Skip to main content

Advertisement

A best proximity point theorem for α-proximal Geraghty non-self mappings

Abstract

In this paper, we search some best proximity point results for a new class of non-self mappings \(T:A \longrightarrow B\) called α-proximal Geraghty mappings. Our results extend many recent results appearing in the literature. We suggest an example to support our result. Several consequences are derived. As applications, we investigate the existence of best proximity points for a metric space endowed with symmetric binary relation.

Introduction

One of the famous generalizations of the Banach contraction principle for the existence of fixed points for self mappings on metric spaces [5] is the theorem by Geraghty [8]. Consider A and B to be two nonempty subsets of a metric space \((X,d)\). Let \(T:A\longrightarrow B\) be a non-self mapping. Then the best proximity points of T are the points \(x\in A\) satisfying \(d(x,Tx)=d(A,B)\). Recently, several works on best proximity point theory were studied by giving sufficient conditions assuring the existence. Thus, several known results were derived. For additional information, see Refs. [2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 19,20,21,22], and [25].

Recently, Jleli, Karapinar, and Samet in [11] have introduced a new class of contractive mappings called αψ-contractive type mappings. They have provided some results on the existence and uniqueness of best proximity points of such non-self mappings. There are many papers in the literature about α-contractions, see, for example, [1, 4, 13, 17], and [15, 16, 24]. Recently, Ayari in [9] proposed an extension for the case of αβ-proximal quasi-contractive mappings. We are interested in extending these works for the Geraghty functions by introducing the notion of α-proximal Geraghty non-self mappings. The purpose of all of this is to provide a theorem on the existence and uniqueness of best proximity point for such mappings.

Kumam and Mongkolekeha in [14] proved new common best proximity point theorems for proximity commuting mappings using the concept of Geraghty theorem in complete metric spaces. Also Biligili, Karapinar, and Sadarangani in [6] also suggested a best proximity point theorem for a pair \((A,B)\) of subsets on a metric space X satisfying the P-property. This was accomplished by introducing the notion of generalized Geraghty-contraction.

In this work, we have established a new result on the existence and uniqueness of best proximity point for α-proximal Geraghty non-self mappings defined on a closed subset of a complete metric space. Our result generalized results existing in the literature. Moreover, we have shown that from our main theorems we are able to deduce some other theorems of best proximity points for the case of metric spaces endowed with symmetric binary relations. We also have deduced the main fixed point theorem of Geraghty [8].

The paper is divided into five different sections as follows. Section 2 is dedicated to the notation adopted and to providing definitions. Moreover, best proximity point theorem is stated in Sect. 3 with its proof illustrated by an example. Then, several consequences are obtained in Sect. 4. Finally, the existence of best proximity points on metric spaces endowed with symmetric binary relations and a fixed point result are given in Sect. 5.

Preliminaries and definitions

Let \((A,B)\) be a pair of nonempty subsets of a metric space \((X,d)\). We adopt the following notations:

  • \(d(A,B):=\inf \{d(a,b):a\in A,b\in B\}\);

  • \(A_{0}:=\{a\in A: \text{ there exists } b\in B \text{ such that } d(a,b)=d(A,B) \}\);

  • \(B_{0}:=\{b\in B: \text{ there exists } a\in A \text{ such that } d(a,b)=d(A,B) \}\).

Definition 2.1

([22])

Let \(T: A\rightarrow B\) be a mapping. An element \(x^{*}\) is said to be a best proximity point of T if \(d(x^{*},Tx ^{*})=d(A,B)\).

Definition 2.2

([18])

Let \((A,B)\) be a pair of nonempty subsets of a metric space \((X,d)\) such that \(A_{0}\) is nonempty. Then the pair \((A,B)\) is said to have the P-property iff \(d(x_{1},y_{1})=d(x_{2},y_{2})=d(A,B) \Longrightarrow d(x_{1},x_{2})=d(y_{1},y_{2})\), where \(x_{1},x_{2}\in A\) and \(y_{1},y_{2}\in B\).

Definition 2.3

([11])

Let \(T: A\rightarrow B\) and \(\alpha : A \times A\longrightarrow [0,+\infty )\). We say that T is said to be α-proximal admissible if \(\alpha (x_{1},x_{2})\ge 1\) and \(d(u_{1},Tx_{1})=d(u_{2},Tx_{2})=d(A,B) \Longrightarrow \alpha (u_{1},u_{2})\ge 1\) for all \(x_{1},x_{2},u_{1},u _{2}\in A\).

Let us introduce the set F that is the class of all functions \(\beta :[0,\infty )\longrightarrow [0,1]\) such that, for any bounded sequence \(\{t_{n}\}\) of positive reals, \(\beta (t_{n})\longrightarrow 1\) implies \(t_{n}\longrightarrow 0\).

Definition 2.4

([8])

Let \((X,d)\) be a metric space and \(T: X\rightarrow X\) be a given mapping. We say that T is a β-Geraghty contractive mapping if there exists \(\beta \in F \) such that

$$ d(Tx,Ty)\le \beta \bigl(d(x,y)\bigr)d(x,y) $$

for all \(x,y \in X\).

Main results and theorems

First, we introduce the following concept which is a natural generalization of the definition of Geraghty.

Definition 3.1

Let \((X,d)\) be a metric space and \((A,B)\) be a pair of nonempty subsets of X. A non-self mapping \(T: A\rightarrow B\) is called α-proximal Geraghty mapping, where \(\alpha : A \times A\longrightarrow [0,+\infty )\), if there exists \(\beta \in F \) such that

$$ \alpha (x,y)d(Tx,Ty)\le \beta \bigl(d(x,y)\bigr)d(x,y) $$

for all \(x,y \in A\).

We propose the following best proximity point theorem.

Theorem 3.2

Let \((A,B)\) be a pair of nonempty closed subsets of a complete metric space \((X,d)\) such that \(A_{0}\) is nonempty. Let \(\alpha : A \times A \longrightarrow [0,+,\infty )\) and \(\beta \in F\). Consider an α-proximal Geraghty non-self mapping \(T: A\longrightarrow B\) satisfying the following assertions:

  1. (1)

    \(T(A_{0})\subset B_{0}\) and the pair \((A,B)\) satisfies the P-property;

  2. (2)

    T is α-proximal admissible;

  3. (3)

    There exist elements \(x_{0},x_{1} \in A\) such that \(d(x_{1},Tx_{0})=d(A,B)\) and \(\alpha (x_{0},x_{1}) \ge 1\);

  4. (4)

    If \(\{x_{n}\}\) is a sequence in A such that \(\alpha (x_{n},x_{n+1}) \ge 1\) and \({\lim_{n\longrightarrow +\infty }x_{n}=x_{\ast }\in A}\), then there exists a subsequence \(\{x_{n(k)}\}\) of \(\{x_{n}\}\) such that \(\alpha (x_{n(k)},x_{\ast })\ge 1\) for all k.

Then T has a unique best proximity point \(x_{\ast }\in A\) such that \(d(x_{\ast },Tx_{\ast })=d(A,B)\).

Proof

Thanks to condition (3), there exist \(x_{0},x_{1} \in A\) such that \(d(x_{1},Tx_{0})=d(A,B)\) and \(\alpha (x_{0},x_{1}) \ge 1\). As \(T(A_{0})\subset B_{0}\), there exists \(x_{2}\in A_{0}\) such that \(d(x_{2},Tx_{1})=d(A,B)\).

As T is α-proximal admissible and using \(\alpha (x_{0},x _{1}) \ge 1\), \(d(x_{1},Tx_{0})=d(x_{2},Tx_{1})=d(A,B)\), this implies that \(\alpha (x_{1},x_{2}) \ge 1\).

In a similar fashion, by induction, we can construct a sequence \(\{x_{n}\}\subset A_{0}\) such that

$$ d(x_{n+1},Tx_{n})=d(A,B) \quad \text{and} \quad \alpha (x_{n},x_{n+1}) \ge 1 \quad \text{for all } n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}. $$
(3.1)

Our next step is to prove that the sequence \(\{x_{n}\}\) is a Cauchy sequence. Let us first prove that \({\lim_{n\longrightarrow +\infty }d(x_{n},x_{n-1})=0}\). Since \(d(x_{n+1},Tx_{n})=d(A,B)\) and \(d(x_{n},Tx_{n-1})=d(A,B)\), using the P-property, we get \(d(x_{n},x_{n+1})=d(Tx_{n-1},Tx_{n})\). As T is α-proximal Geraghty mapping and \(\alpha (x_{n-1},x_{n})\ge 1\), then

$$ d(x_{n+1},x_{n}) \le \beta \bigl(d(x_{n-1},x_{n})\bigr)d(x_{n-1},x_{n}) \le d(x _{n-1},x_{n}) \quad \text{for all } n\ge 1. $$
(3.2)

We can suppose that \(d(x_{n-1},x_{n})>0\). From (3.2) we conclude that

$$ \frac{d(x_{n+1},x_{n})}{d(x_{n-1},x_{n})} \le \beta \bigl(d(x_{n-1},x_{n}) \bigr) \le 1 \quad \text{for all } n\ge 1. $$
(3.3)

Let \({r=\lim_{n\longrightarrow +\infty }d(x_{n-1},x_{n})}\). Using equation (3.2) and letting \(n \longrightarrow +\infty \), we obtain that

$$ \frac{r}{r}=1\le \lim_{n\longrightarrow +\infty }\beta \bigl(d(x_{n-1},x _{n})\bigr)\le 1. $$

Thus \({\lim_{n\longrightarrow +\infty }\beta (d(x_{n-1},x_{n}))=1}\). Using the definition of the function β, we conclude that

$$ \lim_{n\longrightarrow +\infty }d(x_{n-1},x_{n})=0. $$
(3.4)

Suppose that \(\{x_{n}\}\) is not a Cauchy sequence. Then there exist \(\epsilon >0\) and sequences \(\{x_{m_{k}}\}\) and \(\{x_{n_{k}}\}\) such that, for all positive integers k such that \(m(k)>n(k)>k\) \(d(x_{m(k)},x_{n(k)})\ge \epsilon \) and \(d(x_{m(k)},x_{n(k)-1})< \epsilon \). Using the triangular inequality, we get

$$\begin{aligned} \epsilon \le& d(x_{m(k)},x_{n(k)})\le d(x_{m(k)},x_{n(k)-1})+d(x_{n(k)-1},x _{n(k)}) \\ \le& \epsilon + d(x_{n(k)-1},x_{n(k)}), \quad \forall k. \end{aligned}$$
(3.5)

Taking limit as \(k \longrightarrow + \infty \) in the above inequality (3.5) and using (3.4), we conclude that

$$ \lim_{n\longrightarrow +\infty } d(x_{m(k)},x_{n(k)})= \epsilon . $$
(3.6)

Using again the triangular inequality,

$$ d(x_{m(k)},x_{n(k)})\le d(x_{m(k)},x_{m(k)+1})+d(x_{m(k)+1},x_{n(k)+1})+d(x _{n(k)+1},x_{n(k)}). $$
(3.7)

On the other hand, using triangular inequality and inequality (3.7), we have

$$ \epsilon \le d(x_{m(k)+1},x_{n(k)+1})\le d(x_{m(k)+1},x_{m(k)})+d(x _{m(k)},x_{n(k)})+d(x_{n(k)},x_{n(k)+1}). $$
(3.8)

Letting \(k\longrightarrow +\infty \) and using (3.4) and (3.6), we get

$$ \lim_{n\longrightarrow +\infty } d(x_{m(k)+1},x_{n(k)+1})= \epsilon . $$
(3.9)

Since T is an α-proximal Geraghty mapping, we obtain

$$\begin{aligned} d(x_{m(k)+1},x_{n(k)+1}) \le& \beta \bigl(d(x_{m(k)},x_{n(k)})\bigr)d(x_{n(k)},x _{n(k)}) \\ \le& d(x_{m(k)},x_{n(k)}), \quad \forall k. \end{aligned}$$
(3.10)

Therefore

$$ \frac{d(x_{m(k)+1},x_{n(k)+1})}{d(x_{m(k)},x_{n(k)})}\le \beta \bigl(d(x _{m(k)},x_{n(k)}) \bigr)\le 1. $$
(3.11)

Letting \(k\longrightarrow +\infty \) in the above inequality (3.11), we conclude that

$$ \lim_{k\longrightarrow +\infty } \beta \bigl(d(x_{m(k)},x_{n(k)}) \bigr)=1. $$

Hence

$$ \lim_{k\longrightarrow +\infty }d(x_{m(k)},x_{n(k)})=0< \epsilon , $$

which is a contradiction.

Thus, the sequence \(\{x_{n}\}\) is a Cauchy sequence in the closed subset A of the space \((X,d)\).

The fact that \((X,d)\) is complete and A is closed assures that the sequence \(\{x_{n}\}\) converges to some element \(x_{\ast }\in A\).

Using hypothesis (4) of the theorem, there exists a subsequence \(\{x_{n(k)}\}\) of \(\{x_{n}\}\) such that \(\alpha (x_{n(k)},x_{\ast }) \ge 1\) for all k. Since T is a generalized α-proximal Geraghty mapping, then we have

$$\begin{aligned} d(Tx_{n(k)},Tx_{\ast }) \le& \alpha (x_{n(k)},x_{\ast })d(Tx_{n(k)},Tx _{\ast }) \\ \le& \beta \bigl(d(x_{n(k)},x_{\ast })\bigr)d(x_{n(k)},x_{\ast }), \quad \forall k. \end{aligned}$$
(3.12)

By the triangular inequality and (3.1), we have

$$\begin{aligned} d(x_{\ast },Tx_{\ast }) \le &d(x_{\ast },x_{n(k)+1})+d(x_{n(k)+1},Tx _{n(k)}) + d(Tx_{n(k)},Tx_{\ast }) \\ =&d(x_{\ast },x_{n(k)+1})+d(A,B)+ d(Tx_{n(k)},Tx_{\ast }). \end{aligned}$$
(3.13)

We obtain that

$$ d(Tx_{n(k)},Tx_{\ast })\ge d(x_{\ast },Tx_{\ast })-d(x_{\ast },x_{n(k)+1})-d(A,B), \quad \forall k. $$
(3.14)

Using (3.12) and (3.14), we get

$$\begin{aligned} d(x_{n(k)},x_{\ast }) \ge & \beta \bigl(d(x_{n(k)},x_{\ast })\bigr)d(x_{n(k)},x _{\ast }) \\ \ge & d(x_{\ast },Tx_{\ast })-d(x_{\ast },x_{n(k)+1}) - d(A,B), \quad \forall k. \end{aligned}$$

As \(k\longrightarrow +\infty \), we get

$$\begin{aligned} d(x_{\ast },Tx_{\ast })-d(A,B)\le 0. \end{aligned}$$

So we deduce that \(d(x_{\ast },Tx_{\ast })=d(A,B)\). Therefore \(x_{\ast }\) is a best proximity point for the non-self mapping T.

For the uniqueness, suppose that there are two distinct best proximity points for T such that \(x_{\ast }\neq y_{\ast }\). Thus \(r=d(x_{ \ast },y_{\ast })>0\). Since \(d(Tx_{\ast },x_{\ast })=d(Ty_{\ast },y _{\ast })=d(A,B)\), using the P-property, we conclude that \(r=d(Tx _{\ast },Ty_{\ast })\).

Since T is an α-proximal Geraghty non-self mapping, we obtain \(r\le \beta (r)r\). Thus \(\beta (r)\ge 1\). Since \(\beta (r)\le 1\), we conclude that \(\beta (r)=1\); and therefore \(r=0\), which is a contradiction. □

Example

Consider the complete Euclidian space \(X= \mathbb{R}^{2}\) with the metrics \(d((x_{1},y_{1}), (x_{2},y_{2}))=|x _{1}-x_{2}|+|y_{1}-y_{2}|\). Let \(A=\{(a,0), a\in [2,3]\}\) and \(B=\{(b,0), b\in [\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}]\}\).

Consider the non-self mapping \(T:A\longrightarrow B\) such that \(T(a,0)=(\frac{1}{a},0)\). \(T(A)=B\) and A and B are closed subsets on the complete space \((\mathbb{R}^{2},d)\). It is easy to see that the couple (A,B) satisfies the P-property. The function \(\alpha (x,y)=1\) for all \(x,y\in A\). We have \(d(T(2,0),(2,0))=|\frac{1}{2}-2|= \frac{3}{2}=d(A,B)\). So hypotheses (2), (3), and (4) of the theorem are satisfied. What is remaining is to prove hypothesis (5) of Theorem 3.2 that T is a proximal Geraghty mapping.

In fact, for all \(a,a'\in A=[2,3]\), we can prove that

$$ d\bigl(T(a,0),T\bigl(a',0\bigr)\bigr)= \biggl\vert \frac{1}{a}-\frac{1}{a'} \biggr\vert \le \frac{ \vert a-a' \vert }{1+ \vert a-a' \vert }= \frac{d((a,0),(a',0))}{1+d((a,0),(a',0))}. $$

This inequality is true for \(a=a'\).

If \(a\neq a'\), we have for all \(a,a' \in A=[2,3]\), \(|aa'|\ge 4\); meanwhile \(1+|a-a'|\le 2\). Thus hypothesis (5) of our Theorem 3.2 is satisfied for the function \(\beta :[0,+\infty )\longrightarrow [0,1]\) such that \(\beta (u)=\frac{1}{1+u}\). So the conclusion is the existence and uniqueness of best proximity point of the mapping T which is \((2,0)\).

Consequences

For the case \(\alpha =1\), the definition of Geraghty is the following.

Definition 4.1

Let \((X,d)\) be a metric space and \((A,B)\) be a pair of nonempty subsets of X. A non-self mapping \(T: A\rightarrow B\) is called a proximal Geraghty mapping if there exists \(\beta \in F \) such that

$$ d(Tx,Ty)\le \beta \bigl(d(x,y)\bigr)d(x,y) $$

for all \(x,y \in A\).

Several consequences of our main theorem are suggested in this section.

Corollary 4.2

Let \((A,B)\) be a pair of nonempty closed subsets of a complete metric space \((X,d)\) such that \(A_{0}\) is nonempty. Let \(\beta \in F\). Consider a non-self mapping \(T: A\longrightarrow B\) satisfying the following assertions:

  1. (1)

    \(T(A_{0})\subset B_{0}\) and the pair \((A,B)\) satisfies the P-property;

  2. (2)

    There exist elements \(x_{0},x_{1} \in A\) such that \(d(x_{1},Tx_{0})=d(A,B)\);

  3. (3)

    T is a proximal Geraghty mapping.

Then T has a unique best proximity point \(x_{\ast }\in A\) such that \(d(x_{\ast },Tx_{\ast })=d(A,B)\).

Proof

This is an immediate consequence of our main Theorem 3.2 by taking \(\alpha (x,y)=1\) for all \(x,y\in A\). □

We can also suggest some corollary for the cases \(\beta (u)=e^{-ku}\), where \(k>0\), \(\beta (u)=\frac{1}{u+1}\), \(\beta (u)= \bigl\{ \scriptsize{ \begin{array}{l@{\quad}l} 1;&u=0, \\ \frac{\ln (1+u)+1}{u} ; &u>0 \end{array}}\) and \(\beta (u)=\frac{1}{2-\frac{2}{\pi }\arctan (\frac{1}{u^{\alpha }} )}\) where \(0<\alpha <1\), \(u>0\).

Corollary 4.3

Let \((A,B)\) be a pair of nonempty closed subsets of a complete metric space \((X,d)\) such that \(A_{0}\) is nonempty. Consider a non-self mapping \(T: A\longrightarrow B\) satisfying the following assertions:

  1. (1)

    \(T(A_{0})\subset B_{0}\) and the pair \((A,B)\) satisfies the P-property;

  2. (2)

    There exist elements \(x_{0},x_{1} \in A\) such that \(d(x_{1},Tx_{0})=d(A,B)\);

  3. (3)

    The non-self mapping T satisfies

    $$ d(Tx,Ty)\le \exp \bigl(-kd(x,y)\bigr)d(x,y) $$

    for all \(x,y \in A\), for some constant \(k>0\).

Then T has a unique best proximity point \(x_{\ast }\in A\) such that \(d(x_{\ast },Tx_{\ast })=d(A,B)\).

Corollary 4.4

Let \((A,B)\) be a pair of nonempty closed subsets of a complete metric space \((X,d)\) such that \(A_{0}\) is nonempty. Consider a non-self mapping \(T: A\longrightarrow B\) satisfying the following assertions:

  1. (1)

    \(T(A_{0})\subset B_{0}\) and the pair \((A,B)\) satisfies the P-property;

  2. (2)

    There exist elements \(x_{0},x_{1} \in A\) such that \(d(x_{1},Tx_{0})=d(A,B)\);

  3. (3)

    The non-self mapping

    $$ d(Tx,Ty)\le \frac{d(x,y)}{1+d(x,y)} $$

    for all \(x,y \in A\).

Then T has a unique best proximity point \(x_{\ast }\in A\) such that \(d(x_{\ast },Tx_{\ast })=d(A,B)\).

Corollary 4.5

Let \((A,B)\) be a pair of nonempty closed subsets of a complete metric space \((X,d)\) such that \(A_{0}\) is nonempty. Consider a non-self mapping \(T: A\longrightarrow B\) satisfying the following assertions:

  1. (1)

    \(T(A_{0})\subset B_{0}\) and the pair \((A,B)\) satisfies the P-property;

  2. (2)

    There exist elements \(x_{0},x_{1} \in A\) such that \(d(x_{1},Tx_{0})=d(A,B)\);

  3. (3)

    The non-self mapping T satisfies

    $$ d(Tx,Ty)\le \ln \bigl(1+d(x,y)\bigr) $$

    for all \(x,y \in A\).

Then T has a unique best proximity point \(x_{\ast }\in A\) such that \(d(x_{\ast },Tx_{\ast })=d(A,B)\).

Corollary 4.6

Let \((A,B)\) be a pair of nonempty closed subsets of a complete metric space \((X,d)\) such that \(A_{0}\) is nonempty. Consider a non-self mapping \(T: A\longrightarrow B\) satisfying the following assertions:

  1. (1)

    \(T(A_{0})\subset B_{0}\) and the pair \((A,B)\) satisfies the P-property;

  2. (2)

    There exist elements \(x_{0},x_{1} \in A\) such that \(d(x_{1},Tx_{0})=d(A,B)\);

  3. (3)

    The non-self mapping T satisfies

    $$ d(Tx,Ty)\le \frac{d(x,y)}{2-\frac{2}{\pi }\arctan (\frac{1}{d(x,y)^{ \alpha }} )} ,\quad 0< \alpha < 1 $$

    for all \(x,y \in A\).

Then T has a unique best proximity point \(x_{\ast }\in A\) such that \(d(x_{\ast },Tx_{\ast })=d(A,B)\).

Applications

Our first consequence is the theorem of Geraghty for the existence of fixed point.

Corollary 5.1

([8])

Let \((X,d)\) be a metric space and T be an operator. Suppose that there exist \(\beta :[0,\infty )\longrightarrow [0,1]\) such that, for any bounded sequence \(\{t_{n}\}\) of positive reals, \(\beta (t_{n})\longrightarrow 1\) implies \(t_{n}\longrightarrow 0\).

If T satisfies the following inequality

$$ d(Tx,Ty)\le \beta \bigl(d(x,y)\bigr)d(x,y) $$

for all \(x,y \in X\), then T has a unique fixed point.

Proof

By considering \(A=B=X\) and the function \(\alpha (x,y)=1\) in Theorem 3.2, we guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a fixed point of such a self mapping T. □

In order to apply our results on best proximity points on a metric space endowed with symmetric binary relation, we need some preliminaries.

Let \((X,d)\) be a metric space and \(\mathcal{R}\) be a symmetric binary relation over X.

Definition 5.2

([11])

A non-self mapping \(T:A\longrightarrow B\) is a proximal comparative mapping if \(x \mathcal{R} y\) and \(d(u_{1},Tx)=d(u_{2},Ty)=d(A,B)\) for all \(x,y,u_{1},u_{2} \in A\), then \(u_{1} \mathcal{R} u_{2}\).

Definition 5.3

([23])

We say that \((X,d,\mathcal{R})\) is regular if, for a sequence \(\{x_{n}\}\) in X, we have \(x_{n}\mathcal{R}x_{n+1}\) for all \(n\in \mathbb{N}_{0}\) and \(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }d(x_{n},x)=0\) for some \(x\in X\), then there exists a subsequence \(\{x_{n(k)}\}\) of \(\{x_{n}\}\) such that \(x_{n(k)}\mathcal{R}x\) for all \(k\in \mathbb{N}_{0}\).

Definition 5.4

Let X be a nonempty set. A non-self mapping \(T:A\to B\) is called Geraghty contractive if there exists \(\beta \in F\) such that

$$ x,y\in A: x \mathcal{R}y\quad \Longrightarrow\quad d(Tx,Ty)\le \beta \bigl(d(x,y) \bigr)d(x,y). $$

We have the following best proximity point result.

Corollary 5.5

Let \((A,B)\) be a pair of nonempty closed subsets of a complete metric space \((X,d)\) such that \(A_{0}\) is nonempty. Let \(\mathcal{R}\) be a symmetric binary relation over X. Consider a non-self mapping \(T: A\longrightarrow B\) satisfying the following assertions:

  1. (1)

    \(T(A_{0})\subset B_{0}\) and the pair \((A,B)\) satisfies the P-property;

  2. (2)

    T is proximal comparative mapping;

  3. (3)

    There exist elements \(x_{0},x_{1} \in A_{0}\) such that \(d(x_{1},Tx_{0})=d(A,B)\) and \(x_{0} \mathcal{R} x_{1}\);

  4. (4)

    If \((A,d,\mathcal{R})\) is regular;

  5. (5)

    There exists \(\beta \in F\) such that \(T:A\to B\) is Geraghty contractive.

Then T has a unique best proximity point \(x_{\ast }\in A\) such that \(d(x_{\ast },Tx_{\ast })=d(A,B)\).

Proof

Let us introduce the function

$$\alpha : A\times A \longrightarrow [0, +\infty )\quad \mbox{by: }\alpha (x,y)= \textstyle\begin{cases} 1& \mbox{if } x \mathcal{R} y, \\ 0& \mbox{otherwise.} \end{cases} $$

In order to apply our Theorem 3.2, we have to prove that T is α-admissible.

Assume that \(\alpha (x,y) \ge 1\), and \(d(u_{1},Tx)=d(u_{2},Tx)=d(A,B)\), for some \(x,y,u_{1},u_{2} \in A\). By the definition of α, we get \(x \mathcal{R} y\) and \(d(u_{1},Tx)=d(u_{2},Tx)=d(A,B)\). Condition (2) of Corollary implies \(u_{1} \mathcal{R} u_{2}\), which gives us \(\alpha (u_{1},u_{2})\ge 1\).

Condition (3) means that \(d(x_{1},Tx_{0})=d(A,B)\) and \(\alpha (x _{0},x_{1})\ge 1\).

The condition \(T:A\to B\) is Geraghty contractive means that T is an α-proximal Geraghty mapping. Also the condition \((A,d, \mathcal{R})\) is regular implies that if \(\{x_{n}\}\) is a sequence in A such that \(\alpha (x_{n},x_{n+1}) \ge 1\) and \({\lim_{n\longrightarrow +\infty }x_{n}=x_{\ast }\in A}\), then there exists a subsequence \(\{x_{n(k)}\}\) of \(\{x_{n}\}\) such that \(\alpha (x_{n(k)},x_{\ast })\ge 1\) for all k.

Now all the hypotheses of Theorem 3.2 are satisfied, which implies the existence and uniqueness of a proximity point for the non-self mapping T. □

Conclusion

We recall that we managed in this paper to propose a new best proximity point for α-proximal Geraghty non-self mappings. This was achieved by introducing the notion of α-proximal Geraghty non-self mappings which is an extension of the definition of Geraghty for the case of self mappings. As applications, we have established not only the existence but also the uniqueness of best proximity point results for the case of non-self-mappings on metric spaces endowed with symmetric binary relations.

References

  1. 1.

    Abdeljawad, T.: Meir–Keeler α-contractive fixed and common fixed point theorems. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013, 19 (2013)

  2. 2.

    Al-Thagafi, M.A., Shahzad, N.: Best proximity sets and equilibrium pairs for a finite family of multimaps. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 10, Article ID 457069 (2008)

  3. 3.

    Al-Thagafi, M.A., Shahzad, N.: Convergence and existence results for best proximity points. Nonlinear Anal. 70, 3665–3671 (2009)

  4. 4.

    Alqahtani, B., Hamzehnejadi, J., Karapinar, E., Lashkaripour, R.: Best proximity point on different type contractions. Appl. Math. Inf. Sci. 3(3), 342–353 (2011)

  5. 5.

    Banach, S.: Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux équations intégrales. Fundam. Math. 3(1), 133–181 (1922)

  6. 6.

    Bilgili, N., Karapinar, E., Sadarangani, K.: A generalization for the best proximity point of Geraghty-contractions. J. Inequal. Appl. 2013, 286 (2013)

  7. 7.

    Cho, Y.J., Gupta, A., Karapinar, E., Kumam, P., Sintunavarat, W.: Tripled best proximity point theorem in metric space. Math. Inequal. Appl. 16(4), 1197–1216 (2013)

  8. 8.

    Geraghty, M.: On contractive mappings. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 40(2), 604–608 (1973)

  9. 9.

    Iadh Ayari, M.: Best proximity point theorems for generalized \(\alpha -\beta \)-proximal quasi-contractive mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2017, 16 (2017)

  10. 10.

    Jleli, M., Karapinar, E., Samet, B.: A best proximity point result in modular spaces with the Fatou property. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2013, Article ID 329451 (2013)

  11. 11.

    Jleli, M., Karapinar, E., Samet, B.: Best proximity points for generalized αψ proximal contractive type mapping. J. Appl. Math. 2013, Article ID 534127 (2013)

  12. 12.

    Karapinar, E.: Best proximity points of Kannan type-cyclic weak phi-contractions in ordered metric spaces. Analele Stinntifice ale Univarsitatii s Constanta 20, 51–64 (2012)

  13. 13.

    Karapinar, E., Petrusel, G., Tas, K.: Best proximity point theorems for KT-types cyclic orbital contraction mappings. Fixed Point Theory 13(2), 537–546 (2012)

  14. 14.

    Kumam, P., Mongkolekeha, C.: Common best proximity points for proximity commuting mapping with Geraghty’s functions. Carpath. J. Math. 31, 359–364 (2015)

  15. 15.

    Mlaiki, N., Mukheimer, A., Roben, Y., Souayah, N., Abdeljawab, T.: Fixed point theorems for αψ-contractive mapping in b-metric spaces. Journal of Mathematical Analysis 8(5)

  16. 16.

    Mukheimer, A.: αψϕ-contractive mappings in ordered partial b-metric spaces. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 7, 168–179 (2014)

  17. 17.

    Patel, D.K., Abdeljawab, T., Gopal, D.: Common fixed points of generalized Meir–Keeler α-contractions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013, 260 (2013)

  18. 18.

    Raj, V.S.: A best proximity point theorem for weakly contractive non-self-mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 74, 4804–4808 (2011)

  19. 19.

    Sadiq Basha, S., Veeramani, P.: Best approximations and best proximity pairs. Acta Sci. Math. 63, 289–300 (1997)

  20. 20.

    Sadiq Basha, S., Veeramani, P.: Best proximity pair theorems for multifunctions with open fibres. J. Approx. Theory 103, 119–129 (2000)

  21. 21.

    Sadiq Basha, S., Veeramani, P., Pai, D.V.: Best proximity pair theorems. Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. 32, 1237–1246 (2001)

  22. 22.

    Sadiq Bacha, S.: Extensions of Banach’s contraction principle. J. Num. Func. Anal. Optim. Theory Appl. 31, 569–576 (2010)

  23. 23.

    Samet, B., Turinci, M.: Fixed points theorems on a metric space endowed with an arbitrary binary relation and applications. Commun. Math. Anal. 13, 82–97 (2012)

  24. 24.

    Samet, B., Vetro, C., Vetro, P.: Fixed points theorems for αψ-contractive type mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 75, 2154–2165 (2012)

  25. 25.

    Vetro, C.: Best proximity points: convergence and existence theorems for P-cyclic-mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 73, 2283–2291 (2010)

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Please contact the author for data requests.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Correspondence to Mohamed Iadh Ayari.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Abbreviations

Not applicable.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

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.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

MSC

  • 47H10
  • 54H25

Keywords

  • Best proximity points
  • α-Proximal Geraghty non-self mappings on metric spaces