Home On θ-generalized demimetric mappings and monotone operators in Hadamard spaces
Article Open Access

On θ-generalized demimetric mappings and monotone operators in Hadamard spaces

  • Grace N. Ogwo , Chinedu Izuchukwu EMAIL logo , Kazeem O. Aremu and Oluwatosin T. Mewomo
Published/Copyright: July 3, 2020
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Our main interest in this article is to introduce and study the class of θ-generalized demimetric mappings in Hadamard spaces. Also, a Halpern-type proximal point algorithm comprising this class of mappings and resolvents of monotone operators is proposed, and we prove that it converges strongly to a fixed point of a θ-generalized demimetric mapping and a common zero of a finite family of monotone operators in a Hadamard space. Furthermore, we apply the obtained results to solve a finite family of convex minimization problems, variational inequality problems and convex feasibility problems in Hadamard spaces.

MSC 2010: 47H09; 47H10; 49J20; 49J40

1 Introduction

Let X be a metric space and C be a nonempty subset of X. We denote F(T) to be the set of fixed points of a nonlinear mapping T:CC, that is, F(T)={vC:v=Tv}. The mapping T is called:

  1. nonexpansive, if

    d(Tu,Tv)d(u,v)for allu,vC,
  2. quasi-nonexpansive, if F(T) and

    d(Tu,v)d(u,v)for allvF(T), uC,
  3. k-strictly pseudocontractive, if there exists k[0,1) such that

    d2(Tu,Tv)d2(u,v)+k[d(u,Tv)+d(u,Tv)]2for allu,vC,
  4. nonspreading, if

    2d2(Tu,Tv)d2(Tu,v)+d2(Tv,u)for allu,vC,
  5. hybrid, if

    3d2(Tu,Tv)d2(u,v)+d2(Tu,v)+d2(Tv,u)for allu,vC,
  6. generalized hybrid, if there exist α,β such that

(1)αd2(Tu,Tv)+(1α)d2(u,Tv)βd2(Tu,v)+(1β)d2(u,v)for allu,vC.

The classes of both nonexpansive mappings and nonspreading mappings with F(T) are contained in the class of quasi-nonexpansive mappings.

Recently, Takahashi [1] introduced the class of k-demimetric mappings in a real Hilbert space, which he defined as follows.

Let C be a nonempty subset of a real Hilbert space H. A mapping T:CH is called k-demimetric, if F(T) and there exists k(,1) such that

uv,uTu1k2uTu2 for alluC,vF(T).

Demimetric mappings are of central importance in optimization since they contain many common types of operators emanating from optimization. For instance, the class of k-demimetric mappings with k(,1) is known to cover the class of θ-generalized hybrid mappings, the metric projections and the resolvents of maximal monotone operators (which are known as useful tools for solving optimization problems) in Hilbert spaces (see [1,2] and references therein). Thus, many authors have studied this class of mappings in both Hilbert and Banach spaces (see [1,3,4,5]). This was recently extended to Hadamard spaces by Aremu et al. [2]. They defined demimetric mappings in a Hadamard space as follows: let C be a nonempty subset of a CAT(0) space X. A mapping T:CX is called k-demimetric if F(T) and there exists k(,1) such that

(2)uv,uTu1k2d2(u,Tu)

for all uC,vF(T).

Furthermore, they gave an example of a demimetric mapping and established some basic results for this class of mappings. Moreover, they proved a strong convergence theorem for approximating a fixed point of demimetric mappings and a solution to a minimization problem in Hadamard spaces.

In 2018, Kawasaki and Takahashi [6] generalized the class of demimetric mappings as follows: let C be a nonempty subset of a smooth Banach space E and θ0. A mapping T:CE with F(T) is said to be θ-generalized demimetric (see also [7]), if

(3)θuv,J(uTu)uTu2

for all uC and vF(T), where J is a duality mapping on E.

Fixed point problems of nonlinear mappings have been a very attractive area of research in nonlinear analysis that has enjoyed a prosperous development due to its extensive applications in diverse mathematical fields such as inverse problems, signal processing, game theory and fuzzy theory (see [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20] and references therein). The pioneer work of this study in Hadamard spaces is due to Kirk [21,22]. Later, Dhompongsa and Panyanak [23], Khan and Abbas [24], Chang et al. [25] and other researchers (see [26,27,28,29,30,31,32]) continued to obtain interesting results in this direction.

On the other hand, monotone inclusion problem (MIP) is one of the most important problems in nonlinear and convex analyses because of its importance in optimization and other related mathematical problems. The MIP is defined as:

(4)FindxD(A)suchthat0Ax,

where A:X2X is the monotone and D(A)={xX:A(x)} is the domain of A. We denote the solution set of problem (4) by A1(0), which is known to be closed and convex.

The interest in the study of MIPs stems from the fact that many optimization and related mathematical problems such as variational inequality problems (VIPs), minimization problems and convex feasibility problems can be posed as MIPs (see [10,31,33,34,35,36]). A well-known method for approximating solutions of MIPs is the proximal point algorithm (PPA), introduced by Martinet [37] in Hilbert spaces and studied by Rockafellar [38] in the same space as follows: let {xn} be given iteratively by

(5){x0H,xn+1=JλnAxn,n0,

where JλnA=(I+λnA)1 is the resolvent A and {λn} is a sequence of positive real numbers. Rockafellar [38] established that Algorithm (5) converges weakly to a solution of MIP (4). Later, Bačák [8] studied the PPA in Hadamard spaces and established the Δ-convergence of it when A is the subdifferential of a convex, proper and lower semicontinuous function.

Recently, Khatibzadeh and Ranjbar [36] studied the PPA in Hadamard spaces when A is monotone. In 2017, Ranjbar and Khatibzadeh [31] studied both the Mann-type and Halpern-type PPA in Hadamard spaces for approximating solutions of MIP:

(6){x0Xxn+1=αnxn(1αn)Jλnxn,n0

and

(7){x0Xxn+1=αnu(1αn)Jλnxn,n0,

where {λn}(0,) and {αn}[0,1]. They obtained Δ-convergence result and strong convergence result using (6) and (7), respectively. Many other authors have also studied MIP in Hadamard spaces (see e.g. [10,34,39]).

Motivated by the aforementioned results and the current interest in this research direction, we introduce and study the class of θ-generalized demimetric mappings in Hadamard spaces. Also, a Halpern-type PPA comprising this class of mappings and resolvents of monotone operators is proposed, and we prove that it converges strongly to a fixed point of a θ-generalized demimetric mapping and a common zero of a finite family of monotone operators in a Hadamard space. Finally, we apply the obtained results to solve a finite family of convex minimization problems, VIPs and convex feasibility problems in Hadamard spaces.

2 Preliminaries

We now recall some basic and useful results that will be required for our study. We shall simply write X for a metric space (X,d).

Let X be a metric space and x,yX. A geodesic path joining u to v is an isometry r:[0,d(u,v)]X such that r(0)=u, r(d(u,v))=v and d(r(t),r(t)=|tt| for all t,t[0,d(u,v)]. The image of a geodesic path is called the geodesic segment, which is usually denoted as [u,v] whenever it is unique.

A metric space X is called a geodesic space if every two points of X are joined by a geodesic. A geodesic metric space X is uniquely geodesic if every two points of X are joined by exactly one geodesic. Let u,vX and t[0,1], then we represent tu(1t)v as the unique point w[u,v] joining u to v such that

(8)d(u,w)=(1t)d(u,v)andd(w,v)=td(u,v).

A geodesic triangle Δ(u1,u2,u3) in a geodesic metric space X consists of three points u1,u2,u3 in X (which are also called vertices of Δ) and a geodesic segment between each pair of these points (which are also called edges of Δ). For any geodesic triangle Δ(u1,u2,u3), there is a comparison triangle Δ¯(u1,u2,u3)Δ(u¯1,u¯2,u¯3) in the Euclidean plane 2 such that d(ui,uj)=d2(u¯i,u¯j) for i,j{1,2,3}. Let Δ be a geodesic triangle in X and Δ¯ be its comparison triangle, then Δ is said to satisfy the CAT(0) inequality if for all points u,vΔ and u¯,v¯Δ¯, d(u,v)d2(u¯,v¯). A geodesic space X is called a CAT(0) space if all geodesic triangles satisfy the CAT(0) inequality. Complete CAT(0) spaces are often referred to as Hadamard spaces. CAT(0) (Hadamard) spaces are examples of uniquely geodesic metric spaces. Examples of CAT(0) spaces can be found in [40].

Definition 2.1

[41] Let X be a CAT(0) space and denote the pair (u,v)X×X by uv. Then, a mapping .,.:(X×X)×(X×X) defined by

(9)uv,wx=12(d2(u,x)+d2(v,w)d2(u,w)d2(v,x))for allu,v,w,xX

is a quasilinearization mapping.

It is easy to verify that uv,uv=d2(u,v),vu,wx=uv,wx,uv,wx=uy,wx+yv,wx and uv,wx=wx,uv for all u,v,w,x,yX.

Lim [42] introduced the notion of Δ-convergence in metric spaces, and Kirk and Panyanak [43] extended this concept to CAT(0) spaces. Recall that a bounded sequence {xn} in X is said to be Δ-convergent to a point xX if A({xnk})={x} for every subsequence {xnk} of {xn} (we write Δlimnxn=x), where A({xn}){xX:r(x,{xn})=r({xn})} is the asymptotic center of {xn}, r({xn})inf{x,{xn}):xX} is the asymptotic radius of {xn} and r(,{xn}):X[0,) is a continuous functional defined by r(x,{xn})=limsupnd(x,xn).

Kakavandi and Amini [44] introduced the concept of the dual space of a Hadamard space as follows: consider the map θ:×X×XC(X,) defined by

θ(t,u,v)(x)=tuv,ux(t,u,v,xX),

where C(X,) is the space of all continuous real valued functions on a Hadamard space X. A pseudometric D on ×X×X is defined by

D((t,u,v),(s,w,y))=L(θ(t,u,v)θ(s,w,y)),(t,s,u,v,w,yX).

The pseudometric space (×X×X,D) is the subspace of the pseudometric space of all real valued Lipschitz functions (Lip(X,),L). We know from [44] that D((t,u,v),(s,w,y))=0 if and only if tuv,xe=swy,xeforallx,eX. Therefore, an equivalence relation on ×X×X is induced by D, where the equivalence class of (t,u,v) is defined by:

[tuv]{swy:D((t,u,v),(s,w,y))=0}.

Thus, X={[tuv]:(t,u,v)×X×X} endowed with D([tuv],[swy])D((t,u,v),(s,w,y)) is the dual space of X. In a real Hilbert space H, t(vu)[tuv] for all t, u,vH (see [44]). Note also that X acts on X×X by

x,wx=tuv,wx,(x=[tuv]X,w,xX).

Using the same notation as in [45, p. 1649], we denote the zero element of X by 0. That is, the (unique) element of X such that the evaluation 0, vanishes for all elements in X×X. In fact, 0[txx] for any t and xX (see [31,36]).

Let X be the dual space of a Hadamard space X. An operator A:X2X is monotone if and only if

xy,yx0,for allx,yD(A),xAx,yAy.

A monotone operator A is called a maximal monotone operator if the graph G(A) of A defined by

G(A){(x,x)X×X:xA(x)}

is not properly contained in the graph of any other monotone operator. The resolvent of A of order λ>0 is the mapping JλA:X2X defined by

(10)JλA{zX|[1λzx]Az}.

The operator A satisfies the range condition if for every λ>0,D(JλA)=X.

Definition 2.2

Let C be a nonempty closed and convex subset of a Hadamard space X. A mapping T:CC is said to be Δ-demiclosed, if for any bounded sequence {xn}inX such that Δlimnxn=x and limnd(xn,Txn)=0, then x=Tx.

Definition 2.3

Let C be a nonempty closed and convex subset of a CAT(0) space X. The metric projection is a mapping PC:XC which assigns to each xX, the unique point PCxC such that

d(x,PCx)=inf{d(x,y):yC}.

Recall that a mapping T is firmly nonexpansive [36], if

(11)d2(Tu,Tv)TuTv,uvfor allu,vX.

It is well known that firmly nonexpansive mappings are nonexpansive (see [10]).

Lemma 2.4

Let X be aCAT(0)space,u,v,wX and t[0,1]. Then,

  1. d(tu(1t)v,w)td(u,w)+(1t)d(v,w)(see [23]).

  2. d2(tu(1t)v,w)td2(u,w)+(1t)d2(v,w)t(1t)d2(u,v)(see [23]).

  3. d2(tu(1t)v,w)t2d2(u,w)+(1t)2d2(v,w)+2t(1t)uw,vw(see [46]).

Lemma 2.5

[23] Every bounded sequence in a Hadamard space always has a Δ-convergence subsequence.

Lemma 2.6

[47] Let X be a Hadamard space,{xn}be a sequence in X anduX. Then,{xn}Δ-converges to u if and only iflimsupnuxn,uw0for allwC.

Lemma 2.7

[48] Let X be a Hadamard space andT:XXbe a nonexpansive mapping. Then, T isΔ-demiclosed.

Lemma 2.8

[49] Let{an}be a sequence of non-negative real numbers such that

an+1(1αn)an+αnbn,
where{bn}is a sequence of real numbers bounded from above and{αn}[0,1]satisfiesn=1αn=. Then, it holds that
limsupnanlimsupnbn.

Lemma 2.9

[36] Let X be a CAT(0) space andJλAbe the resolvent of A with orderλ.Then,

  1. For anyλ>0,R(JλA)D(A)andF(JλA)=A1(0),whereR(JλA)is the range ofJλA.

  2. If A is monotone, thenJλAis a single-valued and firmly nonexpansive mapping.

  3. If A is monotone and0<λμ,thend2(JλAx,JμAx)μλμ+λd2(x,JμAx), which implies thatd(x,JλAx)2d(x,JμAx).

Lemma 2.10

[34] Let X be a CAT(0) space andA:X2Xbe monotone. Then,

(12)d2(u,JλAv)+d2(JλAv,v)d2(u,v),
for alluF(JλA), vXandλ>0.

Remark 2.11

We observe that inequality (12) is a property of any firmly nonexpansive mapping. That is, if T is a firmly nonexpansive mapping, then from (9) and (11), we obtain

d2(u,Tv)+d2(Tv,v)d2(u,v)for alluF(T)andvX.

Lemma 2.12

[34] LetXbe the dual space of a Hadamard space X andT:XXbe a nonexpansive mapping for eachi=1,2,,N.LetJλibe the resolvent of monotone operatorsAiof orderλ>0.Then,

F(TJλNJλN1Jλ2Jλ1)=F(T)F(JλN)F(JλN1)F(Jλ2)F(Jλ1).

Lemma 2.13

[50] Let X be a Hadamard space, for anyt[0,1]andu,vX,letut=tu(1t)v.Then, for allx,yX,we have

utx,uytux,uy+(1t)vx,uy.

3 Main results

Following the idea of (2) and (3), we give the following definition.

Definition 3.1

Let C be a nonempty subset of a CAT(0) space X and T:CXX be a nonlinear mapping. Then, T is called θ-generalized demimetric, if F(T) and there exists θ0 such that

(13)θuv,uTud2(u,Tu),

for all uCandvF(T).

The following is an example of a θ-generalized demimetric mapping but not a k-demimetric mapping.

Example 3.2

Define T:[0,1] by Tx=x+x2. Then, T is θ-generalized demimetric with θ=1 but not a k-demimetric mapping.

Proof

Observe that F(T)={0}. Thus, for any x[0,1], we have

x0,xTx=x,x2=|x||x2||x2|2=|xTx|2,

which implies that x0,xTx|xTx|2. Therefore, T is a (1)-generalized demimetric mapping.

To show that T is not a k-demimetric mapping, let x=1. Then, we see that

(14)x0,xTx=1,1=1.

On the other hand,

(15)1k2|xTx|2=1k2|1|2=1k2.

Now, since 1<1k2 for all k(,1), we obtain from (14) and (15) that x0,xTx<1k2|xTx|2 for all k(,1). Therefore, T is not a k-demimetric mapping.□

Remark 3.3

Other examples of θ-generalized demimetric mappings in CAT(0) spaces include the following.

  1. If T:XX is a k-strictly pseudocontractive mapping with k[0,1) and F(T), then T is (21k)-generalized demimetric mapping. The proof is similar to that in [2].

  2. If F(T) and T:XX is a generalized hybrid mapping, then T is 2-generalized demimetric. Indeed, for uF(T) and vX, we obtain from (1) that

    (16)d2(u,Tv)d2(u,v).

    Also, from (9), we have that

    2vu,vTv=d2(v,Tv)+d2(u,v)d2(u,Tv),

    which implies from (16) that

    2vu,vTvd2(v,Tv)+d2(u,v)d2(u,v)=d2(v,Tv).

    Hence, T is a 2-generalized demimetric mapping. Therefore, nonexpansive, nonspreading and hybrid mappings are examples of θ-generalized demimetric mappings.

  3. If T:XX is a k-demicontractive mapping, then T is a (21k)-generalized demimetric.

We now study some properties of θ-generalized demimetric mappings in Hadamard spaces.

Proposition 3.4

Let X be a Hadamard space andT:XXbe aθ-generalized demimetric mapping withθ>0.Then, T is a(12θ)-demimetric.

Proof

It follows from the definition of demimetric mapping and θ-generalized demimetric mapping.□

Proposition 3.5

Let X be a Hadamard space andT:XXbe a θ-generalized demimetric mapping withθ0.Then,F(T)is closed and convex.

Proof

We first show that F(T) is closed. Let {xn} be a sequence in F(T) such that {xn} converges to x. Then, from the definition of θ-generalized demimetric mappings, we have

(17)θxxn,xTxd2(x,Tx),

which implies from the Cauchy Schwartz inequality that

θd(x,xn)d(x,Tx)d2(x,Tx).

Taking limits, we have that 0d2(x,Tx), which implies that x=Tx.

Thus, F(T) is closed. Next, we show that F(T) is convex. For this, let u,vF(T). Then, it suffices to show that (tu(1t)v)F(T), for t[0,1]. Let w=tu(1t)v,  t[0,1], then we obtain from Lemma 2.13 that

d2(w,Tw)=wTw,wTw=(tu(1t)v)Tw,wTwtuTw,wTw+(1t)vTw,wTw=t[uw,wTw+wTw,wTw]+(1t)[vw,wTw+wTw,wTw]tθd2(w,Tw)+td2(w,Tw)(1t)θd2(w,Tw)+(1t)d2(w,Tw)=1θd2(w,Tw)+d2(w,Tw),

which implies that 1θd2(w,Tw)0. Since θ0, we obtain that wF(T) as required.□

Lemma 3.6

Let X be a CAT(0) space andT:XXbe a θ-generalized demimetric mapping withθ0.Suppose thatSλu=λu(1λ)Tuwithθ21λandλ(0,1),thenSλis quasi-nonexpansive andF(Sλ)=F(T).

Proof

Let uX and wF(T), then since T is θ-generalized demimetric, we obtain by Lemma 2.13 that

(18)wu,uSλu=(λu(1λ)Tu)u,uwλuu,uw+(1λ)Tuu,uw=(1λ)Tuu,uw(1λ)2θ(1λ)d2(u,Tu).

Now, from (8), we obtain that d2(u,Sλu)=(1λ)2d2(u,Tu). Thus, we obtain from (18) that

wu,uSλu1θ(1λ)d2(u,Sλu),

which implies that

uw,uSλu1θ(1λ)d2(u,Sλu)12d2(u,Sλu).

Thus, we obtain that

d2(u,Sλu)+d2(w,u)d2(w,Sλu)d2(u,Sλu),

which implies that

d2(w,Sλu)d2(w,u).

Hence, Sλ is quasi-nonexpansive.

Next, we show that F(Sλ)=F(T). From (8), we obtain that

d(u,Sλu)=(1λ)d(u,Tu).

This implies that Sλu=u if and only if Tu=u. Therefore, F(Sλ)=F(T).

Theorem 3.7

Let X be a Hadamard space andXbe its dual space. LetAi:X2X,i=1,2,,Nbe a finite family of multivalued monotone mappings satisfying the range condition andT:XXbe a θ-generalized demimetric mapping withθ0.Suppose thatΓF(T)(i=1NAi1(0))and for arbitraryu,x1X,the sequence{xn}is defined by

(19){yn=(1αn)xnαnu,zn=(1γn)ynγnSμ(JλNJλN1Jλ2Jλ1yn),xn+1=(1βn)ynβnzn,  n1,
whereSμxμx(1μ)Txsuch thatSμisΔ-demiclosed, withθ21μ,μ(0,1),λ(0,)and{αn}n=1,{βn}n=1, {γn}n=1are in(0,1)satisfying the following:

(C1) limnαn=0,n=1αn=,

(C2) 0<aβn, γnb<1.

Then,{xn}converges strongly to an element ofΓ.

Proof

We first show that {xn} is bounded.

Let pΓ, from (19), Lemmas 2.4 and 3.6, we have

(20)d2(zn,p)=d2((1γn)ynγnSμ(JλNJλN1Jλ2Jλ1yn),p)(1γn)d2(yn,p)+γnd2(Sμ(JλNJλN1Jλ2Jλ1yn),p)γn(1γn)d2(yn,Sμ(JλNJλN1Jλ2Jλ1yn))(1γn)d2(yn,p)+γnd2(yn,p)γn(1γn)d2(yn,Sμ(JλNJλN1Jλ2Jλ1yn))
(21)d2(yn,p).

We also have from (19) and (8) that

(22)d(xn+1,yn)=βnd(zn,yn),

which implies that

(23)d2(zn,yn)=αnβn(d2(xn+1,yn)αnβn).

From (19), (21), (23) and Lemma 2.4, we obtain

(24)d2(xn+1,p)(1βn)d2(yn,p)+βnd2(zn,p)βn(1βn)d2(yn,zn)
(25)d2(yn,p)1βn(1βn)d2(xn+1,yn)d2(yn,p).

Thus, we obtain from Lemma 2.4 that

d(xn+1,p)d(yn,p)(1αn)d(xn,p)+αnd(u,p)max  {d(xn,p),d(u,p)}max  {d(x1,p),d(u,p)}.

Therefore, {xn} is bounded. Hence, {yn} and {zn} are also bounded.

Next, we show that

limnd(yn,Sμ(JλNJλN1Jλ2Jλ1yn))=0.

From (19), (24) and Lemma 2.4, we have that

(26)d2(xn+1,p)d2(yn,p)1βn(1βn)d2(xn+1,yn)=d2((1αn)xnαnu,p)1βn(1βn)d2(xn+1,yn)(1αn)2d2(xn,p)+αn2d2(u,p)+2αn(1αn)xnp,up1βn(1βn)d2(xn+1,yn)(1αn)d2(xn,p)+αn2d2(u,p)2αn(1αn)xnp,pu1βn(1βn)d2(xn+1,yn)=(1αn)d2(xn,p)+αn(dn),

where

(27)dn=[2(1αn)xnp,puαnd2(u,p)+1βnαn(1βn)d2(xn+1,yn)].

Since {xn} and {yn} are bounded, they are bounded below. Thus, {dn} is bounded below, which implies that {dn} is bounded above.

Therefore, we obtain from Lemma 2.8 and Condition C1 of Theorem 3.7 that

(28)limsupnd2(xn,p)limsupn(dn)=liminfdn,

which implies that liminf(dn)limsupd2(xn,p). Thus, we conclude that liminfndn exists.

Hence, we obtain from (27) and Condition C1 of Theorem 3.7 that

liminfndn=liminfn[2xnp,pu+1βnαn(1βn)d2(xn+1,yn)].

Since {xn} is bounded, we obtain by Lemma 2.5 that there exists a subsequence {xnk} of {xn} such that Δlimkxnk=zX, and

(29)liminfndn=limk[2xnkp,pu+1βnkαnk(1βnk)d2(xnk+1,ynk)],

for some subsequences {ynk},{βnk}and{αnk}of{yn},{βn}and{αn}, respectively.

Using the fact that {xn} is bounded and liminfndn exists, we get that {1βnkαnk(1βnk)d2(xnk+1,ynk)} is bounded. Also, by Condition C2, we obtain that 1αnkβnk(1βnk)1αnkβnk(1b)>0. Thus, {1βnkαnkd2(xnk+1,ynk)} is bounded.

Again, from C1 and C2, we obtain that 0<αnkβnkαnka0,ask. Thus, αnkβnk0ask.

Therefore, we obtain from (23) that

(30)limkd(znk,ynk)=0.

From (22), (30) and Condition C2, we obtain that

(31)limkd(xnk+1,ynk)=0.

Also, from (21) and (30), we have

γnk(1γnk)d2(ynk,Sμ(JλNJλN1Jλ2Jλ1ynk))d2(ynk,p)d2(znk,p)d2(ynk,znk)+2d(ynk,znk)d(znk,p)+d2(znk,p)d2(znk,p)0,ask.

Thus, from Condition C2, we have that

(32)limk(ynk,Sμ(JλNJλN1Jλ2Jλ1ynk))=0.

Next, we show that limkd(vnk,Sμvnk)=0.

Let vnk=ΦλNynk, where ΦλN=JλNJλN1Jλ2Jλ1 with Φλ0=1. Since JλN is firmly nonexpansive, we obtain from Remark 2.11 and (32) that

(33)d2(vnk,ΦλN1ynk)d2(p,ΦλN1ynk)d2(p,vnk)d2(p,ynk)d2(p,Sμvnk)d2(p,Sμvnk)+2d(p,Sμvnk)d(Sμvnk,ynk)+d2(Sμvnk,ynk)d2(p,Sμvnk)0ask.

Similarly, since JλN1 is firmly nonexpansive, we obtain that

(34)d2(ΦλN1ynk,ΦλN2ynk)d2(p,ΦλN2ynk)d2(p,ΦλN1ynk)d2(p,ynk)d2(p,vnk)d2(p,ynk)d2(p,Sμvnk)d2(p,Sμvnk)+2d(p,Sμvnk)d(Sμvnk,ynk)+d2(Sμvnk,ynk)d2(p,Sμvnk)0ask.

In the same manner, we can show that

(35)limkd2(ΦλN2ynk,ΦλN3ynk)=limkd2(ΦλN3ynk,ΦλN4ynk)==limkd2(Φλ1ynk,ynk)=0.

Thus,

d(vnk,ynk)d(ΦλNynk,ΦλN1ynk)+d(ΦλN1ynk,ΦλN2ynk)++d(Φλ1ynk,ynk).

This implies from (33), (34) and (35) that

(36)limkd(vnk,ynk)=limkd(JλNJλN1Jλ2Jλ1ynk,ynk)=0.

Furthermore, from (32) and (36), we obtain

(37)limkd(vnk,Sμvnk)=0.

Finally, we show that {xn} converges strongly to zΓ.

From (19) and Condition C1, we obtain

(38)d(ynk,xnk)=d((1αnk)xnkαnku,xnk)=αnkd(u,xnk)0ask.

Since Δlimkxnk=z, we obtain from (38) that Δlimkynk=z, and from (36) that Δlimkvnk=zz. By the demicloseness of Sμ, (37) and Lemma 3.6, we obtain that zF(Sμ)=F(T). Since Jλi,  i=1,2,,N are nonexpansive mappings and the composition of nonexpansive mappings is nonexpansive, we obtain from (36), Lemma 2.7 and Lemma 2.12 that zF(JλNJλN1Jλ2Jλ1)=F(JλN)F(JλN)F(JλN1)F(Jλ2)F(Jλ1). Hence zΓ.

Furthermore, by Lemma 2.6, we have

limsupnzu,xnkz0.

Thus, we obtain from (29) and (31) that

liminfndn=2limkzu,xnkz0.

Hence from (28), we have

limsupnd2(xn,z)liminfndn0.

Therefore, limnd(xn,z)=0 and this implies that {xn} converges strongly to zΓ.

Setting TI in Theorem 3.7, we have the following result.

Corollary 3.8

Let X be a Hadamard space andXbe its dual space. LetAi:X2X,i=1,2,,Nbe a finite family of multivalued monotone mappings satisfying the range condition. Suppose thatΓi=1NAi1(0)and for arbitraryu,x1X,the sequence{xn}is defined by

(39){yn=(1αn)xnαnu,zn=(1γn)ynγnJλNJλN1Jλ2Jλ1yn,  xn+1=(1βn)ynβnzn,n1,
whereλ(0,)and{αn}n=1, {βn}n=1, {γn}n=1are in(0,1)satisfying the following:

(C1) limnαn=0,n=1αn=,

(C2) 0<aβn, γnb<1.Then,{xn}converges strongly to an element ofΓ.

Setting N=1 in Theorem 3.7, we have the following result.

Corollary 3.9

Let X be a Hadamard space andXbe its dual space. LetA:X2Xbe a multivalued monotone mapping that satisfies the range condition andT:XXbe a θ-generalized demimetric mapping withθ0.Suppose thatΓF(T)A1(0)and for arbitraryu,x1X,the sequence{xn}is defined by

(40){yn=(1αn)xnαnu,zn=(1γn)ynγnSμ(JλAyn),  xn+1=(1βn)ynβnzn,n1,
whereSμxμx(1μ)Txsuch thatSμ is Δ-demiclosed, withθ21μ,μ(0,1),λ(0,)and{αn}n=1,{βn}n=1, {γn}n=1are in(0,1)satisfying the following:

(C1) limnαn=0,n=1αn=,

(C2) 0<aβn, γnb<1.

Then,{xn}converges strongly to an element ofΓ.

If T is nonexpansive in Corollary 3.9, we obtain the following result.

Corollary 3.10

Let X be a Hadamard space andXbe its dual space. LetA:X2Xbe a multivalued monotone mapping satisfying the range condition andT:XXbe a nonexpansive mapping. Suppose thatΓF(T)A1(0)and for arbitraryu,x1X,the sequence{xn}is defined by

(41){yn=(1αn)xnαnu,zn=(1γn)ynγnT(JλAyn),xn+1=(1βn)ynβnzn,n1,
withλ(0,)and{αn}n=1, {βn}n=1, {γn}n=1are in(0,1)satisfying the following:

(C1) limnαn=0,n=1αn=,

(C2) 0<aβn, γnb<1.

Then,{xn}converges strongly to an element ofΓ.

4 Application to some optimization problems

In this section, we apply our results to solve some optimization problems.

Definition 4.1

Let X be a Hadamard space and f:X(,] be a proper, convex and lower semicontinuous function with domain D(f){uX:f(u)<+}. The function f:X(,] is called

  1. proper, if D(f),

  2. convex, if

    f(λu(1λ)v)λf(u)+(1λ)f(v)for allu,vXandλ(0,1),
  3. lower semicontinuous at a point uD(f), if

    f(u)liminfnf(xn),

    for each sequence {xn}inD(f)suchthatlimnxn=u,

  4. f is lower semicontinuous on D(f), if it is lower semicontinuous at any point in D(f).

Definition 4.2

[44] Let X be a Hadamard space and X be its dual space. The subdifferential of f is the multivalued function f:X2X defined by

(42)f(u)={{uX:f(w)f(u)u,uwfor allwX},ifuD(f),,otherwise.

Theorem 4.3

[44] Letf:X(,+]be a proper, convex and lower semicontinuous function on a Hadamard space X with dualX,then

  1. f attains its minimum atuXif and only if0f(u),

  2. f:X2Xis a monotone operator,

  3. for anyvXandα>0,there exists a unique pointuXsuch that[αuv]f(u),that isD(Jλf)=X,forallλ>0.

Definition 4.4

Let C be a nonempty, closed and convex subset of X. Then, the indicator function δC:X is defined by

(43)δCu={0,ifuC,+,otherwise.

It is generally known that δC is a proper convex. Thus, by Theorem 4.3(ii) and (iii), we have that the subdifferential of δC, given by

(44)δC(u)={{uX:u,uw0for allwC},ifuC,,otherwise

is a monotone operator that satisfies the range condition.

4.1 VIP

Recently, Khatibzadeh and Ranjbar [51] formulated a VIP associated with a nonexpansive mapping in a Hadamard space as follows: Find xC such that

(45)Txx,xy0for allyC.

Recall that the metric projection PC:XC is defined for xX by d(x,PCx)=infyCd(x,y) and is characterized by z=PCx if and only if zx,zy0,for allyC (see [51]). Using the characterization of PC, we obtain that

x=PCTxifandonlyifTxx,xy0for allyC.

Thus, we have that xF(PCT) if and only if x solves (45). From (10), we have that

(46)z=JλδCx[1λzx]δCzzx,zy0,for allyCz=PCx.

Letting z=x, we obtain that x=PCx if and only if x(δC)1(0). Thus,

x(δC)1(0)F(T)xF(PC)F(T)xF(PCT).

Suppose the solution set of problem (45) is ϒ. Setting A=δC in Corollary 3.10, we apply Corollary 3.10 to obtain the following result for approximating solutions of VIP in Hadamard spaces.

Theorem 4.5

Let C be a nonempty closed and convex subset of a Hadamard space X andXbe its dual space. LetT:XXbe a nonexpansive mapping. Suppose thatϒand for arbitraryu,x1X,the sequence{xn}is defined by

(47){yn=(1αn)xnαnu,zn=(1γn)ynγnT(JλδCyn),n1, xn+1=(1βn)ynβnzn,n1,
withλ(0,)and{αn}n=1, {βn}n=1, {γn}n=1(0,1)satisfying the following:

(C1) limnαn=0,n=1αn=,

(C2) 0<aβn, γnb<1.

Then,{xn}converges strongly to an element ofϒ.

4.2 Convex feasibility problem

The convex feasibility problem is defined as follows: find xC such that

(48)xi=1NCi,

where C is a nonempty closed and convex subset of X and Ci,i=1,2,,N is a finite family of nonempty closed and convex subsets of C such that i=1NCi.

From (46), we have that x=JλδCix if and only if x=PCix,i=1,2,,N. Setting Ai=δCi in Corollary 3.8 and Jλi=PCi,i=1,2,,N in Algorithm 39, we can apply Corollary 3.8 to approximate solutions of (48).

4.3 Convex minimization problem

The minimization problem is to find xX such that

(49)f(x)=minyXf(y).

Observe from Theorem 4.3(i) that (49) can be written as: find xX such that

(50)0f(x).

Thus, by setting A=f in Theorem 3.7, we obtain the following result.

Theorem 4.6

Let X be a Hadamard space andXbe its dual space. Letfi:X(,],i=1,2,,Nbe a finite family of proper, convex and lower semicontinuous functions andT:XXbe a θ-generalized demimetric mapping withθ0.Suppose thatϒF(T)(i=1Nfi1(0))and for arbitraryu,x1X,the sequence{xn}is defined by

(51){yn=(1αn)xnαnu,zn=(1γn)ynγnSμ(JλfNJλfN1Jλf2Jλf1yn),  xn+1=(1βn)ynβnzn,n1,
whereSμxμx(1μ)Txsuch thatSμis Δ-demiclosed, withθ21μ,μ(0,1),λ(0,)and{αn}n=1,{βn}n=1, {γn}n=1(0,1),satisfying

(C1) limnαn=0,n=1αn=,

(C2) 0<aβn, γnb<1.

Then,{xn}converges strongly to an element ofϒ.

5 Conclusion

The class of θ-generalized demimetric mappings is introduced and studied in Hadamard space settings. In the study, it was shown (see Example 3.2) that this class of mappings is more general than the class of demimetric mappings previously studied in [1,2,3,4,5]. Moreover, the class of θ-generalized demimetric mappings contains many important classes of mappings (see Remark 3.3) known to be very useful for solving optimization problems. Furthermore, the strong convergence of a Halpern-type proximal point method for solving MIP and fixed point problem for this mapping is established in the framework of Hadamard space. An application of this method for solving other optimization problems is also considered. The obtained results of this article are a natural generalization of the results previously obtained in [2,3,4,5] from the study of demimetric mappings to θ-generalized demimetric mappings. The results also extend and complement the results in [25,32,34,39,52] established in Hadamard spaces for nonexpansive, strictly pseudocontractive, generalized hybrid and demicontractive mappings. Thus, the results of this article possess many possible applications compared to many other results in this direction.



Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading, constructive comments and fruitful suggestions that substantially improved the manuscript. Grace N. Ogwo acknowledges with thanks the bursary and financial support from African Institute for Mathematical Sciences (AIMS), South Africa. Chinedu Izuchukwu acknowledges with thanks the bursary and financial support from Department of Science and Innovation and National Research Foundation (NRF), Republic of South Africa Center of Excellence in Mathematical and Statistical Sciences (DSI-NRF COE-MaSS) Doctoral Bursary. Oluwatosin T. Mewomo is supported by the NRF of South Africa Incentive Funding for Rated Researchers (Grant Number 119903). Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived are those of the authors and are not necessarily to be attributed to the CoE-MaSS and NRF.

  1. Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

[1] W. Takahashi, The split common fixed point problem and the shrinking projection method in Banach spaces, J. Convex Anal. 24 (2017), no. 3, 1015–1028.Search in Google Scholar

[2] K. O. Aremu, C. Izuchukwu, G. C. Ugwunnadi, and O. T. Mewomo, On the proximal point algorithm and demimetric mappings in CAT (0) spaces, Demonstr. Math. 51 (2018), 277–294.10.1515/dema-2018-0022Search in Google Scholar

[3] H. Komiya and W. Takahashi, Strong convergence theorem for an infinite family of demimetric mappings in a Hilbert space, J. Convex Anal. 24 (2017), no. 4, 1357–1373.Search in Google Scholar

[4] W. Takahashi, Strong convergence theorem for a finite family of demimetric mappings with variational inequality problems in a Hilbert space, J. Indust. Appl. Math. 34 (2017), no. 1, 41–57.10.1007/s13160-017-0237-0Search in Google Scholar

[5] W. Takahashi, C. F. Wen, and J. C. Yao, The shrinking projection method for a finite family of demimetric mappings with variational inequality problems in a Hilbert space, Fixed Point Theory 19 (2017), no. 1, 407–419.10.24193/fpt-ro.2018.1.32Search in Google Scholar

[6] T. Kawasaki and W. Takahashi, A strong convergence theorem for countable families of nonlinear nonself mappings in Hilbert spaces and applications, J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 19 (2018), 543–560.Search in Google Scholar

[7] W. Takahashi, The split common fixed point problem for generalized demimetric mappings in two Banach spaces, Optimization 68 (2019), no. 1, 411–427.10.1080/02331934.2018.1522637Search in Google Scholar

[8] M. Bačák, The proximal point algorithm in metric spaces, Israel J. Math. 194 (2013), no. 2, 689–701.10.1007/s11856-012-0091-3Search in Google Scholar

[9] M. Bačák, B. Hua, J. Jost, M. Kell, and A. Schikorra, A notion of nonpositive curvature for general metric spaces, Different. Geom. Appl. 38 (2015), 22–32.10.1016/j.difgeo.2014.11.002Search in Google Scholar

[10] H. Dehghan, C. Izuchukwu, O. T. Mewomo, D. A. Taba, and G. C. Ugwunnadi, Iterative algorithm for a family of monotone inclusion problems in CAT(0) spaces, Quaest. Math. (2019), 10.2989/16073606.2019.1593255Search in Google Scholar

[11] L. O. Jolaoso, T. O. Alakoya, A. Taiwo, and O. T. Mewomo, A parallel combination extragradient method with Armijo line searching for finding common solution of finite families of equilibrium and fixed point problems, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo II (2019), 10.1007/s12215-019-00431-2Search in Google Scholar

[12] L. O. Jolaoso, F. U. Ogbuisi, and O. T. Mewomo, An iterative method for solving minimization, variational inequality and fixed point problems in reflexive Banach spaces, Adv. Pure Appl. Math. 9 (2018), no. 3, 167–184.10.1515/apam-2017-0037Search in Google Scholar

[13] L. O. Jolaoso, O. K. Oyewole, C. C. Okeke, and O. T. Mewomo, A unified algorithm for solving split generalized mixed equilibrium problem and fixed point of nonspreading mapping in Hilbert space, Demonstr. Math. 51 (2018), 211–232.10.1515/dema-2018-0015Search in Google Scholar

[14] L. O. Jolaoso, A. Taiwo, T. O. Alakoya, and O. T. Mewomo, A self-adaptive inertial subgradient extragradient algorithm for variational inequality and common fixed point of multivalued mappings in Hilbert spaces, Demonstr. Math. 52 (2019), 183–203.10.1515/dema-2019-0013Search in Google Scholar

[15] L. O. Jolaoso, A. Taiwo, T. O. Alakoya, and O. T. Mewomo, A unified algorithm for solving variational inequality and fixed point problems with application to the split equality problem, Comput. Appl. Math. 39 (2020), 38, 10.1007/s40314-019-1014-2.Search in Google Scholar

[16] G. Marino, B. Scardamaglia, and E. Karapinar, Strong convergence theorem for strict pseudo-contractions in Hilbert spaces, J. Inequal. Appl. 2016 (2016), 134, 10.1186/s13660-016-1072-6.Search in Google Scholar

[17] C. C. Okeke, C. Izuchukwu, and O. T. Mewomo, Strong convergence results for convex minimization and monotone variational inclusion problems in Hilbert space, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo, II Ser. (2019), 10.1007/s12215-019-00427-y.Search in Google Scholar

[18] A. Taiwo, L. O. Jolaoso, and O. T. Mewomo, A modified Halpern algorithm for approximating a common solution of split equality convex minimization problem and fixed point problem in uniformly convex Banach spaces, Comput. Appl. Math. 38 (2019), 77, 10.1007/s40314-019-0841-5.Search in Google Scholar

[19] A. Taiwo, L. O. Jolaoso, and O. T. Mewomo, Parallel hybrid algorithm for solving pseudomonotone equilibrium and split common fixed point problems, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 43 (2020), 1893–1918, 10.1007/s40840-019-00781-1.Search in Google Scholar

[20] A. Taiwo, L. O. Jolaoso, and O. T. Mewomo, General alternative regularization method for solving split equality common fixed point problem for quasi-pseudocontractive mappings in Hilbert spaces, Ricerche Mat. 69 (2020), 235–259, 10.1007/s11587-019-00460-0.Search in Google Scholar

[21] W. A. Kirk, Fixed point theorems in CAT(0) spaces and ℝ-trees, Fixed Point Theory Appl. 4 (2004), 309–316.Search in Google Scholar

[22] W. A. Kirk, Geodesic geometry and fixed point theory, in: Seminar of Mathematical Analysis (Malaga/Seville, 2002/2003), Colecc. Abierta, vol. 64, Univ. Sevilla Secr. Publ., Seville, 2003, pp. 195–225.Search in Google Scholar

[23] S. Dhompongsa and B. Panyanak, On Δ-convergence theorems in CAT(0) spaces, Comput. Math. Appl. 56 (2008), 2572–2579.10.1016/j.camwa.2008.05.036Search in Google Scholar

[24] S. H. Khan and M. Abbas, Strong and Δ-convergence of some iterative schemes in CAT(0) spaces, Comput. Math. Appl. 61 (2011), no. 1, 109–116.10.1016/j.camwa.2010.10.037Search in Google Scholar

[25] S. S. Chang, L. Wang, H. W. Joseph Lee, C. K. Chan, and L. Yang, Demiclosed principle and Δ-convergence theorems for total asymptotically nonexpansive mappings in CAT(0) spaces, Appl. Math. Comput. 219 (2012), 2611–2617.10.1016/j.amc.2012.08.095Search in Google Scholar

[26] I. Uddin and M. Imdad, On certain convergence of S-iteration scheme in CAT (0) spaces, Kuwait J. Sci. 42 (2015), no. 2, 93–106.Search in Google Scholar

[27] I. Uddin and M. Imdad, Some convergence theorems for a hybrid pair of generalized nonexpansive mappings in CAT(0) spaces, J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 16 (2015), no. 3, 447–457.Search in Google Scholar

[28] S. Aggarwal and I. Uddin, Convergence and stability of Fibonacci-Mann iteration for a monotone non-Lipschitzian mapping, Demonstr. Math. 52 (2019), 388–396.10.1515/dema-2019-0030Search in Google Scholar

[29] W. Laowang and B. Panyanak, Strong and Δ-convergence theorems for multivalued mappings in spaces, J. Inequal. Appl. 2009 (2019), 730132, 10.1155/2009/730132.Search in Google Scholar

[30] W. A. Kirk, Fixed point theorems in CAT(0) spaces and ℝ-trees, Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2004 (2004), 4, 309–316.10.1155/S1687182004406081Search in Google Scholar

[31] S. Ranjbar and H. Khatibzadeh, Strong and Δ-convergence to a zero of a monotone operator in CAT(0) spaces, Mediterr. J. Math. 14 (2017), 56, 10.1007/s00009-017-0885-y.Search in Google Scholar

[32] S. Saejung, Halpern’s iteration in CAT(0) spaces, Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010 (2010), 471781, 10.1155/2010/471781.Search in Google Scholar

[33] N. Wairojjana, N. Pakkaranang, I. Uddin, P. Kumam, and A. M. Awwal, Modified proximal point algorithms involving convex combination technique for solving minimization problems with convergence analysis, Optimization (2019), 10.1080/02331934.2019.1657115.Search in Google Scholar

[34] G. C. Ugwunnadi, C. Izuchukwu, and O. T. Mewomo, Strong convergence theorem for monotone inclusion problem in CAT(0) spaces, Afr. Mat. 30 (2019), 151–169.10.1007/s13370-018-0633-xSearch in Google Scholar

[35] C. Izuchukwu, G. C. Ugwunnadi, O. T. Mewomo, A. R. Khan, and M. Abbas, Proximal-type algorithms for split minimization problem in p-uniformly convex metric space, Numer. Algorithms 82 (2019), 909–935.10.1007/s11075-018-0633-9Search in Google Scholar

[36] H. Khatibzadeh and S. Ranjbar, Monotone operators and the proximal point algorithm in complete CAT(0) metric spaces, J. Aust. Math Soc. 103 (2017), 70–90.10.1017/S1446788716000446Search in Google Scholar

[37] B. Martinet, Regularisation d’inequations variationelles par approximations, Rev Francaise d’inform et de Rech Re 3 (1970), 154–158.Search in Google Scholar

[38] R. T. Rockafellar, Monotone operators and the proximal point algorithm, SIAM J. Control Optim. 14 (1976), no. 5, 877–898.10.1137/0314056Search in Google Scholar

[39] C. C. Okeke and C. Izuchukwu, A strong convergence theorem for monotone inclusion and minimization problems in complete CAT(0) spaces, Optim. Methods Softw. (2018), 10.1080/10556788.2018.1472259.Search in Google Scholar

[40] S. Reich and I. Shafrir, Nonexpansive iterations in hyperbolic spaces, Nonlinear Anal. 15 (1990), no. 6, 537–558.10.1016/0362-546X(90)90058-OSearch in Google Scholar

[41] I. D. Berg and I. G. Nikolaev, Quasilinearization and curvature of Aleksandrov spaces, Geom. Dedicata 133 (2008), 195–218.10.1007/s10711-008-9243-3Search in Google Scholar

[42] T. C. Lim, Remarks on some fixed point theorems, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 60 (1976), 179–182.10.1090/S0002-9939-1976-0423139-XSearch in Google Scholar

[43] W. A. Kirk and B. Panyanak, A concept of convergence in geodesic spaces, Nonlinear Anal. 68 (2008), no. 12, 3689–3696.10.1016/j.na.2007.04.011Search in Google Scholar

[44] B. A. Kakavandi and M. Amini, Duality and subdifferential for convex functions on complete CAT (0) metric spaces, Nonlinear Anal. 73 (2010), no. 10, 3450–3455.10.1016/j.na.2010.07.033Search in Google Scholar

[45] P. Chaipunya and P. Kumam, On the proximal point method in Hadamard spaces, Optimization 10 (2017), no. 66, 1647–1665.10.1080/02331934.2017.1349124Search in Google Scholar

[46] H. Dehghan and J. Rooin, Metric projection and convergence theorems for nonexpansive mappings in Hadamard spaces, arXiv:1410.1137v1[math.FA], 2014.Search in Google Scholar

[47] B. Kakavandi, Weak topologies in complete CAT (0) metric spaces, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 141 (2013), no. 3, 1029–1039.10.1090/S0002-9939-2012-11743-5Search in Google Scholar

[48] S. Dhompongsa, W. A. Kirk, and B. Panyanak, Nonexpansive set-valued mappings in metric and Banach spaces, J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 8 (2007), no. 1, 35–45.Search in Google Scholar

[49] P. E. Maingé and S. Măruşter, Convergence in norm of modified Krasnoselski-Mann iterations for fixed points of demicontractive mappings, Comput. Appl. Math. 217 (2011), no. 24, 9864–9874.10.1016/j.amc.2011.04.068Search in Google Scholar

[50] R. Wangkeeree and P. Preechasilp, Viscosity approximation methods for nonexpansive mappings in CAT(0) spaces, J. Inequal. Apl. 2013 (2013), 93, 10.1186/1029-242X-2013-93Search in Google Scholar

[51] H. Khatibzadeh and S. Ranjbar, A variational inequality in complete CAT(0) spaces, Fixed Point Theory Appl. 17 (2015), 557–574.10.1007/s11784-015-0245-0Search in Google Scholar

[52] K. S. Kim, Some convergence theorems for contractive type mappings in CAT(0) spaces, Abstr. Appl. Anals. 2013 (2013), 381715, 10.1155/2013/381715.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-07-13
Revised: 2020-02-18
Accepted: 2020-02-24
Published Online: 2020-07-03

© 2020 Grace N. Ogwo et al., published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Regular Articles
  2. Stability of an additive-quadratic-quartic functional equation
  3. Two new forms of ordered soft separation axioms
  4. Coefficient inequalities for a subclass of Bazilevič functions
  5. Equivalence of the existence of best proximity points and best proximity pairs for cyclic and noncyclic nonexpansive mappings
  6. Generalized parabolic Marcinkiewicz integrals associated with polynomial compound curves with rough kernels
  7. Jordan centralizer maps on trivial extension algebras
  8. On soft pc-separation axioms
  9. Direct and strong converse inequalities for approximation with Fejér means
  10. On perturbed quadratic integral equations and initial value problem with nonlocal conditions in Orlicz spaces
  11. On θ-generalized demimetric mappings and monotone operators in Hadamard spaces
  12. On the domain of implicit functions in a projective limit setting without additional norm estimates
  13. Scalar linear impulsive Riemann-Liouville fractional differential equations with constant delay-explicit solutions and finite time stability
  14. The special atom space and Haar wavelets in higher dimensions
  15. A strong convergence theorem for a zero of the sum of a finite family of maximally monotone mappings
  16. Existence and uniqueness of mild solutions for a fractional differential equation under Sturm-Liouville boundary conditions when the data function is of Lipschitzian type
  17. The new investigation of the stability of mixed type additive-quartic functional equations in non-Archimedean spaces
  18. Numerical approach to the controllability of fractional order impulsive differential equations
  19. Two modifications of the inertial Tseng extragradient method with self-adaptive step size for solving monotone variational inequality problems
  20. Further results on Ulam stability for a system of first-order nonsingular delay differential equations
  21. Existence results for nonlinear coupled system of integral equations of Urysohn Volterra-Chandrasekhar mixed type
  22. Structure of n-quasi left m-invertible and related classes of operators
  23. Hyers-Ulam stability of a nonautonomous semilinear equation with fractional diffusion
  24. Hasimoto surfaces for two classes of curve evolution in Minkowski 3-space
  25. Applications of some operators on supra topological spaces
  26. An iterative algorithm for the system of split mixed equilibrium problem
  27. Almost graded multiplication and almost graded comultiplication modules
  28. Strong convergence of an inertial extrapolation method for a split system of minimization problems
  29. On the non-hypercyclicity of scalar type spectral operators and collections of their exponentials
  30. Exponential spline method for singularly perturbed third-order boundary value problems
  31. Existence results of noninstantaneous impulsive fractional integro-differential equation
  32. Review Articles
  33. On a characterization of exponential, Pearson and Pareto distributions via covariance and pseudo-covariance
Downloaded on 11.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/dema-2020-0006/html
Scroll to top button