A note on ‘Some fixed point theorems for generalized contractive mappings in complete metric spaces’
 Shujun Jiang^{1},
 Zhilong Li^{2, 3}Email author and
 Boško Damjanović^{4}
https://doi.org/10.1186/s136630160539y
© Jiang et al. 2016
Received: 25 October 2015
Accepted: 1 April 2016
Published: 14 May 2016
Abstract
Very recently, Hussain et al. (Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2015:185, 2015) introduced the concept of JScontraction and established some fixed point theorems for such contractions. In this paper, we introduce a new method of proofs that allows us to prove fixed point theorems for JScontraction in complete metric spaces by removing two conditions in theorems of Hussain et al. Thus, we prove that fixed point Theorems 2.32.8 and Corollary 2.9 of Hussain et al. actually are consequences, and not generalizations, of the corresponding theorems of Ćirić, Chatterjea, Kannan, and Reich.
Keywords
fixed point theorem Ćirić contraction JScontractionMSC
47H10 54H251 Introduction
The Banach contraction principle [2] is the first important result on fixed points for contractivetype mappings, which states that each Banach contraction \(T:X\rightarrow X\) (i.e., there exists \(\lambda\in[0,1)\) such that \(d(Tx,Ty)\leq\lambda d(x,y)\) for each \(x,y\in X\)) has a unique fixed point, provided that \((X,d)\) is a complete metric space. This wellknown theorem, which is an essential tool in many branches of mathematical analysis, first appeared in an explicit form in Banach’s thesis in 1922, where it was used to establish the existence of a solution of an integral equation. So far, according to its importance and simplicity, many authors have obtained interesting extensions and generalizations of the Banach contraction principle (see [1, 3–11]).
The concepts of Ćirić contraction and JScontraction have been introduced, respectively, by Ćirić [6] and Hussain et al. [1] as follows.
Definition 1
 (i)a Ćirić contraction (see [6]) if there exist nonnegative numbers q, r, s, t with \(q+r+s+2t<1\) such that$$\begin{aligned}& d(Tx, Ty)\leq qd(x,y)+rd(x, Tx) + sd(y, Ty)+t\bigl[d(x, Ty) + d(y, Tx)\bigr], \\& \quad \forall x,y\in X; \end{aligned}$$(1)
 (ii)a JScontraction (see [1]) if there exist \(\psi\in\Psi\) and nonnegative numbers q, r, s, t with \(q+r+s+2t<1\) such thatwhere Ψ is the set of all functions \(\psi:[0,+\infty)\rightarrow [1,+\infty)\) satisfying the following conditions:$$\begin{aligned}& \psi\bigl(d(Tx, Ty)\bigr)\leq\psi\bigl(d(x,y)\bigr)^{q} \psi\bigl(d(x, Tx)\bigr)^{r} \psi\bigl(d(y, Ty)\bigr)^{s}\psi \bigl(d(x, Ty) + d(y, Tx)\bigr)^{t}, \\& \quad \forall x,y\in X, \end{aligned}$$(2)
 (\(\psi_{1}\)):

ψ is nondecreasing, and \(\psi(t)=1\) if and only if \(t=0\);
 (\(\psi_{2}\)):

for each sequence \(\{t_{n}\}\subset(0,+\infty)\), \(\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\psi(t_{n})=1\) if and only if \(\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}t_{n}=0\);
 (\(\psi_{3}\)):

there exist \(r\in(0,1)\) and \(l\in(0,+\infty]\) such that \(\lim_{t\rightarrow0^{+}}\frac{\psi(t)1}{t^{r}}=l\);
 (\(\psi_{4}\)):

\(\psi(a+b)\leq\psi(a)\psi(b)\) for all \(a,b>0\).
For convenience, we denote by \(\Psi_{1}\) the set of all nondecreasing functions \(\psi:(0,+\infty)\rightarrow(1,+\infty)\) satisfying (\(\psi_{2}\)) and (\(\psi_{3}\)) and by \(\Psi_{2}\) the set of all functions \(\psi:[0,+\infty)\rightarrow[1,+\infty)\) satisfying (\(\psi_{1}\)), (\(\psi_{2}\)), and (\(\psi_{4}\)).
Remark 1
 (i)
If \(f(t)=e^{\sqrt{t}}\) for \(t\geq0\), then \(f\in\Psi\cap\Psi_{1}\cap\Psi_{2}\). If \(g(t)=e^{t}\) for \(t\geq0\), then \(g\in\Psi_{2}\), but \(g\notin\Psi\cup\Psi_{1}\) since \(\lim_{t\rightarrow0^{+}}\frac {e^{t}1}{t^{r}}=0\) for each \(r\in(0,1)\), that is, (\(\psi_{3}\)) is not satisfied. If \(h(t)=e^{\sqrt{te^{t}}}\) for \(t\geq0\), then \(h\in\Psi_{1}\), but \(h\notin\Psi\cup\Psi_{2}\) since \(e^{\sqrt {(t_{0}+s_{0})e^{(t_{0}+s_{0})}}}=e^{\sqrt{2}e}>e^{2\sqrt{e}}=e^{\sqrt{t_{0}e^{t_{0}}}}e^{\sqrt{s_{0}e^{s_{0}}}}\) whenever \(t_{0}=s_{0}=1\), that is, (\(\psi_{4}\)) is not satisfied.
 (ii)
Clearly, \(\Psi\subseteq\Psi_{1}\) and \(\Psi\subseteq\Psi_{2}\). Moreover, from (i) it follows that \(\Psi\subset\Psi_{1}\) and \(\Psi\subset\Psi_{2}\).
 (iii)
From (i) we conclude that \(\Psi_{1}\not\subset\Psi_{2}\), \(\Psi_{2}\not \subset\Psi_{1}\), and \(\Psi_{1}\cap\Psi_{2}\neq\O\).
In 1971, Ćirić [6] established the following fixed point theorem.
Theorem 1
([6])
Let \((X,d)\) be a complete metric space, and \(T:X\rightarrow X\) be a Ćirić contraction. Then T has a unique fixed point in X.
Recently, Jleli and Samet [8] proved the following fixed point theorem, which is a real generalization of the Banach contraction principle.
Theorem 2
([8], Corollary 2.1)
Very recently, Hussain et al. [1] presented the following extension of Theorem 2.
Theorem 3
([1], Theorem 2.3)
Let \((X,d)\) be a complete metric space, and \(T:X\rightarrow X\) a continuous JScontraction. Then T has a unique fixed point in X.
Remark 2
The main purpose of this paper is to show that the results concerned in metric spaces with JScontractions in [1] are immediate consequences of Theorem 1. Note that in [1] bcomplete bmetric spaces are also considered.
In this paper, we first introduce a new metric D in a given metric space \((X,d)\) induced by the metric d, and then we prove that \((X,D)\) is complete if and only if \((X,d)\) is complete. Then we show that each JScontraction with \(\psi\in\Psi_{2}\) in \((X,d)\) is certainly a Ćirić contraction in \((X,D)\). By using a new method we prove that Theorem 3 remains valid without assumption (\(\psi_{3}\)) and the continuity of T, which appear in Theorem 3. Therefore, Theorem 3 and Theorems 2.32.8 and Corollary 2.9 in [1] are not generalizations of Ćirić, Chatterjea, Kannan, and Reich theorems, as asserted in [1].
2 Main results
 (\(\eta_{1}\)):

η is nondecreasing, and \(\eta(t)=0\) if and only if \(t=0\);
 (\(\eta_{2}\)):

for each sequence \(\{t_{n}\}\subset(0,+\infty)\), \(\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\eta(t_{n})=0\) if and only if \(\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}t_{n}=0\);
 (\(\eta_{3}\)):

\(\eta(a+b)\leq\eta(a)+\eta(b)\) for all \(a,b>0\).
Lemma 1
Let \((X,d)\) be a metric space, and \(\psi\in\Psi_{2}\). Then \((X,D)\) is a metric space, where \(D(x,y)=\eta(d(x,y))=\ln(\psi (d(x,y)))\).
Proof
For each \(x\in X\), we have \(D(x,x)=\eta(d(x,x))=0\) by (\(\eta_{1}\)). For all \(x,y\in X\) with \(D(x,y)=0\), we have \(\eta(d(x,y))=0\) and hence \(d(x,y)=0\) by (\(\eta_{1}\)). Hence, for all \(x,y\in X\), \(D(x,y)=0\) if and only if \(x=y\).
For all \(x,y\in X\), we have \(D(x,y)=\eta(d(x,y))=\eta(d(y,x))=D(y,x)\).
For all \(x,y,z\in X\) with \(z\neq x\) and \(z\neq y\), by (\(\eta_{1}\)) and (\(\eta_{3}\)) we have \(D(x,y)=\eta(d(x,y))\leq\eta(d(x,z)+d(z,y))\leq\eta(d(x,z))+\eta (d(z,y))=D(x,z)+D(z,y)\). For all \(x\in X\) and \(y=z\in X\), we have \(D(x,y)=D(x,z)=D(x,z)+D(y,z)\) by (\(\eta_{1}\)). For all \(x=z\in X\) and \(y\in X\), we have \(D(x,y)=D(z,y)=D(x,z)+D(z,y)\) by (\(\eta_{1}\)). For all \(x=y=z\in X\), we have \(D(x,y)=0=D(x,z)+D(y,z)\) by (\(\eta_{1}\)). Hence, for all \(x,y,z\in X\), we always have \(D(x,y)\leq D(x,z)+D(z,y)\). This shows that \((X,D)\) is a metric space. The proof is complete. □
Lemma 2
Let \((X,d)\) be a metric space, and \(\psi\in\Psi_{2}\). Then \((X,D)\) is complete if and only if \((X,d)\) is complete, where \(D(x,y)=\eta(d(x,y))=\ln(\psi(d(x,y)))\).
Proof
Suppose that \((X,d)\) is complete and \(\{x_{n}\}\) is a Cauchy sequence of \((X,D)\), that is, \(\lim_{m,n\rightarrow\infty}D(x_{n},x_{m})=0\). Then we have \(\lim_{m,n\rightarrow\infty} \eta(d(x_{n},x_{m}))=0\), and hence \(\lim_{m,n\rightarrow\infty}d(x_{n}, x_{m})=0\) by (\(\eta_{2}\)). Moreover, by the completeness of \((X,d)\) there exists \(x\in X\) such that \(\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}d(x_{n},x)=0\), and so \(\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}D(x_{n},x)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \eta(d(x_{n},x))=0\) by (\(\eta_{2}\)). Hence, \((X,D)\) is complete. Similarly, we can show that if \((X,D)\) is complete, then \((X,d)\) is complete. The proof is complete. □
Lemma 3
Let \((X,d)\) be a metric space, and \(T:X\rightarrow X\) be a JScontraction with \(\psi\in\Psi_{2}\). Then T is a Ćirić contraction in \((X,D)\), where \(D(x,y)=\eta (d(x,y))=\ln(\psi(d(x,y)))\).
Proof
Theorem 4
Let \((X,d)\) be a complete metric space, and \(T:X\rightarrow X\) be a JScontraction with \(\psi\in\Psi_{2}\). Then T has a unique fixed point in X.
Proof
Since \((X,d)\) is a complete metric space, \((X,D)\) is also a complete metric space by Lemma 2. Note that T is a Ćirić contraction in \((X,D)\) by Lemma 3. Therefore, T has a unique fixed point in X by Theorem 1. The proof is complete. □
Remark 3
In comparison with Theorem 3, assumption (\(\psi_{3}\)) and the continuity of T have been removed from Theorem 4. Hence, Theorem 4 indeed improves Theorem 3.
Proof
Remark 4
It follows from Theorem 5 and the proof of Theorem 4 that Theorem 1 is equivalent to Theorem 4.
Remark 5
It is clear that Theorems 2.32.8 and Corollary 2.9 are immediate consequences of Theorem 1 but the converse is not true by Remark 2, and hence they are not real generalizations of Theorem 1. Note that Hussain et al. [1] also considered sufficient conditions for the existence of a fixed point of a JScontraction in bcomplete bmetric spaces.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
The work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (11161022, 11561026, 71462015), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province (20142BCB23013, 20143ACB21012, 20151BAB201003, 20151BAB201023), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Provincial Education Department (KJLD14034, GJJ150479). The third author is thankful to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Serbia.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Hussain, N, Parvaneh, V, Samet, B, Vetro, C: Some fixed point theorems for generalized contractive mappings in complete metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2015, 185 (2015) MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Banach, S: Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux équations intégrales. Fundam. Math. 3, 133181 (1922) (in French) MATHGoogle Scholar
 Kannan, R: Some results on fixed points. Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc. 60, 7176 (1968) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Chatterjea, SK: Fixed point theorems. C. R. Acad. Bulgare Sci. 25, 727730 (1972) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Reich, S: Some remarks concerning contraction mappings. Can. Math. Bull. 14, 121124 (1971) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Ćirić, L: Generalized contractions and fixedpoint theorems. Publ. Inst. Math. (Belgr.) 12(26), 1926 (1971) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Ćirić, L: A generalization of Banach’s contraction principle. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 45(2), 267273 (1974) MATHGoogle Scholar
 Jleli, M, Samet, B: A new generalization of the Banach contraction principle. J. Inequal. Appl. 2014, 38 (2014) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Aydi, H, Karapinar, E, Samet, B: Remarks on some recent fixed point theorems. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012, 76 (2012) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Aydi, H, Abbas, M, Vetro, C: Partial Hausdorff metric and Nadler’s fixed point theorem on partial metric spaces. Topol. Appl. 159, 32343242 (2012) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Aydi, H, Karapinar, E, Samet, B: Fixed points for generalized \((\alpha,\psi)\)contractions on generalized metric spaces. J. Inequal. Appl. 2014, 229 (2014) MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar