About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Journal of Applied Mathematics
VolumeΒ 2012Β (2012), Article IDΒ 421050, 11 pages
doi:10.1155/2012/421050
Research Article

Strong Convergence of Viscosity Approximation Methods for Nonexpansive Mappings in CAT(0) Spaces

Department of Mathematics, Tianjin Polytechnic University, Tianjin 300160, China

Received 30 March 2012; Accepted 27 April 2012

Academic Editor: YonghongΒ Yao

Copyright Β© 2012 Luo Yi Shi and Ru Dong Chen. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Viscosity approximation methods for nonexpansive mappings in CAT(0) spaces are studied. Consider a nonexpansive self-mapping 𝑇 of a closed convex subset 𝐢 of a CAT(0) space 𝑋 . Suppose that the set Fix ( 𝑇 ) of fixed points of 𝑇 is nonempty. For a contraction 𝑓 on 𝐢 and 𝑑 ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) , let π‘₯ 𝑑 ∈ 𝐢 be the unique fixed point of the contraction π‘₯ ↦ 𝑑 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βŠ• ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑇 π‘₯ . We will show that if 𝑋 is a CAT(0) space satisfying some property, then { π‘₯ 𝑑 } converge strongly to a fixed point of 𝑇 which solves some variational inequality. Consider also the iteration process { π‘₯ 𝑛 } , where π‘₯ 0 ∈ 𝐢 is arbitrary and π‘₯ 𝑛 + 1 = 𝛼 𝑛 𝑓 ( π‘₯ 𝑛 ) βŠ• ( 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ) 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 for 𝑛 β‰₯ 1 , where { 𝛼 𝑛 } βŠ‚ ( 0 , 1 ) . It is shown that under certain appropriate conditions on 𝛼 𝑛 , { π‘₯ 𝑛 } converge strongly to a fixed point of 𝑇 which solves some variational inequality.

1. CAT(0) Spaces

A metric space 𝑋 is a CAT(0) space if it is geodesically connected and if every geodesic triangle in 𝑋 is at least as thin as its comparison triangle in the Euclidean plane. The precise definition is given below. It is well known that any complete, simply connected Riemannian manifold having nonpositive sectional curvature is a CAT(0) space. Other examples include pre-Hilbert spaces [1], R-trees [2], Euclidean buildings [3], the complex Hilbert ball with a hyperbolic metric [4], and many others. For a thorough discussion of these spaces and of the fundamental role they play in geometry, we refer the reader to Bridson and Haefliger [1].

Fixed-point theory in CAT(0) spaces was first studied by Kirk (see [5, 6]). He showed that every nonexpansive (single-valued) mapping defined on a bounded closed convex subset of a complete CAT(0) space always has a fixed point. Since then, the fixed-point theory for single-valued and multivalued mappings in CAT(0) spaces has been rapidly developed, and many papers have appeared [2, 717].

The purpose of this paper is to study the iterative scheme defined as follows. Consider a nonexpansive self-mapping 𝑇 of a closed convex subset 𝐢 of a CAT(0) space 𝑋 . Suppose that the set Fix ( 𝑇 ) of fixed points of 𝑇 is nonempty. For a contraction 𝑓 on 𝐢 and 𝑑 ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) , let π‘₯ 𝑑 ∈ 𝐢 be the unique fixed point of the contraction π‘₯ ↦ 𝑑 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βŠ• ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑇 π‘₯ . Consider the iteration process { π‘₯ 𝑛 } , where π‘₯ 0 ∈ 𝐢 is arbitrary and π‘₯ 𝑛 + 1 = 𝛼 𝑛 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βŠ• ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 , ( 1 . 1 ) for 𝑛 β‰₯ 1 , where { 𝛼 𝑛 } βŠ‚ ( 0 , 1 ) . We show that { π‘₯ 𝑛 } converge strongly to a fixed point of 𝑇 under certain appropriate conditions on 𝛼 𝑛 , and the fixed point of 𝑇 solves some variational inequality.

Let ( 𝑋 , 𝑑 ) be a metric space. A geodesic path joining π‘₯ ∈ 𝑋 to 𝑦 ∈ 𝑋 (or, more briefly, a geodesic from π‘₯ to 𝑦 ) is a map 𝑐 from a closed interval [ 0 , 𝑙 ] βŠ‚ 𝑅 to 𝑋 such that 𝑐 ( 0 ) = π‘₯ , 𝑐 ( 𝑙 ) = 𝑦 , and 𝑑 ( 𝑐 ( 𝑑 ) , 𝑐 ( 𝑑 ξ…ž ) ) = | 𝑑 βˆ’ 𝑑 ξ…ž | for all 𝑑 , 𝑑 ∈ [ 0 , 𝑙 ] . In particular, 𝑐 is an isometry and 𝑑 ( π‘₯ , 𝑦 ) = 𝑙 . The image 𝛼 of 𝑐 is called a geodesic (or metric) segment joining π‘₯ and 𝑦 . When it is unique, this geodesic segment is denoted by [ π‘₯ , 𝑦 ] . The space ( 𝑋 , 𝑑 ) is said to be a geodesic space if every two points of 𝑋 are joined by a geodesic, and 𝑋 is said to be uniquely geodesic if there is exactly one geodesic joining π‘₯ and 𝑦 for each π‘₯ , 𝑦 ∈ 𝑋 . A subset π‘Œ βŠ† 𝑋 is said to be convex if π‘Œ includes every geodesic segment joining any two of its points.

A geodesic triangle β–΅ ( π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 , π‘₯ 3 ) in a geodesicmetric space ( 𝑋 , 𝑑 ) consists of three points π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 , and π‘₯ 3 in 𝑋 (the vertices of β–΅ ) and a geodesic segment between each pair of vertices (the edges of β–΅ ). A comparison triangle for the geodesic triangle β–΅ ( π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 , π‘₯ 3 ) in ( 𝑋 , 𝑑 ) is a triangle β–΅ ( π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 , π‘₯ 3 ) ∢ = β–΅ ( π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 , π‘₯ 3 ) in the Euclidean plane 𝔼 2 such that 𝑑 𝔼 2 ( π‘₯ 𝑖 , π‘₯ 𝑗 ) = 𝑑 ( π‘₯ 𝑖 , π‘₯ 𝑗 ) for 𝑖 , 𝑗 ∈ 1 , 2 , 3 .

A geodesic space is said to be a CAT(0) space if all geodesic triangles satisfy the following comparison axiom.

CAT(0): let β–΅ be a geodesic triangle in 𝑋 , and let β–΅ be a comparison triangle for β–΅ . Then, β–΅ is said to satisfy the CAT(0) inequality if for all π‘₯ , 𝑦 ∈ β–΅ and all comparison points π‘₯ , 𝑦 ∈ β–΅ , 𝑑 ( π‘₯ , 𝑦 ) ≀ 𝑑 𝔼 2 ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑦 ξ€Έ . ( 1 . 2 )

Let π‘₯ , 𝑦 ∈ 𝑋 , and by Lemma 2 . 1 (iv) of [18] for each 𝑑 ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] , there exists a unique point 𝑧 ∈ [ π‘₯ , 𝑦 ] such that 𝑑 ( π‘₯ , 𝑧 ) = 𝑑 𝑑 ( π‘₯ , 𝑦 ) , 𝑑 ( 𝑦 , 𝑧 ) = ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑑 ( π‘₯ , 𝑦 ) . ( 1 . 3 ) From now on, we will use the notation ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) π‘₯ βŠ• 𝑑 𝑦 for the unique point 𝑧 satisfying the above equation.

We now collect some elementary facts about CAT(0) spaces which will be used in the proofs of our main results.

Lemma 1.1. Let 𝑋 be a CAT(0) space. Then,(i)(see [18, Lemma 2.4]) for each π‘₯ , 𝑦 , 𝑧 ∈ 𝑋 and 𝑑 ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] , one has 𝑑 ( ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) π‘₯ βŠ• 𝑑 𝑦 , 𝑧 ) ≀ ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑑 ( π‘₯ , 𝑧 ) + 𝑑 𝑑 ( 𝑦 , 𝑧 ) , ( 1 . 4 ) (ii) (see [7]) for each π‘₯ , 𝑦 , 𝑧 ∈ 𝑋 and 𝑑 , 𝑠 ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] , one has 𝑑 ( ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) π‘₯ βŠ• 𝑑 𝑦 , ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑠 ) π‘₯ βŠ• 𝑠 𝑦 ) ≀ | 𝑑 βˆ’ 𝑠 | 𝑑 ( π‘₯ , 𝑦 ) , ( 1 . 5 ) (iii) (see [6, Lemma 3]) for each π‘₯ , 𝑦 , 𝑧 ∈ 𝑋 and 𝑑 ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] , one has 𝑑 ( ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑧 βŠ• 𝑑 π‘₯ , ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑧 βŠ• 𝑑 𝑦 ) ≀ 𝑑 𝑑 ( π‘₯ , 𝑦 ) , ( 1 . 6 ) (iv) (see [18, Lemma 2.5]) for each π‘₯ , 𝑦 , 𝑧 ∈ 𝑋 and 𝑑 ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] , one has 𝑑 ( ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) π‘₯ βŠ• 𝑑 𝑦 , 𝑧 ) 2 ≀ ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑑 ( π‘₯ , 𝑧 ) 2 + 𝑑 𝑑 ( 𝑦 , 𝑧 ) 2 βˆ’ 𝑑 ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑑 ( π‘₯ , 𝑦 ) 2 . ( 1 . 7 )

Let 𝑋 be a complete CAT(0) space, let { π‘₯ 𝑛 } be a bounded sequence in a complete X , and for π‘₯ ∈ 𝑋 , set π‘Ÿ ξ€· ξ€½ π‘₯ π‘₯ , 𝑛 ξ€Ύ ξ€Έ = l i m s u p 𝑛 β†’ ∞ 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ . ( 1 . 8 )

The asymptotic radius π‘Ÿ ( { π‘₯ 𝑛 } ) of { π‘₯ 𝑛 } is given by π‘Ÿ π‘₯ ξ€· ξ€½ 𝑛 ξ€½ π‘Ÿ ξ€· ξ€½ π‘₯ ξ€Ύ ξ€Έ = i n f π‘₯ , 𝑛 ξ€Ύ ξ€Ύ ξ€Έ ∢ π‘₯ ∈ 𝑋 , ( 1 . 9 )

and the asymptotic center 𝐴 ( { π‘₯ 𝑛 } ) of { π‘₯ 𝑛 } is the set 𝐴 π‘₯ ξ€· ξ€½ 𝑛 = ξ€½ ξ€· ξ€½ π‘₯ ξ€Ύ ξ€Έ π‘₯ ∈ 𝑋 ∢ π‘Ÿ π‘₯ , 𝑛 π‘₯ ξ€Ύ ξ€Έ = π‘Ÿ ξ€· ξ€½ 𝑛 ξ€Ύ ξ€Έ ξ€Ύ . ( 1 . 1 0 )

It is known (see, e.g., [11, Proposition 7]) that in a CAT(0) space, 𝐴 ( { π‘₯ 𝑛 } ) consists of exactly one point.

A sequence { π‘₯ 𝑛 } in 𝑋 is said to β–΅ -converge to π‘₯ ∈ 𝑋 if π‘₯ is the unique asymptotic center of { 𝑒 𝑛 } for every subsequence { 𝑒 𝑛 } of { π‘₯ 𝑛 } . In this case, we write β–΅ - l i m 𝑛 π‘₯ 𝑛 = π‘₯ and call π‘₯ the β–΅ -limit of { π‘₯ 𝑛 } .

Lemma 1.2. Assume that 𝑋 is a CAT(0) space. Then,(i) (see [14]) every bounded sequence in 𝑋 has a β–΅ -convergent subsequence,(ii) (see [14, Proposition 3.7]) if 𝐾 is a closed convex subset of 𝑋 , and 𝑓 ∢ 𝐾 β†’ 𝑋 is a nonexpansive mapping, then the conditions { π‘₯ 𝑛 } β–΅ -converge to π‘₯ and 𝑑 ( π‘₯ 𝑛 , 𝑓 ( π‘₯ 𝑛 ) ) β†’ 0 and imply π‘₯ ∈ 𝐾 and 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) = π‘₯ .

Lemma 1.3 (see [19, Proposition 3.5]). Assume that 𝑋 is a CAT(0) space, 𝐢 is a closed convex subset of 𝑋 . Then the metric (nearest point) projection 𝑃 𝐢 ∢ 𝑋 β†’ 𝐢 , 𝑃 𝐢 ( π‘₯ ) ∢ = i n f { 𝑑 ( π‘₯ , 𝑦 ) ; 𝑦 ∈ 𝐢 } is a nonexpansive mapping. one calls a CAT(0) space 𝑋 satisfying property 𝒫 if for π‘₯ , 𝑒 , 𝑦 1 , 𝑦 2 ∈ 𝑋 , 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑃 [ π‘₯ , 𝑦 1 ] ξ€Έ 𝑑 ξ€· ( 𝑒 ) π‘₯ , 𝑦 1 ξ€Έ ξ€· ≀ 𝑑 π‘₯ , 𝑃 [ π‘₯ , 𝑦 2 ] ξ€Έ 𝑑 ξ€· ( 𝑒 ) π‘₯ , 𝑦 2 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝑦 + 𝑑 ( π‘₯ , 𝑒 ) 𝑑 1 , 𝑦 2 ξ€Έ . ( 1 . 1 1 )

Remark 1.4. The property 𝒫 in Hilbert space corresponds to the inequality | | ⟨ 𝑒 βˆ’ π‘₯ , 𝑦 1 | | ≀ | | βˆ’ π‘₯ ⟩ ⟨ 𝑒 βˆ’ π‘₯ , 𝑦 2 | | β€– β€– 𝑦 βˆ’ π‘₯ ⟩ + β€– 𝑒 βˆ’ π‘₯ β€– β‹… 1 βˆ’ 𝑦 2 β€– β€– . ( 1 . 1 2 )
Recall that a continuous linear functional πœ‡ on 𝑙 ∞ , the Banach space of bounded real sequences, is called a Banach limit if β€– πœ‡ β€– = πœ‡ ( 1 , 1 , … ) = 1 and πœ‡ 𝑛 ( π‘Ž 𝑛 ) = πœ‡ 𝑛 ( π‘Ž 𝑛 + 1 ) for all { π‘Ž 𝑛 } ∈ 𝑙 ∞ .

Lemma 1.5 (see [20, Proposition 2]). Let ( π‘Ž 1 , π‘Ž 2 , … ) ∈ 𝑙 ∞ be such that πœ‡ 𝑛 ( π‘Ž 𝑛 ) ≀ 0 for all Banach limits πœ‡ and l i m s u p 𝑛 ( π‘Ž 𝑛 + 1 βˆ’ π‘Ž 𝑛 ) ≀ 0 . Then l i m s u p 𝑛 π‘Ž 𝑛 ≀ 0 .

Lemma 1.6 (see [21, Lemma 2.3]). Let { 𝑠 𝑛 } be a sequence of nonnegative real numbers, { 𝛼 𝑛 } a sequence of real numbers in [ 0 , 1 ] with βˆ‘ ∞ 𝑛 = 1 𝛼 𝑛 = ∞ , { 𝑒 𝑛 } a sequence of nonnegative real numbers with βˆ‘ ∞ 𝑛 = 1 𝑒 𝑛 < ∞ , and { 𝑑 𝑛 } a sequence of real numbers with l i m s u p 𝑛 𝑑 𝑛 ≀ 0 . Suppose that 𝑠 𝑛 + 1 = ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑠 𝑛 + 𝛼 𝑛 𝑑 𝑛 + 𝑒 𝑛 , βˆ€ 𝑛 ∈ β„• . ( 1 . 1 3 ) Then l i m 𝑛 β†’ ∞ 𝑠 𝑛 = 0 .

2. Viscosity Iteration for a Single Mapping

In this section, we prove the main results of this paper.

Lemma 2.1. Let 𝐢 be a closed convex subset of a complete CAT(0) space 𝑋 , and let 𝑇 ∢ 𝐢 β†’ 𝐢 be a nonexpansive mapping. Let 𝑓 be a contraction on 𝐢 with coefficient 𝛼 < 1 . For each 𝑑 ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] , the mapping 𝑆 𝑑 ∢ 𝐢 β†’ 𝐢 defined by 𝑆 𝑑 π‘₯ = 𝑑 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βŠ• ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑇 π‘₯ , f o r π‘₯ ∈ 𝐢 ( 2 . 1 ) has a unique fixed point π‘₯ 𝑑 ∈ 𝐢 , that is, π‘₯ 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ = 𝑑 𝑓 𝑑 ξ€Έ βŠ• ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑑 . ( 2 . 2 )

Proof. For π‘₯ , 𝑦 ∈ 𝐢 , according to Lemma 1.1, we have the following: 𝑑 ξ€· 𝑆 𝑑 ( π‘₯ ) , 𝑆 𝑑 ξ€Έ ( 𝑦 ) = 𝑑 ( 𝑑 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βŠ• ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑇 π‘₯ , 𝑑 𝑓 ( 𝑦 ) βŠ• ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑇 𝑦 ) ≀ 𝑑 ( 𝑑 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βŠ• ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑇 π‘₯ , 𝑑 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βŠ• ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑇 𝑦 ) + 𝑑 ( 𝑑 𝑓 ( 𝑦 ) βŠ• ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑇 π‘₯ , 𝑑 𝑓 ( 𝑦 ) βŠ• ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑇 𝑦 ) ≀ 𝑑 𝑑 ( 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) , 𝑓 ( 𝑦 ) ) + ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑑 ( 𝑇 π‘₯ , 𝑇 𝑦 ) ≀ ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ( 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 ) ) 𝑑 ( π‘₯ , 𝑦 ) . ( 2 . 3 ) This implies that 𝑆 𝑑 is a contraction mapping, and hence, the conclusion follows.

The following result is to prove that the net { π‘₯ 𝑑 } converge strongly to a fixed point of 𝑇 .

Theorem 2.2. Let 𝐢 be a closed convex subset of a complete CAT(0) space 𝑋 satisfying the property 𝒫 , and let 𝑇 ∢ 𝐢 β†’ 𝐢 be a nonexpansive mapping. Let 𝑓 be a contraction on 𝐢 with coefficient 𝛼 < 1 . For each 𝑑 ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] , let { π‘₯ 𝑑 } be given by π‘₯ 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ = 𝑑 𝑓 𝑑 ξ€Έ βŠ• ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑑 . ( 2 . 4 ) Then one has l i m 𝑑 β†’ 0 π‘₯ 𝑑 = ∢ Μƒ π‘₯ and Μƒ π‘₯ = 𝑃 F i x ( 𝑇 ) 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) .

Proof. We first show that { π‘₯ 𝑑 } is bounded. Indeed choose a 𝑝 ∈ F i x ( 𝑇 ) , and using Lemma 1.1 and the nonexpansive of 𝑇 , we derive that 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑑 ξ€Έ ξ€· ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑝 = 𝑑 𝑑 𝑓 𝑑 ξ€Έ βŠ• ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑑 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑝 ≀ 𝑑 𝑑 𝑑 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ ξ€· , 𝑝 + ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑑 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑑 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑝 ≀ 𝑑 𝑑 𝑑 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ + ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑝 ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑑 𝑑 ξ€Έ . , 𝑝 ( 2 . 5 ) It follows that 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑑 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑝 ≀ 𝑑 𝑑 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑝 ≀ 𝑑 𝑑 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑓 ( 𝑝 ) + 𝑑 ( 𝑓 ( 𝑝 ) , 𝑝 ) ≀ 𝛼 𝑑 𝑑 ξ€Έ , 𝑝 + 𝑑 ( 𝑓 ( 𝑝 ) , 𝑝 ) . ( 2 . 6 ) Hence, 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑑 ξ€Έ ≀ 1 , 𝑝 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑑 ( 𝑓 ( 𝑝 ) , 𝑝 ) , ( 2 . 7 ) and { π‘₯ 𝑑 } is bounded, so are { 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑑 } and { 𝑓 ( π‘₯ 𝑑 ) } . As a result, we can get that l i m 𝑑 β†’ 0 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑑 , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑑 ξ€Έ = l i m 𝑑 β†’ 0 𝑑 ξ€· ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑑 𝑓 𝑑 ξ€Έ βŠ• ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑑 , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑑 ξ€Έ = l i m 𝑑 β†’ 0 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑑 𝑑 𝑑 ξ€Έ , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑑 ξ€Έ = 0 . ( 2 . 8 )
Assume that { 𝑑 𝑛 } βŠ† ( 0 , 1 ) is such that 𝑑 𝑛 β†’ 0 as 𝑛 β†’ ∞ . Put π‘₯ 𝑛 ∢ = π‘₯ 𝑑 𝑛 . We will show that { π‘₯ 𝑛 } contains a subsequence converging strongly to Μƒ π‘₯ , where Μƒ π‘₯ ∈ F i x ( 𝑇 ) .
Since { π‘₯ 𝑛 } is bounded, by Lemma 1.2(i),(ii), we may assume that { π‘₯ 𝑛 } β–΅ -converges to a point Μƒ π‘₯ , and Μƒ π‘₯ ∈ F i x ( 𝑇 ) .
Next we will prove that { π‘₯ 𝑛 } converge strongly to Μƒ π‘₯ .
Indeed, according to Lemma 1.1 and the property of 𝑇 and 𝑓 , we can get that 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , Μƒ π‘₯ = 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑑 𝑛 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βŠ• ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , Μƒ π‘₯ ≀ 𝑑 𝑛 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ + ξ€· , Μƒ π‘₯ 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , Μƒ π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑑 𝑛 ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ≀ 𝑑 𝑛 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ + ξ€· , Μƒ π‘₯ 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , Μƒ π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑑 𝑛 ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ . ( 2 . 9 ) It follows that 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , Μƒ π‘₯ ≀ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ βˆ’ ξ€· , Μƒ π‘₯ 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ = 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ , Μƒ π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ + 𝑑 𝑛 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ . ( 2 . 1 0 )
Since l i m 𝑑 β†’ 0 𝑑 ( π‘₯ 𝑑 , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑑 ) = 0 , we can get that l i m s u p 𝑛 β†’ ∞ 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , Μƒ π‘₯ ≀ l i m s u p 𝑛 β†’ ∞ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ , Μƒ π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ . ( 2 . 1 1 ) Let Ξ” ( Μƒ π‘₯ , π‘₯ 𝑛 , 𝑓 ( π‘₯ 𝑛 ) ) be a comparison triangle for β–΅ ( Μƒ π‘₯ , π‘₯ 𝑛 , 𝑓 ( π‘₯ 𝑛 ) ) in 𝔼 2 . Then, 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ , Μƒ π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ = 𝑑 2 ξ‚€ 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ,  Μƒ π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑑 2 ξ‚€ 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , π‘₯ 𝑛  =  𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βˆ’ Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βˆ’ ξ‚­ βˆ’  Μƒ π‘₯ 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βˆ’ Μƒ π‘₯ 𝑛 , 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βˆ’ Μƒ π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ‚­  = 2 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βˆ’ Μƒ π‘₯ , π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ ξ‚­ βˆ’  Μƒ π‘₯ π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ Μƒ π‘₯ , π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ ξ‚­  Μƒ π‘₯ = 2 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βˆ’ Μƒ π‘₯ , π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ ξ‚­ Μƒ π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑑 2 ξ‚€ π‘₯ 𝑛 ,   Μƒ π‘₯ = 2 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βˆ’ Μƒ π‘₯ , π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ ξ‚­ Μƒ π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ . , Μƒ π‘₯ ( 2 . 1 2 ) Hence, l i m s u p 𝑛 β†’ ∞ 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , Μƒ π‘₯ ≀ l i m s u p 𝑛 β†’ ∞  𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βˆ’ Μƒ π‘₯ , π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ ξ‚­ . Μƒ π‘₯ ( 2 . 1 3 )
Let β–΅ ( Μƒ π‘₯ , π‘₯ 𝑛 , 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) ) be a comparison triangle for β–΅ ( Μƒ π‘₯ , π‘₯ 𝑛 , 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) ) in 𝔼 2 . For each 𝑛 , let 𝑒 𝑛 be the point of the segment [ Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) ] which is nearest to π‘₯ 𝑛 , and let 𝑒 𝑛 be the point of the segment [ Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) ] for which 𝑑 ( 𝑒 𝑛 , Μƒ π‘₯ ) = 𝑑 ( 𝑒 𝑛 , Μƒ π‘₯ ) .
By passing to subsequences again, we may suppose that { 𝑒 𝑛 } converges to 𝑒 ∈ [ Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) ] , { 𝑒 𝑛 } converges to 𝑒 ∈ [ Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) ] .
Since { π‘₯ 𝑛 } β–΅ -converges to a point Μƒ π‘₯ , we have π‘Ÿ π‘₯ ξ€· ξ€½ 𝑛 ξ€Ύ ξ€Έ = l i m 𝑛 ξ€· s u p 𝑑 π‘₯ , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ = l i m 𝑛 ξ€· s u p 𝑑 π‘₯ , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ β‰₯ l i m 𝑛 ξ€· s u p 𝑑 𝑒 𝑛 , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ = l i m 𝑛 ξ€· s u p 𝑑 𝑒 , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ β‰₯ l i m 𝑛 ξ€· s u p 𝑑 𝑒 , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ . ( 2 . 1 4 ) Thus, π‘Ÿ ( 𝑒 , { π‘₯ 𝑛 } ) ≀ π‘Ÿ ( { π‘₯ 𝑛 } ) . This implies that 𝑒 = π‘₯ by uniqueness of the asymptotic center. Hence, 𝑒 = π‘₯ . That is to say, { 𝑒 𝑛 } converges to Μƒ π‘₯ , and { 𝑒 𝑛 } converges to Μƒ π‘₯ .
Moreover, since 𝑋 satisfies the property 𝒫 , we can get that | | |  𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βˆ’ Μƒ π‘₯ , π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ ξ‚­ | | | ξ‚€ Μƒ π‘₯ = 𝑑 Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑃 [ Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ( π‘₯ 𝑛 ) ] ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ  ξ‚€ β‹… 𝑑 Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ  ξ‚€ = 𝑑 Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑃 [ Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ( π‘₯ 𝑛 ) ] ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ  ξ€· ξ€· π‘₯ β‹… 𝑑 Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 𝑛 ξ€· ξ€Έ ξ€Έ ≀ 𝑑 Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑃 [ Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) ] ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€· ξ€Έ ξ€Έ β‹… 𝑑 ( Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) ) + 𝑑 Μƒ π‘₯ , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ β‹… 𝑑 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ ξ‚€ , 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) = 𝑑 Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑃 [ Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) ] ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ  ξ‚€ β‹… 𝑑 Μƒ π‘₯ ,  ξ€· 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) + 𝑑 Μƒ π‘₯ , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ β‹… 𝑑 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ ξ‚€ , 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) ≀ 𝑑 𝑒 𝑛 ,  𝑑 ξ‚€ Μƒ π‘₯ Μƒ π‘₯ ,  𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) + 𝛼 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ . , Μƒ π‘₯ ( 2 . 1 5 ) It follows that l i m s u p 𝑛 β†’ ∞ 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ≀ 1 , Μƒ π‘₯ 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 l i m s u p 𝑛 β†’ ∞ 𝑑 ξ‚€ 𝑒 𝑛 ,  𝑑 ξ‚€ Μƒ π‘₯ 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) ,  . Μƒ π‘₯ ( 2 . 1 6 ) Since { 𝑒 𝑛 } converges to Μƒ π‘₯ , we obtain that l i m s u p 𝑛 β†’ ∞ 𝑑 2 ( π‘₯ 𝑛 , Μƒ π‘₯ ) = 0 , that is, { π‘₯ 𝑛 } converge strongly to Μƒ π‘₯ . Since { 𝑑 𝑛 } βŠ† ( 0 , 1 ) is such that 𝑑 𝑛 β†’ 0 as 𝑛 β†’ ∞ is arbitrarily selected, we can get that l i m 𝑑 β†’ 0 π‘₯ 𝑑 = Μƒ π‘₯ .
Finally, we will prove that Μƒ π‘₯ satisfy the equation Μƒ π‘₯ = 𝑃 F i x ( 𝑇 ) 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) .
Indeed, for any 𝑦 ∈ F i x ( 𝑇 ) , 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑑 ξ€Έ ξ€· ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑦 = 𝑑 𝑑 𝑓 𝑑 ξ€Έ βŠ• ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑑 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑦 = 𝑑 𝑑 𝑑 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ ξ€· , 𝑦 + ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑑 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑑 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑦 ≀ 𝑑 𝑑 𝑑 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ + ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑦 ( 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 ) 𝑑 𝑑 ξ€Έ . , 𝑦 ( 2 . 1 7 ) It follows that 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑑 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑦 ≀ 𝑑 𝑑 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ , 𝑦 . ( 2 . 1 8 ) Since l i m 𝑑 β†’ 0 π‘₯ 𝑑 = Μƒ π‘₯ , we can get that 𝑑 ( Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑦 ) ≀ 𝑑 ( 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) , 𝑦 ) . ( 2 . 1 9 )
Hence, | | | | , 𝑑 ( 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) , 𝑦 ) β‰₯ 𝑑 ( Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑦 ) βˆ’ 𝑑 ( Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) ) 𝑑 ( Μƒ π‘₯ , 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) ) β‰₯ 𝑑 ( 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) , 𝑦 ) . ( 2 . 2 0 ) That is to say, Μƒ π‘₯ = 𝑃 F i x ( 𝑇 ) 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) .

Consider now the iteration process π‘₯ 0 π‘₯ ∈ 𝐢 , 𝑛 + 1 = 𝛼 𝑛 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βŠ• ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 , 𝑛 β‰₯ 0 , ( 2 . 2 1 ) where { 𝛼 𝑛 } βŠ† ( 0 , 1 ) satisfies(H1) 𝛼 𝑛 β†’ 0 ,(H2) βˆ‘ ∞ 𝑛 = 0 𝛼 𝑛 = ∞ ,(H3)either βˆ‘ ∞ 𝑛 = 0 | 𝛼 𝑛 + 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 | < ∞ or l i m 𝑛 β†’ ∞ ( 𝛼 𝑛 + 1 / 𝛼 𝑛 ) = 1 .

Theorem 2.3. Let 𝑋 be a CAT(0) space satisfying the property 𝒫 , 𝐢 a closed convex subset of 𝑋 , 𝑇 ∢ 𝐢 β†’ 𝐢 a nonexpansive mapping with F i x ( 𝑇 ) β‰  βˆ… , and 𝑓 ∢ 𝐢 β†’ 𝐢 a contraction with coefficient 𝛼 < 1 . Let π‘₯ 0 ∈ 𝐢 , { π‘₯ 𝑛 } be generated by π‘₯ 𝑛 + 1 = 𝛼 𝑛 𝑓 ( π‘₯ 𝑛 ) βŠ• ( 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ) 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 , 𝑛 β‰₯ 0 . Then under the hypotheses (H1 )–(H3 ), π‘₯ 𝑛 β†’ Μƒ π‘₯ , where Μƒ π‘₯ = 𝑃 F i x ( 𝑇 ) 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) .

Proof. We first show that the sequence { π‘₯ 𝑛 } is bounded. Let 𝑝 ∈ F i x ( 𝑇 ) . Then, 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 + 1 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝛼 , 𝑝 = 𝑑 𝑛 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βŠ• ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , 𝑝 ≀ 𝛼 𝑛 𝑑 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ + ξ€· , 𝑝 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 ξ€· 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , 𝑝 ≀ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Ί 𝑑 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ ξ€» + ξ€· , 𝑓 ( 𝑝 ) + 𝑑 ( 𝑓 ( 𝑝 ) , 𝑝 ) 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ  𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑝 ≀ m a x 𝑛 ξ€Έ , 1 , 𝑝  . 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑑 ( 𝑓 ( 𝑝 ) , 𝑝 ) ( 2 . 2 2 ) By induction, we have 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ  𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑝 ≀ m a x 0 ξ€Έ , 1 , 𝑝  1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑑 ( 𝑓 ( 𝑝 ) , 𝑝 ) , ( 2 . 2 3 ) for all 𝑛 ∈ β„• . This implies that { π‘₯ 𝑛 } is bounded and so is the sequence { 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 } and { 𝑓 ( π‘₯ 𝑛 ) } .
We claim that 𝑑 ( π‘₯ 𝑛 + 1 , π‘₯ 𝑛 ) β†’ 0 . Indeed, we have 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 + 1 , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝛼 = 𝑑 𝑛 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βŠ• ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 , 𝛼 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ βŠ• ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝛼 ≀ 𝑑 𝑛 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βŠ• ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 , 𝛼 𝑛 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βŠ• ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝛼 + 𝑑 𝑛 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βŠ• ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 , 𝛼 𝑛 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ βŠ• ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝛼 + 𝑑 𝑛 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ βŠ• ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 , 𝛼 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ βŠ• ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ ≀ ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 ξ€· 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ + 𝛼 𝑛 𝑑 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€· π‘₯ , 𝑓 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 + | | 𝛼 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ 𝑛 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 | | 𝑑 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ ≀ ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 , π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ + 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝛼 𝑑 𝑛 , π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ + | | 𝛼 𝑛 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 | | 𝑑 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ 1 ξ€Έ . ( 2 . 2 4 ) By the conditions H2 and H3, we have 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 + 1 , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ⟢ 0 . ( 2 . 2 5 ) Consequently, by the condition H1, 𝑑 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€· π‘₯ ≀ 𝑑 𝑛 , π‘₯ 𝑛 + 1 ξ€Έ ξ€· π‘₯ + 𝑑 𝑛 + 1 , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€· π‘₯ = 𝑑 𝑛 , π‘₯ 𝑛 + 1 ξ€Έ ξ€· 𝛼 + 𝑑 𝑛 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βŠ• ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€· π‘₯ = 𝑑 𝑛 , π‘₯ 𝑛 + 1 ξ€Έ + 𝛼 𝑛 𝑑 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ⟢ 0 . ( 2 . 2 6 )
Since { π‘₯ 𝑛 } is bounded, we may assume that { π‘₯ 𝑛 } β–΅ -converges to a point Μ‚ π‘₯ . By Lemma 1.2, we have Μ‚ π‘₯ ∈ F i x ( 𝑇 ) .
Next we will prove that { π‘₯ 𝑛 } converge strongly to Μ‚ π‘₯ and Μ‚ π‘₯ = Μƒ π‘₯ . Indeed, according to Lemma 1.1 and the property of 𝑇 and 𝑓 , we can get that 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 + 1 ξ€Έ , Μ‚ π‘₯ = 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑑 𝑛 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βŠ• ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝑑 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , Μ‚ π‘₯ ≀ 𝛼 𝑛 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ + ξ€· , Μ‚ π‘₯ 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , Μ‚ π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ≀ ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , Μ‚ π‘₯ + 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Ί 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ βˆ’ ξ€· , Μ‚ π‘₯ 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , 𝑇 𝑛 . ξ€Έ ξ€» ( 2 . 2 7 ) With a minor modification of the proof of the analogous statement in Theorem 2.2, we can get that 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ , Μ‚ π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ  = 2 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βˆ’ Μ‚ π‘₯ , π‘₯ 𝑛 βˆ’ ξ‚­ Μ‚ π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ‚€ , Μ‚ π‘₯ ≀ 2 𝑑 𝑒 𝑛 ,  𝑑 ξ‚€ Μ‚ π‘₯ 𝑓 ( Μ‚ π‘₯ ) ,  Μ‚ π‘₯ + 2 𝛼 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , Μ‚ π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , , Μ‚ π‘₯ ( 2 . 2 8 ) and 𝑑 ( 𝑒 𝑛 , Μ‚ π‘₯ ) β†’ 0 .
Thus, 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 + 1 ξ€Έ ≀ ξ€· , Μ‚ π‘₯ 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , Μ‚ π‘₯ + 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Ί 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ βˆ’ ξ€· , Μ‚ π‘₯ 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ + ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βˆ’ ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 , π‘₯ 𝑛 ≀ ξ€· ξ€Έ ξ€» 1 βˆ’ 2 ( 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 ) 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , Μ‚ π‘₯ + 2 ( 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 ) 𝛼 𝑛 ξ‚Έ 1 𝑑 ξ‚€ ( 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 ) 𝑒 𝑛 ,  𝑑 ξ‚€ Μ‚ π‘₯ 𝑓 ( Μ‚ π‘₯ ) ,  + 1 Μ‚ π‘₯ 𝛽 ( 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 ) 𝑛 ξ‚Ή , ( 2 . 2 9 ) where 𝛽 𝑛 = ( 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ) 𝑑 2 ( 𝑓 ( π‘₯ 𝑛 ) , π‘₯ 𝑛 ) βˆ’ ( 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ) 𝑑 2 ( 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 , π‘₯ 𝑛 ) ] . Since 𝑑 ( 𝑒 𝑛 , Μ‚ π‘₯ ) β†’ 0 and 𝑑 ( π‘₯ 𝑛 , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ) β†’ 0 , we obtain that l i m 𝑛 1 s u p 𝑑 ξ‚€ ( 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 ) 𝑒 𝑛 ,  𝑑 ξ‚€ Μ‚ π‘₯ 𝑓 ( Μ‚ π‘₯ ) ,  + 1 Μ‚ π‘₯ 𝛽 ( 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 ) 𝑛 ≀ 0 . ( 2 . 3 0 )
According to Lemma 1.6, we can get 𝑑 2 ( π‘₯ 𝑛 , Μ‚ π‘₯ ) β†’ 0 .
Finally, we prove that Μ‚ π‘₯ = Μƒ π‘₯ .
Indeed, for any 𝑧 ∈ F i x ( 𝑇 ) , 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 + 1 ξ€Έ , 𝑧 ≀ 𝛼 𝑛 𝑑 2 ξ€· ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑧 , 𝑓 𝑛 + ξ€· ξ€Έ ξ€Έ 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑧 , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ ≀ 𝛼 𝑛 𝑑 2 ξ€· ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑧 , 𝑓 𝑛 + ξ€· ξ€Έ ξ€Έ 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑧 , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€· 1 βˆ’ 𝛼 𝑛 ξ€Έ 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ . ( 2 . 3 1 )
Let πœ‡ be a Banach limit. Then, πœ‡ 𝑛 𝑑 2 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 + 1 ξ€Έ , 𝑧 ≀ πœ‡ 𝑛 𝑑 2 ξ€· ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑧 , 𝑓 𝑛 ξ€Έ ξ€Έ βˆ’ πœ‡ 𝑛 𝑑 2 ξ€· 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , 𝑇 π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ . ( 2 . 3 2 )
Since π‘₯ 𝑛 β†’ Μ‚ π‘₯ , we obtain that 𝑑 2 ( Μ‚ π‘₯ , 𝑧 ) ≀ 𝑑 2 ( 𝑧 , 𝑓 ( Μ‚ π‘₯ ) ) βˆ’ 𝑑 2 ( 𝑓 ( Μ‚ π‘₯ ) , Μ‚ π‘₯ ) . ( 2 . 3 3 ) It follows that 𝑑 2 ( 𝑓 ( Μ‚ π‘₯ ) , Μ‚ π‘₯ ) ≀ 𝑑 2 ( 𝑧 , 𝑓 ( Μ‚ π‘₯ ) ) , ( 2 . 3 4 ) that is to say, Μ‚ π‘₯ = 𝑃 F i x ( 𝑇 ) 𝑓 ( Μ‚ π‘₯ ) . Since 𝑃 F i x ( 𝑇 ) 𝑓 is a contraction and Μƒ π‘₯ = 𝑃 F i x ( 𝑇 ) 𝑓 ( Μƒ π‘₯ ) , we know that Μ‚ π‘₯ = Μƒ π‘₯ .

Acknowledgment

This paper was supported by NSFC Grant no. 11071279.

References

  1. M. R. Bridson and A. Haefliger, Metric Spaces of Non-Positive Curvature, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1999.
  2. W. A. Kirk, β€œFixed point theorems in CAT(0) spaces and -trees,” Fixed Point Theory and Applications, no. 4, pp. 309–316, 2004. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar
  3. K. S. Brown, Buildings, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 1989.
  4. K. Goebel and S. Reich, Uniform Convexity, Hyperbolic Geometry, and Nonexpansive Mappings, vol. 83 of Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, USA, 1984.
  5. W. A. Kirk, β€œGeodesic geometry and fixed point theory,” in Seminar of Mathematical Analysis (Malaga/Seville, 2002/2003), vol. 64 of Colecc. Abierta, pp. 195–225, University of Seville, Secretary Publication, Seville, Spain, 2003. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  6. W. A. Kirk, β€œGeodesic geometry and fixed point theory. II,” in International Conference on Fixed Point Theory and Applications, pp. 113–142, Yokohama, Japan, Yokohama, 2004. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  7. P. Chaoha and A. Phon-on, β€œA note on fixed point sets in CAT(0) spaces,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 320, no. 2, pp. 983–987, 2006. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  8. S. Dhompongsa, W. Fupinwong, and A. Kaewkhao, β€œCommon fixed points of a nonexpansive semigroup and a convergence theorem for Mann iterations in geodesic metric spaces,” Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 4268–4273, 2009. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  9. S. Dhompongsa, A. Kaewkhao, and B. Panyanak, β€œLim's theorems for multivalued mappings in CAT(0) spaces,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 312, no. 2, pp. 478–487, 2005. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  10. S. Dhompongsa, W. A. Kirk, and B. Panyanak, β€œNonexpansive set-valued mappings in metric and Banach spaces,” Journal of Nonlinear and Convex Analysis, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 35–45, 2007. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  11. S. Dhompongsa, W. A. Kirk, and B. Sims, β€œFixed points of uniformly Lipschitzian mappings,” Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 762–772, 2006. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  12. S. Dhompongsa and B. Panyanak, β€œOn Δ-convergence theorems in CAT(0) spaces,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 2572–2579, 2008. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar
  13. K. Fujiwara, K. Nagano, and T. Shioya, β€œFixed point sets of parabolic isometries of CAT(0)-spaces,” Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 305–335, 2006. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  14. W. A. Kirk and B. Panyanak, β€œA concept of convergence in geodesic spaces,” Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 3689–3696, 2008. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  15. L. Leustean, β€œA quadratic rate of asymptotic regularity for CAT(0)-spaces,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 325, no. 1, pp. 386–399, 2007. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  16. N. Shahzad, β€œInvariant approximations in CAT(0) spaces,” Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 4338–4340, 2009. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  17. N. Shahzad and J. Markin, β€œInvariant approximations for commuting mappings in CAT(0) and hyperconvex spaces,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 337, no. 2, pp. 1457–1464, 2008. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  18. S. Dhompongsa and B. Panyanak, β€œOn δ-convergence theorems in CAT(0) spaces,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 2572–2579, 2008. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar
  19. R. Espínola and A. Fernández-León, β€œCAT(K)-spaces, weak convergence and fixed points,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 353, no. 1, pp. 410–427, 2009. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  20. N. Shioji and W. Takahashi, β€œStrong convergence of approximated sequences for nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 125, no. 12, pp. 3641–3645, 1997. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH
  21. K. Aoyama, Y. Kimura, W. Takahashi, and M. Toyoda, β€œApproximation of common fixed points of a countable family of nonexpansive mappings in a Banach space,” Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 2350–2360, 2007. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH