 Research Article
 Open access
 Published:
Existence Theorems for Generalized Distance on Complete Metric Spaces
Fixed Point Theory and Applications volume 2010, Article number: 397150 (2010)
Abstract
We first introduce the new concept of a distance called distance, which generalizes distance, Tataru's distance, and distance. Then we prove a new minimization theorem and a new fixed point theorem by using a distance on a complete metric space. Our results extend and unify many known results due to Caristi, Ćirić, Ekeland, KadaSuzukiTakahashi, Kannan, Ume, and others.
1. Introduction
The Banach contraction principle [1], Ekeland's variational principle [2], and Caristi's fixed point theorem [3] are very useful tools in nonlinear analysis, control theory, economic theory, and global analysis. These theorems are extended by several authors in different directions.
Takahashi [4] proved the following minimization theorem. Let be a complete metric space and let be a proper lower semicontinuous function, bounded from below. Suppose that, for each with there exists such that and Then there exists such that Some authors [5–7] have generalized and extended this minimization theorem in complete metric spaces.
In 1996, Kada et al. [5] introduced the concept of distance on a metric space as follows. Let be a metric space with metric . Then a function is called a distance on if the followings are satisfied.
(1) for any .
(2)For any is lower semicontinuous.
(3)For any , there exists such that and imply
They gave some examples of distance and improved Caristi's fixed point theorem [3], Ekeland's variational principle [2], and Takahashi's nonconvex minimization theorem [4]. The fixed point theorems with respect to a distance were proved in [8–12].
Throughout this paper we denote by the set of all positive integers, by the set of all real numbers, and by the set of all nonnegative real numbers.
Recently, Suzuki [6] introduced the concept of distance on a metric space, which generalizes Tataru's distance [13] as follows. Let be a metric space with metric .
Then a function from into is called distance on if there exists a function from into and the followings are satisfied:
(τ1) for all ;
(τ2) and for all and , and is concave and continuous in its second variable;
(τ3) and imply for all ;
(τ4) and imply ;
(τ5) and imply .
In this paper, we first introduce the new concept of a distance called distance, which generalizes distance, Tataru's distance, and distance. Then we prove a new minimization theorem and a new fixed point theorem by using distance on a complete metric space. Our results extend and unify many known results due to Caristi [3], Ćirić [14], Ekeland [2], Takahashi [4], Kada et al. [5], Kannan [15], Suzuki [6], and Ume [7, 12] and others.
2. Preliminaries
Definition 2.1.
Let be metric space with metric . Then a function from into is called distance on if there exists a function from into such that
(u1) for all ;
(u2) and for all and , and for any and for every , there exists such that , , and imply
(u3)
imply
for all ;
(u4)
imply
or
imply
(u)
imply
or
imply
Remark 2.2.
Suppose that is a mapping satisfying (u2)(u5). Then there exists a mapping from into such that is nondecreasing in its third and fourth variable, respectively, satisfying (u2)(u5), where (u2)(u5) stand for substituting for in (u2)(u5), respectively.
Proof.
Suppose that is a mapping satisfying (u2)(u5). Define a function by
By (2.12), we have and for all and . Also it follows from (2.12) that is nondecreasing in its third and fourth variable, respectively.
We shall prove the following:
Suppose that (2.13) does not hold. Then
By virtue of (2.12) and (2.14), we have
Combining (u2) and (2.14), we have the following:
Due to (2.16), we get that
From (2.16) and (2.17), we obtain the following.
In terms of (2.19) and (2.20), we deduce that
In view of (2.21), we get that
On account of (2.20), we know the following:
Using (2.16), (2.18), (2.19), and (2.23), we have the following:
By (2.24), we have
By virtue of (2.15), (2.19), (2.20), (2.22), and (2.25), we have which is a contradiction. Hence (u2) holds. From (2.12) and (u2)~(u5), it follows that (u3)~(u5) are satisfied.
Remark 2.3.
From Remark 2.2, we may assume that is nondecreasing in its third and fourth variables, respectively, for a function satisfying (u2)(u5).
We give some examples of distance.
Example 2.4.
Let be the set of real numbers with the usual metric and let be defined by . Then is a distance on but not a distance on .
Proof.
Define by for all and . Then and satisfy (u1)~(u5). But for an arbitrary function and for all sequences , and of such that
since the limit of the sequence and the limit of the sequence do not depend on and , the limit of the sequence may not be . This does not satisfy (5). Hence is not a distance on . Therefore is a distance on but not a distance on .
Example 2.5.
Let be a distance on a metric space . Then is also a distance on .
Proof.
Since is a distance, there exists a function satisfying (1)~(5). Define by
Then it is easy to see that and satisfy (u2)~(u5). Thus is a distance on .
Example 2.6.
Let be a normed space with norm . Then a function defined by for every is a distance on but not a distance.
Proof.
Let be as in the proof of Example 2.4. Then it is clear that satisfies and satisfies (u2)~(u5) on but does not satisfy . Thus is a distance on but not a distance.
Example 2.7.
Let be a normed space with norm . Then a function defined by for every is a distance on .
Proof.
Define by for all and . Then satisfies and satisfies (u2)~(u5). Thus is a distance on .
Example 2.8.
Let be a distance on a metric space and let be a positive real number. Then a function from into defined by for every is also a distance on .
Proof.
Since is a distance on , there exists a function satisfying (u2)~(u5) and satisfies (u1). Define by for all and . Then it is clear that satisfies and satisfies (u2)~(u5). Thus is a distance on .
The following examples can be easily obtained from Remark 2.3.
Example 2.9.
Let be a metric space with metric and let be a distance on such that is a lower semicontinuous in its first variable. Then a function defined by for all is a distance on .
Example 2.10.
Let be a metric space with metric . Let be a distance on and let be a function from into . Then a function defined by
is a distance on .
Remark 2.11.
It follows from Example 2.4 to Example 2.10 that distance is a proper extension of distance.
Definition 2.12.
Let be a metric space with a metric and let be a distance on . Then a sequence of is called Cauchy if there exists a function satisfying (u2)~(u5) and a sequence of such that
or
The following lemmas play an important role in proving our theorems.
Lemma 2.13.
Let be a metric space with a metric and let be a distance on . If is a Cauchy sequence, then is a Cauchy sequence.
Proof.
By assumption, there exists a function from into satisfying (u2)~(u5) and a sequence of such that
or
Then from (u5), we have . This means that is a Cauchy sequence.
Lemma 2.14.
Let be a metric space with a metric and let be a distance on .
(1)If sequences and of satisfy and for some , then .
(2)If and , then .
(3)Suppose that sequences and of satisfy and for some , then .
(4)If and , then .
Proof.

(1)
Let be a function from into satisfying (u2)~(u5). From Remark 2.3 and hypotheses,
(2.33)
By (u5), .

(2)
In (1), putting and for all , (2) holds.
By method similar to (1) and (2), results of (3) and (4) follow.
Lemma 2.15.
Let be a metric space with a metric and let be a distance on . Suppose that a sequence of satisfies
or
Then is a Cauchy sequence and is a Cauchy sequence.
Proof.
Since is a distance on , there exists a function satisfying (u2)(u5). Suppose . Let . Then we have . Let be an arbitrary subsequence of . By assumption and (u2), there exists a subsequence of such that
From (u4), we obtain
Since is an arbitrary sequence of , is also an arbitrary sequence of . Hence
Therefore we get
This implies that is a Cauchy sequence. By Lemma 2.13, is a Cauchy sequence. Similarly, if we can prove that is also a Cauchy sequence.
3. Minimization Theorems and Fixed Point Theorems
The following theorem is a generalization of Takahashi's minimization theorem [4].
Theorem 3.1.
Let be a metric space with metric , let be a proper function which is bounded from below, and let be a function such that, one has the following.
(i) for all .
(ii)For any sequence in satisfying
there exists such that
(iii) imply .
(iv)For every with , there exists such that
where a function is defined by
for all . Then, there exists such that
Proof.
Suppose for all . For each , let
Then, by condition (iv) and (3.6), is nonempty for each . From condition (i) and (3.6), we obtain
For each , let
Choose with . Then, from (3.7) and (3.8), there exists a sequence in such that
for all .
From (3.6), (3.8) and (3.9), we have
By (3.10), is a nonincreasing sequence of real numbers and so it converges. Therefore, from (3.11) there is some such that
From condition (i) and (3.10), we get
for all . From (3.12) and (3.13), we have
Thus, by condition (ii), (3.12), and (3.13), there exists such that
From (3.13), (3.16), and (3.17), we have
From (3.6), (3.8), and (3.18), it follows that
Taking the limit in inequality (3.19) when tends to infinity, we have
From (3.12), (3.16), and (3.20), we have
On the other hand, by condition (iv) and (3.6), we have the following property:
From (3.7), (3.8), (3.19), and (3.22), we have
From (3.6), (3.12), (3.21), (3.22), (3.23), it follows that
From (3.21), (3.22), and (3.24), we have
By method similar to (3.22)(3.25),
From (3.25), (3.26), and condition (i), we obtain
From (3.25), (3.27), and condition (iii), we obtain
This is a contradiction from (3.26).
Corollary 3.2.
Let be a complete metric space with metric , and let be a proper lower semicontinuous function which is bounded from below. Assume that there exists a distance on such that for each with , there exists with and . Then there exists such that .
Proof.
Let be a mapping such that
for all . It follows easily from Definition 2.12, Lemmas 2.13, 2.14, and 2.15, and (u3) that conditions of Corollary 3.2 satisfy all conditions of Theorem 3.1. Thus, we obtain result of Corollary 3.2.
Remark 3.3.
Corollary 3.2 is a generalization of Kadaet al. [5, Theorem ] and Suzuki [6, Theorem ].
From Lemmas 2.13, 2.14, and 2.15, we have the following fixed point theorem.
Theorem 3.4.
Let be a complete metric space with metric , let be a distance on and let be a selfmapping of . Suppose that there exists such that
for all and
for every with . Then there exists such that and . Moreover, if , then , .
Proof.
By method similar to [12, Lemma ], for every ,
Define by
for every . By Example 2.10, is a distance on . Then we get
for all . Thus we have
for all . Now we have
Thus
By Lemma 2.15, is a Cauchy and hence is a Cauchy from Lemma 2.13. Since is complete and is a Cauchy, there exists such that
Suppose . Then, by hypothesis, we have
This is a contradiction. Therefore we have . If , we have and hence . To prove unique fixed point of , let and . Then, by hypothesis, we have
Thus
By Lemma 2.14, we have .
From Theorem 3.4, we have the following corollary which generalizes the results of Ćirić [14], Kannan [15], and Ume [12].
Corollary 3.5.
Let be a complete metric space with metric , let be a distance on and let be a selfmapping of . Suppose that there exists such that
for all and
for every with . Then there exists such that and . Moreover, if , then and .
Proof.
Since a distance is a distance, Corollary 3.5 follows from Theorem 3.4.
The following corollary is a generalization of Suzuki's fixed point theorem [6].
Corollary 3.6.
Let and be as in Corollary 3.5. Suppose that there exists such that
for all . Assume that if
then . Then there exists such that and . Moreover, if , then and .
Proof.
Let and be as in Theorem 3.4. Then from Theorem 3.4 and hypotheses of Corollary 3.6, we have the following properties.
(1) is a Cauchy sequence.
(2)There exists such that .
(3)One has
(4)There exists
(5)One has
By (1)~(5) and hypotheses, we have . The remainders are same as Theorem 3.4.
The following theorem is a generalization of Caristi's fixed point theorem [3].
Theorem 3.7.
Let be a metric space with metric , let be a proper function which is bounded from below, and let be a function satisfying (i), (ii), and (iii) of Theorem 3.1. Let be a selfmapping of such that
where a function is defined by
for all . Then, there exists such that
Proof.
Suppose for all . Then, by Theorem 3.1, there exists such that
Since
we have
By hypothesis, we obtain
Hence
By conditions (i) and (iii) of Theorem 3.1, it follows that
This is a contradiction.
Corollary 3.8.
Let be a complete metric space with metric and let be a proper lower semicontinuous function which is bounded from below. Let be a distance on . Suppose that is a selfmapping of such that
for all . Then there exists such that
Proof.
Define by
for all . Then, by Definition 2.12 and Lemmas 2.13, 2.14, and 2.15, we can easily show that conditions of Corollary 3.8 satisfy all conditions of Theorem 3.7. Thus, Corollary 3.8 follows from Theorem 3.7.
Remark 3.9.
Since a distance and a distance are a distance, Corollary 3.8 is a generalization of KadaSuzukiTakahashi [5, Theorem ] and Suzuki [6, Theorem ].
The following theorem is a generalization of Ekeland's variational principle [2].
Theorem 3.10.
Let be a complete metric space with metric , let be a proper lower semicontinuous function which is bounded from below, and let be a function satisfying (i), (ii), and (iii) of Theorem 3.1. Then the following (1) and (2) hold.
(1)For each with , there exists such that and
for all with where a function is defined by
for all .
(2)For each and with , and
there exists such that ,
for all with
Proof.
() Let be such that , and let
Then, by hypotheses, is nonempty and closed. Thus is a complete metric space. Hence we may prove that there exists an element such that for all with Suppose not. Then, for every , there exists such that and By Theorem 3.1, there exists such that
Again for , there exists such that and
Hence we have and Similarly, there exists such that and
Thus we have and From conditions (i) and (iii) of Theorem 3.1, we obtain
This is a contradiction. The proof of (1) is complete.

(2)
Let
(3.70)
Then is nonempty and closed. Hence is complete. As in the proof of (1), we have that there exists such that
for every with On the other hand, since , we have
This completes the proof of (2).
Corollary 3.11.
Let and be as in Corollary 3.8. Then the following (1) and (2) hold.
(1)For each with , there exists such that and
for all with
(2)For each and with , and
there exists such that ,
for all with
Proof.
By method similar to Corollary 3.8, Corollary 3.11 follows from Theorem 3.10.
Remark 3.12.
Corollary 3.11 is a generalization of Suzuki [6, Theorem ].
References
Banach S: Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux équations intégrales. Fundamenta Mathematicae 1992, 3: 133–181.
Ekeland I: Nonconvex minimization problems. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 1979,1(3):443–474. 10.1090/S027309791979145956
Caristi J: Fixed point theorems for mappings satisfying inwardness conditions. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 1976, 215: 241–251.
Takahashi W: Minimization theorems and fixed point theorems. In Nonlinear Analysis and Mathematical Economics. Volume 829. Edited by: Maruyama T. RIMS Kokyuroku; 1993:175–191.
Kada O, Suzuki T, Takahashi W: Nonconvex minimization theorems and fixed point theorems in complete metric spaces. Mathematica Japonica 1996,44(2):381–391.
Suzuki T: Generalized distance and existence theorems in complete metric spaces. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2001,253(2):440–458. 10.1006/jmaa.2000.7151
Ume JS: Some existence theorems generalizing fixed point theorems on complete metric spaces. Mathematica Japonica 1994,40(1):109–114.
Shioji N, Suzuki T, Takahashi W: Contractive mappings, Kannan mappings and metric completeness. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 1998,126(10):3117–3124. 10.1090/S000299399804605X
Suzuki T: Fixed point theorems in complete metric spaces. In Nonlinear Analysis and Convex Analysis. Volume 939. Edited by: Takahashi W. RIMS Kokyuroku; 1996:173–182.
Suzuki T: Several fixed point theorems in complete metric spaces. Yokohama Mathematical Journal 1997,44(1):61–72.
Suzuki T, Takahashi W: Fixed point theorems and characterizations of metric completeness. Topological Methods in Nonlinear Analysis 1996,8(2):371–382.
Ume JS: Fixed point theorems related to Ćirić's contraction principle. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 1998,225(2):630–640. 10.1006/jmaa.1998.6030
Tataru D: Viscosity solutions of HamiltonJacobi equations with unbounded nonlinear terms. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 1992,163(2):345–392. 10.1016/0022247X(92)90256D
Ćirić LjB: A generalization of Banach's contraction principle. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 1974, 45: 267–273.
Kannan R: Some results on fixed points. II. The American Mathematical Monthly 1969, 76: 405–408. 10.2307/2316437
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the referees for useful comments and suggestions. This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation (KRF) Grant funded by the Korea government (MEST) (20090073655).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Ume, J. Existence Theorems for Generalized Distance on Complete Metric Spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2010, 397150 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/397150
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/397150