**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**

From the book entitled
"Artificial Intelligence" from 1978 (the author of this book is E.
Hunt) it follows that an __OR-subtask is a task, such a,: if solve (i.e.
will solve) her, a person (or computer) then he (thereby) solve not only this
task (i.e. the last task) but also solve the task from which this OR-subtask,
was, generated__ [about, the generation (i.e. creation) of OR-subtasks will
says below]. For example, assume that one needs to, that was invented a way by
which can be obtained (that is, by means of which will occur) this (i.e.
following): the stone will expand (i.e. the expansion of a stone) (we assume,
that such a method has not been invented), this, inventive task is an original
(i.e. initial) inventive task (i.e. problem). Of the second conditional
proposition it, follows that if the computer invented the a way by which
you can heat the stone (i.e. by which you can get this: the stone will heat up)
(let us assume that such a method is not invented) [that is, if the computer
decided, the inventive task which consists in creation the method, by means of
which you can to heat the stone (__the latter inventive task is an,
OR-subtask of the original problem, i.e. the latter inventive task is an
OR-subtask which was generated from the original problem__)] than (i.e.
under such conditions), this computer (thereby) invented the a method by
means of which can be obtained (this, i.e. following): the
stone will expand [that is, this the computer thus decided the original
inventive task (i.e. initial inventive task)]. From the first conditional
proposition it follows that in order to solve this inventive OR-subtask (we
denote this OR-subtask, number "1"), that is, for order to develop a
method that can be used to heat the stone, necessary to solve the following
inventive OR-subtask (which was generated from the inventive OR-subtask which,
was denote number 1) (i.e. necessary to decide OR-subtask of OR-subtask which,
was denote number 1) (i.e. necessary to decide OR-subsubtask of the original
problem) i.e. necessary to obtain information which would reveal how one
can achieve the following: flame to place under a stone. People know how to
obtain this result, that is, the this OR-subsubtask of the original problem is
a description of the location (i.e. configuration) of substances which people
are able make up (i.e. draw up). Hence solution of the latest inventive
OR–subsubtask is not necessary because the solution to this problem known. And
if there is a solution of this inventive OR-subsubtask then (thereby) the
original problem will be solved.

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.

__The computer solve (i.e. implement find a solution) any inventive task
which, need to decide [we will call the last task of the original
(i.e., initial) inventive task] by means of this method, if it (i.e. computer)
performs the following:__ first, by means, second rule generate, from
original inventive task, inventive OR-subtask, original inventive task after
that computer from this inventive OR -subtask by means of the
second rule will make generate, her inventive OR-subtask (the latest
inventive OR-subtask will, is the inventive OR–subsubtask of the original
problem), after this the computer from this inventive OR–subsubtask of the
original problem by means of the second rule generate inventive
OR-subtask of this inventive OR–subsubtask (the latest inventive OR-subtask
will be the inventive OR–subsubsubtask of the original problem) and, so on,
until moment when (i.e. up to time when) the computer
generate an inventive OR-subtask, whose solution known (__and if the computer,
generates such an inventive OR-subtask, then computer, solve, original
inventive task__), i.e. until moment when the computer generate a description
of an OR-subtask which is a description of the location (i.e. configuration) of
substances (or which, is, a description of the continuously changing location
of substances) which people will be able, draw up (without the aid of devices
or with the aid, devices) at the time when the computer generates, this
description of an OR-subtask (i.e. until the moment in which the computer
generates a description of an OR-subtask which is a description of what people
are able to carry out at the time when the computer generates this the description
of the OR-subtask). __In this consists this method of invention (i.e., the
second method of invention).__

__In
order to the computer could determine that he has created the invention
through this method, it is necessary that__ was is recorded in the
memory of this computer, through words, following (i.e. this) : 1)
all of the location (i.e. configuration) of substances which people can,
make up (i.e. draw up) (or part of these configurations of substances), 2) all
that people can implement (or part, thereof) (but if you recorded the only a
part of this then the possibilities of the computer will be fewer than if you
recorded the everything). This is should be written by means of general
expressions (rather than of private expressions).