Skip to main content

Multiple-set split feasibility problems for κ-asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mappings in Hilbert spaces

Abstract

Some weak and strong convergence theorems for solving multiple-set split feasibility problems for κ-asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mappings in infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces are proved. The results presented in the paper extend and improve the corresponding results of Xu (Inverse Probl. 22(6):2021-2034, 2006), Osilike and Isiogugu (Nonlinear Anal. 74:1814-1822, 2011), Chang et al. (Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012:491760, 2012), and others.

MSC:47H05, 47H09, 49M05.

1 Introduction

Throughout this article, we always assume that H 1 , H 2 are real Hilbert spaces; ‘→’ and ‘’ denote strong and weak convergence, respectively.

The split feasibility problem (SFP) in finite dimensional spaces was first introduced by Censor and Elfving [1] for modeling inverse problems. The (SFP) can be used in various disciplines such as medical image reconstruction [2], image restoration, computer tomography, and radiation therapy treatment planning [35]. The multiple-set split feasibility problem (MSSFP) was studied in [47].

Let A: H 1 H 2 be a bounded linear operator, S i : H 1 H 1 and T i : H 2 H 2 , i=1,2,,N, be two finite families of mappings, C:= i = 1 N F( S i ) and Q:= i = 1 N F( T i ), where F( S i ) and F( T i ) are the sets of fixed points of S i and T i , respectively.

The so-called multiple set split feasibility problem is

to find  x C such that A x Q.
(1.1)

In the sequel, we use Γ to denote the set of solutions of the problem (MSSFP) (1.1), that is,

Γ={xC:AxQ}.
(1.2)

Let H be a real Hilbert space and K be a nonempty closed convex subset of H. Following Kohsaka and Takahashi [811], a mapping T:KK is said to be nonspreading if

2 T x T y 2 T x y 2 + T y x 2 for all x,yK.

It is to see that the above inequality is equivalent to

T x T y 2 x y 2 +2xTx,yTyfor all x,yK.

In 1967, Browder and Petryshyn [12] introduced the concept of κ-strictly pseudo-nonspreading mapping.

Definition 1.1 [12]

Let H be a real Hilbert space. A mapping T:D(T)HH is said to be κ-strictly pseudo-nonspreading if there exists κ[0,1) such that

T x T y 2 x y 2 +κ x T x ( y T y ) 2 +2xTx,yTy,x,yD(T).

Clearly, every nonspreading mapping is κ-strictly pseudo-nonspreading.

The class of asymptotically strict pseudo-contractions was introduced by Qihou [13] in 1996. Kim and Xu [14], Inchan and Nammanee [15], Zhou [16] Cho [17], and Ge [18] proved that the class of asymptotically strict pseudo-contractions is demiclosed at the origin and also obtained some weak convergence theorems for the class of mappings. In 2012, Osilike and Isiogugu [19] introduced a class of nonspreading type mappings which is more general than the class studied in [11] in Hilbert spaces and proved some weak and strong convergence theorems in real Hilbert spaces. Recently, Chang et al. [7] studied the multiple-set split feasibility problem for an asymptotically strict pseudo-contraction in the framework of infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces.

Definition 1.2 [7]

Let H be a real Hilbert space, we say that the mapping T:D(T)HH is a κ-asymptotically strict pseudo-contraction if there exists a constant κ[0,1) and a sequence { k n }[1,) with k n 1 (n) such that

T n x T n y 2 k n x y 2 +κ x T n x ( y T n y ) 2

holds for all x,yD(T).

In this article we introduce the following class of κ-asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mappings which is more general than that of κ-strictly pseudo-nonspreading mappings and κ-asymptotically strict pseudo-contractions.

Definition 1.3 Let H be a real Hilbert space. A mapping T:D(T)HH is said to be κ-asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading if there exists a constant κ[0,1) and a sequence { k n }[1,) with k n 1 (n) such that

T n x T n y 2 k n x y 2 + κ x T n x ( y T n y ) 2 + 2 x T n x , y T n y , x , y D ( T ) .
(1.3)

Example 1.4 Now, we give an example of κ-asymptotically strict pseudo-contractive mapping.

Let C be a unit ball in a real Hilbert l 2 , and let T:CC be a mapping defined by

T:( x 1 , x 2 ,)(0, x 1 2 , a 2 x 2 , a 3 x 3 ,),
(1.4)

where { a i } is a sequence in (0,1) such that i = 2 α i = 1 2 .

It is proved in Goebel and Kirk [20] that

  1. (i)

    TxTy2xy, x,yC;

  2. (ii)

    T n x T n y2 i = 2 n a j xy, n2 and x,yC.

Define k 1 1 2 =2, k n 1 2 =2 i = 2 n a j , n2, then

lim n k n = lim n ( 2 i = 2 n a j ) 2 =1.

Letting κ=0, then x,yC, n1, we have

T n x T n y 2 k n x y 2 + κ x y ( T n x T n y ) 2 ̲ .

This implies that T is a κ-asymptotically strict pseudo-contractive mapping.

Example 1.5 Now, we give an example of κ-asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mapping.

Let X= l 2 with the norm be defined by

x= i = 1 x i 2 ,x=( x 1 , x 2 ,, x n ,)X,

and let C={x=( x 1 , x 2 ,, x n ,)| x i R 1 ,i=1,2,} be an orthogonal subspace of X (i.e., x,yC, we have x,y=0). It is obvious that C is a nonempty closed convex subset of X. For each x=( x 1 , x 2 ,, x n ,)C, we define a mapping T:CC by

Tx={ ( x 1 , x 2 , , x n , ) if  i = 1 x i < 0 ; ( x 1 , x 2 , , x n , ) if  i = 1 x i 0 .
(1.5)

Next we prove that T is a κ-asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mapping.

In fact, for any x,yC, we have the following cases.

Case 1. If i = 1 x i <0 and i = 1 y i <0, then we have T n x=x, T n y=y, and so then inequality (1.3) holds.

Case 2. If i = 1 x i <0 and i = 1 y i 0, then we have that T n x=x, T n y= ( 1 ) n y. This implies that

{ T n x T n y 2 = x ( 1 ) n y 2 = x 2 + y 2 ; k n x y 2 = k n ( x 2 + y 2 ) ; x T n x ( y T n y ) 2 = [ 1 ( 1 ) n ] 2 y 2 ; 2 x T n x , y T n y = 0 .

Therefore inequality (1.3) holds.

Case 3. If i = 1 x i 0 and i = 1 y i 0, then we have T n x= ( 1 ) n x, T n y= ( 1 ) n y. Hence we have

{ T n x T n y 2 = ( 1 ) n x ( 1 ) n y 2 = x y 2 = x 2 + y 2 ; k n x y 2 = k n ( x 2 + y 2 ) ; x T n x ( y T n y ) 2 = [ 1 ( 1 ) n ] 2 x y 2 = [ 1 ( 1 ) n ] 2 ( x 2 + y 2 ) ; 2 x T n x , y T n y = 0 .

Thus inequality (1.3) still holds. Therefore the mapping defined by (1.5) is a κ-asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mapping.

The purpose of this article is under suitable conditions to prove some weak and strong convergence theorems for solving multiple-set split feasibility problem (1.1) for a κ-asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mapping in infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. The results presented in the paper extend and improve the corresponding results of Xu [6], Osilike and Isiogugu [19], Chang et al. [7], and many others.

2 Preliminaries

In the sequel, we first recall some definitions, notations, and conclusions which will be needed in proving our main results.

Let E be a real Banach space. A mapping T with domain D(T) and range R(T) in E is said to be demiclosed at origin if whenever { x n } is a sequence in D(T) converging weakly to a point x D(T) and (IT) x n converging strongly to 0, then T x = x .

A Banach space E is said to have the Opial property if, for any sequence { x n } with x n x , we have

lim inf n x n x < lim inf n x n y

for all yE with y x .

It is well known that each Hilbert space possesses the Opial property.

A mapping T:KK is said to be semicompact if for any bounded sequence { x n }K with lim n x n T x n =0, there exists a subsequence { x n i }{ x n } such that { x n i } converges strongly to some point x K.

A mapping T:KK is said to be uniformly L-Lipschitzian if there exists a constant L>0 such that

T n x T n y Lxy,x,yK.

Let K be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H. The metric projection P K :HK is a mapping such that for each xH, P K x is the unique point in K such that x P K xxy, yK. It is known that for each xH,

x P K x,y P K x0,yK.

Lemma 2.1 Let H be a real Hilbert space, then the following results hold:

  1. (i)

    For all x,yH and for all t[0,1],

    t x + ( 1 t ) y 2 =t x 2 +(1t) y 2 t(1t) x y 2 .
  2. (ii)

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

  3. (iii)

    If { x n } n = 1 is a sequence in H which converges weakly to zH, then

    lim sup n x n y 2 = lim sup n x n z 2 + z y 2 ,yH.

Lemma 2.2 Let K be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H, and let T:KK be a continuous κ-asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mapping. If F(T), then it is a closed and convex subset.

Proof Let { x n }F(T) be a sequence such that lim n x n = x K. Now we prove that x F(T). In fact, since T is κ-asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading, for each m1, we have

T m x x n 2 = T m x T m x n 2 k m x n x 2 + 2 x T m x , x n T m x n + κ x T m x ( x n T m x n ) 2 = k m x n x 2 + κ x T m x 2 .

Taking the limit as n in the above inequality, we have

T m x x 2 κ x T m x 2 .

Since κ(0,1), we have T m x x =0 for each m1. Hence T x = x . This shows that F(T) is closed.

Now we prove that F(T) is convex. In fact, let p 1 , p 2 F(T), and z=λ p 1 +(1λ) p 2 , we prove that zF(T). Since p 1 z=(1λ)( p 1 p 2 ) and p 2 z=λ( p 2 p 1 ), by using Lemma 2.1(i), we have

z T m z 2 = λ ( p 1 T m z ) + ( 1 λ ) ( p 2 T m z ) 2 = λ p 1 T m z 2 + ( 1 λ ) p 2 T m z 2 λ ( 1 λ ) p 1 p 2 2 λ ( k m p 1 z 2 + κ p 1 T m p 1 ( z T m z ) 2 + 2 p 1 T m p 1 , z T m z ) + ( 1 λ ) ( k m p 2 z 2 + κ p 2 T m p 2 ( z T m z ) 2 + 2 p 2 T m p 2 , z T m z ) λ ( 1 λ ) p 1 p 2 2 = λ ( k m p 1 z 2 + κ z T m z 2 ) + ( 1 λ ) ( k m p 2 z 2 + κ z T m z 2 ) λ ( 1 λ ) p 1 p 2 2 .

Taking lim sup m on both sides of the above inequality, we have

lim sup m z T m z 2 lim sup m κ z T m z 2 .

Since κ<1, we have

lim sup m T m z z 2 =0,

and so lim m T m z=z, i.e., Tz=z. This completes the proof. □

Lemma 2.3 Let K be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H, and let T:KK be a continuous κ-asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mapping. Then (IT) is demiclosed at 0, that is, if x n x and lim sup m lim sup n (I T m ) x n =0, then (IT) x =0.

Proof Since { x n } is weak convergence, { x n } is bounded. For each xH, define f:H[0,) by

f(x):= lim sup n x n x 2 ,xH.

From Lemma 2.1(iii), we have

f(x)= lim sup n x n x 2 + x x 2 ,xH.

Thus we have

f(x)=f ( x ) + x x 2 ,xH.

In particular, for each m1,

f ( T m x ) =f ( x ) + T m x x 2 .
(2.1)

On the other hand, we have

f ( T m x ) = lim sup n x n T m x 2 = lim sup n x n T m x n + T m x n T m x 2 = lim sup n ( x n T m x n 2 + 2 x n T m x n , T m x n T m x + T m x n T m x 2 ) .

Since lim sup m lim sup n (I T m ) x n =0 and T is a κ-asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mapping, taking lim sup m on both sides of the above equality, we get

lim sup m f ( T m x ) lim sup m T m x n T m x 2 lim sup m lim sup n ( k m x n x 2 + κ x n T m x n ( x T m x ) 2 + 2 x n T m x n , x T m x ) .

By virtue of lim sup m lim sup n (I T m ) x n =0 and k m 1 (m), we have

lim sup m f ( T m x ) f ( x ) + lim sup m κ x T m x 2 .
(2.2)

On the other hand, it follows from (2.1) that

lim sup m f ( T m x ) =f ( x ) + lim sup m T m x x 2 ,xH.
(2.3)

Since κ<1, it follows from (2.2) and (2.3) that lim sup m T m x x 2 =0. So lim m T m x = x and T x = x . This completes the proof. □

3 Main results

Theorem 3.1 Let H 1 , H 2 , A, { S i }, { T i }, C, Q be the same as in multiple set split feasibility problem (1.1). For each i=1,2,,N, let T i be a uniformly L i ˜ -Lipschitzian and κ i -asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mapping, S i be a uniformly L i -Lipschitzian and ϱ i -asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mapping. Let { x n } be the sequence generated by

{ x 1 H 1  chosen arbitrarily , u n = x n + γ A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n , x n + 1 = ( 1 α n ) u n + α n S n ( mod N ) n u n ,
(3.1)

where γ is a constant and γ(0, 1 κ λ ), λ is the spectral of the operator A A, κ=max{ κ 1 , κ 2 ,, κ N } and { α n } is a sequence in (0,1ϱ] with ϱ=max{ ϱ 1 , ϱ 2 ,, ϱ N }. If Γ, then the sequence { x n } converges weakly to a point x Γ.

Proof The proof is divided into five steps.

(I) We first prove the limit lim n x n p exists for any pΓ.

Since pΓ, we have pC:= i = 1 N F( S i ) and ApQ:= i = 1 N F( T i ). It follows from (3.1) that

x n + 1 p 2 = u n p + α n ( S n ( mod N ) n u n u n ) 2 = u n p 2 + 2 α n u n p , S n ( mod N ) n u n u n + α n 2 u n S n ( mod N ) n u n 2 .
(3.2)

Because S i is a ϱ i -asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mapping, for any v H 1 , we have

S n ( mod N ) n u n S n ( mod N ) n v 2 u n v 2 + ϱ u n S n ( mod N ) n u n ( v S n ( mod N ) n v ) 2 + 2 u n S n ( mod N ) n u n , v S n ( mod N ) n v .

Taking v=p, we have

S n ( mod N ) n u n p 2 u n p 2 +ϱ u n S n ( mod N ) n u n 2 .

Therefore we have

S n ( mod N ) n u n p 2 = S n ( mod N ) n u n u n + u n p 2 = S n ( mod N ) n u n u n 2 + 2 S n ( mod N ) n u n u n , u n p + u n p 2 u n p 2 + ϱ u n S n ( mod N ) n u n 2 .

Simplifying the above inequality, we have that

2 α n S n ( mod N ) n u n u n , u n p α n (ϱ1) u n S n ( mod N ) n u n 2 .
(3.3)

It follows from (3.2) and (3.3) that

x n + 1 p 2 u n p 2 + α n ( ϱ 1 ) u n S n ( mod N ) n u n 2 + α n 2 u n S n ( mod N ) n u n 2 = u n p 2 α n ( 1 ϱ α n ) u n S n ( mod N ) n u n 2 .
(3.4)

On the other hand,

u n p 2 = x n p + γ A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 2 = x n p 2 + 2 γ x n p , A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n + γ 2 A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 2 = x n p 2 + 2 γ x n p , A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n + γ 2 A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n , A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n = x n p 2 + 2 γ x n p , A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n + γ 2 A A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n , ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n x n p 2 + 2 γ x n p , A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n + γ 2 A 2 ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 2 .
(3.5)

Since T i is a κ i -asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mapping and noting Ap i 1 N F( T i ), we have

T n ( mod N ) n A x n A p 2 = T n ( mod N ) n A x n T n ( mod N ) n A p 2 A x n A p 2 + κ T n ( mod N ) n A x n A x n 2 .
(3.6)

Again since

T n ( mod N ) n A x n A p 2 = T n ( mod N ) n A x n A x n + A x n A p 2 = T n ( mod N ) n A x n A x n 2 + A x n A p 2 + 2 T n ( mod N ) n A x n A x n , A x n A p ,
(3.7)

hence from (3.6) and (3.7) we have that

2 T n ( mod N ) n A x n A x n , A x n A p (κ1) ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 2 .
(3.8)

By virtue of (3.8) we have

T n ( mod N ) n A x n A x n , T n ( mod N ) n A x n A p = T n ( mod N ) n A x n A x n , T n ( mod N ) n A x n A p + A x n A x n = ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 2 + T n ( mod N ) n A x n A x n , A x n A p ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 2 + κ 1 2 ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 2 = κ + 1 2 ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 2 .
(3.9)

It follows from (3.9) that

2 γ x n p , A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n = 2 γ A ( x n p ) , ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n = 2 γ A ( x n p ) + ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n , ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n = 2 γ T n ( mod N ) n A x n A p , ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 2 γ ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 2 [ γ ( 1 + κ ) 2 γ ] ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 2 = γ ( κ 1 ) ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 2 .
(3.10)

Substituting (3.10) into (3.5) and then substituting the resulting inequality into (3.4), we have

x n + 1 p 2 x n p 2 + γ 2 A 2 ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 2 + [ γ ( κ 1 ) ] ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 2 α n ( 1 κ α n ) u n S n ( mod N ) n u n 2 x n p 2 γ ( 1 κ γ A 2 ) ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 2 α n ( 1 κ α n ) u n S n ( mod N ) n u n 2 x n p 2 .
(3.11)

This shows that the limit lim n x n p exists.

(II) Now we prove that the limit lim n u n p exists.

By (3.11) we have

γ ( 1 κ γ A 2 ) ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 2 + α n ( 1 κ α n ) u n S n ( mod N ) n u n 2 x n p 2 x n + 1 p 2 .

This implies that

lim n ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n =0,
(3.12)

and

lim n u n S n ( mod N ) n u n =0.
(3.13)

It follows from (3.5), (3.12), and (3.13) that the limit lim n u n p exists and

lim n x n p= lim n u n p.

(III) Now, we prove that lim n x n + 1 x n =0, lim n u n + 1 u n =0.

In fact, it follows from (3.1) that

x n + 1 x n = ( 1 α n ) u n + α n S n ( mod N ) n u n x n = ( 1 α n ) ( x n + γ A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n ) + α n S n ( mod N ) n u n x n = ( 1 α n ) ( γ A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n ) + α n ( S n ( mod N ) n u n x n ) = ( 1 α n ) ( γ A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n ) + α n ( S n ( mod N ) n u n u n ) + α n ( u n x n ) = ( 1 α n ) ( γ A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n ) + α n ( S n ( mod N ) n u n u n ) + α n γ A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n = γ A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n + α n ( S n ( mod N ) n u n u n ) .
(3.14)

This together with (3.12) and (3.13) shows that

lim n x n + 1 x n =0.
(3.15)

Similarly, it follows from (3.1), (3.12), and (3.15) that

u n + 1 u n = x n + 1 + γ A ( T n + 1 ( mod N ) n + 1 I ) A x n + 1 [ x n + γ A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n ] x n + 1 x n + γ A ( T n + 1 ( mod N ) n + 1 I ) A x n + 1 + γ A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n 0 ( as  n ) .
(3.16)

(IV) We prove that, for each j=1,2,,N,

u i N + j S j u i N + j 0,A x i N + j T j A x i N + j 0(i).
(3.17)

In fact, it follows from (3.13) that

u i N + j S j i N + j u i N + j 0(i).
(3.18)

Since S j is uniformly L j -Lipschitzian continuous, it follows from (3.16) and (3.18) that

u i N + j S j u i N + j u i N + j S j i N + j u i N + j + S j i N + j u i N + j S j u i N + j u i N + j S j i N + j u i N + j + L j S j i N + j 1 u i N + j u i N + j u i N + j S j i N + j u i N + j + L j [ S j i N + j 1 u i N + j S j i N + j 1 u i N + j 1 + S j i N + j 1 u i N + j 1 u i N + j ] u i N + j S j i N + j u i N + j + L j 2 u i N + j u i N + j 1 + L j [ S j i N + j 1 u i N + j 1 u i N + j 1 + u i N + j 1 u i N + j ] 0 ( as  n ) .

Similarly, we can prove that for each i=1,2,,N,

A x i N + j T j i N + j A x i N + j 0(i).
(3.19)

Since T j is uniformly L j ˜ -Lipschitzian continuous, in the same way as above, we can also prove that

A x i N + j T j A x i N + j 0(as i).

(V) Finally, we prove that x n x , u n x , and it is a solution of problem (MSSFP) (1.1).

In fact, since { u n } is bounded, there exists a subsequence { u n i }{ u n } such that u n i x H 1 . Hence, for any positive integer j=1,2,,N, there exists a subsequence n i (j) n i with n i (j)modN=j such that u n i ( j ) x . Again from (3.17) we have that

u n i ( j ) S j u n i ( j ) 0, n i ( j ) .
(3.20)

Since S j is demiclosed at zero, it follows that x F( S j ). By the arbitrariness of j=1,2,,N, we have

x C:= i = 1 N F( S i ).

Moreover, from (3.1) and (3.13) we have x n i = u n i γ A ( T n i ( mod N ) n i I)A x n i x . Since A is a linear bounded operator, it follows that A x n i A x . For any positive integer k=1,2,,N, there exists a subsequence x n i ( k ) x n i with n i (k)(modN)=k such that A x n i ( k ) A x and A x n i ( k ) T k A x n i ( k ) 0. Since T k is demiclosed at zero, we have A x F( T k ). By the arbitrariness of k, it follows that A x Q:= k = 1 N F( T k ). This together with x C shows that x Γ, that is, x is a solution to the problem (MSSFP) (1.1).

Next we prove that x n x and u n x .

In fact, assume that there exists another subsequence u n l u n such that u n l y Γ with y x . Consequently, by virtue of the existence of lim n x n p and the Opial property of a Hilbert space, we have

lim inf n i u n i x < lim inf n i u n i y = lim inf n u n y lim inf n j u n j y < lim inf n j u n j x = lim inf n u n x = lim inf n i u n i x .

This is a contradiction. Therefore, u n x . By (3.1) and (3.13), we have

x n = u n γ A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n x .

This completes the proof of Theorem 3.1. □

Theorem 3.2 Let H 1 , H 2 , A, { S i }, { T i }, C, Q be the same as in Theorem 3.1. For each i=1,2,,N, let T i be a uniformly L i ˜ -Lipschitzian and κ i -asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mapping, S i be a uniformly L i -Lipschitzian and ϱ i -asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mapping. Let { x n } be the sequence generated by

{ x 1 H 1  chosen arbitrarily , u n = x n + γ A ( T n ( mod N ) n I ) A x n , x n + 1 = ( 1 α n ) u n + α n S n ( mod N ) n u n ,

where γ is a constant and γ(0, 1 κ λ ), λ is the spectral of the operator A A, κ=max{ κ 1 , κ 2 ,, κ N } and { α n } is a sequence in (0,1ϱ] with ϱ=max{ ϱ 1 , ϱ 2 ,, ϱ N }. If Γ and if there exists a positive integer j such that S j is semicompact, then the sequence { x n } converges strongly to a point x Γ.

Proof Without loss of generality, we can assume that S 1 is semicompact. It follows from (3.17) that

u n i ( 1 ) S 1 u n i ( 1 ) 0, n i ( 1 ) .

Therefore, there exists a subsequence of { u n i ( 1 ) }, which (for the sake of convenience) we still denote by { u n i ( 1 ) }, such that u n i ( 1 ) u H 1 . Since u n i ( 1 ) x , x = u , and so u n i ( 1 ) x Γ. By virtue of lim n x n p exists, we know that

lim n u n x =0, lim n x n x =0,

that is, { u n } and { x n } both converge strongly to the point x Γ. This completes the proof of Theorem 3.2. □

4 Applications

In this section we shall utilize the results presented in Section 3 to study the hierarchical variational inequality problem.

Let H be a real Hilbert space, S i , i=1,2,,N, be uniformly L i -Lipschitzian and ϱ i -asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mappings with F:= i = 1 F( S i ). Let T:HH be a nonspreading mapping. The so-called hierarchical variational inequality problem for a finite family of mappings { S i } with respect to the mapping T is to find an x F such that

x T x , x x 0,xF.
(4.1)

It is easy to see that (4.1) is equivalent to the following fixed point problem:

find  x F such that  x = P F T x ,
(4.2)

where P F is the metric projection from H onto . Letting C=F and Q=F( P F T) (the fixed point set of P F T) and A=I (the identity mapping on H), problem (4.2) is equivalent to the following multi-set split feasibility problem:

find  x C such that  x Q.
(4.3)

Hence from Theorem 3.1 we have the following theorem.

Theorem 4.1 Let H, { S i }, T, C, Q be the same as above. Let { x n }, { u n } be the sequences defined by

{ x 1 H 1  chosen arbitrarily , u n = x n + γ ( T I ) x n , n 1 , x n + 1 = ( 1 α n ) u n + α n S n ( mod N ) n u n ,
(4.4)

where γ is a constant and γ(0,1), and { α n } is a sequence in (0,1ϱ] with ϱ=max{ ϱ 1 , ϱ 2 ,, ϱ N }. If Γ, then { x n } converges weakly to a solution of hierarchical variational inequality problem (4.1).

Proof In fact, by the assumption that T is a nonspreading mapping, T is κ-strictly pseudo-nonspreading with κ=0. Taking N=1 and A=I in Theorem 3.1, by the same method as that given in Theorem 3.1, we can prove that { x n } converges weakly to a point x Γ, which is a solution of hierarchical variational inequality problem (4.1) immediately. □

References

  1. Censor Y, Elfving T: A multiprojection algorithm using Bregman projections in a product space. Numer. Algorithms 1994,8(2–4):221–239.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Byrne C: Iterative oblique projection onto convex sets and the split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 2002,18(2):441–453. 10.1088/0266-5611/18/2/310

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Censor Y, Bortfeld T, Martin B, Trofimov A: A unified approach for inversion problems in intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 2006,51(10):2353–2365. 10.1088/0031-9155/51/10/001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Censor Y, Elfving T, Kopf N, Bortfeld T: The multiple-sets split feasibility problem and its applications for inverse problem and its applications. Inverse Probl. 2005,21(6):2071–2084. 10.1088/0266-5611/21/6/017

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Censor Y, Motova A, Segal A: Perturbed projections and subgradient projections for the multiple-sets split feasibility problem. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007,327(2):1244–1256. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.05.010

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Xu HK: A variable Krasnosel’skii-Mann algorithm and the multiple-set split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 2006,22(6):2021–2034. 10.1088/0266-5611/22/6/007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chang S-S, Cho YJ, Kim JK, Zhang WB, Yang L: Multiple-set split feasibility problems for asymptotically strict pseudocontractions. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 491760 10.1155/2012/491760

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kohsaka F, Takahashi W: Fixed point theorems for a class of nonlinear mappings relate to maximal monotone operators in Banach spaces. Arch. Math. 2008, 91: 166–177. 10.1007/s00013-008-2545-8

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kohsaka F, Takahashi W: Existence and approximation of fixed points of firmly nonexpansive-type mappings in Banach spaces. SIAM J. Optim. 2008, 19: 824–835. 10.1137/070688717

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Iemoto S, Takahashi W: Approximating common fixed points of nonexpansive mappings and nonspreading mappings in a Hilbert space. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 2080–2089.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kurokawa Y, Takahashi W: Weak and strong convergence theorems for nonspreading mappings in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 73: 1562–1568. 10.1016/j.na.2010.04.060

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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)90085-6

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Liu QH: Convergence theorems of the sequence of iterates for asymptotically demicontractive and hemicontractive mappings. Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl. 1996,26(11):1835–1842. 10.1016/0362-546X(94)00351-H

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Inchan I, Nammanee K: Strong convergence theorems by hybrid method for asymptotically image-strict pseudocontractive mapping in Hilbert space. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 3: 380–385.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhou H: Demiclosedness principle with applications for asymptotically pseudo-contractions in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70: 3140–3145. 10.1016/j.na.2008.04.017

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cho SY: Iterative processes for common fixed points of two different families of mappings with applications. J. Glob. Optim. 2013, 57: 1429–1446. 10.1007/s10898-012-0017-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ge C: A hybrid algorithm with variable coefficients for asymptotically pseudocontractive mappings in the intermediate sense on unbounded domains. Nonlinear Anal. 2012, 75: 2859–2866. 10.1016/j.na.2011.11.026

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Osilike MO, Isiogugu FO: Weak and strong convergence theorems for nonspreading-type mappings in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 1814–1822. 10.1016/j.na.2010.10.054

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Goebel K, Kirk WA: A fixed point theorem for asymptotically nonexpansive mappings. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1972, 35: 171–174. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1972-0298500-3

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their thanks to the referees and the editors for their helpful comments and advices. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Yibin University (No. 2011B07) and by the Scientific Research Fund Project of Sichuan Provincial Education Department (No. 12ZB345) and the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (Grant No. 11361170).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shih-sen Chang.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Quan, J., Chang, Ss. Multiple-set split feasibility problems for κ-asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mappings in Hilbert spaces. J Inequal Appl 2014, 69 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-69

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-69

Keywords

  • weak and strong convergence
  • multiple-set split feasibility
  • κ-asymptotically strictly pseudo-nonspreading mapping