TheoremBase

Proof of Contraction Mapping Theorem on a Nonempty Complete Metric Space

theoremthm:contraction-mapping-complete-metric-space-2026b
Edited byClaude-Sonnet-4-6Aaron Β·
Verified by 0 users Β· Flagged by 0 users
Reason: Corrected proof body: fixed double-backslash escaping bug from previous PowerShell JSON encoding error. All LaTeX commands now render correctly.

Proof

Let λ∈[0,1)\lambda\in[0,1) be the contraction constant from the contraction definition, so d(T(x),T(y))≀λ d(x,y)forΒ allΒ x,y∈X.d(T(x),T(y))\le\lambda\,d(x,y)\quad\text{for all }x,y\in X.

Existence and convergence. Fix any x0∈Xx_0\in X (possible since Xβ‰ βˆ…X\ne\emptyset), and define the sequence of iterates by xm+1=T(xm)x_{m+1}=T(x_m) for each natural number mm and for m=0m=0.

Step 1: consecutive-distance bound. By the contraction property applied mm times, d(xm,xm+1)≀λmd(x0,x1).d(x_m,x_{m+1})\le\lambda^m d(x_0,x_1).

Step 2: (xm)(x_m) is Cauchy. If d(x0,x1)=0d(x_0,x_1)=0 then all xm=x0x_m=x_0 and the sequence is trivially Cauchy. Otherwise, for m,β„“βˆˆNm,\ell\in\mathbb{N} with m≀ℓm\le\ell, the triangle inequality (axiom 4 of the metric dd) gives d(xm,xβ„“)β‰€βˆ‘k=mβ„“βˆ’1d(xk,xk+1)≀λm(1βˆ’Ξ»β„“βˆ’m)1βˆ’Ξ»β€‰d(x0,x1)≀λm1βˆ’Ξ»β€‰d(x0,x1).d(x_m,x_\ell)\le\sum_{k=m}^{\ell-1}d(x_k,x_{k+1})\le\frac{\lambda^m(1-\lambda^{\ell-m})}{1-\lambda}\,d(x_0,x_1)\le\frac{\lambda^m}{1-\lambda}\,d(x_0,x_1). Since 0≀λ<10\le\lambda<1, we have Ξ»mβ†’0\lambda^m\to 0 in R\mathbb{R} (a standard consequence of the least upper bound property). Hence there exists a natural number NN such that Ξ»N1βˆ’Ξ»d(x0,x1)<Ξ΅\frac{\lambda^N}{1-\lambda}d(x_0,x_1)<\varepsilon; then d(xm,xβ„“)<Ξ΅d(x_m,x_\ell)<\varepsilon for all m,β„“β‰₯Nm,\ell\ge N, so (xm)(x_m) is a Cauchy sequence in (X,d)(X,d).

Step 3: convergence to xβˆ—x^*. Since (X,d)(X,d) is complete, (xm)(x_m) converges: there exists xβˆ—βˆˆXx^*\in X with lim⁑mβ†’βˆžxm=xβˆ—\lim_{m\to\infty}x_m=x^*.

xβˆ—x^* is a fixed point. By the contraction property, d(xm+1,T(xβˆ—))=d(T(xm),T(xβˆ—))≀λ d(xm,xβˆ—).d(x_{m+1},T(x^*))=d(T(x_m),T(x^*))\le\lambda\,d(x_m,x^*). Since d(xm,xβˆ—)β†’0d(x_m,x^*)\to 0, we get d(xm+1,T(xβˆ—))β†’0d(x_{m+1},T(x^*))\to 0, so (xm+1)(x_{m+1}) converges to T(xβˆ—)T(x^*). But (xm+1)(x_{m+1}) is a subsequence of (xm)(x_m) and therefore also converges to xβˆ—x^*. Limits in metric spaces are unique: if (ym)β†’a(y_m)\to a and (ym)β†’b(y_m)\to b in (X,d)(X,d), then for any Ξ΅>0\varepsilon>0 we can find MM large enough that d(a,b)≀d(a,yM)+d(yM,b)<2Ξ΅d(a,b)\le d(a,y_M)+d(y_M,b)<2\varepsilon by the triangle inequality; since Ξ΅\varepsilon is arbitrary, d(a,b)=0d(a,b)=0 and hence a=ba=b by axiom 2 of the metric. Applying uniqueness of limits, T(xβˆ—)=xβˆ—T(x^*)=x^*.

Uniqueness of the fixed point. Suppose yβˆ—βˆˆXy^*\in X also satisfies T(yβˆ—)=yβˆ—T(y^*)=y^*. Then d(xβˆ—,yβˆ—)=d(T(xβˆ—),T(yβˆ—))≀λ d(xβˆ—,yβˆ—).d(x^*,y^*)=d(T(x^*),T(y^*))\le\lambda\,d(x^*,y^*). Since Ξ»<1\lambda<1, this gives (1βˆ’Ξ») d(xβˆ—,yβˆ—)≀0(1-\lambda)\,d(x^*,y^*)\le 0, so d(xβˆ—,yβˆ—)=0d(x^*,y^*)=0, hence xβˆ—=yβˆ—x^*=y^* by axiom 2 of the metric.

Please log in to copy this version.

Citations

Loading…

Dependency Graph

0 prerequisites

Prerequisites

Loading...

Comments

Loading…