Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Coupling Ishikawa algorithms with hybrid techniques for pseudocontractive mappings

Fixed Point Theory and Applications20132013:211

https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2013-211

  • Received: 4 June 2013
  • Accepted: 24 July 2013
  • Published:

Abstract

It is well-known that Mann’s algorithm fails to converge for Lipschitzian pseudocontractions and strong convergence of Ishikawa’s algorithm for Lipschitzian pseudocontractions have not been achieved without compactness assumption on pseudocontractive mapping T or underlying space C. A new algorithm, which couples Ishikawa algorithms with hybrid techniques for finding the fixed points of a Lipschitzian pseudocontractive mapping, is constructed in this paper. Strong convergence of the presented algorithm is shown without any compactness assumption.

MSC:47H05, 47H10, 47H17.

Keywords

  • pseudocontractive mappings
  • Ishikawa algorithm
  • hybrid algorithms
  • fixed point
  • strong convergence

1 Introduction

In the present article, we are devoted to finding the fixed points of pseudocontractive mappings. Interest in pseudocontractive mappings stems mainly from their firm connection with the class of nonlinear accretive operators. It is a classical result, see Deimling [1], that if T is an accretive operator, then the solutions of the equations T x = 0 correspond to the equilibrium points of some evolution systems. This explains why a considerable research effort has been devoted to iterative methods for approximating solutions of the equation above, when T is accretive or corresponding to the iterative approximation of fixed points of pseudocontractions. Results of this kind have been obtained firstly in Hilbert spaces, but only for Lipschitz operators, and then they have been extended to more general Banach spaces (thanks to several geometric inequalities for general Banach spaces developed) and to more general classes of operators. There are still no results for the case of arbitrary Lipschitzian and pseudocontractive operators, even when the domain of the operator is a compact and convex subset of a Hilbert space. It is now well known that Mann’s algorithm [2] fails to converge for Lipschitzian pseudocontractions. This explains the importance, from this point of view, of the improvement brought by the Ishikawa iteration, which was introduced by Ishikawa [3] in 1974.

The original result of Ishikawa involves a Lipschitzian pseudocontractive self-mapping T on a convex and compact subset C of a Hilbert space. It establishes sufficient conditions such that Ishikawa iteration converges strongly to a fixed point of T.

However, a strong convergence has not been achieved without a compactness assumption on T or C. Consequently, considerable research efforts, especially within the past 40 years or so, have been devoted to iterative methods for approximating fixed points of T, when T is pseudocontractive (see, for example, [417] and the references therein). On the other hand, some convergence results are obtained by using the hybrid method in mathematical programming, see, for example, [14, 1820]. Especially, Zegeye et al. [21] assumed that the interior of Fix ( T ) is nonempty ( int Fix ( T ) ) to achieve a strong convergence, when T is a self-mapping of a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space. This appears very restrictive, since even in with the usual norm, Lipschitz pseudocontractive maps with finite number of fixed points do not enjoy this condition that int Fix ( T ) .

The purpose of this article is to construct a new algorithm, which couples Ishikawa algorithms with hybrid techniques for finding the fixed points of a Lipschitzian pseudocontractive mapping. Strong convergence of the presented algorithm is given without any compactness assumption.

2 Preliminaries

Let H be a real Hilbert space with the inner product , and the norm , respectively. Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of H. Recall that a mapping T : C C is called pseudocontractive (or a pseudocontraction) if
T x T y , x y x y 2

for all x , y C .

It is easily seen that T is pseudocontractive if and only if T satisfies the condition
T x T y 2 x y 2 + ( I T ) x ( I T ) y 2
(2.1)

for all x , y C .

A mapping T : C C is called L-Lipschitzian if there exists L > 0 such that
T x T y L x y

for all x , y C .

We will use Fix ( T ) to denote the set of fixed points of T, that is,
Fix ( T ) = { x C : x = T x } .

The original result of Ishikawa is stated in the following.

Theorem 2.1 Let C be a convex and compact subset of a Hilbert space H, and let T : C C be a Lipschitzian pseudocontractive mapping. Given x 1 C , then the Ishikawa iteration { x n } defined by
{ y n = ( 1 β n ) x n + β n T x n , x n + 1 = ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T y n ,
(2.2)
for all n N , where { α n } , { β n } are sequences of positive numbers satisfying
  1. (a)

    0 α n β n 1 ,

     
  2. (b)

    lim n β n = 0 ,

     
  3. (c)

    n = 1 α n β n = ,

     

converges strongly to a fixed point of T.

To make our exposition self-contained, we have to recall that the (nearest point or metric) projection from H onto C, denoted by P C , assigns to each x H the unique point P C ( x ) C with the property
x P C ( x ) = inf { x y : y C } .
It is well known that the metric projection P C of H onto C is characterized by
x P C ( x ) , y P C ( x ) 0
(2.3)
for all x H , y C . Also, it is well known that in a real Hilbert space H, the following equality holds
t x + ( 1 t ) y 2 = t x 2 + ( 1 t ) y 2 t ( 1 t ) x y 2
(2.4)

for all x , y H and t [ 0 , 1 ] .

Lemma 2.1 [7]

Let H be a real Hilbert space, let C be a closed convex subset of H. Let T : C C be a continuous pseudocontractive mapping. Then
  1. (i)

    Fix ( T ) is a closed convex subset of C.

     
  2. (ii)

    ( I T ) is demiclosed at zero.

     

In the sequel, we shall use the following notations:

  • ω w ( x n ) = { x : x n j x  weakly } denote the weak ω-limit set of { x n } ;

  • x n x stands for the weak convergence of { x n } to x;

  • x n x stands for the strong convergence of { x n } to x.

Lemma 2.2 [18]

Let C be a closed convex subset of H. Let { x n } be a sequence in H, and let u H . Let q = P C u . If { x n } is such that ω w ( x n ) C and satisfies the condition
x n u u q for all  n N ,

then x n q .

3 Main results

In this section, we state our main results.

Let C be a nonempty, closed and convex subset of a real Hilbert space H. Let T : C C be an L-Lipschitzian pseudocontractive mapping with Fix ( T ) .

Firstly, we present our new algorithm, which couples Ishikawa’s algorithm (2.2) with the hybrid projection algorithm.

Algorithm 3.1 Let x 0 H . For C 1 = C and x 1 = P C 1 ( x 0 ) , define a sequence { x n } of C as follows:
{ y n = ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n , z n = β n x n + ( 1 β n ) T y n , C n + 1 = { x C n , z n x x n x } , x n + 1 = P C n + 1 ( x 0 ) ,
(3.1)

for all n 1 , where { α n } and { β n } are two sequences in [ 0 , 1 ] .

In the sequel, we assume that the sequences { α n } and { β n } satisfy the following conditions
0 < k 1 β n α n < 1 1 + L 2 + 1

for all n N .

Remark 3.1 Without loss of generality, we can assume that the Lipschitz constant L > 1 . If not, then T is nonexpansive. In this case, algorithm (3.1) is trivial. So, in this article, we assume L > 1 . It is obvious that 1 1 + L 2 + 1 < 1 L for all n 1 .

We prove the following several lemmas, which will support our main theorem below.

Lemma 3.1 Fix ( T ) C n for n 1 and { x n } is well defined.

Proof We use mathematical induction to prove Fix ( T ) C n for all n N .
  1. (i)

    Fix ( T ) C 1 = C is obvious.

     
  2. (ii)
    Suppose that Fix ( T ) C k for some k N . Take u Fix ( T ) C k . From (3.1), by using (2.4), we have
    z n u 2 = β n ( x n u ) + ( 1 β n ) ( T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) u ) 2 = β n x n u 2 + ( 1 β n ) T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) u 2 β n ( 1 β n ) x n T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) 2 .
    (3.2)
     
Since u Fix ( T ) , from (2.1), we have
T x u 2 x u 2 + x T x 2
(3.3)

for all x C .

From (2.4) and (3.3), we obtain
T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) u 2 ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) 2 + ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n u 2 = ( 1 α n ) ( x n T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) ) + α n ( T x n T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) ) 2 + ( 1 α n ) ( x n u ) + α n ( T x n u ) 2 = ( 1 α n ) x n T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) 2 + α n T x n T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) 2 α n ( 1 α n ) x n T x n 2 + ( 1 α n ) x n u 2 + α n T x n u 2 α n ( 1 α n ) x n T x n 2 ( 1 α n ) x n u 2 + α n ( x n u 2 + x n T x n 2 ) α n ( 1 α n ) x n T x n 2 + ( 1 α n ) x n T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) 2 + α n T x n T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) 2 α n ( 1 α n ) x n T x n 2 .
Note that T is L-Lipschitzian. It follows that
T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) u 2 ( 1 α n ) x n u 2 + α n ( x n u 2 + x n T x n 2 ) α n ( 1 α n ) x n T x n 2 + ( 1 α n ) x n T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) 2 + α n 3 L 2 x n T x n 2 α n ( 1 α n ) x n T x n 2 = x n u 2 + ( 1 α n ) x n T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) 2 α n ( 1 2 α n α n 2 L 2 ) x n T x n 2 .
(3.4)
By condition α n < 1 1 + L 2 + 1 , we have 1 2 α n α n 2 L 2 > 0 . Substituting (3.4) to (3.2), we obtain
z n u 2 = β n x n u 2 + ( 1 β n ) T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) u 2 β n ( 1 β n ) x n T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) 2 β n x n u 2 + ( 1 β n ) [ x n u 2 + ( 1 α n ) x n T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) 2 ] β n ( 1 β n ) x n T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) 2 = x n u 2 + ( 1 β n ) ( 1 α n β n ) x n T ( ( 1 α n ) x n + α n T x n ) 2 .
Since α n + β n 1 , we deduce
z n u x n u .
(3.5)
Hence u C k + 1 . This implies that
Fix ( T ) C n

for all n N .

Next, we show that C n is closed and convex for all n N .

It is obvious that C 1 = C is closed and convex.

Suppose that C k is closed and convex for some k N . For u C k , it is obvious that z k u x k u is equivalent to z k x k 2 + 2 z k x k , x k u 0 . So, C k + 1 is closed and convex. Then, for any n N , the set C n is closed and convex. This implies that { x n } is well defined. □

Lemma 3.2 The sequence { x n } is bounded.

Proof Using the characterization inequality (2.3) of metric projection, from x n = P C n ( x 0 ) , we have
x 0 x n , x n y 0 for all  y C n .
Since Fix ( T ) C n , we also have
x 0 x n , x n u 0 for all  u Fix ( T ) .
So, for u Fix ( T ) , we obtain
0 x 0 x n , x n u = x 0 x n , x n x 0 + x 0 u = x 0 x n 2 + x 0 x n , x 0 u x 0 x n 2 + x 0 x n x 0 u .
Hence,
x 0 x n x 0 u for all  u Fix ( T ) .
(3.6)

This implies that the sequence { x n } is bounded. □

Lemma 3.3 lim n x n + 1 x n = 0 .

Proof From x n = P C n ( x 0 ) and x n + 1 = P C n + 1 ( x 0 ) C n + 1 C n , we have
x 0 x n , x n x n + 1 0 .
Hence,
0 x 0 x n , x n x n + 1 = x 0 x n , x n x 0 + x 0 x n + 1 = x 0 x n 2 + x 0 x n , x 0 x n + 1 x 0 x n 2 + x 0 x n x 0 x n + 1 ,
and, therefore,
x 0 x n x 0 x n + 1 ,
which implies that lim n x n x 0 exists. Thus,
x n + 1 x n 2 = ( x n + 1 x 0 ) ( x n x 0 ) 2 = x n + 1 x 0 2 x n x 0 2 2 x n + 1 x n , x n x 0 x n + 1 x 0 2 x n x 0 2 0 .

 □

Theorem 3.2 The sequence { x n } defined by (3.1) converges strongly to P Fix ( T ) ( x 0 ) .

Remark 3.3 Note that Fix ( T ) is closed and convex. Thus, the projection P Fix ( T ) is well defined.

Proof Since x n + 1 C n + 1 C n , we have
z n x n + 1 x n x n + 1 0 .
Further, we obtain
z n x n z n x n + 1 + x n + 1 x n 0 .
From (3.1), we get
x n T x n x n z n + z n T x n x n z n + β n x n T x n + ( 1 β n ) T y n T x n x n z n + β n x n T x n + ( 1 β n ) L α n x n T x n = x n z n + [ β n + ( 1 β n ) L α n ] x n T x n .
Since 0 < k 1 β n α n < 1 1 + L 2 + 1 and 1 [ β n + ( 1 β n ) L α n ] > k ( 1 L 1 + L 2 + 1 ) > 0 , it follows that
x n T x n 1 1 [ β n + ( 1 β n ) L α n ] x n z n 1 k ( 1 L 1 + L 2 + 1 ) x n z n 0 .
(3.7)

Now, (3.7) and Lemma 2.1 guarantee that every weak limit point of { x n } is a fixed point of T. That is, ω w ( x n ) Fix ( T ) . This fact, inequality (3.6) and Lemma 2.2 ensure the strong convergence of { x n } to P Fix ( T ) ( x 0 ) . This completes the proof. □

Remark 3.4 It is easily seen that all of the results above hold for nonexpansive mappings.

Remark 3.5 It is nowadays quite clear that, for large classes of contractive type operators, it suffices to consider the simpler Mann iteration, even if the Ishikawa iteration, which is more general but also computationally more complicated than the Mann iteration, could always be used. But if T is only a pseudocontractive mapping, then generally, the Mann iterative process does not converge to the fixed point, and strong convergence of the Ishikawa iteration has not been achieved without the compactness assumption on T or C. However, our algorithm (3.1) has a strong convergence without the compactness assumption.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Yonghong Yao was supported in part by NSFC 71161001-G0105 and LQ13A010007. Yeong-Cheng Liou was supported in part by NSC 101-2628-E-230-001-MY3 and NSC 101-2622-E-230-005-CC3.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Mathematics, Tianjin Polytechnic University, Tianjin, 300387, China
(2)
Faculty of Applied Sciences, University ‘Politehnica’ of Bucharest, Splaiul Independentei 313, Bucharest, 060042, Romania
(3)
Department of Information Management, Cheng Shiu University, Kaohsiung, 833, Taiwan

References

  1. Deimling K: Zeros of accretive operators. Manuscr. Math. 1974, 13: 365–374. 10.1007/BF01171148MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Mann WR: Mean value methods in iteration. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1953, 4: 506–510. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1953-0054846-3View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Ishikawa S: Fixed points by a new iteration method. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1974, 44: 147–150. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1974-0336469-5MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Chidume CE, Mutangadura SA: An example on the Mann iteration method for Lipschitz pseudo-contractions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2001, 129: 2359–2363. 10.1090/S0002-9939-01-06009-9MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Chidume CE, Zegeye H: Approximate fixed point sequences and convergence theorems for Lipschitz pseudo-contractive maps. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2003, 132: 831–840.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Zhang QB, Cheng CZ: Strong convergence theorem for a family of Lipschitz pseudocontractive mappings in a Hilbert space. Math. Comput. Model. 2008, 48: 480–485. 10.1016/j.mcm.2007.09.014View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Zhou H: Strong convergence of an explicit iterative algorithm for continuous pseudo-contractions in Banach spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70: 4039–4046. 10.1016/j.na.2008.08.012MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Zegeye H, Shahzad N, Mekonen T: Viscosity approximation methods for pseudocontractive mappings in Banach spaces. Appl. Math. Comput. 2007, 185: 538–546. 10.1016/j.amc.2006.07.063MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Zegeye H, Shahzad N, Alghamdi MA: Minimum-norm fixed point of pseudocontractive mappings. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 926017Google Scholar
  10. Ofoedu EU, Zegeye H: Iterative algorithm for multi-valued pseudocontractive mappings in Banach spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2010, 372: 68–76. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2010.07.020MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Ofoedu EU, Zegeye H: Further investigation on iteration processes for pseudocontractive mappings with application. Nonlinear Anal. 2012, 75: 153–162. 10.1016/j.na.2011.08.015MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Udomene A: Path convergence, approximation of fixed points and variational solutions of Lipschitz pseudo-contractions in Banach spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2007, 67: 2403–2414. 10.1016/j.na.2006.09.001MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Yao Y, Liou YC, Chen R: Strong convergence of an iterative algorithm for pseudo-contractive mapping in Banach spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2007, 67: 3311–3317. 10.1016/j.na.2006.10.013MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Yao Y, Liou YC, Marino G: A hybrid algorithm for pseudo-contractive mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 4997–5002. 10.1016/j.na.2009.03.075MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Morales CH, Jung JS: Convergence of paths for pseudo-contractive mappings in Banach spaces. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2000, 128: 3411–3419. 10.1090/S0002-9939-00-05573-8MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Ceng LC, Petrusel A, Yao JC: Strong convergence of modified implicit iterative algorithms with perturbed mappings for continuous pseudocontractive mappings. Appl. Math. Comput. 2009, 209: 162–176. 10.1016/j.amc.2008.10.062MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Berinde V Lecture Notes in Mathematics. In Iterative Approximation of Fixed Points. Springer, Berlin; 2007.Google Scholar
  18. Martinez-Yanes C, Xu HK: Strong convergence of the CQ method for fixed point processes. Nonlinear Anal. 2006, 64: 2400–2411. 10.1016/j.na.2005.08.018MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Takahashi W, Takeuchi Y, Kubota R: Strong convergence theorems by hybrid methods for families of nonexpansive mappings in Hilbert spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2008, 341: 276–286. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.09.062MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Nadezhkina N, Takahashi W: Strong convergence theorem by a hybrid method for nonexpansive mappings and Lipschitz-continuous monotone mappings. SIAM J. Optim. 2006, 16: 1230–1241. 10.1137/050624315MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Zegeye H, Shahzad N, Alghamdi MA: Convergence of Ishikawas iteration method for pseudocontractive mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 7304–7311. 10.1016/j.na.2011.07.048MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement