The measure of a civilized society should not just be how well it treats its least fortunate, but also how it treats a future it probably won’t live to see. Expect neither form of civilization in the near future. We were promised barbarism and we’re going to get it: denial of facts for the sake of profit, resentment-driven, anti-intellectual rage and vandalism directed against what actually made America great. Including science. Particularly science. I don’t think anyone has ever seen such a vindictive onslaught on science and the environment as Trump’s cabinet choices suggest. Most of the damage a new administration will do by ignoring the warnings of scientific evidence will happen after I am dead, but the child in this photo will suffer the consequences without doubt...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-chapman/the-rape-of-science-and-w_b_13895734.html

http://www.sciencedebate.org/#donate

Do the maybe and alien rights the government is not gonna be enlightened. there are two basic reasons for this the first is they do not want people to develop the art of critical thinking. the second reason is, and probably the most important, people who control information and the dissemination of information are trying to put into place a rigid frame framework of predictability. we are victims of the grey goo of uniformity. We simply cannot accept people who think critically about what they see, what they hear, and what they believe. Such is The Human Condition.

Sorry I am blind and can only do speech to text obviously the translation algorithm is not perfect. The point is the government does not want people to be enlightened.

Dear Mr. Christopher Lance Andreadis,

Thank you. I feel, this is the problem in many developing countries. The people who are in power act as den of thieves. One of professors Dr. Kesav Nori in the IIIT Hyderabad banned me for pointing out a mistake in the concepts of software engineering and every other researcher obeyed his dictate as den of thieves.

The fact is that, Dr. Kesav Nori has no right to ban me for exposing his ignorance and incompetence. If he bans me, it is moral obligation of other researchers to tell him that he has no such authority. They are equally culpable for their inaction.

In fact, they supported his lies and deception. They are being paid (by tax payers) to do their duty, which is to contribute to advancement of knowledge by doing research. Not for selfish promotion by serving political bosses.

Most of them reached the position, not because of their merit but employing cronyism. Anyone deserving of their position knows his duty and obligations as a researcher to uphold the truth and fair play.

No one can be a real scientist, if he/she reacts uncivilised manner (e.g. by resorting to personal attacks), when untested or unproven myths are questioned?

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Friends,

Scientific process for acquiring knowledge uses set of methods aimed at testing (particularly for disconfirmation of) hypotheses for finding valid theories (a valid theory imply that the theory can't be falsified by any known fact or evidence), where such new falsifiable valid theories open-up new lines or paths of inquiry and research by acquiring and accumulating useful theoretical knowledge.

The theoretical knowledge is useful, when it opens-up new lines of inquiry for engineering research (by providing sound theoretical foundation) for successful creation of useful engineering inventions. The successful engineering inventions end up validating the theories, if the useful engineering inventions work as expected by the theories.

Every complex useful invention is validation of relevant theoretical knowledge that provided theoretical foundation for such useful invention. For example, the useful inventions of semi-conductor chips validated our relevant theoretical knowledge about the nature and characteristics of electrons and how they behave in semi-conductor materials. Likewise, the useful inventions of fibre optic networks validated our relevant theoretical knowledge about the nature and characteristics of light and how light behave in fibre-optic materials.

Scientific method try to find disconfirmations. Only pseudo scientists try to find confirmations, by deliberately ignoring or supressing counter evidences. Real scientists try to eliminate imperfections in our knowledge for getting closer and closer to perfection by finding counter evidences. How can any scientist do that, if he/she is offended by questioning untested beliefs (by showing facts of evidence)? Only a fake scientist would be offended by counter evidence or facts that exposes flawed beliefs.

In the 21st century, the main role of scientific method is exposing anomalies and flaws for moving our BoK (Body of Knowledge) that paints our perception of reality closer and closer to the Truth (i.e. Objective Reality). I feel any researcher has inalienable right to present counter evidence or facts for exposing flawed beliefs.

Therefore, finding and presenting evidence and facts for exposing anomalies or flaws is indispensable tool and essential part for advancing our knowledge closer and closer to perfection. How can we improve anything without removing imperfections?

Any attack on such rights or freedom to present facts and evidence is attack on freedom to scientific thinking and sharing new evidence. Each of us has sacred duty to protect and defend such inalienable rights. Even dictators, tyrants or communists defended the scientific freedom to expose flawed beliefs.

P.S: My rights and freedom to think, explore or expose errors by presenting new facts has been under assault by corrupt crony intellectuals or fake scientists in India.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

The measure of a civilized society should not just be how well it treats its least fortunate, but also how it treats a future it probably won’t live to see. Expect neither form of civilization in the near future. We were promised barbarism and we’re going to get it: denial of facts for the sake of profit, resentment-driven, anti-intellectual rage and vandalism directed against what actually made America great. Including science. Particularly science. I don’t think anyone has ever seen such a vindictive onslaught on science and the environment as Trump’s cabinet choices suggest. Most of the damage a new administration will do by ignoring the warnings of scientific evidence will happen after I am dead, but the child in this photo will suffer the consequences without doubt...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-chapman/the-rape-of-science-and-w_b_13895734.html

http://www.sciencedebate.org/#donate

I am very sorry for the situation in which you find yourself in. Facts are stubborn, I suggest you continue seeking for opportunities to present your ideas. If you persist your ideas will eventually get mainstreamed and force those rude officials to put your ideas into the mainstream

Dear Friends,

Thank you for your support. The problem I am facing in India is that, most self-appointed so called elite experts, thought leaders or intelligentsia feel no one has right to state inconvenient facts, for example, if the facts offend conventional wisdom or point out an error in exiting belief system of so called elite experts, thought leaders or intelligentsia.

This kind thing existed in the dark ages, for example, in 16th century, when researchers were imprisoned or even killed for trying to expose flawed belief “the Earth is static at the centre”.

If so called elite experts, thought leaders or intelligentsia in IITs or IIIT, Hyderabad had power, they would prosecute me for stating inconvenient facts that expose error in exiting belief system of so called elite experts, thought leaders or intelligentsia. They in fact, attached me like a group of hyenas. They have no decency to giving me an opportunity to rebut their lies.

Many so called elite experts, thought leaders or intelligentsia behave as if I am not worthy of pointing out mistakes, since it hurts their inflated egos. Only thing larger than their inflated egos is their incompetence and ignorance. Thank you for your support. These so-called experts are only interested in self-promotion. They have no interest in science or Truth.

My objective is to expose this problem young researchers have been facing in India. These people more interested in plagiarizing than original work.

This explains why, no original ideas or discoveries emerged from India having 1.3 billion population. How can any idea survive such ruthless assault and suppression?

P.S: If any fellow Indians are reading this, please do something about it. I have documented evidence for the allegations made here. I am ready to confront the perpetuators, either in the courts or in any public forums.

Best Regards,

Raju

Isn’t any assault on scientific facts/truths, an assault on inalienable rights and basic freedom for doing scientific research?

To counter this situation required us to continuously contributing to knowledge through empirical evidence as a result of rigorous research findings. At the same time we also need to be innovative, continue the passion & perseverance.

This all is the outcomes of false ego and stubborn character of some of the academicians.

Dear Dr. Fung,

Thank you. I accumulated overwhelming empirical evidence for past 16 years. How can I show such evidence, if so called self-styled experts refuse to look at the evidence?

I accidentally stumbled onto a new kind of components that are conducive to be assembled and disassembled nearly 18 years ago. It was fascinating to see, even junior engineers working for me built very complex component hierarchies by assembling such components.

This created irresistible intellectual curiosity and drove me to focus full time on this self-funded research nearly 16 years ago. Today we have 12 engineers for over 3 years, who has been creating enabling GUI technologies for creating pluggable components (i.e. special kind of parts that can be plugged-in and unplugged).

I already secured 6 patents from USPTO (7827527, 7840937, 8527943, 8392877, 8578329 and 9058177). More patents are pending for inventions essential for normal components into pluggable components.

Many researchers resorting to vicious attaches for politely requesting an opportunity for presenting evidence and facts to expose flawed beliefs about the components for CBD/CBE of products.

I hope, this shows I have enough passion and perseverance. In fact, few friends even think I am little crazy for my passion and perseverance. I may feel the same way, if it were not me.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Kumar,

Thank you. As Indians, we must do something, to prevent the suppression and subversion of original ideas from Indian researchers.

Many Indians are forced to leave the country for getting their inventions are discoveries recognized. This is not acceptable.

Having a population of nearly 1.3 billion, India could produce many more original ideas or discoveries, if it were not for such self-promoting crony intellectuals.

Best Regards,

Raju

There's no denying that cronyism and treachery are as old as incompetence itself. "Those who can, do; those who can't, bully" goes one motto. One way around this would be to follow Sun Tzu's advice: "To march a thousand li without tiring, travel where there is no enemy." In the present context, this would translate to something like "To advance your career without contention, express your ideas without pointing out how they contradict those of others." This would be especially applicable in the field of engineering where there is always more than one way to accomplish a given goal. The risk in this approach, of course, is the possibility that there would be no forum within which to present new ideas except through the crony system. I'd hate to have to choose between real progress and personal success. Choosing the latter to the detriment of the former would be like inviting an evil twin to take up residence in my home; another side of myself that I'd rather not cultivate.

Dear Friends,

Kindly allow me to explain why freedom to express facts freely without fear of being humiliated or attacked is essntial: The greatest scientific discovery or breakthrough in the history of science is not a discovery of new thing but exposing an error at the root of a dominant paradigm, where the error (i.e. a 2300 year old belief the Earth is static) was very foundation on which the 16th century dominant geocentric paradigm was built for 1800 years.

“All great truths begin as blasphemies.” --- George Bernard Shaw

The Truths or facts that expose such error at the root of any dominant paradigm would be perceived as a blasphemy by the scientific or research community. Such facts face unprecedented resistance and hostilities from the scientific or research community.

The hardest part is exposing such untested or unproven flawed belief at the root and very foundation of any dominant paradigm.

It is a trivial task to discover the Truth, if scientific or research community realized that the untested belief is an error and start investigating evidence and/or facts having open mind.

Great researcher such as Giordano Bruno was killed, and Galileo was imprisoned for disputing untested flawed belief: the Earth is static at the centre.

Don’t forget Galileo famous defiant murmur “And Yet It Moves”. They were punished not for saying the fact (the Sun is at the centre), but for questioning the untested and unproven 2300 year old flawed belief “the Earth is static”.

It would take no time to discover the fact that the Sun is at the centre, if researchers open to investigate the evidence for finding the Truth. After all there were just fewer than 9 known planets. If 9 researchers each pick a planet for investigation, one of them end up discovering the Truth.

Existing dominant software engineering paradigm is rooted in 50 to 60 year-old untested flawed myths, where the beliefs (i.e. myths) are very foundation on which the existing dominant software engineering paradigm has been evolving for past 50 years.

Any researcher has inalienable right to question any untested or unproven primordial or primeval myths that diverted research into a wrong path.

My rights and freedom to present facts for exposing the untested flawed beliefs (i.e. primordial or primeval myths) has been under vicious attacks from the software research community in India.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Raju, you are correct in reserving the right to question the assumptions of others. It's part of the Socratic Method:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

My mentor and thesis advisor in college was a Brahman and was also somewhat critical of Indian culture. Remember, the Punjabis brought a halt to Alexander's advance into India. Perhaps it's time to let him back in, so to speak, and allow his pan-hellenic movement to infuse and revitalize Indian culture with open debate based on evidence and logic.

A culture is like a giant ship, however. One can't expect to change its course quickly but every little nudge is guaranteed to change it by a small amount.

If you're interested in writing an eBook about your experiences, I would highly recommend downloading Calibre by Kovid Goyal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibre_(software)

That might impart a slightly stronger nudge in the right direction.

Best of luck!

I am puzzled by what seems to be the conflating of several matters.

First, I doubt that there is an inalienable right to conduct scientific research. Experimentation involving humans, risk to life or the environment certainly are not permissible.

Secondly, the requirement for some sort of access to equipment, materials, and so on is not an inalienable right, generally.

Then there is the general idea of open science and the idea that science advances in its theories by review, replication of observations/experiments, and potential refutation.

Assuming we are now speaking of science, indeed any matter of scholarship, there is the matter of freedom of speech and ability to convey ones scientific analyses, data, and findings. That does not mean one is owed the use of someone else's printing press. In the US, where the term is widespread, it also means with respect to governmental interference, not a requirement to be provided a podium.

Scientific freedom is different than requiring some sort of imprimatur or recognition. The internet provides a means for operating individually and for finding an interested community to examine and consider ones work and its results. All of the PDFs that re linked to here are examples of how readily that can be done without requiring institutional support or that there be some institutional endorsement.

I have not read the "Real Engineering" paper and I have no opinion of it one way or the other, although the title can be off-putting. My point is that is not necessary to reform institutions of science in order to pursue that topic, providing ones energies to exposing the work, soliciting review and consideration, and then addressing whatever objections that are brought to your attention.

Dear Mr. Hamilton,

This thread is not advocating right to infringing on the rights of others such as their property or health. I am only talking about right to present facts and evidence without fear of being attacked, humiliated, ostracized or persecuted.

We all know what happened to people like Giordano Bruno and Galileo for trying to expose the flawed belief at the root of then dominant geocentric paradigm by presenting facts and evidence. Can we tolerate such things in the 21st century?

Although it was a fact, saying the fact: You have no valid knowledge about objective reality of planetary motion or orbits angered 16th century researchers, who considered themselves to be experts on planetary motion or orbits. Today we know that the BoK (Body of Knowledge) existed in 16th century for then dominant geocentric paradigm was illusion.

The basic belief that “the Earth is at centre” was fundamentally flawed and the BoK (i.e. everything that the experts knew) for the dominant paradigm in 16th century had evolved for 1800 years by having such flawed belief at the root.

Please see FIG-1 and FIG-4 for two different perception of realities at: http://www.real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html

Suggesting the fact (i.e. almost everything he felt he knew was illusion) angered the experts and was the reason why the experts in 16th to 17th century clandestinely instigated Vatican to punish Giordano Bruno, Galileo and others.

Those researchers believed themselves to be experts on planetary movements or orbits. But they have zero or no valid knowledge in objective reality (i.e. Heliocentric paradigm). It was very hard for them to concede the fact that they knew nothing about the objective reality.

I am now in unenviable position of making software experts concede to this fact: Many of the things they feel they know about real components or CBD/CBE is illusion, if basic beliefs at the root such as definitions for components are flawed and existing dominant paradigm has been evolving for past 50 years by relying on flawed beliefs.

It is a logical fact: If the basic beliefs at the root that are used as very foundation of existing dominant paradigm are flawed, it implicitly means that all the knowledge (e.g. BoK for the paradigm documented in all textbooks or research papers) is flawed or illusion, since the BoK has been acquired and accumulated for 50 years by relying on such flawed beliefs (such as definitions for components are fundamentally flawed).

If an expert admits that the basic beliefs (that are at the root of the BoK for any existing dominant paradigm) are flawed, isn’t it a tacit admission of this fact: that everything he knew might be an illusion? The BoK for existing dominant paradigm for software has been acquired and accumulated by relying on the flawed beliefs at the root or foundation such as flawed definitions for so called components or CBD/CBE (Component Based Engineering or Design) for software.

Many experts feel I have no right to question untested or unproven tenets in the software text books. Even if few experts accept my definitions for real components but yet resort to personal attacks when I disagree with them on the implications, if my definitions for components are accurate. I have been working nearly full time for over 16 years for acquiring and accumulating evidence and facts.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

I am not disputing that scientists have often been disparaged for their finding and the theories they support / disprove.

In modern times, with the prevalence of scientific procedures, the theory of plate tectonics took much work until their was supportive evidence, with sea floor spreading having a significant contribution, along with others. There is also the matter of even introduction of antiseptic procedures in the practice of medicine and especially surgery.

The pitfall to be avoided is assumption that because that does happen, it is happening in an individual case. The generalization is not useful, and to enlist bystanders not in a position to assess the specifics is neither constructive nor scientific.

I strongly recommend reduction of the discussion to the merits of the specific work and having it examined for its scientific underpinnings. Is this not the main ambition here? To advance a particular thesis about software and sound engineering in respect to its development?

You can, of course, question whatever you like. And you can certainly expect there to be data to support confirmation. And if you have a counter-claim, I think it behooves you to practice some science in that regard.

I do not concur with your claim that some defects or contradictions will topple a complete body of knowledge. It all depends. Relativity did not topple Newtonian mechanics nor did it make Newton's theory useless. I am not clear how that is a simile for your situation, but it is worth keeping in mind. It is valuable to stick to concrete cases, where possible.

In the materials you link to, this claim is maid:

"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"

I do not understand how those two theories square with reality. That is, I don't see how there are irrefutable facts here (and if they are irrefutable, they are not scientific). Does not the different ways of building a computer that delivers the same function contradict this claim? . Likewise, think of all the ways of building software (e.g., using different programming languages) or of defining even mathematical objects (using different expressions of functions) present issues to these claims.

How do you account for that, or is there a view that is somehow otherwise?

Dear Mr. Dennis Hamilton,

Thank you for reviewing my documents. I stop using term "irrefutable" long time ago, when I realized it is not right word. The term “irrefutable” was bad choice. Let me explain what I meant by CBD in the context of physical products: The CBD is using specific kind of parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled and disassembled.

There is no other kind of CBD in the reality of designing and/or engineering of complex products such as Cars, Airplanes or computers. In other words, it is not CBD/CBE, if the product is built without using specific kind of parts that are not conducive to be assembled and disassembled.

The objective 50 years ago was increasing reuse for reducing the complexity by reducing custom code for each complex application. Kindly review twin challenges of software engineering in the attached PDF. The other challenge is modularization. There is no better invention than components (i.e. specific kind of parts that are conducive to be assembled and disassembled) for modularization.

The physical products achieved 100% modularization and 100% reuse. That is, 100% of the features and functionality of the product is implemented in the components. In other words, each feature and functionality is implemented in a component (where each component supports one or more features).

Furthermore, each component is made by using 100% reusable parts. For example, no car maker makes ingredient parts such as steel, plastic or alloys. They acquire the materials form respective vendors or factories.

Today, no known kind of software components are designed or conducive to be assembled and disassembled. Although it is not hard, no one even try to invent software parts that are conducive to be assembled and disassembled. No attempt is made to invent such very useful kind of parts.

We know now that it results in two radically different perceptions of realities, if two groups each rely on one of the two different seed axioms (i) The Earth is at the centre, or (ii) The Sun is at the centre. The same is true, if two groups each rely on one of the two different seed axioms (i) reusable parts are components or (ii) no part can be a component, if the part is not conducive to be assembled and disassembled.

I spent 16 years of my life on the existing reuse-oriented dominant paradigm. But 16 years ago accidentally stumbled onto real-components by creating first ever GUI technologies that is capable of pluggable components. For example, see listing-1 at: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html

I have been passionately working for nearly 16 years on acquiring and accumulating BoK (Body of Knowledge) for painting reality for real-components that can be conducive to be assembled and disassembled.

In any country, there are government organizations that solicit proposals for research grants or large government contracts. My company was not able to get those projects because of the prejudice, ignorance or incompetence of the crony intellectuals.

Saying no is one thing. But what right the have to resort to personal attacks, persecution or banning me from all future engagements or contacts. For example, this is the first response I got from a professor at IIIT Hyderabad for my polite requests for an opportunity to present my results:

The email from Dr. Nori: I suggest that no one respond to Raju Chiluvuri, as it is a waste of time and he does not value foundations. If he claims to have patents and a struggle for 16 years of research, why isn't he the richest man on earth? He does not care to define components and their compositionality, yet he claims a place in the sun for Component Based Seoftware Development!

This moron insisting me to define “compositionality”, when I am proposing no part can be a component, if it is not conducive to be plugged-in or assembled. Tax payers paying his salary. His duty is to investigate evidence. He called me a liar for sating fact that, I have patents on real-components and also provided USPTO patent numbers 7827527, 7840937, 8527943, 8392877, 8578329 and 9058177, which clearly show my name as inventor.

Mr. Hamilton I never imagined that the researchers in 21st century react no differently from those in the dark ages. I too, would not believe it, if I haven’t been experiencing for many years. I have every right to participate in competitions for grants, conferences and contracts. They have no right to attach or persecute me for expressing such facts.

--

Imagine a wall having two screens one on each side of the wall, where the one side showing BoK (Body of Knowledge) for painting perception of reality geocentric paradigm, while the other side showing BoK (Body of Knowledge) for painting perception of reality heliocentric paradigm.

Assume yourself in my position: You are one side of the wall mastering the heliocentric paradigm for 12 years, and rest of the world is on the other side of the wall mastering geocentric paradigm for all their lives.

Ref: FIG-1 on one side of the wall and FIG-4 on the other side of the wall at http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html

You used to be the same side of the wall with rest of the world, but for a strange accident you end up finding that there is another side of the wall more than 16 years ago. The rest of the world don’t even know there is other side of the wall. In fact, they concluded that there is no other side and/or it is impossible to have such other side.

--

If you can see my perspective, then I know what you know, because my perception of reality had been painted by the geocentric side of the wall for 16 years (between 1986 to 2002). My perception of reality changed or evolved, because I have been seeing the heliocentric side of the wall for past 16 years.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri, CEO

Pioneer-soft.com

Dear @Raju,

this example may be obvious for some people, not to me.

National Security, the Assault on Science, and Academic Freedom

"The Trump administration’s alarming hostility to science has exacerbated already troubling threats to academic freedom in the physical and natural sciences in two different areas. In the area of international scientific exchange, Chinese or Chinese American scientists have been targeted and charged with espionage. The second area, the field of climate science, has been subjected to vicious attempts to discredit its validity, which have intensified significantly since Donald Trump took office. Two incidents illustrate the nature of the attacks ..."

https://www.aaup.org/report/national-security-assault-science-and-academic-freedom

If there is a restatement of the two propositions (not axioms) that does not require them to be irrefutable, please provide that. And maybe provide a link to your improved statement instead of directing us to the one that makes the ireffutabiliity claim.

My concern has to do with the essentiality and perfect fit of components in your claimed example. Consider your own lived experience with familiar artifacts. Furniture. Tools. I don't think trees have the essence of chairs whether or not chairs are made from lumber. I sense a kind of idealism in your claim and I find it difficult to square with the contingent world of our experience and in which we thrive.

Also, the fact that there was a now-refuted model of the heavens that involved an elaborate mechanism is not something from which your two CBD propositions are a logical consequence. Arguing that there are paradigmatic errors is not a basis for concluding that a different claim is not such a beast.

The Platonic cave is interesting to talk about. It is not a good premise to conclude anything, just that it is possible to be blind to something from within ones own paradigm.

I recommend the recently-published book, "Plato and the Nerd" to your attention. The author speaks of paradigms and Kuhn in the beginning. And his placement of engineering may be quite different than what you conclude about it. There is an useful video where the author distinguishes a different relationship of engineering to models/theories: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBlWc6fJL_c

I am grateful that we can now discuss your ideas and avoid the distraction of how you perceive your ideas being rejected unfairly. That may well be, but we need to stick with examination of the ideas, since is that not your over-riding purpose?

Dear Mr. Hamilton,

Tank you for the link to the video. It is interesting and insightful. Let me start my response by quoting Galileo

“We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.” … Galileo Galilee

The greatest contribution of Copernicus was exposing the error at the root of then dominant paradigm. The question arises, only when the error is exposed: Which planet is at the center, if any planet is at center.

How hard it is to discover the Truth that “the Sun is at the center”? There are after all 9 planets. We don’t look for right answer, if don’t know that the answer we have is wrong. Why do you look for your keys, if you lost them but you don’t know you lost them?

Mr. Hamilton, my goal is not imposing my perception of reality. My goal is to expose the error at the root of existing CBE/CBD paradigm for software. I am not hiding my perception of reality, but I want every one discover the reality by themselves.

I am presenting results of my experiments, evidence or my experiences and reasoning. I am sure there are so many smart people, who can paint perception of reality that is much closer to the objective reality.

Also, if many experts join in this effort, we together collectively paint perception of reality that is much closer to the objective reality then any one person can.

Yes, I must admit that I am looking at idealistic world for CBD/CBE. The reason because, based on my experiences, it is not hard to achieve the idealistic world for CBD/CBE for software. The idealistic CBD/CBE likely be far superior than any thing we know today.

For example, in case of physical products, you can’t throw components in the hood and expect the components to self-assemble. But you can do that for software components. On March 26th 2018 I filed a patent for such pluggable components. We can make software components far more intelligent than the dumb metal components.

Best Regards,

Raju

In your two propositions that I have quoted, you speak of the material world with respect to components. If you now want to talk about the manifestation of components via software, is there not always some grounding of operation in the material world? The semblance of an ideal thing does not, it seems to me, compel anything about incidental factors that are inessential to that semblance.

Congratulations on filing a patent application. Where can the disclosure of the application be found? This might help separate the rather philosophical arguments from the concrete demonstration, and improve our understanding.

I have provided my account of the connection between theories and natural (or artifactual) "reality" in two posts that might be amusing to you. There is difficulty around the use of "model" there because the term is used in two different fashions and I am using it in a manner comparable to that of mathematical logic.

• http://orcmid.com/blog/2010/02/abstraction-einstein-on-theoryreality.asp
• http://orcmid.com/blog/2008/05/reality-is-model.asp

Dear Mr. Hamilton,

Thank you. I already provided numbers for granted patents in my earlier message 7827527, 7840937, 8527943, 8392877, 8578329 and 9058177. It would be helpful (but not necessary) to read the attached brief summary in light of my earlier patents for replaceable self-contained components.

Please read the attached PDF in light of this page: http://www.real-software-components.com/CBD/Sample_SoA_CASE_tool.html. The gist is that, implement a mechanism in 2131 and 2132 of FIG-21. And implement a CASE-tool to use this information for automatically creating communication code.

The CASE-tool can be 2 kinds: SRO- is included as an object in the application. Arjun- A pre-processor in the compiler for generating communication code. Objective is eliminate the need for implementing communication code. For example, please see listing-1 in this web page: http://www.real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html

These kinds of things are hard to explain without implanting hands on experience. My company pioneer-soft.com has 14 junior engineers. We created many thousands of such pluggable components and complex component hierarchies.

Even in year 2001, I had to create several hundreds of real-components and component hierarchies to overcome my prejudice and pre-conceived notions. It was fascinating, but don’t know what I have been experiencing.

Our experiences shape our perception of realities.

No one can teach this. One must find this by himself. I can train any person with-in weeks, but I can’t explain this. His experience would shape his perception of reality. I can provide Tool and real-components to build complex component hierarchies for having firsthand experience.

Let me elaborate Galileo’s quote: No one can teach you, I can only help find the truth yourself by investigating the evidence and facts. Many things can’t be taught. You have to put necessary effort to experience the reality.

For example, how can you teach me a new smell you never experienced before? How can you teach me a new sound you never heard before? How can you teach me a new taste (or texture) you never experienced (or touched) before?

Also keep in mind this: Existing dominant paradigm evolved for 50 years by investing hard work and efforts of tens of thousands of researchers at any time during past few decades.

I am the only person (not including 16 engineers in our company) helping me do experiments for few years developing this paradigm. If the world discovers the reality this year, it may take many years for this paradigm to becomes mature.

Please keep in mind, our text books teach students that the Sun is at the center in the first chapter. In the 5th or 6th chapter they make a passing mention that mankind used to believe mistakenly that the Earth is at the center.

Any mentioning of this “the Earth is at the center”, it is usually meant to be a joke or make a point about mankind’s mistakes in the past. For past 300 years, none of us exposed to the prejudice rooted in the belief “the Earth is at the center”. We are unperturbed by any geocentric prejudice.

First 18 years of my life, I was exposed to such prejudice. Hence I am also damaged to do such research free from all prejudice. I can feel my inability to free from prejudice or preconceived notions.

Even after 16 years, I have to struggle to look past my prejudice by putting conscious effort not to succumb to prejudice. We need next generation of young researchers, who are not exposed to geocentric model of CBD/CBE of software.

It requires efforts of thousands of such unperturbed new young researchers (who never exposed to geocentric paradox of software) for years for real CBE/CBD for software to become mature.

P.S: If you work with our engineers tools and component libraries for couple of weeks, you will form your own perception of reality, which likely be slightly different from all other engineers in our company. That is, any two of us agree over 90% but have some finer differences in our perception of reality. By debating evidence and experimentation we together can create a better shared perception of reality. This is how any paradigm evolves due to collective efforts and wisdom.

Sir, keep in mind I am not proposing a new theory. I am struggling to explain my experiences, in order to convince others to experience this reality by themselves. I am not asking anyone to believe me but investigate the evidence to discover it by themselves.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

"Today only known way for allowing such collaboration between any two components in an application is by implementing necessary communication code manually in the code of the application (i.e. outside of the code for the components), where the communication code creates hard to comprehend dependencies for each of the components. It is desirable to eliminate the need for manually implementing and maintaining the communication code for each of the components in the code of the application (e.g. outside of the code for the components), where the communication code is essential for allowing each component to collaborate with other parts or components in the application.

This seems to overlook the history of the Microsoft Component Object Model (since 1992), Object Linking and Embedding (OLE), the work of the Object Management Group (OMG) and other efforts. There are also mechanisms for interface discovery and binding as a service to objects (as is used in Python for Windows, for example).

Gregor Kiczales is a researcher who is present here on Research Gate. He can provide more theoretical understanding of such effort also, as author of the MetaObject Protocol for Common Lisp and an adherent of Aspect-Oriented Programming (AOP). The provisions for "reflection" in Java and .NET and other programming models are also available as instruments for many of these purposes. More recently, there is also the use of what are called type libraries and mechanisms for specifying type information alongside components so that their interfaces can be discovered and also used properly. The functional programming language F# (a variant of OCAML) exploits this to great effect. (I would not be surprised to learn that Smalltalk had appropriate support.)

I'm thinking what one needs to arrive at is a protocol (or meta-protocol) which components share. It would be useful to identify what the challenge is and how a protocol is to be specified or deduced. And then explain how one has arrived at an invention that solves that particular problem. I recently made this statement in that regard:

"Typically, there are many ways to represent entities of some type, and

it then becomes interesting to deal with (1) the different interpretations

that a single computational entity might satisfy and (2) inter-operation

with different representations of the same type. By virtue of (2) it

will be appropriate to identify a representation with the type and the

specific interpretation that the computational representation satisfies."

, section 2.4. This is in the context of a specific model of computation, so I do not generalize beyond that.

PS: In the past, the wrappers and such were handled and coordinated by creation of stubs and skeletons with the marshalling between components handled in the outer mechanism. This began with Remote Procedure Call procedures and later generalized to in-process dynamic binding among components. (The contribution of COM was that local in-process dynamic binding was quite efficient and encapsulated implementations nicely.) The kinds of setup that you talk about with respect to class definitions involves what have been called class factories and there might be compiled-in code or separate dynamic binding or some mixture. Those are engineering decisions, of course.

I would have to examine the actual claims of the patents to determine how much prior art is involved and what the specific novelty is. The Brief Summary does not reveal that.

Around 1970 I was at a small workshop at Lincoln Labs in Massachusetts. At the time, "modular programming" had become fashionable and had co-opted the term in ways that took away the automatic programming element. Consequently, the workshop was for discussion of "Coherent Programming." There was significant discussion of how to combine free-standing programs (the kind that were typical in those days) into composite systems of programs by automatic means.

At that time, we are not talking about the sophistication of hardware and software that we now enjoy. There was a kind of paradigm issue also.

I had accompanied computer scientist Melvin Conway to the meeting. At the time Conways was in product planning at Sperry Univac and on the staff of Pres Eckert. Conway is very observant and he noticed a fascinating thing. Folks who were using the Burroughs 5000 series of machines had no trouble comprehending the issues and proposing solutions based on the fact that the control language (what we might call a shell these days) was a dialect of ALGOL 60 and the conventions of programs (all written in a dialect of ALGOL also) allowed higher-level composition. It wasn't automatic, but those folks could conceive of solutions. Conway's amazement was that this fell on deaf ears of those in the room whose efforts were on systems of quite different architectures such as System 360, CDC systems, and computers from RCA, Univac, and others.

At that time, none of us had heard of the work on Unix and would not know of the simple elegance of piping and redirecting input-output streams among programs (still not usually running concurrently until later). If anyone who did know of that work was there, they remained silent [;

Dear Mr. Dennis Hamilton,

I have seen many instances where experts alluded to things I have been doing. The main difference is I persisted for 16 years. The other differences include, the programming languages were too primitive for creating components, such as lack of Object Oriented programming.

Kindly keep in mind, things such as Unix pipes are in the context of completely different kind of components. Please see attached PDF 2 kinds of components.

My objective in 199 was to create a GUI-API (e.g. a large set of reusable Java classes for presenting various GUI components in web-pages), where the GUI-API is comparable to Java/Swing, X11/Motif or Windows/VC++/VB.

I had been creating GUI application since 1988 using X11/Motif or Windows/VC++ in the Silicon Valley (Although I moved back to India to do this research, I am a naturalized US citizen). I wanted a similar familiar GUI-API. But end up creating far more powerful GUI-API, where I can implement any application in a Class definition, such as in listing-1 at: http://www.real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html

My first 2 patents are for such GUI-technologies. I am not a person, who can propose theories. I am more like experimental researchers. I am only struggling to find rational explanation for thing that I have been experiencing.

I create hundreds or even thousands of component hierarchies to gain insights. I have 14 engineers working for at Pioneer-soft.com for past 3 years, they validate my reasoning and re-enforce my expectations. I had a dozen engineering in year 2000-2001.

Now we have 50 years of baggage for reuse-centric model. In the early days, most experts would have open mind. So explore various possibilities before community end up in a path.

For example, before Plato and Aristotle few researchers suggested Heliocentric model. But our senses fooled us to believe that the Earth is static. Works of Plato and Aristotle confirmed our senses to take geocentric path. By 16th century there was 1800 years of baggage for geocentric model.

I am sure Mr. Conway and others contemplated other paths such as “assembly-centric” model (which was not practical for then available technologies). But influential papers such as Douglas McIlroy's address at the NATO conference on software engineering in Garmisch, Germany, 1968, titled “Mass-Produced Software Components”, moved the software engineering in to “reuse-centric” path.

When one has no preconceived opinion, it makes no difference, if you say “the Earth is at the center” or “the Moon or Mars at the center”. If he is curious, he would ask you for evidence to support your statement. If he thinks, you are a genius he would accept it as a fact. I am sure many felt that Plato and Aristotle were geniuses.

Hence, mankind was brainwashed for next 1800 years until 16th century, the Earth is at the center. Galileo and others had to overcome this baggage (i.e. Body of Knowledge) accumulated for 1800 years.

Best Regards,

Raju

Thank you for the City_GIS example. I assume, although it is not explained there, that coherence is achieved in how the RCCs expect a particular protocol to be supported with their ACi parameter objects and the canvas.addChild methods of the surrounding code is the combining method in combination with whatever the Out object to orchestrate the produced result. I don't quite understand the trick involving the apparent cycle through this.canvas.CGM(Out) but I don't think I have to in appreciating that there is considerable agreement and coordination to have the coordination function.

It would simplify the discussion here if the polemic about heliocentricity and paradigmatic blind spots where not subject to perpetual repetition. It has no value in supporting your concrete ideas which, in the end, must stand on their own.

My personal interest is in theoretical foundations. I appreciate that is not everyone's interest and it doesn't impede the creation of great software. I will continue on my own course (one I began in the 1960s), based on applicative systems.

PS: Concerning "two different kinds of software components" One feature of using dynamic binding systems such as Microsoft COM is that the construction of components does not require determination of whether operation is in-process (e.g., single executable) or inter-process (e.g., distributed). One can do that in a way that still favors in-process performance when that happens to be the case. That happens similarly in how JNI accesses externally-provided (non-Java) component implementations.

PPS: I now remember that the RPC and then object-broker case had the two adapters termed stubs and proxies - stub for delivering a remote service to the requester and proxy for delivering the client request as if local to the remote server. In a local binding, there is direct connection *insofar*as* there is no necessity to marshall conversions between one interface and the other and operation can be (effectively) synchronous. Asynchronous operation can also be accommodated as is now becoming quite popular.

Dear Mr. Hamilton,

I had heated debates with researchers theoretical computer science couple of years ago, in which my contention was using scientific method for accruing BoK (Body of Knowledge) about nature and characteristics uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component for CBD or neurons for real computer intelligence etc.

For example, the characteristic uniquely and universally shared by Oxygen atom is having 8 protons. We can find such characteristics for any physical things such as birds, animals or Trees etc. In fact, this is what biologists or Zoologists have been doing.

This kind of investigation gives knowledge and wisdom about thing such as components. The characteristic uniquely and universally shared by ideal components is conducive to be assembled and disassembled.

I like your views on this. Kindly read my justification at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306078165_Computer_Science_Software_Must_be_Considered_as_an_Independent_Discipline_Computer_Science_Software_must_not_be_Treated_as_a_Sub-Domain_or_Subset_of_Mathematics

Yes. We use simple SoA (Service oriented Architecture) as illustrated in FIG-3 to allow collaboration between each component and other parts at: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/Sample_SoA_CASE_tool.html

This FIG-3 CASE-tool eliminates need for implementing any communication code. An ideal plugggable component needs no code for communication and no code for configuration or initialization. Each pluggable component is custom designed to fit juts target application, so all the configuration and initialization is implemented with-in the Class for the component.

Hence, each component can be plugged-in by including an object instance by implementing 2 to 3 lines. Likewise, each component can be effectively removed by removing the 2 to 3 lines.

The goal of our ideal CBD/CBE is implementing all the code in such pluggable components. If an application has 100 components, then the code for the application must not exceed 300 (i.e. 100 * 3 lines to include a component using each RCC). All the features and functionality must be implemented in the RCCs.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Mr. Hamilton,

Please read Heliocentrism at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism that was debated since 6th century BC and proposed by Aristarchus. No one was offended by proposal of Heliocentric model in the 3rd century BC.

Today, research organizations in India banned me and resorting to personal attacks for exposing the flawed definitions for so called component by saying fact: No part can be a component for CBD/CBE, if part is not conducive to be assembled.

The tax payer funded research organizations in the USA not yet banned me, but their salience is deafening, even when I threatened them to drag to courts for gross negligence. They abdicated their sacred duty of upholding the Truth.

Mankind still would be in the dark ages, if the lies at the root of the geocentric paradigm were not yet exposed. All the great scientists born during past 400 years (e.g. Newton, Einstein, Bose, Max Planck, or Maxwell) could not have made any tangible contribution, except may be exposing the error at the root of geocentric paradigm. Each of them could have wasted their hard work and passion in pursuit of fool’s errand (e.g. to make sense of inexplicable epicycles and retrograde motion of the geocentric paradigm).

This error at the root of the CBD/CBE pushing young researchers and students into the geocentric paradigm of software engineering. Isn’t this gross negligence (i.e. causing irreparable damage to millions of students and researchers, robbing them of their life’s efforts) and preventing advancements in computer science and engineering? I am in the process of raising funds to sue the government funded research organizations for their negligence.

Best Regards,

Raju

I commented about the matter of essentiality before. I fear that applies here:

"For example, the characteristic uniquely and universally shared by Oxygen atom is having 8 protons. We can find such characteristics for any physical things such as birds, animals or Trees etc. In fact, this is what biologists or Zoologists have been doing."

We seem to be neglecting the fact that the number of neutrons varies and there are marvelous matters of the electrons in even the simple atomic model of chemical bonds. Carbon atoms find themselves in quite wondrous roles as components of molecules of great variety. Then there's the matter of how carbon atoms come into being as the result of nuclear mechanisms.

I think we should rest on the matter of essentiality and invariant componentry right here. Nature is more mysterious.

Also, heliocentry and paradigm matters are distractions here. I accept that it is personally important to you. I don't think it advances your case, and it is a distraction from anyone understanding the specific mechanisms you propose. Knowing about Kuhnian concerns about paradigmatic influences does not create an argument for the validity of your position.

I will say no more about that, and I will ignore the repetitiousness.

Dear Mr. Hamilton,

I must respectfully disagree. What do you think, the purpose of scientific disciplines such as Botany or Zoology? They study nature and characteristics of Trees or Animals (by uncovering mysteries of nature, one mystery at a time)

How could we invent useful things such as semiconductor chips, if we have fundamentally flawed knowledge about the electrons and how they behave in the semiconductor material? How could we invent useful things such as fibre optic networks, if we have fundamentally flawed knowledge about the light and how it behaves in glass/fibres? How can we invent cures for infections, if we have fundamentally flawed knowledge about the viruses or/and bacteria?

The essential knowledge for inventing real-components for software achieving real CBD/CBE for software is nature and characteristics uniquely and universally shared by the physical components. We failed to invent real-software components, because our knowledge about the real components is fundamentally flawed.

I am succeeded because in achieving real CBD/CBE for software, I spent many years of for gaining barely sufficient knowledge about the real-software components.

Kindly understand the difference between sufficient knowledge and perfect or complete knowledge.

Mankind’s knowledge about electrons or light is far from perfect and certainly lot more still needs to be discovered, but sufficient to invent great things such as computer chips of fibre optic networks. We don’t need all the knowledge or perfect knowledge for inventing many things.

We know very little about viruses or/and bacteria, which are 100 times mysterious than the man-made components for CBD/CBE. It didn’t prevent us from trying to find cures for infections by learning about viruses or/and bacteria.

Mankind could not invent anything, if we give up research by using silly excuses such as “nature more is mysterious”. Such excuses are very dangerous and harmful. Only purpose such excuse serve is derail and discourage useful investigations.

Such excuses robed me many times my right to question flawed beliefs. The researchers in the 16th century used excuses such as the Nature and the God is mysterious as an excuse to evade looking at the evidence for Heliocentric model.

Many experts ended their arguments using such excuses. I am tired of such excuses over the years. Kindly forgive me, if it sounds harsh, but it is the reality I have been enduring for many years. I intend no disrespect.

Even if we can never gain complete or perfect knowledge about mysterious nature of viruses or bacteria, we certainly gained sufficient knowledge for inventing useful cures, which are having profound effect on mankind’s health and quality of life.

The purpose of scientific research is uncovering hidden mysteries of nature, one mystery at a time (even if there are trillions of such mysteries). Everyone on the planet has inalienable right and freedom to do research, even if he is not worthy of doing research.

It is wrong to use excuses such as “Nature is More Mysterious” is condescending or patronizing way of subtly saying you are not worthy of doing such research. In my view, every drop counts.

Best Regards,

Raju

Please do not put words in my mouth.

I said nature is more mysterious and also more intricate than your simple claim about the number of protons in Carbon. I am not talking about yet-to-be discovered characteristics of the properties of the prevalent elements in the natural world of our experience.

I am concerned that there is oversimplification the intricacy and variation in nature and the way aggregation into structures and materials form in natures as evidence for claiming an invariant condition that explains anything about software components.

I think claiming for support in nature concerning manifestation of abstractions in software requires more support than that. I also suspect it is not necessary to make such an argument.

For me, it is stunning that there seems to be a claim that there is only one true way to have software engineering with components work. My direct experience contradicts that, however anecdotal and subjective that experience happens to be. I take that at least as a warning sign that there is shaky ground here.

I think I am repeating myself now. I had best confine my attention on the mechanisms that you propose and what they are claimed to accomplish strictly as what they are. Until I have any useful insight about that, I shall remain silent.

I wish you well in your endeavors.

Dear Mr. Hamilton,

Thank you for your well wishes. Who said it is simple. I did MS in CS in the USA got 4.0/4.0GPA. One thing I am good at are Mathematics and Physics. I used to get top marks in those subjects, without putting any effort. I had to invest 50% my efforts on English to just get passing marks over 35% in India. I lived in the USA for 15 years and still very poor in English.

Every person has certain god given talents by birth and passion. Even with my natural talent, I had to work 16 years since 2001 full time to find things that are obvious to laymen. I was best software engineer in top Silicon Valley companies getting paid 2 to 3 times more than other engineers having similar experience.

You said: I am concerned that there is oversimplification the intricacy and variation in nature and the way aggregation into structures and materials form in natures as evidence for claiming an invariant condition that explains anything about software components.

Reality often is far more elegant and simple than flawed paradox maintained by using excuses to deny scientific principles.

P.S: Keep in mind geocentric paradox is 10 times more complex than Heliocentric reality. Likewise, real-CBD/CBE is far less complex than existing flawed CBD/CBE paradox. So many excuses and theories for justifying inexplicable epicycles and retrograde motions. Let me assure you real CBD/CBE is at least 1/4th complex than existing CBD/CBE paradox.

Please see FIG-1 and FIG-4 at: http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html Which one is more elegant and simpler? Keep in mind FIG-1 is useless to predict a location in future, while one can make high quality prediction using FIG-4 (i.e. Kepler's laws).

We can’t get even single digit accuracy using FIG-1, while Kepler’s laws achieved 3-digit accuracy in predicting location 2 to 3 year from now.

I have been saying that no one can teach you. I have engineers, who mastered all these intricacies within few weeks. It may look complex master in few hours. Even mastering Object Oriented programming several months. I took 3 classes doing early 1990 to learn C++ and OOP/OOD/OOA.

It is just one’s attitude. It is complex, if one wants to master in a day. It is simple, if one wish to learn in 4 weeks by building component hierarchies. It requires few weeks to absorb many subtle aspects, one aspect at a time.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri