Skip to main content

Best proximity point theorems for α-ψ-proximal contractions in intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to introduce and study certain new concepts of α-ψ-proximal contractions in an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. Then we establish certain best proximity point theorems for such proximal contractions in intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces. As an application, we deduce best proximity and fixed point results in partially ordered intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces. Several interesting consequences of our obtained results are presented in the form of new fixed point theorems which contain some recent fixed point theorems as special cases. Moreover, we discuss some illustrative examples to highlight the realized improvements.

MSC:47H10, 54H25.

1 Introduction

Many problems arising in different areas of mathematics, such as optimization, variational analysis, and differential equations, can be modeled as fixed point equations of the form Tx=x. If T is not a self-mapping, the equation Tx=x could have no solutions and, in this case, it is of a certain interest to determine an element x that is in some sense closest to Tx. Fan’s best approximation theorem [1] asserts that if K is a nonempty compact convex subset of a Hausdorff locally convex topological vector space X and T:KX is a continuous mapping, then there exists an element x satisfying the condition d(x,Tx)=inf{d(y,Tx):yK}, where d is a metric on X.

A best approximation theorem guarantees the existence of an approximate solution, a best proximity point theorem is contemplated for solving the problem to find an approximate solution which is optimal. Given the nonempty closed subsets A and B of X, when a non-self-mapping T:AB has not a fixed point, it is quite natural to find an element x such that d( x ,T x ) is minimum. Best proximity point theorems provide the existence of an element x such that d( x ,T x )=d(A,B):=inf{d(x,y):xA and yB}; this element is called a best proximity point of T. Moreover, if the mapping under consideration is a self-mapping, we note that this best proximity theorem reduces to a fixed point. For more details, we refer to [26] and references therein.

The concept of fuzzy set was introduced by Zadeh [7] in 1965 and it is well known that there are many viewpoints of the notion of metric space in fuzzy topology. In 1975, Kramosil and Michálek [8] introduced the concept of a fuzzy metric space, which can be regarded as a generalization of the statistical (probabilistic) metric space. Clearly, this work provides an important basis for the construction of fixed point theory in fuzzy metric spaces. Afterwards, Grabiec [9] defined the completeness of the fuzzy metric space (now known as a G-complete fuzzy metric space) and extended the Banach contraction theorem to G-complete fuzzy metric spaces. Subsequently, George and Veeramani [10] modified the definition of the Cauchy sequence introduced by Grabiec. Meanwhile, they slightly modified the notion of a fuzzy metric space introduced by Kramosil and Michálek and then defined a Hausdorff and first countable topology. Since then, the notion of a complete fuzzy metric space presented by George and Veeramani (now known as an complete fuzzy metric space) has emerged as another characterization of completeness, and some fixed point theorems have also been constructed on the basis of this metric space. From the above analysis, we can see that there are many studies related to fixed point theory based on the above two kinds of complete fuzzy metric spaces; see [1122] and the references therein. On the other hand the concept of intuitionistic fuzzy set was introduced by Atanassov [23] as generalization of fuzzy set. In 2004, Park introduced the notion of intuitionistic fuzzy metric space [24]. He showed that for each intuitionistic fuzzy metric space (X,M,N,,), the topology generated by the intuitionistic fuzzy metric (M,N) coincides with the topology generated by the fuzzy metric M. For more details on intuitionistic fuzzy metric space and related results we refer the reader to [2431].

2 Mathematical preliminaries

Definition 1 A binary operation :[0,1]×[0,1][0,1] is a continuous t-norm if satisfies the following conditions:

  1. (1)

    is commutative and associative;

  2. (2)

    is continuous;

  3. (3)

    a1=a for all a[0,1]

  4. (4)

    abcd whenever ac and bd for all a,b,c,d[0,1].

Examples of t-norm are ab=min{a,b} and ab=ab.

Definition 2 A binary operation :[0,1]×[0,1][0,1] is a continuous t-conorm if satisfies the following conditions:

  1. (a)

    is commutative and associative;

  2. (b)

    is continuous;

  3. (c)

    a0=a for all a[0,1];

  4. (d)

    abcd whenever ac and bd for all a,b,c,d[0,1].

Examples of a t-conorm are ab=max{a,b} and ab=min{1,a+b}.

Definition 3 A 5-tuple (X,M,N,,) is said to be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space if X is an arbitrary set, is a continuous t-norm, is a continuous t-conorm and M, N are fuzzy sets on X 2 ×(0,) satisfying the following conditions, for all x,y,zX and t,s>0:

  1. (i)

    M(x,y,t)+N(x,y,t)1;

  2. (ii)

    M(x,y,0)=0;

  3. (iii)

    M(x,y,t)=1 for all t>0 if and only if x=y;

  4. (iv)

    M(x,y,t)=M(y,x,t);

  5. (v)

    M(x,y,t)M(y,z,s)M(x,z,t+s);

  6. (vi)

    M(x,y,):(0,)[0,1] is left continuous;

  7. (vii)

    lim t M(x,y,t)=1;

  8. (viii)

    N(x,y,0)=1;

  9. (ix)

    N(x,y,t)=0 if and only if x=y;

  10. (x)

    N(x,y,t)=N(y,x,t);

  11. (xi)

    N(x,y,t)N(y,z,s)N(x,z,t+s);

  12. (xii)

    N(x,y,):(0,)[0,1] is right continuous;

  13. (xiii)

    lim t N(x,y,t)=0.

Then (M,N) is called an intuitionistic fuzzy metric on X. The functions M(x,y,t) and N(x,y,t) denote the degree of nearness and the degree of non-nearness between x and y with respect to t, respectively.

Remark 1 Note that, if (M,N) is an intuitionistic fuzzy metric on X and { x n } be a sequence in X such that lim m , n M( x n , x m ,t)=1, then lim m , n N( x n , x m ,t)=0. Indeed, from (i) of Definition 3 we know that M(x,y,t)+N(x,y,t)1 for all x,yX and all t>0.

Definition 4 Let (X,M,N,,) be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. Then

  • a sequence { x n } is said to be Cauchy sequence whenever lim m , n M( x n , x m ,t)=1 and lim m , n N( x n , x m ,t)=0 for all t>0;

  • a sequence { x n } is said to converge xX, if lim m , n M( x n ,x,t)=1 and lim m , n N( x n ,x,t)=0 for all t>0;

  • (X,M,N,,) is called complete whenever every Cauchy sequence is convergent in X.

Definition 5 [28]

Let (X,M,N,,) be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. We say the mapping T:XX is t-uniformly continuous if for each 0<ϵ<1, there exists 0<δ<1, such that M(x,y,t)1δ and N(x,y,t)δ implies M(Tx,Ty,t)1ϵ and N(Tx,Ty,t)ϵ for all x,yX and for all t>0.

Lemma 1 [32]

Let (X,M,N,,) be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space and T be a t-uniformly continuous mapping on X. If x n x as n, then T x n Tx as n.

Lemma 2 [32]

Let (X,M,N,,) be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. If x n x and y n y as n, then M( x n , y n ,t)M(x,y,t) and N( x n , y n ,t)N(x,y,t), n, for all t>0.

Definition 6 [27, 33]

Let (X,M,N,,) be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. The fuzzy metric (M,N) is called triangular whenever,

1 M ( x , y , t ) 1 1 M ( x , z , t ) 1+ 1 M ( z , y , t ) 1

and

N(x,y,t)N(x,z,t)+N(z,y,t)

for all x,y,zX and all t>0.

On the other hand, Samet et al. [34] defined the notion of α-admissible mappings as follows.

Definition 7 Let T be a self-mapping on X and α:X×X[0,+) be a function. We say that T is an α-admissible mapping if

x,yX,α(x,y)1α(Tx,Ty)1.

Salimi et al. [35] generalized the notion of α-admissible mappings in the following ways.

Definition 8 [35]

Let T be a self-mapping on X and α,η:X×X[0,+) be two functions. We say that T is an α-admissible mapping with respect to η if

x,yX,α(x,y)η(x,y)α(Tx,Ty)η(Tx,Ty).

Note that if we take η(x,y)=1 then this definition reduces to Definition 7. Also, if we take, α(x,y)=1 then we say that T is an η-subadmissible mapping.

Definition 9 [5]

A non-self-mapping T:AB is called α-η-proximal admissible if

{ α ( x 1 , x 2 ) η ( x 1 , x 2 ) , d ( u 1 , T x 1 ) = d ( A , B ) , d ( u 2 , T x 2 ) = d ( A , B ) α( u 1 , u 2 )η( u 1 , u 2 )

for all x 1 , x 2 , u 1 , u 2 A, where α,η:A×A[0,). Also, if we take η(x,y)=1 for all x,yA then we say T is an α-proximal admissible mapping.

Clearly, if A=B, T is α-proximal admissible implies that T is α-admissible.

3 Main results

In [34] the authors consider the family Ψ of non-decreasing functions ψ:[0,+)[0,+) such that n = 1 + ψ n (t)<+ for each t>0, where ψ n is the n th iterate of ψ.

Let A and B be nonempty subsets of an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space (X,M,N,,). We denote by A 0 (t) and B 0 (t) the following sets:

A 0 ( t ) = { x A : M ( x , y , t ) = M ( A , B , t )  for some  y B } , B 0 ( t ) = { y B : M ( x , y , t ) = M ( A , B , t )  for some  x A } ,
(3.1)

where M(A,B,t)=sup{M(x,y,t):xA,yB}.

Definition 10 Let A and B be two nonempty subsets of intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces (X,M,N,,). Let, T:AB, α:A×A×(0,)[0,). We say that T is α-proximal admissible if for x 1 , x 2 , u 1 , u 2 A with

{ α ( x 1 , x 2 , t ) t , M ( u 1 , T x 1 , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) , M ( u 2 , T x 2 , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) we haveα( u 1 , u 2 ,t)t

for all t>0.

Let A and B be nonempty subsets of an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space (X,M,N,,) and T:AB be a non-self-mapping. We define M T (x,y,u,v,t) and N T (x,y,u,v,t) as follows:

M T ( x , y , u , v , t ) = max { 1 M ( x , y , t ) , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x , u , t ) + 1 M ( y , v , t ) ] , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x , v , t ) + 1 M ( y , u , t ) 1 ] }

and

N T (x,y,u,v,t)=max { M ( x , u , t ) , M ( y , v , t ) , M ( x , v , t ) , M ( y , u , t ) } .

Definition 11 Let A and B be nonempty subsets of an intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces (X,M,N,,). Let T:AB be a non-self-mapping and α:A×A×(0,)[0,) be a function. We say T is a α-ψ-proximal contractive mapping if for x,y,u,vA,

α ( x , y , t ) t , M ( u , T x , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) , M ( v , T y , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) } 1 M ( u , v , t ) 1 ψ ( M T ( x , y , u , v , t ) N T ( x , y , u , v , t ) )
(3.2)

holds for all t>0, where ψΨ.

Theorem 1 Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a complete triangular intuitionistic fuzzy metric space (X,M,N,,) such that A 0 (t) is nonempty for all t>0. Let T:AB be a t-uniformly continuous non-self-mapping satisfying the following assertions:

  1. (i)

    T is an α-proximal admissible mapping and T( A 0 (t)) B 0 (t) for all t>0;

  2. (ii)

    T is a α-ψ-proximal contractive mapping;

  3. (iii)

    for any sequence { y n } in B 0 (t) and xA satisfying M(x, y n ,t)M(A,B,t) as n+, then x A 0 (t) for all t>0;

  4. (iv)

    there exist elements x 0 and x 1 in A 0 (t) such that

    M( x 1 ,T x 0 ,t)=M(A,B,t)andα( x 0 , x 1 ,t)tfor all t>0.

Then there exists x A such that M( x ,T x ,t)=M(A,B,t), for all t>0, that is, T has a best proximity point x A.

  1. (v)

    Moreover, if M(x,Tx,t)=M(A,B,t), M(y,Ty,t)=M(A,B,t) implies α(x,y,t)t for all t>0, then T has a unique best proximity point.

Proof By condition (iv) there exist elements x 0 and x 1 in A 0 (t) such that

M( x 1 ,T x 0 ,t)=M(A,B,t)andα( x 0 , x 1 ,t)tfor all t>0.

On the other hand T( A 0 (t)) B 0 (t), so there exists x 2 A 0 (t) such that

M( x 2 ,T x 1 ,t)=M(A,B,t).

Now, since T is α-proximal admissible mapping, so we have α( x 1 , x 2 ,t)t. That is,

M( x 2 ,T x 1 ,t)=M(A,B,t),α( x 1 , x 2 ,t)t.

Again, since T( A 0 (t)) B 0 (t), there exists x 3 A 0 (t) such that

M( x 3 ,T x 2 ,t)=M(A,B,t).

Thus we have

M( x 2 ,T x 1 ,t)=M(A,B,t),M( x 3 ,T x 2 ,t)=M(A,B,t),α( x 1 , x 2 ,t)t.

Again since T is α-proximal admissible mapping, so α( x 2 , x 3 ,t)t. Hence,

M( x 3 ,T x 2 ,t)=M(A,B,t),α( x 2 , x 3 ,t)t.

Continuing this process, we get

M( x n + 1 ,T x n ,t)=M(A,B,t),α( x n , x n + 1 ,t)1
(3.3)

for all nN{0} and all t>0.

Now from (3.2) with u=y= x n , v= x n + 1 and x= x n 1 , we get

1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) 1ψ ( M T ( x n 1 , x n , x n , x n + 1 , t ) N T ( x n 1 , x n , x n , x n + 1 , t ) )
(3.4)

for all t>0 and all nN where

M T ( x n 1 , x n , x n , x n + 1 , t ) = max { 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) + 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) ] , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x n 1 , x n + 1 , t ) + 1 M ( x n , x n , t ) 1 ] } = max { 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) + 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) ] , 1 2 M ( x n 1 , x n + 1 , t ) } max { 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) + 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) ] , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) 1 + 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) 1 ] + 1 2 } max { 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) + 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) ] , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) + 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) ] 1 2 } = max { 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) + 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) ] } max { 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) , 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) } .

This implies

M T ( x n 1 , x n , x n , x n + 1 ,t)max { 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) , 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) } .
(3.5)

Also we have

N T ( x n 1 , x n , x n , x n + 1 , t ) = max { M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) , M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) , M ( x n 1 , x n + 1 , t ) , M ( x n , x n , t ) } = max { M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) , M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) , M ( x n 1 , x n + 1 , t ) , 1 } = 1 .
(3.6)

Thus, from (3.4), (3.5), and (3.6) we have

1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) 1 ψ ( M T ( x n 1 , x n , x n , x n + 1 , t ) N T ( x n 1 , x n , x n , x n + 1 , t ) ) ψ ( max { 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) , 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) } 1 ) .

Now if max{ 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) , 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) }= 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) , then we get

1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) 1ψ ( 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) 1 ) < 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) 1,

which is a contradiction. Hence,

1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) 1ψ ( 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) 1 )

for all nN and t>0. So we deduce

1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) 1 ψ n ( 1 M ( x 0 , x 1 , t ) 1 )

for all nN and t>0. Fix ϵ>0. Then there exists NN such that

n N ψ n ( 1 M ( x 0 , x 1 , t ) 1 ) <ϵ.

Let m,nN with m>nN. Then by triangular inequality we get

1 M ( x n , x m , t ) 1 k = n m 1 [ 1 M ( x k , x k + 1 , t ) 1 ] n N ψ n ( 1 M ( x 0 , x 1 , t ) 1 ) <ϵ.

Consequently, lim m , n [ 1 M ( x n , x m , t ) 1]=0, i.e., lim m , n M( x n , x m ,t)=1. Hence { x n } is a Cauchy sequence. Now, since (X,M,N,,) is a complete intuitionistic fuzzy metric space, so there exists x X such that x n x as n. Since T is t-uniformly continuous, so by Lemmas 1 and 2, we have

M ( x , T x , t ) = lim n M( x n + 1 ,T x n ,t)=M(A,B,t).

That is, x is a best proximity of T. We show that x is unique best proximity point of T. Assume, to the contrary, that there exists t 0 >0 such that 0<M( x ,w, t 0 )<1 and w x is another best proximity point of T, that is, M( x ,T x ,t)=M(A,B,t) and M(w,Tw,t)=M(A,B,t) for all t>0. Now if condition (v) holds, then, from (3.2), we have

1 M ( x , w , t 0 ) 1ψ ( M T ( x , w , x , w , t 0 ) N T ( x , w , x , w , t 0 ) ) ,

where

M T ( x , w , x , w , t 0 ) = max { 1 M ( x , w , t 0 ) , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x , x , t 0 ) + 1 M ( w , w , t 0 ) ] , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x , w , t 0 ) + 1 M ( w , x , t 0 ) 1 ] } = max { 1 M ( x , w , t 0 ) , 1 , 1 M ( x , w , t 0 ) 1 2 } = 1 M ( x , w , t 0 )

and

N T ( x , w , x , w , t 0 ) =max { M ( x , x , t 0 ) , M ( w , w , t 0 ) , M ( x , w , t 0 ) , M ( w , x , t 0 ) } =1.

Therefore,

1 M ( x , w , t 0 ) 1ψ ( 1 M ( x , w , t 0 ) 1 ) < 1 M ( x , w , t 0 ) 1,

which is a contradiction. Hence, M( x ,w, t 0 )=1 for all t>0. i.e., x =w. Thus T has unique best proximity point. □

Theorem 2 Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a complete triangular intuitionistic fuzzy metric space (X,M,N,,) such that A 0 (t) is nonempty for all t>0. Let T:AB be a non-self-mapping satisfying the following assertions:

  1. (i)

    T is an α-proximal admissible mapping and T( A 0 (t)) B 0 (t) for all t>0;

  2. (ii)

    T is a α-ψ-proximal contractive mapping such that ψ is continuous;

  3. (iii)

    for any sequence { y n } in B 0 (t) and xA satisfying M(x, y n ,t)M(A,B,t) as n+, then x A 0 (t) for all t>0;

  4. (iv)

    there exist elements x 0 and x 1 in A 0 (t) such that

    M( x 1 ,T x 0 ,t)=M(A,B,t)for all t>0andα( x 0 , x 1 ,t)t;
  5. (v)

    if { x n } is a sequence in X such that α( x n , x n + 1 ,t)t for all t>0 and n with x n x as n+, then α( x n ,x,t)t for all t>0 and all n.

Then there exists x A such that M( x ,T x ,t)=M(A,B,t), for all t>0, that is, T has a best proximity point x A.

  1. (vi)

    Moreover, if M(x,Tx,t)=M(A,B,t), M(y,Ty,t)=M(A,B,t) implies α(x,y,t)t for all t>0, then T has a unique best proximity point.

Proof Following the same lines in the proof of Theorem 1, we can construct a sequence { x n } in A 0 (t) satisfying

M( x n + 1 ,T x n ,t)=M(A,B,t),α( x n , x n + 1 ,t)tfor all nN
(3.7)

and x n x as n, that is, lim n + M( x n , x ,t)=1, for all t>0. Moreover,

M ( A , B , t ) = M ( x n + 1 , T x n , t ) M ( x n + 1 , x , t ) M ( x , T x n , t ) M ( x n + 1 , x , t ) M ( x , x n + 1 , t ) M ( x n + 1 , T x n , t ) = M ( x n + 1 , x , t ) M ( x , x n + 1 , t ) M ( A , B , t ) .

This implies

M ( A , B , t ) M ( x n + 1 , x , t ) M ( x , T x n , t ) M ( x n + 1 , x , t ) M ( x , x n + 1 , t ) M ( A , B , t ) .

Passing to the limit as n+ in the above inequality, we get

M(A,B,t)1 lim n + M ( x , T x n , t ) 11M(A,B,t),

that is,

lim n + M ( x , T x n , t ) =M(A,B,t)

and so, by condition (iii), x A 0 (t). Since T( A 0 (t)) B 0 (t), then there exists z A 0 (t) such that M(z,T x ,t)=M(A,B,t). Also from (iv) we have α( x n , x ,t)t for all nN{0}.

Suppose there exists t 0 >0 such that M( x ,z, t 0 )<1. Then from (3.2) with x= x n , y= x , u= x n + 1 , and v=z we get

1 M ( x n + 1 , z , t 0 ) 1ψ ( M T ( x n , x , x n + 1 , z , t 0 ) N T ( x n , x , x n + 1 , z , t 0 ) ) .
(3.8)

On the other hand we know that

lim n M T ( x n , x , x n + 1 , z , t 0 ) = lim n ( max { 1 M ( x n , x , t 0 ) , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t 0 ) + 1 M ( x , z , t 0 ) ] , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x n , z , t 0 ) + 1 M ( x , x n + 1 , t 0 ) 1 ] } ) = max { 1 M ( x , x , t 0 ) , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x , x , t 0 ) + 1 M ( x , z , t 0 ) ] , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x , z , t 0 ) + 1 M ( x , x , t 0 ) 1 ] } = max { 1 , 1 2 [ 1 + 1 M ( x , z , t 0 ) ] , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x , z , t 0 ) ] } = 1 2 [ 1 + 1 M ( x , z , t 0 ) ]

and

lim n N T ( x n , x , x n + 1 , z , t 0 ) = lim n max { M ( x n , x n + 1 , t 0 ) , M ( x , z , t ) , M ( x n , z , t 0 ) , M ( x , x n + 1 , t 0 ) } = max { 1 , M ( x , z , t 0 ) , M ( x , z , t 0 ) , 1 } = 1 .

Now by taking the limit as n in (3.8) we get

1 M ( x , z , t 0 ) 1ψ ( 1 2 [ 1 + 1 M ( x , z , t 0 ) ] 1 ) < 1 2 [ 1 + 1 M ( x , z , t 0 ) ] 1,

which implies 1 2 M ( x , z , t 0 ) < 1 2 , i.e., M( x ,z, t 0 )>1, which is a contradiction. Hence, M( x ,z,t)=1 for all t>0. So, x =z. Therefore, T has a best proximity point. □

Example 1 Let X=R be endowed with the usual metric d(x,y)=|xy|. Consider M(x,y,t)= t t + d ( x , y ) and N(x,y,t)= d ( x , y ) t + d ( x , y ) for all x,yX and all t>0. Moreover, consider A=(,1], B=[1,+) and define T:AB by

Tx= { x 3 + 2 , if  x ( , 14 ) , 2 x 4 + 5 , if  x [ 14 , 12 ) , 4 x 4 + 5 , if  x [ 12 , 10 ) , x 5 + 6 , if  x [ 10 , 8 ) , 10 , if  x [ 8 , 6 ) , | x 3 | + 1 , if  x [ 6 , 4 ) , x + | ( x + 3 ) ( x + 4 ) | , if  x [ 4 , 2 ) , 1 , if  x [ 2 , 1 ] .

Also, define α:X×X×(0,)[0,+) by

α(x,y,t)= { 2 t , if  x , y [ 2 , 1 ] , 1 2 t , otherwise ,

and ψ:[0,+)[0,+) by

ψ(t)= 1 2 tfor all t0.

Clearly, M(A,B,t)=sup{M(x,y,t)xA,yB}= t t + 2 . Hence,

A 0 ( t ) = { x A : M ( x , y , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) = t t + 2  for some  y B } = { 1 } , B 0 ( t ) = { y B : M ( x , y , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) = t t + 2  for some  x A } = { 1 } .

It is immediate to show that T( A 0 (t)) B 0 (t) for all t>0, M(1,T(1),t)=M(A,B,t) and α(1,1,t)t. Suppose

{ α ( x , y , t ) t , M ( u , T x , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) , M ( v , T y , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) ,

then

{ x , y [ 2 , 1 ] , M ( u , T x , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) , M ( v , T y , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) .

Hence, u=v=1, that is, α(u,v,t)t. Therefore T is an α-proximal admissible mapping. Further,

1 M ( u , v , t ) 1=0ψ ( M T ( x , y , u , v , t ) N T ( x , y , u , v , t ) ) ,

that is, T is an α-ψ-proximal contractive mapping. Moreover, if { x n } is a sequence such that α( x n , x n + 1 ,t)t for all nN{0} and t>0 such that x n x as n+, then { x n }[2,1] and hence x[2,1]. Consequently, α( x n ,x,t)t for all nN{0} and all t>0. Therefore all the conditions of Theorem 2 hold and T has a unique best proximity point. Here z=1 is the best proximity point of T.

Theorem 3 Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a complete triangular intuitionistic fuzzy metric space (X,M,N,,) such that A 0 (t) is nonempty for all t>0. Let T:AB be a t-uniformly continuous non-self-mapping. Assume that following assertions hold true:

  1. (i)

    T is an α-proximal admissible mapping and T( A 0 (t)) B 0 (t) for all t>0;

  2. (ii)

    for x,y,u,vA,

    α ( x , y , t ) t , M ( u , T x , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) , M ( v , T y , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) } 1 M ( u , v , t ) 1 ( 1 M ( x , v , t ) 1 + 1 M ( y , u , t ) 1 1 M ( x , v , t ) 1 + 1 M ( y , u , t ) 1 + 1 t ) ( 1 M ( x , y , t ) 1 )
    (3.9)

holds for all t>0;

  1. (iii)

    for any sequence { y n } in B 0 (t) and xA satisfying M(x, y n ,t)M(A,B,t) as n+, then x A 0 (t) for all t>0;

  2. (iv)

    there exist elements x 0 and x 1 in A 0 (t) such that

    M( x 1 ,T x 0 ,t)=M(A,B,t)andα( x 0 , x 1 ,t)tfor all t>0.

Then there exists x A such that M( x ,T x ,t)=M(A,B,t), for all t>0, that is, T has a best proximity point x A.

  1. (v)

    Moreover, if M(x,Tx,t)=M(A,B,t), M(y,Ty,t)=M(A,B,t) implies α(x,y,t)t for all t>0, then T has a unique best proximity point.

Proof Following the same lines in the proof of Theorem 1, we can construct a sequence { x n } in A 0 (t) satisfying

M( x n + 1 ,T x n ,t)=M(A,B,t),α( x n , x n + 1 ,t)tfor all nN.
(3.10)

From (ii) with u=y= x n , v= x n + 1 and x= x n 1 , we get

1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) 1 ( 1 M ( x n 1 , x n + 1 , t ) 1 + 1 M ( x n , x n , t ) 1 1 M ( x n 1 , x n + 1 , t ) 1 + 1 M ( x n , x n , t ) 1 + 1 t ) ( 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) 1 ) = ( 1 M ( x n 1 , x n + 1 , t ) 1 1 M ( x n 1 , x n + 1 , t ) 1 + 1 t ) ( 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) 1 ) ( 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) 1 + 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) 1 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) 1 + 1 M ( x n , x n + 1 , t ) 1 + 1 t ) ( 1 M ( x n 1 , x n , t ) 1 ) .
(3.11)

As in the proof of Theorem 2.2 of [27], we deduce that { x n } is a Cauchy sequence. The completeness of (X,M,N,,) ensures that the sequence { x n } converges to some x X, that is lim n + M( x n , x ,t)=1. Since T is t-uniformly continuous, so by Lemmas 1 and 2, we have

M ( x , T x , t ) = lim n M( x n + 1 ,T x n ,t)=M(A,B,t).

That is, x is a best proximity of T. Now we show that x is unique best proximity point of T. Suppose, to the contrary, that there exists t 0 >0 such that 0<M( x ,w, t 0 )<1 and w x is another best proximity point of T, that is, M( x ,T x ,t)=M(A,B,t) and M(w,Tw,t)=M(A,B,t) for all t>0. Now if condition (v) holds, then, from (ii), we have

1 M ( x , w , t ) 1 ( 1 M ( x , w , t ) 1 + 1 M ( w , x , t ) 1 1 M ( x , w , t ) 1 + 1 M ( w , x , t ) 1 + 1 t ) ( 1 M ( x , w , t ) 1 ) < 1 M ( x , w , t ) 1 ,

which is a contradiction. Hence, w= x . That is, T has a unique best proximity point. □

Theorem 4 Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a complete triangular intuitionistic fuzzy metric space (X,M,N,,) such that A 0 (t) is nonempty for all t>0. Let T:AB be a non-self-mapping. Assume that the following assertions hold true:

  1. (i)

    T is an α-proximal admissible mapping and T( A 0 (t)) B 0 (t) for all t>0;

  2. (ii)

    (3.9) holds for all t>0;

  3. (iii)

    for any sequence { y n } in B 0 (t) and xA satisfying M(x, y n ,t)M(A,B,t) as n+, then x A 0 (t) for all t>0;

  4. (iv)

    there exist elements x 0 and x 1 in A 0 (t) such that

    M( x 1 ,T x 0 ,t)=M(A,B,t)for all t>0andα( x 0 , x 1 ,t)t;
  5. (v)

    if { x n } is a sequence in X such that α( x n , x n + 1 ,t)t for all n and all t>0 such that x n x as n+, then α( x n ,x,t)t for all n and all t>0.

Then there exists x A such that M( x ,T x ,t)=M(A,B,t), for all t>0, that is, T has a best proximity point x A.

  1. (vi)

    Moreover, if M(x,Tx,t)=M(A,B,t), M(y,Ty,t)=M(A,B,t) imply α(x,y,t)t for all t>0, then T has a unique best proximity point.

Proof Following the same lines in the proof of Theorem 3, we can construct a sequence { x n } in A 0 (t) satisfying

M( x n + 1 ,T x n ,t)=M(A,B,t),α( x n , x n + 1 ,t)tfor all nN,
(3.12)

x n x as n, and there exists z A 0 (t) such that M(z,T x ,t)=M(A,B,t). Also, α( x n ,x,t)t for all n and all t>0. Then from (ii) with x= x n , y= x , u= x n + 1 and v=z we get

1 M ( x n + 1 , z , t ) 1 ( 1 M ( x n , z , t ) 1 + 1 M ( x , x n + 1 , t ) 1 1 M ( x n , z , t ) 1 + 1 M ( x , x n + 1 , t ) 1 + 1 t ) ( 1 M ( x n , x , t ) 1 ) < 1 M ( x n , x , t ) 1 .

Taking the limit as n in the above inequality we get 1 M ( x , z , t ) 1=0, i.e., x =z. Therefore x is a best proximity point of T. Uniqueness follows similarly as in Theorem 3. □

4 Best proximity point results in partially ordered intuitionistic fuzzy metric space

Fixed point theorems for monotone operators in partially ordered metric spaces are widely investigated and have found various applications in differential and integral equations (see [3640] and references therein). The aim of this section is to deduce certain new best proximity results in the context of partially ordered intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces.

Definition 12 Let A, B be two nonempty closed subsets of a partially ordered intuitionistic fuzzy metric space (X,M,N,,,). Then T:AB is said to be a proximally order-preserving, if for all x,y,u,vA,

{ x y , M ( u , T x , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) , M ( v , T y , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) uv

holds for all t>0.

Theorem 5 Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a partially ordered complete triangular intuitionistic fuzzy metric space (X,M,N,,,) such that A 0 (t) is nonempty for all t>0. Let T:AB be a t-uniformly continuous non-self-mapping satisfying the following assertions:

  1. (i)

    T is proximally order-preserving and T( A 0 (t)) B 0 (t) for all t>0;

  2. (ii)

    for x,y,u,vA,

    x y , M ( u , T x , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) , M ( v , T y , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) } 1 M ( u , v , t ) 1 ψ ( M T ( x , y , u , v , t ) N T ( x , y , u , v , t ) )
    (4.1)

holds for all t>0, where ψΨ;

  1. (iii)

    for any sequence { y n } in B 0 (t) and xA satisfying M(x, y n ,t)M(A,B,t) as n+, then x A 0 (t) for all t>0;

  2. (iv)

    there exist elements x 0 and x 1 in A 0 (t) such that

    M( x 1 ,T x 0 ,t)=M(A,B,t)for all t>0 and  x 0 x 1 .

Then there exists x A such that M( x ,T x ,t)=M(A,B,t), for all t>0, that is, T has a best proximity point x A.

Proof Define α:A×A×(0,)[0,+) by

α(x,y,t)= { 2 t , if  x y , 1 2 t , otherwise .

At first we prove that T is an α-proximal admissible mapping. For this assume that

{ α ( x , y , t ) t , M ( u , T x , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) , M ( v , T y , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) .

So

{ x y , M ( u , T x , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) , M ( v , T y , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) .

Now, since T is proximally order-preserving so, uv. That is, α(u,v,t)t which implies that T is α-proximal admissible. Condition (ii) implies that T is α-ψ-proximal contractive mapping. Further by (iv) we have

M( x 1 ,T x 0 ,t)=M(A,B,t)andα( x 0 , x 1 ,t)t.

Therefore all conditions of Theorem 1 hold and T has a best proximity point. □

Theorem 6 Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a partially ordered complete triangular intuitionistic fuzzy metric space (X,M,N,,,) such that A 0 (t) is nonempty for all t>0. Let T:AB be a non-self-mapping satisfying the following assertions:

  1. (i)

    T is proximally order-preserving and T( A 0 (t)) B 0 (t) for all t>0;

  2. (ii)

    (4.1) holds for all t>0;

  3. (iii)

    for any sequence { y n } in B 0 (t) and xA satisfying M(x, y n ,t)M(A,B,t) as n+, then x A 0 (t) for all t>0;

  4. (iv)

    there exist elements x 0 and x 1 in A 0 (t) such that

    M( x 1 ,T x 0 ,t)=M(A,B,t)for all t>0 and  x 0 x 1 ;
  5. (v)

    if { x n } is an increasing sequence in X such that x n x as n+, then x n x for all n.

Then there exists x A such that M( x ,T x ,t)=M(A,B,t), for all t>0, that is, T has a best proximity point x A.

Proof Define α:A×A×(0,)[0,+) as in Theorem 5. Also, assume α( x n , x n + 1 ,t)t for all nN such that x n x as n. Then x n x n + 1 for all nN. Hence, by (v) we get x n x for all nN and so α( x n ,x,t)t for all nN and all t>0. All other conditions can be proved as in the proof of Theorem 5. Thus all conditions of Theorem 2 hold and T has a best proximity point. □

Similarly from Theorems 3 and 4 we can deduce the following results.

Theorem 7 Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a partially ordered complete triangular intuitionistic fuzzy metric space (X,M,N,,,) such that A 0 (t) is nonempty for all t>0. Let T:AB be a t-uniformly continuous non-self-mapping. Also suppose that the following assertions hold true:

  1. (i)

    T is proximally order-preserving and T( A 0 (t)) B 0 (t) for all t>0;

  2. (ii)

    for x,y,u,vA,

    x y , M ( u , T x , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) , M ( v , T y , t ) = M ( A , B , t ) } 1 M ( u , v , t ) 1 ( 1 M ( x , v , t ) 1 + 1 M ( y , u , t ) 1 1 M ( x , v , t ) 1 + 1 M ( y , u , t ) 1 + 1 t ) ( 1 M ( x , y , t ) 1 )
    (4.2)

holds for all t>0;

  1. (iii)

    for any sequence { y n } in B 0 (t) and xA satisfying M(x, y n ,t)M(A,B,t) as n+, then x A 0 (t) for all t>0;

  2. (iv)

    there exist elements x 0 and x 1 in A 0 (t) such that

    M( x 1 ,T x 0 ,t)=M(A,B,t)for all t>0 and  x 0 x 1 .

Then there exists x A such that M( x ,T x ,t)=M(A,B,t), for all t>0, that is, T has a best proximity point x A.

Theorem 8 If in the above theorem, in place of t-uniform continuity of T, we assume that for any increasing sequence { x n } in X and x n x as n+, we have x n x for all nN. Then there exists x A such that M( x ,T x ,t)=M(A,B,t), for all t>0, that is, T has a best proximity point x A.

5 Application to fixed point theory

In this section we deduce new fixed point results in intuitionistic fuzzy metric space and ordered intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. Moreover, we derive certain recent fixed point results as corollaries to our best proximity results.

First we introduce the following concepts.

Definition 13 Let (X,M,N,,) be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space, T:XX and α:X×X×(0,)[0,). We say, T is an α-admissible mapping if

x,yX,α(x,y,t)tα(Tx,Ty,t)t

for all t>0.

Let (X,M,N,,) be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space, T:XX be a self-mapping. We define M T (x,y,t) and N T (x,y,t) as follows:

M T ( x , y , t ) = max { 1 M ( x , y , t ) , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x , T x , t ) + 1 M ( y , T y , t ) ] , 1 2 [ 1 M ( x , T y , t ) + 1 M ( y , T x , t ) 1 ] }

and

N T (x,y,t)=max { M ( x , T x , t ) , M ( y , T y , t ) , M ( x , T y , t ) , M ( y , T x , t ) } .

Definition 14 Let (X,M,N,,) be an intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. Let T:XX be a self-mapping and α:X×X×(0,)[0,) be a function. We say T is an α-ψ-contractive mapping if

x,yX,α(x,y,t)t 1 M ( T x , T y , t ) 1ψ ( M T ( x , y , t ) N T ( x , y , t ) )
(5.1)

holds for all t>0, where ψΨ.

Theorem 9 Let (X,M,N,,) be a complete triangular intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. Let T:XX be a t-uniformly continuous self-mapping. Also suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    T is an α-admissible mapping;

  2. (ii)

    T is α-ψ-contractive mapping;

  3. (iii)

    there exists x 0 in X such that α( x 0 ,T x 0 ,t)t.

Then T has a fixed point.

  1. (iv)

    Moreover, if x,yFix(T) implies α(x,y,t)t, then T has a unique fixed point.

Theorem 10 Let (X,M,N,,) be a complete triangular intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. Let T:XX be a self-mapping. Also suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    T is an α-admissible mapping;

  2. (ii)

    T is α-ψ-contractive mapping;

  3. (iii)

    there exists x 0 in X such that α( x 0 ,T x 0 ,t)t;

  4. (iv)

    if { x n } is a sequence in X such that α( x n , x n + 1 ,t)t for all n and all t>0 with x n x as n+, then α( x n ,x,t)t for all nN and all t>0.

Then T has a fixed point.

  1. (v)

    Moreover, if x,yFix(T) implies α(x,y,t)t, then T has a unique fixed point.

Theorem 11 Let (X,M,N,,) be a complete triangular intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. Let T:XX be a t-uniformly continuous self-mapping. Also suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    T is an α-admissible mapping;

  2. (ii)
    x , y X , α ( x , y , t ) t 1 M ( T x , T y , t ) 1 ( 1 M ( x , T y , t ) 1 + 1 M ( y , T x , t ) 1 1 M ( x , T y , t ) 1 + 1 M ( y , T x , t ) 1 + 1 t ) ( 1 M ( x , y , t ) 1 )

for all t>0;

  1. (iii)

    there exists x 0 in X such that α( x 0 ,T x 0 ,t)t.

Then T has a fixed point.

  1. (iv)

    Moreover, if x,yFix(T) implies α(x,y,t)t, then T has a unique fixed point.

Theorem 12 Let (X,M,N,,) be a complete triangular intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. Let T:XX be a self-mapping. Also suppose that the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    T is an α-admissible mapping;

  2. (ii)
    x , y X , α ( x , y , t ) t 1 M ( T x , T y , t ) 1 ( 1 M ( x , T y , t ) 1 + 1 M ( y , T x , t ) 1 1 M ( x , T y , t ) 1 + 1 M ( y , T x , t ) 1 + 1 t ) ( 1 M ( x , y , t ) 1 )

for all t>0;

  1. (iii)

    there exist elements x 0 in X such that α( x 0 ,T x 0 ,t)t;

  2. (iv)

    if { x n } is a sequence in X such that α( x n , x n + 1 ,t)t for all n and all t>0 with x n x as n+, then α( x n ,x,t)t for all n and all t>0.

Then T has a fixed point.

  1. (v)

    Moreover, if x,yFix(T) implies α(x,y,t)t, then T has a unique fixed point.

By taking α(x,y,t)=t for all x,yX and all t>0, we obtain the following corrected version of Theorem 2.2 in [27].

Corollary 1 (Theorem 2.2 of [27])

Let (X,M,N,,) be a complete triangular intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. Let T:XX be a t-uniformly continuous mapping satisfying

1 M ( T x , T y , t ) 1 ( 1 M ( x , T y , t ) 1 + 1 M ( y , T x , t ) 1 1 M ( x , T y , t ) 1 + 1 M ( y , T x , t ) 1 + 1 t ) ( 1 M ( x , y , t ) 1 )

holds for all x,yX and all t>0. Then T has a fixed point.

Theorem 13 Let (X,M,N,,,) be a partially ordered complete triangular intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. Let T:XX be a t-uniformly continuous self-mapping. Also assume the following assertions hold true:

  1. (i)

    T is an increasing mapping;

  2. (ii)

    assume

    1 M ( T x , T y , t ) 1 ( 1 M ( x , T y , t ) 1 + 1 M ( y , T x , t ) 1 1 M ( x , T y , t ) 1 + 1 M ( y , T x , t ) 1 + 1 t ) ( 1 M ( x , y , t ) 1 )

holds for all x,yX with xy and t>0;

  1. (iii)

    there exists x 0 in X such that x 0 T x 0 .

Then T has a fixed point.

Theorem 14 Let (X,M,N,,,) be a partially ordered complete triangular intuitionistic fuzzy metric space. Let T:XX be a self-mapping. Also assume the following assertions hold true:

  1. (i)

    T is an increasing mapping;

  2. (ii)

    assume

    1 M ( T x , T y , t ) 1 ( 1 M ( x , T y , t ) 1 + 1 M ( y , T x , t ) 1 1 M ( x , T y , t ) 1 + 1 M ( y , T x , t ) 1 + 1 t ) ( 1 M ( x , y , t ) 1 )

holds for all x,yX with xy and t>0;

  1. (iii)

    there exist elements x 0 in X such that x 0 T x 0 ;

  2. (iv)

    if { x n } be an increasing sequence in X such that x n x as n, then x n x for all nN.

Then T has a fixed point.

References

  1. Fan K: Extensions of two fixed point theorems of F.E. Browder. Math. Z. 1969,112(3):234–240. 10.1007/BF01110225

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Amini-Harandi A: Best proximity points theorems for cyclic strongly quasi-contraction mappings. J. Glob. Optim. 2013, 56: 1667–1674. 10.1007/s10898-012-9953-9

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Amini-Harandi A, Hussain N, Akbar F: Best proximity point results for generalized contractions in metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 164

    Google Scholar 

  4. Di Bari C, Suzuki T, Vetro C: Best proximity points for cyclic Meir-Keeler contractions. Nonlinear Anal. 2008,69(11):3790–3794. 10.1016/j.na.2007.10.014

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Hussain N, Kutbi MA, Salimi P: Best proximity point results for modified α - ψ -proximal rational contractions. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2013., 2013: Article ID 927457

    Google Scholar 

  6. Suzuki T, Kikkawa M, Vetro C: The existence of best proximity points in metric spaces with the property UC. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 2918–2926. 10.1016/j.na.2009.01.173

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Zadeh LA: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 1965, 8: 338–353. 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Kramosil I, Michálek J: Fuzzy metric and statistical metric spaces. Kybernetika 1975, 11: 336–344.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Grabiec M: Fixed points in fuzzy metric spaces. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1988, 27: 385–389. 10.1016/0165-0114(88)90064-4

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. George A, Veeramani P: On some results in fuzzy metric spaces. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1994, 64: 395–399. 10.1016/0165-0114(94)90162-7

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Chauhan S, Radenović S, Imdad M, Vetro C: Some integral type fixed point theorems in non-Archimedean Menger PM-spaces with common propertry (E.A) and application of functional equations in dynamic programming. Rev. R. Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fís. Nat., Ser. A Mat. 2014. 10.1007/s13398-013-0142-6

    Google Scholar 

  12. Di Bari C, Vetro C: Fixed points, attractors and weak fuzzy contractive mappings in a fuzzy metric space. J. Fuzzy Math. 2005, 13: 973–982.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Gopal D, Imdad M, Vetro C, Hasan M: Fixed point theory for cyclic weak ϕ -contraction in fuzzy metric spaces. J. Nonlinear Anal. Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID jnaa-00110

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kadelburg Z, Radenović S: A note on some recent best proximity point results for non-self mappings. Gulf J. Math. 2013, 1: 36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Long W, Khaleghizadeh S, Selimi P, Radenović S, Shukla S: Some new fixed point results in partial ordered metric spaces via admissible mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2014., 2014: Article ID 117

    Google Scholar 

  16. Saadati R, Kumam P, Jang SY: On the tripled fixed point and tripled coincidence point theorems in fuzzy normed spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2014., 2014: Article ID 136

    Google Scholar 

  17. Salimi P, Vetro C, Vetro P: Some new fixed point results in non-Archimedean fuzzy metric spaces. Nonlinear Anal., Model. Control 2013,18(3):344–358.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Chauhan S, Bhatnagar S, Radenović S: Common fixed point theorems for weakly compatible mappings in fuzzy metric spaces. Matematiche 2013,LXVIII(I):87–98. 10.4418/2013.68.1.8

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Shen Y, Qiu D, Chenc W: Fixed point theorems in fuzzy metric spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 2012, 25: 138–141. 10.1016/j.aml.2011.08.002

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Vetro C: Fixed points in weak non-Archimedean fuzzy metric spaces. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2011, 162: 84–90. 10.1016/j.fss.2010.09.018

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Vetro C, Gopal D, Imdad M:Common fixed point theorem for (ϕ,ψ)-weak contractions in fuzzy metric spaces. Indian J. Math. 2010, 52: 573–590.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Vetro C, Vetro P: Common fixed points for discontinuous mappings in fuzzy metric spaces. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 2008, 57: 295–303. 10.1007/s12215-008-0022-7

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Atanassov K: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1986, 20: 87–96. 10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Park JH: Intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2004, 22: 1039–1046. 10.1016/j.chaos.2004.02.051

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Alaca C, Turkoghlu D, Yildiz C: Fixed points in intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2006, 29: 1073–1078. 10.1016/j.chaos.2005.08.066

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Coker D: An introduction to intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1997, 88: 81–89. 10.1016/S0165-0114(96)00076-0

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Ionescu C, Rezapour S, Samei ME: Fixed points of some new contractions on intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 168

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mohamad A: Fixed-point theorems in intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2007, 34: 1689–1695. 10.1016/j.chaos.2006.05.024

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Park JS, Kwun YC, Park JH: A fixed point theorem in the intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces. Far East J. Math. Sci. 2005, 16: 137–149.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Rafi M, Noorani MSM: Fixed point theorem on intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces. Iran. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2006,3(1):23–29.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Schweizer B, Sklar A: Statistical metric spaces. Pac. J. Math. 1960, 10: 314–334.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Samanta TK, Mohinta S: On fixed-point theorems in intuitionistic fuzzy metric space I. Gen. Math. Notes 2011,3(2):1–12.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Di Bari C, Vetro C: A fixed point theorem for a family of mappings in a fuzzy metric space. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 2003, 52: 315–321. 10.1007/BF02872238

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Samet B, Vetro C, Vetro P: Fixed point theorems for α - ψ -contractive type mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2012, 75: 2154–2165. 10.1016/j.na.2011.10.014

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Salimi P, Latif A, Hussain N: Modified α - ψ -contractive mappings with applications. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 151

    Google Scholar 

  36. Agarwal RP, Hussain N, Taoudi MA: Fixed point theorems in ordered Banach spaces and applications to nonlinear integral equations. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 245872

    Google Scholar 

  37. Nieto JJ, Rodríguez-López R: Contractive mapping theorems in partially ordered sets and applications to ordinary differential equations. Order 2005, 22: 223–229. 10.1007/s11083-005-9018-5

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Hussain N, Khan AR, Agarwal RP: Krasnosel’skii and Ky Fan type fixed point theorems in ordered Banach spaces. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2010,11(3):475–489.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Hussain N, Taoudi MA: Krasnosel’skii-type fixed point theorems with applications to Volterra integral equations. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 196

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mohiuddine S, Alotaibi A: Coupled coincidence point theorems for compatible mappings in partially ordered intuitionistic generalized fuzzy metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 265

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah. Therefore, the first and fourth authors acknowledge with thanks DSR, KAU for financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peyman Salimi.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed equally and significantly in writing this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

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

Latif, A., Hezarjaribi, M., Salimi, P. et al. Best proximity point theorems for α-ψ-proximal contractions in intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces. J Inequal Appl 2014, 352 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-352

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-352

Keywords

  • α-proximal admissible mapping
  • fuzzy α-ψ-proximal contractions
  • best proximity point
  • intuitionistic fuzzy ordered metric space