Skip to main content

Generalized Ulam-Hyers stability and well-posedness for fixed point equation via α-admissibility

Abstract

In this paper, we extend the concept of contraction mappings in b-metric spaces and utilize this concept to prove the existence and uniqueness of fixed point theorems for such mappings in such a space. We also prove the generalized Ulam-Hyers stability and well-posed results for a fixed point equation employing the concept of α-admissibility in b-metric spaces. We shall construct some examples to support our novel results.

MSC:46S40, 47S40, 47H10.

1 Introduction

The classical Banach contraction principle is a very important tool in solving existence problems in many branches of mathematics. Over the years, it has been generalized in several different directions by several mathematicians (see [17]). In 1993, Czerwik [8] introduced and proved the contraction mapping principle in b-metric spaces that generalized the famous Banach contraction principle in such spaces. Subsequently several other authors [915] have studied and established the existence of fixed points of a contractive mapping in b-metric spaces.

The study of stability problems for various functional equations play the most important role in mathematical analysis. In the fall of 1940, Ulam [16] discussed a number of important unsolved mathematical problems. Among them, a question concerning the stability of homomorphisms seemed too abstract for anyone to reach any conclusion. In the following year, Hyers [17] gave a first affirmative partial answer to Ulam’s question for Banach spaces, this type of stability is called Ulam-Hyers stability. A large number of papers have been published in connection with various generalizations of Ulam-Hyers stability results in fixed point theory and remarkable result on the stability of certain classes of functional equations via fixed point approach (see [1829] and references therein).

On the other hand, Samet et al. [30] introduced the concepts of α-ψ-contractive mapping and α-admissible self-mappings. Also, they proved some fixed point results for such mappings in complete metric spaces. Naturally, many authors have started to investigate the existence of a fixed point theorem via α-admissible mappings for single valued and multivalued mappings (see [3138]). Recently Bota et al. [39] considered the existence and the uniqueness of fixed point theorems and generalized Ulam-Hyers stability results via α-admissible mappings in b-metric spaces.

In this paper, we extend the concept of α-ψ-contractive mapping in b-metric spaces. By using this concept, we establish the existence and uniqueness of fixed point for some new types of contractive mappings in b-metric spaces and give an example to illustrate our main results. Moreover, we study and prove the generalized Ulam-Hyers stability and well-posed results by using fixed point method via α-admissible mappings in b-metric spaces.

2 Preliminaries

Throughout this paper, we shall use the following notation.

Definition 2.1 ([40, 41])

Let X be a nonempty set and the functional d:X×X[0,) satisfy:

(b1) d(x,y)=0 if and only if x=y,

(b2) d(x,y)=d(y,x) for all x,yX,

(b3) there exists a real number s1 such that d(x,z)s[d(x,y)+d(y,z)], for all x,y,zX.

Then d is called a b-metric on X and a pair (X,d) is called a b-metric space with coefficient s.

Remark 2.2 If we take s=1 in above definition then b-metric spaces turns into usual metric spaces. Hence, the class of b-metric spaces is larger than the class of usual metric spaces.

Examples of b-metric spaces were given in [8, 4043].

Example 2.3 The set l p (R) with 0<p<1, where l p (R):={{ x n }R n = 1 | x n | p <}, together with the functional d: l p (R)× l p (R)[0,),

d(x,y):= ( n = 1 | x n y n | p ) 1 p

(where x={ x n },y={ y n } l p (R)) is a b-metric spaces with coefficient s= 2 1 p >1. Notice that the above result holds for the general case l p (X) with 0<p<1, where X is a Banach spaces.

Example 2.4 Let X be a set with the cardinal card(X)3. Suppose that X= X 1 X 2 is a partition of X such that card( X 1 )2. Let s>1 be arbitrary. Then the functional d:X×X[0,) defined by

d(x,y):= { 0 , x = y , 2 s , x , y X 1 , 1 , otherwise ,

is a b-metric on X with coefficient s>1.

Definition 2.5 ([42])

Let (X,d) be a b-metric spaces. Then a sequence { x n } in X is called

  1. (a)

    convergent if and only if there exists xX such that d( x n ,x)0 as n;

  2. (b)

    Cauchy if and only if d( x n , x m )0 as m,n.

Lemma 2.6 ([41])

Let (X,d) be a b-metric spaces and let { x k } k = 0 n X. Then

d( x 0 , x n )sd( x 0 , x 1 )++ s n 1 d( x n 2 , x n 1 )+ s n d( x n 1 , x n ).

Definition 2.7 ([21])

A mapping ψ:[0,)[0,) is called a comparison function if it is increasing and ψ n (t)0 as n, for any t[0,).

Lemma 2.8 ([21, 44])

If ψ:[0,)[0,) is a comparison function, then

  1. (1)

    ψ n is also a comparison function, where ψ n is nth iterate of ψ;

  2. (2)

    ψ is continuous at 0;

  3. (3)

    ψ(t)<t, for any t>0.

The concept of (c)-comparison function was introduced by Berinde [44] in the following definition.

Definition 2.9 A function ψ:[0,)[0,) is said to be a (c)-comparison function if

  1. (1)

    ψ is increasing;

  2. (2)

    there exist n 0 N, k(0,1) and a convergent series of nonnegative terms n = 1 ϵ n such that ψ n + 1 (t)k ψ n (t)+ ϵ n , for n n 0 and any t[0,).

Here we recall the definitions of the following class of (b)-comparison function as given by Berinde [45] in order to extend some fixed point results to the class of b-metric spaces.

Definition 2.10 ([45])

Let s1 be a real number. A mapping ψ:[0,)[0,) is called a (b)-comparison function if the following conditions are fulfilled:

  1. (1)

    ψ is increasing;

  2. (2)

    there exist n 0 N, k(0,1), and a convergent series of nonnegative terms n = 1 ϵ n such that s n + 1 ψ n + 1 (t)k s n ψ n (t)+ ϵ n , for n n 0 and any t[0,).

In this work, we denote by Ψ b the class of (b)-comparison function ψ:[0,)[0,). It is evident that the concept of (b)-comparison function reduces to that of (c)-comparison function when s=1.

Lemma 2.11 ([43])

If ψ:[0,)[0,) is a (b)-comparison function, then we have the following:

  1. (i)

    the series n = 0 s n ψ n (t) converges for any t[0,);

  2. (ii)

    the function S:[0,)[0,), defined by S(t)= n = 0 s n ψ n (t), t[0,), is increasing and continuous at 0.

Next, we will present the concept of α-admissible mappings introduced by Samet et al. [30].

Definition 2.12 ([30])

Let X be a nonempty set, f:XX and α:X×X[0,). We say that f is an α-admissible mapping if it satisfies the following condition:

for x,yX for which α(x,y)1α ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) 1.

Example 2.13 Let X=(0,). Define f:XX and α:X×X[0,) by

f(x)=sinh(x)for all xX

and

α(x,y)= { x + y + 1 | x y | + 1 , if  x y , 0 , if  x < y .

Then f is α-admissible.

Example 2.14 Let X=R. Define f:XX and α:X×X[0,) by

f(x)= { cosh ( 2 x + 1 ) , if  x > 1 , 1 1 2 | x | , if  0 x 1 , 0 , otherwise

and

α(x,y)= { 1 , if  x , y [ 0 , 1 ] , 0 , otherwise .

Then f is α-admissible.

3 Fixed point theorems for α-admissible mapping in b-metric spaces

In this section, we prove the existence and uniqueness of fixed point theorems in a b-metric space.

Definition 3.1 Let (X,d) be a b-metric space with coefficient s. A mapping f:XX is said to be a generalized α-ψ-contraction in b-metric space if there exist functions ψ Ψ b and α:X×X[0,) such that the following condition holds:

for x,yX with α ( x , f ( x ) ) α ( y , f ( y ) ) 1d ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) .
(3.1)

Theorem 3.2 Let (X,d) be a complete b-metric space with coefficient s and f be a generalized α-ψ-contraction. Suppose that the following conditions hold:

  1. (a)

    f is an α-admissible;

  2. (b)

    there exists x 0 X such that α( x 0 ,f( x 0 ))1;

  3. (c)

    if { x n } is sequence in X such that x n x as n and α( x n ,f( x n ))1 for all nN, then α(x,f(x))1.

Then f has a unique fixed point x in X such that α( x ,f( x ))1.

Proof Let x 0 X such that α( x 0 ,f( x 0 ))1 (from condition (b)). We define the sequence { x n } in X such that

x n =f( x n 1 )for all nN.

Since f is an α-admissible and

α( x 0 , x 1 )=α ( x 0 , f ( x 0 ) ) 1
(3.2)

we deduce that

α ( x 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) =α ( f ( x 0 ) , f ( x 1 ) ) 1.
(3.3)

By continuing this process, we get α( x n 1 ,f( x n 1 ))1 for all nN. This implies that

α ( x n 1 , f ( x n 1 ) ) α ( x n , f ( x n ) ) 1

for all nN. From (3.1), we obtain

d( x n , x n + 1 )=d ( f ( x n 1 ) , f ( x n ) ) ψ ( d ( x n 1 , x n ) )

for all nN. By repeating the above process, we get

d( x n , x n + 1 ) ψ n ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) )

for all nN. Next, we show that { x n } is a Cauchy sequence in X. For m,nN with m>n, we have

d ( x n , x m ) s d ( x n , x n + 1 ) + s 2 d ( x n + 1 , x n + 2 ) + + s m n 2 d ( x m 3 , x m 2 ) + s m n 1 d ( x m 2 , x m 1 ) + s m n d ( x m 1 , x m ) s ψ n ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) + s 2 ψ n + 1 ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) + + s m n 2 ψ m 3 ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) + s m n 1 ψ m 2 ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) + s m n ψ m 1 ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) = 1 s n 1 [ s n ψ n ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) + s n + 1 ψ n + 1 ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) + + s m 2 ψ m 2 ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) + s m 1 ψ m 1 ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) ] .

Denote S n = i = 0 n s i ψ i (d( x 0 , x 1 )) for all nN. This implies that

d( x n , x m ) 1 s n 1 [ S m 1 S n 1 ]for all n,mN.

By Lemma 2.11 we know that the series i = 0 s i ψ i (d( x 0 , x 1 )) converges. Therefore, { x n } is Cauchy sequence in X. By the completeness of X, there exists x X such that x n x as n. Using condition (c), we get α( x ,f( x ))1. Also, we have α( x n 1 ,f( x n 1 ))α( x ,f( x ))1 for all nN. From the assumption (3.1), we have

d ( f ( x ) , x ) s [ d ( f ( x ) , x n ) + d ( x n , x ) ] = s [ d ( f ( x ) , f ( x n 1 ) ) + d ( x n , x ) ] s [ ψ ( d ( x , x n 1 ) ) + d ( x n , x ) ] .

Letting n, it follows that d(f( x ), x )=0, that is, x is a fixed point of f such that α( x ,f( x ))1.

Next, we prove the uniqueness of the fixed point of f. Let y be another fixed point of f such that

α ( y , f ( y ) ) 1.

Therefore, we get

α ( x , f ( x ) ) α ( y , f ( y ) ) 1.

It follows that

d ( x , y ) =d ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) <d ( x , y ) ,

which is a contradiction. Therefore, x is the unique fixed point of f such that α( x ,f( x ))1. This completes the proof. □

In view of Theorem 3.2, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 3.3 Let (X,d) be a complete b-metric space with coefficient s, f:XX, α:X×X[0,), and ψ Ψ b be three mappings. Suppose that the following conditions hold:

  1. (a)

    f is an α-admissible;

  2. (b)

    there exists x 0 X such that α( x 0 ,f( x 0 ))1;

  3. (c)

    if { x n } is sequence in X such that x n x as n and α( x n ,f( x n ))1 for all nN, then α(x,f(x))1;

  4. (d)

    f satisfies the following condition:

    α ( x , f ( x ) ) α ( y , f ( y ) ) d ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) )
    (3.4)

for all x,yX.

Then f has a unique fixed point x in X such that α( x ,f( x ))1.

Corollary 3.4 Let (X,d) be a complete b-metric space with coefficient s, f:XX, α:X×X[0,), and ψ Ψ b be three mappings. Suppose that the following conditions hold:

  1. (a)

    f is an α-admissible;

  2. (b)

    there exists x 0 X such that α( x 0 ,f( x 0 ))1;

  3. (c)

    if { x n } is sequence in X such that x n x as n and α( x n ,f( x n ))1 for all nN, then α(x,f(x))1;

  4. (d)

    f satisfies the following condition:

    [ d ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) + ξ ] α ( x , f ( x ) ) α ( y , f ( y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) + ξ s
    (3.5)

for all x,yX, where ξ1.

Then f has a unique fixed point x in X such that α( x ,f( x ))1.

Corollary 3.5 Let (X,d) be a complete b-metric space with coefficient s, f:XX, α:X×X[0,), and ψ Ψ b be three mappings. Suppose that the following conditions hold:

  1. (a)

    f is an α-admissible;

  2. (b)

    there exists x 0 X such that α( x 0 ,f( x 0 ))1;

  3. (c)

    if { x n } is sequence in X such that x n x as n and α( x n ,f( x n ))1 for all nN, then α(x,f(x))1;

  4. (d)

    f satisfies the following condition:

    ( α ( x , f ( x ) ) α ( y , f ( y ) ) 1 + ξ ) d ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) ξ ψ ( d ( x , y ) )
    (3.6)

for all x,yX, where ξ>1.

Then f has a unique fixed point x in X such that α( x ,f( x ))1.

If we set α(x,y)=1 for all x,yX in Theorem 3.2, we get the following results.

Corollary 3.6 Let (X,d) be a complete b-metric space with coefficient s and f:XX be a mapping. Suppose that f satisfies

d ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) )
(3.7)

for all x,yX, where ψ Ψ b . Then f has a unique fixed point in X.

If the coefficient s=1 in Corollary 3.6, we immediately get the following result.

Corollary 3.7 [46]

Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and ψ:[0,)[0,) be (c)-comparison function. Suppose that f:XX be a mapping satisfies

d ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , y ) )
(3.8)

for all x,yX. Then f has a unique fixed point in X.

Remark 3.8 If ψ(t)=kt, where k(0,1) in Corollary 3.7, we get the Banach contraction principle.

Next, we give an example showing that the contractive conditions in our results are independent. Also, our results are real generalizations of the Banach contraction principle in b-metric spaces and several results in literature.

Example 3.9 Let X=[0,) and d(x,y)= | x y | 2 for all x,yX. Then d is a complete b-metric space on X with coefficient s=2. Define f:XX by

f(x)= { 0.2 , x = 0 , 4 x cosh x , x ( 0 , 1 ) , x + 1 2 , [ 1 , ) .

Also, define α:X×X[0,) and ψ:[0,)[0,) by

α(x,y)= { 0 , x , y [ 0 , 1 ) , 1 , x , y [ 1 , ) ,

and ψ(t)= 1 2 t for all t0.

Now, we show that f is a generalized α-ψ-contraction mapping. For x,yX with

α ( x , f ( x ) ) α ( y , f ( y ) ) 1,

we get x,y[1,). Then we have

d ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) = | x + 1 2 y + 1 2 | 2 = 1 4 | x y | 2 1 2 d ( x , y ) = ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) .

It is easy to see that f is an α-admissible mapping. There exists x 0 =2X such that

α ( x 0 , f ( x 0 ) ) =α ( 2 , f ( 2 ) ) =α(2,1.5)=21.

Also, we can easily to prove that condition (c) in Theorem 3.2 holds. Therefore, all of conditions in Theorem 3.2 hold. In this example, we have 1 is a unique fixed point of f and α(1,f(1))1.

Remark 3.10 We observe that the contractive condition in Corollary 3.4 cannot be applied to this example. Indeed, for x=1 and y=2, we obtain

[ d ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) + ξ ] α ( x , f ( x ) ) α ( y , f ( y ) ) >ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) + ξ s ,

where ξ=1 and s=2. Therefore, Corollary 3.4 cannot be applied to this case. Also, by a similar method, we can show that Corollary 3.5 cannot be applied to this case.

Also, we can see that the fixed point result for Banach contraction principle in b-metric spaces cannot be applied to this case. Indeed, for x=0.4 and y=0.5, we get

d ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) =| 4 ( 0.4 ) cosh 0.4 4 ( 0.5 ) cosh 0.5 | 2 >0.07>0.01= | 0.4 0.5 | 2 =d(x,y).

4 The generalized Ulam-Hyers stability in b-metric spaces

In this section, we prove the generalized Ulam-Hyers stability in b-metric spaces for which Theorem 3.2 holds.

Let (X,d) be a b-metric spaces with coefficient s and f:XX be an operator. Let us consider the fixed point equation

x=f(x),xX
(4.1)

and the inequality

d ( v , f ( v ) ) ε,where ε>0.
(4.2)

Theorem 4.1 Let (X,d) be a complete b-metric space with coefficient s. Suppose that all the hypotheses of Theorem  3.2 hold and also that the function φ:[0,)[0,) defined by φ(t):=tsψ(t) is strictly increasing and onto. If α( u ,f( u ))1 for all u X which is an ε-solution, then the fixed point equation (4.1) is generalized Ulam-Hyers stable.

Proof By Theorem 3.2, we have f( x )= x , that is, x X is a solution of the fixed point equation (4.1). Let ε>0 and y X is an ε-solution, that is,

d ( y , f ( y ) ) ε.

Since x , y X are ε-solution, we have

α ( x , f ( x ) ) 1andα ( y , f ( y ) ) 1.

Also, we have

α ( x , f ( x ) ) α ( y , f ( y ) ) 1.

Now, we obtain

d ( x , y ) = d ( f ( x ) , y ) s [ d ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) + d ( f ( y ) , y ) ] s [ ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) + d ( f ( y ) , y ) ] s ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) + s ε .

It follows that

d ( x , y ) s ( ψ ( d ( x , y ) ) ) sε.

Since φ(t):=tsψ(t), we have

φ ( d ( x , y ) ) =d ( x , y ) sψ ( d ( x , y ) ) .

It implies that

d ( x , y ) φ 1 (sε).

Notice that φ 1 :[0,)[0,) exists, is increasing, continuous at 0 and φ 1 (0)=0. Therefore, the fixed point equation (4.1) is generalized Ulam-Hyers stable. □

Corollary 4.2 Let (X,d) be a complete b-metric space with coefficient s. Suppose that all the hypotheses of Corollary  3.3 hold and also that the function φ:[0,)[0,) defined by φ(t):=tsψ(t) is strictly increasing and onto. If α( u ,f( u ))1 for all u X which is an ε-solution, then the fixed point equation (4.1) is generalized Ulam-Hyers stable.

Corollary 4.3 Let (X,d) be a complete b-metric space with coefficient s. Suppose that all the hypotheses of Corollary  3.4 hold and also that the function φ:[0,)[0,) defined by φ(t):=tsψ(t) is strictly increasing and onto. If α( u ,f( u ))1 for all u X which is an ε-solution, then the fixed point equation (4.1) is generalized Ulam-Hyers stable.

Corollary 4.4 Let (X,d) be a complete b-metric space with coefficient s. Suppose that all the hypotheses of Corollary  3.5 hold and also that the function φ:[0,)[0,) defined by φ(t):=tsψ(t) is strictly increasing and onto. If α( u ,f( u ))1 for all u X which is an ε-solution, then the fixed point equation (4.1) is generalized Ulam-Hyers stable.

5 Well-posedness of a function with respect to α-admissibility in b-metric spaces

In this section, we present and prove well-posedness of a function with respect to an α-admissible mapping in b-metric spaces.

Definition 5.1 Let (X,d) be a complete b-metric spaces with coefficient s and f:XX, α:X×X[0,). The fixed point problem of f is said to be well-posed with respect to α if

  1. (i)

    f has a unique fixed point x in X such that α( x ,f( x ))1;

  2. (ii)

    for sequence { x n } in X such that d( x n ,f( x n ))0, as n, then x n x , as n.

In the following next theorems, we add a new condition to assure the well-posedness via α-admissibility.

  1. (S)

    If { x n } is sequence in X such that d( x n ,f( x n ))0, as n, then α( x n ,f( x n ))1 for all nN.

Theorem 5.2 Let (X,d) be a complete b-metric space with coefficient s, f:XX, α:X×X[0,), and ψ Ψ b . Suppose that all the hypotheses of Theorem  3.2 and condition (S) hold. Then the fixed point equation (4.1) is well-posed with respect to α.

Proof By Theorem 3.2, there unique exists x X such that f( x )= x and α( x ,f( x ))1. Let { x n } be sequence in X such that d( x n ,f( x n ))0, as n. By condition (S), we get

α ( x n , f ( x n ) ) 1.

Also, we get

α ( x n , f ( x n ) ) α ( x , f ( x ) ) 1.

Now, we have

d ( x n , x ) = d ( x n , f ( x ) ) s [ d ( x n , f ( x n ) ) + d ( f ( x n ) , f ( x ) ) ] s [ ψ ( d ( x n , x ) ) + d ( x n , f ( x n ) ) ] .

ψ is continuous at 0 and d( x n ,f( x n ))0 as n. It implies that d( x n , x )0 as n, that is, x n x , as n. Therefore, the fixed point equation (4.1) is well-posed with respect to α. □

Corollary 5.3 Let (X,d) be a complete b-metric space with coefficient s, f:XX, α:X×X[0,), and ψ Ψ b . Suppose that all the hypotheses of Corollary  3.3 and condition (S) hold. Then the fixed point equation (4.1) is well-posed with respect to α.

Corollary 5.4 Let (X,d) be a complete b-metric space with coefficient s, f:XX, α:X×X[0,), and ψ Ψ b . Suppose that all the hypotheses of Corollary  3.4 and condition (S) hold. Then the fixed point equation (4.1) is well-posed with respect to α.

Corollary 5.5 Let (X,d) be a complete b-metric space with coefficient s, f:XX, α:X×X[0,), and ψ Ψ b . Suppose that all the hypotheses of Corollary  3.5 and condition (S) hold. Then the fixed point equation (4.1) is well-posed with respect to α.

References

  1. 1.

    Radenović S, Kadelburg Z: Quasi-contractions on symmetric and cone symmetric spaces. Banach J. Math. Anal. 2011, 5: 38–50. 10.15352/bjma/1313362978

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Van An T, Van Dung N, Kadelburg Z, Radenović S: Various generalizations of metric spaces and fixed point theorems. Rev. R. Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fís. Nat., Ser. A Mat. 2014. 10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Agarwal RP, Kadelburg Z, Radenović S: On coupled fixed point results in asymmetric G -metric spaces. J. Inequal. Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 528

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Xu S, Radenović S: Fixed point theorems of generalized Lipschitz mappings on cone metric spaces with Banach algebra without assumption of normality. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2014., 2014: Article ID 102

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Jovanović M, Kadelburg Z, Radenović S: Common fixed point results in metric-type spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 978121 10.1155/2010/978121

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ćojbašić V, Radenović S, Chauhan S: Common fixed point of generalized weakly contractive maps in 0-complete partial metric spaces. Acta Math. Sci. Ser. B 2014,34(4):1345–1356. 10.1016/S0252-9602(14)60088-6

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Shah MH, Simić S, Hussain N, Sretenović A, Radenović S: Common fixed points theorems for occasionally weakly compatible pairs on cone metric type spaces. J. Comput. Anal. Appl. 2012,14(2):290–297.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Czerwik S: Contraction mappings in b -metric spaces. Acta Math. Inform. Univ. Ostrav. 1993, 1: 5–11.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Roshan JR, Shobkolaei N, Sedghi S, Parvaneh V, Radenović S:Common fixed point theorems for three maps in discontinuous G B -metric spaces. Acta Math. Sci. Ser. B 2014,34(5):1–12.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Azam A, Mehmood N, Ahmad J, Radenović S: Multivalued fixed point theorems in cone b -metric spaces. J. Inequal. Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 582

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Parvaneh V, Roshan JR, Radenović S: Existence of tripled coincidence point in ordered b -metric spaces and applications to a system of integral equations. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 130

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hussain N, Dorić D, Kadelburg Z, Radenovć S: Suzuki-type fixed point results in metric type spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 126

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Popović B, Radenović S, Shukla S: Fixed point results to tvs-cone b -metric spaces. Gulf J. Math. 2013, 1: 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    George, R, Radenović, S, Reshma, KP, Shukla, S: Rectangular b-metric spaces and contraction principle. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. (2014, in press)

  15. 15.

    Sintunavarat W, Plubtieng S, Katchang P: Fixed point result and applications on b -metric space endowed with an arbitrary binary relation. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 296

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ulam SM: Problems in Modern Mathematics. Wiley, New York; 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hyers DH: On the stability of the linear functional equation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1941,27(4):222–224. 10.1073/pnas.27.4.222

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bota-Boriceanu MF, Petruşel A: Ulam-Hyers stability for operatorial equations. An. Ştiinţ. Univ. ‘Al.I. Cuza’ Iaşi, Mat. 2011, 57: 65–74.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lazăr VL: Ulam-Hyers stability for partial differential inclusions. Electron. J. Qual. Theory Differ. Equ. 2012., 2012: Article ID 21

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Rus IA: The theory of a metrical fixed point theorem: theoretical and applicative relevances. Fixed Point Theory 2008,9(2):541–559.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Rus IA: Generalized Contractions and Applications. Cluj University Press, Cluj-Napoca; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Rus IA: Remarks on Ulam stability of the operatorial equations. Fixed Point Theory 2009,10(2):305–320.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Tişe FA, Tişe IC: Ulam-Hyers-Rassias stability for set integral equations. Fixed Point Theory 2012,13(2):659–668.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Brzdek J, Chudziak J, Pales Z: A fixed point approach to stability of functional equations. Nonlinear Anal. TMA 2011, 74: 6728–6732. 10.1016/j.na.2011.06.052

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Brzdek J, Cieplinski K: A fixed point approach to the stability of functional equations in non-Archimedean metric spaces. Nonlinear Anal. TMA 2011, 74: 6861–6867. 10.1016/j.na.2011.06.050

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Brzdek J, Cieplinski K: A fixed point theorem and the Hyers-Ulam stability in non-Archimedean spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2013, 400: 68–75. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2012.11.011

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Cadariu L, Gavruta L, Gavruta P: Fixed points and generalized Hyers-Ulam stability. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 712743

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Sintunavarat W: Generalized Ulam-Hyers stability, well-posedness and limit shadowing of fixed point problems for α - β -contraction mapping in metric spaces. Sci. World J. 2014., 2014: Article ID 569174

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Kutbi MA, Sintunavarat W: Ulam-Hyers stability and well-posedness of fixed point problems for α - λ -contraction mapping in metric spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2014., 2014: Article ID 268230

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    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

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Asl JH, Rezapour S, Shahzad N: On fixed points of α - ψ -contractive multifunctions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 212

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Mohammadi B, Rezapour S, Shahzad N: Some results on fixed points of α - ψ -Ciric generalized multifunctions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 24

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Karapınar E, Samet B: Generalized α - ψ -contractive type mappings and related fixed point theorems with applications. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 793486

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Agarwal RP, Sintunavarat W, Kumam P:PPF dependent fixed point theorems for an α c -admissible non-self mapping in the Razumikhin class. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 280

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Long W, Khaleghizadeh S, Salimi 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 

  36. 36.

    Latif A, Mongkolkeha C, Sintunavarat W: Fixed point theorems for generalized α - β -weakly contraction mappings in metric spaces and applications. Sci. World J. 2014., 2014: Article ID 784207

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Kutbi MA, Sintunavarat W: Fixed point theorems for generalized w α -contraction multivalued mappings in α -complete metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2014., 2014: Article ID 139

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Kutbi MA, Sintunavarat W: Fixed point analysis for multi-valued operators with graph approach by the generalized Hausdorff distance. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2014., 2014: Article ID 142

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Bota M, Karapınar E, Mleşniţe O: Ulam-Hyers stability results for fixed point problems via α - ψ -contractive mapping in (b) -metric space. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2013., 2013: Article ID 825293

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Bakhtin IA: The contraction mapping principle in quasimetric spaces. 30. In Functional Analysis. Ulyanowsk Gos. Ped. Inst., Ulyanowsk; 1989:26–37.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Czerwik S: Nonlinear set-valued contraction mappings in b -metric spaces. Atti Semin. Mat. Fis. Univ. Modena 1998, 46: 263–276.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Boriceanu M, Bota M, Petru A: Multivalued fractals in b -metric spaces. Cent. Eur. J. Math. 2010,8(2):367–377. 10.2478/s11533-010-0009-4

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Berinde V: Generalized contractions in quasimetric spaces. 3. Seminar on Fixed Point Theory 1993, 3–9. Preprint

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Berinde V: Contracţii generalizate şi aplicaţii. Editura Club Press 22, Baia Mare; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Berinde V: Sequences of operators and fixed points in quasimetric spaces. Stud. Univ. Babeş-Bolyai, Math. 1996,16(4):23–27.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Berinde V: Iterative Approximation of Fixed Points. Editura Efemeride, Baia Mare; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors were supported by the Higher Education Research Promotion and National Research University Project of Thailand, Office of the Higher Education Commission (NRU57000621). Moreover, the authors are grateful Dr. Wutiphol Sintunavarat and the reviewers for careful reading of the paper and for the suggestion, which improved the quality of this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Poom Kumam.

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 distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, 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 license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Phiangsungnoen, S., Kumam, P. Generalized Ulam-Hyers stability and well-posedness for fixed point equation via α-admissibility. J Inequal Appl 2014, 418 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-418

Download citation

Keywords

  • α-admissible mappings
  • b-metric space
  • fixed point
  • generalized Ulam-Hyers stability
  • well-posedness