This paper studies the exponential stability of the Aw-Rascle-Zhang (ARZ) traffic flow model. Given that the steady state may be non-uniform, we obtain a 2×2 hyperbolic system with variable coefficients. Then, by combining ramp metering and variable speed limit control, we deduce a kind of proportional boundary feedback controller. The well-posedness of the closed-loop system is proved by using the theory of semigroups of operators. Moreover, a novel Lyapunov function, whose weighted function is constructed by the solution of a first-order ordinary differential equation, can be used for the stability analysis. The analysis gives a sufficient stability condition for the feedback parameters, which is easy to verify. Finally, the effectiveness of boundary control and the feasibility of the feedback parameters are obtained by numerical simulation.
Citation: Yiyan Wang, Dongxia Zhao, Caifen Sun, Yaping Guo. Exponential stability of ARZ traffic flow model based on 2×2 variable-coefficient hyperbolic system[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(1): 584-597. doi: 10.3934/math.2025026
[1] | Qing Yang, Chuanzhi Bai . Fixed point theorem for orthogonal contraction of Hardy-Rogers-type mapping on O-complete metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 5734-5742. doi: 10.3934/math.2020368 |
[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] | Seher Sultan Yeşilkaya, Cafer Aydın, Adem Eroǧlu . Fixed point results on ordered Prešić type mappings. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 5140-5156. doi: 10.3934/math.2020330 |
[4] | Aftab Hussain . Fractional convex type contraction with solution of fractional differential equation. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 5364-5380. doi: 10.3934/math.2020344 |
[5] | Muhammad Tariq, Muhammad Arshad, Mujahid Abbas, Eskandar Ameer, Saber Mansour, Hassen Aydi . A relation theoretic m-metric fixed point algorithm and related applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 19504-19525. doi: 10.3934/math.2023995 |
[6] | Yue Wang, Ghulam Farid, Babar Khan Bangash, Weiwei Wang . Generalized inequalities for integral operators via several kinds of convex functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 4624-4643. doi: 10.3934/math.2020297 |
[7] | Mourad Berraho . On a problem concerning the ring of Nash germs and the Borel mapping. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(2): 923-929. doi: 10.3934/math.2020063 |
[8] | Chen Lang, Hongyan Guan . Common fixed point and coincidence point results for generalized α-φE-Geraghty contraction mappings in b-metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 14513-14531. doi: 10.3934/math.2022800 |
[9] | Awais Asif, Sami Ullah Khan, Thabet Abdeljawad, Muhammad Arshad, Ekrem Savas . 3D analysis of modified F-contractions in convex b-metric spaces with application to Fredholm integral equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 6929-6948. doi: 10.3934/math.2020444 |
[10] | Faiz Muhammad Khan, Weiwei Zhang, Hidayat Ullah Khan . Double-framed soft h-semisimple hemirings. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 6817-6840. doi: 10.3934/math.2020438 |
This paper studies the exponential stability of the Aw-Rascle-Zhang (ARZ) traffic flow model. Given that the steady state may be non-uniform, we obtain a 2×2 hyperbolic system with variable coefficients. Then, by combining ramp metering and variable speed limit control, we deduce a kind of proportional boundary feedback controller. The well-posedness of the closed-loop system is proved by using the theory of semigroups of operators. Moreover, a novel Lyapunov function, whose weighted function is constructed by the solution of a first-order ordinary differential equation, can be used for the stability analysis. The analysis gives a sufficient stability condition for the feedback parameters, which is easy to verify. Finally, the effectiveness of boundary control and the feasibility of the feedback parameters are obtained by numerical simulation.
Fixed point results have a crucial role to construct methods for solving problems in applied mathematics and other sciences. A large number of mathematicians have focused on this interesting topic. The Banach contraction mapping principle is the most important result in fixed point theory. It is considered the source of metric fixed point theory. Metric spaces form a natural environment for exploring fixed points of single and multivalued mappings which can be noted to Banach contraction principle [7], that is, a very interesting useful and pivotal result in fixed point theory. The important feature of the Banach contraction principle is that it gives the existence, uniqueness and the covergence of the sequence of the successive approximation to a solution of the problem. Banach contraction principle is generalized in many different ways. Reader can see two short survey of the development of fixed point theory in [15,18].
Recently, Samet et al. [24] introduced the notions of α-ψ-contractive mappings and α-admissible mappings. Also, Alizadeh et al. [2] offered the concept of cyclic (α,β) -admissible mappings and obtain some new fixed point results. For more information on fixed point results, see [1,4,5,8,9,11,12,17,19,20,22,23,25,26].
Definition 1.1. [16] A function φ:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is called an altering distance function if the following properties are satisfied:
(i) φ is non-decreasing and continuous,
(ii) φ(t)=0 if and only if t=0.
Definition 1.2. [2] Let f:X→X and α,β:X→[0,+∞). We say that f is a cyclic (α,β)-admissible mapping if
(i) α(x)≥1 for some x∈X implies β(fx)≥1;
(ii) β(x)≥1 for some x∈X implies α(fx)≥1.
Definition 1.3. [14] Let X be a nonempty set and f,T:X→X. The pair (f,T) is said to be weakly compatible if f and T commute at their coincidence points (i.e., fTx=Tfx whenever fx=Tx). A point y∈X is called a point of coincidence of f and T if there exists a point x∈X such that y=fx=Tx.
Following the direction in [10], we denote by Ψ the family of all functions ψ:R4+→R+ such that
(ψ1) ψ is nondecreasing in each coordinate and continuous;
(ψ2) ψ(t,t,t,t)≤t, ψ(t,0,0,t)≤t and ψ(0,0,t,t2)≤t for all t>0;
(ψ3) ψ(t1,t2,t3,t4)=0 if and only if t1=t2=t3=t4=0.
Definition 1.4. [3] A mapping h:R+×R+→R is a function of subclass of type I if x≥1, then h(1,y)≤h(x,y).
Example 1.5. [3] The following are some examples of function of subclass of type I, for all x,y∈R+ and positive integers m,n,
(1) h(x,y)=(y+l)x,l>1;
(2) h(x,y)=(x+l)y,l>1;
(3) h(x,y)=xmy;
(4) h(x,y)=xn+xn−1+⋯+x1+1n+1y;
(5) h(x,y)=(xn+xn−1+⋯+x1+1n+1+l)y,l>1.
Definition 1.6. [3] Suppose that F:R+×R+→R. A pair (F,h) is called an upper class of type I if h is a subclass of type I and
(1) 0≤s≤1⟹F(s,t)≤F(1,t);
(2) h(1,y)≤F(s,t)⟹y≤st.
Example 1.7. [3] The following are some examples of upper class of type I, for all s,t∈R+ and positive integers m,n,
(1) h(x,y)=(y+l)x,l>1,F(s,t)=st+l;
(2) h(x,y)=(x+l)y,l>1,F(s,t)=(1+l)st;
(3) h(x,y)=xmy,F(s,t)=st;
(4) h(x,y)=xn+xn−1+⋯+x1+1n+1y,F(s,t)=st;
(5) h(x,y)=(xn+xn−1+⋯+x1+1n+1+l)y,l>1,F(s,t)=(1+l)st.
Definition 1.8. [3] A mapping h:R+×R+×R+→R is a function of subclass of type II if for x,y≥1, h(1,1,z)≤h(x,y,z).
Example 1.9. [3] The following are some examples of subclass of type II, for all x,y,z∈R+,
(1) h(x,y,z)=(z+l)xy,l>1;
(2) h(x,y,z)=(xy+l)z,l>1;
(3) h(x,y,z)=z;
(4) h(x,y,z)=xmynzp,m,n,p∈N;
(5) h(x,y,z)=xm+xnyp+yq3zk,m,n,p,q,k∈N.
Definition 1.10. [3] Let h:R+×R+×R+→R and F:R+×R+→R. Then we say that the pair (F,h) is called an upper class of type II if h is a subclass of type II and
(1) 0≤s≤1⟹F(s,t)≤F(1,t);
(2) h(1,1,z)≤F(s,t)⟹z≤st.
Example 1.11. [3] The following are some examples of upper class of type II, for all s,t∈R+,
(1) h(x,y,z)=(z+l)xy,l>1,F(s,t)=st+l;
(2) h(x,y,z)=(xy+l)z,l>1,F(s,t)=(1+l)st;
(3) h(x,y,z)=z,F(s,t)=st;
(4) h(x,y,z)=xmynzp,m,n,p∈N,F(s,t)=sptp;
(5) h(x,y,z)=xm+xnyp+yq3zk,m,n,p,q,k∈N,F(s,t)=(st)k.
Definition 1.12. [13] Let f, T:X→X and α,β:X→[0,+∞). We say that f is a T-cyclic (α,β)-admissible mapping if
(i) α(Tx)≥1 for some x∈X implies β(fx)≥1;
(ii) β(Tx)≥1 for some x∈X implies α(fx)≥1.
Example 1.13. [13] Let f,T:R→R be defined by fx=x and Tx=−x. Suppose that α,β:R→R+ are given by α(x)=e−x for all x∈R and β(y)=ey for all y∈R. Then f is a T-cyclic (α,β) admissible mapping. Indeed, if α(Tx)=ex≥1, then x≥0 implies fx≥0 and so β(fx)=efx≥1. Also, if β(Ty)=e−y≥1, then y≤0 which implies fy≤0 and so α(fy)=e−fy≥1.
The following result will be used in the sequel.
Lemma 1.14. [6,21] Let (X,d) be a metric space and {xn} be a sequence in X such that
limn→+∞d(xn,xn+1)=0. |
If {xn} is not a Cauchy sequence in X, then there exist ε>0 and two sequences {m(k)} and {n(k)} of positive integers such that n(k)>m(k)>k and the following sequences tend to ε+ when k→+∞:
d(xm(k),xn(k)),d(xm(k),xn(k)+1),d(xm(k)−1,xn(k)), |
d(xm(k)−1,xn(k)+1),d(xm(k)+1,xn(k)+1). |
In this paper, we introduce new notions of T-cyclic (α,β,H,F)-contractive and T-cyclic (α,β,H,F) -rational contractive using a pair (F,h) upper class functions to obtain new fixed point and common fixed point theorems.
The following definitions will be used efficiently in the proof of main results.
Definition 2.1. Let f, T:X→X and λ,γ:X→[0,+∞). We say that f is a T-cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping if
(i) λ(Tx)≤1 for some x∈X implies γ(fx)≤1;
(ii) γ(Tx)≤1 for some x∈X implies λ(fx)≤1.
Definition 2.2. Let (X,d) be a metric space and f be a T-cyclic (α,β)-admissible and T-cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping. We say that f is a T-cyclic (α,β,H,F)-contractive mapping if
H(α(Tx),β(Ty),φ(d(fx,fy)))≤F(γ(Tx)λ(Ty),η(M(x,y))), | (2.1) |
for all x,y∈X, where
M(x,y)=ψ(d(Tx,Ty),d(Tx,fx),d(Ty,fy),12[d(Tx,fy)+d(Ty,fx)]) |
for ψ∈Ψ, the pair (F,h) is an upper class of type II, φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0.
Theorem 2.3. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let f and T be self-mappings on X such that fX⊂TX. Let f be a T -cyclic (α,β,H,F)-contractive mapping. Assume that TX is a closed subset of X and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that xn→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1, and γ(xn)≤1 for all n, then γ(x)≤1;
(iii) α(Tu)≥1 and β(Tv)≥1, and λ(Tu)≤1 and γ(Tv)≤1 whenever fu=Tu and fv=Tv.
Then f and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if f and T are weakly compatible, then f and T have a unique common fixed point.
Proof. Let x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1. Define the sequences {xn} and {yn} in X by
yn=fxn=Txn+1, n∈N∪{0}. | (2.2) |
If yn=yn+1, then yn+1 is a point of coincidence of f and T. Suppose that yn≠yn+1 for all n∈N. Since f is a T-cyclic (α,β)-admissible mapping and α(Tx0)≥1, β(fx0)=β(Tx1)≥1 which implies α(Tx2)=α(fx1)≥1. By continuing this process, we get α(Tx2n)≥1 and β(Tx2n+1)≥1 for all n∈N∪{0}. Similarly, since f is a T-cyclic (α,β)-admissible mapping and β(Tx0)≥1, we have β(Tx2n)≥1 and α(Tx2n+1)≥1 for all n∈N∪{0}, that is, α(Txn)≥1 and β(Txn)≥1 for all n∈N∪{0}. Equivalently, α(Txn)β(Txn+1)≥1 for all n∈N∪{0}. Since f is a T-cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping and λ(Tx0)≤1, γ(fx0)=γ(Tx1)≤1 which implies λ(Tx2)=λ(fx1)≤1. By continuing this process, we get λ(Tx2n)≤1 and γ(Tx2n+1)≤1 for all n∈N∪{0}. Similarly, since f is a T-cyclic (λ,γ)-admissible mapping and γ(Tx0)≤1, we have γ(Tx2n)≤1 and λ(Tx2n+1)≤1 for all n∈N∪{0}, that is, λ(Txn)≥1 and β(Txn)≥1 for all n∈N∪{0}. Equivalently, λ(Txn)γ(Txn+1)≤1 for all n∈N∪{0}. Therefore, by (2.1) and using (2.2), we get
H(1,1,φ(d(yn,yn+1)))=H(1,1,φ(d(fxn,fxn+1)))≤H(α(Txn),β(Txn+1),φ(d(fxn,fxn+1)))≤F(λ(Txn)γ(Txn+1),η(M(xn,xn+1)))≤F(1,η(M(xn,xn+1))). |
This implies that
φ(d(yn,yn+1))≤η(M(xn,xn+1))<φ(M(xn,xn+1)). | (2.3) |
Since φ is nondecreasing, we have
d(yn,yn+1)<M(xn,xn+1), | (2.4) |
where
M(xn,xn+1)=ψ(d(Txn,Txn+1),d(Txn,fxn),d(Txn+1,fxn+1),12[d(Txn,fxn+1)+d(Txn+1,fxn)])=ψ(d(yn−1,yn),d(yn−1,yn),d(yn,yn+1),12[d(yn−1,yn+1)+d(yn,yn)])≤ψ(d(yn−1,yn),d(yn−1,yn),d(yn,yn+1),12[d(yn−1,yn)+d(yn,yn+1)]). | (2.5) |
Thus, from (2.4), we obtain
d(yn,yn+1)<M(xn,xn+1)≤ψ(d(yn−1,yn),d(yn−1,yn),d(yn,yn+1),12[d(yn−1,yn)+d(yn,yn+1)]). |
If d(yn−1,yn)≤d(yn,yn+1) for some n∈N, then
d(yn,yn+1)<ψ(d(yn−1,yn),d(yn−1,yn),d(yn,yn+1),12[d(yn−1,yn)+d(yn,yn+1)])≤ψ(d(yn,yn+1),d(yn,yn+1),d(yn,yn+1),d(yn,yn+1))≤d(yn,yn+1), |
which is a contradiction and hence d(yn,yn+1)<d(yn−1,yn) for all n∈N. Therefore, the sequence {d(yn,yn+1)} is decreasing and bounded below. Thus, there exists r≥0 such that limn→+∞d(yn,yn+1)=r. Assume r>0. Also, from (2.3), (2.5) and using the properties of ψ, we deduce
φ(d(yn,yn+1))≤η(M(xn,xn+1))≤η(ψ(d(yn−1,yn),d(yn−1,yn),d(yn,yn+1),12[d(yn−1,yn)+d(yn,yn+1)]))≤η(ψ(d(yn−1,yn),d(yn−1,yn),d(yn−1,yn),d(yn−1,yn)))≤η(d(yn−1,yn)). | (2.6) |
Consider the properties of φ and η. Letting n→+∞ in (2.6), we get
φ(r)=limn→+∞φ(d(yn,yn+1))≤limn→+∞η(d(yn−1,yn))=η(r)<φ(r), |
which implies r=0 and so
limn→+∞d(yn,yn+1)=0. | (2.7) |
Now, we prove that {yn} is a Cauchy sequence. Suppose, to the contrary, that {yn} is not a Cauchy sequence. Then, by Lemma 1.14, there exist an ε>0 and two subsequences {ymk} and {ynk} of {yn} with mk>nk>k such that d(ym(k),yn(k))≥ε, d(ym(k)−1,yn(k))<ε and
limk→+∞d(ynk,ymk)=limk→+∞d(ynk−1,ymk)=limk→+∞d(ymk−1,ynk)=limk→+∞d(ymk−1,ynk−1)=ε. | (2.8) |
From (2.1), we get
H(1,1,φ(d(ynk,ymk)))=H(1,1,φ(d(fxnk,fxmk)))≤H(α(Txnk),β(Txmk),φ(d(fx,fy))≤F(λ(Txnk)γ(Txmk),η(M(xnk,xmk)))≤F(1,η(M(x,y))). |
This implies that
φ(d(ynk,ymk))≤η(M(xnk,xmk))<φ(M(xnk,xmk)) | (2.9) |
where
M(xnk,xmk)=ψ(d(Txnk,Txmk),d(Txnk,fxnk),d(Txmk,fxmk),12[d(Txnk,fxmk)+d(Txmk,fxnk)])≤ψ(max{ε,d(ynk−1,ymk−1)},d(ynk−1,ynk),d(ymk−1,ymk),max{ε,12[d(ynk−1,ymk)+d(ymk−1,ynk)]}). |
Now, from the properties of φ,ψ and η and using (2.8) and the above inequality, as k→+∞ in (2.9), we have
φ(ε)≤η(ψ(ε,0,0,ε))≤η(ε)<φ(ε), |
which implies that ε=0, a contradiction with ε>0. Thus, {yn} is a Cauchy sequence in X. From the completeness of (X,d), there exists z∈X such that
limn→+∞yn=z. | (2.10) |
From (2.2) and (2.10), we obtain
fxn→z and Txn+1→z. | (2.11) |
Since TX is closed, by (2.11), z∈TX. Therefore, there exists u∈X such that Tu=z. Since yn→z and β(yn)=β(Txn+1)≥1 for all n∈N, by (ii), β(z)=β(Tu)≥1. Similarly, γ(z)=γ(Tu)≤1. Thus, λ(Txn)γ(Tu)≤1 for all n∈N.
Now, applying (2.1), we get
H(1,1,φ(d(fxn,fu)))≤H(α(Txn),β(Tu),φ(d(fxn,fu))≤F(λ(Txn)γ(Tu),η(M(xn,u)))≤F(1,η(M(xn,u))). |
This implies that
φ(d(fxn,fu))≤η(M(xn,u)), | (2.12) |
where
M(xn,u)=ψ(d(Txn,Tu),d(Txn,fxn),d(Tu,fu),12[d(Txn,fu)+d(Tu,fxn)])≤ψ(d(Txn,Tu),d(Txn,fxn),d(Tu,fu),12max{d(Tu,fu),[d(Txn,fu)+d(Tu,fxn)]}). |
Taking k→∞ in the inequality (2.12) and using the properties of φ,ψ,η and the above inequality, we have
φ(d(z,fu))≤η(ψ(0,0,d(z,fu),12d(z,fu)))≤η(d(z,fu))<φ(d(z,fu)), |
which implies d(z,fu)=0, that is, z=fu. Thus we deduce
z=fu=Tu | (2.13) |
and so z is a point of coincidence for f and T. The uniqueness of the point of coincidence is a consequence of the conditions (2.1) and (iii), and so we omit the details.
By (2.13) and using weakly compatibility of f and T, we obtain
fz=fTu=Tfu=Tz |
and so fz=Tz. Uniqueness of the coincidence point implies z=fz=Tz. Consequently, z is a unique common fixed point of f and T.
Corollary 2.4. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let f and T be self-mappings on X such that fX⊂TX. Let f be a T-cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and T-cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
H(α(Tx),β(Ty),φ(d(fx,fy)))≤F(γ(Tx)λ(Ty),η(M(x,y))) |
for all x,y∈X, where φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0 and
M(x,y)=ψ(d(Tx,Ty),d(Tx,fx),d(Ty,fy),12[d(Tx,fy)+d(Ty,fx)]) |
for ψ∈Ψ. Assume that TX is a closed subset of X and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that xn→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1, and γ(xn)≤1 for all n, then γ(x)≤1;
(iii) α(Tu)≥1 and β(Tv)≥1, and λ(Tu)≤1 and γ(Tv)≤1 whenever fu=Tu and fv=Tv.
Then f and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if f and T are weakly compatible, then f and T have a unique common fixed point.
Corollary 2.5. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let f and T be self-mappings on X such that fX⊂TX. Let f be a T-cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and T-cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
(α(Tx)β(Ty)+l)φ(d(fx,fy))≤(1+l)γ(Tx)λ(Ty)η(M(x,y)) |
for all x,y∈X, where φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0 and
M(x,y)=ψ(d(Tx,Ty),d(Tx,fx),d(Ty,fy),12[d(Tx,fy)+d(Ty,fx)]) |
for ψ∈Ψ. Assume that TX is a closed subset of X and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that xn→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1, and γ(xn)≤1 for all n, then γ(x)≤1;
(iii) α(Tu)≥1 and β(Tv)≥1, and λ(Tu)≤1 and γ(Tv)≤1 whenever fu=Tu and fv=Tv.
Then f and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if f and T are weakly compatible, then f and T have a unique common fixed point.
Corollary 2.6. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let f and T be self-mappings on X such that fX⊂TX. Let f be a T-cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and T-cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
(φ(d(fx,fy))+l)α(Tx)β(Ty)≤(γ(Tx)λ(Ty)η(M(x,y))+l |
for all x,y∈X, where φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0 and
M(x,y)=ψ(d(Tx,Ty),d(Tx,fx),d(Ty,fy),12[d(Tx,fy)+d(Ty,fx)]) |
for ψ∈Ψ. Assume that TX is a closed subset of X and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that xn→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1, and γ(xn)≤1 for all n, then γ(x)≤1;
(iii) α(Tu)≥1 and β(Tv)≥1, and λ(Tu)≤1 and γ(Tv)≤1 whenever fu=Tu and fv=Tv.
Then f and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if f and T are weakly compatible, then f and T have a unique common fixed point.
Corollary 2.7. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let f and T be self-mappings on X such that fX⊂TX. Let f be a T -cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and T-cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
H(α(Tx),β(Ty),φ(d(fx,fy)))≤F(γ(Tx)λ(Ty),η(M(x,y))) | (2.14) |
for all x,y∈X, where φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0 and
M(x,y)=max{d(Tx,Ty),d(Tx,fx),d(Ty,fy),12[d(Tx,fy)+d(Ty,fx)]}. |
Assume that TX is a closed subset of X and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that xn→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1, and γ(xn)≤1 for all n, then γ(x)≤1;
(iii) α(Tu)≥1 and β(Tv)≥1, and λ(Tu)≤1 and γ(Tv)≤1 whenever fu=Tu and fv=Tv.
Then f and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if f and T are weakly compatible, then f and T have a unique common fixed point.
Corollary 2.8. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let f and T be self-mappings on X such that fX⊂TX. Let f be a T-cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and T-cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
(α(Tx)β(Ty)+l)φ(d(fx,fy))≤(1+l)γ(Tx)λ(Ty)η(M(x,y)) |
for all x,y∈X, where φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0 and
M(x,y)=max{d(Tx,Ty),d(Tx,fx),d(Ty,fy),12[d(Tx,fy)+d(Ty,fx)]}. |
Assume that TX is a closed subset of X and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that xn→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1, and γ(xn)≤1 for all n, then γ(x)≤1;
(iii) α(Tu)≥1 and β(Tv)≥1, and λ(Tu)≤1 and γ(Tv)≤1 whenever fu=Tu and fv=Tv.
Then f and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if f and T are weakly compatible, then f and T have a unique common fixed point.
Corollary 2.9. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let f and T be self-mappings on X such that fX⊂TX. Let f be a T-cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and T-cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
(φ(d(fx,fy))+l)α(Tx)β(Ty)≤γ(Tx)λ(Ty)η(M(x,y))+l |
for all x,y∈X, where φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0 and
M(x,y)=max{d(Tx,Ty),d(Tx,fx),d(Ty,fy),12[d(Tx,fy)+d(Ty,fx)]}. |
Assume that TX is a closed subset of X and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that xn→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1, and γ(xn)≤1 for all n, then γ(x)≤1;
(iii) α(Tu)≥1 and β(Tv)≥1, and λ(Tu)≤1 and γ(Tv)≤1 whenever fu=Tu and fv=Tv.
Then f and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if f and T are weakly compatible, then f and T have a unique common fixed point.
Corollary 2.10. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let f and T be self-mappings on X such that fX⊂TX. Let f be a T-cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping such that
H(α(Tx),β(Ty),φ(d(fx,fy)))≤F(1,η(M(x,y))) | (2.15) |
for all x,y∈X, where φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0 and
M(x,y)=max{d(Tx,Ty),d(Tx,fx),d(Ty,fy),12[d(Tx,fy)+d(Ty,fx)]}. |
Assume that TX is a closed subset of X and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that xn→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1;
(iii) α(Tu)≥1 and β(Tv)≥1 whenever fu=Tu and fv=Tv.
Then f and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if f and T are weakly compatible, then f and T have a unique common fixed point.
Proof. Take γ(Tx)λ(Ty)=1, for x,y∈X. If we take ψ(t1,t2,t3,t4)=max{t1,t2,t3,t4} in Corollary 2.7, then from (2.15), we have
α(Tx)β(Ty)φ(d(fx,fy))≤γ(Tx)λ(Ty)η(M(x,y)). |
This implies that the inequality (2.14) holds. Therefore, the proof follows from Corollary 2.7.
If we choose T=IX in Theorem 2.3, then we have the following corollary.
Corollary 2.11. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and f:X→X be a cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and a cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
H(α(x),β(y),φ(d(fx,fy)))≤F(γ(x)λ(y),η(M(x,y))) |
for all x,y∈X, where the pair (F,h) is an upper class of type II, φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0 and
Mf(x,y)=ψ(d(x,y),d(x,fx),d(y,fy),12[d(x,fy)+d(y,fx)]). |
Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(x0)≥1 and β(x0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that xn→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1;
(iii) α(u)≥1 and β(v)≥1 whenever fu=u and fv=v.
Then f has a unique fixed point.
If we take η(t)=φ(t)−η1(t) in Corollary 2.5, then we have the following corollary.
Corollary 2.12. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and f:X→X be a cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and a cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
H(α(x),β(y),φ(d(fx,fy)))≤F(γ(x)λ(y),φ(Mf(x,y))−η1(Mf(x,y))) |
for all x,y∈X, where the pair (F,h) is an upper class of type II, φ is an altering distance function and η1:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is such that φ(t)−η1(t) is nondecreasing and η1(t) is continuous from the right with the condition φ(t)>η1(t) for all t>0.
Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(x0)≥1 and β(x0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that xn→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1;
(iii) α(u)≥1 and β(v)≥1 whenever fu=u and fv=v.
Then f has a unique fixed point.
If we take φ(t)=t in Corollary 2.12, then we have the following corollary.
Corollary 2.13. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and f:X→X be a cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and a cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
H(α(x),β(y),d(fx,fy))≤F(γ(x)λ(y),Mf(x,y)−η1(Mf(x,y))) |
for all x,y∈X, where the pair (F,h) is an upper class of type II and η1:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is such that t−η1(t) is nondecreasing and η1(t) is continuous from the right with the condition η1(t)>0 for all t>0.
Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(x0)≥1 and β(x0)≥1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that xn→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1;
(iii) α(u)≥1 and β(v)≥1 whenever fu=u and fv=v.
Then f has a unique fixed point.
Example 2.14 Let X=R be endowed with the usual metric d(x,y)=|x−y| for all x,y∈X. Let H:R+×R+×R+→R+ be defined by H(x,y,z)=z and F:R+×R+→R+ by F(s,t)=st for all x,y,s,t∈R+ and φ(t)=t, η(t)=15t for all t≥0, and ψ(t1,t2,t3,t4)=max{t1,t2,t3,t4} for all t1,t2,t3,t4≥0.
Now, we define the self-mappings f and T on X by
fx={−x5if x∈[0,1],x25if x∈R∖[0,1] and Tx={x5if x∈[−1,0],x6if R∖[−1,0]. |
and the mappings α,β,γ,λ:X→[0,∞) by
α(x)=β(x)={1if x∈[−14,0],0otherwise.γ(x)=1 and λ(x)=12. |
Then it is clear that fX⊂TX.
Let x∈X such that α(Tx)≥1 so that Tx∈[−15,0] and hence x∈[−1,0]. By the definitions of f and β, we have fx∈[−15,0] and so β(fx)≥1.
Similarly, one can show that if β(Tx)≥1 then α(fx)≥1. Thus, f is a T-cyclic (α,β)-admissible mapping. Moreover, the conditions α(Tx0) ≥1 and β(Tx0) ≥1 are satisfied with x0=−1.
Now, let {xn} be a sequence in X such that β(xn)≥1 for all n∈N and {xn}→x as n→+∞. Then, by the definition of β, we have xn∈[−15,0] for all n∈N and so x∈[−15,0], that is, β(x)≥1.
Next, we prove that f is a T-cyclic (α,β) -contractive mapping. By the definitions of the mappings we get
H(α(Tx),β(Ty),φ(d(fx,fy)))≤F(γ(Tx)λ(Ty),η(M(x,y))) |
and so
φ(d(fx,fy)))≤γ(Tx)⋅λ(Ty)⋅η(M(x,y)). |
Let α(Tx)β(Ty)≥1. Then Tx,Ty∈[−15,0] and so x,y∈[−1,0]. Thus, we get
φ(d(fx,fy))=(d(fx,fy))=|fx−fy|=125|x−y|≤225|x−y|=25|Tx−Ty|= |
=1⋅2⋅15M(x,y)=γ(Tx)⋅λ(Ty)⋅η(M(x,y)). |
Obviously, the assumption (iii) of Corollary 2.10 is satisfied. Consequently, all the conditions of Corollary 2.10 hold and hence f and T have a unique common fixed point. Here, 0 is the common fixed point of f and T.
Definition 2.15. Let (X,d) be a metric space and let f be a T-cyclic (α,β)-admissible mapping and a cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping. We say that f is a T -cyclic (α,β,H,F)-rational contractive mapping if
H(α(Tx),β(Ty),φ(d(fx,fy)))≤F(γ(Tx)λ(Ty),η(N(x,y))) | (2.16) |
for all x,y∈X, where
N(x,y)=ϕ(d(Tx,Ty),12d(Tx,fy),d(Ty,fx),[1+d(Tx,fx)]d(Ty,fy)1+d(Tx,Ty)) |
for ϕ∈Φ, φ is an altering distance function, pair (F,h) is an upper class of type II and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0.
Theorem 2.16. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let f and T be self-mappings on X such that fX⊂TX. Let f be a T-cyclic (α,β,H,F)-rational contractive mapping. Assume that TX is a closed subset of X and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that xn→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1, and γ(xn)≤1 for all n, then γ(x)≤1;
(iii) α(Tu)≥1 and β(Tv)≥1, and λ(Tu)≤1 and γ(Tv)≤1whenever fu=Tu and fv=Tv.
Then f and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if f and T are weakly compatible, then f and T have a unique common fixed point.
Proof. Similar to the proof of Theorem 2.3, we define sequences {xn} and {yn} in X by yn=fxn=Txn+1 and note that α(Txn),β(Txn+1)≥1 and also λ(Txn)γ(Txn+1)≤1 for all n∈N∪{0}. Also, we assume that yn≠yn−1 for all n∈N. Then by (2.16), we have
H(1,1,φ(d(yn,yn+1)))=H(1,1,φ(d(fxn,fxn+1)))≤H(α(Txn),β(Txn+1),φ(d(fxn,fxn+1)))≤F(λ(Txn)γ(Txn+1),η(N(xn,xn+1)))≤F(1,η(N(xn,xn+1))). |
This implies that
φ(d(yn,yn+1))≤η(N(xn,xn+1))<φ(N(xn,xn+1)). | (2.17) |
Since φ is nondecreasing, we get
d(yn,yn+1)<N(xn,xn+1), | (2.18) |
where
N(xn,xn+1)=ϕ(d(Txn,Txn+1),12d(Txn,fxn+1),d(Txn+1,fxn),[1+d(Txn,fxn)]d(Txn+1,fxn+1)1+d(Txn,Txn+1))=ϕ(d(yn−1,yn),12d(yn−1,yn+1),d(yn,yn),[1+d(yn−1,yn)]d(yn,yn+1)1+d(yn−1,yn))≤ϕ(d(yn−1,yn),12[d(yn−1,yn)+d(yn,yn+1)],0,d(yn,yn+1)). | (2.19) |
Thus, from (2.18), we deduce
d(yn,yn+1)<N(xn,xn+1)≤ϕ(d(yn−1,yn),12[d(yn−1,yn)+d(yn,yn+1)],0,d(yn,yn+1)). |
If d(yn−1,yn)≤d(yn,yn+1) for some n∈N, then
d(yn,yn+1)<ϕ(d(yn−1,yn),12[d(yn−1,yn)+d(yn,yn+1)],0,d(yn,yn+1))≤ϕ(d(yn,yn+1),d(yn,yn+1),d(yn,yn+1),d(yn,yn+1))≤d(yn,yn+1), |
which is a contradiction and hence d(yn,yn+1)<d(yn−1,yn) for all n∈N. Therefore, the sequence {d(yn,yn+1)} is decreasing and bounded from below. Thus, there exists δ≥0 such that limn→+∞d(yn,yn+1)=δ. Also, from (2.17), (2.19) and using the properties of φ and η, we obtain
φ(d(yn,yn+1))≤η(N(xn,xn+1))≤η(ϕ(d(yn−1,yn),12[d(yn−1,yn)+d(yn,yn+1)],0,d(yn,yn+1)))≤η(ϕ(d(yn−1,yn),d(yn−1,yn),d(yn−1,yn),d(yn−1,yn)))≤η(d(yn−1,yn))<φ(d(yn−1,yn)). | (2.20) |
Consider the properties of φ and η. Letting n→+∞ in (2.20), we get
φ(δ)=limn→+∞φ(d(yn,yn+1))≤limn→+∞η(d(yn−1,yn))=η(δ)<φ(δ), |
which implies δ=0 and so
limn→+∞d(yn,yn+1)=0. | (2.21) |
Now, we want to show that {yn} is a Cauchy sequence. Suppose, to the contrary, that {yn} is not a Cauchy sequence. Then, by Lemma 1.14, there exist an ε>0 and two subsequences {ymk} and {ynk} of {yn} with mk>nk>k such that d(ym(k),yn(k))≥ε, d(ym(k)−1,yn(k))<ε and
limk→+∞d(ynk,ymk)=limk→+∞d(ynk−1,ymk)=limk→+∞d(ymk−1,ynk)=limk→+∞d(ymk−1,ynk−1)=ε. | (2.22) |
From (2.16), we get
H(1,1,φ(d(ynk,ymk)))=H(1,1,φ(d(fxnk,fxmk)))≤H(α(Txnk),β(Txmk),φ(d(fxnk,fxmk))≤F(λ(Txnk)γ(Txmk),η(N(xnk,xmk)))≤F(1,η(N(xnk,xmk))). |
This implies
φ(d(ynk,ymk))≤η(N(xnk,xmk))<φ(N(xnk,xmk)), | (2.23) |
where
N(xnk,xmk)=ϕ(d(Txnk,Txmk),12d(Txnk,fxmk),d(Txmk,fxnk),[1+d(Txnk,fxnk)]d(Txmk,fxmk)1+d(Txnk,Txmk))=ϕ(d(ynk−1,ymk−1),12d(ynk−1,ymk),d(ymk−1,ynk),[1+d(ynk−1,ynk)]d(ymk−1,ymk)1+d(ynk−1,ymk−1))≤max{ε,N(xnk,xmk)}=ϕ(max{ε,d(ynk−1,ymk−1)},12max{ε,d(ynk−1,ymk)},max{ε,d(ymk−1,ynk)},[1+d(ynk−1,ynk)]d(ymk−1,ymk)1+d(ynk−1,ymk−1)). |
Therefore, limk→+∞max{ε,N(xnk,xmk)}=ϕ(ε,ε2,ε,0)≤ε.
Now, from the properties of φ and η and using (2.22) and the previous inequality, as k→+∞ in (2.23), we have
φ(ε)=limk→+∞φ(d(ymk,ynk))≤limk→+∞η(max{ε,N(xnk,xmk)})≤η(ε)<φ(ε), |
which implies that ε=0, a contradiction with ε>0. Thus, {yn} is a Cauchy sequence in X. From the completeness of (X,d), there exists w∈X such that
limn→+∞yn=w | (2.24) |
and so by (2.24), we obtain
fxn→w and Txn+1→w. | (2.25) |
Since TX is closed, by (2.25), w∈TX. Therefore, there exists v∈X such that Tv=w. Since yn→w and β(yn)=β(Txn+1)≥1 for all n∈N, by (ii), β(w)=β(Tv)≥1. Similarly, γ(z)=γ(Tu)≤1. Thus, λ(Txn)γ(Tv)≤1 for all n∈N.
Now, applying (2.16), we get
H(1,1,φ(d(fxn,fv)))≤H(α(Txn),β(Tv),φ(d(fxn,fv))≤F(λ(Txn)γ(Tv),η(N(xn,v)))≤F(1,η(N(xn,v))), |
which implies that
φ(d(fxn,fv))≤η(N(xn,v)), | (2.26) |
where
N(xn,v)≤ϕ(d(Txn,Tv),12max{d(v,fv),d(Txn,fv)},d(Tv,fxn),d(Tv,fv)max{[1+d(Txn,fxn)]1+d(Txn,Tv),1}). |
Taking k→+∞ in the inequality (2.26), using the properties of φ, η and the previous inequality, we have
φ(d(w,fv))≤η(ϕ(0,12d(w,fv),0,d(w,fv)))≤η(d(w,fv))<φ(d(w,fv)), |
which implies d(w,fv)=0, that is, w=fv. Thus, we deduce
w=fv=Tv, | (2.27) |
and so w is a point of coincidence for f and T. The uniqueness of the point of coincidence is a consequence of the conditions (2.16) and (iii), and so we omit the details.
By (2.27) and using weakly compatibility of f and T, we obtain
fw=fTv=Tfv=Tw. |
The uniqueness of the point of coincidence implies w=fw=Tw. Consequently, w is the unique common fixed point of f and T.
Corollary 2.17. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let f and T be self-mappings on X such that fX⊂TX. Let f be a T-cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and T-cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
H(α(Tx),β(Ty),φ(d(fx,fy)))≤F(γ(Tx)λ(Ty),η(N(x,y))) |
for all x,y∈X, where φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0 and
N(x,y)=ϕ(d(Tx,Ty),12d(Tx,fy),d(Ty,fx),[1+d(Tx,fx)]d(Ty,fy)1+d(Tx,Ty)) |
for ϕ∈Φ. Assume that TX is a closed subset of X and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that {xn}→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1, and γ(xn)≤1 for all n, then γ(x)≤1;
(iii) α(Tu)≥1 and β(Tv)≥1, and λ(Tu)≤1 and γ(Tv)≤1 whenever fu=Tu and fv=Tv.
Then f and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if f and T are weakly compatible, then f and T have a unique common fixed point.
Corollary 2.18. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let f and T be self-mappings on X such that fX⊂TX. Let f be a T-cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and T-cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
(α(Tx)β(Ty)+l)φ(d(fx,fy))≤(1+l)γ(Tx)λ(Ty)η(N(x,y)) |
for all x,y∈X, where φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0 and
N(x,y)=ϕ(d(Tx,Ty),12d(Tx,fy),d(Ty,fx),[1+d(Tx,fx)]d(Ty,fy)1+d(Tx,Ty)) |
for ϕ∈Φ. Assume that TX is a closed subset of X and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that {xn}→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1, and γ(xn)≤1 for all n, then γ(x)≤1;
(iii) α(Tu)≥1 and β(Tv)≥1, and λ(Tu)≤1 and γ(Tv)≤1 whenever fu=Tu and fv=Tv.
Then f and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if f and T are weakly compatible, then f and T have a unique common fixed point.
Corollary 2.19. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let f and T be self-mappings on X such that fX⊂TX. Let f be a T-cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and T-cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
(φ(d(fx,fy))+l)α(Tx)β(Ty)≤(γ(Tx)λ(Ty)η(N(x,y))+l |
for all x,y∈X, where φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0 and
N(x,y)=ϕ(d(Tx,Ty),12d(Tx,fy),d(Ty,fx),[1+d(Tx,fx)]d(Ty,fy)1+d(Tx,Ty)) |
for ϕ∈Φ. Assume that TX is a closed subset of X and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that {xn}→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1, and γ(xn)≤1 for all n, then γ(x)≤1;
(iii) α(Tu)≥1 and β(Tv)≥1, and λ(Tu)≤1 and γ(Tv)≤1 whenever fu=Tu and fv=Tv.
Then f and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if f and T are weakly compatible, then f and T have a unique common fixed point.
Corollary 2.20. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let f and T be self-mappings on X such that fX⊂TX. Let f be a T -cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and T-cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
H(α(Tx),β(Ty),φ(d(fx,fy)))≤F(γ(Tx),λ(Ty),η(N(x,y))) |
for all x,y∈X, where φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0 and
N(x,y)=max{d(Tx,Ty),12d(Tx,fy),d(Ty,fx),[1+d(Tx,fx)]d(Ty,fy)1+d(Tx,Ty)}. |
Assume that TX is a closed subset of X and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that {xn}→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1, and γ(xn)≤1 for all n, then γ(x)≤1;
(iii) α(Tu)≥1 and β(Tv)≥1, and λ(Tu)≤1 and γ(Tv)≤1 whenever fu=Tu and fv=Tv.
Then f and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if f and T are weakly compatible, then f and T have a unique common fixed point.
Corollary 2.21. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let f and T be self-mappings on X such that fX⊂TX. Let f be a T-cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and T-cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
(α(Tx)β(Ty)+l)φ(d(fx,fy))≤(1+l)γ(Tx)λ(Ty)η(N(x,y)) |
for all x,y∈X, where φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0 and
N(x,y)=max{d(Tx,Ty),12d(Tx,fy),d(Ty,fx),[1+d(Tx,fx)]d(Ty,fy)1+d(Tx,Ty)}. |
Assume that TX is a closed subset of X and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that {xn}→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1, and γ(xn)≤1 for all n, then γ(x)≤1;
(iii) α(Tu)≥1 and β(Tv)≥1, and λ(Tu)≤1 and γ(Tv)≤1 whenever fu=Tu and fv=Tv.
Then f and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if f and T are weakly compatible, then f and T have a unique common fixed point.
Corollary 2.22. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let f and T be self-mappings on X such that fX⊂TX. Let f be a T-cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and T-cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
(φ(d(fx,fy))+l)α(Tx)β(Ty)≤γ(Tx)λ(Ty)η(N(x,y))+l |
for all x,y∈X, where φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0 and
N(x,y)=max{d(Tx,Ty),12d(Tx,fy),d(Ty,fx),[1+d(Tx,fx)]d(Ty,fy)1+d(Tx,Ty)}. |
Assume that TX is a closed subset of X and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that {xn}→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1, and γ(xn)≤1 for all n, then γ(x)≤1;
(iii) α(Tu)≥1 and β(Tv)≥1, and λ(Tu)≤1 and γ(Tv)≤1 whenever fu=Tu and fv=Tv.
Then f and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if f and T are weakly compatible, then f and T have a unique common fixed point.
If we take ψ(t1,t2,t3,t4)=max{t1,t2,t3,t4} and γ(Tx)λ(Ty)=1 for all x,y∈X, then we have the following result.
Corollary 2.23. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let f and T be self-mappings on X such that fX⊂TX. Let f be a T-cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping such that
H(α(Tx),β(Ty),φ(d(fx,fy)))≤F(1,η(N(x,y))) |
for all x,y∈X, where φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0 and
N(x,y)=max{d(Tx,Ty),12d(Tx,fy),d(Ty,fx),[1+d(Tx,fx)]d(Ty,fy)1+d(Tx,Ty)}. |
Assume that TX is a closed subset of X and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(Tx0)≥1 and β(Tx0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that {xn}→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1;
(iii) α(Tu)≥1 and β(Tv)≥1 whenever fu=Tu and fv=Tv.
Then f and T have a unique point of coincidence in X. Moreover, if f and T are weakly compatible, then f and T have a unique common fixed point.
If we choose T=IX in Theorem 2.3, then we have the following corollary.
Corollary 2.24. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and f:X→X be a cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and a cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
H(α(x),β(y),φ(d(fx,fy)))≤F(γ(x)λ(y),η(Nf(x,y))) |
for all x,y∈X, where pair (F,h) is an upper class of type II, φ is an altering distance function and η:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is a nondecreasing and right-continuous function with the condition φ(t)>η(t) for all t>0 and
Nf(x,y)=ϕ(d(x,y),12d(x,fy),d(y,fx),[1+d(x,fx)]d(y,fy)1+d(x,y)). |
Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(x0)≥1 and β(x0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that {xn}→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1;
(iii) α(u)≥1 and β(v)≥1 whenever fu=u and fv=v.
Then f has a unique fixed point.
If we take η(t)=φ(t)−η1(t) in Corollary 2.5, then we have the following corollary.
Corollary 2.25. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and f:X→X be a cyclic (α,β)-admissible mapping and a cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
H(α(x),β(y),φ(d(fx,fy)))≤F(γ(x)λ(y),φ(Nf(x,y))−η1(Nf(x,y))) |
for all x,y∈X, where pair (F,h) is an upper class of type II, φ is an altering distance function and η1:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is such that φ(t)−η1(t) is nondecreasing and η1(t) is continuous from the right with the condition φ(t)>η1(t) for all t>0.
Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(x0)≥1 and β(x0)≥1, and λ(Tx0)≤1 and γ(Tx0)≤1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that {xn}→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1;
(iii) α(u)≥1 and β(v)≥1 whenever fu=u and fv=v.
Then f has a unique fixed point.
If we take φ(t)=t in Corollary 2.6, then we have the following corollary.
Corollary 2.26. Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and f:X→X be a cyclic (α,β,H,F)-admissible mapping and a cyclic (λ,γ)-subadmissible mapping such that
H(α(x),β(y),d(fx,fy))≤F(γ(x)λ(y),Nf(x,y)−η1(Nf(x,y))) |
for all x,y∈X, where pair (F,h) is an upper class of type II and η1:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) is such that t−η1(t) is nondecreasing and η1(t) is continuous from the right with the condition η1(t)>0 for all t>0.
Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) there exists x0∈X such that α(x0)≥1 and β(x0)≥1;
(ii) if {xn} is a sequence in X such that {xn}→x and β(xn)≥1 for all n, then β(x)≥1;
(iii) α(u)≥1 and β(v)≥1 whenever fu=u and fv=v.
Then f has a unique fixed point.
In this paper, we have introduced the notions of T-cyclic (α,β,H,F)-contractive mappings using a pair (F,h)-upper class functions type in order to obtain new common fixed point results in the settings of metric spaces. The presented results have generalized and extended existing results in the literature.
All the authors of this paper contributed equally. They have read and approved the final version of the paper.
The authors of this paper declare that they have no conflict of interest.
[1] |
A. Aw, M. Rascle, Resurrection of "second order" models of traffic flow, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 60 (2000), 916–938. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036139997332099 doi: 10.1137/S0036139997332099
![]() |
[2] |
H. M. Zhang, A non–equilibrium traffic model devoid of gas-like behavior, Transport. Res. B-Meth., 36 (2002), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(00)00050-3 doi: 10.1016/S0191-2615(00)00050-3
![]() |
[3] |
J. M. Greenberg, L. T. Tsien, The effect of boundary damping for the quasilinear wave equation, J. Differ. Equ., 52 (1984), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0396(84)90135-9 doi: 10.1016/0022-0396(84)90135-9
![]() |
[4] | J. M. Coron, B. d'Andréa-Novel, G. Bastia, A Lyapunov approach to control irrigation canals modeled by Saint-Venant equations, In: 1999 European Control Conference, 1999, 3178–3183. https://doi.org/10.23919/ECC.1999.7099816 |
[5] |
H. Zhao, J. Zhan, L. Zhang, Saturated boundary feedback stabilization for LWR traffic flow model, Syst. Control Lett., 173 (2023), 105465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysconle.2023.105465 doi: 10.1016/j.sysconle.2023.105465
![]() |
[6] |
C. Prieur, J. J. Winkin, Boundary feedback control of linear hyperbolic systems: Application to the Saint-Venant-Exner equations, Automatica, 89 (2018), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2017.11.028 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2017.11.028
![]() |
[7] |
K. Wang, Z. Wang, W. Yao, Boundary feedback stabilization of quasilinear hyperbolic systems with partially dissipative structure, Syst. Control Lett., 146 (2020), 104815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysconle.2020.104815 doi: 10.1016/j.sysconle.2020.104815
![]() |
[8] |
L. Zhang, C. Prieur, J. Qiao, Local proportional-integral boundary feedback stabilization for quasilinear hyperbolic systems of balance laws, SIAM J. Control Optim., 58 (2020), 2143–2170. https://doi.org/10.1137/18M1214883 doi: 10.1137/18M1214883
![]() |
[9] |
D. Zhao, D. Fan, Y. Guo, The spectral analysis and exponential stability of a 1-d 2×2 Hyperbolic system with proportional feedback control, Int. J. Control, Autom. Syst., 20 (2022), 2633–2640. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12555-021-0507-0 doi: 10.1007/s12555-021-0507-0
![]() |
[10] |
A. Hayat, P. Shang, A quadratic Lyapunov function for Saint-Venant equations with arbitrary friction and space varying slope, Automatica, 100 (2019), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2018.10.035 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2018.10.035
![]() |
[11] |
A. Hayat, Y. Hu, P. Shang, PI control for the cascade channels modeled by general Saint-Venant equations, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 69 (2024), 4974–4987. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2023.3341767 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2023.3341767
![]() |
[12] |
J. Qi, S. Mo, M. Krstic, Delay-compensated distributed PDE control of traffic with connected/automated vehicles, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 68 (2023), 2229–2244. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2022.3174032 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2022.3174032
![]() |
[13] |
J. Zeng, Y. Qian, F. Yin, L. Zhu, D. Xu, A multi-value cellular automata model for multi-lane traffic flow under lagrange coordinate, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory, 28 (2022), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-021-09345-w doi: 10.1007/s10588-021-09345-w
![]() |
[14] |
Z. Li, C. Xu, D. Li, W. Wang, Comparing the effects of ramp metering and variable speed limit on reducing travel time and crash risk at bottlenecks, IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 12 (2018), 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2017.0064 doi: 10.1049/iet-its.2017.0064
![]() |
[15] |
J. R. D. Frejo, B. De Schutter, Logic-based traffic flow control for ramp metering and variable speed limits-Part 1: Controller, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., 22 (2021), 2647–2657. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2020.2973717 doi: 10.1109/TITS.2020.2973717
![]() |
[16] |
Z. He, L. Wang, Z. Su, W. Ma, Integrating variable speed limit and ramp metering to enhance vehicle group safety and efficiency in a mixed traffic environment, Phys. A, 641 (2024), 129754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2024.129754 doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2024.129754
![]() |
[17] |
H. Yu, M. Krstic, Traffic congestion control for Aw-Rascle-Zhang model, Automatica, 100 (2019), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2018.10.040 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2018.10.040
![]() |
[18] |
H. Yu, J. Auriol, M. Krstic, Simultaneous downstream and upstream output-feedback stabilization of cascaded freeway traffic, Automatica, 136 (2022), 110044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2021.110044 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2021.110044
![]() |
[19] |
N. Espitia, J. Auriol, H. Yu, M. Krstic, Traffic flow control on cascaded roads by event‐triggered output feedback, Int. J. Robust Nonlin., 32 (2022), 5919–5949. https://doi.org/10.1002/rnc.6122 doi: 10.1002/rnc.6122
![]() |
[20] |
N. Espitia, H. Yu, M. Krstic, Event-triggered varying speed limit control of stop-and-go traffic, IFAC-PapersOnLine, 53 (2020), 7509–7514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2020.12.1343 doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2020.12.1343
![]() |
[21] |
H. Yu, M. Krstic, Output feedback control of two-lane traffic congestion, Automatica, 125 (2021), 109379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2020.109379 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2020.109379
![]() |
[22] |
S. C. Vishnoi, S. A. Nugroho, A. F. Taha, C. G. Claudel, Traffic state estimation for connected vehicles using the second-order aw-rascle-zhang traffic model, IEEE T. Intell. Transp., 25 (2024), 16719–16733. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2024.3420438 doi: 10.1109/TITS.2024.3420438
![]() |
[23] |
P. Zhang, B. Rathnayake, M. Diagne, M. Krstic, Performance-barrier-based event-triggered boundary control of congested ARZ traffic PDEs, IFAC-PapersOnLine, 58 (2024), 182–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2024.07.337 doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2024.07.337
![]() |
[24] |
L. Zhang, H. Luan, Y. Lu, C. Prieur, Boundary feedback stabilization of freeway traffic networks: ISS control and experiments, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., 30 (2022), 997–1008. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2021.3088093 doi: 10.1109/TCST.2021.3088093
![]() |
[25] |
L. Zhang, C. Prieur, J. Qiao, PI boundary control of linear hyperbolic balance laws with stabilization of ARZ traffic flow models, Syst. Control Lett., 123 (2019), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysconle.2018.11.005 doi: 10.1016/j.sysconle.2018.11.005
![]() |