Methods for developing inventions with the help of which three programmers can easily create a program using which a computer can invent many inventions by itself

[this is the title of the work, below written is a summary of this work

(this summary consists of 2131 words)]

The first method for developing inventions

consists

in drawing conclusions from

conditional propositions

In logic, there are conditional propositions, for example:

«If: fire is placed under the stone, then: the stone will heat up» (let’s call this conditional proposition the first conditional proposition).

The words of the conditional proposition that stand from (that is, after) the word «if» to the word «then» are called the basis of the conditional proposition (that is, the cause of the conditional proposition), and the words of the conditional proposition that come after the word «then» are called the consequence of the conditional proposition. The double union «if ... then ...» connects the basis and the consequence. That is, the basis of this conditional proposition will be the words «fire is placed under the stone», and the consequence of this conditional proposition are the words «the stone will heat up». Let's take another conditional proposition

«If: the stone will heat up, then: the stone will expand» (let's call this conditional proposition the second conditional proposition).

The consequence of the first conditional proposition consists of the words: «the stone will heat up» and the basis (that is, the cause) of the second conditional proposition consists of the same words: «the stone will heat up». If a person draws a conclusion from the first and second conditional propositions, then as a result of this conclusion he will receive (that is, combine) the following conditional proposition:

«If: fire is placed under a stone, then: the stone will expand» (let's call this conditional proposition the third conditional proposition).

Many similar examples can be cited.

First rule: in order for a computer to draw a conclusion from two conditional propositions, it (that is, a computer) must do the following: find in its memory two such conditional propositions, in which the consequence of the first conditional proposition and the basis (that is, the cause) of the second conditional proposition have the same meanings or consist of the same words, which located, in the same sequence. Then the computer must instead of the basis of the second conditional proposition, put the basis of the first conditional proposition. And thus the computer transforms the second conditional proposition into the third conditional proposition (that is, in this way the computer from two conditional propositions will receive a third conditional proposition, this third conditional proposition may be new information or not new information).

Have the same meanings: a) the word and the interpretation of this word b) synonyms and so on. That is, it is known that has the same meanings (that is, it is known which combinations of words have the same meanings).

If, for example, the first and second conditional propositions (which are described above) are stored in the computer’s memory, and if other conditional propositions are recorded in the computer’s memory, then the computer can, without human help of a person, find from the conditional propositions (which are stored in the memory of this computer) two such conditional propositions, at which the consequence of the first conditional proposition and the basis (that is, the cause) of the second conditional proposition (have the same meanings or) consist of the same words in the same sequence. This confirms the following: it is known that has the same meanings (that is, it is known which combinations of words have the same meanings), it is known that the computer can find the same words that are in the same sequence and are located in different parts of its memory. Then the computer can, without human help of a person, instead of the base of the second conditional proposition, put the base of the first conditional proposition (this must be done according to the above rule). And thus the computer converts the second conditional proposition into the third conditional proposition (a huge number of similar examples can be given), that is, the computer can sometimes from two information obtain (that is, combine) the third information. Based on this and on the analysis of the literature, we can conclude that the computer, by means of the first rule, can itself draw conclusions from conditional propositions that are recorded in its memory (that is, in the memory of this computer) and as a result of this obtain (that is, combine) conditional propositions (each of these conditional propositions will be information). Some of these conditional propositions will be new information (that is, some of these conditional propositions will be such conditional propositions, each of which will be new information). Moreover, some of these conditional propositions will be such conditional propositions, each of which will be new information that has significant novelty (that is, each of which will be new information that for a specialist will not explicitly follow from the prior art). And new information, according to some encyclopedias, some dictionaries of the Russian language and some foreign patent laws, is an invention.

Based on the analysis of the literature, I came to the conclusion that the description of almost any invention can be stated so that it (that is, this description) will be a conditional proposition. By the way, physical effects (that is, physical phenomena) chemical effects and other effects (they can be stated in the form of conditional propositions) are most often used to create inventions. As a result of the analysis of the literature, I came to the conclusion that almost all currently known information that is needed to create inventions can be stated in the form of conditional propositions. It is necessary to record information in the computer's memory, usually in the form of conditional propositions, so that the computer can draw conclusions from these conditional propositions. This method of invention (that is, the first method of invention) consists in the invention (that is, the creation) of inventions by the computer by means of following: the computer makes inferences from conditional propositions by means of the first rule.

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

Based on the analysis of the literature, I came to the conclusion that a computer by means of this method of invention (that is, the first method of invention) will create an invention if it (that is, this computer) receives a new conditional proposition (that is, receives new information) as a result of receiving conditional propositions whose base will be a description of the arrangement of substances (or will be a description of the continuously changing arrangement of substances), which people will be able to make up (without the help of devices or with the help of known devices) at the time when the computer receives this new conditional proposition (that is, the basis of this new conditional proposition will be a description of what people will be able to do at the time the computer receives this new conditional proposition).

The second method of inventiveness, which consists in having the computer generate inventive problems that will have the following properties: if any of this inventive problem is solved, then the original inventive problem will be solved

Suppose that the first and second conditional propositions written above are recorded in the computer memory (and other conditional propositions are also recorded) and suppose that the computer must solve the following inventive problem, that is, the computer must determine what needs to be done in order to have the following: «the stone will expand» (that is, the computer must determine how the following can be obtained: «the stone will expand») let's call this inventive problem the original inventive problem (assume that this inventive problem has not yet been solved, that is, this the invention has not yet been invented). It follows from the second conditional proposition that in order for the computer to solve the original inventive problem, it must solve the following inventive problem, that is, the computer must determine what needs to be done so that there is the following: the stone will heat up (that is, it is necessary for the computer to determine how the following can be obtained: the stone will heat up) let's call this inventive problem the second inventive problem. And (it follows from the first conditional proposition that) in order to for the computer to solve the second inventive problem, it is necessary that it solve the following inventive problem: (that is, the computer must determine what needs to be done so that there is the following:) a fire will be placed under the stone (let's call this problem the third inventive problem). The third inventive problem is solved, because it is known how to get the following: fire will be placed under the stone. And if the third inventive problem is solved, then the second inventive problem is solved. And if the second inventive problem is solved, then the original inventive problem is solved. Similar examples can be found are a huge number.

Second rule: Take any one inventive problem (let's call this problem the fourth inventive problem). In order for the computer to create an inventive problem, by solving which it will thereby solve the fourth inventive problem, it is necessary for the computer to find in its memory such a conditional proposition that has the following feature: the consequence of this conditional proposition and the description of this fourth inventive problem have the same meanings or consist of the same words in the same sequence. And the basis of this conditional proposition will be an inventive problem, by solving which the computer will solve the fourth inventive problem.

They have the same meanings: a) the word and the interpretation of this word b) synonyms and so on. That is, it is known that it has the same meanings (that is, it is known which combinations of words have the same meanings).

By the way, I draw the reader’s attention to the fact that in the last example given, the initial inventive problem is stated (that is, written) using the words “the stone will expand” and the consequence of the second conditional proposition is written using the same words (that is, using the words “the stone will expand”). From the foregoing, it follows that in order to generate inventive problems (by solving any of which the original inventive problem will be solved), the computer only needs to find the same words in its memory (which are in the same sequence) or words that have the same meaning, this is the computer can do by itself. This confirms the following: it is known that has the same meanings (that is, it is known which combinations of words have the same meanings).

Let's take any one inventive problem (let's call this problem the fifth inventive problem). The computer solves the fifth inventive problem if it does the following: first, using the second rule, it creates such an inventive problem (let's call this problem the sixth inventive problem) by solving which it thereby solves the fifth inventive problem then the computer, using the second rule, will create such an inventive problem by solving which it will thereby solve the sixth inventive problem, and so on (90 times on average) until the moment at which (that is, until the moment when) the computer creates such an inventive problem, the solution of which is known, and if the computer creates such (that is, the last) inventive problem, then the computer will solve the fifth inventive problem. That is, the computer will solve the fifth (that is, any) inventive problem if it creates an average of 90 such problems in this way.

Almost any currently known information (which is needed to create inventions) can be stated in the form of a conditional proposition. If, for example, 400 random physical, chemical and other effects are recorded in the computer memory in the form of conditional propositions, then from these judgments the computer can create on average quite a few inventions by means of these methods (the average inventor knows 150 physical, chemical and other effects).