Analysis of Analytic Hierarchy Process of some algebra factors affecting the vector space concept over a field definition

Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 153-168

  Yetim, Sebahat ^a  

^a GAZI UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Analytic hierarchy process (AHP); Mathematical education; Prioritization; Vector space

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861167375     PISSN: 13087711     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Saaty T. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory, RWS Publications, Vol: 6, Pittsburgh, USA, 2000.
2. Crawford G B. The geometric mean procedure for estimating the scale of a judgment matrix. Math Model 1987;9:327-334.
3. Weiss EN. Using the analytic hierarchy process in a dynamic environment, Math Model 1987;9:285-292.
4. Dyers JS. Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process, Manage Sci 1990;36:249-259.
5. De Gram JG. Technical Report M.F.A. 80-3, National Institute for Water Supply Leidshcendamthe Netherlands, Presented at EURO IV Cambridge, July 22-25, 1980.
6. Aczel J, Saaty T. Procedure for synthesizing ratio judgments. J Math Psych 1983;27:93-102.
7. Belton V, Gear T. On a shortcomings of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 1983;11:228-230.
8. Saaty T, Vargas L. The Allocation of Intangible Resources: The Analytic Hierarchy Process and Linear Programming, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, U.S. A, 1984.
9. Dyer JF, Wendell RE. A Critique of the AHP, Working Paper, Department of Management, The University of Texas Austin TX, 1985 84:85:4-24.
10. Lunda JR, Palmer RN. Subject Evaluation: Linguistics Scales in Pairwise Comparison Methods, Reprints of the ISAHP, Tianjin University, China, Sept. 6-9, 1986;561-568.
11. Belton V. A comparison of the AHP and a simple multi-attribute value function. EJOR 1986;26:17-21.
12. Madu CN. An economic decision model for technology transfer. EMI 1988;5:153-62.
13. Golden BL, Wang Q. An Alternate Measure of Consistency, College of Business and Management University of Maryland College Park, 1989.
14. Badiru AB, Friends. A multiattribute spreadsheet model for manufacturing technology justification. Comput Ind Eng 1991;21:29-33.
15. Suresh NC, Kaparthi S. Flexible automation investment: a synthesis of two multiobjection modeling approaches. Comput Ind Eng 1992;22:257-272.
16. Datta V, Friends. Multi-attribute decision model using the AHP for justification of manufacturing systems. IJPE 1992 28:227-234.
17. Madu CN. On the total productivity management of a maintenance float system through AHP applications. IJPE 1994;34:2201-207.
18. Davies MAP. A multi-criteria decision model application for managing group decision. JORS 1994;45:47-58.
19. Ramanathan R, Gansh LS. Using AHP for resource allocation problems. EJOR 1995;80:410-417.
20. Tavana M, Snehamay B. Strategic assessment model (SAM): A multiple criteria decision support system for evaluation of strategic alternativest. Dec Sci 1995;26:119-143.
21. Jain B. Nag B. A decision support model for investment decisions in new ventures. European J Operat Res 1996;90:473-486.
22. Rosenbloom ESA. Probabilistic interpretation of the final ranking in AHP. EJOR 1996;371-378.
23. Kurnaz MA, Calik M. A Thematic review of 'energy' teaching studies: focuses, needs, methods, general knowledge claims and implications. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2009;1:1-26.
24. Calik M. "How did creating a constructivist learning environment influence my graduate students' views?" Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2011;3:1-13.
25. Karamustafaoglu O. Active learning strategies in physics teaching. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2009;1:27-50.
26. Saka AZ. The effect of the guided discussion method on student success in the teaching of physics. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2011;3:725-738.
27. Karamustafaoglu S. Chemistry teachers' levels of using teaching materials. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2010;2:255-268.
28. Azar A. A comparison of the effects of two physics laboratory applications with different approaches on student physics achievement. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2010;2:161-185.
29. Sahin C, Calik M, Cepni S. Using different conceptual change methods embedded within 5E model: A Sample teaching of liquid pressure, Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2009;1:115-125.
30. Demirbas B. Biomass business and operating. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part A 2010;26:37-47.
31. Sahin Y. Environmental impacts of biofuels. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part A 2011;26:129-142.
32. Tasci D. Soyut Cebir. Alp Publications, Ankara, 2007, 531.
33. Vargas LG. An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its application. EJOR 1990;48:2-8.
34. Zahedi F. A utility approach to the analytic hierarchy process. Math Model 1987;9:387-395.
35. Saaty T. The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes, MCDM XV-th International Conference, Ankara, Turkey, 2000.
36. Saaty T. The Seven Pillars of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 322 Mervis Hall, Pittsburgh, U.S. A, 1999.
37. Barbeau E. Reciprocal Matrices of Order 4. Math Model 1987;9:321-326.
38. Saaty T. The analytic hiyerarchy process (AHP) for decision making, Kobe, Japan. 1980.
39. Harker PT, Vargas LG. The theory of ratio scale estimation: saaty's analytic hierarchy process. Manage Sci 1987;33:1383-1403.
40. Saaty T. Physic as a Decision Theory, EJOR, North-Holland, 1990; 48: 98-104.
41. Saaty T. Fundamentals of the Analytic Network Process, ISAHP, Kobe, Japan, 1999.
42. Miller G A. The magic number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 1956;63:81-97.
43. Vargas L G. Utility theory and reciprocal pairwise comparisons: the eigenvector method. Soc Econ Plan Sci 1986;20:387-391.
44. Saaty T. The Analytic Hiyerarchy Process, McGraw-Hill International Book Company, USA, 1980.
45. Golden B L, Wasil E A and Harker P T. (Eds) The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Applications and Studies. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1989.
46. Saaty T. Some mathematical concepts of the analytic hierarchy process, Behaviorm 1991;29:1-9.