DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

ORTHOGONALITY AND LINEAR MAPPINGS IN BANACH MODULES

  • YUN, SUNGSIK (DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL MATHEMATICS, HANSHIN UNIVERITY)
  • 투고 : 2015.09.03
  • 심사 : 2015.09.05
  • 발행 : 2015.11.30

초록

Using the fixed point method, we prove the Hyers-Ulam stability of lin- ear mappings in Banach modules over a unital C*-algebra and in non-Archimedean Banach modules over a unital C*-algebra associated with the orthogonally Cauchy- Jensen additive functional equation.

키워드

1. INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARIES

Assume that X is a real inner product space and f : X → ℝ is a solution of the orthogonal Cauchy functional equation f(x + y) = f(x) + f(y), = 0. By the Pythagorean theorem f(x) = ∥x∥2 is a solution of the conditional equation. Of course, this function does not satisfy the additivity equation everywhere. Thus orthogonal Cauchy equation is not equivalent to the classic Cauchy equation on the whole inner product space.

G. Pinsker [40] characterized orthogonally additive functionals on an inner prod- uct space when the orthogonality is the ordinary one in such spaces. K. Sundaresan [50] generalized this result to arbitrary Banach spaces equipped with the Birkho®- James orthogonality. The orthogonal Cauchy functional equation

in which ⊥ is an abstract orthogonality relation, was first investigated by S. Gudder and D. Strawther [18]. They defined ⊥ by a system consisting of five axioms and described the general semi-continuous real-valued solution of conditional Cauchy functional equation. In 1985, J. Rätz [47] introduced a new definition of orthogonal- ity by using more restrictive axioms than of S. Gudder and D. Strawther. Moreover, he investigated the structure of orthogonally additive mappings. J. Rätz and Gy. Szabó [48] investigated the problem in a rather more general framework.

Let us recall the orthogonality in the sense of J. Rätz; cf. [47].

Suppose X is a real vector space (algebraic module) with dim X≥ 2 and ⊥ is a binary relation on X with the following properties:

(O1) totality of ⊥ for zero: x ⊥ 0, 0 ⊥ x for all x ∈ X;

(O2) independence: if x, y ∈ X - {0}, x ⊥ y, then x, y are linearly independent;

(O3) homogeneity: if x, y ∈ X, x ⊥ y, then αx ⊥ βy for all α, β ∈ ℝ;

(O4) the Thalesian property: if P is a 2-dimensional subspace of X, x ∈ P and λ ∈ ℝ+, which is the set of nonnegative real numbers, then there exists y0 ∈ P such that x ⊥ y0 and x + y0 ⊥ λx - y0.

The pair (X,⊥) is called an orthogonality space (module). By an orthogonality normed space (normed module) we mean an orthogonality space (module) having a normed (normed module) structure.

Assume that if A is a C*-algebra and X is a module over A and if x, y ∈ X, x ⊥ y, then ax ⊥ by for all a, b ∈ A.

Some interesting examples are

(i) The trivial orthogonality on a vector space X defined by (O1), and for non-zero elements x, y ∈ X, x ⊥ y if and only if x, y are linearly independent.

(ii) The ordinary orthogonality on an inner product space (X, <., .>) given by x⊥ y if and only if = 0.

(iii) The Birkhoff-James orthogonality on a normed space (X, ∥.∥) defined by x ⊥ y if and only if ∥x + λy∥ ≥∥x∥ for all λ ∈ ℝ.

The relation ⊥ is called symmetric if x ⊥ y implies that y ⊥ x for all x, y ∈ X. Clearly examples (i) and (ii) are symmetric but example (iii) is not. It is remarkable to note, however, that a real normed space of dimension greater than 2 is an inner product space if and only if the Birkhoff-James orthogonality is symmetric. There are several orthogonality notions on a real normed space such as Birkhoff-James, Boussouis, Singer, Carlsson, unitary-Boussouis, Roberts, Phythagorean, isosceles and Diminnie (see [1]−[3], [7, 14, 23, 24, 36]).

The stability problem of functional equations was originated from the following question of Ulam [52]: Under what condition does there is an additive mapping near an approximately additive mapping? In 1941, Hyers [20] gave a partial affrmative answer to the question of Ulam in the context of Banach spaces. In 1978, Th.M. Rassias [42] extended the theorem of Hyers by considering the unbounded Cauchy difference ∥f(x + y) − f(x) − f(y)∥ ≤ ε(∥x∥p + ∥y∥p), (ε > 0, p ∈ [0, 1)). The result of Rassias has provided a lot of infiuence in the development of what we now call generalized Hyers-Ulam stability or Hyers-Ulam stability of functional equations. During the last decades several stability problems of functional equations have been investigated in the spirit of Hyers-Ulam-Rassias. The reader is referred to [11, 21, 25, 46] and references therein for detailed information on stability of functional equations.

R. Ger and J. Sikorska [17] investigated the orthogonal stability of the Cauchy functional equation f(x + y) = f(x) + f(y), namely, they showed that if f is a mapping from an orthogonality space X into a real Banach space Y and ∥f(x + y) − f(x) − f(y)∥ ≤ ε for all x, y ∈ X with x ⊥ y and some ε > 0, then there exists exactly one orthogonally additive mapping g : X →Y such that for all x ∈ X.

The first author treating the stability of the quadratic equation was F. Skof [49] by proving that if f is a mapping from a normed space X into a Banach space Y satisfying ∥f(x + y)+f(x− y)−2f(x)−2f(y)∥≤ ε for some ε > 0, then there is a unique quadratic mapping g : X → Y such that . P.W. Cholewa [8] extended the Skof’s theorem by replacing X by an abelian group G. The Skof’s result was later generalized by S. Czerwik [9] in the spirit of Hyers-Ulam-Rassias. The stability problem of functional equations has been extensively investigated by some mathematicians (see [10, 39], [43]–[45]).

The orthogonally quadratic equation

was first investigated by F. Vajzović [53] when X is a Hilbert space, Y is the scalar field, f is continuous and ⊥ means the Hilbert space orthogonality. Later, H. Drljević [15], M. Fochi [16], M.S. Moslehian [31, 32] and Gy. Szabó [51] generalized this result.

In 1897, Hensel [19] introduced a normed space which does not have the Archimedean property. It turned out that non-Archimedean spaces have many nice applications (see [12, 27, 28, 35]).

Definition 1.1. By a non-Archimedean field we mean a field 𝕂 equipped with a function (valuation) | · | : 𝕂 → [0,∞) such that for all r, s ∈ 𝕂, the following conditions hold:

(1) |r| = 0 if and only if r = 0;

(2) |rs| = |r∥s|;

(3) |r + s| ≤ max{|r|, |s|}.

Definition 1.2 ([34]). Let X be a vector space over a scalar field 𝕂 with a non- Archimedean non-trivial valuation | · | . A function ∥·∥ : X→ R is a non- Archimedean norm (valuation) if it satisfies the following conditions:

(1) ∥x∥ = 0 if and only if x = 0;

(2) ∥rx∥ = |r⦀x∥ (r ∈ 𝕂, x ∈ X);

(3) The strong triangle inequality (ultrametric); namely,

∥x + y∥ ≤ max{∥x∥, ∥y∥}, x, y ∈ X.

Then (X, ∥.∥) is called a non-Archimedean space.

Assume that if A is a C*-algebra and X is a module over A, which is a non- Archimedean space, and if x, y ∈ X, x ⊥y, then ax ⊥ by for all a, b ∈ A. Then (X, ∥.∥) is called an orthogonality non-Archimedean module.

Due to the fact that

Definition 1.3. A sequence {xn}is Cauchy if and only if {xn+1−xn} converges to zero in a non-Archimedean space. By a complete non-Archimedean space we mean one in which every Cauchy sequence is convergent.

Let X be a set. A function d : X ×X → [0,∞] is called a generalized metric on X if d satisfies

(1) d(x, y) = 0 if and only if x = y;

(2) d(x, y) = d(y, x) for all x, y ∈ X;

(3) d(x, y) ≤ d(x, y) + d(y, z) for all x, y, z ∈ X.

We recall a fundamental result in fixed point theory.

Theorem 1.4 ([4, 13]). Let (X, d) be a complete generalized metric space and let J : X → X be a strictly contractive mapping with Lipschitz constant α < 1. Then for each given element x∈ X, either

for all nonnegative integers n or there exists a positive integer n0 such that

(1), ∀n ≥ n0;

(2) the sequence {Jnx} converges to a fixed point y* of J;

(3) y* is the unique fixed point of J in the set Y = {y ∈ X | d(Jn0x, y) < ∞};

(4) for all y ∈ Y.

In 1996, G. Isac and Th.M. Rassias [22] were the first to provide applications of stability theory of functional equations for the proof of new fixed point theorems with applications. By using fixed point methods, the stability problems of several functional equations have been extensively investigated by a number of authors (see [5, 6, 30, 37, 38, 41]).

This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we prove the Hyers-Ulam stability of the orthogonally Cauchy-Jensen additive functional equation in Banach modules over a unital C*-algebra. In Section 3, we prove the Hyers-Ulam stability of the orthogonally Cauchy-Jensen additive functional equation in non-Archimedean Banach modules over a unital C*-algebra.

 

2. STABILITY OF THE ORTHOGONALLY CAUCHY-JENSEN ADDITIVE FUNCTIONAL EQUATION IN BANACH MODULES OVER A C*-ALGEBRA

Throughout this section, assume that A is a unital C*-algebra with unit e and unitary group U(A) := {u ∈ A | u*u = uu* = e}, (X,⊥) is an orthogonality normed module over A and (Y, ∥.∥Y ) is a Banach module over A.

In this section, applying some ideas from [17, 21], we deal with the stability problem for the orthogonally Cauchy-Jensen additive functional equation

for all x, y, z ∈ X with x ⊥ y, x ⊥ z and y ⊥ z.

Theorem 2.1. Let φ : X3 → [0,∞) be a function such that there exists an α < 1 with

for all x, y, z ∈ X with x ⊥ y, x ⊥z and y ⊥ z. Let f : X → Y be a mapping satisfying f(0) = 0 and

for all u ∈ U(A) and all x, y, z ∈ X with x ⊥ y, x ⊥ z and y ⊥ z. If for each x ∈ X the mapping f(tx) is continuous in t ∈ ℝ, then there exists a unique orthogonally Cauchy-Jensen additive and A-linear mapping L : X → Y such that

for all x ∈ X.

Proof. Putting y = z = 0 and u = e in (2.2), we get

for all x ∈ X, since x ⊥ 0. So

for all x ∈ X.

Consider the set

and introduce the generalized metric on S:

where, as usual, inf 𝜙 = +∞. It is easy to show that (S, d) is complete (see [29]).

Now we consider the linear mapping J : S → S such that

for all x ∈ X.

Let g, h ∈ S be given such that d(g, h) = ε. Then

for all x ∈ X. Hence

for all x ∈ X. So d(g, h) = ε implies that d(Jg, Jh) ≤αε. This means that

for all g,h ∈ S.

It follows from (2.5) that d(f, Jf)≤α.

By Theorem 1.4, there exists a mapping L : X → Y satisfying the following:

(1) L is a fixed point of J, i.e.,

for all x ∈ X. The mapping L is a unique fixed point of J in the set

This implies that L is a unique mapping satisfying (2.6) such that there exists a μ ∈(0,∞) satisfying

for all x ∈ X;

(2) d(Jnf,L) → 0 as n →∞. This implies the equality

for all x ∈ X;

(3), which implies the inequality

This implies that the inequalities (2.3) holds.

Let u = e in (2.2). It follows from (2.1) and (2.2) that

for all x, y, z∈ X with x ⊥ y, x ⊥ z and y ⊥ z. So

for all x, y, z∈ X with x ⊥ y, x ⊥ z and y ⊥ z. Hence L : X → Y is an orthogonally Cauchy-Jensen additive mapping.

Let y = z = 0 in (2.2). It follows from (2.1) and (2.2) that

for all x ∈ X. So

for all x ∈ X. Hence

for all u ∈ U. (A) and all x ∈ X.

By the same reasoning as in the proof of [42, Theorem], we can show that L : X → Y is ℝ-linear, since the mapping f(tx) is continuous in t ∈ ℝ for each x ∈ X and L : X → Y is additive.

Since L is ℝ-linear and each a ∈ A is a finite linear combination of unitary elements (see [26, Theorem 4.1.7]), i.e., , it follows from (2.7) that

for all x ∈ X. It is obvious that . Thus L : X → Y is a unique orthogonally Cauchy-Jensen additive and A-linear mapping satisfying (2.3).

Corollary 2.2. Let 𝜽 be a positive real number and p a real number with 0 < p < 1. Let f : X →Y be a mapping satisfying

for all u ∈ U(A) and all x, y, z ∈ X with x ⊥ y, x ⊥ z and y ⊥ z. If for each x∈X the mapping f(tx) is continuous in t ∈ ℝ, then there exists a unique orthogonally Cauchy-Jensen additive and A-linear mapping L : X → Y such that

for all x ∈ X.

Proof. The proof follows from Theorem 2.1 by taking φ(x, y) = θ(∥x∥p+∥y∥p+∥z∥p) for all x, y, z ∈ X with x ⊥ y, x ⊥ z and y ⊥ z. Then we can choose α = 2p−1 and we get the desired result.

Theorem 2.3. Let f : X → Y be a mapping satisfying (2.2) and f(0) = 0 for which there exists a function φ : X3 → [0,∞) such that

for all x, y, z ∈ X with x ⊥ y, x ⊥ z and y ⊥ z. If for each x∈X the mapping f(tx) is continuous in t ∈ ℝ, then there exists a unique orthogonally Cauchy-Jensen additive and A-linear mapping L : X → Y such that

for all x ∈ X.

Proof. Let (S, d) be the generalized metric space defined in the proof of Theorem 2.1.

Now we consider the linear mapping J : S → S such that

for all x ∈ X.

It follows from (2.4) that d(f, Jf) ≤1.

The rest of the proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 2.1.

Corollary 2.4. Let θ be a positive real number and p a real number with p > 1. Let f : X → Y be a mapping satisfying (2.8). If for each x ∈ X the mapping f(tx) is continuous in t ∈ ℝ, then there exists a unique orthogonally Cauchy-Jensen additive and A-linear mapping L : X → Y such that

for all x ∈ X.

Proof. The proof follows from Theorem 2.3 by taking

for all x, y, z ∈ X with x ⊥ y, x ⊥ z and y ⊥ z. Then we can choose α = 21−p and we get the desired result.

 

3. STABILITY OF THE ORTHOGONALLY CAUCHY-JENSEN ADDITIVE FUNCTIONAL EQUATION IN NON-ARCHIMEDEAN BANACH MODULES OVER A C*-ALGEBRA

Throughout this section, assume that A is a unital C*-algebra with unit e and unitary group U(A) := {u ∈ A |u*u = uu* = e}, (X,⊥) is an orthogonality non-Archimedean normed module over A and (Y, ∥.∥Y ) is a non-Archimedean Banach module over A. Assume that |2| ≠ 1.

In this section, applying some ideas from [17, 21], we deal with the stability problem for the orthogonally Cauchy-Jensen additive functional equation.

Theorem 3.1. Let φ : X3 → [0,∞) be a function such that there exists an α < 1 with

for all x, y, z ∈ X with x ⊥ y, x ⊥ z and y ⊥ z. Let f : X → Y be a mapping satisfying f(0) = 0 and (2.2). If for each x∈X the mapping f(tx) is continuous in t ∈ ℝ, then there exists a unique orthogonally Cauchy-Jensen additive and A-linear mapping L : X → Y such that

for all x ∈ X.

Proof. It follows from (2.4) that

for all x ∈ X.

Let (S, d) be the generalized metric space defined in the proof of Theorem 2.1.

Now we consider the linear mapping J : S → S such that

for all x ∈ X.

It follows from (3.3) that d(f,Jf) ≤ α.

By Theorem 1.4, there exists a mapping L : X → Y satisfying the following:

(1) d(Jn f, L) → 0 as n → ∞. This implies the equality

for all x ∈ X;

(2) , which implies the inequality

This implies that the inequality (3.2) holds.

It follows from (3.1) and (2.2) that

for all u ∈ U(A) and all x, y, z ∈ X with x ⊥ y, x ⊥ z and y ⊥ z. So

for all u ∈ U(A) and all x, y, z ∈ X with x ⊥ y, x ⊥ z and y ⊥ z.

The rest of the proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 2.1.

Corollary 3.2. Let θ be a positive real number and p a real number with p > 1. Let f : X → Y be a mapping satisfying (2.8). If for each x ∈ X the mapping f(tx) is continuous in t ∈ℝ, then there exists a unique orthogonally Cauchy-Jensen additive and A-linear mapping L : X → Y such that

for all x ∈ X.

Proof. The proof follows from Theorem 3.1 by taking for all x, y, z ∈ X with x ⊥ y, x ⊥ z. Then we can choose α =|2|p−1 and we get the desired result.

Theorem 3.3. Let f : X → Y be a mapping satisfying (2.2) and f(0) = 0 for which there exists a function φ : X3 → [0,∞) such that

for all x, y, z ∈ X with x ⊥ y, x ⊥ z and y ⊥ z. If for each x ∈ X the mapping f(tx) is continuous in t ∈ ℝ, then there exists a unique orthogonally Cauchy-Jensen additive and A-linear mapping L : X → Y such that

for all x ∈ X.

Proof. Let (S, d) be the generalized metric space defined in the proof of Theorem 2.1.

Now we consider the linear mapping J : S → S such that

for all x ∈ X.

It follows from (2.4) that d(f, Jf) ≤ 1.

The rest of the proof is similar to the proofs of Theorems 2.1 and 3.1.

Corollary 3.4. Let θ be a positive real number and p a real number with 0 < p < 1. Let f : X → Y be a mapping satisfying (2.8). If for each x ∈ X the mapping f(tx) is continuous in t ∈ ℝ, then there exists a unique orthogonally Cauchy-Jensen additive and A-linear mapping L : X → Y such that

for all x ∈ X.

Proof. The proof follows from Theorem 3.3 by by taking for all x, y, z ∈ X with x ⊥ y, x ⊥ z and y ⊥ z. Then we can choose α = |2|1−p and we get the desired result.

참고문헌

  1. J. Alonso & C. Benítez: Orthogonality in normed linear spaces: a survey I. Main properties. Extracta Math. 3 (1988), 1-15.
  2. ______: Orthogonality in normed linear spaces: a survey II. Relations between main orthogonalities. Extracta Math. 4 (1989), 121-131.
  3. G. Birkhoff: Orthogonality in linear metric spaces. Duke Math. J. 1 (1935), 169-172. https://doi.org/10.1215/S0012-7094-35-00115-6
  4. L. Cădariu & V. Radu: Fixed points and the stability of Jensen's functional equation, J. Inequal. Pure Appl. Math. 4, no. 1, Art. ID 4 (2003).
  5. ______: On the stability of the Cauchy functional equation: a fixed point approach. Grazer Math. Ber. 346 (2004), 43-52.
  6. ______: Fixed point methods for the generalized stability of functional equations in a single variable. Fixed Point Theory and Applications 2008, Art. ID 749392 (2008).
  7. S.O. Carlsson: Orthogonality in normed linear spaces. Ark. Mat. 4 (1962), 297-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02591506
  8. P.W. Cholewa: Remarks on the stability of functional equations. Aequationes Math. 27 (1984), 76-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02192660
  9. S. Czerwik: On the stability of the quadratic mapping in normed spaces. Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 62 (1992), 59-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02941618
  10. ______: Functional Equations and Inequalities in Several Variables. World Scientific Publishing Company, New Jersey, London, Singapore and Hong Kong, 2002.
  11. ______: Stability of Functional Equations of Ulam-Hyers-Rassias Type. Hadronic Press, Palm Harbor, Florida, 2003.
  12. D. Deses: On the representation of non-Archimedean objects. Topology Appl. 153 (2005), 774-785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.topol.2005.01.010
  13. J. Diaz & B. Margolis: A fixed point theorem of the alternative for contractions on a generalized complete metric space. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 74 (1968), 305-309. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9904-1968-11933-0
  14. C.R. Diminnie: A new orthogonality relation for normed linear spaces. Math. Nachr. 114 (1983), 197-203. https://doi.org/10.1002/mana.19831140115
  15. F. Drljević: On a functional which is quadratic on A-orthogonal vectors. Publ. Inst. Math.(Beograd) 54 (1986), 63-71.
  16. M. Fochi: Functional equations in A-orthogonal vectors. Aequationes Math. 38 (1989), 28-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01839491
  17. R. Ger & J. Sikorska: Stability of the orthogonal additivity. Bull. Polish Acad. Sci. Math. 43 (1995), 143-151.
  18. S. Gudder & D. Strawther: Orthogonally additive and orthogonally increasing functions on vector spaces. Pacific J. Math. 58 (1975), 427-436. https://doi.org/10.2140/pjm.1975.58.427
  19. K. Hensel: Ubereine news Begrundung der Theorie der algebraischen Zahlen. Jahresber. Deutsch. Math. Verein 6 (1897), 83-88.
  20. D.H. Hyers: On the stability of the linear functional equation. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 27 (1941), 222-224. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.27.4.222
  21. D.H. Hyers, G. Isac & Th.M. Rassias: Stability of Functional Equations in Several Variables. Birkhäuser, Basel, 1998.
  22. G. Isac & Th.M. Rassias: Stability of ψ-additive mappings: Appications to nonlinear analysis. Internat. J. Math. Math. Sci. 19 (1996), 219-228. https://doi.org/10.1155/S0161171296000324
  23. R.C. James: Orthogonality in normed linear spaces. Duke Math. J. 12 (1945), 291-302. https://doi.org/10.1215/S0012-7094-45-01223-3
  24. ______: Orthogonality and linear functionals in normed linear spaces. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 61 (1947), 265-292. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9947-1947-0021241-4
  25. S. Jung: Hyers-Ulam-Rassias Stability of Functional Equations in Mathematical Analysis. Hadronic Press, Palm Harbor, Florida, 2001.
  26. R.V. Kadison & J.R. Ringrose: Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras. Academic Press, New York, 1983.
  27. A.K. Katsaras & A. Beoyiannis: Tensor products of non-Archimedean weighted spaces of continuous functions. Georgian Math. J. 6 (1999), 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022926309318
  28. A. Khrennikov: Non-Archimedean analysis: quantum paradoxes, dynamical systems and biological models. Mathematics and its Applications 427, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1997.
  29. D. Miheţ & V. Radu: On the stability of the additive Cauchy functional equation in random normed spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 343 (2008), 567-572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.01.100
  30. M. Mirzavaziri & M.S. Moslehian: A fixed point approach to stability of a quadratic equation. Bull. Braz. Math. Soc. 37 (2006), 361-376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00574-006-0016-z
  31. M.S. Moslehian: On the orthogonal stability of the Pexiderized quadratic equation. J. Difference Equat. Appl. 11 (2005), 999-1004. https://doi.org/10.1080/10236190500273226
  32. ______: On the stability of the orthogonal Pexiderized Cauchy equation. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 318 (2006), 211-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.05.052
  33. M.S. Moslehian & Th.M. Rassias: Orthogonal stability of additive type equations. Aequationes Math. 73 (2007), 249-259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00010-006-2868-0
  34. M.S. Moslehian & Gh. Sadeghi: A Mazur-Ulam theorem in non-Archimedean normed spaces. Nonlinear Anal.-TMA 69 (2008), 3405-3408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2007.09.023
  35. P.J. Nyikos: On some non-Archimedean spaces of Alexandrof and Urysohn. Topology Appl. 91 (1999), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-8641(97)00239-3
  36. L. Paganoni & J. Rätz: Conditional function equations and orthogonal additivity. Aequationes Math. 50 (1995), 135-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01831116
  37. C. Park: Fixed points and Hyers-Ulam-Rassias stability of Cauchy-Jensen functional equations in Banach algebras. Fixed Point Theory and Applications 2007, Art. ID50175 (2007).
  38. ______: Generalized Hyers-Ulam-Rassias stability of quadratic functional equations: a fixed point approach. Fixed Point Theory and Applications 2008, Art. ID 493751(2008).
  39. C. Park & J. Park: Generalized Hyers-Ulam stability of an Euler-Lagrange type additive mapping. J. Difference Equat. Appl. 12 (2006), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1080/10236190600986925
  40. A.G. Pinsker: Sur une fonctionnelle dans l’espace de Hilbert. C. R. (Dokl.) Acad. Sci. URSS, n. Ser. 20 (1938), 411-414.
  41. V. Radu: The fixed point alternative and the stability of functional equations. Fixed Point Theory 4 (2003), 91-96.
  42. Th.M. Rassias: On the stability of the linear mapping in Banach spaces. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 72 (1978), 297-300. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-1978-0507327-1
  43. Th.M. Rassias, On the stability of the quadratic functional equation and its applications, Studia Univ. Babeş-Bolyai Math. 43 (1998), 89-124.
  44. ______: The problem of S.M. Ulam for approximately multiplicative mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 246 (2000), 352-378. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmaa.2000.6788
  45. ______: On the stability of functional equations in Banach spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 251 (2000), 264-284. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmaa.2000.7046
  46. Th.M. Rassias (ed.): Functional Equations, Inequalities and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston and London, 2003.
  47. J. Rätz: On orthogonally additive mappings. Aequationes Math. 28 (1985), 35-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02189390
  48. J. Rätz & Gy. Szabó: On orthogonally additive mappings IV . Aequationes Math. 38(1989), 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01839496
  49. F. Skof: Proprietà locali e approssimazione di operatori. Rend. Sem. Mat. Fis. Milano 53 (1983), 113-129. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02924890
  50. K. Sundaresan: Orthogonality and nonlinear functionals on Banach spaces. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 34 (1972), 187-190. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-1972-0291835-X
  51. Gy. Szabó: Sesquilinear-orthogonally quadratic mappings. Aequationes Math. 40 (1990), 190-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02112295
  52. S.M. Ulam: Problems in Modern Mathematics. Wiley, New York, 1960.
  53. F. Vajzović: Über das Funktional H mit der Eigenschaft: (x, y) = 0 ⇒ H(x + y) +H(x - y) = 2H(x) + 2H(y). Glasnik Mat. Ser. III 2 (1967), no. 22, 73-81.