J Optim Theory Appl (2011) 149: 540553

DOI 10.1007/s10957-011-9803-9
Hlder Continuity of Solutions to Parametric Weak
Generalized Ky Fan Inequality
S.J. Li X.B. Li
Published online: 21 January 2011
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract In this paper, by using a scalarization technique, we obtain sufcient condi-
tions for Hlder continuity of the solution mapping for a parametric weak generalized
Ky Fan Inequality in the case where the solution mapping is a general set-valued one.
The result is different from the recent ones in the literature.
Keywords Ky Fan Inequality Solution mapping Hlder continuity Hausdorff
distance Scalarization
1 Introduction
The Ky Fan Inequality is a very general mathematical format, which embraces the
formats of several disciplines, as those for equilibrium problems of Mathematical
Physics, those from Game Theory, those from (Vector) Optimization and (Vector)
Variational Inequalities, and so on. Since Ky Fan Inequality was introduced in [1], it
has been extended and generalized to vector-valued mappings. The Ky Fan Inequal-
ity for a vector valued mapping is known as the generalized Ky Fan Inequality. In
the literature, existence results for various types of generalized Ky Fan Inequalities
This research was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
number: 10871216), the Ph.D. Programs Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (Grant
number: 20100191120043) and Chongqing University Postgraduates Science and Innovation Fund
(Project Number: 201005B1A0010338). The authors thank the anonymous referees for valuable
comments and suggestions, which helped to improve the paper. The authors also thank Professor
F. Giannessi for helpful comments on a nal version of this paper.
S.J. Li () X.B. Li
College of Mathematics and Statistics, Chongqing University, Chongqing 401331, China
e-mail: lisj@cqu.edu.cn
X.B. Li
e-mail: xiaobinglicq@126.com
J Optim Theory Appl (2011) 149: 540553 541
have been investigated intensively; see [25] and the references therein, where the
generalized Ky Fan Inequalities are called generalized systems or vector equilibrium
problems.
It is well known that stability analysis of solution mapping for Ky Fan Inequal-
ities is an important topic for optimization theory and its applications. Many pa-
pers discussed the semicontinuity of solution mappings (see [68]); however, only a
few results have concerned with the Hlder continuity of solution mappings for per-
turbed variational inequalities and Ky Fan Inequalities. Yen [9] obtained the Hlder
continuity of the unique solution of a classic perturbed variational inequality by the
metric projection method. Mansour and Riahi [10] proved the Hlder continuity of
the unique solution for a parametric Ky Fan Inequality under the concepts of strong
monotonicity and Hlder continuity. Bianchi and Pini [11] introduced the concept of
strong pseudomonotonicity and got the Hlder continuity of the unique solution of
a parametric Ky Fan Inequality. Anh and Khanh [12] generalized the main results
of [11] to two classes of perturbed generalized Ky Fan Inequalities with set-valued
mappings. Anh and Khanh [13] further discussed uniqueness and Hlder continuity
of the solutions for perturbed Ky Fan Inequalities with set-valued mappings. Anh
and Khanh [14] extended the results of [13] to the case of perturbed quasi Ky Fan
Inequalities with set-valued mappings. Obviously, all these results for Hlder conti-
nuity of the solutions are obtained in the case where the solution is unique and under
very strong conditions. For general perturbed (generalized) Ky Fan Inequalities, it is
well known that a solution mapping is, in general, a set-valued one. Under the Haus-
dorff distance and the strong quasimonotonicity, Lee et al. [15] rst showed that the
set-valued solution mapping for a parametric vector variational inequality is Hlder
continuous. Recently, by virtue of the strong quasimonotonicity, Mansour and Aussel
[16] discussed the Hlder continuity of set-valued solution mappings for a paramet-
ric generalized variational inequalities. Then, Li et al. [17] introduced an assumption,
which is weaker than the corresponding ones in the literature, and established the
Hlder continuity of the set-valued solution mappings for two classes of parametric
generalized Ky Fan Inequalities with set-valued mappings in general metric spaces.
Motivated by the work reported in [9, 10, 1217], this paper aims at establishing
the Hlder continuity of a set-valued solution mapping to a parametric weak gener-
alized Fan Ky Inequality, by using a scalarization technique, which is different from
the ones in literature. Our method is based on a scalarization representation of the
solution mapping for a parametric Ky Fan Inequality and a property involving the
union of a family of Hlder continuous set-valued mappings on a compact set. Of
course, the main consequences of our results are different from corresponding ones
in [17] and overcome the drawback of the assumption (ii) of Theorem 3.1 in [17],
which requires the knowledge of detailed values of the solution mapping in a neigh-
borhood of the point under consideration. Moreover, we compare our results with the
corresponding ones in [13, 14] and give some examples to illustrate the application
of our results.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we introduce a parametric
weak generalized Ky Fan Inequality, and dene a weak solution and a -solution
to the parametric weak generalized Ky Fan Inequality. Then, we introduce a Hlder
strongly monotonicity and a Hlder continuity with respect to an interior point of a
542 J Optim Theory Appl (2011) 149: 540553
xed cone. In Sect. 3, we discuss the Hlder continuity of the solution mapping for
the parametric weak generalized Ky Fan Inequality.
2 Preliminaries
In the sequel, and d(, ) denote the norm and metric in any normed space and
metric space, respectively. B(0, ) denotes the closed ball with centre 0 X and
radius 0, int C stands for the interior of C.
Throughout this paper, if not otherwise specied, X, , M will denote three metric
spaces, and Y a linear normed space. Let Y

be the topological dual space of Y. For

any Y

, we introduce := sup{, x : x = 1}, where , x denotes the

value of at y. Let C Y be a pointed, closed and convex cone with int C = .
Let C

:= { Y

: , y 0, y C} be the dual cone of C. Since int C = , the

dual cone C

of C has a weak* compact base. Let e int C. Then, B

e
:= { C

:
, e = 1} is a weak* compact base of C

.
Let N(
0
) and N(
0
) M be neighborhoods of considered points
0
and

0
, respectively. Let K : X be a set-valued mapping and f : X X M Y
be a vector-valued mapping. For each N(
0
) and N(
0
), we consider the
following parametric weak generalized Ky Fan Inequality: Find x
0
K(), such that
f (x
0
, y, ) int C, y K(). (1)
For each N(
0
) and N(
0
), the weak solution set of (1) is
S
W
(, ) := {x K() : f (x, y, ) int C, y K()}.
For each C

\ {0}, N(
0
) and N(
0
), the -solution set of (1) is
S(, , ) := {x K() : , f (x, y, ) 0, y K()}.
Denition 2.1 [18] Let X and Y be two topological spaces, and G : X Y be a
set-valued mapping.
(i) G is said to be upper semicontinuous at x
0
X iff for every open set U with
G(x
0
) U, there is a neighborhood N(x
0
) of x
0
in X such that G(x) U,
x N(x
0
).
(ii) G is said to be lower semicontinuous at x
0
iff for every open set U with G(x
0
)
U = , there is a neighborhood N(x
0
) of x
0
in X such that G(x) U = , x
N(x
0
).
Denition 2.2 [19] Let (E, d) be a metric space and H be a Hausdorff metric on
the collection CB(E) of all nonempty, closed and bounded subsets of E, which is
dened as
H(A, B) := max
_
sup
aA
d(a, B), sup
bB
d(A, b)
_
, A, B CB(E),
where d(a, B) := inf
bB
d(a, b) and d(A, b) := inf
aA
d(a, b).
J Optim Theory Appl (2011) 149: 540553 543
Denition 2.3 A set-valued mapping G: M Y is said to be .-Hlder continuous
at
0
iff there is a neighborhood U(
0
) of
0
, such that,
1
,
2
U(
0
),
G(
1
) G(
2
) +B(0, d

(
1
,
2
)), (2)
where 0 and >0.
Remark 2.1 If G is a set-valued mapping with nonempty, closed and bounded values,
then (2) is equivalent to
H(G(
1
), G(
2
)) d

(
1
,
2
).
Denition 2.4 [14] A vector-valued mapping g : X X Y is called to be
h.-Hlder strongly monotone on K X iff x, y K : x =y,
g(x, y) +g(y, x) +hd

(x, y)B(0, 1) C,
where h >0 and >0.
From [20], we recall the following h.-Hlder strong monotonicity property.
Denition 2.5 A vector-valued mapping g : X X Y is called to be h.-Hlder
strongly monotone with respect to e int C on K X iff x, y K : x =y,
g(x, y) +g(y, x) +hd

(x, y)e C,
where h >0 and >0.
Denition 2.6 A vector-valued mapping g : M Y is said to be .-Hlder contin-
uous with respect to e int C at
0
iff, there is a neighborhood U(
0
) of
0
such
that,
1
,
2
U(
0
),
g(
1
) g(
2
) +d

(
1
,
2
)[e, e],
where 0, >0 and [e, e] := {x: x e C and x e +C}.
Whether e 1 or e 1, Denitions 2.4 and 2.5 do not coincide, as shown by
the following example.
Example 2.1 Let X = R, Y = R
2
, C = R
2
+
. And let K = [1, 2] X, e
1
= (
1
2
,
3
4
)
int R
2
+
, e
2
=(2, 3) int R
2
+
, and f (x, y) =(2x(y x), 3y(x y)). Then, there exist
h = 4 and = 2, such that x, y K : x =y,
f (x, y) +f (y, x) +hd

(x, y)e
1
=(2x(y x), 3y(x y)) +(2y(x y), 3x(y x)) +4|x y|
2
e
1
=(2(x y)
2
, 3(x y)
2
) +4|x y|
2
e
1
=(0, 0) R
2
+
,
544 J Optim Theory Appl (2011) 149: 540553
which implies that f is 4.2-Hlder strongly monotone with respect to e
1
int R
2
+
on K.
However, it clearly follows that
f (x, y) +f (y, x) +hd

(x, y)B(0, 1)
=(2x(y x), 3y(x y)) +(2y(x y), 3x(y x)) +4|x y|
2
B(0, 1)
=(2(x y)
2
, 3(x y)
2
) +4|x y|
2
B(0, 1) R
2
+
.
Therefore, f is not 4.2-Hlder strongly monotone on K. Moreover, f is obviously
2.2-Hlder strongly monotone on K, but not 2.2-Hlder strongly monotone with
respect to e
2
on K.
In [14], Anh and Khanh introduced the assumptions (A2
r
1

) and (A2
r
2

). Under
the assumptions (A2
r
1

) and (A2
r
2

), they obtained the Hlder continuity of the

unique solutions in some neighborhood for two classes of parametric generalized
quasi Ky Fan Inequalities with set-valued mappings, respectively. When f : X
X Y is a vector-valued mapping without parameter and (C) = Y \ int C, the
assumptions (A2
r
1

) and (A2
r
2

) collapse to the following one: x, y K : x =y,

hd

(x, y) d(f (x, y), Y \ int C) +d(f (y, x), Y \ int C). (3)
Of course, assumption (3) is different from the h.-Hlder strongly monotonicity
of f and the h.-Hlder strongly monotonicity of f with respect to e int C, re-
spectively. Let us show that, when f is h.-Hlder strongly monotone or h.-Hlder
strongly monotone with respect to e int C, then assumption (3) may not hold.
Example 2.2 Let X, Y, C, K be given as in Example 2.1. Let e =(1, 1) int R
2
+
and
f (x, y) = (x(y x), y(x y)). For all x, y K : x = y, taking h = 1, = 2, we
have
f (x, y) +f (y, x) +hd

(x, y)B(0, 1)
=(x(y x), y(x y)) +(y(x y), x(y x)) +|x y|
2
B(0, 1)
=((x y)
2
, (x y)
2
) +|x y|
2
B(0, 1) R
2
+
,
i.e., f is 1.2-Hlder strongly monotone on K. Obviously, f is also 1.2-Hlder
strongly monotone with respect to e on K.
However, assumption (3) does not hold. Indeed, let x = 1 and y = 2. Direct com-
putation shows that d(f (1, 2), Y \ int R
2
+
) = 0 and d(f (2, 1), Y \ int R
2
+
) = 0.
But for any h > 0 and > 0, hd

(1, 2) = h > 0. Therefore, assumption (3) is not

satised.
From Lemma 3.1 of [8], we have
J Optim Theory Appl (2011) 149: 540553 545
Lemma 2.1 If for each N(
0
) and x K(N(
0
)), f (x, K(N(
0
)), ) is a C-
convex set, i.e., f (x, K(N(
0
)), ) +C is a convex set, then
S
W
(, ) =
_
C

\{0}
S(, , ) =
_
B

e
S(, , ).
From Proposition 3.1 in [8], we can easily get the following results, which play an
important role in this paper.
Lemma 2.2 Suppose that the following conditions hold:
(i) For each N(
0
) and each x K(N(
0
)), f (x, x, ) C;
(ii) For each N(
0
) and each y K(N(
0
)), f (, y, ) is continuous on
K(N(
0
));
(iii) For each x K(N(
0
)) and each N(
0
), f (x, , ) is C-convex on
K(N(
0
)), i.e., for any y, z K(N(
0
)) and t [0, 1], tf (x, y, ) +
(1 t )f (x, z, ) f (x, ty +(1 t )z, ) +C;
(iv) For each N(
0
), K() is a nonempty, compact and convex set.
Then
(a) For each B

e
C

and (, ) N(
0
) N(
0
), S(, , ) = .
(b) For each (, ) N(
0
) N(
0
), S
W
(, ) is a nonempty compact set.
Proof (a) From the proof of Propositions 3.1 in [8], this result holds. (b) For
each N(
0
), N(
0
) and x K(N(
0
)), since K() is nonempty, convex
and f (x, , ) is C-convex on K(N(
0
)), f (x, K(N(
0
)), ) + C is a convex set.
Thus, by virtue of Lemma 2.1 and (a), we have S
W
(, ) =

\{0}
S(, , ) =

e
S(, , ) = . Arguing as in the proof of Proposition 3.1 of [17], we can
show that S
W
(, ) is compact.
3 Hlder Continuity
In this section, we mainly discuss the Hlder continuity of the solution sets to (1).
To obtain the Hlder continuity of the solution mapping around (
0
,
0
), for each
pairs (
1
,
1
), (
2
,
2
) in N(
0
) N(
0
) of (
0
,
0
), we introduce the following
assumptions:
(H
0
) K() is .-Hlder continuous at
0
.
(H
1
) For each N(
0
), f (, , ) is h.-Hlder strongly monotone with respect
to e int C in K(N(
0
)).
(H
2
) For each N(
0
) and x K(N(
0
)), f (x, , ) is n.-Hlder continuous
with respect to e int C in K(N(
0
)).
(H
3
) For each x, y K(N(
0
)), f (x, y, ) is m. -Hlder continuous with respect
to e int C at
0
.
(H
4
) The function f (, ,
0
) is bounded on K(N(
0
)) K(N(
0
)), i.e., there
exists l >0 such that for any x, y K(N(
0
)), one has f (x, y,
0
) l.
546 J Optim Theory Appl (2011) 149: 540553
Lemma 3.1 Suppose that N(
0
) N(
0
) is the given neighborhood of (
0
,
0
).
Under assumptions (H
1
) and (H
2
), the following properties hold: for each B

e
,
, f (x, y, ) +, f (y, x, ) +hd

(x, y) 0
and
|, f (x, y
1
, ) , f (x, y
2
, )| nd

(y
1
, y
2
).
Proof For any B

e
C

, one has , f (x, y, ) +f (y, x, ) +hd

(x, y)e 0.
Thus, by the linearity of and , e = 1, , f (x, y, ) + , f (y, x, ) +
hd

(x, y) 0 holds. Arguing the same way, for each y

1
, y
2
K(N(
0
)) and B

e
,
we can get
nd

(y
1
, y
2
) , f (x, y
1
, ) , f (x, y
2
, ) nd

(y
1
, y
2
)
implying
, f (x, y
1
, ) , f (x, y
2
, )| nd

(y
1
, y
2
).

Lemma 3.2 Suppose that assumptions (H
3
) and (H
4
) are satised. Then, there exists
a constant l
0
l >0, such that
1
,
2
B

e
,
|
1
, f (x, y,
1
)
2
, f (x, y,
2
)| md

(
1
,
2
) +l
0

1

2
.
Proof By assumption (H
4
), we conclude that
l := sup
(x,y)K(N(
0
))K(N(
0
))
f (x, y,
0
) <+.
Since f (x, y, ) is Hlder continuous at
0
, for any xed > 0, there exits a neigh-
borhood of
0
, denoted without loss of generality by N(
0
), such that,
sup
(x,y,)K(N(
0
))K(N(
0
))N(
0
)
f (x, y, ) l + <+.
Take l
0
:= max{l, l +}, which implies that l
0
l. Then,
f (x, y, ) l
0
, x, y K(N(
0
)), N(
0
). (4)
Now we show that the conclusion holds. Arguing as in the proof of Lemma 3.1, for
each B

e
, we have
md

(
1
,
2
) , f (x, y,
1
) , f (x, y,
2
) md

(
1
,
2
),
that is, |, f (x, y,
1
) , f (x, y,
2
)| md

(
1
,
2
). Therefore, for every

1
,
2
B

e
, it follows from (4) that
|
1
, f (x, y,
1
)
2
, f (x, y,
2
)|
|
1
, f (x, y,
1
)
1
, f (x, y,
2
)| +|
1
, f (x, y,
2
)
2
, f (x, y,
2
)|
md

(
1
,
2
) +f (x, y,
2
)
1

2
md

(
1
,
2
) +l
0

1

2
.
J Optim Theory Appl (2011) 149: 540553 547
Remark 3.1 If the following conditions are satised: (i) there exists a compact set
A such that N(
0
) A, K() is upper semicontinuous with compact values on
A; (ii) f (, ,
0
) is continuous on K(A) K(A), then (H
4
) is fullled.
Indeed, since A is compact and K() is upper semicontinuous with compact values
on A, it follows from Proposition 11 in Sect. 1 of Chap. 3 [18] that the sets K(A) and
K(A) K(A) are compact. Noting that f (, ,
0
) is continuous on K(A) K(A),
we have
l := sup
(x,y)K(A)K(A)
f (x, y,
0
) <+.
Obviously, sup
(x,y)K(N(
0
))K(N(
0
))
f (x, y,
0
) l since N(
0
) is a subset of A.
Combing Lemmas 3.1, 3.2 and Theorem 2.2.1 in [10], we can obtain the following
result.
Lemma 3.3 Assume that for each B

e
, the -solution set S(, , ) for (1) exists
in a neighborhood N(
0
) N(
0
) of the considered point (
0
,
0
). Furthermore,
assume that assumptions (H
0
)(H
4
) hold. Then, for any

B

e
, there exist open
neighborhoods N

) of

, N

(
0
) of
0
and N

(
0
) of
0
, such that, the -solution
set S(, , ) on N

) N

(
0
) N

(
0
) is a singleton, and satises the following
condition, for all (
1
,
1
,
1
), (
2
,
2
,
2
) N

) N

(
0
) N

(
0
):
d(x(
1
,
1
,
1
), x(
2
,
2
,
2
))

_
m
h
d

(
1
,
2
) +
l
0
h

1

2

_1

+
_
2

n
h
_1

(
1
,
2
), (5)
where x(
i
,
i
,
i
) S(
i
,
i
,
i
), i = 1, 2.
Proof For any

B

e
, let N

) N

(
0
) N

(
0
) B

e
N(
0
) N(
0
) be
open (where N

(
0
), N

(
0
) depend on

). Obviously, for each (, , ) N

)
N

(
0
) N

(
0
), S(, , ) is nonempty. Fix (, , ) N

) N

(
0
) N

(
0
).
If x
0
S(, , ), then
, f (x
0
, y, ) 0, y K(). (6)
By virtue of Lemma 3.1, one has
, f (x
0
, y, ) +, f (y, x
0
, ) +hd

(x
0
, y) 0, y K() \ {x
0
}. (7)
Hence, (6) and (7) together yield that
, f (y, x
0
, ) <0, y K() \ {x
0
}.
Therefore, y K() \ {x
0
} is not a -solution of (1); the -solution uniqueness fol-
lows. Arguing as in the proof of Theorem 2.2.1 in [10], we have (5) by Lemmas 3.1
and 3.2.
548 J Optim Theory Appl (2011) 149: 540553
Theorem 3.1 Assume that for each B

e
, the -solution set S(, , ) for (1) exists
in a neighborhood N(
0
) N(
0
) of the considered point (
0
,
0
). Furthermore,
assume that assumptions (H
0
)(H
4
) hold. If for each x K(N(
0
)) and N(
0
),
f (x, , ) is C-convex on K(N(
0
)), then there exist neighborhoods

N(
0
) of
0
and

N(
0
) of
0
, such that, the weak solution set S
W
(, ) on

N(
0
)

N(
0
) is nonempty,
and satises the following condition, for all (
1
,
1
), (
2
,
2
)

N(
0
)

N(
0
):
S
W
(
1
,
1
) S
W
(
2
,
2
) +
__
m
h
_1

(
1
,
2
) +
_
2

n
h
_1

(
1
,
2
)
_
B(0, 1).
(8)
Proof Since the system of {N

)}

e
, which are given by Lemma 3.3, is an open
covering of the weak* compact set B

e
, there exist
1
,
2
, . . . ,
n
from B

e
such that
B

e

n
_
i=1
N

(
i
). (9)
Hence, let

N(
0
) :=
_
n
i=1
N

i
(
0
) and

N(
0
) :=
_
n
i=1
N

i
(
0
). Then

N(
0
) and

N(
0
) are desired neighborhoods of
0
and
0
, respectively. Indeed, let (, )

N(
0
)

N(
0
) be given arbitrarily. For any B

e
, by virtue of (9), there ex-
ists i
0
{1, 2, . . . , n} such that N

(
i
0
). From the construction of the neighbor-
hoods

N(
0
) and

N(
0
), one has (, ) N

i
0
(
0
) N

i
0
(
0
). Then, according
to Lemma 3.3, the -solution S(, , ) is a nonempty singleton. Hence, in view
of Lemma 2.1, S
W
(, ) =

e
S(, , ) is nonempty. Now, we show that (8)
holds. Indeed, taking any (
1
,
1
), (
2
,
2
)

N(
0
)

N(
0
), we need to show that
for any x
1
S
W
(
1
,
1
), there exists x
2
S
W
(
2
,
2
) satisfying
d(x
1
, x
2
)
_
m
h
_1

(
1
,
2
) +
_
2

n
h
_1

(
1
,
2
). (10)
Since x
1
S
W
(
1
,
1
) =

e
S

(
1
,
1
), there exists

B

e
such that
x
1
:=x(

,
1
,
1
) S

(
1
,
1
).
Thanks to (9), there exists i
0
{1, 2, . . . , n} such that

N

(
i
0
). Thus, by the
construction of the neighborhoods

N(
0
) and

N(
0
), we have (
1
,
1
), (
2
,
2
)
N

i
0
(
0
) N

i
0
(
0
). Then, it follows from Lemma 3.3 that
d(x(

,
1
,
1
), x(

,
2
,
2
))
_
m
h
_1

(
1
,
2
) +
_
2

n
h
_1

(
1
,
2
).
Let x
2
:=x(

,
2
,
2
). Then, (10) holds and the proof is complete.
Remark 3.2 The Hlder related assumption (H
3
), which is different from the cor-
responding ones in [13, 14], does not depend on x, y as in [11, 12, 20]. Based on
J Optim Theory Appl (2011) 149: 540553 549
comparing our main result with the corresponding ones of [13, 14], we agree with
the opinion that the dependence of x, y helps to sharpen the Hlder continuity re-
sult (concerning Hlder degree). Indeed, if (H
3
) in Theorem 3.1 is replaced by the
following one: (H
3
), x, y K(N(
0
)) : x =y,
1
,
2
N(
0
),
f (x, y,
1
) f (x, y,
2
) +md

(x, y)d

(
1
,
2
)[e, e], where 0 < <,
then it follows from Theorems 2.1 of [13] and 3.1 that, (
1
,
1
), (
2
,
2
)

N(
0
)

N(
0
),
S
W
(
1
,
1
) S
W
(
2
,
2
) +
__
m
h
_ 1

(
1
,
2
)
+
_
2

n
h
_1

(
1
,
2
)
_
B(0, 1),
which sharpens remarkably the Hlder degree of S
W
(, ).
Corollary 3.1 Suppose that all conditions of Lemma 2.2 and assumptions (H
0
)(H
4
)
hold. Then, there exist neighborhoods

N(
0
) of
0
and

N(
0
) of
0
, such that, the
weak solution set S
W
(, ) on

N(
0
)

N(
0
) is nonempty with compact values, and
satises the following condition, for all (
1
,
1
), (
2
,
2
)

N(
0
)

N(
0
):
H(S
W
(
1
,
1
), S
W
(
2
,
2
))
_
m
h
_1

(
1
,
2
) +
_
2l

n
h
_1

(
1
,
2
). (11)
Proof For each (, ) N(
0
) N(
0
), by Lemma 2.2, S
W
(, ) is a nonempty,
compact set. Then, by Remark 2.1 and Theorem 3.1, we have (11).
Remark 3.3 Consider the following parametric strong generalized Ky Fan Inequality:
Find x
0
K(), such that
f (x
0
, y, ) C\{0}, y K().
For any (, ), S(, ) stands for its solution set, and C

:= { Y

: , y > 0,
y C\{0}}. If C

= and all assumptions of Corollary 3.1 hold, it follows from

Theorem 2.1 in [21] that clS(, ) = S
W
(, ), where cl denotes the closure of
. Since H(
1
,
2
) =H(cl
1
, cl
2
) for any nonempty set
1
,
2
Y, it follows
from (11) that S(, ) satises
H(S(
1
,
1
), S(
2
,
2
))
_
m
h
_1

(
1
,
2
) +
_
2l

n
h
_1

(
1
,
2
).
The following example is to illustrate that the C-convexity of f is essential.
Example 3.1 Let X = Y = R, C = R
+
, = M = [0, 1], K() = [1, 2] and
f (x, y, ) =y(x y). Direct computation shows that S
W
(0) = [1, 2] and S
W
() =
550 J Optim Theory Appl (2011) 149: 540553
{2} for any (0, 1]. Clearly, we see that S
W
() is even not l.s.c. at = 0. The main
reason is that f is not C-convex. Hence, the C-convexity of f in Theorem 3.1 (or
Corollary 3.1) is essential.
Remark 3.4 Under the assumptions (A2
r
1

) and (A2
r
2

)), Anh and Khanh [14] ob-

tained the Hlder continuity of the unique solutions in some neighborhood for two
classes of parametric generalized Ky Fan Inequalities with set-valued mappings, re-
spectively. However, in general, it is well known that a solution mapping for per-
turbed (generalized) Ky Fan Inequalities is a set-valued one. In Theorem 3.1 and
Corollary 3.1, we discussed this case and established the Hlder continuity of the
solution mapping for (1). Thus, Theorem 3.1 (or Corollary 3.1) is new and different
from the results in recent literature. The following example is given to illustrate the
case that Theorem 3.1 (or Corollary 3.1) is applicable, but Theorem 2.1 of [14] (or
[13]) is not applicable.
Example 3.2 Let X = Y = R
2
+
, = M = [1, 2], C = R
2
+
and e = (1, 1) int R
2
+
.
For any given = M, let K() = {x = (x
1
, x
2
) : (x
1
3)
2
+ (x
2
3)
2

2
},
and for every x = (x
1
, x
2
) X, let T (x, ) =
_
x
1
x
2
x
1
x
2
_
, where the constant =
24

721
35
>1.
For any x =(x
1
, x
2
), y =(y
1
, y
2
) X, , we consider the following paramet-
ric vector variational inequalities:
T (x, ), y x =
_
x
1
x
2
x
1
x
2
__
y
1
x
1
y
2
x
2
_
/ int R
2
+
.
Letting f (x, y, ) = T (x, ), y x, we showthat: (i) Obviously, K() is 1.1-Hlder
continuous with compact convex values on , i.e., assumption (H
0
) holds; (ii) is
compact. Direct computation shows that K() = {x = (x
1
, x
2
) : (x
1
3)
2
+ (x
2

3)
2
4}. It is clearly that f (, , ) is continuous on K() K() ; f (x, x, ) =
(0, 0) R
2
+
; it can be checked that for each and x K(), f (x, , ) is R
2
+
-
convex on K(). Therefore, all conditions of Lemma 2.2 are satised. Namely, the
solution set S
W
() is nonempty; (iii) Assumption (H
1
) is satised. Indeed, there exist
h := min{, 1} = 1 and = 2 such that
f (x, y, ) +f (y, x, ) +hd

(x, y)e
=((1 )(y
1
x
1
)
2
+(1 )(y
2
x
2
)
2
,
(1 )(y
1
x
1
)
2
+(1 )(y
2
x
2
)
2
)
int R
2
+
, x, y K(), x =y;
(iv) Taking m:=(8 +4

2) max{, 1} =(8 +4

2) >0 and = 1, we have

f (x, y,
1
) f (x, y,
2
)
=(
1

2
)(x
1
(y
1
x
1
) +x
2
(y
2
x
2
), x
1
(y
1
x
1
) +x
2
(y
2
x
2
))
md(
1
,
2
)e R
2
+
,
1
,
2
.
J Optim Theory Appl (2011) 149: 540553 551
Then, assumption (H
3
) holds since the role of
1
,
2
are symmetric; (v) Now
we verify that assumption (H
2
) is also satised. Indeed, let n := 2

2max{, 1} =
2

2 >0 and =
1
2
. Then, one has
f (x, y
1
, ) f (x, y
2
, )
2(|y
1
1
y
2
1
| +|y
1
2
y
2
2
|)e R
2
+
2

2
_
(y
1
1
y
2
1
)
2
+(y
1
2
y
2
2
)
2
e R
2
+
=nd
1
2
(y
1
, y
2
)e R
2
+
, x K(), .
Obviously, the relation f (x, y
1
, ) f (x, y
2
, ) nd
1
2
(y
1
, y
2
)e +R
2
+
also holds;
(vi) Remark 3.1, (i), (ii) and (iv) together yield that assumption (H
4
).
Therefore, all conditions of Theorem 3.1 (or Corollary 3.1) are satised and Theo-
rem 3.1 (or Corollary 3.1) is applicable. Moreover, it follows from direct computation
that the weak solution S
W
() = {x = (x
1
, x
2
) : x
2
= 3
_

2
(x
1
3)
2
, 3
3
4

x
1
3

2
2
}, which is not a singleton. Obviously, the solution set S
W
() is 1.1-
Hlder continuous on .
However, Theorem 2.1 in [14] (or Theorem 2.1 in [13]) is not applicable. The
main reason is that the assumption (A2
r1
) (or (A2a)) is violated. Indeed, let

0
= 2 [1, 2]. Hence, K(
0
) = {x = (x
1
, x
2
) : (x
1
3)
2
+ (x
2
3)
2
4}. Taking
x
0
= (3, 3), y
0
= (3.1, 2.9) K(
0
), direct computation shows that f (x
0
, y
0
,
0
)
Y \ int R
2
+
and f (y
0
, x
0
,
0
) Y \ int R
2
+
, which imply that d(f (x
0
, y
0
,
0
), Y \
int R
2
+
) = 0 and d(f (y
0
, x
0
,
0
), Y \int R
2
+
) = 0. But for any h >0, hd(x
0
, y
0
) =

2h
10
>0. Thus, assumption (A2
r1
) in [14] (or (A2a) in [13]) does not hold.
Remark 3.5 In [17], by virtue of a kind of weak strong pseudo monotonicity (as-
sumption (ii) of Theorem 3.1 of [17]), Li et al. discussed the Hlder continuity of
the set-valued solution mappings for parametric generalized Ky Fan Inequalities in
general metric spaces. However, assumption (ii) in Theorem 3.1 of [17] requires the
knowledge of detailed values of the solution mapping in a neighborhood of the point
under consideration. In many cases, it is not easy to verify assumption (ii) in Theo-
rem 3.1 of [17] before accessing information on the solution set. In order to overcome
the drawback, in Theorem 3.1 or Corollary 3.1, we introduce the assumption (H
1
),
which can be veried directly. The following example is given to illustrate the case.
Example 3.3 Let X =R, Y =R
2
, = M = [0, 1], C =R
2
+
, K() = [1, 1 +], e =
(1, 1) int R
2
+
and f (x, y, ) = (
(1+)(xy)
1+x
, (1 + )x(y x)). Obviously, all as-
sumptions of Theorem 3.1 (or Corollary 3.1) are satised and Theorem 3.1 (or Corol-
lary 3.1) is applicable. In fact, it follows from direct computation that S
W
() =
[1, 1 +], , which is 1.1-Hlder continuous on .
However, we can get K() = [1, 2], () =K() \ S
W
() =(1 +, 2], .
Let

= 0. Then, for x = 1 S
W
(

) = {1}, there exists y = 2 (

) = (1, 2], such

552 J Optim Theory Appl (2011) 149: 540553
that h >0,
f (y, x,

) +hB(0, d( x, y)) =
_
1
3
, 2
_
+hB(0, 1) R
2
+
,
i.e., assumption (ii) of Theorem 3.1 of [17] does not hold. Thus, Theorem 3.1 of [17]
is not applicable.
4 Conclusions
In this paper, we consider a parametric weak generalized Ky Fan Inequality in the
case where the solution mapping is set-valued. Without using any information of
the solution sets, we derive sufcient conditions for the Hlder continuity of the set-
valued mapping for the weak generalized Ky Fan Inequality under the assumptions of
Hlder strongly monotonicity and Hlder continuity with respect to an interior point
of a xed cone.
Generally speaking, for a classic variational inequality or Ky Fan Inequality, the
solution mapping is not single-valued. Now one open problem arises in a natural way:
Are there other ways to establish the Hlder continuity of the set-valued mapping to
parametric variational inequalities or Ky Fan Inequalities without using any informa-
tion of the solution sets? This is a very interesting and valuable topic, and we will
investigate it in our future work.
References
1. Fan, K.: Extensions of two xed point theorems of F.E. Browder. Math. Z. 112, 234240 (1969)
2. Ansari, Q.H.: Vector equilibrium problems and vector variational inequalities. In: Giannessi, F. (ed.)
Vector variational inequalities and vector equilibria. Mathematical Theories. Kluwer, Dordrecht,
pp. 116 (2000)
3. Bianchi, M., Hadjisavvas, M., Schaible, S.: Vector equilibrium problems with generalized monotone
bifunctions. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 92, 527542 (1997)
4. Fan, K.: A minimax inequality and applications. In: Shisha, O. (ed.) Inequality III. Academic Press,
New York, pp. 103113 (1972)
5. Li, X.B., Li, S.J.: Existences of solutions for generalized vector quasiequilibrium problems. Optim.
Lett. 4, 1728 (2010)
6. Anh, L.Q., Khanh, P.Q.: Various kinds of semicontinuity and solution sets of parametric multivalued
symmetric vector quasiequilibrium problems. J. Glob. Optim. 41, 539558 (2008)
7. Anh, L.Q., Khanh, P.Q.: On the stability of the solution sets of general multivalued vector quasiequi-
librium problems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 135, 271284 (2007)
8. Chen, C.R., Li, S.J., Teo, K.L.: Solution semicontinuity of parametric generalized vector equilibrium
problems. J. Glob. Optim. 45, 309318 (2009)
9. Yen, N.D.: Hlder continuity of solutions to parametric variational inequalities. Appl. Math. Optim.
31, 245255 (1995)
10. Mansour, M.A., Riahi, H.: Sensitivity analysis for abstract equilibrium problems. J. Math. Anal. Appl.
306, 684691 (2005)
11. Bianchi, M., Pini, R.: A note on stability for parametric equilibrium problems. Oper. Res. Lett. 31,
445450 (2003)
12. Anh, L.Q., Khanh, P.Q.: On the Hlder continuity of solutions to multivalued vector equilibrium
problems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 321, 308315 (2006)
J Optim Theory Appl (2011) 149: 540553 553
13. Anh, L.Q., Khanh, P.Q.: Uniqueness and Hlder continuity of solution to multivalued vector equilib-
rium problems in metric spaces. J. Glob. Optim. 37, 449465 (2007)
14. Anh, L.Q., Khanh, P.Q.: Sensitivity analysis for multivalued quasiequilibrium problems in metric
spaces: Hlder continuity of solutions. J. Glob. Optim. 42, 515531 (2008)
15. Lee, G.M., Kim, D.S., Lee, B.S., Yen, N.D.: Vector variational inequality as a tool for studying vector
optimization problems. Nonlinear Anal. 34, 745765 (1998)
16. Mansour, M.A., Ausssel, D.: Quasimonotone variational inequalities and quasiconvex programming:
quantitative stability. Pac. J. Optim. 2, 611626 (2006)
17. Li, S.J., Li, X.B., Wang, L.N., Teo, K.L.: The Hlder continuity of solutions to generalized vector
equilibrium problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 199, 334338 (2009)
18. Aubin, J.P., Ekeland, I.: Applied Nonlinear Analysis. Wiley, New York (1984)
19. Nadler, S.B.: Multivalued contraction mappings. Pac. J. Math. 30, 475488 (1969)
20. Bianchi, M., Pini, R.: Sensitivity for parametric vector equilibria. Optimization 55, 221230 (2006)
21. Gong, X.H., Yao, J.-C.: Connectedness of the set of efcient solutions for generalized systems. J.
Optim. Theory Appl. 138, 189196 (2008)