Abstract
In this paper, an iterative algorithm is introduced to solve the split common fixedpoint problem for asymptotically nonexpansive mappings in Hilbert spaces. Theiterative algorithm presented in this paper is shown to possess strong convergencefor the split common fixed point problem of asymptotically nonexpansive mappingsalthough the mappings do not have semi-compactness. Our results improve and developprevious methods for solving the split common fixed point problem.
MSC: 47H09, 47J25.
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction and preliminaries
Throughout this paper, let and
bereal Hilbert spaces whose inner product and norm are denoted by
and
, respectively; let C andQ be nonempty closed convex subsets of
and
,respectively. A mapping
is said to benonexpansive if
for any
.A mapping
is said to bequasi-nonexpansive if
for any
and
, where
is the set of fixed pointsof T. A mapping
is calledasymptotically nonexpansive if there exists a sequence
satisfying
such that
for any
.A mapping
is semi-compact if, forany bounded sequence
with
, there exists asubsequence
such that
converges strongly to somepoint
.
The split feasibility problem (SFP) is to find a point with the property
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ1_HTML.gif)
where is a bounded linear operator.
Assuming that SFP (1.1) is consistent (i.e., (1.1) has a solution), itis not hard to see that solves(1.1) if and only if it solves the following fixed point equation:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ2_HTML.gif)
where and
arethe (orthogonal) projections onto C and Q, respectively,
isany positive constant, and
denotes the adjoint of A.
The SFP in finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces was first introduced by Censor andElfving [1] for modeling inverse problems whicharise from phase retrievals and in medical image reconstruction [2]. Recently, it has been found that the SFP can also beused in various disciplines such as image restoration, computer tomograph, and radiationtherapy treatment planning [2–7].
Let and
be two mappings satisfying
and
,respectively; let
be a bounded linear operator. The split common fixed point problem (SCFP) formappings S and T is to find a point
with the property
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ3_HTML.gif)
We use Γ to denote the set of solutions of SCFP (1.3), that is,.
Since each closed and convex subset may be considered as a fixed point set of aprojection on the subset, hence the split common fixed point problem (SCFP) isa generalization of the split feasibility problem (SFP) and the convexfeasibility problem (CFP) [5].
Split feasibility problems and split common fixed point problems have been studied bysome authors [8–15]. In 2010,Moudafi [10] proposed the following iterationmethod to approximate a split common fixed point of demi-contractive mappings: forarbitrarily chosen ,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equa_HTML.gif)
and he proved that converges weakly to a split common fixedpoint
, where
and
are two demi-contractive mappings,
is a bounded linear operator.
Using the iterative algorithm above, in 2011, Moudafi [9] also obtained a weak convergence theorem for the split commonfixed point problem of quasi-nonexpansive mappings in Hilbert spaces. After that, someauthors also proposed some iterative algorithms to approximate a split common fixedpoint of other nonlinear mappings, such as nonspreading type mappings [16], asymptotically quasi-nonexpansive mappings[12], κ-asymptoticallystrictly pseudononspreading mappings [17],asymptotically strictly pseudocontraction mappings [18]etc., but they just obtained weak convergence theoremswhen those mappings do not have semi-compactness. This naturally brings us to thefollowing question.
Can we construct an iterative scheme which can guarantee the strong convergence forsplit common fixed point problems without assumption ofsemi-compactness?
In this paper, we introduce the following iterative scheme. Let ,
,the sequence
is defined as follows:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ4_HTML.gif)
where and
are two asymptotically nonexpansive mappings,
is a bounded linear operator,
denotes the adjoint of A. Under some suitable conditions on parameters, theiterative scheme
is shown to converge strongly to a splitcommon fixed point of asymptotically nonexpansive mappings
and
without the assumption of semi-compactness on
and
.
The following lemma and results are useful for our proofs.
Lemma 1.1[19]
LetEbe a real uniformly convex Banach space, Kbea nonempty closed subset ofE, and letbe an asymptoticallynonexpansive mapping. Then
isdemiclosed at zero, that is, if
convergesweakly to a point
and
,then
.
Let C be a closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H.denotes the metric projection of H onto C. It is well known that
ischaracterized by the properties: for
and
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ5_HTML.gif)
and
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ6_HTML.gif)
In a real Hilbert space H, it is also well known that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ7_HTML.gif)
and
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ8_HTML.gif)
2 Main results
Theorem 2.1Letand
be twoHilbert spaces,
bea bounded linear operator,
bean asymptotically nonexpansive mapping with the sequence
satisfying
,and
bean asymptotically nonexpansive mapping with the sequence
satisfying
,
and
, respectively.Let
,
,and let the sequence
be defined as follows:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ9_HTML.gif)
wheredenotesthe adjoint ofA,
and
satisfies
,
,
.If
, then
converges stronglyto
.
Proof We will divide the proof into five steps.
Step 1. We first show that is closedand convex for any
.
Since ,so
isclosed and convex. Assume that
is closedand convex. For any
,since
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equb_HTML.gif)
we know that is closed and convex. Therefore
is closedand convex for any
.
Step 2. We prove for any
.
Let , then from (2.1) we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ10_HTML.gif)
where
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ11_HTML.gif)
Substituting (2.3) into (2.2), we can obtain that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ12_HTML.gif)
In addition, it follows from (2.1) that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ13_HTML.gif)
Therefore, from (2.4) and (2.5), we know that and
for any
.
Step 3. We will show that is a Cauchy sequence.
Since and
,then
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ14_HTML.gif)
It means that is bounded. For any
, by using(1.6), we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equc_HTML.gif)
which implies that . Thus
is nondecreasing. Therefore, by the boundednessof
,
exists. For somepositive integers m, n with
, from
and (1.6), we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ15_HTML.gif)
Since exists, it followsfrom (2.7) that
. Therefore
is a Cauchy sequence.
Step 4. We will show that .
Since ,we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ16_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ17_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ18_HTML.gif)
Notice that , it follows from (2.4)that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equd_HTML.gif)
thus, since is bounded and
,from (2.8) we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ19_HTML.gif)
On the other hand, since
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Eque_HTML.gif)
we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equf_HTML.gif)
Since and
,we know that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ20_HTML.gif)
In addition, since , we know that
. So from
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equg_HTML.gif)
we can obtain that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ21_HTML.gif)
Similarly, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ22_HTML.gif)
Step 5. We will show that converges strongly to an element ofΓ.
Since is a Cauchy sequence, we may assume that
,from (2.8) we have
,which implies that
.So it follows from (2.13) and Lemma 1.1 that
.
In addition, since A is a bounded linear operator, we have that. Hence, itfollows from (2.14) and Lemma 1.1 that
. This means that
and
converges strongly to
. The proof iscompleted. □
In Theorem 2.1, as and
,we have the following result.
Corollary 2.2Letbe aHilbert space,
bean asymptotically nonexpansive mapping with a sequence
satisfying
.The sequence
is defined as follows:
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ23_HTML.gif)
whereand
satisfies
.If
, then
converges strongly to a fixedpoint
ofT.
In Theorem 2.1, when and
aretwo nonexpansive mappings, the following result holds.
Corollary 2.3Letand
be twoHilbert spaces,
bea bounded linear operator,
and
betwo nonexpansive mappings such that
and
, respectively.Let
,
,and let the sequence
be defined as follows:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ24_HTML.gif)
wheredenotesthe adjoint ofA,
and
satisfies
.If
, then
converges stronglyto
.
Remark 2.4 When and
aretwo quasi-nonexpansive mappings and
and
are demiclosed at zero, Corollary 2.3 also holds.
Example 2.5 Let C be a unit ball in a real Hilbert space,and let
be amapping defined by
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equh_HTML.gif)
It is proved in Goebel and Kirk [20] that
-
(i)
,
;
-
(ii)
,
,
.
Taking ,
, itis easy to see that
.So we can take
,and
,
,then
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equi_HTML.gif)
Therefore is anasymptotically nonexpansive mapping from C into itself with
.
Let D be an orthogonal subspace of with thenorm
and the inner product
for
and
. For each
, we define amapping
by
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equj_HTML.gif)
It is easy to show that or
for any
.Therefore
is anasymptotically nonexpansive mapping from D into itself with
since
for anysequence
with
.
Obviously, C and D are closed convex subsets of and
,respectively. Let
be defined by
for
. ThenA is a bounded linear operator with adjoint operator
for
. Clearly,
,
.
Taking ,
,
,
,
and
,
. Itfollows from Theorem 2.1 that
converges strongly to
.
3 Applications and examples
Application to the equilibrium problem
Let H be a real Hilbert space, C be a nonempty closed and convexsubset of H, and let the bifunction satisfy the following conditions:
(A1) ,
;
(A2) ,
;
(A3) For all ,
;
(A4) For each , thefunction
is convex and lower semi-continuous.
The so-called equilibrium problem for F is to find a pointsuch that
for all
.The set of its solutions is denoted by
.
Lemma 3.1[21]
LetCbe a nonempty closed convex subset of a HilbertspaceH, and letbe a bifunctionsatisfying (A1)-(A4). Let
and
.Then there exists
suchthat
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equk_HTML.gif)
Lemma 3.2[21]
Assume thatsatisfies(A1)-(A4). For
and
,define a mapping
as follows:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equl_HTML.gif)
Then
-
(1)
is single-valued;
-
(2)
is firmly nonexpansive, that is, for all
,
-
(3)
;
-
(4)
is nonempty, closed and convex.
Theorem 3.3Letand
be twoHilbert spaces,
bea bounded linear operator,
bea nonexpansive mapping,
be a bifunctionsatisfying (A1)-(A4). Assume that
and
.Taking
,for arbitrarily chosen
,the sequence
is defined asfollows:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ25_HTML.gif)
wheredenotesthe adjoint ofA,
,
and
satisfies
.If
, then thesequence
converges strongly toa point
.
Proof It follows from Lemma 3.2 that ,
is nonempty, closed and convex and
is a firmly nonexpansive mapping. Hence all conditions in Corollary 2.3 aresatisfied. The conclusion of Theorem 3.3 can be directly obtained fromCorollary 2.3. □
Let and
be two real Hilbert spaces. Let C be a closed convex subset of
,K be a closed convex subset of
,
be a bounded linear operator. Assume that F is a bi-function from
into R and G is a bi-function from
intoR. The split equilibrium problem (SEP) is to
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ26_HTML.gif)
and
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ27_HTML.gif)
Let denote the solution setof the split equilibrium problem SEP.
Example 3.4[22]
Let ,
and
. Let
for all R, then A is a bounded linear operator. Let
and
bedefined by
and
, respectively. Clearly,
and
. So
.
Example 3.5[22]
Let with the standard norm
and
with the norm
for some
.
and
. Define a bi-function
,where
,
, thenF is a bi-function from
intoR with
. For each
,let
,then A is a bounded linear operator from
into
.In fact, it is also easy to verify that
and
for some
and
.Now define another bi-function G as follows:
for all
.Then G is a bi-function from
intoR with
.
Clearly, when , we have
. So
.
Corollary 3.6Letand
be twoHilbert spaces,
bea bounded linear operator,
be a bifunctionsatisfying
and
be a bifunctionsatisfying
.Taking
,for arbitrarily chosen
,the sequence
is defined asfollows:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ28_HTML.gif)
wheredenotesthe adjoint ofA,
,
and
satisfies
.If
, then thesequence
converges strongly toa point
.
Remark 3.7 Since Example 3.4 and Example 3.5 satisfy the conditionsof Corollary 2.3, the split equilibrium problems in Example 3.4 andExample 3.5 can be solved by algorithm (3.4).
Application to the hierarchial variational inequality problem
Let H be a real Hilbert space, and
be two nonexpansive mappings from H to H such that
and
.
The so-called hierarchical variational inequality problem for nonexpansive mappingwith respect to a nonexpansive mapping
isto find a point
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ29_HTML.gif)
It is easy to see that (3.5) is equivalent to the following fixed point problem:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ30_HTML.gif)
where is the metric projection from H onto
. Letting
and
(the fixed point set ofthe mapping
)and
(theidentity mapping on H), then problem (3.6) is equivalent to the followingsplit feasibility problem:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ31_HTML.gif)
Hence from Theorem 2.1 we have the following theorem.
Theorem 3.8LetH, ,
,CandQbe the same as above.Let
and
,and let the sequence
be defined asfollows:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1029-242X-2015-1/MediaObjects/13660_2014_1289_Equ32_HTML.gif)
whereand
satisfies
.If
, then thesequence
converges strongly toa solution of the hierarchical variational inequality problem (3.5).
References
Byrne C: Iterative oblique projection onto convex subsets and the split feasibilityproblems.Inverse Probl. 2002, 18:441–453. 10.1088/0266-5611/18/2/310
Censor Y, Elfving T: A multiprojection algorithm using Bregman projection in a product space.Numer. Algorithms 1994, 8:221–239. 10.1007/BF02142692
Censor Y, Elfving T, Kopf N, Bortfeld T: The multiple-sets split feasibility problem and its applications.Inverse Probl. 2005, 21:2071–2084. 10.1088/0266-5611/21/6/017
Censor Y, Seqal A: The split common fixed point problem for directed operators.J. Convex Anal. 2009, 16:587–600.
Censor Y, Bortfeld T, Martin B, Trofimov T: A unified approach for inversion problem in intensity-modulated radiationtherapy.Phys. Med. Biol. 2006, 51:2353–2365. 10.1088/0031-9155/51/10/001
Censor Y, Motova A, Segal A: Perturbed projections and subgradient projections for the multiple-sets splitfeasibility problems.J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 327:1244–1256. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.05.010
Lopez G, Martin V, Xu HK: Iterative algorithms for the multiple-sets split feasibility problem. In Biomedical Mathematics: Promising Directions in Imaging, Therapy Planning andInverse Problems. Edited by: Censor Y, Jiang M, Wang G. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison; 2009:243–279.
Dang Y, Gao Y: The strong convergence of a KM-CQ-like algorithm for a split feasibilityproblem.Inverse Probl. 2011., 27: Article ID 015007
Moudafi A: A note on the split common fixed point problem for quasi-nonexpansiveoperators.Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74:4083–4087. 10.1016/j.na.2011.03.041
Moudafi A: The split common fixed point problem for demi-contractive mappings.Inverse Probl. 2010., 26: Article ID 055007
Maruster S, Popirlan C: On the Mann-type iteration and convex feasibility problem.J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2008, 212:390–396. 10.1016/j.cam.2006.12.012
Qin LJ, Wang L, Chang SS: Multiple-set split feasibility problem for a finite family of asymptoticallyquasi-nonexpansive mappings.Panam. Math. J. 2012,22(1):37–45.
Wang F, Xu HK: Approximation curve and strong convergence of the CQ algorithm for the splitfeasibility problem.J. Inequal. Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 102085 10.1155/2010/102085
Xu HK: A variable Krasnosel’skii-Mann algorithm and the multiple-set splitfeasibility problem.Inverse Probl. 2006, 22:2021–2034. 10.1088/0266-5611/22/6/007
Yang Q: The relaxed CQ algorithm for solving the split feasibility problem.Inverse Probl. 2004, 20:1261–1266. 10.1088/0266-5611/20/4/014
Chang SS, Kim JK, Cho YJ, Sim JY: Weak-and strong-convergence theorems of solution to split feasibility problem fornonspreading type mapping in Hilbert spaces.Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2014., 2014: Article ID 11
Quan J, Chang SS, Zhang X: Multiple-set split feasibility problems fork-strictly pseudononspreadingmapping in Hilbert spaces.Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2013., 2013: Article ID 342545 10.1155/2013/342545
Chang SS, Cho YJ, Kim JK, Zhang WB, Yang L: Multiple-set split feasibility problems for asymptotically strictpseudocontractions.Abstract and Applied Analysis 2012., 2012: Article ID 491760 10.1155/2012/491760
Chang SS, Cho YJ, Zhou H: Demi-closed principle and weak convergence problems for asymptoticallynonexpansive mappings.J. Korean Math. Soc. 2001, 38:1245–1260.
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
Combettes PL, Hirstoaga SA: Equilibrium programming in Hilbert spaces.J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2005, 6:117–136.
He Z: The split equilibrium problem and its convergence algorithms.J. Inequal. Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 162
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their thanks to the reviewers and editors for theirhelpful suggestions and advice. This work was supported by the National NaturalScience Foundation of China (Grant No. 11361070) and the Scientific ResearchFoundation of Postgraduate of Yunnan University of Finance and Economics.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally to this work. All authors read and approved the finalmanuscript.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, 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 license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, XF., Wang, L., Ma, Z.L. et al. The strong convergence theorems for split common fixed point problem ofasymptotically nonexpansive mappings in Hilbert spaces. J Inequal Appl 2015, 1 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2015-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2015-1