J. Fixed Point Theory Appl.

(2019) 21:38
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11784-019-0676-0 Journal of Fixed Point Theory
c Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 and Applications

Takahashi’s minimization theorem and some

related results in quasi-metric spaces
Suliman Al-Homidan, Qamrul Hasan Ansari and Gábor Kassay

Abstract. In this paper, we establish Takahashi’s minimization theorem

in the setting of quasi-metric spaces and provide its equivalence with
Ekeland’s variational principle given in Cobzaş (Topol Appl 158:1073–
1084, 2011). We present an equilibrium version of Ekeland’s variational
principle and extended Takahashi’s minimization theorem in the setting
of quasi-metric spaces but without using the triangle inequality of the in-
volved bifunction. We establish an equivalent chain of theorems contain-
ing Takahashi’s minimization theorem, Ekeland’s variational principle,
the equilibrium version of Ekeland’s variational principle and Caristi–
Kirk’s fixed point theorem for set-valued maps in the setting of quasi-
metric spaces. As applications, we give an error bound for the solution
set of the equilibrium problems and provide sufficient conditions for the
existence of weak sharp solutions of equilibrium problems.
Mathematics Subject Classification. 54E15, 54E50, 54E55, 49N99, 58E30,
47H10.
Keywords. Takahashi’s minimization theorem, ekeland’s variational
principle, Caristi’s–Kirk fixed point theorem, quasi-metric spaces.

1. Introduction
In 1991, Takahashi [34] established an existence result for a minimum of
a proper bounded below lower semicontinuous function f : X → R ∪ {+∞}
defined on a complete metric space (X, d). Namely, he showed that for the ex-
istence of a minimizer, it is sufficient that for each x̂ ∈ X with inf x∈X f (x) <
f (x̂), there exists z ∈ X such that z = x̂ and f (z) + d(z, x̂) ≤ f (x̂) (in
the sequel we shall refer it as “Takahashi’s condition”). In this result, no
compactness or convexity assumption is involved, as in most of the existence
results known in the literature. Later, it has been shown that it is equiva-
lent to the well-known Ekeland’s variational principle [19] (see, also [20,21]).
Recently, Cobzaş [17] established Ekeland’s variational principle in the set-
ting of complete quasi-metric spaces and derived Caristi–Kirk’s fixed point
theorem [14] and Clarke’s fixed point theorem; see, also [2]. He also proved

0123456789().: V,-vol
 38 Page 2 of 20 S. Al-Homidan et al.

the completeness of quasi-metric spaces using Ekeland’s variational principle;

see, also [25].
The equilibrium problem (in short, EP) is to find x̄ ∈ X such that
F (x̄, y) ≥ 0 for all y ∈ X, where X is a nonempty set and F : X × X → R is
a bifunction. Several mathematical problems, namely, optimization problem,
variational inequality problem, Nash equilibrium problem, fixed point prob-
lem, saddle point problem, etc., are particular cases of EP. It is also known
as Ky Fan-type inequality as it was studied by Fan [22] and also by Brézis et
al. [12]. The term “equilibrium problem” was first used by Muu and Oettli
[27] and later adopted by Blum and Oettli [11]. For further details, we refer
[1–9,16,28,29] and the references therein. In most of the existence results for
a solution of EP, the convexity of the underlying set X and the function F is
assumed, see, for example, [7–9] and the references therein. Blum and Oettli
[11] extended Takahashi’s minimization theorem for bifunctions and derived
the existence of a solution of EP without using the convexity assumption but
in the setting of complete metric spaces. Such a result is known as an equilib-
rium version of Takahashi’s minimization theorem or extended Takahashi’s
minimization theorem, see, for example, [4].
The Ekeland’s variational principle for a bifunction F is known as equi-
librium version of Ekeland’s variational principle or extended form of Eke-
land’s variational principle. In most of the papers appeared in the litera-
ture on equilibrium version of Ekeland’s variational principle and equilib-
rium version of Takahashi’s minimization theorem, the triangle inequality
F (x, z) ≤ F (x, y) + F (y, z) for all x, y, z ∈ X is used, see, for example,
[2,4–6,10,11,16,28] and the references therein. Castellani et al. [16] discussed
several bifunctions which satisfy the triangle inequality. The fact that the tri-
angle inequality is rather demanding, and therefore restricts the applicability
of the related results in the important field of variational inequalities, has
been pointed out by Castellani and Giuli [15]. They established, for the first
time, the equilibrium version of Ekeland’s variational principle without using
the triangle inequality.
Recently, Al-Homidan et al. [1] introduced the concept of weak sharp
solutions for equilibrium problems and gave its characterization using the
equilibrium version of Ekeland’s variational principle. It is worth to mention
that the weak sharpness of the solution set provides the finite termination
property of the algorithm for solving an optimization problem.
Inspired by the work of Cobzaş [17], in Sect. 3 of this paper, we es-
tablish the Takahashi’s minimization theorem in the setting of quasi-metric
spaces and provide its equivalence with Ekeland’s variational principle given
in [17]. In Sect. 4, we present an equilibrium version of Ekeland’s variational
principle and an extended Takahashi’s minimization theorem in the setting of
quasi-metric spaces but without using the triangle inequality of the involved
bifunction. We establish in Sect. 5 an equivalent chain of theorems containing
Takahashi’s minimization theorem, Ekeland’s variational principle, the equi-
librium version of Ekeland’s variational principle and Caristi–Kirk’s fixed
point theorem for set-valued maps in the setting of quasi-metric spaces. Fi-
nally, in Sect. 6, as applications, we give an error bound for the solution set of
 Takahashi’s minimization theorem and some related results Page 3 of 20 38

the equilibrium problems and we prove the existence of a weak sharp solution
without assuming the triangle inequality for the bifunction involved in the
formulation of the equilibrium problem.

2. Preliminaries
Throughout the paper, we shall use the following notations and terminology.
For further detail, we refer to the book [18] by Cobzaş.
Let X be a nonempty set. A mapping ρ : X × X → [0, ∞) satisfying
the following conditions:
(QM1) ρ(x, y) ≥ 0,
(QM2) ρ(x, y) = 0 if and only if x = y,
(QM3) ρ(x, y) ≤ ρ(x, z) + ρ(z, y),
for all x, y, z ∈ X, is called a quasi-metric on X, and the set X with a
quasi-metric is called a quasi-metric space and it is denoted by (X, ρ).
In other words, a mapping ρ : X × X → [0, ∞) satisfying all the condi-
tions of a metric except the symmetry is called a quasi-metric.
Various topological and functional analytic results in quasi-metric spaces
are surveyed in the book of Cobzaş [18]. Interesting applications of quasi-
metric spaces, especially in the study of the complexity of algorithms and
languages, can be found, for instance, in [23,31,32].
The conjugate of a quasi-metric ρ is the quasi-metric ρ̄(x, y) = ρ(y, x)
for all x, y ∈ X. If ρ is a quasi-metric and ρ̄ is its conjugate, then ρs (x, y) =
max{ρ(x, y), ρ̄(x, y)} for all x, y ∈ X, is a metric on X.
For x ∈ X and r > 0, the open ball and closed ball are defined, respec-
tively, as
Bρ (x; r) = {y ∈ X : ρ(x, y) < r} and Bρ [x; r] = {y ∈ X : ρ(x, y) ≤ r}.
The topology τρ of a quasi-metric (X, ρ) can be defined by the family
of neighborhoods Vρ (x) of an arbitrary point x ∈ X:
V ∈ Vρ (x) ⇔ ∃r > 0 such that Bρ (x; r) ⊂ V
⇔ ∃r > 0 such that Bρ [x; r] ⊂ V.
The convergence of a sequence {xn } to x with respect to τρ , called ρ-
ρ
convergence, is denoted by xn → x, and can be characterized in the following
way:
ρ
xn → x ⇔ ρ(x, xn ) → 0. (1)
Also,
ρ̄
xn → x ⇔ ρ̄(x, xn ) → 0 ⇔ ρ(xn , x) → 0. (2)
Recall that a real-valued function f : X → R defined on a quasi-metric
space (X, ρ) is
– ρ-lower semicontinuous at x ∈ X if for any sequence {xn } ⊂ X such
ρ
that xn → x, it follows that lim inf n→∞ f (xn ) ≥ f (x);
– ρ-upper semicontinuous at x ∈ X if for any sequence {xn } ⊂ X such
ρ
that xn → x, it follows that lim supn→∞ f (xn ) ≤ f (x);
 38 Page 4 of 20 S. Al-Homidan et al.

– ρ-continuous at x ∈ X if it is ρ-lower semicontinuous as well as ρ-upper

semicontinuous at x;
– ρ-lower semicontinuous (ρ-upper semicontinuous, ρ-continuous) if it is
ρ-lower semicontinuous (ρ-upper semicontinuous, ρ-continuous) at every
x ∈ X.
Let us recall, for the reader’s convenience, that a topological space (T , τ )
is called
– T0 if for any pair of distinct points in T , at least one of them has a
neighborhood not containing the other;
– T1 if for any pair of distinct points in T , each of them has a neighborhood
not containing the other (this is equivalent to the fact that the set {t}
is closed for every t ∈ T );
– T2 or Hausdorff if for any pair s, t of distinct points in T , there exist
neighborhoods U of s and V of t such that U ∩ V = ∅;
– regular if a point t and a closed set A, not containing t, can be separated
by two disjoint open sets.

Proposition 1. [18] Let (X, ρ) be a quasi-metric space.

(a) The open ball Bρ (x; r) is τρ -open and the closed ball Bρ [x; r] is τρ̄ -closed.
The closed ball Bρ [x; r] need not be τρ -closed.
(b) The topology τρ is T1 , but not necessarily T2 .
(c) For every fixed x ∈ X, the mapping ρ(x, ·) : X → (R, | · |) is ρ−upper
semicontinuous and ρ̄−lower semicontinuous.
(d) For every fixed y ∈ X, the mapping ρ(·, y) : X → (R, | · |) is ρ−lower
semicontinuous and ρ̄−upper semicontinuous.
(e) For every fixed x ∈ X, if the mapping ρ(x, ·) : X → (R, | · |) is ρ−conti-
nuous, then the topology τρ is regular.

A sequence {xn } in a quasi-metric space (X, ρ) is called

(a) left ρ − K-Cauchy if for every ε > 0, there exists a natural number N
such that

ρ(xn , xm ) < ε, for all m > n ≥ N, (3)

equivalently, ρ(xn , xn+k ) < ε, for all n ≥ N and all k ∈ N. (4)

(b) right ρ − K-Cauchy if for every ε > 0, there exists a natural number N
such that

ρ(xm , xn ) < ε, for all m > n ≥ N, (5)

equivalently, ρ(xn+k , xn ) < ε, for all n ≥ N and all k ∈ N. (6)

It is obvious that a sequence is left ρ−K-Cauchy if and only if it is right

ρ̄ − K-Cauchy. A ρ-convergence sequence need not be left ρ − K-Cauchy.
A quasi-metric space (X, ρ) is said to be left (respectively, right) ρ − K-
complete if every left (respectively, right) ρ−K-Cauchy sequence is ρ−conver-
gent.
 Takahashi’s minimization theorem and some related results Page 5 of 20 38

3. Takahashi’s minimization theorem in quasi-metric spaces

A function f : X → R ∪ {+∞} is said to be proper if dom(f ) := {x ∈ X :
f (x) < +∞} = ∅.
Theorem 1. (Takahashi’s Minimization Theorem) Let (X, ρ) be a quasi-met-
ric space and f : X → R ∪ {+∞} be a proper bounded below function.
1. Let (X, ρ) be right ρ − K-complete and f be ρ-lower semicontinuous.
Assume that the following condition holds:
Takahashi’s condition-1: There exists α > 0 such that for each
x̂ ∈ X with inf x∈X f (x) < f (x̂), there exists z ∈ X such that
z = x̂ and
f (z) + αρ(z, x̂) ≤ f (x̂).
Then, there exists x̄ ∈ X such that f (x̄) = inf x∈X f (x).
2. Let (X, ρ) be right ρ̄ − K-complete and f be ρ̄-lower semicontinuous.
Assume that the following condition holds:
Takahashi’s condition-2: There exists α > 0 such that for each
x̂ ∈ X with inf x∈X f (x) < f (x̂), there exists z ∈ X such that
z = x̂ and
f (z) + αρ(x̂, z) ≤ f (x̂).
Then, there exists x̄ ∈ X such that f (x̄) = inf x∈X f (x).
Proof. Here and in the sequel, if not otherwise specified, we will prove only
part 1. The proof of part 2 is similar and we omit it. Let ρα (x, y) = αρ(x, y)
for all x, y ∈ X and all α > 0. Then, ρα and ρ are equivalent quasi-metrics on
X, that is, the right ρ − K-completeness of (X, ρ) implies the right ρα − K-
completeness of (X, ρα ) and ρ−lower semicontinuity of f implies ρα -lower
semicontinuity of f .
Let us suppose on the contrary that inf x∈X f (x) < f (y) for all y ∈ X,
and let x̂ ∈ dom(f ). We define inductively a sequence {xn } in X, starting
with x1 = x̂. Suppose that xn ∈ X is known. Put
Sn+1 = {x ∈ X : f (x) ≤ f (xn ) − ρα (x, xn )},
and choose then xn+1 ∈ Sn+1 such that
 
1
f (xn+1 ) ≤ inf f (x) + f (xn ) . (7)
2 x∈Sn+1
To check that the definition of xn+1 is correct, let us show that f (xn ) >
inf x∈Sn+1 f (x). Suppose that f (xn ) = inf x∈Sn+1 f (x). By hypothesis, f (xn ) >
inf x∈X f (x) so that, by Takahashi’s condition-1, there exists y ∈ Sn+1 \ {xn },
yielding the contradiction
f (y) ≤ f (xn ) − ρα (y, xn ) < f (xn ) = inf f (x).
x∈Sn+1

Consequently, f (xn ) > inf x∈Sn+1 f (x) and f (xn+1 ) < f (xn ).
We claim that {xn } is a right ρα − K-Cauchy sequence. Since xn+1 ∈
Sn+1 for all n ∈ N, we have
ρα (xj+1 , xj ) ≤ f (xj ) − f (xj+1 ), for all j ∈ N. (8)
 38 Page 6 of 20 S. Al-Homidan et al.

If m > n, then using (8), we obtain

m−1

ρ(xm , xn ) ≤ ρα (xj+1 , xj )
j=n
m−1

≤ {f (xj ) − f (xj+1 )}
j=n
= f (xn ) − f (xm ). (9)

Since the sequence {f (xn )} is decreasing and the function f is bounded below,
{f (xn )} is convergent in R and so Cauchy. Given ε > 0, there exists N ∈ N
such that

|f (xn ) − f (xm )| < ε, for all m, n ≥ N.

But then, by (9),

ρα (xm , xn ) ≤ f (xn ) − f (xm ) < ε, for all m > n ≥ N,

showing that the sequence {xn } is right ρα − K-Cauchy.

Since (X, ρα ) is right ρα − K-complete, there exists x̃ ∈ X such that
ρα
xn → x̃. Then, by Proposition 1 (d), we have

lim ρα (xm , xn ) ≥ ρα (x̃, xn ).

m→∞

By taking limit as m → ∞ in (9) and using ρα -lower semicontinuity of f , we

obtain

ρα (x̃, xn ) ≤ lim ρα (xm , xn )

m→∞
≤ f (xn ) − lim f (xm )
m→∞
≤ f (xn ) − f (x̃). (10)

On the other hand, by the hypothesis, there exists a z ∈ X such that z = x̃

and
f (z) + ρα (z, x̃) ≤ f (x̃). (11)

From (10) and (11), we obtain

f (z) ≤ f (x̃) − ρα (z, x̃)

≤ f (xn ) − {ρα (z, x̃) + ρα (x̃, xn )}
≤ f (xn ) − ρα (z, xn ).

Consequently, z ∈ Sn+1 for all n ∈ N. By (7), we obtain

2f (xn+1 ) − f (xn ) ≤ inf f (x̃) ≤ f (z). (12)

x̃∈Sn+1
 Takahashi’s minimization theorem and some related results Page 7 of 20 38

Hence, by (11), the ρ-lower semicontinutiy of f and (12), we get

f (z) < f (z) + ρα (z, x̃)
≤ f (x̃)
≤ lim f (xn )
n→∞
= lim [2f (xn+1 ) − f (xn )]
n→∞
≤ f (z),
a contradiction. Therefore, there exists x̄ ∈ X such that f (x̄) = inf x∈X
f (x). 

Remark 1. Takahashi [34] proved the above theorem in the setting of com-
plete metric spaces and he dropped the positive constant α using the equiv-
alent metric dα := αd. However, we use the parameter α as it is convenient
for our purpose.

Remark 2. It is obvious that the next properties are sufficient for Takahashi’s
conditions in Theorem 1.
Let (X, ρ) be a quasi-metric space and f : X → R ∪ {+∞} be a proper
bounded below function.
1. Let (X, ρ) be right ρ − K-complete and f be ρ-lower semicontinuous.
Assume that the following condition holds:
There exist an α > 0 and a minimizer z ∈ Xof f such that
(13)
f (x) − f (z) ≥ αρ(z, x), for all x ∈ X.
Then, f satisfies Takahashi’s condition-1.
2. Let (X, ρ) be right ρ̄ − K-complete and f be ρ̄-lower semicontinuous.
Assume that the following condition holds:
There exist an α > 0 and a minimizer z ∈ X of f such that
(14)
f (x) − f (z) ≥ αρ(x, z), for all x ∈ X.
Then, f satisfies Takahashi’s condition-2.

Proof. By condition (13),

f (z) + αρ(z, x) ≤ f (x), for all x ∈ X.
Also, x = z if x is not the minimizer of f . This completes the proof. 

Remark 3. (a) Hamel [24] proved the above theorem in the setting of com-
plete metric spaces.
(b) Let α > 0 and Z = {z ∈ X : f (z) = inf y∈X f (y)}. For each x ∈ X, we
define
Mα (x) = {y ∈ X : f (y) + αρ(y, x) ≤ f (x)}.
Then, as in [24], Takahashi’s condition-1 is equivalent to the following
condition:
There exists α > 0 such that Mα (x) = {x}, for all x ∈ X \ Z.
 38 Page 8 of 20 S. Al-Homidan et al.

(c) Let α > 0 and Z = {z ∈ X : f (z) = inf y∈X f (y)}. For each x ∈ X, we
define
Nα (x) = {y ∈ X : f (y) + αρ(x, y) ≤ f (x)}.
Then, as in [24], Takahashi’s condition-2 is equivalent to the following
condition:
There exists α > 0 such that Nα (x) = {x}, for all x ∈ X \ Z.

As stressed in the introduction, Takahashi’s minimization theorem and

Ekeland’s variational principle are equivalent (see, for instance, [24]). Next,
we show the same equivalence between these two principles in the frame-
work of quasi-metric spaces. More precisely, we prove the equivalence between
Theorem 1 and the following Ekeland’s variational principle in the setting of
quasi-matric spaces, proved by Cobzaş [17]. As a byproduct, we obtain an
alternative proof of Theorem 1.

Theorem 2. (Theorem 2.4 [17]). Let (X, ρ) be a quasi-metric space and f :

X → R ∪ {+∞} be a proper bounded below function. For a given ε > 0, let
x̂ ∈ X (depending on ε) be such that
f (x̂) ≤ inf f (x) + ε. (15)
x∈X

1. If (X, ρ) is right ρ − K−complete and f is ρ−lower semicontinuous,

then for every λ > 0, there exists x̄ ∈ X (depending on ε and λ) such
that
(a) f (x̄) + λε ρ(x̄, x̂) ≤ f (x̂);
(b) ρ(x̄, x̂) ≤ λ;
(c) f (x̄) < f (x) + λε ρ(x, x̄) for all x ∈ X \ {x̄}.
2. If (X, ρ) is right ρ̄ − K−complete and f is ρ̄−lower semicontinuous,
then for every λ > 0, there exists x̄ ∈ X (depending on ε and λ) such
that
(a) f (x̄) + λε ρ(x̂, x̄) ≤ f (x̂);
(b) ρ(x̂, x̄) ≤ λ;
(c) f (x̄) < f (x) + λε ρ(x̄, x) for all x ∈ X \ {x̄}.

We re-write the above theorem as follows:

Theorem 3. Let (X, ρ) be a quasi-metric space and f : X → R ∪ {+∞} be a

proper bounded below function. Let x̂ ∈ dom(f ) and e > 0 be fixed.
1. If (X, ρ) is right ρ − K-complete and f is ρ-lower semicontinuous, then
there exists x̄ ∈ X such that
(aa) f (x̄) + eρ(x̄, x̂) ≤ f (x̂);
(bb) f (x̄) < f (x) + eρ(x, x̄) for all x ∈ X \ {x̄}.
2. If (X, ρ) is right ρ̄ − K-complete and f is ρ̄-lower semicontinuous, then
there exists x̄ ∈ X such that
(aa) f (x̄) + eρ(x̂, x̄) ≤ f (x̂);
(bb) f (x̄) < f (x) + eρ(x̄, x) for all x ∈ X \ {x̄}.
 Takahashi’s minimization theorem and some related results Page 9 of 20 38

Remark 4. Theorems 2 and 3 are equivalent.

Indeed, assume that Theorem 3 and the hypotheses of Theorem 2 hold.
By setting e = λε , we obtain (a) and (c) from (aa) and (bb), respectively.
By the hypothesis of Theorem 2, f (x̂) ≤ inf x∈X f (x) + ε, that is, f (x̂) −
inf x∈X f (x) ≤ ε. Therefore, in particular, f (x̂) − f (x̄) ≤ ε. Using again (aa),
we get
λ λ
ρ(x̄, x̂) ≤ [f (x̂) − f (x̄)] ≤ ε = λ,
ε ε
that is, (b) holds.
Conversely, assume that Theorem 2 and the hypotheses of Theorem 3
hold. Take x̂ ∈ X such that f (x̂) − inf x∈X f (x) ≤ e. Then, by Theorem 2
with ε = e and λ = 1 (aa) and (bb) follow from (a) and (c), respectively.
Remark 5. Theorems 1 and 2 are equivalent.
Proof. We prove Theorem 1 by using Theorem 2. Suppose that Theorem 2
and the hypotheses of Theorem 1 hold. Let α > 0 be the constant from
Theorem 1. By Theorem 2 (c) with ε = α and λ = 1 there exists x̄ ∈ X such
that
f (x̄) < f (x) + αρ(x, x̄), for all x ∈ X with x = x̄. (16)
We claim that f (x̄) = inf x∈X f (x).
Assume to the contrary that f (x̄) > inf x∈X f (x). By hypothesis, there
exists z ∈ X such that z = x̄ and
f (z) + αρ(z, x̄) ≤ f (x̄),
contradicting (16) for α = λε . Hence, f (x̄) = inf x∈X f (x).
We now prove Theorem 2 using Theorem 1. Assume that Theorem 1
and the hypotheses of Theorem 2 hold. For λ > 0, let ρλ (x, y) = λ1 ρ(x, y) for
all x, y ∈ X. Then, ρλ is a quasi-metric. Define
X0 = {x ∈ X : f (x) ≤ f (x̂) − ερλ (x, x̂)}.
Then, X0 is nonempty as x̂ ∈ X0 . By ρ−lower semicontinuity of f and
ρ−lower semicontinuity of ρλ (·, x̂) (Proposition 1(d)), X0 is closed. Further,
for each x ∈ X0 ,
ερλ (x, x̂) ≤ f (x̂) − f (x) ≤ f (x̂) − inf f (y) ≤ ε,
y∈X

and hence, ρλ (x̂, x) ≤ 1. Therefore, ρ(x̂, x) ≤ λ, and thus (b) holds.

Assume to the contrary of conclusion (c) in Theorem 2 that for every
x ∈ X0 , there exists y ∈ X such that y = x and f (y) ≤ f (x) − ερλ (y, x).
Then
ερλ (y, x̂) ≤ ερλ (y, x) + ερλ (x, x̂)
≤ f (x) − f (y) + f (x̂) − f (x)
= f (x̂) − f (y),
and hence y ∈ X0 . Then by Theorem 1, there exists x̄ ∈ X such that f (x̄) =
inf x∈X0 f (x). This is a contradiction of the hypothesis that there exists y0 ∈
X0 with f (y0 ) < f (x̄). 
 38 Page 10 of 20 S. Al-Homidan et al.

Takahashi [34] proved the following kind of inverse of his minimization

theorem. Let (X, d) be a metric space. Suppose that the following condition
holds: if for every uniformly continuous function f : X → [0, ∞) and every
x̂ ∈ X with inf x∈X f (x) < f (x̂) there exists z ∈ X such that z = x̂ and
f (z) + d(z, x̂) < f (x̂), then f admits a minimum. Then X is complete.
It is well known that (the classical) Ekeland’s variational principle char-
acterizes the completeness of the metric space (see [33]). Cobzaş [17] pointed
out that in quasi-metric spaces, the situation is much delicate. Actually, it is
not clear that the validity of the conclusion of Theorem 3 implies the right
ρ − K-completeness (respectively, the right ρ̄ − K-completeness) of the quasi-
metric space X. However, he could show a partial converse result: the implica-
tion holds for left ρ − K-completeness (respectively, left ρ̄ − K-completeness).
As expected, the left ρ − K-completeness (left ρ̄ − K-completeness) of X can
be obtained in terms of Takahashi’s conditions 1 and 2. Next we give a direct
proof of this fact.

Theorem 4. Let (X, ρ) be a quasi-metric space.

1. Assume that the following condition holds.
If there exists α > 0 such that for every bounded below and
ρ-lower semicontinuous function f : X → R and every x̂ ∈ X
with inf x∈X f (x) < f (x̂), there exists z ∈ X such that z = x̂
and
f (z) + αρ(x̂, z) ≤ f (x̂),
then there exists x̄ ∈ X such that f (x̄) = inf x∈X f (x).
Then, (X, ρ) is left ρ − K-complete.
2. Assume that the following condition holds.
If there exists α > 0 such that for every bounded below and
ρ̄-lower semicontinuous function f : X → R and for every
α > 0 and every x̂ ∈ X with inf x∈X f (x) < f (x̂), there exists
z ∈ X such that z = x̂ and
f (z) + αρ(z, x̂) ≤ f (x̂),
then, there exists x̄ ∈ X such that f (x̄) = inf x∈X f (x).
Then, (X, ρ) is left ρ̄ − K-complete.

Proof. Let {xn } be a left ρ − K-Cauchy sequence in X and consider the

function f : X → R defined by
f (x) = lim sup ρ(x, xn ), for all x ∈ X.
n→∞

Following the same idea as in [17], it is easy to show that the sequence
{ρ(x, xn )} is bounded (hence, f is well defined), f is a bounded below ρ-
lower semicontinuous and bounded below ρ̄−upper semicontinuous function.
Furthermore, limn→∞ f (xn ) = 0, implying that inf x∈X f (x) = 0.
Let x̂ ∈ X with inf x∈X f (x) = 0 < f (x̂). Then, there exists n ∈ N such
that f (xn ) < 13 f (x̂) and ρ(x̂, xn ) − f (x̂) < f (x̂).
 Takahashi’s minimization theorem and some related results Page 11 of 20 38

We show that the assumption in 4 holds for α = 1

3. Clearly, xn = x̂.
Then,
3f (xn ) + ρ(x̂, xn ) < f (x̂) + 2f (x̂) = 3f (x̂).
By the hypothesis, there exists x̄ ∈ X such that f (x̄) = inf x∈X f (x) = 0.
This implies that
f (x̄) = 0 ⇔ lim sup ρ(x̄, xn ) = 0 ⇔ lim ρ(x̄, xn ) = 0.
n→∞ n→∞

Thus, {xn } is ρ−convergent to x̄. Hence, X is left ρ − K−complete.

For the proof of the second part, consider g : X → R defined by
g(x) = lim sup ρ(xn , x), for all x ∈ X.
n→∞

Then, g is bounded below and ρ̄-lower semicontinuous function. The rest of

the proof is similar to the proof of the first part. 
Remark 6. As in [17], the above theorem can be obtained by considering
f (x) = lim inf ρ(x, xn ), for all x ∈ X,
n→∞

if the sequence {xn } is left ρ − K-Cauchy, respectively, by considering

g(x) = lim inf ρ(xn , x), for all x ∈ X,
n→∞

if the sequence {xn } is right ρ − K-Cauchy.

4. Equilibrium version of Takahashi’s minimization theorem

and Ekeland’s variational principle
Let (X, ρ) be a quasi-metric space and F : X × X → R be a bifunction.
Consider the following equilibrium problem (in short, EP):
Find x̄ ∈ X such that F (x̄, y) ≥ 0, for all y ∈ X. (17)
In this section, we present equilibrium version of Takahashi’s minimiza-
tion theorem without using the triangular inequality of the bifunction in-
volved in the formulation of the equilibrium problem.
Theorem 5. (Equilibrium Version of Takahashi’s Minimization Theorem) Let
(X, ρ) be a quasi-metric space and F : X × X → R be a bifunction. Assume
that there exists a bounded below function ϕ : X → R such that
F (x, y) ≥ ϕ(y) − ϕ(x), for all x, y ∈ X. (18)
1. Let (X, ρ) be right ρ − K-complete and ϕ be ρ−lower semicontinuous.
Assume that the following condition holds:
Extended Takahashi’s condition-1: There exists α > 0 such
that for each x̂ ∈ X with inf x∈X ϕ(x) < ϕ(x̂), there exists
z ∈ X such that z = x̂ and
F (x̂, z) + αρ(z, x̂) ≤ 0.
Then, there exists x̄ ∈ X such that F (x̄, y) ≥ 0 for all y ∈ X.
 38 Page 12 of 20 S. Al-Homidan et al.

2. Let (X, ρ) be right ρ̄ − K-complete and ϕ be ρ̄-lower semicontinuous.

Assume that the following condition holds:
Extended Takahashi’s condition-2: There exists α > 0 such
that for each x̂ ∈ X with inf x∈X ϕ(x) < ϕ(x̂), there exists
z ∈ X such that z = x̂ and
F (x̂, z) + αρ(x̂, z) ≤ 0.
Then, there exists x̄ ∈ X such that F (x̄, y) ≥ 0 for all y ∈ X.

Proof. We can easily verify that the function ϕ satisfies all the assumptions
of Theorem 1. Then, there exists x̄ ∈ X such that ϕ(x̄) ≤ ϕ(y) for all y ∈ X.
By (18), we have
F (x̄, y) ≥ ϕ(y) − ϕ(x̄) ≥ 0, for all y ∈ X.
This completes the proof. 

Using Theorem 3, we deduce the equilibrium version of Ekeland’s varia-

tional principle in quasi-metric spaces, without using the triangular inequality
of the bifunction involved in the formulation of the principle. The result below
is an extension of Theorem 2.4 of Castellani and Giuli [15].

Theorem 6. Let (X, ρ) be a quasi-metric space and F : X × X → R be a

bifunction. Assume that there exists a bounded below function ϕ : X → R
such that
F (x, y) ≥ ϕ(y) − ϕ(x), for all x, y ∈ X. (19)
1. If (X, ρ) is right ρ − K-complete and ϕ is ρ-lower semicontinuous, then
for every e > 0 and for every x̂ ∈ X, there exists x̄ ∈ X such that
(a) ϕ(x̄) ≤ ϕ(x̂) − eρ(x̄, x̂);
(b) F (x̄, x) + eρ(x, x̄) > 0 for all x ∈ X \ {x̄}.
2. If (X, ρ) is right ρ̄ − K-complete and ϕ is ρ̄-lower semicontinuous, then
for every e > 0 and for every x̂ ∈ X, there exists x̄ ∈ X such that
(a) ϕ(x̄) ≤ ϕ(x̂) − eρ(x̂, x̄);
(b) F (x̄, x) + eρ(x̄, x) > 0 for all x ∈ X \ {x̄}.

Proof. It can be easily seen that the function ϕ satisfies all the assumptions
of Theorem 3. Then, there exists x̄ ∈ X such that (a) holds. From Theorem 3
(bb) and (19), we have
F (x̄, x) ≥ ϕ(x) − ϕ(x̄) > −eρ(x, x̄), for all x = x̄,
that is, (b) holds. 

Remark 7. (a) If we consider F (x, y) = f (y) − f (x), where f : X →

R ∪ {+∞} is proper bounded below and ρ-lower semicontinuous (re-
spectively, ρ̄-lower semicontinuous), then from Theorem 6 we obtain
Theorem 3 (1) (respectively, Theorem 3 (2)).
(b) As in [1], we have the converse of Theorem 5 whose proof lies on the
lines of the proof of Theorem 2.4 in [1].
 Takahashi’s minimization theorem and some related results Page 13 of 20 38

Let (X, ρ) be a quasi-metric space and F : X × X → R be a

bifunction. Assume that there exists a bounded below function ϕ : X →
R such that
F (x, y) ≥ ϕ(y) − ϕ(x), for all x, y ∈ X. (20)
1. Let (X, ρ) be right ρ − K-complete and F be ρ-lower semicontin-
uous in the second argument. Suppose that there exists x̄ ∈ X
such that F (x̄, y) ≥ 0 for all y ∈ X. Then F satisfies Extended
Takahashi’s condition-1
2. Let (X, ρ) be right ρ̄ − K-complete and F be ρ̄-lower semicontin-
uous in the second argument. Suppose that there exists x̄ ∈ X
such that F (x̄, y) ≥ 0 for all y ∈ X. Then F satisfies Extended
Takahashi’s condition-2.

5. Some related results

Cobzaş [17] established the following Caristi–Kirk’s fixed point theorem for
set-valued maps in the setting of quasi-metric spaces. For another set-valued
analog of Caristi’s fixed point theorem [13], see Theorem 9.37 in [30, p. 479].

Theorem 7. [17] Let (X, ρ) be a quasi-metric space, T : X ⇒ X be a set-

valued map with nonempty values and ϕ : X → R be a function.
1. If (X, ρ) is right ρ − K-complete and ϕ is bounded below and ρ-lower
semicontinuous such that the condition
for all x ∈ X, there exists y ∈ T (x) : ρ(y, x) ≤ ϕ(x) − ϕ(y) (21)
is satisfied, then T has a fixed point in X, that is, there exists x̄ ∈ X
such that x̄ ∈ T (x̄).

If the condition
for all x ∈ X and all y ∈ T (x) : ρ(y, x) ≤ ϕ(x) − ϕ(y) (22)
is satisfied, then T has an invariant point in X, that is, there exists
x̄ ∈ X such that {x̄} = T (x̄).
2. If (X, ρ) is right ρ̄ − K-complete and ϕ is bounded below and ρ̄-lower
semicontinuous such that the condition
for all x ∈ X, there exists y ∈ T (x) : ρ(x, y) ≤ ϕ(x) − ϕ(y) (23)
is satisfied, then T has a fixed point in X, that is, there exists x̄ ∈ X
such that x̄ ∈ T (x̄).

If the condition
for all x ∈ X and all y ∈ T (x) : ρ(x, y) ≤ ϕ(x) − ϕ(y) (24)
is satisfied, then T has an invariant point in X, that is, there exists
x̄ ∈ X such that {x̄} = T (x̄).
 38 Page 14 of 20 S. Al-Homidan et al.

Proof. From Theorem 3 (bb) with e = 1, there exists x̄ ∈ X such that

ρ(x, x̄) > ϕ(x̄) − ϕ(x), for all x ∈ X, x = x̄. (25)
By (21) there exists y ∈ T (x̄) such that ρ(y, x̄) ≤ ϕ(x̄) − ϕ(y). Suppose
by contradiction that x̄ ∈ / T (x̄). Then y = x̄, therefore by setting y instead
of x in (25) we obtain a contradiction. Hence, x̄ ∈ T (x̄).
Now we show that x̄ = T (x̄), provided (22) holds. We already know that
x̄ ∈ T (x̄). For the reverse implication, suppose, by contrary that there exists
y ∈ T (x̄) such that y = x̄. Again by (25) ρ(y, x̄) > ϕ(x̄) − ϕ(y), contradicting
(22). 
Remark 8. Theorem 3 ⇒ Theorem 7 ⇒ Theorem 1 ⇒ Theorem 6 ⇒ Theo-
rem 3.
Proof. Theorem 3 ⇒ Theorem 7 follows from the proof of Theorem 7.
We prove Theorem 7 ⇒ Theorem 1. Define the set-valued map T : X ⇒
X by
T (x) = {y ∈ X : ρ(y, x) ≤ f (x) − f (y)} , for all x ∈ X.
Then, T satisfies (22), and therefore by Theorem 7, there exists x̄ ∈ X such
that {x̄} = T (x̄). By the hypothesis of Theorem 1, for all x̂ ∈ X with
inf x∈X f (x) < f (x̂), there exists z ∈ X such that z = x̂ and z ∈ T (x̂), and
so T (x̂) \ {x̂} = ∅. Hence, we must have f (x̄) = inf x∈X f (x).
Theorem 1 ⇒ Theorem 6 follows from the proof of Theorem 6, and
Remarks 4 and 5.
Theorem 6 ⇒ Theorem 3 follows from Remark 7. 

6. Error bounds and weak sharp solutions for equilibrium

problems
As an application of the equilibrium version of Takahashi’s minimization
theorem, we derive in this section error bounds for the solution set of the
equilibrium problems. In what follows, we assume that the bifunction F :
X × X → R satisfies F (x, x) = 0 for all x ∈ X.
Let S := {x ∈ X : F (x, y) ≥ 0 for all y ∈ X}, that is, S is the set of
solutions of EP (17).
We first use a gap function associated with the dual problem of EP.
Recall that the dual equilibrium problem (abbreviated DEP) is defined as
follows.
Find x̄ ∈ X such that F (y, x̄) ≤ 0, for all y ∈ X. (26)
Then, under some additional hypothesis on the bifunction F , we provide
sufficient conditions for the existence of a weak sharp solution for EP. The
next definitions are needed in the sequel.
A function g : X → R is said to be a gap function for EP (17) if
(a) g(x) ≥ 0 for all x ∈ X;
(b) g(x̄) = 0 if and only if x̄ ∈ X is a solution of EP.
 Takahashi’s minimization theorem and some related results Page 15 of 20 38

Similarly, a function h : X → R is said to be a gap function for DEP

(26) if
(a ) h(x) ≥ 0 for all x ∈ X;
(b ) h(x̄) = 0 if and only if x̄ ∈ X is a solution of DEP.
Mastroeni [26] observed that the function
g(x) := sup [−F (x, y)] (27)
y∈X

is a gap function for EP (17). Obviously, the function

h(x) := sup [F (y, x)] (28)
y∈X

is a gap function for DEP (26).

As in the previous sections, suppose that there exists a function ϕ :
X → R such that
F (x, y) ≥ ϕ(y) − ϕ(x), for all x, y ∈ X, (29)
and (X, ρ) is a quasi-metric space. As before, denote by Z and S the set of
minimizers of ϕ and the set of solutions of EP, respectively. It is obvious by
(29) that Z ⊂ S.
The next result, which can be seen as a further development of Theo-
rem 5, provides an error bound for EP, that is, an upper bound of the distance
from an arbitrary point x ∈ X to the set of solutions S. Since our framework is
still a quasi-metric space, the distance from a point x ∈ X to a subset Y ⊂ X
has two forms: d(Y, x) = inf y∈Y ρ(y, x), while d(x, Y ) = inf y∈Y ρ(x, y).

Theorem 8. Let (X, ρ) be a quasi-metric space and F : X × X → R be a

bifunction. Assume that there exists a bounded below function ϕ : X → R
such that
F (x, y) ≥ ϕ(y) − ϕ(x), for all x, y ∈ X. (30)
1. Let (X, ρ) be right ρ − K−complete and ϕ be ρ−lower semicontinuous.
Assume that the following condition holds:
Extended Takahashi’s condition-1: There exists α > 0 such
that for each x̂ ∈ X with inf x∈X ϕ(x) < ϕ(x̂), there exists
z ∈ X such that z = x̂ and
F (x̂, z) + αρ(z, x̂) ≤ 0.
Then,
1
d(S, x) ≤ h(x), for all x ∈ X, (31)
α
where h is the gap function associated with DEP (28).
2. Let (X, ρ) be right ρ̄ − K-complete and ϕ be ρ̄-lower semicontinuous.
Assume that the following condition holds:
Extended Takahashi’s condition-2: There exists α > 0 such
that for each x̂ ∈ X with inf x∈X ϕ(x) < ϕ(x̂), there exists
z ∈ X such that z = x̂ and
F (x̂, z) + αρ(x̂, z) ≤ 0.
 38 Page 16 of 20 S. Al-Homidan et al.

Then,
1
d(x, S) ≤ h(x), for all x ∈ X, (32)
α
where h is the gap function associated with DEP (28).
Proof. For every x ∈ X, define the set
S(x) = {y ∈ K : ϕ(y) − ϕ(x) + αρ(y, x) ≤ 0}.
Clearly, S(x) = ∅ (as x ∈ S(x)), and closed for each x ∈ X (by the ρ-lower
semicontinuity of ϕ). Thus S(x) is a right ρ − K-complete quasi metric space.
Fix an arbitrary x ∈ X. By Theorem 3, part 1. (bb), applied for the
restriction ϕx of ϕ to the set S(x), there exists x̄ ∈ S(x) such that
ϕx (y) − ϕx (x̄) + αρ(y, x̄) > 0, for all y ∈ S(x), y = x̄. (33)
We show that
ϕ(y) − ϕ(x̄) + αρ(y, x̄) > 0, for all y ∈ X, y = x̄. (34)
Supposing the contrary, there exists u ∈ X, u = x̄ such that
ϕ(u) − ϕ(x̄) + αρ(u, x̄) ≤ 0. (35)
Since x̄ ∈ S(x) one has
ϕ(x̄) − ϕ(x) + αρ(x̄, x) ≤ 0. (36)
By summing up these two inequalities, taking into account the triangle in-
equality of ρ (property (QM3)), we obtain
ϕ(u) − ϕ(x) + αρ(u, x) ≤ 0, (37)
which means that u ∈ S(x). But this is a contradiction if we set u := y in
(33). Thus (34) holds.
Next we show that x̄ ∈ Z, i.e, x̄ is a minimizer of ϕ. If this does not
hold, then by the hypothesis (Extended Takahashi’s condition-1), there exists
z ∈ X such that z = x̄ and
F (x̄, z) + αρ(z, x̄) ≤ 0,
therefore, by (30),
ϕ(z) − ϕ(x̄) + αρ(z, x̄) ≤ 0.
But if we set y := z in (34), we obtain a contradiction.
In conclusion, we have shown that for every x ∈ X, the set S(x)∩Z = ∅.
In other words, for every x ∈ X, there exists z ∈ Z (depending on x) such
that
ϕ(z) − ϕ(x) + αρ(z, x) ≤ 0. (38)
Since Z ⊂ S, it follows by (38) and (30) that for every x ∈ X there exists
z ∈ Z such that
1 1
d(S, x) ≤ d(Z, x) ≤ ρ(z, x) ≤ [ϕ(x) − ϕ(z)] ≤ F (z, x) (39)
α α
1 1
≤ sup F (z, x) ≤ sup F (y, x) = h(x). (40)
α z∈Z α y∈X
This completes the proof. 
 Takahashi’s minimization theorem and some related results Page 17 of 20 38

Recall that the bifunction F is said to be monotone if F (x, y)+F (y, x) ≤

0 for all x, y ∈ X. Monotonicity and its generalizations have been widely
used in the literature for existence results and for constructing algorithms
as well. As observed in Sect. 1, the triangle inequality for bifunctions was
used in most of the papers on equilibrium version of Ekeland’s variational
principle or equilibrium version of Takahashi’s minimization theorem. Both
monotonicity and triangle inequality are automatically satisfied when F is of
form F (x, y) = f (y) − f (x) with f : X → R; however, the triangle inequality
seems to be much more demanding: for instance, as shown by Castellani
and Giuli [15], in the important particular case of variational inequalities,
this assumption leads to the annoying fact of reducing the operator to a
constant. Instead, the aforementioned monotonicity of bifunctions holds when
the operator involved within a variational inequality is monotone in the sense
of Minty and Browder.
As seen, we avoided assuming the triangle inequality in all our results.
Finally, to derive the existence of weak sharp solutions, we assume that our
bifunction F : X × X → R is monotone. Observe that this property, together
with (29) leads to equality: F (x, y) + F (y, x) = 0 for all x, y ∈ X. A simple
instance satisfying this property is provided in the next example.
Consider X = R2 and Φ : R2 → R2 given by Φ(x1 , x2 ) = (−x2 , x1 )
whenever x = (x1 , x2 ) ∈ R2 (rotation with a right angle counterclockwise in
the plane). It is clear that Φ(u), u = 0 for all u ∈ R2 , thus, by linearity of
Φ, we also have Φ(x) − Φ(y), x − y = 0 for all x, y ∈ R2 . Now, the bifunc-
tion F (x, y) = Φ(x), y − x (variational inequality form of the equilibrium
problem) satisfies F (x, y) + F (y, x) = 0 for all x, y ∈ X.
We say that the equilibrium problem (17) has weak sharp solutions (see,
for instance, [1] and the references therein) if
d(S, x) ≤ g(x), for all x ∈ X, (41)
where S and g are the set of solutions of EP and the gap function defined in
(27), respectively.
Theorem 9. In addition to the hypotheses of Theorem 8, assume that F is
monotone. Then, EP has a weak sharp solution.
Proof. By monotonicity, supy∈X F (y, x) ≤ supy∈X [−F (x, y)] = g(x), hence
relation (39) implies that
d(S, x) ≤ g(x), for all x ∈ X.
This completes the proof. 

Acknowledgements
Authors are grateful to the referees for their valuable suggestions and com-
ments that improve the previous draft of the paper. This research was done
during the visit of the second and the third authors at King Fahd University
of Petrol and Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and was sup-
ported by the KFUPM Funded Research Project # IN 161042. Authors are
grateful to KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia for providing excellent research
 38 Page 18 of 20 S. Al-Homidan et al.

facilities to carry out this research work. The research of the third author was
also supported by a Grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific
Research, CNCS-UEFISCDI, Project Number PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2016-0190.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References
[1] Al-Homidan, S., AlShahrani, M., Ansari, Q.H.: Weak sharp solutions for equi-
librium problems in metric spaces. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 16(7), 1185–1193
(2015)
[2] Al-Homidan, S., Ansari, Q.H., Yao, J.-C.: Some generalizations of Ekeland-
type variational principle with applications to equilibrium problems and fixed
point problems. Nonlinear Anal. 69, 126–139 (2008)
[3] Amini-Harandi, A., Ansari, Q.H., Farajzadeh, A.P.: Existence of equilibria in
complete metric spaces. Taiwan. J. Math. 16, 777–785 (2012)
[4] Ansari, Q.H.: Metric Spaces Including Fixed Point Theory and Set-valued
Maps. Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi (2010)
[5] Ansari, Q.H.: Ekeland’s variational principle and its extensions with applica-
tions. In: Almezel, S., Ansari, Q.H., Khamsi, M.A. (eds.) Fixed Point Theory
and Applications, pp. 65–99. Springer International Publishing, Berlin (2014)
[6] Ansari, Q.H., Lin, L.-J.: Ekeland type variational principle and equilibrium
problems. In: Mishra, S.K. (ed.) Topics in Nonconvex Optimization, Theory
and Applications, pp. 147–174. Springer, New York (2011)
[7] Ansari, Q.H., Köbis, E., Yao, J.-C.: Vector Variational Inequalities and Vector
Optimization-Theory and Applications. Springer, Berlin (2018)
[8] Bianchi, M., Schaible, S.: Generalized monotone bifunctions and equilibrium
problems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 90, 31–43 (1996)
[9] Bianchi, M., Schaible, S.: Equilibrium problems under generalized convexity
and generalized monotonicity. J. Glob. Optim. 30, 121–134 (2004)
[10] Bianchi, M., Kassay, G., Pini, R.: Existence of equilibria via Ekeland’s princi-
ple. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 305, 502–512 (2005)
[11] Blum, E., Oettli, W.: From optimization and variational inequalities to equi-
librium problems. Math. Student 63, 123–145 (1994)
[12] Brézis, H., Nirenberg, L., Stampacchia, G.: A remark on Ky Fan’s minimax
principle. Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. 6, 293–300 (1972)
[13] Caristi, J.: Fixed point theorems for mappings satisfying inwardness conditions.
Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 215, 241–251 (1976)
[14] Caristi, J., Kirk, W.A.: Geometric fixed point theory and inwardness condi-
tions. The Geometry of Metric and Linear Spaces. Lecture Notes in Mathe-
matics, vol. 490, pp. 74–83. Springer, New York (1975)
[15] Castellani, M., Giuli, M.: Ekeland’s principle for cyclic antimonotone equilib-
rium problems. Nonlinear Anal. RWA 32, 213–228 (2016)
[16] Castellani, M., Pappalardo, M., Passacantando, M.: Existence results for non-
convex equilibrium problems. Optim. Meth. Softw. 325(1), 49–58 (2010)
[17] Cobzaş, S.: Completeness in quasi-metric spaces and Ekeland variational prin-
ciple. Topol. Appl. 158, 1073–1084 (2011)
 Takahashi’s minimization theorem and some related results Page 19 of 20 38

[18] Cobzaş, S.: Functional Anaysis in Asymmetric Normed Spaces. Springer, Basel
(2013)
[19] Ekeland, I.: Sur les problèmes variationnels. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 275, 1057–
1059 (1972)
[20] Ekeland, I.: On the variational principle. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 47, 324–353
(1974)
[21] Ekeland, I.: On convex minimization problems. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1(3),
445–474 (1979)
[22] Fan, K.: A minimax inequality and applications. In: Shisha, O. (ed.) Inequality
III, pp. 103–113. Academic Press, New York (1972)
[23] Garcı́a-Raffi, L.M., Romaguera, S., Sánchez-Pérez, E.A.: Weak topologies on
asymmetric normed linear spaces and non-asymptotic criteria in the theory of
complexity analysis of algorithms. J. Anal. Appl. 2(3), 125–138 (2004)
[24] Hamel, A.: Remarks to an equivalent formulation of Ekeland’s variational prin-
ciple. Optimization 31, 233–238 (1994)
[25] Karapınar, E., Romaguera, S.: On the weak form of Ekeland’s variational prin-
ciple in quasi-metric spaces. Topol. Appl. 184, 54–60 (2015)
[26] Mastroeni, G.: Gap functions for equilibrium problems. J. Glob. Optim. 27,
411–426 (2003)
[27] Muu, L.D., Oettli, W.: Convergence of an adaptive penalty scheme for finding
constrained equilibria. Nonlinear Anal. 18, 1159–1166 (1992)
[28] Oettli, W., Théra, M.: Equivalents of Ekeland’s principle. Bull. Austral. Math.
Soc. 48, 385–392 (1993)
[29] Reich, S., Sabach, S.: Three strong convergence theorems regarding iterative
methods for solving equilibrium problems in reflexive Banach spaces. Contemp.
Math. 568, 225–240 (2012)
[30] Reich, S., Zaslavski, A.J.: Genericity in Nonlinear Analysis. Springer, New York
(2014)
[31] Romaguera, S., Schellekens, M.: Quasi-metric properties of complexity spaces.
Topol. Appl. 98(1–3), 311–322 (1999)
[32] Romaguera, S., Schellekens, M.: Duality and quasi-normability for complexity
spaces. Appl. Gen. Topol. 3(1), 91–112 (2002)
[33] Sullivan, F.: A characterization of complete metric spaces. Proc. Am. Math.
Soc. 83, 345–346 (1981)
[34] Takahashi, W.: Existence theorems generalizing fixed point theorems for mul-
tivalued mappings. In: Théra, M.A., Baillon, J.B. (eds.) Fixed Point Theory
and Applications, Pitmam Research Notes in Mathematics Series, vol. 252, pp.
397–406. Longmam Sci. Tech, Harlow (1991)

Suliman Al-Homidan and Qamrul Hasan Ansari

Department of Mathematics and Statistics
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
Dhahran
Saudi Arabia
e-mail: homidan@kfupm.edu.sa
 38 Page 20 of 20 S. Al-Homidan et al.

Qamrul Hasan Ansari

Department of Mathematics
Aligarh Muslim University
Aligarh 202 002
India
e-mail: qhansari@gmail.com

Gábor Kassay
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Babeş-Bolyai University
Cluj-Napoca
Romania
e-mail: kassay@math.ubbcluj.ro