A New Generalization of Rhoades’ Condition

Using the condition (\mathbf{NS1}), it can be easily seen that the condition (\mathbf{S1}) is satisfied. We show that the condition (\mathbf{ S2}) is satisfied. By (\mathbf{NS3}), we have

for all x,y,z,a\in X.

Then, the function \mathcal{S} is an S-metric and the pair (X,S) is an S-metric space.

The proof follows easily from the Proposition 2.1.

By the condition (\mathbf{NS3}), we get

and

Using (Proof) and (Proof) we obtain \Vert 0,x-y,y-x\Vert =\Vert 0,y-x,x-y\Vert.

We show that the function \Vert x,y,z\Vert =\Vert x\Vert +\Vert y\Vert +\Vert z\Vert satisfies the conditions (\mathbf{NS1}), (\mathbf{NS2}) and (\mathbf{NS3}).

(\mathbf{NS1}) It is clear that \Vert x,y,z\Vert \geq 0 and \Vert x,y,z\Vert =0 if and only if x=y=z=0.

(\mathbf{NS2}) Let \lambda \in \mathbb{R} and x,y,z\in X. Then we obtain

(\mathbf{NS3}) Let x,y,z,x^{\prime },y^{\prime },z^{\prime }\in X. Then we obtain

Consequently, the function \Vert x,y,z\Vert =\Vert x\Vert +\Vert y\Vert +\Vert z\Vert satisfies the conditions (\mathbf{NS1}), (\mathbf{NS2}), (\mathbf{NS3}) and so (X,\Vert .,.,.\Vert ) is an S-normed space.

Using the conditions (\mathbf{NS1}) and (\mathbf{NS2}), it is clear that we obtain the conditions (\mathbf{N1}), (\mathbf{N2}) and (\mathbf{N3}) are satisfied.

Now we show that the condition (\mathbf{N4}) is satisfied.

(\mathbf{N4}) Let x,y\in X. By the condition (\mathbf{NS3}), we have

Consequently, the function \Vert x\Vert =\Vert 0,x,0\Vert +\Vert 0,0,x\Vert is a norm on X and (X,\Vert .\Vert ) is a normed space.

Using the conditions (\mathbf{NG1}) and (\mathbf{NG3}), we see that the conditions (\mathbf{NS1}) and (\mathbf{NS2}) are satisfied. We only show that the condition (\mathbf{NS3}) is satisfied.

(\mathbf{NS3}) Let x,y,z,x^{\prime },y^{\prime },z^{\prime }\in X. Using the conditions (\mathbf{NG2}) and (\mathbf{NG4}), we obtain

Consequently, the condition (\mathbf{NS3}) is satisfied.

Let the sequence \{x_{n}\} in X be convergent to x. For each \varepsilon >0, there exists n_{0}\in \mathbb{N} such that

for all n\geq n_{0}. We now show that for each \varepsilon >0 there exists n_{0}\in \mathbb{N} such that

for all n,m,l\geq n_{0}. Using the condition (\mathbf{NS3}), we obtain

Consequently, the sequence \{x_{n}\} in X is a Cauchy sequence.

It can be easily seen by definition of C^{s}(A).

By the definition of reflexivity the proof follows easily.

At first, we show that the existence of the fixed point. Let \mathcal{A} be the family of every nonempty, closed and convex subsets of A. Also we assume that if F\in \mathcal{A} then TF\subseteq F. The family \mathcal{A} is nonempty since A\in \mathcal{A}. We can partially order \mathcal{A} by set inclusion, that is, if F_{1}\subseteq F_{2} then F_{1}\leq F_{2}.

In \mathcal{A}, if we define a decreasing net of subsets

then by reflexivity, this net S has nonempty intersection. Because it is a decreasing net of nonempty, closed, bounded and convex subsets of X. If we put F_{0}=\bigcap\limits_{i\in I}F_{i} we have that F_{0} is in \mathcal{A} and is a lower bound of S.

Using Zorn’s Lemma, there is a minimal element, denoted by F, in \mathcal{ A} as S is any arbitrary decreasing net in \mathcal{A}. We see that this F is a singleton.

Assume that \delta ^{s}(F)\neq \emptyset. Since F is nonempty, closed and convex, C^{s}(F) is a nonempty, closed and convex subset of F. We have that

and so C^{s}(F) is a proper subset of F.

Let (F_{m})_{m\in \mathbb{N} } be an increasing sequence of subsets of F, defined by

for all m\in \mathbb{N}. If we denote the S-diameters of these sets F_{k} by \delta _{k}^{s}=\delta ^{s}(F_{k}), we show that

for all k\in \mathbb{N}.

Using the (PMI), we obtain

1. For k=1,

   \delta _{1}^{s}=\delta ^{s}(F_{1})=\delta ^{s}(C^{s}(F))\leq r^{s}(F)\text{.}

2. If \delta _{k}^{s}\leq r^{s}(F) for every k=1,...,m then \delta _{m+1}^{s}\leq r^{s}(F).

We note that

By the definition of S-diameter, for any given \varepsilon >0 there are x^{\prime } and y^{\prime } in F_{m}\cup T(F_{m}) satisfying

We obtain the following three cases for x^{\prime }, y^{\prime }:

1. x^{\prime }, y^{\prime }\in F_{m} or

2. x^{\prime }\in F_{m} and y^{\prime }\in TF_{m} or

3. x^{\prime }, y^{\prime }\in TF_{m}.

Redefining x^{\prime } and y^{\prime } as follows:

1. x^{\prime }=x and y^{\prime }=y with x,y\in F_{m},

2. x^{\prime }=x and y^{\prime }=Ty with x,y\in F_{m},

3. x^{\prime }=Tx and y^{\prime }=Ty with x,y\in F_{m}.

We show that in any case

Case 1. By the definition of \delta _{m}^{s} and the induction hypothesis, we obtain

and so \delta _{m+1}^{s}-\varepsilon <r^{s}(F).

Case 2. We obtain

with x, y\in F_{m}. Then by the definition of F_{m}, we have x,y\in conv(F_{m-1}\cup TF_{m-1}) and so there is a finite index set I such that x=\sum\limits_{i\in I}\alpha _{i}x_{i}, with \sum\limits_{i\in I}\alpha _{i}=1, \alpha _{i}\geq 0 and x_{i}\in F_{m-1}\cup TF_{m-1} for any i\in I. We can separate the set I in two disjoint subsets, I=I_{1}\cup I_{2}, such that if i\in I_{1} then x_{i}\in F_{m-1} and if i\in I_{2} then x_{i}\in TF_{m-1}.

Now redefining x_{i} as x_{i}=Tx_{i} with x_{i}\in F_{m-1}, we obtain

Substituting in \Vert 0,x-Ty,Ty-x\Vert, we get

Applying the condition (\mathbf{NS25}) to \Vert 0,Tx_{i}-Ty,Ty-Tx_{i}\Vert, we have

As x_{i}\in F_{m-1}, Tx_{i},y\in F_{m}, we have

and replacing in (?), we obtain

Let us subdivide the index set I_{2} in three disjoint subsets I_{2}=I_{2}^{1}\cup I_{2}^{2}\cup I_{2}^{3} such that

Then using (?), we have

Redefining I_{1}, I_{2} and I_{3}

Then we have I=\overline{I_{1}}\cup \overline{I_{2}}\cup \overline{I_{3}}, with \overline{I_{j}}\cap \overline{I_{k}}=\emptyset. If j\neq k and \sum\limits_{i\in I}\alpha _{i}=1 then using (?), it becomes

If A_{0}=\sum\limits_{i\in \overline{I_{2}}}\alpha _{i} and B_{0}=\sum\limits_{i\in \overline{I_{3}}}\alpha _{i} with \sum\limits_{i\in \overline{I_{1}}}\alpha _{i}+A_{0}+B_{0}=1. Using (?), we have

For each i\in \overline{I_{1}}, x_{i}\in F_{m-1}=conv(F_{m-2}\cup TF_{m-2}), there is a finite set J_{i}, such that

with x_{i}^{j}\in F_{m-2}\cup TF_{m-2}, \beta _{i}^{j}\geq 0 and \sum\limits_{j\in J_{i}}\beta _{i}^{j}=1 for any j\in J_{i}. Let J_{i}=J_{i}^{1}\cup J_{i}^{2}, with J_{i}^{1}\cap J_{i}^{2}=\emptyset such that

For each i\in \overline{I_{1}} we have

Applying the condition (\mathbf{NS25}) to \Vert 0,Tx_{i}^{j}-Ty,Ty-Tx_{i}^{j}\Vert, we have

Since x_{i}^{j}\in F_{m-2} and y\in F_{m}, we have

By (?), we obtain

Let J_{i}^{2}=J_{i}^{2_{1}}\cup J_{i}^{2_{2}}\cup J_{i}^{2_{3}} with J_{i}^{2_{k}}\cap J_{i}^{2_{p}}=\emptyset such that

Using (?), we obtain

Let us denote by

Then using (?), we have

If A_{i}=\sum\limits_{i\in J_{3}^{i}}\beta _{i}^{j} and B_{i}=\sum\limits_{i\in J_{2}^{i}}\beta _{i}^{j} with \sum\limits_{j\in J_{1}^{i}}\beta _{i}^{j}+A_{i}+B_{i}=1. Using (?), we obtain

Using (?) and \Vert 0,x_{i}-Ty,Ty-x_{i}\Vert by (?), we obtain

Let A_{1}=\sum\limits_{i\in \overline{I_{1}}}\alpha _{i}A_{i} and B_{1}=\sum\limits_{i\in \overline{I_{1}}}\alpha _{i}B_{i}. Then we have

We note that

Let us take K=\underset{i\in \overline{I_{1}}}{\bigcup }\left( \underset{ j\in J_{1}^{i}}{\bigcup }j\right) and denote the scalars by \xi _{k}. To each k relative to the pair (i,j), x_{i}^{j} will be denoted by x_{k} .

Using (?), we obtain

where \sum\limits_{k\in K}\xi _{k}+A_{1}+A_{0}+B_{1}+B_{0}=1 and x_{k}\in F_{m-2}.

Repeating this process which is done for x_{k}, we get

where \sum\limits_{p\in P}\gamma _{p}+\sum\limits_{i=0}^{m-1}(A_{i}+B_{i})=1 and x_{p}\in F_{1}=C^{s}(F).

Hence \Vert 0,x_{p}-Ty,Ty-x_{p}\Vert \leq r^{s}(F) and using (? ), we obtain

Let us turn to \Vert 0,y-Ty,Ty-y\Vert. Since y\in conv(F_{m-1}\cup TF_{m-1}), we have y=\sum\limits_{i\in I}\alpha _{i}y_{i} with \sum\limits_{i\in I}\alpha _{i}=1, y_{i}\in F_{m-1}\cup TF_{m-1} and \alpha _{i}\geq 0 for all i\in I. Let I=I_{1}\cup I_{2} such that I_{1}\cap I_{2}=\emptyset. If i\in I_{1} then y_{i}\in F_{m-1} and if i\in I_{2} then y_{i}\in TF_{m-1}. Let y_{i}=Ty_{i}. Then we can write

with y_{i}\in F_{m-1}.

Substituting in \Vert 0,y-Ty,Ty-y\Vert we get

Using the condition (\mathbf{NS}25), we obtain

Since y_{i}\in F_{m-1}, y\in F_{m}, we have

Using (?), we obtain

Redefining the index set I_{2}=I_{2}^{1}\cup I_{2}^{2}\cup I_{2}^{3} with

Now using (?), we get

We note that if \sum\limits_{i\in I_{2}^{2}}\alpha _{i}=1 then

which is a contradiction.

Then \sum\limits_{i\in I_{2}^{2}}\alpha _{i}<1 and using (?), we obtain

with \sum\limits_{i\in I_{1}\cup I_{2}^{3}}\dfrac{\alpha _{i}}{ 1-\sum\limits_{i\in I_{2}^{2}}\alpha _{i}}+\sum\limits_{i\in I_{2}^{1}} \dfrac{\alpha _{i}}{1-\sum\limits_{i\in I_{2}^{2}}\alpha _{i}}=1.

Let I_{1}=I_{1}\cup I_{2}^{3}, I_{2}=I_{2}^{1} and \beta _{i}=\dfrac{ \alpha _{i}}{1-\sum\limits_{i\in I_{2}^{2}}\alpha _{i}}. Using (? ), we obtain

If A_{0}=\sum\limits_{i\in I_{2}}\beta _{i} then using (?), we have

with \sum\limits_{i\in I_{1}}\beta _{i}+A_{0}=1 and y_{i}\in F_{m-1}=conv(F_{m-2}\cup TF_{m-2}).

For each i\in I_{1},

with y_{i}^{j}\in F_{m-2} and \sum\limits_{j\in J_{i}^{1}\cup J_{i}^{2}}\gamma _{i}^{j}=1. So we obtain

Using the condition (\mathbf{NS25}), we have

Since y_{i}^{j}\in F_{m-2}, Ty_{i}^{j}\in F_{m-1} and y\in F_{m}, we can write

and

Let J_{i}^{2} be the union of the disjoint sets J_{i}^{2}=J_{i}^{2_{1}} \cup J_{i}^{2_{2}}\cup J_{i}^{2_{3}} such that

Using (?), we obtain

Now redefine the index sets J_{i}^{1}=J_{i}^{1}\cup J_{i}^{2_{1}}, J_{i}^{2}=J_{i}^{2_{2}}, J_{i}^{3}=J_{i}^{2_{3}} and using (?) we can write

with \sum\limits_{j\in J_{i}^{1}}\gamma _{i}^{j}+\sum\limits_{j\in J_{i}^{2}}\gamma _{i}^{j}+\sum\limits_{j\in J_{i}^{3}}\gamma _{i}^{j}=1.

Using the (?), we obtain

If \sum\limits_{i\in I_{1}}\beta _{i}\sum\limits_{j\in J_{i}^{3}}\gamma _{i}^{j}=1 we have

which is a contradiction.

Hence \sum\limits_{i\in I_{1}}\beta _{i}\sum\limits_{j\in J_{i}^{3}}\gamma _{i}^{j}<1 and using (?), we obtain

with \dfrac{\sum\limits_{i\in I_{1}}\beta _{i}\sum\limits_{j\in J_{i}^{1}}\gamma _{i}^{j}}{1-\sum\limits_{i\in I_{1}}\beta _{i}\sum\limits_{j\in J_{i}^{3}}\gamma _{i}^{j}}+\dfrac{\sum\limits_{i\in I_{1}}\beta _{i}\sum\limits_{j\in J_{i}^{2}}\gamma _{i}^{j}+A_{0}}{ 1-\sum\limits_{i\in I_{1}}\beta _{i}\sum\limits_{j\in J_{i}^{3}}\gamma _{i}^{j}}=1.

Let A_{1}=\dfrac{\sum\limits_{i\in I_{1}}\beta _{i}\sum\limits_{j\in J_{i}^{2}}\gamma _{i}^{j}+A_{0}}{1-\sum\limits_{i\in I_{1}}\beta _{i}\sum\limits_{j\in J_{i}^{3}}\gamma _{i}^{j}} and denote the index set by K=\underset{i\in I_{1}}{\bigcup }\left( \underset{j\in J_{i}^{1}}{ \bigcup }j\right), write \zeta _{k} for k\in K relative to (i,j), that is

Also we write y_{k} for y_{i}^{j}. Then using (?), we obtain

with \sum\limits_{k\in K}\zeta _{k}+A_{1}+A_{0}=1 and y_{k}\in F_{m-2}.

Repeating this process we get

where y_{p}\in F_{1} and \sum\limits_{p\in P}\lambda _{p}+\sum\limits_{k=0}^{m-1}A_{k}=1.

Then \Vert 0,y_{p}-Ty,Ty-y_{p}\Vert \leq r^{s}(F) and

Using (?), we get

with \sum\limits_{k=0}^{m-1}B_{k}+\sum\limits_{p\in P}\gamma _{p}+\sum\limits_{k=0}^{m-1}A_{k}=1.

Consequently, we obtain \Vert 0,x-Ty,Ty-x\Vert \leq r^{s}(F) and so

Case 3. For x,y\in F_{m}, we have

and repeating what has been done in Case 2, we get

In all three cases we have \delta _{m+1}^{s}-\varepsilon <r^{s}(F). If \varepsilon tends to 0 we get \delta _{m+1}^{s}\leq r^{s}(F).

Let F^{\infty }=\bigcup\limits_{n\in \mathbb{N} }F_{n}. Then F^{\infty } is nonempty because C^{s}(F)\neq \emptyset. Since F_{k}\subseteq F_{k+1}, we obtain

As F_{k}\subset F, F^{\infty }\subseteq F and so \delta ^{s}(F^{\infty })\leq r^{s}(F).

Using the S-normal structure of F we have r^{s}(F)<\delta ^{s}(F) and \delta ^{s}(F^{\infty })<\delta ^{s}(F). So F^{\infty } must be a proper subset of F. We obtain that F^{\infty } is convex and TF^{\infty }\subseteq F^{\infty }.

Let M=\overline{convF^{\infty }}=\overline{F^{\infty }}, its diameter is the same as F^{\infty }. So we have

and M is closed, nonempty and convex proper subset of F. Since T is continuous then M is T-invariant and

So M\in \mathcal{A} and M\subsetneqq F contradicting the minimality of F. Hence, it should be \delta ^{s}(F)=0. Consequently, F has a unique fixed point under T.

Assume that T satisfies the condition (\mathbf{NS25}). Using the condition (\mathbf{NS25}), we have

and so the condition (\mathbf{S25}) is satisfied by T on (X,S_{\Vert .\Vert }).

Let T satisfies the condition (\mathbf{NR25}). Using the conditions ( \mathbf{NR25}) and (\mathbf{N3}), we have

and so the condition (\mathbf{NS25}) is satisfied.