International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences

International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences / 2010 / Article
!This article has been Retracted. To view the To view the article details, please click the ‘Retraction’ tab above.

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2010 |Article ID 530964 | 11 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/530964

On Multistep Iterative Scheme for Approximating the Common Fixed Points of Contractive-Like Operators

Academic Editor: Manfred H. Moller
Received11 Nov 2009
Revised15 Jan 2010
Accepted22 Jan 2010
Published14 Mar 2010

Abstract

We introduce the Jungck-multistep iteration and show that it converges strongly to the unique common fixed point of a pair of weakly compatible generalized contractive-like operators defined on a Banach space. As corollaries, the results show that the Jungck-Mann, Jungck-Ishikawa, and Jungck-Noor iterations can also be used to approximate the common fixed points of such maps. The results are improvements, generalizations, and extensions of the work of Olatinwo and Imoru (2008), Olatinwo (2008). Consequently, several results in literature are generalized.

1. Introduction

The convergence of Picard, Mann, Ishikawa, Noor and multistep iterations have been commonly used to approximate the fixed points of several classes of single quasicontractive operators, for example, see [1–6].

Let 𝑋 be a Banach space, 𝐾, a nonempty convex subset of 𝑋 and𝑇∶𝐾→𝐾 a self-map of 𝐾.

Definition 1.1. Let 𝑧0∈𝐾. The Picard iteration scheme {𝑧𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0 is defined by 𝑧𝑛+1=𝑇𝑧𝑛,𝑛≥0.(1.1)

Definition 1.2. For any given 𝑢0∈𝐾, the Mann iteration scheme [7] {𝑢𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0 is defined by 𝑢𝑛+1=1−𝛼𝑛𝑢𝑛+𝛼𝑛𝑇𝑢𝑛,(1.2) where {𝛼𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0 are real sequences in [0,1) such that âˆ‘âˆžğ‘›=0𝛼𝑛=∞.

Definition 1.3. Let 𝑥0∈𝐾. The Ishikawa iteration scheme [8] {𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0 is defined by 𝑥𝑛+1=1−𝛼𝑛𝑥𝑛+𝛼𝑛𝑇𝑦𝑛,𝑦𝑛=1−𝛽𝑛𝑥𝑛+𝛽𝑛𝑇𝑥𝑛,(1.3) where {𝛼𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0,{𝛽𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0 are real sequences in [0,1) such that âˆ‘âˆžğ‘›=0𝛼𝑛=∞.

Observe that if 𝛽𝑛=0 for each 𝑛, then the Ishikawa iteration process (1.3) reduces to the Mann iteration scheme (1.2).

Definition 1.4. Let 𝑥0∈𝐾. The Noor iteration (or three-step) scheme [9] {𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0 is defined by 𝑥𝑛+1=1−𝛼𝑛𝑥𝑛+𝛼𝑛𝑇𝑦𝑛,𝑦𝑛=1−𝛽𝑛𝑥𝑛+𝛽𝑛𝑇𝑧𝑛,𝑧𝑛=1−𝛾𝑛𝑥𝑛+𝛾𝑛𝑇𝑥𝑛,(1.4) where {𝛼𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0,{𝛽𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0,{𝛾𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0 are real sequences in [0,1) such thatâˆ‘âˆžğ‘›=0𝛼𝑛=∞.

For motivation and the advantage of using Noor’s iteration, see [5, 9, 10].

Observe that if 𝛾𝑛=0 for each 𝑛, then the Noor iteration process (1.4) reduces to the Ishikawa iteration scheme (1.3).

Definition 1.5. Let 𝑥0∈𝐾. The multistep iteration scheme [11] {𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0 is defined by 𝑥𝑛+1=1−𝛼𝑛𝑥𝑛+𝛼𝑛𝑇𝑦1𝑛,𝑦𝑖𝑛=1−𝛽𝑖𝑛𝑥𝑛+𝛽𝑖𝑛𝑇𝑦𝑛𝑖+1𝑦,𝑖=1,2,…,𝑘−2,𝑛𝑘−1=1−𝛽𝑛𝑘−1𝑥𝑛+𝛽𝑛𝑘−1𝑇𝑥𝑛,𝑘≥2,(1.5) where {𝛼𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0,{𝛽𝑖𝑛},𝑖=1,2,…,𝑘−1, are real sequences in [0,1) such that âˆ‘âˆžğ‘›=0𝛼𝑛=∞.

Observe that the multistep iteration is a generalization of the Noor, Ishikawa, and the Mann iterations. In fact, if 𝑘=1 in (1.5), we have the Mann iteration (1.2), if 𝑘=2 in (1.5), we have the Ishikawa iteration (1.3), and if 𝑘=3, we have the Noor iterations (1.4).

We note that while many authors have worked on the existence of fixed points for a pair of quasicontractive maps, for example, see [1, 12–15], little is known about the approximations of those common fixed points using the convergence of iteration techniques. Jungck was the first to introduce an iteration scheme, which is now called Jungck iteration scheme [13] to approximate the common fixed points of what is now called Jungck contraction maps. Singh et al. [15] of recent introduced the Jungck-Mann iteration procedure and discussed its stability for a pair of contractive maps. Olatinwo and Imoru [16], Olatinwo [17, 18] built on that work to introduce the Jungck-Ishikawa and Jungck-Noor iteration schemes and used their convergences to approximate the coincidence points (not common fixed points) of some pairs of generalized contractive-like operators with the assumption that one of each of the pairs of maps is injective. However, a coincidence point for a pair of quasicontractive maps needs not to be a common fixed point. We introduce the Jungck-multistep iteration and show that its convergence can be used to approximate the common fixed points of those pairs of quasicontractive maps without assuming the injectivity of any of the operators. Hence the iterative sequence used is a generalization of that used in [16–18]. The fact that the injectivity of any of the maps is not assumed in our results and the common fixed points of those maps are approximated and not just the coincidence points make the corollary of our results an improvement of the results of Olaleru [19], Olatinwo and Imoru [16]. Consequently, a lot of results dealing with convergence of Picard, Mann, Ishikawa, and multistep iterations for single quasicontractive operators on Banach spaces are generalized.

2. Preliminaries

Let 𝑋 be a Banach space, 𝑌 an arbitrary set, and 𝑆,𝑇∶𝑌→𝑋 such that 𝑇(𝑌)⊆𝑆(𝑌).

Then we have the following definitions.

Definition 2.1 (see [13]). For any 𝑥𝑜∈𝑌, there exists a sequence {𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0∈𝑌 such that 𝑆𝑥𝑛+1=𝑇𝑥𝑛. The Jungck iteration is defined as the sequence {𝑆𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=1 such that 𝑆𝑥𝑛+1=𝑇𝑥𝑛,𝑛≥0.(2.1) This procedure becomes Picard iteration when 𝑌=𝑋 and 𝑆=𝐼𝑑, where 𝐼𝑑 is the identity map on 𝑋.

Similarly, the Jungck contraction maps are the maps 𝑆,𝑇 satisfying

𝑑(𝑇𝑥,𝑇𝑦)≤𝑘𝑑(𝑆𝑥,𝑆𝑦),0≤𝑘<1∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑌.(2.2) If 𝑌=𝑋 and 𝑆=𝐼𝑑, then maps satisfying (2.2) become the well-known contraction maps.

Definition 2.2 (see [15]). For any given 𝑢𝑜∈𝑌, the Jungck-Mann iteration scheme {𝑆𝑢𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=1 is defined by 𝑆𝑢𝑛+1=1−𝛼𝑛𝑆𝑢𝑛+𝛼𝑛𝑇𝑢𝑛,(2.3) where {𝛼𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0 are real sequences in [0,1) such that âˆ‘âˆžğ‘›=0𝛼𝑛=∞.

Definition 2.3 (see [18]). Let 𝑥𝑜∈𝑌. The Jungck-Ishikawa iteration scheme {𝑆𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=1 is defined by 𝑆𝑥𝑛+1=1−𝛼𝑛𝑆𝑥𝑛+𝛼𝑛𝑇𝑦𝑛,𝑆𝑦𝑛=1−𝛽𝑛𝑆𝑥𝑛+𝛽𝑛𝑇𝑥𝑛,(2.4) where {𝛼𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0,{𝛽𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0 are real sequences in [0,1) such that âˆ‘âˆžğ‘›=0𝛼𝑛=∞.

Definition 2.4 (see [18]). Let 𝑥𝑜∈𝑌. The Jungck-Noor iteration (or three-step) scheme {𝑆𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=1 is defined by 𝑆𝑥𝑛+1=1−𝛼𝑛𝑆𝑥𝑛+𝛼𝑛𝑇𝑦𝑛,𝑆𝑦𝑛=1−𝛽𝑛𝑆𝑥𝑛+𝛽𝑛𝑇𝑧𝑛,𝑆𝑧𝑛=1−𝛾𝑛𝑆𝑥𝑛+𝛾𝑛𝑇𝑥𝑛,(2.5) where {𝛼𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0,{𝛽𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0, and {𝛾𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0 are real sequences in [0,1) such that âˆ‘âˆžğ‘›=0𝛼𝑛=∞.

Definition 2.5. Let 𝑥𝑜∈𝑌. The Jungck-multistep iteration scheme {𝑆𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=1 is defined by 𝑆𝑥𝑛+1=1−𝛼𝑛𝑆𝑥𝑛+𝛼𝑛𝑇𝑦1𝑛,𝑆𝑦𝑖𝑛=1−𝛽𝑖𝑛𝑆𝑥𝑛+𝛽𝑖𝑛𝑇𝑦𝑛𝑖+1,𝑖=1,2,…𝑘−2,𝑆𝑦𝑛𝑘−1=1−𝛽𝑛𝑘−1𝑆𝑥𝑛+𝛽𝑛𝑘−1𝑇𝑥𝑛,𝑘≥2,(2.6) where {𝛼𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=0,{𝛽𝑖𝑛},𝑖=1,2,…,𝑘−1, are real sequences in [0,1) such that âˆ‘âˆžğ‘›=0𝛼𝑛=∞.

Observe that the Jungck-multistep iteration is a generalization of the Jungck-Noor, Jungck-Ishikawa and the Jungck-Mann iterations. In fact, if 𝑘=1 in (2.6), we have the Jungck-Mann iteration (2.3), if 𝑘=2 in (2.6), we have the Jungck-Ishikawa iteration (2.4) and if 𝑘=3, we have the Jungck-Noor iterations (2.5).

Observe that if 𝑋=𝑌 and 𝑆=𝐼𝑑, then the Jungck-multistep (2.6), Jungck-Noor (2.5), Jungck-Ishikawa (2.4), and the Jungck-Mann (2.3) iterations, respectively, become the multistep (1.5), Noor (1.4), Ishikawa (1.3), and the Mann (1.2) iterative procedures.

One of the most general contractive-like operators which has been studied by several authors is the Zamfirescu operators.

Suppose that 𝑋 is a Banach space. The map 𝑇∶𝑋→𝑋 is called a Zamfirescu operator if

î‚»â€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Žmax‖𝑥−𝑦‖,‖𝑥−𝑇𝑥‖+‖𝑦−𝑇𝑦‖2,‖𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖+𝑑‖𝑦−𝑇𝑥‖2,(2.7) where 0≤ℎ<1 see [6].

It is known that the operators satisfying (2.7) are generalizations of Kannan maps [4] and Chatterjea maps [3]. Zamfirescu [6] proved that the Zamfirescu operator has a unique fixed point which can be approximated by Picard iteration (1.1). Berinde [2] showed that Ishikawa iteration can be used to approximate the fixed point of a Zamfirescu operator when 𝑋 is a Banach space while it was shown by the first author [20] that if 𝑋 is generalised to a complete metrizable locally convex space (which includes Banach spaces), the Mann iteration can be used to approximate the fixed point of a Zamfirescu operator. Several researchers have studied the convergence rate of these iterations with respect to the Zamfirescu operators. For example, it has been shown that the Picard iteration (1.1) converges faster than the Mann iteration (1.2) when dealing with the Zamfirescu operators. For example, see [21]. It is still a subject of research as to conditions under which the Mann iteration will converge faster than the Ishikawa or vice-versa when dealing with the Zamfirescu operators.

We now consider the following conditions. 𝑋 is a Banach space and 𝑌 a nonempty set such that 𝑇(𝑌)⊆𝑆(𝑌) and 𝑆,𝑇∶𝑌→𝑋. For 𝑥,𝑦∈𝑌 and ℎ∈(0,1):

î‚»â€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Žmax‖𝑆𝑥−𝑆𝑦‖,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑦‖2,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑥‖2,(2.8)â€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Žmax‖𝑆𝑥−𝑆𝑦‖,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑦‖2,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖,‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑥‖,(2.9)‖𝑇𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖≤𝛿‖𝑆𝑥−𝑆𝑦‖+𝐿‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥‖,𝐿>0,0<𝛿<1,(2.10)‖𝑇𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖≤𝛿‖𝑆𝑥−𝑆𝑦‖+𝜑(‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥‖)1+𝑀‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥‖,0≤𝛿<1,𝑀≥0,(2.11)‖𝑇𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖≤𝛿‖𝑆𝑥−𝑆𝑦‖+𝜑(‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥‖),0≤𝛿<1.(2.12) where 𝜑∶ℜ+→ℜ+ is a monotone increasing sequence with 𝜑(0)=0.

Remark 2.6. Observe that if 𝑋=𝑌 and 𝑆=𝐼𝑑, (2.8) is the same as the Zamfirescu operator (2.7) already studied by several authors; (2.9) becomes the operator studied by Rhoades [22]; while (2.10) becomes the operator introduced by Osilike [23]. Operators satisfying (2.11) and (2.12) were introduced by Olatinwo [16].

A comparison of the four maps show the following.

Proposition 2.7. (2.8)⇒(2.9)⇒(2.10)⇒(2.11)⇒(2.12) but the converses are not true.

Proof. (2.8)⇒(2.9): This follows immediately since ‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑥‖2≤max{‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖,‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑥‖}.(2.13) (2.9)⇒(2.10): We consider each of the possibilities.Case 1. Suppose â€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Žâ€–ğ‘†ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Žâ€–ğ‘†ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¥â€–+â„Žâ€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€– and consequently, â€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Ž/(1−ℎ)(𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥). Setting 𝐿=ℎ/(1−ℎ) completes the proof.Case 2. Suppose â€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Žâ€–ğ‘†ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¥â€–+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑦‖2â‰¤â„Žâ€–ğ‘†ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¥â€–+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑆𝑥+𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥+𝑇𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖2â„Žâ‰¤â„Žâ€–ğ‘†ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¥â€–+2â„Žâ€–ğ‘†ğ‘¦âˆ’ğ‘†ğ‘¥â€–+2‖𝑇𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖.(2.14) After computing we haveâ€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Ž/(2−ℎ)‖𝑆𝑦−𝑆𝑥‖+2ℎ/(2−ℎ)‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥‖. Setting 𝛿=ℎ/(2−ℎ) and 𝐿=2ℎ/(2−ℎ) completes the proof.Case 3. â€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Žâ€–ğ‘†ğ‘¦âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¥â€–â‰¤â„Žâ€–ğ‘†ğ‘¦âˆ’ğ‘†ğ‘¥â€–+â„Žâ€–ğ‘†ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¥â€–.
(2.10)⇒(2.11): Suppose 𝑀=0 and 𝜑(𝑡)=𝐿𝑡 in (2.11), we have (2.10).
(2.11)⇒(2.12): This follows from the fact that
‖𝑇𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖≤𝛿‖𝑆𝑥−𝑆𝑦‖+𝜑(‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑥‖)(1+𝑀‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑥‖≤𝛿‖𝑆𝑥−𝑆𝑦‖+𝜑‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑥‖).(2.15)

We need the following definition.

Definition 2.8 (see [1]). A point 𝑥∈𝑋 is called a coincident point of a pair of self-maps 𝑆,𝑇 if there exists a point 𝑤 (called a point of coincidence) in 𝑋 such that 𝑤=𝑆𝑥=𝑇𝑥. Self-maps 𝑆 and 𝑇 are said to be weakly compatible if they commute at their coincidence points, that is, if 𝑆𝑥=𝑇𝑥 for some 𝑥∈𝑋, then 𝑆𝑇𝑥=𝑇𝑆𝑥.

Olatinwo and Imoru [16] proved that the Jungck-Mann and Jungck-Ishikawa converge to the 𝑐𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 of 𝑆,𝑇 defined by (2.8) when 𝑆 is an injective operator. It was shown in [19] that the Jungck-Ishikawa iteration converges to the coincidence point of 𝑆,𝑇 defined by (2.12) when 𝑆 is an injective operator while the same convergence result was proved for Jungck-Noor when 𝑆,𝑇 are defined by (2.11) [18]. (We note that the maps satisfying (2.9) and of course (2.10)–(2.12) need not have a coincidence point [15].) We rather prove the convergence of multistep iteration to the unique 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 of 𝑆,𝑇 defined by (2.12), without assuming that 𝑆 is injective, provided the coincident point exist for 𝑆,𝑇.

3. Main Results

The following lemma is well known.

Lemma 3.1. Let {ğ‘Žğ‘›} be a sequence of nonnegative numbers such that ğ‘Žğ‘›+1≤(1−𝜆𝑛)ğ‘Žğ‘› for any 𝑛, where 𝜆𝑛∈[0,1) and âˆ‘âˆžğ‘›=0𝜆𝑛=∞. Then {ğ‘Žğ‘›} converges to zero.

Theorem 3.2. Let 𝑋 be a Banach space and 𝑆,𝑇∶𝑌→𝑋 for an arbitrary set 𝑌 such that (2.12) holds and 𝑇(𝑌)⊆𝑆(𝑌). Assume that 𝑆 and 𝑇 have a coincidence point 𝑧 such that 𝑇𝑧=𝑆𝑧=𝑝. For any 𝑥𝑜∈𝑌, the Jungck-multistep iteration (2.6) {𝑆𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=1 converges to 𝑝.

Further, if 𝑌=𝑋 and 𝑆,𝑇 commute at 𝑝 (i.e., 𝑆 and 𝑇 are weakly compatible), then 𝑝 is the unique common fixed point of 𝑆,𝑇.

Proof. In view of (2.6) and (2.12) coupled with the fact that 𝑇𝑧=𝑆𝑧=𝑝, we have ‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛+1‖‖≤−𝑝1−𝛼𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛼𝑛‖‖𝑇𝑧−𝑇𝑦1𝑛‖‖≤1−𝛼𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛼𝑛𝛿‖‖𝑆𝑧−𝑆𝑦1𝑛‖‖()=+𝜑‖𝑆𝑧−𝑇𝑧‖1−𝛼𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛿𝛼𝑛‖‖𝑝−𝑆𝑦1𝑛‖‖.(3.1) An application of (2.6) and (2.12) gives ‖‖𝑆𝑦1𝑛‖‖≤−𝑝1−𝛽1𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛽1𝑛‖‖𝑇𝑧−𝑇𝑦2𝑛‖‖≤1−𝛽1𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛽1𝑛𝛿‖‖𝑆𝑧−𝑆𝑦2𝑛‖‖.+𝜑(‖𝑆𝑧−𝑇𝑧‖)(3.2) Substituting (3.2) in (3.1), we have ‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛+1‖‖≤−𝑝1−𝛼𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛿𝛼𝑛1−𝛽1𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛿2𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑦2𝑛‖‖=−𝑝1−(1−𝛿)𝛼𝑛−𝛿𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛿2𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑦2𝑛‖‖.−𝑝(3.3) Similarly, an application of (2.6) and (2.12) give ‖𝑆𝑦2𝑛−𝑝‖≤1−𝛽2𝑛‖𝑆𝑥𝑛−𝑝‖+𝛿𝛽2𝑛‖𝑆𝑦3𝑛−𝑝‖.(3.4) Substituting (3.4) in (3.3) we have ‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛+1‖‖≤−𝑝1−(1−𝛿)𝛼𝑛−𝛿𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛿2𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛1−𝛽2𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛿3𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑦3𝑛‖‖=−𝑝1−(1−𝛿)𝛼𝑛−(1−𝛿)𝛿𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛−𝛿2𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛿3𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑦3𝑛‖‖.−𝑝(3.5) Similarly, an application of (2.6) and (2.12) gives ‖𝑆𝑦3𝑛−𝑝‖≤1−𝛽3𝑛‖𝑆𝑥𝑛−𝑝‖+𝛿𝛽3𝑛‖𝑆𝑦4𝑛−𝑝‖.(3.6) Substituting (3.6) in (3.5) we have ‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛+1‖‖≤−𝑝1−(1−𝛿)𝛼𝑛−(1−𝛿)𝛿𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛−𝛿2𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛿3𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛1−𝛽3𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛿4𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛𝛽3𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑦4𝑛‖‖=−𝑝1−(1−𝛿)𝛼𝑛−(1−𝛿)𝛿𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛−(1−𝛿)𝛿2𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛−𝛿3𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛𝛽3𝑛×‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛿4𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛𝛽3𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑦4𝑛‖‖≤−𝑝1−(1−𝛿)𝛼𝑛−𝛿3𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛𝛽3𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛿4𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛𝛽3𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑦4𝑛‖‖.−𝑝(3.7) Continuing the above process we have ‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛+1‖‖≤−𝑝1−(1−𝛿)𝛼𝑛−𝛿𝑘−2𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛𝛽3𝑛…𝛽𝑛𝑘−2‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛿𝑘−1𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛𝛽3𝑛…𝛽𝑛𝑘−2‖‖𝑆𝑦𝑛𝑘−1‖‖≤−𝑝1−(1−𝛿)𝛼𝑛−𝛿𝑘−2𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛𝛽3𝑛…𝛽𝑛𝑘−2‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛿𝑘−1𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛𝛽3𝑛…𝛽𝑛𝑘−21−𝛽𝑛𝑘−1‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛽𝑛𝑘−1‖‖𝑇𝑧−𝑇𝑥𝑛‖‖≤1−(1−𝛿)𝛼𝑛−𝛿𝑘−2𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛𝛽3𝑛…𝛽𝑛𝑘−2‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛿𝑘−1𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛𝛽3𝑛…𝛽𝑛𝑘−21−𝛽𝑛𝑘−1‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖−𝑝+𝛿𝛽𝑛𝑘−1‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖≤−𝑝1−(1−𝛿)𝛼𝑛−𝛿𝑘−2𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛𝛽3𝑛…𝛽𝑛𝑘−2+𝛿𝑘−1𝛼𝑛𝛽1𝑛𝛽2𝑛𝛽3𝑛…𝛽𝑛𝑘−2‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖≤−𝑝1−(1−𝛿)𝛼𝑛‖‖𝑆𝑥𝑛‖‖.−𝑝(3.8) Hence by Lemma 3.1𝑆𝑥𝑛→𝑝.
Next we show that 𝑝 is unique. Suppose there exists another point of coincidence 𝑝∗. Then there is an 𝑧∗∈𝑋 such that 𝑇𝑧∗=𝑆𝑧∗=𝑝∗. Hence, from (2.12) we have
‖𝑝−𝑝∗‖=‖𝑇𝑧−𝑇𝑧∗‖≤𝛿‖𝑆𝑧−𝑆𝑧∗‖+𝜑(‖𝑆𝑧−𝑇𝑧‖)=𝛿‖𝑝−𝑝∗‖.(3.9) Since 𝛿<1, then 𝑝=𝑝∗ and so 𝑝 is unique.
Since 𝑆,𝑇 are weakly compatible, then 𝑇𝑆𝑧=𝑆𝑇𝑧 and so 𝑇𝑝=𝑆𝑝. Hence 𝑝 is a coincidence point of 𝑆,𝑇 and since the coincidence point is unique, then 𝑝=𝑝∗ and hence 𝑆𝑝=𝑇𝑝=𝑝 and therefore 𝑝 is the unique common fixed point of 𝑆,𝑇 and the proof is complete.

Remark 3.3. Weaker versions of Theorem 3.2 are the results in [16, 18] where 𝑆 is assumed injective and the convergence is not to the common fixed point but to the coincidence point of 𝑆,𝑇. Furthermore, the Jungck-multistep iteration used in Theorem 3.2 is more general than the Jungck-Ishikawa and the Jungck-Noor iteration used in [17, 18].

It is already shown in [1, 20] that if 𝑆(𝑌) or 𝑇(𝑌) is a complete subspace of 𝑋, then maps satisfying the generalized Zamfirescu operators (2.8) have a unique coincidence point. Hence we have the following results.

Theorem 3.4. Let 𝑋 be a Banach space and 𝑆,𝑇∶𝑋→𝑋 such that î‚»â€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Žmax‖𝑆𝑥−𝑆𝑦‖,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑦‖2,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑥‖2,(3.10) and 𝑇(𝑋)⊆𝑆(𝑋). Assume that 𝑆 and 𝑇 are weakly compatible. For any 𝑥𝑜∈𝑋, the Jungck-multistep iteration (2.6) {𝑆𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=1 converges to the unique common fixed point of 𝑆,𝑇.

Since the Jungck-Noor, Jungck-Ishikawa and Jungck-Mann iterations are special cases of Jungck-multistep iteration, then we have the following consequences.

Corollary 3.5. Let 𝑋 be a Banach space and 𝑆,𝑇∶𝑋→𝑋 such that î‚»â€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Žmax‖𝑆𝑥−𝑆𝑦‖,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑦‖2,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑥‖2(3.11) and 𝑇(𝑋)⊆𝑆(𝑋). Assume 𝑆 and 𝑇 are weakly compatible. For any 𝑥𝑜∈𝑋, the Jungck-Noor iteration (2.5) {𝑆𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=1 converges to the unique common fixed point of 𝑆,𝑇.

Corollary 3.6. Let 𝑋 be a Banach space and 𝑆,𝑇∶𝑋→𝑋 such that î‚»â€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Žmax‖𝑆𝑥−𝑆𝑦‖,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑦‖2,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑥‖2(3.12) and 𝑇(𝑋)⊆𝑆(𝑋). Assume that 𝑆 and 𝑇 are weakly compatible. For any 𝑥𝑜∈𝑋, the Jungck-Ishikawa iteration (2.4) {𝑆𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=1 converges to the unique common fixed point of 𝑆,𝑇.

Remark 3.7. (i) A weaker version of Corollary 3.6 is the main result of [16] where the convergence is to the coincidence point of 𝑆,𝑇 and 𝑆 is assumed injective.
(ii) If 𝑆=𝐼𝑑 in Corollary 3.5, then we have the main result of [2].

Corollary 3.8. Let 𝑋 be a Banach space and 𝑆,𝑇∶𝑋→𝑋 such that î‚»â€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Žmax‖𝑆𝑥−𝑆𝑦‖,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑦‖2,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑥‖2,(3.13) and𝑇(𝑋)⊆𝑆(𝑋). Assume that 𝑆 and 𝑇 are weakly compatible. For any 𝑥𝑜∈𝑋, the Jungck-Mann iteration (2.3) {𝑆𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=1 converges to the unique common fixed point of 𝑆,𝑇.

Remark 3.9. If 𝑆=𝐼𝑑, Corollary 3.8 gives the result of [20].

It is already shown in [1, 2] that if 𝑆(𝑌) or 𝑇(𝑌) is a complete subspace of 𝑋, then maps satisfying the operators (2.9) has a unique coincidence point. Hence we have the following results.

Theorem 3.10. Let 𝑋 be a Banach space space and 𝑆,𝑇∶𝑋→𝑋 such that î‚»â€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Žmax‖𝑆𝑥−𝑆𝑦‖,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑦‖2,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑥‖2(3.14) and 𝑇(𝑋)⊆𝑆(𝑋). Assume that 𝑆 and 𝑇 are weakly compatible. For any 𝑥𝑜∈𝑋, the Jungck-multistep iteration (2.6) {𝑆𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=1 converges to the unique common fixed point of 𝑆,𝑇.

Since the Jungck-Noor, Jungck-Ishikawa, and Jungck-Mann iterations are special cases of Jungck-multistep iteration, then we have the following consequences.

Corollary 3.11. Let 𝑋 be a Banach space and 𝑆,𝑇∶𝑋→𝑋 such that î‚»â€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Žmax‖𝑆𝑥−𝑆𝑦‖,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑦‖2,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑥‖,(3.15) and 𝑇(𝑋)⊆𝑆(𝑋). Assume that 𝑆 and 𝑇 are weakly compatible. For any 𝑥𝑜∈𝑋, the Jungck-Noor iteration (2.5) {𝑆𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=1 converges to the unique common fixed point of 𝑆,𝑇.

Corollary 3.12. Let 𝑋 be a Banach space and 𝑆,𝑇∶𝑋→𝑋 such that î‚»â€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Žmax‖𝑆𝑥−𝑆𝑦‖,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑦‖2,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑥‖,(3.16) and 𝑇(𝑋)⊆𝑆(𝑋). Assume that 𝑆 and 𝑇 are weakly compatible. For any 𝑥𝑜∈𝑋, the Jungck-Ishikawa iteration (2.4) {𝑆𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=1 converges to the unique common fixed point of 𝑆,𝑇.

Corollary 3.13. Let 𝑋 be a Banach space and 𝑆,𝑇∶𝑋→𝑋 such that î‚»â€–ğ‘‡ğ‘¥âˆ’ğ‘‡ğ‘¦â€–â‰¤â„Žmax‖𝑆𝑥−𝑆𝑦‖,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑥‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑦‖2,‖𝑆𝑥−𝑇𝑦‖+‖𝑆𝑦−𝑇𝑥‖,(3.17) and 𝑇(𝑋)⊆𝑆(𝑋). Assume that 𝑆 and 𝑇 are weakly compatible. For any 𝑥𝑜∈𝑋, the Jungck-Mann iteration (2.3) {𝑆𝑥𝑛}âˆžğ‘›=1 converges to the unique common fixed point of 𝑆,𝑇.

Acknowledgments

The research is supported by the African Mathematics Millennium Science Initiative (AMMSI). The first author is grateful to the Hampton University, Virginia, USA, for hospitality.

References

  1. M. Abbas and G. Jungck, “Common fixed point results for noncommuting mappings without continuity in cone metric spaces,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 341, no. 1, pp. 416–420, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  2. V. Berinde, “On the convergence of the Ishikawa iteration in the class of quasi contractive operators,” Acta Mathematica Universitatis Comenianae, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 119–126, 2004. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  3. S. K. Chatterjea, “Fixed-point theorems,” Comptes Rendus de l'Académie Bulgare des Sciences, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 727–730, 1972. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  4. R. Kannan, “Some results on fixed points. II,” The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 76, pp. 405–408, 1969. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  5. M. A. Noor, “Some developments in general variational inequalities,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 152, no. 1, pp. 199–277, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  6. T. Zamfirescu, “Fix point theorems in metric spaces,” Archiv der Mathematik, vol. 23, pp. 292–298, 1972. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  7. W. R. Mann, “Mean value methods in iteration,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 4, pp. 506–510, 1953. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  8. S. Ishikawa, “Fixed points by a new iteration method,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 147–150, 1974. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  9. M. A. Noor, “New approximation schemes for general variational inequalities,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 251, no. 1, pp. 217–229, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  10. M. A. Noor, Principles of Variational Inequalities, Lap-Lambert Academic, Saarbrukrn, Germany, 2009.
  11. B. E. Rhoades and S. M. Soltuz, “The equivalence between Mann-Ishikawa ietrations and multistep iteration,” Nonlinear Anal., vol. 58, pp. 219–228, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  12. K. M. Das and K. V. Naik, “Common fixed-point theorems for commuting maps on a metric space,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 369–373, 1979. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  13. G. Jungck, “Commuting mappings and fixed points,” The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 261–263, 1976. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  14. S. L. Singh, “On common fixed points of commuting mappings,” Mathematics Seminar Notes. Kobe University, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 131–134, 1977. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  15. S. L. Singh, C. Bhatnagar, and S. N. Mishra, “Stability of Jungck-type iterative procedures,” International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, no. 19, pp. 3035–3043, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  16. M. O. Olatinwo and C. O. Imoru, “Some convergence results for the Jungck-Mann and the Jungck-Ishikawa iteration processes in the class of generalized Zamfirescu operators,” Acta Mathematica Universitatis Comenianae, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 299–304, 2008. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  17. M. O. Olatinwo, “Some stability and strong convergence results for the Jungck-Ishikawa iteration process,” Creative Mathematics and Informatics, vol. 17, pp. 33–42, 2008. View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  18. M. O. Olatinwo, “A generalization of some convergence results using a Jungck-Noor three-step iteration process in arbitrary Banach space,” Fasciculi Mathematici, no. 40, pp. 37–43, 2008. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  19. J. O. Olaleru, “A new approximation method for the common fixed points of two weakly compatible mappings,” submitted. View at: Google Scholar
  20. J. O. Olaleru, “On the convergence of the Mann iteration in locally convex spaces,” Carpathian Journal of Mathematics, vol. 22, no. 1-2, pp. 115–120, 2006. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  21. O. Popescu, “Picard iteration converges faster than Mann iteration for a class of quasi-contractive operators,” Mathematical Communications, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 195–202, 2007. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  22. B. E. Rhoades, “Comments on two fixed point iteration methods,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 741–750, 1976. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet
  23. M. O. Osilike, “Stability results for the Ishikawa fixed point iteration procedure,” Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 937–945, 1995. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH | MathSciNet

Copyright © 2010 J. O. Olaleru and H. Akewe. 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.


More related articles

607 Views | 459 Downloads | 3 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.