Neutrosophic Statistics

Scilogs, V: joining the dots

We have used <A>, <neutA> and <antiA>. But, if we refined, we get: <A> is refined to <A1>, <A2>, ...; then <neutA> is refined to <neutA1>, <neutA2>, ...; and <antiA> is refined to <antiA1>, <antiA2>, ... . For example, <A> = white, while <A1>, <A2>, … are nuances of white; <antiA> = black, while <antiA1>, <antiA2>, ... are nuances of black, while <neutA> = neither white nor black, hence <neutA1> = blue, <neutA2> = red, ... . Another example: <A> = U.S. Republican Party, then <A1> is The Republican Party from Arizona, <A2> The

Republican Party from California, ...; <antiA> = U. S. Democratic Party, then <antiA1> is The

Democratic Party from Arizona, <antiA2> The

Democratic Party from California, ...; while <neutA> = U. S. people who belong to no party, with <neutA1> = people from Arizona who belong to no party, <neutA2> people from California who belong to no party etc.

Neutrosophic Statistics

To Nouran Radwan You can do in a neutrosophic way, replacing the Likert scale of 1 to 10 by (t,i,f) values for each criteria: