‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﭼﻨﺪﺷﺎﺧﺼﻲ ﺑﺎ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ‬

٣
‫ ؛ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﺟﻌﻔﺮﺯﺍﺩﻩ ﺍﻓﺸﺎﺭﻱ‬٢‫؛ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻣﺤﻤﺪﭘﻮﺭ ﻋﻤﺮﺍﻥ‬١‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺟﺒﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ‬
‫ﭼﮑﻴﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﭼﻨﺪﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻩ)ﭼﻨﺪ ﺷﺎﺧﺼﻲ( ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻭﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﺍﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻣﻲ‬
‫ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﻱ‬،‫ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﻳﮏ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺩﺭﻭﻧﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺎﻡ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻣﻲ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﻭﺍﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻗﻀﻴﻪ‬.‫ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‬
‫ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ‬.‫ﻣﻮﺳﻮﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺗﺨﺼﻴﺺ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ‬
‫ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ‬.‫ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻲ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻮﺟﺐ ﺗﺴﻬﻴﻞ ﮐﺴﺐ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﺭﺟﺤﻴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻱ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺍﻣﮑﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻞ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺑﺰﺭﮒ ﺭﺍ ﻓﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ‬
.‫ﻣﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﮐﺘﻔﺎﺀ ﺑﻪ ﻳﮏ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﺯﻳﺮ ﺑﻬﻴﻨﻪ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ‬

‫ﮐﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﮐﻠﻴﺪﻱ‬
‫ ﺍﺧﺬ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﺭﺟﺤﻴﺖ‬،‫ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ‬،‫ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﺩﻫﻲ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬،‫ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﭼﻨﺪﺷﺎﺧﺼﻲ‬

Multi Attribute Decision analysis with Compound

Alternatives
Mohammad Saeed Jabal Ameli, Mohammad Mohammadpour Omran,Ahmad Jafarzadeh Afshari

ABSTRACT
In some multiple criteria (attribute) decision making, decision alternatives have a special structure and
interrelationship among their structure. This paper investigates one special type of these structures called
compound alternatives. And develop a new method called assignment method to analysis decision problems
with this structure within their alternatives. This analysis is based on some theorems and their proofs. Using
interrelationships information of alternatives lead to simplification in preference information acquisition
from decision maker . Also we show possibility of large size problem handling and prevention of suboptimal
solution acceptance.

Keywords

Multi Attribute Decision Making, Decision problem Structuring, Compound Alternatives, Preference
Information Acquisition

ms_jabalameli@iust.ac.ir ،‫ داﻧﺸﻴﺎر داﻧﺸﮑﺪﻩ ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﻋﻠﻢ و ﺻﻨﻌﺖ اﻳﺮان‬. 1

mohammadpour@shomal.ac.ir ،‫ اﺳﺘﺎدﻳﺎر ﮔﺮوﻩ ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳﻲ ﺻﻨﺎﻳﻊ داﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺷﻤﺎل‬. 2
afshari@shomal.ac.ir، ‫ ﻋﻀﻮ هﻴﺎت ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﮔﺮوﻩ ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺷﻤﺎل‬. 3
 ‫‪ -١‬ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﺩﻫﻲ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﻭ ﻳﮑﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻬﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﮔﺎﻡ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻓﺮﺍﻳﻨﺪ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ]‪ [۱‬ﻭ ]‪ .[۲‬ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺷﮑﺴﺖ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻱ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻓﺮﺍﻳﻨﺪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ ]‪ [۳‬ﻭ ]‪ .[۴‬ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻ ﺧﺮﻭﺟﻲ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻳﮏ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻒ ﺟﺎﻣﻊ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻳﮏ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻏﻨﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﺩﻫﻲ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺑﺮ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻫﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻓﺮﺍﻳﻨﺪ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﻪ ﻣﺮﺍﺗﺒﻲ )ﺍﻱ ﺍﭺ ﭘﻲ( ]‪ [۵‬ﻭ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﺗﮑﻨﻴﮏ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ]‪ [۶‬ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻧﻤﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻫﺎﻱ ﮐﻤﺘﺮﻱ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺭﻭﺷﻬﺎﻱ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﺭﻑ ﻋﻠﻴﺮﻏﻢ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻫﺎﻳﺸﺎﻥ ﻧﮕﺎﻫﻲ ﻳﮑﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺁﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻓﺮﺽ ﻣﻲ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮﻱ ﻳﮑﭙﺎﺭﭼﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﻳﺘﻲ ﻣﺠﺰﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻳﮑﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﭼﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺳﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺎﺩﻩ ﺳﺎﺯﻱ ﻓﺮﺍﻳﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮐﻤﮏ ﻣﻲ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﻣﺎ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻴﺖ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﻲ ﺑﻮﻳﮋﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﮋﻳﮏ ]‪ [۷‬ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﮐﻪ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻲ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﻭﺍﺑﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﺮ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺷﻴﻮﻩ ﺍﻱ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬
‫ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﭼﻨﺪﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ‪ ١‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﻣﻲ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ‪ .‬ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺐ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻲ ﺁﻳﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﺠﺎ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﻫﺮ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﻣﺨﺘﻒ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻭ ﻫﺮﺑﺎﺭ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻳﮏ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﻫﺮ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﻣﻲ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻨﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﻱ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻌﻴﻦ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﺯ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺘﻪ ﻭ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺷﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺎﻡ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺗﺨﺼﻴﺺ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺣﻞ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﭼﻨﺪﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻩ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﺎﺯﻣﺎﻧﺪﻫﻲ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ‪ ۲‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻭ ﺗﺸﺮﻳﺢ ﻣﻲ‬
‫ﮔﺮﺩﺩ‪ .‬ﺳﭙﺲ ﺩﺭ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ‪ ۳‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻗﻀﻴﻪ ﺭﻳﺎﺿﻲ ﻭ ﺍﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﺵ ﺗﺨﺼﻴﺺ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺟﻞ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺸﺮﻳﺢ ﻣﻲ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﻮﻳﮋﻩ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ ﺍﮔﺮﭼﻪ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﻣﺪﻟﻲ ﭘﻴﭽﻴﺪﻩ ﺗﺮ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻣﻮﺟﺐ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ ﺷﺎﻧﺲ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻦ ﺟﻮﺍﺑﻬﺎﻱ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ‬
‫‪ ۴‬ﻳﮏ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻋﺪﺩﻱ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ ﻭ ﺗﺒﻴﻴﻦ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﮕﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺗﺨﺼﻴﺺ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺳﺮﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﺭ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ‪۵‬‬
‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﻣﻲ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .۲‬ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺷﺎﺧﺼﻲ ﺑﺎ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ‬

‫ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺐ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻲ ﺁﻳﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﻳﮏ ﺟﺎﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺟﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎﻳﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﻣﻌﻴﻦ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﻧﻤﻮﺩ]‪ .[۸‬ﻫﺮ ﻳﮏ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻳﮏ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﻣﻲ ﻧﺎﻣﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺭﻭﺷﻬﺎﻱ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﻫﺮ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ‬
‫ﺭﺍ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺁﻥ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﻣﻲ ﻧﺎﻣﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﻳﮏ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻣﻌﻴﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﮐﻞ ﺟﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻳﮏ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﻣﻌﻴﻦ ﺍﺯ ﻫﺮ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﻭ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺐ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﮐﻨﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ‬ ‫‪nj ,‬‬ ‫ﻳﮑﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻲ ﺁﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﻓﺮﺽ ﮐﻨﻴﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ ‪ m‬ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻭ ﻫﺮ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ‬
‫ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻩ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺻﻞ ﺷﻤﺎﺭﺵ‬
‫ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺭﻭ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﻧﻤﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﻭﺍﻓﻌﻲ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎ ﺗﺎ ﺑﺪﺍﻥ ﺣﺪ ﺯﻳﺎﺩ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﻧﺘﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﺴﺎﺩﮔﻲ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺟﺤﻴﺖ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻓﺮﺽ ﮐﻨﻴﺪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ‪ ۵‬ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻭ ﻫﺮ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻱ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ‪ ۳‬ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ‪ ۲۴۳‬ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻳﮏ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﭼﻨﺪﺷﺎﺧﺼﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻧﻤﺮﻩ ﺩﻫﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺟﻤﻊ ﻣﻮﺯﻭﻥ(]‪ [۹‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻫﺮ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ ‪ ۲۴۳‬ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﻉ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻧﻤﺮﻩ‬
‫ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﻧﻤﺮﺍﺕ ﺳﺎﺯﮔﺎﺭ ﺑﻮﻳﮋﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﮐﻴﻔﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﺳﺨﺖ ﻭﺩﺭ ﭘﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻳﮏ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﭼﻨﺪﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﺎﺕ ﺯﻭﺟﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺍﻱ ﺍﭺ ﭘﻲ(]‪ [۱۰‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﻳﺴﺖ‬
‫ﻗﻀﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﻫﺪ ﮐﻪ ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻧﻤﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺴﺎﺩﮔﻲ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻗﻀﺎﻭﺕ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﺳﺎﺯﮔﺎﺭ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﺍﺩ‪ ..‬ﻭ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻳﮏ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻓﺮﺍ‬
‫ﻗﻀﺎﻭﺕ ﺳﺎﺯﮔﺎﺭ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻫﺮ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﻫﺪ ﮐﻪ‬ ‫ﺭﺗﺒﻪ ﺍﻱ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﮑﺘﺮ(]‪ [۱۰‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﻳﺴﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﻧﺸﺪﻧﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﮐﺎﺭﺑﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﻭﺷﻬﺎﻱ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﭼﻨﺪﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺟﻬﺖ ﻏﻠﺒﻪ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺸﮑﻼﺕ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻧﮕﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﺍﺯ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻪ ﺭﺍ ﮐﻮﭼﮏ ﻣﻲ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻣﺮ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻣﻮﺟﺐ ﺷﻮﺩ ﺗﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻳﮏ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺯﻳﺮﺑﻬﻴﻨﻪ ﺑﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺭﻭﻳﮑﺮﺩ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﻱ ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻲ‬

‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪. Compound alternatives‬‬

‫ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺳﺎﺩﻩ ﺳﺎﺯﻱ ﮐﺴﺐ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﺭﺟﺤﻴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻓﺮﺽ ﮐﻨﻴﺪ ﺷﺨﺼﻲ ﺑﺨﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺗﺎ ﻳﮏ ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺳﻪ‬
‫ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺧﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺭﺍﺣﺖ ﺗﺮ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻇﺮ ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻈﻴﺮ ﺍﺗﺎﻕ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﻮﺍﺏ‪ ،‬ﺁﺷﭙﺰﺧﺎﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻭ‪ ...‬ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﻳﮑﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺪ‪،‬ﺑﺠﺎﻱ ﺁﻥ ﮐﻪ ﮐﻠﻴﺖ ﻳﮏ ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﮐﻠﻴﺖ ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺷﻮﺩﮐﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺭﻭﺵ‬
‫ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﻱ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻳﮏ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﮐﺎﻣﻼ ﻣﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﺵ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﻱ ﻧﻤﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﺑﻌﺪ‪ ،‬ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﻳﮏ ﻣﺎﺗﺮﻳﺲ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻗﻀﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﺵ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﻱ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺣﻞ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺷﺎﺧﺼﻲ ﺑﺎ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﻣﻲ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .۳‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﭼﻨﺪﺷﺎﺧﺼﻲ ﺑﺎ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ‬
‫ﻳﮏ ﻣﺎﺗﺮﻳﺲ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﺭﻑ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻳﮏ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺷﺎﺧﺼﻲ ﻧﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﺯﻳﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪:‬‬
‫) ‪C1 ( w1‬‬ ‫) ‪C 2 (w2 ) …. C n ( wn‬‬

‫‪a11‬‬ ‫‪a12‬‬ ‫‪….‬‬ ‫‪a1n‬‬

‫‪A‬‬
‫‪a2n‬‬ ‫‪a22‬‬ ‫‪….‬‬ ‫‪a21‬‬
‫‪A‬‬
‫‪a31‬‬ ‫‪a 32‬‬ ‫‪….‬‬ ‫‪a3n‬‬
‫‪A‬‬

‫‪….‬‬
‫‪amn‬‬ ‫‪am 2‬‬ ‫‪….‬‬ ‫‪a m1‬‬
‫‪A‬‬
‫ﺷﮑﻞ ‪ :۱‬ﻳﮏ ﻣﺎﺗﺮﻳﺲ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﺭﻑ‬

‫} ‪C j { j = 1,2,3,..., n‬‬ ‫ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ } ‪Ai {i = 1,2,3,..., m‬‬

‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻫﺎ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ‪،‬‬
‫}‪A {i = 1,...,m ; j = 1, ...,n‬‬
‫‪ ij‬ﺍﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ‪ i‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ ‪ j‬ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﻗﺒﻞ‬
‫}‪w {k = 1,..., n‬‬
‫‪ k‬ﺍﻭﺯﺍﻥ ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻭ‬
‫ﮔﻔﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻴﺖ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻧﺎﮐﺎﺭﺁﻣﺪ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻓﺮﺽ ﮐﻨﻴﺪ ﺑﺨﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺗﺎ ﻳﮏ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻪ ﻃﺮﺡ ﮐﺎﺭﺑﺮﻱ ﺍﺭﺍﺿﻲ ﺯﻳﺮ‬
‫ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺑﺎﺯﺳﺎﺯﻱ ﻳﮏ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺯﻟﺰﻟﻪ ﺯﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻴﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪ :A1‬ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﺴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﺷﻬﺮﻱ ﺑﺎ ﮔﻨﺠﺎﻳﺶ ‪ 20.000‬ﻧﻔﺮ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻤﺎﻧﻬﺎﻱ ﮐﻢ ﺍﺭﺗﻔﺎﻉ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺤﻮﺭﻳﺖ ﻛﺸﺎﻭﺭﺯﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺁﻥ ﺷﻬﺮ‪.‬‬
‫‪ :A2‬ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﺴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﺷﻬﺮﻱ ﺑﺎ ﮔﻨﺠﺎﻳﺶ ‪ 40.000‬ﻧﻔﺮ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻤﺎﻧﻬﺎﻱ ﺑﻠﻨﺪﻣﺮﺗﺒﻪ ﻭ ﻣﺤﻮﺭﻳﺖ ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺁﻥ ﺷﻬﺮ‪.‬‬
‫‪ :A3‬ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﺴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﺷﻬﺮﻱ ﺑﺎ ﮔﻨﺠﺎﻳﺶ ‪ 70.000‬ﻧﻔﺮ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻤﺎﻧﻬﺎﻱ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺭﺗﻔﺎﻉ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺤﻮﺭﻳﺖ ﺑﺎﺯﺭﮔﺎﻧﻲ ﻭ ﺗﺠﺎﺭﺕ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺁﻥ ﺷﻬﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ‪ C‬ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﺭﻭﻧﻖ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﺗﻠﻔﺎﺕ ﺯﻟﺰﻟﻪ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺁﻳﻨﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﻭ ﺍﺛﺮﺍﺕ ﺯﻳﺴﺖ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺑﺎﻻ ﺑﻪ ﺧﺎﻃﺮ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﻥ ﺑﺰﺭﮔﻲ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻪ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﻻ ﺍﻛﺘﻔﺎ ﮔﺮﺩﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻤﻞ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻧﻈﻴﺮ‪:‬‬
‫‪ :A4‬ﺳﺎﺕ ﺷﻬﺮﻱ ﺑﺎ ﮔﻨﺠﺎﻳﺶ ‪ 40.000‬ﻧﻔﺮ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻤﺎﻧﻬﺎﻱ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﻃﺒﻘﻪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺤﻮﺭﻳﺖ ﻛﺸﺎﻭﺭﺯﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺁﻥ ﺷـﻬﺮ ﻧﻴـﺰ ﻗﺎﺑـﻞ ﻃـﺮﺡ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﻫﺮ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﺳﻪ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﮔﻨﺠﺎﻳﺶ ﺟﻤﻌﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻤﺎﻧﻬﺎ ﻭ ﺑﺨـﺶ ﻣﺤـﻮﺭﻱ ﺍﻗﺘـﺼﺎﺩ ﺷـﻬﺮ ﺍﺳـﺖ‪ .‬ﮔﺰﻳﻨـﻪ‬
‫ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ‪ A4‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﺎﺩﻳﺮ ﻭ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎﻱ ‪ A1‬ﺗﺎ ‪ A3‬ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﮔﻨﺠﺎﻳﺶ ﺟﻤﻌﻴﺖ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑـﻪ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋـﻪ‬
‫}‪ {20.000, 40.000,70.000‬ﺍﺳﺖ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻠﻨﺪﻱ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻤﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ }ﺑﻠﻨﺪﻣﺮﺗﺒﻪ ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ‪ ،‬ﮐﻮﺗﺎﻩ{ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺑﺨﺶ ﻣﺤﻮﺭﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺷﻬﺮ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ }ﺑﺎﺯﺭﮔﺎﻧﻲ ‪ ،‬ﺻﻨﻌﺖ‪ ،‬ﻛﺸﺎﻭﺭﺯﻱ{ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﻫﺮ ﻛﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻏﻨﻲ ﻧﻤﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﺜ ﹰ‬
‫ﻼ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧـﺪ‬
‫}‪ {10.000, 20.000, 30.000, … , 100.000‬ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻳﺎ ﺗﻌـﺪﺍﺩ ﻃﺒﻘـﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﻌﻠـﻖ ﺑـﻪ ‪{1, 2, 3, … ,‬‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﻏﻨﻲ ﺗﺮ‬
‫}‪ 10‬ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺑﺨﺶ ﻣﺤﻮﺭﻱ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺷﻬﺮ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ } ﮔﺮﺩﺵﮔﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺯﺭﮔﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﺻﻨﻌﺖ‪ ،‬ﻛﺸﺎﻭﺭﺯﻱ{ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺁﺷﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻓﺮﺁﻳﻨﺪ ﻏﻨـﻲ ﺳـﺎﺯﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣـﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﺭﺍ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺘـﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻲﺳﺎﺯﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺣﺎﻟﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﺍﻭﻟﻴﻪ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﺳﻪ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﻏﻨـﻲ ﺷـﺪﻩ ﺷـﺎﻣﻞ ‪ ۱۰ × ۱۰ × ۴ = ۴۰۰‬ﮔﺰﻳﻨـﻪ ﺍﺳـﺖ‪ .‬ﻛـﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺻـﻮﺭﺕ ﺍﺳـﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻫﺮ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﺎﺯ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﺷﻬﺎﻱ ﻓﺮﺍﺭﺗﺒﻪﺍﻱ ﻛﻪ‬ ‫ﺭﻭﺷﻬﺎﻱ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﺎﺕ ﺯﻭﺟﻲ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻫﺮ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺑﺎ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻫﺮ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ ﺑﻪ ‪ ۴۰۰ × ۴۰۰ = ۱۶۰,۰۰۰‬ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﻭﺩﻭﻳﻲ ﻣﺮﺑـﻮﻁ ﺑـﻪ ﻫـﺮ‬
‫ﻼ ﻏﻴﺮﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﺎﺯ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﺷﻬﺎﻱ ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺧﺬ ﺍﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻫﺮ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ‪،‬ﺍﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ ﺩﻫﻲ ﺑﻪ ‪ ۴۰۰‬ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻱ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﻋﻤ ﹰ‬
‫ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﻲ ﻭﺭﻭﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻲ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻱ ﺯﻳﺮ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺎﻡ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ‪:‬‬

‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪m‬‬

‫‪n2‬‬
‫‪nm‬‬

‫‪n1‬‬
‫‪n3‬‬
‫ﺷﻜﻞ‪ :۲‬ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻱ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻳﮏ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﭼﻨﺪﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻩ‬

‫ﺩﺭ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﻓﻮﻕ ﻫﺮ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺍﺯ ‪ m‬ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﺗﺸﮑﻴﻞ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﻫﺮ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻱ ‪j‬ﺍﻡ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ‪ nj‬ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷـﺪ ﻛـﻪ ‪ j = 1,2,..., m‬ﺍﺳـﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ)ﺷﺒﻪ ﻣﺎﺗﺮﻳﺲ ﻳﺎد ﺷﺪﻩ هﻤﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻣﺎﺗﺮﻳﺴﻲ اﺳﺖ‬ ‫ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭﺁﻥ‬ ‫ﻫﺮ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﻲ ‪ k‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﺴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺷﺒﻪ ﻣﺎﺗﺮﻳﺲ‬
‫ﮐﻪ ﺗﻌﺪادﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺳﺘﻮن هﺎﻳﺶ ﻳﮑﺴﺎن ﻧﻤﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ (.‬ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﺳﺘﻮﻥ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻳﻚ ﺑﺎﺭ ‪ 1‬ﺩﺍﺭﻳﻢ ﻭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺁﻥ ﺳﺘﻮﻥ ﺻـﻔﺮ ﻫـﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻭ ‪ k‬ﺷـﻤﺎﺭﻩ ﮔﺰﻳﻨـﻪ‬

‫ﻃـﺮﺡ‬
‫ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ ﻛﺪﺍﻡ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﻲ ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ 1‬ﻳﺎ ‪ 2‬ﻳﺎ ‪ ...‬ﺑﻨﺎﻣﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﺜـﺎﻝ ﺯﻳـﺮ ﻳـﻚ ﺍﺧﺘﻴـﺎﺭ ﺍﺯ ﺑـﻴﻦ !) ‪( n1 × n2 × ...nm‬‬
‫ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﺎ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﻣﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫ﭘﻴﺪﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ‬

‫) ‪ ( k = 1, L , N‬ﺭﺍ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ‪ x‬ﻣﻲﻧﺎﻣﻴﻢ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ } ‪ x = {x k | k = 1,2, L , N‬ﺑـﺎ ﺍﺳـﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻌﺮﻳـﻒ ﺑـﺎﻻ‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ‪ N‬ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺗﻤﺎﻣﻲ ﻃﺮﺣﻬﺎﻱ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﻱ ﺍﺭﺍﺿﻲ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺯﻟﺰﻟﻪﺯﺩﻩ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻦ ﺑﻬﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﻲ‪ ، xs،‬ﺍﺯ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ N‬ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﺑﺎ ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﻥ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ‬
‫ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻦ ‪ ،xs‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﻲ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺣﻞ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻪ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﺷﺪﻧﻲ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﻳﻚ ﺭﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﻛﻞ ‪ N‬ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳـﻦ‬
‫‪f : x → R+‬‬ ‫ﺭﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﺭﺯﺵ ‪ f‬ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ‪:‬‬

‫ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ‪ ،‬ﺑﻜﺎﺭﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢﮔﻴـﺮﻱ ﭼﻨـﺪ ﻣﻌﻴـﺎﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﺗـﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬
‫ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻫﺮ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﻥ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﻲ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺭﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﺗﺒﻪ ﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧـﺪ ﺑـﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﺁﻥ ﻛـﻪ ﻭﺿـﻌﻴﺖ‬
‫ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻫﺮ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻳﻚ ﺳﻨﺦ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪،‬ﺑﺴﺎﺩﮔﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻱ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﭘﺬﻳﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﺷﻬﺎﻱ ﺗـﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬
‫ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﭼﻨﺪﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺭﺳﻴﺪﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﺗﺒﻪ ﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﻩ ﻧﻤﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﺗﺒﻪ ﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﺮ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻱ ‪ j‬ﺍﻡ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺎﻻ ﺑـﻪ‬
‫ﭘﺎﻳﻴﻦ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻳﻚ ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ‪ ،Oj ،١‬ﻣﺮﺗﺐ ﻣﻲﻧﻤﺎﻳﻴﻢ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ‪ :1‬ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ﺯﺗﺎﻱ ‪ n‬ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺯﻳﺮ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻣﻲ ﮐﻨﻴﻢ‪.‬‬

‫} ‪ζ n = {1,2,3,..., n J‬‬
‫‪J‬‬

‫ﻟﻢ ‪ :۳-۱‬ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ‪ ζ n‬ﻣﺮﺗﺐ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺗﺒﻪ ﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻫﺮ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺑﺎ ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﻥ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﻲ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ‪ O j‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ‪ j‬ﺍﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ‬
‫ﺯﻳﺮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫‪O j : θ ′j ⇒ ζ n J‬‬

‫ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ‪ θ ′j‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺘﻬﺎﻱ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ‪ j‬ﺍﻡ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﮐﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﻌﺪﻱ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺳﺎﺩﮔﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺘﻬﺎﻱ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺭﺍ ﺩﻭﺑـﺎﺭﻩ ﺑـﻪ ﮔﻮﻧـﻪ ﺍﻱ ﻧـﺎﻡ‬
‫ﮔﺬﺍﺭﻱ ﮐﻨﻴﻢ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺎﻻ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺎﻳﻴﻦ ﻣﺮﺗﺐ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﻧﺎﻡ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺭﺍ ‪ θ j‬ﻣﻲ ﻧﺎﻣﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ‪:‬‬

‫) ‪µ < υ ⇒ O j (θ jµ ) < O j (θ Uj‬‬

‫ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻴﺖ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﻓﺮﺽ ﻣﻲ ﮐﻨﻴﻢ ﮐﻪ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﮐﻮﭼﮑﺘﺮ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻌﺎﺭﻳﻒ ﻭ ﻧﻤﺎﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﺭﺯﺵ ‪ f‬ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺯﻳـﺮ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫‪m‬‬ ‫‪m‬‬ ‫‪m‬‬ ‫‪m‬‬

‫= ) ‪f (X k‬‬ ‫∑‬
‫‪i =1‬‬
‫‪X 1ki +‬‬ ‫∑‬
‫‪i =1‬‬
‫‪2 X 2ki +‬‬ ‫‪∑ 3 X 3ki + ... +‬‬
‫‪i =1‬‬
‫‪∑S‬‬
‫‪i =1‬‬
‫‪+‬‬
‫‪X sk+ i‬‬ ‫)‪(۲‬‬

‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ‪ X 1‬ﻭ ‪ X 2‬ﻃﺮﺡ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ )‪ (۱‬ﺑﺎ ﻓﺮﺽ ﺁﻥ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ‪ X 1‬ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﻲ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﻳـﮏ ﺑﺎﺷـﺪ ﻭ ﺗﻔـﺎﻭﺕ ‪ X 2‬ﺑـﺎ ‪ X 1‬ﺗﻨﻬـﺎ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮﻡ ﻭ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪،‬ﺩﺍﺭﻳﻢ‪ f ( x 2 ) = m + 4, f ( x1 ) = m :‬ﻭ ﺍﻟﻲ ﺁﺧﺮ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ‪ :۲‬ﺩﺭ ‪ X‬ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺗﺒﻬﮕﻨﻲ‪ R ٢‬ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺯﻳﺮ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻣﻲ ﮐﻨﻴﻢ‪:‬‬

‫)‪XµRXv ⇔ f(Xµ)= f(xv‬‬ ‫)‪(۳‬‬

‫ﻗﻀﻴﻪ ‪ R :۱‬ﻳﮏ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﻫﻢ ﺍﺭﺯﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﺛﺒﺎﺕ‪:‬‬

‫ﻫﻤﺴﺎﻥ‪ ١‬ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﻭ ﻣﺘﻘﺎﺭﻥ‪ ٢‬ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ‪ R‬ﺑﺪﻳﻬﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ R .‬ﺗﺮﺍﮔﺬﺭ‪ ٣‬ﺍﺳﺖ ﺯﻳﺮﺍ‪:‬‬

‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪. Order function‬‬

‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪. Degeneracy Relation‬‬
 ‫)‪XvRXµ & XµRXλ ⇒ f(Xv)= f(xµ) & f(Xµ)= f(xλ‬‬ ‫)‪ (4‬ﺍﮔﺮ‬

‫‪⇒ f(Xv)= f(xλ)⇒ XvRXλ‬‬

‫ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ‪ R‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ‪ X‬ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻢ ﺍﺭﺯﻱ‪ ،٤‬ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺯ‪ ٥‬ﻣﻲ ﮐﻨﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ‪ :۳‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ } ‪ L = {l1 , l 2 ,..., l P‬ﺭﺍ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﻃﻴﻒ‪ f ٦‬ﻣﻲ ﻧﺎﻣﻴﻢ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ‪ lp‬ﺭﺗﺒﻪ ﺗﺒﻬﮕﻨﻲ‪ ٧‬ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ‪ f‬ﺩﺭ ﺩﺳﺘﻪ ‪ p‬ﺍﻡ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ‪ ٨‬ﺩﺳﺘﻪ ‪ p‬ﺍﻡ ﻣﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬

‫!)‪( f p − 1‬‬
‫= ‪ l p‬ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ‪ fp‬ﺍﺭﺯﺵ ﺩﺳﺘﻪ ‪ p‬ﺍﻡ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ }‪S − = Min{ni | i = 1,2,..., m‬‬ ‫ﻗﻀﻴﻪ ‪ :۲‬ﺍﮔﺮ ‪ fp < S-‬ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺁﻧﮕﺎﻩ‬
‫!)‪( f p − m)!( m − 1‬‬
‫‪m‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪).‬ﺷﮑﻞ ‪(۳‬‬ ‫ﮐﻪ ﻋﺪﺩﻱ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ m‬ﻭ ‪∑ nj‬‬
‫‪j =1‬‬

‫ﺷﮑﻞ ‪ :۳‬ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺯ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻢ ﺍﺭﺯﻱ ﺑـﺎ ﺗﻮﺟـﻪ ﺑـﻪ‬
‫ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺗﺒﻬﮕﻨﻲ ‪ F .R‬ﺗﺎﺑﻊ‬

‫ﺍﺭﺯﺵ ﻭ ‪ fp‬ﻫﺎ ﺑﺮﺩ ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ‪ f‬ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﺛﺒﺎﺕ‪ :‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﻃﻮﺭ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ )‪ (۲‬ﭘﻴﺪﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ‪ f‬ﺟﻤﻊ ‪ m‬ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺍﻳﻦ ‪ m‬ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ‪ m‬ﺧﺎﻧﻪ‪ ٩‬ﻧﻤـﺎﻳﺶ ﺩﻫـﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﻫـﺮ ﺧﺎﻧـﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻇﺮ ﺑﺎ ﻳﮏ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪f = a1 + a2 + … + am‬‬ ‫)‪(۵‬‬

‫‪m‬‬

‫‪...‬‬

‫ﻫﺮ ﻳﮏ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﻤﻼﺕ ﻋﺪﺩﻱ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ ۱‬ﺗﺎ ‪ f p − (m − 1) = f p − m + 1‬ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺻﻞ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﭘﻴﺪﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻫﺮ ﻋﻨـﺼﺮ ﺣﺘﻤـ ﹰﺎ ﻳـﮏ ﻭﺿـﻌﻴﺖ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪:‬‬

‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪. Reflexive‬‬

‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪. Symmetric‬‬
‫‪3 . Transitive‬‬
‫‪4 . Equivalence class‬‬
‫‪5 . partitioning‬‬
‫‪6 . spectrumset‬‬
‫‪7 . degeneracy order‬‬
‫‪8 . dimmension‬‬
‫‪9 . cell‬‬
 ‫|||‬ ‫|‬ ‫||‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫|‬

‫ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﺧﻄﻬﺎﻱ ﻫﺮ ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ‪ ،‬ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﺁﻥ ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﮐﻞ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺧﻄﻬـﺎ ‪ fp‬ﺗـﺎ ﺑﺎﺷـﺪ‪ .‬ﺑـﺮﺍﻱ ﺑﺪﺳـﺖ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻥ ‪ lp‬ﺑﺎﻳـﺪ ﻫﻤـﻪ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺸﺖ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺧﻄﻬﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺪﺳﺖ ﺁﻭﺭﻳﻢ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻣﺎ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺳﺎﺩﮔﻲ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﺎﺕ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﺠﺎﻱ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮ ‪ ai‬ﺍﺯ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﺑﻨﺎﻡ ‪ bi‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﮐﻨـﻴﻢ ﮐـﻪ ﺑﺠـﺎﻱ ﻳـﮏ ﺍﺯ ﺻـﻔﺮ ﺷـﺮﻭﻉ ﺷـﻮﺩ ﺑـﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻈـﻮﺭ‬
‫ﮐﺎﻓﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﻫﺮ ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ﻳﮑﻲ ﮐﻢ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ‪ m‬ﺗﺎ ﻳﮏ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻤﺖ ﺭﺍﺳﺖ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻟﻪ ﺑﺒﺮﻳﻢ ﺁﻧﮕﺎﻩ‪:‬‬

‫‪b1 + b2 + … + bm = fp -m‬‬ ‫)‪(۶‬‬

‫ﮐﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ ‪ ،ai‬ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺯﻳﺮ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ‪.‬‬

‫||||‬ ‫||‬ ‫|‬

‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﺭ ﻫﺮ ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻫﻴﭻ ﺧﻄﻲ ﻧﺒﺎﺷﺪ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺣﺪﺍﮐﺜﺮ ‪ fp – m‬ﺗﺎ ﺧﻂ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺧﻄﻬﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﺧﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﭘﺲ ﻣـﺴﺄﻟﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ‪ fp – m‬ﺧﻂ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ m‬ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ﭘﺨﺶ ﮐﻨﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺷﮑﻞ ﭘﻴﺪﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺍﻧﮕﺎﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺟﺎﻱ ‪ fp – m‬ﺧﻂ‪ (fp – m ) + (m – 1) ،‬ﺧﻂ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭﻳﻢ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ )‪ (m – 1‬ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﺩﻳﻮﺍﺭﻩ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺷﮑﻞ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﭘﺲ‬

‫!)‪( f p − 1‬‬ ‫‪ f p − 1‬‬ ‫‪m‬‬

‫= ‪lp‬‬ ‫‪= ‬‬ ‫‪k = 1,..., ∑ nj − m + 1‬‬ ‫)‪(۷‬‬
‫‪( f p − m)!( m − 1)!  m − 1 ‬‬ ‫‪j =1‬‬

‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﺗﺒﻬﮕﻨﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻣﺎﺭ ﺑﻮﺯ ‪ -‬ﺍﻧﻴﺸﺘﻴﻦ‪ ١‬ﺍﺳﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﻬﺖ ﻣﺎ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﺑﻮﺯ– ﺍﻧﻴﺸﺘﻦ ﻣﻲ ﻧﺎﻣﻴﻢ‪.‬‬

‫ﭼﻮﻥ ‪ nj‬ﻫﺎ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﭘﺲ ﺣﺘﻤ ﹰﺎ ﻳﮏ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ‪O‬ﺍﻳﻲ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ‪:‬‬

‫‪O: {nj } → ζm‬‬ ‫)‪(۸‬‬

‫ﻼ ﮐﻮﭼﮑﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﻀﻮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﺭﺍ ‪ S-‬ﻭ ﺑﺰﺭﮔﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﻀﻮ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ‪ S+‬ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪﻳﻢ ﺍﮐﻨﻮﻥ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺍﻋﻀﺎﻱ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ‬
‫ﮐﻪ ﻗﺒ ﹰ‬

‫‪S- , S1, S2, … ,Sm-2 , S+‬‬ ‫)‪(۹‬‬

‫ﻧﺎﻡ ﮔﺬﺍﺭﻱ ﻣﻲ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻴﻢ‪.‬‬

‫ﻗﻀﻴﻪ ‪ :۳‬ﺍﮔﺮ ‪ S- < fp < S1‬ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺁﻧﮕﺎﻩ‬

‫‪f p −S −‬‬
‫‪ f p − 1‬‬ ‫‪ f p − S − −1− i ‬‬
‫‪lk = ‬‬ ‫‪−‬‬
‫‪‬‬ ‫∑‬ ‫‪‬‬
‫‪m − i −1‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪‬‬ ‫)‪(۱۰‬‬
‫‪m −1 ‬‬ ‫‪i =1‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬

‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪. Bose – Einstein Statistic‬‬

‫ﺍﺛﺒﺎﺕ‪ :‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﻓﺮﺽ ﮐﻨﻴﻢ ﻫﻴﭻ ﻗﻴﺪﻱ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﻤﻲ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﻻ ﺗﺒﻬﮕﻨﻲ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻗﻴﻮﺩ ﻣﻮﺟـﺐ ﻣـﻲ ﺷـﻮﺩ ﺗﻌـﺪﺍﺩﻱ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻬﺎﻱ ﻏﻴﺮﻣﻤﮑﻦ )ﻧﻔﻲ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﻗﻴﺪﻫﺎ( ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻊ ﻓﻮﻕ ﮐﻢ ﮐﻨﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﻭﻟﻴﻦ ﺟﺎﻳﻲ ﮐﻪ ﻗﻴﺪ ﻧﻔﻲ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺘﻮﻧﻲ ﮐﻪ ‪ S-‬ﺗﺎ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‬
‫ﻳﮏ ﺧﻂ ﺍﺿﺎﻓﻪ ﮐﻨﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺘﻮﻥ ‪ S-+1‬ﺗﺎ ﺧﻂ ﺗﻌﻠﻖ ﻣﻲ ﮔﻴﺮﺩ ﻭ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻬﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﺧﻂ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺘﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﻳـﺪ ﺣـﺬﻑ ﺷـﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﻓﻌﻪ ﺑﻌﺪﻱ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺘﻮﻥ ‪ S-+2‬ﺗﺎ ﺧﻂ ﻣﻲ ﺭﺳﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻬﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ ﺁﻥ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻫﻢ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺣﺬﻑ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻲ ﺁﺧﺮ ﮐﻪ ﺣﺪﺍﮐﺜﺮ ‪ fp – S-‬ﺗﺎ ﺧﻂ ﺍﺿـﺎﻓﻪ ﻣـﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺘﻮﻥ ﺑﺪﻫﻴﻢ‪.‬‬

‫)‪ (fp – m) – (S-+1‬ﺗﺎ ﺧﻂ ﻣﻲ ﺭﺳـﺪ ﮐـﻪ ﺑﺎﻳـﺪ‬ ‫ﺍﮔﺮ ﻓﺮﺽ ﮐﻨﻴﻢ ‪ i‬ﺧﻂ ﺍﺿﺎﻓﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺘﻮﻥ ﺍﺧﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﺩﻫﻴﻢ ﺁﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ﻫﺎ )ﺣﺠﺮﻩ ﻫﺎ(‬
‫‪ f p − s− −1 − i ‬‬
‫‪‬‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ m – 1‬ﺳﺘﻮﻥ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒﻲ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺎﻟﺖ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﻨﺪ ﺍﺯ‪ :‬‬
‫‪m − i −1‬‬ ‫‪‬‬
‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬

‫ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺗﺒﻬﮕﻨﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻬﺎﻱ ﺍﺻﺎﺑﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﺎ ﻗﻴﺪ ﻫﻢ ﺑﺪﺳﺖ ﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪.‬‬

‫ﻗﻀﻴﻪ ‪ :۴‬ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ‪ Lp‬ﻳﻚ ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻛﻴﺪﹶﺍ ﺻﻌﻮﺩﻱ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺑﺎ ﻳﻚ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫‪P = ∑n‬‬
‫‪Max‬‬
‫‪j‬‬ ‫‪− m +1‬‬
‫ﺍﺛﺒﺎﺕ‪ :‬ﻫﺮ ﭼﻨﺪ ‪ Lp‬ﺩﺭ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ ‪ ،P‬ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ ﻣﻲﻳﺎﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺯﺍﺀ ﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﺣﺎﻟﺖ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﺍﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﻫﻤﻪ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺍﺭﺍ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪Lm‬‬

‫‪P‬‬ ‫‪= ∑nj − k‬‬

‫‪. M +K‬‬ ‫‪j =1‬‬
‫ﻗﻀﻴﻪ ‪ :۵‬ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ‪ Lp‬ﺑﺮﺣﺴﺐ ‪ P‬ﻳﻚ ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ﻣﺘﻘﺎﺭﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ‪:‬‬

‫ﺍﺛﺒﺎﺕ‪ :‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﻗﻀﻴﻪ ‪ ۲‬ﺍﺯ ﻛﻼﺱ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﻳﻚ ﻋﻀﻮ ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﻳﻚ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺑﻪ ‪ Fp‬ﺍﻓﺰﻭﺩﻩ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻧﺤﻮﻩ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﺍﻋﻀﺎﻱ ﻫﺮ ﻛﻼﺱ ﻋﺒـﺎﺭﺕ ﺑـﻮﺩ ﺍﺯ‬

‫‪P = ∑n‬‬
‫‪Max‬‬
‫‪j‬‬ ‫‪− m +1‬‬
‫ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﺭﻭﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﻮﻧﺎﮔﻮﻥ ﺗﺨﺼﻴﺺ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻳﻚﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ‪ m‬ﻋﻨﺼﺮ )‪ m‬ﺧﺎﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺑﺠﺎﻱ ﻛﻼﺱ ﺍﻭﻝ ﺍﺯ ﻛﻼﺱ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻳﻌﻨـﻲ‬
‫ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻴﻢ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﻳﻚ )‪ (-۱‬ﺍﺿﺎﻓﻪ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻤﺖ ﻛﻼﺱﻫﺎﻱ ﭘﺎﻳﻴﻦﺗﺮ ﺣﺮﻛﺖ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺯ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻫﻤﻪ ﻛـﻼﺱﻫـﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺟـﺎﺭﻭﺏ ﻧﻤـﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺑـﻪ‬
‫ﻛﻼﺱ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﺭﺳﻴﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﻧﺤﻮﻩ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﺍﻋﻀﺎﻱ ﻫﺮ ﻛﻼﺱ )ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﺗﺒﻬﮕﻨﻲﻫﺎ( ﺑﺎ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺍﺯ ﻛـﻼﺱ ﻧﺨـﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻳـﻚ ﺗﻘـﺎﺭﻥ ﻣﻴـﺎﻥ ﺗﻌـﺪﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺗﺒﻬﮕﻨﻲﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﺮ ﻛﻼﺱ ﺑﺎ ﻳﻚ ﻓﺎﺻﻠﻪ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﺯ ﻛﻼﺱ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﻭ ﻛﻼﺱ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑـﻪ ﻗـﻀﻴﻪ ﻓـﻮﻕ ﺗﻤـﺎﻣﻲ ‪Lp‬ﻫـﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻣـﻲﺗـﻮﺍﻥ ﺑـﺎ ﺍﺳـﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻘـﺎﺭﻥ ‪ Lp‬ﻣﺤﺎﺳـﺒﻪ ﻧﻤـﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑـﻪ ﺍﻳـﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﻴـﺐ ﻛـﻪ ﺗـﺎ ﻣﻴﺎﻧـﻪ ﻣﺤـﻮﺭ ‪P‬ﻫـﺎ ﻳﻌﻨـﻲ‬

‫= ‪FPm . d‬‬
‫‪∑n‬‬ ‫‪j‬‬ ‫‪+m‬‬
‫ﺭﺍ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﻧﻤﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺎﺑﻘﻲ ﻛﻼﺱﻫﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻘﺎﺭﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻧﻤﻮﺩ‪.‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫‪−‬‬
‫ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺷﺮﻁ ﻗﻀﻴﻪ ‪ ۳-۲‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ‪ FP < m + s‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﺯﺍﻱ‬
‫‪FPm . d‬‬ ‫‪FPm . d‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﺣﺴﺐ ‪ ،nj‬ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺍﻣﺎ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺑﺮﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﺠﺎ ﻛﻪ‬

‫‪FPm . d‬‬ ‫=‬

‫‪∑s‬‬ ‫‪+‬‬
‫‪+m‬‬
‫=‬
‫‪ms + + m m +‬‬
‫)‪= ( s + 1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺷﺮﻁ ﺯﻳﺮ ﺑﺮﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪:‬‬

‫‪m +‬‬
‫⇒ ‪max FPm .d < m + s −‬‬ ‫‪( s + 1) < m + s − ⇒ ms + − 2s − < m‬‬
‫‪2‬‬

‫ﺁﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﻲ ‪Lp‬ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺪﺳﺖ ﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪.‬‬

 ‫‪FPm . d −1‬‬
‫‪m‬‬ ‫!)‪( FP − 1‬‬
‫‪LPmed = π n j − 2‬‬ ‫∑‬ ‫!)‪( FP − m)!(m − 1‬‬
‫ﻗﻀﻴﻪ ‪:۶‬‬
‫‪j =1‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﺛﺒﺎﺕ‪ :‬ﺑﺪﻳﻬﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .۴‬ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻋﺪﺩﻱ‪ :‬ﻓﺮﺽ ﻛﻨﻴﺪ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎﻱ )ﻃﺮﺡﻫﺎﻱ( ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪﺭﻳﺰﻱ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﻱ ﺍﺭﺍﺿﻲ ﻳﻚ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺯﻟﺰﻟﻪﺯﺩﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺯﻳﺮ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪:‬‬

‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‪ :۱‬ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻋﺪﺩﻱ‬

‫ﮔﻨﺠﺎﻳﺶ ﺟﻤﻌﻴﺖ‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻮﺭﻳﺖ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ‬

‫‪۷۰,۰۰۰‬‬ ‫‪۴‬‬ ‫ﺻﻨﻌﺖ‬

‫‪۴۰,۰۰۰‬‬ ‫‪۱۰‬‬ ‫ﺗﺠﺎﺭﺕ‬

‫‪۲۰,۰۰۰‬‬ ‫‪۱‬‬ ‫ﻛﺸﺎﻭﺭﺯﻱ‬

‫ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﻓﺮﺽ ﻛﻨﻴﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻠﻔﻴﻖ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ‪ ،‬ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺎﻻ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺎﻳﻴﻦ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻄﻠﻮﺑﻴﺘﺸﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﻪ ﻣﻲﺷـﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻧﺤـﻮﻩ ﺗﻌﻴـﻴﻦ ﺑﻬﺘـﺮﻳﻦ ﮔﺰﻳﻨـﻪ ﺑـﻪ‬
‫ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺯﻳﺮ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪:‬‬

‫‪m = 3 , s− = 3 ,‬‬ ‫‪∑n‬‬ ‫‪j‬‬ ‫‪= 9 , s+ = 3‬‬

‫‪9+3‬‬
‫= ‪3 ≤ FP ≤ 9 , FPm . d‬‬ ‫‪=6‬‬
‫‪2‬‬

‫!)‪(3 − 1‬‬
‫= ‪F1 = 3 ⇒ L1‬‬ ‫‪=1‬‬
‫!)‪(3 − 3)!×(3 − 1‬‬

‫!)‪(4 − 1‬‬
‫= ‪F1 = 4 ⇒ L1‬‬ ‫‪=3‬‬
‫!)‪( 4 − 3)!×(3 − 1‬‬

‫!)‪(5 − 1‬‬
‫= ‪F1 = 5 ⇒ L1‬‬ ‫‪=6‬‬
‫!)‪(5 − 3)!×(3 − 1‬‬
‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫!)‪( FP − 1‬‬
‫∑‪F4 = FPm.d = 6 → L4 = π n j − 2‬‬
‫‪j =1‬‬ ‫!)‪P =3 ( FP − m)!( m − 1‬‬

‫‪⇒ L4 = 27 − 2(1 + 3 + 6) = 7‬‬

‫‪F5 = 7 ⇒ L5 = L3 = 6‬‬

‫‪F6 = 8 ⇒ L6 = L2 = 3‬‬

‫‪F7 = 9 ⇒ L7 = L1 = 1‬‬
 ‫‪Lp‬‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪0‬‬ ‫‪P‬‬
‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬

‫ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ﭘﻴﺪﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻠﻴﻪ ‪ ۲۷‬ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻔﺖ ﻛﻼﺱ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺍﺭﺟﺤﻴﺖ ﺭﺗﺒﻪﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﺷﺪﻩﺍﻧـﺪ‪ .‬ﺑـﺮ ﺍﻳـﻦ ﺍﺳـﺎﺱ ﺳـﺎﺧﺖ‬
‫ﺷﻬﺮﻱ ﺑﺎ ﮔﻨﺠﺎﻳﺶ ‪ ۷۰۰۰۰‬ﻧﻔﺮ ﺟﻤﻌﻴﺖ ‪،‬ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻤﺎﻧﻬﺎﻱ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺭﺗﻔﺎﻉ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺤﻮﺭﻳﺖ ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺎﻻﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﺭﺟﺤﻴﺖ ﻭ ﺳـﺎﺧﺖ ﺷـﻬﺮﻱ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﮔﻨﺠﺎﻳﺶ ‪ ۲۰۰۰۰‬ﻧﻔﺮ ﺟﻤﻌﻴﺖ ‪،‬ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻤﺎﻧﻬﺎﻱ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺭﺗﻔﺎﻉ ﮐﻢ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺤﻮﺭﻳﺖ ﮐﺸﺎﻭﺭﺯﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺍﺯ ﭘﺎﻳﻴﻦ ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﺭﺟﺤﻴﺖ ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩﺍﺭ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .۵‬ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﮔﻴﺮﻱ‬

‫ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺷﺎﺧﺼﻲ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﺍﻱ ﺑـﺎ ﻧـﺎﻡ ﮔﺰﻳﻨـﻪ ﻫـﺎﻱ ﺗﺮﮐﻴﺒـﻲ ﻣـﻲ ﺑﺎﺷـﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑـﺎ ﺍﺳـﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﺭﺟﺤﻴﺘﻲ ﮐﻪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﺪﺳﺖ ﻣﻲ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺷﻴﻮﻩ ﺍﻱ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﺤﻠﻴـﻞ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺷﺎﺧﺼﻲ ﺑﻨﺎ ﻧﻬﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﻳﮑﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﻴﻮﻩ ﻫﺎ ﻣﻮﺳﻮﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺗﺨـﺼﻴﺺ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳـﻦ ﭘـﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺗﻮﺳـﻌﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷـﺪ‪ .‬ﺗـﺴﻬﻴﻞ ﮐـﺴﺐ ﺍﻃﻼﻋـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺟﺤﻴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﮑﺎﻥ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﺎ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺯﻳﺎﺩ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ ﺍﻣﮑﺎﻥ ﺩﺳﺘﺮﺳﻲ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﻫـﺎﻱ ﺑﻬﺘـﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠـﻪ ﻭﻳﮋﮔـﻲ ﻫـﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺵ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﻬﺎﻱ ﺁﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻗﻄﻌﻴﺖ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻳﺎﺩﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺷﻴﻮﻩ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣـﺴﺎﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﺩﺍﺩ‪.‬‬

‫ﺳﭙﺎﺱ‬

‫ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺩ ﻻﺯﻡ ﻣﻲ ﺩﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺗﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻨﺎﺏ ﺁﻗﺎﻱ ﺩﮐﺘﺮ ﺟﻠﻴﻠﻲ ﺑﺨﺎﻃﺮ ﮐﻤﮏ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻫﺮﭼﻪ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺻﻤﻴﻤﺎﻧﻪ ﺳﭙﺎﺳﮕﺰﺍﺭﻱ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻴﻢ‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻊ‬

‫‪[1 ] Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani , D. and Theoret, A. "The Structure of Unstructured Decision Processes", Administrative Science‬‬
‫‪Quarterly, pp. 246-275,1976.‬‬
‫‪[2] Perry, W. and Moffat, J. "Developing models of decision making", Journal of Operational Research Society, pp. 457–470,1977.‬‬
‫‪[3] Kasanen, E., Wallenius, H., Wallenius, J. and Zionts, S. "A study of high-level managerial decision processes" with implications‬‬
‫‪for MCDM research’, European Journal of Operational Research, pp. 496-510,2000.‬‬
‫‪[4] Nutt, P. C. "Surprising but true: Half of the decisions in organizations fail". Academy of Management Executive, pp. 75-90,1999.‬‬
‫‪[5] Saaty, T. L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, USA, 1980.‬‬
‫‪[6] Keeney, R. L. and Raiffa, H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, John Wiley & Sons, New‬‬
‫‪York, USA,1976.‬‬
‫‪[7] Keefer, D. L., Kirkwood, C. W. and Corner, J. L. "Summary of Decision Analysis Applications in the Operations Research‬‬
‫‪Literature 1990-2001", Technical Report, Department of Supply Chain Management, Arizona State University, Tempe,‬‬
‫‪Arizona,2002.‬‬
‫‪[8] Lahdelma,R.,Salminen,P., Hokkanen,J., " Using Multicriteria Methods in Environmental‬‬
Planning and Management", Environmental Management Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 595 –605,2000.
[9] Triantaphyllou, E., Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
2000.
[10] Annika Kangas, Jyrki Kangas and Jouni Pykäläinen, "Outranking Methods As Tools in strategic Natural Resources Planning",
Silva Fennica research articles, vol35, no. 2, 2001.