A restricted repair that preserves the intended solutions

14 September 2026 · follow-up to the coordinate check. Internal mathematical draft by the Zerone development assistant team under one operator. External review and accountable human adoption remain pending.

The earlier convex candidate removed coordinate bias but could introduce spurious fixed points. Here we specify sufficient restrictions, prove that the composite has exactly the intended solutions, and give a strong-convergence proof for a declared iteration with small inertial errors. The restrictions are sufficient, not claimed minimal. This is a replacement theorem for our explicit algorithm; it does not validate the source article’s literal theorem.

The useful mechanism is measurable at each stage: distance cannot increase relative to a common solution, and the mixing steps expose residual errors that would otherwise cancel. Even the boundary of the relaxation range can be admitted when the inner mixing parameter stays strictly between zero and one. Strict relaxation alone is therefore not a necessary condition here.

1. Precise setting and result

Let HH be a real Hilbert space. There are fixed finite families Qj:H→HQ_j:H\to H and maximal monotone operators Bk:H⇉HB_k:H\rightrightarrows H, with 1≤j≤m1\leq j\leq m and 1≤k≤s1\leq k\leq s. Suppose

ϕj⟨x−p,x−Qjx⟩≥∥x−Qjx∥2(x∈H,p∈Fix⁡Qj),ϕj>0.\phi_j\langle x-p,x-Q_jx\rangle\geq\|x-Q_jx\|^2 \quad(x\in H,\ p\in\operatorname{Fix}Q_j),\qquad \phi_j>0.

Each I−QjI-Q_j is demiclosed at zero: zi⇀zz_i\rightharpoonup z and zi−Qjzi→0z_i-Q_jz_i\to0 imply Qjz=zQ_jz=z. Assume the common solution set

Θ=⋂jFix⁡Qj∩⋂kBk−1(0)\Theta=\bigcap_j\operatorname{Fix}Q_j\cap\bigcap_k B_k^{-1}(0)

is nonempty. Fix positive weights wjw_j with ∑jwj=1\sum_jw_j=1, and constants

b>0,bϕj≤2for every j,0<λ<1,0<ρ<1,hk>0.b>0,\quad b\phi_j\leq2\ \text{for every }j,\qquad 0<\lambda<1,\quad0<\rho<1,\quad h_k>0.

Let Rk=(I+hkBk)−1R_k=(I+h_kB_k)^{-1}, the everywhere-defined firm resolvent, and set

Vj=(1−b)I+bQj,Z=∑jwjVj,R=Rs⋯R1,V_j=(1-b)I+bQ_j,\quad Z=\sum_jw_jV_j,\quad R=R_s\cdots R_1, β=Rx,γ=(1−λ)β+λZβ,Ux=Zγ,Sx=(1−ρ)x+ρUx.\beta=Rx,\quad\gamma=(1-\lambda)\beta+\lambda Z\beta, \quad Ux=Z\gamma,\quad Sx=(1-\rho)x+\rho Ux.

Let g:H→Hg:H\to H be a contraction with Lipschitz bound 0≤κ<10\leq\kappa<1. For n≥1n\geq1, define the complete iteration by

δn=1n+1,αn=xn+en,∥en∥≤δn2,\delta_n=\frac1{n+1},\qquad \alpha_n=x_n+e_n, \qquad\|e_n\|\leq\delta_n^2, xn+1=δng(xn)+(1−δn)Sαn.x_{n+1}=\delta_ng(x_n)+(1-\delta_n)S\alpha_n.

Initial x0,x1∈Hx_0,x_1\in H are arbitrary. This includes the earlier capped inertial displacement, as well as zero inertia. The proof uses only the stated error bound. In particular, gg is evaluated at xnx_n, not at αn\alpha_n. All weights, operators and mixing parameters above remain fixed.

Result. The set Θ\Theta is closed and convex, Fix⁡U=Fix⁡S=Θ\operatorname{Fix}U=\operatorname{Fix}S=\Theta, and I−SI-S is demiclosed at zero. The iterates converge in norm to the unique point

p=PΘg(p).p=P_\Theta g(p).

No pairwise nonexpansiveness or continuity of QjQ_j, ZZ, UU or SS is assumed. Firm resolvents and the metric projection have their usual nonexpansiveness properties. The proof below does not replace the controlled input error by an unjustified bound on Sαn−SxnS\alpha_n-Sx_n.

2. The loss estimate and the common fixed-point set

Write rj(t)=t−Qjtr_j(t)=t-Q_jt. Expansion and the demimetric condition give, for p∈Θp\in\Theta,

∥Vjt−p∥2≤∥t−p∥2−b(2/ϕj−b)∥rj(t)∥2.\|V_jt-p\|^2\leq\|t-p\|^2- b(2/\phi_j-b)\|r_j(t)\|^2.

The coefficients are nonnegative under the declared bound. Define

A(t)=∑jwjb(2/ϕj−b)∥rj(t)∥2,A(t)=\sum_jw_jb(2/\phi_j-b)\|r_j(t)\|^2, D(t)=∑jwj∥Vjt−Zt∥2,C(t)=A(t)+D(t).D(t)=\sum_jw_j\|V_jt-Zt\|^2,\qquad C(t)=A(t)+D(t).

The weighted squared-norm identity yields ∥Zt−p∥2≤∥t−p∥2−C(t)\|Zt-p\|^2\leq\|t-p\|^2-C(t). Thus ZZ and each VjV_j are quasi-nonexpansive: they do not increase distance to their fixed points. For completeness, the common fixed-point identity for ZZ follows from

0≤∑jwjbϕj∥rj(t)∥2≤⟨t−p,t−Zt⟩.(1)0\leq\sum_j\frac{w_jb}{\phi_j}\|r_j(t)\|^2 \leq\langle t-p,t-Zt\rangle.\qquad\text{(1)}

If Zt=tZt=t, every original residual vanishes. The converse is immediate. Here pp may be any common fixed point of the QjQ_j; it need not be a zero of the BkB_k.

Each Fix⁡Qj=Fix⁡Vj\operatorname{Fix}Q_j=\operatorname{Fix}V_j is closed by demiclosedness. It is convex as follows. For fixed points u,vu,v, let z=θu+(1−θ)vz=\theta u+(1-\theta)v, 0<θ<10<\theta<1. Weighting the two quasi-nonexpansive inequalities for VjzV_jz gives

∥Vjz−z∥2+θ(1−θ)∥u−v∥2≤θ(1−θ)∥u−v∥2,\|V_jz-z\|^2+\theta(1-\theta)\|u-v\|^2 \leq\theta(1-\theta)\|u-v\|^2,

so Vjz=zV_jz=z. The zero sets of the BkB_k are the closed convex fixed sets of their firm resolvents. Hence their finite intersection Θ\Theta is closed and convex. The contraction PΘ∘gP_\Theta\circ g on Θ\Theta therefore has exactly one fixed point, the target pp.

For the resolvent prefixes set y0=xy_0=x, yk=Rkyk−1y_k=R_ky_{k-1} and ER(x)=∑k∥yk−1−yk∥2E_R(x)=\sum_k\|y_{k-1}-y_k\|^2. Firmness gives

∥Rx−p∥2≤∥x−p∥2−ER(x).\|Rx-p\|^2\leq\|x-p\|^2-E_R(x).

Using the same squared-norm identity for the inner mixture and then applying ZZ gives the joint estimate

∥Ux−p∥2≤∥x−p∥2−L(x),\|Ux-p\|^2\leq\|x-p\|^2-L(x), L(x)=ER(x)+λC(β)+λ(1−λ)∥β−Zβ∥2+C(γ)≥0.(2)L(x)=E_R(x)+\lambda C(\beta) +\lambda(1-\lambda)\|\beta-Z\beta\|^2+C(\gamma)\geq0.\qquad\text{(2)}

Finally the outer mixture gives

∥Sx−p∥2≤∥x−p∥2−ρL(x)−ρ(1−ρ)∥x−Ux∥2.(3)\|Sx-p\|^2\leq\|x-p\|^2-\rho L(x) -\rho(1-\rho)\|x-Ux\|^2.\qquad\text{(3)}

If Ux=xUx=x, (2) forces all resolvent prefix differences to vanish, so x=βx=\beta and x∈⋂kFix⁡Rkx\in\bigcap_k\operatorname{Fix}R_k. It also forces β−Zβ=0\beta-Z\beta=0 because λ(1−λ)>0\lambda(1-\lambda)>0. Equation (1) now identifies every QjQ_j fixed point. Thus x∈Θx\in\Theta. Conversely every x∈Θx\in\Theta is fixed at every stage. Since ρ>0\rho>0, Fix⁡S=Fix⁡U=Θ\operatorname{Fix}S=\operatorname{Fix}U=\Theta.

With η=(1−ρ)/ρ>0\eta=(1-\rho)/\rho>0, (3) also implies the quantitative estimate

∥Sx−p∥2≤∥x−p∥2−η∥x−Sx∥2.(4)\|Sx-p\|^2\leq\|x-p\|^2-\eta\|x-Sx\|^2.\qquad\text{(4)}

3. Vanishing composite residual identifies valid solutions

Suppose zi⇀zz_i\rightharpoonup z and zi−Szi→0z_i-Sz_i\to0. The sequence is bounded. Its distance-squared loss tends to zero, since

|∥zi−p∥2−∥Szi−p∥2|≤∥zi−Szi∥(∥zi−p∥+∥Szi−p∥)→0.\left|\|z_i-p\|^2-\|Sz_i-p\|^2\right| \leq\|z_i-Sz_i\|(\|z_i-p\|+\|Sz_i-p\|)\longrightarrow0.

Equation (3) forces ER(zi)→0E_R(z_i)\to0 and βi−Zβi→0\beta_i-Z\beta_i\to0. In particular, every prefix yk,iy_{k,i} and βi\beta_i has the same weak limit zz as ziz_i. Equation (1) and boundedness give βi−Qjβi→0\beta_i-Q_j\beta_i\to0 for every jj. The assumed demiclosedness puts zz in every Fix⁡Qj\operatorname{Fix}Q_j.

Also yk−1,i−Rkyk−1,i→0y_{k-1,i}-R_ky_{k-1,i}\to0. Demiclosedness of the nonexpansive resolvent residual gives Rkz=zR_kz=z for every kk. This standard closure fact can be seen directly: if ui⇀uu_i\rightharpoonup u, ui−Tui→0u_i-Tu_i\to0 and TT is nonexpansive, expand ∥Tui−Tu∥2≤∥ui−u∥2\|Tu_i-Tu\|^2\leq\|u_i-u\|^2 after substituting Tui=ui+o(1)Tu_i=u_i+o(1). Boundedness and weak convergence yield ∥u−Tu∥2≤0\|u-Tu\|^2\leq0.

Therefore z∈Θ=Fix⁡Sz\in\Theta=\operatorname{Fix}S, proving demiclosedness of I−SI-S. Notice that this argument still works if some or all coefficients in AA vanish. The positive inner mixing term and (1) supply the needed individual residual control at the endpoint bϕj=2b\phi_j=2.

4. Strong convergence of the declared iteration

Put c=1−κ>0c=1-\kappa>0, h=g(p)−ph=g(p)-p, an=∥xn−p∥2a_n=\|x_n-p\|^2 and qn=∥αn−Sαn∥q_n=\|\alpha_n-S\alpha_n\|. Quasi-nonexpansiveness gives

∥xn+1−p∥≤(1−cδn)∥xn−p∥+δn∥h∥+(1−δn)δn2.\|x_{n+1}-p\|\leq(1-c\delta_n)\|x_n-p\| +\delta_n\|h\|+(1-\delta_n)\delta_n^2.

Thus ∥xn−p∥≤M\|x_n-p\|\leq M for M=max⁡{∥x1−p∥,(∥h∥+1)/c}M=\max\{\|x_1-p\|,(\|h\|+1)/c\}, by induction. This also bounds αn\alpha_n, SαnS\alpha_n and g(xn)g(x_n) relative to pp.

Descent with vanishing forcing. Apply convexity of squared norm to the update and then (4). Since ∥αn−p∥2≤an+2Mδn2+δn4\|\alpha_n-p\|^2\leq a_n+2M\delta_n^2+\delta_n^4, there is a fixed finite K1K_1 such that

(1−δn)ηqn2≤an−an+1+K1δn.(5)(1-\delta_n)\eta q_n^2\leq a_n-a_{n+1}+K_1\delta_n.\qquad\text{(5)}

For example, K1=G2+2M+1K_1=G^2+2M+1 works for G=sup⁡n∥g(xn)−p∥G=\sup_n\|g(x_n)-p\|. No limit for ana_n or qnq_n has been assumed.

Projection-sensitive recurrence. Write

xn+1−p=vn+δnh,vn=δn(g(xn)−g(p))+(1−δn)(Sαn−p).x_{n+1}-p=v_n+\delta_nh,\qquad v_n=\delta_n(g(x_n)-g(p))+(1-\delta_n)(S\alpha_n-p).

Then ∥vn∥≤(1−cδn)an+δn2\|v_n\|\leq(1-c\delta_n)\sqrt{a_n}+\delta_n^2. The identity ∥vn+δnh∥2≤∥vn∥2+2δn⟨h,xn+1−p⟩\|v_n+\delta_nh\|^2\leq\|v_n\|^2+ 2\delta_n\langle h,x_{n+1}-p\rangle gives

an+1≤(1−cδn)an+cδntn,(6)a_{n+1}\leq(1-c\delta_n)a_n+c\delta_n t_n,\qquad\text{(6)} tn=2c⟨h,xn+1−p⟩+K2cδn,K2=2M+1.t_n=\frac2c\langle h,x_{n+1}-p\rangle+ \frac{K_2}{c}\delta_n,\qquad K_2=2M+1.

Here (1−cδn)2≤1−cδn(1-c\delta_n)^2\leq1-c\delta_n and the remaining square terms are bounded by K2δn2K_2\delta_n^2.

Where the projection sign becomes available. Along any indices for which qn→0q_n\to0, the update shows

xn+1−αn=δn(g(xn)−Sαn)+(Sαn−αn)→0.x_{n+1}-\alpha_n= \delta_n(g(x_n)-S\alpha_n)+(S\alpha_n-\alpha_n)\longrightarrow0.

Take a subsequence attaining the limsup of ⟨h,xn+1−p⟩\langle h,x_{n+1}-p\rangle, and a further weakly convergent subsequence of the bounded αn\alpha_n. Demiclosedness of I−SI-S puts its limit zz in Θ\Theta; the same limit holds for xn+1x_{n+1}. The characterization of p=PΘg(p)p=P_\Theta g(p) gives ⟨h,z−p⟩≤0\langle h,z-p\rangle\leq0. Consequently limsup⁡tn≤0\limsup t_n\leq0 along those indices.

There are two exhaustive cases.

  1. If ana_n is eventually nonincreasing, it has a nonnegative limit, so an−an+1→0a_n-a_{n+1}\to0. Equation (5) gives qn→0q_n\to0, hence limsup⁡tn≤0\limsup t_n\leq0. Given ϵ>0\epsilon>0, eventually (6) is bounded by (1−cδn)an+cδnϵ(1-c\delta_n)a_n+c\delta_n\epsilon. Iteration and ∑ncδn=∞\sum_n c\delta_n=\infty imply limsup⁡an≤ϵ\limsup a_n\leq\epsilon. Letting ϵ↓0\epsilon\downarrow0 proves an→0a_n\to0.
  2. Otherwise there are infinitely many indices kk with ak<ak+1a_k<a_{k+1}. Along these indices (5) gives qk→0q_k\to0, hence limsup⁡tk≤0\limsup t_k\leq0. Equation (6) and the increase imply 0≤ak≤tk0\leq a_k\leq t_k, so ak→0a_k\to0 and then ak+1→0a_{k+1}\to0 by (5). For each sufficiently large nn, take the last increase index k(n)≤nk(n)\leq n. Then k(n)→∞k(n)\to\infty and an≤ak(n)+1a_n\leq a_{k(n)+1}: all later steps up to nn decrease or are equal. Hence an→0a_n\to0 in this case too.

Thus xn→px_n\to p in norm. This proves the complete declared restricted iteration. The argument never infers an infinite limit from the finite runs.

5. Boundary controls and relation to earlier work

The previous Q=−3IQ=-3I, ϕ=4\phi=4, b=3/4b=3/4 example violates the new bound: bϕ=3>2b\phi=3>2. It remains a counterexample to the unrestricted candidate. Using b=1/4b=1/4 for the same map gives Z=0Z=0 and avoids that cancellation.

The relaxation endpoint by itself is admissible. For Q=−IQ=-I, ϕ=2\phi=2, b=1b=1 and λ=1/2\lambda=1/2, we have Z=−IZ=-I, γ=0\gamma=0 and U=0U=0 when R=IR=I. In contrast, also taking the excluded value λ=1\lambda=1 makes U=Z2=IU=Z^2=I while Θ={0}\Theta=\{0\}. With g=1g=1 the resulting identity-type iteration tends to one. This shows why a bound and a mixing condition must be considered together. It does not show that every excluded endpoint fails.

The coefficients of the repaired point-valued combinations sum to one, so the coordinate-covariance argument from the earlier note still applies. When testing translated trajectories, translate gg, the operator domains, point-valued maps, initial points and solution set consistently.

The convergence mechanism has established antecedents. In particular, Wongchan and Saejung (2011), Theorem 2.3 studies viscosity iteration for strongly quasinonexpansive mappings with demiclosed residuals. Aoyama and Kohsaka (2014), Corollary 3.5 provides a corresponding fixed-map result within a broader sequence framework. Our explicit proof above handles the declared input perturbation and verifies the composite’s assumptions. We do not claim a novel general convergence principle or infer coverage of the perturbed iteration merely from a citation. The earlier Song predecessor check remains relevant to original-map residual identification.

6. Reproduction and scope

Run python3 -I -B verify_restricted.py --output-dir ../restricted-rerun from this directory, choosing a destination that does not exist. The checker uses standard-library rational arithmetic. It tests explicit affine and piecewise examples, the joint loss estimate, translated trajectories and excluded-parameter controls. results.json stores its finite output. verify_packet.py checks the inventory and hashes in MANIFEST.json.

These computations corroborate examples and implementation; the Hilbert-space and limiting statements depend on the mathematical proof and its assumptions. Internal reviewers share one operator. This is neither external peer review nor a machine-checked proof. No claim of novelty, misconduct, author assent, on-chain settlement or general validation of the original article is made. The original review, failed unrestricted candidate and its counterexample remain unchanged in their earlier packets and in the local history.