 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Damped projection method for split common fixed point problems
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2013, Article number: 123 (2013)
Abstract
The paper deals with the split common fixedpoint problem (SCFP) introduced by Censor and Segal. Motivated by Eicke’s damped projection method, we propose a cyclic iterative scheme and prove its strong convergence to a solution of SCFP under some mild assumptions. An application of the proposed method to multipleset split feasibility problems is also included.
1 Introduction
The split feasibility problem (SFP) [1] consists of finding an element \stackrel{\u02c6}{x}\in \mathcal{H} satisfying
where C and Q are closed convex subsets in Hilbert spaces ℋ and \mathcal{K}, respectively. Moreover, if C and Q are the intersections of finitely many closed convex subsets, then the problem is known as the multipleset split feasibility problem (MSFP) [2]. Note that SFP and MSFP model image retrieval [3] and intensitymodulated radiation therapy [4], and they have recently been investigated by many researchers (see, e.g., [5–11]). One method for solving SFP is Byrne’s CQ algorithm [5]: For any initial guess {x}_{1}\in \mathcal{H}, define \{{x}_{n}\} recursively by
where {P}_{C} stands for the metric projection onto C, I is the identity operator on \mathcal{K} and λ is the stepsize satisfying 0<\lambda <\frac{2}{{\parallel A\parallel}^{2}}. By using Hundal’s counterexample, Xu [12] showed the CQ algorithm does not converge strongly in infinitedimensional spaces. Motivated by Byrne’s CQ algorithm, Wang and Xu [13] proposed the following iterative method: For any initial guess {x}_{1}\in \mathcal{H}, define \{{x}_{n}\} recursively by
where \{{\alpha}_{n}\}\subset (0,1) satisfies {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n}=0; {\sum}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n}=\mathrm{\infty}; either {\sum}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n+1}{\alpha}_{n}<\mathrm{\infty} or {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n+1}{\alpha}_{n}/{\alpha}_{n}=0. It is worth noting that this algorithm is in fact a generalization of Eicke’s damped projection method [14] for solving convexly constrained linear inverse problems (see [15]). Motivated by Krasnosel’skiiMann’s iteration, Dang and Gao [16] proposed the following algorithm: For any initial guess {x}_{1}\in \mathcal{H}, define \{{x}_{n}\} recursively by
where \{{\alpha}_{n}\}\subset (0,1) satisfies (i) {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n}=0, {\sum}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n}=\mathrm{\infty}; (ii) {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n+1}{\alpha}_{n}=0; (iii) 0<{lim\hspace{0.17em}inf}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\beta}_{n}\le {lim\hspace{0.17em}sup}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\beta}_{n}<1. It is clear that such an algorithm is an extension of (3). However, algorithm (4) fails to include the original one (3) because of condition (iii).
In the case where C and Q in (1) are the intersections of finitely many fixedpoint sets of nonlinear operators, problem (1) is called by Censor and Segal [17] the split common fixedpoint problem (SCFP). More precisely, SCFP requires to seek an element \stackrel{\u02c6}{x}\in \mathcal{H} satisfying
where p,s\in \mathbb{N}, Fix({U}_{i}) and Fix({T}_{j}) denote the fixed point sets of two classes of nonlinear operators {U}_{i}:\mathcal{H}\to \mathcal{H}, i=1,\dots ,p and {T}_{j}:\mathcal{K}\to \mathcal{K}, j=1,\dots ,s. In this situation, Byrne’s CQ algorithm does not work because the metric projection onto fixed point sets is generally not easy to calculate. To solve the twoset SCFP, that is, p=s=1 in (5), Censor and Segal [17] proposed the following iterative method: For any initial guess {x}_{1}\in \mathcal{H}, define \{{x}_{n}\} recursively by
where \lambda >0 is known as the stepsize. They proved that if U and T in (6) are directed operators, then λ should be chosen in (0,\frac{2}{{\parallel A\parallel}^{2}}). Some further generations of this algorithm were studied by Moudafi [18] for demicontractive operators and by WangXu [19] for finitely many directed operators.
We note that the existing algorithms for SCFP have only weak convergence in the framework of infinitedimensional spaces (see [18, 19]). However, as pointed by Bauschke and Combettes [20], norm convergence of the algorithm is much more desirable than weak convergence in some applied sciences. It is therefore of interest to seek modifications of these algorithms so that strong convergence is guaranteed. Following the damped projection method, we propose in this paper a new iterative scheme and prove its strong convergence to a solution of SCFP. An application of our method to multipleset split feasibility problems is also included. This enables us to cover some recent results on split feasibility problems.
2 Preliminary and notation
Throughout this paper, I denotes the identity operator on ℋ, Fix(T) the set of fixed points of an operator T, ‘→’ strong convergence, and ‘⇀’ weak convergence. Given a positive integer p, denote by [n]:=(nmodp) the mod function taking values in \{1,2,\dots ,p\}.
Definition 1 An operator T:\mathcal{H}\to \mathcal{H} is called nonexpansive if \parallel TxTy\parallel \le \parallel xy\parallel, \mathrm{\forall}x,y\in \mathcal{H}; firmly nonexpansive if {\parallel TxTy\parallel}^{2}\le {\parallel xy\parallel}^{2}{\parallel (IT)x(IT)y\parallel}^{2}, \mathrm{\forall}x,y\in \mathcal{H}.
Definition 2 Assume that T:\mathcal{H}\to \mathcal{H} is a nonlinear operator. Then IT is said to be demiclosed at zero, if, for any \{{x}_{n}\} in ℋ, the following implication holds:
Clearly, firm nonexpansiveness implies nonexpansiveness. It is well known that nonexpansive operators are demiclosed at zero (cf. [21]).
Definition 3 Let T:\mathcal{H}\to \mathcal{H} be an operator with Fix(T)\ne \mathrm{\varnothing}. Then T is called directed if \u3008zTx,xTx\u3009\le 0, \mathrm{\forall}z\in Fix(T), x\in \mathcal{H}; νdemicontractive with \nu \in (\mathrm{\infty},1) if {\parallel Txz\parallel}^{2}\le {\parallel xz\parallel}^{2}+\nu {\parallel (IT)x\parallel}^{2}, \mathrm{\forall}z\in Fix(T), x\in \mathcal{H}.
Lemma 1 (BauschkeCombettes [20])
An operator T:\mathcal{H}\to \mathcal{H} is directed if and only if one of following inequalities holds for all z\in Fix(T) and x\in \mathcal{H}:
It is clear that demicontractive operators include directed operators, while the latter include firmly nonexpansive operators with nonempty fixedpoint sets. The concept of directed operators was introduced by Bauschke and Combettes [20]. Such a class of operators is important because they include many types of nonlinear operators arising in applied mathematics. For instance, the metric projections onto a closed convex subset. Recall that the metric projection, denoted by {P}_{C}:\mathcal{H}\to C, is defined by
It is well known that {P}_{C}x is characterized by the variational inequality
Lemma 2 (WangXu [19])
Assume that A:\mathcal{H}\to \mathcal{K} is a bounded linear operator and T:\mathcal{K}\to \mathcal{K} is a directed operator. Let {V}_{\lambda}=I\lambda {A}^{\ast}(IT)A with \lambda >0. Then
whenever {A}^{1}(Fix(T)):=\{x\in \mathcal{H}:Ax\in Fix(T)\} is nonempty.
Lemma 3 Assume that A:\mathcal{H}\to \mathcal{K} is a bounded linear operator and T:\mathcal{K}\to \mathcal{K} is a directed operator. Let {V}_{\lambda}=I\lambda {A}^{\ast}(IT)A with 0<\lambda <\frac{2}{{\parallel A\parallel}^{2}}. If {A}^{1}(Fix(T)) is nonempty, then
for all z\in {A}^{1}(Fix(T)) and x\in \mathcal{H}.
Proof Since Az\in Fix(T), it follows from (8) that
Consequently,
Hence the proof is complete. □
We end this section by a useful lemma.
Lemma 4 (Xu [22])
Let \{{a}_{n}\} be a nonnegative real sequence satisfying
where \{{\alpha}_{n}\}\subset (0,1) and \{{b}_{n}\} are real sequences. Then {a}_{n}\to 0 provided that

(i)
{\sum}_{n}{\alpha}_{n}=\mathrm{\infty}
, {lim}_{n}{\alpha}_{n}=0,

(ii)
{\stackrel{\u203e}{lim}}_{n}{b}_{n}\le 0
or \sum {\alpha}_{n}{b}_{n}<\mathrm{\infty}.
3 Algorithm and its convergence analysis
In this section, we consider the following problem.
Problem 1 Find an element \stackrel{\u02c6}{x}\in \mathcal{H} satisfying
where p is a positive integer and {({U}_{i})}_{i=1}^{p}, {({T}_{i})}_{i=1}^{p} are two classes of directed operators such that {U}_{i}I and {T}_{i}I are demiclosed at zero for every i=1,2,\dots ,p.
We remark here that problem (11) is a special case of (5). However, this is not restrictive. Indeed, following an idea in [19], one can easily extend the results to the general case. We now present our algorithm for SCFP: Take {x}_{1}\in \mathcal{H} and define a sequence \{{x}_{n}\} by the iterative procedure:
where {U}_{n}:={U}_{[n]}, {T}_{n}:={T}_{[n]} and \{{\alpha}_{n}\}\subset (0,1), \{{\beta}_{n}\}\subseteq [0,1], \{{\lambda}_{n}\}\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^{+} are properly chosen real sequences.
Theorem 1 Assume that the following conditions hold:

(i)
{lim\hspace{0.17em}inf}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\beta}_{n}>0
,

(ii)
{lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n}=0
, {\sum}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n}=\mathrm{\infty},

(iii)
0<\underline{\lambda}\le {\lambda}_{n}\le \overline{\lambda}<\frac{2}{{\parallel A\parallel}^{2}}
.
If the solution set of problem (11) denoted by Ω is nonempty, then the sequence \{{x}_{n}\} generated by (12) converges strongly to {P}_{\mathrm{\Omega}}(0).
Proof We first show the boundedness of \{{x}_{n}\}. To see this, let z={P}_{\mathrm{\Omega}}(0) and set {V}_{n}=I{\lambda}_{n}{A}^{\ast}(I{T}_{n})A, {y}_{n}=(1{\alpha}_{n}){V}_{n}{x}_{n}. Hence
Since {U}_{n} is directed, it follows that
Adding up these inequalities, we have
By induction, the sequence \{{x}_{n}\} is bounded, and so is \{{y}_{n}\}.
Next we show the following key inequality:
where {s}_{n}={\parallel {x}_{n}z\parallel}^{2} and
Indeed, in view of Lemma 3, we arrive at
On the other hand, we deduce that
where we use the subdifferential inequality, and also that
Adding up (14)(16), we thus get inequality (13).
Finally, we prove {s}_{n}\to 0. To see this, let \{{s}_{{n}_{k}}\} be a subsequence such that it includes all elements in \{{s}_{n}\} with the property: each of them is less than or equal to the term after it. Following an idea developed by Maingé [23], we consider two possible cases on such a sequence.
Case 1. Assume that \{{s}_{{n}_{k}}\} is finite. Then there exists N\in \mathbb{N} such that {s}_{n}>{s}_{n+1} for all n\ge N, and therefore \{{s}_{n}\} must be convergent. It follows from (13) that
where M>0 is a sufficiently large real number. Consequently, both \parallel (I{V}_{n}){x}_{n}\parallel and \parallel (I{U}_{n}){y}_{n}\parallel converge to zero. We have
which implies
Take a subsequence \{{y}_{{n}_{k}}\} of \{{y}_{n}\} so that
Without loss of generality, we assume that \{{y}_{{n}_{k}}\} weakly converges to an element {y}^{\prime}. Let an index i\in \{1,2,\dots ,p\} be fixed. Noticing that the pool of indexes is finite, we can find a subsequence \{{y}_{{m}_{k}}\} of \{{y}_{n}\} such that {y}_{{m}_{k}}\rightharpoonup {y}^{\prime} and [{m}_{k}]=i for all k. Since \parallel (I{U}_{i}){y}_{{m}_{k}}\parallel =\parallel (I{U}_{{m}_{k}}){y}_{{m}_{k}}\parallel \to 0, we thus use the demiclosedness of I{U}_{i} at zero to conclude that {y}^{\prime}\in Fix({U}_{i}). On the other hand, we deduce from (8) that
As {x}_{{m}_{k}}{y}_{{m}_{k}}\to 0, the weak continuity of A yields that A{x}_{{m}_{k}}\rightharpoonup A{y}^{\prime}, which together with the demiclosedness of I{T}_{i} at zero enables us to deduce A{y}^{\prime}\in Fix({T}_{i}). Since the index i is arbitrary, we therefore conclude {y}^{\prime}\in \mathrm{\Omega}. Consequently,
where the inequality uses (9). It then follows from (13) that
We therefore apply Lemma 4 to conclude {s}_{n}\to 0.
Case 2. Assume now that \{{s}_{{n}_{k}}\} is infinite. Let n\in \mathbb{N} be fixed. Then there exists k\in \mathbb{N} such that {n}_{k}\le n\le {n}_{k+1}. By the choice of \{{s}_{{n}_{k}}\}, we see that {s}_{{n}_{k}+1} is the largest one among \{{s}_{{n}_{k}},{s}_{{n}_{k}+1},\dots ,{s}_{{n}_{k+1}}\}; in particular,
Then we deduce from (13) that {c}_{{n}_{k}}\le M{\alpha}_{{n}_{k}} so that
In a similar way to case 1, we deduce \parallel {x}_{{n}_{k}+1}{x}_{{n}_{k}}\parallel \to 0 and
Since by (17) {s}_{{n}_{k}}\le {s}_{{n}_{k}+1}, it follows from (13) that
Hence {\stackrel{\u203e}{lim}}_{k\to \mathrm{\infty}}{s}_{{n}_{k}}\le 0 so that {s}_{{n}_{k}}\to 0. Moreover,
which immediately implies {s}_{{n}_{k}+1}\to 0. Consequently, {s}_{n}\to 0 follows from (17) and the proof is complete. □
We next use our algorithm to approximate a solution to the twoset SCFP: Find an element \stackrel{\u02c6}{x}\in \mathcal{H} such that
where U:\mathcal{H}\to \mathcal{H} and T:\mathcal{K}\to \mathcal{K} are directed operators so that UI and TI are demiclosed at zero.
Corollary 2 Suppose that the following conditions hold:

(i)
{lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n}=0
, {\sum}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n}=\mathrm{\infty},

(ii)
0<\underline{\lambda}\le {\lambda}_{n}\le \overline{\lambda}<\frac{2}{{\parallel A\parallel}^{2}}
.
Then the sequence \{{x}_{n}\}, generated by
converges strongly to {P}_{\mathrm{\Omega}}(0), whenever such point exists.
4 Some applications
In this section, we extend our result to SCFP for demicontractive operators recently considered by Moudafi [18].
Problem 2 Find an element \stackrel{\u02c6}{x}\in \mathcal{H} satisfying
where p is a positive integer and {({U}_{i})}_{i=1}^{p}, {({T}_{i})}_{i=1}^{p} are respectively {\nu}_{i}demicontractive and {\kappa}_{i}demicontractive operator so that {U}_{i}I and {T}_{i}I are demiclosed at zero for every i=1,2,\dots ,p.
The following lemma states a relation between directed and demicontractive operators.
Lemma 5 Let \nu \in (\mathrm{\infty},1) and \tau \in (0,\frac{1\nu}{2}]. If T is νdemicontractive, then {T}_{\tau}:=(1\tau )I+\tau T is directed.
Proof For \mathrm{\forall}z\in Fix(T), we deduce that
Then the result follows from Lemma 1. □
We now propose an algorithm to solve problem (22). Take {x}_{1}\in \mathcal{H} and define a sequence \{{x}_{n}\} by the iterative procedure
where \{{\alpha}_{n}\}\subset (0,1), {U}_{{\tau}_{n}}=(1{\tau}_{[n]})I+{\tau}_{[n]}{U}_{[n]} and {T}_{{\gamma}_{n}}=(1{\gamma}_{[n]})I+{\gamma}_{[n]}{T}_{[n]}. By using the previous lemma, we can easily extend our result to demicontractive operators.
Theorem 3 Let 0<{\tau}_{i}\le \frac{1{\nu}_{i}}{2} and 0<{\gamma}_{i}\le \frac{1{\kappa}_{i}}{2} for every i=1,2,\dots ,p. Assume that the following conditions hold:

(i)
{lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n}=0
, {\sum}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n}=\mathrm{\infty},

(ii)
0<\lambda <min\{\frac{1{\kappa}_{i}}{2{\gamma}_{i}{\parallel A\parallel}^{2}}:1\le i\le p\}
.
If the solution set of problem (22) denoted by Ω is nonempty, then the sequence \{{x}_{n}\} generated by (23) converges strongly to {P}_{\mathrm{\Omega}}(0).
Remark 1 Theorem 3 also holds true if we relax hypothesis (ii) above as 0<\lambda <min\{\frac{1{\kappa}_{i}}{{\gamma}_{i}{\parallel A\parallel}^{2}}:1\le i\le p\}.
We next consider the multipleset split feasibility problem (MSFP): Find an element \stackrel{\u02c6}{x}\in \mathcal{H} satisfying
where {\{{C}_{i}\}}_{i=1}^{p} and {\{{Q}_{i}\}}_{i=1}^{p} are closed convex subsets in ℋ and \mathcal{K}, respectively. Take {x}_{1}\in \mathcal{H} and define a sequence \{{x}_{n}\} by the iterative procedure
where {C}_{n}:={C}_{[n]}, {Q}_{n}:={Q}_{[n]}, and \{{\alpha}_{n}\}\subset (0,1), \{{\beta}_{n}\}\subseteq [0,1], \{{\lambda}_{n}\}\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^{+} are properly chosen real sequences.
Theorem 4 Assume that the following conditions hold:

(i)
{lim\hspace{0.17em}inf}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\beta}_{n}>0
,

(ii)
{lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n}=0
, {\sum}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n}=\mathrm{\infty},

(iii)
0<\underline{\lambda}\le {\lambda}_{n}\le \overline{\lambda}<\frac{2}{{\parallel A\parallel}^{2}}
.
If the solution set of MSFP denoted by Ω is nonempty, then the sequence \{{x}_{n}\} generated by (25) converges strongly to {P}_{\mathrm{\Omega}}(0).
Proof We note that the metric projection {P}_{C} is firmly nonexpansive, which implies {P}_{C} is directed and I{P}_{C} is demiclosed at zero. Hence, by using Theorem 1, one can immediately get the desired result. □
Remark 2 Theorem 4 covers [[16], Theorem 3.1], and we relax the condition on \{{\beta}_{n}\} as {lim\hspace{0.17em}inf}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\beta}_{n}>0. Moreover, the choice of variable \{{\lambda}_{n}\} is more flexible than the fixed one. Also, we cover the result of [19] and remove one condition posed on \{{\alpha}_{n}\}: either {\sum}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n+1}{\alpha}_{n}<\mathrm{\infty} or {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{\alpha}_{n+1}{\alpha}_{n}/{\alpha}_{n}=0.
References
Censor Y, Elfving T: A multiprojection algorithm using Bregman projections in a product space. Numer. Algorithms 1994, 8(2):221–239. 10.1007/BF02142692
Censor Y, Elfving T, Kopf N, Bortfeld T: The multiplesets split feasibility problem and its applications for inverse problems. Inverse Probl. 2005, 21(6):2071–2084. 10.1088/02665611/21/6/017
Byrne C: A unified treatment of some iterative algorithms in signal processing and image reconstruction. Inverse Probl. 2003, 20: 103.
Censor Y, Bortfeld T, Martin B, Trofimov A: A unified approach for inversion problems in intensitymodulated radiation therapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 2006, 51(10):2353–2365. 10.1088/00319155/51/10/001
Byrne C: Iterative oblique projection onto convex sets and the split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 2002, 18(2):441–453. 10.1088/02665611/18/2/310
Lopez G, Martin V, Xu HK: Perturbation techniques for nonexpansive mappings with applications. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 2009, 10(4):2369–2383. 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2008.04.020
Qu B, Xiu N: A note on the CQ algorithm for the split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 2005, 21(5):1655–1665. 10.1088/02665611/21/5/009
Schöpfer F, Schuster T, Louis A: An iterative regularization method for the solution of the split feasibility problem in Banach spaces. Inverse Probl. 2008., 24(5): Article ID 055008
Wang F, Xu H: Choices of variable steps of the CQ algorithm for the split feasibility problem. Fixed Point Theory 2011, 12: 489–496.
Xu HK: A variable Krasnosel’skiiMann algorithm and the multipleset split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 2006, 22(6):2021–2034. 10.1088/02665611/22/6/007
Yang Q: The relaxed CQ algorithm solving the split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 2004, 20(4):1261–1266. 10.1088/02665611/20/4/014
Xu HK: Iterative methods for the split feasibility problem in infinitedimensional Hilbert spaces. Inverse Probl. 2010., 26(10): Article ID 105018
Fenghui W, HongKun X: Approximating curve and strong convergence of the CQ algorithm for the split feasibility problem. J. Inequal. Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 102085
Eicke B: Iteration methods for convexly constrained illposed problems in Hilbert space. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 1992, 13(5–6):413–429. 10.1080/01630569208816489
Engl HW, Hanke M, Neubauer A 375. In Regularization of Inverse Problems. Springer, Berlin; 1996.
Dang Y, Gao Y: The strong convergence of a KMCQlike algorithm for a split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 2010., 27: Article ID 015007
Censor Y, Segal A: The split common fixed point problem for directed operators. J. Convex Anal. 2009, 16(2):587–600.
Moudafi A: The split common fixedpoint problem for demicontractive mappings. Inverse Probl. 2010., 26(5): Article ID 055007
Wang F, Xu HK: Cyclic algorithms for split feasibility problems in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74(12):4105–4111. 10.1016/j.na.2011.03.044
Bauschke HH, Combettes PL: A weaktostrong convergence principle for Fejémonotone methods in Hilbert spaces. Math. Oper. Res. 2001, 26(2):248–264. 10.1287/moor.26.2.248.10558
Goebel K, Kirk WA 28. In Topics in Metric Fixed Point Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1990.
Xu HK: Iterative algorithms for nonlinear operators. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 2002, 66(1):240–256. 10.1112/S0024610702003332
Maingé PE: Strong convergence of projected subgradient methods for nonsmooth and nonstrictly convex minimization. SetValued Anal. 2008, 16(7):899–912. 10.1007/s112280080102z
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the referees for their valuable suggestions. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Tianyuan Foundation (11226227), the Basic Science and Technological Frontier Project of Henan (122300410268) and the Foundation of Henan Educational Committee (12A110016).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally and significantly to writing this manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Cui, H., Su, M. & Wang, F. Damped projection method for split common fixed point problems. J Inequal Appl 2013, 123 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029242X2013123
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029242X2013123