Skip to main content

Algorithms of common solutions for a variational inequality, a split equilibrium problem and a hierarchical fixed point problem

Abstract

In this paper, we suggest and analyze an iterative scheme for finding an approximate element of the common set of solutions of a split equilibrium problem, a variational inequality problem and a hierarchical fixed point problem in a real Hilbert space. We also consider the strong convergence of the proposed method under some conditions. Results proved in this paper may be viewed as an improvement and refinement of the previously known results.

MSC:49J30, 47H09, 47J20.

Dedication

Dedicated to Professor Bingsheng He on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday

1 Introduction

Let H be a real Hilbert space, whose inner product and norm are denoted by , and . Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of H and D be a mapping from C into H. A classical variational inequality problem, denoted by VI(D,C), is to find a vector uC such that

vu,Du0,vC.
(1)

The solution of VI(D,C) is denoted by Ω . It is easy to observe that

u Ω u = P C [ u λ D u ] ,where λ>0.

This alternative formulation has played a significant part in developing various projection-type methods for solving variational inequalities. We now have a variety of techniques to suggest and analyze various iterative algorithms for solving variational inequalities and the related optimization problems; see [129].

We introduce the following definitions which are useful in the following analysis.

Definition 1.1 The mapping T:CH is said to be

  1. (a)

    monotone if

    TxTy,xy0,x,yC;
  2. (b)

    strongly monotone if there exists α>0 such that

    TxTy,xyα x y 2 ,x,yC;
  3. (c)

    α-inverse strongly monotone if there exists α>0 such that

    TxTy,xyα T x T y 2 ,x,yC;
  4. (d)

    nonexpansive if

    TxTyxy,x,yC;
  5. (e)

    k-Lipschitz continuous if there exists a constant k>0 such that

    TxTykxy,x,yC;
  6. (f)

    contraction on C if there exists a constant 0k<1 such that

    TxTykxy,x,yC.

It is easy to observe that every α-inverse strongly monotone T is monotone and Lipschitz continuous. It is well known that every nonexpansive operator T: H 1 H 1 satisfies, for all (x,y) H 1 × H 1 , the inequality

( x T ( x ) ) ( y T ( y ) ) , T ( y ) T ( x ) 1 2 ( T ( x ) x ) ( T ( y ) y ) 2
(2)

and therefore we get, for all (x,y) H 1 ×F(T),

x T ( x ) , y T ( x ) 1 2 T ( x ) x 2 ;
(3)

see, e.g., [9], Theorem 1 and [10], Theorem 3.

A mapping T:CH is called a k-strict pseudo-contraction if there exists a constant 0k<1 such that

T x T y 2 x y 2 +k ( I T ) x ( I T ) y 2 ,x,yC.
(4)

The fixed point problem for the mapping T is to find xC such that

Tx=x.
(5)

We denote by F(T) the set of solutions of (5). It is well known that the class of strict pseudo-contractions strictly includes the class of nonexpansive mappings, then F(T) is closed and convex and P F ( T ) is well defined (see [29]).

The equilibrium problem denoted by EP is to find xC such that

F(x,y)0,yC.
(6)

The solution set of (6) is denoted by EP(F). Numerous problems in physics, optimization and economics reduce to finding a solution of (6); see [7, 12, 23, 24]. In 1997, Combettes and Hirstoaga [8] introduced an iterative scheme of finding the best approximation to the initial data when EP(F) is nonempty. Recently Plubtieng and Punpaeng [23] introduced an iterative method for finding the common element of the set F(T) Ω EP(F).

Recently, Censor et al. [4] introduced a new variational inequality problem which we call the split variational inequality problem (SVIP). Let H 1 and H 2 be two real Hilbert spaces. Given operators f: H 1 H 1 and g: H 2 H 2 , a bounded linear operator A: H 1 H 2 , and nonempty, closed and convex subsets C H 1 and Q H 2 , the SVIP is formulated as follows: Find a point x C such that

f ( x ) , x x 0for all xC
(7)

and such that

y =A x Qsolves g ( y ) , y y 0for all yQ.
(8)

In [22], Moudafi introduced an iterative method which can be regarded as an extension of the method given by Censor et al. [4] for the following split monotone variational inclusions:

Find  x H 1  such that 0f ( x ) + B 1 ( x )

and such that

y =A x H 2 solves0g ( y ) + B 2 ( y ) ,

where B i : H i 2 H i is a set-valued mapping for i=1,2. Later Byrne et al. [3] generalized and extended the work of Censor et al. [4] and Moudafi [22].

Very recently, Kazmi and Rivzi [13] studied the following pair of equilibrium problems called a split equilibrium problem: Let F 1 :C×CR and F 2 :Q×QR be nonlinear bifunctions and A: H 1 H 2 be a bounded linear operator, then the split equilibrium problem (SEP) is to find x C such that

F 1 ( x , x ) 0,xC
(9)

and such that

y =A x Qsolves F 2 ( y , y ) 0,yQ.
(10)

The solution set of SEP (9)-(10) is denoted by Λ={pEP( F 1 ):ApEP( F 2 )}.

Let S:CH be a nonexpansive mapping. The following problem is called a hierarchical fixed point problem: Find xF(T) such that

xSx,yx0,yF(T).
(11)

It is known that the hierarchical fixed point problem (11) links with some monotone variational inequalities and convex programming problems; see [11, 27]. Various methods have been proposed to solve the hierarchical fixed point problem; see Moudafi [21], Mainge and Moudafi in [15], Marino and Xu in [17] and Cianciaruso et al. [5]. In 2010, Yao et al. [27] introduced the following strong convergence iterative algorithm to solve problem (11):

y n = β n S x n + ( 1 β n ) x n , x n + 1 = P C [ α n f ( x n ) + ( 1 α n ) T y n ] , n 0 ,
(12)

where f:CH is a contraction mapping and { α n } and { β n } are two sequences in (0,1). Under some certain restrictions on parameters, Yao et al. proved that the sequence { x n } generated by (12) converges strongly to zF(T), which is the unique solution of the following variational inequality:

( I f ) z , y z 0,yF(T).
(13)

By changing the restrictions on parameters, the authors obtained another result on the iterative scheme (12), the sequence { x n } generated by (12) converges strongly to a point zF(T), which is the unique solution of the following variational inequality:

1 τ ( I f ) z + ( I S ) z , y z 0,yF(T).
(14)

Let S:CH be a nonexpansive mapping and { T i } i = 1 :CC be a countable family of nonexpansive mappings. In 2011, Gu et al. [11] introduced the following iterative algorithm:

y n = P C [ β n S x n + ( 1 β n ) x n ] , x n + 1 = P C [ α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) T i y n ] , n 1 ,
(15)

where α 0 =1, { α n } is a strictly decreasing sequence in (0,1) and { β n } is a sequence in (0,1). Under some certain conditions on parameters, Gu et al. proved that the sequence { x n } generated by (15) converges strongly to z i = 1 F( T i ), which is the unique solution of one of variational inequalities (13) and (14).

In this paper, motivated by the work of Censor et al. [4], Moudafi [22], Byrne et al. [3] Kazmi and Rivzi [13], Yao et al. [27] and Gu et al. [11] and by the recent work going on in this direction, we give an iterative method for finding an approximate element of the common set of solutions of (1), (9)-(10) and (11) for a strictly pseudo-contraction mapping in a real Hilbert space. We establish a strong convergence theorem based on this method. The presented method improves and generalizes many known results for solving equilibrium problems, variational inequality problems and hierarchical fixed point problems; see, e.g., [5, 11, 15, 27] and relevant references cited therein.

2 Preliminaries

In this section, we list some fundamental lemmas that are useful in the consequent analysis. The first lemma provides some basic properties of the projection of H onto C.

Lemma 2.1 Let P C denote the projection of H onto C. Then we have the following inequalities,

z P C [ z ] , P C [ z ] v 0,zH,vC;
(16)
u v , P C [ u ] P C [ v ] P C [ u ] P C [ v ] 2 ,u,vH;
(17)
P C [ u ] P C [ v ] uv,u,vH;
(18)
u P C [ z ] 2 z u 2 z P C [ z ] 2 ,zH,uC.
(19)

Assumption 2.1 [2]

Let F:C×CR be a bifunction satisfying the following assumptions:

  1. (i)

    F(x,x)=0, xC;

  2. (ii)

    F is monotone, i.e., F(x,y)+F(y,x)0, x,yC;

  3. (iii)

    For each x,y,zC, lim t 0 F(tz+(1t)x,y)F(x,y);

  4. (iv)

    For each xC, yF(x,y) is convex and lower semicontinuous;

  5. (v)

    Fixed r>0 and zC, there exists a bounded subset K of H 1 and xCK such that

    F(y,x)+ 1 r yx,xz0,yCK.

Lemma 2.2 [8]

Assume that F 1 :C×CR satisfies Assumption  2.1. For r>0 and x H 1 , define a mapping T r F 1 : H 1 C as follows:

T r F 1 (x)= { z C : F 1 ( z , y ) + 1 r y z , z x 0 , y C } .

Then the following hold:

  1. (i)

    T r F 1 is nonempty and single-valued;

  2. (ii)

    T r F 1 is firmly nonexpansive, i.e.,

    T r F 1 ( x ) T r F 1 ( y ) 2 T r F 1 ( x ) T r F 1 ( y ) , x y ,x,y H 1 ;
  3. (iii)

    F( T r F 1 )=EP( F 1 );

  4. (iv)

    EP( F 1 ) is closed and convex.

Assume that F 2 :Q×QR satisfies Assumption 2.1. For s>0 and u H 2 , define a mapping T s F 2 : H 2 Q as follows:

T s F 2 (u)= { v Q : F 2 ( v , w ) + 1 s w v , v u 0 , w Q } .

Then T s F 2 satisfies conditions (i)-(iv) of Lemma 2.2. F( T s F 2 )=EP( F 2 ,Q), where EP( F 2 ,Q) is the solution set of the following equilibrium problem:

Find  y Q such that  F 2 ( y , y ) 0,yQ.

Lemma 2.3 [6]

Assume that F 1 :C×CR satisfies Assumption  2.1, and let T r F 1 be defined as in Lemma  2.2. Let x,y H 1 and r 1 , r 2 >0. Then

T r 2 F 1 ( y ) T r 1 F 1 ( x ) yx+ | r 2 r 1 r 2 | T r 2 F 1 ( y ) y .

Lemma 2.4 [28]

Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H. If T:CC is a k-strict pseudo-contraction, then:

  1. (i)

    The mapping IT is demiclosed at 0, i.e., if { x n } is a sequence in C weakly converging to x and if {(IT) x n } converges strongly to 0, then (IT)x=0;

  2. (ii)

    The set F(T) of T is closed and convex so that the projection P F ( T ) is well defined.

Lemma 2.5 [16]

Let H be a real Hilbert space. Then the following inequality holds:

x + y 2 x 2 +2y,x+y,x,yH.

Lemma 2.6 [26]

Assume that { a n } is a sequence of nonnegative real numbers such that

a n + 1 (1 γ n ) a n + δ n ,

where { γ n } is a sequence in (0,1) and { δ n } is a sequence such that

  1. (1)

    n = 1 γ n =;

  2. (2)

    lim sup n δ n / γ n 0 or n = 1 | δ n |<.

Then lim n a n =0.

Lemma 2.7 [1]

Let C be a closed convex subset of H. Let { x n } be a bounded sequence in H. Assume that

  1. (i)

    the weak w-limit set w w ( x n )C, where w w ( x n )={x: x n i x};

  2. (ii)

    for each zC, lim n x n z exists.

Then { x n } is weakly convergent to a point in C.

Lemma 2.8 [29]

Let H be a Hilbert space, C be a closed and convex subset of H, and T:CC be a k-strict pseudo-contraction mapping. Define a mapping V:CH by Vx=λx+(1λ)Tx, xC. Then, as kλ<1, V is a nonexpansive mapping such that F(V)=F(T).

Lemma 2.9 [11]

Let H be a Hilbert space, C be a closed and convex subset of H, and T:CC be a nonexpansive mapping such that F(T). Then

T x x 2 2 x T x , x x , x F(T),xC.

3 The proposed method and some properties

In this section, we suggest and analyze our method for finding common solutions of the variational inequality (1), the split equilibrium problem (9)-(10) and the hierarchical fixed point problem (11).

Let H 1 and H 2 be two real Hilbert spaces and C H 1 and Q H 2 be nonempty closed convex subsets of Hilbert spaces H 1 and H 2 , respectively. Let A: H 1 H 2 be a bounded linear operator. Let D:C H 1 be an α-inverse strongly monotone mapping. Assume that F 1 :C×CR and F 2 :Q×QR are the bifunctions satisfying Assumption 2.1 and F 2 is upper semicontinuous in the first argument. Let S:C H 1 be a nonexpansive mapping and { T i } i = 1 :CC be a countable family of k i -strict pseudo-contraction mappings such that F(T) Ω Λ, where F(T)= i = 1 F( T i ). Let f be a ρ-contraction mapping.

Algorithm 3.1 For a given x 0 C arbitrarily, let the iterative sequences { u n }, { x n }, { y n } and { z n } be generated by

u n = T r n F 1 ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) ; z n = P C [ u n λ n D u n ] ; y n = P C [ β n S x n + ( 1 β n ) z n ] ; x n + 1 = P C [ α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n ] , n 0 ,
(20)

where V i = k i I+(1 k i ) T i , 0 k i <1, { r n }(0,), { λ n }(0,2α) and γ(0,1/L), L is the spectral radius of the operator A A and A is the adjoint of A and α 0 =1, { α n } is a strictly decreasing sequence in (0,1) and { β n } is a sequence in (0,1) satisfying the following conditions:

  1. (a)

    lim n α n =0 and n = 1 α n =,

  2. (b)

    lim n ( β n / α n )=0,

  3. (c)

    n = 1 | α n 1 α n |< and n = 1 | β n 1 β n |<,

  4. (d)

    lim inf n r n >0 and n = 1 | r n 1 r n |<,

  5. (e)

    lim inf n λ n < lim sup n λ n <2α and n = 1 | λ n 1 λ n |<.

Lemma 3.1 Let x F(T) Ω Λ. Then { x n }, { u n }, { z n } and { y n } are bounded.

Proof First, we show that the mapping (I λ n D) is nonexpansive. For any x,yC,

( I λ n D ) x ( I λ n D ) y 2 = ( x y ) λ n ( D x D y ) 2 = x y 2 2 λ n x y , D x D y + λ n 2 D x D y 2 x y 2 λ n ( 2 α λ n ) D x D y 2 x y 2 .

Let x F(T) Ω Λ, we have x = T r n F 1 ( x ) and A x = T r n F 2 (A x ). Then

u n x 2 = T r n F 1 ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) x 2 = T r n F 1 ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) T r n F 1 ( x ) 2 x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n x 2 = x n x 2 + γ 2 A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n 2 + 2 γ x n x , A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n = x n x 2 + γ 2 ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n , A A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n + 2 γ x n x , A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n .
(21)

From the definition of L, it follows that

γ 2 ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n , A A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n L γ 2 ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n , ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n = L γ 2 ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n 2 .
(22)

It follows from (3) that

2 γ x n x , A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n = 2 γ A ( x n x ) , ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n = 2 γ A ( x n x ) + ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n , ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n = 2 γ ( T r n F 2 A x n A x , ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n 2 ) 2 γ ( 1 2 ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n 2 ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n 2 ) = γ ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n 2 .
(23)

Applying (23) and (22) to (21) and from the definition of γ, we get

u n x 2 x n x 2 +γ(Lγ1) ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n 2 x n x 2 .
(24)

Since the mapping D is α-inverse strongly monotone, we have

z n x 2 = P C [ u n λ n D u n ] P C [ x λ n D x ] 2 u n x λ n ( D u n D x ) 2 u n x 2 λ n ( 2 α λ n ) D u n D x 2 u n x 2 x n x 2 .
(25)

Next, we prove that the sequence { x n } is bounded, without loss of generality, we can assume that β n α n for all n1. From Lemma 2.8, we have V i is a nonexpansive mapping and V i x = x . Since i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i )=1 α n , we get

x n + 1 x = P C [ α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n ] x α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n x = α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n α n x i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i x α n f ( x n ) f ( x ) + α n f ( x ) x + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n V i x α n f ( x n ) f ( x ) + α n f ( x ) x + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) y n x = α n f ( x n ) f ( x ) + α n f ( x ) x + ( 1 α n ) β n S x n + ( 1 β n ) z n x α n f ( x n ) f ( x ) + α n f ( x ) x + ( 1 α n ) ( β n S x n S x + β n S x x + ( 1 β n ) z n x ) α n ρ x n x + α n f ( x ) x + ( 1 α n ) ( β n x n x + β n S x x + ( 1 β n ) x n x ) = ( 1 α n ( 1 ρ ) ) x n x + α n f ( x ) x + ( 1 α n ) β n S x x ( 1 α n ( 1 ρ ) ) x n x + α n f ( x ) x + β n S x x ( 1 α n ( 1 ρ ) ) x n x + α n ( f ( x ) x + S x x ) = ( 1 α n ( 1 ρ ) ) x n x + α n ( 1 ρ ) 1 ρ ( f ( x ) x + S x x ) max { x n x , 1 1 ρ ( f ( x ) x + S x x ) } .
(26)

By induction on n, we obtain x n x max{ x 0 x , 1 1 ρ (f( x ) x +S x x )}, for n0 and x 0 C. Hence { x n } is bounded and consequently, we deduce that { u n }, { z n } and { y n } are bounded. □

Lemma 3.2 Let x F(T) Ω Λ and { x n } be the sequence generated by Algorithm 3.1. Then we have

  1. (a)

    lim n x n + 1 x n =0;

  2. (b)

    The weak w-limit set w w ( x n )F(T) ( w w ( x n )={x: x n i x}).

Proof From the nonexpansivity of the mapping (I λ n D) and P C , we have

z n z n 1 ( u n λ n D u n ) ( u n 1 λ n 1 D u n 1 ) = ( u n u n 1 ) λ n ( D u n D u n 1 ) ( λ n λ n 1 ) D u n 1 ( u n u n 1 ) λ n ( D u n D u n 1 ) + | λ n λ n 1 | D u n 1 u n u n 1 + | λ n λ n 1 | D u n 1 .
(27)

Next, we estimate

y n y n 1 β n S x n + ( 1 β n ) z n ( β n 1 S x n 1 + ( 1 β n 1 ) z n 1 ) = β n ( S x n S x n 1 ) + ( β n β n 1 ) S x n 1 + ( 1 β n ) ( z n z n 1 ) + ( β n 1 β n ) z n 1 β n x n x n 1 + ( 1 β n ) z n z n 1 + | β n β n 1 | ( S x n 1 + z n 1 ) .
(28)

It follows from (27) and (28) that

y n y n 1 β n x n x n 1 + ( 1 β n ) { u n u n 1 + | λ n λ n 1 | D u n 1 } + | β n β n 1 | ( S x n 1 + z n 1 ) .
(29)

On the other hand, u n = T r n F 1 ( x n +γ A ( T r n F 2 I)A x n ) and u n 1 = T r n 1 F 1 ( x n 1 +γ A ( T r n 1 F 2 I)A x n 1 ). It follows from Lemma 2.3 that

u n u n 1 x n x n 1 + γ ( A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n A ( T r n 1 F 2 I ) A x n 1 ) + | 1 r n 1 r n | T r n F 1 ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) x n x n 1 γ A A ( x n x n 1 ) + γ A T r n F 2 A x n T r n 1 F 2 A x n 1 + | 1 r n 1 r n | T r n F 1 ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) ( x n x n 1 2 2 γ A ( x n x n 1 ) 2 + γ 2 A 4 x n x n 1 2 ) 1 2 + γ A ( A ( x n x n 1 ) + | 1 r n 1 r n | T r n F 2 A x n A x n ) + | 1 r n 1 r n | T r n F 1 ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) ( 1 2 γ A 2 + γ 2 A 4 ) 1 2 x n x n 1 + γ A 2 x n x n 1 + γ A | 1 r n 1 r n | T r n F 2 A x n A x n + | 1 r n 1 r n | T r n F 1 ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) = ( 1 γ A 2 ) x n x n 1 + γ A 2 x n x n 1 + γ A | 1 r n 1 r n | T r n F 2 A x n A x n + | 1 r n 1 r n | T r n F 1 ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) = x n x n 1 + γ A | 1 r n 1 r n | T r n F 2 A x n A x n + | 1 r n 1 r n | T r n F 1 ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) = x n x n 1 + | r n r n 1 r n | ( γ A σ n + χ n ) ,

where σ n := T r n F 2 A x n A x n and χ n := T r n F 1 ( x n +γ A ( T r n F 2 I)A x n )( x n +γ A ( T r n F 2 I)A x n ). Without loss of generality, let us assume that there exists a real number μ such that r n >μ>0 for all positive integers n. Then we get

u n 1 u n x n 1 x n + 1 μ | r n 1 r n | ( γ A σ n + χ n ) .
(30)

It follows from (29) and (30) that

y n y n 1 β n x n x n 1 + ( 1 β n ) { x n x n 1 + 1 μ | r n 1 r n | ( γ A σ n + χ n ) + | λ n λ n 1 | D u n 1 } + | β n β n 1 | ( S x n 1 + z n 1 ) = x n x n 1 + ( 1 β n ) { 1 μ | r n 1 r n | ( γ A σ n + χ n ) + | λ n λ n 1 | D u n 1 } + | β n β n 1 | ( S x n 1 + z n 1 ) .
(31)

Next, we estimate

x n + 1 x n α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n ( α n 1 f ( x n 1 ) + i = 1 n 1 ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n 1 ) = α n ( f ( x n ) f ( x n 1 ) ) + ( α n α n 1 ) f ( x n 1 ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) ( V i y n V i y n 1 ) + ( α n 1 α n ) V n y n 1 α n f ( x n ) f ( x n 1 ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n V i y n 1 + | α n α n 1 | ( f ( x n 1 ) + V n y n 1 ) α n ρ x n x n 1 + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) y n y n 1 + | α n α n 1 | ( f ( x n 1 ) + V n y n 1 ) = α n ρ x n x n 1 + ( 1 α n ) y n y n 1 + | α n α n 1 | ( f ( x n 1 ) + V n y n 1 ) .
(32)

From (31) and (32), we have

x n + 1 x n α n ρ x n x n 1 + ( 1 α n ) { x n x n 1 + ( 1 β n ) ( 1 μ | r n 1 r n | ( γ A σ n + χ n ) + | λ n λ n 1 | D u n 1 ) + | β n β n 1 | ( S x n 1 + z n 1 ) } + | α n α n 1 | ( f ( x n 1 ) + V n y n 1 ) ( 1 ( 1 ρ ) α n ) x n x n 1 + 1 μ | r n 1 r n | ( γ A σ n + χ n ) + | λ n λ n 1 | D u n 1 + | β n β n 1 | ( S x n 1 + z n 1 ) + | α n α n 1 | ( f ( x n 1 ) + V n y n 1 ) ( 1 ( 1 ρ ) α n ) x n x n 1 + M ( 1 μ | r n r n 1 | + | λ n λ n 1 | + | β n β n 1 | + | α n α n 1 | ) ,
(33)

where

M = max { sup n 1 ( γ A σ n + χ n ) , sup n 1 D u n 1 , sup n 1 ( S x n 1 + z n 1 ) , sup n 1 ( f ( x n 1 ) + V n y n 1 ) } .

Since { x n }, { u n }, { z n } and { y n } are bounded, we deduce that {A x n }, {D u n 1 }, {S x n 1 }, {f( x n 1 )} and { V n y n 1 } are bounded. We can conclude that sup n 1 (γA σ n + χ n )<, sup n 1 D u n 1 <, sup n 1 (S x n 1 + z n 1 )<, sup n 1 (f( x n 1 )+ V n y n 1 )<, and M<.

It follows by conditions (a)-(e) of Algorithm 3.1 and Lemma 2.6 that

lim n x n + 1 x n =0.

Next, we show that lim n u n x n =0. Since x F(T) Ω Λ and α n + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i )=1, by using (24) and (25), we obtain

x n + 1 x 2 = P C [ α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n ] x 2 α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n x 2 = α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n α n x i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i x 2 α n f ( x n ) x 2 + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n V i x 2 α n f ( x n ) x 2 + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) y n x 2 α n f ( x n ) x 2 + ( 1 α n ) ( β n S x n x 2 + ( 1 β n ) z n x 2 ) α n f ( x n ) x 2 + ( 1 α n ) β n S x n x 2 + ( 1 α n ) ( 1 β n ) { x n x 2 + γ ( L γ 1 ) ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n 2 λ n ( 2 α λ n ) D u n D x 2 } α n f ( x n ) x 2 + β n S x n x 2 + x n x 2 ( 1 α n ) ( 1 β n ) { γ ( 1 L γ ) ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n 2 + λ n ( 2 α λ n ) D u n D x 2 } .
(34)

Then, from the above inequality, we get

( 1 α n ) ( 1 β n ) { γ ( 1 L γ ) ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n 2 + λ n ( 2 α λ n ) D u n D x 2 } α n f ( x n ) x 2 + β n S x n x 2 + x n x 2 x n + 1 x 2 α n f ( x n ) x 2 + β n S x n x 2 + ( x n x + x n + 1 x ) x n + 1 x n .

Since γ(1Lγ)>0, lim inf n λ n lim sup n λ n <2α, lim n x n + 1 x n =0, α n 0 and β n 0, we obtain

lim n ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n =0
(35)

and

lim n D u n D x =0.

Since T r n F 1 is firmly nonexpansive, we have

u n x 2 = T r n F 1 ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) T r n F 1 ( x ) 2 u n x , x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n x = 1 2 { u n x 2 + x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n x 2 u n x [ x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n x ] 2 } = 1 2 { u n x 2 + x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n x 2 u n x n γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n 2 } 1 2 { u n x 2 + x n x 2 u n x n γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n 2 } = 1 2 { u n x 2 + x n x 2 [ u n x n 2 + γ 2 A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n 2 2 γ u n x n , A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ] } ,

where the last inequality follows from (21) and (24). Hence, we get

u n x 2 x n x 2 u n x n 2 +2γA u n A x n ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n .

From (34), (25) and the above inequality, we have

x n + 1 x 2 α n f ( x n ) x 2 + ( 1 α n ) ( β n S x n x 2 + ( 1 β n ) z n x 2 ) α n f ( x n ) x 2 + ( 1 α n ) ( β n S x n x 2 + ( 1 β n ) u n x 2 ) α n f ( x n ) x 2 + ( 1 α n ) { β n S x n x 2 + ( 1 β n ) ( x n x 2 u n x n 2 + 2 γ A u n A x n ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) } α n f ( x n ) x 2 + β n S x n x 2 + x n x 2 ( 1 α n ) ( 1 β n ) u n x n 2 + 2 γ A u n A x n ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n .

Hence

( 1 α n ) ( 1 β n ) u n x n 2 α n f ( x n ) x 2 + β n S x n x 2 + x n x 2 x n + 1 x 2 + 2 γ A u n A x n ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n α n f ( x n ) x 2 + β n S x n x 2 + ( x n x + x n + 1 x ) x n + 1 x n + 2 γ A u n A x n ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n .

Since lim n x n + 1 x n =0, α n 0, β n 0 and lim n ( T r n F 2 I)A x n =0, we obtain

lim n u n x n =0.
(36)

From (17), we get

z n x 2 = P C [ u n λ n D u n ] P C [ x λ n D x ] 2 z n x , ( u n λ n D u n ) ( x λ n D x ) = 1 2 { z n x 2 + u n x λ n ( D u n D x ) 2 u n x λ n ( D u n D x ) ( z n x ) 2 } 1 2 { z n x 2 + u n x 2 u n z n λ n ( D u n D x ) 2 } 1 2 { z n x 2 + u n x 2 u n z n 2 + 2 λ n u n z n , D u n D x } 1 2 { z n x 2 + u n x 2 u n z n 2 + 2 λ n u n z n D u n D x } .

Hence

z n x 2 u n x 2 u n z n 2 + 2 λ n u n z n D u n D x x n x 2 u n z n 2 + 2 λ n u n z n D u n D x .

From (34) and the above inequality, we have

x n + 1 x 2 α n f ( x n ) x 2 + ( 1 α n ) ( β n S x n x 2 + ( 1 β n ) z n x 2 ) α n f ( x n ) x 2 + ( 1 α n ) { β n S x n x 2 + ( 1 β n ) ( x n x 2 u n z n 2 + 2 λ n u n z n D u n D x ) } α n f ( x n ) x 2 + β n S x n x 2 + x n x 2 ( 1 α n ) ( 1 β n ) u n z n 2 + 2 λ n u n z n D u n D x .

Hence

( 1 α n ) ( 1 β n ) u n z n 2 α n f ( x n ) x 2 + β n S x n x 2 + x n x 2 x n + 1 x 2 + 2 λ n u n z n D u n D x α n f ( x n ) x 2 + β n S x n x 2 + ( x n x + x n + 1 x ) x n + 1 x n + 2 λ n u n z n D u n D x .

Since lim n x n + 1 x n =0, α n 0, β n 0 and lim n D u n D x =0, we obtain

lim n u n z n =0.
(37)

It follows from (36) and (37) that

lim n x n z n =0.
(38)

Now, let zF(T) Ω Λ, since for each i1, V i x n C and α n + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i )=1, we have i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i x n + α n zC, and

i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) ( x n V i x n ) = P C [ α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n ] + ( 1 α n ) x n ( i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i x n + α n z ) + α n z x n + 1 = P C [ α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n ] + α n ( z x n + 1 ) P C [ i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i x n + α n z ] + ( 1 α n ) ( x n x n + 1 ) .

It follows that

i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) x n V i x n , x n x = P C [ α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n ] P C [ i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i x n + α n z ] , x n x + α n z x n + 1 , x n x + ( 1 α n ) x n x n + 1 , x n x α n ( f ( x n ) z ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) ( V i y n V i x n ) x n x + α n z x n + 1 x n x + ( 1 α n ) x n x n + 1 x n x α n f ( x n ) z x n x + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) y n x n x n x + α n z x n + 1 x n x + ( 1 α n ) x n x n + 1 x n x = α n f ( x n ) z x n x + ( 1 α n ) y n x n x n x + α n z x n + 1 x n x + ( 1 α n ) x n x n + 1 x n x α n f ( x n ) z x n x + ( 1 α n ) β n S x n + ( 1 β n ) z n x n x n x + α n z x n + 1 x n x + ( 1 α n ) x n x n + 1 x n x α n f ( x n ) z x n x + ( 1 α n ) β n S x n x n x n x + ( 1 α n ) ( 1 β n ) z n x n x n x + α n z x n + 1 x n x + ( 1 α n ) x n x n + 1 x n x .

From Lemma 2.9 and the above inequality, we get

1 2 i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) x n V i x n 2 i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) x n V i x n , x n x α n f ( x n ) z x n x + ( 1 α n ) β n S x n x n x n x + ( 1 α n ) ( 1 β n ) z n x n x n x + α n z x n + 1 x n x + ( 1 α n ) x n x n + 1 x n x .

Since lim n x n + 1 x n =0, α n 0, β n 0 and lim n x n z n =0, we obtain

lim n i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) x n V i x n 2 =0.

Since ( α i 1 α i ) x n V i x n 2 i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) x n V i x n 2 and { α n } is strictly decreasing, we have

lim n x n V i x n =0.

Hence, we obtain

lim n x n T i x n = lim n x n V i x n ( 1 k i ) =0,i1.

Since { x n } is bounded, without loss of generality, we can assume that x n wC. It follows from Lemma 2.4 that wF(T). Therefore w w ( x n )F(T). □

Theorem 3.1 The sequence { x n } generated by Algorithm 3.1 converges strongly to z= P Ω Λ F ( T ) f(z), which is the unique solution of the variational inequality

( I f ) z , x z 0,x Ω ΛF(T),
(39)

which is the optimality condition for a minimization problem

min x ϒ { 1 2 x 2 h ( x ) } ,

where h is a potential function for f (i.e., h (x)=f(x) for xH) and ϒ= Ω ΛF(T).

Proof Since { x n } is bounded x n w and from Lemma 3.2, we have wF(T). Next, we show that wEP( F 1 ). Since u n = T r n F 1 ( x n +γ A ( T r n F 2 I)A x n ), we have

F 1 ( u n ,y)+ 1 r n y u n , u n x n 1 r n y u n , γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n 0,yC.

It follows from the monotonicity of F 1 that

1 r n y u n , γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n + 1 r n y u n , u n x n F 1 (y, u n ),yC

and

1 r n k y u n k , γ A ( T r n k F 2 I ) A x n k + y u n k , u n k x n k r n k F 1 (y, u n k ),yC.
(40)

Since lim n u n x n =0, lim n ( T r n F 2 I)A x n =0 and x n w, it is easy to observe that u n k w. It follows by Assumption 2.1(iv) that F 1 (y,w)0, yC.

For any 0<t1 and yC, let y t =ty+(1t)w, we have y t C. Then, from Assumption 2.1(i) and (iv), we have

0 = F 1 ( y t , y t ) t F 1 ( y t , y ) + ( 1 t ) F 1 ( y t , w ) t F 1 ( y t , y ) .

Therefore F 1 ( y t ,y)0. From Assumption 2.1(iii), we have F 1 (w,y)0, which implies that wEP( F 1 ).

Next, we show that AwEP( F 2 ). Since { x n } is bounded and x n w, there exists a subsequence { x n k } of { x n } such that x n k w and since A is a bounded linear operator so that A x n k Aw. Now set v n k =A x n k T r n k F 2 A x n k . It follows from (35) that lim k v n k =0 and A x n k v n k = T r n k F 2 A x n k . Therefore from the definition of T r n k F 2 , we have

F 2 (A x n k v n k ,y)+ 1 r n k y ( A x n k v n k ) , ( A x n k v n k ) A x n k 0,yC.

Since F 2 is upper semicontinuous in the first argument, taking lim sup to the above inequality as k and using Assumption 2.1(iv), we obtain

F 2 (Aw,y)0,yC,

which implies that AwEP( F 2 ) and hence wΛ.

Furthermore, we show that w Ω . Let

Tv={ D v + N C v , v C , , otherwise,

where N C v:={wH:w,vu0,uC} is the normal cone to C at vC. Then T is maximal monotone and 0Tv if and only if v Ω (see [25]). Let G(T) denote the graph of T and let (v,u)G(T). Since uDv N C v and z n C, we have

v z n ,uDv0.
(41)

On the other hand, it follows from z n = P C [ u n λ n D u n ] and vC that

v z n , z n ( u n λ n D u n ) 0

and

v z n , z n u n λ n + D u n 0.

Therefore, from (41) and inverse strong monotonicity of D, we have

v z n k , u v z n k , D v v z n k , D v v z n k , z n k u n k λ n k + D u n k v z n k , D v D z n k + v z n k , D z n k D u n k v z n k , z n k u n k λ n k v z n k , D z n k D u n k v z n k , z n k u n k λ n k .

Since lim n u n z n =0 and u n k w, it is easy to observe that z n k w. Hence, we obtain vw,u0. Since T is maximal monotone, we have w T 1 0 and hence w Ω . Thus we have

w Ω ΛF(T).

Since Ω , Λ and F(T) are convex, then Ω ΛF(T) is convex. Next, we claim that lim sup n f(z)z, x n z0, where z= P Ω Λ F ( T ) f(z).

Since { x n } is bounded, there exists a subsequence { x n k } of { x n } such that

lim sup n f ( z ) z , x n z = lim sup k f ( z ) z , x n k z = f ( z ) z , w z 0.

Next, we show that x n z. From (16), we get

x n + 1 z 2 = x n + 1 α n f ( x n ) i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n , x n + 1 z + α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n z , x n + 1 z α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n z , x n + 1 z α n f ( x n ) f ( z ) , x n + 1 z + α n f ( z ) z , x n + 1 z + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n z , x n + 1 z α n f ( x n ) f ( z ) x n + 1 z + α n f ( z ) z , x n + 1 z + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n z x n + 1 z α n ρ x n z x n + 1 z + α n f ( z ) z , x n + 1 z + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) y n z x n + 1 z α n ρ x n z x n + 1 z + α n f ( z ) z , x n + 1 z + ( 1 α n ) { β n S x n S z + β n S z z + ( 1 β n ) z n z } x n + 1 z α n ρ x n z x n + 1 z + α n f ( z ) z , x n + 1 z + ( 1 α n ) { β n x n z + β n S z z + ( 1 β n ) x n z } x n + 1 z ( 1 α n ( 1 ρ ) ) x n z x n + 1 z + α n f ( z ) z , x n + 1 z + ( 1 α n ) β n S z z x n + 1 z 1 α n ( 1 ρ ) 2 ( x n z 2 + x n + 1 z 2 ) + α n f ( z ) z , x n + 1 z + ( 1 α n ) β n S z z x n + 1 z ,

which implies that

x n + 1 z 2 ( 1 2 α n ( 1 ρ ) 1 + α n ( 1 ρ ) ) x n z 2 + 2 α n 1 + α n ( 1 ρ ) f ( z ) z , x n + 1 z + 2 ( 1 α n ) β n 1 + α n ( 1 ρ ) S z z x n + 1 z ( 1 2 α n ( 1 ρ ) 1 + α n ( 1 ρ ) ) x n z 2 + 2 α n ( 1 ρ ) 1 + α n ( 1 ρ ) { 1 1 ρ f ( z ) z , x n + 1 z + ( 1 α n ) β n α n ( 1 ρ ) S z z x n + 1 z } .

Let γ n = 2 α n ( 1 ρ ) 1 + α n ( 1 ρ ) and δ n = 2 α n ( 1 ρ ) 1 + α n ( 1 ρ ) { 1 1 ρ f(z)z, x n + 1 z+ ( 1 α n ) β n α n ( 1 ρ ) Szz x n + 1 z}.

Since

n = 1 α n = , 1 + α n ( 1 ρ ) 2 and lim sup n { 1 1 ρ f ( z ) z , x n + 1 z + ( 1 α n ) β n α n ( 1 ρ ) S z z x n + 1 z } 0 ,

it follows that

n = 1 γ n =and lim sup n δ n γ n 0.

Thus all the conditions of Lemma 2.6 are satisfied. Hence we deduce that x n z.

P Ω Λ F ( T ) f is a contraction, there exists a unique zC such that z= P Ω Λ F ( T ) f(z). From (16), it follows that z is the unique solution of problem (39). This completes the proof. □

Theorem 3.2 Let H 1 and H 2 be two real Hilbert spaces and C H 1 and Q H 2 be nonempty closed convex subsets of Hilbert spaces H 1 and H 2 , respectively. Let A: H 1 H 2 be a bounded linear operator. Let D:C H 1 be an α-inverse strongly monotone mapping. Assume that F 1 :C×CR and F 2 :Q×QR are the bifunctions satisfying Assumption  2.1 and F 2 is upper semicontinuous in the first argument. Let S:C H 1 be a nonexpansive mapping and { T i } i = 1 :CC be a countable family of k i -strict pseudo-contraction mappings such that F(T) Ω Λ, where F(T)= i = 1 F( T i ). Let f be a ρ-contraction mapping. For a given x 0 C arbitrarily, let the iterative sequences { u n }, { x n }, { y n } and { z n } be generated by

u n = T r n F 1 ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) ; z n = P C [ u n λ n A u n ] ; y n = β n S x n + ( 1 β n ) z n ; x n + 1 = P C [ α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n ] , n 0 ,
(42)

where V i = k i I+(1 k i ) T i , 0 k i <1, { r n }(0,), { λ n }(0,2α) and γ(0,1/L), L is the spectral radius of the operator A A and A is the adjoint of A and α 0 =1, { α n } is a strictly decreasing sequence in (0,1) and { β n } is a sequence in (0,1) satisfying the following conditions:

  1. (a)

    lim n α n =0 and n = 1 α n =,

  2. (b)

    lim n β n α n =τ(0,),

  3. (c)

    n = 1 ( α n 1 α n )< and n = 1 | β n 1 β n |<,

  4. (d)

    lim n 1 μ | r n r n 1 | + | λ n λ n 1 | + | α n 1 α n | + | β n 1 β n | α n β n =0,

  5. (e)

    there exists a constant K>0 such that 1 α n | 1 β n 1 β n 1 |K,

  6. (f)

    lim inf n r n >0 and n = 1 | r n 1 r n |<,

  7. (g)

    lim inf n λ n < lim sup n λ n <2α and n = 1 | λ n 1 λ n |<.

Then the sequence { x n } generated by Algorithm (42) converges strongly to x Ω ΛF(T), which is the unique solution of the variational inequality

1 τ ( I f ) x + ( I S ) x , x x 0,x Ω ΛF(T).
(43)

Proof From lim n ( β n / α n )=τ(0,), without loss of generality, we can assume that β n (1+τ) α n for all n1. Hence β n 0. By a similar argument as that in Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2, we can deduce that { x n } is bounded, lim n x n + 1 x n =0, lim n x n z n =0 (see (38)) and (I V i ) x n 0. Then we have

y n x n β n x n S x n +(1 β n ) x n z n 0as n.
(44)

It follows that for all i1,

y n V i x n y n x n + x n V i x n 0as n.
(45)

From (44) and (45), we have

y n V i y n y n V i x n + V i x n V i y n y n V i x n + y n x n 0as n.

Set w n = α n f( x n )+ i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) V i y n . From (32) and (33), we obtain

x n + 1 x n β n w n w n 1 β n ( 1 ( 1 ρ ) α n ) x n x n 1 β n + M ( 1 μ | r n r n 1 | β n + | λ n λ n 1 | β n + | β n β n 1 | β n + | α n α n 1 | β n ) = ( 1 ( 1 ρ ) α n ) x n x n 1 β n 1 + ( 1 ( 1 ρ ) α n ) x n x n 1 ( 1 β n 1 β n 1 ) + M ( 1 μ | r n r n 1 | β n + | λ n λ n 1 | β n + | β n β n 1 | β n + | α n α n 1 | β n ) ( 1 ( 1 ρ ) α n ) x n x n 1 β n 1 + x n x n 1 | 1 β n 1 β n 1 | + M ( 1 μ | r n r n 1 | β n + | λ n λ n 1 | β n + | β n β n 1 | β n + | α n α n 1 | β n ) ( 1 ( 1 ρ ) α n ) x n x n 1 β n 1 + α n K x n x n 1 + M ( 1 μ | r n r n 1 | β n + | λ n λ n 1 | β n + | β n β n 1 | β n + | α n α n 1 | β n ) ( 1 ( 1 ρ ) α n ) w n 1 w n 2 β n 1 + α n K x n x n 1 + M ( 1 μ | r n r n 1 | β n + | λ n λ n 1 | β n + | β n β n 1 | β n + | α n α n 1 | β n ) .

Let γ n =(1ρ) α n and δ n = α n K x n x n 1 +M( 1 μ | r n r n 1 | β n + | λ n λ n 1 | β n + | β n β n 1 | β n + | α n α n 1 | β n ). From conditions (a) and (d), we have

n = 1 γ n =and lim n δ n γ n =0.

By Lemma 2.6, we obtain

lim n x n + 1 x n β n =0, lim n w n + 1 w n β n = lim n w n + 1 w n α n =0.

From (42), we have

x n + 1 = P C [ w n ] w n + α n f( x n )+ i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i )( V i y n y n )+(1 α n ) y n .

Hence it follows that

x n x n + 1 = ( 1 α n ) x n + α n x n ( P C [ w n ] w n + α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) ( V i y n y n ) + ( 1 α n ) y n ) = ( 1 α n ) [ β n ( x n S x n ) + ( 1 β n ) ( x n z n ) ] + ( w n P C [ w n ] ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) ( y n V i y n ) + α n ( x n f ( x n ) ) ,

and hence

x n x n + 1 ( 1 α n ) β n = x n S x n + ( 1 β n ) β n ( x n z n ) + 1 ( 1 α n ) β n ( w n P C [ w n ] ) + 1 ( 1 α n ) β n i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) ( y n V i y n ) + α n ( 1 α n ) β n ( x n f ( x n ) ) .

Let v n = x n x n + 1 ( 1 α n ) β n . For any z Ω ΛF(T), we have

v n , x n z = 1 ( 1 α n ) β n w n P C [ w n ] , P C [ w n 1 ] z + α n ( 1 α n ) β n ( I f ) x n , x n z + x n S x n , x n z + ( 1 β n ) β n x n z n , x n z + 1 ( 1 α n ) β n i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) y n V i y n , x n z .
(46)

Since S is a nonexpansive mapping, f is a ρ-contraction mapping and V i is a k i -strict pseudo-contraction mapping. Then (IS) and (I V i ) are monotone and f is strongly monotone with a coefficient (1ρ). We can deduce

x n S x n , x n z = ( I S ) x n ( I S ) z , x n z + ( I S ) z , x n z x n S x n , x n z ( I S ) z , x n z ,
(47)
( I f ) x n , x n z = ( I f ) x n ( I f ) z , x n z + ( I f ) z , x n z ( I f ) x n , x n z ( 1 ρ ) x n z 2 + ( I f ) z , x n z ,
(48)
( I V i ) y n , x n z = ( I V i ) y n ( I V i ) z , x n y n + ( I V i ) y n ( I V i ) z , y n z ( I V i ) y n , x n z ( I V i ) y n ( I V i ) z , x n y n ( I V i ) y n , x n z = ( I V i ) y n , x n y n ( I V i ) y n , x n z = ( I V i ) y n , β n ( x n S x n ) + ( 1 β n ) ( x n z n ) .
(49)

From (16), we get

w n P C [ w n ] , P C [ w n 1 ] z = w n P C [ w n ] , P C [ w n 1 ] P C [ w n ] + w n P C [ w n ] , P C [ w n ] z w n P C [ w n ] , P C [ w n 1 ] P C [ w n ] .

Then, from (46)-(49), we have

v n , x n z 1 ( 1 α n ) β n w n P C [ w n ] , P C [ w n 1 ] P C [ w n ] + α n ( 1 α n ) β n ( I f ) z , x n z + ( I S ) z , x n z + ( 1 β n ) β n x n z n , x n z + ( 1 β n ) ( 1 α n ) β n i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) ( I V i ) y n , x n z n + 1 ( 1 α n ) i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) ( I V i ) y n , x n S x n + ( 1 ρ ) α n ( 1 α n ) β n x n z 2 .

Then we obtain

x n z 2 1 ( 1 ρ ) α n w n P C [ w n ] w n 1 w n 1 ( 1 ρ ) ( I f ) z , x n z + ( 1 α n ) β n ( 1 ρ ) α n ( v n , x n z ( I S ) z , x n z ) ( 1 β n ) ( 1 α n ) ( 1 ρ ) α n x n z n , x n z ( 1 β n ) ( 1 ρ ) α n i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) ( I V i ) y n , x n z n β n ( 1 ρ ) α n i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) ( I V i ) y n , x n S x n w n 1 w n ( 1 ρ ) α n w n P C [ w n ] 1 ( 1 ρ ) ( I f ) z , x n z + ( 1 α n ) β n ( 1 ρ ) α n ( v n , x n z ( I S ) z , x n z ) + 1 ( 1 ρ ) ( 1 β n ) β n β n α n x n z n x n z + 1 ( 1 ρ ) ( 1 β n ) β n β n α n i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) ( I V i ) y n x n z n β n ( 1 ρ ) α n i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) ( I V i ) y n , x n S x n .

By condition (e) of Theorem 3.2, there exists a constant N>0 such that 1 β n β n N. Since lim n x n z n =0, v n 0, (I V i ) y n 0 and w n 1 w n α n 0 as n, then every weak cluster point of { x n } is also a strong cluster point. Since { x n } is bounded, by Lemma 3.2 there exists a subsequence { x n k } of { x n } converging to a point x F(T), and by some similar arguments in Theorem 3.1, we can show that x Ω ΛF(T).

From (46)-(49), it follows that for any z Ω ΛF(T),

( I f ) x n k , x n k z = ( 1 α n k ) β n k α n k v n k , x n k z 1 α n k w n k P C [ w n k ] , P C [ w n k 1 ] z ( 1 α n k ) β n k α n k x n k S x n k , x n k z ( 1 α n k ) ( 1 β n k ) α n k x n k z n k , x n k z 1 α n k i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) y n k V i y n k , x n k z ( 1 α n k ) β n k α n k v n k , x n k z + 1 α n k w n k P C [ w n k ] w n k 1 w n k ( 1 α n k ) β n k α n k x n k S x n k , x n k z + ( 1 β n k ) β n k β n k α n k x n k z n k x n k z + ( 1 β n k ) β n k β n k α n k i = 1 n k ( α i 1 α i ) ( I V i ) y n k x n k z n k β n k α n k i = 1 n k ( α i 1 α i ) ( I V i ) y n k , x n k S x n k .
(50)

Since lim n x n z n =0, v n 0, (I V i ) y n 0 and w n 1 w n α n 0, letting k in (50), we obtain

( I f ) x , x z τ x S x , x z ,

i.e.,

1 τ ( I f ) x + ( I S ) x , z x 0.

In the following, we show that (43) has a unique solution. Assume that x is another solution. Then we have

( I f ) x , x x τ x S x , x x ,
(51)
( I f ) x , x x τ x S x , x x .
(52)

Adding (51) and (52), we get

( 1 ρ ) x x 2 ( I f ) x ( I f ) x , x x τ ( I S ) x ( I S ) x , x x 0 .

Then x = x . Since (43) has a unique solution, it follows that w w ( x n )={ x }. Since every weak cluster point of { x n } is also a strong cluster point, we conclude that { x n } x . This completes the proof. □

4 Applications

In this section, we obtain the following results by using a special case of the proposed method. The first result can be viewed as an extension and improvement of the method of Gu et al. [11] for finding an approximate element of the common set of solutions of a split equilibrium problem and a hierarchical fixed point problem in a real Hilbert space.

Corollary 4.1 Let H 1 and H 2 be two real Hilbert spaces and C H 1 and Q H 2 be nonempty closed convex subsets of Hilbert spaces H 1 and H 2 , respectively. Let A: H 1 H 2 be a bounded linear operator. Let D:C H 1 be an α-inverse strongly monotone mapping. Assume that F 1 :C×CR and F 2 :Q×QR are the bifunctions satisfying Assumption  2.1 and F 2 is upper semicontinuous in the first argument. Let S:C H 1 be a nonexpansive mapping and { T i } i = 1 :CC be a countable family of k i -strict pseudo-contraction mappings such that F(T) Ω Λ, where F(T)= i = 1 F( T i ). Let f be a ρ-contraction mapping. For a given x 0 C arbitrarily, let the iterative sequences { u n }, { x n }, { y n } and { z n } be generated by

u n = T r n F 1 ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) ; y n = β n S x n + ( 1 β n ) u n ; x n + 1 = P C [ α n f ( x n ) + i = 1 n ( α i 1 α i ) T i y n ] , n 0 ,
(53)

where { r n }(0,) and γ(0,1/L), L is the spectral radius of the operator A A and A is the adjoint of A and α 0 =1, { α n } is a strictly decreasing sequence in (0,1) and { β n } is a sequence in (0,1) satisfying the following conditions:

  1. (a)

    lim n α n =0 and n = 1 α n =,

  2. (b)

    lim n β n α n =τ(0,),

  3. (c)

    n = 1 ( α n 1 α n )< and n = 1 | β n 1 β n |<,

  4. (d)

    lim n 1 μ | r n r n 1 | + | α n 1 α n | + | β n 1 β n | α n β n =0,

  5. (e)

    there exists a constant K>0 such that 1 α n | 1 β n 1 β n 1 |K,

  6. (f)

    lim inf n r n >0 and n = 1 | r n 1 r n |<.

Then the sequence { x n } generated by Algorithm (53) converges strongly to x ΛF(T), which is the unique solution of the variational inequality

1 τ ( I f ) x + ( I S ) x , x x 0,xΛF(T).

Proof Put λ n =0 and k i =0, i1 in Theorem 3.2. Then conclusion of Corollary 4.1 is obtained. □

The following result can be viewed as an extension and improvement of the method of Yao et al. [27] for finding an approximate element of the common set of solutions of a split equilibrium problem and a hierarchical fixed point problem in a real Hilbert space.

Corollary 4.2 Let H 1 and H 2 be two real Hilbert spaces and C H 1 and Q H 2 be nonempty closed convex subsets of Hilbert spaces H 1 and H 2 , respectively. Let A: H 1 H 2 be a bounded linear operator. Let D:C H 1 be an α-inverse strongly monotone mapping. Assume that F 1 :C×CR and F 2 :Q×QR are the bifunctions satisfying Assumption  2.1 and F 2 is upper semicontinuous in the first argument. Let S:C H 1 be a nonexpansive mapping and T:CC be a k-strict pseudo-contraction mapping such that F(T)Λ. Let f be a ρ-contraction mapping. For a given x 0 C arbitrarily, let the iterative sequences { u n }, { x n }, { y n } and { z n } be generated by

u n = T r n F 1 ( x n + γ A ( T r n F 2 I ) A x n ) ; y n = β n S x n + ( 1 β n ) u n ; x n + 1 = P C [ α n f ( x n ) + ( 1 α n ) T y n ] , n 0 ,
(54)

where { r n }(0,) and γ(0,1/L), L is the spectral radius of the operator A A and A is the adjoint of A and α 0 =1, { α n } is a strictly decreasing sequence in (0,1) and { β n } is a sequence in (0,1) satisfying the following conditions:

  1. (a)

    lim n α n =0 and n = 1 α n =,

  2. (b)

    lim n β n α n =τ(0,),

  3. (c)

    n = 1 ( α n 1 α n )< and n = 1 | β n 1 β n |<,

  4. (d)

    lim n 1 μ | r n r n 1 | + | α n 1 α n | + | β n 1 β n | α n β n =0,

  5. (e)

    there exists a constant K>0 such that 1 α n | 1 β n 1 β n 1 |K,

  6. (f)

    lim inf n r n >0 and n = 1 | r n 1 r n |<.

Then the sequence { x n } generated by Algorithm (54) converges strongly to x ΛF(T), which is the unique solution of the variational inequality

1 τ ( I f ) x + ( I S ) x , x x 0,xΛF(T).

Proof Put λ n =0, k i =0 and T i =T, i1 in Theorem 3.2. Then conclusion of Corollary 4.2 is obtained. □

References

  1. Acedo GL, Xu HK: Iterative methods for strictly pseudo-contractions in Hilbert space. Nonlinear Anal. 2007, 67: 2258–2271. 10.1016/j.na.2006.08.036

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Blum E, Oettli W: From optimization and variational inequalities to equilibrium problems. Math. Stud. 1994, 63: 123–145.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Byrne, C, Censor, Y, Gibali, A, Reich, S: Weak and strong convergence of algorithms for the split common null point problem. arXiv:1108.5953

  4. Censor Y, Gibali A, Reich S: Algorithms for the split variational inequality problem. Numer. Algorithms 2012, 59(2):301–323. 10.1007/s11075-011-9490-5

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Cianciaruso F, Marino G, Muglia L, Yao Y: On a two-steps algorithm for hierarchical fixed point problems and variational inequalities. J. Inequal. Appl. 2009., 2009: Article ID 208692

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cianciaruso F, Marino G, Muglia L, Yao Y: A hybrid projection algorithm for finding solutions of mixed equilibrium problem and variational inequality problem. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 383740

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chang SS, Lee HWJ, Chan CK: A new method for solving equilibrium problem fixed point problem and variational inequality problem with application to optimization. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70: 3307–3319. 10.1016/j.na.2008.04.035

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Combettes PL, Hirstoaga SA: Equilibrium programming using proximal like algorithms. Math. Program. 1997, 78: 29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crombez G: A geometrical look at iterative methods for operators with fixed points. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 2005, 26: 157–175. 10.1081/NFA-200063882

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Crombez G: A hierarchical presentation of operators with fixed points on Hilbert spaces. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 2006, 27: 259–277. 10.1080/01630560600569957

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Gu G, Wang S, Cho YJ: Strong convergence algorithms for hierarchical fixed points problems and variational inequalities. J. Appl. Math. 2011., 2011: Article ID 164978

    Google Scholar 

  12. Katchang P, Kumam P: A new iterative algorithm for equilibrium problems, variational inequalities and fixed point problems in a Hilbert space. Appl. Math. Comput. 2010, 32: 19–38.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Kazmi KR, Rizvi SH: Iterative approximation of a common solution of a split equilibrium problem, a variational inequality problem and a fixed point problem. J. Egypt. Math. Soc. 2013, 21: 44–51. 10.1016/j.joems.2012.10.009

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Lions JL, Stampacchia G: Variational inequalities. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 1967, 20: 493–512. 10.1002/cpa.3160200302

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Mainge PE, Moudafi A: Strong convergence of an iterative method for hierarchical fixed-point problems. Pac. J. Optim. 2007, 3(3):529–538.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Marino G, Xu HK: Convergence of generalized proximal point algorithms. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 2004, 3: 791–808.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Marino G, Xu HK: A general iterative method for nonexpansive mappings in Hilbert spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2006, 318(1):43–52. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.05.028

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Marino G, Xu HK: Explicit hierarchical fixed point approach to variational inequalities. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2011, 149(1):61–78. 10.1007/s10957-010-9775-1

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Moudafi A, Théra M Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems 477. In Proximal and Dynamical Approaches to Equilibrium Problems. Springer, New York; 1999.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Moudafi A: Mixed equilibrium problems sensitivity analysis and algorithmic aspect. Comput. Math. Appl. 2002, 44: 1099–1108. 10.1016/S0898-1221(02)00218-3

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Moudafi A: Krasnoselski-Mann iteration for hierarchical fixed-point problems. Inverse Probl. 2007, 23(4):1635–1640. 10.1088/0266-5611/23/4/015

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Moudafi A: Split monotone variational inclusions. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2011, 150: 275–283. 10.1007/s10957-011-9814-6

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Plubtieng S, Punpaeng R: A general iterative method for equilibrium problems and fixed point problems in Hilbert spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 336: 455–469. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.02.044

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Qin X, Shang M, Su Y: A general iterative method for equilibrium problem and fixed point problem in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2008, 69: 3897–3909. 10.1016/j.na.2007.10.025

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Rockafellar RT: On the maximality of sums nonlinear monotone operators. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1970, 149: 75–88. 10.1090/S0002-9947-1970-0282272-5

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Xu HK: Iterative algorithms for nonlinear operators. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 2002, 66: 240–256. 10.1112/S0024610702003332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yao Y, Cho YJ, Liou YC: Iterative algorithms for hierarchical fixed points problems and variational inequalities. Math. Comput. Model. 2010, 52(9–10):1697–1705. 10.1016/j.mcm.2010.06.038

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Yao Y, Liou YC, Kang SM: Approach to common elements of variational inequality problems and fixed point problems via a relaxed extragradient method. Comput. Math. Appl. 2010, 59(11):3472–3480. 10.1016/j.camwa.2010.03.036

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhou H: Convergence theorems of fixed points for k -strict pseudo-contractions in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2008, 69: 456–462. 10.1016/j.na.2007.05.032

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdellah Bnouhachem.

Additional information

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bnouhachem, A. Algorithms of common solutions for a variational inequality, a split equilibrium problem and a hierarchical fixed point problem. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2013, 278 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2013-278

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2013-278

Keywords