AN ODE APPROACH TO DECISION MAKING INVOLVING PAIRWISE COMPARISON OF CHOICES

YUICHI T. OTSUKA

A Special Problem Presented to the Faculty of the Mathematics Division Institute of Mathematical Sciences and Physics College of Arts and Sciences University of the Philippines Los Baos

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Science in Applied Mathematics

October 2011

The Faculty of the Mathematics Division Institute of Mathematical Sciences and Physics College of Arts and Sciences University of the Philippines Los Baos Hereby accepts the Special Problem entitled

AN ODE APPROACH TO DECISION MAKING INVOLVING PAIRWISE COMPARISON OF CHOICES

by YUICHI T. OTSUKA

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Applied Mathematics

_____________________________________ MR. JOMAR F. RABAJANTE Special Problem Adviser ___________________ Date _______________________________________ PROF. ARIEL L. BABIERRA Head, Mathematics Division ___________________ Date

_______________________________________ DR. VIRGILIO P. SISON Director, Institute of Mathematical Sciences and Physics ___________________ Date

ii

ABSTRACT

AN ODE APPROACH TO DECISION MAKING INVOLVING PAIRWISE COMPARISON OF CHOICES

Yuichi T. Otsuka UP Los Baos, October 2011

Adviser: Jomar F. Rabajante

In this study, an alternative approach to Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) was established. With the aid of pairwise comparisons among choices, three models using systems of ordinary differential equations were formulated. The models were used to observe the dynamics of decision making, as well as the qualitative behavior of the interaction that exists among the choices. Numerical and analytic methods were applied to solve the given systems of ordinary differential equations. Though the solutions to the three models differ in nature, the qualitative interpretations were similar. Further analyses were also done on some models, such as finding the period and the absolute extrema for bounded solutions.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

No one else but the Lord witnessed all of what I had gone through in finishing this Special Problem. Nonetheless, I have shared many parts of this journey to a lot of people, to whom I am very much grateful: To my adviser, Sir Jomar Rabajante, for guiding me every step of the way. I have been a hard-to-handle student. Thank you for the patience and understanding. I have bothered you beyond what is necessary. You have taught me far more than what is required of you as an adviser. Youre a blessing sir. To my ODE Professor and brother in Christ, Prof. Vernel Lawas, for the strong background and source of spiritual strength. Little did I know that I have frequented my lecture notes for my exams and for my Special Problem. You are not aware that you have been a father to students like me. Thank you and God bless sir. To all my other educators, you have imbued in me a sense of responsibility through all the years of learning inside and beyond the four walls of the classroom. For my educators this first semester, many times I have not been in my best, thank you for understanding me. To my parents, Kenji and Leticia, I havent gone home frequently due to pressing matters. This is one of them. Your pieces of advice, though not Mathematical in nature, have reached a long way. To my brother, Kenneth, I have usually gone home with a weary heart. We arent in best terms, but I know you have absorbed most of my shortcomings. Thank you. To Ninong Romel and Lolo MJ, for being there. Your presence during the times I have lost the logic and sanity I needed was enough. Nong, I cannot even recall the number of times you have read my drafts and had given me revisions. Lo, thank you for the endless arguments over the phone.

iv

To Ate Aja, Ninang Eloi, Ate Andria, and Maricar, for inspiring me. To my inaanaks Pearl, Jerna, Nowie and Kathleen, my angels. I havent understood girls, and I dont think I ever will. But one things for sure, I learned that no matter how busy you are, you should always have time for them, my Special Problem included. To the Society of Math Majors, one of the families I have, thank you for taking me in. I have been blessed with such a family that made me strong in college. I entered as an innocent child, and came out as a not-so-innocent man anymore, in a good way. I have been and always will be an SMM member. To my co-officers in the organization, and to my SMM batchmates Point of Tangency, thank you for understanding me as I went through this hurdle. Thank you for being there when I wasnt able to perform my duties well as a member and as an officer. I wasnt afraid to fall because I know you were eager to see me rise again. I am in deep gratitude. To Ana Carandang, Merryl Canlas and Robert Capati, for many things that need not be said. Thank you for not pressing me to finish this Special Problem; the reverse psychology worked anyway. All these times you have made me realize that life is hard to handle, time is hard to manage, true friends are hard to find, and that I am such a lucky guy. To Him, for this Special Problem. I believe he doesnt give challenges that we cannot accomplish. Thank you Lord.

Yuichi T. Otsuka

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

1 Introduction 1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 Scope and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.4 Time and Place of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Review of Related Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 Analytic Hierarchy Process 3.1 Determining the Ranking of Decision Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2 Illustrations on AHP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4 Model 1 4.1 Model Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.2 Illustration of Model 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5 Model 2 5.1 Model Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.2 Illustration of Model 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

vi

6 Model 3 6.1 Model Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.2 Illustration of Model 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7 Analytic Solutions for Model 2 7.1 Case 1: One Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.2 Case 2: Two Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7.3. Case 3: Three Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 7.4 Periodicity of the Analytic Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 7.5 Absolute Extrema of the Analytic Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 7.6 Relative Extrema of the Analytic Solutions on the Interval 8 More Illustrations 8.1 Rock-Paper-Scissor Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 8.2 An Extension to the Rock-Paper-Scissor Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 8.3 Four Ordered Decision Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 9 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 . . . . . . . . 45

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

vii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 3.2.1 A Summary of the Relative and Composite Weights in the Illustration

PAGE 16

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2.1 4.2.1 Flow of AHP Calculations with 1 Decision Criterion Flow of AHP Computations with Decision Criteria

PAGE 11 11 13 21

Flow of Calculations for the Illustration Numerical Solution for Model 1 Illustration Using Berkeley Madonna

5.2.1

Numerical Solution for Model 2 Illustration Using Berkeley Madonna

25

6.1.1 6.1.2

Network Diagram: Directed Complete Graph with Network Diagram: Directed Complete Graph with Weights

Nodes Nodes, with

27 27

6.1.3 6.1.4 6.1.5 6.1.6 6.1.7 6.2.1

Network Diagram with Primary Reference Node Network Diagram with Secondary Reference Node Network Diagram with Secondary Reference Node Network Diagram with Secondary Reference Node Network Diagram with Secondary Reference Node Numerical Solution for Model 3 Illustration Using Berkeley Madonna

28 29 30 30 30 33

8.1.1 8.1.2 8.1.3

Numerical Solution to Rock-Paper-Scissor Interaction, Model 1 Numerical Solution to Rock-Paper-Scissor Interaction, Model 2 Numerical Solution to Rock-Paper-Scissor Interaction, Model 3

48 48 48

ix

8.3.1 8.3.2 8.3.3

Numerical Solution with Four Decision Alternatives, Model 1 Numerical Solution with Four Decision Alternatives, Model 2 Numerical Solution with Four Decision Alternatives, Model 3

51 51 51