Computer can invent independently (this brief

name work, which is set out below)

The following is an (i.e. outlined) abbreviated

presentation (i.e. description)

of the work (i.e. summary of the work)

which, called: Methods

of invention through which

three programmers can easily write

such programs (for a computer)

through which the computer can devise many inventions without

the assistance

human

The first method of

invention consisting in this do random conclusions,

out of conditional propositions

In logic, there are conditional propositions for example: "if flame to place under a stone, then the stone will heat up" (let's call this conditional proposition the first conditional proposition). The words of the conditional proposition which are arranged from  (i.e. after) the word "if" to (i.e. prior to) the word "then" are called the basis of the conditional proposition, and the words of the conditional proposition which are arranged after the word "then" are called consequence of the conditional proposition. The double conjunction "if ... then ..." binds the basis and the consequence. That is, basis of this conditional proposition is "flame to place under a stone", and the consequence of this conditional proposition is "the stone will heat up". Take the second conditional proposition "if the stone will heat up, then the stone will expand". The consequence of the first conditional proposition consists of the words: "the stone will heat up" and the basis of the second conditional proposition consists of the same words: "the stone will heat up". If a person would make a conclusion from the first and second conditional propositions, then he will receive the following, new conditional proposition (as a result of this conclusion) (let's call this conditional proposition the third conditional proposition): "if flame to place under a stone, then the stone will expand".

Based on an analysis of the literature, I created the following rule (I call this rule the first rule):

First rule: In order to do the output, from (i.e. out of) two conditional propositions the following sequence of actions should be followed:

Find two of such conditional propositions  which have (i.e. at which): consequence of the first conditional proposition and the basis of the second conditional proposition consist of the same words located in the same  sequence [that is, to find two such conditional propositions which have (i.e. at which): consequence of the first conditional proposition (out of these conditional propositions) consists of words standing (i.e. positioned) in some sequence and the basis of the second conditional proposition consists of the same words  which positioned (i.e. are) in the same sequence]. Then instead basis of the second conditional proposition, put (i.e. write a) basis of the first conditional proposition. And thereby the second conditional proposition will be converted into the third conditional proposition.

If the first and second conditional propositions (which set out above) are written in a computer's memory, and if the memory, this computer also contains  other conditional propositions, then this computer itself can found in the conditional propositions (which are recorded in the memory of this computer) two such conditional propositions which have the following (i.e. in which): consequence of the first conditional proposition (out of these conditional propositions) consists of words which stand (i.e. positioned) in some sequence and the basis of the second conditional proposition consists of the same words  which positioned (i.e. are) in the same sequence (it is known that a computer can find, the same words which are arranged in the same order and which are located in different parts of the memory of this computer). Then the computer without the help of people can substitute the basis of the second conditional proposition on, basis of the first conditional proposition. And thus the second conditional proposition is converted by the computer into the third conditional proposition (which is set out above). Based on this, and on analysis the of literature can be concluded that computer can itself (using the first rule) make conclusions out of conditional propositions which are recorded in its memory (i.e. in the memory this of the computer), and as a result this, obtain conditional propositions. Usually some conditional propositions obtained in this manner [i.e. usually some conditional propositions which obtained by means of conclusions out of the random (i.e. the first available) conditional propositions], are: new conditional propositions each of which is a new information (new conditional proposition usually is the new information). New information according to some encyclopedias (and according to some foreign patent laws), is invention.

Based on an analysis of the literature, I came to the conclusion that the description of almost any invention can be presented so that it (i.e. this the description) will be is conditional proposition. By the way physical effects i.e. physical phenomena (their can formulate in the form of conditional propositions) are most often used to create inventions. As a result of analysis of the literature I have come to the conclusion that almost all information which known the currently (and which is necessary for the creation of inventions) can to present in the form of conditional propositions. This method of invention (i.e., the first method of invention) consist in: makes the computer as follows: invention of random inventions, by means of obtaining (i.e. do) random conclusions out of random conditional propositions by means of the first rule.

Based on the analysis of the literature, I came to the conclusion that the computer, by means of this method of invention (i.e., the first method of invention), will invent a random invention (i.e. will create, a random invention) if it (i.e. the computer), as a result of obtaining random conditional propositions , obtains a new random conditional proposition and if in, consequence of this new random conditional proposition by means of words formulated (i.e. submitted),  then that,  will give favor for man (i.e. if consequence of this conditional proposition consists of words, by means  of which, formulated, then that, will give favor for man) and the basis of this conditional proposition is a description of a configuration (i.e. location) of substances (or a description of the continuously changing configuration of substances) which people will be able, draw up (without the aid of devices or with the aid of known devices) at the time when the computer will receive this the new conditional proposition [i.e. the basis of this new conditional proposition will be a description of what people, able to perform (i.e. implement) at the time when the computer obtains a this new conditional proposition].

The computer can determine the that, he through this method, has created such a conditional proposition which, is, invention, if in the memory of this computer was recorded by through words this is: 1) all the things that people can exercise i.e. make (or part of this) 2) All the configurations of substances (i.e. of location of substances) that people can make (i.e. draw up) (or part of these configurations of substances) 3) all  that will give favor to people (or part of this) (but if record part of this, then the possibilities for the computer will be fewer than if everything is this recorded). Moreover, this should be recorded, by means of general expressions (i.e. by means not private expressions). An example general expression is "any stone will expand as a result of heating." An example of a private (i.e. specific) expression is: "a brown stone, the length of which 25 millimeters will expand as a result of heating." I believe that three programmers can easily write a program for a computer through which the computer can from the overall expressions engender (i.e. generate) any private (i.e. specific) expression which is a private case of a of this overall expression.

Based on the analysis of the literature we can come to the conclusion that the computer can (i.e. is capable) by means of this method (which set out in full kind) (and by means of, the second method) a create again (i.e. create a second time) all inventions which known now, from (i.e. by means) all information which now known.

The second method of invention

consisting in this of generation (i.e. creation) of

OR-subtasks using conditional propositions

Based on the analysis of publications, I has created the following rule (I call this rule the second rule):

Second rule: Take any inventive task (we denote this inventive task the letter «S»). In order to, create a (i.e. derive) from an inventive task S an inventive OR-subtask (this inventive task S) the following should be done:

Find a conditional proposition which has the following feature: the consequence of this conditional proposition and the description of this inventive task S consist of the same words standing in the same sequence (i.e. the consequence of this conditional proposition consist of some words located in some sequence and the description of this inventive task S consists of the same words located in the same sequence). And the basis of this conditional proposition will be, is, inventive OR-subtask (this inventive task S).

The inventive OR-subtask is an inventive task, the inventive, OR-subsubtask, is an inventive task and so on. This means that by means of the second rule, possible this is: 1) from the inventive, OR-subtask, create a (i.e. get) her inventive OR-subtask. 2) from the inventive OR-subsubtask create a (i.e. get)  inventive OR-subtask of this inventive OR-subsubtask and so on.