MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743669250 · doi:10.33993/jnaat382-909

An iterative method for approximating fixed points of Presić nonexpansive mappings

2009· article· en· W2743669250 on OpenAlexaff
Vasile Berinde, Mădălina Pačurar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Numerical Analysis and Approximation Theory · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Variational Analysis
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsFixed pointFixed-point theoremBanach spaceInteger (computer science)Convergence (economics)Discrete mathematicsPure mathematicsMathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some fixed point theorems of Presić type for nonexpansive mappings\(f: X^k\rightarrow X\), where \(k\geq 1\) is an integer, are obtained.The main result of the paper unifies two important fixed point theorems published in the same year, 1965, the first one discovered independently by Browder [F.E. Browder, Nonexpansive nonlinear operators in Banach spaces, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 54 (1965), 1041-1044], Göhde [D. Göhde, Zum Prinzip der kontraktiven Abbildung, Math. Nachr., 30(1965), 251-258] and Kirk [W.A. Kirk, A fixed point theorem for mappings which do not increase distances, Amer. Math. Monthly,72 (1965), 1004-1006], while the second one is due to Presić [S.B. Presić, Sur une classe d' inéquationsaux differences finite et sur la convergence de certaines suites, Publ. Inst. Math. (Beograd)(N.S.), 5(19) (1965),75-78]. In this way we show how amazingly two apparently different beautiful results in mathematics can meet after almost half a century! This appears to be the first attempt to study multi-step iterative methods by means of the fixed point theory of nonexpansive mappings. Several related results in literature are extended, unified and generalized.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Numerical Analysis and Approximation TheorySame topicOptimization and Variational AnalysisFrench-language works237,207