banner banner  
Disagreeing with existing Axioms & Proposing a new set of Axioms
The website draws clear unequivocal battle lines for intellectual battles between (1) the existing axioms (or premises) that are foundation for today’s CBSD/CBSE and (2) our proposed axioms for inventing real-software-components and true CBD for software-products. Today’s state of the CBSD/CBSE is briefly summarized in the following first set of axioms:
1 The software industry defined many kinds of software components today, where software components belongs to each kind is nothing but a kind of software-parts/modules either (i) having a given set of useful properties (e.g. reuse or standardized etc.), or (ii) conforming to one of many so called component models.
2 The software industry defined CBSD (i.e. CBD for software) is not much more than using such fake software-components (resulting in many kinds of fake CBSDs, based on kinds of software-components used for each kind of CBSD).
But the irrefutable facts for the CBD of physical products are briefly summarized in the following second set of axioms:
1 There is only one possible CBD for the physical products. For example, objective of ideal CBD of a physical-product is achieving a perfect CBD-structure.
2 There is only one possible kind of physical-parts, which can enable the CBD-structure for the physical products, where the one possible kind of parts must possess very unique unknown properties and the parts are known as components.
We proposed essential properties of true software-components for enabling the CBD-structure for software and can demonstrate proof on a laptop, if given opportunity.
To give an analogy: The scientists erroneously believed that ‘the Earth is static at the center’ (i.e. geocentric premise or axiom) for over thousand years, which resulted in scientific crisis and also derailed the scientific advancement.
Eventually scientists discovered the fact that ‘the Sun is at the center’ (i.e. heliocentric axiom), which put the advancement of science back on right track. This is a well known fact. Any error in basic axioms leads research in any scientific field in wrong direction and ends up in crisis or derailing of scientific progress.
Isn’t it obvious that it is impossible for both the Sun and the Earth to be at the center of our planetary system? Likewise, only one set of above two sets of axioms can be correct, since axioms in each set most certainly contradicts axioms in the other set.
This paper provides sound rational reasoning to prove that the first set of axioms are wrong and provides substantial evidence that the second set of axioms are correct. Furthermore I can demonstrate hundreds of hierarchies of large software components (i.e. CBD-structures for software-products) for proving that the second set of axioms are correct. The demonstration of CBD-structures for software is akin to taking a skeptic in a spaceship into outer space and showing the planetary orbits in time-lapse motion.
The error in the geocentric axiom derailed scientific advancement, which caused the scientists to waste their research effort on creating epicycles over epicycles for advancing in a wrong way. The scientific advancement didn’t resume until discovering the truth (i.e. the heliocentric axiom) for putting the research efforts on the right track.
Today we know why it was impossible to make any meaningful scientific progress until the fact (i.e. heliocentric model) was discovered. For example, if scientist believe huge planet the Sun (333,000 times the puny Earth) or Jupiter were circling around the Earth, it is impossible to invent basic forces of nature like Gravity and Newton’s laws of motion, which further contributed to the invention of calculus to provide mathematical proof for the Gravity and Newton’s laws of motion etc.
Today we can agree that any scientist is still in the Dark Age, if he try to justify the geocentric axiom (e.g. by denying any possible error in the geocentric premise) or if astrophysicists never even heard of the heliocentric axiom. The software industry is in the Dark Age, since every software researcher or expert justifies the axioms in the first set are correct (by denying any possible error), and not even aware of the second set (to even find a flaw in the second set of axioms).
It is not even possible to start an intellectual discussion today without being snubbed with disdain or censured, if tried to mention the axioms in the second set. The clear and unambiguous battle lines are drawn only for intellectual battles. The objective for each side is defending axioms he believe in and discrediting the axioms of the other side, for example, by using irrefutable facts, observations, sound rational reasoning and demonstration of examples or empirical proof etc.
Often I faced personal insults or snubbed with disdain for stating facts or axioms, which is a new and painful experience for any one. I am sure such insults/snubs some times force any self-respecting proud researcher into silence and/or respond in kind to irrational skeptics. I feel that kind of contempt, disdain or scorn has no moral place in intellectual debates.
Unfortunately some one must prepare to be a sacrificial lamb by swallowing pride and facing snubs or insults, until he finds a few like minded competent researchers having intellectual curiosity. One must keep in mind, it is scientific enquire and not basic religious tenets, so any competent researcher must be willing to defend his axioms.
After realizing the errors in the first set of Axioms a decade ago, doing passionate research to discover the unknown axioms and making sure that I am absolutely right, I feel it is my responsibility to expose the errors to put the advancement of the CBSE/CBSD on tracks to resume progress.
Even if it appears arrogant, disrespectful and perceived to be obnoxious, I hope mankind learned a valuable lesson that killing (e.g. Giordano Bruno) or impressing (e.g. Galileo) for exposing errors in deeply entrenched axioms is detrimental to advancement of science. If it were a game of chess, one should try to attack and kill the opponent’s King (e.g. Axioms) but must not attack the opponent personally.
Today software industry defending first set (e.g. Equivalent to defending the geocentric model). But I can provide irrefutable proof for the second set (e.g. Equivalent to heliocentric model).  Most experts use baseless excuses such as software is unique or different, so it is impossible to invent components equivalent to physical-components for enabling true CBD for software equivalent to the CBD of physical-products.
It is baseless excuse, since no one ever tried to discover accurate description for either the components or CBD. How any one can say, it is impossible without even learning the objectives. I am more than happy to agree that software is unique and different, for creating ecosystem of 3rd party reusable or standardized components or parts, as it is possible today for crowded product families. But how can the uniqueness prevent the designers form achieving the CBD-structure?
Could any one prove that it is not possible to invent software-components equivalent to the physical components (to achieve real-CBD)? For example, an acceptable proof is providing an accurate description for the components, and explaining why it is impossible to invent equivalent components for the software. Why it is impossible to accurately describe universal nature and properties of the components or CBD (i.e. objectives)? This paper clearly described the objectives. Is it impossible to evaluate the descriptions (e.g. either by finding a flaw or by agreeing with the description)?
The accurate description of hidden nature and essential properties of the physical-components will determine objective for inventing equivalent software-components. For example, the objective may be just as simple as learning to drive a car or it may be as complex as going to another galaxy, which can’t be determined until after knowing the objectives (i.e. discovering accurate description).
I agree, finding a basic flaw in our descriptions or the discovered hidden nature of the CBD of physical-products and physical-components kill the very basis for the newly proposed Axioms.
Once the hidden nature and properties is discovered, why is it not possible to invent artificial-beings that are bound by no constraints for emulating the highly constrained physical-beings? For example, I can demonstrate hundreds of CBD-structures for software on my computer, which is akin to taking a skeptic (who argues the Earth is static at center) in a spaceship into outer space and showing the orbits of planets in our solar system in time-lapse motion.
Today no one can deny the fact that the term ‘software components’ is used as synonym for 'certain kinds of useful software-parts'. I am only saying that it is an error, which derailed any meaningful progress in real-CBD for software. This website is neither against inventing new kinds of useful parts nor against innovations to improve the useful parts or methods. But until newly invented software useful-parts are capable of enabling the CBD-structure for software-products, no other kind of parts and research is not for true ‘Component-Based Design’ for the software. 

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