1. Introduction
Metric fixed point theory is a very interesting and rapidly growing domain in mathematics. Especially, this theory has fruitful applications in various domains of sciences such as: Physics, Chemistry, Computer Siences, Economics and several others. The most important result of this theory is the celebrated contraction principle essentially due to Banach [
1]. This principle states that every self contraction mapping
T defined on a complete metric space
has a unique fixed point. Several authors extended and generalized this principle by considering various kind of control functions. With similar endeavourer, Samet et al. [
2] introduced the class of
-contractions and utilized the same to prove some existence and uniqueness fixed point results, which generalize several well-known fixed point results particularly due to Banach [
1], Berinde [
3], Suzuki [
4] and some others.
On the other hand, employing a control function
satisfying suitable properties, Jleli et al. [
5] introduced the concepts of
-fixed point and
-contraction mappings and utilized the same to prove some
-fixed point results for such mappings in the setting of complete metric spaces and also deduced some fixed point results in the setting of complete partial metric spaces. In 2017, Kumrod et. al. [
6] improved the notion of (
)-contraction mappings by introducing the concept of (
)-contraction mappings and established
-fixed point results for such mappings which extend the corresponding results due to Jleli et al. [
5]. Recently, Asadi. [
7] improved the control functions
F by replacing the continuity condition on
F with a weaker one and proved similar results of Kumrod et al. [
6].
Following this direction of research, in this paper, our attempted improvements are four-fold described in the following lines:
- (1)
to introduce the concepts of (F,,-)-contraction mappings and (F,,-)-weak contraction mappings in metric spaces;
- (2)
to establish some
-fixed point theorems in metric spaces which generalize the corresponding results contained in [
2,
5,
6,
7];
- (3)
to deduce some fixed point theorems in the setting of partial metric spaces which extend the results contained in [
5,
6],
- (4)
to examine the existence of solution of a second order ordinary differential equation.
2. Mathematical Preliminaries
As the present exposition involves several definitions, technical terminologies and notions, firstly we proceed to present the relevant background material needed in the sequel.
Matthews [
8] introduced the concept of partial metric spaces as a part of the study of denotational semantics of dataflow networks as follows.
Definition 1. [8] Let X be a non-empty set. We say that the mapping is a partial metric on X if the following conditions are satisfied (for all ): - (P1)
;
- (P2)
;
- (P3)
;
- (P4)
.
The pair is called a partial metric space.
Clearly if
, then
(due to (P2) and (P3)) so that
(in view of (P1)). But if
,
may not be zero. On the other hand, if
, for each
, then the partial metric space
is a metric space. This shows that how a partial metric differs from the standard metric. Several interesting examples of partial metric spaces which are not metric spaces can be found in [
8]. For more details about partial metric space, we refer the reader to [
9,
10,
11].
For a partial metric
p on a non-empty set
X, the function
which is given by
remains a standard metric on
X.
Lemma 1. [8] Let (X,p) be a partial metric space. Then - (a)
is a Cauchy sequence in if and only if is a Cauchy sequence in the metric space ;
- (b)
if the metric space is complete, then the partial metric space is also complete and vice versa.
Lemma 2. [12] Let be a partial metric space and a function defined by . Then the φ is lower semi-continuous in . Next, let denote to the set of nondecreasing functions such that , for each , where is the n-th iterate of . In the literature, such functions are known as -comparison functions or Bianchini–Grandolfi Gauge functions.
Remark 1. Observe that implies , for all .
The following lemma is well known in the literature and holds for every Bianchini–Grandolfi Gauge function.
Lemma 3. If , then and , for all .
Samet et al. [
2] introduced the concepts of
-admissible and
-
-contraction mappings as follows:
Definition 2. [2] Let X be a non-empty set, and . We say that T is α-admissible if Definition 3. [2] Let be a metric space. A mapping is said to be an α-ψ-contraction with respect to the metric d if there exist two functions and such that (for all ) By using these notions Samet et al. [
2] established some fixed point results for such mappings in the context of complete metric spaces.
On the other hand, Jleli et al. [
5] introduced yet another control function
satisfying the following conditions:
- (F1)
max, for all ;
- (F2)
;
- (F3)
F is continuous.
In the sequel we denote by
the set of all functions
F satisfying the conditions (F1)–(F3). The authors in [
5], also introduced the concepts of
-fixed point and
-contraction mappings as follows:
Definition 4. [5] Let X be a non-empty set, and a given function. An element is said to be φ-fixed point of the mapping if and only if it is a fixed point of T and . Definition 5. [5] Let be a metric space and a given function. A mapping is said to be an -contraction mapping if there exists and such that (for all ) Based on these definitions, Jleli et al. [
5] proved some
-fixed point results for such mappings in the setting of complete metric spaces.
Kumrod et. al. [
6] generalized the notion of (
)-contraction mappings by introducing the concept of (
)-contraction mappings and established
-fixed point results for such mappings which extended the results of Jleli et al. [
5].
Definition 6. [6] Let be a metric space and a given function. A mapping is said to be an -contraction mapping if there exists and a continuous function such that (for all ) Recently, Asadi. [
7] proved similar results of Kumrod et al. [
6] by replacing the condition (F3) with the following condition:
- (F3′)
, when and as .
The class of all functions F satisfying conditions (F1), (F2) and (F3) is denoted by . Observe that but the converse is not true. The following functions F belong to but not in as such functions are not continuous:
;
.
3. Main Results
First, we introduce the notion of (F,,-)-contraction mappings as follows.
Definition 7. Let be a metric space, F and . We say that T is an (F,φ,α-ψ)-contraction mapping if there exist three functions , and such that (for all ) Remark 2. By choosing the essential functions α, F and ψ suitably in Definition 7, one can deduce many contractions which substantiates that (F,φ,α-ψ)-contraction unifies several kind of contractions existing in the literature.
- (a)
By setting , for all and , for all , we deduce α-ψ-contraction given in [2]. - (b)
With for all , and , (for all and for some ), we obtain -contraction contained in [5]. - (c)
By choosing , , , for all with , (for all and some ), we obtain graphic -contraction given in [5]. - (d)
Taking for all and , we obtain -contraction given in [6]. - (e)
Putting for all and , we obtain -contraction given in [7].
Now, we state and prove our first main result of this section which runs as follows.
Theorem 1. Let be a complete metric space, a lower semi-continuous function, , , and be an (F,φ,α-ψ)-contraction mapping. Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:
- (i)
T is α-admissible;
- (ii)
there exists such that ;
- (iii)
T is continuous, or alternately,
- (iii)′
if is a sequence in X such that , for all n and , then , for all n.
Then T has a φ-fixed point.
Proof. In view of the condition
, there exists
such that
. Define a sequence
in
X by
As
T is
-admissible, we have
Using (
2) and the fact that
T is (
F,
,
-
)-contraction, we obtain
This together with (F1) imply that
Now, we assert that
is a Cauchy sequence. To prove our assertion, let
such that
. On using (
4) and triangle inequality, we have
In view of Remark 1 and (
5), we have
. Hence,
is a Cauchy sequence in
X. Since
is complete metric space, there exists
such that
Now, we need to show that
. Using (
3), we have
Letting
in the above inequality and using Remark 1, we obtain
Since
is lower semi-continuous, it follows from (6) and (7) that
. Hence,
Now, assume that holds, i.e, T is continuous mapping, it follows that . By the uniqueness of the limit, we get . Therefore, is a -fixed point of T.
Alternatively, assume that
holds. In view of (
2) and (
6), we have
, for all
. As
T is (
F,
,
-
)-contraction, using (F1) and Lemma 3, we get
On taking
of both sides of the above inequality, using (F2) and (F3
), one gets
which implies that (in view of (
6))
Therefore, from (8) and (9), we get that is a -fixed point of T. This completes the proof. □
Remark 3. Notice that, in view of Remark 2 ((a) and (c)), the results ([2] Theorems 2.1 and 2.2) and ([5] Theorem 2.2 ) can be deduced from Theorem 1. To support our result, we give three illustrative examples. Precisely, we show that Theorem 1 can be used to cover these examples while the result due to Jleli et al. [
5], Kumrod et. al. [
6] and Asadi [
7] are not applicable.
First, we support our result by the following example in which the mapping T is continuous.
Example 1. Let endowed with the usual metric , for all . It is clear that is a complete metric space. Consider the mapping defined by Obviously, T is continuous and neither non-expansive nor expansive. Now, we define two essential functions and by It is obvious that and φ is lower simi-continuous function.
Now, consider the function: defined by Let such that . This implies that and by the definitions of T and α, we have Hence, T is an α-admissible mapping. Moreover, and
Finally, we show that T is an (F,φ,α-ψ)-contraction mapping. Let .
If , then (as ) The other cases are obvious (as ). Hence, T is an (F,φ,α-ψ)-contraction mapping with , for all . Therefore, all the hypotheses of Theorem 1 are satisfied. Hence, T has a φ-fixed point (namely ).
Notice that the results due to Jleli et al. [
5], Kumrod et. al. [
6] and Asadi [
7] cannot be applied in the context of Example 1 for earlier defined
F. Indeed, for any
(in view of Lemma 3), we have
Next, we support our result by two more examples in which the mapping T is not continuous.
Example 2. Let endowed with the usual metric , for all . Then is a complete metric space. Define by Obviously T is not continuous at . Define two essential functions and by Clearly and φ is lower simi-continuous function.
Now, define by Let such that This implies that and by the definition of T and α, we have Therefore, T is an α-admissible mapping. Observe that Furthermore, let be any sequence such that , for all n and as . Then by the definition of α, we have , for all n and . Therefore, . for all n.
Next, we show that T is an (F,φ,α-ψ)-contraction mapping. Let .If , then (as ) The other cases are obvious (as ). Hence, T is an (F,φ,α-ψ)-contraction mapping with , for all . Therefore, all the hypotheses of Theorem 1 are satisfied. Hence, T has a φ-fixed point (namely ).
Observe that the results due to Jleli et al. [
5], Kumrod et. al. [
6] and Asadi [
7] are not applicable in the context of Example 2 for earlier defined
F. Indeed, for any
(in view of Lemma 3), we have
Example 3. Let endowed with the usual metric , for all . It is clear that is a complete metric space. Consider the mapping defined by Obviously T is not continuous at . Now, define two essential functions and bywhere is the integer of c. It is obvious that and φ is lower semi-continuous function. Next, define by Let such that This implies that and by the definitions of T and α, we have Therefore, T is an α-admissible mapping. Observe that and Furthermore, let be any sequence such that , for all n and as . Then by the definition of α, we have , for all n and . Therefore, , for all n.
Finally, we show that T is an (F,φ,α-ψ)-contraction mapping. Let .If , then (as ) The other cases are obvious (as ). Hence, T is an (F,φ,α-ψ)-contraction mapping with , for all . Therefore, all hypotheses of Theorem 1 are satisfied. Thus, T has a φ-fixed point (namely ).
Note that the results due to Jleli et al. [
5], Kumrod et. al. [
6] and Asadi [
7] are not applicable in the context of Example 3 for such defined
F. Indeed, for any
(in view of Lemma 3), we have
The following theorem ensures the uniqueness of the -fixed point.
Theorem 2. In addition to the hypotheses of Theorem 1, suppose that the following condition is satisfied:
- (iv)
for all , there exists such that and .
Then the φ-fixed point of T is unique.
Proof. In view of Theorem 1,
T has
-fixed point. Assume that
and
are two
-fixed points of
T, that is,
From the condition
, there exists
such that
Using
-admissibility of
T and (10), we obtain
Using the (
F,
,
-
)-contractivity assumption and (11), we have
This inductively implies that
which together with the condition (F1) imply that
or
Letting , we obtain Similarly, one can prove that The uniqueness of the limit gives rise . Hence, the -fixed point of T is unique. This completes the proof. □
Remark 4. In view of Remark 2 ((a), (b), (c) and (e)) several relevant results such as: ([2], Theorem 2.3) ([5], Theorem 2.1 ), ([6], Theorem 2.5 ) and ([7], Theorem 2.5 ) can be deduced from Theorem 2. Next, we generalize the contractive condition in Definition 7 and prove the another main result in this work.
Definition 8. Let be a metric space, and . We say that T is an (F,φ,α-ψ)-weak contraction mapping if there exist three functions , , and such that (for all )where . Remark 5. By choosing the essential functions α, F and ψ suitably in Definition 8, one can deduce many contractions which substantiates that (F,φ,α-ψ)-weak contraction unifies several kind of contractions existing in the literature.
- (a)
On setting , for all , and for all and some , we obtain -weak contractions given in [5]. - (b)
Taking for all and , we obtain -weak contractions given in [6]. - (c)
Putting for all and , we obtain -weak contractions given in [7].
Theorem 3. Let be a complete metric space, a lower semi-continuous function, , , and be an (F,φ,α-ψ)-weak contraction mapping. Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:
- (i)
T is α-admissible;
- (ii)
there exists such that ;
- (iii)
T is continuous, or alternately,
- (iii)′
if is a sequence in X such that , for all n and , then , for all n.
Then T has a φ-fixed point.
Proof. In view of the condition
, there exists
such that
. Define a sequence
in
X by
As
T is
-admissible, we have
Using (
12) and the fact that
T is (
F,
,
-
)-weak contraction, we obtain
The rest of the proof follows in the lines of the proof of Theorem 1. □
Remark 6. In view of Remark 5 ((a), (b) and (c)) the results ([5] Theorem 2.3 ), ([6] Theorem 2.9 ) and ([7] Theorem 2.13 ) can be deduced from Theorem 3. 4. Results on partial metric spaces
In this section, we employ Theorems 2 and 3 to deduce some new results in the setting of partial metric spaces.
Let be the family of all functions which satisfy the following conditions:
- (G1)
;
- (G2)
;
- (G3)
, when as .
Example 4. Define by It is easy to see that the conditions – are satisfied. Hence, .
Using Theorem 2, we deduce the following fixed point result in the setting of partial metric spaces.
Theorem 4. Let be a complete partial metric space, and an α-admissible mapping such thatfor all , where . Suppose that the following conditions are fulfilled: - (i)
there exists such that ;
- (ii)
and , for all ;
- (iii)
for all , there exists such that and ;
- (iv)
T is continuous, or alternately,
- (iv)′
if is a sequence in X such that , for all n and , then , for all n.
Then T has a unique fixed point . Moreover, .
Proof. Consider the metric
given in (
1). Then
forms a complete metric space (due to Lemma 1). Define a mapping
by
, for all
. Then
is lower semi-continuous function (in view of Lemma 2). Now, using (
13) and the condition
, we obtain that (for all
)
or
Next, define
by
Observe that from
, we have
. Also,
implies that
. Furthermore, if
and
as
, then (in view of
)
Therefore,
. Using (
14) and the definition of
F, we have (for all
)
Thus, all the hypotheses of Theorem 2 are satisfied and, hence, T has a -fixed point (say ) which yields that is a fixed point of T and . This completes the proof. □
Taking
G (as defined in Example 4) in Theorem 4, we obtain motivated version of the main result of Samet et. al. [
2] in the setting of partial metric spaces.
Corollary 1. Let be a complete partial metric space and an α-admissible mapping such thatfor all , where . Suppose that the following conditions are fulfilled: - (i)
there exists such that ;
- (ii)
, for all ;
- (iii)
for all , there exists such that and ;
- (iv)
T is continuous, or alternately,
- (iv)′
if is a sequence in X such that , for all n and , then , for all n.
Then T has a unique fixed point . Moreover, .
Putting , for all in Theorem 4, we obtain the following result which is new to the existing literature.
Corollary 2. Let be a complete partial metric space, , and . Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:
- (i)
and , for all ;
- (ii)
Then T has a unique fixed point . Moreover, .
By setting
G as in Example 4 in Corollary 2, we obtain directly the following result which was proved by Kumrod et. al. [
6].
Corollary 3. Let be a complete partial metric space, and . Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:
- (i)
, for all .
- (ii)
Then T has a unique fixed point . Moreover, .
By choosing
G as in Example 4 and
, for all
and some
in Corollary 2, we obtain directly the following result which was proved by Matthews [
8]
Corollary 4. Let be a complete partial metric space and . Assume there exists such that (for all ) Then T has a unique fixed point . Moreover, .
Next, from Theorem 3, we deduce the following result in the setting of partial metric spaces.
Theorem 5. Let be a complete partial metric space, and an α-admissible mappings such thatfor all , where , and . Suppose that the following conditions are fulfilled: - (i)
there exists such that ;
- (ii)
and , for all ;
- (iii)
T is continuous, or alternately,
- (iii)′
if is a sequence in X such that , for all n and , then , for all n.
Then T has a fixed point . Moreover, .
Proof. Consider the metric
given in (
1). In view of Lemma 1 the metric space
is complete. Define a mapping
by
, for all
. Then
is lower semi-continuous (duo to Lemma 2). Now, using (
15) and the condition
, we obtain (for all
)
or
where
.
Next, define
by
Then,
(see proof of Theorem 3). Using (
16) and the definition of
F, we have (for all
)
Therefore, all the hypotheses of Theorem 3 are satisfied and, hence, T has a -fixed point (say ) which yields that is a fixed point of T and . This completes the proof. □
Taking G as in Example 4 in Theorem 5, we obtain the following result.
Corollary 5. Let be a complete partial metric space and be an α-admissible mappings such thatfor all , where , and . Suppose that the following conditions are satisfied: - (i)
there exists such that ;
- (ii)
, for all ;
- (iii)
T is continuous, or alternately,
- (iii)′
if is a sequence in X such that , for all n and , then , for all n.
Then T has a fixed point . Moreover, .
Putting , for all in Theorem 5, we obtain the following result which is new to the existing literature.
Corollary 6. Let be a complete partial metric space, , and . Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:
- (i)
and , for all ;
- (ii)
the mapping T satisfies (for all )
where and . Then T has a fixed point . Moreover, .
Taking
G as in Example 4 in Corollary 6, we obtain directly the following result which was proved by Kumrod et. al. [
6].
Corollary 7. Let be a complete partial metric space, and . Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:
- (i)
, for all .
- (ii)
the mapping T satisfies (for all )
where and . Then T has a fixed point . Moreover, .
Setting
G as in Example 4 and
, for all
and some
in Corollary 6, we obtain directly the following result which was proved by Kumrod et. al. [
6].
Corollary 8. Let be a complete partial metric space and . Assume that the following condition is satisfied (for all )for some , where and . Then T has a fixed point . Moreover, .