We prove the existence and uniqueness of coupled best proximity point for mappings satisfying the proximally coupled contraction in a complete ordered metric space. Further, our result provides an extension of a result due to Bhaskar and Lakshmikantham.
1. Introduction
One of the most useful tools in the study of nonlinear functional equation is to describe many problems in physics, chemistry, and engineering. It can be formulated in terms of finding the fixed points of a nonlinear self-mapping. Fixed point theory investigates the techniques for determining a solution of the pattern Tx=x, where T is a self-mapping defined on a subset A of a metric space X. Noteworthy, a fixed point x of T on can be written by d(x,Tx)=0.
A well-known principle that guarantees a unique fixed point solution is the Banach contraction principle [1] which states on a complete metric space X for a contraction self-mapping (i.e., d(Tx,Ty)≤αd(x,y) for all x,y∈X, where α is a nonnegative number such that α<1). Over the years, this principle has been generalized in many ways; see also [2–6]. Recently, an interesting way is to study the extension of Banach contraction principle to the case of non-self-mappings. Certainly, a contraction non-self-mapping T:A→B does not necessarily have a fixed point, where A and B are nonempty subsets of a metric space X.
Ultimately, one proceeds to find an approximate solution x∈A which is closest to Tx in the sense that distance d(x,Tx) is minimum which implies that x and Tx are in close proximity to each other. Indeed, the best approximation theorems and the best proximity point theorem investigate the existence of an approximate solution to fixed point problems for the non-self- mappings. In 1969, Fan [7] guarantees at least one solution to the minimization problem minx∈A∥x-Tx∥, where A is a nonempty compact convex subset of a normed linear space X and T:A→X is a continuous function. Such an element x∈A satisfying the above condition is called a best approximant of T in A. Note that if x∈A is a best approximant, then ∥x-Tx∥ need not be the optimum. As a matter of fact, the best proximity point theorems have been explored to find sufficient conditions for the existence of an element x such that the error d(x,Tx) is minimum.
To have a concrete lower bound, let us consider two nonempty subsets A, B of a metric space X and a mapping T:A→B. The natural question is whether one can find an element x*∈A such that d(x*,Tx*)=d(A,B), where d(A,B):=min{d(x,Tx):x∈A}. Since d(x,Tx)≥d(A,B) for all x∈A, the optimal solution to the problem of minimizing the real valued function x→d(x,Tx) over the domain A of the mapping T will be the one for which the value d(A,B) is attained. A point that satisfies the condition d(x,Tx)=d(A,B) is called a best proximity point of T. Furthermore, the best proximity theorems also regress to an extension of fixed point theorem; that is, a best proximity point becomes a fixed point if either d(A,B)=0 or the mapping under consideration is a self-mapping.
The existence and convergence of best proximity points are an interesting topic of optimization theory. For more details on this approach, we refer the reader to De la Sen and Agarwal [8], Kumam et al. [9–11], di Bari et al. [12], Eldred and Veeramani [13], Al-Thagafi and Shahzad [14], Sadiq Basha and Veeramani [15], Kim and Lee [16], Kirk et al. [17], Sankar Raj [18], Karapınar et al. [19], and Jleli and Samet [20]. The study of best proximity point in the setting of partially ordered metric space attracted recently the attention of many authors; see [21–33].
Now we recall the definition of coupled fixed point. Let X be a nonempty set and F:X×X→X a given mapping. An element (x,y)∈X×X is called a coupled fixed point of the mapping F if F(x,y)=x and F(y,x)=y. In 2006, Bhaskar and Lakshmikantham [34] proved some coupled fixed point theorems for mappings satisfying the mixed monotone mapping. Indeed, let (X,≤) be a partially ordered set; the mapping F is said to have the mixed monotone property if
(1)x1,x2∈X,x1≤x2⟹F(x1,y)≤F(x2,y),11.1∀y∈X,y1,y2∈X,y1≤y2⟹F(x,y1)≥F(x,y2),11.1∀x∈X.
Their results investigate a large class of problems and show the existence and uniqueness of a solution for a periodic boundary value problem. For more details on this concept one may go through the references [35–37].
Motivated by the above theorems, we introduce the concept of proximally mixed monotone property and proximally coupled contraction. We also explore the existence and uniqueness of coupled best proximity points in the setting of partially ordered metric spaces, thereby producing optimal approximate solutions for that function with respect to both coordinates. Further, we attempt to give the generalization of the results in [34].
2. Preliminaries
Let X be a nonempty set such that (X,d) is a metric space. Unless otherwise specified, it is assumed throughout this section that A and B are nonempty subsets of the metric space (X,d); the following notions are used subsequently:
(2)d(A,B):=inf{d(x,y):x∈A,y∈B},A0={x∈A:d(x,y)=d(A,B)forsomey∈B},B0={y∈B:d(x,y)=d(A,B)forsomex∈A}.
In [17], the authors discussed sufficient conditions which guarantee the nonemptiness of A0 and B0. Also, in [15], the authors proved that A0 is contained in the boundary of A. Moreover, the authors proved that A0 is contained in the boundary of A in the setting of normed linear spaces.
Definition 1.
Let (X,d,≤) be a partially ordered metric space and A, B nonempty subsets of X. A mapping F:A×A→B is said to have proximal mixed monotone property if F(x,y) is proximally nondecreasing in x and is proximally nonincreasing in y; that is, for all x,y∈A,
(3)x1≤x2d(u1,F(x1,y))=d(A,B)d(u2,F(x2,y))=d(A,B)}⟹u1≤u2,y1≤y2d(u3,F(x,y1))=d(A,B)d(u4,F(x,y2))=d(A,B)}⟹u4≤u3,
where x1,x2,y1,y2,u1,u2,u3,u4∈A.
One can see that, if A=B in the above definition, the notion of proximal mixed monotone property reduces to that of mixed monotone property.
Lemma 2.
Let (X,d,≤) be a partially ordered metric space and A, B nonempty subsets of X. Assume that A0 is nonempty. A mapping F:A×A→B has proximal mixed monotone property with F(A0×A0)⊆B0; then for any x0, x1, x2, y0, y1 in A0(4)x0≤x1,y0≥y1d(x1,F(x0,y0))=d(A,B)d(x2,F(x1,y1))=d(A,B)}⟹x1≤x2.
Proof.
By hypothesis F(A0×A0)⊆B0, F(x1,y0)∈B0. Hence there exists x1*∈A such that
(5)d(x1*,F(x1,y0))=d(A,B).
Using F is proximal mixed monotone (in particular F is proximally nondecreasing in x) to (4) and (5), we get
(6)x0≤x1d(x1,F(x0,y0))=d(A,B)d(x1*,F(x1,y0))=d(A,B)}⟹x1≤x1*.
Analogously, using F is proximal mixed monotone (in particular F is proximally nonincreasing in y) to (4) and (5), we get
(7)y1≤y0d(x2,F(x1,y1))=d(A,B)d(x1*,F(x1,y0))=d(A,B)}⟹x1*≤x2.
From (6) and (7), one can conclude that x1≤x2. Hence the proof is completed.
Lemma 3.
Let (X,d,≤) be a partially ordered metric space and A, B nonempty subsets of X. Assume that A0 is nonempty. A mapping F:A×A→B has proximal mixed monotone property with F(A0×A0)⊆B0; then for any x0, x1, y0, y1, y2 in A0(8)x0≤x1,y0≥y1d(y1,F(y0,x0))=d(A,B)d(y2,F(y1,x1))=d(A,B)}⟹y1≥y2.
Proof.
The proof is same as Lemma 2.
Definition 4.
Let (X,d,≤) be a partially ordered metric space and A, B nonempty subsets of X. A mapping F:A×A→B is said to be proximally coupled contraction if there exists k∈(0,1) such that whenever
(9)x1≤x2,y1≥y2d(u1,F(x1,y1))=d(A,B)d(u2,F(x2,y2))=d(A,B)}⟹d(u1,u2)≤k2[d(x1,x2)+d(y1,y2)],
where x1,x2,y1,y2,u1,u2∈A.
One can see that, if A=B in the above definition, the notion of proximally coupled contraction reduces to that of coupled contraction.
3. Coupled Best Proximity Point Theorems
Let (X,d,≤) be a partially ordered complete metric space endowed with the product space X×X with the following partial order:
(10)for(x,y),(u,v)∈X×X,(u,v)≤(x,y)⟺x≥u,y≤v.
Theorem 5.
Let (X,≤,d) be a partially ordered complete metric space. Let A and B be nonempty closed subsets of the metric space (X,d) such that A0≠∅. Let F:A×A→B satisfy the following conditions.
Fis a continuous proximally coupled contraction having the proximal mixed monotone property on A such that F(A0×A0)⊆B0.
There exist elements (x0,y0) and (x1,y1) in A0×A0 such that
(11)d(x1,F(x0,y0))=d(A,B)withx0≤x1,d(y1,F(y0,x0))=d(A,B)withy0≥y1.
Then there exist (x,y)∈A×A such that d(x,F(x,y))=d(A,B) and d(y,F(y,x))=d(A,B).
Proof.
By hypothesis there exist elements (x0,y0) and (x1,y1) in A0×A0 such that
(12)d(x1,F(x0,y0))=d(A,B)withx0≤x1,d(y1,F(y0,x0))=d(A,B)withy0≥y1.
Because of the fact that F(A0×A0)⊆B0, there exists an element (x2,y2) in A0×A0 such that
(13)d(x2,F(x1,y1))=d(A,B),d(y2,F(y1,x1))=d(A,B).
Hence from Lemmas 2 and 3, we obtain x1≤x2 and y1≥y2.
Continuing this process, we can construct the sequences (xn) and (yn) in A0 such that
(14)d(xn+1,F(xn,yn))=d(A,B),∀n∈ℕ
with x0≤x1≤x2≤⋯xn≤xn+1⋯ and
(15)d(yn+1,F(yn,xn))=d(A,B),∀n∈ℕ
with y0≥y1≥y2≥⋯yn≥yn+1⋯.
Then d(xn,F(xn-1,yn-1))=d(A,B), d(xn+1,F(xn,yn))=d(A,B) and also we have xn-1≤xn, yn-1≥yn, ∀n∈ℕ. Now using that F is proximally coupled contraction on A we get
(16)d(xn,xn+1)≤k2[d(xn-1,xn)+d(yn-1,yn)],∀n∈ℕ.
Similarly
(17)d(yn,yn+1)≤k2[d(yn-1,yn)+d(xn-1,xn)],∀n∈ℕ.
Adding (16) and (17), we get
(18)d(xn,xn+1)+d(yn,yn+1)≤k[d(xn-1,xn)+d(yn-1,yn)]≤k[k[d(xn-2,xn-1)+d(yn-2,yn-1)]]≤⋯≤kn[d(x0,x1)+d(y0,y1)].
Finally, we get
(19)d(xn,xn+1)+d(yn,yn+1)≤kn[d(x0,x1)+d(y0,y1)].
Now we prove that (xn) and (yn) are Cauchy sequences.
For n>m, regarding triangle inequality and (19), one can observe that
(20)d(xn,xm)+d(yn,ym)≤d(xn,xn-1)+d(yn,yn-1)+⋯+d(xm,xm+1)+d(ym,ym+1)≤(kn-1+⋯+km)[d(x0,x1)+d(y0,y1)]≤km1-k[d(x0,x1)+d(y0,y1)].
Let ϵ>0 be given. Choose a natural number M such that (km/(1-k))[d(x0,x1)+d(y0,y1)]<ϵ for all m>M. Thus, d(xn,xm)+d(yn,ym)<ϵ for n>m. Therefore, the sequences (xn) and (yn) are Cauchy.
Since A is closed subset of a complete metric space X, these sequences have limits. Thus, there exists x,y∈A such that xn→x and yn→y. Therefore (xn,yn)→(x,y) in A×A. Since F is continuous, we have F(xn,yn)→F(x,y) and F(yn,xn)→F(y,x).
Hence the continuity of the metric function d implies that d(xn+1,F(xn,yn))→d(x,F(x,y)) and d(yn+1,F(yn,xn))→d(y,F(y,x)). But from (14) and (15) we get that the sequences d(xn+1,F(xn,yn)) and d(yn+1,F(yn,xn)) are constant sequences with the value d(A,B). Therefore, d(x,F(x,y))=d(A,B) and d(y,F(y,x))=d(A,B). This completes the proof of the theorem.
Corollary 6.
Let (X,≤,d) be a partially ordered complete metric space. Let A be nonempty closed subset of the metric space (X,d). Let F:A×A→A satisfy the following conditions.
F is continuous having the proximal mixed monotone property and proximally coupled contraction on A.
There exist (x0,y0) and (x1,y1) in A×A such that x1=F(x0,y0) with x0≤x1 and y1=F(y0,x0) with y0≥y1.
Then there exist (x,y)∈A×A such that d(x,F(x,y))=0 and d(y,F(y,x))=0.
In what follows we prove that Theorem 5 is still valid for F not necessarily continuous, assuming the following hypothesis in A:
(21)(xn)isanondecreasingsequenceinAsuchthatxn⟶x;thenxn≤x.(yn)isanonincreasingsequenceinAsuchthatyn⟶y;theny≤yn.
Theorem 7.
Assume the conditions (21) and A0 is closed in X instead of continuity of F in Theorem 5; then the conclusion of Theorem 5 holds.
Proof.
Following the proof of Theorem 5, there exist sequences (xn) and (yn) in A satisfying the following conditions:
(22)d(xn+1,F(xn,yn))=d(A,B)withxn≤xn+1,∀n∈ℕ,(23)d(yn+1,F(yn,xn))=d(A,B)withyn≥yn+1,∀n∈ℕ.
Moreover, (xn) converges to x and yn converges to y in A. From (21), we get xn≤x and yn≥y. Note that the sequences (xn) and (yn) are in A0 and A0 is closed. Therefore, (x,y)∈A0×A0. Since F(A0×A0)⊆B0, there exists F(x,y) and F(y,x) are in B0. Therefore, there exists (x*,y*)∈A0×A0 such that
(24)d(x*,F(x,y))=d(A,B),(25)d(y*,F(y,x))=d(A,B).
Since xn≤x and yn≥y. By using F is proximally coupled contraction for (22) and (24) also for (25) and (23), we get
(26)d(xn+1,x*)≤k2[d(xn,x)+d(yn,y)],∀n,d(y*,yn+1)≤k2[d(y,yn)+d(x,xn)],∀n.
Since xn→x and yn→y, by taking limit on the above two inequality, we get x=x* and y=y*. Consequently the result follows.
Corollary 8.
Assume the conditions (21) instead of continuity of F in Corollary 6; then the conclusion of Corollary 6 holds.
Now, we present an example where it can be appreciated that hypotheses in Theorems 5 and 7 do not guarantee uniqueness of the coupled best proximity point.
Example 9.
Let X={(0,1),(1,0),(-1,0),(0,-1)}⊂ℝ2 and consider the usual order (x,y)⪯(z,t)⇔x≤z and y≤t.
Thus, (X,⪯) is a partially ordered set. Besides, (X,d2) is a complete metric space considering d2 the euclidean metric. Let A={(0,1),(1,0)} and B={(0,-1),(-1,0)} be closed subsets of X. Then, d(A,B)=2, A=A0 and B=B0. Let F:A×A→B be defined as F((x1,x2),(y1,y2))=(-x2,-x1). Then, it can be seen that F is continuous such that F(A0×A0)⊆B0. The only comparable pairs of points in A are x⪯x for x∈A; hence proximal mixed monotone property and proximally coupled contraction on A are satisfied trivially.
It can be shown that the other hypotheses of the theorem are also satisfied. However, F has three coupled best proximity points ((0,1),(0,1)),((0,1),(1,0)), and ((1,0),(1,0)).
One can prove that the coupled best proximity point is in fact unique, provided that the product space A×A endowed with the partial order mentioned earlier has the following property:
(27)Everypairofelementshaseitheralowerboundoranupperbound.
It is known that this condition is equivalent to the following:
For every pair of (x,y),(x*,y*)∈A×A, there exists (z1,z2) in A×A. (28)thatiscomparableto(x,y),(x*,y*).
Theorem 10.
In addition to the hypothesis of Theorem 5 (resp., Theorem 7), suppose that for any two elements (x,y) and (x*,y*) in A0×A0,
(29)thereexists(z1,z2)∈A0×A0suchthat(z1,z2)iscomparableto(x,y),(x*,y*);
then F has a unique coupled best proximity point.
Proof.
From Theorem 5 (resp., Theorem 7), the set of coupled best proximity points of F is nonempty. Suppose that there exist (x,y) and (x*,y*) in A×A which are coupled best proximity points. That is,
(30)d(x,F(x,y))=d(A,B),d(y,F(y,x))=d(A,B),d(x*,F(x*,y*))=d(A,B),d(y*,F(y*,x*))=d(A,B).
We distinguish two cases.
Case 1. Suppose that (x,y) is comparable. Let (x,y) be comparable to (x*,y*) with respect to the ordering in A×A. Apply F as proximally coupled contraction to d(x,F(x,y))=d(A,B) and d(x*,F(x*,y*))=d(A,B), there exists k∈(0,1) such that
(31)d(x,x*)≤k2[d(x,x*)+d(y,y*)].
Similarly, one can prove that
(32)d(y,y*)≤k2[d(y,y*)+d(x,x*)].
Adding (31) and (32), we get
(33)d(x,x*)+d(y,y*)≤k[d(x,x*)+d(y,y*)].
This implies that d(x,x*)+d(y,y*)=0; hence x=x* and y=y*.
Case 2. Suppose that (x,y) is not comparable. Let (x,y) be noncomparable to (x*,y*); then there exists (u1,v1)∈A0×A0 which is comparable to (x,y) and (x*,y*).
Since F(A0×A0)⊆B0, there exists (u2,v2)∈A0×A0 such that d(u2,F(u1,v1))=d(A,B) and d(v2,F(v1,u1))=d(A,B). Without loss of generality assume that (u1,v1)≤(x,y) (i.e., x≥u1 and y≤v1.) Note that (u1,v1)≤(x,y) implies that (y,x)≤(v1,u1). From Lemmas 2 and 3, we get
(34)u1≤x,v1≥yd(u2,F(u1,v1))=d(A,B)d(x,F(x,y))=d(A,B)}⟹u2≤x,u1≤x,v1≥yd(v2,F(v1,u1))=d(A,B)d(y,F(y,x))=d(A,B)}⟹v2≥y.
From the above two inequalities, we obtain (u2,v2)≤(x,y). Continuing this process, we get sequences {un} and {vn} such that d(un+1,F(un,vn))=d(A,B) and d(vn+1,F(vn,un))=d(A,B) with (un,vn)≤(x,y)∀n∈ℕ. By using that F is a proximally coupled contraction, we get
(35)un≤x,vn≥yd(un+1,F(un,vn))=d(A,B)d(x,F(x,y))=d(A,B)⇓d(un+1,x)≤k2[d(un,x)+d(vn,y)],∀n∈ℕ.
Similarly, we can prove that
(36)y≤vn,x≥und(y,F(y,x))=d(A,B)d(vn+1,F(vn,un))=d(A,B)⇓d(y,vn+1)≤k2[d(y,vn)+d(x,un)],∀n∈ℕ.
Adding (35) and (36), we obtain
(37)d(un+1,x)+d(y,vn+1)≤k[d(un,x)+d(vn,y)].d(un+1,x)+d(y,vn+1)≤k[d(un,x)+d(vn,y)]≤k2[d(un-1,x)+d(vn-1,y)]⋯≤kn+1[d(u0,x)+d(v0,y)].
As n→∞, we get d(un+1,x)+d(y,vn+1)→0, so that un→x and vn→y.
Analogously, one can prove that un→x* and vn→y*. Therefore, x=x* and y=y*. Hence the proof is completed.
Example 11.
Let X=ℝ be endowed with usual metric, and with the usual order in ℝ.
Suppose that A=[1,2] and B=[-2,-1]. Then A and B are nonempty closed subsets of X and A0=1 and B0=-1. Also note that d(A,B)=2.
Now consider the function F:A×A→B defined as
(38)F(x,y)=-x-y-24.
Then it can be seen that F is continuous and F(1,1)=-1. Hence, F(A0×A0)⊆B0. It is easy to see that other hypotheses of the Theorem 10 are also satisfied. Further, it is easy to see that (1,1) is the unique element satisfying the conclusion of Theorem 10.
The following result, due to Fan [7], is a corollary Theorem 10 by taking A=B.
Corollary 12.
In addition to the hypothesis of Corollary 6 (resp., Corollary 8), suppose that for any two elements (x,y) and (x*,y*) in A×A,
(39)thereexists(z1,z2)∈A×Asuchthat(z1,z2)iscomparableto(x,y),(x*,y*);
then F has a unique coupled fixed point.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research Dr. K. Sitthithakerngkiet was funded by King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok (Contract no. KMUTNB-GEN-57-19). Moreover, the third author was supported by the Higher Education Research Promotion and National Research University Project of Thailand, Office of the Higher Education Commission (NRU2557).
BanachS.Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leurs applications auxéquations intégrales19223133181ArvanitakisA. D.A proof of the generalized Banach contraction conjecture200313112364736562-s2.0-034535989010.1090/S0002-9939-03-06937-5ChoudhuryB. S.DasK.A new contraction principle in menger spaces2008248137913862-s2.0-5134912210410.1007/s10114-007-6509-xSuzukiT.A generalized banach contraction principle that characterizes metric completeness20081365186118692-s2.0-4314911073410.1090/S0002-9939-07-09055-7AlikhaniH.GopalD.MiandaraghM. A.RezapourSh.ShahzadN.Some endpoint results for β-generalized weak contractive multifunctions20132013710.1155/2013/948472948472KumamP.RouzkardF.ImdadM.GopalD.Fixed point theorems on ordered metric spaces through a rational contraction20132013910.1155/2013/206515206515FanK.Extensions of two fixed point theorems of F. E. Browder196911232342402-s2.0-000031086710.1007/BF01110225De la SenM.AgarwalR. P.Some fixed point-type results for a class of extended cyclic self-mappings with a more general contractive condition20112011, article 59KumamP.SalimiP.VetroC.Best proximity point results for modified -proximal C-contraction mappings20142014, article 99KumamP.AydiH.KarapinarE.SintunavaratW.Best proximity points and extension of Mizoguchi-Takahashi's fixed point theorems20132013, article 24210.1186/1687-1812-2013-242KumamP.Roldn-Lpez-de-HierroA.On existence and uniqueness of g-best proximity points under (φ,θ,α,g)-contractivity conditions and consequences201420141410.1155/2014/234027234027di BariC.SuzukiT.VetroC.Best proximity points for cyclic Meir-Keeler contractions20086911379037942-s2.0-5394910109810.1016/j.na.2007.10.014EldredA. A.VeeramaniP.Existence and convergence of best proximity points20063232100110062-s2.0-3375060984210.1016/j.jmaa.2005.10.081Al-ThagafiM. A.ShahzadN.Convergence and existence results for best proximity points20097010366536712-s2.0-6174908694310.1016/j.na.2008.07.022Sadiq BashaS.VeeramaniP.Best proximity pair theorems for multifunctions with open fibres200010311191292-s2.0-004199529710.1006/jath.1999.3415KimW. K.LeeK. H.Existence of best proximity pairs and equilibrium pairs20063162433446KirkW. A.ReichS.VeeramaniP.Proximinal retracts and best proximity pair theorems2003247-88518622-s2.0-0346972989Sankar RajV.A best proximity point theorem for weakly contractive non-self-mappings20117414480448082-s2.0-7995792696910.1016/j.na.2011.04.052KarapınarE.PragadeeswararV.MarudaiM.Best proximity point for generalized proximal weak contractions in complete metric space20142014610.1155/2014/150941150941JleliM.SametB.Remarks on the paper: best proximity point theorems: An exploration of a common solution to approximation and optimization problems2014228366370BashaS. S.Discrete optimization in partially ordered sets20125435115172-s2.0-8005237243410.1007/s10898-011-9774-2AbkarA.GabelehM.Best proximity points for cyclic mappings in ordered metric spaces201115011881932-s2.0-7995815544210.1007/s10957-011-9810-xAbkarA.GabelehM.Generalized cyclic contractions in partially ordered metric spaces201268181918302-s2.0-8005178465810.1007/s11590-011-0379-ySintunavaratW.KumamP.Coupled best proximity point theorem in metric spaces20122012, article 93PragadeeswararV.MarudaiM.Best proximity points: approximation and optimization in partially ordered metric spaces2013718831892PragadeeswararV.MarudaiM.Best proximity points for generalized proximal weak contractions in partially ordered metric spaces201310.1007/s11590-013-0709-3MongkolkehaC.KumamP.Best proximity point Theorems for generalized cyclic contractions in ordered metric Spaces20121552152262-s2.0-8485616207010.1007/s10957-012-9991-ySanhanW.MongkolkehaC.KumamP.Generalized proximal -contraction mappings and Best proximity points20122012, article 4210.1186/1687-1812-2012-42MongkolkehaC.KumamP.Best proximity points for asymptotic proximal pointwise weaker Meir-Keeler-type -contraction mappings20132128790MongkolkehaC.KumamP.Some common best proximity points for proximity commuting mappings20137818251836MongkolkehaC.ChoY. J.KumamP.Best proximity points for generalized proxinal C-Contraction mappings in metric spaces with partial orders20132013, article 94MongkolkehaC.ChoY. J.KumamP.Best proximity points for Geraghty's proximal contraction mappings20132013, article 180MongkolkehaC.KongbanC.KumamP.The existence and uniqueness of best proximity point theorems for generalized almost contraction201420141110.1155/2014/813614813614BhaskarT. G.LakshmikanthamV.Fixed point theorems in partially ordered metric spaces and applications2006657137913932-s2.0-3374521511510.1016/j.na.2005.10.017LakshmikanthamV.ĆirićL.Coupled fixed point theorems for nonlinear contractions in partially ordered metric spaces20097012434143492-s2.0-6374910658410.1016/j.na.2008.09.020LuongN. V.ThuanN. X.Coupled fixed point theorems for mixed monotone mappings and an application to integral equations20116211423842482-s2.0-8075518907510.1016/j.camwa.2011.10.011ShatanawiW.Partially ordered cone metric spaces and coupled fixed point results2010608250825152-s2.0-7795737259810.1016/j.camwa.2010.08.074