Next Article in Journal
Improvements of Slater’s Inequality by Means of 4-Convexity and Its Applications
Next Article in Special Issue
Using Matrix Eigenvalues to Construct an Iterative Method with the Highest Possible Efficiency Index Two
Previous Article in Journal
A Cox Proportional-Hazards Model Based on an Improved Aquila Optimizer with Whale Optimization Algorithm Operators
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Novel n-Point Newton-Type Root-Finding Method of High Computational Efficiency
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Common Attractive Point Results for Two Generalized Nonexpansive Mappings in Uniformly Convex Banach Spaces

by
Chadarat Thongphaen
1,
Warunun Inthakon
2,3,
Suthep Suantai
2,3 and
Narawadee Phudolsitthiphat
2,3,*
1
Master’s Degree Program in Mathematics, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
2
Research Group in Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
3
Data Science Research Center, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Mathematics 2022, 10(8), 1275; https://doi.org/10.3390/math10081275
Submission received: 24 March 2022 / Revised: 7 April 2022 / Accepted: 10 April 2022 / Published: 12 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Trends and Developments in Numerical Analysis)

Abstract

:
In this work, we study some basic properties of the set of common attractive points and prove strong convergence results for common attractive points of two generalized nonexpansive mappings in a uniformly convex Banach space. As a consequence, we obtain a common fixed point result of such mappings and apply it to solving the convex minimization problem. Finally, numerical experiments are given to support our results.

1. Introduction

Throughout this paper, let N and R be the sets of positive integers and real numbers, respectively. When C is a subset of a Banach space X , a mapping T : C X is called nonexpansive if T x T u x u for every x , u C . The set of fixed points of T is denoted by F ( T ) ; that is, F ( T ) = { z C : T z = z } . A mapping T : C X is said to be quasi-nonexpansive [1] if F ( T ) and T x z x z for every x C and for every z F ( T ) . It is easy to see that nonexpansive mappings with fixed points are included in the class of quasi-nonexpansive mappings.
Fixed point theory can solve not only problems in sciences and economics but also real-world problems (see [2,3,4,5,6,7] for examples). Specifically, the theory of nonexpansive mappings plays a crucial role, because it can be applied to plenty of problems, such as convex minimization problems, optimization problems, equilibrium problems and problems of proving the existence of solutions to integral and differential equations. Consequently, many generalized nonexpansive mappings have been studied in a variety of directions. In this work, we focus on a generalized mapping defined by Hardy and Rogers [8] as: a mapping T : C X is called generalized nonexpansive if
T x T u a 1 x u + a 2 T x x + a 3 T u u + a 4 T u x + a 5 T x u ,
for every x , u C , where a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , a 4 and a 5 are nonnegative constants such that a 1 + a 2 + a 3 + a 4 + a 5 1 . It was also mentioned that condition (1) is equivalent with
T x T u a x u + b ( T x x + T u u ) + c ( T u x + T x u ) ,
for every x , u C , where a , b and c are nonnegative constants such that a + 2 b + 2 c 1 . By letting a = 1 and b = c = 0 , we can see that every nonexpansive mapping is a generalized nonexpansive mapping. It is well-known from [9] that every generalized nonexpansive mapping with a fixed point is a quasi-nonexpansive mapping.
In 1953, Mann [10] introduced the following iterative scheme to approximate fixed points of a nonexpansive mapping T:
x 1 C x n + 1 = ( 1 a n ) x n + a n T x n ,     n N ,
where { a n } is a sequence in ( 0 , 1 ) .
It is also known that, in general, Mann iteration does not necessarily converge to fixed points of nonexpansive mappings. Thus, in 1974, Ishikawa iteration [11] was introduced to approximate fixed points of such mappings as:
x 1 C x n + 1 = ( 1 a n ) x n + a n T y n y n = ( 1 b n ) x n + b n T x n ,     n N ,
where { a n } and { b n } are sequences in ( 0 , 1 ) .
In 1998, Xu [12] introduced the following iterative scheme, called Mann iteration with error terms, for nonexpansive mappings:
x 1 C x n + 1 = a n x n + b n T x n + c n u n ,     n N ,
where { a n } , { b n } and { c n } are sequences in ( 0 , 1 ) such that a n + b n + c n = 1 and { u n } is a bounded sequence in C. This scheme reduces to Mann iteration if c n = 0 .
When studying two mappings T 1 , T 2 : C X , we recall that x C is a common fixed point of T 1 and T 2 if T 1 x = x = T 2 x . The set of all common fixed points of T 1 and T 2 is denoted by F ( T 1 , T 2 ) . Moreover, F ( T 1 , T 2 ) = F ( T 1 ) F ( T 2 ) .
To study convergence theorems for common fixed points of two mappings, Das and Debata [13] and Takahashi and Tamura [14] constructed the following iterative scheme:
x 1 C x n + 1 = ( 1 a n ) x n + a n T 1 y n y n = ( 1 b n ) x n + b n T 2 x n ,     n N ,
where { a n } and { b n } are sequences in ( 0 , 1 ) . If T 1 = T 2 , then the scheme reduces to an Ishikawa iterative scheme.
Lui et al. [15] introduced the following iterative process to prove weak and strong convergence theorems of common fixed points for a pair of nonexpansive and asymptytotically nonexpansive mappings:
x 1 C x n + 1 = ( 1 a n ) T 1 x n + a n T 2 y n y n = ( 1 b n ) T 1 x n + b n T 2 x n ,     n N ,
where { a n } and { b n } are sequences in ( 0 , 1 ) .
Recently, Ali and Ali [16] proved a convergence theorem for common fixed points of the Mann iteration for two generalized nonexpansive mappings in uniformly convex Banach spaces. They defined a sequence { x n } as follows:
x 1 C x n + 1 = a n x n + b n T 1 x n + c n T 2 x n ,     n N ,
where { a n } , { b n } and { c n } are sequences in ( 0 , 1 ) such that a n + b n + c n = 1 .
Another concept that relates to fixed points is the concept of attractive points, which was first introduced in Hilbert spaces by Takahashi and Takeuchi [17]. Let H be a Hilbert space, and let T : C H be a mapping, where C is a nonempty subset of H. The set of all attractive points of T is denoted by A ( T ) ; that is,
A ( T ) = { z H :   z T y z y ,     y C } .
The authors proved an ergodic convergence theorem to find an attractive point of some nonlinear mappings without assuming convexity of its domain. Moreover, the authors [17] proved that F ( T ) relates to A ( T ) as follows.
Lemma 1.
Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of H, and let T be a mapping from C into itself. If A ( T ) , then F ( T ) .
Lemma 2.
Let C be a nonempty subset of H, and let T be a mapping from C into H. Then, A ( T ) is a closed convex subset of H.
Furthermore, we also know the following lemma from Takahashi et al. [18] for quasi-nonexpansive mappings.
Lemma 3.
Let C be a nonempty subset of H, and let T be a quasi-nonexpansive mapping from C into H . Then, A ( T ) C = F ( T ) .
In 2018, Khan [19] extended the concept of attractive points to the case of two mappings in Hilbert spaces. Let T 1 , T 2 : C H , where C is a nonempty subset of H . The set of all common attractive points for T 1 and T 2 is denoted by A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ; that is,
A ( T 1 , T 2 ) = { z H : max ( T 1 x z , T 2 x z ) x z ,     x C } .
Moreover, A ( T 1 , T 2 ) = A ( T 1 ) A ( T 2 ) . The next properties were proven by Khan [19].
Lemma 4.
Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of H, and let T 1 , T 2 : C C be two mappings. If A ( T 1 , T 2 ) , then F ( T 1 , T 2 ) .
Lemma 5.
Let C be a nonempty subset of H, and let T 1 , T 2 : C H be two mappings. Then, A ( T 1 , T 2 ) is a closed convex subset of H.
Lemma 6.
Let C be a nonempty subset of H, and let T 1 , T 2 : C H be two quasi-nonexpansive mappings. Then, A ( T 1 , T 2 ) C = F ( T 1 , T 2 ) .
Furthermore, there are many results of common attractive point theorems in a Hilbert space (see [19,20,21], and references therein).
In 2013, Lin and Takahashi [22] introduced the concept of attractive points of a nonlinear mapping in the Banach spaces setting. In 2015, Zheng [23] proved convergence theorems for attractive points, defined in (9), of some generalized nonexpansive mappings in uniformly convex Banach spaces. Moreover, there are more studies about attractive points for nonlinear mappings in Banach spaces (see [22,23,24,25,26]).
In this paper, motivated by all results mentioned above, we study some basic properties of the set of common attractive points, defined in (10), for two nonlinear mappings in the setting of uniformly convex Banach spaces. Furthermore, we prove strong convergence theorems of common attractive points of the Mann iteration (8) for two generalized nonexpansive mappings in a uniformly convex Banach space without closedness of the domain of such mappings. Using this result, we obtain strong convergence theorems of common fixed points in a uniformly convex Banach space and solve a convex minimization problem in Hilbert spaces. Finally, to support our results, a numerical example is given.

2. Preliminaries

Let { x n } be a sequence in a Banach space X. We denote the strong convergence of { x n } to x X by x n x . A Banach space X is called uniformly convex if for each ϵ [ 0 , 2 ] , there is δ ϵ > 0 such that
x = u = 1   and   x u ϵ   implies   x + u 2 < 1 δ ϵ .
Remark 1.
Hilbert spaces are uniformly convex (see [27]).
Definition 1
([28]). A subset C of a normed linear space X is said to be an existence subset of X if and only if for every element x X there is an element u C such that
x u = d ( x , C ) = inf { x z : z C } ,
where u is called the best approximation of x denoted by π ( x , C ) . It is well-known that if C is a closed and convex subset of a reflexive Banach space X, then the best approximation element π ( x , C ) exists and is unique for every x X .
Every uniformly convex Banach space is reflexive (see [29]). We can see that if C is a closed and convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space X, then for every x X there exists a unique best approximation element π ( x , C ) .
Definition 2
([28]). Let C be a nonempty closed and convex subset of a normed space X. If for every x X there exists a unique π ( x , C ) C , then the mapping π ( x , C ) is called a metric projection onto C; that is,
x π ( x , C ) = d ( x , C ) ,     x X .
It is well-known that if C is a closed and convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space X, then there exists a metric projection from X onto C .
The following result is useful for our main theorem.
Lemma 7
([30]). Suppose X is a uniformly convex Banach space and 0 < s r n t < 1 for all n 1 . If { x n } and { u n } are two sequences in X such that lim sup n x n d , lim sup n u n d and lim sup n r n x n + ( 1 r n ) u n = d hold for some d 0 . Then, lim n x n u n = 0 .

3. Main Results

In this section, we begin with studying some basic properties of common attractive points for two mappings in the framework of uniformly convex Banach spaces as follows:
Lemma 8.
Let C be a nonempty, closed and convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space X, and let T 1 , T 2 : C C be two mappings. If A ( T 1 , T 2 ) , then F ( T 1 , T 2 ) . In particular, if u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) , then π ( u , C ) F ( T 1 , T 2 ) .
Proof. 
Let u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ; then, u A ( T 1 ) and u A ( T 2 ) ; that is,
T 1 y u y u   and   T 2 y u y u ,     y C .
Since C is closed and convex, a unique element x = π ( u , C ) exists in C and
x u y u ,     y C .
We know that T 1 x C , so x u T 1 x u . Since u A ( T 1 ) , we get
T 1 x u x u T 1 x u .
Combing with the uniqueness of x, it follows that T 1 x = x . Thus x F ( T 1 ) . Similarly, we also obtain x F ( T 2 ) . Therefore, x = π ( u , C ) F ( T 1 ) F ( T 2 ) = F ( T 1 , T 2 ) . □
Lemma 9.
Let C be a nonempty subset of a Banach space X, and let T 1 , T 2 : C X be two mappings. Then, A ( T 1 , T 2 ) is a closed subset of X.
Proof. 
Let { u n } A ( T 1 , T 2 ) be a sequence converging strongly to some u X . We shall prove that u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . Indeed, for all x C and u n A ( T 1 , T 2 ) , the following results:
T 1 x u n x u n   and   T 2 x u n x u n ,     n N .
By letting n , we obtain
T 1 x u x u   and   T 2 x u x u ,     x C .
Thus, u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) , and hence A ( T 1 , T 2 ) is closed. □
Lemma 10.
Let C be a nonempty subset of a Banach space X, and let T 1 , T 2 : C X be two quasi-nonexpansive mappings. Then, A ( T 1 , T 2 ) C = F ( T 1 , T 2 ) .
Proof. 
Let u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) C . Then, u A ( T 1 ) and u A ( T 2 ) . That is
T 1 y u y u   and   T 2 y u y u ,     y C .
In particular, by choosing y = u C , we get
T 1 u u u u = 0   and   T 2 u u u u = 0 .
It follows that T 1 u = u and T 2 u = u . That is u F ( T 1 ) F ( T 2 ) = F ( T 1 , T 2 ) .
Conversely, let u F ( T 1 , T 2 ) . Since T 1 and T 2 are quasi-nonexpansive mappings, we have
T 1 y u y u   and   T 2 y u y u ,     y C .
Then,
max ( T 1 y u , T 2 y u ) y u ,     y C .
It follows that u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . Since u C , we get u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) C .
Thus, A ( T 1 , T 2 ) C = F ( T 1 , T 2 ) .
Next, we prove our main results, using the iterative scheme (8) for two generalized nonexpansive mappings in uniformly convex Banach spaces. Before proving the results, we need the following important tools.
Lemma 11.
Let C be a nonempty and convex subset of a Banach space X and T 1 , T 2 : C C be two generalized nonexpansive mappings with A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . Let { x n } be a sequence generated by (8):
x 1 C x n + 1 = a n x n + b n T 1 x n + c n T 2 x n ,     n N ,
with a n , b n , c n ( 0 , 1 ) such that a n + b n + c n = 1 . Then, lim n x n u exists for any u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) .
Proof. 
Let { x n } be a sequence generated by (8) and u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . Then,
max ( T 1 x u , T 2 x u ) x u ,     x C .
It follows that
T 1 x u x u   and   T 2 x u x u ,     x C .
Consider
x n + 1 u = a n x n + b n T 1 x n + c n T 2 x n u = a n ( x n u ) + b n ( T 1 x n u ) + c n ( T 2 x n u ) a n x n u + b n T 1 x n u + c n T 2 x n u a n x n u + b n x n u + c n x n u = ( a n + b n + c n ) x n u = x n u ,     n N .
This shows that the sequence { x n u } is nonincreasing and bounded below for all u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . Therefore, lim n x n u exists. □
Lemma 12.
Let C be a nonempty and convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space X and T 1 , T 2 : C C be two generalized nonexpansive mappings with A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . Let { x n } be a sequence generated by (8):
x 1 C x n + 1 = a n x n + b n T 1 x n + c n T 2 x n ,     n N ,
with a n , b n , c n ( 0 , 1 ) such that a n + b n + c n = 1 and 0 < s a n t < 1 . Then, { x n } is bounded, lim n x n T 1 x n = 0 and lim n x n T 2 x n = 0 .
Proof. 
Suppose that A ( T 1 , T 2 ) and u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . By using Lemma 11, we have that lim n x n u exists for all u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . Therefore, { x n u } is bounded, and so is { x n } . Let
lim n x n u = α .
We show that lim n x n T 1 x n = 0 and lim n x n T 2 x n = 0 .
Since u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) , we obtain that
T 1 x n u x n u   and   T 2 x n u x n u ,     n N .
Therefore
lim sup n T 1 x n u lim sup n x n u = α
and
lim sup n T 2 x n u lim sup n x n u = α .
According to (11), we derive
α = lim n x n + 1 u = lim n a n x n + b n T 1 x n + c n T 2 x n u = lim n a n ( x n u ) + b n ( T 1 x n u ) + c n ( T 2 x n u ) = lim n ( 1 c n ) a n 1 c n ( x n u ) + b n 1 c n ( T 1 x n u ) + c n ( T 2 x n u ) .
By using (12), we have
lim sup n a n 1 c n ( x n u ) + b n 1 c n ( T 1 x n u ) lim sup n a n + b n 1 c n x n u = lim sup n x n u = α .
To apply Lemma 7, we choose
x n = T 2 x n u , u n = a n 1 c n ( x n u ) + b n 1 c n ( T 1 x n u ) ,   and   r n = c n ,     n N .
Since 0 < s a n t < 1 , we get 0 < s 1 ( b n + c n ) t < 1 . Hence, there exist v , w R such that 0 < v c n w < 1 for all n N . We have from (13) and (15) that
lim sup n x n = lim sup n T 2 x n u α
and
lim sup n u n = lim sup n a n 1 c n ( x n u ) + b n 1 c n ( T 1 x n u ) α .
Furthermore, from (14), we have
lim sup n r n x n + ( 1 r n ) u n = lim n ( 1 c n ) a n 1 c n ( x n u ) + b n 1 c n ( T 1 x n u ) + c n ( T 2 x n u ) = α .
Therefore, the sequences { x n } , { u n } , and { r n } satisfy the assumptions of Lemma 7, which imply that
lim n a n 1 c n ( x n u ) + b n 1 c n ( T 1 x n u ) ( T 2 x n u ) = lim n u n x n = 0 .
Consider
lim n 1 1 c n x n + 1 T 2 x n = lim n 1 1 c n a n x n + b n T 1 x n + c n T 2 x n T 2 x n + u ( a n + b n + c n ) u = lim n 1 1 c n a n ( x n u ) + b n ( T 1 x n u ) ( 1 c n ) ( T 2 x n u ) = lim n a n 1 c n ( x n u ) + b n 1 c n ( T 1 x n u ) ( T 2 x n u ) .
We can conclude that
lim n 1 1 c n x n + 1 T 2 x n = 0 .
Since 0 < v c n w < 1 for all n N , we have
lim n x n + 1 T 2 x n = 0 .
Next, we will show that lim n x n + 1 T 1 x n = 0 . According to (11), we have
α = lim n x n + 1 u = lim n a n x n + b n T 1 x n + c n T 2 x n u = lim n a n ( x n u ) + b n ( T 1 x n u ) + c n ( T 2 x n u ) = lim n ( 1 b n ) a n 1 b n ( x n u ) + c n 1 b n ( T 2 x n u ) + b n ( T 1 x n u ) .
By using (13), we have
lim sup n a n 1 b n ( x n u ) + c n 1 b n ( T 2 x n u ) lim sup n a n + c n 1 b n x n u = lim sup n x n u = α .
Applying Lemma 7 again, we choose
x n = T 1 x n u , u n = a n 1 b n ( x n u ) + c n 1 b n ( T 2 x n u ) ,   and   r n = b n ,     n N .
Since 0 < s a n t < 1 , we get 0 < s 1 ( b n + c n ) t < 1 . Hence, there exist v , w R such that 0 < v b n w < 1 for all n N . We have from (12) and (19) that
lim sup n x n = lim sup n T 1 x n u α
and
lim sup n u n = lim sup n a n 1 b n ( x n u ) + c n 1 b n ( T 2 x n u ) α .
Furthermore, from (18), we have
lim sup n r n x n + ( 1 r n ) u n = lim n ( 1 b n ) a n 1 b n ( x n u ) + c n 1 b n ( T 2 x n u ) + b n ( T 1 x n u ) = α .
Therefore, we can apply Lemma 7 to get
lim n a n 1 b n ( x n u ) + c n 1 b n ( T 2 x n u ) ( T 1 x n u ) = lim n u n x n = 0 .
Consider
lim n 1 1 b n x n + 1 T 1 x n = lim n 1 1 b n a n x n + b n T 1 x n + c n T 2 x n T 1 x n + u ( a n + b n + c n ) u = lim n 1 1 b n a n ( x n u ) + c n ( T 2 x n u ) ( 1 b n ) ( T 1 x n u ) = lim n a n 1 b n ( x n u ) + c n 1 b n ( T 2 x n u ) ( T 1 x n u ) ,
we can conclude that
lim n 1 1 b n x n + 1 T 1 x n = 0 .
Since 0 < v b n w < 1 for all n N , we get
lim n x n + 1 T 1 x n = 0 .
Finally, we will show that lim n x n + 1 x n = 0 . According to (11), we can derive
α = lim n x n + 1 u = lim n a n x n + b n T 1 x n + c n T 2 x n u = lim n a n ( x n u ) + b n ( T 1 x n u ) + c n ( T 2 x n u ) = lim n a n ( x n u ) + ( 1 a n ) b n 1 a n ( T 1 x n u ) + c n 1 a n ( T 2 x n u ) .
By using (12) and (13), we have
lim sup n b n 1 a n ( T 1 x n u ) + c n 1 a n ( T 2 x n u ) lim sup n b n + c n 1 a n x n u = lim sup n x n u = α .
To apply Lemma 7, we choose
x n = x n u , u n = b n 1 a n ( T 1 x n u ) + c n 1 a n ( T 2 x n u ) ,   and   r n = a n ,     n N .
We have from (11) and (23) that
lim sup n x n = lim sup n x n u α
and
lim sup n u n = lim sup n b n 1 a n ( T 1 x n u ) + c n 1 a n ( T 2 x n u ) α .
Furthermore, from (22), we have
lim sup n r n x n + ( 1 r n ) u n = lim n ( 1 a n ) b n 1 a n ( T 1 x n u ) + c n 1 a n ( T 2 x n u ) + a n ( x n u ) = α .
Therefore, we can apply Lemma 7 to get
lim n b n 1 a n ( T 1 x n u ) + c n 1 a n ( T 2 x n u ) ( x n u ) = lim n u n x n = 0 .
Consider
lim n 1 1 a n x n + 1 x n = lim n 1 1 a n a n x n + b n T 1 x n + c n T 2 x n x n + u ( a n + b n + c n ) u = lim n 1 1 a n b n ( T 1 x n u ) + c n ( T 2 x n u ) ( 1 a n ) ( x n u ) = lim n b n 1 a n ( T 1 x n u ) + c n 1 a n ( T 2 x n u ) ( x n u ) .
We can conclude that
lim n 1 1 a n x n + 1 x n = 0 .
Since 0 < s a n t < 1 , we get
lim n x n + 1 x n = 0 .
Note that
x n T 1 x n x n x n + 1 + x n + 1 T 1 x n ,     n N ,
and
x n T 2 x n x n x n + 1 + x n + 1 T 2 x n ,     n N .
By (17), (21), (25) and n in (26) and (27), we get
lim n x n T 1 x n = 0   and   lim n x n T 2 x n = 0
as desired. □
Next, we establish a strong convergence theorem of common attractive points for two generalized nonexpansive mappings, in the sense of Hardy and Roger [8] defined in (2), in a uniformly convex Banach space without assuming the closedness of the domain of such mappings.
Theorem 1.
Let C be a nonempty and convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space X and T 1 , T 2 : C C be two generalized nonexpansive mappings with A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . Let { x n } be a sequence generated by (8):
x 1 C x n + 1 = a n x n + b n T 1 x n + c n T 2 x n ,     n N ,
with a n , b n , c n ( 0 , 1 ) such that a n + b n + c n = 1 and 0 < s a n t < 1 . Then, { x n } converges strongly to z A ( T 1 , T 2 ) if and only if lim inf n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 or lim sup n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 .
Proof. 
Suppose that x n u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . Then, for each ϵ > 0 , there exists m 0 N such that
x n u < ϵ
for all n m 0 . Therefore, we obtain
d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = inf { x n u : u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) } x n u < ϵ ,     n m 0 .
It follows that lim n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 , and hence
lim inf n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0   and   lim sup n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 .
Conversely, if lim sup n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 , then lim n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 .
Assume that lim inf n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 . This means that { d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) } contains a subsequence { d ( x n k , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) } such that
lim k d ( x n k , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 .
By Lemma 11, we have that lim n x n u exists for all u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . Then,
lim n x n u = lim k x n k u .
It follows that
lim n ( inf { x n u : u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) } ) = lim k ( inf { x n k u : u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) } ) = 0 .
That is,
lim n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 .
Next, we shall show that { x n } is a Cauchy sequence. By Lemma 11, we have x n + 1 u x n u for all u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . In fact, for any n , m N , without of generality, we may set m > n . Then,
x m u x n u ,     u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) .
Consider
x n x m x n u + u x m 2 x n u .
Since u is arbitrary, we may take infimum all over u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) on both sides to get
x n x m 2 inf { x n u : u A ( T 1 , T 2 ) } = 2 d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) .
From lim n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 , we get lim n x n x m = 0 . This means that { x n } is a Cauchy sequence in a uniformly convex Banach space X . Thus, there exists z X such that
lim n x n z = 0 .
By Lemma 12, we have
lim n x n T 1 x n = 0   and   lim n x n T 2 x n = 0 .
Thus,
lim n z T 1 x n = 0   and   lim n z T 2 x n = 0 .
Next, we show that z A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . Since T 1 is generalized nonexpansive mapping, we can use (1) to get that there exist nonnegative constants a , b , c with a + 2 b + 2 c 1 such that
T 1 x T 1 x n a x x n + b ( x T 1 x + x n T 1 x n ) + c ( x T 1 x n + x n T 1 x ) ,     x C ,     n N .
Thus
T 1 x T 1 x n a x x n + b ( x x n + x n T 1 x + x n T 1 x n ) + c ( x T 1 x n + x n T 1 x ) ,     x C ,     n N .
Taking limit on both sides, we get
T 1 x z a x z + b ( x z + z T 1 x + z z ) + c ( x z + z T 1 x ) = ( a + b + c ) x z + ( b + c ) z T 1 x .
Hence, ( 1 b c ) T 1 x z ( a + b + c ) x z ,     x C .
Since a + 2 b + 2 c 1 , we have
a + b + c 1 b c 1 b c 1 b c = 1 .
Thus, T 1 x z x z for all x C . This means that z A ( T 1 ) .
Similarly, we have z A ( T 2 ) . Therefore, z A ( T 1 , T 2 ) .
By applying Theorem 1, we also obtain the following result.
Corollary 1.
Let C be a nonempty and convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space X and T 1 , T 2 : C C be two generalized nonexpansive mappings with F ( T 1 , T 2 ) . Let { x n } be a sequence generated by (8) with a n , b n , c n ( 0 , 1 ) such that a n + b n + c n = 1 and 0 < s a n t < 1 for all n N .
(1) Suppose that lim inf n d ( x n , F ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 or lim sup n d ( x n , F ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 . Then, { x n } converges strongly to z A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . If C is closed, then { x n } converges strongly to z F ( T 1 , T 2 ) .
(2) Suppose that { x n } converges strongly to the common attractive point of T 1 and T 2 ; then,
lim inf n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 or lim sup n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 . If C is closed, then lim inf n d ( x n , F ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 or lim sup n d ( x n , F ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 .
Proof. 
Since F ( T 1 , T 2 ) , we have T 1 , T 2 are quasi-nonexpansive mappings. By Lemma 10, we have A ( T 1 , T 2 ) C = F ( T 1 , T 2 ) , which implies that, A ( T 1 , T 2 ) .
(1) Suppose that
lim inf n d ( x n , F ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0   or   lim sup n d ( x n , F ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 .
Since F ( T 1 , T 2 ) A ( T 1 , T 2 ) , we have
d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) d ( x n , F ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) ,     n N .
Then,
lim inf n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) lim inf n d ( x n , F ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 ,
or
lim sup n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) lim sup n d ( x n , F ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 .
By Theorem 1, we get x n z A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . If C is closed, then z C . It follows that x n z F ( T 1 , T 2 ) .
(2) Assume that x n z A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . By Theorem 1, we get
lim inf n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0   or   lim sup n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 .
If C is closed, then z C . Since A ( T 1 , T 2 ) C = F ( T 1 , T 2 ) , we have x n z F ( T 1 , T 2 ) . It follows that lim inf n d ( x n , F ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 or lim sup n d ( x n , F ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 .
Next, we aim to apply Corollary 1 to solve a convex minimization problem in Hilbert spaces. The general formulation of the convex minimization problem is defined by
min x f ( x ) + g ( x ) .
In a Hilbert space H, the solution of problem (28) is usually considered under the following assumptions:
(i)
g is a lower semicontinuous function and properly convex from H into R { + } ;
(ii)
f is a convex differentiable function from H into R , with f being -Lipschitz constant for some > 0 —that is, f ( x ) f ( y ) x y for all x , y R n .
We denote the set of all solutions of (28) by argmin ( f + g ) , and it is well-known that finding a solution of problem (28) is equivalent to finding a zero-solution x 🟉 such that:
0 g ( x 🟉 ) + f ( x 🟉 ) ,
where f is the gradient operator of function f and g is the subdifferential of function g; see [31] for more details. Dealing with fixed point theory, Parikh and Boyd [32] solved the problem (29) by using the proximal gradient technique; that is, if x 🟉 solves (29), then x 🟉 is a fixed point of the proximal operator:
x 🟉 = prox κ g ( I κ f ) ( x 🟉 ) ,
where κ is a positive parameter, prox κ g = ( I + κ g ) 1 and I is the identity operator.
If we set T 1 : = prox κ 1 g ( I κ 1 f ) and T 2 : = prox κ 2 g ( I κ 2 f ) where κ 1 , κ 2 0 , 2 , then T 1 and T 2 are nonexpansive mappings; see [33,34,35] for more details.
We denote S 🟉 = { x 🟉 : x 🟉 argmin ( f + g ) } . The following result is a consequence of Corollary 1.
Corollary 2.
Let g be a lower semicontinuous function and proper convex from a real Hilbert space H into R { + } , and let f be a convex differentiable function from H into R with f being ℓ-Lipschitz constant for some > 0 . Let { x n } be a sequence generated by (8) under the same conditions of parameters as in Corollary 1 with S 🟉 . If lim inf n d ( x n , S 🟉 ) = 0 or lim sup n d ( x n , S 🟉 ) = 0 , then { x n } converges strongly to an element in argmin ( f + g ) .
Proof. 
Let T 1 and T 2 be the forward–backward operators of f and g with respect to κ 1 and κ 2 , respectively, where κ 1 , κ 2 0 , 2 . Then, T 1 : = prox κ 1 g ( I κ 1 f ) and T 2 : = prox κ 2 g ( I κ 2 f ) are nonexpansive mappings which imply generalized nonexpansiveness. By Proposition 26.1 in [31], F ( T 1 , T 2 ) = F ( T 1 ) F ( T 2 ) = a r g m i n ( f + g ) . Using (1) of Corollary 1, we obtain that { x n } converges strongly to an element in argmin ( f + g ) . □
Remark 2.
A convex minimization problem (28) can be applied to solving many real world problems, such as image/signal processing, regression and data classification; see [36,37,38]. Hence, the convergence result of Corollary 2 can be applied for solving those important problems.
Another condition for strong convergence results was introduced by Senter and Dotson [39]. A mapping T : C C satisfies condition ( A ) , if there exists a nondecreasing function h : [ 0 , ) [ 0 , ) with h ( 0 ) = 0 and h ( γ ) > 0 for every γ > 0 such that
h ( d ( u , A ( T ) ) ) u T u ,     u C .
Chidume and Ali extended above condition to two mappings [40] as follows: Two mappings T 1 , T 2 : C C are said to satisfy condition ( A ) if there exists a nondecreasing function h : [ 0 , ) [ 0 , ) with h ( 0 ) = 0 and h ( γ ) > 0 for every γ > 0 such that
h ( d ( u , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) ) u T 1 u   or   h ( d ( u , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) ) u T 2 u ,     u C .
In the following theorem, we obtain a strong convergence theorem for common attractive points of two generalized nonexpansive mappings that satisfy condition ( A ) .
Theorem 2.
Let C be a nonempty and convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space X and T 1 , T 2 : C C be two generalized nonexpansive mappings. Let { x n } be a sequence generated by (8):
x 1 C x n + 1 = a n x n + b n T 1 x n + c n T 2 x n ,     n N ,
with a n , b n , c n ( 0 , 1 ) such that a n + b n + c n = 1 and 0 < s a n t < 1 . Suppose that A ( T 1 , T 2 ) and T 1 , T 2 satisfy condition ( A ) ; then, { x n } converges strongly to a common attractive point of T 1 and T 2 .
Proof. 
By Lemma 12, we have
lim n x n T 1 x n = 0 = lim n x n T 2 x n .
Since T 1 and T 2 satisfy condition ( A ) , there exists a nondecreasing function h : [ 0 , ) [ 0 , ) with h ( 0 ) = 0 and h ( γ ) > 0 for all γ > 0 such that
h ( d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) ) x n T 1 x n   or   h ( d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) ) x n T 2 x n .
It follows that
0 lim n h ( d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) ) lim n x n T 1 x n = 0 ,
or
0 lim n h ( d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) ) lim n x n T 2 x n = 0 .
In both cases, we get
lim n h ( d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) ) = 0 .
Since h : [ 0 , ) [ 0 , ) is a nondecreasing function satisfying h ( 0 ) = 0 and h ( γ ) > 0 for all γ > 0 , we get
lim n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 .
It follows that
lim inf n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0   and   lim sup n d ( x n , A ( T 1 , T 2 ) ) = 0 .
By Theorem 1, we conclude that { x n } converges strongly to a common attractive point of T 1 and T 2 .
Corollary 3.
Let C be a nonempty and convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space X and T 1 , T 2 : C C be two generalized nonexpansive mappings. Let { x n } be a sequence generated by (8) with a n , b n , c n ( 0 , 1 ) such that a n + b n + c n = 1 and 0 < s a n t < 1 for all n N . Suppose that F ( T 1 , T 2 ) and T 1 , T 2 satisfy condition ( A ) ; then, { x n } converges strongly to a common attractive point of T 1 and T 2 . If C is closed, then { x n } converges strongly to a common fixed point of T 1 and T 2 .
Proof. 
Since F ( T 1 , T 2 ) , we have T 1 , T 2 are quasi-nonexpansive mappings. By Lemma 10, we have A ( T 1 , T 2 ) C = F ( T 1 , T 2 ) . It follows that A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . By Theorem 2, we have x n z A ( T 1 , T 2 ) . If C is closed, then z F ( T 1 , T 2 ) .
We end this section by providing some numerical experiments to illustrate the performance of iteration (8) for supporting our main results.
Example 1.
Let X = R with the usual norm and C = ( 0 , ) . Suppose T 1 , T 2 : C C are defined by
T 1 x = x 4 , x ( 0 , 1 ) x 16 , x [ 1 , ) ,
and
T 2 x = x 5 , x ( 0 , 1 ) x 25 , x [ 1 , ) .
Then, T 1 and T 2 are generalized nonexpansive mappings such that 0 A ( T 1 , T 2 ) but F ( T 1 , T 2 ) = . We chose the parameters a n = n 50 n 1 , b n = n 50 n 1 , c n = 48 n 1 50 n 1 and initial point x 1 = 1 2 .  Table 1 shows the values of x n , | x n 0 | , | x n T 1 x n | and | x n T 2 x n | of iteration n = 1 , 2 , 3 , , 10 .
It is evident from Table 1 that x n 0 A ( T 1 , T 2 ) , with the errors | x n 0 | 0 , | x n T 1 x n | 0 and | x n T 2 x n | 0 . Moreover, Figure 1 shows the convergence behavior of the iterative process (8).
Next, under control conditions from Theorem 1, we compared the rates of convergence for the sequences { x n } generated by (6)–(8), as shown in Table 2.
From Table 2, we can see that iteration process (8) performs with a better rate of convergence than iteration processes (6) and (7).

4. Conclusions

In this paper, we studied some basic properties of the set of common attractive points, defined in (10), of two nonlinear mappings in the setting of uniformly convex Banach spaces. Furthermore, using the Mann iteration (8), we proved strong convergence theorems of common attractive points for two generalized nonexpansive mappings, in the sense of Hardy and Rogers [8], in a uniformly convex Banach space without the closedness assumption of the domain of such mappings. Using this result, we obtained strong convergence theorems of common fixed points in a uniformly convex Banach space and solved some convex minimize problems. Finally, we constructed a numerical example to support our main result.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, C.T., W.I. and N.P.; writing—review and editing, C.T., W.I. and N.P.; supervision, S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Chiang Mai University and the NSRF via the Program Management Unit for Human Resources & Institutional Development, Research and Innovation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the referees for their valuable comments and suggestions which improved this paper. This work was supported by Fundamental Fund 2022, Chiang Mai University. The second and the third authors were also supported by the NSRF via the Program Management Unit for Human Resources & Institutional Development, Research and Innovation (grant number B05F640183). The fourth author was also supported by Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Diaz, J.B.; Metcalf, F.T. On the structure of the set of subsequential limit points of successive approximations. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1936, 73, 516–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Klén, R.; Manojlović, V.; Simić, S.; Vuorinen, M. Bernoulli inequality and hypergeometric functions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2014, 142, 559–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kunze, H.; La Torre, D.; Mendivil, F.; Vrscay, E.R. Generalized fractal transforms and self-similar objects in cone metric spaces. Comput. Math. Appl. 2012, 64, 1761–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Radenović, S.; Rhoades, B.E. Fixed point theorem for two non-self mappings in cone metric spaces. Comput. Math. Appl. 2009, 57, 1701–1707. [Google Scholar]
  5. Todorčević, V.; La Torre, D.; Mendivil, F.; Vrscay, E.R. Harmonic Quasiconformal Mappings and Hyperbolic Type Metrics; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  6. Takahashi, W. Iterative methods for approximation of fixed points and their applications. J. Oper. Res. Soc. Jpn. 2000, 43, 87–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Afshari, H.; Atapour, M.; Karapinar, E. A discussion on a generalized Geraghty multi-valued mappings and applications. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2020, 2020, 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hardy, G.F.; Rogers, T.D. A generalization of fixed point theorem of Reich. Can. Math. Bull. 1973, 16, 201–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fukhar-ud-din, H.; Saleh, K. One-step iterations for a finite family of generalized nonexpansive mappings in CAT(0) spaces. Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 2018, 41, 597–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mann, W.R. Mean value method in iteration. Proc. Am. Math. 1953, 4, 506–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ishikawa, S. Fixed points by a new iteration method. Proc. Am. Math. 1974, 44, 147–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Xu, Y. Ishikawa and Mann Iteration process. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1998, 244, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Das, G.; Debata, J.P. Fixed points of quasi-non-expansive mappings. Indian Pure Appl. Math. 1986, 17, 1263–1269. [Google Scholar]
  14. Takahashi, W.; Tamura, T. Convergence theorem for a pair of nonexpansive mapping. J. Convex Anal. 1998, 5, 45–58. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lui, Z.; Feng, C.; Ume, J.S.; Kang, S.M. Weak and strong convergence for common fixed points of a pair of non-expansive and asymptytotically non-expansive mappings. Taiwansese J. Math. 2007, 1, 27–42. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ali, J.; Ali, F. Approximation of common fixed point and the solution of image recovery problem. Results Math. 2019, 74, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Takahashi, W.; Takeuchi, Y. Nonlinear ergodic theorem without convexity for generalized hybrid mappings in a Hilbert space. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2011, 12, 399–406. [Google Scholar]
  18. Takahashi, W.; Wong, N.-G.; Yao, J.-C. Attractive points and weak convergence theorems for new generalized hybrid mappings in Hilbert spaces. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2012, 13, 745–757. [Google Scholar]
  19. Khan, S.H. Iterative approximation of common attractive points of further generalized hybrid mappings. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2018, 2018, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Thongpaen, P.; Inthakon, W. Common attractive points theorems of widely more generalized hybrid mappings in Hilbert spaces. Thai J. Math. 2020, 13, 861–869. [Google Scholar]
  21. Thongpaen, P.; Kaewkhao, A.; Phudolsitthiphat, N.; Suantai, S.; Inthakon, W. Weak and strong convergence theorems for common attractive points of widely more generalized hybrid mappings in Hilbert Spaces. Mathematics 2021, 9, 2491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lin, L.J.; Takahashi, W. Attractive point theorems for generalized nonspreading mappings in Banach Spaces. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2014, 20, 265–284. [Google Scholar]
  23. Zheng, Y. Attractive point and convergence theorem of generalized hybrid mapping. J. Nonlinear Sci. Anal. 2015, 8, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Takahashi, W. Existence and approximation of attractive points for nonlinear mappings in Banach Spaces. Nonlinear Anal. Convex Anal. 2013, 1841, 114–122. [Google Scholar]
  25. Takahashi, W.; Wong, N.C.; Yao, J.C. Attractive point and mean convergence theorems for new generalized nonspreading mappings in Banach spaces. Infin. Prod. Oper. Their Appl. 2015, 636, 225–248. [Google Scholar]
  26. Niyamosot, N.; Inthakon, W. Strong convergence theorems for the split equilibrium problem and attractive points problems in a Banach space. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Nonlinear Analysis and Convex Analysis & International Conference on Optimization: Techniques and Applicatons-II, Hakodate, Japan, 26–31 August 2019; pp. 161–173. [Google Scholar]
  27. Clarkson, J.A. Uniformly convex spaces. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1936, 40, 369–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. El-Shobaky, E.; Ali, S.M.; Takahashi, W. On projection constant problems and the existence of metric projections in normed spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. Hindawi 2001, 6, 401–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Bauschke, H.H.; Combettes, P.L. Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  30. Schu, J. Weak and strong convergence to fixed points of asymptotically nonexpansive mappings. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 1991, 43, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Bauschke, H.H.; Combettes, P.L. Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces, 2nd ed.; Incorporated; Springr: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  32. Parikh, N.; Boyd, S. Proximal Algorthims. Found. Trends Optim. 2014, 1, 127–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Combettes, P.L. Quasi-Fejérian analysis of some optimization algorithms. In Inherently Parallel Algorithms in Feasibility and Optimization and Their Applications. Studies in Computational Mathematics; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; Volume 8, pp. 115–152. [Google Scholar]
  34. Combettes, P.L.; Pesquet, J.-C. Proximal splitting methods in signal processing. In Fixed-Point Algorithms for Inverse Problems Science and Engineering; Springer Optimization and Its Applications; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; Volume 49, pp. 185–212. [Google Scholar]
  35. Combettes, P.L.; Wajs, V.R. Signal recovery by proximal forward-backward splitting. Multiscale Model. Simul. 2005, 4, 1168–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Bussaban, L.; Suantai, S.; Kaewkhao, A. A parallel inertial S-iteration forward-backward algorithm for regression and classification problems. Carpathian J. Math. 2020, 36, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chumpungam, D.; Sarnmeta, P.; Suantai, S. A New Forward-Backward Algorithm with Line Searchand Inertial Techniques for Convex Minimization Problems with Applications. Mathematics 2021, 9, 1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sarnmeta, P.; Inthakon, W.; Chumpungam, D.; Suantai, S. On convergence and complexity analysis of an accelerated forward-backward algorithm with linesearch technique for convex minimization problems and applications to data prediction and classification. J. Inequalities Appl. 2021, 2021, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Senter, H.F.; Dotson, W. Approximating fixed points of nonexpansive mappings. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1974, 44, 375–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chidume, C.E.; Ali, B. Weak and strong convergence theorems for finite families of asymptotically nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 330, 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. The graph of the convergence behavior of the iteration process (8).
Figure 1. The graph of the convergence behavior of the iteration process (8).
Mathematics 10 01275 g001
Table 1. Numerical experiment of the iteration process (8).
Table 1. Numerical experiment of the iteration process (8).
Iteration No.    x n | x n 0 | | x n T 1 x n | | x n T 2 x n |
1 0.5000 0.5000 0.4688 0.4800
2 0.0300 0.0300 0.0281 0.0288
3 0.0018 0.0018 0.0017 0.0017
4 1.0743 × 10 4 1.0743 × 10 4 1.0071 × 10 4 1.0313 × 10 4
5 6.4186 × 10 6 6.4186 × 10 6 6.0175 × 10 6 6.1619 × 10 6
6 3.8338 × 10 7 3.8338 × 10 7 3.5942 × 10 7 3.6804 × 10 7
7 2.2894 × 10 8 2.2894 × 10 8 2.1463 × 10 8 2.1978 × 10 8
8 1.3669 × 10 9 1.3669 × 10 9 1.2815 × 10 9 1.3122 × 10 9
9 8.1603 × 10 11 8.1603 × 10 11 7.6502 × 10 11 7.8339 × 10 11
10 4.8712 × 10 12 4.8712 × 10 12 4.5667 × 10 12 4.6763 × 10 12
Table 2. The values of { x n } for different iteration processes.
Table 2. The values of { x n } for different iteration processes.
Iteration No. x n of Iteration (6) x n of Iteration (7) x n of Iteration (8)
1 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
2 0.4904 0.0306 0.0300
3 0.4811 0.0019 0.0018
4 0.4720 1.1509 × 10 4 1.0743 × 10 4
5 0.4631 7.0541 × 10 6 6.4186 × 10 6
6 0.4544 4.3238 × 10 7 3.8338 × 10 7
7 0.4458 2.6503 × 10 8 2.2894 × 10 8
8 0.4374 1.6245 × 10 9 1.3669 × 10 9
9 0.4292 9.9578 × 10 11 8.1603 × 10 11
10 0.4211 6.1039 × 10 12 4.8712 × 10 12
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Thongphaen, C.; Inthakon, W.; Suantai, S.; Phudolsitthiphat, N. Common Attractive Point Results for Two Generalized Nonexpansive Mappings in Uniformly Convex Banach Spaces. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1275. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10081275

AMA Style

Thongphaen C, Inthakon W, Suantai S, Phudolsitthiphat N. Common Attractive Point Results for Two Generalized Nonexpansive Mappings in Uniformly Convex Banach Spaces. Mathematics. 2022; 10(8):1275. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10081275

Chicago/Turabian Style

Thongphaen, Chadarat, Warunun Inthakon, Suthep Suantai, and Narawadee Phudolsitthiphat. 2022. "Common Attractive Point Results for Two Generalized Nonexpansive Mappings in Uniformly Convex Banach Spaces" Mathematics 10, no. 8: 1275. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10081275

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