International Journal of Analysis

Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 8247925, 14 pages

https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8247925

## Geraghty Type Generalized -Contractions and Related Applications in Partial -Metric Spaces

^{1}Department of Applied Sciences, NITTTR, Ministry of HRD, Government of India, Bhopal 462002, India^{2}Department of Mathematics, NRI Institute of Research & Technology, Bhopal, India^{3}Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok 65000, Thailand

Correspondence should be addressed to R. Wangkeeree; ht.ca.un@wnaibar

Received 31 October 2016; Accepted 6 December 2016; Published 15 March 2017

Academic Editor: Ying Hu

Copyright © 2017 Deepak Singh 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

The purpose of this paper is to introduce new concepts of -admissible Geraghty type generalized -contraction and to prove that some fixed point results for such mappings are in the perspective of partial -metric space. As an application, we inaugurate new fixed point results for Geraghty type generalized graphic -contraction defined on partial metric space endowed with a directed graph. On the other hand, one more application to the existence and uniqueness of a solution for the first-order periodic boundary value problem is also provided. Our findings encompass various generalizations of the Banach contraction principle on metric space, partial metric space, and partial -metric space. Moreover, some examples are presented to illustrate the usability of the new theory.

#### 1. Introduction and Preliminaries

There are a lots of extensions and generalizations of Banach contraction principle [1]. In 1973, Geraghty [2] introduced an interesting contraction and investigated the existence and uniqueness of such mappings in the setting of complete metric spaces by considering an auxiliary function. Later, the -metric concept was launched by Bakhtin [3] as a generalization of a metric to extend the celebrated Banach contraction principle, which was extensively extended by Czerwik [4, 5]. On the other hand, in 1994, Matthews [6] introduced the concept of partial metric spaces wherein the distance of a point from itself may not be zero. Later on, in [7], Karapinar et al. implanted fixed point theorems involving rational expressions in the frame of partial metric space. In 2012, Samet et al. [8] introduced the concept of -contractive and -admissible mappings and established various fixed point results for such type of mappings in the context of complete metric spaces. In 2015, Chandok [9] generalized the concept of -admissible mappings by introducing -admissible mappings.

In recent times, Shukla [10] generalized the concept of both -metric and partial metric space by presenting the partial -metric space. After that, in [11], Mustafa et al. introduced a modified version of partial -metric space. On the other hand, in 2012, Wardowski [12] introduced a new contraction called -contraction and proved a fixed point result as a generalization of the Banach contraction principle. After this, Secelean [13] described a large class of functions by replacing condition instead of condition in the definition of -contraction presented by Wardowski [12]. Very recently, Piri and Kumam [14] improved the result of Secelean [13] by replacing condition instead of condition .

In this work, we introduce the notion of -admissible Geraghty type generalized -contraction and set up some fixed point results concerning such contractions. Moreover, some examples and applications are presented in support of our results. Our proposed definitions and related applications are different as given in [15]. In the sequel, , , and will represent the set of all real numbers, natural numbers, and positive integers, respectively. Some useful definitions and auxiliary results, which will be required in the sequel, are recollected here.

*Definition 1 (see [4]). *Let be a nonempty set and be a given real number. A function is called a -metric if for all the following conditions are satisfied: iff ...The pair is called a -metric space. The number is called the coefficient of .

*Definition 2 (see [6]). *A partial metric on a nonempty set is a function such that for all iff ;;;.A partial metric space is a pair such that is a nonempty set and is a partial metric on .

*Definition 3 (see [10]). *Let be a nonempty set and be a given real number. A function is called a partial -metric if for all the following conditions are satisfied: iff ....The pair is called a partial -metric space. The number is called the coefficient of .

In the following definition, Mustafa et al. [11] modified Definition 3 in order to find whether each partial -metric generates a -metric .

*Definition 4 (see [11]). *Let be a nonempty set and be a given real number. A function is called a partial -metric if for all the following conditions are satisfied: iff ....The pair is called a partial -metric space. The number is called the coefficient of .

*Example 5 (see [10]). *Let , be a constant and be defined byfor all Then, is a partial -metric space with the coefficient , but it is neither a -metric nor a partial metric space.

*Remark 6. *The class of partial -metric space is effectively larger than the class of partial metric space, since a partial metric space is a special case of a partial -metric space when . Also, the class of partial -metric space is effectively larger than the class of -metric space, since a -metric space is a special case of a partial -metric space when the self-distance .

Proposition 7 (see [10]). *Let be a nonempty set and let be a partial metric and be a -metric with the coefficient on . Then, the function , defined by for all , is a partial -metric on with the coefficient .*

Proposition 8 (see [10]). *Let be a partial metric space and . Then, is a partial -metric space with the coefficient , where is defined by .*

Proposition 9 (see [11]). *Every partial -metric defines a -metric , where*

*Definition 10 (see [11]). *A sequence in a partial -metric space is said to be (1)-convergent to a point if ;(2)a -Cauchy sequence if exists (and is finite).A partial -metric space is said to be -complete if every -Cauchy sequence in -converges to a point , such that

Lemma 11 (see [11]). *Let be a partial -metric space. Then, *(1)*a sequence is a -Cauchy sequence in if and only if it is a -Cauchy sequence in the -metric space ;*(2)* is -complete if and only if the -metric space is complete. Moreover, if and only if *

*Definition 12 (see [2]). *Let denote the class of the functions which satisfy the condition

*Definition 13 (see [16]). *Let be a self-mapping on and be a function. One says that is an -admissible mapping if

*Definition 14 (see [9]). *Let be a nonempty set, , and . One says that is -admissible if and imply and , for all .

*Let be the set of functions such that(1) is nondecreasing;(2) is continuous;(3)*

*On the other hand, Wardowski [12] introduced the -contraction as follows.*

*Definition 15. *Let be a mapping satisfying the following: is strictly increasing, that is, for such that implies .For each sequence of positive numbers, if and only if .There exists such that .

*We denote the set of all functions satisfying ()–() by . In [13], Secelean replaced condition by an equivalent but a more simple condition ., or also by the following.There exists a sequence of positive real numbers such that . Most recently, Piri and Kumam [14] used the following condition instead of . is continuous on . We denote the set of all functions satisfying , , and by .*

*We introduce the following function.*

*Definition 16. *Let be the set of all continuous functions satisfying the following: for all , if for , where , then there exists such that .

*2. Main Results*

*2.1. Fixed Point Results for -Admissible Geraghty Type Generalized -Contraction*

*We start this section by introducing the following definition.*

*Definition 17. *Let be a partial -metric space and be a self-mapping. Also, suppose that , where the pair is defined as in Definition 14. One says that is an -admissible Geraghty type generalized -contraction on a partial -metric space , if there exist , , , and such that, for all and with , whereand is a constant.

*Our main result of this paper is the following one.*

*Theorem 18. Let be a complete partial -metric space. Let be a self-mapping on satisfying the following conditions: (1) is -admissible.(2)There exists such that and .(3) is an -admissible Geraghty type generalized -contraction on .(4) is continuous.Then, has a unique fixed point ; moreover, .*

*Proof. *Let such that and . Define a sequence in by for all . If for any , then is a fixed point of . Consequently, assume that for all .

Since is an -admissible mapping, it follows from (2) that , . By induction, we getSimilarly, for all

By taking and in (5) and due to (), property of and , we arrive atwhereIf , for all , from (8) and by the definition of functions and , we deduce that a contradiction, since . Thus, it follows that . Again, from (8) and by the definition of functions and , we havewhich givesHence, is a decreasing sequence of positive real numbers. Repeated use of (11) givesSince , letting the limit as in (13), we getMoreover, from (), we have the following:Now, we will prove that is a -Cauchy sequence in . From Lemma 11, we need to prove that is a -Cauchy sequence in the -metric space . Suppose on the contrary that there exists such that for an integer there exists integer such thatFor every integer , let be the least positive integer exceeding satisfying (16) such thatDue to triangle inequality and from (16), we getwhich on making and using (17) give rise toAlso, from (17) and (19), we havewhich givesFurthermore,which yieldsUtilizing Proposition 9, we haveThen, from the above inequality along with (19), we acquireAnalogously, we deduce thatSince , therefore, due to inequality (5), we haveUtilizing the definition of and along with inequalities (25)-(26) gives rise toIndeed, so thatBy repeating the above technique, one can easily arrive at From (27) together with (28), we have which implies thatwhich yieldsUtilizing the definition of and , we obtaina contradiction. Thus, we have proved that is a -Cauchy sequence in the -metric space ; then, from Lemma 11, is a -Cauchy sequence in the partial -metric space As is complete, by Lemma 11, -metric space is -complete. Therefore, the sequence converges to some point ; that is, Again, from Lemma 11,Next, we will show that is the fixed point of reasoning by contradiction. Suppose that ; inequality (5) implies thatin whichBy repeating the same process as mentioned above, we haveMaking limit in (37) and due to inequalities (38) and (39), property of function together with continuity of , this gives rise to Using the definitions of and , the above inequality turns intowhich implieswhich is impossible. This contradiction proves that ; that is, . Hence, we assert that is a fixed point of .

To prove the uniqueness of the fixed point , let be another fixed point of ; that is, , such that From (5), we obtain that whereTherefore, using the definition of and along with the value of and , the above inequality turns into the following: which gives a contradiction. Hence, ; that is, . Thus, we conclude that the fixed point of is unique. Next, we will prove that . If , then, from (5) and by applying the routine calculation as mentioned above, we can get a contradiction. Thus, .

This completes the proof of the theorem.

*Now, we present an example which shows the superiority of our assertion.*

*Example 19. *Let be equipped with the partial order relation defined byand the function is defined byfor all , where . It is obvious that is a complete partial -metric space. Let the mapping be defined by And we define the mapping by By the definition of , it is clear that and . Also, there exists in such that and .

Define by . And let be given by . Let for all .

Without loss of generality, we may take such that . In order to check the contractive condition (5) of Theorem 18, we have to consider the following cases.*Case 1*. If , thenFor RHS, utilizing the definitions of and , one can easily verify that and Hence,for all and using the above hypotheses that . Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate that the RHS expression (with green curve) dominates the LHS expression (with pink curve) for , which validates our inequality.

From Figures 1 and 2, it is easy to find that condition (5) holds for all with and . *Case 2*. If , then . From (5), we arrive at Figures 3 and 4 show that the RHS expression (with green curve) overshadows the LHS expression (with pink curve), which authenticates our inequality.

From Figures 3 and 4, it is clear that condition (5) holds for all .*Case 3*. If and , then Case is similar to Case , and therefore we skip the details.

Thus, all the conditions of Theorem 18 are fulfilled and is a unique fixed point of the involved mapping (see Figure 5).