 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Solving the multipleset split equality common fixedpoint problem of firmly quasinonexpansive operators
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volumeÂ 2018, ArticleÂ number:Â 83 (2018)
Abstract
In this paper, we propose parallel and cyclic iterative algorithms for solving the multipleset split equality common fixedpoint problem of firmly quasinonexpansive operators. We also combine the process of cyclic and parallel iterative methods and propose two mixed iterative algorithms. Our several algorithms do not need any prior information about the operator norms. Under mild assumptions, we prove weak convergence of the proposed iterative sequences in Hilbert spaces. As applications, we obtain several iterative algorithms to solve the multipleset split equality problem.
1 Introduction
Let \(H_{1}\), \(H_{2}\), and \(H_{3}\) be real Hilbert spaces. The multipleset split equality common fixedpoint problem (MSECFP) is to find \(x^{*}, y^{*}\) with the property
where \(p,r\geq1\) are integers, \(\{U_{i}\}_{i=1}^{p}:H_{1}\rightarrow H_{1} \) and \(\{T_{j}\}^{r}_{j=1}:H_{2}\rightarrow H_{2} \) are nonlinear operators, \(A: H_{1}\rightarrow H_{2}\) and \(B: H_{2}\rightarrow H_{3}\) are two bounded linear operators. If \(U_{i}\) \((1\leq i\leq p)\) and \(T_{j}\) \((1\leq j\leq r)\) are projection operators, then the MSECFP is reduced to the multipleset split equality problem (MSEP):
where \(\{C_{i}\}_{i=1}^{p}\) and \(\{Q_{j}\}_{j=1}^{r}\) are nonempty closed convex subsets of real Hilbert spaces \(H_{1}\) and \(H_{2}\), respectively. When \(p=r=1\), the MSECFP and MSEP become the split equality common fixedpoint problem (SECFP) and split equality problem (SEP), respectively, which were first put forward by Moudafi [1]. These allow asymmetric and partial relations between the variables x and y. They are applied in many situations, for instance, in game theory and in intensitymodulated radiation therapy (see [2] and [3]).
If \(H_{2}=H_{3}\) and \(B=I\), then MSECFP (1.1) reduces to the multipleset split common fixedpoint problem (MSCFP):
and MSEP (1.2) reduces to the multipleset split feasibility problem (MSFP):
They play significant roles in dealing with problems in image restoration, signal processing, and intensitymodulated radiation therapy [3â€“6]. With \(p=r=1\), MSCFP (1.3) is known as the split common fixedpoint problem (SCFP) and MSFP (1.4) is known as the split feasibility problem (SFP). Many iterative algorithms have been developed to solve the MSCFP and the MSFP. See, for example, [7â€“14] and the references therein.
Note that the SFP can be formulated as a fixedpoint equation
where \(P_{C}\) and \(P_{Q}\) are the (orthogonal) projections onto C and Q, respectively, \(\gamma>0\) is any positive constant, and \(A^{\ast}\) denotes the adjoint of A. This implies that we can use fixedpoint algorithms (see [15â€“21]) to solve SFP. Byrne [22] proposed the socalled CQ algorithm which generates a sequence \(\{x_{k}\}\):
where \(\gamma \in (0,2/ \lambda)\) with Î» being the spectral radius of the operator \(A^{\ast}A\). The CQ algorithm is efficient when \(P_{C}\) and \(P_{Q}\) are easily calculated. However, if C and Q are complex sets, for example, the fixedpoint sets, the efficiency of the CQ algorithm will be affected because the projections onto such convex sets are generally hard to be accurately calculated. To solve the SCFP of nonexpansive operators, Censor and Segal [23] proposed and proved, in finitedimensional spaces, the convergence of the following algorithm:
where \(\gamma\in(0, \frac{2}{\lambda})\) with Î» being the largest eigenvalue of the matrix \(A^{\ast}A\).
For solving the constrained MSFP, Censor et al. [6] introduced the following proximity function:
where \(\alpha_{i}>0\) \((1\leq i\leq p)\), \(\beta_{j}>0\) \((1\leq j\leq r)\), and \(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}+\sum_{j=1}^{r} \beta_{j}=1\). Then
and they proposed the following projection method:
where Î© is the constrained set, \(0<\gamma_{L}\leq \gamma\leq \gamma_{U}<\frac{2}{L}\), and L is the Lipschitz constant of âˆ‡g.
For solving MSCFP (1.3) of directed operators, Censor and Segal [23] introduced a parallel iterative algorithm as follows:
where \(\{\alpha_{i}\}_{i=1}^{p}\), \(\{\beta_{j}\}_{j=1}^{r}\) are nonnegative constants, \(0<\gamma<2/L\) with \(L = \sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}+\lambda\sum_{j=1}^{r}\beta_{j}\) and Î» being the largest eigenvalue of \(A^{\ast}A\). They obtained the convergence of iterative algorithm (1.6).
Wang and Xu [24] proposed the following cyclic iterative algorithm for MSCFP (1.3) of directed operators:
where \(0<\gamma< 2/\rho(A^{\ast}A)\), \([n]_{1} := n (\operatorname {mod}p)\), and \([n]_{2} := n (\operatorname {mod}r)\). They proved the weak convergence of the sequence \(\{x_{n}\}\) generated by (1.7).
For solving MSCFP (1.3), Tang and Liu [25] introduced inner parallel and outer cyclic iterative algorithm:
and outer parallel and inner cyclic iterative algorithm:
for directed operators \(\{U_{i}\}_{i=1}^{p}\) and \(\{T_{j}\}_{j=1}^{r}\), where \([n]_{1}=n(\operatorname {mod}p)\), \([n]_{2}=n(\operatorname {mod}r)\), \(0< a\leq \gamma_{n}\leq b< 2/\rho(A^{\ast}A)\), \(\{\eta_{j}\}_{j=1}^{r}\), \(\{\omega_{i}\}_{i=1}^{p}\subset(0,1)\) with \(\sum_{j=1}^{r}\eta_{j}=1\) and \(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\omega_{i}=1\). They obtained the weak convergence of the above two mixed iterative sequences to solve MSCFP (1.3) of directed operators.
The SEP proposed by Moudafi [1] is to
which can be written as the following minimization problem:
Assume that the solution set of the SEP is nonempty. By the optimality conditions, Moudafi [1] obtained the following fixedpoint formulation: \((x^{\ast},y^{\ast})\) solves the SEP if and only if
where Î³, \(\beta>0\). Therefore, for solving the SECP of firmly quasinonexpansive operators, Moudafi [1] introduced the following alternating algorithm:
where a nondecreasing sequence \(\gamma_{n}\in (\varepsilon,\min(\frac{1}{\lambda_{A}},\frac{1}{\lambda_{B}})\varepsilon)\), \(\lambda_{A}\), \(\lambda_{B}\) stand for the spectral radius of \(A^{\ast}A\) and \(B^{\ast}B\), respectively. In [26], Moudafi and AlShemas introduced the following simultaneous iterative method:
where \(\gamma_{n}\in(\varepsilon,\frac{2}{\lambda_{A}+\lambda_{B}}\varepsilon)\), \(\lambda_{A}\), \(\lambda_{B}\) stand for the spectral radius of \(A^{\ast}A\) and \(B^{\ast}B\), respectively. Recently, many iterative algorithms have been developed to solve the SEP, SECFP, and MSEP. See, for example, [27â€“34] and the references therein. Note that in algorithms (1.17) and (1.18), the determination of the step size \(\{\gamma_{n}\}\) depends on the operator (matrix) norms \(\Vert A \Vert \) and \(\Vert B \Vert \) (or the largest eigenvalues of \(A^{\ast}A\) and \(B^{\ast}B\)). To overcome this shortage, we introduce parallel and cyclic iterative algorithms with selfadaptive step size to solve MSECFP (1.1) governed by firmly quasinonexpansive operators. We also propose two mixed iterative algorithms which combine the process of cyclic and parallel iterative methods and do not need the norms of bounded linear operators. As applications, we obtain several iterative algorithms to solve MSEP (1.2).
2 Preliminaries
2.1 Concepts
Throughout this paper, we always assume that H is a real Hilbert space with the inner product \(\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle\) and the norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert \). Let I denote the identity operator on H. Denote the fixedpoint set of an operator T by \(F(T)\). We denote by â†’ the strong convergence and by â‡€ the weak convergence. We use \(\omega_{w}(x_{k})=\{x:\exists x_{k_{j}} \rightharpoonup x\}\) to stand for the weak Ï‰limit set of \(\{x_{k}\}\) and use Î“ to stand for the solution set of MSECFP (1.1).
Definition 2.1
An operator \(T:H\rightarrow H\) is said to be

(i)
nonexpansive if \(\Vert TxTy \Vert \leq \Vert xy \Vert \) for all \(x,y\in H\);

(ii)
firmly nonexpansive if \(\Vert TxTy \Vert ^{2}\leq \Vert xy \Vert ^{2} \Vert (xy)(TxTy) \Vert ^{2}\) for all \(x,y\in H\);

(iii)
firmly quasinonexpansive (i.e., directed operator) if \(F(T)\neq\emptyset\) and
$$\Vert Txq \Vert ^{2}\leq \Vert xq \Vert ^{2} \Vert xTx \Vert ^{2} $$or equivalently
$$\langle xq,xTx\rangle\geq \Vert xTx \Vert ^{2} $$for all \(x\in H\) and \(q\in F(T)\).
Definition 2.2
An operator \(T:H\rightarrow H\) is called demiclosed at the origin if, for any sequence \(\{x_{n}\}\) which weakly converges to x, and if the sequence \(\{Tx_{n}\}\) strongly converges to 0, then \(Tx=0\).
Recall that the metric (nearest point) projection from H onto a nonempty closed convex subset C of H, denoted by \(P_{C}\), is defined as follows: for each \(x\in H\),
It is well known that \(P_{C}x\) is characterized by the inequality
Remark 2.1
It is easily seen that a firmly nonexpansive operator is nonexpansive. Firmly quasinonexpansive operators contain firmly nonexpansive operators with a nonempty fixedpoint set. A projection operator is firmly nonexpansive.
2.2 Mathematical model
Recall that the SCFP is to find \(x^{\ast}\) with the property
and the SFP is to find \(x^{\ast}\) with the property:
where \(A:\ H_{1}\rightarrow H_{2}\) is a bounded linear operator, \(U:H_{1}\rightarrow H_{1} \) and \(T:H_{2}\rightarrow H_{2} \) are nonlinear operators, C and Q are closed convex sets of Hilbert spaces \(H_{1}\) and \(H_{2}\), respectively.
We can formulate SFP (2.2) as an optimization. First, we consider the following proximity function:
Then the proximity function \(g(x)\) is convex and differentiable with gradient
where \(A^{\ast}\) denotes the adjoint of A. Assume that the solution set of the SFP is nonempty, then \(x^{\ast}\) is a solution of the SFP if and only if \(x^{\ast}=\operatorname{arg}\min_{x\in H_{1}} g(x)\), i.e.,
which is equivalent to
for all \(\tau>0\). For solving the SCFP of directed operators (i.e., firmly quasinonexpansive operators), Wang [35] proposed the following algorithm:
where the variable size step \(\tau_{n}\) was chosen:
This algorithm can be obtained by the fixedpoint Eq. (2.3), where projection operators \(P_{C}\) and \(P_{Q}\) are replaced by U and T.
Setting
MSEP (1.2) can be written as the following minimization problem:
where \(\alpha_{i}>0\) \((1\leq i\leq p)\), \(\beta_{j}>0\) \((1\leq j\leq r)\), \(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{i}=1\), and \(\sum_{j=1}^{r} \beta_{j}=1\). Assume that the solution set of the MSEP is nonempty, by the optimality conditions \((x^{\ast},y^{\ast})\) solves the MSEP if and only if
which is equivalent to
for Î³, \(\beta>0\). These motivate us to introduce several iterative algorithms with selfadaptive step size for solving MSECFP (1.1) governed by firmly quasinonexpansive mappings and MSEP (1.2).
2.3 The wellknown lemmas
The following lemmas will be helpful for our main results in the next section.
Lemma 2.1
Let H be a real Hilbert space. Then
Lemma 2.2
([36])
Let H be a real Hilbert space. Then, for all \(t\in [0,1]\) and \(x,y\in H\),
Lemma 2.3
([37])
Let H be a real Hilbert space. Then
for any \(s,t\in \{0,1,2,\ldots,r\}\) and for \(x_{i}\in H, i=0,1,2,\ldots,r\), with \(\alpha_{0}+\alpha_{1}+\cdots+\alpha_{r}=1\) and \(0\leq\alpha_{i}\leq1\).
Lemma 2.4
([38])
Let E be a uniformly convex Banach space, K be a nonempty closed convex subset of E, and \(T:K\rightarrow K\) be a nonexpansive mapping. Then \(IT\) is demiclosed at origin.
3 Parallel and cyclic iterative algorithms
In this section, we introduce parallel and cyclic iterative algorithms and prove the weak convergence for solving MSECFP (1.1) of firmly quasinonexpansive operators. In our algorithms, the selection of the step size does not need any prior information of the operator norms \(\Vert A \Vert \) and \(\Vert B \Vert \).
In what follows, we adopt the following assumptions:

(A1)
The problem is consistent, namely its solution set Î“ is nonempty;

(A2)
Both \(U_{i}\) and \(T_{j}\) are firmly quasinonexpansive operators, and both \(IU_{i}\) and \(IT_{j}\) are demiclosed at origin (\(1\leq i\leq p\), \(1\leq j\leq r\)).

(A3)
The sequences \(\{\alpha_{n}^{i}\}_{i=1}^{p}\), \(\{\beta_{n}^{j}\}_{j=1}^{r}\subset[0,1]\) such that \(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{n}^{i}=1\) and \(\sum_{j=1}^{r}\beta_{n}^{j}=1\) for every \(n\geq0\), \(j(n)=n(\operatorname {mod}r)+1\), \(i(n)=n(\operatorname {mod}p)+1\).
Algorithm 3.1
Let \(x_{0}\in H_{1}, y_{0}\in H_{2}\) be arbitrary. For \(n\geq 0\), let
where the step size \(\tau_{n}\) is chosen as
for small enough \(\epsilon>0\), otherwise, \(\tau_{n}=\tau\in (0,1)\) (Ï„ being any value in \((0,1)\)), the set of indexes \(\Omega=\{n\in N:Ax_{n}By_{n}\neq0\}\).
Remark 3.1
Note that in (3.2) the choice of the step size \(\tau_{n}\) is independent of the norms \(\Vert A \Vert \) and \(\Vert B \Vert \). The value of Ï„ does not influence the considered algorithm, it was introduced just for the sake of clarity.
Lemma 3.1
\(\tau_{n}\) defined by (3.2) is well defined.
Proof
Taking \((x,y)\in \Gamma\), i.e., \(x\in \cap_{i=1}^{p}F(U_{i})\), \(y\in \cap_{j=1}^{r}F(T_{j})\), and \(Ax=By\), we have
and
By adding the two above equalities and by taking into account the fact that \(Ax = By\), we obtain
Consequently, for \(n\in \Omega\), that is, \(\Vert Ax_{n}By_{n} \Vert >0\), we have \(\Vert A^{\ast}(Ax_{n}By_{n}) \Vert \neq 0\) or \(\Vert B^{\ast}(Ax_{n}By_{n}) \Vert \neq 0\). This leads to the fact that \(\tau_{n}\) is well defined.â€ƒâ–¡
Theorem 3.1
Assume that \(\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\alpha_{n}^{i}>0 (1\leq i \leq p)\) and \(\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\beta_{n}^{j}>0 (1\leq j \leq r)\). Then the sequence \(\{(x_{n}, y_{n})\}\) generated by Algorithm 3.1 weakly converges to a solution \((x^{\ast},y^{\ast})\) of MSECFP (1.1). Moreover, \(\Vert Ax_{n}By_{n} \Vert \rightarrow 0\), \(\Vert x_{n+1}x_{n} \Vert \rightarrow0\), and \(\Vert y_{n+1}y_{n} \Vert \rightarrow0\) as \(n\rightarrow\infty\).
Proof
From the condition on \(\{\tau_{n}\}\), we have \(\{\tau_{n}\}_{n\geq0}\) is bounded. It follows from Algorithm 3.1 and \(\sum_{i=1}^{p}\alpha_{n}^{i}=1\) that
Taking \((x^{\ast},y^{\ast})\in \Gamma\), i.e., \(x^{\ast}\in \bigcap_{i=1}^{p}F(U_{i})\), \(y^{\ast}\in \bigcap_{j=1}^{r}F(T_{j})\), and \(Ax^{\ast}=By^{\ast}\), we have
Similarly, we have
By adding the two inequalities (3.5)â€“(3.6) and taking into account the fact that \(Ax^{\ast}= By^{\ast}\), we obtain
From Algorithm 3.1 we also have
By Lemma 2.3 we get
and
Setting \(s_{n}(x^{\ast},y^{\ast})= \Vert x_{n}x^{\ast} \Vert ^{2}+ \Vert y_{n}y^{\ast} \Vert ^{2}\) and using (3.7), (3.9)â€“(3.10), (3.8) can be written as
We see that the sequence \(\{s_{n}(x^{\ast},y^{\ast})\}\) is decreasing and lower bounded by 0; consequently, it converges to some finite limit which is denoted by \(s(x^{\ast},y^{\ast})\). So the sequences \(\{x_{n}\}\) and \(\{y_{n}\}\) are bounded.
By the conditions on \(\{\tau_{n}\}\), \(\{\alpha_{n}^{i}\}\) (\(1\leq i\leq p\)) and \(\{\beta_{n}^{j}\}\) (\(1\leq j\leq r\)), from (3.11) we obtain, for all i (\(1\leq i\leq p\)) and j (\(1\leq j\leq r\)),
and
It follows from (3.3) and (3.13) that
Since
we get
which infers that \(\{x_{n}\}\) is asymptotically regular. Similarly, we also have that \(\{y_{n}\}\) is asymptotically regular, namely \(\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \Vert y_{n+1}y_{n} \Vert =0\).
Take \((\tilde{x},\tilde{y})\in \omega_{\omega}(x_{n},y_{n})\), i.e., there exists a subsequence \(\{(x_{n_{k}},y_{n_{k}})\}\) of \(\{(x_{n},y_{n})\}\) such that \((x_{n_{k}},y_{n_{k}})\rightharpoonup(\tilde{x},\tilde{y})\) as \(k\rightarrow\infty\). Combined with the demiclosedness of \(U_{i}I\) and \(T_{j}I\) at 0, it follows from (3.12) that \(U_{i}(\tilde{x})=\tilde{x}\) and \(T_{j}(\tilde{y})=\tilde{y}\) for \(1\leq i\leq p\) and \(1\leq j\leq r\). So, \(\tilde{x}\in \bigcap_{i=1}^{p}F(U_{i})\) and \(\tilde{y}\in \bigcap_{j=1}^{r}F(T_{j})\). On the other hand, \(A\tilde{x}B\tilde{y}\in\omega_{w}(Ax_{n}By_{n})\) and weakly lower semicontinuity of the norm imply that
hence \((\tilde{x},\tilde{y})\in \Gamma\). So \(\omega_{w}(x_{n},y_{n})\subseteq \Gamma\).
Next, we will show the uniqueness of the weak cluster point \(\{(x_{n},y_{n})\}\). Indeed, let \((\bar{x},\bar{y})\) be another weak cluster point of \(\{(x_{n},y_{n})\}\), then \((\bar{x},\bar{y})\in \Gamma\). From the definition of \(s_{n}(x^{\ast},y^{\ast})\), we have
Without loss of generality, we may assume that \(x_{n}\rightharpoonup \bar{x}\) and \(y_{n}\rightharpoonup \bar{y}\). By passing to the limit in relation (3.17), we obtain
Reversing the role of \((\tilde{x},\tilde{y})\) and \((\bar{x},\bar{y})\), we also have
By adding the two last equalities, we obtain \(\tilde{x}=\bar{x}\) and \(\tilde{y}=\bar{y}\), which implies that \(\{(x_{n}, y_{n})\}\) weakly converges to the solution of (1.1). This completes the proof.â€ƒâ–¡
Next, we propose the cyclic iterative algorithm for solving MSECFP (1.1) of firmly quasinonexpansive operators.
Algorithm 3.2
Let \(x_{0}\in H_{1}, y_{0}\in H_{2}\) be arbitrary. For \(n\geq 0\), let
where the step size \(\tau_{n}\) is chosen as in Algorithm 3.1.
Theorem 3.2
The sequence \(\{(x_{n}, y_{n})\}\) generated by Algorithm 3.2 weakly converges to a solution \((x^{\ast},y^{\ast})\) of MSECFP (1.1). Moreover, \(\Vert Ax_{n}By_{n} \Vert \rightarrow 0\), \(\Vert x_{n}x_{n+1} \Vert \rightarrow0\), and \(\Vert y_{n}y_{n+1} \Vert \rightarrow0\) as \(n\rightarrow\infty\).
Proof
Let \((x^{\ast},y^{\ast})\in\Gamma\), we have
and
By adding the two inequalities (3.19)â€“(3.20) and taking into account the fact that \(Ax^{\ast}= By^{\ast}\), we obtain
Similar to (3.8), we have
We also have
and
Setting \(s_{n}(x^{\ast},y^{\ast})= \Vert x_{n}x^{\ast} \Vert ^{2}+ \Vert y_{n}y^{\ast} \Vert ^{2}\) and using (3.21), (3.23)â€“(3.24), (3.22) can be written as
Similar to the proof of Theorem 3.1, we have
and
Since
we get
which infers that \(\{x_{n}\}\) is asymptotically regular. Similarly, we also have that \(\{y_{n}\}\) is asymptotically regular, namely \(\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \Vert y_{n+1}y_{n} \Vert =0\).
Take \((\tilde{x},\tilde{y})\in \omega_{\omega}(x_{n},y_{n})\), i.e., there exists a subsequence \(\{(x_{n_{k}},y_{n_{k}})\}\) of \(\{(x_{n},y_{n})\}\) such that \((x_{n_{k}},y_{n_{k}})\rightharpoonup(\tilde{x},\tilde{y})\) as \(k\rightarrow\infty\). Noting that the pool of indexes is finite and \(\{x_{n}\}\) is asymptotically regular, for any \(i\in \{1,2,\ldots,p\}\), we can choose a subsequence \(\{n_{i_{l}}\}\subset\{n\}\) such that \(x_{n_{i_{l}}}\rightharpoonup \tilde{x}\) as \(l\rightarrow\infty\) and \(i(n_{i_{l}})=i\) for all l. It turns out that
By the same reason, for any \(j\in \{1,2,\ldots,r\}\), we can choose a subsequence \(\{n_{j_{m}}\}\subset\{n\}\) such that \(y_{n_{j_{m}}}\rightharpoonup \tilde{y}\) as \(m\rightarrow\infty\) and \(j(n_{j_{m}})=j\) for all m. So,
Combined with the demiclosedness of \(U_{i}I\) and \(T_{j}I\) at 0, it follows from (3.30) and (3.31) that \(U_{i}(\tilde{x})=\tilde{x}\) and \(T_{j}(\tilde{y})=\tilde{y}\) for \(1\leq i\leq p\) and \(1\leq j\leq r\). So, \(\tilde{x}\in \bigcap_{i=1}^{p}F(U_{i})\) and \(\tilde{y}\in \bigcap_{j=1}^{r}F(T_{j})\). Similar to the proof of Theorem 3.1, we can complete the proof.â€ƒâ–¡
Now, we give applications of Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 3.2 to solve MSEP (1.2). Assume that the solution set S of MSEP (1.2) is nonempty. Since the orthogonal projection operator is firmly nonexpansive, by Lemma 2.4 we have the following results for solving MSEP (1.2).
Corollary 3.1
For any given \(x_{0}\in H_{1}, y_{0}\in H_{2}\), define a sequence \(\{(x_{n},y_{n})\}\) by the following procedure:
where the step size \(\tau_{n}\) is chosen as in Algorithm 3.1. If \(\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\alpha_{n}^{i}>0\) (\(1\leq i \leq p\)) and \(\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\beta_{n}^{j}>0\) (\(1\leq j \leq r\)), then the sequence \(\{(x_{n}, y_{n})\}\) weakly converges to a solution \((x^{\ast},y^{\ast})\) of MSEP (1.2). Moreover, \(\Vert Ax_{n}By_{n} \Vert \rightarrow 0\), \(\Vert x_{n+1}x_{n} \Vert \rightarrow0\), and \(\Vert y_{n+1}y_{n} \Vert \rightarrow0\) as \(n\rightarrow\infty\).
Corollary 3.2
For any given \(x_{0}\in H_{1}, y_{0}\in H_{2}\), define a sequence \(\{(x_{n},y_{n})\}\) by the following procedure:
where the step size \(\tau_{n}\) is chosen as in Algorithm 3.1. Then the sequence \(\{(x_{n}, y_{n})\}\) weakly converges to a solution \((x^{\ast},y^{\ast})\) of MSEP (1.2). Moreover, \(\Vert Ax_{n}By_{n} \Vert \rightarrow 0\), \(\Vert x_{n+1}x_{n} \Vert \rightarrow0\), and \(\Vert y_{n+1}y_{n} \Vert \rightarrow0\) as \(n\rightarrow\infty\).
4 Mixed cyclic and parallel iterative algorithms
Now, for solving MSECFP (1.1) of firmly quasinonexpansive operators, we introduce two mixed iterative algorithms which combine the process of cyclic and simultaneous iterative methods. In our algorithms, the selection of the step size does not need any prior information of the operator norms \(\Vert A \Vert \) and \(\Vert B \Vert \), and the weak convergence is proved. We go on making use of assumptions (A1)â€“(A3).
Algorithm 4.1
Let \(x_{0}\in H_{1}, y_{0}\in H_{2}\) be arbitrary. For \(n\geq 0\), let
where the step size \(\tau_{n}\) is chosen in the same way as in Algorithm 3.1.
Theorem 4.1
Assume that \(\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\alpha_{n}^{i}>0\) (\(1\leq i \leq p\)). Then the sequence \(\{(x_{n}, y_{n})\}\) generated by Algorithm 4.1 weakly converges to a solution \((x^{\ast},y^{\ast})\) of MSECFP (1.1). Moreover, \(\Vert Ax_{n}By_{n} \Vert \rightarrow 0\), \(\Vert x_{n+1}x_{n} \Vert \rightarrow0\), and \(\Vert y_{n+1}y_{n} \Vert \rightarrow0\) as \(n\rightarrow\infty\).
Proof
Let \((x^{\ast},y^{\ast})\in \Gamma\). We can get (3.5) and (3.20), so
It follows from Algorithm 4.1 that (3.8)â€“(3.9) and (3.24) are true. Setting \(s_{n}(x^{\ast},y^{\ast})= \Vert x_{n}x^{\ast} \Vert ^{2}+ \Vert y_{n}y^{\ast} \Vert ^{2}\), we have
By the same reason as in Theorem 3.1, we obtain that, for all i \((1\leq i\leq p)\),
and
So
which infers that \(\{x_{n}\}\) and \(\{y_{n}\}\) are asymptotically regular.
Take \((\tilde{x},\tilde{y})\in \omega_{\omega}(x_{n},y_{n})\), i.e., there exists a subsequence \(\{(x_{n_{k}},y_{n_{k}})\}\) of \(\{(x_{n},y_{n})\}\) such that \((x_{n_{k}},y_{n_{k}})\rightharpoonup(\tilde{x},\tilde{y})\) as \(k\rightarrow\infty\). Noting that the pool of indexes is finite and \(\{y_{n}\}\) is asymptotically regular, for any \(j\in \{1,2,\ldots,r\}\), we can choose a subsequence \(\{n_{j_{l}}\}\subset\{n\}\) such that \(y_{n_{j_{l}}}\rightharpoonup \tilde{y}\) as \(l\rightarrow\infty\) and \(j(n_{j_{l}})=j\) for all l. It turns out that
Combined with the demiclosedness of \(U_{i}I\) and \(T_{j}I\) at 0, it follows from (4.4) and (4.7) that \(U_{i}(\tilde{x})=\tilde{x}\) and \(T_{j}(\tilde{y})=\tilde{y}\) for \(1\leq i\leq p\) and \(1\leq j\leq r\). So, \(\tilde{x}\in \bigcap_{i=1}^{p}F(U_{i})\) and \(\tilde{y}\in \bigcap_{j=1}^{r}F(T_{j})\). Similar to the proof of Theorem 3.1, we can complete the proof.â€ƒâ–¡
Next, we propose another mixed cyclic and parallel iterative algorithm for solving MSECFP (1.1) of firmly quasinonexpansive operators.
Algorithm 4.2
Let \(x_{0}\in H_{1}, y_{0}\in H_{2}\) be arbitrary. For \(n\geq 0\), let
where the step size \(\tau_{n}\) is chosen as in Algorithm 3.1.
Similar to the proof of Theorem 4.1, we can get the following result.
Theorem 4.2
Assume that \(\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\beta_{n}^{j}>0\) (\(1\leq j \leq r\)). Then the sequence \(\{(x_{n}, y_{n})\}\) generated by Algorithm 4.2 weakly converges to a solution \((x^{\ast},y^{\ast})\) of MSECFP (1.1) of firmly quasinonexpansive operators. Moreover, \(\Vert Ax_{n}By_{n} \Vert \rightarrow 0\), \(\Vert x_{n}x_{n+1} \Vert \rightarrow0\) and \(\Vert y_{n}y_{n+1} \Vert \rightarrow0\) as \(n\rightarrow\infty\).
Finally, we obtain two mixed iterative algorithms to solve MSEP (1.2). Assume that the solution set S of MSEP (1.2) is nonempty.
Corollary 4.1
For any given \(x_{0}\in H_{1}, y_{0}\in H_{2}\), define a sequence \(\{(x_{n},y_{n})\}\) by the following procedure:
where the step size \(\tau_{n}\) is chosen as in Algorithm 3.1. If \(\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\alpha_{n}^{i}>0\) (\(1\leq i \leq p\)), then the sequence \(\{(x_{n}, y_{n})\}\) weakly converges to a solution \((x^{\ast},y^{\ast})\) of MSEP (1.2). Moreover, \(\Vert Ax_{n}By_{n} \Vert \rightarrow 0\), \(\Vert x_{n+1}x_{n} \Vert \rightarrow0\), and \(\Vert y_{n+1}y_{n} \Vert \rightarrow0\) as \(n\rightarrow\infty\).
Corollary 4.2
For any given \(x_{0}\in H_{1}\), \(y_{0}\in H_{2}\), define a sequence \(\{(x_{n},y_{n})\}\) by the following procedure:
where the step size \(\tau_{n}\) is chosen as in Algorithm 3.1. If \(\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\beta_{n}^{j}>0 (1\leq j \leq r)\), then the sequence \(\{(x_{n}, y_{n})\}\) weakly converges to a solution \((x^{\ast},y^{\ast})\) of MSEP (1.2). Moreover, \(\Vert Ax_{n}By_{n} \Vert \rightarrow 0\), \(\Vert x_{n+1}x_{n} \Vert \rightarrow0\), and \(\Vert y_{n+1}y_{n} \Vert \rightarrow0\) as \(n\rightarrow\infty\).
5 Results and discussion
To avoid computing the norms of the bounded linear operators, we introduce parallel and cyclic iterative algorithms with selfadaptive step size to solve MSECFP (1.1) governed by firmly quasinonexpansive operators. We also propose two mixed iterative algorithms and do not need the norms of bounded linear operators. As applications, we obtain several iterative algorithms to solve MSEP (1.2).
6 Conclusion
In this paper, we have considered MSECFP (1.1) of firmly quasinonexpansive operators. Inspired by the methods for solving SCFP (2.1) and MSCFP (1.3), we introduce parallel and cyclic iterative algorithms for solving MSECFP (1.1). We also present two mixed iterative algorithms which combine the process of parallel and cyclic iterative methods. In our several iterative algorithms, the step size is chosen in a selfadaptive way and the weak convergence is proved.
References
Moudafi, A.: Alternating CQalgorithms for convex feasibility and split fixedpoint problems. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 15, 809â€“818 (2014)
Attouch, H., Bolte, J., Redont, P., Soubeyran, A.: Alternating proximal algorithms for weakly coupled minimization problems. Applications to dynamical games and PDEâ€™s. J. Convex Anal. 15, 485â€“506 (2008)
Censor, Y., Bortfeld, T., Martin, B., Trofimov, A.: A unified approach for inversion problems in intensitymodulated radiation therapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 51, 2353â€“2365 (2006)
Byrne, C.: A unified treatment of some iterative algorithms in signal processing and image reconstruction. Inverse Probl. 20, 103â€“120 (2004)
Censor, Y., Elfving, T.: A multiprojection algorithm using Bregman projections in a product space. Numer. Algorithms 8, 221â€“239 (1994)
Censor, Y., Elfving, T., Kopf, N., Bortfeld, T.: The multiplesets split feasibility problem and its applications for inverse problems. Inverse Probl. 21, 2071â€“2084 (2005)
Censor, Y., Gibali, A., Reich, S.: Algorithms for the split variational inequality problem. Numer. Algorithms 59, 301â€“323 (2012)
Qu, B., Xiu, N.: A note on the CQ algorithm for the split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 21, 1655â€“1665 (2005)
Xu, H.K.: A variable Krasnoselâ€™skiÄâ€“Mann algorithm and the multipleset split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 22, 2021â€“2034 (2006)
Xu, H.K.: Iterative methods for the split feasibility problem in infinitedimensional Hilbert spaces. Inverse Probl. 26, 105018 (2010)
Yang, Q.: The relaxed CQ algorithm solving the split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 20, 1261â€“1266 (2004)
Masad, E., Reich, S.: A note on the multipleset split convex feasibility problem in Hilbert space. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 8, 367â€“371 (2007)
Yao, Y., Yao, Z., Abdou, A.A.N., Cho, Y.J.: Selfadaptive algorithms for proximal split feasibility problems and strong convergence analysis. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2015, 205 (2015)
Wen, M., Peng, J., Tang, Y.: A cyclic and simultaneous iterative method for solving the multiplesets split feasibility problem. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 166, 844â€“860 (2015)
Qin, X., Yao, J.C.: Projection splitting algorithms for nonself operators. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 18(5), 925â€“935 (2017)
Cho, S.Y.: Generalized mixed equilibrium and fixed point problems in a Banach space. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 9, 1083â€“1092 (2016)
Cho, S.Y., Qin, X., Yao, J.C., Yao, Y.H.: Viscosity approximation splitting methods for monotone and nonexpansive operators in Hilbert spaces. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 19, 251â€“264 (2018)
Yao, Y.H., Liou, Y.C., Yao, J.C.: Split common fixed point problem for two quasipseudocontractive operators and its algorithm construction. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2015, 127 (2015)
Yao, Y.H., Liou, Y.C., Yao, J.C.: Iterative algorithms for the split variational inequality and fixed point problems under nonlinear transformations. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 10, 843â€“854 (2017)
Yao, Y.H., Yao, J.C., Liou, Y.C., Postolache, M.: Iterative algorithms for split common fixed points of demicontractive operators without priori knowledge of operator norms. Carpathian J. Math. in press
Yao, Y.H., Agarwal, R.P., Postolache, M., Liou, Y.C.: Algorithms with strong convergence for the split common solution of the feasibility problem and fixed point problem. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2014, 183 (2014)
Byrne, C.: Iterative oblique projection onto convex subsets and the split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 18, 441â€“453 (2002)
Censor, Y., Segal, A.: The split common fixed point problem for directed operators. J. Convex Anal. 16, 587â€“600 (2009)
Wang, F., Xu, H.: Cyclic algorithms for split feasibility problems in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 74, 4105â€“4111 (2011)
Tang, Y.C., Liu, L.W.: Several iterative algorithms for solving the split common fixed point problem of directed operators with applications. Optimization 65(1), 53â€“65 (2016)
Moudafi, A., AlShemas, E.: Simultaneous iterative methods for split equality problems and application. Trans. Math. Program. Appl. 1, 1â€“11 (2013)
Chang, S.S., Wang, L., Zhao, Y.: On a class of split equality fixed point problems in Hilbert spaces. J. Nonlinear Var. Anal. 1, 201â€“212 (2017)
Tang, J., Chang, S.S., Dong, J.: Split equality fixed point problem for two quasiasymptotically pseudocontractive mappings. J. Nonlinear Funct. Anal. 2017, Article ID 26 (2017)
Dong, Q.L., He, S., Zhao, J.: Solving the split equality problem without prior knowledge of operator norms. Optimization 64(9), 1887â€“1906 (2015)
Wu, Y., Chen, R., Shi, L.Y.: Split equality problem and multiplesets split equality problem for quasinonexpansive multivalued mappings. J. Inequal. Appl. 2014, 428 (2014)
Byrne, C., Moudafi, A.: Extensions of the CQ algorithm for the split feasibility and split equality problems. Documents De Travail 18(8), 1485â€“1496 (2013)
Zhao, J.: Solving split equality fixedpoint problem of quasinonexpansive mappings without prior knowledge of operators norms. Optimization 64(12), 2619â€“2630 (2015)
Zhao, J., He, S.: Viscosity approximation methods for split common fixedpoint problem of directed operators. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 36(4), 528â€“547 (2015)
Zhao, J., Wang, S.: Viscosity approximation methods for the split equality common fixed point problem of quasinonexpansive operators. Acta Math. Sci. 36(5), 1474â€“1486 (2016)
Wang, F.: A new iterative method for the split common fixed point problem in Hilbert spaces. Optimization 66(3), 407â€“415 (2017)
MatinezYanes, C., Xu, H.K.: Strong convergence of the CQ method for fixed point processes. Nonlinear Anal. 64, 2400â€“2411 (2006)
Hao, Y., Cho, S.Y., Qin, X.: Some weak convergence theorems for a family of asymptotically nonexpansive nonself mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010, 218573 (2010)
Bauschke, H.H.: The approximation of fixed points of composition of nonexpansive mappings in Hilbert space. J.Â Math. Anal. Appl. 202, 150â€“159 (1996)
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61503385) and Open Fund of Tianjin Key Lab for Advanced Signal Processing (No. 2017ASPTJ03).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed equally and significantly in writing this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests regarding the present manuscript.
Additional information
Publisherâ€™s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhao, J., Zong, H. Solving the multipleset split equality common fixedpoint problem of firmly quasinonexpansive operators. J Inequal Appl 2018, 83 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1366001816680
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s1366001816680