Fundamenta/ measurement concepts

A review of the fundamental concepts

of measurement
L. Finkelstein* and M. S. Leaningt
* Chairman, I MEKO Technical Committee for Higher Education (TC-1), Professor of
Measurement and Instrumentation, The City University, London EC1
tAcademic Department of Medical Physics, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine,
University of London, London NW3, and Department of Systems Science,
The City University, London EC1

The paper surveys the current state of the theory of the fundamental concepts of
measurement which is based on the model theory of logic. A brief review is given of the
historical development of measurement theory. The model-theoretic definition of
measurement is presented, together with a discussion of representation and uniqueness
conditions. Nominal, ordinal, extensive and interval measurement structures are out-
lined. The classification of scale types and the problem of meaningfulness are con-
sidered. A survey is given of conjoint and derived measurement. A brief review is made
of the applications of measurement theory. Consideration is given to the treatment of
uncertainty. The setting-up of systems of scales of measurement for a domain of
science and its relation to theories for that domain are discussed. It is argued that
measurement as defined is related to other forms of symbolic representation such as is
involved in computer data representation and natural language.

1 Introduction should be additive, and this implied that measurement of

Measurement, the objective representation of our em-
pirical knowledge of the world by numbers, is an essential
element of all science. The techniques of measurement are
highly developed in the physical sciences and are gaining an
increasing role in the behavioural and social sciences. The
logical and philosophical concepts underlying measurement
are fundamental to its validity in all sciences. The explicit
application of these fundamental principles is essential for
the establishment of measurement methods, in particular in
those sciences at a formative stage of development.
There exists an organised body of foundational concepts
and principles, which is generally referred to as measure-
ment theory. The present paper presents a review of this
theory.
The growth of information processing technology has
led to representation of the real world by non-numeric
symbols and the paper also addresses this aspect.
2 History of measurement theory
The study of fundamental concepts of measurement can
be traced to the Ancient Greeks - Pythogoras, Aristotle,
Euclid, Cnidus. However, it was not until the first studies in
the logic of mathematics and physics at the end of the nine-
teenth century that the now classical approach to measure-
ment theory began. Most notable are Helmholtz's analysis
of counting and measurement (1887) and HOlder's formu-
lation of the axioms for additive properties (1901). This
work was extended by Campbell (1920, 1928) into a
detailed theory of measurement for the physical sciences.
For Campbell (1938), a necessary condition for measure-
ment was that the manifestation of properties or attributes
Measurement Vol 2 No 1, Jan-Mar 1984
non-additive psychological attributes was fundamentally
impossible. The same conclusion was arrived at for non-
physical properties in general, in a report to the British
Association (Guild, 1938), which was a substantial
challenge to the scientific basis of social and behavioural
sciences.
In the social sciences, Pareto, in the nineteenth century,
originated an ordinal theory of measurement for economic
preferences, or utility. Armstrong (1939) showed that
numerical utility functions could be constructed if utility
could be compared by intervals, thereby refuting the criti-
ques of Cambell and Guild. The axiomatic basis for utility
theory, propounded in the classic work of yon Neumann
and Morgenstern (1944), was a great stimulus to the con-
tinuing development of both theory and practice of
measurement in the social sciences.
The work of Stevens (1946), from the point of view of
psychological measurement, directed the whole field of
measurement theory into new lines, particularly in the
definition of measurement and classification of scale types.
There was generally much work on psychological scaling
(Thurstone, 1947; Torgerson, 1958; Coombs, 1964). This
period of measurement theory is well summarised in the
book of Churchman and Ratoosh (1959).
Since the 1950s, measurement theory has been pre-
dominantly concerned with the development of a formal
logical framework suitable for a wider variety of measure-
ment structures than simply extensive and relating to
measurement in many areas of science.
H61der's axioms for additive properties (or extensive
measurement) were modified by Suppes (1951) to make
them less restrictive. Tarski's concept (1954) of a relational
25
Finkelstein and Leaning
system in the model theory of logic proved to be a natural
vehicle for expressing and further developing measurement
theory (Scott and Suppes, 1958). Issues have ranged from
teclmical aspects concerned with axiomatisation (for
example, Holman, 1974;Narens, 1974; Falmagne, 1975)to
the establishment of new measurement structures such as
conjoint measurement (Luce and Tukey, 1964) and that of
senti-order (Luce, 1956). Four major books devoted to
measurenrent theory are those by Ellis (1966), Pfanzagl
(1968), Krantz et al (Vol 1, 1971), Roberts (1979).
While there has been an explosive development of
measurement and instrumentation technology in the last
40 years, there has been virtually no interest in measure-
ment theory on the part of those involved with this work.
Since a review of measurement theory by one of us at an
IMEKO Congress (Finkelstein, 1973), there has been a
distinctive growth of work on fundamentals of measure-
ment by technologists.
Although there has been a general awareness of the
problem of error or uncertainty in measurement, most
developments in measurement theory have been concerned
with the case of precise measurement. A major exception is
the development of semi-order theories of measurement
(Luce, 1956) which are based on the intransitivity of the in-
difference relation as reflected in the observed 'just notice-
able difference' or 'j.n.d.'. In recent years there have been
attempts to use probabilistic formulations to represent
measurement uncertainty (Domotor, 1969; Leaning and
Finkelstein, 1980 ; Falmagne, 1980).
Measurement theory, therefore, has been the interest not
only of philosophers of science, but of scientists and
engineers working in a wide variety of disciplines.
3 The representational form of measurement
theory
Measurement is the assignment of numbers to properties
of objects or events in the real world by means of an objec-
tive empirical operation, in such a way as to describe them.
The modern form of measurement theory is representational
numbers assigned to objects/events must represent the
perceived relations between the properties of those objects/
events. (We use the terms property and attribute inter-
changeably.) Such a theory comprises three main sections:
the description of an empirical relational system, a
representation theorem, and a uniqueness condition.
Measurement theory defines measurement formally in
the following manner. Let Q = (Q, R ) be an empirical
relational system where Q is a set of manifestations q, r,
s, ... of the property or attribute and R = {R1, Ri, Rn} is
a family of relations on Q. Let N-- (N, P ) be a numerical
system where N is the set of real numbers and P = {P1, Pi,
Pn} is a family of relations on N. Then measurement is an
objective-empirical operation which maps attribute mani-
testations into numbers M: Q-+ N, in such a way that the
relations between numbers also hold between property
manifestations. This is expressed as the following theorem.
Representation theorem
Let Pi be a relation on N corresponding to Ri; then, if
q,r .... ,eQ,
Ri(q, r . . . . ) o Pi[M(q),M(r) . . . . ] ... (1)
for all i = 1, n. In other words, if M is a homomorphism.
(The order of relations Pi and R i does not in general exceed
four.)
26
Fundamental measurement concepts
The conditions under which this theorem holds are the
representation conditions. If M satisfies the representation'
conditions, there exist other mappings M', which also
satisfy these conditions, related to M by a transformation f
such that M' = f(M). It follows from (1) that:
Ri(q, r . . . . ) ~* Pil f[M(q)] , f[M(r)] . . . . 1t ... (2)
All such f comprise the class of admissible transformations,
also known as the uniqueness condition. S = (Q, N, M )
may be termed the scale of measurement.
The form of a representational theory of measurement
outlined above also has application to the more general case
of representation by symbols. This will be discussed further
in section 10.
4 Some fundamental measurement structures
The measurement structures below are concerned with
the case of direct measurement, where only one attribute or
property is being measured. In this sense they are funda-
mental measurement. Uniqueness conditions for these
structures will be considered in the next section, in regard
to scale type.
4.1 Binary systems
Nominal Let Q consist of the binary equivalence relation
which is reflexive, symmetric and transitive. The em-
pirical relational system is ( Q, - ) and the representation
theorem may be stated as, for q, r ~ Q,
q ~ r ¢~ M(q) = M(r) ... (3)
An example of nominal measurement is colour
matching.
Ordinal It may be argued that a minimum binary relation
for fundamental measurement of an attribute is the
weak order relation (H61der, 1901; Campbell, 1928;
Ellis, 1966). The ability to order a set of objects/events
is related to the notion of the 'amount' of a property
manifested in each object/event. In ordinal measurement
R contains >-which is transitive and reflexive. Then,
q > r og(q) > M(r) ... (4)
Moh's scale of hardness is typical of ordinal measure-
ment (for a brief discussion, see Finkelstein, 1975a).
4.2 Extensive systems
An extensive attribute is one for which the empirical
operation of concatenation exists on the object set Q. Con-
catenation may be formally defined as the ternary relation
Re on Q x Q x Q such that, for q , r , s ~ Q,
R0(q,r,s) ~ qor- s ... (5)
where the symbol 'o' denotes concatenation. The funda-
mental physical properties of mass, length and time are
extensive. Another example is probability.
Representation theorem
1 q ~ rC~M(q) = M ( r )
2 qor-s~g(q)+M(r)=M(s)l ...(6)
The theorem may also be formulated with the weak order
relation (Krantz et al, 1971; Holman, 1974). It may be
Measurement Vol 2 No 1, Jan--Mar 1984
Fundamental measurement concepts
shown that the representation theorem for (closed) exten-
sive measurement holds under the following conditions:
1 ~ is the equivalence relation (or > is weak order)
2 Associativity: q o (r o s) ~ (q o r) o s
3 Monotonicity: q ~ r ~ q o s ~ ros
4 Archimedean postulate: if q >- r, then an integer n exists
such that nr > q , where 'nr' is the n-fold concatenation
of r with itself. Detailed presentations of the theory of
extensive measurement and of particular extensive
properties, such as length and velocity, can be found in
Ellis (1966), Krantz et al ( 1971) and Finkelstein (1975 a).
Alternative axiomatisations have been developed to
account for certain problems in satisfying these conditions:
limited concatenation on Q (Krantz et al, 1971); elimina-
tion of Archimedean postulate with stronger structural
axioms (Falmagne, 1975), an upper limit q' on Q such that
q' :~ q for all q' ~ Q (Krantz et al, 1971).
4.3 Quaternary (or interval) systems
In difference measurement, intervals between attributes
of objects are compared. Let R contain the quaternary rela-
tion ~ where (q, r) >~ (s, t) means that the interval (q, r)
between q and r is discriminated as being larger than or
equal to the interval (s, t).
Representation theorem
1 (q, r) ~ (s, t) ~* M(q, r) > M(s, t) t
J
Q •
Finkelstein and Leaning
the scale type. Stevens' (1946) original identical classifica-
tion was based on the applicable arithmetic on each scale.
(Note that in Table 1, M' = f ( M ) does not give all possible
representations for the interval or extensive property being
measured. There are alternative isomorphic numerical
representations in which addition operation + is replaced by
a more general operation ® (Ellis, 1966; Krantz et al,
1971).)
The class of admissible transformations and the notion
of applicable arithmetic may be extended to the more
general concept of meaningfulness. This is concerned with
the status of statements concerning measurements on a
particular scale. For example, the statement that q is twice
as long as r, where q and r are measured on an extensive
scale is meaningful, whereas if they are measured on an
ordinal scale it is not. One approach to meaningfulness is to
examine the invariance of statements under the transforma-
tion M' = f ( M ) (eg, Roberts, 1979). It is clear that the
meaningfulness of a statement is independent of its truth.
An equivalent, but more direct approach is to test a state-
ment by tracing it back to the fundamental empirical rela-
tions. If it can be expressed in these terms, then it is
meaningful.
A statement, which on the above basis is not meaningful,
is not always discarded automatically if pragmatic con-
siderations dominate. For example, it is common to take
the arithmetic mean of a set o f examination marks, which
can be assumed to be ordinal, even though the median is
the strongest 'meaningful' indicator location that can be
made on such a scale.
(7)
J

2 M(q, s) = M(q, r) + M(r, s)

This linear interval tbrm of representation is appropriate to 6 Derived and conjoint measurement
measured attributes in psychophysics (Stevens, 1946)'and An attribute or property of an object or event is said to
in utility theory (Armstrong, 1939), for example. Many be directly measurable on a ratio or interval scale if it is
results for extensive systems can be applied to interval extensive or ordered by intervals. There is a large class of
systems owing to the close similarity between a series of physical and non-physical attributes that cannot be directly
adjoint intervals and a set of concatenated objects, as was measured in such a way. Each of these attributes, however,
originally noticed by H61der (1901). is capable of inducing a weak ordering on the object/event
set. If it did not, then it can be argued that the attribute
5 Scale types and meaningfulness concept has no empirical significance (Campbell, 1928) and
is redundant.
The uniqueness condition specifies the class of M for There are two options for the measurement of this class
valid representation, viz, that the mapping M is homomor- of attribute: first, restrict measurement to an ordinal scale;
phic. Table 1 summarises the direct measurement structures or, secondly, search for subsets of interdependent attributes.
presented in section 4 together with the admissible transfor- Ordinal measurement is often satisfactory, for example, in
mations M' = f ( M ) defining the uniqueness condition and Moh's scale of hardness or in tests of mental ability. Of
course, the theory of meaningfulness (Roberts, 1979), des-
TABLE 1: Direct measurement structures, admissible transforma- cribed in the preceding section, severely limits the number
tions (uniqueness conditions) and scale types (where Z is a set of of meaningful statements that can be made with such
symbols, ordered in the case of ordinal measurement) measures.
The existence of an interdependent group of attributes,
Empirical Uniqueness class
relational of admissible Scale or property manifestations, endows the empirical relational
system Representation transformation type system Q with a rich structure that allows at least an inter-
val representation, even though each attribute may be only
( Q, ~ ) ( N, = } M' = f(M) Nominal weakly ordered independently. This is well known, in non-
or where f is any
/Z, ~ ) one--one function
formal terms, to physical scientists and engineers who
'derive' a measurement of a primary attribute, such as
( Q,~ ) iN, >) M' = f(M) Ordinal density, by measuring its component attributes, of mass
or where f is monotonic and volume, and combining the measures in an appropriate
(Z, ~) increasing
numerical law (Campbell, 1920; Bridgman, 1922; Ellis,
(QXQ, ~) iN,>,+) M'=~M+fJ, Linear 1966; Causey, 1969). In the Social Sciences and Psychology,
> 0 interval and axiomatic approach to such measurement has become
known as 'conjoint' measurement (Luce and Tukey, 1964);
iQ, ~,o) iN,>,+) M ' =c~M, Ratio
an example is the construction of a single-valued utility
a>O
function on a number of attributes (Roberts, 1979).
Measurement Vol 2 No 1, Jan-Mar 1984 27
Finkelstein and Leaning
Although there is a formal equivalence between physical
derived measurement and conjoint measurement (eg,
Krantz et al, 1971), as we show below, there is a different
feel or emphasis in the two types which is probably related
to the existence of a body of well tested and fully quanti-
fied theories in the former.
6.1 Basic terms
Let Q be the manifestation set of the primary property,
the weak order relation on it, and let Q1 . . . . . Qi . . . . , Qn
be the component property sets. If p, q, r , . . . are elements
of Q corresponding to individual objects/events then Pi, qi,
r i , . . . , ~ Qi are the equivalent elements in the component
sets. If R i, i = 1, n are sets of relations on the component
sets, then the lull empirical relational system is given by:
Q= (Q, Q1,R1, Q2,R2 . . . . . Qi, Ri . . . . . Qn, Rn, >~) . . . ( 8 )
The axioms for Q required to prove the representation
theorems below include two which expresss the indepen-
dence and essentiality of each Qi in the measurement of Q
(see eg, Krantz et al, 1971). Thus the empirical relational
system may also be regarded as a weak order relation on the
Cartesian product :
Q=(Qix...xQn, >~) ...(9)
Hence this type of measurement structure is referred to as
a 'product space' (Roberts, 1979).
From the axioms of independence and essentiality it is
easy to show that the weak order relation on the product
space induces a weak order on all the component sets Qi.
Other axioms of importance are strong transitivity of the
indifference relation (or the Thomsen condition) and a
version of the Archimedean axiom (Krantz et aI, 1971).
Let M1 . . . . . Mn be real-valued functions on Q1, . - . , Qn
(the component measures), and let M be a real-valued func-
tion of M 1 , . . . , M n (the indirect measurement of Q).
6.2 Two-component additive conjoint measurement
In the simplest tbrm on conjoint, or derived, measure-
ment, there are two component properties Q1 and Qe, and
M is an additive function of M1 and Me. An illustration of
such measurement would be an additive utility function
over two commodities. The empirical relational system is:
Q = (Q1 × Qe, ~ ) ... (10)
(Full axioms and proof of a representation theorem may be
found in Krantz et al (1971), or Holman (1971), Roberts
(1979) gives a proof of a simpler system in which an equal
spacing assumption is made.)
Representation theorem
For p , q ~ Q , p l , q l c Q a , p z , q 2 EQ2,
p ~ q ~ ' M x ( p l ) +Mr(p2) > Ml(ql) +Mz(q2) ...(11)
Note that the LHS may be expressed as:
(p,, pe) ~ (ql, qe)
Uniqueness condition
m'l = ~MI + 3x, 342 = ~m2 +/32, a>O and
...(12)
M'=o~M+/3 where /3=/31+32
28
Fundamental measurementconcepts
M is therefore of an interval scale type. This may be proved
for the empirical relational structure above, where only
ordinal relations are assumed on Q, QI, and Q2.
In this formalisation of conjoint measurement there is a
symmetry between the components such that any two of
the three attributes could be chosen for the measures MI
and M2. On this view, conjoint measurement is concerned
with the setting up of a structure for the simultaneous
measurement of all the properties concerned.
6.3 n-component derived physical measurement
By contrast, in derived physical measurement, there is
the notion of an asymmetry between the attribute to be
measured indirectly and the components' attributes for
which measures (often on ratio scales) exist. In addition,
physical quantities are related through monomial functions,
a property which has given rise to the science of dinren-
sional analysis (Bridgman, 1922; Palacios, 1964). To
capture these properties, the more general empirical rela-
tional system of subsection 6.2 is used.
Q = ( Q , QI . . . . . Qn, ~ ) ...(13)
where Q I , . . . , Qn are empirical relational systems for the
components, which may be extensive as well as ordinal.
If p, q ~ Q, p i , q i ~ Q i , i= 1,n then
n
P ~ q "~ 1--I M'[i(pi) > I-I MTi(qi) ... (14)
i=! i-1
This representation theorem may be proved by genera-
lising the two component additive system into n dimensions
(assuming the conventional conjoint structure of a weak
order relation on an n-dimensional product space). Next, a
class of isomorphic numerical representations (N, >, ® ) is
defined through a o n e - o n e function f such that, for y 1. . . . .
Yn ~ N
Yl + . . . +Yn = f - l [ f , ( Y l ) + " " + fn(Yn)] ... (15)
It remains to find f and fi such that the left-hand side is
monomial, f = log e and fi = Ti loge satisfy this condition
(Krantz et al, 1971).
6.4 Some generalisations
The n-component monomial representation theorem
immediately suggests a generalisation where, if ~b is a
single-valued function over M1, . . . , Mn, then
p ~ q "~ ¢ [ M I ( p , ) . . . . . Mn(pn)] ~- ¢ [ M , ( q l ) . . . . . Mn(qn)]
...(16)
This appears to be an appropriate scheme for pattern recog-
nition (Duda and Hart, 1973; Finkelstein, 1977) and for
model-based indirect measurement in the life and social
sciences. However, the problem remains of proving such a
theorem for given classes of 4~ and establishing uniqueness
conditions on the Mi.
In multidimensional measurement, an attribute of an
object/event is represented by an ordered set of symbols or
numbers. The elements of this set are measurements of
component attributes as in the case of conjoint (and
derived) measurement, but the relations on the primary
attribute(s) are given by the geometrical properties of the
symbol or number space rather than a mapping into a single
Measurement Vol 2 No 1, Jan--Mar 1984
Fundamental measurement concepts
symbol (number) set. This is a feature of methods of scaling
as used, for instance, in multidimensional scaling (Torger-
son, 1958) and Coombs' theory of data (1964). The
generalisation of measurement theory to multidimensional
scaling was initially pointed out by Suppes and Zinnes
(1965). The formalisation of such a system requires the
inclusion in the empirical relational system Q of a relation
R on Q (or, equivalently, QI x ... x Qn which in the geo-
metric sense is an m ry relation.
7 Areas o f application
Although a detailed review of the applications of
measurement theory is beyond the scope of this paper,
some general analytical remarks will be made. (To some
extent applications have been covered in the historical
review, section 2.)
In the physical sciences, measurement methods have
been developed without a basis of the theory of the founda-
tions of measurement. The interest of physicists (such as
Helmholtz, 1887; Campbell, 1920, 1928) was directed
towards providing a logical and philosophical basis for
established practice. There are no practical issues in classical
physical measurement which are addressed by measurement
theory. Dimensional analysis (Bridgman, 1922; Palacios,
1964) which is related to measurement theory is important
in practice. A good discussion of the relation between the
two is given by Krantz et al (1971).
In the social and behavioural sciences there are practical
problems in the establishment of measurement scales which
call for the application of measurement theory. In particu-
lar, the establishment and validation of empirical represen-
tation conditions is of great importance. An example is the
development of the theory and practice of conjoint
measurement (Luce and Tukey, 1964; Krantz et al, 1971;
Emery and Brown, 1979). The strong relation between
measurement theory and practice is well illustrated in the
literature (Torgerson, 1958; Coombs, 1964; Luce et al,
1965; Blalock, 1974).
Another important area of application of measurement
theory is in decision and utility theory. Good references to
this work are Fishburn (1964, 1968) and Roberts (1979).
In technological measurement, it is not infrequent to
measure properties which differ from classical physical
quantities. For example, it may be necessary to characterise
the quality of a surface of steel strip, or the impact strength
of coal, to give examples from the authors' experiences.
These are obvious areas to which the application of funda-
mental concepts of measurement theory is beneficial. It is
not commonly used because the methods are not widely
known to technologists.
It is an argument of this paper that measurement is
closely related to the representation by symbols in general
(for example, data in computers). This is possibly an impor-
tant future trend which is discussed below.
8 U n c e r t a i n t y in m e a s u r e m e n t
The theory which has been outlined in the preceding
sections is idealistic; in practice there is no such thing as an
exact empirical equivalence or weak order relation, or a
numerical assignment, which is free from scatter or bias.
Fundamentally, all uncertainty in direct measurement can
be traced to the uncertainty of the basic empirical relations.
In measurement theory there have been two approaches to
the problem. In the first, the theory we have so far
Measurement Vol 2 No 1, Jan--Mar 1984
Finkelstein and Leaning
presented is taken as valid and the uncertain results of
practical measurement are analysed with the statistical
theory of errors. The second approach attempts to include
uncertainty in the basic formulation of measurement
theory.
8.1 Statistical theory of errors
The statistical theory of errors is concerned in the error
as the difference between a true value of a measured attri-
bute and the value of that attribute as measured (for
example, Beers, 1953; Kendall and Stuart, 1970). It
assumes there is a defined 'true' value which, from the
point of view of measurement theory, must be regarded as
inherently uncertain.
8.2 Semiorder
In discussing the measurement of physical quantities,
Campbell (1928) formalised the uncertainty range of the
indifference relation (and hence its intransitivity) by intro-
ducing the concept of distance of ordering. If - is the
indifference relation and > is the strict order relation, then
for q, r ~ Q:
q - r ~ ] m ( q ) - r e ( r ) I = e < E;m t
/ (17)
q > r ~* ] M ( q ) m ( r ) [ = C > C m I
The effect of the intransitivity of indifference on the
measurement of utility was examined by Armstrong
(1939). The idea that intransitive indifference is related to
closeness of ordering of a set of objects is reflected in the
notion of a just-noticeable-difference (or jnd). Goodman
(1951) and Galanter ( 1956) produced methods for ordering
jnd data which were combined by Coombs (1964) in the
Goodman-Galanter model, where objects are ordered in a
way compatible with jnd data rather than attempting to
assign numerical values. Luce (1956) axiomatised such a jnd
structure, calling the resultant order system a semiorder,
There is a weak order induced by such a semiorder, for
which there is an order-preserving real-valued function.
Below we give a definition of a semiorder and a represen-
tation theorem for ordinal measurement (for more details,
refer to Luce, 1956, 1973; or Roberts, 1970).
Definition o f a semiorder
Let >- and - be the relational symbols for the semiorder,
and P and I be those in the induced weak order. (Q, >, - ) i s
a semiorder iff, for a, b, c, d ~ Q:
1 - is reflective
2 a>-b,b~c,c>.d~a>-d
3 a~-b,b >-c,b-d~not(a-dandd~c)
Induced weak order
Let the relation (P, I) induced on Q be defined, for all
a, b, c, d ~ Q: for all aPb iff either
1 a > b , or
2 a-bandc~Qexistssuchthata-candc>b, or
3 a- bandd~Qexistssuchthata>-dandd-b.
If neither aPb or bPa then aIb. It can then be proved
that < Q , P , I ) is a weak order.
29
Finkelstein and Leaning
Representation theorem for ordinal measurement
There exist real-valued functions M and 8 on Q such
that :
1 M is order-preserving over ( Q, P, I ); for a, b e Q:
M(a) = M(b) o aIb
M(a) >=m(b) o aPb
2 a>b iff M(a)>M(b)+6(b)
3 a~b iff not (a >- b or b >- a), i e . . . . (18)
iff M(b) - 6 (a) < M(a) < M(b) + 6 (b)
6 is the numerical value corresponding to the jnd threshold.
Further developments of the semiorder concept
A semiorder analysis of extensive measurement was
undertaken by Krantz (1967), where concatenation is
regarded as a set-theoretic union on the o-algebra of Q. A
finitely-additive structure for utility functions was axio-
matised by Fishburn (1968). The graph-theoretic approach
proposed by Harary (1964) was applied by Roberts (1970,
1979) to various models of intransitive indifference struc-
tures. Axiomatisations and representation theorems for
extensive, probability and conjoint systems were presented
by Luce (1973).
Semiorder is a formal approach to measurement uncer-
tainty which has great power, yet there remain significant
problems. In the representation theorems, the axioms are
expressed in terms of the ideal induced relations, rendering
them fundamentally untestable. Further, the empirical
division between >- and ~ on a class of objects is most
likely to be blurred in a stochastic or fuzzy fashion.
8.3 Probabilistic theories of measurement
In the classic theory of measurement and those based on
semiorder, the empirical relations are perceived exactly.
This does not allow for situations where the relation aRr
holds at one instance but not the next. Such a relation may
be characterised by its relative frequency of occurrence.
Demeter (1969) developed a theory of probabilistic
relational systems and applied this to ordinal measurement,
outlined below.
Suppose ((2, R ) is an ideal empirical relational system
and ( ~ , A, k ) is a qualitative probability structure where A
is a Boolean algebra over which (Q, R ) is defined and R is
the weak order relation. ~ is the whole sample space and~
the weak ordering of probability. Measurement is defined as
the random function
m: Q-+N
such that, for all q, r e Q:
[qRr] ~ Ira(q) > m(r)] ... (19)
where the square brackets indicate events and - the in-
difference of probability. This theorem may be interpreted
as a probabilistic homomorphism. Its proof requires axioms
for ( ~ , A, ~ ) as well as (Q, R). I f P is a real valued proba-
bility function, the theorem may be expressed as:
P[q 1R qa] = P[m(q 1) > m(q~)] ... (20)
The authors investigated such representations for ordinal,
extensive, internal and conjoint structures (Leaning, 1977;
30
Fundamental measurement concepts
Finkelstein and Leaning, 1982)when the random function
m is described by discrete and continuous distributions.
More recently, Falmagne (1980) has worked at a proba-
bilistic theory of extensive measurement in more detail.
This starts from the axioms tbr a regular (or deterministic)
extensive structure and then, as above, regards aRr as an
event in a probability space such that P(q, r) is the proba-
bility of observing qRr. Then, if q, r e Q:
P(q,r)> ½ iff m(q)>m(r) ...(21)
if the concatenation q o r e Q, then
m(q or) = m(q) + re(r) ... (22)
(Falmagne, 1980, uses the notation qlq2 for ql °q2), sub-
ject to the following axioms:
1 (Q, R ) is weak order. This follows from weak stochastic
transitivity: if both P(q, r) > % and P(r, s)2_ ½, then
P(q, s) ~_ ½.
2 If P(q, r)>½, P(s, t) >½ and q o s ~ Q , thenroteQ
with p(q o s, re t) > ½.
Falmagne considers two special cases. The first is a
probabilistic difference extensive system:
P(q, r) = F[m(q) - m ( r ) ] ... (23)
with F an increasing function, and the second is a probabi-
listic ratio extensive system:
P(q, r) = F [ m ( q ) - m(r)] ... (24)
8.4 Other approaches
Fuzzy set theory (Zadeh, 1965) offers a framework for
formalising measurement uncertainty but does not appear
to have been used for this purpose. A possible reason for
this is the problem of interpreting the empirical meaning of
the fuzzy set membership function. In quantum mechanics,
Prugovecki (1974) proposed that measurements in QM may
be expressed as a probability measure on fuzzy events.
9 Measurement considered in terms of a theory
The setting up of scales of measurement is commonly
presented in the literature of measurement theory in terms
of the establishment of scales for individual quantities in
isolation.
The scales for some quantities are established on the
basis of direct or fundamental measurement. That is, for a
quantity Q = (Q, R ) we find a homomorphic mapping M
into a numerical system N = (N, P) giving us a measurement
scale S - - ( Q , N, M) without any other quantities than Q
being involved in the establishment of the scale.
Scales of measurement are thus directly or fundamen-
tally defined for a set of quantities, commonly termed
basic, of a domain of science, say Ql . . . . . (21.. Scales for
other quantities Qj+I,...,Qn a r e then established in-
directly in terms of the basic quantities, on the basis of
empirical relations between the indirectly measured quan-
tity and its components.
This account correctly represents the way in which
scales of measurement are established for a domain of
science at an early stage of its development. Thus for an
early stage of development of physics we have accounts of
establishment of a scale of measurement for mass in terms
of an equiarm balance and the construction of a set of
Measurement Vol 2 No 1, Jan--Mar 1984
Fundamental measurement concepts
standard weights. Accounts of the construction of scales for
the measurement of length are given in terms of a standard
rod, and the concatenation of rods. Scales for indirectly
measured quantities such as density are given in terms of
empirically observed relations between volume, and its
components mass and volume.
However, as a domain of science becomes developed, it
acquires a comprehensive body of theory, and scales of
measurement are defined in terms of this theory. Thus, in
modern physics, scales of measurement are defined in terms
of a set of base quantities - length, mass, time, electric
current, thermodynamic temperature, amount of substance
and luminous intensity. Other quantities are derived from
them (Page and Vigoureux, 1973). The definition of the
scale of measurement of temperature is established on the
basis of accepting a theory of thermodynamics and defining
the scale in terms of this theory. The scale of measurement
of electric current is defined in terms of a force per unit
length acting between two infinitely thin, infinitely long
conductors. It is thus based on the acceptance of a theory
of electrodynamics.
Formally, we may express the establishment of scales of
measurement in terms of a theory, as follows:
Let there be a theory for a domain of science. Let ~2 be
the set of all objects of that domain and Q1 . . . . , Qn the set
of all quantities describing phenomena in that domain;
where quantities Q~ are in the form Qj = <Qj, R/> with the
notation described above. Let there be for each of the
quantities a scale of measurement of the form Ij = <Qi, N ,
Mj> where N is a numerical system N = <N, P> and M i is a
mapping from Qj into N. Then the theory takes the form
of a set of statements relating empirical and numerical
relations. Consider any object cop e ~2p where 12p c ~2. Let
~ p be characterised by quantity manifestations q~, . . . , p f
of quantities Qk . . . . . Ql (where qf
is a manifestation of Qj
occurring in object p. Then for all coe~ ~ e we have:
S p ( q P , . . . , q~) ~ (ap [Mk(qPk) . . . . . M l ( q q ) ] ... (25)
where S t, is an empirical relation between the quantities
involved and ~bp a numerical relation (generally an equa-
tion).
To establish a scale of measurement for the domain of
science with the above theory, a number of base quantities
Qx, Qy . . . . are chosen and the mappings M x , M y . . . .
defined. The mapping for the other quantities then follows
from the statements of the theory. The base quantities are
chosen because of the centrality of the quantities in the
theory, the convenience of the practical realisation of scales
and the like.
10 Measurement, semiotics and information
Measurement can be viewed as a special case of represen-
tation of aspects of the real world by symbols.
A symbol is an object or event which bears a defined
relation to a source entity. The symbol, together with the
above relation, which may be termed the representation
relation, carries information about the source entity.
The general term for the study of symbols, their use, and
relation to the object they represent is known as semiotics.
Finkelstein (1975b) has formulated some of the
principal concepts of semiotics in terms of representational
measurement theory. A briefer and broader statement is
given in Finkelstein and Leaning (1982). These formulations
are used in this paper as a way of demonstrating the rela-
tion between measurement and general semiotics.
Measurement Vol 2 No 1, Jan--Mar 1984
Finkelstein and Leaning
Let{Q = qi} be a set of entities and R ={R1 . . . . .
R i . . . . . Rn} be a family of relations on Q, so that Q =
<Q, R> represents a source relational system. Let Z = {zi}
be a set of entities to be used as symbols and let P =
{P1 . . . . . ei . . . . . Pn} be a family of relations on Z so that
Z = <Z, P > is a symbol system. Let M: Q ~ Z be a mapping
that is a relation that assigns elements of Z to elements of
Q. Let M b e such, that i f P i is a relation on Z corresponding
to the relation Ri on Q and qj, q k ~ Q and zj, Z k ~ Z , then:
R i ( q i . . . . . qk) ~* Pi(zi . . . . . zk) ... (26)
where z i =M(q/) and zk = M ( q k ) . We can then say that Z
and M provide a symbolisation for Q. We can term e = <Q,
Z, M > as a code of the symbolisation. We can then say that
I = <zj, c > constitutes information about q/ (where zj =
M(qj)). zj is termed the symbol of or for q / a n d q/is termed
the meaning o f z/.
We can see how this formal description of symbolisation
corresponds to the formal definition of measurement. It is
possible by considering M not as a mapping but as a many-
to-many relation to describe such aspects of symbolisation
as synonymy, homonymy, ambiguity and vagueness.
Assignment of symbols as names of entities is a simple
example of the above definition of symbolisation. Nominal
and ordinal measurement scales, which may have measures
other than numbers, are clear examples that measurement
may be treated as a special case of general semiotics.
Finkelstein (1977) has described indirect symbolisation
codes, that is, a symbol code for an entity in terms of
symbol codes for related entities, in the same way as
general indirect measurement.
Language is a system for combining symbols into groups.
A formal language is one in which the symbols and their
groups do not have a meaning. In an interpreted language
the symbols and their groups have a meaning that is a cor-
respondence to extralinguistic entities. We can describe an
interpreted language formally as L = <Z, G, c> where Z is
the set of meaningful symbols of the language; G, the syntax
or grammar of L, is the system of rules which generates
permissible groupings of the symbols of L; and ¢ is the
system of rules which establishes an isomorphic or homo-
morphic correspondence between the symbols and the rela-
tions between them, and the extra-linguistic entities and
the relations between them.
It will be seen that there exists a close relation between
measurement and interpreted languages. The results of
measurement are stated in a linguistic form such as qi = hiS,
which is a statement that the manifestation qi of property
Q which is specified in terms of space and time or of some
object, has the value n i on the scale of measurement S. The
symbols qi, =, ni and S have a defined correspondence to
the extra-linguistic entities of relations they represent.
Given that measurement can be considered as a special
aspect of semiotics, it is necessary to identify the special
features which give it importance. First, the representation
relation M is objective and empirical. Secondly, the source
relational system Q to be represented is, in the case of
measurement, an empirical system. Measurement is not
naming - relations between measures represent relations
between the entities they describe. Some authors confine
the term measurement to representation by numbers;
however, some representation by non-numeric symbols on
(say) a nominal or ordinal scale does not appear in its essen-
tials to differ from measurement on numerical scales.
The formal representation of reality by symbols is being
developed in connection with computer information
31
Finke/stein and Leaning
processing and databases. The essential aspects of this
work are concerned with the development of conceptual
models of the sub-set of the real world represented and
with the establishment of structures of information-carrying
symbol systems (such as relational tables, hierarchical tree
structures, or networks convenient for information storage
and processing). References may be made to Bobrow and
Collins (1975); Deen (1977); Kent (1978); Date (1981);
Tennant (I981).
11 Measurement and description by natural
language
There exists a close relation between measurement and
the description of objects or events of the real world in
natural language. Thus, to describe an object as red is
related to measuring colour on a nominal scale. Similarly
the distinction in language between 'hot' and 'hotter' is
related to ordinal measurement of temperature.
The present paper is not a vehicle for a review of the
relevant literature of linguistics but reference may be made
to Lyons (1968) for general linguistics; Leech (1981) and
Palmer (1976) for semantics; and Alston (1964) for the
philosophy of language.
In comparing description by natural language with des-
cription by measures we may note the similarities and
differences outlined below.
Descriptive adjectives are similar to measures of property
manifestations. They may be viewed as non-numeric
symbols corresponding to property manifestations as
described in section 10.
Lexical items when viewed as symbols have linguistic
relations on them. Typical relations are: binary taxonomy,
e g, 'dead' or 'alive'; multiple taxonomy, e g, colour names;
polarity, eg, small, large, larger. For a discussion see Leech
(1981) and the literature cited therein.
Componential semantics, in which one lexica] item - say,
'man', is expressed in terms of its components 'human',
'adult', 'male' - is similar to conjoint or indirect measure-
ment. Again, see Leech (1981) and the literature cited
therein.
However, the meaning of such lexical items is not
defined, unlike measures, in terms of an explicit correspon-
dence to its referent. The correspondence is subjective, en-
coding and decoding being dependent on communicator
and communicatee, respectively. Correspondence with
referent is only one interpretation of meaning in natural
language. Other ways of looking at meaning in natural
language are in terms of correspondence with the concepts
or ideas of the communicator and communicatee or, alter-
natively, in terms of behaviour of the communicator-
communicatee system (Alston, 1964; Leech, 1981). Lexical
items of natural language, unlike measures, have, in addi-
tion to conceptual or denotative meaning, also associative
meaning, which, for example, conveys information about
the feelings or views of the communicator or else communi-
cates something by virture of other uses of the same item.
In the development of scales of measurement for parti-
cular properties, it is common to start with a qualitative,
verbally described, concept of the property. The aim of
measurement is to give the description of the property
objectivity, an empirical basis, precision and conciseness. In
the process of establishing a scale of measurement, that
concept is often considerably refined and altered. The
verbally described qualitative concept may have a richness
which the scale of measurement does not have. In that case
the latter needs to be adapted to reflect the concept better.
32
Fundamenta/ measurement concepts
12 Conclusions
This paper has renewed the fundamental concepts of
measurement in terms of the representational approach.
The representational treatment of measurement, which
has its basis in model theory, evidently provides a second
foundation for the logic and philosophy of measurement.
On the argument that an understanding of underlying
theory is essential for effective application, measurement
theory should be more widely studied and understood by
practitioners of measurement.
Certain important trends and issues in measurement
theory have been identified.
The form of a theory of uncertain measurement, which
has deterministic and probabilistic components, is now
taking shape.
In examining systems of scales of measurement for a
domain of science for which there are reasonably compre-
hensive theories, it is clear that such theories must form the
basis of such scales.
Measurement is a special case of representation by
symbols, with strong relation to description by language,
computer data representation and the like. There will be
significant advances in the areas of database and intelligent
knowledge-based systems and one can confidently expect
that measurement theory will progress in strong relation
with them.
Bibliography and references
Adams, E. W. 1965. 'Elements of a theory of inexact
measurement', Phil Sci, 32,205 228.
Alston, W. P. 1964. Philosophy of language, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs.
Armstrong, W. E. 1939. 'The determinateness of the utility
function', Econ J, 40,453 467.
Beers, Y. 1953. Introduction to the theory of errors,
Addison-Wesley, Reading (Mass).
Black, M. 1937. 'Vagueness', Phil Sci, 4 , 4 2 7 - 4 5 5 .
Black, M. 1970. 'Margins of precision', Essays in logic and
language, Cornell University Press,
Blalock, H. M. 1974. Measurement in the social sciences
(theories and strategies), Macmillan.
Bohrow, D. and Collins, A. 1975. Representation and
understanding studies in cognitive science, Academic
Press, New York.
Bridgman, P. W. i922. Dimensional analysis, Yale Univer-
sity Press.
Byerly, H. C. and Lazara, V. A. 1973. 'Realist foundations
of measurement', Phil Sci, 40 (10).
Campbell, N. R. 1920. Physics." the elements, Cambridge
University Press.
Campbell, N. R. 1928. An account of the principles of
measurement and calculation, Longmans Green,
London.
Campbell, N. R. 1935. 'The statistical theory of errors',
Proc Phys Soc, 4 7 , 8 0 0 - 8 0 9 .
Campbell, N. R. 1938. 'Measurement and its importance
for philosophy', Arist Soc Suppl, 17.
Campion, P. J., Bums, J. E. and Williams, A. 1973. 'A code
of practice for the detailed statement of accuracy',
National Physical Laboratory, HMSO, UK.
Causey, R. L. 1969. 'Derived measurement, dimensions and
dimensional analysis', Phil Sci, 36,252.
Churchman, C. W. and Ratoosh, P. 1959. Measurement.
Definition and theories, Wiley.
Colonius, H. 1978. 'On weak extensive measurement', Phil
Sci, 45,303 308.
Measurement Vol 2 No 1, Jan-Mar 1984
Fundamental measurement concepts
Coombs, C. H. 1964. A theory of data, Wiley, New York.
Date, C. J. 1981. An introduction to data base systems,
Addison-Wesley, Reading (Mass).
Deen, S. M. 1977. Fundamentals of data base systems, Mac-
millan Press, London.
Desai, M. 1976. Applied econometrics, Philip Allen.
Destouehes, J. L. 1975. 'About measurement theory', Proc
IMEKO Colloquium on Nature and Scope of Measure-
ment Seience, 66-67.
Domotor, Z. 1969. 'Probabilistic relational structures and
their applications', Technical Report No 144, Stanford
University, Institute for Mathematical Studies in the
Social Sciences.
Domotor, Z. and Stelzer, J. H. 1971. 'Representation of
finitely additive semiordered qualitative probability
structures',J Math Psych, 8 , 1 4 5 - 1 5 8 .
Duda, R. O. and Hart, R. E. 1973. Pattern classification and
scene analysis, John Wiley.
Ellis, B. 1964. 'On the nature of dimensions', Phil Sci, 31,
357-380.
Ellis, B. 1966. Basic concepts of measurement, Cambridge
University Press.
Emery, D. R. and Brown, F. H. 1979. 'Axiomatic and
numerical conjoint measurement: an evaluation of diag-
nostic efficacy', Psychometrika, 44, 195-210.
Falmagne, J. C. 1975. 'A set of independent axioms for
positive HOlder systems', Phil Sci, 42, 137.
Falmagne, J. C. 1980. 'A probabilistic theory of extensive
measurement', Phil Sci, 47,277-296.
Finkelstein, L. 1973. 'Fundamental concepts of measure-
ment', Acta IMEKO 6th Congress, Dresden, 1973,
North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Finkelstein, L. 1975a. 'Fundamental concepts of measure-
ment: definitions and scales', Measurement and Control,
8,105-111.
Finkelstein, L. 1975b. 'Representation by symbols as an
extension of the concept of measurement', Kybernetes,
4, 215-223.
Finkelstein, L. 1977. 'The relation between the formal
theory of measurement and pattern recognition', Acta
IMEKO 7th Congress, London, 1976, North-Holland,
Amsterdam.
Finkelstein, L. and Leaning, M. S. 1982. 'Foundations of
symbolic representation systems', in European Meeting
on Cybernetics and Systems Research, 5th, 1980,
Vienna. Progress in Cybernetics and Systems Research,
R. Trappl, N. V. Findler and W. Horn, eds, Hemisphere,
Washington, DC, 501-505.
Fishburn, P. C. 1964. Decision and value theory, John
Wiley, New York.
Fishburn, P. C. 1968. 'Utility theory', Management Sci,
14,335-378.
Fishburn, P. C. 1968. 'Weak qualitative probability on
finite sets', Ann Math Stat, 40, 2118-2126.
Galanter, E. H. 1956. 'An axiomatic and experimental study
of sensory order and measure', Psychol Rev, 63, 16-28.
Goodman, N. 1951. The structure of appearance, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge (Mass).
Guild, J. 1938. 'Quantitative estimation of sensory events
(Part III)', Interim Report, Rep Br Ass Advan Sci, 2 9 6 -
328.
Harary, F. 1964. 'A graph-theoretic approach to similarity
relations', Psychometrika, 29, 143-151.
Helmholtz, H. V. 1887. Zdhlen und Messen Erkenntis -
Theoretisch Betrachet, Philosophische Aufs~itz Eduard
Zeller Gewidmet, Leipzig. (trans by C. L. Bryan, Count-
ing and Measuring, Van Nostrand, Princeton, 1930.)
Measurement Vol 2 No 1, Jan--Mar 1984
Finkelstein and Leaning
H61der, O. 1901. 'Die Axiome der Quantitat und die Lehre
von Mass', Math-Phys Klasse, 53, 1-64.
Holman, E. W. 1971. 'A note on conjoint measurement
with restricted solvability', J Exp Psychol.
Holman, E. W. 1974. 'Extensive measurement without an
order relation', Phil Sei, 41, 361.
Jacob, M. 1961. 'L'exactitude dans les mesures', Aeta
IMEKO, I, 160 175.
Jeffreys, H. 1938. 'Measurement and its importance for
philosopy', Arist Soc Suppl, 17, 143-151.
Kendall, M. and Stuart, A. 1970. The advanced theory of
statistics, Griffin.
Kent, W. 1978. Data and reality. Basic assumptions in data
processing reconsidered, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Krantz, D. H. 1967. 'Extensive measurement in semiorders',
Phil Sci, 34,348-362.
Krantz, D. H. 1973. 'Fundamental measurement of force
and Newton's first and second laws', Phil Sci, 40,481.
Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P. and Tversky, A.
1971. Foundations of measurement, Vol. 1, (Additive and
polynomial representations), Academic Press, New York.
Leaning, M. S. 1977. Foundational studies in measurement,
MSc thesis, The City University, London.
Leaning, M. S. and Finkelstein, L. 1980. 'A probabilistic
treatment of measurement uncertainty in the formal
theory of measurement', Acta IMEKO 1979, G. Striker,
ed, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 73-81.
Leech, G. 1981. Semantics, (2nd edn), Penguin Books.
Luee, R. D. 1956. 'Semiorders and a theory of utility
discrimination', Econometrica, 24, 178-191.
Luce, R. D. 1973. 'Three axiom systems for additive semi-
ordered structures', SIAM J Appl Math, 25, 41-43.
Lute, R. D. 1978. 'Dimensionally invariant numerical laws
correspond to meaningful qualitative relations',PhilSei,
45,1 16.
Lute, R. D. and Tukey, J. W. 1964. 'Simultaneous conjoint
measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement',
J Math Psychol, 1, 1-27.
Luee, R. D., Bush, R. F. and Galanter, E. 1965.Handbook
of mathematical psychology, Wiley.
Lute, R. D. and Marley, A. A. J. 1969. 'Extensive measure-
ment when concatenation is restricted and maximal
elements may exist'. In Essays in honor of Ernest Nagel,
S. Morgentesser, P. Suppes and M. G. White, eds, St
Martin's Press, New York.
Lyons, J. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics,
Cambridge University Press.
Maeh, E. 1896. Die Prineipien der Warmelhre, Leipzig.
(Partial trans 'Critique of the concept of temperature',
in Ellis, B., 1966.)
Morgenstern, O. 1963. On the accuracy of economic obser-
vations, Princeton University Press.
Narens, L. 1974. 'Measurement without Archimedean
axioms', Phil Sei, 41,374.
Page, C. H. and Vigoreux, P. 1973. SI, the International
System of Units, NPL, HMSO, London.
Palaeios, J. 1964. Dimensional analysis, Macmillan.
Palmer, E. R. 1976. Semantics." A new outline, Cambridge
University Press.
Pfanzagl, J. 1959. 'A general theory of measurement: appli-
cations to utility', Naval Res Logistics Q, 6 , 2 8 3 - 2 9 4 .
Pfanzagl, J. 1968. Theory of measurement, Wiley, New
York.
Prugovecki, E. 1974. 'Fuzzy sets in the theory of measure-
ment of incompatible observables', Found Phys, 4, 9.
Roberts, F. S. 1970. 'On non-transitive indifference', J
Math Psych, 7,243-258.
33
Finkelstein and Leaning
Roberts, F. S. 1979. 'Measurement theory with applica-
tions to decision making, utility, and the social sciences',
Encyclopedia of mathematics and its applications, Vol
7, Gian-Carlo Rota, ed, Addison-Wesley, Reading
(Mass).
Robinson, F. E. 1965. 'Measurement and statistics: towards
a classification of the theory of "permissible statistics" ',
PhilSci, 32,229 243.
Rosen, R. 1978. Fundamentals of measurement and repre-
sentation of natural systems, North-Holland, Amster-
dam.
Russell, B. 1923. 'Vagueness', Aust J Psych Phil, 1 , 8 4 - 9 2 .
Scott, D. and Suppes, P. 1958. 'Foundational aspects of
theories ofmeasurement',JSymb Logic, 23, 113-118.
Shapere, D. 1982. 'The concept of observation in science
and philosophy', Phil Sci, 49,485-525.
Stevens, S. S. 1946. 'On the theory of the scales of
measurement', Science, 103,677 680.
Stevens, S. S. 1951. Handbook of experimental psychology,
Wiley.
Suppes, P. 1951. 'A set of independent axioms for exten-
sive quantities', Portugaliae Mathematica, 10, 163-172.
Suppes, P. and Zinnes, J . L . 1965. 'Basic measurement
theory', in Handbook of mathematical psychology,
R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush and E. Galanter, eds, Wiley.
Tarski, A. 1954. 'Contributions to the theory of models',
Indagationes Mathematicae, 16,572-588.
Fundamental measurement concepts
Tennant, H. 1981. Natural language processing: An intro-
duction to an emerging technology, Petrocelli Books,
New York.
Thurstone, L. L. 1947. Multiple-factor analysis, Chicago
University Press.
Torgerson, W. S. 1958. Theory and methods of scaling.
John Wiley, New York.
Tsichntzis, D. and Kiug, A. 1977. The ANS1/X3/SPARC
DkMS framework. Report of the Study Group on
data base management systems. AFIPS Press, New
York.
yon Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. 1944. Theory of
games and economic behaviour, Princeton University
Press.
Whitney, H. 1968. 'The mathematics of physical quantities.
Part I: Mathematical models for measurement. Part II:
Quantity structures and dimensional analysis', Am
Math Monthly, 75, 115 t38,227 256.
Wiener, N. 1921. 'A new theory of measurement: a study
in the logic of mathematics', Proc Lond Math Soc, 19,
181-205.
Zadeh, L. A. 1965. 'Fuzzy sets', Inform Contr, 8, 338
353.
Zadeh, L. A. 1968. 'Probability measures of fuzzy events',
J Math Anal Appl, 23, 421-427.
Zadeh, L. A. 1971. 'Similarity relations and fuzzy order-
ings',Info Sciences, 3,177 200.

International Measurement Confederation Tech nical Corn m i t t e e - 1 2

Temperature Measurement

Temperature Measurement in Industry and Science

The TC-12 will organise, in co-operation with the • Industrial temperature measurements
national IMEKO member organisation of the GDR, • Measurement of thermophysical properties, and
the W G M A (Scientific-Technical Society for heat flow measurement.
Measurement Technology and Automation) in the • Poster section.
KDT (Chamber of Technology), its 2nd Symposium
Temperature Measurement in Industry and Science Interesting papers that go beyond the scope of the
in the German Democratic Republic. It will take programme may also submitted for discussion.
place from 16-18 October 1984 in Suhl, the capital of
this district in the heart of the Thuringian Forest.
The working language used during the Sympo-
sium is English. The conference fee amounts to
Main topics DM 400, including the preprints and abstracts.
• Improvement of the International Practical
Temperature Scale Please address inquiries concerning the organisa-
• Temperature sensors and their calibration tion of the symposium, and provisional application,
• Dynamic behaviour of temperature sensors to: Kammer der Technik, Dipl.-Ing. U. Hartung,
• Radiation temperature measurement Thilmannplatz 4, DDR-6000 Suhl.

34 Measurement Vol 2 No 1, Jan--Mar 1984