Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access

Further generalizations of the Banach contraction principle

Journal of Inequalities and Applications20142014:439

https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-439

Received: 30 July 2014

Accepted: 10 October 2014

Published: 2 November 2014

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).

Keywords

fixed pointBranciari metric spaceexistenceuniqueness

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 ( T x , T y ) λ d ( 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.

The following result was established in [17] (see also [34]).

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 ( 0 , ] such that lim t 0 + θ ( t ) 1 t r = ;

( 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 ( T x , T y ) 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 ( T x , T y ) 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 ) ) ] k ln [ 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
1 θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ) [ θ ( d ( x , T x ) ) ] k n for all  n N .
(5)
Letting n in (5), we obtain
θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ) 1 as  n ,
(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 ( 0 , ] such that
lim n θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ) 1 [ d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ] r = .
Suppose that < . In this case, let B = / 2 > 0 . From the definition of the limit, there exists n 0 N such that
| θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ) 1 [ d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ] r | B for all  n n 0 .
This implies that
θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ) 1 [ d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ] r B = B for all  n n 0 .
Then
n [ d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ] r A n [ θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ) 1 ] for all  n n 0 ,

where A = 1 / B .

Suppose now that = . Let B > 0 be an arbitrary positive number. From the definition of the limit, there exists n 0 N such that
θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ) 1 [ d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ] r B for all  n n 0 .
This implies that
n [ d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ] r A n [ θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ) 1 ] for all  n n 0 ,

where A = 1 / B .

Thus, in all cases, there exist A > 0 and n 0 N such that
n [ d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ] r A n [ θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ) 1 ] for all  n n 0 .
Using (5), we obtain
n [ d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) ] r A n ( [ θ ( d ( x , T x ) ) ] k n 1 ) for all  n n 0 .
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
d ( T n x , T n + 1 x ) 1 n 1 / r for all  n n 1 .
(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
θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 2 x ) ) 1 as  n .
If | I | = , we can find a subsequence of { u n } , that we denote also by { u n } , such that
u n = θ ( d ( T n 1 x , T n + 1 x ) ) for  n  large enough .
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
θ ( d ( T n x , T n + 2 x ) ) 1 as  n .
(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
d ( T n x , T n + 2 x ) 1 n 1 / r for all  n n 2 .
(12)

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

Case 1. If m > 2 is odd, then writing m = 2 L + 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 = 2 L , 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
d ( T n x , T n + m x ) i = n 1 i 1 / r for all  n N , m N .
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 , T z ) > 0 , using (1), we get
θ ( d ( T n + 1 x , T z ) ) [ θ ( M ( T n x , z ) ) ] k for all  n N ,
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 = T z , 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 > 1 and d ( z , T z ) > 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 ( T z , T u ) > 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
d ( T x , T y ) λ max { d ( x , y ) , d ( x , T x ) , d ( y , T y ) } for all  x , y X .
(13)

Then T has a unique fixed point.

Proof From (13), we have
e d ( T x , T y ) [ e max { d ( x , y ) , d ( x , T x ) , d ( y , T y ) } ] λ for all  x , y X .

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
d ( T x , T y ) λ d ( x , y ) for all  x , y X .

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
d ( T x , T y ) λ d ( x , T x ) + μ d ( y , T y ) for all  x , y X .

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
d ( T x , T y ) λ d ( x , y ) + μ d ( x , T x ) + ν d ( y , T y ) for all  x , y X .

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
2 2 π arctan ( 1 [ d ( T x , T y ) ] α ) [ 2 2 π arctan ( 1 [ M ( x , y ) ] α ) ] k for all  x , y X , T x T y ,

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 ( T x , T y ) 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.

Declarations

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.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Mathematics, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
(2)
Department of Mathematics, Atilim University, İncek, Ankara, Turkey
(3)
Nonlinear Analysis and Applied Mathematics Research Group (NAAM), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

References

  1. Banach S: Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur applications aux équations intégrales. Fundam. Math. 1922, 3: 133–181.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd DW, Wong JSW: On nonlinear contractions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1969, 20: 458–464. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1969-0239559-9MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Ćirić L: A generalization of Banach’s contraction principle. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1974,45(2):267–273.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Kirk WA: Fixed points of asymptotic contractions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2003, 277: 645–650. 10.1016/S0022-247X(02)00612-1MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Meir A, Keeler E: A theorem on contraction mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1969, 28: 326–329. 10.1016/0022-247X(69)90031-6MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Rakotch E: A note on contractive mappings. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1962, 13: 459–465. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1962-0148046-1MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Reich S: Fixed points of contractive functions. Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. 1972, 5: 26–42.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  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.2005.04.054MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Wardowski D: Fixed points of a new type of contractive mappings in complete metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 94Google Scholar
  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.2012.01.010MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  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.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  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 13Google Scholar
  13. Das P: A fixed point theorem on a class of generalized metric spaces. Korean J. Math. Sci. 2002, 9: 29–33.Google Scholar
  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-XMathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Janković S, Kadelburg Z, Radenović S: On cone metric spaces: a survey. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 2591–2601. 10.1016/j.na.2010.12.014MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  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-SMathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Kirk WA, Shahzad N: Generalized metrics and Caristi’s theorem. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 129Google Scholar
  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.2011.10.047MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  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.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Sarama IR, Rao JM, Rao SS: Contractions over generalized metric spaces. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 2009,2(3):180–182.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Tarafdar E: An approach to fixed point theorems on uniform spaces. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1974, 191: 209–225.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. arXiv: 1208.4610v1
  23. Vetro C: On Branciari’s theorem for weakly compatible mappings. Appl. Math. Lett. 2010,23(6):700–705. 10.1016/j.aml.2010.02.011MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Nadler SB Jr.: Multi-valued contraction mappings. Pac. J. Math. 1969, 30: 475–488. 10.2140/pjm.1969.30.475MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  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.2006.03.016MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Ćirić L: Multi-valued nonlinear contraction mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 2716–2723. 10.1016/j.na.2009.01.116MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Markin JT: A fixed point theorem for set-valued mappings. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1968, 74: 639–640. 10.1090/S0002-9904-1968-11971-8MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  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-XMathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Naidu SVR: Fixed point theorems for a broad class of multimaps. Nonlinear Anal. 2003, 52: 961–969. 10.1016/S0362-546X(02)00146-3MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  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/S0002-9939-99-05318-6View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Karapınar E: Fixed points results for alpha-admissible mapping of integral type on generalized metric spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2014., 2014: Article ID 141409Google Scholar
  32. Karapınar E: Discussion on contractions on generalized metric spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2014., 2014: Article ID 962784Google Scholar
  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.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  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.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Jleli M, Samet B: A new generalization of the Banach contraction principle. J. Inequal. Appl. 2014., 2014: Article ID 38Google Scholar

Copyright

© Jleli 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