Abstract
In (Brzdęk and Schwaiger in Aeq Math 92: 975–991, 2018) solutions of far reaching generalizations of the so-called radical functional equation\(f(p(\pi (x)+\pi (y)))=f(x)+f(y)\) have been investigated. These investigations are continued here by analysing the corresponding stability results, which have been the main subject of several recent papers. We propose a very general and uniform approach.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction and preliminaries
The main subject of this paper is stability of the so-called generalized radical functional equation (23), which is a natural generalization of the functional equation
considered for functions with the set of reals \(\mathbb {R}\) as the domain (see, e.g., [21]). For more information on the equations and examples of recent results we refer to [5, 7, 12, 20].
We present a kind of very general approach to that subject. To this aim we use some nonstandard ways of measuring a distance in a set. So we start the paper with several definitions, results and simple observations on that subject.
Various ways of measuring distance are useful in applied sciences (see, e.g., [11]). But there is some confusion in the terminology concerning them; in particular, various generalizations of the notion of metric. For example, according to [28], we have the following definition of a quasi-metric space (\(\mathbb {R}_+\) stands for the set of nonnegative reals).
Definition 1
Let X be a set with at least 2 elements. Then \(d:X\times X\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\) is called quasi-metric if there is some \(K'\in \mathbb {R}\) such that
- (a)
\(d(x,y)=0\) if and only if \(x=y\)
- (b)
\(d(x,y)=d(y,x)\) for all \(x,y\in X\) and
- (c)
\(d(x,y)\le K' \max \left( d(x,z),d(z,y)\right) \) for all \(x,y,z\in X\).
However, in several other papers (see, e.g., [11]), a quasi-metric is a function \(d:X\times X\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\) satisfying only condition (a) and the usual triangle inequality:
There are few other ambiguities in this area.
Remark 1
Note that we must have \(K'\ge 1\), in Definition 1, in view of the properties (a) and (c) with \(x\not =y=z\).
In this paper we also measure a distance in a nonempty set X using functions \(d:X\times X\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\) satisfying only the following two conditions
- (I)
if \(d(x,y)=d(y,x)=0\), then \(x=y\);
- (II)
\(d(x,y)\le K \left( d(x,z)+d(z,y)\right) \),
for all \(x,y,z\in X\) and with some \(K\in \mathbb {R}_+\). If \(K=1\), then such a function is often called a dislocated quasi-metric (see, e.g., [25, 27]), or shortly: dq-metric. The notion of a dq–metric space is a natural generalization of the usual definitions of metric, quasimetric, partial metric and metric-like spaces and plays crucial roles in computer science and cryptography (see, e.g., [2, 8, 11, 19, 25, 27]).
We will use that type of terminology and to be short and precise, given an arbitrary \(K \in \mathbb {R}_+\), by dq-K-metric we understand every function \(d:X\times X\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\) fulfilling conditions (I) and (II).
Remark 2
Actually conditions (c) and (II) are closely related as we may see below.
- 1.
Property (c) implies (II) with \(K=2K'\).
- 2.
(II) implies property (c) with \(K'=K\).
Remark 3
Clearly, if \(K\in (1,\infty )\), then every function \(d:\mathbb {R}^2\rightarrow \{0\}\cup [1/K,1]\) with \(d^{-1}(\{0\})\subset \{(x,x):x\in \mathbb {R}\}\) is a dq-K-metric.
Further, let \(p\in (1,\infty )\) and (Z, d) be a dq-metric space. Then it is easy to show that \(d_p\) is a dq-\(2^{p-1}\)-metric, where
In fact, for every \(x,y,z\in Z\), we have
because \((a+b)^p\le 2^{p-1}\big (a^p+b^p\big )\) for \(a,b\in [0,\infty )\).
Remark 4
Let \(a,b\in (0,\infty )\), \(n,k\in \mathbb {N}\) (positive integers), and \(\alpha :\mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\) be such that \(\alpha ^{-1}(\{0\})=\{0\}\). Then it is easy to check that the function \(d:\mathbb {R}\times \mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\), given by any of the following six simple formulas, is a dq-metric:
where \(\lfloor \cdot \rfloor \) is the floor function, i.e., \(\lfloor y\rfloor :=\max \,\{n\in \mathbb {Z}: n\le y\}\) (\(\mathbb {Z}\) stands for the set of integers).
Next, if \(n\in \mathbb {N}\), \(a_1,\ldots ,a_n\in [0,\infty )\) and \(d_1,\ldots ,d_n\) are dq-metrics in a nonempty set X, then d and \(d_0\) also are dq-metrics in X, where
For some further examples we refer to, e.g., [2, 8, 19] and the references therein. However, the next remark provides possible generalizations of the examples of dq-metrics presented above.
Remark 5
The following very general example of a dq-metric, on a nonempty set X, covers the first four examples in the previous remark.
Namely, let \(x_0\in X\) and \(\varphi ,\psi :X\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\), \(\nu :\mathbb {R}_+^2\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\) satisfy
Then it is easy to verify that \(d:X^2\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\), defined by \(d(x,y):=\nu \big (\varphi (x),\psi (y)\big )\), is a dq-metric, because for each \(t,u,v,w\in \mathbb {R}_+\),
Next, if d is a dq-metric, then so is \(d_p\), \(d_p(x,y):=d(x,y)^p\), for all \(0<p\le 1\), since \((a+b)^p\le a^p+b^p\) for \(a,b\in \mathbb {R}_+\). This generalizes the 4th and 5th example.
A generalization of the 6th example is given by \(d(x,y):=\max \{\varphi (x)-\psi (y),0\}\), where X is a nonempty set and \(\varphi ,\psi :X\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) satisfy the following two conditions.
- 1.
\(\varphi \) is injective and \(\psi \le \varphi \).
- 2.
For all x, y the inequality \(\varphi (x)\le \varphi (y)\) implies \(\psi (x)\le \psi (y)\).
In fact, let \(d(x,y)=d(y,x)=0\). Then \(\varphi (x)\le \psi (y)\) and \(\varphi (y)\le \psi (x)\). Thus \(\varphi (x)\le \psi (y)\le \varphi (y)\le \psi (x)\le \varphi (x)\) and therefore \(\varphi (x)=\varphi (y)\) implying \(x=y\).
Further, if \(\varphi (x)-\psi (y)\le 0\), then the triangle inequality trivially holds.
So, let \(\varphi (x)-\psi (y)>0\). First assume that \(\varphi (x)-\psi (z)\le 0\). Then \(\varphi (z)-\psi (y)>0\), because otherwise \(\varphi (z)\le \psi (y)\) implying \(\varphi (x)\le \psi (z)\le \varphi (z)\le \psi (y)\) and thus contradicting \(\varphi (x)>\psi (y)\). So \(\varphi (x)-\psi (z)\le 0, \varphi (z)-\psi (y)>0\), which implies that \(\varphi (x)\le \psi (z)\le \varphi (z)\) and
Finally, let \(\varphi (x)-\psi (z)>0\). Consider two cases.
Case 2.1) \(\varphi (z)-\psi (y)\le 0\). Then \(\psi (z)\le \varphi (z)\le \psi (y)\) and consequently we have \(\varphi (x)-\psi (y)\le \varphi (x)-\psi (z),\) whence \(d(x,y)\le d(x,z)\le d(x,z)+d(z,y)\).
Case 2.2) \(\varphi (z)-\psi (y)> 0\). Then \(d(x,z)+d(z,y)=\varphi (x)-\psi (z)+\varphi (z)-\psi (y)=\varphi (x)-\psi (y)+(\varphi (z)-\psi (z))=d(x,y)+(\varphi (z)-\psi (z))\ge d(x,y)\).
Let us mention yet, that a function \(d:X^2\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\) such that (a), (b) and (II) are valid, have been called a b-metric (cf., e.g., [13]). That term has been used for the first time in [9] with \(K=2\) and next in [10] for any \(K\ge 1\). In what follows we say that (X, d, K) is a b-metric space provided \(d:X^2\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\) is a b-metric with (II) fulfilled.
The following two examples have been provided in [4, Examples 1.1 and 1.2].
Example 1
Let X be a Banach space, \(p\in (0,1)\),
and \(\rho : \ell _p(X)^2\rightarrow [0,\infty )\) be defined by
Then \((\ell _p(X),\rho ,2^{1/p})\) is a b-metric space.
Example 2
If \(p\in (0,1)\),
and \(\rho :L_p[0, 1]\times L_p[0, 1] \rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\) is defined by
then \((L_p[0, 1],\rho ,2^{1/p})\) is a b-metric space.
Let us yet recall the following very interesting result.
Theorem 1
[24, Proposition, p. 4308] Let \((Y, d,\eta )\) be a b–metric space and
for all \(x, y\in Y \), where \(\xi := log_{\,2\eta } \,2\) and \(d^{\,\xi }(x,y)= \big (d(x,y)\big )^{\xi }\) for \(x,y\in Y\). Then \(D_d\) is a metric in Y with
In particular, if d is a metric, then \(D_d = d\).
Remark 6
Assume that \((X,\Vert \cdot \Vert ,\eta )\) is a real quasi–normed space, i.e., \(\eta \ge 1\) is a fixed real number, X is a real (complex, respectively) linear space and \(\Vert \cdot \Vert :X\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\) satisfy the following three conditions:
- (a1)
\(\Vert x\Vert =0\) if and only if \(x=0\);
- (b1)
\(\Vert \alpha x\Vert =|\alpha |\,\Vert x\Vert \) for \(x\in X\) and \(\alpha \in \mathbb {R}\) (\(\alpha \in \mathbb {C}\), resp.);
- (c1)
\(\Vert x+y\Vert \le \eta \big (\Vert x\Vert +\Vert y\Vert \big )\) for \(x,y\in X\).
Let \(Y\subset X\) be nonempty and \(d:Y^2\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\) be given by: \(d(x,y):=\Vert x-y\Vert \) for \(x,y\in Y\). Then it is easily seen that \((Y,d,\eta )\) is a b–metric space with \(d(\alpha x,\alpha y)=|\alpha | d(x,y)\) for \(x,y\in X\) and \(\alpha \in \mathbb {R}\) (\(\alpha \in \mathbb {C}\), resp.). Note yet that such d is also invariant (i.e., \(d(x+z,y+z)=d(x,y)\) for \(x,y,z\in Y\)).
In view of Aoki-Rolewicz Theorem (see, e.g., [22, Theorem 1]; cf. also [23]), each quasi-norm is equivalent to some p-norm. Let us remind here that, if X is a a real (complex, respectively) linear space and \(p>0\), then a mapping \(\Vert \cdot \Vert :X\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\) is a p-norm provided conditions (a1) and (b1) hold and
- (c2)
\(\Vert x+y\Vert ^p\le \Vert x\Vert ^p+\Vert y\Vert ^p\) for \(x,y\in X\).
Let d be a dq-K-metric in a nonempty set Y. We say that \(x\in Y\) is a limit of a sequence \((x_n)_{n=1}^{\infty }\) in Y provided
then we write \(x_n\rightarrow x\) or \(x=\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }x_n\); in view of (I), it is easy to note that such a limit must be unique, because
for every \(y\in Y\) and \(n\in \mathbb {N}\).
Next, we say that a sequence \((x_n)_{n=1}^{\infty }\) in Y is Cauchy if
d is complete if every Cauchy sequence in Y has a limit in Y.
Remark 7
Usually, in a dq-metric space, the Cauchy sequence can be defined in a somewhat different way; e.g., in a metric-like space (Y, d), a sequence \((x_n)_{n=1}^{\infty }\) is said to be Cauchy if the limit \(\lim _{N\rightarrow \infty } \sup _{m,n\geqslant N}\, d(x_n,x_m)\) exists and is finite (see [3]). But such definitions are too weak and would exclude from our considerations the metric and quasi-metric spaces. The same concerns the notion of completeness.
Also our definition of a limit of a sequence is stronger than the usual (in a dq-metric space), but this seems to be necessary in the proof of the main result; moreover, it actually corresponds to our definition of the Cauchy sequence and makes such limit unique (which is not the case in general) and therefore more useful.
In the framework of [26] the idea of a quasi-\(\beta \)-normed space has been used. This paper contains further references on this topic. To obtain an even more general setting we use the following modification of the concept.
Definition 2
Let X be a vector space over \(\mathbb {K}\in \{\mathbb {R},\mathbb {C}\}\), \(K\ge 1\), \(\beta \ge 0\). Then \(\left\| \,\right\| :X\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is called quasi-\(\beta \)-norm if
- 1.
\(\left\| x\right\| \ge 0\) for all \(x\in X\) and \(\left\| x\right\| =0\) if and only if \(x=0\)
- 2.
\(\left\| \lambda x\right\| = \left| \lambda \right| ^\beta \left\| X\right\| \) for all \(x\in X\), \(\lambda \in \mathbb {K}\).
- 3.
\(\left\| x+y\right\| \le K\left( \left\| x\right\| +\left\| y\right\| \right) \) for all \(x,y\in X\).
If \(\left\| \,\right\| :V\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) fulfils conditions 1–3, then we say that \((X,\left\| \,\right\| ,K)\) is a quasi-\(\beta \)-normed space.
A quasi-\(\beta \)-normed space is called a quasi-\(\beta \)Banach space, if any Cauchy sequence converges.
Remark 8
- 1.
For any normed space \((X, \left\| \,\right\| )\) the function \(\left\| \,\right\| _p:=\left\| \,\right\| ^p\) defines a quasi-\(\beta \)-norm on X with \(\beta =p\) and \(K=2^{p-1}\) for \(p\ge 1\) (cf. Remark 3).
- 2.
Any quasi-\(\beta \)-normed space \((X,\left\| \,\right\| ,K)\) is also a dq-K-metric space by defining \(d(x,y):=\left\| x-y\right\| \). Then d is translation invariant, i.e., \(d(x+z,y+z)=d(x,y)\) for all x, y, z. Moreover, \(d(\lambda x,\lambda y)=|\lambda |^\beta d( x, y)\) for all \(x,y\in X\) and \(\lambda \in \mathbb {K}\).
- 3.
Let (X, d) be a dq-K-metric space (with some \(K\ge 1\)). Then, given any elements \(x_1,x_2,\ldots ,x_{n+1}\in X\) with \(n\in \mathbb {N}\), \(n>1\), we have the inequality
$$\begin{aligned} d(x_1,x_{n+1})\le \sum _{i=1}^{n-1} K^i d(x_i,x_{i+1})+K^{n-1} d(x_n,x_{n+1}) \end{aligned}$$(3)and, as a consequence, the simpler to apply one
$$\begin{aligned} d(x_1,x_{n+1})\le \sum _{i=1}^{n} K^i d(x_i,x_{i+1}) \end{aligned}$$(4)holds true.
- 4.
In a quasi-\(\beta \)-normed space X the corresponding generalized triangle inequalities
$$\begin{aligned} \left\| \sum _{i=1}^n x_i\right\|&\le \sum _{i=1}^{n-1}K^i\left\| x_i\right\| +K^{n-1}\left\| x_{n+1}\right\| , \end{aligned}$$(5)$$\begin{aligned} \left\| \sum _{i=1}^n x_i\right\|&\le \sum _{i=1}^{n}K^i\left\| x_i\right\| \end{aligned}$$(6)
hold true.
All those inequalities can be easily proved by induction.
The topic of Hyers–Ulam stability is a very important branch in the theory of functional equations. A survey and further references may be found for example in [6, 15].
One of the first and most important results now will axiomatically be termed as Hyers–Ulam property.
Definition 3
Let \((P,+)\) and \((G,+)\) be groupoids (i.e., P and G are a non-empty sets and \(+:P^2\rightarrow P,+:G^2\rightarrow G\) inner operations). Let furthermore \(\Phi _1,\Phi _2:P \rightarrow [0,\infty )\) and \(\varphi _1,\varphi _2:P^2\rightarrow [0,\infty )\) be given functions and \(d:G\times G\rightarrow [0,\infty )\). Then we say that the pair (P, G) has the Hyers–Ulam property (with respect to \((\varphi _i,\Phi _i)\)), if for all functions \(g:P\rightarrow G\) such that
there is some function \(a:P\rightarrow G\) such that
Remark 9
Let us recall that a groupoid \((P,+)\) is square symmetric provided
where \(2x:=x+x\).
If a groupoid \((P,+)\) is square symmetric, then by induction we can prove that, for every \(x,y\in P\),
where \(2^{n+1}x=2(2^{n}x)\) for \(n\in \mathbb {N}\).
We say that a groupoid \((P,+)\) is uniquely divisible by 2 if, for each \(x\in P\), there is a unique \(y\in P\) with \(x=2y\); we write \(2^{-1}x:=y\). We define the notion \(2^{-n}x\) for \(x\in P\) by
If a groupoid \((P,+)\) is uniquely divisible by 2 and square symmetric, then (again by induction), for every \(x,y\in P\), we get
Clearly every abelian semigroup is square symmetric. Also, if \(\mathbb {F}\) is a field, \(A,B\in \mathbb {F}\), X is a linear space over \(\mathbb {F}\), \(\gamma \in X\), and we define \(\widehat{+}:X^2\rightarrow X\) by
then it is easy to check that \((X,\widehat{+})\) is a square symmetric groupoid (see, e.g., [16] for further information).
Note yet that, if \((H,\widehat{+})\) is a square symmetric groupoid, D is a nonempty set, \(h:D\rightarrow H\) is a bijection and we define a binary operation \(*:D^2\rightarrow D\) by: \(a*b:=h^{-1}(h(a)\widehat{+}h(b))\) for \(a,b\in D\), then \((D,*)\) is a square symmetric groupoid.
If d is a dq-K-metric in a groupoid \((H,+)\), then we say that a function \(g:H^2\rightarrow H\) is continuous (with respect to d) provided, for any sequences \((x_n)_{n=1}^{\infty }\) and \((y_n)_{n=1}^{\infty }\) in H such that \(x_n\rightarrow x\) and \(y_n\rightarrow y\) with some \(x,y\in H\), we have \(g(x_n,y_n)\rightarrow g(x,y)\).
The following theorem is an auxiliary result. It is well-known in the metric spaces and usually attributed to Paşc Găvruţă [17]; however a result by Gian Luigi Forti [14] is much more general, probably too general to have realized its consequences and special cases. We present a proof of it for dq-K-metric spaces (if \(K=1\), then it corresponds to the results in [18] to certain extent).
Theorem 2
Let \((G,+)\) and \((X,+)\) be square symmetric groupoids, X be uniquely divisible by 2, and d be a complete dq-K-metric in X such that
with some \(\xi >0\). Let the operation \(+\) in X be continuous (with respect to d) and \(\varphi _i:G\times G\rightarrow [0,\infty )\), \(i=1,2\), satisfy
Then the pair (G, X) has the Hyers–Ulam property with respect to \((\varphi _i,\Phi _i)\).
More exactly speaking, given \(f:G\rightarrow X\) such that
there is an additive function \(\alpha :G\rightarrow X\), i.e., \(\alpha (x+y)=\alpha (x)+\alpha (y)\) for all \(x,y\in G\), such that
This is the only additive function \(\alpha :G\rightarrow X\) which, given \(L\ge 1\), satisfies
Moreover, (18) holds.
Proof
Given \(n\in \mathbb {N}_0\) (nonnegative integers) and f as in the theorem let \(f_n:G\rightarrow X\) be defined by
Then \(f_0=f\) and
by the properties of d and by the property of f for \(x=y\,\, (=2^n x)\).
Given \(n\in \mathbb {N}_0\) and \(m\in \mathbb {N}\) we get from (4)
Analogously we have
This implies that the sequence \((f_n(x))_{n\in {\mathbb {N}_0}}\) is a Cauchy sequence for all \(x\in G\). Accordingly \(\alpha :G\rightarrow X\),
is well-defined. Using the above estimate for \(n=0\) and \(m\in \mathbb {N}\) we get
Now, taking the limit for \(m\rightarrow \infty \) shows that
Similarly we obtain
We still must show that \(\alpha \) is additive. Since G and X are square symmetric (cf. (9) and (10)),
which for \(n\rightarrow \infty \) implies \(d(\alpha (x+y),\alpha (x)+\alpha (y))=0\) and \(d(\alpha (x)+\alpha (y),\alpha (x+y))=0\) (because (12) holds and \(+\) is continuous), whence \(\alpha (x+y)=\alpha (x)+\alpha (y)\).
If, finally \(\gamma \) is additive with \(d(\gamma (x),f(x))\le L\Phi _1(x)\) and \(d(f(x),\gamma (x))\le L\Phi _2(x)\) for all x, we get that
Using this for \(2^n x\) in place of x and observing that \(\gamma (2^n x)=2^n \gamma (x)\) and \(\alpha (2^n x)=2^n \alpha (x)\) we obtain
for \(x\in X\) and \(n\in \mathbb {N}\). Finally, in view of (11), we see that (with \(n\ge 2\))
for \(x\in G\) and \(i=1,2\). Thus, by (19) and (20), \(d(\gamma (x),\alpha (x))=0\) and \(d(\alpha (x), \gamma (x))=0\) for \(x\in G\), whence \(\gamma =\alpha \). \(\square \)
Remark 10
Let \(p\ge 1 \) and
Then, according to Remarks 3 and 4, d is a dq-\(2^{p-1}\)-metric in \(\mathbb {R}\). For such d conditions (13) and (14) take the form
This shows that using the notion of dq-K-metrics we can deal in a unified way with stability in some somewhat unusual situations.
Remark 11
If d in Theorem 2 is continuous, then letting \(m\rightarrow \infty \) in (16) and (17) (with \(n=0\)), we get the following estimations
which are a bit better than (15).
Note that, in general, a dq-K-metric does not need to be continuous with respect to itself.
A special case of a definition in [7] is the following.
Definition 4
Let S be a non-empty set, \((P,+)\) and \((W,+)\) be groupoids, \(\pi :S\rightarrow P\) be surjective and let \(p:P\rightarrow S\) be a selection with respect to \(\pi \), i.e., \(\pi \circ p=\text {id}_P\) or \(p(u)\in \pi ^{-1}(u)\) for all \(u\in P\). Then \(f:S\rightarrow W\) is called a solution of a (generalized) radical equation iff
Corollary 2.2 in that paper implies the following result (under the assumptions as in Definition 4).
Theorem 3
Assume that P has a neutral element and that W is a monoid. Then \(f:S\rightarrow W\) satisfies (23) if and only if there is some additive function \(\alpha :P\rightarrow W\) such that \(f=\alpha \circ \pi \).
Remark 12
Under the assumptions of Definition 4, define an inner binary operation \(\widehat{+}\) in S by:
Then equation (23) can be rewritten in the form
Further, note that if the groupoid \((P,+)\) is square symmetric, then so is the groupoid \((S,\widehat{+})\) and thus we can use Theorem 2 to obtain some stability results concerning (23), provided \((W,+)\) is square symmetric. An example of such a more concrete result is given in the next section (Theorem 4).
2 Concrete results
The first investigations on the stability of the radical functional equation was for the special case of (23), namely equation (40), for f mapping \(\mathbb {R}\) to some quasi-\(\beta \) Banach space (see [21]). Replacing 2 by any positive integer n in this equation we now formulate and prove the following theorem concerning stability of equation (23) with \(\pi :\mathbb {R}\rightarrow \pi (\mathbb {R})\) defined by \(\pi ({x})=x^n\) and \(p:\pi (\mathbb {R})\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) by \(p(u):=\root n \of {u}\).
The next theorem is a simple consequence of Theorem 2 (see Remark 12).
Theorem 4
Let \((X,\Vert \cdot \Vert ,K)\) be a quasi-\(\beta \)-Banach space, \(n\in \mathbb {N}\), \(A,B,C,a,b\in \mathbb {R}\), \(c\in X\), \(\alpha :=a+b\ne 0\) and, in the case of even n, A, B, C be nonnegative. Assume moreover that \(\tau :\mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is given by:
and \(\psi :\mathbb {R}\times \mathbb {R}\rightarrow [0,\infty [\) satisfies
Then, given \(F:\mathbb {R}\rightarrow X\) such that
there is a unique solution \(\gamma :\mathbb {R}\rightarrow X\) of the functional equation
such that \(\left\| F(x)-\gamma (x)\right\| \le \Psi (x)\) for all \(x\in \mathbb {R}\).
Proof
It is easy to check that the inner binary operations \(+_1\) in \(\mathbb {R}\) and \(+_2\) in X,
are square symmetric (see Remarks 9 and 12). Moreover, the groupoid \((X,+_2)\) is uniquely divisible by 2 with
Note yet that X is a dq-K-metric space with a complete and invariant dq-K-metric d, \(d(x,y):=\left\| x-y\right\| \). So, we have a special case of Theorem 2 with \((G,+)=(\mathbb {R},+_1)\), \((X,+)=(X,+_2)\), \(\varphi _1=\varphi _2=\psi \) and \(\xi =(a+b)^{-\beta }\). \(\square \)
Remark 13
The result in [21] for \(n=2\) (but only when \(A=B=a=b=1\), \(c=0\), \(C=0\), and \(F(0)=0\)) is of similar flavour. It makes use of some transformation specific to that case.
Remark 14
[1] contains a result for the case \(n=3\), which seems to be false. It claims that the condition \(\left\| f\left( \root 3 \of {x^3+y^3}\right) -f(x)-f(y)\right\| \le \psi (x,y)\), under the assumptions \(\Psi (x):=\sum _{j=1}^{\infty } 2^{-j\beta } \psi \left( 2^{j/3}x,2^{j/3}x\right) <\infty \) and \(\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }2^{-n\beta }\psi (2^{n/3}x,2^{n/3}y)=0\), implies that F defined by
is a solution of the corresponding equation, which also satisfies \(\left\| f(x)-F(x)\right\| \le K 2^{-\beta }\Psi (x)\) for all x.
This result can’t be true in general. If, for example \(\left\| x\right\| =\left| x\right| ^p\) (with \(X=\mathbb {R}\) and \(p>1\)), we define \(f(x):=x^3+x\) and put \(\psi (x,y):= \left| \root 3 \of {x^3+y^3}-x-y\right| ^p\). Then the hypotheses are satisfied. Moreover, in view of the formula for F, necessarily \(F(x)=x^3\), thus \(f(x)-F(x)=x\) and \(\left\| f(x)-F(x)\right\| =\left| x\right| ^p\).
Observe \(\psi (x,x)=\left| 2-\root 3 \of {2}\right| ^p \left| x\right| ^p\) and \(\beta =p\). Hence
The result cited would imply that \(\left| x\right| ^p=\left\| F(x)-f(x)\right\| \le \Psi (x)\) which here would result in
Note that the K corresponding to that quasi-\(\beta \) norm has to be \(\ge 2^{p-1}\) which for \(p=2\) results in \(K\ge 2\). But for \(p=2\) and \(K=2\)
contradicting the fact that it should be \(\ge 1\).
3 Stability of the radical functional equation, abstract version
The assumption that the groupoids (under consideration) are square symmetric is very important in Theorem 2 and consequently also in Theorem 4. Below we provide a quite abstract theorem showing that, also without that assumption, some stability issues of the radical functional equation (23) can be reduced to the stability problems of the corresponding equation of homomorphism.
Let us start with the following definition.
Definition 5
Let d be a dq-K-metric in a groupoid \((G,+)\). We say that d is subinvariant, provided
Remark 15
Clearly, every invariant dq-K-metric is subinvariant. The converse is not true in general. For instance, let \(G=[0,\infty )\), a, b be positive reals and d be given by: \(d(x,y)=ax^2+by^2\) for \(x,y\in G\). Then d is a subinvariant dq-metric in G, which is not invariant.
In what follows we assume that S is a nonempty set, \((P,+)\) and \((G,+)\) are groupoids, \(d:G\times G\rightarrow [0,\infty )\) is a dq-K-metric on G, with a constant \(K\ge 1\), \(\pi :S\rightarrow P\) is surjective, and \(p:P\rightarrow S\) is a selection with respect to \(\pi \).
Now, we are in a position to present that abstract stability result concerning the radical functional equation (23).
Theorem 5
Let \(\psi _1,\psi _2:S^2\rightarrow [0,\infty )\) and \(\Phi _1,\Phi _2:P\rightarrow [0,\infty )\). Assume that (P, G) has the Hyers–Ulam property with respect to \(\varphi _i\) and \(\Phi _i\), where
Suppose that one of the following two conditions is valid.
- (i)
d is subinvariant.
- (ii)
Groupoid P has a neutral element 0 and
$$\begin{aligned} \tau _1(y):=\sup _{z\in G}d(z+y,z)<\infty ,\qquad \tau _2(y):=\sup _{z\in G}d(z,z+y)<\infty ,\qquad y\in G. \end{aligned}$$
Then, for any \(f:S\rightarrow G\) satisfying
there is a solution \(F:S\rightarrow G\) of the radical equation (23) such that
where, in the case of (i),
and, in the case of (ii),
Proof
Let \(f:S\rightarrow G\) satisfy (30) and (31) and define \(g:P\rightarrow G\) by \(g:=f\circ p\). Then
This may be seen in the following way: For \(u,v\in P\) let \(x:=p(u), y:=p(v)\). Clearly \(\pi (x)=u,\pi (y)=v\), since \(\pi \circ p=\text {id}_P\). Thus
Then (30) with \(p(x)=u,p(y)=v\) implies (34). Analogously we obtain (35).
Since, by assumption, (P, G) has the Hyers–Ulam property with respect to \(\varphi _i\) and \(\Phi _i\), there is some additive function \(\alpha :P\rightarrow G\) such that \(d(\alpha (u),g(u))\le \Phi _1(u)\) and \(d(g(u),\alpha (u))\le \Phi _2(u)\) for all \(u\in P\). In terms of f this means that
Let \(F:=\alpha \circ \pi \). Then, by (36) and (37),
where
Note that, in the case of (i), by (29), we have
for every \(z,w,y_0\in S\) with \(\pi (z)=\pi (w)\). Clearly, this shows that
for every \(z\in S\). This and (38) and (39) yield (32) and (33).
Now, assume that P has a neutral element 0. Let \(x_0\in S\) satisfy \(\pi (x_0)=0\). Then
Hence we obtain the following estimate for the distance between f(x) and \(f(p(\pi (x)))\):
This and (38) and (39) imply (32) and (33) also when (ii) holds. \(\square \)
Remark 16
If (ii) holds, G has a neutral element 0 and d is invariant, then \(\tau _1(y)=d(y,0)\) and \(\tau _2(y)=d(0,y)\) for each \(y\in G\) and consequently \(\chi _i\), \(i=1,2\), have the form
for \(z\in S\), which are a bit different than those obtained in the case of (i) and depend on f. In some of such situations we can derive from the assumptions an estimation of the values of \(d(f(x_0),0)\) and \(d(0,f(x_0))\), independent of the form of f. This is the case for instance for the equation
in the class of functions \(f:\mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\). Then conditions (30) and (31) take the forms
which with \(x=y=x_0=0\) yield
References
Alizadeh, Z., Ghazanfari, A.G.: On the stability of a radical cubic functional equation in quasi-\(\beta \)-spaces. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 18(4), 843–853 (2016)
Altun, I., Sola, F., Simsek, H.: Generalized contractions on partial metric spaces. Topol. Appl. 157(18), 2778–2785 (2010)
Harandi, A.A.: Metric-like spaces, partial metric spaces and fixed points. Fixed Point Th. Appl. (2012), Article ID: 204
Boriceanu, M., Bota, M., Petruşel, A.: Multivalued fractals in \(b\)-metric spaces. Cent. Eur. J. Math. 8(2), 367–377 (2010)
Brzdęk, J.: Remarks on solutions to the functional equations of the radical type. Adv. Theory Nonlinear Anal. Appl. 1, 125–135 (2017)
Brzdęk, J., Popa, D., Raşa, I., Xu, B.: Ulam Stability of Operators, Mathematical Analysis and Its Applications v. 1. Academic Press, Oxford (2018)
Brzdęk, J., Schwaiger, J.: Remarks on solutions to a generalization of the radical functional equations. Aeq. Math. 92, 975–991 (2018)
Bukatin, M., Kopperman, R., Matthews, S.G., Pajoohesh, S,H.: Partial metric spaces. Am. Math. Mon. 116, 708–718 (2009)
Czerwik, S.: Contraction mappings in \(b\)-metric spaces. Acta Math. Univ. Ostrav. 1(1), 5–11 (1993)
Czerwik, S.: Nonlinear set-valued contraction mappings in \(b\)-metric spaces. Atti Sem. Math. Fis. Univ. Modena 46, 263–276 (1998)
Deza, M.M., Deza, E.: Encyclopedia of Distances. Springer, Berlin (2009)
Ding, Y., Xu, T.-Z.: Approximate solution of generalized inhomogeneous radical quadratic functional equations in 2-Banach spaces. J. Ineq. Appl. 31, 13 (2019)
Dung, N.V., Hang, V.T.L.: The generalized hyperstability of general linear equations in quasi-Banach spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 462, 131–147 (2018)
Forti, G.L.: An existence and stability theorem for a class of functional equations. Stochastica 4(1), 23–30 (1980)
Forti, G.L.: Hyers–Ulam stability of functional equations in several variables. Aeq. Math. 50(1–2), 143–190 (1995)
Forti, G.L.: Continuous increasing weakly bisymmetric groupoids and quasi-groups in \(\mathbb{R}\). Math. Pannonica 8, 49–71 (1997)
Gǎvruţa, P.: A generalization of the Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stability of approximately additive mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 184(3), 431–436 (1994)
Hejmej, B.: Stability of functional equations in dislocated quasi-metric spaces. Ann. Math. Sil. 32, 215–225 (2018)
Karapınar, E., Erha, I.M.: Fixed point theorems for operators on partial metric spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 24, 1894–1899 (2011)
Khodaei, H., Eshaghi Gordji, M., Kim, S.S., Cho, Y.J.: Approximation of radical functional equations related to quadratic and quartic mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 395(1), 284–297 (2012)
Kim, S.S., Cho, Y.J., Eshaghi Gordji, M.: On the generalized Hyers–Ulam–Rassias stability problem of radical functional equations. J. Inequal. Appl. 2012, 13 (2012)
Maligranda, L., Aoki, T.: (1910–1989). In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Banach and Function Spaces II, Kitakyushu, Japan, 2006, Yokohama Publishers, pp. 1–23 (2008)
Maligranda, L.: A result of Tosio Aoki about a generalization of Hyers–Ulam stability of additive functions—a question of priority. Aeq. Math. 75, 289–296 (2008)
Paluszyński, M., Stempak, K.: On quasi-metric and metric spaces. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 137(12), 4307–4312 (2009)
Rahman, M.U., Sarwar, M.: Some new fixed point theorems in dislocated quasi-metric spaces. Palest. J. Math. 5, 171–176 (2015)
Rassias, J.M., Kim, H.-M.: Generalized Hyers–Ulam stability for general additive functional equations in quasi-\(\beta \)-normed spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 356(1), 302–309 (2009)
Sarwar, M., Rahman, M.U., Ali, G.: Some fixed point results in dislocated quasi metric (\(dq\)-metric) spaces. J. Inequal. Appl. 2014, 278 (2014)
Schroeder, V.: Quasi-metric and metric spaces. Conform. Geom. Dyn. 10, 355–360 (2006)
Acknowledgements
This work is funded by Jouf University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, under the research Project Number 39/600.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Dedicated to Professor János Aczél on the occasion of his 95th birthday.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Brzdęk, J., El-hady, Es. & Schwaiger, J. Investigations on the Hyers–Ulam stability of generalized radical functional equations. Aequat. Math. 94, 575–593 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00010-019-00665-6
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00010-019-00665-6