- Research Article
- Open access
- Published:
The Methods of Hilbert Spaces and Structure of the Fixed-Point Set of Lipschitzian Mapping
Fixed Point Theory and Applications volume 2009, Article number: 586487 (2009)
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to prove, by asymptotic center techniques and the methods of Hilbert spaces, the following theorem. Let be a Hilbert space, let
be a nonempty bounded closed convex subset of
and let
be a strongly ergodic matrix. If
is a lipschitzian mapping such that
, then the set of fixed points
is a retract of
. This result extends and improves the corresponding results of [7, Corollary 9] and [8, Corollary 1].
1. Introduction
Let be a Banach space and let
be a nonempty bounded closed convex subset of
. We say that a mapping
is nonexpansive if
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ1_HTML.gif)
The result of Bruck [1] asserts that if a nonexpansive mapping has a fixed point in every nonempty closed convex subset of
which is invariant under
and if
is convex and weakly compact, then
, the set of fixed points, is nonexpansive retract of
(i.e., there exists a nonexpansive mapping
such that
). A few years ago, the Bruck results were extended by
Domínguez Benavides and Lorenzo Ramírez [2] to the case of asymptotically nonexpansive mappings if the space
was sufficiently regular.
On the other hand it is known that, the set of fixed points of -lipschitzian mapping can be very irregular for any
.
Let be a nonempty closed subset of
. Fix
,
and put
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ2_HTML.gif)
It is not difficult to see that and the Lipschitz constant of
tends to
if
.
For more information on the structure of fixed point sets see [4, 5] and references therein.
In 1973, Goebel and Kirk [3] introduced the class of uniformly -lipschitzian mappings, recall that a mapping
is uniformly
-lipschitzian,
, if
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ3_HTML.gif)
and proved the following theorem.
Theorem 1.2.
Let be a uniformly convex Banach space with modulus of convexity
and let
be a nonempty bounded closed convex subset of
. Suppose that
is uniformly
-lipschitzian and
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ4_HTML.gif)
Then has a fixed point in
.
Note that in a Hilbert space,
.
Recently Sędak and Wiśnicki [6] proved that under the assumptions of Theorem 1.2 ,
is not only connected but even a retract of
, and next the author proved the following theorem [7, Corollary 9].
Theorem 1.3.
Let be a Hilbert space,
a nonempty bounded closed convex subset of
and
a uniformly
- lipschitzian mapping with
. Then
has a fixed point in
and
is a retract of
.
In this paper we shall continue this work. Precisely, by means of techniques of asymptotic centers and the methods of Hilbert spaces, we establish some result on the structure of fixed point sets for mappings with lipschitzian iterates in a Hilbert space. The class of mappings with lipschitzian iterates is importantly greater than the class of uniformly lipschitzian mappings; see [8, Example 1].
2. Asymptotic Center
Denote by the Lipschitz norm of
:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ5_HTML.gif)
Lifshitz [9] significantly extended Goebel and Kirk's result and found an example of a fixed point free uniformly lipschitzian mapping which leaves invariant a bounded closed convex subset of
. The validity of Lifshitz's Theorem in a Hilbert space for
remains open.
A more general approach was proposed by the present author using the methods of Hilbert spaces, asymptotic techniques, and strongly ergodic matrix. We recall that a matrix is called strongly ergodic if
(i)for all ,
(ii)for all ,
(iii)for all ,
(iv).
Then we have the following theorem.
Theorem 2.1 (see [8]).
Let be a nonempty bounded closed convex subset of a Hilbert space and let
be a strongly ergodic matrix. If
is a mapping such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ6_HTML.gif)
then has a fixed point in
.
This result generalizes Lifshitz's Theorem (in case of a Hilbert space) and shows that the theorem admits certain perturbations in the behavior of the norm of successive iterations in infinite sets; see [8, Example 1].
Let be a Banach space. Recall that the modulus of convexity
is the function
defined by
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ7_HTML.gif)
and uniform convexity means for
. A Hilbert space
is uniformly convex. This fact is a direct consequence of parallelogram identity.
Now we prove some version of Sędak and Wiśnicki's result [6, Lemma 2.1]. Let
be a nonempty bounded closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space
, let
be a strongly ergodix matrix, and let
be a mapping such that
for all
, and
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ8_HTML.gif)
Let we use
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ9_HTML.gif)
to denote the asymptotic radius of at
and the asymptotic radius of
in
, respectively. It is well known in a Hilbert space [8] that the asymptotic center of
in
:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ10_HTML.gif)
is a singleton.
Let denote a mapping which associates with a given
a unique
, that is,
. The following Lemma is a crucial tool to prove Theorem 4.1.
Lemma 2.2.
Let be a Hilbert space and let
be a nonempty bounded closed convex subset of
. Then the mapping
is continuous.
Proof.
On the contrary, suppose that there exists and
such that for all
there exists
such that
and
, where
.
Fix and take
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ11_HTML.gif)
Let ,
and
. Notice that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ12_HTML.gif)
Choose . Then
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ13_HTML.gif)
for all but finitely many .
If, for example, for all everyone
, then
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ14_HTML.gif)
Multiplying both sides of this inequality (for fixed ) by suitable element of the matrix
and summing up such obtained inequalities for
, we have for
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ15_HTML.gif)
Taking the limit superior as on each side, we get
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ16_HTML.gif)
which is contradiction.
It follows by (2.9) and the properties of that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ17_HTML.gif)
Multiplying both sides of this inequality by suitable elements of the matrix and summing up such obtained inequalities for
, taking the limit superior as
on each side, we get
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ18_HTML.gif)
Moreover,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ19_HTML.gif)
Multiplying both sides of this inequality by suitable elements of the matrix and summing up such obtained inequalities for
, taking the limit superior as
on each side, we get
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ20_HTML.gif)
Similarly,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ21_HTML.gif)
From (2.16) and (2.17), we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ22_HTML.gif)
If , then from (2.18) it follows
. This is contradiction with (2.8). If
, then combining (2.18) with (2.14) and applying the monotonicity of
, we obtain
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ23_HTML.gif)
Letting and using the continuity of
, we conclude that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ24_HTML.gif)
This contradiction proves the continuity of mapping .
3. The Methods of Hilbert Spaces
Let ,
be as above. We define functionals
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ25_HTML.gif)
where . Let
in
be an asymptotic center of
with respect to
and
, which minimizes the functional
over
in
(for fix
).
Lemma 3.1.
One has .
Proof.
It is consequence of the above definitions.
Lemma 3.2.
One has
Proof.
For any , we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ26_HTML.gif)
Multiplying both sides of this inequality by suitable elements of the matrix and summing up such obtained inequalities for
, taking the limit superior as
on each side, we get
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ27_HTML.gif)
Lemma 3.3.
One has for all
.
Proof.
Fix , then we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ28_HTML.gif)
Since the matrix is strongly ergodic,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ29_HTML.gif)
as , we get thesis.
Lemma 3.4.
One has for every
.
Proof.
For and
, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ30_HTML.gif)
Multiplying both sides of this inequality by suitable elements of the matrix and summing up such obtained inequalities for
, taking the limit superior as
on each side, we get
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ31_HTML.gif)
Since , we obtain
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ32_HTML.gif)
Taking , we get,
.
4. Main Result
We are now in position to prove our main result.
Theorem 4.1.
Let be a nonempty bounded closed convex subset of a Hilbert space and let
be a strongly ergodic matrix. If
is a mapping such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ33_HTML.gif)
then is a retract of
.
Proof.
Let and
be sequences of natural numbers such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ34_HTML.gif)
By Theorem 2.1, . For any
we can inductively define a sequence
in the following manner:
is the unique point in
that minimizes the functional
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ35_HTML.gif)
over and
is the unique point in
that minimizes the functional
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ36_HTML.gif)
over , that is,
,
First we prove the following inequality:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ37_HTML.gif)
where
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ38_HTML.gif)
and is the asymptotic center in
which minimizes the functional
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ39_HTML.gif)
over in
.
In fact, we put in Lemma 3.4. Then by Lemma 3.3, we get
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ40_HTML.gif)
For we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ41_HTML.gif)
and hence
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ42_HTML.gif)
Next by Lemma 3.2 and inequality (4.5), we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ43_HTML.gif)
where for
,
Thus
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ44_HTML.gif)
which implies that the sequence converges uniformly to a function
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ45_HTML.gif)
It follows from Lemma 2.2 that is continuous. Moreover,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ46_HTML.gif)
Multiplying both sides of this inequalities by suitable elements of the matrix and summing up such obtained inequalities for
, taking the limit superior as
on each side, we get
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ47_HTML.gif)
Thus, . This implies that
see [8] for details. Thus
for every
and
is a retraction of
onto
.
If is the Cesaro matrix, that is, for
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ48_HTML.gif)
then we have the following corollary.
Corollary 4.2.
Let be a nonempty bounded closed convex subset of a Hilbert space. If
is a mapping such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F586487/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1159_Equ49_HTML.gif)
then is a retract of
.
References
Bruck RE Jr.: Properties of fixed-point sets of nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 1973, 179: 251–262.
Domínguez-Benavides T, Lorenzo Ramírez P: Structure of the fixed point set and common fixed points of asymptotically nonexpansive mappings. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 2001,129(12):3549–3557. 10.1090/S0002-9939-01-06141-X
Goebel K, Kirk WA: A fixed point theorem for transformations whose iterates have uniform Lipschitz constant. Studia Mathematica 1973, 47: 135–140.
Goebel K, Kirk WA: Classical theory of nonexpansive mappings. In Handbook of Metric Fixed Point Theory. Edited by: Kirk WA, Sims B. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands; 2001:49–91.
Bruck RE: Asymptotic behavior of nonexpansive mappings. In Fixed Points and Nonexpansive Mappings, Contemp. Math.. Volume 18. Edited by: Sine RC. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, USA; 1983:1–47.
Sędłak E, Wiśnicki A: On the structure of fixed-point sets of uniformly Lipschitzian mappings. Topological Methods in Nonlinear Analysis 2007,30(2):345–350.
Górnicki J: Remarks on the structure of the fixed-point sets of uniformly Lipschitzian mappings in uniformly convex Banach spaces. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2009,355(1):303–310. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2009.02.003
Górnicki J: A remark on fixed point theorems for Lipschitzian mappings. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 1994,183(3):495–508. 10.1006/jmaa.1994.1156
Lifshitz EA: A fixed point theorem for operators in strongly convex spaces. Voronezhskĭ Gosudarstvennyĭ Universitet imeni Leninskogo Komsomola. Trudy Matematicheskogo Fakul'teta 1975, 16: 23–28.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Górnicki, J. The Methods of Hilbert Spaces and Structure of the Fixed-Point Set of Lipschitzian Mapping. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2009, 586487 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/586487
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/586487