Skip to main content

A hybrid iteration for asymptotically strictly pseudocontractive mappings

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a new hybrid iteration for a finite family of asymptotically strictly pseudocontractive mappings. We also prove that such a sequence converges strongly to a common fixed point of a finite family of asymptotically strictly pseudocontractive mappings. Results in the paper extend and improve recent results in the literature.

MSC:47H09, 47H10.

1 Introduction

Let H be a real Hilbert space, C be a nonempty closed convex subset of H. A mapping T:CC is called Lipschitz or Lipschitz continuous if there exists L>0 such that

TxTyLxyx,yC.
(1.1)

If L=1, then T is called nonexpansive, and if L<1, then T is called a contraction. It follows from (1.1) that every contraction mapping is nonexpansive and every nonexpansive mapping is Lipschitz.

A mapping T:CC is said to be a λ-strictly pseudocontractive mapping in the sense of Browder-Petryshyn [1] if there exists a constant 0λ<1 such that

T x T y 2 x y 2 +λ ( I T ) x ( I T ) y 2 x,yC.
(1.2)

If λ=1, then T is said to be a pseudocontractive mapping, i.e.,

T x T y 2 x y 2 + ( I T ) x ( I T ) y 2 x,yC.
(1.3)

The class of strictly pseudocontractive mappings falls into the one between the class of nonexpansive mappings and that of pseudocontractive mappings. The class of strict pseudocontractive mappings has more powerful applications than nonexpansive mappings, see Scherzer [2].

A mapping T:CC is said to be an asymptotically λ-strictly pseudocontractive mapping [3] if there exists a sequence { k n }[1,) with lim n k n =1, and a constant λ[0,1) such that

T n x T n y 2 k n 2 x y 2 +λ ( I T n ) x ( I T n ) y 2 x,yC.
(1.4)

We now give an example to show that a λ-strictly asymptotically pseudocontractive mapping is not necessarily a λ-strictly pseudocontractive mapping.

Example 1.1 Consider H= 2 ={ x ¯ = { x i } i = 1 : x i C, i = 1 | x i | 2 <}, and let B ¯ ={ x ¯ 2 :x1}. It is clear that 2 is a normed linear space with respect to the norm

x ¯ = ( k | x k | 2 ) 1 2 .

Define T: B ¯ 2 by the rule

T x ¯ =(0,2 x 1 , a 2 x 2 , a 3 x 3 ,),

where { a i } i = 1 is a real sequence satisfying a 2 >0, 0< a i <1, i2 and i = 2 a i = 1 2 . By definition

T n x ¯ = ( 0 , 0 , , 0 , 2 i = 2 n a i x i , i = 2 n + 1 a i x 2 , i = 3 n + 2 a i x 3 , )

and

T n y ¯ = ( 0 , 0 , , 0 , 2 i = 2 n a i y i , i = 2 n + 1 a i y 2 , i = 3 n + 2 a i y 3 , ) .

Hence,

T n x ¯ T n y ¯ 2 = ( 2 i = 2 n a i ) 2 | x 1 y 1 | 2 + ( i = 2 n + 1 a i ) 2 | x 2 y 2 | 2 + ( i = 3 n + 2 a i ) 2 | x 3 y 3 | 2 + ( 2 i = 2 n a i ) 2 [ | x 1 y 1 | 2 + | x 2 y 2 | 2 + | x 3 y 3 | 2 + ] = ( 2 i = 2 n a i ) 2 | x ¯ y ¯ | 2 ( 2 i = 2 n a i ) 2 | x ¯ y ¯ | 2 + λ ( I T n ) x ¯ ( I T n ) y ¯ 2

for all λ(0,1), n2. Since lim n 2 i = 1 n a i =1, it follows that T is an asymptotically strictly pseudocontractive mapping.

We now show that the T is not a λ-strictly pseudocontractive mapping. Choose x ¯ =( 1 6 , 1 6 , 1 6 ,0,0,,0), y ¯ =(0,0,0,,0) and a 2 =2. Then

T x ¯ T y ¯ , x ¯ y ¯ = ( 0 , 1 3 , 1 3 , a 3 6 , 0 , , 0 ) ( 1 6 , 1 6 , 1 6 , 0 , , 0 ) = 1 9 > 1 12 = x ¯ y ¯ 2 > x ¯ y ¯ 2 λ ( I T ) x ¯ ( I T ) y ¯ 2 .

Hence T is not a λ-strictly pseudocontractive mapping.

The study on iterative methods for strict pseudocontractive mappings was initiated by Browder and Petryshyn [1] in 1967, but the iterative methods for strict pseudocontractive mappings are far less developed than those for nonexpansive mappings. The probable reason is the second term appearing on the right-hand side of (1.2), which impedes the convergence analysis. Therefore it is interesting to develop the iteration methods for strict pseudocontractive mappings.

Browder and Petryshyn [1] showed that if a λ-strict pseudocontractive mapping T has a fixed point in C, then starting with an initial x 0 C, the sequence { x n } generated by the formula

x n + 1 =α x n +(1α)T x n ,

where α is a constant such that λ<α<1, converges weakly to a fixed point of T.

Marino and Xu [4] extended the above mentioned result of Browder and Petryshyn [1] by considering the sequence { x n } generated by the following formula:

x n + 1 = α n x n +(1 α n )T x n ,
(1.5)

where { α n } is a sequence in (0,1). Iteration (1.5) is called the Mann iteration [5].

Another interesting problem is to find a common fixed point of a finite family of strict pseudocontractive mappings. One approach to study the problem is cyclic algorithm, in which sequence { x n } is generated cyclically by

x n + 1 = α n x n +(1 α n ) T [ n ] x n ,
(1.6)

where T [ n ] = T i with i=nmodN, 0iN1.

However, the convergence of both algorithms (1.5) and (1.6) can only be weak in an infinite dimensional space. So, in order to have strong convergence, one must modify these algorithms.

One such modification of Mann’s algorithm for nonexpansive mappings is given by Nakajo and Takahashi [6], in which a modified algorithm is obtained by applying additional projections onto the intersection of two half-spaces and is guaranteed to have strong convergence. The sequence { x n } is produced as follows:

x n + 1 = P C n Q n x 0 ,
(1.7)

here P C is the metric projection of H onto C and C n , Q n are given by

C n = { z C : y n z x n z } ,
(1.8)

where

y n = α n x n +(1 α n )T x n
(1.9)

and

Q n = { z C : x n z , x 0 x n 0 } .
(1.10)

Marino and Xu [4] proposed the following modification for strict pseudocontractive mappings in which the sequence { x n } is given by the same formula (1.7) with C n given by

C n = { z C : y n z 2 x n z 2 + ( 1 α n ) ( λ α n ) x n T x n 2 } ,
(1.11)

where y n and Q n are given by formulas (1.9) and (1.10), respectively.

Thakur [7] extended the idea of Marino and Xu [4] to asymptotically strict pseudocontractive mappings. Recently, Yao and Chen [8] proposed a new hybrid method for strict pseudocontractive mappings, in which { x n }, C n , Q n are given by the same formulas (1.7), (1.8), (1.10) respectively, and

y n = α n x n +(1 α n ) [ δ x n + ( 1 δ ) T x n ] ,

where δ(λ,1), 0λ<1.

Takahashi et al. [9] introduced the idea of shrinking projection method for nonexpansive mappings, in which projection is applied on a single set. Here the sequence { x n } is produced by the formula

x n + 1 = P C n + 1 x 0 ,
(1.12)

where C n is given by

C n + 1 = { z C n : y n z x n z } ,
(1.13)

and y n is given by the same formula (1.9).

Inchan and Nammanee [10] modified the shrinking projection method for asymptotically strict pseudocontractive mappings, in which the sequence { x n } is generated by the same formula (1.12) and

C n + 1 = { z C n : y n z 2 x n z 2 + [ λ α n ( 1 α n ) ] x n T n x n + θ n } ,

where

y n = α n x n +(1 α n ) T n x n

and

θ n =(1 α n ) ( k n 2 1 ) ( diam C ) 2 0as n.

Motivated and inspired by the studies going on in this direction, we now propose the modified shrinking projection method for a finite family of asymptotically λ-strict pseudocontractive mappings.

Let C be a bounded closed convex subset of a Hilbert space H and { T i } i = 1 N :CC be a finite family of asymptotically ( λ i , k n ( i ) )-strict pseudocontractive mappings with Lipschitz constant L n ( i ) 1, i=1,2,,N, and for all nN such that F= i = 1 N F( T i ). Set λ=max{ λ i } and k n =max{ k n ( i ) }, i=1,2,,N. For arbitrarily chosen x 0 C, let C 1 =C and x 1 = P C 1 x 0 , define a sequence { x n } as

{ y n = α n x n + ( 1 α n ) [ δ x n + ( 1 δ ) T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n ] , C n + 1 = { v C n : y n v 2 x n v 2 + θ n } , x n + 1 = P C n + 1 x 0 ,
(1.14)

where δ(λ,1) is some constant and

θ n = ( k h ( n ) 2 1 ) ( diam C ) 2 0as n,

also for each n1, it can be written as n=(h(n)1)N+i(n), where i(n){1,2,,N} and h(n)1 is a positive integer with h(n) as n.

We shall prove that the iteration generated by (1.14) converges strongly to z 0 = P F x 0 .

2 Preliminaries

This section collects some lemmas which will be used in the proofs for the main results in the next section.

We will use the following notation:

  1. 1.

    for weak convergence and → for strong convergence.

  2. 2.

    ω w ( x n )={x: x n j x} denotes the weak ω-limit set of { x n }.

  3. 3.

    Fix(T) the set of fixed points of T.

Lemma 2.1 ([4])

The following identities hold in a Hilbert space H:

  1. (i)

    x + y 2 = x 2 + y 2 +2x,y x,yH;

  2. (ii)

    α x + ( 1 α ) y 2 =α x 2 +(1α) y 2 α(1α) x y 2 α[0,1].

Lemma 2.2 ([11])

Assume that C is a closed and convex subset of a Hilbert space H, and let T:CC be an asymptotically λ-strict pseudocontraction with Fix(T). Then:

  1. (i)

    For each n1, T n satisfies the Lipschitz condition

    T n x T n y L n xy

    for all x,yC, where L n = λ + 1 + ( k n 2 1 ) ( 1 λ ) 1 λ .

  2. (ii)

    If { x n } is a sequence in C with the properties x n z and T x n x n 0, then (IT)z=0, i.e., IT is demiclosed at 0.

  3. (iii)

    The fixed point set Fix(T) of T is closed and convex so that the projection P Fix ( T ) is well defined.

Lemma 2.3 ([12])

Let H be a real Hilbert space. Given a closed convex subset CH and points x,y,zH. Given also a real number a. The set

D= { v C : y v 2 x v 2 + z , v + a }

is convex (and closed).

Lemma 2.4 Let C be a closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H. Given xH and zC. Then z= P K x if and only if there holds the relation

xz,zy0yC,

where P K is the nearest point projection from H onto C.

3 Main results

In this section, we prove a strong convergence theorem by the hybrid method for a finite family of asymptotically λ i -strictly pseudocontractive mappings in Hilbert spaces.

Theorem 3.1 Let H be a real Hilbert space, and let C be a nonempty bounded closed convex subset of H. Let { T i } i = 1 N be a finite family of asymptotically ( λ i , k n ( i ) )-strictly pseudocontractive mappings of C into itself for some 0 λ i <1 with Lipschitz constant L n ( i ) 1, i=1,2,,N and for all nN such that F= i = 1 N F( T i ) and let x 0 C. For C 1 =C and x 1 = P C 1 x 0 , assume that the control sequence { α n } n = 1 is chosen such that lim sup n α n <1. Then { x n } generated by (1.14) converges strongly to z 0 = P F x 0 .

Proof Suppose L=max{ L n ( i ) :1iN,nN}, k n =max{ k n ( i ) :1iN} and λ=max{ λ i :1iN}. By Lemma 2.3, set C n is closed and convex.

Now, for every nN, we prove that F C n and { x n } is well defined.

We use the method of mathematical induction. For any zF, we have zC= C 1 . Hence F C 1 . Now assume that F C k for some kN. Then, for any pF C k , we have

y n p 2 = α n ( x n p ) + ( 1 α n ) [ δ ( x n p ) + ( 1 δ ) ( T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n p ) ] 2 α n x n p 2 + ( 1 α n ) δ ( x n p ) + ( 1 δ ) ( T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n p ) 2 = α n x n p 2 + ( 1 α n ) [ δ x n p 2 + ( 1 δ ) T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n p 2 δ ( 1 δ ) x n T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n 2 ] α n x n p 2 + ( 1 α n ) [ δ x n p 2 + ( 1 δ ) { k h ( n ) 2 x n p 2 + λ x n T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n 2 } δ ( 1 δ ) x n T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n 2 ] α n x n p 2 + ( 1 α n ) [ k h ( n ) 2 x n p 2 ( 1 δ ) ( δ λ ) x n T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n 2 ] x n p 2 + ( k h ( n ) 2 1 ) x n p 2 x n p 2 + θ n .

It follows that p C k + 1 and F C k + 1 . Hence F C n for all nN. Since C n is closed and convex for all nN, this implies that { x n } is well defined.

Now, we prove that { x n } is bounded.

Since x n = P C n x 0 , then by Lemma 2.4 we have

x 0 x n , x n y0for all y C n .

As F C n , we have

x 0 x n , x n q0for all qF,nN.

So, for qF, we have

0 x 0 x n , x n q = x 0 x n , x n x 0 + x 0 q = x 0 x n , x 0 x n + x 0 x n , x 0 q x 0 x n 2 + x 0 x n x 0 q .

This implies that

x 0 x n x 0 qfor all qF,nN.

Hence { x n } is bounded.

From x n = P C n x 0 and x n + 1 = P C n + 1 x 0 C n + 1 C n , by Lemma 2.4 we have

x 0 x n , x n x n + 1 0for all nN.
(3.1)

So, for x n + 1 C n , we have, for nN,

0 x 0 x n , x n x n + 1 = x 0 x n , x n x 0 + x 0 x n + 1 = x 0 x n , x n x 0 + x 0 x n , x 0 x n + 1 x 0 x n 2 + x 0 x n x 0 x n + 1 .

This implies that

x 0 x n x 0 x n + 1 for all nN.

Hence lim n x n x 0 exists.

Next, we show that x n x n + 1 exists.

Using (3.1), we have

x n x n + 1 2 = ( x n x 0 ) + ( x 0 x n + 1 ) 2 = x n x 0 2 + 2 x n x 0 , x 0 x n + 1 + x 0 x n + 1 2 = x n x 0 2 2 x 0 x n , ( x 0 x n ) + ( x n x n + 1 ) + x 0 x n + 1 2 = x n x 0 2 2 x 0 x n , x 0 x n 2 x 0 x n , x n x n + 1 + x 0 x n + 1 2 x n x 0 2 2 x n x 0 2 + x 0 x n + 1 2 .

Since lim n x n x 0 exists, it follows that

lim n x n x n + 1 =0.

Hence { x n } is a Cauchy sequence, and so convergent.

Consequently,

lim n x n x n + j =0.
(3.2)

Since x n + 1 C n , we have

y n x n + 1 2 x n x n + 1 2 + θ n .

By the definition of y n , we have

T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n x n 1 ( 1 α n ) ( 1 δ ) y n x n 1 ( 1 α n ) ( 1 δ ) ( y n x n + 1 + x n x n + 1 ) .
(3.3)

Since x n + 1 C n , by (1.14) we have

y n x n + 1 2 x n x n + 1 2 + θ n ,

which implies that

y n x n + 1 x n x n + 1 + θ n .
(3.4)

Using (3.3) and (3.4), we have

T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n x n 1 ( 1 α n ) ( 1 δ ) ( 2 x n x n + 1 + θ n ) .
(3.5)

Since lim sup n α n <1, it follows from (3.5) that

lim n x n T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n =0.
(3.6)

Now, we prove that lim n x n T n x n =0.

Since, for any positive integer nN, it can be written as n=(h(n)1)N+i(n) where i(n){1,2,,N}, observe that

x n T n x n x n T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n + T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n T n x n = x n T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n + T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n T i ( n ) x n x n T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n + L T i ( n ) h ( n ) 1 x n x n x n T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n + L ( T i ( n ) h ( n ) 1 x n T i ( n N ) h ( n ) 1 x n N + T i ( n N ) h ( n ) 1 x n N x n N + x n N x n ) .
(3.7)

Since, for each n>N, i(n)=(nN)modN. Again since n=(h(n)1)N+i(n), we have

h(nN)=h(n)1andi(nN)=i(n).

We observe that

T i ( n ) h ( n ) 1 x n T i ( n N ) h ( n ) 1 x n N = T i ( n ) h ( n ) 1 x n T i ( n ) h ( n ) 1 x n N L x n x n N
(3.8)

and

T i ( n N ) h ( n ) 1 x n N x n N = T i ( n ) h ( n N ) x n N x n N .
(3.9)

Substituting (3.8), (3.9) in (3.7), we obtain

x n T n x n x n T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n + L ( ( 1 + L ) x n x n N + T i ( n N ) h ( n N ) x n N x n N ) .
(3.10)

It follows from (3.2), (3.6) and (3.10) that

lim n x n T n x n =0.

We also have

x n T n + j x n x n x n + j + x n + j T n + j x n + j + T n + j x n + j T n + j x n ( 1 + L ) x n x n + j + x n + j T n + j x n + j 0 as  n  for any  j { 1 , 2 , , N } ,

which gives that

lim n x n T j x n =0for all j{1,2,,N}.

For each i{1,2,,N}, by Lemma 2.2(ii), I T i is demiclosed at zero. This together with the fact that { x n } is bounded guarantees that every weak limit point of { x n } is a fixed point of T i (i{1,2,,N}). That is ω w ( x n )F= i = 1 N F( T i ). Since for z 0 = P F ( x 0 ) we have x n x 0 z 0 x 0 for all n0, by the weak lower semi-continuity of the norm, we have

x 0 z 0 x 0 w lim inf n x 0 x n lim sup n x 0 x n x 0 z 0

for all w ω w ( x n ). However, since ω w ( x n )F, we must have w= z 0 for all w ω w ( x n ). Thus ω w ( x n )={ z 0 } and then x n z 0 . Hence, x n z 0 = P F ( x 0 ) by

x n z 0 2 = x n x 0 2 + 2 x n x 0 , x 0 z 0 + x 0 z 0 2 2 ( z 0 x 0 2 + x n x 0 , x 0 z 0 ) 0 as  n .

This completes the proof. □

If we take β n =(1δ) α n +δ[δ,1) in (1.14), then we obtain the following.

Corollary 3.2 Let H be a real Hilbert space, and let C be a nonempty bounded closed convex subset of H. Let { T i } i = 1 N be a finite family of asymptotically λ i -strictly pseudocontractive mappings of C into itself for some 0 λ i <1 with Lipschitz constant L n ( i ) 1, i=1,2,,N and for all nN such that F= i = 1 N F( T i ) and let x 0 C. For C 1 =C and x 1 = P C 1 x 0 , assume that the control sequence { β n } n = 1 is chosen such that δ β n <1, define { x n } as follows:

{ y n = β n x n + ( 1 β n ) T i ( n ) h ( n ) x n , C n + 1 = { v C n : y n v 2 x n v 2 + θ n } , x n + 1 = P C n + 1 x 0 ,
(3.11)

where

θ n = ( k h ( n ) 2 1 ) ( diam C ) 2 0as n.

Then { x n } generated by (3.11) converges strongly to z 0 = P F x 0 .

Corollary 3.3 Let H be a real Hilbert space, and let C be a nonempty bounded closed convex subset of H. Let T be an asymptotically λ-strictly pseudocontractive mapping of C into itself such that F(T), and let x 0 C. For C 1 =C and x 1 = P C 1 x 0 , assume that the control sequence { β n } n = 1 is chosen such that δ β n <1, define { x n } as follows:

{ y n = β n x n + ( 1 β n ) T n x n , C n + 1 = { v C n : y n v 2 x n v 2 + θ n } , x n + 1 = P C n + 1 x 0 ,
(3.12)

where

θ n = ( k n 2 1 ) ( diam C ) 2 0as n.

Then { x n } generated by (3.12) converges strongly to z 0 = P F ( T ) x 0 .

Since asymptotically nonexpansive mappings are asymptotically 0-strict pseudocontractions, we have the following consequence.

Corollary 3.4 Let H be a real Hilbert space, and let C be a nonempty bounded closed convex subset of H. Let T be an asymptotically nonexpansive mapping from C to itself such that F(T), and let x 0 C. For C 1 =C and x 1 = P C 1 x 0 , assume that the control sequence { β n } n = 1 is chosen such that δ β n <1. Then { x n } generated by (3.12) converges strongly to z 0 = P F ( T ) x 0 .

Remark 3.5 From the main results, one can see that the corresponding results in Acedo and Xu [13], Inchan and Nammanee [10], Kim and Xu [11], Marino and Xu [4], Martinez-Yanez and Xu [12], Nakajo and Takahashi [6], Qin et al. [14], Yao and Chen [8] are all special cases of this paper.

References

  1. Browder FE, Pertryshyn WV: Construction of fixed points of nonlinear mappings in Hilbert spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1967, 20: 197-228. 10.1016/0022-247X(67)90085-6

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Scherzer O: Convergence criteria of iterative methods based on Landweber iteration for solving nonlinear problems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1991, 194: 911-933.

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Qihou L: Convergence theorems of the sequence of iterates for asymptotically demicontractive and hemicontractive mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 1996, 26: 1835-1842. 10.1016/0362-546X(94)00351-H

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Marino G, Xu HK: Weak and strong convergence theorems for strict pseudo-contractions in Hilbert spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 329: 336-349. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.06.055

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Mann WR: Mean value methods in iteration. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1953, 4: 506-510. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1953-0054846-3

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Nakajo K, Takahashi W: Strong convergence theorems for nonexpansive mappings and nonexpansive semigroups. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2003, 279: 372-379. 10.1016/S0022-247X(02)00458-4

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Thakur BS: Convergence of strictly asymptotically pseudo-contractions. Thai J. Math. 2007, 5: 41-52.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Yao Y, Chen R: Strong convergence theorems for strict pseudo-contractions in Hilbert spaces. J. Appl. Math. Comput. 2010, 32: 69-82. 10.1007/s12190-009-0233-x

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Takahashi W, Takeuchi Y, Kubota R: Strong convergence by hybrid methods for families of nonexpansive mappings in Hilbert spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2008, 341: 276-286. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.09.062

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Inchan I, Nammanee K: Strong convergence theorems by hybrid method for asymptotically k -strict pseudo-contractive mapping in Hilbert space. Nonlinear Anal. Hybrid Syst. 2009, 3: 380-385. 10.1016/j.nahs.2009.02.002

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim TH, Xu HK: Convergence of the modified Mann’s iteration method for asymptotically strict pseudo-contractions. Nonlinear Anal. 2008, 68: 2828-2836. 10.1016/j.na.2007.02.029

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Martinez-Yanez C, Xu HK: Strong convergence of the CQ method for fixed point iteration processes. Nonlinear Anal. 2006, 64: 2400-2411. 10.1016/j.na.2005.08.018

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Acedo GL, Xu HK: Iterative methods for strict pseudo-contractions in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70: 1902-1911. 10.1016/j.na.2008.02.090

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Qin XL, Cho YJ, Kang SM, Shang M: A hybrid iterative scheme for asymptotically k -strict pseudo-contractions in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70: 1902-1911. 10.1016/j.na.2008.02.090

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the referee for precise remarks which led to improvement of the paper. The second author is thankful to University Grants Commission of India for Project 41-1390/2012(SR).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mihai Postolache.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed equally to this work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dewangan, R., Thakur, B.S. & Postolache, M. A hybrid iteration for asymptotically strictly pseudocontractive mappings. J Inequal Appl 2014, 374 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-374

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-374

Keywords

  • asymptotically strictly pseudocontractive mappings
  • Mann iteration
  • shrinking projection method
  • CQ-iteration
  • strong convergence