 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Nonlinear analysis in pvector spaces for singlevalued 1set contractive mappings
Fixed Point Theory and Algorithms for Sciences and Engineering volume 2022, Article number: 26 (2022)
Abstract
The goal of this paper is to develop some fundamental and important nonlinear analysis for singlevalued mappings under the framework of pvector spaces, in particular, for locally pconvex spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\). More precisely, based on the fixed point theorem of singlevalued continuous condensing mappings in locally pconvex spaces as the starting point, we first establish best approximation results for (singlevalued) continuous condensing mappings, which are then used to develop new results for three classes of nonlinear mappings consisting of 1) condensing; 2) 1set contractive; and 3) semiclosed 1set contractive mappings in locally pconvex spaces. Next they are used to establish the general principle for nonlinear alternative, Leray–Schauder alternative, fixed points for nonself mappings with different boundary conditions for nonlinear mappings from locally pconvex spaces, to nonexpansive mappings in uniformly convex Banach spaces, or locally convex spaces with the Opial condition. The results given by this paper not only include the corresponding ones in the existing literature as special cases, but are also expected to be useful tools for the development of new theory in nonlinear functional analysis and applications to the study of related nonlinear problems arising from practice under the general framework of pvector spaces for \(0< p \leq 1\).
Finally, the work presented by this paper focuses on the development of nonlinear analysis for singlevalued (instead of setvalued) mappings for locally pconvex spaces. Essentially, it is indeed the continuation of the associated work given recently by Yuan (Fixed Point Theory Algorithms Sci. Eng. 2022:20, 2022); therein, the attention is given to the study of nonlinear analysis for setvalued mappings in locally pconvex spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\).
1 Introduction
It is known that the class of pseminorm spaces (\(0 < p \leq 1\)) is an important generalization of usual normed spaces with rich topological and geometrical structures, and related study has received a lot of attention, e.g., see work by Alghamdi et al. [4], Balachandran [6], Bayoumi [7], Bayoumi et al. [8], Bernuées and Pena [10], Ding [29], Ennassik and Taoudi [32], Ennassik et al. [31], Gal and Goldstein [38], Gholizadeh et al. [39], Jarchow [52], Kalton [53, 54], Kalton et al. [55], Machrafi and Oubbi [72], Park [89], Qiu and Rolewicz [98], Rolewicz [102], Silva et al. [111], Simons [112], Tabor et al. [115], Tan [116], Wang [119], Xiao and Lu [122], Xiao and Zhu [123, 124], Yuan [134], and many others. However, to the best of our knowledge, the corresponding basic tools and associated results in the category of nonlinear functional analysis for pvector spaces have not been well developed, in particular for the three classes of (singlevalued) continuous nonlinear mappings, which are: 1) condensing; 2) 1set contractive; and 3) semiclosed 1set contractive operators under locally pconvex spaces. Our goal in this paper is to develop some fundamental and important nonlinear analysis for singlevalued mappings under the framework of pvector spaces, in particular, for locally pconvex spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\). More precisely, based on the fixed point theorem of singlevalued continuous condensing mappings in locally pconvex spaces as the starting point, we first establish best approximation results for (singlevalued) continuous condensing mappings, which are then used to develop new results for three classes of nonlinear mappings, which are 1): condensing; 2): 1set contractive; and 3): semiclosed 1set contractive in locally pconvex spaces. Then these new results are used to establish the general principle for nonlinear alternative, Leray–Schauder alternative, fixed points for nonself mappings with different boundary conditions for nonlinear mappings from locally pconvex spaces, to nonexpansive mappings in uniformly convex Banach spaces, or locally convex spaces with the Opial condition. The results given by this paper not only include the corresponding results in the existing literature as special cases, but are also expected to be useful tools for the development of new theory in nonlinear functional analysis and applications to the study of related nonlinear problems arising from practice under the general framework of pvector spaces for \(0< p \leq 1\).
In addition, we would like to point out that the work presented by this paper focuses on the development of nonlinear analysis for singlevalued (instead of setvalued) mappings for locally pconvex spaces; essentially, it is very important. It is also the continuation of the work given recently by Yuan [134]; therein, the attention was given to establishing new results on fixed points, the principle of nonlinear alternative for nonlinear mappings mainly on setvalued (instead of singlevalued) mappings developed in locally pconvex spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\). Although some new results for setvalued mappings in locally pconvex spaces have been developed (see Gholizadeh et al. [39], Park [89], Qiu and Rolewicz [98], Xiao and Zhu [123, 124], Yuan [134], and others), we still would like to emphasize that results obtained for setvalued mappings for pvector spaces may face some challenges in dealing with true nonlinear problems. One example is that the assumption used for “setvalued mappings with closed pconvex values” seems too strong, as it always means that the zero element is a trivial fixed point of the setvalued mappings, and this was also discussed in pp. 40–41 by Yuan [134] for \(0 < p \leq 1\).
On the development since 1920s and, in particular, on the fixed points for nonself mappings, best approximation method, and on some key aspects of nonlinear analysis related to Birkhoff–Kellogg problems, nonlinear alternative, Leray–Schauder alternative, KKM principle, best approximation, and related topics, readers can find some most important contributions by Birkhoff and Kellogg [11] in 1920s, Leray and Schauder [65] in 1934, Fan [34] in 1969; plus the related comprehensive references given by Agarwal et al. [1], Bernstein [9], Chang et al. [22], Granas and Dugundji [46], Isac [51], Park [87], Singh et al. [113], Zeidler [136]; and also see work contributed by Agarwal and O’Regan [2, 3], Furi and Pera [37], Park [87], O’Regan [80], O’Regan and Precup [82]), Poincare [96], Rothe [103, 104], Yuan [132–134], Zeidler [136].
It is well known that the best approximation is one of very important aspects for the study of nonlinear problems related to the problems on their solvability for partial differential equations, dynamic systems, optimization, mathematical program, operation research; and in particular, it is the one approach well accepted for studying nonlinear problems in optimization, complementarity problems, variational inequality problems, and so on, strongly based on the socalled Fan’s best approximation theorem given by Fan [33–36] in 1969, which acts as a very powerful tool in nonlinear analysis (see also the book of Singh et al. [113] for the related discussion and study on the fixed point theory and best approximation with the KKMmap principle). Among them, the related tools are Rothe type and the principle of Leray–Schauder alterative in topological vector spaces (TVS) and locally convex topological vector spaces (LCS), which are comprehensively studied by Chang et al. [22], Chang et al. [23–25], Carbone and Conti [18], Ennassik and Taoudi [32], Ennassik et al. [31], Isac [51], Granas and Dugundji [46], Kirk and Shahzad [58], Liu [70], Park [90], Rothe [103, 104], Shahzad [109, 110], Xu [126], Yuan [132–134], Zeidler [136], and the references therein.
On the other hand, the celebrated KKM principle established in 1929 in [60] was based on the celebrated Sperner combinatorial lemma and first applied to a simple proof of the Brouwer fixed point theorem. Later it became clear that these three theorems are mutually equivalent, and they were regarded as a sort of mathematical trinity (Park [90]). Since Fan extended the classical KKM theorem to infinitedimensional spaces in 1961 [34–36], there have been a number of generalizations and applications in numerous areas of nonlinear analysis, and fixed points in TVS and LCS as developed by Browder [12–17] and related references therein. Among them, Schauder’s fixed point theorem [106] in normed spaces is one of the powerful tools in dealing with nonlinear problems in analysis. Most notably, it has played a major role in the development of fixed point theory and related nonlinear analysis and mathematical theory of partial and differential equations and others. A generalization of Schauder’s theorem from normed spaces to general topological vector spaces is an old conjecture in fixed point theory, which is explained by Problem 54 of the book “The Scottish Book” by Mauldin [74] stated as Schauder’s conjecture: “Every nonempty compact convex set in a topological vector space has the fixed point property, or in its analytic statement, does a continuous function defined on a compact convex subset of a topological vector space to itself have a fixed point?” Recently, this question has been answered by the work of Ennassik and Taoudi [32] by using pseminorm methods under locally pconvex spaces! See also the related work in this direction given by Askoura and GodetThobie [5], Cauty [19, 20], Chang [21], Chang et al. [22], Chen [27], Dobrowolski [30], Gholizadeh et al. [39], Górniewicz [44], Górniewicz et al. [45], Isac [51], Li [68], Li et al. [67], Liu [70], Nhu [76], Okon [78], Park [89–91], Reich [99], Smart [114], Weber [120, 121], Xiao and Lu [122], Xiao and Zhu [123, 124], Xu [129], Xu et al. [130], Yuan [132–134], and the related references therein under the general framework of pvector spaces, in particular, locally pconvex spaces for nonself mappings with various boundary conditions for \(0 < p \leq 1\).
The goal of this paper is to establish the general new tools of nonlinear analysis under the framework of general locally pconvex space (pseminorm spaces) for general condensing mappings, 1set contractive mappings, and semiclosed mappings (here \(0 < p \leq 1\)), and we do wish these new results such as best approximation, theorems of Birkhoff–Kellogg type, nonlinear alternative, fixed point theorems for nonself (singlevalued) continuous operators with various boundary conditions, Rothe, Petryshyn type, Altman type, Leray–Schedule types, and other related nonlinear problems would play important roles for the nonlinear analysis of pseminorm spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\). In addition, our results also show that fixed point theorem for condensing continuous mappings for closed pconvex subsets provides solutions for Schauder’s conjecture since 1930s in the affirmative way under the general setting of pvector spaces (which may not be locally convex, see the related study given by Ennassik and Taoudi [32], Kalton [53, 54], Kalton et al. [55], Jarchow [52], Roloewicz [102] in this direction).
The paper has ten sections. Section 1 is the introduction. Section 2 describes general concepts for the pconvex subsets of topological vector spaces (\(0 < p \leq 1\)). In Sect. 3, some basic results of the KKM principle related to abstract convex spaces are given. In Sect. 4, as the application of the KKM principle in abstract convex spaces, which includes pconvex vector spaces as a special class (\(0< p \leq 1\)), by combining the embedding lemma for compact pconvex subsets from topological vector spaces into locally pconvex spaces, we provide general fixed point theorems for condensing continuous mappings for both a singlevalued version in topological vector spaces and an upper semicontinuous setvalued version in locally convex spaces defined on closed pconvex subsets for \(0 < p \leq 1\). Sections 5, 6, and 7 mainly focus on the study of nonlinear analysis for 1set contractive (singlevalued) continuous mappings in locally pconvex vector spaces to establish general existence theorems for solutions of the Birkhoff–Kellogg (problem) alternative, the general principle of nonlinear alterative, including Leray–Schauder alternative, Rothe type, Altman type associated with different boundary conditions. Sections 8, 9, and 10 mainly focus on the study of new results based on semiclosed 1set contractive (singlevalued) continuous mappings related to nonlinear alternative principles, Birkhoff–Kellogg theorems, Leray–Schauder alternative, and nonself operations from general locally pconvex spaces to uniformly convex Banach spaces for nonexpansive mappings, or locally convex topological spaces with the Opial condition.
For the convenience of our discussion, throughout this paper, we always assume that all pvector spaces are Hausdorff for \(0 < p \leq 1 \) unless specified otherwise; and we also denote by \(\mathbb{N}\) the set of all positive integers, i.e., \(\mathbb{N}:=\{1, 2, \ldots , \}\).
2 Some basic results for pvector spaces
For the convenience of selfreading, we recall some notions and definitions for pconvex vector spaces below as summarized by Yuan [134] (see also Balachandran [6], Bayoumi [7], Jarchow [52], Kalton [53], Rolewicz [102], Gholizadeh et al. [39], Ennassik and Taoudi [32], Ennassik et al. [31], Xiao and Lu [122], Xiao and Zhu [124], and the references therein).
Definition 2.1
A set A in a vector space X is said to be pconvex for \(0 < p \leq 1\) if for any \(x, y\in A\), \(0 \leq s, t \leq 1\) with \(s^{p} + t^{p}=1\), we have \(s^{1/p}x+t^{1/p}y\in A\); and if A is 1convex, it is simply called convex (for \(p = 1\)) in general vector spaces; the set A is said to be absolutely pconvex if \(s^{1/p}x+t^{1/p}y\in A\) for \(0 \leq s, t \leq 1\) with \(s^{p} + t^{p} \leq 1\).
Definition 2.2
If A is a subset of a topological vector space X, the closure of A is denoted by A̅, then the pconvex hull of A and its closed pconvex hull are denoted by \(C_{p}(A)\) and \(\overline{C}_{p}(A)\), respectively, which are the smallest pconvex set containing A and the smallest closed pconvex set containing A, respectively.
Definition 2.3
Let A be pconvex and \(x_{1}, \ldots , x_{n}\in A\), and \(t_{i}\geq 0\), \(\sum_{1}^{n}t_{i}^{\mathrm{p}}=1\). Then \(\sum_{1}^{n}t_{i}x_{i}\) is called a pconvex combination of \(\{x_{i}\}\) for \(i=1, 2, \ldots , n\). If \(\sum_{1}^{n}t_{i}^{\mathrm{p}}\leq 1\), then \(\sum_{1}^{n}t_{i}x_{i}\) is called an absolutely pconvex combination. It is easy to see that \(\sum_{1}^{n}t_{i}x_{i}\in A\) for a pconvex set A.
Definition 2.4
A subset A of a vector space X is called circled (or balanced) if \(\lambda A \subset A\) holds for all scalars λ satisfying \(\lambda  \leq 1\). We say that A is absorbing if for each \(x \in X\), there is a real number \(\rho _{x} >0\) such that \(\lambda x \in A\) for all \(\lambda > 0\) with \(\lambda \leq \rho _{x}\).
By Definition 2.4, it is easy to see that the system of all circled subsets of X is easily seen to be closed under the formation of linear combinations, arbitrary unions, and arbitrary intersections. In particular, every set \(A \subset X\) determines the smallest circled subset Â of X in which it is contained: Â is called the circled hull of A. It is clear that \(\hat{A} =\bigcup_{\lambda \leq 1} \lambda A\) holds, so that A is circled if and only if (in short, iff) \(\hat{A} =A\). We use \(\overline{\hat{A}}\) to denote the closed circled hull of \(A\subset X\).
In addition, if X is a topological vector space, we use the \(\operatorname{int}(A)\) to denote the (relative topological) interior of set \(A \subset X\) and if \(0 \in \operatorname{int}(A)\), then \(\operatorname{int}(A)\) is also circled, and we use ∂A to denote the (relative topological) boundary of A in X unless specified otherwise.
Definition 2.5
A topological vector space is said to be locally pconvex if the origin has a fundamental set of absolutely pconvex 0neighborhoods. This topology can be determined by pseminorms which are defined in the obvious way (see p. 52 of Bayoumi [7], Jarchow [52], or Rolewicz [102]).
Definition 2.6
Let X be a vector space and \(\mathbb{R}^{+}\) be a nonnegative part of a real line \(\mathbb{R}\). Then a mapping \(P: X\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{+}\) is said to be a pseminorm if it satisfies the requirements for (\(0 < p \leq 1\)):

(i)
\(P(x) \geq 0\) for all \(x \in X\);

(ii)
\(P(\lambda x) = \lambda ^{p} P(x)\) for all \(x\in X\) and \(\lambda \in R\);

(iii)
\(P(x + y) \leq P(x) + P(y)\) for all \(x, y \in X\).
A pseminorm P is called a pnorm if \(x=0\) whenever \(P(x)=0\), so a vector space with a specific pnorm is called a pnormed space, and of course if \(p=1\), X is a normed space as discussed before (e.g., see Jarchow [52]).
By Lemma 3.2.5 of Balachandran [6], the following proposition gives a necessary and sufficient condition for a pseminorm to be continuous.
Proposition 2.1
Let X be a topological vector space, P be a pseminorm on X, and \(V: =\{ x\in X: P(x) < 1\}\). Then P is continuous if and only if \(0 \in \operatorname{int}(V)\), where \(\operatorname{int}(V)\) is the interior of V.
Now, given a pseminorm P, the pseminorm topology determined by P (in short, the ptopology) is the class of unions of open balls \(B(x, \epsilon ): = \{ y \in X: P(yx) < \epsilon \}\) for \(x \in X\) and \(\epsilon > 0\).
Definition 2.7
A topological vector space X is said to be locally pconvex if it has a 0basis consisting of pconvex neighborhoods for (\(0 < p \leq 1\)). If \(p=1\), then X is a usual locally convex space.
We also need the following notion for the socalled pgauge (see Balachandran [6]).
Definition 2.8
Let A be an absorbing subset of a vector space X. For \(x \in X\) and \(0 < p \leq 1\), set \(P_{A}=\inf \{\alpha >0: x \in \alpha ^{\frac{1}{p}}A\}\), then the nonnegative realvalued function \(P_{A}\) is called the pgauge (gauge if \(p=1\)). The pgauge of A is also known as the Minkowski pfunctional.
By Proposition 4.1.10 of Balachandran [6], we have the following proposition.
Proposition 2.2
Let A be an absorbing subset of X. Then the pgauge \(P_{A}\) has the following properties:

(i)
\(P_{A}(0)=0\);

(ii)
\(P_{A}(\lambda x) = \lambda ^{p} P_{A}(x)\) if \(\lambda \geq 0\);

(iii)
\(P_{A}(\lambda x) = \lambda ^{p} P_{A}(x)\) for all \(\lambda \in R\) provided A is circled;

(iv)
\(P_{A}(x + y) \leq P_{A}(x) + P_{A}(y)\) for all \(x, y \in A\) provided A is pconvex.
In particular, \(P_{A}\) is a pseminorm if A is absolutely pconvex (and also absorbing).
As mentioned above, a given pseminorm is said to be a pnorm if \(x = 0\) whenever \(P(x) = 0\). A vector space with a specific pnorm is called a pnormed space. The pnorm of an element \(x \in E\) will usually be denoted by \(\x\_{p}\). If \(p = 1\), then X is a usual normed space. If X is a pnormed space, then \((X, d_{p})\) is a metric linear space with a translation invariant metric \(d_{p}\) such that \(d_{p}=d_{p}(x, y)=\x y\_{p}\) for \(x, y \in X\). We point out that pnormed spaces are very important in the theory of topological vector spaces. Specifically, a Hausdorff topological vector space is locally bounded if and only if it is a pnormed space for some pnorm \(\ \cdot \_{p}\), where \(0 < p \leq 1\) (see p. 114 of Jarchow [52]). We also note that examples of pnormed spaces include \(L^{p}(\mu )\)spaces and Hardy spaces \(H_{p}\), \(0 < p < 1\), endowed with their usual pnorms.
Remark 2.1
We would like to make the following two important points:

(1)
First, by the fact that (e.g., see Kalton et al. [55] or Ding [29]), there is no open convex nonvoid subset in \(L^{p}[0, 1]\) (for \(0< p < 1\)) except \(L^{p}[0,1]\) itself. This means that pnormed paces with \(0< p <1\) are not necessarily locally convex. Moreover, we know that every pnormed space is locally pconvex; and incorporating Lemma 2.3, it seems that a pvector space (for \(0 < p \leq 1\)) is a nicer space as we can use the pvector space to approximate (Hausdorff) topological vector spaces (TVS) in terms of Lemma 2.1 (ii) for the convex subsets in TVS by using bigger pconvex subsets in pvector spaces for \(p\in (0,1)\) by also considering Lemma 2.3. In this way, Pvector spaces seem to have better properties in terms of pconvexity than the usually (1−) convex subsets used in TVS with \(p=1\).

(2)
Second, it is worthwhile noting that a 0neighborhood in a topological vector space is always absorbing by Lemma 2.1.16 of Balachandran [6] or Proposition 2.2.3 of Jarchow [52].
Now, by Proposition 4.1.12 of Balachandran [6], we also have the following Proposition 2.3 and Remark 2.2 (which is Remark 2.3 of Ennassik and Taoudi [32]).
Proposition 2.3
Let A be a subset of a vector space X, which is absolutely pconvex (\(0 < p \leq 1\)) and absorbing. Then, we have that

(i)
The pgauge \(P_{A}\) is a pseminorm such that if \(B_{1}: =\{x \in X: P_{A}(x) < 1\}\) and \(\overline{B_{1}}=\{ x \in X: P_{A}(x) \leq 1\}\), then \(B_{1}\subset A \subset \overline{B_{1}}\); in particular, \(\ker P_{A} \subset A\), where \(\ker P_{A}: =\{ x \in X: P_{A}(x) = 0 \}\).

(ii)
\(A = B_{1}\) or \(\overline{B_{1}}\) according to whether A is open or closed in the \(P_{A}\)topology.
Remark 2.2
Let X be a topological vector space, and let U be an open absolutely pconvex neighborhood of the origin, and let ϵ be given. If \(y \in \epsilon ^{\frac{1}{p}} U\), then \(y=\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{p}} u\) for some \(u \in U\) and \(P_{U}(y)= P_{U}(\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{p}} u)= \epsilon P_{U}(u) \leq \epsilon \) (as \(u \in U\) implies that \(P_{U}(u) \leq 1\)). Thus, \(P_{U}\) is continuous at \(zero\), and therefore, \(P_{U}\) is continuous everywhere. Moreover, we have \(U=\{ x \in X: P_{U}(x) < 1\}\).
Indeed, since U is open and the scalar multiplication is continuous, we have that, for any \(x \in U\), there exists \(0 < t < 1\) such that \(x \in t^{\frac{1}{p}} U\), and so \(P_{U}(x) \leq t < 1\). This shows that \(U \subset \{ x\in X: P_{U}(x) < 1\}\). The conclusion follows by Proposition 2.3.
The following result is a very important and useful result, which allows us to make the approximation for convex subsets in topological vector spaces by pconvex subsets in pconvex vector spaces. For the readers selfcontained in reading, we provide a sketch of proof below (see also Lemma 2.1 of Ennassik and Taoudi [31], Remark 2.1 of Qiu and Rolewicz [98]).
Lemma 2.1
Let A be a subset of a vector space X, then we have

(i)
If A is pconvex with \(0 < p < 1\), then \(\alpha x \in A\) for any \(x \in A\) and any \(0 < \alpha \leq 1\);

(ii)
If A is convex and \(0 \in A\), then A is pconvex for any \(p \in (0, 1]\);

(iii)
If A is pconvex for some \(p \in (0, 1)\), then A is sconvex for any \(s \in (0, p]\).
Proof
(i) As \(r \le 1\), the fact that “for all \(x \in A\) and all \(\alpha \in [2^{(n+1)(1\frac{1}{p})}, 2^{n(1\frac{1}{p})}]\), we have \(\alpha x \in A\)” is true for all integer \(n\geq 0\). Taking into account the fact that \((0, 1]=\bigcup_{n\geq 0} [2^{(n+1)(1\frac{1}{p})}, 2^{n(1\frac{1}{p})}]\), we obtain the result.
(ii) Assume that A is a convex subset of X with \(0 \in A\) and take a real number \(s \in (0, 1]\). We show that A is sconvex. Indeed, let \(x, y \in A\) and \(\alpha , \beta >0\) with \(\alpha ^{p} + \beta ^{p} = 1\). Since A is convex, then \(\frac{\alpha}{\alpha + \beta} x + \frac{\beta}{\alpha + \beta}y \in A\). Keeping in mind that \(0 < \alpha + \beta < \alpha ^{p} + \beta ^{p}=1\), it follows that \(\alpha x + \beta y=(\alpha + \beta )(\frac{\alpha}{\alpha + \beta}x + \frac{\beta}{\alpha +\beta}y ) + (1\alpha \beta ) 0 \in A\).
(iii) Now, assume that A is rconvex for some \(p \in (0,1)\) and pick up any real \(s \in (0, p]\). We show that A is sconvex. To see this, let \(x, y \in A\) and \(\alpha , \beta > 0\) such that \(\alpha ^{s} + \beta ^{s}=1\). First notice that \(0 < \alpha ^{\frac{p  s}{p}} \leq 1\) and \(0 < \beta ^{\frac{p  s}{p}} \leq 1\), which imply that \(\alpha ^{\frac{p  s}{p}} x \in A\) and \(\beta ^{\frac{p  s}{p}} y \in A\). By the pconvexity of A and the equality \((\alpha ^{\frac{s}{p}})^{p} + (\beta ^{\frac{s}{p}})^{p} =1\), it follows that \(\alpha x + \beta y = \alpha ^{\frac{s}{p}}(\alpha ^{\frac{ps}{p}}x) + \beta ^{\frac{s}{p}}(\beta ^{\frac{ps}{p}} y) \in A\). This completes the sketch of the proof. □
Remark 2.3
We would like to point out that results (i) and (iii) of Lemma 2.1 do not hold for \(p = 1\). Indeed, any singleton \(\{x\} \subset X\) is convex in topological vector spaces; but if \(x \neq 0\), then it is not pconvex for any \(p \in (0, 1)\).
We also need the following proposition, which is Proposition 6.7.2 of Jarchow [52].
Proposition 2.4
Let K be compact in a topological vector X and \((1< p \leq 1)\). Then the closure \(\overline{C}_{p}(K)\) of a pconvex hull and the closure \(\overline{AC}_{p}(K)\) of an absolutely pconvex hull of K are compact if and only if \(\overline{C}_{p}(K)\) and \(\overline{AC}_{p}(K)\) are complete, respectively.
We also need the following fact, which is a special case of Lemma 2.4 of Xiao and Zhu [124].
Lemma 2.2
Let C be a bounded closed pconvex subset of pseminorm X with \(0 \in \operatorname{int} C\), where \((0< p\leq 1)\). For every \(x\in X\), define an operator by \(r(x):=\frac{x}{\max \{1, (P_{C}(x))^{\frac{1}{p}}\}}\), where \(P_{C}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional of C. Then C is a retract of X and \(r: X \rightarrow C\) is continuous such that

(1)
if \(x \in C\), then \(r(x)=x\);

(2)
if \(x \notin C\), then \(r(x) \in \partial C\);

(3)
if \(x \notin C\), then the Minkowski pfunctional \(P_{C}(x) >1 \).
Proof
Taking \(s = p\) in Lemma 2.4 of Xiao and Zhu [124], Proposition 2.3, and Remark 2.2, we complete the proof. □
Remark 2.4
As discussed by Remark 2.2, Lemma 2.2 still holds if “the bounded closed pconvex subset C of the pnormed space \((X, \\cdot \_{p})\)” is replaced by “X is a pseminorm vector space and C is a bounded closed absorbing pconvex subset with \(0 \in \operatorname{int} C\) of X”.
Before we close this section, we would like to point out that the structure of pconvexity when \(p \in (0, 1)\) is really different from what we normally have for the concept of “convexity” used in topological vector spaces (TVS). In particular, maybe the following fact is one of the reasons for us to use better (pconvex) structures in pvector spaces to approximate the corresponding structure of the convexity used in TVS (i.e., the pvector space when \(p=1\)). Based on the discussion in p. 1740 of Xiao and Zhu [124](see also Bernués and Pena [10] and Sezer et al. [107]), we have the following fact, which indicates that each pconvex subset is “bigger” than the convex subset in topological vector spaces for \(0 < p < 1\).
Lemma 2.3
Let x be a point of pvector space E, where assume \(0 < p < 1\), then the pconvex hull and the closure of \(\{x\}\) are given by
and
But note that if x is a given one point in pvector space E, when \(p=1\), we have that \(\overline{C_{1}(\{x\})} =C_{1}(\{x\})=\{ x\}\). This shows significantly different for the structure of pconvexity between \(p=1\) and \(p\neq 1\)!
As an application of Lemma 2.3, we have the following fact for (setvalued) mappings with nonempty closed pconvex values in pvector spaces for \(p \in (0, 1)\), which are truly different from any (setvalued) mappings defined in topological vector spaces (i.e., for a pvector space with \(p =1\)).
Lemma 2.4
Let U be a nonempty subset of a pvector space E (where \(0 < p < 1\)) with zero \(0 \in U\), and assume that a (setvalued) mapping \(T: U \rightarrow 2^{E}\) is with nonempty closed pconvex values. Then T has at least one fixed point in U, which is the element zero, i.e., \(0 \in \bigcap_{x \in U} T(x) \ne \emptyset \).
Proof
For each \(x \in U\), as \(T(x)\) is nonempty closed pconvex, by Lemma 2.3, we have at least \(0 \in T(x)\). It implies that \(0 \in \bigcap_{x \in U} T(x)\), and thus zero of E is a fixed point of T. This completes the proof. □
Remark 2.5
We would like to point out that Lemma 2.4 shows that any setvalued mapping with closed pconvex values in pspaces for \(0< p < 1\) has the zero point as its trivial fixed point, thus it is very important to study the fixed point and related principle of nonlinear analysis for singlevalued (instead of setvalued) mappings for pvector spaces (for \(0 < p < 1\)), as pointed out in the discussion given in pp. 40–41 by Yuan [134]. Thus the newest results established in this paper are for the three classes of (singlevalued) continuous mappings, which are: 1) condensing; 2) 1set contractive; and 3) semiclosed 1set contractive mappings. This is a key difference from those results obtained by Yuan [134] recently for the study of setvalued mappings in pvector spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\).
By following Definitions 2.5 and 2.6, the discussion given by Proposition 2.3, and remarks thereafter, each given (open) pconvex subset U in a pvector space E with the zero \(0 \in \operatorname{int}(U)\) always corresponds to a pseminorm \(P_{U}\), which is indeed the Minkowski pfunctional of U in E, and \(P_{U}\) is continuous in E. In particular, a topological vector space is said to be locally pconvex if the origin 0 of E has a fundamental set (denoted by) \(\mathfrak{U}\), which is a family of absolutely pconvex 0neighborhoods (each denoted by U). This topology can be determined by pseminorm \(P_{U}\), which is indeed the family \(\{P_{U}\}_{U \in \mathfrak{U}}\), where \(P_{U}\) is just the Minkowski pfunctional for each \(U \in \mathfrak{U}\) in E (see also p. 52 of Bayoumi [7], Jarchow [52], or Rolewicz [102]).
Throughout this paper, by following Remark 2.5, without loss of generality, unless specified otherwise, for a given pvector space E, where \(p \in (0, 1]\), we always denote by \(\mathfrak{U}\) the base of the pvector space E’s topology structure, which is the family of its 0neighborhoods. For each \(U \in \mathfrak{U}\), its corresponding Pseminorm \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional of U in E. For a given point \(x \in E\) and a subset \(C \subset E\), we denote by \(d_{P_{U}}(x, C): =\inf \{P_{U}(xy): y \in C\}\) the distance of x and C by the seminorm \(P_{U}\), where \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional for each \(U \in \mathfrak{U}\) in E.
3 The KKM principle in convex vector spaces
Since Knaster, Kuratowski, and Mazurkiewicz (in short, KKM) [60] in 1929 obtained the socalled KKM principle (theorem) to give a new proof for the Brouwer fixed point theorem in finite dimensional spaces, and later in 1961, Fan [36] (see also Fan [35]) extended the KKM principle (theorem) to any topological vector spaces and applied it to various results including the Schauder fixed point theorem, there have appeared a large number of works devoted to applications of the KKM principle (theorem). In 1992, such research field was called the KKM theory for the first time by Park [84]. Then the KKM theory has been extended to general abstract convex spaces by Park [88] (see also Park [89] and [90]), which actually include locally pconvex spaces (\(0 < p \leq 1\)) as a special class. Same as in the last section, for the convenience of selfreading, we recall some notions and definitions for the \(KKM\) principle in convex vector spaces, which include pvector spaces as a special class, as summarized by Yuan [134] below.
Here we first give some notions and definitions on the abstract convex spaces which play an important role in the development of the KKM principle and related applications. Once again, for the corresponding comprehensive discussion on KKM theory and its various applications to nonlinear analysis and related topics, we refer to Mauldin [74], Granas and Dugundji [46], Park [90] and [91], Yuan [133, 134], and related comprehensive references therein.
Let \(\langle D\rangle \) denote the set of all nonempty finite subsets of a given nonempty set D, and let \(2^{D}\) denote the family of all subsets of D. We have the following definition for abstract convex spaces essentially by Park [88].
Definition 3.1
An abstract convex space \((E, D; \Gamma )\) consists of a topological space E, a nonempty set D, and a setvalued mapping \(\Gamma : \langle D\rangle \rightarrow 2^{E}\) with nonempty values \(\Gamma _{A}: = \Gamma (A)\) for each \(A \in \langle D\rangle \), such that the Γconvex hull of any \(D' \subset D\) is denoted and defined by \(\operatorname{co}_{\Gamma}D': = \bigcup \{\Gamma _{A} A \in \langle D'\rangle \}\subset E\).
A subset X of E is said to be a Γconvex subset of \((E, D; \Gamma )\) relative to \(D' \) if for any \(N \in \langle D' \rangle \), we have \(\Gamma _{N} \subseteq X\), that is, \(\operatorname{co}_{\Gamma}D'\subset X\). For the convenience of our discussion, in the case \(E=D\), the space \((E, E; \Gamma )\) is simply denoted by \((E; \Gamma )\) unless specified otherwise.
Definition 3.2
Let \((E, D; \Gamma )\) be an abstract convex space and Z be a topological space. For a setvalued mapping (or, say, multimap) \(F: E \rightarrow 2^{Z}\) with nonempty values, if a setvalued mapping \(G: D\rightarrow 2^{Z}\) satisfies \(F(\Gamma _{A}) \subset G(A):=\bigcup_{y\in A}G(y)\) for all \(A\in \langle D \rangle \), then G is called a KKM mapping with respect to F. A KKM mapping \(G: D\rightarrow 2^{E}\) is a KKM mapping with respect to the identity map \(1_{E}\).
Definition 3.3
The partial KKM principle for an abstract convex space \((E, D; \Gamma )\) is that, for any closedvalued KKM mapping \(G: D\rightarrow 2^{E}\), the family \(\{G(y)\}_{y\in D}\) has the finite intersection property. The KKM principle is that the same property also holds for any openvalued KKM mapping.
An abstract convex space is called a (partial) KKM space if it satisfies the (partial) KKM principle (resp.). We now give some known examples of (partial) KKM spaces (see Park [88] and also [89]) as follows.
Definition 3.4
A \(\phi _{A}\)space \((X, D;\{\phi _{A}\}_{A\in \langle D\rangle})\) consists of a topological space X, a nonempty set D, and a family of continuous functions \(\phi _{A}: \Delta _{n}\rightarrow 2^{X}\) (that is, singular nsimplices) for \(A \in \{D\}\) with \(A=n+1\). By putting \(\Gamma _{A}: = \phi _{A}(\Delta _{n})\) for each \(A\in \langle D \rangle \), the triple \((X, D; \Gamma )\) becomes an abstract convex space.
Remark 3.1
For a \(\phi _{A}\)space \((X, D;\{\phi _{A}\})\), we see easily that any setvalued mapping \(G: D\rightarrow 2^{X}\) satisfying \(\phi _{A}(\Delta _{J})\subset G(J)\) for each \(A \in \langle D \rangle \) and \(J \in \langle A \rangle \) is a KKM mapping.
By the definition, it is clear that every \(\phi _{A}\)space is a KKM space, thus we have the following fact (see Lemma 1 of Park [89]).
Lemma 3.1
Let \((X, D; \Gamma )\) be a \(\phi _{A}\)space and \(G: D \rightarrow 2^{X}\) be a setvalued (multimap) with nonempty closed [resp. open] values. Suppose that G is a KKM mapping, then \(\{G(a)\}_{a\in D}\) has the finite intersection property.
By following Definition 2.7, we recall that a topological vector space is said to be locally pconvex if the origin has a fundamental set of absolutely pconvex 0neighborhoods. This topology can be determined by pseminorms which are defined in the obvious way (see Jarchow [52] or p. 52 of Bayoumi [7]).
Now we have a new KKM space as follows inducted by the concept of pconvexity (see Lemma 2 of Park [89]).
Lemma 3.2
Suppose that X is a subset of topological vector space E and \(p \in (0,1]\), and D is a nonempty subset of X such that \(C_{p}(D)\subset X\). Let \(\Gamma _{N}: =C_{p}(N)\) for each \(N\in \langle D\rangle \). Then \((X, D; \Gamma )\) is a \(\phi _{A}\)space.
Proof
Since \(C_{p}(D)\subset X\), \(\Gamma _{N}\) is well defined. For each \(N=\{x_{0}, x_{1}, \ldots , x_{n}\}\subset D\), we define \(\phi _{N}: \Delta _{n}\rightarrow \Gamma _{N}\) by \(\sum_{i=0}^{n}t_{i}e_{i}\mapsto \sum_{i=0}^{n}(t_{i})^{ \frac{1}{\mathrm{p}}}x_{i}\). Then, clearly, \((X, D; \Gamma )\) is a \(\phi _{A}\)space. This completes the proof. □
4 Fixed point theorems for condensing mappings in locally pconvex vector spaces
In this section, we establish fixed point theorems for upper semicontinuous, singlevalued continuous condensing mappings for pconvex subsets under the general framework of pvector spaces, which will be a tool used in Sects. 5 and 6 to establish the best approximation, fixed points, the principle of nonlinear alternative, Birkhoff–Kellogg problems, Leray–Schauder alternative, which would be useful tools in nonlinear analysis for the study of nonlinear problems arising from theory to practice. Here, we first gather together necessary definitions, notations, and known facts needed in this section.
Definition 4.1
Let X and Y be two topological spaces. A setvalued mapping (also saying, multifunction) \(T: X \longrightarrow 2^{Y}\) is a point to set function such that, for each \(x \in X\), \(T(x)\) is a subset of Y. The mapping T is said to be upper semicontinuous (USC) if the subset \(T^{1}(B): = \{ x\in X: T(x) \cap B \neq \emptyset \}\) (resp., the set \(\{x \in X: T(x) \subset B\}\)) is closed (resp., open) for any closed (resp., open) subset B in Y. The function \(T: X \rightarrow 2^{Y}\) is said to be lower semicontinuous (LSC) if the set \(T^{1}(A)\) is open for any open subset A in Y.
As an application of the KKM principle for general abstract convex spaces with the help of embedding lemma for Hausdorff compact pconvex subsets from topological vector spaces (TVS) into locally pconvex vector spaces, we have the following general existence result for the “approximation” of fixed points for upper and lower semicontinuous setvalued mappings in pconvex vector spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\) (see the corresponding related results given by Theorem 2.7 of Gholizadeh et al. [39], Theorem 5 of Park [89], and related discussion therein).
The following result was originally given by Yuan [134]; here we provide the sketch of its proof for the purpose of selfcontained reading.
Theorem 4.1
Let A be a pconvex compact subset of a locally pconvex vector space X, where \(0 < p \leq 1\). Suppose that \(T: A \rightarrow 2^{A}\) is lower (resp. upper) semicontinuous with nonempty pconvex values. Then, for any given U which is a pconvex neighborhood of zero in X, there exists \(x_{U} \in A\) such that \(T(x_{U}) \cap (x_{U} + U) \neq \emptyset \).
Proof
Suppose that U is any given element of \(\mathfrak{U}\), there is a symmetric open neighborhood V of zero for which \(\overline{V} + \overline{V} \subset U\) in locally pconvex neighborhood of zero. We prove the results by two cases: T is lower semicontinuous (LSC) and upper semicontinuous (USC).
Case 1, by assuming T is lower semicontinuous: As X is a locally pconvex vector space, suppose that \(\mathfrak{U}\) is the family of neighborhoods of 0 in X. For any element U of \(\mathfrak{U}\), there is a symmetric open neighborhood V of zero for which \(\overline{V} + \overline{V} \subset U\). Since A is compact, so there exist \(x_{0}, x_{1}, \ldots , x_{n}\) in A such that \(A \subset \bigcup_{i=0}^{n} (x_{i} + V)\). By using the fact that A is pconvex, we find \(D: =\{b_{0}, b_{2}, \ldots , b_{n}\} \subset A\) for which \(b_{i}  x_{i} \in V\) for all \(i \in \{0, 1, \ldots , n\}\), and we define C by \(C: = C_{p}(D) \subset A\). By the fact that T is LSC, it follows that the subset \(F(b_{i}): = \{c \in C: T(c) \cap (x_{i} +V) = \emptyset \}\) is closed in C (as the set \(x_{i} +V\) is open) for each \(i \in \{0, 1, \ldots , n\}\). For any \(c \in C\), we have \(\emptyset \neq T(c)\cap A \subset T(c)\cap \bigcup_{i=0}^{n}(x_{i}+ V)\), it follows that \(\bigcap_{i=0}^{n} F(b_{i})=\emptyset \). Now, applying Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.2 implies that there is \(N:= \{b_{i_{0}}, b_{i_{1}}, \ldots , b_{i_{k}}\} \in \langle D \rangle \) and \(x_{U} \in C_{p}(N) \subset A\) for which \(x_{U} \notin F(N)\), and so \(T(x_{u}) \cap (x_{i_{j}} + V) \neq \emptyset \) for all \(j \in \{0, 1, \ldots , k\}\). As \(b_{i}  x_{i} \in V\) and \(\overline{V} + \overline{V} \subset U\), which imply that \(x_{i_{j}} + \overline{V} \subset b_{i_{j}} + U\), which means that \(T(x_{U}) \cap (b_{i_{j}} + U) \neq \emptyset \), it follows that \(N \subset \{c \in C: T(x_{U}) \cap (c + U)\neq \emptyset \}\). By the fact that the subsets C, \(T(x_{U})\) and U are pconvex, we have that \(x_{U} \in \{c \in C: T(x_{U}) \cap (c+U)\neq \emptyset \}\), which means that \(T( x_{U}) \cap (x_{U} + U ) \neq \emptyset \).
Case 2, by assuming T is upper semicontinuous: We define \(F(b_{i}): = \{c \in C: T(c) \cap (x_{i} + \overline{V}) = \emptyset \}\), which is then open in C (as the subset \(x_{i} + \overline{V}\) is closed) for each \(i=0, 1, \ldots , n\). Then the argument is similar to the proof for the case T is USC, and by applying Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.2 again, it follows that there exists \(x_{U} \in A\) such that \(T(x_{U}) \cap (x_{U} + U) \neq \emptyset \). This completes the proof. □
By Theorem 4.1, we have the following Fan–Glicksberg fixed point theorems (Fan [33]) in locally pconvex vector spaces for (\(0 < p \leq 1\)), which also improve or generalize the corresponding results given by Yuan [133], Xiao and Lu [122], Xiao and Zhu [123, 124] into locally pconvex vector spaces.
Theorem 4.2
Let A be a pconvex compact subset of a locally pconvex vector space X, where \(0 < p \leq 1\). Suppose that \(T: A \rightarrow 2^{A}\) is upper semicontinuous with nonempty pconvex closed values. Then T has at least one fixed point.
Proof
Assume that \(\mathfrak{U}\) is the family of open pconvex neighborhoods of 0 in X, and \(U \in \mathfrak{U}\), by Theorem 4.1, there exists \(x_{U} \in A\) such that \(T(x_{U}) \cap (x_{U} + U) \neq \emptyset \). Then there exist \(a_{U}, b_{U} \in A\) for which \(b_{U} \in T(a_{U})\) and \(b_{U} \in a_{U} + U\). Now, two nets \(\{a_{U}\}\) and \(\{b_{U}\}\) in \(\mathrm{Graph} (T)\), which is a compact graph of mapping T as A is compact and T is semicontinuous, we may assume that \(a_{U}\) has a subnet converging to a, and \(\{b_{U}\}\) has a subnet converging to b. As \(\mathfrak{U}\) is the family of neighborhoods for 0, we should have \(a=b\) (e.g., by the Hausdorff separation property) and \(a=b \in T(b)\) due to the fact that Graph(T) is close (e.g., see Lemma 3.1.1 in p. 40 of Yuan [132]), thus the proof is complete. □
For a given set A in vector space X, we denote by “\(\operatorname{lin}(A)\)” the “linear hull” of A in X.
Definition 4.2
Let A be a subset of a topological vector space X, and let Y be another topological vector space. We shall say that A can be linearly embedded in Y if there is a linear map \(L: \operatorname{lin}(A) \rightarrow Y\) (not necessarily continuous) whose restriction to A is a homeomorphism.
The following embedded Lemma 4.1 is a significant result due to Theorem 1 of Kalton [53], which says that although not every compact convex set can be linearly embedded in a locally convex space (e.g., see Kalton et al. [55], and Roberts [100]), but when \(0 < p <1\), each compact pconvex set in topological vector spaces can be considered as a subset of a locally pconvex vector space, hence every such set has sufficiently many pextreme points.
Secondly, by property (ii) of Lemma 2.1, each convex subset of a topological vector space containing zero is always pconvex for \(0 < p \leq 1\). Thus it is possible for us to transfer the problem involving pconvex subsets from topological vector spaces into the locally pconvex vector spaces, which indeed allows us to establish the existence of fixed points for upper semicontinuous setvalued mappings for compact pconvex subsets in locally convex spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\). But we note that by Lemma 2.4 any setvalued mapping with closed pconvex values in pspaces for \(0< p < 1\) has the zero point as its trivial fixed point, thus it is essential to study the fixed point and related principle of nonlinear analysis for singlevalued (instead of setvalued) mappings in pvector spaces as pointed out by Remark 2.5 (see also the discussion in pp. 40–41 given by Yuan [134]).
Indeed, a fixed point theorem for a topological vector space for (singlevalued) continuous and condensing mappings given by Theorem 4.5, which will be proved below (also see Theorem 4.3 essentially due to Ennassik and Taoudi [32]), provides the answer for Schauder’s conjecture in the affirmative.
Lemma 4.1
Let K be a compact pconvex subset (\(0 < p < 1\)) of a topological vector space X. Then K can be linearly embedded in a locally pconvex topological vector space.
Proof
It is Theorem 1 of Kalton [53], which completes the proof. □
Remark 4.1
At this point, it is important to note that Lemma 4.1 does not hold for \(p = 1\). By Theorem 9.6 of Kalton et al. [55], it was shown that the spaces \(L_{p} = L_{p}(0, 1)\), where \(0 < p < 1\), contain compact convex sets with no extreme points, which thus cannot be linearly embedded in a locally convex space, see also Roberts [100].
Now we give the following fixed point theorem for singlevalued continuity mappings, which are essentially Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 3.3 given first by Ennassik and Taoudi [32]. Here we include the argument for the second part of the conclusions below only.
Theorem 4.3
If K is a nonempty compact pconvex subset of a locally pconvex space E for \(0 < p \leq 1\), then the (singlevalued) continuous mapping \(T: K \rightarrow K\) has at least a fixed point. Secondly, if K is a nonempty compact pconvex subset of a Hausdorff topological vector space E, then the (singlevalued) continuous mapping \(T: K \rightarrow K\) has at least a fixed point.
Proof
The first part is Theorem 3.1 of Ennassik and Taoudi [32], and the second part is indeed Theorem 3.3 of Ennassik and Taoudi [32], but here we include their very smart proof as follows.
Case 1: For \(0< p < 1\), K is a nonempty compact pconvex subset of a topological vector space X for \(0 < p < 1\). By Lemma 4.1, it follows that K can be linearly embedded in a locally pconvex space E, which means that there exists a linear map \(L: \operatorname{lin}(K) \rightarrow E\) whose restriction to K is a homeomorphism. Define the mapping \(S: L(K) \rightarrow L(K)\) by \(S(x): = L(Tx)\) for \(x \in X\). This mapping is easily checked to be well defined. The mapping S is continuous since L is a (continuous) homeomorphism and T is continuous on K. Furthermore, the set \(L(K)\) is compact, being the image of a compact set under a continuous mapping L. It is also pconvex since it is the image of a pconvex set under a linear mapping. Then, by the conclusion in the first part (see also Theorem 3.1 in [32]), there exists \(x \in K\) such that \(Lx =S(Lx) = L(Tx)\), thus it implies that \(x =T(x)\) since L is a homeomorphism, which is the fixed point of T.
Case 2: For \(p=1\), taking any point \(x_{0} \in K\), let \(K_{0}: =K\{x_{0} \}\). Now define a new mapping \(T_{0}: K_{0} \rightarrow K_{0}\) by \(T_{0}(x)= T(x)x_{0}\) for each \(x \in K_{0}\). By the fact that now \(K_{0}\) is pconvex for any \(0< p < 1\) by Lemma 2.1(ii), the \(T_{0}\) has a fixed point in \(K_{0}\) by the proof in Case 1, so T has a fixed point in K. The proof is complete. □
Remark 4.2
Theorem 4.3 is indeed the result of Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 3.3 (of Ennassik and Taoudi [32]) for \(0 < p \leq 1\) which provides an answer to Schauder’s conjecture under the TVS. Here we also mention a number of related works and discussion by authors in this direction, see Mauldin [74], Granas and Dugundji [46], Park [90, 91], and the references therein.
We recall that for two given topological spaces X and Y, a setvalued mapping \(T: X \rightarrow 2^{Y}\) is said to be compact if there is a compact subset set C in Y such that \(F(X) (=\{y \in F(X), x \in X\})\) is contained in C, i.e., \(F(X) \subset C\). Now we have the following noncompact version of fixed point theorems for compact setvalued mappings defined on a general pconvex subset in pvector spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\).
As an immediate consequence of Theorem 4.2 for \(p=1\), we have following result for an upper semicontinuous version in locally convex spaces (LCS).
Theorem 4.4
If K is a nonempty compact convex subset of a locally convex space X, then any upper semicontinuous setvalued mapping \(T: K \rightarrow 2^{K}\) with nonempty closed convex values has at least a fixed point.
Proof
Apply Theorem 4.2 with \(p = 1\), this completes the proof. □
Theorem 4.4 also improves or unifies corresponding results given by Askoura and GodetThobie [5], Cauty [19], Cauty [20], Chen [27], Isac [51], Li [68], Nhu [76], Okon [78], Park [91], Reich [99], Smart [114], Yuan [133], Theorem 3.14 of Gholizadeh et al. [39], Xiao and Lu [122], Xiao and Zhu [123, 124] under the framework of LCS for setvalued mappings instead of singlevalued functions.
In order to establish fixed point theorems for the classes of 1set contractive and condensing mappings in pvector spaces by using the concept of the measure of noncompactness (or the noncompactness measures), which was introduced and widely accepted in mathematical community by Kuratowski [63], Darbo [28], and related references therein, we first need to have a brief introduction for the concept of noncompactness measures for the socalled Kuratowski or Hausdorff measures of noncompactness in normed spaces (see Alghamdi et al. [4], Machrafi and Oubbi [72], Nussbaum [77], Sadovskii [105], Silva et al. [111], Xiao and Lu [122] for the general concepts under the framework of pseminorm or just for locally convex pconvex settings for \(0< p \leq 1\), which will be discussed below, too).
For a given metric space \((X, d)\) (or a pnormed space \((X, \\cdot \_{p})\)), we recall the notions of completeness, boundedness, relative compactness, and compactness as follows. Let \((X, d)\) and \((Y, d)\) be two metric spaces and \(T: X \rightarrow Y\) be a mapping (or operator). Then: 1) T is said to be bounded if for each bounded set \(A\subset X\), \(T(A)\) is bounded set of Y; 2) T is said to be continuous if for every \(x \in X\), the \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} x_{n} = x\) implies that \(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} T(x_{n})= T\); and 3) T is said to be completely continuous if T is continuous and \(T(A)\) is relatively compact for each bounded subset A of X.
Let \(A_{1}\), \(A_{2} \subset X\) be bounded of a metric space \((X, d)\), we also recall that the Hausdorff metric \(d_{H}(A_{1}, A_{2})\) between \(A_{1}\) and \(A_{2}\) is defined by
The Hausdorff and Kuratowski measures of noncompactness (denoted by \(\beta _{H}\) and \(\beta _{K}\), respectively) for a nonempty bounded subset D in X are the nonnegative real numbers \(\beta _{H}(D)\) and \(\beta _{K}(D)\) defined by
and
Here \(\operatorname{diam} D_{i}\) means the diameter of the set \(D_{i}\), and it is well known that \(\beta _{H} \leq \beta _{K} \leq 2 \beta _{H}\). We also point out that the notions above can be well defined under the framework of pseminorm spaces \((E, \\cdot \_{p})_{p \in \mathfrak{P}}\) by following the similar idea and method used by Chen and Singh [26], Ko and Tasi [61], Kozlov et al. [62] (see the references therein for more details).
Let T be a mapping from \(D\subset X\) to X. Then we have that: 1) T is said to be a kset contraction with respect to \(\beta _{K}\) (or \(\beta _{H}\)) if there is a number \(k \in (0, 1]\) such that \(\beta _{K}(T(A)) \leq k \beta _{K}(A)\) (or \(\beta _{H}(T(A)) \leq k\beta _{H}(A)\)) for all bounded sets A in D; and 2) T is said to be \(\beta _{K}\)condensing (or \(\beta _{H}\)condensing) if \((\beta _{K}(T(A)) < \beta _{K}(A))\) (or \(\beta _{H} (T(A)) < \beta _{H}(A)\)) for all bounded sets A in D with \(\beta _{K}(A)> 0\) (or \(\beta _{H}(A)> 0\)).
For the convenience of our discussion, throughout the rest of this paper, if a mapping “is \(\beta _{K}\)condensing (or \(\beta _{H}\)condensing)”, we simply say it is “a condensing mapping” unless specified otherwise.
Moreover, it is easy to see that: 1) if T is a compact operator, then T is a kset contraction; and 2) if T is a kset contraction for \(k \in (0, 1)\), then T is condensing.
In order to establish the fixed points of setvalued condensing mappings in pvector spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\), we need to recall some notions introduced by Machrafi and Oubbi [72] for the measure of noncompactness in locally pconvex vector spaces, which also satisfies some necessary (common) properties of the classical measures of noncompactness such as \(\beta _{K}\) and \(\beta _{H}\) mentioned above introduced by Kuratowski [63], Sadovskii [105](see also related discussion by Alghamdi et al. [4], Nussbaum [77], Silva et al. [111], Xiao and Lu [122], and the references therein). In particular, the measures of noncompactness in locally pvector spaces (for \(0 < p \leq 1\)) should have the stable property, which means the measure of noncompactness A is the same by transition to the (closure) for the pconvex hull of subset A.
For the convenience of discussion, we follow up to use α and β to denote the Kuratowski and the Hausdorff measures of noncompactness in topological vector spaces, respectively (see the same way used by Machrafi and Oubbi [72]), unless otherwise stated. The E is used to denote a Hausdorff topological vector space over the field \(\mathbb{K} \in \{\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{Q}\}\), here \(\mathbb{R}\) denotes all real numbers and \(\mathbb{Q}\) all complex numbers, and \(p \in (0, 1]\). Here, the base set of family of all balanced zero neighborhoods in E is denoted by \(\mathfrak{V}_{0}\).
We recall that \(U \in \mathfrak{V}_{0}\) is said to be shrinkable if it is absorbing, balanced, and \(r U \subset U\) for all \(r \in (0, 1)\), and we know that any topological vector space admits a local base at zero consisting of shrinkable sets (see Klee [59] or Jarchow [52] for details).
Recall again that a topological vector space E is said to be a locally pconvex space if E has a local base at zero consisting of pconvex sets. The topology of a locally pconvex space is always given by an upward directed family P of pseminorms, where a pseminorm on E is any nonnegative realvalued and subadditive functional \(\\cdot \_{p}\) on E such that \(\ \lambda x\_{p}=\lambda ^{p}\x\_{p}\) for each \(x \in E\) and \(\lambda \in \mathbb{R}\) (i.e., the real number line). When E is Hausdorff, then for every \(x \neq 0\), there is some \(p \in P\) such that \(P(x) \neq 0\). Whenever the family P is reduced to a singleton, one says that \((E, \ \cdot \)\) is a pseminormed space. A pnormed space is a Hausdorff pseminormed space, and when \(p=1\), it is the usual locally convex case. Furthermore, a pnormed space is a metric vector space with the translation invariant metric \(d_{p}(x, y): = \ x y\_{p}\) for all \(x, y \in E\), which is the same notation used above.
By Remark 2.5, if P is a continuous pseminorm on E, then the ball \(B_{p}(0, s): = \{x \in E: P(x) < s \}\) is shrinkable for each \(s > 0\). Indeed, if \(r \in (0, 1)\) and \(x \in \overline{r B_{p}(0, s)}\), then there exists a net \((x_{i})_{i \in I} \subset B_{p}(0, s)\) such that \(r x_{i}\) converges to x. By the continuity of P, we get \(P(x) \leq r^{p} s < s\), which means that \(r \overline{B_{p}(0,s)} \subset B_{P}(0,s)\). In general, it can be shown that every pconvex \(U \in \mathfrak{V}_{0}\) is shrinkable.
We recall that given such neighborhood U, a subset \(A \subset E\) is said to be Usmall if \(A  A \subset U\) (or small of order U by Robertson [101]). Now, by following the idea of Kaniok [56] in the setting of a topological vector space E, we use zero neighborhoods in E instead of seminorms to define the measure of noncompactness in (local convex) pvector spaces (\(0< p \leq 1\)) as follows: For each \(A \subset E\), the Umeasures of noncompactness \(\alpha _{U}(A)\) and \(\beta _{U}(A)\) for A are defined by:
and
here we set \(\inf \emptyset : = \infty \).
By the definition above, it is clear that when E is a normed space and U is the closed unit ball of E, \(\alpha _{U}\) and \(\beta _{U}\) are nothing else but the Kuratowski measure \(\beta _{K}\) and Hausdorff measure \(\beta _{H}\) of noncompactness, respectively. Thus, if \(\mathfrak{U}\) denotes a fundamental system of balanced and closed zero neighborhoods in E and \(\mathfrak{F}_{\mathfrak{U}}\) is the space of all functions \(\phi : \mathfrak{U} \rightarrow R\), endowed with the pointwise ordering, then the \(\alpha _{U}\) (resp., \(\beta _{U}\)) measures for noncompactness introduced by Kaniok [56] can be expressed by the Kuratowski (resp., the Hausdorff) measure of noncompact \(\alpha (A)\) (resp., \(\beta (A)\)) for a subset A of E as the function defined from \(\mathfrak{U}\) into \([0, \infty )\) by
By following Machrafi and Oubbi [72], in order to define the measure of noncompactness in (locally convex) pvector space E, we need the following notions of basic and sufficient collections for zero neighborhoods in a topological vector space. To do this, let us introduce an equivalence relation on \(V_{0}\) by saying that U is related to V, written \(U\mathfrak{R}V\), if and only if there exist \(r, s > 0\) such that \(r U \subset V \subset s U\). We now have the following definition.
Definition 4.3
(BCZN)
We say that \(\mathfrak{B} \subset \mathfrak{V}_{0}\) is a basic collection of zero neighborhoods (in short, BCZN) if it contains at most one representative member from each equivalence class with respect to \(\mathfrak{R}\). It will be said to be sufficient (in short, SCZN) if it is basic and, for every \(V \in \mathfrak{V}_{0}\), there exist some \(U \in \mathfrak{B}\) and some \(r > 0 \) such that \(r U \subset V\).
Remark 4.3
By Remark 2.5, it follows that for a locally pconvex space E, its base set \(\mathfrak{U}\), the family of all open pconvex subsets for 0 is BCZB. We also note that: 1) In the case E is a normed space, if f is a continuous functional on E, \(U: =\{x \in E: f(x) < 1\}\), and V is the open unit ball of E, then \(\{U\}\) is basic but not sufficient, but \(\{V\}\) is sufficient; 2) Secondly, if \((E, \tau )\) is a locally convex space whose topology is given by an upward directed family P of seminorms, so that no two of them are equivalent, the collection \((B_{p})_{p \in \mathbb{P}}\) is an SCZN, where \(B_{p}\) is the open unit ball of p. Further, if \(\mathfrak{W}\) is a fundamental system of zero neighborhoods in a topological vector space E, then there exists an SCZN consisting of \(\mathfrak{W}\) members; and 3) By following Oubbi [83], we recall that a subset A of E is called uniformly bounded with respect to a sufficient collection \(\mathfrak{B}\) of zero neighborhoods if there exists \(r > 0 \) such that \(A \subset r V\) for all \(V \in \mathfrak{B}\). Note that in the locally convex space \(C_{c}(X): = C_{c}(X, \mathbb{K})\), the set \(B_{\infty}:=\{ f\in C(X): \f\_{\infty} \leq 1\}\) is uniformly bounded with respect to the SCZN \(\{B_{k}, k \in \mathbb{K}\}\), where \(B_{k}\) is the (closed or) open unit ball of the seminorm \(P_{k}\), where \(k \in \mathbb{K}\).
Now we are ready to give the definition for the measure of noncompactness in a (locally pconvex) topological vector space E as follows.
Definition 4.4
Let \(\mathfrak{B}\) be an SCZN in E. For each \(A \subset E\), we define the measure of noncompactness of A with respect to \(\mathfrak{B}\) by \(\alpha _{\mathfrak{B}}(A):=\sup_{U\in \mathfrak{B}}\alpha _{U}(A)\).
By the definition above, it is clear that: 1) The measure of noncompactness \(\mathfrak{B}\) holding the semiadditivity, i.e., \(\alpha _{\mathfrak{B}}(A \cup B) = \max \{\alpha _{\mathfrak{B}}(A), \alpha _{\mathfrak{B}}(B)\}\); and 2) \(\alpha _{\mathfrak{B}}(A) = 0 \) if and only if A is a precompact subset of E (for more properties in detail, see Proposition 1 and the related discussion by Machraf and Oubbi [83]).
As we know, under the normed spaces (and even seminormed spaces), Kuratowski [63], Darbo [28], and Sadovskii [105] introduced the notions of ksetcontractions for \(k \in (0, 1)\) and the condensing mappings to establish fixed point theorems in the setting of Banach spaces, normed, or seminormed spaces. By following the same idea, if E is a Hausdorff locally pconvex space, we have the following definition for general (nonlinear) mappings.
Definition 4.5
A mapping \(T: C \rightarrow 2^{C}\) is said to be a kset contraction (resp., condensing) if there is some SCZN \(\mathfrak{B}\) in E consisting of pconvex sets, such that (resp., condensing) for any \(U \in \mathfrak{B}\), there exists \(k \in (0,1)\) (resp., condensing) such that \(\alpha _{U}(T(A)) \leq k \alpha _{U}(A)\) for \(A \subset C\) (resp., \(\alpha _{U}(T(A)) < \alpha _{U}(A)\) for each \(A \subset C\) with \(\alpha _{U}(A) > 0\)).
It is clear that a contraction mapping on C is a kset contraction mapping (where we always mean \(k \in (0, 1)\)), and a kset contraction mapping on C is condensing; and they all reduce to the usual cases by the definitions for \(\beta _{K}\) and \(\beta _{H}\) which are the Kuratowski measure and the Hausdorff measure of noncompactness, respectively, in normed spaces (see Kuratowski [63]).
From now on, we denote by \(\mathfrak{V}_{0}\) the set of all shrinkable zero neighborhoods in E, we have the following result, which is Theorem 1 of Machrafi and Oubbi [72], saying that in the general setting of locally pconvex spaces, the measure of noncompactness α for U given by Definition 4.4 is stable from U to its pconvex hull \(C_{p}(A)\) of the subset A in E, which is key for us to establish the fixed points for condensing mappings in locally pconvex spaces for \(0< p \leq 1\). This also means that it is the key property for the measures due to the Kuratowski and Hausdorff measures of noncompactness in normed (or pseminorm) spaces, which also holds for the measure of noncompactness by Definition 4.4 in the setting of locally pconvex spaces with (\(0 < p \leq 1\)) (see more similar and related discussion in detail by Alghamdi et al. [4] and Silva et al. [111]).
Lemma 4.2
If \(U \in \mathfrak{V}_{0}\) is pconvex for some \(0 < p \leq 1\), then \(\alpha (C_{p}(A)) = \alpha (A)\) for every \(A \subset E\).
Proof
It is Theorem 1 of Machrafi and Oubbi [72]. The proof is complete. □
Now, based on the definition for the measure of noncompactness given by Definition 4.4 (originally from Machrafi and Oubbi [72]), we have the following general extension version of Schauder, Darbo, and Sadovskii type fixed point theorems in the context of locally pconvex vector spaces for condensing mappings.
Theorem 4.5
(Schauder fixed point theorem for singlevalued condensing mappings)
Let \(C \subset E\) be a complete pconvex subset of a Hausdorff locally pconvex or Hausdorff topological vector space E with \(0 < p \leq 1\). If \(T: C \rightarrow C\) is continuous and (α) condensing, then T has a fixed point in C and the set of fixed points of T is compact.
Proof
We first prove the conclusion by assuming E is a locally pconvex space, then we prove the conclusion when E is a topological vector space.
Case A: Assuming E is locally pconvex. In this case, let \(\mathfrak{B}\) be a sufficient collection of pconvex zero neighborhoods in E with respect to which T is condensing and for any given \(U \in \mathfrak{B}\). We choose some \(x_{0} \in C\) and let \(\mathfrak{F}\) be the family of all closed pconvex subsets A of C with \(x_{0} \in A\) and \(T(A) \subset A\). Note that \(\mathfrak{F}\) is not empty since \(C \in \mathfrak{F}\). Let \(A_{0}=\bigcap_{A \in \mathfrak{F}} A\). Then \(A_{0}\) is a nonempty closed pconvex subset of C such that \(T(A_{0}) \subset A_{0}\), and then the conclusion follows by Theorem 4.3 for the continuous mapping T from \(A_{0}\) to \(A_{0}\) to show that \(A_{0}\) is compact. Now we prove \(A_{0}\) is compact. Indeed, let \(A_{1}=\overline{C_{p}(T(A_{0}) \cup \{x_{0}\})}\). Since \(T(A_{0})\subset A_{0}\) and \(A_{0}\) is closed and pconvex, \(A_{1}\subset A_{0}\). Hence, \(T(A_{1})\subset T(A_{0})\subset A_{1}\). It follows that \(A_{1} \in \mathfrak{F}\) and therefore \(A_{1}=A_{0}\). Now, by Proposition 1 of Machrafi and Oubbi [72] and Lemma 4.2 above (i.e., Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 in [72]), we get \(\alpha _{U}(T(A_{0})) = \alpha _{U}(A)\). Our assumption on T shows that \(\alpha _{U}(A_{0})=0\) since T is condensing. As U is arbitrary from the family \(\mathfrak{B}\), thus \(A_{0}\) is pconvex and compact (see Proposition 4 in [72]). Now, the conclusion follows by Theorem 4.3. Secondly, let \(C_{0}\) be the set of fixed points of T in C. Then it follows that \(C_{0} \subset T(C_{0})\), and the upper semicontinuity of T implies that its graph is closed, so is the set \(C_{0}\). As T is condensing, we have \(\alpha _{U}(T(C_{0})) \leq \alpha _{U}(C_{0})\), which implies that \(\alpha _{U}(C_{0})=0\). As U is arbitrary from the family \(\mathfrak{B}\), it implies that \(C_{0}\) is compact (by Proposition 4 in [72] again).
Case B: We now prove the conclusion by assuming E is a topological vector space. Based on the argument in Case A’s proof above, when T is condensing, there exists a nonempty compact pconvex subset \(A_{0}\) such that \(T: A_{0} \rightarrow A_{0}\). We prove the conclusion by considering two situations: (1) \(0< p < 1\) and (2) \(p=1\).
Now, for case (1) \(0 < p< 1\): By the proof above, \(A_{0}\) is a nonempty compact pconvex subset of a topological vector space E. By Lemma 4.1, it follows that \(A_{0}\) can be linearly embedded in a locally pconvex space X, which means that there exists a linear mapping \(L: \operatorname{lin}(A_{0}) \rightarrow X\) whose restriction to \(A_{0}\) is a homeomorphism. Define the mapping \(S: L(A_{0}) \rightarrow L(A_{0})\) by \(S(x): = L(Tx)\) for \(x \in A_{0}\). This mapping is easily checked to be well defined. The mapping S is continuous (and condensing) since L is a (continuous) homeomorphism and T is continuous (and condensing) on \(A_{0}\). Furthermore, the set \(L(A_{0})\) is compact, being the image of a compact set under a continuous mapping L. It is also pconvex as it is the image of a pconvex set under a linear mapping. Then, by the conclusion in the first part above for S on \(A_{0}\), there exists \(x \in A_{0}\) such that \(Lx =S(Lx) = L(Tx)\), thus it implies that \(x =T(x)\) since L is a homeomorphism, which means x is the fixed point of T.
Now, for case (2) \(p=1\): take any point \(x_{0} \in A_{0}\), and let \(K_{0}: = A_{0} \{x_{0} \}\). Now define a new mapping \(T_{0}: K_{0} \rightarrow K_{0}\) by \(T_{0}(x)= T(x)x_{0}\) for each \(x \in A_{0}\). By the fact that now \(K_{0}\) is pconvex for any \(0< p < 1\) by Lemma 2.1(ii), the \(T_{0}\) has a fixed point in \(K_{0}\) by the proof above for case (1) when \(0 < p < 1\), so \(T_{0}\) has a fixed point in \(K_{0}\) implies that T has a fixed point in \(A_{0}\).
This completes the proof. □
Remark 4.4
We first note that Theorem 4.5 improves Theorem 4.5 of Yuan [134]. Secondly, as pointed out by Remark 2.2 (for Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 3.3 given by Ennassik and Taoudi [32]), Theorem 4.5 above provides an answer to Schauder’s conjecture in the affirmative way under the general framework of closed pconvex subsets in topological vector spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\) of (singlevalued) continuous condensing mappings. Here we also mention a number of related works and discussion by authors in this direction, see Mauldin [74], Granas and Dugundji [46], Park [90, 91], and the references therein.
Following the argument used by Theorem 4.5, we have the following results for upper semicontinuous setvalued mappings in locally convex spaces as an application of Theorem 4.2.
Theorem 4.6
(Schauder fixed point theorem for upper semicontinuous condensing mappings)
Let C be a convex subset of a locally convex space E. If \(T: C \rightarrow 2^{C}\) is upper semicontinuous, (α) condensing with closed convex values, then T has a fixed point in C and the set of fixed points of T is compact.
Proof
By the same argument as in Theorem 4.5 by applying Theorem 4.4. □
As applications of Theorem 4.5, we have the following fixed points for condensing mappings in locally pconvex or topological vector spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\).
Corollary 4.1
(Darbo type fixed point theorem)
Let C be a complete pconvex subset of a Hausdorff locally pconvex space or topological vector space E with \(0 < p \leq 1\). If \(T: C \rightarrow C\) is a (k)setcontraction (where \(k \in (0, 1)\)), then T has a fixed point.
Corollary 4.2
(Sadovskii type fixed point theorem)
Let \((E, \ \cdot \)\) be a complete pnormed space and C be a bounded, closed, and pconvex subset of E, where \(0 < p \leq 1\). Then every continuous and condensing mapping \(T: C \rightarrow C\) has a fixed point.
Proof
In Theorem 4.5, let \(\mathfrak{B}: =\{B_{p}(0, 1) \}\), where \(B_{p}(0,1)\) stands for the closed unit ball of E, and by the fact that it is clear that \(\alpha (A)=(\alpha _{\mathfrak{B}}(A))^{p}\) for each \(A \subset E\). Then T satisfies all conditions of Theorem 4.5. This completes the proof. □
Corollary 4.3
(Darbo type)
Let \((E, \ \cdot \)\) be a complete pnormed space and C be a bounded, closed, and pconvex subset of E, where \(0 < p \leq 1\). Then each singlevalued mapping \(T: C \rightarrow C\) has a fixed point.
Theorems 4.5 and 4.6 improve Theorem 5 of Machrafi and Oubbi [72] for general condensing mappings and also unify corresponding the results in the existing literature, e.g., see Alghamdi et al. [4], Górniewicz [44], Górniewicz et al. [45], Nussbaum [77], Silva et al. [111], Xiao and Lu [122], Xiao and Zhu [123, 124], and the references therein.
Before ending this section, we would also like to remark that by comparing with the topological method or related arguments used by Askoura et al. [5], Cauty [19, 20], Nhu [76], Reich [99], the fixed points given in this section improve or unify the corresponding ones given by Alghamdi et al. [4], Darbo [28], Liu [70], Machrafi and Oubbi [72], Sadovskii [105], Silva et al. [111], Xiao and Lu [122], and those from references therein.
5 Best approximation for the class of single and setvalued 1set contractive mappings in locally pconvex spaces
The goal of this section is first to establish one general best approximation result for the classes of singlevalued 1set continuous and hemicompact (see the definition below) nonself mappings, which in turn are used as a tool to derive the general principle for the existence of solutions for Birkhoff–Kellogg problems (see Birkhoff and Kellogg [11]), fixed points for nonself 1set contractive mappings.
Here, we recall that since the Birkhoff–Kellogg theorem was first introduced and proved by Birkhoff and Kellogg [11] in 1922 in discussing the existence of solutions for the equation \(x = \lambda F(x)\), where λ is a real parameter and F is a general nonlinear nonself mapping defined on an open convex subset U of a topological vector space E, now the general form of the Birkhoff–Kellogg problem is to find the socalled invariant direction for the nonlinear singlevalued or setvalued mappings F, i.e., to find \(x_{0} \in \overline{U}\) (or \(x_{0} \in \partial \overline{U}\)) and \(\lambda > 0\) such that \(\lambda x_{0} = F(x_{0})\) or \(\lambda x_{0} \in F(x_{0})\). But the current paper focuses on the study for singlevalued mappings for pvector spaces for \(0 < 1 \leq 1\).
Since the Birkhoff and Kellogg theorem given by Birkhoff and Kellogg in 1920s, the study on the Birkhoff–Kellogg problem has received a lot of scholars’ attention; for example, one of the fundamental results in nonlinear functional analysis, called the Leray–Schauder alternative by Leray and Schauder [65] in 1934, was established via topological degree. Thereafter, certain other types of Leray–Schauder alternatives were proved using different techniques other than topological degree, see work given by Granas and Dugundji [46], Furi and Pera [37] in the Banach space setting and applications to the boundary value problems for ordinary differential equations, and a general class of mappings for nonlinear alternative of Leray–Schauder type in normal topological spaces, and also Birkhoff–Kellogg type theorems for general class mappings in TVS by Agarwal et al. [1], Agarwal and O’Regan [2, 3], Park [87]; in particular, recently O’Regan [80] used the Leray–Schauder type coincidence theory to establish some Birkhoff–Kellogg problem, Furi–Pera type results for a general class of singlevalued or setvalued mappings, too.
In this section, one best approximation result for 1set contractive mappings in locally pconvex spaces is first established, it is then used to establish the solution principle for Birkhoff–Kellogg problems and related nonlinear alternatives. These new results allow us to give a general principle for Leray–Schauder type and related fixed point theorems of nonself mappings in locally pconvex spaces for (\(0 < p \leq 1\)). The new results given in this part not only include the corresponding results in the existing literature as special cases, but also would be expected to play the fundamental role in the development of nonlinear problems arising from theory to practice for 1set contractive mappings under the framework of pvector spaces, which include the general topological vector spaces as a special class.
We also note that the general principles for nonlinear alternative related to Leray–Schauder alternative and other types under the framework of locally pconvex spaces for (\(0< p \leq 1\)) given in this section would be useful tools for the study of nonlinear problems. In addition, we also note that the corresponding results in the existing literature for Birkhoff–Kellogg problems and the Leray–Schauder alternatives have been studied comprehensively by Granas and Dugundji [46], Isac [51], Kim et al. [57], Park [88–90], Carbone and Conti [18], Chang et al. [23, 24], Chang and Yen [25], Shahzad [109, 110], Singh [113]; and in particular, many general forms have been recently obtained by O’Regan [81] and Yuan [134] (see also the references therein).
In order to study the general existence of fixed points for nonself mappings in locally pconvex spaces, we need some definitions and notations given below.
Definition 5.1
(Inward and outward sets in pvector spaces)
Let C be a subset of a pvector space E and \(x \in E\) for \(0 < p \leq 1\). Then the pinward set \(I^{p}_{C}(x)\) and the poutward set \(O^{p}_{C}(x)\) are defined by
From the definition, it is obvious that when \(p=1\), both inward and outward sets \(I^{p}_{C}(x)\), \(O^{p}_{C}(x)\) are reduced to the definition for the inward set \(I_{C}(x)\) and the outward set \(O_{C}(x)\), respectively, in topological vector spaces introduced by Halpern and Bergman [47] and used for the study of nonself mappings related to nonlinear functional analysis in the literature. In this paper, we mainly focus on the study of the pinward set \(I_{U}^{p}(x)\) for the best approximation and related to the boundary condition for the existence of fixed points in locally pconvex spaces. By the special property of pconvex concept for \(p \in (0, 1)\) and \(p=1\), we have the following fact.
Lemma 5.1
Let C be a subset of a pvector space E and \(x \in E\) for \(0 < p \leq 1\). Then, for both pinward and outward sets \(I^{p}_{C}(x)\) and \(O^{p}_{C}(x)\) defined above, we have

(I)
when \(p \in (0, 1)\), \(I^{p}_{C}(x)= [\{x\}\cup C]\) and \(O^{p}_{C}(x)=[\{x \} \cup \{2x\} \cup  C ]\),

(II)
when \(p=1\), in general \([\{x \}\cup C] \subset I^{p}_{C}(x)\) and \([\{ x \} \cup \{2x\} \cup C] \subset O^{p}_{C}(x)\).
Proof
First, when \(p\in (0, 1)\), by the definitions of \(I^{p}_{C}(x)\), the only real number \(r \geq 0\) satisfying the equation \((1r)^{p} + r^{p} =1\) for \(r\in [0,1]\) is \(r=0\) or \(r=1\), and when \(r \geq 1\), the equation \((\frac{1}{r})^{p} + (1 \frac{1}{r})^{p} = 1\) implies that \(r=1\). The same reason for \(O^{p}_{C}(x)\), it follows that \(r=0\) and \(r= 1\).
Secondly, when \(p=1\), all \(r\geq 0\) and all \(r\leq 0\) satisfy the requirement of definition for \(I^{p}_{C}(x)\) and \(O^{p}_{C}(x)\), respectively, thus the proof is complete. □
By following the original idea by Tan and Yuan [117] for hemicompact mappings in metric spaces, we introduce the following definition for a mapping being hemicompact in pseminorm spaces for \(p \in (0,1]\), which is indeed the “(H) condition” used in Theorem 5.1 to prove the existence of best approximation results for 1set contractive mappings in locally pconvex spaces for \(p \in (0, 1]\).
Definition 5.2
(Hemicompact mapping)
Let E be a locally pconvex space for \(1 < p \leq 1\). For a given bounded (closed) subset D in E, a mapping \(F: D \rightarrow 2^{E}\) is said to be hemicompact if each sequence \(\{x_{n}\}_{n\in N}\) in D has a convergent subsequence with limit \(x_{0}\) such that \(x_{0} \in F(x_{0})\), whenever \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} d_{P_{U}}P(x_{n}, F(x_{n})) =0\) for each \(U \in \mathfrak{U}\), where \(d_{P_{U}}P(x, C):= \inf \{P_{U}(xy): y \in C\}\) is the distance of a single point x with the subset C in E based on \(P_{U}\), \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional in E for \(U \in \mathfrak{U}\), which is the base of the family consisting of all open pconvex subsets for 0neighborhoods in E.
Remark 5.1
We would like to point out that Definition 5.2 is indeed an extension for a “hemicompact mapping” defined from a metric space to a (locally) pconvex space with the pseminorm, where \(p \in (0, 1]\) (see Tan and Yuan [117]). By the monotonicity of Minkowski pfunctionals, i.e., the bigger 0neighborhoods, the smaller Minkowski pfunctionals’ values (see also p. 178 of Balachandran [6]). Definition 5.2 describes the converge for the distance between \(x_{n}\) and \(F(x_{n})\) by using the language of seminorms in terms of Minkowski pfunctionals for each 0neighborhood in \(\mathfrak{U}\) (the base), which is the family consisting of its open pconvex 0neighborhoods in a pvector space E.
Now we have the following Schauder fixed point theorem for 1set contractive mappings in locally pconvex spaces for \(p \in (0, 1]\).
Theorem 5.1
(Schauder fixed point theorem for singlevalued 1set contractive mappings)
Let U be a nonempty bounded open subset of a (Hausdorff) locally pconvex space E and its zero \(0 \in U\), and \(C \subset E\) be a closed pconvex subset of E such that \(0 \in C\) with \(0 < p \leq 1\). If \(F: C \cap \overline{U} \rightarrow C \cap \overline{U}\) is a continuous and 1set contractive singlevalued mapping satisfying the following (H) or (H1) condition:

(H) condition: The sequence \(\{x_{n}\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\) in U̅ has a convergent subsequence with limit \(x_{0} \in \overline{U}\) such that \(x_{0} \in F(x_{0})\), whenever \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} d_{P_{U}}(x_{n}, F(x_{n})) =0\), where, \(d_{P_{U}}(x_{n}, F(x_{n})):=P_{U}(x_{n}  F(x_{n})\}\), where \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional for any \(U \in \mathfrak{U}\), which is the family of all nonempty open pconvex subsets of zero in E.

(H1) condition: There exists \(x_{0}\) in U̅ with \(x_{0} = F(x_{0})\) if there exists \(\{x_{n}\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\) in U̅ such that \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} d_{P_{U}}(x_{n}, F(x_{n})) =0\), where \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional for any \(U \in \mathfrak{U}\), which is the family of all nonempty open pconvex subsets of zero in E.
Then F has at least one fixed point in \(C \cap \overline{U}\).
Proof
Let U be any element in \(\mathfrak{U}\), which is the family of all nonempty open pconvex subsets for zero in E. As the mapping T is 1set contractive, take an increasing sequence \(\{\lambda _{n}\}\) such that \(0 < \lambda _{n} < 1\) and \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \lambda _{n} =1\), where \(n \in \mathbb{N}\). Now we define a mapping \(F_{n}: C \rightarrow C\) by \(F_{n}(x): = \lambda _{n} F(x)\) for each \(x \in C\) and \(n\in \mathbb{N}\). Then it follows that \(F_{n}\) is a \(\lambda _{n}\)setcontractive mapping with \(0 < \lambda _{n} < 1\). By Theorem 4.5 on the condensing mapping \(F_{n}\) in a pvector space with pseminorm \(P_{U}\) for each \(n \in \mathbb{N}\), there exists \(x_{n} \in C \) such that \(x_{n} \in F_{n}(x_{n})=\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})\). As \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional of U in E, it follows that \(P_{U}\) is continuous as \(0 \in \operatorname{int}(U)=U\). Note that for each \(n \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\lambda _{n} x_{n} \in \overline{U} \cap C\), which implies that \(x_{n} = r(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})) = \lambda _{n} F(x_{n})\), thus \(P_{U}(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})) \leq 1\) by Lemma 2.2. Note that
which implies that \(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} P_{U}(F(x_{n})  x_{n})=0\) for all \(U \in \mathfrak{U}\).
Now (1) if F satisfies the (H) condition, it implies that the consequence \(\{x_{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) has a convergent subsequence which converges to \(x_{0}\) such that \(x_{0} = F(x_{0})\). Without loss of generality, we assume that \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} x_{n}=x_{0}\) is with \(x_{n}=\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})\) and \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \lambda _{n}=1\). It implies that \(x_{0}=\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}))\), which means \(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} F(x_{n})= x_{0}\).
(ii) If F satisfies the (H1) condition, then by the (H1) condition it follows that there exists \(x_{0}\) in U̅ such that \(x_{0} = F(x_{0})\), which is a fixed point of F. We complete the proof. □
Theorem 5.2
(Best approximation for singlevalued 1setcontractive mappings)
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a locally pconvex space E (\(0 \leq p \leq 1\)) with zero \(0 \in U\), and C be a (bounded) closed pconvex subset of E with also zero \(0\in C\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U}\cap C \rightarrow C\) is (singlevalued) 1set contractive, and for each \(x \in \partial _{C} U\) with \(F(x) \in C \diagdown \overline{U}\), \((P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x)) 1)^{p} \leq P_{U} (F(x)x)\) for \(0< p \leq 1\) (this is trivial when \(p=1\)). In addition, if F satisfies one of the following conditions:

(H) condition: The sequence \(\{x_{n}\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\) in U̅ has a convergent subsequence with limit \(x_{0} \in \overline{U}\) such that \(x_{0} = F(x_{0})\), whenever \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} d_{P_{U}}(x_{n}, F(x_{n})) =0\), where \(d_{P_{U}}(x_{n}, F(x_{n})):=\inf \{P_{U}(x_{n} F(x_{n})\}\), where \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional for any \(U \in \mathfrak{U}\), which is the family of all nonempty open pconvex subsets containing the zero in E.

(H1) condition: There exists \(x_{0}\) in U̅ with \(x_{0} = F(x_{0})\) if there exists \(\{x_{n}\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\) in U̅ such that \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} d_{P_{U}}(x_{n}, F(x_{n})) =0\), where \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional for any \(U \in \mathfrak{U}\), which is the family of all nonempty open pconvex subsets containing the zero in E.
Then we have that there exists \(x_{0} \in C \cap \overline{U}\) such that
where \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional of U. More precisely, we have that either (I) or (II) holds:

(I)
F has a fixed point \(x_{0} \in \overline{U} \cap C\), i.e., \(0=P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C)\),

(II)
There exist \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) and \(F(x_{0}) \notin \overline{U}\) with
$$ P_{U} \bigl(F(x_{0})  x_{0} \bigr) = d_{P} \bigl(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C \bigr) = d_{p} \bigl(F(x_{0}), \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C \bigr)= \bigl(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} \bigl(F(x_{0}) \bigr)1 \bigr)^{p} > 0.$$
Proof
As E is a locally pconvex space, it suffices to prove that for each open pconvex subset U in \(\mathfrak{U}\) (which is the family of all nonempty open pconvex subsets containing the zero in E), there exists a sequence \((x_{n})_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) in U̅ such that \(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} P_{U}(F(x_{n})x_{n})=0\), and the conclusion follows by applying the (H) condition.
Let \(r: E \rightarrow U\) be a retraction mapping defined by \(r(x): = \frac{x}{\max \{1, (P_{U}(x))^{\frac{1}{p}}\}}\) for each \(x \in E\), where \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional of U. Since the space E’s zero \(0 \in U\) (\(=\operatorname{int}U\) as U is open), it follows that r is continuous by Lemma 2.2. As the mapping F is 1set contractive, take an increasing sequence \(\{\lambda _{n}\}\) such that \(0 < \lambda _{n} < 1\) and \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \lambda _{n} =1\), where \(n \in \mathbb{N}\). Now, for each \(n\in \mathbb{N}\), we define a mapping \(F_{n}: C \cap \overline{U} \rightarrow C\) by \(F_{n}(x): = \lambda _{n} F\circ r(x)\) for each \(x \in C \cap \overline{U}\). By the fact that C and U̅ are pconvex, it follows that \(r(C) \subset C\) and \(r(\overline{U}) \subset \overline{U}\), thus \(r( C \cap \overline{U}) \subset C \cap \overline{U}\). Therefore \(F_{n}\) is a mapping from \(\overline{U}\cap C\) to itself. For each \(n \in \mathbb{N}\), by the fact that \(F_{n}\) is a \(\lambda _{n}\)setcontractive mapping with \(0 < \lambda _{n} < 1\), it follows by Theorem 4.5 for the condensing mapping that there exists \(z_{n} \in C \cap \overline{U}\) such that \(F_{n}(z_{n})=\lambda _{n} F \circ r(z_{n})\). As \(r( C \cap \overline{U}) \subset C \cap \overline{U}\), let \(x_{n}= r(z_{n})\). Then we have that \(x_{n} \in C\cap \overline{U}\) and with \(x_{n} = r(\lambda _{n} F_{n}(x_{n}))\) such that the following (1) or (2) holds for each \(n \in \mathbb{N}\): (1) \(\lambda _{n} F_{n}(x_{n})\in C\cap \overline{U}\) or (2) \(\lambda _{n} F_{n}(x_{n}) \in C \diagdown \overline{U}\).
Now we prove the conclusion by considering the following two cases under the (H) condition and (H1) condition:
Case (I) For each \(n \in N\), \(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}) \in C \cap \overline{U}\); or
Case (II) There exists a positive integer n such that \(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}) \in C \diagdown \overline{U}\).
First, by case (I), for each \(n \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}) \in \overline{U} \cap C\), which implies that \(x_{n} = r(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})) = \lambda _{n} F(x_{n})\), thus \(P_{U}(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})) \leq 1\) by Lemma 2.2. Note that
which implies that \(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} P_{U}(F(x_{n})x_{n})=0\). Now, for any \(V \in \mathbb{U}\), without loss of generality, let \(U_{0} = V \cap U\). Then we have the following conclusion:
which implies that \(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} P_{U_{0}}(F(x_{n})x_{n})=0\), where \(P_{U_{0}}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional of \(U_{0}\) in E.
Now, if F satisfies the (H) condition, if follows that the consequence \(\{x_{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) has a convergent subsequence, which converges to \(x_{0}\) such that \(x_{0} = F(x_{0})\). Without loss of generality, we assume that \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} x_{n}=x_{0}\), \(x_{n}=\lambda _{n} y_{n}\), and \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \lambda _{n}= 1\), and as \(x_{0}=\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}))\), which implies that \(F(x_{0})=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} F(x_{n})= x_{0}\). Thus there exists \(x_{0} =F(x_{0})\), thus we have \(0 = d_{p}(x_{0}, F(x_{0})) = d(y_{0}, \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}(x_{0})} \cap C)\) as indeed \(x_{0} = F(x_{0}) \in \overline{U}\cap C \subset \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C\).
If F satisfies the (H1) condition, if follows that there exists \(x_{0} \in \overline{U} \cap C\) with \(x_{0} = F(x_{0})\). Then we have \(0=P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C)\).
Second, by case (II) there exists a positive integer n such that \(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}) \in C \diagdown \overline{U}\). Then we have that \(P_{U}(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}))> 1\), and also \(P_{U}(F(x_{n}))> 1\) as \(\lambda _{n} < 1\). As \(x_{n} = r(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})) = \frac{\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})}{(P_{U}(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})))^{\frac{1}{p}}}\), which implies that \(P_{U}(x_{n})=1\), thus \(x_{n} \in \partial _{C}(U)\). Note that
By the assumption, we have \((P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x_{n}))1)^{p} \leq P_{U}(F(x_{n}) x)\) for \(x \in C \cap \partial \overline{U}\), it follows that
Thus we have the best approximation: \(P_{U}(F(x_{n})  x_{n})=d_{P}(y_{n}, \overline{U} \cap C) = (P^{ \frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x_{n})1)^{p} > 0\).
Now we want to show that \(P_{U}(y_{n}x_{n})= d_{P}(F(x_{n}), \overline{U} \cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{n}), \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C) > 0\).
By the fact that \((\overline{U}\cap C) \subset I^{p}_{\overline{U}}(x_{n})\cap C\), let \(z \in I^{p}_{\overline{U}}(x_{n})\cap C \diagdown (\overline{U}\cap C)\), we first claim that \(P_{U}(F(x_{n})  x_{n}) \leq P_{U}(F(x_{n})  z)\). If not, we have \(P_{U}(F(x_{n})  x_{n}) > P_{U}(F(x_{n})z)\). As \(z \in I^{p}_{\overline{U}}(x_{n}) \cap C \diagdown (\overline{U} \cap C)\), there exists \(y \in \overline{U}\) and a nonnegative number c (actually \(c\geq 1\) as shown soon below) with \(z = x_{n} + c (y  x_{n})\). Since \(z \in C\), but \(z \notin \overline{U} \cap C\), it implies that \(z \notin \overline{U}\). By the fact that \(x_{n}\in \overline{U}\) and \(y \in \overline{U}\), we must have the constant \(c \geq 1\); otherwise, it implies that \(z ( = (1 c )x_{n} + c y) \in \overline{U}\), this is impossible by our assumption, i.e., \(z\notin \overline{U}\). Thus we have that \(c\geq 1\), which implies that \(y =\frac{1}{c} z + (1\frac{1}{c}) x_{n} \in C\) (as both \(x_{n} \in C\) and \(z\in C\)). On the other hand, as \(z \in I^{p}_{\overline{U}}(x_{n}) \cap C \diagdown (\overline{U} \cap C)\) and \(c\geq 1\) with \((\frac{1}{c})^{p}+ (1\frac{1}{c})^{p} = 1 \), combining with our assumption that for each \(x \in \partial _{C} \overline{U}\) and \(y \in F(x_{n})\diagdown \overline{U}\), \(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(y) 1 \leq P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} (yx)\) for \(0< p \leq 1\), it then follows that
which contradicts that \(P_{U} (F(x_{n})  x_{n}) = d_{P}(F(x_{n}), \overline{U}\cap C)\) as shown above, we know that \(y \in \overline{U}\cap C\), we should have \(P_{U}(F(x_{n}) x_{n})\leq P_{U}(F(x_{n})  y)\)! This helps us to complete the claim: \(P_{U}(F(x_{n})  x_{n}) \leq P_{U}(F(x_{n})  z)\) for any \(z \in I^{p}_{\overline{U}}(x_{n})\cap C \diagdown (\overline{U}\cap C)\), which means that the following best approximation of Fan type (see [34, 35]) holds:
Now, by the continuity of \(P_{U}\), it follows that the following best approximation of Fan type is also true:
and we have the conclusion below due to that \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}x_{n}=x_{0}\) and the continuity of F (actually \(x_{0} \neq F(x_{0})\)):
This completes the proof. □
Remark 5.2
We note that Theorem 5.2 also improves the corresponding best approximation for 1set contractive mappings given by Li et al. [67], Liu [70], Xu [129], Xu et al. [130], and the results from the references therein; and 3): When \(p = 1\), we have the similar best approximation result for the mapping F in the locally convex spaces with the outward set boundary condition below (see Theorem 3 of Park [86] and related discussion in the references therein).
Although the main focus of this paper studies best approximation, fixed point theorems for singlevalued mappings, when a pvector space E (for \(p=1\)) is a locally convex space (LCS), we can also have the following best approximation for upper semicontinuous setvalued mappings by applying Theorem 4.6 with arguments used by Theorem 5.1 and Theorem 5.2 (see also the discussion given by Yuan [134] and the references therein).
Theorem 5.3
(Best approximation for USC setvalued mappings in LCS)
Let U be a bounded open convex subset of a locally convex space E (i.e., \(p=1\)) with zero \(0 \in \operatorname{int}U=U\) (the interior \(\operatorname{int}U=U\) as U is open), and let C be a closed pconvex subset of E with also zero \(0\in C\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U}\cap C \rightarrow 2^{C}\) is a 1setcontractive upper semicontinuous mapping satisfying condition (H) or (H1). Then there exist \(x_{0} \in \overline{U} \cap X\) and \(y_{0} \in F(x_{0})\) such that \(P_{U} (y_{0}  x_{0}) = d_{P}(y_{0}, \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(y_{0}, \overline{I_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C)\), where \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional of U. More precisely, we have that either (I) or (II) holds:

(I)
F has a fixed point \(x_{0} \in U \cap C\), i.e., \(x_{0} \in F(x_{0})\) (so that \(P_{U} (y_{0} x_{0}) = P_{U} (y_{0}  x_{0}) = d_{P}(y_{0}, \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(y_{0}, \overline{I_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C)=0\)), or

(II)
There exist \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) and \(y_{0} \in F(x_{0})\) with \(y_{0} \notin \overline{U}\) with
$$ P_{U} (y_{0}  x_{0}) = d_{P}(y_{0}, \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p} \bigl(y_{0}, I_{\overline{U}}(x_{0})\cap C \bigr) =d_{p} \bigl(y_{0}, \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x_{0})} \cap C \bigr) > 0.$$
Proof
Following the proof used in Theorem 5.1 and Theorem 5.2, then applying Theorem 4.6 for \(p=1\), the conclusion follows. This completes the proof. □
Now, by the application of Theorem 5.2 with Remark 5.2 and the argument used in Theorem 5.2, we have the following general principle for the existence of solutions for Birkhoff–Kellogg problems in pseminorm spaces for locally pconvex spaces, where \(0 < p \leq 1\).
Theorem 5.4
(Principle of Birkhoff–Kellogg alternative)
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a locally pconvex space E (\(0 \leq p \leq 1\)) with zero \(0 \in \operatorname{int}U=U\) (the interior intU as U is open), and let C be a closed pconvex subset of E with also zero \(0\in C\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U}\cap C \rightarrow C\) is a singlevalued 1setcontractive continuous mapping satisfying the (H) or (H1) condition. Then F has at least one of the following two properties:

(I)
F has a fixed point \(x_{0} \in U \cap C\) such that \(x_{0} = F(x_{0})\),

(II)
There exist \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\), \(F(x_{0}) \notin \overline{U}\), and \(\lambda = \frac{1}{(P_{U}(F(x_{0}))^{\frac{1}{p}}} \in (0, 1)\) such that \(x_{0} = \lambda F(x_{0})\). In addition, if for each \(x \in \partial _{C} U\), \(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x)) 1 \leq P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} (F(x)x)\) for \(0< p \leq 1\) (this is trivial when \(p=1\)), then the best approximation between \(\{x_{0}\}\) and \(F(x_{0})\) is given by
$$ P_{U} \bigl(F(x_{0})  x_{0} \bigr) = d_{P} \bigl(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C \bigr) = d_{p} \bigl(F(x_{0}), \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}(x_{0})} \cap C \bigr) = \bigl(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} \bigl(F(x_{0}) \bigr)1 \bigr)^{p} > 0.$$
Proof
If (I) is not the case, then (II) is proved by Remark 5.2 and by following the proof in Theorem 5.2 for case ii): \(F(x_{0})\notin \overline{U}\) with \(F(x_{0})=f(x_{0})\), where f is the restriction of the continuous retraction r with respect to the set U in E defined in the proof of Theorem 5.2. Indeed, as \(F(x_{0}) \notin \overline{U}\), it follows that \(P_{U}(F(x_{0})) > 1\) and \(x_{0}=f(F(x_{0})) =F(x_{0})\frac{1}{(P_{U}(F(x_{0}))^{\frac{1}{p}}}\). Now, let \(\lambda = \frac{1}{(P_{U}(F(x_{0}))^{\frac{1}{p}}}\), we have \(\lambda < 1\) and \(x_{0} = \lambda F(x_{0})\). Finally, the additionally assumption in (II) allows us to have the best approximation between \(x_{0}\) and \(F(x_{0})\) obtained by following the proof of Theorem 5.2 as \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C) > 0\). This completes the proof. □
As an application of Theorem 5.3 for the nonself upper semicontinuous setvalued mappings discussed in Theorem 5.4, we have the following general principle of Birkhoff–Kellogg alternative in locally convex spaces.
Theorem 5.5
(Principle of Birkhoff–Kellogg alternative in LCS)
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of an LCS E with the zero \(0 \in U\) and C be a closed convex subset of E with also zero \(0\in C\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U}\cap C \rightarrow 2^{C}\) is a setvalued 1set contractive and upper semicontinuous mapping satisfying the (H) or (H1) condition. Then it has at least one of the following two properties:

(I)
F has a fixed point \(x_{0} \in U \cap C\) such that \(x_{0} \in F(x_{0})\),

(II)
There exist \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) and \(y_{0} \in F(x_{0})\) with \(y_{0} \notin \overline{U}\) and \(\lambda \in (0, 1)\) such that \(x_{0} = \lambda y_{0}\), and the best approximation between \(\{x_{0}\}\) and \(F(x_{0})\) is given by \(P_{U} (y_{0}  x_{0}) = d_{P}(y_{0}, \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(y_{0}, \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C) > 0\).
On the other hand, by the proof of Theorem 5.2, we note that for case (II) of Theorem 5.2, the assumption “each \(x \in \partial _{C} U\) with \(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x) 1 \leq P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} (F(x)x)\)” is only used to guarantee the best approximation \(``P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C) > 0\)”, thus we have the following Leray–Schauder alternative in pvector spaces, which, of course, includes the corresponding results in locally convex spaces as special cases.
Theorem 5.6
(Leray–Schauder nonlinear alternative)
Let C be a closed pconvex subset of pseminorm space E with \(0 \leq p \leq 1\) and the zero \(0 \in C\). Assume that \(F: C \rightarrow C\) is a singlevalued 1set contractive and continuous mapping satisfying the (H) or (H1) condition above. Let \(\varepsilon (F): =\{x \in C: x = \lambda F(x) \textit{ for some } 0 < \lambda < 1\}\). Then either F has a fixed point in C or the set \(\varepsilon (F)\) is unbounded.
Proof
We prove the conclusion by assuming that F has no fixed point, then we claim that the set \(\varepsilon (F)\) is unbounded. Otherwise, assume that the set \(\varepsilon (F)\) is bounded and that P is the continuous pseminorm for E, then there exists \(r>0\) such that the set \(B(0, r):=\{x \in E: P(x) < r\}\), which contains the set \(\varepsilon (F)\), i.e., \(\varepsilon (F) \subset B(0, r)\), which means, for any \(x \in \varepsilon (F)\), \(P(x) < r\). Then \(B(0. r)\) is an open pconvex subset of E and the zero \(0 \in B(0, r)\) by Lemma 2.2 and Remark 2.4. Now, let \(U:=B(0, r)\) in Theorem 5.4. It follows that the mapping \(F: B(0, r) \cap C \rightarrow C\) satisfies all general conditions of Theorem 5.4, and we have that any \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C} B(0, r)\), no any \(\lambda \in (0, 1)\) such that \(x_{0}=\lambda F(x_{0})\). Indeed, for any \(x \in \varepsilon (F)\), it follows that \(P(x) < r\) as \(\varepsilon (F) \subset B(0, r)\), but for any \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C} B(0, r)\), we have \(P(x_{0})=r\), thus conclusion (II) of Theorem 5.4 does not hold. By Theorem 5.4 again, F must have a fixed point, but this contradicts our assumption that F is fixed point free. This completes the proof. □
Now, assume a given pvector space E equipped with the Pseminorm (by assuming it is continuous at zero) for \(0< p \leq 1\), then we know that \(P: E \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{+}\), \(P^{1}(0)=0\), \(P(\lambda x) = \lambda ^{p} P(x)\) for any \(x\in E\) and \(\lambda \in \mathbb{R}\). Then we have the following useful result for fixed points due to Rothe and Altman types in pvector spaces, in particular, for locally pconvex spaces, which plays an important role in optimization problems, variational inequalities, and complementarity problems (see Isac [51] or Yuan [133] and the references therein for related study in detail).
Corollary 5.1
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a locally pconvex space E and zero \(0 \in U\), plus C is a closed pconvex subset of E with \(U \subset C\), where \(0< p \leq 1\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow C\) is a singlevalued 1set contractive continuous mapping satisfying the (H) or (H1) condition. If one of the following is satisfied:

(1)
(Rothe type condition): \(P_{U}(F(x)) \leq P_{U}(x)\) for \(x \in \partial U\);

(2)
(Petryshyn type condition): \(P_{U}(F(x)) \leq P_{U}(F(x)x)\) for \(x \in \partial U\);

(3)
(Altman type condition): \(P_{U}(F(x))^{\frac{2}{p}} \leq [P_{U}(F(x)) x)]^{\frac{2}{p}} + [P_{U}(x)]^{ \frac{2}{p}}\) for \(x \in \partial U\);
then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
By conditions (1), (2), and (3), it follows that the conclusion of (II) in Theorem 5.4 “there exist \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) and \(\lambda \in (0, 1)\) such that \(x_{0} \neq \lambda F(x_{0})\)” does not hold, thus by the alternative of Theorem 5.4, F has a fixed point. This completes the proof. □
By the fact that for \(p=1\), when a pvector space is a locally convex space, we have the following classical Fan’s best approximation (see [34]), which is a powerful tool for nonlinear functional analysis in supporting the study in optimization, mathematical programming, games theory, and mathematical economics, and other related topics in applied mathematics.
Corollary 5.2
(Fan’s best approximation in LCS)
Let U be a bounded open convex subset of a locally convex space E with the zero \(0 \in U\) and C be a closed convex subset of E with also zero \(0\in C\), and assume that \(F: \overline{U}\cap C \rightarrow C\) is a setvalued 1set contractive and continuous mapping satisfying the (H) or (H1) condition. Assume \(P_{U}\) to be the Minkowski pfunctional of U in E. Then there exists \(x_{0} \in \overline{U} \cap X\) such that \(P_{U}(F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x_{0})} \cap C)\). More precisely, we have that either (I) or (II) holds:

(I)
F has a fixed point \(x_{0} \in U \cap C\), i.e., \(x_{0}=F(x_{0})\) (so that \(0= P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C)\));

(II)
There exist \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) and \(F(x_{0}) \notin \overline{U}\) with
$$ P_{U} \bigl(F(x_{0})  x_{0} \bigr) = d_{P} \bigl(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C \bigr) = d_{p} \bigl(F(x_{0}), \overline{I_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C \bigr) = P_{U} \bigl(F(x_{0}) \bigr)  1 > 0.$$
Proof
When \(p=1\), it automatically satisfies the inequality \(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}((x)) 1 \leq P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} (F(x)x)\). Now if F has no fixed points, by Theorem 5.4, indeed we have that for \(x_{0}\in \partial _{C}(U)\), \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C)= P_{U}(F(x_{0})1\). The conclusions are given by Theorem 5.2 (or Theorem 5.3). The proof is complete. □
We would like to point out that similar results on the Rothe and Leray–Schauder alternative have been developed by Isac [51], Park [85], Potter [97], Shahzad [109, 110], Xiao and Zhu [124], Yuan [134], and the related references therein as tools of nonlinear analysis in pvector spaces.
6 Nonlinear alternatives principle for the class of singlevalued 1set class contractive mappings
As applications of results in Sect. 5, we now establish general results for the existence of solutions for the Birkhoff–Kellogg problem and the principle of Leray–Schauder alternatives in locally pconvex spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\).
Theorem 6.1
(Birkhoff–Kellogg alternative in locally pconvex spaces)
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a locally pconvex space E (where \(0 \leq p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\), let C be a closed pconvex subset of E with also zero \(0\in C\), and assume that \(F: \overline{U}\cap C \rightarrow C\) is a singlevalued 1set contractive and continuous mapping satisfying condition (H) or (H1). In addition, for each \(x \in \partial _{C}(U)\), \(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x) 1 \leq P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} (F(x)x)\) for \(0< p \leq 1\) (this is trivial when \(p=1\)), where \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional of U. Then we have that either (I) or (II) holds:

(I)
There exists \(x_{0} \in \overline{U}\cap C\); or

(II)
There exists \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) with \(F(x_{0})\notin \overline{U}\) and \(\lambda >1\) such that \(\lambda x_{0} = F(x_{0})\), i.e., \(F(x_{0}) \in \{\lambda x_{0}: \lambda > 1 \} \neq \emptyset \).
Proof
By following the argument and symbols used in the proof of Theorem 5.2, we have that either
(1) F has a fixed point \(x_{0} \in U \cap C\); or
(2) There exist \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) and \(x_{0}=f(F(x_{0}))\) such that
where \(\partial _{C}(U)\) denotes the boundary of U relative to C in E, and f is the restriction of the continuous retraction r with respect to the set U in E defined in the proof of Theorem 5.2.
If F has no fixed point, then (2) holds and \(x_{0} \neq F(x_{0})\). As given by the proof of Theorem 5.2, we have that \(F(x_{0})\notin \overline{U}\), thus \(P_{U}(F(x_{0})) > 1\) and \(x_{0}= f(F(x_{0}))=\frac{F(x_{0})}{(P_{U}(F(x_{0}))^{\frac{1}{p}}}\), which means \(F(x_{0}) =(P_{U}(F(x_{0}))^{\frac{1}{p}} x_{0}\). Let \(\lambda = (P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}}\), then \(\lambda > 1\), and we have \(\lambda x_{0} = F(x_{0})\). This completes the proof. □
Theorem 6.2
(Birkhoff–Kellogg alternative in LCS)
Let U be a bounded open convex subset of a locally convex space E with the zero \(0 \in U\), let C be a closed convex subset of E with also zero \(0\in C\), and assume that \(F: \overline{U}\cap C \rightarrow C\) is a 1set contractive and continuous mapping satisfying condition (H) or (H1). Then we have that either (I) or (II) holds:

(I)
There exists \(x_{0} \in \overline{U}\cap C\) such that \(x_{0}= F(x_{0})\); or

(II)
There exists \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) with \(F(x_{0})\notin \overline{U}\) and \(\lambda >1\) such that \(\lambda x_{0} = F(x_{0})\), i.e., \(F(x_{0}) \in \{\lambda x_{0}: \lambda > 1 \} \neq \emptyset \).
Proof
When \(p=1\), it automatically satisfies the inequality \(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x)) 1 \leq P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} (F(x_{0})x)\), and indeed we have that for \(x_{0}\in \partial _{C}(U)\), we have \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{W_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C)= P_{U}(F(x_{0}))1\). The conclusions are given by 5.4. The proof is complete. □
Indeed, we have the following fixed points for nonself mappings in pvector spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\) under different boundary conditions in locally pconvex spaces.
Theorem 6.3
(Fixed points of nonself mappings in a locally pconvex space)
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a locally pconvex space E (where \(0 \leq p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\), let C be a closed pconvex subset of E with also zero \(0\in C\), and assume that \(F: \overline{U}\cap C \rightarrow C\) is a 1set contractive and continuous mapping satisfying condition (H) or (H1). In addition, for each \(x \in \partial _{C}(U)\), \(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x)) 1 \leq P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} (F(x)x)\) for \(0< p \leq 1\) (this is trivial when \(p=1\)), where \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional of U. If F satisfies any one of the following conditions for any \(x \in \partial _{C}(U) \diagdown F(x)\):

(i)
\(P_{U}(F(x)z) < P_{U}(F(x)x)\) for some \(z \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)}\cap C\);

(ii)
There exists λ with \(\lambda  < 1\) such that \(\lambda x + (1\lambda )F(x) \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)}\cap C\);

(iii)
\(F(x) \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)}\cap C\);

(iv)
\(F(x) \in \{\lambda x: \lambda > 1 \} =\emptyset \);

(v)
\(F(\partial U) \subset \overline{U} \cap C\);

(vi)
\(P_{U}(F(x)x) \neq ((P_{U}(F(x))^{\frac{1}{p}}1)^{p}\);
then F must have a fixed point.
Proof
By following the argument and symbols used in the proof of Theorem 5.2 (see also Theorem 5.4), we have that either
(1) F has a fixed point \(x_{0} \in U \cap C\); or
(2) There exists \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) with \(x_{0}=f(F(x_{0}))\) such that
where \(\partial _{C}(U)\) denotes the boundary of U relative to C in E, and f is the restriction of the continuous retraction r with respect to the set U in E.
First, suppose that F satisfies condition (i). If F has no fixed point, then (2) holds and \(x_{0} \neq F(x_{0})\). Then, by condition (i), it follows that \(P_{U}(F(x_{0})z) < P_{U}(F(x_{0})x_{0})\) for some \(z \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)}\cap C\), this contradicts with the best approximation equations given by (2), thus F mush have a fixed point.
Second, suppose that F satisfies condition (ii). If F has no fixed point, then (2) holds and \(x_{0} \neq F(x_{0})\). Then by condition (ii), there exists \(\lambda >1\) such that \(\lambda x_{0} + (1  \lambda ) F(x_{0}) \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)}\cap C\). It follows that
this is impossible, and thus F must have a fixed point in \(\overline{U}\cap C\).
Third, suppose that F satisfies condition (iii), i.e., \(F(x) \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)} \cap C\); then by (2) we have that \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0})\), and thus \(x_{0}= F(x_{0})\), which means F has a fixed point.
Fourth, suppose that F satisfies condition (iv). If F has no fixed point, then (2) holds and \(x_{0} \neq F(x_{0})\). As given by the proof of Theorem 5.2, we have that \(F(x_{0}) \notin \overline{U}\), thus \(P_{U}(F(x_{0})) > 1\) and \(x_{0}= f(F(x_{0}))=\frac{F(x_{0})}{(P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}}}\), which means \(F(x_{0})=(P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}} x_{0}\), where \((P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}} > 1\), this contradicts assumption (iv), thus F must have a fixed point in \(\overline{U} \cap C\).
Fifth, suppose that F satisfies condition (v), then \(x_{0} \neq F(x_{0})\). As \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}{U}\), now by condition (v), we have that \(F(\partial U) \subset \overline{U} \cap C\). It follows that for \(F(x_{0})\) we have \(F(x_{0})\in \overline{U}\cap C\), thus \(F(x_{0}) \notin \overline{U} \diagdown \cap C\), which implies that \(0 < P_{U}(F(x_{0}) x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = 0\), this is impossible, thus F must have a fixed point. Here, like pointed out by Remark 5.2, we know that based on condition (v), the mapping F has a fixed point by applying \(F(\partial U) \subset \overline{U} \cap C\) is enough, not needing the general hypothesis: “for each \(x \in \partial _{C}(U)\), \(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x)) 1 \leq P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} (F(x)x)\) for \(0< p \leq 1\)”.
Finally, suppose that F satisfies condition (vi). If F has no fixed point, then (2) holds and \(x_{0} \neq F(x_{0})\). Then condition (v) implies that \(P_{U}(F(x_{0}) x_{0}) \neq ((P_{U}(F(x_{0}))^{\frac{1}{p}}1)^{p}\), but our proof in Theorem 5.2 shows that \(P_{U}(F(x_{0}) x_{0})=((P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}}1)^{p}\), this is impossible, thus F must have a fixed point. Then the proof is complete. □
Now, by taking the set C in Theorem 6.1 as the whole locally pconvex space E itself, we have the following general results for nonself continuous mappings, which include the results of Rothe, Petryshyn, Altman, and Leray–Schauder type fixed points as special cases in locally convex spaces.
Taking \(p=1\) and \(C =E\) in Theorem 6.3, we have the following fixed points for nonself singlevalued mappings in locally convex spaces (LCS), and the corresponding results for upper semicontinuous setvalued mappings are discussed by Yuan [134] and related references therein.
Theorem 6.4
(Fixed points of nonself mappings with boundary conditions)
Let U be a bounded open convex subset of the LCS E with the zero \(0 \in U\), and assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a 1set contractive and continuous mapping satisfying condition (H) or (H1). If F satisfies any one of the following conditions for any \(x \in \partial (U) \diagdown F(x)\):

(i)
\(P_{U}(F(x)z) < P_{U}(F(x)x)\) for some \(z \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)}\);

(ii)
There exists λ with \(\lambda  < 1\) such that \(\lambda x + (1\lambda )F(x) \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)}\);

(iii)
\(F(x) \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)}\);

(iv)
\(F(x) \in \{\lambda x: \lambda > 1 \} =\emptyset \);

(v)
\(F(\partial (U) \subset \overline{U}\);

(vi)
\(P_{U}(F(x)x) \neq P_{U}(F(x))1\);
then F must have a fixed point.
In what follows, based on the best approximation theorem in pseminorm space, we will also give some fixed point theorems for nonself mappings with various boundary conditions which are related to the study for the existence of solutions for PDE and differential equations with boundary problems (see Browder [15], Petryshyn [93, 94], Reich [99]), which would play roles in nonlinear analysis for a pseminorm space as shown below.
First, as discussed by Remark 5.2, the proof of Theorem 5.2 with the strongly boundary condition “\(F(\partial (U)) \subset \overline{U} \cap C\)” only, we can prove that F has a fixed point, thus we have the following fixed point theorem of Rothe type in pvector spaces.
Theorem 6.5
(Rothe type)
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a locally pconvex space E (where \(0 \leq p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U}\rightarrow E\) is a 1set contractive and continuous mapping satisfying condition (H) or (H1) and such that \(F(\partial (U)) \subset \overline{U}\), then F must have a fixed point.
Now, as applications of Theorem 6.5, we give the following Leray–Schauder alternative in locally pconvex spaces for nonself mappings associated with the boundary condition which often appear in the applications (see Isac [51] and the references therein for the study of complementary problems and related topics in optimization).
Theorem 6.6
(Leray–Schauder alternative in locally pconvex spaces)
Let E be a locally pconvex space E, where \(0 < p \leq 1\), \(B \subset E\) is a bounded closed pconvex such that \(0 \in \operatorname{int} B\). Let \(F: [0, 1] \times B \rightarrow E\) be 1set contractive and continuous, satisfying condition (H) or (H1), and such that the set \(F([0, 1] \times B)\) is relatively compact in E. If the following assumptions are satisfied:

(1)
\(x \neq F(t, x)\) for all \(x \notin \partial B\) and \(t \in [0, 1]\),

(2)
\(F(\{0\} \times \partial B) \subset B\),
then there is an element \(x^{*} \in B\) such that \(x^{*} = F(1, x^{*})\).
Proof
For \(n \in \mathbb{N}\), we consider the mapping
where \(P_{B}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional of B and \(\{\epsilon _{n}\}_{n \in N}\) is a sequence of real numbers such that \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \epsilon _{n}=0\) and \(0 < \epsilon _{n} < \frac{1}{2}\) for any \(n \in \mathbb{N}\), and we also observe that the mapping \(F_{n}\) is 1set contractive continuous with nonempty closed pconvex values on B. From assumption (2), we have that \(F_{n}(\partial B) \subset B\), and the assumptions of Theorem 6.5 are satisfied, then for each \(n \in \mathbb{N}\), there exists an element \(u_{n} \in B\) such that \(u_{n} = F_{n}(u_{n})\).
We first prove the following statement: “It is impossible to have an infinite number of the elements \(u_{n}\) satisfying the following inequality: \(1  \epsilon _{n} \leq P_{B}(u_{n}) \leq 1\).”
If not, we assume to have an infinite number of the elements \(u_{n}\) satisfying the following inequality:
As \(F_{n}(B)\) is relatively compact and by the definition of mappings \(F_{n}\), we have that \(\{u_{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) is contained in a compact set in E. Without loss of generality (indeed, each compact set is also countably compact), we define the sequence \(\{t_{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) by \(t_{n}: =\frac{1P_{B}(u_{n})}{\epsilon}\) for each \(n \in N\). Then we have that \(\{t_{n}\}_{n\in N}\subset [0, 1]\), and we may assume that \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}t_{n} = t \in [0, 1]\). The corresponding subsequence of \(\{u_{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) is denoted again by \(\{u_{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\), and it also satisfies the inequality \(1\epsilon _{n} \leq P_{B}(u_{n}) \leq 1\), which implies that \(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} P_{B} (u_{n})=1\).
Now let \(u^{*}\) be an accumulation point of \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in N}\), thus we have \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}(t_{n},\frac{u_{n}}{P_{B}(u_{n})}, u_{n}) = (t, u^{*}, u^{*})\). By the fact that F is compact, we assume that \(u_{n} = F(t_{n}, \frac{u_{n}}{P_{B}(u_{n})})\) for each \(n \in \mathbb{N}\). It follows that \(u^{*} = F(t, u^{*})\), this contradicts with assumption (1) as we have \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}P_{B}(u_{n})=1\) (which means that \(u^{*} \in \partial B\), this is impossible).
Thus it is impossible “to have an infinite number of elements \(u_{n}\) satisfy the inequality \(1  \epsilon _{n} \leq P_{B}(u_{n}) \leq 1\)”, which means that there is only a finite number of elements of sequence \(\{u_{n}\}_{n \in N}\) satisfying the inequality \(1  \epsilon _{n} \leq P_{B}(u_{n}) \leq 1\). Now, without loss of generality, for \(n \in \mathbb{N}\), we have the following inequality:
By the fact that \(\lim_{n \rightarrow} (1\epsilon _{n})=1\), \(u_{n} \in F(1, \frac{u_{n}}{1\epsilon})\) for all \(n \in \mathbb{N}\) and assume that \(\lim_{n\rightarrow} u_{n} = u^{*}\), then the continuity of F with nonempty closed values implies that by \(u_{n} = F(1, \frac{u_{n}}{1\epsilon})\) for each \(n \in \mathbb{N}\), \(u^{*} = F(1, u^{*})\). This completes the proof. □
As a special case of Theorem 6.6, we have the following principle for the implicit form of Leray–Schauder type alternative in locally pconvex spaces for \(0< p \leq 1\).
Corollary 6.1
(Implicit Leray–Schauder alternative)
Let E be a locally pconvex space E, where \(0 < p \leq 1\), \(B \subset E\) be a bounded closed pconvex such that \(0 \in \operatorname{int} B\). Let \(F: [0, 1] \times B \rightarrow E\) be 1set contractive and continuous, satisfying condition (H) or (H1), and let the set \(F([0, 1] \times B)\) be relatively compact in E. If the following assumptions are satisfied:

(1)
\(F(\{0\} \times \partial B) \subset B\),

(2)
\(x \neq F(0, x)\) for all \(x \in \partial B\),
then at least one of the following properties is satisfied:

(i)
There exists \(x^{*} \in B\) such that \(x^{*} = F(1, x^{*})\); or

(ii)
There exists \((\lambda ^{*}, x^{*}) \in (0, 1) \times \partial B\) such that \(x^{*} = F(\lambda ^{*}, x^{*})\).
Proof
The result is an immediate consequence of Theorem 6.6, this completes the proof. □
We would like to point out that similar results on Rothe and Leray–Schauder alternative have been developed by Furi and Pera [37], Granas and Dugundji [46], Górniewicz [44], Górniewicz et al. [45], Isac [51], Li et al. [67], Liu [70], Park [85], Potter [97], Shahzad [109, 110], Xu [129], Xu et al. [130], and related references therein as tools of nonlinear analysis in the Banach space setting and applications to the boundary value problems for ordinary differential equations in noncompact problems, a general class of mappings for nonlinear alternative of Leray–Schauder type in normal topological spaces, and some Birkhoff–Kellogg type theorems for general class mappings in topological vector spaces are also established by Agarwal et al. [1], Agarwal and O’Regan [2, 3], Park [87] (see the references therein for more details); and in particular, recently O’Regan [80] used the Leray–Schauder type coincidence theory to establish some Birkhoff–Kellogg problem, Furi–Pera type results for a general class of 1set contractive mappings.
Before closing this section, we would like to share with readers that as the application of the best approximation result for 1set contractive mappings, we just establish some fixed point theorems and the general principle of Leray–Schauder alternative for nonself mappings, which seem to play important roles in the nonlinear analysis under the framework of locally pconvex (seminorm) spaces, as the achievement of nonlinear analysis under the framework for underling locally topological vector spaces, normed spaces, or in Banach spaces.
7 Fixed points for the class of 1set contractive mappings
In this section, based on the best approximation Theorem 5.2 for classes of 1set contractive mappings developed in Sect. 5, we show how it can be used as a useful tool to establish fixed point theorems for nonself upper semicontinuous mappings in locally pconvex (seminorm) spaces for \(p \in (0, 1]\), which include norm spaces, uniformly convex Banach spaces as special classes.
By following Browder [15], Li [66], Goebel and Kirk [41], Petryshyn [93, 94], Tan and Yuan [117], Xu [129] and the references therein, we recall some definitions for pseminorm spaces, where \(p \in (0, 1]\).
Definition 7.1
Let D be a nonempty (bounded) closed subset of locally pconvex spaces \((E, \\cdot \_{p})\), where \(p \in (0, 1]\). Suppose that \(f: D \rightarrow X\) is a (singlevalued) mapping, then: (1) f is said to be nonexpansive if for each \(x, y \in D\), we have \(\f(x) f(y)\_{p} \leq \xy\_{p}\); (2) f (actually, \((If)\)) is said to be demiclosed (see Browder [15]) at \(y \in X\) if for any sequence \(\{x_{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) in D, the conditions \(x_{n} \rightarrow x_{0}\in D\) weakly and \((If)(x_{n}) \rightarrow y_{0}\) strongly imply that \((If)(x_{0})=y_{0}\), where I is the identity mapping; (3) f is said to be hemicompact (see p. 379 of Tan and Yuan [117]) if each sequence \(\{x_{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) in D has a convergent subsequence with the limit \(x_{0}\) such that \(x_{0} = f(x_{0})\), whenever \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}d_{p}(x_{n}, f(x_{n}))=0\), here \(d_{P}(x_{n}, f(x_{n})):=\inf \{P_{U}(x_{n} z): z \in f(x_{n})\}\), and \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional for any \(U \in \mathfrak{U}\), which is the family of all nonempty open pconvex subsets containing the zero in E; (4) f is said to be demicompact (by Petryshyn [93]) if each sequence \(\{x_{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) in D has a convergent subsequence whenever \(\{x_{n} f(x_{n})\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) is a convergent sequence in X; (5) f is said to be a semiclosed 1set contractive mapping if f is 1set contractive mapping, and \((If)\) is closed, where I is the identity mapping (by Li [66]); and (6) f is said to be semicontractive (see Petryshyn [94] and Browder [15]) if there exists a mapping \(V: D \times D \rightarrow 2^{X}\) such that \(f(x) = V(x, x)\) for each \(x \in D\), with (a) for each fixed \(x \in D\), \(V(\cdot , x)\) is nonexpansive from D to X; and (b) for each fixed \(x\in D\), \(V(x, \cdot )\) is completely continuous from D to X, uniformly for u in a bounded subset of D (which means if \(v_{j}\) converges weakly to v in D and \(u_{j}\) is a bounded sequence in D, then \(V(u_{j}, v_{j})  V(u_{j}, v) \rightarrow 0\), strongly in D).
From the definition above, we first observe that definitions (1) to (6) for setvalued mappings can be given in a similar way with the Hausdorff metric H (we omit their detailed definitions here to save space). Secondly, if f is a continuous demicompact mapping, then \((I  f)\) is closed, where I is the identity mapping on X. It is also clear from the definitions that every demicompact map is hemicompact in seminorm spaces, but the converse is not true by the example in p. 380 by Tan and Yuan [117]. It is evident that if f is demicompact, then \(If\) is demiclosed. It is known that for each condensing mapping f, when D or \(f(D)\) is bounded, then f is hemicompact; and also f is demicompact in metric spaces by Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 of Tan and Yuan [117], respectively. In addition, it is known that every nonexpansive map is a 1setcontractive mapping; and also if f is a hemicompact 1setcontractive mapping, then f is a 1setcontractive mapping satisfying the following (H1) condition (which is the same as “condition (H1)” in Sect. 5, but slightly different from condition (H) used there in Sect. 5):

(H1) condition: Let D be a nonempty bounded subset of a space E and assume \(F: \overline{D} \rightarrow 2^{E}\) to be a setvalued mapping. If \(\{x_{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) is any sequence in D such that for each \(x_{n}\) there exists \(y_{n} \in F(x_{n})\) with \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (x_{n} y_{n})=0\), then there exists a point \(x\in \overline{D}\) such that \(x \in F(x)\).
We first note that the “(H1) condition” above is actually the same as the “condition (C)” used by Theorem 1 of Petryshyn [94]. Secondly, it was shown by Browder [15] that indeed the nonexpansive mapping in a uniformly convex Banach space X enjoys condition (H1) as shown below.
Lemma 7.1
Let D be a nonempty bounded convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space E. Assume that \(F: \overline{D} \rightarrow E\) is a nonexpansive (singlevalued) mapping, then the mapping \(P: = I  F\) defined by \(P(x): = (xF(x)) \) for each \(x \in \overline{D}\) is demiclosed, and in particular, the “(H1) condition” holds.
Proof
By following the argument given in p. 329 (see the proof of Theorem 2.2 and Corollary 2.1) by Petryshyn [94], the mapping F is demiclosed (which actually is called Browder’s demiclosedness principle), which says that by the assumption of (H1) condition, if \(\{x_{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) is any sequence in D such that for each \(x_{n}\) there exists \(y_{n} \in F(x_{n})\) with \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (x_{n} y_{n})=0\), then we have \(0 \in (I  F) (\overline{D})\), which means that there exists \(x_{0} \in \overline{D}\) with \(0 \in (IF)(x_{0})\), this implies that \(x_{0} \in F(x_{0})\). The proof is complete. □
Remark 7.1
When a pvector space E is with a pnorm, then the “(H) condition” satisfies the “(H1) condition”. The (H1) condition is mainly supported by the socalled demiclosedness principle after the work by Browder [15].
By applying Theorem 5.2, we have the following result for nonself mappings in pseminorm spaces for \(p \in (0, 1]\).
Theorem 7.1
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a locally pconvex (or seminorm) space E (\(0 < p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a 1set contractive and continuous mapping satisfying condition (H) or (H1) above. In addition, for any \(x\in \partial \overline{U}\), we have \(\lambda x \neq F(x)\) for any \(\lambda > 1\) (i.e., the “Leray–Schauder boundary condition”), then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
By Theorem 5.2 with \(C= E\), it follows that we have that either (I) or (II) holds:

(I)
F has a fixed point \(x_{0} \in U \), i.e., \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = 0\).

(II)
There exists \(x_{0} \in \partial (U)\) with \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = (P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x_{0}))1)^{p} > 0\).
If F has no fixed point, then (II) holds and \(x_{0} \neq F(x_{0})\). By the proof of Theorem 5.2, we have that \(x_{0}=f(F(x_{0}))\) and \(F(x_{0}) \notin \overline{U}\). Thus \(P_{U}(F(x_{0})) > 1\) and \(x_{0}= f(F(x_{0}))=\frac{F(x_{0})}{(P_{U}(F(x_{0}))^{\frac{1}{p}}}\), which means \(F(x_{0})=(P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}} x_{0}\), where \((P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}} > 1\), this contradicts the assumption. Thus F must have a fixed point. The proof is complete. □
By following the idea used and developed by Browder [15], Li [66], Li et al. [67], Goebel and Kirk [41], Petryshyn [93, 94], Tan and Yuan [117], Xu [129], Xu et al. [130] and the references therein, we have a number of existence theorems for the principle of Leray–Schauder type alternatives in locally pconvex spaces or pseminorm spaces \((E, \\cdot \_{p})\) for \(p \in (0, 1]\) as follows.
Theorem 7.2
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a pseminorm space \((E, \\cdot \_{p})\) (\(0 < p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a 1set contractive and continuous mapping satisfying condition (H) or (H1). In addition, there exist \(\alpha >1\), \(\beta \geq 0\) such that, for each \(x \in \partial \overline{U}\), we have that for any \(y \in F(x)\), \(\y x\_{p}^{\alpha /p}\geq \y\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p}\x\_{p}^{ \beta /p}  \x\_{p}^{\alpha /p}\). Then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
We prove the conclusion by showing that the Leray–Schauder boundary condition in Theorem 7.1 does not hold. If we assume F has no fixed point, by the boundary condition of Theorem 7.1, there exist \(x_{0}\in \partial \overline{U}\), \(\lambda _{0} >1\) such that \(F(x_{0}) = \lambda _{0} x_{0}\).
Now, consider the function f defined by \(f(t): =(t1)^{\alpha}  t^{\alpha + \beta}+1\) for \(t\geq 1\). We observe that f is a strictly decreasing function for \(t \in [1, \infty )\) as the derivative of \(f'(t) =\alpha (t1)^{\alpha 1}  (\alpha + \beta ) t^{\alpha +\beta 1} < 0\) by the differentiation, thus we have \(t^{\alpha + \beta} 1 > (t1)^{\alpha}\) for \(t \in (1, \infty )\). By combining the boundary condition, we have that \(\F(x_{0})x_{0}\_{p}^{\alpha /p}=\\lambda _{0} x_{0}x_{0}\_{p}^{ \alpha /p}=(\lambda _{0}1)^{\alpha}\x_{0}\_{p}^{\alpha /p} < ( \lambda _{0}^{\alpha +\beta}1)\x_{0}\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p}\x_{0} \_{p}^{\beta /p}=\F(x_{0})\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p}\x_{0}\_{p}^{ \beta /p} \x_{0}\_{p}^{\alpha /p}\), which contradicts the boundary condition given by Theorem 7.2. Thus, the conclusion follows and the proof is complete. □
Theorem 7.3
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a pseminorm space \((E, \\cdot \_{p})\) (\(0 < p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a 1set contractive and continuous mapping satisfying condition (H) or (H1). In addition, there exist \(\alpha >1\), \(\beta \geq 0\) such that, for each \(x \in \partial \overline{U}\), we have that \(\F(x) + x\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p} \leq \F(x)\_{p}^{\alpha /p} \x\_{p}^{\beta /p} + \x\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p}\). Then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
We prove the conclusion by showing that the Leray–Schauder boundary condition in Theorem 7.1 does not hold. If we assume F has no fixed point, by the boundary condition of Theorem 7.1, there exist \(x_{0}\in \partial \overline{U}\) and \(\lambda _{0} >1\) such that \(F(x_{0})= \lambda _{0} x_{0}\).
Now, consider the function f defined by \(f(t): =(t+1)^{\alpha +\beta}  t^{\alpha}  1 \) for \(t\geq 1\). We then can show that f is a strictly increasing function for \(t \in [1, \infty )\), thus we have \(t^{\alpha}+1 < (t + 1)^{\alpha +\beta}\) for \(t \in (1, \infty )\). By the boundary condition given in Theorem 7.3, we have that
which contradicts the boundary condition given by Theorem 7.3. Thus, the conclusion follows and the proof is complete. □
Theorem 7.4
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a pseminorm space \((E, \\cdot \_{p})\) (\(0 < p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a 1set contractive and continuous mapping satisfying condition (H) or (H1). In addition, there exist \(\alpha >1\), \(\beta \geq 0\) (or, alternatively, \(\alpha >1\), \(\beta \geq 0\)) such that, for each \(x \in \partial \overline{U}\), we have that \(\F(x)  x\_{p}^{\alpha /p} \x\_{p}^{\beta /p} \geq \F(x)\_{p}^{ \alpha /p}\F(x)+x\_{p}^{\beta /p} \x\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p}\). Then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
The same as above, we prove the conclusion by showing that the Leray–Schauder boundary condition in Theorem 7.1 does not hold. If we assume F has no fixed point, by the boundary condition of Theorem 7.1, there exist \(x_{0}\in \partial \overline{U}\) and \(\lambda _{0} >1\) such that \(F(x_{0}) = \lambda _{0} x_{0}\).
Now, consider the function f defined by \(f(t): =(t1)^{\alpha}  t^{\alpha}(t1)^{\beta}+1\) for \(t\geq 1\). We then can show that f is a strictly decreasing function for \(t \in [1, \infty )\), thus we have \((t1)^{\alpha} < t^{\alpha} (t+1)^{\beta}1\) for \(t \in (1, \infty )\).
By the boundary condition given in Theorem 7.4, we have that
which contradicts the boundary condition given by Theorem 7.4. Thus, the conclusion follows and the proof is complete. □
Theorem 7.5
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a pseminorm space \((E, \\cdot \_{p})\) (\(0 < p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a 1set contractive and continuous mapping satisfying condition (H) or (H1). In addition, there exist \(\alpha >1\), \(\beta \geq 0\), we have that \(\F(x) + x\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p} \leq \F(x)x\_{p}^{\alpha /p} \x\_{p}^{\beta /p} +\F(x)\_{p}^{\beta /p} \x\^{\alpha /p}\). Then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
The same as above, we prove the conclusion by showing that the Leray–Schauder boundary condition in Theorem 7.1 does not hold. If we assume F has no fixed point, by the boundary condition of Theorem 7.1, there exist \(x_{0}\in \partial \overline{U}\) and \(\lambda _{0} >1\) such that \(F(x_{0}) = \lambda _{0} x_{0}\).
Now, consider the function f defined by \(f(t): =(t+1)^{\alpha +\beta}  (t1)^{\alpha}t^{\beta}\) for \(t\geq 1\). We then can show that f is a strictly increasing function for \(t \in [1, \infty )\), thus we have \((t+1)^{\alpha +\beta} > (t1)^{\alpha} +t^{\beta}\) for \(t \in (1, \infty )\).
By the boundary condition given in Theorem 7.5, we have that \(\F(x_{0}) +x_{0}\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p}=(\lambda _{0} +1)^{ \alpha +\beta}\x_{0}\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p} > ((\lambda _{0}1)^{ \alpha}+ \lambda _{0}^{\beta})\x_{0}\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p}=\ \lambda _{0} x_{0} x_{0}\_{p}^{\alpha /p}\x_{0}\_{p}^{\beta /p} + \\lambda _{0} x_{0}\_{p}^{\beta /p}\x_{0}\_{p}^{\alpha /p} = \F(x_{0})x_{0} \_{p}^{\beta /p}\x_{0}\_{p}^{\alpha /p} +\F(x_{0})\_{p}^{\beta /p} \x_{9}\^{\alpha /p}\), which implies that
this contradicts the boundary condition given by Theorem 7.5. Thus, the conclusion follows and the proof is complete. □
As an application of Theorem 7.1 by testing the Leray–Schauder boundary condition, we have the following conclusion for each special case, and thus we omit their detailed proofs here.
Corollary 7.1
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a pseminorm space \((E, \\cdot \_{p})\) (\(0 < p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a 1set contractive and continuous mapping satisfying condition (H) or (H1). Then F has at least one fixed point if one of the following conditions holds for \(x \in \partial \overline{U}\):

(i)
\(\F(x)\_{p} \leq \x\_{p}\),

(ii)
\(\F(x)\_{p} \leq \F(x)x\_{p}\),

(iii)
\(\F(x)+x_{p} \leq \F(x)\_{p}\),

(iv)
\(\F(x)+ x\_{p} \leq \x\_{p}\),

(v)
\(\F(x)+x\_{p} \leq \F(x) x\_{p}\),

(vi)
\(\F(x)\_{p} \cdot \F(x)+x\_{p} \leq \x\_{p}^{2}\),

(vii)
\(\F(x)\_{p} \cdot \F(x) +x\_{p} \leq \F(x) x\_{p} \cdot \x\_{p}\).
If the pseminorm space E is a uniformly convex Banach space \((E, \ \cdot \)\) (for pnorm space with \(p=1\)), then we have the following general existence result (which actually is true for nonexpansive setvalued mappings).
Theorem 7.6
Let U be a bounded open convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space \((E, \\cdot \)\) (with \(p=1\)) with zero \(0 \in U\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a semicontractive and continuous singlevalued mapping with nonempty values. In addition, for any \(x\in \partial \overline{U}\), we have \(\lambda x \neq F(x)\) for any \(\lambda > 1\) (i.e., the “Leray–Schauder boundary condition”). Then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
By the assumption that F is a semicontractive and continuous singlevalued mapping with nonempty values, it follows by Lemma 3.2 in p. 338 of Petryshyn [94] that f is a 1set contractive singlevalued mapping. Moreover, by the assumption that E is a uniformly convex Banach space, indeed \((IF)\) is closed at zero, i.e., F is semiclosed (see Browder [15] or Goebel and Kirk [41]). Thus all assumptions of Theorem 7.1 are satisfied with the (H1) condition. The conclusion follows by Theorem 7.1, and the proof is complete. □
Lemma 7.1 shows that s singlevalued nonexpansive mapping defined in a uniformly convex Banach space (see also Theorem 7.6) satisfies the (H1) condition. Actually, the nonexpansive setvalued mappings defined on a special class of Banach spaces with the socalled “Opial condition” do not only satisfy condition (H1), but also belong to the classes of semiclosed 1set contractive mappings as shown below.
Now let \(K(X)\) denote the family of all nonempty compact convex subsets of a topological vector space X. The notion of the socalled “Opial condition” first given by Opial [79] says that a Banach space X is said to satisfy the Opial condition if \(\liminf_{n \rightarrow \infty} \ w_{n}  w \ < \liminf_{n \rightarrow \infty} \w_{n}p\\) whenever \((w_{n})\) is a sequence in X weakly convergent to w and \(p\neq w\), we know that the Opial condition plays an important role in the fixed point theory, e.g., see Lami Dozo [64], Goebel and Kirk [42], Xu [127], and the references therein. The following result shows that there exist nonexpansive setvalued mappings in Banach spaces with the Opial condition (see Lami Dozo [64] satisfying condition (H1)).
Lemma 7.2
Let C be a convex weakly compact subset of a Banach space X which satisfies the Opial condition. Let \(T: C \rightarrow K(C)\) be a nonexpansive setvalued mapping with nonempty compact values. Then the graph of \((IT)\) is closed in \((X, \sigma (X, X^{*}) \times (X, \\cdot \))\), thus T satisfies the “(H1) condition”, where I denotes the identity on X, \(\sigma (X, X^{*})\) the weak topology, and \(\\cdot \\) the norm (or strong) topology.
Proof
By following Theorem 3.1 of Lami Dozo [64], it follows that the mapping T is demiclosed, thus T satisfies the “(H1) condition”. The proof is complete. □
As an application of Lemma 7.2, we have the following results for nonexpansive mappings.
Theorem 7.7
Let C be a nonempty convex weakly compact subset of a Banach space X which satisfies the Opial condition and \(0 \in \operatorname{int}C\). Let \(T: C \rightarrow K(X)\) be a nonexpansive setvalued mapping with nonempty compact convex values. In addition, for any \(x\in \partial \overline{C}\), we have \(\lambda x \neq F(x)\) for any \(\lambda > 1\) (i.e., the “Leray–Schauder boundary condition”). Then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
As T is nonexpansive, it is 1set contractive. By Lemma 7.1, it is then semicontractive and continuous. Then the (H1) condition of Theorem 7.1 is satisfied. The conclusion follows by Theorem 7.1, and the proof is complete. □
Before the end of this section, by considering the pseminorm space \((E, \\cdot \)\) is a seminorm space with \(p=1\), the following result is a special case of the corresponding results from Theorem 7.2 to Theorem 7.5, and thus we omit its proof.
Corollary 7.2
Let U be a bounded open convex subset of a normed space \((E, \\cdot \)\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a 1set contractive and continuous mapping satisfying condition (H) or (H1). Then F has at least one fixed point if there exist \(\alpha >1\), \(\beta \geq 0\) such that any one of the following conditions is satisfied:

(i)
For each \(x \in \partial \overline{U}\), \(\F(x) x\^{\alpha}\geq \F(x)\^{(\alpha +\beta )}\x\^{\beta}  \x\^{\alpha}\),

(ii)
For each \(x \in \partial \overline{U}\), \(\F(x) + x\^{(\alpha +\beta )} \leq \F(x)\^{\alpha}\x\^{\beta} + \x\^{(\alpha +\beta )}\),

(iii)
For each \(x \in \partial \overline{U}\), \(\F(x)  x\^{\alpha} \x\^{\beta} \geq \F(x)\^{\alpha}\F(x)+x\^{ \beta} \x\^{(\alpha +\beta )}\),

(iv)
For each \(x \in \partial \overline{U}\), \(\F(x) + x\^{(\alpha +\beta )} \leq \F(x)x\^{\alpha}\x\^{\beta} +\F(x)\^{\beta} \x\^{\alpha}\).
Remark 7.2
As discussed by Lemma 7.1 and the proof of Theorem 7.6, when the pvector space is a uniformly convex Banach space, the semicontractive or nonexpansive mappings automatically satisfy condition (H) or (H1). Moreover, our results from Theorem 7.1 to Theorem 7.6, Corollary 7.1 and Corollary 7.2 also improve or unify the corresponding results given by Browder [15], Li [66], Li et al. [67], Goebel and Kirk [41], Petryshyn [93, 94], Reich [99], Tan and Yuan [117], Xu [126], Xu [129], Xu et al. [130], and results from the reference therein by extending the nonself mappings to the classes of 1set contractive setvalued mappings in pseminorm spaces with \(p \in (0.1]\) (including the normed space or Banach space when \(p=1\), and for pseminorm spaces).
8 Fixed points for the class of semiclosed 1set contractive mappings in pseminorm spaces
In order to study the fixed point theory for a class of semiclosed 1set contractive mappings in pseminorm spaces, we first introduce the following definition which is a setvalued generalization of singlevalue semiclosed 1set mappings first discussed by Li [66], Xu [129] (see also Li et al. [67], Xu et al. [130], and the references therein).
Definition 8.1
Let D be a nonempty (bounded) closed subset of pvector space \((E, \\cdot \_{p})\) with pseminorm for pvector spaces, where \(p \in (0, 1]\) (which include norm spaces or Banach spaces as special classes), and suppose that \(T: D \rightarrow X\) is a setvalued mapping. Then F is said to be a semiclosed 1set contraction mapping if T is 1set contraction and \((IT)\) is closed, which means that for a given net \(\{x_{n}\}_{i \in I}\), for each \(i \in I\), there exists \(y_{i} \in T(x_{i})\) with \(\lim_{i \in I} (x_{i}  y_{i})=0\), then \(0 \in (IT)(\overline{D})\), i.e., there exists \(x_{0} \in \overline{D}\) such that \(x_{0} \in T(x_{0})\).
Remark 8.1
By Lemmas 7.1 and 7.2, it follows that each nonexpansive (singlevalued) mapping defined on a subset of uniformly convex Banach spaces and nonexpansive setvalued mappings defined on a subset of Banach spaces satisfying the Opial condition are semiclosed 1set contractive mappings (see also Goebel [40], Goebel and Kirk [41], Petrusel et al. [92], Xu [127], Yangai [131] for related discussion and the references therein). In particular, under the setting of metric spaces or Banach spaces with certain property, it is clear that each semiclosed 1set contractive mapping satisfies condition (H1).
Although we know that compared to the singlevalued case, based on the study in the literature about the approximation of fixed points for multivalued mappings, a wellknown counterexample due to Pietramala [95] (see also Muglia and Marino [75]) proved in 1991 that Browder approximation Theorem 1 given by Browder [13] cannot be extended to the genuine multivalued case even on a finite dimensional space \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\). Moreover, if a Banach space X satisfies the Opial property (see Opial [79]) that is, if \(x_{n}\) weakly converges to x, then we have that \(\limsup \x_{n}x\ < \limsup \x_{n} y\\) for all \(x \in X\) and \(y \neq x\)), then \(I  f\) is demiclosed at 0 (see Lami Dozo [64], Yanagi [131], and related references therein) provided \(f: C: \rightarrow K(C)\) is nonexpansive (here \(K(C)\) denotes the family of nonempty compact subsets of C). We know that all Hilbert spaces and \(L^{p}\) spaces \(p \in (1, \infty )\) have the Opial property, but it seems that whether \(If\) is demiclosed at zero 0 if f is a nonexpansive setvalued mapping defined on the space X which is uniformly convex (e.g., \(L[0, 1]\), \(1 < p < \infty \), ≠2) and \(f: C \rightarrow K(C)\) is nonexpansive. Here we remark that for a singlevalued nonexpansive mapping f is yes, which is the famous theorem of Browder [12]. A remarkable fixed point theorem for multivalued mappings is Lim’s result in [69], which says that: If C is a nonempty closed bounded convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space X and \(f: C \rightarrow K(C)\) is nonexpansive, then f has a fixed point.
Now, based on the concept for the semiclosed 1set contractive mappings, we give the existence results for their best approximation, fixed points, and related nonlinear alterative under the framework of pseminorm spaces for \(p \in (0, 1]\).
Theorem 8.1
(Schauder fixed point theorem for semiclosed 1set contractive mappings)
Let U be a nonempty bounded open subset of a (Hausdorff) locally pconvex space E and its zero \(0 \in U\), and \(C \subset E\) be a closed pconvex subset of E such that \(0 \in C\) with \(0 < p \leq 1\). If \(F: C \cap \overline{U} \rightarrow {C \cap \overline{U}}\) is continuous and semiclosed 1set contractive, then T has at least one fixed point in \(C \cap \overline{U}\).
Proof
As the mapping T is 1set contractive, take an increasing sequence \(\{\lambda _{n}\}\) such that \(0 < \lambda _{n} < 1\) and \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \lambda _{n} =1\), where \(n \in \mathbb{N}\). Now we define a mapping \(F_{n}: C \rightarrow C\) by \(F_{n}(x): = \lambda _{n} F(x)\) for each \(x \in C\) and \(n\in \mathbb{N}\). Then it follows that \(F_{n}\) is a \(\lambda _{n}\)setcontractive mapping with \(0 < \lambda _{n} < 1\). By Theorem 4.5 on the condensing mapping \(F_{n}\) in a pvector space with pseminorm \(P_{U}\) for each \(n \in \mathbb{N}\), there exists \(x_{n} \in C \) such that \(x_{n} \in F_{n}(x_{n})=\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})\). Thus we have \(x_{n}=\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})\). Let \(P_{U}\) be the Minkowski pfunctional of U in E. It follows that \(P_{U}\) is continuous as \(0 \in \operatorname{int}(U)=U\). Note that for each \(n \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\lambda _{n} x_{n} \in \overline{U} \cap C\), which imply that \(x_{n} = r(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})) = \lambda _{n} F(x_{n})\), thus \(P_{U}(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})) \leq 1\) by Lemma 2.2. Note that
which implies that \(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} P_{U}(F(x_{n})x_{n})=0\). Now, by the assumption that F is semiclosed, which means that \((IF)\) is closed at zero, there exists one point \(x_{0} \in \overline{C}\) such that \(0 \in (IF)(\overline{C})\), thus we have that \(x_{0}=F(x_{0})\).
Indeed, without loss of generality, we assume that \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} x_{n} = x_{0}\) with \(x_{n}=\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})\) and \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \lambda _{n}=1\), which implies that \(x_{0}=\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}))\), which means \(F(x_{0}):=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} F(x_{n})= x_{0}\), thus \(x_{0}= F(x_{0})\). We complete the proof. □
Theorem 8.2
(Best approximation for semiclosed 1set contractive mappings)
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a locally pconvex space E (\(0 \leq p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\), and let C be a (bounded) closed pconvex subset of E with also zero \(0\in C\). Assume \(F: \overline{U}\cap C \rightarrow C\) is a semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous mapping, and for each \(x \in \partial _{C} U\) with \(F(x) \notin \overline{U}\), \((P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x)) 1)^{p} \leq P_{U} (F(x)x)\) for \(0< p \leq 1\) (this is trivial when \(p=1\)). Then we have that there exist \(x_{0} \in C \cap \overline{U}\) and \(F(x_{0})\) such that \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C)\), where \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional of U. More precisely, we have that either (I) or (II) holds:

(I)
F has a fixed point \(x_{0} \in U \cap C\), i.e., \(x_{0}=F(x_{0})\) (so that \(0=P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C)\));

(II)
There exist \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) and \(F(x_{0}) \notin \overline{U}\) with
$$ P_{U} \bigl(F(x_{0})  x_{0} \bigr) = d_{P} \bigl(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C \bigr) = d_{p} \bigl(F(x_{0}), \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C \bigr)= \bigl(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} \bigl(F(x_{0}) \bigr)1 \bigr)^{p} > 0.$$
Proof
Let \(r: E \rightarrow U\) be a retraction mapping defined by \(r(x): = \frac{x}{\max \{ 1, (P_{U}(x))^{\frac{1}{p}}\}}\) for each \(x \in E\), where \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional of U. Since the space E’s zero \(0 \in U\) (\(=\operatorname{int}U\) as U is open), it follows that r is continuous by Lemma 2.2. As the mapping F is 1set contractive, taking an increasing sequence \(\{\lambda _{n}\}\) such that \(0 < \lambda _{n} < 1\) and \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \lambda _{n} =1\), where \(n \in \mathbb{N}\). Now we define a mapping \(F_{n}: C \cap \overline{U} \rightarrow C\) by \(F_{n}(x): = \lambda _{n} F \circ r(x)\) for each \(x \in C \cap \overline{U}\) and \(n\in \mathbb{N}\). Then it follows that \(F_{n}\) is a \(\lambda _{n}\)setcontractive mapping with \(0 < \lambda _{n} < 1\) for each \(n \in \mathbb{N}\). As C and U̅ are pconvex, we have \(r(C) \subset C\) and \(r(\overline{U}) \subset \overline{U}\), so \(r( C \cap \overline{U}) \subset C \cap \overline{U}\). Thus \(F_{n}\) is a selfmapping defined on \(C \cap \overline{U}\). By Theorem 4.5 for condensing mapping \(F_{n}\), for each \(n \in \mathbb{N}\), there exists \(z_{n} \in C \cap \overline{U}\) such that \(z_{n} \in F_{n}(z_{n})=\lambda _{n} F \circ r(z_{n})\). Let \(x_{n}= r(z_{n})\), then we have \(x_{n} \in C\cap \overline{U}\) with \(x_{n} = r(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}))\) such that (1) or (2) holds for each \(n \in \mathbb{N}\):
(1): \(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}) \in C\cap \overline{U}\); or (2): \(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}) \in C \diagdown \overline{U}\).
Now we prove the conclusion by considering the following two cases:
Case (I): For each \(n \in N\), \(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}) \in C \cap \overline{U}\); or
Case (II): There exists a positive integer n such that \(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}) \in C \diagdown \overline{U}\).
First, by case (I), for each \(n \in \mathbb{N}\), \(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}) \in \overline{U} \cap C\), which implies that \(x_{n} = r(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})) = \lambda _{n} F(x_{n})\), thus \(P_{U}(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})) \leq 1\) by Lemma 2.2. Note that
which implies that \(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} P_{U}(F(x_{n})x_{n})=0\). Now, by the fact that F is semiclosed, it implies that there exists a point \(x_{0} \in \overline{U}\) (i.e., the consequence \(\{x_{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) has a convergent subsequence with the limit \(x_{0}\)) such that \(x_{0} = F(x_{0})\). Indeed, without loss of generality, we assume that \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} x_{n}=x_{0}\) with \(x_{n}=\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})\) and \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \lambda _{n}=1\), and as \(x_{0}=\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}))\), it implies that \(F(x_{0})=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} F(x_{n})= x_{0}\). Thus there exists \(F(x_{0})= x_{0}\), we have \(0 = d_{p}(x_{0}, F(x_{0})) = d(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}(x_{0})} \cap C)\) as indeed \(x_{0} =F(x_{0}) \in \overline{U}\cap C \subset \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C\).
Second, by case (II) there exists a positive integer n such that \(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}) \in C \diagdown \overline{U}\). Then we have that \(P_{U}(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n}))> 1\), and also \(P_{U}(F(x_{n}))> 1\) as \(\lambda _{n} < 1\). As \(x_{n} = r(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})) = \frac{\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})}{(P_{U}(\lambda _{n} F(x_{n})))^{\frac{1}{p}}}\), it implies that \(P_{U}(x_{n})=1\), thus \(x_{n} \in \partial _{C}(U)\). Note that
By the assumption, we have \((P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x_{n}))1)^{p} \leq P_{U}(F(x_{n}) x)\) for \(x \in C \cap \partial \overline{U}\), it follows that
Thus we have the best approximation: \(P_{U}(F(x_{n})  x_{n})=d_{P}(F(x_{n}), \overline{U} \cap C) = (P^{ \frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x_{n}))1)^{p} > 0\).
Now we want to show that \(P_{U}(F(x_{n})x_{n})= d_{P}(F(x_{n}), \overline{U} \cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{n}), \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C) > 0\).
By the fact that \((\overline{U}\cap C) \subset I^{p}_{\overline{U}}(x_{n})\cap C\), let \(z \in I^{p}_{\overline{U}}(x_{n})\cap C \diagdown (\overline{U}\cap C)\), we first claim that \(P_{U}(F(x_{n})  x_{n}) \leq P_{U}(F(x_{n})z)\). If not, we have \(P_{U}(F(x_{n})  x_{n}) > P_{U}(F(x_{n})z)\). As \(z \in I^{p}_{\overline{U}}(x_{n}) \cap C \diagdown (\overline{U} \cap C)\), there exist \(y \in \overline{U}\) and a nonnegative number c (actually \(c\geq 1\) as shown soon below) with \(z = x_{n} + c (y  x_{n})\). Since \(z \in C\), but \(z \notin \overline{U} \cap C\), it implies that \(z \notin \overline{U}\). By the fact that \(x_{n}\in \overline{U}\) and \(y \in \overline{U}\), we must have the constant \(c \geq 1\); otherwise, it implies that \(z ( = (1 c )x_{n} + c y) \in \overline{U}\), this is impossible by our assumption, i.e., \(z\notin \overline{U}\). Thus we have that \(c\geq 1\), which implies that \(y =\frac{1}{c} z + (1\frac{1}{c}) x_{n} \in C\) (as both \(x_{n} \in C\) and \(z\in C\)). On the other hand, as \(z \in I^{p}_{\overline{U}}(x_{n}) \cap C \diagdown (\overline{U} \cap C)\) and \(c\geq 1\) with \((\frac{1}{c})^{p}+ (1\frac{1}{c})^{p} = 1 \), combining with our assumption that for each \(x \in \partial _{C} \overline{U}\) and \(F(x)\notin \overline{U}\), \(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x)) 1 \leq P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} (F(x)x)\) for \(0< p \leq 1\), it then follows that
which contradicts that \(P_{U} (F(x_{n})  x_{n}) = d_{P}(F(x_{n}), \overline{U}\cap C)\) as shown above. We know that \(y \in \overline{U}\cap C\), we should have \(P_{U}(F(x_{n}) x_{n})\leq P_{U}(F(x_{n})  y)\)! This helps us to complete the claim \(P_{U}(F(x_{n})  x_{n}) \leq P_{U}(F(x_{n})  z)\) for any \(z \in I^{p}_{\overline{U}}(x_{n})\cap C \diagdown (\overline{U}\cap C)\), which means that the following best approximation of Fan type (see [34, 35]) holds:
Now, by the continuity of \(P_{U}\), it follows that the following best approximation of Fan type is also true:
and we have that
The proof is complete. □
For a pvector space when \(p=1\), we have the following best approximation for LCS.
Theorem 8.3
(Best approximation for LCS)
Let U be a bounded open convex subset of a locally convex space E (i.e., \(p=1\)) with zero \(0 \in \operatorname{int}U=U\) (the interior \(\operatorname{int}U=U\) as U is open), and let C be a closed pconvex subset of E with also zero \(0 \in C\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U}\cap C \rightarrow C\) is a semiclosed 1setcontractive continuous mapping. Then there exists \(x_{0} \in \overline{U} \cap X\) such that \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C)\), where \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional of U. More precisely, we have that either (I) or (II) holds:

(I)
F has a fixed point \(x_{0} \in U \cap C\), i.e., \(x_{0}=F(x_{0})\) (so that \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C))=0\));

(II)
There exist \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) and \(F(x_{0}) \notin \overline{U}\) with
$$ P_{U} \bigl(F(x_{0})  x_{0} \bigr) = d_{P} \bigl(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C \bigr) = d_{p} \bigl(F(x_{0}), I_{\overline{U}}(x_{0}) \cap C \bigr) =d_{p} \bigl(F(x_{0}), \overline{I_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C \bigr) > 0.$$
Proof
By applying Theorem 5.2 and the same argument used by Theorem 8.2, the conclusion follows. This completes the proof. □
Now, by the application of Theorems 8.2 and 8.3, we have the following general principle for the existence of solutions for Birkhoff–Kellogg problems in pseminorm spaces, where (\(0 < p \leq 1\)).
Theorem 8.4
(Principle of Birkhoff–Kellogg alternative)
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a locally pconvex space E (\(0 \leq p \leq 1\)) with zero \(0 \in \operatorname{int}U=(U)\) (the interior intU as U is open), and let C be a closed pconvex subset of E with also zero \(0\in C\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U}\cap C \rightarrow C\) is a semiclosed 1setcontractive continuous mapping. Then F has at least one of the following two properties:

(I)
F has a fixed point \(x_{0} \in U \cap C\) such that \(x_{0} = F(x_{0})\), or

(II)
There exist \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) and \(F(x_{0})\notin \overline{U}\), and \(\lambda = \frac{1}{(P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}}} \in (0, 1)\) such that \(x_{0} = \lambda F(x_{0})\). In addition, if for each \(x \in \partial _{C} U\), \(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x)) 1 \leq P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} (F(x)x)\) for \(0< p \leq 1\) (this is trivial when \(p=1\)), then the best approximation between \(x_{0}\) and \(F(x_{0})\) is given by
$$ P_{U} \bigl(F(x_{0})  x_{0} \bigr) = d_{P} \bigl(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C \bigr) = d_{p} \bigl(F(x_{0}), \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}(x_{0})} \cap C \bigr) = \bigl(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} \bigl(F(x_{0}) \bigr)1 \bigr)^{p} > 0.$$
Proof
If (I) is not the case, then (II) is proved by Remark 5.2 and by following the proof in Theorem 8.2 for case (ii): \(F(x_{0})\in C \diagdown \overline{U}\) with \(y_{0}= f(F(x_{0}))\), where f is the restriction of the continuous mapping r restriction to the subset U in E. Indeed, as \(y_{0} \notin \overline{U}\), it follows that \(P_{U}(y_{0}) > 1\) and \(x_{0}= f(y_{0}) = F(x_{0}) \frac{1}{(P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}}}\). Now let \(\lambda = \frac{1}{(P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}}}\), we have \(\lambda < 1\) and \(x_{0} = \lambda F(x_{0})\). Finally, the additionally assumption in (II) allows us to have the best approximation between \(x_{0}\) and \(F(x_{0})\) obtained by following the proof of Theorem 8.2 as \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}(x_{0})} \cap C) > 0\). This completes the proof. □
As an application of Theorem 8.2 for the nonself mappings, we have the following general principle of Birkhoff–Kellogg alternative in TVS.
Theorem 8.5
(Principle of Birkhoff–Kellogg alternative in LCS)
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of the LCS E with the zero \(0 \in U\), and let C be a closed convex subset of E with also zero \(0\in C\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U}\cap C \rightarrow C\) is a semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous mapping. Then it has at least one of the following two properties:

(I)
F has a fixed point \(x_{0} \in U \cap C\) such that \(x_{0} = F(x_{0})\); or

(II)
There exist \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) and \(F(x_{0}) \notin \overline{U}\) and \(\lambda \in (0, 1)\) such that \(x_{0} = \lambda F(x_{0})\), and the best approximation between \(\{x_{0}\}\) and \(F(x_{0})\) is given by \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C) > 0\).
On the other hand, by the proof of Theorem 8.2, we note that for case (II) of Theorem 8.2, the assumption “each \(x \in \partial _{C} U\) with \(y \in F(x)\), \(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(y) 1 \leq P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} (yx)\)” is only used to guarantee the best approximation \(``P_{U} (y_{0}  x_{0}) = d_{P}(y_{0}, \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(y_{0}, \overline{I^{p}_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C) > 0\)”, thus we have the following Leray–Schauder alternative in pvector spaces, which, of course, includes the corresponding results in locally convex spaces as special cases.
Theorem 8.6
(Leray–Schauder nonlinear alternative)
Let C be a closed pconvex subset of a Pseminorm space E with \(0 \leq p \leq 1\) and the zero \(0 \in C\). Assume that \(F: C \rightarrow C\) is a semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous mapping. Let \(\varepsilon (F): =\{x \in C: x\in \lambda F(x) \textit{ for some } 0 < \lambda < 1\}\). Then either F has a fixed point in C or the set \(\varepsilon (F)\) is unbounded.
Proof
By assuming that case (I) is not true, i.e., F has no fixed point, we claim that the set \(\varepsilon (F)\) is unbounded. Otherwise, assume that the set \(\varepsilon (F)\) is bounded, and assume that P is the continuous pseminorm for E, then there exists \(r>0\) such that the set \(B(0, r):=\{x \in E: P(x) < r\}\), which contains the set \(\varepsilon (F)\), i.e., \(\varepsilon (F) \subset B(0, r)\), which means for any \(x \in \varepsilon (F)\), \(P(x) < r\). Then \(B(0. r)\) is an open pconvex subset of E and the zero \(0 \in B(0, r)\) by Lemma 2.2 and Remark 2.4. Now let \(U: =B(0, r)\) in Theorem 8.4, it follows that the mapping \(F: B(0, r) \cap C \rightarrow 2^{C}\) satisfies all general conditions of Theorem 8.4, and we have that any \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C} B(0, r)\), no any \(\lambda \in (0, 1)\) such that \(x_{0}=\lambda y_{0}\), where \(y_{0} \in F(x_{0})\). Indeed, for any \(x \in \varepsilon (F)\), it follows that \(P(x) < r\) as \(\varepsilon (F) \subset B(0, r)\), but for any \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C} B(0, r)\), we have \(P(x_{0})=r\), thus conclusion (II) of Theorem 8.4 does not hold. By Theorem 8.4 again, F must have a fixed point, but this contradicts our assumption that F is fixed point free. This completes the proof. □
Now assume a given pvector space E equipped with the Pseminorm (by assuming it is continuous at zero) for \(0< p \leq 1\), then we know that \(P: E \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{+}\), \(P^{1}(0)=0\), \(P(\lambda x) = \lambda ^{p} P(x)\) for any \(x\in E\) and \(\lambda \in \mathbb{R}\). Then we have the following useful result for fixed points due to Rothe and Altman types in pvector spaces, which plays important roles in optimization problems, variational inequalities, and complementarity problems.
Corollary 8.1
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a locally pconvex space E and zero \(0 \in U\), plus C is a closed pconvex subset of E with \(U \subset C\), where \(0< p \leq 1\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow C\) is a semiclosed 1set contractive continuous mapping. If one of the following is satisfied:

(1)
(Rothe type condition): \(P_{U}(F(X)) \leq P_{U}(x)\) for any \(x \in \partial U\);

(2)
(Petryshyn type condition): \(P_{U}(F(X)) \leq P_{U}(F(X)x)\) for any \(x \in \partial U\);

(3)
(Altman type condition): \(P_{U}(F(X))^{\frac{2}{p}} \leq [P_{U}(F(X)) x)]^{\frac{2}{p}} + [P_{U}(x)]^{ \frac{2}{p}}\) for any \(x \in \partial U\);
then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
By conditions (1), (2), and (3), it follows that the conclusion of (II) in Theorem 8.4 “there exist \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) and \(\lambda \in (0, 1)\) such that \(x_{0} \neq F(x_{0})\)” does not hold, thus by the alternative of Theorem 8.4, F has a fixed point. This completes the proof. □
By the fact that when \(p=1\) in a pvector space is an LCS, we have the following classical Fan’s best approximation (see [34]) as a powerful tool for the study in the optimization, mathematical programming, games theory, mathematical economics, and other related topics in applied mathematics.
Corollary 8.2
(Fan’s best approximation)
Let U be a bounded open convex subset of a locally convex space E with the zero \(0 \in U\), let C be a closed convex subset of E with also zero \(0\in C\), and assume that \(F: \overline{U}\cap C \rightarrow C\) is a semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous mapping. Then there exists \(x_{0} \in \overline{U} \cap X\) such that \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}, \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C)\), where \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional of U in E. More precisely, we have that either (I) or (II) holds, where \(W_{\overline{U}}(x_{0})\) is either the inward set \(I_{\overline{U}}(x_{0})\) or the outward set \(O_{\overline{U}}(x_{0})\):

(I)
F has a fixed point \(x_{0} \in U \cap C\), i.e., \(x_{0}=F(x_{0})\);

(II)
There exists \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) with \(F(x_{0}) \notin \overline{U}\) such that
$$ P_{U} \bigl(F(x_{0})  x_{0} \bigr) = d_{P} \bigl(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C \bigr) = d_{p} \bigl(F(x_{0}), \overline{i_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C \bigr) = P_{U} \bigl(F(x_{0}) \bigr)  1 > 0.$$
Proof
When \(p=1\), it automatically satisfies the inequality \(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x)) 1 \leq P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} (F(x_{)}x)\) for each \(x \in \overline{U}\cap C\). Indeed, we have that for \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\), we have \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x_{0})} \cap C)= P_{U}(F(x_{0}))1\). The conclusions are given by Theorem 8.2 (or Theorem 8.3). The proof is complete. □
We would like to point out that similar results on Rothe and Leray–Schauder alternative have been developed by Isac [51], Park [85], Potter [97], Shahzad [109, 110], Xiao and Zhu [124], and related references therein as tools of nonlinear analysis in topological vector spaces. As mentioned above, when \(p=1\) and F is a continuous mapping, then we can obtain a version of Leray–Schauder in locally convex spaces, and we omit detailed statements here due to the limit of the space.
9 Nonlinear alternative principle for the class of semiclosed 1set contractive mappings
As applications of results in Sect. 8, we now establish general results for the existence of solutions for the Birkhoff–Kellogg problem and the principle of Leray–Schauder alternatives for semiclosed 1set contractive mappings for pvector spaces being locally pconvex spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\).
Theorem 9.1
(Birkhoff–Kellogg alternative in locally pconvex spaces)
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a locally pconvex space E (where \(0 \leq p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\), let C be a closed pconvex subset of E with also zero \(0\in C\), and assume that \(F: \overline{U}\cap C \rightarrow 2^{C}\) is a semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous mapping, and for each \(x \in \partial _{C}(U)\) with \(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x)) 1 \leq P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} (F(x)x)\) for \(0< p \leq 1\) (this is trivial when \(p=1\)), where \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional of U. Then we have that either (I) or (II) holds:

(I)
There exists \(x_{0} \in \overline{U}\cap C\) such that \(x_{0} = F(x_{0})\);

(II)
There exists \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) with \(F(x_{0}) \notin \overline{U}\) and \(\lambda >1\) such that \(\lambda x_{0} = F(x_{0})\), i.e., \(F(x_{0}) \in \{\lambda x_{0}: \lambda > 1 \}\).
Proof
By following the argument and notations used by Theorem 8.2, we have that either
(1) F has a fixed point \(x_{0} \in U \cap C\); or
(2) There exists \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) with \(x_{0}=f(y_{0})\) such that
where \(\partial _{C}(U)\) denotes the boundary of U relative to C in E and f is the restriction of the continuous retraction r with respect to the set U in E.
If F has no fixed point, then above (2) holds and \(x_{0} \neq F(x_{0})\). As given by the proof of Theorem 8.2, we have that \(F(x_{0}) \notin \overline{U}\), thus \(P_{U}(F(x_{0})) > 1\) and \(x_{0}= f(y_{0})=\frac{F(x_{0})}{(P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}}}\), which means \(F(x_{0}) =(P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}} x_{0}\). Let \(\lambda = (P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}}\), then \(\lambda > 1\), and we have \(\lambda x_{0} = F(x_{0})\). This completes the proof. □
Theorem 9.2
(Birkhoff–Kellogg alternative in LCS)
Let U be a bounded open convex subset of a locally pconvex space E with the zero \(0 \in U\), let C be a closed convex subset of E with also zero \(0\in C\), and assume that \(F: \overline{U}\cap C \rightarrow C\) is a semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous mapping. Then we have that either (I) or (II) holds:

(I)
There exists \(x_{0} \in \overline{U}\cap C\) such that \(x_{0} = F(x_{0})\); or

(II)
There exists \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) with \(F(x_{0}) \notin \overline{U}\) and \(\lambda >1\) such that \(\lambda x_{0} = F(x_{0})\), i.e., \(F(x_{0}) \in \{\lambda x_{0}: \lambda > 1 \}\).
Proof
When \(p=1\), then it automatically satisfies the inequality \(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x)) 1 \leq P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} (F(x)x)\) for all \(x \in \overline{U}\cap C\). Indeed, we have that for \(x_{0}\in \partial _{C}(U)\), we have \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = d_{p}(F(x_{0}), \overline{I_{\overline{U}}( x_{0})} \cap C)= P_{U}(F(x_{0}))1\). The conclusions are given by Theorems 8.3 and 8.4. The proof is complete. □
Indeed, we have the following fixed points for nonself mappings in pvector spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\) under different boundary conditions.
Theorem 9.3
(Fixed points of nonself mappings)
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a locally pconvex space E (where \(0 \leq p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\), let C be a closed pconvex subset of E with also zero \(0\in C\), and assume that \(F: \overline{U}\cap C \rightarrow C\) is a semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous mapping. In addition, for each \(x \in \partial _{C}(U)\), \(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x)) 1 \leq P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} (F(x)x)\) for \(0 < p \leq 1\) (this is trivial when \(p = 1 \)), where \(P_{U}\) is the Minkowski pfunctional of U. If F satisfies any one of the following conditions for any \(x \in \partial _{C}(U) \diagdown F(x)\):

(i)
\(P_{U}(F(x)z) < P_{U}(F(x)x)\) for some \(z \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)}\cap C\);

(ii)
There exists λ with \(\lambda  < 1\) such that \(\lambda x + (1\lambda )F(x) \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)}\cap C\);

(iii)
\(F(x) \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)}\cap C\);

(iv)
\(F(x) \in \{\lambda x: \lambda > 1 \} =\emptyset \);

(v)
\(F(\partial U) \subset \overline{U} \cap C\);

(vi)
\(P_{U}(F(x)x) \neq ((P_{U}(F(x)))^{\frac{1}{p}}1)^{p}\);
then F must have a fixed point.
Proof
By following the argument and symbols used in the proof of Theorem 8.2 (see also Theorem 8.4), we have that either
(1) F has a fixed point \(x_{0} \in U \cap C\); or
(2) There exists \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}(U)\) with \(x_{0}=f(F(x_{0}))\) such that
where \(\partial _{C}(U)\) denotes the boundary of U relative to C in E, and f is the restriction of the continuous retraction r with respect to the set U in E.
First, suppose that F satisfies condition (i). If F has no fixed point, then (2) holds and \(x_{0} \neq F(x_{0})\). Then, by condition (i), it follows that \(P_{U}(F(x_{0})z) < P_{U}(F(x_{0})x_{0})\) for some \(z \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)}\cap C\). This contradicts the best approximation equations given by (2), thus F mush have a fixed point.
Second, suppose that F satisfies condition (ii). If F has no fixed point, then above (2) holds and \(x_{0} \neq F(x_{0})\). Then, by condition (ii), there exists \(\lambda >1\) such that \(\lambda x_{0} + (1  \lambda ) F(x_{0}) \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)}\cap C\). It follows that
this is impossible, and thus F must have a fixed point in \(\overline{U}\cap C\).
Third, suppose that F satisfies condition (iii), i.e., \(F(x) \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)} \cap C\); then by (2) we have that \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0})\), and thus \(x_{0}= F(x_{0})\), which means F has a fixed point.
Fourth, suppose that F satisfies condition (iv), and if F has no fixed point, then (2) holds and \(x_{0} \neq F(x_{0})\). As given by the proof of Theorem 8.2, we have that \(F(x_{0}) \notin \overline{U}\), thus \(P_{U}(F(x_{0})) > 1\) and \(x_{0}= f(F(x_{0}))=\frac{F(x_{0})}{(P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}}}\), which means \(F(x_{0})=(P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}} x_{0}\), where \((P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}} > 1\). This contradicts assumption (iv), thus F must have a fixed point in \(\overline{U} \cap C\).
Fifth, suppose that F satisfies condition (v), then \(x_{0} \neq F(x_{0})\). As \(x_{0} \in \partial _{C}{U}\), now by condition (v) we have that \(F(\partial U) \subset \overline{U} \cap C\), it follows that for any we have \(F(x_{0}) \in \overline{U}\cap C\), thus \(F(x) \notin \overline{U} \diagdown \cap C\), which implies that \(0 < P_{U}(F(x_{0}) x_{0}) = d_{P}(F(x_{0}), \overline{U}\cap C) = 0\). This is impossible, thus F must have a fixed point. Here, as pointed out by Remark 5.2, we know that based on condition (v), the mapping F has a fixed point by applying \(F(\partial U) \subset \overline{U} \cap C\) is enough, we do not need the general hypothesis: “for each \(x \in \partial _{C}(U)\), \(P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x)) 1 \leq P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U} (F(x)x)\) for \(0 < p \leq 1\)”.
Finally, suppose that F satisfies condition (vi). If F has no fixed point, then (2) holds and \(x_{0} \neq F(x_{0})\). Then condition (v) implies that \(P_{U}(F(x_{0}) x_{0}) \neq (P_{U}(F(x))^{\frac{1}{p}}1)^{p}\), but our proof in Theorem 5.2 shows that \(P_{U}(y_{0} x_{0})=((P_{U}(y))^{\frac{1}{p}}1)^{p}\), which is impossible, thus F must have a fixed point. Then the proof is complete. □
Now, by taking the set C in Theorem 8.1 as the whole locally pconvex space E itself, we have the following general results for nonself upper semicontinuous mappings, which include the results of Rothe, Petryshyn, Altman, and Leray–Schauder types’ fixed points as special cases.
Taking \(p=1\) and \(C =E\) in Theorem 9.3, we have the following fixed points for nonself continuous mappings associated with inward or outward sets for locally convex spaces, which are locally pconvex spaces for \(p=1\).
Theorem 9.4
(Fixed points of nonself mappings with boundary conditions)
Let U be a bounded open convex subset of the LCS E with the zero \(0 \in U\), and assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous mapping. If F satisfies any one of the following conditions for any \(x \in \partial (U) \diagdown F(x)\):

(i)
\(P_{U}(F(x)z) < P_{U}(F(x)x)\) for some \(z \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)}\);

(ii)
There exists λ with \(\lambda  < 1\) such that \(\lambda x + (1\lambda )F(x) \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)}\);

(iii)
\(F(x) \in \overline{I_{\overline{U}}(x)}\);

(iv)
\(F(x) \in \{\lambda x: \lambda > 1 \} =\emptyset \);

(v)
\(F(\partial (U) \subset \overline{U}\);

(vi)
\(P_{U}(F(x)x) \neq P_{U}(F(x))1\);
then F must have a fixed point.
In what follows, based on the best approximation theorem in a pseminorm space, we will also give some fixed point theorems for nonself continuous mappings with various boundary conditions, which are related to the study of the existence of solutions for PDE and differential equations with boundary problems (see Browder [15], Petryshyn [93, 94], Reich [99]), which would play roles in nonlinear analysis for pseminorm space as shown below.
First, as discussed by Remark 5.2, the proof of Theorem 9.2, with the strongly boundary condition “\(F(\partial (U)) \subset \overline{U} \cap C\)” only, we can prove that F has a fixed point, thus we have the following fixed point theorem of Rothe type in locally pconvex spaces.
Theorem 9.5
(Rothe type)
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a locally pconvex space E (where \(0 \leq p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U}\rightarrow E\) is a semi 1set contractive and continuous mapping and such that \(F(\partial (U)) \subset \overline{U}\), then F must have a fixed point.
Now, as applications of Theorem 9.5, we give the following Leray–Schauder alternative in pvector spaces for nonself setvalued mappings associated with the boundary condition which often appear in the applications (see Isac [51] and the references therein for the study of complementary problems and related topics in optimization).
By using the same argument used in the proof of Theorem 6.6, we have the following result.
Theorem 9.6
(Leray–Schauder alternative in locally pconvex spaces)
Let E be a locally pconvex space E, where \(0 < p \leq 1\), \(B \subset E\) is bounded closed pconvex such that \(0 \in \operatorname{int} B\). Let \(F: [0, 1] \times B \rightarrow E\) be a semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous mapping, and such that the set \(F([0, 1] \times B)\) is relatively compact in E. If the following assumptions are satisfied:

(1)
\(x \neq F(t, x)\) for all \(x \notin \partial B\) and \(t \in [0, 1]\),

(2)
\(F(\{0\} \times \partial B) \subset B\),
then there is an element \(x^{*} \in B\) such that \(x^{*} = F(1, x^{*})\).
Proof
The conclusion is proved by following the argument used in Theorem 6.6. The proof is complete. □
As a special case of Theorem 9.6, we have the following principle for the implicit form of Leray–Schauder type alternative in locally pconvex spaces for \(0< p \leq 1\).
Corollary 9.1
(Implicit Leray–Schauder alternative)
Let E be a locally pconvex space E, where \(0 < p \leq 1\), \(B \subset E\) be bounded closed pconvex such that \(0 \in \operatorname{int} B\). Let \(F: [0, 1] \times B \rightarrow E\) be semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous, and let the set \(F([0, 1] \times B)\) be relatively compact in E. If the following assumptions are satisfied:

(1)
\(F(\{0\} \times \partial B) \subset B\),

(2)
\(x \neq F(0, x)\) for all \(x \in \partial B\),
then at least one of the following properties is satisfied:

(i)
There exists \(x^{*} \in B\) such that \(x^{*} = F(1, x^{*})\); or

(ii)
There exists \((\lambda ^{*}, x^{*}) \in (0, 1) \times \partial B\) such that \(x^{*} = F(\lambda ^{*}, x^{*})\).
Proof
The result is an immediate consequence of Theorem 9.6, this completes the proof. □
We would like to point out that similar results on Rothe and Leray–Schauder alternative have been developed by Furi and Pera [37], Granas and Dugundji [46], Górniewicz [44], Górniewicz et al. [45], Isac [51], Li et al. [67], Liu [70], Park [85], Potter [97], Shahzad [109, 110], Xu [129], Xu et al. [130] (see related references therein) as tools of nonlinear analysis in the Banach space setting and applications to the boundary value problems for ordinary differential equations in noncompact problems, a general class of mappings for nonlinear alternative of Leray–Schauder type in normal topological spaces. Some Birkhoff–Kellogg type theorems for general class mappings in topological vector spaces have also been established by Agarwal et al. [1], Agarwal and O’Regan [2, 3], Park [87] (see the references therein for more details); and in particular, recently O’Regan [80] used the Leray–Schauder type coincidence theory to establish some Birkhoff–Kellogg problem, Furi–Pera type results for a general class of mappings.
Before closing this section, we would like to share that as the application of the best approximation result for 1set contractive mappings, we can establish fixed point theorems and the general principle of Leray–Schauder alternative for nonself mappings, which seem to play important roles in the development of nonlinear analysis for pvector spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\), as the natural extension and achievement of nonlinear functional analysis in mathematics for the underling locally convex vector spaces, locally convex spaces, normed spaces, or in Banach spaces.
10 Fixed points for the class of semiclosed 1set contractive mappings
In this section, based on the best approximation Theorem 8.2 established for the 1set contractive mappings in Sect. 8, we show how it is used as a useful tool for us to develop fixed point theorems for semiclosed 1set contractive nonself upper semicontinuous mappings in pseminorm spaces (for \(p \in (0, 1]\), by including seminorm, norm spaces, and uniformly convex Banach spaces as special cases).
By following Definition 7.1, we first observe that if f is a continuous demicompact mapping, then \((I  f)\) is closed, where I is the identity mapping on X. It is also clear from definitions that every demicompact map is hemicompact in seminorm spaces, but the converse is not true in general (e.g., see the example in p. 380 by Tan and Yuan [117]). It is evident that if f is demicompact, then \(If\) is demiclosed. It is known that for each condensing mapping f, when D or \(f(D)\) is bounded, then f is hemicompact; and also f is demicompact in metric spaces by Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 of Tan and Yuan [117], respectively. In addition, it is known that every nonexpansive map is a 1setcontractive map; and also if f is a hemicompact 1setcontractive mapping, then f is a 1setcontractive mapping satisfying the following “Condition (H1)” (the same as (H1) and slightly different from condition (H) used in Sect. 5):

(H1) condition: Let D be a nonempty bounded subset of a space E, and assume that \(F: \overline{D} \rightarrow 2^{E}\) is a setvalued mapping. If \(\{x_{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) is any sequence in D such that for each \(x_{n}\) there exists \(y_{n} \in F(x_{n})\) with \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (x_{n} y_{n})=0\), then there exists a point \(x\in \overline{D}\) such that \(x \in F(x)\).
We first note that the “(H1) condition” above is actually “condition (C)” used by Theorem 1 of Petryshyn [94]. Indeed, by following Goebel and Kirk [42] (see also Xu [127] and the references therein), Browder [15] (see also [16], p. 103) proved that if K is a closed and convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space X, and if \(T: K \rightarrow X\) is nonexpansive, then the mapping \(f: = I  T\) is demiclosed on X. This result, known as Browder’s demiclosedness principle (Browder’s proof, which was inspired by the technique of Göhde in [43]), is one of the fundamental results in the theory of nonexpansive mappings, which satisfies the “(H1) condition”.
The following is Browder’s demiclosedness principle proved by Browder [15] that says that a nonexpansive mapping in a uniformly convex Banach X enjoys condition (H1) as shown below.
Lemma 10.1
Let D be a nonempty bounded convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space E. Assume that \(F: \overline{D} \rightarrow E\) is a nonexpansive singlevalued mapping, then the mapping \(P: =I  F\) defined by \(P(x): = (xF(x)) \) for each \(x \in \overline{D}\) is demiclosed, and in particular, the “(H1) condition” holds.
Proof
By following the argument given in p. 329 (see also the proof of Theorem 2.2 and Corollary 2.1) by Petryshyn [94], by the Browder demiclosedness principle (see Goebel and Kirk [42] or Xu [127]), \(P=(IF)\) is closed at zero, thus there exists \(x_{0} \in \overline{U}\) such that \(0 \in (IF)(x_{0})\), which means that \(x_{0} \in F(x_{0})\). The proof is complete. □
On the other hand, by following the notion called “Opial condition” given by Opial [79], which says that a Banach space X is said to satisfy the Opial condition if \(\liminf_{n \rightarrow \infty} \ w_{n}  w \ < \liminf_{n \rightarrow \infty} \w_{n}p\\) whenever \((w_{n})\) is a sequence in X weakly convergent to w and \(p\neq w\), we know that the Opial condition plays an important role in the fixed point theory, e.g., see Lami Dozo [64], Goebel and Kirk [42], Xu [127] and the references therein. Actually, the following result shows that there exists a class of nonexpansive setvalued mappings in Banach spaces with the Opial condition (see Lami Dozo [64] satisfying the “(H1) condition”).
Lemma 10.2
Let C be a nonempty convex weakly compact subset of a Banach space X which satisfies the Opial condition. Let \(T: C \rightarrow K(C)\) be a nonexpansive setvalued mapping with nonempty compact values. Then the graph of \((IT)\) is closed \((X, \sigma (X, X^{*}) \times (X, \\cdot \))\), thus T satisfies the “(H1) condition”, where I denotes the identity on X, \(\sigma (X, X^{*})\) the weak topology, and \(\\cdot \\) the norm (or strong) topology.
Proof
By following Theorem 3.1 of Lami Dozo [64], it follows that the mapping T is demiclosed, thus T satisfies the “(H1) condition”. The proof is complete. □
By Theorem 3.1 of Lami Dozo [64], indeed we have the following statement which is another version by using the term of “distance convergence” for Lemma 10.2.
Lemma 10.3
Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a Banach space \((X, d)\) which satisfies the Opial condition. Let \(T: C \rightarrow K(C)\) be a multivalued nonexpansive mapping (with fixed points). Let \((y_{n})_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) be a bounded sequence such that \(_{n \rightarrow \infty}d(y_{,} T(y_{n}))=0\), then the weak cluster points of \((y_{n})\), \(n \in \mathbb{N}\) is a fixed point of T.
Proof
It is Theorem 3.1 of Lami Dozo [64] (see also Lemma 3.2 of Xu and Muglia [128]). □
We note that another class of setvalued mappings, called ∗nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces (introduced by Husain and Tarafdar [50], see also Husain and Latif [49]), which was proved to hold the demiclosedness principle in reflexive Banach spaces satisfying the Opial condition by Muglia and Marino (i.e., Lemma 3.4 in [75]), thus the demiclosedness principle also holds in reflexive Banach spaces with duality mapping that is weakly sequentially continuous since these satisfy the Opial condition.
More precisely, let C be a subset of a Banach space \((X, \\cdot \)\) and \(K(C)\) be the family of compact subsets of C. By following Husain and Latif [49], a mapping \(W: C \rightarrow K(C)\) is said to be ∗nonexpansive if for all \(x, y \in C\) and \(x^{W} \in W(x)\) such that \(\x x^{W}\=d(x, W(x))\), there exists \(y^{W} \in W(y)\) with \(\y y^{W}\= d(y, W(y))\) such that \(\x^{W}y^{W}\ \leq \xy\\).
As pointed by Muglia and Marino [75], however, ∗nonexpansivity and multivalued nonexpansivity are not so far. By Theorem 3 of LópezAcdeo and Xu [71], it is proved that a multivalued mapping \(W: C \rightarrow K(C)\) is ∗nonexpansive if and only if the metric projection \(P_{W}(x);=\{u_{x} \in W(x): \x  u_{x}\=\inf_{y \in W(x)}\xy\ \}\) is nonexpansive.
We now have the following result which is the demiclosedness principle for multivalued ∗nonexpansive mappings given by Lemma 3.4 of Muglia and Marino [75].
Lemma 10.4
Let X be a reflexive space satisfying the Opial condition, and let \(W: X \rightarrow K(X)\) be a ∗nonexpansive multivalued mapping with fixed points (existing) (denoted by \(\operatorname{Fix}(W)\)). Let \((y_{n})_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) be a bounded sequence such that \(\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}d(y_{n}, W(y_{n})) \rightarrow 0\). Then the weak cluster points of \((y_{n})_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\) belong to \(\operatorname{Fix}(W)\).
Proof
It is Lemma 3.4 of Muglia and Marino [75]. □
Remark 10.1
We would like to point out that, indeed, Xu [126] proved existence results of fixed points for ∗nonexpansive mappings on strictly convex Banach spaces, and LópezoAcdeo and Xu in [71] obtained the existence result in the setting of Banach space satisfying the Opial condition, so the assumption on the existence of fixed points for the mapping W in Lemma 10.4 makes sense for the setting under either strictly convex Banach spaces or Banach spaces satisfying the Opial condition.
Let E denote a Hausdorff locally convex topological vector space, and let \(\mathfrak{F}\) denote the family of continuous seminorms generating the topology of E. Also \(C(E)\) will denote the family of nonempty compact subsets of E. For each \(p\in \mathfrak{F}\) and \(A, B \in C(E)\), we can define \(\delta (A, B): = \sup \{p(a  b): a\in A, b \in B\}\) and \(D_{p}(A,B):= \max \{\sup_{a \in A}\inf_{b\in B} P( a b), \sup_{b \in B}\inf_{a \in A} P(ab) \}\). Although the P is only a seminorm, \(D_{p}\) is a Hausdorff metric on \(C(E)\) (e.g., see Ko and Tsai [61]).
Definition 10.1
Let K be a nonempty subset of E. A mapping \(T: K \rightarrow C(E)\) is said to be a multivalued contraction if there exists a constant \(k_{p} \in (0, 1)\) such that \(D_{p}(T(x), T(y)) \leq k_{p} P(xy)\). T is said to be nonexpansive if for any \(x, y \in K\), we have \(P_{p}(T(x), T(y))\leq P(xy)\).
By Chen and Singh [26], we now have the following definition of the Opial condition in locally convex spaces.
Definition 10.2
The locally convex space E is said to satisfy the Opial condition if for each \(x \in E\) and every net \((x_{\alpha})\) converging weakly to x, for each \(P \in \mathfrak{F}\), we have \(\liminf P(x_{\alpha}  y ) > \liminf P(x_{\alpha} x)\) for any \(y\neq x\).
Now we have the following demiclosedness principle for nonexpansive setvalued mappings in (Hausdorff) local convex spaces E, which is indeed Theorem 1 of Chen and Singh [26].
Lemma 10.5
Let K be a nonempty, weakly compact, and convex subset of E. Let \(T: K \rightarrow C(E)\) be nonexpansive. If E satisfies the Opial condition, then graph \((IG)\) is closed in \(E_{w} \times E\), where \(E_{w}\) is E with its weak topology and I is the identity mapping.
Proof
The conclusion follows by Theorem 1 of Chen and Singh [26]. □
Remark 10.2
When a pvector space E is with a pnorm, then both (H1) and (H) conditions for their convergence can be described by the weak and strong convergence, by the weak topology and strong topology induced by pnorm for \(p \in (0, 1]\). Secondly, if a given pvector space E has a nonempty open pconvex subset U containing zero, then any mapping satisfying the “(H) condition” is a hemicompact mapping (with respect to \(P_{U}\) for a given bounded open pconvex subset U containing zero of pvector space E), thus satisfying the “(H) condition” used in Theorem 5.1.
By the fact that each semiclosed 1set mapping satisfies the “(H1) condition”, we have the existence of fixed points for the class of semiclosed 1set mappings. First, as an application of Theorem 8.2, we have the following result for nonself mappings in pseminorm spaces for \(p \in (0, 1]\).
Theorem 10.1
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a pseminorm space E (\(0 < p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous mapping. In addition, for any \(x\in \partial \overline{U}\), we have \(\lambda x \neq F(x)\) for any \(\lambda > 1\) (i.e., the “Leray–Schauder boundary condition”). Then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
By the proof of Theorem 8.2 with \(C= E\), we actually have that either (I) or (II) holds:

(I)
F has a fixed point \(x_{0} \in U \), i.e., \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = 0\).

(II)
There exists \(x_{0} \in \partial (U)\) with \(P_{U} (F(x_{0})  x_{0}) = (P^{\frac{1}{p}}_{U}(F(x_{0}))1)^{p} > 0\).
If F has no fixed point, then (II) holds and \(x_{0} \neq F(x_{0})\). By the proof of Theorem 8.2, thus \(P_{U}(F(x_{0})) > 1\) and \(x_{0}= f(F(x_{0}))=\frac{F(x_{0})}{(P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}}}\), which means \(F(x_{0})=(P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}} x_{0}\), where \((P_{U}(F(x_{0})))^{\frac{1}{p}} > 1\), this contradicts the assumption, thus F must have a fixed point. The proof is complete. □
By following the idea used and developed by Browder [15], Li [66], Li et al. [67], Goebel and Kirk [41], Petryshyn [93, 94], Tan and Yuan [117], Xu [129], Xu et al. [130], and the references therein, we have the following existence theorems for the principle of Leray–Schauder type alternatives in pseminorm spaces \((E, \\cdot \_{p})\) for \(p \in (0, 1]\).
Theorem 10.2
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a pseminorm space \((E, \\cdot \_{p})\) (\(0 < p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous mapping. In addition, there exist \(\alpha >1\), \(\beta \geq 0\) such that, for each \(x \in \partial \overline{U}\), we have \(\F(x) x\_{p}^{\alpha /p}\geq \F(x)\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p}\x \_{p}^{\beta /p}  \x\_{p}^{\alpha /p}\). Then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
By assuming F has no fixed point, we prove the conclusion by showing that the Leray–Schauder boundary condition in Theorem 10.1 does not hold. If we assume that F has no fixed point, by the boundary condition of Theorem 10.1, there exist \(x_{0}\in \partial \overline{U}\) and \(\lambda _{0} >1\) such that \(F(x_{0}) = \lambda _{0} x_{0}\).
Now, consider the function f defined by \(f(t): =(t1)^{\alpha}  t^{\alpha + \beta}+1\) for \(t\geq 1\). We observe that f is a strictly decreasing function for \(t \in [1, \infty )\) as the derivative of \(f'(t) =\alpha (t1)^{\alpha 1}  (\alpha + \beta ) t^{\alpha +\beta 1} < 0\) by the differentiation, thus we have \(t^{\alpha + \beta} 1 > (t1)^{\alpha}\) for \(t \in (1, \infty )\). By combining the boundary condition, we have that \(\F(x_{0})x_{0}\_{p}^{\alpha /p}=\\lambda _{0} x_{0}x_{0}\_{p}^{ \alpha /p}=(\lambda _{0}1)^{\alpha}\x_{0}\_{p}^{\alpha /p} < ( \lambda _{0}^{\alpha +\beta}1)\x_{0}\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p}\x_{0} \_{p}^{\beta /p}=\F(x_{0})\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p}\x_{0}\_{p}^{ \beta /p} \x_{0}\_{p}^{\alpha /p}\), which contradicts the boundary condition given by Theorem 10.2. Thus, the conclusion follows and the proof is complete. □
Theorem 10.3
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a pseminorm space \((E, \\cdot \_{p})\) (\(0 < p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow 2^{E}\) is a semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous mapping. In addition, there exist \(\alpha >1\), \(\beta \geq 0\) such that, for each \(x \in \partial \overline{U}\), we have \(\F(x) + x\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p} \leq \F(x)\_{p}^{\alpha /p} \x\_{p}^{\beta /p} + \x\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p}\). Then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
We prove the conclusion by showing that the Leray–Schauder boundary condition in Theorem 10.1 does not hold. If we assume F has no fixed point, by the boundary condition of Theorem 10.1, there exist \(x_{0}\in \partial \overline{U}\) and \(\lambda _{0} >1\) such that \(F(x_{0}) = \lambda _{0} x_{0}\).
Now, consider the function f defined by \(f(t): =(t+1)^{\alpha +\beta}  t^{\alpha}  1 \) for \(t\geq 1\). We then can show that f is a strictly increasing function for \(t \in [1, \infty )\), thus we have \(t^{\alpha}+1 < (t + 1)^{\alpha +\beta}\) for \(t \in (1, \infty )\). By the boundary condition given in Theorem 7.3, we have that
which contradicts the boundary condition given by Theorem 10.3. Thus, the conclusion follows and the proof is complete. □
Theorem 10.4
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a pseminorm space \((E, \\cdot \_{p})\) (\(0 < p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous mapping. In addition, there exist \(\alpha >1\), \(\beta \geq 0\) (or, alternatively, \(\alpha >1\), \(\beta \geq 0\)) such that, for each \(x \in \partial \overline{U}\), we have that \(\F(x)  x\_{p}^{\alpha /p} \x\_{p}^{\beta /p} \geq \F(x)\_{p}^{ \alpha /p}\F(x)+x\_{p}^{\beta /p} \x\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p}\). Then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
The same as above, we prove the conclusion by showing that the Leray–Schauder boundary condition in Theorem 10.1 does not hold. If we assume F has no fixed point, by the boundary condition of Theorem 10.1, there exist \(x_{0}\in \partial \overline{U}\) and \(\lambda _{0} >1\) such that \(F(x_{0}) = \lambda _{0} x_{0}\).
Now, consider the function f defined by \(f(t): =(t1)^{\alpha}  t^{\alpha}(t1)^{\beta}+1\) for \(t\geq 1\). We then can show that f is a strictly decreasing function for \(t \in [1, \infty )\), thus we have \((t1)^{\alpha} < t^{\alpha} (t+1)^{\beta}1\) for \(t \in (1, \infty )\).
By the boundary condition given in Theorem 10.3, we have that
which contradicts the boundary condition given by Theorem 10.4. Thus, the conclusion follows and the proof is complete. □
Theorem 10.5
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a pseminorm space \((E, \\cdot \_{p})\) (\(0 < p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous mapping. In addition, there exist \(\alpha >1\), \(\beta \geq 0\), we have that \(\F(x) + x\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p} \leq \F(x)x\_{p}^{\alpha /p} \x\_{p}^{\beta /p} +\F(x)\_{p}^{\beta /p} \x\^{\alpha /p}\). Then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
The same as above, we prove the conclusion by showing that the Leray–Schauder boundary condition in Theorem 7.1 does not hold. If we assume F has no fixed point, by the boundary condition of Theorem 10.1, there exist \(x_{0}\in \partial \overline{U}\) and \(\lambda _{0} >1\) such that \(F(x_{0}) = \lambda _{0} x_{0}\).
Now, consider the function f defined by \(f(t): =(t+1)^{\alpha +\beta}  (t1)^{\alpha}t^{\beta}\) for \(t\geq 1\). We then can show that f is a strictly increasing function for \(t \in [1, \infty )\), thus we have \((t+1)^{\alpha +\beta} > (t1)^{\alpha} +t^{\beta}\) for \(t \in (1, \infty )\).
By the boundary condition given in Theorem 10.3, we have that \(\F(x_{0}) +x_{0}\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p}=(\lambda _{0} +1)^{ \alpha +\beta}\x_{0}\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p} > ((\lambda _{0}1)^{ \alpha}+ \lambda _{0}^{\beta})\x_{0}\_{p}^{(\alpha +\beta )/p}=\ \lambda _{0} x_{0} x_{0}\_{p}^{\alpha /p}\x_{0}\_{p}^{\beta /p} + \\lambda _{0} x_{0}\_{p}^{\beta /p}\x_{0}\_{p}^{\alpha /p} = \F(x_{0})x_{0} \_{p}^{\beta /p}\x_{0}\_{p}^{\alpha /p} +\F(x_{0})\_{p}^{\beta /p} \x_{9}\^{\alpha /p}\), which implies that
this contradicts the boundary condition given by Theorem 10.5. Thus, the conclusion follows and the proof is complete. □
As an application of Theorem 10.1, by testing the Leray–Schauder boundary condition, we have the following conclusion for each special case, and thus we omit their detailed proofs here.
Corollary 10.1
Let U be a bounded open pconvex subset of a pseminorm space \((E, \\cdot \_{p})\) (\(0 < p \leq 1\)) with the zero \(0 \in U\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous mapping. Then F has at least one fixed point if one of the following (strong) conditions holds for \(x \in \partial \overline{U}\):

(i)
\(\F(x)\_{p} \leq \x\_{p}\);

(ii)
\(\F(x)\_{p} \leq \F(x)x\_{p}\);

(iii)
\(\F(x)+x_{p} \leq \F(x)\_{p}\);

(iv)
\(\F(x) + x\_{p} \leq \x\_{p}\);

(v)
\(\F(x) + x\_{p} \leq \F(x) x\_{p}\);

(vi)
\(\F(x)\_{p} \cdot \F(x)+x\_{p} \leq \x\_{p}^{2}\);

(vii)
\(\F(x)\_{p} \cdot \F(x) +x\_{p} \leq \F(x) x\_{p} \cdot \x\_{p}\).
If the pseminorm space E is a uniformly convex Banach space \((E, \ \cdot \)\) (for pnorm space with \(p=1\)), then we have the following general existence result which can apply to general nonexpansive (singlevalued) mappings, too.
Theorem 10.6
Let U be a bounded open convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space \((E, \\cdot \)\) (with \(p=1\)) with zero \(0 \in U\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a semicontractive and continuous (singlevalued) mapping. In addition, for any \(x\in \partial \overline{U}\), we have \(\lambda x \neq F(x)\) for any \(\lambda > 1\) (i.e., the “Leray–Schauder boundary condition”). Then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
By Lemma 10.1, F is a semiclosed 1set contractive mapping. Moreover, by the assumption that E is a uniformly convex Banach space, the mapping \((IF)\) is closed at zero, and thus F is semiclosed at zero (see Browder [15] or Goebel and Kirk [41]). Thus all assumptions of Theorem 10.2 are satisfied. The conclusion follows by Theorem 10.2. The proof is complete. □
Now we can also have the following result for nonexpansive setvalued mappings (instead of singlevalued) in a Banach space X with the Opial condition.
Theorem 10.7
Let C be a nonempty convex weakly compact subset of a local convex space X which satisfies the Opial condition and \(0 \in \operatorname{int}C\). Let \(T: C \rightarrow K(X)\) be a nonexpansive setvalued mapping with nonempty compact convex values. In addition, for any \(x\in \partial \overline{C}\), we have \(\lambda x \neq F(x)\) for any \(\lambda > 1\) (i.e., the “Leray–Schauder boundary condition”). Then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
As T is nonexpansive, it is 1set contractive. By Lemma 10.2, it is then semicontractive and continuous. By following the idea of Theorem 10.1, indeed using the proof of Theorem 8.2 (or a similar argument used by Theorem 5.2) by applying Theorem 5.3 (instead of Theorem 5.2) for the fixed point theorem of upper semicontinuous setvalued mappings in a locally convex space, the conclusion follows. The proof is complete. □
By using Lemma 10.4, we have the following result in local convex spaces for ∗nonexpansive singlevalued mappings.
Theorem 10.8
Let C be a nonempty (bounded) convex closed subset of a Banach space X which is either strictly convex or satisfying the Opial condition. Let \(T: C \rightarrow X\) be a ∗nonexpansive and continuous mapping. In addition, for any \(x\in \partial \overline{C}\), we have \(\lambda x \neq F(x)\) for any \(\lambda > 1\) (i.e., the “Leray–Schauder boundary condition”). Then F has at least one fixed point.
Proof
As T is ∗nonexpansive, and by the demiclosedness principle for ∗nonexpansive mappings given by Lemma 10.4, it follows that T satisfies the (H1) condition of Theorem 7.1, then all conditions of Theorem 7.1 are satisfied, then the conclusion follows by Theorem 7.1. The proof is complete. □
By considering the pseminorm space \((E, \\cdot \)\) with a seminorm for \(p=1\), the following corollary is a special case of the corresponding results from Theorem 10.2 to Theorem 10.5, and thus we omit its proof.
Corollary 10.2
Let U be a bounded open convex subset of a normed space \((E, \\cdot \)\). Assume that \(F: \overline{U} \rightarrow E\) is a semiclosed 1set contractive and continuous mapping. Then F has at least one fixed point if there exist \(\alpha >1\), \(\beta \geq 0\) such that any one of the following conditions is satisfied:

(i)
For each \(x \in \partial \overline{U}\), \(\F(x) x\^{\alpha}\geq \F(x)\^{(\alpha +\beta )}\x\^{\beta}  \x\^{\alpha}\);

(ii)
For each \(x \in \partial \overline{U}\), \(\F(x) + x\^{(\alpha +\beta )} \leq \F(x)\^{\alpha}\x\^{\beta} + \x\^{(\alpha +\beta )}\);

(iii)
For each \(x \in \partial \overline{U}\), \(\F(x)  x\^{\alpha} \x\^{\beta} \geq \F(x)\^{\alpha}\y+x\^{ \beta} \x\^{(\alpha +\beta )}\);

(iv)
For each \(x \in \partial \overline{U}\), \(\F(x) + x\^{(\alpha +\beta )} \leq \F(x)x\^{\alpha}\x\^{\beta} +\F(x)\^{\beta} \x\^{\alpha}\).
Remark 10.3
As discussed by Lemma 10.1 and the proof of Theorem 10.6, when the pvector space is a uniformly convex Banach space, the semicontractive or nonexpansive mappings automatically satisfy the conditions (see (H1)) required by Theorem 10.1, that is, the mappings are indeed semiclosed. Moreover, our results from Theorem 10.1 to Theorem 10.6, Corollary 10.1, and Corollary 10.2 also improve or unify the corresponding results given by Browder [15], Huang et al. [48], Li [66], Li et al. [67], Goebel and Kirk [41], Mańka [73], Petryshyn [93, 94], Reich [99], Shahzad [108], Tan and Yuan [117], Xu [125], Xu [126], Xu [129], Xu et al. [130], Yuan [134], Yuan [135] and the results from the references therein by extending the nonself mappings to the classes of semiclosed 1set contractive setvalued mappings in pseminorm spaces with \(p \in (0.1]\) (including the norm space or the Banach space when \(p=1\) for pseminorm spaces).
Before ending this paper, we would like to share with readers that the main goal of this paper is to develop some new results and tools in the natural way for the category of nonlinear analysis for three classes of mappings, which are: 1) condensing; 2) 1set contractive; and 3) semiclosed mappings under the general framework of locally pconvex spaces (where (\(0< p \leq 1\))) for (singlevalued) continuous mappings instead of setvalued mappings without the strong condition with closed pconvex values! We do also expect that these new results would become very useful tools for the development of nonlinear functional analysis under the general framework of pvector spaces, which include the topological vector spaces as a special classes, and also the related applications for nonlinear problems on optimization, nonlinear programming, variational inequality, complementarity, game theory, mathematical economics, and so on.
As we mentioned at the beginning of this paper, we do expect that nonlinear results and principles of the best approximation theorem established in this paper would play a very important role in the nonlinear analysis under the general framework of pvector spaces for (\(0< p \leq 1\)), as shown by those results given from Sects. 6 and 7 for both condensing and 1set contractive mappings; and general new results in nonlinear analysis from Sects. 8, 9, and 10 for semiclosed 1set contractive mappings for the development of fixed point theorems for nonself mappings, the principle of nonlinear alternative, Rothe type, Leray–Schauder alternative, and related topics, which do not only include corresponding results in the existing literature as special cases, but are expected to be important tools for the study of its nonlinear analysis.
Finally, we would like to point out that the work presented by this paper focuses on the development of nonlinear analysis for singlevalued (instead of setvalued) mappings for locally pconvex spaces. It is essentially very important and, indeed, the continuation of the work given recently by Yuan [134]; therein the attention is given to establishing new results on fixed points, the principle of nonlinear alternative for nonlinear mappings mainly on setvalued mappings developed in locally pconvex spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\). Although some new results for setvalued mappings in locally pconvex spaces have been developed (see Gholizadeh et al. [39], Park [89], Qiu and Rolewicz [98], Xiao and Zhu [123, 124], Yuan [134], and others), we still would like to emphasize that the results obtained for setvalued mappings for pvector spaces may face some challenges in dealing with true nonlinear problems. One example is that the assumption used for “setvalued mappings with closed pconvex values” seems too strong as it always means that the zero element is a trivial fixed point of the setvalued mappings, and this simple fact was also discussed by Yuan [134] for \(0 < p \leq 1\).
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
References
Agarwal, R.P., Meehan, M., O’Regan, D.: Fixed Point Theory and Applications. Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 141. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)
Agarwal, R.P., O’Regan, D.: Birkhoff–Kellogg theorems on invariant directions for multimaps. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 7, 435–448 (2003)
Agarwal, R.P., O’Regan, D.: Essential \(U_{c}^{k}\)type maps and Birkhoff–Kellogg theorems. J. Appl. Math. Stoch. Anal. 2004(1), 1–8 (2004)
Alghamdi, M.A., O’Regan, D., Shahzad, N.: Krasnosel’skii type fixed point theorems for mappings on nonconvex sets. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012, Article ID 267531 (2012)
Askoura, Y., GodetThobie, C.: Fixed points in contractible spaces and convex subsets of topological vector spaces. J. Convex Anal. 13(2), 193–205 (2006)
Balachandran, V.K.: Topological Algebras, vol. 185. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2000)
Bayoumi, A.: Foundations of Complex Analysis in Non Locally Convex Spaces. Function Theory Without Convexity Condition. NorthHolland Mathematics Studies, vol. 193. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2003)
Bayoumi, A., Faried, N., Mostafa, R.: Regularity properties of pdistance transformations in image analysis. Int. J. Contemp. Math. Sci. 10, 143–157 (2015)
Bernstein, S.: Sur les equations de calcul des variations. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. 29, 431–485 (1912)
Bernuées, J., Pena, A.: On the shape of pconvex hulls \(0 < p < 1\). Acta Math. Hung. 74(4), 345–353 (1997)
Birkhoff, G.D., Kellogg, O.D.: Invariant points in function space. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 23(1), 96–115 (1922)
Browder, F.E.: Nonexpansive nonlinear operators in a Banach space. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 54, 1041–1044 (1965)
Browder, F.E.: Convergence of approximants to fixed points of nonexpansive nonlinear mappings in Banach spaces. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 24(1), 82–90 (1967)
Browder, F.E.: The fixed point theory of multivalued mappings in topological vector spaces. Math. Ann. 177, 283–301 (1968)
Browder, F.E.: Semicontractive and semiaccretive nonlinear mappings in Banach spaces. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 74, 660–665 (1968)
Browder, F.E.: Nonlinear Functional Analysis. Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 18. Am. Math. Soc., Providence (1976)
Browder, F.E.: Fixed point theory and nonlinear problems. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 9(1), 1–39 (1983)
Carbone, A., Conti, G.: Multivalued maps and existence of best approximations. J. Approx. Theory 64, 203–208 (1991)
Cauty, R.: Rétractès absolus de voisinage algébriques (French) [Algebraic absolute neighborhood retracts]. Serdica Math. J. 31(4), 309–354 (2005)
Cauty, R.: Le théorėme de Lefschetz–Hopf pour les applications compactes des espaces ULC (French) [The Lefschetz–Hopf theorem for compact maps of uniformly locally contractible spaces]. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 1(1), 123–134 (2007)
Chang, S.S.: Some problems and results in the study of nonlinear analysis. Proceedings of the Second World Congress of Nonlinear Analysts, Part 7 (Athens, 1996). Nonlinear Anal. 30, 4197–4208 (1997)
Chang, S.S., Cho, Y.J., Zhang, Y.: The topological versions of KKM theorem and Fan’s matching theorem with applications. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 1(2), 231–245 (1993)
Chang, T.H., Huang, Y.Y., Jeng, J.C.: Fixed point theorems for multifunctions in SKKM class. Nonlinear Anal. 44, 1007–1017 (2001)
Chang, T.H., Huang, Y.Y., Jeng, J.C., Kuo, K.H.: On SKKM property and related topics. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 229, 212–227 (1999)
Chang, T.H., Yen, C.L.: KKM property and fixed point theorems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 203, 224–235 (1996)
Chen, Y.K., Singh, K.L.: Fixed points for nonexpansive multivalued mapping and the Opial’s condition. Jñānābha 22, 107–110 (1992)
Chen, Y.Q.: Fixed points for convex continuous mappings in topological vector spaces. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 129(7), 2157–2162 (2001)
Darbo, G.: Punti uniti in trasformazioni a condominio non compatto. Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Padova 24, 84–92 (1955)
Ding, G.G.: New Theory in Functional Analysis. Academic Press, Beijing (2007)
Dobrowolski, T.: Revisiting Cauty’s proof of the Schauder conjecture. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 7, 407–433 (2003)
Ennassik, M., Maniar, L., Taoudi, M.A.: Fixed point theorems in rnormed and locally rconvex spaces and applications. Fixed Point Theory 22(2), 625–644 (2021)
Ennassik, M., Taoudi, M.A.: On the conjecture of Schauder. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 23(4), Paper No. 52 (2021), 15 pp.
Fan, K.: Fixedpoint and minimax theorems in locally convex topological linear spaces. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 38, 121–126 (1952)
Fan, K.: Extensions of two fixed point theorems of F.E. Browder. Math. Z. 112, 234–240 (1969)
Fan, K.: A minimax inequality and applications. In: Inequalities, III (Proc. Third Sympos., Univ. California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1969; Dedicated to the Memory of Theodore S. Motzkin), pp. 103–113. Academic Press, New York (1972)
Fan, K.: A generalization of Tychonoff’s fixed point theorem. Math. Ann. 142, 305–310 (1960/61)
Furi, M., Pera, M.P.: A continuation method on locally convex spaces and applications to ordinary differential equations on noncompact intervals. Ann. Pol. Math. 47(3), 331–346 (1987)
Gal, S.G., Goldstein, J.A.: Semigroups of linear operators on pFréchet spaces \(0 < p <1\). Acta Math. Hung. 114(1–2), 13–36 (2007)
Gholizadeh, L., Karapinar, E., Roohi, M.: Some fixed point theorems in locally pconvex spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013, 312 (2013), 10 pp.
Goebel, K.: On a fixed point theorem for multivalued nonexpansive mappings. Ann. Univ. Mariae CurieSkłodowska, Sect. A 29, 69–72 (1975)
Goebel, K., Kirk, W.A.: Topics in Metric Fixed Point Theory. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 28. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)
Goebel, K., Kirk, W.A.: Some problems in metric fixed point theory. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 4(1), 13–25 (2008)
Göhde, D.: Zum Prinzip der kontraktiven Abbildung. Math. Nachr. 30, 251–258 (1965)
Górniewicz, L.: Topological Fixed Point Theory of Multivalued Mappings. Mathematics and Its Applications, vol. 495. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1999)
Górniewicz, L., Granas, A., Kryszewski, W.: On the homotopy method in the fixed point index theory of multivalued mappings of compact absolute neighborhood retracts. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 161(2), 457–473 (1991)
Granas, A., Dugundji, J.: Fixed Point Theory. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, New York (2003)
Halpern, B.R., Bergman, G.H.: A fixedpoint theorem for inward and outward maps. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 130, 353–358 (1965)
Huang, N.J., Lee, B.S., Kang, M.K.: Fixed point theorems for compatible mappings with applications to the solutions of functional equations arising in dynamic programmings. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 20(4), 673–680 (1997)
Husain, T., Latif, A.: Fixed points of multivalued nonexpansive maps. Math. Jpn. 33, 385–391 (1988)
Husain, T., Tarafdar, E.: Fixed point theorems for multivalued mappings of nonexpansive type. Yokohama Math. J. 28(1–2), 1–6 (1980)
Isac, G.: Leray–Schauder Type Alternatives, Complementarity Problems and Variational Inequalities. Nonconvex Optimization and Its Applications, vol. 87. Springer, New York (2006)
Jarchow, H.: Locally Convex Spaces. Teubner, Stuttgart (1981)
Kalton, N.J.: Compact pconvex sets. Q. J. Math. Oxf. Ser. 28(2), 301–308 (1977)
Kalton, N.J.: Universal spaces and universal bases in metric linear spaces. Stud. Math. 61, 161–191 (1977)
Kalton, N.J., Peck, N.T., Roberts, J.W.: An FSpace Sampler. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 89. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1984)
Kaniok, L.: On measures of noncompactness in general topological vector spaces. Comment. Math. Univ. Carol. 31(3), 479–487 (1990)
Kim, I.S., Kim, K., Park, S.: Leray–Schauder alternatives for approximable maps in topological vector spaces. Math. Comput. Model. 35, 385–391 (2002)
Kirk, W., Shahzad, N.: Fixed Point Theory in Distance Spaces. Springer, Cham (2014)
Klee, V.: Convexity of Chevyshev sets. Math. Ann. 142, 292–304 (1960/61)
Knaster, H., Kuratowski, C., Mazurkiwiecz, S.: Ein beweis des fixpunktsatzes für ndimensional simplexe. Fundam. Math. 63, 132–137 (1929)
Ko, H.M., Tsai, Y.H.: Fixed point theorems for pointtoset mappings in locally convex spaces and a characterization of complete metric spaces. Bull. Acad. Sin. 7(4), 461–470 (1979)
Kozlov, V., Thim, J., Turesson, B.: A fixed point theorem in locally convex spaces. Collect. Math. 61(2), 223–239 (2010)
Kuratowski, K.: Sur les espaces complets. Fundam. Math. 15, 301–309 (1930)
Lami Dozo, E.: Multivalued nonexpansive mappings and Opial’s condition. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 38, 286–292 (1973)
Leray, J., Schauder, J.: Topologie et equations fonctionnelles. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. 51, 45–78 (1934)
Li, G.Z.: The fixed point index and the fixed point theorems of 1setcontraction mappings. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 104, 1163–1170 (1988)
Li, G.Z., Xu, S.Y., Duan, H.G.: Fixed point theorems of 1setcontractive operators in Banach spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 19(5), 403–412 (2006)
Li, J.L.: An extension of Tychonoff’s fixed point theorem to pseudonorm adjoint topological vector spaces. Optimization 70(5–6), 1217–1229 (2021)
Lim, T.C.: A fixed point theorem for multivalued nonexpansive mappings in a uniformly convex Banach space. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 80, 1123–1126 (1974)
Liu, L.S.: Approximation theorems and fixed point theorems for various classes of 1setcontractive mappings in Banach spaces. Acta Math. Sin. Engl. Ser. 17(1), 103–112 (2001)
LópezAcedo, G., Xu, H.K.: Remarks on multivalued nonexpansive mappings. Soochow J. Math. 21(1), 107–115 (1995)
Machrafi, N., Oubbi, L.: Realvalued non compactness measures in topological vector spaces and applications [Corrected title: Realvalued non compactness measures in topological vector spaces and applications]. Banach J. Math. Anal. 14(4), 1305–1325 (2020)
Mańka, R.: The topological fixed point property—an elementary continuumtheoretic approach. In: Fixed Point Theory and Its Applications. Banach Center Publ., vol. 77, pp. 183–200. Polish Acad. Sci. Inst. Math., Warsaw (2007)
Mauldin, R.D.: The Scottish Book, Mathematics from the Scottish Café with Selected Problems from the New Scottish Book, 2nd edn. Birkhäuser, Basel (2015)
Muglia, L., Marino, G.: Some results on the approximation of solutions of variational inequalities for multivalued maps on Banach spaces. Mediterr. J. Math. 18(4), Paper No. 157 (2021), 19 pp.
Nhu, N.T.: The fixed point property for weakly admissible compact convex sets: searching for a solution to Schauder’s conjecture. Topol. Appl. 68(1), 1–12 (1996)
Nussbaum, R.D.: The fixed point index and asymptotic fixed point theorems for ksetcontractions. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 75, 490–495 (1969)
Okon, T.: The Kakutani fixed point theorem for Robert spaces. Topol. Appl. 123(3), 461–470 (2002)
Opial, Z.: Weak convergence of the sequence of successive approximations for nonexpansive mappings. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 73, 595–597 (1967)
O’Regan, D.: Abstract Leray–Schauder type alternatives and extensions. An. Ştiinţ. Univ. ‘Ovidius’ Constanţa, Ser. Mat. 27(1), 233–243 (2019)
O’Regan, D.: Continuation theorems for Monch countable compactnesstype setvalued maps. Appl. Anal. 100(7), 1432–1439 (2021)
O’Regan, D., Precup, R.: Theorems of Leray–Schauder Type and Applications. Gordon & Breach, New York (2001)
Oubbi, L.: Algebras of Gelfandcontinuous functions into Arens–Michael algebras. Commun. Korean Math. Soc. 34(2), 585–602 (2019)
Park, S.: Some coincidence theorems on acyclic multifunctions and applications to KKM theory. In: Fixed Point Theory and Applications (Halifax, NS, 1991), pp. 248–277. World Scientific, River Edge (1992)
Park, S.: Generalized Leray–Schauder principles for compact admissible multifunctions. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 5(2), 271–277 (1995)
Park, S.: Acyclic maps, minimax inequalities and fixed points. Nonlinear Anal. 24(11), 1549–1554 (1995)
Park, S.: Generalized Leray–Schauder principles for condensing admissible multifunctions. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 172(4), 65–85 (1997)
Park, S.: The KKM principle in abstract convex spaces: equivalent formulations and applications. Nonlinear Anal. 73(4), 1028–1042 (2010)
Park, S.: On the KKM theory of locally pconvex spaces. In: Nonlinear Analysis and Convex Analysis, vol. 2011, pp. 70–77. Institute of Mathematical Research (Kyoto University), Kyoto (2016). http://hdl.handle.net/2433/231597
Park, S.: One hundred years of the Brouwer fixed point theorem. J. Nat. Acad. Sci., ROK, Nat. Sci. Ser. 60(1), 1–77 (2021)
Park, S.: Some new equivalents of the Brouwer fixed point theorem. Adv. Theory Nonlinear Anal. Appl. 6(3), 300–309 (2022). https://doi.org/10.31197/atnaa.1086232
Petrusel, A., Rus, I.A., Serban, M.A.: Basic problems of the metric fixed point theory and the relevance of a metric fixed point theorem for a multivalued operator. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 15(3), 493–513 (2014)
Petryshyn, W.V.: Construction of fixed points of demicompact mappings in Hilbert space. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 14, 276–284 (1966)
Petryshyn, W.V.: Fixed point theorems for various classes of 1setcontractive and 1ballcontractive mappings in Banach spaces. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 182, 323–352 (1973)
Pietramala, P.: Convergence of approximating fixed points sets for multivalued nonexpansive mappings. Comment. Math. Univ. Carol. 32(4), 697–701 (1991)
Poincare, H.: Sur un theoreme de geometric. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 33, 357–407 (1912)
Potter, A.J.B.: An elementary version of the Leray–Schauder theorem. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 5(2), 414–416 (1972)
Qiu, J., Rolewicz, S.: Ekeland’s variational principle in locally pconvex spaces and related results. Stud. Math. 186(3), 219–235 (2008)
Reich, S.: Fixed points in locally convex spaces. Math. Z. 125, 17–31 (1972)
Roberts, J.W.: A compact convex set with no extreme points. Stud. Math. 60(3), 255–266 (1977)
Robertson, L.B.: Topological vector spaces. Publ. Inst. Math. 12(26), 19–21 (1971)
Rolewicz, S.: Metric Linear Spaces. PWN—Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw (1985)
Rothe, E.H.: Some homotopy theorems concerning Leray–Schauder maps. In: Dynamical Systems, II (Gainesville, Fla., 1981), pp. 327–348. Academic Press, New York (1982)
Rothe, E.H.: Introduction to Various Aspects of Degree Theory in Banach Spaces. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 23. Am. Math. Soc., Providence (1986)
Sadovskii, B.N.: On a fixed point principle [in Russian]. Funkc. Anal. Prilozh. 1(2), 74–76 (1967)
Schauder, J.: Der Fixpunktsatz in Funktionalraumen. Stud. Math. 2, 171–180 (1930)
Sezer, S., Eken, Z., Tinaztepe, G., Adilov, G.: pConvex functions and some of their properties. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 42(4), 443–459 (2021)
Shahzad, N.: Fixed point and approximation results for multimaps in SKKM class. Nonlinear Anal. 56(6), 905–918 (2004)
Shahzad, N.: Approximation and Leray–Schauder type results for \(U_{c}^{k}\) maps. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 24(2), 337–346 (2004)
Shahzad, N.: Approximation and Leray–Schauder type results for multimaps in the SKKM class. Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. 13(1), 113–121 (2006)
Silva, E.B., Fernandez, D.L., Nikolova, L.: Generalized quasiBanach sequence spaces and measures of noncompactness. An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 85(2), 443–456 (2013)
Simons, S.: Boundedness in linear topological spaces. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 113, 169–180 (1964)
Singh, S.P., Watson, B., Srivastava, F.: Fixed Point Theory and Best Approximation: The KKMMap Principle. Mathematics and Its Applications, vol. 424. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1997)
Smart, D.R.: Fixed Point Theorems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1980)
Tabor, J.A., Tabor, J.O., Idak, M.: Stability of isometries in pBanach spaces. Funct. Approx. 38, 109–119 (2008)
Tan, D.N.: On extension of isometries on the unit spheres of \(L^{p}\)spaces for \(0 < p \leq 1\). Nonlinear Anal. 74, 6981–6987 (2011)
Tan, K.K., Yuan, X.Z.: Random fixedpoint theorems and approximation in cones. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 185, 378–390 (1994)
Tychonoff, A.: Ein Fixpunktsatz. Math. Ann. 111, 767–776 (1935)
Wang, J.Y.: An Introduction to Locally pConvex Spaces pp. 26–64. Academic Press, Beijing (2013)
Weber, H.: Compact convex sets in nonlocally convex linear spaces, SchauderTychonoff fixed point theorem. In: Topology, Measures, and Fractals (Warnemunde, 1991). Math. Res., vol. 66, pp. 37–40. AkademieVerlag, Berlin (1992)
Weber, H.: Compact convex sets in nonlocally convex linear spaces. Dedicated to the memory of Professor Gottfried Köthe. Note Mat. 12, 271–289 (1992)
Xiao, J.Z., Lu, Y.: Some fixed point theorems for sconvex subsets in pnormed spaces based on measures of noncompactness. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 20(2), Paper No. 83 (2018), 22 pp.
Xiao, J.Z., Zhu, X.H.: The Chebyshev selections and fixed points of setvalued mappings in Banach spaces with some uniform convexity. Math. Comput. Model. 54(5–6), 1576–1583 (2011)
Xiao, J.Z., Zhu, X.H.: Some fixed point theorems for sconvex subsets in pnormed spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 74(5), 1738–1748 (2011)
Xu, H.K.: Inequalities in Banach spaces with applications. Nonlinear Anal. 16(12), 1127–1138 (1991)
Xu, H.K.: On weakly nonexpansive and ∗nonexpansive multivalued mappings. Math. Jpn. 36(3), 441–445 (1991)
Xu, H.K.: Metric fixed point theory for multivalued mappings. Diss. Math. (Rozprawy Mat.) 389, 1–39 (2000)
Xu, H.K., Muglia, L.: On solving variational inequalities defined on fixed point sets of multivalued mappings in Banach spaces. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 22(4), Paper No. 79 (2020), 17 pp.
Xu, S.Y.: New fixed point theorems for 1setcontractive operators in Banach spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 67(3), 938–944 (2007)
Xu, S.Y., Jia, B.G., Li, G.Z.: Fixed points for weakly inward mappings in Banach spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 319(2), 863–873 (2006)
Yanagi, K.: On some fixed point theorems for multivalued mappings. Pac. J. Math. 87(1), 233–240 (1980)
Yuan, G.X.: The study of minimax inequalities and applications to economies and variational inequalities. Mem. Am. Math. Soc. 132, no. 625 (1998)
Yuan, G.X.: KKM Theory and Applications in Nonlinear Analysis. Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 218. Dekker, New York (1999)
Yuan, G.X.: Nonlinear analysis by applying best approximation method in pvector spaces. Fixed Point Theory Algorithms Sci. Eng. 2022, 20 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1366302200730x
Yuan, G.X.: Topological results, Rothe’s principle and Leray–Schauder alternative for the fixed point equation in pvector spaces. J. Anal. 2022 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s4147802200522x
Zeidler, E.: Nonlinear Functional Analysis and Its Applications, Vol. I, FixedPoint Theorems. Springer, New York (1986)
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Professor Shihsen Chang (ShiSheng Zhang), Professor KokKeong Tan, Professor Bruce Smith, Professor E. Tarafdar, Professor William A. Kirk, Professor Brailey Sims, Professor Bevan Thompson, Professor Paul Deguire, Professor Hong Ma, Professor Jian Yu, Professor Y.J. Cho, Professor S. Park for their constant encouragements for more than two past decades; also my thanks go to Professor HongKun Xu, Professor Lishan Liu, Professor JianZhong Xiao, Professor XiaoLong Qin, Professor Ganshan Yang, Professor Xian Wu, Professor Nanjing Huang, Professor Mohamed Ennassik, Professor Tiexin Guo, and my colleagues and friends across China, Australia, Canada, UK, USA, and elsewhere.
Funding
This research is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant numbers 71971031 and U1811462].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Full contribution to research, manuscript writing, reading, and approving.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Yuan, G.X. Nonlinear analysis in pvector spaces for singlevalued 1set contractive mappings. Fixed Point Theory Algorithms Sci Eng 2022, 26 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13663022007356
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13663022007356