- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Fixed point theorems in spaces with applications
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2014, Article number: 320 (2014)
Abstract
In this paper, noncompact versions of the Fan-Browder fixed point theorem are established. As applications, we obtain new minimax inequalities, a saddle point theorem, a fixed point theorem for single-valued mappings, best approximation theorems, and existence theorems of φ-equilibrium points for multiobjective noncooperative games in the setting of noncompact spaces. These results generalize many well-known theorems in the literature.
MSC:91A10, 47H04, 47H10, 54H25.
1 Introduction
Fixed point theorems for set-valued mappings play a vital role in various fields of pure and applied mathematics. In 1968, Browder [1] proved that every set-valued mapping with convex values and open fibers from a compact Hausdorff topological vector space to a convex space has a continuous selection. By using this selection theorem and the Brouwer fixed point theorem, Browder [1] obtained the famous Browder fixed point theorem which is equivalent to the Fan section theorem established by Fan [2] in 1961. For this reason, the Browder fixed point theorem is also called in the literature the Fan-Browder fixed point theorem. Since then, a body of generalizations and applications of the Fan-Browder fixed point theorem have been extensively investigated by many authors; see, for example, [3–12] and the references therein. In particular, Park [13] discussed some updated unified forms of KKM theorems under the framework of abstract convex spaces, which include hyperconvex spaces as special cases.
We recall that a space is a special metric space and it does not possess any linear structure. Many authors have made a lot of efforts to generalize the fixed point theory from Euclidean spaces to spaces. Recently, a number of authors pay attention to establish fixed point theorems in spaces. Kirk [14, 15] first studied the fixed point theory in spaces. Since then, many authors have developed the fixed point theory for single-valued and set-valued mappings in the setting of spaces. Dhompongsa et al. [16] proved that a nonexpansive mapping from a nonempty bounded closed convex subset of a space to the family of nonempty compact subsets of the space has a fixed point under suitable conditions. Shahzad [17] obtained fixed point theorems for single-valued and set-valued mappings in spaces or ℝ-trees. By using a Ky Fan type minimax inequality in spaces, Shabanian and Vaezpour [18] proved fixed point theorems and best approximation theorems. More recently, Asadi [19] studied the existence problem of common fixed points for two mappings in spaces. Other results, we refer the reader to the literature of Kirk [20], Shahzad and Markin [21], Shahzad [17], and many others.
We know that both and hyperconvex spaces are two interesting classes of spaces. But a space may not be a hyperconvex, indeed a space is a hyperconvex space if and only if it is a complete ℝ-tree (see Kirk [22] and the references therein).
Inspired and motivated by the results mentioned above, in this paper, we first establish generalized versions of the Fan-Browder fixed point theorem. As applications, new minimax inequalities, a saddle point theorem, a fixed point theorem for single-valued mappings, best approximation theorems, and existence theorems of φ-equilibrium points for multiobjective noncooperative games are obtained in the setting of noncompact spaces.
2 Preliminaries
Let ℝ and ℕ denote the set of all real numbers and the set of natural numbers, respectively. Let X be a set. We will denote by the family of all subsets of X, by the family of nonempty finite subsets of X. Let A be a subset of a topological space X, we will denote the interior of A in X and the closure of A in X by and , respectively. Let X, Y be two nonempty sets and be a set-valued mapping. Then the set-valued mapping is defined by for every .
Now we introduce some notation and concepts related to spaces. For more details, the reader may consult [16–19, 21, 23–29] and the references therein.
Let be a metric space. A geodesic which joints the pair of points is a mapping such that , , and for every . In particular, we have . The image of γ is said to be a geodesic segment joining and . If the segment is unique, then this geodesic segment is denoted by . The metric space is said to be a geodesic space if, for every , there is a geodesic jointing x and y, and is called to be uniquely geodesic if there is only one geodesic segment joining every pair of points .
Let D be a subset of a geodesic space . Then D is said to be convex if every geodesic segment joining any two points in D is contained in D.
A geodesic triangle Δ in a geodesic metric space consists of three points and a geodesic segment between each pair of . All these geodesic segments are called the edges of Δ. A comparison triangle for the geodesic triangle Δ in is a triangle in the Euclidean plane which consists of three vertices . The triangle has the same side lengths as Δ. That is,
We point out that such a comparison triangle always exists (see [23]). A geodesic space is said to be a space if the equality holds for every and every . Every space is uniquely geodesic (see [23]).
Let x, , be points in a space and be the midpoint of the segment . Then the inequality implies the following inequality,
which is called the (CN) inequality of Bruhat and Tits [30].
A subset of a space equipped with the induced metric, is a space if and only if it is convex (see [23]). Let be a space and . Niculescu and Rovenţa [29] introduced the notion of a convex hull of D as follows:
where and for , the set consists of all points in E which lie on geodesics which start and end in .
Definition 2.2 ([29])
Let D be a nonempty subset of a space . A set-valued mapping is called to be a KKM mapping if
Let K be a nonempty subset of a topological space X. If every continuous mapping has a fixed point, then K is said to have the fixed point property.
Definition 2.3 ([18])
A space is said to have the convex hull finite property if the closed convex hull of every nonempty finite subset of E has the fixed point property.
Lemma 2.1 ([29])
Let be a complete space with the convex hull finite property and X be a nonempty subset of E. Suppose that is a KKM mapping with closed values and is compact for some . Then .
Lemma 2.2 Let be a complete metric space. Then E is a geodesic space if and only if for every , there exists such that .
Proof The proof of sufficiency can be found in [[23], p.4]. Therefore, it suffices to prove the necessity. By the definition of a geodesic space, for every , there exists a mapping such that , , and for every . Take and . Then we have and . Since , it follows that . This completes the proof. □
Lemma 2.3 ([23])
A geodesic space is a space if and only if it satisfies the (CN) inequality.
Lemma 2.4 ([31])
Every locally compact space has the convex hull finite property.
Lemma 2.5 ([25])
Let be a space and let . Then, for every , there exists a unique point such that and .
From now on, we will use the notation for the unique point z in Lemma 2.5.
Lemma 2.6 ([25])
Let be a space and let such that . Then .
3 Fixed point theorems
In this section, we will develop four new versions of fixed point theorems in noncompact spaces.
Theorem 3.1 Let be a complete space with the convex hull finite property, K be a nonempty compact subset of E, and be two set-valued mappings such that
-
(i)
for every , and is convex;
-
(ii)
for every , is open in E;
-
(iii)
for every , ;
-
(iv)
one of the following conditions holds:
-
(iv)1 for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of E containing N such that
-
(iv)2 there exists a point such that .
-
Then there exists such that .
Proof We distinguish the following two cases (iv)1 and (iv)2 for the proof.
Case (iv)1. Suppose the contrary. Then, for every , we have . Define by
We will prove that the family has the finite intersection property. Let be given. Then, by (iv)1, there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of E containing N. Furthermore, we define two set-valued mappings by
By (i) and (ii), for every . Since is compact and every is relatively closed in , it follows that every is compact. Now we show that the mapping defined by
is a KKM mapping. Suppose the contrary. Then there exist and such that
Hence, we have and . Therefore, we have by (i), which is a contradiction. Hence, is a KKM mapping and so is . By Lemma 2.1 and (iv)1, we have
Taking leads to
which implies that the family has the finite intersection property. By the compactness of K, we have . Since for every , it follows that
By (iii), for every , and so, , which is a contradiction. Therefore, there exists such that . This completes the proof.
Case (iv)2. Suppose the contrary. Then, for every , . Now let us define two set-valued mappings by
By (i) and (ii), for every . We show that is a KKM mapping. That is, for every , . Otherwise, there exist and a point such that . It follows that . Therefore, . Since is convex by (i), , which is a contradiction. Hence, is a KKM mapping. By the definition of , is closed in E for every . By (iv)2, there exists a point such that
which implies that is compact. Then, by Lemma 2.1, we get
Therefore, we have
Taking , we have and for every . Hence, we have , which contradicts (iii). Therefore, there exists such that . This completes the proof. □
Remark 3.1 Theorem 3.1 can be regarded as a generalization of the Fan-Browder fixed point theorem on Euclidean spaces to spaces without any linear structure. Theorem 3.1 is different from Theorem 1 of Browder [1], Theorem 1 of Yannelis [3], and Theorem 2.4‴ of Tan and Yuan [32], which are established in the setting of topological vector spaces.
Remark 3.2 If only (iv)1 of Theorem 3.1 holds, then the E in Theorem 3.1 does not need to possess the convex hull finite property. In fact, from the first part of the proof of Theorem 3.1, we can see that for every , is a nonempty compact convex subset of E and thus, it is a compact space with the induced metric. Hence, by Lemma 2.4, has the convex hull finite property. The key approach to the first part of the proof of Theorem 3.1 is to define two set-valued mappings on each and then apply the KKM lemma on . Therefore, the E in Theorem 3.1 does not need to have the convex hull finite property.
Remark 3.3 If , then (iv)1 and (iv)2 of Theorem 3.1 can be replaced by the following equivalent conditions, respectively:
for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of E containing N such that ;
there exists a point such that .
Theorem 3.2 Let be a complete space with the convex hull finite property, K be a nonempty compact subset of E, and be two set-valued mappings such that
-
(i)
for every , and is convex;
-
(ii)
;
-
(iii)
one of the following conditions holds:
-
(iii)1 for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of E containing N such that
-
(iii)2 there exists a point such that .
-
Then there exists such that .
Proof Define by for every . By (i), we have for every . By the definition of , we have for every , which is open in E. By (ii) and by the definition of , we know that for every . Thus, all the hypotheses of Theorem 3.1 for and G are satisfied. Hence, by Theorem 3.1 for and G, the conclusion of Theorem 3.2 holds. □
Remark 3.4 We have shown that Theorem 3.1 implies Theorem 3.2. It is evident that Theorem 3.2 implies Theorem 3.1. Therefore, Theorem 3.1 is equivalent to Theorem 3.2.
By Theorem 3.1, we have the following maximal element theorem.
Theorem 3.3 Let be a complete space with the convex hull finite property, K be a nonempty compact subset of E, and be two set-valued mappings such that
-
(i)
for every , and is convex;
-
(ii)
for every , is open in E;
-
(iii)
for every , ;
-
(iv)
one of the following conditions holds:
-
(iv)1 for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of E containing N such that
-
(iv)2 there exists a point such that .
-
Then there exists such that .
Proof Suppose to the contrary that for every . Then, by Theorem 3.1, there exists such that , which contradicts (iii) of Theorem 3.3. Therefore, the conclusion of Theorem 3.3 holds. This completes the proof. □
Remark 3.5 Theorem 3.3 is equivalent to Theorem 3.1. We have shown that Theorem 3.1 implies Theorem 3.3. So, it suffices to show that Theorem 3.3 implies Theorem 3.1. Suppose not. Then, for every , . By Theorem 3.3, there exists such that , which contradicts (iii) of Theorem 3.1. Therefore, the conclusion of Theorem 3.1 holds.
Remark 3.6 Theorem 3.3 is established in the setting of noncompact spaces which include Hadamard manifolds as special cases (see [23, 33] and the references therein). Therefore, Theorem 3.3 generalizes Theorem 3.1 of Yang and Pu [34] from Hadamard manifolds to noncompact spaces. We point out that the proof of Theorem 3.3 is different from that of Theorem 3.1 of Yang and Pu [34].
Let I be a finite index set and be a family of metric spaces, where is the metric of for every . Let be the product space , where d is the metric of E. For every , every , and every , let denote the open ball centered at with radius r. For every and every , let denote the open ball centered at x with radius r.
By Theorem 3.1, we have the following collectively fixed point theorem in noncompact spaces.
Theorem 3.4 Let be a family of complete locally compact spaces, where I is a finite index set. Let K be a nonempty compact subset of . For every , let be two set-valued mappings such that
-
(i)
for every and every , and is convex;
-
(ii)
for every and every , is open in E;
-
(iii)
for every and every , ;
-
(iv)
one of the following conditions holds:
-
(iv)1 for every and every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of containing such that, for every , there exist and such that
where ;
-
(iv)2 there exists a point such that .
-
Then there exists such that for every .
Proof Let . Define by
We prove Theorem 3.4 in the following four steps.
Step 1. Show that is a metric space.
In fact, it suffices to check the triangle inequality; that is, for every , we have . In order to prove it, we have to show that
By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have
Thus, we get
Since for every , it follows from the above inequality that .
Step 2. Show that is a complete locally compact space.
Firstly, we show that the topology associated with the metric d is the product topology on E. In fact, for every , let . Then δ is a metric of E and we have
Therefore, the metric δ is equivalent to d and hence, . For every and every , we have . In fact, for every . So, for every . We can see that the collection forms a base for and the collection forms a base for the product topology on E. Hence, also forms a base for the product topology on E. Therefore, the topology associated to the metric d is the product topology on E.
Secondly, we prove that E is a complete space. In fact, let be a Cauchy sequence with points . Thus, for every , there is a positive integer such that for all positive integers and , . Hence, for every , whenever and , which implies that, for every , is a Cauchy sequence in . Since every is a complete metric space, it follows that for every . Let be arbitrarily given. For every , there exists a positive integer such that
Consequently, we have
Thus, , which implies that E is a complete metric space.
Finally, we show that E is a locally compact space. Let be an arbitrary point. Since every is a locally compact space, it follows that, for every , there exists such that is compact. Let . Then we have , which implies that
Since is compact and is closed, it follows that is compact. Hence, E is locally compact.
Step 3. Show that is a space.
For every . Since every is a complete space and thus, it is a geodesic space, it follows from Lemma 2.2 that there exists such that for every . Let . Then we have
Hence, by Lemma 2.2 again, E is a geodesic space. Now we claim that E satisfies the (CN) inequality. In fact, let and with . We show that for every . Let α and β be two numbers satisfying . Then with equality if and only if . By this fact and by the triangle inequality, we get
We can see that the left of the above inequality equals if and only if for every . Adding these inequalities leads to
that is, . Since , it follows from the above inequality that for every . Since every is a space, by Lemma 2.3, we have the following (CN) inequality:
Adding these inequalities, we get
which implies that E satisfies the (CN) inequality. By Lemma 2.3 again, we know that E is a space.
Step 4. Prove that there exists such that for every .
By the above steps, we know that E is a complete locally compact space. Thus, by Lemma 2.4, E has the convex hull finite property. Now we define two set-valued mappings by
By (i), for every . For every , we have
Then, by (ii) and by the fact that I is a finite index set, we know that is open in E for every . By (iii), for every , . Suppose that (iv)1 holds. Then, for every and every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of containing and so, is naturally a compact space with the induced metric. By using the same method as in Step 3, we can prove that is a nonempty compact space and hence, it is naturally a nonempty compact convex subset of E. For every and every , we can see that . Therefore, by this fact and by (iv)1, for every , there exist and such that
This implies that . Thus, for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of E containing N such that
Moreover, if (iv)2 is satisfied, then there exists a point such that
Therefore, by Theorem 3.1, there exists such that ; that is, for every . This completes the proof. □
Remark 3.7 We can compare Theorem 3.4 with Theorem 3 of Prokopovych [35] in the following aspects: (1) every in Theorem 3.4 does not need to be compact and it does not possess any linear structure; (2) in Theorem 3.4, there are two set-valued mappings, but there is only one set-valued mapping in Theorem 3 of Prokopovych [35]; (3) (iii) of Theorem 3.4 is weaker than the corresponding condition of Theorem 3 of Prokopovych [35] because the domain of every does not need to be E.
4 Minimax inequalities with applications
In this section, by using Theorem 3.1, we will give minimax inequalities in noncompact spaces. As applications of minimax inequalities, we obtain a saddle point theorem, a fixed point theorem for single-valued mappings, and best approximation theorems in the setting of noncompact spaces.
Theorem 4.1 Let be a complete space with the convex hull finite property, K be a nonempty compact subset of E, and be two functions such that
-
(i)
for every , ;
-
(ii)
for every , the set is convex;
-
(iii)
for every , is lower semicontinuous on E;
-
(iv)
for every , ;
-
(v)
one of the following conditions holds:
-
(v)1 for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of E containing N such that
-
(v)2 there exists a point such that .
-
Then there exists such that for every .
Proof Define two set-valued mappings by
By (i) and (ii), and is convex for every . By (iii), is open in E for every . It follows from (v) and the definition of G that one of the following conditions holds:
-
(a)
for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of E containing N such that
-
(b)
there exists a point such that .
By (iv), for every , which implies that the conclusion of Theorem 3.1 does not hold. Hence, (iii) of Theorem 3.1 is not true. So, there exists such that , which implies that for every . This completes the proof. □
Remark 4.1 If , then (v)1 and (v)2 of Theorem 4.1 can be replaced by the following equivalent conditions, respectively:
for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of E containing N such that ;
there exists a point such that .
Remark 4.2 (ii) of Theorem 4.1 can be replaced by the following condition:
(ii)′ Let be given. For every and every , we have
In fact, we can show that (ii)′ implies (ii) of Theorem 4.1. Suppose to the contrary that (ii) of Theorem 4.1 does not hold; that is, for every given , there exist and the unique geodesic γ joining and such that and . By Lemma 2.6, there exists such that . Therefore, by (ii)′ and by the fact that , we have
which is a contraction. Hence, (ii) of Theorem 4.1 holds.
Remark 4.3 Theorem 3.1 is equivalent to Theorem 4.1. We have shown that Theorem 3.1 implies Theorem 4.1. Now we show that Theorem 4.1 implies Theorem 3.1. Suppose that all the hypotheses of Theorem 3.1 are satisfied. Define two real-valued functions by
By (i) of Theorem 3.1, for every , and the set is convex for every . For every and every , we have
Hence, by (ii) of Theorem 3.1, for every and every , the set is open in E, which implies that for every , the function is lower semicontinuous on E. If the conclusion of Theorem 3.1 were not true, then, for every , we have . Suppose that (iv)1 of Theorem 3.1 holds. Then, by (iv)1 of Theorem 3.1 and by the definition of g, we know that, for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of E containing N such that
If (iv)2 of Theorem 3.1 holds, then, by (iv)2 of Theorem 3.1 and by the definition of g, there exists a point such that . Thus, all the hypotheses of Theorem 4.1 are satisfied. By Theorem 4.1, there exists such that for every . Therefore, for every , which implies that . This contradicts (iii) of Theorem 3.1. Hence, the conclusion of Theorem 3.1 must hold.
Remark 4.4 Theorem 4.1 generalizes Theorem 5.3 of Yang and Pu [34] in the following aspects: (1) The underlying spaces of Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 5.3 of Yang and Pu [34] are spaces and Hadamard manifolds, respectively. We can see that spaces include Hadamard manifolds as special cases (see [23]); (2) the E in Theorem 4.1 does not need to be compact; (3) in Theorem 4.1, there are two functions, but there is only one function in Theorem 5.3 of Yang and Pu [34].
Remark 4.5 By Remarks 3.5 and 4.3, we know that Theorem 3.1, Theorem 3.3 and Theorem 4.1 are equivalent.
Corollary 4.1 Let C be a closed convex subset of a complete space with the convex hull finite property, K be a nonempty compact subset of C, and be two functions. Suppose that and the following conditions are fulfilled:
-
(i)
for every , ;
-
(ii)
for every , the set is convex;
-
(iii)
for every , is lower semicontinuous on C;
-
(iv)
one of the following conditions holds:
-
(iv)1 for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of C containing N such that
-
(iv)2 there exists a point such that
-
Then there exists such that for every .
Proof Since C is a closed convex subset of the complete space with the convex finite property, it follows that C equipped with the induced metric is also a complete space with the convex hull finite property. Define two functions by
We can easily check that , satisfy all the hypotheses of Theorem 4.1. Therefore, by Theorem 4.1, we infer that there exists such that for every ; that is, for every . This completes the proof. □
Remark 4.6 Corollary 4.1 generalizes Theorem 3.3 of Shabanian and Vaezpour [18] in the following aspects: (1) the set C in Corollary 4.1 does not need to be compact; (2) (ii) of Corollary 4.1 is weaker than the corresponding (2) of Theorem 3.3 of Shabanian and Vaezpour [18]; (3) in Corollary 4.1, there are two functions, but there is only one function in Theorem 3.3 of Shabanian and Vaezpour [18].
By Theorem 4.1, we get the following saddle point theorem in spaces.
Theorem 4.2 Let be a complete space with the convex hull finite property, be two nonempty compact sets, and be a real-valued continuous function. Assume that
-
(i)
for every , ;
-
(ii)
for every , the set is convex;
-
(iii)
for every , the set is convex;
-
(iv)
one of the following conditions holds:
-
(iv)1 for every , there exist two nonempty compact convex subsets , of E containing N such that
and
-
(iv)2 there exist two points such that
-
Then f has a saddle point ; that is, for every . In particular, .
Proof By (i), (ii), the continuity of f, the first parts of (iv)1 and (iv)2, and Remark 4.1, we can see that all the conditions of Theorem 4.1 with are satisfied. Thus, by Theorem 4.1 with , there exists such that for every . Let be defined by for every . Then by (i), (iii), the continuity of f, the second parts of (iv)1 and (iv)2, and Remark 4.1, we can see that all the hypotheses of Theorem 4.1 with are fulfilled. Hence, by Theorem 4.1 with , there exists such that for every . Therefore, we get
and so
Since is always true, we have
This completes the proof. □
By Theorem 4.1, we have the following best approximation theorem in spaces.
Theorem 4.3 Let be a complete space, be a closed locally compact convex set, be a continuous mapping. Suppose that there exists a nonempty compact subset K of C such that one of the following conditions holds:
(i)1 for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of C containing N such that
(i)2 there exists a point such that
Then there exists such that .
Proof Since C is a closed locally compact convex subset of E, it follows that C with the induced metric is a complete locally compact space. By Lemma 2.4, C has the convex hull finite property. Define a function by
Since H is continuous, it is evident that, for every , the function is lower semicontinuous. For every , . By the assumption and by the definition of f, we know that one of the following conditions holds:
-
(a)
for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of C containing N such that ;
-
(b)
there exists a point such that .
It remains to prove that for every fixed , the set is convex. Suppose to the contrary that there exist two points , the unique geodesic jointing , , and such that , which implies that . Since , it follows that
Hence, we have
where denotes the open ball centered at with radius . Since every ball in the space is convex (see [23]), it follows that
which implies that ; that is, . This contradicts . Therefore, for every , the set is convex. Thus, by Remark 4.1, all the requirements of Theorem 4.1 with are fulfilled. Hence, by Theorem 4.1 with , there exists such that for every ; that is, for every , which implies that . This completes the proof. □
Remark 4.7 Theorem 4.3 generalizes Theorem 3.1 of Shabanian and Vaezpour [18] in the following aspects: (1) the C in Theorem 4.3 does not need to be compact; (2) the E in Theorem 4.3 does not need to have the convex hull finite property. We point out that the proof of Theorem 4.3 is different from that of Theorem 3.1 of Shabanian and Vaezpour [18].
As an application of Theorem 4.3, we have the following fixed point theorem for single-valued mappings.
Theorem 4.4 Let be a complete space, be a closed locally compact convex set, K be a nonempty compact subset of C, and be a continuous mapping such that
-
(i)
for every with , there exists such that
where denotes the open ball centered at with radius ;
-
(ii)
one of the following conditions holds:
-
(ii)1 for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of C containing N such that
-
(ii)2 there exists a point such that
-
Then there exists such that .
Proof It follows from Theorem 4.3 that there exists a point such that . We show that is a fixed point of H. Suppose not. Then by (i), there exists such that . Take . Then we have and
which contradicts the fact that . Therefore, is a fixed point of H. This completes the proof. □
Remark 4.8 Theorem 4.4 generalizes Theorem 3.2 of Shabanian and Vaezpour [18] in the following aspects: (1) the E in Theorem 4.4 does not need to have the convex hull finite property; (2) the C in Theorem 4.4 does not need to be compact.
By Theorem 4.1, we obtain the following generalized best approximation theorem.
Theorem 4.5 Let be a complete space, be a closed locally compact convex set, K be a nonempty compact subset of C, and be two upper semicontinuous set-valued mappings with nonempty compact values. Assume that
-
(i)
for every , the set is convex;
-
(ii)
one of the following conditions holds:
-
(ii)1 for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of C containing N such that
-
(ii)2 there exists a point such that
-
Then there exists such that .
Proof Since C is a closed locally compact convex subset of E, we know that C with the induced metric is a complete locally compact space. So, by Lemma 2.4, C has the convex hull finite property. Define a function by
In order to prove that the function is lower semicontinuous for every , it suffices to show that, for every and for every , the set is closed. Let , be fixed and let be an arbitrary sequence such that as . Let be arbitrary. Since G is an upper semicontinuous set-valued mapping with nonempty compact values, it follows from the result of Aubin and Frankowska [[36], p.39] that there exists such that for every , , where and denote the open ball centered at with radius η and the open ball centered at x with radius , respectively. By the convergence of sequence , we know that there exists such that for every , we have and thus, . Similarly, we can prove that there exists such that for every , . Now we let . Then, for every , we have the following:
By the arbitrariness of ε, we have , which implies that and thus, the set is closed. Therefore, for every , the function is lower semicontinuous. For every , we have . By (i), for every , the set is convex. By the assumption and by the definition of f, we know that one of the following conditions holds:
-
(a)
for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of C containing N such that ;
-
(b)
there exists a point such that .
By Remark 4.1, all the requirements of Theorem 4.1 with are satisfied. Hence, by Theorem 4.1 with , there exists such that for every ; that is, for every , which implies that . This completes the proof. □
Remark 4.9 Theorem 4.5 generalizes Theorem 3.4 of Shabanian and Vaezpour [18] in the following aspects: (1) the C in Theorem 4.5 does not need to be compact; (2) the E in Theorem 4.5 does not need to have the convex hull finite property; (3) the set-valued mappings G, H in Theorem 4.5 do not need to have convex values; (4) the condition that the set-valued mapping G in Theorem 3.4 of Shabanian and Vaezpour [18] is quasi-convex is removed. We point out that the proof of Theorem 4.5 is different from that of Theorem 3.4 of Shabanian and Vaezpour [18].
Remark 4.10 Theorem 4.5 can be regarded as a generalization of Theorem 4.3. In fact, let for every and H be a single-valued continuous mapping. Then by using the same method as in the proof Theorem 4.3, we can show that (i) of Theorem 4.5 holds and thus, Theorem 4.5 reduces to Theorem 4.3.
5 Existence of φ-equilibrium for multiobjective games
In this section, we will consider the multiobjective noncooperative game in its strategic form , where is the set of players; every is the strategy set of the i th player and every is the payoff function of the i th player with being a positive integer. If an action combination is played, every player i is trying to confirm his/her vector payoff function and then minimize his/her vector payoff function according to his/her preference.
Before we introduce the equilibrium concepts of multiobjective noncooperative games, we give the following notation.
For every , let and denote the nonnegative orthant of and the nonempty interior of with the Euclidian metric topology, respectively. For every , let denote the standard Euclidean inner product.
We denote for every . If , then we write for every . We use the following notation
Let and let be a surjective mapping defined by
Now we introduce the following definitions.
Definition 5.1 A strategy of player i is said to be a Pareto efficient φ-strategy (respectively, a weak Pareto efficient φ-strategy) with respect to if there is no strategy such that
Definition 5.2 A strategy is said to be a Pareto φ-equilibrium (respectively, a weak Pareto φ-equilibrium) of a game if, for every , is a Pareto efficient φ-strategy (respectively, a weak Pareto efficient φ-strategy) with respect to .
Remark 5.1 Definitions 5.1-5.2 generalize the corresponding definitions of Wang [37], Yuan and Tarafdar [38], and Yu and Yuan [39]. In fact, if for every and every , then Definitions 5.1-5.2 coincide with the corresponding definitions of Wang [37], Yuan and Tarafdar [38], and Yu and Yuan [39]. By the above definition, we can see that every Pareto φ-equilibrium is a weak Pareto φ-equilibrium, but the converse is not true in general.
Definition 5.3 A strategy is said to be a weighted Nash φ-equilibrium with respect to the weighted vector of a game if, for every , we have
-
(i)
;
-
(ii)
for every .
Remark 5.2 If for every and every , then Definition 5.3 reduces to Definition 2.3 of Wang [37] and Definition 3 of Yuan and Tarafdar [38] and Yu and Yuan [39]. In particular, if with for every , then the strategy is said to be a normalized weighted Nash φ-equilibrium with respect to Q.
As an application of Theorem 4.1, we have the following existence theorem of weighted Nash φ-equilibrium for multiobjective noncooperative games in the setting of noncompact spaces.
Theorem 5.1 Let be a multiobjective game with . For every , let be a nonempty subset of a space such that is a complete space with the convex hull finite property. Let K be a nonempty compact subset of X and be a surjective mapping. Assume that there is a weighted vector with every such that the following conditions are satisfied:
-
(i)
for every , the set is convex;
-
(ii)
for every , the function is lower semicontinuous on X;
-
(iii)
for every , ;
-
(iv)
one of the following conditions holds:
-
(iv)1 for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of X containing N such that
-
(iv)2 there exists a point such that
-
Then Γ has at least one weight Nash φ-equilibrium in K with respect to the weight vector Q.
Proof Following the method by Nikaido and Isoda [40], we define the function by
By (i), for every , the set is convex. By (ii), for every , the function is lower semicontinuous on X. By (iii), for every , we have . Suppose that (iv)1 holds. Then by (iv)1 and by the definition of S, we know that, for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of X containing N such that
If (iv)2 is satisfied, then it follows from (iv)2 and from the definition of S that there exists a point such that
Thus, by Remark 4.1, all the requirements of Theorem 4.1 with are satisfied. Hence, by Remark 4.1 and by Theorem 4.1 with , there exists such that for every ; that is,
For every given and , let . Then we have
Therefore, for every and every ; that is, is a weighted Nash φ-equilibrium of the game Γ with respect to Q. This completes the proof. □
Remark 5.3 Theorem 5.1 is a new result, which is different from Theorem 3.1 of Wang [37], Theorem 1 of Yuan and Tarafdar [38], Theorem 3 of Yu and Yuan [39], and Theorem 1 of Borm et al. [41]. The main difference is that the underlying strategy spaces in Theorem 5.1 are spaces which do not possess any linear structure. In addition, on the basis of an existence theorem for weighted Nash equilibrium for multiobjective noncooperative games in the setting of compact finite dimensional spaces, Lu [42] analyzed the phenomena for the water resources utilizing conflicts among the water users in the lower reaches of Tarim River Basin and revealed the underlying causes of water shortage and water quality deterioration of the lower reaches of Tarim River Basin. We point out that the underlying strategy spaces of multiobjective noncooperative game models in [42] are compact finite dimensional spaces and the payoff functions of players are continuous, which restrict the applicable area of models. In fact, in real world, the situation that the underlying strategy spaces of players are noncompact and nonlinear spaces and the payoff functions of players are discontinuous is very common. So, the multiobjective noncooperative game models in [42] cannot be used to analyze many conflict problems under the situation mentioned above. In contrast with the multiobjective noncooperative game models in [42], the multiobjective noncooperative game model in Theorem 5.1 has two advantages; that is, the strategy spaces of players do not possess any linear and compact structure and the payoff functions of players need not to be continuous. Therefore, by using Theorem 5.1, we can deal with a lot of conflict problems existing in resource utilizing and management under much more mild conditions.
Remark 5.4 (ii) of Theorem 5.1 can be replaced by the following conditions:
(ii)′ for every , the function is upper semicontinuous on X;
(ii)″ the function is jointly lower semicontinuous on .
If for every , then, by Theorem 5.1, we have the following existence result of Nash φ-equilibrium for noncooperative games.
Corollary 5.1 Let be a noncooperative game with every being the payoff function of player i. For every , let be a nonempty subset of a space such that is a complete space with the convex hull finite property. Let K be a nonempty compact subset of X and be a surjective mapping. Assume that
-
(i)
for every , the set is convex;
-
(ii)
for every , the function is lower semicontinuous on X;
-
(iii)
for every , ;
-
(iv)
one of the following conditions holds:
-
(iv)1 for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of X containing N such that
-
(iv)2 there exists a point such that
-
Then Γ has a Nash φ-equilibrium in K.
Remark 5.5 It is interesting to compare Corollary 5.1 with Theorem 4 of Niculescu and Rovenţa [29] in the following aspects: (1) every in Corollary 5.1 is a nonempty subset of a space and it does not need to be compact, where all are possibly different; (2) every function in Corollary 5.1 does not need to be lower semicontinuous and quasi-convex; (3) the mapping φ in Corollary 5.1 does not need to be continuous and affine.
By Theorem 5.1, we can derive an existence theorem of Pareto φ-equilibrium for multiobjective noncooperative games. In order to do so, we need the following lemma. The proof of this lemma is similar to that of Lemma 2.1 of Wang [37]. For the sake of completeness, we give the proof.
Lemma 5.1 Every normalized weighted Nash φ-equilibrium with a weight , (respectively, ) and for every , is a weak Pareto φ-equilibrium (respectively, a Pareto φ-equilibrium) of the game .
Proof Let be a normalized weight Nash φ-equilibrium of the game with a weight , and for every . We can prove that is a weak Pareto φ-equilibrium. In fact, suppose the contrary. Then it follows from Definition 5.2 that there exist and such that
Since , it follows that , which contradicts the assumption that is a normalized weighted Nash φ-equilibrium with the weight . Hence, is a weak Pareto φ-equilibrium. Now let be a normalized weight Nash φ-equilibrium of the game with a weight , and for every . We can show that is a Pareto φ-equilibrium. In fact, if it were not the case, then by Definition 5.2, we know that there exist and such that
Since , it follows that , which contradicts the assumption that is a normalized weighted Nash φ-equilibrium with the weight . Hence, is a Pareto φ-equilibrium. This completes the proof. □
Remark 5.6 The conclusion of Lemma 5.1 is still true if is a weighted Nash φ-equilibrium with a weight satisfying (respectively, ) for every . We point out that a Pareto φ-equilibrium is not necessarily a weighted Nash φ-equilibrium.
Theorem 5.2 Let be a multiobjective game with . For every , let be a nonempty subset of a space such that is a complete space with the convex hull finite property. Let K be a nonempty compact subset of X and be a surjective mapping. Assume that there is a weighted vector with every such that the following conditions are satisfied:
-
(i)
for every , the set is convex;
-
(ii)
for every , the function is lower semicontinuous on X;
-
(iii)
for every , ;
-
(iv)
one of the following conditions holds:
-
(iv)1 for every , there exists a nonempty compact convex subset of X containing N such that
-
(iv)2 there exists a point such that
-
Then Γ has at least one weak Pareto φ-equilibrium in K. In addition, if with each , then Γ has at least one Pareto φ-equilibrium in K.
Proof It follows from Theorem 5.1 that Γ has at least a weighted Nash φ-equilibrium point with respect to the weighted vector Q. By Lemma 5.1 and by Remark 5.6, we know that is also a weak Pareto φ-equilibrium point of Γ, and is a Pareto φ-equilibrium point if for every . This completes the proof. □
References
Browder FE: The fixed point theory of multi-valued mappings in topological vector spaces. Math. Ann. 1968, 177: 283-301. 10.1007/BF01350721
Fan K: A generalization of Tychonoff’s fixed point theorem. Math. Ann. 1961, 142: 305-310. 10.1007/BF01353421
Yannelis NC: Maximal elements over non-compact subsets of linear topological spaces. Econ. Lett. 1985, 17: 133-136. 10.1016/0165-1765(85)90143-0
Mehta G: Maximal elements for non-transitive binary relations. Econ. Lett. 1984, 14: 163-165. 10.1016/0165-1765(84)90077-6
Yuan GX-Z: KKM Theory and Applications in Nonlinear Analysis. Dekker, New York; 1999.
Yuan GX-Z: The study of equilibria for abstract economics in topological vector spaces - a unified approach. Nonlinear Anal. 1999, 37: 409-430. 10.1016/S0362-546X(98)00055-8
Lin LJ, Cheng SF: Nash-type equilibrium theorems and competitive Nash-type equilibrium theorems. Comput. Math. Appl. 2002, 44: 1360-1378.
Luo Q: Ky Fan’s section theorem and its applications in topological ordered spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 2004, 17: 1113-1119. 10.1016/j.aml.2003.12.003
Lin LJ: Variational relation problems and equivalent forms of generalized Fan-Browder fixed point theorem with applications to Stampacchia equilibrium problems. J. Glob. Optim. 2012, 53: 215-229. 10.1007/s10898-011-9676-3
Kum S, Wong MM: An extension of a generalized equilibrium problem. Taiwan. J. Math. 2011, 15: 1667-1675.
Raj VS, Somasundaram S: KKM-type theorems for best proximity points. Appl. Math. Lett. 2012, 25: 496-499. 10.1016/j.aml.2011.09.044
Park S: Evolution of the 1984 KKM theorem of Ky Fan. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012. Article ID 146, 2012: Article ID 146
Park S: A genesis of general KKM theorems for abstract convex spaces: revised. J. Nonlinear Anal. Optim. 2013,4(1):127-132.
Kirk WA: Some recent results in metric fixed point theory. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2007,2007(2):195-207.
Kirk WA: Remarks on approximates fixed points. Nonlinear Anal. 2012, 75: 4632-4636. 10.1016/j.na.2011.07.021
Dhompongsa S, Kaewkhao A, Panyanak B:Lim’s theorems for multivalued mappings in spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2005, 312: 478-487. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.03.055
Shahzad N:Fixed point results for multimaps in spaces. Topol. Appl. 2009, 156: 997-1001. 10.1016/j.topol.2008.11.016
Shabanian S, Vaezpour SM:A minimax inequality and its applications to fixed point theorems in spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2011. Article ID 61, 2011: Article ID 61 10.1186/1687-1812-2011-61
Asadi M:Fixed points and common fixed points of mappings on spaces. Fixed Point Theory 2013, 14: 29-38.
Kirk WA: Geodesic geometry and fixed point theory. Colecc. Abierta 64. In Seminar of Mathematical Analysis. Univ. Seville Secr. Publ., Seville; 2003: (Malaga/Seville, 2002/2003) 195-225. (Malaga/Seville, 2002/2003)
Shahzad N, Markin J:Invariant approximations for commuting mappings in and hyperconvex spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2008, 337: 1457-1464. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.04.041
Kirk WA: Geodesic geometry and fixed point theory II. In International Conference on Fixed Point Theory and Applications. Yokohama Publ., Yokohama; 2004:113-142.
Bridson MR, Haefliger A: Metric Spaces of Non-Positive Curvature. Springer, Berlin; 1999.
Ballmann W, Brin M: Orbihedra of nonpositive curvature. Publ. Math. IHES 1995, 82: 170-209.
Dhompongsa S, Panyanak B: On Δ -convergence theorems in spaces. Comput. Math. Appl. 2008, 56: 2572-2579. 10.1016/j.camwa.2008.05.036
Burago D, Burago Y, Ivanov S Graduate Studies in Mathematics 33. In A Course in Metric Geometry. Am. Math. Soc., Providence; 2001.
Beg I, Abbas M:An iterative process for a family of asymptotically quasi-nonexpansive mappings in spaces. Novi Sad J. Math. 2011, 41: 149-157.
Beg I, Abbas M:Common fixed point and best approximation in spaces. Southeast Asian Bull. Math. 2012, 36: 11-16.
Niculescu CP, Rovenţa I: Fan’s inequality in geodesic spaces. Appl. Math. Lett. 2009, 22: 1529-1533. 10.1016/j.aml.2009.03.020
Bruhat F, Tits J: Groupes réductifs sur un corps local. I. Données radicielles valuées. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 1972, 41: 5-251. 10.1007/BF02715544
Niculescu CP, Rovenţa I: Schauder fixed point theorem in spaces with global nonpositive curvature. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2009. Article ID 906727, 2009: Article ID 906727 10.1155/2009/906727
Tan KK, Yuan XZ: A minimax inequality with applications to existence of equilibrium points. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 1993, 47: 483-503. 10.1017/S0004972700015318
Şahin A, Başarir M:On the strong convergence of a modified S-iteration process for asymptotically quasi-nonexpansive mappings in a space. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013. Article ID 12, 2013: Article ID 12 10.1186/1687-1812-2013-12
Yang Z, Pu YJ: Existence and stability of solutions for maximal element theorem on Hadamard manifolds with applications. Nonlinear Anal. 2012, 75: 516-525. 10.1016/j.na.2011.08.053
Prokopovych P: On equilibrium existence in payoff secure games. Econ. Theory 2011, 48: 5-16. 10.1007/s00199-010-0526-1
Aubin JP, Frankowska H: Set-Valued Analysis. Birkhäuser Boston, Boston; 1990.
Wang SY: Existence of a Pareto equilibrium. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 1993, 79: 373-384. 10.1007/BF00940586
Yuan XZ, Tarafdar E: Non-compact Pareto equilibria for multiobjective games. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1996, 204: 156-163. 10.1006/jmaa.1996.0429
Yu J, Yuan GX-Z: The study of Pareto equilibria for multiobjective games by fixed point and Ky Fan minimax inequality methods. Comput. Math. Appl. 1998, 35: 17-24.
Nikaido H, Isoda K: Note on non-cooperative convex games. Pac. J. Math. 1955, 5: 807-815. 10.2140/pjm.1955.5.807
Borm PE, Tijs SH, van der Aarssen J: Pareto equilibrium in multiobjective games. Methods Oper. Res. 1990, 60: 303-312.
Lu, HS: Research on utilizing conflicts of water resources and initial water right allocation in a river basin based on game theory. PhD thesis, Hohai University (2007)
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Planning Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences of Ministry of Education of China ‘Research on utilizing conflict of water resources and initial water right allocation in a river basin based on game theory’ (No. 12YJAZH084), the Young & Middle-Aged Academic Leaders Program of the ‘Qinglan Project’ of Jiangsu Province, and by Jiangsu Overseas Research & Training Program for University Prominent Young & Middle-Aged Teachers and Presidents. The corresponding author (the second author) was also supported by the “Six Talent Peaks Project” of Jiangsu Province (No. DZXX-028). The authors would like to thank the referees for their many valuable suggestions and comments which improved the exposition of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally to the writing of this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lu, H., Lan, D., Hu, Q. et al. Fixed point theorems in spaces with applications. J Inequal Appl 2014, 320 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-320
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-320