A function f:(0,∞)→(0,∞) is called contractive if, for every numbers x,y∈(0,∞), we have limn→∞(fn(x)−fn(y))=0, where fn=f∘f∘⋯∘f. Prove
a) If f:(0,∞)→(0,∞) is contractive, continuous and has a fixed point (there is x0∈(0,∞) such that f(x0)=x0), then f(x)>x, for x∈(0,x0), and f(x)<x, for all x∈(x0,∞).
b) The function f:(0,∞)→(0,∞) defined by f(x)=x+1/x is contractive but has no fixed points.
Solution
a) Suppose the contrary, that is f has another fixed point x1∈(0,∞)∖{x0}. Then limn→∞(fn(x0)−fn(x1))=x0−x1=0, a contradiction. In this case, the continuity of f (intermediate value property) implies f(x)<x, for all x∈(0,x0) or f(x)>x, for all x∈(0,x0).
By induction, the first case implies 0<fn+1(x)<fn(x)<x, for any n∈N∗ and x∈(0,x0). It follows that the sequence an=(fn(x))n≥1 is convergent; denote by a its limit. If a>0, then from an+1=f(an) we get a=f(a), a contradiction. So a=0, which implies limn→∞(fn(x0)−fn(x))=x0=0, for all x∈(0,x0), contradiction. In conclusion f(x)>x, for any x∈(0,x0).
Analogously, f(x)>x, for all x∈(x0,∞) or f(x)<x for all x∈(x0,∞). In the first case we deduce fn+1(x)>fn(x)>x, for any n∈N∗, implying
n→∞limfn(x)=∞ and then limn→∞(fn(x)−fn(x0))=∞, for all x∈(x0,∞), a contradiction. So, f(x)<x, for any x∈(x0,∞).
b) First solution. Consider x,y∈(0,∞). We may suppose f(x)<f(y). Denote xn=fn(x), n∈N∗ and yn=fn(y), n∈N∗. We have 2≤xn<yn, n>1, because f is increasing on [1,∞). We shall prove inductively that yn<y1+2n, n∈N∗. This is obvious for n=1. Supposing yn<y1+2n, for some n, by the monotonicity of f, we get: yn+1=f(yn)<f(y1+2n)=y1+2n+y1+2n1<y1+2n+2n1<y1+2n+1.
It follows 2≤xn<yn<y1+2n<3n, for n∈N, n>y12. Using the well-known inequality 1−x<e−x, for x∈R, we deduce: 0<yn+1−xn+1=f(yn)−f(xn)=(yn−xn)(1−xnyn1)<(yn−xn)(1−9n1)<(yn−xn)e−9n1, for n≥p=[y12]+1. We get 0<yn−xn<(yp−xp)e−91∑k=pn−1k1, for all n>p.
Because limn→∞∑k=pn−1k1=∞, we infer limn→∞e−91∑k=pn−1k1=0, which in turn gives limn→∞(fn(y)−fn(x))=0. So f is contractive without fixed points.
Second solution. Using the same notations as before, we shall show that limn→∞(xn−2n)=limn→∞(yn−2n)=0, which will imply limn→∞(xn−yn)=0, that is the conclusion. As xn+1=xn+1/xn, n≥1, we have limn→∞xn=∞. By the Stolz–Cesàro lemma, we deduce