- Research Article
- Open access
- Published:
A Hybrid Projection Algorithm for Finding Solutions of Mixed Equilibrium Problem and Variational Inequality Problem
Fixed Point Theory and Applications volume 2010, Article number: 383740 (2009)
Abstract
We propose a modified hybrid projection algorithm to approximate a common fixed point of a -strict pseudocontraction and of two sequences of nonexpansive mappings. We prove a strong convergence theorem of the proposed method and we obtain, as a particular case, approximation of solutions of systems of two equilibrium problems.
1. Introduction
In this paper, we define an iterative method to approximate a common fixed point of a -strict pseudocontraction and of two sequences of nonexpansive mappings generated by two sequences of firmly nonexpansive mappings and two nonlinear mappings. Let us recall from [1] that the
-strict pseudocontractions in Hilbert spaces were introduced by Browder and Petryshyn in [2].
Definition 1.1.
is said to be
-strict pseudocontractive if there exists
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ1_HTML.gif)
The iterative approximation problems for nonexpansive mappings, asymptotically nonexpansive mappings, and asymptotically pseudocontractive mappings were studied extensively by Browder [3], Goebel and Kirk [4], Kirk [5], Liu [6], Schu [7], and Xu [8, 9] in the setting of Hilbert spaces or uniformly convex Banach spaces. Although nonexpansive mappings are 0-strict pseudocontractions, iterative methods for -strict pseudocontractions are far less developed than those for nonexpansive mappings. The reason, probably, is that the second term appearing in the previous definition impedes the convergence analysis for iterative algorithms used to find a fixed point of the
-strict pseudocontraction
. However,
-strict pseudocontractions have more powerful applications than nonexpansive mappings do in solving inverse problems. In the recent years the study of iterative methods like Mann's like methods and CQ-methods has been extensively studied by many authors [1, 10–13] and the references therein.
If is a closed and convex subset of a Hilbert space
and
is a bi-function we call equilibrium problem
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ2_HTML.gif)
and we will indicate the set of solutions with .
If is a nonlinear mapping, we can choose
, so an equilibrium point (i.e., a point of the set
) is a solution of variational inequality problem (VIP)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ3_HTML.gif)
We will indicate with the set of solutions of VIP.
The equilibrium problems, in its various forms, found application in optimization problems, fixed point problems, convex minimization problems; in other words, equilibrium problems are a unified model for problems arising in physics, engineering, economics, and so on (see [10]).
As in the case of nonexpansive mappings, also in the case of -strict pseudocontraction mappings, in the recent years many papers concern the convergence of iterative methods to a solutions of variational inequality problems or equilibrium problems; see example for, [10, 14–18].
Here we prove a strong convergence theorem of the proposed method and we obtain, as a particular case, approximation of solutions of systems of two equilibrium problems.
2. Preliminaries
Let be a real Hilbert space and let
be a nonempty closed convex subset of
.We denote by
the metric projection of
onto
. It is well known [19] that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ4_HTML.gif)
Lemma 2.1.
(see [20]) Let be a Banach space with weakly sequentially continuous duality mapping
, and suppose that
converges weakly to
, then for any
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ5_HTML.gif)
Moreover if is uniformly convex, equality holds in (2.2) if and only if
.
Recall that a point is a solution of a VIP if and only if
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ6_HTML.gif)
Definition 2.2.
An operator is said to be
-inverse strongly monotone operator if there exists a constant
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ7_HTML.gif)
If we say that
is firmly nonexpansive. Note that every
-inverse strongly monotone operator is also
Lipschitz continuous (see [21]).
Lemma 2.3.
(see [2]). Let be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space
and let
be a
-strict pseudocontractive mapping. Then
with
is a nonexpansive mapping with
.
3. Main Theorem
Theorem 3.1.
Let be a closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space
. Let
(i) be an
-inverse strongly monotone mapping of
into
,
(ii) a
-inverse strongly monotone mapping of
into
,
(iii) and
two sequences of firlmy nonexpansive mappings from
to
.
Let be a
-strict pseudocontraction
.
Set and let us define the sequence
as follows:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ8_HTML.gif)
where
(i) with
;
(ii);
(iii).
Moreover suppose that
(i);
(ii) pointwise converges in
to an operator
and
pointwise converges in
to an operator
;
(iii) and
.
Then strongly converges to
.
Proof.
We begin to observe that the mappings and
are nonexpansive for all
since they are compositions of nonexpansive mappings (see [22, page 419]). As a rule, if
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ9_HTML.gif)
Now we divide the proof in more steps.
Step 1.
is closed and convex for each
.
Indeed is the intersection of
with the half space
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ10_HTML.gif)
where .
Step 2.
for each
.
For each we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ11_HTML.gif)
So the claim immediately follows by induction.
Step 3.
exists and
is asymptotically regular, that is,
.
Since , and
, by (2.1) choosing
and
, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ12_HTML.gif)
that is, .
By and
, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ13_HTML.gif)
Then exists and
is bounded. Moreover
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ14_HTML.gif)
and consequently .
Step 4.
and
.
By , it follows
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ15_HTML.gif)
Moreover
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ16_HTML.gif)
and by boundedness of , it follows that
.
Step 5.
, for each
.
For , we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ17_HTML.gif)
Consequently
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ18_HTML.gif)
and by Step 4, the assumptions on and
, we obtain the claim of Step 5.
Step 6.
.
Since is firmly nonexpansive, for any
, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ19_HTML.gif)
which implies
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ20_HTML.gif)
Consequently
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ21_HTML.gif)
which implies
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ22_HTML.gif)
By the assumptions on , Steps 4 and 6, and the boundedness of
and
the claim follows.
Step 7.
and
.
Since is firmly nonexpansive, for each
, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ23_HTML.gif)
and consequently
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ24_HTML.gif)
Then, for each , we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ25_HTML.gif)
consequently
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ26_HTML.gif)
and by the assumptions on , Step 4 and the boundedness of
and
it follows that
as
. By Step 6 we note that also
.
Finally
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ27_HTML.gif)
and by previous steps, it follows that as
.
Step 8.
The set of weak cluster points of is contained in
.
We will use three times the Opial's Lemma 2.1.
Let be a weak cluster point of
and let
be a subsequence of
such that
.
We prove that . We suppose for absurd that
. By Opial's Lemma 2.1 and
as
, we obtain
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ28_HTML.gif)
which is a contradiction.
Since it is enough to prove that
. Now if
we note that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ29_HTML.gif)
This leads to a contraddiction again. By the hypotheses and Step 7 the claim follows. By the same idea and using Step 6, we prove that .
Step 9.
.
Since and
, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ30_HTML.gif)
Let be a subsequence of
such that
. By Step 8,
. Thus
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ31_HTML.gif)
Therefore we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ32_HTML.gif)
Since has the Kadec-Klee property, then
as
.
Moreover, by and by the uniqueness of the projection
, it follows that
.
Thence every subsequence converges to
as
and consequently
, as
.
Remark 3.2.
Let us observe that one can choose and
as sequences of
-inverse strongly monotone operators and
-inverse strongly monotone operators provided
for all
.
The hypotheses and
in the main Theorem 3.1 seem very strong but, in the sequel, we furnish two cases in which (ii) and (iii) are satisfied.
Let us remember that the metric projection on a convex closed set is a firmly nonexpansive mapping (see [19]) so we claim that have the following proposition.
Proposition 3.3.
If is such that
and
an
-inverse strongly monotone, then
realizes conditions (ii) and (iii) with
.
Proof.
To prove (ii) we note that for each ,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ33_HTML.gif)
Moreover, (iii) follows directly by (2.2).
Now we consider the mixed equilibrium problem
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ34_HTML.gif)
In the sequel we will indicate with the set of solution of our mixed equilibrium problem. If
we denote
with
.
We notice that for and
the problem is the well-known equilibrium problem [23–25]. If
and
is an
-inverse strongly monotone operator we have the equilibrium problems studied firstly in [26] and then in [18, 22, 27]. If
and
we refound the mixed equilibrium problem studied in [16, 28, 29].
Definition 3.4.
A bi-function is monotone if
for all
.
A function is upper hemicontinuous if
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ35_HTML.gif)
Next lemma examines the case in which .
Lemma 3.5.
Let be a convex closed subset of a Hilbert space
.
Let be a bi-function such that
(f1) for all
;
(f2) is monotone and upper hemicontinuous in the first variable;
(f3) is lower semicontinuous and convex in the second variable.
Let be a bi-function such that
(h1) for all
;
(h2) is monotone and weakly upper semicontinuous in the first variable;
(h3) is convex in the second variable.
Moreover let us suppose that
()for fixed and
, there exists a bounded set
and
such that for all
,
,
for and
let
be a mapping defined by
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ36_HTML.gif)
called resolvent of and
.
Then
(1);
(2) is a single value;
(3) is firmly nonexpansive;
(4) and it is closed and convex.
Proof.
Let . For any
define
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ37_HTML.gif)
We will prove that, by KKM's lemma, is nonempty.
First of all we claim that is a KKM's map. In fact if there exists
such that
(with
) does not appartiene to
for any
then
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ38_HTML.gif)
By the convexity of and
and the monotonicity of
, we obtain that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ39_HTML.gif)
that is absurd.
Now we prove that . We recall that, by the weak lower semicontinuity of
, the relation
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ40_HTML.gif)
holds. Let and let
be a sequence in
such that
.
We want to prove that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ41_HTML.gif)
Since is lower semicontinuous and convex in the second variable and
is weakly upper semicontinuous in the first variable, then
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ42_HTML.gif)
Now we observe that is weakly compact for at least a point
. In fact by hypothesis (H) there exist a bounded
and
, such that for all
it results
. Then
, that is, it is bounded. It follows that
is weakly compact. Then by KKM's lemma
is nonempty. However if
then
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ43_HTML.gif)
As in [24, Lemma 3], since is upper hemicontinuous and convex in the first variable and monotone, we obtain that (3.36) is equivalent to claim that
is such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ44_HTML.gif)
that is, . This prove (1). To prove (2) and (3) we consider
and
. They satisfy the relations
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ45_HTML.gif)
By the monotonicity of and
, summing up both the terms,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ46_HTML.gif)
so we conclude
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ47_HTML.gif)
that means simultaneously that if
and
is firmly nonexpansive.
To prove (4), it is enough to follow (iii) and (iv) in [25, Lemma 2.12].
Remark 3.6.
We note that if , our lemma reduces to [25, Lemma 2.12]. The coercivity condition (H) is fulfilled.
Moreover our lemma is more general than [16, Lemma 2.2]. In fact
(i)our hypotheses on are weaker (
weak upper semicontinuous implies
upper hemicontinuous);
(ii)if satisfies the condition in Lemma 2.2, choosing
one has that
is concave and upper semicontinuous in the first variable and convex and lower semicontinous in the second variable;
(iii)the coercivity condition (H) by the equivalence of (3.36) and (3.37) is the same.
Lemma 3.7.
Let us suppose that (f1)–(f3), (h1)–(h3) and (H) hold. Let ,
. Then
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ48_HTML.gif)
Proof.
By Lemma 3.5, defining and
, we know that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ49_HTML.gif)
In particular,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ50_HTML.gif)
Hence, summing up this two inequalities and using the monotonicity of and
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ51_HTML.gif)
We derive from (3.44) that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ52_HTML.gif)
and so
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ53_HTML.gif)
Then,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ54_HTML.gif)
and thus the claim holds.
Proposition 3.8.
Let us suppose that and
are two bi-functions satisfying the hypotheses of Lemma 3.5. Let
be the resolvent of
and
. Let
be an
-inverse strongly monotone operator. Let us suppose that
is such that
. Then
realize (ii) and (iii) in Theorem 3.1.
Proof.
Let be in a bounded closed convex subset
of
. To prove (i) it is enough to observe that by Lemma 3.7
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ55_HTML.gif)
When , by boundedness of the terms that do not depend on
, we obtain (ii).
To prove (iii) let the pointwise limit of
. It is necessary to prove only that
. Let
. We want to prove that
. Let
. Thus, by definition of
,
is the unique point such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ56_HTML.gif)
By monotonicity of and
this implies
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ57_HTML.gif)
Passing to the limit on , by (f3) and (h2) we obtain
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ58_HTML.gif)
Let now with
. Then by the convexity of
and
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ59_HTML.gif)
Passing we obtain by (f1) and (h1)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ60_HTML.gif)
That is, . At this point we observe that from the definitions of
and
, one has
.
By Propositions 3.3 and 3.8 we can exhibit iterative methods to approximate fixed points of the -strict pseudo contraction that are also
(1)solution of a system of two variational inequalities VI(C,A) and VI(C,B) ();
(2)solution of a system of two mixed equilibrium problems ( and
);
(3)solution of a mixed equilibrium problem and a variational inequality ( and
).
However when the properties of the mapping and
are well known, one can prove convergence theorems like Theorem 3.1 without use of Opial's lemma.
In next theorem our purpose is to prove a strong convergence theorem to approximate a fixed point of that is also a solution of a mixed equilibrium problem and a solution of a variational inequality
. One can note that we relax the hypotheses on the convergence of the sequences
and
.
Theorem 3.9.
Let be a closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space
, let
be two bi-functions satisfying (f1)–(f3),(h1)–(h3), and (H). Let
be a
-strict pseudocontraction.
Let be an
-inverse strongly monotone mapping of
into
and let
be a
-inverse strongly monotone mapping of
into
.
Let us suppose that .
Set , one defines the sequence
as follows:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ61_HTML.gif)
where
(i) with
;
(ii);
(iii).
Then strongly converges to
.
Proof.
First of all we observe that by Lemma 3.5 we have that . We can follow the proof of Theorem 3.1 from Steps 1–7. We prove only the following.
Step 10.
The set of weak cluster points of is contained in
.
Let be a cluster point of
; we begin to prove that
. We know that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ62_HTML.gif)
and by (f2)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ63_HTML.gif)
Let be a subsequence of
weakly convergent to
, then by Step 7
as
. Let
. Then by (3.56)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ64_HTML.gif)
Since is Lipschitz continuous and
as
, we have
as
.
By condition , for
fixed, the function
is lower semicontinuos and convex, and thus weakly lower semicontinuous [30].
Since , as
and by the assumption on
we obtain
. Then we obtain by (h2)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ65_HTML.gif)
Using (f1), (f3), (h1), (h3) we obtain
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ66_HTML.gif)
Consequently
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ67_HTML.gif)
by (f2) and (h2), as , we obtain
.
Now we prove that .
We define the maximal monotone operator
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ68_HTML.gif)
where is the normal cone to
at
, that is,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ69_HTML.gif)
Since , by the definition of
we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ70_HTML.gif)
But , then
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ71_HTML.gif)
and hence
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ72_HTML.gif)
By (3.63), (3.65), and by the -inverse monotonicity of
, we obtain
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ73_HTML.gif)
By as
(immediately consequence of Steps 6 and 7), it follows that
as
. Then
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2010%2F383740/MediaObjects/13663_2009_Article_1269_Equ74_HTML.gif)
moreover, since is a maximal operator,
, that is,
.
Finally, to prove that we follow Step 8 as in Theorem 3.1.
Since also Step 9 can be followed as in Theorem 3.1, we obtain the claim.
References
Acedo GL, Xu H-K: Iterative methods for strict pseudo-contractions in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications 2007,67(7):2258–2271. 10.1016/j.na.2006.08.036
Browder FE, Petryshyn WV: Construction of fixed points of nonlinear mappings in Hilbert space. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 1967, 20: 197–228. 10.1016/0022-247X(67)90085-6
Browder FE: Nonexpansive nonlinear operators in a Banach space. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1965, 54: 1041–1044. 10.1073/pnas.54.4.1041
Goebel K, Kirk WA: A fixed point theorem for asymptotically nonexpansive mappings. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 1972, 35: 171–174. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1972-0298500-3
Kirk WA: A fixed point theorem for mappings which do not increase distances. The American Mathematical Monthly 1965, 72: 1004–1006. 10.2307/2313345
Liu Q: Convergence theorems of the sequence of iterates for asymptotically demicontractive and hemicontractive mappings. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications 1996,26(11):1835–1842. 10.1016/0362-546X(94)00351-H
Schu J: Iterative construction of fixed points of asymptotically nonexpansive mappings. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 1991,158(2):407–413. 10.1016/0022-247X(91)90245-U
Xu HK: Inequalities in Banach spaces with applications. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications 1991,16(12):1127–1138. 10.1016/0362-546X(91)90200-K
Xu HK: Existence and convergence for fixed points of mappings of asymptotically nonexpansive type. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications 1991,16(12):1139–1146. 10.1016/0362-546X(91)90201-B
Ceng L-C, Al-Homidan S, Ansari QH, Yao J-C: An iterative scheme for equilibrium problems and fixed point problems of strict pseudo-contraction mappings. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 2009,223(2):967–974. 10.1016/j.cam.2008.03.032
Marino G, Xu H-K: Weak and strong convergence theorems for strict pseudo-contractions in Hilbert spaces. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2007,329(1):336–346. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.06.055
Marino G, Colao V, Qin X, Kang SM: Strong convergence of the modified Mann iterative method for strict pseudo-contractions. Computers and Mathematics with Applications 2009,57(3):455–465. 10.1016/j.camwa.2008.10.073
Zhou H: Convergence theorems of fixed points for -strict pseudo-contractions in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications 2008,69(2):456–462. 10.1016/j.na.2007.05.032
Colao V, Marino G, Xu H-K: An iterative method for finding common solutions of equilibrium and fixed point problems. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2008,344(1):340–352. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.02.041
Moudafi A: Viscosity approximation methods for fixed-points problems. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2000,241(1):46–55. 10.1006/jmaa.1999.6615
Peng JW: Iterative algorithms for mixed equilibrium problems, strictly pseudocontractions and monotone mappings. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. In press
Peng JW, Liou YC, Yao JC: An iterative algorithm combining viscosity method with parallel method for a generalized equilibrium problem and strict pseudocontractions. Fixed Point Theory and Applications 2009, Article ID 794178 2009:-21.
Cho YJ, Qin X, Kang JI: Convergence theorems based on hybrid methods for generalized equilibrium problems and fixed point problems. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications 2009,71(9):4203–4214. 10.1016/j.na.2009.02.106
Browder FE: Convergence of approximants to fixed points of nonexpansive non-linear mappings in Banach spaces. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 1967, 24: 82–90.
Opial Z: Weak convergence of the sequence of successive approximations for nonexpansive mappings. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 1967, 73: 591–597. 10.1090/S0002-9904-1967-11761-0
Takahashi W, Toyoda M: Weak convergence theorems for nonexpansive mappings and monotone mappings. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 2003,118(2):417–428. 10.1023/A:1025407607560
Takahashi S, Takahashi W: Strong convergence theorem for a generalized equilibrium problem and a nonexpansive mapping in a Hilbert space. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications 2008,69(3):1025–1033. 10.1016/j.na.2008.02.042
Bianchi M, Schaible S: Generalized monotone bifunctions and equilibrium problems. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 1996,90(1):31–43. 10.1007/BF02192244
Blum E, Oettli W: From optimization and variational inequalities to equilibrium problems. The Mathematics Student 1994,63(1–4):123–145.
Combettes PL, Hirstoaga SA: Equilibrium programming in Hilbert spaces. Journal of Nonlinear and Convex Analysis 2005,6(1):117–136.
Moudafi A: Weak convergence theorems for nonexpansive mappings and equilibrium problems. Journal of Nonlinear and Convex Analysis 2008,9(1):37–43.
Wang S, Zhou H, Song J: Viscosity approximation methods for equilibrium problems and fixed point problems of nonexpansive mappings and inverse-strongly monotone mappings. Methods and Applications of Analysis 2007,14(4):405–419.
Ceng L-C, Yao J-C: A hybrid iterative scheme for mixed equilibrium problems and fixed point problems. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 2008,214(1):186–201. 10.1016/j.cam.2007.02.022
Chadli O, Chbani Z, Riahi H: Equilibrium problems with generalized monotone bifunctions and applications to variational inequalities. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 2000,105(2):299–323. 10.1023/A:1004657817758
Brezis H: Analyse Fonctionnelle, Collection Mathématiques Appliquées pour la Maîtrise. Masson, Paris, France; 1983:xiv+234.
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
Cianciaruso, F., Marino, G., Muglia, L. et al. A Hybrid Projection Algorithm for Finding Solutions of Mixed Equilibrium Problem and Variational Inequality Problem. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2010, 383740 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/383740
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/383740