**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__»
(let’s 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.
Let’s 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) (let’s assume that this method has not been invented
yet); let’s 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 (let’s 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 (let’s 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 (let’s 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).