/ / Article
Special Issue

## Applications of Fixed Point and Approximate Algorithms

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2012 |Article ID 382094 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/382094

Hemant Kumar Nashine, Zoran Kadelburg, Zorana Golubović, "Common Fixed Point Results Using Generalized Altering Distances on Orbitally Complete Ordered Metric Spaces", Journal of Applied Mathematics, vol. 2012, Article ID 382094, 12 pages, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/382094

# Common Fixed Point Results Using Generalized Altering Distances on Orbitally Complete Ordered Metric Spaces

Accepted21 Mar 2012
Published22 May 2012

#### Abstract

We prove the existence of common fixed points for three relatively asymptotically regular mappings defined on an orbitally complete ordered metric space using orbital continuity of one of the involved maps. We furnish a suitable example to demonstrate the validity of the hypotheses of our results.

#### 1. Introduction and Preliminaries

Browder and Petryshyn introduced the concept of asymptotic regularity of a self-map at a point in a metric space.

Definition 1.1 (see ). A self-map on a metric space is said to be asymptotically regular at a point if .

Recall that the set is called the orbit of the self-map at the point .

Definition 1.2 (see ). A metric space is said to be complete if every Cauchy sequence contained in (for some in ) converges in .

Here, it can be pointed out that every complete metric space is complete for any , but a complete metric space need not be complete.

Definition 1.3 (see ). A self-map defined on a metric space is said to be orbitally continuous at a point in if for any sequence (for some ), as implies as .

Clearly, every continuous self-mapping of a metric space is orbitally continuous, but not conversely.

Sastry et al.  extended the above concepts to two and three mappings and employed them to prove common fixed point results for commuting mappings. In what follows, we collect such definitions for three maps.

Definition 1.4 (see ). Let be three self-mappings defined on a metric space .

(1)If for a point , there exists a sequence in such that , , , then the set is called the orbit of at .(2)The space is said to be -orbitally complete at if every Cauchy sequence in converges in .(3)The map is said to be orbitally continuous at if it is continuous on .(4)The pair is said to be asymptotically regular (in short a.r.) with respect to at if there exists a sequence in such that , , , and as .

On the other side, Khan et al.  introduced the notion of an altering distance function, which is a control function that alters distance between two points in a metric space. This notion has been used by several authors to establish fixed point results in a number of subsequent works, some of which are noted in . In , Choudhury introduced the concept of a generalized altering distance function in three variables which was further generalized by Rao et al.  to four variables and is defined as follows.

Definition 1.5 (see ). A function is said to be a generalized altering distance function if(i) is continuous,(ii) is nondecreasing in each variable,(iii). will denote the set of all functions satisfying conditions (i)–(iii).

Simple examples of generalized altering distance functions with four variables are

On the other hand, fixed point theory has developed rapidly in metric spaces endowed with a partial ordering. The first result in this direction was given by Ran and Reurings  who presented its applications to matrix equations. Subsequently, Nieto and Rodríguez-López  extended this result for nondecreasing mappings and applied it to obtain a unique solution for a first order ordinary differential equation with periodic boundary conditions. Thereafter, several authors obtained many fixed point theorems in ordered metric spaces. For more details see  and the references cited therein.

In this paper, an attempt has been made to derive some common fixed point theorems for three relatively asymptotically regular mappings defined on an orbitally complete ordered metric space, using orbital continuity of one of the involved maps and conditions involving a generalized altering distance function. The presented theorems generalize, extend, and improve some recent results given in [7, 14, 21, 22]. In the hypotheses, we have considered the space as not necessarily complete, the maps , and as not necessarily continuous and the range of and may not be contained in the range of .

#### 2. Results

##### 2.1. Notations and Definitions

First, we introduce some further notations and definitions that will be used later.

If is a partially ordered set, then are called comparable if or holds. A subset of is said to be well ordered if every two elements of are comparable. If is such that, for , implies , then the mapping is said to be nondecreasing.

Definition 2.1. Let be a partially ordered set and . (1) The pair is called weakly increasing if and for all .(2) The pair is called partially weakly increasing if for all .(3) The mapping is called a weak annihilator of if for all .(4) The mapping is called dominating if for each .

Note that none of two weakly increasing mappings need to be nondecreasing. There exist some examples to illustrate this fact in . Obviously, the pair is weakly increasing if and only if the ordered pairs and are partially weakly increasing. Following is an example of an ordered pair which is partially weakly increasing but not weakly increasing.

Example 2.2 (see ). Let be endowed with usual ordering.

(1)Let be defined by and . Clearly, is partially weakly increasing. But for implies that is not partially weakly increasing.(2)Let be defined by and . Obviously, for all . Thus is a weak annihilator of .(3)Let be defined by . Since for all , is a dominating map.

Definition 2.3 (see [25, 26]). Let be a metric space and . The mappings and are said to be compatible if , whenever is a sequence in such that for some .

Definition 2.4. Let be a nonempty set. Then is called an ordered metric space if(i) is a metric space,(ii) is a partially ordered set.

##### 2.2. Main Results

The first main result is as follows.

Theorem 2.5. Let be an ordered metric space. Let be given mappings satisfying for all (for some ) such that and are comparable, where and   and are generalized altering distance functions (in ) and . We assume the following hypotheses:(i) is a.r. with respect to at ;(ii) is -orbitally complete at ;(iii) and are partially weakly increasing;(iv) and are dominating maps;(v) and are weak annihilators of ;(vi)for a nondecreasing sequence , for all and as imply that for all . Assume either(a) and are compatible; or is orbitally continuous at or(b) and are compatible; or is orbitally continuous at .Then and have a common fixed point. Moreover, the set of common fixed points of , and in is well ordered if and only if it is a singleton.

Proof. Since is a.r. with respect to at in , there exists a sequence in such that By the given assumptions, , and . Thus, for all , we have In view of (i), we have Now, we assert that is a Cauchy sequence in the metric space .
From (2.5), it will be sufficient to prove that is a Cauchy sequence. We proceed by negation and suppose that is not a Cauchy sequence. Then, there exists for which we can find two sequences of positive integers and such that for all positive integers , From (2.6) and using the triangular inequality, we get Letting in the above inequality and using (2.5), we obtain Again, the triangular inequality gives us Letting in the above inequality and using (2.5) and (2.8), we get Similarly, we have On the other hand, we have Then, from (2.5), (2.8), and the continuity of , we get by letting in (2.1) Now, using the considered contractive condition (2.1) for and , we have Then, from (2.5), (2.10), (2.11), and the continuity of and , we get by letting in the above inequality Now, combining (2.13) with the above inequality, we get which implies that , which is a contradiction since . Hence is a Cauchy sequence in . Since is -orbitally complete at , there exists some such that as .
Finally, we prove the existence of a common fixed point of the three mappings , and .
We have Suppose that (a) holds. Since are compatible, we have Also, . Now Assume that is orbitally continuous. Passing to the limit as , we obtain so , which implies that Now, and as , so by the assumption we have and (2.1) becomes Passing to the limit as in the above inequality and using (2.21), it follows that which holds unless , so Now, since and as implies that , from (2.1) Passing to the limit as , we have which gives that Therefore, , hence is a common fixed point of , and . The proof is similar when is orbitally continuous.
Similarly, the result follows when condition (b) holds.
Now, suppose that the set of common fixed points of , and in is well ordered. We claim that it cannot contain more than one point. Assume to the contrary that and but . By supposition, we can replace by and by in (2.1) to obtain a contradiction. Hence, . The converse is trivial.

Now, it is easy to state a corollary of Theorem 2.5 involving a contraction of integral type.

Corollary 2.6. Let , and satisfy the conditions of Theorem 2.5, except that condition (2.1) is replaced by the following: there exists a positive Lebesgue integrable function on such that for each and that Then, , and have a common fixed point. Moreover, the set of common fixed points of , and in is well ordered if and only if it is a singleton.

Remark 2.7. If we take for , then for all , and the contractive condition (2.1) becomes which corresponds to the contraction given by Theorem  2.1 in  by taking and . Hence, the result of Abbas et al.  is covered by Theorem 2.5 for three maps.
Other results could be derived for other choices of and .

As consequences of Theorem 2.5, we may state the following corollaries.

Corollary 2.8. Let be an ordered metric space. Let be given mappings satisfying for all such that and are comparable, where and are generalized altering distance functions (in ) and . We assume the following hypotheses:(i) is a.r. with respect to at ;(ii) is -orbitally complete at ;(iii) or is orbitally continuous at ;(iv) is partially weakly increasing;(v) is a dominating map;(vi) is a weak annihilator of ;(vii) and are compatible.Let for a nondecreasing sequence with   for all , as imply that for all .
Then and have a common fixed point. Moreover, the set of common fixed points of and in is well ordered if and only if it is a singleton.

Corollary 2.9. Let be an ordered metric space. Let be a mapping satisfying for all such that and are comparable, where and are generalized altering distance functions (in ) and . We assume the following hypotheses:(i) is a.r. at some point of ;(ii) is -orbitally complete at ;(iii) is a dominating map. Let for a nondecreasing sequence with   for all , as imply that for all .
Then has a fixed point. Moreover, the set of fixed points of in is well ordered if and only if it is a singleton.

We present an example showing the usage of our results.

Example 2.10. Let the set be equipped with the usual metric and the order defined by Consider the following self-mappings on : Take . Then it is easy to show that and all the conditions (i)–(vi) and (a)-(b) of Theorem 2.5 are fulfilled. Take and . Then contractive condition (2.1) takes the form for . Using substitution , , the last inequality reduces to and can be checked by discussion on possible values for . Hence, all the conditions of Theorem 2.5 are satisfied and have a common fixed point (which is 0).

Remark 2.11. It was shown by examples in  that (in similar situations)(1)if the contractive condition is satisfied just on , there might not exist a (common) fixed point;(2)under the given hypotheses (common), fixed point might not be unique in the whole space .

#### Acknowledgment

The authors thank the referees for their careful reading of the text and for suggestions that helped to improve the exposition of the paper. The second and third authors are thankful to the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of Serbia.

1. F. E. Browder and W. V. Petryshyn, “Construction of fixed points of nonlinear mappings in Hilbert space,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 20, pp. 197–228, 1967.
2. L. B. Ćirić, “A generalization of Banach’s contraction principle,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 45, pp. 267–273, 1974. View at: Google Scholar
3. K. P. R. Sastry, S. V. R. Naidu, I. H. N. Rao, and K. P. R. Rao, “Common fixed points for asymptotically regular mappings,” Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 849–854, 1984. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH
4. M. S. Khan, M. Swaleh, and S. Sessa, “Fixed point theorems by altering distances between the points,” Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 1984.
5. B. S. Choudhury, “A common unique fixed point result in metric spaces involving generalised altering distances,” Mathematical Communications, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 105–110, 2005. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH
6. P. N. Dutta and B. S. Choudhury, “A generalisation of contraction principle in metric spaces,” Fixed Point Theory and Applications, vol. 2008, Article ID 406368, 8 pages, 2008. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH
7. H. K. Nashine, “New fixed point theorems for mappings satisfying generalized weakly contractive condition with weaker control functions,” Annales Polonici Mathematici, vol. 104, pp. 109–119, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
8. S. Radenovic, Z. Kadelburg, D. Jandrlic, and A. Jandrlic, “Some results on weak contraction maps,” Bulletin of the Iranian Mathematical Society. In press. View at: Google Scholar
9. Q. Zhang and Y. Song, “Fixed point theory for generalized $\phi$-weak contractions,” Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 75–78, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
10. K. P. R. Rao, G. R. Babu, and D. V. Babu, “Common fixed point theorems through generalized altering distance functions,” Mathematical Communications, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 67–73, 2008. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH
11. A. C. M. Ran and M. C. B. Reurings, “A fixed point theorem in partially ordered sets and some applications to matrix equations,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 132, no. 5, pp. 1435–1443, 2004.
12. J. J. Nieto and R. Rodríguez-López, “Contractive mapping theorems in partially ordered sets and applications to ordinary differential equations,” Order, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 223–239, 2005.
13. R. P. Agarwal, M. A. El-Gebeily, and D. O'Regan, “Generalized contractions in partially ordered metric spaces,” Applicable Analysis, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 109–116, 2008.
14. J. Harjani and K. Sadarangani, “Fixed point theorems for weakly contractive mappings in partially ordered sets,” Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, vol. 71, no. 7-8, pp. 3403–3410, 2009.
15. H. K. Nashine and I. Altun, “Fixed point theorems for generalized weakly contractive condition in ordered metric spaces,” Fixed Point Theory and Applications, vol. 2011, Article ID 132367, 20 pages, 2011. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH
16. H. K. Nashine and B. Samet, “Fixed point results for mappings satisfying $\left(\psi ,\phi \right)$-weakly contractive condition in partially ordered metric spaces,” Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 2201–2209, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
17. H. K. Nashine, B. Samet, and J. K. Kim, “Fixed point results for contractions involving generalized altering distances in ordered metric spaces,” Fixed Point Theory and Applications, vol. 2011, article 5, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
18. H. K. Nashine, B. Samet, and C. Vetro, “Monotone generalized nonlinear contractions and fixed point theorems in ordered metric spaces,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 54, no. 1-2, pp. 712–720, 2011.
19. H. K. Nashine and W. Shatanawi, “Coupled common fixed point theorems for a pair of commuting mappings in partially ordered complete metric spaces,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1984–1993, 2011.
20. D. O'Regan and A. Petruşel, “Fixed point theorems for generalized contractions in ordered metric spaces,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 341, no. 2, pp. 1241–1252, 2008.
21. I. Altun and H. Simsek, “Some fixed point theorems on ordered metric spaces and application,” Fixed Point Theory and Applications, vol. 2010, Article ID 621469, 17 pages, 2010. View at: Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH
22. G. V. R. Babu and P. D. Sailaja, “A fixed point theorem of generalized weakly contractive maps in orbitally complete metric spaces,” Thai Journal of Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
23. I. Altun, B. Damjanović, and D. Djorić, “Fixed point and common fixed point theorems on ordered cone metric spaces,” Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 310–316, 2010.
24. M. Abbas, T. Nazir, and S. Radenović, “Common fixed points of four maps in partially ordered metric spaces,” Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1520–1526, 2011.
25. G. Jungck, “Commuting mappings and fixed points,” The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 261–263, 1976.
26. G. Jungck, “Compatible mappings and common fixed points,” International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 771–779, 1986. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

#### More related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.