We’d like to understand how you use our websites in order to improve them. Register your interest.

Further generalizations of the Banach contraction principle

Abstract

We establish a new fixed point theorem in the setting of Branciari metric spaces. The obtained result is an extension of the recent fixed point theorem established in Jleli and Samet (J. Inequal. Appl. 2014:38, 2014).

1 Introduction

The fixed point theorem, generally known as the Banach contraction principle, appeared in an explicit form in Banach’s thesis in 1922 [1], where it was used to establish the existence of a solution to an integral equation. Since then, because of its simplicity and usefulness, it has become a very popular tool in solving existence problems in many branches of mathematical analysis. This principle states that if $(X,d)$ is a complete metric space and $T:X→X$ is a contraction map (i.e., $d(Tx,Ty)≤λd(x,y)$ for all $x,y∈X$, where $λ∈(0,1)$ is a constant), then T has a unique fixed point.

The Banach contraction principle has been generalized in many ways over the years. In some generalizations, the contractive nature of the map is weakened; see [29] and others. In other generalizations, the topology is weakened; see [1023] and others. In [24], Nadler extended the Banach fixed point theorem from single-valued maps to set-valued contractive maps. Other fixed point results for set-valued maps can be found in [2530] and the references therein.

In 2000, Branciari [11] introduced the concept of generalized metric spaces, where the triangle inequality is replaced by the inequality $d(x,y)≤d(x,u)+d(u,v)+d(v,y)$ for all pairwise distinct points $x,y,u,v∈X$. Various fixed point results were established on such spaces; see [10, 13, 1720, 22, 3133] and the references therein.

We recall the following definitions introduced in [11].

Definition 1.1 Let X be a non-empty set and $d:X×X→[0,∞)$ be a mapping such that for all $x,y∈X$ and for all distinct points $u,v∈X$, each of them different from x and y, one has

1. (i)

$d(x,y)=0⟺x=y$;

2. (ii)

$d(x,y)=d(y,x)$;

3. (iii)

$d(x,y)≤d(x,u)+d(u,v)+d(v,y)$.

Then $(X,d)$ is called a generalized metric space (or for short g.m.s).

Definition 1.2 Let $(X,d)$ be a g.m.s, ${ x n }$ be a sequence in X and $x∈X$. We say that ${ x n }$ is convergent to x if and only if $d( x n ,x)→0$ as $n→∞$. We denote this by $x n →x$.

Definition 1.3 Let $(X,d)$ be a g.m.s and ${ x n }$ be a sequence in X. We say that ${ x n }$ is Cauchy if and only if $d( x n , x m )→0$ as $n,m→∞$.

Definition 1.4 Let $(X,d)$ be a g.m.s. We say that $(X,d)$ is complete if and only if every Cauchy sequence in X converges to some element in X.

Lemma 1.1 Let $(X,d)$ be a g.m.s and ${ x n }$ be a Cauchy sequence in $(X,d)$ such that $d( x n ,x)→0$ as $n→∞$ for some $x∈X$. Then $d( x n ,y)→d(x,y)$ as $n→∞$ for all $y∈X$. In particular, ${ x n }$ does not converge to y if $y≠x$.

We denote by Θ the set of functions $θ:(0,∞)→(1,∞)$ satisfying the following conditions:

($Θ 1$) θ is non-decreasing;

($Θ 2$) for each sequence ${ t n }⊂(0,∞)$, $lim n → ∞ θ( t n )=1$ if and only if $lim n → ∞ t n = 0 +$;

($Θ 3$) there exist $r∈(0,1)$ and $ℓ∈(0,∞]$ such that $lim t → 0 + θ ( t ) − 1 t r =ℓ$;

($Θ 4$) θ is continuous.

Recently, Jleli and Samet [35] established the following generalization of the Banach fixed point theorem in the setting of Branciari metric spaces.

Theorem 1.1 (Jleli and Samet [35])

Let $(X,d)$ be a complete g.m.s and $T:X→X$ be a given map. Suppose that there exist $θ∈Θ$ and $k∈(0,1)$ such that

$x,y∈X,d(Tx,Ty)≠0⟹θ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) ≤ [ θ ( d ( x , y ) ) ] k .$

Then T has a unique fixed point.

Note that the condition ($Θ 4$) is not supposed in Theorem 1.1.

The aim of this paper is to extend the result given by Theorem 1.1.

2 Result and proof

Now, we are ready to state and prove our main result.

Theorem 2.1 Let $(X,d)$ be a complete g.m.s and $T:X→X$ be a given map. Suppose that there exist $θ∈Θ$ and $k∈(0,1)$ such that

$x,y∈X,d(Tx,Ty)≠0⟹θ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) ≤ [ θ ( M ( x , y ) ) ] k ,$
(1)

where

$M(x,y)=max { d ( x , y ) , d ( x , T x ) , d ( y , T y ) } .$
(2)

Then T has a unique fixed point.

Proof Let $x∈X$ be an arbitrary point in X. If for some $p∈N$ we have $T p x= T p + 1 x$, then $T p x$ will be a fixed point of T. So, without restriction of the generality, we can suppose that $d( T n x, T n + 1 x)>0$ for all $n∈N$. Now, from (1), for all $n∈N$, we have

$θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ) ≤ [ θ ( M ( T n − 1 x , T n x ) ) ] k ,$
(3)

where from (2)

$M ( T n − 1 x , T n x ) = max { d ( T n − 1 x , T n x ) , d ( T n − 1 x , T T n − 1 x ) , d ( T n x , T T n x ) } = max { d ( T n − 1 x , T n x ) , d ( T n − 1 x , T n x ) , d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) } = max { d ( T n − 1 x , T n x ) , d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) } .$
(4)

If $M( T n − 1 x, T n x)=d( T n x, T n + 1 x)$, then inequality (3) turns into

$θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ) ≤ [ θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ) ] k ,$

which implies that

$ln [ θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ) ] ≤kln [ θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ) ] ,$

that is a contradiction with $k∈(0,1)$. Hence, from (4) we have $M( T n − 1 x, T n x)=d( T n − 1 x, T n x)$, and inequality (3) yields

$θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ) ≤ [ θ ( d ( T n − 1 x , T n x ) ) ] k ≤ [ θ ( d ( T n − 2 x , T n − 1 x ) ) ] k 2 ≤ ⋯ ≤ [ θ ( d ( x , T x ) ) ] k n .$

Thus we have

(5)

Letting $n→∞$ in (5), we obtain

(6)

which implies from ($Θ 2$) that

$lim n → ∞ d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) =0.$

From condition ($Θ 3$), there exist $r∈(0,1)$ and $ℓ∈(0,∞]$ such that

$lim n → ∞ θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ) − 1 [ d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ] r =ℓ.$

Suppose that $ℓ<∞$. In this case, let $B=ℓ/2>0$. From the definition of the limit, there exists $n 0 ∈N$ such that

This implies that

Then

where $A=1/B$.

Suppose now that $ℓ=∞$. Let $B>0$ be an arbitrary positive number. From the definition of the limit, there exists $n 0 ∈N$ such that

This implies that

where $A=1/B$.

Thus, in all cases, there exist $A>0$ and $n 0 ∈N$ such that

Using (5), we obtain

Letting $n→∞$ in the above inequality, we obtain

$lim n → ∞ n [ d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ] r =0.$

Thus, there exists $n 1 ∈N$ such that

(7)

Now, we shall prove that T has a periodic point. Suppose that it is not the case, then $T n x≠ T m x$ for every $n,m∈N$ such that $n≠m$. Using (1), we obtain

$θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 2 x ) ) ≤ [ θ ( M ( T n − 1 x , T n + 1 x ) ) ] k ,$
(8)

where from (2)

$M ( T n − 1 x , T n + 1 x ) =max { d ( T n − 1 x , T n + 1 x ) , d ( T n − 1 x , T n x ) , d ( T n + 1 x , T n + 2 x ) } .$
(9)

Since θ is non-decreasing, we obtain from (8) and (9)

$θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 2 x ) ) ≤ [ max { θ ( d ( T n − 1 x , T n + 1 x ) ) , θ ( d ( T n − 1 x , T n x ) ) , θ ( d ( T n + 1 x , T n + 2 x ) ) } ] k .$
(10)

Let I be the set of $n∈N$ such that

$u n : = max { θ ( d ( T n − 1 x , T n + 1 x ) ) , θ ( d ( T n − 1 x , T n x ) ) , θ ( d ( T n + 1 x , T n + 2 x ) ) } = θ ( d ( T n − 1 x , T n + 1 x ) ) .$

If $|I|<∞$, then there exists $N∈N$ such that for every $n≥N$,

$max { θ ( d ( T n − 1 x , T n + 1 x ) ) , θ ( d ( T n − 1 x , T n x ) ) , θ ( d ( T n + 1 x , T n + 2 x ) ) } = max { θ ( d ( T n − 1 x , T n x ) ) , θ ( d ( T n + 1 x , T n + 2 x ) ) } .$

In this case, we obtain from (10)

$1≤θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 2 x ) ) ≤ [ max { θ ( d ( T n − 1 x , T n x ) ) , θ ( d ( T n + 1 x , T n + 2 x ) ) } ] k$

for all $n≥N$. Letting $n→∞$ in the above inequality and using (6), we get

If $|I|=∞$, we can find a subsequence of ${ u n }$, that we denote also by ${ u n }$, such that

In this case, we obtain from (10)

$1 ≤ θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 2 x ) ) ≤ [ θ ( d ( T n − 1 x , T n + 1 x ) ) ] k ≤ [ θ ( d ( T n − 2 x , T n x ) ) ] k 2 ≤ ⋯ ≤ [ θ ( d ( x , T 2 x ) ) ] k n$

for n large enough. Letting $n→∞$ in the above inequality, we obtain

(11)

Then in all cases, (11) holds. Using (11) and the property ($Θ 2$), we obtain

$lim n → ∞ d ( T n x , T n + 2 x ) =0.$

Similarly, from condition ($Θ 3$), there exists $n 2 ∈N$ such that

(12)

Let $N=max{ n 0 , n 1 }$. We consider two cases.

Case 1. If $m>2$ is odd, then writing $m=2L+1$, $L≥1$, using (7), for all $n≥N$, we obtain

$d ( T n x , T n + m x ) ≤ d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) + d ( T n + 1 x , T n + 2 x ) + ⋯ + d ( T n + 2 L x , T n + 2 L + 1 x ) ≤ 1 n 1 / r + 1 ( n + 1 ) 1 / r + ⋯ + 1 ( n + 2 L ) 1 / r ≤ ∑ i = n ∞ 1 i 1 / r .$

Case 2. If $m>2$ is even, then writing $m=2L$, $L≥2$, using (7) and (12), for all $n≥N$, we obtain

$d ( T n x , T n + m x ) ≤ d ( T n x , T n + 2 x ) + d ( T n + 2 x , T n + 3 x ) + ⋯ + d ( T n + 2 L − 1 x , T n + 2 L x ) ≤ 1 n 1 / r + 1 ( n + 2 ) 1 / r + ⋯ + 1 ( n + 2 L − 1 ) 1 / r ≤ ∑ i = n ∞ 1 i 1 / r .$

Thus, combining all the cases, we have

From the convergence of the series $∑ i 1 i 1 / r$ (since $1/r>1$), we deduce that ${ T n x}$ is a Cauchy sequence. Since $(X,d)$ is complete, there is $z∈X$ such that $T n x→z$ as $n→∞$. Without restriction of the generality, we can suppose that $T n x≠z$ for all n (or for n large enough). Suppose that $d(z,Tz)>0$, using (1), we get

where

$M ( T n x , z ) =max { d ( T n x , z ) , d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) , d ( z , T z ) } .$

Letting $n→∞$ in the above inequality, using ($Θ 4$) and Lemma 1.1, we obtain

$θ ( d ( z , T z ) ) ≤ [ θ ( d ( z , T z ) ) ] k <θ ( d ( z , T z ) ) ,$

which is a contradiction. Thus we have $z=Tz$, which is also a contradiction with the assumption: T does not have a periodic point. Thus T has a periodic point, say z, of period q. Suppose that the set of fixed points of T is empty. Then we have

$q>1andd(z,Tz)>0.$

Using (1), we obtain

$θ ( d ( z , T z ) ) =θ ( d ( T q z , T q + 1 z ) ) ≤ [ θ ( z , T z ) ] k q <θ ( d ( z , T z ) ) ,$

which is a contradiction. Thus, the set of fixed points of T is non-empty, that is, T has at least one fixed point. Now, suppose that $z,u∈X$ are two fixed points of T such that $d(z,u)=d(Tz,Tu)>0$. Using (1), we obtain

$θ ( d ( z , u ) ) =θ ( d ( T z , T u ) ) ≤ [ θ ( d ( z , u ) ) ] k <θ ( d ( z , u ) ) ,$

which is a contradiction. Then we have one and only one fixed point. □

3 Some consequences

We start by deducing the following fixed point result.

Corollary 3.1 Let $(X,d)$ be a complete g.m.s and $T:X→X$ be a given map. Suppose that there exists $λ∈(0,1)$ such that

(13)

Then T has a unique fixed point.

Proof From (13), we have

Clearly the function $θ:(0,∞)→(1,∞)$ defined by $θ(t):= e t$ belongs to Θ. So, the existence and uniqueness of the fixed point follows from Theorem 2.1. □

The following fixed point result established in [11] is an immediate consequence of Corollary 3.1.

Corollary 3.2 Let $(X,d)$ be a complete g.m.s and $T:X→X$ be a given map. Suppose that there exists $λ∈(0,1)$ such that

Then T has a unique fixed point.

The following fixed point result established in [34] is an immediate consequence of Corollary 3.1.

Corollary 3.3 Let $(X,d)$ be a complete g.m.s and $T:X→X$ be a given map. Suppose that there exist $λ,μ≥0$ with $λ+μ<1$ such that

Then T has a unique fixed point.

The following fixed point result is also an immediate consequence of Corollary 3.1.

Corollary 3.4 Let $(X,d)$ be a complete g.m.s and $T:X→X$ be a given map. Suppose that there exist $λ,μ,ν≥0$ with $λ+μ+ν<1$ such that

Then T has a unique fixed point.

We note that Θ contains a large class of functions. For example, for

$θ(t):=2− 2 π arctan ( 1 t α ) ,0<α<1,t>0,$

we obtain from Theorem 2.1 the following result.

Corollary 3.5 Let $(X,d)$ be a complete g.m.s and $T:X→X$ be a given map. Suppose that there exist $α,k∈(0,1)$ such that

where $M(x,y)$ is given by (2). Then T has a unique fixed point.

Finally, since a metric space is a g.m.s, from Theorem 2.1 we deduce immediately the following result.

Corollary 3.6 Let $(X,d)$ be a complete metric space and $T:X→X$ be a given map. Suppose that there exist $θ∈Θ$ and $k∈(0,1)$ such that

$x,y∈X,d(Tx,Ty)≠0⟹θ ( d ( T x , T y ) ) ≤ [ θ ( M ( x , y ) ) ] k ,$

where $M(x,y)$ is given by (2). Then T has a unique fixed point.

References

1. 1.

Banach S: Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur applications aux équations intégrales. Fundam. Math. 1922, 3: 133–181.

2. 2.

Boyd DW, Wong JSW: On nonlinear contractions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1969, 20: 458–464. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1969-0239559-9

3. 3.

Ćirić L: A generalization of Banach’s contraction principle. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1974,45(2):267–273.

4. 4.

Kirk WA: Fixed points of asymptotic contractions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2003, 277: 645–650. 10.1016/S0022-247X(02)00612-1

5. 5.

Meir A, Keeler E: A theorem on contraction mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1969, 28: 326–329. 10.1016/0022-247X(69)90031-6

6. 6.

Rakotch E: A note on contractive mappings. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1962, 13: 459–465. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1962-0148046-1

7. 7.

Reich S: Fixed points of contractive functions. Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. 1972, 5: 26–42.

8. 8.

Suzuki T: Fixed point theorem for asymptotic contractions of Meir-Keeler type in complete metric spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2006, 64: 971–978. 10.1016/j.na.2005.04.054

9. 9.

Wardowski D: Fixed points of a new type of contractive mappings in complete metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 94

10. 10.

Di Bari C, Vetro P: Common fixed points in generalized metric spaces. Appl. Math. Comput. 2012,218(13):7322–7325. 10.1016/j.amc.2012.01.010

11. 11.

Branciari A: A fixed point theorem of Banach-Caccioppoli type on a class of generalized metric spaces. Publ. Math. (Debr.) 2000, 57: 31–37.

12. 12.

Cherichi M, Samet B: Fixed point theorems on ordered gauge spaces with applications to nonlinear integral equations. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 13

13. 13.

Das P: A fixed point theorem on a class of generalized metric spaces. Korean J. Math. Sci. 2002, 9: 29–33.

14. 14.

Frigon M: Fixed point results for generalized contractions in gauge spaces and applications. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2000, 128: 2957–2965. 10.1090/S0002-9939-00-05838-X

15. 15.

Janković S, Kadelburg Z, Radenović S: On cone metric spaces: a survey. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 2591–2601. 10.1016/j.na.2010.12.014

16. 16.

Khamsi MA, Kozlowski WM, Reich S: Fixed point theory in modular function spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 1990,14(11):935–953. 10.1016/0362-546X(90)90111-S

17. 17.

Kirk WA, Shahzad N: Generalized metrics and Caristi’s theorem. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 129

18. 18.

Lakzian H, Samet B:Fixed points for $(ψ,φ)$-weakly contractive mappings in generalized metric spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 2012,25(5):902–906. 10.1016/j.aml.2011.10.047

19. 19.

Samet B: Discussion on: A fixed point theorem of Banach-Caccioppoli type on a class of generalized metric spaces, by A. Branciari. Publ. Math. (Debr.) 2010,76(4):493–494.

20. 20.

Sarama IR, Rao JM, Rao SS: Contractions over generalized metric spaces. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 2009,2(3):180–182.

21. 21.

Tarafdar E: An approach to fixed point theorems on uniform spaces. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1974, 191: 209–225.

22. 22.

arXiv: 1208.4610v1

23. 23.

Vetro C: On Branciari’s theorem for weakly compatible mappings. Appl. Math. Lett. 2010,23(6):700–705. 10.1016/j.aml.2010.02.011

24. 24.

Nadler SB Jr.: Multi-valued contraction mappings. Pac. J. Math. 1969, 30: 475–488. 10.2140/pjm.1969.30.475

25. 25.

Berinde M, Berinde V: On a general class of multi-valued weakly Picard mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 326: 772–782. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.03.016

26. 26.

Ćirić L: Multi-valued nonlinear contraction mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 2716–2723. 10.1016/j.na.2009.01.116

27. 27.

Markin JT: A fixed point theorem for set-valued mappings. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1968, 74: 639–640. 10.1090/S0002-9904-1968-11971-8

28. 28.

Mizoguchi N, Takahashi W: Fixed point theorems for multivalued mappings on complete metric spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1989, 141: 177–188. 10.1016/0022-247X(89)90214-X

29. 29.

Naidu SVR: Fixed point theorems for a broad class of multimaps. Nonlinear Anal. 2003, 52: 961–969. 10.1016/S0362-546X(02)00146-3

30. 30.

Zhang CK, Zhu J, Zhao PH: An extension of multi-valued contraction mappings and fixed points. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2000, 128: 2439–2444. 10.1090/S0002-9939-99-05318-6

31. 31.

Karapınar E: Fixed points results for alpha-admissible mapping of integral type on generalized metric spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2014., 2014: Article ID 141409

32. 32.

Karapınar E: Discussion on contractions on generalized metric spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2014., 2014: Article ID 962784

33. 33.

La Rosa V, Vetro P: Common fixed points for α - ψ - φ -contractions in generalized metric spaces. Nonlinear Anal., Model. Control 2014,19(1):43–54.

34. 34.

Jleli M, Samet B: The Kannan’s fixed point theorem in a cone rectangular metric space. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 2009,2(3):161–167.

35. 35.

Jleli M, Samet B: A new generalization of the Banach contraction principle. J. Inequal. Appl. 2014., 2014: Article ID 38

Acknowledgements

The first and third authors would like to extend their sincere appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for its funding of this research through the Research Group Project No: RG-1435-034.

Author information

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bessem Samet.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Jleli, M., Karapınar, E. & Samet, B. Further generalizations of the Banach contraction principle. J Inequal Appl 2014, 439 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-439