PERIODIC POINTS OF MAPPINGS CONTRACTING TOTAL

PAIRWISE DISTANCE
arXiv:2402.02536v1 [math.GN] 4 Feb 2024

EVGENIY PETROV

Abstract. We consider a new type of mappings in metric spaces so-called

mappings contracting total pairwise distance on n points. It is shown that
such mappings are continuous. A theorem on the existence of periodic points
for such mappings is proved and the classical Banach fixed-point theorem is
obtained like a simple corollary as well as the fixed point theorem for mappings
contracting perimeters of triangles. Examples of mappings contracting total
pairwise distance on n points and having different properties are constructed.

1. Introduction
The Banach contraction principle has been generalized in many ways over the
years. It is possible to distinguish at least three types of generalizations of this
theorem: in the first case the contractive nature of the mapping is weakened,
see, e.g. [6, 16, 18, 20–22, 28, 30]; in the second case the topology is weakened, see,
e.g. [7,12–15,24,29]; the third case is multi-valued generalizations, see, e.g. [2,17,19].
Such generalizations are very numerous and as a rule establish the existence and
uniqueness of a fixed point. There are considerably fewer theorems which estab-
lish the existence of periodic points of mappings in general metric spaces. The
most known is Edelstein’s [10] theorem stating that any ε-contractive mapping of a
nonempty compact metric space into itself has a periodic point. See also some gen-
eralizations of this theorem [3, 8, 23, 25]. Such theorems do not generalize Banach’s
theorem and have a completely different proof scheme. At the same time, we note
that the study of periodic points play an important role in the theory of dynamical
systems [9] and is also well developed for spaces of special types [1, 4, 5, 11, 26, 27].
In this paper we introduce a new type of mappings in general metric spaces,
which we call mappings contracting total pairwise distance on n points and prove
the existence theorem of periodic points for such mappings. In contrast to many
other periodic point theorems, this theorem is a proper generalization of Banach’s
contraction principle.
Everywhere below by |X| we denote the cardinality of the set X.
Let (X, d) be a metric space, |X| > 2, and let x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ∈ X, n > 2. Denote
by
X
(1.1) S(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) = d(xi , xj )
16i<j6n

the sum of all pairwise distances between the points from the set {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn },
which we call total pairwise distance.

2020 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 47H09; Secondary 47H10.

Key words and phrases. Periodic point, metric space, contraction mapping, mapping contract-
ing total pairwise distance.
1
2 E. PETROV

Definition 1.1. Let n > 2 and let (X, d) be a metric space with |X| > n. We shall
say that T : X → X is a mapping contracting total pairwise distance on n points if
there exists α ∈ [0, 1) such that the inequality
(1.2) S(T x1 , T x2 , . . . , T xn ) 6 αS(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn )
holds for all n pairwise distinct points x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ∈ X.
Note that the requirement for x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ∈ X to be pairwise distinct is es-
sential, which is confirmed by the following proposition.
Proposition 1.2. Suppose that in Definition 1.1 inequality (1.2) holds for any n
points x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ∈ X with |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xn }| = k, where 2 6 k 6 n − 1. Then
T is a mapping contracting total pairwise distance on k points.
Proof. Let {x1 , x2 , . . . , xk } be the set of pairwise distinct points from X. Consider
k sets Ai = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xk , xk+1 , . . . , xn } consisting of n points such that xk+1 =
· · · = xn = xi , i = 1, . . . , k, i.e., the element xi occurs n − k + 1 times in the set Ai .
Hence, by the supposition the inequalities
S(T x1 , T x2 , . . . , T xk , T xi , . . . , T xi ) 6 αS(x1 , x2 , . . . , xk , xi , . . . , xi ),
hold for all i = 1, . . . , k. Summarizing the left and right sides of these inequalities
we get
k
X k
X
S(T x1 , T x2 , . . . , T xk , T xi , . . . , T xi ) 6 α S(x1 , x2 , . . . , xk , xi , . . . , xi ).
i=1 i=1

Hence,
k 
X k
X 
S(T x1 , . . . , T xk , ) + (n − k) d(T xj , T xi ) + S(T xi , . . . , T xi )
i=1 j=1
k 
X k
X 
6α S(x1 , . . . , xk ) + (n − k) d(xj , xi ) + S(xi , . . . , xi ) .
i=1 j=1

It is easy to see that S(T xi , . . . , T xi ) = S(xi , . . . , xi ) = 0,

k X
X k
d(T xj , T xi ) = 2S(T x1 , . . . , T xk )
i=1 j=1

and
k X
X k
d(xj , xi ) = 2S(x1 , . . . , xk ).
i=1 j=1

Hence, we obtain
(k + 2(n − k))S(T x1 , T x2 , . . . , T xk ) 6 α(k + 2(n − k))S(x1 , x2 , . . . , xk ).
Reducing both parts by k + 2(n − k) we get the desired assertion. 

Proposition 1.3. Mapping contracting total pairwise distance on m points, m > 2,

is a mapping contracting total pairwise distance on n points for all n > m.
 PERIODIC POINTS OF MAPPINGS CONTRACTING TOTAL PAIRWISE DISTANCE 3

Proof. It is clear that it is sufficient to prove this proposition for n = m+ 1. Let the
points x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ∈ X be pairwise distinct. Since m = n − 1 by the supposition
the following inequalities hold:
S(T x2 , T x3 , . . . , T xn ) 6 αS(x2 , x3 , . . . , xn ),

S(T x1 , T x3 , . . . , T xn ) 6 αS(x1 , x3 , . . . , xn ),
···
S(T x1 , T x2 , . . . , T xn−1 ) 6 αS(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn−1 ).
Summarizing the left and right sides of these inequalities and simplifying the ob-
tained inequality we get inequality (1.2). 

2. The main results

Recall that for a given metric space X, a point x ∈ X is said to be an accumu-
lation point of X if every open ball centered at x contains infinitely many points
of X.
Proposition 2.1. Mappings contracting total pairwise distance on n points are
continuous.
Proof. If n = 2, then this proposition states that Banach contractions are con-
tinuous, which is well-known. Let (X, d) be a metric space with |X| > n > 3,
T : X → X be a mapping contracting total pairwise distance on n points and let
x1 be an isolated point in X. Then, clearly, T is continuous at x1 . Let now x1 be
an accumulation point. Let us show that for every ε > 0, there exists δ > 0 such
that d(T x1 , T x2 ) < ε whenever d(x1 , x2 ) < δ. Since x1 is an accumulation point,
for every δ > 0 there exists x2 , . . . , xn ∈ X such that d(x1 , xi ) < δ for i = 2, . . . , n
and the points x1 , x2 , . . . , xn are pairwise distinct. By (1.1) and (1.2) we have
d(T x1 , T x2 ) 6 S(T x1 , T x2 , . . . , T xn )

6 αS(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ).
Using the triangle inequality d(xi , xj ) 6 d(x1 , xi ) + d(x1 , xj ) and the inequalities
d(x1 , xi ) < δ for i = 2, . . . , n, we have
d(T x1 , T x2 ) < αk(n)δ,
where k(n) ∈ N is a number of inequalities of the form d(x1 , xi ) < δ applied in this
estimation. Setting δ = ε/(k(n)α), we obtain the desired inequality. 

Let T be a mapping on the metric space X. A point x ∈ X is called a periodic

point of period n if T n (x) = x. The least positive integer n for which T n (x) = x is
called the prime period of x, see, e.g., [9, p. 18]. Note that a fixed point is a point
of prime period 1.
The following theorem is the main result of this paper.
Theorem 2.2. Let n > 2, (X, d) be a complete metric space with |X| > n and
let T : X → X be a mapping contracting total pairwise distance on n points in X.
Then T has a periodic point of prime period k, k ∈ {1, . . . , n − 1}. The number of
periodic points is at most n − 1.
4 E. PETROV

Proof. Suppose that T does not have periodic points of prime period k, k ∈
{1, . . . , n − 1}. In particular, it means that T has no fixed points. Let x0 ∈ X,
T x0 = x1 , T x1 = x2 , . . . , T xn = xn+1 , . . . . Let us show that all xi are different.
Since xi is not fixed, then xi 6= xi+1 = T xi . If n = 2, then the proof should be
read starting from the next paragraph. Let n = 3. Since T has no periodic points
of prime period 2 we have xi+2 = T (T (xi )) 6= xi and by the supposition that xi+1
is not fixed we have xi+1 6= xi+2 = T xi+1 . Hence, xi , xi+1 and xi+2 are pairwise
distinct. Further, let n > 4. Since T has no periodic points of prime period 3 we
have xi+3 = T (T (T xi )) 6= xi . Since T has no periodic points of prime period 2 we
have xi+3 = T (T xi+1 ) 6= xi+1 , and by the supposition that xi+2 is not fixed we
have xi+2 6= xi+3 = T xi+2 . Hence, xi , xi+1 , xi+2 and xi+3 are pairwise distinct.
Repeating these considerations n − 4 times we see that the points xi , xi+1 , xi+2 ,
. . . , xi+n−1 are pairwise distinct for every i = 0, 1, . . ..
Further, set
s0 = S(x0 , x1 . . . , xn−1 ),
s1 = S(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ),
···
sn = S(xn , xn+1 , . . . , x2n−1 ),
··· .
Since xi , xi+1 , xi+2 , . . . , xi+n−1 are pairwise distinct by (1.2) we have s1 6 αs0 ,
s2 6 αs1 , . . . , sn 6 αsn−1 and
(2.1) s0 > s1 > . . . > sn > . . . .
Suppose that j > n is a minimal natural number such that xj = xi for some i such
that 0 6 i < j − n + 1. Then xj+1 = xi+1 , xj+2 = xi+2 ,. . . Hence, si = sj which
contradicts to (2.1).
Further, let us show that (xi ) is a Cauchy sequence. It is clear that
d(x0 , x1 ) 6 s0 ,

d(x1 , x2 ) 6 s1 6 αs0 ,

d(x2 , x3 ) 6 s2 6 αs1 6 α2 s0 ,
···
d(xn , xn+1 ) 6 sn 6 αn s0 ,
d(xn+1 , xn+2 ) 6 sn+1 6 αn+1 s0 ,

··· .
By the triangle inequality,
d(xn , xn+p ) 6 d(xn , xn+1 ) + d(xn+1 , xn+2 ) + . . . + d(xn+p−1 , xn+p )
1 − αp
6 αn s0 + αn+1 s0 + · · · + αn+p−1 s0 = αn (1 + α + . . . + αp−1 )s0 = αns0 .
1−α
1
Since by the supposition 0 6 α < 1, then d(xn , xn+p ) < αn 1−α s0 . Hence,
d(xn , xn+p ) → 0 as n → ∞ for every p > 0. Thus, {xn } is a Cauchy sequence. By
the completeness of (X, d), this sequence has a limit x∗ ∈ X.
 PERIODIC POINTS OF MAPPINGS CONTRACTING TOTAL PAIRWISE DISTANCE 5

Let us prove that T x∗ = x∗ . Since xn → x∗ , and by Proposition 2.1 the mapping

T is continuous, we have xn+1 = T xn → T x∗ . By the triangle inequality we have
d(x∗ , T x∗ ) 6 d(x∗ , xn ) + d(xn , T x∗ ) → 0
as n → ∞, which means that x∗ is the fixed point and contradicts to our assumption.
Suppose that there exists n pairwise distinct periodic points x1 , . . . , xn . Let
p(xi ) be a prime period of xi , i = 1, . . . , n and let k be the least common multiple
of the integers p(x1 ), . . . , p(xn ). It is clear that
(2.2) T k xi = xi for all i = 1, . . . , n.
Further, observe the following: let x and y be different periodic points of T . If
the orbits O(x) and O(y) are different sets, then, clearly, T j x 6= T j y for all j =
1, 2, . . .. If O(x) = O(y), then the relation T j x 6= T j y is also evident for all
j = 1, 2, . . .. Hence, we can assert that for all j = 1, 2, . . . the elements of the
set {T j x1 , T j x2 , . . . , T j xn } are pairwise distinct and we can apply inequality (1.2)
consecutively k times:

S(T k x1 , T k x2 , . . . , T k xn ) 6 αS(T k−1 x1 , T k x2 , . . . , T k−1 xn ) 6 . . .

6 αk−1 S(T x1 , T x2 , . . . , T xn ) 6 αk S(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ).
But by (2.2) the equality
S(T k x1 , T k x2 , . . . , T k xn ) = S(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn )
holds, which is a contradiction. 

Let (X, d) be a metric space. Then a mapping T : X → X is called a contraction

mapping on X if there exists α ∈ [0, 1) such that
(2.3) d(T x, T y) 6 αd(x, y)
for all x, y ∈ X.
Corollary 2.3. (Banach fixed-point theorem) Let (X, d) be a nonempty complete
metric space with a contraction mapping T : X → X. Then T admits a unique fixed
point.
Proof. If |X| = 1, then Banach fixed point theorem is trivial. For |X| > 2 this
theorem follows from Theorem 2.2 by setting n = 2. In this case inequality (1.2)
turns into (2.3). 

The following definition was introduced in [20]. In particular, it is a partial case

of Definition 1.1 when n = 3.
Definition 2.4. Let (X, d) be a metric space with |X| > 3. We shall say that
T : X → X is a mapping contracting perimeters of triangles on X if there exists
α ∈ [0, 1) such that the inequality
(2.4) d(T x, T y) + d(T y, T z) + d(T x, T z) 6 α(d(x, y) + d(y, z) + d(x, z))
holds for all three pairwise distinct points x, y, z ∈ X.
The following statement was proved in [20, Theorem 2.4] and it is a direct con-
sequence of Theorem 2.2 in the case n = 3.
6 E. PETROV

Corollary 2.5. Let (X, d), |X| > 3, be a complete metric space and let T : X → X
be a mapping contracting perimeters of triangles on X. Then T has a fixed point
if and only if T does not possess periodic points of prime period 2. The number of
fixed points is at most two.
Example 2.6. Let X be a metric space with |X| = n > 2, Y be a subset of X with
1 6 |Y | 6 n − 1 and let T : X → Y be any mapping. It is clear that inequality (1.2)
holds, where {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn } = X. Hence, by Theorem 2.2 the mapping T has
a periodic point of prime period k ∈ {1, . . . , n − 1}. Note that there can be no
periodic points in the set X \ Y . In particular, it follows from this example that
any mapping T : Y → Y has a periodic point, where Y is a finite nonempty metric
space.
Example 2.7. Let us construct an example of a mapping contracting perimeters
of triangles and having two periodic points on a metric space X with |X| = c. Let
(X, d) be a metric space such that X = {0} ∪ {1} ∪ [3, ∞) ⊆ R1 , where d is the
usual Euclidean distance. Define a mapping T as follows:

1, if x = 0,

T x = 0, if x = 1,

1, if x ∈ [3, ∞).


It is clear that 0 and 1 are periodic points of prime period 2. The simple proof of
the fact that T is a mapping contracting perimeters of triangles is left to the reader.
Proposition 2.8. Suppose that under the supposition of Theorem 2.2 the mapping
T has a fixed point x∗ which is a limit of some iteration sequence x0 , x1 = T x0 , x2 =
T x1 , . . . such that xi 6= x∗ for all i = 1, 2, . . .. Then x∗ is the unique fixed point.
Proof. For the case n = 3 this assertion was shown in [20]. Let now n > 4. Indeed,
suppose that T has another fixed point x∗∗ 6= x∗ . It is clear that xi 6= x∗∗ for all
i = 1, 2, . . .. Moreover, it is clear that xi 6= xj for i 6= j. Otherwise this sequence is
cyclic starting from some index and can not be convergent to x∗ . Hence, we have
that the points x∗ , x∗∗ and xi , xj are pairwise distinct for all i, j = 1, 2, . . ., i 6= j.
Consider the ratio
S(T x∗ , T x∗∗ , T xi , T xi+1 , . . . , T xi+n−3 )
Ri =
S(x∗ , x∗∗ , xi , xi+1 , . . . , xi+n−3 )
S(x∗ , x∗∗ , xi+1 , xi+2 , . . . , xi+n−2 )
= .
S(x∗ , x∗∗ , xi , xi+1 , . . . , xi+n−3 )
Taking into consideration that d(x∗ , xi ) → 0 and d(x∗∗ , xi ) → d(x∗∗ , x∗ ), we obtain
Ri → 1 as i → ∞, which contradicts to condition (1.2). 
Proposition 2.9. Let n > 2, (X, d) be a metric space, |X| > n, and let T : X → X
be a mapping contracting total pairwise distance on n points. If x is an accumulation
point of X, then inequality (2.3) holds for all points y ∈ X.
Proof. If n = 2, then T is a contraction mapping and inequality (2.3) holds. The
case n = 3 was proved in [20, Proposition 2.7]. Suppose that n > 4. Let x ∈ X be
an accumulation point and let y ∈ X. If y = x, then clearly (2.3) holds. Let now
y 6= x. Since x is an accumulation point, then there exists a sequence zn → x such
that zn 6= x, zn 6= y and all zn are different. Hence, by (1.2) the inequality
S(T x, T y, T zi, . . . , T zi+n−3 ) 6 αS(x, y, zi , . . . , zi+n−3 )
 PERIODIC POINTS OF MAPPINGS CONTRACTING TOTAL PAIRWISE DISTANCE 7

holds for every i ∈ N. Since d(x, zi ) → 0 and every metric is continuous we have
d(zi , y) → d(x, y). Since T is continuous, we have d(T x, T zi ) → 0 and, consequently,
d(T zi , T y) → d(T x, T y). Observing that |zi , . . . , zi+n−3 | = n−2 and letting i → ∞,
we obtain
d(T x, T y) + (n − 2)d(T x, T y) 6 α(d(x, y) + (n − 2)d(x, y)),
which is equivalent to (2.3). 
Corollary 2.10. Let n > 2, (X, d) be a metric space, |X| > n, and let T : X → X
be a mapping contracting total pairwise distance on n points. If all points of X are
accumulation points, then T is a contraction mapping.
Example 2.11. Let us construct an example of a mapping T : X → X contracting
total pairwise distance on n points, n > 3, but not contracting total pairwise
distance on n − 1 points for a metric space X with |X| = ℵ0 . Let
X = {x∗ , x11 , . . . , x1n−1 , . . . , x1i , . . . , xin−1 , . . .}
and let a and ε be positive real numbers. Define the metric d on X as follows:

ε

 2i−1 , if x = xli , y = xm
i , l 6= m,

and i is odd,




ε

2i−2 , if x = xli , y = xm
i , l 6= m,





 and i is even,
d(x, y) = a


 2i−1 , if x = xli , y = xmi+1 ,
d(x1i , x1i+1 ) + · · · + d(x1j−1 , x1j ), if x = xi , y = xm
l
j i + 1 < j,





2a − d(x11 , xli ), if x = xli , y = x∗ ,





0, if x = y,


where 1 6 l, m 6 n − 1, i = 1, 2, . . ..

xn−1
1 xn−1
2 xn−1
3 xn−1
4 xn−1
5 xn−1
6
xn−2
1 xn−2
2 xn−2
3 xn−2
4 xn−2
5 xn−2
6
.. ε .. ε .. ε .. ε .. ε .. ε
. . . 4 . 4 . 16 . 16
x21 x22 x23 x24 x25 x26
x11 x12 x13 x14 x15 x16
a a a a x∗
a
2 4 8 16

Figure 1. The points of the space (X, d) with distances between them.

The distances between the points of the space X are depicted in Figure 1. In
other words, all the pairwise distances between the points from the set {x1i , . . . , xin−1 }
are equal. The distances between any point from the set {x1i , . . . , xin−1 } and
n−1
any point from the set {x1i+1 , . . . , xi+1 } are equal to a/2i−1 . The set of points
{x , x1 , x2 , . . . , xi , . . .} is embeddable into the real line and d(x11 , x∗ ) = 2a. The
∗ 1 1 1

reader can easily verify that for sufficiently small ε and sufficiently large a the met-
ric d is well-defined. Moreover, the space is complete with the single accumulation
point x∗ .
8 E. PETROV

Define a mapping T : X → X as T xji = xji+1 , for all i = 1, 2, . . ., j = 1, . . . , n − 1

and T x∗ = x∗ . As usual, by nk we denote the number of combinations of k

elements from n-element set. Since

S(x1i , . . . , xin−1 ) = S(T x1i , . . . , T xin−1 ) = S(x1i+1 , . . . , xi+1

n−1
) = n−1

i−1
2 ε/2

if i is odd, by (1.2) we have that T is not a mapping contracting total pairwise

distance on n − 1 points.
Let us show that T is a mapping contracting total pairwise distance on n points.
Let x1 , . . . , xn be pairwise distinct points from the space X. By the pigeonhole
principle there exists al least two different sets {x1i , . . . , xin−1 } and {x1j , . . . , xjn−1 },
i 6= j, such that each of them contains at least one element from the set {x1 , . . . , xn }.
This means that among the summands of the total pairwise distance S(x1 , . . . , xn )
there are values depending on a. The summands depending on ε may be absent.
Let
S(x1 , . . . , xn ) = s(ε) + s(a),
where s(ε) and s(a) are the sums of summands depending on ε and a, respectively.
Note the following simple fact: if x and y belong to different sets {x1i , . . . , xin−1 }
and {x1j , . . . , xjn−1 }, i 6= j, then d(T x, T y) = d(x, y)/2. Hence,

S(T x1 , . . . , T xn ) = s′ (ε) + s(a)/2,

where s′ (ε) is a corresponding sum depending on ε. It is clear that s′ (ε) 6 s(ε).

Consider the ratio
S(T x1 , . . . , T xn ) s′ (ε) + s(a)/2 s(ε) + s(a)/2 s(ε) 1
= 6 = + .
S(x1 , . . . , xn ) s(ε) + s(a) s(a) s(a) 2

Hence, in order to show inequality (1.2) we have to show that for some 0 < β < 12
the inequality s(ε)/s(a) 6 β holds for any set {x1 , . . . , xn } of n pairwise distinct
points. Let {x1 , . . . , xn } be any set of n pairwise distinct points from X and let i
be the smallest lower index of the point xji ∈ {x1 , . . . , xn }. It is not hard to see
that under this condition in the case if i is even the value s(ε)/s(a) is maximal if
{x1 , . . . , xn } = {x1i , . . . , xin−1 , xli+1 }. In the case if i is odd the same maximum of
1 n−1
s(ε)/s(a) is attained also if {x1 , . . . , xn } = {xm i , xi+1 , . . . , xi+1 }. Indeed, any other
arrangement of points preserving this condition reduces the number of summands
depending on ε and increases the number of summands depending on a in the sum
S(x1 , . . . , xn ). If i is odd, then

s(ε)/s(a) = ( n−1 )/((n − 1)a/2i−1 ) = n−1

i−1

2 ε/2 2 ε/(a(n − 1))

and if i is even, then

n−1 n−1
ε/2i−2 )/((n − 1)a/2i−1 ) = 2



s(ε)/s(a) = ( 2 2 ε/(a(n − 1)).

Hence, for every 0 < β < 12 there exist sufficiently small ε and sufficiently large a
such that the inequality s(ε)/s(a) 6 β holds. Thus, inequality (1.2) can be satisfied
for any 12 < α < 1 and any set of pairwise distinct points {x1 , . . . ., xn } under the
appropriate choice of ε and a.
 PERIODIC POINTS OF MAPPINGS CONTRACTING TOTAL PAIRWISE DISTANCE 9

References
[1] M. Artin and B. Mazur, On periodic points, Ann. of Math. (2) 81 (1965), 82–99.
[2] N. A. Assad and W. A. Kirk, Fixed point theorems for set-valued mappings of contractive
type, Pacific J. Math. 43 (1972), 553–562.
[3] D. F. Bailey, Some theorems on contractive mappings, J. London Math. Soc. 41 (1966),
101–106.
[4] L. Block, J. Guckenheimer, M. Misiurewicz, and L. S. Young, Periodic points and topological
entropy of one-dimensional maps, Global theory of dynamical systems (Proc. Internat. Conf.,
Northwestern Univ., Evanston, Ill., 1979), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 819, Springer, Berlin,
1980, pp. 18–34.
[5] R. Bowen, Periodic points and measures for Axiom A diffeomorphisms, Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 154 (1971), 377–397.
[6] D. W. Boyd and J. S. W. Wong, On nonlinear contractions, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 20
(1969), 458–464.
[7] A. Branciari, A fixed point theorem of Banach-Caccioppoli type on a class of generalized
metric spaces, Publ. Math. Debrecen 57 (2000), no. 1-2, 31–37.
[8] L. B. Ćirić, S. N. Ješić, and J. S. Ume, The existence theorems for fixed and periodic points
of nonexpansive mappings in intuitionistic fuzzy metric spaces, Chaos Solitons Fractals 37
(2008), no. 3, 781–791.
[9] R. L. Devaney, An introduction to chaotic dynamical systems, Studies in Nonlinearity, West-
view Press, Boulder, CO, 2003.
[10] M. Edelstein, On fixed and periodic points under contractive mappings, J. London Math.
Soc. 37 (1962), 74–79.
[11] J. Franks, Geodesics on S 2 and periodic points of annulus homeomorphisms, Invent. Math.
108 (1992), no. 2, 403–418.
[12] M. Frigon, Fixed point results for generalized contractions in gauge spaces and applications,
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 128 (2000), no. 10, 2957–2965.
[13] L.-G. Huang and X. Zhang, Cone metric spaces and fixed point theorems of contractive
mappings, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 332 (2007), no. 2, 1468–1476.
[14] M. Jleli and B. Samet, A generalized metric space and related fixed point theorems, Fixed
Point Theory Appl. (2015), 1–14, Paper No. 74.
[15] M. A. Khamsi, W. M. Kozlowski, and S. Reich, Fixed point theory in modular function spaces,
Nonlinear Anal. 14 (1990), no. 11, 935–953.
[16] W. A. Kirk, Fixed points of asymptotic contractions, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 277 (2003), no. 2,
645–650.
[17] J. T. Markin, A fixed point theorem for set valued mappings, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 74
(1968), 639–640.
[18] A. Meir and E. Keeler, A theorem on contraction mappings, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 28 (1969),
326–329.
[19] S. B. Nadler, Jr., Multi-valued contraction mappings, Pacific J. Math. 30 (1969), 475–488.
[20] E. Petrov, Fixed point theorem for mappings contracting perimeters of triangles, J. Fixed
Point Theory Appl. (2023), Paper No. 74.
[21] P. D. Proinov, Fixed point theorems for generalized contractive mappings in metric spaces,
J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 22 (2020), 1–27, Paper No. 21.
[22] E. Rakotch, A note on contractive mappings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 13 (1962), 459–465.
[23] A. Razani, Existence of fixed point for the nonexpansive mapping of intuitionistic fuzzy metric
spaces, Chaos Solitons Fractals 30 (2006), no. 2, 367–373.
[24] N. Saleem, I. Iqbal, B. Iqbal, and S. Radenovı́c, Coincidence and fixed points of multivalued
F -contractions in generalized metric space with application, J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 22
(2020), 1–24, Paper No. 81.
[25] V. M. Sehgal, On fixed and periodic points for a class of mappings, J. London Math. Soc.
(2) 5 (1972), 571–576.
[26] O. M. Sharkovskiy, Co-existence of cycles of a continuous mapping of the line into itself,
Ukrain. Mat. Ž. 16 (1964), 61–71.
[27] E. Shi and X. Ye, Periodic points for amenable group actions on dendrites, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 145 (2017), no. 1, 177–184.
10 E. PETROV

[28] T. Suzuki, Fixed-point theorem for asymptotic contractions of Meir-Keeler type in complete
metric spaces, Nonlinear Anal. 64 (2006), no. 5, 971–978.
[29] E. Tarafdar, An approach to fixed-point theorems on uniform spaces, Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 191 (1974), 209–225.
[30] D. Wardowski, Fixed points of a new type of contractive mappings in complete metric spaces,
Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012 (2012), 1–6, Paper No. 94.

Institute of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics of the NAS of Ukraine, Batiuka

str. 19, 84116, Slovyansk, Ukraine
Email address: eugeniy.petrov@gmail.com