Common Fixed Point Theorems for Generalized Geraghty (α,ψ,ϕ)-Quasi Contraction Type Mapping in Partially Ordered Metric-Like Spaces

Haitham Qawaqneh

^1,*,†

Mohd Noorani

^1,†,

Wasfi Shatanawi

^2,3,† and

Habes Alsamir

^1,†

Department of Mathematics, University Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Malaysia

Department of Mathematics, Hashemite University, Zarqa 1315, Jordan

Department of Mathematics and General Courses, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

^†

These authors contributed equally to this work.

Axioms2018,7(4), 74;https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms7040074

Submission received: 18 September 2018 /Revised: 14 October 2018 /Accepted: 15 October 2018 /Published: 25 October 2018

(This article belongs to the Special IssueMathematical Analysis and Applications II)

Downloadkeyboard_arrow_downVersions Notes

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to establish the existence of some common fixed point results for generalized Geraghty

(α, ψ, ϕ)

-quasi contraction self-mapping in partially ordered metric-like spaces. We display an example and an application to show the superiority of our results. The obtained results progress some well-known fixed (common fixed) point results in the literature. Our main results cannot be specifically attained from the corresponding metric space versions. This paper is scientifically novel because we take Geraghty contraction self-mapping in partially ordered metric-like spaces via

α -

admissible mapping. This opens the door to other possible fixed (common fixed) point results for non-self-mapping and in other generalizing metric spaces.

Keywords:

common fixed point;metric-like space;α-Geraghty contraction;triangular α-admissible mapping

1. Introduction

Fixed point theory occupies a central role in the study of solving nonlinear equations of kinds

S x = x

, where the functionS is characterized on abstract space

X .

It is outstanding that the Banach contraction principle is a standout amongst essential and principal results in the fixed point theorem. It ensures the existence of fixed points for certain self-maps in a complete metric space and provides a helpful technique to find those fixed points. Many authors studied and extended it in many generalizations of metric spaces with new contractive mappings, for example, see References [1,2,3] and the references therein.

Otherwise, Hitzler and Seda [4] introduce the notation of metric-like (dislocated) metric space as a generalization of a metric space, they introduced variants of the Banach fixed point theorem in such space. Metric like spaces were revealed by Amini-Harandi [5] who proved the existence of fixed point results. This interesting subject has been mediated by certain authors, for example, see References [6,7,8]. In partial metric spaces and partially ordered metric-like spaces, the usual contractive condition is weakened and many researchers apply their results to problems of existence and uniqueness of solutions for some boundary value problems of differential and Integral equations, for example, see References [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22] and the references therein.

Additionally, Geraghty [23] characterized a kind of the set of functions

S

to be classified as the functions

β : [0, \infty) \to [0, 1)

such that if

{t_{n}}

is a sequence in

[0, + \infty)

with

β (t_{n}) \to 1,

then

t_{n} \to 0 .

By using the function

β \in S

, Geraghty [23] presented the following exceptional theorem

Theorem 1.

Suppose

(Y, d)

is a complete metric space. Assume that

T : Y \to Y

and

β : [0, \infty) \to [0, 1)

are functions such that for all

u, v \in Y,

d (T u, T v) \leq β (d (u, v)) d (u, v),

(1)

where

β \in S,

then T has a fixed point and has to be unique.

The main results of Geraghty have engaged many of authors, see References [24,25,26] and the references therein.

Recently, Amini-Harandi and Emami [27] reconsidered Theorem 1 as the framework of partially ordered metric spaces and they presented taking into account existence theorem.

Theorem 2.

Let

(Y, d)

be a partially ordered complete metric space. Assume

S : Y \to Y

is a mapping such that there exists

u_{0} \in Y

with

u_{0} ⪯ S u_{0}

and

α \in F

such that

d (S u, S v) \leq α (d (u, v)) d (u, v), f o r a n y u, v \in Y w i t h u ⪰ v .

(2)

Hence,S has a fixed point supported that eitherS is continuous orY is such that if an increasing sequence

{u_{n}} \to u

, then

u_{n} \leq u

for alln.

In 2015, Karapinar [28] demonstrated the following specific results:

Theorem 3.

[28] Let

(Y, σ)

be a complete metric-like space. Assume that

S : Y \to Y

is a mapping. If there exists

β \in S

such that

σ (S u, S v) \leq β (σ (u, v)) σ (u, v)

(3)

for all

u, v \in Y,

then S has a unique fixed point

u^{*} \in Y

with

σ (u^{*}, u^{*}) = 0 .

The notion of quasi-contraction presented by Reference [29], is known as one of the foremost common contractive self-mappings.

A mapping

S : Y \to Y

is expressed to be a quasi contraction if there exists

0 \leq λ < 1

such that

d (S u, S v) \leq λ max {d (u, v) . d (u, f v), d (u, f v), d (f u, v), d (u, f v)},

(4)

for any

u, v \in Y

In this paper, we show the generalized Geraghty

(α, ψ, ϕ)

-quasi contraction type mapping in partially ordered metric like space, then we present some fixed and common fixed point theorems for such mappings in an ordered complete metric-like space. We investigate this new contractive mapping as a generalized weakly contractive mapping in our main results, then we display an example and an application to support our obtained results.

2. Preliminaries

In this section, we review a few valuable definitions and assistant results that will be required within the following sections.

Definition 1.

[5] Let Y be a nonempty set. A function

σ : Y \times Y \to [0, \infty)

is expressed to be a metric-like space on X if for any

u, v, z \in Y

, the accompanying stipulations satisfied:

(σ₁): $σ (u, v) = 0 \Rightarrow u = v,$
(σ₂): $σ (u, v) = σ (v, u),$
(σ₃): $σ (u, z) \leq σ (u, v) + σ (v, z) .$

The pair

(Y, σ)

is called a metric-like space.

Obviously, we can consider that every metric space and partial metric space could be a metric-like space. However, this assertion isn’t valid.

Example 1.

[5] Let

Y = {0, 1}

and

σ (u, v) = \{\begin{matrix} 2, & i f u = v = 0; \\ 1, & o t h e r w i s e . \end{matrix}

(5)

We note that

σ (0, 0) ≰ σ (0, 1)

. So,

(Y, σ)

is a metric-like space and at the same time it is not a partial metric space.

Additonally, each metric-like

σ

onY create a topology

τ_{σ}

onY whose use as a basis of the group of open

σ

-balls

B_{σ} (Y, ϵ) = {u \in Y : ∣ σ (u, v) - σ (u, u) ∣ < ϵ}, f o r a l l u, v \in Y a n d ϵ > 0 .

Let

(Y, σ)

be a metric-like space and

f : Y \to Y

be a continuous mapping. Then

lim_{n \to \infty} u_{n} = u \Rightarrow lim_{n \to \infty} f u_{n} = f u .

A sequence

{u_{n}}

of elements ofY is considered

σ

-Cauchy if the limit

{lim}_{n, m \to \infty} σ (u_{n}, u_{m})

exists as a finite number. The metric-like space

(Y, σ)

is considered complete if for each

σ

-Cauchy sequence

{u_{n}},

there is some

u \in Y

such that

lim_{n \to \infty} σ (u_{n}, u) = σ (u, u) = lim_{n, m \to \infty} σ (u_{n}, u_{m}) .

Remark 1.

[30] Let

Y = {0, 1}

, and

σ (u, v) = 1

for each

u, v \in Y

and

u_{n} = 1

for each

n \in N .

Then, it is easy to see that

u_{n} \to 0

and

u_{n} \to 1

and so in metric-like spaces the limit of a convergent sequence is not necessarily unique.

Lemma 1.

[30] Let

(Y, σ)

be a metric-like space. Let

{u_{n}}

be a sequence in Y such that

u_{n} \to u

where

u \in Y

and

σ (u, u) = 0 .

Then, for all

u, v \in Y,

we have

{lim}_{n \to \infty} σ (u_{n}, v) = σ (u, v) .

Example 2.

[5] Let

Y = R

and

σ : Y \times Y \to [0, + \infty)

be defined by

σ (u, v) = \{\begin{matrix} 2 n, & i f u = v = 0; \\ n, & o t h e r w i s e . \end{matrix}

Then, we can consider

(Y, σ)

to be a metric-like space, but it does not satisfy the conditions of the partial metric space, as

σ (0, 0) ≰ σ (0, 1)

Samet et al. [31] displayed the definition of

α

-admissible mapping as followings:

Definition 2.

[31] Let

S : X \to X

and

α : X \times X \to [0, \infty)

are two functions. Then, S is called α-admissible if

\forall u, v \in X

with

α (u, v) \geq 1

implies

α (f u, f v) \geq 1

Definition 3.

[32] Let

S, T : X \to X

be two mappings and

α : X \times X \to R

be a function. We consider that the pair

(S, T)

is α-admissible if

u, v \in X, α (u, v) \geq 1 \Rightarrow α (S u, T v) \geq 1 a n d α (T u, S v) \geq 1

Definition 4.

[33] Let

S : X \to X

and

α : X \times X \to [0, \infty)

. Then, S is called a triangular α-admissible mapping if

(1): S is α-admissible,
(2): $α (u, z) \geq 1$ and $α (z, v) \geq 1$ imply $α (u, v) \geq 1$ .

Definition 5.

[32] Let

S, T : X \to X

and

α : X \times X \to [0, \infty)

. Then,

(S, T)

is called a triangular α-admissible mapping if

(1): The pair $(S, T)$ is α-admissible,
(2): $α (u, z) \geq 1$ and $α (z, v) \geq 1$ imply $α (u, v) \geq 1$ .

Let

Ψ

indicate the set of functions

ψ : [0, \infty) \to [0, \infty)

that approve the following stipulations:

(1): $ψ$ is strictly continuous increasing,
(2): $ψ (t) = 0$ ⇔ $t = 0 .$

and

Φ

indicates the set of all continuous functions

ϕ : [0, \infty) \to [0, \infty)

with

ϕ (t) > ψ (t)

for all

t > 0

and

ϕ (0) = 0 .

Definition 6.

[12] Let

(X, d, ⪯)

be a partially ordered metric space. Assume

f, g : X \to X

are two mappings. Then:

(1): For all $x, y \in X$ are said to be comparable if $x ⪯ y$ or $y ⪯ x$ holds,
(2): f is said to be nondecreasing if $x ⪯ y$ implies $f x ⪯ f y$ ,
(3): $f, g$ are called weakly increasing if $f x ⪯ g f x$ and $g x ⪯ f g x$ for all $x \in X,$
(4): f is called weakly increasing if f and I are weakly increasing, where I is denoted to the identity mapping on $X .$

3. Main Results

In this section, we present the notation of generalized Geraghty

(α, ψ, ϕ)

-quasi contraction self-mappings in partially ordered metric-like space. Then, we present some fixed and common fixed point theorems for such self-mappings. We investigate this new contractive self-mapping as a generalized weakly contractive self-mapping which is a generalization of the results of Reference [34]. Results of this kind are amongst the most useful in fixed point theory and it’s applications.

Definition 7.

Let

(X, σ)

be a partially ordered metric-like space and

S, T : X \to X

be two mappings. Then, we consider that the pair

(S, T)

is generalized Geraghty

(α, ψ, ϕ)

-quasi contraction self-mapping if there exist

α : X \times X \to [0, \infty)

β \in S, ψ \in Ψ

and

ϕ : [0, \infty) \to [0, \infty)

are continuous functions with

ϕ (t) \leq ψ (t)

for all

t > 0

such that

α (x, y) ψ (σ (S x, T y)) \leq λ β (ψ (M_{x, y})) ϕ (M_{x, y}),

(6)

holds for all elements

x, y \in X

and

0 \leq λ < 1

, where

M_{x, y} = max {σ (x, y), σ (x, S x), σ (y, T y), σ (S x, y), σ (x, T y)} .

The following two lemmas will be utilized proficiently within the verification of our fundamental result.

Lemma 2.

ψ \in Ψ

and

ϕ : [0, \infty) \to [0, \infty)

are continuous function that satisfy the condition

ψ (t) > ϕ (t)

for all

t > 0,

then

ϕ (0) = 0 .

Proof.

From the assumption

ϕ (t) < ψ (t),

sinceψ andϕ are continuous, we have

0 \leq ϕ (0) = lim_{t \to 0} ϕ (t) \leq lim_{t \to 0} ψ (t) = ψ (0) = 0 .

□

Lemma 3.

Let

S, T : X \to X

be two mappings and

α : X \times X \to [0, \infty)

be a function such that

S, T

are triangular

α -

admissible. Suppose that there exists

x_{0} \in X

such that

α (x_{0}, S x_{0}) \geq 1

. Define a sequence

{x_{n}}

in X by

S x_{2 n} = x_{2 n + 1}

and

T x_{2 n + 1} = x_{2 n + 2}

. Then

α (x_{n}, x_{m}) \geq 1

for all

m, n \in N

with

n < m

Proof.

Since

α (x_{0}, S x_{0}) \geq 1

and

S, T

are

α -

admissible, we get

α (x_{0}, x_{1}) = α (x_{0}, S x_{0}) \geq 1 .

By triangular

α -

admissibility, we get

α (S x_{0}, T x_{1}) = α (x_{1}, x_{2}) \geq 1

and

α (T S x_{0}, S T x_{1}) = α (x_{2}, x_{3}) \geq 1 .

Again, since

α (x_{2}, x_{3}) \geq 1

, then

α (S x_{2}, T x_{3}) = α (x_{3}, x_{4}) \geq 1

and

α (T S x_{2}, S T x_{3}) = α (x_{4}, S x_{5}) \geq 1 .

By proceeding the above process, we conclude that

α (x_{n}, x_{n + 1}) \geq 1

for all

n \in N \cup {0} .

Now, we prove that

α (x_{n}, x_{m}) \geq 1

, for all

m, n \in N

with

n < m

. Since

\{\begin{matrix} α (x_{n}, x_{n + 1}) \geq 1, \\ α (x_{n + 1}, x_{n + 2}) \geq 1, \end{matrix}

then, we have

α (x_{n}, x_{n + 2}) \geq 1 .

Again, since

\{\begin{matrix} α (x_{n}, x_{n + 2}) \geq 1 \\ α (x_{n + 2}, x_{n + 3}) \geq 1, \end{matrix}

we deduce that

α (x_{n}, x_{n + 3}) \geq 1 .

By continuing this process, we have

α (x_{n}, x_{m}) \geq 1

for all

n \in N

with

m > n .

□

Lemma 4.

Let

(X, ⪯, σ)

be a partially ordered metric-like space. Assume

S, T

are two self-mappings of X which the pair

(S, T)

is generalized

(α, ψ, ϕ)

-quasi contraction self-mappings. Fix

x_{1} \in X

and define a sequence

{x_{n}}

x_{2 n + 1} = S x_{2 n}

and

x_{2 n + 2} = T x_{2 n + 1}

for all

n \in N .

{lim}_{n \to \infty} σ (x_{n}, x_{n + 1}) = 0

and the sequence

{x_{n}}

is nondecreasing, then

{x_{n}}

is a Cauchy sequence.

Proof.

Since

S, T

are a generalized

(α, ψ, ϕ)

-quasi contraction non-self mapping, then there exist

ψ \in Ψ, ϕ \in Φ

such that

α (x, y) ψ (σ (S x, T y)) \leq λ β (ψ (M_{x, y})) ϕ (M_{x, y}),

(7)

holds for all elements

x, y \in X

and

0 \leq λ < 1

, where

M_{x, y} = max {σ (x, y), σ (x, S x), σ (y, T y), σ (S x, y), σ (x, T y)} .

Now, we show that the sequence

{x_{n}}

is Cauchy sequence. Assume, for contradiction’s sake, that

{x_{n}}

isn’t Cauchy sequence. Therefore, there exist

ϵ > 0

and two subsequences

{n_{k}}

and

{m_{k}}

of the sequence

{x_{n}}

such that

σ (x_{2 n_{k}}, x_{2 m_{k}}),

σ (x_{2 n_{k} - 1}, x_{2 m_{k}})

and

σ (x_{2 n_{k}}, x_{2 m_{k} + 1})

converge to

ϵ^{+}

when

k \to \infty .

n_{k} > m_{k} > k, σ (x_{2 n_{k}}, x_{2 m_{k} - 2}) < ϵ, σ (x_{2 n_{k}}, x_{2 m_{k}}) \geq ϵ .

(8)

By the above inequalities and triangle inequality property, we imply that

\begin{matrix} ϵ & \leq & σ (x_{2 n_{k}}, x_{2 m_{k}}) \leq σ (x_{2 n_{k}}, x_{2 m_{k} - 2}) + σ (x_{2 m_{k} - 2}, x_{2 m_{k} - 1}) + σ (x_{2 m_{k} - 1}, x_{2 m_{k}}) \\ < & ϵ + σ (x_{2 m_{k} - 2}, x_{2 m_{k} - 1}) + σ (x_{2 m_{k} - 1}, x_{2 m_{k}}) . \end{matrix}

In view of

{lim}_{n \to \infty} σ (x_{n}, x_{n + 1}) = 0

and letting

k \to \infty

in the above inequalities, we obtain

lim_{k \to \infty} σ (x_{2 n_{k}}, x_{2 m_{k}}) = ϵ .

(9)

By the triangle inequality, we have

\begin{matrix} σ (x_{2 n_{k}}, x_{2 m_{k}}) & \leq & σ (x_{2 n_{k}}, x_{2 n_{k} + 1}) + σ (x_{2 n_{k} + 1}, x_{2 m_{k}}) \\ \leq & σ (x_{2 n_{k}}, x_{2 n_{k} + 1}) + σ (x_{2 n_{k} + 1}, x_{2 m_{k} + 1}) + σ (x_{2 m_{k} + 1}, x_{2 m_{k}}) \\ \leq & σ (x_{2 n_{k}}, x_{2 n_{k} + 1}) + σ (x_{2 n_{k} + 1}, x_{2 n_{k} + 2}) + σ (x_{2 n_{k} + 2}, x_{2 m_{k}}) + 2 σ (x_{2 m_{k}}, x_{2 m_{k} + 1}) \\ \leq & 2 σ (x_{2 n_{k}}, x_{2 n_{k} + 1}) + 2 σ (x_{2 m_{k} + 2}, x_{2 m_{k} + 1}) + σ (x_{2 n_{k}}, x_{2 m_{k}}) + 2 σ (x_{2 m_{k}}, x_{2 m_{k} + 1}) . \end{matrix}

Taking the limit as

k \to \infty

in the above inequalities and using Equation (9), we get

lim_{k \to \infty} σ (x_{2 n_{k}}, x_{2 m_{k}}) = lim_{k \to \infty} σ (x_{2 n_{k} + 1}, x_{2 m_{k}}) = lim_{k \to \infty} σ (x_{2 n_{k} + 1}, x_{2 m_{k} + 1}) = ϵ .

(10)

Since

x_{n_{k} + 1} ⪯ x_{m_{k}}

and

α (x_{n_{k} + 1}, x_{m_{k}}) \geq 1

for all

k \in N,

so by substituting x with

x_{n_{k} + 1}

and y with

x_{m_{k}}

in Equation (7), it follows that

\begin{matrix} ψ (σ (x_{n_{k} + 1}, x_{m_{k}})) & \leq & α (x_{n_{k} + 1}, x_{m_{k}}) ψ (σ (S x_{n_{k}}, T x_{m_{k} - 1})) \leq λ β (ψ (M_{x, y})) ϕ (M_{x, y}), \end{matrix}

(11)

holds for all elements

x, y \in X

and

0 \leq λ < 1

, where

\begin{matrix} M_{x_{n_{k}}, x_{m_{k} - 1}} & = & max {σ (x_{n_{k}}, x_{m_{k} - 1}), σ (x_{n_{k}}, S x_{n_{k}}), σ (x_{m_{k} - 1}, T x_{m_{k} - 1}), \\ σ (S x_{n_{k}}, x_{m_{k} - 1}), σ (x_{n_{k}}, T x_{m_{k} - 1})} \\ = & max {σ (x_{n_{k}}, x_{m_{k} - 1}), σ (x_{n_{k}}, x_{n_{k} + 1}), σ (x_{m_{k} - 1}, x_{m_{k}}), \\ σ (x_{n_{k} + 1}, x_{m_{k} - 1}), σ (x_{n_{k}}, x_{m_{k}})} . \end{matrix}

Taking the limit as

k \to \infty

of the above inequality and applying Equations (9), (10), we get

lim_{k \to \infty} M_{x_{2 n_{k}}, x_{2 m_{k}}} = ϵ .

(12)

Letting

k \to \infty

in Equation (11) and using

ϕ \in Φ

β \in S

and Equation (12), we deduce that

\begin{matrix} ψ (ϵ) & \leq & λ β (ψ (ϵ)) ϕ (ϵ) \\ < & λ ϕ (ϵ) \\ < & λ ψ (ϵ) . \end{matrix}

This is possible only if

ϵ = 0 .

Which contradicts the positivity of

ϵ .

Therefore, we get the desired result. □

Theorem 4.

Let

(X, σ)

be a partially ordered metric like space. Assume that

S, T : X \to X

are two self-mappings fulfilling the following conditions:

(1): $(S, T)$ is triangular α-admissible and there exists an $x_{0} \in X$ such that $α (x_{0}, S x_{0}) \geq 1$ ,
(2): the pair $(S, T)$ is weakly increasing,
(3): the pair $(S, T)$ is a generalized Geraghty $(α, ψ, ϕ)$ -quasi contraction non-self mapping,
(4): S and T are σ-continuous mappings.

Then, the pair

(S, T)

has a common fixed point

z \in X

with

σ (z, z) = 0

. Moreover, assume that if

x_{1}, x_{2} \in X

such

σ (x_{1}, x_{1}) = σ (x_{2}, x_{2}) = 0

implies that

x_{1}

and

x_{2}

are comparable elements. Then the common fixed point of the pair

(S, T)

is unique.

Proof.

Let

x_{0} \in X

such that

α (x_{0}, S x_{0}) \geq 1 .

Define the sequence

{x_{n}}

in X as follows:

x_{2 n + 1} = S x_{2 n} x_{2 n + 2} = T x_{2 n + 1} f o r a l l n \geq 0 .

(13)

Suppose that

x_{2 n} \neq x_{2 n + 1}

for all

n \in N_{0} .

Then,

σ (x_{2 n}, x_{2 n + 1}) > 0

for all

n \in N_{0} .

Indeed, if

x_{2 n} \neq x_{2 n + 1},

which is a contradiction. By using the assumption of Equations (1), (2), and Lemma 3, we have

α (x_{n}, x_{n + 1}) \geq 1

(14)

for all

n \in N \cup {0} .

Since the pair

(S, T)

is weakly increasing, we have

x_{1} = S x_{0} ⪯ T S x_{0} = x_{2} = S x_{1} = ⪯ . . . x_{2 n} ⪯ T S x_{2 n} = x_{2 n + 2} ⪯ . . . .

Thus,

x_{n} ⪯ x_{n + 1},

for all

n \in N .

Since

α (x_{2 n}, x_{2 n + 1}) \geq 1,

by applying Equation (7), we obtain

\begin{matrix} ψ (σ (x_{2 n + 1}, x_{2 n + 2})) & = & ψ (σ (S x_{2 n}, T x_{2 n + 1})) \\ \leq & α (x_{2 n}, x_{2 n + 1}) ψ (σ (S x_{2 n}, T x_{2 n + 1})) \\ \leq & λ β (ψ (M_{x_{2 n}, x_{2 n + 1}})) ϕ (M_{x_{2 n}, x_{2 n + 1}}) . \end{matrix}

(15)

Set

σ_{n} = σ (x_{2 n + 1}, x_{2 n + 2}) .

We have

\begin{matrix} ψ (σ_{n}) & = & ψ (σ (x_{2 n + 1}, x_{2 n + 2})) \end{matrix}

(16)

\begin{matrix} \leq & λ β (ψ (M_{x_{2 n}, x_{2 n + 1}})) ϕ (M_{x_{2 n}, x_{2 n + 1}}) . \end{matrix}

(17)

For the rest, for each n assume that

(σ_{n} \neq 0) .

\begin{matrix} M_{x_{2 n}, x_{2 n + 1}} & = & max {σ (x_{2 n}, x_{2 n + 1}), σ (x_{2 n}, S x_{2 n}), σ (x_{2 n + 1}, T x_{2 n + 1}), σ (S x_{2 n}, x_{2 n + 1}), σ (x_{2 n}, T x_{2 n + 1})} \\ = & max {σ (x_{2 n}, x_{2 n + 1}), σ (x_{2 n}, x_{2 n + 1}), σ (x_{2 n + 1}, x_{2 n + 2}), σ (x_{2 n + 1}, x_{2 n + 1}), σ (x_{2 n}, x_{2 n + 2})} \\ = & max {σ (x_{2 n}, x_{2 n + 1}), σ (x_{2 n + 1}, x_{2 n + 2}), σ (x_{2 n}, x_{2 n + 2})} \\ = & max {σ_{n - 1}, σ_{n}, σ_{n - 1} + σ_{n}} \end{matrix}

If for some

n \in N,

max {σ_{n - 1}, σ_{n}, σ_{n - 1} + σ_{n}} = σ_{n}

then from Equation (16), we find that

ψ (σ_{n}) < λ ψ (σ_{n})

which is a contradiction with respect to

0 \leq λ < 1 .

We deduce

max {σ_{n - 1}, σ_{n}, σ_{n - 1} + σ_{n}} = max {σ_{n - 1}, σ_{n - 1} + σ_{n}} .

Therefore Equation (16) becomes

ψ (σ_{n}) < λ ψ (max {σ_{n - 1}, σ_{n - 1} + σ_{n}}) .

Put

γ = max {λ, \frac{λ}{1 - λ}} .

Thus,

ψ (σ_{n}) \leq γ β (ψ (σ_{n - 1})) ϕ (σ_{n - 1}), f o r a l l n \in N_{0} .

(18)

It is clear that

γ < 1

. Therefore, the sequence

{σ (x_{n}, x_{n + 1})}

is a decreasing sequence. Thus, there exists

r \geq 0

such that

lim_{n \to \infty} σ (x_{n}, x_{n + 1}) = r .

Now, we show that

r = 0

. Presume to the contrary, that is

r > 0 .

Since

β \in S

and by using the condition of Theorem 4 and taking the limit as

k \to \infty

in Equation (18), we conclude

ψ (r) \leq λ β (ψ (r)) ϕ (r) < λ ϕ (r) < λ ψ (r),

which could be a contradiction. So

r = 0 .

Then,

lim_{n \to \infty} σ (x_{n}, x_{n + 1}) = 0 .

Lemma 4 implies that

{x_{n}}

is a Cauchy sequence and from the completeness of

(X, σ),

then there exists a

x^{*} \in X

in order that

lim_{n \to \infty} σ (x_{n}, x^{*}) = σ (x^{*}, x^{*}) = lim_{n, m \to \infty} σ (x_{n}, x_{m}) .

(19)

Whereas,S andT are continuous, we conclude

lim_{n \to \infty} σ (x_{n + 1}, T x^{*}) = lim_{n \to \infty} σ (S x_{n}, T x^{*}) = σ (S x^{*}, T x^{*}),

(20)

lim_{n \to \infty} σ (S x^{*}, x_{n + 1}) = lim_{n \to \infty} σ (S x^{*}, T x_{n}) = σ (S x^{*}, T x^{*}) .

(21)

By Lemma 1 and Equation (19), we obtain that

lim_{n \to \infty} σ (x_{n + 1}, T x^{*}) = σ (x^{*}, T x^{*})

(22)

and

lim_{n \to \infty} σ (S x^{*}, x_{n + 1}) = σ (S x^{*}, x^{*}) .

(23)

By merging Equations (20) and (22), we deduce that

σ (x^{*}, T x^{*}) = σ (S x^{*}, x^{*}) .

In addition, by Equations (21) and (23), we deduce that

σ (S x^{*}, x^{*}) = σ (S x^{*}, T x^{*}) .

σ (x^{*}, T x^{*}) = σ (S x^{*}, x^{*}) = σ (S x^{*}, T x^{*}) .

(24)

Presently, we display that

σ (x^{*}, T x^{*}) = 0

. Assume the opposite, that is,

σ (x^{*}, T x^{*}) > 0

, we get

\begin{matrix} ψ (σ (x^{*}, T x^{*})) & = & ψ (σ (S x^{*}, T x^{*})) \\ \leq & λ β (ψ (M_{x^{*}, x^{*}})) ϕ (M_{x^{*}, x^{*}}), \end{matrix}

(25)

where

\begin{matrix} M_{x^{*}, x^{*}} & = & max {σ (x^{*}, x^{*}), σ (x^{*}, S x^{*}), σ (x^{*}, T x^{*}), σ (S x^{*}, x^{*}), σ (x^{*}, T x^{*}),} \\ = & max {σ (x^{*}, T x^{*}), σ (x^{*}, S x^{*})} \\ = & max {σ (x^{*}, T x^{*}), σ (x^{*}, T x^{*})} . \end{matrix}

Therefore, from Equation (25), we get

\begin{matrix} ψ (σ (x^{*}, T x^{*})) & \leq & β (ψ (σ (x^{*}, T x^{*}))) ϕ (σ (x^{*}, T x^{*})) \\ < & λ ϕ (σ (x^{*}, T x^{*}) \\ < & λ ψ (σ (x^{*}, T x^{*})) \end{matrix}

(26)

Since

ψ \in Ψ

, we have

σ (x^{*}, T x^{*}) < λ σ (x^{*}, T x^{*})

which is a discrepancy. Thus, we have

σ (x^{*}, T x^{*}) = 0 .

Hence,

T x^{*} = x^{*}

. From Equation (24), we deduce that

σ (x^{*}, S x^{*}) = 0 .

Therefore,

S x^{*} = x^{*}

. Hence,

x^{*}

is a common fixed point of S and T. To demonstrate the uniqueness of the common fixed point, we suppose that

\bar{x}

is another fixed point ofS andT. Directly, we prove that

σ (\bar{x}, \bar{x}) = 0

. Assume the antithesis, that is,

σ (\bar{x}, \bar{x}) > 0

. Since

\bar{x} ⪯ \bar{x}

, we get

\begin{matrix} ψ (σ (\bar{x}, \bar{x})) & = & ψ (σ (S \bar{x}, T \bar{x})) \\ \leq & λ β (ψ (σ (\bar{x}, \bar{x}))) ϕ (σ (\bar{x}, \bar{x})) \\ < & λ ϕ (σ (\bar{x}, \bar{x})) \\ < & λ ψ (σ (\bar{x}, \bar{x})) \end{matrix}

which is a discrepancy. Thus,

σ (\bar{x}, \bar{x}) = 0

. Therefore, by the further conditions on X, we deduce that

x^{*}

and

\bar{x}

are comparable. Presently, suppose that

σ (x^{*}, \bar{x}) \neq 0

. Then

\begin{matrix} ψ (σ (x^{*}, \bar{x})) & = & ψ (σ (S x^{*}, T \bar{x})) \\ \leq & λ (ψ (σ (x^{*}, \bar{x}))) ϕ (σ (x^{*}, \bar{x})) \\ < & λ ϕ (σ (x^{*}, \bar{x})) \end{matrix}

which is a discrepancy with the condition of Theorem 4. Therefore,

σ (x^{*}, \bar{x}) = 0

. Hence,

x^{*} = \bar{x}

. Thus, S and T have a unique common fixed point. □

It is additionally conceivable to expel the continuity ofS andT by exchanging a weaker condition.

(C)

{x_{n}}

is a nondecreasing sequence inX such that

α (x_{n}, x_{n + 1}) \geq 1

for all

n \in N \cup {0}

and

x_{n} \to u \in X

n \to \infty,

then there exists a subsequence

{x_{n_{l}}}

{x_{n}}

such that

x_{n_{l}} ⪯ u

for all

l .

Theorem 5.

Let

(X, σ)

be a partially ordered metric-like space. Assume that

S, T : X \to X

are two self-mappings fulfilling the following conditions:

(1): the pair $(S, T)$ is triangular α-admissible,
(2): there exists an $x_{0} \in X$ such that $α (x_{0}, S x_{0}) \geq 1$ ,
(3): the pair $(S, T)$ is a generalized Geraghty $(α, ψ, ϕ)$ -quasi contraction non-self mapping,
(4): the pair $(S, T)$ is weakly increasing,
(5): $(C)$ holds.

Then, the pair

(S, T)

has a common fixed point

v \in X

with

σ (v, v) = 0

. Moreover, suppose that if

x_{1}, x_{2} \in X

such

σ (x_{1}, x_{1}) = σ (x_{2}, x_{2}) = 0

implies that

x_{1}

and

x_{2}

are comparable. Then, the common fixed point of the pair

(S, T)

is unique.

Proof.

Here, we define

{x_{n}}

as in the proof of Theorem 4. Clearly

{x_{n}}

is a Cauchy sequence in

X,

then there exists

v \in X

in order that

lim_{n \to \infty} x_{n} = v

(27)

As a result of the condition of Equation (5), there exists a subsequence

{x_{n_{l}}}

{x_{n}}

in order that

x_{n_{l}} ⪯ v

for all

l .

Therefore,

x_{n_{l}}

and v are comparable. In addition, from Equation (13) on taking limit as

n \to \infty

and using Equation (27), we get

lim_{n \to \to \infty} x_{n} = v .

lim_{n \to \to \infty} S x_{2 n_{l}} = lim_{n \to \to \infty} x_{2 n_{l} + 1} = v, lim_{n \to \to \infty} T x_{2 n_{l} + 1} = lim_{n \to \to \infty} x_{2 n_{l} + 2} = v .

(28)

From the definition of α yields that

α (x_{n_{l}}, v) \geq 1

for all

l .

Now by applying Equation (7), we have

\begin{matrix} ψ (σ (x_{2 n_{l} + 1}, T v)) \\ = & ψ (σ (S x_{2 n}, T v)) \\ \leq & λ β (ψ (M_{x_{2 n_{l}}, v}) ϕ (M_{x_{2 n_{l}}, v}) \\ < & λ ϕ (M_{x_{2 n_{l}}, v}) \\ < & λ ψ (M_{x_{2 n_{l}}, v}) \end{matrix}

(29)

where

\begin{matrix} M_{x_{2 n_{l}}, v} & = & max {σ (x_{2 n}, v), σ (x_{2 n}, S x_{2 n}), σ (v, T v), σ (S x_{2 n}, v), σ (x_{2 n}, T v)} \end{matrix}

Letting

l \to + \infty

and using Equations (27) and (28), we have

lim_{l \to \infty} M_{x_{2 n_{l}}, v} = max {σ (v, S v), σ (v, T v)}

(30)

CaseI: Assume that

{lim}_{l \to \infty} M_{x_{2 n_{l}}, v} = σ (v, T v) .

From Equation (30) and letting

l \to \infty

in Equation (29). Then, we have

ψ (σ (v, T v)) < λ ψ (σ (v, T v)) .

Regarding the concept of ψ, we deduce that

σ (v, T v) < λ σ (v, T v)

which is a discrepancy. Hence, we get that

σ (v, T v) = 0 .

As a result of

(σ_{1})

, we have

v = T v .

CaseII: Assume that

{lim}_{l \to \infty} M_{x_{2 n_{l}}, v} = σ (v, S v) .

Then, arguing like above, we get

v = S v .

Thus,

v = S v = T v .

Uniqueness of the fixed point is follows from the Theorem 4. This completes the proof. □

If we set

S = T

and

M (x, y) = max {σ (x, y), σ (x, T x), σ (y, T y), σ (T x, y), σ (x, T y)}

in Theorems 4 and 5, then we obtain the following corollaries.

Corollary 1.

Let

(X, σ)

be a partially ordered metric-like space and

α : X \times X \to [0, \infty)

a function. Assume that

S : X \to X

holds the following:

(1): there exists $ψ \in Ψ, β \in S$ and a continuous function $ϕ : [0, \infty) \to [0, \infty)$ are continuous functions with $ϕ (t) < ψ (t)$ for all $t > 0$ such that
$α (x, y) ψ (σ (S x, S y)) \leq λ β (ψ (M_{x, y})) ϕ (M_{x, y}),$
(31)
holds for all comparable elements $x, y \in X$ and $0 \leq λ < 1$ ,
(2): S is triangular α-admissible and there exists an $x_{0} \in X$ such that $α (x_{0}, S x_{0}) \geq 1$ ,
(3): $S x ⪯ S (S x)$ for all $x, y \in X,$
(4): T is σ-continuous mappings.

Then, S has an unique fixed point

v \in X

with

σ (v, v) = 0

Corollary 2.

Let

(X, σ)

be a partially ordered metric-like space and

α : X \times X \to [0, \infty)

a function. Assume that

S : X \to X

holds the following:

(1): there exists $ψ \in Ψ, β \in S$ and a continuous function $ϕ : [0, \infty) \to [0, \infty)$ are continuous functions with $ϕ (t) < ψ (t)$ for all $t > 0$ such that
$α (x, y) ψ (σ (S x, S y)) \leq λ β (ψ (M_{x, y})) ϕ (M_{x, y}),$
(32)
holds for all comparable elements $x, y \in X$ and $0 \leq λ < 1$ ,
(2): S is triangular α-admissible and there exists an $x_{0} \in X$ such that $α (x_{0}, S x_{0}) \geq 1$ ,
(3): $S x ⪯ S (S x)$ for all $x, y \in X,$
(4): $(C)$ holds.

Then, S has an unique fixed point

v \in X

with

σ (v, v) = 0

If we take

α (x, y) = 1

in Theorems 4 and 5, we have the following corollaries.

Corollary 3.

Let

(X, σ)

be a partially ordered metric-like space. Assume

S, T : X \to X

are two mappings holding the following:

(1): there exists $ψ \in Ψ, β \in S$ and a continuous function $ϕ : [0, \infty) \to [0, \infty)$ are continuous functions with $ϕ (t) < ψ (t)$ for all $t > 0$ such that
$ψ (σ (S x, T y)) \leq λ β (ψ (M_{x, y})) ϕ (M_{x, y}),$
(33)
holds for all comparable elements $x, y \in X$ and $0 \leq λ < 1$ , where
$M_{x, y} = max {σ (x, y), σ (x, S x), σ (y, T y), σ (S x, y), σ (x, T y)} .$
(2): the pair $(S, T)$ is weakly increasing,
(3): S and T are σ-continuous mappings.

Then, the pair

S, T

has an unique common fixed point

v \in X

with

σ (v, v) = 0

Corollary 4.

Let

(X, σ)

be a partially ordered metric-like space, Assume

S, T : X \to X

are two mappings holding the following:

(1): there exists $ψ \in Ψ, β \in S$ and a continuous function $ϕ : [0, \infty) \to [0, \infty)$ are continuous functions with $ϕ (t) < ψ (t)$ for all $t > 0$ such that
$ψ (σ (T x, T y)) \leq λ β (ψ (M_{x, y})) ϕ (M_{x, y}),$
(34)
holds for all comparable elements $x, y \in X$ and $0 \leq λ < 1$ , where
$M_{x, y} = max {σ (x, y), σ (x, S x), σ (y, T y), σ (S x, y), σ (x, T y)},$
(2): the pair $(S, T)$ is weakly increasing,
(3): the pair $(S, T)$ is a generalized $(α, ψ, ϕ)$ -quasi contraction non-self,
(4): $(C)$ holds.

Then, the pair

S, T

has an unique common fixed point

v \in X

with

σ (v, v) = 0

4. Consequences

If we put

M_{x, y} = σ (x, y)

, then, by Theorems 4 and 5, we get the following corollaries as an expansion of results from the literature.

Corollary 5.

Let

(X, σ)

be a partially ordered metric like space and

α : X \times X \to [0, \infty)

be a function. Suppose that

S, T : X \to X

are two self-mappings holding the following:

(1): $(S, T)$ is triangular α-admissible and there exists an $x_{0} \in X$ such that $α (x_{0}, S x_{0}) \geq 1$ ,
(2): there exists $ψ \in Ψ, β \in S$ and a continuous function $ϕ : [0, \infty) \to [0, \infty)$ are continuous functions with $ϕ (t) < ψ (t)$ for all $t > 0$ in order that
$ψ (σ (S x, T y)) \leq λ β (ψ (σ (x, y)) ϕ (σ (x, y)),$
(35)
satisfies for $x, y \in X$ and $0 \leq λ < 1$ ,
(3): the pair $(S, T)$ is weakly increasing,
(4): the pair $(S, T)$ is σ-continuous mappings.

Then, the pair

(S, T)

has an unique common fixed point

v \in X

with

σ (v, v) = 0

Corollary 6.

Let

(X, σ)

be a partially ordered metric-like space. Assume

S, T : X \to X

are two mappings holding the following:=

(1): $(S, T)$ is triangular α-admissible and there exists an $x_{0} \in X$ such that $α (x_{0}, S x_{0}) \geq 1$ ,
(2): there exists $ψ \in Ψ, β \in S$ and a continuous function $ϕ : [0, \infty) \to [0, \infty)$ are continuous functions with $ϕ (t) \leq ψ (t)$ for all $t > 0$ in order that
$ψ (σ (S x, T y)) \leq λ β (ψ (σ (x, y)) ϕ (σ (x, y)),$
(36)
satisfies for $x, y \in X$ and $0 \leq λ \leq 1$ ,
(3): the pair $(S, T)$ is weakly increasing,
(4): $(C)$ holds.

Then, the pair

(S, T)

has an unique common fixed point

v \in X

with

σ (v, v) = 0

Corollary 7.

Let

(X, σ)

be a partially ordered metric-like space. Assume

α : X \times X \to [0, \infty)

is a function and

S : X \to X

is a mapping holding the following:

(1): S is triangular α-admissible and there exists an $x_{0} \in X$ such that $α (x_{0}, S x_{0}) \geq 1$ .
(2): there exists $ψ \in Ψ, β \in S$ and a continuous function $ϕ : [0, \infty) \to [0, \infty)$ are continuous functions with $ϕ (t) < ψ (t)$ for all $t > 0$ in order that
$α (x, y) ψ (σ (S x, S y)) \leq λ β (ψ (σ (x, y)) ϕ (σ (x, y)),$
(37)
holds for all comparable elements $x, y \in X$ and $0 \leq λ < 1$ ,
(3): $S ⪯ S (S x)$ ,
(4): the pair $(S, T)$ is σ-continuous mappings.

Then, S has an unique fixed point

v \in X

with

σ (v, v) = 0

Corollary 8.

Let

(X, σ)

be a partially ordered metric-like space. Assume

α : X \times X \to [0, \infty)

is a function and

S : X \to X

is a mapping holding the following:

(1): S is triangular α-admissible and there exists an $x_{0} \in X$ such that $α (x_{0}, S x_{0}) \geq 1$ ,
(2): there exists $ψ \in Ψ, β \in S$ and a continuous function $ϕ : [0, \infty) \to [0, \infty)$ are continuous functions with $ϕ (t) < ψ (t)$ for all $t > 0$ in order that
$α (x, y) ψ (σ (S x, S y)) \leq λ β (ψ (σ (x, y)) ϕ (σ (x, y)),$
(38)
satisfies for $x, y \in X$ and $0 \leq λ < 1$ ,
(3): $S ⪯ S (S x)$ ,
(4): $(C)$ holds.

Then S has an unique fixed point

v \in X

with

σ (v, v) = 0

Example 3.

Let

X = {0, 1, 2}

and specify the partial order ⪯ on X in order that

⪯ : = {(0, 0), (1, 1), (2, 2), (0, 2), (2, 1), (0, 1)} .

Take into consideration that the function

S : X \to X

specified as

S = (\begin{matrix} 0 & 1 & 2 \\ 1 & 1 & 0 \end{matrix}),

(39)

which increasing with respect to

⪯ .

Let

x_{0} = 0 .

Hence,

S (x_{0}) = 1

and

S (S (X_{0})) = S (1) = 1 .

Characterize to begin with the metric like space σ on X by

σ (0, 1) = 1, σ (0, 2) = \frac{5}{2}, σ (1, 2) = \frac{3}{2}

and

σ (x, x) = 0 .

Then,

(X, σ)

is a complete metric-like space. Let

β \in S

is given by

β (t) = \frac{e^{t}}{2},

ψ (t) = t,

λ = \frac{1}{2}

and

ϕ (t) = \frac{2}{3} t

Define a function

α : X \times X \to [0, \infty)

in order that

α (x, y) = \{\begin{matrix} 1 & i f x \in {0, 1, 2} \\ 0 & i f o t h e r w i s e . \end{matrix}

Note that

S \in X

and is continuous. S is α-admissible mapping. Indeed,

α (S x, S y) = 1 .

(x, y) = (0, 1),

then

α (0, 1) = 1

and

\begin{matrix} M_{0, 1} & = & max {σ (0, 1), σ (0, S 0), σ (1, S 1), σ (S 0, 1), σ (0, S 1)} \\ = & max {σ (0, 1), σ (0, 1), σ (1, 1), σ (1, 1), σ (0, 1)} \\ = & max {1, 1, 0, 1, 0} = 1 . \end{matrix}

σ (S 0, S 1) = σ (1, 1) = 0 .

Now

0 = α (0, 1) ψ (σ (σ (S 0, S 1))) \leq β (ψ (M_{0, 1})) ϕ (M_{0, 1}) = \frac{1}{2} β (1) ≃ ϕ (1) = \frac{1}{2} \times \frac{e}{2} \times \frac{2}{3} = \frac{e}{6}

holds.

(x, y) = (0, 2),

then

α (0, 2) = 1

and

\begin{matrix} M_{0, 2} & = & max {σ (0, 2), σ (0, S 0), σ (2, S 2), σ (S 0, 2), σ (0, S 2)} \\ = & max {σ (0, 2), σ (0, 1), σ (2, 0), σ (1, 2), σ (0, 0)} \\ = & max {\frac{5}{2}, 1, \frac{5}{2}, \frac{3}{2}, 0} = \frac{5}{2} . \end{matrix}

σ (S 0, S 2) = σ (1, 0) = \frac{5}{2} .

Now

\frac{5}{2} = α (0, 2) ψ (σ (σ (S 0, S 2))) \leq β (ψ (M_{0, 2})) ϕ (M_{0, 2}) = \frac{1}{2} β (\frac{e^{\frac{5}{2}}}{2}) \times \frac{2}{3} \times \frac{5}{2} = \frac{5 e^{\frac{5}{2}}}{12}

holds. Similarly, for the case (

x = 1, y = 2

), it is simple to examine that the contractive condition in Corollary 1 is satisfied.

All conditions (1)–(4) of Corollary 1 are satisfied. Hence S has a unique fixed point

x = 1 .

5. Application

The aim of this section is to give the existence of fixed points of an integral equation, where we can apply the obtained result of Corollary 1 to get a common solution.

We considerX with the partial order ⪯ presented by:

x ⪯ y \Leftrightarrow x (t) ⪯ y (t) f o r a l l t \in [0, 1] .

Let

X = C (I, R)

be the set of continuous functions specified on

I = [0, 1]

. The metric-like space

σ : X \times X \to [0, \infty)

presented by

σ (x, y) = sup_{t \in [0, 1]} ∣ x (t) - y (t) ∣,

for all

x, y \in X .

Since

(X, σ)

is a complete metric-like space. We consider the integral equation

x (t) = g (t) + \int_{0}^{1} P (t, r) f (r, x (r)) d r; t \in [0, 1]

(40)

for all

x \in X .

We suppose that

f : [0, 1] \times R \to R

and

g : [0, 1] \to R

are two continuous functions. Suppose that

P : [0, 1] \times [0, 1] \to [0, \infty)

in order that

S x (t) = g (t) + \int_{0}^{1} P (t, r) f (r, x (r)) d r; t \in [0, 1]

(41)

for all

x \in X .

Then, a solution of Equation (40) is a fixed point ofS.

Now, We will prove the following Theorem with our obtained results.

Theorem 6.

Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:

(i): There exists $ζ : X \times X \to [0, 1)$ such that for all $r \in [0, 1]$ and for all $x, y \in X$
$0 \leq ∣ f (r, x (r)) - f (r, y (r)) ∣ \leq ζ (x, y) ∣ x (r) - y (r) ∣,$
(ii): there exists $β : [0, \infty) \to [0, 1)$ such that
$lim_{n \to \infty} β (t_{n}) = 1 \Rightarrow lim_{n \to \infty} t_{n} = 0,$
and
$∥ \int_{0}^{1} P (t, r) ζ (x, y) d r ∥_{\infty} \leq (\frac{1}{4} β (∥ x - y ∥_{\infty})) .$

Then the integral Equation (41) has a unique solution in

X .

Proof.

By conditions (i) and (ii), we get

\begin{matrix} ∣ S (x) (t) - S (y) (t) ∣ & = & | \int_{0}^{1} P (t, r) [f (r, x (r)) - f (r, x (r))] d r | \\ \leq & \int_{0}^{1} P (t, r) ∣ f (r, x (r)) - f (r, y (r)) ∣ d r \\ \leq & \int_{0}^{1} P (t, r) ζ (x, y) ∣ f (r, x (r)) - f (r, y (r)) ∣ d r \\ \leq & \int_{0}^{1} P (t, r) ζ (x, y) ∥ x - y ∥_{\infty} d r \\ \leq & σ (x, y) \int_{0}^{1} P (t, r) ζ (x, y) d r \\ \leq & \frac{1}{4} β (σ (x, y)) σ (x, y) \\ = & \frac{1}{2} β (σ (x, y)) \frac{1}{2} σ (x, y) \\ = & \frac{1}{2} β (σ (x, y)) ϕ (σ (x, y)) . \end{matrix}

At that point, we have

∥ S (x) (t) - S (y) (t) ∥_{\infty} \leq \frac{1}{2} β (σ (x, y)) ϕ (σ (x, y)) .

for all

x, y \in X .

Thus, we obtain

σ (S x, S y) \leq \frac{1}{2} β (σ (x, y)) ϕ (σ (x, y)), f o r a l l x, y \in X .

Lastly, we specify

β : X \times X \to [0, \infty)

such that

α (x, y) = \{\begin{matrix} 1 & if x, y \in X, \\ 0 & if o t h e r w i s e . \end{matrix}

Then, we have

α (x, y) σ (S x, S y) \leq \frac{1}{2} β (σ (x, y)) σ (x, y) .

Obviously,

α (x, y) = 1

and

α (S x, S y) = 1

for all

x, y, z \in X .

Therefore, S is triangular

α -

admissible mapping.

Hence, the hypotheses of Corollary 1 hold with

ψ (t) = t, λ = \frac{1}{2}

and

ϕ (t) = \frac{t}{2} .

Thus, S has a unique fixed point, that is, the integral Equation (40) has a unique solution in

X .

□

6. Conclusions

We have introduced some common fixed point results for generalized

(α, ψ, ϕ)

-quasi contraction self-mapping in partially ordered metric-like spaces. We have generalized weakly contractive mapping as we used quasi contraction self-mapping,

α

-admissible mapping, triangular

α

-admissible mapping and

ψ, ϕ

as strictly increasing and continuous functions. We have provided an example and application to show the superiority of our results over corresponding (common) fixed point results. Alternatively, we suggest finding new results by replacing the single-valued mapping with multi-valued mapping. Furthermore, we suggest generalizing more results in other spaces likeb-metric space, metric-like space, and others. Otherwise, we suggest using our main results for non-self-mapping to establish the existence of an optimal approximate solution.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed equally to the main text.

Funding

This research was funded by UKM Grant DIP-2017-011 and Ministry of Education, Malaysia grant FRGS/1/2017/STG06/UKM/01/1 for financial support.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editor for their valuable comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Qawaqneh, H.; Noorani, M.S.M.; Shatanawi, W.; Alsamir, H. Common fixed points for pairs of triangularα-admissible mappings.J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl.2017,10, 6192–6204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Qawaqneh, H.; Noorani, M.S.M.; Shatanawi, W.; Abodayeh, K.; Alsamir, H. Fixed point for mappings under contractive condition based on simulation functions and cyclic (α,β)-admissibility.J. Math. Anal.2018,9, 38–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Qawaqneh, H.; Noorani, M.S.M.; Shatanawi, W. Fixed point for mappings under contractive condition based on simulation functions and cyclic (α,β)-admissibility.J. Math. Anal.2018,11, 702–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hitzler, P.; Seda, A.K. Dislocated topologies.J. Electr. Eng.2000,12, 4223–4229. [Google Scholar]
Amini-Harandi, A. Metric-like spaces, partial metric spaces and fixed points.Fixed Point Theory Appl.2012,2012, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Chen, C.; Dong, J.; Zhu, C. Some fixed point theorems inb-metric-like spaces.Fixed Point Theory Appl.2015,2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Roshan, J.R.; Parvaneh, V.; Sedghi, S.; Shbkolaei, N.; Shatanawi, W. Common fixed points of almost generalized contractive mappings in orderedb-metric spaces.Fixed Point Theory Appl.2013,2013, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zoto, K. Some generalizations for (α,ψ,ϕ)-contractions inb-metric-like spaces and an application.Fixed Point Theory Appl.2017,2017, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Aydi, H.; Felhi, A. Best proximity points for cyclic Kannan-Chatterjea- Ciric non-self contractions on metric-like spaces.J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl.2016,9, 2458–2466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Aydi, H.; Felhi, A.; Sahmim, S. On common fixed points for (α,ψ)-contractions and generalized cyclic contractions in b-metric-like spaces and consequences.J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl.2016,9, 2492–2510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Aydi, H.; Felhi, A. On best proximity points for variousα-proximal contractions on metric-like spaces.J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl.2016,9, 5202–5218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Aydi, H.; Felhi, A.; Afshari, H. New Geraghty non-self contractions on metric-like spaces.J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl.2017,10, 780–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Aydi, H.; Felhi, A.; Sahmim, S. Common fixed points via implicit contractions on b-metric-like spaces.J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl.2017,10, 1524–1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Alsamir, H.; Noorani, M.S.M.; Shatanawi, W. On fixed points of (η,θ)-quasicontraction mappings in generalized metric spaces.J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl.2016,9, 4651–4658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Shatanawi, W.; Nashine, H.K. A generalization of Banachs contraction principle for nonlinear contraction in a partial metric space.J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl.2012,5, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Aydi, H.; Shatanawi, W.; Vetro, C. On generalized weak G-contraction mapping in G-metric spaces.Comput. Math. Appl.2011,62, 4223–4229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cho, S. Fixed point theorems for generalized weakly contractive mappings in metric spaces with application.Fixed Point Theory Appl.2018,2018, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zoto, K.; Radenovic, S.; Ansari, A.H. On some fixed point results for (s,p,α)-contractive mappings inb-metric-like spaces and applications to integral equations.Open Math.2018,16, 235–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mohammadi, B.; Golkarmanesh, F.; Parvaneh, V. Common fixed point results via implicit contractions for multi-valued mappings onb-metric like spaces.Cogent Math. Stat.2018,5, 1493761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Karapinar, E.; Czerwik, S.; Aydi, H. Meir-Keeler Contraction Mappings in Generalized-Metric Spaces.J. Funct. Spaces2018,2018, 3264620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Liang, M.; Zhu, C.; Wu, Z.; Chen, C. Some New Coupled Coincidence Point and Coupled Fixed Point Results in Partially Ordered Metric-Like Spaces and an Application.J. Funct. Spaces2018,2018, 1378379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hussain, N.; Roshan, J.R.; Parvaneh, V.; Kadelburg, Z. Fixed Points of Contractive Mappings in-Metric-Like Spaces.Sci. World J.2014,2014, 471827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Geraghty, M. On contractive mappings.Proc. Am. Math. Soc.1973,40, 604–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Karapinar, E. A Discussion onα-ψ-Geraghty Contraction Non-self Mappings.Filomat2014,28, 761–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Karapinar, E.α-ψ-Geraghty Contraction Non-self Mappings and Some Related Fixed Point Results.Filomat2014,28, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Karapinar, E.; Pitea, A. On alpha-psi-Geraghty contraction type mappings on quasi-Branciari metric spaces.J. Nonlinear Convex Anal.2016,17, 1291–1301. [Google Scholar]
Amini-Harandi, A.; Emami, H. A fixed point theorem for contraction non-self maps in partially ordered metric spaces and application to ordinary differential equations.Nonlinear Anal.2010,72, 2238–2242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
karapinar, E.; Alsulami, H.; Noorwali, M. Some extensions for Geragthy non-self contractive mappings.Fixed Point Theory Appl.2015,2015, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ćiricć, L. A generalization of Banach contraction principle.Proc. Am. Math. Soc.1974,45, 267–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Isik, H.; Turkoglu, D. Fixed point theorems for weakly contractive mappings in partially ordered metric-like spaces.Fixed Point Theory Appl.2013,2013, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Samet, B.; Vetro, C.; Vetro, P. Fixed point theorems for aα-ψ-contractive non-self mappings.Nonlinear Anal.2012,75, 2154–2165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Abdeljawad, T. Meir-Keeler a-contractive fixed and common fixed point theorems.Fixed Point Theory Appl.2013,2013, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Karapinar, E.; Kumam, P.; Salimi, P. Onα-ψ-Meir-Keeler contractive mappings.Fixed Point Theory Appl.2013,2013, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Alsamir, H.; Noorani, M.S.M.; Shatanawi, W.; Abodayeh, K. Common Fixed Point Results for Generalized (ψ,β)-Geraghty Contraction Non-self Mapping in Partially Ordered Metric-like Spaces with Application.Filomat2017,31, 5497–5509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Qawaqneh, H.; Noorani, M.; Shatanawi, W.; Alsamir, H. Common Fixed Point Theorems for Generalized Geraghty (α,ψ,ϕ)-Quasi Contraction Type Mapping in Partially Ordered Metric-Like Spaces.Axioms2018,7, 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms7040074

AMA Style

Qawaqneh H, Noorani M, Shatanawi W, Alsamir H. Common Fixed Point Theorems for Generalized Geraghty (α,ψ,ϕ)-Quasi Contraction Type Mapping in Partially Ordered Metric-Like Spaces.Axioms. 2018; 7(4):74. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms7040074

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qawaqneh, Haitham, Mohd Noorani, Wasfi Shatanawi, and Habes Alsamir. 2018. "Common Fixed Point Theorems for Generalized Geraghty (α,ψ,ϕ)-Quasi Contraction Type Mapping in Partially Ordered Metric-Like Spaces"Axioms 7, no. 4: 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms7040074

APA Style

Qawaqneh, H., Noorani, M., Shatanawi, W., & Alsamir, H. (2018). Common Fixed Point Theorems for Generalized Geraghty (α,ψ,ϕ)-Quasi Contraction Type Mapping in Partially Ordered Metric-Like Spaces.Axioms,7(4), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms7040074

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further detailshere.

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

For more information on the journal statistics, clickhere.

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Preliminaries

3. Main Results

4. Consequences

5. Application

6. Conclusions

Author Contributions

Funding

Acknowledgments

Conflicts of Interest

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Movatterモバイル変換

Journals

Topics

Information

Author Services

Initiatives

About

Notice

Notice

Article Menu

Need Help?

Support

Feedback

Information

JSmol Viewer

Common Fixed Point Theorems for Generalized Geraghty (α,ψ,ϕ)-Quasi Contraction Type Mapping in Partially Ordered Metric-Like Spaces

Cite

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI

Share Link

Share