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).