Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Process (AHP)
for
Decision Making
By Thomas Saaty
Strong Pressures
and Weakened Resources
Vested Interests
Conflicting Values
1
Most Decision Problems are Multicriteria
• Maximize profits
• Satisfy customer demands
• Maximize employee satisfaction
• Satisfy shareholders
• Minimize costs of production
• Satisfy government regulations
• Minimize taxes
• Maximize bonuses
Decision Making
2
WHAT KIND AND WHAT AMOUNT OF
KNOWLEDGE TO MAKE DECISIONS
3
3 Kinds of Decisions
a) Instantaneous and personal like what restaurant to eat at
and what kind of rice cereal to buy; b) Personal but allowing
a little time like which job to choose and what house to buy
or car to drive; c) Long term decisions and any decisions
that involve planning and resource allocation and more
significantly group decision making.
4
Valerio can say, “Put more of this than
of that, don’t stir so much,” and so on.
That is how he cooks his meals - by
following his instincts, not formalized
logically and precisely.
The question is: How does he synthesize
what he knows?
5
Aren’t Numbers Numbers?
We have the habit to crunch numbers
whatever they are
An elderly couple looking for a town to which they
might retire found Summerland, in Santa Barbara
County, California, where a sign post read:
Summerland
Population 3001
Feet Above Sea Level 208
Year Established 1870
Total 5079
6
Nonmonotonic Relative Nature of Absolute Scales
Temperature
OBJECTIVITY!?
How do we manage?
7
Making a Decision
Car: A B B
V V V
Alternatives: B A A
Suppose the criteria are preferred in the order shown and the
cars are preferred as shown for each criterion. Which car
should be chosen? It is desirable to know the strengths of
preferences for tradeoffs.
8
To understand the world we assume that:
We can describe it
Hierarchic
GOAL
Thinking
CRITERIA
ALTERNATIVES
9
Power of Hierarchic Thinking
10
Relative Measurement
The Process of Prioritization
In relative measurement a preference, judgment
is expressed on each pair of elements with respect
to a common property they share.
11
Relative Measurement (cont.)
Comparison Matrix
Given: Three apples of different sizes.
Apple B S2 / S1 S2 / S2 S2 / S3
Apple C S3 / S1 S3 / S2 S3 / S3
12
Pairwise Comparisons
Size
Apple A 1 2 6 6/10 A
Nicer ambience
comparisons
Normalized Total
Paris 1 2 5 0.5815 1
13
Pairwise Comparisons using Judgments and the Derived Priorities
Politician
Normalized Total
comparisons
B. Clinton
1 3 7 0.6220 1
M. Tatcher
1/3 1 5 0.2673 0.4297
14
When the judgments are consistent, we
have two ways to get the answer:
1. By adding any column and dividing each entry by the
total, that is by normalizing the column, any column
gives the same result. A quick test of consistency if all
the columns give the same answer.
2. By adding the rows and normalizing the result.
Consistency
In this example Apple B is 3 times larger than Apple C.
We can obtain this value directly from the comparisons
of Apple A with Apples B & C as 6/2 = 3. But if we
were to use judgment we may have guessed it as 4. In
that case we would have been inconsistent.
15
Consistency (cont.)
• Consistency itself is a necessary condition for a better
understanding of relations in the world but it is not
sufficient. For example we could judge all three of
the apples to be the same size and we would be perfectly
consistent, but very wrong.
Consistency (cont.)
Because the world of experience is vast and we deal with it in pieces according to
whatever goals concern us at the time, our judgments can never be perfectly
precise.
16
Consistency (cont.)
How Much Inconsistency to Tolerate?
• Inconsistency arises from the need for redundancy.
• Redundancy improves the validity of the information about the real world.
• Inconsistency is important for modifying our consistent understanding, but it must not be too large
to make information seem chaotic.
• Yet inconsistency cannot be negligible; otherwise, we would be like robots unable to change our
minds.
• Mathematically the measurement of consistency should allow for inconsistency of no more than
one order of magnitude smaller than consistency. Thus, an inconsistency of no more than 10%
can be tolerated.
• This would allow variations in the measurement of the elements being compared without
destroying their identity.
• As a result the number of elements compared must be small, i.e. seven plus or minus two. Being
homogeneous they would then each receive about ten to 15 percent of the total relative value in the
vector of priorities.
• A small inconsistency would change that value by a small amount and their true relative value
would still be sufficiently large to preserve that value.
• Note that if the number of elements in a comparison is large, for example 100, each would receive
a 1% relative value and the small inconsistency of 1% in its measurement would change its value
to 2% which is far from its true value of 1%.
Comparison of Intangibles
• TASTE
• AROMA
• RIPENESS
17
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
is the Method of Prioritization
• AHP captures priorities from paired comparison judgments of the
• elements of the decision with respect to each of their parent criteria.
Decision Making
We need to prioritize both tangible and intangible criteria:
18
Verbal Expressions for Making
Pairwise Comparison Judgments
Equal importance
Moderate importance of one over another
Strong or essential importance
Very strong or demonstrated importance
Extreme importance
19
Which Drink is Consumed More in the U.S.?
An Example of Estimation Using Judgments
Drink
Consumption
in the U.S. Coffee Wine Tea Beer Sodas Milk Water
Coffee 1 9 5 2 1 1 1/2
Wine 1/9 1 1/3 1/9 1/9 1/9 1/9
Tea 1/5 2 1 1/3 1/4 1/3 1/9
Beer 1/2 9 3 1 1/2 1 1/3
Sodas 1 9 4 2 1 2 1/2
Milk 1 9 3 1 1/2 1 1/3
Water 2 9 9 3 2 3 1
Food Consumption
in the U.S. A B C D E F G
A: Steak 1 9 9 6 4 5 1
B: Potatoes 1 1 1/2 1/4 1/3 1/4
C: Apples 1 1/3 1/3 1/5 1/9
D: Soybean 1 1/2 1 1/6
E: Whole Wheat Bread
(Reciprocals) 1 3 1/3
F: Tasty Cake 1 1/5
G: Fish 1
The resulting derived scale and the actual values are shown below:
Steak Potatoes Apples Soybean W. Bread T. Cake Fish
Derived .345 .031 .030 .065 .124 .078 .328
Actual .370 .040 .000 .070 .110 .090 .320
(Derived scale has a consistency ratio of .028.)
20
WEIGHT COMPARISONS
DISTANCE COMPARISONS
Comparison Cairo Tokyo Chicago San London Montreal Eigen- Distance to Relative
of Distances Francisco vector Philadelph Distance
from ia in miles
Philadelphia
Cairo 1 1/2 8 3 3 7 0.263 5,729 0.278
Tokyo 3 1 9 3 3 9 0.397 7,449 0.361
Chicago 1/8 1/9 1 1/6 1/5 2 0.033 660 0.032
San 1/3 1/3 6 1 1/3 6 0.116 2,732 0.132
Francisco
London 1/3 1/3 5 3 1 6 0.164 3,658 0.177
Montreal 1/7 1/9 1/2 1/6 1/6 1 0.027 400 0.019
21
Perimeter Problem
L1
H1 F1 Fig.1 : L1 = 9 , H1 = 1
P = 20
L2
H2 F2 Fig.2: L2 = 8 , H2 = 2
P = 20
L3
Fig.3 : L3 = 7 , H3 = 3
H3 F3 P = 20
L4
Fig.4 : L4 = 6 , H4 = 4
H4 F4 P = 20
22
Nagy Airline Market Share Model
Model Actual
(Yr 2000)
American 23.9 24.0
United 18.7 19.7
Delta 18.0 18.0
Northwest 11.4 12.4
Continental 9.3 10.0
US Airways 7.5 7.1
Southwest 5.9 6.4
Amer.West 4.4 2.9
23
Income Relative Relative
Share Share
(Income) (Model)
Total 7,914,051
24
Comparación Modelo ANP v/s Realidad Actual.
ANP Results
Actual
Results
Asociación Chilena de Seguridad (ACHS) 52,0 % 52,6 %
otas:
) El “Actual Results”, se obtiene a partir del número de trabajadores actualmente afiliados a las diferentes mutuales (privadas), que administran
25
Extending the 1-9 Scale to 1- ∞
•The 1-9 AHP scale does not limit us if we know how
to use clustering of similar objects in each group and
use the largest element in a group as the smallest one in
the next one. It serves as a pivot to connect the two.
26
Clustering & Comparison
Color
How intensely more green is X than Y relative to its size?
53
Goal
Satisfaction with School
27
School Selection
L F SL VT CP MC Weights
Learning 1 4 3 1 3 4 .32
28
Composition and Synthesis
Impacts of School on Criteria
B .59 .33 .09 .05 .50 .09 .38 B 1 1 .20 .07 .50 .13 .73 .39
C .25 .33 .46 .17 .25 .22 .25 C .42 1 1 .22 .50 .32 .50 .27
The Distributive mode is useful when the The Ideal mode is useful in choosing a best
uniqueness of an alternative affects its rank. alternative regardless of how many other
The number of copies of each alternative similar alternatives there are.
also affects the share each receives in
allocating a resource. In planning, the
scenarios considered must be comprehensive
and hence their priorities depend on how many
there are. This mode is essential for ranking
criteria and sub-criteria, and when there is
dependence.
29
Evaluating Employees for Raises
GOAL
Very Good Masters 6-15 years Very Good Above Avg. Above Avg.
(0.28) .28/.48 = .58 (0.25).25/.59 =.43 (0.25) (0.21) (0.23) (0.23)
Bachelor
Good (0.11) etc. 3-5 years Good Average Average
(0.16) .16/.48 = .33 (0.10) (0.11) (0.10) (0.14)
High School
Below Avg. (0.05) 1-2 years Poor Negative Below Avg.
(0.05) .05/.48 = .10 (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.06)
Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory
(0.03) .03/.48 = .06 (0.03)
Esselman, T. Outstand Doctorate >15 years Excellent Enthused Outstand 1.000 0.153
Peters, T. Outstand Masters >15 years Excellent Enthused Abv. Avg. 0.752 0.115
Hayat, F. Outstand Masters >15 years V. Good Enthused Outstand 0.641 0.098
Becker, L. Outstand Bachelor 6-15 years Excellent Abv. Avg. Average 0.580 0.089
Adams, V. Good Bachelor 1-2 years Excellent Enthused Average 0.564 0.086
Kelly, S. Good Bachelor 3-5 years Excellent Average Average 0.517 0.079
Joseph, M. Blw Avg. Hi School 3-5 years Excellent Average Average 0.467 0.071
Tobias, K. Outstand Masters 3-5 years V. Good Enthused Abv. Avg. 0.466 0.071
Washington, S. V. Good Masters 3-5 years V. Good Enthused Abv. Avg. 0.435 0.066
O’Shea, K. Outstand Hi School >15 years V. Good Enthused Average 0.397 0.061
Williams, E. Outstand Masters 1-2 years V. Good Abv. Avg. Average 0.368 0.056
Golden, B. V. Good Bachelor .15 years V. Good Average Abv. Avg. 0.354 0.054
The total score is the sum of the weighted scores of the ratings. The
money for raises is allocated according to the normalized total score. In
practice different jobs need different hierarchies.
30
31
32
A Complete Hierarchy to Level of Objectives
Focus: At what level should the Dam be kept: Full or Half-Full
Decision
Congress Dept. of Interior Courts State Lobbies
Makers:
Protect
Objectives: Irrigation Flood Control Flat Dam White Dam Cheap Power
Environment
33
Should U.S. Sanction China? (Feb. 26, 1995)
BENEFITS
Protect rights and maintain high Incentive to Rule of Law Bring China to Help trade deficit with China
make and sell products in China (0.696) responsible free-trading 0.206) (0.098)
Yes .80 Yes .60 Yes .50
No .20 No .40 No .50
Yes 0.729 No 0.271
COSTS
$ Billion Tariffs make Chinese products Retaliation Being locked out of big infrastructure
more expensive (0.094) (0.280) buying: power stations, airports (0.626)
Yes .70 Yes .90 Yes .75
No .30 No .10 No .25
Yes 0.787 No 0.213
RISKS
Long Term negative competition Effect on human rights and Harder to justify China joining WTO
(0.683) other issues (0.200) (0.117)
Yes .70 Yes .30 Yes .50
No .30 No .70 No .50
Yes 0.597 No 0.403
8
.
7
. .
Benefits/Costs*Risks
. .
. .. .
6 No
5 . . . Yes
. . .. . . . ...
.. . . ..... . ... .
4
2
.
1
0 6 18 30 42 54 66 78 90 102 114 126 138 150 162 174 186 198 210
Experiments
34
Whom to Marry - A Compatible Spouse
Security
Affection
CASE 1: Marry Not Marry
Loyalty
Relative Interest Forward Exchange Official Exchange Relative Degree of Confi- Size/Direction of U.S. Past Behavior of
Rate Rate Biases Market Intervention dence in U.S. Economy Current Account Exchange Rate
.423 .023 .164 .103 Balance .252 .035
Federal Size of Bank of Forward Size of Consistent Erratic Relative Relative Relative Size of Anticipated Relevant Irrelevant
Reserve Federal Japan Rate Forward Inflation Real Political Deficit Changes
Monetary Deficit Monetary Premium/ Rate Rates Growth Stability or
Policy Policy Discount Differential Surplus
.294 .032 .097 .007 .016 .137 .027 .019 .008 .032 .032 .221 .004 .031
Tighter Contract Tighter High Premium Strong Strong Higher More More Large Decr. High High
.191 .002 .007 .002 .008 .026 .009 .013 .048 .048 .016 .090 .001 .010
Steady No Chng. Steady Medium Discount Mod. Mod. Equal Equal Equal Small No Chng. Med. Med.
.082 .009 .027 .002 .008 .100 .009 .006 .003 .022 .016 .106 .001 .010
Easier Expand Easier Low Weak Weak Lower Lower Less Incr. Low Low
.021 .021 .063 .002 .011 .009 .001 .003 .006 .025 .001 .010
35
Best Word Processing Equipment
Focus Benefits
Focus Costs
Best Alternative
36
Group Decision Making
and the
Geometric Mean
Suppose two people compare two apples and provide the judgments for the larger
over the smaller, 4 and 3 respectively. So the judgments about the smaller relative
to the larger are 1/4 and 1/3.
Arithmetic mean
4+3=7
1/7 ≠ 1/4 + 1/3 = 7/12
Geometric mean
√ 4 x 3 = 3.46
1/ √ 4 x 3 = √ 1/4 x 1/3 = 1/ √ 4 x 3 = 1/3.46
That the Geometric Mean is the unique way to combine group judgments is a
theorem in mathematics.
37
0.05
0.47
0.10
0.15 0.24
38
• If the objects are homogeneous and if
we have knowledge and experience,
paired comparisons actually derive
measurements that are likely to be close
and that indicate magnitude on a ratio
scale.
PROBLEMS OF UTILITY
THEORY
1. Utility theory is normative; it pre-
scribes technically how “rational
behavior” should be rather than
looking at how people behave in
making decisions.
2. Utility theory regards a criterion as
important if it has alternatives well
spread on it. Later it adopted AHP
prioritization of criteria.
39
3. Alternatives are measured on an
interval scale. Interval scale
numbers can’t be added or
multiplied and are useless in
resource allocation and
dependence and feedback
decisions.
4. Utility theory can only deal with a
two-level structures if it is to use
interval scales throughout.
40
WHY IS AHP EASY TO USE?
• It does not take for granted the
measurements on scales, but asks that
scale values be interpreted according
to the objectives of the problem.
• It relies on elaborate hierarchic
structures to represent decision prob-
lems and is able to handle problems of
risk, conflict, and prediction.
41
WHY THE AHP IS POWERFUL
IN CORPORATE PLANNING
1. Breaks down criteria into manage-
able components.
2. Leads a group into making a specific
decision for consensus or tradeoff.
3. Provides opportunity to examine
disagreements and stimulate
discussion and opinion.
42
7. It organizes, prioritizes and
synthesizes complexity within a
rational framework.
8. Interprets experience in a relevant
way without reliance on a black
box technique like a utility function.
9. Makes it possible to deal with
conflicts in perception and in
judgment.
A1 K An
w1 w1
w1 K w1
A1 w1 wn M = n M
M M M wn wn
wn K wn
An w1 wn
Aw=nw
43
A is consistent if its entries satisfy the condition
ajk = aik/aij.
Theorem: λ max ≥ n
44
n
∑a
j =1
ij w j = λmax wi
aji=1/ aij
n
∑w = 1
i=1
i
∫
a
K(s,t) w(t) dt = λ max w(s)
b
λ ∫ K(s,t)w(t)dt = w(s)
a
b
∫
a
w(s)ds = 1
45
K(s,t) K(t,s) = 1
46
Generalizing on the discrete approach
we assume that K (s,t) is homogeneous
of order 1. Thus, we have:
47
The well-known Weber Fechner logarithmic law
of response to stimuli can be obtained as a first
order approximation to our eigenfunction:
v(u)=C1 e-βu P(u) ≈ C2 log s+ C3
where P(u) is periodic of period 1,
u=log s/log a and log ab-β, β>0.
s n = s n-1α = s0 α (n = 0, 1, 2,...)
n
(log s n - log s0 )
n=
log α
48
We take the ratios Mi/ M1 , i=1,…,n of the responses:
98
49
The Analytic Network Process (ANP)
for Decision Making and Forecasting
with Dependence and Feedback
• With feedback the alternatives depend on the criteria as
in a hierarchy but may also depend on each other.
99
Linear Hierarchy
Goal
Criteria component,
cluster
(Level)
Subcriteria
element
Alternatives
A loop indicates that each
element depends only on itself.
100
50
Feedback Network with components having
Inner and Outer Dependence among Their Elements
Arc from component
C4 to C2 indicates the
C4 outer dependence of the
elements in C2 on the
elements in C4 with respect
to a common property.
C1
Feedback C2
C3
101
102
51
Networks and the Supermatrix
C1 C2 CN
e11e12 e1n1 e21e22 e2n2 eN1eN2 eNnN
e
C1 e11
W11 W12 W1N
12
e1n
1
e21
W=
C2 e22 W21 W22 W2N
e2n
2
eN1
eN2
CN WN1 WN2 WNN
e
NuN
103
where
(j1) (j2) (jnj)
Wi1 Wi1 Wi1
(j ) (j ) (jn )
Wini1 Win2i Wini j
104
52
Predicted Turnaround Date of
U.S. Economy from April 2001
Supermatrix of a Hierarchy
0 0 0 0 0 0
W21 0 0 0 0 0
W=
0 W32 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 Wn-1, n-2 0 0
0 0 0 0 Wn, n-1 I
106
53
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Wk=
0 0 0 0 0
Wn,n-1 Wn-1,n-2 …W32 W21 Wn,n-1 Wn-1,n-2 ... W32 Wn,n-1 Wn-1,n-2 Wn,n-1 I
for kn
Hierarchic Synthesis
107
108
54
A Feedback System with Two Components
109
3) Which level is best for power generation? Low Med High Eigenvector
Low 1 1/7 1/5 .072
Power Generation Medium 7 1 3 .649
High 5 1/3 1 .279
Low Med High Eigenvector
Low 1 1/5 1/9 .058 Consistency Ratio = .056
Medium 5 1 1/5 .207
High 9 5 1 .735
110
55
Low Level Dam
F R E Eigenvector
Flood Control 1 3 5 .637 1) At Low
Recreation 1/3 1 3 .258 Level, which
Hydro-Electric 1/5 1/3 1 .105 attribute is
Power satisfied best?
Consistency Ratio = .033
Intermediate Level Dam
2) At F R E Eigenvector
Intermediate Flood Control 1 1/3 1 .200
Level, which Recreation 3 1 3 .600
attribute is Hydro-Electric 1 1/3 1 .200
satisfied best? Power
Consistency Ratio = .000
High Level Dam
F R E Eigenvector 3) At High
Flood Control 1 1/5 1/9 .060 Level, which
Recreation 5 1 1/4 .231 attribute is
Hydro-Electric 9 4 1 .709 satisfied best?
Power
Consistency Ratio = .061
111
Hamburger Model
Estimating Market Share of Wendy’s, Burger King and McDonald’s
with respect to the single economic control criterion
112
56
Hamburger Model Supermatrix
Other Quality Advertising Competition
Local: Menu Cleanli Speed Service Location Price Reputa Take Portion Taste Nutri Freq Promo Creativ Wendy’s Burger McDon-
ness tion Out tion uency tion ity King ald’s
Menu Item 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1930 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3110 0.1670 0.1350 0.1570 0.0510 0.1590
O Cleanliness 0.6370 0.0000 0.0000 0.5190 0.0000 0.0000 0.2390 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2760 0.1100 0.3330
t Speed 0.1940 0.7500 0.0000 0.2850 0.0000 0.0000 0.0830 0.2900 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0640 0.1400 0.0480
h Service 0.0000 0.0780 0.1880 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0450 0.0550 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0650 0.1430 0.0240
Location 0.0530 0.1710 0.0000 0.0980 0.0000 0.5000 0.2640 0.6550 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1960 0.0000 0.7100 0.1420 0.2240 0.1070
e Price 0.1170 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0620 0.0000 0.8570 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8330 0.0000 0.0300 0.2390 0.0330
r Reputation 0.0000 0.0000 0.0810 0.0980 0.0000 0.0000 0.0570 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4930 0.0000 0.1550 0.2070 0.0420 0.2230
Take-Out 0.0000 0.0000 0.7310 0.0000 0.0000 0.5000 0.0570 0.0000 0.1430 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0590 0.0510 0.0740
Portion 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8330 0.2800 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0940 0.6490 0.5280
Q Taste
Nutrition
0.6960
0.0750
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1670
0.6270
0.0940
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.2800
0.6270
0.0720
0.2790
0.1400
0.3320
Frequency 0.7500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1670 0.5500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6670 0.8750 0.6490 0.7090 0.6610
Ad Promotion 0.1710 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8330 0.3680 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.1250 0.0720 0.1130 0.1310
Creativity 0.0780 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0820 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5000 0.3330 0.0000 0.2790 0.1790 0.2080
C Wendy's 0.3110 0.5000 0.0990 0.5280 0.0950 0.0950 0.1010 0.1960 0.2760 0.6050 0.5940 0.0880 0.0880 0.1170 0.0000 0.1670 0.2000
o Burger King 0.1960 0.2500 0.3640 0.1400 0.2500 0.2500 0.2260 0.3110 0.1280 0.1050 0.1570 0.1950 0.1950 0.2680 0.2500 0.0000 0.8000
m McDonald’s 0.4930 0.2500 0.5370 0.3330 0.6550 0.6550 0.6740 0.4940 0.5950 0.2910 0.2490 0.7170 0.7170 0.6140 0.7500 0.8330 0.0000
p
113
Weighted Supermatrix
Weighted: Menu Cleanli Speed Service Location Price Reputa Take Portion Taste Nutri Freq Promo Creativ Wendy’s Burger McDon-
ness tion Out tion uency tion ity King ald’s
Menu Item 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0382 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0407 0.0219 0.0177 0.0293 0.0095 0.0297
Cleanliness 0.1262 0.0000 0.0000 0.3141 0.0000 0.0000 0.0473 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0516 0.0205 0.0622
Speed 0.0384 0.4544 0.0000 0.1725 0.0000 0.0000 0.0164 0.1755 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0120 0.0261 0.0090
Service 0.0000 0.0473 0.1138 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0089 0.0333 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0121 0.0267 0.0045
Location 0.0105 0.1036 0.0000 0.0593 0.0000 0.0990 0.0523 0.3964 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0257 0.0000 0.0930 0.0265 0.0418 0.0200
Price 0.0232 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0123 0.0000 0.4287 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1091 0.0000 0.0056 0.0446 0.0062
Reputation 0.0000 0.0000 0.0490 0.0593 0.0000 0.0000 0.0113 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0646 0.0000 0.0203 0.0387 0.0078 0.0417
Take-Out 0.0000 0.0000 0.4426 0.0000 0.0000 0.0990 0.0113 0.0000 0.0715 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0110 0.0095 0.0138
Portion 0.0151 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0550 0.0185 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0062 0.0428 0.0348
Taste 0.0460 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0414 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0185 0.0047 0.0092
Nutrition 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0110 0.0062 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0413 0.0184 0.0219
Frequency 0.4554 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1014 0.3338 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4149 0.5444 0.3455 0.3773 0.3519
Promotion 0.1038 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5056 0.2233 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3110 0.0000 0.0778 0.0383 0.0601 0.0697
Creativity 0.0474 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0498 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3110 0.2071 0.0000 0.1485 0.0953 0.1107
Wendy's 0.0401 0.1974 0.0391 0.2082 0.0950 0.0123 0.0130 0.0773 0.1381 0.6044 0.5940 0.0217 0.0217 0.0289 0.0000 0.0359 0.0429
Burger King 0.0253 0.0987 0.1436 0.0552 0.2500 0.0323 0.0291 0.1226 0.0640 0.1049 0.1570 0.0482 0.0482 0.0662 0.0537 0.0000 0.1718
McDonald ‘s 0.0636 0.0987 0.2118 0.1313 0.6550 0.0845 0.0869 0.1948 0.2976 0.2907 0.2490 0.1771 0.1771 0.1517 0.1611 0.1788 0.0000
Limiting Supermatrix
Synthesized: Menu Cleanli Speed Service Location Price Reputa Take Portion Taste Nutri Freq Promo Creativ Wendy’s Burger McDon-
Global ness tion Out tion uency tion ity King ald’s
Menu Item 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234
Cleanliness 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203
Speed 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185 0.0185
Service 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072
Location 0.0397 0.0397 0.0397 0.0397 0.0397 0.0397 0.0397 0.0397 0.0397 0.0397 0.0397 0.0397 0.0397 0.0397 0.0397 0.0397 0.0397
Price 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244
Reputation 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296 0.0296
Take-Out 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152
Portion 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114
Taste 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049
Nutrition 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073
Frequency 0.2518 0.2518 0.2518 0.2518 0.2518 0.2518 0.2518 0.2518 0.2518 0.2518 0.2518 0.2518 0.2518 0.2518 0.2518 0.2518 0.2518
Promotion 0.1279 0.1279 0.1279 0.1279 0.1279 0.1279 0.1279 0.1279 0.1279 0.1279 0.1279 0.1279 0.1279 0.1279 0.1279 0.1279 0.1279
Creativity 0.1388 0.1388 0.1388 0.1388 0.1388 0.1388 0.1388 0.1388 0.1388 0.1388 0.1388 0.1388 0.1388 0.1388 0.1388 0.1388 0.1388
{
Wendy's 0.0435 0.0435 0.0435 0.0435 0.0435 0.0435 0.0435 0.0435 0.0435 0.0435 0.0435 0.0435 0.0435 0.0435 0.0435 0.0435 0.0435
Burger King 0.0784 0.0784 0.0784 0.0784 0.0784 0.0784 0.0784 0.0784 0.0784 0.0784 0.0784 0.0784 0.0784 0.0784 0.0784 0.0784 0.0784
McDonald’s 0.1579 0.1579 0.1579 0.1579 0.1579 0.1579 0.1579 0.1579 0.1579 0.1579 0.1579 0.1579 0.1579 0.1579 0.1579 0.1579 0.1579
Relative local weights: Wendy’s= 0.156, Burger King =0.281, and McDonald’s=0.566
114
57
Hamburger Model
Synthesized Local: Synthesized Local Cont’d:
115
58
The Brain Hypermatrix and its Complex
Valued Entries
59
whose Fourier transform is given by:
∞
(2πn+θ(b)- x)
= (1/2π ) loga ∑a’n i
-∞ ( loga | b|+(2πn+θ(b)- x)
δ(2πn+θ(b)- x)
where δ (2πn +θ (b) - x) is the Dirac delta function.
In the real situation, the Fourier series is finite as
the number of synapses and spines on a dendrite
are finite.
60
Here is a sketch of how the complex solution is derived. We choose the
values of w arbitrarily in the ring between circles around 0 of radii 1
(incl.) and |a| (excl.). We designate it by W(z). Thus w(z)=W(z) for 1 ≤ |z|
< |a|. By the equation itself, w(z) = w(z/a) b = W(z/a) b for
|a| ≤ |z| < |a|2, w(z) = w(z/a) b = w(z/a2) b2 = W(z/a2) b2
for |a|2 ≤ |z| < |a|3, and so on (also w(z) = w(az)/b = W(az) b-1 for 1/|a| ≤
|z| < 1 etc.). Thus the general complex solution of w(az)=bw(z) is given
by w(z) = W(z/an) bn for |a|n ≤ |z| < |a|n+1 where W(z) is arbitrary for 1 ≤
|z| < |a|. From, |a|n ≤ |z| we have, n = [ log |z| / log |a| ] where
[ x ] is the integer closest to x from below. Here logarithms of real values
are taken, so there are no multiple values to be concerned about. But then
the solution becomes
w(z) = W( z/ a[ log |z| / log |a| ]) b[ log |z| / log |a| ],
with W arbitrary on the ring 1 ≤ |z| < |a|
61
Werner (1970) has shown that
(1) Every f(x) ε C[a,b] has a best [T-norm] approximation in En.
(2) If the best approximation to f(x) ε C[a,b] in En also belongs
to En0 , then it is the unique best approximation.
n
A set of functions of the form ∑ ck fk (x), where ck, k=1,…,n,
k=1
are arbitrary reals and n=1,2,…, is dense in C[a,b], if the set of
functions {f (x)} is closed in C[a,b], i.e., all its limit points belong
to C[a,b].
Muntz proved that the set {s αk },, αk≥0,k=1,2,…} is closed in
C[a,b] if and only if ∑ (1/ αk) diverges. Let t=-logs, it follows that
the set e-βkt , βk ≥0, k=1,2,…} is closed in C[0,∞] if and only if
∑ (1/ βk) diverges. It can be shown that the set of products
{ s αk e-βkt } is also closed in C[0,∞] with the same two conditions.
Thus finite linear combinations of these functions are dense in
C[0,∞].
j=1
However En is not closed under the Tchebycheff or T-norm
0
62
Several Ratio Scales and Related
Functional Equations
One can multiply and divide but not add or subtract numbers from
different ratio scales. We must synthesize different ratio scales
that have the form of the eigenfunction solution
63
Graphing Complex Functions
C1 C2 K Ck C k +1 C k +2
C 1 W 11 0 K 0 0 0
C2 0 W 22 K 0 0 0
~ K M M M M M M
W=
Ck 0 0 K W kk 0 0
C k +1 W k +1,1 W k +1,2 K W k +1,k W k +1,k +1 W k +1,k +2
C k +2 W k +2,1 W k +2,2 K W k +2,k W k +2,k +1 W k +2,k +2
64
EYE LATERAL GENICULATE CORTEX
Hierarchy Hierarchy Hierarchy
(Four types of neurons:
Simple, Complex, Hypercomplex,
Higher-order hypercomplex)
Horizontal
Amacrine
Ganglion
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 4
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 4
Bipolar
Retina
Cones
Rods
Retina
Rods
Cones
Horizontal Cells
EYE
Hierarchy Bipolar Cells
Amacrine Cells
Ganglion Cells
(optic nerve)
Layer 1
Layer 2
LATERAL Layer 3
GENICULATE
Layer 4
Hierarchy
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layer 1
CORTEX Layer 2
Hierarchy
(Four types of neurons: Layer 3
Simple,
Complex, Layer 4
Hypercomplex,
Higher-order hypercomplex) Layer 5
Layer 6
65
• Since our solution is a product of two factors, the inverse
transform can be obtained as the convolution of two functions,
the inverse Fourier transform of each of which corresponds to
just one of the factors.
− βu
• Now the inverse Fourier transform of e is given by
(2 /π )β
β 2 + ξ 2
Also because of the above discussion on Fourier series, we have
∞
P (u ) = ∑
k = −∞
α k e 2 π iku
∑
k = −∞
α k δ (ξ − 2 π k )
• Now the product of the transforms of the two functions is equal to the
Fourier transform of the convolution of the two functions themselves
which we just obtained by taking their individual inverse transforms.
• We have, to within a multiplicative constant:
+∞ ∞
β ∞
β
∫∑ k
−∞k =−∞
α δ (ξ − 2πk)
β2 + (χ −ξ)2
dξ = ∑ k β2 + (x − 2πk)2
k =−∞
α
66
• Bruce W. Knight adopts the same kind of expression for
finding the frequency response to a small fluctuation and
more generally using eiu/ 2π instead. The inverse Fourier
transform of w ( u ) = Ce − β u cos u / 2π , β > 0 is given by:
β 1 1
c +
2π
2 2
1 1
β 2
+ +ξ β2 + −ξ
2π 2π
67
• The brain generally miniaturizes its
perceptions into what may be regarded as a
model of what happens outside. To control
the environment there needs to be
proportionality between the measurements
represented in the miniaturized models that
arise from the firings of our neurons, and the
actual measurements in the real world. Thus
our response to stimuli must satisfy the
fundamental functional equation F(ax) =
bF(x). In other words, our interpretation of a
stimulus as registered by the firing of our
neurons is proportional to what it would be if it
were not filtered through the brain.
68
The response function w(s) of the neuron in
spontaneous activity results from solving the
homogeneous Fredholm equation and is given by
b
∫ tα e
α g(t) g(t)
w(t) = t e / dt
0
for some choice of g(t). Because finite linear combinations
of the functions {t α e - β t , α , β ≥ 0 } are dense in the space
of bounded continuous functions C[0,b] we can approximate
α g(t) by linear combinations of α - βt
t e t e and hence we
substitute g(t) = - βt, β ≥ 0 in the eigenfunction w(t).
69