- Research
- Open access
- Published:
A note on the equivalence of some metric and H-cone metric fixed point theorems for multivalued contractions
Fixed Point Theory and Applications volume 2015, Article number: 43 (2015)
Abstract
In this paper, by using Minkowski functional introduced by Kadelburg et al. (Appl. Math. Lett. 24:370-374, 2011) or nonlinear scalarization function introduced by Du (Nonlinear Anal. 72:2259-2261, 2010), we prove some equivalences between vectorial versions of fixed point theorems for H-cone metrics in the sense of Arshad and Ahmad and scalar versions of fixed point theorems for (general) Hausdorff-Pompeiu metrics (in usual sense).
1 Introduction
Recently, the investigation of possible equivalence between fixed point results in cone metric spaces (or tvs-cone metric spaces) and metric spaces has become a hot topic in many mathematical activities. Namely, by using the properties either of the Minkowski functional \(q_{e}\) or the nonlinear scalarization function \(\xi_{e}\) (in particular their monotonicity), some scholars have made a conclusion that many fixed point results in the setting of cone metric spaces or tvs-cone metric spaces can be directly obtained as a consequence of the corresponding results in metric spaces (see [1–12]). However, so far these equivalences have been referred to some fixed results only for single valued mappings, whereas, the ones for multivalued mappings have been seldom involved. The aim of this paper is to consider some fixed point theorem equivalences between H-cone metric fixed point theorems for multivalued or generalized multivalued contractions and (usual) metric fixed point theorems for (general) multivalued mappings. We mainly establish the equivalences between Arshad’s and Ahmad’s theorem (see [13]) and Nadler’s theorem (see [14]), and between Ðorić’s theorem (see [15]) and Achari’s theorem (see [16]), and Ćirić’s theorem (see [17]).
Definition 1.1
([18])
Let E be a real Banach space and θ be its zero element. Suppose that a nonempty closed subset K of E satisfies the following:
-
(1)
\(K\neq\{\theta\}\);
-
(2)
\(a,b\in\mathbb{R}^{+}\) and \(x,y\in K \Rightarrow ax+by\in K\);
-
(3)
\(x,-x\in K\Rightarrow x=\theta\).
Then K is called a cone. If \(\operatorname{int} K\neq\emptyset\), then K is called a solid cone, where intK denotes the interior of K.
Definition 1.2
([19])
Let K be a cone in a real Banach space \((E,\|\cdot\|)\). The partial orderings ⪯, ≺, and ≪ on E with respect to P are defined as follows, respectively. Let \(x,y\in E\). Then
-
(1)
\(x\preceq y\) if \(y-x\in K\);
-
(2)
\(x\prec y\) if \(x\preceq y\) and \(x\neq y\);
-
(3)
\(x\ll y\) if \(y-x\in \operatorname{int} K\);
-
(4)
we say that K is normal if there is \(M>0\) such that \(\theta \preceq x\preceq y\Rightarrow\|x\|\leq M\|y\|\).
Throughout this paper, unless otherwise specified, we always suppose that E is a real Banach space, K is a solid cone in E, ⪯, ≺, ≪ are partial orderings with respect to K, and Y is a locally convex Hausdorff topological vector space (tvs for short) with its zero vector θ.
Definition 1.3
([20])
Let X be a nonempty set and \((Y,K)\) be an ordered tvs. Suppose that a vector-valued function \(d:X\times X\rightarrow Y\) satisfies:
-
(i)
\(\theta\preceq d(x,y)\) for all \(x,y\in X\) and \(d(x,y)=\theta\) if and only if \(x=y\);
-
(ii)
\(d(x,y)=d(y,x)\) for all \(x,y\in X\);
-
(iii)
\(d(x,y)\preceq d(x,z)+d(z,y)\) for all \(x,y,z\in X\).
Then d is called a tvs-cone metric on X, and \((X,d)\) is called a tvs-cone metric space.
Remark 1.4
([8])
If \(Y=E\) in Definition 1.3, then d is said to be a cone metric on X, and \((X,d)\) is said to be a cone metric space. In other words, cone metric space is a special case of tvs-cone metric space.
Definition 1.5
([21])
Let \((X,d)\) be a cone metric space and let \(\mathcal{A}\) be a collection of nonempty subsets of X. A map \(H:\mathcal{A}\times\mathcal{A}\rightarrow E\) is called an H-cone metric in the sense of Wardowski if for any \(A,B\in\mathcal{A}\), the following conditions hold:
-
(H1)
\(H(A,B)=\theta\Rightarrow A=B\);
-
(H2)
\(H(A,B)=H(B,A)\);
-
(H3)
for any \(\varepsilon\gg\theta\) and each \(x\in A\), there exists \(y\in B\) such that \(d(x,y)\preceq H(A,B)+\varepsilon\);
-
(H4)
one of the following is satisfied:
-
(i)
for any \(\varepsilon\gg\theta\), there exists \(x\in A\) such that for each \(y\in B\), \(H(A,B)\preceq d(x,y)+\varepsilon\);
-
(ii)
for any \(\varepsilon\gg\theta\), there exists \(x\in B\) such that for each \(y\in A\), \(H(A,B)\preceq d(x,y)+\varepsilon\).
-
(i)
Remark 1.6
If we substitute Y for E, then H is called a tvs-H-cone metric (see [20]).
Definition 1.7
([13])
Let \((X,d)\) be a cone metric space and \(\mathcal{A}\) a collection of nonempty subsets of X. A map \(H:\mathcal{A}\times\mathcal{A}\rightarrow E\) is called an H-cone metric in the sense of Arshad and Ahmad if the following conditions hold:
- (H1):
-
\(\theta\preceq H(A,B)\) for all \(A,B\in\mathcal{A}\) and \(H(A,B)=\theta\) if and only if \(A=B\);
- (H2):
-
\(H(A,B)=H(B,A)\) for all \(A,B\in\mathcal{A}\);
- (H3):
-
\(H(A,B)\preceq H(A,C)+H(C,B)\) for all \(A,B,C\in\mathcal{A}\);
- (H4):
-
if \(A,B\in\mathcal{A}\), \(\theta\prec\varepsilon\in E\) with \(H(A,B)\prec\varepsilon\), then for each \(a\in A\) there exists \(b\in B\) such that \(d(a,b)\prec\varepsilon\).
Example 1.8
Let \((X,d)\) be a metric space and let \(\mathcal{A}\) be a family of all nonempty closed bounded subsets of X. Then \(H:\mathcal{A}\times\mathcal{A}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{+}\) given by the formula
is an H-cone metric (called a Hausdorff-Pompeiu metric), which satisfies either Definition 1.5 or Definition 1.7.
Remark 1.9
Compared with Definition 1.5, Definition 1.7 minutely modifies Definition 1.5 to make it more comparable with a standard metric. The following example indicates that Definition 1.7 is different from Definition 1.5.
Example 1.10
Let \(X=\{a,b,c\}\) and \(d:X\times X\rightarrow[0,+\infty)\) be defined by
Let \(\mathcal{A}=\{\{a\},\{ b\} ,\{c\}\}\), \(H:\mathcal{A}\times\mathcal{A} \rightarrow[0,+\infty)\) as \(H(\{a\},\{b\}) =H(\{b\},\{a\})=1\), \(H(\{a\},\{ c\})=H(\{c\},\{a\})=H(\{b\},\{c\}) =H(\{c\},\{b\}) =2\), \(H(\{a\},\{a\})=H(\{b\},\{b\})=H(\{c\},\{c\})=0\). Then H is an H-cone metric which satisfies Definition 1.7 but not Definition 1.5. In fact, (H4) of Definition 1.5 does not hold.
Recall (see [9] or [22]) that if V is an absolutely convex and absorbing subset of a tvs Y, its Minkowski functional is defined by
It is a semi-norm on Y and \(V\subset W\) implies that \(q_{W}(x)\leq q_{V}(x)\) for \(x\in Y\). If V is an absolutely convex neighborhood of θ in Y, then \(q_{V}\) is continuous and
Let \((Y,K)\) be an ordered tvs and \(e\in \operatorname{int} K\). Then \([-e,e]=(K-e)\cap(e-K)=\{z\in Y: -e\preceq z\preceq e\}\) is an absolutely convex neighborhood of θ; its Minkowski functional \(q_{[-e,e]}\) will be denoted by \(q_{e}\). Clearly, \(\operatorname{int} [-e,e]=(\operatorname{int} K-e)\cap(e-\operatorname{int} K)\), \(q_{e}(x)=\inf\{\lambda>0:x\prec\lambda e\}\). Moreover, \(q_{e}(x)\) is an increasing function on K. Indeed, if \(\theta\preceq x\preceq y\), then \(\{\lambda:x\in\lambda[-e,e]\}\supset\{\lambda:y\in\lambda [-e,e]\}\) and it follows that \(q_{e}(x)\leq q_{e}(y)\).
Lemma 1.11
([9])
Let \((X,d)\) be a tvs-cone metric space and let \(e\in \operatorname{int} K\). Let \(q_{e}\) be the corresponding Minkowski functional of \([-e,e]\). Then \(d_{q}:=q_{e}\circ d\) is a metric on X.
Lemma 1.12
([8])
Let \((X,d)\) be a tvs-cone metric space and let \(e\in \operatorname{int} K\). Let \(\xi_{e}:Y\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\) be a nonlinear scalarization function defined by \(\xi_{e}(y)=\inf\{r\in\mathbb{R}:y\in re-K\}\). Then \(d_{\xi}:X\times X\rightarrow[0,+\infty)\) defined by \(d_{\xi}:=\xi_{e} \circ d\) is a metric on X.
For the convenience of the reader, we present some well-known theorems as follows.
Theorem 1.13
(Nadler [14])
Let \((X,d)\) be a complete metric space and \(\mathcal{A}\) be a collection of nonempty, closed, and bounded subsets of X. Suppose that a mapping \(T:X\rightarrow\mathcal{A}\) is a multivalued contraction, that is, there exists \(\lambda\in[0,1)\) such that for all \(x,y\in X\),
where \(H(\cdot,\cdot)\) is the Hausdorff-Pompeiu metric (1.1) induced by d. Then T has a fixed point.
Theorem 1.14
(Arshad and Ahmad [13])
Let \((X,d)\) be a complete cone metric space. Let \(\mathcal{A}\) be a collection of nonempty closed subsets of X, and let \(H:\mathcal{A}\times\mathcal{A}\rightarrow E\) be an H-cone metric in the sense of Arshad and Ahmad. If for a map \(T:X\rightarrow\mathcal{A}\) there exists \(\lambda\in[0,1)\) such that for all \(x,y\in X\),
then T has a fixed point.
Theorem 1.15
(Achari [16])
Let \((X,d)\) be a complete metric space and let \(\mathcal{A}\) be a family of nonempty, closed, and bounded subsets of X. Suppose that \(T,S:X\rightarrow\mathcal{A}\) are two multivalued mappings and suppose that there exists \(\lambda\in[0,1)\) such that for all \(x,y\in X\),
where \(H(\cdot,\cdot)\) is the Hausdorff-Pompeiu metric (1.1) induced by d. Then T and S have a common fixed point.
Theorem 1.16
(Ðorić [15])
Let \((X,d)\) be a complete cone metric space. Let \(\mathcal{A}\) be a family of nonempty, closed, and bounded subsets of X and let there exist an H-cone metric \(H:\mathcal{A}\times\mathcal{A}\rightarrow E\) in the sense of Arshad and Ahmad. Suppose that \(T,S:X\rightarrow\mathcal{A}\) are two multivalued mappings and suppose that there is \(\lambda\in [0,1)\) such that, for all \(x,y\in X\), at least one of the following conditions holds:
-
(C1)
\(H(Tx,Sy)\preceq\lambda\cdot d(x,y)\);
-
(C2)
\(H(Tx,Sy)\preceq\lambda\cdot d(x,u)\) for each fixed \(u\in Tx\);
-
(C3)
\(H(Tx,Sy)\preceq\lambda\cdot d(y,v)\) for each fixed \(v\in Sy\);
-
(C4)
\(H(Tx,Sy)\preceq\lambda\cdot\frac{d(x,v)+d(y,u)}{2}\) for each fixed \(v\in Sy\) and each fixed \(u\in Tx\).
Then T and S have a common fixed point.
Theorem 1.17
(Ćirić [17])
Let \((X,d)\) be a complete metric space and let \(\mathcal{A}\) be a family of nonempty, closed, and bounded subsets of X. Suppose that \(T:X\rightarrow\mathcal{A}\) is a generalized multivalued contraction, that is, there exists \(\lambda\in[0,1)\) such that for all \(x,y\in X\),
where \(H(\cdot,\cdot)\) is the Hausdorff-Pompeiu metric (1.1) induced by d. Then T has a fixed point.
Theorem 1.18
(Ðorić [15])
Let \((X,d)\) be a complete cone metric space. Let \(\mathcal{A}\) be a family of nonempty, closed, and bounded subsets of X and let there exist an H-cone metric \(H:\mathcal{A}\times\mathcal{A}\rightarrow E\) in the sense of Arshad and Ahmad. Suppose that \(T:X\rightarrow\mathcal{A}\) is a cone generalized multivalued contraction, that is, there exists \(\lambda\in[0,1)\) such that, for all \(x,y\in X\), one of the following conditions holds:
-
(D1)
\(H(Tx,Ty)\preceq\lambda\cdot d(x,y)\);
-
(D2)
\(H(Tx,Ty)\preceq\lambda\cdot d(x,u)\) for each fixed \(u\in Tx\);
-
(D3)
\(H(Tx,Ty)\preceq\lambda\cdot d(y,v)\) for each fixed \(v\in Ty\);
-
(D4)
\(H(Tx,Ty)\preceq\lambda\cdot\frac{d(x,v)+d(y,u)}{2}\) for each fixed \(v\in Ty\) and each fixed \(u\in Tx\).
Then T has a fixed point.
2 Main results
In what follows, by utilizing the Minkowski functional \(q_{e}\) or the nonlinear scalarization function \(\xi_{e}\), we present two inequalities. Based on them, we thereupon obtain some equivalences between some well-known theorems for multivalued or generalized multivalued contractions.
Theorem 2.1
Let \((X,d)\) be a cone metric space and \(\mathcal{A}\) a collection of nonempty subsets of X. Let \(H:\mathcal{A}\times\mathcal{A}\rightarrow E\) be an H-cone metric in the sense of Arshad and Ahmad and let \(e\in \operatorname{int} K\) and \(q_{e}\) be the corresponding Minkowski functional of \([-e,e]\). If \(H_{q}=q_{e}\circ H\) and \(d_{q}=q_{e}\circ d\), then
where \(H_{d_{q}}(A,B)\) is the Hausdorff-Pompeiu metric induced by \(d_{q}\).
Proof
On account of (H1)-(H3) in Definition 1.7, we conclude that \((\mathcal{A},H)\) is a cone metric space. Using Lemma 1.11, one finds that \(d_{q}\) is a metric on X and \(H_{q}\) is a metric on \(\mathcal{A}\). Denote
In view of (H4), it is not hard to verify that \(M\subseteq N\). Thus, \(\inf M\geq\inf N\). Further, we have
Accordingly, for all \(A,B\in\mathcal{A}\), it follows that
□
Theorem 2.2
Let \((X,d)\) be a cone metric space and \(\mathcal{A}\) a collection of nonempty subsets of X. Let \(H:\mathcal{A}\times\mathcal{A}\rightarrow E\) be an H-cone metric in the sense of Arshad and Ahmad and let \(e\in \operatorname{int} K\) and \(\xi_{e}\) be the corresponding nonlinear scalarization function. If \(H_{\xi}=\xi_{e}\circ H\) and \(d_{\xi}=\xi_{e}\circ d\), then
where \(H_{d_{\xi}}(A,B)\) is the Hausdorff-Pompeiu metric induced by \(d_{\xi}\).
Proof
Similarly as in the proof of Theorem 2.1, by utilizing Lemma 1.12, we obtain the conclusion. □
Theorem 2.3
Theorem 1.14 is equivalent to Theorem 1.13.
Proof
In Theorem 1.14, take \(E=\mathbb{R}\), \(K=[0,+\infty)\), and H to be the Hausdorff-Pompeiu metric (1.1) introduced by d, and let \(\mathcal{A}\) be a collection of nonempty, closed, and bounded subsets of X. Then by Theorem 1.14, we easily get Theorem 1.13. Conversely, let Theorem 1.13 hold. Applying the Minkowski functional \(q_{e}\) to both sides of the inequality (1.2), we establish that
that is,
Here, \(H_{q}=q_{e}\circ H\) and \(d_{q}=q_{e}\circ d\) are metrics from Lemma 1.11. By using Theorem 2.1, for all \(x,y\in X\), it follows that
Hence by Theorem 1.13, T has a fixed point. □
Theorem 2.4
Theorem 1.16 is equivalent to Theorem 1.15.
Proof
In Theorem 1.16, take \(E=\mathbb{R}\), \(K=[0,+\infty)\), and let H be the Hausdorff-Pompeiu metric (1.1) introduced by d. Then Theorem 1.15 is valid. Indeed, in this case, from (C1)-(C4) of Theorem 1.16, we conclude that
where \(d(a,B)=\inf_{b\in B}d(a,b)\). Hence,
That is to say, we obtain Theorem 1.15.
Conversely, let Theorem 1.15 hold. Then by (C1)-(C4), it follows that
Applying the Minkowski functional \(q_{e}\) to both sides of the above inequalities, we establish that
That is to say,
where \(d_{q}(a,B)=\inf_{b\in B}d_{q}(a,b)\). \(H_{q}=q_{e}\circ H\) and \(d_{q}=q_{e}\circ d\) are metrics from Lemma 1.11. Thus by Theorem 2.1, for all \(x,y\in X\), we have
Therefore, by Theorem 1.15, T and S have a common fixed point. □
Corollary 2.5
Theorem 1.18 is equivalent to Theorem 1.17.
Proof
If one takes \(S=T\) in Theorem 1.16 and Theorem 1.15, then by Theorem 2.4, the proof is completed. □
Remark 2.6
According to Theorem 2.3, Theorem 2.4 and Corollary 2.5, we can easily see that the vectorial versions of Nadler’s theorem, Achari’s theorem and Ćirić’s theorem are just equivalent to their scalar versions, respectively. It is worth mentioning that it is possible to obtain the same conclusion using the nonlinear scalarization function \(\xi_{e}\).
We finally pose the following problems:
Problem 1
Does Definition 1.5 imply Definition 1.7?
Problem 2
Is Theorem 3.1 of [21] equivalent to Theorem 1.13?
Problem 3
References
Amini-Harandi, A, Fakhar, M: Fixed point theory in cone metric spaces obtained via the scalarization method. Comput. Math. Appl. 59, 3529-3534 (2010)
Khamsi, M-A, Wojciechowski, P-J: On the additivity of the Minkowski functionals. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 34(6), 635-647 (2013)
Kumam, P, Dung, N-V, Hang, V-T-L: Some equivalence between cone b-metric spaces and b-metric spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2013, Article ID 573740 (2013)
Khani, M, Pourmahdian, M: On the metrizability of cone metric spaces. Topol. Appl. 158, 190-193 (2011)
Cakallı, H, Sönmez, A, Genc, C: On an equivalence of topological vector space valued cone metric spaces and metric spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 25, 429-433 (2012)
Asadi, M, Rhoades, B-E, Soleimani, H: Some notes on the paper ‘The equivalence of cone metric spaces and metric spaces’. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012, Article ID 87 (2012)
Feng, Y-Q, Mao, W: The equivalence of cone metric spaces and metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory 11(2), 259-264 (2010)
Du, W-S: A note on cone metric fixed point theory and its equivalence. Nonlinear Anal. 72, 2259-2261 (2010)
Kadelburg, Z, Radenović, S, Rakočević, V: A note on the equivalence of some metric and cone metric fixed point results. Appl. Math. Lett. 24, 370-374 (2011)
Haghi, R-H, Rezapour, S, Shahzad, N: Some fixed point generalizations are not real generalizations. Nonlinear Anal. 74, 1799-1803 (2011)
Du, W-S, Karapınar, E: A note on cone b-metric and its related results: generalizations or equivalence? Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013, Article ID 210 (2013)
Ercan, Z: On the end of the cone metric spaces. Topol. Appl. 166, 10-14 (2014)
Arshad, M, Ahmad, J: On multivalued contractions in cone metric spaces without normality. Sci. World J. 2013, Article ID 481601 (2013)
Nadler, S-B Jr: Multi-valued contraction mappings. Pac. J. Math. 30(2), 475-488 (1969)
Ðorić, D: Common fixed point theorems for generalized multivalued contractions on cone metric spaces over a non-normal solid cone. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2014, Article ID 159 (2014)
Achari, J: Common fixed points of mappings and set-valued mappings. Rev. Roum. Math. Pures Appl. 24(2), 179-182 (1979)
Ćirić, L: Fixed points for generalized multi-valued mappings. Mat. Vesn. 9(24), 265-272 (1972)
Ge, X: A fixed point theorem for correspondences on cone metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory 15(1), 79-86 (2014)
Radenović, S, Kadelburg, Z: Some results on fixed points of multifunctions on abstract metric spaces. Math. Comput. Model. 53, 746-754 (2011)
Radenović, S, Simić, S, Cakić, N, Golubović, Z: A note on tvs-cone metric fixed point theory. Math. Comput. Model. 54, 2418-2422 (2011)
Wardowski, D: On set-valued contractions of Nadler-type in cone metric spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 24, 275-278 (2011)
Schaefer, H-H: Topological Vector Spaces, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin (1971)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to the referees for their very helpful suggestions and kind comments. The third author is thankful to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Serbia.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
The authors contributed equally and significantly in writing this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Huang, H., Radenović, S. & Ðorić, D. A note on the equivalence of some metric and H-cone metric fixed point theorems for multivalued contractions. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2015, 43 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13663-015-0289-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13663-015-0289-2