Home Cyclic pairs and common best proximity points in uniformly convex Banach spaces
Article Open Access

Cyclic pairs and common best proximity points in uniformly convex Banach spaces

  • Moosa Gabeleh EMAIL logo , P. Julia Mary , A.Anthony Eldred Eldred and Olivier Olela Otafudu
Published/Copyright: June 9, 2017

Abstract

In this article, we survey the existence, uniqueness and convergence of a common best proximity point for a cyclic pair of mappings, which is equivalent to study of a solution for a nonlinear programming problem in the setting of uniformly convex Banach spaces. Finally, we provide an extension of Edelstein’s fixed point theorem in strictly convex Banach spaces. Examples are given to illustrate our main conclusions.

MSC 2010: 90C48; 47H09; 46B20

In 2003, an interesting extension of Banach contraction principle was given as below.

Theorem 0.1

([1]). Let A and B be nonempty and closed subsets of a complete metric space (X, d) . Suppose that T : ABAB is a cyclic mapping, that is, T(A) ⊆ B and T(B) ⊆ A, such that d(Tx, Ty) ≤ α d(x, y) for some α ∈ [0, 1 [and for all xA, yB. Then AB is nonempty and T has a unique fixed point in AB.

If in Theorem 0.1 AB = ∅, then the fixed point equation Tx = x does not have any solution. In this situation we have the following notion. We should mention that the existence of best approximant for non-self mappings was first studied by Ky Fan as below.

Theorem 0.2

([2]). Let A be a nonempty, compact and convex subset of a normed linear space X and T : AX be a continuous mapping. Then there exists a point x*A such that

xTx=dist({Tx},A).

We now state the notion of best proximity points for cyclic mappings.

Definition 0.3

Let A, B be nonempty subsets of a metric space (X, d) and T : ABAB be a cyclic mapping. A point pAB is called a best proximity point of T if

d(p,Tp)=dist(A,B),

where dist (A, B) : = inf{d(x, y) : xA, yB}.

Notice that best proximity point results have been studied to find necessary conditions such that the minimization problem

minxABd(x,Tx), (1)

has at least one solution, where T is a cyclic mapping defined on AB.

In 2006, a class of cyclic mappings was introduced in [3] as follows.

Definition 0.4

([3]). Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a metric space (X, d). A mapping T : ABAB is said to be a cyclic contraction provided that T is cyclic on AB and

d(Tx,Ty)αd(x,y)+(1α)dist(A,B)

for some α ∈ [0, 1 [and for all (x, y) ∈ A × B.

After that in 2009, a generalized class of cyclic contractions was introduced as below.

Definition 0.5

([4]). Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a metric space (X, d). A mapping T : ABAB is said to be a cyclic φ-contraction if T is cyclic on AB and φ : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) is a strictly increasing function and

d(Tx,Ty)d(x,y)φ(d(x,y))+φ(dist(A,B)),

for all (x, y) ∈ A × B.

It is remarkable to note that the class of cyclic φ-contraction mappings contains the class of cyclic contractions as a subclass by considering φ(t) = (1 − α)t for t ≥0 and for some α ∈ [0, 1 [.

Next theorem guarantees the existence, uniqueness and convergence of a best proximity point for cyclic φ-contractions in uniformly convex Banach spaces.

Theorem 0.6

(Theorem 8 of [4]). Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a uniformly convex Banach space X such that A is closed and convex, and let T : ABAB be a cyclic φ-contraction mapping. For x0A, define xn + 1 : = Txn for each n ≥ 0. Then there exists a unique pA such that x2np andpTp∥ = dist(A, B).

Recently, many authors have studied the existence of best proximity points for various classes of cyclic mappings which one can refer to [518] for more information.

In the current paper, we discuss sufficient conditions which ensure the existence and uniqueness of a solution for a nonlinear programming problem. Then we obtain a similar result of Theorem 0.6 for another class of cyclic mappings in uniformly convex Banach spaces. We also study the existence of best proximity pairs for noncyclic contractive mappings in strictly convex Banach spaces and so we present a generalization of Edelstein’s fixed point theorem.

1 Preliminaries

In this section, we recall some notions which will be used in our main discussions.

Definition 1.1

A Banach space X is said to be

  1. uniformly convex if there exists a strictly increasing function δ : [0, 2] →[0, 1] such that for every x, y, pX, R > 0 and r ∈ [0, 2R], the following implication holds:

    xpR,ypR,x+y2p(1δ(rR))R;xyr
  2. strictly convex if for every x, y, pX and R > 0, the following implication holds:

    xpR,ypR,x+y2p<R.xy

It is well known that Hilbert spaces and lp spaces (1 < p < ∞) are uniformly convex Banach spaces. Also, the Banach space l1 with the norm

|x|=x1+x2,xl1,

where, ∥.∥1 and ∥.∥2 are the norms on l1 and l2, respectively, is strictly convex which is not uniformly convex (see [19] for more details).

Let A and B be nonempty subsets of a normed linear space X. We shall say that a pair (A, B) satisfies a property if both A and B satisfy that property. For example, (A, B) is convex if and only if both A and B are convex. We define

Ψ:={ψ:[0,[[0,[;ψ is upper semi-continuous from the right and 0ψ(t)<t,t>0},xy:=xydist(A,B),(x,y)A×B,A0:={xA:xy=dist(A,B), for some yB},B0:={yB:xy=dist(A,B), for some xA}.

Notice that if (A, B) is a nonempty, bounded, closed and convex pair in a reflexive Banach space X, then (A0, B0) is also nonempty, closed and convex pair in X. We say that the pair (A, B) is proximinal if A = A0 and B = B0. Also, the metric projection operator 𝓟A : X → 2A is defined as 𝓟A(x) : = {yA : ∥xy∥= dist({x}, A)} where 2A denotes the set of all subsets of A. It is well known that if A is a nonempty, bounded, closed and convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space X, then the metric projection 𝓟A is single valued from X to A.

Definition 1.2

([20]). Let (A, B) be a pair of nonempty subsets of a metric space (X, d) with A0 ≠ ∅. The pair (A, B) is said to have P-property if and only if

d(x1,y1)=dist(A,B)d(x2,y2)=dist(A,B)d(x1,x2)=d(y1,y2),

where x1, x2A0 and y1, y2B0.

It was announced in [21] that every nonempty, bounded, closed and convex pair in a uniformly convex Banach space X has the P-property.

Next two lemmas will be used in the sequel.

Lemma 1.3

([3]). Let A be a nonempty, closed and convex subset and B be a nonempty and closed subset of a uniformly convex Banach space X. Let {xn} and {zn} be sequences in A and let {yn} be a sequence in B such that

  1. znyn∥ → dist(A, B),

  2. for every ε > 0, there exists N0 ∈ ℕ so that for all m > n > N0, ∥xmyn∥ ≤ dist(A, B) + ε.

Then for every ε > 0, there exists N1 ∈ ℕ such thatxmzn∥ ≤ ε for any m > n > N1.

Lemma 1.4

([3]). Let A be a nonempty, closed and convex subset and B be a nonempty and closed subset of a uniformly convex Banach space X. Let {xn} and {zn} be sequences in A and let {yn} be a sequence in B satisfying

  1. xnyn∥ → dist(A, B),

  2. znyn∥ → dist(A, B).

Thenxnzn∥ → 0.

2 A nonlinear programming problem: common best proximity point

Let (A, B) be a nonempty pair in a normed linear space X and T, S : ABAB be two cyclic mappings. A point pAB is called a common best proximity point for the cyclic pair (T;S) provided that

pTp=dist(A,B)=pSp.

In view of the fact that

min{xTx,xSx}dist(A,B),xAB,

the optimal solution to the problem of

minxAB{xTx,xSx} (2)

will be the one for which the value dist(A, B) is attained. Thereby, a point pAB is a common best proximity point for the cyclic pair (T;S) if and only if that is a solution of the minimization problem (2).

In this section, we provide some sufficient conditions in order to study the existence of a solution for (2). We begin with the following result.

Theorem 2.1

Let (A, B) be a nonempty, closed, and convex pair in a uniformly convex Banach space X and (T;S) be a cyclic pair defined on AB such that

  1. S(A) ⊆ T(A) ⊆ B and S(B) ⊆ T(B) ⊆ A,

  2. SxSy*ψ(∥TxTy*), for all (x, y) ∈ A × B where ψ ∈ Ψ,

  3. S and T commute,

  4. T|A is continuous.

Then (T;S) has a unique common best proximity point in B.

Proof

Choose x0A. Since S(A) ⊆ T(A), there exists x1A such that Sx0 = Tx1. Again, by the fact that S(A) ⊆ T(A), there exists x2A such that Sx1 = Tx2. Continuing this process, we can find a sequence {xn} in A such that Sxn = Txn+1. It follows from the conditions (ii) and (iii) that

SxnSSxnψ(TxnTSxn)=ψ(TxnSTxn)=ψ(Sxn1SSxn1)Sxn1SSxn1,

that is, {∥ SxnSSxn*} is a decreasing sequence of nonnegative real numbers and hence it converges. Let r be the limit of ∥ SxnSSxn*. We claim that r = 0. Suppose that r > 0. Then

lim supnSxnSSxnlim supnψ(Sxn1SSxn1),

which implies that rψ(r) which is a contradiction. So, ∥ SxnSSxn∥→ dist(A, B). Moreover,

Sxn+1SSxnψ(Txn+1TSxn)=ψ(SxnSSxn1),SxnSSxn+1ψ(TxnTSxn+1)=ψ(Sxn1SSxn).

By a similar argument we conclude that

Sxn+1SSxndist(A,B),SxnSSxn+1dist(A,B).

Let us prove that for any ε > 0 there exists N0 ∈ ℕ such that for all m > n > N0,

SxmSSxn<ε.

Suppose the contrary. Then there exists ξ > 0 such that for all k ∈ ℕ there exist mk > nkk for which

SxmkSSxnkε,Sxmk1SSxnk<ε.

We now have

εSxmkSSxnkSxmkSSxmk1+Sxmk1SSxnk.

Letting k → ∞ we obtain ∥ SxmkSSxnk*ε. Besides,

SxmkSSxnkSxmkSxmk+1+Sxmk+1SSxnk+1+SSxnk+1SSxnkSxmkSxmk+1+ψ(Txmk+1TSxnk+1)+SSxnκ+1SSxnk=SxmkSxmk+1+ψ(SxmkSSxnk)+SSxnk+1SSxnk.

Therefore,

lim supkSxmkSSxnklim supkψ(SxmkSSxnk),

and from the upper semi-continuity of ψ we have εψ(ε)which is a contradiction. Using Lemma 1.3, {Sxn} is a Cauchy sequence and converges to qB. So Txnq. By this reality that T|A is continuous, STxn = TSxnTq and so TTxnTq. We have

STxnSxnψ(TTxnTxn).

Letting lim sup in above relation when n → ∞, then by the fact that ψ is upper semi-continuous from the right, we obtain ∥ Tqq*ψ(∥ Tqq*), which implies that ∥ qTq* = 0. Also,

SxnSqψ(TxnTq),

which concludes that ∥ qSq*ψ(∥ qTq*) = ψ(0) = 0. Thus

qTq=dist(A,B)=qSq,

and so qB is a common best proximity point for the cyclic pair (T; S). Now assume that q′ ∈ B is another common best proximity point for the cyclic pair (T; S). Then ∥ q′−Tq′∥ = dist(A, B) = ∥ q′−Sq′∥ By the fact that (A, B) has the P-property, Tq = Sq and Tq′ = Sq′. We have

STqSqψ(TTqTq)=ψ(TSqTq)=ψ(STqSq),

which implies that ∥ STqSq′∥* = 0. Equivalently, ∥ STqSq* = 0. Therefore,

qSq=STqSq=dist(A,B)=qSq=STqSq.

Again since (A, B) has the P-property, q = STq = q′ and the proof is complete. □

The following corollary is the main result of [22].

Corollary 2.2

Let (A, B)be a nonempty, closed, and convex pair in a uniformly convex Banach space X and (T; S)be a cyclic pair defined on AB such that

  1. S(A) ⊆ T(A) ⊆ B and S(B) ⊆ T(B) ⊆ A,

  2. SxSy*kTxTy*, for some k∈ [0, 1) and for all (x, y) ∈ A × B,

  3. S and T commute,

  4. T|A is continuous.

Then (T; S)has a unique common best proximity point in B.

Proof

It is sufficient to consider ψ(t) = kt in Theorem 2.1. □

Remark 2.3

We mention that Theorem 2.1 can be proved in complete metric spaces by using a geometric notion of property UC on closed pairs, which is a property for closed and convex pairs in uniformly convex Banach spaces (see Theorem 3.9 of [22]). Since we will use the other geometric notions of uniformly convex Banach spaces, we prefer to prove Theorem 2.1 in uniformly convex Banach spaces.

The following best proximity point theorem is a different version of Theorem 0.6.

Theorem 2.4

Let (A, B)be a nonempty, bounded, closed and convex pair in a uniformly convex Banach space X and S : ABAB be a cyclic mapping such that

SxSyψ(xy),

for all (x, y)∈ A × B where ψΨ. Then S has a unique best proximity point in B.

Proof

As we mentioned, (A0, B0)is nonempty, closed and convex. Note that the mapping S is cyclic on A0B0. Indeed, if xA0 then there exists a unique yB0 such that ∥xy∥ = dist(A, B)or ∥ xy* = 0. Thus ∥ SxSy*ψ(∥ xy*) = ψ(0) = 0 and so, ∥ SxSy∥ = dist(A, B)which implies that SxB0, that is, S(A0) ⊆ B0. Similarly, S(B0) ⊆ A0. Now consider the mapping 𝓟 : A0B0A0B0 defined with

Px=PB0(x)if xA0,PA0(x)if xB0.

It is clear that 𝓟 is cyclic on A0B0. We have two following observations.

  • 𝓟 is surjective:

    Let yB0. Then there exists a unique element xA0 such that ∥ xy∥ = dist(A, B). Therefore,

    xy=dist(A,B)xPx=xPB0x,

    which implies that y = 𝓟x by the uniformly convexity of X. Thus 𝓟(A0) = B0. Similarly, we can see that 𝓟(B0) = A0.

  • 𝓟 is an isometry:

    Assume that (x, y)∈ A0× B0. Then we have ∥ x−𝓟x∥ = dist(A, B) = ∥ y−𝓟y In view of the fact that (A, B) has the P-property, ∥ xy∥ = ∥ 𝓟x−𝓟y∥ and the result follows.

  • S and 𝓟 commute on A0B0:

    Suppose xA0. Then there exists a unique yB0 such that ∥ xy∥ = dist(A, B). Thus x = 𝓟y and y = 𝓟x. Hence, ∥ SxSy∥ = dist(A, B) which implies that Sy = 𝓟Sx and so, S 𝓟x = 𝓟Sx. Similar argument holds when xB0, that is, S and 𝓟 are commuting.

  • 𝓟|A0 is continuous:

    Let {xn} be a sequence in A0 such that xnxA0. We have

    xnPxxnx+xPxdist(A,B),xnPxn=dist(A,B),nN.

    Now using Lemma 1.4 we conclude that ∥ 𝓟xn−𝓟x∥→ 0, or 𝓟xn→ 𝓟x.

Finally, we note that

SxSyψ(xy)=ψ(PxPy),

for any (x, y)∈ A0× B0. Thereby, all of the assumptions of Theorem 2.1 are satisfied and then the cyclic pair (S; 𝓟) has a unique common best proximity point such as qB0 and this completes the proof. □

Let us illustrate Theorem 2.1 with the following example.

Example 2.5

Suppose X = l2 and let A = {te1+e2 : 0 ≤ t 14 } and B = {e2 + se3 : 0 ≤ s 14 }. Define the cyclic pair (T; S)as below

S(te1+e2)=e2+t2e3andS(e2+se3)=s2e1+e2,t,s[0,14],T(te1+e2)=e2+te3andT(e2+se3)=se1+e2,t,s[0,14].

It is clear that S(A) ⊆ T(A) = B and S(B) ⊆ T(B) = A. Also,

TS(te1+e2)=T(e2+t2e3)=t2e1+e2=S(e2+te3)=ST(te1+e2),TS(e2+se3)=T(s2e1+e2)=e2+s2e3=T(s2e1+e2)=TS(e2+se3),

that is, T and S are commuting. Now define the function ψΨ with

ψ(r)=r20r<1,rr+11r.

For x: = te1 + e2A and y: = e2+se3B we have

SxSy=s4+t4s2+t2=ψ(s2+t2)=ψ(TxTy).

Therefore, all of the assumptions of Theorem 2.1 hold and so, the cyclic pair (T; S)has a unique common best proximity point in B and this point is p = e2 which is a common fixed point of the mappings T and S in this case.

The following example shows that the uniformly convexity condition of the Banach space X in Theorem 2.4 is sufficient but not necessary.

Example 2.6

Let X be the real Banach space l2 renormed according to

x=max{x2,2x},

where, ∥ x denotes the lnorm andx2 the l2 norm. Assume {en} is a canonical basis of l2. Note that for any xX we havex2≤∥ x ∥≤ 2 x2 which implies ∥.∥ that is equivalent to ∥.∥2 and so, (X, ∥.∥) is a reflexive Banach space. Moreover, in view of the fact that l is not strictly convex, X is not uniformly convex. Put

A={x=(xn);x2=1,x2}andB={y:=2e2}.

Then (A, B)is a bounded, closed and convex pair in X and dist (A, B) = 2 . Moreover, A0 = A and B0 = B. Define the cyclic mapping S : ABAB with

Sx=y(xA)andSy=12e1+e2.

For all xA and r ∈(0, 1)we have

SxSy=e212e1=max{14+1,2}=2rxy+(1r)dist(A,B),

that is, S is cyclic contraction. We note that y is a unique best proximity point of S in B.

3 A generalization of Edelstein fixed point theorem

We begin the main results of this section by stating the well known Edelstein’s fixed point theorem.

Theorem 3.1

([23]). Let (X, d) be a compact metric space and T be a mapping on X such that

d(Tx,Ty)<d(x,y),x,yXwithxy.

Then T has a unique fixed point and for any x0X the iterate sequence {Tn x0} converges to the fixed point of T.

Let (A, B) be a nonempty pair in a normed linear space X. A mapping T : ABAB is said to be noncyclic provided that T(A) ⊆ A and T(B) ⊆ B. A point (p, q) ∈ A × B is said to be a bestproximity pair for the noncyclic mapping T if

p=Tp,q=Tqandpq=dist(A,B).

It is interesting to note that the existence of best proximity pairs for noncyclic mappings is equivalent to the existence of a solution of the following minimization nonlinear problem:

minxAxTx,minyByTy,andmin(x,y)A×Bxy. (3)

The existence of best proximity pairs was first studied by Eldred et al. in [24] using a geometric notion of proximal normal structure on nonempty, weakly compact and convex pairs in strictly convex Banach spaces for noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mappings.

Definition 3.2

([24]). A convex pair (A, B) in a Banach space X is said to have proximal normal structure if for any bounded, closed, convex and proximinal pair (K1, K2) ⊆ (A, B) for which δ(K1, K2) > dist (K1, K2) and dist (K1, K2) = dist (A, B), there exits (x1, x2) ∈ K1 × K2 such that

max{δx1(K2),δx2(K1)}<δ(K1,K2).

Since every nonempty, compact and convex pair in a Banach space X has proximal normal structure (Proposition 2.2 of [24]), the following result concludes.

Theorem 3.3

(Theorem 2.2 of [24]). Let (A, B) be a nonempty compact and convex pair in a strictly convex Banach space X and T be a noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mapping, that is, T is noncyclic andTxTy∥ ≤ ∥xyfor all (x, y) ∈ A × B. Then T has a best proximity pair.

Motivated by Theorem 3.3, we study the convergence results of best proximity pairs for noncyclic contractive mappings in strictly convex Banach spaces.

Definition 3.4

Let (A, B) be a nonempty pair in a normed linear space X. A mapping T : ABAB is said to be a noncyclic contractive mapping if T is noncyclic on AB and

TxTy<xy,forall(x,y)A×B,withxy>dist(A,B).

Next lemma describes the relation between noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mappings and noncyclic contractive mappings in uniformly convex Banach spaces.

Lemma 3.5

Let (A, B) be a nonempty compact and convex pair in a strictly convex Banach space X and T : ABAB be a noncyclic contractive mapping. Then T is noncyclic relatively nonexpansive.

Proof

We only have to prove that ∥TxTy∥ = dist (A, B) whenever ∥xy∥ = dist (A, B). So let ∥xy∥ = dist (A, B). Choose a sequence ({xn}, {yn}) in A × B such that ∥xnyn∥ > dist (A, B) and xnx, yny for any nN. By the compactness condition of the pair (A, B), we may assume that limn→∞xn = xA and limn → ∞yn = yB. Then limn → ∞xnyn∥ = dist(A; B). Notice that if ∥xn0y∥ = dist (A, B) for some n0 ∈ ℕ, then by the strictly convexity of X we must have xn0 =x which is a contradiction. Thus

dist(A,B)PA(Ty)TyTxnTy<xny.

Therefore, ∥TxnTy∥ → dist(A; B). Since ∥𝓟A(Ty)−Ty∥≤∥TxnTy∥ and TyB0,

TxnPA(Ty).

Similarly we can see that Tyn → 𝓟B(Tx). In view of the fact that ∥TxnTyn∥ → dist(A; B), we obtain ∥𝓟A(Ty) − 𝓟B(Tx)∥ = dist (A, B). Again, using the strict convexity of X,

Tx=PA(Ty),andTy=PB(Tx).

Thereby, ∥TxTy∥ = dist (A, B) and the result follows.□

Next example shows that the strictly convexity of the Banach space X in Lemma 3.5 is a necessary condition.

Example 3.6

Let X = {ℝ2,∥.∥} and let A = {(0, s) : 0 ≤ s ≤ 2} and B = {(1, t) : 0 ≤ t ≤ 2}. It is clear that dist (A, B) = 1. Define the noncyclic mapping T : ABAB by

T(0,s)=(0,s1+s),T(1,t)=(1,t1+t).

For (x, y) ∈ A × B ifxy > dist (A, B), then

TxTy=(0,s1+s)(1,t1+t)=max{1,|st|(1+s)(1+t)}<|st|=xy,

which implies that T is noncyclic contractive. Besides, ∥TxTy = dist (A, B), whenxy = dist (A, B). Hence, T is noncyclic relatively nonexpansive.

But if we modify T : AA as T(0,s)=(0,s1+s)for0<s2 and T(0, 0) = (0, 1.1), then T is still noncyclic contractive. To see T this, let x : = (0,0). Since

{yB:xy>1}={(1,t):1<t2},

we have

TxTy=max{1,1.1t1+t}=1<xy,

whenever 1 < t ≤ 2. On the other hand, if v : = (1,0), then

TxTv=max{1.1,1}>1=xv,

that is, T is not a noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mapping.

The following theorem is an extension of Edelstein’s fixed point theorem in strictly convex Banach spaces.

Theorem 3.7

Let (A, B) be a nonempty compact and convex pair in a strictly convex Banach space X and T : ABAB be a noncyclic contractive mapping. Then T has a unique best proximity pair Moreover for any (x0, y0) ∈ A0 × B0 if we define xn+1 := Txn and yn+1 := Tyn then the sequence {(xn, yn)} converges to the best proximity pair of T.

Proof

It follows from Lemma 3.5 that T is a noncyclic relatively nonexpansive mapping. Since the pair (A, B) is compact and convex, the existence of a best proximity pair for the mapping T is concluded from Theorem 3.3. Suppose (p, q) ∈ A × B is a best proximity pair of the mapping T. Then p = Tp, q = Tq and ∥pq∥ = dist (A, B). It is worth noticing that the fixed point sets of T in A0 and B0 are singleton. Indeed, if p′ ∈ A0 such that p′ = Tp′ and pp′ then from the strictly convexity of X we have ∥p′ − q∥ > dist (A, B). Therefore,

pq=TpTq<pq,

which is impossible. Equivalently, we can see that the fixed point set in B0 is singleton. This implies that T has a unique best proximity pair in A × B. Let x0A0 and xn+1 = Txn. Assume that {xnk} is a subsequence of {xn} such that xnkzA0. Thus

d(xn,PBp)=d(Txn1,PB(Tp))=d(Txn1,T(PBp))<d(xn1,PBp)

Hence, d(z,PBp) = limk → ∞d(xnk, 𝓟Bp). From Proposition 3.4 of [25] T is continuous on A0B0. Suppose d(z,𝓟Bp) > dist(A, B). We now have

d(z,PBp)=limkd(xnk+1,PBp)=limkd(Txnk,PBp)=d(Tz,PBp)=d(Tz,PB(Tp))=d(Tz,T(PBp))<d(z,PBp),

which is a contradiction and so we must have d(z,𝓟Bp) = dist(A, B). Then z = p. Since any convergent subsequence of {xnk} converges to p, the sequence itself converges to p. Similarly we can prove the convergence of {yn} to the point q and this competes the proof.□

Remark 3.8

The notion of noncyclic contractive mappings was introduced in [25] as below (see Definition 3.2 and Theorem 4.6 of [25]): Let (A, B) be a nonempty pair in a metric space (X, d). A mapping T : ABAB is called noncyclic contractive if T is noncyclic on AB and

  1. d(Tx,Ty) < d(x, y) whenever d(x, y) > dist(A, B) for xA and yB,

  2. d(Tx,Ty) = d(x, y) whenever d(x, y) = dist(A, B) for xA and yB.

Then the existence result of a unique best proximity pair for such mappings was established using a notion of projectional property (Theorem 4.6 of [25]). It is remarkable to note that under the assumptions of Theorem 3.7 the condition (ii) on the noncyclic mapping T holds naturally.

At the end of this section, we study the existence of a unique common best proximity point for a cyclic pair of commuting mappings under a contractive condition.

We begin with the following lemma.

Lemma 3.9

Let (A, B) be a nonempty closed, and convex pair in a normed linear space X and (T;S) be a cyclic pair defined on AB such that

  1. S(A) ⊆ T(A) ⊆ B and S(B) ⊆ T(B) ⊆ A,

  2. T(A) and T(B) are compact subsets of B and A respectively.

  3. SxSy∥ < ∥TxTy∥, for all (x, y)∈ A × B such thatSxSy∥ > dist(A, B),

Then

dist(S(A),S(B))=dist(T(A),T(B))=dist(A,B).

Proof

Clearly

dist(S(A),S(B))dist(T(A),T(B))dist(A,B). (4)

If dist(S(A), S(B)) = dist(A, B), then there is nothing to prove. Suppose dist(S(A), S(B)) > dist(A, B). By the assumption (iii),

dist(S(A),S(B))dist(T(A),T(B)).

Therefore, dist(S(A), S(B)) = dist(T(A),T(B)) and so dist(T(A),T(B)) > dist(A, B). Let a′ ∈ T(B), b′ ∈ T(A) be such that dist(T(A),T(B)) = ∥a′ − b′∥ > dist(A, B). Assume a′ = T(b) and b′ = T(a) for some (a,b)∈ A × B. Since

S(a)S(b)dist(S(A),S(B))>dist(A,B),

we have

S(a)S(b)<T(a)T(b)=dist(T(A),T(B)),

and this is a contradiction with (4) and the result follows.□

Theorem 3.10

Let (A, B) be a nonempty, closed and convex pair in a strictly convex Banach space X. Let (T;S) be a cyclic pair defined on AB such that

  1. S(A) ⊆ T(A) ⊆ B and S(B) ⊆ T(B) ⊆ A

  2. T(A) and T(B) are compact and convex subsets of B and A respectively.

  3. SxSy∥ > ∥TxTyfor all (x, y) ∈ A × B such thatSxSy∥ > dist(A; B)

  4. S and T commute.

Then (T;S) has a unique common best proximity point in B.

Proof

Let

[T(A)]0={yT(A):d(x,y)=dist(T(A),T(B)), for somexT(B)},

and

[T(B)]0={xT(B):d(x,y)=dist(T(A),T(B)), for someyT(A)}.

Notice that from Lemma 3.9, dist(T(A),T(B)) = dist(A, B). To show ST− 1 is singleton, let x ∈[T(B)]0. Then there exists y ∈[T(A)]0 such that ∥xy∥ = dist(A; B). For any zST− 1 xT(B) and wST− 1yT(A),

zw=SxSy

where z = Sx′ and w = Sy′ for some x′ ∈ T−1x and y′ ∈ T−1y. If ∥Sx′ − Sy′ ∥> dist (A, B), then

SxSy<TxTy=TT1xTT1y=xy=dist(A,B),

which is impossible. So

zw=SxSy=dist(A,B),

for any zST−1x and wST−1y. It now follows from the strict convexity of X that ST−1x and ST−1y are singleton. Also, it is clear that ST−1([T(A)]0) ⊆[T(A)]0 and ST−1([T(B)]0) ⊆[T(B)]0, that is, ST−1 : [T(A)]0∪[T(B)]0→[T(A)]0∪[T(B)]0 is a noncyclic mapping. Let (x, y)∈[T(A)]0 ×[T(B)]0 be such that ∥xy∥ > dist (T(A),T(B))(= dist(A, B)). If ∥ ST−1xST−1y ∥ > dist (A, B), then

ST1xST1y<TT1xTT1y=xy,

which implies that ST−1 is a noncyclic contractive mapping on a compact and convex pair ([T(A)]0, [T(B)]0). Now using Theorem 3.7 for any x ∈[T(A)]0∪[T(B)]0 the sequence {(ST−1)nx}n≥1 converges to the unique fixed point z of ST−1. Since S and T commutes,

Tz=T(ST1z)=Sz=S(ST1z)

Suppose ∥SzT(Sz)∥ > dist (A, B). Thus

SzT(Sz)=SzS(Tz)<TzT(Tz)=SzT(Sz),

which is a contradiction. Hence ∥SzT(Sz)∥= dist (A, B). On the other hand, if ∥SzS(Sz)∥ > dist (A, B), then

SzS(Sz)<TzT(Sz)=SzT(Sz)=SzS(Tz)=SzS(Sz),

which is impossible. Thereby ∥SzS(Sz)∥= dist (A, B) and so the point Sz is a common best proximity point for the cyclic pair (T; S). Uniqueness of the common best proximity point follows as in the proof of Theorem 2.1. □

Example 3.11

Let X = {ℝ2, ∥.∥2} and let A={(0,s):0s12}andB={(1,t):0t12}. Thus dist(A, B) = 1. Define the cyclic pair (T ; S) on AB as follows:

S(0,s)=(1,s3),S(1,t)=(0,t3)andT(0,s)=(1,s2),T(1,t)=(0,t2).

Then

S(A)={(1,s):0s18},S(B)={(0,t):0t18},T(A)={(1,s):0s14},T(B)={(0,t):0t14}.

Thereore, S(A) ⊆ T(A) ⊆ B and S(B) ⊆ T(B) ⊆ A. Also, T(A) and T(B) are compact and convex subsets of B and A, respectively. Moreover,

ST(0,s)=S(1,s2)=(0,s6)=T(1,s3)=TS(0,s),ST(1,t)=S(0,t2)=(1,t6)=T(0,t3)=TS(1,t),

and so, S and T are commuting. Finally ifS(0, s)−S(1, t)∥ > dist(A, B), we conclude that st. Hence,

S(0,s)S(1,t)=1+(|s3t3|)2<1+(|s2t2|)2=T(0,s)T(1,t),

whenever s, t ≥0 and s + t ≤ 1. Thereby all of the assumptions of Theorem 3.10 hold and the cyclic pair (T; S) has a unique common best proximity point in B and this point is p = (0,0).

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

[1] Kirk W.A., Srinivasan P.S., Veeramani P., Fixed points for mappings satisfying cyclic contractive conditions, Fixed Point Theory 2003, 4, 79-86Search in Google Scholar

[2] Fan K., Extensions of two fixed point theorems of F.E. Browder, Math. Z., 1969, 112, 234-24010.1007/BF01110225Search in Google Scholar

[3] Eldred A.A., Veeramani P., Existence and convergence of best proximity points, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 2006, 323, 1001-100610.1016/j.jmaa.2005.10.081Search in Google Scholar

[4] Al-Thagafi M.A., Shahzad N., Convergence and existence results for best proximity points, Nonlinear Anal., 2009, 70, 3665-367110.1016/j.na.2008.07.022Search in Google Scholar

[5] Abkar A., Gabeleh M., Best proximity points for asymptotic cyclic contraction mappings, Nonlinear Anal., 2011, 74, 7261-726810.1016/j.na.2011.07.043Search in Google Scholar

[6] De la Sen M., Agarwal R.P., Some fixed point-type results for a class of extended cyclic self-mappings with a more general contractive condition, Fixed Point Theory Appl., 2011, 2011:5910.1186/1687-1812-2011-59Search in Google Scholar

[7] De la Sen M., Agarwal R.P., Common fixed points and best proximity points of two cyclic self-mappings, Fixed Point Theory and Appl., 2012, 2012:13610.1186/1687-1812-2012-136Search in Google Scholar

[8] Derafshpour M., Rezapour Sh., Shahzad N., Best Proximity Points of cyclic φ-contractions in ordered metric spaces, Topological Methods in Nonlinear Anal., 2011, 37, 193-202Search in Google Scholar

[9] Di Bari C., Suzuki T., Vetro C., Best proximity points for cyclic Meir-Keeler contractions, Nonlinear Anal., 2008, 69, 3790-379410.1016/j.na.2007.10.014Search in Google Scholar

[10] Gabeleh M., Best proximity points and fixed point results for certain maps in Banach spaces, Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim., 2015, 36, 1013-102810.1080/01630563.2015.1041143Search in Google Scholar

[11] Gabeleh M., Semi-normal structure and best proximity pair results in convex metric spaces, Banach J. Math. Anal., 2014, 8, 214-22810.15352/bjma/1396640065Search in Google Scholar

[12] Maria Felicit J., Eldred A.A., Best proximity points for cyclical contractive mappings, Appl., General Topol., 2015, 16, 119-126.10.4995/agt.2015.3242Search in Google Scholar

[13] Rus I.A., Cyclic representations and fixed points, Ann. T. Popoviciu, Seminar Funct. Eq. Approx. Convexity, 2005, 3, 171-178Search in Google Scholar

[14] Sadiq Basha S., Best proximity points : global optimal approximate solutions, J. Glob. Optim., 2011, 49, 15-2110.1007/s10898-009-9521-0Search in Google Scholar

[15] Suzuki T., Kikkawa M., Vetro C., The existence of best proximity points in metric spaces with the property UC, Nonlinear Anal., 2009, 71, 2918-292610.1016/j.na.2009.01.173Search in Google Scholar

[16] Wlodarczyk K., Plebaniak R., Banach A., Best proximity points for cyclic and noncyclic set-valued relatively quasi-asymptotic contractions in uniform spaces, Nonlinear Anal., 2009, 70, 3332-334210.1016/j.na.2008.04.037Search in Google Scholar

[17] Wlodarczyk K., Plebaniak R., Banach A., Erratum to: Best proximity points for cyclic and noncyclic set-valued relatively quasi-asymptotic contractions in uniform spaces, Nonlinear Anal., 2009, 71, 3583-358610.1016/j.na.2008.11.020Search in Google Scholar

[18] Wlodarczyk K., Plebaniak R., Obczynski C., Convergence theorems, best approximation and best proximity for set-valued dynamic systems of relatively quasi-asymptotic contractions in cone uniform spaces, Nonlinear Anal., 2010, 72, 794-80510.1016/j.na.2009.07.024Search in Google Scholar

[19] Zizler V., On some rotundity and smoothness properties of Banach spaces, Dissertationes Mat., 1971, 87, 1-33Search in Google Scholar

[20] Sankar Raj V., A best proximity point theorem for weakly contractive non-self-mappings, Nonlin. Anal., 2011, 74, 4804-480810.1016/j.na.2011.04.052Search in Google Scholar

[21] Abkar A., Gabeleh M., Global optimal solutions of noncyclic mappings in metric spaces, J. Optim. Theory Appl., 2012, 153, 298-30510.1007/s10957-011-9966-4Search in Google Scholar

[22] Sadiq Basha S., Shahzad N., Common best proximity point theorems: Global minimization of some real-valued multi-objective functions, J. Fixed Point Theory Appl., 2016, 18, 587-60010.1007/s11784-016-0295-ySearch in Google Scholar

[23] Edelstein M., On fixed and periodic points under contractive mappings, J. London Math. Soc., 1962, 37, 74-7910.1112/jlms/s1-37.1.74Search in Google Scholar

[24] Eldred A.A., Kirk W.A., Veeramani P., Proximal normal structure and relatively nonexpansive mappings, Studia Math., 2005, 171, 283-29310.4064/sm171-3-5Search in Google Scholar

[25] Sankara Raju Kosuru G., Extensions of Edelstein’s theorem on contractive mappings, Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim., 2015, 36, 887-90010.1080/01630563.2015.1035442Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-8-23
Accepted: 2017-3-21
Published Online: 2017-6-9

© 2017 Gabeleh et al.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Regular Articles
  2. Integrals of Frullani type and the method of brackets
  3. Regular Articles
  4. Edge of chaos in reaction diffusion CNN model
  5. Regular Articles
  6. Calculus using proximities: a mathematical approach in which students can actually prove theorems
  7. Regular Articles
  8. An investigation on hyper S-posets over ordered semihypergroups
  9. Regular Articles
  10. The Leibniz algebras whose subalgebras are ideals
  11. Regular Articles
  12. Fixed point and multidimensional fixed point theorems with applications to nonlinear matrix equations in terms of weak altering distance functions
  13. Regular Articles
  14. Matrix rank and inertia formulas in the analysis of general linear models
  15. Regular Articles
  16. The hybrid power mean of quartic Gauss sums and Kloosterman sums
  17. Regular Articles
  18. Tauberian theorems for statistically (C,1,1) summable double sequences of fuzzy numbers
  19. Regular Articles
  20. Some properties of graded comultiplication modules
  21. Regular Articles
  22. The characterizations of upper approximation operators based on special coverings
  23. Regular Articles
  24. Bi-integrable and tri-integrable couplings of a soliton hierarchy associated with SO(4)
  25. Regular Articles
  26. Dynamics for a discrete competition and cooperation model of two enterprises with multiple delays and feedback controls
  27. Regular Articles
  28. A new view of relationship between atomic posets and complete (algebraic) lattices
  29. Regular Articles
  30. A class of extensions of Restricted (s, t)-Wythoff’s game
  31. Regular Articles
  32. New bounds for the minimum eigenvalue of 𝓜-tensors
  33. Regular Articles
  34. Shintani and Shimura lifts of cusp forms on certain arithmetic groups and their applications
  35. Regular Articles
  36. Empirical likelihood for quantile regression models with response data missing at random
  37. Regular Articles
  38. Convex combination of analytic functions
  39. Regular Articles
  40. On the Yang-Baxter-like matrix equation for rank-two matrices
  41. Regular Articles
  42. Uniform topology on EQ-algebras
  43. Regular Articles
  44. Integrations on rings
  45. Regular Articles
  46. The quasilinear parabolic kirchhoff equation
  47. Regular Articles
  48. Avoiding rainbow 2-connected subgraphs
  49. Regular Articles
  50. On non-Hopfian groups of fractions
  51. Regular Articles
  52. Singularly perturbed hyperbolic problems on metric graphs: asymptotics of solutions
  53. Regular Articles
  54. Rings in which elements are the sum of a nilpotent and a root of a fixed polynomial that commute
  55. Regular Articles
  56. Superstability of functional equations related to spherical functions
  57. Regular Articles
  58. Evaluation of the convolution sum involving the sum of divisors function for 22, 44 and 52
  59. Regular Articles
  60. Weighted minimal translation surfaces in the Galilean space with density
  61. Regular Articles
  62. Complete convergence for weighted sums of pairwise independent random variables
  63. Regular Articles
  64. Binomials transformation formulae for scaled Fibonacci numbers
  65. Regular Articles
  66. Growth functions for some uniformly amenable groups
  67. Regular Articles
  68. Hopf bifurcations in a three-species food chain system with multiple delays
  69. Regular Articles
  70. Oscillation and nonoscillation of half-linear Euler type differential equations with different periodic coefficients
  71. Regular Articles
  72. Osculating curves in 4-dimensional semi-Euclidean space with index 2
  73. Regular Articles
  74. Some new facts about group 𝒢 generated by the family of convergent permutations
  75. Regular Articles
  76. lnfinitely many solutions for fractional Schrödinger equations with perturbation via variational methods
  77. Regular Articles
  78. Supersolvable orders and inductively free arrangements
  79. Regular Articles
  80. Asymptotically almost automorphic solutions of differential equations with piecewise constant argument
  81. Regular Articles
  82. Finite groups whose all second maximal subgroups are cyclic
  83. Regular Articles
  84. Semilinear systems with a multi-valued nonlinear term
  85. Regular Articles
  86. Positive solutions for Hadamard differential systems with fractional integral conditions on an unbounded domain
  87. Regular Articles
  88. Calibration and simulation of Heston model
  89. Regular Articles
  90. One kind sixth power mean of the three-term exponential sums
  91. Regular Articles
  92. Cyclic pairs and common best proximity points in uniformly convex Banach spaces
  93. Regular Articles
  94. The uniqueness of meromorphic functions in k-punctured complex plane
  95. Regular Articles
  96. Normalizers of intermediate congruence subgroups of the Hecke subgroups
  97. Regular Articles
  98. The hyperbolicity constant of infinite circulant graphs
  99. Regular Articles
  100. Scott convergence and fuzzy Scott topology on L-posets
  101. Regular Articles
  102. One sided strong laws for random variables with infinite mean
  103. Regular Articles
  104. The join of split graphs whose completely regular endomorphisms form a monoid
  105. Regular Articles
  106. A new branch and bound algorithm for minimax ratios problems
  107. Regular Articles
  108. Upper bound estimate of incomplete Cochrane sum
  109. Regular Articles
  110. Value distributions of solutions to complex linear differential equations in angular domains
  111. Regular Articles
  112. The nonlinear diffusion equation of the ideal barotropic gas through a porous medium
  113. Regular Articles
  114. The Sheffer stroke operation reducts of basic algebras
  115. Regular Articles
  116. Extensions and improvements of Sherman’s and related inequalities for n-convex functions
  117. Regular Articles
  118. Classification lattices are geometric for complete atomistic lattices
  119. Regular Articles
  120. Possible numbers of x’s in an {x, y}-matrix with a given rank
  121. Regular Articles
  122. New error bounds for linear complementarity problems of weakly chained diagonally dominant B-matrices
  123. Regular Articles
  124. Boundedness of vector-valued B-singular integral operators in Lebesgue spaces
  125. Regular Articles
  126. On the Golomb’s conjecture and Lehmer’s numbers
  127. Regular Articles
  128. Some applications of the Archimedean copulas in the proof of the almost sure central limit theorem for ordinary maxima
  129. Regular Articles
  130. Dual-stage adaptive finite-time modified function projective multi-lag combined synchronization for multiple uncertain chaotic systems
  131. Regular Articles
  132. Corrigendum to: Dual-stage adaptive finite-time modified function projective multi-lag combined synchronization for multiple uncertain chaotic systems
  133. Regular Articles
  134. Convergence and stability of generalized φ-weak contraction mapping in CAT(0) spaces
  135. Regular Articles
  136. Triple solutions for a Dirichlet boundary value problem involving a perturbed discrete p(k)-Laplacian operator
  137. Regular Articles
  138. OD-characterization of alternating groups Ap+d
  139. Regular Articles
  140. On Jordan mappings of inverse semirings
  141. Regular Articles
  142. On generalized Ehresmann semigroups
  143. Regular Articles
  144. On topological properties of spaces obtained by the double band matrix
  145. Regular Articles
  146. Representing derivatives of Chebyshev polynomials by Chebyshev polynomials and related questions
  147. Regular Articles
  148. Chain conditions on composite Hurwitz series rings
  149. Regular Articles
  150. Coloring subgraphs with restricted amounts of hues
  151. Regular Articles
  152. An extension of the method of brackets. Part 1
  153. Regular Articles
  154. Branch-delete-bound algorithm for globally solving quadratically constrained quadratic programs
  155. Regular Articles
  156. Strong edge geodetic problem in networks
  157. Regular Articles
  158. Ricci solitons on almost Kenmotsu 3-manifolds
  159. Regular Articles
  160. Uniqueness of meromorphic functions sharing two finite sets
  161. Regular Articles
  162. On the fourth-order linear recurrence formula related to classical Gauss sums
  163. Regular Articles
  164. Dynamical behavior for a stochastic two-species competitive model
  165. Regular Articles
  166. Two new eigenvalue localization sets for tensors and theirs applications
  167. Regular Articles
  168. κ-strong sequences and the existence of generalized independent families
  169. Regular Articles
  170. Commutators of Littlewood-Paley gκ -functions on non-homogeneous metric measure spaces
  171. Regular Articles
  172. On decompositions of estimators under a general linear model with partial parameter restrictions
  173. Regular Articles
  174. Groups and monoids of Pythagorean triples connected to conics
  175. Regular Articles
  176. Hom-Lie superalgebra structures on exceptional simple Lie superalgebras of vector fields
  177. Regular Articles
  178. Numerical methods for the multiplicative partial differential equations
  179. Regular Articles
  180. Solvable Leibniz algebras with NFn Fm1 nilradical
  181. Regular Articles
  182. Evaluation of the convolution sums ∑al+bm=n lσ(l) σ(m) with ab ≤ 9
  183. Regular Articles
  184. A study on soft rough semigroups and corresponding decision making applications
  185. Regular Articles
  186. Some new inequalities of Hermite-Hadamard type for s-convex functions with applications
  187. Regular Articles
  188. Deficiency of forests
  189. Regular Articles
  190. Perfect codes in power graphs of finite groups
  191. Regular Articles
  192. A new compact finite difference quasilinearization method for nonlinear evolution partial differential equations
  193. Regular Articles
  194. Does any convex quadrilateral have circumscribed ellipses?
  195. Regular Articles
  196. The dynamic of a Lie group endomorphism
  197. Regular Articles
  198. On pairs of equations in unlike powers of primes and powers of 2
  199. Regular Articles
  200. Differential subordination and convexity criteria of integral operators
  201. Regular Articles
  202. Quantitative relations between short intervals and exceptional sets of cubic Waring-Goldbach problem
  203. Regular Articles
  204. On θ-commutators and the corresponding non-commuting graphs
  205. Regular Articles
  206. Quasi-maximum likelihood estimator of Laplace (1, 1) for GARCH models
  207. Regular Articles
  208. Multiple and sign-changing solutions for discrete Robin boundary value problem with parameter dependence
  209. Regular Articles
  210. Fundamental relation on m-idempotent hyperrings
  211. Regular Articles
  212. A novel recursive method to reconstruct multivariate functions on the unit cube
  213. Regular Articles
  214. Nabla inequalities and permanence for a logistic integrodifferential equation on time scales
  215. Regular Articles
  216. Enumeration of spanning trees in the sequence of Dürer graphs
  217. Regular Articles
  218. Quotient of information matrices in comparison of linear experiments for quadratic estimation
  219. Regular Articles
  220. Fourier series of functions involving higher-order ordered Bell polynomials
  221. Regular Articles
  222. Simple modules over Auslander regular rings
  223. Regular Articles
  224. Weighted multilinear p-adic Hardy operators and commutators
  225. Regular Articles
  226. Guaranteed cost finite-time control of positive switched nonlinear systems with D-perturbation
  227. Regular Articles
  228. A modified quasi-boundary value method for an abstract ill-posed biparabolic problem
  229. Regular Articles
  230. Extended Riemann-Liouville type fractional derivative operator with applications
  231. Topical Issue on Topological and Algebraic Genericity in Infinite Dimensional Spaces
  232. The algebraic size of the family of injective operators
  233. Topical Issue on Topological and Algebraic Genericity in Infinite Dimensional Spaces
  234. The history of a general criterium on spaceability
  235. Topical Issue on Topological and Algebraic Genericity in Infinite Dimensional Spaces
  236. On sequences not enjoying Schur’s property
  237. Topical Issue on Topological and Algebraic Genericity in Infinite Dimensional Spaces
  238. A hierarchy in the family of real surjective functions
  239. Topical Issue on Topological and Algebraic Genericity in Infinite Dimensional Spaces
  240. Dynamics of multivalued linear operators
  241. Topical Issue on Topological and Algebraic Genericity in Infinite Dimensional Spaces
  242. Linear dynamics of semigroups generated by differential operators
  243. Special Issue on Recent Developments in Differential Equations
  244. Isomorphism theorems for some parabolic initial-boundary value problems in Hörmander spaces
  245. Special Issue on Recent Developments in Differential Equations
  246. Determination of a diffusion coefficient in a quasilinear parabolic equation
  247. Special Issue on Recent Developments in Differential Equations
  248. Homogeneous two-point problem for PDE of the second order in time variable and infinite order in spatial variables
  249. Special Issue on Recent Developments in Differential Equations
  250. A nonlinear plate control without linearization
  251. Special Issue on Recent Developments in Differential Equations
  252. Reduction of a Schwartz-type boundary value problem for biharmonic monogenic functions to Fredholm integral equations
  253. Special Issue on Recent Developments in Differential Equations
  254. Inverse problem for a physiologically structured population model with variable-effort harvesting
  255. Special Issue on Recent Developments in Differential Equations
  256. Existence of solutions for delay evolution equations with nonlocal conditions
  257. Special Issue on Recent Developments in Differential Equations
  258. Comments on behaviour of solutions of elliptic quasi-linear problems in a neighbourhood of boundary singularities
  259. Special Issue on Recent Developments in Differential Equations
  260. Coupled fixed point theorems in complete metric spaces endowed with a directed graph and application
  261. Special Issue on Recent Developments in Differential Equations
  262. Existence of entropy solutions for nonlinear elliptic degenerate anisotropic equations
  263. Special Issue on Recent Developments in Differential Equations
  264. Integro-differential systems with variable exponents of nonlinearity
  265. Special Issue on Recent Developments in Differential Equations
  266. Elliptic operators on refined Sobolev scales on vector bundles
  267. Special Issue on Recent Developments in Differential Equations
  268. Multiplicity solutions of a class fractional Schrödinger equations
  269. Special Issue on Recent Developments in Differential Equations
  270. Determining of right-hand side of higher order ultraparabolic equation
  271. Special Issue on Recent Developments in Differential Equations
  272. Asymptotic approximation for the solution to a semi-linear elliptic problem in a thin aneurysm-type domain
  273. Topical Issue on Metaheuristics - Methods and Applications
  274. Learnheuristics: hybridizing metaheuristics with machine learning for optimization with dynamic inputs
  275. Topical Issue on Metaheuristics - Methods and Applications
  276. Nature–inspired metaheuristic algorithms to find near–OGR sequences for WDM channel allocation and their performance comparison
  277. Topical Issue on Cyber-security Mathematics
  278. Monomial codes seen as invariant subspaces
  279. Topical Issue on Cyber-security Mathematics
  280. Expert knowledge and data analysis for detecting advanced persistent threats
  281. Topical Issue on Cyber-security Mathematics
  282. Feedback equivalence of convolutional codes over finite rings
Downloaded on 15.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/math-2017-0059/html
Scroll to top button