Next Article in Journal
Cooperative and Delay Minimization Routing Schemes for Dense Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks
Next Article in Special Issue
Fixed Point Results Using Ft-Contractions in Ordered Metric Spaces Having t-Property
Previous Article in Journal
Inspection Strategy under Indeterminacy Based on Neutrosophic Coefficient of Variation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Generalized Random α-ψ-Contractive Mappings with Applications to Stochastic Differential Equation
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Some Results for Split Equality Equilibrium Problems in Banach Spaces

1
College of Public Foundation, Yunnan Open University (Yunnan Technical College of National Defence Industry), Kunming 650500, China
2
Division of Research Administration, Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, Kunming 650221, China
3
Department of Mathematics Education, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea
4
School of Mathematical Science, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Symmetry 2019, 11(2), 194; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11020194
Submission received: 19 January 2019 / Revised: 2 February 2019 / Accepted: 2 February 2019 / Published: 10 February 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fixed Point Theory and Fractional Calculus with Applications)

Abstract

:
In this paper, a new algorithm for finding a common element of a split equality fixed point problem for nonexpansive mappings and split equality equilibrium problem in three Banach spaces is introduced. Also, some strong and weak convergence theorems for the proposed algorithm are proved. Finally, the main results obtained in this paper are applied to solve the split equality convex minimization problem.

1. Introduction

Let C be a closed convex subset of real Banach space E with the dual space E * , and let f : C × C be a bifunction, where is the set of real numbers. The equilibrium problem (for short, (EP)) is to find u * C such that:
f ( u * , u ) 0 for all u C .
The solutions set of the problem (EP) is denoted by EP ( f ) , that is,
EP ( f ) = { u * C : f ( u * , u ) 0 , u C } .
It is well known that many problems in physics, optimization, economics and other applied sciences reduce to find a solution of the problem (EP). Equilibrium problems and variational inequality problems in Hilbert spaces or Banach spaces have been extensively studied by many authors (see, for example, [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] and the references therein).
In order to model inverse problems in phase retrievals and medical image reconstruction [9], Censor and Elfving [10] introduced the following split feasibility problem (shortly, (SFP)) in 1994:
Find u * such that u * C and g ( u * ) Q ,
where C and Q are nonempty closed convex subsets of Hilbert spaces H 1 and H 2 , respectively, g : H 1 H 2 is a bounded linear operator.
As a matter of fact, many problems appeared in image restoration, computer tomograph and radiation therapy treatment planing can be formulated as the problem (SFP) [11,12,13]. For approximating solutions of the problem (SFP), some methods have been proposed by some authors (see, for instance [9,14,15,16,17].
Further, Moudafi [18] developed the problem (SFP) and proposed the split equality problem as follows:
Let C , Q be two nonempty closed convex subsets of real Hilbert spaces H 1 and H 2 , respectively, H 3 be a real Hilbert space, g : H 1 H 3 and h : H 2 H 3 be two bounded linear operators. The split equality problem (shortly, (SEP)) is as follows:
Find u * C and v * Q such that g ( u * ) = h ( v * ) .
It is easy to see that the problem (SEP) may reduce to the problem (SFP) when H 2 = H 3 and h is the identity mapping I on H 2 . If C and Q are the sets of nonempty fixed points of the mappings T and S on H 1 and H 2 , respectively, then, the split equality problem is called the split equality fixed point problem (shortly, (SEFP)) [19]). The set of solutions of the problem (SEFP) on T and S is denoted as follows:
SEFP ( T , S ) = { ( u * , v * ) C × Q : u * F i x ( T ) , v * F i x ( S ) , g ( u * ) = h ( v * ) } .
Based on the idea of the split feasibility problem, in 2013, Kazmi and Rizvi [20] proposed the split equilibrium problems in Hilbert spaces.
Assume that f 1 : C × C and f 2 : Q × Q are nonlinear bifunctions, where C and Q are closed convex subsets of H 1 and H 2 , respectively, and g : H 1 H 2 is a bounded linear operator. The split equilibrium problem (shortly, (SEQP)) is as follows:
Find u * C such that f 1 ( u * , u ) 0 for all u C
and such that
v * = g ( u * ) Q solves f 2 ( v * , v ) 0 for all v Q .
Here, based on the ideas of the problems (SEP) and (SEQP), we consider the following so-called split equality equilibrium problem in Banach spaces:
Definition 1.
Let E 1 , E 2 , E 3 be three Banach spaces and C , Q be nonempty closed convex subsets of E 1 , E 2 , respectively. Let f 1 : E 1 × E 1 , f 2 : E 2 × E 2 be two bifunctions and g : E 1 E 3 , h : E 2 E 3 be two bounded linear operators. The split equality equilibrium problem (shortly, (SEEP)) is as follows: Find u * C and v * Q such that
f 1 ( u * , u ) 0 , f 2 ( v * , v ) 0 for all u C , v Q and g ( u * ) = h ( v * ) .
The set of solutions of the problem (SEEP) is denoted by SEEP ( f 1 , f 2 ) , that is,
SEEP ( f 1 , f 2 ) = { ( u * , v * ) C × Q : f 1 ( u * , u ) 0 , f 2 ( v * , v ) 0 , u C , v Q , g ( u * ) = h ( v * ) } .
The problems (SFP), (SEQP) and (SEP) in Hilbert spaces have attracted the attention of many authors. Some iteration algorithms have been proposed for finding a solution of these problems (see, for instance, ref. [20,21,22,23] and the references therein). Especially, the split equality mixed equilibrium problem was investigated in [24] and the convergence results on solutions were obtained in Hilbert spaces.
The recent research on the probelms (SFP), (SEP), the split common null point problem and the split common fixed point problem have been developed in Banach spaces by some authors (see, for example, ref. [25,26,27] and the references therein). But, according to the literature, we can not find out the results on the problems (SEP) and (SEQP) in Banach spaces.
In this paper, motivated and inspired by the recent works in [20,23,24,25,26,27]), we construct a new algorithm to find a common element of the problem (SEFP) and the problem (SEEP) for nonexpansive mappings in three Banach spaces. Also, some strong and weak convergence theorems for the proposed algorithm are proved. Finally, our main results are applied to study the convergence of solutions of a split equality convex minimization problem.

2. Preliminaries

In this paper, we denote the strong convergence and weak convergence of a sequence { x n } to a point x E by x n x and x n x , respectively.
Let E be a real normed linear space and C be a nonempty closed convex subset of E . A mapping T : C C is said to be nonexpansive if
T x T y x y for all x , y C .
If C is a bounded closed convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space E and T : C C is the nonexpansive, then the fixed point set F i x ( T ) is nonempty (see [28] for more details).
Let E be a real Banach space with the dual space E * . The normalized duality mapping J from E to 2 E * is defined by
J ( x ) = { x * E * : x , x * = x 2 = x * 2 } for all x E ,
where · , · denotes the generalized duality pairing between E and E * .
Note that, by the Hahn-Banach theorem, J ( x ) is nonempty (see [28] for more details) and, if E : = H is a Hilbert space, then J is the identity mapping on E .
Proposition 1
([28,29]). Assume that E is a Banach space and J is the normalized duality mapping from E into E * . Then
1. 
If E is reflexive, strictly convex and smooth Banach space, then J is single-valued, one-to-one and surjective, and J 1 : E * E is the inverse of J .
2. 
If E is a uniformly smooth Banach spaces, then J is uniformly norm-to-norm continuous on each bounded subset of E .
The normalized duality mapping J is said to be weakly sequentially continuous if the weak convergence of a sequence { x n } to x E implies the weak * convergence of { J ( x n ) } to J ( x ) in E * .
Definition 2.
Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a Banach space E . The mapping A : C E is said to be:
1. 
accretive if
A x A y , J ( x y ) 0 for all x , y C ;
2. 
strongly accretive if there exists a constant c > 0 such that
A x A y , J ( x y ) c x y 2 for all x , y C ;
3. 
α-inverse strongly accretive if there exists a constant α > 0 such that
A x A y , J ( x y ) α A x A y 2 for all x , y C .
For solving the equilibrium problem, we assume that the bifunction f : C × C satisfies the following conditions:
(C1) 
f ( x , x ) = 0 for all x C ;
(C2) 
f ( x , y ) + f ( y , x ) 0 for all x , y C ;
(C3) 
for all x , y , z C , lim t 0 f ( t z + ( 1 t ) x , y ) f ( x , y ) ;
(C4) 
for all x C , the function y f ( x , y ) is convex and lower semi-continuous.
Lemma 1
([2]). Let C be a closed convex subset of a smooth, strictly convex and reflexive Banach space E and f : C × C be a bifunction satisfying ( C 1 ) ( C 4 ) . For any r > 0 and x E , there exists z C such that
f ( z , y ) + 1 r y z , J z J x 0 for all y C .
Lemma 2
([30]). Let C be a closed convex subset of a smooth, strictly convex and reflexive Banach space E and f : C × C be a bifunction satisfying ( C 1 ) ( C 4 ) . For any r > 0 and x E , define a mapping T r F : C C as follows:
T r F ( x ) = { z C : f ( z , y ) + 1 r y z , J z J x 0 , y C } ,
Then the following hold:
1. 
T r F is a singleton;
2. 
T r F is firmly nonexpansive, that is, for all u , v E ,
T r F u T r F v , J T r F u J T r F v T r F u T r F v , J u J v ;
3. 
F i x ( T r F ) = EP ( f ) ;
4. 
E P ( f ) is closed and convex.
Lemma 3
([31]). For any number r > 0 , a real Banach space E is uniformly convex if and only if there exists a continuous strictly increasing function g : [ 0 , ) [ 0 , ) with g ( 0 ) = 0 such that
t u + ( 1 t ) v 2 t u 2 + ( 1 t ) v 2 t ( 1 t ) g ( u v )
for all u , v E with u r and v r and t [ 0 , 1 ] .
Let T : C C be a mapping with F i x ( T ) . T is said to be demi-closed at zero if, for any { x n } C with x n x and x n T x n 0 , then x = T x . A mapping T : C C is said to be semi-compact if for any bounded sequence { x n } in C such that x n T x n 0 , ( n ) , there exists a subsequence { x n j } of { x n } such that { x n j } converges strongly to x * C .
A Banach space E is said to satisfy Opial’s property if, for any sequence { x n } in E with x n x , for any y E with y x , we have
lim inf n x n x < lim inf n x n y .
Lemma 4
([31]). Let E be a 2-uniformly smooth Banach space with the best smoothness constants K > 0 . Then the following inequality holds:
x + y 2 x 2 + 2 y , J x + 2 K y 2 for all x , y E .
Lemma 5
([32]). Let C be a nonempty closed subset of a real uniformly convex Banach space E and T : C C be a nonexpansive mapping. Then T is demi-closed at zero.

3. Main Results

Throughout the rest of this paper, we always assume the following conditions are satisfied:
(A
E 1 , E 2 are real uniformly convex and 2-uniformly smooth Banach spaces satisfying Opial’s condition and with the best smoothness constant k satisfying 0 < k 1 2 ;
(B
E 3 is a smooth, reflexive and strictly convex Banach space;
(C
f 1 : E 1 × E 1 and f 2 : E 2 × E 2 are the bifunctions satisfying the conditions ( C 1 ) ( C 4 ) ;
(D
T : E 1 E 1 , S : E 2 E 2 are two nonexpansive mappings with F i x ( T ) and F i x ( S ) ;
(E
g : E 1 E 3 , h : E 2 E 3 are two bounded linear operators with adjoints g * , h * , respectively.
Theorem 1.
Let E 1 , E 2 , E 3 f 1 , f 2 , T , S , g and h be the same as above. Let { ( x n , y n ) } be the iteration scheme in E 1 × E 2 defined as follows: for any ( x 1 , y 1 ) E 1 × E 2 ,
f 1 ( u n , u ) + 1 r u u n , J 1 u n J 1 x n 0 , u E 1 , f 2 ( v n , v ) + 1 r v v n , J 2 v n J 2 y n 0 , v E 2 , x n + 1 = α n x n + ( 1 α n ) T ( u n ρ J 1 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ) , y n + 1 = α n y n + ( 1 α n ) S ( v n + ρ J 2 1 h * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ) , n 1 ,
where r ( 0 , ) , ( h 2 + g 2 ) 1 < ρ < 2 ( h 2 + g 2 ) 1 and { α n } is a sequence in [ a , b ] for some a , b ( 0 , 1 ) .
If Γ : = SEFP ( T , S ) SEEP ( f 1 , f 2 ) , then we have the following:
1. 
{ ( x n , y n ) } ( p , q ) Γ ;
2. 
Furthermore, if S and T are semi-compact, then { ( x n , y n ) } ( p , q ) Γ .
Proof. 
Since E 1 , E 2 are real uniformly convex and 2-uniformly smooth Banach spaces, E 3 is a smooth, reflexive and strictly convex Banach space, by the properties of the the normalized duality mapping J , we know that the iteration scheme (1) is well defined.
1.
For 1, we divide the proof of the Conclusion 1 into four steps as follows:
Step 1. Show that the limit of the sequence { x n + 1 x 2 + y n + 1 y } 2 exists for any ( x , y ) Γ . In fact, taking ( x , y ) Γ , from Lemma 2, we know that x = T r f 1 x and y = T r f 2 y . Furthermore, we have
u n x = T r f 1 x n T r f 1 x x n x
and
v n y = T r f 2 y n T r f 2 y y n y .
Because of the nonexpansiveness of S and T , using (2), (3), Lemma 3 and Lemma 4, we have
x n + 1 x 2 = α n x n + ( 1 α n ) T ( u n ρ J 1 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ) x 2 α n x n x 2 + ( 1 α n ) T ( u n ρ J 1 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ) x 2 α n ( 1 α n ) g 1 ( x n T ( u n ρ J 1 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ) ) α n x n x 2 + ( 1 α n ) u n ρ J 1 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) x 2 α n ( 1 α n ) g 1 ( x n T ( u n ρ J 1 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ) ) α n x n x 2 + ( 1 α n ) [ ρ J 1 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) 2 + 2 ρ x u n , J 1 J 1 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) + 2 k 2 u n x 2 ] α n ( 1 α n ) g 1 ( x n T ( u n ρ J 1 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ) ) α n x n x 2 + ( 1 α n ) [ ρ 2 g 2 g ( u n ) h ( v n ) 2 + 2 ρ g ( x ) g ( u n ) , J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) + 2 k 2 u n x 2 ] α n ( 1 α n ) g 1 ( x n T ( u n ρ J 1 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ) ) [ α n + 2 k 2 ( 1 α n ) ] x n x 2 + ( 1 α n ) ρ 2 g 2 g ( u n ) h ( v n ) 2 + 2 ( 1 α n ) ρ g ( x ) g ( u n ) , J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) α n ( 1 α n ) g 1 ( x n T ( u n ρ J 1 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ) ) x n x 2 + ( 1 α n ) ρ 2 g 2 g ( u n ) h ( v n ) 2 + 2 ( 1 α n ) ρ g ( x ) g ( u n ) , J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) α n ( 1 α n ) g 1 ( x n T z n ) ,
where z n = u n ρ J 1 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) . Setting e n = v n + ρ J 2 1 h * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) , it follows from (1) that
y n + 1 y 2 y n y 2 + ( 1 α n ) ρ 2 h 2 g ( u n ) h ( v n ) 2 + 2 ( 1 α n ) ρ h ( v n ) h ( y ) , J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) α n ( 1 α n ) g 2 ( y n S e n ) .
Since ( x , y ) Γ , we know that g ( x ) = h ( y ) and so, by (4) and (5),
x n + 1 x 2 + y n + 1 y 2 ( x n x 2 + y n y 2 ) + ( 1 α n ) ρ 2 ( g 2 + h 2 ) g ( u n ) h ( v n ) 2 + 2 ( 1 α n ) ρ h ( v n ) g ( u n ) , J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) α n ( 1 α n ) [ g 1 ( u n T z n ) + g 2 ( v n S e n ) ] ( x n x 2 + y n y 2 ) ( 1 α n ) ρ [ 2 ( g 2 + h 2 ) ρ ] g ( u n ) h ( v n ) 2 α n ( 1 α n ) [ g 1 ( x n T z n ) + g 2 ( y n S e n ) ] .
Let Γ n ( x , y ) : = x n x 2 + y n y 2 . Then, by (6), we have
Γ n + 1 ( x , y ) Γ n ( x , y ) ( 1 α n ) ρ [ 2 ( g 2 + h 2 ) ρ ] g ( u n ) h ( v n ) 2 α n ( 1 α n ) [ g 1 ( x n T z n ) + g 2 ( y n S e n ) ]
Since 0 < k 1 2 and ( g 2 + h 2 ) 1 < ρ < 2 ( g 2 + h 2 ) 1 , we have 0 < 2 ρ ( g 2 + h 2 ) < 1 and so, from (7), it follows that Γ n ( x , y ) = x n x 2 + y n y 2 is decreasing. So, lim n Γ n ( x , y ) exists. Further, it is easy to see that { x n } and { y n } are bounded.
Step 2. Show that
lim n g ( u n ) h ( v n ) = 0 , lim n x n u n = 0 , lim n y n v n = 0 .
In fact, it follows from (7) that
( 1 α n ) ρ [ 2 ( g 2 + h 2 ) ρ ] g ( u n ) h ( v n ) 2 + α n ( 1 α n ) [ g 1 ( x n T z n ) + g 2 ( y n S e n ) ] Γ n ( x , y ) Γ n + 1 ( x , y ) .
Since ( g 2 + h 2 ) 1 < ρ < 2 ( g 2 + h 2 ) 1 and { α n } is a sequence in [ a , b ] for some a , b ( 0 , 1 ) , by (8), we have
lim n g 1 ( x n T z n ) = 0 , lim n g 2 ( y n S e n ) = 0
and
lim n g ( u n ) h ( v n ) = 0 .
Applying the properties of g 1 , g 2 , (9) and Lemma 3, we have
lim n x n T z n = 0 , lim n y n S e n = 0 .
Since
u n z n = J 1 ( u n z n ) = ρ g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ρ g g ( u n ) h ( v n )
and
v n e n = J 2 ( v n e n ) = ρ h * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ρ h g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ,
it follows from (10) that
lim n u n z n = 0 , lim n v n e n = 0 .
In addition, since
x n + 1 x n = α n x n + ( 1 α n ) T z n x n = ( 1 α n ) T z n x n ,
by (11), we have
lim n x n + 1 x n = 0 .
Similarly, we obtain
lim n y n + 1 y n = 0 .
Again, since
u n + 1 u n = T r f 1 x n + 1 T r f 1 x n x n + 1 x n
and
v n + 1 v n = T r f 2 y n + 1 T r f 2 y n y n + 1 y n ,
by (12) and (13), it follows that
lim n u n + 1 u n = 0 , lim n v n + 1 v n = 0 .
Since ( x , y ) Γ , we have x = T r f 1 x and y = T r f 2 y . In addition, it follows from Lemma 2 that T r is firmly nonexpansive. Further, we have
u n x 2 = T r f 1 x n T r f 1 x 2 = T r f 1 x n T r f 1 x , J ( T r f 1 x n T r f 1 x ) u n x T r f 1 x n T r f 1 x u n x x n x 1 2 ( x n x 2 + u n x 2 x n u n 2 )
and
v n y 2 = T r f 2 y n T r f 2 y 2 1 2 ( y n y 2 + v n y 2 y n v n 2 ) .
So, it follows from (15) and (16) that
u n x 2 x n x 2 x n u n 2 , v n y 2 y n y 2 y n v n 2 .
Also, it follows from (1) and Lemma 4 that
x n + 1 x 2 = α n x n + ( 1 α n ) T ( u n ρ J 1 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ) x 2 α n x n x 2 + ( 1 α n ) [ ρ 2 g 2 g ( u n ) h ( v n ) 2 + 2 ρ g ( x ) g ( u n ) , J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) + 2 k 2 u n x 2 ] α n ( 1 α n ) g 1 ( x n T z n ) α n x n x 2 + ( 1 α n ) [ ρ 2 g 2 g ( u n ) h ( v n ) 2 + 2 ρ g ( x ) g ( u n ) , J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) + 2 k 2 ( x n x 2 x n u n 2 ) ] α n ( 1 α n ) g 1 ( x n T z n )
and
y n + 1 y 2 α n y n y 2 + ( 1 α n ) [ ρ 2 h 2 g ( u n ) h ( v n ) 2 + 2 ρ h ( v n ) h ( y ) , J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) + 2 k 2 v n y 2 ] α n ( 1 α n ) g 2 ( y n S e n ) α n y n y 2 + ( 1 α n ) [ ρ 2 h 2 g ( u n ) h ( v n ) 2 + 2 ρ h ( v n ) h ( y ) , J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) + 2 k 2 ( y n y 2 y n v n 2 ) ] α n ( 1 α n ) g 2 ( y n S e n ) .
Adding the inequalities (18), (19) and taking into account the fact that g ( x ) = h ( y ) , we obtain
x n + 1 x 2 + y n + 1 y 2 [ α n + ( 1 α n ) 2 k 2 ] [ x n x 2 + y n y 2 ] ( 1 α n ) ρ [ 2 ( g 2 + h 2 ) ρ ] g ( u n ) h ( v n ) 2 ( 1 α n ) 2 k 2 [ u n x n 2 + v n y n 2 ] α n ( 1 α n ) [ g 1 ( x n T z n ) + g 2 ( y n S e n ) ] x n x 2 + y n y 2 ( 1 α n ) ρ [ 2 ( g 2 + h 2 ) ρ ] g ( u n ) h ( v n ) 2 ( 1 α n ) 2 k 2 [ u n x n 2 + v n y n 2 ] α n ( 1 α n ) [ g 1 ( x n T z n ) + g 2 ( y n S e n ) ] ,
and so
( 1 α n ) 2 k 2 x n u n 2 + ( 1 α n ) 2 k 2 y n v n 2 Γ n ( x , y ) Γ n + 1 ( x , y ) ( 1 α n ) ρ [ 2 ( g 2 + h 2 ) ρ ] g ( u n ) h ( v n ) 2 α n ( 1 α n ) [ g 1 ( x n T z n ) + g 2 ( y n S e n ) ] Γ n ( x , y ) Γ n + 1 ( x , y ) .
Since lim n Γ n ( x , y ) exists, by (20), we have
lim n x n u n = 0 , lim n y n v n = 0 .
Step 3. Show that lim n x n T x n = 0 and lim n y n S y n = 0 . In fact, using the nonexpansiveness of T and S , we have
u n - T u n = u n - x n + 1 + x n + 1 - T u n u n - x n + 1 + x n + 1 - T u n = u n - u n + 1 - u n + 1 - x n + 1 + α n u n + ( 1 - α n ) T ( x n - ρ J 1 - 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) - h ( v n ) ) ) - T u n u n - u n + 1 + u n + 1 - x n + 1 + α n u n - T u n + ( 1 - α n ) T ( x n - ρ J 1 - 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) - h ( v n ) ) ) - T u n u n - u n + 1 + u n + 1 - x n + 1 + α n u n - T u n + ( 1 - α n ) x n - u n + ( 1 - α n ) - ρ J 1 - 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) - h ( v n ) ) )
and, further,
( 1 - α n ) u n - T u n u n - u n + 1 + u n + 1 - x n + 1 + ( 1 - α n ) x n - u n + ( 1 - α n ) - ρ J 1 - 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) - h ( v n ) ) ) .
By (14), (21) and (22), we have
lim n T u n u n = 0 .
Similarly, we have
lim n S v n v n = 0 .
Since
x n T x n = x n u n + u n T u n + T u n T x n x n u n + u n T u n + T u n T x n 2 x n u n + u n T u n ,
it follows from (21) and (23) that
lim n x n T x n = 0 .
In addition, we have
y n - S y n y n - v n + v n - S v n + S v n - S y n 2 y n - v n + v n - S v n ,
and so it follows from (21) and (24) that
lim n y n S y n = 0 .
Step 4. Show that { ( x n , y n ) } has the unique weak cluster points ( x * , y * ) Γ . In fact, since E 1 and E 2 are reflexive, { x n } and { y n } are bounded, we may assume that { ( x n , y n ) } has a weak cluster points ( x * , y * ) . Since S and T are nonespansive, T and S are demiclosed and so, from Lemma 5, (25) and (26), it follows that x * F ( T ) and y * F ( S ) .
Now, we show that x * E P ( f 1 ) and y * E P ( f 2 ) . Without loss of generality, we may suppose that the subsequence { ( x n i , y n i ) } of { ( x n , y n ) } converges weakly to ( x * , y * ) . Also, by (21), we know that { ( u n , v n ) } converges weakly to ( x * , y * ) . Using the uniformly norm-to-norm continuity of J 1 , it follows from (21) that
lim n J 1 x n J 1 u n = 0 .
Since u n = T r f 1 x n , we have
f 1 ( u n , u ) + 1 r < u u n , J 1 x n J 1 u n > 0 for all u E 1 .
From the condition ( C 2 ) , we obtain
u u n J 1 x n J 1 u n r 1 r u u n , J 1 x n J 1 u n f 1 ( u n , u ) f 1 ( u , u n )
for all u E 1 . Taking the limit as n in the inequality above , it follows from the condition ( C 4 ) and u n x * that f 1 ( u , x * ) 0 for all u E 1 . Put z t = t u + ( 1 t ) x * for all t ( 0 , 1 ] and u E 1 . Thus we have z t E 1 and f 1 ( z t , x * ) 0 . Applying the conditions ( C 1 ) and ( C 4 ) , it follows that
0 = f 1 ( z t , z t ) t f 1 ( z t , u ) + ( 1 t ) f 1 ( z t , x * ) t f 1 ( z t , u ) ,
that is, f 1 ( z t , u ) 0 . As t 0 , from the condition ( C 3 ) , it follows that
f 1 ( x * , u ) 0
for all u E 1 . This means that x * E P ( f 1 ) . Following the same argument above, we also have y * E P ( f 2 ) . Since g and h are bounded linear operators, the point g ( x * ) h ( y * ) is a weak cluster point of { g ( u n ) h ( v n ) } . Again, applying the weakly lower semi-continuous property of the norm and (10), we obtain
g ( x * ) h ( y * ) lim inf n g ( u n ) h ( v n ) = 0
and so g ( x * ) = h ( y * ) . Therefore, we have ( x * , y * ) Γ .
Now, we show that ( x * , y * ) is the unique weak cluster point of { ( x n , y n ) } . Suppose that there exists another subsequence { ( x n k , y n k ) } of { ( x n , y n ) } such that { ( x n k , y n k ) } converges weakly to a point ( p , q ) with ( p , q ) ( x * , y * ) . It is easy to see that ( p , q ) Γ . By Opial’s properties of E 1 and E 2 , we obtain
lim inf i x n i p < lim inf i x n i x * = lim n x n x * = lim inf k x n k x * < lim inf k x n k p = lim n x n p = lim inf i x n i p
and
lim inf i y n i q < lim inf i y n i y * = lim n y n y * = lim inf k y n k y * < lim inf k y n k q = lim n y n q = lim inf i y n i q ,
which are contradictions and so ( p , q ) = ( x * , y * ) . This completes the proof of the Conclusion 1.
2.
Now, we prove the Conclusion 2. In fact, since S and T are semi-compact, { ( x n , y n ) } is bounded, lim n | | x n T x n | | = 0 and lim n | | y n T y n | | = 0 , there exists a subsequence { ( x n j , y n j ) } of { ( x n , y n ) } such that { ( x n j , y n j ) } ( u * , v * ) . Since { ( x n , y n ) } ( x * , y * ) , we know that ( u * , v * ) = ( x * , y * ) .
On the other hand, since lim n Γ n ( x , y ) exists for any ( x , y ) Γ and x n j x * , y n j y * , we know that lim j Γ n j ( x * , y * ) = 0 . From the conclusion 1, we know that lim n Γ n ( x * , y * ) exists and so lim n Γ n ( x * , y * ) = 0 . Due to 0 x n x * 2 Γ n ( x * , y * ) and 0 y n y * 2 Γ n ( x * , y * ) , we can obtain that
lim n x n x * = 0 , lim n y n y * = 0 .
This completes the proof. □
Let ϕ : E 1 be a proper lower semi-continuous and convex functions, ψ : E 1 E 1 * be a continuous and β -inverse strongly accretive mapping. Define
H ( ξ , y ) = f ( ξ , y ) + ψ ξ , y ξ + ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( ξ ) for all ξ E 1 .
We can see that H ( ξ , y ) also satisfies the conditions ( C 1 ) ( C 4 ) if f satisfies the conditions ( C 1 ) ( C 4 ) . So, the problem (EP) reduces to the problem: Find ξ * E 1 such that
f ( ξ * , y ) + ψ ξ * , y ξ * + ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( ξ * ) 0 for all y E 1 ,
which is also called the generalized mixed equilibrium problem (shortly, (GMEP)).
The set of solutions of the problem (GMEP) is denoted by GMEP ( f , ψ , ϕ ) .
If ψ = 0 in the problem (GMEP), then the problem (GMEP) reduces to the following problem: Find ξ * E 1 such that
f ( ξ * , y ) + ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( ξ * ) 0 for all y E 1 ,
which is also called the mixed equilibrium problem (shortly, (MEP)). The set of solutions of the problem (MEP) is denoted by MEP ( f , ϕ ) .
Definition 3.
Let E 1 , E 2 , E 3 be three Banach spaces, f 1 : E 1 × E 1 , f 2 : E 2 × E 2 be two nonlinear bifunctions, ψ 1 : E 1 E 1 * , ψ 2 : E 2 E 2 * be continuous and β i -inverse strongly accretive mapping ( i = 1 , 2 ) , ϕ : E 1 { + } , φ : E 2 { + } be proper lower semi-continuous and convex functions and g : E 1 E 3 , h : E 2 E 3 be two bounded linear operators. Then the split equality generalized mixed equilibrium problem (shortly, (SEGMEP)) is as follows: Find ξ * E 1 and y * E 2 such that
f 1 ( ξ * , ξ ) + ψ 1 ξ * , ξ ξ * + ϕ ( ξ ) ϕ ( ξ * ) 0 , ξ E 1 , f 2 ( y * , y ) + ψ 2 y * , y y * + φ ( y ) φ ( y * ) 0 , y E 2 , g ( ξ * ) = h ( y * ) .
The set of solutions of the problem (SEGMEP) is denoted by SEGMEP ( f 1 , f 2 , ψ 1 , ψ 2 , ϕ , φ ) , that is,
SEGMEP ( f 1 , f 2 , ψ 1 , ψ 2 , ϕ , φ ) = { ( ξ * , y * ) E 1 × E 2 : f 1 ( ξ * , ξ ) + ψ 1 ξ * , ξ - ξ * + ϕ ( ξ ) - ϕ ( ξ * ) 0 , ξ E 1 , f 2 ( y * , y ) + ψ 2 y * , y - y * + φ ( y ) - φ ( y * ) 0 , y E 2 , g ( ξ * ) = h ( y * ) } .
Taking
H 1 ( ξ , u ) = f 1 ( ξ , u ) + ψ 1 ξ , u ξ + ϕ ( u ) ϕ ( ξ ) for all u E 1
and
H 2 ( y , v ) = f 2 ( y , v ) + ψ 2 y , v y + φ ( v ) φ ( y ) for all v E 2 ,
we can directly obtain the following result from Theorem 1 when f 1 and f 2 satisfy the conditions ( C 1 ) ( C 4 ) :
Corollary 1.
Let E 1 , E 2 , E 3 f 1 , f 2 , T , S , g and h be the same as above. Let ψ 1 , ψ 2 , ϕ and φ be the same as in Definition 3. Let iteration scheme { ( x n , y n ) } be defined as follows: for any ( x 1 , y 1 ) E 1 × E 2 ,
f 1 ( u n , u ) + ψ 1 u n , u u n + ϕ ( u ) ϕ ( u n ) + 1 r u u n , J 1 u n J 1 x n 0 , u E 1 , f 2 ( v n , v ) + ψ 2 v n , v v n + φ ( v ) φ ( v n ) + 1 r v v n , J 2 v n J 2 y n 0 , v E 2 , x n + 1 = α n x n + ( 1 α n ) T ( u n ρ J 1 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ) , y n + 1 = α n y n + ( 1 α n ) S ( v n + ρ J 2 1 h * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ) , n 1 ,
where r ( 0 , ) , ( g 2 + h 2 ) 1 < ρ < 2 ( g 2 + h 2 ) 1 and { α n } is a sequence in [ a , b ] for some a , b ( 0 , 1 ) .
If Γ : = SEFP ( T , S ) SEGMEP ( f 1 , f 2 , ψ 1 , ψ 2 , ϕ , φ ) , then we have the following:
1. 
{ ( x n , y n ) } ( p , q ) Γ ;
2. 
Furthermore, if S and T are semi-compact, then { ( x n , y n ) } ( p , q ) Γ .
In Definition 3, if ψ 1 = 0 and ψ 2 = 0 , then the problem (SEGEMP) reduces to the following so called the split equality mixed equilibrium problem (shortly, (SEMEP)) as follows: Find ξ * E 1 and y * E 2 such that
f 1 ( ξ * , ξ ) + ϕ ( ξ ) ϕ ( ξ * ) 0 , ξ E 1 , f 2 ( y * , y ) + φ ( y ) φ ( y * ) 0 , y E 2 , g ( x * ) = h ( y * ) .
The set of solutions of the problem (SEMEP) is denoted by SEMEP ( f 1 , f 2 , ϕ , φ ) , that is,
SEMEP ( f 1 , f 2 , ϕ , φ ) = { ( ξ * , y * ) E 1 × E 2 : f 1 ( ξ * , ξ ) + ϕ ( ξ ) ϕ ( ξ * ) 0 , ξ E 1 , f 2 ( y * , y ) + φ ( y ) φ ( y * ) 0 , y E 2 , g ( ξ * ) = h ( y * ) } .
Taking ψ 1 = 0 and ψ 2 = 0 in Corollary 1, we can obtain the following result:
Corollary 2.
Let E 1 , E 2 , E 3 f 1 , f 2 , T , S , g and h be the same as above. Let ϕ and φ be the same as in Definition 3. Let { ( x n , y n ) } be the iteration scheme in E 1 × E 2 defined as follows: for any ( x 1 , y 1 ) E 1 × E 2 ,
f 1 ( u n , u ) + ϕ ( u ) ϕ ( u n ) + 1 r u u n , J 1 u n J 1 x n 0 , u E 1 , f 2 ( v n , v ) + φ ( v ) φ ( v n ) + 1 r v v n , J 2 v n J 2 y n 0 , v E 2 , x n + 1 = α n x n + ( 1 α n ) T ( u n ρ J 1 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ) , y n + 1 = α n y n + ( 1 α n ) S ( v n + ρ J 2 1 h * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ) , n 1 ,
where r ( 0 , ) , ( g 2 + h 2 ) 1 < ρ < 2 ( g 2 + h 2 ) 1 and { α n } is a sequence in [ a , b ] for some a , b ( 0 , 1 ) .
If Γ : = SEFP ( T , S ) SEMEP ( f 1 , f 2 , ϕ , φ ) , then we have the following:
1. 
{ ( x n , y n ) } ( p , q ) Γ ;
2. 
Furthermore, if S and T are semi-compact, then { ( x n , y n ) } ( p , q ) Γ .
In Theorem 1, putting B = I , E 2 = E 3 and J 2 = J 3 , then, by the similar proof in Theorem 1, the following result is obtained.
Corollary 3.
Let E 1 , E 2 , f 1 , f 2 , T , S and g be the same as above. Let { ( x n , y n ) } be the iteration scheme in E 1 × E 2 defined as follows: for any ( x 1 , y 1 ) E 1 × E 2 ,
f 1 ( u n , u ) + 1 r u u n , J 1 u n J 1 x n 0 , u E 1 , f 2 ( v n , v ) + 1 r v v n , J 2 v n J 2 y n 0 , v E 2 , x n + 1 = α n x n + ( 1 α n ) T ( u n ρ J 1 1 g * J 2 ( g ( u n ) v n ) ) , y n + 1 = α n y n + ( 1 α n ) S ( v n + ρ ( g ( u n ) v n ) ) , n 1 ,
where r ( 0 , ) , ( g 2 + h 2 ) 1 < ρ < 2 ( g 2 + h 2 ) 1 , { α n } is a sequence in [ a , b ] for some a , b ( 0 , 1 ) .
If Γ : = SEFP ( T , S ) SEP ( f 1 , f 2 ) , then we have the following:
1. 
{ ( x n , y n ) } ( p , q ) Γ ;
2. 
Furthermore, if S and T are semi-compact, then { ( x n , y n ) } ( p , q ) Γ .

4. Applications to the Split Equality Convex Minimization Problem

If f = 0 in the problem (MEP), then the mixed equilibrium problem reduces to the following convex minimization problem (shortly, (CMP)):
Find x * E 1 such that ϕ ( y ) ϕ ( x * ) for all y E 1 .
The solution set of the problem (CMP) is denoted by CMP ( ϕ ) .
In the problem (SEMEP), if f 1 = 0 , f 2 = 0 , then the problem (SEMEP) reduces to the following split equality convex minimization problem (shortly, (SECMP)), which is formulated as follows: Find x * E 1 and y * E 2 such that
ϕ ( x ) ϕ ( x * ) , φ ( y ) φ ( y * ) for all x E 1 , y E 2 and g x * = h y * .
The solution set of the problem (SECMP) is denoted by SECMP ( ϕ , φ ) , that is,
SECMP ( ϕ , φ ) = { ( x * , y * ) E 1 × E 2 : ϕ ( x ) ϕ ( x * ) , φ ( y ) φ ( y * ) , x E 1 , y E 2 , g x * = h y * } .
Therefore, Corollary 2 can be used to solve the problem (SECMP) and the following result can be directly deduced from Corollary 2.
Theorem 2.
Let E 1 , E 2 , E 3 , f 1 , f 2 , T , S , g and h be the same as above. Let ϕ and φ be the same as in Definition 3. Let iteration scheme { ( x n , y n ) } be defined as follows: for any ( x 1 , y 1 ) E 1 × E 2 ,
ϕ ( u ) ϕ ( u n ) + 1 r u u n , J 1 u n J 1 x n 0 , u E 1 , φ ( v ) φ ( v n ) + 1 r v v n , J 2 v n J 2 y n 0 , v E 2 , x n + 1 = α n x n + ( 1 α n ) T ( u n ρ J 1 1 g * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ) , y n + 1 = α n y n + ( 1 α n ) S ( v n + ρ J 2 1 h * J 3 ( g ( u n ) h ( v n ) ) ) , n 1 ,
where r ( 0 , ) , ( g 2 + h 2 ) 1 < ρ < 2 ( g 2 + h 2 ) 1 and { α n } is a sequence in [ a , b ] for some a , b ( 0 , 1 ) .
If Γ : = SEFP ( T , S ) SECMP ( ϕ , φ ) , then we have the following:
1. 
{ ( x n , y n ) } ( p , q ) Γ ;
2. 
Furthermore, if S and T are semi-compact, then { ( x n , y n ) } ( p , q ) Γ .
Remark 1.
In Theorem 2, if we take B = I , J 2 = J 3 and E 2 = E 3 , then, from Theorem 2, we can obtain some more convergence theorems to approximate a common element of the solution set of the split feasibility problem(SFP)and the solution set of the split convex minimization problem(SCMP).

Author Contributions

Z.M., L.W. and Y.J.C. contributed equally in this work.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Grant No. 11361070. This project was also supported by the Science Foundation of Education Department of Yunnan Province grant number 2018JS776.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the associate editor and the anonymous referee for his/her comments that helped us improve this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chang, S.S.; Lee, H.W.J.; 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]
  2. Blum, E.; Oettli, W. From optimization and variational inequalities to equilibrium problems. Math. Stud. 1994, 63, 123–145. [Google Scholar]
  3. Noor, M.; Oettli, W. On general nonlinear complementarity problems and quasi-equilibria. Mathematiche 1994, 49, 313–346. [Google Scholar]
  4. Qin, X.; Cho, Y.J.; Kang, S.M. Convergence theorems of common elements for equilibrium problems and fixed point problems in Banach spaces. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2009, 225, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Combettes, P.L.; Hirstoaga, S.A. Equilibrium programming in Hilbert spaces. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2005, 6, 117–136. [Google Scholar]
  6. Moudafi, A. Second-order differential proximal methods for equilibrium problems. J. Inequal. Pure Appl. Math. 2003, 4, 18. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kumam, W.; Jaiboon, C.; Kumam, P.; Singta, A. A shrinking projection method for generalized mixed equilibrium problems, variational inclusion problems and a finite family of quasi-nonexpansive mappings. J. Inequal. Appl. 2010, 2010, 458247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Saewan, S.; Kumam, P. Modified hybrid block iterative algorithm for convex feasibility problems and generalized equilibrium problems for uniformly quasi-asymptotically nonexpansive mappings. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2010, 2010, 357120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Byne, C. Iterative obligue projection onto convex sets and the split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 2002, 18, 441–453. [Google Scholar]
  10. Censor, Y.; Elfving, T. A multiprojection algorithm using Bregman projections in a product space. Numer. Algorithms 1994, 8, 221–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Censor, Y.; Bortfeld, T.; Martin, B.; Trofimov, A. A unified approach for inverse problem in intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 2006, 51, 2352–2365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Censor, Y.; Elfving, T.; Kopf, N.; Bortfeld, T. The multiple-sets split feasibility problem and its applications. Inverse Probl. 2005, 21, 2071–2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Censor, Y.; Motova, A.; Segal, A. Pertured projections and subgradient projections for the multiple-sets split feasibility problem. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 327, 1244–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Combettes, P.L. Hilbertian convex feasibility problem: Convergence of projection methods. Appl. Math. Optim. 1997, 35, 311–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Qu, B.; Xiu, N. A note on the CQ algorithm for the split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 2005, 21, 1655–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Aleyner, A.; Reich, S. Block-iterative algorithms for solving convex feasibility problems in Hilbert and in Banach. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2008, 343, 427–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yang, Q. The relaxed CQ algorithm solving the split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 2004, 20, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moudafi, A. A relaxed alternating CQ-algorithm for convex feasibility problems. Nonlinear Anal. 2013, 79, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Moudafi, A. Split monotone variational inclusions. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2011, 150, 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kazmi, K.R.; Rizvi, S.H. Iterative approximation of a common solution of a split equilibrium problem, a variational inequality problem and a fixed point problem. J. Egypt. Math. Soc. 2013, 21, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Eslamian, M.; Latif, A. General split feasibility problems in Hilbert spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2013, 2013, 805104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chen, R.D.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.W. General split equality problems in Hilbert spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2014, 2014, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wang, S.H.; Gong, X.Y.; Abdou, A.A.; Cho, Y.J. Iterative algorithm for a family of split equilibrium problems and fixed point problems in Hilbert spaces with applications. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2016, 2016, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ma, Z.L.; Wang, L.; Chang, S.S.; Duan, W. Convergence theorems for split equality mixed equilibrium problems with applications. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2015, 2015, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Takahashi, W.; Yao, J.C. Strong conveergence theoems by hybrid method for the split common null point problem inBanach spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2015, 2015, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tang, J.F.; Chang, S.S.; Wang, L.; Wang, X.R. On the split common fixed point problem for strict pseudocontractive and asymptotically nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces. J. Inequal. Appl. 2015, 2015, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ma, Z.L.; Wang, L. On the split equality common fixed point problem for asymptotically nonexpansive semigroups in Banach spaces. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 2016, 9, 4003–4015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Takahashi, W. Nonlinear Functional Analysis; Yokohama Publishers: Yokohama, Japan, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  29. Barbu, V. Nonlinear Semigroup and Differential Equations in Banach Spaces; Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania: Bucharest, Romania, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  30. Takahashi, W.; Zembayashi, K. Strong and weak convergence theorems for equilibrium problems and relatively nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Xu, H.K. Inequalities in Banach spaces with applications. Nonlinear Anal. 1991, 16, 1127–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Browder, F.E. Convergence of approximates to fixed points of nonexpansive nonlinear mappings in Banach spaces. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 1967, 24, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ma, Z.; Wang, L.; Cho, Y.J. Some Results for Split Equality Equilibrium Problems in Banach Spaces. Symmetry 2019, 11, 194. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11020194

AMA Style

Ma Z, Wang L, Cho YJ. Some Results for Split Equality Equilibrium Problems in Banach Spaces. Symmetry. 2019; 11(2):194. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11020194

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ma, Zhaoli, Lin Wang, and Yeol Je Cho. 2019. "Some Results for Split Equality Equilibrium Problems in Banach Spaces" Symmetry 11, no. 2: 194. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11020194

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