J. Math. Anal. Appl.

382 (2011) 503–515

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Mathematical Analysis and

Applications
www.elsevier.com/locate/jmaa

Fixed points, selections and common fixed points for nonexpansive-type

mappings
Rafa Espínola a,∗ , Pepa Lorenzo a , Adriana Nicolae b
a
Departamento de Análisis Matemático, Universidad de Sevilla, P.O. Box 1160, 41080 Sevilla, Spain
b
Department of Mathematics, Babeş-Bolyai University, Kogălniceanu 1, 400084, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We study the existence of fixed points in the context of uniformly convex geodesic
Received 25 March 2010 metric spaces, hyperconvex spaces and Banach spaces for single and multivalued mappings
Available online 23 June 2010 satisfying conditions that generalize the concept of nonexpansivity. Besides, we use the
Submitted by Richard M. Aron
fixed point theorems proved here to give common fixed point results for commuting
Keywords:
mappings.
Fixed point © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Selection of multifunctions
Generalized nonexpansive mappings
Commuting mappings
Metric space
Banach space

1. Introduction

In [26], T. Suzuki extends the concept of singlevalued nonexpansive mapping in the following way: a mapping f defined
on a subset K of a Banach space is said to satisfy condition (C ) if for x, y ∈ K with (1/2)x − f (x)  x − y , then
 f (x) − f ( y )  x − y . T. Suzuki [26] proves some basic properties and gives fixed point theorems and convergence
results for mappings satisfying condition (C ). Following [26], A. Razani and H. Salahifard [23] state part of T. Suzuki’s [26]
results in the context of a complete CAT(0) space and generalize condition (C ) to the multivalued case: a multivalued
mapping T defined on subset of a CAT(0) space is said to satisfy condition (C ) if for each x, y ∈ K and u x ∈ T (x) with
(1/2)d(x, u x )  d(x, y ) there exists u y ∈ T ( y ) such that d(u x , u y )  d(x, y ). This condition is used in [23] to prove a fixed
point theorem for multivalued mappings and some common fixed point results. Motivated by the results in [26], J. García-
Falset, E. Llorens-Fuster and T. Suzuki consider in [7] two generalizations in the singlevalued case of condition (C ) giving
examples and establishing fixed point results.
The purpose of this paper is to study condition (C ) for multivalued mappings in the context of geodesic metric spaces
(with special attention to the case of R-trees) and Banach spaces, and condition (C ) for singlevalued mappings in the con-
text of hyperconvex spaces. After some preliminary contents in Section 2, we begin Section 3 by studying the multivalued
case in geodesic spaces. We assume condition (C ) for multivalued mappings as in [23] where different results in this di-
rection were obtained for CAT(0) spaces. In our work, we derive a technical lemma (Lemma 3.2) which is a multivalued
version of the key fact which is behind the main results in [7,26]. Our results are first obtained for as general as complete
uniformly convex geodesic spaces and then particularized for more precise geometries. Since CAT(0) spaces are a particular
class of uniformly convex geodesic spaces, we obtain more general results than those from [23]. Moreover, thanks mainly

* Corresponding author. Fax: +34 954 557 972.

E-mail addresses: espinola@us.es (R. Espínola), ploren@us.es (P. Lorenzo), anicolae@math.ubbcluj.ro (A. Nicolae).

0022-247X/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2010.06.039
504 R. Espínola et al. / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 382 (2011) 503–515

to Lemma 3.2, we fill in a gap in the proof of the main multivalued result in [23]. We continue Section 3 by introducing
a new condition for multivalued mappings in the spirit of (C ). We give examples showing that this condition is actually
weaker than condition (C ) and prove a selection theorem in R-trees for mappings satisfying this newly introduced con-
dition from where a stronger fixed point result for multivalued mappings follows. This selection result resembles a very
important one, see for instance [12,25], for hyperconvex spaces (notice, see [14], that complete R-trees are hyperconvex)
although the approach here is completely different as the proof relies on very particular properties of R-trees rather than
on hyperconvexity. It is worthwhile to point out that R-trees find a lot of applications in different areas as, for instance, the
indexing of information or phylogenetics. We close Section 3 with an appendix where we study the existence of fixed points
for singlevalued mappings with property (C ) in hyperconvex metric spaces. It is very well known (see [17, Chapter 13]) that
nonexpansive self-mappings defined on nonempty bounded and closed hyperconvex spaces have fixed points. Therefore it is
natural to wonder about this problem for mappings with condition (C ). We first study the compact case providing a positive
answer. For the more general case we need to introduce a new condition on the mapping under consideration. In particular
it is shown that a 2-lipschitzian self-mapping with condition (C ) defined on a nonempty closed and bounded hyperconvex
space has a fixed point. This result is significant among the class of known results for mappings with condition (C ) since it
is the first one without compactness conditions for which neither the uniqueness of asymptotic centers nor anything similar
to the Opial property is required (see Sections 2 and 4 for definitions). Therefore, this result follows through a completely
new approach compared to those in [7,23,26] and implies new results even, for instance, in injective Banach spaces.
In Section 4 we revisit the classical theory of nonexpansive multivalued mappings on Banach spaces to study it under
condition (C ). We show the existence of fixed points for such a mapping in a Banach space with the Opial property. The
method of asymptotic centers allows us to establish the same result in a uniformly convex in every direction (UCED) Banach
space. Moreover, if we also assume the continuity of the mapping we can prove the existence of fixed points in a Banach
space for which the asymptotic center of a bounded sequence with respect to a bounded closed convex subset is nonempty
and compact, that is, a counterpart of the Kirk–Massa theorem. Finally, in Section 5, we appeal to the fixed point theorems
proved in this paper in order to give some common fixed point results for commuting mappings.

2. Preliminaries

Let ( X , d) be a metric space. A geodesic path from x to y is a mapping c : [0, l] ⊆ R → X with c (0) = x, c (l) = y and
d(c (t ), c (t  )) = |t − t  | for every t , t  ∈ [0, l]. The image c ([0, l]) of c forms a geodesic segment which joins x and y and is
not necessarily unique. If no confusion arises, we will use [x, y ] to denote a geodesic segment joining x and y. ( X , d) is a
(uniquely) geodesic space if every two points x, y ∈ X can be joined by a (unique) geodesic path. A point z ∈ X belongs to the
geodesic segment [x, y ] if and only if there exists t ∈ [0, 1] such that d( z, x) = td(x, y ) and d( z, y ) = (1 − t )d(x, y ), and we
will write z = (1 − t )x + t y for simplicity. A subset K of X is convex if it contains any geodesic segment that joins every two
points of it.
In a geodesic space ( X , d), the metric d : X × X → R is convex if for any x, y , z ∈ X one has
 
d x, (1 − t ) y + tz  (1 − t )d(x, y ) + td(x, z) for all t ∈ [0, 1].
A geodesic space which metric is convex will be referred to as a space with convex metric. A trivial example of a uniquely
geodesic space with convex metric is a strictly convex Banach space. For more details about geodesic metric spaces one may
check [2].
A geodesic space ( X , d) is uniformly convex if for any r > 0 and  ∈ (0, 2] there exists δ ∈ (0, 1] such that if a, x, y ∈ X
with d(x, a)  r, d( y , a)  r and d(x, y )   r then
 
1 1
d x+ y , a  (1 − δ)r .
2 2
From the definition, it is easy to see that uniformly convex metric spaces are uniquely geodesic.
A mapping δ : (0, ∞) × (0, 2] → (0, 1] providing such a δ = δ(r ,  ) for a given r > 0 and  ∈ (0, 2] is called a modulus
of uniform convexity. The mapping δ is monotone (resp. lower semi-continuous from the right) if for every fixed  it decreases
(resp. is lower semi-continuous from the right) with respect to r (see also [5,18]). CAT(0) spaces in the sense of Gromov
(see [2]) are uniformly convex metric spaces with convex metric.
Let ( X , d) be a metric space and let (xn )n∈N be a bounded sequence in X . For x ∈ X , define r (x, (xn ))= lim supn→∞ d(x, xn ).
The asymptotic radius of (xn )n∈N is given by
    
r (xn ) = inf r x, (xn ) : x ∈ X ,
and the asymptotic center of (xn )n∈N is the set
      
A (xn ) = x ∈ X: r x, (xn ) = r (xn ) .
An element of A ((xn )) is also referred to as an asymptotic center.
Throughout this paper we will denote a uniformly convex metric space with monotone (or lower semi-continuous from
the right) modulus of uniform convexity as a UC space. In [5], the authors prove that every bounded sequence in a complete
UC space has a unique asymptotic center.
 R. Espínola et al. / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 382 (2011) 503–515 505

A bounded sequence (xn )n∈N in a complete UC space is regular if r ((xn )) = r ((xnk )) for every subsequence (xnk )k∈N
of (xn )n∈N . It is known that in a Banach space every bounded sequence contains a regular subsequence (see, for in-
stance, [17, Chapter 3, Lemma 5.2]). Since the proof has a metric nature we can conclude that every bounded sequence
(xn )n∈N in a complete UC space has a regular subsequence (xnk )k∈N and thus every subsequence of (xnk )k∈N has the same
asymptotic center as (xnk )k∈N .
Let ( X , d) be a metric space. Taking z ∈ X and r > 0 we denote the closed ball centered at z with radius r by  B ( z , r ).
Given Y a nonempty subset of X , we define the distance of a point z ∈ X to Y by dist( z, Y ) = inf y ∈Y d( z, y ). The metric
projection (or nearest point mapping) P Y onto Y is the mapping
 
P Y ( z) = y ∈ Y : d( z, y ) = dist( z, Y ) , for every z ∈ X .
If Y is additionally bounded, the diameter of Y is given by diam(Y ) = supx, y ∈Y d(x, y ).
In this paper we also consider the following families of sets:

P ( X ) = {Y ⊆ X: Y is nonempty},
P b ( X ) = {Y ⊆ X: Y is nonempty and bounded},
P b,cv ( X ) = {Y ⊆ X: Y is nonempty, bounded and convex},
P cl,cv ( X ) = {Y ⊆ X: Y is nonempty, closed and convex},
P b,cl,cv ( X ) = {Y ⊆ X: Y is nonempty, bounded, closed and convex},
P cp ( X ) = {Y ⊆ X: Y is nonempty and compact},
P cp,cv ( X ) = {Y ⊆ X: Y is nonempty, compact and convex}.
A metric space ( X , d) is metrically convex if for any two distinct points x, y ∈ X and any α , β > 0 such that d(x, y ) = α + β
there exists z ∈ X with d(x, z) = α and d( y , z) = β . X has the binary intersection property if i ∈ I  B i = ∅ for every collection
of balls ( B i )i ∈ I such that any two of these balls intersect.
A metric space ( X , d) is hyperconvex if 
i ∈ I B (xi , r i ) = ∅ for every collection of points (xi )i ∈ I in X and positive num-
bers (r i )i ∈ I such that d(xi , x j )  r i + r j for any i , j ∈ I . Hyperconvexity is equivalent to the binary intersection property and
the metric convexity. More about hyperconvex spaces can be found in [1,12,25] or in Chapter 13 of [17].
Given ( X , d) a metric space and A ⊆ X , the number r x ( A ) = sup y ∈ A d(x, y ) is called the radius of A relative to x ∈ X .
The radius of A is r ( A ) = infx∈ X r x ( A ), the center of A is the set C ( A ) = {x ∈ X: r x ( A ) = r ( A )} and the admissible cover
of A is defined by cov( A ) = { B: B is a closed ball and A ⊆  B }. The set A is said to be admissible if A = cov( A ). For X
a hyperconvex space and A ⊆ X , cov( A ) = x∈ X  B (x, r x ( A )) and diam( A ) = 2r ( A ) (for details see Chapter 13 of [17]).
An R-tree is a uniquely geodesic metric space X such that if [ y , x] ∩ [x, z] = {x} then [ y , x] ∪ [x, z] = [ y , z] for each
x, y , z ∈ X . From the definition it immediately follows that if x, y , z ∈ X , then [x, y ] ∩ [x, z] = [x, w ] for some w ∈ X . Like-
wise, if K is a closed and convex subset of an R-tree X , then for every x ∈ X , P K (x) is a singleton and for any y ∈ K ,
d(x, y ) = d(x, P K (x)) + d( P K (x), y ). A standard example of an R-tree is R2 endowed with the so-called river metric. For
x = (x1 , x2 ), y = ( y 1 , y 2 ) ∈ R2 , the river metric (denoted by ρ ) is defined by

|x2 − y 2 | if x1 = y 1 ,
ρ (x, y ) =
|x2 | + | y 2 | + |x1 − y 1 | otherwise.
It is known that R-trees are CAT(0) spaces and that a metric space is a complete R-tree if and only if it is hyperconvex and
has unique geodesic segments (see [14]). More about the fixed point theory in R-trees can be found in [4,15,21,22].
In [26], T. Suzuki considered the following generalized family of nonexpansive mappings in the setting of a Banach
space. We will use in the sequel the norm notation, but the same definitions also hold when working in the metric setting
(naturally, the norm will be replaced by the distance).

Definition 2.1. Let X be a Banach space, K ∈ P ( X ) and f : K → X . Then f satisfies condition (C ) if

1
x − f (x)  x − y  ⇒ f (x) − f ( y )  x − y ,
2
for all x, y ∈ K .

Obviously, every nonexpansive mapping meets condition (C ). We next summarize some of the basic properties proved
in [26] in relation to these mappings. The proofs of these results are metric in nature so the properties also apply in the
metric case. Throughout this paper we denote the set of fixed points of a mapping f by Fix( f ).

Lemma 2.2. Let X be a Banach space and K ∈ P ( X ). Assume that the mapping f : K → X satisfies condition (C ). Then for each
x, y ∈ K ,
506 R. Espínola et al. / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 382 (2011) 503–515

(i) if z ∈ Fix( f ), then  z − f (x)   z − x, that is, f is quasinonexpansive;

(ii)  f (x) − f ( y )  x − y  or  f 2 (x) − f ( y )   f (x) − y ;
(iii) x − f ( y )  3 f (x) − x + x − y .

Using these properties, T. Suzuki [26] proves fixed point theorems for mappings satisfying condition (C ).
In [7], the authors study two generalizations of condition (C ) giving examples and establishing fixed point results. One
of these conditions is the following.

Definition 2.3. Let X be a Banach space, K ∈ P ( X ), f : K → X and μ  1. The mapping f satisfies condition ( E μ ) if for all
x, y ∈ K ,

x − f ( y )  μ f (x) − x + x − y .

Lemma 2.2 (iii) yields that condition (C ) implies ( E 3 ), but Example 3 of [7] shows that ( E 3 ) does not imply (C ). Other
examples for different values of μ are studied in [7].
In the next sections we will make use of the lemma below which is a special case of Proposition 2 in [9].

Lemma 2.4. Let X be a geodesic metric space with convex metric, α ∈ (0, 1) and (xn )n∈N and ( yn )n∈N bounded sequences in X such
that xn+1 = (1 − α )xn + α yn and d( yn+1 , yn )  d(xn+1 , xn ) for every n ∈ N. Then limn→∞ d(xn , yn ) = 0.

The following two theorems were proved in [23], but in the setting of a complete CAT(0) space. It is easy to see that
these results hold in more general contexts. We will formulate the first result in the framework of a uniquely geodesic
metric space.

Theorem 2.5. Let X be a uniquely geodesic metric space and K ∈ P cl,cv ( X ). Suppose f : K → K satisfies condition (C ) and Fix( f ) = ∅.
Then Fix( f ) is closed and convex.

The proof of the second theorem only requires the uniqueness of the asymptotic center and the convexity of the metric.
This is why we state this result under the hypothesis of a complete UC space with convex metric.

Theorem 2.6. Let X be a complete UC space with convex metric and suppose K ∈ P b,cl,cv ( X ). If f : K → K satisfies condition (C ) then
Fix( f ) is nonempty, closed and convex.

In [23], the authors also extend Suzuki’s [26] condition (C ) to the multivalued case in the following way.

Definition 2.7. Let X be a metric space and K ∈ P ( X ). A mapping T : K → P ( X ) is said to satisfy condition (C ) if for each
x, y ∈ K and u x ∈ T (x) such that
1
d(x, u x )  d(x, y ),
2
there exists u y ∈ T ( y ) such that

d(u x , u y )  d(x, y ).

The above condition is used in [23] to give a fixed point theorem for multivalued mappings and some common fixed
point results.
In the rest of this paper we use condition (C ) for both single and multivalued mappings with the context distinguishing
between the two cases. The same also holds for other conditions we make use of.

3. Fixed points and selections in geodesic spaces

In this section we study the multivalued version of mappings with condition (C ) in geodesic metric spaces. Following
the singlevalued case, we introduce the next condition and prove that for μ = 3 it is a generalization of condition (C ).

Definition 3.1. Let X be a metric space, K ∈ P ( X ), T : K → P ( X ) and μ  1. The mapping T satisfies condition ( E μ ) if for
each x, y ∈ K and u x ∈ T (x) there exists u y ∈ T ( y ) such that

d(x, u y )  μd(x, u x ) + d(x, y ).

We prove next that a multivalued mapping which satisfies condition (C ) also satisfies ( E 3 ). This property will constitute
a key tool in proving our results.
 R. Espínola et al. / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 382 (2011) 503–515 507

Lemma 3.2. Let X be a metric space, K ∈ P ( X ) and let T : K → P ( K ) satisfy condition (C ). Then T satisfies condition ( E 3 ).

Proof. Let x, y ∈ K and u x ∈ T (x). Because (1/2)d(x, u x )  d(x, u x ) there exists v x ∈ T (u x ) such that

d(u x , v x )  d(x, u x ). (1)

We prove that either

1
d(x, u x )  d(x, y ) (2)
2
or
1
d (u x , v x )  d (u x , y ) (3)
2
holds. Suppose (1/2)d(x, u x ) > d(x, y ) and (1/2)d(u x , v x ) > d(u x , y ). Then, using (1) we obtain the following contradiction
1 1
d(x, u x )  d(x, y ) + d( y , u x ) < d(x, u x ) + d(u x , v x )  d(x, u x ).
2 2
Hence, if (2) holds, then there exists u y ∈ T ( y ) such that d(u x , u y )  d(x, y ), so

d(x, u y )  d(x, u x ) + d(u x , u y )  d(x, u x ) + d(x, y ).

If (3) holds, then there exists u y ∈ T ( y ) such that d( v x , u y )  d(u x , y ). Using again (1) we have that

d(x, u y )  d(x, u x ) + d(u x , v x ) + d( v x , u y )  2d(x, u x ) + d(u x , y )  3d(x, u x ) + d(x, y ).

Thus, the inequality holds in each of the two cases and we are done. 2

Definition 3.3. Let X be a metric space, K ∈ P ( X ) and T : K → P ( X ). We say that (xn )n∈N ⊆ K is an approximate fixed point
sequence for the mapping T if for each n ∈ N there exists yn ∈ T (xn ) such that limn→∞ d(xn , yn ) = 0.

The next result provides an approximate fixed point sequence for a multivalued mapping satisfying condition (C ). We
use this result in the rest of the paper because many of our proofs rely on it.

Proposition 3.4. Let X be geodesic metric space with convex metric, K ∈ P b,cv ( X ) and T : K → P ( K ). If T satisfies condition (C ), then
T has an approximate fixed point sequence.

Proof. Let x1 ∈ K , y 1 ∈ T (x1 ) and take x2 = (1/2)x1 + (1/2) y 1 . Then (1/2)d(x1 , y 1 ) = d(x1 , x2 ) so, by condition (C ), there
exists y 2 ∈ T (x2 ) such that d( y 1 , y 2 )  d(x1 , x2 ). Continuing in this vein, we can build the sequences (xn )n∈N and ( yn )n∈N
such that yn ∈ T (xn ), xn+1 = (1/2)xn + (1/2) yn and d( yn+1 , yn )  d(xn+1 , xn ) for every n ∈ N. Using Lemma 2.4 we obtain
that limn→∞ d(xn , yn ) = 0. 2

Our first fixed point result for multivalued mappings is given for self-mappings on a compact set.

Theorem 3.5. Let X be a geodesic space with convex metric and K ∈ P cp,cv ( X ). Suppose T : K → P cl ( K ) satisfies condition (C ). Then
Fix( T ) = ∅.

Proof. By Proposition 3.4, there exist two sequences (xn )n∈N and ( yn )n∈N in K such that yn ∈ T (xn ) and limn→∞ d(xn ,
yn ) = 0. Since K is compact, we can find a subsequence (xnk )k∈N of (xn )n∈N such that (xnk )k∈N converges to some x ∈ K .
Using Lemma 3.2, we have that for all k ∈ N
 
dist xnk , T (x)  3d(xnk , ynk ) + d(xnk , x).

Taking the limit as k → ∞ we obtain that dist(x, T (x)) = 0. Since T (x) is closed it follows that x ∈ T (x). 2

In the following theorem we move the compactness condition from the domain to the images of the mapping. This
theorem is actually an extension of Theorem 3.2 of [23] in the context of a complete UC space with convex metric. We also
remove the convexity condition on the image sets of the mapping. Moreover, we obtain our results in a simple way as a
consequence of Lemma 3.2 which avoids to go through a delicate point in the proof of Theorem 3.2 of [23].

Theorem 3.6. Let X be a complete UC space with convex metric and K ∈ P b,cl,cv ( X ). Suppose T : K → P cp ( K ) satisfies condition (C ).
Then Fix( T ) = ∅.
508 R. Espínola et al. / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 382 (2011) 503–515

Proof. By Proposition 3.4, we can find the sequences (xn )n∈N and ( yn )n∈N in K such that yn ∈ T (xn ) and limn→∞ d(xn ,
yn ) = 0. As explained in Section 2, we may suppose that (xn )n∈N is regular (otherwise choose a regular subsequence of it).
Denote the unique asymptotic center of (xn )n∈N by x. Let n ∈ N. Applying Lemma 3.2 for xn , x and yn respectively it follows
that there exists zn ∈ T (x) such that
d(xn , zn )  3d(xn , yn ) + d(xn , x).
Let ( znk )k∈N be a subsequence of ( zn )n∈N that converges to some z ∈ T (x). Then, for each k ∈ N,
d(xnk , z)  d(xnk , znk ) + d( znk , z)  3d(xnk , ynk ) + d(xnk , x) + d( znk , z).
Taking the superior limit as k → ∞ and knowing that the asymptotic center of (xnk )k∈N is precisely x we obtain that
x = z ∈ T (x). Hence, the proof is complete. 2

Remark 3.7. From the above proof it is immediate that in Theorem 3.6 we can drop the convexity of the metric and assume
instead that the mapping admits an approximate fixed point sequence.

In the next result we will consider the following new condition for multivalued mappings which will be shown to be
weaker than condition (C ).

Definition 3.8. Let X be a metric space, K ∈ P ( X ) and T : K → P ( X ). The mapping T satisfies condition (C  ) if for each
x, y ∈ K and u x ∈ T (x) with
  1
d(x, u x ) = dist x, T (x) and d(x, u x )  d(x, y ),
2
there exists u y ∈ T ( y ) such that
d(u x , u y )  d(x, y ).

We prove next a selection theorem in R-trees for multivalued mappings satisfying condition (C  ) and analyze afterwards
the relation of (C  ) to (C ) and ( E 3 ) respectively.

Theorem 3.9. Let X be an R-tree, K ∈ P ( X ) and T : K → P cl,cv ( X ) a mapping which satisfies (C  ). Then the mapping f : K → X
defined by f (x) = P T (x) (x) for each x ∈ K is a selection of T that satisfies condition (C ).

Proof. Notice that the properties of R-trees (see Section 2) guarantee that f is well defined. Let x, y ∈ K such that f (x) =
f ( y ) and (1/2)d(x, f (x))  d(x, y ). Consider p (x) = P T ( y ) ( f (x)) and p ( y ) = P T (x) ( f ( y )).
First, suppose p (x) = f ( y ) and p ( y ) = f (x). Since p (x) is the projection of f (x) onto T ( y ) it follows that
     
d f (x), f ( y ) = d f (x), p (x) + d p (x), f ( y ) ,
i.e., p (x) ∈ [ f (x), f ( y )]. Since T ( y ) is convex, [ p (x), f ( y )] ⊆ T ( y ). This implies [ f (x), f ( y )] ∩ [ f ( y ), y ] = { f ( y )} because
otherwise the minimality of f ( y ) would be contradicted. Thus, f ( y ) ∈ [ f (x), y ]. Similarly, f (x) ∈ [ f ( y ), x]. Then f (x), f ( y ) ∈
[x, y ] (otherwise supposing for example that z ∈ [x, f ( y )] ∩ [ f ( y ), y ] with z = f ( y ) we have that f (x) ∈ [ z, f ( y )] and f ( y ) ∈
[ z, f (x)] which is false). Therefore, d( f (x), f ( y ))  d(x, y ). In fact, d( f (x), f ( y )) = d(x, y ) − dist(x, T (x)) − dist( y , T ( y )).
Now assume p (x) = f ( y ). Then d( f (x), f ( y )) = dist( f (x), T ( y )) and so, by condition (C  ),
   
d f (x), f ( y ) = dist f (x), T ( y )  d(x, y ).
Finally, suppose p (x) = f ( y ) and p ( y ) = f (x). As above, if p (x) = f ( y ), we have that f ( y ) ∈ [ f (x), y ]. If (1/2)d( y , f ( y )) 
d(x, y ) then (C  ) yields that
   
d f (x), f ( y ) = dist f ( y ), T (x)  d(x, y ).
Otherwise, if (1/2)d( y , f ( y )) > d(x, y ), then
         
d f (x), f ( y ) + 2d(x, y ) < d f (x), f ( y ) + d f ( y ), y = d f (x), y  d f (x), x + d(x, y )
 2d(x, y ) + d(x, y ).
Consequently, d( f (x), f ( y ))  d(x, y ). This completes the proof. 2

Remark 3.10. Notice the similarity of the statement of this selection result with the classical selection results on hyperconvex
spaces for multivalued nonexpansive mappings with admissible values (see [12,25]).

Since complete R-trees are CAT(0) spaces, using the above result and Theorem 2.6 we obtain the following consequence
which, as we will show below, is an improvement of Theorem 3.6 for R-trees.
 R. Espínola et al. / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 382 (2011) 503–515 509

Corollary 3.11. Let X be a bounded complete R-tree. Suppose T : X → P cl,cv ( X ) satisfies condition (C  ). Then Fix( T ) is a nonempty
complete R-tree.

Proof. Applying Theorem 2.6 to the selection f provided by Theorem 3.9, we obtain that Fix( f ) is nonempty and convex
(and so an R-tree). Noticing that Fix( f ) = Fix( T ) it is now clear that the conclusion follows. 2

We study now the relations between conditions (C ), (C  ) and ( E 3 ).

Proposition 3.12. Let K be a bounded, closed and convex subset of a complete R-tree and T : K → P cl,cv ( K ). The following hold:

(i) if T satisfies (C ), then it also satisfies (C  ), but the converse does not hold;
(ii) if T satisfies (C  ), then it also satisfies ( E 3 ), but the converse is false.

Proof. Clearly, (C ) implies (C  ). To show that (C  ) does not imply (C ) consider R2 with the river metric. Let
     
K = {0} × [−9, 3] ∪ [0, 2] × {0} ∪ {2} × [−1, 0]

and define T : K → P cl,cv ( K ) by

⎧
⎪ {(0, −3)} if x = 0 and y ∈ [−9, −3],
⎪
⎪
⎪ {(0, y )}
⎪ if x = 0 and y ∈ (−3, 0],
⎪
⎨
{(0, − y )} if x = 0 and y ∈ (0, 3),
T (x, y ) =
⎪
⎪ {{0} × [−9, −3]} if x = 0 and y = 3,
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ {(x, 0)} if x ∈ (0, 2] and y = 0,
⎩
{(2, 0)} if x = 2 and y ∈ [−1, 0).

To see that T does not satisfy (C ) take x = (0, 3), y = (2, −1), u x = (0, −9). Notice that T ( y ) = {(2, 0)}. Then, (1/2)d(x, u x ) =
6 = d(x, y ) but d(u x , u y ) = 11 > 6 for u y = (2, 0).
The fact that T satisfies condition (C  ) can be proved by an exhaustive case-by-case study. We omit the proof since this
is a simple exercise. This will end the proof of (i).
To prove that (C  ) implies ( E 3 ), let x, y ∈ K and u x ∈ T (x). According to Theorem 3.9, the function f : K → K defined by
f (x) = P T (x) (x) for each x ∈ K satisfies condition (C ), so, by Lemma 2.2 (iii) it also satisfies ( E 3 ). Thus,
   
d x, f ( y )  3 dist x, T (x) + d(x, y )  3d(x, u x ) + d(x, y ).

Since f ( y ) ∈ T ( y ) it is clear that ( E 3 ) holds. To show that ( E 3 ) does not imply (C  ) we give a very simple example on R
with the usual distance. This fact can also be justified via Example 3 of [7] because in the singlevalued case condition (C  )
is equivalent to condition (C ). Set K = [0, 3] and define T : K → P cl,cv ( K ) by

[1, 3] if x = 0,
T (x) =
{3} if x ∈ (0, 3].

The mapping T does not satisfy (C  ). Indeed, take x = 0, y = 1 and u x = 1. Then (1/2)d(x, u x )  d(x, y ) but d(u x , u y ) >
d(x, y ), where u y = 3. It is also easy to see that T satisfies condition ( E 3 ). This will complete the proof. 2

The following condition for singlevalued mappings given in [7] is another natural extension of condition (C ).

Definition 3.13. Let X be a Banach space, K ∈ P ( X ), f : K → X and λ ∈ (0, 1). The mapping f satisfies condition (C λ ) if for
all x, y ∈ K ,

λ x − f (x)  x − y  ⇒ f (x) − f ( y )  x − y .

For more details about this condition and its relation to conditions (C ) and ( E μ ) one may consult [7]. Following this
idea, we introduce the next generalized version of condition (C  ) for multivalued mappings.

Definition 3.14. Let X be a metric space, K ∈ P ( X ), T : K → P ( X ) and λ ∈ (0, 1). The mapping T satisfies condition (C λ ) if
for each x, y ∈ K and u x ∈ T (x) with
 
d(x, u x ) = dist x, T (x) and λd(x, u x )  d(x, y ),
510 R. Espínola et al. / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 382 (2011) 503–515

there exists u y ∈ T ( y ) such that

d(u x , u y )  d(x, y ).

From the proof of Theorem 3.9 it is easy to see that the following result also holds.

Theorem 3.15. Let X be an R-tree, K ∈ P ( X ) and T : K → P cl,cv ( X ) a mapping which satisfies (C λ ). Then the mapping f : K → X
defined by f (x) = P T (x) (x) for each x ∈ K is a selection of T that satisfies condition (C λ ).

Using the results of [7] in relation to the condition (C λ ), one can further study (similarly as in the case of condition (C ))
properties of multivalued mappings satisfying condition (C λ ) and (C λ ) (defined in a similar manner).

3.1. Appendix: The hyperconvex case

Hyperconvex metric spaces provide a very specific and interesting class of metric spaces with a large literature on fixed
point results for nonexpansive mappings (see [17, Chapter 13] or [12,25] and references therein). In particular, complete
R-trees are hyperconvex [14]. Therefore it is natural to wonder whether (singlevalued) mappings with property (C ) will
also have fixed points when defined from a bounded and closed hyperconvex space into itself. The goal of this appendix is
to take up this question. As a result, we provide partial positive answers to it.
Although a mapping with condition (C ) need not be continuous, it is shown in Theorem 2 of [26] that if T is a self-
mapping on a nonempty compact and convex subset of a Banach space with condition (C ) then it has a fixed point. This
result follows as a consequence of Lemmas 2.2 and 2.4 in this work. In order to obtain the same result for hyperconvex
metric spaces, we first need to give a meaning to convex combinations of two points in such spaces. Let H be a hyperconvex
space and consider ∞ ( I ), where I stands for a certain index set, such that H can be embedded into ∞ ( I ). Then, see
Chapter 13 in [17] for details, there exists a nonexpansive retraction R from ∞ ( I ) into H .

Definition 3.16. Let H be a hyperconvex metric space and I and R as above. Then, for x, y ∈ H and λ ∈ [0, 1], define
 
(1 − λ)x ⊕ λ y = R (1 − λ)x + λ y ,
where (1 − λ)x + λ y stands for the usual convex combination in ∞ ( I ).

Notice that this definition provides a structure of segments (also called bicombing in the literature) which makes
the metric convex as it is required in Lemma 2.4. In consequence, the adaptation of this lemma to this new setting
(see [9, Proposition 2]) is straightforward.

Lemma 3.17. Let H be a hyperconvex metric space and consider the bicombing given by any I and R as above. Let α ∈ (0, 1) and
(xn )n∈N and ( yn )n∈N be two bounded sequences in H such that xn+1 = (1 − α )xn ⊕ α yn and d( yn+1 , yn )  d(xn+1 , xn ) for every
n ∈ N. Then limn→∞ d(xn , yn ) = 0.

Theorem 2 from [26] can also be adapted in a straightforward way.

Theorem 3.18. Let T be a self-mapping on a compact hyperconvex set H . Consider any bicombing as above on H and assume that T
satisfies condition (C ). Define a sequence {xn }n∈N in H with x1 ∈ H arbitrary and
xn+1 = λ T (xn ) ⊕ (1 − λ)xn
for n ∈ N, where λ ∈ [1/2, 1). Then (xn )n∈N converges to a fixed point of T .

Compactness in the previous theorem is only used to obtain the fixed point once it is known that limn→∞ d(xn ,
T (xn )) = 0. Therefore, the following corollary follows.

Corollary 3.19. If T and (xn )n∈N are as above, and H is a hyperconvex metric space, not necessarily compact, then (xn )n∈N is a sequence
of approximate fixed points for T , that is, a sequence such that limn→∞ d(xn , T (xn )) = 0.

The next corollary follows from the fact that mappings with condition (C ) are quasinonexpansive (see Lemma 2.2 (i)).

Corollary 3.20. In the conditions of the previous theorem, the set of fixed points of T is hyperconvex.

Proof. We prove first that Fix( T ) is metrically convex. Let x, y ∈ Fix( T ), α , β > 0 with d(x, y ) = α + β . Set M = 
B (x, α ) ∩

B ( y , β). Then M is nonempty, bounded and hyperconvex. Let z ∈ T ( M ). Then there exists v ∈ M with T ( v ) = z. By the
quasinonexpansivity of T , z ∈ 
B (x, α ) ∩ 
B ( y , β). Therefore, T ( M ) ⊆ M and applying the above, Fix( T ) ∩ M = ∅.
 R. Espínola et al. / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 382 (2011) 503–515 511

Next we show the binary intersection property. Let ( B (xi , r i ))i ∈ J be a collection of balls with centers in Fix( f ) and
such that B ( xi , r i ) ∩ 
B (x j , r j ) = ∅ for all i , j ∈ J . Set M = i ∈ J  B (xi , r i ). Then M is nonempty, compact, hyperconvex and
T -invariant (thanks to the quasinonexpansivity). Thus, Fix( T ) ∩ M = ∅. 2

To take up the noncompact case we will consider a new condition.

Definition 3.21. Let X be a metric space and T : X → X . Then T satisfies condition ( D ) if

1      
d x, T (x)  d(x, y ) ⇒ d T (x), T ( y )  d x, T (x)
2
for all x, y ∈ X .

It is interesting to remark at this point that any 2-Lipschitz mapping satisfies condition ( D ). Notice also that this condi-
tion does not imply continuity and that it is implied by condition (C ) for x, y such that (1/2)d(x, T (x)) = d(x, y ). This last
relation explains why it is not that easy to find a mapping with condition (C ) but failing condition ( D ). The next example
shows, however, that this is possible.

Example 3.22. Let T : [0, 5] → [0, 5] be defined as follows

⎧
⎪ 0 if x ∈ [0; 2],
⎪
⎪x−2
⎪
⎪ if x ∈ (2; 4],
⎨
10 − 2x if x ∈ (4; 4, 6],
T (x) =
⎪
⎪ 0, 8 if x ∈ (4, 6; 4, 8],
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩1 if x ∈ (4, 8; 5),
3 if x = 5.
It is immediate to see that T does not satisfy condition ( D ) by taking x = 5 and y = 4, 6. A case-by-case analysis shows
that T satisfies condition (C ).

In the conjunction of conditions (C ) and ( D ) we can adapt the classical proof of Baillon (see [1, Theorem 5]) for the
existence of fixed points for nonexpansive mappings in hyperconvex spaces.

Theorem 3.23. Let X be a nonempty bounded hyperconvex space. Suppose T : X → X satisfies conditions (C ) and ( D ). Then Fix( T ) is
nonempty and hyperconvex.

Proof. Let U = { A ⊆ X: A = ∅, A = cov( A ), T ( A ) ⊆ A } and order this family in the following way: for U 1 , U 2 ∈ U ,
U1  U2 ⇐⇒ U 2 ⊆ U 1.
The family U = ∅ since X ∈ U . Take (U i )i ∈N an increasing chain, that is, a decreasing sequence of sets in U . Since U i =

x∈ X B (x, r x (U i )) and X is hyperconvex it follows that i ∈N U i = ∅. Because i ∈N U i is also T -invariant, we have an upper
bound for the chain, so, by Zorn’s lemma, there exists a maximal element and thus minimal with respect to the set inclusion.
We shall denote this minimal element by A.
We show next that cov( T ( A )) ∈ U . This amounts to showing that cov( T ( A )) is T -invariant. Let y ∈ T (cov( T ( A ))).
Since cov( T ( A )) ⊆ cov( A ) = A, it follows that for every x ∈ X , d(x, y )  r x ( T (cov( T ( A ))))  r x ( T ( A )). This implies that
y ∈ cov( T ( A )) because cov( T ( A )) is admissible. Hence, cov( T ( A )) ∈ U and is at the same time a subset of A. By the mini-
mality of A we obtain that A = cov( T ( A )) which yields that for all x ∈ X ,
 
rx ( A ) = rx T ( A ) . (4)

Let C ( A ) be the center of A. Then C ( A ) = x∈ A  B (x, r ( A )) and C ( A ) ∩ A = ∅ since r ( A ) = (1/2) diam A and X is hy-
perconvex. We claim that C ( A ) ∩ A is also T -invariant. Take y ∈ C ( A ) ∩ A. We want to show that r T ( y ) ( A ) = r ( A ).
Let x ∈ A. Then, if (1/2)d( y , T ( y ))  d(x, y ) we can apply (C ) to obtain that d( T (x), T ( y ))  d(x, y )  r ( A ). Otherwise,
(1/2)d( y , T ( y ))  d(x, y ) and we can apply ( D ) to obtain that d( T (x), T ( y ))  d( y , T ( y ))  r ( A ). Joining both cases, we
obtain that r T ( y ) ( T ( A ))  r ( A ). Now it is enough to recall (4) to prove our claim.
It is now easy to see that A ∩ C ( A ) ∈ U . Using again the minimality of A we obtain that A = A ∩ C ( A ). But this yields
that diam( A ) = diam( A ∩ C ( A ))  (1/2) diam( A ), so A is a singleton and hence Fix( T ) = ∅.
Finally, the fact that Fix( T ) is hyperconvex follows in the same way as in Corollary 3.20. 2

The following corollary is a particular case of this theorem.

Corollary 3.24. Let X be a nonempty bounded hyperconvex space. Suppose T : X → X is a 2-lipschitzian mapping with condition (C ).
Then Fix( T ) is nonempty and hyperconvex.
512 R. Espínola et al. / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 382 (2011) 503–515

4. Fixed points in Banach spaces

The goal of this section is to revisit classical theorems for existence of fixed points for nonexpansive multivalued map-
pings in Banach spaces from the perspective of multivalued mappings with condition (C ).

Definition 4.1. Let X be a Banach space endowed with a linear topology τ . The space X is said to have the Opial property
with respect to τ if

lim inf xn − x < lim inf xn − y ,

n→∞ n→∞

for every y ∈ X , y = x and for every bounded sequence (xn )n∈N in X τ -convergent to x. When τ is the weak topology we
will say, in short, that X has the Opial property.

Theorem 4.2. Let X be a Banach space which has the Opial property with respect to τ . Suppose K is a bounded, convex and
τ -sequentially compact subset of X and T : K → P cp ( K ) is a mapping satisfying condition (C ). Then Fix( T ) = ∅.

Proof. By Proposition 3.4 there exist two sequences (xn )n∈N and ( yn )n∈N in K such that yn ∈ T (xn ) and limn→∞ xn −
yn  = 0. Since K is τ -sequentially compact we may assume that (xn )n∈N is τ -convergent to a point z ∈ K .
Using Lemma 3.2, for each n ∈ N, there exists v n ∈ T ( z) such that

xn − v n   3xn − yn  + xn − z.

By the compactness of T ( z), we can assume that ( v n )n∈N converges to a point v ∈ T ( z). From the above it follows that

lim inf xn − v   lim inf xn − z.

n→∞ n→∞

From the Opial property we have that v = z ∈ T ( z) and the proof is complete. 2

Remark 4.3. Notice that the class of spaces for which the preceding theorem can be applied includes the space 1 where τ
is the weak star topology σ (c 0 , 1 ) and K is a weak star compact convex subset of 1 .

Now, we are going to set out some useful results concerning the asymptotic centers. Let (xn )n∈N be a bounded sequence
in X . Define
   
r K , (xn ) = inf lim sup xn − x: x ∈ K ,
n→∞

and
    
A K , (xn ) = x ∈ K : lim sup xn − x = r K , (xn ) .
n→∞

The number r ( K , (xn )) and the (possibly empty) set A ( K , (xn )) are called the asymptotic radius and the asymptotic center
of (xn )n∈N in K respectively. It should be noted that A ( K , (xn )) is a nonempty, weakly compact and convex set whenever K
is weakly compact and convex.

Definition 4.4. A bounded sequence is said to be regular with respect to K if each of its subsequences has the same
asymptotic radius in K , and asymptotically uniform with respect to K if each of its subsequence has the same asymptotic
center in K .

Lemma 4.5. (See Goebel [8], Lim [20], Kirk [13].) Let K be a subset of a Banach space X and (xn )n∈N a bounded sequence in X . Then

(i) there always exists a subsequence (xn )n∈N which is regular with respect to K ;
(ii) if K is separable, then (xn )n∈N contains a subsequence which is asymptotically uniform with respect to K .

Recall that X is said to be uniformly convex in every direction (UCED, in short) if δz ( ) > 0 for all  > 0 and z ∈ X with
 z = 1, where δz ( ) is the modulus of convexity of X in the direction z defined by

1
δz ( ) = inf 1 − x + y : x  1,  y   1, x − y =  z .
2
Obviously, uniformly convex Banach spaces are UCED. It is known that in a UCED Banach space, the asymptotic center of
a sequence with respect to a weakly compact convex set is a singleton. Hence, every regular sequence with respect to such
a set is asymptotically uniform.
 R. Espínola et al. / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 382 (2011) 503–515 513

Theorem 4.6. Let K be a weakly compact and convex subset of a UCED Banach space X . Suppose T : K → P cp ( K ) is a mapping
satisfying condition (C ). Then Fix( T ) = ∅.

Proof. Let (xn )n∈N and ( yn )n∈N be two sequences in K such that yn ∈ T (xn ) and limn→∞ xn − yn  = 0. Without loss of
generality, me may assume that (xn )n∈N is regular with respect to K . Let z be the unique point in the asymptotic center of
(xn )n∈N in K . By Lemma 3.2, for each n ∈ N there exists v n ∈ T (z) such that
xn − v n   3xn − yn  + xn − z.
From the compactness of T ( z) we can assume that ( v n )n∈N converges to a point v ∈ T ( z). It follows that

lim sup xn − v   lim sup xn − z.

n→∞ n→∞

Since (xn )n∈N is regular we conclude that v = z ∈ T ( z). 2

Dhompongsa et al. [3] have recently proved the T invariance of the asymptotic center in K of an approximate fixed point
sequence for T , when T is a singlevalued mapping satisfying condition (C ). We now state a result which can be seen as an
adaptation of this fact to the multivalued case.

Proposition 4.7. Let K be a nonempty, bounded, closed, and convex subset of a Banach space X and T : K → P cp ( K ) a continuous map-
ping with respect to the Pompeiu–Hausdorff distance satisfying condition (C ). Suppose that each sequence in K has a nonempty and
separable asymptotic center relative to K . Let (xn )n∈N be an approximate fixed point sequence, then there exists a subsequence ( zn )n∈N
of (xn )n∈N such that
 
T (x) ∩ A = ∅, for all x ∈ A := A K , ( zn ) .

Proof. Since T is a self-mapping we can build a subsequence ( zn )n∈N of (xn )n∈N which is regular and asymptotically uniform
with respect to K (see [10, p. 168]). Denote r ( K , ( zn )) by r. Taking any x ∈ A and following the same argument as in the
proof of the above theorem we obtain a sequence ( v n )n∈N ⊆ T (x) norm convergent to a point v ∈ T (x) such that

lim sup xn − v   lim sup xn − x = r .

n→∞ n→∞

This shows that v ∈ A, and so T (x) ∩ A = ∅. 2

Now we are ready to prove an analogous result to the Kirk–Massa theorem [16] for mappings satisfying condition (C ).

Theorem 4.8. Let K be a nonempty, bounded, closed and convex subset of a Banach space X and T : K → P cp,cv ( K ) be a continuous
mapping with respect to the Pompeiu–Hausdorff distance satisfying condition (C ). Suppose that each sequence in K has a nonempty
and compact asymptotic center relative to K . Then Fix( T ) = ∅.

Proof. According to the previous proposition we can take a sequence (xn )n∈N in K such that
 
T (x) ∩ A = ∅, for all x ∈ A := A K , (xn ) .

Now we define the mapping T̃ : A → P cp,cv ( A ) by T̃ (x) = T (x) ∩ A. Since T is continuous, from Proposition 2.45 in [11] we
know that the mapping T̃ is upper semi-continuous. Since T (x) ∩ A is a compact convex set we can apply the Kakutani–
Bohnenblust–Karlin theorem (see [10]) to obtain a fixed point for T̃ and hence for T . 2

Remark 4.9. Recall that a multivalued mapping T : K → P b ( X ) is said to be nonexpansive if

 
H T (x), T ( y )  x − y  for all x, y ∈ K ,

where H denotes the Pompeiu–Hausdorff distance. It is worth pointing out that another natural extension of the Suzuki’s
condition (C ) for a multivalued mapping T : K → P b ( X ) is the following: for all x, y ∈ K

1    
dist x, T (x)  x − y  ⇒ H T (x), T ( y )  x − y .
2
Obviously, a nonexpansive mapping meets the above condition. However, it is not clear if a mapping satisfying the above
condition also satisfies (C ). Still, if T takes compact values is easy to see that this new condition implies condition (C ). Since
in our theorems T is assumed to be compact valued, such results generalize classical fixed point theorems for multivalued
mappings (see [16,19,20]).
514 R. Espínola et al. / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 382 (2011) 503–515

5. Common fixed points

In our last section we will apply some of the fixed point theorems stated in previous sections to obtain results on the
existence of common fixed points.

Definition 5.1. Let X be a metric space and K ∈ P ( X ). Suppose f : K → K and T : K → P ( K ). Then f and T are commuting
mappings if f ( y ) ∈ T ( f (x)) for all x ∈ K and y ∈ T (x).

We start by giving a lemma that will constitute a main tool in proving our results.

Lemma 5.2. Let X be a metric space, K ∈ P ( X ), f : K → K satisfying condition (C ) and with Fix( f ) = ∅. Suppose T : K → P ( K ) is
such that for every x, y ∈ Fix( f ), the set P T ( y ) (x) is a singleton. If f and T commute, then P T ( y ) (x) ∈ Fix( f ) for all x, y ∈ Fix( f ).

Proof. Let x, y ∈ Fix( f ) and denote P T ( y ) (x) by u. Because f meets condition (C ) and 0 = (1/2)d(x, f (x))  d(x, u ) we
obtain that d(x, f (u )) = d( f (x), f (u ))  d(x, u ) = dist(x, T ( y )). But f (u ) ∈ T ( y ) because f and T commute, y ∈ Fix( f ) and
u ∈ T ( y ). Hence, f (u ) = u and the conclusion follows. 2

The following theorem is an extension of Theorem 4.2 of [23] in the setting of a UC space with convex metric. Notice
that our approach is different in the second half of the proof from that of [23]. In particular, ours fills a gap in the proof
of [23]. Notice also that this theorem extends some other results in the theory, see, for instance, [6,24].

Theorem 5.3. Let X be a complete UC space with convex metric and K ∈ P b,cl,cv ( X ). Suppose f : K → K and T : K → P cp,cv ( K ) satisfy
condition (C ). If f and T commute, then there exists z ∈ K such that z = f ( z) ∈ T ( z).

Proof. Using Theorem 2.6, it follows that Fix( f ) is nonempty, closed and convex. Since the setting we work in is a UC space,
the projection onto each compact and convex set is a singleton. By Lemma 5.2, P T (x) (x) ∈ T (x) ∩ Fix( f ) for each x ∈ Fix( f )
and so we can consider the mapping T (·) ∩ Fix( f ) : Fix( f ) → P cp (Fix( f )). We show that this mapping satisfies condition (C ).
Let x, y ∈ Fix( f ), u x ∈ T (x) ∩ Fix( f ) such that (1/2)d(x, u x )  d(x, y ). Since T fulfills (C ), there exists v y ∈ T ( y ) such that
d(u x , v y )  d(x, y ). Let u y stand for P T ( y ) (u x ). According to Lemma 5.2, u y ∈ T ( y ) ∩ Fix( f ). It is also clear that d(u x , u y ) 
d(u x , v y )  d(x, y ). Thus, the mapping T (·) ∩ Fix( f ) : Fix( f ) → P cp (Fix( f )) satisfies (C ) which means, using Theorem 3.6,
that there exists z ∈ K such that z = f ( z) ∈ T ( z). 2

Likewise, one can prove the following result in the framework of R-trees.

Theorem 5.4. Let X be a bounded complete R-tree. Suppose f : X → X and T : X → P cl,cv ( X ) satisfy conditions (C ) and (C  ) respec-
tively. If f and T commute, then there exists z ∈ K such that z = f ( z) ∈ T ( z).

Proof. According to Theorem 2.6, it follows that Fix( f ) is nonempty, closed and convex (and so also hyperconvex). This
means that Fix( f ) is in its own turn a complete R-tree. Since in an R-tree the projection onto each closed and convex
set is a singleton we can apply Lemma 5.2 and so T (x) ∩ Fix( f ) = ∅ for each x ∈ Fix( f ). Now consider the mapping T (·) ∩
Fix( f ) : Fix( f ) → P cl,cv (Fix( f )). We show that this mapping satisfies condition (C  ). Let x, y ∈ Fix( f ), u x ∈ T (x) ∩ Fix( f )
such that d(x, u x ) = dist(x, T (x) ∩ Fix( f )) and (1/2)d(x, u x )  d(x, y ). Applying Lemma 5.2, P T (x) (x) ∈ T (x) ∩ Fix( f ) which
implies that dist(x, T (x)) = dist(x, T (x) ∩ Fix( f )), so d(x, u x ) = dist(x, T (x)). Because T satisfies (C  ), there exists v y ∈ T ( y )
such that d(u x , v y )  d(x, y ). Let u y stand for P T ( y ) (u x ). According to Lemma 5.2, u y ∈ T ( y ) ∩ Fix( f ). It is also clear that
d(u x , u y )  d(u x , v y )  d(x, y ). Thus, the mapping T (·) ∩ Fix( f ) : Fix( f ) → P cl,cv (Fix( f )) satisfies (C  ) which means, using
Corollary 3.11, that there exists z ∈ K such that z = f ( z) ∈ T ( z). 2

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Attapol Kaewkhao for noticing and letting us know about a mistake in a previous version of this paper.
The research of the first two authors was partially supported by DGES, Grant MTM2009-10696-C02-01 and Junta de Andalucía, Grant FQM-127. The
third author was supported by programs co-financed by the Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development, Contract POS DRU 6/1.5/S/3 –
“Doctoral studies: through science towards society”. She would also like to express her appreciation to the Department of Mathematical Analysis and to the
Institute of Mathematics of the University of Seville (IMUS) for their support.

References

[1] J.B. Baillon, Nonexpansive mapping and hyperconvex spaces, in: Contemp. Math., vol. 72, Amer. Math. Soc., 1988, pp. 11–19.
[2] M.R. Bridson, A. Haefliger, Metric Spaces of Non-Positive Curvature, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
[3] S. Dhompongsa, W. Inthakon, A. Kaewkhao, Edelstein’s method and fixed point theorems for some generalized nonexpansive mappings, J. Math. Anal.
Appl. 350 (2009) 12–17.
 R. Espínola et al. / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 382 (2011) 503–515 515

[4] R. Espínola, W.A. Kirk, Fixed point theorems in R-trees with applications to graph theory, Topology Appl. 153 (2006) 1046–1055.
[5] R. Espínola, A. Fernández-León, B. Pia̧tek, Fixed points of single- and set-valued mappings in uniformly convex metric spaces with no metric convexity,
Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010 (2010), Article ID 169837, 16 pp.
[6] R. Espínola, N. Hussain, Common fixed points for multimaps in metric spaces, Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010 (2010), Article ID 204981, 14 pp.
[7] J. García-Falset, E. Llorens-Fuster, T. Suzuki, Fixed point theory for a class of generalized nonexpansive mappings, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 375 (1) (2011)
185–195.
[8] K. Goebel, On a fixed point theorem for multivalued nonexpansive mappings, Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skłodowska 29 (1975) 70–72.
[9] K. Goebel, W.A. Kirk, Iteration processes for nonexpansive mappings, in: Contemp. Math., vol. 21, Amer. Math. Soc., 1983, pp. 115–123.
[10] K. Goebel, W.A. Kirk, Topics in Metric Fixed Point Theory, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990.
[11] S. Hu, N. Papageorgiou, Handbook of Multivalued Analysis, vol. 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1997.
[12] M.A. Khamsi, W.A. Kirk, C. Martínez Yáñez, Fixed point and selection theorems in hyperconvex spaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 128 (2000) 3275–3283.
[13] W.A. Kirk, Nonexpansive mappings in product spaces, set-valued mappings and k-uniformly rotundity, in: F.E. Browder (Ed.), Amer. Math. Soc. Symp.
Pure Math. 45 (1986) 51–64.
[14] W.A. Kirk, Hyperconvexity of R-trees, Fund. Math. 156 (1998) 67–72.
[15] W.A. Kirk, Some recent results in metric fixed point theory, J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2 (2007) 195–207.
[16] W.A. Kirk, S. Massa, Remarks on asymptotic and Chebyshev centers, Houston J. Math. 16 (1990) 357–364.
[17] W.A. Kirk, B. Sims (Eds.), Handbook of Metric Fixed Point Theory, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2001.
[18] U. Kohlenbach, L. Leuştean, Asymptotically nonexpansive mappings in uniformly convex hyperbolic spaces, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 12 (2010) 71–92.
[19] E. Lami Dozo, Multivalued nonexpansive mappings and Opial’s condition, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 38 (1973) 286–292.
[20] T.C. Lim, A fixed point theorem for multivalued nonexpansive mappings in a uniformly convex Banach space, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 80 (1974) 1123–
1126.
[21] J.T. Markin, Fixed points, selections and best approximation for multivalued mappings in R-trees, Nonlinear Anal. 67 (2007) 2712–2716.
[22] B. Pia̧tek, Best approximation of coincidence points in metric trees, Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skłodowska Sect. A 62 (2008) 113–121.
[23] A. Razani, H. Salahifard, Invariant approximation for CAT(0) spaces, Nonlinear Anal. 72 (2010) 2421–2425.
[24] N. Shahzad, Fixed point results for multimaps in CAT(0) spaces, Topology Appl. 156 (2009) 997–1001.
[25] R. Sine, Hyperconvexity and nonexpansive multifunctions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 315 (1989) 755–767.
[26] T. Suzuki, Fixed point theorems and convergence theorems for some generalized nonexpansive mappings, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 340 (2008) 1088–1095.