By combining the concept of orthogonality and the Geraghty type contraction, we give some fixed point results in the class of O-metric spaces. Our obtained results extend the existing results in the literature. We also resolve an ordinary type differential equation.
Citation: S. S. Razavi, H. P. Masiha, Hüseyin Işık, Hassen Aydi, Choonkil Park. On Geraghty ⊥-contractions in O-metric spaces and an application to an ordinary type differential equation[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 17393-17402. doi: 10.3934/math.2022958
[1] | Senthil Kumar Prakasam, Arul Joseph Gnanaprakasam, Gunaseelan Mani, Fahd Jarad . Solving an integral equation via orthogonal generalized $ {\boldsymbol{\alpha}} $-$ {\boldsymbol{\psi}} $-Geraghty contractions. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 5899-5917. doi: 10.3934/math.2023297 |
[2] | 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 |
[3] | Mustafa Mudhesh, Hasanen A. Hammad, Eskandar Ameer, Muhammad Arshad, Fahd Jarad . Novel results on fixed-point methodologies for hybrid contraction mappings in $ M_{b} $-metric spaces with an application. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 1530-1549. doi: 10.3934/math.2023077 |
[4] | Chen Lang, Hongyan Guan . Common fixed point and coincidence point results for generalized $ \alpha $-$ \varphi_{E} $-Geraghty contraction mappings in $ b $-metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 14513-14531. doi: 10.3934/math.2022800 |
[5] | Leyla Sağ Dönmez, Abdurrahman Büyükkaya, Mahpeyker Öztürk . Fixed-point results via $ \alpha_{i}^{j} $-$ \left({\bf D}_{{\mathscr{C}}}\left(\mathfrak{P}_{\hat E}\right)\right) $-contractions in partial $ \flat $-metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(10): 23674-23706. doi: 10.3934/math.20231204 |
[6] | Rashid Ali, Faisar Mehmood, Aqib Saghir, Hassen Aydi, Saber Mansour, Wajdi Kallel . Solution of integral equations for multivalued maps in fuzzy $ b $-metric spaces using Geraghty type contractions. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 16633-16654. doi: 10.3934/math.2023851 |
[7] | Abdellah Taqbibt, M'hamed Elomari, Milica Savatović, Said Melliani, Stojan Radenović . Fixed point results for a new $ \alpha $-$ \theta $-Geraghty type contraction mapping in metric-like space via $ \mathcal{C}_\mathcal{G} $-simulation functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 30313-30334. doi: 10.3934/math.20231548 |
[8] | Ying Chang, Hongyan Guan . Generalized $ (\alpha_s, \xi, \hbar, \tau) $-Geraghty contractive mappings and common fixed point results in partial $ b $-metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 19299-19331. doi: 10.3934/math.2024940 |
[9] | Hongyan Guan, Jinze Gou, Yan Hao . On some weak contractive mappings of integral type and fixed point results in $ b $-metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(2): 4729-4748. doi: 10.3934/math.2024228 |
[10] | Aftab Hussain . Fractional convex type contraction with solution of fractional differential equation. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 5364-5380. doi: 10.3934/math.2020344 |
By combining the concept of orthogonality and the Geraghty type contraction, we give some fixed point results in the class of O-metric spaces. Our obtained results extend the existing results in the literature. We also resolve an ordinary type differential equation.
Fixed point theory is one of very important tools for proving the existence and uniqueness of the solutions to various mathematical models like integral and partial differential equations, variational inequalities, optimization and approximation theories, etc. It has gained a considerable importance because of the Banach contraction mapping principle [5]. Since then, there have been many results related to the mapping satisfying various types of contractive inequalities; we refer the reader to [7,16,19,21] and references therein. In recent years, there has been a trend to weaken the requirement on the contraction by considering metric spaces endowed with a partial order; see [6,14,17,18]. Recently, Gordji et al. [13] coined an exciting notion of the orthogonal sets and after that, they introduced orthogonal metric spaces. The concepts of sequence, continuity and completeness were redefined for these spaces. Further, they gave an extension of Banach contraction principle (BCP) on this newly described shape and also applied their theorem to show the existence of a solution for a differential equation that cannot be attained using BCP. Many authors generalized BCP by using some control functions, see [15,22].
First, we review some facts of O-metric spaces that we need in the sequel. The references [1,2,3,4,8,9,10,11,20] are useful.
Definition 1.1. Let E≠ϕ and ⊥⊆E×E be a binary relation. If there is Ω0∈E such that ω⊥Ω0 for all ω∈E or Ω0⊥ω for each ω∈E, then E is called an O-set. We show this O-set by (E,⊥).
The following example gives a view on O-sets.
Example 1.1. Let E=[0,1). Define: Ω⊥ω iff Ωω<1. Note that 12⊥Ω for each Ω∈[0,1). Hence (E,⊥) is an O-set.
Definition 1.2. Let (E,⊥) be an O-set. A sequence {Ωn}n∈N is called an O-sequence if for each n, Ωn⊥Ωn+1 or Ωn+1⊥Ωn.
The concept of continuity in such spaces is defined as follows.
Definition 1.3. Let (E,⊥,do) be an O-metric space. Then Υ:E→E is O-continuous (or, ⊥-continuous) at a∈E provided that for each O-sequence {an}n∈N in E with an→a, then Υ(an)→Υ(a). Furthermore, Υ is ⊥-continuous on E if Υ is ⊥-continuous at each a∈E.
Remark 1.1. Note that every continuous mapping is ⊥-continuous. In the following, the converse is not true.
Example 1.2. Take E=R. Consider that Ω⊥ω iff Ω=0 or 0≠ω∈Z. Clearly, (E,⊥) is an O-set. Given Υ:E→E,
Υ(Ω)={1,ifΩ∈Z,0,ifΩ∈E∖Z. |
Such Υ is ⊥-continuous, but it is not continuous on Z. On the other hand, if {Ωn} is an arbitrary O-sequence in E such that {Ωn} converges to Ω∈E, then we have the following cases:
(i) If Ωn=0 for each n, then Ω=0 and Υ(Ωn)=1→1=Υ(Ω);
(ii) If Ωn0≠0 for some n0, then there is n∈Z such that Ωn∈Z for each n≥n0. Thus, Ω∈Z and Υ(Ωn)=1→1=Υ(Ω).
It follows that Υ is ⊥-continuous on Z, but it is not continuous on Z.
In the sequel, the following definition will be needed.
Definition 1.4. Let (E,⊥,do) be an O-set with a metric do. We say that E is O-complete, if every Cauchy O-sequence is convergent.
Remark 1.2. Note that every complete metric space is O-complete, but the converse is not true.
In the following, the concepts of ⊥-preserving and weakly ⊥-preserving in O-metric spaces are equivalent to the concepts of decreasing and increasing in metric spaces.
Definition 1.5. Let (E,⊥) be an O-set. We say that the mapping Υ:E→E is ⊥-preserving if Υ(Ω)⊥Υ(ω), when Ω⊥ω. Also, we say that Υ:E→E is weakly ⊥-preserving if Υ(Ω)⊥Υ(ω) or Υ(ω)⊥Υ(Ω) when Ω⊥ω.
Remark 1.3. Every ⊥-preserving is weakly ⊥-preserving. But, the converse is not true.
Gordji et al. [13] considered a real extension of BCP.
Theorem 1.1. Let (E,⊥,do) be an O-complete metric space (not necessarily a complete metric space). Suppose that Υ:E→E is ⊥-continuous, ⊥-preserving and an ⊥-contraction, i.e.,
do(ΥΩ,Υω)≤λdo(Ω,ω)forallΩ⊥ω, |
where 0<λ<1. Then Υ has a unique fixed point in E, say Ω∗. Also, Υ is a Picard operator, that is, limn→∞Υn(Ω)=Ω∗ for each Ω∈E.
First, let S denote the class of functions β:[0,∞)→[0,1) such that β(vn)→1 implies vn→0 as n→∞. We begin with the following definition, which is useful to prove our main theorem. In fact, we extend the results in [1] by orthogonality and obtain some fixed point results in O-metric spaces.
Definition 2.1. Let (E,⊥,do) be an O-metric space. A mapping Υ:E→E is said to be a Geraghty ⊥-contraction if, for Ω,ω∈E,
Ω⊥ωimpliesdo(Υ(Ω),Υ(ω))≤β(do(Ω,ω))do(Ω,ω), | (2.1) |
where β∈S.
Now, we give an example showing that every Geraghty contraction (for more details and results using this concept, see [2,3,4]) is a Geraghty ⊥-contraction, but the converse is not true.
Example 2.1. Take E=[0,3) endowed with the Euclidean metric. Consider that Ω⊥ω iff Ωω≤Ω. Define Υ:E→E by
Υ(Ω)={Ω4,ifΩ≤2,0,ifΩ>2. |
The following cases hold:
(i) If Ω=0,ω≤2,thenΥ(Ω)=0,Υ(ω)=ω4;
(ii) If Ω=0,ω>2,thenΥ(Ω)=0=Υ(ω);
(iii) If ω≤1,Ω≤2,thenΥ(Ω)=Ω4,Υ(ω)=ω4;
(iv) If ω≤1,Ω>2,thenΥ(Ω)=0,Υ(ω)=ω4.
Given β:[0,∞)→[0,1) as β(do(Ω,ω))=11+do(Ω,ω), note that β(do(Ω,ω))→1 implies do(Ω,ω)→0. Also, |Υ(Ω)−Υ(ω)|≤|Ω−ω|1+|Ω−ω|. Hence, Υ is a Geraghty ⊥-contraction. But, Υ is not a Geraghty contraction. Indeed, for Ω=2 and ω=52, we have
|Υ(2)−Υ(52)|=12≮|2−52|1+|2−52|=13. |
An additional importance for applications of orthogonal spaces is represented by the richness of the structure of metric spaces that we may see in the following result.
Theorem 2.1. Let (E,⊥,do) be an O-complete metric space and let Υ:E→E be ⊥-continuous, ⊥-preserving and a Geraghty ⊥-contraction. Then Υ has a unique fixed point in E. Also, Υ is a Picard operator.
Proof. We first show that Υ has a fixed point. Since E is an O-set, there is Ω0∈E such that for every ω∈E, Ω0⊥ω or ω⊥Ω0. It follows that Ω0⊥Υ(Ω0) or Υ(Ω0)⊥Ω0. Since Υ is ⊥-preserving, by induction we obtain that
Ω0⊥Υ(Ω0)⊥Υ2(Ω0)⊥Υ3(Ω0)⊥…⊥Υn(Ω0)⊥Υn+1(Ω0)⊥… |
Set Ωn=Υn(Ω0) for n=1,2,…. Since Ωn⊥Ωn+1 for each n∈N, by (2.1),
do(Ωn+1,Ωn+2)=do(Υn+1(Ω0),Υn+2(Ω0))≤β(do(Ωn,Ωn+1))do(Ωn,Ωn+1)≤do(Ωn,Ωn+1). |
Then {do(Ωn,Ωn+1)} is an ⊥-preserving sequence and is bounded below, so limn→∞do(Ωn,Ωn+1)=r≥0. Assume r>0, then, from (2.1), we have
do(Ωn+1,Ωn+2)do(Ωn,Ωn+1)≤β(do(Ωn,Ωn+1)),n=1,2,… |
The above inequality yields limn→∞β(do(Ωn,Ωn+1))=1. Since β∈S, we get that r=0. Then limn→∞do(Ωn,Ωn+1)=0.
Now, we show that {Ωn} is a Cauchy O-sequence. On the contrary, assume that
lim supm,n→∞do(Ωn,Ωm)>0. | (2.2) |
By the triangle inequality,
do(Ωn,Ωm)≤do(Ωn,Ωn+1)+do(Ωn+1,Ωm+1)+do(Ωm+1,Ωm). |
Hence from (2.1),
do(Ωn,Ωm)≤(1−β(do(Ωn,Ωm)))−1[do(Ωn,Ωn+1)+do(Ωm+1,Ωm)]. |
Since lim supm,n→∞do(Ωn,Ωm)>0 and limn→∞do(Ωn,Ωn+1)=0, we have
lim supm,n→∞(1−β(do(Ωn,Ωm)))−1=∞. |
We obtain lim supm,n→∞β(do(Ωn,Ωm))=1. But since β∈S, we get
lim supm,n→∞do(Ωn,Ωm)=0. |
This contradicts (2.2), so {Ωn} is a Cauchy O-sequence in E. Since (E,do) is an O-complete metric space, there is t∈E such that limn→∞Ωn=t. To prove that t is a fixed point of Υ, in the case that Υ is ⊥-continuous, one writes
t=limn→∞Ωn=limn→∞Υn(Ω0)=limn→∞Υn+1(Ω0)=Υ(limn→∞Υn(Ω0))=Υ(t). |
Hence Υ(t)=t, i.e., t is a fixed point.
Let Ω be another fixed point of Υ. So, we have
Υn(Ω)=Ω,Υn(ω)=ω,for eachn∈N. |
By choosing Ω0 in the first part of proof, we get
(Ω0⊥Ω,Ω0⊥ω)or(Ω⊥Ω0,ω⊥Ω0). |
Since Υ is ⊥-preserving, we infer that
(Υn(Ω0)⊥Υn(Ω),Υn(Ω0)⊥Υn(ω))for eachn∈N |
or
(Υn(Ω)⊥Υn(Ω0),Υn(ω)⊥Υn(Ω0))for eachn∈N. |
By the triangle inequality, we obtain
do(Ω,Υn(Ω0))=do(Υn(Ω),Υn(Ω0))≤β(do(Υn−1(Ω),Υn−1(Ω0)))do(Υn−1(Ω),Υn−1(Ω0))≤do(Υn−1(Ω),Υn−1(Ω0))=do(Ω,Υn−1(Ω0)). | (2.3) |
Since γn=do(Ω,Υn(Ω0)) is nonnegative and ⊥-preserving,
limn→∞do(Ω,Υn(Ω0))=γ≥0. |
We show that γ=0. On the contrary, suppose that γ>0. By passing to subsequences, if necessary, assume that limn→∞β(γn)=λ exists. From (2.3), we deduce that λγ=γ, so λ=1. Since β∈S, we obtain that
γ=limn→∞γn=limn→∞do(Ω,Υn(Ω0))=0. |
This contradiction implies that γ=0. Similarly, limn→∞do(ω,Υn(Ω0))=0. Therefore,
do(Ω,ω)≤do(Ω,Υn(Ω0))+do(Υn(Ω0),ω)⟶0(asn→∞). |
Consequently, do(Ω,ω)=0, so Ω=ω.
Finally, suppose that ω is an arbitrary element in E. Similarly,
(Ω0⊥Ω,Ω0⊥ω)or(Ω⊥Ω0,ω⊥Ω0) |
and
(Υn(Ω0)⊥Υn(Ω),Υn(Ω0)⊥Υn(ω)) |
or
(Υn(Ω)⊥Υn(Ω0),Υn(ω)⊥Υn(Ω0)) |
for each n∈N. By the triangle inequality, we get
do(Ω,Υn(ω))=do(Υn(Ω),Υn(ω))≤β(do(Υn−1(Ω),Υn−1(ω)))do(Υn−1(Ω),Υn−1(ω))≤do(Υn−1(Ω),Υn−1(ω))=do(Ω,Υn−1(ω)). |
Similar to the above reasoning, limn→∞do(Ω,Υn(ω))=0. So Υ is a Picard operator.
In the following example, we show that Theorem 2.1 is a genuine generalization of Theorem 2.1 in [1].
Example 2.2. According to Example 2.1 and by using Theorem 2.1, one can see that Υ has a unique fixed point. However, Υ is not a Geraghty contraction; so, by Theorem 2.1 in [1], we cannot find any fixed point for Υ.
We have the following corollary.
Corollary 2.1. The notions of O-completeness and O-continuity on O-metric spaces are weaker than the concepts of completeness and continuity on metric spaces. Therefore, Theorem 2.1 is a generalization of the corresponding results in [1].
In this section, our purpose is to apply Theorem 2.1 to prove the existence of a solution for the following first-order problem:
{Ω′(ℓ)=γ(ℓ,Ω(ℓ)),ℓ∈J=[0,L]Ω(0)=Ω(L). | (3.1) |
Let A denote the class of functions ψ:[0,∞)→[0,∞) such that
(i) ψ is increasing;
(ii) for each ξ>0, ψ(ξ)<ξ;
(iii) β(ξ)=ψ(ξ)ξ∈S.
Assume that γ:J×R→R is an integrable function so that
(k1) γ(ℓ,ξ)≥0 for all ξ≥0 and ℓ∈J;
(k2) there are ψ∈A and λ>0 such that for all ξ,μ∈R with ξ,μ≥0 and μ−ξ≥0 and for ℓ∈J, we have
0≤γ(ℓ,μ)+λμ−[γ(ℓ,ξ)+λξ]≤λ(μ−ξ). |
Theorem 3.1. Under the above conditions, the ordinary differential equation (3.1) has a unique positive solution.
Proof. Take E={Ω∈C(J):Ω(ℓ)≥0,forallℓ∈J}. Consider the following O-relation on E:
x⊥yiffy(ℓ)−x(ℓ)≥0foreachℓ∈J. |
Define do(x,y)=sup{|x(ℓ)−y(ℓ)|:ℓ∈J} for all x,y∈E. Clearly, (E,do) is a metric space. We show that E is O-complete (not necessarily complete). Take the Cauchy O-sequence {xn}⊆E. Now, we show that {xn} is converging to an element x in C(J). To ensure this, it suffices that x∈E. Fix ℓ∈J. Since xn(ℓ)≥0 for each n∈N, the convergence of this real sequence to x(ℓ) implies that x(ℓ)≥0. But, ℓ∈J is arbitrary; therefore, x≥0 and consequently, x∈E.
Problem (3.1) can be expressed as
{Ω′(ℓ)+λΩ(ℓ)=γ(ℓ,Ω(ℓ))+λΩ(ℓ),ℓ∈J=[0,L]Ω(0)=Ω(L). | (3.2) |
This problem is equivalent to the integral equation
Ω(ℓ)=∫L0G(ℓ,h)[γ(h,Ω(h))+λΩ(h)]dh, |
where
G(ℓ,h)={eλ(L+h−ℓ)eλL−1,0≤h<ℓ≤L,eλ(h−ℓ)eλL−1,0≤ℓ<h≤L. |
Define Γ:E→E as
Γu(ℓ)=∫L0G(ℓ,h)[γ(h,u(h))+λu(h)]dh. |
Note that a fixed point of Γ is a solution of (3.2). We claim that the hypotheses of Theorem 2.1 hold.
Step 1) Γ is ⊥-preserving.
For x⊥y and ℓ∈J,
Γy(ℓ)=∫L0G(ℓ,h)[γ(h,y(h))+λy(h)]dh≥∫L0G(ℓ,h)[γ(h,x(h))+λx(h)]dh=Γx(ℓ) |
which yields that Γy(ℓ)−Γx(ℓ)≥0. Therefore, Γx⊥Γy.
Step 2) Γ is a Geraghty ⊥-contraction.
For x⊥y and ℓ∈J, condition (k2) implies that
do(Γy,Γx)=supℓ∈J|Γy(ℓ)−Γx(ℓ)|≤supℓ∈J∫L0G(ℓ,h)|γ(h,y(h))+λy(h)−γ(h,x(h))−λx(h)|dh≤supℓ∈J∫L0G(ℓ,h).λ.ψ(y(h)−x(h))dh. |
As ψ is increasing, ψ(y(h)−x(h))≤ψ(do(x,y)). Then
do(Γy,Γx)≤supℓ∈J∫L0G(ℓ,h).λ.ψ(y(h)−x(h))dh≤λ.ψ(do(x,y)).supℓ∈J∫L0G(ℓ,h)dh=λ.ψ(do(x,y)).supℓ∈J1eλL−1(1λeλ(L+h−ℓ)|ℓ0+1λeλ(h−ℓ)|Lℓ)=λ.ψ(do(x,y)).1λ(eλL−1)(eλL−1)=ψ(do(x,y))=ψ(do(x,y))do(x,y)do(x,y)=β(do(x,y))do(x,y). |
For x⊥y, we get
do(Γx,Γy)≤β(do(x,y))do(x,y). |
Hence, Γ is a Geraghty ⊥-contraction.
Step 3) Γ is ⊥-continuous.
Let {xn}⊆E be an O-sequence converging to x∈E. Thus, xn+1⊥xn or xn⊥xn+1 for each n. Hence, xn≥xn+1 or xn+1≥xn. Therefore, xn(ℓ)−x(ℓ)≥0 or x(ℓ)−xn(ℓ)≥0 for all ℓ∈J and n∈N. In the case that xn(ℓ)−x(ℓ)≥0 for each n, condition (k2) implies that
do(Γxn,Γx)≤supℓ∈J∫L0G(ℓ,h).λ.ψ(xn(h)−x(h))dh≤β(do(xn,x))do(xn,x). |
Thus,
do(Γxn,Γx)≤β(do(xn,x))do(xn,x), |
for each n∈N. This implies that Γxn→Γx. In the case that x(ℓ)−xn(ℓ)≥0 for each n, the similar argument shows that Γxn→Γx. Consequently, Γ is ⊥-continuous.
By Theorem 2.1, we deduce the uniqueness of a solution of (3.1).
In this study, we have defined the notion of Geraghty ⊥-contraction mappings and have established a fixed point theorem for such mappings in the setting of O-complete metric space which is not necessarily complete. Further, as an application, we solved an ordinary differential equation with the help of our main theorem.
The authors declare to have no competing interests.
[1] |
A. Amini-Harandi, H. Emami, A fixed point theorem for contraction type maps in partially ordered metric spaces and application to ordinary differential equations, Nonlinear Anal., 72 (2010), 2238–2242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2009.10.023 doi: 10.1016/j.na.2009.10.023
![]() |
[2] |
H. Aydi, A. Felhi, H. Afshari, New Geraghty type contractions on metric-like spaces, J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl., 10 (2017), 780–788. http://doi.org/10.22436/jnsa.010.02.38 doi: 10.22436/jnsa.010.02.38
![]() |
[3] |
H. Aydi, E. Karapinar, P. Salimi, I. Erhan, Best proximity points of generalized almost ψ-Geraghty contractive non-self mappings, Fixed Point Theory Appl., 2014 (2014), 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2014-32 doi: 10.1186/1687-1812-2014-32
![]() |
[4] |
M. AlShumrani, H. Aydi, S. Hazra, C. Ozel, Geraghty extension to k-dimension, Facta Univ. Ser. Math., 33 (2018), 197–202. https://doi.org/10.22190/FUMI1802197A doi: 10.22190/FUMI1802197A
![]() |
[5] |
S. Banach, Sur les opé rations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux équations intégrales, Fund. Math., 3 (1922), 133–181. https://doi.org/10.4064/fm-3-1-133-181 doi: 10.4064/fm-3-1-133-181
![]() |
[6] |
T. G. Bhaskar, V. Lakshmikantham, Fixed point theorems in partially ordered metric spaces and applications, Nonlinear Anal., 65 (2006), 1379–1393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2005.10.017 doi: 10.1016/j.na.2005.10.017
![]() |
[7] | V. Berinde, Approximating fixed points of weak φ-contractions, Fixed Point Theor., 4 (2003), 131–142. |
[8] |
J. Caballero, J. Harjani, K. Sadarangani, Contractive-like mapping principles in ordered metric spaces and application to ordinary differential equations, Fixed Point Theory Appl., 2010 (2010), 916064. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/916064 doi: 10.1155/2010/916064
![]() |
[9] |
C. R. Diminnie, A new orthogonality relation for normed linear spaces, Math. Nachr., 114 (1983), 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/mana.19831140115 doi: 10.1002/mana.19831140115
![]() |
[10] |
D. Dukić, Z. Kadelburg, S. Radenović, Fixed points of Geraghty-type mappings in various generalized metric spaces, Abstr. Appl. Anal., 2011 (2011), 192581. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/561245 doi: 10.1155/2011/561245
![]() |
[11] |
M. A. Geraghty, On contractive mappings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 40 (1973), 604–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2039421 doi: 10.2307/2039421
![]() |
[12] |
M. E. Gordji, H. Baghani, G. H. Kim, Common fixed point theorems for (ψ,φ)-weak nonlinear contraction in partially ordered sets, Fixed Point Theory Appl., 2012 (2012), 62. https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2012-62 doi: 10.1186/1687-1812-2012-62
![]() |
[13] |
M. E. Gordji, M. Ramezani, M. de la Sen, Y. J. Cho, On orthogonal sets and Banach fixed point theorem, Fixed Point Theor., 18 (2017), 569–578. https://doi.org/10.24193/fpt-ro.2017.2.45 doi: 10.24193/fpt-ro.2017.2.45
![]() |
[14] |
V. Lakshmikantham, L. Ćirić, Coupled fixed point theorems for nonlinear contractions in partially ordered metric spaces, Nonlinear Anal., 70 (2009), 4341–4349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2008.09.020 doi: 10.1016/j.na.2008.09.020
![]() |
[15] |
J. Matkowski, Fixed point theorems for mappings with a contractive iterate at a point, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 62 (1977), 344–348. https://doi.org/10.2307/2041041 doi: 10.2307/2041041
![]() |
[16] |
S. G. Matthews, Partial metric topology, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 728 (1994), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1994.tb44144.x doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1994.tb44144.x
![]() |
[17] |
J. J. Nieto, R. Rodríguez-Lopez, Contractive mapping theorems in partially ordered sets and applications to ordinary differential equations, Order, 22 (2005), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11083-005-9018-5 doi: 10.1007/s11083-005-9018-5
![]() |
[18] |
A. C. M. Ran, M. C. B. Reurings, A fixed point theorem in partially ordered sets and some applications to matrix equations, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 132 (2004), 1435–1443. http://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-03-07220-4 doi: 10.1090/S0002-9939-03-07220-4
![]() |
[19] |
B. E. Rhoades, Some theorems on weakly contractive maps, Nonlinear Anal., 47 (2001), 2683–2693. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0362-546X(01)00388-1 doi: 10.1016/S0362-546X(01)00388-1
![]() |
[20] | S. S. Razavi, H. P. Masiha, Some fixed point results on new generalization of metric spaces by orthogonal property with applications for some ordinary differential equations, J. Math. Anal., 9 (2018), 29–37. |
[21] | L. A. Salazar, S. Reich, A remark on weakly contractive mappings, J. Nonlinear Convex A., 16 (2015), 767–773. |
[22] |
T. Suzuki, A generalized Banach contraction principle that characterizes metric completeness, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 136 (2008), 1861–1869. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-07-09055-7 doi: 10.1090/S0002-9939-07-09055-7
![]() |