Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Results on Singh–Chatterjea Type Contractive Mappings in b-Metric Spaces

Submitted:

29 December 2025

Posted:

30 December 2025

Read the latest preprint version here

Abstract
In this paper, we extend the results of Bekri et al.[1] from complete metric spaces to complete b-metric spaces. Our work generalizes a range of fixed point results within the framework of b-metric spaces. Several examples are provided to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed results.
Keywords: 
;  ;  

1. Introduction

Fixed point theory plays a vital role in nonlinear analysis and has found extensive applications in diverse areas such as in computer science, medical science [2], modelling of coronavirus ([3,4,5]), and artistic patterns generation [6].
One of the most fundamental results in fixed point theory is the Banach contraction principle [7]. Over the years, this principle has motivated numerous generalizations that relax the contractive condition or extend the underlying space (metric, Banach, Hilbert [8,9] and Sobolev spaces) to enhance its range of applications. For instance, several authors have introduced notable modifications of the classical Banach contraction principle. In 1968, Kannan [10] proposed a contractive condition that does not require continuity of the mapping. Later, in 1972, Chatterjea [11] introduced another type of contraction involving a symmetric condition on the distances between points and their images. In 1977, Singh [12] extended Kannan’s condition to the p-th iterate of a mapping, establishing fixed point results for a wider class of operators. Comprehensive details of various classes of contractive type mappings that generalize the classical Banach contraction (see [13,14]).
In 1989, the b-metric spaces (quasimetric spaces) were introduced by Bakhtin [15] and formally defined by Czerwik [16] in 1993. The b-metric spaces involve relaxing the triangle inequality of standard metric spaces. It is used to generalize Banach’s fixed point theorem. Motivated by these developments and the recent results by Bekri et al [1], the present article investigates fixed point results for Singh–Chatterjea type mappings in complete b-metric spaces. We establish sufficient conditions for the existence and uniqueness of fixed points and examine the convergence behavior of iterative sequences associated with such mappings. Our findings generalize and improve several known results.

2. Preliminaries

For the convenience of the reader, we collect some important definitions and theorems.
 Theorem 1
(Banach [7]). Let ( X , d ) be a complete metric space and T : X X a mapping for which there exists some r [ 0 , 1 ) such that
d ( T x , T y ) r d ( x , y ) , x , y X .
Then T has a unique fixed point in X, and for any initial point x 0 X , the iterative sequence { T n x 0 } converges to the fixed point of a mapping T.
 Theorem 2
(Kannan [10]). Let ( X , d ) be a complete metric space and T : X X a mapping for which there exists some r [ 0 , 1 2 ) such that
d ( T x , T y ) r ( d ( x , T x ) + d ( y , T y ) ) , x , y X .
Then T has a unique fixed point in X, and for any initial point x 0 X , the iterative sequence { T n x 0 } converges to the fixed point of a mapping T.
 Theorem 3
(Chatterjea [11]). Let ( X , d ) be a complete metric space and T : X X a mapping for which there exists some r [ 0 , 1 2 ) and
d ( T x , T y ) r ( d ( x , T y ) + d ( y , T x ) ) , x , y X .
Then T has a unique fixed point in X, and for any initial point x 0 X , the iterative sequence { T n x 0 } converges to the fixed point of a mapping T.
 Theorem 4
(Singh [12]). Let ( X , d ) be a complete metric space and T : X X a mapping for which there exists a positive integer p and a number r ( 0 , 1 2 ) such that
d ( T p x , T p y ) r ( d ( x , T p x ) + d ( y , T p y ) ) , x , y X .
Then T has a unique fixed point in X, and for any initial point x 0 X , the iterative sequence { T n x 0 } converges to the fixed point of a mapping T.
 Remark 1.
The above theorems have been extended from complete metric spaces to complete b-metric spaces (see [18,19]).
 Definition 1 
( [15,16]). Let X be a nonempty set and let s 1 be a given real number. A function d : X × X R + is called a b-metric provided that, for all x , y , z X ,
  • d ( x , y ) = 0 if and only if x = y ,
  • d ( x , y ) = d ( y , x ) ,
  • d ( x , z ) s [ d ( x , y ) + d ( y , z ) ] .
A pair ( X , d ) is called a b-metric space.
 Lemma 1
(Singh et al [17]). Let ( X , d ) be a b-metric space and x n a sequence in X such that
d ( x n + 1 , x n + 2 ) r d ( x n , x n + 1 ) , n = 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . ,
where 0 r < 1 . Then { x n } is a Cauchy sequence in X provided that s r < 1 .
 Theorem 5
(Chu et al [?]). If T is a singled valued function defined on a complete metric space X into itself, such that the function T n is a contraction for some n N , then T has a unique fixed point.
 Remark 2.
An analogous conclusion holds for complete b-metric spaces since the only assumption required in the proof of Theorem 5 is that T n possesses a unique fixed point.

3. Main Results

In this section, we extend the result of Bekri et al [1] from a complete metric spaces to b-complete metric spaces.
 Theorem 6
(Singh-Chatterjea Contraction). Let ( X , d ) be a complete b-metric space and T : X X a mapping. Suppose there exists p N and α 0 , 1 2 such that
d ( T p x , T p y ) α ( d ( x , T p y ) + d ( y , T p x ) ) , x , y X .
Then T has a unique fixed point x * X , and for any intial point x 0 X , the iterative sequence { T n x 0 } converges to x * .
 Proof. 
Let S = T p . It follows from (6) that the mapping S : X X satisfies the Chatterjea-type inequality
d ( S x , S y ) α ( d ( x , S y ) + d ( y , S x ) ) , x , y X .
Let x 0 X and define x n + 1 = S x n . Using (7) and Def. 1, we have the following
d ( S x n , S x n 1 ) α [ d ( x n , S x n 1 ) + d ( x n 1 , S x n ) ] d ( x n + 1 , x n ) α [ d ( x n , x n ) + d ( x n 1 , x n + 1 ) ] d ( x n + 1 , x n ) s α [ d ( x n + 1 , x n ) + d ( x n , x n 1 ) ] d ( x n + 1 , x n ) s α 1 s α d ( x n , x n 1 ) .
Since α ( 0 , 1 2 ) and s 1 , then r = s α 1 s α < 1 . It follows immediately that
d ( x n + 1 , x n ) r d ( x n , x n 1 ) .
Therefore { x n } is Cauchy by lemma 1. The completeness of X implies that the limit x * X with
x n x * .
Now, we want to show that x * is a fixed point of S, i.e S x * = x * . Let us consider the inequality with ( x * , x n ) . Using ( ) , we obtain
d ( S x * , x n + 1 ) α [ d ( x * , x n + 1 ) + d ( x n , S x * ) ]
Letting n yields
d ( S x * , x * ) α d ( x * , S x * )
Therefore, d ( x * , S x * ) = 0 since α ( 0 , 1 2 ) . Thus, we have S x * = x * . We claim that S has a unique fixed point. Suppose on the contrary that there exist x * X such that S x * = x * . It follows from ( ) that
d ( x * , x * ) = d ( S x * , S x * ) α ( d ( x * , S x * ) + d ( x * , S x * ) ) = 2 α d ( x * , x * )
Therefore, d ( x * , x * ) = 0 since 2 α < 1 . Thus x * = x * . Since x 0 is arbitrary, the above argument holds for any x 0 X . Hence S n x x * for all x X . Let us recall that we set S = T p , p N , so T p x * = x * . Then
S ( T x * ) = T p ( T x * ) = T ( T p x * ) = T x * .
So, T x * is also a fixed point of S. By uniquesness of fixed point of S, we have T x * = x * . Thus x * is a unique fixed pointof T. To show the convergence of the full orbit. For each t = 0 , 1 , . . . , p 1
T p n + r x 0 = S n ( T t x 0 ) x * as n .
Hence the entire sequence ( T n x 0 ) converges to x * . Therefore T has a unique fixed point x * , and T n x 0 x * for all x 0 X .
The following corollaries can be deduced as particular cases of the main Theorem 6.
 Corollary 1
(Singh-Chatterjea [1]). Let ( X , d ) be a complete metric space and T : X X a mapping. Suppose there exist p N and α ( 0 , 1 2 ) such that
d ( T p x , T p y ) α ( d ( x , T p y ) + d ( y , T p x ) ) , x , y X .
Then T has a unique fixed point x * X , and for any initial point x 0 X , the iterative sequence { T n x 0 } converges to x * .
Proof. 
Take s = 1 in Theorem 6. □
 Corollary 2.
Let ( X , d ) be a complete b-metric space and T : X X a mapping under the terms s α ( 0 , 1 2 ) such that
d ( T x , T y ) α ( d ( x , T y ) + d ( y , T x ) ) , x , y X .
Then, there exists x * X such that x n x * and x * is unique fixed point of T.
 Proof. 
Take p = 1 in Theorem 6, we get Theorem 3 in [18]. □
 Remark 3.
If p = s = 1 , then Theorem 6 reduces to the classical Chatterjea in Theorem 3 above.
The following examples illustrate the effectivess of our results.

Example 1

Let X = [ 0 , 1 ] and d ( x , y ) = | x y | 1 2 . Define T : [ 0 , 1 ] [ 0 , 1 ] by
T x = x 1 + x .
  • Let us show that ( X , d ) is b-metric space. The first two properties in Def. 1 are obvious satisfied. Using the fact that for all a , b 0 , ( a + b ) 1 2 a 1 2 + b 1 2 2 max { a 1 2 , b 1 2 } 2 ( a 1 2 + b 1 2 ) , we obtain
    | x z | 1 2 | x y | 1 2 + | y z | 1 2 2 ( | x y | 1 2 + | y z | 1 2 ) d ( x , z ) 2 ( d ( x , y ) + d ( y , z ) ) .
    Hence, d is a b-metric and since X is finite, ( X , d ) is a complete b-metric space.
  • T is not a Banach contraction i.e.
    d ( T x , T y ) d ( x , y ) = 1 ( 1 + x ) ( 1 + y ) 1 as x , y 0 ,
    which means that for k < 1 , there exist some x , y X such that d ( T x , T y ) > k d ( x , y ) .
  • T satisfies Singh-Chatterjea for p 1 . By induction
    S x = T p ( x ) = x 1 + p x , x [ 0 , 1 ] .
    It follows that
    d ( T p x , T p y ) = x y ( 1 + p x ) ( 1 + p y ) 1 2 d ( x , T p y ) = x y ( 1 + p y ) 1 2 | x y | 1 2 ( 1 + p y ) 1 2 d ( y , T p x ) = y y ( 1 + p x ) 1 2 | x y | 1 2 ( 1 + p x ) 1 2 d ( x , T p y ) + d ( y , T p x ) | x y | 1 2 1 ( 1 + p y ) 1 2 + 1 ( 1 + p x ) 1 2 .
    Then, (6) implies that
    x y ( 1 + p x ) ( 1 + p y ) 1 2 a | x y | 1 2 1 ( 1 + p y ) 1 2 + 1 ( 1 + p x ) 1 2 .
    Simplifying this expression gives
    a 1 [ ( 1 + p x ) ( 1 + p y ) ] 1 2 1 2 3
    Therefore, we can choose any a 1 2 3 , 1 2 .
  • Fixed Point
    It follows from (15) that the fixed point of T p is 0 for p 1 . By Theorem 6, the fixed point of T is 0. Thus, T has a unique fixed point.

Example 2

This is an example of a mapping T in a complete b-metric space which satisfies the Singh–Chatterjea condition and admits a unique fixed point, while failing to satisfy the Banach, Kannan, and Singh contraction conditions. Let X = [ 0 , 1 ] and d ( x , y ) = | x y | 1 2 . Define T : X X by
T x = 1 2 , x ( 0 , 1 ] 0 , x = 0 .
  • ( X , d ) is a complete b-metric space.
  • T is not a Banach contraction. Let x n = 1 n and y = 0 . We obtain
    d ( T x n , T 0 ) d ( x n , 0 ) = 0.5 1 n .
  • T is not a Singh contraction. By induction on T, we have
    T p x = 1 2 , x ( 0 , 1 ] 0 , x = 0 .
    Let x = 0 , y > 0 . So, d ( T p x , T p y ) = d ( 0 , 1 2 ) = 0.5 and
    d ( x , T p x ) + d ( y , T p y ) = d ( 0 , 0 ) + d ( y , 1 2 ) = | y 1 2 | .
    It follows that
    a 0.5 | y 1 2 | 1 for all y 1 2 .
  • Clearly, T is not a Kannan contraction since T p = T and T p is not a Singh contraction.
  • T is Singh-Chartterjea contraction.
    Case 1: Let x , y ( 0 , 1 ] , T p x = T p y = 1 2 . So, d ( T p x , T p y ) = 0 . The inequality holds trivial.
    Case 2: x = y = 0 . This case is trivial.
    Case 3: x = 0 , y > 0 . So, d ( 0 , 1 2 ) = 0.5 and d ( 0 , 1 2 ) + d ( y , 0 ) = 0.5 + | y | 1 2
    It follows that
    a 0.5 0.5 + | y | 1 2 1 1 + 2 .
    We can choose a 1 1 + 2 , 1 2 .
  • Fixed Point
    Notice that T p ( 1 2 ) = 1 2 for p 1 . Also, T 1 2 = 1 2 . Thus, T has a unique fixed point.

Example 3

This is an example of a mapping T in a complete b-metric space which satisfies the Singh–Chatterjea condition and admits a unique fixed point, while failing to satisfy the Banach, Kannan, and Chattejea contraction conditions. Let X = { 0 , 1 , 2 } and d ( x , y ) = | x y | 2 . Consider the mapping T 0 = 0 , T 1 = 0 , T 2 = 1 .
  • We claim that ( X , d ) is a complete b-metric space. Indeed,
    d ( x , z ) = | x z | 2 = | x y + y z | 2 2 ( d ( x , y ) + d ( y , z ) ) .
    Since X is finite, ( X , d ) is a complete b-metric space.
  • T is not a Banach contraction. Clearly
    d ( T 2 , T 1 ) d ( 2 , 1 ) = 1 ,
    which means that for k < 1 , there exist some x , y X such that d ( T x , T y ) > k d ( x , y ) .
  • T is not Kannan contraction. i.e. d ( T 2 , T 1 ) = 1 and d ( 2 , T 2 ) + d ( 1 , T 1 ) = 2 . So, we have α 1 2 .
  • T is not Chatterjea contraction. i.e.
    d ( T x , T y ) α ( d ( x , T y ) + d ( y , T x ) ) d ( T 1 , T 0 ) α ( d ( 1 , T 0 ) + d ( 0 , T 1 ) ) 1 α ( 0 + 0 ) .
    This is impossible. So, T is not Chattejea.
  • T is Singh-Chatterjea. Indeed, notice that T p ( X ) = { 0 } which implies that d ( T p x , T p y ) = 0 .
  • The fixed point of T p is 0 for p > 1 . Thus, the unique fixed point of T is 0 as desired.

4. Generalization of Singh-Chatterjea Contraction

In this section, we generalize the Singh–Chatterjea contraction by replacing the constant α with a monotonically decreasing function. Additionally, we introduce extra terms into the Singh–Chatterjea contraction framework, allowing us to recover the Banach, Rakotch, Kannan, Chatterjea, Singh, and Singh–Chatterjea contractions as special cases.
 Theorem 7.
Let ( X , d ) be a complete b-metric space, α , β , r be monotinically decreasing functions from [ 0 , ] to [ 0 , 1 ) , and let α ( x , y ) + 2 β ( x , y ) + 2 s r ( x , y ) < 1 . Let T : X X a mapping and suppose there exist p N such that
d ( T p x , T p y ) α ( x , y ) d ( x , y ) + β ( x , y ) [ d ( x , T p x ) + d ( y , T p y ) ] + r ( x , y ) [ d ( x , T p y ) + d ( y , T p x ) ] , x , y X .
Then T has a unique fixed point x * X .
 Proof. 
Let S = T p for some p N and α = α ( d ( x , y ) ) , . . . , r = r ( d ( x , y ) ) . Then,
d ( S x , S y ) α ( x , y ) d ( x , y ) + β [ d ( x , S x ) + d ( y , S y ) ] + r [ d ( x , S y ) + d ( y , S x ) ] , x , y X .
Let y = S x , we obtain the following
d ( S x , S 2 x ) α + β + r s 1 β r s d ( x , S x ) .
It follows from the hypothesis that there exists a monotone decresing funtion q ( t ) such that 0 q ( t ) < 1 and
d ( S x , S 2 x ) q ( d ( x , S x ) ) d ( x , S x ) d ( S x , S y ) q ( d ( x , y ) ) d ( x , y ) .
Therefore, S = T p is a contraction. By Theorem 5, T has a unique fixed point. □
 Corollary 3
(Bekri et al [1]). Let ( X , d ) be a complete metric space and T : X X a mapping. Suppose there exist p N and r ( 0 , 1 2 ) such that
d ( T p x , T p y ) r ( d ( x , T p y ) + d ( y , T p x ) ) , x , y X .
Then T has a unique fixed point x * X , and for any initial point x 0 X , the iterative sequence { T n x 0 } converges to x * .
 Proof. 
Take α ( x , y ) = β ( x , y ) = 0 , s = 1 ,and r ( x , y ) to be a number in Theorem 7. □
 Corollary 4.
If p ( x , y ) = r ( x , y ) = 0 in Theorem 7, then we obtain Rakotch’s fixed point theorem [13]. If we take α ( x , y ) to be a constant, then we have Banach’s contraction Principle [7].
 Corollary 5.
If α ( x , y ) = r ( x , y ) = 0 in Theorem 7, then we obtain Singh’s fixed point theorem [12].
 Corollary 6.
If α ( x , y ) = r ( x , y ) = 0 and p = 1 in Theorem 7, then we obtain Kannan’s fixed point theorem [10].
 Corollary 7.
If β ( x , y ) = α ( x , y ) = 0 and p = 1 in Theorem 7, then we obtain Chatterjea’s fixed point theorem [11].

5. Open Problems

Recently, some researchers worked on extended b-metric spaces [21], orthogonal b-metric spaces [22] and R- metric spaces [23].
  • Results on Singh-Chatterjea Type in extended b-Metric Spaces, orthogonal b-metric spaces and R-metric spaces.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, we have extended the results of Bekri et al. [1] from complete metric spaces to the more general setting of complete b-metric spaces. Our results unify and generalize several fixed point theorems within the b-metric framework, and illustrative examples are provided to demonstrate the applicability and effectiveness of the proposed results. Furthermore, by incorporating additional terms into the Singh–Chatterjea contraction framework, we recover the Banach, Rakotch, Kannan, Chatterjea, Singh, and Singh–Chatterjea contractions as special cases.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.A.; Methodology, H.A.; Writing—Original Draft, H.A.; Writing—Review and Editing, H.A. and V.A.; Supervision, V.A.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the referees and reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bekri, Z.; Fabiano, N. (2025). Fixed Point Theory For Singh-Chatterjea Type Contractive Mappings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.11975.
  2. Dhawan, P., Kaur, J., and Gupta, V. (2017). Fixed function and its application to Medical Science. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.00810.
  3. Panda, S. K. (2020). Applying fixed point methods and fractional operators in the modelling of novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV/SARS-CoV-2. Results in Physics, 19, 103433. [CrossRef]
  4. Alansari, M., and Shagari, M. S. (2022). Analysis of Fractional Differential Inclusion Models for COVID-19 via Fixed Point Results in Metric Space. Journal of Function Spaces, 2022(1), 8311587.
  5. Alshehry, A. S., Mukhtar, S., Khan, H. S., and Shah, R. (2023). Fixed-point theory and numerical analysis of an epidemic model with fractional calculus: Exploring dynamical behavior. Open Physics, 21(1), 20230121.
  6. Gdawiec, K., and Adewinbi, H. (2022). Procedural generation of artistic patterns using a modified orbit trap method. Applied Sciences, 12(6), 2923.
  7. Banach, S. (1922). Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux équations intégrales. Fundamenta mathematicae, 3(1), 133-181.
  8. Reich, S. (1983). Some problems and results in fixed point theory. Topological methods in nonlinear functional analysis, 86, 179.
  9. Adewinbi, H. S., and Prempehy, E. (2019). Fixed points of n-periodic and uniformly p-Lipschtizian mappings in Hilbert spaces. International Journal of Advanced Research in Education and Technology, 6(4), 14–27.
  10. Kannan, R. (1968). Some results on fixed points. Bull. Cal. Math. Soc., 60, 71-76.
  11. Chatterjea, S. K. (1972). Fixed-point theorems. Dokladi na Bolgarskata Akademiya na Naukite, 25(6), 727-730.
  12. S. P. Singh(1977), On fixed points of Kannan mappings, Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 8, 896–900.
  13. Rhoades, B. E. (1977). A comparison of various definitions of contractive mappings. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 226, 257-290. [CrossRef]
  14. Park, S. (1980). On general contractive type conditions. Journal of the Korean Mathematical Society, 17(1), 131-140.
  15. Bakhtin, I. (1989). The contraction mapping principle in quasimetric spaces. Functional analysis, 30, 26-37.
  16. Czerwik, S. (1993). Contraction mappings in b-metric spaces. Acta mathematica et informatica universitatis ostraviensis, 1(1), 5-11.
  17. Singh, S. L., Czerwik, S., Krol, K., and Singh, A. (2008). Coincidences and Fixed Points of Hybrid Contractions. Tamsui Oxford Journal of Mathematical Sciences (TOJMS), 24(4).
  18. Kir, M., and Kiziltunc, H. (2013). On some well known fixed point theorems in b-metric spaces. Turkish journal of analysis and number theory, 1(1), 13-16. [CrossRef]
  19. Mishra, P. K., Sachdeva, S., and Banerjee, S. K. (2014). Some fixed point theorems in b-metric space. Turkish journal of analysis and number theory, 2(1), 19-22.
  20. Rakotch, E. (1962). A note on contractive mappings. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 13(3), 459-465.
  21. Kamran, T., Samreen, M., and UL Ain, Q. (2017). A generalization of b-metric space and some fixed point theorems. Mathematics, 5(2), 19.
  22. Gordji, M. E., Ramezani, M., De La Sen, M., and Cho, Y. J. (2017). On orthogonal sets and Banach fixed point theorem. Fixed point theory, 18(2), 569-578.
  23. Khalehoghli, S., Rahimi, H., and Gordji, M. E. (2020). Fixed point theorems in R-metric spaces with applications. AIMS Math, 5(4), 3125-3137. [CrossRef]
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.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated