Journal of Function Spaces

Volume 2016 (2016), Article ID 6978439, 9 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6978439

## A New Approach to the Study of Fixed Point Theorems with -Distances via -Functions

^{1}Department of Mathematics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran^{2}Young Researcher and Elite Club, Arak-Branch, Islamic Azad University, Arak, Iran^{3}Department of Mathematics and Computer Sciences, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

Received 5 June 2016; Revised 28 July 2016; Accepted 24 August 2016

Academic Editor: Francesca Vetro

Copyright © 2016 Farzad Zarinfar 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

We introduce some new generalization of fixed point theorems in complete metric spaces endowed with -distances via -functions. Our results extend many of known fixed point theorems such as Reich type contraction, Geraghty contraction, Meir-Keeler contraction, and -contraction. In addition, the result and corollaries show that our approach has a constructive attitude and many known and unknown results can be constructed in such way.

#### 1. Introduction

Recently, extensive researches have been performed on various topics in different spaces equipped -distances, for example, fuzzy spaces [1], polish spaces [2], quasimetric spaces [3], metric spaces endowed with a graph [4], TVS-Cone metric spaces [5–8], partially ordered metric spaces [9–15], and other related papers such as [16, 17].

In 2014, Du and Khojasteh [18] introduced a very strong class of mappings called* manageable function* of which many of known contractions in the set of multivalued mappings have closely related to such class and obtain from them.

Moreover, the notion of* simulation function* was introduced by Khojasteh et al. [19]. They introduced -contraction with respect to simulation functions. The -contraction generalizes the Banach contraction and unifies several known types of contractions in complete metric space involving the combination of and and satisfies some particular conditions in such spaces.

Very recently, in order to extend the previous families of functions, Roldán López de Hierro and Shahzad [20] introduced a new generalized class of mappings called -functions and a new contraction called -contraction and show that every Geraghty contraction, Meir-Keeler contraction, -contraction, -contraction, and many of other known contractions are special case of -contraction.

In this work, we introduce some new generalization of fixed point theorems in complete metric spaces endowed with -distances via -functions and many of known fixed point theorems such as Reich type contraction, Geraghty contraction [9], Meir-Keeler contraction [21], and -contraction [19] which in such spaces are concluded as apparent corollaries.

#### 2. Preliminaries

In the following, we assert some notions which are needed in continuance.

*Definition 1 (see [22]). *Let be a metric space. The mapping is said to be *-distance* on , if it satisfies the following axioms: (1) , for any ; (2) for any , is lower semicontinuous; (3) for any , there exists such that and implies .

Denote

Lemma 2 (see [22]). *Let be a metric space and be -distance on . Assume that , are sequences in and , are sequences in which are convergent to and . Then the following holds: *(i)*if and , for any , then ;*(ii)*if and , for any , then converges to ;*(iii)*if , for any with , then is a Cauchy sequence;*(iv)*if , for any , then is a Cauchy sequence.*

*Definition 3 (see [23]). *A symmetric on a metric space is -distance on such that (SY): for all .If is -distance satisfying , we then say that it is a symmetric -distance on .

*Definition 4 (see [24]). *A function is called* L-function* if (a),(b) for all ,(c)for all , there exists such that , for all . Moreover, for each we have .

*Definition 5 (see [17, 21]). *A mapping , from a metric space into itself, is called Meir-Keeler mapping, whenever, for all , there exists such that, for all , if , then .

*Meir and Keeler [21] proved that every Meir-Keeler mapping on a complete metric space has a unique fixed point.*

*Definition 6 (see [19]). *A* simulation function* is a mapping which satisfies the following conditions: for all ,if are sequences in such that , then

*Many examples of simulation functions can be found in [18, 19, 25]. Very recently, Roldán López de Hierro and Shahzad [20] introduced the following category of mappings which are connected to extend the simulation functions.*

*Definition 7. *Let be a nonempty subset and let be a function. We say that is *-function* if it satisfies the following two conditions:If is a sequence such that , for all , then .If are two sequences which converge to the same limit such that and , for all , then . We denote by the family of all -functions whose domain is .

*In some cases, for a given function , we will also consider the following property:If are two sequences such that and , for all , then .*

*In the present research, we will introduce our main result and demonstrate that many of known results which have been invented in the set of metric spaces, with or without -distances, can be deduced easily from our main result. We draw the respondents’ attention to Alegre et al. [3, Theorem 2, Corollary 1] about Meir-Keeler contraction in metric spaces with -distances which can be acquired and generalized with Theorem 9 (for more detail see Corollary 13).*

*3. Main Result*

*The following definition plays the crucial role in our main result.*

*Definition 8. *Let be a metric space, let be -distance on , and let be a mapping. We say that is *-contraction*, if there exists -function such that and for all . In such case, we say that is -contraction with respect to . The family of all -contractions from into itself, with respect to , is denoted by or, when no confusion is possible, by .

*In what follows, we assume that is a symmetric -distance, in the sense of Definition 3, unless the contrary is asserted. Now we are ready to give the main result.*

*Theorem 9. Let be a complete metric space, let be -distance on , and let be -contraction with respect to . Assume that, at least, one of the following conditions holds: (a) is -continuous; that is, for any sequence , if then as .(b)The function satisfies . Then has a unique fixed point.*

*Proof. *Let be chosen arbitrary. If , then we have nothing to prove. So let . Define . Similarly one can define the Picard sequence , for all , such that . Let and divide the proof into three steps.*Step 1. * is -asymptotically regular; that is,

is -contraction with respect to . Thus By of Definition 7 we have and desired result is obtained.*Step 2. * is a Cauchy sequence and so it converges to some .

On the contrary, assume that failed to be a Cauchy sequence. By (iii) of Lemma 2, failed to be -Cauchy sequence. Hence, there exists such that, for all , there exist subsequences and of and can be chosen as the smallest integer such that and for all Obviously, , because Also, applying the symmetry property we have Therefore, . Now, taking , , and and by the fact that , we have By of Definition 7, we have and this is a contradiction. Therefore, is -Cauchy sequence and by (iii) of Lemma 2 is Cauchy. Thus it converges to some .*Step 3. * is a unique fixed point and .

If we consider a sequence , in a sense of Lemma 2, is -Cauchy sequence; that is, for all , , . Also as and is a lower semicontinuous, for all . Hence It means that as .

Now suppose that holds. Since is -continuous mapping, and for all , specially and , we have and so Therefore, . By (i) of Lemma 2, we have and so is the fixed point of .

On the other hand, let hold. For all , suppose that and . By (8), we have . In addition, for all , Henceforth, if , then . So ; thus .

Now consider the following set: One can consider two cases: (a_{1}) is a finite set: in this case, one can choose , such that , for all , and so , for all . Applying (11) concludes that . It means that and so applying (i) of Lemma 2 yields .(a_{2}) is infinite set: in this case, one can find a subsequence of in . We have for all . Analogous the argument in the first case and applying (i) of Lemma 2 results again.Moreover, if are two distinct fixed points for , then by considering we haveApplying deduces that and so . Applying the same argument on concludes that and (i) of Lemma 2 eventuates .

*Example 10. *The following items are some examples of -functions: (a), where is a mapping such that , for all ,(b), where is a mapping such that, for all sequence , (c), where is -function in the sense of Definition 4,(d)every simulation function ,(e), where are two functions such that is nondecreasing and continuous from the right, is lower semicontinuous, and ,(f),(g),(h).

*Proof. *It is sufficient to show that and of Definition 7 and hold for all (a)–(h).(a) Let be a sequence and . Then It means that and so taking limit on both sides of (17), we have By ratio test, and then concludes that .Let be two sequences which converge to the same limit , , and for all . Suppose that ; then and so By taking limit on both sides of (19), we have which is a contradiction. Thus, .Let be two sequences such that and . Therefore, so which implies that .(b) Let be a sequence such that . Therefore, Since and , one can see easily Hence, is a strictly decreasing sequence of nonnegative real numbers and so converges to . On the contrary, assume that . Therefore, Taking limit on both sides of (24) deduces that . Since is a Geraghty function, so which contradicts . So .Let be two sequences which converge to the same limit , hold, and hold. On the contrary, assume that . Therefore, and so Taking limit on both sides of (26) deduces that . Since is a Geraghty function, it concludes that which contradicts . So .Let be two sequences such that and . Therefore, so which implies that .(c) Let be a sequence and let . Then It means that Therefore, is a nonincreasing sequence; so is converges to . On the contrary, suppose that . By considering , there exists such that, for all , . Since , there exists such that, for all , we have . Therefore, and this is a contradiction to . So .Let be two sequences which converge to the same limit , hold, and hold. On the contrary, assume . Therefore, Also Since is -function, taking , there exists such that Since , there exists such that . Applying (32), one deduces that which is a contradiction, because . So .Let be two sequences such that and . Therefore, so which implies that .(d) Suppose that is a simulation function.Let be a sequence and let . Therefore . Hence is a strictly decreasing sequence so it converges to . On the contrary, suppose that . Let and . Then and are convergent to and . By condition we have and this is a contradiction. So .Let be two sequences which converge to the same limit , , and . In order to prove that , assume that . On the other hand, shows that so . Applying , one can yield that which is a contradiction. So .Let be two sequences such that and . Since is a simulation function . Hence, , which means that .(e)First of all, we show that, for , Let and ; we are going to show that . As is nondecreasing, which implies that . Hence and this is a contradiction. So we have .Let be a sequence and let . By (36), . Hence is a strictly decreasing sequence so it converges to where ; hence , for all . On the contrary, suppose that . Therefore, and so . Since is continuous from the right and , we deduce that . Since is lower semicontinuous, Hence , so .Let be two sequences which converge to the same limit , verifying , and . By (36) one can see . In order to prove that , assume that . Therefore, and so . As is continuous from the right and , we deduce that . Since is lower semicontinuous, Hence, , so .Let be two sequences such that and . By (36), one can see and this implies that .(f) Let be a sequence and let . It means that Hence, Therefore, Suppose that . If , then by letting we deduce that which is a contradiction. So .Let be two sequences which converge to the same limit , , and , for all . We have Therefore, Hence, Letting tend to infinity, we deduce , so and hence . It means that .Let be two sequences such that and . Therefore, so , which implies that .(g) Let be a sequence and let . It means that Hence, Therefore, Suppose that . If , then taking limit on both sides of (52), we deduce that which is a contradiction. So .Let be two sequences which converge to the same limit , , and , for all . On the contrary, suppose that . We have Therefore, Hence, Letting , we deduce that , so and hence and this is a contradiction. So .Let be two sequences such that and . Therefore, so which implies that .(h) Let be a sequence and let . It means that Thus, Therefore, Suppose that . If , then by letting , we deduce that which is a contradiction. So .Let be two sequences which converge to the same limit , , and , for all . We have Therefore, Hence, Letting , we deduce that and so .Let be two sequences such that and . Therefore, so which implies that .

*The following corollary is the generalization of Reich’s theorem (see [21, 24]).*

*Corollary 11. Let be a complete metric space, let be -distance on , and let be a mapping such that for all , where is a mapping such that , for all . Then, has a unique fixed point.*

*Proof. *Defining , applying (a) of example, and using Theorem 9, one can conclude desired result.

*The following corollary is the generalization of Geraghty fixed point theorem (see [9, Theorem 1.3]).*

*Corollary 12. Let be a complete metric space, let be -distance on , and let be a mapping such that for all , where is a mapping such that, for all sequence , Then, has a unique fixed point.*

*Proof. *Defining , applying (b) of example, and using Theorem 9, one can conclude desired result.

*The following corollary is the generalization of Meir-Keeler fixed point theorem (also see [24, Theorem 1]).*

*Corollary 13. Let be a complete metric space, let be -distance on , and let be a mapping such that for all , where is -function in a sense of Definition 4. Then has a unique fixed point.*

*Proof. *Defining , applying (c) of example, and using Theorem 9, one can conclude desired result.

*The following corollary is the generalization of Khojasteh’s result [19, Theorem 2.8] (see also [25]).*

*Corollary 14. Let be a complete metric space, let be -distance on , and let be a mapping such that for all , where is a simulation function. Then has a unique fixed point.*

*Proof. *Applying , (d) of example and considering Theorem 9, one can conclude desired result.

*Corollary 15. Let be a complete metric space, let be -distance on , and let be a mapping such that for all , where are two functions such that is nondecreasing and continuous from the right, is lower semicontinuous, and . Then, has a unique fixed point.*

*Proof. *Considering , (e) of example, and applying Theorem 9, one can conclude desired result.

*In the following, we are going to present some new corollaries to show that our results are constructive and new results can be built by -contractions.*

*Corollary 16. Let be a metric space, let be -distance on , and let be a self-mapping. Let, for every , with , the following hold: Then, is -contraction.*

*Proof. *Defining , applying (f) of example, and using Theorem 9, one can conclude desired result.

*Corollary 17. Let be a metric space, let be -distance on , and let be a self-mapping. Let, for every , with , the following hold: Then, is -contraction.*

*Proof. *Considering , applying (g) of example, and using Theorem 9, one can conclude desired result.

*Corollary 18. Let be a metric space, let be -distance on , and let be a self-mapping. Let for every , with , Then, is -contraction.*

*Proof. *Defining , applying (h) of example, and using Theorem 9, one can conclude desired result.

*Competing Interests*

*The authors declare that they have no competing interests.*

*Authors’ Contributions*

*All authors contributed equally and significantly in writing this paper. All authors read and approved the final paper.*

*Acknowledgments*

*Farshid Khojasteh would like to thank to Science and Research Branch of Islamic Azad University to support this research.*

*References*

- N. Shobkolaei, S. M. Vaezpour, and S. Sedghi, “Fixed point theorem with respect to fuzzy w-distance,”
*Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems*, vol. 11, pp. 103–112, 2014. View at Google Scholar - R. Shrivastava, M. Sharma, and R. Bhardwaj, “A fixed point theorem in Polish spaces with W-distance,”
*Mathematical Theory and Modeling*, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 61–74, 2015. View at Google Scholar - C. Alegre, J. Marin, and S. Romaguera, “A fixed point theorem for generalized contractions involving $\mathrm{\omega}$-distances on complete quasi-metric spaces,”
*Fixed Point Theory and Applications*, vol. 2014, article 40, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar - R. Batra, S. Vashistha, and R. Kumar, “Fixed point theorems under $w$-distance on a metric space endowed with a graph,”
*Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Application*, vol. 2015, no. 1, pp. 57–65, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar - S. Ullah-Khan, “Common fixed point theorems in cone metric space using w-distance,”
*International Journal of Mathematical Analysis*, vol. 7, pp. 657–663, 2013. View at Google Scholar - L. Ćirić, H. Lakzian, and V. Rakočević, “Fixed point theorems for w-cone distance contraction mappings in tvs-cone metric spaces,”
*Fixed Point Theory and Applications*, vol. 2012, article 3, 9 pages, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus - M. Sharma, “Some fixed point results on cone metric spaces with w-distance,”
*Mathematica Aeterna*, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 43–49, 2012. View at Google Scholar - S. K. Mohanta and R. Maitra, “Some fixed point theorems via w-distance on Cone metric spaces,”
*Global Journal of Science Frontier Research. Mathematics and Decision Sciences*, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 42–52, 2012. View at Google Scholar - M. A. Geraghty, “On contractive mappings,”
*Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society*, vol. 40, pp. 604–608, 1973. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet - E. Graily, S. M. Vaezpour, R. Saadati, and Y. J. E. Cho, “Generalization of fixed point theorems in ordered metric spaces concerning generalized distance,”
*Fixed Point Theory and Applications*, vol. 2011, article 30, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar - F. Rouzkard, M. Imdad, and D. Gopal, “Some existence and uniqueness theorems on ordered metric spaces via generalized distances,”
*Fixed Point Theory and Applications*, vol. 2013, article 45, 20 pages, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus - E. Graily and S. Mansour Vaezpour, “Generalized distance and fixed point theorems for weakly contractive mappings,”
*Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research*, vol. 4, pp. 161–164, 2013. View at Google Scholar - M. Azhini and S. Z. Keneti, “Some fixed point results for w-distances,”
*International Mathematical Forum*, vol. 9, pp. 1553–1561, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar - M. Imdad and F. Rouzkard, “Fixed point theorems in ordered metric spaces via
*ω*-distances,”*Fixed Point Theory and Applications*, vol. 2012, article 222, 17 pages, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus - S. K. Mohanta, “Common fixed point theorems via
*ω*-distance,”*Bulletin of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 182–189, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet - J. Jachymski and I. Józwik, “Nonlinear contractive conditions: a comparison and related problems,”
*Banach Center Publications*, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 123–146, 2007. View at Google Scholar - K. Wlodarczyk and R. Plebaniak, “Contractions of Banach, Tarafdar, Meir-Keeler, Ciric-Jachymski-Matkowski and Suzuki types and fixed points in uniform spaces with generalized pseudodistances,”
*Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*, vol. 404, no. 2, pp. 338–350, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar - W.-S. Du and F. Khojasteh, “New results and generalizations for approximate fixed point property and their applications,”
*Abstract and Applied Analysis*, vol. 2014, Article ID 581267, 9 pages, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus - F. Khojasteh, S. Shukla, and S. Radenovic, “A new approach to the study of fixed point theorems via simulation functions,”
*Filomat*, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1189–1194, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar - A. F. Roldán López de Hierro and N. Shahzad, “New fixed point theorem under
*R*-contractions,”*Fixed Point Theory and Applications*, vol. 2015, article 98, 18 pages, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus - A. Meir and E. Keeler, “A theorem on contraction mappings,”
*Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*, vol. 28, pp. 326–329, 1969. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus - O. Kada, T. Suzuki, and W. Takahashi, “Nonconvex minimization theorems and fixed points theorems in complete metric space,”
*Scientiae Mathematicae Japonicae*, vol. 44, pp. 381–391, 1996. View at Google Scholar - J. Marín, S. Romaguera, and P. Tirado, “Weakly contractive multivalued maps and w-distances on complete quasi-metric spaces,”
*Fixed Point Theory and Applications*, vol. 2011, article 2, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet - T.-C. Lim, “On characterizations of Meir-Keeler contractive maps,”
*Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications*, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 113–120, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus - A.-F. Roldan-Lopez-de-Hierro, E. Karapinar, C. Roldan-Lopez-de-Hierro, and J. Martinez-Moreno, “Coincidence point theorems on metric spaces via simulation functions,”
*Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics*, vol. 275, pp. 345–355, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus

*
*