Methods
of invention through which
three programmers can easily write
such programs (for a computer)
through which the computer
can devise many
inventions without the assistance
human
[this is the title of this work (i.e. work which given below)]

 

 

To read (i.e. for read) the summary of this
work please click here

 

 

The author of this (i.e. given below) work is
Alexander Anatotyevich Shmonov

By the way, I believe that with the help of the
this (i.e. given below) work been created a software enabling
the computer to invent little inventions without human
participation. More on that described
on the website www.method.ru

The work given below is an English translation
of the Russian original.

 

 

 

 

Contents

The first method of invention consisting of drawing random conclusions from conditional propositions.

The second method of invention consisting of generation of OR-subtasks (which are nodes of the tree decomposing the original task into subtasks) with the help of conditional propositions.

The third method of invention consisting of generation of AND-subtasks and OR-subtasks (which are nodes of the tree decomposing the original task into subtasks) with the help of conditional propositions.

The fourth method of invention consisting of drawing random conclusions from conditional propositions and (or) from images and conventional propositions that contain references to these images.

The fifth method of invention consisting of generation of OR-subtasks (which are nodes of a tree) with the help of conditional propositions and (or) images and conditional propositions that contain references to these images.

The sixth method of invention consisting of generation of AND-subtasks and OR-subtasks (which are nodes of a tree) with the help of conditional propositions and/or images and conditional propositions that have references to these images.

The seventh method of invention consisting of conducting random experiments.

The eighth method of invention consisting of making inventions with the help of old conditional propositions of the second, third, fifth and sixth methods of invention and new random conditional propositions derived through random experiments.

The ninth method of invention consisting of conducting primarily the experiments which will most likely allow to make some particular invention that needs to be invented.

The tenth method of invention consisting of deriving tree nodes using priori and non-priori conditional propositions, and of validating by experiments these priori conditional propositions required to derive these nodes.

The eleventh method of invention is an advanced “cur and try method”.

Supplementary useful information

The cerebrum of any man is seemingly just a memory and memory service elements (i.e. organs).

The computer and robot will likely be able to make all inventions which people would like to have invented.

A hypothesis for the origin of life on Earth, i.e. on a planet populated by human beings.

Music composition methods (i.e. methods each of which is intended for composing pieces of music).

In about 50 years, any person will presumably be able not to work and get a good allowance which will be generally more than an allowance sufficient for a man to satisfy his/her wants throughout his/her life.

References [i.e. a list of publications which I used in the preparation of this (i.e. given above)] work.

The first method of invention consisting of
drawing random conclusions from
conditional propositions

This method of invention was created by the, including by means of expert systems and production systems, these systems set forth on pages (from 196 to 216 and from 275 to 292) of the book, which has the name "Artificial Intelligence: Strategies and methods for solving complex problems" (translation from English) published in 2003 publishing house "Williams", the author of this book Luger, George F.

Page 629 of the Logical Dictionary, a reference book issued In 1975 by Nauka Publishing House, Moscow (authored by N.I. Kondakov) (this reference book is mentioned in paragraph 2 in the list of publications given at the end of this work) says about conditional propositions that can be formed with the use of "if…, then" logic. I will give an example of such logical proposition: "If a torch flame touches the bottom of a steel ball, then this ball will heat up”.

Words of the conditional proposition which are (i.e. stands) between "if" and "then" (i.e. the conditional statement words starting right after "if" and ending before 'then") are denoted as a basis of the conditional proposition while the conditional proposition words that are (i.e. stands) after 'then" are denoted as a consequence of the conditional proposition. That is what page 629 of the abovementioned Kondakov's dictionary says.

After analyzing the publications I have come to a point that, for wording conditional propositions, it is more convenient to use logical connective "If the following exists ... then the following will exist" instead of the "if... then" logical connective (used in the wording of the above mentioned propositions).

Now, I’II give an example of a conditional proposition where logical connective "If the following exists ... then the following will exist" is used (I denoted it as the first conditional proposition):

The first conditional proposition reads as follows: "If we have the following: A torch flame touches the bottom of a steel ball. Then we will have the following: Heating of the steel ball”.

I’ve denoted these conditional proposition words standing between "If we have the following" and "Then we will have the following" as the basis of the conditional proposition where logic connective "If we have the following... then we will have the following" is used. And I've denoted the words of this conditional proposition that stand after "Then we will have the following" as the consequence of this conditional proposition. Therefore: the following words (which stand in a sequence given below) are the basis of the first conditional proposition: "A torch flame touches the bottom of a steel ball” and the consequence of the first conditional proposition are the following words (standing in a sequence given below): “Heating of the steel ball”.

I will take one more conditional proposition (I’ve denoted it as the second conditional proposition):

The second conditional proposition reads as follows: “If we have the following: Heating of the steel ball. Then we will have the following: Expanding of the steel ball”.

If a man makes a conclusion (i.e. inference) from the first and second conditional propositions, he will get the following conditional proposition (I’ve denoted it as the third conditional proposition):

The third conditional proposition reads as follows: “If we have the following: A torch flame touches the bottom of a steel ball. Then we will have the following: Expanding of the steel ball”.

The consequence of the first conditional proposition is the following words (which stand in the following sequence): "Heating of the steel ball". And the basis of the second conditional proposition is the same words (which stand in the same sequence), that is to say: "Heating of the steel ball". If a man replaces the basis of the second abovementioned conditional proposition with the basis of first abovementioned conditional proposition, then he/she will get as a result (from the second conditional proposition) the third abovementioned conditional proposition. That is to say, that if a person replaces the basis of the second conditional proposition (mentioned above) with the basis of the first abovementioned conditional proposition, then he will get as a result such a conditional proposition which a man will get as a result from the first and second conditional propositions.

We can make a huge number of similar examples.

Based on: 1) the abovementioned, 2) the description of the conditional proposition page 630 of the mentioned Kondakov’s dictionary cited above and below, 3) the cut rule mentioned on page 470 of this Kondakov’s dictionary, 4) the explanations worded in the references mentioned in 1, 3 and 4 of the list of references which is given in the end of this work, and 5) the analysis of the publications, I’ve derived the following rule (I’ve denoted this rule as the first rule):

The first rule: In order to make (and keep making) a conclusion (that is, an inference, i.e. the process of making a conclusion) of two conditional propositions, we should adhere to either of the following two sequences of actions:

1. Find two such conditional propositions where a consequence of the first conditional proposition and the basis of the second conditional proposition consist of the same words standing in the same sequence [i.e. to find two such conditional propositions where the consequence of the first conditional proposition (out of these conditional propositions) consists of some words which stand in some sequence, and the basis of the second conditional proposition consists of the same words standing in the same sequence]. Then we have to change the second conditional proposition, that is, we have to replace the basis of the second conditional proposition with the basis of the first conditional proposition. And thus, the second conditional proposition will be transformed into the third conditional proposition (i.e. in this way, the third conditional proposition will be formed out of the second conditional proposition).

2. Find two such conditional propositions where the consequence of the first conditional proposition and some portion of the basis of the second conditional proposition consist of the same words standing in the same sequence [i.e. to find two such conditional propositions where the consequence of the first conditional proposition (out of these conditional propositions) consists of some words standing in some sequence, and some portion of the basis of the second conditional proposition consists of the same words standing in the same sequence]. Then we have to change the second conditional proposition, that is, we have to replace the specified portion (the basis of the second conditional proposition) with the basis of the first conditional proposition. And thus, the second conditional proposition will be transformed into the third conditional proposition (i.e. in this way, the third conditional proposition will be formed out of the second conditional proposition).

I will explain this rule with the following example: I will take two conditional propositions (I’ve denoted them as the fourth and fifth propositions).

The fourth conditional proposition reads as follows: “If we have the following: The air trapped in a steel hermetically sealed vessel which is positioned so that the torch flame touches the bottom of this vessel. Then we will have the following: The air heated to a temperature of above 150 °C".

The fifth conditional proposition reads as follows: "If we have the following: Not-melted wax is placed in the air heated to a temperature of above 150°C. Then we will have the following: Melting of the wax”.

By the way, waxes are substances with a melting temperature not exceeding 90°C. By drawing a conclusion out of these propositions using the first rule, I will get the following conditional proposition (I’ve denoted it as the sixth conditional proposition).

The sixth conditional proposition reads as follows: "If we have the following: Not-melted wax is placed in the air trapped in a steel hermetically sealed vessel which is positioned so that the torch flame touches the bottom of this vessel. Then we will have the following: Melting of the wax.”

Based on the analysis of the publications, I've come to a conclusion that three programmers can easily develop such a program for a computer (i.e. an electronic data processing machine) using which the computer can process, without human help, the conditional propositions stored in its memory (i.e. stored in the memory of this computer) and find two such conditional propositions where the conclusion of the first conditional proposition and the basis of the second conditional proposition will consist of the same words standing in the same sequence. Then the computer can replace, without human help, the basis of the second conditional proposition with the basis of the first conditional proposition [by the way, we know that the computer has a memory, that is to say that it can find some specific information (and data related to this information) recorded in its memory (among other information stored in the memory of this computer). For example, a computer can do the following: if some fingerprint is detected in a place where a crime was committed and if the same fingerprint is stored in the memory of the computer, then this computer can find, without human help, this fingerprint (among other fingerprints stored in the memory of this computer) in its memory (i.e. in the memory of the computer), and then the computer can output the name of the man who left the fingerprint in the place where the crime was committed].

Based on the analysis of the publications, I've come to a conclusion that three programmers can easily develop such a program for a computer using which the computer can process, without human help, the conventional propositions stored in its memory (i.e. those stored in the memory of this computer) and find two such conditional propositions where the consequence of the first conditional proposition and some portion of the basis of the second conditional proposition consist of the same words standing in the same sequence. Then the computer can substitute, without human help, the specified portion (of the basis of the second conditional proposition) with the basis of the first conditional proposition.

Therefore, based on the analysis of the publications, I have come to a conclusion that three programmers can easily develop such a program for a computer using which the computer can do the following without human help (and using the first rule): 1) draw (and keep drawing) conclusions (i.e. inferences), 2) process conventional propositions stored in its memory (i.e. stored in the memory of this computer) and produce conventional propositions that are not stored in its memory (i.e. propositions that are not stored in the memory of this computer).

Based on the analysis of publications, I came to the conclusion that some of these conditional propositions (that is, some conditional propositions which a computer can get without the help of human through the conclusions, of, random conditional propositions using the first rule) will new conditional propositions, each of which is a new information (i.e. will be conditional propositions are not known to any person). A new conditional proposition is, usually new information, i.e. information that is not known to any person. A new information according to some encyclopedias and some foreign patent laws is an invention.

Based on the analysis of the publications, I've come to a conclusion that the description of almost any invention can be worded in such a way so that it (i.e. this description) will be a conditional proposition (that is to say, the description of almost any invention which has already been made can be worded in the form of a conditional proposition, and the description of almost any invention which will be made can be worded in the form of a conditional proposition). In other words, if we (me and the reader) take the description of any invention, this description of the invention can be most likely transformed into a conditional proposition, while the meaning of this invention description will not change as a result of this transformation. Based on this conclusion and the analysis of the publications, I have concluded that a portion of conditional propositions (that are already known and that will be known in the world) represent descriptions of inventions, i.e. some conditional propositions are descriptions of inventions.

Based on the analysis of the publications, I have come to the following conclusion: if we word almost all known invention descriptions in the form of conditional propositions, and if we store all currently known information which can be worded in the form of conditional propositions and which is necessary for making inventions (i.e. for inventing inventions) into a computer memory in the form of conditional propositions, then almost all of these conditional propositions which are invention descriptions can be produced by this computer just with the use of random derivations (i.e. inferences) (using the first rule) out of this conditional propositions which represent well known information nowadays which, in its turn, is necessary for making inventions.

Based on the statements provided in the following: 1) publications mentioned in 6 and 7 of the list of references given in the end of this work, 2) page 576 of the Kondakov’s dictionary mentioned above and below, I’ve denoted the conditional proposition where something is approved or denied with reference to each object of some class of objects as the general conditional proposition. For example, "If we have the following: Heating of all steel objects. The, we will have the following: Expansion of all steel objects”.

Based on this data, I’ve denoted such a conditional proposition which is a special case of a general conditional proposition as a special conditional proposition, for example, "If we have the following: Heating of a 138-millimeter diameter steel ball. Then we will have the following: Expanding of the 138 millimeter diameter steel ball".

Based on this data and the analysis of publications, I've come to the conclusion that one general conditional proposition contains such information which is contained in infinite or several relevant special conditional propositions; in other words, one general conditional proposition contains infinite or several relevant special conventional propositions.

Based on the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that three programmers can easily write such a computer program using which a computer can process the general conditional proposition stored in the memory of this computer and derive from it without human help any special conditional proposition which is a special case of this general conditional proposition.

The largest library in the world contains approximately 65 million books and 5 million newspapers and magazines (i.e. approximately 70 million stored units). A half of these stored items (i.e. approximately 35 million of these stored items) being the second and third copies of books, newspapers and magazines. In other words, there are many same books, newspapers and magazines in this library. Hence, there are about 35 million dissimilar stored items (i.e. 35 million of such stored items each of which differs from any of these 35 million stored items). Approximately 80% of books stored in this library are fiction books. And these fiction books describe fictional stories that have never happened. The information contained in these fiction books is not needed for making (i.e. developing) inventions. In this library, there are different scientific books that contain the same information. In this library there are books which contained stories, and every story is false information. Fairy tales are not needed for making inventions. There are some books in this library each of which contains information which represents a special case of some general conditional proposition (i.e. information that can be transformed into a special conditional proposition). But an infinity of special conditional propositions can be sometimes derived from a general conditional proposition. Yet, the literature stored in this library contains approximately 15% of all information known to the world and needed for creating inventions. Based on this statement and the analysis of publications, I've come to the conclusion that almost all information that is currently known to the world and not explicitly needless for creating inventions can be stated in the form of general conditional propositions, and the number of these general conventional propositions is approximately 100 million. In other words, I have come to the conclusion that almost all information that is currently known to the world and not explicitly needless for creating inventions can be summarized in the form of nearly a hundred million of general conditional propositions.

It is desirable that the memory of the computer [which will create inventions by using this (i.e. the first) method of invention and the methods of invention detailed below] would store these 100 million true (i.e. not false) general conditional propositions [in other words, it is desirable to write all information (which is well known to the world, not explicitly needless for creating inventions and which can be stated in the form of general conditional propositions) to the memory of the computer (which will make inventions by using this, i.e. the first, method of invention and the methods of invention detailed below) in the form of general conditional propositions].

But, to enable a computer to create a lot of inventions (without human help), by using the methods of invention described above and below, it is sufficient to write to its memory (i.e. to the memory of this computer) 2,500 (two thousand and fifty hundred) general conditional propositions which are not explicitly needless for creating inventions and which form part of these 100 million general conditional propositions. However, the more general conditional propositions out of these 100 million general conditional propositions (i.e. included in them) is written to the computer memory the more inventions can be made by this computer (without human help) by using the methods of invention mentioned above and below.

It is advisable to write to the computer memory such general conditional propositions which are most often used for making inventions (by the way, physical effects, i.e. physical phenomena described in the form of general conditional propositions are general conditional propositions which are most often used for making inventions).

It is not necessary to write special conditional propositions to the computer memory (which will create inventions using the methods of invention mentioned above and below) since, I believe, three programmers can easily develop such a computer program using which a computer can process any general conditional proposition written to the memory of this computer and derive (i.e. work out), without human help, any special conditional proposition which will be a special case of this general conditional proposition.

I believe that three programmers will be able to easily find these 2,500 general conditional propositions in the literature and write them to the computer memory.

If we transform all information of the world (which can be transformed to conventional propositions) to conventional propositions, then some of these conventional propositions will be such conditional propositions each of which will be a description of some invention. Based on the analysis of publications, I've come to the conclusion that three programmers can easily write such a computer program using which a computer will be able, without human help [if the aforesaid 2,500 general conditional propositions are written to its memory (i.e. to the memory of this computer)], to do the following: 1) draw a large number of random (i.e. the first available) conclusions (i.e. inferences) out of these 2,500 general conditional propositions by using the first rule, 2) derive a large number of random (new or not new) general conditional propositions as a result of making these conclusions (i.e. inferences). But approximately 70% of general conditional propositions are those general conditional propositions each of which can be resolved by the computer without human help into an infinity (i.e. each of which includes an infinity) of special conditional propositions (the computer can do this without man help given that the programmers write an appropriate program for the computer which, I believe, three programmers can easily develop).

Based on the analysis of publications, I've come to the conclusion that the description of nearly any invention can be stated in such a way so that it (i.e. this description) will be a conditional proposition and this conditional proposition can be special or general at that. In other words, some portion of invention descriptions can be worded in the form of general conditional propositions and some portion of invention descriptions can be worded in the form of special conventional propositions. Based on the analysis of publications, I've come to the conclusion that if the aforesaid 2,500 general conditional propositions are written to the memory of a computer (or a man) and if this computer (or this man) draw random (i.e. the first available) conclusions (i.e. inferences) out of these 2,500 general conditional propositions by using the first rule [which were not drawn by this computer (or this man) out of these conditional propositions by the first rule], then this computer will derive, as a result, random (new and not new) general conventional propositions. And approximately 70% of these random general conditional propositions will be such random general conditional propositions each of which can be resolved by this computer without human help into the infinity (i.e. each of which includes an infinity) of random special conditional propositions. In this case, the computer will be able to derive, without human help, new random special conditional propositions out of any new random general conditional proposition.

Based on the analysis of publications, I've come to the conclusion that if a computer (or a man) draws random conclusions out of the aforesaid 2,500 general conditional propositions by using the first rule [which were not drawn by this computer (or this man) out of these aforesaid 2,500 general conditional propositions by the first rule] and if this computer (or this man) derives (i.e. works out) random special conditional propositions out of random general conditional propositions obtained with the help of these conclusions, then some of these general and special conditional propositions will be new random inventions. Thus, this will result in generation of a large number of these inventions.

At the same time, any new invention is an invention which is known to no one before this invention is made. A computer (or a man) should not make a conclusion by using the first rule out of such two conditional propositions out of which it (i.e. this computer or this man) have already made a conclusion by using the first rule.

This method of invention (i.e. the first method of invention) consists of making random (i.e. first available) inventions by drawing random conclusions (i.e. inferences) out of conditional propositions by using the first rule [in other words, this method of invention consists of making random inventions by drawing conclusions (i.e. inference) with the use of the first rule out of random conditional propositions and those conditional propositions (I will denote these conditional propositions with the letter Z) which match these random conditional propositions in such a way that conclusions can be made out of these Z propositions and these random conditional propositions by using the first rule] and by generating (i.e. working out) special conditional propositions out of random (i.e. first available) general conditional propositions which are special cases of these general conditional propositions [here, a random conclusion from conventional propositions implies the conclusion made out of a random conventional proposition and conditional proposition that has such properties (i.e. features) which allow to make a conclusion out of this (i.e. the latter) conditional proposition and this random conditional proposition by the first rule].

Based on the statement mentioned above (and below) and on the analysis of publications, I've come to the conclusion that if the abovementioned two thousand and fifty hundred general conditional propositions are written to the computer memory, and if the other needed for drawing conclusions by the first rule is written to the memory of this computer (details of what should be written to the memory of the computer for enabling the computer to draw conclusions by the first rule are described above and below), then by using this method of invention (i.e. the first method of invention), three programmers can easily write such a program for this computer using which this computer can create many new random inventions without human help.

Based on the abovementioned statement and the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that the computer will create a random invention by this method of invention (i.e. the first method of invention) if it (i.e. this computer) derives, as a result of working out random conditional propositions, such a new random conditional proposition the consequence of which contains something which will provide a benefit to a man (in other words, the consequence of which will contain a worded description of something which will benefit a man), and the basis of this conditional proposition will be the description of the configuration of substances [or it will be a description of the permanently varying configuration of substances] which can be drawn up by the people (without the aid of devices or by using known devices) whereas the computer will derive this new conditional proposition (in other words, the basis of this new conditional proposition will be a description of what people will be able to implement whilst the computer derives this new conditional proposition). Moreover, if the consequence of this new conditional proposition and the consequence of some not new conditional proposition will consist of the same words standing in the same sequence, then the basis of this new conditional proposition should contain the description of such a configuration of substances which has some advantages over the configuration of substances described in the basis of this not new conditional proposition. These advantages should represent, for example, a lesser weight or volume or lesser value, etc. of the configuration of substances.

By the way, page 88 in the tenth volume of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the third edition issued by the Soviet Encyclopedia publishing house in 1972, says that an invention is something that will provide or provides benefits and is new.

It follows from the statements mentioned above and below that: 1) all (or nearly all) configurations of substances which can be formed by people should be written with words to the computer memory among other things, 2) all (or nearly all) things which will benefit a man should be written with words among other things to the computer memory, 3) all (or nearly all) advantages the configuration of substances can have over other configurations of substances should be written with words among other things to the computer memory. And this should be written in the form of common expressions (I’ve denoted as a common expression such an expression where something is approved or denied with reference to each object of some class of objects) rather than subexpressions (I’ve denoted as a subexpression such an expression which is a special case of a general expression) since the computer can derive any subexpression from a common expression which will be a special case of this common expression. Based on the analysis of publications, I've come to the conclusion that if this is written to the computer memory, then three programmers can easily create such a program for this computer using which the computer will be able to do the following without human help: 1) determine whether the basis of a conditional proposition is a description of configuration of substances which can be formulated by people, 2) determine whether the consequence of a conventional proposition contains a description of something which will benefit a man, 3) determine whether the configuration of substances described in the basis of a conditional proposition has some advantage over configurations of substances described in the basis of some other conditional proposition.

Based on the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that: 1) nearly all configurations which people can form can be written by using a small number of common expressions, 2) nearly all things which will benefit a man can be written by using a small number of common expressions, 3) nearly all advantages a configuration of substances may have over other any other configuration of substances can be written by using a small number of common expressions.

Now, I will take six conditional propositions (I’ve denoted them as the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth conditional propositions).

The seventh conditional proposition reads as follows: “If we have the following: Steel and wooden balls lie on a table and touch each other, and the torch flame touches the abovementioned steel ball, whereas the diameters of these balls being equal. Then we will have the following: The wooden ball is exposed to pressure exerted in the horizontal plane”.

The last proposition is true because the steel ball expands as it is being heated and starts putting pressure on the wooden ball.

The eighth conditional proposition reads as follows: “If we have the following: The wooden ball lying on the table is exposed to pressure exerted in the horizontal plane. Then we will have the following: The wooden ball lying on the table will start moving”.

The ninth conditional proposition reads as follows: “If we have the following: Burning gasoline is one centimeter below a very large steel ball. Then we will have the following: Heating of the very large steel ball”.

The tenth conditional proposition reads as follows: “If we have the following: Heating of the huge steel ball. Then we will have the following: Expansion of the huge steel ball”.

The eleventh conditional proposition reads as follows: “If we have the following: Mercury trapped in a steel vessel positioned so that the torch flame touches the bottom of the vessel. Then we will have the following: Is heating the mercury”.

The twelfth conditional proposition reads as follows: “If we have the following: The mercury is heating. Then we will have the following: The mercury is expanding”.

Considering these conditional propositions can not give us such a pair of conditional propositions from which we could draw a conclusion by using the first rule.

In the consequence of the seventh conditional proposition, the words "lying on the table" are not written though they are implied after the word "ball" and before the word "is" (which is to say that the seventh conditional proposition is written in an incomplete form). But if we don’t imply these words but write them down in the consequence of the seventh conditional proposition, it will be possible to make a conclusion from the seventh and eighth conditional propositions by using the first rule.

Words and expressions which can be replaced with other words or expressions are used in many conditional propositions. For instance: the word "huge" can be replaced with the words "rather big". The words "very large" can be replaced with the word "huge", the words "a car capable to fly" can be replaced with the words "a machine capable of moving in the air or outer space", etc.

In the tenth conditional proposition, the word "huge" can be replaced with the words "very large". And then after such a replacement, it will be possible to make a conclusion from the ninth and tenth conditional propositions by using the first rule.

According to the rules of the Russian language, the words “the mercury” and “is heating” in the basis of the twelfth conditional proposition can be interchanged (in other words, according to the rules of the Russian language, you can place the words "the mercury" instead of the words "is heating" and place the words "is heating" instead of the words "the mercury" in the basis of the twelfth conditional proposition). After that, it will be possible to make a conclusion from the eleventh and twelfth conditional propositions by using the first rule. We can make a large number of similar examples.

Based on the discussed examples and analysis of patent descriptions, I have come to the following conclusions:

1. If we write conditional propositions to the computer memory in full (i.e. if we write conditional propositions to the computer memory in such a way so that they would not have such words which are not written but implied), then the computer will be able to make more conclusions by using the first rule than if we write the same conditional propositions to the computer memory in an incomplete form.

2. If we write to the computer memory which words or phrases used in conditional propositions can be replaced and which words or phrases can be used for replacement and (or) all the rules of the Russian language, then the computer will be able to make more conclusions by using the first rule out of the conditional propositions written to its memory compared to if we do not write this information to the computer memory.

If the following is written to the computer memory – which words are implied in which statements and phrases and in which places of these phrases and statements these words are implied, in this case (given the fact that all conditional propositions consist of phrases and statements), three programmers can easily create such a computer program using which the computer will be able to transform incomplete conditional propositions written to its memory into full conventional propositions.

According to the rules of the Russian language, words used in many conventional propositions can be interchanged in a certain way, while the meaning of these conditional propositions will not change. For example, the first conditional statement can be worded in the following way which is different from that given above: “If we have the following: The bottom of a steel ball is touched by the torch flame. Then we will have the following: Heating of the steel ball”. The meaning of the first wording variant (i.e. pattern) of the first conditional proposition will be the same as that of the second wording variant (i.e. pattern) of the first conditional proposition. Based on the analysis of publications, I've come to the conclusion that it is necessary to write to the computer memory the most number of variants (i.e. forms) of all conditional propositions out of the abovementioned 2,500 general conditional propositions (or 100 million general conditional propositions) [This should be done not only to enable the computer to create more inventions by using the first method of invention (in other words, to enable the computer to create, by using the first method of invention, more inventions than the number of inventions that can be created with the aid of a computer by using the first method of invention if this is not done, that is if not the most number of wording variants of all conditional propositions out of the above 2,500 general conditional propositions (or 100 million general conditional propositions) is written to the computer memory), but also to enable the computer to create more inventions with the aid of the methods of invention described below]. And this is particularly necessary in order to enable the computer to draw more conclusions by using the first rule out of conditional propositions written to the memory of this computer (and, hence, to enable the computer to create more inventions with the aid of this method of invention) that is, to enable the computer to do the following in particular: 1) find more such pairs of conditional propositions in each of which the consequence of the first conditional proposition and the basis of the second conditional proposition consist of the same words standing in the same sequence, 2) find more such pairs of conditional propositions in each of which the consequence of the first conditional proposition and some portion of the basis of the second conditional proposition consist of the same words standing in the same sequence.

In doing so, it is necessary that the computer should search for the same words standing in the same sequence (in turn) in all wording variants (i.e. forms) of conditional propositions [in which case it is necessary that the following be applied when the maximum number of variants (i.e. forms) of all conditional propositions (i.e. of any conditional proposition) is written to the computer memory: determination of the words or phrases contained in the conditional propositions which can be replaced and the words and phrases which can be used for replacement (it has been discussed above), as well as other rules of the Russian language]. It is possible to write one variant (i.e. pattern) of each conditional proposition out of the abovementioned 2,500 general conditional propositions (or 100 million conditional propositions) to the computer memory, but in that case it will be necessary to do the following: 1) write to the memory of this computer the following: the words or phrases used in conditional propositions which can be replaced and the words or phrases which can be used for replacement and/or all the rules of the Russian language as well as which words are implied but not written in which places of conditional propositions (and task descriptions), 2) and, based on this (i.e. rules of the Russian language and other data), develop such a program for a computer using which this computer will be able to find [in conventional propositions (and task descriptions)] the same information worded with the use of (i.e. worded in the form of) different words [or the same information worded with the use of (i.e. worded in the form of) the same words standing in different sequences], and write this program to the memory of this computer (I believe that such a program can be easily developed by three programmers).

In this case (i.e. if a single variant of each of the abovementioned conditional propositions is written to the memory of this computer and, in addition, all the rules of the Russian language and this program is written to the memory of this computer): 1) I believe that this computer will be capable to make more inventions by using the methods described above and below than if: this (i.e. all rules of the Russian language and the program) is not written to the memory of the computer, whereas one variant (i.e. pattern) of each conditional proposition out of the abovementioned 2,500 general conditional propositions (or 100 million general conditional propositions) is written to the memory of this computer, 2) I believe that three programmers can easily create such a program for a computer using which the computer will be able to word, without human help, any of these 2,500 general conditional propositions (or 100 million general conditional propositions) in the most number of wording variants (i.e. forms) of this conditional proposition.

In this case, it is possible to write conditional propositions either in full or in incomplete form to the memory of the computer which will create inventions using the methods of invention described above and below. Though, in the latter case, it is necessary that the computer transform conventional propositions written to its memory in incomplete form to the same conditional propositions but in full form.

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

The thirteenth conditional proposition reads as follows: “If we have the following: During hot weather, the sun will appear from behind the clouds and begin to shine to a hollow steel ball which is lying on the ground and which has a diameter of forty centimeters. Then we will have the following: A hollow steel ball will start to warm up without human help and the diameter of this ball will start to grow without human help (in doing so, it will gain approximately 0.5 millimeters) after the sun appears from behind the clouds during hot weather."

The fourteenth conditional proposition reads as follows: "If we have the following: The hollow steel ball will start to warm up without human help and the diameter of this ball will start to grow without human help (in doing so it will gain approximately 0.5 millimeters) after the sun appears from behind the clouds during hot weather. And at a distance of 0.2 mm from the ball forming part of an electrical circuit which consists of a fan, current source and two contact plates which, once connected, trigger the fan. And the other contact plate of this circuit is soldered to that ball. Then we will have the following: The hollow steel ball will start to touch the contact plate without human help after the sun appears from behind the clouds during a hot weather. Meanwhile, this plate forms part of the electric circuit consisting of a fan, current source and two contact plates which, once connected, trigger the fan. And the other contact plate of this circuit is soldered to that ball”.

The fifteenth conditional proposition reads as follows: "If we have the following: The hollow steel ball will start to touch the contact plate without human help after the sun appears from behind the clouds during a hot weather. Meanwhile, this plate forms part of the electric circuit consisting of a fan, current source and two contact plates which, once connected, trigger the fan. And the other contact plate of this circuit is soldered to that ball. Then we will have the following: The device which can switch on a fan after the sun appears from behind the clouds during a hot weather”.

If the computer draws a conclusion by using the first rule out of the thirteenth and fourteenth conditional propositions, it (i.e. the computer) will generate a conditional proposition (I’ve denoted it as the sixteenth conditional proposition).

The sixteenth conditional proposition reads as follows: “If we have the following: During hot weather, the sun will appear from behind the clouds and begin to shine to a hollow steel ball which is lying on the ground and which has a diameter of forty centimeters; and at a distance of 0.2 mm from the ball forming part of an electrical circuit which consists of a fan, current source and two contact plates which, once connected, trigger the fan. And the other contact plate of this circuit is soldered to that ball. Then we will have the following: The hollow steel ball will start to touch the contact plate without human help after the sun appears from behind the clouds during a hot weather. Meanwhile, this plate forms part of the electric circuit consisting of a fan, current source and two contact plates which, once connected, trigger the fan. And the other contact plate of this circuit is soldered to that ball”.

If the computer draws a conclusion by using the first rule out of the fifteenth and sixteenth conditional propositions, it (i.e. the computer) will generate a conditional proposition (I’ve denoted it as the seventeenth conditional proposition).

The seventeenth conditional proposition reads as follows: “If we have the following: During hot weather, the sun will appear from behind the clouds and begin to shine to a hollow steel ball which is lying on the ground and which has a diameter of forty centimeters; and at a distance of 0.2 mm from the ball forming part of an electrical circuit which consists of a fan, current source and two contact plates which, once connected, trigger the fan. And the other contact plate of this circuit is soldered to that ball. Then we will have the following: The device which can switch on a fan after the sun appears from behind the clouds during a hot weather”.

Hence it appears that if the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth conditional propositions are written to the memory of a computer and (if) some more limited (or large) number of conditional propositions (e.g. five conditional propositions) is written (or not written) to the memory of this computer and (if) this computer draws (without human help) random conclusions (out of the conventional propositions which will be written to its memory) by using the first rule [and I believe that three programmers can easily create such a program from a computer using which this computer can make random conclusions (without human help) out of conditional propositions written to its memory by using the first rule] [and (if) among these random conclusions there is: 1) a conclusion which this computer will derive from the thirteenth and fourteenth conditional propositions and 2) a conclusion which this computer will derive from the fifteenth and sixteenth conditional propositions], and (if) the computer writes to its memory all the conventional propositions which it will derive with the aid of conclusions which it will draw by using the first rule, then in this case, this computer will derive, without human help, the seventeenth conditional proposition. Moreover, if this computer derives, without human help, the seventeenth conditional proposition, then it will invent thereby, without human help, "The device which can switch on a fan after the sun appears from behind the clouds during a hot weather".

By the way, devices similar to that device are already known. We can make a large number of such examples.

Now, I will make an example of how we can solve an inventive task by using this method of invention (i.e. the first method of invention). Let us assume that "The device is capable to transform the energy of moving air into light” has not been invented yet. And let us assume that the following is written to the computer memory: the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth conditional propositions (these conditional propositions are detailed below). In this case, the computer will be able to invent this device using this method of invention (i.e. the first method of invention) without human help [if the eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth and other conditional propositions are written to the memory of this computer, then the computer will be able to invent this device (without human help) with the use of this method of invention].

If we take any created invention (i.e. if we take any solved inventive task) and assume that we do not know that this invention has been already made, then it is usually possible to find such known conventional propositions by deriving conclusions from which (with the use of the first rule) we can create this invention for the second time (i.e. once again).

But some inventions which have not been created yet (which can be invented some time by using any method, i.e. which can be created some time by a man) can not be made (at the present time) with the use of only the first method of invention since the creation (i.e. making) of some inventions, which have not been yet invented, with the use of the first method of invention requires such conditional propositions which can be obtained only by using an experimental approach at the present time (i.e. which can be obtained at the present time only after having made experiments). Experiments will be discussed later.

The second method of invention consisting
of generation of OR-subtasks
(which are nodes of the tree decomposing the original task into subtasks)
with the help of conditional propositions

This method is based on the following: 1) the method of decomposing tasks into subtasks discusses on the following pages: 251, 252, 253, 254, 278 and 279 in the book titled as Artificial Intelligence by Earl B. Hunt issued by the Mir Moscow publishing house in 1978, 2) other statements detailed on other pages of this book, 3) statements discussed in the publications listed at the end of this work.

From this book written by E. Hunt, it follows that an OR-subtask of the task decomposition tree (the tree that decomposes tasks into subtasks is detailed below and in these published works. Examples of such trees will be given below) (by the way, any OR-subtask is part of the task decomposition tree) is such a task by solving which a man (or a computer) will (thereby) solve not only this (i.e. the latest) task but other(s) task(s) of this task decomposition tree. In other words, an OR-subtask is such a task by solving which a man (or a computer) will solve such a task from which this OR-subtask has been generated (the generation of OR-subtasks will be discussed below.) Now, I will make examples of OR-subtasks, AND-subtasks and these trees.

Let us assume that we need to invent a method which will allow us to achieve the following (i.e. by using which the following will happen): expansion of a steel ball (let us assume that this method has not been invented yet) [i.e. let us assume that we must need to solve the following inventive task: to find out what should be done (i.e. to find out what kind of configuration of substances we should make) in order to have the following: expansion of a steel ball (this inventive task is an original task)].

From the second conditional proposition, it follows that if a man invents a method by using which it will be possible to heat a steel ball (let us assume that this method has not been invented yet) [i.e. if a man solves the inventive task which consists in the development of a method using which it will be possible to heat a steel ball (the latter task is an OR-subtask of the original task)], then this man will invent (thereby) a method using which it will be possible to achieve expansion of a steel ball.

From the first conditional proposition, it follows that in order to solve this inventive OR-subtask, i.e. to develop a method by using which it will be possible to heat a steel ball, we need to solve the following inventive OR-subsubtask (in other words, we need to solve the following inventive OR-subtask of the last inventive OR-subtask), i.e. we need to obtain information which would say about how we can achieve the following: a torch flame touches the bottom of a steel ball. And people know how to achieve that, i.e. this OR-subsubtask is the description of the configuration of substances which people are able to make. Therefore, we do not need to solve the latest inventive OR-subsubtask since the solution to this task is known. But if this inventive OR-subsubtask is solved, then the original task (thereby) will be solved.

I will take three conditional propositions (I’ve denoted them as the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth conditional propositions):

The eighteenth conditional proposition reads as follows: “If we have the following: A device that can produce current electricity by using the energy of moving air (i.e. a device that can transform the energy of moving air into current electricity). And the electric incandescent lamp which is connected to this device in a way so that the electric current being produced by that device will pass through this incandescent lamp. Then we will have the following: The device is capable to transform the energy of moving air into light.

The nineteenth conditional proposition reads as follows: “If we have the following: A device consisting of an AC generator and an appliance which is capable to transform the energy of moving air into rotation of the shaft of this rotor. Then we will have the following: A device that can produce current electricity by using the energy of moving air (i.e. a device that can transform the energy of moving air into current electricity)”.

By the way, an AC generator is an appliance which is capable to produce current electricity if the shaft of this rotor is rotating.

The twentieth conditional proposition reads as follows: “If we have the following: A device consisting of an AC generator and windmill wings which are rigidly fixed on the shaft of this generator. Then we will have the following: A device consisting of an AC generator and an appliance which is capable to transform the energy of moving air into rotation of the shaft of this rotor”.

By the way, if the wind blows to these windmill wings, then the shaft of this generator will rotate. Now, I will make some more examples of OR-subtasks: if we need to invent the following [i.e. if it is necessary to solve the following inventive task: to develop (or obtain information which says about how we can achieve the following)] “The device is capable to transform the energy of moving air into light" (let us assume that such a device has not been invented yet). I will denote this inventive task as an original inventive task. From the eighteenth conditional proposition, it is seen that, in order to have this inventive task solved, we need to solve the following inventive task (i.e. we need to have the following created): "A device that can produce current electricity by using the energy of moving air (i.e. a device that can transform the energy of moving air into current electricity). And the electric incandescent lamp which is connected to this device in a way so that the electric current being produced by that device will pass through this incandescent lamp”.

The last inventive task will be the very inventive OR-subtask of the original task. We can derive the following inventive OR-subsubtask from this inventive OR-subtask (i.e. an inventive OR-subtask of the latest inventive OR-subtask) using the nineteenth conditional proposition: we need to create the following: «A device consisting of an AC generator and an appliance which is capable to transform the energy of moving air into rotation of the shaft of this rotor. And the electric incandescent lamp which is connected to this device in a way so that the electric current being produced by that device will pass through this incandescent lamp».

We can derive the following inventive OR-subsubsubtask from the last inventive OR-subsubtask (i.e. an inventive OR-subtask of this inventive OR-subsubtask) using the twentieth conditional proposition: obtain information which would say about how we can get the following: "A device consisting of an AC generator and windmill wings which are rigidly fixed on the shaft of this generator. And the electric incandescent lamp which is connected to this device in a way so that the electric current being produced by that device will pass through this incandescent lamp”. But we do not need to solve this inventive OR-subsubsubtask since the solution to this task is known (i.e. this OR-subsubsubtask is the description of the configuration of substances which people can make). But if this inventive OR-subsubsubtask is solved, then the original task will thereby be solved.

We can make a large number of similar examples. It is seen from the aforesaid statements that if the computer generates three OR-subtasks with the aid of only the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth conditional propositions, then it will invent such the device is capable to transform the energy of moving air into light. This can be illustrated in the form of a graph which is denoted as a task decomposition tree and which is shown in Figure 1.

Based on the aforesaid statements, statements provided in the works listed at the end of this work and the analysis of publications, I have derived the following rule (I’ve denoted it as the second rule):

The second rule: Let us take any inventive task (let us designate it with the letter “S”). In order to derive an inventive OR-subtask (of inventive task S) from inventive task S, we should do one of the following steps:

1. Find such a conditional proposition which has the following feature: the consequence of this conditional proposition and the description of inventive task S consist of the same words standing in the same sequence [i.e. find such a conditional proposition the consequence of which (the description of this inventive task S consists of some words standing in some sequence) consists of the same words standing in the same sequence]. And the basis of this conditional proposition will be an inventive OR-subtask (of this inventive task S).

2. Find such a conditional proposition which has the following feature: the consequence of this conditional proposition and some part of the description of this inventive task S consist of the same words standing in the same sequence (i.e. find such a conditional proposition which has the following features: a) the consequence of this conditional proposition consists of some words standing in some sequence, b) some portion of the description of this inventive task S consists of the same words standing in the same sequence). Then we should replace this part of the description of inventive task S with the basis of this conditional proposition. The description of inventive task S will be thereby transformed into the description of the inventive OR-subtask (of this inventive task S) [i.e. the description of the inventive OR-subtask (of this inventive task S) will be derived in this way (from the description of inventive task S)].

By the way, an inventive OR-subtask is an inventive task and an inventive OR-subsubtask is an inventive task, etc. Hence, with the help of the second rule, it is possible to derive inventive OR-subtasks from an inventive OR-subtask, inventive OR-subsubtask etc.

An inventive AND-subtask (the definition of an inventive AND-subtask will be discussed below) is an inventive task. Hence, it is possible with the help of the second rule to derive an inventive OR-subtask from the AND-subtask.

Based on the aforesaid statements, statements provided in the works listed at the end of this work and the analysis of publications, I have derived the following rule (I’ve denoted it as the third rule):

The third rule: Let us take some inventive OR-subtask (let us designate this inventive OR-subtask with the letter F). In order to derive an inventive OR-subtask (of inventive OR-subtask F) from inventive OR-subtask F, we should do one of the following steps:

1. Find such a conditional proposition that features the following: the consequence of this conditional proposition and the description of this inventive OR-subtask F consist of the same words standing in the same sequence [i.e. find such a conditional proposition where the consequence (the description of this inventive OR-subtask F consists of some words standing in some sequence) consists of the same words standing in the same sequence] and the basis of this conditional proposition will be an inventive OR-subtask (of this inventive OR-subtask F).

2. Find such a conditional proposition that features the following: the consequence oft his conditional proposition and some portion of the description of this inventive OR-subtask F consist of the same words standing in the same sequence (i.e. find such a conditional proposition that features the following: a) the consequence of this conditional proposition consists of some words standing in some sequence, b) some portion of the description of this inventive OR-subtask F consists of the same words standing in the same sequence).

Then we should replace this part (of the description of inventive OR-subtask F) with the basis of this conventional proposition. And thereby, the description of inventive OR-subtask F will be transformed into the description of the inventive or-subtask (of this inventive OR-subtask F) [i.e. in this way (from the description of inventive OR-subtask F), the description of the inventive OR-subtask (of this inventive OR-subtask F) will be derived].

An inventive OR-subsubtask is an inventive OR-subtask of some inventive OR-subtask, and an inventive OR-subsubsubtask is an inventive OR-subtask of some inventive OR-subsubtask, etc. Hence, it is possible with the use of the third rule to derive inventive OR-subtasks from an inventive OR-subsubtask, inventive OR-subsubsubtask, etc.

Based on the foregoing and the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that a computer can derive three OR-subtasks (which are nods of the original task decomposition tree) without human help by using the second rule (or the second rule and the third rule) and eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth conditional propositions [whereas this original task is as follows: the following needs to be invented (i.e. it is necessary to have the following): "the device is capable to transform the energy of moving air into light"] as a result (i.e. thereby) (i.e. by deriving these OR-subtasks) a computer will invent "the device is capable to transform the energy of moving air into light" without human help.

There are such inventive tasks from each of which we can derive one inventive OR-subtask by using the second rule. There are such inventive tasks from each of which we can derive several inventive OR-subtasks by using the second rule. There are such inventive OR-subtasks from each of which we can derive one inventive OR-subtask by using the third rule. There are such inventive OR-subtasks from each of which we can derive several inventive OR-subtasks by using the third rule.

I will explain this with the following example: I will take one conditional proposition (I’ve denoted this proposition as the twenty-first conditional proposition).

The twenty-first conditional proposition reads as follows: "If we have the following: Some device is rubbing a piece of rubber against the surface of some steel ball. Then we will have the following: Heating of the steel ball”.

If it is necessary to solve the following inventive task: develop or obtain information which would say about how we can achieve the following: heating of the steel ball (I will denote this inventive task as an original inventive task) (let us assume that we do not know how to achieve this). It is seen from the twenty-first conditional proposition that, in order to solve this inventive task, it is necessary to solve the following inventive task: define what should be done so that we have the following: some device is rubbing a piece of rubber against the surface of some steel ball (by the way, it is known that if a steel ball is exposed to rubbing, this ball will heat up). The last inventive task will be an OR-subtask of this original inventive task.

It is seen from the first conditional proposition that, in order to solve this original inventive task, it is necessary to solve the following inventive task: define what should be done so that we have the following: A torch flame touches the bottom of a steel ball. The last inventive task will be the second OR-subtask of this original inventive task.

AND-subtasks of some task (I will denote the last task with the letter L) are such tasks which should be solved, all of them, in order to have this task L solved. Hence, the task will be solved if all of its AND-subtasks, which should be solved in order to have this task solved, are solved. Now, I will make examples of AND-subtasks.

Let us assume that it is necessary to invent some device (i.e. structure) (i.e. let us assume that it is necessary to have some device (i.e. structure) invented) which is able to saw logs crosswise without human help (let us assume that such a device has not been invented yet) (I will denote this inventive task as an original task). In order to have this original task solved, it is necessary to solve the following two tasks (which will be AND-subtasks of the original task): 1) invent: (i.e. do something so that to have this invented) device that will be able to transform current electricity into rotation of a disk (i.e. flat round plate) with toothed edges (let us assume that such a device has not been invented yet), 2) invent (i.e. do something so that to have this invented): device which will be able, without human help, to slowly move any log in the direction where this disk is located (whilst it keeps running) so that this disk deepens into the log as the disk saws it up (in which case, prior to this slow movement of the log in the direction where this disk is located, this log should be positioned in close proximity to this disk), in which case the radius of this disk should be greater than the thickness (i.e. the diameter) of any log (let us assume that such a device has not been invented yet).

If only one subtask is solved out of the two last AND-subtasks, then in that case the original task will not be solved.

If we take any task (I will denote this task with the letter D) from which we can derive AND-subtasks, then all AND-subtasks of this task D (which should be solved, all of them, in order to have task D solved) can be merged into one OR-subtask of this task D [in other words, all AND-subtasks of this task D (which should be solved, all of them, in order to have task D solved) can be replaced with one OR-subtask of this task D]. And this OR-subtask can be derived from task D with the use of one conditional proposition (I will give an example of such conditional proposition below) and the second (or the third) rule [based on the foregoing and the analysis of publications, I have come to the following conclusion: with the aid of this method of invention (i.e. the second method of invention), it is possible sometimes to solve this OR-subtask (i.e. with the aid of the second method of invention, this OR-subtask can be solved or not solved)]. Now, I will give an example of such conditional proposition (I have denoted it as the twenty-second conditional proposition).

The twenty-second conditional proposition reads as follows: "If we have the following: invented device that will be able to transform current electricity into rotation of a disk (i.e. flat round plate) with toothed edges. And invented device which will be able, without human help, to slowly move any log in the direction where this disk is located (whilst it keeps running) so that this disk deepens into the log as the disk saws it up (in which case, prior to this slow movement of the log in the direction where this disk is located, this log should be positioned in close proximity to this disk), in which case the radius of this disk should be greater than the thickness (i.e. the diameter) of any log. Then we will have the following: invented device which is able to saw logs crosswise without human help.

In this connection, let us assume that the two devices 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 us assume that it is necessary to invent some device (i.e. let us assume that it is necessary to have some device invented) device which is able to saw logs crosswise without human help (I will denote this task as an original task) (let us assume that such a device has not been invented yet). With the aid of the twenty-second conditional proposition and the second rule, it is possible to derive from this original task one OR-subtask of the original task which includes two AND-subtasks of the original task (in which case the basis of the twenty-second conditional proposition will be this OR-subtask). Now, I will give these two AND-subtasks: 1) invent (i.e. do something in order to have this invented) device that will be able to transform current electricity into rotation of a disk (i.e. flat round plate) with toothed edges. 2) invent (i.e. do something in order to have this invented): device which will be able, without human help, to slowly move any log in the direction where this disk is located (whilst it keeps running) so that this disk deepens into the log as the disk saws it up (in which case, prior to this slow movement of the log in the direction where this disk is located, this log should be positioned in close proximity to this disk), in which case the radius of this disk should be greater than the thickness (i.e. the diameter) of any log.

In this connection, let us assume that these two inventions have not been created yet. Let us denote the OR-subtask consisting of two or several AND-subtasks as a compound OR-subtask. And let us denote the OR-subtask consisting of one task as a single OR-subtask [page 514 of the first volume of the 4-volume Dictionary of the Russian Language (Russkiy Yazyk Publisher, 1981) says that ‘a task is something that needs to be accomplished, solved’. Hence, a task may consist of two or several tasks. The following is a citation from pages 398 and 399 (i.e. columns) of the fourth volume of the 17-volume Dictionary of the Contemporary Russian Literary Language (the USSR Academy OF Sciences Publisher, 1955): “mother set the following task for herself and nanny: foster a lusty child, keep him safe from cold, evil eye and other adverse occasions … now, the only things left were to install the structure, cross-sections and furnace lines, a rather easy task …. he (the steward) was given the main task: get hands on lumber, bricks, oil paints of the brightest colors, bleach, oil varnish…. Well, the task or ‘special mission’, says the Admiral, is as follows: find and destroy it (the German convoy raider)… (Kharitonov:) Detachment commanders! Here is the mission! Our air forces have located a large-size U-boat. Both detachments must pull anchors at 3:00 AM, search for, attack and destroy (the boat)”. The following is a citation from Article 16 of the Russian Patent Law dated September, 1992: "The patent application should refer to one invention or to a group of inventions” (but an invented invention is a solved inventive task). These citations prove that a task may consist of two or several tasks (in other words, these citations prove the following: a task may consist of two or several tasks)].

Figure 2 shows one more task decomposition tree

Figure 2 shows (i.e. illustrates) an arc curve. In the book of E. Hunt which is specified in the list of printed publications given at the end of this work, it says that the arc curve connects only AND-subtasks which should be solved, all of them, in order to solve the task to which they refer (i.e. in order to solve the task from which they have been derived). In Figure 2, the circles designate tree nodes.

The task decomposition tree which is shown in Figure 1 can be depicted (i.e. presented) in the form of a task decomposition tree which includes not only OR-subtasks but AND-subtasks as well. The final tree is shown in Figure 3.

This method of invention (the second method of invention) consists of the following: it is necessary to solve any inventive task which should be solved (I will denote the latter task as the original task) by deriving with the help of the second rule (or with the help of the second rule and the third rule) OR-subtasks, OR-subsubtasks (i.e. OR-subtasks of OR-subtasks), OR-subsubsubtasks (i.e. OR-subtasks of OR-subsubtasks), etc. [i.e. by deriving OR-subtasks with the help of the second rule (or with the help of the second rule and the third rule) where these OR-subtasks and these OR-subsubtasks and these OR-subsubsubtasks, etc. should represent nods of the original task decomposition tree (i.e. they should be part of the original task decomposition tree)] till the end of the moment (till the moment) when such an OR-subtask is derived solution of which is known (since if such an OR-subtask is derived, then the original task will be solved), i.e. till the moment when such a description of the OR-subtask is derived which is a description of the configuration of substances (or which is the description of a continuously changing configuration of substances) which people will be able to make up (without the aid of devices or with the aid of devices) at the moment when this description of the OR-subtask will be derived (i.e. till the end of the moment when such a description of an OR-subtask is derived which will be the description of something which can be created by people by the time when this AND-subtask description is derived) [meanwhile, it is preferable that the abovementioned 2,500 general conditional propositions (though, the abovementioned 100 billion general conditional propositions would be better) are written to the computer memory and, for this purpose, it is necessary to write to the computer memory any conditional proposition out of these conditional propositions in the maximum number of variants (i.e. forms) of wording of this conditional proposition, and it is preferable that the following is written to the computer memory as well: which words or phrases used in the conditional propositions can be replaced and which words or phrases can be used for replacement (as mentioned above) and other rules of the Russian language].

Based on the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that if we (me and the reader) take some random inventive task (let us denote this task as an original task), then in order to solve this original task, it is necessary to derive approximately fifty OR-subtasks on the average which will be nods of the original task decomposition tree.

Now, I will make an example of how we can solve an inventive task by using this method of invention (i.e. the second method of invention). Let us suppose that we need to invent the following [i.e. it is necessary to solve the following inventive task: to develop (or obtain information which says about how we can achieve the following)] “the device which can switch on a fan after the sun appears from behind the clouds during a hot weather" (let us assume that such a device has not been invented yet). And let us assume that the following is written to the computer memory: the thirteenth conditional proposition, fourteenth conditional proposition and fifteenth conditional proposition. In this case, this computer will be able to invent such device with the help of this method of invention (i.e. the second method of invention) (without human help) [if the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and other conditional propositions are written to the computer memory, then in this case this computer will be able to invent this device with the help of this method of invention (without human help)].

If we take any created invention (i.e. if we take any solved inventive task) and assume that we do not know that this invention has been already created, then it is possible in this case to find by using the second method of invention (i.e. with the use of this method of invention) such known conventional propositions by using which it is possible to create this invention for the second time (i.e. once again). But some inventions which have not been created yet (which can be made some time by using some theoretical or experimental or any other method) can not be made (at the present time) with the use of only the second method of invention since the creation (i.e. making) of some inventions, which have not been yet invented, with the use of the second method of invention requires such conditional propositions which can be obtained only by using an experimental approach at the present time (i.e. which can be obtained at the present time only after having made experiments). Experiments will be discussed later.

Based on the abovementioned statements and the analysis of publications, one can make the conclusion that, by using this method of invention (i.e. the second method of invention), three programmers can easily write such a program for a computer with the aid of which the computer can create many inventions without human help.

The third method of invention
consisting of generation of AND-subtasks and OR-subtasks
(which are nodes of the tree decomposing the original task into subtasks)
with the help of conditional propositions

I have developed this method with the use of the publications listed at the end of this work.

Based on the foregoing, statements given in the publications listed at the end of this work and the analysis of publications, I have derived the following rule (I have denoted this rule as the fourth rule):

The fourth rule: Let us take any inventive task (let us designate it with the letter “G”). In order to derive from inventive task G inventive AND-subtasks (of this inventive task G) (inventive AND-subtasks are discussed above) (which should be solved, all of them, in order to have inventive task G solved), it is necessary to do the following: Find such a conditional proposition that features the following: the consequence of this conditional proposition and the description of this inventive OR-subtask G consist of the same words standing in the same sequence [i.e. to find such a conditional proposition where the consequence (the description of this inventive task G consists of some words standing in some sequence) consists of the same words standing in the same sequence]). Then, it is necessary to define the following: how many inventive tasks is worded in the basis (i.e. in the description of the basis) of this conditional proposition [the following is given below (right after this rule): what should be done in order a computer can define this]. And if the basis of this conditional proposition contains more than one inventive task (i.e. contains two or several inventive tasks), then these inventive tasks (worded in the basis of this conditional proposition) are (i.e. will be) inventive AND-subtasks (of this inventive task G) which should be solved, all of them, in order to have inventive task G solved (in other words, in order to have inventive task G solved, it is necessary to solve all inventive tasks which are worded in the basis of this conditional proposition).

An inventive OR-subtask is an inventive task. Hence, it is possible with the help of the fourth rule to derive inventive AND-subtasks from an inventive OR-subtask. An inventive OR-subtask is an inventive task and an inventive OR-subsubtask is an inventive task, etc. Hence, with the help of the fourth rule, it is possible to derive from an inventive OR-subtask, inventive OR-subsubtask etc. their inventive AND-subtasks. An inventive AND-subtask is an inventive task, hence it is possible to derive inventive AND-subtasks of an inventive AND subtask with the help of the fourth rule, i.e. an inventive AND-subtask is an inventive task, hence it is possible to derive from an inventive AND-subtask its inventive AND-subtasks with the help of the fourth rule.

The description of an inventive AND-subtask which is worded in the basis of the conditional proposition is generally started with the word “device” or a synonym of this word (a synonym is a word or phrase that has the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase) (synonyms of the word “device” are the following words: “appliance”, “mechanism”, etc.). The example that proves this is two AND-subtasks worded in the basis of the twenty-third conditional proposition (which is discussed below).

Let us take one more conditional proposition and let us denote this conditional proposition as the twenty-third conditional proposition:

The twenty-third conditional proposition reads as follows: "If we have the following: A device which is able to strip bark from logs and a device which is able to produce chairs from logs stripped of bark. Then, we will have the following: A device (i.e. structure) which is able to produce chairs from logs not stripped from bark.

The description of the inventive AND-subtask worded in the basis of the conditional proposition is sometimes not started with the word “device” or a synonym of this word (i.e. it starts not with the word “device” or a synonym of this word). The twenty-third conditional proposition can be used as an example for proving this since it is worded not in the way (i.e. not in the variant) which is discussed above but in the following way (i.e. in the following variant): "If we have the following: A log-stripping-from-bark device and a chair-producing-from-stripped-logs device. Then, we will have the following: A device (i.e. structure) which is able to produce chairs from logs not stripped from bark”.

The basis of this conditional proposition (i.e. the basis of this variant of the conditional proposition) states two inventive tasks (which represent, according to the fourth rule, AND-subtasks of the inventive task which is described in the consequence of the twenty-third conditional proposition) and which do not start with the word ‘device’ or any synonym of this word.

If we take some conventional proposition formed with the use of some words, then this conditional proposition can be generally formed with the use of some other words (or with the use of the same words but standing some other sequence) in such a way so that the sense of the statement in this conditional proposition will not change, i.e. this conditional proposition can be worded in some other variant (i.e. form) but in such a way so that the sense of this conditional proposition will not change.

It is necessary that all conditional propositions (written in the computer memory) be written to the computer memory in different wording forms (i.e. variants) of this conditional proposition, and as many of these wording forms (i.e. variants) of this conditional proposition as possible (i.e. the maximum possible number) should be written to the computer memory, and the sense of this conditional proposition in all of its wording forms (i.e. variants) of this conditional proposition should remain the same. However, we can write any conditional proposition to the computer memory in one wording variant (i.e. form) of this conditional proposition, but in this case the computer should state all conditional propositions (written in the memory of this computer) in the maximum wording variants (i.e. forms) available for this conditional proposition, and write them to its memory.

And as a rule, in one of these wording forms (i.e. variant) of the conditional proposition, the word ‘device’ or any synonym of this word will be in the beginning of the description of AND-subtasks which are stated in the basis of this conditional proposition (if these AND-subtasks are stated in the basis of this conditional proposition).

The description of an inventive AND-subtask which is worded in the basis of some conditional proposition sometimes starts with the word “invented” or a synonym of this word (the twenty-second conditional proposition represents an example of this case), but this word ‘invented’ (or a synonym of this word) is generally immediately followed by the word ‘device’ (or a synonym of this word). But this word “invented” or any synonym of this word can be omitted and the sense of the conditional proposition which has contained this word “invented” (or a synonym of this word) will not change since if some device is available, hence, it has been invented.

If the computer searches and finds, by sorting out forms (i.e. variants) of descriptions of the conditional proposition, such a variant of the description of the conditional proposition the basis of which contains two or more words “device” (or synonyms of this word), then: 1) these words (‘device’ or synonyms of this word) will be generally the beginning of AND-subtasks which should be solved, all of them, in order to solve the task from which they have been (or will be) derived, 2) the computer will find these beginnings of AND-subtasks by using this search method which consists of this sorting out of variants (i.e. forms) of descriptions of the conditional proposition.

The method discussed right above by using which a computer can find, without human help, AND-subtasks in the basis of the conditional proposition should be modified (i.e. should be finalized) though it can be left unmodified. If it is not modified, then the people who will write conditional propositions to the computer memory should define the following (prior to writing): 1) how many inventive tasks are worded in the basis of all conditional propositions, 2) where these inventive tasks start and where they end up (within descriptions of bases of the conventional propositions).

And it is necessary that these people write this information to the computer memory. If we take some random inventive task, and if the computer finds (among conditional propositions which are written in the memory of this computer) such a conditional proposition which features the following: the consequence of this conditional proposition and the description of this inventive task consist of the same words standing in the same sequence (let us denote this conditional proposition with the letter ‘R’), then the computer will be generally able to define (with reference to the information written in the memory of this computer) whether the basis of this conditional proposition R contains AND-subtasks (and if they are there, then where these inventive AND-subtasks start and end up, and how many of them there are in the basis of this conditional proposition R) by using one more method: the computer should find such conditional propositions which feature the following: consequences of these conditional propositions when merged together and the basis of conditional proposition R consist of the same words standing in the same sequence [i.e. the computer should find such conditional propositions the consequences of which when taken (i.e. arranged) one by one (i.e. on succession) (the basis of conditional proposition R consists of some words standing in some sequence) consist of the same words standing in the same sequence]. And the consequences of these conditional propositions will represent inventive AND-subtasks which are stated in the basis of conditional proposition R and which should be solved, all of them, in order to solve this inventive task from which they have been derived (i.e. in order to solve the inventive task which is stated in the consequence of conditional proposition R). Meanwhile, it necessary that during the search for these conditional propositions the computer sorts out all conditional propositions written to the memory of this computer.

This method of invention (i.e. the third method of invention) consists of the following: let us take some inventive task which should be solved (let us denote it as the last inventive task of the original inventive task). First of all, we should try to solve this original inventive task by deriving [with the help of the fourth rule and the first part of the second rule (or with the help of the fourth rule and the first part of the second rule and the first part of the third rule)] inventive or-subtasks and inventive AND-subtasks [meanwhile, these OR-subtasks and these AND-subtasks should be nods of the tree where the original task is decomposed into subtasks (i.e. they should be part of the tree that decomposes the original task into subtasks)] till the end of the moment when (i.e. till the moment when) the computer derives such an OR-subtask or such an AND-subtask the solution for which is known [i.e. till the end of the moment when the computer derives such a description of some OR-subtask or AND-subtask which is a description of some configuration of substances (or which is a description of some continuously changing configuration of substances) which people will be able to form (without the aid of devices or with the aid of some known devices) at the moment when this description of the OR-subtask or AND-subtask is derived (if the computer derives this description of the OR-subtask or AND-subtask, then it means that this description of the OR-subtask or AND-subtask will be the description of the solved task). In other words, till the end of the moment when the computer derives such a description of the OR-subtask or AND-subtask which will be the description of something which people will be able to implement at the time when this description of the OR-subtask or AND-subtask is derived (if the computer derives this description of the OR-subtask or AND-subtask, then it means that this description of the OR-subtask or AND-subtask will be the description of the solved task)]. Then the corresponding node (of the tree which decomposes the original task to subtasks) is marked as solved. Then, if it is possible to mark some other node (or nodes) of this tree as solved, then this (these) node (or nodes) should be marked as solved [by the way, if some node of the tree which decomposes the task to subtasks can be marked as solved, then in this case it is sometimes possible to mark some other node (or nodes) of this tree as solved]. At the same time, we should consider the following: 1) any node from which the OR-subtask has been derived can be marked as solved, if this OR-subtask is solved (i.e. if this OR-subtask is marked as solved), 2) any node (from which AND-subtasks has been derived, and which has been derived from this node with the help of one conventional proposition) can be marked as solved, if all these AND-subtasks are solved (i.e. if all these AND-subtasks are marked as solved).

Then, if the original inventive task is not solved after this (i.e. if it is not marked as soled), then it is necessary repeat once again all the abovementioned steps (required for solving the last original task) (by the way, this method of invention consists of these steps in particular); i.e. it is necessary then to do the following: repeat once again (i.e. continue) this process of derivation of [with the help of the fourth rule and the first part of the second rule (or with the help of the fourth rule and the first part of the second rule and the first part of the third rule)] inventive OR-subtasks and inventive AND-subtasks (meanwhile, these OR-subtasks and these AND-subtasks should be part of the original task decomposition tree) and again till the derivation (by the computer) of such a OR-subtask or such an AND-subtask the decision of which is known, i.e. repeat again till the derivation of such an OR-subtask or such an AND-subtask which can be marked as solved. Then, it is necessary to repeat the following: where some other nod (or nods) of this tree can be marked as solved, this (these) nod (or nods) should be marked as solved.

Then, in case the original task is not solved after that, these actions [which were repeated (i.e. performed repeatedly) and which are needed to solve the last original inventive task (by the way, this method of invention is contained in particular in these actions)] should be repeated once again [i.e. it is necessary in particular to do the following: to repeat (i.e., to continue) this process of deriving AND-subtasks and OR-subtasks with the help of the fourth rule and the first part of the second rule (or with the help of the fourth rule and the first part of the second rule and the first part of the third rule), and it is necessary to repeat once again other abovementioned actions which have been repeated (i.e. done repeatedly) and which are required for solving the last original inventive task]. Then, if the original task is not solved after that, these actions [which has been repeated twice (i.e. done 2 times) and which are required for solving the last original inventive task (by the way, this methods of invention are contained in particular in these actions)] should be repeated once again, and etc. until the original task can be marked as solved, that is to say that until the end of the moment when this original task is solved.

If any (i.e. whichever) conditional propositions and other information is written to the memory of a computer, and if this computer can solve some inventive tasks with the help of: these conditional propositions, this information and the third method of invention, then all the same inventive tasks can be solved by the computer with the use of: these conditional propositions, this information and the second method of invention. And if any (i.e. whichever) conditional propositions and other information is written to the memory of a computer, and if this computer can solve some inventive tasks with the help of these conditional propositions, this information and the second method of invention, then all the same inventive tasks can be solved by this computer with the help of: these conditional propositions, this information and the third method of invention. In other words, if we write any (i.e. whichever) conditional propositions and other information to the memory of a computer, and if this computer can solve some inventive tasks with the help of these conditional propositions, this information, the second method of invention and the third method of invention, then this computer will be able to solve only the same inventive tasks with the help of the second method of invention and the third method of invention.

The fourth method of invention
consisting of drawing random conclusions
from conditional propositions and (or) from images and conditional propositions
that contain references to these images

Based on the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that there are some pieces of information each of which can be stated not only in the form of a conditional proposition [which does not have a reference to some image (for example, a drawing)] but in the form of an image(s) (for example, a drawing) and some conditional proposition which has (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s) [in other words, based on the analysis of publication, I have come to the conclusion that if we take some information, then this information can be generally stated in the form of an image(s) (for example, a drawing) and some conditional proposition which contains (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s) ] [in other words, based on the analysis of publications, I have to the conclusion that if we take some information, then it can be generally stated with the use of (an) image(s) and some conditional proposition which contains (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)].

For instance, information which is stated in the form of the first conditional proposition can be stated in the form of an image (for example, a drawing) (which should include a picture of some torch that touches the bottom of some steel ball; I will denote this image with the digit 1) and the following conditional proposition: "If we have the following: Some steel ball and some torch flame, and this steel ball is positioned relative to the flame of this torch in a way as shown on the image designated with the digit 1. Then, we will have the following: Heating of the steel ball”.

If the common man makes a conclusion out of this (i.e. the last) form of this statement representation and the information stated in the form of the second conditional propositions, then he/she will get the following: "If we have the following: Some steel ball and some torch flame, and this steel ball is positioned relative to the flame of this torch in a way as shown on the image designated with the digit 1. Then, we will have the following: Expansion of the steel ball”.

Based on the analysis of publications, I have derived the following rule (I have denoted this rule as the fifth rule):

The fifth rule: In order to draw a conclusion (i.e. an inference, i.e. the process of drawing an inference) out of two conditional propositions which does not contain a reference to some image, or in order to draw a conclusion out of two conditional propositions which in some of their part (parts) contain (a) reference(s) to (an) image(s) [in other words, in order to draw a conclusion from some pieces of information which are stated in the form of (i.e. from some pieces of information which are stated with the help of) some image(s) and two conditional propositions which (or either of which) contain(s) (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s) [in other words, in order to draw a conclusion from some image(s) and two conditional propositions the basis and (or) the consequence of either (or each) of which has (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)] we should proceed in either of the following two sequences of steps:

1. Find two such conditional propositions which feature the following: a) the consequence of the first conditional proposition and the basis of the second conditional proposition consist of the same words standing in the same sequence; b) meanwhile, if the consequence of the first conditional proposition contains (a) reference(s) to some image(s), then the basis of the second conditional proposition should contain the same reference(s) to the same image(s); c) and, meanwhile, if the basis of the second conditional proposition contains (a) reference(s) to some image(s), then the consequence of the first conditional proposition should contain the same reference(s) to the same image(s) [at the same time, both the consequence of the first conditional proposition and the basis of the second conditional proposition (as well as other places of these two conditional propositions) may not contain a (a) reference(s) to some image(s); (a) reference(s) to some image(s) can be contained in the basis of the first conditional proposition and (or) in the consequence of the second conditional proposition]. Then it is necessary to change the second conditional proposition, i.e. then it is necessary to replace the basis of the second conditional proposition with the basis of the first conditional proposition [together with the reference(s) to the image(s) (for example, a drawing) if such (a) reference(s) is (are) contained in the basis of the first conditional proposition, or without this reference if there is no such reference in the basis of the first conditional proposition]. And thus, the second conditional proposition will be transformed into the third conditional proposition (i.e. in this way, the third conditional proposition will be formed out of the second conditional proposition). At the same time, the consequence of the second conditional proposition [together with the reference(s) to the image(s) if such (a) reference(s) is (are) contained in the consequence of the second conditional proposition, or without a reference to the image if there is no such reference in the consequence of the second conditional proposition] will become the consequence of the third conditional proposition. Meanwhile, if this third conditional proposition contains (a) reference(s) to the image(s), then it means that, as a result of this conclusion [from the pieces of information stated in the form of specified image(s) and the first and second conditional propositions which contain (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)], we will receive the information which is stated in the form of (i.e. which is stated with the help of) this (these) image(s) and the third conditional proposition which contains (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s) [in other words, this (these) image(s) will represent a part of the information received as a result of this conclusion if this third conditional proposition contains (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)].

2. Find two such conditional propositions which feature the following: a) the consequence of the first conditional proposition and some part of the basis of the second conditional proposition consist of the same words standing in the same sequence; b) and, meanwhile, if the consequence of the first conditional proposition contains (a) reference(s) to some image(s) (for example, a drawing), then this part of the basis of the second conditional proposition should contain the same reference(s) to the same image(s); c) and, meanwhile, if this part of the basis of the second conditional proposition contains (a) reference(s) to some image(s), then the consequence of the first conditional proposition should contain the same reference(s) to the same image(s) (however, there may be no reference to some image in these two conditional propositions) [at the same time, this part of the basis of the second conditional proposition may contain (a) reference(s) to some image(s) (for example, a drawing) which represent(s) (a) part(s) of some other image(s)]. Then it is necessary to change the second conditional proposition, i.e. then it is necessary to replace the specified part (of the basis of the second conditional proposition) with the basis of the first conditional proposition [together with the reference(s) to the image(s) if such (a) reference(s) is (are) in the basis of the first conditional proposition, or without this reference to the image if there is no such reference in the basis of the first conditional proposition] [and if the basis of the first conditional proposition contains (a) reference(s) to the image(s), and if this part of (of the basis of the second conditional proposition) contains (a) reference(s) to the image(s), and if the last image(s) is (are) (a) part(s) of some other image(s), then only in this case we should replace the image(s) referenced in this part (of the basis of the second conditional proposition) with the image(s) referenced in the basis of the first conditional proposition], and thereby the second conditional proposition will be transformed into the third conditional proposition (in other words, in this way the third conditional proposition will be formed from the second conditional proposition) [together with the reference(s) to the image(s) if the basis of the first conditional proposition and (or) some 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 contain (a) reference(s) to the image(s)] without the reference(s) to the image(s) if there is (are) no reference(s) to the images(s) in the basis of the first conditional proposition and (or) in some 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.) In other words, if the basis of the first conditional proposition and (or) some 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 contain (a) reference(s) to the image(s), then we will receive as a result of this conclusion the information stated in the form of (an) image(s) and the third conditional proposition which contains (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s) [that is to say that we will receive as a result of this conclusion the information stated by means of (an) images and the third conditional proposition which contains (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)].

If the computer has found a consequence (or the basis) (of the conditional proposition) that consists of some words standing in some sequence [and if these words contain a reference to some image (for example, a drawing) which is designated with a digit], and if this computer has found the basis (or the consequence) (of some other conditional proposition) that consists of the same words standing in the same sequence except for the digit (any digit can be stated in the form of a word or words) which designates (i.e. except for the digit used to designate) the same image referenced in these words [i.e. digits (which are used to designated these same images) are different], then in this case these same images can be designed with the same digits (i.e. in this case these same words can contain a reference to one image designated with a digit).

If the computer has found in some conditional proposition some words standing in some sequence, and if these words contain a reference to some image (for example, a drawing) which is designated with a digit (or not designated with a digit), and if this computer has found in some other conditional proposition the same words standing in the same sequence except for the digit which designates (i.e. except for the digit used to designate) the same image referenced in these words, then in this case we can consider that the last two images are designated with the same digits because these images (for example, drawings) are the same, in which case each of these two images can be (or can not be) a part of some third (or the fourth, etc.) (i.e. a part of some other) image designated with some digit.

This method of invention (i.e. the forth method of invention) consists of making random inventions by drawing random conclusions with the help of the fifth rule [and by deriving from random general conditional propositions random special conditional propositions which are special cases of these general conditional propositions). Here, random conclusions derived with the use of the fifth rule imply the following:

a) either a conclusion that is made out of a random conditional proposition (which does not contain a reference to some image) and such a conditional proposition (which does not contain a reference to some image, and) which provides the possibility to make a conclusion in accordance with the fifth rule from itself (i.e. from the last conditional proposition) and this random conditional proposition

b) or a conclusion made out of some random information and the information which will make it possible to draw a conclusion in accordance with the fifth rule out of it (i.e. out of the last information) and this random information [here by information I mean the following: either (an) image(s) and some conditional proposition which contains (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s) or some conditional proposition which does not contain any reference to the image].

Based on the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that the computer will create some random invention by using this method of invention (i.e. the fourth method of invention) if it derives among other derived random conditional propositions such a new random conditional proposition where the consequence [with (an) image(s) if this consequence contains (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s), or without an image (if this consequence does not contain a reference to the image)] will represent information that contains something which will provide a benefit for a man, and the basis of this conditional proposition [with (an) image(s) if this basis contains (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s), or without an image (if this basis does not contain a reference to the image)] will represent information that contains a description of some configuration of substances (or a description of some continuously changing configuration of substances) which people will be able to make at the moment when the computer derives this new random conditional proposition.

I have mentioned above about one hundred million general conditional propositions. Each general conditional proposition out of these one hundred million general conditional propositions represents information which is stated in the form of a general conditional proposition (i.e. represents information which is stated by way of a general conditional proposition). And in order to achieve most successful results in creating inventions by using the methods of invention discussed herein above and below, it is necessary to develop as many wording variants of each information out of these one hundred million pieces of information as possible (however, we can do the following: write to the computer memory one wording variant of each information out of these 100 million pieces of information; then the computer develops as many wording variants of each information out of these 100 million pieces of information as possible and writes them to its memory) [but each of these wording variants should be represented either by a general conditional proposition or by some image(s) (for example, by a drawing) and some general conditional proposition containing (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)], and all of this should be written to the memory of the computer which will create inventions with the help of the methods of invention discussed herein above and below [in other words, it is necessary to write to the memory of this computer as many wording variants of these one hundred million pieces of information as possible (i.e. it is necessary to write to the memory of this computer these one hundred million pieces of information where each piece of information is represented by as many wording variants as possible); however, each of these wording variants should be represented either some general conditional proposition or by some image(s) and some general conditional proposition that contains (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)]. Though, to create a great number of inventions with the help of the methods of invention discussed herein above and below, it is sufficient to write to the computer memory only the abovementioned 2,500 conditional propositions (i.e. pieces of information), in which case all conditional propositions (out of these 2,500 conditional propositions) should be written to the computer memory in as many wording variants (i.e. forms) of this conditional proposition as possible.

The fifth method of invention
consisting of generation of OR-subtasks
(which are nodes of a tree)
with the help of conditional propositions
and (or) images and conditional propositions
that contain references to these images

Based on the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that if we take some inventive task, it can be generally worded in a form of an image(s) (for example, a drawing) and description of this inventive task which contains (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s) [i.e., based on the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that if we take some inventive task, it can be generally worded with the help of (an) image(s) and description of this inventive task which contains (a) reference(s) to this (these) image(s)].

I will give an example of such inventive task wording, namely: "It is necessary to invent a device which would be able to move a carriage [shown in some image (i.e. drawing) which we will designate with the digit 2] from the ground surface to the center of the Earth in the same way as a mole does".

And this image designated with the digit 2 should show a carriage with four seats for passengers.

Based on the analysis of publications, I have derived the following rule (I have called this rule as the sixth rule):

The sixth rule: Let's take any inventive task (let’s designate it with letter “V”). In order to derive inventive OR-subtask from inventive task V (of this inventive task V) [by the way, the description of this inventive task V may contain reference(s) to image(s), or description of this inventive task V may not contain any reference(s) to image(s)], we should perform any of the following:

1. Find any such conditional proposition which would have the following features:

a) conclusion of this conditional proposition and description of this inventive task V contain the same words standing in the same sequence

b) at the same time, if the conclusion of this conditional proposition contains reference(s) to (an) image(s), the description of this inventive task V should contain the same reference(s) to the the same image(s),

c) at the same time, if description of this inventive task V contains reference(s) to image(s), then the conclusion of this conditional proposition will contain the same reference(s) to the same image(s) [moreover, reference(s) to image(s) may be present or absent in the base of this conditional proposition]. And if the basis of this conditional proposition contains reference(s) to (an) image(s), the inventive OR-subtask (of this inventive task V) shall be the wording containing this (these) image(s), and the bases of this conditional proposition which contains this (these) reference(s) to this (these) proposition(s) [i.e., if the basis of this conditional proposition contains reference(s) to image(s), inventive OR-subtask (of this inventive task V) shall be the wording in form of this (these) image(s) and the bases of this conditional proposition which contain this (these) reference(s) to this(these) proposition(s)]. And if the basis of this conditional proposition does not contain any reference to image, the basis of this conditional proposition shall be inventive OR-subtask (of this inventive task V).

2. Find any such conditional proposition which would have the following features:

a) conclusion of this conditional proposition and any part of description of this inventive task V contain the same words standing in the same sequence

b) at the same time, if conclusion of this conditional proposition is reference(s) to image(s) (for example, a drawing), this part of description of this inventive task V should contain the same reference(s) to the same image(s)

c) at the same time, if this part of description of this inventive task V contains reference(s) to image(s), conclusion of this conditional proposition should contain the same reference(s) to the same image(s) [moreover, this part of description of this inventive task V may contain reference(s) to image(s which is (are) part(s) of another (other) image(s) [moreover, reference(s) to the image(s) may be (have) or may not be (have) in the basis and (or) conclusion of this conditional proposition]. Then, one should replace this part of (description of this inventive task V) with the basis of this conditional proposition [with reference(s) to image(s), if such reference(s) are available in the basis of this conditional proposition, or without any reference to image, if such reference is absent in the basis of this conditional proposition] [at the same time, if the basis of this conditional proposition contains reference(s) to image(s) and if this part of (description of this inventive task V) contains reference(s) to image(s) and if the last image(s) is (are) a part(s) of another (other) image(s), then only in such case should you replace image(s) to which reference(s) to this part of (description of this inventive task V) are present with image(s) to which reference(s) is(are) present in the basis of this conditional proposition]. And hence, description of inventive task V shall be transformed into description of inventive task of OR-subtask (of this inventive task V) [with reference(s) to image(s), if the basis of this conditional proposition and (or) the part of description of inventive task V (which became a part of this OR-task of inventive task V after replacement of basis of this conditional proposition) (by the way, let's designate this last part of description of inventive task V with letter "t") contains reference(s) to image(s) ’r] without any reference(s) to image(s), if the basis of this conditional proposition and the part of description of this conditional proposition V (which is designated with letter “t”) does not contain reference(s) to image(s). ] That is, if the basis of this conditional proposition and (or) the part of description of inventive task V (which is designated with letter “t” contains reference(s) to image(s), inventive OR-subtask (of this inventive task V) shall be the wording in form (i.e. worded with the help of) this (these) image(s), and the bases of this conditional proposition [with this (these) reference(s) to this (these) image(s), if this (these) reference(s) are contained in this basis] and the part of description of this inventive task V [designated with letter "t") [with this (these) reference(s) to this (these) image(s), if this (these) reference(s) are present in part t].

And if the basis of this conditional proposition and part t do not contain reference to image, the basis of this conditional proposition without any reference to image and the part of t with no reference to image shall be inventive OR-subtask (of this inventive task V).

By the way, inventive OR-subtask is inventive task, so, with the help of the sixth rule we can derive inventive OR-subtask (of the penultimate OR-subtask) from OR-subtask, i.e., with the help of the sixth rule we can derive from inventive OR-subtask its inventive OR-subtask.

Inventive AND-subtask is inventive task, i.e., with the help of the sixth rule, we can derive OR-subtask (of this inventive AND-subtask) from inventive AND-subtask. By the way, inventive OR-subtask is inventive task, inventive OR-subtask is inventive task etc. Hence, with the help of the sixth rule we can derive from inventive OR-subtask of inventive OR-subtask etc. their inventive OR-subtasks.

This method of invention (i.e., the fifth method of invention) lies in attempts to solve any inventive task which should be solved (I'll mention the last task as original task) by means of generation (with the help of the sixth rule) of OR-subtasks, OR-subsubtasks (i.e., OR-subtasks of OR-subtasks), OR-subsubtasks (i.e., OR-subtasks of OR-subsubtasks) etc. [i.e., by means of generation of OR-subtasks (with the help of the sixth rule). At the same time, these OR-subtasks, these OR-subsubtasks, these OR-subsubsubtasks etc. should be nodes of a tree that brings the original task to subtasks (i.e., they should be included in a tree that brings the original task to subtasks)] until the end of the moment, when (i.e., until the moment when) such OR-subtask shall be derived [with reference(s) to image(s) or without any reference to image], the solution of which is known (and if such OR-subtask is derived, the original task shall be solved) that is, until the moment when such description shall be derived (i.e., statement) of OR-subtask [with reference(s) to image(s) or without any reference to image], which shall be a description (that is, a statement) of location of substances [or which is a description (that is, a statement) of continuously changing location of substances], which people can easily develop (without any devices or with the help of any devices), at the moment when this description (statement) of OR-statement is derived [that is, until the end of the moment when such description (statement) of OR-subtask is derived (with reference to image or with references to images or), which shall be a description (statement) of a thing that people can perform at the moment when this description (statement) of OR-subtask is derived with reference (s) to image(s), then this OR-subtask (description, statement of this OR-subtask) is worded with the help (in form of) this (these) image(s) and description of this OR-subtask in which reference(s) to this (these) image(s) are contained].

The sixth method of invention
consisting of generation of AND-subtasks and OR-subtasks
(which are nodes of a tree)
with the help of conditional propositions
and/or images and conditional propositions that have references to these images

Based on the analysis of publications, I have derived the following rule (I have denoted this rule as the seventh rule):

The seventh rule: Let's take any inventive task (let’s designate it with letter “h”) [by the way, description of this inventive task h may contain reference(s) to image(s), or description of this inventive task h may not contain any reference(s) to image(s)]. In order to derive inventive AND-subtasks (of this inventive task h) from inventive tasks h (inventive AND-subtasks are mentioned above) (which should be all solved, in order to solve inventive task h), perform the following, Find any such conditional proposition which would have the following features:

a) conclusion of this conditional proposition and description of this inventive task h contain the same words standing in the same sequence

b) at the same time, if conclusion of this conditional proposition contains reference(s) to image(s), description of this inventive task h should contain the same reference(s) to the same image(s)

c) at the same time, if description of this inventive task h contains reference(s) to image(s), conclusion of this conditional proposition would contain the same reference(s) to the same image(s) [moreover, reference(s) to image(s) may be present or absent in the base of this conditional proposition]. Then, determine the following: how many inventive tasks are described in the basis [that is, in description of the basis) [with reference(s) to image(s), if this basis contains reference(s) to image(s) or with no reference(s) to image(s) if this basis contains no reference(s) to image(s)] of this conditional proposition (based on the above-mentioned and on the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that three programmers can easily develop such a program for a computer using which a computer can easily determine it). And if the basis of this conditional proposition contains more than one inventive task [with reference(s) to image(s) or with no reference(s) to image(s)] (that is, two or more inventive tasks are stated), these inventive tasks (stated in the basis of this conditional proposition) are [shall be) inventive AND-subtasks (of this inventive task h), which should all be solved, in order to solve inventive task h (i.e., in order to solve inventive task h, all inventive tasks which are stated in the basis of this conditional proposition should be solved).

And if a reference(s) to image(s) is (are) contained in the basis of this conditional proposition, then inventive AND-subtasks (of this inventive task h) shall be the proposition that is stated with the help of (that is, the proposition which is stated in form of) this (these) image(s) and the basis of this conditional proposition in which this (these) reference(s) to this (these) image(s) is(are) contained.

And if there is no reference to image in the basis of this conditional proposition, then inventive tasks stated in the basis of this conditional proposition containing no reference(s) to image(s) shall be AND-subtasks (of this inventive task h).

An inventive OR-subtask is an inventive task; an inventive OR-subsubtask is an inventive task etc. Hence, with the help of the seventh rule we can derive from an inventive OR-subtask of some inventive OR-subsubtask etc. their inventive AND-subtasks. An inventive AND-subtask is an inventive task, i.e., with the help of the seventh rule, we can derive its AND-subtasks from an inventive AND-subtask.

This method of invention (i.e., the sixth method of invention) consists of the following: (assume any inventive task which should be solved; let’s call the last inventive task as the original inventive task); first, it is necessary to try to solve this original inventive task by means of generation (with the help of the seventh rule and the first part of the sixth rule) of inventive OR-subtasks and inventive AND-subtasks [ moreover, these OR-subtasks and these AND-subtasks should be nodes of the tree that brings original task to subtasks (that is, they should be included in this tree)] until the end of the moment when (computer) shall derive such OR-subtask or such AND-subtask [with reference(s) to image(es) or without any reference to image], solution of which is known [ that is, until the end of the moment when (computer) shall derive such description of OR-subtask and AND-subtask (with reference to image or with references to images or without any reference to image), which is a description of location of substances (or which is a description of continuously changing location of substances), which people would be able to develop (without any known devices), when the description of this OR-subtask or AND-subtask is derived (if the computer derives description of this OR-subtask or AND-subtask, it means that this description of OR-subtask or AND-subtask shall be a description of the task solved), that is, until the end of the moment when (computer) derives description of OR-subtask or AND-subtask (with reference to image or with references to images, or without any reference to image), which shall be a description of a thing that can be carried out by people when this description of OR-subtask and AND-subtask is derived (if the computer derives description of OR-subtask or AND-subtask, this would mean that the description of OR-subtask or AND-subtask shall be a description of the task solved)] [by the way, if OR-subtask (that is, the description, that is, the statement of OR-subtask) with reference(s) to image(s), it means that this OR-subtask (that is, this description, that is, the statement of OR-subtask) is stated with the help of (that is, is stated in form of this (these) image(s) and description of this 0R-subtask, which contains reference(s) to this(these) image(s)] [by the way, if AND-subtask (that is, description, that is, statement of AND-subtask) is with reference(s) to image(s), it means that this AND-subtask (that is, this description, statement of AND-subtask) is stated with the help (that is, in form of this (these) image(s) and description of this AND-subtask, which contains reference(s) to this (these) image(s)].

Then, the corresponding node (of the tree which brings original task to subtasks) is marked as solved. Then, if it is possible to mark any of the node (or nodes) of this tree as solved, this (these) node (or nodes) should be marked as solved [by the way, if any node of the tree which brings tasks to subtasks can be marked as solved, it is sometimes possible to mark another (or other) node (or nodes) of this tree as solved one (solved ones)]. At the same time, consider the following: 1) any node which derives OR-subtask can be marked as solved, if this OR-subtask is solved (that is, if this OR-subtask is marked as solved); 2) any node (which derives AND-subtasks which are derived from this node with the help of one conditional proposition) can be marked as solved, if all these AND-subtasks are solved (that is, if all these AND-subtasks are marked as solved). Then, if original inventive task is not solved yet (that is, is not marked yet as solved), all the above-mentioned actions (which are necessary to solve the last original task) (by the way, this method of invention lies in these actions) should be repeated once more, that is, then the following should be carried out: repeat (that is, continue) this generation process (with the help of the seventh rule and the first part of the sixth rule) of inventive OR-subtasks and inventive AND-subtasks (these OR-subtasks and these AND-subtasks being nodes of the tree which brings original task to subtasks) again, until the end of the moment when (computer) derives such OR-subtask or such AND-subtask (with reference to image, or with references to images, or without any reference to image) solution of which is known, that is, again, until the end of the moment when such OR-subtask, or such AND-subtask is derived, which can be marked as solved. Then, repeat the following: if any other node (or nodes) of this tree can be marked as solved, then this (these) node (or nodes) shall be marked as solved.

Then, in case after that the original task is not solved, these actions [which were repeated (i.e., double-performed) and which are necessary to solve the last original inventive task (by the way, this method of invention is contained in these actions, particularly)] double-perform the same [that is, perform the following: repeat (i.e., continue) this process of generation (with the help of the seventh rule and the first part of the sixth rule) of AND-subtasks or OR-subtasks and repeat other above-mentioned actions, which were repeated (i.e., performed for the second time) and which are necessary to solve the last original inventive task]. Then, if after that the original task is not solved, these actions [which were repeated twice (i.e., performed 2 times) and which are necessary to solve the last original inventive task (by the way, this method of invention is contained, particularly, in these actions)] repeat once more etc. until the original task can be marked as solved, that is, until the end of the moment when this original task is solved.

I believe that with the help of the methods of invention mentioned herein above and below, three programmers can easily develop such programs for a computer with the help of which a computer could, without human help, solve not only inventive tasks, but also other types of tasks.

The seventh method of invention
consisting of conducting random experiments

Based on the results of description to patents, one can come to a conclusion that invention is generally a location of substances in cases when it does not work or is not used, and that if the invention works or is used, it is generally such location of substances which continuously change, this location of substances changing continuously in a manner (that is, location of substances) frequently becomes such location of substances which it already was (that is, this location of substances) becomes one location or another location etc., each of them is included in number of such locations of substances, each of which this location (that is, location of substances which continuously changes) already was (once or several times), at the same time, if invention works or is used, it is useful for humans (that is, it is of positive effect) [that is, it effects in a useful manner]. Moreover, if an invention is new (and it is a location of substances), then either location of substances should be new, or action(s) which produce this invention (if it works or is used) should be new (sometimes, with the help of new devices, new action is revealed, i.e., old location of substances) or and location of substances (of which this new invention consists) should be new, and this (these) action(s) which produce this invention (if it works or is used) should be new. And if the invention is not new (and it is location of substances), then this location of substances (representing this invention) is not new either, and action(s) which affect this invention (in case it works or is used), is (are) not new either.

For illustrative purposes, consider a specific example. Mechanical watch is an invention. It can be taken on pieces. Consider hand of the watch. It consists of steel (that is, a solid substance) and is of a definite form (substances can be: solid, liquid, gaseous or shaped plasma). All the components of the watch are solid substances of a specific form. When the watch is idle, these components are located relative to each other in a specific manner. That is, idle mechanical watch is specific location of substances.

Based on the analysis of publications, one can come to a conclusion that description of invention, if it (i.e., this invention) operates or is used, is generally is a description of such location of substances which continuously changes and a description of action(s) which produce such location of substances, which take place in this location of substances [that is, description of invention if it (i.e., this invention) operates or is used, generally consists of not only a description of such location of substances, but continuously changes, but also from description of action(s) which produce such location of substances, that is, which is (are) produced in this location of substances]. Moreover, this action is useful for men. Moreover, if an invention is new (and it is a location of substances), then either location of substances should be new, or action(s) which produce this invention (if it works or is used) should be new (sometimes, with the help of new devices, new action is revealed, i.e., old location of substances) or and location of substances (of which this new invention consists) should be new, and this (these) action(s) which produce this invention (if it works or is used) should be new.

As a result of the analysis of publications, I’ve come to the following conclusion. In order to carry out an experiment, we should develop location of substances (moreover, we can develop such location of substances which shall continuously change) and with the help of sensory organs [and devices which can intensify sensory organs (of a human or a robot) or, sort of, confer new sensory organs to a human or a robot] sense or receive information on which action(s) take place in this location of substances (that is, sense or determine what is going on in this location of substances). Consider examples of such devices: a telescope, a microscope, a thermometer, a voltmeter, a dosimeter etc. In this connection, I should note that with the help of a dosimeter a human or a robot can, sort of, have new sensory organ, i.e. such a sensory organ with the help of which a human or a robot could sense or reveal radioactive emission. By the way, some robots have a visual sensor, that is, sight, a sound sensor, that is, sense of hearing, olfactory sensor, that is, sense of smell.

Based on the analysis of publications, one can come to a conclusion that from every 100,000 random (first) new experiments [new experiment is an experiment which was not carried out] [by the way, the result of such experiment (i.e., an experiment which was already carried out) is known until the beginning of this experiment which is not new, thus, one should not conduct experiments that are not new ones] approximately 20 experiments shall take place after which 20 new random inventions shall be made (that is, approximately 20 experiments shall take place which result in one new random invention), that is, if we carry out 100,000 random new experiments, then, as a result, approximately 20 random new inventions shall be made.

This method of invention (that is, the seventh method of invention) consists of making random inventions by means of carrying out random experiments.

Based on the above and on the analysis of publications, one can come to a conclusion that there are such devices which can make random experiments without human help, if every such robot is properly controlled by a computer (that is, if computer properly controls each such robot, it can make random experiments without human help). One of these robots is the Klatu robot (that is, the Klatu robot is included in this group of robots) [the Klatu robot was mentioned on page 20 of issue 5 (918) of newspaper Za Rubezhom (Abroad) published in 1978.] (by the way, some robots have a visual sensor, that is, sight, a sound sensor, that is, sense of hearing, olfactory sensor, that is, sense of smell).

Based on the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that using this method of invention (that is, the seventh method of invention), three programmers can easily develop such a program for a computer using which this computer can easily control the Klatu robot, so that the Klatu robot controlled by this computer could make a lot of random inventions without human help, by means of carrying out random experiments, that is, by means of this method of invention (that is, by means of the seventh method of invention) (that is, based on the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that three programmers can easily develop a program for computer using which computer controlled by the Klatu robot could easily make a lot of inventions without human help). Moreover, a computer can control a robot by means of transmitting electric signals to the robot through ether by means of a radio transmitter in a computer and a radio transmitter being in the robot. And the robot could transmit information to the computer (which was received with the help of visual sensor and other sensors, by means of transmitting electric signals to the computer through ether, with the help of a radio transmitter in a robot and a radio transmitter in a computer.

The eighth method of invention
consisting of making inventions
with the help of old conditional propositions of
the second, third, fifth and sixth methods of invention
and new random conditional propositions derived though random experiments

The Klatu robot [if it (this robot) is properly controlled by a computer], by means of making new random experiments, can make new random conventional propositions. I believe that, based on the analysis of publications, one can come to a conclusion that three programmers, based on the above, can easily develop such a program for a computer using which this computer can easily control the Klatu robot in such a way that the Klatu robot controlled by this computer can make random experiments without human help.

This method of invention (that is, the eighth method of invention) consists of the following (that is, lies in the fact that) if a computer has been assigned some task to invent any specific (not random) invention (that is, the task is to solve a specific inventive task) (let’s call this inventive task as an original inventive task) and if the computer could not make this invention with the help of the second, the third, the fifth or the sixth methods of invention, then it is necessary that, first, the computer controlling properly the Klatu robot, would receive (that is, it is necessary that, first, the Klatu robot controlled by computer would receive) new random conventional proposition(s) by means of making new random experiment(s), and, after that, it is necessary that computer with the help of this (these) new random conventional proposition(s) and old conventional propositions (old conventional propositions are a hundred million conventional propositions mentioned above) and the second, the third, the fifth and the sixth above-mentioned methods of invention tried to solve this original method of invention, by the way, a computer can use one of the above-mentioned robots to make inventions instead of the Klatu robot, that is, one of the robots each of which can make random experiments without human help, if it is properly controlled by a computer. Based on the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that there are such inventive tasks which cannot be solved without any experiments. And if after that a computer cannot solve this original inventive task, it is necessary that the computer again, controlling properly the Klatu robot, would receive new random conventional proposition(s), by means of making new random experiments, and after that, it is necessary that computer, again, with the help of this (these) new random conventional proposition(s) and old conventional propositions and the second, the third, the fifth and the sixth inventions mentioned above, would try to solve the original inventive task. And if after that the computer cannot solve the original inventive task, it is necessary that the computer repeated everything until this original inventive task is solved.

By the way, if we increase a number of known conventional propositions with the help of random experiments, then the computer, with the help of the first and the forth methods of invention, could make more random inventions than if we fail to do that (that is, rather than if we do not increase the number of known conventional propositions).

The ninth method of invention
consisting of conducting primarily the experiments
which will most likely allow to make
some particular invention that needs to be invented

Assume that we (that is, the author of this publication and a reader) should make (that is, invent) new medicine which can be used to cure influenza. And to perform that, we shall grow apples, pears and plums under zero gravity. It is unlikely that these experiments shall help us solve this inventive task. And if we treat animals suffering influenza with random (any) substances, it is more likely that by means of these experiments we would be able to solve this inventive task.

We can make a large number of similar examples. Based on the above-said and on the analysis of publications, I’ve come to the following conclusions:

1. If a computer which can be controlled by the Klatu robot (so that this computer, controlling the Klatu robot, can make random and specific experiments) should make some specific invention [(that is, it should solve any specific inventive task, which we shall cal original task) and if this computer derived all the nodes of the tree that decomposes this original task into subtasks which can be derived with the help of the second, the third, the fifth and the sixth methods of invention and with the help of all the known conventional propositions and if computer eventually does not solve this original inventive task], then this computer shall need new conventional propositions, in order to continue generating new nodes of this tree; and new nodes of the proposition can be obtained by means of carrying out experiments, and in this case, this computer, in order to solve this original inventive task (that is, to make this original invention) should, with the help of the Klatu robot, make experiments which obviously shall help us make this invention [that is, this computer shall, with the help of the Klatu robot, make experiments, as a result of which, we shall more likely obtain such conventional propositions which shall help us make this original invention by means of generating nodes of the tree that decomposes this original inventive task into subtasks (with the help of the above-mentioned rules, rather than only by means of these conventional propositions)] earlier than any other experiments (that is, this computer should, in order to make this original invention with the help of the Klatu robot, carry out primarily experiments which shall likely help us make this invention) (this is where the ninth methods of invention lies) (by the way, the computer may use one of the above-mentioned robots, that is, one of the robots each of which can make random experiments without human help, in case it is properly controlled by a computer, instead of the Klatu robot, in order to make inventions).

2. One should write to the memory of this computer the maximum amount of information which would indicate which experiments are more likely to help us make such inventions [that is, in the memory of the computer which can control the Klatu robot (so that this computer, controlling the Klatu robot, can make random and specific experiments)]. That is, one should write to this computer the maximum possible amount of information which first indicates the following (if it is necessary to make any specific invention, then which experiments shall more likely help to make this invention), then the following, if it is necessary to make any different specific invention, then – which experiments will most likely help to make this invention etc., that is, such information for the maximum possible number of inventions (which should be made) should be written to the computer memory.

And it is necessary that the maximum possible amount of such (this) pieces of information be written to the computer memory. At the same time, it should be considered that in order to make such specific invention, one should first make such experiments which will more likely help to make this invention.

Based on the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that three programmers can easily develop such a computer program which would be able to determine without human help which experiments would help to make any inventions.

The tenth method of invention
consisting of deriving tree nodes
using priori and non-priori conditional propositions,
and of validating by experiments these priori conditional propositions
required to derive these nodes

There are some known conditional propositions each of which is a thought representing an assumption about some object or phenomenon, for example: “If we have the following: Astronauts will be delivered to the surface of Venus. Then we will have the following: These astronauts will be presumably not able to find there (i.e. on the surface of Venus) intelligent spacemen within two hours”.

Let us denote such conditional propositions as “priori conditional propositions”. Based on the analysis of publications, I have come to the following conclusions: 1) nowadays, it is possible to develop approximately 2,000,000 priori conditional propositions, but in few years there will be more known information and, therefore, in few years it will be possible to derive more than 2,000,000 priori conditional propositions, 2) if we verify by experiments the accuracy of priori conditional propositions, then approximately 2% of these conditional propositions will be found true (i.e. correct).

Based on the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that, based on the foregoing, three programmers can easily develop such computer programs using which a computer will be able to do the following without human help: 1) put forward (i.e. derive) priori conditional propositions, 2) derive (at the present time) these 2,000,000 priori conditional propositions (it will take approximately 40 minutes for the computer) [and apparently 2% of these priori conditional propositions will be found correct, which means that within 40 minutes the computer, I believe, will actually derive 40,000 true conditional propositions, while receiving 40,000 true conditional propositions by random and non random experiments will require approximately 200,000 hours on the average since for the preparation and implementation of one experiment the computer (which operates the Klatu robot) will require, as I believe, approximately 5 hours on the average. 3) derive nodes of the (original task decomposition) tree by using these priori conditional propositions and known non-priori conditional propositions and abovementioned rules (if the computer manages to derive them) (by the way, nods of some trees can be derived and nods of some other trees can not be derived with the use these priori conditional propositions and known non-priori conditional propositions) (to do this, the computer will require approximately 50 minutes) (by the way, it follows from the foregoing that any new nod of this original task decomposition tree can provide or can not provide the solution of this inventive task. Based on the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that, in order to have some inventive task solved, it is necessary to derive approximately 50 nods of this inventive task decomposition tree).

After that, if the computer manages to derive using these priori conditional propositions (and known non-priori conditional propositions and the abovementioned second, third, fifth and sixth methods of invention) some node or nods of (this original task decomposition) tree, then this computer should verify, with the help of the Klatu robot and by an experiment or experiments, the correctness of (a) priori conditional proposition(s) which have (has) contributed to the derivation of this (these) nod(s) of (this original task decomposition) tree, meanwhile, approximately 2% of the priori conditional propositions are correct conditional propositions.

This method of invention (i.e. the tenth method of invention) consists of the following: when the computer is given a task to solve some particular (i.e. not a random) inventive task, and if it failed to solve the last inventive task using the second, third, fifth and sixth methods of invention (described above), then it should try to solve the last inventive task by trying to derive [with the help of priori conditional propositions (and known non-priori conditional propositions) and the second, third, fifth and sixth methods of invention (described above)] nodes of the tree of the last task decomposition (by the way, nodes of the task decomposition tree derived with the help of priori conditional propositions will be priori nodes) and then by verifying (via experiments) the accuracy of the priori conditional proposition(s) with the use of which it has managed (if so) to derive node (nodes) of the tree of the last task decomposition.

Based on the foregoing and the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that if a computer solves some particular inventive task with the help of the eighth method of invention, i.e. by deriving, with the help of true random conditional propositions (which it has obtained by conducting random experiments) (and with the help of true known conditional propositions and with the help of the second, third, fifth and sixth methods of invention described above), nods of the tree that decomposes this task to subtasks (and if, meanwhile, this computer obtains 40,000 true random conditional propositions by conducting random experiments, and if, meanwhile, this computer tries to derive nodes of the tree that decomposes this task to subtasks with the help of these 40,000 true random conditional propositions in particular), then I believe this computer will derive, as a result of this (with the help of true conditional propositions), approximately the same number, in the average, of true (i.e. non-priori) nods of this task decomposition tree as when it derives them (with the help of true conditional propositions) if it solves this task with the help of this, .i.e. the tenth, method of invention (this is because there are approximately 40,000 true conditional propositions in 2,000,0000 priori conditional propositions); in other words, the use of the tenth method of invention and the eight method of invention (if the computer has obtained 40,000 random conditional propositions with the help of the eighth method of invention by conducting random experiments) will result in the same positive effect (i.e. result) in the average; that is to say that, the use of the tenth or eighth method of invention (if the computer has obtained 40,000 random conditional propositions with the help of the eighth method of invention by conducting random experiments) will result in the fact that the computer will approach the solution of this task in approximately equal extent in the average.

However, the obtaining this equal result with the help of the tenth method of invention will require, in the average, much less time than with the help of the eight method of invention (if the computer has obtained 40,000 random conditional propositions with the help of the eighth method of invention by conducting random experiments).

Based on the foregoing and on the analysis of publications, I have come to the following conclusions: 1) the tenth method of invention is generally better than the eighth method of invention, 2) the tenth method of invention is better in some cases than the ninth method of invention.

The eleventh method of invention,
i.e. an advanced “cut and try method”

In the book titles as Algorithm of Invention of the Moskovskiy Rabotchiy Publisher (written by Genrikh Saulovich Altshuller; Moscow, 1969), it says that inventor create inventions generally by the ‘cut and try method’ and that this method consists of the following: the inventor puts forward the following trial at random: “what if we do it this way?” Then, this is followed by an attempt to perform a theoretic check. In case this check fails, an experimental check follows. And if the solution is not found after that, the inventor puts forward another random trial and tries again to perform a theoretical check, etc. until the solution is found.

Based on the analysis of publications and the foregoing, I have come to the conclusion that the computer will create, without human help, any invention (which a man has ordered the computer to invent) actually by using this “cut and try method” if this computer creates this invention with the help of the following method (which represents a modified version of the ‘cut and try method’) (i.e. this computer will create this invention in the following way): first, this computer will put forward some random trial, i.e. first, this computer will write on a paper the description of some random (i.e. any) configuration of substances (or the description of some random continuously changing configuration of substances), which people can form without the aid of devices or with the aid of some known devices. Then this computer will try to find in its memory such a conditional proposition the consequence of which contains only the description of the invention (which the man has ordered the computer to invent) (i.e. the consequence of which states only the inventive task which the man has ordered the computer to solve), and the basis of this conditional proposition states only the description of this configuration of substances which the computer has written on the paper. If the computer finds in its memory such conditional proposition, then this invention (which the man has ordered the computer to invent) will be created by this computer [i.e., as a result of this (i.e. as a result of the search for this conditional proposition), the computer will create this invention]. But if the computer fails to find in its memory such conditional proposition, then in this case this computer should conduct an experiment by using the abovementioned Klatu robot (i.e. by operating the Klatu robot), i.e. it should form this configuration of substances written on the paper and feel (i.e. define) using its sensory organs which the Klatu robot has what happens in the consequence of the arrangement of this configuration of substances. And the computer should state what is happening in the consequence of the arrangement of this configuration of substances, and if the last statement is the same as the statement of the inventive task which the man has ordered the computer to solve (i.e. if this statement consists of some words standing in some sequence and the statement of the inventive task which the man has ordered the computer to solve consists of the same words standing in the same sequence), then in this case the computer will create that invention which the man has ordered it to create, and if it s not the same, then it will fail. In this case (i.e. if the computer fails to make an invention) the computer puts forward another (i.e. the second) random trial, i.e. the computer writes on a paper some other, i.e. the second, random configuration of substances. Then this computer tries again to find in its memory such a conditional proposition the consequence of which states only the inventive task which the man has ordered the computer to solve, and the basis of this conditional proposition states only the description of this configuration of substances, etc. until the solution of this inventive task is found. To enable the computer to create inventions with the aid of this (i.e. with the aid of the eleventh) method of invention, it is necessary to write the abovementioned 2,500 general conditional propositions (or one hundred million general conditional propositions) to the computer memory.

But it would be better if, while creating the invention which the man has ordered the computer to create using this method (i.e. the eleventh method) of invention, the computer will perform not random trials, i.e. it would be better if the computer, while creating the invention which the man has ordered the computer to create by using the eleventh method, will write on a paper not (a) random configuration(s) of substances but (a) configuration(s) of substances which will seemingly and most probably allow to create this invention with the help of this method (i.e. the eleventh method) of invention (the same has been discussed herein above).

I will make an example in connection with this. Let us assume that a man has ordered the computer to invent the cheapest vehicle, and while creating this invention by using this method the computer puts forward a trial and describes on a paper the configuration of substances which represents a heap of hay mixed with straw. Such a configuration of substances will unlikely allow to create this invention. However, if the computer describes on the paper some well-known car where the form of some detail will be randomly changed, then such configuration of substances will most likely (compared to the configuration of substances which is represented by a heap of hay mixed with straw) allow to create this invention (i.e. the cheapest car).

We can make a large number of similar examples.

To do this, it is necessary to write to the computer memory as many as possible of the information which would indicate to what kinds of configurations of substances will most likely allow to create what kinds of inventions by using this method of invention (i.e. the eleventh method of invention). In which case, if we take any invention out of the last inventions after this information is written (to the computer memory), then the following should be written in the computer memory: What kind(s) of configuration(s) of substances will most likely allow to create this invention with the help of this (i.e. the eleventh) method of invention.

Based on the analysis of publications, one can make the conclusion that, by using this method of invention (i.e. the eleventh method of invention) (i.e. with the help of this modified ‘cut and try method’) three programmers can easily write such a program for a computer with the aid of which the computer can create many inventions without human help by actually implementing the ‘cut and try method’.







Supplementary useful information

The cerebrum of any man
is seemingly just a memory and
memory service elements (i.e. organs)

Computer capabilities are approaching mental capabilities of a man year by year. It seems that a computer will be able soon to perform the same mental activities as a man does. It seems that a computer will be able soon to perform the same mental activities as a man does. Nowadays, a computer can beat the chess world champion. Some factories and farms are running now with the aid of computers in an unattended manner. Computers can now operate rockets, vehicles, airplanes, etc. And the computer has a memory and devices (i.e. organs) which serve the memory. Based on this, one can suggest that the cerebrum of any man is just a memory and devices (i.e. organs) which serve the memory. This can be proved by the following:

1) based on the logical connective: "if we have the following: …. . Then we will have the following …” (this logical connective can be used for wording conditional propositions), a man can subconsciously write to his/her own memory that, in order to have something which is stated in the consequence of the conditional proposition, it is necessary to have something which is stated in the basis of the conditional proposition. Based on this and other statements, a man can subconsciously write into his memory that if somewhere there is something similar to what is stated (i.e. the same as what is stated) in the consequence of the conditional proposition, then in that case it is possible to replace this (i.e. to replace what is stated in the consequence of this conditional proposition) with what is stated in the basis of this conditional proposition. Based on the foresaid, one can make a conclusion that a man can make conclusions and derive subtasks by using only the memory.

2) the more information is written to the computer memory the more possibilities that computer has. Besides, computer programs are information. Based on the analysis of publications and the foregoing, one can make the conclusion that a computer can not perform all the things which a man can do with the help of his/her intellect only because the memory of this computer does not contain all that information which is possessed by this man. In other words, based on the foregoing and the analysis of publications, one can suggest that, in order the computer can keep up with all mental capabilities of a casual (i.e. any) man, it is sufficient to write to the memory of this computer the same information as this man has.

A man (i.e. a human cerebrum) has a memory and a computer is a memory and devices which serve the memory. Based on this and the foregoing, one can suggest that a man (i.e. a human cerebrum) performs mental activities (which are performed by a computer) in the same way as a computer performs these mental activities.

The computer and robot
will likely be able to make all inventions
which people would like to have invented

Based on the analysis of publications, one can make the conclusion that almost all inventions which people have tried to invent for a long time are already invented. This can be proved by the following: page 198 in the book written by G.S. Altshuller (this book is mentioned in line 8 in the list of references at the end of this work) says that Jules Gabriel Verne, Herbert George Wells and Alexander Belyaev set forth 244 science fiction ideas of which only 22 have turned out to be impracticable. Based on this and the analysis of publications, one can make the conclusion that people can seemingly create almost all inventions which people would like to have invented (in other words, people want and will want to have some inventions created and people will be seemingly able to create almost all of these inventions). This can be proved by the following: based on the analysis of publications, one can make the following conclusions: 1) an invention is generally a configuration of substances, 2) from each of approximately 100,000 random (i.e. any) configurations of substances, there will be approximately 20 configurations of substances which will represent random inventions.

And people can create an innumerable number of configurations of substances over an infinite number of years. Based on this, one can come to the conclusion that people can seemingly create an infinite number of inventions over an infinite number of years. Based on the analysis of publications, one can make the following conclusions: 1) in order to conduct some random experiment, we have to create a random configuration of substances and feel using our sensor organs (i.e. define) what is going on in this configuration of substances. 2) out of each 100,000 random new experiments (a new experiment is an experiment which has not been conducted yet), there will be approximately 20 such experiments in average which will result in 20 new random inventions. Based on the foregoing, one can come to the conclusion that, over an infinite number of years, people can seemingly create an infinite number of new random inventions by conducting random new experiments.

Based on the analysis of publications, one can make the conclusion that there will be seemingly approximately five such experiments in average out of each 2,000 random inventions which people would like to have invented (at the present time). Nowadays, people would seemingly like to have a lot of inventions created (by the way, people will seemingly want to have an infinite number of inventions created over an infinite number of years).

To create an invention means to find out a configuration of substances that features some process advantageous for people which people would like to have (in other words, to find out which configuration of substances produces a useful effect which is advantageous for people and which people would like to have). It is possible to make an endless number of configurations of substances over an infinite number of years and if each of these configurations features different processes (i.e. if each of these configurations of substances features such a process which does not occur in any other configuration of substances), then in this case an infinite time will be generally needed (i.e. an infinite number of hours) to create some particular invention which a man currently wants to have invented (or some not limited number of particular inventions which people currently want to have invented) by conducting random experiments. But there are such different configurations of substances each of which features the same process, and perhaps one (and the same) process takes place in each configuration of substances included in one indefinitely large number of different configurations of substances (in other words, the same processes seemingly occur in each configuration of substances included in one indefinitely large number of different configuration of substances), and probably some other process takes place in each configuration of substances included in some other indefinitely large number of different configurations of substances, and probably some third process takes place in each configuration of substances included in some third indefinitely large number of different configurations of substances, etc. For example, a cargo (or, for instance, a man) can be transferred from one place to another if we make such a configuration of substances which will be a car or a plane or a boat or a helicopter, etc., and we can seemingly continue this list to infinity.

Based on the foregoing, one can make the conclusion that, in order to create nearly all inventions which people currently want to have invented (if to create these inventions only by conducting random new experiments), it is seemingly necessary to conduct a great many number of random new experiments. But conducting a great many number of random new experiments requires a great amount of time (i.e. a great many number of years). Based on the foregoing and the analysis of publications, one can make the conclusion that by using the aforesaid methods of invention a computer and robot (if programmers develop a relevant computer program by using the aforesaid methods of invention) will seemingly require a much fewer number of years (in order to create nearly all inventions which people currently want to have invented) than that great many number of years which will be seemingly required for this computer or this robot to create nearly all inventions which people currently want to have invented if this robot or this computer creates these inventions only by conducting random new experiments.

Based on the foregoing, one can make the conclusion that by using the aforesaid methods of invention three programmers can easily develop such a program for a computer using which the computer with the aid of a robot will be seemingly able to create over a small amount of time (i.e. over a small number of years) nearly all inventions which people currently want to have invented.

A hypothesis for the origin of life on Earth,
i.e. on a planet populated by human beings

I believe that any animal is a continuously changing configuration of substances (i.e. a continuously changing configuration of elementary particles), and this configuration of substances is continuously changing in such a way generally so that it (i.e. this configuration of substances) often becomes such a configuration of substances which it has already been (once or several times). In other words, this configuration of substances is continuously changing in such a way so that it (i.e. this configuration of substances) often becomes one configuration of substances or another configuration of substances or some third configuration of substances, etc. each of which is included in the number of such configurations of substances in the form of which it (i.e. this configuration of substances which is continuously changing) has already been (once or several times). In nature, new (and not new) continuously changing configurations of substances (i.e. new configurations of substances each of which has continually changed right after it had been spontaneously created) have been continuously and spontaneously (i.e. naturally, i.e. without help of a man or other organisms) created (and keep being created) (this happens because rivers flow and, as a result, move sand and other substances which make up river banks, i.e. rivers randomly modify configurations of substances which exist on these banks. Winds randomly move fine particles of substances which randomly fall on river banks and sea shores, etc.). Based on the foregoing and the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that approximately 2 billion years ago (whereas the Earth is approximately 4 billion years old) these processes resulted in the spontaneous (i.e. natural) generation (i.e. compilation) on the Earth (i.e. a planet populated by humans) of such a continuously changing configuration of substances which represented the first animal on the Earth [i.e. generation of such a continuously changing configuration of substances which is the same as the configuration of substances representing an animal] which was seemingly a single-cell animal. And it seems like all animals and humans living nowadays on the Earth have evolved from this first animal on the Earth in the process of natural selection (discovered by Charles Darwin).

I believe that all plants are continuously changing configurations of substances (i.e. continuously changing configuration of elementary particles). In nature, new (and not new) continuously changing configurations of substances have been continuously and spontaneously generated (and keep being generated). Based on the foregoing and the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that approximately 2 billion years ago these processes seemingly resulted in the spontaneous (i.e. natural) generation (i.e. compilation) on the Earth of such a continuously changing configuration of substances which represented the first plant on the Earth. And it seems that all plants that exist nowadays on the Earth have evolved from this first plant on the Earth in the process of natural selection. New continuously changing configurations of substances have been continuously and spontaneously generated practically on each planet. Based on the foregoing and the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that on some planets this has resulted in the spontaneous (i.e. natural) generation of such continuously changing configurations of substances which were the first animals on these planets. In other words, I have come to the conclusion that on any planet out of these (some) planets this process has resulted in the generation of such a continuously changing configuration of substances which was the first animal of this planet (i.e. the first animal on the planet on which it was generated).

Music composition methods
(i.e. methods, each of which is intended for composing pieces of music)

Based on the music analysis, I have come to the conclusion that music can be used for entertainment or relaxation or enhancement of some portion of a feature film (through the reproduction of this music while this portion of the feature film is screened), etc.

Based on the music analysis, I have come to the conclusion that music intended for entertaining a man (or people) can be created by a man with the aid of the following method. First of all, a man should produce a random (i.e. any) combination of random sounds and pauses with the aid of some musical instrument or his/her own voice or in any other way, and this man 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 last random combination of random sounds and pauses, and then that man should produce a third random combination of random sounds and pauses (meanwhile, 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 listen to the last random combination of random sounds and pauses, and so on till (i.e. to the moment when) that man repeats this many times, i.e. till this man listens in this way to a large number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses (by the way, a man can repeat random combinations of random sounds and pauses using a computer connected to loud speakers). While listening to these random combinations of random sounds and pauses, this man should choose such a combination of sounds and pauses which he likes more than any other combination of sounds and pauses which he (i.e. this man) has listened before. Moreover, after this man has listened to this great number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses, he should choose such a combination of sounds and pauses which he has liked to listen more than any other combination of sounds and pauses which he (i.e. this man) has listened before. And I suppose that this chosen combination of sounds and pauses will be the music which will serve for the entertainment of this single man or several people (i.e. some persons). This is proved by the fact that the experience shows that if some man likes to listen to some combination of sounds and pauses, then this combination of sounds and pauses will be generally liked by several individuals. Based on the analysis of music and publications, I have come to the following conclusions: 1) any man can generally find from a great number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses two or several such combinations of sounds and pauses which he/she (i.e. this man) will like to listen to, 2) people can create many pieces of music by using this music generation method. 3) if a man composes music with the help of this method, then the more the number of random combinations (of random sounds and pauses) he/she listens to (while composing music with the help of this method) and from which he/she will choose (and will have chosen) (such a combination of sounds and pauses which he/she will like to listen more then any other combination of sounds and pauses listened by him/her when composing music with the help of this method) the better will be the music composed by this man with the help of this method will be.

Based on the music analysis, I have come to the conclusion that music intended for relaxation of a man or some people (i.e. some individuals) can be created by a man with the aid of the following method: First, a man produces and listens to a great number of random combinations, random sounds and pauses [that is to say that first of all, a man produces a great 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 anywise). After this man is through with the listening of this great number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses, he/she should choose from this great number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses one such combination of sounds and pauses with which (i.e. during reproduction of which) he/she likes to rest more than with any other combination of sounds and pauses out of this great number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses. And I believe that the combination of sounds and pauses chosen by that man will be a piece of music which is intended for relaxation of a man or some people (i.e. some individuals). This is proved by the fact that the experience shows that if some man likes to relax and rest while listening to some combination of sounds and pauses, then some individuals generally also like to rest and relax while listening to that combination of sounds and pauses.

Based on the music analysis, I have come to the conclusion that music (intended for enhancing some part of a feature film through the reproduction of this music while this portion of the feature film is screened) can be composed with the aid of the following method: First, a man views this part of the feature film and simultaneously produces and listens to the random combination of random sounds and pauses (and he/she produces this random combination of sounds and pauses anywise). Then this man views this part of the feature film once again and simultaneously produces and listens to some other random (i.e. any) combination of random sounds and pauses. Then this man views this part of the feature film and simultaneously produces and listens to some third random combination of random sounds and pauses (meanwhile, this third random combination of random sounds and pauses should differ from the first random combination of random sounds and pauses, and from the second one), etc. until this man repeats this many times (i.e. a great number of times) [i.e. until this man listens to a great number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses in this way (i.e. simultaneously while viewing this part of the feature film)]. Once the man is through with it, he/she should choose such a combination of sounds and pauses with which he/she likes to view this part of the feature film more than with any other combination (of sounds and pauses) out of this great number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses listened by him/her. And I believe that the combination of sounds and pauses chosen by him/her will be a piece of music (which is intended for enhancing some part of some feature film through the reproduction of this music while this part of the feature film is screened) and which is intended for one man or for some individuals. This is proved by the fact that the experience shows that if some man likes to view some part of a feature film while listening to some combination of sounds and pauses, then in this case some individuals generally also like to view this part of the feature film while listening to that combination of sounds and pauses.

Based on the music analysis, I have come to the conclusion that music intended for entertaining a man (or people) can be created by a man with the aid of the following method: first of all, this man should produce anyhow a random combination of random sounds and pauses and at the same time this man should simultaneously produce, using only percussion instruments, some other (i.e. the second) random combination of random sounds and pauses, and this man should listen to these two simultaneously sounding random combinations of random sounds and pauses. Then this man should produce anyhow some third random combination of random sounds and pauses (meanwhile, this third random combination of random sounds and pauses should differ from the first random combination of random sounds and pauses and from the second one), and at the same time this man should simultaneously produce, using only percussion instruments, some fourth combination of random sounds and pauses (meanwhile, this fourth random combination of random sounds and pauses should differ from the first random combination of random sounds and pauses and from the second and third ones), and this man should listen to these two (i.e. the last two) simultaneously sounding random combinations of random sounds and pauses, etc until this man repeats this many times, i.e. until this man listens in such a way to a great number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses. Moreover, after this man is through with listening in such a way to this great number of random combinations of random sounds and pauses, he/she should choose such two simultaneously sounding resulting combinations of sounds and pauses (among those listened by him/her) which he likes to listen to more than any other two simultaneously sounding resulting random combinations of random sounds and pauses (listened by him/her). And I believe that these two simultaneously sounding (as a result of this) combinations of sounds and pauses chosen by him/her (i.e. by this man) will be a piece of music which is intended for the entertainment of one man or several individuals. This is proved by the fact that the past experience shows that, if some individual likes to listen to some two simultaneously sounding combinations of sounds and pauses, then some people will generally also like to listen these two simultaneously sounding combinations of sounds and pauses.

I believe that this method (i.e. the last method) is better than the music composition method mentioned before (i.e. before the last one) which is intended for the entertainment of an individual (or a group of individuals) [by the way, the last method of music composition is intended for entertaining an individual (or people)] since the past experience shows that, for entertainment purposes, people generally like to listen such combinations of sounds and pauses where each of them contains sounds produced with the help of percussion instruments.

We have discussed above four methods for composing music. Based on the music analysis, I have come to the conclusion that, by using the methods which I believe can be developed and which are similar to these four methods of music composition [these four methods are intended for composing pieces of music and these pieces of music are intended for the following (i.e. intended for achieving the following three goals): for entertainment, for relaxation and for enhancement of parts of feature films (through the reproduction of these pieces of music while these parts of the feature films are screened)], it will be possible to compose pieces of music which will be intended not for these goals (i.e. not for achieving these three goals) but for other purposes (i.e. for achieving other goals).

In about 50 years, any person will presumably be able not to work
and get a good allowance
which will be generally more than an allowance
sufficient for a man to satisfy his/her wants throughout his/her life

Based on the abovementioned statements and the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that, in approximately 50 years, robots and computers will be probably able to do (i.e. to perform) any work a man can do (in other words, I have come to the conclusion that in about 50 years, robots and computers will be probably able to do all work which can be done by all people who will live in about 50 years on the Earth) [this can be proved by the following: 1) The brain of any person is apparently only a memory and devices (i.e. organs) supporting the memory (it has been mentioned above), 2) the computer is only a memory and devices supporting the memory]. Based on these statements and the analysis of publications, I have come to the conclusion that in about 50 years, any person will presumably be able not to work and get a good allowance which will be generally more than an allowance sufficient for a man to satisfy his/her wants throughout his/her life.

I believe that in about 50 years there will be a social system under the title Nerabotizm. Nerabotizm is a social system which will allow everybody not to work and receive a good allowance which will be generally more than an allowance sufficient for a man to satisfy his/her needs throughout his/her life. The principle of Nerabotism is as follows: “From each – nothing, to each - a good allowance which is generally more than an allowance sufficient for a man to satisfy his/her needs throughout his/her life”. I believe that in about 50 years, capitalism will be replaced with nerabotism.

I believe that under nerabotism, there should be public ownership of all production means except for some means of production which are needed to satisfy personal needs of a man (who owns these production means) [in other words, I believe that under nerabotizm, a man must have the right to own production means that are needed to satisfy his/her (i.e. this man’s) personal needs]. And I believe that under nerabotism, non-public business must be prohibited.

References [i.e. a list of printed publications
which I have used in the preparation of this
(i.e. given above) work]

1. Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. (2nd edition, translation from English, M), Williams, 2006; pp. 109-435.

2. N.I. Kondakov, Dictionary of Logics. Nauka Publishing House, Moscow, 1975; pp. 470, 576, 629 and 630.

3. George F. Luger, Artificial Intelligence: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving. (4th edition, translation from English, M), Wiliams, 2003; pp. 57-322.

4. Earl B. Hunt, Artificial Intelligence. Mir Publishing House, Moscow, 1978; pp. 251, 252, 253, 254, 278, and 279.

5. Za Rubezhom (newspaper). No.5 (918), 1978; p. 20.

6. Dictionary of the Contemporary Russian Literary Language. The USSR Academy of Sciences Publisher, 1959; v. 8, p. 541.

7. Dictionary of the Russian Language. Russkiy Yazyk Publisher, 1984; v. 4, p. 654.

8. Genrikh Saulovich Altshuller, Algorithm of Invention. Moskovskiy Rabotchiy Publisher, Moscow, 1969; p. 198.


OOO Tonna Zolota Publisher (Ton of Gold Publisher, JSC)

Saint-Petersburg

The above work was published on this site April 5, 2007

 

ISBN 978-5-9900926-1-7            © A.A. Shmonov, 2007

 

Alexander Shmonov’s e-mail: 275527@gmail.com

 

Phone Alexander Shmonov’s (Russia, Saint-Petersburg): +79013041055

 

This work has been printed in the Pushkinskaya Printing House

 

The work presented above is written in Russian and can be found on website www.55522.ru

 

Company Microsoft is helping me make the introduction (i.e. use) work which is called the: Computer can invent independently (i.e. work which is called the: Methods of invention through which three programmers can easily write such programs through which the computer can devise many inventions without the assistance human). To verify this you must:

1) go to the page: http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/startup/profile.aspx?startup=415018

2) on page: http://aka.ms/cnrlnb enter my email: 275527@gmail.com and the date when my company joined the Microsoft BizSpark i.e.: June 24, 2014 year. The company IBM (and the company softline) also helps me make the introduction (i.e. use) this work. I think what copies of these programs can sell for billions of dollars. I ask you to help to me (i.e. i ask you contribute to): make the introduction (i.e. use) of this work [or i ask you make the introduction (i.e. use) of this work]. I am the author this work.

Business plan: I am the director company of "A ton of gold." I will hire three programmers. And they are per one year, through, this work will be able to is easy to create such programs through which the computer can devise many inventions without the assistance human. On salaries for programmers and on other costs, need 60000 dollars. 80 percent of the profits for you and 20 percent for me. To implement this plan necessary that you gave me $ 60000 or necessary that you hired the three programmers.

 

Regards Shmonov Alexander Anatotyevich

 

Shmonov Alexander Anatolievich