This is very useful, thank you for sharing.

You are most welcome

Dear Nolberto, I think sharing your invaluable insights on MCDM in audio and video (like YouTube) on social media would be a beneficial decision, especially for young science researchers.

Maybe we can do a video interview series with you about an MCDM :)

Dear Mahmut

I appreciate your kind words and wishes.

I don't have right now facilities to make a video, but perhaps you and I could organize a teleconference for students and people interested

What do you think?

Of course this is a good idea. I will contact you for this.

Dear Nolberto,

You used a phrase like this before in RG (Theme: "Every MCDM algorithm generates a different ranking" argument.):

“In my opinion this is debatable. If we are using mathematical algorithms, with the same data and the same aim, results and rankings should be equal or very similar, because the mathematics are only one. it is like saying that 3^2 should be give different results according to the algorithm used for solution; multiplication, i.e., (3 x3 = 9), or logarithms (2 x log (3) = 9.

Results are different because each method introduces weights and assumptions that don't have any mathematical support. Subjective weights in AHP, thresholds in PROMETHEE and ELECTRE, false assumptions as in BW method, distance in TOPSIS, etc.”

Do you have a scientific article that you defend, prove, explain or refer to this claim like here? Can you provide a source for your work? Thanks.

Dear Mahmut

Thank you por your message

In all honesty I don’t remember saying the phrase you mention in the first paragraph. I sustain that a MCDM method may or may not give the same ranking as another, and again, but in my opinion, and using my own expression, ‘If we are using mathematical algorithms, with the same data and the same aim, results and rankings should be equal or very similar, because the mathematics are only one’. I also proved it with an trivial example comparing multiplication with potentiation.

I don’t use mathematics in my articles and comments, I use common sense and reasonability. The former sentences of mine can be proved with SIMUS.

Starting for a Pareto row wise matrix, it applies two completely different procedures, ‘Weighted sum’ and ‘Outranking’, and you get two equal rankings. How could you explain that?

Because there is no subjectivity. Do you need more proof, other than the reasoning of using mathematical algorithms?

I wrote no one but several articles about this and it is also in o book of mine published in 2019, which, by the way, will have a second edition.

You are asking for a source. Mine is the same as yours, reasoning and researching.