The object of this paper is to establish the existence and uniqueness of coupled fixed points under a (φ, ψ)-contractive condition for mixed monotone operators in the setup of partially ordered metric spaces. Presented work generalizes the recent results of Berinde (2011, 2012) and weakens the contractive conditions involved in the well-known results of Bhaskar and Lakshmikantham (2006), and Luong and Thuan (2011). The effectiveness of our work is validated with the help of a suitable example. As an application, we give a result of existence and uniqueness for the solutions of a class of nonlinear integral equations.
1. Introduction and Preliminaries
Fixed point theory is an important tool for studying the phenomenon of nonlinear analysis and is a bridge bond between pure and applied mathematics. The theory has its wide applications in engineering, computer science, physical and life sciences, economics, and other fields. Banach [1] introduced the well-known classical and valuable theorem in nonlinear analysis, which is named after him, known as the Banach contraction principle. This celebrated principle has been extended and improved by various authors in many ways over the years (see for instance [2–17]). Nowadays, fixed point theory has been receiving much attention in partially ordered metric spaces, that is, metric spaces endowed with a partial ordering. Ran and Reurings [17] were the first to establish the results in this direction. The results were then extended by Nieto and Rodríguez-López [10] for nondecreasing mappings. Works noted in [18–24] are some examples in this direction.
The work of Bhaskar and Lakshmikantham [25] is worth mentioning, as they introduced the new notion of fixed points for the mappings having domain the product space X×X, which they called coupled fixed points, and thereby proved some coupled fixed point theorems for mappings satisfying the mixed monotone property in partially ordered metric spaces. As an application, they discussed the existence and uniqueness of a solution for a periodic boundary value problem.
Definition 1 (see [25]).
Let (X,≤) be a partially ordered set. The mapping F:X×X→X is said to have the mixed monotone property if F(x,y) is monotone nondecreasing in x and monotone nonincreasing in y; that is, for any x, y∈X,
(1)x1,x2∈X,x1≤x2impliesF(x1,y)≤F(x2,y),y1,y2∈X,y1≤y2impliesF(x,y1)≥F(x,y2).
Definition 2 (see [25]).
An element (x,y)∈X×X is called a coupled fixed point of the mapping F:X×X→X if F(x,y)=x and F(y,x)=y.
Bhaskar and Lakshmikantham [25] gave the following result.
Theorem 3 (see [25]).
Let (X,≤) be a partially ordered set and suppose there exists a metric d on X such that (X,d) is a complete metric space. Let F:X×X→X be a continuous mapping having the mixed monotone property on X. Assume that there exists a k∈[0,1) with
(2)d(F(x,y),F(u,v))≤k2[d(x,u)+d(y,v)]
for all x, y, u, v∈X with x≥u and y≤v.
If there exist two elements x0, y0∈X with x0≤F(x0,y0) and y0≥F(y0,x0), then there exist x,y∈X such that x=F(x,y) and y=F(y,x).
It has also been shown in [25, Theorem 2.2] that the continuity assumption of F in Theorem 3 can be replaced by an alternative condition imposed on the convergent nondecreasing and nonincreasing sequences in the space X.
Assumption 4.
X has the property that
if a nondecreasing sequence {xn}n=0∞⊂X converges to x, then xn≤x for all n,
if a nonincreasing sequence {yn}n=0∞⊂X converges to y, then y≤yn for all n.
These results were then extended and generalized by several authors in the last six years (see [26–40]). Luong and Thuan [26, Theorem 2.1] extended the results of Bhaskar and Lakshmikantham [25] under the following contractive condition:
(3)φ(d(F(x,y),F(u,v)))≤12φ(d(x,u)+d(y,v))-ψ(d(x,u)+d(y,v)2),
with x≥u and y≤v, where φ, ψ:[0,∞)→[0,∞) are the functions such that
φ is continuous and nondecreasing;
φ(t)=0 if and only if t=0;
φ(t+s)≤φ(t)+φ(s), for all t, s∈[0,∞),
and the function ψ satisfies
(4)(iψ)limt→rψ(t)>0∀r>0,limt→0+ψ(t)=0.
Berinde [27, Theorem 3] in an alternative way generalized the results of Bhaskar and Lakshmikantham [25] under a weaker contraction as follows:
(5)d(F(x,y),F(u,v))+d(F(y,x),F(v,u))≤k[d(x,u)+d(y,v)],
with x≥u and y≤v, where k∈[0,1).
Berinde [28, Thoerem 2] further generalized and complemented the results noted in [25] and extended the work presented in [27] by considerably weakening the involved contractive condition as
(6)φ(d(F(x,y),F(u,v))+d(F(y,x),F(v,u))2)≤φ(d(x,u)+d(y,v)2)-ψ(d(x,u)+d(y,v)2),
with x≥u and y≤v, where φ, ψ: [0,∞)→[0,∞) are the functions such that
φ is continuous and (strictly) increasing;
φ(t)<t for all t>0;
φ(t+s)≤φ(t)+φ(s), for all t,s∈[0,∞),
and the function ψ satisfies (iψ).
2. Coupled Fixed Points
In order to proceed with developing of our work and obtain our results, we need to consider the following.
Let Φ denote all functions φ:[0,∞)→[0,∞) which satisfy the following:
φ is lower semicontinuous and (strictly) increasing;
φ(t)<t for all t>0;
φ(t+s)≤φ(t)+φ(s) for all t, s∈[0,∞).
We note that limn→∞φ(tn)=0 if and only if limn→∞tn=0 for tn∈[0,∞).
Also, for φ∈Φ, Ψφ denote all functions ψ:[0,∞)→[0,∞) which satisfy the following:
limsupn→∞ψ(tn)<φ(r) if limn→∞tn=r>0;
limn→∞ψ(tn)=0 if limn→∞tn=0 for tn∈[0,∞).
Now we are ready to prove our first main result as follows.
Theorem 5.
Let (X,≤) be a partially ordered set and there is a metric d on X such that (X,d) is a complete metric space. Suppose F:X×X→X is a mapping having mixed monotone property on X. Assume there exist φ∈Φ and ψ∈Ψφ such that
(7)φ(d(F(x,y),F(u,v))+d(F(y,x),F(v,u))2)≤ψ(d(x,u)+d(y,v)2)
for all x, y, u, v∈X with x≥u and y≤v (or x≤u and y≥v).
Suppose either (a) F is continuous or (b) X satisfies Assumption 4.
If there exist two elements x0, y0∈X with
(8)x0≤F(x0,y0),y0≥F(y0,x0),
or
(9)x0≥F(x0,y0),y0≤F(y0,x0),
then there exist x, y∈X such that
(10)x=F(x,y),y=F(y,x),
that is, F has a coupled fixed point in X.
Proof.
Without loss of generality, assume that there exist two elements x0, y0∈X such that (8) holds; that is, x0≤F(x0,y0) and y0≥F(y0,x0). Let x1=F(x0,y0) and y1=F(y0,x0). Then x0≤x1 and y0≥y1. Similarly, let x2=F(x1,y1) and y2=F(y1,x1). Since F has the mixed monotone property, then we have x1≤x2 and y1≥y2. Continuing in the same way, we can easily construct two sequences {xn} and {yn} in X such that xn+1=F(xn,yn), yn+1=F(yn,xn) and
(11)x0≤x1≤x2≤⋯xn≤xn+1≤⋯,y0≥y1≥y2≥⋯yn≥yn+1≥⋯.
If for some n≥0, we have (xn+1,yn+1)=(xn,yn), then F(xn,yn)=xn and F(yn,xn)=yn; that is, F has a coupled fixed point. So from now onwards, we suppose (xn+1,yn+1)≠(xn,yn), for all n≥0; that is, we suppose that either xn+1=F(xn,yn)≠xn or yn+1=F(yn,xn)≠yn.
Now applying inequality (7) with (x,y)=(xn,yn) and (u,v)=(xn+1,yn+1), for all n∈ℕ∪{0}, we get
(12)φ(d(xn+1,xn+2)+d(yn+1,yn+2)2)=φ((d(F(xn,yn),F(xn+1,yn+1))+d(F(yn,xn),F(yn+1,xn+1)))×(2)-1)≤ψ(d(xn,xn+1)+d(yn,yn+1)2),
then for all n≥0, we have
(13)φ(δn+1)≤ψ(δn),
where δn∶=(d(xn,xn+1)+d(yn,yn+1))/2.
Clearly, δn>0 for all n. Then for any n, we obtain
(14)φ(δn+1)≤ψ(δn)<φ(δn).
By monotonicity of φ, together with (14), we can easily see that {δn} is a nonnegative decreasing sequence in ℝ. So we have limn→∞δn=δ for some δ≥0. If δ>0, then using the properties of φ, ψ we get
(15)φ(δ)≤limsupn→∞φ(δn+1)≤limsupn→∞ψ(δn)<φ(δ),
which is a contradiction. Hence δ=0 and so we have
(16)limn→∞δn=limn→∞d(xn,xn+1)+d(yn,yn+1)2=0.
We now prove that {xn} and {yn} are Cauchy sequences. Suppose, to the contrary, that at least one of the sequences {xn}, {yn} is not a Cauchy sequence. Then there exists ε>0 for which we can find subsequences {xn(k)}, {xm(k)} of {xn} and {yn(k)}, {ym(k)} of {yn} with n(k)>m(k)≥k such that
(17)rk=d(xn(k),xm(k))+d(yn(k),ym(k))2≥ε.
Further, corresponding to m(k), we can choose n(k) in such a way that it is the smallest integer with n(k)>m(k)≥k and satisfies (17). Then,
(18)d(xn(k)-1,xm(k))+d(yn(k)-1,ym(k))2<ε.
By (17), (18), and triangle inequality, we have
(19)ε≤rk=d(xn(k),xm(k))+d(yn(k),ym(k))2≤{d(xn(k),xn(k)-1)+d(xn(k)-1,xm(k))+d(yn(k),yn(k)-1)+d(yn(k)-1,ym(k))}×(2)-1<d(xn(k),xn(k)-1)+d(yn(k),yn(k)-1)2+ε.
Letting k→∞ and using (16) in the last inequality, we have
(20)limk→∞rk=limk→∞[d(xn(k),xm(k))+d(yn(k),ym(k))2]=ε.
Again, by triangle inequality
(21)rk=d(xn(k),xm(k))+d(yn(k),ym(k))2≤{d(xn(k),xn(k)+1)+d(xn(k)+1,xm(k)+1)+d(xm(k)+1,xm(k))+d(yn(k),yn(k)+1)+d(yn(k)+1,ym(k)+1)+d(ym(k)+1,ym(k))}2=δn(k)+δm(k)+d(xn(k)+1,xm(k)+1)+d(yn(k)+1,ym(k)+1)2.
By monotonicity of φ and property (φiii), we have
(22)φ(rk)≤φ(δn(k))+φ(δm(k))+φ(d(xn(k)+1,xm(k)+1)+d(yn(k)+1,ym(k)+1)2).
Since n(k)>m(k), xn(k)≥xm(k), and yn(k)≤ym(k).
Then by (7), we have
(23)φ(d(xn(k)+1,xm(k)+1)+d(yn(k)+1,ym(k)+1)2)=φ((d(F(xn(k),yn(k)),F(xm(k),ym(k)))+d(F(yn(k),xn(k)),F(ym(k),xm(k))))×(2)-1)≤ψ(d(xn(k),xm(k))+d(yn(k),ym(k))2)=ψ(rk).
By (22) and (23), we have
(24)φ(rk)≤φ(δn(k))+φ(δm(k))+ψ(rk).
Since φ is lower semicontinuous by taking limit as k→∞, we get
(25)φ(ε)≤limsupk→∞φ(rk)≤limk→∞φ(δn(k))+limk→∞φ(δn(k))+limsupk→∞ψ(rk)<φ(ε),
a contradiction. Thus {xn} and {yn} are Cauchy sequences in complete metric space X and hence limn→∞xn=x and limn→∞yn=y for some x, y∈X.
Now suppose that assumption (a) holds. Then
(26)x=limn→∞xn+1=limn→∞F(xn,yn)=F(x,y),y=limn→∞yn+1=limn→∞F(yn,xn)=F(y,x),
which shows that (x,y) is a coupled fixed point of F.
Suppose now assumption (b) holds. Since {xn} is a nondecreasing sequence that converges to x, we have that xn≤x for all n. Similarly, yn≥y for all n.
Then
(27)d(x,F(x,y))≤d(x,xn+1)+d(xn+1,F(x,y))=d(x,xn+1)+d(F(xn,yn),F(x,y)),d(y,F(y,x))≤d(y,yn+1)+d(yn+1,F(y,x))=d(y,yn+1)+d(F(yn,xn),F(y,x)).
So
(28)d(x,F(x,y))-d(x,xn+1)≤d(F(xn,yn),F(x,y)),d(y,F(y,x))-d(y,yn+1)≤d(F(yn,xn),F(y,x))
and hence
(29)12[d(x,F(x,y))-d(x,xn+1)+d(y,F(y,x))-d(y,yn+1)]≤12[d(F(xn,yn),F(x,y))+d(F(yn,xn),F(y,x))]
which imply, by the monotonicity of φ and condition (7),
(30)φ(12[d(x,F(x,y))-d(x,xn+1)+d(y,F(y,x))-d(y,yn+1)]12)≤φ(12[d(F(xn,yn),F(x,y))+d(F(yn,xn),F(y,x))])≤ψ(d(xn,x)+d(yn,y)2).
Since φ is lower semicontinuous, by taking the limit as n→∞ in the above inequality, we get
(31)φ(12[d(x,F(x,y))+d(y,F(y,x))])≤limsupn→∞φ(12[d(x,F(x,y))-d(x,xn+1)hh+d(y,F(y,x))-d(y,yn+1)]12)≤limsupn→∞ψ(d(xn,x)+d(yn,y)2)=0.
Hence, we get x=F(x,y) and y=F(y,x). Therefore, F has a coupled fixed point (x,y).
Remark 6.
In Theorem 5, substituting φ(x)-ψ(x) for ψ(x) implies the main result of Berinde [28, Theorem 2]. Note that the function φ(x)-ψ(x) satisfies all the conditions of our result. It is easy to verify this as in Theorem 2 [28] φ is a continuous function and
(32)limsupn→∞(φ(tn)-ψ(tn))≤φ(r)-liminfn→∞ψ(tn)<φ(r),
for all tn∈[0,∞) such that limn→∞tn=r>0. On the other hand,
(33)limt→0+ψ(t)=0implieslimn→∞ψ(tn)=0
if limn→∞tn=0 for tn∈[0,∞).
Remark 7.
In Theorem 5, let φ(x) be x/2. Then it is easy to see that substituting kx/2 for ψ(x), where k∈[0,1), yields the main result of Berinde [27, Theorem 3].
The following example shows that Theorem 5 is more general than Theorem 2.1 [25] (stated as Theorem 3 in the present paper) and Theorem 2.1 in [26], since the contractive condition (7) is more general than the contractive conditions (2) and (3).
Example 8.
Let X=ℝ. Then (X,≤) is a partially ordered set with the natural ordering of real numbers. Let d:X×X→R+ be defined by
(34)d(x,y)=|x-y|forx,y∈X.
Then (X,d) is a complete metric space.
Define F:X×X→X by F(x,y)=(x-4y)/8, (x,y)∈X×X.
Then F is continuous, has mixed monotone property, and satisfies condition (7) but does not satisfy either condition (2) or condition (3). Indeed, assume there exists k∈[0,1), such that (2) holds. Then, we must have
(35)|x-4y8-u-4v8|≤k2{|x-u|+|y-v|},hhhhhhx≥u,y≤v,
by which, for x=u, we get
(36)|y-v|≤k|y-v|,y≤v,
which for y<v implies 1≤k, a contradiction, since k∈[0,1). Hence F does not satisfy contractive condition (2).
Further, the contractive condition (3) is also not satisfied. Assume, to the contrary, that there exist φ, ψ:[0,∞)→[0,∞) satisfying (φ1)–(φ3) and (iψ), respectively, such that (3) holds. Then, we must have
(37)φ(|x-4y8-u-4v8|)≤12φ(|x-u|+|y-v|)-ψ(|x-u|+|y-v|2),
for all x≥u and y≤v. On taking x=u, y≠v and letting α=|y-v|/2, we obtain
(38)φ(α)≤12φ(2α)-ψ(α);α>0.
But by (φ3) we have (1/2)φ(2α)≤φ(α) and hence, we deduce that, for all α>0, ψ(α)≤0, that is, ψ(α)=0, which contradicts (iψ). This shows that F does not satisfy (3).
Now, we prove that (7) holds. Indeed, for x≥u and y≤v, we have
(39)|x-4y8-u-4v8|≤18|x-u|+12|y-v|,|y-4x8-v-4u8|≤18|y-v|+12|x-u|,
and by summing up the last two inequalities we get exactly (7) with φ(t)=(1/2)t, ψ(t)=(5/16)t. Also, x0=-1, y0=1 are the two points in X such that x0≤F(x0,y0) and y0≥F(y0,x0).
So by Theorem 5 we obtain that F has a coupled fixed point (0,0) but none of Theorem 2.1 in [25] and Theorem 2.1 in [26] can be applied to F in this example.
Next, we prove the uniqueness of coupled fixed point for our main result by defining a partial ordering on X×X. If (X,≤) is a partially ordered set, then we endow the product X×X with the following partial order:
(40)for(x,y),(u,v)∈X×X,(x,y)≤(u,v)⟺x≤u,y≥v.
Then, we say (x,y)≥(u,v)⇔x≥u, y≤v.
We say that (x,y) and (u,v) are comparable if (x,y)≤(u,v) or (x,y)≥(u,v).
Theorem 9.
Let all the conditions of Theorem 5 be fulfilled and for every (x,y), (x*,y*) in X×X, there exists a (u,v) in X×X that is comparable to (x,y) and (x*,y*). Then F has a unique coupled fixed point.
Proof.
From Theorem 5, the set of coupled fixed points of F is nonempty. Assume that (x,y) and (x*,y*) are two coupled fixed points of F. We will show that x=x* and y=y*.
By assumption, there exists (u,v)∈X×X that is comparable to (x,y) and (x*,y*). We define the sequences {un} and {vn} as follows:
(41)u0=u,v0=v,un+1=F(un,vn),vn+1=F(vn,un),n≥0.
Since (u,v) is comparable to (x,y), we may assume (x,y)≥(u,v)=(u0,v0). Following the proof of Theorem 5 we obtain inductively
(42)(x,y)≥(un,vn),n≥0,
and therefore, by (7), we get
(43)φ(d(x,un+1)+d(y,vn+1)2)=φ(d(F(x,y),F(un,vn))+d(F(y,x),F(vn,un))2)≤ψ(d(x,un)+d(y,vn)2).
Thus, we have φ(αn+1)≤ψ(αn), where αn∶=(d(x,un)+d(y,vn))/2. Inspired with the proof of Theorem 5 we can conclude that {αn} converges to α for some α≥0. If α>0, then we have
(44)φ(α)≤limsupn→∞φ(αn+1)≤limsupn→∞ψ(αn)<φ(α),
which shows a contradiction. Thus α=0; that is, limn→∞((d(x,un)+d(y,vn))/2)=0, which implies
(45)limn→∞d(x,un)=limn→∞d(y,vn)=0.
Similarly, we obtain that limn→∞d(x*,un)=limn→∞d(y*,vn)=0, and hence, by the uniqueness of limit x=x* and y=y*.
Theorem 10.
Let all the conditions of Theorem 5 be fulfilled and suppose that x0, y0∈X are comparable. Then F has a unique fixed point; that is, there exist x∈X such that F(x,x)=x.
Proof.
By Theorem 5, without loss of generality, we assume that
(46)x0≤F(x0,y0),y0≥F(y0,x0).
Since x0 and y0 are comparable, we have x0≤y0 or x0≥y0. We assume the second case. Then, by the mixed monotone property of F, we have
(47)x1=F(x0,y0)≥F(y0,x0)=y1,
and, hence, by making use of induction, we can get
(48)xn≥yn,n≥0.
Also, we have
(49)x=limn→∞F(xn,yn),y=limn→∞F(yn,xn),
then, by the continuity of the distance function d, we can obtain
(50)d(x,y)=d(limn→∞F(xn,yn),limn→∞F(yn,xn))=limn→∞d(F(xn,yn),F(yn,xn))=limn→∞d(xn+1,yn+1).
Further, on setting (x,y)=(xn,yn) and (u,v)=(yn,xn) in (7), we have
(51)φ(d(F(xn,yn),F(yn,xn)))≤ψ(d(xn,yn)),n≥0.
Taking the limit as n→∞ in the last inequality, we get
(52)φ(d(x,y))≤limsupn→∞φ(d(F(xn,yn),F(yn,xn)))≤limsupn→∞ψ(d(xn,yn)).
If x≠y, then by (ψi) we get
(53)φ(d(x,y))<φ(d(x,y)),
a contradiction. So x=y and hence x=F(x,x). Similarly, uniqueness of x can be easily established.
3. Application
As an application of the results proved in Section 2, we study the existence of unique solution of the following integral equation:
(54)x(t)=∫ab(K1(s,t)-K2(s,t))(f1(s,x(s))+f2(s,x(s)))ds+h(t),t∈[a,b].
Let Θ denote the class of functions θ:[0,∞)→[0,∞) which satisfies the following conditions:
(55)(i)θisnondecreasing;(56)(ii)thereexistssomeψ∈Ψφsuchthatθ(r)=ψ(r2),∀r∈[0,∞),(57)(iii)limsupn→∞θ(tn)<αriflimn→∞tn=r>0,forsomeα∈(0,1),(58)(iv)limn→∞θ(tn)=0iflimn→∞tn=0,
for tn∈[0,∞).
Clearly, Θ is nonempty, as for given α∈(0,1), θ1(r)=kr is in Θ, where 0≤2k<1, k<α.
We assume that the functions K1, K2, f1, and f2 fulfill the following conditions.
Assumption 11.
(i) K1(s,t), K2(s,t)≥0, for all t, s∈[a,b].
(ii) There exist the positive numbers λ, μ, and θ∈Θ, such that for all t∈[a,b] and x, y∈ℝ, with x≥y, the following conditions hold:
(59)0≤f1(t,x)-f1(t,y)≤λθ(x-y),-μθ(x-y)≤f2(t,x)-f2(t,y)≤0.
(iii) There exists some α∈(0,1) satisfying (57), such that
(60)αβ≤1,
where
(61)β=(λ+μ)·supt∈I∫ab(K1(s,t)+K2(s,t))ds.
Definition 12.
An element (x,y)∈X×X with X=C(I,ℝ) is called a coupled lower and upper solution of the integral equation (54) if x(t)≤y(t) and
(62)x(t)≤∫abK1(s,t)(f1(s,x(s))+f2(s,y(s)))ds-∫abK2(s,t)(f1(s,y(s))+f2(s,x(s)))ds+h(t),y(t)≥∫abK1(s,t)(f1(s,y(s))+f2(s,x(s)))ds-∫abK2(s,t)(f1(s,x(s))+f2(s,y(s)))ds+h(t)
for all t∈I=[a,b].
Theorem 13.
Consider the integral equation (54) with Ki, fi∈C(I×I) for i=1,2 and h∈C(I,ℝ). Suppose that there exists a coupled lower-upper solution (x¯,y¯) for (54) and the Assumption 11 is satisfied. Then the integral equation (54) has a unique solution in C(I,ℝ).
Proof.
Consider the natural order relation on X=C(I,ℝ); that is, for x, y∈C(I,ℝ)(63)x≤y⟺x(t)≤y(t),∀t∈I.
It is well known that X is a complete metric space with respect to the sup metric
(64)d(x,y)=supt∈I|x(t)-y(t)|,x,y∈C(I,ℝ).
It is easy to verify that condition (b) in Theorem 5 holds on the complete metric space C(I,ℝ). Also, X×X=C(I,ℝ)×C(I,ℝ) is a partially ordered set under the following order relation in X×X:
(65)(x,y),(u,v)∈X×X,(x,y)≤(u,v)⟺x(t)≤u(t),y(t)≥v(t),hhhhhhhhhhhh∀t∈I.
For any x, y∈X, max.{x(t),y(t)} and min.{x(t),y(t)}, for each t∈I, are in X and are the upper and lower bounds of x,y, respectively. Therefore, for every (x,y), (u,v)∈X×X, there exists a (max.{x,u},min.{y,v)})∈X×X that is comparable to (x,y) and (u,v).
Now we define the mapping F:X×X→X by
(66)F(x,y)(t)=∫abK1(s,t)(f1(s,x(s))+f2(s,y(s)))ds-∫abK2(s,t)(f1(s,y(s))+f2(s,x(s)))ds+h(t)∀t∈I=[a,b].
First, we show that F has the mixed monotone property. To do this, let x1, x2∈C(I,ℝ) and x1≤x2; that is, x1(t)≤x2(t) for all t∈[a,b]. Then using Assumption 11, for any y∈C(I,ℝ) and all t∈I=[a,b] we obtain
(67)F(x1,y)(t)-F(x2,y)(t)=∫abK1(s,t)(f1(s,x1(s))-f1(s,x2(s)))ds-∫abK2(s,t)(f2(s,x1(s))-f2(s,x2(s)))ds≤0,
which implies that F(x1,y)≤F(x2,y). Similarly, if y1, y2∈C(I,ℝ) and y1≤y2, then F(x,y1)≥F(x,y2) for any x∈C(I,ℝ). Let α∈(0,1) be as given in Assumption 11. Then for x, y, u, v∈C(I,ℝ) such that x≥u and y≤v we get
(68)F(x,y)(t)-F(u,v)(t)={∫abK1(s,t)(f1(s,x(s))+f2(s,y(s)))ds-∫abK2(s,t)(f1(s,y(s))+f2(s,x(s)))ds+h(t)}-{∫abK1(s,t)(f1(s,u(s))+f2(s,v(s)))ds-∫abK2(s,t)(f1(s,v(s))+f2(s,u(s)))ds+h(t)}=∫abK1(s,t)(f1(s,x(s))-f1(s,u(s))+f2(s,y(s))-f2(s,v(s)))ds+∫abK2(s,t)(f1(s,v(s))-f1(s,y(s))+f2(s,u(s))-f2(s,x(s)))ds≤∫abK1(s,t)[λθ(x(s)-u(s))+μθ(v(s)-y(s))]ds+∫abK2(s,t)[λθ(v(s)-y(s))+μθ(x(s)-u(s))]ds.
Since the function θ is nondecreasing and x≥u and y≤v, we have
(69)θ(x(s)-u(s))≤θ(supt∈I|x(t)-u(t)|)=θ(d(x,u)),θ(v(s)-y(s))≤θ(supt∈I|v(t)-y(t)|)=θ(d(v,y)),
hence by (68), we obtain
(70)|F(x,y)(t)-F(u,v)(t)|≤∫abK1(s,t)[λθ(d(x,u))+μθ(d(v,y))]ds+∫abK2(s,t)[λθ(d(v,y))+μθ(d(x,u))]ds.
Similarly, we can obtain
(71)|F(y,x)(t)-F(v,u)(t)|≤∫abK1(s,t)[λθ(d(v,y))+μθ(d(x,u))]ds+∫abK2(s,t)[λθ(d(x,u))+μθ(d(v,y))]ds.
By summing up (70) and (71), multiplying by α and dividing by 2, and then taking supremum with respect to t we get, by using (60)-(61),
(72)α·d(F(x,y),F(u,v))+d(F(y,x),F(v,u))2≤α·(λ+μ)·supt∈I∫ab(K1(s,t)+K2(s,t))ds·θ(d(x,u))+θ(d(v,y))2≤θ(d(x,u))+θ(d(v,y))2.
Now, since θ is nondecreasing, we have
(73)θ(d(x,u))≤θ(d(x,u)+d(v,y)),θ(d(v,y))≤θ(d(x,u)+d(v,y))
and so
(74)θ(d(x,u))+θ(d(v,y))2≤θ(d(x,u)+d(v,y))=ψ(d(x,u)+d(v,y)2),
by the definition of θ. Thus we get
(75)α·d(F(x,y),F(u,v))+d(F(y,x),F(v,u))2≤ψ(d(x,u)+d(v,y)2),
which is just the contractive condition (7) for φ(t)=αt, where α∈(0,1). Now, let (x¯,y¯)∈C(I,ℝ)×C(I,ℝ) be a coupled upper-lower solution of (54). Then we have
(76)x¯(t)≤F(x¯,y¯)(t),y¯(t)≥F(y¯,x¯)(t),
for all t∈I. Finally, Theorems 5 and 9 give that F has a unique coupled fixed point (x,y). Since x¯≤y¯, then the hypotheses of Theorem 10 is satisfied and, therefore, there exists a unique x∈C(I,ℝ) such that x(t)=F(x,x)(t) for all t∈[a,b]; that is, the integral equation (54) has a unique solution.
Remark 14.
Trivial choices of the functions φ,ψ,θ:[0,∞)→[0,∞) are φ(t)=αt, (0<α<1), ψ(t)=σt, and θ(t)=(σ/2)t, (0<σ<1). Note that here we will assume that 2α∈(0,1) and σ<α.
4. Conclusion
We conclude that the obtained results improve, generalize, and enrich various recent coupled fixed point theorems in the framework of partially ordered metric spaces in a way that is essentially more natural, by considering the more general (symmetric) contractive condition (7). The theoretical results are accompanied by an applied example and an application to the nonlinear integral equation.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
BanachS.Surles operations dans les ensembles et leur application aux equation sitegrales19223133181AgarwalR. P.MeehanM.O'ReganD.2001Cambridge University PressAgarwalR. P.El-GebeilyM. A.O'ReganD.Generalized contractions in partially orderedmetric spaces200887110911610.1080/00036810701556151BoydD. W.WongJ. S. W.On nonlinear contractions19692045846410.1090/S0002-9939-1969-0239559-9ZBL0175.44903BranciariA.A fixed point theorem for mappings satisfying a general contractive condition of integral type20022995315362-s2.0-1784439569610.1155/S0161171202007524ZBL0993.54040CirićL. B.A generalization of Banach's contraction principle197445267273ZBL0291.54056DugundjiJ.GranasA.2003New York, NY, USASpringerGuoD. J.LakshmikanthamV.1988Boston, Mass, USAAcademic PressMeirA.KeelerE.A theorem on contraction mappings19692823263292-s2.0-000122312910.1016/0022-247X(69)90031-6ZBL0194.44904NietoJ. J.Rodríguez-LópezR.Contractive mapping theorems in partially ordered sets and applications to ordinary differential equations20052232232392-s2.0-3364468892810.1007/s11083-005-9018-5ZBL1095.47013RhoadesB. E.A comparison of various definitions of contractive mappings197722625729010.1090/S0002-9947-1977-0433430-4SmartD. R.1974London, UKCambridge University PressSuzukiT.Meir-Keeler contractions of integral type are still Meir-Keeler contractions2007200762-s2.0-3424737296210.1155/2007/3928139281SuzukiT.A generalized banach contraction principle that characterizes metric completeness20081365186118692-s2.0-4314911073410.1090/S0002-9939-07-09055-7ZeidlerE.1986Berlin, GermanySpringerTuriniciM.Abstract comparison principles and multivariable Gronwall-Bellman inequalities198611711001272-s2.0-46149133250RanA. C. M.ReuringsM. C. B.A fixed point theorem in partially ordered sets and some applications to matrix equations20041325143514432-s2.0-214276291610.1090/S0002-9939-03-07220-4NietoJ. J.LopezR. R.Existence and uniqueness of fixed point in partially ordered sets and applications to ordinary differential equations20072312220522122-s2.0-3644898564210.1007/s10114-005-0769-0AgarwalR. P.El-GebeilyM. A.O'ReganD.Generalized contractions in partially ordered metric spaces20088711810.1080/00036810701714164AltunI.SimsekH.Some fixed point theorems on ordered metric spaces and application201020101762146910.1155/2010/621469HarjaniJ.SadaranganiK.Generalized contractions in partially ordered metric spaces and applications to ordinary differential equations2010723-4118811972-s2.0-7154914623610.1016/j.na.2009.08.003KadelburgZ.PavloviM.RadenoviS.Common fixed point theorems for ordered contractions and quasicontractions in ordered cone metric spaces2010599314831592-s2.0-7795090978410.1016/j.camwa.2010.02.039RadenoviS.KadelburgZ.Generalized weak contractions in partially ordered metric spaces2010606177617832-s2.0-7804943002810.1016/j.camwa.2010.07.008SintunavaratW.ChoY. J.KumamP.Common fixed point theorems for c-distance in ordered cone metric spaces2011624196919782-s2.0-8005178877910.1016/j.camwa.2011.06.040BhaskarT. G.LakshmikanthamV.Fixed point theorems in partially ordered metric spaces and applications2006657137913932-s2.0-3374521511510.1016/j.na.2005.10.017LuongN. V.ThuanN. X.Coupled fixed points in partially ordered metric spaces and application20117439839922-s2.0-7814928222010.1016/j.na.2010.09.055BerindeV.Generalized coupled fixed point theorems for mixed monotone mappings in partially ordered metric spaces20117418734773552-s2.0-8005281567610.1016/j.na.2011.07.053BerindeV.Coupled fixed point theorems for φ-contractive mixed monotone mappings in partially ordered metric spaces2012756321832282-s2.0-8485636078210.1016/j.na.2011.12.021HarjaniJ.LpezB.SadaranganiK.Fixed point theorems for mixed monotone operators and applications to integral equations2011745174917602-s2.0-7865135135910.1016/j.na.2010.10.047SametB.Coupled fixed point theorems for a generalized Meir-Keeler contraction in partially ordered metric spaces20107212450845172-s2.0-7795046080810.1016/j.na.2010.02.026SintunavaratW.ChoY. J.KumamP.Coupled fixed point theorems for weak contraction mapping under F-invariant set201220121532487410.1155/2012/324874SintunavaratW.KumamP.Coupled best proximity point theorem in metric spaces201220129310.1186/1687-1812-2012-93SintunavaratW.ChoY. J.KumamP.Coupled fixed point theorems for contraction mapping induced by cone ball-metric in partially ordered spaces2012201212810.1186/1687-1812-2012-128BerindeV.PăcurarM.Coupled fixed point theorems for generalized symmetric Meir-Keeler contractions in ordered metric spaces2012201211510.1186/1687-1812-2012-115JainM.TasK.KumarS.GuptaN.Coupled common fixed points involving a (φ,ψ)-contractive condition for mixed g-monotone operators in partially ordered metric spaces2012201228510.1186/1029-242X-2012-285JainM.TasK.RhoadesB. E.GuptaN.Coupled fixed point theorems for generalized symmetric contractions in partially ordered metric spaces and applications20141634384454JainM.GuptaN.VetroC.KumarS.Coupled fixed point theorems for symmetric (φ,ψ)-weakly contractive mappings in ordered partial metric spaces201374230304JainM.TasK.KumarS.GuptaN.Coupled fixed point theorems for a pair of weakly compatible maps along with CLRg property in Fuzzy metric spaces201220121396121010.1155/2012/961210JainM.TasK.GuptaN.Coupled common fixed point results involving (φ,ψ)-contractions in ordered generalized metric spaces with application to integral equations20132013372JainM.TasK.A unique coupled common fixed point theorem for symmetric (φ,ψ)-contractive mappings in ordered G-metric spaces with applications201320131313471210.1155/2013/134712