Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access

Feasibility of set-valued implicit complementarity problems

Journal of Inequalities and Applications20132013:284

https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2013-284

Received: 25 March 2013

Accepted: 20 May 2013

Published: 5 June 2013

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce new concepts of ( α , β , γ ) -exceptional family of elements and ( α , γ ) -exceptional family of elements for the set-valued implicit complementarity problems in R n and infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, respectively. By utilizing these notions and the Leray-Schauder type fixed point theorem, we study the feasibility and strict feasibility of the set-valued implicit complementarity problems. Our results generalize some corresponding previously known results in the literature.

MSC:49J40, 90C31.

Keywords

exceptional family of elementsset-valued implicit complementarity problemsLeray-Schauder type fixed point theoremfeasibilitystrict feasibility

1 Introduction

Let ( H , , ) be a Hilbert space, f , g : H 2 H be two set-valued mappings and K be a cone with its dual cone K . The set-valued implicit complementarity problem defined by the (ordered) pair of mappings ( f , g ) and K is
SICP ( f , g , K ) : { find  x H  such that there exist u f ( x ) K  and  v g ( x ) K  satisfying u , v = 0 .
If f, g are single-valued mappings, SICP ( f , g , K ) reduces to the implicit complementarity problem
ICP ( f , g , K ) : { find  x H  such that f ( x ) K , g ( x ) K  and  f ( x ) , g ( x ) = 0 .
If g = I (the identity mapping), SICP ( f , g , K ) reduces to the complementarity problem
CP ( f , K ) : { find  x K  such that there exists u f ( x ) K  satisfying  u , x = 0 .
SICP ( f , g , K ) is said to be feasible if
{ x H : f ( x ) K , g ( x ) K } ;
SICP ( f , g , K ) is said to be strictly feasible if
{ x H : f ( x ) int K , g ( x ) K } .

Complementarity theory has been intensively considered due to its various applications in operations research, economic equilibrium and engineering design. The reader is referred to [1, 2] and the reference therein. The implicit complementarity problem was introduced into the complementarity theory in [3] as a mathematical tool in the study of some stochastic optimal control problems.

Strict feasibility plays an important role in the development of the theory and algorithms of complementarity problems. It is closely related to the solvability of the complementarity problems. For example, when f is a quasi(pseudo)monotone map, or more generally, a quasi- P -map, then the strict feasibility is sufficient for the solvability of the CP; for more details, see [47]. An important method in studying the feasibility of the complementarity problems is based on the concept of an exceptional family of elements for a continuous function. In recent years, several authors have been dedicated to the feasibility of the (implicit) complementarity problems by using the exceptional family of elements method; for example, see [811].

At the end of the paper [9], Isac proposed three open problems and two of them can be extracted as follows.

(Q1) Are Theorem 5.2 and Theorem 6.1 true without the assumption K K ?

(Q2) Can the method presented in this paper be adapted to the study of strict feasibility?

Huang et al. [8] and Yoel et al. [11] considered the solvability of problems (Q1) and (Q2), respectively. In [8], they introduced new concepts of α-exceptional family of elements and ( α , β ) -exceptional family of elements for continuous functions and studied the feasibility for nonlinear complementarity problems in R n and an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space H without the assumption K K . In [11], based on their new concepts of ( α , γ ) -exceptional family of elements and ( α , β , γ ) -exceptional family of elements and the topological degree theory, they studied the feasibility and strict feasibility of ICP ( f , g , K ) in R n and an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space H, which partly answered the open problem (Q2).

Isac et al. [10] introduced a new notion of exceptional family of elements for the pair of ( f , g ) involved in the implicit complementarity problems. By employing the Leray-Schauder alternative, they gave more general existence theorems for ICP ( f , g , K ) and SICP ( f , g , K ) when f, g are set-valued lower semicontinuous mappings with closed convex values. When f is a set-valued upper semicontinuous mapping with closed convex values, g is a one-to-one mapping, [10] established some new existence theorems.

Many of the well-known existence theorems for the problem ICP ( f , g , K ) demand that the mappings f and g be subject to some strong restrictions. For example, Isac [12, 13] required that f be strongly monotone and Lipschitz continuous with respect to g.

Motivated by the works mentioned above, we introduce new concepts of ( α , β , γ ) -exceptional family of elements and ( α , γ ) -exceptional family of elements for SICP ( f , g , K ) under weaker restrictions on the mappings f and g. By utilizing these notions and the Leray-Schauder type fixed point theorem proposed in [14], we investigate the (strict) feasibility of SICP ( f , g , K ) in R n and infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, respectively. The results presented in this paper not only answer the above open problems (Q1) and (Q2) proposed in [9], but also generalize some corresponding previously known results in [8, 9, 11, 15].

The paper is arranged in the following way. In Section 2, we recall some required concepts and basic results for the later use. In Section 3, we introduce new concepts of ( α , β , γ ) -exceptional family of elements and ( α , γ ) -exceptional family of elements for SICP ( f , g , K ) and discuss the (strict) feasibility in R n . In Section 4, by using the new notion of ( α , β , γ ) -exceptional family of elements, we consider the (strict) feasibility for SICP ( f , g , K ) in infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces.

2 Notations and fundamental results

Let X and Y be topological spaces, the collection of all nonempty compact subsets of X is denoted by c ( X ) . For any subset A of X, the interior, closure and boundary of A are denoted by intA, A ¯ and ∂A, respectively. The relative boundary of U in K is denoted by K U .

Definition 2.1 The set-valued mapping F : X 2 Y is said to be upper semicontinuous on X if { x X : f ( x ) V } is open in X whenever V is an open subset of Y.

Definition 2.2 The set-valued mapping F : X 2 Y is said to be compact if F ( X ) is relatively compact in Y.

Definition 2.3 An upper semicontinuous set-valued mapping F : X c ( Y ) is said to be admissible if there exist a topological space Z and continuous functions p : Z X and q : Z Y satisfying
  1. (1)

    q ( p 1 x ) F ( x ) for each x X ;

     
  2. (2)

    p is proper; that is, the inverse image p 1 ( A ) of any compact set A X is compact;

     
  3. (3)

    for each x X , p 1 ( x ) is an acyclic subset of Z.

     
A nonempty topological space X is said to be acyclic provided that all of its reduced C̆ech homology groups over rational vanish. For a nonempty subset in a topological vector space, we have the following implications:
convex   star-shaped   contractible   acyclic   connected ,

but not conversely.

It is well known that any upper semicontinuous set-valued mapping with compact acyclic values is admissible, and the composition of two admissible mappings is also admissible; see [14]. The admissible mapping is a large class of set-valued mappings, such a class contains composites of a lot of well-known set-valued mappings, which appear in nonlinear analysis and algebraic topology; for more details, see [16].

The following property of admissible maps can be found in [17].

Lemma 2.1 Let X, Y be two topological spaces, E be a topological vector space, F , G : X c ( E ) be admissible, and let f : Y R be continuous. Then the mappings
S : X c ( E ) , S ( x ) : = F ( x ) + G ( x ) for x X , T : X × Y c ( E ) , T ( x , y ) : = f ( y ) F ( x ) for ( x , y ) X × Y

are admissible.

Let E be a Banach space and A E . The Kuratowski measure of noncompactness of A is defined by
α ( A ) = inf { ϵ > 0 : A i = 1 n A i  and  diam ( A i ) ϵ  for  i = 1 , 2 , , n } ,

where diam ( A ) = s u p { x y : x , y A } . It is known that α ( A ) = 0 if and only if A is relatively compact.

An upper semi-continuous map F : E 2 E is said to be condensing if for any subset B E with α ( B ) 0 , we have α ( F ( B ) ) < α ( B ) .

Let H be a Hilbert space, K H is a closed pointed convex cone if and only if K is a closed subset of H satisfying
(i) K + K K ; (ii) λ K K , λ 0 ; (iii) K ( K ) = { 0 } .
The dual cone of K is defined by
K = { y H : y , x 0 , x K } .

The following Leray-Schauder type fixed point theorem is a particular form of Corollary 4.2 in [17], which is the basis of our arguments in this paper.

Theorem 2.1 Let H be a Hilbert space, C H be closed and convex and U be a relatively open subset of C with 0 U . Suppose that F : U ¯ c ( H ) is a condensing admissible mapping such that
F ( x ) { λ x : λ > 1 } = , x K U .

Then F has a fixed point in U ¯ .

The projection operator onto K is denoted by P K , for every x H , P K ( x ) is the unique element in K satisfying
x P K ( x ) = min y K x y .

It is well known that, for each x H , the projection P K ( x ) of x is characterized by the following properties:

(P1) P K ( x ) x , y 0 for all y K ;

(P2) P K ( x ) x , P K ( x ) = 0 .

3 Feasibility and strict feasibility in R n

In this section, we study the feasibility and strict feasibility of SICP ( f , g , K ) in R n . We first introduce a new concept of ( α , β , γ ) -exceptional family of elements (for short, ( α , β , γ ) -EFE) for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K.

Definition 3.1 Let K be a closed pointed convex cone in R n with K K and int K . Let ε : R n c ( int K ) , f , g : R n c ( R n ) be admissible mappings. Given α , β , γ 0 with 0 α < β , we say that the family of elements { x r } r > 0 R n is an ( α , β , γ ) -EFE for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K if the following conditions are satisfied:
  1. (1)

    x r + as r + ;

     
  2. (2)

    for any r > 0 , there exist μ r > 0 and elements f r f ( x r ) , g r g ( x r ) , ε r ε ( x r ) such that s r = μ r x r + ( β α ) f r γ ε r K , w r = μ r x r + g r α f r K and s r , w r = 0 .

     

Remark 3.1 If g = I , f is single-valued, γ = 0 and μ r = 1 t r 1 , then Definition 3.1 reduces to Definition 5.2 in [9].

Theorem 3.1 Let K be a closed pointed convex cone in R n with K K and int K . Let ε : R n c ( int K ) , f , g : R n c ( R n ) be admissible mappings. Then either SICP ( f , g , K ) is feasible, or for any α , β , γ 0 with 0 α < β , there exists an ( α , β , γ ) -EFE (in the sense of Definition  3.1) for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K.

Moreover, if γ > 0 , then either SICP ( f , g , K ) is strictly feasible, or for any α 0 , there exists an ( α , β , γ ) -EFE (in the sense of Definition  3.1) for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K.

Proof Define ϕ : R n c ( R n ) by
ϕ ( x ) = g ( x ) α f ( x ) P K ( g ( x ) β f ( x ) + γ ε ( x ) ) , x H .
Consider the equation
0 ϕ ( x ) .
(3.1)

We have the following two cases to discuss.

Case 1. If equation (3.1) has a solution in R n , denoted by x , then there exist u f ( x ) , v g ( x ) and ϵ ε ( x ) such that
0 = v α u P K ( v β u + γ ϵ ) ,
that is,
v α u = P K ( v β u + γ ϵ ) .
(3.2)
By the property (P1) of P K , we have
v α u ( v β u + γ ϵ ) , y 0 , y K ,
that is,
( β α ) u γ ϵ , y 0 , y K .
(3.3)

Then it follows from (3.3) that ( β α ) u γ ϵ K . Since γ 0 , it is clear that u K and so u f ( x ) K . From (3.2) we obtain that v K + α u K + K , since K K , thus v g ( x ) K . Then SICP ( f , g , K ) is feasible.

Case 2. If equation (3.1) does not have a solution, set ψ = I ϕ , then the mapping ψ has no fixed point in R n . Thus, for any r > 0 , let U r = { x R n : x < r } , the mapping ψ is fixed-point free with respect to the set U r ¯ .

By the continuity of P K , the upper semicontinuity of f, g and ε, it is clear to see that ψ is upper semicontinuous. Since any upper semicontinuous mapping with compact values is compact in R n , thus ψ is compact.

Since I, P K , f, g and ε all are admissible, it follows from Lemma 2.1 that ψ is admissible.

Applying Theorem 2.1 with the mapping ψ and the set U = U r , there exist x r U r = { x H : x = r } and λ r > 1 such that
λ r x r x r ϕ ( x r ) .
Setting μ r = λ r 1 , we have
μ r x r ϕ ( x r ) .
(3.4)
From (3.4), it can be deduced that there exist f r f ( x r ) , g r g ( x r ) and ε r ε ( x r ) such that
μ r x r + g r α f r = P K ( g r β f r + γ ε r ) .
(3.5)
Then the properties (P1) and (P2) of P K and (3.5) jointly yield that
μ r x r + g r α f r ( g r β f r + γ ε r ) , y 0 , y K
and
μ r x r + g r α f r ( g r β f r + γ ε r ) , μ r x r + g r α f r = 0 .
Or equivalently,
μ r x r + ( β α ) f r γ ε r , y 0 , y K
(3.6)
and
μ r x r + ( β α ) f r γ ε r , μ r x r + g r α f r = 0 .
(3.7)

Letting s r = μ r x r + ( β α ) f r γ ε r , w r = μ r x r + g r α f r , then from (3.5) and (3.6), we obtain that w r K and s r K . Thus, (3.7) implies that s r , w r = 0 .

Since x r U r = { x H : x = r } , we have x r + as r + .

Then { x r } r > 0 is an ( α , β , γ ) -EFE for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K, thus the first assertion of the theorem is proved.

If γ > 0 , then it follows from (3.3) that ( β γ ) u γ ϵ K , thus ( β γ ) u K + γ ϵ int K . This finishes the proof of the second assertion of the theorem, which completes the proof as a whole. □

Remark 3.2 Since Definition 3.1 is a generalization of Definition 5.2 in [9], then Theorem 5.2 in [9] is a special case of Theorem 3.1.

We now introduce a new notion of ( α , γ ) -exceptional family of elements (for short, ( α , γ ) -EFE) for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K.

Definition 3.2 Let K be a closed pointed convex cone in R n with int K . Let ε : R n c ( int K ) , f , g : R n c ( R n ) be admissible mappings. Given α , γ 0 , we say that the family of elements { x r } r > 0 R n is an ( α , γ ) -EFE for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K if the following conditions are satisfied:
  1. (1)

    x r + as r + ;

     
  2. (2)

    for any r > 0 , there exist μ r > 0 and elements f r f ( x r ) , g r g ( x r ) , ε r ε ( x r ) such that s r = μ r x r + f r γ ε r K , w r = μ r x r + g r α P K ( f r ) K and s r , w r = 0 .

     
Remark 3.3
  1. (1)

    If g = I and f is single-valued, Definition 3.2 reduces to Definition 3.1 in [11];

     
  2. (2)

    If g = I , f is single-valued and γ = 0 , Definition 3.2 reduces to Definition 3.1 in [8];

     
  3. (3)

    If g = I , f is single-valued and α = γ = 0 , Definition 3.2 reduces to Definition 5.1 in [9] or Definition 3 in [15].

     

The following theorem shows us that the conclusion is true without the assumption K K , which answers the open problem in [9]. And the assumption on f and g is weaker than that in [11].

Theorem 3.2 Let K be a closed pointed convex cone in R n with int K . Let ε : R n c ( int K ) , f , g : R n c ( R n ) be admissible mappings. Then either SICP ( f , g , K ) is feasible, or for any α , γ 0 , there exists an ( α , γ ) -EFE (in the sense of Definition  3.2) for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K.

Moreover, if γ > 0 , then either SICP ( f , g , K ) is strictly feasible, or for any α 0 , there exists an ( α , γ ) -EFE (in the sense of Definition  3.2) for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K.

Proof Define ϕ : R n c ( R n ) by
ϕ ( x ) = g ( x ) α P K ( f ( x ) ) P K ( g ( x ) f ( x ) + γ ε ( x ) α P K ( f ( x ) ) ) , x H .
Consider the equation
0 ϕ ( x ) .
(3.8)

We have the following two cases.

Case 1. If equation (3.8) has a solution in R n , denoted by x R n , then there exist u f ( x ) , v g ( x ) and ϵ ε ( x ) such that
0 = v α P K ( u ) P K ( v u + γ ϵ α P K ( u ) ) ,
that is,
v α P K ( u ) = P K ( v u + γ ϵ α P K ( u ) ) .
(3.9)

It follows from (3.9) that v K and thus v g ( x ) K .

By the property (P1) of P K , we have
v α P K ( u ) ( v u + γ ϵ α P K ( u ) ) , y 0 , y K ,
which is
u γ ϵ , y 0 , y K .
(3.10)

It follows from (3.10) that u γ ϵ K . Since γ 0 , it is clear that u K . Then u f ( x ) K . Hence the problem SICP ( f , g , K ) is feasible.

Case 2. If equation (3.8) does not have a solution, set ψ = I ϕ , then the mapping ψ has no fixed point in R n . For any r > 0 , let U r = { x R n : x < r } , the mapping ψ is fixed-point free with respect to the set U r ¯ .

By the continuity of the projection operator P K , and the upper semicontinuity of f, g and ε, it is clear to see that ψ is upper semicontinuous. Since any upper semicontinuous mapping is compact in R n , thus ψ is compact.

Since I, P K , f, g and ε all are admissible, it follows from Lemma 2.1 that ψ is admissible.

Applying Theorem 2.1 with the mapping ψ and the set U = U r , we obtain that there exist x r U r = { x H : x = r } and λ r > 1 such that
λ r x r x r ϕ ( x r ) .
Setting μ r = λ r 1 , we have
μ r x r ϕ ( x r ) .
(3.11)
From (3.11), we deduce that there exist f r f ( x r ) , g r g ( x r ) and ε r ε ( x r ) such that
μ r x r + g r α P K ( f r ) = P K ( g r f r + γ ε r α P K ( f r ) ) .
(3.12)
From the properties (P1) and (P2) of P K and (3.12), we have
μ r x r + g r α P K ( f r ) ( g r f r + γ ε r α P K ( f r ) ) , y 0 , y K
and
μ r x r + g r α P K ( f r ) ( g r f r + γ ε r α P K ( f r ) ) , μ r x r + g r = 0 .
Or equivalently,
μ r x r + f r γ ε r , y 0 , y K
(3.13)
and
μ r x r + f r γ ε r , μ r x r + g r α P K ( f r ) = 0 .
(3.14)

Setting s r = μ r x r + f r γ ε r and w r = μ r x r + g r α P K ( f r ) , from (3.12) and (3.13) we have that w r K and s r K . Thus, (3.14) implies that s r , w r = 0 .

Since x r U r = { x H : x = r } , thus we have x r + as r + .

Then { x r } r > 0 is an ( α , γ ) -EFE for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K and so the first assertion of the theorem is proved.

If γ > 0 , then it follows from (3.10) that u γ ϵ K and so u K + γ ϵ int K . This finishes the proof of the second assertion of the theorem, which completes the proof. □

4 Feasibility and strict feasibility in Hilbert spaces

In this section, we study the feasibility and strict feasibility of the problem SICP in Hilbert spaces. The following ( α , β , γ ) -EFE is new.

Definition 4.1 Let H be a Hilbert space, K H be a closed convex cone with int K and K K . Let ε : H c ( int K ) be compact admissible mappings, and let f , g : H c ( H ) be admissible mappings such that f ( x ) = 1 β x S ( x ) , g ( x ) = x T ( x ) , where β > 0 , and S , T : H c ( H ) are compact. Given α , γ 0 with 0 α < β , we say that the family of elements { x r } r > 0 H is an ( α , β , γ ) -EFE for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K, if the following conditions are satisfied:
  1. (1)

    x r + as r + ;

     
  2. (2)

    for any r > 0 , there exist μ r > 0 and elements f r f ( x r ) , g r g ( x r ) and ε r ε ( x r ) such that s r = μ r β x r + f r 1 β α γ ε r K , w r = ( β α ) μ r x r + β g r α β f r K and s r , w r = 0 .

     

Remark 4.1 If g = I , f is single-valued, γ = 0 and μ r = 1 t r 1 , then Definition 4.1 reduces to Definition 6.1 in [9].

Theorem 4.1 Let H be a Hilbert space, K H be a closed convex cone with int K and K K . Let ε : H c ( int K ) be a compact admissible mapping, and let f , g : H c ( H ) be admissible mappings such that f ( x ) = 1 β x S ( x ) and g ( x ) = x T ( x ) , where β > 0 and S , T : H c ( H ) are compact. Then either SICP ( f , g , K ) is feasible, or for any γ 0 and α 0 with 0 α < β , there exists an ( α , β , γ ) -EFE (in the sense of Definition  4.1) for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K.

Moreover, if γ > 0 , then either SICP ( f , g , K ) is strictly feasible, or for any α 0 , there exists an ( α , β , γ ) -EFE (in the sense of Definition  4.1) for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K.

Proof Define ϕ : H c ( H ) by
ϕ ( x ) = g ( x ) α f ( x ) P K ( g ( x ) β f ( x ) + γ ε ( x ) ) , x H .
Consider the equation
0 ϕ ( x ) .
(4.1)

We consider the following two cases.

Case 1. If the mapping ϕ has a zero point in H, denoted by x H , then there exist u f ( x ) , v g ( x ) and ϵ ε ( x ) such that
0 = v α u P K ( v β u + γ ϵ ) ,
that is,
v α u = P K ( v β u + γ ϵ ) .
(4.2)

Using (4.2), as in the proof of Theorem 3.1, we obtain that SICP ( f , g , K ) is feasible if γ 0 . Moreover, if γ > 0 , then SICP ( f , g , K ) is strictly feasible.

Case 2. Equation (4.1) does not have a solution, set ψ = I β β α ϕ , then the mapping ψ has no fixed point in H. For any r > 0 , let U r = { x H : x < r } , the mapping ψ is fixed-point free with respect to the set U r ¯ .

Since f ( x ) = 1 β x S ( x ) and g ( x ) = x T ( x ) , thus, for any x H , we have
ψ ( x ) = β β α T ( x ) α β β α S ( x ) + P K ( β β α ( β S ( x ) T ( x ) + γ ε ( x ) ) ) .

By the compactness of the mappings S, T and ε, it is easy to see that ψ is compact.

Since I, P K , f, g and ε all are admissible, it follows from Lemma 2.1 that ψ is admissible.

Applying Theorem 2.1 with the restriction of the mapping ψ and the set U = U r , there exist x r U r = { x H : x = r } and λ r > 1 such that
λ r x r ψ ( x r ) = x r β β α ϕ ( x r ) .
(4.3)
Setting μ r = λ r 1 , it can be deduced from (4.3) that there exist f r f ( x r ) , g r g ( x r ) and ε r ε ( x r ) such that
μ r x r + β β α g r α β β α f r = β β α P K ( g r β f r + γ ε r ) .

Setting s r = μ r β x r + f r 1 β α γ ε r and w r = ( β α ) μ r x r + β g r α β f r , as in the proof of Theorem 3.1, we obtain that { x r } r > 0 is an ( α , β , γ ) -EFE for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K. □

Remark 4.2 Since Definition 4.1 is a generalization of Definition 6.1 in [9], then Theorem 6.1 in [9] is a special case of Theorem 4.1.

Definition 4.2 Let K be a closed pointed convex cone in a Hilbert space H with int K . Let f , g : H c ( H ) be two admissible mappings such that f ( x ) = 1 β x S ( x ) and g ( x ) = 1 β x T ( x ) , where β > 0 , S , T : H c ( H ) are compact. Let ε : H c ( int K ) be a compact admissible mapping. Given α , γ 0 , we say that the family of elements { x r } r > 0 H is an ( α , β , γ ) -EFE for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K, if the following conditions are satisfied:
  1. (1)

    x r + as r + ;

     
  2. (2)

    for any r > 0 , there exist μ r > 0 and elements f r f ( x r ) , g r g ( x r ) , ε r ε ( x r ) such that s r = μ r x r + β f r γ ε r K , w r = β μ r x r + β g r α P K ( x r β f r ) K and s r , w r = 0 .

     
Remark 4.3
  1. (1)

    If g = I and f is single-valued, Definition 4.2 reduces to Definition 3.2 in [11];

     
  2. (2)

    If g = I , f is single-valued and γ = 0 , Definition 4.2 reduces to Definition 3.2 in [8];

     
  3. (3)

    If g = I , f is single-valued and α = γ = 0 , Definition 4.2 reduces to Definition 6.1 in [9].

     

Theorem 4.2 Let H be a Hilbert space, and let K H be a closed convex cone with int K . Let ε : H c ( int K ) be a compact admissible mapping, and let f , g : H c ( H ) be two admissible mappings such that f ( x ) = 1 β x S ( x ) and g ( x ) = 1 β x T ( x ) , where β > 0 , S , T : H c ( H ) are compact. Then either SICP ( f , g , K ) is feasible, or for any α 0 and γ 0 , there exists an ( α , β , γ ) -EFE (in the sense of Definition  4.2) for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K.

Moreover, if γ > 0 , then either SICP ( f , g , K ) is strictly feasible, or for any α 0 , there exists an ( α , β , γ ) -EFE (in the sense of Definition  4.2) for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K.

Proof Define ϕ : H c ( H ) by
ϕ ( x ) = β g ( x ) α P K ( x β f ( x ) ) P K ( β g ( x ) β f ( x ) + γ ε ( x ) α P K ( x β f ( x ) ) ) , x H .
Consider the equation
x x ϕ ( x ) .
(4.4)

We consider the following two cases.

Case 1. If equation (4.4) has a solution in H, denoted by x H , then there exist u β f ( x ) , v β g ( x ) and ϵ ε ( x ) such that
0 = v α P K ( x u ) P K ( v u + γ ϵ α P K ( x u ) ) ,
that is,
v α P K ( x u ) = P K ( v u + γ ϵ α P K ( x u ) ) .
(4.5)

Using (4.5), as in the proof of Theorem 3.2, we obtain that the problem SICP ( f , g , K ) is feasible if γ 0 . Moreover, if γ > 0 , then SICP ( f , g , K ) is strictly feasible.

Case 2. If equation (4.4) does not have a solution, set ψ = I ϕ , then the mapping ψ has no fixed point in H. From the representations of f and g, we have
ψ ( x ) = T ( x ) + α P K ( S ( x ) ) P K ( S ( x ) T ( x ) + γ ε ( x ) α P K ( S ( x ) ) ) , x H .

For any r > 0 , let U r = { x H : x < r } , then the mapping ψ is fixed-point free with respect to the set U r ¯ .

By the compactness of the mappings S, T and ε, it is clear that ψ is compact.

Since I, P K , f, g and ε all are admissible, it follows from Lemma 2.1 that ψ is admissible.

Applying Theorem 2.1 with the restriction of the mapping ψ and the set U = U r , we obtain that there exist x r U r = { x H : x = r } and λ r > 1 such that
λ r x r x r β g ( x r ) + α P K ( x r β f ( x r ) ) P K ( g ( x r ) f ( x r ) + γ ε ( x r ) α P K ( x r β f ( x r ) ) ) .
(4.6)
Set μ r = λ r 1 β . Then it follows from (4.6) that there exist f r f ( x r ) , g r g ( x r ) and ε r ε ( x r ) such that
β μ r x r + β g r α P K ( x r β f r ) = P K ( β g r β f r + γ ε r α P K ( x r β f r ) ) .
(4.7)

Using (4.7), as in the proof of Theorem 3.2, we obtain that { x r } r > 0 is an ( α , β , γ ) -EFE for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K.

The following theorem presents a sufficient condition which ensures that the problem SICP ( f , g , K ) does not have an ( α , β , γ ) -EFE for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K. □

Theorem 4.3 Let H be a Hilbert space, K H be a closed convex cone, and f , g : H 2 H be two set-valued mappings satisfying the following condition.

(Condition ( θ g )) If there exist e K and a real number ρ > 0 satisfying that for any x K with x > ρ , there exists x 0 K such that for all y f ( x ) and z g ( x ) , we have
z x 0 , y e 0 and z x 0 , x > 0 .

Then SICP ( f , g , K ) does not have an ( α , β , γ ) -EFE (in the sense of Definition  4.2) for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K. Thus, SICP ( f , g , K ) is strictly feasible.

Proof Define ε : H c ( int K ) by
ε ( x ) = { e } , x H .

We show that SICP ( f , g , K ) does not have an ( 0 , 1 , 1 ) -EFE (in the sense of Definition 4.2) for the pair ( f , g ) .

Suppose on the contrary that there exists an ( 0 , 1 , 1 ) -EFE { x r } r > 0 K for the pair ( f , g ) , that is, x r + as r + and for any r > 0 , there exist μ r > 0 , y r f ( x r ) and z r g ( x r ) such that s r = μ r x r + y r e K , w r = μ r x r + z r K and s r , w r = 0 .

For any r > ρ , x r = r implies that x r > ρ , thus there exists an element x 0 r K satisfying
z r x 0 r , y r 0 and z r x 0 r , x r > 0 .
(4.8)

Since s r = μ r x r + y r , it can be deduced from (4.8) that z r x 0 r , s r > 0 .

Since w r = μ r x r + z r , x r , x 0 r K and s r K , it is obvious that
0 < z r x 0 r , s r = w r μ r x r x 0 r , s r = w r , s r μ r x r + x 0 r , s r 0 ,

which is a contradiction.

Therefore, SICP ( f , g , K ) does not have an ( α , β , γ ) -EFE for the pair ( f , g ) with respect to K. Thus, by using Theorem 4.2, SICP ( f , g , K ) is strictly feasible. □

Remark 4.4 The condition ( θ g ) is a generalization of the Karamardian’s condition. We refer the reader to [5, 18, 19] for more details.

As a direct consequence of Theorem 4.3, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 4.1 Let H be a Hilbert space, K H be a closed convex cone, and f , g : H 2 H be two set-valued mappings satisfying the following condition.

(Condition (θ)) If there exists ρ > 0 such that for any x K with x > ρ , there exists x 0 K such that for all y f ( x ) and z g ( x ) , we have
z x 0 , y 0 and z x 0 , x > 0 .

Then SICP ( f , g , K ) is strictly feasible.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the anonymous referees for their valuable remarks and suggestions, which helped to improve the article considerably. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11061006), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11226224), the Program for Excellent Talents in Guangxi Higher Education Institutions, the Guangxi Natural Science Foundation (2012GXNSFBA053008) and the Initial Scientific Research Foundation for PHD of Guangxi Normal University.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Mathematics, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin, Guangxi, P.R. China

References

  1. Cottle RW, Pang JS, Stone RE: The Linear Complementarity Problem. Academic Press, New York; 1992.Google Scholar
  2. Ferris MC, Pang JS: Engineering and economic applications of complementarity problems. SIAM Rev. 1997, 39: 669–713. 10.1137/S0036144595285963MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Bensoussan A, Lions J-L: Nouvelle formulation de problèmes de contròle impulsionnel et applications. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sér. A-B 1973, 276: 1189–1192.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Harker PT, Pang JS: Finite-dimensional variational inequality and nonlinear complementarity problems: a survey of theory, algorithms and applications. Math. Program. 1990, 48: 161–220. 10.1007/BF01582255MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Karamardian S: Complementarity problems over cones with monotone and pseudomonotone maps. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 1976, 18: 445–454. 10.1007/BF00932654MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Zhao YB, Isac G:Quasi- P -maps, P ( τ , α , β ) -maps, exceptional family of elements, and complementarity problems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2000, 105: 213–231. 10.1023/A:1004674330768MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Zhao YB, Li D: Strict feasibility conditions in nonlinear complementarity problems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2000, 107: 641–664. 10.1023/A:1026459501988MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Huang N, Gao C, Huang X: Exceptional family of elements and feasibility for nonlinear complementarity problems. J. Glob. Optim. 2003, 25: 337–344. 10.1023/A:1022410913734MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Isac G: Exceptional family of elements, feasibility and complementarity. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2000, 104: 577–588. 10.1023/A:1004637625355MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Isac G, Kalashnikov VV: Exceptional families of elements, Leray-Schauder alternatives, pseudomonotone operators and complementarity. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2001, 109: 69–83.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Yeol JC, Li J, Huang N: Solvability of implicit complementarity problems. Math. Comput. Model. 2007, 45: 1001–1009. 10.1016/j.mcm.2006.09.007View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Isac G: On the implicit complementarity problem in Hilbert spaces. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 1985, 32: 251–260. 10.1017/S000497270000993XMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Isac G: Fixed point theory and complementarity problems in Hilbert spaces. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 1987, 36: 295–310. 10.1017/S0004972700026575MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Górniewicz L: Topological Fixed Point Theory of Multivalued Mappings. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht; 1999.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Isac G, Bulavski VA, Kalashnikov VV: Exceptional families, topological degree and complementarity problems. J. Glob. Optim. 1999, 10: 201–225.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Park S: Generalized Leray-Schauder principles for condensing admissible multifunctions. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 1997, 172: 65–85. 10.1007/BF01782607MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. In-Sook K: Fixed point theorems for condensing admissible maps in topological vector spaces. Arch. Math. 2003, 80: 319–330.Google Scholar
  18. Kalashnikov VV, Isac G: Solvability of implicit complementarity problems. Ann. Oper. Res. 2002, 116: 199–221. 10.1023/A:1021388515849MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Karamardian S: Generalized complementarity problem. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 1971, 8: 161–168. 10.1007/BF00932464MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Zhong et al.; licensee Springer 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement