Abstract
We introduce a new iterative scheme for finding a common element of the solutions sets of a finite family of equilibrium problems and fixed points sets of an infinite family of nonexpansive mappings in a Hilbert space. As an application, we solve a multiobjective optimization problem using the result of this paper.
Similar content being viewed by others
1. Introduction
Let be a Hilbert space and
be a nonempty, closed, and convex subset of
. Let
be a bifunction of
into
, where
is the set of real numbers. The equilibrium problem for the bifunction
is to find
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ1_HTML.gif)
The set of solutions of the above inequality is denoted by . Many problems arising from physics, optimization, and economics can reduce to finding a solution of an equilibrium problem.
In 2007, S. Takahashi and W. Takahashi [1] first introduced an iterative scheme by the viscosity approximation method for finding a common element of the solutions set of equilibrium problem and the set of fixed points of a nonexpansive mapping in a Hilbert space and proved a strong convergence theorem which is based on Combettes and Hirstoaga's result [2] and Wittmann's result [3]. More precisely, they obtained the following theorem.
Theorem 1.1 (see [1]).
Let be a nonempty closed and convex subset of
. Let
be a bifunction which satisfies the following conditions:
(A1) for all
;
(A2) is monotone, that is,
for all
;
(A3)For all ,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ2_HTML.gif)
(A4)For each ,
is convex and lower semicontinuous.
Let be a nonexpansive mapping with
, where
denotes the set of fixed points of the mapping
, and let
be a contraction, if there exists a constant
such that
for all
. Let
and
be the sequences generated by
and
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ3_HTML.gif)
where and
satisfy the following conditions:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ4_HTML.gif)
Then the sequences and
converge strongly to a point
, where
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ5_HTML.gif)
is the metric projection of
onto
and
denotes nearest point in
from
.
Recently, many results on equilibrium problems and fixed points problems in the context of the Hilbert space and Banach space are introduced (see, e.g., [4–8]).
Let be a nonlinear mapping. The variational inequality problem corresponding to the mapping
is to find a point
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ6_HTML.gif)
The variational inequality problem is denoted by [9].
The mapping is called
-Lipschitzian and
-strongly monotone if there exist constants
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ7_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ8_HTML.gif)
respectively. It is well known that if is strongly monotone and Lipschitzian on
, then
has a unique solution. An important problem is how to find a solution of
. Recently, there are many results to solve the
(see, e.g., [10–14]).
Let be a nonempty closed and convex subset of a Hilbert space
,
be a countable family of nonexpansive mappings, and
be
bifunctions satisfying conditions (A1)–(A4) such that
. Let
. For each
, define the mapping
by
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ9_HTML.gif)
Lemma 2.5 (see below) shows that, for each ,
is firmly nonexpansive and hence nonexpansive and
. Suppose that
is a
-Lipschitzian and
-strong monotone operator and let
. Assume that
.
In this paper, motivated and inspired by the above research results, we introduce the following iterative process for finding an element in : for an arbitrary initial point
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ10_HTML.gif)
where ,
,
is a strictly decreasing sequence in
with
,
,
with
, and
with
. Then we prove that the iterative process
defined by (1.10) strongly converge to an element
, which is the unique solution of the variational inequality
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ11_HTML.gif)
As an application of our main result, we solve a multiobjective optimization problem.
2. Preliminaries
Let be a Hilbert space and
a nonexpansive mapping of
into itself such that
. For all
and
, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ12_HTML.gif)
and hence
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ13_HTML.gif)
It is well known that, for all and
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ14_HTML.gif)
which implies that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ15_HTML.gif)
for all and
with
.
Let be a nonempty closed and convex subset of
and, for any
, there exists unique nearest point in
, denoted by
, such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ16_HTML.gif)
Moreover, we have the following:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ17_HTML.gif)
Let denote the identity operator of
and let
be a sequence in a Hilbert space
and
. Throughout this paper,
denotes that
strongly converges to
and
denotes that
weakly converges to
.
We need the following lemmas for our main results.
Lemma 2.1 (see [15]).
Let be a nonempty closed and convex subset of a Hilbert space
and
a nonexpansive mapping from
into itself. Then
is demiclosed at zero, that is,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ18_HTML.gif)
Lemma 2.2 (see [10, Lmma 3.1(b)]).
Let be a Hilbert space and
be a nonexpansive mapping. Let
be a mapping which is
-Lipschitzian and
-strong monotone on
. Assume that
and
. Define a mapping
by
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ19_HTML.gif)
Then for all
, where
.
If , Lemma 2.2 still holds.
Lemma 2.3 (see [16]).
Let ,
be the sequences of nonnegative real numbers and
. Suppose that
is a real number sequence such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ20_HTML.gif)
Assume that . Then the following results hold.
-
(1)
If
for all
, where
, then
is a bounded sequence.
-
(2)
If
(2.10)
then .
Lemma 2.4 (see [17]).
Let C be a nonempty closed and convex subset of a Hilbert space H and be a bifunction which satisfies the conditions (A1)–(A4). Let
and
. Then there exists
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ22_HTML.gif)
Lemma 2.5 (see [2]).
Let be a Hilbert space and
be a nonempty closed and convex subset of
. Assume that
satisfies the conditions (A1)–(A4). For all
and
, define a mapping
as follows:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ23_HTML.gif)
Then the following holds:
(1) is single-valued;
(2) is firmly nonexpansive, that is, for any
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ24_HTML.gif)
(3);
(4) is closed and convex.
The following lemma is an immediate consequence of an inner product.
Lemma 2.6.
Let H be a real Hilbert space. Then the following identity holds:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ25_HTML.gif)
3. Main Results
First, we prove some lemmas as follows.
Lemma 3.1.
The sequence generated by (1.10) is bounded.
Proof.
Let for each
. Lemma 2.5 shows that each
is firmly-nonexpansive and hence nonexpansive. Hence, for each
and
, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ26_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ27_HTML.gif)
By Lemma 2.2, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ28_HTML.gif)
where . Therefore, by (3.2) and (3.3), we obtain (note that
is strictly decreasing and
)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ29_HTML.gif)
By induction, we obtain . Hence
is bounded and so are
and
for each
. Since
is
-Lipschitzian, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ30_HTML.gif)
which shows that is bounded. This completes the proof.
Lemma 3.2.
If the following conditions hold:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ31_HTML.gif)
then
Proof.
For each , since each
is nonexpansive, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ32_HTML.gif)
By (3.7), we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ33_HTML.gif)
By the definition of the iterative sequence (1.10), we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ34_HTML.gif)
and hence
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ35_HTML.gif)
It follows from (3.8) and (3.10) that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ36_HTML.gif)
where . Since
is strictly decreasing, we have
. Further, from the assumptions, it follows that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ37_HTML.gif)
Therefore, by Lemma 2.3, we have . This completes the proof.
Lemma 3.3.
If the following conditions hold:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ38_HTML.gif)
then for each
.
Proof.
For any and
, it follows from Lemma 2.5(2) that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ39_HTML.gif)
and hence . Further, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ40_HTML.gif)
Therefore, from (2.4) and (3.3), we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ41_HTML.gif)
It follows that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ42_HTML.gif)
for each . Note that
for
. From the assumptions, Lemma 3.2, and the previous inequality, we conclude that
as
for each
. Further, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ43_HTML.gif)
This completes the proof.
Lemma 3.4.
If the following conditions hold:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ44_HTML.gif)
then for all
Proof.
By the definition of the iterative sequence (1.10), we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ45_HTML.gif)
that is,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ46_HTML.gif)
Hence, for any , we get
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ47_HTML.gif)
Since each is nonexpansive, by (2.2), we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ48_HTML.gif)
Hence, combining this inequality with (3.22), we get
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ49_HTML.gif)
which implies that (note that is a strictly decreasing sequence)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ50_HTML.gif)
From Lemma 3.3, , and the inequality
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ51_HTML.gif)
we obtain
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ52_HTML.gif)
Therefore, from Lemma 3.2, (3.25), and (3.27), it follows that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ53_HTML.gif)
This completes the proof.
Next we prove the main results of this paper.
Theorem 3.5.
Assume that the following conditions hold:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ54_HTML.gif)
Then the sequence generated by (1.10) converges strongly to an element in
, which is the unique solution of the variational inequality
.
Proof.
Since , we can select an element
, which implies that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ55_HTML.gif)
First, we prove that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ56_HTML.gif)
Since is bounded, there exists a subsequence
of
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ57_HTML.gif)
Without loss of generality, we may further assume that for some
. From Lemmas 3.4 and 2.1, we get
for all
. Hence we have
. It follows from Lemma 2.5 that each
is firmly nonexpansive and hence nonexpansive. Lemma 3.3 shows that
as
. Therefore, from Lemma 2.1, it follows that
for each
, which shows that
. Lemma 2.5 shows that
for each
. Hence
. By using the above argument, we conclude that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ58_HTML.gif)
Noting that is a solution of the
, we obtain
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ59_HTML.gif)
It follows from Lemma 2.6 that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ60_HTML.gif)
Let and
for all
. Then, from the assumptions and (3.31), we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ61_HTML.gif)
Therefore, by applying Lemma 2.3 to (3.35), we conclude that the sequence strongly converges to a point
.
In order to prove the uniqueness of solution of the , we assume that
is another solution of
. Similarly, we can conclude that
converges strongly to a point
. Hence
, that is,
is the unique solution of
. This completes the proof.
As direct consequences of Theorem 3.5, we obtain the following corollaries.
Corollary 3.6.
Let be a nonempty closed and convex subset of a Hilbert space
. For each
let
be
bifunctions which satisfy conditions (A1)–(A4) such that
. Let
, and let
be a strictly decreasing sequence with
,
,
with
,
, and
with
. For an arbitrary initial
, define the iterative sequence
by
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ62_HTML.gif)
If the following conditions hold:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ63_HTML.gif)
then the sequence converges strongly to an element
.
Proof.
Put and
for each
in Theorem 3.5. Then we know that
is
-Lipschitzian and
-strongly monotone,
and
. Therefore, by Theorem 3.5, we conclude the desired result.
Corollary 3.7.
Let be a nonempty closed and convex subset of a Hilbert space
. Let
be a countable family of nonexpansive mappings of
such that
and
an operator which is
-Lipschitzian and
-strong monotone on
. Let
. Assume that
. Let
with
be a strictly decreasing sequence,
and
with
. For an arbitrary initial
, define the iterative sequence
by
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ64_HTML.gif)
where . If the following conditions hold:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ65_HTML.gif)
then the sequence strongly converges to an element
, which is the unique solution of the variational inequality
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ66_HTML.gif)
Proof.
Put for each
and
. Set
in Theorem 3.5. Then, by (2.6), we have
. Therefore, by Theorem 3.5, we conclude the desired result.
Remark 3.8.
-
(1)
Recently, many authors have studied the iteration sequences for infinite family of nonexpansive mappings. But our iterative sequence (1.10) is very different from others because we do not use
-mapping generated by the infinite family of nonexpansive mappings and we have no any restriction with the infinite family of nonlinear mappings.
-
(2)
We do not use Suzuki's lemma [18] for obtaining the result that
. However, many authors have used Suzuki's lemma [18] for obtaining the result that
in the process of studying the similar algorithms. For example, see [5, 19, 20] and so on.
4. Application
In this section, we study a kind of multiobjective optimization problem based on the result of this paper. That is, we give an iterative sequence which solves the following multiobjective optimization problem with nonempty set of solutions:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ67_HTML.gif)
where and
are both convex and lower semicontinuous functions defined on a nonempty closed and convex subset of
of a Hilbert space
. We denote by
the set of solutions of (4.1) and assume that
.
We denote the sets of solutions of the following two optimization problems by and
, respectively,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ68_HTML.gif)
Obviously, if we find a solution , then one must have
.
Now, let and
be two bifunctions from
to
defined by
and
, respectively. It is easy to see that
and
, where
denotes the set of solutions of the equilibrium problem:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ69_HTML.gif)
respectively. In addition, it is easy to see that and
satisfy the conditions (A1)–(A4). Therefore, by setting
in Corollary 3.6, we know that, for any initial guess
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F165098/MediaObjects/13663_2010_Article_1208_Equ70_HTML.gif)
By Corollary 3.6, we know that the sequence converges strongly to a solution
, which is a solution of the multiobjective optimization problem (4.1).
References
Takahashi S, Takahashi W: Viscosity approximation methods for equilibrium problems and fixed point problems in Hilbert spaces. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2007,331(1):506–515. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.08.036
Combettes PL, Hirstoaga SA: Equilibrium programming in Hilbert spaces. Journal of Nonlinear and Convex Analysis 2005,6(1):117–136.
Wittmann R: Approximation of fixed points of nonexpansive mappings. Archiv der Mathematik 1992,58(5):486–491. 10.1007/BF01190119
Ceng LC, Schaible S, Yao JC: Implicit iteration scheme with perturbed mapping for equilibrium problems and fixed point problems of finitely many nonexpansive mappings. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 2008,139(2):403–418. 10.1007/s10957-008-9361-y
Ceng LC, Petruşel A, Yao JC: Iterative approaches to solving equilibrium problems and fixed point problems of infinitely many nonexpansive mappings. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 2009,143(1):37–58. 10.1007/s10957-009-9549-9
Chang S-S, Cho YJ, Kim JK: Approximation methods of solutions for equilibrium problem in Hilbert spaces. Dynamic Systems and Applications 2008,17(3–4):503–513.
Cho YJ, Qin X, Kang JI: Convergence theorems based on hybrid methods for generalized equilibrium problems and fixed point problems. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications 2009,71(9):4203–4214. 10.1016/j.na.2009.02.106
Qin X, Cho YJ, Kang SM: Convergence theorems of common elements for equilibrium problems and fixed point problems in Banach spaces. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 2009,225(1):20–30. 10.1016/j.cam.2008.06.011
Kinderlehrer D, Stampacchia G: An Introduction to Variational Inequalities and Their Applications, Pure and Applied Mathematics. Volume 88. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA; 1980:xiv+313.
Yamada I: The hybrid steepest descent method for the variational inequality problem over the intersection of fixed point sets of nonexpansive mappings. In Inherently Parallel Algorithms in Feasibility and Optimization and Their Applications (Haifa, 2000), Stud. Comput. Math.. Volume 8. Edited by: Butnariu D, Censor Y, Reich S. North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 2001:473–504.
Zeng LC, Ansari QH, Wu SY: Strong convergence theorems of relaxed hybrid steepest-descent methods for variational inequalities. Taiwanese Journal of Mathematics 2006,10(1):13–29.
Zeng LC, Wong NC, Yao JC: Convergence analysis of modified hybrid steepest-descent methods with variable parameters for variational inequalities. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 2007,132(1):51–69. 10.1007/s10957-006-9068-x
Ceng L-C, Xu H-K, Yao J-C: A hybrid steepest-descent method for variational inequalities in Hilbert spaces. Applicable Analysis 2008,87(5):575–589. 10.1080/00036810802140608
Xu HK, Kim TH: Convergence of hybrid steepest-descent methods for variational inequalities. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 2003,119(1):185–201.
Goebel K, Kirk WA: Topics in Metric Fixed Point Theory, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Volume 28. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; 1990:viii+244.
Maingé P-E: Approximation methods for common fixed points of nonexpansive mappings in Hilbert spaces. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2007,325(1):469–479. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.12.066
Blum E, Oettli W: From optimization and variational inequalities to equilibrium problems. The Mathematics Student 1994,63(1–4):123–145.
Suzuki T: Strong convergence of Krasnoselskii and Mann's type sequences for one-parameter nonexpansive semigroups without Bochner integrals. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2005,305(1):227–239. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2004.11.017
Colao V, Marino G, Xu H-K: An iterative method for finding common solutions of equilibrium and fixed point problems. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2008,344(1):340–352. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.02.041
Chang S-S, Joseph Lee HW, Chan CK: A new method for solving equilibrium problem fixed point problem and variational inequality problem with application to optimization. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications 2009,70(9):3307–3319. 10.1016/j.na.2008.04.035
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by the Korean Government (KRF-2008-313-C00050).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, S., Cho, Y. & Qin, X. A New Iterative Method for Solving Equilibrium Problems and Fixed Point Problems for Infinite Family of Nonexpansive Mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2010, 165098 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/165098
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/165098