Reach Us
+44-1474-556909

**Mohammadi B ^{*}**

Department of Mathematics, Marand Branch, Islamic Azad University, Marand, Iraq

- *Corresponding Author:
- Mohammadi B

Department of Mathematics, Marand Branch

Islamic Azad University, Marand, Iraq+98214486 5179;

Tel:

**E-mail:**[email protected]

**Received Date:** January 19, 2016; **Accepted Date:** February 05, 2016; **Published**** Date:** February 10, 2016

**Citation:** Mohammadi B (2016) Common Fixed Points of Generalized α-ψ-contractive Type Self-mappings and Multivalued Mappings. J Appl Computat Math 5:287. doi:10.4172/2168-9679.1000287

**Copyright:** © 2016 Mohammadi B. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Visit for more related articles at** Journal of Applied & Computational Mathematics

In this paper, mutivated by the recent work of samet et al. (Fixed point theorems for α-ψ-contractive type mappings, Nonlinear Anal. we give some new results on existence of common fixed points for a pair of generalized α-ψ-contractive self-mappings and multivalued mappings. This results extend and improve many existing results in the literature. Some examples are given to illustrate the results.

Common fixed point; Generalized α-ψ-contractive; Selfmappings; Multivalued **mappings**

Recently, some results on existing of common fixed point for a pair of mappings or multifunctions have been given. In 2007, Zhang [1] defined a new generalized contractive type condition for a pair of mappings in metric spaces. Let A∈(0,+∞] and : . Denote by ℑ[0,A) the collection of all functions : satisfing the following conditions:

(i) F(0)=0 and F(t)>0 for each t∈(0,A),

(ii) F is nondecreasing on A + ,

(iii) F is continuous.

From Zhang [1] we know that for any F∈ℑ[0,A), limn→∞F(ε_{n})=0, implies lim_{n→∞ε}n=0. Denote by Ψ[0,A) the family of all functions : which is nondecreasing and right upper semicontinuous such that lim_{n→∞ε}Ψn(t)=0 for each t∈(0,A). It is easy to see that for any ψ∈Ψ[0,A) we have ψ(0)=0 and ψ(t)<t for each t∈(0,A).

Regarding the above notations, Zhang [1] proved the following theorem on existing of common fixed point for a pair of mappings.

**Theorem 1:** Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let D = sup{d(x, y) | x, y∈ X} . Set A>D if D<∞ and A=D if D=∞. Suppose that T,S:X→X are two mappings,F∈ℑ[0,A) and ψ∈Ψ[0,F(A-)) satisfing

F(d(Tx, Sy)) ≤ψ (F(M(x, y))) for each x, y∈ X

where

Then T and S have a unique common fixed point in X. Moreover, for each x_{0}∈X, the iterated sequence {x_{n}} with x_{2n+1}=Tx_{2n} and x_{2n+2}= Sx_{2n+1} converges to the common fixed point of T and S.

Denote by Ψ the family of all nondecreasing functions ψ:[0,+∞)→[0,+ ∞) such that for all t>0. Let (X,d) be a metric space and α: X×X→[0,∞) be a mapping. A mapping T:X→X is called α-admissible whenever α(x,y)≥1 implies α(T_{x},T_{y})≥1. In 2011, Samet and Vetro [2] introduced a new type of contraction to a mapping T:X→X, called α-ψ- contractive mappings, that is, α(x,y)d(T_{x},T_{y})≤ψ(d(x,y)) for all x,y∈X and proved the following theorem.

**Theorem 2: **Let (X,d) be a complete metric space, α:X×X→[0,+∞) a function, ψ∈Ψ and T:X→X be an α-ψ-**contractive** mapping such that the following assertions hold [2]:

(i) T is α-admissible,

(ii) There exists x_{0}∈X such that α(x_{0},Tx_{0})≥1,

(iii) T is continuous or for any sequence {x_{n}} in X that α(x_{n},x_{n+1})≥1 for all n and x_{n}→x, we have α(x_{n},x)≥1 for all n.

Then, T has a fixed point in X.

This result generalized and improved many existing fixed point results for a mapping defined on a complete metric space (X,d), in particular the famuous Banach contraction principle. Also, the authors proved that adding the following condition to the conditions of above theorem, the fixed point is unique.

(H):For any x,y∈X there exists z∈X such that α(x,z) ≥ 1 and α(y,z) ≥ 1.

Let (X,d) be a metric space and let CB(X) denote the set of all nonempty closed bounded subsets of X. Let H be the Hausdorff metric on CB(X) with respect to the metric d, that is, for all A,B∈CB(X) where . Let T,S:X→2x be a pair of multi-valued mappings. It is called that x is a common fixed point of T and S if x∈Tx and x∈Sx. In 2010, Rouhani and Moradi [3] proved the following common fixed point result for multi-valued mappings.

**Theorem 3: **Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let T,S:X→CB(X) be two multivalued mappings** **such that

H(Tx, Sy) ≤αM(x, y)

for all x,y∈X where 0 ≤ α<1 and

Then, T and S have a **common fixed point **in X.

On the other hand in 2013, Beg et al. introduced common fixed point results for multivalued mappings defined on a metric space endowed with a graph [4]. In this paper combining ideas of the above mentioned literature we give some new results on common fixed points of α-ψ-contractive self-mappings and multivalued mappings [5-8].

Results

Now we give the main results of this study. Firstly we give some definitions.

**Definition 1:** Let (X,d) be a **metric space **and α:X×X→[0,∞) be a mapping. We say that α is symmetric if α(x,y) ≥ 1 implies α(y,x) ≥ 1. Also, it is called that α is transitive if α(x,y) ≥ 1 and α(y,z) ≥ 1 implies α(x,z) ≥ 1.

**Definition 2:** Let (X,d) be a metric space and T,S:X→X be two mappings. We say that the ordered pair (T,S) is α-admissible whenever α(x,y) ≥ 1 implies α(Tx,Sy) ≥ 1.

**Theorem 4:** Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let D = sup{d(x, y) | x, y∈ X} . Set A>D if D<∞ and A=D if D=∞. Suppose α:X×X→[0,+∞) be a symmetric and transitive function, F∈ℑ[0,A), ψ∈Ψ[0,F(A-)) and T,S:X→X are two mappings satisfing

where

Moreover, let the following assertions hold:

(i) (T,S) is α-admissible,

(ii) There exists x_{0}∈X such that α(x_{0},Tx_{0}) ≥ 1,

(iii) For any sequence {x_{n}} in X that α(x_{n},x_{n+1}) ≥ 1 for all n and x_{n}→x, then α(x_{n},x) ≥ 1 for all n

Then, T and S have a common fixed point in X.

**Proof:** Define an iterated sequence {x_{n}} in X with x_{2n+1}=Tx_{2n} and x_{2n+2}=Sx_{2n+1}. Now α(x_{0},x_{1})=α(x_{0},Tx_{0}) ≥ 1. Since (T,S) is α-admissible, then (x_{1},x_{2})=α(Tx_{0},Sx_{1}) ≥ 1. Since α is symmetric, then (x_{2},x_{1})≥1. So, α(x_{3},x_{2})=α(Tx_{2},Sx_{1}) ≥ 1. Continuing this process, we see that α(x_{n},x_{n+1}) ≥ 1 for all n. Now

(1)

(F(M(x_2n,x_2n+1))).

But we have

If we have , then from (1) we will have

which is a contradiction. So, we can only have the case

(2)

Also

(3)

(F(M(x_2n,x_2n-1))).

But we have

If we have d(x_{2n+1},x_{2n})>d(x_{2n},x_{2n-1}), then from (3) we will have

which is a contradiction. So, we can only have the case

(4)

From (2) and (4) we see that

(5)

From (5) we get

Tending n to ∞, we obtain F(d(x_{n},x_{n+1}))→0. Hence, d(x_{n},x_{n+1})→0 as n→∞. Since α is symmetric and transitive, hence we have α(x_{n},x_{m})≥1 and α(x_{m},x_{n})≥1 for all n, m∈N which n<m. Now showing that {x_{n}} is a **cauchy sequence **is comletely similar to theorem 1 in Zhang’s [1]. From completeness of (X,d), there exists x∈X such that x_{n}→x.

Next, we shall show that Tx=x and Sx=x. At first, we have

(6)

But

Tending n to ∞, we obtain . Now tending n to ∞ in (6) and using continuity of F and right upper semi-continuoty of ψ, we get F(d(x, Sx)) ≤ψ (F(d(x, Sx))) which implies F(d(x,Sx))=0 and so d(x,Sx)=0. Hence, Sx=x. On the other hand,

(7)

But

Tending n to ∞, we obtain . Tending n to ∞ in (7), we obtain which implies F(d(Tx,x))=0 and so d(Tx,x)=0. Hence, Tx=x.

**Example 1:** Let with the usual metric d(x, y) =| x − y | . Obviously (X,d) is complete and D=1. Let on [0,e) and F(0)=0, then F∈ℑ[0,A) where A=e>D. Let . Then, . Suppose T,S:X→X be defined by

and

Also, define

Now let

If x=0 and where n>200, then and

Hence

Similarly, if y=0 and where n>200, then and and hence If

, then put and where n,m>200, then

By definition of α, we see that

Also, if we put x_{0}=0, then α(x_{0},Tx_{0})=α(0,0)=1. Obviously, α is symmetric and transitive, (T,S) is α-admissible and the condition (iii) of theorem 4 holds. Hence, by the theorem we can say that T and S have a common fixed point in X. Here T_{0}=S_{0}=0.

Note that in the above example we can not apply theorem 1. To see this, put and . Then, F(d(T_{x},S_{y}))=(1)^{1}=1 and

We see that

Hence we can not use theorem 1. Note that theorem 4 is a generalization of theorem 1, because having the contraction condition of theorem 1 it is sufficient to put α(x,y)=1 for each x,y∈X. Then, all of the conditions of theorem 4 are holded. So by the theorem, T and S have a common fixed point in X. Also, the above example shows that this generalization is real [9-11].

Also, we can not apply the contraction α (x, y)d(Tx, Sy)) ≤ cM(x, y) for some c∈[0,1). To see this, put and where n>200. Then,

Let φ:[0,A)→[0,∞) be a Lebesgue integrable function which is summable on each compact subset of [0,A) such that for ach ε∈(0,A). Then, we have also the following result to integral type version of α-ψ-contraction for a pair of mappings T and S.

**Corollary 1:** Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let D = sup{d(x, y) | x, y∈ X} . Set A>D if D<∞ and A=D if D=∞. Suppose α:X×X→[0,+∞) be a symmetric and transitive function, and T,S:X→X are two mappings satisfing

where

Moreover, let the following assertions hold:

(i) (T,S) is α-admissible,

(ii) There exists x_{0}∈X such that α(x_{0},Tx_{0})≥1,

(iii) For any sequence {x_{n}} in X that α(x_{n},x_{n+1})≥1 for all n and x_{n}→x, then α(x_{n},x)≥1 for all n.

Then, T and S have a common fixed point in X.

In what follows, we introduce the common fixed point results for a pair of multivalued mappings.

**Definition 3: **Let (X,d) be a metric space, α:X×X→[0,+∞) be a function and T,S:XCB(X) are two multivalued mappings. We say that the ordered pair (T,S) is α-admissible whenever α(x,y)≥1 implies α(u,v)≥1 for each u∈Tx,v∈Sy.

**Theorem 5:** Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and ψ∈Ψ be a strictly increasing and right upper semi-continuous function. Suppose α:X×X→[0,+∞) be a symmetric function and T,S:X→CB(X) are two multivalued mappings satisfing

α (x, y)H(Tx, Sy) ≤ψ (M(x, y)), for each x, y∈ X

where

Moreover, let the following assertions hold:

(i) (T,S) is α-admissible,

(ii) There exists x_{0}∈x and x_{1}∈Tx_{0} such that α(x_{0},x_{1})≥1,

(iii) For any sequence {x_{n}} in X that α(x_{n},x_{n+1})≥1 for all n and x_{n}→x, then α(x_{n},x)≥1 for all n.

Then, T and S have a common fixed point in X.

Proof. Obviously, M(x,y)=0 if and only if x=y is a common fixed point of T and S. Hence, we may assume that M(x_{0},x_{1})>0. Now α(x_{0},x_{1})≥1 implies

(8)

But

≤ max{d(x , x ), d(Tx , x )}.

If d(x_{1},Sx_{1})>d(x0,x_{1}), then from (8), we get d(x_{1},Sx_{1})<d(x_{1},Sx_{1}) which is a contradiction. Hence, we have only d(x_{0},x_{1})≥d(x_{1},Sx_{1}) and so from (8), we have d(x_{1},Sx_{1})<d(x_{0},x_{1}). Hence, there exists x_{2}Sx_{1} such that d(x_{1},x_{2})<d(x_{0},x_{1}). Since (T,S) is α-admissible, hence (x_{1},x_{2})≥1 and since α is symmetric, then α(x_{2},x_{1})≥1. Now

(9)

But

≤ max{d(x , x ), d(Tx , x )}.

If d(Tx_{2},x_{2})>d(x_{2},x_{1}), then from (9), we obtain d(Tx_{2},x_{2})≤ψ(d(Tx_{2},x_{2})) which is a contradiction (note that d(Tx_{2},x_{2})>d(x_{2},x_{1})≥0). Hence, we have only d(x_{2},x_{1})≥d(Tx_{2},x_{2}) and so from (9), d(Tx_{2},x_{2})≤ ψ(d(x_{2},x_{1}))<ψ(d(x_{0},x_{1})). Hence, there exists x_{3}∈Tx_{2} such that d(x_{3},x_{2})<ψ(d(x_{0},x_{1})). Since (T,S) is α-admissible, so (x_{3},x_{2})≥1 and since α is symmetric, hence α(x_{2},x_{3})≥1. Continuing this process, we obtain a sequence {x_{n}} in X such that

for all n∈N. From triangle inequality, we conclude that . Hence, {x_{n}} is a cauchy sequence. From completeness of (X,d), there exists x∈X such that x_{n}→x.

Now we shall show that x∈Tx and x∈Sx. At first, we have

(10)

But

Tending n to ∞, we obtain . Now tending n to ∞ in (10) and using right upper semi-continuoty of ψ, we get d(x,Sx)≤ψ(d(x,Sx)) which implies d(x,Sx)=0. Hence, x∈Sx. On the other hand,

(11)

But

Tending n to ∞, we obtain d(x, y) =| x − y | . Also tending n to ∞ in (11), we obtain d(Tx,x)≤ψ(d(Tx,x)) which implies d(Tx,x)=0 and so d(Tx,x)=0. Hence, x∈Tx.

**Example 2: **Let X=[0,∞) with the usual metric d(x, y) =| x − y | . Obviously, (X,d) is complete. Let and suppose T,S:X→CB(X) be defined by

and

Also define

Obviously, α is symmetric. If x,y∈[0,1], then

Hence by definition of α, we have (x,y)H(Tx,Sy)≤ψ(M(x,y)) for all x,y∈X. It is easy to check that all of other conditions of theorem 5 hold. Hence by the theorem, T and S have a common fixed point in X. In fact, 0∈T_{0} and 0S_{0}. Note that in the above example we can not apply theorem in Rouhani’s [3]. To see this, put x=2 and y=1. Then,

and

We see that

Note that theorem 5 is a generalization in Rouhani’s [3] because having the contraction condition in Rouhani’s [8] it is sufficient to put α(x,y)=1 for each x,y∈X. Then, we will have all of the conditions of theorem 5 holded. So, by the theorem the multivalued mappings T and S have a common fixed point in X. Also, example 2 shows that this generalization is real.

Also, note that we can not use theorem 4 in Beg and Butt [4] for example 2. Since if we get E(G) = {(x, y) | x, y∈[0,1]} and choose and y=1, then

and

We see that for any 0≤c<1. On the other hand, theorem 2.3 is a generalization of theorem 4 in Beg and Butt [1] because having the contraction condition of theorem 4 in Beg and Butt [1] it is sufficient to define α(x,y)=1 if (x,y)∈E(G) and 0 otherwise. Example 2 shows that this generalization is real.

This study was supported by Marand Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iraq.

- Zhang X (2007) Common fixed point theorems for some new generalized contractive type mappings. J Math Anal Appl 333: 780-786.
- Samet B, Vetro C, Vetro P (2012) Fixed point theorems for a-y-contractive type mappings. Nonlinear Analysis 75: 2154-2165.
- Rouhani BD, Moradi S (2010) Common fixed point of multivalued generalized f-weak contractive mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl p: 13.
- Beg I, Butt AR (2013) Fixed point of set-valued graph contractive mappings. Journal of Inequalities and Applications p: 252.
- Branciari A (2002) A fixed point theorem for mappings satisfying a general contractive condition of integral type. Int J Math Sci 29: 531-536.
- Ciric LB (1974) A generalization of Banach’s contraction principle. Proc Amer Math Soc 45: 267-273.
- Mohammadi B, Rezapour S, Shahzad N (2013) Some results on fixed points of a-y-Ciric generalized multifunctions. Fixed Point Theory Appl p:24.
- Mohammadi B, Dinu S, Rezapour S (2013) Fixed points of Suzuki type quasi-contractions. UPB Sci Bull Series A 75: 3-12.
- Nadler SB (1969) Multi-valued contraction mappings. Pacific J Math 30: 475-488.
- RashwanRA, SalehSM (2016) Some common fixed point theorems for four (y,f)-weakly contractive mappings satisfying rational expressions in ordered partial metric spaces. Int J Nonlinear Anal Appl 7: 111-130.
- Zhang Q, Song Y (2009) Fixed point theory for generalized f-weak contractions. Applied Mathematics Letters 22: 75-78.

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language

- Adomian Decomposition Method
- Algebraic Geometry
- Analytical Geometry
- Applied Mathematics
- Axioms
- Balance Law
- Behaviometrics
- Big Data Analytics
- Binary and Non-normal Continuous Data
- Binomial Regression
- Biometrics
- Biostatistics methods
- Clinical Trail
- Complex Analysis
- Computational Model
- Convection Diffusion Equations
- Cross-Covariance and Cross-Correlation
- Differential Equations
- Differential Transform Method
- Fourier Analysis
- Fuzzy Boundary Value
- Fuzzy Environments
- Fuzzy Quasi-Metric Space
- Genetic Linkage
- Hamilton Mechanics
- Hypothesis Testing
- Integrated Analysis
- Integration
- Large-scale Survey Data
- Matrix
- Microarray Studies
- Mixed Initial-boundary Value
- Molecular Modelling
- Multivariate-Normal Model
- Noether's theorem
- Non rigid Image Registration
- Nonlinear Differential Equations
- Number Theory
- Numerical Solutions
- Physical Mathematics
- Quantum Mechanics
- Quantum electrodynamics
- Quasilinear Hyperbolic Systems
- Regressions
- Relativity
- Riemannian Geometry
- Robust Method
- Semi Analytical-Solution
- Sensitivity Analysis
- Smooth Complexities
- Soft biometrics
- Spatial Gaussian Markov Random Fields
- Statistical Methods
- Theoretical Physics
- Theory of Mathematical Modeling
- Three Dimensional Steady State
- Topology
- mirror symmetry
- vector bundle

- Total views:
**8550** - [From(publication date):

March-2016 - Jul 16, 2019] - Breakdown by view type
- HTML page views :
**8417** - PDF downloads :
**133**

**Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals**

International Conferences 2019-20