Nonlinear Analysis 74 (2011) 4544–4549

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nonlinear Analysis
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/na

A generalization of Mizoguchi and Takahashi’s theorem for

single-valued mappings in partially ordered metric spaces
M.E. Gordji ∗ , M. Ramezani
Department of Mathematics, Semnan University, P.O. Box 35195-363, Semnan, Iran
Center of Excellence in Nonlinear Analysis and Applications (CENAA), Semnan University, Iran

article info abstract

Article history: We present a generalization of Mizoguchi and Takahashi’s fixed point theorem for single-
Received 3 February 2011 valued mappings in partially ordered metric spaces. As an application of the main result,
Accepted 5 April 2011 we give an existence and uniqueness theorem for the solution of a periodic boundary value
Communicated by S. Ahmad
problem.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
MSC:
54H25

Keywords:
Fixed point theorem
Partially ordered metric space

1. Introduction

The fixed point theory for multi-valued mappings developed rapidly after the publication of Nadler’s paper [1] in which
he established a multi-valued version of Banach’s contraction principle.
The existence of fixed points in partially ordered metric spaces was first investigated in 1986 by Turinici [2]. Further
results in this direction were proved in, e.g., [3–8].
In this paper, we extend the results of Amini-Harandi and O’Regan [9] to ordered metric spaces for single-valued
mappings.

2. Preliminaries

Let (X , d) be a metric space. For x ∈ X and A ⊆ X , d(x, A) = inf{d(x, a); a ∈ A}. We denote by CB(X ) the class of nonempty
bounded subsets of X , and by K (X ) the class of all nonempty compact subsets of X . Let H be the Hausdorff metric on CB(X )
generated by metric d, that is,
H (A, B) = max{sup d(x, B), sup d(y, A)}
x∈A y∈B

for every A, B ∈ CB(X ). A point p ∈ X is said to be a fixed point of T : X → CB(X ) if p ∈ Tp.

Reich [10] proved that if (X , d) is a complete metric space and T : X → CB(X ) satisfies
H (Tx, Ty) ≤ α(d(x, y))d(x, y)
for each x, y ∈ X , where α is a function from [0, ∞) to [0, 1) such that lim supr →t + α(r ) < 1 for each t ∈ (0, ∞), then T
has a fixed point. Reich raised the question of whether K (X ) can be replaced by CB(X ) in this result. In [11] Mizoguchi and
Takahashi gave a positive answer to the conjecture of Reich; more precisely they proved:

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Mathematics, Semnan University, P.O. Box 35195-363, Semnan, Iran.
E-mail addresses: maj_ess@Yahoo.com (M.E. Gordji), ramezanim@ymail.com (M. Ramezani).

0362-546X/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.na.2011.04.020
 M.E. Gordji, M. Ramezani / Nonlinear Analysis 74 (2011) 4544–4549 4545

Theorem 2.1 ([11]). Let (X , d) be a complete metric space and suppose that T : X → CB(X ). Assume that
H (Tx, Ty) ≤ α(d(x, y))d(x, y)
for each x, y ∈ X , where α is a function from [0, ∞) to [0, 1) such that lim supr →t + α(r ) < 1 for each t ∈ (0, ∞); then T has a
fixed point.
Let Ψ be the family of all functions ψ : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) satisfying the following conditions:
(a) ψ(s) = 0 ⇔ s = 0,
(b) ψ is lower semicontinuous and nondecreasing,
(c) lim sups → 0+ ψ(s s) < ∞.

Recently, Du [12] proved some coupled fixed point results of Mizoguchi and Takahashi’s type in partially quasiordered
metric spaces. The following generalization of Mizoguchi and Takahashi’s fixed point theorem is due to Amini-Harandi and
O’Regan [9].

Theorem 2.2 ([9]). Let (X , d) be a complete metric space and let T : X → CB(X ) be a set-valued mapping. Suppose that there
exists ψ ∈ Ψ such that for each x, y ∈ X ,
ψ(H (Tx, Ty)) ≤ α(ψ(d(x, y)))ψ(d(x, y))
where α : [0, ∞) → [0, 1) is a function such that lim supr →t + α(r ) < 1 for all t ∈ [0, ∞). Then T has a fixed point.
In the next section, we prove a version of Theorem 2.2 for single-valued mappings in the context of partially ordered
complete metric spaces. In Section 4, we prove a theorem on the existence of a unique solution for a partially differential
equation.

3. The main theorem

We are now ready to state and prove our main theorem.

Theorem 3.1. Let (X , ≤) be a partially ordered set and suppose that there exists a metric d on X such that (X , d) is a complete
metric space. Let f : X → X be an increasing mapping such that there exists an element x0 ∈ X with x0 ≤ f (x0 ). Suppose that
there exists ψ ∈ Ψ such that

ψ(d(fx, fy)) ≤ α(ψ(d(x, y)))ψ(d(x, y)) (1)

for all x, y ∈ X such that x and y are comparable and that α : [0, ∞) → [0, 1) is a function satisfying lim supr →t + α(r ) < 1
for all t ∈ (0, ∞). Assume that either f is continuous or X is such that the following holds:
if an increasing sequence {xn } → x in X , then xn ≤ x, for all n ∈ N. (2)
Then f has a fixed point.
Proof. Since x0 ≤ f (x0 ) and f is a increasing function, we obtain by induction that
x0 ≤ f (x0 ) ≤ f 2 (x0 ) ≤ f 3 (x0 ) · · · ≤ f n (x0 ) ≤ f n+1 (x0 ) ≤ · · · .
Put xn = f n (x0 ), n = 1, 2, 3, . . . . Since xn ≤ xn+1 for each n ∈ N, then by (1),
ψ(d(xn+1 , xn+2 )) ≤ α(ψ(d(xn , xn+1 )))ψ(d(xn , xn+1 ))
≤ ψ(d(xn , xn+1 )).
This means that {ψ(d(xn , xn+1 ))} is a decreasing sequence. On the other hand this sequence is bounded below; thus
limn→∞ ψ(d(xn , xn+1 )) = r0 ≥ 0. Assume that r0 > 0. Since lim sups→r + α(s) < 1 and α(r0 ) < 1, then there exist
0
r ∈ [0, 1) and ϵ > 0 such that α(s) ≤ r for all s ∈ [r0 , r0 + ϵ). We can take n0 ∈ N such that r0 ≤ ψ(d(xn , xn+1 )) ≤ r0 + ϵ
for all n ≥ n0 . Since
ψ(d(xn+1 , xn+2 )) ≤ α(ψ(d(xn , xn+1 )))ψ(d(xn , xn+1 )) ≤ r ψ(d(xn , xn+1 ))
for all n ≥ n0 , then we have r0 ≤ r0 r; this implies that r0 = 0.
If d(xm , xm+1 ) = 0 for some m ∈ N, then d(xn , xn+1 ) = 0 for each n ≥ m. Thus {xn } is eventually constant so we have a
fixed point of f .
Now, suppose that d(xn , xn+1 ) ̸= 0 for each n ∈ N. Since {ψ(d(xn , xn+1 ))} is decreasing and ψ is increasing, then the
nonnegative sequence {d(xn , xn+1 )} converges to some nonnegative real number τ . Since ψ is increasing and {d(xn , xn+1 )}
is decreasing, then ψ(τ ) ≤ ψ(d(xn , xn+1 )) for all n ∈ N. It follows that
ψ(τ ) ≤ lim ψ(d(xn , xn+1 )) = r0 = 0.
n→∞
4546 M.E. Gordji, M. Ramezani / Nonlinear Analysis 74 (2011) 4544–4549

Hence τ = 0. On the other hand, ψ(d(xn+1 , xn+2 )) ≤ r ψ(d(xn , xn+1 )) for n ≥ n0 . Then we have
∞
− n0
− ∞
−
ψ(d(xn , xn+1 )) ≤ ψ(d(xn , xn+1 )) + r n ψ(d(xn0 , xn0 +1 )) < ∞.
1 1 n 0 +1

Since
d(xn , xn+1 ) s
lim sup ≤ lim sup < ∞,
n→∞ ψ(d(xn , xn+1 )) s→0 + ψ( s)

then 1 d(xn , xn+1 ) < ∞. This shows that {xn } is a Cauchy sequence. Since (X , d) is a complete metric space, then there
∑∞
exists a z ∈ X such that limn→∞ xn = z. Now, we show that z is a fixed point of f .
If f is continuous, then
z = lim xn = lim xn+1 = lim f (xn ) = f ( lim xn ) = f (z )
n→∞ n→∞ n→∞ n→∞

and hence f (z ) = z.
If (2) holds, then
ψ(d(z , f (z ))) ≤ lim inf ψ(d(xn+1 , f (z )))
n→∞

= lim inf ψ(d(f (xn ), f (z )))

n→∞

≤ lim inf α(ψ(d(xn , z )))ψ(d(xn , z ))

n→∞

≤ lim inf ψ(d(xn , z ))

n→∞

= lim ψ(s) = lim ψ(d(xn , xn+1 ))

s→0+ n→∞

= 0.
So f (z ) = z and the proof is complete. 
Now, we give a sufficient condition for the uniqueness of the fixed point in Theorem 3.1. This condition is as follows:
For x, y ∈ X there exists a lower bound and upper bound. (3)
In [5] it is proved that condition (3) is equivalent to the following condition:
for x, y ∈ X there exists z ∈ X which is comparable to x and y. (4)

Theorem 3.2. Adding condition (4) to the hypotheses of Theorem 3.1, we obtain uniqueness of the fixed point of f .
Proof. Suppose that there exist z , y ∈ X which are fixed points of f . From (4) there exists x ∈ X which is comparable to z
and y. Monotonicity implies that f n (x) is comparable to f n (y) = y and f n (z ) = z for n = 1, 2, 3, . . . . Moreover
ψ(d(z , f n (x))) = ψ(d(f n (z ), f n (x))) ≤ α(ψ(d(f n−1 (z ), f n−1 (x)))ψ(d(f n−1 (z ), f n−1 (x))))
≤ ψ(d(f n−1 (z ), f n−1 (x)))
= ψ(d(z , f n−1 (x))). (5)
Consequently, the sequence ψ(d(z , f (x))) = ψ(d(f (z ), f (x))) is a nonnegative decreasing sequence and hence possesses
n n n

the limit γ . Now, we show that γ = 0. Assume that γ > 0. From (5), we obtain
γ ≤ lim sup α(s).γ < γ .
s→γ +

Hence γ = 0. Now, we show that limn→∞ d(z , f n (x)) = 0.

If d(z , f m (x)) = 0 for some m ∈ N, then d(z , f n (x)) = 0 for all n ≥ m. It follows that limn→∞ d(z , f n (x)) = 0.
Suppose that d(z , f n (x)) ̸= 0 for all n ∈ N. Since {ψ(d(z , f (x)))} is a monotone decreasing sequence and ψ is increasing,
then {d(z , f n (x))} is a nonnegative and decreasing sequence and so limn→∞ d(z , f n (x)) = r ≥ 0. On the other hand, ψ is
lower semicontinuous; then
ψ(r ) ≤ lim inf ψ d(z , f n (x)) = γ = 0.
n→∞

So r = 0.
Analogously, it can be proved that limn→∞ d(y, f n (x)) = 0.
Finally,
d(z , y) ≤ d(z , f n (x)) + d(f n (x), y)
and taking limit as n → ∞ yields d(z , y) = 0. 
 M.E. Gordji, M. Ramezani / Nonlinear Analysis 74 (2011) 4544–4549 4547

4. Application to ordinary differential equations

We prove the existence of solution for the following first-order periodic problem:

u′ (t ) = f (t , u(t )), t ∈ I = [0, T ] (6)

u(0) = u(T ),
where T > 0 and f : I × R → R is a continuous function. Previously we considered the space C (I )(I = [0, T ]) of continuous
functions defined on I. Obviously, this space with the metric given by
d(x, y) = sup{|x(t ) − y(t )| : t ∈ I } for x, y ∈ C (I )
is a complete metric space. C (I ) can also be equipped with a partial order given by
x, y ∈ C (I ), x ≤ y ⇔ x(t ) ≤ y(t ) for all t ∈ I .
Obviously, (C (I ), ≤) satisfies condition (3) since for x, y ∈ C (I ) the functions max{x, y} and min{x, y} are least upper and
greatest lower bounds of x and y, respectively. Moreover, in (4) it is proved that (C (I ), ≤) with the above mentioned metric
satisfies condition (2). Now, we give the following definition.

Definition 4.1. A lower solution for (6) is a function α ∈ C 1 (I ) such that

α ′ (t ) ≤ f (t , u(t )), t ∈ I = [0, T ]
α(0) = α(T ).

Theorem 4.2. Consider problem (6) with f : I × R → R continuous and suppose that there exists λ > 0 such that for x, y ∈ R
with y ≥ x
0 ≤ f (t , y) + λy − [f (t , x) + λx] ≤ λ ln(y − x + 1).
Then the existence of a lower solution for (6) provides the existence of a unique solution of (6).

Proof. Problem (6) is equivalent to the integral equation

∫ T
u( t ) = G(s, t )[f (s, u(s)) + λu(s)]ds
0

where
eλ(T +s−t )

,

 0≤s≤t ≤T
eλT − 1

G(t , s) = λ(s−t )
e

, 0 ≤ t < s ≤ T.
eλT − 1


Define F : C (I ) → C (I ) by
∫ T
(Fu)(t ) = G(s, t )[f (s, u(s)) + λu(s)]ds.
0

Note that if u ∈ C (I ) is a fixed point of F , then u ∈ C 1 (I ) is a solution of (6). Now, we will use Theorem 3.1.
The mapping F is increasing since for u ≥ v ,
f (t , u) + λu ≥ f (t , v) + λv
and using that G(s, t ) > 0 for (s, t ) ∈ I × I, we give
∫ T
(Fu)(t ) = G(s, t )[f (s, u(s)) + λu(s)]ds
0
∫ T
≥ G(s, t )[f (s, v(s)) + λv(s)]ds
0

for t ∈ I. Besides for u ≥ v ,

ln(d(F (u), F (v) + 1)) = ln(sup |(Fu)(t ) − (F v)(t )| + 1)
t ∈I
T
[ ∫ ] 
= ln sup G(s, t )[f (s, u(s)) + λu(s) − [f (s, v(s)) + λv(s)]]ds + 1
t ∈I 0
4548 M.E. Gordji, M. Ramezani / Nonlinear Analysis 74 (2011) 4544–4549

T
[ ∫ ] 
≤ sup G(s, t ).λ ln(u(s) − v(s) + 1)ds + 1
t ∈I 0
[ ∫ T ] 
≤ ln λ. ln(d(u, v) + 1). sup G(s, t )ds + 1
t ∈I 0
  [ ]T  
1 1  λ(T +s−t ) t 1 λ(t −s)
= ln λ. ln(d(u, v) + 1). sup λT e + e +1
t ∈I e −1 λ 0
λ t
[ ] 
1 λT
= ln λ. ln(d(u, v) + 1). sup λT − 1)
e − 1 + 1
t ∈I λ(e

= ln([ln(d(u, v) + 1)] + 1)
ln(ln(d(u, v) + 1) + 1)
= ln(d(u, v) + 1)
ln(d(u, v) + 1)
= α(ln(d(u, v) + 1)) ln(d(u, v) + 1).
ψ(x)
Put ψ(x) = ln(x + 1) and α(x) = x . Obviously ψ : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) is continuous, increasing ψ ′ (x) = x+1 1 > 0 , and
 

positive in (0, ∞), with ψ(0) = 0 and lim supx→0+ ψ(xx) = 1 < ∞. Also, ψ(x) < x for x > 0 and lim supx→t + α(x) =
lim supx→t + 1+ 1
t
< 1 for t ∈ (0, ∞).
Finally, let α(t ) be a lower solution for (6); we will show that α ≤ F α .
Indeed

α(t ) + λα(t ) ≤ f (t , α(t )) + λα(t ), for t ∈ I .

Multiplying by eλt we get

(α(t )eλt )′ ≤ [f (t , α(t )) + λα(t )]eλt , for t ∈ I

and this gives us

∫ t
α(t )eλt ≤ α(0) + eλs [f (s, u(s)) + λu(s)]ds (7)
0

which implies that

∫ T
α(0)eλT ≤ α(T )eλT ≤ α(0) + eλs [f (s, u(s)) + λu(s)]ds
0

and so
t
eλs
∫
α(0) ≤ [f (s, u(s)) + λu(s)]ds.
0 eλT − 1
From this inequality and (7), we obtain
t
eλ(T +s) T
eλs
∫ ∫
α(t )eλt ≤ [f (s, u(s)) + λu(s)]ds + [f (s, u(s)) + λu(s)]ds
0 eλT −1 t eλT −1
and consequently,
t
eλ(T +s−t ) T
eλ(s−t )
∫ ∫
α(t ) ≤ [f (s, u(s)) + λu(s)]ds + [f (s, u(s)) + λu(s)]ds.
0 eλT − 1 t eλT − 1
Hence
∫ T
α(t ) ≤ G(s, t )[f (s, α(s)) + λα(s)]ds = (F α)(t )
0

for t ∈ I. Finally, it follows from Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 that F has a unique fixed point. 

References

[1] S.B. Nadler Jr., Multi-valued contraction mappings, Pacific J. Math. 30 (1969) 475–488.
[2] M. Turinici, Abstract comparison principles and multivariable Gronwall–Bellman inequalities, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 117 (1986) 100–127.
[3] A.C.M. Ran, M.C.B. Reurings, A fixed point theorem in partially ordered sets and some application to matrix equations, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 132
(2004) 1435–1443.
 M.E. Gordji, M. Ramezani / Nonlinear Analysis 74 (2011) 4544–4549 4549

[4] J.J. Nieto, R.R. Lopez, Contractive mapping theorems in partially ordered sets and applications to ordinary differential equations, Order 22 (2005)
223–239.
[5] D. O’Regan, A. Petrusel, Fixed point theorems for generalized contractions in ordered metric spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 341 (2008) 1241–1252.
[6] T.G. Bhaskar, V. Lakshmikantham, Fixed point theorems in partially ordered metric spaces and applications, Nonlinear Anal. 65 (2006) 1379–1393.
[7] V. Lakshmikantham, Lj.B. Ćirić, Coupled fixed point theorems for nonlinear contractions in partially ordered metric spaces, Nonlinear Anal. 70 (2009)
4341–4349.
[8] B. Samet, Coupled fixed point theorems for a generalized Meir–Keeler contraction in partially ordered metric spaces, Nonlinear Anal. 72 (2010)
4508–4517.
[9] A. Amini-Harandi, D. O’Regan, Fixed point theorems for set-valued contraction type maps in metric spaces, J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. (2010) 1–7.
[10] S. Reich, Fixed points of contractive functions, Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. (4) 5 (1972) 26–42.
[11] N. Mizoguchi, W. Takahashi, Fixed point theorems for multivalued mappings on complete metric space, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 141 (1989) 177–188.
[12] W.-S. Du, Coupled fixed point theorems for nonlinear contractions satisfied Mizoguchi–Takahashi’s condition in quasiordered metric spaces, Fixed
Point Theory Appl. 2010 (2010) Article ID 876372, 9 pages.