Skip to main content

A short note on the equivalence between ‘best proximity’ points and ‘fixed point’ results

Abstract

In this short note, we notice that, unexpectedly, some existing fixed point results and recently announced best proximity point results are equivalent.

MSC:41A65, 90C30, 47H10.

1 Introduction and preliminaries

In 1973 Geraghty [1] introduced the class S of functions β:[0,)[0,1) satisfying the following condition:

β( t n )1implies t n 0.
(1)

The author defined contraction mappings via functions from this class and proved the following result.

Theorem 1.1 (Geraghty [1])

Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and T:XX be an operator. If T satisfies the following inequality:

d(Tx,Ty)β ( d ( x , y ) ) d(x,y)for any x,yX,
(2)

where βS, then T has a unique fixed point.

Theorem 1.1 was generalized in several ways, see e.g. [26]. Recently, Caballero et al. [2] introduced the following contraction.

Definition 1.1 ([7])

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

d(Tx,Ty)β ( d ( x , y ) ) d(x,y)for any x,yA.
(3)

For the sake of completeness, we recall some basic definitions and fundamental results.

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

d ( A , B ) : = inf { d ( a , b ) : a A , b B } ; d ( x , B ) : = inf { d ( x , b ) : b B } ; A 0 : = { a A : d ( a , b ) = d ( A , B )  for some  b B } ; B 0 : = { b B : d ( a , b ) = d ( A , B )  for some  a A } .

Through this paper, denotes the set of natural numbers.

In [8], Sadiq Basha introduced the following concept.

Definition 1.2 We say that B is approximatively compact with respect to A if and only if every sequence { y n }B satisfying the condition that lim n d(x, y n )=d(x,B) for some x in A, has a convergent subsequence.

Definition 1.3 A mapping g:AA is called an isometry if

d(gx,gy)=d(x,y),(x,y)A×A.

Definition 1.4 (see e.g. [9])

Given a mapping T:AB and an isometry g:AA, the mapping T is said to preserve the isometric distance with respect to g if and only if

d ( T ( g x ) , T ( g y ) ) =d(Tx,Ty),(x,y)A×A.

Denote by Ξ the set of functions φ:[0,)[0,) satisfying the following conditions:

  1. (I)

    φ is continuous and nondecreasing;

  2. (II)

    φ(0)=0;

  3. (III)

    lim t φ(t)=.

The following notions were introduced by Sadiq Basha [9].

Definition 1.5 A mapping T:AB is said to be a generalized proximal contraction of the first kind if and only if

d ( u , T x ) = d ( A , B ) d ( v , T y ) = d ( A , B ) } d(u,v)d(x,y)φ ( d ( x , y ) ) ,

where x,y,u,vA and φΞ.

Definition 1.6 A mapping T:AB is said to be a generalized proximal contraction of the second kind if and only if

d ( u , T x ) = d ( A , B ) d ( v , T y ) = d ( A , B ) } d(Tu,Tv)d(Tx,Ty)φ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) ,

where x,y,u,vA and φΞ.

Inspired by these definitions, Amini-Harandi [3] introduced the following definition.

Denote by Ψ the set of functions ψ:[0,)[0,) satisfying the following conditions:

  1. (I)

    ψ is continuous and nondecreasing;

  2. (II)

    ψ(0)=0;

  3. (III)

    tψ(t) for each t0.

Definition 1.7 A mapping T:AB is said to be a generalized Geraghty proximal contraction of the first kind if and only if

d ( u , T x ) = d ( A , B ) d ( v , T y ) = d ( A , B ) } ψ ( d ( u , v ) ) β ( d ( x , y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) ,

where x,y,u,vA and ψΨ, βS.

Definition 1.8 A mapping T:AB is said to be a generalized Geraghty proximal contraction of the second kind if and only if

d ( u , T x ) = d ( A , B ) d ( v , T y ) = d ( A , B ) } d(Tu,Tv)β ( d ( T x , T y ) ) ψ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) ,

where x,y,u,vA and ψΨ, βS.

The main result in [3] is the following.

Theorem 1.2 Let A and B be two nonempty closed subsets of a complete metric space (X,d) such that A 0 , B 0 and B is approximatively compact with respect to A. Suppose that the mappings g:AA and T:AB satisfy the following conditions:

  1. (i)

    T is a generalized Geraghty proximal contraction of the first kind;

  2. (ii)

    T( A 0 ) B 0 ;

  3. (iii)

    g is an isometry;

  4. (iv)

    A 0 g( A 0 ).

Then there exists a unique element x A such that

d ( g x , T x ) =d(A,B).

Further, for any fixed element x 0 A 0 , the iterative sequence { x n } A 0 , defined by

d(g x n + 1 ,T x n )=d(A,B),

converges to x .

In this manuscript, we shall show that Theorem 1.2 is a particular case of existing fixed point theorems in the literature. Hence, the main result of [3] is not a real generalization.

2 Some useful results

Denote by Φ the set of functions ϕ:[0,)[0,) satisfying the following conditions:

  1. (I)

    ϕ is continuous and nondecreasing;

  2. (II)

    ϕ(t)=0 if and only if t=0.

First we show that we get the more general form of the main result in [3] by replacing the class of distance functions Ψ by Φ in Definition 1.7.

Theorem 2.1 Let A and B be two nonempty closed subsets of a complete metric space (X,d) such that A 0 , B 0 , and B is approximatively compact with respect to A. Suppose that the mappings g:AA and T:AB satisfy the following conditions:

  1. (i)
    d ( u , T x ) = d ( A , B ) d ( v , T y ) = d ( A , B ) } ψ ( d ( u , v ) ) β ( d ( x , y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) ,

where x,y,u,vA and ψΦ, βS.

  1. (ii)

    T( A 0 ) B 0 ;

  2. (iii)

    g is an isometry;

  3. (iv)

    A 0 g( A 0 ).

Then there exists a unique element x A such that

d ( g x , T x ) =d(A,B).

Further, for any fixed element x 0 A 0 , the iterative sequence { x n } A 0 , defined by

d(g x n + 1 ,T x n )=d(A,B),

converges to x .

Proof By following the lines in the proof of Theorem 3.1 in the paper of Amini-Harandi [3], we conclude that

lim n d( x n , x n + 1 )=0.
(4)

It is sufficient to prove that { x n } is a Cauchy sequence.

Suppose, on the contrary, that { x n } is not a Cauchy sequence. Then there exists ε>0 for which we can find subsequences { x m ( k ) } and { x n ( k ) } of { x n } such that n(k)>m(k)>k and

d( x m ( k ) , x n ( k ) )ε.
(5)

Furthermore, we can choose n(k), associated with m(k), is the smallest integer which satisfies n(k)>m(k)>k and (5). Consequently, we have

d( x m ( k ) , x n ( k ) 1 )<ε.
(6)

Due to Lemma 2.4, we conclude that

lim k d( x m ( k ) , x n ( k ) )= lim k d( x m ( k 1 ) , x n ( k ) 1 )=ε.
(7)

So, we obtain

ψ ( d ( x m ( k ) , x n ( k ) ) ) = ψ ( d ( T x m ( k 1 ) , T x n ( k 1 ) ) ) β ( d ( x m ( k 1 ) , x n ( k ) 1 ) ) ψ ( d ( x m ( k 1 ) , x n ( k ) 1 ) ) ψ ( d ( x m ( k 1 ) , x n ( k ) 1 ) ) .
(8)

Letting k in the inequality above, we get

ψ(ε)β ( d ( x m ( k 1 ) , x n ( k ) 1 ) ) ψ(ε)ψ(ε),

since ψ is continuous and (7) holds. Due to the property of ψ, ψ(ε)>0, we derive

lim k β ( d ( x m ( k 1 ) , x n ( k ) 1 ) ) =1
(9)

from the last inequality above. Since βS, we conclude that

lim k d( x m ( k 1 ) , x n ( k ) 1 )=0.
(10)

Due to (7) we get ε=0, a contradiction. Hence, { x n } is Cauchy.

The rest follows from the corresponding lines in the proof of Theorem 3.1 in the paper of Amini-Harandi [3]. □

The following theorem is due to [10].

Theorem 2.2 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and T:XX be an operator. If T satisfies the following inequality:

ψ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) β ( d ( x , y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) for any x,yX,
(11)

where βS and ψΦ, then T has a unique fixed point.

The following concept was introduced by Ćirić in [11].

Definition 2.1 Let (X,d) be a metric space and f:XX be a self-mapping. We say that X is f-orbitally complete if and only if for any xX, if { f n x} is a Cauchy sequence, then it converges to some element in X.

It is evident that in Theorem 2.2, the notion of completeness of the metric space (X,d) can be replaced by the notion of f-orbitally completeness. Consequently, we derive the following fixed point result.

Lemma 2.1 (cf. [7])

Let (X,d) be a f-orbitally complete metric space, where f:XX is a self-mapping satisfying the following condition:

ψ ( d ( f x , f y ) ) β ( d ( x , y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) ,(x,y)X×X,
(12)

where ψΨ, βS. Then f has a unique fixed point x X. Moreover, for any xX, the sequence { f n x} converges to x .

Regarding the analogy with the proof of Lemma 2.2 in [7].

Lemma 2.2 (cf. [7])

Let (A,B) be a pair of closed subsets of a metric space (X,d). Suppose that the following conditions hold:

  1. (i)

    A 0 ;

  2. (ii)

    B is approximatively compact with respect to A.

Then the set A 0 is closed.

Lemma 2.3 (cf. [7])

Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a metric space (X,d) such that A 0 . Suppose that the mappings g:AA and T:AB satisfy the following conditions:

  1. (i)

    T is a generalized Geraghty-proximal contraction of the first kind;

  2. (ii)

    T( A 0 ) B 0 ;

  3. (iii)

    g is an isometry;

  4. (iv)

    A 0 g( A 0 ).

Then there exists a self-mapping f: A 0 A 0 satisfying the condition:

d ( T x , g ( f x ) ) =d(A,B),x A 0 .
(13)

Regarding the analogy with the proof of Lemma 2.4 in [7].

Lemma 2.4 ([12])

Let (X,d) be a metric space and let ( x n ) be a sequence in X such that (d( x n + 1 , x n )) is non-increasing and

lim n + d( x n + 1 , x n )=0.

If ( x n ) is not a Cauchy sequence, then there exist ε>0 and two sequences ( m k ) and ( n k ) of positive integers such that m k > n k k and the following four sequences tend to ε when k+:

( d ( x m k , x n k ) ) , ( d ( x n k , x m k + 1 ) ) , ( d ( x m k , x n k + 1 ) ) , ( d ( x m k + 1 , x n k + 1 ) ) .

3 Main results

Theorem 3.1 Theorem  2.1 is a consequence of Theorem  2.2.

Proof Suppose that all the assumptions of Theorem 1.2 are satisfied. From Lemma 2.3, there exists a self-mapping f: A 0 A 0 satisfying (13). Then, for all (x,y) A 0 × A 0 , we have

{ d ( g ( f x ) , T x ) = d ( A , B ) , d ( g ( f y ) , T y ) = d ( A , B ) .

Since T is a generalized Geraghty-proximal contraction of the first kind and g is an isometry, we obtain

ψ ( d ( f x , f y ) ) =ψ ( d ( g ( f x ) , g ( f y ) ) ) β ( d ( x , y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) ,

for every pair (x,y) A 0 × A 0 . Thus f satisfies inequality (11).

Since (X,d) is complete, ( A 0 ,d) is also complete. From Theorem 2.2, the self-mapping h: A 0 A 0 has a unique fixed point x A 0 .

Note that from (13), since T is a generalized Geraghty-proximal contraction of the first kind and g is an isometry, we have x A 0 is a fixed point of f if and only if x A and d(g x ,T x )=d(A,B). Then there exists a unique x A 0 such that d(g x ,T x )=d(A,B). Now, let a A 0 be an arbitrary point. Consider a sequence { a n } A 0 satisfying

d(g a n + 1 ,T a n ),nN.

Since T is a generalized Geraghty-proximal contraction of the first kind and g is an isometry, it follows from (13) that

a n + 1 =f a n ,nN.

From Lemma 2.1, we have

lim n d ( a n , x ) =0.

This ends the proof. □

4 Consequences

Theorem 4.1 Let A and B be two nonempty closed subsets of a complete metric space (X,d) such that A 0 and B 0 . Suppose that the mappings g:AA and T:AB satisfy the following conditions:

  1. (i)

    T is a generalized Geraghty proximal contraction of the first and second kind,

    d ( u , T x ) = d ( A , B ) d ( v , T y ) = d ( A , B ) } ψ ( d ( u , v ) ) β ( d ( x , y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) , d ( u , T x ) = d ( A , B ) d ( v , T y ) = d ( A , B ) } d ( T u , T v ) β ( d ( T x , T y ) ) ψ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) ,

where x,y,u,vA and ψΦ, βS;

  1. (ii)

    T( A 0 ) B 0 ;

  2. (iii)

    g is an isometry;

  3. (iv)

    A 0 g( A 0 ).

Then there exists a unique element x A such that

d ( g x , T x ) =d(A,B).

Further, for any fixed element x 0 A 0 , the iterative sequence { x n } A 0 , defined by

d(g x n + 1 ,T x n )=d(A,B),

converges to x .

Theorem 4.2 Theorem  4.1 is a consequence of Lemma  2.1.

Proof Suppose that all the assumptions of Theorem 4.1 are satisfied. From Lemma 2.3, there exists a self-mapping f: A 0 A 0 satisfying (13). Then, for all (x,y) A 0 × A 0 , we have

{ d ( g ( f x ) , T x ) = d ( A , B ) , d ( g ( f y ) , T y ) = d ( A , B ) .

Since T is a generalized Geraghty-proximal contraction of the first kind and g is an isometry, we obtain

ψ ( d ( f x , f y ) ) =ψ ( d ( g ( f x ) , g ( f y ) ) ) β ( d ( x , y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) ,

for every pair (x,y) A 0 × A 0 . Thus f satisfies inequality (11).

Now, we shall prove that ( A 0 ,d) is f-orbitally complete. Indeed, let x 0 A 0 and consider the sequence { x n } A 0 defined by x n = f n x 0 for all nN. Suppose that { x n } is a Cauchy sequence, we have to prove that { x n } converges to some element in A 0 . Since (X,d) is complete and A is closed, there exists some zA such that

lim n d( x n ,z)=0.
(14)

By the definition of f, for all nN, we have

{ d ( g ( f x n ) , T x n ) = d ( A , B ) , d ( g ( f x n + 1 ) , T x n + 1 ) = d ( A , B ) ,

which implies (since T is a generalized Geraghty-proximal contraction of the second kind) that

ψ ( d ( T ( g x n + 1 ) , T ( g x n + 2 ) ) ) = ψ ( d ( T ( g ( f x n ) ) , T ( g ( f x n + 1 ) ) ) ) β ( d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) ) ψ ( d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) ) ,

for all nN. Since T preserves the isometric distance with respect to g, we obtain

ψ ( d ( T x n + 1 , T x n + 2 ) ) β ( d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) ) ψ ( d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) ) ,nN.

Following the same lines as the proof of Theorem 3.1 in [3], one can show that {T x n } is a Cauchy sequence in the complete metric space (X,d). Since B is closed, there exists some bB such that

lim n d(T x n ,b)=0.
(15)

Now, using (14), (15), and the definition of f, we get

d(A,B)= lim n d ( g ( f x n ) , T x n ) = lim n d(g x n + 1 ,T x n )=d(gz,b).

Note that since g is an isometry, it is continuous. Now, we have

d(A,B)=d(gz,b),bB.

This implies that gz A 0 . On the other hand, since A 0 g( A 0 ) and g is an isometry, we obtain z A 0 . Thus, we proved that A 0 is f-orbitally complete. Now, applying Lemma 2.1, we find that f has a unique fixed point x A 0 .

The rest follows from the lines of the proof of Theorem 3.1. □

References

  1. Geraghty M: On contractive mappings. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1973, 40: 604–608. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1973-0334176-5

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Caballero J, Harjani J, Sadarangani K: A best proximity point theorem for Geraghty-contractions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 231

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amini-Harandi A: Best proximity points for proximal generalized contractions in metric spaces. Optim. Lett. 2013, 7: 913–921. 10.1007/s11590-012-0470-z

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bilgili N, Karapınar E, Sadarangani K: A generalization for the best proximity point of Geraghty-contractions. J. Inequal. Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 286

    Google Scholar 

  5. Karapınar E: On best proximity point of ψ -Geraghty contractions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 200

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang J, Su Y, Cheng Q: A note on ‘A best proximity point theorem for Geraghty-contractions’. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 99

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jleli M, Samet B: Remarks on the paper: ‘Best proximity point theorems: An exploration of a common solution to approximation and optimization problems’. Appl. Math. Comput. 2014, 228: 366–370.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sadiq Basha S: Extensions of Banach’s contraction principle. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 2010,31(4–6):569–576.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sadiq Basha S: Best proximity point theorems: an exploration of a common solution to approximation and optimization problems. Appl. Math. Comput. 2012, 218: 9773–9780. 10.1016/j.amc.2012.03.033

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Caballero J, Harjani J, Sadarangani K: Contractive-like mapping principles in ordered metric spaces and application to ordinary differential equations. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 916064

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ćirić L: On contraction type mappings. Math. Balk. 1971, 1: 52–57.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Radenović S, Kadelburg Z, Jandrlić D, Jandrlić A: Some results on weak contraction maps. Bull. Iran. Math. Soc. 2012,38(3):625–645.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Visiting Professor Programming at King Saud University for funding this work. The authors thank to anonymous referees for their remarkable comments, suggestion and ideas that helps to improve this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erdal Karapınar.

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.

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jleli, M., Karapınar, E. & Samet, B. A short note on the equivalence between ‘best proximity’ points and ‘fixed point’ results. J Inequal Appl 2014, 246 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-246

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-246

Keywords

  • best proximity
  • h-orbitally complete
  • fixed point