• Research Article
• Open Access

# Strong Convergence Theorems for Infinitely Nonexpansive Mappings in Hilbert Space

Fixed Point Theory and Applications20092009:962303

https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/962303

• Accepted: 12 October 2009
• Published:

## Abstract

We introduce a modified Ishikawa iterative process for approximating a fixed point of two infinitely nonexpansive self-mappings by using the hybrid method in a Hilbert space and prove that the modified Ishikawa iterative sequence converges strongly to a common fixed point of two infinitely nonexpansive self-mappings.

## Keywords

• Hilbert Space
• Iterative Process
• Differential Geometry
• Convergence Theorem
• Hybrid Method

## 1. Introduction

Let be a nonempty closed convex subset of a Hilbert space , a self-mapping of . Recall that is said to be nonexpansive if for all .

Construction of fixed points of nonexpansive mappings via Mann's iteration [1] has extensively been investigated in literature (see, e.g., [25] and reference therein). But the convergence about Mann's iteration and Ishikawa's iteration is in general not strong (see the counterexample in [6]). In order to get strong convergence, one must modify them. In 2003, Nakajo and Takahashi [7] proposed such a modification for a nonexpansive mapping .

Consider the algorithm,

(1.1)

where denotes the metric projection from onto a closed convex subset of . They prove the sequence generated by that algorithm (1.1) converges strongly to a fixed point of provided that the control sequence is chosen so that .

Let be a sequence of nonexpansive self-mappings of , a sequence of nonnegative numbers in . For each , defined a mapping of into itself as follows:

(1.2)

Such a mapping is called the -mapping generated by and ; see [8].

In this paper, motivated by [9], for any given ( is a fixed number), we will propose the following iterative progress for two infinitely nonexpansive mappings and in a Hilbert space :

(1.3)

and prove, converges strongly to a fixed point of and .

We will use the notation:

for weak convergence and for strong convergence.

denotes the weak -limit set of .

## 2. Preliminaries

In this paper, we need some facts and tools which are listed as lemmas below.

Lemma 2.1 (see [10]).

Let be a Hilbert space, a nonempty closed convex subset of , and a nonexpansive mapping with Fix . If is a sequence in weakly converging to and if converges strongly to , then .

Lemma 2.2 (see [11]).

Let be a nonempty bounded closed convex subset of a Hilbert space . Given also a real number and . Then the set is closed and convex.

Let be a sequence of nonexpansive self-mappings on , where is a nonempty closed convex subset of a strictly convex Banach space . Given a sequence in , one defines a sequence of self-mappings on by (1.2). Then one has the following results.

Lemma 2.3 (see [8]).

Let be a nonempty closed convex subset of a strictly convex Banach space , a sequence of nonexpansive self-mappings on such that and let be a sequence in for some . Then, for every and the limit exists.

Remark 2.4.

It can be known from Lemma 2.3 that if is a nonempty bounded subset of , then for there exists such that for all .

Remark 2.5.

Using Lemma 2.3, we can define a mapping as follows:
(2.1)
for all Such a is called the -mapping generated by and Since is nonexpansive mapping, is also nonexpansive. Indeed, observe that for each ,
(2.2)

If is a bounded sequence in , then we put . Hence, it is clear from Remark 2.4 that for there exists such that for all This implies that

(2.3)

Lemma 2.6 (see [8]).

Let be a nonempty closed convex subset of a strictly convex Banach space . Let be a sequence of nonexpansive self-mappings on such that and let be a sequence in for some . Then, .

## 3. Strong Convergence Theorem

Theorem 3.1.

Let be a closed convex subset of a Hilbert space and let and be defined as (1.2). Assume that for all and for some and for all and . If then generated by (1.3) converges strongly to .

Proof.

Firstly, we observe that is convex by Lemma 2.2. Next, we show that for all .

Indeed, for all ,

(3.1)
Therefore,
(3.2)

That is for all . Next we show that for all .

We prove this by induction. For , we have Assume that for all since is the projection of onto so

(3.3)

As by the induction assumption, the last inequality holds, in particular, for all . This together with definition of implies that . Hence for all .

Notice that the definition of implies . This together with the fact further implies for all

The fact asserts that implies

(3.4)

We now claim that and . Indeed,

(3.5)
since , we have
(3.6)
Thus
(3.7)
We now show . Let be any subsequence of . Since is a bounded subset of , there exists a subsequence of such that
(3.8)
Since
(3.9)
it follows that . By (3.1), we have
(3.10)
Hence
(3.11)
Thus,
(3.12)
Using (3.1) again, we obtain that
(3.13)
This imply that . For the arbitrariness of , we have and
(3.14)
Thus, by (3.4), (3.7) and (3.14), we have
(3.15)
Since and we have
(3.16)
Thus, using (3.16), Lemma 2.1, and the boundedness of , we get that . Since and , we have where . By the weak lower semicontinuity of the norm, we have for all . However, since , we must have for all . Hence and
(3.17)

That is, converges to .

This completes the proof.

## Declarations

### Acknowledgment

This work is supported by Grant KJ080725 of the Chongqing Municipal Education Commission.

## Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
College of Mathematics and Statistics, Chongqing Technology and Business University, Chongqing, 400067, China

## References

1. Mann WR: Mean value methods in iteration. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 1953, 4: 506–510. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1953-0054846-3
2. Ishikawa S: Fixed points by a new iteration method. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 1974, 44: 147–150. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1974-0336469-5
3. Deng L: On Chidume's open questions. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 1993,174(2):441–449. 10.1006/jmaa.1993.1129
4. Chidume CE: An iterative process for nonlinear Lipschitzian strongly accretive mappings in spaces. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 1990,151(2):453–461. 10.1016/0022-247X(90)90160-H
5. Rhoades BE: Comments on two fixed point iteration methods. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 1976,56(3):741–750. 10.1016/0022-247X(76)90038-X
6. Genel A, Lindenstrauss J: An example concerning fixed points. Israel Journal of Mathematics 1975,22(1):81–86. 10.1007/BF02757276
7. Nakajo K, Takahashi W: Strong convergence theorems for nonexpansive mappings and nonexpansive semigroups. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2003,279(2):372–379. 10.1016/S0022-247X(02)00458-4
8. Shimoji K, Takahashi W: Strong convergence to common fixed points of infinite nonexpansive mappings and applications. Taiwanese Journal of Mathematics 2001,5(2):387–404.
9. Deng L, Liu Q: Iterative scheme for nonself generalized asymptotically quasi-nonexpansive mappings. Applied Mathematics and Computation 2008,205(1):317–324. 10.1016/j.amc.2008.08.027
10. 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.
11. Martinez-Yanes C, Xu H-K: Strong convergence of the CQ method for fixed point iteration processes. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications 2006,64(11):2400–2411. 10.1016/j.na.2005.08.018