- About this Journal ·
- Abstracting and Indexing ·
- Advance Access ·
- Aims and Scope ·
- Annual Issues ·
- Article Processing Charges ·
- Articles in Press ·
- Author Guidelines ·
- Bibliographic Information ·
- Citations to this Journal ·
- Contact Information ·
- Editorial Board ·
- Editorial Workflow ·
- Free eTOC Alerts ·
- Publication Ethics ·
- Reviewers Acknowledgment ·
- Submit a Manuscript ·
- Subscription Information ·
- Table of Contents

Abstract and Applied Analysis

Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 680186, 5 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/680186

## Best Proximity Points for Relatively -Continuous Mappings in Banach and Hyperconvex Spaces

^{1}528 Rover Boulevard, Los Alamos, NM 87544, USA^{2}Department of Mathematics, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 80203, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia

Received 21 May 2013; Accepted 9 August 2013

Academic Editor: Adrian Petrusel

Copyright © 2013 Jack Markin and Naseer Shahzad. 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

We prove some best proximity point results for relatively -continuous mappings in Banach and hyperconvex metric spaces. Our results generalize and extend some recent results to relatively -continuous mappings and to general spaces.

#### 1. Introduction

Let , be nonempty subsets of a Banach space (). In [1], Eldred et al. considered the best proximity point problem for mappings with and or and , respectively; that is, they sought conditions on the subsets , , the space , and the mapping that assure existence of points , such that or respectively. In solving this problem they considered a new class of mappings.

*Definition 1 (see [1]). *Let , be nonempty subsets of a metric space (). Then a mapping is said to be *relatively nonexpansive* if
The assumption that a mapping is relatively nonexpansive is weaker than the assumption that it is nonexpansive and does not even imply continuity [1].

Introducing a geometric condition for Banach spaces called *proximal normal structure*, they obtained the following result.

Theorem 2 (see [1]). *Let () be a nonempty weakly compact convex pair in a Banach space . Let be a relatively nonexpansive mapping such that and , and suppose that has proximal normal structure. Then there exists such that
*

With the goal of generalizing relatively nonexpansive mappings, Eldred et al. [2] introduced the notion of a relatively -continuous mapping in Banach spaces, which we state here for a metric space.

*Definition 3 (see [2]). *Let , be nonempty subsets of a metric space (). A mapping is said to be *relatively **-continuous* if for each , there exists such that whenever
Every relatively nonexpansive mapping is relatively -continuous. For an example showing that the converse is not true see [2, Example 2.1].

Eldred et al. [2] were able to extend some of the results of [1] to include the class of relatively -continuous mappings.

Theorem 4 (see [2]). *Let , be nonempty compact convex subsets of a strictly convex Banach space , and let be a relatively -continuous mapping such that and . Then there exists
*

In this paper we show that Theorem 4 holds for any Banach space without the assumption of strict convexity as follows.

Theorem 5. *Let be a Banach space, and let , be nonempty compact convex subsets of . If is relatively -continuous such that and , then there exist points and such that .*

Some interesting best proximity point theorems for various kinds of mappings have been accomplished in [3–8]. Other related results on cyclical mappings can be found in [9, 10].

The aim of this paper is to prove some best proximity point results for relatively -continuous mappings in Banach and hyperconvex metric spaces. Our results generalize and extend some recent results to relatively -continuous mappings and to general spaces.

#### 2. Preliminaries

Let and be nonempty subsets of a metric space (). Define

*Definition 6. *A metric space () is *hyperconvex* if given any family of points in and any family of nonnegative real numbers satisfying for all , then , where

*Definition 7. *The *admissible* subsets of are sets of the form , that is, the family of ball intersections in . For a subset of , denotes the closed -hull of ; that is, , where .

If is an admissible set, then is also an admissible set [11]. For recent progress in hyperconvex metric spaces, we refer the reader to [12].

*Definition 8. *Let be a metric space and a multivalued mapping with nonempty values. Then is said to be *almost lower semicontinuous* at a point if for each there is an open neighborhood of and a point such that, for ,

In establishing existence of best proximity points for relatively -continuous mappings in Banach and hyperconvex spaces, we apply the following continuous selection and fixed point theorems.

Theorem 9 (see [13]). *Let be a paracompact space and a normed linear space. Let be a multivalued mapping with nonempty closed convex values. Then is an almost lower semicontinuous mapping if and only if for each , has a continuous -approximate selection; that is, a function such that for every , .*

Theorem 10 (see [14]). *Let be a paracompact topological space, a hyperconvex metric space, and an almost lower semicontinuous mapping with admissible values. Then has a continuous selection; that is, there is a continuous mapping such that for each .*

Theorem 11 (see [15, 16]). *Let be a compact hyperconvex metric space and a continuous mapping. Then has a fixed point.*

#### 3. Best Proximity Points in Banach Spaces

The following theorem extends the best proximity point result of Eldred et al. [2, Theorem 3.1] for strictly convex Banach spaces to any Banach space.

*Proof of Theorem 5. *Since , are compact convex subsets, , are nonempty compact convex subsets. By [2, Proposition 3.1] and .

By -continuity of , for any , such that and any positive integer there is a and a neighborhood of in defined as
such that implies that

For each positive integer , define a multivalued mapping by
for . Since , is nonempty. As the intersection of closed convex sets, each is also closed convex.

By (11), for each , which implies that the mapping is almost lower semicontinuous. By the approximate selection result of Deutsch et al. [13] (see Theorem 9), for any , has a continuous -approximate selection; that is, there is a continuous such that . Choosing , by the definition of the selection satisfies

Since the mapping is continuous and is a compact convex subset of a Banach space, the Schauder fixed point theorem implies that has a fixed point ; that is, there is a point such that .

By (13), , and by compactness of and , we can assume that and . Therefore, , and by -continuity of , . It follows that
which implies that .

The following proposition follows by a slight change in the proof in [2, Proposition 3.1].

Proposition 12. *Let , be nonempty subsets of a normed linear space , and let be a relatively -continuous mapping such that and . Then and .*

Proposition 13 (see [17]). *Let be a strictly convex Banach space, a nonempty compact convex subset of , and a nonempty closed convex subset of . Let be a sequence in and . If
*

In [1] a best proximity result was given for relatively nonexpansive mappings in a uniformly convex space. The following result is a version of that result for relatively -continuous mappings in a strictly convex space.

Theorem 14. *Let be a strictly convex Banach space, and let , be compact convex subsets of . If is relatively -continuous such that and , then there exist points and such that , and .*

*Proof. *Since , are compact convex sets, and are nonempty compact convex sets, and by Proposition 12, and .

By -continuity of , for any positive integer there is a such that
implies that , for and . For define , and let . Then implies that
and therefore, by -continuity of ,

For each positive integer , define a map by
for . As the intersection of closed convex sets, is also closed convex. By (18), for , which implies that is nonempty and also that is an almost lower semicontinuous mapping.

Since is a normed linear space, by Theorem 9 for any , has a continuous -approximate selection; that is, there is a continuous such that , for . Choosing , by the definition of the selection satisfies
for .

Consider the metric projection operator . Since and , the map sends into . Since is continuous and is compact and convex, by the Schauder fixed point theorem there is a fixed point . Let , and assume by compactness that , converge to , , respectively. By continuity of , .

By definition of the map , , and since we have
Therefore, by Proposition 13,

By -continuity of , for any there is a such that
Since , choose sufficiently large that . Then
which implies that
Since is arbitrary,
Therefore, by Proposition 13,

By the relations (22) and (27), converges to both and . Therefore, . Since , , and by strict convexity of , .

Since , we have by -continuity of that . Therefore, , and since , this implies that .

#### 4. Best Proximity Points in Hyperconvex Spaces

The following is a best proximity point result for relatively -continuous mappings in hyperconvex metric spaces. Best proximity point/pair results were obtained in the setting of hyperconvex spaces by some authors in [18–21].

Theorem 15. *Let , be admissible subsets of a hyperconvex metric space , let be a compact subset of and let be a relatively -continuous mapping such that , and . Then there is an such that .*

*Proof. *By a result of Kirk et al. [18], the sets and are nonempty and hyperconvex. For , choose such that . Then, by -continuity of , for any there is a such that for , ,
It follows that . This implies that for .

Define an open neighborhood of in by .

Then implies that
and therefore, by -continuity of ,

Define a multivalued by
for . Since for , is a nonempty subset of , and since is admissible, is also admissible.

We show that is almost lower semicontinuous by establishing that for . By (30) and the hyperconvexity of , for ,
Since , we have
Any point in the intersection (33) is in since . Therefore,
By (32), (33), and the fact that , the sets , , and have pairwise nonempty intersection. Since all of these sets are ball intersections, the hyperconvexity of the space implies that

Further, by (34), the intersection in (35) is contained in . It follows from (35) that for . This implies that the mapping is almost lower semicontinuous.

By the selection theorem in Markin [14] (see Theorem 10), an almost lower semicontinuous mapping on a hyperconvex space with nonempty admissible values has a continuous selection; that is, there is a continuous such that for . By Theorem 11, a continuous self-mapping on a compact hyperconvex space has a fixed point. Therefore, there is a such that . By the definition of ,

#### Acknowledgment

The authors thank the referees for providing useful comments and suggestions that improved the paper.

#### References

- A. A. Eldred, W. A. Kirk, and P. Veeramani, “Proximal normal structure and relatively nonexpansive mappings,”
*Studia Mathematica*, vol. 171, no. 3, pp. 283–293, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - A. A. Eldred, V. S. Raj, and P. Veeramani, “On best proximity pair theorems for relatively u-continuous mappings,”
*Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications*, vol. 74, no. 12, pp. 3870–3875, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet - M. A. Al-Thagafi and N. Shahzad, “Convergence and existence results for best proximity points,”
*Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications*, vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 3665–3671, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - S. S. Basha and N. Shahzad, “Best proximity point theorems for generalized proximal contractions,”
*Fixed Point Theory and Applications*, vol. 2012, article 42, 9 pages, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet - S. S. Basha, N. Shahzad, and R. Jeyaraj, “Best proximity points: approximation and optimization,”
*Optimization Letters*, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 145–155, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet - S. S. Basha, N. Shahzad, and R. Jeyaraj, “Best proximity point theorems for reckoning optimal approximate solutions,”
*Fixed Point Theory and Applications*, vol. 2012, article 202, 9 pages, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet - S. S. Basha, N. Shahzad, and R. Jeyaraj, “Common best proximity points: global optimal solutions,”
*Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications*, vol. 148, no. 1, pp. 69–78, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet - M. Gabeleh and N. Shahzad, “Existence and convergence theorems of best proximity points,”
*Journal of Applied Mathematics*, vol. 2013, Article ID 101439, 6 pages, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar - W. A. Kirk, P. S. Srinivasan, and P. Veeramani, “Fixed points for mappings satisfying cyclical contractive conditions,”
*Fixed Point Theory*, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 79–89, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - S. Karpagam and S. Agrawal, “Existence of best proximity points of $p$-cyclic contractions,”
*Fixed Point Theory*, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 99–105, 2012. View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet - R. Sine, “Hyperconvexity and approximate fixed points,”
*Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications*, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 863–869, 1989. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - R. Espínola and P. Lorenzo, “Metric fixed point theory on hyperconvex spaces: recent progress,”
*Arabian Journal of Mathematics*, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 439–463, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet - F. Deutsch, V. Indumathi, and K. Schnatz, “Lower semicontinuity, almost lower semicontinuity, and continuous selections for set-valued mappings,”
*Journal of Approximation Theory*, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 266–294, 1988. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - J. T. Markin, “A selection theorem for quasi-lower semicontinuous mappings in hyperconvex spaces,”
*Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*, vol. 321, no. 2, pp. 862–866, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - M. A. Khamsi, “KKM and Ky Fan theorems in hyperconvex metric spaces,”
*Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*, vol. 204, no. 1, pp. 298–306, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - W. A. Kirk and S. S. Shin, “Fixed point theorems in hyperconvex spaces,”
*Houston Journal of Mathematics*, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–188, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - V. S. Raj and P. Veeramani, “Best proximity pair theorems for relatively nonexpansive mappings,”
*Applied General Topology*, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 21–28, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - W. A. Kirk, S. Reich, and P. Veeramani, “Proximinal retracts and best proximity pair theorems,”
*Numerical Functional Analysis and Optimization*, vol. 24, no. 7-8, pp. 851–862, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - J. Markin and N. Shahzad, “Best approximation theorems for nonexpansive and condensing mappings in hyperconvex spaces,”
*Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications*, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 2435–2441, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - A. Abkar and M. Gabeleh, “Results on the existence and convergence of best proximity points,”
*Fixed Point Theory and Applications*, vol. 2010, Article ID 386037, 10 pages, 2010. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - A. Amini-Harandi, A. P. Farajzadeh, D. O'Regan, and R. P. Agarwal, “Coincidence point, best approximation, and best proximity theorems for condensing set-valued maps in hyperconvex metric spaces,”
*Fixed Point Theory and Applications*, vol. 2008, Article ID 543154, 8 pages, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet