Next Article in Journal
A Three-Phase Fundamental Diagram from Three-Dimensional Traffic Data
Next Article in Special Issue
Approximation of the Fixed Point for Unified Three-Step Iterative Algorithm with Convergence Analysis in Busemann Spaces
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Iterative Sequences for a Finite Number of Resolvent Operators on Complete Geodesic Spaces
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Strong Convergence Theorem for Split Null Point Problem and Generalized Mixed Equilibrium Problem in Real Hilbert Spaces

by
Olawale Kazeem Oyewole
1,2 and
Oluwatosin Temitope Mewomo
1,*
1
School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4001, South Africa
2
DST-NRF Center of Excellence in Mathematical and Statistical Sciences (CoE-MaSS), Johannesburg 2001, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Axioms 2021, 10(1), 16; https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms10010016
Submission received: 10 October 2020 / Revised: 21 December 2020 / Accepted: 22 December 2020 / Published: 5 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Theory and Application of Fixed Point)

Abstract

:
In this paper, we study a schematic approximation of solutions of a split null point problem for a finite family of maximal monotone operators in real Hilbert spaces. We propose an iterative algorithm that does not depend on the operator norm which solves the split null point problem and also solves a generalized mixed equilibrium problem. We prove a strong convergence of the proposed algorithm to a common solution of the two problems. We display some numerical examples to illustrate our method. Our result improves some existing results in the literature.

1. Introduction

Let C be a nonempty, closed and convex subset of a real Hilbert space H . The Equilibrium Problem (EP) in the sense of Blum and Oettli [1] is to find a point x C , such that
F ( x , y ) 0 , y C ,
where F : C × C R is a bifunction. The EP unify many important problems, such as variational inequalities, fixed point problems, optimization problems, saddle point (minmax) problems, Nash equilibria problems and complimentarity problems [2,3,4,5,6,7]. It also finds applications in other fields of studies like physics, economics, engineering and so on [1,2,8,9,10]. The Generalized Mixed Equilibrium Problem (GMEP) (see e.g., [11]) is to find x C , such that
F ( x , y ) + g ( x ) , y x + ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( x ) 0 , y C ,
where g : C H is a nonlinear mapping and ϕ : C R { + } is a proper lower semicontinuous convex function. The solution set of (2) will be denoted G M E P ( F , g , ϕ ) .
The GMEP includes as special cases, minimization problem, variational inequality problem, fixed point problem, nash equilibrium etc. GMEP (2) and these special cases have been studied in Hilbert, Banach, Hadamard and p-uniformly convex metric spaces, see [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21].
For a real Hilbert space H, the Variational Inclusion Problem (VIP) consists of finding a point x * H such that
0 A x * ,
where A : H 2 H is a multivalued operator. If A is a maximal monotone operator, then the VIP reduces to the Monotone Inclusion Problem (MIP). The MIP provides a general framework for the study of many important optimization problems, such as convex programming, variationa inequalities and so on.
For solving Problem (3), Martinet [22] introduced the Proximal Point Algorithm (PPA), which is given as follows: x 0 H and
x n + 1 = J r n A x n ,
where { r n } ( 0 , + ) and J r n A = ( I + r n A ) 1 is the resolvent of the maximal monotone operator A corresponding to the control sequence { r n } . Several iterative algorithms have been proposed by authors in the literature for solving Problem (3) and related optimization problems, see [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37].
Censor and Elfving [38] introduced the notion of Split Feasibility Problem (SFP). The SFP consists of finding a point
x * C such that L x * Q ,
where C and Q are nonempty closed convex subsets of R n and R m respectively and L is an m × n matrix. The SFP has been studied by researchers due to its applications in various field of science and technology, such as signal processing, intensity-modulated radiation therapy and medical image construction, for details, see [39,40]. In solving (5), Byrne [39] introduced the following iterative algorithm: let x 0 R n be arbitrary,
x n + 1 = P C ( x n γ L * ( I P Q ) L x n ) ,
where γ ( 0 , 2 / | | L | | 2 ) , L * is the transpose of the matrix L , P C and P Q are nearest point mappings onto C and Q respectively. Lopez et al. [41] suggested the use of a stepsize γ n in place of γ in Algorithm (6), where the stepsize does not depend on operator L . The stepsize γ n is given as:
γ n : = θ n | | ( I P Q ) L x n | | 2 2 | | L * ( I P Q ) L x n | | 2 ,
where θ n ( 0 , 4 ) and L * ( I P Q ) L x n 0 . They proved a weak convergence theorem of the proposed algorithm. The authors in [41] noted that for L with higher dimensions, it may be hard to compute the operator norm and this may have effect on the iteration process. Instances of this effect can be observed in the CPU time. The algorithm with stepsizes improves the performance of the Byrne algorithm.
The Split Null Point Problem (SNPP) was introduced in 2012 by Byrne et al. [42]. These authors combined the concepts of VIP and SFP and defined SNPP as follows: Find x * H 1 such that
0 A 1 ( x * ) and L x * H 2 such that 0 A 2 ( L x * ) ,
where A i : H i 2 H i , i = 1 , 2 are maximal monotone operators, H 1 and H 2 are real Hilbert spaces. For solving (8), Byrne et al. [42] proposed the following iterative algorithm: For r > 0 and an arbitrary x 0 H 1 ,
x n + 1 = J r A 1 ( x n γ L * ( I J r A 2 ) L x n ) ,
where γ ( 0 , 2 / | | L | | 2 ) . They prove a weak convergence of (9) to a solution of (8).
One of our aim in this work is to consider a generalization of Problem (3) in the following form: Find x * H such that
0 i = 1 N A i ( x * ) ,
where A i is a finite family of maximal monotone operators. There have been some iterative algorithms for approximating the solution of (10) in the literature, (see [37] and the references therein).
In this study, we consider the problem of finding the common solution of the GMEP (2) and the SNPP for a finite family of intersection of maximal monotone operator in the frame work of real Hilbert spaces. We consider the following generalization of the SNPP: Find x * C such that x * G M E P ( F , g , ϕ ) and
x * i = 1 N A i 1 ( 0 ) such that L x * i = 1 N B i 1 ( 0 ) .
In our quest to obtain a common element in the solution set of problems (2) and (11), the following two research questions arise.
(1)
Can we obtain an iterative algorithm which solves problem (11), without depending on the operator norm?
(2)
Can we obtain a strong convergence theorem for the proposed algorithm to the solution of problem (11) ?
In this work, we give an affirmative answer to the questions above by introducing an iterative algorithm which solves (11). Further, we prove a strong convergence theorem of the proposed algorithm to the common solution of problem given by (11).

2. Preliminaries

In this section, we give some important definitions and Lemmas which are useful in establishing our main results.
From now, we denote by H a real Hilbert space, C a nonempty closed convex subset of H with inner product and norm denoted by · , · and | | · | | respectively. We denote by x n x and x n x respectively the weak and strong convergence of a sequence { x n } H to a point x H .
The nearest point mapping P C : H C is defined by P C x : = { x C : | | x y | | = d C ( x ) , y H } , where d C : H R is the distance function of C . The mapping P C is known to satisfy the inequality
x P C x , y P C x 0 , x H and y C ,
see e.g., [9,10] for details.
A point x C is said to be a fixed point of a mapping T : H H , if x = T x . We denote by F ( T ) the set of fixed point of T . A mapping f : C C is said to be a contraction, if there exists a constant c ( 0 , 1 ) , such that
| | f ( x ) f ( y ) | | c | | x y | | , x , y C .
If c = 1 , then f is called nonexpansive.
A mapping T : H H is said to be firmly nonexpansive if, for all x , y H , the following holds
| | T x T y | | 2 | | x y | | 2 | | ( I T ) x ( I T ) y | | 2 ,
where I is an identity mapping on H .
Lemma 1
([43]). Let T : H H be a mapping. Then the following are equivalent:
(i)
T is firmly nonexpansive,
(ii)
I T is firmly nonexpansive,
(iii)
2 T I is nonexpansive,
(iv)
x y , T x T y | | T x T y | | 2 ,
(v)
( I T ) x ( I T ) y , T x T y 0 .
A multivalued mapping A : H 2 H is called monotone if for all x , y H , u A x and v A y , we have
x y , u v 0 .
A monotone mapping A is said to be maximal if its graph G ( A ) : = { ( x , u ) H × H : u A x } is not properly contained in the graph of any other monotone operator.
Let A : H H be a single-valued mapping, then for a positive real number β , A is said to be β -inverse strongly monotone ( β -ism), if
x y , A x A y β | | A x A y | | 2 , x , y H .
This class of monotone mapping have been widely studied in literature (see [44,45]) for more details. If A is a monotone operator, then we can define, for each r > 0 , a nonexpansive single-valued mapping J r A : R ( I + r A ) D ( A ) by J r A : = ( I + r A ) 1 which is generally known as the resolvent of A , (see [46,47]). It is also known that A 1 ( 0 ) = F ( J r A ) , where A 1 ( 0 ) = { x H : 0 A x } and F ( J r A ) = { x H : J r A x = x } .
Lemma 2
([6,48]). Let H be a real Hilbert space. Then the following hold:
(i)
| | x + y | | 2 | | x | | 2 + 2 y , x + y , x , y H ,
(ii)
| | x + y | | 2 = | | x | | 2 + 2 x , y + | | y | | 2 , x , y H ,
(iii)
| | λ x + ( 1 λ ) y | | 2 = λ | | x | | 2 + ( 1 λ ) | | y | | 2 λ ( 1 λ ) | | x y | | 2 , x , y H and λ [ 0 , 1 ] .
The bifunction F : C × C R will be assumed to admit the following restrictions:
( C 1 )
F ( x , x ) = 0 for all x C ;
( C 2 )
F is monotone, i.e., F ( x , y ) + F ( y , x ) 0 for all x , y C ;
( C 3 )
for each x , y , z C , lim t 0 F ( t z + ( 1 t ) x , y ) F ( x , y ) ;
( C 4 )
for each x C , y F ( x , y ) is convex and lower semicontinuous.
Lemma 3
([11]). Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of real Hilbert space H. Let F be a real valued bifunction on C × C admitting restrictions C 1 C 4 , g : C H be a nonlinear mapping and let ϕ : C R { + } be a proper lower senicontinuous convex function. For any given r > 0 and x H , define a mapping K r F : H C as
K r F x = { z C : F ( z , y ) + g ( z ) , y z + ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( z ) + 1 r y z , z x 0 , y C } ,
for all x H . Then the following conclusions hold:
(i)
for each x H , K r F x ,
(ii)
K r F is single valued,
(iii)
K r F is firmly nonexpansive, i.e., for any x , y H
| | K r F x K r F y | | 2 K r F x K r F y , x y ,
(iv)
F ( K r F ( I r g ) ) = G M E P ( F , g , ϕ ) ,
(v)
G M E P ( F , g , ϕ ) is closed and convex.
Lemma 4
([49,50]). Let { a n } be a sequence of nonnegative real numbers satisfying the following relation:
a n + 1 ( 1 b n ) a n + b n c n + d n , n N ,
where { b n } , { c n } and { d n } are sequences of real numbers satisfying
(i)
{ b n } [ 0 , 1 ] , n = 1 b n = ;
(ii)
lim sup n c n 0 ;
(iii)
d n 0 , n = 0 d n < .
Then, lim n = a n = 0 .

3. Main Result

Throughout, we let Φ λ N , n A N = J λ N , n A N J λ N 1 , n A N 1 J λ 1 , n A 1 , where Φ λ 0 , n A 0 = I . Define the stepsize γ n by
γ n = θ n | | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 | | L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 , if L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n 0 , γ , otherwise ,
where γ n depends on θ n [ a , b ] ( 0 , 1 ) and γ is any nonnegative number.
Lemma 5.
Let H be a real Hilbert space and A : H 2 H be a monotone mapping. Then for 0 < s r , we have
| | x J s A x | | 2 | | x J r A x | | .
Proof. 
Notice that 1 s ( x J s A ) A J s A x and 1 r ( x J r A x ) A J r A x . Using the monotonicity of A, we have
1 s ( x J s A x ) 1 r ( x J r A x ) , J s A x J r A x 0 .
That is
x J s A x s r ( x J r A x ) , J s A x J r A x 0 ,
which implies that
x J s A x , J s A x J r A x s r x J r A x , J s A x J r A x .
Using Lemma 2 (ii), we obtain
1 2 ( | | x J r A x | | 2 | | x J s A x | | 2 | | J s A x J r A x | | 2 ) s 2 r ( | | x J r A x | | 2 + | | J s A x J r A x | | 2 | | x J s A x | | 2 ) ,
that is
1 2 + s 2 r | | J s A x J r A x | | 2 1 2 s 2 r | | x J r A x | | 2 s 2 r 1 2 | | x J s A x | | 2
and
r + s 2 r | | J s A x J r A x | | 2 r s 2 r | | x J r A x | | 2 r s 2 r | | x J s A x | | 2 .
Since 0 < s r , we obtain
| | J s A x J r A x | | 2 r s r + s | | x J r A x | | 2 ,
which implies
| | J s A x J r A x | | | | x J r A x | | .
Now, since | | x J s A x | | | | x J r A x | | + | | J r A x J s A x | | , by (20), we obtain
| | x J s A x | | | | x J r A x | | + | | x J r A x | | = 2 | | x J r A x | | .
Lemma 6.
Let C and Q be nonempty, closed and convex subsets of real Hilbert spaces H 1 and H 2 respectively and L : H 1 H 2 be a bounded linear operator. Assume F is a real valued bifunction on C × C which admits condition C 1 - C 4 . Let ϕ : H 1 R { + } be a proper, lower semicontinuous convex function, g be a β-inverse strongly monotone mapping and f : H 1 R be a differentiable function, such that f is a contraction with coefficient c ( 0 , 1 ) . For i = 1 , 2 , N , let A i : H 1 2 H 1 and B i : H 2 2 H 2 be finite families of monotone mappings. Assume Ω = G M E P ( F , g , ϕ ) Γ , where Γ = { x * H 1 : 0 i = 1 N A i ( x * ) and L x * H 2 : 0 i = 1 N B i ( L x * ) } . For an arbitrary x 0 H 1 , let { x n } H 1 be a sequence defined iteratively by
F ( u n , y ) + g ( u n ) , y u n + ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( u n ) + 1 r n y u n , u n x n 0 , y H 1 , z n = u n γ n L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n , x n + 1 = α n f ( z n ) + ( 1 α n ) Φ λ i , n A i z n ,
where { r n } is a nonnegative sequence of real numbers, { α n } and { λ i , n } are sequences in ( 0 , 1 ) , γ n is a nonnegative sequence defined by (19), satisfying the following restrictions:
(i)
n = 1 α n = , lim n α n = 0 ;
(ii)
0 < λ i λ i , n ;
(iii)
0 < a r n b < 2 β .
Then { x n } , { z n } and { u n } are bounded.
Proof. 
Observe that u n can be rewritten as u n = K r n F ( x n r n g ( x n ) ) for each n . Fix p Ω . Since p = K r n F ( p r n p ) , g is β -inverse strongly monotone and r n ( 0 , 2 β ) , for any n R , we have from (21) and Lemma 2 (ii) that
| | u n p | | 2 = | | K r n F ( x n r n g ( x n ) ) K r n F ( p r n g ( p ) ) | | 2 | | x n r n g ( x n ) ( p r n g ( p ) ) | | 2 = | | ( x n p ) r n ( g ( x n ) g ( p ) | | 2 = | | x n p | | 2 2 r n x n p , g ( x n ) g ( p ) + r n 2 | | g ( x n ) g ( p ) | | 2 | | x n p | | 2 2 β r n | | g ( x n ) g ( p ) | | 2 + r n 2 | | g ( x n ) g ( p ) | | 2 = | | x n p | | 2 r n ( 2 β r n ) | | g ( x n ) g ( p ) | | 2 | | x n p | | 2 .
Also by Lemma 2, we have
| | z n p | | 2 = | | u n γ n L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n p | | 2 = | | u n p γ n L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 = | | u n p | | 2 2 γ n u n p , L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n + γ n 2 | | L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 = | | u n p | | 2 2 γ n L u n L p , ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n + γ n 2 | | L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 | | u n p | | 2 2 γ n | | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 + γ n 2 | | L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 | | u n p | | 2 γ n | | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 + γ n 2 | | L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 = | | u n p | | 2 γ n [ | | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 γ n | | L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 ] .
Using the definition of γ n , we obtain
| | z n p | | 2 | | u n p | | 2 ,
hence, | | z n p | | | | u n p | | | | x n p | | .
Further, we obtain that
| | x n + 1 p | | = | | α n f ( z n ) + ( 1 α n ) Φ λ i , n A i z n p | | = | | α n ( f ( z n ) p ) + ( 1 α n ) ( Φ λ i , n A i z n p ) | | α n | | f ( z n ) p | | + ( 1 α n ) | | Φ λ i , n A i z n p | | α n | | f ( z n ) f ( p ) | | + α n | | f ( p ) p | | + ( 1 α n ) | | z n p | | α n c | | z n p | | + α n | | f ( p ) p | | + | | ( 1 α n ) | | z n p | | = ( 1 α n ( 1 c ) ) | | z n p | | + α n | | f ( p ) p | | ( 1 α n ( 1 c ) ) | | x n p | | + α n ( 1 c ) 1 c | | f ( p ) p | | .
Let K = max { | | x 0 p | | , | | f ( p ) p | | 1 c } . We show that | | x n p | | K for all n 0 . Indeed, we see that | | x 0 p | | K . Now suppose | | x j p | | K for some j N . Then, we have that
| | x j + 1 p | | ( 1 α j ( 1 c ) ) | | x j p | | + α j ( 1 c ) | | f ( p ) p | | 1 c ( 1 α j ( 1 c ) ) K + α j ( 1 c ) K K .
By induction, we obtain that | | x n p | | K for all n . Therefore { x n } is bounded, consequently { z n } and { u n } are bounded. □
Theorem 1.
Let C and Q be nonempty, closed and convex subsets of real Hilbert spaces H 1 and H 2 , respectively and L : H 1 H 2 be a bounded linear operator. Assume F is a real valued bifunction on C × C which admits condition C 1 - C 4 . Let ϕ : H 1 R { + } be a proper, lower semicontinuous function, g be a β-inverse strongly monotone mapping and f : H 1 R be a differentiable function, such that f is a contraction with coefficient c ( 0 , 1 ) . For i = 1 , 2 , N , let A i : H 1 2 H 1 and B i : H 2 2 H 2 be finite families of monotone mappings. Assume Ω = G M E P ( F , g , ϕ ) Γ , where Γ = { p H 1 : 0 i = 1 N A i ( p ) and L p H 2 : 0 i = 1 N B i ( L p ) } . For an arbitrary x 0 H 1 , let { x n } H 1 be a sequence defined iteratively by (21) satisfying the conditions of Lemma 6. Then { x n } converges strongly to p Ω , where p = P Ω f ( p ) .
Proof. 
We observe from (21), that
| | x n + 1 p | | 2 = α n f ( z n ) + ( 1 α n ) ( Φ λ i , n A i z n p ) , x n + 1 p = α n f ( z n ) , x n + 1 p + ( 1 α n ) Φ λ i , n A i z n p , x n + 1 p = α n f ( z n ) f ( p ) , x n + 1 p + α n f ( p ) p , x n + 1 p + ( 1 α n ) Φ λ i , n A i z n p , x n + 1 p α n | | f ( z n ) f ( p ) | | · | | x n + 1 p | | + ( 1 α n ) | | Φ λ i , n A i z n p | | · | | x n + 1 p | | + α n f ( p ) p , x n + 1 p α n 2 | | f ( z n ) f ( p ) | | 2 + | | x n + 1 p | | 2 + 1 α n 2 | | Φ λ i , n A i z n p | | 2 + | | x n + 1 p | | 2 + α n f ( p ) p , x n + 1 p α n c 2 2 | | z n p | | 2 + α n 2 | | x n + 1 p | | 2 + ( 1 α n ) 2 | | z n p | | 2 + ( 1 α n ) 2 | | x n + 1 p | | 2 + α n f ( p ) p , x n + 1 p [ 1 α n ( 1 c 2 ) ] 2 | | z n p | | 2 + 1 2 | | x n + 1 p | | 2 + α n f ( p ) p , x n + 1 p [ 1 α n ( 1 c 2 ) ] 2 | | u n p | | 2 + 1 2 | | x n + 1 p | | 2 + α n f ( p ) p , x n + 1 p ,
that is
| | x n + 1 p | | 2 [ 1 α n ( 1 c 2 ) ] | | u n p | | 2 + α n ( 1 c 2 ) 2 ( 1 c 2 ) f ( p ) p , x n + 1 p [ 1 α n ( 1 c 2 ) ] | | x n p | | 2 + α n ( 1 c 2 ) 2 ( 1 c 2 ) f ( p ) p , x n + 1 p .
From now the rest of the proof shall be divide into two cases.
Case 1: Suppose that there exists n 0 N such that { | | x n p | | } is not monotonically increasing. Then by Lemma 6, we have that { | | x n p | | } is convergent. From (21), we have by Lemma 2 that
| | x n + 1 p | | 2 = | | α n f ( z n ) + ( 1 α n ) Φ λ i , n A i z n p | | 2 = | | α n ( f ( z n ) p ) + ( 1 α n ) ( Φ λ i , n A i z n p ) | | 2 = α n | | f ( z n ) p | | 2 + ( 1 α n ) | | Φ λ i , n A i z n p | | 2 α n ( 1 α n ) | | f ( z n ) Φ λ i , n A i z n | | 2 α n | | f ( z n ) p | | 2 + ( 1 α n ) | | z n p | | 2 .
Thus,
| | z n p | | 2 | | x n + 1 p | | 2 α n ( | | f ( z n ) p | | 2 | | z n p | | 2 ) .
From (23), we have that
γ n [ | | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 γ n | | L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 ] | | u n p | | 2 | | z n p | | 2 | | u n p | | 2 | | x n + 1 p | | 2 + α n ( | | f ( z n ) p | | 2 | | z n p | | 2 ) | | x n p | | 2 | | x n + 1 p | | 2 + α n ( | | f ( z n ) p | | 2 | | z n p | | 2 ) ,
by using restriction (i) in Lemma 6, we have
lim n γ n | | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 γ n | | L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 = 0 .
Using (19), we have that
| | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 γ n | | L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 = θ n ( 1 θ n ) | | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 4 | | L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 ,
thus by (31), we obtain
θ n ( 1 θ n ) | | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 4 | | L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 0 , as n .
Therefore, since θ n ( 0 , 1 ) , we obtain
lim n | | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 | | L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | = 0 .
Notice that | | L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | | | L * | | · | | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | , which implies
| | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | | | L * | | · | | ( I Φ λ i , n ) L u n | | 2 | | L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | ,
by (33), we obtain
lim n | | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | = 0 ,
consequently,
lim n | | L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | = 0 .
From (21), we see that
| | z n u n | | = | | u n γ n L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n u n | | γ n | | L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | .
By (35), we get that
lim n | | z n u n | | = 0 .
Furthermore, we have from (21),
| | x n + 1 z n | | = | | α n f ( z n ) + ( 1 α n ) Φ λ i , n A i z n z n | | = | | α n ( f ( z n ) z n ) + ( 1 α n ) ( Φ λ i , n A i z n z n ) | | α n | | f ( z n ) z n | | + ( 1 α n ) | | Φ λ i , n A i z n z n | | α n | | f ( z n ) f ( p ) | | + α n | | f ( p ) z n | | + ( 1 α n ) | | z n Φ λ i , n A i z n | | α n c | | z n p | | + α n | | f ( p ) z n | | + ( 1 α n ) | | z n Φ λ i , n A i z n | | .
Observe from (21), that
| | Φ λ i , n A i z n p | | | | x n + 1 p | | α n | | f ( z n ) Φ λ i , n A i z n | | ,
using the nonexpansivity of Φ λ i , n A i , we obtain that
0 | | z n p | | | | Φ λ i , n A i z n Φ λ i , n A i p | | = | | z n p | | | | Φ λ i , n A i z n p | | | | x n p | | | | x n + 1 p | | + α n | | f ( z n ) Φ λ i , n A i z n | | .
Using restriction (i) in Lemma 6, the boundedness of { z n } and the convergence of { | | x n p | | } , we have that | | z n p | | | | Φ λ i , n A i z n p | | 0 as n . Thus by the strong nonexpansivity of Φ λ i , n A i , we get that
lim n | | z n Φ λ i , n A i z n | | = 0 .
Using this and restriction (i) of Lemma 6 in (38), we get
lim n | | x n + 1 z n | | = 0 .
Observe from (28), that
| | u n p | | 2 | | x n + 1 p | | 2 α n ( 1 c 2 ) | | u n p | | 2 + 2 α n f ( p ) p , x n + 1 p ,
since | | u n x n | | 2 | | x n p | | 2 | | u n p | | 2 , using (39), we have that
| | u n x n | | 2 | | x n p | | 2 | | x n + 1 p | | 2 α n ( 1 c 2 ) | | u n p | | 2 + 2 α n f ( p ) p , x n + 1 p ,
thus, by restriction (i) in Lemma 6, we obtain
lim n | | u n x n | | = | | K r n F x n x n | | = 0 .
Combining (36) and (40), we obtain
lim n | | z n x n | | = 0 .
Moreover, since
| | x n + 1 x n | | | | x n + 1 z n | | + | | z n x n | | ,
we have that
| | x n + 1 x n | | 0 as n .
Furthermore,
| | x n Φ λ i , n A i x n | | | | x n x n + 1 | | + | | x n + 1 Φ λ i , n A i z n | | + | | Φ λ i , n A i Φ λ i , n A i x n | | | | x n x n + 1 | | + | | x n + 1 Φ λ i , n A i z n | | + | | z n x n | | ,
but
| | x n + 1 Φ λ i , n A i z n | | = | | α n f ( z n ) + ( 1 α n ) Φ λ i , n A i z n Φ λ i , n A i z n | | = α n | | f ( z n ) Φ λ i , n A i z n | | 0 , as n .
Hence, by substituting this, (41) and (42) into (43), we obtain
lim n | | ( I Φ λ i , n A i ) x n | | = 0 .
Since 0 < λ i λ i , n , we have by Lemma 5, that
lim n | | ( I Φ λ i A i ) x n | | = 0 .
Now, since { x n } is bounded in H 1 , there exists a subsequence { x n j } of { x n } such that x n j x * H 1 . First, we show that x * i = 1 N A i 1 ( 0 ) . Consider for each j N ,
| | ( I Φ λ i A i ) x * | | 2 ( I Φ λ i A i ) x * , x * x n j + ( I Φ λ i A i ) x * , x n j Φ λ i A i x n j + ( I Φ λ i A i ) x * , Φ λ i A i x n j Φ λ i A i x * .
Since { x n j } { x n } , as a consequence of (44), we have
lim j | | x n j Φ λ i A i x n j | | = 0 .
Therefore, using x n j x * and (46) in (45), we have
lim n | | ( I Φ λ i A i ) x * | | = 0 .
Thus, x * = Φ λ i A i x * and hence x * i = 1 N A i 1 ( 0 ) .
Secondly, we show that L x * i = 1 N B i 1 ( 0 ) . Consider again for each j N ,
| | ( I Φ λ i B i ) L x * | | 2 ( I Φ λ i B i ) L x * , L x * L z n j + ( I Φ λ i B i ) L x * , L z n j Φ λ i B i L z n j + ( I Φ λ i B i ) L x * , Φ λ i B i L z n j Φ λ i B i L x * ,
observe that,
| | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | | | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L z n ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | + | | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | | | L z n L u n | | + | | Φ λ i , n B i L z n Φ λ i , n B i L u n | | + | | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | 2 | | L | | | | z n u n | | + | | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n | | ,
which by (34) and (36), implies
lim n | | ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L z n | | = 0 .
Again, since 0 < λ i λ i , n , we have by Lemma 5, that
lim n | | ( I Φ λ i B i ) L z n | | = 0 .
So for any subsequence { z n j } { z n } , we also have that
lim n | | ( I Φ λ i B i ) L z n j | | = 0 .
Thus, by the linearity and continuity of L , L x n j L x * as j and | | z n x n | | 0 as n implies L z n j L x * as j . Hence from (49), we have
lim n | | ( I Φ λ i B i ) L x * | | = 0 .
Therefore, L x * = Φ λ i B i L x * , that is L x * i = 1 N B i 1 ( 0 ) . Further, we show that x * G M E P ( F , g , ϕ ) . From (40), we have u n j x * . Since u n = K r n F ( x n r n g ( x n ) ) , for any y C , we have
F ( u n , y ) + g ( u n ) , y u n + ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( u n ) + 1 r n y u n , u n x n 0 .
It follows from condition ( C 2 ) of the bifunction F , that
g ( u n ) , y u n ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( u n ) + 1 r n y u n , u n x n F ( y , u n ) .
Replacing n by n j , we have
g ( u n j ) , y u n j + 1 r n j y u n j x n j F ( y , u n j ) + ϕ ( u n j ) ϕ ( y ) .
Let y t = t y + ( 1 t ) x * for all t ( 0 , 1 ] and y C . Then we have y t C . So from (53), we have
g ( y t ) , y t u n j y t u n j , g ( y t ) y t u n j , g ( x n j ) y t u n j , u n j x n j r n j + F ( y t , u n j ) + ϕ ( u n j ) ϕ ( y t ) = y t u n j , g ( y t ) g ( u n j ) + y t u n j , g ( u n j ) g ( x n j ) y t u n j , u n j x n j r n j + F ( y t , u n j ) + ϕ ( u n j ) ϕ ( y t ) .
Since lim n | | u n x n | | = 0 , we obtain | | g ( u n j ) g ( x n j ) | | 0 as n . Moreover, since g is monotone, we have y t u n j , g ( y t ) g ( u n j ) 0 . Therefore by ( C 4 ) of the bifunction F and the weak lower semicontinuity of ϕ , taking the limit of (54), we obtain
y t x * , g ( y t ) F ( y t , x * ) + ϕ ( x * ) ϕ ( y t ) .
Using ( C 1 ) of bifunction F and (55), we obtain
0 = F ( y t , y t ) + ϕ ( y t ) ϕ ( y t ) t F ( y t , y ) + ( 1 t ) F ( y t , x * ) + t ϕ ( y ) + ( 1 t ) ϕ ( x * ) ϕ ( y t ) = t [ F ( y t , y ) + ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( y t ) ] + ( 1 t ) [ F ( y t , x * ) + ϕ ( x * ) ϕ ( y t ) ] t [ F ( y t , y ) + ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( y t ) ] + ( 1 t ) y t x * , g ( y t ) t [ F ( y t , y ) + ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( y t ) ] + ( 1 t ) t y x * , g ( y t ) ,
this implies that
F ( y t , y ) + ( 1 t ) y x * , g ( y t ) + ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( y t ) 0 .
By letting t 0 , we have
F ( x * , y ) + g ( x * ) , y x * + ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( x * ) 0 , y C ,
which implies x * G M E P ( F , g , ϕ ) .
Finally we show that x n p = P Ω f ( p ) . Let { x n j } be subsequence of { x n } , such that x n j x * and
lim sup n 2 1 c 2 f ( p ) p , x n + 1 p = lim j 2 1 c 2 f ( p ) p , x n j + 1 p ,
since | | x n + 1 x n | | 0 as n and x n j x * , it follows that x n j + 1 x * . Consequently, we obtain by (12), that
lim sup n 2 1 c 2 f ( p ) p , x n + 1 p = 2 1 c 2 f ( p ) p , x * p 0 .
By using Lemma 4 in (28), we conlude that | | x n p | | 0 as n . Thus, x n p as n , ditto for both { u n } and { z n } .
Case 2: Let Γ n = | | x n p | | be monotonically nondecreasing. Define τ : N N for all n n 0 (for some n 0 large enough) by
τ ( n ) : = max { k N : k n , Γ k Γ k + 1 } .
Clearly, τ is nondecreasing, τ ( n ) as n and
0 Γ τ ( n ) Γ τ ( n ) + 1 , n n 0 .
By using similar argument as in Case 1, we make the following conclusions
lim n | | ( I Φ λ i B i ) L x τ ( n ) | | = 0 ,
lim n | | L * ( I Φ λ i B i ) L x τ ( n ) | | = 0 ,
lim n | | u τ ( n ) x τ ( n ) | | = 0 ,
lim n | | x τ ( n ) + 1 x τ ( n ) | | = 0
and
lim sup n 2 1 c 2 f ( p ) p , x τ ( n ) + 1 p 0 .
Using the boundedness of { x τ ( n ) } , we can obtain a subsequence of { x τ ( n ) } which converges weakly to x * i = 1 N A i 1 ( 0 ) , L x * i = 1 N B i 1 ( 0 ) and x * G M E P ( F , ϕ , g ) . Therefore, it follows from (28), that
| | x τ ( n ) + 1 p | | 2 [ 1 α τ ( n ) ( 1 c 2 ) ] | | x τ ( n ) p | | 2 + α τ ( n ) ( 1 c 2 ) 2 1 c 2 f ( p ) p , x τ ( n ) + 1 p .
Since Γ τ ( n ) Γ τ ( n ) + 1 , we obtain | | x τ ( n ) x τ ( n ) + 1 | | 0 . Thus, from (61), we obtain
α τ ( n ) ( 1 c 2 ) | | x τ ( n ) p | | 2 α τ ( n ) ( 1 c 2 ) 2 1 c 2 f ( p ) p , x τ ( n ) + 1 p .
We note that α τ ( n ) ( 1 c 2 ) > 0 , then from (62), we get
lim n | | x τ ( n ) p | | 2 0 .
This implies
lim n | | x τ ( n ) p | | 2 = 0 ,
hence
lim | | x τ ( n ) p | | = 0 .
Using this and lim n | | x τ ( n ) + 1 x τ ( n ) | | = 0 , we obtain
| | x τ ( n ) + 1 p | | | | x τ ( n ) + 1 x τ ( n ) | | + | | x τ ( n ) p | | 0 , as n .
Further, for n n 0 , we clearly observe that Γ τ ( n ) Γ τ ( n ) + 1 if n τ ( n ) , (i.e., τ ( n ) < n ). Since Γ j Γ j + 1 for τ ( u ) + 1 j n . Consequently, for all n n 0
0 Γ n max { Γ τ ( n ) , Γ τ ( n ) + 1 } = Γ τ ( n ) + 1 .
Using (63), we conclude that lim n | | x n p | | = 0 , that is x n p .
The following are some consequences of our main theorem.
Let u = f ( z n ) in (21), we have the following corollary:
Corollary 1.
Let C and Q be nonempty, closed and convex subsets of real Hilbert spaces H 1 and H 2 , respectively and L : H 1 H 2 be a bounded linear operator. Assume F is a real valued bifunction on C × C which admits condition C 1 - C 4 . Let ϕ : H 1 R { + } be a proper, lower semicontinuous function, g be a β-inverse strongly monotone mapping. For i = 1 , 2 , N , let A i : H 1 2 H 1 and B i : H 2 2 H 2 be finite families of monotone mappings. Assume Ω = G M E P ( F , g , ϕ ) Γ , where Γ = { p H 1 : 0 i = 1 N A i ( p ) and L p H 2 : 0 i = 1 N B i ( L p ) } . For an arbitrary u , x 0 H 1 , let { x n } H 1 be a sequence defined iteratively by
F ( u n , y ) + g ( u n ) , y u n + ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( u n ) + 1 r n y u n , u n x n 0 , y H 1 , z n = u n γ n L * ( I Φ λ i , n B i ) L u n , x n + 1 = α n u + ( 1 α n ) Φ λ i , n A i z n ,
where { r n } is a nonnegative sequence of real numbers, { α n } and { λ i , n } are sequences in ( 0 , 1 ) , γ n is a nonnegative sequence defined by (19), satisfying the following restrictions:
(i)
n = 1 α n = , lim n α n = 0 ;
(ii)
0 < λ i λ i , n ;
(iii)
0 < a r n b < 2 β .
Then x n converges strongly to p Ω , where p = P Ω f ( p ) .
For i = 1 , 2 , we obtain the following result for approximation a common solution of a split null point for a sum of monotone operators and generalized mixed equilibrium problem.
Corollary 2.
Let C and Q be nonempty, closed and convex subsets of real Hilbert spaces H 1 and H 2 , respectively and L : H 1 H 2 be a bounded linear operator. Assume F is a real valued bifunction on C × C which admits condition C 1 - C 4 . Let ϕ : H 1 R { + } be a proper, lower semicontinuous function, g be a β-inverse strongly monotone mapping. For i = 1 , 2 , let A i : H 1 2 H 1 and B i : H 2 2 H 2 be finite families of monotone mappings. Assume Ω = G M E P ( F , g , ϕ ) Γ , where Γ = { p H 1 : 0 i = 1 2 A i ( p ) and L p H 2 : 0 i = 1 2 B i ( L p ) } . For an arbitrary u , x 0 H 1 , let { x n } H 1 be a sequence defined iteratively by
F ( u n , y ) + g ( u n ) , y u n + ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( u n ) + 1 r n y u n , u n x n 0 , y H 1 , z n = u n γ n L * ( I ( J λ 2 , n B 2 J λ 1 , n B 1 ) ) L u n , x n + 1 = α n u + ( 1 α n ) ( J λ 2 , n A 2 J λ 1 , n A 1 ) z n ,
where { r n } is a nonnegative sequence of real numbers, { α n } and { λ i , n } are sequences in ( 0 , 1 ) , γ n is a nonnegative sequence defined by (19), satisfying the following restrictions:
(i)
n = 1 α n = , lim n α n = 0 ;
(ii)
0 < λ i λ i , n ;
(iii)
0 < a r n b < 2 β .
Then x n converges strongly to p Ω , where p = P Ω f ( p ) .

4. Numerical Example

In this section, we provide some numerical examples. The algorithm was coded in MATLAB 2019a on a Dell i7 Dual core 8.00 GB(7.78 GB usable) RAM laptop.
Example 1.
Let E 1 = E 2 = C = Q = 2 ( R ) be the linear spaces of 2-summable sequences { x j } j = 1 of scalars in R , that is
2 ( R ) : = x = ( x 1 , x 2 , x j ) , x j R and j = 1 | x i | 2 < ,
with the inner product · , · : 2 × 2 R defined by x , y : = j = 1 x j y j and the norm | | · | | : 2 R by | | x | | : = i = 1 | x j | 2 , where x = { x j } j = 1 , y = { y j } j = 1 . Let L : 2 2 be given by L x = x 1 , x 2 , , x j , , for all x = { x i } i = 1 2 , then L * y = y 1 , y 2 , , y j , , for each y = { y i } 2 .
Let f ( x ) = 1 2 x ( s ) 2 , x 2 , it is easy to that f is differentiable with f = x . For each i = 1 , 2 N , define A i ( x ) : 2 2 and B i ( x ) : 2 2 by A i ( x ) = i x and B i ( x ) = 2 3 i x respectively for all x 2 .
For each u , v 2 , define the bifunction F : C × C R by F ( u , v ) = u v + 15 v 15 u u 2 , the function g : C H 1 by g ( u ) = u , u H 1 and ϕ : H 1 R { + } by ϕ ( u ) = 0 , for each u H 1 . For each x C , we have the following steps to get { u n } : Find u such that
0 F ( u , v ) + g ( u ) , v u + ϕ ( v ) ϕ ( u ) + 1 r v u , u x = u v + 15 v 15 u u 2 + v u + 1 r v u , u x = u v + 16 v 16 u u 2 + 1 r v u , u x = ( u + 16 ) ( v u ) + 1 r v u , u x = ( v u ) u + 16 + 1 r v u , u x
for all v C . Hence, by Lemma 3 (2), it follows that u = x 16 r r + 1 . Therefore, u n = x n 16 r n r n + 1 .
For i = 1 , 2 , choose the sequences α n = 1 n + 1 , r n = 1 2 n 2 1 , λ i , n = 1 i n + 2 and γ = 0.25 . We obtain the graph of errors against the number of iterations for different values of x 0 . The following cases are presented in Figure 1 below:
Case 1
x 0 = ( 0.435 , 0.896 , 1.004 , 0 , ) ,
Case 2
x 0 = ( 0.987 , 0.615 , 2.804 , 0 , ) ,
Case 3
x 0 = ( 3.45 , 6.000 , 1.53 , 0 , ) .
Example 2.
Let H 1 = H 2 = R 2 be endowed with an inner product x , y = x · y = x 1 y 1 + x 2 y 2 , where x = ( x 1 , x 2 ) , y = ( y 1 , y 2 ) and the euclidean norm. Let L : R 2 R 2 be defined by L ( x ) = ( x 1 + x 2 , 2 x 1 + 2 x 2 ) , x = ( x 1 , x 2 ) and f ( x ) = 1 4 x 2 . For each i = 1 , 2 N , define A i ( x ) : R 2 R 2 and B i ( x ) : R 2 R 2 by A i ( x ) = i x and B i ( x ) = 2 3 i x respectively, where x = ( x 1 , x 2 ) . Let y = ( y 1 , y 2 ) , z = ( z 1 , z 2 ) R 2 . Define F ( z , y ) = 3 z 2 + 2 z y + y 2 , g ( z ) = z and ϕ ( z ) = z . By simple calculation, we obtain that
u n = x n 8 r n + 1 .
Choose the sequences α n = 1 2 n 2 + 3 , r n = n 1 2 n 2 1 , λ i , n = 1 i n + 2 and γ = 0.25 . For i = 1 , 2 , (21) becomes
F ( u n , y ) + g ( u n ) , y u n + ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( u n ) + 1 r n y u n , u n x n 0 , y H 1 , z n = u n γ n L * ( I J λ n B 1 J λ n B 2 ) L u n , x n + 1 = 1 2 n 2 + 3 f ( z n ) + 1 1 2 n 2 + 3 J λ n A 1 J λ n A 2 z n ,
We make different choices of our initial value as follow:
Case 1 , x = ( 0.5 , 1 ) , Case 2 , x = ( 0.05 , 0.5 ) , and Case 3 , x = ( 1.5 , 1.0 ) .
We use x n + 1 x n 2 < 2 × 10 3 as our stopping criterion and plot the graphs of errors against the number of iterations. See Figure 2.

5. Conclusions

This paper considered the approximation of common solutions of a split null point problem for a finite family of maximal monotone operators and generalized mixed equilibrium problem in real Hilbert spaces. We proposed an iterative algorithm which does not depend on the prior knowledge of the operator norm as being used by many authors in the literature [39,42]. We proved a strong convergence of the proposed algorithm to a common solution of the two problems. We displayed some numerical examples to illustrate our method. Our result improves some existing results in the literature.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization of the article was given by O.K.O. and O.T.M., methodology by O.K.O., software by O.K.O., validation by O.T.M., formal analysis, investigation, data curation, and writing–original draft preparation by O.K.O. and O.T.M., resources by O.K.O. and O.T.M., writing–review and editing by O.K.O. and O.T.M., visualization by O.K.O. and O.T.M., project administration by O.T.M., Funding acquisition by O.T.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

O.K.O is funded by Department of Science and Innovation and National Research Foundation, Republic of South Africa Center of Excellence in Mathematical and Statistical Sciences (DSI-NRF COE-MaSS) and O.T.M. is funded by National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa Incentive Funding for Rated Researchers (grant number 119903).

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank the reviewers for their careful reading, constructive comments and fruitful suggestions that substantially improved the manuscript. The first author acknowledges with thanks the bursary and financial support from Department of Science and Innovation and National Research Foundation, Republic of South Africa Center of Excellence in Mathematical and Statistical Sciences (DST-NRF COE-MaSS) Doctoral Bursary. The second author is supported by the National Research Foundation (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.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Blum, E.; Oettli, W. From optimization and variational inequalities to equilibrium problems. Math. Stud. 1994, 63, 123–145. [Google Scholar]
  2. Chang, S.S.; Joseph, H.W.L.; Chan, C.K. A new method for solving equilibrium problem, fixed point problem and variational inequality problem with application to optimization. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70, 3307–3319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nguyen, V.T. Golden Ratio Algorithms for Solving Equilibrium Problems in Hilbert Spaces. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1804.01829. [Google Scholar]
  4. Oyewole, O.K.; Mewomo, O.T.; Jolaoso, L.O.; Khan, S.H. An extragradient algorithm for split generalized equilibrium problem and the set of fixed points of quasi-φ-nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces. Turkish J. Math. 2020, 44, 1146–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Alakoya, T.O.; Taiwo, A.; Mewomo, O.T.; Cho, Y.J. An iterative algorithm for solving variational inequality, generalized mixed equilibrium, convex minimization and zeros problems for a class of nonexpansive-type mappings. Ann. Univ. Ferrara Sez. VII Sci. Mat. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alakoya, T.O.; Jolaoso, L.O.; Mewomo, O.T. Modified inertia subgradient extragradient method with self adaptive stepsize for solving monotone variational inequality and fixed point problems. Optimization 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Khan, S.H.; Alakoya, T.O.; Mewomo, O.T. Relaxed projection methods with self-adaptive step size for solving variational inequality and fixed point problems for an infinite family of multivalued relatively nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces. Math. Comput. Appl. 2020, 25, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Qin, X.; Shang, M.; Su, Y. A general iterative method for equilibrium problem and fixed point problem in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2008, 69, 3897–3909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Oyewole, O.K.; Abass, H.A.; Mewomo, O.T. Strong convergence algorithm for a fixed point constraint split null point problem. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo II 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jolaoso, L.O.; Alakoya, T.O.; Taiwo, A.; Mewomo, O.T. Inertial extragradient method via viscosity approximation approach for solving Equilibrium problem in Hilbert space. Optimization 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, S.; Li, L.; Cao, L.; He, X.; Yue, X. Hybrid extragradient method for generalized mixed equilibrium problem and fixed point problems in Hilbert space. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013, 2013, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Alakoya, T.O.; Jolaoso, L.O.; Mewomo, O.T. A general iterative method for finding common fixed point of finite family of demicontractive mappings with accretive variational inequality problems in Banach spaces. Nonlinear Stud. 2020, 27, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  13. Aremu, K.O.; Izuchukwu, C.; Ogwo, G.N.; Mewomo, O.T. Multi-step Iterative algorithm for minimization and fixed point problems in p-uniformly convex metric spaces. J. Ind. Manag. Optim. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Ceng, L.-C.; Yao, J.-C. A hybrid iterative scheme for mixed equilibrium problems and fixed point problems. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2008, 214, 186–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Flam, S.D.; Antiprin, A.S. Equilibrium programming using proximal-like algorithm. Math. Programm. 1997, 78, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Combettes, P.L.; Histoaga, S.A. Equilibrium programming in Hilbert spaces. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2005, 6, 117–136. [Google Scholar]
  17. Izuchukwu, C.; Ogwo, G.N.; Mewomo, O.T. An Inertial Method for solving Generalized Split Feasibility Problems over the solution set of Monotone Variational Inclusions. Optimization 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Oyewole, O.K.; Mewomo, O.T. A subgradient extragradient algorithm for solving split equilibrium and fixed point problems in reflexive Banach spaces. J. Nonlinear Funct. Anal. 2020, 2020, 19. [Google Scholar]
  19. Taiwo, A.; Alakoya, T.O.; Mewomo, O.T. Halpern-type iterative process for solving split common fixed point and monotone variational inclusion problem between Banach spaces. Numer. Algorithms 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Taiwo, A.; Jolaoso, L.O.; Mewomo, O.T.; Gibali, A. On generalized mixed equilibrium problem with α-β-μ bifunction and μ-τ monotone mapping. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2020, 21, 1381–1401. [Google Scholar]
  21. Taiwo, A.; Jolaoso, L.O.; Mewomo, O.T. Inertial-type algorithm for solving split common fixed-point problem in Banach spaces. J. Sci. Comput. 2014, 2014, 389689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Martinet, B. Regularisation d’inequations variationelles par approximations successives. Rev. Franaise Inf. Rech. Oper. 1970, 4, 154–158. [Google Scholar]
  23. Alakoya, T.O.; Jolaoso, L.O.; Mewomo, O.T. A self adaptive inertial algorithm for solving split variational inclusion and fixed point problems with applications. J. Ind. Manag. Optim. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Alakoya, T.O.; Jolaoso, L.O.; Mewomo, O.T. Two modifications of the inertial Tseng extragradient method with self-adaptive step size for solving monotone variational inequality problems. Demonstr. Math. 2020, 53, 208–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cho, S.Y.; Dehaish, B.A.B.; Qin, X. Weak convergence on a splitting algorithm in Hilbert spaces. J. Appl. Anal. Comput. 2017, 7, 427–438. [Google Scholar]
  26. Dehghan, H.; Izuchukwu, C.; Mewomo, O.T.; Taba, D.A.; Ugwunnadi, G.C. Iterative algorithm for a family of monotone inclusion problems in CAT(0) spaces. Quaest. Math. 2020, 43, 975–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gibali, A.; Jolaoso, L.O.; Mewomo, O.T.; Taiwo, A. Fast and simple Bregman projection methods for solving variational inequalities and related problems in Banach spaces. Results Math. 2020, 75, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Godwin, E.C.; Izuchukwu, C.; Mewomo, O.T. An inertial extrapolation method for solving generalized split feasibility problems in real Hilbert spaces. Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Izuchukwu, C.; Aremu, K.O.; Mebawondu, A.A.; Mewomo, O.T. A viscosity iterative technique for equilibrium and fixed point problems in a Hadamard space. Appl. Gen. Topol. 2019, 20, 193–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Izuchukwu, C.; Mebawondu, A.A.; Aremu, K.O.; Abass, H.A.; Mewomo, O.T. Viscosity iterative techniques for approximating a common zero of monotone operators in an Hadamard space. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo II 2020, 69, 475–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Izuchukwu, C.; Mebawondu, A.A.; Mewomo, O.T. A New Method for Solving Split Variational Inequality Problems without Co-coerciveness. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2020, 22, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jolaoso, L.O.; Taiwo, A.; Alakoya, T.O.; Mewomo, O.T. Strong convergence theorem for solving pseudo-monotone variational inequality problem using projection method in a reflexive Banach space. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2020, 185, 744–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jolaoso, L.O.; Oyewole, O.K.; Aremu, K.O.; Mewomo, O.T. A new efficient algorithm for finding common fixed points of multivalued demicontractive mappings and solutions of split generalized equilibrium problems in Hilbert spaces. Int. J. Comput. Math. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jolaoso, L.O.; Taiwo, A.; Alakoya, T.O.; Mewomo, O.T. A unified algorithm for solving variational inequality and fixed point problems with application to the split equality problem. Comput. Appl. Math. 2020, 39, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Oyewole, O.K.; Jolaoso, L.O.; Izuchukwu, C.; Mewomo, O.T. On approximation of common solution of finite family of mixed equilibrium problems involving μ-α relaxed monotone mapping in a Banach space. Politehn. Univ. Bucharest Sci. Bull. Ser. A Appl. Math. Phys. 2019, 81, 19–34. [Google Scholar]
  36. Shehu, Y.; Iyiola, O.S. Iterative algorithms for solving fixed point problems and variational inequalities with uniformly continuous monotone operators. Numer. Algorithms 2018, 79, 529–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Suwannaprapa, M.; Petrot, N. Finding a solution of split null point of the sum of monotone operators without prior knowledge of operator norms in Hilbert space. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 2018, 11, 683–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Censor, Y.; Elfving, T. A multiprojection algorithm using Bregman projections in product space. Numer. Algorithms 1994, 8, 221–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bryne, C. Iterative oblique projection onto convex sets and split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 2002, 18, 441–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Censor, Y.; Bortfield, T.; Martin, B.; Trofimov, A. A unified approach for inversion problems in intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 2006, 51, 2353–2365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Lopez, G.; Martin-Marquez, V.; Wang, F.; Xu, H.K. Solving the split feasibility problem without prior knowledge of matrix norms. Inverse Probl. 2012, 28, 085004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bryne, C.; Censor, Y.; Gibali, A.; Reich, S. Weak and strong convergence of algorithms for the split common null point problem. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2012, 13, 759–775. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bauschke, H.H.; Combettes, P.L. Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  44. Boikanyo, O.A. The viscosity approximation forward-backward splitting method for zeros of the sum of monotone operators. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2016, 2016, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Xu, H.K. Averaged mappings and the gradient-projection algorithm. J. Optim. Theory. Appl. 2011, 150, 360–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rockafellar, R.T. On the maximality of sums of nonlinear monotone operators. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 1970, 149, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Taiwo, A.; Owolabi, A.O.-E.; Jolaoso, L.O.; Mewomo, O.T.; Gibali, A. A new approximation scheme for solving various split inverse problems. Afr. Mat. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Taiwo, A.; Jolaoso, L.O.; Mewomo, O.T. Viscosity approximation method for solving the multiple-set split equality common fixed-point problems for quasi-pseudocontractive mappings in Hilbert Spaces. J. Ind. Manag. Optim. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ogwo, G.N.; Izuchukwu, C.; Aremu, K.O.; Mewomo, O.T. A viscosity iterative algorithm for a family of monotone inclusion problems in an Hadamard space. Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin 2020, 27, 127–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Xu, H.K. Iterative algorithms for nonlinear operators. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 2002, 66, 240–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Case 1 (top); Case 2 (middle); Case 3 (bottom).
Figure 1. Case 1 (top); Case 2 (middle); Case 3 (bottom).
Axioms 10 00016 g001
Figure 2. Case 1 (top); Case 2 (middle); Case 3 (bottom).
Figure 2. Case 1 (top); Case 2 (middle); Case 3 (bottom).
Axioms 10 00016 g002aAxioms 10 00016 g002b
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Oyewole, O.K.; Mewomo, O.T. A Strong Convergence Theorem for Split Null Point Problem and Generalized Mixed Equilibrium Problem in Real Hilbert Spaces. Axioms 2021, 10, 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms10010016

AMA Style

Oyewole OK, Mewomo OT. A Strong Convergence Theorem for Split Null Point Problem and Generalized Mixed Equilibrium Problem in Real Hilbert Spaces. Axioms. 2021; 10(1):16. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms10010016

Chicago/Turabian Style

Oyewole, Olawale Kazeem, and Oluwatosin Temitope Mewomo. 2021. "A Strong Convergence Theorem for Split Null Point Problem and Generalized Mixed Equilibrium Problem in Real Hilbert Spaces" Axioms 10, no. 1: 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms10010016

APA Style

Oyewole, O. K., & Mewomo, O. T. (2021). A Strong Convergence Theorem for Split Null Point Problem and Generalized Mixed Equilibrium Problem in Real Hilbert Spaces. Axioms, 10(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms10010016

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop