On the extensions of Krasnoselskii-type theorems to \(p\)-cyclic self-mappings in Banach spaces (Q659525)

The author writes: ``A set of \(n\) \(p (p \geq 2)\)-cyclic and either continuous or contractive self-mappings, with at least one of them being contractive, which are defined on a set of subsets of a Banach space, are considered to build a composed self-mapping of interest. The existence and uniqueness of fixed points and the existence of best proximity points, in the case that the subsets do not interest, of such composed mappings are investigated by stating and proving ad hoc extensions of several Krasnoselskii-type theorems.'' In general, the article is written in the strange and cumbersome manner. For example, the author writes: ``In this manuscript, \((X,d)\) is a complete metric space and is considered associated to a Banach space \(X\) endowed with translation-invariant and homogeneous metric \(d:X \times X \to {\mathbb R}_{0+} \dots\) A valid metric is the norm of a Banach space \(X\)''. And further, ``we consider a mapping \(T: (A_1 \cup A_2) \times (A_1 \cup A_2) \to X\) defined by \(T(x,y) = T_1x + T_2y\) such that \(T^j(x,y) = T(T^{j-1}(x,y)) = T_1^jx + T_2^jy\).'' Or, in the closing paragraph: ``For the obtained results related to boundedness of distances between iterates through \(T\), it is not required for the set of subsets of \(X\) to be either closed or convex''. To understand these and other similar phrases is hardly possible. As a result, the real sense of the theorems obtained in this article remains obscure.