Concept of Stratification
Open-knowledge reference entry
Concept of Stratification, labelled CST by Prof Lotfi A. Zadeh, was proposed in 2016. Zadeh states that it is a reform in conventional problem solving methods by the consideration of a recursive problem solving approach. Note that this concept should not be mistaken with other similar concepts such as social stratification. CST is not based on social stratification nor related to it. More particularly it is quite different from the previous versions and applications of stratification, such as stratified logic, stratified approach, stratified programming, stratified analysis, among other versions of stratification prior to 2016. This version of stratification can handle a range of problems as explained a year after the original proposal by Asadabadi and his colleagues.
The key innovation in CST is that it considers the target states first, and then the target set is gradually enlarged to include the system which is aimed to receive the target. After the system is contained in the enlarged target, the target gradually shrinks to let the system find the target. This method has similarities to the human mind problem solving and is expected to be employed widely in artificial intelligence in near future.
CST can be used to structure complicated problems.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Concept of Stratification” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Concept, Stratification and Open-knowledge, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 18, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q60790348. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2016.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Concept of Stratification”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Concept of Stratification primary sources, Concept of Stratification archive and Concept research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Concept of Stratification”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Concept of Stratification” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.