Methods for developing inventions with the help of which three programmers can easily create a program using which a computer can invent many inventions by itself
[it is the title of this (that is, underwritten) work, the work presented here (that is, below) is given in full (that is, not brief) form (the full text of this work consists of 32820 words)]

The author of this (i.e. of given below) work

is Aleksandr Anatolievich Shmonov

Contents

The first method for developing inventions consisting in making conclusions based on conditional propositions

The second method for developing inventions consists in generating OR-subproblems (which are nodes of the tree for converging the original problem to subproblems) using conditional propositions

The third method for developing inventions consists in generating AND-subproblems and OR-subproblems (which are nodes of the tree for converging the original problem to subproblems) using conditional propositions

The fourth method for developing inventions consists in making conclusions based on conditional propositions and (or) out of images and conditional propositions that contains references to these images

The fifth method for developing inventions consists in generating OR-subproblems (which are nodes of the tree) using conditional propositions and (or) images and conditional propositions that contains references to these images

The sixth method for developing inventions consists in generating AND-subproblems and OR-subproblems (which are nodes of the tree), using conditional propositions and (or) images and conditional propositions that contain references to these images

The seventh method for developing inventions consists in executing random experiments

The eighth method for developing inventions consists in inventing (i.e. to creating) the innovations using: not new conditional propositions, the second, the third, the fifth and the sixth method for developing inventions and new random conditional propositions obtained through random experiments

The ninth method for developing inventions consists in, first of all, executing experiments, which are most likely to give the opportunity to invent a specific invention that must be invented

The tenth method for developing inventions consists in generating, using conjectural and not conjectural conditional propositions of tree nodes, and experimental checking the correctness of these conjectural conditional propositions necessary to generate these nodes

The eleventh method for developing inventions consists in improved "trial and error method"

Additional useful information

The human brain is likely to be only a memory and devices (i.e. organs) servicing the memory

The computer and the robot will probably be able to invent almost all innovations that people want to have been invented

The hypothesis about the origin of life on the Earth, that is, on the planet inhabited by humans

Methods of creating musical compositions (i.e., the methods each one of which is intended for creating musical compositions)

After about 50 years anyone will probably be able to stay out of work and receive a good allowance, which will, as a rule, be more than the allowance with which the person will be able to satisfy own needs for term of his/her life

References [i.e. the list of printed works I have used to create this (i.e. the presented above) work]

Here is the end of the above written content.

The first method for developing inventions consisting in

drawing conclusions based on

conditional propositions

This method for developing inventions is created in particular with the help of production systems and expert systems. These systems are described on pages (pp. 196–216 and pp. 275–292) of the book titled "Artificial intelligence: strategies and methods for solving complex problems" dated 2003, Publishing House "Williams", author of this book is Luger, George F.

On p. 629 of logical dictionary – reference book of 1975, Moscow, Publishing House "Nauka" (the dictionary’s author is N.I. Kondakov) (this is the dictionary mentioned in the third item of the list of printed works (list of references) which is submitted at the end of this work), it is said that there are conditional propositions for formulation of which logical connector "if..., then..." is used. Now let me give an example of such conditional proposition: "If: the flame of the gas burner touches the lower part of the steel ball, then: Heating up of the steel ball".

The words of conditional proposition which are (i.e. stand) between the word "if" and the word "then" (i.e. words of conditional proposition that begin immediately after word "if" and continue till the word "then") are called the basis of conditional proposition (that is, the cause of the conditional proposition), and words of conditional proposition that are (i.e. stand) after the word "then" are called the consequence of conditional proposition. This is stated on p. 629 of Kondakov’s dictionary mentioned above.

As a result of the analysis of the references, I came to conclusion that for formulation of conditional propositions instead of logical connector "if..., then..." (used for formulation of the latter) it is more convenient to use logical connector "If there is the following... Then there will be the following...".

Now let me give an example of the conditional proposition in which "if there is the following... then there will be the following..." is used as a logical connector (I’ve called this conditional proposition the first conditional proposition):

The first conditional proposition: "If there is the following. The flame of the gas burner touches the lower part of the steel ball. Then there will be the following. Heating up of the steel ball".

The basis of the conditional proposition in which logical connector "If there is the following... Then there will be the following..." is used, is how I have called words of such a conditional proposition that are between the words "If there is the following" and words "then there will be the following". The words of the conditional proposition which are after words "Then there will be the following" I’ve called the consequence of this conditional proposition. It means: following words (which stand in the following sequence) are the basis of the first conditional proposition: "The flame of the gas burner touches the lower part of the steel ball", and the consequence of the first conditional proposition are the following words (which stand in the following sequence): "Heating up of the steel ball".

Let me take one more conditional proposition (I’ve called it the second conditional proposition):

The second conditional proposition: “If there is the following. Heating up of the steel ball. Then there will be the following. Expansion of the steel ball".

If an ordinary person makes a conclusion (i.e. inference) based on the first and second conditional propositions, he/she will receive the following conditional proposition (I’ve called it the third conditional proposition):

The third conditional proposition: "If there is the following. The flame of the gas burner touches the lower part of the steel ball. Then there will be the following. Expansion of the steel ball".

The following words (which stand in the following sequence) are the consequence of the first conditional proposition: "Heating up of the steel ball". And the same words are the basis for the second conditional proposition (which stand in the same sequence), i.e.: "Heating up of the steel ball". If instead of the basis of the second conditional proposition stated above, a person presents the basis of the first conditional proposition stated above, he/she will receive, as a result (based on the second conditional proposition), the mentioned above third conditional proposition, i.e. if instead of the basis of the second conditional proposition (stated above) the person presents the basis of the first conditional proposition stated above, he/she will receive as a result of this such conditional proposition that an ordinary person will receive as a result of drawing conclusion from the first and second conditional propositions.

There is a vast number of similar examples.

Based on: 1) the abovementioned; 2) description of conditional proposition presented on p. 630 in the dictionary by Kondakov mentioned above and below; 3) the cut rule presented on p. 470 of this dictionary by Kondakov; 4) presented in works mentioned in items 4, 5 and 6 of the list of works which is submitted at the end of this work; 5) the analysis of literature, I have come to the following rule (I’ve called it the first rule):

The first rule: in order for the computer to draw a conclusion (i.e. an inference, i.e. the process of drawing a conclusion) from two conditional propositions, it (i.e. a computer) shall execute one of four following sequences of actions (i.e. one of four following actions):

1. the computer shall find in its memory two such conditional propositions in which the consequence of the first conditional proposition and the basis of the second one are of the same meaning (i.e. they have the same sense) (i.e. the computer shall find in its memory two such conditional propositions in which the consequence of the first conditional proposition has some meaning, and the basis of the second conditional proposition has the same meaning). Then the computer should instead grounds of the second conditional proposition put the basis of the first conditional proposition. And thus the computer transforms the second conditional proposition into the third conditional proposition (i.e. thus the computer will derive the third conditional proposition from two conditional propositions, this third conditional proposition may be new information or not new information). The following have the same meaning: a) the word and the interpretation of this word, b) synonyms and so on. That is, it is known that has the same meanings (that is, it is known which combinations of words have the same meanings).

2. the computer shall find in its memory two such conditional propositions in which the consequence of the first conditional proposition and the basis of the second one consist of similar words in the same sequence (i.e. the computer shall find in its memory two such conditional propositions in which the consequence of the first conditional proposition consists of some words standing in some sequence, and the basis of the second conditional proposition consists of the same words standing in the same sequence). Then the computer should instead grounds of the second conditional proposition put the basis of the first conditional proposition. And thus the computer transforms the second conditional proposition into the third conditional proposition (i.e. thus the computer will derive the third conditional proposition from two conditional propositions, this third conditional proposition may be new information or not new information).

3. the computer shall find in its memory two such conditional propositions in which the consequence of the first conditional proposition and a part of the basis of the second conditional proposition have the same meaning (i.e. the computer shall find in its memory two such conditional propositions in which the consequence of the first conditional proposition has some meaning, and a part of the basis of the second conditional proposition has the same meaning). Then the computer should instead of the specified part basis the second conditional proposition put basis of the first conditional proposition. And thereby the computer transforms the second conditional proposition into the third conditional proposition (i.e. thereby the computer derives the third conditional proposition from two conditional propositions, this third conditional proposition may be new information or not new information).

4. the computer shall find in its memory two such conditional propositions in which the consequence of the first conditional proposition and a part of the basis of the second conditional proposition consist of similar words standing in the same sequence (i.e. the computer shall find in its memory two such conditional propositions in which the consequence of the first conditional proposition consists of some words standing in some sequence, and a part of the basis of the second conditional proposition consists of the same words standing in the same sequence). Then the computer should instead of the indicated part (the basis of the second conditional proposition) put the basis of the first conditional proposition. And thereby the computer transforms the second conditional proposition into the third conditional proposition (i.e. thereby the computer will derive the third conditional proposition from two conditional propositions, this third conditional proposition may be new information or not new information).

Let me explain this rule with the following example: I will take two conditional propositions (I’ve called these conditional propositions as the fourth one and the fifth one).

The fourth conditional proposition: "If there is the following. Air which is in a steel hermetically sealed vessel located so that the flame of the gas burner touches the bottom of this vessel. Then there will be the following. Air heated to the temperature above 150 degrees Celsius".

The fifth conditional proposition: "If there is the following. Unmelted wax is placed in air heated to the temperature above 150 degrees Celsius. Then there will be the following. The melting of the wax".

By the way, waxes are substances the melting point of which does not exceed 90 degrees Celsius. If the computer draw a conclusion from these two conditional propositions by means the first rule, then it (i.e. the computer) will get the following conditional proposition (I’ve called it the sixth conditional proposition).

The sixth conditional proposition: "If there is the following. Unmelted wax is placed in air which is in a steel hermetically sealed vessel located so that the flame of the gas burner touches the bottom of this vessel. Then there will be the following. The melting of the wax".

Сan write are a huge number of similar examples.

If the computer draws a conclusion from the first and second conditional propositions (using the first rule), then it will receive the third conditional proposition. And if the computer makes a conclusion (using the first rule) from the third conditional proposition and some conditional proposition, then it will receive a conditional proposition (let's call this conditional proposition the twenty-third conditional proposition). And if the computer makes a conclusion (using the first rule) from the twenty-third conditional proposition and some conditional proposition, then it will receive a conditional proposition, and so on. That is, a computer can thus obtain causal chains, that is, trees (that is, graphs).

Based on the analysis of the literature, it can be concluded that if conditional propositions are recorded in the computer’s memory, and recorded the above conditional propositions, then the computer without human help can: 1) find without human assistance two such conditional propositions among conditional propositions stored in its memory (i.e. which are written in the memory of this computer) that the consequence of the first conditional proposition and the basis (or any part of the basis) of the second conditional proposition consist of the same words in the same sequence. 2) then, a computer without human help can instead of the basis (or, respectively, the above part of the basis) of the second conditional proposition, put the basis of the first conditional proposition, numerous similar examples can be cited [by the way, the computer is known to have memory which means it can find specific information (and data associated with this information) stored in its memory (among other information recorded in the memory of this computer). For example, the computer can do the following: if there is a fingerprint at the crime scene, and if the same fingerprint is recorded in the memory of the computer, this computer can find, without human assistance, the fingerprint (among other fingerprints stored in the memory of this computer) in its memory (that is, in the memory of this computer), and then the computer can report the name of the person who left this fingerprint at the crime scene].

Therefore, based on the analysis of the works, I have come to the conclusion that three programmers can easily write such program for a computer using which the computer, without human assistance (and according to the first rule), can: 1) draw (and to have drawn) conclusions (i.e. inferences); 2) derive from conditional propositions that are stored in its memory (i.e. written in the memory of this computer) the conditional propositions not stored in its memory (i.e. not written in the memory of this computer).

Based on the analysis of the references, I have come to conclusion that some of these conditional propositions (i.e. some conditional propositions that the computer can get without human assistance via conclusions drawn from conditional propositions, using the first rule) will be new conditional propositions, each one of which will be new information (i.e. they will be conditional propositions unknown to any person). A new conditional proposition is usually new information, i.e. information unknown to any person. And new information, according to some encyclopedias, some explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language and some foreign patent laws, is an invention.

Based on the analysis of the references, I have come to conclusion that description of almost any invention can be presented so that it (i.e. this description) will be a conditional proposition (i.e. the description of almost any invention which has already been created, can be presented in the form of conditional propositions, and description of almost any invention, which will be created, can be presented in the form of conditional propositions), i.e., if we (i.e. me and the reader) take a description of any invention, the description of the invention can almost certainly be transformed into a conditional proposition so that the meaning of this description of the invention will not change as a result of this transformation.

Based on the following: 1) works presented in items 8 and 9 of the list of references at the end of this work 2) information on p. 576 of the specified dictionary by Kondakov. I have given the name of general conditional proposition to such a conditional proposition in which something is asserted or negated about each object of any class of objects, for example "If there is the following. Heating of all steel objects. Then there will be the following. Expansion of all steel objects".

Based on this, I have given the name of particular conditional proposition to such a conditional proposition, which is a special case of the general conditional proposition, for example, "If there is the following. Heating of the steel ball with diameter of 138 millimeters. Then there will be the following. Expansion of the steel ball with diameter of 138 millimeters".

Based on this and on the analysis of the referneces, I have come to conclusion that one general conditional proposition contains such information, which is contained in infinity or several relevant particular conditional propositions, i.e. one general conditional proposition contains infinity or several relevant particular conditional propositions.

Based on the analysis of the references, I have come to conclusion that three programmers can easily write such program for a computer using which the computer can, without human assistance, derive from the general conditional proposition which is stored in the memory of this computer any particular conditional proposition which is a particular case of this general conditional proposition.

It is necessary to record 400 physical effects to be presented in the form of general conditional propositions to the memory of the computer, which will itself create an invention. This (i.e. to write only 400 physical effects into the computer memory, not 1,000 of these effects or more than 1,000 of these effects) is necessary for simplifying the work of creating the program with the help of which the computer can invent by itself. By the way, an average inventor knows 150 physical effects.

It is desirable to write to the computer memory such information (but this information should be entered into the computer memory in the form of general conditional propositions) that is most often used for creation of inventions (by the way, physical effects, i.e. physical phenomena, are most often used to create inventions).

It is possible not to write to the computer memory (which will create inventions using methods for developing inventions outlined above and below) any particular conditional propositions as I believe three programmers can easily create such program for a computer using which the computer can, without human assistance, produce (i.e. obtain) any particular conditional proposition, which is a special case of the general conditional proposition, from any general conditional proposition which is stored in the computer memory.

Based on the analysis of the references, I have come to conclusion that description of almost any invention can be presented so that it (i.e. this description) will be a conditional proposition, and in this case this conditional proposition can be particular or general, i.e. one part of descriptions of inventions can be presented as general conditional propositions, and the other part of descriptions of inventions can be presented as particular conditional propositions. Based on the analysis of the references, I have come to conclusion that if in the computer memory 400 general conditional propositions mentioned are stored, and if the computer draws conclusions (i.e. inferences) using the first rule (which this computer did not draw from these conditional propositions using the first rule) from these 400 general conditional propositions, then the computer, as a result, will obtain general (new and not new) conditional propositions. And approximately 70% of these general conditional propositions will be such general conditional propositions, each one of which this computer will be able to decompose without human assistance into (i.e. each one of which includes) infinity of particular conditional propositions. In this case, the computer will be able, without human assistance, to obtain new partial conditional propositions from any new general conditional proposition.

Based on the analysis of the references, I have come to conclusion that if a computer (or a person) draws conclusions from 400 general conditional propositions mentioned above using the first rule [which this computer (or this person) did not draw from these 400 general conditional propositions mentioned above using the first rule], and this computer (or this person) produces (i.e. obtain) from these general conditional propositions obtained using the conclusions the particular conditional propositions, then some of these general and particular conditional propositions will be new inventions. And, as a result, a large number of such inventions will be obtained.

By the way, a new invention is an invention that is unknown to any person before creation of this invention. A computer (or a person) should not draw a conclusion using the first rule from such two conditional propositions from which this computer or this person has already drawn a conclusion using the first rule.

This method of developing inventions (i.e. the first method of developing inventions) consists in inventing inventions by means of drawing conclusions (i.e. inferences) from conditional propositions using the first rule [i.e. this method of developing inventions consists in creating inventions by means of applying the first rule for drawing conclusions (i.e. inferences) from conditional propositions and conditional propositions (I will denote these conditional propositions by letter "Z") that are so suitable to these conditional propositions that from these conditional propositions "Z" and these conditional propositions one can draw conclusions applying the first rule] and producing (i.e. obtaining) from general conditional propositions the particular conditional propositions which are special cases of these general conditional propositions [in this part of this text conclusion from conditional propositions means the conclusion drawn from a conditional proposition and a conditional proposition that has such properties (i.e. attributes) which allow to draw a conclusion according to the first rule from this (i.e. the latter) conditional proposition and this conditional proposition].

Based on the above (and below) said and on the analysis of the references, I have come to conclusion that if in the computer memory 400 general conditional mentioned propositions are stored, and if in the computer memory other things necessary for drawing conclusions by means of the first rule are stored (it is said above and below what should be recorded in the computer memory for the computer to draw conclusions using the first rule), then, with the help of this method of developing inventions (i.e. the first method of developing inventions) three programmers can easily write such a program for this computer using which the computer can invent a lot of new inventions without human assistance.

Based on the aforesaid and on the analysis of the references, I have come to conclusion that using this method of developing inventions (that is, the first method of developing inventions) the computer will create (i.e. invent) an invention if, as a result of obtaining conditional propositions (which the computer will receive as a result of drawing conclusions), it (i.e. this computer) will receive a new conditional proposition (i.e. it will obtain a conditional proposition that is new information), the basis of which (i.e. the basis of this conditional proposition) will be description of substances arrangement [or it will be description of continually changing arrangement of substances] that humans will be able to compile (without or with the help of known devices) at the time when the computer will receive this new conditional proposition (i.e. the basis of this new conditional proposition will be description of what humans will be able to implement at the time when the computer will receive this new conditional proposition).

By the way, in some dictionaries of the Russian language, some encyclopedias and some foreign patent laws it is said that an invention is something new.

I will take three conditional propositions (I’ve called them the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth conditional propositions).

The thirteenth conditional proposition: "If there is the following. During hot weather, the sun will appear from behind the clouds and begin to shine on a hollow iron ball which lies on the ground and which has diameter of forty centimeters. Then there will be the following. Without human assistance, the hollow iron ball will start to heat up, and its diameter, also without human assistance, will begin to increase (and it will increase approximately by 0.5 millimeters) after appearance of the sun from behind the clouds during hot weather".

The fourteenth conditional proposition: "If there is the following. Without human assistance, the hollow iron ball will start to heat up, and its diameter, also without human assistance, will begin to increase (and it will increase approximately by 0.5 millimeters) after appearance of the sun from behind the clouds during hot weather. And there is a contact plate at a distance of 0.2 millimeters from this ball. The contact plate is a part of the electrical circuit consisting of a fan, a source of current and two contact plates. When the contact plates connect the fan switches on. And the other contact plate of this circuit is soldered to the ball mentioned. Then there will be the following. Without human assistance, the hollow iron ball will begin to touch the contact plate after appearance of the sun from behind the clouds during hot weather. Moreover, this plate is a part of the electrical circuit consisting of the source of current, the fan and two contact plates. When the plates connect, the fan switches on. And the other contact plate of this circuit is soldered to the ball mentioned".

The fifteenth conditional proposition: "If there is the following. Without human assistance, the hollow iron ball will begin to touch the contact plate after appearance of the sun from behind the clouds during hot weather. Moreover, this plate is a part of the electrical circuit consisting of the source of current, the fan and two contact plates. When the plates connect, the fan switches on. And the other contact plate of this circuit is soldered to the ball mentioned. Then there will be the following. The device capable to switch on the fan (and make it switched on) after appearance of the sun from behind the clouds during hot weather".

If the computer draws conclusion from the thirteenth and the fourteenth conditional propositions using the first rule, then it (i.e. the computer) will obtain the following conditional proposition (I’ve called it the sixteenth conditional proposition).

The sixteenth conditional proposition: "If there is the following. During hot weather, the sun will appear from behind the clouds and begin to shine on a hollow iron ball which lay on the ground and which has diameter of forty centimeters, and there is a contact plate at the distance of 0.2 mm from this ball. The plate is included in an electric circuit consisting of a fan, a source of current and two contact plates, the connection of the plates switches the fan on. And the other contact plate of this circuit is soldered to the ball mentioned. Then there will be the following. Without human assistance, the hollow iron ball will begin to touch the contact plate after appearance of the sun from behind the clouds during hot weather. Moreover, this plate is a part of the electrical circuit consisting of the source of current, the fan and two contact plates. When the plates connect, the fan switches on. And the other contact plate of this circuit is soldered to the ball mentioned".

If the computer draws a conclusion from the fifteenth and the sixteenth conditional propositions using the first rule, then it (i.e. the computer) will obtain the following conditional proposition (I’ve called it the seventeenth conditional proposition).

The seventeenth conditional proposition: "If there is the following. During hot weather, the sun will appear from behind the clouds and begin to shine on a hollow iron ball which lay on the ground and which has diameter of forty centimeters, and there is a contact plate at the distance of 0.2 mm from this ball. The plate is included in an electric circuit consisting of a fan, a source of current and two contact plates, connection of the latter switches the fan on. And the other contact plate of this circuit is soldered to the ball mentioned. Then there will be the following. A device capable of switching on the fan (and get switched on) after appearance of the sun from behind the clouds during hot weather".

Hence it can be seen that if in the computer memory the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth conditional propositions will be stored, and (if) some more small (or large) number of conditional propositions (for example, five conditional propositions) are stored (or not stored) in the memory of this computer, and (if) this computer draws (without human assistance) conclusions (from conditional propositions that will be stored in its memory) using the first rule, [and I believe that three programmers can easily write such program for the computer by means of which program, using the first rule, this computer can draw (without human assistance) propositions which are recorded in its (i.e. this computer’s) memory] [and (if) among these conclusions there are: 1) the conclusion that this computer will draw from the thirteenth and fourteenth conditional propositions; 2) the conclusion that this computer will draw from the fifteenth and sixteenth conditional propositions], and (if) the computer writes to its memory all conditional propositions that it will get with the help of conclusions, using the first rule, in this case, the computer (without human assistance) will receive the seventeenth conditional proposition. And if this computer (without human assistance) obtains the seventeenth conditional proposition, thus, without human assistance, it will invent "a device capable of switching on the fan (and get it switched on) after appearance of the sun from behind the clouds during hot weather".

By the way, devices similar to this device are known. There are many such examples.

Now I will give an example of solving an inventive problem, applying this method of developing inventions (i.e. the first method of developing inventions). Let’s suppose that "a device capable of converting the energy of moving air into light" is not invented. And let’s suppose that in the computer memory the following is stored: the eighteenth conditional proposition, the nineteenth conditional proposition, the twentieth conditional proposition (the conditional propositions are presented below), and other conditional propositions. In this case, this computer will be able to use this method of developing inventions (i.e. the first method of developing inventions) (without human assistance) to invent this device.

As a result of the analysis of references, I have come to the following conclusion. If we consider any created (i.e. invented) invention (i.e. if we take any solved inventive problem) and assume that we do not know that this invention is created (i.e. invented), then in this case, as a rule, one can find such known information, after converting which (i.e. this information) into conditional proposition(s), the computer (or a person) can create this invention for a second time (i.e. once again) by drawing conclusions from this (these) conditional proposition(s) and other known conditional propositions (applying the first rule), i.e. a computer (or a person), as a rule, can create this invention for a second time, applying the first method of developing inventions. If it (i.e. this computer) searches in its own memory for similar words in similar sequences or words with the same meaning as described below in the second method. And if it (i.e. this computer) uses some information outlined in the second method.

But as a result of the analysis of references, I have come to the following conclusion. A computer (or a person) cannot (currently) invent some inventions, that have not been created (i.e. not invented) yet using the first method of developing inventions because for creation (i.e. inventing) of these (some) not yet created inventions with the help of the first method of developing inventions, such unknown information is needed (currently) (I will denote this information with figure "1") after transformation of which into a conditional proposition the computer (or the person) will be able to apply the first method of developing inventions to create these (not yet created) invention. But this information "1" can usually be obtained by executing random experiments. The experiments are described in detail in the seventh method below. And some of not yet created inventions a computer (or a person) can invent (currently) by applying the first method of developing inventions. If it (i.e. this computer) searches in its own memory for similar words in similar sequences or words with the same meaning as described below in the second method. And if it (i.e. this computer) uses some information outlined in the second method.

The second method for developing inventions consists in producing OR-subproblems (which are nodes of the tree for converging the original problem to subproblems) by using conditional propositions

This method is based on: 1) the method of converging the original problem to subproblems which is presented on pages: 251, 252, 253, 254, 278 and 279 of the book titled "Artificial Intelligence", Moscow, Publishing House "Mir", 1978, the author of this book is E. Hunt 2) other materials outlined on these pages of the book, 3) materials presented in the works mentioned at the end of this work.

From this book by E. Hunt, it follows that OR-subproblem of the tree for converging the original problem to subproblems (what is a tree for converging a problem to subproblems will be explained further, as well as examples of such trees will be given further) (by the way, any OR-subproblem is a part of the tree for converging the original problem to subproblems) is such a problem that, having solved it, a computer (or a person) (thereby) will solve not only this (i.e. the last) problem, but also other problem(s) of this tree for converging a problem to subproblems, i.e. OR-subproblem is such a problem by solving which a computer (or a person) (thereby) will solve the problem from which this OR-subproblem was produced (producing of OR-subproblems will be considered further). Now I will give examples of OR-subproblems and these trees.

Let's suppose one need to invent a method allowing to obtain the following (i.e. through which the following will take place): expansion of the steel ball (let’s assume that this method hasn't been invented yet that is, suppose that such an inventive problem has not yet been solved) [i.e. let's say that we need to solve the following inventive problem – to find out what one need to do (i.e. to learn what arrangement of substances should be made) so that the following will be available: expansion of the steel ball (let's call this inventive problem as the original inventive problem)].

It follows from the second conditional proposition that if a computer (or a person) invents a method by which it is possible to heat the steel ball (suppose this method hasn’t been invented yet) [i.e. if a computer (or a person) solves the inventive problem the essence of which is to develop a method that allow to heat the steel ball (the latter problem is OR-subproblem of the original problem)] then this person (thereby) will invent a method by means of which it is possible to obtain expansion of the steel ball.

From the first conditional proposition it follows that in order to solve this inventive OR-subproblem, i.e. in order to develop a method by means of which a steel ball can be heated, it is necessary to solve the following inventive OR-subsubproblem (i.e. it is necessary to solve the following inventive OR-subproblem of the last inventive OR-subproblem), i.e. it is needed to get information which would tell how to obtain the following: the flame of the gas burner touches the lower part of the steel ball. And people know how to get it, i.e. this OR-subsubproblem is the description of substances arrangement that people are able to implement. So it is not needed to solve the last inventive OR-subsubproblem because solution to this problem is known. And if this inventive OR-subsubproblem is solved, then (thereby) the initial problem is solved too.

Similar examples can be written a huge number.

Let’s consider three conditional propositions (I have called these conditional propositions as the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth ones):

The eighteenth conditional proposition: "If there is the following. A device that is capable of producing electric current due to the energy of moving air (i.e. a device that is capable to convert the energy of moving air into electric current). And an electric incandescent lamp, which is so connected to this device that the electric current produced by this device, will pass through this incandescent lamp. Then there will be the following. The device capable to convert the energy of moving air into light".

The nineteenth conditional proposition: "If there is the following. A device that consists of an alternating current generator and a facility that can convert the energy of moving air into rotation of the shaft of this generator. Then there will be the following. A device that is capable of producing electric current due to the energy of moving air (i.e. a device that is capable to convert the energy of moving air into electric current)".

By the way, the AC generator is a facility that is able to produce alternating electric current if the shaft of this generator rotates.

The twentieth conditional proposition: "If there is the following. A device consisting of an AC generator and windmill wings that are rigidly mounted on the shaft of this generator. Then there will be the following. A device that consists of an alternating current generator and a facility that can convert the energy of moving air into rotation of the shaft of this generator.

By the way, if the wind blows on the windmill wings the shaft of the generator rotates. Now I will give more examples of OR-subproblems: if it is necessary to invent the following [i.e. if it is necessary to solve the following inventive problem – to develop (or to obtain information that would explain how one can get the following)]: "The device capable to convert the energy of moving air into light" (let’s assume that such a device has not been invented yet). I will call this inventive problem the original inventive problem. As it follows from the eighteenth conditional proposition, in order to solve this inventive problem it is necessary to get solved the following inventive problem (i.e. the following is necessary to be created) – «A device that is capable of producing electric current due to the energy of moving air (i.e. a device that is capable to convert the energy of moving air into electric current). And an electric incandescent lamp, which is so connected to this device that the electric current produced by this device, will pass through this incandescent lamp».

The last inventive problem will be the inventive OR-subproblem of the original problem. From this inventive OR-subproblem with the help of the nineteenth conditional proposition, it is possible to produce the next inventive OR-subsubproblem (i.e. inventive OR-subproblem of the last inventive OR-subproblem): it is necessary to create the following "Device consisting of an AC generator and a facilities, capable to convert the energy of moving air into rotation of the shaft of this generator. And an electric incandescent lamp, which is connected to this device so that the electric current produced by this device will pass through this incandescent lamp".

From the last inventive OR-subsubproblem with the help of the twentieth conditional proposition it is possible to produce the next inventive OR-subsubproblem (i.e. inventive OR-subproblem of this inventive OR-subsubproblem): to obtain information explaining how to get the following "Device consisting of an AC generator and windmill wings mounted rigidly on the shaft of this generator. And an electric incandescent lamp, which is so connected to this device that the electric current produced by this device will pass through this incandescent lamp". And this inventive OR-subsubproblem does not need to be solved because the solution of this problem is known (i.e. this OR-subsubsubproblem is the description of substances arrangement that people are able to implement). And if this inventive OR-subsubsubproblem is solved, the original problem is solved too.

There are many similar examples. From the above, it is clear that if the computer produces three OR-subproblem by means of the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth conditional propositions only then it will invent a device capable to convert the energy of moving air into light. This can be represented in the form of a graph, called "the tree of converging a problem to subproblems, shown in Figure 1.

Based on the above and on materials stated in the works presented at the end of this work, as well as on the analysis of references, I have come to the following rule (I’ve called this rule "the second rule"):

The second rule: let us take any inventive problem (let us denote this inventive problem with letter "S"). In order for a computer to produce an inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "S") from the inventive problem "S", it (i.e. the computer) should implement one of the following four activities:

1. To find in its own memory such a conditional proposition that has the following feature: the consequence of this conditional proposition and description of this inventive problem "S" have the same meanings (i.e. they have the same sense) [i.e. to find in its own memory such a conditional proposition the consequence of which (the description of this inventive problem "S" has some meaning) has the same meaning]. And the basis of this conditional proposition will be an inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "S"). The following have the same meaning: a) the word and the interpretation of this word, b) synonyms and so on. That is, it is known that it has the same meanings (that is, it is known which combinations of words have the same meanings).

3. To find in its own memory such a conditional proposition that has the following feature: the consequence of this conditional proposition and any part of description of this inventive problem "S" have the same meanings (i.e. to find in its own memory such a conditional proposition that has the following features: a) the consequence of this conditional proposition has some meaning, b) any part of description of this inventive problem "S" has the same meaning). Then the computer should instead of this part of the description of the inventive task “S” establish the basis of this conditional proposition. And thus the description of the inventive task “S” will be transformed into a description of the inventive OR-subtask (this inventive task “S”) [i.e. thus (from description of the inventive problem "S") description of the inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "S") will be formed].

4. Find in your memory such a conditional proposition that has the following feature: the consequence of this conditional proposition and any part of the description of this inventive task “S” consist of the same words in the same sequence (i.e. to find in its own memory such a conditional proposition that has the following features: a) the consequence of this conditional proposition consists of some words standing in some sequence, b) a part of description of this inventive problem "S" consists of the same words standing in the same sequence). Then the computer should instead of this part of the description of the inventive task “S” establish the basis of this conditional proposition. And thereby, the description of the inventive problem "S" will be transformed into description of the inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "S") [i.e. thus (from description of the inventive problem "S") description of the inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "S") will be formed].

By the way, the inventive OR-subproblem is an inventive problem, the inventive OR-subsubproblem is an inventive problem, the inventive OR-subsubsubproblem is an inventive problem, etc. So, applying the second rule, it is possible: a) to produce from inventive OR-subproblem its inventive OR-subproblem, b) to produce from inventive OR-subsubproblem its inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive OR-subsubproblem), c) to produce from inventive OR-subsubsubproblem its inventive OR-subproblem, etc.

The inventive AND-subproblem (what is an inventive AND-subproblem will be said further, in the third method) is an inventive problem, so, applying the second rule it is possible to produce the inventive OR-subproblem from the inventive AND-subproblem (of this inventive AND-subproblem).

Based on the abovementioned and on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that, applying the second rule, as well as the eighteenth conditional proposition, the nineteenth conditional proposition and the twentieth conditional proposition, the computer can produce, without human assistance, three OR-subproblems (which are the nodes of the tree for converging an original problem to subproblems) [and this original problem is as follows: the following is needed to be invented (i.e. it is necessary to have the following): "a device capable to convert the energy of moving air into light"] as a result of this (i.e. by means of this) (i.e. by producing these OR-subproblems), the computer, without human assistance, will invent a "device capable to convert the energy of moving air into light".

There are such inventive problems from each one of which it is possible to produce one inventive OR-subproblem by applying the second rule. There are such inventive problems from each one of which it is possible to produce multiple inventive OR-subproblems by applying the second rule. Let me explain this by the following example: I will consider a conditional proposition (I’ve called this conditional proposition the twenty-first one).

The twenty-first conditional proposition: "If there is the following. A device rubs a piece of rubber over the surface of a steel ball. Then there will be the following. Heating of the steel ball".

If it is necessary to solve the following inventive problem – to develop or obtain information explaining how the following can be obtained: heating of the steel ball (I will call this inventive problem the original inventive problem) (let’s assume that it is unknown how to obtain this). According to the twenty-first conditional proposition, it follows that, in order to solve this inventive problem, it is necessary to solve the following inventive problem: to find out how to act to get the following: the device rubs a piece of rubber over the surface of the steel ball (by the way, it is known that if the steel ball is subjected to friction, then this ball heats up). The latest inventive problem will be the OR-subproblem of this original inventive problem.

According to the first conditional proposition, it follows that, in order to solve this original inventive problem, it is necessary to solve the following inventive problem: to determine how to act to get the following: the flame of the gas burner touches the lower part of the steel ball. The latter inventive problem will be the second OR-subproblem of this original inventive problem.

Figure 2 shows another tree for converging a problem to subproblems.

Figure 2 shows (i.e. illustrates) an arc curve. In the book by E. Hunt specified in the list of printed matters presented at the end of this work it is said that the arc curve binds only AND-subproblems which should be all solved for the relevant problem to be solved (i.e. to solve the problem from which they have been produced). Figure 2 shows nodes of the tree as circles.

The tree for converging a problem to subproblems presented in Figure 1 can be represented (i.e. visualized) as a tree for converging a problem to subproblems in which there are not only OR-subproblems, but also AND-subproblems: such a tree can be seen in Figure 3.

This method of developing inventions (i.e. the second method for developing inventions) consists in that the computer shall try to solve any inventive problem that needs to be solved (I will call the latest problem the original problem) by producing, according to the second rule, OR-subproblems, OR-subsubproblems (i.e. OR-subproblems of OR-subproblems), OR-subsubsubproblems (i.e. OR-subproblems of OR-subsubproblems), etc. [i.e. by producing, according to the second rule, OR-subproblems, and these OR-subproblems, OR-subsubproblems and OR-subsubsubproblems, etc. shall be nodes of the tree for converging the initial problem to subproblems (i.e. they shall be a part of the tree of converging the initial problem to subproblems)] until the end of the moment at which (i.e. until) the computer produces such an OR-subproblem the solution of which is known (and if such an OR-subproblem is produced, then the original problem will be solved), i.e. until the end of the moment at which the computer produces such description of the OR-subproblem which is description of substances arrangement (or which is description of continuously changing arrangement of substances) that people will be able to implement (with or without the help of devices) at the time when this description of the OR-subproblem is produced (i.e. until the end of the moment at which such description of OR-subproblems is produced which is the description of something that people will be able to implement at the time when this description of the OR-subproblem is produced). If, for example, 400 random physical effects in the form of conditional propositions are stored in the computer memory (an average inventor knows 150 physical effects), then the computer can create on average not a few inventions by applying this method (i.e. the second method).

Based on the analysis of the references, I have come to conclusion that, if a computer takes any inventive problem (let’s call this problem the original inventive problem) in order for the computer to solve this original inventive problem, it is necessary for the computer to produce on average 90 (ninety) OR-subproblems that will be nodes of the tree for converging this original inventive problem to subproblems.

Now I will give an example of solving an inventive problem by applying this method of developing inventions (i.e. the second method for developing inventions). Let us suppose that it is necessary to invent the following [i.e. it is necessary to solve the following inventive problem – to develop (or obtain information explaining how to obtain the following)] "A device capable to switch a fan on after the sun appears from behind the clouds during hot weather" (let’s assume that such a device has not been invented yet). And let’s suppose that in the computer memory the thirteenth conditional proposition, the fourteenth conditional proposition and the fifteenth conditional proposition are stored. In this case, by applying this method for developing inventions (i.e. the second method for developing inventions) (without human assistance), this computer will be able to invent this device [i.e. if the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and other conditional propositions are stored in the computer memory, then in this case, this computer will be able to apply this method of developing inventions and (without human assistance) invent this device].

As a result of the analysis of references, I have come to the following conclusion. If we take any created (i.e. invented) invention (i.e. if we take any solved inventive problem) and assume that we do not know that this invention has already been created (i.e. invented), then in this case, as a rule, it is now possible to find such known information after transformation of which (i.e. of this information) into conditional proposition(s), a computer (or a person) will be able to create this invention once again (i.e. repeatedly) by applying the second method for developing inventions (i.e. this method for developing inventions).

But as a result of the analysis of references, I have come to the following conclusion. Some inventions that have not yet been created (that is, not invented) cannot be created (currently) by a computer (or a person) by applying the second method for developing inventions because for creation (i.e. invention) of these (some) not yet created inventions by applying the second method for developing inventions such unknown (currently) information (I denote this information with figure "1") is necessary that after its transformation into conditional propositions a computer (or a person) will be able to apply the second method for developing inventions and create these (not yet created) inventions. But this information "1" can usually be obtained by executing random experiments. The experiments are described in detail in the seventh method below. And some of not yet created inventions can be invented (currently) by a computer (or a person) by applying the second method for developing inventions.

Now I will consider a conditional proposition (I have called this conditional proposition the seventh one).

The seventh conditional proposition: "If there is the following. Heating of a big iron ball. Then there will be the following. Expansion of the big iron ball".

Let’s consider the following example: let’s assume that a computer should solve the following inventive problem (let’s call this inventive problem the original inventive problem), i.e. the computer should determine what is needed to be done to obtain the following: Expansion of a large iron ball (i.e. the computer shall define how to obtain the following: Expansion of a large iron ball). And let’s suppose that this seventh conditional proposition is stored in the computer memory. Description of the original inventive problem and the consequence of the seventh conditional proposition do not consist of the same words standing in the same sequence, but description of the original inventive problem and the consequence of the seventh conditional proposition have the same meaning (because words "big" and "large" have the same meaning), so, applying the second rule (and the seventh conditional proposition), a computer can produce an inventive OR-subproblem (of the original inventive problem) from the original inventive problem. And the more OR-subproblems a computer produces, the higher is the probability that it will solve the original inventive problem.

In connection with this [i.e. due to the fact that description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented) and the consequence of (some) conditional proposition (stored in the memory of this computer) may have the same meaning but consist of different words], for creating any invention, the computer should search in its memory for a conditional proposition [which has the following special feature: the consequence of this conditional proposition and description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented) have the same meaning] as follows (i.e. in a way described below).

First, the computer should identify (i.e. compare) the following: the first word of description of the inventive problem (that needs to be invented) is the same as the first word of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition or not the same. Whether the same or not the same, anyway, after this the computer should identify (the following: if there is (are) a synonym or synonyms for the first word in description of this inventive problem) by using the dictionary of synonyms which is stored in the computer memory [this sentence says "if the same or not the same, anyway, after this the computer should identify…", because if the computer has to act so, in this case it will be easier for programmer (who will create a program for a computer to invent by itself) to create the program, than if the computer acts differently (i.e. if the first word of description of the inventive problem is the same as the first word of the consequence of the conditional proposition, the computer has to act in one way, and if the word is not the same, the computer has to act in another way); in the text below similar situations are outlined, this is also necessary to simplify creation of the program (which lets the computer to invent by itself) by the programmer] (synonyms are various words with the same meaning, a dictionary of synonyms can be downloaded to computer for money). If the first word in description of this inventive problem has synonyms, then the computer should define (i.e. compare) if the next first synonym for the first word of description of the inventive problem (let’s give the name of the first synonym for the word to such a synonym of this word which is written before other synonyms for this word in the dictionary of synonyms used by the computer) is the same as the first word of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition or not the same (on average, one word has two synonyms).

Then the computer should define (i.e. compare) if the next second synonym for the first word of description of this inventive problem [let’s give the name of the second synonym of the word to such a synonym of the word which is written (i.e. located) immediately after the first synonym for the word in the dictionary of synonyms used by the computer] is the same as the first word of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition or not the same. Then the computer should define (i.e. compare) if the next third synonym for the first word of description of this inventive problem [let’s give the name of the third synonym for the word to such a synonym for the word which is written (i.e. located) immediately after the second synonym for this word in the dictionary of synonyms used by the computer] is the same as the first word of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition or not the same, and so on. The computer has to subject all synonyms for the first word of description of this inventive problem to the same procedure (i.e. comparison). Then the computer has to define (i.e. compare) whether the next first word of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented) [or at least one of synonyms for this first word of description of the inventive problem to be invented (if this word has synonyms)] is the same as the second word of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition or not the same.

Then the computer has to define (i.e. compare) whether the next first word of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented) [or at least one of synonyms for this first word of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented) (if this word has synonyms)] is the same as the third word of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition or not the same. And so on, the computer has to compare the fourth, fifth and all other words of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition with the first word [and all its (i.e. of the first word) synonyms] of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented). Then the computer has to compare each word (i.e. at first the first word, then the second word, etc.) of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition with the second word [and all its (i.e. of the second word) synonyms] of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented).

Then the computer has to compare in the same way each word (i.e. at first the first word, then the second word, etc.) of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition (to compare in the same way, i.e. to define whether the word to be compared is the same as the word with which it is compared or not the same) with the third word [and all its (i.e. of the third word) synonyms] of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented) and so on; the computer also has to compare the fourth, fifth and all other words (i.e. each other word) of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented) [and with all their (i.e. of these words) synonyms (i.e. with each of their synonyms)] with all words (i.e. with each word) of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition. That is, the computer should try to find in description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented) all similar words (i.e. maximum number of similar words) (and all words with the same meaning) as the words of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition.

Then the computer has in the same way to compare each word (i.e. at first the first word, then the second word, etc.) of the consequence of the second (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition (to compare in the same way means to define whether the word to be compared is the same as the word with which it is compared or not the same) with all words (i.e. with each word) of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented) [and with all their (i.e. of these words) synonyms (i.e. with each of their synonyms)].

Then the computer has to compare each word (i.e. at first the first word, then the second word, etc.) of the consequence of the third (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition with all words (i.e. with each word) of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented) [and with all their (i.e. of these words) synonyms (i.e. with each of their synonyms)]. And so on (i.e. continuing this), the computer has to compare in the same way (as a result) each word (i.e. at first the first word, then the second word, etc.) of the consequence of each (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition [to compare in the same way means to define whether the word to be compared is the same (i.e. of the same meaning) as the word with which it is compared, or not the same] with all words (i.e. with each word) of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented) [and with all their (i.e. of these words) synonyms (i.e. with each their synonym)].

The Russian language explanatory dictionary [where 4,000 words are explained (by the way, an average inventor knows about 3,000 explanations of words)] has to be stored in the computer memory. The Russian language explanatory dictionary can be downloaded to the computer for a fee. Then the computer has to find in this explanatory dictionary the explanation of the first word of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented). Then the computer has to compare the first word of the explanation of the first word of description of the inventive problem with the first word of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition. Then the computer has to compare the first word of the explanation of the first word of description of this inventive problem with the second word of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition. Then – with the third, the fourth and so on; the computer has to compare (the first word of the explanation of the first word of description of this inventive problem) with all words of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition. Then the computer has to compare the second word of the explanation of the first word of description of this inventive problem with the first word of this consequence, and then – with the second, third, fourth and other words of this consequence. Then the computer has to compare the third word of the explanation of the first word of description of this inventive problem with the first word of this consequence, and then to do the same with the second, third, fourth and other words of this consequence. Then the computer has to compare the fourth, fifth and other words of the explanation of the first word of description of this inventive problem with all words of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition. Then the computer has to compare the first word of the explanation of the second word of description of the inventive problem with the first, second, third and all other words of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition. Then the computer has to compare the second, third, fourth and all other words of the explanation of the second word of description of this inventive problem with all words of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition. And so on, the computer has to compare all words of explanations of all words of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented) with all words of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition. Then the computer has to compare all words of explanations of all words of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented) with all words of the consequence of the second (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition, then with all words of the consequence of the third (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition, then – of the fourth, fifth and all other conditional propositions (stored in the computer memory). That is the computer has to compare all words of explanations of all words of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented) with all words of all consequences of all conditional propositions (stored in the computer memory).

Then the computer has to compare the first word of explanation of the first word of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition with the first word of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented). Then the computer has to compare the first word of explanation of the first word of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition with the second word of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented). Then – with the third, fourth and all other words of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented). Then the computer has to compare the second word of explanation of the first word of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition with the first word of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented). Then the computer has to compare the second word of explanation of the first word of the consequence of the first (recorded in the computer memory) conditional proposition with the second, third and all other words of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented). Then the computer has to compare the third, fourth and all other words of explanation of the first word of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition with all words of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented). Then the computer has to compare all words of explanation of the second word of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition with all words of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented). Then the computer has to compare all words of explanations of the third, fourth, fifth and all other words of the consequence of the first (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition with all words of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented). Then the computer has to compare all words of explanations of all words of the consequence of the second (stored in the computer memory) conditional proposition with all words of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented). Then the computer has to compare all words of explanations of all words of the consequence of the third, fourth and all other (stored in the computer memory) conditional propositions with all words of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented). That is the computer has to compare all words of explanations of all words of all consequences of all conditional propositions (stored in the computer memory) with all words of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented).

It should be written in the computer memory that a word has some meaning and description of explanation of this word has the same meaning.

It is necessary in order that the computer could find more such consequences of conditional propositions, each of which has the following specific feature: the consequence of this conditional proposition and description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented) have the same meaning or consist of the same words (or of words with the same meaning) (it is desirable, but not necessary for these words to stand in the same sequence). I will explain this by the following example: if the computer needs to solve the following inventive problem, i.e. the computer has to determine what to do to obtain following: "a big stone will expand", and the consequence of the conditional proposition stored in the computer memory contains only words "a large stone will expand", words "big" and "large" are synonyms, and that’s why in the consequence of the conditional proposition word "big" can be replaced by word "large" (and it is desirable to make the same replacement in the basis of this conditional proposition). And after this replacement, the computer can produce OR-subproblem [because after this replacement, the consequence of this conditional proposition and description of this inventive problem will consist of the same words (it is desirable but not obligatory for these words to stand in the same sequence)], and if not to do this replacement, the computer will not be able to produce this OR-subproblem, and the more OR-subproblems the computer can produce, the more the probability of solving the original inventive problem by the computer, and the more inventions the computer can create.

As a result of the above comparisons, the computer has to memorize what words with the same meaning (by the way, similar words have similar meanings, and synonyms have the same meanings too) it has found as a result of these comparisons and where those words are, i.e. at which places of the conventional propositions and at which places of description of the inventive problems those words are located, and at which places what words are located, i.e. at which place of these places which word is located.

Let’s suppose that a computer has found in its memory such a conditional proposition which has the following features:

a) the first word of the consequence of this conditional proposition is the same (or has the same meaning) as a word of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented)

b) the second word of the consequence of this conditional proposition is the same (or has the same meaning) as a word of description of the inventive problem (which needs to be invented)

c) the third word of the consequence of this conditional proposition is the same (or has the same meaning) as a word of description of this inventive problem (which needs to be invented). And so on, each word of the consequence of this conditional proposition is the same (or has the same meaning) as a word of description of this inventive problem (which needs to be invented)

d) the consequence of this conditional proposition consists of a certain number of words, and description of this inventive problem (which needs to be invented) consists of the same number of words

e) the words which the consequence of this conditional proposition consists of, stand in some sequence, and the words which description of this inventive problem (which needs to be invented) consists of, are in a different sequence (I will explain this by example: the third word of this conditional proposition has some meaning, and the word with the same meaning is, for example, the fifth in description of this inventive problem).

If this is present, then in this case:

1) the consequence of this conditional proposition will generally have the same meaning as description of this inventive problem (which needs to be invented)

2) this computer has to assume that the consequence of this conditional proposition will have the same meaning as description of this inventive problem (which needs to be invented). The computer should act in a similar way when comparing (i.e. considering) the consequence of a conditional proposition with a part of description of the inventive problem. This is necessary to simplify the work for creating a program using which the computer can invent by itself.

And if the computer has found in its memory such a conditional proposition which has the following feature, the consequence of this conditional proposition will have the same meaning as description of the inventive problem (that needs to be invented), then the computer can produce OR-subproblem, and the more OR-subproblems the computer produces, the higher is the probability of solving the inventive problem (that needs to be solved).

If in the consequence of a conditional proposition (or in description of the inventive problem which needs to be invented) includes a noun without an adjective (which refers to this noun, i.e. which explains this noun) and without a participial phrase (which refers to this noun, i.e. which explains this noun) and without a participle (which refers to this noun, i.e. which explains this noun), then to this noun can be added (i.e. it is possible to write adjacent to this noun) any adjective (which refers to this noun, i.e. which explains this noun), or/and any participial phrase (which refers to this noun, i.e. which explains this noun), or/and any participle (which refers to this noun, i.e. which explains this noun).

This is because a noun with an adjective (which refers to this noun) or/and with a participial phrase (which refers to this noun), or/and with a participle (which refers to this noun) is a special case of the same noun without an adjective or/and without a participial phrase or/and without a participle.

For example, a computer has to solve the following inventive problem, i.e. a computer has to define what is needed to be done to obtain the following: a green stone having diameter of five centimeters will expand, and for example, if the consequence of conditional proposition (which is stored in the computer memory) contains only words "a stone will expand", this (i.e. the latest) word "stone": a) without: an adjective (which refers to word "stone"), b) without a participial phrase (which refers to word "stone"), c) without a participle (which refers to word "stone"), then in this consequence of this conditional proposition, word "stone" can be replaced with words "green stone having diameter of five centimeters" (and it is desirable to make the same replacement in the basis of this conditional proposition). This (i.e. what is not in brackets) is because the word "stone" with the word "green" (which refers to word "stone") and with the participial phrase: "having diameter of five centimeters" (this participle refers to this word "stone") are a special case of the word "stone". Because if the word "stone" is said, and it is not specified what stone, it means any stone. And after this replacement of the word "stone" with the words "green stone having diameter of five centimeters", the computer can produce OR-subproblem (because after this replacement the consequence of this conditional proposition and description of this inventive problem will consist of the same words in the same sequence), and if this replacement is not done, then the computer will not be able to produce this OR-subproblem, and the more OR-subproblems the computer can produce, the higher is the probability of solving the original inventive problem by the computer, and the more inventions the computer can create.

In connection with the aforesaid, it is necessary that the person who will write description of the inventive problem which the computer has to invent, and those who will write the conditional propositions that will be stored in the computer memory after they write it, separately noted where in what they have written is the following: each participial phrase (which they have written), each participle (which they have written) and each adjective (which they have written), as well as each noun (which they have written). And it is necessary for them to record which participial phrase explains which noun (i.e. which participial phrase refers to which noun), and which adjective explains which noun (i.e. which adjective refers to which noun), and which participle explains which noun, i.e. as a result of this, they should specify all nouns which they have recorded, and which are explained by adjectives, participles and participial phrases (which they have recorded). This is necessary to simplify work for creating the program by means of which the computer can invent by itself.

After the computer has solved the inventive problem given to it by the computer owner (let’s call this problem the original inventive problem), it (i.e. the computer) has to present for the computer owner a conditional proposition which has the following feature: the consequence of this conditional proposition and description of the original inventive problem consist of the same words (i.e. have the same meanings) (it is desirable but not necessary that these words stand in the same sequence). After that, the computer has to state that the basis of this conditional proposition has become the inventive OR-subproblem of the original inventive problem. Then the computer has to state the conditional proposition the consequence of which and description of this OR-subproblem consist of the same words (i.e. they have the same meanings) (it is desirable, but not necessary that these words stand in the same sequence).

After that, the computer is to state that the basis of this (i.e. of the latest) conditional proposition has become an inventive OR-subsubproblem of the original inventive problem. Then the computer has to state a conditional proposition the consequence of which and description of this OR-subsubproblem consist of the same words (i.e. they have the same meanings) (it is desirable, but not necessary that these words stand in the same sequence). After that, the computer has to state that the basis of this (i.e. of the latest) conditional proposition has become an inventive OR-subsubsubproblem of the original inventive problem. And so on, until the computer obtains an OR-subproblem, the solution of which is known. This will be the description of solved original inventive problem.

In sentences sometimes there are words that are not written but implied. But this is a rare case. Therefore, it is not necessary to change anything in the program (by means of which the computer can invent by itself) in this respect. But during presentation of conditional propositions (which will be written in the computer memory and in descriptions of inventive problems) it is necessary to use as little as possible words that are not written but implied. This (i.e. that is stated in this paragraph) is necessary to simplify work for creation of the program by means of which the computer can invent by itself.

If a person writes (i.e. presents) a description of any conditional proposition (in order to write this conditional proposition to the computer memory) (or if a person writes, i.e. presents a description of any inventive problem to be invented by computer), and if this person uses word "he" (or "she", or "this", or "these", etc.), then right after this word (i.e. "he", or "she", or "this", or "these", etc.), this person should write in brackets what he (she) (i.e. this person) means by this word "he" (or "she", or "this", or "these", etc.). And to the computer memory it is necessary to write that instead of word "he" (or "she", or "this", or "these", etc.) the computer can place words that are in brackets right after the word "he" (or "she", or "this", or "these", etc.). But if word "he" (or "she", or "this", or "these", etc.) is presented in the consequence of a conditional proposition, then it should not indicate the word (or words) which are in the basis of that conditional proposition. For example, "if a stone is heated, it will expand". In the consequence of this proposition, it is necessary to write word "stone" instead of word "it". And the person has to use the word "he" (or "she", or "this", or "these", etc.) as rare as possible in description of each conditional proposition that the person writes and in description of each inventive problem that the person writes.

If a person (which will convert scientific information into conditional propositions to be written to computer memory) obtains a conditional proposition in the consequence of which (let’s mark this conditional proposition with number "2") some of effects are presented, then instead of the conditional proposition, he (she) should write to computer memory several conditional propositions in the consequence of which only one effect will be presented, herewith, this effect will be presented in the conditional proposition "2".

In the consequence of each conditional proposition (which is stored in the computer memory), it is necessary to present only information as follows: what will happen if one does (or if happen) the thing presented in the basis of this conditional proposition. That is, in the consequence of each conditional proposition it is not necessary to explain why (or how to obtain that) will happen the thing presented in the consequence of the conditional proposition. For example: 1) if a stone is heated, the stone will expand, 2) if to send the sound through liquid containing small particles, the small particles that are in the liquid, will stick together.

In order that a computer could identify whether the following is description of the inventive OR-subproblem that it (i.e. the computer) has produced is the problem that has already been solved (i.e. the problem that does not need to be solved) or not, it is necessary to do the following:

1) To write to the computer memory descriptions of 500 inventive problems that have already been solved (by the way, an average inventor usually knows not more than 500 inventive problems that have already been solved).

2) To write to the computer memory descriptions of 500 (almost the most common, i.e. not particular) arrangements of substances that people are able to compose (an average inventor usually knows not more than 500 almost the most common substances arrangements that people are able to compose).

3) The computer has to find in its memory the description of such solved inventive problem which has the same meaning as description of this OR-subproblem. And if the computer finds in its memory such description of solved inventive problem, then this OR-subproblem is solved, therefore, the original problem is solved (if the solution tree of this initial problem consists only of OR-subproblems). How a computer can find descriptions with the same meanings, is outlined in this paper.

Now I will give an example of description of the particular substances arrangement that people are able to compose: people can place on the ground a stone the length of which is two centimeters. Now let me give an example of description of general arrangement of substances: people can place on the ground any stone which is longer than two, but shorter than five centimeters. Now let me give an example of description of substances arrangement (which is more general than description of the previous substances arrangement): people can place on the ground any stone the length of which is more than two but less than six centimeters.

General arrangement of substances includes the infinity of particular arrangements of substances, each of which is a special case of this general arrangement of substances. If description of the inventive OR-subproblem (which the computer has produced) consists only of description of the particular arrangement of substances, which is a special case of the general arrangement of substances (which is stored in the computer memory), and if in the computer memory it is recorded that people can make any particular arrangement of substances, which is a special case of this general arrangement of substances, then the computer has to inform the user of this computer that description of this inventive OR- subproblem is description of the substances arrangement that people can compose, i.e. this inventive OR-subproblem is solved hence the original problem is solved (if the solution tree of this initial problem consists only of OR-subproblems).

If the same word can be written in several variants (i.e. forms), and all of these variants will have the same meaning (there are usually, on average six such variants), it is necessary to write to the computer memory all these variants. For example: white, of white, to white, by white. And it is to be written to computer memory that instead of a word that has some meaning, the computer can place another form (i.e. variant) of the word with the same meaning. For example, instead of the word "white", the computer may place word "of white". This (i.e. that is stated in this paragraph) is necessary to simplify work for creation of program by means of which the computer can invent by itself. By the way, in some languages words almost do not have endings.

In a program (by means of which the computer will be able to invent by itself) it does not need to change anything in connection with the use in conditional propositions in descriptions (and in descriptions of inventive problems) of word "will" in various personal forms because such words are rarely used. This is necessary to simplify work for creating the program by means of which the computer can invent by itself.

It is not necessary to use what is stated in the Russian language phraseological dictionary and in the dictionary of the Russian language phraseological synonyms for creation of a program by means of which the computer will be able to invent by itself because these dictionaries usually contain (i.e. explain) rarely used expressions such as "bear on the ear has stepped (tin ear)". This is necessary to simplify work for creating the program by means of which the computer can invent by itself.

The person [who writes a conditional proposition (which will be written to the computer memory) or description of an inventive problem (which needs to be invented)] should not use the phrase "that is" for writing it. This is necessary to simplify work for creating a program by means of which the computer can invent by itself.

A person who will write (i.e. state) description of the inventive problem that the computer will have to invent, will have to write this description of the inventive problem twice, if possible, but the first of these descriptions shall be stated with the help of some words, and the second of these descriptions shall be stated, if possible, with the help of other words.

Based on the aforesaid and on the analysis of the references, one can conclude that with the help of this method of developing inventions (i.e. the second method of developing inventions) three programmers can easily create such program for the computer, by means of which the computer will be able invent many inventions without human assistance.

In order for the computer to create enough inventions with the help of this program, in memory of this computer not only the software using which the computer will be able to invent by itself but also the following information has to be stored (let’s mark this information with number "1"): 1) 400 random physical effects in the form of conditional propositions (an average inventor knows 150 physical effects), 2) 500 solved inventive problems, 3) almost 500 of the most general arrangements of substances, which people can compose, 4) dictionary of synonyms which sets out 5,000 synonyms (this dictionary can be downloaded for money from the Internet), 5) the Russian language explanatory dictionary which explains 4,000 words.

And the more such information "1" is stored in the computer memory, the more inventions this computer will be able to create.

The third method for developing inventions consisting in

producing of AND-subproblems and OR-subproblems

(which are nodes of the tree of converging the initial problem to subproblems)
with the help of conditional propositions

To create this method, I have used contents of works the list of which is presented at the end of this work.

AND-subproblems of a problem (I will denote the latter problem with letter "L") constitute a group of problems that are to be solved in order to solve this problem "L". Therefore, the problem will be solved if all its AND-subproblems are solved, which are to be solved in order to solve this problem. Now I will give examples of AND-subproblems.

Suppose that it is necessary to invent (i.e. suppose that this is necessary to have invented) a device (i.e. structure) which is able, without human assistance, to saw logs crosswise (suppose that such a device hasn't been invented yet) (I will call this inventive problem as the original problem). In order for this original problem has been solved we have to solve two following problems (which will be AND-subproblems of the original problem): 1) to invent (i.e. to get invented) a device that will convert electric current into rotation of the disk (i.e. a flat round plate) with cogs along the edges of this disk (suppose that such a device hasn’t been invented yet); 2) to invent (i.e. to get invented) a device that, without human assistance, can slowly move a log in the direction where this disk is located (while it is rotating), so that, slowly sawing a log crosswise, this disk should deepen into the log (while before the beginning of this slow movement of the log in the direction where this disk is located, this log should be located very close to this disk), while the radius of this disk is to be more than the thickness (i.e. the diameter) of any log (suppose that such a device has not been invented yet).

If only one of the previous two AND-subproblems is solved, then the original problem will not be solved.

If to take any problem (let’s mark this problem with letter "D") from which it is possible to produce AND-subproblems, then all AND-subproblems of this problem D (all of which need to be solved in order to solve the problem D) can be combined into one OR-subproblem of this problem D [i.e. all AND-subproblems of this problem D (all of which need to be solved in order to solve the problem D) can be replaced by one OR-subproblem of this problem D]. And this OR-subproblem can be produced from the problem D with the help of one conditional proposition (an example of such a conditional proposition will be given further) and the second rule [based on the aforesaid and on the analysis of references, I have come to the following conclusion: with the help of second method of developing inventions this OR-subproblem can be solved sometimes (i.e. with the help of the second method of developing inventions, this OR-subproblem can or cannot be solved)]. Now let me give an example of such a conditional proposition (I have called this conditional proposition as the twenty-second conditional proposition).

The twenty-second conditional proposition. "If there is the following. There has been invented a device that can convert electric current into rotation of the disk (i.e. a flat round plate) with cogs along the edges of this disk. And there has been invented a device that without human assistance can slowly move a log in the direction where this disk is located (while it is rotating), so that slowly sawing the log crosswise this disk should deepen into the log (while before the beginning of this slow movement of the log in the direction where this disk is located, this log should be located very close to this disk), while the radius of this disk is to be more than the thickness (i.e. the diameter) of any log. Then there will be the following. There has been invented a device that is able to saw logs crosswise without human assistance.

In this respect let’s assume that two devices which are described in the basis of this conditional proposition and one device described in the consequence of this conditional proposition have not been invented yet.

Let’s suppose that there is a need to invent (i.e. to get this invented) a device that is able without human assistance to saw logs crosswise (I will call this problem as the original problem) (let us assume that such a device hasn't been invented yet). By applying the twenty-second conditional proposition and the second rule, this initial problem can produce one OR-subproblem of the original problem which consists of two AND-subproblems of the original problem (and the basis of the twenty-second conditional proposition will be this OR-subproblem). Now I will present these two AND-subproblems: 1) to invent (i.e. to do so to get this invented) a device that can convert electric current into rotation of the disk (i.e. a flat round plate) with cogs along the edges of this disk; 2) to invent (i.e. to do so to get this invented) a device which without human assistance will be able to slowly move any log in the direction where this disk is located (while it rotates), so that slowly sawing the log crosswise this disk should deepen into the log (while before the beginning of this slow movement of the log in the direction where this disk is located, this log should be located very close to this disk), while the radius of this disk is to be more than the thickness (i.e. the diameter) of any log.

In this respect, let us assume that these two inventions have not been invented yet. Let’s call an OR-subproblem that consists of two or more AND-subproblems, as the composite OR-subproblem. And let’s call an OR-subproblem that consists of one problem, as a single OR-subproblem [on p. 514 of the first volume of the four-volume dictionary of the Russian language, Publishing House "Russkiy yazyk", dated 1981, it is said that "a problem is what needs to be done, to be solved". So a problem can consist of two or more problems. From pages 398 and 399 (i.e. columns) of the fourth volume of The Contemporary Russian Literary Language Dictionary in 17 volumes, Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, dated 1955, I quote: "And so, the problem, or "special task", like the Admiral said: to find and destroy it (the German raider)... (Kharitonov: ) Fellow squad leaders! Listen to task! Aircraft discovered in sea a major enemy’s submarine, both squads to take off at three zero-zero, go to find for attacking and destroying". These quotes confirm the following: a problem can consist of two or more problems].

Based on the above, on the contents of works the list of which is presented at the end of this paper, and the analysis of references, I have come to the following rule (I have called this rule as the fourth rule):

The fourth rule: Let us take any inventive problem (let us mark this inventive problem with letter "G"). In order for the computer to produce from the inventive problem "G" the inventive AND-subproblems (of this inventive problem "G") (inventive AND-subproblems are considered above) (all of which are to be solved in order to solve the inventive problem "G") it (i.e. the computer) has to implement one of two following activities:

1. To find in its own memory such a conditional proposition that has the following feature: the consequence of this conditional proposition and description of this inventive problem "G" have the same meanings [i.e. to find in its own memory such a conditional proposition the consequence of which (description of this inventive problem "G" has some meaning) has the same meaning]. And the basis of this conditional proposition will be the inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "G"). And if this OR-subproblem consists of several (or two) problems, then the latter problems (i.e. problems which this OR-subproblem consists of) will be inventive AND-subproblems of this inventive problem "G" (all of which are to be solved in order to solve the inventive problem "G"). [further (i.e. almost immediately after description of this rule) the following is stated: with the help of which the computer can define how many problems constitute the OR-subproblem]

2. To find in its own memory such a conditional proposition that has the following feature: the consequence of this conditional proposition and description of this inventive problem "G" consist of the same words in the same sequence [i.e. to find in its own memory such a conditional proposition the consequence of which (description of this inventive problem "G" consists of some words in a sequence) consists of the same words in the same sequence]. And the basis of this conditional proposition will be inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "G"). And if this OR-subproblem consists of several (or two) problems, then the latter problems (i.e. problems constituting this OR-subproblem) will be AND-subproblems of this inventive problem "G" (all of which are to be solved in order to solve the inventive problem "G").

The inventive OR-subproblem is an inventive problem, so, by applying the fourth rule, the computer may produce inventive AND-subproblems from inventive OR-subproblems. The inventive OR-subsubproblem is an inventive problem, the inventive OR-subsubsubproblem is an inventive problem, etc. Thus, by applying the fourth rule, a computer can produce from an inventive OR-subsubproblem, an inventive OR-subsubsubproblem, etc., their inventive AND-subproblems. The inventive AND-subproblem is an inventive problem, so, by applying the fourth rule, a computer may produce inventive AND-subproblems of the inventive AND-subproblem, i.e., by applying the fourth rule, a computer may produce from inventive AND-subproblem its inventive AND-subproblems.

It is necessary for a person who will write a conditional proposition to the computer memory to define (and to write to the computer memory) the following: how many inventive problems are stated in the basis of the conditional proposition which he (she) will write to the computer memory, and if the basis of this conditional proposition contains more than one inventive problem, this person has to define where the inventive problems start, and where the inventive problems end (in description of the basis of the conditional proposition which he (she) will write to the computer memory) (by the way, the Russian language dictionaries say that invention is something new). With the help this, a computer can determine how many problems constitute the inventive OR-subproblem and where descriptions of these problems start and end (in description of this OR-subproblem).

If a person gives a task to a computer to solve some inventive problem (let’s mark this problem with number "1"), then this person has to define how many inventive problems constitute this problem "1", and if this problem "1" consists of several problems, then this person has to define where descriptions of these problems begin and where descriptions of these problems end (in description of the inventive problem "1").

This method of developing inventions (i.e. the third method of developing inventions) is as follows: (let’s take any inventive problem that needs to be solved, and let's call the latter inventive problem as the original inventive problem) first, the computer should try to solve this original inventive problem by means of producing (by applying the fourth rule, the first part of the second rule and the second part of the second rule) inventive OR-subproblems and inventive AND-subproblems [and these OR-subproblems and these AND-subproblems are to be nodes of the tree for converging the original problem to subproblems (i.e. they are to be part of the tree for converging the original problem to the subproblems)] till the end of the moment at which (i.e. until) such OR-subproblem or such a AND-subproblem is produced (by the computer) a solution of which is known [i.e. until the end of the moment at which such description of OR-subproblem or AND-subproblem is produced (by the computer) which is a description of substances arrangement (or which is description of continuously changing substances arrangement) that people will be able to compose (without help of any devices or with the help of known devices) at the time when this description of OR-subproblem or AND-subproblem is produced (by the computer); (if the computer will generate this description of OR-subproblem or AND-subproblem, it means that this description of OR-subproblem or AND-subproblem will be description of the solved problem), i.e. before the moment at which such description of OR-subproblem or AND-subproblem is produced (by the computer) which will be description of what people could implement at the time when this description of OR-subproblem or AND-subproblem is produced (if the computer produces this description of OR-subproblem or AND-subproblem, it means that this description of OR-subproblem or AND-subproblem is the description of the solved problem)]. Then the corresponding node (of the tree for converging the original problem to subproblems) should be marked by the computer as solved. Then, if one can still mark any node (or nodes) of the tree as solved this (these) node (or nodes) should be marked by the computer as solved [by the way, if a node of the tree for converging the problem to subproblems can be marked by computer as solved, then sometimes the computer can mark another (or other) node (or nodes) of this tree as solved]. In this case, following should be taken into account: 1) any node from which an OR-subproblem has been produced can be marked by computer as solved if this OR-subproblem has been solved (i.e. if this OR-subproblem is marked as solved), 2) the computer can mark any node (of this tree) as solved if all AND-subproblems that have been produced from this node with the help of one conditional proposition [i.e. any node (of this tree) can be marked by computer as solved if all AND-subproblems produced from this node with the help of one conditional proposition are marked as solved].

Then, if after this the original inventive problem remains unsolved (i.e. is not marked as solved by the computer), the computer should repeat all activities described above (necessary for solving the latest original problem) (by the way, in particular, this method of developing inventions consists in these activities) once again, i.e. then the computer has to do the following: to repeat (i.e. to continue) this process of producing (by applying the fourth rule, the first part of the second rule and the second part of the second rule) inventive OR-subproblems and inventive AND-subproblems (and these OR-subproblems and these AND-subproblems must be nodes of the tree for converging the original problem to subproblems) again and again until the end of the moment at which such an OR-subproblem or such an AND-subproblem is produced (by the computer) the solution of which is known, i.e. again until the end of the moment at which such an OR-subproblem or such an AND-subproblem is produced that can be marked by the computer as solved. Then the following should be repeated: if the computer can mark another node (or several other nodes) of this tree as solved then this (these) node (or nodes) should be marked by the computer as solved.

Then, if after this the original problem is not solved, the computer should once again repeat these actions [which have been repeated (i.e. re-implemented) and which are necessary for solving the latest original inventive problem (by the way, in particular, this method of developing inventions consists in these activities)] [i.e. the computer has to do, in particular, the following – to repeat (i.e. to continue) this process of producing AND-subproblems and OR-subproblems by applying the fourth rule, the first part of the second rule and the second part of the second rule, and it is necessary to repeat again and again other above described actions which have been repeated (i.e. repeatedly implemented), and which are necessary for solution of the latest initial inventive problem]. Then, if after this the original problem is not solved, these actions [which have been repeated twice (i.e. implemented twice) and which are necessary for solving the latest original inventive problem (by the way, in particular, this method of developing inventions consists in these activities)] should be repeated by computer again and again (i.e. and so on and so forth) until the original problem can be marked by the computer as solved, i.e. until the end of the moment at which the original problem is solved.

The fourth method for developing inventions consisting in drawing conclusions from conditional propositions and/or from images and conditional propositions which contains references to these images

Based on the analysis of references, I came to conclusion that there are such kinds of information, each one of which can be stated not only in the form of a conditional proposition [in which there is no reference to the image (for example, a drawing)] but also in the form of (an) image(s) (for example, a drawing) and a conditional proposition, in which there is a reference(s) to the image(s) [i.e. based on the analysis of references, I came to conclusion that if to take any information, it can usually be presented in the form of image(s) (for example, a drawing) and a conditional proposition in which there is (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)] [i.e. based on the analysis of references, I have concluded that if to take any information that can usually be represented as (an) image(s) and a conditional proposition in which there is (are) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)].

For example, information presented in the form of the first conditional proposition can be represented in the form of an image (for example, a drawing) (in which the flame of a gas burner touches the lower part of a steel ball; I will mark this image with number "1") and the following conditional proposition: "If there is the following. A steel ball and the flame of a gas burner, and this steel ball is located in relation to the flame of this gas burner as shown in the image marked with number "1". Then there will be the following. Heating of the steel ball".

If an ordinary person draws a conclusion from this (i.e. from the latter) type of presentation of this information and the information presented in the form of the second conditional proposition, the person will receive the following: "If there is the following. A steel ball and the flame of a gas burner, and this steel ball is located in relation to the flame of this gas burner as shown in the image marked with number "1". Then there will be the following. Expansion of the steel ball".

Based on the analysis of references, I have come to the following rule (I called it the fifth rule):

The fifth rule: In order for the computer to draw a conclusion (i.e. the inference, i.e. the process of derivation a conclusion) from two conditional propositions in which there is no reference to an image, or for the computer to draw a conclusion from two conditional propositions in any part(s) of which there is (are) reference(s) to (an) image(s) [i.e. for the computer to draw a conclusion from pieces of information presented in the form (i.e. from pieces of information presented with the help) of image(s) and two conditional propositions in which (or in any of which) there is (are) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)] [i.e. in order for the computer to draw a conclusion from the image(s) and two conditional propositions in the basis and (or) the consequence of any (or each) of which there is (are) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)], this computer has to act according to one of four following sequences of actions (i.e. this computer has to carry out one of four following activities):

1. The computer is to find in its memory two such conditional propositions in which the consequence of the first conditional proposition and the basis of the second conditional proposition have the same meanings (i.e. the computer has to find in its memory two such conditional propositions in which the consequence of the first conditional proposition has some meaning and the basis of the second conditional proposition has the same meaning). Then, the computer must instead grounds of the second conditional proposition establish the foundation of the first conditional proposition. And thus the computer transforms the second conditional proposition into the third conditional proposition (i.e. thereby the computer derives the third conditional proposition from two conditional propositions, this third conditional proposition may be new information or not new information).

2. The computer has to find in its memory two such conditional propositions that have the following features: a) the consequence of the first conditional proposition and the basis of the second conditional proposition consist of the same words in the same sequence, b) in this case, if in the consequence of the first conditional proposition there is (are) reference(s) to the image(s), in the basis of the second conditional proposition should be the same reference(s) to the same image(s), c) and thus, if in the basis of the second conditional proposition there is (are) reference(s) to the image(s), in the consequence of the first conditional proposition should be the same reference(s) to the same image(s) [thus, both in consequence of the first conditional proposition and in the basis of the second conditional proposition (and in other places of these two conditional propositions) there may be no reference(s) to the image(s); the reference(s) to the image(s) may be in the basis of the first conditional proposition and (or) in the consequence of the second conditional proposition]. Then the computer has to change the second conditional proposition, i.e. then the computer should instead grounds of the second conditional proposition put the basis of the first conditional proposition. [together with the reference(s) to the image(s) (for example, the drawing), if such (a) reference(s) is (are) in the basis of the first conditional proposition, or without this reference if such reference is not in the basis of the first conditional proposition]. And thereby the computer converts the second conditional proposition into the third conditional proposition (i.e. in this way the computer will obtain the third conditional proposition from these two conditional propositions, this third conditional proposition may be new or not new information). In this case, the consequence of the second conditional proposition [together with the reference(s) to the image(s), if such (a) reference(s) is (are) in the consequence of the second conditional proposition, or without a reference to the image if such a reference is absent in the consequence of the second conditional proposition] will become the consequence of the third conditional proposition. In this case, if in this third conditional proposition there will be (a) reference(s) to the image(s), it means that, as a result of this conclusion [from information presented in the form of the mentioned image(s) and the first and second conditional propositions in which there is (are) (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)], the information is obtained which is presented in the form (i.e. which is presented by means of) of this (these) image(s) and the third conditional proposition in which there is (a) reference(s) this (these) image(s) [i.e. this (these) image(s) will be a part of information obtained as the result of this conclusion, if in this third conditional proposition there is (are) (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)].

3. The computer shall find in its memory two such conditional propositions in which the consequence of the first conditional proposition and a part of the basis of the second conditional proposition have the same meaning (i.e. the computer shall find in its memory two such conditional propositions in which the consequence of the first conditional proposition has some meaning, and a part of the basis of the second conditional proposition has the same meaning). Then the computer should instead said portion grounds of the second conditional proposition put the basis of the first conditional proposition. And thereby the computer transforms the second conditional proposition into the third conditional proposition (i.e. thereby the computer derives the third conditional proposition from two conditional propositions, this third conditional proposition may be new information or not new information).

4. the computer has to find in its memory two such conditional propositions that have the following features: a) the consequence of the first conditional proposition and any part of the basis of the second conditional proposition consist of the same words in the same sequence; b) and if the consequence of the first conditional proposition has (a) reference(s) to the image(s) (for example, to a drawing), then in this part of the basis of the second conditional proposition there should be the same reference(s) to the same image(s); c) and thus, if in this part of the basis of the second conditional proposition there is (are) (a) reference(s) to the image(s), then in the consequence of the first conditional proposition there should be the same reference(s) to the same image(s) (and in these two conditional propositions there may be no reference to an image) [and in this part of the basis of the second conditional proposition there can be (a) reference(s) to (an) image(s) (e.g. to a drawing) which is (are) (a) part(s) of other image(s)]. Then the computer should change the second conditional proposition, i.e. the computer should instead said portion grounds of the second conditional proposition put the basis of the first conditional proposition. [with (a) reference(s) to the image(s) if such (a) reference(s) is (are) in the basis of the first conditional proposition, or without a reference to the image if there is no such reference in the basis of the first conditional proposition] [and if in the basis of the first conditional proposition there is (are) (a) reference(s) to image(s) and if this part (the base of the second conditional judgments) there's (a) reference(s) to image(s), and if the latter image(s) is (are) (a) part(s) of other image(s), then only in this case the computer should instead of the image (s) to which (eye) there is a reference (s) in this part (the basis of the second conditional proposition) put the image (s) to which (eye) there is a reference (s) in the basis of the first conditional proposition], and thereby the computer transforms the second conditional proposition into the third conditional proposition (i.e., thus, the computer will obtain from two conditional propositions the third conditional proposition; this third conditional proposition may be new or not new information) [with (a) reference(s) to the image(s), if in the basis of the first conditional proposition and (or) in a part of the basis of the second conditional proposition (which became the part of the third conditional proposition), and (or) in the consequence of the second conditional proposition there is (are) (a) reference(s) to (an) image(s) or] there is (are) no reference(s) to the image(s) if in the basis of the first conditional proposition and (or) in a part of the basis of the second conditional proposition (which became a part of the third conditional proposition), and (or) in the consequence of the second conditional proposition there is (are) no reference(s) to (an) image(s). That is, if the basis of the first conditional proposition and (or) a part of the basis of the second conditional proposition (which became a part of the third conditional proposition), and (or) the consequence of the second conditional proposition has (a) reference(s) to the image(s), then, as a result of this conclusion, the information will be obtained which is presented in the form of (an) image(s) and the third conditional proposition in which there is (are) (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s) [i.e., as a result of this conclusion, the information will be obtained which is presented as (an) image(s) and the third conditional proposition containing (a) reference(s) to this image(s)].

This method of developing inventions (i.e. the fourth method of developing inventions) consists in creating (i.e. inventing) by a computer of innovations by means of drawing conclusions by applying the fifth rule (and by producing general conditional propositions, particular conditional propositions, which are special cases of these general conditional propositions). In this place of the text by conclusion drawn according to the fifth rule is meant:

a) either a conclusion made by the computer from a conditional proposition (in which there is no reference to an image) and such a conditional proposition (in which there is no reference to an image and) which makes it possible to draw a conclusion according to the fifth rule from itself (i.e. from the latter conditional proposition) and this conditional proposition

b) either a conclusion drawn by the computer from information and the information that will make it possible to draw a conclusion according to the fifth rule from it (i.e. out of the latter information) and this information [here I mean by information: either the image(s) and a conditional proposition in which there is (are) (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s), or a conditional proposition with no reference to an image].

The person who will write conditional propositions (which will be written to the computer memory) shall try to use as few as possible references to images. The computer that will create inventions using the program by means which a computer can create inventions by itself should not have a possibility to compare images, i.e. it should not be able to find in its memory identical images [this (i.e. all presented in this paragraph) is necessary to simplify work for creating the program using which the computer can invent by itself].

Based on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that using this method of developing inventions (i.e. the fourth method of developing inventions), the computer will invent a invention if, as a result of obtaining conditional propositions, it (i.e. the computer) obtains such a new conditional proposition, the basis of which [with (an) image(s) if there is (are) (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s) or without an image (if there is no reference to an image)] will be information in which description of substances arrangement (or description of continuously changing arrangement of substances) which people will be able to compose at the time when the computer obtains this new conditional proposition is presented.

The fifth method for developing inventions consisting in producing OR-subproblems (which are nodes of the tree) using conditional propositions and (or) images and conditional propositions which contains references to these images

Based on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that if we take any inventive problem, it can usually be stated in the form of (an) image(s) (for example, of a drawing) and description of this inventive problem which contains reference(s) to this (these) image(s) [i.e. based on the analysis of references, I’ve come to conclusion that if we take any inventive problem, as a rule, it can be presented by means of an image(s) and description of this inventive problem which contains reference(s) to this (these) image(s)].

Now I will give an example of such a presentation of the inventive problem, namely: "It is necessary to invent a device that can move a car [shown in the image (i.e. the drawing) which we mark with number "2"] from the surface of the earth to the center of the earth like a mole does this".

And in this image marked with number "2", a car with four seats for passengers should be shown.

Based on the analysis of references, I have come to the following rule (I’ve called it the sixth rule):

The sixth rule: Let's take any inventive problem (let’s mark this inventive problem with letter "V"). In order for the computer to produce from the inventive problem "V" an inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "V") [by the way, in description of this inventive problem "V" there may be (a) reference(s) to the image(s), or in description of this inventive problem "V" there may be no reference(s) to the image(s)], it (i.e. the computer) has to implement one of four following activities:

2. To find in its own memory such a conditional proposition that has the following features:

a) the consequence of this conditional proposition and description of this inventive problem "V" consist of the same words in the same sequence

b) and at the same time, if in the consequence of this conditional proposition there is (are) (a) reference(s) to the image(s), then the same reference(s) to the same image(s) should be in description of this inventive problem "V")

c) and at the same time, if in description of this inventive problem "V" there is (are) (a) reference(s) to the image(s), then in the consequence of this conditional proposition there should be the same reference(s) to the same image(s) [in this case the reference(s) to the image(s) can be or not be in the base and (or) in the consequence of this conditional proposition]. And if the basis of this conditional proposition has (a) reference(s) to the image(s), then the inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "V") will be what is stated with the help of this (these) image(s) and the basis of this conditional proposition with this (these) reference(s) to this (these) image(s) [i.e. if of basis this conditional proposition be reference(s) to the image(s), then the inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "V") will be what is stated in the form of this (these) image(s) and the basis of this conditional proposition with this (these) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)]. And if there is no reference to the image in the basis of this conditional proposition, then the inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "V") will be the basis of this conditional proposition.

3. To find in its own memory such a conditional proposition that has the following feature: the consequence of this conditional proposition and any part of description of this inventive problem "S" have the same meanings (i.e. to find in its own memory such a conditional proposition that has the following features: a) the consequence of this conditional proposition has some meaning, b) any part of description of this inventive problem "S" has the same meaning). Then the computer should instead of this part of the description of the inventive task “S” put the basis of this conditional proposition. And thereby, the description of the inventive problem "S" will be converted into description of the inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "S") [i.e. thereby (from the description of the inventive problem "S") the description of the inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "S") will be formed].

4. To find in its own memory such conditional proposition that has the following features:

a) the consequence of this conditional proposition and any part of description of this inventive problem "V" consist of the same words in the same sequence

b) and at the same time, if in the consequence of this conditional proposition there is (are) (a) reference(s) to the image(s) (e.g. to a drawing), then in this part of description of this inventive problem "V" the same reference(s) to the same image(s) should to be

c) and at the same time, if in this part of description of this inventive problem "V" there is (are) (a) reference(s) to the image(s), then in the consequence of this conditional proposition there must be the same reference(s) to the same image(s) [in this part of description of this inventive problem "V" there can be a reference(s) to the image(s) which is (are) part(s) of other image(s)] [at the same time, the reference(s) to the image(s) may be (i.e. be contained) or may not be (i.e. not be contained) in the basis and (or) in the consequence of this the conditional proposition]. Then this computer should instead of this part (the description of this inventive task “V”) put the basis this conditional proposition [together with the reference(s) to the image(s), if such (a) reference(s) is (are) in the basis of this conditional proposition, or without reference to an image if there is no reference in the basis of this conditional proposition] [at the same time, if in the basis of this conditional proposition there is (are) (a) reference(s) to the image(s) and if in this part (of description of this inventive problem "V") there is (are) (a) reference(s) to the image(s), and if the latter image(s) is (are) (a) part(s) of other image(s), then only in this case the computer should instead of the image (s) to which (eye) there is a reference (s) in this part (description of this inventive task "V") put the image (s) to which (eye) there is a reference (s) in basis of this conditional proposition]. And thereby, the computer converts description of the inventive problem "V" into description of the inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "V") [with (a) reference(s) to the image(s) if in the basis of this conditional proposition and (or) in part description of the inventive problem "V" (which became a part of this OR-subproblem of the inventive problem "V" after this put basis of this conditional proposition) (by the way, let’s mark this, i.e. the latter part of description of the inventive problem "V", letter "t") there is (are) (a) reference(s) to the image(s) or] without (a) reference(s) to the image(s) if in the basis of this conditional proposition and in the part of description of this inventive problem "V" (which is marked with letter "t"), no reference(s) to the image(s). That is, if in the basis of this conditional proposition and (or) in the part of description of the inventive problem "V" (which is marked with letter "t"), there is (are) (a) reference(s) to the image(s), then the inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "V") will be what is presented in the form (i.e. what is stated with the help) of this (these) image(s) and the basis of this conditional proposition [together with this (these) reference(s) to this (these) image(s), if this (these) reference(s) is in this basis] and of the part of description of the inventive problem "V" (which is marked with letter "t") [together with this (these) reference(s) to this (these) image(s) if this (these) reference(s) is in the part "t"].

And if there is no reference to an image in the basis of this conditional proposition and in part "t", then the basis of this conditional proposition with no reference to an image and part "t" with no reference to an image will be the inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "V").

By the way, an inventive OR-subproblem is an inventive problem, so with the help of the sixth rule it is possible to produce an inventive OR-subproblem (of the second-to-last inventive OR-subproblem) from the inventive OR-subproblem, i.e. with the help of the sixth rule it is possible to produce from the inventive OR-subproblem its inventive OR-subproblem.

An inventive AND-subproblem is an inventive problem, so with the help of the sixth rule it is possible to produce from an inventive AND-subproblem the inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive AND-subproblem). By the way, the inventive OR-subproblem is an inventive problem, the inventive OR-subsubproblem is an inventive problem, etc. So, with the help of the sixth rule it is possible to produce from the inventive OR-subproblem of the inventive OR-subsubproblem, etc., their inventive OR-subproblems.

This method of developing inventions (i.e. the fifth method of developing inventions) consists in the following: it is necessary to try to solve any inventive problem which needs to be solved (I’ll call the latter problem as the original problem) by means of producing (with the help of the sixth rule) OR-subproblems, OR-subsubproblems (i.e. OR-subproblems of OR-subproblems), OR-subsubsubproblems (i.e. OR-subproblems of OR-subsubproblems), etc. [i.e. by means of producing (with the help of the sixth rule) OR-subproblems. Herewith, these OR-subproblems, these OR-subsubproblems, these OR-subsubsubproblems, etc. are to be nodes of the tree for converging the original problem to subproblems (i.e. they are to be a part of the tree for converging the original problem to subproblems)] until the end of the moment at which such an OR-subproblem [with (a) reference(s) to the image(s) or without any references to the images] is produced, solution of which is known (and if such a OR-subproblem is produced then the original problem will be solved), that is to the end of the moment at which such description (i.e. statement) of OR-subproblem [with reference(s) to the image(s) or without any references to images] which is description (i.e. statement) of the substances arrangement [or which is description (i.e. statement) of the continuously changing arrangement of substances] which people will be able to compose (with or without the help of devices) at the time when this description (i.e. statement) of OR-subproblem [i.e. to the end of the moment at which such description (i.e. statement) of OR-subproblem (with reference to (an) image(s) or without any references to images) will be produced which will be a description (i.e. statement) of what people will be able to implement at the time when the description (i.e. statement) of the OR-subproblem is produced] [by the way, if the OR-subproblem (i.e. description, i.e. statement of the OR-subproblem) with (a) reference(s) to the image(s), it means that this OR-subproblem (i.e. description, i.e. statement of the OR-subproblem) is stated in the form of this (these) image(s) and description of this OR-subproblem which (description) has (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)].

The sixth method for developing inventions consisting in producing AND-subproblems and OR-subproblems (which are nodes of the tree) using conditional propositions and (or) images and conditional propositions containing references to these images

Based on the analysis of references, I have come to the following rule (I’ve called it the seventh rule):

The seventh rule: Let's take any inventive problem (let’s mark this inventive problem with letter "h"). [By the way, in description of this inventive problem "h", there may be or may not be (a) reference(s) to the image(s)]. In order for the computer spawned from inventive problem "h" the inventive AND-subproblems (of this inventive problem "h") (inventive AND-subproblems are considered above) (all of which are to be solved in order to solve the inventive problem "h") it (i.e. the computer) should implement one of two following activities:

1. To find in its own memory such a conditional proposition, which has the following feature: the consequence of this conditional proposition and description of this inventive problem "h" have the same meanings [i.e. to find in its memory such a conditional proposition the consequence of which (description of this inventive problem "h" has some meaning) has the same meaning]. And the basis of this conditional proposition will be an inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "h"). And if this OR-subproblem consists of several (or two) problems, then the latter problems (i.e. problems which this OR-subproblem consists of) will be AND-subproblems of this inventive problem "h" (all of which are to be solved in order to solve the inventive problem "h"), i.e., in order to solve the problem "h", it is necessary to solve all problems which this OR-subproblem consists of. In the third method above the following is stated: how the computer can determine (i.e. by means of what the computer can determine) how many problems constitute the OR-subproblem.

2. To find in its own memory such a conditional proposition that has the following features:

a) the consequence of this conditional proposition and description of this inventive problem "h" consist of the same words in the same sequence

b) and at the same time, if in description of this inventive problem "h" there is (are) (a) reference(s) to the image(s), then in the consequence of this conditional proposition there must be the same reference(s) to the same image(s)

c) and at the same time, if in description of this inventive problem "h" there is no reference to the image, then in the consequence of this conditional proposition there must be no reference to the image(s) too.

The basis of this conditional proposition will be an inventive OR-subproblem (of this inventive problem "h"). And if this OR-subproblem consists of several (or two) problems, then the latter problems (i.e. problems which this OR-subproblem consists of) will be AND-subproblems of this inventive problem "h" (which are to be solved everything in order to solve the inventive problem "h"), i.e. in order to solve the problem "h" it is necessary to solve all problems from which this OR-subproblem consists. In the third method above the following is stated: how computer can determine (i.e., by means of what the computer can determine) how many problems constitute the OR-subproblem.

An inventive OR-subproblem is an inventive problem, an inventive OR-subsubproblem is an inventive problem, etc., so, with the help of the seventh rule, it is possible to produce from an inventive OR-subproblem, inventive OR-subsubproblem, etc. their inventive AND-subproblems. An inventive AND–subproblem is an inventive problem, so, with the help of the seventh rule, it is possible to produce from the inventive AND-subproblem its inventive AND-subproblems.

This method for developing inventions (i.e. the sixth method for developing inventions) consists in the following: (let's take any inventive problem which needs to be solved, and call the latter inventive problem as the original inventive problem) at first, the computer should try to solve this original inventive problem by means of producing (with the help of the seventh rule and the first and second parts of the sixth rule) inventive OR-subproblems and inventive AND-subproblems [herewith, these OR-subproblems and these AND-subproblems should be nodes of the tree for converging the original problem to subproblems (i.e. they are to be parts of the tree for converging the original problem to subproblems)] until the moment at which (i.e. as long as) it (i.e. the computer) produces such an OR-subproblem or such an AND-subproblem [with (a) reference(s) to the image(s) or without any references to the images] the solution of which is known [i.e. until the end of the moment at which the computer produces such a description of OR-subproblem or AND-subproblem (with or without any references to the images) which is the description of substances arrangement (or which is description of continuously changing arrangement of substances) that people will be able to compose (with or without the help of known devices) at the time when this description of an OR-subproblem or an AND-subproblem is produced (if the computer produces this description of OR-subproblem or AND-subproblem, then this description of OR-subproblem or AND-subproblem will be one of the solved problem), i.e. until the end of the moment at which it (the computer) produces such description of OR-subproblem or AND-subproblem (with or without any references to images) which will be description of what people will be able to compose at the time when this description of an OR-subproblem or an AND-subproblem is produced (if the computer produces this description of an OR-subproblem or an AND-subproblem, it means that this description of an OR-subproblem or an AND-subproblem will be description of solved problem)] [by the way, if it is the OR-subproblem (i.e. description, i.e. statement of the OR-subproblem) with (a) reference(s) to the image(s), it means that this OR-subproblem (i.e. description, i.e. statement of the OR-subproblem) is stated using this (these) image(s) and description of this OR-subproblem with (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)] [by the way, if it is an AND-subproblem (i.e. description, i.e. statement of an AND-subproblem) with (a) reference(s) to the image(s), it means that this AND-subproblem (i.e. description, i.e. statement of an AND-subproblem) is stated by means of this (these) image(s) and description of this AND-subproblem in which there is (are) (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)].

Then the corresponding node (of the tree for converging the original problem to subproblems) should be marked by the computer as solved. Then, if it is possible to mark another node (or other nodes) as the solved one(s), then the computer should also mark this (these) node (or nodes) as the solved one(s) [by the way, if a node of the tree for converging the problem to subproblems can be marked as solved, in this case, sometimes it is possible to mark another (or other) node (or nodes) of this tree as solved]. In this case, following should be taken into account: 1) any node from which an OR-subproblem has been produced can be marked as solved, if this OR-subproblem is solved (i.e. if this OR-subproblem is marked as solved), 2) any node (from which AND-subproblems have been produced which have been produced from this node using the same conditional proposition) can be marked as solved if all these AND-subproblems have been solved (i.e. if all these AND-subproblems are marked as solved). Subsequently, if after this the original inventive problem is not solved (i.e. it is not marked by the computer as solved), then the computer should repeat all activities described above (necessary for solving the latter original problem) (by the way, this method of developing inventions, in particular, consists in these activities) again, i.e. then the computer has to do the following: to repeat (i.e. to continue) this process of producing (with the help of the seventh rule and the first and second parts of the sixth rule) inventive OR-subproblems and inventive AND-subproblems (and these OR-subproblems and these AND-subproblems should be nodes of the tree for converging the original problem to subproblems), and again, to the end of the moment at which it (i.e. the computer) produces such an OR-subproblem or such an AND-subproblem (with or without any references to images) the solution of which is known, i.e. again, up to the end of the moment at which such an OR-subproblem or such an AND-subproblem which the computer can mark as solved are produced. Next, it is necessary to repeat the following: if it is possible to mark another node (or other nodes) of this tree as solved, then this (these) node(s) should be marked by the computer as solved.

Next, if after that the original problem is not solved, the computer should repeat again these activities [which were repeated (i.e. re-implemented), and which are necessary for solving the latter original inventive problem (by the way, this method of developing inventions consists, in particular, in these activities)] [i.e. the computer has to do, in particular, the following: to repeat (i.e. to continue) this process of producing (with the help of the seventh rule and the first and second parts of the sixth rule) AND-subproblems and OR-subproblems, and the computer has to repeat other activities described above which have been repeated (i.e. re-implemented) and which are necessary for solving the latter original inventive problem]. Next, after that, if the original problem is not solved, then the computer should repeat twice these activities [which have been repeated twice (i.e. twice implemented) and which are necessary for solving the latter original inventive problem (by the way, this method of developing inventions consists, in particular, in these activities)], until the original problem can be marked by the computer as solved, i.e. until the end of the moment at which the original problem is solved.

I should say that with the help of methods for developing inventions stated above and below three programmers can easily create such a program by means of which a computer can solve without human assistance not only inventive problems but also non-inventive problems.

The seventh method for developing inventions consisting in executing random experiments

As a result of the analysis of patent descriptions, it is possible to come to conclusion that an invention as a rule is substances arrangement when it does not work or is not used, and that if an invention works or is used, then in this case it is usually such an arrangement of substances which is continuously changing, herewith, as a rule, this arrangement of substances is changing so that it (i.e. substances arrangement) often becomes such substances arrangement as it has already been (once or several times), i.e. this substances arrangement, as a rule, is continually changing, so it (i.e. substances arrangement) often becomes one substances arrangement, another substances arrangement, the third substances arrangement, etc. each one of which is, as a rule, among such substances arrangements which it (i.e. this constantly changing substances arrangement) has already been (one or more times). Herewith, if the invention is new (and it is a substances arrangement), then either the substances arrangement constituting this invention should be new, or the action(s) produced by this invention (when it works or is used) should be new (sometimes, when applying new devices new action produced by old invention (i.e. the old substances arrangement) is discovered), or both the substances arrangement (constituting this new invention) and this action produced by this invention (when it works or is used) should be new.

To illustrate this, let’s consider an example. Mechanical watch is an invention. It can be disassembled to parts. Let’s take a hand of this watch. It is made of steel (i.e. of a solid substance) and has a certain shape (substances can be divided into solid, liquid, gaseous, and plasma ones). All parts of the watch are solids and have certain shapes. These parts are arranged in a certain way relative to each other at the time when the watch does not work. So the mechanical watch is a substances arrangement when it does not work.

As a result of the analysis of references, one can come to conclusion that description of invention when it (i.e. this invention) works or is used, as a rule, is description of such a substances arrangement that continuously changes, as well as description of activity(-ies) that this substances arrangement produces, i.e. which occur(s) in this substances arrangement [i.e. description of an invention when it (i.e. the invention) works or is used, usually consists not only of description of such substances arrangement that continuously changes, but also of description of the activity(-ies) which this substances arrangement produces, i.e. which occur(s) in this substances arrangement]. And if the invention is new (and it is a substances arrangement), then either the substances arrangement constituting the invention must be new or the activity which the invention produces (if it works or is used) must be new (sometimes, with the help of new instruments a new action produced by the old invention, i.e. the old substances arrangement, is discovered), or both the substances arrangement (constituting this new invention) and the action produced by this invention (when it works or is used) must be new.

As a result of the analysis of references one can come to the following conclusion. In order to execute an experiment, a substances arrangement should be composed (herewith, such substances arrangement can be composed that it will continuously change) and with the help of sensory organs [and devices that are able to enhance sensory organs (of human being or robot), or as if give the human being or the robot new sensory organs] to feel or get information about the
activity(-ies) occurring in this substances arrangement (i.e. to feel or to determine what is happening in this substances arrangement). Let me give examples of such devices: a telescope, a microscope, a thermometer, a voltmeter, a dosimeter, etc. In this regard, it should be noted that in case of a dosimeter it is as if a human being or a robot gets a new sensory organ, i.e. such a sensory organ with which a human being or a robot can feel or detect radioactive radiation. By the way, some robots have a visual sensor, i.e. vision, an acoustical sensor, i.e. hearing, an olfactory sensor, i.e. smell.

Based on the analysis of references, one can come to conclusion that out of every 100,000 random (i.e. the first encountered) new experiments [a new experiment is an experiment that was not carried out (i.e. was not done)] [by the way, the result of implementation of a not-new experiment (i.e. the experiment that has already been done) is known before the start of such an experiment, so there is no necessity to do not-new experiments] on average, about 20 such experiments will be encountered the result of implementing (i.e. doing) of which 20 new random inventions will be obtained (i.e. will be invented) (i.e. there will be, on average, about 20 such experiments that each one will result in one new random invention), i.e. if 100,000 random new experiments are executed, they are resulting in on average about 20 random new inventions.

This method for developing inventions (i.e. the seventh method for developing inventions) consists in inventing random inventions by executing random experiments.

Based on the aforesaid and on the analysis of references, one can come to a conclusion that there are such robots, each one of which can do random experiments without human assistance if each of these robots is appropriately controlled by a computer (i.e. there are such robots capable to do random experiments without human assistance, each of the robots being controlled by the computer). One of such robots is robot "Clatu" (i.e. robot "Clatu" is one of these robots) [robot "Clatu" is mentioned on p. 20 of “Za rubezhom” newspaper, No. 5 (918), 1978].

Based on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that, applying this method for developing inventions (i.e. the seventh method for developing inventions) three programmers can easily create a program by means of which the computer will be able to control robot "Clatu" in such a way that robot "Clatu" controlled by this computer will be able without human assistance create many random inventions by executing random experiments, i.e. by means of this method for developing inventions (i.e. using the seventh method for developing inventions) (i.e. based on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that, using this method for developing inventions, three programmers can easily create such a program for a computer by means of which the computer can create many inventions without human assistance, by just controlling robot "Clatu"). Herewith, computer can control the robot by transmitting signals to the robot through the air using radio transmitter located in the computer and radio receiver located in the robot. And the robot can transmit information to the computer (which information is obtained by means of a visual sensor and other sensors) by transmitting signals to the computer using radio transmitter located in the robot and radio receiver located in the computer.

The eighth method for developing inventions consisting in inventing (i.e. creating) inventions by means of not-new conditional propositions, the second, third, fifth and sixth methods for developing inventions and new random conditional propositions obtained using random experiments

Robot "Clatu" [if it (i.e. the robot) is accordingly controlled by the computer] can obtain new random conditional propositions by executing new random experiments. I suppose that based on the analysis of references, one can come to conclusion that three programmers, taking into account the aforesaid can easily create such program using which the computer can control robot "Clatu", and robot "Clatu" controlled by the computer, will execute random experiments without human assistance.

This method for developing inventions (i.e. the eighth method for developing inventions) consists in following (i.e. consists in that) if a computer has got the task to create any specific (i.e. not random) invention (i.e. the task is given to solve a specific inventive problem) (let’s call this inventive problem the original inventive problem), and if the computer could not create this invention by applying the second, third, fifth, and sixth methods of invention, then in this case it is necessary at first for the computer appropriately controlling the robot "Clatu" to obtain (i.e. it is necessary first for robot "Clatu", being appropriately controlled by the computer, to obtain) (a) new random conditional proposition(s) as a result of (a) new random experiment(s), and then, using this (these) new random conditional proposition(s) and not-new conditional propositions, as well as the second, third, fifth and sixth methods for developing inventions stated above, to try to solve this original problem; by the way, instead of robot "Clatu", the computer can use for creating inventions one of the abovementioned robots, i.e. one of those robots that can execute random experiments without human assistance if this robot is appropriately controlled by the computer. Based on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that there are inventive problems that cannot be solved without executing experiments. And if after that the computer is not able to solve this original inventive problem, it is necessary for the computer, controlling accordingly robot "Clatu" to obtain (a) new random conditional proposition(s) as a result of (a) new random experiment(s), and then it is necessary for the computer to try to solve the original inventive problem using this (these) new random conditional proposition(s) and not-new conditional propositions, as well as the second, third, fifth and sixth abovementioned methods for developing inventions. And if after that the computer cannot solve this original inventive problem once again, it is necessary for the computer to repeat this again and again, etc. until this original inventive problem is solved.

By the way, if the number of known conditional propositions is increased by means of random experiments, then, applying the first and fourth methods for developing inventions, the computer will be able to invent more random inventions than without doing this (i.e. than if the number of known conditional propositions is not increased).

The ninth method for developing inventions consisting in primarily executing experiments that are the most likely to give opportunity to create a certain invention which is needed to be invented

Let’s suppose that we (i.e. the author of this work and the reader) need to create (i.e. to invent) a new medicinal substance for treating influenza. And if for this purpose we grow apples, pears and plums in zero-gravity, these experiments seem unlikely to solve this inventive problem. And if we intramuscularly administer random (first encountered) substances to animals that are ill with influenza, in this case, these experiments are more likely to solve this inventive problem.

There are many similar examples. Based on the aforesaid and on the analysis of references, I have come to the following conclusions:

1. If a computer which can control robot "Clatu" (so that, controlling robot "Clatu", the computer can execute random and not random experiments) should create a certain invention [(i.e. the computer has to solve a specific inventive problem, let’s call this problem the original problem), and if this computer has generated all nodes of the tree for converging the original problem to subproblems, that can be generated by applying the second, third, fifth and sixth methods for developing inventions and by using all known conditional propositions (i.e. using all known information), and if, as a result of this, the computer has failed to solve this original inventive problem], then this computer needs new conditional propositions in order to continue generating new nodes of the tree, and these new conditional propositions can be obtained by executing experiments, and in this case, to solve this original inventive problem (i.e. to invent this original invention), the computer should execute experiments using robot "Clatu" which experiments most likely will allow to invent this invention [i.e., using robot "Clatu" this computer should execute experiments, as a result of which such conditional propositions are most likely to be obtained, that they will give an opportunity to create this original invention by means of generating nodes of the tree for converging this original inventive problem to subproblems (by means of not only these conditional propositions but also the rules mentioned above)] earlier than any other experiments (i.e. the computer should execute first of all such experiments for creating this original invention with the help of robot "Clatu", which seem most likely to produce the opportunity to create this invention) (this is the essence of this method for developing inventions, i.e. the ninth method for developing inventions) (by the way, the computer can use for creating inventions not only robot "Clatu" but also any of the mentioned above robots, each one of which can execute random experiments without human assistance if such a robot is appropriately controlled by the computer).

2. To the computer memory [i.e. in the memory of the computer that can control robot "Clatu" (so that, controlling robot "Clatu", this computer could execute random and not random experiments)] it should be written the maximum amount of information determining what experiments seem most likely to produce the opportunity for creating inventions. That is, to the computer memory it is necessary to write the maximum possible amount of information which presents first the following (if it is necessary to create a specific invention, then which experiments seem most likely to produce the opportunity to create this invention), then the next: if it is necessary to create some other particular invention, which experiments seem most likely to produce the opportunity to create this invention, etc., i.e. to write to the computer memory such information for the largest possible number of inventions (which should be invented).

And it is necessary that in the computer memory the largest possible amount of such (i.e. this) information has been written. At the same time, it should be taken into account that for creating a particular invention primarily it is necessary to execute such experiments that apparently most likely will allow to create this invention.

Based on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that three programmers can easily create such program by means of which, without human assistance, the computer can determine what experiments, apparently, are most likely to give the opportunity to create certain inventions.

The tenth method for developing inventions consisting in generating with the help of hypothetical and non-hypothetical conditional propositions the nodes of the tree and checking (experimentally) the correctness of these hypothetical conditional propositions needed for generating these nodes

Such conditional propositions are known each one of which is a thought that is an assumption in relation to an object or a phenomenon, for example: "If there is the following, cosmonauts will be delivered to the surface of the planet Venus, then there will be the following: these cosmonauts apparently will not be able (i.e. on the surface of the Venus) to find intelligent extraterrestrials in two hours".

Such conditional propositions will be called "hypothetical conditional propositions". Based on the analysis of references, I have come to the following conclusions: 1) at present, it is possible to produce approximately 2,000,000 hypothetical conditional propositions but in a few years there will be more known information, so in a few years it will be possible to produce more than 2,000,000 hypothetical conditional propositions; 2) if by means of experiments to verify correctness of hypothetical conditional propositions, then approximately 2% of these conditional propositions will be true (i.e. correct).

Based on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that, based on the above, three programmers can easily create such a program by means of which, without human assistance, the computer will be able: 1) to adduce (i.e. to produce) hypothetical conditional propositions; 2) to produce (currently) these 2,000,000 hypothetical conditional propositions (it will take the computer approximately 40 minutes) [and, apparently, 2% of these hypothetical conditional propositions will turn out to be correct; it means the computer will actually get, I suppose, 40,000 true conditional propositions for 40 minutes, and obtaining of 40,000 true conditional propositions by means of random or not random experiments will take approximately on average 200,000 hours because preparation and implementation of one experiment will take the computer (which controls robot "Clatu"), I suppose, approximately on average 5 hours]; 3) to generate nodes of the tree (for converging this original inventive problem to subproblems) by using these hypothetical conditional propositions and known non-hypothetical conditional propositions, as well as abovementioned rules (if they can be produced) (by the way, using these hypothetical conditional propositions and known non-hypothetical conditional propositions, nodes of some trees can be generated, as well as nodes of some other trees cannot be generated) (it will take this computer about 50 minutes) [by the way, from the above it follows that any new node of the tree for converging this original inventive problem may or may not give a solution to this inventive problem. Based on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that in order to solve the inventive problem it is necessary to generate on average 90 (ninety) nodes of the tree for converging this inventive problem to subproblems].

After that, if, by means of these hypothetical conditional propositions (and known non-hypothetical conditional propositions, as well as the second, third, fifth and sixth abovementioned methods for developing inventions), the computer is able to generate a node or nodes of the tree (for converging the original inventive problem to subproblems), then, using robot "Clatu", the computer is to check by experiment or experiments the correctness of the hypothetical conditional proposition(s), with the help of which this (these) node(s) of the tree (for converging this original inventive problem to subproblems) has been obtained, and about 2% of hypothetical conditional propositions are true ones.

This method for developing inventions (i.e. the tenth method for developing inventions) is as follows: if the computer is given the task to solve a specific (i.e. not random) inventive problem, and if, using the second, third, fifth and sixth methods for developing inventions (mentioned above), it failed to solve the latter inventive problem, then it has to try to solve the latter inventive problem: by trying to generate [using hypothetical conditional propositions (and known not-hypothetical conditional propositions) and the second, third, fifth, and sixth methods for developing inventions (set out above)] nodes of the tree for converging the last problem to subproblems (by the way, the nodes of the tree for converging the problem to subproblems obtained by means of hypothetical conditional propositions will be hypothetical nodes), and after that, by checking (by means of experiments) correctness of the hypothetical conditional proposition(s), by means of which it became possible (if possible) to generate a node (nodes) of the tree for converging the last problem to subproblems.

Based on the above and on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that, if the computer solves a particular inventive problem by the eighth method for developing inventions, i.e., using correct random conditional propositions (which it obtained by random experiments) (and with the help of true known conditional propositions, as well as the second, third, fifth and sixth methods for developing inventions described above), by generating nodes of the tree for converging this problem to subproblems (and if this computer obtains by random experiments 40,000 true random conditional propositions, and if this computer tries to use in particular these 40,000 true random conditional propositions to generate nodes of the tree for converging this problem to subproblems), then, as a result of this, the computer will generate (using correct conditional propositions), I suppose, on average approximately the same number of true (i.e. not hypothetical) nodes of the tree for converging this problem to subproblems, as it will generate (using correct conditional propositions), if one solves this problem by means of this tenth method of developing inventions (i.e. it is so because among 2,000,000 hypothetical conditional propositions there is about 40,000 correct conditional propositions), i.e., as a result of application of the tenth and eighth methods for developing inventions (if using the eighth method of developing inventions, as a result of random experiments, there will be obtained 40,000 random conditional propositions), on average, approximately the same positive effect (i.e. the result) will be obtained, i.e. as a result of application of the tenth method for developing inventions or the eighth method for developing inventions (if, using the eighth method of developing inventions, 40,000 random conditional propositions were obtained), the computer will on average approximately similarly approach to solution of this inventive problem.

But to obtain this same result by means of the tenth method for developing inventions, it will take on average much less time than by means of the eighth method for developing inventions (if by means of the eighth method for developing inventions, 40,000 random conditional propositions have been obtained by random experiments).

Based on the above and on the analysis of references, I have come to the following conclusions: 1) the tenth method for developing inventions is generally better than the eighth method for developing inventions; 2) the tenth method for developing inventions in some cases is better than the ninth method for developing inventions.

The eleventh method for developing inventions consists in improved "trial and error method"

In the book, the title of which is "Algorithm of Invention", Moscow publishing house "Moskovskii rabochii" (dated 1969, the author of this book is Altshuller Genrikh Saulovich), it is said that inventors usually create their inventions by "trial and error method", and that this method is as follows: an inventor randomly adduces the following sample: "and if to do so?" This is followed by an attempt to make a theoretical verification. If the verification cannot be performed, an experimental verification is carried out. And if after that the solution is not found, the inventor adduces another random sample and again tries to make a theoretical verification, etc. until a solution is found.

Based on the analysis of references and the above, I have come to conclusion that the computer will, without human assistance, invent any invention (which man ordered the computer to invent) actually by "trial and error method" if this computer invents this invention by means of the following method (which is an improved "trial and error method") (i.e. if this computer will invent this invention as follows): first, the computer adduces a random sample, i.e. first the computer writes on paper a description of a random (i.e. first encountered) substances arrangement (or a description of a random continuously changing arrangement of substances) that people can compose with or without the help of known devices. Then this computer will try to find in its memory such a conditional proposition in the consequence of which only the name of the invention (which man ordered the computer to invent) is stated (i.e. in the consequence of which only the inventive problem that man ordered the computer to solve, is stated), and in the basis of this conditional proposition only description of this substances arrangement that the computer has written on paper, is stated. If the computer finds such a conditional proposition in its own memory, then this invention (which man ordered the computer to invent) will be invented by this computer [i.e. as a result of this (i.e. as a result of finding this conditional proposition), the computer will invent this invention]. And if the computer fails to find in its own memory such a conditional proposition, then in this case, by using above-described robot "Clatu" (i.e. by controlling robot "Clatu"), the computer has to execute an experiment, i.e. to make this substances arrangement written by it on paper, and to feel (i.e. to determine) with the help of sensory organs of robot "Clatu" what happens as a result of arrangement of this substances arrangement, and the computer is to state the things that happen as a result of arrangement of this substances arrangement, and if this latter statement is the same as the statement of the inventive problem which man has ordered the computer to solve (i.e. if this statement consists of some words in some sequence, and the statement of the inventive problem which man has ordered the computer to solve, consists of the same words in the same sequence), in this case the computer has created the invention that man ordered it to invent, and if it is not the same, then it failed to invent. In this case (if it failed to invent), the computer adduces different (i.e. the second) random sample, i.e. the computer writes on paper other, i.e. the second, random substances arrangement, then the computer again tries to find in its own memory such a conditional proposition the consequence of which contains only the inventive problem which man has ordered the computer to invent, and the basis of this conditional proposition contains only description of this substances arrangement, etc., until a solution for this inventive problem is found.

But it would be better for computer when creating the invention which a person has ordered the computer to invent by applying this method (i.e. the eleventh method) for developing inventions to make not random samples, i.e. it would be better for computer when creating the invention which a person has ordered the computer to invent by the eleventh method to write on paper not random arrangement(s) of substances but arrangement(s) of substances that seem(s) most likely to give the opportunity to create this invention by this method (i.e. the eleventh method) of developing inventions (about the similar was said above).

In this respect I will give an example. Let us assume that a person has ordered the computer to invent the cheapest motor vehicle, and the computer when creating the invention using this method and making a sample will describe on paper such a substances arrangement which is a heap of hay mixed with straw; this substances arrangement seems unlikely to provide the opportunity for creating this invention, and if the computer describes on paper a well-known motor vehicle the form of a component of which is changed in a random manner, then such substances arrangement apparently would much more likely (than the substances arrangement which is a heap of hay mixed with straw) give the opportunity to create the invention (i.e. the cheapest motor vehicle).

There are many similar examples.

To do this it is necessary to write to computer’s memory as much information as possible, which would indicate what substances arrangements are, apparently, most likely to give the opportunity of creating some inventions by this method for developing inventions (i.e. the eleventh method for developing inventions). Herewith, if after this writing (to the computer memory), to take any invention from among the latest inventions, then the following should be written to computer memory: what substances arrangement(s) is (are), apparently, most likely to give the opportunity for creating this invention by this (i.e. the eleventh) method of developing inventions.

Additional useful information

The human brain, apparently,

is only the memory and devices

(i.e. organs) supporting the memory

Computer capabilities annually approach to human intellectual abilities. Probably, computer soon will be able to do the same mental activities as a human being. That is, probably computer will soon be able to do all mental activities that a human being can do. Currently, computer can beat a chess world champion. Some factories and farms are now operating in computerized unmanned mode. Computers can currently control rockets, motor vehicles, aircrafts, etc. A computer is only a memory and devices supporting the memory (i.e. a computer consists only of memory and devices supporting the memory). And a human being has memory and devices (i.e. organs) supporting the memory. Based on this, one can assume that a human brain is only memory and devices (i.e. organs) supporting the memory. This confirms the following:

1) based on logical conjunction: "if there is the following..., Then there will be the following..." (this logical conjunction can be used for wording conditional propositions), a person can unconsciously record to his (her) memory that in order to have what is stated in the consequence of the conditional proposition it is necessary to have what is stated in the basis of this conditional proposition. Based on this and other, a person can unconsciously record to his memory that, if somewhere the same information is presented (i.e. the same as described) as in the consequence of a conditional proposition, then in this case it is possible instead (that is, instead of the same which is written in the consequence of this conditional proposition) to put what is written in the basis of this conditional proposition. Based on the aforesaid, one can come to a conclusion that a person can draw conclusions and produce subproblems by means of memory only;

2) the more information is stored in computer’s memory, the more possibilities this computer have. By the way, computer programs represent information. Based on the analysis of references and the aforesaid, one can come to conclusion that a computer is not able to do everything what a person can do with the help of mind apparently only because not all information that a person possesses is stored in computer’s memory, i.e., based on the aforesaid and on the analysis of references, one can suppose that in order for capabilities of the computer not to concede to all mental capabilities of a random (i.e. the first encountered) person, it is enough only to write to computer memory the same information which this person possesses.

A person (i.e. human brain) has memory, and a computer is memory and devices supporting the memory; based on this and the aforesaid, one can suppose that a person (i.e. human brain) implements mental activities (which the computer implements too) in the same way as the computer does.

A computer and a robot, probably, will be able to invent almost

all inventions which are people want to get invented

Based on the analysis of references, one can come to conclusion that almost all inventions that people have been trying to invent for a long time have been invented. This can be confirmed by the following: on p. 198 of the book by Altshuller G.S. (this book is mentioned in item 1 of the list of works presented at the end of this paper) it is said that J. Verne, G. Wells and A. Beliaev offered 244 science fiction ideas, and only 22 of them turned out to be unfeasible. Based on this and on the analysis of references, one can come to conclusion that probably people will be able to invent almost all inventions that they want to get invented (i.e. people want and will want to have some invention created, and people will probably be able to invent almost all these inventions). This also confirms the following: based on the analysis of references, one can come to the following conclusions: 1) an invention is usually an arrangement of substances, 2) among every 100,000 random (i.e. the first encountered) arrangements of substances, on average, approximately 20 such arrangements of substances will be random inventions.

And people can make infinity of substances arrangements for infinity of years. Based on this, one can come to conclusion that people can probably invent infinity of inventions for infinity of years. Based on the analysis of references, one can come to the following conclusions: 1) in order to execute a random experiment, one should make a random arrangement of substances, and feel (i.e. determine) by sensual organs what is happening in this arrangement of substances, 2) among every 100,000 random new experiments (a new experiment is an experiment that has not been performed yet), on average, there is about 20 experiments resulting in creation of 20 new random inventions. Based on the aforesaid, one can come to conclusion that for infinity of years people can probably invent infinity of new random inventions by performing random new experiments .

Based on the analysis of references, one can come to conclusion that, apparently, among every 2,000 random inventions there will be on average about 5 such inventions that people want (currently) to get invented. Currently people wish to get invented apparently a large number of inventions (by the way, for infinity of years, people are likely to wish to have infinity of inventions created).

To create an invention means to find out in what arrangement of substances there is a new activity for a person that the person wants to obtain (i.e. to find out in what arrangement of substances there is a new effect for a person that the person wants to obtain). For infinity of years, infinity of substances arrangements can be created, and if in each arrangement of substances there are different activities (i.e. if in any substances arrangement such activities occur which do not happen in any other substances arrangement), then in such a case, it is usually needed an infinite amount of time (i.e. an infinite number of hours) in order to invent a particular invention that people currently want to get invented (or some not an infinite number of specific inventions which people currently want to get invented) by performing random experiments. But there are such different arrangements of substances in each one of which there happens one and the same activity, and, apparently, one (and the same) activity takes place in each arrangement of substances included in one indefinitely large number of different arrangements of substances (i.e. apparently, the same activity occurs in each arrangement of substances included in one indefinitely large number of different arrangements of substances), and, probably, a different activity happens in each arrangement of substances included in another infinitely large number of different arrangements of substances, and, apparently, the third activity occurs in each arrangement of substances included in the third infinitely large number of different arrangements of substances, etc.: for example, movement of load (for example, a person) from one place to another can be carried out if we compose such an arrangement of substances that will represent a motor vehicle, or an airplane, or a ship, or a helicopter, etc., i.e. this list apparently can be continued endlessly.

Based on the aforesaid, one can come to conclusion that, in order to invent almost all inventions that people currently wish to get invented (if to create these inventions only by performing random new experiments), probably, it is necessary to perform a great many random new experiments. And it takes a very large amount of time (i.e. a very large number of years) to perform a great many of random experiments. Based on the aforesaid and on the analysis of references, one can come to conclusion that, apparently, by applying the above methods for developing inventions, a computer and a robot (if programmers create the appropriate program for the computer using the above methods for developing inventions) will need much less years (in order to invent almost all inventions that people currently wish to get invented) than the great number of years that, apparently, will be necessary for this computer and this robot to invent almost all inventions that people currently wish to get invented if this robot and this computer create these inventions only by performing random new experiments.

Based on the above, one can come to conclusion that, using methods for developing inventions considered above, three programmers can easily create such program for a computer by means which a computer, using a robot, apparently, will be able to invent almost all inventions that people currently wish to get invented within not very large amount of time (that is, within not a very large number of years).

The hypothesis about the origin of life on the Earth, i.e. on the planet inhabited by humans

I suppose that any animal is continually changing arrangement of substances (i.e. a continuously changing arrangement of elementary particles), and this arrangement of substances continuously changes, as a rule, in such a way, that it (i.e. this substances arrangement) frequently becomes such a substances arrangement which it has already been (once or several times), i.e. this substances arrangement is continually changing so that it (i.e. this substances arrangement) frequently becomes one substances arrangement or another substances arrangement, the third substances arrangement, etc. each one of which is usually included in the number of such substances arrangements which it (i.e. this constantly changing substances arrangement) has already been (one or more times). In nature, continuously spontaneously (i.e. naturally, i.e. without the help of humans and other organisms) there have been composing (and are composed) newer and newer (and not new) continuously changing arrangements of substances (i.e. newer and newer arrangements of substances, each one of which continuously changed immediately after it has been spontaneously composed) (i.e. because the rivers flow and as a result move the sand and other substances which banks of the rivers consist of, i.e. the rivers randomly change substances arrangements, available on the banks. The wind randomly moves small particles of substances that randomly fall on the banks of rivers and seas, etc.), based on this and on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that apparently, as a result of this, about 2 billion years ago (and the Earth exists about 4 billion years), on Earth (i.e. on the planet inhabited by humans) spontaneously (i.e. naturally) such an ever-changing arrangement of substances had been formed (i.e. had been composed) that had become the first animal on the Earth [i.e. there had been formed such an ever-changing arrangement of substances that had been identical to the arrangement of substances representing an animal (i.e. which represents an animal)] which, apparently, had been a single-celled microorganism. And apparently from this first on the Earth animal, by means of natural selection (it was discovered by Ch. Darwin), existing currently on the Earth animals and people have appeared.

I suppose that any plant is a continuously changing arrangement of substances (i.e. continuously changing arrangement of elementary particles). In nature more and more new (and not new) continuously changing arrangements of substances continually have spontaneously been composed (and are composed). Based on this and on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that, apparently, as a result of this, about 2 billion years ago on Earth, such a constantly changing arrangement of substances, which was the first plant on Earth, had spontaneously (i.e. naturally) formed (i.e. had been composed). And apparently, from this first plant on the Earth currently existing plants have been formed by natural selection. On almost any planet, more and more new continuously changing arrangements of substances were continually and spontaneously composed. Based on this, on the aforesaid, and on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that, apparently, as a result of this, on some planets such constantly changing arrangement of substances have spontaneously (i.e. naturally) formed which were the first animals on these planets. That is, I have come to conclusion that, apparently, as a result, on any planet among these (some) planets, there spontaneously had formed such a continuously changing arrangement of substances which was the first animal to appear on this planet (i.e. the first animal to appear on that planet where it had appeared, i.e. formed).

Methods for music creation

(i.e. methods, each one of which is intended

for creating musical compositions)

Based on the analysis of musical compositions, I have come to conclusion that a musical composition can be intended either for entertainment, or for recreation, or for improvement of some part of a feature film (by means of the sound of this musical composition at the time when this part of the feature film will be shown), etc.

Based on the analysis of musical compositions, I have come to conclusion that a musical composition intended for entertainment of a person (or people) a person can create by applying the following method. First, with the help of musical instrument or his (her) voice, or in any other way, a person should produce a random (i.e. the first encountered) combination of random sounds and pauses, and this person should listen to this random combination of random sounds and pauses. Then this person should produce another random combination of random sounds and pauses, and should listen to the latter random combination of random sounds and pauses, then this person should produce the third random combination of random sounds and pauses (and this third random combination of random sounds and pauses should be different from the first random combination of random sounds and pauses and from the second one), and again he (she) should listen to the latter random combination of random sounds and pauses, etc. until (i.e. until the moment) when this person have repeated it many times, i.e. until this person have listened to a large number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses (by the way, a random combination of random sounds and pauses can be produced by a person using a computer connected to a speaker). Herewith, listening to these random combinations of random sounds and pauses, this person should choose among them a combination of sounds and pauses that he (she) likes to listen to more than to any other combination of sounds and pauses listened to by him (her) (i.e. by this person) as a result of this. Herewith, having listened to a large number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses, this person should choose among them a combination of sounds and pauses that he (she) likes to listen to more than to any other combination of sounds and pauses listened to by him (her) (i.e. by this person) as a result of this. And I suppose that this combination of sounds and pauses chosen by him will be a piece of music that is intended to entertain a person or some people (i.e. some persons). It confirms that practice shows that if a person likes to listen to some combination of sounds and pauses, this combination of sounds and pauses will usually be liked to listen to by some people too. Based on the analysis of musical compositions and references, I have come to the following conclusions: 1) among a large number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses, anyone can usually find two or more such combinations of sounds and pauses that he (she) (i.e. this person) will like to listen to; 2) by applying this method of creating musical compositions, people will be able to create many musical compositions; 3) if a person will create a piece of music by using this method, then usually the greater the number of random combinations (random sounds and pauses) that the person will listen to (while creating a piece of music by using this method) and among which this person will choose (and will have chosen) (such a combination of sounds and pauses that he (she) likes to listen to more than to any other combination of sounds and pauses listened to by him (her) as a result of creating a piece of music by using this method), the better will be the piece of music created by this person by using this method.

Based on the analysis of musical compositions, I have come to conclusion that a musical composition intended for the relaxation of a person or some people (i.e. some persons) can be created by person by applying the following method: First, a person produces and listens to a large number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses [i.e. first, a person produces a large number of random combinations (of random sounds and pauses) and listens to them] (and he (she) produces these random combinations of random sounds and pauses in any way). Having listened to this large number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses, this person should choose among this large number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses one such a combination of sounds and pauses, to sounding of which (i.e. during the sounding of which) he likes to relax more than to the sound of any other combination of sounds and pauses among this large number of random combinations of sounds and pauses. And I suppose that this combination of sounds and pauses chosen by him will be a musical composition that is intended for relaxation of a person or some people (i.e. some persons). This is actually proved that, if a person likes to relax to the sounding of a combination of sounds and pauses, as a rule, some people also like to relax to the sounding of this combination of sounds and pauses.

Based on the analysis of musical compositions, I have come to conclusion that a musical composition (intended for improvement of some part of the feature film by playing this musical composition at the time when this part of the feature film will be shown) can be created by the following method: First, a person watches this part of the feature film, and at the same time produces and listens to a random combination of random sounds and pauses (and he (she) produces this random combination of sounds and pauses in any way). Then this person watches this part of the feature film again, and simultaneously produces and listens to another random (i.e. the first encountered) combination of random sounds and pauses. Then this person watches this part of the feature film again, and simultaneously produces and listens to the third random combination of random sounds and pauses (and this third random combination of random sounds and pauses should be different from the first random combination of random sounds and pauses and from the second one), etc., until this person repeats this many (i.e. a large number of) times [i.e. until this person listens to a large number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses in this way (i.e. simultaneously with watching this part of the feature film)]. Having implemented this, this person should choose a combination of sounds and pauses to the sound of which he (she) likes to watch this part of the film than to the sound of any other (combination of sounds and pauses) among this large number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses listened to by him. And I suppose that this combination of sounds and pauses that he (she) has chosen, will be a piece of music (which is intended for improvement of some part of the feature film by playing that piece of music while that part of the feature film is being shown) and which is intended for one person or some people. It is actually proved that, if a person likes to watch some part of the feature film to the sound of some combination of sounds and pauses, as a rule, some people also like to watch this part of the feature film to the sound of this combination of sounds and pauses.

Based on the analysis of musical compositions, I have come to conclusion that the musical composition intended for entertainment of a person (or people) can be created by means of the following method: first, a person should produce in any way a random combination of random sounds and pauses, and at the same time this person should produce only by means of percussion musical instruments another (i.e. the second) random combination of random sounds and pauses, and this person should listen to these two simultaneously sounding random combinations of random sounds and pauses. Then this person should everyhow produce the third random combination of random sounds and pauses (and this is the third random combination of random sounds and pauses should be different from the first random combination of random sounds and pauses and from the second one), and at the same time this person should issue only with the help of percussion musical instruments the fourth random combination of random sounds and pauses (and this fourth random combination of random sounds and pauses should be different from the first random combination of random sounds and pauses, from the second one and from the third one), and this person should listen to these two (i.e. the last two) simultaneously sounding random combinations of random sounds and pauses, etc., until this person repeats this many times, i.e. until this person have listened in this way to a large number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses. Having listened in this way to a large number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses, this person should choose among them such two simultaneously sounded as a result of this (and listened to them as a result of this) combinations of sounds and pauses that he (she) likes to listen to more than any other two simultaneously sounded as a result of this (and listened to them as a result of this) random combinations of random sounds and pauses. And I suppose that these two chosen by him (her) (i.e. by this person) and sounded simultaneously (as a result of this) combinations of sounds and pauses will be a musical composition, which is intended for entertainment of a person or some people. It is actually proved that, if a person likes to listen to some two simultaneously sounding combinations of sounds and pauses, as a rule, some people like to listen to these two simultaneously sounding combinations of sounds and pauses.

I suppose that this method (i.e. the last method) is better than the abovementioned method (i.e. not the last method) for creating musical compositions intended for entertainment of a person (or people) [by the way, the last method for creating music is intended for entertainment of a person (or people)] because experience shows that people usually like to listen for entertainment to such combinations of sounds in each one of which there are sounds produced by percussion musical instruments.

Four methods for creating musical compositions are considered above. Based on the analysis of musical compositions, I have come to the conclusion that using the methods that I suppose can be developed and which are similar to these four methods of creating musical compositions [these four methods are intended to create musical compositions and these musical compositions are intended for the following (that is, intended for the following three purposes): for entertainment, for relaxation and to improve parts of feature films (through the sound of musical compositions at the time when these parts of feature films will be shown)] it will be possible to create musical compositions that are not intended for this (that is, not for these three purposes) but for another (that is, for other purposes).

Based on the above and on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that, in about 50 years, robots and computers are likely to be able to perform (i.e. to do) any work that people can do (i.e. I’ve come to conclusion that, in about 50 years, robots and computers are likely to do all work instead of people who will live in about 50 years on the planet Earth) [this confirmed by the following: 1) the human brain, apparently, is only memory and devices (i.e. organs) supporting the memory (this was stated above); 2) the computer is only memory and devices supporting the memory]. Based on this and on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that, in about 50 years, anyone will probably be able to not work, and receive a good allowance, which will usually be more than the allowance which will be enough for this person to satisfy his (her) needs for term of own life.

I suppose that, in about 50 years, there will be a system called "Nerabotizm". Nerabotizm is a social system in which any person can afford not to work and receive a good allowance, which is usually more than the allowance by means of which this person can satisfy his (her) needs for term of own life. The principle of nerabotizm is as follows: "From everybody – nothing, to everybody – a good allowance, which is usually more than an allowance by which a person can satisfy his (her) needs for term of own life". I suppose that in about 50 years the capitalism will be replaced by nerabotizm.

I believe that when robots and computers can do almost all jobs (or more than 80 percent of all jobs) then in order to create nerabotizm , the state of any country must buy or make such robots and and make these robots and computers do useful workalso the state of this country should distribute the money earned by these robots and computers to all citizens of this country.

List of references [i.e. the list of printed works

which I have used for creation of this

(i.e. presented above) work]

1. Altshuller Genrikh Saulovich (he is the author of the book, which has the title) "Algorithm of Invention" (I have used the stated on) page 198 (of this book) of the Moscow publishing house "Moskovskii rabochii", 1969.

2. Altshuller Genrikh Saulovich (he is the author of the book that has the title) "Creativity as a science. Theory of solving inventive problems" (I used the stated on) page 154 (of this book). Moscow, "Sovetskoe radio", 1979.

3. Kondakov N.I. (he is the author of the book that has the title) "Logical dictionary-reference book" (I used the stated on) p. 470, 576, 629, and 630 (of this book). Moscow publishing house "Nauka", 1975.

4. Luger, George, F. (he is the author of the book that has the title) "Artificial intelligence: strategies and methods of solving complex problems" (fourth edition, translated from English, M.) (I used the stated on) p. 57–322 (of this book), publishing house "Williams", 2003.

5. Norvig Peter, Russell Stewart (they are the authors of the book that has a title) "Artificial intelligence: a modern approach" (second edition, translation from English, M., publishing house "Williams") (I used the stated on) p. 109–435 (of this book), 2006.

6. Hunt E. (he is the author of the book that has the title) "Artificial intelligence" (I have used the stated on) p. 251, 252, 253, 254, 278, and 279 (of this book), Moscow, publishing house "Mir", 1978.

7. "Za rubezhom" [this is the name of the newspaper, No. 5 (918)] (I used the stated on) p. 20 (of this newspaper), 1978.

8. The Russian language dictionary, publishing house "Russkiy yazyk", 1984 (I have used the stated) on p. 654 of the fourth volume (of this dictionary).

9. The modern Russian literary language dictionary, publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1959 (I have used the stated on) p. 541 of the eighth volume (of this dictionary).

Publishing organization Tonna zolota LLC

Saint Petersburg

This (i.e. the above) work was published on the Internet on April 05, 2007

E-mail of A.A. Shmonov 275527@gmail.com

Telephone in Russia, Saint Petersburg of A.A. Shmonov +79013041055

This work was printed in the form of a book in the city of Saint-Petersburg at the Pushkin Printing House on June 10, 2007 year circulation of 1000 copies

Shmonov Aleksandr Anatolievich

108