Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Abstract and Applied Analysis
Volume 2012, Article ID 491542, 12 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/491542
Research Article

Fixed Point Theory for Cyclic Generalized Weak -Contraction on Partial Metric Spaces

Department of Mathematics, Atılım University, 06836 İncek, Turkey

Received 28 March 2012; Accepted 14 May 2012

Academic Editor: Simeon Reich

Copyright © 2012 Erdal Karapınar and I. Savas Yuce. 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 new fixed point theorem is obtained for the class of cyclic weak -contractions on partially metric spaces. It is proved that a self-mapping on a complete partial metric space has a fixed point if it satisfies the cyclic weak -contraction principle.

1. Introduction and Preliminaries

Fixed point theorems analyze the conditions on maps (single or multivalued) under which the existence of a solution for the equation can be guaranteed. The Banach contraction mapping principle [1] is one of the earliest, widely known, and important results in this direction. After this pivotal principle, a number of remarkable results started to appear in the literature published by many authors (see, e.g., [236]). In this trend, one of the distinguished contributions was announced by Kirk et al. [15] in 2003. They introduced the notion of cyclic contraction, which is defined as follows.

Let and be two subsets of a metric space . A self-mapping on is called cyclic provided that and . In addition, if for some , the mapping satisfies the inequality then it is called cyclic contraction where . In their outstanding paper [15], the authors also proved that if and are closed subsets of a complete metric space with , then the cyclic contraction has a unique fixed point in .

The notion of -contraction was defined by Boyd and Wong [11]: A self-mapping on a metric space is called -contraction if there exists an upper semi-continuous function such that This concept was generalized by Alber and Guerre-Delabriere [7], by introducing weak -contraction. A self-mapping on a metric space is called weak -contraction if is a strictly increasing map with and

Păcurar and Rus [19] gave a characterization of -contraction mappings in the context of cyclic operators and proved some fixed point results for such mappings on a complete metric space. As a natural next step, Karapınar [13] generalized the results in [19] by replacing the notion of cyclic -contraction mappings with cyclic weak -contraction mappings. For more results for cyclic mapping analysis we refer to [3, 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 2123] and the references therein.

Recently, in fixed point theory, one of the celebrated subjects is the partial metric spaces. The notion of a partial metric space was defined by Matthews [37] in 1992 as a generalization of usual metric spaces. The motivation behind the theory of partial metric spaces is to transfer mathematical techniques into computer science to develop the branches of computer science such as domain theory and semantics (see, e.g., [35, 3846]).

Definition 1.1 (see [37, 47]). A partial metric on a nonempty set is a function such that for all (PM1) (symmetry),(PM2) if , then (equality),(PM3) (small self-distances),(PM4) (triangularity). The pair is called a partial metric space (abbreviated by PMS).

Remark 1.2. If , then may not be .

Example 1.3 (see [47]). Let , and define . Then, is a partial metric space.

Example 1.4 (see [47]). Let , and define by Then, (X, p) is a complete partial metric space.

Example 1.5 (see [48]). Let and be a metric space and a partial metric space, respectively. Mappings () defined by induce partial metrics on , where is an arbitrary function and .
Each partial metric on generates a topology on which has the family of open -balls as a base, where for all and .
If is a partial metric on , then the function given by is a metric on . Furthermore, it is possible to observe that the following also defines a metric on . In fact, and are equivalent (see, e.g., [9]).

Example 1.6 (see, e.g., [5, 27, 30, 47]). Consider with . Then, is a partial metric space. It is clear that is not a (usual) metric. Note that in this case .

For our purposes, we need to recall some basic topological concepts in partial metric spaces (for details see, e.g., [5, 8, 27, 30, 37, 47]).

Definition 1.7. (1) A sequence in the PMS converges to a limit point if and only if .
(2) A sequence in the PMS is called a Cauchy sequence if exists and is finite.
(3)   A PMS is called complete if every Cauchy sequence in converges, with respect to , to a point such that .
(4) A mapping is said to be continuous at if, for every , there exists such that .

Lemma 1.8. (1) A sequence is a Cauchy sequence in the PMS if and only if it is a Cauchy sequence in the metric space .
(2) A PMS is complete if and only if the metric space is complete. Moreover,

In [32], Romaguera introduced the concepts of a 0-Cauchy sequence in a partial metric space and of a 0-complete partial metric space as follows.

Definition 1.9. A sequence in a partial metric space is called 0-Cauchy if . A partial metric space is said to be 0-complete if every 0-Cauchy sequence in converges, with respect to , to a point such that . In this case, is said to be a 0-complete partial metric on .

Remark 1.10 (see [32]). Each 0-Cauchy sequence in is a Cauchy sequence in , and each complete partial metric space is 0-complete.

The following example shows that there exists a 0-complete partial metric space that is not complete.

Example 1.11 1.11 (see [32]). Let be a partial metric space, where denotes the set of rational numbers and the partial metric is given by .

Now, we state a number of simple but useful lemmas that can be derived by manipulating the properties .

Lemma 1.12. Let be a PMS. Then, the following statements hold true: (A) if and , then for every (see [5, 27, 30]), (B) if , , and , then (see [31]), (C) if then (see [27, 30]), (D) if , then (see [27, 30]).

One of the implications of Lemma 1.12 can be stated as follows.

Remark 1.13. If converges to in , then for all .

We would like to point out that the topology induced by a partial metric differs from the topology induced by a metric in certain aspects. The following remark and example highlight one of these aspects.

Remark 1.14. Limit of a sequence in a partial metric space may not be unique.

Example 1.15. Consider with . Then, is a partial metric space. Clearly, is not a metric. Observe that the sequence converges to both and , for example. Therefore, there is no uniqueness of the limit in this partial metric space.

2. Main Results

In this section we aim to state and prove our main results. These results are more general in the sense that they are applicable to chains of cyclic representations and related generalized weak -contractions introduced in the following two definitions.

Definition 2.1 (see, e.g., [13]). Let be a nonempty set, , a positive integer, and an operator. The union is called a cyclic representation of with respect to if (1) each is a nonempty set for , (2), .

Definition 2.2 (cf. [13]). Let be a partial metric space, be a positive integer, closed nonempty subsets of and . An operator is called a cyclic generalized weak -contraction if (1) is a cyclic representation of with respect to , (2) there exists a continuous, nondecreasing function with for every and , such that where for any for with .

Our main theorem in this work is stated below.

Theorem 2.3. Let be a 0-complete partial metric space, a positive integer, and be closed non-empty subsets of . Let be a cyclic representation of with respect to . Suppose that is a cyclic generalized weak -contraction. Then, has a unique fixed point .

Proof. First we show that if has a fixed point, then it is unique. Suppose on the contrary that there exist such that and with . Due to (2.1), we have which is equivalent to by (PM3) in Definition 1.1. This is a contradiction because by Lemma 1.12 and for all . Hence, has a unique fixed point.
Next we prove the existence of a fixed point of . Let and be the Picard iteration. If there exists such that , then the theorem follows. Indeed, we get and, therefore, is a fixed point of . Thus, we may assume that for all where we have by Lemma 1.12.
Since is cyclic, for any , there is such that and . Then, by (2.1), we have where If we assume , then (2.6) turns into which is a contradiction. Because when we let , which is positive by (2.5), we get , we need to take . Define . Then, the inequality in (2.6) turns into Therefore, is a nonnegative nonincreasing sequence. Hence, converges to . We aim to show that . Suppose on the contrary that . Letting in (2.9), we get that Thus, we obtain that Since , then for . Taking in the previous inequality, we derive which contradicts with (2.11). Thus, we have .
We claim that is a 0-Cauchy sequence. In order to prove this assertion, we first prove the following statement.(A) For every , there exists such that if with , then . Assume the contrary that there exists such that for any we can find with satisfying the inequality . Then, we have by the triangular inequality. Since and lie in different adjacently labeled sets and for certain , from (2.13) we get by using the contractive condition in (2.1), where
If is equal to either or , then letting in (2.14) yields that is a contradiction. Hence, and inequality (2.14) give As and is nondecreasing, we have Inequalities (2.17) and (2.18) give us Letting with and since , we have which is a contradiction. Therefore, (A) is proved.
Now, in order to prove that is a Cauchy sequence, we fix an . Using (A), we find such that if with , On the other hand, since , we also find such that for any . We take with . Then, there exists such that . Therefore, for , and so From (2.21) and (2.22) and the last inequality, Hence, This prove that is a 0-Cauchy sequence.
Since is a 0-complete partial metric space, there exists such that . Now, we will prove that is a fixed point of . In fact, since converges to and is a cyclic representation of with respect to , the sequence has infinite number of terms in each for . Regarding that is closed for , we have . Now fix such that and . We take a subsequence of with (the existence of this subsequence is guaranteed by the mentioned comment above). Using the triangular inequality and the contractive conditions, we can obtain where . If is equal to either or , then by letting , inequality (2.26) implies Therefore, , that is, is a fixed point of by Lemma 1.12. If then (2.26) turns into Letting , we get that . Hence, by the properties of we have .

Theorem 2.4. Let be a self-mapping as in Theorem 2.3. Then, the fixed point problem for is well posed, that is, if there exists a sequence in with , as , then as .

Proof. Due to Theorem 2.3, we know that for any initial value , is the unique fixed point of . Thus, is well defined. Consider where . There are three cases to consider: if , then (2.29) is equivalent to Since we are given as , we derive that . Regarding the definition of , we obtain that . The theorem follows.
If it is the case that , then the right-hand side of (2.29) tends to as tends to infinity. Hence, the theorem follows again.
As the last case, we have . Similarly we conclude that the right-hand side of (2.29) tends to as tends to infinity because we know that by Theorem 2.3 and , which completes the proof.

Theorem 2.5. Let be a self-mapping as in Theorem 2.3. Then, has the limit shadowing property, that is, if there exists a convergent sequence in with and , as , then there exists such that as .

Proof. As in the proof of Theorem 2.4, we observe that for any initial value , is the unique fixed point of . Thus, are well defined. Set as a limit of a convergent sequence in . Consider where . There are three cases to consider: If , then (2.31) is equivalent to as . This is possible only if , which implies that and thus . Thus, we have , as .
If it is the case that , then the right-hand side of (2.31) tends to as tends to infinity. Hence, the theorem follows again.
As the last case, we have . Similarly we conclude that the right-hand side of (2.31) tends to as tends to infinity because we know that by Theorem 2.3 and , which completes the proof.

Theorem 2.6. Let be a non-empty set, and partial metric spaces, a positive integer, and closed non-empty subsets of and . Suppose that (1) is a cyclic representation of with respect to . (2) for all , (3) is a complete partial metric space, (4) is continuous, (5) is a cyclic weak -contraction where with is a lower semicontinuous function for and . Then, converges to in for any and is the unique fixed point of .

Proof. Let . As in Theorem 2.3, assumption (5) implies that is a Cauchy sequence in . Taking (2) into account, is a Cauchy sequence in , and due to (3) it converges to in for any . Condition (4) implies the uniqueness of .

Definition 2.7 (cf. [2]). Let be a partial metric space, a positive integer, and closed non-empty subsets of and . An operator is called a cyclic generalized -contraction if (1) is a cyclic representation of with respect to , and (2) there exists a continuous, non-decreasing function with for every and , such that where for any for with .

The following is an analog of the main theorem in [2].

Corollary 2.8. Let be a 0-complete partial metric space, a positive integer, and closed non-empty subsets of . Let be a cyclic representation of with respect to . Suppose that is a cyclic generalized -contraction. Then, has a unique fixed point .

Proof. It follows from Theorem 2.3 by taking .

References

  1. S. Banach, “Sur les operations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux equation-sitegrales,” Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 3, pp. 133–181, 1922. View at Google Scholar
  2. M. Abbas, T. Nazir, and S. Romaguera, “Fixed point results for generalized cyclic contraction mappings in partial metric spaces,” Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas. In press. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  3. T. Abdeljawad and E. Karapınar, “Quasi-cone metric spaces and generalizations of Caristi Kirk's theorem,” Fixed Point Theory and Applications, vol. 2009, Article ID 574387, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  4. T. Abdeljawad, “Fixed points for generalized weakly contractive mappings in partial metric spaces,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 54, no. 11-12, pp. 2923–2927, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  5. T. Abdeljawad, E. Karapınar, and K. Taş, “Existence and uniqueness of common fixed point on partial metric spaces,” Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 24, pp. 1894–1899, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  6. T. Abdeljawad, E. Karapınar, and K. Taş, “A generalized contraction principle with control functions on partial metric spaces,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 716–719, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  7. Y. I. Alber and S. Guerre-Delabriere, “Principle of weakly contractive maps in Hilbert spaces,” in New Results in Operator Theory and Its Applications, vol. 98, pp. 7–22, Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland, 1997. View at Google Scholar
  8. I. Altun, F. Sola, and H. Simsek, “Generalized contractions on partial metric spaces,” Topology and Its Applications, vol. 157, no. 18, pp. 2778–2785, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  9. I. Altun and A. Erduran, “Fixed point theorems for monotone mappings on partial metric spaces,” Fixed Point Theory and Applications, vol. 2011, Article ID 508730, 10 pages, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. H. Aydi, E. Karapınar, and W. Shatanawi, “Coupled fixed point results for (ψ, φ)-weakly contractive condition in ordered partial metric spaces,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 4449–4460, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  11. D. W. Boyd and J. S. W. Wong, “On nonlinear contractions,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 20, pp. 458–464, 1969. View at Google Scholar
  12. N. Hussain and G. Jungck, “Common fixed point and invariant approximation results for noncommuting generalized (f, g)-nonexpansive maps,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 321, no. 2, pp. 851–861, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  13. E. Karapınar, “Fixed point theory for cyclic weak ϕ-contraction,” Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 822–825, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  14. E. Karapınar and K. Sadarangani, “Corrigendum to “Fixed point theory for cyclic weak imagecontraction”,” Applied Mathematics Letters, [Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 14, no. 6, Article ID 822825, 2011], In press.
  15. 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
  16. G. Petruşel, “Cyclic representations and periodic points,” Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai. Studia. Mathematica, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 107–112, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  17. I. A. Rus, “Cyclic representations and fixed points,” Annals of the Tiberiu Popoviciu, vol. 3, pp. 171–178, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  18. B. E. Rhoades, “Some theorems on weakly contractive maps,” Nonlinear Analysis. Theory, Methods & Applications, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 2683–2693, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  19. M. Păcurar and I. A. Rus, “Fixed point theory for cyclic φ-contractions,” Nonlinear Analysis. Theory, Methods & Applications, vol. 72, no. 3-4, pp. 1181–1187, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  20. V. Berinde, Contractii Generalizate şi Aplicatii, vol. 2, Editura Cub Press, 1997.
  21. Y. Song, “Coincidence points for noncommuting f-weakly contractive mappings,” International Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 51–57, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  22. Y. Song and S. Xu, “A note on common fixed-points for Banach operator pairs,” International Journal of Contemporary Mathematical Sciences, vol. 2, no. 21–24, pp. 1163–1166, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  23. Q. Zhang and Y. Song, “Fixed point theory for generalized φ-weak contractions,” Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 75–78, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. I. A. Rus, “Fixed point theory in partial metric spaces,” Analele Universiatii de Vest, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 149–160, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  25. D. Ilić, V. Pavlović, and V. Rakočević, “Some new extensions of Banach's contraction principle to partial metric space,” Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1326–1330, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  26. D. Ilić, V. Pavlović, and V. Rakoçević, “Extensions of the Zamfirescu theorem to partial metric spaces,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 55, no. 34, pp. 801–809, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  27. E. Karapınar and M. Erhan, “Fixed point theorems for operators on partial metric spaces,” Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1894–1899, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  28. E. Karapınar, “A note on common fixed point theorems in partial metric spaces,” Miskolc Mathematical Notes, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 185–191, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  29. E. Karapinar, “Weak ϕ-contraction on partial metric spaces and existence of fixed points in partially ordered sets,” Mathematica Aeterna, vol. 1, no. 3-4, pp. 237–244, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  30. E. Karapınar, “Generalizations of Caristi Kirk's Theorem on Partial metric Spaces,” Fixed Point Theory and Applications, vol. 2011, article 4, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  31. E. Karapinar, N. Shobkolaei, S. Sedghi, and S. M. Vaezpour, “A common fixed point theorem for cyclic operators on partial metric spaces,” FILOMAT, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 407–414, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  32. S. Romaguera, “A Kirk type characterization of completeness for partial metric spaces,” Fixed Point Theory and Applications, vol. 2010, Article ID 493298, 6 pages, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  33. S. Romaguera, “Fixed point theorems for generalized contractions on partial metric spaces,” Topology and its Applications, vol. 159, no. 1, pp. 194–199, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  34. S. Romaguera, “Matkowski's type theorems for generalized contractions on (ordered) partial metric spaces,” Applied General Topology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 213–220, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  35. S. Romaguera and M. Schellekens, “Weightable quasi-metric semigroup and semilattices,” in Proceedings of the MFCSIT, vol. 40 of Electronic Notes of Theoretical computer science, Elsevier, 2003.
  36. B. Samet, M. Rajović, R. Lazović, and R. Stoiljković, “Common fixed point results for nonlinear contractions in ordered partial metric spaces,” Fixed Point Theory and Applications, vol. 2011, article 71, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  37. S. G. Matthews, “Partial metric topology,” Research Report 212, Department of Computer Science. University of Warwick, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  38. R. Kopperman, S. G. Matthews, and H. Pajoohesh, “What do partial metrics represent? Spatial representation: discrete vs. continuous computational models,” in Proceedings of the Dagstuhl Seminar Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum fr Informatik (IBFI '05), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, 2005.
  39. H.-P. A. Künzi, H. Pajoohesh, and M. P. Schellekens, “Partial quasi-metrics,” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 365, no. 3, pp. 237–246, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  40. S. J. O'Neill, “Two topologies are better than one,” Tech. Rep., University of Warwick, Coventry, UK, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  41. R. Heckmann, “Approximation of metric spaces by partial metric spaces,” Applied Categorical Structures, vol. 7, no. 1-2, pp. 71–83, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  42. M. P. Schellekens, “A characterization of partial metrizability: domains are quantifiable,” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 305, no. 1–3, pp. 409–432, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  43. M. P. Schellekens, “The correspondence between partial metrics and semivaluations,” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 315, no. 1, pp. 135–149, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  44. M. Schellekens, “The Smyth completion: a common foundation for denotational semantics and complexity analysis,” in Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics, vol. 1 of Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 535–556, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  45. P. Waszkiewicz, “Partial metrisability of continuous posets,” Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 359–372, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  46. P. Waszkiewicz, “Quantitative continuous domains,” Applied Categorical Structures, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 41–67, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  47. S. G. Matthews, “Partial metric topology,” in Proceedings of the 8th Summer Conference on General Topology and Applications, vol. 728 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, pp. 183–197, 1994.
  48. N. Shobkolaei, S. M. Vaezpour, and S. Sedghi, “A common fixed point theorem on ordered partial metric spaces,” Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, vol. 1, no. 12, pp. 3433–3439, 2011. View at Google Scholar