Show Summary Details
More options …

# Open Mathematics

### formerly Central European Journal of Mathematics

Editor-in-Chief: Gianazza, Ugo / Vespri, Vincenzo

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.726
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.869

CiteScore 2018: 0.90

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.323
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.821

Mathematical Citation Quotient (MCQ) 2018: 0.34

ICV 2017: 161.82

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2391-5455
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 16, Issue 1

# On some fixed point results for (s, p, α)-contractive mappings in b-metric-like spaces and applications to integral equations

Kastriot Zoto
• Corresponding author
• Department of Mathematics and Computer Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Gjirokastra, Gjirokastra, Albania
• Email
• Other articles by this author:
• Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Belgrade, Kraljice Marije 16, 11120 Beograd, Serbia
• Serbia State University of Novi Pazar, Novi Pazar, Serbia
• Email
• Other articles by this author:
/ Arslan H. Ansari
Published Online: 2018-03-20 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/math-2018-0024

## Abstract

In this work, we introduce the notions of (s, p, α)-quasi-contractions and (s, p)-weak contractions and deduce some fixed point results concerning such contractions, in the setting of b-metric-like spaces. Our results extend and generalize some recent known results in literature to more general metric spaces. Moreover, some examples and applications support the results.

MSC 2010: 47H10; 54H25

## 1 Introduction

Fixed point theory has received much attention due to its applications in pure mathematics and applied sciences. Recently, a number of generalizations of metric spaces were introduced and extensively studied. In 1989, Bakhtin [1] (and also Czerwik [2]) introduced the concept of b-metric spaces and presented contraction mappings in such metric spaces thus obtaining a generalization of Banach contraction principle. For fixed point theory in b-metric spaces, see [3, 4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11] and the references therein.

Amini-Harandi [12] introduced the notion of metric-like spaces, in which the self distance of a point need not be equal to zero. Such spaces play an important role in topology and logical programming. In 2013, Alghamdi et al. [13] generalized the notion of a b-metric by introduction of the concept of a b-metric-like and proved some related fixed point results. Recently, many results on fixed points, of mappings under certain contractive conditions in such spaces have been obtained (see [11, 12, 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,[29]).

Fixed point theory has been extended in various directions either by using generalized contractions, or by using more general spaces. Under these directions, in the first part of this paper, we introduce the concept of (s, p, α)-contractions and quasi-contractions and prove some fixed point results. In the second part, we generalize further this new class of contractions for self-mappings, introducing the class of (s, p)-weak contractions. Considering such more general, and much wider classes of contractions, the obtained results greatly extend and improve some classical and recent fixed point results in the existing literature.

## 2 Preliminaries

#### Definition 2.1

([12]). Let X be a nonempty set. A mapping σ : X × X → [0, ∞) is called metric-like if the following conditions hold for all x, y, zX:

• σ (x, y) = 0 implies x = y,

• σ(x, y) = σ(y, x)

• σ(x, y) ≤ σ(x, z) + σ(z, y).

The pair (X, σ) is called a metric-like space.

#### Definition 2.2

([13]). Let X be a nonempty set. A mapping σb :X × X → [0, ∞) is called b-metric-like if the following conditions hold for some s ≥ 1 and for all x, y, zX:

• σb (x, y) = 0 implies x = y,

• σb(x, y) = σb(y, x)

• σb(x, y) ≤ s[σb(x, z) + σb(z, y)].

The pair (X, σb) is called a b-metric-like space.

In a b-metric-like space (X, σb), if x, yX and σb (x, y) = 0, then x = y, but the converse need not be true, and σb (x, x) may be positive for some xX.

#### Example 2.3

If X = ℝ, then σb(x, y) = |x| + |y| defines a metric-like on X.

#### Example 2.4

Let X = ℝ+ ∪ {0} and α > 0 be any constant. Define the distance function σ : X × X → [0, ∞) by σ (x, y) = α (x + y). Then, the pair (X, σ) is a metric-like space.

#### Example 2.5

If X = ℝ+ ∪ {0}, then σb (x, y) = (x + y)2 defines a b-metric-like on X with parameter s = 2.

#### Definition 2.6

([13]). Let (X, σb) be a b-metric-like space with parameter s, and let {xn} be any sequence in X and xX. Then

1. The sequence {xn} is said to be convergent to x if $\begin{array}{}\underset{n\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim}\end{array}$ σb(xn, x) = σb(x, x);

2. The sequence {xn} is said to be a Cauchy sequence in (X, σb) if $\begin{array}{}\underset{n,m\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim}\end{array}$ σb(xn, xm) exists and is finite;

3. (X, σb) is said to be a complete b-metric-like space if, for every Cauchy sequence {xn} in X, there exists an xX such that $\begin{array}{}\underset{n,m\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim}\end{array}$ σb(xn, xm) = $\begin{array}{}\underset{n\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim}\end{array}$ σb(xn, x) = σb(x, x).

The limit of a sequence in a b-metric-like space need not be unique.

#### Lemma 2.7

([19]). Let (X, σb) be a b-metric-like space with parameter s, and f : XX be a mapping. Suppose that f is continuous at uX. Then for all sequences {xn} in X such that xnu, we have fxnfu that is

$limn→∞σb(fxn,fu)=σb(fu,fu).$

#### Lemma 2.8

([15]). Let (X, σb) be a b-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1, and suppose that {xn} and {yn} are σb-convergent to x and y, respectively. Then we have

$1s2σb(x,y)−1sσb(x,x)−σb(y,y)≤lim infn→∞σb(xn,yn)≤lim supn→∞σb(xn,yn)≤sσb(x,x)+s2σb(y,y)+s2σb(x,y).$

In particular, if σb (x, y) = 0, then we have $\begin{array}{}\underset{n\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim}\end{array}$ σb (xn, yn) = 0.

Moreover, for each zX, we have

$1sσb(x,z)−σb(x,x)≤lim infn→∞σb(xn,z)≤lim supn→∞σb(xn,z)≤sσb(x,z)+sσb(x,x).$

In particular, if σb (x, x) = 0, then

$1sσb(x,z)≤lim infn→∞σb(xn,z)≤lim supn→∞σb(xn,z)≤sσb(x,z).$

The following result is useful.

#### Lemma 2.9

Let (X, σb) be a b-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1. Then

1. If σb (x, y) = 0, then σb (x, x) = σb (y, y) = 0;

2. If (xn) is a sequence such that $\begin{array}{}\underset{n\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim}\end{array}$ σb (xn, xn+1) = 0, then we have

$limn→∞σb(xn,xn)=limn→∞σb(xn+1,xn+1)=0;$

3. If xy, then σb (x, y) > 0;

□

#### Proof

The proof is obvious. □

#### Lemma 2.10

Let (X, σb) be a complete b-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1 and let {xn} be a sequence such that

$limn→∞σb(xn,xn+1)=0$(1)

If for the sequence {xn}, $\begin{array}{}\underset{n,m\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim}\end{array}$ σb (xn, xm) ≠ 0, then there exist ε > 0 and sequences $\begin{array}{}\left\{m\left(k\right){\right\}}_{k=1}^{\mathrm{\infty }}\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}and\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\left\{n\left(k\right){\right\}}_{k=1}^{\mathrm{\infty }}\end{array}$ of positive integers with nk > mk > k, such that σb (xmk, xnk) ≥ ε, σb (xmk, xnk−1) < ε, ε/s2$\begin{array}{}\underset{k\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim sup}\end{array}$ σb (xmk−1, xnk−1) ≤ ε s, and ε/s$\begin{array}{}\underset{k\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim sup}\end{array}$ σb (xnk−1, xmk) ≤ ε, ε/s$\begin{array}{}\underset{k\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim sup}\end{array}$ σb (xmk−1, xnk) ≤ ε s2.

#### Proof

If $\begin{array}{}\underset{n,m\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim}\end{array}$ σb (xn, xm) ≠ 0, then there exist an ε > 0 and sequences $\begin{array}{}\left\{m\left(k\right){\right\}}_{k=1}^{\mathrm{\infty }}\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\text{and}\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\left\{n\left(k\right){\right\}}_{k=1}^{\mathrm{\infty }}\end{array}$ of positive integers with nk >mk > k, such that nk is the smallest index for which

$nk>mk>k,σb(xmk,xnk)≥ε.$(2)

This means that

$σb(xmk,xnk−1)<ε$(3)

From (2) and property of Definition 2.2, we have

$ε≤σb(xmk,xnk)≤sσb(xmk,xmk−1)+sσb(xmk−1,xnk)≤sσb(xmk,xmk−1)+s2σb(xmk−1,xnk−1)+s2σb(xnk−1,xnk).$(4)

Taking the upper limit as k → ∞ in (4), using the assumption (1) and relations (2) and (3) we get

$εs2≤lim supk→∞σb(xmk−1,xnk−1).$(5)

By the triangular inequality, we have

$σb(xmk−1,xnk−1)≤sσb(xmk−1,xmk)+sσb(xmk,xnk−1),$

so, taking the upper limit as k → ∞ and using (1), we get

$lim supk→∞σb(xmk−1,xnk−1)≤εs.$(6)

By (5) and (6) we have

$εs2≤lim supk→∞σb(xmk−1,xnk−1)≤εs.$(7)

Also we have

$ε≤σb(xmk,xnk)≤sσb(xmk,xmk−1)+sσb(xmk−1,xnk),$

and, taking the upper limit as k → ∞, we get

$εs≤lim supk→∞σb(xmk−1,xnk).$(8)

Again

$ε≤σb(xmk,xnk)≤sσb(xmk,xnk−1)+sσb(xnk−1,xnk).$

Taking the upper limit as k → ∞ and using (1), we get

$εs≤lim supk→∞σb(xnk−1,xmk).$(9)

By (2) we have

$limk→∞σb(xnk−1,xmk)≤ε.$(10)

Consequently,

$εs≤lim supk→∞σb(xnk−1,xmk)≤ε.$(11)

Also

$σbxmk−1,xnk≤sσbxmk−1,xnk−1+sσbxnk−1,xnk.$

Then from (7), (8) and (1) we have

$lim supk→∞σb(xmk−1,xnk)≤slim supk→∞σb(xmk−1,xnk−1)≤εs2.$

Consequently,

$εs≤lim supk→∞σb(xmk−1,xnk)≤εs2.$(12)

This completes the proof. □

## 3 Main results

In this section, we introduce the concept of generalized (s, p, α)-contractions and obtain some fixed point theorems for such class of contractions in the framework of b-metric-like spaces.

#### Definition 3.1

Let (X, σb) be a complete b-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1. If f : XX is a self-mapping that satisfies:

$sσbfx,fy≤ασbx,y$

for some α ∈ [0, 1) and all x, yX, then f is called an (s, α)-Banach contraction.

#### Definition 3.2

Let (X, σb) be a complete b-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1. If f : XX is a self-mapping that satisfies:

$spσbfx,fy≤ασbx,y$

for some constants p ≥ 1 and α ∈ [0, 1) and for all x, yX, then f is called an (s, p, α)-Banach contraction.

We denote by Ψ, Φ the families of altering distance functions satisfying the following condition, respectively:

• Ψ : [0, ∞)→ [0, ∞) is an increasing and continuous function and Ψ(t) = 0, iff t = 0,

• Φ :[0, ∞)→ [0, ∞) is a lower semicontinuous function and Φ(t) = 0, iff t = 0.

Based on the definition of C̀iric̀’s quasi-contractions, we introduce the following definition in the setting of a b-metric-like space.

#### Definition 3.3

Let (X, σb) be a b-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1. Let ψΨ, and let constants α, p be such that 0 ≤ α < 1 and p ≥ 2. A mapping f : XX is said to be a (ψ, s, p, α)-quasicontraction mapping, if for all x, yX

$ψ(2spσb(fx,fy))≤αψ(maxσbx,y,σbx,fx,σby,fy,σbx,fy,σby,fx).$(13)

#### Remark 3.4

1. It is obvious that by taking ψ(t) = $\begin{array}{}\frac{1}{2}\end{array}$ t (or the identity mapping ψ(t) = t) the above notion reduces to an (s, p, α)-quasicontraction.

2. Taking ψ(t) = $\begin{array}{}\frac{1}{2}\end{array}$ t and the arbitrary constant p = 2 we obtain the definition of an (s, α)-quasi-contraction given in [30].

3. If we take s = 1, it corresponds to the case of metric-like spaces.

Our first main result is as follows:

#### Theorem 3.5

Let (X, σb) be a complete b-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1, f : XX be a given self-mapping. If f is an (ψ, s, p, α)-quasicontraction, then f has a unique fixed point.

#### Proof

Let x0 be an arbitrary point in X. We construct a Picard iteration sequence {xn} with initial point x0 as usual:

$x1=f(x0),x2=f(x1),…,xn+1=f(xn),…for n∈N.$

If we assume σb (xn0, xn0+1) = 0 for some n0 ∈ ℕ, then we have xn0+1 = xn0 that is xn0 = xn0+1 = f(xn0). Hence, xn0 is a fixed point of f and the proof is completed. From now on, we assume that for all n ∈ ℕ, σb (xn, xn+1) > 0 (that is xn+1xn).

By condition (13), we have

$ψ2sσbxn,xn+1=ψ2spσbxn,xn+1=ψ2spσbfxn−1,fxn≤αψmaxσbxn−1,xn,σbxn−1,fxn−1,σbxn,fxn,σbxn−1,fxn,σbxn,fxn−1=αψmaxσbxn−1,xn,σbxn−1,xn,σbxn,xn+1,σbxn−1,xn+1,σbxn,xn≤αψmaxσbxn−1,xn,σbxn−1,xn,σbxn,xn+1,sσbxn−1,xn+σbxn,xn+1,2sσbxn−1,xn.$(14)

If σb (xn−1, xn) ≤ σb (xn, xn+1) for some n ∈ ℕ, then we find from inequality (14) that

$ψ(2sσb(xn,xn+1))≤αψ(2sσb(xn,xn+1))<ψ(2sσb(xn,xn+1)).$

By the properties of ψ the above inequality gives σb (xn, xn+1) = 0, which is a contradiction, since we have supposed σb (xn, xn+1) > 0. Hence, for all n ∈ ℕ

$σb(xn,xn+1)<σb(xn−1,xn),$

that is, the sequence {σb (xn, xn+1)} is decreasing and bounded below. Thus there exists r ≥ 0 such that

$limn→∞σbxn,xn+1=r.$(15)

Let us prove that r = 0. If we suppose that r > 0, then applying the condition (14), we have

$ψ(2sσb(xn,xn+1))≤ψ(2spσb(xn,xn+1))≤αψ(2sσb(xn−1,xn)).$(16)

Taking limit as n → ∞ in (16), using (15), since 0 ≤ α < 1 and by the properties of ψ, we get

$ψ(2sr)≤αψ(2sr),$

$limn→∞σb(xn,xn+1)=0.$(17)

In the next step, we claim that

$limn,m→∞σb(xn,xm)=0.$

Suppose, on the contrary that $\begin{array}{}\underset{n,m\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim}\end{array}$ σb (xn, xm) ≠ 0. Then by Lemma 2.10, there exist ε > 0 and sequences {m(k)} and {n(k)} of positive integers with nk >mk > k, such that σb (xmk,xnk) ≥ ε, σb (xmk, xnk−1) < ε and

$εs2≤lim supk→∞σb(xmk−1,xnk−1)≤εs,εs≤lim supk→∞σb(xnk−1,xmk)≤ε,εs≤lim supk→∞σb(xmk−1,xnk)≤εs2.$(18)

From the contractive condition (13), we have

$ψ2s2σb(xmk,xnk)≤ψ2spσb(xmk,xnk)=ψ2spσb(fxmk−1,fxnk−1)≤αψmax{σb(xmk−1,xnk−1),σb(xmk−1,fxmk−1),σb(xnk−1,fxnk−1),σb(xmk−1,fxnk−1),σb(xnk−1,fxmk−1)}=αψmax{σb(xmk−1,xnk−1),σb(xmk−1,xmk),σb(xnk−1,xnk),σb(xmk−1,xnk),σb(xnk−1,xmk)}.$(19)

Taking the upper limit as k → ∞ in (19) and using (17), (18), we obtain

$ψ2s2ε≤αψmaxεs,0,0,es2,ε≤αψ2εs2,$

which is a contradiction due to the properties of ψ and the assumption ε > 0. Hence the sequence {xn} is a Cauchy sequence in the complete b-metric-like space (X, σb). So there is some uX such that

$limn→∞σb(xn,u)=σb(u,u)=limn,m→∞σb(xn,xm)=0.$(20)

By continuity of f and Lemma 2.7, we have fxnfu that is $\begin{array}{}\underset{n\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim}\end{array}$ σb (xn, fu) = σb (fu, fu).

On the other hand $\begin{array}{}\underset{n\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim}\end{array}$ σb (xn, u) = 0 = σb (u, u) and so by Lemma 2.8

$1sσb(u,fu)≤limn→∞σb(xn,fu)≤sσb(u,fu).$

This implies that

$1sσb(u,fu)≤σb(fu,fu)≤sσb(u,fu).$(21)

In view of the properties of ψ, constant p ≥ 2, (20), (21) and using (13), we have

$ψσbu,fu≤ψsσbfu,fu≤ψ2spσbfu,fu≤αψmaxσbu,u,σbu,fu,σbu,fu,σbu,fu,σbu,fu=αψσbu,fu.$(22)

From (22) and the properties of ψ, we get σb (u, fu) = 0, which implies fu = u. Hence u is a fixed point of f.

If the self-map f is not continuous then, we consider

$ψ2s2σbxn+1,fu≤ψ2spσbxn+1,fu=ψ2spσbfxn,fu≤αψmaxσb(xn,u),σb(xn,fxn),σb(u,fu),σbxn,fu,σb(u,fxn)=αψmaxσbxn,u,σbxn,xn+1,σbu,fu,σbxn,fu,σb(u,xn+1).$

By taking the upper limit as n → ∞, using Lemmas 2.8 and 2.10, and the relation (17), we obtain

$ψ2sσbu,fu=ψ2s21sσbu,fu≤ψlim supn→∞2s2σbxn+1,fu≤αψ2sσbu,fu.$

From above inequality and the properties of ψ, we get σb (u, fu) = 0, which implies fu = u. Hence u is a fixed point of f.

Uniqueness: Let us suppose that u and v are two fixed points of f, i.e. fu = u and fv = v. We will show that u = v. If not, by using condition (13), we have

$ψ2spσbu,v=ψ2spσbfu,fv≤αψmaxσbu,v,σbu,fu,σbv,fv,σbu,fv,σbv,fu=αψmaxσbu,v,σbu,u,σbv,v,σbu,v,σbv,u≤αψ2sσbu,v.$

Since 0 ≤ α < 1 and p ≥ 2, the above inequality implies σb (u, v) = 0 which yields u = v. □

The following example illustrates the theorem.

#### Example 3.6

Let X = [0, 1] and σb (x, y) = (x + y)2 for all x, yX. It is clear that σb is a b-metric-like on X with parameter s = 2 and (X, σb) is complete. Also, σb yis not a metric-like or a b-metric on X. Define a self-mapping f : XX by fx = $\begin{array}{}\frac{x}{6}.\end{array}$

For all x, y ∈ [0, 1], and the function ψ(t) = 2t, and constant p = 2, we have

$ψ2s2σbfx,fy=ψ8x6+y62=ψ8x+y236=1636x+y2=8362x+y2=8362σbx,y=836ψσbx,y≤αψσbx,y≤αψmaxσbx,y,σbx,fx,σby,fy,σbx,fy,σby,fx.$

All conditions of Theorem3.5 are satisfied and clearly x = 0 is a unique fixed point of f.

In particular, by taking ψ(t) = $\begin{array}{}\frac{1}{2}\end{array}$ t in Theorem 3.5, we have the following result for a self-mapping (seen as a generalization of C̀iric̀ type quasi-contraction).

#### Corollary 3.7

Let (X, σb) be a complete b-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1. If f : XX is a self-mapping that satisfies:

$spσb(fx,fy)≤αmaxσb(x,y),σb(x,fx),σb(y,fy),σb(x,fy),σb(y,fx)$

for some constants α ∈ [0, 1 /2 .) and p ≥ 2 all x, yX, then f has a unique fixed point in X.

The following is a version of Hardy-Rogers result in [31].

#### Corollary 3.8

Let (X, σb) be a complete b-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1. If f : XX is a self-mapping and there exist p ≥ 2 and constants ai ≥ 0, i = 1, …, 5 with a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + a5 < 1 such that

$spσb(fx,fy)≤α1σb(x,y)+α2σb(x,fx)+α3σb(y,fy)+α4σb(x,fy)+α5σb(y,fx),$

for all x, yX, then f has a unique fixed point in X.

#### Proof

This result can be considered as a consequence of Corollary 3.7, since we have

$α1σb(x,y)+α2σb(x,fx)+α3σb(y,fy)+α4σb(x,fy)+α5σb(y,fx)≤(α1+α2+α3+α4+α5)maxσb(x,y),σb(x,fx),σb(y,fy),σb(x,fy),σb(y,fx)=αmaxσb(x,y),σb(x,fx),σb(y,fy),σb(x,fy),σb(y,fx).$ □

#### Remark 3.9

Theorem3.5 generalizes Theorem 1.2 in [32]. Theorem 3.2 in [28] is a special case of Corollary3.7 (and so also of Theorem 3.5) for choice constant p = 2. Also, Theorems 3.1 and 3.4 in [6] are special cases of our Theorem 3.5. In Corollary3.8, by choosing the constants ai in certain manner, we obtain certain classes of(s, p, α)-contractions.

The following corollaries are also consequences of Theorem 3.5, where self-maps satisfy contractive conditions given by rational expressions, and functions ψΨ, ϕΦ are used. To proceed with them, we denote by M(x, y) the maximum of the set

$σbx,y,σbx,fx,σby,fy,σbx,fy,σby,fx.$(23)

#### Corollary 3.10

Let (X, σb) be a complete b-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1 and f : XX be a self-map. If there exist ψΨ, 0 ≤ α < $\begin{array}{}\frac{1}{2}\end{array}$ and p ≥ 2, such that the condition

$ψ2spσbfx,fy≤αψMx,y1+ψMx,y$(24)

is satisfied for all x, yX, where M(x, y) is defined as in (23), then f has a unique fixed point in X.

#### Proof

Taking into account that

$αψMx,y1+ψMx,y=α11+ψMx,yψMx,y≤αψMx,y$

for all x, yX and 0 ≤ α < $\begin{array}{}\frac{1}{2}\end{array}$, where M(x, y) is defined as in (23), we get that condition (24) implies condition (13). As a consequence, Theorem 3.5 guarantees the existence of a unique fixed point of f. □

#### Corollary 3.11

Let (X, σb) be a complete b-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1 and f : XX be a self-map. If there exist ψΨ, ϕΦ, 0 ≤ α < $\begin{array}{}\frac{1}{2}\end{array}$ and p ≥ 2, such that the condition

$ψ(2spσb(fx,fy))≤αψ(M(x,y))1+ϕ(M(x,y))$(25)

is satisfied for all x, yX, where M(x, y) is defined as in (23), then f has a unique fixed point in X.

#### Proof

The conclusion follows from Theorem 3.5, since the inequality (25) implies the inequality (13). □

#### Corollary 3.12

Let (X, σb) be a complete b-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1 and f : XX a self-map. If there exist ψΨ, ϕΦ, 0 ≤ α < $\begin{array}{}\frac{1}{2}\end{array}$ and p ≥ 2, such that the condition

$ψ(2spσb(fx,fy))≤αψ(M(x,y))ϕ(M(x,y))1+ϕ(M(x,y))$(26)

is satisfied for all x, yX, where M(x, y) is defined as in (23), then f has a unique fixed point in X.

#### Proof

The inequality (26) implies the inequality (13). Hence the conclusion follows from Theorem 3.5. □

#### Corollary 3.13

Let (X, σb) be a complete b-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1 and f : XX a self-map. If there exist ψΨ, ϕΦ, 0 ≤ α < $\begin{array}{}\frac{1}{2}\end{array}$ and p ≥ 2, such that the condition

$ψ(2spσb(fx,fy))≤αψ(M(x,y))−ϕ(M(x,y))1+ϕ(M(x,y))$(27)

is satisfied for all x, yX, where M(x, y) is defined as in (23), then f has a unique fixed point in X.

#### Proof

Taking into account that ϕ is a lower semi continuous function with ϕ(t) = 0 ⇔ t = 0, we have

$αψM(x,y)−ϕM(x,y)1+ϕM(x,y)≤αψM(x,y)1+ϕM(x,y)≤α11+ϕM(x,y)ψM(x,y)≤αψM(x,y)$

for all x, yX and 0 ≤ α < $\begin{array}{}\frac{1}{2}\end{array}$, where M(x, y) is defined as in (23). Hence inequality (27) implies inequality (13). Hence the conclusion follows from Theorem 3.5. □

The basic result, related to the notion of weakly contractive maps, is due to Rhoades [33]. Further, this result has been generalized and extended by many authors to the notion of (ψφ)-weakly contractive mappings. The aim of this part of the section is to extend and generalize the main classical result from [33] and other existing results in the literature on b-metric and metric-like spaces to the setup of b-metric-like spaces. Before presenting our results, we revise the weak contraction condition by introducing the notion of (s, p)-weak contraction.

Let (X, σb) be a b-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1. For a self-mapping f : XX we denote by N(x, y) the following:

$N(x,y)=max{σb(x,y),σb(x,fx),σb(y,fy),σb(x,fy)+σb(y,fx)4s}$(28)

for all x, yX.

#### Definition 3.14

Let (X, σb) be ab-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1. A self-mapping f : XX is called a generalized (s, p)-weak contraction, if there exist ψΨ and a constant p ≥ 1, such that

$spσb(fx,fy)≤N(x,y)−ϕ(N(x,y))$(29)

for all x, yX, where N(x, y) is defined as in (28).

#### Remark 3.15

The above definition reduces to the definition of (s, p)-weak contraction if N(x, y) = σb (x, y).

We now present the following result.

#### Theorem 3.16

Let (X, σb) be a complete b-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1. If f : XX is a self-mapping that is a generalized (s, p)-weak contraction, then f has a unique fixed point in X.

#### Proof

Let x0 be an arbitrary point in X. Define the iterative sequence {xn} as: x1 = f(x0), x2 = f(x1), …,xn+1 = f(xn), … for n ∈ ℕ.

If we assume that σb (xn, xn+1) = 0 for some n ∈ ℕ, then we have xn+1 = xn that is xn = xn+1 = f(xn), so xn is a fixed point of f and the proof is completed. From now on, we will assume that σb (xn, xn+1) > 0 for all n ∈ ℕ (that is xn+1xn). Using Definition of N(x, y), we have

$N(xn−1,xn)=maxσb(xn−1,xn),σb(xn−1,fxn−1),σb(xn,fxn),σbxn−1,fxn+σbxn,fxn−14s=maxσbxn−1,xn,σbxn−1,xn,σbxn,xn+1,σbxn−1,xn+1+σbxn,xn4s≤maxσb(xn−1,xn),σb(xn−1,xn),σb(xn,xn+1),sσb(xn−1,xn)+σb(xn,xn+1)+2sσb(xn−1,xn)4s.$(30)

If we assume that for some n ∈ ℕ

$σbxn−1,xn≤σbxn,xn+1,$

then from the inequality (30), we get

$Nxn−1,xn≤σb(xn,xn+1).$(31)

By the condition (29), we have

$σbxn,xn+1≤spσb(xn,xn+1)=spσb(fxn−1,fxn)≤Nxn−1,xn−ϕN(xn−1,xn)≤N(xn−1,xn).$(32)

From (31) and (32), we have

$N(xn−1,xn)=σb(xn,xn+1).$(33)

From (29), and using (33), we obtain

$σb(xn,xn+1)≤spσb(xn,xn+1)=spσb(fxn−1,fxn)≤N(xn−1,xn)−ϕN(xn−1,xn)=σb(xn,xn+1)−ϕσb(xn,xn+1).$(34)

The above inequality gives a contradiction, since we have assumed σb (xn, xn+1) > 0.

Hence, for all n ∈ ℕ, σb (xn, xn+1) < σb (xn−1, xn), and the sequence {σb (xn, xn+1)} is decreasing and bounded below. So there exists l ≥ 0 such that σb (xn, xn+1)→ l. Also

$limn→∞σb(xn,xn+1)=limn→∞N(xn−1,xn)=l.$

Since the function ϕ is lower semi continuous, we have

$ϕ(l)≤limn→∞infϕN(xn−1,xn).$

Let us prove that l = 0. If we suppose that l > 0, taking the limit in (34) we have

$l≤l−ϕ(l),$

that is a contradiction since l > 0. Thus l = 0.

Hence

$limn→∞σb(xn,xn+1)=limn→∞N(xn−1,xn)=0.$(35)

Next, we show that $\begin{array}{}\underset{n,m\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim}\end{array}$ σb (xn, xm) = 0. Suppose the contrary, that is, $\begin{array}{}\underset{n,m\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim}\end{array}$ σb (xn, xm) ≠ 0. Then by Lemma 2.10, there exist ε > 0 and sequences {mk} and {nk} of positive integers with nk >mk > k, such that

$σb(xmk,xnk)≥ε,σb(xmk,xnk−1)<ε$

and

$εs2≤lim supk→∞σb(xmk−1,xnk−1)≤εs,εs≤lim supk→∞σb(xnk−1,xmk)≤ε,εs≤lim supk→∞σb(xmk−1,xnk)≤εs2$(36)

From the definition of N(x, y), we have

$N(xmk−1,xnk−1)=maxσb(xmk−1,xnk−1),σb(xmk−1,fxmk−1),σb(xnk−1,fxnk−1),σb(xmk−1,fxnk−1)+σb(xnk−1,fxmk−1)4s=maxσb(xmk−1,xnk−1),σb(xmk−1,xmk),σb(xnk−1,xnk),σb(xmk−1,xnk)+σb(xnk−1,xmk)4s.$(37)

Taking the upper limit as k → ∞ in (37) and using (35) and (36), we get

$limk→∞supN(xmk−1,xnk−1)=limk→∞supmaxσb(xmk−1,xnk−1),σb(xmk−1,xmk),σb(xnk−1,xnk),σb(xmk−1,xnk)+σb(xnk−1,xmk)4s≤maxεs,0,0,εs2+ε4s≤εs.$(38)

Also, as in Lemma 2.10, we can show that

$limk→∞infσb(xmk−1,xnk−1)≥εs2,limk→∞infσb(xmk−1,xnk)≥εs,limk→∞infσb(xnk−1,xmk)≥εs,$

and

$limk→∞infMxmk−1,xnk−1≥ε2s2.$(39)

From the (s, p)-weak contractive condition, we have

$sσb(xmk,xnk)≤spσb(fxmk−1,fxnk−1)≤N(xmk−1,xnk−1)−ϕ(N(xmk−1,xnk−1)).$(40)

Taking the upper limit in (40) and using (38) and (39), we obtain

$εs≤εs−ϕε2s2,$

that is a contradiction since ε > 0. So $\begin{array}{}\underset{n,m\to \mathrm{\infty }}{lim}\end{array}$ σb (xn, xm) = 0, and the sequence {xn} is a Cauchy sequence in the complete b-metric-like space (X, σb). Thus, there is some uX, such that

$limn→∞σb(xn,u)=σb(u,u)=limn,m→∞σb(xn,xm)=0.$

If f is a continuous mapping, similarly as in Theorem 3.5 we get that u is a fixed point of f.

If the self-map f is not continuous then we consider

$N(xn,u)=maxσb(xn,u),σb(xn,fxn),σb(u,fu),σb(xn,fu)+σb(u,fxn)4s=maxσb(xn,u),σb(xn,xn+1),σb(u,fu),σb(xn,fu)+σb(u,xn+1)4s.$(41)

Taking the upper limit in (41) and using Lemma 2.8 and the result (35), we obtain

$limn→∞supN(xn,u)≤max0,0,bd(u,fu),sσb(u,fu)4s=σb(u,fu).$(42)

Now using the (s, p)-weak contractive condition, we have

$spσb(xn+1,fu)=spσb(fxn,fu)≤N(xn,u)−ϕ(N(xn,u)).$(43)

Taking the upper limit in (43), and using Lemma 2.8 and result (42), it follows that

$sp−1σbu,fu=sp⋅1sσbu,fu≤σb(u,fu)−ϕσb(u,fu).$(44)

Hence, since p ≥ 1, the inequality (44) implies σb (u, fu) = 0 and so fu = u.

Let us suppose that u and v, (uv) are two fixed points of f where fu = u and fv = v.

Firstly, since u is a fixed point of f, we have σb (u, u) = 0. From (s, p)-weak contractive condition, we have

$spσbu,u≤sσb(fu,fu)≤N(u,u)−ϕ(N(u,u))≤bd(u,u)−ϕ(σb(u,u)),$(45)

where

$N(u,u)=maxσb(u,u),σb(u,u),σb(u,u),σb(u,u)+σb(u,u)4s=σb(u,u).$

From the inequality (45) it follows that σb (u, u) = 0 (also σb (v, v) = 0).

Also, we have

$spσb(u,v)≤sσb(fu,fv)≤N(u,v)−ϕN(u,v)≤σb(u,v)−ϕσb(u,v),$(46)

where N(u, v) = σb (u, v). The inequality (46) implies σb (u, v) = 0. Therefore u = v and the fixed point is unique. □

The following example illustrates the theorem.

#### Example 3.17

Let X = [0, ∞) and σb (x, y) = x2 + y2 + |xy|2 for all x, yX. It is clear that σb is a b-metric-like on X, with parameter s = 2 and (X, σb) is complete. Also, σb is not a metric-like nor a b-metric (and nor a metric on X). Define the self-mapping f : XX by fx = $\begin{array}{}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(1+x\right)}{4}.\end{array}$ For all x, yX, and the function ϕ(t) = $\begin{array}{}\frac{3}{4}\end{array}$ t and constant p = 2, we have

$s2σb(fx,fy)=4f2x+f2y+fx−fy2=4lnx+142+lny+142+lnx+14−lny+142≤4x216+y216+x4−y42=14x2+y2+x−y2=14σb(x,y)≤14N(x,y)=N(x,y)−34N(x,y)=N(x,y)−ϕ(N(x,y)).$

All of the conditions of Theorem3.16 are satisfied and clearly x = 0 is a unique fixed point of f.

#### Corollary 3.18

Let (X, σb) be a complete b-metric-like space with parameter s ≥ 1 and f : XX be a self-mapping such that for some coefficient p ≥ 2 and for all x, yX it satisfies

$spσb(fx,fy)≤αmaxσb(x,y),σb(x,fx),σb(y,fy),σb(x,fy)+σb(y,fx)4s,$(47)

where α ∈ (0, 1). Then f has a unique fixed point.

#### Proof

In Theorem 3.16, taking ϕ(t) = (1 − α) t for all t ∈ [0, ∞), we get Corollary 3.18. □

#### Remark 3.17

Since a b-metric-like space is a metric-like space when s = 1, so our results can be seen as a generalizations and extensions of several comparable results in metric-like spaces and b-metric spaces.

## 4 Application

In this section we will use Theorem 3.16 to show that there is a solution to the following integral equation:

$x(t)=∫0TL(t,r,x(r))dr$(48)

Let X = C([0, T]) be the set of real continuous functions defined on [0, T] for T > 0.

We endow X with

$σb(x,y)=maxt∈0,1x(t)+y(t)mfor all x,y∈X,$

where m > 1. It is evident that (X, σb) is a complete b-metric-like space with parameter s = 2m−1.

Consider the mapping f : XX given by fx(t) = $\begin{array}{}{\int }_{0}^{T}\end{array}$ L(t, r, x(r))dr.

#### Theorem 4.1

Consider equation (48) and suppose that

1. L : [0, T] × [0, T] × ℝ → ℝ+, (that is L(t, r, x(r)) ≥ 0) is continuous;

2. there exists a continuous γ : [0, T] × [0, T] → ℝ;

3. $\begin{array}{}\underset{t\in \left[0,T\right]}{sup}{\int }_{0}^{T}\end{array}$ γ (t, r) dr ≤ 1;

4. there exists a constant λ ∈ (0, 1) such that for all (t, r) ∈ [0, T]2 and x, yR,

$Lt,r,x(r)+Lt,r,y(r)≤λs31mγ(t,r)x(r)+y(r).$

Then the integral equation (48) has a unique solution xX.

#### Proof

For x, yX, from conditions (3) and (4), for all t, we have

$s2σb(fx(t),fy(t))=s2fx(t)+fy(t)m=s2∫0TL(t,r,x(r))dr+∫0TL(t,r,y(r))drm≤s2∫0TL(t,r,x(r))dr+∫0TLt,r,y(r)drm≤s2∫0Tλs31mγ(t,r)x(r)+y(r)m1mdrm≤s2∫0Tλs31mγ(t,r)σb1mx(r),y(r)drm≤s2⋅λs3σb(x(r),y(r))∫0Tγ(t,r)drm=λsσb(x(r),y(r))∫0Tγ(t,r)drm≤λsσb(x(r),y(r))≤λsN(x,y)=N(x,y)−1−λsN(x,y)=N(x,y)−ϕ(N(x,y)),$

Therefore, taking the coefficient p = 2, and function ϕ (x) = (1 − λ/s.)x, where λ /s. ∈ (0, 1), all of the conditions of Theorem 3.16 are satisfied, and as a result, the mapping f has a unique fixed point in X, which is a solution of the integral equation in (48). □

## 5 Conclusions

Contractive conditions (13) and (29) are much wider than some previously used, and theorems related to these conditions are more general, since parameter s and the coefficient p ≥ 1 are optional. Theorems 3.5 and 3.16 extend and generalize some existing results to a wider domain such as b-metric-like-spaces. Also, the generalized (s, p, α)-contractions and (s, p)-weak contractions unify a large class of existing contractions in the literature. Theoretical results are supported by applications.

## References

• [1]

Bakhtin I. A., The contraction mapping principle in quasi-metric spaces. Funct. Anal. (30), Ulianowsk Gos. Ped. Inst. (1989), 26–37. Google Scholar

• [2]

Czerwik S., Contraction mappings in b-metric spaces. Acta Math. Inform. Univ. Ostrav. (1993), 1, 5–11. Google Scholar

• [3]

Yamaod, O., Sintunavarat, W., Je Cho, Y.: Existence of a common solution for a system of nonlinear integral equations via fixed point methods in b-metric spaces. Open Mathematics, 14(1), pp. 128–145. Retrieved 3 Nov. 2017, from

• [4]

Aydi, H: α-implicit contractive pair of mappings on quasi b-metric spaces and an application to integral equations. Journal of Nonlinear and Convex Analysis, 17 (12), 2417–2433, (2016). Google Scholar

• [5]

Z. Mustafa Z, Roshan J. R, Parvaneh V, Kadelburg Z, Some common fixed point results in ordered b-metric spaces, J. Inequal. Appl, 2013:562, (2013).

• [6]

Sarwar M, Rahman M; Fixed point theorems for Ciric–s and generalized contractions in b-metric spaces, International Journal of Analysis and Applications 7 (1) (2015), 70–78. Google Scholar

• [7]

Pacurar M, Sequences of almost contractions and fixed points in b-metric spaces, An. Univ. Vest Timis., Ser. Mat.- Inform. 48 (3) (2010), 125–137. Google Scholar

• [8]

Radenovic S, Kadelburg Z,: Generalized weak contractions in partially ordered metric spaces, Comput. Math. Appl. 60 (6) (2010), 1776–1783.

• [9]

Roshan J R, Parvaneh V, Altun I, Some coincidence point results in ordered b-metric spaces and applications in a system of integral equations, Appl. Math. Comput. 226 (2014), 725–737.

• [10]

Roshan J R, Parvaneh V, Sedghi S, Shobkolaei N, Shatanawi W, Common fixed points of almost generalized (ψ, ϕ)- contractive mappings in ordered b-metric spaces, Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013 (2013), 159.

• [11]

Nashine H K, Kadelburg Z, Cyclic generalized ϕ-contractions in b-metric spaces and an application to integral equations. Filomat 28:10 (2014), 2047–2057.

• [12]

Amini A. Harandi, Metric-like spaces, partial metric spaces and fixed points, Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012, 204 (2012).

• [13]

Alghmandi M A, Hussain N, Salimi P, Fixed point and coupled fixed point theorems on b-metric-like spaces, Journal of Inequalities and Applications, Vol. 2013, Article 402, 2013.

• [14]

Aydi H, Felhi A, Sahmim S, Common fixed points via implicit contractions on b-metric-like spaces, J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 10 (4) (2017), 1524–1537.

• [15]

Hussain N, Roshan J R, Parvaneh V, Kadelburg Z,: Fixed points of contractive mappings in b-metric-like spaces. The Scientific World Journal, Vol. 2014, Article ID 471827 (2014). Google Scholar

• [16]

Abbas M, Aydi H, Radenović S,: Fixed points of a T-Hardy Rogers contractive mappings in partially ordered partial metric spaces. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences. Vol 2012, Article id 313675 (2014). Google Scholar

• [17]

Chen, J., Huang, X., Li, S.: Fixed point theorems for cyclic contractive mappings via altering distance functions in metriclike spaces. Open Mathematics, 14(1), pp. 857–874. Retrieved 3 Nov. 2017, from .

• [18]

Alsulami, H., Gülyaz, S., Karapinar, E., et al.: An Ulam stability result on quasi-b-metric-like spaces. Open Mathematics, 14(1), pp. 1087-1103. Retrieved 3 Nov. 2017, from doi:10.1515/math-2016-0097

• [19]

Aydi H, Felhi A, Sahmim S, On common fixed points for (α, ψ-contractions and generalized cyclic contractions in b- metric-like spaces and consequences, J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. (9) (2016), 2492–2510. Google Scholar

• [20]

Aydi H, Karapinar E. Fixed Point Results for Generalized αψ-contractions in metric-like spaces and applications, Electronic Journal of Differential Equations, (2015)(133), 1–15. Google Scholar

• [21]

Aydi H, Felhi A, Afshari H,: New Geraghty type contractions on metric-like spaces. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl, 10, (2), 780–788, (2017).

• [22]

Felhi, A, Aydi, H, Zhang, D: Fixed points for α-admissible contractive mappings via simulation functions. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 9, (10) (2016), 5544–5560.

• [23]

Aydi H, Felhi A, Sahmim S, Ćirić-Berinde-fixed point theorems for multi-valued mappings on a complete metric-like spaces. Filomat, 31:12 (2017), 3727–3740.

• [24]

Aydi, H: α-implicit contractive pair of mappings on quasi b-metric spaces and an application to integral equations. Journal of Nonlinear and Convex Analysis, 17 (12), 2417-2433, (2016). Google Scholar

• [25]

Aydi H, Felhi A, Sahmim S,: Common fixed points via implicit contractions on b-metric-like spaces. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 10 (4) (2017), 1524–1537.

• [26]

Karapinar E, Salimi P: Dislocated metric space to metric spaces with some fixed point theorems, Fixed Point Theory and applications (2013) 2013:222

• [27]

Nashine H K, Kadelburg Z,: Existence of solutions of Cantilever Beam Problem via αβ-FG-contractions in b-metric-like spaces, Filomat 31:11 (2017), 3057–3074.

• [28]

Pasicki L,; Dislocated metric and fixed point theorems, Fixed Point Theory and Applications (2015) 2015:82.

• [29]

Zoto K, Kumari P S,: Fixed point theorems for Salpha contractive type mappings in dislocated and b-dislocated metric space. Thai Journal of Mathematics (to appear). Google Scholar

• [30]

Ćirić Lj B,: A generalization of Banach’s contraction principle, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 45, 267–273, (1974). Google Scholar

• [31]

Hardy G E, Rogers T D,: A Generalization of a fixed point theorem of Reich, Canad. Math. Bull. 16, 201–206, (1973).

• [32]

Khan M S, Swaleh M, Sessa S,: Fixed points theorems by altering distances between the points, Bul. Austral. Math. Soc. 30 (1984) 1–9.

• [33]

Rhoades B E,: Some theorems on weakly contractive maps. Nonlinear Anal. 47 (4) (2001), 2683–93.

Accepted: 2018-01-31

Published Online: 2018-03-20

Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions: All authors contributed equally to the writing of this paper. All authors read and approved the final version of manuscript.

Citation Information: Open Mathematics, Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages 235–249, ISSN (Online) 2391-5455,

Export Citation

## Citing Articles

[2]
Hasanen A. Hammad and Manuel De la Sen
Symmetry, 2019, Volume 11, Number 5, Page 667
[3]
Stojan Radenović, Kastriot Zoto, Nebojša Dedović, Vesna Šešum-Cavic, and Arslan Hojat Ansari
Applied Mathematics and Computation, 2019, Volume 357, Page 75
[4]
Haitham Qawaqneh, Mohd Noorani, Wasfi Shatanawi, and Habes Alsamir
Axioms, 2018, Volume 7, Number 4, Page 74
[5]
Kastriot Zoto and Ilir Vardhami
Journal of Function Spaces, 2018, Volume 2018, Page 1