Arxiv:2012.02624V1 [Math.FA]

arXiv:2012.02624v1 [math.FA] 3 Dec 2020 ulse n[4,asrsta ml etraino oe semi-c lower a of perturbation small a that tion asserts [14], in published httecmltns of completeness the that oeo hs plctosaepeetdi kln’ ae [15]. paper Ekeland’s in presented eco are functions, applications Lipschitz these ha and of and convex Some functionals) in of support results differentiation of space many density optimization, Banach the to of on equivalent geometry result is theorem), Bishop-Phelps point it fixed Also (Caristi-Kirk ory completeness). forcing results h function the osdrn pcsmr eea hntemti ns(nfr sp (uniform ones metric w the than general more spaces considering ymti nlgo ercsae)wr bandi 1,[] 8,[2,[24], [12], [8], [6], [9]. [1], in in spaces obtained convex were locally spaces) metric metric of analog symmetric bandb ae 2] 2]adHmladLon 2](e loFrigo also (see Löhne [23] and Hamel and [22] [21], Hamel by obtained right on defined functions KLN AITOA RNIL N T QIAET IN EQUIVALENTS ITS AND PRINCIPLE VARIATIONAL EKELAND mti pcs ata-ercsae,ec,ete both. either etc), spaces, partial-metric spaces, -metric kln aitoa rnil EV) none yEeadi 1]wit [13] in Ekeland by announced (EkVP), Principle Variational Ekeland Date hr r ueosetnin fEV bandete eaigth relaxing either obtained EkVP of extensions numerous are There xesoso kPadohrvrainlpicpe oquasi-metric to principles variational other and EkVP of Extensions ntepeetpprw hwta kPadiseuvlnsas hold also equivalents its and EkVP that show we paper present the In f eebr7 2020. 7, December : 21) o ,2–7 ncmlt ercspaces. metric complete in 24–37, 1, no. (2015), pcs opeeesi us-nfr spaces gauge quasi-uniform spaces, in quasi-uniform completeness spaces, spaces, uniform problems, equilibrium pcs o-ymti eso of Appl. version non-symmetric a spaces, eut rvdb ae,NnierAnal. Nonlinear T Hamel, spaces. by proved quasi-uniform results in min Takahashi EkVP) theorem, of point version Oettli-Théra fixed equilibrium (Caristi-Kirk equivalents its and stoepoe nqaimti pcsb aiu uhr.Teca The authors. various by spaces quasi-metric in proved those as Abstract. a.Mt Fiz. Gel’m and Mat. Arutyunov by Mat. proved principles minimization some of versions endo opeemti space metric complete a on defined e words Key 2020 MSC 202 f eg osdrn ucin ihvle na ree etrspace) vector ordered an in values with functions considering (e.g. 19) 9–1,i locniee.Teppred ihtequas the with ends paper The considered. also is 398–412, (1996), h rsn ae scnendwt kln aitoa rnil (E Principle Variational Ekeland with concerned is paper present The 83,5E5 71,90C33 47H10, 54E15, 58E30, : kln aitoa rnil,Tkhsimnmzto principle, minimization Takahashi Principle, Variational Ekeland : 49 20) 1717,adAuynv rc tko nt Math. Inst. Steklov Proc. Arutyunov, and 1167–1174, (2009), X T K 1 sas eesr o h aiiyo kP(e 1]frvarious for [11] (see EkVP of validity the for necessary also is QAIUIOMSPACES -QUASI-UNIFORM cmlt us-nfr pcs hs xedsm results some extend These spaces. quasi-uniform -complete 1. F Introduction guesae nrdcdb ag .Mt.Anal. Math. J. Fang, by introduced spaces -gauge .COBZAS¸S. 62 X 1 20) 1–2,i nfr pcs swell as spaces, uniform in 913–924, (2005), tan t titmnmm ttre out turned It minimum. strict its attains cs us-ercspaces, quasi-metric aces, eof se pcs quasi-gauge spaces, mzto principle, imization Dnˇ rptheorem, (Daneˇs drop s ayapiain in applications many s eeetn some extend hese ois ilg,etc. biology, nomics, niuu lc func- (lsc) ontinuous n h Vychisl. Zh. an, F o eunilylsc sequentially for 1] nuniform in [19]) n -quasi-gauge pcs(h non- (the spaces xdpitthe- point fixed odtoson conditions e i-uniform n oasym- to and h proof the h kVP) 291 or 2 S. COBZAS¸ spaces as well as by Fang [16] in F -gauge spaces. Quasi-uniform spaces are the nonsymmetric version of uniform spaces (see Section 2 for details). Notice that some results on variational principles in quasi-uniform spaces were obtained by Fierro [17], working with another notion of completeness. The structure of the paper is the following. For convenience we present in Section 2 the basic notions and results on quasi-uniform spaces which are used throughout the paper, while Section 3 contains a brief introduction to Fang quasi-gauge spaces. Eke- land Variational Principle, Caristi-Kirk fixed point theorem, Takahashi and Arutyunov minimization principles and Oettli-Théra version of EkVP in F -quasi-gauge spaces are presented in Section 4. The equivalence of these principles is proved in Section 5. The last section (Section 6) is concerned with some classes of functions, more general than the lower semicontinuous ones, and the extension to quasi-uniform spaces of a minimization principle proved by Arutyunov and Gel’man [3] and Arutyunov [2] in metric spaces. In [6], [8], [12] and [24] it is shown that the validity of EkVP (or of its equivalent, Caristi-Kirk fixed point theorem) implies some completeness properties of the underlying quasi-metric space. I did not succeed to prove a similar result in the quasi-uniform case.

2. Quasi-uniform spaces Quasi-uniform spaces are uniform spaces without the symmetry axiom ((QU5) from below). Their theory is much more complicated than that of uniform spaces, mainly in what concerns completeness and compactness (see, e.g., [29]). A good introduction to quasi-uniform spaces is given in the book [18]. For subsequent developments one can consult, for instance, [10] or [28]. For a set X, denote by ∆(X) = {(x, x): x ∈ X} the diagonal of X and, for M, N ⊆ X × X, let M ◦ N = {(x, z) ∈ X × X : ∃y ∈ X, (x, y) ∈ M and (y, z) ∈ N} , and M −1 = {(x, y) ∈ X × X :(y, x) ∈ M} . A quasi-uniformity on X is a nonempty family U of subsets of X × X such that for all U ∈ U (QU1) ∆(X) ⊆ U; (QU2) V ⊆ X × X, U ⊆ V ⇒ V ∈ U;

(QU3) U1, U2 ∈U ⇒ U1 ∩ U2 ∈ U; (QU4) there exists V ∈ U such that V ◦ V ⊆ U. If further (QU5) U −1 ∈ U, for all U ∈ U, then U is called a uniformity. Remark 2.1. Conditions (QU2), (QU3) show that U is a ﬁlter on X × X. Any quasi-uniformity U on a set X generates a topology τ(U) on X in the following way. For U ∈ U, x ∈ X and Z ⊆ X put U(x)= {y ∈ X :(x, y) ∈ U} and U[Z]= {U(z): z ∈ Z} . [ EKELAND VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLE AND ITS EQUIVALENTS IN T1-QUASI-UNIFORM SPACES 3

Remark 2.2. Observe that U(x)= {x}◦ U. For this reason some authors denote {x}◦ U by (x)U and U ◦{y} by U(y). The family of sets {U(x): U ∈ U} is a basis of neighborhoods of the point x ∈ X (actually it agrees with the neighborhood ﬁlter at x). The separation properties of the topology induced by a quasi-uniformity are contained in the following proposition. Proposition 2.3. Let (X, U) be a quasi-uniform space and τ(U) the topology generated by U.

1. The topology τ(U) is T0 if and only if U is an order on X if and only if W ∩ W −1 = ∆(X), where W = U. s T −1 2. The topology τ(U ) is T2 if and only if {U ∩ U : U ∈ U} = ∆(X). T s 3. The topology τ(U) is T0 if and only if τ(U ) is T2. T 4. The topology τ(U) is T1 if and only if U = ∆(X).

Remark 2.4. Suppose that (X, U) is a uniformT space. Then the topology τ(U) is T2 if and only if U = ∆(X). Actually, in a uniform space, the T0 separation of the topology τ(U) implies T2 and regularity (see Kelley [25]). T A nonempty family B ⊆ U is called a basis for a quasi-uniformity U if every U ∈ U contains a B ∈ B. A nonempty family C ⊆ U is called a subbasis for U if the family of all finite intersections of members in C is a basis for U, i.e., for every U ∈ U there exist n n ∈ N and C1,...,Cn in C such that i=1 Ci ⊂ U. This means that B (respectively S) is a basis (subbasis) of the filter U. T Proposition 2.5. Let X be a set. A nonempty family B of subsets of X is a basis for a quasi-uniformity U on X if and only if it satisfies the following conditions (BQU1) ∀B ∈ B, ∆(X) ⊆ B; (BQU2) ∀B ∈ B, ∃C ∈ B, such that C ◦ C ⊆ B,

(BQU3) ∀B1, B2 ∈ B, ∃B ∈ B such that B ⊂ B1 ∩ B2 . In this case the quasi-uniformity U is given by (2.1) U = {U ⊂ X × X : ∃B ∈ B, B ⊂ U} . If B satisﬁes only (BQU1) and (BQU2), then it is a subbasis for the quasi-uniformity U given by

(2.2) U = {U ⊆ X × X : ∃n ∈ N, ∃B1,...,Bn ∈ B, B1 ∩···∩ Bn ⊆ U} . The following result holds. Proposition 2.6. If B is a basis (subbasis) for a quasi-uniformity U on X, then, for every x ∈ X, {B(x): B ∈ B} is a neighborhood basis (subbasis) at x with respect to the topology τ(U). 4 S. COBZAS¸

If U is a quasi-uniformity on a set X, then U −1 = {U −1 : U ∈ U} is another quasi-uniformity on X, called the conjugate of U. Also the family of sets {U ∩ U −1 : U ∈ U} is a basis for a uniformity U s on X, called the associated uniformity to U, or the uniformity generated by U. U s is the smallest uniformity on X × X containing both U and U −1. As a space with two topologies τ(U) and τ(U −1), a quasi-uniform space can be also viewed as a bitopological space in the sense of Kelly [26]. By analogy with the uniform case one can deﬁne quasi-uniformly continuous mappings. A mapping f between two quasi-uniform spaces (X, U) and (Y, W) is called quasi- uniformly continuous if for every W ∈ W there exists U ∈ U such that (f(x), f(y)) ∈ W for all (x, y) ∈ U. If f˜ : X × X → Y × Y is given by (2.3) f˜(x, y)=(f(x), f(y)), x,y ∈ X, then the quasi-uniform continuity of the function f is equivalent to the condition (2.4) f˜−1(W ) ∈ U , for all W ∈ W. A quasi-uniform isomorphism is a bijective quasi-uniformly continuous function f such that the inverse function f −1 is also quasi-uniformly continuous. By the deﬁnition of the topology generated by a quasi-uniformity, it is clear that a quasi- uniformly continuous mapping is continuous with respect to the topologies τ(U), τ(W). Actually the following stronger result holds. Proposition 2.7. Let (X, U), (Y, W) be quasi-uniform spaces and f : (X, U) → (Y, W) quasi-uniformly continuous. The the following hold. 1. The function f is also quasi-uniformly continuous from (X, U −1) to (Y, W−1) and uniformly continuous from (X, U s) to (Y, Ws). 2. The function f is τ(U)-τ(W), τ(U −1)-τ(W−1) and τ(U s)-τ(Ws) continuous.

A function d : X × X → R+ is called a quasi-pseudometric if it satisﬁes the following conditions: (QM1) d(x, x) = 0; (QM1) d(x, z) ≤ d(x, y)+ d(y, z) , for all x, y, z ∈ X. If further (QM3) d(x, y)=0= d(y, x) ⇒ x = y , then d is called a quasi-metric. The mapping d¯(x, y)= d(y, x), x,y ∈ X, is also a quasi- pseudometric on X, called the conjugate of d and ds(x, y) = max{d(x, y),d(y, x)} is a pseudometric, which is a metric if and only if d is a quasi-metric. EKELAND VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLE AND ITS EQUIVALENTS IN T1-QUASI-UNIFORM SPACES 5

A quasi-pseudometric d induces a quasi-uniformity Ud on X having a basis formed of the sets

(2.5) Vd,ε = {(x, y) ∈ X × X : d(x, y) <ε}, ε> 0 . A typical example is that of the space R with the quasi-pseudometric induced by + the asymmetric seminorm u : R → R+, u(α) = α , α ∈ R, and the associated quasi- pseudometric du(α, β) = u(β − α), α,β ∈ R. The conjugate asymmetric seminorm is − u¯(α) = u(−α) = α , with du = du¯, and the associated norm, the absolute value s u (α)= |α|. We shall denote the quasi-uniformity associated to du by Ru. Since, for every α, β ∈ R, β − α<ε ⇐⇒ u(β − α) < ε , the quasi-uniform continuity of a function f from a quasi-uniform space (X, U)to(R, Ru) can be characterized in the following way.

Proposition 2.8. A function f :(X, U) → (R, Ru) is quasi-uniformly continuous if and only if for every ε> 0 there exists U ∈ U such that (2.6) u(f(y) − f(x)) <ε for all (x, y) ∈ U, or, equivalently, (2.7) f(y) − f(x) <ε for all (x, y) ∈ U. One says also that f is (U,u)-quasi-uniformly continuous. One can also deﬁne a product quasi-uniformity U × U on X × X, where (X, U) is a quasi-uniform space, through the basis formed by the family of subsets of X × X (2.8) {((u, v), (x, y)) ∈ X2 × X2 :(u, x), (v,y) ∈ U}, U ∈ U.

It is the smallest quasi-uniformity on X ×X making the projections p1,p2 :(X ×X, U × U) → (X, U) quasi-uniformly continuous. The product quasi-uniformities U × U −1 and U −1 × U are deﬁned analogously. The quasi-uniform continuity of a quasi-pseudometric d can be characterized in the following way. Actually it is an adaptation to the asymmetric case of Theorem 11, Ch. 6, from [25]. Proposition 2.9. Let (X, U) be a quasi-uniform space and d a quasi-pseudometric on X. 1. The quasi-pseudometric d is (U −1 × U,u)-quasi-uniformly continuous if and only if Vd,ε ∈ U for all ε> 0. −1 2. If d is (U × U,u)-quasi-uniformly continuous, then for every ﬁxed x0 ∈ X the mapping d(x0, ·): X → R is τ(U)-usc and d(·, x0): X → R is τ(U)-lsc. Proof. 1. A basis for the product quasi-uniformity U −1 × U is formed by the sets 2 2 (2.9) WU := {((u, v), (x, y)) ∈ X × X :(x, u), (v,y) ∈ U}, U ∈ U. Suppose that d is quasi-uniformly continuous in the sense mentioned in theorem and let ε> 0. Then there exists U ∈ U such that

((u, v), (x, y)) ∈ WU ⇒ d(x, y) − d(u, v) < ε , where WU corresponds to U by the equality (2.9). 6 S. COBZAS¸

If (x, y) ∈ U, then ((x, x), (x, y)) ∈ WU , so that d(x, y)= d(x, y) − d(x, x) < ε, that is (x, y) ∈ Vd,ε. This shows that U ⊂ Vd,ε and so Vd,ε ∈ U. Conversely, suppose that Vd,ε ∈ U for every ε > 0. For given ε > 0 let U := Vd,ε ∈ U and 2 2 WU = {((u, v), (x, y)) ∈ X × X :(x, u), (v,y) ∈ U} = {((u, v), (x, y)) ∈ X2 × X2 : d(x, u) <ε and d(v,y) <ε} .

For every ((u, v), (x, y)) ∈ WU , d(x, y) ≤ d(x, u)+ d(u,y) <ε + d(u,y) d(u,y) ≤ d(u, v)+ d(v,y) 0. By the (U −1 × U,u)-quasi-uniform continuity of d there exists U ∈ U such that (2.10) d(x, y)

d(x, x0) d(x, x0) − ε , proving the τ(UP )-lsc of d at x. The construction of a quasi-uniformity from a quasi-pseudometric can be extended to a family P of quasi-pseudometrics on a set X. In this case, the family of sets

BP = {Vd,ε : d ∈ P, ε> 0} , where Vd,ε is given by (2.5), is a subbasis of a quasi-uniformity UP on X. Proposition 2.10. Let P be a family of quasi-pseudometrics on a set X. The quasi- uniformity UP is the smallest quasi-uniformity U on X making all the quasi-pseudometrics in P , (U −1 × U,u)-quasi-uniformly continuous. As was shown by Reilly [32] (see also [33], [34]) the following result, a nonsymmetric analog of a well known result in uniform spaces (see Kelley [25]), holds. Theorem 2.11. Let X be a set. Any quasi-uniformity U on X is generated by a family of (U −1 × U,u)-quasi-uniformly continuous quasi-pseudometrics in the way described above. We also mention the following result. EKELAND VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLE AND ITS EQUIVALENTS IN T1-QUASI-UNIFORM SPACES 7

Proposition 2.12. Let P be a family of quasi-pseudometrics on a set X and UP the generated quasi-uniformity. −1 1. The family Q of all (UP ×UP ,u)-quasi-uniformly continuous quasi-pseudometrics on X generates the same quasi-uniformity as P , that is, UQ = UP . 2. The following equality holds −1 UP = UP , where is the sets of quasi-pseudometrics conjugate to P , i.e. P = {p¯ : p ∈ P } . The second assertion from the above proposition follows from the equality −1 Vd,ε = Vd,ε¯ . The separation properties of the topology generated by a family of quasi-pseudometrics can be expressed in terms of these quasi-pseudometrics.

Proposition 2.13. Let P be a family of quasi-pseudometrics on a set X and U = UP the quasi-uniformity on X it generates.

1. A net (xi : i ∈ I} in X is τ(U)-convergent to x ∈ X if and only if

∀d ∈ P, d(x, xi) → 0 .

2. The topology τ(U) is T0 if and only if for every x, y ∈ X with x =6 y there exists d ∈ P such that d(x, y) > 0 or d(y, x) > 0. 3. The topology τ(U) is T1 if and only if for every x, y ∈ X with x =6 y there exists d ∈ P such that d(x, y) > 0. Remark 2.14. Kelley [25, p. 189] calls the family of all (U × U)-uniformly continuous pseudometrics on a uniform space (X, U) the “gage” of the uniform space X. Reilly [34] calls a family of quasi-pseudometrics on a set X a quasi-gauge and a topological space (X, τ) whose topology is generated by a family P of quasi-pseudometrics (i.e. τ = τ(UP )), a quasi-gauge space. We shall follow Reilly [34] and call a family of quasi-pseudometrics on a set X a quasi- gauge. There are several notions of Cauchy net and Cauchy ﬁlter in quasi-uniform spaces and the corresponding notions of completeness (see [10] or [28]), similar to those in quasi- metric spaces (see [35]). All these notions agree with the usual notion of completeness in the case of uniform spaces. Since the results included in this paper will be concerned only with the sequential notions, we restrict the presentation to this case and to sequential right and left-K-completeness. Deﬁnition 2.15. Let (X, U) be a quasi-uniform space.

• a sequence (xn) in X is called left K-Cauchy (or left K-Cauchy if more precision is needed) if for every U ∈ U there exists nU ∈ N such that

(2.11) ∀n ≥ nU , ∀k ∈ N, (xn, xn+k) ∈ U ;

• the sequence (xn) is called right K-Cauchy (or right K-Cauchy) if it satisﬁes (2.11) with (xn+k, xn) instead of (xn, xn+k); 8 S. COBZAS¸

• one says that the quasi-uniform space (X, U) is sequentially left K-complete (or sequentially left K-complete) if every left K-Cauchy sequence in X is τ(U)-convergent to some x ∈ X; • the notion of sequential right K-completeness is deﬁned accordingly. We have again characterizations in terms of the quasi-pseudometrics generating the quasi-uniformity. Proposition 2.16. Suppose that the quasi-uniformity U is generated by a family P of quasi-pseudometrics. Then (xn) is left K-Cauchy (right K-Cauchy) if and only if for every d ∈ P and ε> 0 there exists n0 = nd,ε ∈ N such that

(2.12) ∀n ≥ n0, ∀k ∈ N, d(xn, xn+k) < ε , or

(2.13) ∀n ≥ n0, ∀k ∈ N, d(xn+k, xn) < ε , respectively.

3. Fang’s quasi-gauge spaces Fang [16] considered a slightly more general notion of gauge, called F -gauge. We extend it to the asymmetric case. Definition 3.1. Let X be a set. A family D of functions d : X × X → R is called an F -quasi-gauge if it satisfies the following conditions: (QF1) the set D is directed upward; (QF2) ∀d ∈ D, ∀x, y ∈ X, d(x, y) ≥ 0 ∧ d(x, x) = 0; (QF3) ∀d ∈ D, ∃d′ ≥ d in D s.t. (∀x, y, z ∈ X, d(x, y) ≤ d′(x, z)+ d′(z,y)) . If further, (QF2) ∀d ∈ D, ∀x, y ∈ X, d(x, y)= d(y, x) , then D is called an F -gauge. Fang, op. cit., defined an F -space as a topological space (X, τ) whose topology is defined by an F -gauge in the sense that a neighborhood basis at every point x ∈ X is formed by the sets

Ud(x, ε) := {y ∈ X : d(x, y) <ε}, d ∈ D, ε> 0 . Later Hamel and L¨ohne [23] have shown that, similarly to the case of gauges of pseudometrics, an F -gauge generates a uniformity UD on X having as basis the sets

Vd,ε := {(x, y) ∈ X × X : d(x, y) <ε}, d ∈ D, ε> 0 .

Since Ud(x, ε)= Vd,ε(x), the topological space (X, τ(UD)) is an F -space in Fang’s sense. We show that an F -quasi-gauge generates a quasi-uniformity on X. EKELAND VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLE AND ITS EQUIVALENTS IN T1-QUASI-UNIFORM SPACES 9

Proposition 3.2. Let X be a set and D an F -quasi-gauge on X. Then the family of sets

BD := {Vd,ε : d ∈ D, ε> 0} is a basis for a quasi-uniformity UD on X given by

UD = {U ⊆ X × X : ∃d ∈ D, ∃ε> 0, Vd,ε ⊆ U} . −1 The conjugate quasi-uniformity UD has as basis the family of sets

BD := {Vd,ε¯ : d ∈ D, ε> 0} , −1 that is UD = UD , where D = {d¯: d ∈ D} .

Proof. We have to show that BD satisﬁes the conditions (BQU1)–(BQU3) from Propo- sition 2.5. Since d(x, x) = 0 it follows ∆(X) ⊆ Vd,ε. Also if Vd1,ε1 ,Vd2,ε2 ∈ BD, then

Vd,ε ⊆ Vd1,ε1 ∩ Vd2,ε2 , where d ≥ d1,d2 (D is directed) and ε := min{ε1,ε2}. ′ For Vd,ε ∈ BD let d be given by (QF3). Then Vd′,ε/2 ◦ Vd′,ε/2 ⊆ Vd,ε. The assertion concerning the conjugate quasi-uniformity follows from the equality −1 Vd,ε = Vd,ε¯ , valid for all d ∈ D and ε> 0. Similar to Proposition 2.13, the topological properties of a quasi-uniform space can be characterized in terms of an F -quasi-gauge generating the quasi-uniformity.

Proposition 3.3. Let D be an F -quasi-gauge on a set X and U = UD the generated quasi-uniformity.

1. A net (xi : i ∈ I} in X is τ(U)-convergent to x ∈ X if and only if

∀d ∈ D, d(x, xi) → 0 .

2. The topology τ(U) is T0 if and only if for every x, y ∈ X with x =6 y there exists d ∈ D such that d(x, y) > 0 or d(y, x) > 0. 3. The topology τ(U) is T1 if and only if for every x, y ∈ X with x =6 y there exists d ∈ D such that d(x, y) > 0.

Proof. All these properties follow from the fact that the sets Vd,ε, d ∈ D, ε > 0, form a basis for the quasi-uniformity UD. 1. This follows from the equivalences τ(U) xi −−→ x is T0 ⇐⇒ ∀U ∈ U, ∃iU ∈ I s.t. (x, xi) ∈ U forall i ≥ iU

⇐⇒ ∀d ∈ D, ∀ε> 0 ∃i0 = i0(d,ε) > 0 s.t. d(x, xi) <ε forall i ≥ i0

⇐⇒ ∀d ∈ D, lim d(x, xi)=0 . i 2. In this case

τ(U) is T0 ⇐⇒ ∀x, y ∈ X, (x =6 y ⇒ ∃Vd,ε ∈ BD s.t. (x, y) ∈/ Vd,ε ∨ (y, x) ∈/ Vd,ε) ⇐⇒ ∀x, y ∈ X, (x =6 y ⇒ ∃d ∈ D, ∃ε> 0 s.t. d(x, y) ≥ ε ∨ d(y, x) ≥ ε) ⇐⇒ ∀x, y ∈ X, (x =6 y ⇒ ∃d ∈ D s.t. d(x, y) > 0 ∨ d(y, x) > 0) . The proof of 3 is similar to that of 2, replacing ∨ with ∧. 10 S. COBZAS¸

The Cauchy properties of sequences in (X, UD) can also be expressed in terms of the F -quasi-gauge D.

Proposition 3.4. Let D be an F -quasi-gauge on a set X and U = UD the generated quasi-uniformity. A sequence (xn)n∈N in X is left K-Cauchy (right K-Cauchy) if and only if for every d ∈ D and ε > 0 there exists n0 = n0(d,ε) ∈ N such that for every n ≥ n0 and every k ∈ N,

(3.1) d(xn, xn+k) < ε , respectively,

(3.2) d(xn+k, xn) < ε .

4. Ekeland variational principle in F -quasi-gauge spaces Fang [16] introduced the class of F -gauge spaces and proved some results on Ekeland’s variational principle and its equivalents in these spaces. Hamel and L¨ohne [23] have shown that an F -gauge space is a uniform space and Hamel [21] proved that, similarly to the case of uniform spaces, Fang’s results can be obtained by an application of Brezis-Browder principle on ordered sets (see [7]). Following Hamel and L¨ohne’s ideas (see [21], [22], [23]), we show that Brezis-Browder maximality principle can be further used to extend Fang’s [16] results from F -gauge spaces to F -quasi-gauge spaces (introduced in Section 3). We start with this principle. Let (Z, ≤) be a partially ordered set. For x ∈ Z put S+(x)= {z ∈ Z : x ≤ z} and S−(x)= {z ∈ Z : z ≤ x}. We shall use the notation x

Proposition 4.3. Let D be an F -quasi-gauge on a set X, U = UD the generated quasi- uniformity on X and ϕ : X → R a function on X. 1. The relation ≤ on X defined by (4.1) x ≤ y ⇐⇒ ∀d ∈ D, d(x, y) ≤ ϕ(y) − ϕ(x) , for all x, y ∈ X, satisfies the conditions: (a) the relation ≤ given by (4.1) is a preorder on X and ϕ is increasing with respect to ≤ ; if the topology τ(U) is T0, then ≤ is an order; (b) if the topology τ(U) is T1, then ϕ is strictly increasing with respect to ≤, i.e. (x ≤ y ∧ x =6 y) ⇒ ϕ(x) <ϕ(y) . 2. The relation 4 on X defined by (4.2) x 4 y ⇐⇒ ∀d ∈ P, d(x, y) ≤ ϕ(x) − ϕ(y), for all x, y ∈ X, satisfies the conditions: (a′) the relation 4 is a preorder on X and ϕ is decreasing with respect to 4 ; it is an order provided the topology τ(U) is T0; ′ (b ) if the topology τ(U) is T1, then ϕ is strictly decreasing with respect to 4, i.e. (x 4 y ∧ x =6 y) ⇒ ϕ(y) <ϕ(x) . Proof. 1. It is immediate that the relation ≤ given by (??) is a preorder, i.e. a reflexive and transitive relation on X. Suppose that x ≤ y and y ≤ x. Then for all d ∈ D, d(x, y) ≤ ϕ(y) − ϕ(x) and d(y, x) ≤ ϕ(x) − ϕ(y) , which by addition yield 0 ≤ d(x, y)+ d(y, x) ≤ 0. It follows (4.3) d(x, y)=0= d(y, x) , for all d ∈ D. Condition 1 from Proposition 3.3 can be rewritten in the reversed form: the topology τ(UD) is T0 if and only if ∀d ∈ D, (d(x, y)=0 ∧ d(y, x)=0) ⇒ x = y . Consequently, (4.3) implies x = y and so (a) holds. (b) Let x, y ∈ X,x 0, implying

Proposition 4.4. Let (X, U) be a quasi-uniform space whose quasi-uniformity is generated by an F -quasi-gauge D, i.e. U = UD. Let ϕ : X → R and suppose that the relation ≤ is given by (4.1). 1. If the quasi-uniform space (X, U) is sequentially right U-K-complete, the topology τ(U) is T1 and the function ϕ is bounded below and sequentially τ(U)-lsc on X, then every element of X is minorized by a minimal element in (X, ≤). 2. If the quasi-uniform space (X, U −1) is sequentially right U −1-K-complete, the −1 −1 topology τ(U ) is T1 and the function ϕ is bounded above and sequentially τ(U )- usc on X, then every element of X is majorized by a maximal element in (X, ≤). Let ψ : X → R and suppose that the relation 4 is deﬁned by (4.2) with ψ instead of ϕ. 1′. If the quasi-uniform space (X, U) is sequentially right U-K-complete, the topology τ(U) is T1 and the function ψ is bounded above and sequentially τ(U)-usc on X, then every element of (X, ≤) is minorized by a minimal element in (X, 4). 2′. If the quasi-uniform space (X, U −1) is sequentially right U-K-complete, the topol- −1 −1 ogy τ(U ) is T1 and the function ψ is bounded below and sequentially τ(U )-lsc on X, then every element of X is majorized by a maximal element in (X, 4). Proof. 1. We intend to apply Theorem 4.1.1, so we have to check the conditions (a), (b), (c) from this theorem. By Proposition 4.3, ≤ is an order on X and ϕ is strictly increasing with respect to ≤, so that (a) holds. Since ϕ is bounded below on X, (b) holds too. To prove (c), suppose that x1 ≥ x2 ≥ ... is a decreasing sequence in X. Then α ≤ ϕ(xn+1) ≤ ϕ(xn), n ∈ N, where α := inf ϕ(X). It follows that the sequence (ϕ(xn))n∈N is convergent, and so Cauchy. Given ε> 0 there exists nε ∈ N such that

0 ≤ ϕ(xn) − ϕ(xn+k) < ε , for all n ≥ nε and k ∈ N. Since xn+k ≤ xn, it follows that, for all n, k ∈ N,

(4.4) nε ≤ n < n + k ⇒ ∀d ∈ D, d(xn+k, xn) ≤ ϕ(xn) − ϕ(xn+k) < ε , showing that the sequence (xn) is right K-Cauchy. By hypothesis there exists y ∈ X such τ(U) that xn −−→ y, which is equivalent to

(4.5) ∀d ∈ D, lim d(y, xn)=0 . n→∞ Let n ∈ N. For d ∈ D let d′ be given by condition (QF3) from Deﬁnition 3.1. Then

′ ′ d(y, xn) ≤ d (y, xn+k)+ d (xn+k, xn) ′ ≤ d (y, xn+k)+ ϕ(xn) − ϕ(xn+k) , implying ′ ϕ(xn+k)+ d(y, xn) ≤ d (y, xn+k)+ ϕ(xn) , for all k ∈ N. EKELAND VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLE AND ITS EQUIVALENTS IN T1-QUASI-UNIFORM SPACES13

Letting k →∞ in this inequality and taking into account the sequential τ(U)-lsc of ϕ and (4.5), one obtains

ϕ(y)+ d(y, xn) ≤ lim inf ϕ(xn+k)+ d(y, xn) k ′ ≤ lim d (y, xn+k)+ ϕ(xn)= ϕ(xn) , k that is d(y, xn) ≤ ϕ(xn) − ϕ(y), for all d ∈ D. Hence, y ≤ xn, n ∈ N, showing that the condition (c) from Theorem 4.1 is also fulﬁlled. Consequently, for every x ∈ X there exists a minimal element x in (X, ≤) such that x ≤ x. 2. This can be proved in a similar way, but it can be also obtained from 1 applied to −1 X with the quasi-uniformity U = UD, the function ψ = −ϕ and the inequality ¯ x ≤1 y ⇐⇒ ∀d ∈ D, d(x, y) ≤ ψ(y) − ψ(x) , i.e. the inequality (4.1) corresponding to D and ψ. Also the function ψ = −ϕ is bounded below and τ(U −1)-lsc, so that, by the ﬁrst part of the theorem, for every x ∈ X there exists a minimal element z of (X, ≤1) with z ≤1 x. Since

x ≤1 y ⇐⇒ ∀d ∈ D, d¯(x, y) ≤ ψ(y) − ψ(x) ⇐⇒ ∀d ∈ D, d(y, x) ≤ ϕ(x) − ϕ(y) ⇐⇒ y ≤ x , it follows that z is a maximal element of (X, ≤) and x ≤ z. ′ 1 . Let ϕ = −ψ. Denote by x 4ψ y the inequality 4 corresponding to ψ and by ≤ϕ the inequality ≤ corresponding to ϕ. Then

x 4ψ y ⇐⇒ ∀d ∈ D, d(x, y) ≤ ψ(x) − ψ(y) ⇐⇒ ∀d ∈ D, d(x, y) ≤ ϕ(y) − ϕ(x)

⇐⇒ x ≤ϕ y , for all x, y ∈ X. The function ϕ is τ(U)-lsc and bounded below. Consequently, the quasi-uniform space (X, U) and the function ϕ satisfy the hypotheses of statement 1, so that for every x ∈ X there exists a minimal element x of (X, ≤ϕ) with x ≤ϕ x. It follows that x is a minimal element of (X, 4ψ) and x 4ψ x. 2′. Taking again ϕ = −ψ, this statement can be obtained from 2 similarly to the deduction of 1′ from 1 given above. Appealing to Proposition 4.4 one can prove the following variant of Ekeland Variational Principle in F -quasi-gauge spaces. Theorem 4.5. Let (X, U) be a quasi-uniform space whose quasi-uniformity is generated by an F -quasi-gauge D, (i.e. U = UD) and f : X → R ∪ {∞}. Suppose that (X, U) is sequentially right K-complete, the topology τ(U) is T1 and f is proper, bounded below and 14 S. COBZAS¸ sequentially τ(U)-lsc. Then, for every x0 ∈ dom f there exists z ∈ X such that

(i) ∀d ∈ D, f(z)+ d(z, x0) ≤ f(x0); (ii) ∀x ∈ X \{z}, ∃d ∈ D, f(z) < f(x)+ d(x, z). Proof. Let X0 = {x ∈ X : d(x, x0) ≤ f(x0) − f(x) for all d ∈ D} .

The set X0 is nonempty as x0 ∈ X0. Let us show that X0 is sequentially τ(U)-closed. Let (xn) be a sequence in X0 τ(U)-convergent to some y ∈ X, that is

(4.6) ∀d ∈ D, lim d(y, xn)=0 . n→∞ Given d ∈ D, choose d′ ∈ D according to condition (QF3) from Deﬁnition 3.1. Then ′ ′ d(y, x0) ≤ d (y, xn)+ d (xn, x0) ′ ≤ d (y, xn)+ f(x0) − f(xn) , implying ′ f(xn)+ d(y, x0) ≤ d (y, xn)+ f(x0) . Letting n →∞ in this inequality and taking into account the sequential τ(U)-lsc of the function f and (4.6), one obtains

f(y)+ d(y, x0) ≤ lim inf f(xn)+ d(y, x0) n ′ ≤ lim d (y, xn)+ f(x0) n

= f(x0) . It follows d(y, x0) ≤ f(x0) − f(y) , for all d ∈ D, that is, y ∈ X0. Deﬁne an order ≤ on X0 by u ≤ v ⇐⇒ ∀d ∈ D, d(u, v) ≤ f(v) − f(u) , for u, v ∈ X0. Applying Proposition 4.4.1 to X0 with the above order, it follows that for every x ∈ X0 there exists a minimal element x of (X0, ≤) with x ≤ x. Let z be a minimal element in (X0, ≤) such that z ≤ x0 and let us show that z satisﬁes the conditions (i) and (ii). Since z ∈ X0, d(z, x0) ≤ f(x0) − f(z) , for all d ∈ D, which is equivalent to (i). To prove (ii) suppose that x ∈ X r {z}. If x ∈ X0 r {z}, then, by the minimality of z, the inequality x ≤ z fails, so there exists d ∈ D such that d(x, z) > f(z) − f(x) , which is equivalent to (ii). Suppose now that x ∈ X r X0 and that (ii) fails for this x, that is, ∀d ∈ D, f(z) ≥ f(x)+ d(x, z) . EKELAND VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLE AND ITS EQUIVALENTS IN T1-QUASI-UNIFORM SPACES15

Given d ∈ D choose d′ ∈ D according to (QF3). Then ′ ′ d(x, x0) ≤ d (x, z)+ d (z, x0)

≤ f(z) − f(x)+ f(x0) − f(z)

= f(x0) − f(x) , implying x ∈ X0, in contradiction to the hypothesis. Ekeland Variational Principle from Theorem 4.5 implies the quasi-uniform analog of an apparently stronger version proved by Fang [16] (see also [21]). Corollary 4.6. Suppose, in addition to the hypotheses of Theorem 4.5, that an increasing function ξ : D → (0, ∞) is given. For ε > 0 suppose that x0 ∈ X satisﬁes the condition f(x0) ≤ inf f(X)+ ε. Then there exists z ∈ X such that

(j) ∀d ∈ D, f(z)+ εξ(d)d(z, x0) ≤ f(x0); 1 (jj) ∀d ∈ D, d(z, x ) ≤ ; 0 ξ(d)

(jjj) ∀x ∈ X \{z}, ∃dx ∈ D, f(z) < f(x)+ εξ(dx)dx(x, z).

Proof. For d ∈ D put d˜= εξ(d)d and D = {d˜: d ∈ D}. It is easy to check that D satisﬁes the conditions (QF1)–(QF3) from Deﬁnition 3.1.

Furthermore, UDe = UD = U. This followse from the equalities e

V ˜ = V γ and V ′ = V ˜ ′ , d,γ d, εξ(d) d,γ d,εξ(d)γ valid for all d ∈ D and γ,γ′ > 0. Apply Theorem 4.5 to the quasi-uniform space (X, U) with the quasi-uniformity generated by the F -quasi-gauge D and the function f. Then (i) is equivalent to (j) and (ii) to (jjj). Let α = inf f(X). Then bye (j), for all d ∈ D,

εξ(d)d(z, x0) ≤ f(x0) − f(z) ≤ α + ε − α = ε , implying ξ(d)d(z, x0) ≤ 1 which is equivalent to (jj). Caristi-Kirk ﬁxed point theorem takes the following form in this case. Theorem 4.7. Let (X, U) be a quasi-uniform space whose quasi-uniformity is generated by an F -quasi-gauge D, (i.e. U = UD). and ϕ : X → R ∪ {∞} a proper, bounded below and τ(U)-lsc function. Suppose that (X, U) is sequentially right K-complete, the topology τ(U) is T1 and F : X ⇒ X is a set-valued mapping with nonempty values. 1. If (4.7) ∀d ∈ D, ∀x ∈ X, ∃y ∈ F (x), d(y, x) ≤ ϕ(x) − ϕ(y) , then F has a ﬁxed point in X, i.e. there exists z ∈ X such that z ∈ F (z). 2. If (4.8) ∀d ∈ D, ∀x ∈ X, ∀y ∈ F (x), d(y, x) ≤ ϕ(x) − ϕ(y) , then F has a stationary point in X, i.e. there exists z ∈ X such that F (z)= {z}. 16 S. COBZAS¸

Proof. By Theorem 4.5 applied to X and ϕ, there exists z ∈ X such that ϕ(z) <ϕ(y)+ d(y, z) , for all y ∈ X r {z}. It follows that every point y ∈ X satisfying the inequality from (4.7) (or (4.8)) must coincide with z. Hence, z ∈ F (z) in the first case and F (z)= {z} in the second one. In the case of single-valued mappings Caristi-Kirk fixed point theorem takes the following form. Corollary 4.8. Suppose that (X, U),D and ϕ : X → R ∪ {∞} satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem 4.7. If f : X → X is a mapping such that (4.9) ∀d ∈ D, ∀x ∈ X, d(y, x) ≤ ϕ(x) − ϕ(f(x)) , then f has a fixed point in X. Remark 4.9. 1. In the uniform case the analog of Theorem 4.7 was obtained by Hamel [22] and in F -gauge spaces by Fang [16] (see also [21]). 2. As in the case of Corollary 4.6, the inequalities in (4.7) and (4.8) can be replaced with ξ(d)d(y, x) ≤ ϕ(x) − ϕ(y) , where ξ : D → (0, ∞) is an increasing function, obtaining the same conclusions (see Corollary 4.15). Takahashi’s principle (see [36] or [37]) has an analog in this case too. Theorem 4.10. Let (X, U) be a quasi-uniform space whose quasi-uniformity is generated by an F -quasi-gauge D, (i.e. U = UD) and f : X → R ∪ {∞}. Suppose that (X, U) is sequentially right K-complete, the topology τ(U) is T1 and f is proper, bounded below and sequentially τ(U)-lsc. If for every x ∈ X with f(x) > inf f(X) there exists y ∈ X r {x} such that (4.10) ∀d ∈ D, f(y)+ d(y, x) ≤ f(x) , then there exists z ∈ X with f(z) = inf f(X). Proof. We show that the result can be obtained as a consequence of Caristi-Kirk fixed point theorem (Theorem 4.7). Let F : X ⇒ X be defined by F (x)= {y ∈ X : f(y)+ d(y, x) ≤ f(x) for all d ∈ D}, x ∈ X. Then F (x) =6 ∅ as x ∈ F (x) and F satisfies (4.8) with f instead of ϕ. By Theorem 4.7 there exists z ∈ X such that F (z) = {z}. If f(z) > inf f(X), then, by (4.10) and the definition of F , F (z) would contain an element y =6 z. Consequently, f(z) = inf f(X). A result similar to Takahashi’s minimization principle (Theorem 4.10) in metric spaces, under a slightly relaxed condition on the function f, was found by Arutyunov and Gel’man [3] and Arutyunov [2]. For recent further developments see [4] and [5]. We show present the case of a lsc function f on a quasi-uniform space, when the result can be obtained from Ekeland Variational Principle. The general case will be treated later in Theorem 6.3. EKELAND VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLE AND ITS EQUIVALENTS IN T1-QUASI-UNIFORM SPACES17

Theorem 4.11 ([2], Theorem 3). Let (X, U) be a quasi-uniform space whose quasi- uniformity is generated by an F -quasi-gauge D, (i.e. U = UD) and f : X → [α, ∞]. Suppose that (X, U) is sequentially right K-complete, the topology τ(U) is T1 and f is proper and sequentially τ(U)-lsc. Suppose also that there exists γ > 0 such that for every x ∈ X with f(x) >α there is x′ ∈ X r {x} satisfying (4.11) ∀d ∈ D, f(x′)+ γd(x′, x) ≤ f(x) .

Then, for every x0 ∈ dom f there exists x¯ ∈ X such that (a) f(¯x) = inf f(X)= α and (4.12) f(x ) − α (b) d(¯x, x ) ≤ 0 . 0 γ

Proof. If f(x0)= α, then α = inf f(X), and there is nothing to prove. ε Suppose f(x0) >α and apply Theorem 4.5 with d replaced by λ d, where ε := f(x0) − α> 0 and λ = ε/γ. Then there existsx ¯ ∈ X such that ε (a) ∀x ∈ X r {x¯}, ∃d , f(¯x) < f(x)+ d (x, x¯); x λ x (4.13) ε (b) ∀d ∈ D, f(¯x)+ d(¯x, x ) ≤ f(x ) . λ 0 0 If f(¯x) >α, then, by (4.11), there exists x =6 x ¯ such that

f(x)+ γdx(x, x¯) ≤ f(¯x) , in contradiction to (4.13).(a) (because γ = ε/λ). Hence f(¯x)= α = inf f(X). Now, by (4.13).(b), ∀d ∈ D, γd(¯x, x0) ≤ f(x0) − α , which yields (4.12).(b). Remark 4.12. Replacing the metric d with the equivalent one d˜ = γd, the condition (4.11).(i) becomes Takahashi’s condition (4.10). Arutyunov [2] calls (4.11) a Caristi type condition. Finally, we prove an equilibrium version of Ekeland Variational Principle. Let F : X × X → R ∪ {∞} satisfying the following conditions: (E1) ∀x ∈ X, F (x, x) = 0; (E2) ∀x, y, z ∈ X, F (x, z) ≤ F (x, y)+ F (y, z); (4.14) (E3) ∀x ∈ X, the function F (x, ·) is sequentially lsc;

(E4) ∃x0 ∈ X, inf{F (x0,y): y ∈ X} > −∞ . For x ∈ X let (4.15) S(x)= {y ∈ X : F (x, y)+ d(x, y) ≤ 0 for all d ∈ D} . The following result and its equivalence to EkVP was proved by Oettli and Th´era [31] in complete metric spaces, by Hamel [22] in uniform spaces, by Fang [16] and Hamel [21] in F -gauge spaces and by Al-Homidan, Ansari and Kassay [1] in quasi-metric spaces. 18 S. COBZAS¸

Theorem 4.13. Suppose that (X, U) is a sequentially right K-complete quasi-uniform space whose quasi-uniformity is generated by an F -quasi-gauge D (i.e. U = UD) and that the topology τ(U) is T1. Let the function F : X × X → R ∪ {∞} and x0 ∈ X satisfy the conditions (E1)–(E4) from above. Then there exists z ∈ S(x0) such that

(4.16) ∀x ∈ X r {z}, ∃dx ∈ D s.t. F (z, x)+ dx(x, z) > 0 .

Proof. We apply Theorem 4.5 to the function f : X → R ∪{∞}, f(x)= F (x0, x), x ∈ X, to obtain an element z ∈ X satisfying the conditions (i) and (ii) from that theorem. By (i) and (E1), z ∈ S(x0). By (ii), for every x ∈ X r {z} there exists dx ∈ D such that

F (x0, z) < F (x0, x)+ dx(x, z) . But then, by (E2),

F (x0, z) < F (x0, x)+ dx(x, z)

≤ F (x0, z)+ F (z, x)+ dx(x, z) , yielding (4.16). Remark 4.14. Conversely, Ekeland Variational principle can be obtained from Theorem 4.13 (see Theorem 5.3). Theorems 4.7 to 4.13 also admits extensions in the spirit of Corollary 4.6.

Corollary 4.15. Let D be an F -quasi-gauge on a set X and U = UD the generated quasi- uniformity. Suppose that (X, U) is right K-complete, the topology τ(U) is T1 and that an increasing function ξ : D → (0, ∞) is given. 1. (Caristi-Kirk) Let ϕ : X → R∪{∞} a proper, bounded below and τ(U)-lsc function and T : X ⇒ X a set-valued mapping. (a) If (4.17) ∀d ∈ D, ∀x ∈ X, ∃y ∈ F (x), ξ(d)d(y, x) ≤ ϕ(x) − ϕ(y) , then F has a ﬁxed point in X, i.e. there exists z ∈ X such that z ∈ F (z). (b) If (4.18) ∀d ∈ D, ∀x ∈ X, ∀y ∈ F (x), ξ(d)d(y, x) ≤ ϕ(x) − ϕ(y) , then F has a stationary point in X, i.e. there exists z ∈ X such that F (z)= {z}. Suppose now that f : X → R ∪ {∞} is proper, bounded below and sequentially τ(U)-lsc. 2. (Takahashi) If for every x ∈ X with f(x) > inf f(X) there exists y ∈ X r {x} such that (4.19) ∀d ∈ D, f(y)+ ξ(d)d(y, x) ≤ f(x) , then there exists z ∈ X with f(z) = inf f(X). 3. (Arutyunov) Suppose that f(x) ≥ α for all x ∈ X. If there exists γ > 0 such that for every x ∈ X with f(x) >α there exists x′ ∈ X r {x} satisfying (4.20) ∀d ∈ D, f(x′)+ γξ(d)d(x′, x) ≤ f(x) , EKELAND VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLE AND ITS EQUIVALENTS IN T1-QUASI-UNIFORM SPACES19

then, for every x0 ∈ dom f there exists x¯ ∈ X such that (a) f(¯x) = inf f(X)= α and (4.21) f(x ) − α (b) d(¯x, x ) ≤ 0 . 0 γξ(d)

4. (Oettli-Th´era) Let the function F : X × X → R ∪ {∞} and x0 ∈ X satisfy the conditions (E1)–(E4) from (4.14). Then there exists z ∈ S(x0) such that

(4.22) ∀x ∈ X r {z}, ∃dx ∈ D s.t. F (z, x)+ ξ(d)dx(x, z) > 0 . Proof. The motivation given in the proof of Corollary 4.6 works in this case too.

5. The equivalence of principles We prove the equivalence between Ekeland, Takahashi and Caristi principles. Theorem 5.1. Let D be an F -quasi-gauge on a set X generating a quasi-uniformity U = UD and ϕ : X → R ∪ {∞} a proper bounded below function. Then the following statements are equivalent. 1. (Ekeland) There exists z ∈ X such that

(5.1) ∀x ∈ X \{z}, ∃dx ∈ D, ϕ(z) <ϕ(x)+ dx(x, z) . 2. (Caristi-Kirk) Any mapping f : X → X satisfying the condition (5.2) ∀d ∈ D, ∀x ∈ X, d(f(x), x) ≤ ϕ(x) − ϕ(f(x)) , has a ﬁxed point in X. 3. (Takahashi) If for every x ∈ X with ϕ(x) > inf ϕ(X) there exists y ∈ X r {x} such that (5.3) ∀d ∈ D, ϕ(y)+ d(y, x) ≤ ϕ(x) , then there exists z ∈ X with ϕ(z) = inf ϕ(X). Proof. 1 ⇒ 2. Let z ∈ X be such that (5.1) holds. If f : X → X satisﬁes (5.2), then ∀d ∈ D, d(f(z), z) ≤ ϕ(z) − ϕ(f(z)) . If f(z) =6 z this would contradict (5.1), so we must have f(z)= z. ¬1 ⇒ ¬2. If (5.1) does not hold, then

∀z ∈ X, ∃yz ∈ X r {z} s.t. ∀d ∈ D, ϕ(yz)+ d(yz, x) ≤ ϕ(x) .

Defining f : X → X by f(z) = yz, z ∈ X, it follows that f satisfies (5.2) but has no fixed point. 1 ⇒ 3. Let z ∈ X be such that (5.1) holds. If ϕ(z) > inf ϕ(X), then, by (5.3), there exists y =6 z such that ∀d ∈ D, ϕ(y)+ d(y, z) ≤ ϕ(z) , in contradiction to (5.1). It follows ϕ(z) = inf ϕ(X). 20 S. COBZAS¸

¬1 ⇒ ¬3. Supposing that (5.1) fails, then

∀z ∈ X, ∃yz =6 z, s.t. ∀d ∈ D, ϕ(yz)+ d(yz, z) ≤ ϕ(z). This shows that ϕ satisfies (5.3). Also, since the topology τ(U) is T1, by Proposition 3.3 there exists d ∈ D such that d(yz, z) > 0, implying ϕ(yz) <ϕ(z). Consequently, for every z ∈ X there exists yz ∈ X with ϕ(yz) <ϕ(z), so that there is no z ∈ X with ϕ(z) = inf ϕ(X). Remark 5.2. The version of Ekeland Variational Principle formulated in the first statement of Theorem 5.1 is called sometimes the weak form of Ekeland Variational Princi- ple. Oettli-Théra results is equivalent to the full version Ekeland Variational Principle (Theorem 4.5). I don’t know if Arutyunov’s result implies Ekeland Variational Principle (Theorem 4.5). Theorem 5.3. Theorems 4.5 and 4.13 are equivalent. Proof. Theorem 4.5 ⇒ Theorem 4.13. The proof given to Theorem 4.13 shows the validity of this implication. Theorem 4.13 ⇒ Theorem 4.5 . Supposing that the hypotheses of Theorem 4.5 are fulfilled, take F (x, y)= f(y) − f(x) for x, y ∈ X. It is easy to check that the conditions (E1)–(E4) from (4.14) are satisfied by F . Then (4.16) holds for some z ∈ S(x0), where S(x) is given by (4.15). But, in our case, the condition z ∈ S(x0) is equivalent to (i) from Theorem 4.5, while (4.16) is equivalent to (ii) of the same theorem. 6. Some classes of functions In order to obtain stronger maximality or minimality principles some authors considered more general classes of functions than the lsc ones. A discussion of three versions of lsc is done in the paper [6]. We shall present now these conditions. Definition 6.1. Let (X,d) be a quasi-pseudometric space and ϕ : X → R ∪{+∞} be an extended real-valued function on X. • ([6]) The function ϕ is said to be strict-decreasingly lsc, if for every d-convergent sequence (xn) such that the sequence (ϕ(xn)) is strictly decreasing, one has −−→ (6.1) ϕ(y) ≤ lim ϕ(xn), ∀ y ∈ {xn}, n→∞ −−→ where {xn} = {y ∈ X : limn→∞ d(y, xn)=0} is the collection of d-limits of the sequence {xn}. • A related notion is that of decreasingly lsc function considered by Kirk and Saliga [27] (called by them lower-semicontinuity from above) meaning that (6.1) holds for every sequence (xn) d-convergent to y and such that ϕ(xn+1) ≤ ϕ(xn), ∀n ∈ N. • Following [24] we call the function ϕ nearly lsc if, whenever a sequence (xn) of distinct points in X is d-convergent to x, then ϕ(x) ≤ lim infn→∞ ϕ(xn). Similarly, we can define the corresponding concepts for the conjugate quasi-metric d¯. EKELAND VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLE AND ITS EQUIVALENTS IN T1-QUASI-UNIFORM SPACES21

A characterization on nearly lsc functions on quasi-pseudometric spaces in terms of the monotony with respect to the specialization order is given in [12] – a function is lsc if and only if it is nearly lsc and monotone with respect to the specialization order. It is also shown that the nearly lower-semicontinuity goes back to lower-semicontinuity if the space is T1. The specialization ≤τ order in a topological space (T, τ) is given by

s ≤τ t ⇐⇒ s ∈ {t} . In general, it is a preorder, i.e. a reflexive and transitive relation. It is an order (also antireflexive) if and only if the topology τ is T0. If the topology τ is T1, then the specialization order becomes equality (see [20]). It is worth mentioning that the class of strict-decreasingly lsc functions is broader than the union of that of the decreasingly lsc functions and that of the nearly lower- semicontinuous functions. Since the strict-ϕ-decreasing requirement of the sequence (xn) implies that xn =6 xm for all n =6 m, every nearly lower-semicontinuous function is strict- ϕ-decreasingly lsc. Let us provide some examples with functions satisfying these conditions. Example 6.2. (decreasingly lsc, strict-decreasingly lsc and lsc functions). (a) Consider the functions ϕ, ϕ1 :(R, |·|) → (R, |·|) given by x if x ≥ 0 −x if x> 0 ϕ(x) := and ϕ1(x) := (−1 if x< 0 (1 if x ≤ 0 . Then ϕ is strict-decreasingly lsc at 0 , but not decreasingly lsc (and so not lsc) at 0, since the sequence xn = −1/n, n ∈ N, is convergent to 0 and ϕ(xn)= −1 for all n ∈ N, so that limn→∞ ϕ(xn)= −1 < 0= ϕ(0). The function ϕ1 is decreasingly lsc at 0, but not lsc. Indeed, there are no sequences xn → 0 with {ϕ1(xn)} strictly decreasing. If xn → 0 and ϕ1(xn+1) ≤ ϕ1(xn) for all n, then ϕ1(xn) = 1 for sufficiently large n, so that limn→∞ ϕ1(xn)=1= ϕ(0). The function ϕ1 is not lsc at 0 because limxց0 ϕ1(x)=0 < 1= ϕ1(0). (b) The function ϕ(x) = x is not strict-decreasingly forward-lower-semicontinuous in the quasimetric space ([0, 1], q4), where q4 is defined by x − y if x ≥ y; q4(x, y)= 1+ x − y if x

(The quasi-metric q4 is the conjugate of the one studied in [30, Example 3.16]). In  1 this space, the strict-ϕ-decreasingly forward-Cauchy sequence (xn) with xn = n has two forward-limits x∗ = 0 and y∗ = 1. Obviously, 1 lim inf ϕ(xn) = lim =0= ϕ(0) = ϕ(x∗) =6 ϕ(1) = ϕ(y∗). n→∞ n→∞ n

This proves that ϕ is not strict-decreasingly lower-semicontinuous in (X, q4). Incidentally, this furnishes an example of a quasimetric space (hence T1) where the uniqueness condition 22 S. COBZAS¸ for limits does not hold. It is easy to check that the sequence xn = 1/n is also left K- Cauchy. (c) The everywhere discontinuous function ϕ(x) = 0 for x ∈ Q and ϕ(x) = 1 for x ∈ R \ Q, deﬁned on (R, |·|), is strict-decreasingly lower-semicontinuous because there are no strictly ϕ-decreasing sequences. The function ϕ is not lower-semicontinuous at every point x ∈ R \ Q, because ϕ(x)=1 > 0 = lim infu→x ϕ(u). Also, it is not upper- semicontinuous at every x ∈ Q. Arutyunov and Gel’man [3] and Arutyunov [2] introduced another class of functions on a metric space (X,d), namely functions satisfying condition (6.3) from below (with convergence with respect to d instead of τ(U)-convergence) and proved the existence of minima for functions in this class deﬁned on complete metric spaces. For further results, see [4] and [5]. We show that these results can be extended to quasi-uniform spaces. Theorem 6.3 (Arutyunov [2]). Let P be a family of quasi-pseudometrics on a set X generating a quasi-uniformity U = UP such that (X, U) is sequentially right K-complete. Let η : R+ → R+ be a usc function such that (6.2) η(t) < t for all t> 0 . Suppose that f : X → [0, ∞] is a function satisfying the conditions:

(a) for every sequence (xn) in X and every x ∈ X

τ(U) (6.3) xn −−→ x and f(xn) → 0 ⇒ f(x) = 0; (b) there exists γ > 0 such that for every x ∈ X with f(x) > 0 there exists x′ ∈ X such that (i) ∀d ∈ P, f(x′)+ γd(x′, x) ≤ f(x), (6.4) (ii) f(x′) ≤ η(f(x)).

Then for every x0 ∈ dom f there exists x¯ ∈ X such that (i) f(¯x) = 0 = inf f(X); (6.5) f(x ) (ii) ∀d ∈ P, d(¯x, x ) ≤ 0 . 0 γ Proof. Observe ﬁrst that, by (6.2), (6.6) α ≤ η(α) ⇒ α =0 , for each α ≥ 0. Let x0 ∈ dom f. If f(x0) = 0, then we are done (withx ¯ = x0). Suppose that f(x0) > 0. Then by the condition (b) of the theorem, there exists x1 ∈ X such that (i) ∀d ∈ P, γd(x1, x0) ≤ f(x0) − f(x1)),

(ii) f(x1) ≤ η(f(x0)).

By (ii) x1 ∈ dom f. If f(x1)= 0 then takex ¯ = x1 and stop. EKELAND VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLE AND ITS EQUIVALENTS IN T1-QUASI-UNIFORM SPACES23

Suppose that we have found x0, x1,...,xn in dom f such that

(i) ∀d ∈ P, γd(xk+1, xk) ≤ f(xk) − f(xk+1), (6.7) (ii) f(xk+1) ≤ η(f(xk)), for k =0, 1,...,n − 1 and f(xk) > 0 for k =0, 1, . . . , n. Then choose xn+1 ∈ X such that

(i) ∀d ∈ P, γd(x+1, xn) ≤ f(xn) − f(xn+1)),

(ii) f(xn+1) ≤ η(f(xn)).

If f(xn+1) = 0, then takex ¯ = xn+1. Then f(¯x) = 0 = inf f(X) and, by (6.7).(i),

γd(¯x, x0) ≤ γ[d(xn+1, xn)+ ··· + d(x1, x0)]

≤ f(xn) − f(xn+1)+ ··· + f(x0) − f(x1)

= f(x0) − f(xn+1)= f(x0) , for all d ∈ P , implying (6.5).(ii).

If f(xn+1) > 0 at any step, then we ﬁnd a sequence (xk)k∈N0 in dom f, satisfying the conditions (6.7) for all k ∈ N0. Observe that, by (6.7).(i), the sequence (f(xk)) is decreasing, so that there exists limk→∞ f(xk)= α ≥ 0. By the usc of the function η and (6.7).(ii),

α ≤ lim sup η(f(xk)) ≤ η(α) , k so that, by (6.6), α = 0, that is, lim f(xk)=0 . k→∞ Now, by (6.7).(i), for every d ∈ P ,

γd(xn+k, xn) ≤ γ[d(xn+k, xn+k−1)+ ··· + d(xn+1, xn)]

≤ f(xn+k−1) − f(xn+k)+ ··· + f(xn) − f(xn+1)

= f(xn) − f(xn+k) , so that

(6.8) ∀d ∈ P, γd(xn+k, xn) ≤ f(xn) − f(xn+k) , for all n ∈ N0 and k ∈ N.

Since the sequence (f(xk))k∈N0 is Cauchy, for every ε > 0 there exists nε ∈ N0 such that 0 ≤ f(xn) − f(xn+k) < γε , for all n ≥ nε and all k ∈ N. Taking into account (6.8), it follows

d(xn+k, xn) < ε , for all n ≥ nε, k ∈ N and all d ∈ P . This shows that the sequence (xn) is right K- Cauchy, and so, by the right K-completeness of the quasi-uniform space (X, U), it is τ(U)-convergent to somex ¯ ∈ X. Now τ(U) xn −−→ x,¯ f(xn) → 0 , 24 S. COBZAS¸ and (6.3) imply f(¯x) = 0 = inf f(X). By Propositions 2.10 and 2.9, the function d(·, x0) is τ(U)-lsc for every d ∈ P , so that, by (6.8) (with n = 0 and k = n),

γd(xn, x0) ≤ f(x0) − f(xn) , whence

γd(¯x, x0) ≤ γ lim inf d(xn, x0) ≤ f(x0) , n which implies (6.5).(ii). As a consequence of Theorem 6.3 one obtains the following result proved by Arutyunov and Gel’man [3].

Corollary 6.4. Let X, P and U = UP be as in Theorem 6.3. Suppose that the proper function f : X → [0, ∞] satisﬁes condition (6.3) and there exist λ > 0 and 0 <µ< 1 such that for every x ∈ X there exists x′ ∈ X such that (i) ∀d ∈ P, d(x′, x) ≤ λf(x), (6.9) (ii) f(x′) ≤ µf(x).

Then for every x0 ∈ dom f there exist x¯ ∈ X such that (i) f(¯x) = 0 = inf f(X); (6.10) λ (ii) ∀d ∈ P, d(¯x, x ) ≤ f(x ) . 0 1 − µ 0 Proof. Multiplying the inequality (i) in (6.9) by 1 − µ and (ii) by λ and adding them, one obtains λf(x′)+(1 − µ)d(x′, x) ≤ λf(x) , or, equivalently, 1 − µ f(x′)+ d(x′, x) ≤ f(x) , λ i.e. (6.4).(i) holds with γ = (1 − µ)/λ. The inequality (6.4).(ii) also holds with η(t) = µt, t ∈ R+. Consequently, Theorem 6.3 yields (6.10). Remark 6.5. It is obvious that any sequentially lsc or with sequentially closed graph function f : X → [0, ∞] satisﬁes (6.3). In this case the result follows from Ekeland Variational Principle (see Theorem 4.11).

Example 6.6 ([3]). Let (X1,d1) and (X2,d2) be metric spaces, ∅ 6= A ⊆ X1, h : X1 → X2 continuous and g : A → Y with the graph closed in X1 × X2. Then the function f : X1 → [0, ∞] given by d (h(x),g(x)) for x ∈ A f(x)= 2 (∞ for x ∈ X1 r A satisﬁes (6.3). EKELAND VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLE AND ITS EQUIVALENTS IN T1-QUASI-UNIFORM SPACES25

Indeed, if xn → x and f(xn) → 0 , then, by the continuity of h, h(xn) → h(x). Since d2(h(xn),g(xn)) → 0, it follows g(xn) → h(x), so that g(x)= h(x) (because g has closed graph). Hence, f(x)= d2(h(x),g(x)) = d2(h(x), h(x))=0 . 26 S. COBZAS¸

References [1] S. Al-Homidan, Q. H. Ansari and G. Kassay, Takahashi’s minimization theorem and some related results in quasi-metric spaces, J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 21 (2019), no. 1, article 38, 20 p. 1, 17 [2] A. V. Arutyunov, Caristi’s condition and existence of a minimum of a lower bounded function in a metric space. Applications to the theory of coincidence points, Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 291 (2015), no. 1, 24–37, Translation of Tr. Mat. Inst. Steklova 291 (2015), 30–44. 2, 16, 17, 22 [3] A. V. Arutyunov and B. D. Gel’man, The minimum of a functional in a metric space, and fixed points, Zh. Vychisl. Mat. Mat. Fiz. 49 (2009), no. 7, 1167–1174. 2, 16, 22, 24 [4] A. V. Arutyunov and S. E. Zhukovskiy, Variational principles in analysis and existence of minimizers for functions on metric spaces, SIAM J. Optim. 29 (2019), no. 2, 994–1016. 16, 22 [5] A. V. Arutyunov, E. S. Zhukovskiy, and S. E. Zhukovskiy, Caristi-like condition and the existence of minima of mappings in partially ordered spaces, J. Optim. Theory Appl. 180 (2019), no. 1, 48–61. 16, 22 [6] T. Q. Bao, S. Cobza¸s, A. Soubeyran, Variational principles, completeness and the existence of traps in behavioral sciences, Ann. Oper. Res. 269 (2018), no. 1-2, 53–79. 1, 2, 20 [7] H. Brézis and F. E. Browder, A general principle on ordered sets in nonlinear functional analysis, Adv. Math. 21 (1976), no. 3, 355–364. 10 [8] S. Cobza¸s, Completeness in quasi-metric spaces and Ekeland Variational Principle, Topology Appl., 158 (2011), pp. 1073-1084. 1, 2 [9] , Ekeland variational principle in asymmetric locally convex spaces, Topology Appl. 159 (2012), no. 10-11, 2558–2569. 1 [10] , Functional Analysis in Asymmetric Normed Spaces, Frontiers in Mathematics, Birkhäuser/Springer Basel AG, Basel, 2013. 2, 7 [11] , Fixed points and completeness in metric and generalized metric spaces, Fundam. Prikl. Mat. 22 (2018), no. 1, 127–215 (Russian), (English translation in J. Math. Sci. (N.Y.) 250 (2020), no. 3, 475–535, see also arXiv:1508.05173v4 (2016), 71 p). 1 [12] , Ekeland, Takahashi and Caristi principles in quasi-pseudometric spaces, Topology Appl. 265, Article ID 106831, 22 p. (2019). 1, 2, 21 [13] I. Ekeland, Sur les problèmes variationnels, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. A-B, 275 (1972), pp. 1057- 1059. 1 [14] , On the variational principle, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 47 (1974), 324–353. 1 [15] , Nonconvex minimization problems, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 1 (1979), no. 3, 443–474. 1 [16] J.-X. Fang, The variational principle and fixed point theorems in certain topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 202 (1996), no. 2, 398–412. 2, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17 [17] R. Fierro, Maximality, fixed points and variational principles for mappings on quasi-uniform spaces, Filomat 31 (2017), no. 16, 5345–5355. 2 [18] P. Fletcher and W. F. Lindgren, Quasi-uniform spaces, M. Dekker, New York 1982. 2 [19] M. Frigon, On some generalizations of Ekeland’s principle and inward contractions in gauge spaces, J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 10 (2011), no. 2, 279–298. 1 [20] J. Goubault-Larrecq, Non-Hausdorff topology and domain theory: Selected topics in point-set topology, New Mathematical Monographs, vol. 22, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013. 21 [21] A. H. Hamel, Equivalents to Ekeland’s Variational Principle in F-type topological spaces, Report no. 09, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Institute of Optimization and Stochastics, 2001. 1, 10, 15, 16, 17 [22] , Equivalents to Ekeland’s variational principle in uniform spaces, Nonlinear Anal. 62 (2005), no. 5, 913–924. 1, 10, 16, 17 [23] A. Hamel and A. Löhne, A minimal point theorem in uniform spaces, Nonlinear analysis and applications: to V. Lakshmikantham on his 80th birthday. Vol. 1, 2, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 2003, pp. 577–593. 1, 8, 10 EKELAND VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLE AND ITS EQUIVALENTS IN T1-QUASI-UNIFORM SPACES27

[24] E. Karapinar and S. Romaguera, On the weak form of Ekeland’s variational principle in quasi- metric spaces, Topology Appl., 184 (2015), pp. 54-60. 1, 2, 20 [25] J. L. Kelley, General topology, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 27. Springer-Verlag, New York- Berlin, 1975. 3, 5, 6, 7 [26] J. C. Kelly, Bitopological spaces, Proc. London Math. Soc. 13 (1963), 71–89. 4 [27] W. A. Kirk and L. M. Saliga, The Brézis-Browder order principle and extensions of Caristi’s theorem, Nonlinear Anal., 47 (2001), pp. 2765-2778. 20 [28] H.-P. A. Künzi, An introduction to quasi-uniform spaces, Beyond topology, Contemp. Math., vol. 486, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2009, pp. 239–304. 2, 7 [29] H.-P. A. Künzi, M. Mrˇsević, I. L. Reilly, and M. K. Vamanamurthy, Convergence, precompactness and symmetry in quasi-uniform spaces, Math. Japon. 38 (1993), 239–253. 2 [30] L.-J. Lin, S.-Y. Wang, and Q. H. Ansari, Critical point theorems and Ekeland type variational principle with applications, Fixed Point Theory Appl., Art. ID 914624 (2011), pp. 1-21. 21 [31] W. Oettli and M. Théra, Equivalents of Ekeland’s principle, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 48 (1993), no. 3, 385–392. 17 [32] I. L. Reilly, On generating quasi uniformities, Math. Ann. 189 (1970), 317–318. 6 [33] , On quasi uniform spaces and quasi pseudo metrics, Math. Chronicle 1 (1970), no. part, part 2, 71–76. 6 [34] , Quasi-gauge spaces, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 6 (1973), 481–487. 6, 7 [35] I. L. Reilly, P. V. Subrahmanyam, M. K. Vamanamurthy, Cauchy sequences in quasi-pseudo-metric spaces, Monatsh. Math. 93 (1982), 127–140. 7 [36] W. Takahashi, Existence theorems generalizing fixed point theorems for multivalued mappings, Fixed point theory and applications (Marseille, 1989), Pitman Res. Notes Math. Ser., vol. 252, Longman Sci. Tech., Harlow, 1991, pp. 397–406. 16 [37] , Nonlinear functional analysis. Fixed point theory and its applications, Yokohama Publishers, Yokohama, 2000. 16