Open Access

Construction of minimum-norm fixed points of pseudocontractions in Hilbert spaces

  • Yonghong Yao1,
  • Giuseppe Marino2,
  • Hong-Kun Xu3 and
  • Yeong-Cheng Liou4, 5Email author
Journal of Inequalities and Applications20142014:206

https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-206

Received: 15 February 2014

Accepted: 9 May 2014

Published: 23 May 2014

Abstract

An iterative algorithm is introduced for the construction of the minimum-norm fixed point of a pseudocontraction on a Hilbert space. The algorithm is proved to be strongly convergent.

MSC:47H05, 47H10, 47H17.

Keywords

fixed pointminimum-normpseudocontractionnonexpansive mappingprojection

1 Introduction

Construction of fixed points of nonlinear mappings is a classical and active area of nonlinear functional analysis due to the fact that many nonlinear problems can be reformulated as fixed point equations of nonlinear mappings. The research of this area dates back to Picard’s and Banach’s time. As a matter of fact, the well-known Banach contraction principle states that the Picard iterates { T n x } converge to the unique fixed point of T whenever T is a contraction of a complete metric space. However, if T is not a contraction (nonexpansive, say), then the Picard iterates { T n x } fail, in general, to converge; hence, other iterative methods are needed. In 1953, Mann [1] introduced the now called Mann’s iterative method which generates a sequence { x n } via the averaged algorithm
x n + 1 = ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n , n 0 ,
(1.1)

where { α n } is a sequence in the unit interval [ 0 , 1 ] , T is a self-mapping of a closed convex subset C of a Hilbert space H, and the initial guess x 0 is an arbitrary (but fixed) point of C.

Mann’s algorithm (1.1) has extensively been studied [27], and in particular, it is known that if T is nonexpansive (i.e., T x T y x y for all x , y C ) and if T has a fixed point, then the sequence { x n } generated by Mann’s algorithm (1.1) converges weakly to a fixed point of T provided the sequence { α n } satisfies the condition
n = 1 α n ( 1 α n ) = .
(1.2)

This algorithm, however, does not converge in the strong topology in general (see [[8], Corollary 5.2]).

Browder and Petryshyn [9] studied weak convergence of Mann’s algorithm (1.1) for the class of strict pseudocontractions (in the case of constant stepsizes α n = α for all n; see [10] for the general case of variable stepsizes). However, Mann’s algorithm fails to converge for Lipschitzian pseudocontractions (see the counterexample of Chidume and Mutangadura [11]). It is therefore an interesting question of inventing iterative algorithms which generate a sequence converging in the norm topology to a fixed point of a Lipschitzian pseudocontraction (if any). The interest of pseudocontractions lies in their connection with monotone operators; namely, T is a pseudocontraction if and only if the complement I T is a monotone operator.

We also notice that it is quite usual to seek a particular solution of a given nonlinear problem, in particular, the minimum-norm solution. For instance, given a closed convex subset C of a Hilbert space H 1 and a bounded linear operator A : H 1 H 2 , where H 2 is another Hilbert space. The C-constrained pseudoinverse of A, A C is then defined as the minimum-norm solution of the constrained minimization problem
A C ( b ) : = arg min x C A x b
(1.3)
which is equivalent to the fixed point problem
x = P C ( x λ A ( A x b ) ) ,
(1.4)

where P C is the metric projection from H 1 onto C, A is the adjoint of A, λ > 0 is a constant, and b H 2 is such that P A ( C ) ¯ ( b ) A ( C ) .

It is therefore an interesting problem to invent iterative algorithms that can generate sequences which converge strongly to the minimum-norm solution of a given fixed point problem. The purpose of this paper is to solve such a problem for pseudocontractions. More precisely, we shall introduce an iterative algorithm for the construction of fixed points of Lipschitzian pseudocontractions and prove that our algorithm (see (3.1) in Section 3) converges in the strong topology to the minimum-norm fixed point of the mapping.

For the existing literature on iterative methods for pseudocontractions, the reader can consult [10, 1226]; for finding minimum-norm solutions of nonlinear fixed point and variational inequality problems, see [2729]; and for related iterative methods for nonexpansive mappings, see [2, 3, 30, 31] and the references therein.

2 Preliminaries

Let H be a real Hilbert space with the inner product , and the norm , respectively. Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of H. The class of nonlinear mappings which we will study is the class of pseudocontractions. Recall that a mapping T : C C is a pseudocontraction if it satisfies the property
T x T y , x y x y 2 , x , y C .
(2.1)
It is not hard to find that T is a pseudocontraction if and only if T satisfies one of the following two equivalent properties:
  1. (a)

    T x T y 2 x y 2 + ( I T ) x ( I T ) y 2 for all x , y C ; or

     
  2. (b)

    I T is monotone on C: x y , ( I T ) x ( I T ) y 0 for all x , y C .

     
Recall that a mapping T : C C is nonexpansive if
T x T y x y , x , y C .

It is immediately clear that nonexpansive mappings are pseudocontractions.

Recall also that the nearest point (or metric) projection from H onto C is defined as follows: For each point x H , P C x is the unique point in C with the property
x P C x x y , y C .
Note that P C is characterized by the inequality
P C x C , x P C x , y P C x 0 , y C .
(2.2)

Consequently, P C is nonexpansive.

In the sequel we shall use the following notations:

  • Fix ( S ) stands for the set of fixed points of S;

  • x n x stands for the weak convergence of ( x n ) to x;

  • x n x stands for the strong convergence of ( x n ) to x.

Below is the so-called demiclosedness principle for nonexpansive mappings.

Lemma 2.1 (cf. [32])

Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H, and let S : C C be a nonexpansive mapping with fixed points. If { x n } is a sequence in C such that x n x and ( I S ) x n y , then ( I S ) x = y .

We also need the following lemma whose proof can be found in literature (cf. [33]).

Lemma 2.2 Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H. Assume that a mapping F : C H is monotone and weakly continuous along segments (i.e., F ( x + t y ) F ( x ) weakly as t 0 , whenever x + t y C for x , y C ). Then the variational inequality
x C , F x , x x 0 , x C
(2.3)
is equivalent to the dual variational inequality
x C , F x , x x 0 , x C .
(2.4)

Finally, we state the following elementary result on convergence of real sequences.

Lemma 2.3 ([30])

Let { a n } be a sequence of nonnegative real numbers satisfying
a n + 1 ( 1 γ n ) a n + γ n σ n , n 0 ,
where { γ n } ( 0 , 1 ) and { σ n } satisfy
  1. (i)

    n = 0 γ n = ;

     
  2. (ii)

    either lim sup n σ n 0 or n = 0 | γ n σ n | < .

     

Then { a n } converges to 0.

3 An iterative algorithm and its convergence

Throughout this section we assume that C is a nonempty closed subset of a real Hilbert space H and T : C C is a pseudocontraction with a nonempty fixed point set Fix ( T ) . The aim of this section is to introduce an iterative method for finding the minimum-norm fixed point of T. Towards this, we select two sequences of real numbers, { α n } and { β n } in the interval ( 0 , 1 ) such that
α n + β n < 1
(3.1)
for all n. We also take an arbitrary initial guess x 0 C . We then define an iterative algorithm which generates a sequence { x n } via the following recursion:
x n + 1 = P C [ ( 1 α n β n ) x n + β n T x n ] , n 0 .
(3.2)

We shall prove that this sequence strongly converges to the minimum-norm fixed point of T provided { α n } and { β n } satisfy certain conditions. To this end, we need the following lemma.

Lemma 3.1 Let f : C H be a contraction with coefficient ρ ( 0 , 1 ) . Let S : C C be a nonexpansive mapping with Fix ( S ) . For each t ( 0 , 1 ) , let x t be defined as the unique solution of the fixed point equation
x t = S P C [ t f ( x t ) + ( 1 t ) x t ] .
(3.3)
Then, as t 0 + , the net { x t } converges strongly to a point x Fix ( S ) which solves the following variational inequality:
x Fix ( S ) , ( I f ) x , x x 0 , x Fix ( S ) .
In particular, if we take f = 0 , then the net { x t } defined via the fixed point equation
x t = S P C [ ( 1 t ) x t ] ,
(3.4)

converges in norm, as t 0 + , to the minimum-norm fixed point of S.

Proof First observe that, for each t ( 0 , 1 ) , x t is well defined. Indeed, if we define a mapping S t : C C by
S t x = S P C [ t f ( x ) + ( 1 t ) x ] , x C .
For x , y C , we have
S t x S t y = S P C [ t f ( x ) + ( 1 t ) x ] S P C [ t f ( y ) + ( 1 t ) y ] t f ( x ) f ( y ) + ( 1 t ) x y [ 1 ( 1 ρ ) t ] x y ,

which implies that S t is a self-contraction of C. Hence S t has a unique fixed point x t C which is the unique solution of fixed point equation (3.3).

Next we prove that { x t } is bounded. Take u Fix ( S ) . From (3.3) we have
x t u = S P C [ t f ( x t ) + ( 1 t ) x t ] S P C u t f ( x t ) f ( u ) + t f ( u ) u + ( 1 t ) x t u [ 1 ( 1 ρ ) t ] x t u + t f ( u ) u ,
that is,
x t u f ( u ) u 1 ρ .

Hence, { x t } is bounded and so is { f ( x t ) } .

From (3.3) we have
x t S x t = S P C [ t f ( x t ) + ( 1 t ) x t ] S P C x t t f ( x t ) x t 0 as  t 0 + .
(3.5)
Next we show that { x t } is relatively norm-compact as t 0 + , i.e., we show that from any sequence in { x t } , a convergent subsequence can be extracted. Let { t n } ( 0 , 1 ) be a sequence such that t n 0 + as n . Put x n : = x t n . From (3.5) we have
x n S x n 0 .
(3.6)
Again from (3.3) we get
x t u 2 = S P C [ t f ( x t ) + ( 1 t ) x t ] S P C u 2 x t u + t ( f ( x t ) x t ) 2 = x t u 2 + 2 t f ( x t ) x t , x t u + t 2 f ( x t ) x t 2 = x t u 2 + 2 t f ( x t ) f ( u ) , x t u + 2 t f ( u ) u , x t u + 2 t u x t , x t u + t 2 f ( x t ) x t 2 [ 1 2 ( 1 ρ ) t ] x t u 2 + 2 t f ( u ) u , x t u + t 2 f ( x t ) x t 2 .
It turns out that
x t u 2 1 1 ρ f ( u ) u , x t u + t M ,
(3.7)
where M > 0 is a constant such that
M > 1 2 ( 1 ρ ) sup { f ( x t ) x t 2 : t ( 0 , 1 ) } .
In particular, we get from (3.7)
x n u 2 1 1 ρ f ( u ) u , x n u + t n M , u Fix ( S ) .
(3.8)
Since { x n } is bounded, without loss of generality, we may assume that { x n } converges weakly to a point x C . Noticing (3.6) we can use Lemma 2.1 to get x Fix ( S ) . Therefore we can substitute x for u in (3.8) to get
x n x 2 1 1 ρ f ( x ) x , x n x + t n M .
(3.9)

However, x n x . This together with (3.9) guarantees that x n x . The net { x t } is therefore relatively compact, as t 0 + , in the norm topology.

Now we return to (3.8) and take the limit as n to get
x u 2 1 1 ρ f ( u ) u , x u , u Fix ( S ) .
In particular, x solves the following variational inequality:
x Fix ( S ) , ( I f ) u , u x 0 , u Fix ( S ) .
By Lemma 2.2, we see that x solves the variational inequality
x Fix ( S ) , ( I f ) x , u x 0 , u Fix ( S ) .
(3.10)

Therefore, x = ( P Fix ( S ) f ) x . That is, x is the unique fixed point in Fix ( S ) of the contraction P Fix ( S ) f . Clearly this is sufficient to conclude that the entire net { x t } converges in norm to x as t 0 + .

Finally, if we take f = 0 , then variational inequality (3.10) is reduced to
0 x , u x , u Fix ( S ) .
Equivalently,
x 2 x , u , u Fix ( S ) .
This clearly implies that
x u , u Fix ( S ) .

Therefore, x is the minimum-norm fixed point of S. This completes the proof. □

We are now in a position to prove the strong convergence of algorithm (3.2).

Theorem 3.2 Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H, and let T : C C be L-Lipschitzian and pseudocontractive with Fix ( T ) . Suppose that the following conditions are satisfied:
  1. (i)

    lim n α n = 0 and n = 0 α n = ;

     
  2. (ii)

    lim n α n β n = lim n β n 2 α n = 0 ;

     
  3. (iii)

    lim n α n β n 1 α n 1 β n α n 2 β n 1 = 0 .

     

Then the sequence { x n } generated by algorithm (3.2) converges strongly to the minimum-norm fixed point of T.

Proof First we prove that the sequence { x n } is bounded. We will show this fact by induction. According to conditions (i) and (ii), there exists a sufficiently large positive integer m such that
1 2 ( L + 1 ) ( L + 2 ) ( α n + 2 β n + β n 2 α n ) > 0 , n m .
(3.11)
Fix p Fix ( T ) and take a constant M 1 > 0 such that
max { x 0 p , x 1 p , , x m p , 2 p } M 1 .
(3.12)

Next, we show that x m + 1 p M 1 .

Set
y m = ( 1 α m β m ) x m + β m T x m ; thus  x m + 1 = P C [ y m ] .
Then, by using property (2.2) of the metric projection, we have
x m + 1 y m , x m + 1 p 0 .
(3.13)
By the fact that I T is monotone, we have
( I T ) x m + 1 ( I T ) p , x m + 1 p 0 .
(3.14)
From (3.2), (3.13) and (3.14), we obtain
x m + 1 p 2 = x m + 1 p , x m + 1 p = x m + 1 y m , x m + 1 p + y m p , x m + 1 p y m p , x m + 1 p = x m p , x m + 1 p α m x m , x m + 1 p + β m T x m x m , x m + 1 p = x m p , x m + 1 p + α m x m + 1 x m , x m + 1 p α m p , x m + 1 p α m x m + 1 p , x m + 1 p + β m T x m T x m + 1 , x m + 1 p + β m x m + 1 x m , x m + 1 p β m x m + 1 T x m + 1 , x m + 1 p x m p x m + 1 p + α m x m + 1 x m x m + 1 p + α m p x m + 1 p α m x m + 1 p 2 + β m ( T x m T x m + 1 + x m + 1 x m ) x m + 1 p x m p x m + 1 p + α m p x m + 1 p α m x m + 1 p 2 + ( L + 1 ) ( α m + β m ) x m + 1 x m x m + 1 p .
It follows that
( 1 + α m ) x m + 1 p x m p + α m p + ( L + 1 ) ( α m + β m ) x m + 1 x m .
(3.15)
By (3.2), we have
x m + 1 x m = P C [ ( 1 α m β m ) x m + β m T x m ] P C [ x m ] ( 1 α m β m ) x m + β m T x m x m α m ( p + x m p ) + β m ( T x m p + x m p ) α m ( p + x m p ) + ( L + 1 ) β m x m p ( L + 1 ) ( α m + β m ) x m p + α m p ( L + 2 ) ( α m + β m ) M 1 .
(3.16)
Substitute (3.16) into (3.15) to obtain
( 1 + α m ) x m + 1 p x m p + α m p + ( L + 1 ) ( L + 2 ) ( α m + β m ) 2 M 1 ( 1 + 1 2 α m ) M 1 + ( L + 1 ) ( L + 2 ) ( α m + β m ) 2 M 1 ,
that is,
x m + 1 p [ 1 ( α m / 2 ) ( L + 1 ) ( L + 2 ) ( α m + β m ) 2 1 + α m ] M 1 = { 1 ( α m / 2 ) [ 1 2 ( L + 1 ) ( L + 2 ) ( α m + 2 β m + ( β m 2 / α m ) ) ] 1 + α m } M 1 M 1 .
By induction, we get
x n p M 1 , n 0 ,
(3.17)
which implies that { x n } is bounded and so is { T x n } . Now we take a constant M 2 > 0 such that
M 2 = sup n { x n T x n x n } .

[Here a b = max { a , b } for a , b R .]

Set S = ( 2 I T ) 1 (i.e., S is a resolvent of the monotone operator I T ). We then have that S is a nonexpansive self-mapping of C and Fix ( S ) = Fix ( T ) (cf. Theorem 6 of [34]).

By Lemma 3.1, we know that whenever { γ n } ( 0 , 1 ) and γ n 0 + , the sequence { z n } defined by
z n = S P C [ ( 1 γ n ) z n ]
(3.18)

converges strongly to the minimum-norm fixed point x of S (and of T as Fix ( S ) = Fix ( T ) ). Without loss of generality, we may assume that z n M 2 for all n.

It suffices to prove that x n + 1 z n 0 as n (for some γ n 0 + ). To this end, we rewrite (3.18) as
( 2 I T ) z n = P C [ ( 1 γ n ) z n ] , n 0 .
By using the property of metric projection (2.2), we have
( 1 γ n ) z n ( 2 z n T z n ) , x n + 1 ( 2 z n T z n ) 0 γ n z n , x n + 1 z n ( z n T z n ) + T z n z n , x n + 1 z n ( z n T z n ) 0 γ n z n + T z n z n , x n + 1 z n + z n T z n 2 γ n z n , T z n z n γ n z n + T z n z n , x n + 1 z n γ n z n T z n z n z n + T z n z n γ n , x n + 1 z n z n T z n z n .
Note that
z n T z n = P C [ ( 1 γ n ) z n ] z n ( 1 γ n ) z n z n = γ n z n .
Hence, we get
z n + T z n z n γ n , x n + 1 z n γ n z n 2 .
(3.19)
From (3.18) we have
z n + 1 z n = S P C [ ( 1 γ n + 1 ) z n + 1 ] S P C [ ( 1 γ n ) z n ] ( 1 γ n + 1 ) z n + 1 ( 1 γ n ) z n = ( 1 γ n + 1 ) ( z n + 1 z n ) + ( γ n γ n + 1 ) z n ( 1 γ n + 1 ) z n + 1 z n + | γ n + 1 γ n | z n .
It follows that
z n + 1 z n | γ n + 1 γ n | γ n + 1 z n .
(3.20)
Set
γ n : = α n β n .
By condition (ii), γ n 0 + and γ n ( 0 , 1 ) for n large enough. Hence, by (3.19) and (3.20) we have
z n + β n ( T z n z n ) α n , x n + 1 z n α n β n z n 2 α n β n M 2 2
(3.21)
and
z n z n 1 α n β n 1 α n 1 β n α n β n 1 M 2 .
(3.22)
By (3.2) we have
x n + 1 x n = P C [ ( 1 α n β n ) x n + β n T x n ] P C x n α n x n + β n T x n x n ( α n + β n ) M 2 .
(3.23)
Next, we estimate x n + 1 z n + 1 . Since x n + 1 = P C [ y n ] , x n + 1 y n , x n + 1 z n 0 . Using (3.21) and by the fact that T is L-Lipschitzian and pseudocontractive, we infer that
x n + 1 z n 2 = x n + 1 z n , x n + 1 z n = x n + 1 y n , x n + 1 z n + y n z n , x n + 1 z n y n z n , x n + 1 z n = [ ( 1 α n β n ) x n + β n T x n ] z n , x n + 1 z n = ( 1 α n β n ) x n z n , x n + 1 z n + β n T x n T x n + 1 , x n + 1 z n + β n T x n + 1 T z n , x n + 1 z n + α n z n + β n ( T z n z n ) , x n + 1 z n ,
which leads to
x n + 1 z n 2 ( 1 α n β n ) x n z n x n + 1 z n + β n L x n x n + 1 x n + 1 z n + β n x n + 1 z n 2 + α n z n + β n α n ( T z n z n ) , x n + 1 z n 1 α n β n 2 ( x n z n 2 + x n + 1 z n 2 ) + β n 2 2 x n + 1 z n 2 + L 2 2 x n x n + 1 2 + β n x n + 1 z n 2 + α n 2 β n z n 2 .
It follows that, using (3.21), (3.22) and (3.23), we get
x n + 1 z n 2 1 α n β n 1 + α n β n x n z n 2 + L 2 1 + α n β n x n + 1 x n 2 + 2 α n 2 ( 1 + α n β n ) β n z n 2 + β n 2 1 + α n β n x n + 1 z n 2 ( 1 2 α n 1 + α n β n ) x n z n 2 + ( α n + β n ) 2 1 + α n β n L 2 M 2 2 + 2 α n 2 ( 1 + α n β n ) β n M 2 2 + β n 2 1 + α n β n 4 M 2 2 ( 1 2 α n 1 + α n β n ) ( x n z n 1 + z n z n 1 ) 2 + { ( α n + β n ) 2 1 + α n β n + 2 α n 2 ( 1 + α n β n ) β n + β n 2 1 + α n β n } M ( 1 2 α n 1 + α n β n ) x n z n 1 2 + 1 1 + α n β n z n z n 1 ( 2 x n z n 1 + z n z n 1 ) + { ( α n + β n ) 2 1 + α n β n + 2 α n 2 ( 1 + α n β n ) β n + β n 2 1 + α n β n } M ( 1 2 α n 1 + α n β n ) x n z n 1 2 + 1 1 + α n β n α n β n 1 α n 1 β n α n β n 1 M + { ( α n + β n ) 2 1 + α n β n + 2 α n 2 ( 1 + α n β n ) β n + β n 2 1 + α n β n } M ,
(3.24)
where the finite constant M > 0 is given by
M : = max { L 2 M 2 2 , 4 M 2 2 , M 2 sup n ( 2 x n z n 1 + z n z n 1 ) } .
Let
δ n = 2 α n 1 + α n β n 2 α n ( as  n )
and note that by (3.1) it follows that { δ n } ( 0 , 1 ) . Moreover, set
θ n = { α n β n 1 α n 1 β n 2 α n 2 β n 1 + 1 2 ( α n + 2 β n + β n 2 α n ) + α n β n + β n 2 2 α n } M .
Then relation (3.24) is rewritten as
x n + 1 z n 2 ( 1 δ n ) x n z n 1 2 + δ n θ n .
(3.25)
By conditions (i), (ii) and (iii), it is easily found that
lim n δ n = 0 , n = 1 δ n = , lim n θ n = 0 .

We can therefore apply Lemma 2.3 to (3.25) and conclude that x n + 1 z n 2 0 as n . This completes the proof. □

Remark 3.3 Choose the sequences ( α n ) and ( β n ) such that
α n = 1 ( n + 1 ) a and β n = 1 ( n + 1 ) b , n 0 ,
where 0 < b < a < 2 b < 1 . It is clear that conditions (i) and (ii) of Theorem 3.2 are satisfied. To verify condition (iii), we compute
| α n β n 1 α n 1 β n α n 2 β n 1 | = 1 α n | 1 α n 1 β n α n β n 1 | = ( n + 1 ) a | 1 ( n + 1 ) a b n a b | = ( n + 1 ) a [ ( 1 + 1 n ) a b 1 ] a b n ( n + 1 ) a 0 .

Therefore, { α n } and { β n } satisfy all three conditions (i)-(iii) in Theorem 3.2.

4 Application

To show an application of our results, we deal with the following problem.

Problem 4.1 Let 0 < x 0 < 1 and define the sequence { x n } by the recursion
x n + 1 = ( 1 n 1 / 2 n 1 / 3 ) x n + n 1 / 3 x n 2 1 + x n .
(4.1)

At which value does { x n } approach as n goes to infinity?

We claim that lim n x n = 0 and it can be easily derived by applying Theorem 3.2.

Proof In order to apply our result, let H = R , C = [ 0 , 1 ] and define T : C C by
T x : = x 2 1 + x .
Observe that T is Lipschitzian, pseudocontractive and that Fix ( T ) = { 0 } . Moreover, if we set α n = n 1 / 2 and β n = n 1 / 3 , then
  1. (i)

    lim n α n = 0 and n = 0 α n = ;

     
  2. (ii)

    lim n α n β n = lim n β n 2 α n = 0 ;

     
  3. (iii)

    lim n α n β n 1 α n 1 β n α n 2 β n 1 = 0 .

     
Then Theorem 3.2 ensures that
lim n x n = 0 .

 □

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Yonghong Yao was supported in part by NSFC 71161001-G0105. Yeong-Cheng Liou was supported in part by NSC 101-2628-E-230-001-MY3 and NSC 101-2622-E-230-005-CC3.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Mathematics, Tianjin Polytechnic University
(2)
Dipartimento di Matematica, Universitá della Calabria
(3)
Department of Applied Mathematics, National Sun Yat-Sen University
(4)
Department of Information Management, Cheng Shiu University
(5)
Center for General Education, Kaohsiung Medical University

References

  1. Mann WR: Mean value methods in iteration. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1953, 4: 506–510. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1953-0054846-3View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Geobel K, Kirk WA Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 28. In Topics in Metric Fixed Point Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1990.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Goebel K, Reich S: Uniform Convexity, Hyperbolic Geometry and Nonexpansive Mappings. Dekker, New York; 1984.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Reich S: Weak convergence theorems for nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1979, 67: 274–276. 10.1016/0022-247X(79)90024-6MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Reich S, Zaslavski AJ: Convergence of Krasnoselskii-Mann iterations of nonexpansive operators. Math. Comput. Model. 2000, 32: 1423–1431. 10.1016/S0895-7177(00)00214-4MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Suzuki T: Strong convergence of approximated sequences for nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2007, 135: 99–106.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Xu HK: A variable Krasnoselskii-Mann algorithm and the multiple-set split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 2006, 22: 2021–2034. 10.1088/0266-5611/22/6/007View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Bauschke HH, Matous̆ková E, Reich S: Projection and proximal point methods: convergence results and counterexamples. Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl. 2004, 56: 715–738. 10.1016/j.na.2003.10.010View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Browder FE, Petryshyn WV: Construction of fixed points of nonlinear mappings in Hilbert spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1967, 20: 197–228. 10.1016/0022-247X(67)90085-6MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Marino G, Xu HK: Weak and strong convergence theorems for strict pseudo-contractions in Hilbert spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 329: 336–346. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.06.055MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Chidume CE, Mutangadura SA: An example on the Mann iteration method for Lipschitz pseudo-contractions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2001, 129: 2359–2363. 10.1090/S0002-9939-01-06009-9MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Ceng LC, Petrusel A, Yao JC: Strong convergence of modified implicit iterative algorithms with perturbed mappings for continuous pseudocontractive mappings. Appl. Math. Comput. 2009, 209: 162–176. 10.1016/j.amc.2008.10.062MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Chidume CE, Abbas M, Ali B: Convergence of the Mann iteration algorithm for a class of pseudocontractive mappings. Appl. Math. Comput. 2007, 194: 1–6. 10.1016/j.amc.2007.04.059MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Chidume CE, Zegeye H: Iterative solution of nonlinear equations of accretive and pseudocontractive types. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2003, 282: 756–765. 10.1016/S0022-247X(03)00252-XMathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Ciric L, Rafiq A, Cakic N, Ume JS: Implicit Mann fixed point iterations for pseudo-contractive mappings. Appl. Math. Lett. 2009, 22: 581–584. 10.1016/j.aml.2008.06.034MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Huang NJ, Bai MR: A perturbed iterative procedure for multivalued pseudo-contractive mappings and multivalued accretive mappings in Banach spaces. Comput. Math. Appl. 1999, 37: 7–15. 10.1016/S0898-1221(99)00072-3MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Ishikawa S: Fixed points by a new iteration method. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1974, 44: 147–150. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1974-0336469-5MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Lan KQ, Wu JH: Convergence of approximants for demicontinuous pseudo-contractive maps in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2002, 49: 737–746. 10.1016/S0362-546X(01)00130-4MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Lopez Acedo G, Xu HK: Iterative methods for strict pseudo-contractions in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2007, 67: 2258–2271. 10.1016/j.na.2006.08.036MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Moore C, Nnoli BVC: Strong convergence of averaged approximants for Lipschitz pseudocontractive maps. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2001, 260: 269–278. 10.1006/jmaa.2001.7516MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Qin X, Cho YJ, Kang SM, Zhou H: Convergence theorems of common fixed points for a family of Lipschitz quasi-pseudocontractions. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 685–690. 10.1016/j.na.2008.10.102MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Udomene A: Path convergence, approximation of fixed points and variational solutions of Lipschitz pseudo-contractions in Banach spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2007, 67: 2403–2414. 10.1016/j.na.2006.09.001MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Yao Y, Liou YC, Marino G: A hybrid algorithm for pseudo-contractive mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 4997–5002. 10.1016/j.na.2009.03.075MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Yao Y, Liou YC, Marino G: Strong convergence of two iterative algorithms for nonexpansive mappings in Hilbert spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2009. 10.1155/2009/279058Google Scholar
  25. Zegeye H, Shahzad N, Mekonen T: Viscosity approximation methods for pseudocontractive mappings in Banach spaces. Appl. Math. Comput. 2007, 185: 538–546. 10.1016/j.amc.2006.07.063MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhang Q, Cheng C: Strong convergence theorem for a family of Lipschitz pseudocontractive mappings in a Hilbert space. Math. Comput. Model. 2008, 48: 480–485. 10.1016/j.mcm.2007.09.014View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Cui YL, Liu X: Notes on Browder’s and Halpern’s methods for nonexpansive maps. Fixed Point Theory 2009,10(1):89–98.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Yao Y, Chen R, Xu HK: Schemes for finding minimum-norm solutions of variational inequalities. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 72: 3447–3456. 10.1016/j.na.2009.12.029MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Yao Y, Xu HK: Iterative methods for finding minimum-norm fixed points of nonexpansive mappings with applications. Optimization 2011, 60: 645–658. 10.1080/02331930903582140MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Xu HK: Viscosity approximation methods for nonexpansive mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2004, 298: 279–291. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2004.04.059MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Yao Y, Yao JC: On modified iterative method for nonexpansive mappings and monotone mappings. Appl. Math. Comput. 2007, 186: 1551–1558. 10.1016/j.amc.2006.08.062MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Browder FE: Semicontraction and semiaccretive nonlinear mappings in Banach spaces. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1968, 74: 660–665. 10.1090/S0002-9904-1968-11983-4MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Lu X, Xu HK, Yin X: Hybrid methods for a class of monotone variational inequalities. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 1032–1041. 10.1016/j.na.2008.11.067MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhou H: Strong convergence of an explicit iterative algorithm for continuous pseudo-contractions in Banach spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70: 4039–4046. 10.1016/j.na.2008.08.012MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Yao et al.; licensee Springer. 2014

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/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.