- Research
- Open access
- Published:
An iterative method for approximating the common solutions of a variational inequality, a mixed equilibrium problem and a hierarchical fixed point problem
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2013, Article number: 490 (2013)
Abstract
In this paper, we suggest and analyze an iterative scheme for finding the approximate element of the common set of solutions of a generalized equilibrium problem, a variational inequality problem and a hierarchical fixed point problem in a real Hilbert space. We also consider the strong convergence of the proposed method under some conditions. Results proved in this paper may be viewed as an improvement and refinement of the previously known results.
MSC:49J30, 47H09, 47J20.
1 Introduction
Let H be a real Hilbert space, whose inner product and norm are denoted by and . Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of H, and A is a mapping from C into H. A classical variational inequality problem, denoted by , is to find a vector such that
The solution of is denoted by . It is easy to observe that
We now have a variety of techniques to suggest and analyze various iterative algorithms for solving variational inequalities and the related optimization problems, see [1–22]. The fixed-point theory has played an important role in the development of various algorithms for solving variational inequalities. Using the projection operator technique, one usually establishes an equivalence between the variational inequalities and the fixed-point problem. This alternative equivalent formulation was used by Lions and Stampacchia [8] to study the existence of a solution of the variational inequalities.
We introduce the following definitions, which are useful in the following analysis.
Definition 1.1 The mapping is said to be
-
(a)
monotone if
-
(b)
strongly monotone if there exists an such that
-
(c)
α-inverse strongly monotone if there exists an such that
-
(d)
nonexpansive if
-
(e)
k-Lipschitz continuous if there exists a constant such that
-
(f)
contraction on C if there exists a constant such that
It is easy to observe that every α-inverse strongly monotone T is monotone and Lipschitz continuous. A mapping is called k-strict pseudo-contraction if there exists a constant such that
The fixed point problem for the mapping T is to find such that
We denote the set of solutions of (1.3). It is well known that the class of strict pseudo-contractions strictly includes the class of nonexpansive mappings, then is closed and convex, and is well defined (see [22]).
The mixed equilibrium problem, denoted by MEP, is to find such that
where is a bifunction, and is a nonlinear mapping. This problem was introduced and studied by Moudafi and Théra [13] and Moudafi [14]. The set of solutions of (1.4) is denoted by
If , then it is reduced to the equilibrium problem, which is to find such that
The solution set of (1.6) is denoted by . Numerous problems in physics, optimization, and economics reduce to find a solution of (1.6), see [4, 7, 16, 17]. In 1997, Combettes and Hirstoaga [5] introduced an iterative scheme of finding the best approximation to the initial data when is nonempty. Recently Plubtieng and Punpaeng [16] introduced an iterative method for finding the common element of the set .
Let be a nonexpansive mapping. The following problem is called a hierarchical fixed point problem: Find such that
It is known that the hierarchical fixed point problem (1.7) links with some monotone variational inequalities and convex programming problems; see [6, 20]. Various methods have been proposed to solve the hierarchical fixed point problem; see Moudafi [15], Mainge and Moudafi in [9], Marino and Xu in [11] and Cianciaruso et al. [3]. Very recently, Yao et al. [20] introduced the following strong convergence iterative algorithm to solve problem (1.7):
where is a contraction mapping, and and are two sequences in . Under some certain restrictions on parameters, Yao et al. proved that the sequence generated by (1.8) converges strongly to , which is the unique solution of the following variational inequality:
By changing the restrictions on parameters, the authors obtained another result on the iterative scheme (1.8), the sequence generated by (1.8) converges strongly to a point , which is the unique solution of the following variational inequality:
Let be a nonexpansive mapping, and is a countable family of nonexpansive mappings. Very recently, Gu et al. [6] introduced the following iterative algorithm:
where , is a strictly decreasing sequence in , and is a sequence in . Under some certain conditions on parameters, Gu et al. proved that the sequence generated by (1.11) converges strongly to , which is a unique solution of one of the variational inequalities (1.9) and (1.10).
In this paper, motivated by the work of Yao et al. [20] and Gu et al. [6] and by the recent work going in this direction, we give an iterative method for finding the approximate element of the common set of solutions of (1.1), (1.4) and (1.7) for a strictly pseudo-contraction mapping in a real Hilbert space. We establish a strong convergence theorem based on this method. The presented method improves and generalizes many known results for solving equilibrium problems, variational inequality problems and hierarchical fixed point problems, see, e.g., [3, 6, 9, 20] and relevant references cited therein.
2 Preliminaries
In this section, we list some fundamental lemmas that are useful in the consequent analysis. The first lemma provides some basic properties of projection onto C.
Lemma 2.1 Let denote the projection of H onto C. Then we have the following inequalities:
Lemma 2.2 [2]
Let be a bifunction satisfying the following assumptions:
-
(i)
, ;
-
(ii)
F is monotone, i.e., , ;
-
(iii)
For each , ;
-
(iv)
For each , is convex and lower semicontinuous.
Let and . Then there exists such that
Lemma 2.3 [5]
Assume that satisfies assumptions (i)-(iv) of Lemma 2.2. For and , define a mapping as follows:
Then the following hold:
-
(i)
is single-valued;
-
(ii)
is firmly nonexpansive, i.e.,
-
(iii)
;
-
(iv)
is closed and convex.
Lemma 2.4 [21]
Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H. If is a k-strict pseudo-contraction, then
-
(i)
The mapping is demiclosed at 0, i.e., if is a sequence in C weakly converging to x, and if converges strongly to 0, then ;
-
(ii)
The set of T is closed and convex, so that the projection is well defined.
Lemma 2.5 [10]
Let H be a real Hilbert space. Then the following inequality holds:
Lemma 2.6 [19]
Assume that is a sequence of nonnegative real numbers such that
where is a sequence in , and is a sequence such that
-
(1)
;
-
(2)
or .
Then .
Lemma 2.7 [1]
Let C be a closed convex subset of H. Let be a bounded sequence in H. Assume that
-
(i)
The weak w-limit set , where .
-
(ii)
For each , exists.
Then is weakly convergent to a point in C.
Lemma 2.8 [22]
Let H be a Hilbert space, C be a closed and convex subset of H, and be a k-strict pseudo-contraction mapping. Define a mapping by , . Then, as , V is a nonexpansive mapping such that .
Lemma 2.9 [6]
Let H be a Hilbert space, C be a closed and convex subset of H, and be a nonexpansive mapping such that . Then
3 The proposed method and some properties
In this section, we suggest and analyze our method for finding the common solutions of the variational inequality (1.1), the mixed equilibrium problem (1.4) and the hierarchical fixed point problem (1.7).
Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H. Let be θ, α-inverse strongly monotone mappings, respectively. Let be a bifunction satisfying assumptions (i)-(iv) of Lemma 2.2, be a nonexpansive mapping and is a countable family of -strict pseudo-contraction mappings such that , where . Let f be a ρ-contraction mapping.
Algorithm 3.1 For a given arbitrarily, let the iterative sequences , , and be generated by
where , , , , , is a strictly decreasing sequence in , and is a sequence in satisfying the following conditions:
-
(a)
and ,
-
(b)
,
-
(c)
and ,
-
(d)
and ,
-
(e)
and .
Remark 3.1 It is easy to verify that Algorithm 3.1 includes some existing methods (e.g., [3, 6, 9, 20]) as special cases. Therefore, the new algorithm is expected to be widely applicable.
Lemma 3.1 Let . Then , , and are bounded.
Proof First, we show that the mapping is nonexpansive. For any ,
Similarly, we can show that the mapping is nonexpansive. It follows from Lemma 2.3 that . Let , we have .
Since the mapping A is α-inverse strongly monotone, we have
Next, we prove that the sequence is bounded, without loss of generality, we can assume that for all . From (3.1), we have
By induction on n, we obtain for and . Hence, is bounded and consequently, we deduce that , and are bounded. □
Lemma 3.2 Let and be the sequence generated by Algorithm 3.1. Then we have
-
(a)
.
-
(b)
The weak w-limit set , .
Proof From the nonexpansivity of the mapping and , we have
Next, we estimate that
It follows from (3.5) and (3.6) that
On the other hand, and , we have
and
Take in (3.8) and in (3.9), we get
and
Adding (3.10) and (3.11) and using the monotonicity of F, we have
which implies that
and then
Without loss of generality, let us assume that there exists a real number μ such that for all positive integers n. Then we get
It follows from (3.7) and (3.12) that
Next, we estimate that
From (3.13) and (3.14), we have
Where
It follows by conditions (a)-(e) of Algorithm 3.1 and Lemma 2.6 that
Next, we show that . Since and , by using (3.2) and (3.3), we obtain
Then from the inequality above, we get
Since , , and , we obtain and .
Since is firmly nonexpansive, we have
Hence,
From (3.16), (3.3) and the inequality above, we have
Hence,
Since , , and , we obtain
From (2.2), we get
Hence,
From (3.16) and the inequality above, we have
Hence,
Since , , and , we obtain
It follows from (3.17) and (3.18) that
Now, let , since for each , and , we have . And
It follows that
From Lemma 2.9 and the inequality above, we get
Since , , and , we obtain
Since and is strictly decreasing, we have
Hence, we obtain
Since is bounded, without loss of generality, we can assume that . It follows from Lemma 2.4 that . Therefore, . □
Theorem 3.1 The sequence generated by Algorithm 3.1 converges strongly to , which is the unique solution of the variational inequality
Proof Since is bounded and from Lemma 3.2, we have . Next, we show that . Since , we have
It follows from monotonicity of F that
and
Since and , it easy to observe that . For any and , let , we have . Then from (3.21), we obtain
Since D is Lipschitz continuous and , we obtain . From the monotonicity of D and , it follows from (3.22) that
Hence, from assumptions (i)-(iv) of Lemma 2.2 and (3.23), we have
which implies that . Letting , we have
which implies that .
Furthermore, we show that . Let
where is the normal cone to C at . Then T is maximal monotone and if and only if (see [18]). Let denote the graph of T, and let , since and , we have
On the other hand, it follows from and that
and
Therefore, from (3.25) and inverse strongly monotonicity of A, we have
Since and , it easy to observe that . Hence, we obtain . Since T is maximal monotone, we have , and hence, . Thus, we have
Next, we claim that , where .
Since is bounded, there exists a subsequence of such that
Next, we show that .
which implies that
Let and .
Since
It follows that
Thus, all the conditions of Lemma 2.6 are satisfied. Hence, we deduce that .
Since is a contraction, there exists a unique such that . From (2.1), it follows that z is the unique solution of problem (3.20). This completes the proof. □
Theorem 3.2 Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H. Let be θ, α-inverse strongly monotone mappings, respectively. Let be a bifunction satisfying the assumptions (i)-(iv) of Lemma 2.2, be a nonexpansive mapping, and is a countable family of -strict pseudo-contraction mappings such that , where . Let f be a ρ-contraction mapping. For a given arbitrarily, let the iterative sequences , , and be generated by
where , , , is a strictly decreasing sequence in , and is a sequence in satisfying the following conditions:
-
(a)
and ,
-
(b)
,
-
(c)
and ,
-
(d)
,
-
(e)
there exists a constant such that ,
-
(f)
and ,
-
(g)
and .
Then sequence generated by (3.26) converges strongly to , which is the unique solution of the variational inequality
Proof From , without loss of generality, we can assume that for all . Hence, . By similar argument as that in Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2, we can deduce that is bounded, , (see (3.19)) and . Then we have
It follows that for all ,
From (3.28) and (3.29), we have
Set . From (3.14) and (3.15), we obtain