“…While the (TGK) formula worked out a cumulative contribution ratio of (0.86321) with a number of (4) compounds. As noted when (q = 8, 15, 20, 30) and (n = 50), the (MGK) formula was also the best in its contribution ratios cumulative as it accomplished (0.86020, 0.89926, 0.88143, 0.89096) and with higher component numbers also (8,9,10,14) respectively according to dimensions (q) and when (q = 15, 20, 30) and (n = 200) we note that (MGK) was also the best in its cumulative contribution ratios, as it achieved (0.89292, 0.89066, 0.89447) and with relatively close numbers of components (10,20,21), respectively, according to dimensions (q), but in the case of the matrix (š» 2 ), the results showed the formula (MGK) was not good, but there are cases in which results did not appear, as in the case of (q = 15, n = 20), (q = 30, n = 50), (q = 30, n = 100). From The above results, it can be considered that the formula (MGK) is good in the case of the matrix (š» 1 ) estimated by the ROT method, but it cannot be generalized to the rest of the methods.…”