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
[this is the title of the work, here (i.e. further) the summary of this work is provided (i.e. presented)

(i.e. the essence of the work) (this short

description consists of 1901 words)]

 

The first method for developing inventions consists

in drawing random conclusions from

conditional propositions

In logic, there are conditional propositions, for example: if: to place fire under a stone, then: the stone will heat up (lets call this conditional proposition the first conditional proposition). Words in a conditional proposition that stand from (i.e. after) the word "if" to the word then are called the basis of conditional proposition, and the words of a conditional proposition that stand after word "then", are called the consequence of a conditional proposition. Double conjunction if..., then... connects a basis and a consequence. That is the words to place fire under a stone will be the basis of this conditional proposition, and the words the stone will heat up will be its consequence. Lets take the second conditional proposition: if: the stone will heat up, then: the stone will expand. The consequence of the first conditional proposition consists of the words the stone will heat up and the basis of the second conditional proposition consists of the same words: the stone will heat up. If a person will make to conclusion from the first and the second conditional propositions, as a result of the conclusion, he/she will receive the following new conditional proposition (let's call this conditional proposition the third conditional proposition): "if: to place fire under a stone, then: the stone will expand".

Based on the analysis of references, I have created the following rule (I have called this rule the first rule):

The first rule: in order for a computer will make a conclusion from two conditional propositions, it (i.e. the computer) shall do the following: to find in its own 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 or consist of the same words in the same sequence. Then the computer should instead grounds of the second conditional proposition put the basis of the first conditional proposition. And thereby, the computer converts the second conditional proposition into the third conditional proposition (i.e. thereby the computer will obtain from two conditional propositions the third conditional proposition, this third conditional proposition may be new information or not new information). They have the same meanings: a) the word and interpretation of this the word b) synonyms and so on.

If in the memory of the computer the first and second conditional propositions (stated above) are stored and if other conditional propositions are stored in the memory of this computer, then the computer can without human assistance find from among conditional propositions (which are stored in the memory of this computer) two such conditional propositions where the consequence of the first conditional proposition and the basis of the second conditional proposition consist of the same words in the same sequence (it is known that the computer is able to find the same words standing in the same sequence and located in different parts of its memory). Then the computer can, without the help of a person, instead of basis the second conditional proposition, put the basis of the first conditional proposition. And thereby the computer converts the second conditional proposition into the third conditional proposition (which is stated above). Based on this and on the analysis of references, one can draw the conclusion that the computer can by applying the first rule draw conclusions by itself from conditional propositions that are stored in its memory (i.e. in the memory of this computer), and, as a result, obtain conditional propositions. Some conditional propositions obtained in this way [i.e. some conditional propositions obtained by inference from random (i.e. the first available) conditional propositions] usually are new conditional propositions, each one of which is new information (a new conditional proposition is new information), and, according to some encyclopedias, some the Russian language dictionaries and some foreign patent laws, new information is an invention.
Based on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that description of almost any invention can be stated so that it (i.e. this description) will be a conditional proposition. By the way, physical effects, i.e. physical phenomena (they can be expressed in the form of conditional propositions) are most often used to create inventions. As a result of the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that almost all currently known information that is needed to create inventions, can be expressed in the form of conditional propositions. This method for developing inventions (i.e. the first method for developing inventions) consists in inventing by the computer the random (i.e. the first encountered) inventions through the computer makes random inferences from random conditional propositions by means of the first rule.

Based on the analysis of references, I have come to conclusion that, using this method for developing inventions (i.e. the first method for developing inventions) the computer will create a random invention if as a result of obtaining random conditional propositions, it (i.e. this computer) obtains a new random conditional proposition (i.e. obtains new information) the basis of which will be description of an arrangement of substances (or will be description of an continuously changing arrangement of substances) that people will be able to compose (with or without the help of known devices) at the time of obtaining by the computer this new conditional proposition (i.e. the basis of this new conditional proposition will be description of what people will be able to implement at the time of receiving by the computer this new conditional proposition).

 

 

The second method for developing inventions consisting in producing OR-subproblems by means of conditional propositions 

 

From the book entitled "Artificial Intelligence", 1978 (the author of this book is E. Hunt), it follows that OR-subtask is such a task by solving (i.e. solve) which a computer (thereby) will solve not only this (i.e. the latter) task, but also the task from which this OR-subtask has been produced (producing an OR-subtask will be considered further). For example, suppose that it is necessary to invent a way by which you can obtain (i.e. by which it will occur) the following: a stone will expand (i.e. expansion of the stone) (lets assume that this method has not been invented yet); lets call this task the original inventive task. It follows from the second conditional proposition that if a computer invents a method to get a stone heated (lets assume that such a method has not been invented yet) [i.e. if a computer solves (i.e. decide) the inventive task which consists in developing a method to get a stone heated (the latter inventive task is an OR-subtask of the original inventive task, i.e. the latter inventive task is an OR-subtask produced from the original inventive task)], then (i.e. in that case) this computer (thereby) will invent a method with which one can obtain expansion of the stone (i.e. thus this computer will solve the original inventive task). It follows from the first conditional proposition that in order to solve this inventive OR-subtask (lets mark this OR-subtask with number 1), i.e., in order to develop a method for heating a stone it is necessary to solve the following inventive OR-subtask (of the inventive OR-subtask marked with number 1) (i.e. it is necessary to solve the OR-subsubtask of the original task), i.e. it is necessary to obtain information which would explain how one can obtain the following: to place fire under a stone. And people know how it can be achieved, i.e. this OR-subsubtask of the original inventive task is description of the arrangement of substances that people are able to compose. So, the latter inventive OR-subsubtask does not require any solution because the solution of this task is known. And if this inventive OR-subsubtask is solved, then (thereby) the initial task will be solved too.

Based on the analysis of references, I have created the following rule (I have called this rule the second rule):

The second rule: Let us take any inventive task (lets mark this inventive task with letter "S"). In order for the computer to produce from the inventive problem "S" an inventive OR-subtask (of this inventive task "S"), it (i.e. the computer) shall do the following: 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 task "S" have the same meanings or consist of the same words which are located in the same sequence. And the basis of this conditional proposition will be inventive OR-subtask (of this inventive task "S").

By the way, an inventive OR-subtask is an inventive task, an inventive OR-subsubtask is an inventive task, etc. Thus, using the second rule it is possible: 1) to produce from an inventive OR-subtask its inventive OR-subtask; 2) to produce from inventive OR-subsubtask an inventive OR-subtask of this inventive OR-subsubtask, etc.

The computer will solve any inventive task that needs to be solved (I have called the latter task the original inventive task) by this method if it (i.e. the computer) does the following: first, by applying the second rule, it will produce from the original inventive task an inventive OR-subtask of the original inventive task; then, by applying the second rule, from this inventive OR-subtask of the original task the computer will produce its inventive OR-subtask (the latter inventive OR-subtask will be an inventive OR-subsubtask of the original task ); then, by applying the second rule, from this inventive OR-subsubtask of the original task, the computer will produce an inventive OR-subtask of this inventive OR-subsubtask (the latter inventive OR-subtask will be an inventive OR-subsubsubtask of the original task ), etc., until the end of the moment at which (i.e. when) the computer produces such an inventive OR-subtask the solution of which is known (and if the computer produces such an inventive OR-subtask, the computer will solve the original inventive task), i.e. until the end of the moment at which the computer produces such description of OR-subtask which is description of the arrangement of substances (or which is description of the continuously changing arrangement of substances) that people will be able to compose (with or without the help of devices) at the time when the computer produces this description of OR-subtask (i.e. until the end of the moment in which the computer produces such description of OR-subtask which will be description of what people will be able to implement at the time when the computer produces this description of OR-subtask). Herewith, as it actually proved, in order for the computer to solve an inventive task, it shall thus produce on average 90 OR-subtask. In that consists this the method for developing inventions (i.e. the second method for developing inventions).

Almost all currently known information (which is needed to create inventions) can be expressed in the form of conditional propositions. If, for example, 400 random physical effects in the form of conditional propositions are stored in the computer memory, then the computer can create on average a lot of inventions by applying this method (an average inventor knows 150 physical effects).