Hierarchies, Reciprocal Matrices, and Ratio Scales

  • Thomas L. Saaty
Part of the Modules in Applied Mathematics book series

Abstract

We are interested in the problem of finding a scale which reflects the relative intensity of a property shared by n objects. The objects may be n stones and the properties may be their weights. What is needed is a theory that would enable us to conduct measurement which produces not only known results but is useful and amenable to generalization to the social and behavioral fields. The first problem we have to face is how to assign numbers to all manifestations of a given property in any of the objects so that ratios give a faithful reflection of variation in this property from object to object.

Keywords

Beach Hull Prep Sonal Univer 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    R. Beals, D. H. Krantz, and A. Tversky, “Foundations of multidimensional scaling,” Psychological Rev., vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 127–142, 1968.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    C. Berge, Theory of Graphs and Its Applications. New York: Wiley, 1962.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    P. Bogart, “Preference structures I: Distances between transitive preference relation,” J. Mathematical Sociology, vol. 3, pp. 49–57, 1973.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    —, “Preference structure II: Distances between intransitive preference relations,” to appear in SIAMJ. Applied Mathematics.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    G. Bronson, “The hierarchical organization of the central nervous system,” in International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and Theory, rev. ed., James A. Rosenau, Ed. New York: Free Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. C. Buck, and D. L. Hull, “The logical structure of the linnaean hierarchy,” Systematic Zoology, vol. 15, pp. 97–111, 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. Busacker and T. L. Saaty, Finite Graphs and Networks. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    G. Cant, “An X-ray analysis of doctors’ bills,” Money, August 1973.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Census of Manufacturers, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1967.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    H. Chenery and P. Clark, Interindustry Economics. New York: Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. T. Eckenrode, “Weighting multiple criteria,” Management Science, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 180–192, November 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring, The Quality of Life Concept: A Potential New Tool for Decision-Makers, 1973.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    G. Fechner, Elements of Psychophysics, vol. 2, Helmut E. Adler, Tr. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. N. Franklin, Matrix Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968.MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    R. A. Frazer, W. J. Duncan, and A. R. Collar, Elementary Matrices. Cambridge University Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    F. R. Gantmacher, The Theory of Matrices, vol. II. New York, Chelsea Publishing, 1960, pp. 53 and 63.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    M. Gardner, “The hierarchy of infinites and the problems it spawns,” Scientific American, vol. 214, pp. 112–118, Mar. 1966.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    J. R. Gillett, “The football league eigenvector,” Eureka, Oct. 1970.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    E. E. Harris, “Wholeness and hierarchy,” in Foundations of Metaphysics in Science, New York: Humanities, 1965, ch. 7.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    I. N. Herstein, Topics in Algebra, Blaisdell Publishing, 1964.MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    N. N. Jardine and R. Sibson, Mathematical Taxonomy. New York: Wiley, 1971.MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    S. C. Johnson, “Hierarchical clustering schemes,” Psychometrica, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 241–252, Sept. 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    J. G. Kemeny and J. Laurie Snell, Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences, Blaisdell Publishing, 1962.MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    A. J. Klee, “The role of decision models in the evaluation of competing environmental health alternatives,” Management Science, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 53–67. Oct. 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    A. Koestler and J. R. Smythies, Eds., Beyond Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life of the Sciences. New York: MacMillan, 1970.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    D. H. Krantz, “A theory of magnitude estimation and cross modality matchings,” J. Mathematical Psychology, vol. 9, pp. 168–199, 1972.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    —, R. D. Luce, P. Suppes, and A. Tversky, Foundations of Measurement. New York: Academic, 1971.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    H. H. Landsberg and S. H. Schurr, Energy in the United States: Sources, Uses and Policy Issues. New York: Random House for Resources for the Future, Inc., 1963.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    A. Lindenmayer, “Life cycles as hierarchical relations,” Form and Strategy in Science, J. R. Gregg and F. T. C. Harris, Eds. Dordrecht: D. Reidell, 1964.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Logistics Management Institute, Identification of War Reserve Stock, Task 72–04, Washington, DC, June 1972.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    M. L. Manheim, Hierarchical Structure: A Model of Planning and Design Processes. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1966, p. 222.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    R. Mariano, “The study of priorities in electrical energy allocation,” University of Pennsylvania, 1975.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    E. S. Mason and the staff on the NPA Project on the Economic Aspects of the Productive Uses of Nuclear Energy, Energy Requirements and Economic Growth, Washington, National Planning Association, 1955.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    M. D. Mesarovic and D. Macko, “Scientific theory of hierarchical systems,” in Hierarchical Structures, L. L. Whyte, A. G. Wilson, D. Wilson, Eds. New York: American Elsevier, 1969.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    J. L. Moreno, Fondements de la sociometrie, Lesage-Maucorps, Tr. Presses Universitaires, Paris, 1954.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    G. A. Miller, “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information,” The Psychological Review, vol. 63, pp. 81–97, Mar. 1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    H. H. Pattee, “The problem of biological hierarchy,” Towards a Theoretical Biology, vol. III, C. H. Waddington, Ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    —, Ed., Hierarchy Theory, The Challenge of Complex Systems. New York: George Braziller, 1973.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    J. Pfanzagl, Theory of Measurement. New York: Wiley, 1968.MATHGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    T. L. Saaty, “An eigenvalue allocation model in contingency planning,” University of Pennsylvania, 1972.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    —, “Hierarchies and priorities—Eigenvalue analysis,” University of Pennsylvania, 107 pages, 1975.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    —, “Measuring the fuzziness of sets,” J. Cybernetics, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 53–61, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    T. L. Saaty and M. Khouja, “A measure of world influence,” Peace Science, June 1976.Google Scholar
  44. [43’]
    T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill, 1980.MATHGoogle Scholar
  45. [43”]
    —, and L. Vargas, The Logic of Priorities, Kluwer Nijhoff, 1981.Google Scholar
  46. [43”’]
    —, Decision Making for Leaders, Wadsworth, 1982.Google Scholar
  47. [44]
    T. L. Saaty and P. C. Rogers, “The future of higher education in the United States (1985–2000)”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 251–264, Dec. 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [45]
    T. L. Saaty, Project Director, The Sudan transport study, 5 volumes, The Democratic Republic of the Sudan in association with the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development, 1975.Google Scholar
  49. [46]
    T. L. Saaty, F. Ma, and P. Blair, “Hierarchical theory and operational gaming for energy policy analysis,” study done for ERDA, 1975.Google Scholar
  50. [47]
    A. Sankaranarayanan, “On a group theoretical connection among the physical hierarchies,” Res. Communication no. 96, Douglas Advanced Research Labor-atories, Huntingdon Beach, Ca.Google Scholar
  51. [48]
    C. W. Savage, “Introspectionist and Behaviorist Interpretations of Ratio Scales of Perceptual Magnitudes,” Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, No. 19, Whole No. 627, 1966.Google Scholar
  52. [49]
    D. Scott, “Measurement structures and linear inequalities,” J. Mathematical Psychology, vol. 1 pp. 233–247, 1964.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. [50]
    R. N. Shepard, “A taxonomy of some principal types of data and of multidimen-sional methods for their analysis,” in Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in the Behavioral Sciences, vol. 1, R. N. Shepard, A. K. Romney, S. B. Nerlove, Eds. New York: Seminar Press, pp. 21–47. 1972.Google Scholar
  54. [51]
    R. R. Sokal and P. H. A. Seneath, Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. Freeman, 1963.Google Scholar
  55. [52]
    S. S. Stevens, “On the psychophysical law,” Psychological Review, vol. 64, pp. 153–181, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. [53]
    —, “To honor Fechner and repeal his law,” Science, vol. 13, Jan. 13, 1961.Google Scholar
  57. [54]
    P. Suppes and J. L. Zinnes, Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 1. New York: Wiley, 1963.Google Scholar
  58. [55]
    L. L. Thurston, “A law of comparative judgment,” Psychological Review, vol. 34, pp. 273–286, 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. [56]
    W. S. Torgerson, Theory and Methods of Scaling. New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
  60. [57]
    T. H. Wei, “The algebraic foundations of ranking theory,” Thesis, Cambridge, 1952.Google Scholar
  61. [58]
    P. A. Weiss, Hierarchically Organized Systems in Theory and Practice. New York: Hafner, 1971.Google Scholar
  62. [59]
    H. Weyl, “Chemical valence and the hierarchy of structures,” Appendix D in Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1949.Google Scholar
  63. [60]
    L. L. Whyte, “Organic structural hierarchies,” in Unity and Diversity in Systems, Essays in honor of L. von Bertalanffy, R. G. Jones and G. Brandl, Eds. New York: Braziller, 1969.Google Scholar
  64. [61]
    —, “The structural hierarchy in organisms,” from Unity and Diversity in Systems, Jones and Brandl, Eds. New York: Braziller, in press.Google Scholar
  65. [62]
    L. L. Whyte, A. G. Wilson, and D. Wilson, Eds., Hierarchical Structures, New York: American Elsevier 1969.Google Scholar
  66. [63]
    H. Wielandt, “Unzerlegbare, Nicht Negative Matrizen,” Math. Z., vol. 52, pp. 642–648, 1950.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  67. [64]
    H. S. Wilf, Mathematics for the Physical Sciences. New York: Wiley, 1962.MATHGoogle Scholar
  68. [65]
    J. H. Wilkinson, The Algebraic Eigenvalue Problem. Clarendon Press, 1965, ch. 2MATHGoogle Scholar
  69. [66]
    A. G. Wilson, “Hierarchical structure in the cosmos,” in Hierarchical Structures. New York: American Elsevier, 1969.Google Scholar
  70. [67]
    D. R. Woodall, “A criticism of the football league eigenvector,” Eureka, Oct. 1971.Google Scholar
  71. [68]
    P. A. Julien, P. Lamonde, and D. Latouche, La Methode des Scenarios, Groupe de Recherches sur le Futur Université du Quebec, Nov. 1974.Google Scholar
  72. [69]
    A. Ando and H. Simson, “Aggregation of variables in dynamic systems,” Econometrica, vol. 29, no. 2, Apr. 1961.Google Scholar
  73. [70]
    H. Simon, “The architecture of complexity,” Proc. American Philosophical Society, vol. 106, pp. 467–482, Dec. 1962.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas L. Saaty
    • 1
  1. 1.2025 C. L.University of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations