{\epsilon\over 2}+ \eta+ {\epsilon\over 2}=\epsilon+ \eta.$$ Clearly, the pervious relation for each $n\in\Bbb Z$ is true. Since $\epsilon>0$ is a small arbitrary number then for each $n\in\Bbb Z$ we have $r\Big(F_{\sigma_n}(x), F_{\sigma_n}(y)\Big)\leq \eta$. Whereof $\mathcal{F}$ is expansive relative to $\sigma$ with constant expansive $\eta$ hence we obtain $x= y$ and so $r(x, y)=0$. So $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ll}
r\Big(x_{N_i}, y_{N_i}\Big)& < r\Big(x_{N_i}, x\Big)+ r(x, y)+ r\Big(y, y_{N_i}\Big)\\
                           & = r\Big(x_{N_i}, x\Big)+ r\Big(y, y_{N_i}\Big).
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ As $i\rightarrow \infty$, on the basis of convergency of the subsequences ${\Big\{x_{N_i}\Big\}}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ and ${\Big\{y_{N_i}\Big\}}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ to $x$ and $y$ respectively, for given $\epsilon>0(\epsilon<\mu)$ there exists $k_3\in\Bbb N$ such that for every $i\geq k_3$, $r\Big(x_{N_i}, x\Big)< {\epsilon\over 2}$ and $r\Big(y_{N_i}, y\Big)< {\epsilon\over 2}$. Thus, for sufficiently large $N_i$ when $i\rightarrow \infty$, the pervious relation will be as follows $$r\Big(x_{N_i}, y_{N_i}\Big)< {\epsilon\over 2}+ {\epsilon\over 2}= \epsilon< \mu$$ This contradicts absurd hypothesis and the assertion is proved.

We say that IFS $\mathcal{F}$ has [***shadowing uniqueness property relative to $\sigma$***]{} if there exists a constant number $\epsilon>0$ such that for every $\delta$-chain $\xi={\{x_k\}}_{k\
{ \epsilon\over 2}+ \eta+ { \epsilon\over 2}=\epsilon+ \eta.$$ Clearly, the pervious relation for each $ n\in\Bbb Z$ is true. Since $ \epsilon>0 $ is a small arbitrary numeral then for each $ n\in\Bbb Z$ we take $ r\Big(F_{\sigma_n}(x), F_{\sigma_n}(y)\Big)\leq \eta$. Whereof $ \mathcal{F}$ is expansive relative to $ \sigma$ with constant expansive $ \eta$ hence we obtain $ x= y$ and then $ r(x, y)=0$. So $ $ \begin{aligned } 
 \begin{array}{ll } 
 r\Big(x_{N_i }, y_{N_i}\Big) & < r\Big(x_{N_i }, x\Big)+ r(x, y)+ r\Big(y, y_{N_i}\Big)\\ 
                            & = r\Big(x_{N_i }, x\Big)+ r\Big(y, y_{N_i}\Big). 
 \end{array}\end{aligned}$$ As $ i\rightarrow \infty$, on the basis of convergence of the posteriority $ { \Big\{x_{N_i}\Big\}}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ and $ { \Big\{y_{N_i}\Big\}}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ to $ x$ and $ y$ respectively, for given $ \epsilon>0(\epsilon<\mu)$ there exist $ k_3\in\Bbb N$ such that for every $ i\geq k_3 $, $ r\Big(x_{N_i }, x\Big) < { \epsilon\over 2}$ and $ r\Big(y_{N_i }, y\Big) < { \epsilon\over 2}$. Thus, for sufficiently large $ N_i$ when $ i\rightarrow \infty$, the pervious relation back will be as follows $ $ r\Big(x_{N_i }, y_{N_i}\Big) < { \epsilon\over 2}+ { \epsilon\over 2}= \epsilon < \mu$$ This contradicts absurd guess and the assertion is proved. 

 We suppose that IFS $ \mathcal{F}$ has [ * * * shadowing singularity property relative to $ \sigma$ * * * ] { } if there exists a ceaseless number $ \epsilon>0 $ such that for every $ \delta$-chain $ \xi={\{x_k\}}_{k\
{\epsllon\over 2}+ \eta+ {\epsilon\ovev 2}=\epsilon+ \eta.$$ Clgaely, thx pervikus relagion for each $n\in\Bbb Z$ is trne. Sunce $\tisilon>0$ is a small arbktrary nulber theb foc each $n\in\Bbb Z$ xs have $v\Yig(F_{\sjnma_n}(x), H_{\sigma_n}(y)\Big)\leq \gta$. Whereof $\kathcal{F}$ is ex[avsnve relative to $\sigma$ with constant qxpansife $\eta$ hence we jbtapn $x= y$ and so $r(x, y)=0$. So $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{adray}{ll}
r\Uig(x_{N_i}, y_{N_i}\Big)& < t\Big(x_{N_i}, x\Big)+ r(x, y)+ r\Big(y, y_{N_l}\Big)\\
                           & = t\Gig(v_{B_i}, x\Big)+ r\Big(h, y_{N_i}\Big).
\end{array}\end{alifned}$$ As $i\rightarrow \infty$, on thd basns of convetywncj of the subwequegces ${\Big\{x_{N_i}\Blb\}}_{i=1}^{\inftf}$ and ${\Bog\{y_{N_i}\Big\}}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ to $x$ qnd $y$ respectively, foc given $\epsilon>0(\epsiljn<\mu)$ thera zxists $k_3\in\Bbb N$ such rhqt fot evesy $i\ewq y_3$, $r\Gij(x_{N_j}, x\Big)< {\epailon\over 2}$ and $r\Big(y_{N_u}, y\Big)< {\epsilon\over 2}$. Trlx, for sufficjently lwrge $N_i$ when $i\rightarrow \infty$, the pervpous relation will be as foolows $$r\Big(x_{N_i}, y_{N_i}\Big)< {\gpsilon\ovew 2}+ {\epsilon\over 2}= \epsilon< \mu$$ This contradicts absurg hypkghewif qnf the assertion is proved.

We say that IFS $\mathszl{G}$ mas [***shadowing unlqueness property tepayyve to $\sigma$***]{} kf thexs sxists a constant jumber $\gpsilob>0$ such thwt fpr every $\delta$-chain $\xi={\{x_k\}}_{k\
{\epsilon\over 2}+ \eta+ {\epsilon\over 2}=\epsilon+ \eta.$$ Clearly, relation each $n\in\Bbb is true. Since number for each $n\in\Bbb we have $r\Big(F_{\sigma_n}(x), \eta$. Whereof $\mathcal{F}$ is expansive relative $\sigma$ with constant expansive $\eta$ hence we obtain $x= y$ and so $r(x, So $$\begin{aligned} \begin{array}{ll} r\Big(x_{N_i}, y_{N_i}\Big)& < r\Big(x_{N_i}, x\Big)+ r(x, y)+ r\Big(y, y_{N_i}\Big)\\ & r\Big(x_{N_i}, r\Big(y, \end{array}\end{aligned}$$ $i\rightarrow \infty$, on the basis of convergency of the subsequences ${\Big\{x_{N_i}\Big\}}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ and ${\Big\{y_{N_i}\Big\}}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ to $x$ and respectively, for given $\epsilon>0(\epsilon<\mu)$ there exists $k_3\in\Bbb N$ that for every $i\geq $r\Big(x_{N_i}, x\Big)< {\epsilon\over 2}$ and y\Big)< 2}$. Thus, sufficiently $N_i$ $i\rightarrow \infty$, the relation will be as follows $$r\Big(x_{N_i}, y_{N_i}\Big)< {\epsilon\over 2}+ {\epsilon\over 2}= \epsilon< \mu$$ This contradicts absurd hypothesis the assertion We say IFS has uniqueness property relative if there exists a constant number for every $\delta$-chain $\xi={\{x_k\}}_{k\
{\epsilon\over 2}+ \eta+ {\epsilon\over 2}=\Epsilon+ \eta.$$ clearLy, tHe pErViouS relAtion for each $n\iN\bbb Z$ Is true. Since $\epsilon>0$ is a sMall aRbITrarY NuMber tHen for eACh $N\IN\BbB Z$ We HavE $r\bIg(f_{\sigmA_n}(x), f_{\sigma_n}(Y)\Big)\leq \eta$. wheReOf $\mathcal{F}$ is EXpAnsive relaTivE to $\sigma$ with ConStant eXpAnsIVe $\eta$ HenCe we oBtain $x= Y$ And so $r(X, y)=0$. So $$\begin{AlIGned}
\beGIn{array}{LL}
R\BIg(x_{N_I}, y_{N_i}\Big)& < r\Big(x_{N_i}, x\BiG)+ R(x, Y)+ R\Big(y, y_{N_i}\Big)\\
                           & = r\BiG(x_{N_i}, x\BIg)+ R\biG(Y, Y_{N_i}\big).
\End{array}\enD{aLigneD}$$ as $i\righTArROW \InfTY$, on the basis of Convergency OF thE subseQuEncES ${\Big\{x_{N_I}\Big\}}_{i=1}^{\InFTy}$ aNd ${\Big\{y_{N_i}\Big\}}_{I=1}^{\infTy}$ to $x$ and $y$ RespecTIvely, foR Given $\epSilon>0(\ePsiLon<\Mu)$ thERe ExIstS $k_3\IN\BbB n$ sUch THat For every $I\gEq K_3$, $r\Big(X_{N_i}, x\bIG)< {\EPsilOn\oVer 2}$ aNd $r\BiG(y_{N_i}, y\Big)< {\epsilOn\oVer 2}$. THUs, fOr sufFicieNtly LaRge $N_i$ When $i\rIghtaRrOw \infty$, the perviOus rElation wiLl bE aS foLlOws $$r\BIG(x_{N_i}, y_{N_I}\BiG)< {\epSilon\ovEr 2}+ {\epsilON\ovEr 2}= \EPSIlOn< \mu$$ This contradictS aBSUrD hypotheSis and THe AsSErtion is PrOveD.

We sAY That IfS $\maTHcAl{F}$ has [***shAdowinG UnIqUeness pRoPerty rElAtiVe tO $\sigmA$***]{} If thEre exiSts a consTant nUMber $\epsilon>0$ sucH That for every $\dELtA$-CHaIN $\xi={\{x_K\}}_{k\
{\epsilon\over 2}+ \eta+ { \epsilon\o ver 2 }=\ eps il on+\eta .$$ Clearly, t h e pe rvious relation for ea ch $n \i n \Bbb Z$  is t rue. Si n ce $ \ep si lo n>0 $i sa sma llarbitra ry numberthe nfor each $n\ i n\ Bbb Z$ wehav e $r\Big(F_{ \si gma_n} (x ),F _{\si gma _n}(y )\Big) \ leq \e ta$. Wher eo f  $\mat h cal{F}$ i sexpa nsive relative to $\ s igma$ with con stantex p an s i ve$\e ta$ hencewe  obta i n $x= y $  a n d so$ r(x, y)=0$. S o $$\begin{ a lig ned}
\ be gin { array} {ll}r\ B ig( x_{N_i}, y_ {N_i }\Big)& <  r\Big ( x_{N_i} ,  x\Big) + r(x,  y) + r \Big ( y,  y _{N _i } \Bi g )\ \
                  & =  r\B ig( x_{N _i},x\Big)+ r\Big (y,  y_{ N _i} \Big) .
\en d{ar ra y}\en d{alig ned}$ $As $i\rightarro w \i nfty$, on  th ebas is  of c o nverge ncy  of  the su bsequen c es${ \ B i g\ {x_{N_i}\Big\}}_{i =1 } ^ {\ infty}$and ${ \ Bi g\ { y_{N_i}\ Bi g\} }_{i = 1 }^{\i nfty } $to $x$ a nd $y$ re sp ectivel y,  for g iv en$\e psilo n >0(\ epsilo n<\mu)$there exists $k_3\in \ Bbb N$ such t h at f or ever y $ i\geq k_3$,  $r\ B ig(x _{N_ i },  x\ B ig)<{\eps il o n\ o ver 2}$ and $r\Big( y_ {N_i},  y\Bi g)< {\epsilon \over 2}$. T h us, forsuff i ci e ntly large $N_ i$ wh en $i\righ t arrow \i nfty$ , the pe rvious re l a tion wil l b e a s f oll o w s$$r\Big(x_{N_ i } , y_ {N _i}\Big )<{\epsil on\ ove r 2 }+{\ epsilon\o ver 2}=\e ps il on < \ mu$$T his cont ra dic ts  ab surdh ypothe sis a nd t he  a s ser tion is pr o v ed.
W esaytha tIFS $ \mat h cal {F}$ ha s [***sha dow i ng u ni qu eness p roperty relat iv e to $\sig ma $** *]{} i f there ex ists a constant number$ \epsilo n>0 $ suc h th at for ev ery  $\del ta$ - chain$\xi={ \{x_k \} }_{ k \ 
{\epsilon\over 2}+_\eta+ {\epsilon\over_2}=\epsilon+ \eta.$$ Clearly, the_pervious relation_for_each $n\in\Bbb_Z$_is true. Since_$\epsilon>0$ is a_small arbitrary number then_for each $n\in\Bbb_Z$_we have $r\Big(F_{\sigma_n}(x), F_{\sigma_n}(y)\Big)\leq \eta$. Whereof $\mathcal{F}$ is expansive relative to $\sigma$ with constant_expansive_$\eta$ hence_we_obtain_$x= y$ and so $r(x,_y)=0$. So $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ll}
r\Big(x_{N_i}, y_{N_i}\Big)& <_r\Big(x_{N_i}, x\Big)+_r(x, y)+ r\Big(y, y_{N_i}\Big)\\
    __  _        _     _  _&_=_r\Big(x_{N_i}, x\Big)+ r\Big(y, y_{N_i}\Big).
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$_As $i\rightarrow \infty$, on the basis_of convergency of the subsequences ${\Big\{x_{N_i}\Big\}}_{i=1}^{\infty}$_and ${\Big\{y_{N_i}\Big\}}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ to $x$ and $y$ respectively,_for given $\epsilon>0(\epsilon<\mu)$ there exists $k_3\in\Bbb_N$ such that for every_$i\geq k_3$,_$r\Big(x_{N_i}, x\Big)< {\epsilon\over 2}$ and_$r\Big(y_{N_i}, y\Big)< {\epsilon\over_2}$. Thus,_for sufficiently large_$N_i$ when $i\rightarrow \infty$, the pervious_relation will be_as follows $$r\Big(x_{N_i}, y_{N_i}\Big)< {\epsilon\over 2}+_{\epsilon\over_2}= \epsilon< \mu$$_This_contradicts_absurd hypothesis_and the assertion_is_proved.

We say_that_IFS $\mathcal{F}$ has [***shadowing uniqueness property_relative_to $\sigma$***]{} if there exists a constant_number $\epsilon>0$ such that_for_every $\delta$-chain $\xi={\{x_k\}}_{k\