Next Article in Journal
Tracking Contaminant Transport Backwards with an Operator-Splitting Method
Next Article in Special Issue
An Extension of Strict Almost Contractions Employing Control Function and Binary Relation with Applications to Boundary Value Problems
Previous Article in Journal
A Numerical Study of Heat Performance of Multi-PCM Brick in a Heat Storage Building
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fixed Point Theorems of Almost Generalized Contractive Mappings in b-Metric Spaces and an Application to Integral Equation
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Generalized Iterated Function Systems on b-Metric Spaces

Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Transilvania University, Iuliu Maniu Street 50, 500091 Braşov, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Mathematics 2023, 11(13), 2826; https://doi.org/10.3390/math11132826
Submission received: 30 May 2023 / Revised: 16 June 2023 / Accepted: 19 June 2023 / Published: 23 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Advances in Mathematical Analysis and Functional Analysis)

Abstract

:
An iterated function system consists of a complete metric space ( X , d ) and a finite family of contractions f 1 , , f n : X X . A generalized iterated function system comprises a finite family of contractions defined on the Cartesian product X m with values in X. In this paper, we want to investigate generalized iterated function systems in the more general setting of b-metric spaces. We prove that such a system admits a unique attractor and, under some further restrictions on the b-metric, it depends continuously on parameters. We also provide two examples of generalized iterated function systems defined on a particular b-metric space and find the corresponding attractors.

1. Introduction

A central role in the study and generation of fractal sets is played by the concept of iterated function systems (IFSs), which was introduced in its present form in 1981 by Hutchinson [1] and popularized by Barnsley [2]. An IFS consists of a complete metric space ( X , d ) and a finite family of Banach contractions f 1 , , f n : X X . Such a system induces a set function, known as the Hutchinson operator, F S : P c p ( X ) P c p ( X ) , which is defined by
F S ( B ) = k = 1 n f k ( B ) ,
for all B P c p ( X ) , where P c p ( X ) stands for the family of all nonempty and compact subsets of X. On the complete metric space formed by P c p ( X ) and the Hausdorff–Pompeiu metric h, the set function F S is a Banach contraction; therefore, by the contraction mapping principle, it admits a unique fixed point, denoted by A S , which is called the attractor of the IFS. Such attractors are also known as Hutchinson–Barnsley fractals. For very recent research in this direction, see [3]. Iterated function systems have applications in various domains such as engineering sciences, medicine, forestry, economy, human anatomy, physics, and especially in fractal image compression.
In an effort to extend the theory of fractal sets, in 2008, Miculescu and Mihail [4,5] introduced the concept of generalized iterated function system (GIFS) of order m, which comprises a finite family of Banach contractions defined on the finite Cartesian product X m with values in X. They proved that such a system has a unique attractor and studied several of its properties. In 2012, Strobin and Swaczyna [6] extended these results to the more general case of a GIFS consisting of φ -contractions rather than Banach contractions. The GIFS turns out to be an effective generalization of the classical IFS, since Strobin [7] proved that for any m 2 , there exists a Cantor subset of the plane which is an attractor of some GIFS of order m, but it is not the attractor of any GIFS of order m 1 .
We present a further generalization of the Hutchinson–Barnsley theory of iterated function systems by considering GIFSs consisting of φ -contractions on b-metric spaces. Our purpose is to see if the results concerning the attractors of GIFSs on metric spaces from [6] can be extended to this more general setting. Known as quasimetric spaces (see [8]), b-metric spaces represent a generalization of the metric spaces obtained by relaxing the triangle inequality. Every metric space is a b-metric space, but the converse is not true. The sequence space l p ( R ) under the b-metric d : l p ( R ) × l p ( R ) [ 0 , ) , given by
d ( x , y ) = n = 1 x n y n p 1 p ,
for all x = ( x n ) n , y = ( y n ) n l p ( R ) and the Lebesgue space L p ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) under the b-metric d : L p ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) × L p ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) [ 0 , ) , given by
d ( x , y ) = 0 1 x ( t ) y ( t ) p d t 1 p ,
for all x = x ( t ) , y = y ( t ) L p ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) , when p ( 0 , 1 ) , are classical examples of b-metric spaces that are not metric.
In recent years, an intensive study of b-metric spaces has been carried out, which was mainly concentrated on transposing various topological properties and fixed point results to this framework (see, for example, Refs. [9,10,11,12]). A great survey on the origins and early developments of b-metric spaces can be found in [8]. One can endow a b-metric space with a topology in the usual way, but it is worth mentioning that in this setting, the distance function may not be continuous and open balls are not necessarily open sets.
In this paper, we prove that a GIFS admits a unique attractor (Theorem 5) and, under certain conditions, it depends continuously on parameters (Theorem 7) when it is defined on a b-metric space. Our results fall within the line of research that aims to expand the class of attractors of iterated function systems by adopting a wider framework for the spaces on which the contractions are defined. We provide two examples of GIFSs defined on a concrete b-metric space and find the corresponding attractors.

2. Preliminaries and Definitions

In this section, we present the notations and some of the standard facts on b-metric spaces. We also introduce the notion of a GIFS in the context of b-metric space.
Definition 1.
Let X be a nonempty set and s 1 . We say that a function d : X × X [ 0 , ) is a 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 ) ,
 (iii) 
d ( x , y ) s [ d ( x , z ) + d ( z , y ) ] ,
for all x , y , z X .
The triplet ( X , d , s ) is called a b-metric space.
The third condition (iii) is called the s-relaxed triangle inequality.
Remark 1.
Every metric space is a b-metric space (with s = 1 ), but the converse is not true. There exist b-metric spaces that are not metric.
Example 
([9]). Let X = 0 , 1 , 1 2 , , 1 n , and d : X × X [ 0 , ) be defined by
d ( x , y ) = 0 i f x = y 1 i f x y 0 , 1 x y i f x y 0 1 2 n : n = 1 , 2 , 4 o t h e r w i s e .
Then, d is a b-metric on X with s = 8 3 , but it is not a metric on X.
Definition 2.
Let ( X , d , s ) be a b-metric space. A sequence of elements ( x n ) n X is said to be
 (i) 
convergent if there exists  x X  such that   lim n d ( x n , x ) = 0 ;
 (ii) 
Cauchy if lim n , m d ( x n , x m ) = 0 , i.e., for every ε > 0 there exists N ε N such that d ( x n , x m ) < ε , for all n , m N with n , m N ε .
We say that ( X , d , s ) is a complete b-metric space if every Cauchy sequence from ( X , d , s ) is convergent.
Definition 3.
Let ( X , d , s ) and ( Y , ρ , r ) be two b-metric spaces. A function f : X Y is continuous if for every ( x n ) n X and x X such that lim n x n = x , we have lim n f ( x n ) = f ( x ) .
Even though in a b-metric space the distance function may fail to be continuous and open sets may not be open (see [9]), many of the topological properties of sequences and sets typical of metric spaces remain valid in this more general setting.
Proposition 1.
Let ( X , d , s ) be a b-metric space and A X . If we define A ¯ to be the intersection of all closed subsets of X, then x A ¯ if and only if there exists a sequence ( x n ) n A such that lim n d ( x n , x ) = 0 .
Theorem 1.
Let ( X , d , s ) be a b-metric space and A X be a nonempty subset.
 (i) 
A is compact if and only if A is sequentially compact.
 (ii) 
If A is compact, then A is totally bounded.
Since in a b-metric space, the distance function need not be continuous, for the second part of our paper, we need the following concept.
Definition 4.
Let ( X , d , s ) be a b-metric space. The b-metric d is called lower semicontinuous if for any ( x n ) n , ( y n ) n X and x , y X such that d ( x n , x ) n 0 , d ( y n , y ) n 0 , it follows that
d ( x , y ) lim inf n d ( x n , y n ) .
Let ( X , d , s ) and ( Y , ρ , r ) be two b-metric spaces and f : X Y . The Lipschitz constant of f is, by definition,
L i p ( f ) = i n f c > 0 : ρ ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) c d ( x , y ) ; x , y X .
If L i p ( f ) 1 , then f is said to be nonexpansive.
For a function f : X X and n N , by f [ n ] we denote the composition of f by itself n times. By f [ 0 ] , we mean the identity function I d X : X X .
We say that φ : R + R + is a Browder comparison function if φ is right continuous, nondecreasing and φ ( t ) < t for any t > 0 .
Remark 2
([13]). If φ : R + R + is a Browder comparison function, then φ is upper semicontinuous, i.e., for any x 0 > 0 and ( x n ) n R + such that lim n x n = x 0 , we have lim sup n φ ( x n ) φ ( x 0 ) .
Definition 5.
Let ( X , d , s ) and ( Y , ρ , r ) be two b-metric spaces. A function f : X Y is called a φ-contraction if there exists a Browder comparison function φ : R + R + such that
ρ ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) φ ( d ( x , y ) )
for all x , y X .
The following result is a known fixed point theorem for b-metric spaces.
Theorem 2
([10]). Let ( X , d , s ) be a complete b-metric space. If f : X X is a φ-contraction, then f is Picard, i.e., f has a unique fixed point x * X and lim n f [ n ] ( x ) = x * for all x X .
As in the metric case, one can easily prove the following lemma.
Lemma 1.
Let ( X , d , s ) be a complete b-metric space and f : X X . Suppose that there exists p N such that f [ p ] is Picard. Then, f is Picard.
Proof. 
Since f [ p ] is Picard, there exists a unique x * X such that f [ p ] ( x * ) = x * and for any x X , we have
lim n f [ p ] [ n ] ( x ) = x * .
Then,
f ( x * ) = f [ p + 1 ] ( x * ) = f [ p ] ( f ( x * ) ) ,
so x * = f ( x * ) .
If there exists y * X such that y * = f ( y * ) , then
y * = f ( y * ) = f [ 2 ] ( y * ) = = f [ p ] ( y * ) ,
hence, x * is the unique fixed point of f.
For any i 0 , 1 , , p 1 and x X , we have
lim k f [ p k + i ] ( x ) = lim k f [ p ] [ k ] ( f [ i ] ( x ) ) = x * .
Throughout this paper, we will write P c p ( X ) for the family of all nonempty and compact subsets of the b-metric space ( X , d , s ) . The Hausdorff–Pompeiu b-metric on P c p ( X ) is defined by
h ( D , G ) = max sup x D inf y G d ( x , y ) , sup y G inf x D d ( x , y ) ,
for all D , G P c p ( X ) .
It is known that if ( X , d , s ) is complete, then ( P c p ( X ) , h , s ) is a complete b-metric space.
Proposition 2
([14]). Let ( X , d , s ) be a b-metric space. For all ( A i ) i I , ( B i ) i I P c p ( X ) such that i I A i , i I B i P c p ( X ) , we have
h i I A i , i I B i sup i I h ( A i , B i ) .
Let ( X , d , s ) be a b-metric space and m N . It can be readily verified that the Cartesian product space X m = X × X × × X m is a b-metric space with the same constant s under the maximum distance function:
d m a x ( ( x 1 , , x m ) , ( y 1 , , y m ) ) = max d ( x 1 , y 1 ) , , d ( x m , y m ) ,
for all ( x 1 , , x m ) , ( y 1 , , y m ) X m .
We mention the following known result concerning the existence and uniqueness of fixed points for mappings defined on Cartesian products of metric spaces.
Theorem 3
([15]). Let ( X , d ) be a complete metric space and f : X m X such that
d f ( x 1 , . . , x m ) , f ( x 2 , , x m + 1 ) q 1 d ( x 1 , x 2 ) + + q m d ( x m , x m + 1 ) ,
for all x 1 , , x m + 1 X , where q 1 , , q m 0 such that q 1 + + q m 1 .
Then, there exists a unique x * X such that f ( x * , , x * ) = x * . Moreover, for every x 1 , , x m X , the following sequence of iterates
x k + m = f ( x k , , x k + m 1 ) , k N
converges to x * .
For the connection between multidimensional fixed point theorems and the classical fixed point theorems, one can consult [16] and [17].
Definition 6.
Let ( X , d , s ) be a b-metric space, m , n N and consider a finite family of φ-contractions f 1 , , f n : X m X . The pair S = ( X , d , s ) , f 1 , , f n is called a GIFS of order m on X.
Note that if, for each i 1 , , n , f i is a φ -contraction with a function φ i , then it is also a φ -contraction with φ : = max φ 1 , , φ n .
One can associate with a GIFS S, a set function F S : P c p ( X ) m P c p ( X ) , also known as the Hutchinson operator, given by
F S ( D 1 , , D m ) = k = 1 n f k ( D 1 × × D m ) = k = 1 n f ( x 1 , , x m ) : x i D i , i 1 , , m ,
for all D 1 , , D m P c p ( X ) .

3. Results

In this section, our main results are stated and proved.

3.1. The Existence of the Attractor

This subsection is devoted to the study of the existence and uniqueness of attractors for GIFSs on b-metric spaces. The proofs are similar in spirit to those given in [6].
Lemma 2.
Let ( X , d , s ) be a b-metric space and x i , y i X m for i 1 , , m . If f : X m X is a φ-contraction, then
d m a x f ( x 1 ) , , f ( x m ) , f ( y 1 ) , , f ( y m ) φ max d m a x ( x 1 , y 1 ) , , d m a x ( x m , y m ) .
Proof. 
For any i 1 , , m , since f is a φ-contraction and φ is nondecreasing, we have
d ( f ( x i ) , f ( y i ) ) φ ( d m a x ( x i , y i ) ) φ max d m a x ( x 1 , y 1 ) , , d m a x ( x m , y m ) .
Hence,
max d ( f ( x 1 ) , f ( y 1 ) ) , , d ( f ( x m ) , f ( y m ) ) φ max d m a x ( x 1 , y 1 ) , , d m a x ( x m , y m ) .
Let ( X , d , s ) be a b-metric space. Consider a mapping f : X m X and let k : X m X m be given by
k ( x 1 , , x m ) = ( x 2 , , x m , f ( x 1 , , x m ) )
for all x 1 , , x m X .
It can be easily verified that k is nonexpansive whenever f is nonexpansive.
Theorem 4.
Let ( X , d , s ) be a complete b-metric space. If f : X m X is a φ-contraction, then f has a unique fixed point, i.e., there exists a unique α X such that α = f ( α , , α ) . Moreover, if for x 1 , , x m X , we let x k + m = f ( x k , , x k + m 1 ) , k N , then the sequence ( x k ) k converges to α.
Proof. 
Let g : X X be the map defined by g ( x ) = f ( x , , x ) for all x X . Then, since g is a φ-contraction, by Theorem 2, we infer that there exists a unique α X such that
α = g ( α ) = f ( α , , α ) .
We see that f is nonexpansive, since d ( f ( x ¯ ) , f ( y ¯ ) ) φ ( d m a x ( x ¯ , y ¯ ) ) < d m a x ( x ¯ , y ¯ ) , for all x ¯ , y ¯ X m with x ¯ y ¯ . Hence, k is also nonexpansive.
Consider x ¯ = ( x 1 , , x m ) , y ¯ = ( y 1 , , y m ) X m . Let x 1 = x ¯ , y 1 = y ¯ and for i 1 , , m 1 , define
x i + 1 = k ( x i ) , y i + 1 = k ( y i ) .
Note that
x 2 = k ( x 1 ) = k ( x 1 , , x m ) = ( x 2 , , x m , f ( x 1 ) ) ,
x 3 = k ( x 2 ) = k ( x 2 , , x m , f ( x 1 ) ) = ( x 3 , , x m , f ( x 1 ) , f ( x 2 ) ) ,
so, by induction, we obtain
x i + 1 = ( x i + 1 , , x m , f ( x 1 ) , , f ( x i ) ) ,
and similarly,
y i + 1 = ( y i + 1 , , y m , f ( y 1 ) , , f ( y i ) )
for all i 1 , , m 1 . We see that
k [ m ] ( x ¯ ) = k [ m 1 ] ( k ( x 1 ) ) = k [ m 1 ] ( x 2 ) = k [ m 2 ] ( k ( x 2 ) ) = k [ m 2 ] ( x 3 ) = = k ( x m ) ,
so k [ m ] ( x ¯ ) = k ( x m ) = f ( x 1 ) , , f ( x m ) and likewise k [ m ] ( y ¯ ) = k ( y m ) = f ( y 1 ) , , f ( y m ) . From the fact that k is nonexpansive, it follows that
d m a x ( x i , y i ) = d m a x ( k ( x i 1 ) , k ( y i 1 ) ) d m a x ( x ¯ , y ¯ ) ,
therefore, in view of Lemma 2, we deduce that
d m a x ( k [ m ] ( x ¯ ) , k [ m ] ( y ¯ ) ) = d m a x f ( x 1 ) , , f ( x m ) , f ( y 1 ) , , f ( y m ) φ ( max d m a x ( x 1 , y 1 ) , , d m a x ( x m , y m ) ) φ ( d m a x ( x ¯ , y ¯ ) ) ,
so k [ m ] is a φ-contraction and thus a Picard operator. By Lemma 1, this implies that k is Picard. Therefore, there exists uniquely ( β 1 , , β m ) X m such that
( β 1 , , β m ) = k ( β 1 , , β m ) = ( β 2 , , β m , f ( β 1 , , β m ) ) ,
so β 1 = = β m = α = f ( α , , α ) .
Using the definition of ( x k ) k , we deduce that
k ( x 1 , , x m ) = ( x 2 , , x m , x m + 1 )
k [ 2 ] ( x 1 , , x m ) = ( x 3 , , x m + 1 , x m + 2 )
and
k [ n 1 ] ( x 1 , , x m ) = ( x n , , x n + m 2 , x n + m 1 )
for n N . Finally, since k is Picard, it then follows that
( α , , α ) = lim n k [ n 1 ] ( x 1 , , x m ) = lim n ( x n , , x n + m 1 ) ,
and we conclude that lim n x n = α . □
Lemma 3.
Let ( X , d , s ) and ( Y , ρ , r ) be two b-metric spaces. If f : X Y is a φ-contraction, then the set function F f : P c p ( X ) P c p ( Y ) given by F f ( D ) = f ( D ) for any D P c p ( X ) is also a φ-contraction (with the same φ), i.e.,
h ( f ( D ) , f ( G ) ) φ ( h ( D , G ) ) ,
for all D , G P c p ( X ) .
Proof. 
Let us first show that φ ( inf A ) = inf ( φ ( A ) ) for any bounded subset A R . This follows from the following two observations.
By the definition of infimum, there exists a sequence ( u n ) n A such that lim n φ ( u n ) = inf ( φ ( A ) ) . Since inf A u n and φ is nondecreasing, we have that φ ( inf A ) φ ( u n ) for all n N , therefore φ ( inf A ) lim n φ ( u n ) , and
φ ( inf A ) inf φ ( A ) .
There exists a sequence ( v n ) n A such that lim n v n = inf A . Since inf φ ( A ) φ ( v n ) for all n N and φ is upper semicontinuous, we have
inf φ ( A ) lim sup n φ ( v n ) φ ( inf A ) ,
so
inf φ ( A ) φ ( inf A ) .
By (1) and (2), we deduce that φ ( inf A ) = inf φ ( A ) for any bounded A R .
Now, let D , G P c p ( X ) and x D . On account of the above remark, we have
inf y G φ ( d ( x , y ) ) = φ ( inf y G d ( x , y ) ) = φ ( d ( x , G ) ) φ ( sup x D d ( x , G ) ) φ ( h ( D , G ) ) ,
which implies that
inf y G ρ ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) inf y G φ ( d ( x , y ) ) φ ( h ( D , G ) ) ,
so
sup x D inf y G ρ ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) φ ( h ( D , G ) ) .
By a similar argument, we can prove that
sup x G inf y D ρ ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) φ ( h ( D , G ) ) ,
thus
h ( f ( D ) , f ( G ) ) = max sup x D inf y G ρ ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) , sup x G inf y D ρ ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) φ ( h ( D , G ) ) .
Lemma 4.
If ( X , d , s ) is a b-metric space, then
h ( D 1 × × D m , G 1 × × G m ) max h ( D 1 , G 1 ) , , h ( D m , G m ) ,
for all D 1 , , D m , G 1 , , G m P c p ( X ) .
Proof. 
The justification of this claim is based on the definition of the Hausdorff–Pompeiu b-metric and the following two facts:
inf x 1 X 1 , , x m X m max x 1 , , x m = max inf X 1 , , inf X m
and
sup x 1 X 1 , , x m X m max x 1 , , x m = max sup X 1 , , sup X m
for any bounded subsets X 1 , , X m R .
Let us prove (3). One can prove (4) in much the same way. Fix x 1 X 1 ,..., x m X m . Then
inf X i x i max x 1 , , x m ,
for all i 1 , , m , hence max inf X 1 , , inf X m max x 1 , , x m , so
max inf X 1 , , inf X m inf x 1 X 1 , , x m X m max x 1 , , x m .
If it were true that
max inf X 1 , , inf X m < inf x 1 X 1 , , x m X m max x 1 , , x m ,
there would be ρ > 0 such that
max inf X 1 , , inf X m < ρ < inf x 1 X 1 , , x m X m max x 1 , , x m .
This means that inf X 1 < ρ , , inf X m < ρ , so we find x 1 0 X 1 , , x m 0 X m satisfying x 1 0 ρ , , x m 0 ρ , and so max x 1 0 , , x m 0 ρ .
This implies that
ρ < inf x 1 X 1 , , x m X m max x 1 , , x m max x 1 0 , , x m 0 ρ ,
which is impossible. Therefore, (3) must be true.
We now proceed to show that
h ( D 1 × × D m , G 1 × × G m ) max h ( D 1 , G 1 ) , , h ( D m , G m )
for all D 1 , , D m , G 1 , , G m P c p ( X ) . Observe that if x 1 D 1 , , x m D m , then
inf y 1 G 1 , , y m G m max d ( x 1 , y 1 ) , , d ( x m , y m ) = ( 3 ) max inf y 1 G 1 d ( x 1 , y 1 ) , , inf y m G m d ( x m , y m ) = max d ( x 1 , G 1 ) , , d ( x m , G m ) max h ( D 1 , G 1 ) , , h ( D m , G m ) ,
which leads to
sup x 1 D 1 , , x m D m inf y 1 G 1 , , y m G m max d ( x 1 , y 1 ) , , d ( x m , y m ) max h ( D 1 , G 1 ) , , h ( D m , G m ) ,
implying that
sup x 1 D 1 , , x m D m d m a x ( x 1 , , x m ) , G 1 × × G m max h ( D 1 , G 1 ) , , h ( D m , G m ) .
The same reasoning can be used to conclude that
sup y 1 G 1 , , y m G m d m a x ( y 1 , , y m ) , D 1 × × D m max h ( D 1 , G 1 ) , , h ( D m , G m ) ,
and the proof is complete. □
Corollary 1.
Let ( X , d , s ) be a b-metric space and S = ( X , d , s ) , f 1 , , f n a GIFS of order m on X. If each f i : X m X , i 1 , , n is a φ-contraction, then F S is a φ-contraction (with the same φ).
Proof. 
We have
h ( F S ( D 1 , , D m ) , F S ( G 1 , , G m ) ) = h k = 1 n f k ( D 1 × × D m ) , k = 1 n f k ( G 1 × × G m ) sup k 1 , , n h ( f k ( D 1 × × D m ) , f k ( G 1 × × G m ) ) φ ( h ( D 1 × × D m , G 1 × × G m ) ) φ ( max h ( D 1 , G 1 ) , , h ( D m , G m ) ) ,
for all D 1 , , D m , G 1 , , G m P c p ( X ) .
Combining Theorem 4 and Corollary 1, we obtain the following result.
Theorem 5.
If ( X , d , s ) is a complete b-metric space and S = ( X , d , s ) , f 1 , , f n is a GIFS of order m on X, then there exists a unique A S P c p ( X ) such that F S ( A S , , A S ) = A S . Moreover, for any D 1 , , D m P c p ( X ) , the following sequence of iterates
D k + m = F S ( D k , , D k + m 1 ) , k N
converges to A S with respect to the Hausdorff–Pompeiu b-metric h.

3.2. The Continuous Dependence of the Attractor on Parameters

In this subsection, we present a theorem concerning the continuous dependence of the attractor of a GIFS on parameters.
Theorem 6
([18]). Let ( X , d , s ) be a b-metric space, ( K , d K ) be a compact metric space and denote by C ( K , X ) the family of all continuous functions from K to X. Then
 (i) 
C ( K , X ) , d , s is a b-metric space, where
d ( f , g ) = sup x K d f ( x ) , g ( x ) ,
for all f , g C ( K , X ) .
 (ii) 
If ( X , d , s ) is complete and d is lower semicontinuous, then C ( K , X ) , d , s is complete.
We omit the proof of the following lemma since it is identical to that from the metric case.
Lemma 5.
Let ( X , d , s ) and ( Y , ρ , r ) be b-metric spaces and f : X Y . Then, f is continuous if and only if f | A is continuous for any compact subset A X .
Following the steps of Theorem 3.2 in [19], we prove the following result.
Proposition 3.
Let ( X , d , s ) be a complete b-metric space and suppose that d is lower semicontinuous. If f n : X X , n N is a sequence of φ-contractions (with the same φ) that converges pointwise to a function f : X X , then f is a φ-contraction (with the same φ), and the sequence of fixed points of f n converges to the fixed point of f.
Proof. 
We have d ( f n ( x ) , f n ( y ) ) φ ( d ( x , y ) ) for all x , y X and n N , so
lim inf n d ( f n ( x ) , f n ( y ) ) φ ( d ( x , y ) ) .
Since d is lower semicontinuous and
d ( f n ( x ) , f ( x ) ) n 0 , d ( f n ( y ) , f ( y ) ) n 0 ,
we can assert that
d ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) lim inf n d ( f n ( x ) , f n ( y ) ) ( 5 ) φ ( d ( x , y ) ) .
Let α be the unique fixed point of f and α n be the unique fixed point of f n , where n N . We want to prove that lim n α n = α .
Set Λ = 1 n , n N 0 . Note that Λ endowed with the usual distance becomes a metric space. Define F : Λ × X X by
F 1 n , x = f n ( x ) F 0 , x = f ( x )
for all n N , x X . Note that lim n F 1 n , x = F 0 , x for all x X . Let l : Λ X be defined by
l 1 n = α n l 0 = α
for all n N . We shall have completed the proof if we prove that l is continuous, because
lim n α n = lim n l 1 n = l ( 0 ) = α .
Fix a nonempty compact subset Ω Λ . By Lemma 5, it suffices to prove that l is continuous on Ω. Let T g : Ω X be defined by ( T g ) ( λ ) = F λ , g λ for all λ Ω and g C ( Ω , X ) . Since F is continuous in the first variable and nonexpansive in the second variable, F is continuous. Indeed, this follows from
d ( F ( λ 1 , x 1 ) , F ( λ 2 , x 2 ) ) s d ( F ( λ 1 , x 1 ) , F ( λ 2 , x 1 ) ) + d ( F ( λ 2 , x 1 ) , F ( λ 2 , x 2 ) ) = s d ( f 1 λ 1 ( x 1 ) , f 1 λ 2 ( x 1 ) ) + d ( f 1 λ 2 ( x 1 ) , f 1 λ 2 ( x 2 ) ) s d ( f 1 λ 1 ( x 1 ) , f 1 λ 2 ( x 1 ) ) + φ ( d ( x 1 , x 2 ) ) ,
for all λ 1 , λ 2 Λ and x 1 , x 2 X . Consequently, T g C ( Ω , X ) for any g C ( Ω , X ) .
Now, for g , h C ( Ω , X ) and λ Ω , we have
d ( ( T g ) ( λ ) , ( T h ) ( λ ) ) = d ( F ( λ , g ( λ ) ) , F ( λ , h ( λ ) ) ) φ ( d ( g ( λ ) , h ( λ ) ) ) φ ( d ( g , h ) ) ,
thus d ( T g , T h ) φ ( d ( g , h ) ) , i.e., T is a φ-contraction. By Theorem 6, we know that C ( Ω , X ) , d , s is complete. Accordingly, there exists a unique g * C ( Ω , X ) such that
g * ( λ ) = ( T g * ) ( λ ) = F ( λ , g * ( λ ) ) = f 1 λ ( g * ( λ ) ) , λ 0 F ( 0 , g * ( 0 ) ) = f ( g * ( 0 ) ) , λ = 0 ,
thus
g * ( λ ) = α 1 λ = l ( λ ) , λ 0 α = l ( 0 ) , λ = 0 ,
for any λ Ω , which implies that g * = l | Ω . Since g * is continuous, we infer that l | Ω is continuous, hence, in view of Lemma 5, l is continuous. □
Corollary 2.
Let ( X , d , s ) be a complete b-metric space and suppose that d is lower semicontinuous. If f n : X m X , n N is a sequence of φ-contractions (with the same φ) that converges pointwise to f : X m X , then f is also a φ-contraction (with the same φ) and the sequence of fixed points of f n converges to the fixed point of f.
Proof. 
Since f n is a φ-contraction, for every n N , we have that
d ( f n ( x ¯ ) , f n ( y ¯ ) ) φ ( d m a x ( x ¯ , y ¯ ) ) ,
hence
lim inf n d ( f n ( x ¯ ) , f n ( y ¯ ) ) φ ( d m a x ( x ¯ , y ¯ ) ) ,
for all x ¯ , y ¯ X m . Since d ( f n ( x ¯ ) , f ( x ¯ ) ) n 0 , d ( f n ( y ¯ ) , f ( y ¯ ) ) n 0 and d is lower semicontinuous, we have
d ( f ( x ¯ ) , f ( y ¯ ) ) lim inf n d ( f n ( x ¯ ) , f n ( y ¯ ) ) ( 6 ) φ ( d m a x ( x ¯ , y ¯ ) ) ,
for all x ¯ , y ¯ X m , so f is a φ-contraction.
Define g n , g : X X by g n ( x ) = f n ( x , , x ) and g ( x ) = f ( x , , x ) for any x X and n N . Since g and g n are φ-contractions, by Theorem 1, we infer that there exist uniquely α , α n X such that g ( α ) = α = f ( α , , α ) and g n ( α n ) = α n = f n ( α n , , α n ) for all n N . Now, using Proposition 3, we deduce that lim n α n = α . □
Lemma 6.
Let ( X , d , s ) and ( Y , ρ , s ) be two complete b-metric spaces such that ρ is lower semicontinuous. If f n : X Y , n N is a sequence of φ-contractions (with the same φ) that converges pointwise to f : X Y on a dense subset of X, then ( f n ) n converges uniformly on compact sets to f.
Proof. 
As in the proof of Proposition 3, we obtain that f is a φ-contraction, so
ρ ( f ( x ) , f ( y ) ) φ ( d ( x , y ) ) < d ( x , y )
for all x , y X .
Set A = x X : f n ( x ) n f ( x ) and note that A ¯ = X . Let K X be a compact set and ε > 0 . Since K is compact, by Theorem 1, we know that there exist p N and x 1 , , x p K such that K i = 1 p B x i , ε 4 s 2 ( s + 1 ) .
Since A ¯ = X , there exist y 1 , , y p A with y i B x i , ε 4 s 2 ( s + 1 ) for all i 1 , , p .
Since lim n ρ ( f n ( y i ) , f ( y i ) ) = 0 for all i 1 , , p , we can find n ε N such that ρ ( f n ( y i ) , f ( y i ) ) < ε 2 s 2 for all i 1 , , p , if n n ε .
Let x K . Choose i 1 , , p such that x B x i , ε 4 s 2 ( s + 1 ) . For any n n ε , we have
ρ ( f n ( x ) , f ( x ) ) s ρ ( f n ( x ) , f n ( y i ) ) + s 2 ρ ( f n ( y i ) , f ( y i ) ) + s 2 ρ ( f ( y i ) , f ( x ) ) ( s + s 2 ) d ( x , y i ) + s 2 ε 2 s 2 ( s + s 2 ) s d ( x , x i ) + s d ( x i , y i ) + ε 2 ε 2 + s 2 ( s + 1 ) ε 4 s 2 ( s + 1 ) + ε 4 s 2 ( s + 1 ) = ε 2 + ε 4 + ε 4 = ε ,
which means that ( f n ) n converges uniformly to f on K. □
Lemma 7.
Let ( X , d , s ) be a complete b-metric space and suppose that d is lower semicontinuous. If f , f n : X m X , n N are φ-contractions (with the same φ) such that ( f n ) n converges uniformly to f on compact sets, then
h f n ( D 1 × × D m ) , f ( D 1 × × D m ) n 0
for any D 1 , , D m P c p ( X ) .
Proof. 
We have
h f n ( D 1 × × D m ) , f ( D 1 × × D m ) = = h x 1 D 1 x m D m f n ( x 1 , , x m ) , x 1 D 1 x m D m f ( x 1 , , x m ) sup x 1 D 1 , , x m D m d ( f n ( x 1 , , x m ) , f ( x 1 , , x m ) ) n 0
for all D 1 , , D m P c p ( X ) . □
Lemma 8.
Let ( X , d , s ) be a complete b-metric space such that d is lower semicontinuous. Then, the Hausdorff–Pompeiu b-metric h is also lower semicontinuous.
Proof. 
Let ( D n ) n , ( G n ) n P c p ( X ) and D , G P c p ( X ) such that h ( D n , D ) n 0 and h ( G n , G ) n 0 . We will prove that
h ( D , G ) lim inf n h ( D n , G n ) = L .
We begin by proving that d ( x , G ) L for any x D . By the definition of the Hausdorff–Pompeiu b-metric, for any n N , there exists x n D n such that
d ( x , x n ) < h ( D , D n ) + 1 n ,
so lim n d ( x , x n ) = 0 . For any n N we can find y n G n such that
d ( x n , y n ) < h ( D n , G n ) + 1 n .
Since h ( D n , D ) n 0 and h ( G n , G ) n 0 , by the s-relaxed triangle inequality, we deduce that the sequence h ( D n , G n ) n is bounded, so there exists ( n k ) k N such that lim k h ( D n k , G n k ) = L . From the above, it follows that
d ( x n k , y n k ) < h ( D n k , G n k ) + 1 n k
for all k N .
We can choose z n k G , with k N such that
d ( y n k , z n k ) < h ( G n k , G ) + 1 k .
Since G P c p ( X ) , there exists a subsequence ( z n k p ) p ( z n k ) k and z G such that
lim p d ( z n k p , z ) = 0 .
Then, from
d ( y n k p , z ) s d ( y n k p , z n k p ) + s d ( z n k p , z ) < s h ( G n k p , G ) + s 1 k p + s d ( z n k p , z ) ,
we deduce that
lim p d ( y n k p , z ) = 0 .
Now, using the fact that d is lower semicontinuous, it follows that
d ( x , z ) lim inf p d ( x n k p , y n k p ) L ,
so
d ( x , G ) d ( x , z ) lim inf n h ( D n , G n ) ,
leading to sup x D d ( x , G ) lim inf n h ( D n , G n ) .
In the same manner, one can prove that sup y G d ( y , D ) lim inf n h ( D n , G n ) ; hence, h ( D , G ) lim inf n h ( D n , G n ) , which is our claim. □
Theorem 7.
Let ( X , d , s ) be a complete b-metric space such that d is lower semicontinuous. If S = ( X , d , s ) , f 1 , , f n and S k = ( X , d , s ) , f 1 k , , f n k , k N , are GIFSs of order m on X such that ( f i k ) k converges pointwise to f i on a dense subset of X m for any i 1 , , n , then,
A S k k A S ,
with respect to the Hausdorff–Pompeiu b-metric h.
Proof. 
Combining Lemmas 6–8, we obtain
h F S k ( D 1 , , D m ) , F S ( D 1 , , D m ) = = h j = 1 n f j k ( D 1 × × D m ) , j = 1 n f j ( D 1 × × D m ) sup j 1 , , n h ( f j k ( D 1 × × D m ) , f j ( D 1 × × D m ) ) k 0 ,
for all D 1 , , D m P c p ( X ) . By Corollary 2, we deduce that A S k k A S . □

4. Examples

In this section, we present two examples that illustrate Theorem 5.
Example 2.
Consider the complete b-metric space [ 0 , 1 ] , d , 2 , where d : [ 0 , 1 ] × [ 0 , 1 ] R + , d ( x , y ) = x y 2 for all x , y [ 0 , 1 ] and the Browder comparison function φ : R + R + , φ ( t ) = t 4 for all t > 0 . Let f 1 , f 2 : [ 0 , 1 ] 2 [ 0 , 1 ] be given by
f 1 ( x , y ) = x 2 , f 2 ( x , y ) = y 2
for all x , y [ 0 , 1 ] .
Then
d f 1 ( x , y ) , f 1 ( z , t ) = d x 2 , z 2 = 1 4 ( x z ) 2 1 4 max ( x z ) 2 , ( y t ) 2 = 1 4 d m a x ( x , y ) , ( z , t ) ,
for all x , y , z , t [ 0 , 1 ] , which means that f 1 is a φ-contraction. Likewise, one can prove that f 2 is a φ-contraction.
The set function associated with S = [ 0 , 1 ] , d , 2 , f 1 , f 2 is F S : P c p ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) 2 P c p ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) defined by
F S ( D 1 , D 2 ) = f 1 ( D 1 × D 2 ) f 2 ( D 1 × D 2 ) = 1 2 D 1 1 2 D 2 ,
for all D 1 , D 2 P c p ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) . Let us note that F S ( 0 , 0 ) = 0 . Since the conditions of Theorem 5 are fulfilled, we conclude that A S = 0 .
Example 3.
Consider the complete b-metric space [ 0 , 1 ] , d , 2 , where d : [ 0 , 1 ] × [ 0 , 1 ] R + , d ( x , y ) = x y 2 for all x , y [ 0 , 1 ] and the Browder comparison function φ : R + R + , φ ( t ) = t t + 1 for all t > 0 . Let f 1 , f 2 : [ 0 , 1 ] 2 [ 0 , 1 ] be given by
f 1 ( x , y ) = 1 4 ( x + y ) , f 2 ( x , y ) = 1 4 ( x + y ) + 1 2
for all x , y [ 0 , 1 ] . Then
d f 1 ( x , y ) , f 1 ( z , t ) = d 1 4 ( x + y ) , 1 4 ( z + t ) = 1 4 ( x + y ) 1 4 ( z + t ) 2 = 1 16 ( x z ) + ( y t ) 2 ,
for all x , y , z , t [ 0 , 1 ] .
Suppose that
d m a x ( x , y ) , ( z , t ) = max ( x z ) 2 , ( y t ) 2 = ( x z ) 2 > 0 .
Note that
1 16 ( x z ) + ( y t ) 2 1 16 4 ( x z ) 2 = 1 4 ( x z ) 2
and
1 4 ( x z ) 2 ( x z ) 2 ( x z ) 2 + 1 ( x z ) 2 + 1 4 ,
which is true since x , z [ 0 , 1 ] . Thus, f 1 is a φ-contraction. Likewise, one can prove that f 2 is a φ-contraction.
The set function associated with S = [ 0 , 1 ] , d , 2 , f 1 , f 2 is F S : P c p ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) 2 P c p ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) defined by
F S ( D 1 , D 2 ) = f 1 ( D 1 × D 2 ) f 2 ( D 1 × D 2 ) = 1 4 ( D 1 + D 2 ) 1 4 ( D 1 + D 2 ) + 1 2 ,
for all D 1 , D 2 P c p ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) . Let us note that
F S [ 0 , 1 ] , [ 0 , 1 ] = 1 4 [ 0 , 2 ] 1 4 [ 0 , 2 ] + 1 2 = 0 , 1 2 0 , 1 2 + 1 2 = 0 , 1 2 1 2 , 1 = [ 0 , 1 ] .
Since the conditions of Theorem 5 are fulfilled, we conclude that A S = [ 0 , 1 ] .

5. Discussion

In this paper, we studied generalized iterated function systems (GIFSs) in the context of b-metric spaces. Our results fall within the current effort of extending the classical theory of Hutchinson–Barnsley fractals. We proved that in this framework, a GIFS admits a unique attractor and, if the b-metric is lower semicontinuous, the attractor of the GIFS is a continuous function of the parameters of the GIFS. A possible future direction of research is the problem of finding the Hutchinson measure for a GIFS with probabilities in this setting of b-metric spaces.
Since the classes of Matkowski and Boyd–Wong φ -contractions are incomparable, as one of the reviewers noted, the following open question arises naturally: is the proposed method valid for Boyd–Wong φ -contractions rather than Matkowski contractions?

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.A. and R.M.; methodology, I.A. and R.M.; validation, I.A. and R.M.; formal analysis, I.A. and R.M.; investigation, I.A. and R.M.; resources, I.A. and R.M.; writing—original draft preparation, I.A. and R.M.; writing—review and editing, I.A. and R.M.; visualization, I.A. and R.M.; supervision, I.A. and R.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by Transilvania University of Brașov.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are very indebted to the referees for the careful reading of the paper and useful suggestions which brought improvement.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hutchinson, J.E. Fractals and self similarity. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 1981, 30, 713–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Barnsley, M. Fractals Everywhere; Academic Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  3. Amara, K.B.; Jeribi, A.; Kaddachi, N. On existence results in fixed set theory and applications to self-similarity. Fixed Point Theory 2022, 23, 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Miculescu, R.; Mihail, A. Applications of fixed point theorems in the theory of generalized IFS. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2008, 1, 312876. [Google Scholar]
  5. Miculescu, R.; Mihail, A. Generalized IFSs on noncompact spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010, 1, 584215. [Google Scholar]
  6. Strobin, S.; Swaczyna, J. On a certain generalisation of the iterated function system. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 2013, 87, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Strobin, F. Attractors of generalized IFSs that are not attractors of IFSs. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2015, 422, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Berinde, V.; Păcurar, M. The early developments in fixed point theory on b-metric spaces: A brief survey and some important related aspects. Carpathian J. Math. 2022, 38, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. An, T.V.; Tuyen, L.Q.; Dung, N.V. Stone-type theorem on b-metric spaces and applications. Topol. Appl. 2015, 185, 50–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cobzaş, Ş.; Czerwik, S. The completion of generalized b-metric spaces and fixed points. Fixed Point Theory 2020, 21, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Khamsi, M.A.; Hussain, N. KKM mappings in metric type spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 73, 3123–3129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Miculescu, R.; Mihail, A. New fixed point theorems for set-valued contractions in b-metric spaces. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2017, 19, 2153–2163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jachymski, J.; Jozwik, I. Nonlinear contractive conditions: A comparison and related problems. Banach Center. Publ. 2007, 77, 123–146. [Google Scholar]
  14. Nazir, T.; Silvestrov, S.; Qi, X. Fractals of generalized F-Hutchinson operator in b-metric spaces. J. Oper. 2016, 2, 29–40. [Google Scholar]
  15. Presic, S.B. Sur une classe d’inéquations aux différences finies et sur la convergence de certaines suites. Publ. Inst. Math. Nouv. Sér. 1965, 5, 75–78. [Google Scholar]
  16. Roldán, A.; Martínez-Moreno, J.; Roldán, C.; Karapinar, E. Some remarks on multidimensional fixed point theorems. Fixed Point Theory 2014, 15, 545–558. [Google Scholar]
  17. Soleimani, R.G.; Shukla, S.; Rahimi, H. Some relations between n-tuple fixed point and fixed point results. Rev. R. Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fís. Nat. Ser. A Mat. RACSAM 2015, 109, 471–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Xia, Q. The geodesic problem in quasimetric spaces. J. Geom. Anal. 2009, 19, 452–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Jachymski, J. Extensions of the Dugundji-Granas and Nadler’s theorems on the continuity of fixed points. Pure Appl. Funct. Anal. 2017, 2, 657–666. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abraham, I.; Miculescu, R. Generalized Iterated Function Systems on b-Metric Spaces. Mathematics 2023, 11, 2826. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11132826

AMA Style

Abraham I, Miculescu R. Generalized Iterated Function Systems on b-Metric Spaces. Mathematics. 2023; 11(13):2826. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11132826

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abraham, Izabella, and Radu Miculescu. 2023. "Generalized Iterated Function Systems on b-Metric Spaces" Mathematics 11, no. 13: 2826. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11132826

APA Style

Abraham, I., & Miculescu, R. (2023). Generalized Iterated Function Systems on b-Metric Spaces. Mathematics, 11(13), 2826. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11132826

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop