- Research
- Open access
- Published:

# A generalization for the best proximity point of Geraghty-contractions

*Journal of Inequalities and Applications*
**volume 2013**, Article number: 286 (2013)

## Abstract

In this paper, we introduce the notion of Geraghty-contractions and consider the related best proximity point in the context of a metric space. We state an example to illustrate our result.

**MSC:** 47H10, 54H25, 46J10, 46J15.

## 1 Introduction and preliminaries

Fixed point theory and best proximity theory are very important tools in nonlinear functional analysis. These related research areas have wide application potential in various branches of mathematics and different disciplines such as economics, engineering. One of the most impressive results in this direction, known as the Banach contraction mapping principle, was given by Banach: Every contraction on a complete metric space has a unique fixed point. This celebrated result has been generalized in several ways in various abstract spaces. In particular, one of the interesting generalizations of the Banach contraction mapping principle was given by Geraghty [1].

**Theorem 1** (Geraghty [1])

*Let* (X,d) *be a complete metric space and let* T:X\to X *be an operator*. *Suppose that there exists* \beta :[0,\mathrm{\infty})\to [0,1) *satisfying the condition*

*If* *T* *satisfies the following inequality*:

*then* *T* *has a unique fixed point*.

It is clear that some mapping on a complete metric space has no fixed point, that is, d(x,Tx)>0 for all x\in X. In this case, it is natural to ask the existence and uniqueness of the smallest value of d(x,Tx). This is the main motivation of a best proximity point. This research subject has attracted attention of a number of authors; see, *e.g.*, [1–19].

First we recall fundamental definitions and basic results in this direction.

Let *A* and *B* be nonempty subsets of a metric space (X,d). A mapping T:A\to B is called a *k*-contraction if there exists k\in [0,1) such that d(Tx,Ty)\le kd(x,y) for any x,y\in A. Notice that the *k*-contraction coincides with the Banach contraction mapping principle if one takes A=B, where *A* is a complete subset of *X*. A point {x}^{\ast} is called the best proximity of *T* if d({x}^{\ast},T{x}^{\ast})=d(A,B), where d(A,B)=inf\{d(x,y):x\in A,y\in B\}.

Let *A* and *B* be two nonempty subsets of a metric space (X,d). We denote by {A}_{0} and {B}_{0} the following sets:

We denote by *F* the set of all functions \beta :[0,\mathrm{\infty})\to [0,1) satisfying the following property:

**Definition 2** (See [2])

Let *A*, *B* be two nonempty subsets of a metric space (X,d). A mapping T:A\to B is said to be a Geraghty-contraction if there exists \beta \in F such that

Very recently Raj [10, 11] introduced the notion of *P*-property as follows.

**Definition 3** Let (A,B) be a pair of nonempty subsets of a metric space (X,d) with {A}_{0}\ne \mathrm{\varnothing}. Then the pair (A,B) is said to have the *P*-property if and only if for any {x}_{1},{x}_{2}\in {A}_{0} and {y}_{1},{y}_{2}\in {B}_{0},

**Example 4** (See, *e.g.*, [11])

Let *A* be a nonempty subset of a metric space (X,d). It is evident that the pair (A,A) has the *P*-property. Let (A,B) be any pair of nonempty, closed, convex subsets of a real Hilbert space *H*. Then (A,B) has the *P*-property.

**Theorem 5** (See [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* T:A\to B *be a continuous*, *Geraghty*-*contraction satisfying* T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0}. *Suppose that the pair* (A,B) *has the* *P*-*property*. *Then there exists a unique* {x}^{\ast} *in* *A* *such that* d({x}^{\ast},T{x}^{\ast})=d(A,B).

The subject of this paper is to generalize, improve and extend the results of Caballero, Harjani and Sadarangani [2]. For this purpose, we first define the notion of generalized Geraghty-contraction as follows.

**Definition 6** Let *A*, *B* be two nonempty subsets of a metric space (X,d). A mapping T:A\to B is said to be a generalized Geraghty-contraction if there exists \beta \in F such that

where M(x,y)=max\{d(x,y),d(x,Tx),d(y,Ty)\}.

**Remark 7** Notice that since \beta :[0,\mathrm{\infty})\to [0,1), we have

where M(x,y)=max\{d(x,y),d(x,Tx),d(y,Ty)\}.

## 2 Main results

We start this section with our main result.

**Theorem 8** *Let* (X,d) *be a complete metric space*. *Suppose that* (A,B) *is a pair of nonempty closed subsets of* *X* *and* {A}_{0} *is nonempty*. *Suppose also that the pair* (A,B) *has the* *P*-*property*. *If a non*-*self*-*mapping* T:A\to B *is a generalized Geraghty*-*contraction satisfying* T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0}, *then there exists a unique best proximity point*, *that is*, *there exists* {x}^{\ast} *in* *A* *such that* d({x}^{\ast},T{x}^{\ast})=d(A,B).

*Proof* Let us fix an element {x}_{0} in {A}_{0}. Since T{x}_{0}\in T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0}, we can find {x}_{1}\in {A}_{0} such that d({x}_{1},T{x}_{0})=d(A,B). Further, as T{x}_{1}\in T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0}, there is an element {x}_{2} in {A}_{0} such that d({x}_{2},T{x}_{1})=d(A,B). Recursively, we obtain a sequence \{{x}_{n}\} in {A}_{0} with the following property:

Due to the fact that the pair (A,B) has the *P*-property, we derive that

From (2.1), we get

On the other hand, by (2.1) and (2.2) we obtain that

Consequently, we have

If there exists {n}_{0}\in \mathbb{N} such that d({x}_{{n}_{0}},{x}_{{n}_{0}+1})=0, then the proof is completed. In fact, due to (2.2), we have

which yields that T{x}_{{n}_{0}-1}=T{x}_{{n}_{0}}. Hence, equation (2.1) implies that

For the rest of the proof, we suppose that d({x}_{n},{x}_{n+1})>0 for any n\in \mathbb{N}. Owing to the fact *T* is a generalized Geraghty-contraction, we derive that

Then, by (2.3) and (2.6), we deduce that

Suppose that max\{d({x}_{n-1},{x}_{n}),d({x}_{n},{x}_{n+1})\}=d({x}_{n},{x}_{n+1}). Then we get that

a contradiction. As a result, we conclude that max\{d({x}_{n-1},{x}_{n}),d({x}_{n},{x}_{n+1})\}=d({x}_{n-1},{x}_{n}) and hence

By (2.6), we get

for all n\in \mathbb{N}. Consequently, \{d({x}_{n},{x}_{n+1})\} is a nonincreasing sequence and bounded below. Thus, there exists L\ge 0 such that {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}(d({x}_{n},{x}_{n+1}))=L. We shall show that L=0. Suppose, on the contrary, L>0. Then, by (2.8), we have

for each n\ge 1. In what follows,

On the other hand, since \beta \in F, we conclude {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}M({x}_{n},{x}_{n+1})=0, that is,

Since, d({x}_{n},T{x}_{n-1})=d(A,B) holds for all n\in \mathbb{N} and (A,B) satisfies the *P*-property, then, for all m,n\in \mathbb{N}, we can write, d({x}_{m},{x}_{n})=d(T{x}_{m-1},T{x}_{n-1}). We also have

for all l\in \mathbb{N}. It follows that

Taking (2.9) into consideration, we find

We shall show that \{{x}_{n}\} is a Cauchy sequence. Suppose, on the contrary, that we have

Due to the triangular inequality, we have

Regarding (1.6) and (2.12), we have

Taking (2.10), (2.13) and (2.9) into account, we derive that

Owing to (2.11), we get

which implies {lim}_{m,n\to \mathrm{\infty}}\beta (M({x}_{n},{x}_{m}))=1. By the property of *β*, we have {lim}_{m,n\to \mathrm{\infty}}M({x}_{n},{x}_{m})=0. Consequently, we have {lim}_{m,n\to \mathrm{\infty}}d({x}_{n},{x}_{m})=0, a contradiction. Hence, we conclude that the sequence \{{x}_{n}\} is Cauchy. Since *A* is a closed subset of the complete metric space (X,d) and \{{x}_{n}\}\subset A, and we can find {x}^{\ast}\in A such that {x}_{n}\to {x}^{\ast} as n\to \mathrm{\infty}. We assert that d({x}^{\ast},T{x}^{\ast})=d(A,B). Suppose, on the contrary, that d({x}^{\ast},T{x}^{\ast})>d(A,B). First, we obtain the following inequalities:

Letting n\to \mathrm{\infty} in the inequalities above, we conclude that

On the other hand, we obtain

Taking limit as n\to \mathrm{\infty} in the inequality above, we find

So, we deduce that {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}d({x}_{n},T{x}_{n})=d(A,B). As a consequence, we derive

and hence

Combining (1.6) and (2.14), we find

Since d({x}^{\ast},T{x}^{\ast})-d(A,B)>0 together with (2.15), we get 1\le {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}\beta (M({x}_{n},{x}^{\ast})). Hence, we have

which yields

As a result, we deduce that d({x}^{\ast},T{x}^{\ast})=0>d(A,B), a contradiction. So, d({x}^{\ast},T{x}^{\ast})\le d(A,B) and hence d({x}^{\ast},T{x}^{\ast})=d(A,B), {x}^{\ast} is a best proximity point of *T*. Hence, we conclude that *T* has a best proximity point.

We claim that the best proximity point of *T* is unique.

Suppose, on the contrary, that {x}^{\ast} and {y}^{\ast} are two distinct best proximity points of *T*. Thus, we have

By using the *P*-property, we find

and

Due to the fact that *T* is a generalized Geraghty-contraction, we have

a contradiction. This completes the proof. □

**Remark 9** Let (X,d) be a metric space and *A* be any nonempty subset of *X*. It is evident that a pair (A,A) satisfies the *P*-property.

**Corollary 10** *Suppose that* (X,d) *is a complete metric space and* *A* *is a nonempty closed subset of* *X*. *If a self*-*mapping* T:A\to A *is a generalized Geraghty*-*contraction*, *then it has a unique fixed point*.

*Proof* Taking Remark 9 into consideration, we conclude the desired result by applying Theorem 8 with A=B. □

In order to illustrate our main result, we present the following example.

**Example 11** Suppose that X={\mathbb{R}}^{2} with the metric

and consider the closed subsets

and let T:A\to B be the mapping defined by

Since d(A,B)=0, the pair (A,B) has the *P*-property.

Notice that {A}_{0}=(0,0) and {B}_{0}=(0,0) and T({A}_{0})\subseteq {B}_{0}.

Moreover,

and, as (1+x)(1+{x}^{\prime})\ge 1+|x-{x}^{\prime}|, we have

where \beta :[0,\mathrm{\infty})\to [0,1) is defined as \beta (t)=\frac{t}{1+t}.

Notice that *β* is nondecreasing since {\beta}^{\prime}(t)=\frac{1}{{(1+t)}^{2}}.

Therefore,

and it is easily seen that the function \gamma (t)=\frac{\beta (t)}{t}=\frac{1}{1+t} belongs to *F*.

Therefore, since the assumptions of Theorem 8 are satisfied, by Theorem 8 there exists a unique ({x}^{\ast},0)\in A such that

The point ({x}^{\ast},0)\in A is (0,0)\in A.

## References

Geraghty M:

**On contractive mappings.***Proc. Am. Math. Soc.*1973, 40: 604–608. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1973-0334176-5Caballero J, Harjani J, Sadarangani K:

**A best proximity point theorem for Geraghty-contractions.***Fixed Point Theory Appl.*2012., 2012: Article ID 231Eldred AA, Veeramani P:

**Existence and convergence of best proximity points.***J. Math. Anal. Appl.*2006, 323: 1001–1006. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.10.081Anuradha J, Veeramani P:

**Proximal pointwise contraction.***Topol. Appl.*2009, 156: 2942–2948. 10.1016/j.topol.2009.01.017Markin J, Shahzad N:

**Best approximation theorems for nonexpansive and condensing mappings in hyperconvex spaces.***Nonlinear Anal.*2009, 70: 2435–2441. 10.1016/j.na.2008.03.045Basha SS, Veeramani P:

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

**Best proximity pair theorems for relatively nonexpansive mappings.***Appl. Gen. Topol.*2009, 10: 21–28.Al-Thagafi MA, Shahzad N:

**Convergence and existence results for best proximity points.***Nonlinear Anal.*2009, 70: 3665–3671. 10.1016/j.na.2008.07.022Kirk WA, Reich S, Veeramani P:

**Proximinal retracts and best proximity pair theorems.***Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim.*2003, 24: 851–862. 10.1081/NFA-120026380Raj VS:

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

Karapınar E:

**Best proximity points of cyclic mappings.***Appl. Math. Lett.*2012, 25(11):1761–1766. 10.1016/j.aml.2012.02.008Karapınar E, Erhan ÝM:

**Best proximity point on different type contractions.***Appl. Math. Inf. Sci.*2011, 3(3):342–353.Karapınar E: Best proximity points of Kannan type cyclic weak

*ϕ***-contractions in ordered metric spaces.***An. Stiint. Univ. Ovidius Constanta*2012, 20(3):51–64.Mongkolkeha C, Kumam P:

**Best proximity point theorems for generalized cyclic contractions in ordered metric spaces.***J. Optim. Theory Appl.*2012, 155: 215–226. 10.1007/s10957-012-9991-yMongkolkeha C, Kumam P:

**Some common best proximity points for proximity commuting mappings.***Optim. Lett.*2012. doi:10.1007/s11590–012–0525–1 in pressJleli M, Samet B: Best proximity points for

*α*-*ψ***-proximal contractive type mappings and applications.***Bull. Sci. Math.*2013. doi:10.1016/j.bulsci.2013.02.003Mongkolkeha C, Cho YJ, Kumam P: Best proximity points for generalized proximal

*C***-contraction mappings in metric spaces with partial orders.***J. Inequal. Appl.*2013., 2013: Article ID 94De 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

## Author information

### Authors and Affiliations

### Corresponding author

## Additional information

### Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

### Authors’ contributions

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

Bilgili, N., Karapınar, E. & Sadarangani, K. A generalization for the best proximity point of Geraghty-contractions.
*J Inequal Appl* **2013**, 286 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2013-286

Received:

Accepted:

Published:

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2013-286