# On the set of common fixed points of semigroups of nonlinear mappings in modular function spaces

- Saud M Alsulami
^{1}Email author and - Walter M Kozlowski
^{2}

**2014**:4

https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2014-4

© Alsulami and Kozlowski; licensee Springer. 2014

**Received: **18 July 2013

**Accepted: **4 December 2013

**Published: **3 January 2014

## Abstract

We prove that the set of all common fixed points for a continuous nonexpansive semigroup of nonlinear mappings acting in modular function spaces can be represented as an intersection of fixed points sets of two nonexpansive mappings. This representation is then used to prove convergence of several iterative methods for construction of common fixed points of semigroups of nonlinear mappings. We also demonstrate an example how the results of this paper can be applied for constructing a stationary point of a process defined by the Urysohn integral operator.

**MSC:** Primary 47H09; secondary 46B20; 47H10; 47H20; 47E30; 47J25.

## Keywords

## 1 Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to prove that the set of all common fixed points for a continuous nonexpansive semigroup of nonlinear mappings acting in modular function spaces can be represented as an intersection of fixed point sets of two nonexpansive mappings, where nonexpansiveness is understood in the modular sense. Modular function spaces are natural generalizations of both function and sequence variants of many important, from applications perspective, spaces like Lebesgue, Orlicz, Musielak-Orlicz, Lorentz, Orlicz-Lorentz, Calderon-Lozanovskii spaces and many others; see [1, 2] for an extensive list of examples and special cases.

The fixed point theory in modular function spaces originated in the 1990 seminal paper by Khamsi, Kozlowski and Reich [3]. In that paper, the authors showed that there exist mappings which are *ρ*-nonexpansive but are not norm-nonexpansive. They demonstrated that for a mapping *T* to be norm nonexpansive in a modular function space ${L}_{\rho}$, a stronger than *ρ*-nonexpansiveness assumption is needed: $\rho (\lambda (T(x)-T(x)))\le \rho (\lambda (x-y))$ for any $\lambda \ge 0$. From this perspective, the fixed point theory in modular function spaces should be considered as complementary to the fixed point theory in normed spaces and in metric spaces. It is worthwhile to mention that from the perspective of applications, modular type conditions are typically more easily verified than their metric or norm counterparts. For earlier and recent results of fixed point theory in modular function spaces, refer, *e.g.*, to [2, 4–13].

Let us recall that a family ${\{{T}_{t}\}}_{t\ge 0}$ of mappings forms a semigroup if ${T}_{0}(x)=x$, ${T}_{s+t}={T}_{s}({T}_{t}(x))$. Such a situation is quite typical in mathematics and applications. For instance, in the theory of dynamical systems, the modular function space ${L}_{\rho}$ would define the state space and the mapping $(t,x)\to {T}_{t}(x)$ would represent the evolution function of a dynamical system. The question about the existence of common fixed points, and about the structure of the set of common fixed points, can be interpreted as a question whether there exist points that are fixed during the state space transformation ${T}_{t}$ at any given point of time *t*, and if yes - what the structure of a set of such points may look like. In the setting of this paper, the state space may be infinite dimensional. Therefore, it is natural to apply these results not only to deterministic dynamical systems but also to stochastic dynamical systems.

An existence of common fixed points of *ρ*-nonexpansive semigroups was demonstrated in 2011 [12]. However, a structure of the set of common fixed points can be *a priori* very complicated and therefore it can be difficult to apply any methods of construction of such common fixed points, which is of a major importance for applications. In the current paper, we show that in the case of a continuous nonexpansive semigroup, the set of its common fixed points can be actually represented by an intersection of fixed point sets of just two suitably chosen, nonexpansive mappings. The idea of such representation is known in Banach spaces; see, *e.g.*, the 2005 paper by Suzuki [14] and references therein. However, the case of *ρ*-nonexpansive mappings acting in modular function spaces have not been investigated prior to the current paper. It is worthwhile to mention that we use only convexity of the function modular *ρ* as it does not need to have any triangle inequality of homogeneity properties. This shows the strength of the convexity assumptions because convexity of *ρ* suffices to prove both the existences and the representation of a set of common fixed points.

We use this representation to show how the Mann and Ishikawa type iterative methods can be used for the construction of common fixed points of continuous nonexpansive semigroups. The idea of using such processes in this context can be traced back to the seminal 1950s-1970s papers by Mann [15], Krasnosel’skii [16], Ishikawa [17], Reich [18, 19], and others. See also an extensive body of work from the 1980s and 1990s [20–31], and more recent research from the current century [13, 32–46] and the works referred there. We also show an example how the results of this paper can be applied for constructing a stationary point of an Urysohn process.

## 2 Preliminaries

Let us introduce basic notions related to modular function spaces and related notation which will be used in this paper. For further details, we refer the reader to preliminary sections of the recent articles [10, 11, 13] or to the survey article [2]; see also [1, 47, 48] for the standard framework of modular function spaces.

Let Ω be a nonempty set and Σ be a nontrivial *σ*-algebra of subsets of Ω. Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a *δ*-ring of subsets of Ω such that $E\cap A\in \mathcal{P}$ for any $E\in \mathcal{P}$ and $A\in \mathrm{\Sigma}$. Let us assume that there exists an increasing sequence of sets ${K}_{n}\in \mathcal{P}$ such that $\mathrm{\Omega}=\bigcup {K}_{n}$. By ℰ we denote the linear space of all simple functions with supports from $\mathcal{P}$. By ${\mathcal{M}}_{\mathrm{\infty}}$ we denote the space of all extended measurable functions, *i.e.*, all functions $f:\mathrm{\Omega}\to [-\mathrm{\infty},\mathrm{\infty}]$ such that there exists a sequence $\{{g}_{n}\}\subset \mathcal{E}$, $|{g}_{n}|\le |f|$ and ${g}_{n}(\omega )\to f(\omega )$ for all $\omega \in \mathrm{\Omega}$. By ${1}_{A}$ we denote the characteristic function of the set *A*.

**Definition 2.1**Let $\rho :{\mathcal{M}}_{\mathrm{\infty}}\to [0,\mathrm{\infty}]$ be a nontrivial, convex and even function. We say that

*ρ*is a regular convex function pseudomodular if:

- (i)
$\rho (0)=0$;

- (ii)
*ρ*is monotone,*i.e.*, $|f(\omega )|\le |g(\omega )|$ for all $\omega \in \mathrm{\Omega}$ implies $\rho (f)\le \rho (g)$, where $f,g\in {\mathcal{M}}_{\mathrm{\infty}}$; - (iii)
*ρ*is orthogonally subadditive,*i.e.*, $\rho (f{1}_{A\cup B})\le \rho (f{1}_{A})+\rho (f{1}_{B})$ for any $A,B\in \mathrm{\Sigma}$ such that $A\cap B\ne \mathrm{\varnothing}$, $f\in \mathcal{M}$; - (iv)
*ρ*has the Fatou property,*i.e.*, $|{f}_{n}(\omega )|\uparrow |f(\omega )|$ for all $\omega \in \mathrm{\Omega}$ implies $\rho ({f}_{n})\uparrow \rho (f)$, where $f\in {\mathcal{M}}_{\mathrm{\infty}}$; - (v)
*ρ*is order continuous in ℰ,*i.e.*, ${g}_{n}\in \mathcal{E}$ and $|{g}_{n}(\omega )|\downarrow 0$ implies $\rho ({g}_{n})\downarrow 0$.

Similarly, as in the case of measure spaces, we say that a set $A\in \mathrm{\Sigma}$ is *ρ*-null if $\rho (g{1}_{A})=0$ for every $g\in \mathcal{E}$. We say that a property holds *ρ*-almost everywhere if the exceptional set is *ρ*-null. As usual we identify any pair of measurable sets whose symmetric difference is *ρ*-null as well as any pair of measurable functions differing only on a *ρ*-null set. With this in mind, we define $\mathcal{M}=\{f\in {\mathcal{M}}_{\mathrm{\infty}}:|f(\omega )|<\mathrm{\infty}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\rho \text{-a.e.}\}$, where each element is actually an equivalence class of functions equal *ρ*-a.e. rather than an individual function.

**Definition 2.2** We say that a regular function pseudomodular *ρ* is a regular convex function modular if $\rho (f)=0$ implies $f=0$ *ρ*-a.e. The class of all nonzero regular convex function modulars defined on Ω will be denoted by ℜ.

Let *ρ* be a convex function modular. A modular function space is the vector space ${L}_{\rho}=\{f\in \mathcal{M}:\rho (\lambda f)\to 0\text{as}\lambda \to 0\}$.

The following notions will be used throughout the paper.

**Definition 2.4**Let $\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$.

- (a)
We say that $\{{f}_{n}\}$ is

*ρ*-convergent to*f*and write ${f}_{n}\to f(\rho )$ if and only if $\rho ({f}_{n}-f)\to 0$. - (b)
A sequence $\{{f}_{n}\}$, where ${f}_{n}\in {L}_{\rho}$, is called

*ρ*-Cauchy if $\rho ({f}_{n}-{f}_{m})\to 0$ as $n,m\to \mathrm{\infty}$. - (c)
A set $B\subset {L}_{\rho}$ is called

*ρ*-closed if for any sequence of ${f}_{n}\in B$, the convergence ${f}_{n}\to f(\rho )$ implies that*f*belongs to*B*. - (d)
A set $B\subset {L}_{\rho}$ is called

*ρ*-bounded if $sup\{\rho (f-g):f\in B,g\in B\}<\mathrm{\infty}$. - (e)
A set $B\subset {L}_{\rho}$ is called strongly

*ρ*-bounded if there exists $\beta >1$ such that ${M}_{\beta}(B)=sup\{\rho (\beta (f-g)):f\in B,g\in B\}<\mathrm{\infty}$.

Since *ρ* fails in general the triangle identity, many of the known properties of limit may not extend to *ρ*-convergence. For example, *ρ*-convergence does not necessarily imply the *ρ*-Cauchy condition. However, it is important to remember that the *ρ*-limit is unique when it exists. The following proposition brings together a few facts that will be often used in the proofs of our results.

**Proposition 2.1**

*Let*$\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$.

- (i)
${L}_{\rho}$

*is**ρ*-*complete*. - (ii)
*ρ*-*balls*${B}_{\rho}(x,r)=\{y\in {L}_{\rho}:\rho (x-y)\le r\}$*are**ρ*-*closed and**ρ*-*a*.*e*.*closed*. - (iii)
*If*$\rho (\alpha {f}_{n})\to 0$*for an*$\alpha >0$,*then there exists a subsequence*$\{{g}_{n}\}$*of*$\{{f}_{n}\}$*such that*${g}_{n}\to 0$*ρ*-*a*.*e*. - (iv)
$\rho (f)\le lim\hspace{0.17em}inf\rho ({f}_{n})$

*whenever*${f}_{n}\to f$*ρ*-*a*.*e*. (*Note*:*this property is equivalent to the Fatou property*.)

We will also need the definition of the ${\mathrm{\Delta}}_{2}$-property of a function modular; see, *e.g.*, [1, 13].

**Definition 2.5**Let $\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$. We say that

*ρ*has the ${\mathrm{\Delta}}_{2}$-property if

whenever ${D}_{k}\downarrow \mathrm{\varnothing}$ and ${sup}_{n}\rho ({f}_{n},{D}_{k})\to 0$.

The modular equivalents of uniform convexity were introduced in [11].

**Definition 2.6**Let $\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$. We define the following uniform convexity type properties of the function modular

*ρ*:

- (i)Let $r>0$, $\epsilon >0$. Define$D(r,\epsilon )=\{(f,g):f,g\in {L}_{\rho},\rho (f)\le r,\rho (g)\le r,\rho (f-g)\ge \epsilon r\}.$Let$\delta (r,\epsilon )=inf\{1-\frac{1}{r}\rho \left(\frac{f+g}{2}\right):(f,g)\in D(r,\epsilon )\}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\text{if}D(r,\epsilon )\ne \mathrm{\varnothing},$
and $\delta (r,\epsilon )=1$ if $D(r,\epsilon )=\mathrm{\varnothing}$. We say that

*ρ*satisfies (*UC*) if for every $r>0$, $\epsilon >0$, $\delta (r,\epsilon )>0$. Note that for every $r>0$, $D(r,\epsilon )\ne \mathrm{\varnothing}$ for $\epsilon >0$ small enough. - (ii)We say that
*ρ*satisfies (*UUC*) if for every $s\ge 0$, $\epsilon >0$ there exists$\eta (s,\epsilon )>0$

*s*and

*ε*such that

Let us also introduce the modular definition of strict convexity following [11].

**Definition 2.7**We say that

*ρ*is strictly convex (

*SC*) if $\rho (f)=\rho (g)$ and

imply that $f=g$, where $\lambda \in (0,1)$ and $f,g\in {L}_{\rho}$.

**Proposition 2.2** *By Proposition * 3.3 *from* [11]*it follows that if* *ρ* *is* (*UUC*), *then it is also* (*SC*).

**Remark 2.1**The notion of a modular function space has been generalized recently to a more abstract, nonlinear case of a modular metric space; see,

*e.g.*, [49, 50]. Let us recall that a function $\omega :(0,\mathrm{\infty})\times X\times X\to [0,\mathrm{\infty}]$ is called a convex modular metric on a set

*X*if: (i) $x=y$ if and only if ${\omega}_{\lambda}(x,y)=0$ for all $\lambda >0$; (ii) ${\omega}_{\lambda}(x,y)={\omega}_{\lambda}(y,x)$ for all $\lambda >0$, $x\in X$, $y\in X$; (iii) ${\omega}_{\lambda +\mu}(x,y)\le \frac{\lambda}{\lambda +\mu}{\omega}_{\lambda}(x,z)+\frac{\mu}{\lambda +\mu}{\omega}_{\mu}(z,y)$. In this context, given ${x}_{0}\in X$, the modular metric space around ${x}_{0}$, denoted by ${X}_{\omega}({x}_{0})$, is defined as

*ρ*is a convex function modular, it is not difficult to demonstrate that the formula

for any $f,g\in {L}_{\rho}$.

Let us also introduce modular definitions of Lipschitzian and nonexpansive mappings and associated definitions of semigroups of nonlinear mappings acting within a modular function space.

**Definition 2.8** [12]

*ρ*-closed. A mapping $T:C\to C$ is called

*ρ*-Lipschitzian if there exists a constant $L>0$ such that

*T* is called a *ρ*-nonexpansive mapping if $L=1$.

For any mapping *T*, by $F(T)$ we denote the set of all fixed points of *T*.

The following theorem is an immediate consequence of Theorem 4.1 in [11].

**Theorem 2.1** *Assume that* $\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$ *is* (*UUC*). *Let* *C* *be a* *ρ*-*closed*, *ρ*-*bounded convex nonempty subset*. *Then any* *ρ*-*nonexpansive mapping* $T:C\to C$ *has a fixed point*. *Moreover*, *the set of all fixed points* $Fix(T)$ *is* *ρ*-*closed and convex*.

**Definition 2.9** [12]

*C*into itself is said to be a

*ρ*-Lipschitzian (resp.

*ρ*-nonexpansive) semigroup on

*C*if ℱ satisfies the following conditions:

- (i)
${T}_{0}(x)=x$ for $x\in C$;

- (ii)
${T}_{t+s}(x)={T}_{t}({T}_{s}(x))$ for $x\in C$ and $t,s\ge 0$;

- (iii)
for each $t\ge 0$, ${T}_{t}$ is

*ρ*-Lipschitzian (resp.*ρ*-nonexpansive).

**Definition 2.10**A semigroup $\mathcal{F}=\{{T}_{t}:t\ge 0\}$ is called strongly continuous if for every $z\in C$, the following function

is continuous at every $t\in [0,\mathrm{\infty})$.

**Definition 2.11** A semigroup $\mathcal{F}=\{{T}_{t}:t\ge 0\}$ is called continuous if for every $z\in C$, the mapping $t\mapsto {T}_{t}(z)$ is *ρ*-continuous at every $t\in [0,\mathrm{\infty})$, *i.e.*, $\rho ({T}_{{t}_{n}}(z)-{T}_{t}(z))\to 0$ as ${t}_{n}\to t$.

By $F(\mathcal{F})$ we denote the set of common fixed points of the semigroup ℱ.

Let us finish this section with the existence theorem for semigroups of nonexpansive mappings acting in modular function spaces.

**Theorem 2.2** [12]

*Assume that* $\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$ *is* (*UUC*). *Let* *C* *be a* *ρ*-*closed* *ρ*-*bounded convex nonempty subset*. *Let* ℱ *be a nonexpansive semigroup on* *C*. *Then the set* $F(\mathcal{F})$ *of common fixed points is nonempty*, *ρ*-*closed and convex*.

## 3 Representation theorems

Let us start with the following result which relates to Bruck’s theorem in Banach spaces, see [51].

**Theorem 3.1** *Let* $\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$ *be a strictly convex function modular*. *Let* $C\subset {L}_{\rho}$ *and let* *T* *and* *S* *be two* *ρ*-*nonexpansive mappings from* *C* *into* *X* *with a common fixed point*. *Then*, *for each* $\lambda \in (0,1)$, *a mapping* $U:C\to X$ *defined by* $U(x)=\lambda S(x)+(1-\lambda )T(x)$ *for* $x\in X$ *is* *ρ*-*nonexpansive and* $F(U)=F(S)\cap F(T)$.

*Proof* A straightforward calculation shows that the mapping *U* is *ρ*-nonexpansive. It is also clear that $F(S)\cap F(T)\subset F(U)$. Therefore, to complete the proof, we need only to prove the converse inclusion.

*ρ*implies that $f=g$, and consequently that $S(x)=T(x)$. Compute

and hence $x\in F(S)$. Similarly, we can prove that $x\in F(T)$. Hence, $x\in F(S)\cap F(T)$ as claimed. □

**Theorem 3.2**

*Let*$\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$

*and let*$\mathcal{F}=\{{T}_{t}:t\ge 0\}$

*be a continuous semigroup of mappings on a subset*

*C*

*of*${L}_{\rho}$.

*Let*$\{{\alpha}_{n}\}$

*be a sequence of nonnegative numbers converging to*$\alpha \in [0,\mathrm{\infty})$

*such that*${\alpha}_{n}\ne \alpha $

*for all*$n\in \mathbb{N}$.

*Then the following representation of the set of all common fixed points of*ℱ

*holds*

*Proof* We only need to prove that ${\bigcap}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{\infty}}F({T}_{{\alpha}_{n}})\subset F(\mathcal{F})$ as the other direction is trivial. Let $z\in C$ be such that ${T}_{{\alpha}_{n}}(z)=z$ for every $n\in \mathbb{N}$.

by the continuity of ℱ. Hence ${T}_{t}(z)=z$ as claimed.

Since ${T}_{0}(z)=z$, it follows that ${T}_{{s}_{n}}(z)=z$ for every $n\in \mathbb{N}$. Because ${s}_{n}\to t$ and ℱ is a continuous semigroup, we conclude, as previously observed, that ${T}_{t}(z)=z$ which concludes the proof of the theorem. □

The following technical result about real numbers (Lemma 3 in [14]) will be used in the proof of our next representation theorem.

**Lemma 3.1** [14]

*Let*

*α*

*and*

*β*

*be positive real numbers satisfying*$\alpha /\beta \notin \mathbb{Q}$.

*Define sequences*$\{{\alpha}_{n}\}$

*in*$(0,\mathrm{\infty})$

*and*$\{{k}_{n}\}$

*in*ℕ

*as follows*:

- (i)
${\alpha}_{1}=max\{\alpha ,\beta \}$;

- (ii)
${\alpha}_{2}=min\{\alpha ,\beta \}$;

- (iii)
${k}_{n}=[{\alpha}_{n}/{\alpha}_{n+1}]$

*for all*$n\in \mathbb{N}$; - (iv)
${\alpha}_{n+2}={\alpha}_{n}-{k}_{n}{\alpha}_{n+1}$

*for all*$n\in \mathbb{N}$.

*Then the following hold*:

- (a)
$0<{\alpha}_{n+1}<{\alpha}_{n}$

*for all*$n\in \mathbb{N}$; - (b)
${k}_{n}\in \mathbb{N}$

*for all*$n\in \mathbb{N}$; - (c)
${\alpha}_{n}/{\alpha}_{n+1}\notin \mathbb{Q}$

*for all*$n\in \mathbb{N}$; - (d)
$\{{\alpha}_{n}\}$

*converges to*0.

**Theorem 3.3**

*Let*$\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$

*and let*$\mathcal{F}=\{{T}_{t}:t\ge 0\}$

*be a continuous semigroup of mappings on a subset*

*C*

*of*${L}_{\rho}$.

*Let*$\alpha >0$

*and*$\beta >0$

*be two real numbers such that*$\alpha /\beta \notin \mathbb{Q}$.

*Then*

*Proof*We only need to prove that

Thus, equation (3.18) holds for $n=1$.

Combining (3.21) with (3.22), we obtain the desired inclusion (3.17) which completes the proof. □

The next result is an immediate consequence of the fact that the uniform convexity (*UUC*) implies the strict convexity (*SC*) of *ρ* (Proposition 2.2), and of Theorems 2.2, 3.1 and 3.3.

**Theorem 3.4**

*Let*$\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$

*be*(

*UUC*),

*and let*$\mathcal{F}=\{{T}_{t}:t\ge 0\}$

*be a continuous semigroup of*

*ρ*-

*nonexpansive mappings on a*

*ρ*-

*closed*,

*ρ*-

*bounded*,

*convex*,

*nonempty subset of*${L}_{\rho}$.

*Let*$\alpha >0$

*and*$\beta >0$

*be two real numbers such that*$\alpha /\beta \notin \mathbb{Q}$.

*Fix an arbitrary*$\lambda \in (0,1)$.

*Then*

**Remark 3.1** Using different methods, the conclusion of Theorem 3.4 can be proved without the assumption of the uniform convexity but assuming instead the strong continuity of the semigroup ℱ, see Theorem 3.1 in [46].

## 4 Convergence of Mann iteration processes

We concluded the previous section with Theorem 3.4 which says that, under suitable assumptions, the set of all common fixed points of a continuous semigroup of *ρ*-nonexpansive mappings is nonempty and can be represented as the set of all fixed points of just one *ρ*-nonexpansive mapping. In this section we demonstrate how this result can be applied to the construction of such a common fixed point. This idea can be summarized as follows: using the results of the previous sections, we can reduce a problem of constructing a common fixed point for a semigroup of mappings to a problem of constructing a fixed point for just one *ρ*-nonexpansive mapping. There exist well-known algorithms for solving the latter problem using generalized Mann and Ishikawa iteration processes, see [13].

In the current section, we prove the convergence of the Mann iterative process to a common fixed point of a continuous semigroup. Let us start with the definition of the Mann process, see [15].

**Definition 4.1**Let $\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$, $C\subset {L}_{\rho}$, and let

*T*be a

*ρ*-nonexpansive self-mapping on

*C*. Let $\sigma \in (0,1)$. The Mann iteration process generated by the mapping

*T*and the constant

*σ*, denoted by $M(T,\sigma )$, is defined by the following iterative formula:

We will need the following technical results.

*Let*$\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$

*be*(

*UUC*)

*and let*$\sigma \in (0,1)$.

*If there exists*$R>0$

*such that*

*then*

**Lemma 4.2**

*Let*$\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$

*be*(

*UUC*), $C\subset {L}_{\rho}$

*be a*

*ρ*-

*closed*,

*ρ*-

*bounded and convex set*.

*Let*$T:C\to C$

*be*

*ρ*-

*nonexpansive*,

*and let*$\sigma \in (0,1)$.

*Denote by*$\{{x}_{k}\}$

*a sequence of elements of*

*C*

*generated by a Mann process*$M(T,\sigma )$.

*Assume that*

*w*

*is a fixed point of*

*T*.

*Then there exists*$r\in \mathbb{R}$

*such that*

*Proof*Since

it follows that $\{{x}_{k}\}$ is a nonincreasing sequence of nonnegative numbers hence it is convergent to a number $r\in \mathbb{R}$. □

**Lemma 4.3**

*Let*$\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$

*be*(

*UUC*), $C\subset {L}_{\rho}$

*be a*

*ρ*-

*closed*,

*ρ*-

*bounded and convex set*.

*Let*$T:C\to C$

*be*

*ρ*-

*nonexpansive*,

*and let*$\sigma \in (0,1)$.

*Denote by*$\{{x}_{k}\}$

*a sequence of elements of*

*C*

*generated by a Mann process*$M(T,\sigma )$.

*Then*

*and*

*Proof*By Theorem 2.1,

*T*has at least one fixed point $w\in C$. In view of Lemma 4.2, there exists $r\in \mathbb{R}$ such that

as claimed. □

**Remark 4.1** Please note that Lemma 4.2 and Lemma 4.3 are special cases of analogous but more general results obtained for asymptotic pointwise nonexpansive mappings, see Lemma 5.2 and Lemma 5.3 in [13]. Since the proofs for the *ρ*-nonexpansive mappings are much simpler, the authors decided to include them in the current paper for the sake of clarity and completeness.

Let us recall now the definition of the Opial property and the strong Opial property in modular function spaces [10, 52].

**Definition 4.2**We say that ${L}_{\rho}$ satisfies the

*ρ*-a.e. Opial property if for every $\{{f}_{n}\}\in {L}_{\rho}$ which is

*ρ*-a.e. convergent to 0 such that there exists $\beta >1$ for which

**Definition 4.3**We say that ${L}_{\rho}$ satisfies the

*ρ*-a.e. strong Opial property if for every $\{{f}_{n}\}\in {L}_{\rho}$ which is

*ρ*-a.e. convergent to 0 such that there exists $\beta >1$ for which

**Remark 4.2** Note that the *ρ*-a.e. strong Opial property implies the *ρ*-a.e. Opial property [52].

**Remark 4.3** Also note that, by virtue of Theorem 2.1 in [52], every convex, orthogonally additive function modular *ρ* has the *ρ*-a.e. strong Opial property. Let us recall that *ρ* is called orthogonally additive if $\rho (f,A\cup B)=\rho (f,A)+\rho (f,B)$ whenever $A\cap B=\mathrm{\varnothing}$. Therefore, all Orlicz and Musielak-Orlicz spaces must have the strong Opial property.

Note that the Opial property in the norm sense does not necessarily hold for several classical Banach function spaces. For instance, the norm Opial property does not hold for ${L}^{p}$ spaces for $1\le p\ne 2$, while the modular strong Opial property holds in ${L}^{p}$ for all $p\ge 1$.

The version of the demiclosedness principle we use in this paper requires the uniform continuity of the function modular *ρ* in the sense of the following definition (see, *e.g.*, [10]).

**Definition 4.4**We say that $\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$ is uniformly continuous if for every $\epsilon >0$ and $L>0$, there exists $\delta >0$ such that

provided $\rho (h)<\delta $ and $\rho (g)\le L$.

Let us mention that the uniform continuity holds for a large class of function modulars. For instance, it can be proved that in Orlicz spaces over a finite atomless measure [53] or in sequence Orlicz spaces [54], the uniform continuity of the Orlicz modular is equivalent to the ${\mathrm{\Delta}}_{2}$-type condition.

**Theorem 4.1** (Demiclosedness principle [13])

*Let*$\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$.

*Assume that*

- (1)
*ρ**is*(*UUC*), - (2)
*ρ**has the strong Opial property*, - (3)
*ρ**has the*${\mathrm{\Delta}}_{2}$*property and is uniformly continuous*.

*Let* $C\subset {L}_{\rho}$ *be nonempty*, *convex*, *strongly* *ρ*-*bounded and* *ρ*-*closed*, $T:C\to C$ *be* *ρ*-*nonexpansive*, *and* $x\in C$. *If* ${x}_{n}\to x$ *ρ*-*a*.*e*. *and* $\rho (T({x}_{n})-{x}_{n})\to 0$, *then* $x\in F(T)$.

We are now ready to prove the following version of the Mann process convergence theorem for a single *ρ*-nonexpansive mapping.

**Theorem 4.2**

*Let*$\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$.

*Assume that*

- (1)
*ρ**is*(*UUC*), - (2)
*ρ**has the strong Opial property*, - (3)
*ρ**has the*${\mathrm{\Delta}}_{2}$*property and is uniformly continuous*.

*Let* $C\subset {L}_{\rho}$ *be nonempty*, *ρ*-*a*.*e*. *compact*, *convex*, *strongly* *ρ*-*bounded and* *ρ*-*closed*. *Let* $T:C\to C$ *be* *ρ*-*nonexpansive and* $\sigma \in (0,1)$. *Denote by* $\{{x}_{k}\}$ *a sequence of elements of* *C* *generated by a Mann process* $M(T,\sigma )$. *Then there exists* $x\in F(T)$ *such that* ${x}_{n}\to x$ *ρ*-*a*.*e*.

*Proof*Observe that by Theorem 2.1 the set of fixed points $F(T)$ is nonempty, convex and

*ρ*-closed. By Lemma 4.3 the sequence $\{{x}_{k}\}$ is an approximate fixed point sequence, that is,

*ρ*-a.e. cluster points of $\{{x}_{k}\}$. There exist then $\{{y}_{k}\}$, $\{{z}_{k}\}$ subsequences of $\{{x}_{k}\}$ such that ${y}_{k}\to y$

*ρ*-a.e., and ${z}_{k}\to z$

*ρ*-a.e. By Theorem 4.1, $y\in F(T)$ and $z\in F(T)$. By Lemma 4.2, there exist ${r}_{y},{r}_{z}\in \mathbb{R}$ such that

The contradiction implies that $y=z$. Therefore, $\{{x}_{k}\}$ has at most one *ρ*-a.e. cluster point. Since *C* is *ρ*-a.e. compact, it follows that the sequence $\{{x}_{k}\}$ has exactly one *ρ*-a.e. cluster point, which means that $\rho ({x}_{k})\to x$ *ρ*-a.e. Using Theorem 4.1 again, we get $x\in F(T)$ as claimed. □

Let us combine now Theorem 4.2 with Theorem 3.4 to demonstrate the convergence of an iterative algorithm to a common fixed point of a semigroup of nonlinear mappings in modular function spaces.

**Theorem 4.3**

*Let*$\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$.

*Assume that*

- (1)
*ρ**is*(*UUC*), - (2)
*ρ**has the strong Opial property*, - (3)
*ρ**has the*${\mathrm{\Delta}}_{2}$*property and is uniformly continuous*.

*Let*$C\subset {L}_{\rho}$

*be nonempty*,

*ρ*-

*a*.

*e*.

*compact*,

*convex*,

*strongly*

*ρ*-

*bounded and*

*ρ*-

*closed*.

*Let*$\mathcal{F}=\{{T}_{t}:t\ge 0\}$

*be a continuous semigroup of*

*ρ*-

*nonexpansive mappings on*

*C*.

*Assume that*$\alpha >0$

*and*$\beta >0$

*are two real numbers such that*$\alpha /\beta \notin \mathbb{Q}$.

*Fix*$\lambda ,\kappa \in (0,1)$

*such that*$\kappa +\lambda <1$.

*Define a sequence*$\{{x}_{n}\}$

*in*

*C*

*by*${x}_{1}\in C$

*and*

*for natural* $n\ge 2$. *Then* $\{{x}_{n}\}$ *ρ*-*a*.*e*. *converges to a common fixed point of the semigroup* ℱ.

*Proof*Define a mapping

*S*by

*ρ*-nonexpansive. Fix any ${x}_{1}\in C$ and let $\{{x}_{n}\}$ be generated by the Mann process $M(S,\sigma )$ where $\sigma =\kappa +\lambda $

which is exactly the sequence defined by (4.21). By Theorem 4.2 there exists $x\in F(S)$ such that ${x}_{n}\to x$ *ρ*-a.e. By Theorem 3.4 $F(\mathcal{F})=F(S)$, hence $x\in F(\mathcal{F})$. The proof is complete. □

## 5 Convergence of Ishikawa iteration processes

The Ishikawa iteration process [17] is a two-step process generalization of the Mann process. From the numerical point of view, the Ishikawa iteration process provides more flexibility in defining the algorithm parameters, and hence providing a better control over the speed of convergence of the algorithm.

**Definition 5.1**Let $\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$, $C\subset {L}_{\rho}$ and let

*T*be a

*ρ*-nonexpansive self-mapping on

*C*. Let $\sigma ,\tau \in (0,1)$. The Ishikawa iteration process generated by the mapping

*T*and the constants

*σ*and

*τ*, denoted by $I(T,\sigma ,\tau )$, is defined by the following iterative formula:

**Lemma 5.1** *Let* $\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$ *be* (*UUC*). *Let* $C\subset {L}_{\rho}$ *be a* *ρ*-*closed*, *ρ*-*bounded and convex set*. *Let* $T:C\to C$ *be* *ρ*-*nonexpansive*, *and let* $\sigma ,\tau \in (0,1)$. *Denote by* $\{{x}_{k}\}$ *a sequence of elements of* *C* *generated by the Ishikawa process* $I(T,\sigma ,\tau )$. *Assume that* *w* *is a fixed point of* *T*. *Then there exists* $r\in \mathbb{R}$ *such that* ${lim}_{k\to \mathrm{\infty}}\rho ({x}_{k}-w)=r$.

*Proof* Using a similar calculation to the one used in the proof of Lemma 4.2, it is not difficult to prove that $\{{x}_{k}\}$ is a nonincreasing sequence of nonnegative numbers, hence it is convergent to a number $r\in \mathbb{R}$. □

**Lemma 5.2**

*Let*$\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$

*be*(

*UUC*).

*Let*$C\subset {L}_{\rho}$

*be a*

*ρ*-

*closed*,

*ρ*-

*bounded and convex set*.

*Let*$T:C\to C$

*be*

*ρ*-

*nonexpansive*,

*and let*$\sigma ,\tau \in (0,1)$.

*Denote by*$\{{x}_{k}\}$

*a sequence of elements of*

*C*

*generated by the Ishikawa process*$I(T,\sigma ,\tau )$.

*Define*

*Then*

*or*,

*equivalently*,

*Proof*By Theorem 2.1, $F(T)\ne \mathrm{\varnothing}$. Let us fix $w\in F(T)$. By Lemma 5.1, ${lim}_{k\to \mathrm{\infty}}\rho ({x}_{k}-w)$ exists. Let us denote it by

*r*. Since $w\in F(T)$, $T\in {\mathcal{T}}_{r}(C)$ and ${lim}_{k\to \mathrm{\infty}}\rho ({x}_{k}-w)=r$, by Lemma 5.1 we have the following:

Applying Lemma 4.1 with ${u}_{k}=T({y}_{k})-w$ and ${v}_{k}={x}_{k}-w$, we obtain the desired equality ${lim}_{k\to \mathrm{\infty}}\rho (T({y}_{k})-{x}_{k})=0$, while (5.4) follows from (5.3) via the construction formulas for ${x}_{k+1}$ and ${y}_{k}$. □

**Remark 5.1** Please note that Lemma 5.1 and Lemma 5.2 are special cases of analogous but more general results obtained for asymptotic pointwise nonexpansive mappings, see Lemma 6.2 and Lemma 6.3 in [13]. Since the proofs for the *ρ*-nonexpansive mappings are much simpler, the authors decided to include them in the current paper for the sake of clarity and completeness.

**Lemma 5.3**

*Let*$\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$

*be*(

*UUC*)

*satisfying*${\mathrm{\Delta}}_{2}$.

*Let*$C\subset {L}_{\rho}$

*be a*

*ρ*-

*closed*,

*ρ*-

*bounded and convex set*.

*Let*$T:C\to C$

*be*

*ρ*-

*nonexpansive*,

*and let*$\sigma ,\tau \in (0,1)$.

*Denote by*$\{{x}_{k}\}$

*a sequence of elements of*

*C*

*generated by the Ishikawa process*$I(T,\sigma ,\tau )$.

*Then*

*Proof*Let ${y}_{k}=\tau T({x}_{k})+(1-\tau ){x}_{k}$. Hence

The right-hand side of this inequality tends to zero because $\rho (T({x}_{k})-{y}_{k})\to 0$ by Lemma 5.2 and because *ρ* satisfies ${\mathrm{\Delta}}_{2}$. □

Using Lemma 5.3 instead of Lemma 4.3, and Lemma 5.2 instead of Lemma 4.2, and arguing in a similar way as in the proof of Theorem 4.2, we can obtain the following convergence result for the Ishikawa process.

**Theorem 5.1**

*Let*$\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$.

*Assume that*

- (1)
*ρ**is*(*UUC*), - (2)
*ρ**has the strong Opial property*, - (3)
*ρ**has the*${\mathrm{\Delta}}_{2}$*property and is uniformly continuous*.

*Let* $C\subset {L}_{\rho}$ *be nonempty*, *ρ*-*a*.*e*. *compact*, *convex*, *strongly* *ρ*-*bounded and* *ρ*-*closed*. *Let* $T:C\to C$ *be* *ρ*-*nonexpansive and* $\sigma \in (0,1)$, $\tau \in (0,1)$. *Denote by* $\{{x}_{k}\}$ *a sequence of elements of* *C* *generated by an Ishikawa process* $I(T,\sigma ,\tau )$. *Then there exists* $x\in F(T)$ *such that* ${x}_{n}\to x$ *ρ*-*a*.*e*.

Again, let us combine Theorem 5.1 with Theorem 3.4 to demonstrate the convergence of an Ishikawa-type, two-step iterative algorithm to a common fixed point of a semigroup of nonlinear mappings in modular function spaces. Please note that, as said before, typical implementations of the Ishikawa algorithm are convergent at a faster pace than the corresponding Mann schema.

**Theorem 5.2**

*Let*$\rho \in \mathrm{\Re}$.

*Assume that*

- (1)
*ρ**is*(*UUC*), - (2)
*ρ**has the strong Opial property*, - (3)
*ρ**has the*${\mathrm{\Delta}}_{2}$*property and is uniformly continuous*.

*Let*$C\subset {L}_{\rho}$

*be nonempty*,

*ρ*-

*a*.

*e*.

*compact*,

*convex*,

*strongly*

*ρ*-

*bounded and*

*ρ*-

*closed*.

*Let*$\mathcal{F}=\{{T}_{t}:t\ge 0\}$

*be a continuous semigroup of*

*ρ*-

*nonexpansive mappings on*

*C*.

*Assume that*$\alpha >0$

*and*$\beta >0$

*are two real numbers such that*$\alpha /\beta \notin \mathbb{Q}$.

*Fix*$\lambda ,\kappa \in (0,1)$

*such that*$\kappa +\lambda <1$.

*Define a sequence*$\{{x}_{n}\}$

*in*

*C*

*by*${x}_{1}\in C$

*and*

*for natural* $n\ge 2$. *Then* $\{{x}_{n}\}$ *ρ*-*a*.*e*. *converges to a common fixed point of the semigroup* ℱ.

*Proof*Similarly as in the Mann process case, let us define a mapping

*S*by

*ρ*-nonexpansive. Fix any ${x}_{1}\in C$ and let $\{{x}_{n}\}$ be generated by the two-step Ishikawa process $I(S,\sigma ,\tau )$, where $\sigma =\kappa +\lambda $ and $\tau =\kappa +\lambda $,

which is exactly the sequence defined by (5.10). By Theorem 5.1 there exists $x\in F(S)$ such that ${x}_{n}\to x$ *ρ*-a.e. By Theorem 3.4 $F(\mathcal{F})=F(S)$, hence $x\in F(\mathcal{F})$, which completes the proof. □

## 6 Application to construction of a stationary point of the Urysohn process

*k*, we assume that

- (a)
$k:[0,1]\times [0,1]\times {\mathbb{R}}_{+}\to {\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ is Lebesgue measurable,

- (b)
$k(x,y,0)=0$,

- (c)
$k(x,y,\cdot )$ is continuous, convex and increasing to +∞,

- (d)
${\int}_{0}^{1}k(x,y,t)\phantom{\rule{0.2em}{0ex}}dx>0$ for $t>0$ and $y\in (0,1)$.

*f*,

*g*, there holds

*ρ*is a convex function modular on the space of measurable functions defined in $[0,1]$, and that $\rho (T(f)-T(g))\le \rho (f-g)$, that is,

*T*is nonexpansive with respect to

*ρ*. Let us fix $r>0$ and set $C=\{f\in {E}_{\rho}:\rho (f-{f}_{0})\le r\}$. It is easy to see that $T:C\to C$. If we assume additionally that there exist a constant $M>0$ and a Lebesgue-integrable function $h:[0,1]\times [0,1]\to [0,\mathrm{\infty})$ such that for every $u\ge 0$ and $x,y\in [0,1]$,

*ρ*has the property ${\mathrm{\Delta}}_{2}$ in the sense of Definition 2.5. It can be shown, see [55], that, given $f\in C$, the following initial value problem

defines the semigroup of *ρ*-nonexpansive mappings. Note that *ρ* in this example is orthogonally additive and hence it has the strong Opial property, see [52]. Therefore, assuming *ρ* is (*UUC*) and uniformly continuous, see [3, 53, 56] for several criteria, we can use our methods (Theorem 4.3 and Theorem 5.2) to construct a common fixed point of the semigroup $\{{S}_{t}\}$ which will be a stationary point of the Urysohn process defined by the evolution function $(t,f)\to {u}_{f}(t)\in C$.

## Declarations

### Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, under grant No. (400/130/1433). The authors, therefore, acknowledge with thanks the DSR financial support. The authors would like to thank the referee for the valuable suggestions to improve the presentation of the paper.

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Kozlowski WM Series of Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics 122. In
*Modular Function Spaces*. Dekker, New York; 1988.Google Scholar - Kozlowski WM: Advancements in fixed point theory in modular function.
*Arab. J. Math.*2012. 10.1007/s40065-012-0051-0Google Scholar - Khamsi MA, Kozlowski WM, Reich S: Fixed point theory in modular function spaces.
*Nonlinear Anal.*1990, 14: 935–953. 10.1016/0362-546X(90)90111-SView ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Khamsi MA, Kozlowski WM, Chen S: Some geometrical properties and fixed point theorems in Orlicz spaces.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*1991, 155(2):393–412. 10.1016/0022-247X(91)90009-OView ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Khamsi MA: Nonlinear semigroups in modular function spaces.
*Math. Jpn.*1992, 37(2):1–9.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Khamsi MA: Fixed point theory in modular function spaces.
*Proceedings of the Workshop on Recent Advances on Metric Fixed Point Theory*1996, 31–35. MR1440218(97m:46044) September 1995 SevillaGoogle Scholar - Dominguez-Benavides T, Khamsi MA, Samadi S: Uniformly Lipschitzian mappings in modular function spaces.
*Nonlinear Anal.*2001, 46: 267–278. 10.1016/S0362-546X(00)00117-6View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Dominguez-Benavides T, Khamsi MA, Samadi S: Asymptotically regular mappings in modular function spaces.
*Sci. Math. Jpn.*2001, 53: 295–304.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Dominguez-Benavides T, Khamsi MA, Samadi S: Asymptotically nonexpansive mappings in modular function spaces.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*2002, 265(2):249–263. 10.1006/jmaa.2000.7275View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Khamsi MA, Kozlowski WM: On asymptotic pointwise contractions in modular function spaces.
*Nonlinear Anal.*2010, 73: 2957–2967. 10.1016/j.na.2010.06.061View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Khamsi MA, Kozlowski WM: On asymptotic pointwise nonexpansive mappings in modular function spaces.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*2011, 380(2):697–708. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2011.03.031View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Kozlowski WM: On the existence of common fixed points for semigroups of nonlinear mappings in modular function spaces.
*Comment. Math.*2011, 51(1):81–98.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Bin Dehaish BA, Kozlowski WM: Fixed point iterations processes for asymptotic pointwise nonexpansive mappings in modular function spaces.
*Fixed Point Theory Appl.*2012., 2012: Article ID 118Google Scholar - Suzuki T: The set of common fixed points of one-parameter nonexpansive semigroup of mappings is $F(T(1))\cap F(T(\sqrt{2}))$.
*Proc. Am. Math. Soc.*2005, 134(3):673–681.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Mann WR: Mean value methods in iteration.
*Proc. Am. Math. Soc.*1953, 4: 506–510. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1953-0054846-3View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Krasnosel’skii MA: Two remarks on the method of successive approximation.
*Usp. Mat. Nauk*1955, 10: 123–127. (in Russian)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Ishikawa S: Fixed points by a new iteration method.
*Proc. Am. Math. Soc.*1974, 44: 147–150. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1974-0336469-5View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Reich S: Fixed point iterations of nonexpansive mappings.
*Pac. J. Math.*1975, 60(2):195–198. 10.2140/pjm.1975.60.195View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Reich S: Weak convergence theorems for nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*1979, 67: 274–276. 10.1016/0022-247X(79)90024-6View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Bose SC: Weak convergence to the fixed point of an asymptotically nonexpansive map.
*Proc. Am. Math. Soc.*1978, 68: 305–308. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1978-0493543-4View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Passty GB: Construction of fixed points for asymptotically nonexpansive mappings.
*Proc. Am. Math. Soc.*1982, 84: 212–216. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1982-0637171-7View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Gornicki J: Weak convergence theorems for asymptotically nonexpansive mappings in uniformly convex Banach spaces.
*Comment. Math. Univ. Carol.*1989, 30: 249–252.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Schu J: Iterative construction of fixed points of asymptotically nonexpansive mappings.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*1991, 158: 407–413. 10.1016/0022-247X(91)90245-UView ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Schu J: Weak and strong convergence to fixed points of asymptotically nonexpansive mappings.
*Bull. Aust. Math. Soc.*1991, 43: 153–159. 10.1017/S0004972700028884View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Xu H-K: Existence and convergence for fixed points of asymptotically nonexpansive type.
*Nonlinear Anal.*1991, 16: 1139–1146. 10.1016/0362-546X(91)90201-BView ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Tan K-K, Xu H-K: An ergodic theorem for nonlinear semigroups of Lipschitzian mappings in Banach spaces.
*Nonlinear Anal.*1992, 19(9):805–813. 10.1016/0362-546X(92)90052-GView ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Tan K-K, Xu H-K: Approximating fixed points of nonexpansive mappings by the Ishikawa iteration process.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*1993, 178: 301–308. 10.1006/jmaa.1993.1309View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Bruck R, Kuczumow T, Reich S: Convergence of iterates of asymptotically nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces with the uniform Opial property.
*Colloq. Math.*1993, 65(2):169–179.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Tan K-K, Xu H-K: Fixed point iteration processes for asymptotically nonexpansive mappings.
*Proc. Am. Math. Soc.*1994, 122: 733–739. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1994-1203993-5View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Rhoades BE: Fixed point iterations for certain nonlinear mappings.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*1994, 183: 118–120. 10.1006/jmaa.1994.1135View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Jung JS, Kim TH: Approximating fixed points of nonlinear mappings in Banach spaces.
*Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skłodowska*1997, 51: 149–165.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Kaczor W, Kuczumow T, Reich S: A mean ergodic theorem for nonlinear semigroups which are asymptotically nonexpansive in the intermediate sense.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*2000, 246: 1–27. 10.1006/jmaa.2000.6733View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Kaczor W, Kuczumow T, Reich S: A mean ergodic theorem for mappings which are asymptotically nonexpansive in the intermediate sense.
*Nonlinear Anal.*2001, 47: 2731–2742. 10.1016/S0362-546X(01)00392-3View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Garcia Falset J, Kaczor W, Kuczumow T, Reich S: Weak convergence theorems for asymptotically nonexpansive mappings and semigroups.
*Nonlinear Anal.*2001, 43: 377–401. 10.1016/S0362-546X(99)00200-XView ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Noor MA, Xu B: Fixed point iterations for asymptotically nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*2002, 267: 444–453. 10.1006/jmaa.2001.7649View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Khamsi MA: On asymptotically nonexpansive mappings in hyperconvex metric spaces.
*Proc. Am. Math. Soc.*2004, 132: 365–373. 10.1090/S0002-9939-03-07172-7View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Suzuki T, Takahashi W: Strong convergence of Mann’s type sequences for one-parameter nonexpansive semigroups in general Banach spaces.
*J. Nonlinear Convex Anal.*2004, 5: 209–216.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Suzuki T: Common fixed points of one-parameter nonexpansive semigroup.
*Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.*2006, 38: 1009–1018. 10.1112/S0024609306018893View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Hussain N, Khamsi MA: On asymptotic pointwise contractions in metric spaces.
*Nonlinear Anal.*2009, 71(10):4423–4429. 10.1016/j.na.2009.02.126View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Lewicki G, Marino G: On some algorithms in Banach spaces finding fixed points of nonlinear mappings.
*Nonlinear Anal.*2009, 71: 3964–3972. 10.1016/j.na.2009.02.066View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Kozlowski WM: Fixed point iteration processes for asymptotic pointwise nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*2011, 377(1):43–52. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2010.10.026View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Kozlowski WM: Common fixed points for semigroups of pointwise Lipschitzian mappings in Banach spaces.
*Bull. Aust. Math. Soc.*2011, 84: 353–361. 10.1017/S0004972711002668View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Kozlowski WM: On the construction of common fixed points for semigroups of nonlinear mappings in uniformly convex and uniformly smooth Banach spaces.
*Comment. Math.*2012, 52(2):113–136.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Kozlowski WM: Pointwise Lipschitzian mappings in uniformly convex and uniformly smooth Banach spaces.
*Nonlinear Anal.*2013, 84: 50–60.View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Kozlowski WM, Sims B: On the convergence of iteration processes for semigroups of nonlinear mappings in Banach spaces. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics 50. In
*Computational and Analytical Mathematics*. Edited by: Bailey DH, Bauschke HH, Borwein P, Garvan F, Thera M, Vanderwerff JD, Wolkowicz H. Springer, New York; 2013. In Honor of Jonathan Borwein’s 60th BirthdayGoogle Scholar - Kozlowski, WM: On common fixed points of semigroups of mappings nonexpansive with respect to convex function modulars. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 15 (2014, in press)Google Scholar
- Kozlowski WM: Notes on modular function spaces I.
*Comment. Math.*1988, 28: 91–104.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Kozlowski WM: Notes on modular function spaces II.
*Comment. Math.*1988, 28: 105–120.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Chistyakov VV: Modular metric spaces, I: basic concepts.
*Nonlinear Anal.*2010, 72(1):1–14. 10.1016/j.na.2009.04.057View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Chistyakov VV: Modular metric spaces, II: application to superposition operators.
*Nonlinear Anal.*2010, 72(1):15–30. 10.1016/j.na.2009.04.018View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Bruck RE: A common fixed point theorem for a commuting family of nonexpansive mappings.
*Pac. J. Math.*1974, 53: 59–71. 10.2140/pjm.1974.53.59View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Khamsi MA: A convexity property in modular function spaces.
*Math. Jpn.*1996, 44(2):269–279.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Chen S: Geometry of Orlicz spaces.
*Diss. Math.*1996, 356: 1–204.Google Scholar - Kaminska A: On uniform convexity of Orlicz spaces.
*Indag. Math.*1982, 44(1):27–36.View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Kozlowski WM: On nonlinear differential equations in generalized Musielak-Orlicz spaces.
*Comment. Math.*2013, 53(2):13–33.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Musielak J Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1034. In
*Orlicz Spaces and Modular Spaces*. Springer, Berlin; 1983.Google Scholar

## Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.