Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/Latin1Supplement.js
Research article

On rotationally driven nonlinear inclined polymeric jet with gravity effect

  • We consider rotationally driven nonlinear polymeric fiber jet, whose centerline is in an inclined plane, in the presence of gravity force. An empirical viscosity model is used for the polymeric fluid flow to investigate properties of the rotating inclined polymeric fiber jet. The aim of the study is to understand properties of such inclined fiber jet shape, which can be due to orientation change of an orifice in a rotating spinneret that generates such jet. Perturbation, asymptotic, scaling and numerical techniques are used to determine the nonlinear steady solutions for the jet quantities for different values of the parameters due to gravity, rotation, viscosity, surface tension and relaxation time. In contrast to the horizontal jet case, presence of gravity and jet inclination increase values of the jet speed, strain rate, stretching rate and the centerline curvature and decrease the value of the jet radius and more so with increasing the arc length, gravity, rotation rate and the relaxation time. However, a non-inclined jet with no imposed restriction on its shape and in presence of gravity leads to smaller fiber radius and larger speed as compared to the ones for inclined jet case.

    Citation: Daniel N. Riahi, Saulo Orizaga. On rotationally driven nonlinear inclined polymeric jet with gravity effect[J]. Mathematics in Engineering, 2022, 4(2): 1-18. doi: 10.3934/mine.2022014

    Related Papers:

    [1] Müzeyyen Sangurlu Sezen . Interpolative best proximity point results via γ-contraction with applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(1): 1350-1366. doi: 10.3934/math.2025062
    [2] Siniša N. Ješić, Nataša A. Ćirović, Rale M. Nikolić, Branislav M. Ranƌelović . A fixed point theorem in strictly convex b-fuzzy metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 20989-21000. doi: 10.3934/math.20231068
    [3] Khalil Javed, Muhammad Nazam, Fahad Jahangeer, Muhammad Arshad, Manuel De La Sen . A new approach to generalized interpolative proximal contractions in non archimedean fuzzy metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 2891-2909. doi: 10.3934/math.2023151
    [4] Umar Ishtiaq, Fahad Jahangeer, Doha A. Kattan, Manuel De la Sen . Generalized common best proximity point results in fuzzy multiplicative metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 25454-25476. doi: 10.3934/math.20231299
    [5] Basit Ali, Muzammil Ali, Azhar Hussain, Reny George, Talat Nazir . Best proximity points in non-Archimedean fuzzy metric spaces with application to domain of words. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 16590-16611. doi: 10.3934/math.2022909
    [6] Naeem Saleem, Hüseyin Işık, Sana Khaleeq, Choonkil Park . Interpolative Ćirić-Reich-Rus-type best proximity point results with applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 9731-9747. doi: 10.3934/math.2022542
    [7] Arshad Ali Khan, Basit Ali, Talat Nazir, Manuel de la Sen . Completeness of metric spaces and existence of best proximity points. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 7318-7336. doi: 10.3934/math.2022408
    [8] Arshad Ali Khan, Basit Ali, Reny George . On semi best proximity points for multivalued mappings in quasi metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(10): 23835-23849. doi: 10.3934/math.20231215
    [9] Mustafa Aslantas, Hakan Sahin, Raghad Jabbar Sabir Al-Okbi . Some best proximity point results on best orbitally complete quasi metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(4): 7967-7980. doi: 10.3934/math.2023401
    [10] Iqra Shamas, Saif Ur Rehman, Thabet Abdeljawad, Mariyam Sattar, Sami Ullah Khan, Nabil Mlaiki . Generalized contraction theorems approach to fuzzy differential equations in fuzzy metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 11243-11275. doi: 10.3934/math.2022628
  • We consider rotationally driven nonlinear polymeric fiber jet, whose centerline is in an inclined plane, in the presence of gravity force. An empirical viscosity model is used for the polymeric fluid flow to investigate properties of the rotating inclined polymeric fiber jet. The aim of the study is to understand properties of such inclined fiber jet shape, which can be due to orientation change of an orifice in a rotating spinneret that generates such jet. Perturbation, asymptotic, scaling and numerical techniques are used to determine the nonlinear steady solutions for the jet quantities for different values of the parameters due to gravity, rotation, viscosity, surface tension and relaxation time. In contrast to the horizontal jet case, presence of gravity and jet inclination increase values of the jet speed, strain rate, stretching rate and the centerline curvature and decrease the value of the jet radius and more so with increasing the arc length, gravity, rotation rate and the relaxation time. However, a non-inclined jet with no imposed restriction on its shape and in presence of gravity leads to smaller fiber radius and larger speed as compared to the ones for inclined jet case.



    The notion of normal structure was introduced by Brodskil and Milman [1] in 1948 in order to study the existence of common fixed points of certain sets of isometries. Later, the notion of normal structure was generalized for the weak topology.

    Definition 1.1. A Banach space X is said to have normal structure (NS) (res., weak normal structure (WNS)) if for every bounded, closed (res., weakly compact) and convex subset K of X such that diam(K):=sup{xy:x,yK}>0, there is a point pK which is not a diametral point, that is, sup{px:xK}<diam(K).

    It is well-known that compact and convex subset of a Banach space X has normal structure. In 1965, Kirk proved the following important celebrated result.

    Theorem 1.2. (Kirk's fixed point theorem [2]) Let A be a nonempty, bounded, closed (res., weakly compact) and convex subset of a Banach space X and T:AA be a nonexpansive self-mapping, that is,

    TxTyxy,x,yA.

    If X is a reflexive Banach space with NS (res., a Banach space with WNS), then T has a fixed point.

    There are many interesting extensions of Kirk's fixed point theorem. One of them is due to Je˘sicˊ, where he generalized Kirk's fixed point theorem to fuzzy metric spaces [3]. To present the main theorem of [3], we recall some related concepts as below.

    In 1965, Zadeh [4] introduced the notion of fuzzy set. After this pioneering work, the concept of a fuzzy metric space which is closely related to the class of probabilistic metric spaces was introduced by Kramosil and Michalek in 1975 [5]. George and Veeramani [6] modified the notion of fuzzy metric space given in [5] with the help of continuous t-norm and described a Hausdorff topology on the modified fuzzy metric space (see also [7,8] for more general discussions).

    In [3], Je \breve{s} i \acute{c} defined strict convexity and normal structure in fuzzy metric space and proved a fixed point theorem for a nonexpansive self-mapping on a strictly convex fuzzy metric space. In this work, we study the existence of best proximity pairs by considering noncyclic contractions defined on a union of two nonempty subset of a strictly convex fuzzy metric space. We also consider the noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mappings and obtain a best proximity pair theorem which is a real extension of the aforesaid theorem in [3]. In this way, we provide an important basis for the existence of the best proximity pairs in the setting of strictly convex fuzzy metric spaces. To this end, we need the following definitions and notions.

    Definition 1.3. (Schweizer and Sklar [9]) A binary operation \ast : [0, 1] \times [0, 1] \rightarrow [0, 1] is a continuous triangular norm ( t -norm) if \ast satisfies the following conditions:

    {\rm (i)} \ast is commutative and associative;

    {\rm (ii)} \ast is continuous;

    {\rm (iii)} a \ast 1 = a for all a \in [0, 1] ;

    {\rm (iv)} a \ast b \leq c \ast d whenever a \leq c and b \leq d , and a, b, c, d \in [0, 1] .

    Some of continuous t -norms are as below:

    \begin{align*} &a \ast b = \min\{a, b\}, \\ &a \ast b = ab, \\ &a\ast b = \begin{cases}\min\{a, b\}, \quad &\text{if} \max\{a, b\} = 1, \\ 0, \quad &\text{otherwise}.\end{cases} \end{align*}

    Definition 1.4. (George and Veeramani [6]) A 3 -tuple (X, M, \ast) is said to be an fuzzy metric space if X is an arbitrary set, \ast is a continuous t -norm, M is a fuzzy set on X^2 \times (0, \infty) satisfying the following conditions: For all x, y, z \in X, s, t > 0 ,

    {\rm (a)} M(x, y, t) > 0 ;

    {\rm (b)} M(x, y, t) = 1 if and only if x = y ;

    {\rm (c)} M(x, y, t) = M(y, x, t) ;

    {\rm (d)} M(x, z, t + s) \geq M(x, y, t) \ast M(y, z, s) ;

    {\rm (e)} M(x, y, \cdot) : (0, \infty) \rightarrow (0, 1] is continuous.

    It is worth noticing that if (X, d) is a metric space and we define a\ast b = ab for any a, b\in[0, 1] and M(x, y, t) = \frac{t}{t+d(x, y)} for all x, y\in X and t > 0 , then (X, M, \ast) is a fuzzy metric space (see [6] for more information).

    Remark 1.5. (Mariusz [10]) In a fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast) , the function M(x, y, \cdot) is non-decreasing for all x, y \in X .

    Remark 1.6 ([6]) A sequence \{x_n\} in a fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast) is said to be convergent to x in X if and only if \lim\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} M(x_n, x, t) = 1 for all t > 0 .

    The next lemma will be used in our coming discussions.

    Lemma 1.7. ([11]) If (X, M, \ast) is a fuzzy metric space and \lim\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} x_n = x , \lim\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} y_n = y , then

    \lim\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} M(x_n, y_n, t) = M(x, y, t).

    Definition 1.8. ([6]) Let (X, M, \ast) be a fuzzy metric space and r \in (0, 1) , t > 0 and x \in X . The set

    \mathcal{B}(x, r, t) = \left\{y \in X: M(x, y, t) > 1 - r\right\},

    is called an open ball with center x and radius r with respect to t .

    The closed ball with center x and radius r with respect to t is given by

    \mathcal{B}[x, r, t] = \left\{y \in X: M(x, y, t) \geq 1 - r\right\}.

    It was announced in [6] that every fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast) generates a Hausdorff first countable topology, where its basis is the family of \big\{B(x, r, t) : x\in X, r\in(0, 1), t > 0\big\}.

    Definition 1.9. ([11]) Let (X, M, \ast) be a fuzzy metric space and A be a nonempty subset of X . The mappings \delta_A(t) : (0, \infty) \rightarrow [0, 1] is defined as

    \delta_A(t): = \inf\limits_{x, y \in A} \sup\limits_{\varepsilon < t } M(x, y, \varepsilon).

    The constant \delta_A = \sup\limits_{t > 0} \delta_A(t) is called fuzzy diameter of nearness of the set A .

    Lemma 1.10. ([12]) Let (X, M, \ast) be a fuzzy metric space. A subset A of X is said to be fuzzy bounded (F-bounded) if there exist t > 0 and r \in (0, 1) such that M(x, y, t) > 1 - r for all x, y \in A .

    Proposition 1.11. ([6]) Every compact subset of a fuzzy metric space is F-bounded.

    Definition 1.12. ([3]) Let A be a nonempty subset of a fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast) . A point p \in A is called a diametral point if

    \inf\limits_{y \in A} \sup\limits_{\varepsilon < t } M(p, y, \varepsilon) = \delta_A(t), \quad \forall t > 0.

    Therefore, a point u \in A is nondiametral whenever there exists t_0 > 0 such that

    \inf\limits_{y \in A} \sup\limits_{\varepsilon < t_0 } M(u, y, \varepsilon) > \delta_A(t_0).

    In 1970, Takahashi introduced a convex structure on metric spaces [13]. It was generalized by S.N. Je \breve{s} i \acute{c} to fuzzy metric spaces as follows.

    Definition 1.13. ([3]) A fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast) possesses a convex structure if there exists a function \mathcal{W}: X \times X \times [0, 1] \rightarrow X , satisfying \mathcal{W}(x, y, 0) = y, \ \mathcal{W}(x, y, 1) = x and for all x, y, z \in X , \theta \in (0, 1) and t > 0

    \begin{align*} & M(\mathcal{W}(x, y, \theta), z, 2t) \geq M\left(x, z, \frac{t}{\theta}\right) \ast M\left(y, z, \frac{t}{1-\theta}\right). \end{align*}

    Throughout this article (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) stand to denote a fuzzy metric space equipped with a convex structure \mathcal{W}: X \times X \times [0, 1] \rightarrow X and we call it a convex fuzzy metric space.

    Definition 1.14. A subset K of a convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) is said to be a convex set if for every x, y \in K and \theta \in [0, 1] it follows that \mathcal{W}(x, y, \theta)\in K .

    Lemma 1.15. ([3]) Let (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) be a convex fuzzy metric space and \left\{ K_\alpha\right\}_{\alpha \in \Lambda} be a family of convex subsets of X . Then the intersection K = \bigcap\limits_{\alpha \in \Lambda} K_\alpha is a convex set.

    Definition 1.16. A convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) is said to have property \text{ (C)} if every decreasing net consists of nonempty, F-bounded, closed and convex subsets of X has a nonempty intersection.

    For instance if a convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) is compact, then it has the property \text{ (C)} . Furthermore, if X is a reflexive Banach space, a \ast b = \min\left\{a, b\right\} and for any x, y\in X and t > 0, \theta\in(0, 1) ,

    M(x, y, t) = \frac{t}{t + \left\|x-y\right\|}, \quad \mathcal{W}(x, y, \theta) = \theta x+(1-\theta)y,

    then from the Eberlein-Šmulian's theorem (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) is a convex fuzzy metric space having property \text{ (C)} .

    Definition 1.17. ([3]) A convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) is said to be strictly convex provided that for every x, y \in X , and \theta \in (0, 1) there exists a unique element z = \mathcal{W}(x, y, \theta)\in X for which

    \begin{align*} M(x, y, \frac{t}{\theta}) = M(z, y, t), \quad M(x, y, \frac{t}{1 - \theta}) = M(x, z, t), \end{align*}

    for all t > 0 .

    We will use the following useful lemmas in our coming discussions.

    Lemma 1.18. Let (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) be a convex fuzzy metric space. Suppose that for every \theta\in (0, 1), t > 0 and x, y, z\in X the following condition holds

    \begin{align*} \label{EQ11} M(\mathcal{W}(x, y, \theta), z, t) > \min\{M(z, x, t), M(z, y, t)\}, \quad \quad \quad {\rm (\sharp)} \end{align*}

    If there exists u\in X for which

    \begin{align*} M(\mathcal{W}(x, y, \theta), u, t) = \min\{M(u, x, t), M(u, y, t)\}, \end{align*}

    for all t > 0 , then \mathcal{W}(x, y, \theta)\in\{x, y\} .

    Proof. Since for any t > 0 we have

    M(\mathcal{W}(x, y, \theta), u, t) = \min\{M(u, x, t), M(u, y, t)\}

    for some u\in X , by using the condition {\rm (\sharp)} we must have \theta = 0 or \theta = 1 which ensures that \mathcal{W}(x, y, 0) = y or \mathcal{W}(x, y, 1) = x and this completes the proof.

    Lemma 1.19. ([3]) Let (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) be a strictly convex fuzzy metric space. Then for any x, y\in X with x\neq y there exists \theta\in(0, 1) such that \mathcal{W}(x, y, \theta)\notin\{x, y\} .

    Lemma 1.20. ([3]) Let (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) be a fuzzy metric space which satisfies the condition {\rm (\sharp)} . Then the closed balls \mathcal{B}[x, r, t] are convex sets.

    The fuzzy version of the notion of normal structure was introduced in [3] as below.

    Definition 1.21. A convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) is said to have fuzzy normal structure if for every closed, F-bounded and convex subset K of X which consists of at least two different points, there exists a point p\in K which is a non-diametral point.

    Definition 1.22. A self-mapping f defined on a fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast) is said to be nonexpansive provided that

    M(fx, fy, t) \geq M(x, y, t), \quad \forall x, y\in X, \ \forall t > 0.

    Example 1.23. For any x, y \in \mathbb{N} and t > 0 , let

    M(x, y, t) = \begin{cases} \frac{\min\{x, y\}}{\max\{x, y\}}, &\quad \forall t > 0, \ x \neq y \\ 1, &\quad \forall t > 0, \ x = y, \end{cases}

    and define a \ast b = ab . Then (\mathbb{N}, M, \ast) is a fuzzy metric space. Define a function f: \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{N} with f(x) = x+1 . Then f is nonexpansive:

    If x = y , then M(fx, fy, t) = 1 = M(x, y, t) , for all t > 0 .

    If x \neq y and x < y , then

    M(fx, fy, t) = \frac{x+1}{y+1} > \frac{x}{y} = M(x, y, t).

    Therefore, M(fx, fy, t) \geq M(x, y, t) for all x, y \in \mathbb{N}, t > 0 .

    The next theorem is a main result of ([3]).

    Theorem 1.24. ([3]) Let (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) be a strictly convex fuzzy metric space which satisfies the condition {\rm (\sharp)} . Assume that K is a nonempty, compact and convex subset of X and f:K\to K is a nonexpansive self-mapping. Then f has at least one fixed point in K .

    It is remarkable to note that the proof of Theorem 1.24 is based on the fact that every nonempty, compact and convex subset of a strictly convex fuzzy metric space X satisfying the condition {\rm (\sharp)} has the fuzzy normal structure.

    The main purpose of this article is to extend Theorem 1.24 from nonexpansive self-mappings to noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mappings in order to study the existence of best proximity pairs.

    This article is organized as follows: In Section 2, we define the fuzzy projection operators and survey the nonemptiness of fuzzy proximal pairs under some sufficient conditions. In Section 3, we consider the class of noncyclic contractions defined on a union of two nonempty subset of a fuzzy metric space and study the existence of best proximity pairs for such mappings. Finally, in Section 4, a concept of fuzzy proximal normal structure is introduced and used to investigate a best proximity pair theorem for noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mappings which is a real extension of Theorem 1.24. We also show that every nonempty, compact and convex pair of subsets of a strictly convex metric space which satisfies the condition {\rm (\sharp)} has the fuzzy proximal normal structure.

    Let A and B be two nonempty subsets of a convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) . We shall say that a pair (A, B) in X satisfies a property if both A and B satisfy that property. For instance, (A, B) is convex if and only if both A and B are convex; (A, B)\subseteq (C, D) \Leftrightarrow A\subseteq C, \ \text{and} \ B\subseteq D .

    We shall also adopt the following notations:

    \begin{align*} \Delta_{(x, B)}(t)&: = \inf\limits_{y\in B}\sup\limits_{\varepsilon < t}M(x, y, \varepsilon), \quad \forall x\in X, \ \forall t > 0, \\ \Delta_{(A, B)}(t)&: = \inf\limits_{(x, y)\in A\times B}\sup\limits_{\varepsilon < t}M(x, y, \varepsilon), \quad \forall t > 0, \\ \Delta_{(A, B)}&: = \sup\limits_{t > 0}\Delta_{(A, B)}(t). \end{align*}

    The closed and convex hull of a set A will be denoted by \overline{\rm con}(A) and defined as below

    \overline{{\rm con}}(A): = \bigcap\Big\{C : C \ \text{is a closed and convex subset of} \ X \ \text{such that} \ C\supseteq A\Big\}.

    The F-distance between A and B is defined by

    \varrho_{AB}(t) : = \sup\limits_{(x, y) \in A\times B}\sup\limits_{\epsilon < t} M(x, y, \epsilon), \quad \forall t > 0.

    Moreover, the F-distance between an element x\in X and the set B will be denoted by \varrho_{xB}(t) for all t > 0 . A point (x, y)\in A\times B is called F-proximal provided that

    M(x, y, t) = \varrho_{AB}(t), \quad \forall t > 0.

    The F-proximal pair of (A, B) is denoted by (A_0, B_0) which is defined as follows:

    A_0: = \{x\in A : \ M(x, y, t) = \varrho_{AB}(t), \quad \text{ for all } t > 0, \ \text{ for some } y\in B\},
    B_0: = \{y\in B : \ M(x, y, t) = \varrho_{AB}(t), \quad \text{ for all } t > 0, \ \text{ for some } x\in A\}.

    It is remarkable to note that the F-proximal pairs may be empty. Next example illustrates this fact.

    Example 2.1. Consider the Banach space X = \ell^p , ( 1 \leq p < \infty ) with the canonical basis \{e_n\} . Let k \in (0, 1) be fixed and suppose A = \left\{ ((1+ k^{2n})e_{2n}): n\in \mathbb{N}\right\} and B = \left\{ ((1+ k^{2n+1})e_{2n+1}): n\in \mathbb{N}\right\} . Assume that M(x, y, t) = \frac{t}{t + \left\|x-y\right\|_p} for all (x, y) \in A \times B and t > 0 and let a \ast b = ab for any a, b\in[0, 1] . Then (X, M, \ast) is a fuzzy metric space and the sets A and B are bounded, closed and we have

    \varrho_{AB}(t) = \sup\limits_{(x, y)\in A\times B} \sup\limits_{\varepsilon < t}\left(\frac{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon + \left\|x-y\right\|_p} \right) = \sup\limits_{\varepsilon < t} \left(\frac{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon + (2)^{1/p}} \right).

    In view of the fact that for any (x, y) \in A \times B and t > 0 we have M(x, y, t) < \varrho_{AB}(t) , then A_0 = B_0 = \emptyset.

    Definition 2.2. Let (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) be a convex fuzzy metric space and E be a nonempty subset of X . The fuzzy projection operator (briefly F-projection operator) \mathbb{P}_E:X\to 2^E is defined as

    \mathbb{P}_E(x): = \Big\{y\in E : M(x, y, t) = \varrho_{x, E}(t), \ \forall t > 0 \Big\},

    where 2^E denotes the set of all subsets of E .

    Proposition 2.3. Let E be a nonempty, F-bounded, closed and convex subset of a strictly convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) which satisfies the condition {\rm (\sharp)} . If X has the property \text{ (C)} , then the F-projection operator \mathbb{P}_E is single-valued.

    Proof. Consider an arbitrary element x\in X and let r\in(0, 1) be fixed. Define

    P_r = \Big\{y\in E : M(x, y, t)\geq\varrho_{x, E}(t)-(1-r), \ \forall t > 0\Big\}.

    If y_1, y_2\in P_r and \theta\in (0, 1) , then by the condition {\rm (\sharp)} for all t > 0 we have

    M\big(x, \mathcal{W}(y_1, y_2, \theta), t\big) > \min\big\{M(x, y_1, t), M(x, y_2, t)\big\} \geq\varrho_{x, E}(t)-(1-r),

    which deduces that \mathcal{W}(y_1, y_2, \theta) \in P_r , that is, P_r is convex. We also note that if \{y_k\}_{k\geq1} is a sequence in P_r which converges to an element y\in X , then from Lemma 1.7 we obtain

    M(x, y, t) = \lim\limits_{k\to\infty}M(x, y_k, t)\geq\varrho_{x, E}(t)-(1-r), \quad \forall t > 0,

    which ensures that y\in P_r , that is, P_r is closed. Thus \{P_r\}_{r} is a descending chain of nonempty, F-bounded, closed and convex subsets of X . Since X has the property \text{ (C)} , \bigcap\nolimits_{r > 0} P_r is nonempty. Let p\in\bigcap\nolimits_{r > 0} P_r . Then

    M(x, p, t)\geq\varrho_{x, E}(t)-(1-r), \quad \forall r\in(0, 1).

    Now, if r\to1^- , we obtain M(x, p, t) = \varrho_{x, E}(t) and so p\in \mathbb{P}_E(x) . On the other hand, if p'\in X is another member of \mathbb{P}_E(x) , then from the strict convexity of X there exists \theta_0\in(0, 1) such that E\ni\mathcal{W}(p, p', \theta_0)\notin\{p, p'\} . Using the condition {\rm (\sharp)} for any t > 0 we obtain

    \begin{align*} M\big(x, \mathcal{W}(p, p', \theta_0), t\big) > \min\big\{M(x, p, t), M(x, p', t)\big\} = \varrho_{x, E}(t), \end{align*}

    which is a contradiction.

    In what follows we present some sufficient conditions which guarantees the nonemptiness of F-proximal pairs.

    Lemma 2.4. Let (A, B) be a nonempty, F-bounded, closed and convex pair in a strictly convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) which satisfies the condition {\rm (\sharp)} . If X has the property \text{ (C)} , then (A_0, B_0) is also nonempty, F-bounded, closed and convex. Furthermore, \varrho_{AB}(t) = \varrho_{A_0B_0}(t) for all t > 0 .

    Proof. Let r\in(0, 1) be fixed and put

    E_r = \Big\{x\in A : \varrho_{x, B}(t)\geq\varrho_{A, B}(t)-(1-r), \ \forall t > 0\Big\}.

    By the fact that \varrho_{A, B}(t) = \sup\nolimits_{u\in A}\varrho_{u, B}(t) for any t > 0 , the set E_r is nonempty. Suppose \{x_n\} is a sequence in E_r such that x_n\to x\in X . Thus \varrho_{x_n, B}(t)\geq\varrho_{A, B}(t)-(1-r) for all n\in\mathbb{N} . So there exists an element y\in B such that M(x_n, y, t)\geq\varrho_{A, B}(t)-(1-r) for all n\in\mathbb{N} . Using Lemma 1.7, we obtain

    \varrho_{x, B}(t)\geq M(x, y, t) = \lim\limits_{n\to\infty}M(x_n, y, t)\geq\varrho_{A, B}(t)-(1-r),

    which concludes that x\in E_r , that is, E_r is closed. Moreover, if u_1, u_2\in E_r and \theta\in (0, 1) , then by the condition {\rm (\sharp)} for any y\in B we have

    M\big(\mathcal{W}(u_1, u_2, \theta), y, t\big) > \min\big\{M(u_1, y, t), M(u_2, y, t)\big\}.

    Taking supremum over all y\in B in above relation, we deduce that

    \begin{align*} \varrho_{\mathcal{W}(u_1, u_2, \theta), B}(t) \geq \min\big\{\varrho_{u_1, B}(t), \varrho_{u_2, B}(t)\big\} \geq\varrho_{A, B}(t)-(1-r), \end{align*}

    which implies that E_r is convex. Since A is F-bounded, E_r is F-bounded too. Thereby \{E_r\}_{r > 0} is a decreasing net consists of nonempty, F-bounded, closed and convex subsets of X . Since X has the property \text{ (C)} , \bigcap\nolimits_{r > 0}E_r is nonempty. Using Proposition 2.3 we obtain A_0 = \bigcap\nolimits_{r > 0}E_r , which implies that A_0 is a nonempty, closed and convex subset of X . By a similar argument we can see that B_0 is a nonempty, closed and convex subsets of X .

    Definition 2.5. A pair (A, B) in a convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) is said to be F-proximinal if A_0 = A and B_0 = B .

    Definition 2.6. Let (A, B) be a nonempty pair in a convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) . A mapping \mathcal{T}: A \cup B \longrightarrow A \cup B is said to be noncyclic if \mathcal{T}(A)\subseteq A and \mathcal{T}(B)\subseteq B . Also, a point (p, q)\in A\times B is said to be a best proximity pair for the noncyclic mapping \mathcal{T} whenever

    \mathcal{T}p = p, \quad \mathcal{T}q = q, \quad M(p, q, t) = \varrho_{AB}(t), \ \forall t > 0.

    The set of all best proximity pairs of the noncyclic mapping \mathcal{T} is denoted by {\rm Best}_{A\times B}(\mathcal{T}) .

    We begin our main result of this section by introducing the following class of noncyclic mappings.

    Definition 3.1. Let (A, B) be a nonempty pair in a convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) . A mapping \mathcal{T}: A \cup B \longrightarrow A \cup B is said to be a

    ● noncyclic contraction mapping if \mathcal{T} is noncyclic and there exists \lambda\in(0, 1) such that for all \left(x, y\right) \in A \times B and t > 0

    \begin{align*} M(\mathcal{T}x, \mathcal{T}y, t) \geq \lambda M(x, y, t)+(1-\lambda)\varrho_{AB}(t); \end{align*}

    ● noncyclic contraction type mapping if \mathcal{T} is noncyclic and there exists \lambda\in(0, 1) such that for all \left(x, y\right) \in A \times B and t > 0

    \begin{align*} M(\mathcal{T}x, \mathcal{T}y, t) \geq \lambda\max\big\{M(x, y, t), M(x, \mathcal{T}y, t), M(\mathcal{T}x, y, t)\big\}+(1-\lambda)\varrho_{AB}(t); \end{align*}

    ● noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mapping, if \mathcal{T} is noncyclic and

    M(\mathcal{T}x, \mathcal{T}y, t) \geq M(x, y, t),

    for all \left(x, y\right) \in A \times B, \ t > 0 . In this case, if A = B , then \mathcal{T} is called a nonexpansive self-mapping.

    It is clear that every noncyclic contraction type mapping is a noncyclic contraction. Moreover, any noncyclic contraction type mapping is a relatively nonexpansive mapping, but the reverse is not true.

    Example 3.2. Let X = \mathbb{R} , A = [0, 1] and B = [3, 4] . Suppose M(x, y, t) = \frac{t}{t+\left|x-y\right|} and define \mathcal{T} : A\cup B\rightarrow A\cup B by

    \mathcal{T}(x) = \begin{cases} x, &\quad x\in A \\ 3, &\quad x\in B . \end{cases}

    Notice that \mathcal{T}(A) \subseteq A , \mathcal{T}(B) \subseteq B and \varrho_{AB}(t) = \frac{t}{t+2} . Also, \forall (x, y)\in A\times B , t > 0 ,

    M(\mathcal{T}x, \mathcal{T}y, t) = \frac{t}{t+|x-3|} \geq \frac{t}{t+|x-y|} = M(x, y, t).

    Now suppose \mathcal{T} is a noncyclic contraction type mapping. Then for some \lambda\in (0, 1) and for all (x, y)\in A\times B , we have

    M(\mathcal{T}x, \mathcal{T}y, t)-\varrho_{AB}(t) \geq \lambda[M(x, y, t)-\varrho_{AB}(t)], \quad \forall t > 0.

    Thus we have,

    \frac{t}{t+|x-3|}-\frac{t}{t+2} \geq \lambda \left[\frac{t}{t+|x-y|}-\frac{t}{t+2}\right], \quad \forall t > 0.

    Besides for x = 0 , y = 3 we have

    \frac{t}{t+3}-\frac{t}{t+2} \geq \lambda \left[\frac{t}{t+3}-\frac{t}{t+2}\right], \quad \forall t > 0,

    which implies that \lambda\geq 1 and this is a contradiction. Hence, \mathcal{T} is not a noncyclic contraction type mapping.

    It is worth noticing that the class of noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mappings may not be continuous in general.

    Example 3.3. Consider X = \mathbb{R} and let A = [-1, 0] , B = [0, 1] and M(x, y, t) = \frac{t}{t+\left|x-y\right|} . Define \mathcal{T} : A\cup B\rightarrow A\cup B by

    \mathcal{T}(x) = \begin{cases} -x-1, &\quad x \in A \cap [-1, -\frac{1}{2}] \\ \frac{x}{2}, &\quad x \in A \cap (-\frac{1}{2}, 0] \\ x, &\quad x \in B. \end{cases}

    Clearly \mathcal{T} is not continuous, \mathcal{T}(A)\subseteq A and \mathcal{T}(B)\subseteq B . We claim that \mathcal{T} is a noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mapping.

    If x \in A \cap [-1, -\frac{1}{2}] , y\in B , t > 0 , then

    M(\mathcal{T}x, \mathcal{T}y, t) = \frac{t}{t+|\mathcal{T}x-\mathcal{T}y|} = \frac{t}{t+|-x-1-y|}\geq \frac{t}{t+|x-y|} = M(x, y, t).

    If x \in A \cap (-\frac{1}{2}, 0] , y\in B , t > 0 , then

    M(\mathcal{T}x, \mathcal{T}y, t) = \frac{t}{t+|\mathcal{T}x-\mathcal{T}y|} = \frac{t}{t+|\frac{x}{2}-y|} \geq \frac{t}{t+|x-y|} = M(x, y, t).

    Hence \mathcal{T} is a noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mapping.

    In 2005, Eldred et al. studied the existence of best proximity pairs for noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mappings defined on a union of two nonempty, weakly compact and convex subsets of a strictly convex Banach space X by using a geometric notion of proximal normal structure (see Theorem 2.2 of [14]). In the case that we restrict the considered mappings to noncyclic contractions, then the existence of best proximity pairs is guaranteed without the proximal normal structure [15,16].

    In what follows we present best proximity pair results in the framework of strictly convex fuzzy metric spaces. To this end we need the following useful lemmas.

    Lemma 3.4. Let (A, B) be a nonempty, F-bounded, closed, convex pair in a strictly convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) which satisfies the condition {\rm (\sharp)} and has the property \text{ (C)} . Let \mathcal{T}\colon A\cup B\to A\cup B be a noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mapping. Then there exists a pair (G_1, G_2)\subseteq (A, B) which is minimal with respect to being nonempty, closed, convex and \mathcal{T} -invariant pair of subsets of (A, B) such that \varrho_{G_1G_2}(t) = \varrho_{AB}(t), for all t > 0 . Also (G_1, G_2) is F-proximinal.

    Proof. It follows from Lemma 2.4 that (A_0, B_0) is a nonempty, closed and convex pair for which \varrho_{AB}(t) = \varrho_{A_0B_0}(t) for all t > 0 . Also, if x\in A_0 , then there exists a point y\in B_0 such that M(x, y, t) = \varrho_{AB}(t) for all t > 0 . Since that \mathcal{T} is relatively nonexpansive,

    \varrho_{AB}(t)\geq M(\mathcal{T}x, \mathcal{T}y, t)\geq M(x, y, t) = \varrho_{AB}(t), \ \forall t > 0,

    and so \mathcal{T}x\in A_0 , that is, \mathcal{T}(A_0)\subseteq A_0 . Equivalently, \mathcal{T}(B_0)\subseteq B_0 which concludes that (A_0, B_0) is \mathcal{T} -invariant. Assume that \Xi is a collection of all nonempty sets G\subseteq A_0\cup B_0 such that (G\cap A_0, G\cap B_0) is a nonempty, closed and convex pair which is F-proximinal, \mathcal{T} -invariant and

    \varrho_{(G\cap A_0)(G\cap B_0)}(t) = \varrho_{A_0B_0}(t)\big( = \varrho_{AB}(t)\big)

    for all t > 0 . Note that A_0\cup B_0\in\Xi and so \Xi is nonempty. Suppose \{U_j\}_{j\in J} is a descending chain in \Xi and set U: = \bigcap\nolimits_{j\in J} U_j . Since X has the property \text{ (C)} , we have

    U\cap A_0 = (\bigcap\limits_{j\in J} U_j)\cap A_0 = \bigcap\limits_{j\in J} (U_j\cap A_0)\neq\emptyset.

    Obviously, U\cap A_0 is closed and convex. Similarly, the set U\cap B_0 is also nonempty, closed, convex and it is easy to see that the pair (U\cap A_0, U\cap B_0) is \mathcal{T} -invariant. We show that \varrho_{(U\cap A_0)(U\cap B_0)}(t) = \varrho_{AB}(t) for all t > 0 and that (U\cap A_0, U\cap B_0) is F-proximinal. Let x\in U\cap A_0 . Then x\in U_j\cap A_0 for any j\in J . In view of the fact that the pair (U_j\cap A_0, U_j\cap B_0) is F-proximinal, there exists y\in U_j\cap B_0 for which M(x, y, t) = \varrho_{AB}(t) for all t > 0 . Note that this element, y , is unique. Indeed, if there is another element y'\in B_0 such that M(x, y', t) = \varrho_{AB}(t) for all t > 0 then from Lemma 1.19 there exists \theta\in(0, 1) such that \mathcal{W}(y, y', \theta)\notin\{y, y'\} . It follows from the condition {\rm (\sharp)} that

    M(\mathcal{W}(y, y', \theta), x, t) = \min\{M(y, x, \theta), x, t), M(y', x, \theta), x, t)\}

    for all t > 0 . Using Lemma 1.18 we obtain \mathcal{W}(y, y', \theta)\in\{y, y'\} which is a contradiction. Hence (U\cap A_0, U\cap B_0)\in \Xi . Now using Zorn's lemma, \Xi has a minimal element, say G . If we set G_1 = G\cap A_0 and G_2 = G\cap B_0 , then the result follows. It is worth noticing that since G\in \Xi is minimal we must have (G_1, G_2) is F-proximinal.

    It is remarkable to note that if in Lemma 3.4 the pair (A, B) is compact, then the condition of property {\rm (C)} of X can be dropped.

    Notation: Under the hypothesis of Lemma 3.4, by \mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{T}}(A, B) we denote the family of all nonempty, closed, convex, minimal and \mathcal{T} -invariant pair (G_1, G_2)\subseteq(A, B) for which \varrho_{G_1, G_2}(t) = \varrho_{AB}(t) for all t > 0 .

    Lemma 3.5. Let (A, B) be a nonempty pair in a convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) . Then

    \Delta_{\big(\overline{{\rm con}}(A), \overline{{\rm con}}(B)\big)}(t) = \Delta_{(A, B)}(t), \quad \forall t > 0.

    Proof. Since (A, B)\subseteq\big(\overline{{\rm con}}(A), \overline{{\rm con}}(B)\big) , it is sufficient to verify that \Delta_{(A, B)}(t)\leq\Delta_{(\overline{{\rm con}}(A), \overline{{\rm con}}(B))}(t) for all t > 0 . Let x\in A and t > 0 be arbitrary and fixed. Then for any y\in B we have M(x, y, t)\geq\Delta_{(x, B)}(t) . Put \Delta_{(x, B)}(t): = 1-r_x . Thus we have B\subseteq \mathcal{B}[x, r_x, t] which implies that \overline{{\rm con}}(B)\subseteq \mathcal{B}[x, r_x, t] . Therefore, \overline{{\rm con}}(B)\subseteq \bigcap\limits_{x\in A}\mathcal{B}[x, r_x, t]. Put \Delta_{(A, B)}(t): = 1-r . Now if v\in \overline{{\rm con}}(B) , then \overline{{\rm con}}(A)\subseteq \mathcal{B}[v, r, t] . Indeed, for all x\in A since v\in \overline{{\rm con}}(B) ,

    M(x, v, t)\geq1-r_x = \Delta_{(x, B)}(t)\geq\Delta_{(A, B)}(t) = 1-r,

    and so x\in \mathcal{B}[v, r, t] , that is, A\subseteq \mathcal{B}[v, r, t] which concludes that \overline{{\rm con}}(A)\subseteq \mathcal{B}[v, r, t] . This implies that

    \overline{{\rm con}}(A)\subseteq \bigcap\limits_{v\in\overline{{\rm con}}(B)}\mathcal{B}[v, r, t],

    which ensures that \Delta_{\big(\overline{{\rm con}}(A), \overline{{\rm con}}(B)\big)}(t)\geq 1-r = \Delta_{(A, B)}(t) and hence the lemma.

    Next theorem is the main result of this section.

    Theorem 3.6. Let (A, B) be a nonempty, F-bounded, closed and convex pair in a strictly convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) which satisfies the condition {\rm (\sharp)} and has the property \text{ (C)} . Assume that \mathcal{T}\colon A\cup B\to A\cup B is a noncyclic contraction type mapping in the sense of Definition 3.1. Then {\rm Best}_{A\times B}(\mathcal{T})\neq\emptyset.

    Proof. Lemma 3.4 guarantees that \mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{T}}(A, B) is nonempty. Suppose (G_1, G_2)\in\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{T}}(A, B) . In view of the fact that \mathcal{T} is noncyclic, \big(\overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_1)), \overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_2))\big)\subseteq(G_1, G_2) and so

    \mathcal{T}(\overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_1))\big)\subseteq\mathcal{T}(G_1)\subseteq\overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_1)),
    \mathcal{T}(\overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_2))\big)\subseteq\mathcal{T}(G_2)\subseteq\overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_2)),

    which implies that the closed and convex pair \big(\overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_1)), \overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_2))\big) is \mathcal{T} -invariant, that is,

    \big(\overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_1)), \overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_2))\big)\in\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{T}}(A, B).

    It follows from the minimality of (G_1, G_2) that \overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_1)) = G_1 and \overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_2)) = G_2 . Since (G_1, G_2) is F-proximinal, there exists an element (x, y)\in G_1\times G_2 for which

    M(x, y, t) = \varrho_{G_1G_2}(t)\Big( = \varrho_{AB}(t)\Big), \quad \forall t > 0.

    Relatively nonexpansiveness of \mathcal{T} deduces that

    \begin{align*} \varrho_{AB}(t)\geq\varrho_{\overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_1))\overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_2))}(t) \geq M(\mathcal{T}x, \mathcal{T}y, t) \geq M(x, y, t) = \varrho_{AB}(t), \end{align*}

    for all t > 0 and so, \varrho_{\overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_1))\overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_2))}(t) = M(\mathcal{T}x, \mathcal{T}y, t) = \varrho_{AB}(t) . Let u\in G_1 and t > 0 be an arbitrary fixed number. If v\in G_2 , because of the fact that \mathcal{T} is a noncyclic contraction type mapping, we have

    \begin{align*} M(\mathcal{T}u, \mathcal{T}v, t)&\geq \lambda\max\big\{M(u, v, t), M(u, \mathcal{T}v, t), M(\mathcal{T}u, v, t)\big\}+(1-\lambda)\varrho_{AB}(t)\\ &\geq \lambda\max\big\{M(u, v, t), M(u, \mathcal{T}v, t), M(\mathcal{T}u, v, t)\big\}+(1-\lambda)M(u, v, t)\\ &\geq \lambda\Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t)+(1-\lambda)\varrho_{AB}(t) \end{align*}

    where \lambda\in(0, 1) . Put

    1-r: = \lambda\Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t)+(1-\lambda)\varrho_{AB}(t).

    Then M(\mathcal{T}u, \mathcal{T}v, t)\geq 1-r , and hence \mathcal{T}v\in \mathcal{B}[\mathcal{T}u, r, t] for all v\in G_2 . Thus \mathcal{T}(G_2)\subseteq \mathcal{B}[\mathcal{T}u, r, t] which concludes that

    G_2 = \overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_2))\subseteq \mathcal{B}[\mathcal{T}u, r, t].

    Thus for any w\in G_2 we have M(\mathcal{T}u, w, t)\geq 1-r and so

    \Delta_{(\mathcal{T}u, G_2)}(t) = \inf\limits_{w\in G_2}M(\mathcal{T}u, w, t)\geq 1-r, \quad \forall u\in G_1.

    Therefore, \Delta_{(\mathcal{T}(G_1), G_2)}(t) = \inf_{x\in G_1}\Delta_{(\mathcal{T}u, G_2)}(t)\geq 1-r . Equivalently, \Delta_{(G_1, \mathcal{T}(G_2))}(t)\geq 1-r . Using Lemma 3.5 we obtain

    \begin{align*} \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t) = \Delta_{\big(\overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_1)), G_2\big)}(t) = \Delta_{(\mathcal{T}(G_1), G_2)}(t)\geq 1-r = \lambda\Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t)+(1-\lambda)\varrho_{AB}(t). \end{align*}

    Thereby \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t) = \varrho_{AB}(t) , which leads us to

    M(x, y, t) = \varrho_{AB}(t), \quad \forall (x, y)\in G_1\times G_2.

    We assert that both the sets G_1 and G_2 are singleton. Let x_1 and x_2 be two distinct elements of G_1 . Since X is strictly convex, from Lemma 1.19, there exists \theta\in(0, 1) for which \mathcal{W}(x_1, x_2, \theta)\notin\{x_1, x_2\} . According to the condition (\sharp) , for any y\in G_2 we obtain

    \varrho_{AB}(t)\geq M(\mathcal{W}(x_1, x_2, \theta), y, t) > \min\{M(x_1, y, t), M(x_2, y, t)\}\geq \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t) = \varrho_{AB}(t), \ \forall t > 0,

    which is a contradiction. So G_1 is singleton. Similarly, G_2 is singleton too. Let G_1 = \{p\} and G_2 = \{q\} for some (p, q)\in G_1\times G_2 . Then (p, q)\in{\rm Best}_{A\times B}(\mathcal{T}) and the proof is completed.

    The following corollaries are straightforward consequences of Theorem 3.6.

    Corollary 3.7. Let (A, B) be a nonempty, F-bounded, closed and convex pair in a strictly convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) which satisfies the condition {\rm (\sharp)} and has the property \text{ (C)} . If \mathcal{T}\colon A\cup B\to A\cup B is a noncyclic contraction mapping, then {\rm Best}_{A\times B}(\mathcal{T})\neq\emptyset.

    Corollary 3.8. Let (A, B) be a nonempty, closed and convex pair in a strictly convex and compact fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) which satisfies the condition {\rm (\sharp)} . If \mathcal{T}\colon A\cup B\to A\cup B is a noncyclic contraction type mapping, then {\rm Best}_{A\times B}(\mathcal{T})\neq\emptyset.

    In the next section, we present an extension version of Corollary 3.8 for noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mappings. We do that by considering a geometric concept of fuzzy proximal normal structure which is defined on a nonempty and convex pair of subsets of a convex fuzzy metric space.

    The notion of proximal normal structure ( \mathcal{PNS} for brief) was first introduced in [14] in the setting of Banach spaces in order to study the existence of best proximity pairs for noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mappings. After that, in [17], a concept of proximal quasi-normal structure as a generalization of \mathcal{PNS} was presented in the framework of convex metric spaces for the purpose of survey the existence of best proximity points for cyclic relatively nonexpansive mappings. We also mention that a characterization of \mathcal{PNS} was given in [18] by using proximal diametral sequences. It was announced in [14] that every nonempty, compact and convex pair in a Banach space X has the \mathcal{PNS} (see also Theorem 3.5 of [18] for a different approach to the same problem).

    In what follows we present the concept of \mathcal{PNS} in the setting of convex fuzzy metric spaces.

    Definition 4.1. A convex pair (A, B) in a convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) is said to have Fuzzy proximal normal structure (F- \mathcal{PNS} for brief) if for any F-bounded, closed, convex and proximinal pair (G_1, G_2) \subseteq (A, B) such that \varrho_{G_1G_2}(t) = \varrho_{AB}(t) and \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t) < \varrho_{AB}(t) for all t > 0 , there exist a point (u, v) \in G_1 \times G_2 and t_0 > 0 such that

    \min\Big\{\Delta_{(u, G_2)}(t_0), \Delta_{(G_1, v)}(t_0)\Big\} > \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t_0).

    It is clear that under the assumptions of the above definition, the sets G_1 and G_2 are not singleton. Moreover, if we take A = B , then we get the notion of fuzzy normal structure which was introduced in [3].

    Remark 4.2. It is remarkable to note that if X is a Banach space, a \ast b = \min\left\{a, b\right\} and for any x, y\in X and t > 0, \theta\in(0, 1) , we define

    M(x, y, t) = \frac{t}{t + \left\|x-y\right\|}, \quad \mathcal{W}(x, y, \theta) = \theta x+(1-\theta)y,

    then the concepts of F- \mathcal{PNS} and \mathcal{PNS} coincide. In this way, every nonempty, bounded, closed and convex pair in a uniformly convex Banach space X has the F- \mathcal{PNS} (see Proposition 2.1 of [14]). We refer to [18,19,20] for further information about the \mathcal{PNS} in Banach spaces.

    Definition 4.3. We say that a convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) is strongly convex provided that for any x_1, x_2, y_1, y_2\in X and \theta\in(0, 1) we have

    M(\mathcal{W}(x_1, x_2, \theta), \mathcal{W}(y_1, y_2, \theta), t)\geq\theta M(x_1, y_1, t)+(1-\theta)M(x_2, y_2, t), \quad \forall t > 0.

    Example 4.4. Suppose that (X, \mathcal{W}, d) is a hyperbolic metric space in the sense of Kohlenbach ([21]). If we define a \ast b = \min\{a, b\} and M(x, y, t) = \frac{t}{t+d(x, y)} for all x, y\in X and t > 0 , then (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) is a strongly convex fuzzy metric space.

    We are now ready to state the main conclusion of this section.

    Theorem 4.5. Let (A, B) be a nonempty, F-bounded, closed and convex pair in a strongly convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) which satisfies the condition {\rm (\sharp)} and has the property \text{ (C)} . Let \mathcal{T}\colon A\cup B\to A\cup B be a noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mapping. If moreover, X is strictly convex and (A, B) has F- \mathcal{PNS} , then {\rm Best}_{A\times B}(\mathcal{T})\neq\emptyset .

    Proof. It follows from Lemma 3.4 that \mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{T}}(A, B) is nonempty. Assume that (G_1, G_2)\in\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{T}}(A, B) . Equivalent reasoning of the proof of Theorem 3.6 concludes that \overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_1)) = G_1 and \overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_2)) = G_2 . In the case that \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t) = \varrho_{AB}(t) for all t > 0 , then by a similar argument of Theorem 3.6 we are finished. So assume that \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t) < \varrho_{AB}(t) for all t > 0 . Since (A, B) has F- \mathcal{PNS} , there is a point (u, v)\in G_1\times G_2, t_0 > 0 and \nu\in(0, 1) such that

    \nu\min\Big\{\Delta_{(u, G_2)}(t_0), \Delta_{(G_1, v)}(t_0)\Big\}\geq\Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t_0).

    By the proximinality of the pair (G_1, G_2) , there exists an element (u', v')\in G_1\times G_2 such that M(u, v', t) = \sigma_{AB}(t) = M(u', v, t) for all t > 0 . For \theta\in(0, 1) put u^*: = \mathcal{W}(u, u', \theta)\in G_1 and v^*: = \mathcal{W}(v', v, \theta)\in G_2 . Since X is strongly convex,

    \begin{align*} M(u^*, v^*, t)& = M\big(\mathcal{W}(u, u', \theta), \mathcal{W}(v', v, \theta), t\big)\\ & \geq \theta M(u, v', t)+(1-\theta)M(u', v, t)\\ & = \varrho_{AB}(t), \end{align*}

    which implies that M(u^*, v^*, t) = \varrho_{AB}(t) for all t > 0 . On the other hand for any y\in G_2 we have

    \begin{align*} M(u^*, y, t_0)& = M\big(\mathcal{W}(u, u', \theta), y, t_0\big)\\ &\geq \theta M(u, y, t_0)+(1-\theta)M(u', y, t_0). \end{align*}

    By taking infimum of two sides of the above inequality on y\in G_2 , we conclude that

    \begin{align*} \Delta_{(u^*, G_2)}(t_0)&\geq\theta \Delta_{(u, G_2)}(t_0)+(1-\theta)M(u', G_2, t_0)\\ &\geq\frac{\theta}{\nu}\Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t_0)+(1-\theta)\Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t_0)\\ & > \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t_0). \end{align*}

    Similarly, we can see that

    \Delta_{(G_1, v^*)}(t_0) > \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t_0).

    Therefore, \min\big\{\Delta_{(u^*, G_2)}(t_0), \Delta_{(G_1, v^*)}(t_0)\big\} > \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t_0) . Put 1-r_1: = \Delta_{(u^*, G_2)}(t_0) and 1-r_2: = \Delta_{(G_1, v^*)}(t_0) . If we define

    {G_1^* = \left(\bigcap\limits_{y \in G_2} \mathcal{B}[y, r_1, t_0]\right) \cap G_1} \quad \text{and} \quad {G_2^* = \left(\bigcap\limits_{x \in G_1} \mathcal{B}[x, r_2, t_0]\right) \cap G_2},

    then (G_1^*, G_2^*) is a closed and convex subset of (G_1, G_2) and (u^*, v^*)\in G_1^*\times G_2^* which implies that \varrho_{G_1^*G_2^*}(t) = \varrho_{AB}(t) for any t > 0 . We show that \mathcal{T} is noncyclic on G_1^*\cup G_2^* . Suppose x\in G_1^* . Then x\in G_1 and for any y\in G_2 we have M(x, y, t_0) \geq 1-r_1 . Since \mathcal{T} is relatively nonexpansive, M(\mathcal{T}x, \mathcal{T}y, t_0)\geq M(x, y, t_0)\geq1-r_1 , that is, \mathcal{T}y \in \mathcal{B}[\mathcal{T}x, r_1, t_0] for all y\in G_2 . Thus \mathcal{T}(G_2)\subseteq \mathcal{B}[\mathcal{T}x, r_1, t_0] . Thereby, G_2 = \overline{\rm con}(\mathcal{T}(G_2))\subseteq \mathcal{B}[\mathcal{T}x, r_1, t_0] and so \mathcal{T}x\in G_1^* for all x\in G_1^* , which ensures that \mathcal{T}(G_1^*)\subseteq G_1^* . Equivalently, \mathcal{T}(G_2^*)\subseteq G_2^* , that is, \mathcal{T} is noncyclic on G_1^*\cup G_2^* . Minimality of (G_1, G_2) deduces that G_1 = G_1^* and G_2 = G_2^* . Hence

    G_1\subseteq\left(\bigcap\limits_{y \in G_2} \mathcal{B}[y, r_1, t_0]\right) \quad \text{and} \quad G_2\subseteq \left(\bigcap\limits_{x \in G_1} \mathcal{B}[x, r_2, t_0]\right).

    Thus, for any (x, y)\in G_1\times G_2 we have M(x, y, t_0)\geq \max\{1-r_1, 1-r_2\} and so

    \min\{1-r_1, 1-r_2\} > \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t_0)\geq\max\{1-r_1, 1-r_2\},

    which is impossible.

    To obtain a real extension of Theorem 1.24, we need the following proposition.

    Proposition 4.6. Every nonempty, compact and convex pair (A, B) in a strictly convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) which satisfies the condition {\rm (\sharp)} has the F- \mathcal{PNS} .

    Proof. Suppose the contrary, that is, there exists a closed, convex and proximinal pair (G_1, G_2) \subseteq (A, B) such that

    \begin{cases} \varrho_{G_1G_2}(t) = \varrho_{AB}(t) > \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t), \quad \forall t > 0, \\ \Delta_{(u, G_2)}(t) = \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t), \quad \forall u\in G_1, \forall t > 0.\end{cases}

    Notice that if G_2 = \{v\} , for some v\in X , then from the proximinality of the pair (G_1, G_2) , there exists an element u'\in G_1 such that M(u', v, t) = \varrho_{AB}(t) for all t > 0 . Then

    \varrho_{AB}(t) = M(u', v, t) = \Delta_{(u', G_2)}(t) = \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t),

    which is impossible. So, assume that v_1, v_2\in G_2 . Strict convexity of X implies that there exists \theta_0\in(0, 1) for which G_2\ni\mathcal{W}(v_1, v_2, \theta_0)\notin\{v_1, v_2\} . Proximinality of (G_1, G_2) deduces that there are u_1, u_2\in G_1 for which M(u_1, v_1, t) = \varrho_{AB}(t) = M(u_2, v_2, t) for any t > 0 . If u_1 = u_2 , then by the condition {\rm (\sharp)} ,

    M(u_1, \mathcal{W}(v_1, v_2, \theta_0), t) > \min\big\{M(u_1, v_1, t), M(u_2, v_2, t)\big\} = \varrho_{AB}(t),

    which is impossible. Thus u_1\neq u_2 . Again from the strict convexity of X there exists \theta_1\in(0, 1) such that G_2\ni\mathcal{W}(u_1, u_2, \theta_1)\notin\{u_1, u_2\} . Since G_2 is compact and M\big(\mathcal{W}(u_1, u_2, \theta_1), \ {\bf. } \, t\big) is continuous on G_2 , there exists an element v_3\in G_2 for which

    M(\mathcal{W}(u_1, u_2, \theta_1), v_3, t) = \Delta_{\big(\mathcal{W}(u_1, u_2, \theta_1), G_2\big)}(t) = \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t), \quad \forall t > 0.

    Besides, from the condition {\rm (\sharp)} we have

    \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t) = M\big(\mathcal{W}(u_1, u_2, \theta_1\big), v_3, t) > \min\{M(u_1, v_3, t), M(u_2, v_3, t)\},

    which is a contradiction.

    By an equivalent manner if \Delta_{(G_1, v)}(t) = \Delta_{(G_1, G_2)}(t) for all v\in G_2 and t > 0 , then we get a contradiction and the result follows.

    The next result is a generalization of Theorem 1.24 and Corollary 3.8.

    Corollary 4.7. Let (A, B) be a nonempty, compact, convex pair in a strongly convex fuzzy metric space (X, M, \ast; \mathcal{W}) which is strictly convex and satisfies the condition {\rm (\sharp)} . Assume that \mathcal{T}\colon A\cup B\to A\cup B is a noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mapping. Then {\rm Best}_{A\times B}(\mathcal{T})\neq\emptyset .

    As a consequence of Corollary 4.7 we obtain the following best proximity pair theorem which is a main result of [14].

    Corollary 4.8. Let (A, B) be a nonempty, compact, convex pair in a strictly convex Banach space X . Assume that \mathcal{T}\colon A\cup B\to A\cup B is a noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mapping. Then {\rm Best}_{A\times B}(\mathcal{T})\neq\emptyset .

    In this article, we have considered the concept of fuzzy projection operator and used to ensure the nonemptiness of proximal pairs of F -bounded, closed and convex pair of subsets of a strictly convex fuzzy metric space. Then we have established a best proximity pair theorem for noncyclic contractions. Finally by using a geometric property of fuzzy proximal normal structure, we have presented a new extension of Kirk's fixed point theorem ([2]) for noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mappings in the framework of strictly convex fuzzy metric spaces.

    The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for the careful reading of the manuscript and useful comments. The third author is thankful for the support of Basque Government (Grant No. 1207-19)

    The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.



    [1] S. P. Decent, A. C. King, I. M. Wallwork, Free jets spun from a prilling tower, J. Eng. Math., 42 (2002), 265-282. doi: 10.1023/A:1016127207992
    [2] I. M. Wallwork, S. P. Decent, A. C. King, R. M. S. M. Schulkes, The trajectory and stability of a spiraling liquid jet: Part I. Inviscid theory, J. Fluid Mech., 459 (2002), 43-65. doi: 10.1017/S0022112002008108
    [3] E. I. Parau, S. P. Decent, M. J. H. Simmons, D. C. Y. Wong, A. C. King, Nonlinear viscous liquid jets from a rotating orifice, J. Eng. Math., 57 (2007), 159-179. doi: 10.1007/s10665-006-9118-2
    [4] S. Panda, N. Marheineke, R. Wegener, Systematic derivation of an asymptotic model for the dynamics of curved viscous fibers, Math. Method. Appl. Sci., 31 (2008), 1153-1173. doi: 10.1002/mma.962
    [5] S. P. Decent, A. C. King, M. J. H. Simmons, E. I. Parau, I. M. Wallwork, C. J. Gurney, et al., The trajectory and stability of spiraling liquid jet: Viscous theory, Appl. Math. Model., 33 (2009), 4283-4302.
    [6] N. Marheineke, R. Wegener, Asymptotic model for the dynamics of curved viscous fibres with surface tension, J. Fluid Mech., 622 (2009), 345-369. doi: 10.1017/S0022112008005259
    [7] K. Sarkar, C. Gomez, S. Zambrano, M. Ramirez, E. de Hoyos, H. Vasquez, et al., Electrospinning to forcespinning, Mater. Today, 13 (2010), 42-44.
    [8] S. Padron, I. D. Caruntu, K. Lozano, On 2d forcespinning modeling, In: Proceedings of the 2011 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, IMECE2011-64823, USA: ASME Publications, 2011,821-830.
    [9] S. Padron, R. Patlan, J. Gutierrez, N. Santos, T. Eubanks, K. Lozano, Production and characterization of hybrid BEH-PPV/PEO conjugated polymer nanofibers by forcespinning, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 125 (2012), 3610-3616. doi: 10.1002/app.36420
    [10] B. Vasquez, H. Vasquez, K. Lozano, Preparation and characterization of polyvinylidene fluoride nanofibrous membranes by forcespinning, Polym. Eng. Sci., 52 (2012), 2260-2265. doi: 10.1002/pen.23169
    [11] A. Altecor, Y. Mao, K. Lozano, Large-scale synthesis of tin-doped indium oxide nanofibers using water as solvent, Funct. Mater. Lett., 5 (2012), 1250020. doi: 10.1142/S1793604712500208
    [12] S. Padron, A. Fuentes, K. Lozano, Experimental study of nanofiber production through forcespinning, J. Appl. Phys., 113 (2013), 024318. doi: 10.1063/1.4769886
    [13] S. M. Taghavi, R. M. Larson, Regularized thin-fiber model for nanofiber formation by centrifugal spinning, Phys. Rev. E, 89 (2014), 023011. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.89.023011
    [14] S. M. Taghavi, R. G. Larson, Erratum: Regularized thin-fiber model for nanofiber formation by centrifugal spinning, Phys. Rev. E, 89 (2014), 059903(E).
    [15] X. Zhang, Y. Lu, Centrifugal spinning: An alternative approach to fabricate nanofibers at high speed and low cost, Polym. Rev., 54 (2014), 677-701. doi: 10.1080/15583724.2014.935858
    [16] S. Mahalingam, G. G. Ren, M. J. Edirisinghe, Rheology and pressurized gyration of starch and starch-loaded poly (ethylene oxide), Carbohydr. Polym., 114 (2014), 279-287. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.08.007
    [17] M. A. Hammami, M. Karifa, O. Harzallah, Centrifugal force spinning of PA6 nanofibers-processability and morphology of solution-spun fibers, J. Text Inst., 105 (2014), 637-647. doi: 10.1080/00405000.2013.842680
    [18] A. M. Alsharif, J. Uddin, Instability of viscoelastic curved liquid jets with surfactants, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech., 2015 (2015), 1-12.
    [19] S. Mahalingam, B. T. Raimi-Abraham, D. Q. M. Craig, M. J. Edirisinghe, Formation of protein and protein-gold nanoparticle stabilized microbubbles by pressurized gyration, Langmuir, 31 (2015), 659-666. doi: 10.1021/la502181g
    [20] X. Hong, M. Edirisinghe, S. Mahalingam, Beads, beaded-fibers and fibers: Tailoring the morphology of poly (caprolactone) using pressurized gyration, Mater. Sci. Eng., 69 (2016), 1373-1382.
    [21] X. Wu, S. Mahalingam, S. K. VanOosten, C. Wisdom, C. Tamerler, M. Edirisinghe, New generation of tunable bioactive shape memory mats integrated with generally engineered protein, Macromol. Biosci., 17 (2017), 1600270. doi: 10.1002/mabi.201600270
    [22] X. Hong, S. Mahalingam, M. Edirisinghe, Sinultaneous application of pressure-infusion-gyration to generate polymeric nanofibers, Mater. Eng., 302 (2017), 1600564.
    [23] P. L. Heseltine, J. Ahmed, M. Edirisinghe, Development in pressurized gyration for the mass production of polymeric fibers, Macromol. Mater. Eng., 303 (2018), 1800218.
    [24] X. Hong, A. Harker, M.Edirisinghe, Process modeling for the fiber diameter of polymer, spun by pressure-coupled infusion gyration, ACS Omega, 3 (2018), 5470-5479.
    [25] D. N. Riahi, Modeling and computation of nonlinear rotating polymeric fiber jets during forcespinning, Int. J. Nonlin. Mech., 92 (2017), 1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2017.03.004
    [26] D. N. Riahi, K. Lozano, L. Cremar, A. Fuentes, On nonlinear rotating polymeric jets during forcespinning process, Fluid Dyn. Res., 50 (2018), 065507. doi: 10.1088/1873-7005/aadfd0
    [27] F. M. White, Viscous fluid flow, 2 Eds., New York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1991.
    [28] R. P. Chahhahra, J. F. Richardson, Non-Newtonian flow and applied rheology, 2 Eds., Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2008.
    [29] W. N. Song, Z. M. Xia, A phenomenological viscosity model for polymeric fluid, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech., 53 (1994), 151-163. doi: 10.1016/0377-0257(94)85046-1
    [30] J. J. Feng, The stretching of an electrified non-Newtonian jet: A model for electrospinning, Phys. Fluids, 14 (2002), 3912-3926. doi: 10.1063/1.1510664
    [31] J. J. Feng, Stretching of a straight electrically charged viscoelastic jet, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech., 116 (2003), 55-70. doi: 10.1016/S0377-0257(03)00173-3
    [32] U. M. Ascher, R. M. M. Mathheij, R. D. Russell, Numerical solution of boundary value problems for ordinary differential equations, Philadelphia, PA, USA: SIAM Publication, 1995.
    [33] C. P. Carroll, Y. L. Joo, Electrospinning of viscoelastic Boger fluids: modeling and experiments, Phys. Fluids, 18 (2006), 053102. doi: 10.1063/1.2200152
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Khalil Javed, Muhammad Nazam, Fahad Jahangeer, Muhammad Arshad, Manuel De La Sen, A new approach to generalized interpolative proximal contractions in non archimedean fuzzy metric spaces, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 2891, 10.3934/math.2023151
    2. Siniša N. Ješić, Nataša A. Ćirović, Rale M. Nikolić, Branislav M. Ranƌelović, A fixed point theorem in strictly convex b -fuzzy metric spaces, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 20989, 10.3934/math.20231068
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(2104) PDF downloads(85) Cited by(0)

Figures and Tables

Figures(7)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog