In this manuscript, using the idea of b-simulation functions, certain common fixed point results via generalized ℑb-contractions are investigated in the context of b-metric spaces. These findings generalize and supplement various numbers of established results from the existing literature. Examples and applications are also provided for the authenticity of the presented work. Besides, we ensure the existence of a unique common solution for systems of Volterra-Hammerstein integral and Urysohn integral equations, respectively, by applying the established results.
Citation: Muhammad Rashid, Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Fawad, Saber Mansour, Hassen Aydi. On generalized ℑb-contractions and related applications[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 20892-20913. doi: 10.3934/math.20231064
[1] | Pragati Gautam, Vishnu Narayan Mishra, Rifaqat Ali, Swapnil Verma . Interpolative Chatterjea and cyclic Chatterjea contraction on quasi-partial b-metric space. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(2): 1727-1742. doi: 10.3934/math.2021103 |
[2] | Abdullah Shoaib, Tahair Rasham, Giuseppe Marino, Jung Rye Lee, Choonkil Park . Fixed point results for dominated mappings in rectangular b-metric spaces with applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 5221-5229. doi: 10.3934/math.2020335 |
[3] | Hongyan Guan, Jinze Gou, Yan Hao . On some weak contractive mappings of integral type and fixed point results in b-metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(2): 4729-4748. doi: 10.3934/math.2024228 |
[4] | Yan Han, Shaoyuan Xu, Jin Chen, Huijuan Yang . Fixed point theorems for b-generalized contractive mappings with weak continuity conditions. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(6): 15024-15039. doi: 10.3934/math.2024728 |
[5] | Afrah A. N. Abdou, Maryam F. S. Alasmari . Fixed point theorems for generalized α-ψ-contractive mappings in extended b-metric spaces with applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(6): 5465-5478. doi: 10.3934/math.2021323 |
[6] | Shaoyuan Xu, Yan Han, Suzana Aleksić, Stojan Radenović . Fixed point results for nonlinear contractions of Perov type in abstract metric spaces with applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 14895-14921. doi: 10.3934/math.2022817 |
[7] | Wasfi Shatanawi, Taqi A. M. Shatnawi . Some fixed point results based on contractions of new types for extended b-metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 10929-10946. doi: 10.3934/math.2023554 |
[8] | Jamshaid Ahmad, Abdullah Eqal Al-Mazrooei, Hassen Aydi, Manuel De La Sen . Rational contractions on complex-valued extended b-metric spaces and an application. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 3338-3352. doi: 10.3934/math.2023172 |
[9] | Monairah Alansari, Mohammed Shehu Shagari, Akbar Azam, Nawab Hussain . Admissible multivalued hybrid Z-contractions with applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(1): 420-441. doi: 10.3934/math.2021026 |
[10] | Tahair Rasham, Najma Noor, Muhammad Safeer, Ravi Prakash Agarwal, Hassen Aydi, Manuel De La Sen . On dominated multivalued operators involving nonlinear contractions and applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(1): 1-21. doi: 10.3934/math.2024001 |
In this manuscript, using the idea of b-simulation functions, certain common fixed point results via generalized ℑb-contractions are investigated in the context of b-metric spaces. These findings generalize and supplement various numbers of established results from the existing literature. Examples and applications are also provided for the authenticity of the presented work. Besides, we ensure the existence of a unique common solution for systems of Volterra-Hammerstein integral and Urysohn integral equations, respectively, by applying the established results.
Many physical phenomenon can be described by integral equations. Non-linear integral equations play a vital role to solve many mathematical problems arising in engineering and applied science. There are various techniques available in the literature for the existence of solutions of these equations. Many researchers used fixed points techniques to the existence of a unique solution to non-linear integral equations. For instance, refer to [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Especially, Shoaib et al. [2] studied fixed point results and its applications to the systems of non-linear integral and differential equations of arbitrary order, while Rashwan and Saleh [8] established fixed point results to find the existence of a unique common solution to a system of Urysohn integral equations. As opposed to that, Pathak et al. [9] and Rashwan and saleh [8] ensured the existence of a unique common solution to a system of Volterra-Hammerstein non-linear integral equations. Additionally, Baklouti and his co-authors have made significant contributions to related areas, including optimal preventive maintenance policies for solar photovoltaic systems (c.f, [15]) and quadratic Hom-Lie triple systems (c.f, [16,17]).
In the current article, existence of solutions for the following systems of Volterra-Hammerstein integral and the Urysohn integral equations are investigated, respectively:
D(x)=ξi(x)+∫baWi(x,y,D(y))dy, |
where x∈(a,b)⊆R; D,ξi∈C((a,b),Rn) and Wi:(a,b)×(a,b)×Rn→Rn, for i=1,2;
and
D(x)=τi(x)+λ∫t0m(x,y)gi(y,D(y))dy+μ∫∞0n(x,y)hi(y,D(y))dy, |
where x∈(0,∞),λ,μ∈R,D,Ti,m(x,y),n(x,y),gi(y,D(y)) and hi(y,D(y)) for i=1,2 are measurable functions with real values both in x and y on (0,∞). The most elaborated result in this area, known as the Banach fixed point theorem, ensures that a solution exists. The extensive usage of the fixed point theory, particularly in metric spaces [11], has then had an impact on the study of its evolution over the past few decades.
Due to important applications of the Banach contraction principle, many researchers generalized this principle by elaborating the underlying spaces or changing the contractive conditions. See [12,13,14] for details. In recent decades, scholars concentrated on applying such an aforementioned theorem to various generalized metric spaces, see [18,19]. Among these generalized spaces, there is the b-metric space, where the coefficient of the triangle inequality is s≥1. It was introduced by Bakhtin [13]. Moreover, in [26] Czerwik provided the Banach contraction principle on this space. Recently, Salmi and Noorani [21] presented several properties in these spaces and established some common fixed point theorems in ordered cone b-metric spaces. Khojasteh et al. [34] introduced the concept of a simulation function. This concept has been refined in [22] in order to guarantee the presence of a unique coincidence point for two non-linear mappings.
Later, the concept of a b-simulation function was introduced to ensure the existence and uniqueness of a fixed point. In [23], Olgun et al. presented the concept of a generalized ℑ-contraction. In [24], Jawaher et al. utilized the idea of a b-simulation function and investigated some common fixed points for two contractive mappings. In the same direction, using the concept of a generalized ℑb-contraction with a b-simulation function, Rodjanadid et al. [23] proved some fixed point results in complete b-metric spaces.
Motivated by the above contributions, using b-simulation functions and ℑb-contractions, some fixed point theorems are constructed. As applications of these findings, some examples and existence results for systems of integral equations are also discussed. We note that by using the presented work, some well known results can be deduced from the existence literature.
This section includes all those concepts (definitions, theorems, lemmas, etc.) which will help us to prove the main results of this manuscript. These concepts are taken from different papers, like [25,26,27] etc. Throughout the manuscript, the following notions and symbols will be utilized. ϝ, Ω, ℶ and ℑ represent a non-empty set, a metric, a simulation function and a family of simulation functions, respectively. Also, the initials R and N in the sequel stand for the sets of all real and natural numbers, respectively.
Definition 2.1. [25] (Metric space) Let ϝ≠∅. A function Ω:ϝ×ϝ→[0,∞) is known as a metric on ϝ, if for all a,b,c∈ϝ the following conditions hold:
m1) Ω(a,b)=0 if and only if a=b;
m2) Ω(a,b)=Ω(b,a);
m3) Ω(a,b)≤Ω(a,c)+Ω(c,b).
The pair (ϝ,Ω) is a metric space.
Definition 2.2. [26] (b-metric space) Let ϝ≠∅ and assume b≥1. A function Ωb:ϝ×ϝ→[0,∞) is called a b-metric on ϝ if for all a,e,c∈ϝ, the following requirements are satisfied:
d1) Ωb(a,e)=0 if and only if a=e;
d2) Ωb(a,e)=Ωb(e,a);
d3) Ωb(a,e)≤b[Ωb(a,c)+Ωb(c,e)].
The pair (ϝ,Ωb) is known as a b-metric space, in short (bMS).
Definition 2.3. [27] (Convergence, Cauchyness and Completeness) Let {fn} be a sequence in a b-metric space (ϝ,Ωb,b).
a) {fn} is called b-convergent if and only if there is f∈ϝ such that Ωb(fn,f)→0 as n→∞.
b) {fn} is a b-Cauchy sequence if and only if Ωb(fn,fm)→0 as n,m→∞.
c) The b-metric space is complete if every b-Cauchy sequence is b-convergent.
Proposition 2.4. [27] The following assertions hold in a b-metric space (ϝ,Ωb,b):
i) The limit of a b-convergent sequence is unique;
ii) Each b-convergent sequence is b-Cauchy;
iii) A b-metric is not continuous generally.
Definition 2.5. [28] (Simulation function) Let ℶ:[0,∞)×[0,∞)→R be a function. If ℶ satisfies the criteria below:
(ℶ1) ℶ(0,0) = 0;
(ℶ2) ℶ(t,s)<s−t for all t,s>0;
(ℶ3) if {tn}, {sn} are sequences in (0,∞) such that
limn→∞tn=limn→∞sn>0, |
then
limn→∞supℶ(tn,sn)<0, |
then it is referred as a simulation function. The set of all simulation functions is denoted by the symbol ℑ.
Example 2.6. [28] Let ℶ:[0,∞)×[0,∞)→ϝ be defined by ℶ(t,s)=λs−t for all t,s∈[0,∞), where λ∈[0,1). Then ℶ is a simulation function.
Example 2.7. [28] Let ℶ:[0,∞)×[0,∞)→ϝ be defined by
ℶ(t,s)=Ψ(s)−Φ(t) for all t,s∈[0,∞), where Ψ,Φ:[0,∞)→[0,∞)
are two continuous functions such that Ψ(t)=Φ(t)=0 iff t=0
and Ψ(t)<t≤Φ(t) for all t>0. Here, ℶ is a simulation function.
Definition 2.8. [28] (ℑ-contraction) Let (ϝ,Ω) be a metric space, T:ϝ→ϝ be a mapping and ℶ∈ℑ. T is called a ℑ-contraction with regard to ℶ if the following condition holds
ℶ(Ω(Tx,Ty),Ω(x,y))≥0 for all x,y∈ϝ. |
If T is a ℑ-contraction with respect to ℶ∈ℑ, then Ω(Tx,Ty)<Ω(x,y) for all distinct x,y∈ϝ.
Theorem 2.9. [28] Suppose (ϝ,Ω) is a complete metric space and T:ϝ→ϝ is a ℑ- contraction with respect to ℶ∈ℑ. Then T has a unique fixed point u in ϝ and for every x0∈ϝ, the Picard sequence {xn} (where xn=Txn−1 for all n∈N) converges to the fixed point of T.
Definition 2.10. [29] (Generalized ℑ-contraction) Suppose (ϝ,Ω) is a metric space, T:ϝ→ϝ is a mapping and ℶ∈ℑ. Then T is referred to as a generalized ℑ-contraction with regard to ℶ If the following condition is satisfied:
ℶ(Ω(Tx,Ty),M(x,y))≥0 ∀ x,y∈ϝ, |
where
M(x,y)=max{Ω(x,y),Ω(x,Tx),Ω(y,Ty),12(Ω(x,Ty)+Ω(y,Tx))}. |
Theorem 2.11. [29] Assume (ϝ,Ω) is a complete metric space and T:ϝ→ϝ is a generalized ℑ-contraction with respect to ℶ∈ℑ, then T has a fixed point in ϝ. Moreover, for every x0∈ϝ, the Picard sequence {Tnx0} converges to this fixed point.
Definition 2.12. [33] (b-simulation function) Let (ϝ,Ωb) be a b-metric space with a constant b≥1. A b-simulation function is a function ℶ:[0,∞)×[0,∞)→R satisfying the following conditions: (ℶ1) ℶ(t,s)<s−t for all t,s>0;
(ℶ2) If {tn}, {sn} are two sequences in (0,∞) such that
0<limn→∞tn≤limn→∞infsn≤limn→∞supsn≤blimn→∞tn<∞, |
then
limn→∞supℶ(btn,sn)<0. |
We represent the set of all b-simulation functions by the symbol ℑb.
Some examples of b-simulation functions are as follows.
Example 2.13. [33] Let t,s∈[0,∞).
(1) ℶ(t,s)=Ψ(s)−Φ(t), where \ Φ,Ψ:[0,∞)→[0,∞) are two continuous functions such that Ψ(t)=Φ(t)=0⟺t=0 and Ψ(t)<t≤Φ(t) for all t>0;
(2) ℶ(t,s)=sy(t,s)z(t,s)t, where y,z:[0,∞)×[0,∞)→[0,∞) are two functions which are continuous respect to each variable, i.e., y(t,s)>z(t,s) for all t,s>0;
(3) ℶ(t,s) = s−Φ(s)−t, where \ Φ:[0,∞)→[0,∞) is a lower semi-continuous function such that Φ(t)=0⇔t=0;
(4) ℶ(t,s)=sΦ(s)−t, where Φ:[0,∞)→[0,∞) is such that limt→p+Φ(t)<1 ∀ p>0;
(5) ℶ(t,s)=λs−t, where λ∈[0,∞).
Definition 2.14. [31] Let (ϝ,Ωb,b) be a b-metric and y,z be two self mappings on ϝ. Then the pair {y,z} is said to be compatible if
limn→∞Ωb(yzxn,zyxn)=0, |
whenever {xn} is a sequence in ϝ such that
limn→∞yxn=limn→∞zxn=p forsome p∈ϝ. |
Lemma 2.15. [24] Let (ϝ,Ωb,b) be a b-metric space. If there exist two sequences {fn} and {rn} such that
limn→∞Ωb(fn,rn)=0, |
whenever {fn} is a sequence in ϝ such that
limn→∞fn=p forsome p∈ϝ |
then
limn→∞rn=p. |
Theorem 2.16. [30] Let T:ϝ→ϝ be a mapping and (ϝ,Ωb) be a complete b-metric space with a constant b≥1. Assume there is a b-simulation function \ ℶ \ such that ℶ(bΩb(Tf,Tr),Ωb(f,r))≥0 for all f,r∈ϝ, then T has a unique fixed point.
In this work, we introduce generalized ℑb-contraction pairs of self-mappings on a b-metric space. We will show that such mappings have a common fixed point. Some examples and applications are presented making effective the new concepts and obtained results. Well known results in literature are investigated and compared.
This section includes the main work of this article. We initiate this section with the definition of generalized ℑb-contractions and a related example. Before the proof of the main theorem, we prove some basic lemmas. For the support of the main theorem, some examples are presented. In the last of this section, some remarks are presented.
Definition 3.1. Consider a b-metric space (ϝ,Ωb,b) with b≥1, f1,f2:ϝ→ϝ are two mappings and ℶ ∈ ℑb.
Then f1,f2 are called generalized ℑb-contractions with respect to ℶ if the circumstance listed below is true
ℶ(bΩb(f1s,f1t),Mb(s,t))≥0 for all s,t∈ϝ,
where
Mb(s,t)=max[Ωb(f2s,f2t),Ωb(f2t,f1t),12bΩb(f2s,f1t)]. |
Example 3.2. Consider the be metric space (ϝ,Ωb,b) with $ \digamma = [1,2] and \Omega_{b} = (s-t)^2 forall s, t\in \digamma (Here,b=2).Thentheself−mappings f_1, f_2:\digamma \rightarrow \digamma $ defined by
f1(s)=(s8)2 and |
f2(s)=s8 |
are generalized ℑb-contractions with respect to ℶ(s,t)=12s−t. Indeed,
ℶ(bΩb(f1,f1),Mb(s,t))≥0. |
Lemma 3.3. Suppose (ϝ,Ωb,b) is a b-metric space, and f1,f2:ϝ→ϝ are two generalized ℑb-contractions. Suppose f1(ϝ)⊆f2(ϝ) and there is a b-simulation function ℶ such that
ℶ[bΩb(f1t,f1s),Mb(t,s)]≥0 ∀ t,s∈ϝ, | (3.1) |
then there is a sequence {an} in ϝ such that
limn→∞Ωb(an−1,an)=0. |
Proof. Assume t0 is an arbitrary point. Since f1(ϝ)⊆f2(ϝ), we can construct two sequences {tn} and {sn} such that sn=f1(tn)=f2(tn+1) for every n∈N. If there is n0∈N such that tn0=tn0+1, then it follows from the given inequality (3.1) and from (ℶ1) that for all n∈N,
0≤ℶ(bΩb(f1tn0+1,f1tn0+2),Mb(f2tn0+1,f2tn0+2))0≤Mb(f2tn0+1,f2tn0+2)−bΩb(f1tn0+1,f1tn0+2)=Mb(sn0,sn0+1)−bΩb(sn0+1,sn0+2). |
That is,
Mb(f2t,f2s)=max[Ωb(f2t,f2s),Ωb(f2s,f1s),12bΩb(f2t,f1s)]Mb(f2tn0+1,f2tn0+2)=max[Ωb(f2tn0+1,f2tn0+2),Ωb(f2tn0+2,f1tn0+2),12bΩb(f2tn0+1,f1tn0+2)]=max[Ωb(sn0,sn0+1),Ωb(sn0+1,sn0+2),12bΩb(sn0,sn0+2)]. |
Therefore, by triangle inequality,
Mb(f2tn0+1,f2tn0+2)=max[Ωb(sn0,sn0+1),Ωb(sn0+1,sn0+2)]0≤max[Ωb(sn0,sn0+1),Ωb(sn0+1,sn0+2)]−bΩb(sn0+1,sn0+2). |
Since sn0=sn0+1 implies that Ωb(sn0+1,sn0)=0, consider
0≤max[0,Ωb(sn0+1,sn0+2)]−bΩb(sn0+1,sn0+2)0<Ωb(sn0+1,sn0+2)−bΩb(sn0+1,sn0+2)0<[1−b]Ωb(sn0+1,sn0+2)≤0Ωb(sn0+1,sn0+2)=0 |
sn0=sn0+1=sn0+2=sn0+3=⋯, |
which implies that
limn→∞Ωb(sn−1,sn)=0. |
Now, suppose that sn≠sn+1 for every n∈N. Then, it follows from (3.1) and (ℶ1) that for every n∈N, we have
0≤ℶ[bΩb(f1tn,f1tn+1),Mb(f2tn,f2tn+1)]=ℶ[bΩb(sn,sn+1),Mb(sn−1,sn)]<Mb(sn−1,sn)−bΩb(sn,sn+1)=max[Ωb(sn−1,sn),Ωb(sn,sn+1)]−bΩb(sn,sn+1). |
If Ωb(sn,sn+1)≥Ωb(sn−1,sn), then 0<Ωb(sn,sn+1)−bΩb(sn,sn+1). That is,
bΩb(sn,sn+1)<Ωb(sn,sn+1), |
which is a contradiction. So we have
Ωb(sn−1,sn)≥Ωb(sn,sn+1)0<Ωb(sn−1,sn)−bΩb(sn,sn+1)bΩb(sn,sn+1)=Ωb(sn−1,sn) ∀ n∈N. |
This implies that {Ωb(sn−1,sn)} is a decreasing sequence of positive real numbers. Thus, there is some Γ≥0, so that
limn→∞Ωb(sn−1,sn)=Γ. |
Assume Γ>0, so from the condition (ℶ2), with an=Ωb(sn,sn+1) and bn=Ωb(sn−1,sn), one writes
0≤limn→∞supℶ[bΩb(sn,sn+1),Mb(sn−1,sn)]<0, |
which is a contradiction. Hence, we get that Γ=0. It ends the proof.
Remark 3.4. Let (ϝ,Ωb,b) be a b-metric space and assume f1,f2:ϝ→ϝ are two generalized ℑb-contractions. Assume that f1(ϝ)⊆f2(ϝ) and there is a b-simulation function ℶ such that
0≤ℶ[bΩb(f1t,f1s),Mb(f2t,f2s)] ∀ t,s∈ϝ. |
Then there is a sequence {sn} in ϝ such that
bΩb(sm,sn)≤Mb(sm−1,sn−1) ∀ m,n∈N. |
Proof. By a similar argument of Lemma 3.3 for every n∈N, we have sn=f1(tn)=f2(tn+1). Hence, from (3.1) and (ℶ1), we have for all m,n∈N,
0≤ℶ[bΩb(f1tm,f1tn),Mb(f2tm,f2tn)]0≤ℶ[bΩb(sm,sn),Mb(sm−1,sn−1)]0<Mb(sm−1,sn−1)−bΩb(sm,sn)bΩb(sm,sn)<Mb(sm−1,sn−1). |
Lemma 3.5. Let (ϝ,Ωb,b) be a b-metric space and assume f1,f2:ϝ→ϝ be two generalized ℑb- contractions. Assume that f1(ϝ)⊆f2(ϝ) and there is a b-simulation function ℶ such that the inequality (3.1) holds. Then there exists a sequence {sn} in ϝ, such that {sn} is a bounded sequence.
Proof. By a similar argument of Lemma 3.3, when for some n0sn0=sn0+1 we have Ωb(si,sj)≤M for all i,j=0,1,2,⋯, where
M=max{Ωb(si,sj):i,j≤n0}. |
Let us assume that sn≠sn+1 for each n∈N and suppose {sn} is a sequence which is not bounded. Then there is a subsequence {s}nk of {sn} such that for n1=1 and for each k∈N, nk+1 is the minimum integer such that Ωb(snk+1,snk)>1 and Ωb(sm,snk)≤1 for nk≤m≤nk+1−1. By triangular inequality, we obtain
1<Ωb(snk+1,snk)≤b[Ωb(snk+1,snk+1−1)+Ωb(snk+1−1,snk)]≤b[Ωb(snk+1,snk+1−1)+1)]=bΩb(snk+1,snk+1−1)+b). |
Letting k→∞ in the above inequality and using Lemma 3.3, we get
1≤limk→∞infΩb(snk+1,snk)≤limk→∞supΩb(snk+1,snk)≤b. |
Again from Remark 3.4 we have
bΩb(snk+1,snk)≤Mb(snk+1−1,snk−1)=max[Ωb(snk+1−1,snk−1),Ωb(snk−1,snk),12bΩb(snk+1−1,snk)]≤max[b[Ωb(snk+1−1,snk)+Ωb(snk,snk−1)],Ωb(snk−1,snk),12bΩb(snk+1−1,snk)]≤max[b[1+Ωb(snk,snk−1)],Ωb(snk−1,snk),12b(1)]≤max[b[1+Ωb(snk,snk−1)],Ωb(snk−1,snk),12b(b)]=max[b(1+Ωb(snk,snk−1),Ωb(snk−1,snk),12)]. |
Now, as
1<Ωb(snk+1,snk)b≤bΩb(snk+1,snk)<Mb(snk+1−1,sn−k−1)≤max[b[1+Ωb(snk,snk−1)],Ωb(snk−1,snk),12], |
then taking k→∞, one gets
b≤limk→∞Mb(snk+1−1,snk)≤limk→∞max[b[1+Ωb(snk,snk−1)],Ωb(snk−1,snk),12]=max[b(1+0),0,12]=max[b]=b, |
i.e.,
limk→∞Ωb(snk−1,snk)=0. |
That is,
limk→∞Mb(snk+1−1,snk−1)=b. |
Using the inequality (3.1) and (ℶ2) with ak=Ωb(snk+1,snk) and ck=Mb(snk+1−1,snk−1), we have
0≤limk→∞supℶ[bΩb(snk+1,snk),Mb(snk+1−1,snk−1)]<0, |
which is a contradiction. Hence, {sn} is a bounded sequence.
Lemma 3.6. Suppose (ϝ,Ωb,b) is a b-metric space and assume f1,f2:ϝ→ϝ are two generalized ℑb-contractions. Assume that f1(ϝ)⊆f2(ϝ) and there is a b-simulation function ℶ such that the inequality (3.1) holds. Then there is a sequence {sn} in ϝ, such that {sn} is a Cauchy sequence.
Proof. Using a similar argument as in Lemma 3.3, we have for every n∈N, sn=f1(tn)=f2(tn+1). If there is no∈N such that sn0=sn0+1, then we have {sn} is a cauchy sequence. Let us sn≠sn+1 for every n∈N and let
Cn=sup{Ωb(si,sj):i,j≥n}. |
Now, from Lemma 3.3, Cn<∞ for every n∈N. Since Cn is a positive decreasing sequence, there is some c≥0 such that
limn→∞Cn=c. |
Let us consider that c>0. Then by the definition of Cn, for every k∈N there are nk,mk∈N such that mk>nk≥k and
Ck−1k<Ωb(smk,snk)≤Ck. |
Letting k→∞ in the inequality above, we have
limk→∞Ωb(smk,snk)=c |
and
limk→∞Ωb(smk−1,snk−1)=c. |
By the inequality 3.1 and property (ℶ1), we have
0≤ℶ[bΩb(smk,snk),Mb(smk−1,snk−1)]<Mb(smk−1,snk−1)−bΩb(smk,snk)bΩb(smk,snk)<Mb(smk−1,snk−1)=max[Ωb(f2tmk,f2tnk),Ωb(f2tnk,f1tnk),12bΩb(f2tmk,f1tnk)]=max[Ωb(smk−1,snk−1),Ωb(snk−1,snk),12bΩb(smk−1,snk)]≤max[Ωb(smk−1,snk−1),Ωb(snk−1,snk),12b[b(Ωb(smk−1,smk)+Ωb(smk,snk))]]=max[Ωb(smk−1,snk−1),Ωb(snk−1,snk),12(Ωb(smk−1,smk)+Ωb(smk,snk))]. |
Letting limk→∞ in the above inequality using Lemma 3.3,
limk→∞Ωb(smk,snk)=c |
and
limk→∞Ωb(smk−1,snk−1)=c. |
We have
bc=limk→∞bΩb(smk,snk)≤Mb(smk−1,snk−1)≤limk→∞max[Ωb(smk−1,snk−1),Ωb(snk−1,snk),12(Ωb(smk−1,smk)+Ωb(smk,snk))]=max[c,0,12(0+c)]=c. |
Then
bc≤limk→∞infMb(smk−1,snk−1)≤limk→∞supMb(smk−1,snk−1)≤c. |
From the above inequality and since c>0 that is b=1, then by the property (ℶ2) with
ak=Ωb(smk,snk) |
and
qk=Mb(smk−1,snk−1) |
we get
0≤limk→∞supℶ[bΩb(smk,snk),Mb(smk−1,snk−1)]<0 |
which is a contradiction, thus c=0, i.e.,
limn→∞cn=0 ∀ b≥1. |
This proves that {sn} is a Cauchy sequence.
We are now going to present our main result.
Theorem 3.7. Consider (ϝ,Ωb,b) be a complete b-metric space, and f1,f2:ϝ→ϝ be two generalized ℑb-contractions with f1(ϝ)⊆f2(ϝ) and the pair (f1,f2) is compatible. Assume that ∃ a b-simulation function ℶ such that 3.1 holds, that is,
ℶ[bΩb(f1t,f1s),Mb(f2t,f2s)]≥0 ∀ t,s∈ϝ. |
If f2 is continuous, then there is a coincidence point of f1 and f2, that is, there exists t∈ϝ such that f1(t)=f2(t). Moreover, if f2 is one to one, then f1 and f2 have a unique common fixed point.
Proof. Consider x0∈ϝ. Since f1(ϝ)⊆f2(ϝ), we have for every n∈N, sn=f1(tn)=f2(tn+1). Now, from Lemma 3.6, the sequence {sn} is Cauchy and since (ϝ,Ωb,b) is a complete b-metric space, there is some s∈ϝ such that
limn→∞sn=s, |
that is,
s=limn→∞f1(tn)=limn→∞f2(tn). |
We claim that s is a coincidence point of f1 and f2. Since f2 is continuous, we have
limn→∞f2f1(tn)=f2f2(tn)=f2(s). |
Also, since {f1,f2} is compatible, we have
limn→∞Ωb(f1f2(tn),f2f1(tn))=0. |
Hence, by Lemma 2.15 we deduce
limn→∞f1f2(tn)=f2(s). |
Using (3.1), we have
0≤ℶ[bΩb(f1s,f1f2(tn)),Mb(f2s,f2f2(tn))]. |
That is,
<Mb(f2s,f2f2(tn))−bΩb(f1s,f1f2(tn)). |
Letting n→∞,
0<limn→∞infMb(f2s,f2f2(tn))−blimn→∞supΩb(f1s,f1f2(tn)). |
But
Mb(f2s,f2f2(tn))=max[Ωb(f2s,f2f2(tn)),Ωb(f2s,f1f2(tn)),12bΩb(f2s,f1f2(tn))]limn→∞infMb(f2s,f2f2(tn))=limn→∞infmax[Ωb(f2s,f2f2(tn)),Ωb(f2s,f1f2(tn)),12bΩb(f2s,f1f2(tn))]=max[Ωb(f2s,f2s),Ωb(f2s,f2s),12bΩb(f2s,f2s)]=0 |
which implies that
0<Mb(f2s,f2f2(tn))−bΩb(f1s,f1f2(tn))0<limn→∞infMb(f2s,f2f2(tn))−blimn→∞supΩb(f1s,f1f2(tn))=−blimn→∞supΩb(f1s,f1f2(tn))≤0. |
Thus,
limn→∞supΩb(f1s,f1f2(tn))=0 |
that is
limn→∞f1f2(tn)=f1(s) |
therefore f1(s)=f2(s).
Now, assume there is p∈ϝ such that f1(p)=f2(p) then the inequality (3.1) and (ℶ2) imply that
0≤ℶ[bΩb(f1s,f1p),Mb(f2s,f2p)] |
=Mb(f2s,f2p)−bΩb(f1s,f1p), |
where
Mb(f2s,f2p)=max[Ωb(f2s,f2p),Ωb(f2p,f1p),12bΩb(f2s,f1p)]=max[Ωb(f2s,f1p),12bΩb(f2s,f1p)]Mb(f2s,f2p)=Ωb(f2s,f1p)0<Ωb(f2s,f1p)−bΩb(f1s,f1p)=Ωb(f2s,f1p)−bΩb(f2s,f1p)=[1−b]Ωb(f2s,f1p)≤0Ωb(f2s,f1p)=0. |
Hence,
bΩb(f1s,f1p)≤Ωb(f1s,f1p). |
If b>1 then f1(s)=f1(p). If b=1, by the condition (ℶ2) with
ak=Ωb(f1s,f1p) |
and
vk=Mb(f2s,f2p) |
we get
0≤limk→∞supℶ[bΩb(f1s,f1p),Mb(f2s,f2p)]<0 |
which is a contradiction. Therefore,
f1(p)=f1(s)=f2(p)=f2(s). |
Now, suppose that f2 is one to one. If s,p are two coincidence points of f1 and f2, In this case, by the above argument we have
f1(s)=f2(s)=f1(p)=f2(p). |
Since f2 is one to one, it follows that p=s. Also, since f2(s)=f1(s) and the pair {f1,f2} is compatible we have
f1f2(s)=f2f1(s). |
Therefore,
f2f1(s)=f1f2(s)=f1f1(s). |
That is, f1(s) is a coincidence point of f1 and f2. Therefore, f1(s)=s and hence
f1(s)=f2(s)=s. |
That is, f1 and f2 have a unique common fixed point s∈ϝ.
Corollary 3.8. Let (ϝ,Ωb,b) be a complete b-metric space and f1,f2:ϝ→ϝ be two generalized ℑb-contractions with f1(ϝ)⊆f2(ϝ) and the pair (f1,f2) is compatible. Suppose that there is λ∈(0,1) such that
bΩb(f1s,f1t)≤λMb(s,t) ∀ s,t∈ϝ. |
If f2 is continuous, then there is a coincidence point of f1 and f2, that is, there is t∈ϝ such that f1(t)=f2(t). Moreover, if f2 is one to one, then f1 and f2 have a unique common fixed point.
Proof. By taking the b-simulation function
ℶ(x,y)=λy−x ∀ x,y≥0. |
The result follows from Theorem 3.7.
Example 3.9. Let X=[0,∞) and d:X×X→X be defined by
d(s,t)={0ifs=t;8ifs,t∈[0,1);3+1s+tifs,t∈[1,∞);3325otherwise. |
Then, clearly d is a b-metric on X with b=54.
Here, we observe that when s=32 and u=2 (both belong to [1,∞) and t∈[0,∞)), we have
d(s,u)=3+132+2=237 |
and
d(s,t)+d(t,u)=3325+3325=6625. |
Hence, d(s,u)≠d(s,t)+d(t,u). Hence, d is a b-metric with b=54(>1), but it is not a metric. We now define f,g:X→X by
f(s)={s4+2ifs∈[0,1);3s−2ifs∈[1,∞) |
and
g(s)={sifs∈[0,1);1sifs∈[1,∞). |
Clearly, f and g are b-continuous functions. Now, we define ℶ:[0,∞)×[0,∞)→[0,∞) by ℶ(x,y)=45y−x. We have the following possible cases:
Case 1: s,t∈[0,1).
In this case, d(fs,ft)=3+1s+t and Mb(s,t)=8
ℶ(bd(fs,ft),Mb(s,t))=45(8)−54(3+1s+t)>0. |
Case 2: s,t∈[1,∞).
Here, d(fs,ft)=3+1s+t and Mb=8. We have
ℶ(bd(fs,ft),Mb(s,t))=45(8)−54(3+1s+t)>0. |
Case 3: s∈[0,1) and t∈[1,∞).
Here, d(fs,ft)=3+1s+t and Mb=8. Also,
ℶ(bd(fs,ft),Mb(s,t))=45(8)−54(3+1s+t)>0. |
Case 4: s∈[1,∞) and t∈[0,1).
In this case d(fs,ft)=3+1s+t and Mb=8. Also,
ℶ(bd(fs,ft),Mb(s,t))=45(8)−54(3+1s+t)>0. |
So the pair {f,g} is a generalized ℑb-contraction. It satisfies all the conditions of Theorem 3.7. Hence, f and g have a common unique fixed point.
Example 3.10. Let ϝ=[0,1] be endowed with the b-metric Ωb(s,t)=(s−t)2, where b=2. Define f1 and f2 on ϝ by
f1(s)=(s4)2 |
and
f2(s)=(s4). |
Obviously f1(ϝ)⊆f2(ϝ) and furthermore the pair {f1,f2} is compatible. Consider the b-simulation function given as
ℶ(r,q)=12q−r ∀ r,q≥0. |
For all s,t∈ϝ we have
0≤ℶ[2Ωb(f1s,f1t),Mb(s,t)]0<12Mb(s,t)−2Ωb(f1s,f1t)Ωb(f1s,f1t)<14Mb(s,t). |
Now,
Ωb(f1s,f1t)=(f1s−f1t)2=((s4)2−(t4)2)2=(s4+t4)2(s4−t4)2≤(14+14)2(s4−t4)2=(24)2Ωb(f2s,f2t)≤14Mb(s,t)=14max[Ωb(f2s,f2t),Ωb(f2t,f1t),12bΩb(f2s,f1t)]. |
As all the requirements of Theorem 3.7 are satisfied, so f1 and f2 have a unique common fixed point, which is 0.
Example 3.11. Take ϝ=[0,1]. Define Ωb:ϝ×ϝ→R by Ωb(s,t)=(s−t)2. Clearly, (ϝ,Ωb) is a complete b-metric with b=2.
Now, we define the functions f1,f2:[0,1]→[0,1] by
f1s=as1+s ∀ s∈ϝ,a∈(0,1√2] |
and
f2t=t1+t ∀ t∈ϝ. |
Clearly,
f1(s)⊆f2(t) |
and furthermore the pair is [f1,f2] is compatible. Now, consider the b-simulation function ℶ:[0,∞)×[0,∞)→R defined by
ℶ(x,y)=f1f1+1−x. |
We have
ℶ(2Ωb(f1s,f1t),Mb(s,t))=Mb(s,t)Mb(s,t)+1−2Ωb(f1s,f1t) |
≥Ωb(s,t)Ωb(s,t)+1−2Ωb(f1s,f1t) |
=(s−t)2(s−t)2+1−2[as1+s−at1+t]2 |
=(s−t)2(s−t)2+1−2a2(s−t)2[(1+s)(1+t)]2 |
≥(s−t)2(s−t)2+1−2a2(s−t)2(s−t)2+1 |
=(s−t)2−2a2(s−t)2(s−t)2+1 |
=(1−2a2)(s−t)2(s−t)2+1 |
≥0 ∀ s,t∈ϝ. |
Thus, all the assumption are satisfied of Theorem 3.7, and hence f1 and f2 have a unique common fixed point, which is 0.
Remark 3.12. If in Lemma 3.3, Mb=Ωb(f2t,f2s) in inequality (3.1), then we will get Lemma 3.1 of [24].
Remark 3.13. If in Remark 3.4, Mb=Ωb(f2t,f2s) in inequality (3.1), then we will get Remark 3.2 of [24].
Remark 3.14. If in Lemma 3.5, Mb=Ωb(f2t,f2s) in inequality (3.1), then we will get Lemma 3.3 of [24].
Remark 3.15. If in Lemma 3.6, Mb=Ωb(f2t,f2s) in inequality (3.1), then we will get Lemma 3.4 of [24].
Remark 3.16. If in Theorem 3.7, Mb=Ωb(f2t,f2s) in inequality (3.1), then we will get Theorem 3.5 of [24].
In this section, we present an application of our result to integral equations. Namely, we study the existence of the unique common solution of a system of non linear Urysohn integral equations.
Let us consider the integral equations
f(x)=r1(x)+∫bak1(x,t,f(t))dt | (4.1) |
and
g(x)=r2(x)+∫bak2(x,t,g(t))dt | (4.2) |
where (i) f,r1, r2 and g are unknown functions for each x∈[a,b].
(ii) k1 and k2 are kernels defined for x,t∈[a,b].
Let us denote
ϑ1f(x)=∫bak1(x,t,f(t))dt |
and
ϑ2g(x)=∫bak2(x,t,g(t))dt. |
Assume that
● (A1) ϑ1f(x)+r1(x)+r2(x)−ϑ2(ϑ1f(x)+r1(x))+r2(x)=0
● (A2) r1(x)−r2(x)+ϑ1f(x)−ϑ1g(x)=0.
We will ensure the existence of a unique common solution of (4.1) and (4.2) that belong to G=(C[a,b],Rn) (the set of continuous mappings defined on [a,b]). For this, define the continuous mappings T1,T2:G→G by
T1f(x)=r1(x)+ϑ1f(x) |
and
T2g(x)=2f(x)−ϑ2f(x)−r2(x) |
where f,g,r1,r2∈G. We claim T1⊆T2.
Proof. If we show that T2(T1f(x)+r2(x))=T1f(x), then it is conformed that T1⊆T2. Hence,
T2(T1f(x)+r2(x))=2[T1f(x)+r2(x)]−ϑ2[T1f(x)+r2(x)]−r2(x)=2T1f(x)+2r2(x)−ϑ2[T1f(x)+r2(x)]−r2(x)=T1f(x)+r1(x)+r2(x)+ϑ1f(x)−ϑ2[T1f(x)+r2(x)]=T1f(x)+[r1(x)+r2(x)+ϑ1f(x)−ϑ2[T1f(x)+r2(x)]]. |
Using (A1),
T2[T1f(x)+r2(x)]=T1f(x). |
It shows that
T1f(x)⊆T2f(x). |
We endow on G the b-metric (with b=2) given as Ωb(x,y)=|x−y|2. Here, (G,Ωb) is complete. Further, let us suppose that k1,k2:[a,b]×[a,b]×Rn→Rn are continuous functions satisfying
|k1(x,t,f(t))−k2(x,t,f(t))|≤√Mb(f,g)√2(b−a), | (4.3) |
where
Mb(f,g)=max{Ωb(T2(f),T2(g)),Ωb(T2(g),T1(g)),14Ωb(T2(f),T1(g))}. |
Theorem 4.1. Under the conditions (A1), (A2) and (4.3), the Eqs (4.1) and (4.2) have a unique common solution.
Proof. For f,g∈(G,Rn) and x∈[a,b], we define the continuous mappings T1,T2:G→G by
T1f(x)=r1(x)+ϑ1f(x) |
and
T2f(x)=2f(x)−ϑ2f(x)−r2(x). |
Then we have
2Ωb(T1(f),T1(g))=2|T1(f)−T2(g)|2≤2|T2f(x)−T1g(x)|2=2|2f(x)−ϑ2f(x)−r2(x)−r1(x)−ϑ1g(x)|2=2|[r1(x)−r2(x)+ϑ1f(x)−ϑ1g(x)]+ϑ1f(x)−ϑ2f(x)|2=2|ϑ1f(x)−ϑ2f(x)|2≤2(∫ba|k1−k2|)2dt≤2(∫ba√Mb(f,g)√2(b−a)dt)=Mb(f,g). |
This shows that all the requirements of our main theorem are satisfied, i.e., 2Ωb(T1(f),T1(g))≤Mb(f,g). Therefore, the integral equations (4.1) and (4.2) have a unique common solution.
In this section, we give a second application and we ensure the existence of the unique common solution of a system of non linear Volterra-Hammerstein integral equations.
Let us take ϝ=(L(0,∞),R) the space of real-valued measurable functions on (0,∞). Consider
D(x)=τ1(x)+λ∫t0m(x,y)g1(y,D(y))dy+μ∫∞0n(x,y)h1(y,D(y))dy | (5.1) |
and
D(x)=τ2(x)+λ∫t0m(x,y)g2(y,D(y))dy+μ∫∞0n(x,y)h2(y,D(y))dy | (5.2) |
for all x,y∈(0,∞), where λ,μ∈R, and D,τ1,τ2,m(x,y),n(x,y),g1,g2,h1,and h2 are measurable functions with real values in S and r on (0,∞),
ϖi=∫t0m(x,y)gi(y,D(y))dy |
ψi=∫∞0n(x,y)hi(y,D(y))dy |
for i=1,2
f1D(x)=ϖ1D(x)+ψ1D(x)+τ1(x) |
f2D(x)=2D(x)−ϖ2D(x)−ψ2D(x)−τ2(x) |
with
f1(D(x))⊆f2(v(x)). | (5.3) |
Assume that
(c1):ϖ1D(x)+ψ1D(x)+τ1(x)+τ2(x)−ϖ2(ϖ1D(x)+ψ1D(x)+τ1(x)+τ2(x)) |
−ψ2(ϖ1D(x)+ψ1D(x)+τ1(x)+τ2(x))=0. |
We consider the b-metric space Ωb(x,y)=|x−y|2.
Theorem 5.1. Under the assumption (c1) and the condition (5.3), the system of non linear Volterra-Hammerstein integral equations has a unique common solution.
Proof. Note that the system of non linear Volterra-Hammerstein integral equations (5.1) and (5.2) has a unique common solution if and only if the system of operator f1 and f2 has a unique common fixed point.
Now,
Ωb(f1D(x),f1v(x))=|(f1D(x)−f1v(x))|2 |
≤|(f2v(x)−f1v(x))|2 |
=Ωb(f2(v(x)),f1(v(x))) |
≤Mb(D(x),v(x))=maxΩb(f2D(x),f2v(x)),Ωb(f2v(x),f1v(x)),14Ωb(f2D(x),f1v(x)) |
Ωb(f1D(x),f1v(x))≤Mb(D(x),v(x)). |
This shows that all the requirements of our main theorem are satisfied, and therefore the integral equations (5.1) and (5.2) have a unique common solution.
Rodjanadid et al.[23] used the idea of generalized ℑb-contractions with b-simulation functions and proved some fixed point results in complete b-metric spaces. Jawaher et al.[24] utilized the idea of b-simulation functions and investigated some common fixed points for two contractive mappings. In this manuscript, we combined these two ideas and proved some common fixed points for two contractive mappings using the idea of generalized ℑb-contractions with b-simulation functions in b-metric spaces. Different examples and applications are given to demonstrate the validity of the concept and the degree of applicability of our findings. Many applied problems can be described by systems of Fredholm and Volterra integral equations. The presented results can be utilized to study the existence of unique common solutions of these systems.
The authors would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research at Umm Al-Qura University for supporting this work grant code: 23UQU4331214DSR002.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
[1] |
S. Radenović, T. Dosenović, T. A. Lampert, Z. Golubović, A note on some recent fixed point results for cyclic contractions in b-metric spaces and an application to interal equations, Appl. Math. Comput., 273 (2016), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2015.09.089 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2015.09.089
![]() |
[2] |
M. Shoaib, M. Sarwar, K. Shah, P. Kumum, Fixed point results and its applications to the systems of non-linear integral and differential equations of arbitrary order, J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl., 9 (2016), 4949–4962. https://doi.org/10.22436/jnsa.009.06.128 doi: 10.22436/jnsa.009.06.128
![]() |
[3] |
A. Azam, B. Fisher, M. S. Khan, Common fixed point theorems in complex valued metric spaces, Number. Funct. Anal. optim., 32 (2011), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/01630563.2011.533046 doi: 10.1080/01630563.2011.533046
![]() |
[4] |
L. Gholizadeh, A fixed point theorem in generalized ordered metric spaces with applications, J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl., 6 (2013), 244–251. https://doi.org/10.22436/jnsa.006.04.02 doi: 10.22436/jnsa.006.04.02
![]() |
[5] |
M. B. Zada, M. Sarwar, C. Tunc, Fixed point theorems in b-metric spaces and their applications to non-linear fractional differential and integral equations, J. Fixed Point Theory Appl., 20 (2018), 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11784-018-0510-0 doi: 10.1007/s11784-018-0510-0
![]() |
[6] |
P. Salimi, N. Hussain, S. Shukla, S. Fathollahi, Radenović, fixed point results for cyclic α-ψφφ-contractions with applications to integral equations, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 290 (2015), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2015.05.017 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2015.05.017
![]() |
[7] |
W. Sintunavarat, M. B Zada, M. Sarwar, Common solution of Urysohn integral equations with the help of common fixed point results in complex valued metric spaces, RACSAM, 11 (2017), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-016-0309-z doi: 10.1007/s13398-016-0309-z
![]() |
[8] | R. A. Rashwan, S. M. Saleh, Solution of nonlinear equations via fixed point in G-metric spaces, Int. J. Appl. Math. Res., 3 (2014), 561–571. |
[9] |
H. K. Pathak, M. S. Khan, R. Tiwari, A common fixed point theorem and its applications to nonlinear integral equations, Comput. Math. Appl., 53 (2007), 961–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2006.08.046 doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2006.08.046
![]() |
[10] |
A. C. M. Ran, M. C. B. Reurings, A fixed point theorem in partially ordered sets and some applications to matrix equations, Proc. Am. Math. Soc., 132 (2004), 1435–1443. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-03-07220-4 doi: 10.1090/S0002-9939-03-07220-4
![]() |
[11] |
H. Q. Wang, X. H. Song, L. L. Chen, W. Xie, A secret sharing scheme for quantum gray and color images based on encryption, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 58 (2019), 1626–1650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-019-04057-z doi: 10.1007/s10773-019-04057-z
![]() |
[12] |
S. Banach, Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux équations intégrales, Fundam. Math., 3 (1922), 133–181. https://doi.org/10.4064/fm-3-1-133-181 doi: 10.4064/fm-3-1-133-181
![]() |
[13] |
L. Chen, L. Gao, D. Chen, Fixed point theorems of mean nonexpansive set-valued mappings in Banach spaces, J. Fixed point theory Appl., 19 (2017), 2019–2143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11784-017-0401-9 doi: 10.1007/s11784-017-0401-9
![]() |
[14] | S. Reich, Kannan's fixed point theorem, Boll. Unione Mat. Ital., 4 (1971), 1–11. |
[15] |
A. Baklouti, L. Mifdal, S. Dellagi, A. Chelbi, An optimal preventive maintenance policy for a solar photovoltaic system, Sustainability, 12 (2020), 4266. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104266 doi: 10.3390/su12104266
![]() |
[16] | A. Baklouti, Quadratic Hom-Lie triple systems, J. Geom. Phys., 121 (2017), 166–175. |
[17] |
A. Baklouti, S. Hidri, Tools to specify semi-simple Jordan triple systems, Differ. Geom. Appl., 83 (2022), 101900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.difgeo.2022.101900 doi: 10.1016/j.difgeo.2022.101900
![]() |
[18] |
C. Mongkolkeh, Y. J. Cho, P. Kumam, Fixed point theorem for simulation functions in b-metric spaces via the wt-distance, Appl. Gen. Topol., 18 (2017), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.4995/agt.2017.6322 doi: 10.4995/agt.2017.6322
![]() |
[19] | S. Reich, A. J. Zaslavski, Genericity in nonlinear analysis, Springer: London, UK, 2014. |
[20] | I. A. Bakhtin, The contraction mapping principle in quasimetric spaces, Funct. Anal, Unianowsk Gos. Ped. Inst., 30 (1989), 26–37. |
[21] | S. M. Abusalim, M. S. Noorani, Fixed point and common fixed point theorem on ordered cone b-metric spaces, Abstr. Appl. Anal., 2013, 81528. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/815289 |
[22] |
A. Roldan, E. Karapinar, C. Roldan, J. Martinez-Moreno, Coincidence point theorems on metric spaces via simulation functions, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 275 (2015), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2014.07.011 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2014.07.011
![]() |
[23] | B. Rodjanadid, P. Cherachapridi, J. Tanthaunch, Some fixed point theorems in b-metric spaces with b-simulation functions, Thai J. Math., 19 (2021), 1625–1636. |
[24] | A. A. Jawaher, S. Sedghi, I. Altun, Fixed point results on b-metric spaces via b-simulation functions, Thai J. Math., 19 (2021), 1575–1584. |
[25] |
M. Fréchet, Sur quelques points du calcul fonctionnel, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palerm., 22 (1906), 1–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03018603 doi: 10.1007/BF03018603
![]() |
[26] | S. Czerwik, Nonlinear set-valued contraction mappings in b-metric spaces, Atti Sem. Mat. Fis. Univ. Modena., 46 (1998), 263–276. |
[27] | S. Czerwik, Contraction mappings in b-metric spaces, Acta Math. inform. Univ. Ostraviensis, 1 (1993), 5–11. |
[28] |
F. Khojasteh, S. Shukla, S. Radenović, A new approach to the study of fixed point theory for simulation functions, Filomat, 29 (2015), 1189–1194. https://doi.org/10.2298/FIL1506189K doi: 10.2298/FIL1506189K
![]() |
[29] |
M. Olgun, O. Bicer, T. Alyildiz, A new aspect to Picard operators with simulation functions, Turk. J. Math., 40 (2016), 832–837. https://doi.org/10.3906/mat-1505-26 doi: 10.3906/mat-1505-26
![]() |
[30] |
M. Demma, R. Saadati, P. Vetro, Fixed point results on b-metric space via Picard sequences and b-simulation functions, Iran. J. Math. Sci. Info., 11 (2016), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.3917/top.136.0123 doi: 10.3917/top.136.0123
![]() |
[31] |
G. Jungck, Compatible mappings and common fixed points, Int. J. Math. Math. Sci., 9 (1986), 771–779. https://doi.org/10.1155/S0161171286000935 doi: 10.1155/S0161171286000935
![]() |
[32] |
V. Ozturk, D. Turkoglu, Common fixed point theorems for mappings satisfying (E.A) property in b-metric spaces, J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl., 8 (2015), 1127–1133. https://doi.org/10.22436/jnsa.008.06.21 doi: 10.22436/jnsa.008.06.21
![]() |
[33] | M. Demma, R. Saadati, P. Vetro, Fixed point results on b-metric space via Picard sequences and b-simulation functions, Iran. J. Math. Sci. Info., 11 (2016), 123–136. |
[34] |
F. Khojasteh, S. Shukla, S. Radenović, A new approach to the study of fixed point theory for simulation functions, Filomat, 29 (2015), 1189–1194. https://doi.org/10.2298/FIL1506189K doi: 10.2298/FIL1506189K
![]() |