Abstract
In this paper, we indicate a way to generalize a series of fixed point results in the framework of b-metric spaces and we exemplify it by extending Nadler’s contraction principle for set-valued functions (see Nadler, Pac J Math 30:475–488, 1969) and a fixed point theorem for set-valued quasi-contraction functions due to Aydi et al. (see Fixed Point Theory Appl 2012:88, 2012).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
In the last decades one can observe a remarkable amount of interest for the development of fixed point theory, since it has a huge number of applications.
Among the generalizations of the Banach–Caccioppoli–Picard principle—one of the central results of the above-mentioned theory, known also as the contraction principle—a central role is played by the following two:
-
the one due to Nadler [22] who extended the contraction principle to set-valued functions and generated in this way many applications in control theory, convex optimization, etc. (see [17, 31,32,33,34] and the references therein);
-
the one due to Bakhtin [5] and Czerwik [13, 14] who, motivated by the problem of the convergence of measurable functions with respect to measure, introduced b-metric spaces (a generalization of metric spaces) and proved the contraction principle in this framework. In the last period many mathematicians obtained fixed point results for single-valued or set-valued functions, in the setting of b-metric spaces (see, for example, [1, 8,9,10, 18, 24, 25, 30, 32, 35] and the references therein).
In this paper, we indicate a way (see Lemma 2.2) to generalize a series of fixed point results in the framework of b-metric spaces and we exemplify it by extending Nadler’s contraction principle for set-valued functions (see [22]) and a fixed point theorem for set-valued quasi-contraction functions due to Aydi et al. (see [4]).
2 Preliminary results
In this section, we sum up some basic facts that we are going to use later.
Definition 2.1
Given a non-empty set X and a real number \(s\in [1,\infty )\) , a function \(d:X\times X\rightarrow [0,\infty )\) is called b-metric if it satisfies the following properties:
-
(i)
\(d(x,y)=0\) if and only if \(x=y\) ;
-
(ii)
\(d(x,y)=d(y,x)\) for all \(x,y\in X\) ;
-
(iii)
\(d(x,y)\le s(d(x,z)+d(z,y))\) for all \(x,y,z\in X\).
The pair (X, d) is called b-metric space of constant s.
Remark 2.1
As when \(s=1\), a b-metric space is a metric space, we infer that the family of b-metric spaces is larger than the one of metric spaces. In other words, every metric space is a b-metric space. Note that Czerwik proved that the converse need not be true (see also [4, 12, 19, 23, 28]), so the family of b-metric spaces is effectively larger than the one of metric spaces.
Definition 2.2
A sequence \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) of elements from a b-metric space (X, d) is called:
-
convergent if there exists \(l\in X\) such that \( {\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty }d(x_{n},l)=0\);
-
Cauchy if \({\lim }_{m,n\rightarrow \infty } d(x_{m},x_{n})=0\), i.e. for every \(\varepsilon >0\) there exists \(n_{\varepsilon }\in \mathbb {N}\) such that \( d(x_{m},x_{n})<\varepsilon \) for all \(m,n\in \mathbb {N}\), \(m,n\ge n_{\varepsilon }\).
The b-metric space (X, d) is called complete if every Cauchy sequence of elements from (X, d) is convergent.
Beside the classical spaces \(l^{p}(\mathbb {R})\) and \(L^{p}[0,1]\), where \( p\in (0,1)\), one can find examples of b-metric spaces in [4, 6, 10, 13, 14].
Remark 2.2
As in the case of metric spaces, a b-metric space can be endowed with the topology induced by its convergence and almost all the concepts and results which are valid for metric spaces can be extended to the framework of b-metric spaces.
An et al. [3] proved that every b-metric space is a semi-metrizable space (i.e. there exists a function \( d:X\times X\rightarrow [0,\infty )\) such that: (i) \(d(x,y)=0\) if and only if \(x=y\); (ii) \(d(x,y)=d(y,x)\) for all \(x,y\in X\) ; (iii) \(x\in \overline{A}\) if and only if \( d(x,A)=\inf \{d(x,y)\mid y\in A\}=0\) for every \(x\in X\) and every \(A\subseteq X\)). Consequently, many properties of b-metric spaces are obvious. In addition, they provided a sufficient condition for a b-metric space to be metrizable and gave an example showing that, in the framework of a b-metric space (X, d) , there exists an open ball (i.e. a set of the form \(\{y\in X\mid d(x,y)<r\}\), where \(r>0\)) which is not open.
In a metric space (X, d), the function d is continuous (i.e.\({\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty } d(x_{n},y_{n})=d(x,y)\) for all sequences \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N} } \) and \((y_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) of elements from X and \(x,y\in X\) such that \({\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty }x_{n}=x\) and \({\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty } y_{n}=y \)).The fact that this property is not valid for b-metric spaces of constant s (as \(\frac{1}{s^{2}}d(x,y)\le {\underline{\lim }}_{n\rightarrow \infty }d(x_{n},y_{n})\le {\overline{\lim }}_{n\rightarrow \infty }d(x_{n},y_{n})\le s^{2}d(x,y)\) and \(\frac{1}{s}d(x,y)\le {\underline{\lim }}_{n\rightarrow \infty }d(x_{n},y)\le { \overline{\lim }}_{n\rightarrow \infty }d(x_{n},y)\le sd(x,y)\), see [21, 23, 26]) is a motivation of our Definition 3.2.
In the sequel, given a b-metric space (X, d):
-
by \(\mathcal {B}(X)\) we denote the set of non-empty bounded closed subsets of X
-
for \(A,B\in \mathcal {B}(X)\), we define the Hausdorff–Pompeiu distance between A and B by \(h(A,B)=\max \{{\sup }_{a\in A}d(a,B), {\sup }_{b\in B}d(b,A)\}\), where \(d(x,C)={\inf }_{c\in C} d(x,c)\) for every \(x\in X\) and every \(C\in \mathcal {B}(X)\)
-
given \(T:X\rightarrow \mathcal {B}(X)\), for \(c,d\in [0,1]\) and \( x,y\in X\), we shall use the following notation:
$$\begin{aligned} N_{c,d}(x,y)=\max \{d(x,y),cd(x,T(x)),cd(y,T(y)),\frac{d}{2} (d(x,T(y))+d(y,T(x)))\} \end{aligned}$$ -
for a sequence \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\), of elements from X, sometimes, for the sake of brevity, we shall use the notation: \( d_{n}=d(x_{n},x_{n+1})\), where \(n\in \mathbb {N}\).
Lemma 2.1
For every sequence \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N} }\) of elements from a b-metric space (X, d) of constant s, the inequality
is valid for every \(n\in \mathbb { \mathbb {N} }\) and every \(k\in \{1,2,3,...,2^{n}-1,2^{n}\}\).
Proof
We are going to use the method of mathematical induction. Denoting by P(n) the statement: \(d(x_{0},x_{k})\le s^{n}{\sum \nolimits }_{i=0} ^{k-1}d(x_{i},x_{i+1})\) for every \(x_{0},x_{1},...,x_{2^{n}} \in X\) and every \(k\in \{1,2,3,...,2^{n}-1,2^{n}\}\), as the statements P(0) and P(1) are obvious, it remains to prove that \(P(n)\Rightarrow P(n+1)\).
Indeed, the above-mentioned implication is true since, on the one hand, for every \(k\in \{1,2,3,...,2^{n}-1,2^{n}\}\), using P(n), we have
On the other hand, for every \(k\in \{2^{n}+1,2^{n}+2,...,2^{n+1}-1,2^{n+1}\}\), using again P(n), we have
\(\square \)
Lemma 2.2
Every sequence \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N} }\) of elements from a b-metric space (X, d) of constant s, having the property that there exists \(\gamma \in [0,1)\) such that
for every \(n\in \mathbb { \mathbb {N} }\), is Cauchy.
Proof
First let us note that
for every \(n\in \mathbb { \mathbb {N} }\).
For all \(m,k\in \mathbb { \mathbb {N} }\), with the notation \(p=[\log _{2}k]\), we have
Using Lemma 2.1 and (1), we obtain
Let us note that since \({\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty }(2n\log _{\gamma }s+2^{n-1}-n)=\infty \), for a fixed \(M > 0\), there exists \(n_{0}\in \mathbb {N}\) such that \(2n\log _{\gamma }s+2^{n-1}-n\ge M\), i.e. \(\gamma ^{2n\log _{\gamma }s+2^{n-1}}\le \gamma ^{M}\gamma ^{n}\) for each \(n\in \mathbb {N}\), \(n\ge n_{0}\), hence the series \({{\sum \nolimits }_{n=1}^{\infty }}\gamma ^{2n\log _{\gamma }s+2^{n-1}}\) is convergent and denoting by S its sum, we come to the conclusion that
for all \(m,k\in \mathbb { \mathbb {N} }\). Consequently, as \({\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty }\gamma ^{n}=0\), we infer that \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N} }\) is Cauchy. \(\square \)
Theorem 2.1
Let (X, d) be a b-metric space of constant s and \(T:X\rightarrow \mathcal {B}(X)\) having the property that there exist \(c,d\in [0,1]\) and \( \alpha \in [0,1)\) such that:
-
(i)
\(\alpha {d}s<1\);
-
(ii)
\(h(T(x),T(y))\le \alpha N_{c,d}(x,y)\) for all \( x,y\in X\).
Then, for every \(x_{0}\in X\), there exist \(\gamma \in [0,1)\) and a sequence \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) of elements from X such that:
-
(a)
\(x_{n+1}\in T(x_{n})\) for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\);
-
(b)
\(d(x_{n+1},x_{n})\le \gamma d(x_{n},x_{n-1})\) for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\);
-
(c)
\((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) is Cauchy.
Proof
Let us consider \(\beta \in (\alpha ,\min (1,\frac{1}{{d}s}))\), \(\gamma =\max \{\beta ,\frac{{d}s\beta }{2-{d}s\beta }\}<1\), \(x_{0}\in X\) and \( x_{1}\in T(x_{0})\).
If \(x_{1}=x_{0}\), then the sequence \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) given by \( x_{n}=x_{0}\) for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\) satisfies (a), (b) and (c).
Since, based on (ii), we have
there exists \(x_{2}\in T(x_{1})\) such that \(d(x_{1},x_{2})<\beta N_{c,d}(x_{0},x_{1})\).
If \(x_{2}=x_{1}\), then the sequence \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) given by \( x_{n}=x_{1}\) for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\), \(n\ge 1\), satisfies (a), (b) and (c).
By repeating this procedure, we obtain a sequence \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) of elements from X such that \(x_{n+1}\in T(x_{n})\) and \(0<d_{n}<\beta N_{c,d}(x_{n-1},x_{n})\) for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\), \(n\ge 1\).
Because \(d(x_{n-1},T(x_{n-1}))\le d_{n-1}\), \(d(x_{n},T(x_{n}))\le d_{n}\), \( d(x_{n-1},T(x_{n}))\le d(x_{n-1},x_{n+1})\) and \(d(x_{n},T(x_{n-1}))=0\), we have
for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\), where the justification of the last inequality is the following: if, by reduction ad absurdum, \(\max \{d_{n-1},cd_{n},cd_{n-1},\frac{ds}{2}(d_{n-1}+d_{n})\}=cd_{n}\), then we get that \(0<d_{n}<\beta cd_{n}\le \beta d_{n}\), so we obtain the contradiction \( 1<\beta \).
Consequently, \(d_{n}<\beta d_{n-1}\) or \(d_{n}<\beta \frac{ds}{2} (d_{n-1}+d_{n})\), i.e. \(d_{n}<\beta d_{n-1}\) or \(d_{n}<\frac{ds\beta }{ 2-ds\beta }d_{n-1}\) for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\). Thus \(d_{n}\le \max \{\beta ,\frac{ds\beta }{2-ds\beta }\}d_{n-1}\), i.e. \( d(x_{n+1},x_{n})\le \gamma d(x_{n},x_{n-1})\) for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\).
Hence the sequence \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) satisfies (a) and (b). From Lemma 2.2 we deduce that it also satisfies (c). \(\square \)
3 Main results
In this section, making use of Theorem 2.1, we present three fixed point theorems for set-valued functions.
Definition 3.1
A function \(T:X\rightarrow \mathcal {B}(X)\) , where (X, d) is a b-metric space, is called closed if for all sequences \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) and \( (y_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) of elements from X and \( x,y\in X\) such that \({\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty }x_{n}=x\), \({\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty }y_{n}=y\) and \( y_{n}\in T(x_{n})\) for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\), we have \( y\in T(x)\).
Theorem 3.1
A function \(T:X\rightarrow \mathcal {B}(X)\), where (X, d) is a complete b-metric space of constant s, has a fixed point, provided that it satisfies the following three conditions:
-
(i)
T is closed;
-
(ii)
there exist \(c,d\in [0,1]\) and \(\alpha \in [0,1)\) such that \(h(T(x),T(y))\le \alpha N_{c,d}(x,y)\) for all \(x,y\in X\);
-
(iii)
\(\alpha ds<1\).
Proof
Taking into account (ii) and (iii), by virtue of Theorem 2.1, there exists a Cauchy sequence \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) of elements of X such that
for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\).
As the b-metric space (X, d) is complete, there exists \(u\in X\) such that \({\lim \nolimits }_{n\rightarrow \infty }x_{n}=u\) (so \({\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty }x_{n+1}=u\)). We combine (i) with (2) to see that \(u\in T(u)\) , i.e. u is a fixed point of T. \(\square \)
Definition 3.2
Given a b-metric space (X, d), the b-metric d is called \(*\)- continuous if for every \(A\in \mathcal {B}(X)\), every \(x\in X\) and every sequence \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) of elements from X such that \({\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty } x_{n}=x \), we have \({\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty } d(x_{n},A)=d(x,A)\).
Our notion of \(*\)-continuity of d is stronger than the continuity of d in the first variable.
Theorem 3.2
A function \(T:X\rightarrow \mathcal {B}(X)\) , where (X, d) is a complete b-metric space of constant s, has a fixed point, provided that it satisfies the following three conditions:
-
(i)
d is \(*\)-continuous;
-
(ii)
there exist \(c,d\in [0,1]\) and \(\alpha \in [0,1)\) such that \(h(T(x),T(y))\le \alpha N_{c,d}(x,y)\) for all \(x,y\in X\);
-
(iii)
\(\alpha ds<1\).
Proof
Based on (ii) and (iii), according to Theorem 2.1, there exists a Cauchy sequence \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) of elements of X such that
for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\).
As the b-metric space (X, d) is complete, there exists \(u\in X\) such that \({\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty }x_{n}=u\).
Then, using (ii) and (3), with the notation \(d(x_{n},u)=\delta _{n}\), we have
for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\).
Since \({\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty }\delta _{n}={\lim }_{ n\rightarrow \infty }d_{n}=0\) and \({ \lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty }d(x_{n+1},T(u))=d(u,T(u))\) (as d is \(*\)-continuous and \( {\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty }x_{n+1}=u\)), upon passing to limit, as \( n\rightarrow \infty \), in (4), we get
As \(\max \{\alpha c,\frac{\alpha ds}{2}\}<1\) (see (iii)), from (5), we conclude that \(d(u,T(u))=0\), i.e. \(u\in T(u)\). Hence T has a fixed point. \(\square \)
Theorem 3.3
A function \(T:X\rightarrow \mathcal {B}(X)\) , where (X, d) is a complete b-metric space of constant s, has a fixed point, provided that it satisfies the following two conditions:
-
(i)
there exist \(c,d\in [0,1]\) and \(\alpha \in [0,1)\) such that \(h(T(x),T(y))\le \alpha N_{c,d}(x,y)\) for all \(x,y\in X\);
-
(ii)
\(\max \{\alpha cs,\alpha ds\}<1\).
Proof
Making use of (i) and (ii), according to Theorem 2.1, there exists a Cauchy sequence \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) of elements from X such that \(x_{n+1}\in T(x_{n})\), for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\). As the b-metric space (X, d) is complete, there exists \(u\in X\) such that \( {\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty }x_{n}=u\).
First let us note that, as we have seen in (4), we have
for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\).
We divide the discussion into two cases:
A. \(d(u,T(u))\le \overline{{\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty }} d(x_{n},T(u))\);
and
B. \(d(u,T(u))>\overline{{\lim }_{n\rightarrow \infty }} d(x_{n},T(u))\).
In case A, there exists a subsequence \((x_{n_{k}})_{k\in \mathbb {N}}\) of \( (x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) having the property that \({\lim \nolimits }_{k\rightarrow \infty }d(x_{n_{k}+1},T(u))\ge d(u,T(u))\), so for every \(\varepsilon >0\) there exists \(k_{\varepsilon }\in \mathbb {N}\) such that \( d(u,T(u))-\varepsilon \le d(x_{n_{k}+1},T(u))\), for every \(k\in \mathbb {N}\) , \(k\ge k_{\varepsilon }\). Hence, taking into account (6), we get
for every \(k\in \mathbb {N}\), \(k\ge k_{\varepsilon }\). By passing to limit as \(k\rightarrow \infty \) in the above inequality, we get that
for every \(\varepsilon >0\), so
Since \(\max \{\alpha c,\frac{\alpha sd}{2}\}<1\), from the above inequality, we conclude that \(d(u,T(u))=0\), i.e. \(u\in T(u)\), so T has a fixed point.
In case B, there exists \(n_{0}\in \mathbb {N}\) such that
for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\), \(n\ge n_{0}\). Since \(d(u,T(u))\le s(\delta _{n+1}+d(x_{n+1},T(u)))\), i.e. \(\frac{d(u,T(u))}{s}-\delta _{n+1}\le d(x_{n+1},T(u))\), using (6) and (7), we get that
for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\), \(n\ge n_{0}\). By passing to limit as \( n\rightarrow \infty \) in the above inequality, we obtain that
As \(\alpha s\max \{c,\frac{d}{2}\}<1\) (see (ii)), we infer that \(d(u,T(u))=0\) , so \(u\in T(u)\), i.e. T has a fixed point. \(\square \)
4 Remarks and comments
I. Let us recall the following result (see Lemma 3.1 from [29]):
Lemma 4.1
Every sequence \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N} }\) of elements from a b-metric space (X, d) of constant s is Cauchy provided that:
-
(i)
there exists \(\gamma \in [0,1)\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} d(x_{n+1},x_{n})\le \gamma d(x_{n},x_{n-1}), \end{aligned}$$for every \(n\in \mathbb { \mathbb {N} }\);
-
(ii)
\(s\gamma <1\).
Obviously our Lemma 2.2 is a generalization of the above Lemma which is the corner stone of the results from [16, 19, 20, 23, 29].
II. The following definition is inspired by the definition of a multi-valued weakly Picard operator in the setting of a metric space from [7].
Definition 4.1
A function \(T:X\rightarrow \mathcal {B}(X)\), where (X, d) is a b-metric space, is called a multi-valued weakly Picard operator if for each \(x\in X\) and each \(y\in T(x)\) there exists a sequence \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N} }\) such that:
-
(i)
\(x_{0}=x\) and \(x_{1}=y\);
-
(ii)
\(x_{n+1}\in T(x_{n})\) for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\);
-
(iii)
the sequence \((x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) is convergent and its limit is a fixed point of T.
Let us mention that Theorems 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 provide sufficient conditions for a function T to be multi-valued weakly Picard operator.
III. For \(c=d=0\) and \(s=1\) in Theorem 3.3 we obtain Theorem 5 from [22], i.e. Nadler’s contraction principle for set-valued functions.
IV. Let us recall the following result (see Theorem 2.2 from [4]) which is a generalization of Theorem 1.2 from [2] which improves Theorem 3.3 from [15], Corollary 3.3. from [27], Corollary 4.3 from [29] and Theorem 1 from [11].
Theorem 4.1
A function \(T:X\rightarrow \mathcal {B}(X)\), where (X, d) is a complete b-metric space of constant s, has a fixed point, provided that it satisfies the following two conditions:
-
(i)
there exists \(a\in [0,1)\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} h(T(x),T(y))\le a\max \{d(x,y),d(x,T(x)),d(y,T(y)),d(x,T(y)),d(y,T(x))\}, \end{aligned}$$for all \(x,y\in X\);
-
(ii)
\(a\le \frac{1}{s+s^{2}}\).
Our Theorem 3.3 is a generalization of Theorem 4.1.
Indeed, we shall prove that if (i) and (ii) from Theorem 4.1 are satisfied, then (i) and (ii) from Theorem 3.3 (for \(\alpha =2a\) and \(c=d=1\)) are satisfied. First let us note that, according to (ii) from Theorem 4.1, we have \(0\le \alpha<\frac{2}{s+s^{2}}<\frac{1}{s}\), so \(\alpha s<1\). Consequently, \(\alpha \in [0,\frac{1}{s})\subseteq [0,1)\) and (ii) from Theorem 3.3 is satisfied. Moreover, (i) from Theorem 4.1 implies that
for all \(x,y\in X\), i.e. (i) from Theorem 3.3 is satisfied.
Now let us present a situation when Theorem 3.3 is applicable, but Theorem 4.1 is not.
We consider the b-metric space \((\mathbb {R},d)\), where \(d(x,y)=(x-y)^{2}\) for all \(x,y\in \mathbb {R}\), for which \(s=2\) and the function \(f:\mathbb {R} \rightarrow \mathcal {B}(\mathbb {R})\) given by \(f(x)=\{\frac{9}{10}x\}\) for every \(x\in \mathbb {R}\). On the one hand, Theorem 3.3. is applicable taking \( c=d=0\) and \(\alpha =\frac{9}{10}\). On the other hand, Theorem 4.1 is not applicable since (i) implies \(\frac{9}{10}\le \alpha \) and (ii) implies \( \alpha \le \frac{1}{6}\).
References
Aghajani, A., Abbas, M., Roshan, J.R.: Common fixed point of generalized weak contractive mappings in partially ordered \(b\)-metric spaces. Math. Slovaca 64, 941–960 (2014)
Amini-Harandi, A.: Fixed point theory for set-valued quasi-contraction maps in metric spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 24, 1791–1794 (2011)
An, T.V., Tuyen, L.Q., Dung, N.V.: Stone-type theorem on \(b\)-metric spaces and applications. Topol. Appl. 185(186), 50–64 (2015)
Aydi, H., Bota, M.F., Karapinar, E., Mitrović, S.: A fixed point theorem for set-valued quasi-contractions in \(b\)-metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012, 88 (2012)
Bakhtin, I.A.: The contraction mapping principle in quasimetric spaces. Funct. Anal. Unianowsk Gos. Ped. Inst. 30, 26–37 (1989)
Berinde, V.: Generalized contractions in quasimetric spaces. Semin. Fixed Point Theory. 3, 3–9 (1993)
Berinde, M., Berinde, V.: On a general class of multi-valued weakly Picard mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 326, 772–782 (2007)
Boriceanu, M., Bota, M., Petruşel, A.: Multivalued fractals in \(b\)-metric spaces. Central Eur. J. Math. 8, 367–377 (2010)
Boriceanu, M., Petruşel, A., Rus, A.I.: Fixed point theorems for some multivalued generalized contraction in \(b\)-metric spaces. Int. J. Math. Stat. 6, 65–76 (2010)
Bota, M., Molnár, A., Varga, C.: On Ekeland’s variational principle in \(b\)-metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory 12, 21–28 (2011)
Cirić, L.: A generalization of Banach’s contraction principle. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 45, 267–273 (1974)
Chifu, C., Petruşel, G.: Fixed points for multivalued contractions in \(b\)-metric spaces with applications to fractals. Taiwan. J. Math. 18, 1365–1375 (2014)
Czerwik, S.: Contraction mappings in \(b\)-metric spaces. Acta Math. Inform. Univ. Ostraviensis 1, 5–11 (1993)
Czerwik, S.: Nonlinear set-valued contraction mappings in \(b\)-metric spaces. Atti Semin. Mat. Fis. Univ. Modena 46, 263–276 (1998)
Daffer, P.Z., Kaneko, H.: Fixed points of generalized contractive multi-valued mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 192, 655–666 (1995)
Dubey, A.K., Shukla, R., Dubey, R.P.: Some fixed point results in \(b\)-metric spaces. Asian J. Math. Appl., article ID ama0147 (2014)
Frigon, M.: Fixed point results for multivalued contractions on gauge spaces, set valued mappings with applications in nonlinear analysis. Ser. Math. Anal. Appl. 4, 175–181 (2002) (Taylor & Francis, London)
Khamsi, M.A., Hussain, N.: KKM mappings in metric type spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 73, 3123–3129 (2010)
Kir, M., Kizitune, H.: On some well known fixed point theorems in \(b\)-metric spaces. Turk. J. Anal. Number Theory 1, 13–16 (2013)
Mishra, P.K., Sachdeva, S., Banerjee, S.K.: Some fixed point theorems in \(b\)-metric space. Turk. J. Anal. Number Theory 2, 19–22 (2014)
Mohanta, S.K.: Some fixed point theorems using \(wt\)-distance in \(b\) -metric spaces. Fasc. Math. 54, 125–140 (2015)
Nadler, S.B.: Multi-valued contraction mappings. Pac. J. Math. 30, 475–488 (1969)
Nashine, H.N., Kadelburg, Z.: Cyclic generalized \(\varphi \)-contractions in \(b\)-metric spaces and an application to integral equations. Filomat 28, 2047–2057 (2014)
Olatinwo, M.O.: A fixed point theorem for multi-valued weakly Picard operators in \(b\)-metric spaces. Demonstr. Math. 42, 599–606 (2009)
Păcurar, M.: Sequences of almost contractions and fixed points in \(b\)-metric spaces. An. Univ. Vest Timiş. Ser. Mat. Inform. 48, 125–137 (2010)
Roshan, J.R., Hussain, N., Sedghi, S., Shobkolaei, N.: Suzuki-type fixed point results in \(b\)-metric spaces. Math. Sci. (Springer) 9, 153–160 (2015)
Rouhani, B.D., Moradi, S.: Common fixed point of multivalued generalized \(\varphi \)-weak contractive mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl., article ID 708984 (2010)
Sarwar, M., Rahman, M.U.: Fixed point theorems for Ciric’s and generalized contractions in \(b\)-metric spaces. Int. J. Anal. Appl. 7, 70–78 (2015)
Singh, S.L., Czerwik, S., Król, K., Singh, A.: Coincidences and fixed points of hybrid contractions. Tamsui Oxf. J. Math. Sci. 24, 401–416 (2008)
Shukla, S.: Partial \(b\)-metric spaces and fixed point theorems. Mediterr. J. Math. 11, 703–711 (2014)
Włodarczyk, K.: Hausdorff quasi-distances, periodic and fixed points for Nadler type set-valued contractions in quasi-gauge spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2014, article ID 239 (2014)
Włodarczyk, K.: Quasi-triangular spaces, Pompeiu–Hausdorff quasi-distances, and periodic and fixed point theorems of Banach and Nadler types. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2015, article ID 201236 (2015)
Włodarczyk, K., Plebaniak, R.: Dynamic processes, fixed points, endpoints, asymmetric structures, and investigations related to Caristi, Nadler, and Banach in uniform spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2015, article ID 942814 (2015)
Włodarczyk, K.: Fuzzy quasi-triangular spaces, fuzzy sets of Pompeiu–Hausdorff type, and another extensions of Banach and Nadler theorems. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2016, article ID 32 (2016)
Yingtaweesittikul, H.: Suzuki type fixed point for generalized multi-valued mappings in \(b\)-metric spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013, 215 (2013)
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to the anonymous referees for the careful and competent reading of the present paper and for their valuable suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miculescu, R., Mihail, A. New fixed point theorems for set-valued contractions in b-metric spaces. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 19, 2153–2163 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11784-016-0400-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11784-016-0400-2