Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Fixed point theorems on b-metric spaces for weak contractions with auxiliary functions

  • 1,
  • 2 and
  • 3Email author
Journal of Inequalities and Applications20142014:429

https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-429

  • Received: 29 July 2014
  • Accepted: 16 October 2014
  • Published:

Abstract

In this paper, we obtain some fixed point results for generalized weakly contractive mappings with some auxiliary functions in the framework of b-metric spaces. The proved results generalize and extend the corresponding well-known results of the literature. Some examples are also provided in order to show that these results are more general than the well-known results existing in literature.

MSC:47H10, 54H25.

Keywords

  • fixed point
  • b-metric space
  • sequentially convergent mappings

1 Introduction

The Banach contraction principle [1] is a basic result on fixed points for contractive-type mappings. So far, there have been a lot of fixed point results dealing with mappings satisfying diverse types of contractive inequalities. Various researchers have worked on different types of inequalities having continuity on mapping or not on different abstract spaces viz. metric spaces [24], convex metric spaces [5], ordered metric spaces [6], cone metric spaces [7, 8], generalized metric spaces [9, 10], b-metric spaces [1115] and many more (see [1620] and references cited therein).

In 1993, Czerwik [12] introduced the b-metric spaces. These form a nontrivial generalization of metric spaces and several fixed point results for single and multivalued mappings in such spaces have been obtained since then (see [11, 14, 15, 21] and references cited therein).

Let ( X , d ) be a metric space and T : X X . A mapping T is said to be a K-contraction [4] if there exists α ( 0 , 1 2 ) such that for all x , y X the following inequality holds:
d ( T x , T y ) α ( d ( x , T x ) + d ( y , T y ) ) .

In 1968, Kannan [4] proved that if ( X , d ) is a complete metric space, then every K-contraction on X has a unique fixed point.

In 1972, Chatterjea [2] established a fixed point theorem for C-contractions mappings, that is, a mapping T is said to be a C-contraction if there exists α ( 0 , 1 2 ) such that for all x , y X the following inequality holds:
d ( T x , T y ) α ( d ( x , T y ) + d ( y , T x ) ) .

Various researchers generalize and/or extend Kannan and Chatterjea type contraction mappings to obtain fixed point results in abstract spaces (see [3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 2231] and references cited therein). In this paper, we generalize and extend the Kannan and Chatterjea type contractions with some auxiliary functions to obtain some new fixed point results in the framework of b-metric spaces. The proved results generalize and extend the corresponding well-known results of Chandok [2225], Choudhury [27], Filipović et al. [7], Harjani et al. [28], Moradi [29], Morales and Rojas [8], Razani and Parvaneh [30] and of Shatanawi [31].

2 Preliminaries

To begin with, we give some basic definitions and notations which will be used in the sequel.

Definition 2.1 ([12])

Let X be a (nonempty) set and s 1 be a given real number. A function d : X × X R + is a b-metric if, for all x , y , z X , the following conditions are satisfied:
  • ( b 1 ) d ( x , y ) = 0 iff x = y ,

  • ( b 2 ) d ( x , y ) = d ( y , x ) ,

  • ( b 3 ) d ( x , z ) s [ d ( x , y ) + d ( y , z ) ] .

The pair ( X , d ) is called a b-metric space.

It should be noted that the class of b-metric spaces is effectively larger than that of metric spaces, since a b-metric is a metric if (and only if) s = 1 . We present an easy example to show that in general a b-metric need not be a metric.

Example 2.1 Let ( X , ρ ) be a metric space, and d ( x , y ) = ( ρ ( x , y ) ) p , where p 1 is a real number. Then d is a b-metric with s = 2 p 1 . However, ( X , d ) is not necessarily a metric space. For example, if X = R is the set of real numbers and ρ ( x , y ) = | x y | is the usual Euclidean metric, then d ( x , y ) = ( x y ) 2 is a b-metric on with s = 2 , but it is not a metric on .

It should also be noted that a b-metric might not be a continuous function (see Example 3 of [21]). Thus, while working in b-metric spaces, the following lemma is useful.

Lemma 2.1 ([11])

Let ( X , d ) be a b-metric space with s 1 , and suppose that { x n } and { y n } are b-convergent to x, y, respectively. Then we have
1 s 2 d ( x , y ) lim inf n d ( x n , y n ) lim sup n d ( x n , y n ) s 2 d ( x , y ) .
In particular, if x = y , then we have lim n d ( x n , y n ) = 0 . Moreover, for each z X , we have
1 s d ( x , z ) lim inf n d ( x n , z ) lim sup n d ( x n , z ) s d ( x , z ) .

Definition 2.2 Let ( X , d ) be a metric space. A mapping T : X X is said to be sequentially convergent [32] (respectively, subsequentially convergent) if, for every sequence { x n } in X for which { T x n } is convergent, { x n } is also convergent (respectively, { x n } has a convergent subsequence).

3 Main results

We denote by Ψ the family of functions ψ : [ 0 , ) [ 0 , ) such that ψ is continuous, strictly increasing and ψ 1 ( { 0 } ) = 0 .

Also we denote by Φ the family of functions φ : [ 0 , ) 2 [ 0 , ) such that φ ( 0 , 0 ) 0 , φ ( x , y ) > 0 if ( x , y ) ( 0 , 0 ) , and φ ( lim inf n a n , lim inf n b n ) lim inf n φ ( a n , b n ) .

Theorem 3.1 Let ( X , d ) be a complete b-metric space with parameter s 1 , T , f : X X be such that, for some ψ Ψ , φ Φ , and all x , y X ,
ψ ( s d ( T f x , T f y ) ) ψ ( d ( T x , T f y ) + d ( T y , T f x ) s + 1 ) 1 + φ ( d ( T x , T f y ) , d ( T y , T f x ) ) ,
(3.1)
and let T be one-to-one and continuous. Then:
  1. (1)

    For every x 0 X the sequence { T f n x 0 } is convergent.

     
  2. (2)

    If T is subsequentially convergent then f has a unique fixed point.

     
  3. (3)

    If T is sequentially convergent then, for each x 0 X the sequence { f n x 0 } converges to the fixed point of f.

     

Proof Let x 0 X be arbitrary. Consider the sequence { x n } n = 0 given by x n + 1 = f x n = f n + 1 x 0 , for n 0 .

Step I. First, we will prove that lim n d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) = 0 .

Using (3.1), we obtain
ψ ( s d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) ) = ψ ( s d ( T f x n , T f x n 1 ) ) ψ ( d ( T x n , T f x n 1 ) + d ( T x n 1 , T f x n ) s + 1 ) 1 + φ ( d ( T x n , T f x n 1 ) , d ( T x n 1 , T f x n ) ) = ψ ( d ( T x n , T x n ) + d ( T x n 1 , T x n + 1 ) s + 1 ) 1 + φ ( d ( T x n , T x n ) , d ( T x n 1 , T x n + 1 ) ) .
(3.2)
Since φ is nonnegative and ψ is an increasing function and using the triangular inequality we have
ψ ( s d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) ) ψ ( d ( T x n 1 , T x n + 1 ) s + 1 ) ψ ( s s + 1 ( d ( T x n 1 , T x n ) + d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) ) ) .
Again, since ψ is increasing, we have
d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) 1 s + 1 ( d ( T x n 1 , T x n ) + d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) ) ,
wherefrom
d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) 1 s d ( T x n , T x n 1 ) d ( T x n , T x n 1 ) .

Thus, { d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) } is a decreasing sequence of nonnegative real numbers and hence it is convergent.

Assume that lim n d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) = r 0 . From the above argument we have
s d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) 1 s + 1 d ( T x n 1 , T x n + 1 ) s s + 1 ( d ( T x n 1 , T x n ) + d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) ) s 2 ( d ( T x n 1 , T x n ) + d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) ) .
On taking the limit n , we obtain
lim n d ( T x n 1 , T x n + 1 ) = s ( s + 1 ) r .
From (3.2), we have
ψ ( s d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) ) ψ ( 0 + d ( T x n 1 , T x n + 1 ) s + 1 ) 1 + φ ( 0 , d ( T x n 1 , T x n + 1 ) ) .
On letting n and using the continuity of ψ and the properties of φ we get
ψ ( s r ) ψ ( s r ) 1 + φ ( 0 , s ( s + 1 ) r ) ,
and consequently, ψ ( s r ) = 0 . Hence using the properties of ψ, we have
r = lim n d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) = 0 .
(3.3)

Step II. Now in next step we will show that { T x n } is a b-Cauchy sequence.

Suppose that { T x n } is not a b-Cauchy sequence. Then there exists ε > 0 for which we can find subsequences { T x m k } and { T x n k } of { T x n } with n k is the smallest index for which n k > m k > k such that
d ( T x m k , T x n k ) ε
(3.4)
and
d ( T x m k , T x n k 1 ) < ε .
(3.5)
From (3.4), (3.5), and using the triangular inequality, we have
ε d ( T x m k , T x n k ) s [ d ( T x m k , T x n k 1 ) + d ( T x n k 1 , T x n k ) ] < s ε + s d ( T x n k 1 , T x n k ) .
On letting k , and using (3.3), we obtain
ε lim sup k d ( T x m k , T x n k ) s ε .
(3.6)
Further, we have
d ( T x m k , T x n k ) s [ d ( T x m k , T x n k 1 ) + d ( T x n k 1 , T x n k ) ] .
Now using (3.3) and (3.5), we get
ε s lim sup k d ( T x n k 1 , T x m k ) ε .
(3.7)
Consider
d ( T x m k , T x n k ) s [ d ( T x m k , T x m k 1 ) + d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) ]
and
d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) s [ d ( T x m k 1 , T x m k ) + d ( T x m k , T x n k ) ] .
Using (3.3) and (3.6), we get
ε s lim sup k d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) s 2 ε .
(3.8)
Similarly, we can show that
ε s lim inf k d ( T x n k 1 , T x m k ) ε
(3.9)
and
ε s lim inf k d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) s 2 ε .
(3.10)
Since s 2 + 1 s + 1 s and using (3.1) and (3.7)-(3.10), we have
ψ ( s ε ) ψ ( s lim sup k d ( T x m k , T x n k ) ) = ψ ( s lim sup k d ( T f x m k 1 , T f x n k 1 ) ) lim sup k ψ ( d ( T x m k 1 , T f x n k 1 ) + d ( T x n k 1 , T f x m k 1 ) s + 1 ) 1 + lim inf k φ ( d ( T x m k 1 , T f x n k 1 ) , d ( T x n k 1 , T f x m k 1 ) ) ψ ( lim sup k d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) + d ( T x n k 1 , T x m k ) s + 1 ) 1 + φ ( lim inf k d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) , lim inf k d ( T x n k 1 , T x m k ) ) ψ ( s 2 ε + ε s + 1 ) 1 + φ ( lim inf k d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) , lim inf k d ( T x n k 1 , T x m k ) ) ψ ( s ε ) 1 + φ ( lim inf k d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) , lim inf k d ( T x n k 1 , T x m k ) ) .
Hence, we obtain
φ ( lim inf k d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) , lim inf k d ( T x n k 1 , T x m k ) ) 0 .
By our assumption about φ, we have
lim inf k d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) = lim inf k d ( T x n k 1 , T x m k ) = 0 ,

which contradicts (3.9) and (3.10).

Since ( X , d ) is b-complete and { T x n } = { T f n x 0 } is a b-Cauchy sequence, there exists v X such that
lim n T f n x 0 = v .
(3.11)

Step III. Now in the last step, first we will prove that f has a unique fixed point by assuming that T is subsequentially convergent.

As T is subsequentially convergent, { f n x 0 } has a b-convergent subsequence. Hence, there exist u X and a subsequence { n i } such that
lim i f n i x 0 = u ;
(3.12)
using (3.12) and continuity of T, we obtain
lim i T f n i x 0 = T u .
(3.13)

From (3.11) and (3.13) we have T u = v .

From Lemma 2.1 and using (3.1), we have
ψ ( s 1 s d ( T f u , T u ) ) ψ ( lim sup n s d ( T f u , T f n + 1 x 0 ) ) = ψ ( lim sup n s d ( T f u , T f x n ) ) ψ ( lim sup n d ( T u , T f x n ) + d ( T x n , T f u ) s + 1 ) 1 + lim inf n φ ( d ( T u , T f x n ) , d ( T x n , T f u ) ) ψ ( s d ( T u , T u ) + s d ( T u , T f u ) s + 1 ) 1 + φ ( lim inf n d ( T u , T f x n ) , lim inf n d ( T x n , T f u ) ) ψ ( d ( T u , T f u ) ) 1 + φ ( 0 , lim inf n d ( T x n , T f u ) ) .
Using the properties of φ Φ , we have lim inf n d ( T x n , T f u ) = 0 . By the triangular inequality we get
d ( T f u , T u ) s [ d ( T f u , T x n ) + d ( T x n , T u ) ] .

On letting n in above inequality, we have d ( T f u , T u ) = 0 . Hence, T f u = T u . As T is one-to-one, f u = u . Therefore, f has a fixed point.

Now assume that w is another fixed point of f. From inequality (3.1), we have
ψ ( s d ( T u , T w ) ) = ψ ( s d ( T f u , T f w ) ) ψ ( d ( T u , T f w ) + d ( T w , T f u ) s + 1 ) 1 + φ ( d ( T u , T f w ) , d ( T w , T f u ) ) = ψ ( d ( T u , T w ) + d ( T w , T u ) s + 1 ) 1 + φ ( d ( T u , T w ) , d ( T w , T u ) ) ψ ( s d ( T u , T w ) ) 1 + φ ( d ( T u , T w ) , d ( T w , T u ) ) ,

since 2 s + 1 s and ψ is increasing. Hence, d ( T u , T w ) = 0 . As T is one-to-one, u = w . Therefore, f has a unique fixed point.

Finally, if mapping T is sequentially convergent, replacing { n } with { n i } we conclude that lim n f n x 0 = u . □

Theorem 3.2 Let ( X , d ) be a complete b-metric space with parameter s 1 , T , f : X X be such that, for some ψ , φ Ψ , l > 1 and all x , y X ,
ψ ( s d ( T f x , T f y ) ) ( ψ ( d ( T x , T f y ) + d ( T y , T f x ) s + 1 ) + l ) 1 1 + φ ( d ( T x , T f y ) , d ( T y , T f x ) ) l ,
(3.14)
and let T be one-to-one and continuous. Then:
  1. (1)

    For every x 0 X the sequence { T f n x 0 } is convergent.

     
  2. (2)

    If T is subsequentially convergent then f has a unique fixed point.

     
  3. (3)

    If T is sequentially convergent then, for each x 0 X the sequence { f n x 0 } converges to the fixed point of f.

     

Proof Let x 0 X be arbitrary. Consider the sequence { x n } n = 0 given by x n + 1 = f x n = f n + 1 x 0 , for n 0 .

Step I. First, we will prove that lim n d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) = 0 .

Using (3.14), we obtain
ψ ( s d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) ) = ψ ( s d ( T f x n , T f x n 1 ) ) ( ψ ( d ( T x n , T f x n 1 ) + d ( T x n 1 , T f x n ) s + 1 ) + l ) 1 1 + φ ( d ( T x n , T f x n 1 ) , d ( T x n 1 , T f x n ) ) l = ( ψ ( d ( T x n , T x n ) + d ( T x n 1 , T x n + 1 ) s + 1 ) + l ) 1 1 + φ ( d ( T x n , T x n ) , d ( T x n 1 , T x n + 1 ) ) l .
(3.15)
Since φ is nonnegative and ψ is an increasing function and using the triangular inequality we have
ψ ( s d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) ) ψ ( d ( T x n 1 , T x n + 1 ) s + 1 ) ψ ( s s + 1 ( d ( T x n 1 , T x n ) + d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) ) ) .
Again, since ψ is increasing, we have
d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) 1 s + 1 ( d ( T x n 1 , T x n ) + d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) ) ,
wherefrom
d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) 1 s d ( T x n , T x n 1 ) d ( T x n , T x n 1 ) .

Thus, { d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) } is a decreasing sequence of nonnegative real numbers and hence it is convergent.

Assume that lim n d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) = r 0 . Using similar steps to Theorem 3.1, we obtain
lim n d ( T x n 1 , T x n + 1 ) = s ( s + 1 ) r .
From (3.15), we have
ψ ( s d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) ) ( ψ ( 0 + d ( T x n 1 , T x n + 1 ) s + 1 ) + l ) 1 1 + φ ( 0 , d ( T x n 1 , T x n + 1 ) ) l .
On letting n and using the continuity of ψ and the properties of φ we have
ψ ( s r ) ( ψ ( s r ) + l ) 1 1 + φ ( 0 , s ( s + 1 ) r ) l ,
and consequently, ψ ( s r ) = 0 . Hence using the properties of ψ, we have
r = lim n d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) = 0 .
(3.16)

Step II. Now in next step we will show that { T x n } is a b-Cauchy sequence.

Suppose that { T x n } is not a b-Cauchy sequence. Then there exists ε > 0 for which we can find subsequences { T x m k } and { T x n k } of { T x n } with n k being the smallest index for which n k > m k > k such that
d ( T x m k , T x n k ) ε
(3.17)
and
d ( T x m k , T x n k 1 ) < ε .
(3.18)
From (3.17), (3.18), and using the triangular inequality, we have
ε d ( T x m k , T x n k ) s [ d ( T x m k , T x n k 1 ) + d ( T x n k 1 , T x n k ) ] < s ε + s d ( T x n k 1 , T x n k ) .
On letting k , and using (3.3), we obtain
ε lim sup k d ( T x m k , T x n k ) s ε .
(3.19)
Further, we have
d ( T x m k , T x n k ) s [ d ( T x m k , T x n k 1 ) + d ( T x n k 1 , T x n k ) ] .
Now using (3.16) and (3.18), we get
ε s lim sup k d ( T x n k 1 , T x m k ) ε .
(3.20)
Consider
d ( T x m k , T x n k ) s [ d ( T x m k , T x m k 1 ) + d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) ]
and
d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) s [ d ( T x m k 1 , T x m k ) + d ( T x m k , T x n k ) ] .
Using (3.16) and (3.19), we get
ε s lim sup k d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) s 2 ε .
(3.21)
Similarly, we can show that
ε s lim inf k d ( T x n k 1 , T x m k ) ε
(3.22)
and
ε s lim inf k d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) s 2 ε .
(3.23)
Since s 2 + 1 s + 1 s and using (3.14) and (3.20)-(3.23), we have
ψ ( s ε ) ψ ( s lim sup k d ( T x m k , T x n k ) ) = ψ ( s lim sup k d ( T f x m k 1 , T f x n k 1 ) ) ( lim sup k ψ ( d ( T x m k 1 , T f x n k 1 ) + d ( T x n k 1 , T f x m k 1 ) s + 1 ) + l ) 1 1 + lim inf k φ ( d ( T x m k 1 , T f x n k 1 ) , d ( T x n k 1 , T f x m k 1 ) ) l ( ψ ( lim sup k d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) + d ( T x n k 1 , T x m k ) s + 1 ) + l ) 1 1 + φ ( lim inf k d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) , lim inf k d ( T x n k 1 , T x m k ) ) l ( ψ ( s 2 ε + ε s + 1 ) + l ) 1 1 + φ ( lim inf k d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) , lim inf k d ( T x n k 1 , T x m k ) ) l ( ψ ( s ε ) + l ) 1 1 + φ ( lim inf k d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) , lim inf k d ( T x n k 1 , T x m k ) ) l .
Hence, we have
φ ( lim inf k d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) , lim inf k d ( T x n k 1 , T x m k ) ) 0 .
By our assumption about φ, we have
lim inf k d ( T x m k 1 , T x n k ) = lim inf k d ( T x n k 1 , T x m k ) = 0 ,

which contradicts (3.22) and (3.23).

Since ( X , d ) is b-complete and { T x n } = { T f n x 0 } is a b-Cauchy sequence, there exists v X such that
lim n T f n x 0 = v .
(3.24)

Step III. Now, in the last step, first we will prove that f has a unique fixed point by assuming that T is subsequentially convergent.

As T is subsequentially convergent, { f n x 0 } has a b-convergent subsequence. Hence, there exist u X and a subsequence { n i } such that
lim i f n i x 0 = u ;
(3.25)
using (3.25) and continuity of T, we obtain
lim i T f n i x 0 = T u .
(3.26)

From (3.24) and (3.26) we have T u = v .

From Lemma 2.1 and using (3.14), we have
ψ ( s 1 s d ( T f u , T u ) ) ψ ( lim sup n s d ( T f u , T f n + 1 x 0 ) ) = ψ ( lim sup n s d ( T f u , T f x n ) ) ( ψ ( lim sup n d ( T u , T f x n ) + d ( T x n , T f u ) s + 1 ) + l ) 1 1 + lim inf n φ ( d ( T u , T f x n ) , d ( T x n , T f u ) ) l ( ψ ( s d ( T u , T u ) + s d ( T u , T f u ) s + 1 ) + l ) 1 1 + φ ( lim inf n d ( T u , T f x n ) , lim inf n d ( T x n , T f u ) ) l ( ψ ( d ( T u , T f u ) ) + l ) 1 1 + φ ( 0 , lim inf n d ( T x n , T f u ) ) l .
Using the properties of φ Φ , we have lim inf n d ( T x n , T f u ) = 0 . By the triangular inequality we have
d ( T f u , T u ) s [ d ( T f u , T x n ) + d ( T x n , T u ) ] .

On letting n in above inequality, we have d ( T f u , T u ) = 0 . Hence, T f u = T u . As T is one-to-one, f u = u . Therefore, f has a fixed point.

Now assume that w is another fixed point of f. From inequality (3.14), we have
ψ ( s d ( T u , T w ) ) = ψ ( s d ( T f u , T f w ) ) ( ψ ( d ( T u , T f w ) + d ( T w , T f u ) s + 1 ) + l ) 1 1 + φ ( d ( T u , T f w ) , d ( T w , T f u ) ) l = ( ψ ( d ( T u , T w ) + d ( T w , T u ) s + 1 ) + l ) 1 1 + φ ( d ( T u , T w ) , d ( T w , T u ) ) l ( ψ ( s d ( T u , T w ) ) + l ) 1 1 + φ ( d ( T u , T w ) , d ( T w , T u ) ) l ,

since 2 s + 1 s and ψ is increasing. Hence, d ( T u , T w ) = 0 . As T is one-to-one, u = w . Therefore, f has a unique fixed point.

Finally, if T is sequentially convergent, replacing { n } with { n i } we conclude that lim n f n x 0 = u . □

If we take ψ ( t ) = t and φ ( t , u ) = s ( s + 1 ) a 1 , a ( 0 , 1 ) , in Theorem 3.1, we obtain the following result which is an extended Chatterjea fixed point theorem in the setting of b-metric spaces.

Corollary 3.1 Let ( X , d ) be a complete b-metric space and T , f : X X be mappings such that T is continuous, one-to-one and subsequentially convergent. If a ( 0 , 1 ) and
d ( T f x , T f y ) a s ( s + 1 ) ( d ( T x , T f y ) + d ( T y , T f x ) ) ,

for all x , y X , then f has a unique fixed point. Moreover, if T is sequentially convergent, then for every x 0 X the sequence of iterates f n x 0 converges to this fixed point.

Remark 3.1
  1. (1)

    If we take T x = x , in Corollary 3.1, then we obtain the result of Jovanovic [[16], Corollary 3.8.3] (the case g = f ), which is Chatterjea’s Theorem [2] in the framework of b-metric spaces.

     
  2. (2)

    By taking T x = x and ψ ( t ) = t in Theorem 3.1, we obtain an extension of Choudhury’s [27] main result to the setup of b-metric spaces.

     
  3. (3)

    If s = 1 , in Theorem 3.1, we obtain the corresponding result of [30].

     
Example 3.1 Let X = { 0 } { 1 / n n N } , and let d ( x , y ) = ( x y ) 2 for x , y X . Then d is a b-metric with the parameter s = 2 and ( X , d ) is a complete b-metric space. Consider the mappings f , T : X X given by
f ( 0 ) = 0 , f ( 1 n ) = 1 n + 1 , T ( 0 ) = 0 , T ( 1 n ) = 1 n n , n N .
We will show that the mappings f, T satisfy the conditions of Corollary 3.1 with α = 2 9 < 1 3 = 1 s + 1 . Indeed, for m , n N , m > n , we have
d ( T f 1 n , T f 1 m ) = [ 1 ( n + 1 ) n + 1 1 ( m + 1 ) m + 1 ] 2 < [ 1 ( n + 1 ) n + 1 ] 2 .
It is easy to prove that, for n N ,
1 ( n + 1 ) n + 1 < 1 3 [ 1 n n 1 ( n + 2 ) n + 2 ] .
It follows that
d ( T f 1 n , T f 1 m ) < 1 9 [ 1 n n 1 ( n + 2 ) n + 2 ] 2 .
Now, m > n implies that m n + 1 and n + 2 m + 1 . It follows that 1 / ( n + 2 ) n + 2 1 / ( m + 1 ) m + 1 , and hence
d ( T f 1 n , T f 1 m ) < 1 9 [ 1 n n 1 ( m + 1 ) m + 1 ] 2 α s [ d ( T 1 n , T f 1 m ) + d ( T 1 m , T F 1 n ) ] .

If one of the points is equal to 0, the proof is even simpler.

By Corollary 3.1, it follows that f has a unique fixed point (which is u = 0 ).

Theorem 3.3 Let ( X , d ) be a complete b-metric space with the parameter s 1 , T , f : X X be such that for some ψ Ψ , φ Φ , and all x , y X ,
ψ ( d ( T f x , T f y ) ) ψ ( d ( T x , T f x ) + d ( T y , T f y ) s + 1 ) 1 + φ ( d ( T x , T f x ) , d ( T y , T f y ) ) ,
(3.27)
and let T be one-to-one and continuous. Then:
  1. (1)

    For every x 0 X the sequence { T f n x 0 } is convergent.

     
  2. (2)

    If T is subsequentially convergent then f has a unique fixed point.

     
  3. (3)

    If T is sequentially convergent then, for each x 0 X the sequence { f n x 0 } converges to the fixed point of f.

     

Proof Let x 0 X be arbitrary. Consider the sequence { x n } n = 0 given by x n + 1 = f x n = f n + 1 x 0 , n 0 .

In the first step, we will prove that lim n d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) = 0 .

Using (3.27), we obtain
ψ ( d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) ) = ψ ( d ( T f x n , T f x n 1 ) ) ψ ( d ( T x n , T f x n ) + d ( T x n 1 , T f x n 1 ) s + 1 ) 1 + φ ( d ( T x n , T f x n ) , d ( T x n 1 , T f x n 1 ) ) = ψ ( d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) + d ( T x n 1 , T x n ) s + 1 ) 1 + φ ( d ( T x n , T f x n ) , d ( T x n 1 , T f x n 1 ) ) .
(3.28)
Since φ is nonnegative and ψ is increasing, we have
d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) + d ( T x n 1 , T x n ) s + 1 ,
that is,
d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) 1 s d ( T x n , T x n 1 ) d ( T x n , T x n 1 ) .

Thus, { d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) } is a decreasing sequence of nonnegative real numbers and hence it is convergent.

Assume that lim n d ( T x n + 1 , T x n ) = r . On letting n in (3.28) and using the properties of ψ and φ we obtain
ψ ( r ) ψ ( 2 r s + 1 ) 1 + φ ( r , r ) ψ ( r ) 1 + φ ( r , r ) ,
which is possible only if
r = lim n d ( T x n , T x n + 1 ) = 0 .

Now, we will show that { T x n } is a b-Cauchy sequence.

Suppose that this is not true. Then there exists ε > 0 for which we can find subsequences { T x m k } and { T x n k } of { T x n } with n k is the smallest index for which n k > m k > k such that d ( T x m k , T x n k ) ε . This means that
d ( T x m k , T x n k 1 ) < ε .
Again, as in Step II of Theorem 3.1 one can prove that
ε lim sup k d ( T x m k , T x n k ) s ε .
(3.29)
Using (3.27) we have
ψ ( d ( T x m k , T x n k ) ) = ψ ( d ( T f x m k 1 , T f x n k 1 ) ) ψ ( d ( T x m k 1 , T f x m k 1 ) + d ( T x n k 1 , T f x n k 1 ) s + 1 ) 1 + φ ( d ( T x m k 1 , T f x m k 1 ) , d ( T x n k 1 , T f x n k 1 ) ) = ψ ( d ( T x m k 1 , T x m k ) + d ( T x n k 1 , T x n k ) s + 1 ) 1 + φ ( d ( T x m k 1 , T x m k ) , d ( T x n k 1 , T x n k ) ) .
Passing to the upper limit as k in the above inequality and using (3.29), we have
ψ ( ε ) ψ ( 0 ) 1 + φ ( 0 , 0 ) = 0 ,

and so ψ ( ε ) = 0 . By our assumptions about ψ, we have ε = 0 , which is a contradiction. Therefore as in Step II of Theorem 3.1, we obtain { T x n } is a b-Cauchy sequence.

Since ( X , d ) is b-complete and { T x n } = { T f n x 0 } is a b-Cauchy sequence, there exists v X such that
lim n T f n x 0 = v .
(3.30)
Now, if T is subsequentially convergent, then { f n x 0 } has a convergent subsequence. Hence, there exist a point u X and a sequence { n i } such that
lim i f n i x 0 = u .
(3.31)
Using (3.31) and continuity of T, we obtain
lim i T f n i x 0 = T u .
(3.32)

By using (3.30) and (3.32), we obtain T u = v .

Using Lemma 2.1 and inequality (3.27), we have
ψ ( 1 s d ( T f u , T u ) ) ψ ( lim sup n d ( T f u , T f n + 1 x 0 ) ) = ψ ( lim sup n d ( T f u , T f x n ) ) ψ ( lim sup n d ( T u , T f u ) + d ( T x n , T f x n ) s + 1 ) 1 + lim inf n φ ( d ( T u , T f u ) , d ( T x n , T f x n ) ) = ψ ( d ( T u , T f u ) + 0 s + 1 ) 1 + φ ( d ( T u , T f u ) , 0 ) ψ ( d ( T u , T f u ) s ) 1 + φ ( d ( T u , T f u ) , 0 ) .

Using the properties of φ Φ , d ( T u , T f u ) = 0 . As T is one-to-one, f u = u . Therefore, f has a fixed point.

Uniqueness of the fixed point can be proved similarly to Theorem 3.1.

Finally, if T is sequentially convergent, replacing { n } with { n i } we conclude that lim n f n x 0 = u . □

Taking ψ ( t ) = t and φ ( t , u ) = 1 ( s + 1 ) a 1 , a ( 0 , 1 ) in Theorem 3.3, an extended Kannan fixed point theorem in the setting of b-metric spaces has been obtained.

Corollary 3.2 Let ( X , d ) be a complete b-metric space with the parameter s 1 , T , f : X X be such that for some a ( 0 , 1 s + 1 ) and all x , y X ,
d ( T f x , T f y ) a ( d ( T x , T f x ) + d ( T y , T f y ) )
(3.33)
and let T be one-to-one and continuous. Then:
  1. (1)

    For every x 0 X the sequence { T f n x 0 } is convergent.

     
  2. (2)

    If T is subsequentially convergent then f has a unique fixed point.

     
  3. (3)

    If T is sequentially convergent then, for each x 0 X the sequence { f n x 0 } converges to the fixed point of f.

     
Remark 3.2
  1. (1)

    If we take T x = x , in Corollary 3.2, then we obtain the result of Jovanović et al. [[16], Corollary 3.8.2] (the case g = f ).

     
  2. (2)

    If s = 1 , in Corollary 3.2, then we obtain the main result of Moradi (i.e., [[29], Theorem 2.1]).

     
  3. (3)

    If both of these conditions are fulfilled, we get just the classical result of Kannan [4].

     

Example 3.2 ([13])

Let X = { a , b , c } and d : X × X R be defined by d ( x , x ) = 0 for x X , d ( a , b ) = d ( b , c ) = 1 , d ( a , c ) = 9 4 , d ( x , y ) = d ( y , x ) for x , y X . It is easy to check that ( X , d ) is a b-metric space (with s = 9 8 > 1 ) which is not a metric space. Consider the mapping f : X X given by
f = ( a b c a a b ) .
We first note that the b-metric version of the classical weak Kannan theorem is not satisfied in this example. Indeed, for x = b , y = c , we have d ( f x , f y ) = d ( a , b ) = 1 and d ( x , f x ) + d ( y , f y ) = d ( b , a ) + d ( c , b ) = 2 , hence the inequality
ψ ( d ( f x , f y ) ) ψ ( d ( x , f x ) + d ( y , f y ) s + 1 ) φ ( d ( x , f x ) , d ( y , f y ) )

cannot hold, whatever ψ Ψ and φ Φ are chosen.

Take now T : X X defined by
T = ( a b c b c a ) .
Obviously, all the properties of T given in Corollary 3.2 are fulfilled. We will check that the contractive condition (3.33) holds true if α is chosen such that
4 9 < α < 8 17 = 1 s + 1 .
Only the following cases are nontrivial:
  • 1 x = a , y = c . Then (3.33) reduces to
    d ( T f a , T f c ) = d ( b , c ) = 1 = 4 9 9 4 < α ( d ( b , b ) + d ( a , c ) ) = α ( d ( T a , T f a ) + d ( T c , T f c ) ) .
  • 2 x = b , y = c . Then (3.33) reduces to
    d ( T f b , T f c ) = d ( b , c ) = 1 < 4 9 13 4 < α ( d ( c , b ) + d ( a , c ) ) = α ( d ( T b , T f b ) + d ( T c , T f c ) ) .

All the conditions of Corollary 3.2 are satisfied and f has a unique fixed point ( u = a ).

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The work has been funded by the Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development 2007-2013 of the Ministry of European Funds through the Financial Agreement POSDRU/159/1.5/S/132395.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Mathematics, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran
(2)
Department of Mathematics, Khalsa College of Engineering & Technology, Punjab Technical University, Amritsar, Punjab, 143001, India
(3)
Department of Mathematics and Informatics, University Politehnica of Bucharest, Bucharest, 060042, Romania

References

  1. Banach S: Sur les operateurs dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux équations intégrales. Fundam. Math. 1922, 3: 133–181.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Chatterjea SK: Fixed point theorems. C. R. Acad. Bulgare Sci. 1972, 25: 727–730.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Haghi RH, Postolache M, Rezapour S: On T -stability of the Picard iteration for generalized ϕ -contraction mappings. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 658971Google Scholar
  4. Kannan R: Some results on fixed points. Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc. 1968, 60: 71–76.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Olatinwo MO, Postolache M: Stability results for Jungck-type iterative processes in convex metric spaces. Appl. Math. Comput. 2012,218(12):6727–6732. 10.1016/j.amc.2011.12.038MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandok S, Narang TD, Taoudi MA: Some common fixed point results in partially ordered metric spaces for generalized rational type contraction mappings. Vietnam J. Math. 2013,41(3):323–331. 10.1007/s10013-013-0024-4MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Filipović M, Paunović L, Radenović S, Rajović M: Remarks on cone metric spaces and fixed point theorems of T -Kannan and T -Chatterjea contractive mappings. Math. Comput. Model. 2011, 54: 1467–1472. 10.1016/j.mcm.2011.04.018View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Morales JR, Rojas E: Cone metric spaces and fixed point theorems of T -Kannan contractive mappings. Int. J. Math. Anal. 2010,4(4):175–184.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Chandok S, Mustafa Z, Postolache M: Coupled common fixed point theorems for mixed g -monotone mappings in partially ordered G -metric spaces. Sci. Bull. ‘Politeh.’ Univ. Buchar., Ser. A, Appl. Math. Phys. 2013,75(4):13–26.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Shatanawi W, Postolache M: Some fixed point results for a G -weak contraction in G -metric spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 815870Google Scholar
  11. Aghajani, A, Abbas, M, Roshan, JR: Common fixed point of generalized weak contractive mappings in partially ordered b-metric spaces. Math. Slovaca (to appear)Google Scholar
  12. Czerwik S: Contraction mappings in b -metric spaces. Acta Math. Inform. Univ. Ostrav. 1993, 1: 5–11.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Mustafa Z, Roshan JR, Parvaneh V, Kadelburg Z: Fixed point theorems for weakly T -Chatterjea and weakly T -Kannan contractions in b -metric spaces. J. Inequal. Appl. 2014., 2014: Article ID 46Google Scholar
  14. Roshan, JR, Shobkolaei, N, Sedghi, S, Abbas, M: Common fixed point of four maps in b-metric spaces. Hacet. J. Math. Stat. (to appear)Google Scholar
  15. Shatanawi W, Pitea A, Lazovic R: Contraction conditions using comparison functions on b -metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2014., 2014: Article ID 135Google Scholar
  16. Jovanović M, Kadelburg Z, Radenović S: Common fixed point results in metric-type spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 978121 10.1155/2010/978121Google Scholar
  17. Khan MS, Swaleh M, Sessa S: Fixed point theorems by altering distances between the points. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 1984, 30: 1–9. 10.1017/S0004972700001659MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Miandaragh MA, Postolache M, Rezapour S: Some approximate fixed point results for generalized alpha-contractive mappings. Sci. Bull. ‘Politeh.’ Univ. Buchar., Ser. A, Appl. Math. Phys. 2013,75(2):3–10.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Miandaragh MA, Postolache M, Rezapour S: Approximate fixed points of generalized convex contractions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 255Google Scholar
  20. Shatanawi W, Postolache M: Common fixed point theorems for dominating and weak annihilator mappings in ordered metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 271Google Scholar
  21. Hussain N, Ðorić D, Kadelburg Z, Radenović S: Suzuki-type fixed point results in metric type spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 126Google Scholar
  22. Chandok S: Some common fixed point theorems for generalized f -weakly contractive mappings. J. Appl. Math. Inform. 2011, 29: 257–265.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Chandok S: Some common fixed point theorems for generalized nonlinear contractive mappings. Comput. Math. Appl. 2011, 62: 3692–3699. 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.09.009MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Chandok S: Common fixed points, invariant approximation and generalized weak contractions. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2012., 2012: Article ID 102980Google Scholar
  25. Chandok S: Common fixed points for generalized nonlinear contractive mappings in metric spaces. Mat. Vesn. 2013, 65: 29–34.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Chandok S, Postolache M: Fixed point theorem for weakly Chatterjea type cyclic contractions. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 28Google Scholar
  27. Choudhury BS: Unique fixed point theorem for weak C -contractive mappings. Kathmandu Univ. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2009,5(1):6–13.Google Scholar
  28. Harjani J, Lopez B, Sadarangani K: Fixed point theorems for weakly C -contractive mappings in ordered metric spaces. Comput. Math. Appl. 2011, 61: 790–796. 10.1016/j.camwa.2010.12.027MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. arXiv: 0903.1577v1
  30. Razani A, Parvaneh V: Some fixed point theorems for weakly T -Chatterjea and weakly T -Kannan-contractive mappings in complete metric spaces. Russ. Math. (Izv. VUZ) 2013,57(3):38–45.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Shatanawi W: Fixed point theorems for nonlinear weakly C -contractive mappings in metric spaces. Math. Comput. Model. 2011, 54: 2816–2826. 10.1016/j.mcm.2011.06.069MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Beiranvand, A, Moradi, S, Omid, M, Pazandeh, H: Two fixed point theorems for special mapping. arXiv: 0903.1504v1

Copyright

© Ansari et al.; licensee Springer. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.

Advertisement