| |
Brief Background & Summary of our Technologies
|
|
|
The objective of the website is introducing new branch of technologies for the software engineering based on real software components (that are equivalent to the physical components) for achieving real CBSD (i.e. Real CBD for software products that is equivalent to the CBD of physical products) and innovative CASE-tools for unprecedented automation (where such automation is only practical for real CBSD that uses many large real software components).
|
|
|
Please remember the basic facts of real science/engineering: It is an irrefutable fact that, the real science and technology (or engineering) can only deal with objective facts. Any invention of a product or a process can't work, if accurate answers (e.g. subjective assumptions) used for making the invention are not sufficiently close enough to the objective facts (or absolute truth). Therefore real scientists/engineers must and can only rely on objective facts that are essential, or accurate answers that are sufficiently close enough to the essential facts.
|
|
|
Only exception to the above rule is: If scientists need to find objective facts about unknown matter related to physical things (e.g. string-theory) or phenomena (e.g. big-bang-theory) and only a small portion of evidence is available such as few known facts and pieces of information. But the fact is, no real scientist ever forgets that they are subjective assumptions and always acknowledge that they are not facts. But existing CBSD has been evolved by relying on erroneous assumptions made in 1960s. Today most experts often insist that the baseless assumptions are axiomatic facts, and sheepishly following without either providing any justifications or showing any evidence that any one else ever tried to validate the assumptions.
|
|
|
The scientific progress is nothing but discovering new facts for expanding boundaries human knowledge. Any errors in basic axiomatic facts shall have fatal consequences and most certainly derails the scientific progress. Every known scientific discovery in the basic sciences (i.e. physics, chemistry or biology) is nothing but discovering such facts (related to physical beings or phenomena). The engineering relies on the objective facts (that are close enough to absolute truths) for all activities such as inventing and building useful things or innovating improvements to useful things (where no such activities can work, if there are errors in the accurate answers).
|
|
|
The basic research is nothing but pursuit of absolute truth (e.g. to discover objective facts or accurate descriptions close enough to facts that are absolute truths or laws of nature). It is an irrefutable fact that there exists an accurate description for any physical being (e.g. physical components) or phenomenon (e.g. physical-CBD), where the accurate description only based on objective facts (i.e. laws of nature and absolute truths). It is error to assume or argue otherwise.
|
|
|
For example, mankind doesn’t know facts to describe the internal structure of subatomic particles today, but no real scientist is foolish enough to dispute the very existence of such facts for describing the subatomic particles. Even if an expert insists that it is impossible for mankind to ever discover the internal structure of the subatomic particles (e.g. by using any theory such as string-theory) or origins of the universe (e.g. by any theory such as big-bang-theory), which is not same as deputing the very existence of such objective facts (i.e. absolute truths & laws of nature).
|
|
|
Based on decade of my unique passionate effort, I believe, it is not practically possible to invent real software components without discovering accurate answers that are sufficiently close to the objective facts for the physical components. Likewise, it is not possible to invent real CBD for software without discovering accurate answers that are sufficiently close to the objective facts for the CBD for physical products. Unfortunately, many of the software researchers foolishly concluded and insist that it is impossible to find accurate answers close enough to objective facts for describing the physical components, by erroneously assuming such objective facts can’t exist for the physical components. Of course, we strongly/vehemently disagree. Therefore the goals of this website is to help scientist and researchers discover the accurate answers (objective facts).
|
|
|
Please kindly keep in mind that, discovery of errors in the seed (i.e. very basic or root) postulations of even a complex widely accepted paradigm shall result in collapse of the paradigm (even if the paradigm had been deeply entrenched for 1000 years).
|
|
|
The CBD is a major branch of the industrial engineering for designing and building complex physical products. Such major branch of CBD doesn’t even exist for the software engineering. If scientists make an error in basic concepts (i.e. seed postulations) of a branch, things simple doesn’t work in the branch of any hard science (e.g. physics, chemistry or medical) or engineering of physical products (why real-CBSD can be an exception?). For example, none of the semi-conductor industry would have possible, if researchers made a mistake in understanding the enabling properties (e.g. objective facts) of semi-conductor materials. Likewise, the branch of fiber-optic communication would not have possible, if there are errors in understanding the nature of enabling properties of light (i.e. accurate answers close enough to the objective facts).
|
|
|
What would be the cost of such mistake in enabling properties or nature of basic building blocks (e.g. seed postulations or axioms) of any branch of science or engineering? Such mistake certainly derails the advancement and none of the above would have been possible until the errors in the basic building blocks are discovered. The costs would have grown exponentially, if such errors are not detected for many decades, since now mankind experiencing financial benefits in respective branches that have been growing exponentially for past few decades. This would help us imagine the huge benefits in coming decades, if we expose the basic errors in the CBSD, which is blocking any meaningful progress in software engineering for past decades. I believe, that the real CBSD would also experience comparable rapid advancement and adoption.
|
|
|
The software researchers erroneously defined that certain kinds of useful software parts are components. They invented many kinds of component models, useful parts and have been improving them, which is creating an illusion that CBSD is working or making progress (but many people can’t see the progress). Of course, we agree that it is possible to invent many other new kinds of useful software parts, but such parts (even if they are very useful) are not real components and can’t enable the branch of CBD for software. Unfortunately, the brilliant minds in our computer science defined ‘CBD is using such useful parts (i.e. fake components)’ and have been inventing/improving them, which created the illusion: 'CBD is working or making progress'.
|
|
|
The real CBSD & inventing other kinds of useful software parts are mutually independent. It is an irrefutable fact that no other kind of physical-part can be a real component, so it is an error to define any 'other kind of part' is a component. It is error to assume CBSD has been advancing due to such advancements in an unrelated branch (that uses such fake components).
|
|
|
Please kindly note that none of the existing knowledge, expertise and seminal research papers can't prove (a) any of the existing kind of parts is real components (i.e. right kind of components for achieving the CBD-structure), or (b) it is not possible to invent real components. Hence the existing knowledge, expertise and seminal research papers are relevant in the context of ‘useful software parts’; but irrelevant in the context of real software components/CBSD.
|
|
Of course, we agree that software engineering made lot of progress even by erroneously assuming that "certain kinds of useful software-parts are software components". We agree many of these inventions and innovations have been working to certain degree. This only proves that it is possible to invent many other kinds of useful software-parts. Of course, especially after grasping our discovery, many experts must agree that software offers unprecedented freedom and flexibility that opens the possibility for inventing more kinds of useful software-parts, which includes a very special kind of software-parts that are equivalent to the physical components. 
|
|
| |
Each of the conclusions 500 years ago such as epicycles & retrograde motion was based on impeccable logic and persuasive reasoning backed by irrefutable empirical evidence. Any expert (e.g. an astronomer) standing on the Earth can verify epicycles/retrograde motion of planets. Now we all know what went wrong. Can computer science afford to repeat the same mistake by not properly verifying the axiomatic premises (or seed postulations, which obviously contradict many known facts related to the physical-components/CBD)?
|
|
|
|
|
It is an invalid circular logic to defend the basic error of exiting paradigm by using any concept that is directly/indirectly derived from the assumption that ‘given kinds of useful software parts’ are ‘software components’, which is no different than using the epicycles and retrograde motions to defend the geocentric-paradigm. Unfortunately researchers are rationalizing each of the retrograde motion (for expanding existing paradox) by inventing more and more epicycles, and refusing to verify the basic assumptions, which can be proved myths in light of scientific facts such as essential properties of physical functional components and obvious facts of CBD of physical products.
|
|
|
There is very little science in computer science (due to many baseless assumptions/myths), so we must inject more and more science (i.e. scientific truths) to make computer science a real science. Discovering more and more scientific truths (e.g. to expose myths) is the only way for making computer science a real science. A sound software engineering can’t be evolved without a strong scientific foundation provided by knowledge of irrefutable scientific facts and sound reasoning.
|
| |
