banner banner  
Essential to expose the errors in the Basic Postulations of the CBSD
The software researchers erroneously concluded that it is impossible to invent real CBD equivalent to the CBD of physical products for securing equivalent benefits. It is impossible to find any effort ever made to objectively analyze facts to discover real nature and benefits of physical components and CBD for physical products. The software researchers erroneously (i) postulated that any kind of software parts having certain pre-defined useful properties is a kind of software component (resulting in many kinds of software components) and (ii) postulated that using one or more kinds of such fake components is a kind of CBSD (or CBD for software, resulting in many kinds of software CBSDs).
Unfortunately the software researchers never objectively analyzed known facts for validating the postulations. Is there any evidence exists to prove that: it is impossible to invent software components that are equivalent to the large functional physical components for achieving component hierarchy equivalent to the CBD-structure, for example by using a process equivalent to the CBD-process? On the other hand, is there any evidence exists to prove the contrary, such as software applications built using a process equivalent to the CBD-process resulting in component-hierarchy (equivalent to the CBD-structure) created by using real software components (equivalent to the large functional physical components)? If given opportunity, I can demonstrate hundreds of such real software components and component-hierarchies to prove the contrary.
It is simple to show that, it is not necessary for the physical components to have any combination of the useful properties (or characteristics for a component model) erroneously attributed to each of the existing software components. What do the researchers of software components or CBSD wish to accomplish (or motive)? For example, a popular motivation is to invent standardized & reusable components or component-models to build software products as hardware engineer build computers or cell phones by assembling reusable components.
On the other hand, the software researchers never tried to discover one or two essential properties universally shared by each and every physical component in the world, where discovery of such shared essential properties help invent real software components equivalent to the physical components.
The computer hardware industry deals with product models belong to just one product family. The automobile industry deals with product models belong to just one product family. The software industry deals with products models belong to hundreds of product families, and many new product models belong to many product families are being introduce each year. Therefore, trying to invent such reusable software components that can be used to build software products is impossible. Why this task is any different from, trying to inventing physical components that can be used not only in all the existing product-families but also products belongs to product-families yet to be invented in the future?
On the other hand, what are the characteristics, nature, or aspects that are universally shared by each and every physical CBD-product in the world (either exists now or in the future), which is built by using the real components and real CBD? To answer this question, I propose a structure logically similar to the CBD-structure and a process logically similar to the CBD-process. Hence the objective of a real CBD for the software products must be achieving a structure logically equivalent to the CBD-structure of physical products by using the real software components, where the real software components must be equivalent to the large functional physical components.
Likewise it is possible to discover an obscure nature or essential property (that we named Self-contained) is universally shared by each and every large functional physical components in the world (either exists now or in the future). It is certainly possible to discover the obscure property or grasp the indented meaning of the term Self-contained, but it may take several days to few of weeks by observing diverse and large enough set of physical components and objectively analyzing all the known facts and valid observations.
It is historically widely accepted fact: If there is any errors in basic axioms or postulations of any scientific field, the scientific advancement derails sooner or later (i.e. hits a dead-end) and no more meaningful progress is possible until the errors are discovered and replaced by accurate postulations and axioms that can put the scientific advancement back in the right track. The longer the errors had gone undetected the harder it would be to expose the errors.
The software research community clearly acknowledged that software engineering has been stagnated for more than 3 decades even before the 1986 seminal paper "No Silver Bullet — Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering" by Dr. Brooks. The term ‘software crisis’ was coined more than four decades ago, which is still valid but accepted as unavoidable nature. Today most of the CBSD concepts have no basis in reality and no rational explanation for many contradictions, which are only rationalized by using baseless excuses such as software is unique or different (without providing any valid reasons or justification, for example, by giving a specific valid facts or irrefutable reasoning).
If thousands of researchers have been working at any time in the area for many decades by relying on certain basic postulations, it certainly results in evolution of a vast and complex ecosystem. This ecosystem certainly comprises countless widely accepted interdependent concepts (where each concept is well supported by multiple sets of other widely accepted concepts in the ecosystem). If there are any errors in the basic postulations or axioms and not detected, over time the erroneous postulations or axioms deeply entrench into collective wisdom of practitioners and become unquestionable de-facto truths.
Many layers of concepts would be created, where concepts of newer layer rely on previous layers, and so on, which results in long chain of interdependent concepts. However any of those concepts are true, only if the basic axioms or seed postulations are true, but the concepts in newer layers are in turn are used to defend the erroneous axioms (resulting in a complex circular logic comprising long web of interdependent concepts). The countless concepts in the web of complex ecosystem also evolves into a complex paradigm and over time not only deeply entrench into the collective wisdom of the practitioners of the field but also passed on to many generations of researchers as unquestionable truths.
For example, each scientific conference adds few dozen new peer reviewed scientific papers, where each paper referencing on average 10 to 20 previously published popular research papers and each new well articulated popular paper would be referenced by 10 to 20 research papers subsequently. This long interdependent chain or layers grows so long and wide like quasi crystal over few decades, and over time the practitioners would forget the basic erroneous axioms that were seed for the mushrooming 3-dimentional web of ecosystem comprising interdependent concepts. The practitioners can find countless popular concepts from the 3-dimentional web to defend erroneous postulations (by not even recognizing that they are using invalid circular logic) and/or for discredit simple obvious facts (that are obvious even to laymen).
Today no software expert can even recognize obvious error in the assumptions such as ingredient parts (e.g. cement, steel, sand and bricks) are components and using such fake components is CBD. Many experts even feel that we are offending their common sense. Many experts refuse to accept a description that admittedly describes accurately the essential aspects of nature of the CBD of the physical products, by using excuses (or concepts) that are selected from the web of complex ecosystem comprising countless concepts (or excuses).
It is invalid and illegal to justify the erroneous postulations/axioms by using any scientific paper, even if the scientific paper is the most credible and widely acclaimed paper, which is supported by 20 other credible and widely accepted papers and furthermore being widely referenced or quoted by thousands of top researchers in the world. Trying to defend the erroneous axioms even by using hundreds of such credible and widely acclaimed references is still circular logic, since it is well established fact that such circular logic is invalid and illegal. Event though such papers discuss present impeccable concepts relying dozens of seminal papers, each paper is invalid because only error they made is not recognizing that there are errors in the decades old seed postulations.
I agree, all those papers must be accurate in the context of many kinds of useful software parts (or modules), but it is illegal to use them to prove the erroneous postulations such as certain kind of software parts (or modules) are a kind of software components and using such fake software components is a kind of CBD for software. Obviously it is an invalid circular logic to use any scientific paper that is directly or indirectly derived from or relied on the misconception that certain kind of software parts (or modules) are a kind of software components. For example, all the epicycles and retrograde motions did appear to be accurate to astronomers standing on the Earth (and might be accurate relative to the Earth. That is, if am traveling on a train, all the landmarks are going back relative to me).
Today no existing reference can be used to discredit our discoveries, since each of reference are inductively derived from the basic erroneous postulation. The proof by induction not only requires proving that it is true for ‘N+1’, if it is true for ‘N’, but also requires proving that it is true for ‘1’. This kind of proof by induction is invalid, if some one proves even for a million consecutive values starting from number 2 by erroneously assuming that it is true for number 1. It is invalid circular logic to argue that it is true for ‘1’ by referencing such long chain.
It is not hard to prove, there is only one kind of CBD exists for all the physical CBD-products in the world (which applicable not only to the physical CBD-products exist today but also for the physical CBD-products not yet invented). Are their any characteristics or nature universally shared by the CBD of any physical CBD-products, which can be used to comprehend (e.g. accurate description) and accurately define objectives for inventing CBD for software (that is equivalent to the CBD of physical products)? Are their any characteristics or nature universally shared by the large physical functional components, which can be used to comprehend (e.g. accurate description) and accurately define the objectives for inventing real software components, which are not only equivalent to the large physical functional components but also capable of achieving the real CBD for software?
Countless astrologers for centuries created vast ecosystem of concepts and maps to document the planetary motion and to predict position of planets in the future based on the erroneous postulation that ‘the Earth is static at the center’. Of course, all the maps comprising retrograde motion and epicycles were observed facts painstakingly documented for centuries and accurate relative to the Earth. But trying to use any set of concepts and maps to prove that the Earth is static at the center is invalid circular logic. This erroneous postulation derailed advancement of science for many centuries and the scientific field endured the crisis for centuries. Few great scientists had to sacrifice lives to expose the errors for putting the scientific advancement on the right track.
  In his letter to Kepler in year 1610, Galileo complained that the philosophers (i.e. Scientists were referred to as philosophers) who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope: "My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."  
By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox -– Galileo Galilee
That kind of pain and suffering could be avoided, if the scientific community and experts just spent few hours to see the obvious evidence that could expose the errors. Even today, software scientist well aware of the crisis and inexplicable contradictions, but stubbornly refusing to consider the possibility that there may be an error in the basic postulations (even when it results in obvious foolish conclusion such as CBSD is tightly integrating ingredient parts).
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 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. For example, none of the semi-conductor industry would have possible, if researchers made a mistake in understanding the enabling properties of semi-conductor materials. Likewise, the branch of fiber optic communication would not have possible, if they made a mistake in understanding the nature of enabling properties of light.
What would be the cost of such mistake in basic nature and enabling properties of fundamental building blocks of any branch? 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 advancement in software engineering for past decades.
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 that creating an illusion that CBSD is working or making progress (but many people can’t see the progress). Of course, it is possible to invent 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. The real CBSD and inventing other kinds of useful software parts are mutually independent. It is error to assume CBSD has been advancing due to such advancements in an unrelated branch. The brilliant minds in our software defined ‘CBD is using such useful parts’ and have been inventing or improving them, which created the illusion CBD is working or making progress.

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