1 Introduction and preliminaries

Recently, Samet et al. [1] introduced the notions of α-ψ-contractive and α-admissible self-mappings and proved some fixed-point results for such mappings in complete metric spaces. Karapınar and Samet [2] generalized these notions and obtained some fixed-point results. Asl et al. [3] extended these notions to multifunctions by introducing the notions of α -ψ-contractive and α -admissible mappings and proved some fixed-point results. Some results in this direction are also given in [46]. Ali and Kamran [7] further generalized the notion of α -ψ-contractive mappings and obtained some fixed-point theorems for multivalued mappings. Salimi et al. [8] modified the notions of α-ψ-contractive and α-admissible self-mappings by introducing another function η and established some fixed-point theorems for such mappings in complete metric spaces. N. Hussain et al. [9] extended these modified notions to multivalued mappings. Recently, Mohammadi and Rezapour [10] showed that the results obtained by Salimi et al. [8] follow from corresponding results for α-ψ-contractive mappings. More recently, Berzig and Karapinar [11] proved that the first main result of Salimi et al. [8] follows from a result of Karapınar and Samet [2]. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the notion of (α,ψ,ξ)-contractive multivalued mappings to generalize and extend the notion of α-ψ-contractive mappings to closed valued multifunctions and to provide fixed-point theorems for (α,ψ,ξ)-contractive multivalued mappings in complete metric spaces.

We recollect the following definitions, for the sake of completeness. Let (X,d) be a metric space. We denote by CB(X) the class of all nonempty closed and bounded subsets of X and by CL(X) the class of all nonempty closed subsets of X. For every A,BCL(X), let

H(A,B)={ max { sup x A d ( x , B ) , sup y B d ( y , A ) } , if the maximum exists ; , otherwise .

Such a map H is called the generalized Hausdorff metric induced by the metric d. Let Ψ be a set of nondecreasing functions, ψ:[0,)[0,) such that n = 1 ψ n (t)< for each t>0, where ψ n is the n th iterate of ψ. It is known that for each ψΨ, we have ψ(t)<t for all t>0 and ψ(0)=0 for t=0. More details as regards such a function can be found in e.g. [1, 2].

Definition 1.1 [3]

Let (X,d) be a metric space and α:X×X[0,) be a mapping. A mapping G:XCL(X) is α -admissible if

α(x,y)1 α (Gx,Gy)1,

where α (Gx,Gy)=inf{α(a,b):aGx,bGy}.

2 Main results

We begin this section by considering a family Ξ of functions ξ:[0,)[0,) satisfying the following conditions:

  1. (i)

    ξ is continuous;

  2. (ii)

    ξ is nondecreasing on [0,);

  3. (iii)

    ξ(0)=0 and ξ(t)>0 for all t(0,);

  4. (iv)

    ξ is subadditive.

Example 2.1 Suppose that ϕ:[0,)[0,) is a Lebesgue integrable mapping which is summable on each compact subset of [0,), for each ϵ>0, 0 ϵ ϕ(t)dt>0, and for each a,b>0, we have

0 a + b ϕ(t)dt 0 a ϕ(t)dt+ 0 b ϕ(t)dt.

Define ξ:[0,)[0,) by ξ(t)= 0 t ϕ(w)dw for each t[0,). Then ξΞ.

Lemma 2.2 Let (X,d) is a metric space and let ξΞ. Then (X,ξd) is a metric space.

Lemma 2.3 Let (X,d) be a metric space, let ξΞ and let BCL(X). Assume that there exists xX such that ξ(d(x,B))>0. Then there exists yB such that

ξ ( d ( x , y ) ) <qξ ( d ( x , B ) ) ,

where q>1.

Proof By hypothesis we have ξ(d(x,B))>0. We choose

ϵ=(q1)ξ ( d ( x , B ) ) .

By the definition of an infimum, since ξd is a metric space, it follows that there exists yB such that

ξ ( d ( x , y ) ) <ξ ( d ( x , B ) ) +ϵ=qξ ( d ( x , B ) ) .

 □

Definition 2.4 Let (X,d) be a metric space. A mapping G:XCL(X) is called (α,ψ,ξ)-contractive if there exist three functions ψΨ, ξΞ and α:X×X[0,) such that

x,yX,α(x,y)1ξ ( H ( G x , G y ) ) ψ ( ξ ( M ( x , y ) ) ) ,
(2.1)

where M(x,y)=max{d(x,y),d(x,Gx),d(y,Gy), d ( x , G y ) + d ( y , G x ) 2 }.

In case when ψΨ is strictly increasing, the (α,ψ,ξ)-contractive mapping is called a strictly (α,ψ,ξ)-contractive mapping.

Theorem 2.5 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let G:XCL(X) be a strictly (α,ψ,ξ)-contractive mapping satisfying the following assumptions:

  1. (i)

    G is an α -admissible mapping;

  2. (ii)

    there exist x 0 X and x 1 G x 0 such that α( x 0 , x 1 )1;

  3. (iii)

    G is continuous.

Then G has a fixed point.

Proof By hypothesis, there exist x 0 X and x 1 G x 0 such that α( x 0 , x 1 )1. If x 0 = x 1 , then we have nothing to prove. Let x 0 x 1 . If x 1 G x 1 , then x 1 is a fixed point. Let x 1 G x 1 . Then from equation (2.1), we have

0 < ξ ( H ( G x 0 , G x 1 ) ) ψ ( ξ ( max { d ( x 0 , x 1 ) , d ( x 0 , G x 0 ) , d ( x 1 , G x 1 ) , d ( x 0 , G x 1 ) + d ( x 1 , G x 0 ) 2 } ) ) = ψ ( ξ ( max { d ( x 0 , x 1 ) , d ( x 1 , G x 1 ) } ) ) ,
(2.2)

since d ( x 0 , G x 1 ) 2 max{d( x 0 , x 1 ),d( x 1 ,G x 1 )}. Assume that max{d( x 0 , x 1 ),d( x 1 ,G x 1 )}=d( x 1 ,G x 1 ). Then from equation (2.2), we have

0 < ξ ( d ( x 1 , G x 1 ) ) ξ ( H ( G x 0 , G x 1 ) ) ψ ( ξ ( max { d ( x 0 , x 1 ) , d ( x 1 , G x 1 ) } ) ) = ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 1 , G x 1 ) ) ) ,
(2.3)

which is a contradiction. Hence, max{d( x 0 , x 1 ),d( x 1 ,G x 1 )}=d( x 0 , x 1 ). Then from equation (2.2), we have

0<ξ ( d ( x 1 , G x 1 ) ) ξ ( H ( G x 0 , G x 1 ) ) ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) ) .
(2.4)

For q>1 by Lemma 2.3, there exists x 2 G x 1 such that

0<ξ ( d ( x 1 , x 2 ) ) <qξ ( d ( x 1 , G x 1 ) ) .
(2.5)

From equations (2.4) and (2.5), we have

0<ξ ( d ( x 1 , x 2 ) ) <qψ ( ξ ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) ) .
(2.6)

Applying ψ in equation (2.6), we have

0<ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 1 , x 2 ) ) ) <ψ ( q ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) ) ) .
(2.7)

Put q 1 = ψ ( q ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) ) ) ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 1 , x 2 ) ) ) . Then q 1 >1. Since G is an α -admissible mapping, then α (G x 0 ,G x 1 )1. Thus we have α( x 1 , x 2 ) α (G x 0 ,G x 1 )1. If x 2 G x 2 , then x 2 is a fixed point. Let x 2 G x 2 . Then from equation (2.1), we have

0 < ξ ( H ( G x 1 , G x 2 ) ) ψ ( ξ ( max { d ( x 1 , x 2 ) , d ( x 1 , G x 1 ) , d ( x 2 , G x 2 ) , d ( x 1 , G x 2 ) + d ( x 2 , G x 1 ) 2 } ) ) = ψ ( ξ ( max { d ( x 1 , x 2 ) , d ( x 2 , G x 2 ) } ) ) ,
(2.8)

since d ( x 1 , G x 2 ) 2 max{d( x 1 , x 2 ),d( x 2 ,G x 2 )}. Assume that max{d( x 1 , x 2 ),d( x 2 ,G x 2 )}=d( x 2 ,G x 2 ). Then from equation (2.8), we have

0 < ξ ( d ( x 2 , G x 2 ) ) ξ ( H ( G x 1 , G x 2 ) ) ψ ( ξ ( max { d ( x 1 , x 2 ) , d ( x 2 , G x 2 ) } ) ) = ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 2 , G x 2 ) ) ) ,
(2.9)

which is a contradiction. Hence, max{d( x 1 , x 2 ),d( x 2 ,G x 2 )}=d( x 1 , x 2 ). Then from equation (2.8), we have

0<ξ ( d ( x 2 , G x 2 ) ) ξ ( H ( G x 1 , G x 2 ) ) ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 1 , x 2 ) ) ) .
(2.10)

For q 1 >1 by Lemma 2.3, there exists x 3 G x 2 such that

0<ξ ( d ( x 2 , x 3 ) ) < q 1 ξ ( d ( x 2 , G x 2 ) ) .
(2.11)

From equations (2.10) and (2.11), we have

0<ξ ( d ( x 2 , x 3 ) ) < q 1 ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 1 , x 2 ) ) ) =ψ ( q ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) ) ) .
(2.12)

Applying ψ in equation (2.12), we have

0<ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 2 , x 3 ) ) ) < ψ 2 ( q ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) ) ) .
(2.13)

Put q 2 = ψ 2 ( q ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) ) ) ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 2 , x 3 ) ) ) . Then q 2 >1. Since G is an α -admissible mapping, then α (G x 1 ,G x 2 )1. Thus we have α( x 2 , x 3 ) α (G x 1 ,G x 2 )1. If x 3 G x 3 , then x 3 is a fixed point. Let x 3 G x 3 . Then from equation (2.1), we have

0 < ξ ( H ( G x 2 , G x 3 ) ) ψ ( ξ ( max { d ( x 2 , x 3 ) , d ( x 2 , G x 2 ) , d ( x 3 , G x 3 ) , d ( x 2 , G x 3 ) + d ( x 3 , G x 2 ) 2 } ) ) = ψ ( ξ ( max { d ( x 2 , x 3 ) , d ( x 3 , G x 3 ) } ) ) ,
(2.14)

since d ( x 2 , G x 3 ) 2 max{d( x 2 , x 3 ),d( x 3 ,G x 3 )}. Assume that max{d( x 2 , x 3 ),d( x 3 ,G x 3 )}=d( x 3 ,G x 3 ). Then from equation (2.14), we have

0 < ξ ( d ( x 3 , G x 3 ) ) ξ ( H ( G x 2 , G x 3 ) ) ψ ( ξ ( max { d ( x 2 , x 3 ) , d ( x 3 , G x 3 ) } ) ) = ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 3 , G x 3 ) ) ) ,
(2.15)

which is a contradiction to our assumption. Hence, max{d( x 2 , x 3 ),d( x 3 ,G x 3 )}=d( x 2 , x 3 ). Then from equation (2.14), we have

0<ξ ( d ( x 3 , G x 3 ) ) ξ ( H ( G x 2 , G x 3 ) ) ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 2 , x 3 ) ) ) .
(2.16)

For q 2 >1 by Lemma 2.3, there exists x 4 G x 3 such that

0<ξ ( d ( x 3 , x 4 ) ) < q 2 ξ ( d ( x 3 , G x 3 ) ) .
(2.17)

From equations (2.16) and (2.17), we have

0<ξ ( d ( x 3 , x 4 ) ) < q 2 ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 2 , x 3 ) ) ) = ψ 2 ( q ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) ) ) .
(2.18)

Continuing the same process, we get a sequence { x n } in X such that x n + 1 G x n , x n + 1 x n , α( x n , x n + 1 )1, and

ξ ( d ( x n + 1 , x n + 2 ) ) < ψ n ( q ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) ) ) for each nN{0}.
(2.19)

Let m>n, we have

ξ ( d ( x m , x n ) ) i = n m 1 ξ ( d ( x i , x i + 1 ) ) < i = n m 1 ψ i 1 ( q ψ ( ξ ( d ( x 0 , x 1 ) ) ) ) .

Since ψΨ, we have

lim n , m ξ ( d ( x m , x n ) ) =0.
(2.20)

This implies that

lim n , m d( x m , x n )=0.
(2.21)

Hence { x n } is a Cauchy sequence in (X,d). By completeness of (X,d), there exists x X such that x n x as n. Since G is continuous, we have

d ( x , G x ) = lim n d ( x n + 1 , G x ) lim n H ( G x n , G x ) =0.

Thus x =G x . □

Theorem 2.6 Let (X,d) be a complete metric space and let G:XCL(X) be a strictly (α,ψ,ξ)-contractive mapping satisfying the following assumptions:

  1. (i)

    G is an α -admissible mapping;

  2. (ii)

    there exist x 0 X and x 1 G x 0 such that α( x 0 , x 1 )1;

  3. (iii)

    if { x n } is a sequence in X with x n x as n and α( x n , x n + 1 )1 for each nN{0}, then we have α( x n ,x)1 for each nN{0}.

Then G has a fixed point.

Proof Following the proof of Theorem 2.5, we know that { x n } is a Cauchy sequence in X with x n x as n and α( x n , x n + 1 )1 for each nN{0}. By hypothesis (iii), we have α( x n , x )1 for each nN{0}. Then from equation (2.1), we have

ξ ( H ( G x n , G x ) ) ψ ( ξ ( max { d ( x n , x ) , d ( x n , G x n ) , d ( x , G x ) , d ( x n , G x ) + d ( x , G x n ) 2 } ) ) .
(2.22)

Suppose that d( x ,G x )0.

We let x n x . Taking ϵ= d ( x , G x ) 2 we can find N 1 N such that

d ( x , x m ) < d ( x , G x ) 2 for each m N 1 .
(2.23)

Moreover, as { x n } is a Cauchy sequence, there exists N 2 N such that

d( x m ,G x m )d( x m , x m + 1 )< d ( x , G x ) 2 for each m N 2 .
(2.24)

Furthermore,

d ( x , G x m ) d ( x , x m + 1 ) < d ( x , G x ) 2 for each m N 1 .
(2.25)

As d( x m ,G x )d( x ,G x ). Taking ϵ= d ( x , G x ) 2 we can find N 3 N such that

d ( x m , G x ) < 3 d ( x , G x ) 2 for each m N 3 .
(2.26)

It follows from equations (2.23), (2.24), (2.25), and (2.26) that

max { d ( x m , x ) , d ( x m , G x m ) , d ( x , G x ) , d ( x m , G x ) + d ( x , G x m ) 2 } = d ( x , G x ) ,

for mN=max{ N 1 , N 2 , N 3 }. Moreover, for mN, by the triangle inequality, we have

ξ ( d ( x , G x ) ) ξ ( d ( x , x m + 1 ) ) + ξ ( H ( G x m , G x ) ) ξ ( d ( x , x m + 1 ) ) + ψ ( ξ ( max { d ( x m , x ) , d ( x m , G x m ) , d ( x , G x ) , d ( x m , G x ) + d ( x , G x m ) 2 } ) ) = ξ ( d ( x , x m + 1 ) ) + ψ ( ξ ( d ( x , G x ) ) ) .
(2.27)

Letting m in the above inequality, we have

ξ ( d ( x , G x ) ) ψ ( ξ ( d ( x , G x ) ) ) .
(2.28)

This is not possible if ξ(d( x ,G x ))>0. Therefore, we have ξ(d( x ,G x ))=0, which implies that d( x ,G x )=0, i.e., x =G x . □

Example 2.7 Let X=R be endowed with the usual metric d. Define G:XCL(X) by

Gx={ ( , 0 ] if  x < 0 , { 0 , x 4 } if  0 x < 2 , { 0 } if  x = 2 , [ x 2 , ) if  x > 2

and α:X×X[0,) by

α(x,y)={ 1 if  x , y [ 0 , 2 ] , 1 2 otherwise .

Take ψ(t)= t 2 and ξ(t)= t for each t0. Then G is an (α,ψ,ξ)-contractive mapping. For x 0 =1 and 0G x 0 we have α(1,0)=1. Also, for each x,yX with α(x,y)=1, we have α (Gx,Gy)=1. Moreover, for any sequence { x n } in X with x n x as n and α( x n , x n + 1 )=1 for each nN{0}, we have α( x n ,x)=1 for each nN{0}. Therefore, all conditions of Theorem 2.6 are satisfied and G has infinitely many fixed points. Note that Nadler’s fixed-point theorem is not applicable here; see, for example, x=1.5 and y=2.

3 Consequences

It can be seen, by restricting G:XX and taking ξ(t)=t for each t0 in Theorems 2.5 and 2.6, that:

  • Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.2 of Samet et al.[1] are special cases of Theorem 2.5 and Theorem 2.6, respectively;

  • Theorem 2.3 of Asl et al.[3] is a special case of Theorem 2.6;

  • Theorem 2.1 of Amiri et al.[5] is a special case of Theorem 2.5;

  • Theorem 2.1 of Salimi et al.[8] is a special case of Theorems 2.5 and 2.6.

Further, it can be seen, by considering G:XCB(X) and ξ(t)=t for each t0, that

  • Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 3.4 of Mohammadi et al.[4] are special cases of our results;

  • Theorem 2.2 of Amiri et al.[5] is a special case of Theorem 2.6, when ψΨ is sublinear.

Remark 3.1 Observe that, in case G:XX, ψ may be a nondecreasing function in Theorem 2.5 and Theorem 2.6.

Remark 3.2 Note that in Example 2.7, ξ(t)= t . Therefore, one may not apply the aforementioned results and, as a consequence, conclude that G has a fixed point.