Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Inequalities and Applications
Erschienen in: Journal of Inequalities and Applications 1/2014

Open Access 01.12.2014 | Research

Common fixed points for a pair of mappings satisfying contractive conditions of integral type

verfasst von: Zeqing Liu, Xiaochen Zou, Shin Min Kang, Jeong Sheok Ume

Erschienen in: Journal of Inequalities and Applications | Ausgabe 1/2014

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
insite
INHALT
download
DOWNLOAD
print
DRUCKEN
insite
SUCHEN
loading …

Abstract

Four common fixed point theorems for a pair of weakly compatible mappings satisfying contractive conditions of integral type in metric spaces are proved. The existence result of bounded solutions for a system of functional equations arising in dynamic programming is discussed by using one of the common fixed point theorems obtained in this paper. An example is given to illustrate that our results extend properly two fixed point theorems due to Branciari and Rhoades.
MSC:54H25.
Hinweise

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

1 Introduction and preliminaries

In 2002, Branciari [1] proved an interesting fixed point theorem for a single-valued contractive mapping of integral type satisfying an analog of the Banach contraction principle in metric spaces. Afterwards many researchers [2‐20] extended the result of Branciari and obtained a lot of fixed point and common fixed point theorems for various single-valued and multi-valued mappings involving a large amount of general contractive conditions of integral type in metric spaces, modular spaces, symmetric spaces, fuzzy metric spaces, cone metric spaces, uniform spaces, and Hausdorff topological spaces etc.
Liu et al. [12] and Rhoades [15] got the existence, uniqueness, and iterative approximations of fixed points for general contractive mappings of integral type, Djoudi and Merghadi [8] and Vijayaraju et al. [20] showed several common fixed point theorems for a pair of weakly compatible mappings satisfying certain contractive mappings of integral type, Altun and Türkoǧlu [3], Altun et al. [5] and Djoudi and Aliouche [7] discussed a few common fixed point theorems for two pairs of weakly compatible mappings satisfying an implicit relation and contractive conditions of integral type, respectively, Suzuki [19] proved that Meir-Keeler contractions of integral type are still Meir-Keeler contractions, Jachymski [10] discussed that most contractive conditions of integral type given recently by many authors coincide with classical ones and got a new contractive condition of integral type which is independent of classical ones, and Sintunavarat and Kumam [17, 18] proved Gregus-type common fixed point theorems for tangential multi-valued mappings satisfying strict general contractive conditions of integral type in metric spaces.
Beygmohammadi and Razani [6], Hussain and Salimi [9], and Mongkolkeha and Kumam [13] presented more general fixed point and common fixed point theorems for some integral-type contractions in modular spaces. Murthy et al. [14] proved common fixed point theorems for different variant of compatible mappings, satisfying a contractive condition of integral type in fuzzy metric spaces. De la Sen [16] investigated the existence of fixed points and best proximity points of p-cyclic self-mappings in a set of subsets of a certain uniform space under integral-type contractive conditions. Khojasteh et al. [11] obtained a fixed point theorem of an integral-type contraction in complete cone metric spaces. Aliouche [2] proved a common fixed point theorem for two pairs of weakly compatible mappings satisfying a contractive condition of integral type in symmetric spaces. Altun and Türkoǧlu [4] established two fixed point and common fixed point theorems for mappings satisfying contractive conditions of integral type in Hausdorff d-complete topological spaces.
However, to the best of our knowledge, no one studied the existence and uniqueness problems of common fixed points for a pair of contractive mappings of integral type satisfying (2.1), (2.13), (2.20), and (2.22), respectively.
The aim of this paper is to show the existence and uniqueness of common fixed points for the four kinds of weakly compatible mappings (2.1), (2.13), (2.20), and (2.22) in metric spaces under weaker conditions. As an application, we use Theorem 2.1 to study solvability of system of functional equations (2.26). Our results extend, improve, and unify Theorem 2.1 of Branciari [1], Theorems 5.1-5.3 of Liu et al. [12], Theorem 2 of Rhoades [15], Theorem 1 of Bhakta and Mitra [21], Theorem 3.1 of Liu and Kang [22], and Theorem 3.2 of Liu et al. [23]. A nontrivial example with uncountably many points is included.
Throughout this paper we assume that R + = [ 0 , + ∞ ) , N 0 = { 0 } ∪ N , where ℕ denotes the set of all positive integers, and
Φ = { φ :  φ : R + → R +  satisfies the requirement that  φ  is Lebesgue integrable , Φ = summable on each compact subset of  R +  and  ∫ 0 ε φ ( t ) d t > 0  for each  ε > 0 } , Ψ = { ψ :  ψ : R + → R +  is upper semi-continuous , Ψ = ψ ( 0 ) = 0  and  ψ ( t ) > 0  for each  t > 0 } .
Recall that a pair of self-mappings f and g in a metric space ( X , d ) are said to be weakly compatible if they commute at their coincidence points.
The following lemma plays an important role in this paper.
Lemma 1.1 ([12])
Let φ ∈ Φ and { r n } n ∈ N be a nonnegative sequence with lim n → ∞ r n = a . Then
lim n → ∞ ∫ 0 r n φ ( t ) d t = ∫ 0 a φ ( t ) d t .
Lemma 1.2 ([22])
Let E be a set, p and q : E → R be mappings. If opt y ∈ E p ( y ) and opt y ∈ E q ( y ) are bounded, then
| opt y ∈ E p ( y ) − opt y ∈ E q ( y ) | ≤ sup y ∈ E | p ( y ) − q ( y ) | .

2 Common fixed point theorems

Now we show the existence and uniqueness of common fixed points for four classes of weakly compatible mappings satisfying contractive conditions of integral type.
Theorem 2.1 Let ( X , d ) be a metric space and let f and g be weakly compatible self-mappings on X satisfying
∫ 0 d ( f x , f y ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 1 ( x , y ) φ ( t ) d t ) , ∀ x , y ∈ X ,
(2.1)
where ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ and
M 1 ( x , y ) = max { d ( g x , g y ) , d ( f x , g x ) , d ( f y , g y ) , d ( f x , g y ) + d ( f y , g x ) 2 , d ( f x , g y ) d ( f y , g x ) 1 + d ( g x , g y ) , d ( f x , g x ) d ( f y , g x ) 2 [ 1 + d ( g x , g y ) ] , d ( f y , g y ) d ( f x , g y ) 2 [ 1 + d ( g x , g y ) ] } , ∀ x , y ∈ X .
(2.2)
If f ( X ) ⊆ g ( X ) and g ( X ) is complete, then f and g have a unique common fixed point in X.
Proof Firstly we prove that f and g have at most one common fixed point in X. Suppose that f and g possess two common fixed points a , b ∈ X and a ≠ b . It follows from (2.1), (2.2), and ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ that
M 1 ( a , b ) = max { d ( g a , g b ) , d ( f a , g a ) , d ( f b , g b ) , d ( f a , g b ) + d ( f b , g a ) 2 , d ( f a , g b ) d ( f b , g a ) 1 + d ( g a , g b ) , d ( f a , g a ) d ( f b , g a ) 2 [ 1 + d ( g a , g b ) ] , d ( f b , g b ) d ( f a , g b ) 2 [ 1 + d ( g a , g b ) ] } = max { d ( a , b ) , 0 , 0 , d ( a , b ) , d 2 ( a , b ) 1 + d ( a , b ) , 0 , 0 } = d ( a , b )
and
∫ 0 d ( a , b ) φ ( t ) d t = ∫ 0 d ( f a , f b ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 1 ( a , b ) φ ( t ) d t ) = ψ ( ∫ 0 d ( a , b ) φ ( t ) d t ) < ∫ 0 d ( a , b ) φ ( t ) d t ,
which is impossible.
Secondly we show that f and g have a common fixed point in X. Let x 0 be an arbitrary point in X. Since f ( X ) ⊆ g ( X ) , it follows that there exists a sequence { x n } n ∈ N 0 in X satisfying f x n = g x n + 1 for each n ∈ N 0 . Put d n = d ( f x n , f x n + 1 ) for all n ∈ N 0 .
Assume that d n 0 = 0 for some n ∈ N 0 . It follows that
f x n 0 = f x n 0 + 1 = g x n 0 + 1 .
(2.3)
Because f and g are weakly compatible, by (2.3) we get
f 2 x n 0 + 1 = f g x n 0 + 1 = g f x n 0 + 1 = g 2 x n 0 + 1 .
(2.4)
Now we assert that f x n 0 + 1 = f 2 x n 0 + 1 . Otherwise we infer that in view of (2.1)-(2.4) and ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ
M 1 ( f x n 0 + 1 , x n 0 + 1 ) = max { d ( g f x n 0 + 1 , g x n 0 + 1 ) , d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , g f x n 0 + 1 ) , d ( f x n 0 + 1 , g x n 0 + 1 ) , d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , g x n 0 + 1 ) + d ( f x n 0 + 1 , g f x n 0 + 1 ) 2 , d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , g x n 0 + 1 ) d ( f x n 0 + 1 , g f x n 0 + 1 ) 1 + d ( g f x n 0 + 1 , g x n 0 + 1 ) , d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , g f x n 0 + 1 ) d ( f x n 0 + 1 , g f x n 0 + 1 ) 2 [ 1 + d ( g f x n 0 + 1 , g x n 0 + 1 ) ] , d ( f x n 0 + 1 , g x n 0 + 1 ) d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , g x n 0 + 1 ) 2 [ 1 + d ( g f x n 0 + 1 , g x n 0 + 1 ) ] } = max { d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) , 0 , 0 , d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) , d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) d ( f x n 0 + 1 , f 2 x n 0 + 1 ) 1 + d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) , 0 , 0 } = d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 )
and
∫ 0 d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 1 ( f x n 0 + 1 , x n 0 + 1 ) φ ( t ) d t ) = ψ ( ∫ 0 d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) φ ( t ) d t ) < ∫ 0 d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) φ ( t ) d t ,
which is absurd. Therefore f x n 0 + 1 = f 2 x n 0 + 1 , which together with (2.3) means that f x n 0 + 1 is a common fixed point of f and g in X.
Assume that d n ≠ 0 for all n ∈ N 0 . Observe that
d n − 1 d ( f x n + 1 , f x n − 1 ) 2 ( 1 + d n − 1 ) ≤ d ( f x n + 1 , f x n − 1 ) 2 ≤ d n − 1 + d n 2 ≤ max { d n − 1 , d n } , ∀ n ∈ N .
(2.5)
It follows from (2.2) and (2.5) that
M 1 ( x n , x n + 1 ) = max { d ( g x n , g x n + 1 ) , d ( f x n , g x n ) , d ( f x n + 1 , g x n + 1 ) , d ( f x n , g x n + 1 ) + d ( f x n + 1 , g x n ) 2 , d ( f x n , g x n + 1 ) d ( f x n + 1 , g x n ) 1 + d ( g x n , g x n + 1 ) , d ( f x n , g x n ) d ( f x n + 1 , g x n ) 2 [ 1 + d ( g x n , g x n + 1 ) ] , d ( f x n + 1 , g x n + 1 ) d ( f x n , g x n + 1 ) 2 [ 1 + d ( g x n , g x n + 1 ) ] } = max { d ( f x n − 1 , f x n ) , d ( f x n , f x n − 1 ) , d ( f x n + 1 , f x n ) , d ( f x n , f x n ) + d ( f x n + 1 , f x n − 1 ) 2 , d ( f x n , f x n ) d ( f x n + 1 , f x n − 1 ) 1 + d ( f x n − 1 , f x n ) , d ( f x n , f x n − 1 ) d ( f x n + 1 , f x n − 1 ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f x n − 1 , f x n ) ] , d ( f x n + 1 , f x n ) d ( f x n , f x n ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f x n − 1 , f x n ) ] } = max { d n − 1 , d n − 1 , d n , d ( f x n + 1 , f x n − 1 ) 2 , 0 , d n − 1 d ( f x n + 1 , f x n − 1 ) 2 ( 1 + d n − 1 ) , 0 } = max { d n − 1 , d n } , ∀ n ∈ N .
(2.6)
If d n > d n − 1 for some n ∈ N , using (2.1), (2.6), and ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ , we conclude that
∫ 0 d n φ ( t ) d t = ∫ 0 d ( f x n , f x n + 1 ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 1 ( x n , x n + 1 ) φ ( t ) d t ) = ψ ( ∫ 0 d n φ ( t ) d t ) < ∫ 0 d n φ ( t ) d t ,
which is a contradiction. Hence d n ≤ d n − 1 for each n ∈ N . Consequently, the sequence { d n } n ∈ N 0 is nondecreasing and bounded, which imply that there exists a constant W with lim n → ∞ d n = W ≥ 0 .
Next we show that W = 0 . Otherwise W > 0 . Taking the upper limit in (2.1) and using (2.6), ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ , and Lemma 1.1, we infer that
∫ 0 W φ ( t ) d t = lim sup n → ∞ ∫ 0 d n φ ( t ) d t = lim sup n → ∞ ∫ 0 d ( f x n , f x n + 1 ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ lim sup n → ∞ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 1 ( x n , x n + 1 ) φ ( t ) d t ) = lim sup n → ∞ ψ ( ∫ 0 d n − 1 φ ( t ) d t ) ≤ ψ ( lim sup n → ∞ ∫ 0 d n − 1 φ ( t ) d t ) = ψ ( ∫ 0 W φ ( t ) d t ) < ∫ 0 W φ ( t ) d t ,
which is impossible. Therefore, W = 0 , that is,
lim n → ∞ d n = 0 .
(2.7)
Now we prove that { f x n } n ∈ N 0 is a Cauchy sequence. Suppose that { f x n } n ∈ N 0 is not a Cauchy sequence, which means that there exist a constant ε > 0 and two sequences { m ( p ) } n ∈ N and { n ( p ) } n ∈ N in N such that m ( p ) < n ( p ) < m ( p + 1 ) and
d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) ) ≥ ε , d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) < ε , ∀ p ∈ N .
(2.8)
Note that
d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) ) ≤ d ( f x n ( p ) − 1 , f x m ( p ) ) + d n ( p ) − 1 , ∀ p ∈ N ; | d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) ) − d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) | ≤ d n ( p ) − 1 , ∀ p ∈ N ; | d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) ) − d ( f x m ( p ) − 1 , f x n ( p ) ) | ≤ d m ( p ) − 1 , ∀ p ∈ N ; | d ( f x m ( p ) − 1 , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) − d ( f x m ( p ) − 1 , f x n ( p ) ) | ≤ d n ( p ) − 1 , ∀ p ∈ N .
(2.9)
By virtue of (2.7)-(2.9), we deduce that
ε = lim p → ∞ d ( f x n ( p ) , f x m ( p ) ) = lim p → ∞ d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) = lim p → ∞ d ( f x m ( p ) − 1 , f x n ( p ) ) = lim p → ∞ d ( f x m ( p ) − 1 , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) .
(2.10)
In light of (2.1), (2.2), (2.7), (2.10), ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ , and Lemma 1.1, we conclude that
lim p → ∞ M 1 ( x m ( p ) , x n ( p ) ) = lim p → ∞ max { d ( g x m ( p ) , g x n ( p ) ) , d ( f x m ( p ) , g x m ( p ) ) , d ( f x n ( p ) , g x n ( p ) ) , d ( f x m ( p ) , g x n ( p ) ) + d ( f x n ( p ) , g x m ( p ) ) 2 , d ( f x m ( p ) , g x n ( p ) ) d ( f x n ( p ) , g x m ( p ) ) 1 + d ( g x m ( p ) , g x n ( p ) ) , d ( f x m ( p ) , g x m ( p ) ) d ( f x n ( p ) , g x m ( p ) ) 2 [ 1 + d ( g x m ( p ) , g x n ( p ) ) ] , d ( f x n ( p ) , g x n ( p ) ) d ( f x m ( p ) , g x n ( p ) ) 2 [ 1 + d ( g x m ( p ) , g x n ( p ) ) ] } = lim p → ∞ max { d ( f x m ( p ) − 1 , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) , d ( f x m ( p ) , f x m ( p ) − 1 ) , d ( f x n ( p ) , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) , d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) + d ( f x n ( p ) , f x m ( p ) − 1 ) 2 , d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) d ( f x n ( p ) , f x m ( p ) − 1 ) 1 + d ( f x m ( p ) − 1 , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) , d ( f x m ( p ) , f x m ( p ) − 1 ) d ( f x n ( p ) , f x m ( p ) − 1 ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f x m ( p ) − 1 , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) ] , d ( f x n ( p ) , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f x m ( p ) − 1 , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) ] } = max { ε , 0 , 0 , ε , ε 2 1 + ε , 0 , 0 } = ε
and
∫ 0 ε φ ( t ) d t = lim sup p → ∞ ∫ 0 d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ lim sup p → ∞ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 1 ( x m ( p ) , x n ( p ) ) φ ( t ) d t ) ≤ ψ ( lim sup p → ∞ ∫ 0 M 1 ( x m ( p ) , x n ( p ) ) φ ( t ) d t ) = ψ ( ∫ 0 ε φ ( t ) d t ) < ∫ 0 ε φ ( t ) d t ,
which is a contradiction. Hence { f x n } n ∈ N 0 is a Cauchy sequence. Since g ( X ) is complete, there exist a , z ∈ X with
lim n → ∞ f x n = lim n → ∞ g x n = a = g z .
(2.11)
Suppose that f z ≠ a . Making use of (2.1), (2.2), (2.11), and ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ and Lemma 1.1, we arrive at
lim n → ∞ M 1 ( z , x n ) = lim n → ∞ max { d ( g z , g x n ) , d ( f z , g z ) , d ( f x n , g x n ) , d ( f z , g x n ) + d ( f x n , g z ) 2 , d ( f z , g x n ) d ( f x n , g z ) 1 + d ( g z , g x n ) , d ( f z , g z ) d ( f x n , g z ) 2 [ 1 + d ( g z , g x n ) ] , d ( f x n , g x n ) d ( f z , g x n ) 2 [ 1 + d ( g z , g x n ) ] } = max { d ( a , a ) , d ( f z , a ) , d ( a , a ) , d ( f z , a ) + d ( a , a ) 2 , d ( f z , a ) d ( a , a ) 1 + d ( a , a ) , d ( f z , a ) d ( a , a ) 2 [ 1 + d ( a , a ) ] , d ( a , a ) d ( f z , a ) 2 [ 1 + d ( a , a ) ] } = max { 0 , d ( f z , a ) , 0 , d ( f z , a ) 2 , 0 , 0 , 0 } = d ( f z , a )
and
∫ 0 d ( f z , a ) φ ( t ) d t = lim sup n → ∞ ∫ 0 d ( f z , f x n ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ lim sup n → ∞ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 1 ( z , x n ) φ ( t ) d t ) ≤ ψ ( lim sup n → ∞ ∫ 0 M 1 ( z , x n ) φ ( t ) d t ) = ψ ( ∫ 0 d ( f z , a ) φ ( t ) d t ) < ∫ 0 d ( f z , a ) φ ( t ) d t ,
which is a contradiction. Thus a = f z = g z . Since f and g are weakly compatible, it follows that
f a = f 2 z = f g z = g f z = g 2 z = g a .
(2.12)
Suppose that a ≠ f a . In view of (2.1), (2.2) (2.12), and ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ , we infer that
M 1 ( z , g z ) = max { d ( g z , g g z ) , d ( f z , g z ) , d ( f g z , g g z ) , d ( f z , g g z ) + d ( f g z , g z ) 2 , d ( f z , g g z ) d ( f g z , g z ) 1 + d ( g z , g g z ) , d ( f z , g z ) d ( f g z , g z ) 2 [ 1 + d ( g z , g g z ) ] , d ( f g z , g g z ) d ( f z , g g z ) 2 [ 1 + d ( g z , g g z ) ] } = max { d ( a , f a ) , 0 , 0 , d ( a , f a ) + d ( f a , a ) 2 , d 2 ( a , f a ) 1 + d ( a , f a ) , 0 , 0 } = d ( a , f a )
and
∫ 0 d ( a , f a ) φ ( t ) d t = ∫ 0 d ( f z , f g z ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 1 ( z , g z ) φ ( t ) d t ) = ψ ( ∫ 0 d ( a , f a ) φ ( t ) d t ) < ∫ 0 d ( a , f a ) φ ( t ) d t ,
which is absurd. Hence a = f a . It follows from (2.12) that f and g have a common fixed point a ∈ X . This completes the proof. □
Theorem 2.2 Let ( X , d ) be a metric space and let f and g be weakly compatible self-mappings on X satisfying
∫ 0 d ( f x , f y ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 2 ( x , y ) φ ( t ) d t ) , ∀ x , y ∈ X ,
(2.13)
where ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ and
M 2 ( x , y ) = max { d ( g x , g y ) , d ( f x , g x ) , d ( f y , g y ) , d ( f y , g x ) + d ( f x , g y ) 2 , d ( f x , g y ) d ( f y , g x ) 1 + d ( f x , f y ) , d ( f x , g y ) d ( f x , g x ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f x , f y ) ] , d ( f y , g x ) d ( f y , g y ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f x , f y ) ] } , ∀ x , y ∈ X .
(2.14)
If f ( X ) ⊆ g ( X ) and g ( X ) is complete, then f and g have a unique common fixed point in X.
Proof Firstly we prove that f and g have at most one common fixed point in X. Suppose that f and g possess two common fixed points a , b ∈ X and a ≠ b . It follows from (2.13), (2.14), and ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ that
M 2 ( a , b ) = max { d ( g a , g b ) , d ( g a , f a ) , d ( f b , g b ) , d ( f b , g a ) + d ( f a , g b ) 2 , d ( f a , g b ) d ( f b , g a ) 1 + d ( f a , f b ) , d ( f a , g b ) d ( f a , g a ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f a , f b ) ] , d ( f b , g a ) d ( f b , g b ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f a , f b ) ] } = max { d ( a , b ) , 0 , 0 , d ( a , b ) , d 2 ( a , b ) 1 + d ( a , b ) , 0 , 0 } = d ( a , b )
and
∫ 0 d ( a , b ) φ ( t ) d t = ∫ 0 d ( f a , f b ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 2 ( a , b ) φ ( t ) d t ) = ψ ( ∫ 0 d ( a , b ) φ ( t ) d t ) < ∫ 0 d ( a , b ) φ ( t ) d t ,
which is absurd.
Secondly we show that f and g have a common fixed point in X. Let x 0 be an arbitrary point in X. Since f ( X ) ⊆ g ( X ) , it follows that there exists a sequence { x n } n ∈ N 0 in X satisfying f x n = g x n + 1 for each n ∈ N 0 . Put d n = d ( f x n , f x n + 1 ) for all n ∈ N 0 .
Assume that d n 0 = 0 for some n ∈ N 0 . Now we assert that f x n 0 + 1 = f 2 x n 0 + 1 . Otherwise we infer that in light of (2.2), (2.4), (2.13), (2.14), and ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ
M 2 ( f x n 0 + 1 , x n 0 + 1 ) = max { d ( g f x n 0 + 1 , g x n 0 + 1 ) , d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , g f x n 0 + 1 ) , d ( f x n 0 + 1 , g x n 0 + 1 ) , d ( f x n 0 + 1 , g f x n 0 + 1 ) + d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , g x n 0 + 1 ) 2 , d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , g x n 0 + 1 ) d ( f x n 0 + 1 , g f x n 0 + 1 ) 1 + d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) , d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , g x n 0 + 1 ) d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , g f x n 0 + 1 ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) ] , d ( f x n 0 + 1 , g f x n 0 + 1 ) d ( f x n 0 + 1 , g x n 0 + 1 ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) ] } = max { d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) , 0 , 0 , d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) , d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) d ( f x n 0 + 1 , f 2 x n 0 + 1 ) 1 + d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) , 0 , 0 } = d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 )
and
∫ 0 d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 2 ( f x n 0 + 1 , x n 0 + 1 ) φ ( t ) d t ) = ψ ( ∫ 0 d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) φ ( t ) d t ) < ∫ 0 d ( f 2 x n 0 + 1 , f x n 0 + 1 ) φ ( t ) d t ,
which is absurd. Therefore f x n 0 + 1 = f 2 x n 0 + 1 , which together which (2.3) means that f x n 0 + 1 is a common fixed point of f and g in X.
Suppose that d n ≠ 0 for all n ∈ N 0 . Using (2.5), (2.13), and (2.14), we deduce that
M 2 ( x n , x n + 1 ) = max { d ( g x n , g x n + 1 ) , d ( f x n , g x n ) , d ( f x n + 1 , g x n + 1 ) , d ( f x n + 1 , g x n ) + d ( f x n , g x n + 1 ) 2 , d ( f x n , g x n + 1 ) d ( f x n + 1 , g x n ) 1 + d ( f x n , f x n + 1 ) , d ( f x n , g x n + 1 ) d ( f x n , g x n ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f x n , x n + 1 ) ] , d ( f x n + 1 , g x n ) d ( f x n + 1 , g x n + 1 ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f x n , f x n + 1 ) ] } = max { d ( f x n − 1 , f x n ) , d ( f x n , f x n − 1 ) , d ( f x n + 1 , f x n ) , d ( f x n + 1 , f x n − 1 ) + d ( f x n , f x n ) 2 , d ( f x n , f x n ) d ( f x n + 1 , f x n − 1 ) 1 + d ( f x n , f x n + 1 ) , d ( f x n , f x n ) d ( f x n , f x n − 1 ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f x n , f x n + 1 ) ] , d ( f x n + 1 , f x n − 1 ) d ( f x n + 1 , f x n ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f x n , f x n + 1 ) ] } = max { d n − 1 , d n − 1 , d n , d ( f x n + 1 , f x n − 1 ) 2 , 0 , 0 , d ( f x n + 1 , f x n − 1 ) d n 2 ( 1 + d n ) } = max { d n − 1 , d n } .
(2.15)
If d n > d n − 1 for some n ∈ N , making use of (2.13), (2.15), and ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ , we obtain
∫ 0 d n φ ( t ) d t = ∫ 0 d ( f x n , f x n + 1 ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 2 ( x n , x n + 1 ) φ ( t ) d t ) = ψ ( ∫ 0 d n φ ( t ) d t ) < ∫ 0 d n φ ( t ) d t ,
which is impossible. Thus d n ≤ d n − 1 for each n ∈ N . Hence the sequence { d n } n ∈ N 0 is nondecreasing and bounded, which imply that there exists a constant Q with lim n → ∞ d n = Q ≥ 0 .
Next we show that Q = 0 . Otherwise Q > 0 . Taking the upper limit in (2.13) and using (2.15), ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ , and Lemma 1.1, we infer that
∫ 0 Q φ ( t ) d t = lim sup n → ∞ ∫ 0 d n φ ( t ) d t = lim sup n → ∞ ∫ 0 d ( f x n , f x n + 1 ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ lim sup n → ∞ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 2 ( x n , x n + 1 ) φ ( t ) d t ) = lim sup n → ∞ ψ ( ∫ 0 d n − 1 φ ( t ) d t ) ≤ ψ ( lim sup n → ∞ ∫ 0 d n − 1 φ ( t ) d t ) = ψ ( ∫ 0 Q φ ( t ) d t ) < ∫ 0 Q φ ( t ) d t ,
which is absurd. Therefore, Q = 0 , that is,
lim n → ∞ d n = 0 , ∀ n ∈ N .
(2.16)
Now we claim that { f x n } n ∈ N 0 is a Cauchy sequence. Suppose that { f x n } n ∈ N 0 is not a Cauchy sequence. According to (2.10), (2.13), (2.14), (2.16), and ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ and Lemma 1.1, we have
lim p → ∞ M 2 ( x m ( p ) , x n ( p ) ) = lim p → ∞ max { d ( g x m ( p ) , g x n ( p ) ) , d ( f x m ( p ) , g x m ( p ) ) , d ( f x n ( p ) , g x n ( p ) ) , d ( f x n ( p ) , g x m ( p ) ) + d ( f x m ( p ) , g x n ( p ) ) 2 , d ( f x m ( p ) , g x n ( p ) ) d ( f x n ( p ) , g x m ( p ) ) 1 + d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) ) d ( f x m ( p ) , g x n ( p ) ) d ( f x m ( p ) , g x m ( p ) ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) ) ] , d ( f x n ( p ) , g x m ( p ) ) d ( f x n ( p ) , g x n ( p ) ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) ) ] } = lim p → ∞ max { d ( f x m ( p ) − 1 , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) , d ( f x m ( p ) , f x m ( p ) − 1 ) , d ( f x n ( p ) , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) , d ( f x n ( p ) , f x m ( p ) − 1 ) + d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) 2 , d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) d ( f x n ( p ) , f x m ( p ) − 1 ) 1 + d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) ) d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) d ( f x m ( p ) , f x m ( p ) − 1 ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) ) ] , d ( f x n ( p ) , f x m ( p ) − 1 ) d ( f x n ( p ) , f x n ( p ) − 1 ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) ) ] } = max { ε , 0 , 0 , ε , ε 2 1 + ε , 0 , 0 } = ε
(2.17)
and
∫ 0 ε φ ( t ) d t ≤ lim sup p → ∞ ∫ 0 d ( f x m ( p ) , f x n ( p ) ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ lim sup p → ∞ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 2 ( x m ( p ) , x n ( p ) ) φ ( t ) d t ) ≤ ψ ( lim sup p → ∞ ∫ 0 M 2 ( x m ( p ) , x n ( p ) ) φ ( t ) d t ) ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 ε φ ( t ) d t ) < ∫ 0 ε φ ( t ) d t ,
which is a contradiction. Hence { f x n } n ∈ N is a Cauchy sequence. Since g ( X ) is complete, there exist a , z ∈ X such that
lim n → ∞ f x n = lim n → ∞ g x n = a = g z .
(2.18)
Suppose that f z ≠ a . By means of (2.13), (2.14), (2.18), ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ and Lemma 1.1, we arrive at
lim n → ∞ M 2 ( z , x n ) = lim n → ∞ max { d ( g z , g x n ) , d ( f z , g z ) , d ( f x n , g x n ) , d ( f x n , g z ) + d ( f z , g x n ) 2 , d ( f z , g x n ) d ( f x n , g z ) 1 + d ( f z , f x n ) , d ( f z , g x n ) d ( f z , g z ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f z , f x n ) ] , d ( f x n , g z ) d ( f x n , g x n ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f z , f x n ) ] } = max { d ( a , a ) , d ( f z , a ) , d ( a , a ) , d ( a , a ) + d ( f z , a ) 2 , d ( f z , a ) d ( a , a ) 1 + d ( a , a ) , d ( f z , a ) d ( f z , a ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f z , a ) ] , d ( a , a ) d ( a , a ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f z , a ) ] } = max { 0 , d ( f z , a ) , 0 , d ( f z , a ) 2 , 0 , d 2 ( f z , a ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f z , a ) ] , 0 } = d ( f z , a )
and
∫ 0 d ( f z , a ) φ ( t ) d t = lim sup n → ∞ ∫ 0 d ( f z , f x n ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ lim sup n → ∞ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 2 ( z , x n ) φ ( t ) d t ) ≤ ψ ( lim sup n → ∞ ∫ 0 M 2 ( z , x n ) φ ( t ) d t ) = ψ ( ∫ 0 d ( f z , a ) φ ( t ) d t ) < ∫ 0 d ( f z , a ) φ ( t ) d t ,
which is a contradiction. Therefore, a = f z = g z . Because f and g are weakly compatible, it follows that
f a = f 2 z = f g z = g f z = g 2 z = g a .
(2.19)
Suppose that a ≠ f a . In view of (2.13), (2.14) (2.19), and ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ , we acquire
M 2 ( z , g z ) = max { d ( g z , g 2 z ) , d ( f z , g z ) , d ( f g z , g 2 z ) , d ( f g z , g z ) + d ( f z , g 2 z ) 2 , d ( f z , g 2 z ) d ( f g z , g z ) 1 + d ( f z , f g z ) , d ( f z , g 2 z ) d ( f z , g z ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f z , f g z ) ] , d ( f g z , g z ) d ( f g z , g 2 z ) 2 [ 1 + d ( f z , f g z ) ] } = max { d ( a , f a ) , 0 , 0 , d ( f a , a ) + d ( a , f a ) 2 , d 2 ( a , f a ) 1 + d ( a , f a ) , 0 , 0 } = d ( a , f a )
and
∫ 0 d ( a , f a ) φ ( t ) d t = ∫ 0 d ( f z , f g z ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 2 ( z , g z ) φ ( t ) d t ) = ψ ( ∫ 0 d ( a , f a ) φ ( t ) d t ) < ∫ 0 d ( a , f a ) φ ( t ) d t ,
which is absurd. Hence a = f a . It follows from (2.13) that f and g have a common fixed point a ∈ X . This completes the proof. □
Similar to the arguments of Theorems 2.1 and 2.2, we conclude the following results and omit their proofs.
Theorem 2.3 Let ( X , d ) be a metric space and let f and g be weakly compatible self-mappings on X satisfying
∫ 0 d ( f x , f y ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 3 ( x , y ) φ ( t ) d t ) , ∀ x , y ∈ X ,
(2.20)
where ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ and
M 3 ( x , y ) = max { d ( g x , g y ) , d ( f x , g x ) , d ( f y , g y ) , d ( f y , g x ) + d ( f x , g y ) 2 , d ( f x , g y ) d ( f y , g x ) 1 + d ( g x , g y ) , min { d ( f x , g x ) d ( f y , g x ) 1 + d ( g x , g y ) , d ( f y , g y ) d ( f x , g y ) 1 + d ( g x , g y ) } } , ∀ x , y ∈ X .
(2.21)
If f ( X ) ⊆ g ( X ) and g ( X ) is complete, then f and g have a unique common fixed point in X.
Theorem 2.4 Let ( X , d ) be a metric space and let f and g be weakly compatible self-mappings on X satisfying
∫ 0 d ( f x , f y ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 4 ( x , y ) φ ( t ) d t ) , ∀ x , y ∈ X ,
(2.22)
where ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ and
M 4 ( x , y ) = max { d ( g x , g y ) , d ( f x , g x ) , d ( f y , g y ) , d ( f y , g x ) + d ( f x , g y ) 2 , d ( f x , g y ) d ( f x , g x ) 1 + d ( f y , g x ) , min { d ( f x , g y ) d ( f x , g x ) 1 + d ( f x , f y ) , d ( f y , g x ) d ( f y , g y ) 1 + d ( f x , f y ) } } , ∀ x , y ∈ X .
(2.23)
If f ( X ) ⊆ g ( X ) and g ( X ) is complete, then f and g have a unique common fixed point in X.
Remark 2.5 In case f = g and ψ ( t ) = c t for each t ∈ R + , where c is a constant in ( 0 , 1 ) , then Theorems 2.1-2.4 reduce to four results which include Theorem 2.1 in [1] and Theorem 2 in [15] as special cases. Example 2.6 below shows that Theorems 2.1-2.4 extend substantially Theorem 2.1 in [1] and Theorem 2 in [15].
Example 2.6 Let X = R + be endowed with the Euclidean metric d ( x , y ) = | x − y | for all x , y ∈ X . Let f : X → X be defined by
f x = { 3 , ∀ x ∈ X − { 5 } , 4 , x = 5 .
Now we prove that Theorem 2.1 in [1] and Theorem 2 in [15] cannot be used to prove the existence of fixed points of the mapping f in X. Suppose that there exist φ ∈ Φ and c ∈ [ 0 , 1 ) satisfying the condition of Theorem 2 in [11], that is,
∫ 0 d ( f x , f y ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ c ∫ 0 m ( x , y ) φ ( t ) d t , ∀ x , y ∈ X ,
(2.24)
where
m ( x , y ) = max { d ( x , y ) , d ( x , f x ) , d ( y , f y ) , 1 2 [ d ( y , f x ) + d ( x , f y ) ] } , ∀ x , y ∈ X .
(2.25)
Taking ( x 0 , y 0 ) = ( 4 , 5 ) and using (2.24), (2.25), φ ∈ Φ , and c ∈ [ 0 , 1 ) , we get
m ( x 0 , y 0 ) = max { d ( x 0 , y 0 ) , d ( x 0 , f x 0 ) , d ( y 0 , f y 0 ) , 1 2 [ d ( y 0 , f x 0 ) + d ( x 0 , f y 0 ) ] } = max { d ( 4 , 5 ) , d ( 4 , 3 ) , d ( 5 , 4 ) , 1 2 [ d ( 5 , 3 ) + d ( 4 , 4 ) ] } = 1
and
∫ 0 1 φ ( t ) d t = ∫ 0 d ( f x 0 , f y 0 ) φ ( t ) d t ≤ c ∫ 0 m ( x 0 , y 0 ) φ ( t ) d t = c ∫ 0 1 φ ( t ) d t < ∫ 0 1 φ ( t ) d t ,
which is a contradiction. Note that Theorem 2 in [15] is a generalization of Theorem 2.1 in [1]. Therefore, Theorem 2.1 in [1] is also futile in proving the existence of fixed points for the mapping f in X.
Define three mappings g : X → X and φ , ψ : R + → R + by
g x = { 3 , ∀ x ∈ X ∖ { 5 , 10 } , 10 , x = 5 , 4 , x = 10 , φ ( t ) = ln ( 1 + t ) 1 + t , ∀ t ∈ R +
and
ψ ( t ) = { 100 sin t , ∀ t ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] , t 2 , ∀ t ∈ ( 1 , + ∞ ) .
It is clear that ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ , f and g are weakly compatible in X, f ( X ) = { 3 , 4 } ⊆ { 3 , 4 , 10 } = g ( X ) and g ( X ) is complete. Let x , y ∈ X with x < y . In order to verify (2.1), (2.3), (2.20), and (2.22) hold, we have to consider the following four possible cases:
Case 1. x , y ∈ X ∖ { 5 } . It follows that
∫ 0 d ( f x , f y ) φ ( t ) d t = ∫ 0 d ( 3 , 3 ) φ ( t ) d t = 0 ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M i ( x , y ) φ ( t ) d t ) , ∀ i ∈ { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } .
Case 2. x = 5 and y = 10 . Observe that ψ is strictly increasing in ( 1 , + ∞ ) and
M i ( x , y ) ≥ d ( g x , g y ) = d ( 10 , 4 ) = 6 , ∀ i ∈ { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } .
It is easy to verify that
∫ 0 d ( f x , f y ) φ ( t ) d t = ∫ 0 d ( 4 , 3 ) φ ( t ) d t = ∫ 0 1 φ ( t ) d t = 1 2 ln 2 2 < 1 4 < 1 < 1 4 ln 4 7 = ψ ( 1 2 ln 2 7 ) = ψ ( ∫ 0 6 φ ( t ) d t ) ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M i ( x , y ) φ ( t ) d t ) , ∀ i ∈ { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } .
Case 3. x = 5 and y ∈ ( 5 , 10 ) ∪ ( 10 , + ∞ ) . Note that ψ is strictly increasing in ( 1 , + ∞ ) and
M i ( x , y ) ≥ d ( g x , g y ) = d ( 10 , 3 ) = 7 , ∀ i ∈ { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } .
It is clear that
∫ 0 d ( f x , f y ) φ ( t ) d t = ∫ 0 d ( 4 , 3 ) φ ( t ) d t = ∫ 0 1 φ ( t ) d t = 1 2 ln 2 2 < 1 4 < 1 < 1 4 ln 4 8 = ψ ( 1 2 ln 2 8 ) = ψ ( ∫ 0 7 φ ( t ) d t ) ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M i ( x , y ) φ ( t ) d t ) , ∀ i ∈ { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } .
Case 4. x < 5 and y = 5 . Note that ψ is strictly increasing in ( 1 , + ∞ ) and
M i ( x , y ) ≥ d ( g x , g y ) = d ( 3 , 10 ) = 7 , ∀ i ∈ { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } .
Clearly we have
∫ 0 d ( f x , f y ) φ ( t ) d t = ∫ 0 d ( 3 , 4 ) φ ( t ) d t = ∫ 0 1 φ ( t ) d t = 1 2 ln 2 2 < 1 4 < 1 < 1 4 ln 4 8 = ψ ( 1 2 ln 2 8 ) = ψ ( ∫ 0 7 φ ( t ) d t ) ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M i ( x , y ) φ ( t ) d t ) , ∀ i ∈ { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } .
That is, (2.1), (2.3), (2.20), and (2.22) hold. Hence each of Theorems 2.1-2.4 guarantees that f and g possess a unique common fixed point in X.
Finally, we use Theorem 2.1 to discuss solvability of the following system of functional equations arising in dynamic programming:
f ( x ) = opt y ∈ D { u ( x , y ) + H ( x , y , f ( a ( x , y ) ) ) } , ∀ x ∈ S , g ( x ) = opt y ∈ D { v ( x , y ) + G ( x , y , g ( b ( x , y ) ) ) } , ∀ x ∈ S ,
(2.26)
where opt stands for sup or inf, Z and Y are Banach spaces, S ⊆ Z is the state space, D ⊆ Y is the decision space, x and y signify the state and decision vectors, respectively, a and b represent the transformations of the process, f ( x ) and g ( x ) denote the optimal return functions with the initial state x, B ( S ) denotes the Banach space of all bounded real-valued functions on S with norm
∥ w ∥ = sup { | w ( x ) | : x ∈ S } for any  w ∈ B ( S ) .
Example 2.7 Let u , v : S × D → R , a , b : S × D → S , H , G : S × D × R → R and ( φ , ψ ) ∈ Φ × Ψ satisfy the following conditions:
u , v , H  and  G  are bounded ;
(2.27)
f g h = g f h for each  h ∈ B ( S )  with  f h = g h ;
(2.28)
f ( B ( S ) ) ⊆ g ( B ( S ) )  and  g ( B ( S ) )  are complete
(2.29)
and
∫ 0 | H ( x , y , h ( a ( x , y ) ) ) − H ( x , y , w ( a ( x , y ) ) ) | φ ( t ) d t ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 1 ∗ ( h , w ) φ ( t ) d t ) , ∀ ( x , y , h , w ) ∈ S × D × B ( S ) × B ( S ) ,
(2.30)
where the mappings f and g are defined by
f h ( x ) = opt y ∈ D { u ( x , y ) + H ( x , y , h ( a ( x , y ) ) ) } , ∀ ( x , h ) ∈ S × B ( S ) , g h ( x ) = opt y ∈ D { v ( x , y ) + G ( x , y , h ( b ( x , y ) ) ) } , ∀ ( x , h ) ∈ S × B ( S )
(2.31)
and
M 1 ∗ ( h , w ) = max { ∥ g h − g w ∥ , ∥ f h − g h ∥ , ∥ f w − g w ∥ , ∥ f h − g w ∥ + ∥ f w − g h ∥ 2 , ∥ f h − g w ∥ ∥ f w − g h ∥ 1 + ∥ g h − g w ∥ , ∥ f h − g h ∥ ∥ f w − g h ∥ 2 ( 1 + ∥ g h − g w ∥ ) , ∥ f w − g w ∥ ∥ f h − g w ∥ 2 ( 1 + ∥ g h − g w ∥ ) } , ∀ h , w ∈ B ( S ) .
(2.32)
Then the system of functional equations (2.26) has a unique common solution w ∈ B ( S ) .
Proof It follows from (2.27) that there exists M > 0 satisfying
sup { | u ( x , y ) | , | v ( x , y ) | , | H ( x , y , t ) | , | G ( x , y , t ) | : ( x , y , t ) ∈ S × D × R } ≤ M .
(2.33)
It is easy to see that f and g are self-mappings in B ( S ) by (2.31), (2.33), and Lemma 1.2. It is clear that Theorem 12.34 in [24] and φ ∈ Φ yield, for each ε > 0 : there exists δ ∈ ( 0 , M ) satisfying
∫ C φ ( t ) d t < ε , ∀ C ⊆ [ 0 , 3 M ]  with  m ( C ) ≤ δ ,
(2.34)
where m ( C ) denotes the Lebesgue measure of C.
Let ( x , h , w ) ∈ S × B ( S ) × B ( S ) . Suppose that opt y ∈ D = inf y ∈ D . Clearly (2.31) implies that there exist y , z ∈ D satisfying
f h ( x ) > u ( x , y ) + H ( x , y , h ( a ( x , y ) ) ) − δ ; f w ( x ) > u ( x , z ) + H ( x , z , w ( a ( x , z ) ) ) − δ ; f h ( x ) ≤ u ( x , z ) + H ( x , z , h ( a ( x , z ) ) ) ; f w ( x ) ≤ u ( x , y ) + H ( x , y , w ( a ( x , y ) ) ) ,
which means that
f h ( x ) − f w ( x ) > H ( x , y , h ( a ( x , y ) ) ) − H ( x , y , w ( a ( x , y ) ) ) − δ ≥ − max { | H ( x , y , h ( a ( x , y ) ) ) − H ( x , y , w ( a ( x , y ) ) ) | , | H ( x , z , h ( a ( x , z ) ) ) − H ( x , z , w ( a ( x , z ) ) ) | } − δ
and
f h ( x ) − f w ( x ) < H ( x , z , h ( a ( x , z ) ) ) − H ( x , z , w ( a ( x , z ) ) ) + δ ≤ max { | H ( x , y , h ( a ( x , y ) ) ) − H ( x , y , w ( a ( x , y ) ) ) | , | H ( x , z , h ( a ( x , z ) ) ) − H ( x , z , w ( a ( x , z ) ) ) | } + δ ,
which yield
| f h ( x ) − f w ( x ) | < max { | H ( x , y , h ( a ( x , y ) ) ) − H ( x , y , w ( a ( x , y ) ) ) | , | H ( x , z , h ( a ( x , z ) ) ) − H ( x , z , w ( a ( x , z ) ) ) | } + δ = max { | H ( x , y , h ( a ( x , y ) ) ) − H ( x , y , w ( a ( x , y ) ) ) | + δ , | H ( x , z , h ( a ( x , z ) ) ) − H ( x , z , w ( a ( x , z ) ) ) | + δ } .
(2.35)
Similarly we infer that (2.35) holds also for opt y ∈ D = sup y ∈ D . Combining (2.31), (2.34), and (2.35), we arrive at
∫ 0 | f h ( x ) − f w ( x ) | φ ( t ) d t ≤ max { ∫ 0 | H ( x , y , h ( a ( x , y ) ) ) − H ( x , y , w ( a ( x , y ) ) ) | + δ φ ( t ) d t , ∫ 0 | H ( x , z , h ( a ( x , z ) ) ) − H ( x , z , w ( a ( x , z ) ) ) | + δ φ ( t ) d t } = max { ∫ 0 | H ( x , y , h ( a ( x , y ) ) ) − H ( x , y , w ( a ( x , y ) ) ) | φ ( t ) d t + ∫ | H ( x , y , h ( a ( x , y ) ) ) − H ( x , y , w ( a ( x , y ) ) ) | | H ( x , y , h ( a ( x , y ) ) ) − H ( x , y , w ( a ( x , y ) ) ) | + δ φ ( t ) d t , ∫ 0 | H ( x , z , h ( a ( x , z ) ) ) − H ( x , z , w ( a ( x , z ) ) ) | φ ( t ) d t + ∫ | H ( x , z , h ( a ( x , z ) ) ) − H ( x , z , w ( a ( x , z ) ) ) | | H ( x , z , h ( a ( x , z ) ) ) − H ( x , z , w ( a ( x , z ) ) ) | + δ φ ( t ) d t } ≤ max { ∫ 0 | H ( x , y , h ( a ( x , y ) ) ) − H ( x , y , w ( a ( x , y ) ) ) | φ ( t ) d t , ∫ 0 | H ( x , z , h ( a ( x , z ) ) ) − H ( x , z , w ( a ( x , z ) ) ) | φ ( t ) d t } + max { ∫ | H ( x , y , h ( a ( x , y ) ) ) − H ( x , y , w ( a ( x , y ) ) ) | | H ( x , y , h ( a ( x , y ) ) ) − H ( x , y , w ( a ( x , y ) ) ) | + δ φ ( t ) d t , ∫ | H ( x , z , h ( a ( x , z ) ) ) − H ( x , z , w ( a ( x , z ) ) ) | | H ( x , z , h ( a ( x , z ) ) ) − H ( x , z , w ( a ( x , z ) ) ) | + δ φ ( t ) d t } ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 1 ∗ ( h , w ) φ ( t ) d t ) + ε , ∀ ( x , h , w ) ∈ S × B ( S ) × B ( S ) ,
which means that
∫ 0 ∥ f h − f w ∥ φ ( t ) d t ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 1 ∗ ( h , w ) φ ( t ) d t ) + ε , ∀ h , w ∈ B ( S ) ,
letting ε → 0 + in the above inequality, we deduce that
∫ 0 ∥ f h − f w ∥ φ ( t ) d t ≤ ψ ( ∫ 0 M 1 ∗ ( h , w ) φ ( t ) d t ) , ∀ h , w ∈ B ( S ) .
Thus Theorem 2.1 ensures that the mappings f and g have a unique common fixed point w ∈ B ( S ) , which is a unique common solution of the system of functional equations (2.26). This completes the proof. □
Remark 2.8 The conclusion of Example 2.7 generalizes and improves Theorems 5.1-5.3 in [12], Theorem 1 in [21], Theorem 3.1 in [22], and Theorem 3.2 in [23].

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the referees for useful comments and suggestions. This research was supported by the Science Research Foundation of Educational Department of Liaoning Province (L2012380) and Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (2013R1A1A2057665).
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
To view a copy of this licence, visit https://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Vorheriger Artikel Some fixed point theorems for rational Geraghty contractive mappings in ordered b-metric spaces
Nächster Artikel Multi-step iterative algorithms with regularization for triple hierarchical variational inequalities with constraints of mixed equilibria, variational inclusions, and convex minimization
insite
INHALT
download
DOWNLOAD
print
DRUCKEN
Literatur
1.
Branciari A: A fixed point theorem for mappings satisfying a general contractive condition of integral type. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2002, 29: 531-536. 10.1155/S0161171202007524MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
2.
Aliouche A: A common fixed point theorem for weakly compatible mappings in symmetric spaces satisfying a contractive condition of integral type. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2006, 322: 796-802. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.09.068MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
3.
Altun I, Türkoǧlu D: Some fixed point theorems for weakly compatible mappings satisfying an implicit relation. Taiwan. J. Math. 2009, 13: 1291-1304.MathSciNetMATH
4.
Altun I, Türkoǧlu D: Some fixed point theorems for mappings satisfying contractive condition of integral type on d -complete topological spaces. Fasc. Math. 2009, 42: 5-15.MathSciNetMATH
5.
Altun I, Türkoǧlu D, Rhoades BE: Fixed points of weakly compatible maps satisfying a general contractive of integral type. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2007., 2007: Article ID 17301 10.1155/2007/17301
6.
Beygmohammadi M, Razani A: Two fixed-point theorems for mappings satisfying a general contractive condition of integral type in the modular space. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2010., 2010: Article ID 317107 10.1155/2010/317107
7.
Djoudi A, Aliouche A: Common fixed point theorems of Greguš type for weakly compatible mappings satisfying contractive conditions of integral type. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 329: 31-45. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.06.037MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
8.
Djoudi A, Merghadi F: Common fixed point theorems for maps under a contractive condition of integral type. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2008, 341: 953-960. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.10.064MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
9.
Hussain N, Salimi P: Implicit contractive mappings in modular metric and fuzzy metric spaces. Sci. World J. 2014., 2014: Article ID 981578 10.1155/2014/981578
10.
Jachymski J: Remarks on contractive conditions of integral type. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 1073-1081. 10.1016/j.na.2008.11.046MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
11.
Khojasteh F, Goodarzi Z, Razani A: Some fixed point theorems of integral type contraction in cone metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 189684 10.1155/2010/189684
12.
Liu Z, Li X, Kang SM, Cho SY: Fixed point theorems for mappings satisfying contractive conditions of integral type and applications. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2011., 2011: Article ID 64 10.1186/1687-1812-2011-64
13.
Mongkolkeha C, Kumam P: Fixed point and common fixed point theorems for generalized weak contraction mappings of integral type in modular spaces. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2011., 2011: Article ID 705943 10.1155/2011/705943
14.
Murthy PP, Kumar S, Tas K: Common fixed points of self maps satisfying an integral type contractive condition in fuzzy metric spaces. Math. Commun. 2010, 15: 521-537.MathSciNetMATH
15.
Rhoades BE: Two fixed-point theorems for mappings satisfying a general contractive condition of integral type. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2003, 63: 4007-4013. 10.1155/S0161171203208024MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
16.
De la Sen M: Fixed point and best proximity theorems under two classes of integral-type contractive conditions in uniform metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 510974 10.1155/2010/510974
17.
Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Gregus-type common fixed point theorems for tangential multi-valued mappings of integral type in metric spaces. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2011., 2011: Article ID 923458 10.1155/2011/923458
18.
Sintunavarat W, Kumam P: Gregus-type fixed points for a tangential multi-valued mappings satisfying contractive conditions of integral type. J. Inequal. Appl. 2011., 2011: Article ID 3 10.1186/1029-242X-2011-3
19.
Suzuki T: Meir-Keeler contractions of integral type are still Meir-Keeler contractions. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2007., 2007: Article ID 39281 10.1155/2007/39281
20.
Vijayaraju P, Rhoades BE, Mohanraj R: A fixed point theorem for a pair of maps satisfying a general contractive condition of integral type. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2005, 15: 2359-2364. 10.1155/IJMMS.2005.2359MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
21.
Bhakta PC, Mitra S: Some existence theorems for functional equations arising in dynamic programming. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1984, 98: 348-362. 10.1016/0022-247X(84)90254-3MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
22.
Liu Z, Kang SM: Existence and uniqueness of solutions for two classes of functional equations arising in dynamic programming. Acta Math. Appl. Sinica (Engl. Ser.) 2007, 23: 195-208. 10.1007/s10255-007-0363-6MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
23.
Liu Z, Xu YG, Ume JS, Kang SM: Solutions to two functional equations arising in dynamic programming. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2006, 192: 251-269. 10.1016/j.cam.2005.04.033MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
24.
Hewitt E, Stromberg K: Real and Abstract Analysis. Springer, New York; 1978.MATH
Metadaten
Titel
Common fixed points for a pair of mappings satisfying contractive conditions of integral type
verfasst von
Zeqing Liu
Xiaochen Zou
Shin Min Kang
Jeong Sheok Ume
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2014
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Journal of Inequalities and Applications / Ausgabe 1/2014
Elektronische ISSN: 1029-242X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-394

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2014

Journal of Inequalities and Applications 1/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Research

Lacunary statistical convergence of double sequences in topological groups

Research

A unified extragradient method for systems of hierarchical variational inequalities in a Hilbert space

Research

Attractivity for a k-dimensional system of fractional functional differential equations and global attractivity for a k-dimensional system of nonlinear fractional differential equations

Research

An exact upper bound estimate for the number of integer points on the elliptic curves

Research

A note on the strong law of large numbers for Markov chains indexed by irregular trees

Research

The proof of three power-exponential inequalities

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise