Abstract
In [T. Dominguez Benavides and E. Llorens-Fuster, Iterated nonexpansive mappings, J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 20 (2018), no. 3, Paper No. 104, 18 pp.], the authors raised the question about the existence of a fixed point free continuous INEA mapping T defined on a closed convex and bounded subset (or on a weakly compact convex subset) of a Banach space with normal structure. Our main goal is to give the affirmative answer to this problem in the very special case of a Hilbert space.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction and preliminaries
Let C be a weakly compact convex subset of a Banach space. In [1], the following concept of iterated nonexpansive mappings (INE in short) was stated:
The mapping \(T:C\rightarrow C\) is INE if satisfies
It is not surprising that an INE mapping does not have to have fixed points even if it is defined on a subset of a finite-dimensional Hilbert space (see, for instance, [2, Example 1.1]). Thus, it seems natural to raise the question of whether the same mapping must have a fixed point provided it is continuous. Clearly, according to the Klee result (see [3]), in this case we are considering a noncompact domain C, so the space must have infinite dimension (but still being a Hilbert space or a Banach one with normal structure). A Banach space is said to have normal structure if each convex subset C which contains more than one point has a point \(x \in C\) which is not a diametral one of C, i.e., the following condition holds: \(\sup \{\Vert x-y\Vert : \ y\in C\}< \text{ diam } C\) (see, for instance, [4]).
The negative answer to this question was given in [2, 5], where the authors presented an example of a class of fixed point free mappings which are INE and continuous on any closed convex bounded but noncompact subset of a Banach space. The same is true when the set is convex and weakly compact (and noncompact with respect to the norm topology). The common denominator of these mappings was the fact that all of them satisfy
therefore, they were not asymptotically regular. Let us remind that the self-mapping \(T:C\rightarrow C\) is asymptotically regular if for each \(x\in C\) the sequence \(\Vert T^nx-T^{n+1}x\Vert \) tends to 0. This condition can be generalized to the case of mappings which have the so-called almost fixed point sequence. A sequence \((x_n)\) in C is called an almost fixed point sequence (a.f.p.s. for short) for the mapping T on C whenever \(\Vert x_n - T (x_n)\Vert \rightarrow 0\) . It is well known that if the self-mapping \(T :C \rightarrow C\) is nonexpansive then T has an a.f.p.s. in C. Combining this fact with the normal structure of a space leads to the existence of fixed points (see, for instance, [6, Theorem 4.1] and [7, Theorem 2.7]). Iterated nonexpansive mappings which have a.f.p.s. are called INEA for short. Since the assumption of the existence of a.f.p.s. seems to play a crucial role, one may ask whether there is any fixed point free continuous INEA self-mapping of a closed convex bounded (or weakly-compact convex) subset C of a Banach space into C. Here we suppose additionally that the Banach space is a Hilbert one or Banach with normal structure.
As it was mentioned before, our main goal is to give an example of a continuous and INEA mapping T defined on a closed convex bounded subset (more precisely, on a closed unit ball) of the Hilbert space into itself for which the set of fixed points is empty. To do it, let us take the Hilbert space \(l^2\)and let B be its closed unit ball. Further, we will apply two kinds of geometry. The first one is Cartesian geometry based on the standard base of \(l^2\) denoted by \(\{e_n: \ n\in {\mathbb {N}}\}\). Then let \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \) mean the inner product in \(l^2\). Moreover, we denote the unit sphere by S. This set will be very often considered with spherical geometry based on the spherical metric \(\rho \), i.e.,
for a pair of two elements \(A,B \in S\). By the angle between two curves c and \(\tilde{c}\) (\(c(0)=\tilde{c}(0)\)) on the sphere with respect to spherical geometry we mean the Alexandrov angle, defined by
This limit always exists (see, for instance, [8, p. 16]). More details about spherical geometry can be found in [8, 9]).
2 Example
Our example may seem to be rather complicated. So, for the reader’s convenience, we divide its description into six steps.
Step 1—construction of the curve
Let us take an infinite set of points \(\{t_n: \ n\in {\mathbb {N}}\}\), where
and first consider the convex hull of \(\{e_1,e_2,e_3\}\) with respect to spherical geometry, i.e., the set
Further, we will use the same denotation \(\text{ conv}_S (A)\) for any nonempty set \(A\subset S\).
Now, still with respect to spherical geometry on \(\text{ conv}_S (\{e_1,e_2,e_3\})\), let us notice that \(a=3^{-1/2}(e_1+e_2+e_3) \in \text{ conv}_S (\{e_1,e_2,e_3\})\). Moreover, if we join points a and \(t_1\) and points \(t_1\) and \(e_i\), \(i=1,2\), with the geodesic segments, then the angle between the segments is equal to \(\pi /2\). Notice that the same is true for \(t_2\) and \(e_i\), \(i=2,3\); hence, we can join points \(t_1\) and \(t_2\) with the curve
where S(a, r) is a sphere in \(l^2\) with the radius with respect to the norm. The angle between the curve and the segments \([a,t_1]\) or \([a,t_2]\) is also equal to \(\pi /2\), so the curve is tangent to \([e_1,e_2]\) and \([e_2,e_3]\) at the points \(t_1\) and \(t_2\), respectively (Fig. 1).
Now, we repeat our construction on each three-dimensional set \(\text{ conv}_S (\{e_n,e_{n+1},e_{n+2}\})\) and we obtain a smooth curve of infinite length joining all points \(t_n\), \(n=1,2,\ldots \). Let us notice that points of the curve between \(t_n\) and \(t_{n+1}\) can be treated as points of the circle centered at a point \(\tilde{a}=\dfrac{\sqrt{2}}{3\sqrt{3}}(e_n+e_{n+1}+e_{n+2})\) with a radius of \(r=\sqrt{\dfrac{11-4\sqrt{3}}{9}}\) (now with respect to Cartesian geometry). Then, the angle between radiuses \([\tilde{a},t_n]\) and \([\tilde{a},t_{n+1}]\) is independent of n and smaller than \(\pi \).
Let us denote this angle by \(\alpha \) and for all \(t\in [0,\infty )\) we define \(\varphi (t)\) as a point of the curve. If \(t=n \; \alpha + \tau \) then \(\varphi (t)\) is located between \(t_n\) and \(t_{n+1}\) in such a way that \(\angle _{\tilde{a}}(t_n,\varphi (t))=\tau \).
Step 2—definition of the map on the curve
Now, we would like to define the map \(T:\varphi \rightarrow \varphi \). Let us divide the curve between points \(t_1\) and \(t_2\) into 128 equal parts and let \(\alpha _0=\alpha /128\). Then, for points of the form \(\varphi (t)\), \(t \in [0,\alpha -\alpha _0]\), we take \(T(\varphi (t))=\varphi (t+\alpha _0)\). So far, the map T is an isometry.
To extend the map T on the whole curve, we need to make some calculations because our map must be INEA. To do it, first, let us choose \(\alpha _1\) in such a way that
Hence, for \(t = 127 \alpha _0+\tau \), \(\tau \in (0,\alpha _0)\) we define
Next we will show that so far
for \(x=\varphi (t)\), \(t\le 127\alpha _0\).
Let us consider \(x=\varphi (t)\), where \(t \in \left( 126 \alpha _0,127 \alpha _0\right] \). Then \(T(x)=\varphi (t+\alpha _0)\) and
Simultaneously,
where \(s\in [0,1)\). To prove (1), it is sufficient to notice that
On the other hand,
and
Therefore,
and finally
Now, using the angle \(\alpha _1\) we define
Let us take the same point x as above (see Fig. 2) and notice that
We would like to show that
Let us denote \(\angle _{t_2}(T(x),T(T(x)))=\beta \). In the sequel, we will show that
Let us notice that, on account of the cosine law, we get
Simultaneously,
So, it is sufficient to prove the following inequality
We know that (see (2) and (3))
Thus, showing (4) we complete the proof of the inequality
The angle between the arcs \({\mathop {t_1t_2}\limits ^{\frown }}\) and \({\mathop {t_2t_3}\limits ^{\frown }}\) is equal to \(\pi \). Since these two arcs are the subsets of two different two-dimensional spaces, the angle between segments \([T(x),t_2]\) and \([t_2,T(T(x))]\) (with respect to Cartesian geometry) is greater than in the case when all points are located on one two-dimensional space. The same situation can be observed in Fig. 3, where
Next, if all points are on one two-dimensional space, then the angle between the metric segments is greater than the angle between two metric segments joining points on the same circle and having the same length \(2r\sin \dfrac{\alpha _0}{2}\) greater than \(\Vert T(x)-t_2\Vert \) and \(\Vert t_2-T(T(x))\Vert \). See also points a, \(a^\prime \), \(b^\prime \) and \(b^{\prime \prime }\) (Fig. 3). Thus, the angle \(\angle _{t_2}(T(x),T(T(x)))\) is not smaller than \(\beta ^\prime \). To estimate \(\beta ^\prime \), let us consider the triangle of the sides of length equal to \(2r\sin \dfrac{\alpha _0}{2}\), \(2r\sin \dfrac{\alpha _0}{2}\) and \(2r\sin \dfrac{2\alpha _0}{2}\) (all vertices are located on a circle with radius r). Therefore,
which completes the proof of (4).
To define the map on \(\left\{ \varphi (t): \ t \in \left( 2\alpha -\alpha _1,2\alpha \right) \right\} \), let us choose
Since \(\alpha _1 < \alpha _0\) one may repeat considerations from the previous part to show that T is still INEA. We can also define the map on \(\left\{ \varphi (t): \ t \in \left( \alpha ,3\alpha -\alpha _2 \right) \right\} \) as a movement along the curve. Repeating all steps with
one may extend the map T on the whole curve \(\gamma \). Let us notice that T is also continuous.
Step 3—neighborhood of the curve
In this step, we consider the neighborhood of the curve. Mainly, let us consider the set
We will see that this set is closed. Indeed, let us take any Cauchy sequence \((x_n)\), \(x_n\in U\). Let \(x_n \rightarrow \bar{x}\in B\). Since \(\Vert t_n-t_m\Vert \ge 1>> \alpha _0\) for \(n\ne m\), without loss of generality we may assume that there is a sequence \((\tau _n)\) such that \(\tau _n \in [m\alpha ,(m+1)\alpha ]\) and \(\Vert x_n-\varphi (\tau _n)\Vert \le \alpha _{m}\). Then, there is a convergent subsequence (denoting again by \((\tau _n)\)) such that \(\tau _n \rightarrow \bar{\tau }\). If \(\bar{\tau }\in (m\alpha ,(m+1)\alpha ]\), then the same holds for almost all \(\tau _n\), so \(\Vert \bar{x}-\varphi (\bar{\tau })\Vert \) as the limit is also not greater than \(\alpha _{m}\). If \(\bar{\tau } = m\alpha \), then
and so
and \(\bar{x}\) is also an element of U.
Step 4—definition of the hyperplanes
Now, for each point \(x\in \varphi \) there is a unique hyperplane
We will show that two hyperplanes do not intersect inside U as long as they are determined by points which are not located too far from each other. Let us fix a point \(x=\varphi (t_0)\) and let \(x^\prime =\varphi (t_0+\tau )\), where \(\tau \in (0,9\alpha _0)\). Let us also assume that \(t_0 \in [m\alpha ,(m+1)\alpha )\).
Claim: For all possible positions of \(x,x^\prime , T(x)\) and \(T(x^\prime )\), the angle between vectors \(\overline{x\; T(x)}\) and \(\overline{x^\prime \; T(x^\prime )}\) is not greater than \(\tau \).
-
Case 1. First, we assume that all points are located on the curve between \(t_m\) and \(t_{m+1}\). So, the aforementioned vectors \(\overline{x\; T(x)}\) and \(\overline{x^\prime \; T(x^\prime )}\) span one two-dimensional space and it is sufficient to consider only points on this space. Clearly, the intersection of \(H_x\) (or \(H_{x^\prime }\)) with this space is a line—see Fig. 4.
From the equality \(\Vert x-T(x)\Vert =\Vert x^\prime -T(x^\prime )\Vert =\alpha _m\) it follows that
$$\begin{aligned} \angle _x(p,\tilde{a})=\angle _{x^\prime }(p,\tilde{a}), \end{aligned}$$where p is the projection of x onto the set of common points of \(H_x\) and \(H_{x^\prime }\). Clearly, p also belongs to the same two-dimensional space. Since \(\angle _{x}(p,T(x)) =\angle _{x^\prime }(p,T(x^\prime ))=\pi /2\), we get that the angle between vectors \(\overline{x\; T(x)}\) and \(\overline{x^\prime \; T(x^\prime )}\) is equal to the angle \( \angle _{\tilde{a}}(x,x^\prime )\), i.e., is equal to \(\tau \).
-
Case 2. Now, we assume that the three points x, \(x^\prime \), T(x) are located on the curve between \(t_m\) and \(t_{m+1}\) and \(T(x^\prime )\) is between \(t_{m+1}\) and \(t_{m+2}\)—see Fig. 5. Without loss of generality we may assume that \(\tau <\alpha _m\).
Let \(\tilde{a}\) be the center of the circle containing \(t_m\) and \(t_{m+1}\) while \(\tilde{b}\) is the center of the circle containing \(t_{m+1}\) and \(t_{m+2}\). Then, there is a number \(s\in (0,1)\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} \angle _{\tilde{a}}(x^\prime ,t_{m+1})=(1-s)\alpha _m \quad \text{ and } \quad \angle _{\tilde{b}}(t_{m+1},T(x^\prime ))=s \; \alpha _{m+1}. \end{aligned}$$Let us choose \(T^\prime \) on the same circle as \(t_m\) and \(t_{m+1}\) (Fig. 5) for which
$$\begin{aligned} \angle _{\tilde{a}}(x^\prime ,T^\prime )=(1-s)\alpha _m+s \; \alpha _{m+1}. \end{aligned}$$Since the curve is smooth and \(T(x^\prime )\) does not belong to the same two-dimensional space as the rest of the points, the following inequalities hold
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert x^\prime -T(x^\prime )\Vert> \Vert x^\prime -T^\prime \Vert \quad \text{ and } \quad \angle _{x^\prime }(T(x),T^\prime )> \angle _{x^\prime }(T(x),T(x^\prime )). \end{aligned}$$(6)Clearly, the angle between vectors \(\overline{x\; T(x)}\) and \(\overline{x^\prime \; T^\prime }\) is equal to the sum of angles \(\angle _{T(x)}(x,x^\prime )\) and \(\angle _{x^\prime }(T(x),T^\prime )\). Moreover, this sum is smaller than \(\tau \), because
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert x-T(x)\Vert >\Vert x^\prime -T^\prime \Vert . \end{aligned}$$However, from (6) and the fact that \(T(x^\prime )\) does not belong on the same space as the rest of points it follows that the angle between vectors \(\overline{x\; T(x)}\) and \(\overline{x^\prime \; T(x^\prime )}\) is smaller than the angle between vectors \(\overline{x\; T(x)}\) and \(\overline{x^\prime \; T^\prime }\) and so smaller than \(\tau \).
The proofs for the cases where \(\tau \ge \alpha _m\) or three points \(x^\prime \), T(x) and \(T(x^\prime )\) are between \(t_{m+1}\) and \(t_{m+2}\) go with the same patterns.
-
Case 3. Now we assume that x and \(x^\prime \) are located between \(t_m\) and \(t_{m+1}\) while T(x) and \(T(x^\prime )\) are between points \(t_{m+1}\) and \(t_{m+2}\)—see Fig. 6
Let us fix T and \(T^\prime \) on the circle containing x and \(x^\prime \) in such a way that
$$\begin{aligned} \angle _{\tilde{a}}(x,T)=\angle _{\tilde{a}}(x,t_{m+1}) +\angle _{\tilde{b}}(t_{m+1},T(x)) \end{aligned}$$and
$$\begin{aligned} \angle _{\tilde{a}}(x^\prime ,T^\prime )=\angle _{\tilde{a}} (x^\prime ,t_{m+1}) + \angle _{\tilde{b}}(t_{m+1},T(x^\prime )), \end{aligned}$$where \(\tilde{a}\) and \(\tilde{b}\) are defined in the same way as in Case 2.
We want to show that
$$\begin{aligned} \angle _{T(x)}(x,x^\prime ) < \angle _{T}(x,x^\prime ). \end{aligned}$$(7)To do it, let us notice that
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert x-T(x)\Vert > \Vert x-T\Vert \end{aligned}$$while
$$\begin{aligned} \angle _{x^\prime }(x,T(x))> \angle _{x^\prime }(x,T) > \dfrac{\pi }{2}. \end{aligned}$$Hence, the inequality (7) follows directly from the sine law.
In a similar way one may see that
$$\begin{aligned} \angle _{x^\prime }(T(x),T(x^\prime )) < \angle _{x^\prime }(T,T^\prime ). \end{aligned}$$Moreover, since all four points do not belong to the same two-dimensional space, the angle between vectors \(\overline{x\; T(x)}\) and \(\overline{x^\prime \; T(x^\prime )}\) is smaller than the sum of \(\angle _{T(x)}(x,x^\prime )\) and \(\angle _{x^\prime }(T(x), T(x^\prime ))\). This completes the proof for Case 3.
The case where two points x and T(x) are between \(t_m\) and \(t_{m+1}\) is slightly easier.
Now, we consider the projection of \(x^\prime \) onto \(H_x\).
First, we want to estimate the angle \(\angle _{x}(x^\prime ,T(x))\). We may consider three cases as it was done in the previous part when we studied the angle between vectors but here we do not need to make the estimation so precise; therefore, only notice that this angle is smaller than the sum of the angle between the vector \(\overline{x\;x^\prime }\) and the curve at the point x and the angle between the vector \(\overline{x\;T(x)}\) and the curve at the same point x.
In both cases, the angles are of the largest measure if all points \(x,x^\prime \) and T(x) are located between points \(t_m\) and \(t_{m+1}\). Hence, using denotations from Fig. 7, we get
Since \(\angle _{\tilde{a}}(x,T(x))\le \alpha _m\) and \(\angle _{\tilde{a}}(x,x^\prime )=\tau \le 9\alpha _0\), it follows finally that
Now we find the projection of \(x^\prime \) onto the hyperplane \(H_x\) and denote this by \(p_x\). Since \(H_x\) is determined by the vector \(\overline{x\;T(x)}\) and
we obtain two estimations:
and
Let p be the projection of \(p_x\) onto the set \(H_x \cap H_{x^\prime }\). Clearly, this set is closed and convex, so the projection is a single, i.e., is well defined. Since vectors \(\overline{x\;T(x)}\) and \(\overline{p_x \; x^\prime }\) are parallel, we can calculate the measure of the angle \(\angle _{x^\prime }(p_x,T(x^\prime ))\) in the following way:
where \(\gamma \) denotes the angle between vectors \(\overline{x\;T(x)}\) and \(\overline{x^\prime \; T(x^\prime )}\) (Fig. 8).
we can estimate \(\angle _{x^\prime }(p_x,p)\) by
For all points \(h\in H_x \cap H_{x^\prime }\), we have
Simultaneously,
Combining it with the earlier estimations, we obtain
The minuend is equal to
In a similar way, we can estimate the subtrahend by
Our considerations finally lead to
for all points belonging to \(H_x\cap H_{x^\prime }\).
In this way, we have shown that the hyperplane \(H_x\) and \(H_{x^\prime }\) intersect outside the set U as long as \(\tau \le 9 \alpha _0\). Furthermore, each point of the closed ball \(\bar{B}(x,\alpha _m)\) can belong to at most one hyperplane \(H_y\) with \(|\gamma ^{-1}(y)-\gamma ^{-1}(x)|\le 9 \alpha _0\).
Next, we will show that almost all points of the set U (more precisely, all points from V) satisfy the following condition:
Let us consider the Cauchy sequence of points \((x_n)\) such that \(x_n \in U\) and all of them satisfy this property. As it was shown the limit point \(x_0=\lim x_n\) belongs to U and we will prove that \(x_0\) also satisfies (P).
Since \((x_n)\) is a Cauchy sequence, we may take a subsequence with \(\Vert x_n-x_m\Vert \le \alpha _0\). Then there must be
where \(x_n \in H_{\varphi (s_n)}\).
So, without loss of generality we may assume that all \(s_n\) belong to \([m\alpha ,(m+1)\alpha ]\) and \(x_0 \not \in \varphi \). Otherwise, \(x_0\in H_{x_0}\) and the proof of the claim is complete. Then there is at least one accumulation point \(s_A\). Let us assume that \(s_{l(n)}\rightarrow s_A\). Since \(x_n \not \rightarrow \varphi (s_A)\) and \(s_{l(n)}\rightarrow s_A\), it must be
This leads to
and completes the proof of our claim.
However, we will apply our considerations to prove an additional point. Namely, we will prove that the whole sequence \((s_n)\) must tend to \(s_A\). To see it, let us repeat our pattern for \(s_B\)—another accumulation point of \((s_n)\). Let us assume that \(s_{k(n)}\rightarrow s_B\). And again if \(x_0\not \in \varphi \), there must be
which yields
but \(x_0\) cannot belong to both hyperplanes \(H_{\varphi (s_A)}\) and \(H_{\varphi (s_B)}\), because it is too close to \(\varphi (s_A)\). The proof of uniqueness of accumulation point for \(x_0\in \varphi \) is obvious.
Let us consider a subset V of U containing points u for which
Clearly, V is also closed. We will show that each point \(u\in V\) satisfies the property (P).
Let us fix \(u\in V\). From the inclusion \(u\in U\) it follows that there is a positive number \(\tau \) such that \(\Vert u-\varphi (\tau )\Vert \le \alpha _m\), when \(\tau \in [m\alpha ,(m+1)\alpha ]\). Let us denote \(x=\varphi (\tau )\). Let us assume that \(\langle x-u,x-T(x)\rangle \ne 0\) is a negative number and we consider the line k containing u and parallel to the vector \(\overline{x \; T(x)}\). Let \(y_1=k\cap H_x\).
Taking \(x^\prime =\varphi (\tau -3\alpha _m)\), we obtain that u belongs to the metric segment \([y_0,y_1]\), where \(y_0=k\cap H_{x^\prime }\). Otherwise, the hyperplanes \(H_x\) and \(H_{x^\prime }\) intersect too close to x. For each \(t\in [\tau -3\alpha _m,\tau ]\) one can find a point \(u_t = k\cap H_{\varphi (t)}\). Let \(t_0=\sup \{t\in [\tau -3\alpha _m,\tau ]:\; u \in [u_t,y_1]\}\). It is sufficient to prove that \(u=u_{t_0}\). Indeed, for all \(t>t_0\) there is \(u_t\in [u,y_1]\), which means that \(\langle \varphi (t)-u,\varphi (t)-T(\varphi (t))\rangle \le 0\). And from the continuity of T it follows that \( \langle \varphi (t_0)-u,\varphi (t_0)-T(\varphi (t_0))\rangle \le \), i.e., \(u_{t_0}\in [u,y_1]\). Therefore \(u=u_{t_0}\), i.e., \(u\in H_{\varphi (t_0)}\). Moreover,
and finally u satisfies the property (P).
Step 5—definition of the map on U
Now, for each \(y\in V\) there is precisely one point x on the curve such that \(y\in H_{x}\), i.e.,
Hence, since T is INEA on the curve, we obtain
So, one can set \(T(y)=T(x)\). Then T is INEA on the whole set V.
Simultaneously, applying the same denotations as in the proof of the closedness of V, if the sequence \((x_n)\) tends to \(x_0\) (i.e., \(x_n \in H_{\varphi (s_n)}\)), then \(x_0\in H_{\varphi (s_0)}\), where \(s_n\rightarrow s_0\). So, \(T(x_n)=T(\varphi (s_n))\) tends to \(T(\varphi (s_0))=T(x_0)\) and T is also continuous on V. Now, we must only consider points from \(\bar{B}(t_0,3\alpha _0)\). Let u be such a point. If
then T(u) has already been defined. Otherwise, we set \(T(u)=T(t_0)\). Let us notice that T is still continuous and INEA also on the set U.
Step 6—definition of the map on the whole set B
In the previous step, we defined the mapping T on the whole set U. Since this is a closed subset of B and the curve \(\varphi \) is isomorphic to the set \([0,\infty )\), applying the Tietze extension theorem the mapping T can be extended to the whole set B. Therefore, we must show only that the continuous extension \(\tilde{T}\) is also a fixed point free INEA mapping. The fact that \(\tilde{T}\) is fixed point free is obvious. So let us take \(x_0\in B\setminus U\). Then \(\tilde{T}(x_0) \in \varphi \). Since \(\tilde{T}(x_0) = \varphi (t_0)\), one may assume that \(t_0\in [m\alpha ,(m+1)\alpha ]\). Since \(x_0\) does not belong to U, the distance between \(x_0\) and \(\varphi (t_0)\) is bigger than \(\alpha _m\). Simultaneously, \(\Vert T(\varphi (t_0))-\varphi (t_0)\Vert <\alpha _m\). Hence,
and \(\tilde{T}\) is INE. Moreover, since \(\tilde{T}|_\varphi =T|_\varphi \), the extension is asymptotically regular and so is INEA. This fact completes the proof.
References
Kumar, S.: Some fixed point theorems for iterated contraction maps. J. Appl. Funct. Anal. 10, 31–39 (2015)
Dominguez Benavides, T., Llorens-Fuster, E.: Iterated nonexpansive mappings. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 20(3), 18 (2018)
Klee, L.: Some topological properties of convex sets. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 78, 30–45 (1955)
Belluce, L.P., Kirk, W.A., Steiner, E.F.: Normal structure in Banach spaces. Pacific J. Math. 26, 433–440 (1968)
Goebel, K.: Concise course on fixed point theorems, p. iv+182. Yokohama Publishers, Yokohama (2002)
Goebel, K., Kirk, W.A.: Topics in metric fixed point theory, Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics, p. 244. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)
Reich, S.: Remarks on fixed points, II. Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei 53, 250–254 (1972)
Bridson, M., Haefliger, A.: Metric spaces of non-positive curvature. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1999)
Goebel, K., Reich, S.: Uniform Convexity, Hyperbolic Geometry and Nonexpansive Mappings, Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 83. Marcel Dekker, New York (1984)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher'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 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 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Piatek, B. Iterated nonexpansive mappings in Hilbert spaces. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 23, 61 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11784-021-00898-6
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11784-021-00898-6