Open Access

Strong convergence of modified Halpern’s iterations for a k-strictly pseudocontractive mapping

Journal of Inequalities and Applications20132013:98

https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2013-98

Received: 27 June 2012

Accepted: 20 February 2013

Published: 12 March 2013

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss three modified Halpern iterations as follows:

(I)
(II)
(III)

and obtained the strong convergence results of the iterations (I)-(III) for a k-strictly pseudocontractive mapping, where { α n } satisfies the conditions: (C1) lim n α n = 0 and (C2) n = 1 α n = + , respectively. The results presented in this work improve the corresponding ones announced by many other authors.

1 Introduction

Let H be a real Hilbert space with the inner product , and the norm and let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of H.

Recall that a mapping T with domain D ( T ) and range R ( T ) in the Hilbert space H is called strongly pseudo-contractive if, for all x , y D ( T ) , there exists k ( 0 , 1 ) such that
T x T y , x y k x y 2 ,
(1.1)
while T is said to be pseudo-contractive if (1.1) holds for k = 1 . A mapping T is said to be Lipschitzian if, for all x , y D ( T ) , there exists L > 0 such that
T x T y L x y .
(1.2)
A mapping T is called nonexpansive if (1.2) holds for L = 1 and, further, T is said to be contractive if L < 1 . T is said to be firmly nonexpansive if for all x , y D ( T ) ,
T x T y 2 x y , T x T y .
Firmly nonexpansive mappings could be looked upon as an important subclass of nonexpansive mappings. A mapping T is called k-strictly pseudocontractive, if for all x , y D ( T ) , there exists λ > 0 such that
T x T y , x y x y 2 λ x y ( T x T y ) 2 .
(1.3)
Without loss of generality, we may assume that λ ( 0 , 1 ) . In Hilbert spaces H, (1.3) is equivalent to the inequality
T x T y 2 x y 2 + k ( I T ) x ( I T ) y 2 , k = ( 1 2 λ ) < 1 ,

and we can assume also that k 0 so that k [ 0 , 1 ) .

It is obvious that a k-strictly pseudocontractive mapping is Lipschitzian with L = k + 1 k . The class of nonexpansive mappings is a subclass of strictly pseudocontractive mappings in a Hilbert space, but the converse implication may be false. We remark that the class of strongly pseudo-contractive mappings is independent from the class of k-strict pseudo-contractions.

In 1967, Halpern [1] was the first who introduced the following iteration scheme for a nonexpansive mapping T which was referred to as Halpern iteration: For any initialization x 0 C and any anchor u C , α n [ 0 , 1 ] ,
x n + 1 = α n u + ( 1 α n ) T x n , n 0 .
(1.4)
He proved that the sequence (1.4) converges weakly to a fixed point of T, where α n = n a , a ( 0 , 1 ) . In 1977, Lions [2] further proved that the sequence (1.4) converges strongly to a fixed point of T in a Hilbert space, where { α n } satisfies the following conditions:
But, in [1, 2], the real sequence { α n } excluded the canonical choice α n = 1 n + 1 . In 1992, Wittmann [3] proved, still in Hilbert spaces, the strong convergence of the sequence (1.4) to a fixed point of T, where { α n } satisfies the following conditions:

The strong convergence of Halpern’s iteration to a fixed point of T has also been proved in Banach spaces; see, e.g., [410]. Reich [4, 5] has showed the strong convergence of the sequence (1.4), where { α n } satisfies the conditions (C1), (C2) and (C5), { α n } is decreasing (noting that the condition (C5) is a special case of condition(C4)). In 1997, Shioji and Takahashi [6] extended Wittmann’s result to Banach spaces. In 2002, Xu [9] obtained a strong convergence theorem, where { α n } satisfies the following conditions: (C1), (C2) and (C6) lim n | α n + 1 α n | α n + 1 = 0 . In particular, the canonical choice of α n = 1 n + 1 satisfies the conditions (C1), (C2) and (C6).

However, is a real sequence { α n } satisfying the conditions (C1) and (C2) sufficient to guarantee the strong convergence of Halpern’s iteration (1.4) for nonexpansive mappings? It remains an open question, see [1].

Some mathematicians considered the open question. In [11], Song proved that for a firmly nonexpansive mapping T, an important subclass of nonexpansive mappings, the answer of the Halpern open problem is affirmative. A partial answer to this question was given independently by Chidume and Chidume [12] and Suzuki [7]. They defined the sequence { x n } by
x n + 1 = α n u + ( 1 α n ) ( ( 1 δ ) x n + δ T x n ) ,
(1.5)
where δ [ 0 , 1 ] , I is the identity, and obtained the strong convergence of the iteration (1.5), where { α n } satisfies the conditions (C1) and (C2). Recently, Xu [10] gave another partial answer to this question. He obtained the strong convergence of the iterative sequence
x n + 1 = α n ( ( 1 δ ) u + δ x n ) + ( 1 α n ) T x n ,
(1.6)

where δ [ 0 , 1 ] and { α n } satisfies the conditions (C1) and (C2).

In [13], Liang-Gen Hu introduced the modified Halpern’s iteration: For any u , x 0 C , the sequence { x n } is defined by
x n + 1 = α n u + β n x n + γ n T x n , n 0 ,
(1.7)

where { α n } , { β n } , { γ n } are three real sequences in [ 0 , 1 ] , satisfying α n + β n + γ n = 1 . He showed that the sequence { α n } satisfying the conditions (C1) and (C2) is sufficient to guarantee the strong convergence of the modified Halpern’s iterative sequence (1.7) for nonexpansive mappings.

The purpose of this paper is to present a significant answer to the above open question. We will show that the sequence { α n } satisfying the conditions (C1) and (C2) is sufficient to guarantee the strong convergence of the modified Halpern’s iterative sequences (1.5)-(1.7) for k-strictly pseudocontractive mappings, respectively. The results present in this paper improve and develop the corresponding results of [7, 10, 12, 13].

2 Preliminaries

In what follows we will need the following:

Lemma 2.1 [14]

Let H be a real Hilbert space, then the following well-known results hold:
  1. (i)

    t x + ( 1 t ) y 2 = t x 2 + ( 1 t ) y 2 t ( 1 t ) x y 2 for all x , y H and for all t [ 0 , 1 ] .

     
  2. (ii)

    x + y 2 x 2 + 2 y , x + y , x , y H .

     
Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H. The nearest point projection P C : H C defined from H onto C is the function which assigns to each x H its nearest point denoted by P C x in C. Thus P C x is the unique point in C such that
x P C x x y , y C .
It is known that for each x H ,
x P C x , y P C x 0 , y C .
(2.1)

Lemma 2.2 [15]

Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H, T : C C be a k-strictly pseudocontractive mapping. Then ( I T ) is demiclosed at zero.

Lemma 2.3 [9]

Let { a n } be a sequence of nonnegative real numbers such that a n + 1 ( 1 δ n ) a n + δ n ξ n , n 0 , where { δ n } is a sequence in [ 0 , 1 ] and { ξ n } is a sequence in R satisfying the following conditions:
  1. (i)

    n = 1 δ n = + ;

     
  2. (ii)

    lim sup n ξ n 0 or n = 1 δ n | ξ n | < + .

     

Then lim n a n = 0 .

3 Main results

In this section, proving the following theorems, we show that the conjunction of (C1) and (C2) is a sufficient condition on our iteration (I)-(III), respectively.

Theorem 3.1 Let C be a closed and convex subset of a real Hilbert space H, T : C C be a k-strictly pseudocontractive mapping such that F ( T ) . For an arbitrary initial value x 0 C and fixed anchor u C , define iteratively a sequence { x n } as follows:

where { α n } , { β n } , { γ n } are three real sequences in ( 0 , 1 ) , satisfying α n + β n + γ n = 1 and 0 < k < β n β n + γ n . Suppose that { α n } satisfies the conditions: (C1) lim n α n = 0 ; (C2) n = 1 α n = + . Then as n , { x n } converges strongly to some fixed point x of T and x = P F ( T ) u , where P F ( T ) is the metric projection from H onto F ( T ) .

Proof Firstly, we show that { x n } is bounded. Rewrite the iterative process (I) as follows:
x n + 1 = α n u + β n x n + γ n T x n = α n u + ( 1 α n ) β n x n + γ n T x n 1 α n = α n u + ( 1 α n ) y n ,
(3.1)
where y n = β n x n + γ n T x n 1 α n . Take any p F ( T ) , then, from Lemma 2.1 and (3.1), we estimate as follows:
(3.2)
By induction,
x n + 1 p 2 max { u p 2 , x 0 p 2 } .

This proves the boundedness of the sequence { x n } , which leads to the boundedness of { T x n } .

Next, we claim that
lim n x n T x n = 0 .
In fact, we have from (3.2) (for some appropriate constant M > 0 ) that
which implies that
( β n 1 α n k ) γ n x n T x n 2 α n M x n p 2 x n + 1 p 2 .
(3.3)
If ( β n 1 α n k ) γ n x n T x n 2 α n M 0 , then

and hence the desired result is obtained by the condition (C1) and 0 < k < β n 1 α n .

If ( β n 1 α n k ) γ n x n T x n 2 α n M > 0 , then following (3.3), we have
n = 0 m [ ( β n 1 α n k ) γ n x n T x n 2 α n M ] x 0 p 2 x m p 2 x 0 p 2 .
Then
n = 0 [ ( β n 1 α n k ) γ n x n T x n 2 α n M ] < + .
Thus
lim n [ ( β n 1 α n k ) γ n x n T x n 2 α n M ] = 0 ,
and hence
lim n x n T x n = 0 .
(3.4)
In order to prove x n x = P F ( T ) u , we next show that
lim sup n P F ( T ) u u , P F ( T ) u x n + 1 0 .
Indeed, we can take a subsequence { x n k } of { x n } such that
lim sup n P F ( T ) u u , P F ( T ) u x n + 1 = lim k P F ( T ) u u , P F ( T ) u x n k + 1 .

We may assume that x n k z since H is reflexive and { x n } is bounded. From (3.4), it follows from Lemma 2.2 that z F ( T ) .

From (2.1), we conclude
lim sup n P F ( T ) u u , P F ( T ) u x n + 1 = lim k P F ( T ) u u , P F ( T ) u x n k + 1 = P F ( T ) u u , P F ( T ) u z 0 .
(3.5)
Finally, we show that x n P F ( T ) u . As a matter of fact, from Lemma 2.1 and (3.1), we obtain
It follows from the conditions (C1), (C2) and (3.5), using Lemma 2.3, that
lim n x n P F ( T ) u = 0 .

This completes the proof of Theorem 3.1. □

Theorem 3.2 Let C be a closed and convex subset of a real Hilbert space H, T : C C be a k-strictly pseudocontractive mapping such that F ( T ) . For an arbitrary initial value x 0 C and fixed anchor u C , define iteratively a sequence { x n } as follows:

where { α n } ( 0 , 1 ) , 0 < k < α n δ . Suppose that { α n } satisfies the conditions: (C1) lim n α n = 0 ; (C2) n = 1 α n = . Then as n , { x n } converges strongly to some fixed point x of T and x = P F ( T ) u , where P F ( T ) is the metric projection from H onto F ( T ) .

Proof Firstly, we show that { x n } is bounded. Rewrite the iterative process (II) as follows:
y n = ( 1 δ ) u + δ x n , x n + 1 = α n y n + ( 1 α n ) T x n .
(3.6)
Take any p F ( T ) , then, from Lemma 2.1 and (3.6), we estimate as follows:
By induction,
x n + 1 p 2 max { u p 2 , x 0 p 2 } .

This proves the boundedness of the sequence { x n } , which implies that the sequence { T x n } is bounded also.

Using the same technique as in Theorem 3.1, we can prove
lim n x n T x n = 0
and
lim sup n P F ( T ) u u , P F ( T ) u x n + 1 0 .
Finally, we show that x n P F ( T ) u . Writing z n = α n δ x n + ( 1 α n ) T x n 1 ( 1 δ ) α n , then
x n + 1 = ( 1 δ ) α n u + [ 1 ( 1 δ ) α n ] z n ,
from Lemma 2.1 and (3.1), we obtain
It follows from the conditions (C1), (C2) and (3.5), using Lemma 2.3, that
lim n x n P F ( T ) u = 0 .

This completes the proof of Theorem 3.2. □

Theorem 3.3 Let C be a closed and convex subset of a real Hilbert space H, T : C C be a k-strictly pseudocontractive mapping such that F ( T ) . For an arbitrary initial value x 0 C and fixed anchor u C , define iteratively a sequence { x n } as follows:

where T β = β I + ( 1 β ) T , { α n } [ 0 , 1 ] , β ( k , 1 ) . Suppose that { α n } satisfies the conditions: (C1) lim n α n = 0 ; (C2) n = 1 α n = . Then as n , { x n } converges strongly to some fixed point x of T, and x = P F ( T ) u , where P F ( T ) is the metric projection from H onto F ( T ) .

Proof It is easy to see that F ( T β ) = F ( T ) . For any x , y C , we have
Thus, for all x C and for all p F ( T β ) = F ( T ) , we have
T β x p 2 x p 2 ( β k ) x T β x 2 .

This implies that T β is a quasi-firmly type nonexpansive mapping (see, for example, [11]). T β is also a strongly quasi-nonexpansive mapping (see, for example, [16]). Hence it follows from [11, 16] (see Theorem 3.1 and Remark 1 of [11] or Corollary 8 of [16]) that { x n } converges strongly to a point x F ( T β ) = F ( T ) .

Finally, we show x = P F ( T ) u . From Lemma 2.1 and the iterative process (III), we estimate as follows:
It follows from the conditions (C1), (C2) and
lim n u P F ( T ) u , x n + 1 P F ( T ) u = u P F ( T ) u , x P F ( T ) u 0 ,
using Lemma 2.3, that
lim n x n P F ( T ) u = 0 .

This completes the proof of Theorem 3.3. □

Remark 3.1 Theorems 3.1-3.3 improve the main results of [7, 10, 12, 13] from a nonexpansive mapping to a k-strictly pseudocontractive mapping, respectively. Theorems 3.1-3.3 show that the real sequence { α n } satisfying the two conditions (C1) and (C2) is sufficient for the strong convergence of the iterative sequences (I)-(III) for k-strictly pseudocontractive mappings, respectively. Therefore, our results give a significant partial answer to the open question.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to the referees for their careful reading, comments and suggestions, which improved the presentation of this article. The first author was supported by the Natural Science Foundational Committee of Hebei Province (Z2011113) and Hebei Normal University of Science and Technology (ZDJS 2009 and CXTD2010-05).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
College of Mathematics and Information Technology, Hebei Normal University of Science and Technology
(2)
Institute of Mathematics and Systems Science, Hebei Normal University of Science and Technology
(3)
Hebei Business and Trade School

References

  1. Halpern B: Fixed points of nonexpanding maps. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1967, 73: 957–961. 10.1090/S0002-9904-1967-11864-0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Lions P-L: Approximation de points fixes de contractions. C. R. Acad. Sci., Ser. A-B 1977, 284: A1357-A1359.Google Scholar
  3. Wittmann R: Approximation of fixed points of nonexpansive mappings. Arch. Math. 1992, 58: 486–491. 10.1007/BF01190119MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Reich S: Strong convergence theorems for resolvents of accretive operators in Banach spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1980, 75: 287–292. 10.1016/0022-247X(80)90323-6MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Reich S: Approximating fixed points of nonexpansive mappings. Panam. Math. J. 1994, 4: 23–28.Google Scholar
  6. Shioji N, Takahashi W: Strong convergence of approximated sequences for nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1997, 125: 3641–3645. 10.1090/S0002-9939-97-04033-1MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Suzuki T: A sufficient and necessary condition for Halpern-type strong convergence to fixed points of nonexpansive mappings. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2007, 135: 99–106.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Takahashi W, Ueda Y: On Reich’s strong convergence theorems for resolvents of accretive operators. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1984, 104: 546–553. 10.1016/0022-247X(84)90019-2MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Xu H-K: Iterative algorithms for nonlinear operators. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 2002, 66: 240–256. 10.1112/S0024610702003332View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Xu, H-K: A strong convergence theorem for nonexpansive mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. (in press)Google Scholar
  11. Song Y, Chai X: Halpern iteration for firmly type nonexpansive mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 4500–4506. 10.1016/j.na.2009.03.018MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Chidume CE, Chidume CO: Iterative approximation of fixed points of nonexpansive mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2006, 318: 288–295. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.05.023MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Hu L-G: Strong convergence of a modified Halpern’s iteration for nonexpansive mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2008., 2008: Article ID 649162Google Scholar
  14. Osilike MO, Isiogugu FO: Weak and strong convergence theorems for non-spreading-type mappings in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 1814–1822. 10.1016/j.na.2010.10.054MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Osilike MO, Udomene A: Demiclosedness principle and convergence results for strictly pseudocontractive mappings of Browder-Petryshyn type. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2001, 256: 431–445. 10.1006/jmaa.2000.7257MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Saejung S: Halpern’s iteration in Banach spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 73: 3431–3439. 10.1016/j.na.2010.07.031MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Li 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.