A decision-making process is a part of the decision-making theory, reasonably placing a major research interest on the question how the process is conducted and what affects the process itself in general. Naturally it is perceived as a sequence of steps, where things are moving forward little-by-little towards to the settled goal. An analysis could be done before (planning), during the process (control + adaption) or afterwards (analysis and evaluation). Also, we can just study someone’s decision process first, mainly trying to avoid making “their” mistakes. Anyway, making decisions or just observing and studying them is a part of life. Either one assumes evaluation of the current situation and of the expected outcomes, assigning to each decision some “quality” according to the fixed set of criteria (like probabilistic), or the flexible ones (different heuristics). Thus, from the mathematical and the philosophic points of view we will face three principle questions applicable to any particular decision-making theory: (1) How many criteria do we need? (2) How well they are defined/described? (3) Are there any relations between them, or we can consider them to be independent ones? Besides, any admissible theory also will consider some kind of underground efficiency questions (at least not to over-complicate and postpone a decision-making process), possibility to track and secure the major and intermediate goals and et cetera. It is clear that theoretical research and even the hated ad-hoc hypothesis use some reasonable assumptions about criteria selection and their quantity: pure or context oriented, but we want to consider the presented problem without restrictions of any specific theory, domain or context; using just common sense and analogies between exact and human sciences detected in twentieth century an later. Therefore, we created a hypothesis on how many evaluation criteria do we really need to operate inside an abstract decision domain—regardless the nature of criteria and their relations with real-world processes. Actually, it was not a big surprise that it resulted to be related with concepts of fractals, chaos and the notion of the fractal dimension. Their clear presence was discovered in many social and biological sciences recently, so an investigation was continued not only in terms of finding “deep” arguments to prove our postulates: recent results in math and physics also showed that most dynamic processes could be described differently considering an analysis of the current situation, short-term and long-term runs. Hence, the nature and the quantity of the involved criteria may vary (they could be implicitly time-dependent) and we need to study this kind of relation also.

决策过程是决策理论的一部分，合理地将主要研究兴趣放在了如何进行过程以及总体上影响过程本身的问题上。自然地，它被认为是一系列步骤，其中事情正在一点一点地朝着既定目标迈进。可以在（计划）之前，过程中（控制+适应）或之后（分析和评估）进行分析。同样，我们可以仅首先研究某人的决策过程，主要是为了避免犯“他们的”错误。无论如何，做出决定或只是观察和研究它们都是生活的一部分。要么假设对当前状况和预期结果进行评估，然后根据固定的一组标准（如概率）为每个决策分配一些“质量”，或灵活的（不同的启发式）。因此，从数学和哲学的角度来看，我们将面临适用于任何特定决策理论的三个主要问题：（1）我们需要多少标准？（2）定义/描述的程度如何？（3）它们之间是否存在任何关系，或者我们可以认为它们是独立的？此外，任何可采纳的理论都将考虑某种地下效率问题（至少不要使决策过程过于复杂和推迟），跟踪和确保主要目标和中间目标等的可能性。很明显，理论研究，甚至是讨厌的即席假设都使用一些关于准则选择及其数量的合理假设：纯粹的或基于上下文的，但我们希望在不限制任何特定理论，领域或上下文的情况下考虑所提出的问题；仅使用常识以及在二十世纪后半叶发现的人类科学之间的类比。因此，我们创建了一个假设，即在一个抽象决策域内实际上需要多少个评估标准，而不论该标准的性质以及它们与现实过程的关系如何。实际上，它与分形，混沌和分形维数的概念相关联并不足为奇。它们的明显存在是最近在许多社会和生物科学中发现的，因此继续进行调查，不仅是在寻找“深层”论据以证明我们的假设方面：数学和物理学的最新结果还表明，考虑到对当前状况，短期和长期运行的分析，可以对大多数动态过程进行不同的描述。因此，所涉及标准的性质和数量可能会有所不同（它们可能隐含地与时间有关），我们也需要研究这种关系。