Abstract and Applied Analysis

Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 752107, 11 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/752107

Research Article

Invariant Approximation Results via Common Fixed Point Theorems for Generalized Weak Contraction Maps

Savita Rathee,¹ Anil Kumar,¹ and Kenan Tas²

¹Department of Mathematics, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, Haryana 124001, India

²Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Cankaya University, Ankara, Turkey

Received 25 March 2014; Revised 22 May 2014; Accepted 8 June 2014; Published 17 July 2014

Academic Editor: Erdal Karapinar

Copyright © 2014 Savita Rathee et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

A common fixed point theorem for generalized -weak contraction in a metric space is established. As an application, some common fixed point results in normed linear spaces are obtained. We also study some results on best approximation via common fixed point theorems. Our result improves some results from the existing literature. Some illustrative examples to highlight the realized improvements are also furnished.

1. Introduction

Let be a metric space. A mapping is said to be contraction if there exists such that for all

If the metric space is complete, then the mapping satisfying (1) has a unique fixed point. This is known as the Banach contraction principle and is one of the significant results in nonlinear analysis. Inequality (1) also implies the continuity of .

Due to its importance and usefulness, generalizations of the above contraction principle have been a very active field of research for the last four decades (see, e.g., [1–27]).

In 1997, Alber and Guerre-Delabriere [1] introduced the concept of weakly contractive mappings and proved the existence of fixed points for weakly contractive mappings in Hilbert spaces. Thereafter, Rhoades [2] assumed -weakly contractive mappings which satisfies the condition

where and is a continuous and nondecreasing function such that if and only if and shows that most of the results of Alber and Guerre-Delabriere [1] are still true in Banach spaces. If one takes , where , then (2) reduces to (1).

Recently, Zhang and Song [3] used the generalized -weak contraction and proved the following result.

Theorem 1 (see [3]). Let be a complete metric space and let be a map such that for all

where is a lower semicontinuous function with for and ,

Then there exists the unique point such that .

Further, using the control function defined by Khan et al. [4], the above result has been generalized by many authors (see [5–7]). On the other hand, Berinde [8] introduced the notion of -weak contraction and proved that many well-known contractive conditions do imply -weak contraction. The concept of -weak contraction does not ask to be less than 1 as happens in condition (1). Afterward, many authors study this new class of weak contraction and obtained some significant result (see [8–12]).

Definition 2. A map is called generalized -weak contraction, if for each

where ,

and is a continuous monotone nondecreasing function with if and only if and is a lower semicontinuous function from right such that is positive on and .

If , then is said to be generalized -weak contraction. If , then is called generalized -weak contraction. If identity map, that is, coincides with , then is called generalized -weak contraction which is exactly the maps studied by Doric [5]. Again, if and , then is called generalized -weak contraction which is the same as generalized -weak contraction investigated by Akbar et al. (see [22]) and if for a constant with , then is called generalized -contraction which has been introduced by Song [21]. In Equation (5), if (identity map), then is called generalized ()-weak contraction.

Remark 3. It is obvious that the class of generalized -weak contraction contains the class of generalized -weak contraction and hence contains the class of generalized -weak contraction, but the converse is not true, as shown by Remark 30.

In this paper, we prove that there is a unique common fixed point for generalized -weak contractive mappings in a metric space. As an application, some common fixed point results in normed linear space are obtained. We apply these theorems to obtain some results on invariant approximation. Our results generalize and extend the corresponding results of [5, 11, 12, 16–23, 28] to the class of generalized -weak contractive maps.

2. Preliminaries

We need the following known definitions and standard notations in the sequel.

Let be a nonempty subset of a normed space . The set is called the set of best approximants to out of , where . We denote and cl (resp., wcl) by the set of positive integers and the closure (resp., weak closure) of a set in . Let be mappings. The set of fixed point of is denoted by . A point is a coincidence point (common fixed point) of and if . The set of coincidence point of and is denoted by . The pair is called

(1)commuting if for all ,(2)compatible [13] if whenever is a sequence in such that for some ,(3)weakly compatible [14] if for all ,(4)Banach operator pair [16] if the set is -invariant; that is, .

Apparently, a commuting pair () is a Banach operator pair but not conversely. If is a Banach operator pair, then need not be Banach operator pair (see [16]).

The set is called -star shaped with if the segment joining to is contained in for all . The map defined on is said to be (5) affine [18] if is convex and for all and and (6) -affine [18] if is -star shaped and for all and .

Suppose that is -star shaped with and is both - and -invariant. Then and are called

(1)-commuting [18] if for all , where , where ,(2)-subweakly commuting on [15] if, for all , there exists a real number such that .

Definition 4. A map is said to be demiclosed at if whenever is a sequence in such that converges weakly to and converges strongly to 0; then .

Definition 5. A Banach space is said to satisfy Opial’s condition if whenever is a sequence in such that converges weakly to ; the inequality

holds for all . Every Hilbert space and the space satisfy Opial’s condition.

Lemma 6. If   and is a Cauchy sequence, then is also a Cauchy sequence.

Proof. Since is a Cauchy sequence, we have that, for a given , there is a such that for every we have . Also, since we have that, given , there is a such that, for every , . Now, suppose ; then we have three possibilities.

(a)If and are both even numbers, let , ; then .(b)If is even and is odd, let , ; then by the triangle inequality .(c)If are both odd numbers, let +1, ; then using the previous estimate .

Therefore is Cauchy.

3. Main Results

The following result extends and improves Theorem 2.2 of [5], Theorem 2.4 of [11], Theorem 2.1 of [12], and Theorem 2.1 of [18].

Theorem 7. Let be a nonempty subset of a metric space and , and are self-mappings of such that . Assume that is complete and is generalized -weak contraction. Then the pairs and have a unique point of coincidence in . Also, if the pairs and are weakly compatible, then is singleton.

Proof. Let be an arbitrary point. Since , we can choose a point such that . Similarly a point can be chosen such that . Continuing this process, we obtain a sequence in such that and for every . If, for some , = , then turns out to be a constant sequence and hence it is Cauchy. Now suppose that .

Using the fact that is generalized -weak contraction, for each , we have

where

Since , therefore we have

This implies

As is a nondecreasing function, therefore for each we have

Now from the triangle inequality for we have

If , then > 0. It furthermore implies that

This is a contradiction; therefore we have

Similarly, it can be shown that

Therefore, for each , we have

Thus, the sequence is monotone nonincreasing and bounded. So there exist such that

After letting in (10), we obtain ≤ , which is a contradiction unless .

Hence

Because of (19) and Lemma 6, to show to be a Cauchy sequence in , it is sufficient to show that is a Cauchy in .

Suppose not, then there exists for which we can find subsequences and of with such that, for every , and . So we have

Now using (19), we have

Moreover, using the known relation , we obtain

Then by using (19) and (21), we get

Again from the relation

using (19) and (23), we get

Now from

using (19) and (25), we get

Again, using the fact that is generalized -weak contraction, we get

where

And

Letting in (28), we get

which is a contradiction with . Thus is a Cauchy sequence and hence is a Cauchy sequence; therefore by the completeness of there is some such that

Further, ; therefore there exist such that

Since is generalized -weak contraction, therefore

where

Now using (32) and (33), we can write

Therefore, letting in (34), we get

This is true only if ; that is, and is coincidence point of and .

Since is generalized -weak contraction, therefore

where

Therefore, (32) and (33) imply

Then, letting in (38), we obtain

This is true only if ; that is, and is coincidence point of and . Thus the pairs and have a common point of coincidence in .

If the pairs and are weakly compatible, then and and hence . Now, we have to show that .

Further, using the fact that is generalized -weak contraction, we have

where

Then from (42), we get

This is true only if which implies .

Moreover, it can be easily shown that this is unique and hence is singleton.

If we take = identity mapping in Theorem 7, then we have the following result.

Corollary 8. Let be a nonempty subset of a metric space and let be a self-mapping of such that . Assume that is complete and is generalized -weak contraction. Then is singleton.

Corollary 9 (see [5], Theorem 2.2). Let be a complete metric space and let be a self-mapping of . If is generalized (-weak contractions, then there is a unique fixed point of .

In Corollary 8, if and , then Theorem 1 can be obtained as a particular case of the following result.

Corollary 10. Let be a subset of a metric space and let be a self-mapping of such that . Assume that is complete and is generalized -weak contractions. Then is singleton.

Remark 11. (1) In Theorem 7, if and for a constant with , then we obtain Theorem 2.1 of Song [21] as a particular case of Theorem 7.

(2) In Theorem 7, if and for a constant with , then for = identity map (resp., ) we obtain Theorem 2.4 of Berinde [11] (resp., Theorem 2.1 of Abbas and Ilić [12]) as a particular case of Theorem 7.

As an application of Corollary 8, we obtain the following general common fixed point result.

Theorem 12. Let be a nonempty subset of a metric space and , and are self-maps of . Assume that is complete, is generalized -weak contraction, is nonempty, and . Then is singleton.

Proof. is complete by the completeness of . Also, for all , we have by generalized -weak contractiveness of :

where , .

Hence is generalized -weak contraction mapping on . As , thus, by Corollary 8, has a unique fixed point in and, consequently, is singleton.

Corollary 13. Let be a nonempty subset of a metric space and and are Banach operator pairs on . Assume that is complete, is generalized -weak contraction, and is nonempty and closed. Then is singleton.

Proof. Since and are Banach operator pairs on , therefore ; then by closedness of we have . By Theorem 12, has a unique fixed point in and, consequently, is singleton.

In Theorem 12, if , then we easily obtain the following results which properly contain Theorem 3.3 of Akbar et al. [22].

Corollary 14. Let be a nonempty subset of a metric space and , and are self-maps of . Assume that is complete, is generalized -weak contraction, is nonempty, and . Then is singleton.

In Corollary 14, if and for a constant with , then for we obtain the following result which improves Lemma 3.1 of Chen and Li [16] and Theorem 2.2 of Al-Thagafi and Shahzad [19].

Corollary 15. Let be a nonempty subset of a metric space and and are self-maps of . Assume that is complete, is generalized -contraction, is nonempty, and . Then is singleton.

The following theorem properly contains Theorem 3.8 and Corollary 3.9 of Akbar et al. [22].

Theorem 16. Let be a nonempty subset of a normed [resp., Banach] space and , and are self-maps of . Suppose that is -star shaped,   resp., , and , and satisfy

for all and , where

(a) is a continuous monotone nondecreasing function with if and only if ,(b) is a lower semicontinuous function from right such that is positive on and ,(c), ,(d).

Then provided that is compact [resp., is weakly compact] and is continuous [resp., is demiclosed at 0, where stands for identity map].

Proof. For each , we define by for all and a fixed sequence of real numbers converging to 1. Since is -star shaped and [resp., , we have [resp., for each . Let and . Then by using (46), for all , we have

where

Clearly, is a lower semicontinuous function from right such that is positive on and and . Thus, for each is generalized -weak contraction. As is compact [resp., is weakly compact], therefore, for each , is compact [resp., is weakly compact]. Thus, [resp., is complete for each . By Theorem 12, for each , there exists in such that .

Again the compactness of implies that there exists a subsequence of such that . Since is a sequence in and , therefore . Moreover

As is continuous on , we have . Thus .

Next, weak compactness of implies that there exists a subsequence of such that converges weakly to. Since is a sequence in and , therefore . Also we have → 0 as . Further, demiclosedness of at 0 implies . Thus .

Corollary 17. Let be a nonempty subset of a normed [resp., Banach] space and , and are self-maps of . Suppose that is -star shaped and closed [resp., weakly closed] and and are Banach operator pairs and satisfy (46). Then provided that is compact [resp., is weakly compact] and is continuous [resp., is demiclosed at 0, where stands for identity map].

In Theorem 16, if and for a constant with , then we easily obtain the following result.

Corollary 18. Let be a nonempty subset of a normed [resp., Banach] space and , and are self-maps of . Suppose that is -star shaped, [resp., , and , , and satisfy

where

Then provided that is compact [resp., wcl is weakly compact] and is continuous [resp., is demiclosed at 0, where stands for identity map].

Remark 19. (1) By comparing Theorem 2.3(i) of Abbas and Ilić [12] with the first case of Corollary 18 (when ), their assumptions “ is -star shaped, , and and are weakly compatible on ” are replaced with “ is -star shaped and ."

(2) By comparing Theorem 2.3(ii) of Abbas and Ilić [12] with the second case of Corollary 18 (when ), their assumptions “ is -star shaped, , and are weakly compatible on , is weakly continuous, and is demiclosed at 0” are replaced with “ is -star shaped, , and is weakly continuous.”

(3) By comparing Theorem 2.4 of Song [21] with the first case of Corollary 18 (when ), his assumptions “ is -star shaped, , the pairs and are -commuting, and and are -affine and continuous on ” are replaced with is -star shaped and .”

(4) By comparing Theorem 2.2(i) of Hussain and Jungck [20] with the first case of Corollary 18 ( when ), their assumptions “ is complete and -star shaped, and are continuous and affine on ,  ,  , and and are -subweakly commuting pair on ” are replaced with “ is -star shaped and .”

(5) By comparing Theorem 2.2(ii) of Hussain and Jungck [20] with the second case of Corollary 18 ( when ), their assumptions “ is weakly compact and -star shaped, and are affine and continuous on ,  , , and are -subweakly commuting pair on , and is demiclosed at 0” are replaced with “ is weakly compact, is -star shaped, , and is demiclosed at 0.”

Corollary 20. Let be a normed space [resp., Banach] and , , and are self-maps of . If and , is -star shaped, [resp., wcl ], is compact [resp., wcl is weakly compact], is continuous on [resp., is demiclosed at 0, where stands for identity map], and (46) holds for all , then .

Remark 21. Corollary 20 improves Theorem 2.8 of Hussain and Jungck [20], Theorems 3.1–3.4 of Song [21], and Corollary 2.5 of Al-Thagafi and Shahzad [19]. It is also noted that Corollary 3.13 of Akbar et al. [22] is a special case of Corollary 20.

We denote by the class of closed convex subsets of containing 0. For , we define . Clearly .

Theorem 22. Let be a normed [resp., Banach] space and . If and such that , is compact [resp., wcl is weakly compact], and for all , then is nonempty, closed, and convex with . If, in addition, is a subset of ,   is -star shaped, [resp., wcl ,   is continuous on [resp., is demiclosed at 0, where stands for identity map], and (46) holds for all , then .

Proof. We may assume that . If , then and so

Thus = . Assume that is compact; then by the continuity of norm, there exist such that .

If we assume that is weakly compact, then by using Lemma 5.5 of [24, p. 192] we can show the existence of such that . Thus, in both cases, we have

for all . It follows that . Thus is nonempty, closed, and convex with . The compactness of [resp., weak compactness of ] implies that is compact [resp., is weakly compact]. Then by Corollary 20, .

Remark 23. (i) Theorem 22 extends Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 of Al-Thagafi [17], Theorem 2.6 of Al-Thagafi and Shahzad [19], Theorem 2.14 of Hussain and Jungck [20], and Theorem 8 of Habiniak [23].

(ii) Theorem 3.15 of Akbar et al. [22] is a particular case of Theorem 22.

4. Examples

Now, in order to support the usability of our results, we present the following nontrivial examples.

Example 24. Let be endowed with the Euclidean metric and let and define by

Here and so that is nonempty and . Also , being a finite set, is complete. Define by

Now we will show that is generalized -weak contraction for . Let with and consider the following possible cases.

(i)If , then , , and . So,

 for all .(ii)If , then , , and . So,

 for all .(iii)If , then , , and . So,

 for all .(iv)If , then , , and . So,

 for all .(v)If , then and hence inequality (5) is obviously satisfied.

So, in view of the above discussion, we concluded that is generalized -weak contraction for . Therefore, all the conditions of Theorem 12 are satisfied and hence , and have a common fixed point. Here it is seen that 0 is the unique common fixed point of , and .

Remark 25. (1) In Example 24, it is to be noted that the maps , and do not satisfy the conditions and of [22] at the points and . Therefore, Theorems 2.2 and 3.3 of [22] cannot apply to Example 24.

(2) In Example 24, the maps , and do not satisfy the condition of [26] at the points . Therefore, Theorem 3.5 of [26] cannot apply to Example 24.

Example 26. Let be endowed with the Euclidean metric and define : by

We observe that and also being a finite set is complete. Define the function ,   by

Now, we prove that is generalized -weak contraction mapping for , that is, to verify the following inequality:

where

If , then and hence inequality (62) trivially holds. Let with ; then we have the following two possibilities.

(i)If , then and . Therefore

 This yields that

 holds for all .(ii)If , then by interchanging the role of and in case (i), inequality (62) follows.

Thus we checked that is generalized -weak contraction for all . Therefore, all the conditions of Corollary 8 are satisfied and hence has a fixed point in . Here it is seen that is the unique fixed point of .

Remark 27. In Example 26, is not complete since the sequence is not Cauchy in . Therefore, Theorem 2.2 of [5], Theorem 2.1 of [6], Theorem 2.4 of [11], and Corollary 3.1 of [25] cannot apply to Example 26.

Remark 28. Theorem 12 and first case of Theorem 7 are not true if we relax the condition and , respectively. This can be seen by the following example.

Example 29. Let with the usual metric and . Define by

Then , ; therefore is nonempty. Also, , being a closed subset of complete metric space, is complete. Further, and gives . Here, we observe that and .

Define the function ,   by

Then by using the routine calculation as is done in Example 24, one can easily check that is generalized -weak contraction for all . Hence all the conditions of Theorem 12 and first case of Theorem 7 except and , respectively, are satisfied. Note that , , and .

Remark 30. (1) In Example 24, is generalized -weak contraction for but it is not generalized -weak contraction at for any and defined in (5) and hence is not generalized -weak contraction. Note that .

(2) In Example 29, is generalized -weak contraction for but it is not generalized -weak contraction at , for any and defined in (5) and hence is not generalized -weak contraction. Note that .

5. Conclusions

We introduce a new class of generalized -weak contraction as a generalization of several known contractions and present a sufficient condition for the existence and uniqueness of common fixed point. Moreover, we also prove some invariant approximation result as an application and supporting examples are also given.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comment which helps to improve the contents and presentation of this paper.

References

Y. I. Alber and S. Guerre-Delabriere, “Principle of weakly contractive maps in Hilbert spaces,” in New Results in Operator Theory and Its Applications, Y. Lyubich, Ed., vol. 98 of Operator Theory: Advances and Applications, pp. 7–22, Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland, 1997.

B. E. Rhoades, “Some theorems on weakly contractive maps,” Nonlinear Analysis-theory Methods & Applications, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 2683–2693, 2001.

Q. Zhang and Y. Song, “Fixed point theory for generalized -weak contractions,” Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 75–78, 2009.

M. S. Khan, M. Swaleh, and S. Sessa, “Fixed point theorems by altering distances between the points,” Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 1984.

D. Doric, “Common fixed point for generalized -weak contractions,” Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 1896–1900, 2009.

M. Abbas and D. Đorić, “Common fixed point theorem for four mappings satisfying generalized weak contractive condition,” Filomat, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 1–10, 2010.

A. Razani, V. Parvaneh, and M. Abbas, “A common fixed point for generalized -weak contractions,” Ukrainian Mathematical Journal, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 1756–1769, 2012.

V. Berinde, “Approximating fixed points of weak contractions using the Picard iteration,” Nonlinear Analysis Forum, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 43–53, 2004.

G. V. R. Babu, M. L. Sandhya, and M. V. R. Kameswari, “A note on a fixed point theorem of Berinde on weak contractions,” Carpathian Journal of Mathematics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 8–12, 2008.

V. Berinde, “General constructive fixed point theorems for Ćirić-type almost contractions in metric spaces,” Carpathian Journal of Mathematics, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 10–19, 2008.

V. Berinde, “Some remarks on a fixed point theorem for Ćirić-type almost contractions,” Carpathian Journal of Mathematics, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 157–162, 2009.

M. Abbas and D. llić, “Common fixed points of generalized almost nonexpansive mappings,” Filomat, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 11–18, 2010.

G. Jungck, “Compatible mappings and common fixed points,” International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 771–779, 1986.

G. Jungck, “Common fixed points for noncontinuous nonself maps on nonmetric spaces,” Far East Journal of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 199–215, 1996.

N. Shahzad, “Invariant approximations and R-subweakly commuting maps,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 257, no. 1, pp. 39–45, 2001.

J. Chen and Z. Li, “Common fixed-points for Banach operator pairs in best approximation,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 336, no. 2, pp. 1466–1475, 2007.

M. A. Al-Thagafi, “Common fixed points and best approximation,” Journal of Approximation Theory, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 318–323, 1996.

M. A. Al-Thagafi and N. Shahzad, “Noncommuting selfmaps and invariant approximations,” Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 2778–2786, 2006.

M. A. Al-Thagafi and N. Shahzad, “Banach operator pairs, common fixed-points, invariant approximations, and -nonexpansive multimaps,” Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, vol. 69, no. 8, pp. 2733–2739, 2008.

N. Hussain and G. Jungck, “Common fixed point and invariant approximation results for noncommuting generalized -nonexpansive maps,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 321, no. 2, pp. 851–861, 2006.

Y. Song, “Common fixed points and invariant approximations for generalized -nonexpansive mappings,” Communications in Mathematical Analysis, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 17–26, 2007.

F. Akbar, A. R. Khan, and N. Sultana, “Common fixed point and approximation results for generalized -weak contractions,” Fixed Point Theory and Applications, vol. 2012, article 75, 2012.

L. Habiniak, “Fixed point theorems and invariant approximations,” Journal of Approximation Theory, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 241–244, 1989.

S. Singh, B. Watson, and P. Srivastava, Fixed Point Theory and Best Approximation: The KKM-Map Principle, vol. 424 of Mathematics and its Applications, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1997.

M. Jleli, E. Karapınar, and B. Samet, “Fixed point results for almost generalized cyclic -weak contractive type mappings with applications,” Abstract and Applied Analysis, vol. 2012, Article ID 917831, 17 pages, 2012.

S. Rathee and A. Kumar, “Some common fixed-point and invariant approximation results with generalized almost contractions,” Fixed Point Theory and Applications, vol. 2014, article 23, 2014.

A. Kumar, S. Rathee, and N. Kumar, “The point of coincidence and common fixed point for three mappings in cone metric spaces,” Journal of Applied Mathematics, vol. 2013, Article ID 146794, 6 pages, 2013.

N. Hussain and Y. J. Cho, “Weak contractions, common fixed points, and invariant approximations,” Journal of Inequalities and Applications, vol. 2009, Article ID 390634, 10 pages, 2009.