 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Relaxed iterative algorithms for a system of generalized mixed equilibrium problems and a countable family of totally quasiPhiasymptotically nonexpansive multivalued maps, with applications
Fixed Point Theory and Applicationsvolume 2017, Article number: 21 (2017)
Abstract
In this article, a Krasnoselskiitype and a Halperntype algorithm for approximating a common fixed point of a countable family of totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself multivalued maps and a solution of a system of generalized mixed equilibrium problem are constructed. Strong convergence of the sequences generated by these algorithms is proved in uniformly smooth and strictly convex real Banach spaces with the KadecKlee property. Several applications of our theorems are also presented. Finally, our theorems are a significant improvement of several important recent results.
Introduction
In what follows, we assume that X is a real Banach space with dual space \(X^{*}\), K is a nonempty, closed, and convex subset of X, and → and ⇀ will, respectively, denote strong and weak convergence.
(See, e.g., Wang and Zang [1] for a similar definition for self maps.) Let \(G:K \to2^{X}\) be any map. A point \(u\in K\) is called a fixed point of G if and only if \(u\in Gu\) and it is called an asymptotic fixed point of G if there exists a sequence \(\{u_{n}\}\) in K that converges weakly to u and \(\lim_{n\to\infty}d(u_{n},Gu_{n}):=\lim_{n\to\infty} \inf_{\eta_{n}\in Gu_{n}} \Vert u_{n}\eta_{n}\Vert =0\) (see Chang et al. [2]). We denote the set of fixed points and asymptotic fixed points of G by \(F(G)\) and \(\hat{F}(G)\), respectively.
A subset K of X is said to be a retract of X, if there exists a continuous map \(P:X\to K\) such that \(Pu=u\), for all \(u\in X\). It is well known that every nonempty, closed, convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space X is a retract of X. A map \(P:X\to K\) is said to be a retraction if \(P^{2} =P\). A map \(P:X\to K\) is said to be a nonexpansive retraction, if it is nonexpansive and it is a retraction from X to K.
Define the Lyapunov functional \(\phi: X \times X\to \Bbb {R}\) by
From the definition of ϕ it is obvious that
In what follows, we assume that \(P:X\to K\) is a nonexpansive retraction.
Definition 1.1
A nonself multivalued map \(G:K \to2^{X}\) is said to be relatively asymptotically nonexpansive if \(F(G)\ne\emptyset \), \(\hat{F}(G)=F(G)\), and there exists a real sequence \(\{\beta_{n}\} \subset[1,\infty)\), \(\beta_{n}\downarrow1\) such that \(\phi(p,\eta _{n})\leq\beta_{n}\phi(p,u)\) \(\forall u\in K\), \(p\in F(G)\), \(\eta_{n} \in G(PG)^{n1}u\), \(n\geq1\) (see, e.g., Wang and Zang [1] for a similar definition for self maps).
The following definitions appear in Bo and Yi [3].
Definition 1.2
A nonself multivalued map \(G:K \to2^{X}\) is said to be

quasiϕnonexpansive if \(F(G)\ne\emptyset\) and \(\phi(p,\eta_{n})\leq\phi(p,u)\) \(\forall u\in K\), \(p\in F(G)\), \(\eta _{n}\in G(PG)^{n1}u\), \(n\geq1\);

quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive if \(F(G)\ne\emptyset \) and there exists a real sequence \(\{\beta_{n}\}\subset[1,\infty)\), \(\beta_{n}\downarrow1\) such that \(\phi(p,\eta_{n})\leq\beta_{n} \phi(p,u)\) \(\forall u\in K\), \(p\in F(G)\), \(\eta_{n}\in G(PG)^{n1}u\), \(n \geq1\);

totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive if \(F(G)\ne\emptyset\) and there exist nonnegative real sequences \(\{\gamma_{n}\}\), \(\{\delta_{n}\}\) with \(\gamma_{n}\to0\), \(\delta_{n} \to0\) (\(n\to\infty\)) and a strictly increasing and continuous function \(\rho: \Bbb {R}^{+}\to \Bbb {R}^{+}\) with \(\rho(0)=0\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned}[b] &\phi(p,\eta_{n})\leq\phi(p,u)+ \gamma_{n} \rho \bigl[\phi(p,u) \bigr]+\delta_{n} \\ &\quad \forall u\in K, p\in F(G), \eta_{n}\in G(PG)^{n1}u, n\geq1. \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$(1.3)
Remark 1
From the definitions, it is easy to see that the class of relatively asymptotically nonexpansive multivalued nonself maps and the class of quasiϕnonexpansive multivalued nonself maps are proper subclasses of the class of quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive multivalued nonself maps and that the class of quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive multivalued nonself maps is a proper subclass of the class of totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive multivalued nonself maps, but the converse may not be true.
Definition 1.3
A countable family of multivalued nonself maps, \(G_{i}:K\to2^{X}\), \(i=1,2,3,\ldots\) , is said to be

uniformly quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive if \(\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty}F(G_{i})\ne\emptyset\) and there exists a sequence \(\{\beta_{n}\}\subset[1,\infty)\), \(\beta_{n}\downarrow1\) such that, for each \(i\geq1\),
$$\begin{aligned} \phi(p,\eta_{n})\leq\beta_{n}\phi(p,u) \quad \forall u\in K, p \in\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty}F(G_{i}), \eta_{n}\in G _{i}(PG_{i})^{n1}u, n\geq1 \end{aligned}$$(see, e.g., Chang et al. [4]);

uniformly totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive if \(\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty}F(G_{i})\ne\emptyset\) and there exist nonnegative real sequences \(\{\gamma_{n}\}\), \(\{\delta_{n}\}\) with \(\gamma_{n} \to0\), \(\delta_{n}\to0\) (\(n\to\infty\)) and a strictly increasing and continuous function \(\rho: \Bbb {R}^{+}\to \Bbb {R}^{+}\) with \(\rho(0)=0\) such that, for each \(i\ge1\),
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{gathered} \phi(p,\eta_{n})\leq\phi(p,u)+ \gamma_{n}\rho \bigl[ \phi(p,u) \bigr]+\delta_{n} \\ \quad \forall u\in K, p\in\bigcap _{i=1}^{\infty}F(G_{i}), \eta_{n}\in G _{i}(PG_{i})^{n1}u, n \geq1 \end{gathered} \end{aligned}$$(see, e.g., Yi [5]).
Remark 2
From the definitions, it is easy to see that a countable family of uniformly quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive multivalued nonself maps is a countable family of uniformly totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive multivalued nonself maps.
Remark 3
We also remark that a collection of countable families of uniformly totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive multivalued nonself maps is a subcollection of a collection of countable families of totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive multivalued nonself maps.
A motivation for the study of the class of totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive self or nonself maps is the objective to unify various definitions of classes of maps, associated with the class of relatively nonexpansive self or nonself maps, which are extensions to arbitrary real Banach spaces of nonexpansive nonself maps, with nonempty fixed point sets in Hilbert spaces. Our objective is to prove general convergence theorems applicable to all these classes.
Definition 1.4
See, e.g., Feng et al. [6] for a similar definition for self maps
A multivalued nonself map \(G:K \to2^{X}\) is said to be

equally continuous if for \(u_{n}, v_{n} \in K\) we have
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{gathered} \lim_{n\to\infty} \Vert u_{n}v_{n}\Vert =0 \quad \Longrightarrow\quad \lim_{n\to\infty} \Vert \eta_{n_{u}} \eta_{n_{v}}\Vert =0 \\ \quad \forall \eta_{n_{u}}\in G(PG)^{n1}u_{n}, \eta_{n_{v}}\in G(PG)^{n1}v_{n}; \end{gathered} \end{aligned}$$ 
uniformly continuous if for \(u_{n}, v_{n} \in K\) we have
$$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n\to\infty} \Vert u_{n}v_{n}\Vert =0\quad \Longrightarrow\quad \lim_{n\to\infty} \Vert \eta_{n_{u}} \eta_{n_{v}}\Vert =0 \quad \forall \eta_{n_{u}}\in Gu_{n}, \eta_{n_{v}}\in Gv_{n}; \end{aligned}$$ 
uniformly LLipschitz continuous if there exists a constant \(L>0\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert \eta_{u}\eta_{v}\Vert \leq L\Vert uv\Vert \quad \forall \eta_{u}\in G(PG)^{n1}u, \eta_{v}\in G(PG)^{n1}v, n\ge1. \end{aligned}$$
Remark 4
It is easy to see that the class of uniformly LLipschitz multivalued nonself maps is a proper subclass of the class of uniformly continuous multivalued nonself maps and the class of uniformly continuous multivalued nonself maps is a proper subclass of the class of equally continuous multivalued nonself maps.
Let \(\psi:K\to \Bbb {R}\) be a realvalued function, \(A:K\to X^{*}\) be a nonlinear map, and \(f:K\times K\to \Bbb {R}\) be a bifunction. The generalized mixed equilibrium problem is to find \(u^{*} \in K\) such that
The set of solutions of the generalized mixed equilibrium problem is denoted by \(\boldsymbol{\mathit {GMEP}}(f, A,\psi)\).
The class of generalized mixed equilibrium problems includes, as special cases, the class of mixed equilibrium problems (\(A\equiv0\); see, e.g., Ceng and Yao [7] and the references contained therein); the class of generalized equilibrium problems (\(\zeta\equiv0\); see, e.g., Takahashi and Takahashi [8]); the class of equilibrium problems (\(A\equiv0\), \(\zeta\equiv0\); see, e.g., Fan [9], Blum and Oettli [10], and the references contained therein); the class of variational inequality problems (\(h\equiv0\), \(\zeta\equiv0\); see, e.g., Stampacchia [11]); and the class of convex minimization problems (\(A\equiv0\), \(h\equiv0\)).
The generalized mixed equilibrium problem has applications in physics, economics, finance, transportation, network and structural analysis, ecology, image reconstruction, and elasticity. It includes, as special cases, fixed point problems, variational inequality problems, complementarity problems, equilibrium problems, optimization problems, Nash equilibrium problems in noncooperative games, etc. (see, e.g., Blum and Otelli [10], Dafermos and Nagurney [12], Su [13], Barbagallo [14], Moudafi [15], and the references contained therein). In other words, the \(\mathit {GMEP}(f,A,\psi)\) is a unifying model for several problems arising in physics, engineering, science, optimization, finance, economics, etc. The projection method, which was first introduced by Haugazeau [16], has been utilized to solve the mixed equilibrium problem, the generalized equilibrium problem, and equilibrium problems in Banach spaces (see, e.g., Qin et al. [17], Cholamjiak et al. [18], Cho et al. [19], Ceng and Yao [7], and the references therein). The advantage of projection methods is that strong convergence of iterative sequences can be guaranteed without any compactness assumptions imposed on maps or subsets of spaces.
Several strong and weak convergence theorems for asymptotically nonexpansive, relatively nonexpansive, quasiϕnonexpansive and quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive self or nonself maps have been established by various authors in the setting of Banach spaces (see, e.g., Thianwan [20], Nilsrakoo et al. [21], Wang [22], Ma and Wang [23], Chidume et al. [24, 25], and the references contained therein).
In 2012, Chang et al. [4] considered the class of uniformly quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself maps and studied, in a uniformly convex and uniformly smooth real Banach space, the following Halperntype algorithm:
where \(\theta_{n}=(\beta_{n}1)\sup_{u\in F}\phi(u,u_{n})\), \(F:=\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty}F(G_{i})\), and \(\{G_{i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}\) is a countable family of uniformly LLipschitz continuous and uniformly quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself maps. The authors prove that the sequence \(\{u_{n}\}\), generated by the above iterative scheme, converges strongly to \(\Pi_{F}u_{1}\), under the following conditions:
 \((C1)\) :

\(\lim_{n\to\infty}\alpha_{n}=0\);
 \((C2)\) :

\(0<\liminf_{n\to\infty}\beta_{n}\leq\limsup_{n\to\infty} \beta_{n}<1\);
 \((C3)\) :

F is a bounded and convex subset of K,
In the same year, Zhao and Chang [26] proved that the sequence \(\{u_{n}\}\), generated by algorithm (1.5), converges strongly to \(\Pi_{F}u_{1}\) under conditions \((C1)\), \((C2)\), and the following condition:
 \((C3^{*})\) :

F is a nonempty bounded subset of K,
Later in the same year, Yi [5] established the results in the paper of Zhao and Chang [26], when \(\{G_{i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}\) is a countable family of uniformly LLipschitz continuous and uniformly totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself maps, under conditions \((C1)\), \((C2)\), and the following condition:
 \((C3^{**})\) :

F is a nonempty subset of K.
In 2014, Bo and Yi [3] proved that the sequence \(\{u_{n}\}\), generated by the iterative algorithm
converges strongly to \(\Pi_{F}u_{1}\) under conditions \((C1)\), \((C2)\), and \((C3^{**})\), where \(F:=F(G)\) and G is a uniformly LLipschitz continuous and totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself multivalued map, while \(\theta_{n}=\gamma_{n}\sup_{u\in F}\phi(u,u_{n})+\delta_{n}\).
The results of Bo and Yi [3], Yi [5], Zhao and Chang [26], and Chang et al. [4] are important generalizations and improvements of important known results.
Motivated by these authors, it is our purpose in this paper to study the following Krasnoselskiitype and Halperntype algorithms:
We also aim to prove, in a uniformly smooth and strictly convex real Banach space X with KadecKlee property, that the sequences generated by these algorithms converge strongly to an element in \(W:= (\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty}F(G_{i}) )\cap (\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty} \mathit {GMEP}(h_{i},A _{i},\zeta_{i}) )\), where \(\{G_{i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}\) is a countable family of equally continuous and totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself multivalued maps; \(\{A_{i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}\), \(A_{i}:K \to X^{*}\) is a sequence of continuous and monotone maps; \(\{h_{i}\} _{i=1}^{\infty}\), \(h_{i}:K\times K\to \Bbb {R}\) is a sequence of bifunctions satisfying appropriate conditions and \(\{\zeta_{i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}\), \(\zeta_{i}:K\to \Bbb {R}\) is a sequence of lowersemicontinuous and convex functions. Our theorems are significant improvements and generalizations of numerous results for this class of nonlinear problems (in particular, the results of Bo and Yi [3], Yi [5], Zhao and Chang [26], Chang et al. [4], Lv [27], Wang and Zhang [28], Dadashi and Postolache [29], Yao and Postolache [30], and the results of a host of other authors [see Remark 6 below]).
Preliminaries
A map \(J:X\rightarrow2^{ X^{*}}\) defined by \(Ju:= \{u^{*}\in X^{*}: \langle u,u^{*}\rangle=\Vert u\Vert \Vert u^{*}\Vert , \Vert u\Vert =\Vert u^{*}\Vert \}\) is called a normalized duality map on X, where \(\langle\cdot,\cdot \rangle\) denotes the duality pairing between elements of X and \(X^{*}\).
We now present some lemmas that will be used in the sequel.
Lemma 2.1
See Bo and Yi [3]
Let X be a smooth, strictly convex and reflexive Banach space and K be a nonempty, closed, convex subset of X. Let \(G:K \to X\) be a total quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive multivalued mapping with \(\delta_{1} = 0\). Then \(F(G)\) is a closed and convex subset of K.
Lemma 2.2
See Chang et al. [2]
Let X be a uniformly smooth and strictly convex real Banach space with KadecKlee property and let K be a nonempty closed convex subset of X. Let \(\{u_{n}\}\) and \(\{y_{n}\}\) be two sequences in K such that \(u_{n}\to u^{*}\) and \(\phi(u_{n},y_{n})\to0\), where ϕ is the function defined by (1.1). Then \(y_{n}\to u^{*}\).
Lemma 2.3
See Alber [31]
Let K be a nonempty closed and convex subset of a reflexive strictly convex and smooth Banach space X. Then
Let K be a nonempty closed and convex subset of a Banach space X. For solving the generalized mixed equilibrium problem (1.4), we assume that a bifunction \(h:K\times K\to \Bbb {R}\) satisfies the following conditions:
 \((B1)\) :

\(h(u,u)=0\), \(\forall u\in X\),
 \((B2)\) :

h is monotone, that is, \(h(u,v)+h(v,u)\leq0\), \(\forall u,v \in X\),
 \((B3)\) :

for all \(u,y,z\in X\), \(\limsup_{t\downarrow0}h(tz+(1t)u,v) \leq h(u,v)\),
 \((B4)\) :

for all \(u\in K\), \(h(u,\cdot):K\to \Bbb {R}\) is convex and lowersemicontinuous.
Lemma 2.4
See Zhang [32]
Let X be a smooth, strictly convex and reflexive Banach space and let K be a nonempty closed convex subset of X. Let \(A:K\to X^{*}\) be a continuous and monotone mapping, \(\zeta:K \to \Bbb {R}\) be a lowersemicontinuous and convex function, and \(h:K\times K\to \Bbb {R}\) be a bifunction satisfying the conditions \((B1)\)\((B4)\). Let \(r>0\) be any given number and \(u \in X\) be any given point. Then the following observations hold:

(1)
There exists \(z\in K\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} h(z,v) +\zeta(v)\zeta(z)+\langle vz, Az\rangle+\frac{1}{r} \langle vz,JzJu \rangle\geq0,\quad\forall v\in K. \end{aligned}$$ 
(2)
If we define a mapping \(\Lambda_{r}:K\to K\) by
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \Lambda_{r}(u)&= \biggl\{ z\in K: h(z,v) +\zeta(v)\zeta(z)+\langle vz, Az\rangle+\frac{1}{r} \langle vz,JzJu \rangle\geq0, \\ &\quad \forall v \in K \biggr\} , \quad u\in K, \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$then the mapping \(G_{r}\) has the following properties:

(a)
\(G_{r}\) is singlevalued;

(b)
\(F(\Lambda_{r})=\mathit {GMEP}(h,A,\zeta)=\hat{F}(\Lambda_{r})\);

(c)
\(\mathit {GMEP}(h,A,\zeta)\) is a closed convex set of K;

(d)
\(\phi(q,\Lambda_{r}u)+\phi(\Lambda_{r}u,u)\leq\phi(q,u)\) \(\forall q\in F(\Lambda_{r})\), \(u\in X\).

(a)
Main results
In what follows, \({i_{n}}\) and \({m_{n}}\) are the unique solutions to the positive integer equation \(n=i+\frac{(m1)m}{2}\) (\(m\geq i\), \(n=1,2,\ldots\)). That is, for each \(n\geq1\), there exist unique \(i_{n}\) and \(m_{n}\) such that
See Deng [33]. We now prove the following strong convergence theorem using a Krasnoselskiitype algorithm.
Theorem 3.1
Let X be a uniformly smooth and strictly convex real Banach space with KadecKlee property and let \(X^{*}\) be its dual space. Let K be a nonempty closed and convex subset of X and \(h_{i}:K \times K\to \Bbb {R}\), \(i=1,2,3,\ldots\) , be a sequence of bifunctions satisfying \((B1)\)\((B4)\). Let \(A_{i}:K\to X^{*}\), \(i=1,2,3,\ldots\) , be a sequence of continuous monotone maps and \(G_{i}:K \to{2^{X}}\), \(i=1,2,\ldots\) , be an infinite family of equally continuous and totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself multivalued maps with nonnegative real sequences \(\{\gamma_{n}^{(i)}\}\), \(\{\delta_{n}^{(i)} \}\) and a sequence of strictly increasing and continuous functions \(\{\rho_{i}\}\), \(\rho_{i}:\Bbb {R}^{+}\to \Bbb {R}^{+}\), such that \(\gamma_{n} ^{(i)}\to0\), \(\delta_{n}^{(i)}\to0\) and \(\rho_{i}(0)=0\). Let \(\zeta_{i}:K\to \Bbb {R}\), \(i=1,2,3,\ldots\) , be a sequence of convex and lowersemicontinuous functions. Suppose for each i, \(\delta_{1}^{(i)}=0\) and \(\Omega:= (\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty}F(G_{i}) )\cap (\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty} \mathit {GMEP}(h_{i}, A_{i},\zeta_{i}) )\) is a nonempty subset of K. Then the sequence \(\{u_{n}\}\) generated by algorithm (1.6) converges strongly to \(\Pi_{\Omega }u_{0}\), where \(\sigma\in(0,1)\), \(r_{i_{n}}\in[a,\infty)\) for some \(a>0\), and \(\omega_{n}=\gamma_{m_{n}}^{(i_{n})}\rho_{i_{n}} [ \phi(p,u_{n}) ]+ \delta_{m_{n}}^{(i_{n})}\), \(p\in\Omega\).
Proof
The proof is presented in a number of steps.
Step 1: \(K_{n}\) is closed and convex for all \(n\geq1\).
Clearly, \(K_{1}=K\) is closed and convex. Assume \(K_{n}\) is closed and convex for some \(n\geq1\). It is easy to see that \(K_{n+1}=\{v\in K _{n}:2\langle v, Ju_{n}Jz_{n}\rangle\leq \Vert u_{n}\Vert \Vert z_{n}\Vert +\omega _{n}\}\). Consequently, it is closed and convex. Hence, Step 1 is completed.
Step 2: \(\Omega\subset K_{n}\) for all \(n\geq1\).
Again, we proceed by induction. Clearly, \(\Omega\subset K_{1}\). Suppose \(\Omega\subset K_{n}\) for some \(n\geq1\). Let \(q\in\Omega\). Then, by applying Lemma 2.4(d), the definition of ϕ, the convexity of \(\Vert \cdot \Vert ^{2}\), and the totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansiveness of \(G_{i}\), we have
which implies that \(q\in K_{n+1}\). Therefore, \(\Omega\subset K_{n}\) for all \(n\geq1\).
Step 3: \(\{\phi(u_{n},u_{0})\}\) is convergent and \(\lim_{n\to\infty}\omega_{n}=0\).
Since \(u_{n}=\Pi_{K_{n}}u_{0}\) and \(K_{n+1}\subset K_{n}\) for all \(n\geq1\), we have \(\phi(u_{n},u_{0})\leq\phi(u_{n+1},u_{0})\), which implies that \(\{\phi(u_{n},u_{0})\}\) is nondecreasing. Furthermore, by Lemma 2.3, we have
for all \(n\geq1\) and \(q\in\Omega\). Thus, \(\{\phi(u_{n},u_{0})\}\) is bounded. Hence, \(\{\phi(u_{n},u_{0})\}\) is convergent. Furthermore, by inequality (1.2), \(\{u_{n}\}\) is bounded. Now, for each \(i\geq1\), define \(K_{i}:=\{k\ge1:k=i+\frac{(m1)m}{2}, m\ge i, m \in \Bbb {N}\}\). Observe that if, for each \(i\ge1\), \(k\in K_{i}\), then \(\gamma_{m_{k}}^{(i_{k})}=\gamma_{m_{k}}^{(i)}\), \(\delta_{m_{k}}^{(i _{k})}=\delta_{m_{k}}^{(i)}\), and \(\rho_{i_{k}}=\rho_{i}\). Also, \(m_{k}\to\infty\) as \(k\to\infty\), \(k\in K_{i}\). Therefore, \(\lim_{n\to\infty} \omega_{n}=0\).
Step 4: \(u_{n}\to u^{*}\), \(z_{n}\to u^{*}\), and \(y_{n}\to u ^{*}\) as \(n\to\infty\), for some \(u^{*}\in K\).
By the boundedness of \(\{u_{n}\}\) and reflexivity of X, there exists a subsequence \(\{u_{n_{k}}\}\) of \(\{u_{n}\}\) such that \(u_{n_{k}} \rightharpoonup u^{*}\) as \(k\to\infty\). Since \(K_{n_{k}}\) is weakly closed, \(u^{*}\in K_{n_{k}}\subset K\). Thus, \(u_{n_{k}}=\Pi_{K_{n_{k}}}u _{0}\) implies that \(\phi(u_{n_{k}},u_{0})\leq\phi(u^{*},u_{0}) \) \(\forall k\geq1\). By the weak lowersemicontinuity of \(\Vert \cdot \Vert \), we have
which implies that \(\phi(u^{*},u_{0})\leq\liminf_{k\to\infty} \phi(u_{n_{k}},u_{0})\leq\limsup_{k\to\infty}\phi(u_{n_{k}},u _{0})\leq\phi(u^{*},u_{0})\). Hence, \(\lim_{k\to\infty} \phi(u_{n_{k}},u_{0})=\phi(u^{*},u_{0})\). Therefore, \(\lim_{k\to\infty} \Vert u_{n_{k}}\Vert =\Vert u^{*}\Vert \). By the KadecKlee property of X, we have \(\lim_{k\to\infty} u_{n_{k}}=u^{*}\). Since \(\{\phi(u_{n},u_{0})\}\) is convergent and \(\lim_{k\to\infty}\phi(u_{n_{k}},u_{0})=\phi(u^{*},u_{0})\), we have \(\lim_{n\to\infty}\phi(u_{n},u_{0})=\phi(u^{*},u_{0})\).
Claim: \(u_{n}\to u^{*}\).
Suppose there exists a subsequence \(\{u_{n_{j}}\}\) of \(\{u_{n}\}\) such that \(u_{n_{j}}\to p\) as \(j\to\infty\). By applying Lemma 2.3, we have
which implies \(u^{*}=p\). Hence, the claim holds. Again, by Lemma 2.3 we have
which implies that \(\phi(u_{n+1},u_{n})\to0\) as \(n\to\infty\). Since \(u_{n+1}\in K_{n+1}\), we have \(\phi(u_{n+1},z_{n})\leq\phi(u_{n+1},u _{n})+\omega_{n}\). Consequently, \(\phi(u_{n+1},z_{n})\to0\) as \(n\to\infty\). Therefore, by Lemma 2.2, \(z_{n}\to u^{*}\). From \(\phi(q,z_{n})\leq\phi(q,y_{n})\leq\phi(q,u_{n})+\omega_{n}\), we have \(\phi(q,y_{n})\leq\phi(q,u_{n})+\omega_{n}\). Combining this with the fact that \(z_{n}=\Lambda_{r_{i_{n}}}y_{n}\) and Lemma 2.4(d), we have
for any \(q\in\Omega\). This implies that \(\lim_{n\to\infty} \phi(z_{n},y_{n})=0\). Again, by Lemma 2.2 we have \(y_{n}\to u ^{*}\).
Step 5: \(u^{*}\in\Omega\).
We first show that \(u^{*}\in\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty}F(G_{i})\). Note that \(G_{i_{k}}(PG_{i_{k}})^{m_{k}1}=G_{i}(PG_{i})^{m_{k}1}\) whenever \(k\in K_{i}\) for each \(i\geq1\). From Step 4 and by the uniform continuity of J on bounded subsets of X, we have \(\Vert Jy_{k}Ju^{*} \Vert \to0\), \(\Vert Ju_{k}Ju^{*}\Vert \to0\) as \(k\to \infty\). Thus, for each \(i\geq1\), \(\eta_{m_{k}}^{(i)}\in G_{i_{k}}(PG_{i_{k}})^{m_{k}1}u _{k} \), we have
which implies that \(\lim_{k\to\infty} \Vert J\eta_{m_{k}}^{(i)}Ju ^{*}\Vert =0 \) for each \(i\geq1\). By the normtoweak continuity of \(J^{1}\), we have, for each \(i\geq1\), \(\eta_{m_{k}}^{(i)} \rightharpoonup u^{*}\) as \(k\to\infty\). Furthermore,
Thus, for each \(i\geq1\), \(\lim_{k\to\infty} \Vert \eta_{m_{k}} ^{(i)}\Vert =\Vert u^{*}\Vert \). Hence, by the KadecKlee property of X, we have
We now consider the sequence \(\{w_{m_{k}}^{(i)}\}_{k\in K_{i}}\), generated by
By the continuity of \(G_{i}P\), we have, for each \(i\geq1\), \(\lim_{k\to\infty}w_{m_{k+1}}^{(i)}=w^{*}\), \(w^{*}\in G_{i}Pu ^{*}=G_{i}u^{*}\), since \(u^{*}\in K\). Using the continuity of both \(G_{i}\) and (3.1), we obtain for each \(i\geq1\)
Therefore, for each \(i\geq1\), \(w_{m_{k+1}}^{(i)}\to u^{*}\) as \(k\to\infty\). Hence, by the uniqueness of the limit, we have \(w^{*}=u^{*}\). Thus, \(u^{*}\in\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty}F(G_{i})\).
We now show that \(u^{*}\in \bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty} \mathit {GMEP}(h_{i},A_{i}, \zeta_{i})\). Let \(i\ge1\). Define a function \(\Psi_{i}:K\times K \to \Bbb {R}\) by
Then, as shown by Zhang [32], for each i, \(\Psi_{i}\) satisfies \((B1)\)\((B4)\). Note that if \(k\in K_{i}\), for each \(i\geq1\), then \(\Psi_{i_{k}}=\Psi_{i}\) and \(\Lambda_{r_{i_{k}}}=\Lambda_{r_{i}}\). Now, the equation \(z_{k} =\Lambda_{r_{i_{k}}}y_{k}\) implies that, for each \(i\geq1\),
By applying \((B2)\), we have, for each \(i\ge1\),
which implies that
for all \(v\in K\), \(i\ge1\), and some \(M>0\). This implies that \(\liminf_{k\to\infty}\Psi_{i}(v,z_{k})\leq0 \) for all \(v\in K\), \(i \geq1\). From \((B4)\), we obtain, for \(i\ge1\), \(\Psi_{i}(v,u^{*}) \leq\liminf_{k\to\infty} \Psi_{i}(v,z_{k})\leq0 \) \(\forall v \in K\). Let \(t\in(0,1)\) and \(v\in K\). Then \(v_{t}=tv+(1t)u^{*} \in K\). Therefore, for each \(i\geq1\), \(\Psi_{i}(v_{t},u^{*})\leq0\). From conditions \((B1)\) and \((B4)\) we have, for each \(i\ge1\),
By \((B3)\), we have, for each \(i\ge1\), \(\Psi_{i}(u^{*},v)\geq \limsup_{t\downarrow0}\Psi_{i}(v_{t},v)\geq0 \) \(\forall v\in K\). Therefore, \(u^{*}\in \mathit {GMEP}(h_{i},\zeta_{i},A_{i})\) for each \(i\ge1\). Hence, \(u^{*}\in\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty} \mathit {GMEP}(h_{i},\zeta_{i},A_{i})\).
Step 6: \(u^{*}=\Pi_{\Omega}u_{0}\).
Let \(v=\Pi_{\Omega}u_{0}\). Since \(u^{*}\in\Omega\), we have
Also, since \(u_{n}=\Pi_{K_{n}}u_{0}\) and \(v\in\Omega\subset K_{n}\), we have
Since \(u_{n}\to u^{*}\), we have
From inequalities (3.4) and (3.5) we obtain \(\phi(u^{*},u _{0})= \phi(v,u_{0})\). Thus, \(u^{*}=v=\Pi_{\Omega}u_{0}\). This completes the proof. □
We now prove the following strong convergence theorem using a Halperntype algorithm.
Theorem 3.2
Let X be a uniformly smooth and strictly convex real Banach space with KadecKlee property and let \(X^{*}\) be its dual space. Let K be a nonempty closed and convex subset of X and \(h_{i}:K \times K\to \Bbb {R}\), \(i=1,2,3,\ldots\) , be a sequence of bifunctions satisfying \((B1)\)\((B4)\). Let \(A_{i}:K\to X^{*}\), \(i=1,2,3,\ldots\) , be a sequence of continuous monotone maps and \(G_{i}:K \to{2^{X}}\), \(i=1,2,\ldots\) , be an infinite family of equally continuous and totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself multivalued maps with nonnegative real sequences \(\{\gamma_{n}^{(i)}\}\), \(\{\delta_{n}^{(i)} \}\) and a sequence of strictly increasing and continuous functions \(\{\rho_{i}\}\), \(\rho_{i}:\Bbb {R}^{+}\to \Bbb {R}^{+}\) such that \(\gamma_{n}^{(i)} \to0\), \(\delta_{n}^{(i)}\to0\), and \(\rho_{i}(0)=0\). Let \(\zeta_{i}:K \to \Bbb {R}\), \(i=1,2,3,\ldots\) , be a sequence of convex and lowersemicontinuous functions. Suppose, for each i, \(\delta_{1}^{(i)}=0\) and \(\Omega:= (\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty}F(G_{i}) )\cap (\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty} \mathit {GMEP}(h _{i}, A_{i},\zeta_{i}) )\) is a nonempty subset of K. Then the sequence \(\{u_{n}\}\), generated by algorithm (1.7), converges strongly to \(\Pi_{\Omega}u_{0}\), where \(\{\sigma_{n}\}\subset(0,1)\) with \(\lim_{n\to\infty}\sigma_{n}=0\), \(r_{i_{n}}\in[a, \infty)\) for some \(a>0\), and \(\omega_{n}=\gamma_{m_{n}}^{(i_{n})} \rho_{i_{n}} [\phi(p,u_{n}) ]+ \delta_{m_{n}}^{(i_{n})}\), \(p\in\Omega\).
Proof
As in the proof of Theorem 3.1, the proof of this theorem is presented in six steps.
Step 1: \(K_{n}\) is closed and convex for all \(n\geq1\).
This follows easily by induction, just as in the proof of Theorem 3.1.
Step 2: \(\Omega\subset K_{n}\) for all \(n\ge1\). Clearly, \(\Omega\subset K_{1}\). Suppose \(\Omega\subset K_{n}\) for some \(n\geq1\). Let \(q\in\Omega\). Then by applying Lemma 2.4(d), the definition of ϕ, the convexity of \(\Vert \cdot \Vert ^{2}\), and the totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansiveness of \(G_{i}\), as in Step 2 of the proof of Theorem 3.1, we have
which implies that \(q\in K_{n+1}\). Therefore, by induction, \(\Omega\subset K_{n}\) for all \(n\geq1\).
Step 3: \(\{\phi(u_{n},u_{0})\}\) is convergent and \(\lim_{n\to\infty}\omega_{n}=0\).
This follows just as in Step 3 of the proof of Theorem 3.1.
Step 4: \(u_{n}\to u^{*}\), \(z_{n}\to u^{*}\), and \(y_{n}\to u ^{*}\) as \(n\to\infty\), for some \(u^{*}\in K\).
The verification of this step follows the same pattern as in the verification of Step 4 in the proof of Theorem 3.1.
Step 5: \(u^{*}\in\Omega\).
We first show that \(u^{*}\in\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty}F(G_{i})\). Note that \(G_{i_{k}}(PG_{i_{k}})^{m_{k}1}=G_{i}(PG_{i})^{m_{k}1}\) whenever \(k\in K_{i}\) for each \(i\geq1\). From Step 4 and the uniform continuity of J on bounded subsets of X, we have \(\Vert Jy_{k}Ju^{*}\Vert \to0\) as \(k\to\infty\). Thus, for each \(i\geq1\), \(\eta_{m_{k}}^{(i)}\in G _{i_{k}}(PG_{i_{k}})^{m_{k}1}u_{k} \), we have
which implies that \(\lim_{k\to\infty} \Vert J\eta_{m_{k}}^{(i)}Ju ^{*}\Vert =0 \) for each \(i\geq1\). The rest of the justification of this step follows the same pattern as in the justification of Step 5 in the proof of Theorem 3.1.
Step 6: \(u^{*}=\Pi_{\Omega}u_{0}\).
This is the same as Step 6 of the proof of Theorem 3.1. Hence, the proof is completed. □
A prototype for the control parameter in Theorem 3.2 is the canonical choice, \(\sigma_{n}=\frac{1}{n}\).
Applications
In this section, we present some applications of Theorem 3.1. Similar applications of Theorem 3.2 also follow.
Countable family of totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself multivalued maps and system of equilibrium problems
By setting \(A\equiv0\), \(\zeta\equiv0\) in Theorem 3.1, the sequence \(\{u_{n}\}\), defined in Theorem 3.1, converges strongly to \(\Pi_{\Omega}u_{0}\), where \(\Omega:= (\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty}F(G _{i}) )\cap (\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty} \mathit{EP}(h_{i}) )\) and \(\mathit{EP}(h)\) is the set of solutions of the equilibrium problem for h.
Countable family of totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself multivalued maps and system of convex optimization problems
By setting \(A\equiv0\), \(h\equiv0\) in Theorem 3.1, the sequence \(\{u_{n}\}\), defined in Theorem 3.1, converges strongly to \(\Pi_{\Omega}u_{0}\), where \(\Omega:= (\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty}F(G _{i}) )\cap (\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty} \mathit {CMP}(\zeta_{i}) )\) and \(\mathit {CMP}(\zeta)\) is the set of solutions of the convex minimization problem for ζ.
Countable family of totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself multivalued maps and system of variational inequality problems
By setting \(h\equiv0\), \(\zeta\equiv0\) in Theorem 3.1, the sequence \(\{u_{n}\}\), defined in Theorem 3.1, converges strongly to \(\Pi_{\Omega}u_{0}\), where \(\Omega:= (\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty}F(G _{i}) )\cap (\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty} \mathit {VIP}(K, A_{i}) )\) and \(\mathit {VIP}(K,A)\) is the set of solutions of the variational inequality problem for A over K.
Application in classical Banach spaces
Let \(X=L_{p}, l_{p}\), or \(W_{p}^{m}(\Omega)\), \(1< p<\infty\), where \(W_{p}^{m}(\Omega)\) denotes the usual Sobolev space, and let \(X^{*}\) be the dual space of X. Clearly, X is uniformly convex and uniformly smooth. Consequently, Theorem 3.1 is applicable in these spaces.
Remark 5
See, e.g., Alber and Ryazantseva [34], p.36
The analytical representations of duality maps are known in \(l^{p}\), \(L^{p}(G)\), and Sobolev spaces \(W^{p}_{m}(G)\), \(p \in(1,\infty)\), and \(p^{1}+ q^{1}=1\).
Application in Hilbert spaces
The following theorem follows immediately from Theorem 3.1.
Theorem 4.1
Let H be a real Hilbert space and K be a nonempty closed and convex subset of H. Let \(h_{i}:K \times K\to \Bbb {R}\), \(i=1,2,3,\ldots\) , be a sequence of bifunctions satisfying \((B1)\)\((B4)\). Let \(A_{i}:K\to H\) be a sequence of continuous monotone maps and \(G_{i}:K \to{2^{H}}\), \(i=1,2,\ldots\) , be an infinite family of equally continuous and totally quasiasymptotically nonexpansive nonself multivalued maps with nonnegative real sequences \(\{\gamma_{n}^{(i)}\}\), \(\{\delta_{n}^{(i)} \}\) and a sequence of strictly increasing and continuous functions \(\{\rho_{i}\}\), \(\rho_{i}:\Bbb {R}^{+}\to \Bbb {R}^{+}\), such that \(\gamma_{n} ^{(i)}\to0\), \(\delta_{n}^{(i)}\to0\), and \(\rho_{i}(0)=0\). Let \(\zeta_{i}:K\to \Bbb {R}\), \(i=1,2,3,\ldots\) , be a sequence of convex and lowersemicontinuous functions. Suppose, for each i, \(\delta_{1} ^{(i)}=0\) and \(\Omega:= (\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty}F(G_{i}) )\cap (\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty} \mathit {GMEP}(h_{i}, A_{i},\zeta_{i}) )\) is a nonempty subset of K. Then the sequence \(\{u_{n}\}\), generated by
converges strongly to \(P_{\Omega}u_{0}\), where \(P_{K}\) is the metric projection of H onto K, \(\sigma\in(0,1)\), \(r_{i_{n}}\in[a, \infty)\) for some \(a>0\), and \(\omega_{n}=\gamma_{m_{n}}^{(i_{n})} \rho_{i_{n}} (\Vert u_{n}p\Vert ^{2} )+ \delta _{m_{n}}^{(i_{n})}\).
Remark 6

(1)
Theorem 3.2 improves the results of Bo and Yi [3] in the following ways:

In Theorem 3.2, a countable family of nonself multivalued maps is considered, whereas in Bo and Yi [3] a single nonself multivalued map is considered.

The requirement that G is uniformly LLipschitz continuous in Bo and Yi [3] is weakened to: for each i, \(G_{i}\) is equally continuous in Theorem 3.2.

The algorithm in Theorem 3.2 involves only one control parameter \(\{\sigma_{n}\}\subset(0,1)\) satisfying condition \((C1)\), whereas the algorithm of Bo and Yi [3] contains two control parameters \(\{\beta_{n}\}\subset(0,1)\) and \(\{\sigma_{n}\}\subset[0,1]\), satisfying conditions \((C1)\) and \((C2)\).

The Banach spaces considered in Theorem 3.2 are uniformly smooth and strictly convex real Banach spaces with KadecKlee property, which include uniformly smooth and uniformly convex real Banach spaces studied in Bo and Yi [3].


(2)
Theorem 3.2 improves and generalizes the results in Zhao and Chang [26] in a number of ways:

The class of maps considered in Zhao and Chang [26] is extended from the class of uniformly quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive singlevalued nonself maps to the slightly more general class of countable family of totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself multivalued maps.

The requirement that, for each i, \(G_{i}\) is uniformly \(L_{i}\)Lipschitz continuous in Zhao and Chang [26] is weakened to the following statement: for each i, \(G_{i}\) is equally continuous in Theorem 3.2.

The results of Zhao and Chang [26] are proved in uniformly smooth and uniformly convex real Banach spaces, while Theorem 3.2 is proved in the more general uniformly smooth and strictly convex real Banach spaces with the KadecKlee property.

The control parameter in the algorithm considered in Theorem 3.2 is \(\{\sigma_{n}\}\subset(0,1)\) satisfying condition \((C1)\), whereas the algorithm of Zhao and Chang [26] contains two control parameters \(\{\beta_{n}\}\subset(0,1)\) and \(\{\sigma_{n}\}\subset[0,1]\), satisfying conditions \((C1)\) and \((C2)\).

Conclusion
In this article, iterative schemes of the Krasnoselskiitype and the Halperntype for approximating a common point in the set of common fixed points of a countable family of totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself multivalued maps and the set of solutions of a system of generalized mixed equilibrium problems are constructed. Strong convergence of the sequences generated by these algorithms is established in certain Banach spaces. Among other applications, our theorems are applied to solve convex feasibility problems, a system of convex minimization problems, a system of variational inequality problems, and a system of generalized equilibrium problems in uniformly smooth and strictly convex real Banach spaces with the KadecKlee property. Finally, our theorems are important improvements of several important recent results on these classes of nonlinear problems.
References
 1.
Wang, X, Zhang, G: Iterative algorithms for totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive mappings and monotone operators in Banach spaces. Math. Æterna 6(3), 329342 (2016)
 2.
Chang, SS, Wang, L, Tang, YK, Zhao, YH, Ma, ZL: Strong convergence theorems of nonlinear operator equations for countable family of multivalued total quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive mappings with applications. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012, 69 (2012)
 3.
Bo, LH, Yi, L: Strong convergence theorems of the HalpernMann’s mixed iteration for a totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself mapping in Banach spaces. J. Inequal. Appl. 2014, 225 (2014)
 4.
Chang, SS, Wang, L, Tang, YK, Wang, B, Qin, LJ: Strong convergence theorems for a countable family of quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself mappings. Appl. Math. Comput. 218, 78647870 (2012)
 5.
Yi, L: Strong convergence theorems for a countable family of totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself mappings in Banach spaces with applications. J. Inequal. Appl. 2012, 268 (2012)
 6.
Feng, Q, Su, Y, Yan, F: Modified hybrid block iterative algorithm for uniformly quasiϕnonexpansive mappings. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012, 215261 (2012). doi:10.1155/2012/215261
 7.
Ceng, LC, Yao, JC: A hybrid iterative scheme for mixed equilibrium problems and fixed point problem. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 214, 186201 (2008)
 8.
Takahashi, S, Takahashi, W: Strong convergence theorem for a generalized equilibrium problem and a nonexpansive mapping in a Hilbert space. Nonlinear Anal. 69, 10251033 (2008)
 9.
Fan, K: A minimax inequality and applications. In: Shisha, O (ed.) Inequality III, pp. 103113. Academic Press, New York (1972)
 10.
Blum, E, Oettli, W: From optimization and variational inequalities to equilibrium problems. Math. Stud. 63(14), 123145 (1994)
 11.
Stampacchia, G: Formes bilineaires coercitives sur les ensembles convexes. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 258, 44134416 (1964)
 12.
Dafermos, S, Nagurney, A: A network formulation of market equilibrium problems and variational inequalities. Oper. Res. Lett. 3, 247250 (1984)
 13.
Su, TV: Secondorder optimality conditions for vector equilibrium problems. J. Nonlinear Funct. Anal. 2015, 6 (2015)
 14.
Barbagallo, A: Existence and regularity of solutions to nonlinear degenerate evolutionary variational inequalities with applications to dynamic network equilibrium problems. Appl. Math. Comput. 208, 113 (2009)
 15.
Moudafi, A, Thera, M: Proximal and dynamical approaches to equilibrium problems. In: Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematics Systems, vol. 477, pp. 187201. Springer, Berlin (1999)
 16.
Haugazeau, Y: Sur les inequations variationnelles et la minimization de fonctionnelles convexes. Doctoral thesis, University of Paris, France (1968)
 17.
Qin, X, Cho, SY, Kang, SM: Strong convergence of shrinking projection methods for quasiimagenonexpansive mappings and equilibrium problems. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 234, 750760 (2010)
 18.
Cholamjiak, W, Cholamjiak, P, Suantai, S: Convergence of iterative schemes for solving fixed point problems for multivalued nonself mappings and equilibrium problems. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 8, 12451256 (2015)
 19.
Cho, YJ, Qin, X, Kang, SM: Convergence theorems based on hybrid methods for generalized equilibrium problems and fixed point problems. Nonlinear Anal. 71, 42034214 (2009)
 20.
Thianwan, S: Common fixed points of new iterations for two asymptotically nonexpansive nonselfmappings in a Banach space. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 224, 688695 (2009)
 21.
Nilsrakoo, W, Saejung, S: Strong convergence to common fixed points of countable relatively quasinonexpansive mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2008, Article ID 312454 (2008)
 22.
Wang, L: Strong and weak convergence theorems for common fixed points of nonself asymptotically nonexpansive mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 323(1), 550557 (2006)
 23.
Ma, Z, Wang, L: Strong convergence theorems for a countable family of totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself mappings. Int. Math. Forum 8(5), 201214 (2013)
 24.
Chidume, CE, Ofoedu, EU: A new iteration process for approximation of common fixed points for finite families of total asymptotically nonexpansive mappings. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 17, Article ID 615107 (2009). doi:10.1155/2009/615107
 25.
Chidume, CE, Ali, B: Approximation of common fixed points for finite families of nonself asymptotically nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 326(2), 960973 (2007). doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.03.045
 26.
Zhao, LC, Chang, SS: Strong convergence theorems for a countable family of total quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself mappings. J. Appl. Math. 2012, Article ID 136134 (2012). doi:10.1155/2012/136134
 27.
Lv, S: Monotone projection methods for fixed points of asymptotically quasiphinonexpansive mappings. J. Nonlinear Funct. Anal. 2015, Article ID 7 (2015)
 28.
Wang, ZM, Zhang, X: Shrinking projection methods for systems of mixed variational inequalities of Browder type, systems of mixed equilibrium problems and fixed point problems. J. Nonlinear Funct. Anal. 2014, Article ID 15 (2014)
 29.
Dadashi, V, Postolache, M: Hybrid proximal point algorithm and applications to equilibrium problems and convex programming. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 174(2), 518529 (2017)
 30.
Yao, Y, Postolache, M: Iterative methods for pseudomonotone variational inequalities and fixed point problems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 155(1), 273287 (2012)
 31.
Alber, Y: Metric and generalized projection operators in Banach spaces: properties and applications. In: Kartsatos, AG (ed.) Theory and Applications of Nonlinear Operators of Accretive and Monotone Type, pp. 1550. Dekker, New York (1996)
 32.
Zhang, SS: Generalized mixed equilibrium problem in Banach spaces. Appl. Math. Mech. 30(9), 11051112 (2009)
 33.
Deng, WQ: A relaxed hybrid shrinking iteration approach to solving generalized mixed equilibrium problems for totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2014, 63 (2014)
 34.
Alber, Ya, Ryazantseva, I: Nonlinear Ill Posed Problems of Monotone Type. Springer, London (2006)
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the referees for their time and comments. We also express our deepest gratitude to The African Capacity Building Foundation for funding this research work.
Funding
Research supported from ACBF Research Grant Funds to AUST.
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
All the authors carried out the work in this paper with the consultation of each other. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to CE Chidume.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Received
Accepted
Published
DOI
MSC
 47H10
 47H04
 47J25
 47J20
Keywords
 generalized mixed equilibrium problems
 totally quasiϕasymptotically nonexpansive nonself multivalued maps
 strong convergence
 equally continuous maps