Contraction and contractive mapping

In summary, we are given a complete metric space $(X,d)$ and a function $f:X \to X$ that satisfies the condition that for every $\epsilon > 0$, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that for all $x,y \in X$, if $\epsilon \le d(x,y) < \epsilon + \delta$, then $d(f(x),f(y)) < \epsilon$. This condition is related to the concept of a contraction mapping, which is a function that has a real number $k \in [0,1)$ such that for all $x,y \in M$, $d(f(x),f(y)) \le k \, d(x,y)$. We can see that the
  • #1
ozkan12
149
0
Let $(X,d)$ be a complete metric space, and suppose that $f:X \to X$ satisfies the condition: for each $\epsilon >0$, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that for all $x,y \in X$

$$ \epsilon \le d(x,y) < \epsilon+\delta \implies d(f(x),f(y)) < \epsilon.$$Clearly, this condition implies that the mapping $f$ is contractive... also $f$ map is contraction...but I don't understand ? how this contraction, how this happened ? please help me :) thanks a lot :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Here's the definition of a contraction mapping on a metric space:

A function $f:M \to M$ is a contraction mapping iff there exists a real number $k\in [0,1)$ such that for all $x,y \in M$, we have $d(f(x),f(y)) \le k \, d(x,y)$.

It seems to me that we need to massage the condition you were given to look like the definition of a contraction mapping. How do you think we could do that?
 
  • #3
Let $(X,d)$ be a complete metric space, and suppose that $f:X\to X$ satisfies the condition: for each $\epsilon >0$, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that for all $x,y \in X$,

$$\epsilon \le d(x,y) \implies d(f(x),f(y)) < \epsilon.$$this write in theorem...and this case has a relation with contraction mapping but I don't understand...I wrote this as in the theorem
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
ozkan12 said:
Let (X,d) be a complete metric space, and suppose that f:X>>>>X satisfies the condition: for each epsilon >0, there exists delta > 0 such that for all x,y in X

epsilon <=d(x,y) d(f(x),f(y))< epsilonthis write in theorem...and this case has a relation with contraction mapping but I don't understand...I wrote this as in the theorem

Hi ozkan12,

It's not clear what the statement is. Are supposing that $f : X \to X$ satisfies the property that for every $\epsilon$, there is a $\delta > 0$ such that for all $x,y \in X$, $d(x,y) \ge \mathbf{\delta}$ implies $d(f(x),f(y)) < \epsilon$?
 
  • #5
no, $f$ satisfies this condition

$$\epsilon \le d(x,y) <\epsilon+\delta \implies d(f(x),f(y))< \epsilon$$

then this concept has a relation contraction map...but it how happen ? I don't understand
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FAQ: Contraction and contractive mapping

What is a contraction mapping?

A contraction mapping is a type of mathematical function that maps elements from one set to another. It is called a contraction because it contracts the distance between two points in the first set to a smaller distance between the corresponding points in the second set.

How is a contraction mapping different from a regular mapping?

A regular mapping does not necessarily change the distance between two points, whereas a contraction mapping always decreases the distance between points. This property is important in the study of fixed point theorems and dynamical systems.

What is the importance of contraction mappings in mathematics?

Contraction mappings are important in many areas of mathematics, including analysis, topology, and dynamical systems. They are used to prove the existence and uniqueness of solutions to differential equations, as well as to establish the convergence of numerical methods for solving these equations.

How can a contraction mapping be identified?

A contraction mapping can be identified by checking if the distance between the images of two points in the second set is always smaller than the distance between the two points in the first set. This can be done by calculating the Lipschitz constant of the mapping, which is a measure of how much the mapping contracts distances.

Can all mappings be considered as contraction mappings?

No, not all mappings can be considered as contraction mappings. A contraction mapping must satisfy the condition that the distance between points in the second set is always smaller than the distance between the corresponding points in the first set. This is not true for all mappings.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
889
Replies
16
Views
678
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top