AIMS Mathematics, 8(3): 7242–7257.

DOI: 10.3934/math.2023364
Received: 29 August 2022
Revised: 02 December 2022
Accepted: 28 December 2022
http://www.aimspress.com/journal/Math Published: 12 January 2023

Research article
Projection methods for quasi-nonexpansive multivalued mappings in
Hilbert spaces

Anantachai Padcharoen1 , Kritsana Sokhuma2, * and Jamilu Abubakar3

1
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Rambhai Barni Rajabhat
University, Chanthaburi 22000, Thailand
2
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Phranakhon Rajabhat University,
Bangkok 10220, Thailand
3
Department of Mathematics, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto 840004, Nigeria

* Correspondence: Email: anantachai.p@rbru.ac.th, k sokhuma@yahoo.co.th.

Abstract: This paper proposes a modified D-iteration to approximate the solutions of three quasi-
nonexpansive multivalued mappings in a real Hilbert space. Due to the incorporation of an inertial
step in the iteration, the sequence generated by the modified method converges faster to the common
fixed point of the mappings. Furthermore, the generated sequence strongly converges to the required
solution using a shrinking technique. Numerical results obtained indicate that the proposed iteration is
computationally efficient and outperforms the standard forward-backward with inertial step.
Keywords: quasi-nonexpansive multivalued mappings; weak and strong convergence; inertial
technical term; D-iteration; projection methods
Mathematics Subject Classification: 47H09, 47H10

1. Introduction

Let K be a nonempty closed and convex subset of real Hilbert space H. Define S : K → K to
be a continuous mapping. A point ū ∈ K is said to be a fixed point of S if S (ū) = ū. Also, the F(S )
represents the set of all fixed points of S . Several authors have investigated the existence of fixed points
for theorems of single-valued nonexpansive mappings (for example, [1–5]).
Mann [6] proposed the following method in 1953 for approximating the fixed point of a
nonexpansive mapping S in a Hilbert space H :
un+1 = an un + (1 − an )S un , ∀ n ≥ 1, (1.1)
where {an } is a sequence in [0, 1].
 7243

Ishikawa [7] generalized Mann’s iterative algorithm (1.1) in 1974 by introducing the iteration:




 u0 ∈ K chosen arbitrary,
vn = (1 − an )un + an S un ,

(1.2)




un+1 = (1 − bn )un + bn S vn , n ≥ 0,



where {an } and {bn } are sequences in [0, 1].

Noor [8] introduced and generalized Ishikawa’s iterative algorithm (1.2) in 2000 by introducing the
following iterative procedure for solving the fixed point problem of a single-valued nonlinear mapping:




 u1 ∈ K chosen arbitrary,
vn = (1 − an )un + an S un ,




(1.3)
ρ = + ,





 n (1 − bn )un b n S v n
u = (1 − c )u + c S ρ , n ≥ 1,


n+1 n n n n

where {an }, {bn } and {cn } are sequences in [0, 1].

Yildirim and Özdemir [9] introduced a new iteration process in 2009 which is an n-step for finding
the common fixed points. It is produced by the following processes:




 u1 ∈ K chosen arbitrary,
vn = P((1 − arn )un + arn S r (PS r )n−1 un ),







vn+1 = P((1 − a(r−1)n )vn + a(r−1)n S r−1 (PS r−1 ) vn ),


 n−1

.. (1.4)
.







vn+r−2 = P((1 − a2n )vn+r−3 + a2n S 2 (PS 2 )n−1 vn+r−3 ),






u = P((1 − a )v


+ a S (PS )n−1 v ), n ≥ 1 and r ≥ 2,
n+1 1n n+r−2 1n 1 1 n+r−2

where {a jn } be a sequence in [, 1 − ] for some  ∈ (0, 1), for each j ∈ {1, 2, . . . , r}.
Sainuan [10] developed a new iteration called P-iteration in 2015. The P-iteration is defined as:




 u1 ∈ K chosen arbitrary,
vn = (1 − an )un + an S un ,




(1.5)
ρ = + ,





 n (1 − b n )vn b n S v n
u = (1 − c )S v + c S ρ , n ≥ 1,


n+1 n n n n

where {an }, {bn } and {cn } are sequences in [0, 1].

The D-iteration was introduced in 2018 by Daengsaen and Khemphet [11], who used the Sainuan’s
iteration concept. It is produced by the following processes:




 u1 ∈ K chosen arbitrary,
vn = (1 − an )un + an S un ,




(1.6)
ρn = (1 − bn )S un + bn S vn ,






u = (1 − c )S v + c S ρ , n ≥ 1,


n+1 n n n n

AIMS Mathematics Volume 8, Issue 3, 7242–7257.

 7244

where {an }, {bn } and {cn } are sequences in [0, 1].

The heavy ball method, which was studied in [12, 13] for maximal monotone operators by the
proximal point algorithm, was used by Alvarez and Attouch [19]. This algorithm is known as the
inertial proximal point algorithm, and it is written as follows:
u0 , u1 ∈ K chosen arbitrary,





tn = un + λn (un − un−1 ),

(1.7)




un+1 = (I + γn B)−1 tn , n ≥ 1,



where I is the identity mapping. It was proved that if {γn } is non-decreasing and {λn } ⊂ [0, 1) with
X∞
λn kun − un−1 k2 < ∞, (1.8)
n=1
then algorithm (1.7) converges weakly to a zero of B.
Nakajo and Takahashi [18] proposed modifying Mann’s iteration method (1.1) to obtain a strong
convergence theorem in Hilbert spaces H :




u0 ∈ K, chosen arbitrary,

vn = (1 − an )un + an S un ,






Kn = {x ∈ K : kvn − xk ≤ kun − xk},

(1.9)




Rn = {x ∈ K : hu0 − un , un − xi},






un+1 = PKn ∩Rn u0 , ∀ n ≥ 0,




where {an } ⊆ [0, a] for some a ∈ [0, 1). They proved that the sequence {un } converges strongly to
PF(S ) u0 .
In 2021, Chaolamjiak et al. [14] proposed modifying SP iteration method (1.4) to obtain a strong
convergence theorem in Hilbert spaces H :
u0 , u1 ∈ K, R1 = K,





tn = un + λn (un − un−1 ),







vn ∈ (1 − an )tn + an S 1 tn ,






ρn ∈ (1 − bn )vn + bn S 2 vn ,




(1.10)
wn ∈ (1 − cn )ρn + cn S 3 ρn ,






Kn = {x ∈ K : kwn − xk2 ≤ kun − xk2 + 2λ2n kun − un−1 k2 − 2λn hun − x, un−1 − un i},







Rn = {x ∈ Rn−1 : hu1 − un , un − xi ≥ 0},






un+1 = PKn ∩Rn u1 ,




for all n ≥ 1, where {an }, {bn } and {cn } ⊂ (0, 1). They proved that the sequence {un } converges strongly
to a common fixed point of S 1 , S 2 and S 3 .
The results [11,18,19,21] provide incentive. In order to locate a common fixed point of three quasi-
nonexpansive multivalued mappings, we introduce the D-iterative approach with the inertial technical
term. We can prove strong convergence theorems by combining shrinking projection methods with
inertial D-iteration. Finally, we compare our inertial projection method to the traditional projection
method and conduct numerical tests to support our major findings with different choices of the initial
values x0 and x1 in 4 case.

AIMS Mathematics Volume 8, Issue 3, 7242–7257.

 7245

2. Preliminaries

Let CB(K) and K(K) denote the families of nonempty closed bounded, and compact, respectively.
The Hausdorff metric on CB(K) is defined by:
( )
H(C, Q) = max sup d(u, Q), sup d(v, C) , ∀ C, Q ∈ CB(K),
u∈C v∈Q

where d(u, Q) = inf α∈Q {ku − αk}.

A single-valued mapping S : K → K is said to be nonexpansive if
kS u − S vk ≤ ku − vk, ∀ u, v ∈ K.
A multivalued mapping S : K → CB(K) if ū ∈ S ū and
H(S u, S ū) ≤ ku − ūk, ∀ u ∈ K and ū ∈ F(S ).
Then S is said to be quasi-nonexpansive.

Condition (A). Let H be a Hilbert space and K be a subset of H. A multivalued mapping

S : K → CB(K) is said to satisfy Condition (A) if ku − ūk = d(u, S ū) for all u ∈ H and ū ∈ F(S ).
We now give the example of quasi-nonexpansive multivalued mapping S which satisfies Condition
(A) and the fixed point set F(S ) contains more than one element.
Example. In Euclidean space R, let K = [0, 2] and S : K → CB(K) be defined by
 u 
 0, , if u ≤ 1,


Su = 

2
if u > 1.

{2},


It is easy to see that F(S ) = {0, 2}.

Lemma 2.1. [14] Let H be a real Hilbert space. Let S : H → CB(H) be a quasi-nonexpansive
mapping with F(S ) , ∅. Then, F(S ) is closed, and if S satisfies Condition (A), then F(S ) is convex.
A multivalued mapping S : K → CB(K) is said to be hybrid if
3H(S u, S v)2 ≤ ku − vk2 + d(v, S u)2 + d(u, S v)2 , ∀ u, v ∈ K.
Lemma 2.2. [15] Let K be a closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H. Let S : K → K(K) be a
hybrid multivalued mapping. Let {un } be a sequence in K such that un → ū and limn→∞ kun − xn k = 0
for some xn ∈ S un . Then, ū ∈ S ū.
Lemma 2.3. [16] Let X be a Banach space satisfying Opial’s condition and let {un } be a sequence in X.
Let x, y ∈ X be such that limn→∞ kun − xk and limn→∞ kun − yk exist. If {unk } and {umk } are subsequences
of {un } which converge weakly to x and y, respectively, then x = y.
Lemma 2.4. [17] Let K be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H. For each
x, y ∈ H and v ∈ R, the set
D = {u ∈ K : ky − uk2 ≤ kx − uk2 + hz, ui + v},
is closed and convex.

AIMS Mathematics Volume 8, Issue 3, 7242–7257.

 7246

Lemma 2.5. [18] Let K be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H and PK : H → K
be the metric projection from H onto K. Then

kv − PK uk2 + ku − PK uk2 ≤ ku − vk2 ,

for all u ∈ H and v ∈ K.

Lemma 2.6. [19] Let {αn }, {βn } and {γn } be the sequences in [0, ∞) such that

αn+1 ≤ αn + βn (αn − αn−1 ) + γn ,

for all n ≥ 1, ∞ n=1 γn < ∞, and there exists a real number β with 0 ≤ βn ≤ β < 1 for all n ≥ 1. Then,
P
the followings hold
(a) n≥1 [αn − αn−1 ]+ < ∞, where [t]+ = max{t, 0};
P
(b) there exists α∗ ∈ [0, ∞) such that limn→∞ αn = α∗ .
Lemma 2.7. [20] Let H be a real Hilbert space. Then, for each u, v ∈ H and t ∈ [0, 1]
(a) ku − vk2 ≤ kuk2 + kvk2 − 2hu, vi;
(b) ktu − (1 − t)vk2 = tkuk2 + (1 − t)kvk2 − t(1 − t)ku − vk2 ;
(c) If {un } is a sequence in H such that un * u, then
 
lim sup kun − vk2 = lim sup kun − uk2 + ku − vk2 .
n→∞ n→∞

3. Main results

Theorem 3.1. Let K be a closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H and S 1 , S 2 , S 3 : H → CB(K)
be quasi-nonexpansive multivalued mappings with Υ := F(S 1 ) ∩ F(S 2 ) ∩ F(S 3 ) , ∅ and I − S i is
demiclosed at 0 for all i ∈ {1, 2, 3}. Let {un } be a sequence generated by




u0 , u1 ∈ K chosen arbitrary,

tn = un + λn (un − un−1 ),






vn ∈ (1 − an )tn + an S 1 tn ,

(3.1)




ρn ∈ (1 − bn )S 1 tn + bn S 2 vn ,






un+1 ∈ (1 − cn )S 2 vn + cn S 3 ρn ,




for all n ≥ 1, where {an }, {bn } and {cn } ⊂ (0, 1). Assume that the following conditions hold
(a) ∞ n=1 λn kun − un−1 k < ∞;
P
(b) 0 < lim inf n→∞ an < lim supn→∞ an < 1;
(c) 0 < lim inf n→∞ bn < lim supn→∞ bn < 1;
(d) 0 < lim inf n→∞ cn < lim supn→∞ cn < 1.
If S 1 , S 2 and S 3 satisfy Condition (A), then the sequence {un } converges weakly to a common fixed
point of S 1 , S 2 and S 3 .

AIMS Mathematics Volume 8, Issue 3, 7242–7257.

 7247

Proof. Let ū ∈ Υ. From S 1 , S 2 and S 3 satisfy Condition (A), for xn ∈ S 1 tn , yn ∈ S 2 vn , zn ∈ S 3 ρn and

using (3.1), we obtain
ktn − ūk = kun + λn (un − un−1 ) − ūk
(3.2)
≤ kun − ūk + λn kun − un−1 k,

kvn − ūk| = k(1 − an )tn + an xn − ūk

= k(1 − an )(tn − ū) + an (xn − ū)k
≤ (1 − an )ktn − ūk + an kxn − ūk
= (1 − an )ktn − ūk + an d(xn , S 1 ū)k
(3.3)
≤ (1 − an )ktn − ūk + an H(S 1 tn , S 1 ū)
≤ (1 − an )ktn − ūk + an ktn − ū)k
= ktn − ūk − an ktn − ūk + an ktn − ū)k
= ktn − ūk,

kρn − ūk = k(1 − bn )xn + bn yn − ūk

= k(1 − bn )(xn − ū) + bn (yn − ū)k
≤ (1 − bn )kxn − ūk + bn kyn − ūk
= (1 − bn )d(xn , S 1 ū) + bn d(yn , S 2 ū)
≤ (1 − bn )H(S 1 tn , S 1 ū) + bn H(S 2 vn , S 2 ū) (3.4)
≤ (1 − bn )ktn − ūk + bn kvn − ūk
≤ (1 − bn )ktn − ūk + bn ktn − ūk
= ktn − ūk − bn ktn − ūk + bn ktn − ūk
= ktn − ūk

and
kun+1 − ūk = k(1 − cn )yn + cn zn − ūk
= k(1 − cn )(yn − ū) + cn (zn − ū)k
≤ (1 − cn )kyn − ūk + cn kzn − ūk
= (1 − cn )d(yn , S 2 ū) + cn d(zn , S 3 ū)
≤ (1 − cn )H(S 2 vn , S 2 ū) + cn H(S 3 ρn , S 3 ū)
(3.5)
≤ (1 − cn )kvn − ūk + cn kρn − ūk
≤ (1 − cn )ktn − ūk + cn ktn − ūk
= ktn − ūk − cn ktn − ūk + cn ktn − ūk
= ktn − ūk
≤ kun − ūk + λn kun − un−1 k.

Using Lemma 2.6, (3.5) and the assumption (a), we have limn→∞ kun − ūk exists. Thus, {un } is bounded
and also {ρn }, {vn } and {tn }. From Lemma 2.7(b), we get

AIMS Mathematics Volume 8, Issue 3, 7242–7257.

 7248

kvn − ūk2 = k(1 − an )tn + an xn − ūk2

= k(1 − an )(tn − ū) + an (xn − ū)k2
= (1 − an )ktn − ūk2 + an kxn − ūk2 − an (1 − an )ktn − xn k2
= (1 − an )ktn − ūk2 + an d(xn , S 1 ū)2 − an (1 − an )ktn − xn k2 (3.6)
≤ (1 − an )ktn − ūk2 + an H(S 1 tn , S 1 ū)2 − an (1 − an )ktn − xn k2
≤ (1 − an )ktn − ūk2 + an ktn − ūk2 − an (1 − an )ktn − xn k2
= ktn − ūk2 − an (1 − an )ktn − xn k2 ,

kρn − ūk2 = k(1 − bn )xn + bn yn − ūk2

= k(1 − bn )(xn − ū) + bn (yn − ū)k2
= (1 − bn )kxn − ūk2 + bn kyn − ūk2 − bn (1 − bn )kxn − yn k2
= (1 − bn )d(xn , S 1 ū)2 + bn d(yn , S 2 ū)2 − bn (1 − bn )kxn − yn k2
(3.7)
≤ (1 − bn )H(S 1 tn , S 1 ū)2 + bn H(S 2 vn , S 2 ū)2 − bn (1 − bn )kxn − yn k2
≤ (1 − bn )ktn − ūk2 + bn kvn − ūk2 − bn (1 − bn )kxn − yn k2
≤ (1 − bn )ktn − ūk2 + bn ktn − ūk2 − an (1 − an )bn ktn − xn k2 − bn (1 − bn )kxn − yn k2
= ktn − ūk2 − an (1 − an )bn ktn − xn k2 − bn (1 − bn )kxn − yn k2

and
kun+1 − ūk2 = k(1 − cn )yn + cn zn − ūk2
= k(1 − cn )(yn − ū) + cn (zn − ū)k2
= (1 − cn )kyn − ūk2 + cn kzn − ūk2 − cn (1 − cn )kyn − zn k2
(3.8)
= (1 − cn )d(yn , S 2 ū)2 + cn d(zn , S 3 ū)2 − cn (1 − cn )kyn − zn k2
≤ (1 − cn )H(S 2 vn , S 2 ū)2 + cn H(S 3 ρn , S 3 ū)2 − cn (1 − cn )kyn − zn k2
≤ (1 − cn )kvn − ūk2 + cn kρn − ūk2 − cn (1 − cn )kyn − zn k2 .

Combination (3.6)–(3.8), we get

kun+1 − ūk2 ≤ (1 − cn )ktn − ūk2 − an (1 − an )(1 − cn )ktn − xn k2 − cn (1 − cn )kyn − zn k2

+ cn ktn − ūk2 − an (1 − an )bn cn ktn − xn k2 − bn (1 − bn )cn kxn − yn k2
≤ ktn − ūk2 − an (1 − an )bn (1 − cn )ktn − xn k2
− cn (1 − cn )kyn − zn k2 − an (1 − an )bn cn ktn − xn k2
− bn (1 − bn )cn kxn − yn k2
(3.9)
≤ kun − ūk2 + 2λn hun − un−1 , tn − ūi − an (1 − an )bn (1 − cn )ktn − xn k2
− cn (1 − cn )kyn − zn k2 − an (1 − an )bn cn ktn − xn k2
− bn (1 − bn )cn kxn − yn k2
≤ kun − ūk2 + 2λn hun − un−1 , tn − ūi − an (1 − an )bn ktn − xn k2
− cn (1 − cn )kyn − zn k2 − bn (1 − bn )cn kxn − yn k2 .

AIMS Mathematics Volume 8, Issue 3, 7242–7257.

 7249

The inequality (3.9) implies that

an (1 − an )bn ktn − xn k2 + cn (1 − cn )kyn − zn k2 + bn (1 − bn )cn kxn − yn k2

(3.10)
≤ kun − ūk2 − kun+1 − ūk2 + 2λn hun − un−1 , tn − ūi.

Using conditions (a)–(d), limn→∞ kun − ūk exists and (3.10), we obtain

lim ktn − xn k = lim kxn − yn k = lim kyn − zn k = 0. (3.11)

n→∞ n→∞ n→∞

This implies that

lim ktn − un k = λn lim kun − un−1 k = 0. (3.12)
n→∞ n→∞

lim kvn − tn k = an lim ktn − xn k = 0. (3.13)

n→∞ n→∞

lim kρn − xn k = bn lim kxn − yn k = 0. (3.14)

n→∞ n→∞

Because {un } is bounded, there exists a subsequence {unk } of {un } such that unk * ū some ū ∈ K.
From (3.12), we have tnk * ū. Because I − S 1 is demiclosed at 0 and (3.11), we obtain ū ∈ S 1 ū.
From (3.13), we have vnk * ū. Because I − S 2 is demiclosed at 0 and (3.11), we obtain ū ∈ S 2 ū. It
follows from (3.14) that ρnk * ū. Again, because I −S 3 is demiclosed at 0 and (3.11), we have ū ∈ S 3 ū.
This implies that ū ∈ Υ. Now, we show that {un } converges weakly to ū. We take another subsequence
{umk } of {un } converging weakly to some u∗ ∈ Υ. Because limn→∞ kun − ūk exists and Lemma 2.3.Thus,
we have ū = u∗ . 

Theorem 3.2. Let K be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H and S 1 , S 2 , S 3 :
K → CB(K) be quasi-nonexpansive multivalued mappings with Υ := F(S 1 ) ∩ F(S 2 ) ∩ F(S 3 ) , ∅ and
I − S i is demiclosed at 0 for all i ∈ {1, 2, 3}. Let {un } be a sequence generated by

u0 , u1 ∈ K, K1 = K,





tn = un + λn (un − un−1 ),







vn ∈ (1 − an )tn + an S 1 tn ,






ρn ∈ (1 − bn )S 1 tn + bn S 2 vn ,

(3.15)




wn ∈ (1 − cn )S 2 vn + cn S 3 ρn ,






Kn+1 = {x ∈ Kn : kwn − xk2 ≤ kun − xk2 + 2λ2n kun − un−1 k2 − 2λn hun − x, un−1 − un i},







un+1 = PK u1 ,


n+1

for all n ≥ 1, where {an }, {bn } and {cn } ⊂ (0, 1). Assume that the following conditions hold
(a) ∞ n=1 λn kun − un−1 k < ∞;
P
(b) 0 < lim inf n→∞ an < lim supn→∞ an < 1;
(c) 0 < lim inf n→∞ bn < lim supn→∞ bn < 1;
(d) 0 < lim inf n→∞ cn < lim supn→∞ cn < 1.
If S 1 , S 2 and S 3 satisfy Condition (A), then the sequence {un } converges strongly to a common fixed
point of S 1 , S 2 and S 3 .

AIMS Mathematics Volume 8, Issue 3, 7242–7257.

 7250

Proof. Step I. Show that {un } is well defined. Using S 1 , S 2 and S 3 satisfy Condition (A), Lemma 2.1,
Υ is closed and convex. Firstly, we show that Kn is closed and convex for all n ≥ 1. Since induction
on n that Kn is closed and convex. For n = 1, K1 = K is closed and convex. Suppose that Kn is closed
and convex for some n ≥ 1. Using the definition Kn+1 and Lemma 2.4, we have that Kn+1 is closed and
convex. Thus, Kn is closed and convex for all n ≥ 1. Next, we show that Υ ⊆ Kn for each n ≥ 1. From
Lemma 2.6(b) and S 1 , S 2 and S 3 satisfy Condition (A), let ū ∈ Υ for xn ∈ S 1 tn , yn ∈ S 2 vn , zn ∈ S 3 ρn
and using (3.15), we obtain

kvn − ūk2 = k(1 − an )tn + an xn − ūk2

= k(1 − an )(tn − ū) + an (xn − ū)k2
= (1 − an )ktn − ūk2 + an kxn − ūk2 − an (1 − an )ktn − xn k2
≤ (1 − an )ktn − ūk2 + an kxn − ūk2
(3.16)
= (1 − an )ktn − ūk2 + an d(xn , S 1 ū)2
≤ (1 − an )ktn − ūk2 + an H(S 1 tn , S 1 ū)2
≤ (1 − an )ktn − ūk2 + an ktn − ūk2
= ktn − ūk2 ,

kρn − ūk2 = k(1 − bn )xn + bn yn − ūk2

= k(1 − bn )(xn − ū) + bn (yn − ū)k2
= (1 − bn )kxn − ūk2 + bn kyn − ūk2 − bn (1 − bn )kxn − yn k2
≤ (1 − bn )kxn − ūk2 + bn kyn − ūk2
= (1 − bn )d(xn , S 1 ū)2 + bn d(yn , S 2 ū)2 (3.17)
≤ (1 − bn )H(S 1 tn , S 1 ū) + bn H(S 2 vn , S 2 ū)
2 2

≤ (1 − bn )ktn − ūk2 + bn kvn − ūk2

≤ (1 − bn )ktn − ūk2 + bn ktn − ūk2
= ktn − ūk2
and
kwn − ūk2 = k(1 − cn )yn + cn zn − ūk2
= k(1 − cn )(yn − ū) + cn (zn − ū)k2
= (1 − cn )kyn − ūk2 + cn kzn − ūk2 − cn (1 − cn )kyn − zn k2
≤ (1 − cn )kyn − ūk2 + cn kzn − ūk2
= (1 − cn )d(yn , S 2 ū)2 + cn d(zn , S 3 ū)2
≤ (1 − cn )H(S 2 vn , S 2 ū)2 + cn H(S 3 ρn , S 3 ū)2 (3.18)
≤ (1 − cn )kvn − ūk + cn kρn − ūk
2 2

≤ (1 − cn )ktn − ūk2 + cn ktn − ūk2

= ktn − ūk2
= kun + λn (un − un−1 ) − ūk2
≤ kun − ūk2 + 2λ2n kun − un−1 k2 − 2λn hun − ū, un − un−1 i.

AIMS Mathematics Volume 8, Issue 3, 7242–7257.

 7251

Therefore, from (3.18), ū ∈ Kn , n ≥ 1. This implies that Υ ⊆ Kn for each n ≥ 1, and hence, Kn , ∅.
Thus, {un } is well defined.
Step II. Show that un → u ∈ K as n → ∞. Since un ∈ PKn u1 , Kn+1 ⊆ Kn , and un+1 ∈ Kn , we obtain

kun − u1 k ≤ kun+1 − u1 k, ∀ n ≥ 1. (3.19)

Since Υ ⊆ Kn , we obtain
kun − u1 k ≤ kx − u1 k, ∀ n ≥ 1, (3.20)
for all x ∈ Υ. The inequalities (3.19) and (3.20) imply that the sequence {un − u1 } is bounded and
non-decreasing. Therefore, limn→∞ kun − u1 k exists.
For m > n, from the definition of Kn , we obtain um ∈ PKm u1 ∈ Km ⊆ Kn . Using Lemma 2.5, we have

kum − un k2 ≤ kum − u1 k2 − kun − u1 k2 . (3.21)

From limn→∞ kun − u1 k exists and follows (3.21), we have that limn→∞ kun − um k = 0. Therefore, {un } is
a Cauchy sequence in K, and so un → u ∈ K as n → ∞.
Step III. Show that limn→∞ ktn − xn k = limn→∞ kxn −yn k = limn→∞ kyn −zn k = 0, where xn ∈ S 1 tn , yn ∈
S 2 vn and zn ∈ S 3 ρn . From Step II, we obtain limn→∞ kun+1 − un k = 0. Because un+1 ∈ Kn , we have that

kwn − un k ≤ kwn − un+1 k + kun+1 − un k

q (3.22)
≤ kun − un+1 k2 + 2λ2n kun − un−1 k2 − 2λn hun − un+1 , un−1 − un i + kun+1 − un k.

Using the assumption (a) and (3.22), we have

lim kwn − un k = 0. (3.23)

n→∞

Because S 1 satisfies condition (A) and using Lemma 2.7, we obtain

kwn − ūk2 ≤ (1 − cn )kvn − ūk2 + cn kρn − ūk2 − cn (1 − cn )kyn − zn k2 . (3.24)

Using (3.6), (3.7) and (3.24), we have

kwn − ūk2 ≤ (1 − cn )ktn − ūk2 − an (1 − an )(1 − cn )ktn − xn k2

+ cn ktn − ūk2 − an (1 − an )bn cn ktn − xn k2 − bn (1 − bn )cn kxn − yn k2
− cn (1 − cn )kyn − zn k2
≤ (1 − cn )ktn − ūk2 − an (1 − an )bn (1 − cn )ktn − xn k2
+ cn ktn − ūk2 − an (1 − an )bn cn ktn − xn k2 − bn (1 − bn )cn kxn − yn k2
(3.25)
− cn (1 − cn )kyn − zn k2
= ktn − ūk2 − an (1 − an )bn ktn − xn k2 − bn (1 − bn )cn kxn − yn k2
− cn (1 − cn )kyn − zn k2
≤ kun − ūk2 + 2λn hun − un−1 , tn − ūi − an (1 − an )bn ktn − xn k2
− bn (1 − bn )cn kxn − yn k2 − cn (1 − cn )kyn − zn k2 .

AIMS Mathematics Volume 8, Issue 3, 7242–7257.

 7252

The inequality (3.25) implies that

an (1 − an )bn ktn − xn k2 + bn (1 − bn )cn kxn − yn k2 + cn (1 − cn )kyn − zn k2
(3.26)
≤ kun − ūk2 − kwn − ūk2 + 2λn hun − un−1 , tn − ūi.
From conditions (a)–(d), (3.23) and (3.25), we have (3.11). From (3.13), (3.14) and the same proof in
Theorem 3.1, we have
lim ktn − un k = lim kvn − tn k = lim kρn − xn k = 0. (3.27)
n→∞ n→∞ n→∞

From Step II, we know that un → u ∈ K. It follows (3.27), we obtain that tn → u. Because I − S 1 is
demiclosed at 0, we have u ∈ F(S 1 ). In the same way, we have that u ∈ F(S 2 ) and u ∈ F(S 3 ). This
implies that u ∈ Υ.
Step IV. Show that u = PΥ u1 . From u ∈ Υ and (3.19), we obtain
ku − u1 k ≤ kx − u1 k, ∀ x ∈ Υ.
Using the definition of the projection operator, we can conclude that u = PΥ u1 . 
Theorem 3.3. Let K be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H and S 1 , S 2 , S 3 :
K → CB(K) be quasi-nonexpansive multivalued mappings with Υ := F(S 1 ) ∩ F(S 2 ) ∩ F(S 3 ) , ∅ and
I − S i is demiclosed at 0 for all i ∈ {1, 2, 3}. Let {un } be a sequence generated by

u0 , u1 ∈ K, R1 = K,





tn = un + λn (un − un−1 ),







vn ∈ (1 − an )tn + an S 1 tn ,






ρn ∈ (1 − bn )S 1 tn + bn S 2 vn ,




(3.28)
+ ρ ,





w n ∈ (1 − c n )S 2 vn cn S 3 n

Kn = {x ∈ K : kwn − xk2 ≤ kun − xk2 + 2λ2n kun − un−1 k2 − 2λn hun − x, un−1 − un i},







Rn = {x ∈ Rn−1 : hu1 − un , un − xi ≥ 0},






u = P
Kn ∩Rn u1 ,


n+1

for all n ≥ 1, where {an }, {bn } and {cn } ⊂ (0, 1). Assume that the following conditions hold
(a) ∞ n=1 λn kun − un−1 k < ∞;
P
(b) 0 < lim inf n→∞ an < lim supn→∞ an < 1;
(c) 0 < lim inf n→∞ bn < lim supn→∞ bn < 1;
(d) 0 < lim inf n→∞ cn < lim supn→∞ cn < 1.
If S 1 , S 2 and S 3 satisfy Condition (A), then the sequence {un } converges strongly to a common fixed
point of S 1 , S 2 and S 3 .
Proof. From the same method of Theorem 3.2 step by step, we can conclude the proof by replacing
Kn+1 by Kn , expect in Step 1. Showing that Υ ⊆ Kn for each n ≥ 1. Next, we show that Υ ⊆ Rn for all
n ≥ 1. Indeed, by mathematical induction, for n = 1, we obtain Υ ⊆ K = R1 . Suppose that Υ ⊆ Rn for
all n ≥ 1. Because un+1 is the projection of u1 onto Kn ∩ Rn , we obtain
hu1 − un+1 , un+1 − xi ≥ 0, ∀ x ∈ Kn ∩ Rn .

AIMS Mathematics Volume 8, Issue 3, 7242–7257.

 7253

Therefore, Υ ⊆ Kn+1 . Hence, Υ ⊆ Kn ∩ Rn . This implies that {un } is well defined.

Next, we show that un → q ∈ K as n → ∞. Using the definition of Rn , we obtain un = PRn u1 .
Because un+1 ∈ Rn , we have the inequality (3.19) and

kun − u1 k ≤ kq − u1 k, ∀ q ∈ Υ. (3.29)

From (3.19) and (3.29) we have the sequence {un − u1 } is bounded and non-decreasing, and so
limn→∞ kun − u1 k exists. For m > n, by definition of Rn , we have um = PRm u1 ∈ Rm ⊆ Rn . Using
Lemma 2.5, we have (3.21). Because limn→∞ kun − u1 k exists, it follows (3.21), we obtain limn→∞ kum −
un k = 0. Therefore, {un } is a Cauchy sequence in K, and hence un → q ∈ K as n → ∞. In fact, we have
limn→∞ kun+1 −un k = 0. Using the same proof of Steps 3 and 4 in Theorem 3.2, we obtain q = PΥ u1 . 

4. Numerical results

It is commonly known that computing the projection of a point on an intersection is quite difficult.
However, this can also be stated as the following optimization problem for computing purposes

PK∗ := min∗ kx − uk2 , (4.1)

x∈K

where K∗ = Kn ∩Rn . See [22] for a list of several more approaches to handle projection onto intersection
of sets computationally.
The set Kn+1 can be found by Kn ∩ Rn , where

Rn = {x ∈ H : kwn − xk2 ≤ kun − xk2 + 2λ2n kun − un−1 k2 − 2λn hun − x, un−1 − un i}. (4.2)

The projection can be thought of as the following optimization problem by point (4.2):

PKn+1 := min kx − uk2 , (4.3)

x∈Kn+1

where Kn+1 = Kn ∩ Rn .

Example. Let H = R3 and K = [2, 5]p 3

.
Let K1 = {u = (u1 , u2 , u3 ) ∈ R : (u1 − 5)2 + (u2 − 5)2 + (u3 − 5)2 ≤ 2}. We defined S 1 , S 2 , S 3 :
3

R3 → CB(R3 ) as:

if u ∈ K1 ,

{(5, 5, 5)}


S 1u = 

1
{v = (v1 , v2 , v3 ) ∈ K : (v1 − 5)2 + (v2 − 5)2 + (v3 − 5)2 ≤
p

 } otherwise,
kuk1

{(5, 5, 5)}

 if u ∈ K1 ,
S 2u = 

arctan(19u 2 − 65)
{v = (5, v2 , 5) ∈ K : v2 ∈ [(u2 + 5)(

 ) + u2 , 5]} otherwise,
2
and

{(5, 5, 5)}

 if u ∈ K1 ,
S 3u = 

sin(19u2 − 10)
{v = (5, 5, v3 ) ∈ K : v3 ∈ [(u2 − 5)( ) + u2 , 5]} otherwise.


5

AIMS Mathematics Volume 8, Issue 3, 7242–7257.

 7254

We see that S 1 , S 2 and S 3 are quasi-nonexpansive and F(S 1 ) ∩ F(S 2 ) ∩ F(S 3 ) = {(5, 5, 5)}. Let an =
n+4
5n+5
, bn = 7n+2
n+2
, cn = 7n+7
9n+9
and
 ( )
1
, 0.035 if un , un−1 ,

min


λn =  (n + 1)2 kun − un−1 k



0.035
 otherwise.
We compare a numerical test between our inertial method defined in Theorem 3.3 and method (1.10).
The stopping criterion is defined by kun+1 − un k < 10−10 . We make different choices of the initial values
x0 and x1 as follows (see Figure 1 and Table 1)
Case 1 : x0 = (2.6816, 2.4389, 2.8891) and x1 = (2.7733, 2.2146, 2.2555).
Case 2 : x0 = (3.9587, 4.6121, 2.9779) and x1 = (3.7123, 3.4894, 4.8867).
Case 3 : x0 = (4.9401, 3.9274, 2.8475) and x1 = (3.8675, 3.7185, 4.7133).
Case 4 : x0 = (3.9933, 4.9899, 4.2187) and x1 = (3.7722, 3.6190, 2.9152).

Case 1

Case 2

AIMS Mathematics Volume 8, Issue 3, 7242–7257.

 7255

Case 3

Case 4
Figure 1. Valued of kun+1 − un k in Cases 1–4.

Table 1. Numerical results.

Case our inertial method method (1.10)
CPU time (sec) 0.01 0.03
1
Number of Iterations 2 12
CPU time (sec) 0.04 0.12
2
Number of Iterations 2 11
CPU time (sec) 0.03 0.09
3
Number of Iterations 2 11
CPU time (sec) 0.01 0.08
4
Number of Iterations 2 11

AIMS Mathematics Volume 8, Issue 3, 7242–7257.

 7256

5. Conclusions

In this paper, we proved convergence theorems in Hilbert spaces using a modified D-iteration.We
proved the weak and strong convergence of the iterative algorithms to the common fixed point under
some suitable assumptions.

Acknowledgments

Firstly, Anantachai Padcharoen (anantachai.p@rbru.ac.th) would like to thank the Research and
Development Institute of Rambhai Barni Rajabhat University. Finally, Kritsana Sokhuma would like
to thank Phranakhon Rajabhat University.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1. F. E. Browder, Nonexpansive nonlinear operators in a Banach space, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA.,
54 (1965), 1041–1044. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.54.4.1041
2. D. Göhde, Zum prinzip der kontraktiven abbildung, Math. Nachr., 30 (1965), 251–258.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mana.19650300312
3. S. Reich, Approximate selections, best approximations, fixed points, and invariant sets, J. Math.
Anal. Appl., 62 (1978), 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247X(78)90222-6
4. K. Goebel, W. A. Kirk, Topics in metric fixed point theory, Cambridge Studies in Advanced
Mathematics, 28, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
5. W. A. Kirk, A fixed point theorem for mappings which do not increase distances, Am. Math. Mon.,
72 (1965), 1004–1006. https://doi.org/10.2307/2313345
6. W. R. Mann, Mean value methods in iteration, Proc. Am. Math. Soc., 4 (1953), 506–510.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2032162
7. S. Ishikawa, Fixed points by a new iteration method, Proc. Am. Math. Soc., 44 (1974), 147–150.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2039245
8. M. A. Noor, New approximation schemes for general variational inequalities, J. Math. Anal. Appl.,
251 (2000), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmaa.2000.7042
9. I. Yildirim, M. Özdemir, A new iterative process for common fixed points of finite families of
non-self-asymptotically non-expansive mappings, Nonlinear Anal.-Theor., 71 (2009), 991–999.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2008.11.017
10. P. Sainuan, Rate of convergence of P-iteration and S-iteration for continuous functions on closed
intervals, Thai J. Math., 13 (2015), 449–457.
11. J. Daengsaen, A. Khemphet, On the rate of convergence of P-iteration, SP-iteration, and D-iteration
methods for continuous nondecreasing functions on closed intervals, Abstr. Appl. Anal., 2018
(2018), 7345401. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7345401

AIMS Mathematics Volume 8, Issue 3, 7242–7257.

 7257

12. B. T. Polyak, Introduction to optimization, New York: Optimization Software, 1987.

13. B. T. Polyak, Some methods of speeding up the convergence of iterative methods, Zh. Vychisl. Mat.
Mat. Fiz. 4 (1964), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-5553(64)90137-5
14. W. Chaolamjiak, D. Yambangwai, H. A. Hammad, Modified hybrid projection methods with SP
iterations for quasi-nonexpansive multivalued mappings in Hilbert spaces, B. Iran. Math. Soc., 47
(2021), 1399–1422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41980-020-00448-9
15. P. Cholamjiak, W. Cholamjiak, Fixed point theorems for hybrid multivalued mappings in Hilbert
spaces, J. Fixed Point Theory Appl., 18 (2016), 673–688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11784-016-
0302-3
16. S. Suantai, Weak and strong convergence criteria of Noor iterations for asymptotically nonexpan-
sive mappings, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 311 (2005), 506–517.
17. C. Martinez-Yanes, H. K. Xu, Strong convergence of the CQ method for fixed point iteration
processes, Nonlinear Anal., 64 (2006), 2400–2411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2005.08.018
18. K. Nakajo, W. Takahashi, Strong convergence theorems for nonexpansive mappings
and nonexpansive semigroups, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 279 (2003), 372–379.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-247X(02)00458-4
19. F. Alvarez, H. Attouch, An inertial proximal method for maximal monotone operators via
discretization of a nonlinear oscillator with damping, Set-Valued Anal., 9 (2001), 3–11.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011253113155
20. K. Goebel, S. Reich, Uniform convexity, hyperbolic geometry, and nonexpansive mappings,
Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 83, New York: Marcel Dekker
Inc, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1112/blms/17.3.293
21. W. Takahashi, Fixed point theorems for new nonlinear mappings in a Hilbert space, J. Nonlinear
Convex Anal., 11 (2010), 79–88.
22. M. Stos̆sić, J. Xavier, M. Dodig, Projection on the intersection of convex sets, Linear Algebra
Appl., 9 (2016), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.laa.2016.07.023

© 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This

is an open access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

AIMS Mathematics Volume 8, Issue 3, 7242–7257.