that {\sum}_{n=1}^{+\mathrm{\infty}}{\psi}^{n}(t)<+\mathrm{\infty} for each t>0,

(ii)
there exists {x}_{0}\in X such that \alpha ({x}_{0},T{x}_{0})\ge 1,

(iii)
either T is continuous or for any sequence \{{x}_{n}\} in X with \alpha ({x}_{n},{x}_{n+1})\ge 1 for all n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\} and {x}_{n}\to x as n\to +\mathrm{\infty}, then \alpha ({x}_{n},x)\ge 1 for all n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}.
Then T has a fixed point.
Later on, working on these ideas a wide variety of papers appeared in the literature; see for instance [15–17]. Finally, we recall that Karapinar et al. [18] introduced the notion of triangular αadmissible mapping as follows.
Definition 2.2 ([18])
Let \alpha :X\times X\to (\mathrm{\infty},+\mathrm{\infty}) be a function. We say that a selfmapping T:X\to X is triangular αadmissible if
For more details and applications of this line of research, we refer the reader to some related papers of the authors and others [19–25].
3 Main results in metric spaces
Let A, B be two nonempty subsets of a metric space (X,d). Following the usual notation, we put
If A\cap B\ne \mathrm{\varnothing}, then {A}_{0} and {B}_{0} are nonempty. Further, it is interesting to notice that {A}_{0} and {B}_{0} are contained in the boundaries of A and B, respectively, provided A and B are closed subsets of a normed linear space such that d(A,B)>0 (see [26]). Also, we will use the following definition; see [27] for more details.
Definition 3.1 Let A, B be two nonempty subsets of a metric space (X,d). The pair (A,B) is said to have the Vproperty if, for every sequence \{{y}_{n}\} of B that satisfies the condition d(x,{y}_{n})\to d(x,B) for some x\in A, there is y\in B such that d(x,y)=d(x,B).
From now on, denote with Ψ the family of all continuous and nondecreasing functions \psi :[0,+\mathrm{\infty})\times [0,+\mathrm{\infty})\to [0,+\mathrm{\infty}) such that \psi (x,y)=0 if and only if x=y=0.
Definition 3.2 Let A, B be two nonempty subsets of a metric space (X,d) and \alpha :A\times A\to [0,+\mathrm{\infty}) be a function. We say that a nonselfmapping T:A\to B is triangular αproximal admissible if, for all x,y,z,{x}_{1},{x}_{2},{u}_{1},{u}_{2}\in A,
Definition 3.3 Let A, B be two nonempty subsets of a metric space (X,d) and \alpha :A\times A\to [0,+\mathrm{\infty}) be a function. We say that a nonselfmapping T:A\to B is

(i)
a modified αproximal Ccontraction if, for all u,v,x,y\in A,
\begin{array}{r}\{\begin{array}{c}\alpha (x,y)\ge 1,\hfill \\ d(u,Tx)=d(A,B),\hfill \\ d(v,Ty)=d(A,B)\hfill \end{array}\\ \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\u27f9\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}d(u,v)\le \frac{1}{2}(d(x,v)+d(y,u))\psi (d(x,v),d(y,u)),\end{array}(2) 
(ii)
an αproximal Ccontraction of type (I) if, for all u,v,x,y\in A,
\begin{array}{r}\{\begin{array}{c}d(u,Tx)=d(A,B),\hfill \\ d(v,Ty)=d(A,B)\hfill \end{array}\\ \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\u27f9\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\alpha (x,y)d(u,v)\le \frac{1}{2}(d(x,v)+d(y,u))\psi (d(x,v),d(y,u)),\end{array}
where 0\le \alpha (x,y)\le 1 for all x,y\in A,

(iii)
an αproximal Ccontraction of type (II) if, for all u,v,x,y\in A,
\begin{array}{r}\{\begin{array}{c}d(u,Tx)=d(A,B),\hfill \\ d(v,Ty)=d(A,B)\hfill \end{array}\\ \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\u27f9\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}{(\alpha (x,y)+\ell )}^{d(u,v)}\le {(\ell +1)}^{\frac{1}{2}(d(x,v)+d(y,u))\psi (d(x,v),d(y,u))},\end{array}
where \ell >0.
Remark 3.1 Every αproximal Ccontraction of type (I) and αproximal Ccontraction of type (II) mappings are modified αproximal Ccontraction mappings.
Now we give our main result.
Theorem 3.1 Let A, B be two nonempty subsets of a metric space (X,d) such that A is complete and {A}_{0} is nonempty. Assume that T:A\to B is a continuous modified αproximal Ccontraction such that the following conditions hold:

(i)
T is a triangular αproximal admissible mapping and T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0},

(ii)
there exist {x}_{0},{x}_{1}\in {A}_{0} such that
d({x}_{1},T{x}_{0})=d(A,B)\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathit{\text{and}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\alpha ({x}_{0},{x}_{1})\ge 1.
Then T has a best proximity point. Further, the best proximity point is unique if, for every x,y\in A such that d(x,Tx)=d(A,B)=d(y,Ty), we have \alpha (x,y)\ge 1.
Proof By (ii) there exist {x}_{0},{x}_{1}\in {A}_{0} such that
On the other hand, T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0}, then there exists {x}_{2}\in {A}_{0} such that
Now, since T is triangular αproximal admissible, we have \alpha ({x}_{1},{x}_{2})\ge 1. Thus
Since T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0}, there exists {x}_{3}\in {A}_{0} such that
Then we have
Again, since T is triangular αproximal admissible, we obtain \alpha ({x}_{2},{x}_{3})\ge 1 and hence
By continuing this process, we construct a sequence \{{x}_{n}\} such that
for all n\in \mathbb{N}. Now, from (2) with u={x}_{n}, v={x}_{n+1}, x={x}_{n1} and y={x}_{n}, we get
which implies d({x}_{n},{x}_{n+1})\le d({x}_{n1},{x}_{n}). It follows that the sequence \{{d}_{n}\}, where {d}_{n}:=d({x}_{n},{x}_{n+1}), is decreasing and so there exists d\ge 0 such that {d}_{n}\to d as n\to +\mathrm{\infty}. Then, taking the limit as n\to +\mathrm{\infty} in (4), we obtain
that is,
Again taking the limit as n\to +\mathrm{\infty} in (4), by (5) and the continuity of ψ, we get
and so \psi (2d,0)=0. Therefore, by the property of ψ, we get d=0, that is,
Now, we prove that \{{x}_{n}\} is a Cauchy sequence. Suppose, to the contrary, that \{{x}_{n}\} is not a Cauchy sequence. Then there are \epsilon >0 and sequences \{m(k)\} and \{n(k)\} such that for all positive integers k
This implies that, for all k\in \mathbb{N}, we have
Taking the limit as k\to +\mathrm{\infty} in the above inequality and using (6), we get
Again, from
and
taking the limit as k\to +\mathrm{\infty}, by (6) and (7) we deduce
Similarly, we deduce
and
We shall show that
Since T is a triangular αproximal admissible mapping and
by (T2) of Definition 3.2, we have
Again, since T is a triangular αproximal admissible mapping and
by (T2) of Definition 3.2 we have
Thus, by continuing this process, we get (11).
On the other hand, we know that
Therefore, from (2) we have
Taking the limit as k\to +\mathrm{\infty} in the above inequality and using (8), (9), (10) and the continuity of ψ, we get
and hence \psi (\epsilon ,\epsilon )=0, which leads to the contradiction \epsilon =0. Thus, \{{x}_{n}\} is a Cauchy sequence. Since A is complete, then there is z\in A such that {x}_{n}\to z. Now, from
taking the limit as n\to +\mathrm{\infty}, we deduce d(z,Tz)=d(A,B), because of the continuity of T.
Finally we prove the uniqueness of the point x\in A such that d(x,Tx)=d(A,B). Indeed, suppose that there exist x,y\in A which are best proximity points, that is, d(x,Tx)=d(A,B)=d(y,Ty). Since \alpha (x,y)\ge 1, we have
which implies d(x,y)=0, that is, x=y. □
Corollary 3.1 Let A, B be two nonempty subsets of a metric space (X,d) such that A is complete and {A}_{0} is nonempty. Assume that T:A\to B is a continuous αproximal Ccontraction mapping of type (I) or a continuous αproximal Ccontraction mapping of type (II) such that the following conditions hold:

(i)
T is a triangular αproximal admissible mapping and T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0},

(ii)
there exist {x}_{0},{x}_{1}\in {A}_{0} such that
d({x}_{1},T{x}_{0})=d(A,B)\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathit{\text{and}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\alpha ({x}_{0},{x}_{1})\ge 1.
Then T has a best proximity point. Further, the best proximity point is unique if, for every x,y\in A such that d(x,Tx)=d(A,B)=d(y,Ty), we have \alpha (x,y)\ge 1.
In analogy to the main result but omitting the continuity hypothesis of T, we can state the following theorem.
Theorem 3.2 Let A, B be two nonempty subsets of a metric space (X,d) such that A is complete, the pair (A,B) has the Vproperty and {A}_{0} is nonempty. Assume that T:A\to B is a modified αproximal Ccontraction such that the following conditions hold:

(i)
T is a triangular αproximal admissible mapping and T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0},

(ii)
there exist {x}_{0},{x}_{1}\in {A}_{0} such that
d({x}_{1},T{x}_{0})=d(A,B)\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathit{\text{and}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\alpha ({x}_{0},{x}_{1})\ge 1, 
(iii)
if \{{x}_{n}\} is a sequence in A such that \alpha ({x}_{n},{x}_{n+1})\ge 1 and {x}_{n}\to x\in A as n\to +\mathrm{\infty}, then \alpha ({x}_{n},x)\ge 1 for all n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}.
Then T has a best proximity point. Further, the best proximity point is unique if, for every x,y\in A such that d(x,Tx)=d(A,B)=d(y,Ty), we have \alpha (x,y)\ge 1.
Proof Following the proof of Theorem 3.1, there exist a Cauchy sequence \{{x}_{n}\}\subseteq A and z\in A such that (3) holds and {x}_{n}\to z as n\to +\mathrm{\infty}. On the other hand, for all n\in \mathbb{N}, we can write
Taking the limit as n\to +\mathrm{\infty} in the above inequality, we get
Since the pair (A,B) has the Vproperty, then there exists w\in B such that d(z,w)=d(A,B) and hence z\in {A}_{0}. Moreover, since T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0}, then there exists v\in A such that
Now, by (iii) and (3), we have \alpha ({x}_{n},z)\ge 1 and d({x}_{n+1},T{x}_{n})=d(A,B) for all n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}. Also, since T is a modified αproximal Ccontraction, we get
Taking the limit as n\to +\mathrm{\infty} in the above inequality, we have
which implies, d(z,v)=0, that is, v=z. Hence z is a best proximity point of T. The uniqueness of the best proximity point follows easily proceeding as in Theorem 3.1. □
Next, we use an example to illustrate the efficiency of the new theorem.
Example 3.1 Let X=\mathbb{R} be endowed with the usual metric d(x,y)=xy, for all x,y\in X. Consider A=(\mathrm{\infty},1], B=[1,+\mathrm{\infty}) and define T:A\to B by
Also, define \alpha :X\times X\to [0,+\mathrm{\infty}) by
and \psi :[0,+\mathrm{\infty})\times [0,+\mathrm{\infty})\to [0,+\mathrm{\infty}) by
Clearly, the pair (A,B) has the Vproperty and d(A,B)=2. Now, we have
It is immediate to see that T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0}, d(1,T(1))=d(A,B)=2 and \alpha (1,1)\ge 1.
Now, let \alpha (x,y)\ge 1 and \alpha (y,z)\ge 1. Therefore, x,y,z\in [2,1], that is, \alpha (x,z)\ge 1. Also suppose
then
Hence, u=v=1, that is, \alpha (u,v)\ge 1. Further,
that is, T is a triangular αproximal admissible and modified αproximal Ccontraction mapping. Moreover, if \{{x}_{n}\} is a sequence such that \alpha ({x}_{n},{x}_{n+1})\ge 1 for all n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\} and {x}_{n}\to x as n\to +\mathrm{\infty}, then \{{x}_{n}\}\subseteq [2,1] and hence x\in [2,1]. Consequently, \alpha ({x}_{n},x)\ge 1 for all n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}. Therefore all the conditions of Theorem 3.2 hold for this example and T has a best proximity point. Here z=1 is the best proximity point of T.
We conclude this section with another corollary.
Corollary 3.2 Let A, B be two nonempty subsets of a metric space (X,d) such that A is complete, the pair (A,B) has the Vproperty and {A}_{0} is nonempty. Assume that T:A\to B is a continuous αproximal Ccontraction mapping of type (I) or a continuous αproximal Ccontraction mapping of type (II) such that the following conditions hold:

(i)
T is a triangular αproximal admissible mapping and T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0},

(ii)
there exist elements {x}_{0},{x}_{1}\in {A}_{0} such that
d({x}_{1},T{x}_{0})=d(A,B)\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathit{\text{and}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\alpha ({x}_{0},{x}_{1})\ge 1, 
(iii)
if \{{x}_{n}\} is a sequence in A such that \alpha ({x}_{n},{x}_{n+1})\ge 1 and {x}_{n}\to x\in A as n\to +\mathrm{\infty}, then \alpha ({x}_{n},x)\ge 1 for all n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}.
Then T has a best proximity point. Further, the best proximity point is unique if, for every x,y\in A such that d(x,Tx)=d(A,B)=d(y,Ty), we have \alpha (x,y)\ge 1.
4 Some results in metric spaces endowed with a graph
Consistent with Jachymski [28], let (X,d) be a metric space and Δ denotes the diagonal of the Cartesian product X\times X. Consider a directed graph G such that the set V(G) of its vertices coincides with X, and the set E(G) of its edges contains all loops, that is, E(G)\supseteq \mathrm{\Delta}. We assume that G has no parallel edges, so we can identify G with the pair (V(G),E(G)). Moreover, we may treat G as a weighted graph (see [29], p.309) by assigning to each edge the distance between its vertices. If x and y are vertices in a graph G, then a path in G from x to y of length N (N\in \mathbb{N}) is a sequence {\{{x}_{i}\}}_{i=0}^{N} of N+1 vertices such that {x}_{0}=x, {x}_{N}=y and ({x}_{i1},{x}_{i})\in E(G) for i=1,\dots ,N. A graph G is connected if there is a path between any two vertices. G is weakly connected if \tilde{G} is connected (see for details [28, 30]).
Recently, some results have appeared providing sufficient conditions for a mapping to be a Picard operator if (X,d) is endowed with a graph. The first result in this direction was given by Jachymski [28].
Definition 4.1 ([28])
Let (X,d) be a metric space endowed with a graph G. We say that a selfmapping T:X\to X is a Banach Gcontraction or simply a Gcontraction if T preserves the edges of G, that is,
and T decreases weights of the edges of G in the following way:
Definition 4.2 Let A,B be two nonempty closed subsets of a metric space (X,d) endowed with a graph G. We say that a nonselfmapping T:A\to B is a Gproximal Ccontraction if, for all u,v,x,y\in A,
and
Theorem 4.1 Let A, B be two nonempty closed subsets of a metric space (X,d) endowed with a graph G. Assume that A is complete, {A}_{0} is nonempty and T:A\to B is a continuous Gproximal Ccontraction mapping such that the following conditions hold:

(i)
T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0},

(ii)
there exist elements {x}_{0},{x}_{1}\in {A}_{0} such that
d({x}_{1},T{x}_{0})=d(A,B)\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathit{\text{and}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}({x}_{0},{x}_{1})\in E(G), 
(iii)
for all (x,y)\in E(G) and (y,z)\in E(G), we have (x,z)\in E(G).
Then T has a best proximity point. Further, the best proximity point is unique if, for every x,y\in A such that d(x,Tx)=d(A,B)=d(y,Ty), we have (x,y)\in E(G).
Proof Define \alpha :X\times X\to [0,+\mathrm{\infty}) by
Firstly we prove that T is a triangular αproximal admissible mapping. To this aim, assume
Therefore, we have
Since T is a Gproximal Ccontraction mapping, we get (u,v)\in E(G), that is, \alpha (u,v)\ge 1 and
Also, let \alpha (x,z)\ge 1 and \alpha (z,y)\ge 1, then (x,z)\in E(G) and (z,y)\in E(G). Consequently, from (iii), we deduce that (x,y)\in E(G), that is, \alpha (x,y)\ge 1. Thus T is a triangular αproximal admissible mapping with T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0}. Moreover, T is a continuous modified αproximal Ccontraction. From (ii) there exist {x}_{0},{x}_{1}\in {A}_{0} such that d({x}_{1},T{x}_{0})=d(A,B) and ({x}_{0},{x}_{1})\in E(G), that is, d({x}_{1},T{x}_{0})=d(A,B) and \alpha ({x}_{0},{x}_{1})\ge 1. Hence, all the conditions of Theorem 3.1 are satisfied and T has a unique fixed point. □
Similarly, by using Theorem 3.2, we can prove the following theorem.
Theorem 4.2 Let A, B be two nonempty closed subsets of a metric space (X,d) endowed with a graph G. Assume that A is complete, the pair (A,B) has the Vproperty and {A}_{0} is nonempty. Also suppose that T:A\to B is a Gproximal Ccontraction mapping such that the following conditions hold:

(i)
T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0},

(ii)
there exist elements {x}_{0},{x}_{1}\in {A}_{0} such that
d({x}_{1},T{x}_{0})=d(A,B)\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathit{\text{and}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}({x}_{0},{x}_{1})\in E(G), 
(iii)
for all (x,y)\in E(G) and (y,z)\in E(G), we have (x,z)\in E(G),

(iv)
if \{{x}_{n}\} is a sequence in X such that ({x}_{n},{x}_{n+1})\in E(G) for all n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\} and {x}_{n}\to x as n\to +\mathrm{\infty}, then ({x}_{n},x)\in E(G) for all n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}.
Then T has a best proximity point. Further, the best proximity point is unique if, for every x,y\in A such that d(x,Tx)=d(A,B)=d(y,Ty), we have (x,y)\in E(G).
5 Some results in partially ordered metric spaces
In recent years, Ran and Reurings [31] initiated the study of weaker contraction conditions by considering selfmappings in partially ordered metric space. Further these results were generalized by many authors; see for instance [32, 33]. Here we consider some recent results of Mongkolkeha et al. [34] and Sadiq Basha et al. [35].
Definition 5.1 ([35])
Let (X,d,\u2aaf) be a partially ordered metric space. We say that a nonselfmapping T:A\to B is proximally orderedpreserving if and only if, for all {x}_{1},{x}_{2},{u}_{1},{u}_{2}\in A,
Theorem 5.1 (Theorem 2.2 of [34])
Let A, B be two nonempty closed subsets of a partially ordered complete metric space (X,d,\u2aaf) such that {A}_{0} is nonempty. Assume that T:A\to B satisfies the following conditions:

(i)
T is continuous and proximally orderedpreserving such that T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0},

(ii)
there exist elements {x}_{0},{x}_{1}\in {A}_{0} such that
d({x}_{1},T{x}_{0})=d(A,B)\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathit{\text{and}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}{x}_{0}\u2aaf{x}_{1}, 
(iii)
for all x,y,u,v\in A,
\{\begin{array}{c}x\u2aafy,\hfill \\ d(u,Tx)=d(A,B),\hfill \\ d(y,Ty)=d(A,B)\hfill \end{array}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\u27f9\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}d(u,v)\le \frac{1}{2}(d(x,v)+d(y,u))\psi (d(x,v),d(y,u)).
Then T has a best proximity point.
Proof Define \alpha :A\times A\to [0,+\mathrm{\infty}) by
Firstly we prove that T is a triangular αproximal admissible mapping. To this aim, assume
Therefore, we have
Now, since T is proximally orderedpreserving, then u\u2aafv, that is, \alpha (u,v)\ge 1. Consequently, condition (T1) of Definition 3.2 holds. Also, assume
so that \{\begin{array}{l}x\u2aafz,\\ z\u2aafy,\end{array} and consequently x\u2aafy, that is, \alpha (x,y)\ge 1. Hence, condition (T2) of Definition 3.2 holds. Further, by (ii) we have
Moreover, from (iii) we get
Thus all the conditions of Theorem 3.1 hold and T has a best proximity point. □
Similarly, omitting the continuity hypothesis of T, we can give the following result.
Theorem 5.2 (see Theorem 2.6 of [34])
Let A, B be two nonempty closed subsets of a partially ordered complete metric space (X,d,\u2aaf) such that {A}_{0} is nonempty and the pair (A,B) has the Vproperty. Assume that T:A\to B satisfies the following conditions:

(i)
T is proximally orderedpreserving such that T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0},

(ii)
there exist elements {x}_{0},{x}_{1}\in {A}_{0} such that
d({x}_{1},T{x}_{0})=d(A,B)\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathit{\text{and}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}{x}_{0}\u2aaf{x}_{1}, 
(iii)
for all x,y,u,v\in A,
\{\begin{array}{c}x\u2aafy,\hfill \\ d(u,Tx)=d(A,B),\hfill \\ d(y,Ty)=d(A,B)\hfill \end{array}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\u27f9\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}d(u,v)\le \frac{1}{2}(d(x,v)+d(y,u))\psi (d(x,v),d(y,u)), 
(iv)
if \{{x}_{n}\} is an increasing sequence in A converging to x\in A, then {x}_{n}\u2aafx for all n\in \mathbb{N}.
Then T has a best proximity point.
6 Application to fixed point theorems
In this section we briefly collect some fixed point results which are consequences of the results presented in the main section. Stated precisely, from Theorem 3.1, we obtain the following theorems.
Theorem 6.1 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space. Assume that T:X\to X is a continuous selfmapping satisfying the following conditions:

(i)
T is triangular αadmissible,

(ii)
there exists {x}_{0} in X such that \alpha ({x}_{0},T{x}_{0})\ge 1,

(iii)
for all x,y\in X,
\alpha (x,y)d(Tx,Ty)\le \frac{1}{2}(d(x,Ty)+d(y,Tx))\psi (d(x,Ty),d(y,Tx)).
Then T has a fixed point.
Theorem 6.2 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space. Assume that T:X\to X is a continuous selfmapping satisfying the following conditions:

(i)
T is triangular αadmissible,

(ii)
there exists {x}_{0} in X such that \alpha ({x}_{0},T{x}_{0})\ge 1,

(iii)
for all x,y\in X,
{(\alpha (x,y)+\ell )}^{d(Tx,Ty)}\le {(\ell +1)}^{\frac{1}{2}(d(x,Ty)+d(y,Tx))\psi (d(x,Ty),d(y,Tx))},
where \ell >0.
Then T has a fixed point.
Analogously, from Theorem 3.2, we obtain the following theorems, which do not require the continuity of T.
Theorem 6.3 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space. Assume that T:X\to X is a selfmapping satisfying the following conditions:

(i)
T is triangular αadmissible,

(ii)
there exists {x}_{0} in X such that \alpha ({x}_{0},T{x}_{0})\ge 1,

(iii)
for all x,y\in X,
\alpha (x,y)d(Tx,Ty)\le \frac{1}{2}(d(x,Ty)+d(y,Tx))\psi (d(x,Ty),d(y,Tx)), 
(iv)
if \{{x}_{n}\} is a sequence in X such that \alpha ({x}_{n},{x}_{n+1})\ge 1 and {x}_{n}\to x as n\to +\mathrm{\infty}, then \alpha ({x}_{n},x)\ge 1 for all n\in \mathbb{N}.
Then T has a fixed point.
Theorem 6.4 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space. Assume that T:X\to X is a selfmapping satisfying the following conditions:

(i)
T is triangular αadmissible,

(ii)
there exists {x}_{0} in X such that \alpha ({x}_{0},T{x}_{0})\ge 1,

(iii)
for all x,y\in X,
{(\alpha (x,y)+1)}^{d(Tx,Ty)}\le {2}^{[\frac{1}{2}(d(x,Ty)+d(y,Tx))\psi (d(x,Ty),d(y,Tx))]}, 
(iv)
if \{{x}_{n}\} is a sequence in A such that \alpha ({x}_{n},{x}_{n+1})\ge 1 and {x}_{n}\to x\in A as n\to +\mathrm{\infty}, then \alpha ({x}_{n},x)\ge 1 for all n\in \mathbb{N}.
Then T has a fixed point.
References
Fan K: Extensions of two fixed point theorems of F. E. Browder. Math. Z. 1969, 112: 234–240. 10.1007/BF01110225
Kirk WA, Reich S, Veeramani P: Proximinal retracts and best proximity pair theorems. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 2003, 24: 851–862. 10.1081/NFA120026380
Alghamdi MA, Shahzad N, Vetro F: Best proximity points for some classes of proximal contractions. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2013., 2013: Article ID 713252
Derafshpour M, Rezapour S, Shahzad N: Best proximity points of cyclic ϕ contractions in ordered metric spaces. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 37(1):193–202.
Di Bari C, Suzuki T, Vetro C: Best proximity points for cyclic MeirKeeler contractions. Nonlinear Anal. 2008, 69: 3790–3794. 10.1016/j.na.2007.10.014
Gabeleh M: Proximal weakly contractive and proximal nonexpansive nonselfmappings in metric and Banach spaces. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2013, 158: 615–625. 10.1007/s1095701202468
Gabeleh M, Shahzad N: Existence and convergence theorems of best proximity points. J. Appl. Math. 2013., 2013: Article ID 101439 10.1155/2013/101439
Nashine HK, Vetro C, Kumam P: Best proximity point theorems for rational proximal contractions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 95 10.1186/16871812201395
Pathak HK, Shahzad N: Convergence and existence results for best C proximity points. Georgian Math. J. 2012, 19(2):301–316.
Sadiq Basha S, Shahzad N: Best proximity point theorems for generalized proximal contractions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 42
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
Vetro C: Best proximity points: convergence and existence theorems for p cyclic mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 73(7):2283–2291. 10.1016/j.na.2010.06.008
Gabeleh M: Best proximity points: global minimization of multivalued nonself mappings. Optim. Lett. 2014, 8: 1101–1112. 10.1007/s1159001306283
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
Karapinar E, Samet B: Generalized ( α  ψ ) contractive type mappings and related fixed point theorems with applications. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 793486
Kumam P, Vetro C, Vetro F: Fixed points for weak α  ψ contractions in partial metric spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2013., 2013: Article ID 986028
Salimi P, Latif A, Hussain N: Modified α  ψ contractive mappings with applications. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 151
Karapinar E, Kumam P, Salimi P: On α  ψ MeirKeeler contractive mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 94
Asl JH, Rezapour SH, Shahzad N: On fixed point of α contractive multifunctions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 212
Hussain N, Karapinar E, Salimi P, Akbar F: α admissible mappings and related fixed point theorems. J. Inequal. Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 114
Hussain N, Karapinar E, Salimi P, Vetro P: Fixed point results for {G}^{m} MeirKeeler contractive and G  (\alpha ,\psi ) MeirKeeler contractive mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 34
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
Hussain N, Salimi P, Latif A: Fixed point results for single and setvalued α  η  ψ contractive mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2031: Article ID 212
Salimi P, Vetro C, Vetro P: Some new fixed point results in nonArchimedean fuzzy metric spaces. Nonlinear Anal. Model. Control 2013, 18(3):344–358.
Salimi P, Vetro C, Vetro P: Fixed point theorems for twisted (\alpha ,\beta )  ψ contractive type mappings and applications. Filomat 2013, 27(4):605–615. 10.2298/FIL1304605S
Sadiq Basha S: Best proximity point theorems on partially ordered sets. Optim. Lett. 2012. 10.1007/s1159001204891
Sadiq Basha S: Best proximity points: optimal solutions. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2011, 151: 210–216. 10.1007/s1095701198694
Jachymski J: The contraction principle for mappings on a metric space with a graph. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2008, 1(136):1359–1373.
Johnsonbaugh R: Discrete Mathematics. Prentice Hall, New Jersey; 1997.
Bojor F: Fixed point theorems for Reich type contraction on metric spaces with a graph. Nonlinear Anal. 2012, 75: 3895–3901. 10.1016/j.na.2012.02.009
Ran ACM, Reurings MCB: A fixed point theorem in partially ordered sets and some applications to matrix equations. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2004, 132: 1435–1443. 10.1090/S0002993903072204
Berinde V, Vetro F: Common fixed points of mappings satisfying implicit contractive conditions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 105 10.1186/168718122012105
Vetro F, Radenović S: Nonlinear ψ quasicontractions of Ćirićtype in partial metric spaces. Appl. Math. Comput. 2012, 219: 1594–1600. 10.1016/j.amc.2012.07.061
Mongkolkeha C, Cho YJ, Kumam P: Best proximity point for generalized proximal C contraction mappings in metric spaces with partial orders. J. Inequal. Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 94
Sadiq Basha S, Veeramani P: Best proximity point theorem on partially ordered sets. Optim. Lett. 2012. 10.1007/s1159001204891
Acknowledgements
First author was supported by the Commission on Higher Education, the Thailand Research Fund and the King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (Grant no. MRG5580213). Third author is member of the Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally and significantly in writing this article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Kumam, P., Salimi, P. & Vetro, C. Best proximity point results for modified αproximal Ccontraction mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2014, 99 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/16871812201499
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/16871812201499
Keywords
 best proximity point
 fixed point
 metric space