banner banner  
I created blog site1 ( on 10-11-2013, blog site2 ( and blog site3 ( for posting my bolgs, for example, to explain my views or experiences. I don't need three sites, but as one can see I liked the names. Also few selective blogs are included in the following table:
Date Title of the Blogs
24-Oct-2013  Is it a small error (to define each kind of useful parts is a kind of components)?
03-Nov-2013  Respectfully inviting all experts to participate in this noble endeavor
07-Nov-2013  The real cold hard facts of any real science or technology
21-Nov-2013  Open letter to the researchers of SEI at CMU & members of SDP at 
02-Dec-2013  Existing Software Engineering Paradigm Violates Basic Scientific Principles
03-Mar-2014  One of My Goals and Vision for Software Engineering
04-Mar-2014  What is the state of Software Engineering & Why is it in Crisis?
08-Mar-2014  What is the primary Goal of Our Website?
26-Oct-2014  Brief Summary of Truths about Component & CBD
27-Oct-2014  First Principles of CBD of physical products & Falsifiable Facts for the CBD
Today computers science and software engineering ended up with subjective concepts and contradiction, because software engineering has been evolving since 1970s by relying on the erroneous root axiomatic assumption (without validating or even realizing the huge error). Just like the concepts of any other real science and technology, each and every concept in our beloved computer science and software engineering can be and must be objective facts or supported by objective facts.
The scientific progress is discovering new facts for expanding the boundaries of human knowledge. Pursuit of absolute truths (or facts) is the basic responsibility and sacred duty of each and every real scientist or researcher. Unfortunately many of the software researchers have abdicated their sacred duty. Every concept in our website is objective fact or supported by objective facts. I never abdicate my sacred duty and shall standby and can defend each and every concept in our website.
My humble statement on the concepts and resoning presented in the website
I humble request to any expert, who wishes to criticize or discredit our discoveries, to engage in open and good faith debate. I feel, I provided more than enough evidence to expose the errors in the existing paradigm. If my proof is not sufficient for any concept or to address a misunderstanding, I humbly request for an opportunity to provide more reasoning, facts and/or clear explanation (e.g. to defend my statement or concept). Only incompetent would engage in bad faith debate, where one would either refuses to defend a baseless comment or refuse to give an opportunity to refute criticism. I stand by any statement or concept in this website. I expect the same courtesy from any one criticizes or snubs my concepts or discoveries, for example, by using either a baseless excuse or a concept from the existing paradigm (which evolved from a huge erroneous seed postulation).
I would stand by and certainly believe that I can successfully defend each and every statement and concepts presented in this website, which I sincerely believe are accurate in the spirit and in the context in which they are presented. Of course, some of them might appear to be wrong when they are taken in a context that I might not have anticipated or in the spirit of existing erroneous paradigm and conventional wisdom (which is result of relying on erroneous seed axiomatic assumptions).
For example, one of the essential requirements for real-CBD is, total cost of disassembling or re-assembling for the designers of a product must be less than 20% of the total cost of the product (e.g. in step-1 or step-3 of CBD-process), which includes cost for all the components. Someone pointed out that this may be true for large products such as Cars or Airplanes, but analog-watches break this rule (since cost of parts and material are insignificant). For example, cost of disassembling a Camry for auto-mechanics is less than 20% of the cost of a new Camry.
Although Camry example appear to be valid point in the context of auto-mechanics, it is a wrong context, since when a team of engineers are redesigning a new model of analog-watch (e.g. in step-3 of CBD-process), the team needs to redesign many of the components. The total cost of components must include the cost of re-designing in the context of the team of engineers creating the new model. It is wrong to consider the insignificant incremental cost of material for making each copy of such mass-produced components. If that is the case, the incremental cost of making each additional copy of any large software component or even software product is nearly zero.
The 20% rule is defined in the context of the CBD-process for the team of the engineers designing the CBD-product. But it turned out, the 20% might be very high for CBD-products. Now I believe it might be further reduced to either 10% or even 5% rule. That is, if a large software application is designed as an ideal CBD-structure, each component can be disassembled by removing 2 to 5 lines and application must left with a bare skeleton when all the components are removed one at a time. The cost of disassembling or reassembling must be less than 10% (or even 5%) of the cost of designing and building the application and the components.
Basic irrefutable facts essential for any serious scientific research: The real scientific progress depends on researchers pursuing Truth with passion. Any real science ends up in a contradiction or paradox if and only if there is an error in the reasoning or basic facts. It is an error to rely on any concept without sound basis in reality and fact, since any error certainly leads to a paradox (could waste billions).

Copy Right © 2013 SPPS Systems Pvt.Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
This Website presents patented and patent-pending Inventions and Discoveries