Sentence examples for mappings are different from inspiring English sources

However, their assumptions on the given mappings are different.

Maximal monotone mappings and weakly or strongly relatively non-expansive mappings are different types of important nonlinear mappings due to their practical background.

But, both classes of J-type and (SL -type mappingSL -typefferent fromappingsare of nonexpansive mappings (see Remark 2.5, [22], Example 4, [21], Example 27 andifferent.1260).

In this study, we intend for PISwap to be used as a booster to any kind of initial alignment program and demonstrate that the tool can effectively refine mappings obtained by state-of-the-art alignment algorithms; however, the refining effects on these initial mappings are different.

The following two examples show that C q -commuting and R-weakly commuting self-mappings are different classes.

In 2011, Dhompongsa et al.[12] proved that, by giving the following examples, in Banach spaces, the class of nonspreading mappings for a general Banach space and the class of mappings satisfying condition (C) are different.

assumption can also be limiting in other practical situations; e.g. if different genotypic markers or different mappings are predictive in different strata of the population.

So the non-degeneracy condition in symplectic mappings and that in Hamiltonian systems are different.

Since the perturbed (VVI) problem with a sequence of mappings converging is different from the parametric (VVI) problem with the parameter perturbed in a space of parameters, these results do not apply to the parametric (VVI) problem with the parameter perturbed in a space of parameters.

Although the results show refinement on all initial mappings, the refining effects on the three alignment tools are different.

The Banach operator pairs are different from those of weakly compatible, -commuting and -subweakly commuting mappings and so our results are different from those in [3, 7, 8, 17].