\section{Introduction}
Second-order optimality conditions of Karush-Kuhn-Tuc\-ker type and Fritz John one play essential role in development of the contemporary vector  optimization. We mention several important works which concern problems with inequality constraints: $[^1]$, $[^2]$, $[^3]$, $[^4]$, $[^5]$.

In the present paper, we deal with optimality criteria of Karush-Kuhn-Tucker
type and Fritz John one for the nonlinear programming problem with inequality constraints

\medskip
\noindent
Minimize$\quad f(x)\quad$subject to $g(x)\leqq0$,\hfill ${\rm (P)}$

\medskip
\noindent
where $f:X\to\R^n$ and $g:X\to\R^m$ are given vector real-valued functions, defined on some open set $X$ in the finite-dimensional space $\R^s$.
Such results were obtained for scalar problems by Ginchev and Ivanov $[^6]$
We generalize them to multi-objective programming problems.

All results given here are obtained for nonsmooth problems in terms of the standard second-order directional derivative.
We derive second-order necessary conditions for a (weak) local efficiency for problems with C$^1$ (i.e. continuously
differentiable) data. We introduce a new second-order constraint qualification (for short CQ). Its form is similar to Mangasarian-Fromovitz CQ $[^7]$ and we call it second-order  Mangasarian-Fromovitz CQ, because it includes second-order derivatives. If the constraints satisfy the Mangasarian-Fromovitz CQ, then they satisfy the second-order one. We show that the necessary conditions without any
constraint qualification are sufficient for global efficiency in some problems of generalized convexity type, which are introduced in the paper. We obtain also that the same conditions are necessary and sufficient for weak global efficiency under different generalized convexity assumptions. In the sufficient conditions, we suppose that all components of the objective function are
second-order pseudoconvex, a notion recently introduced by Ginchev and Ivanov $[^8]$


\bigskip
{\bf 2. Necessary and sufficient conditions for an efficient solution.}
In this section, we derive necessary and sufficient optimality conditions for efficiency for the problem {\rm{(P)}}.

We begin with some preliminary definitions.
\smallskip
Denote by $\R$ the set of reals and let $\RR=\R\cup\{-\infty\}\cup\{+\infty\}$.
Let the function $\f$ with an open domain $X\subset\R^n$ be differentiable at
the point $x\in X$. Then the second-order directional derivative
$f^{\pr\pr}(x,u)$ of $f$ at the point $x\in X$ in direction $u\in\E$
is defined as element of $\RR$ by

\centerline{$f^{\pr\pr}(x,u)=\lim_{t\to +0}\;2 t^{-2}[f(x+tu)-f(x)-t\nabla f(x)u].$}
The function $f$ is called second-order directionally differentiable on $X$
if the derivative $f^{\pr\pr}(x,u)$ exists for each point $x\in X$ and any direction $u\in\R^n$.


\smallskip
Recall that a scalar function $f:X\to\R$ is said to be quasiconvex at the point $x\in X$
(with respect to $X\subset\R^s$) $[^9]$
if the conditions $y\in X$, $f(y)\leqq f(x)$,
$t\in[0,1]$, $(1-t)x+ty\in X$ imply $ f((1-t)x+ty)\leqq f(x)$.
If the set $X$ is convex, then the function $f$ is called quasiconvex on $X$
when for all
$x,\;y\in X$ and $t\in [0,\,1]$ it holds
$ f((1-t)x+ty)\leqq\max\left(f(x),\,f(y)\right). $

Throughout this paper we use the following notations comparing the vectors $x$ and $y$ with components $x_i$ and $y_i$ in finite-dimensional spaces:

\centerline{$x<y\quad\textrm{if}\quad x_i<y_i\quad\textrm{for all indices }i;$}
\centerline{$x\leqq y\quad\textrm{if}\quad x_i\leqq y_i\quad\textrm{for all indices }i;$}
\centerline{$x\le y\quad\textrm{if}\quad x_i\leqq y_i\quad\textrm{for all indices }\quad i\quad\textrm{with at least one being strict.}$}

A feasible point $\bar x\in S$ is called a (weak) local Pareto minimizer, or (weakly) efficient if there exists a neigbourhood $U\ni\bar x$ such that there is no $x\in U\cap S$ with  $f(x)\le f(\bar x)$ ($f(x)<f(\bar x)$). 
The point $\bar x\in S$ is called a (weak) global Pareto minimizer if there does not exist $x\in S$ with $f(x)\le f(\bar x)$ ($f(x)<f(\bar x)$).

The following lemma is due to Kanniappan $[^{10}]$.
\begin{lemma}\label{kan}
A point $\bar x\in X$ is Pareto optimal for (P) if and only if $\bar x$ minimizes each component $f_i$ of the vector function $f$ over the constraint set
\begin{equation}\label{1}
C_i=\{x\in X\mid g(x)\leqq 0,\; f_j(x)\le f_j(\bar x), j\ne i\}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

Consider the following scalar problem:

\medskip
\noindent
Minimize$\quad h_0(x)\quad$subject to$\quad h_i(x)\leqq0$, $i=1,2,...m$,\hfill ${\rm (SP)}$

\medskip
\noindent
where $h_i:X\to\R$, $i=0,1,...,m$ are given real-valued functions, defined on some open set $X\subset\R^s$. 

For fixed vectors $\bar x\in\E$ and $d\in\E$, let

 \centerline{$I_0(\bar x,d):=\{i\in \{0\}\cup I(\bar x)\mid\nabla h_i(\bar x)d=0\}.$}

The following theorem is due to Ginchev and Ivanov $[^6]$:

\begin{lemma}[Second-order necessary conditions for the scalar problem (SP)]\label{NKT}
Let $X$ be an open set in the space $\R^n$, the functions
$h_i$ $(i=0,1,...,m)$ be defined on $X$.
Suppose that the feasible point $\bar x$ is a local minimizer of the problem {\rm{(SP)}},
the functions $h_i$ belong to the class C$^1$, $i\in\{0\}\cup I(\bar x)\}$,
they are second-order directionally differentiable at $\bar x$ in every critical direction $d\in\R^n$,
and the functions $h_i$ $(i\notin I(\bar x))$ are continuous at $\bar x$.
Then corresponding to any critical direction $d$
there exist nonnegative multipliers $\lambda_0,\lambda_1,...,\lambda_m$, not all zero, such that
\[
\lambda_i h_i(\bar x)=0,\;i=1,2,...,m,\quad\nabla L(\bar x)=0,
\]
\[
\lambda_i\nabla h_i(\bar x)d=0,\quad i\in\{0\}\cup I(\bar x),
\]
\begin{equation}\label{4}
L^{\pr\pr}(\bar x,d)=\sum_{i\in\{0\}\cup I(\bar x)}\lambda_i
h_i^{\pr\pr}(\bar x,d)\geqq 0.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

Consider the problem {\rm{(P)}}. Denote 

\centerline{$S:=\{x\in X\mid g_j(x)\le 0,\; j=1,2,\ldots,m\}.$}
\noindent
For every feasible point $x\in S$  let $A(x)$ be the set of active constraints

\centerline{$A(x):=\{j\in\{1,2,\ldots,m\}\mid g_j(x)=0\}.$}
A direction $d$ is called critical at the point $x\in S$ if

\centerline{$\nabla f_i(x)d\leqq0\quad\textrm{for all}\quad i\in\{1,2,\ldots,n\}\quad\textrm{and}\quad \nabla g_j(x)\leqq 0\quad\textrm{for all}\quad j\in A(x).$}
For every critical direction $d$ at the feasible point $x$ denote by $I(x,d)$ and $J(x,d)$ the following index sets:

\centerline{$I(x,d):=\{i\in\{1,2,\ldots,n\}\mid\nabla f_i(x)d=0\},\; J(x,d):=\{j\in A(x)\mid\nabla g_j(x)d=0\}.$}

It is said that Mangasarian-Fromovitz constraint qualification $[^7]$
holds at the point $\bar x$ if there exists a vector $u$ such that 

\centerline{$\nabla g_j(\bar x)u>0,\quad j\in A(\bar x).$}
\noindent
It is usually supposed the following equivalent form: $\nabla g_j(\bar x)u<0$, $j\in A(\bar x)$.

We introduce the following more general constraint qualification:

\begin{definition}
We say that the active constraints satisfy the second-order Man\-ga\-sa\-rian-Fromovitz CQ if for every direction $d$ with
\begin{equation}\label{CQ}
\nabla g_j(\bar x)d\le 0,\; j\in A(\bar x),\; d\ne 0
\end{equation}
there exist a vector $u$ and a number $\omega\ge 0$ which depend on $d$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{SOCQ}
\nabla g_j(\bar x)u>\omega g_j^{\pr\pr}(\bar x,d),\quad j\in A(\bar x).
\end{equation}
\end{definition}

\begin{proposition}
If the active constraints satisfy Mangasarian-Fromovitz CQ and they are second-order directionally differentiable at $\bar x$ in every direction $d$ which satisfies  $(\ref{CQ})$, then the second-order Mangasarian-Fromovitz CQ holds.
\end{proposition}
{\bf Proof.}
To show that the second-order CQ holds for every direction such that (\ref{CQ}) holds, we should keep the same vector $u$ and choose $\omega=0$.
\qed

The following simple example shows that the second-order Mangasarian-Fro\-mo\-vitz CQ is really more general for differentiable and second-order directionally differentiable problems than Mangasarian-Fro\-mo\-vitz CQ.
\begin{example}
Consider the  problem (P) where $X\equiv\R^2$, $f$ is an arbitrary vector or scalar function of two variables whose minimum is attained at $\bar x=(0,0)$ 
and $g$ is the scalar function 

\centerline{$g(x_1,x_2)=-x_1^2-x_2^2.$}
\noindent
The inequality constraint is active at $\bar x$. We have $\nabla g(\bar x)=(0,0)$ and $g^{\prime\prime}(\bar x,d)=-2\norm{d}^2<0$. Therefore, the Mangasarian-Fromovitz CQ is not satisfied, but the second-order CQ holds.
\end{example}

\begin{remark}
We do not suppose that the inequality in the second-order CQ is satisfied for $d=0$. Really, if we assume that the second-order CQ is fulfilled for $d=0$, then both the first-order and second-order constraint qualifications become equivalent, because the second-order CQ when $d=0$ implies that the Mangasarian-Fromovitz CQ holds.
\end{remark}

\begin{theorem}[Second order necessary conditions for the vector problem (P)]\label{th1}
Let $X$ be an open set in the space $\R^s$, the functions
$f_i$ $(i=1,2,\ldots,n)$, $g_j$ $(j=1,2,\ldots,m)$ be defined on $X$.
Suppose that $\bar x$ is a local Pareto minimizer of the problem {\rm{(P)}},
the functions $g_j$ $(j\notin A(\bar x))$ are continuous at $\bar x$, the vector function $f$ and
the functions $g_j$ $(j\in A(\bar x))$ are continuously differentiable,
and the functions $f_i$ $(i\in I(\bar x,d))$, $g_j$ $(j\in J(\bar x,d))$ are second-order directionally
differentiable at $\bar x$ in any critical direction $d\in\R^n$.

Then  for every critical direction $d\in\E$, there exist nonnegative Lagrange multipliers $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots ,\lambda_n)$, $\mu=(\mu_1,\mu_2,\ldots,\mu_m)$ with $(\lambda,\mu)\ne 0$ such that 
\begin{equation}\label{9}
\mu_j g_j(\bar x)=0,\;j=1,2,...,m,\quad\nabla L(\bar x)=0,
\end{equation}
\[
\lambda_i\nabla f_i(\bar x)d=0,\quad\mu_j\nabla g_j(\bar x)d=0,\; j\in A(\bar x),
\]
\begin{equation}\label{10}
L^{\pr\pr}(\bar x,d)=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i f_i^{\pr\pr}(\bar x,d)+ \sum_{j\in I(\bar x)}\mu_j g_j^{\pr\pr}(\bar x,d) \geqq 0.
\end{equation}
Assume further that the second-order Mangasarian-Fromovitz constraint qualification holds.
Then we could suppose that $\lambda\ne 0$.
\end{theorem}

{\bf Proof.}
The theorem follows directly from Lemmas \ref{kan} and \ref{NKT}, taking into account that the constraints $f_j(x)-f_j(\bar x)\leqq 0$ are active at $\bar x$.

We prove that $\lambda\ne 0$ under the assumption that the second-order Man\-ga\-sa\-rian-Fromovitz CQ holds.
 Suppose the contrary that $\lambda=0$. It follows from (\ref{9}), (\ref{10}), second-order Mangasarian-Fromovitz CQ  and $\mu\ne 0$ that

\[
0=[\sum_{j\in A(\bar x)}\mu_j\nabla g_j(\bar x)]u>\omega\sum_{j\in A(\bar x)}\mu_j g_j^{\prime\prime}(\bar x,d)\ge 0
\]
\noindent
which is impossible. Therefore $\lambda\ne 0$.
\qed

We introduce the following definition:

\begin{definition}
We call the problem {\rm (P)} second-order KT pseudoconvex at the point $x\in S$ if the following implication holds:
\[
\left.
\begin{array}{l}
y\in S, \\
f(y)\le f(x)
\end{array}\right]
\;\Rightarrow\;\left[
\begin{array}{l}
\nabla f_i(x)(y-x)\leqq 0,\; i=1,2,\dots,n \\
\nabla f_i(x)(y-x)= 0\quad\textrm{implies}\quad f^{\pr\pr}_i(x;y-x)<0,\\
\nabla g_j(x)(y-x)\leqq 0\;\textrm{ for all }\; j\in A(x), \\
\nabla g_j(x)(y-x)=0,\; j\in A(x)\quad\textrm{imply}\quad g_j^{\pr\pr}(x;y-x)\le 0,
\\
\end{array}
\right.
\]
provided that all necessary derivatives exist. We call {\rm (P)} second-order  KT pseudoconvex if it is second-order  KT pseudoconvex at each $x\in S$.
\end{definition}

In the case when $n=1$ this notion reduces to the notion of KT pseudoconvex scalar problem (see Ivanov $[^{11}]$).

\begin{theorem}\label{th2}
Let the functions $f$ and $g$ be differentiable and second-order differentiable in every critical direction. Suppose that {\rm (P)} is second-order KT pseudoconvex. Then every second-order Kuhn-Tucker stationary point is a global Pareto minimizer.
\end{theorem}
{\bf Proof.}
Suppose that $x\in S$ is a second-order Kuhn-Tucker stationary point, but it is not a global Pareto minimizer. Therefore, there exists $y\in S$ such that $f(y)\le f(x)$. It follows from second-order pseudoconvexity of (P) that 

\centerline{$\nabla f_i(x)(y-x)\leqq 0$}
\noindent 
for all $i=1,2,\dots, n$ and $\nabla g_j(x)(y-x)\leqq 0$
 for all active indices $j$, that is $j\in A(x)$. We obtain from here that the direction $y-x$ is critical at the point $x$. According to second-order Kuhn-Tucker conditions we have $\nabla L(x)=0$, which implies that $\lambda_i\nabla f_i(x)(y-x)=0$ and $\mu_j\nabla g_j(x)(y-x)=0$. We conclude from here that
$\nabla f_i(x)(y-x)=0$ and $\nabla g_j(x)(y-x)=0$ for all $i$ and $j$ such that $\lambda_i>0$ and $\mu_j>0$. Then it follows from second-order pseudoconvexity of (P) that $f^{\pr\pr}_i(x;y-x)<0$ and $g_j^{\pr\pr}(x;y-x)\le 0$ for all $i$ and $j\in A(x)$ such that $\lambda_i>0$ and $\mu_j>0$.
By $\lambda\ne 0$ we get the inequality 

\[
L^{\pr\pr}(\bar x,y-x)=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i f_i^{\pr\pr}(\bar x,y-x)+ \sum_{j\in I(\bar x)}\mu_j g_j^{\pr\pr}(\bar x,y-x)< 0,
\]
\noindent
which contradicts the second-order Kuhn-Tucker condition (\ref{10}).
\qed





\bigskip
{\bf 3. Necessary and sufficient conditions for a weak global minimum.}
The following result is known and it could be found, for instance, in the
book $[^9]$ (see Theorem 9.1.4]).
\begin{lemma}\label{lema3}
Let $X$ be an open set in $\R^s$, and let $f$ be a real scalar function
defined on $X$ which is both differentiable and quasiconvex at the point $x\in X$.
Then the following implication holds:

\centerline{$y\in X,\,f(y)\leqq f(x)\quad\Longrightarrow\quad\nabla f(x)(y-x)\leqq0.$}
\end{lemma}

\smallskip
Let the scalar function $f: X\to\R$ with an open domain $X\subset\R^s$ be
differentiable at the point $x\in X$. Then $f$ is said to be pseudoconvex
at $x\in X$ if $y\in X$ and $f(y)<f(x)$ imply $\nabla f(x)(y-x)<0$.
If $f$ is differentiable on $X$, then it is called
pseudoconvex on $X$ when $f$ is pseudoconvex at each $x\in X$.

\smallskip
The following definition is due to Ginchev and Ivanov $[^8]$.

Consider a function $\f$ with an open domain $X$, which is differentiable at
$x\in X$ and
second-order directionally differentiable at $x\in X$ in every direction
$y-x$ such that $y\in X$, $f(y)<f(x)$, $\nabla f(x)(y-x)=0$.
We call $f$ second-order pseudoconvex (for short, 2-pseudoconvex)
at $x\in X$ if  for all $y\in X$ the following implications hold:

\centerline{$f(y)<f(x)\quad\mbox{implies}\quad\nabla f(x)(y-x)\leqq0;$}

\centerline{$f(y)<f(x),\;\nabla f(x)(y-x)=0\quad\mbox{imply}\quad f^{\pr\pr}(x,y-x)<0.$}
Suppose that  $f$ is differentiable on $X$ and
second-order directionally differentiable at every $x\in X$ in each direction
$y-x$ such that $y\in X$, $f(y)<f(x)$, $\nabla f(x)(y-x)=0$.
We call $f$  2-pseudoconvex on  $X$ if it is
2-pseudoconvex at every $x\in X$. It follows from this definition that
every differentiable pseudoconvex function is 2-pseudoconvex. The converse
does not hold.

The following result is a particular case of Theorem 4 in $[^8]$:

\begin{lemma}\label{lema2}
Every radially lower semicontinuous second-order pseudoconvex function, which is defined on some convex set $X\subset\R^n$, is semistrictly quasiconvex on $X$.
\end{lemma}


The following result is due to Luc and Schaible $[^{12}]$:

\begin{lemma}\label{lema1}
Let the functions $f_i$ $(i=1,2,\ldots,n)$ be quasiconvex and semistrictly quasiconvex. Then the point $\bar x$ is a weak Pareto minimizer if and only if there exists an index $k\in\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ such that $\bar x$ minimizes some component $f_k$ of the vector function $f$ over the constraint set $C_k$, defined by Equation {\rm (\ref{1})}.
\end{lemma}

\begin{theorem}
Let the point $\bar x$ be feasible for the problem {\rm (P)}. Suppose that the vector function $f$ and the functions $g_j$, $j\in I(\bar x)$ are continuously differentiable, the functions $g_j$, $j\notin I(\bar x)$ are continuous at $\bar x$, $f$ and $g$ are second-order directionally differentiable at $\bar x$ in every critical direction $d$, all components of $f$ are radially lower semicontinuous and second-order pseudoconvex, all components of $g$ are quasiconvex. Assume that $X$ is convex and the second-order Mangasarian-Fromovitz CQ holds. Then $\bar x$ is a weak global Pareto minimizer if and only if for every critical direction $d$ there exist nonnegative Lagrange multipliers $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots ,\lambda_n)$, $\mu=(\mu_1,\mu_2,\ldots,\mu_m)$ with $\lambda\ne 0$ such that Conditions (\ref{9}) and (\ref{10}) are satisfied.
\end{theorem}

{\bf Proof.}
Suppose that there exist $\lambda$ and $\mu$ which satisfy Conditions (\ref{9}) and (\ref{10}). We prove that $\bar x$ is a weak Pareto global minimum. Assume the contrary that is there exists $x\in S$ with $f(x)<f(\bar x)$. We prove that $x-\bar x$ is a critical direction.
By $2$-pseudoconvexity $\nabla f_i(\bar x)(x-\bar x)\leqq0$ for all $i=1,2,\dots,n$.
Due to quasiconvexity, and $g_j(x)\leqq g_j(\bar x)$, $j\in I(\bar x)$,
by Lemma \ref{lema3}, we have

\centerline{$\nabla g_j(\bar x)(x-\bar x)\leqq0$}
\noindent
 for all $j\in I(\bar x)$, which
implies that $x-\bar x$ is  critical.

Using the assumptions of the theorem we obtain that  there exist nonnegative
multipliers $\lambda$ and $\mu$ with $\mu_j g_j(\bar x)=0$, $j=1,...,m$ and
$\nabla L(\bar x)(x-\bar x)=0$ such that $L^{\pr\pr}(\bar x,x-\bar x)\geqq 0$.
Therefore $\mu_j=0$ when $j\notin I(\bar x)$. Using that $x-\bar x$ is critical we obtain

\[
\nabla L(\bar x)(x-\bar x)=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\nabla f_i(\bar x)(x-\bar x)+
\sum_{i\in I(\bar x)}\mu_i\,\nabla g_i(\bar x)(x-\bar x)\leqq 0.
\]
\noindent
Hence $\lambda_i\nabla f_i(\bar x)(x-\bar x)=0$ for all indexes $i=1,2,\ldots,n$ and
$\mu_j\nabla g_j(\bar x)(x-\bar x)=0$ for all $j\in I(\bar x)$. Then
$\nabla g_j(\bar x)(x-\bar x)=0$ when $\mu_j>0$.
It follows from $2$-pseudoconvexity that
$f_i^{\pr\pr}(\bar x,x-\bar x)<0$ for all $i=1,2,\ldots,n$ such that $\lambda_i\ne 0$. It follows from quasiconvexity of $g$ that 

\centerline{$g_j^{\pr\pr}(\bar x,x-\bar x) = \lim_{t\to+0}\frac{g_j(\bar x+t(x-\bar x))-g_j(\bar x)}{t^2/2}\leqq 0\;\textrm{ for all }\; j\in I(\bar x)\;\textrm{ with }\;\mu_j>0.$}
\noindent
We conclude from $\lambda\ne 0$ that

\[
L^{\pr\pr}(\bar x,x-\bar x)=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i f_i^{\pr\pr}(\bar x,x-\bar x)
+\sum_{j\in I(\bar x),\;\mu_j>0}\mu_j\,g_j^{\pr\pr}(\bar x,x-\bar x)<0,
\]
\noindent
which is a contradiction.

Conversely, suppose that $\bar x$ is a weak global minimum. We prove that Conditions (\ref{9}) and (\ref{10}) hold. It follows from Lemma \ref{lema2} that all components of $f$ are semistrictly quasiconvex and quasiconvex. Then, it follows from Lemma \ref{lema1} that there exists $k\in\{1,2,\ldots,m\}$ such that $\bar x$ minimizes the function $f_k$ over the set $C_k$. According to Lemma \ref{NKT} conditions (\ref{9}) and (\ref{10}) are satisfied.
\qed

\bigskip
{\bf Acknowledgements.}
This research is partially supported by the TU Varna Grant No 18/2012.



\
\bigskip\bigskip
\newpage
\centerline{REFERENCES}
\bigskip


\noindent
$[^1]$ A{\scriptsize GHEZZAF} B., M. H{\scriptsize ACHIMI}. J. Optim. Theory Appl. {\bf 102}, 1999, 37--50.

\noindent
$[^2]$ G{\scriptsize EORGIEV} P. G., N. P. Z{\scriptsize LATEVA}. Set-Valued Anal. {\bf 4}, 1996, 101--117.

\noindent
$[^3]$ G{\scriptsize UERRAGGIO} A., D. T. L{\scriptsize UC}.  J. Optim. Theory Appl. {\bf 116}, 2003, 117--129.

\noindent
$[^4]$ G{\scriptsize UTIERREZ} C., B. J{\scriptsize IMENEZ}, V. N{\scriptsize OVO}. Math. Program. Ser. B. {\bf 123}, 2010, 199-223.

\noindent
$[^5]$ M{\scriptsize  AEDA} T. J. Optim. Theory Appl. {\bf 122}, 2004, 521--538.

\noindent
$[^6]$ G{\scriptsize INCHEV} I., V. I. I{\scriptsize VANOV}.
J. Math. Anal. Appl.  {\bf 340}, 2008, 646--657.

\noindent
$[^7]$ M{\scriptsize ANGASARIAN} O.L., S. F{\scriptsize ROMOVITZ.}
J. Math. Anal. Appl. {\bf 17}, 1967, 33--47.

\noindent
$[^8]$ G{\scriptsize INCHEV} I., V. I. I{\scriptsize VANOV},
Lecture Notes in Econom. and Math. Systems, Vol. 583, Springer, Berlin - Heidelberg -
New York, 2007, pp. 247--264.

\noindent
$[^9]$ M{\scriptsize ANGASARIAN} O.L.
Nonlinear Programming, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1969.

\noindent
$[^{10}]$ K{\scriptsize ANNIAPPAN} P.
J. Optim. Theory Appl. {\bf 40}, 1983, 167-174.

\noindent
$[^{11}]$ I{\scriptsize VANOV}.
J. Global Optim. {\bf 46}, 2010, 31--47.

\noindent
$[^{12}]$ L{\scriptsize UC} D.T., S. S{\scriptsize CHAIBLE.}
J. Optim. Theory Appl. {\bf 94}, 1997, 147--153.




\end{document}





