Unique Fixed Point: Prove Contraction Map in Compact Space Has Unique Solution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bashyboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fixed point Point
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a contraction map defined on a compact metric space, specifically investigating the existence and uniqueness of fixed points for such maps.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the continuity of a function defined in terms of the contraction map and explore various approaches to demonstrate this property. There are attempts to redefine the function to facilitate the proof, and questions arise regarding the implications of using non-strict inequalities.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the continuity argument and the implications of the contraction condition. There is an ongoing exploration of the uniqueness of the fixed point, with some expressing confusion about contradictions arising in their reasoning. The discussion reflects a mix of interpretations and attempts to clarify the proof structure.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of the definitions of contraction maps and the properties of compact spaces. There is a noted concern about the implications of strict versus non-strict inequalities in their arguments.

Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement



Let ##(X,d)## be some metric space, and let ##f : X \to X## be such that ##d(f(x),f(y)) \le a d(x,y)## for every ##x,y \in X## for some ##a \in (0,1)## (such a map is a called a contraction map)

If ##f## is a contraction and ##X## is compact, show that ##f## has a unique fixed point.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



I will first show that ##g : X \to \Bbb{R}## defined by ##g(x) = d(f(x),x)## is continuous. First note that ##d(f(x),x) - d(x,y) \le d(f(x),y)## and ##d(x,y) - d(f(y),y) \le d(f(y),x)##, as well as ##d(f(x),y) \le d(f(x),x) + d(x,y)## and ##d(f(y),x) \le d(f(y),y) + d(x,y)##. Therefore

\begin{align*}
|d(f(x),x) - d(f(y),y)| & = \left|\bigg(d(f(x),x) - d(x,y)\bigg) + \bigg(d(x,y) - d(f(y),y) \bigg) \right| \\
& \le |d(f(x),x) - d(x,y)| + |d(x,y) - d(f(y),y)| \\
& \le d(f(x),y) + d(f(y),x) \\
& \le d(f(x),x) + d(x,y) + d(f(y),y) + d(x,y) \\
& \le 2(\alpha +1)d(x,y), \\
\end{align*}

from which we can conclude ##g## is continuous. This seems right, albeit a bit roundabout. Is there a more clever way of adding in ##0##? I think there is a way of viewing it as a composition of continuous functions. Let ##e : X \to X \times X## defined by ##e(x) = (f(x),id(x)) = (f(x),x)##, which is continuous by the maps-to-products theorem. Then ##g = d \circ e##, a composition of continuous functions (this obviously answers the original question in my OP). I am still interested in a less roundabout way of using the triangle inequality.

My goal is to try and use the solution found https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/118536/prove-the-map-has-a-fixed-point I tried redefining ##g## to be ##g(x) = a d(f(x),x)## and ##g(x) = \frac{1}{a} d(f(x),x)##, but I couldn't get it to work. I think part of the problem lies in the fact that I am working with ##\le## and not strict inequality. Does anyone see a way of modifying the solution found in the link above.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If ≤ is your problem, can you consider b, where a<b<1 and get the strict < that will work for you?
EDIT: Get the strict < as long as d(x,y) >0.
 
Last edited:
Ah! Blast! If ##a \in (0,1)##, then ##a d(x,y) < d(x,y)## so that ##d(f(x),f(y)) \le a d(x,y) < d(x,y)##, and so we can easily use the method in the given link. Therefore, since ##g## is continuous and ##X## is compact, it achieves a minimum over ##X## at, say, the point ##x \in X##; hence, ##g(x) \le g(y)## for every ##y \in X##. Now, if ##0 = g(x) = d(f(x),x)##, then we are finished. However, if ##g(x) > 0##, then ##d(f(f(x),f(x)) \le ad(f(x),x) < d(f(x),x)## which contradicts the fact that the minimum is attained at ##x##. Therefore ##d(f(x),x)=0## and so ##f(x) = x##.

The only thing that confuses me is, isn't ##d(f(f(x),f(x)) \le ad(f(x),x) < d(f(x),x)## a contradiction especially when ##d(f(x),x)=0## or ##f(x)=x##, since this would say ##d(f(f(x)),f(x)) < 0##? Also. I just realized that I didn't prove uniqueness; I'll have to think about that one some more.
 
D'oh! Uniqueness is trivial. Suppose that ##x## and ##y## are both fixed points. Then ##f(x) = x## and ##f(y) = y##. Therefore ##d(f(x),f(y)) = d(x,y)## by mere substitution; but this contradicts the fact that ##d(f(x),f(y)) < d(x,y)## for all ##x, y \in X##.

I still have that worry I expressed in my last post. Namely, if ##d(f(x),x) > 0##, then ##d(f(f(x)),f(x) < d(f(x),x)## contradicts minimality. This forces ##d(f(x),x) = 0##. However, we still get a contradiction even in this case; the contradiction that ##d(f(f(x)),f(x) < d(f(x),x) = 0## which says that ##d(f(f(x)),f(x)## is negative. Where am I going wrong? I basically using Davide Giraudo's proof, found in the link I gave above; his answer is five years old and no else has seen this issue, so I must be making a mistake somewhere...
 
Bump!
 
I figured it out: ##d(f(x),f(y)) < d(x,y)## if and only if $x \neq y##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K