Fisher 1978
Fisher 1978
Fisher 1978
e(Tnx, T~y) ~= c~e(x, y) <- c~{o(x, T~x) + e(Tnx, Tny) + e(Tny, y)}
and so
Cn
o(T"x, T"y) < ~ {O(x, T " x ) + 0(y, T"y)}
- 1-c"
for all x, y in X.
Since c < l , we can find an n such that c"<1/3 and then
Cn
1 - c " < 1/2.
It follows that for such an n, T" is a Kannan mapping. This completes the proof
of the theorem.
One may now ask the following question. If T is a Kannan mapping of the
metric space (X, Q) into itself, must T" be a contraction mapping for some positive
integer n?
The answer to this question is in the negative, as can be seen from the following
example.
Let X be the set of real numbers x, with - 2 < x < 2 . Define a metric e on X by
o~(x, y) = [ x - yl.
Define a mapping T of X into itself by
= ~-x/4, Ix] <= 1,
Tx [ x/4, 1 < txl < 2.
Then
Thus
e(T"x, T"§ <=e(T"x, T"+ix)+ ... + e(T"+'-~x, T"+'x) <- k,e(x, Tx)
where
k,= ~ 1-2k:
It follows that {T"x} is a Cauchy sequence and in fact converges to a unique point
z, see [1], with the property that Tz=z. On letting r tend to infinity we see t h a t
and so
e (T"x, r'y) <= e (T"x, z) + e (z, T"y) <= k. {e (x, rx) + e (Y, Ty)} ~ hk. e(x, y)
for all x , y in X, on using inequality (1). Since k ( 1 - k ) - l < l , we can choose an
n such that hk,< 1. For this n, T" is a contraction mapping, completing the proof
of the theorem when X is complete.
If X is not complete we note that
e(Tx, Ty) <: e(x, Tx)+ e(x, y)+ e(Y, Ty) <=(h + 1)e{x, y),
on using inequality (1). This implies that T is uniformly continuous and so T, the
completion of T, is a Kannan mapping on )~, the completion of X and
e(x, ~x)+ e(y, ~y) ~ he(x, y),
for all x, y in )~. It follows from what we have just proved that T" is a contraction
mapping on )~ for some n and so for this n, T" is a contraction mapping on X,
completing the p r o o f of the theorem.
Reference
[1] R. KANNAN, Some results on fixed points, Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc., 60 (1968), 71--76.
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS
THE UNIVERSITY
LEICESTER LEI 7RH
ENGLAND