Submission 4947

[AntonioCerone]

Creating & Using Basic Hard Science: Componentology

Abstract Componentology is a new branch of basic science, which is the right theoretical foundation to successfully conduct applied research in CBSE (Component-Based Software Engineering), software engineering, design, structure, and architecture. The purpose of Componentology is to accumulate comprehensive hard scientific knowledge and insights by systematically studying all aspects of the reality of physical Components, as well as all kinds of useful parts (e.g., nature and essential properties of various kinds of parts/components); the anatomy, structure, design, and construction or architecture of physical CBPs (Component-Based Products); and the methods or mechanisms of real CBE (Component-Based Engineering) of physical products. We are forced to create hard science Componentology since we could not find any evidence that Componentology (or its approximate equivalent pure/basic science about the physical reality of ideal CBPs and ideal Components, which are the essential building blocks to build ideal CBPs) is available. It is not difficult to create Componentology, since there are many pure/hard sciences (e.g., botany, zoology, chemistry, particle physics, genetics, or microbiology) today that have successfully studied the reality of the complex real-world things (including invisible microbes) that are dozens of times more complex. It is impossible to successfully conduct applied research in CBSE by relying on flawed theoretical foundations, and the existing theoretical foundation (i.e., comprising theories, concepts, or descriptions) about so-called components and CBE for CBSE is flawed and pseudoscientific. OpenCERT_2023_paper_4947.pdf

[paddykrishnan]

I will review this paper. Paddy Krishnan

[MayaDim]

I will review this submission. Maya Dimitrova

[asterbini]

I will review this submission. Andrea Sterbini

[Componentologist]

Dear Friends,

I, Raju Chiluvuri (a Componentologist, and founder of a new branch of hard science http://componentology.org/), am the author of this paper. I greatly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing my work.

Please do not hesitate to ask any questions and I am open to make suggested changes that do not affect objectivity and not contradict evidence and data, which I have accumulated since year 2001 (that includes investing 70-man years by my team of software engineers in India).

Kindly keep in mind that, I have been doing research on the two parts that are essential for creating any large software product as an ideal CBP (Component-based Product) by iterating between them, which are

1. Creating and perfecting theoretical foundation and objective insights for conducting applied research for real CBSE http://componentology.org/WhyComponentology.pdf, and
2. Applied research for making inventions essential for creating any software product as a CBP.

It is indisputable that great industrial engineering inventions such as Eli Witney’s interchangeable components, stationary assembly line patented by Olds, and Ford’s moving assembly line, vastly increased productivity, and quality by substantially decreasing the costs of assembling and replacing components.

Hence, one of the main objectives of my research is particularly focused on minimizing or eliminating the cost of replacing each of the components by a new pluggable component, which is often created by redesigning, improving, or refactoring the old component (since 85% of the software engineering is changing existing code).

Best Regards, Raju

[AntonioCerone]

REVIEWERS for this paper:

• Peter T. Breuer
• Taibi Davide
• Maya Dimitrova
• Malinka Ivanova
• Paddy Krishnan
• Alessandra Melonio
• Giuseppe Sansonetti
• Filippo Sciarrone
• Andrea Sterbini

[MayaDim]

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to apologise, but I would like to decline the invitation to review the paper.

I understand that the responsibility is entirely mine, since this was my choice.

However, the topic of the paper is very far from my competence or expertise and I find it very difficult to try and comment on it.

I hope that you will understand my concerns,

Best regards,

Maya

---

Maya Dimitrova Professor, PhD, MSc Institute of Robotics Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Acad. G. Bonchev Str., Bl. 2, POB 79 +359882866270 www.ir.bas.bg https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9975-1255

На пт, 29.09.2023 г. в 7:11 ч. AntonioCerone @.***> написа:

REVIEWERS for this paper:

• Peter T. Breuer
• Taibi Davide
• Maya Dimitrova
• Malinka Ivanova
• Paddy Krishnan
• Alessandra Melonio
• Giuseppe Sansonetti
• Filippo Sciarrone
• Andrea Sterbini

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/opencert/workshop-2023/issues/2#issuecomment-1740280001, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASO57HZUQIDA72XETR672K3X4ZC7FANCNFSM6AAAAAA5FNHTSM . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[Componentologist]

Dear Reviewers/Friends,

I kindly request your attention as I explain why the vast body of knowledge (BoK) accumulated for many years for the new branch of hard science, Componentology, would be invaluable in the creation of "Formal Methods for Software Engineering."

If given the opportunity to present/teach the new branch of Componentology at the conference, I will provide numerous pieces of evidence, observations, and data that are currently unknown (i.e., software community oblivious to them).

I humbly request the reviewers to read the attached PDF to comprehend the bad consequences of disregarding or denying the fundamental scientific principles of the modern scientific method.

I understand that what I am proposing in the paper may be difficult to believe, as even I had a hard time believing it when I serendipitously stumbled on to or created real software components essential for building Component-Based Products (CBPs) in the year 2000.

It took me several years meticulous investigation by creating thousands of real-software components to gain the necessary confidence and deep insights. The modern scientific method provided me with the best tools to rigorously test and validate every aspect necessary for creating software products as CBPs.

I do not expect reviewers to blindly believe me, but I do expect them to adhere to the fundamental principles of the modern scientific method and investigate the evidence and observations in order to uncover the objective reality essential for creating each software product as a CBP (Component-Based Product).

Please forgive my repeated emphasis and insistence on not denying the basic scientific principles of the modern scientific method, as it is impossible to uncover the hidden truths and realities that starkly contrast with the prevailing dominant paradigm.

Best Regards, Raju ScientificPrinciples.pdf

[Componentologist]

Dear Dr. Dimitrova,

I want to express my gratitude for your efforts, and I genuinely respect your decision, even though it is disappointing. The primary objective of the paper is to introduce and educate on a new branch of hard science called Componentology. It is akin to other foundational sciences such as botany, zoology, or chemistry.

Componentology is a novel field of basic and rigorous science created to amass a comprehensive body of knowledge (BoK) for Component-Based Software Engineering (CBSE). It diligently strives to uphold the highest standards of scientific rigor, objectivity, and integrity in order to scientifically investigate all facets of reality. This includes the anatomy, structure, design, and construction of physical Component-Based Products (CBPs), the fundamental properties, mechanisms, and inherent nature of physical components, which serve as essential building blocks for constructing each product as a CBP, as well as the methodologies and mechanisms employed in genuine Component-Based Engineering (CBE).

This serves as a classic example of thinking outside the box: Imagine that, sixty years ago, a few scientists had been assigned the task of creating a basic science Componentology before the emergence of modern programmable computers. In that historical context, establishing Componentology would not have been a daunting challenge.

This scientific knowledge holds great value for conducting applied research for CBSE for making necessary inventions and innovations for designing and constructing large software products as ideal CBPs (Component-Based Products).

The true challenge lies in overcoming prevailing misconceptions and beliefs of the existing dominant paradigm that have accumulated over the past 50 years. The existing dominant paradigm is rooted in the 50-year-old flawed foundational assumptions, which veered research efforts onto an erroneous path: http://real-software-components.com/raju/ModifiedKuhnBlackHolePhase.pdf

Best Regards, Raju

[paddykrishnan]

On reading this paper a few times, I am not sure what is the contribution to open-source software engineering principles or practices. While I can see some ideas being relevant, there is a whole body of work on product lines, off-the-shelf software components, build processes using components from elsewhere (e.g., Maven, Gradle) etc. This paper makes no real use of these ideas. While I agree that the current situation can be improved, I am not sure what the author is actually proposing in the context of open-source based software engineering.

[Componentologist]

Dear Dr. Krishnan,

The purpose of this paper is introducing a new paradigm and branch of Componentology, that is Open Knowledge, which serves as a valuable theoretical foundation for software engineering and formal methods.

The background and objective on the solicitation page, which can be found at https://opencert.github.io/ state: "Open Content, under a form of non-restrictive license, and Open Knowledge, meaning the freedom to use, reuse, and redistribute knowledge without legal, social, or technological restrictions."

The root cause of the infamous software crisis is a flawed theoretical foundation (refer to the left side of table-1 on page-5). Therefore, we would like to address this problem by creating a valid theoretical foundation for software engineering and formal methods.

Componentology is the heliocentric paradigm for software engineering, while the existing knowledge and paradigm (represented by Exhibits B1, B2 & B3) is the geocentric paradigm for software engineering.

Dr. Krishnan, components for CBPs are not reusable – It is a major misconception. Please read example about artificial Kidney in this webpage: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html

Every component created for the artificial Kidney is custom designed to fit perfectly and perform optimally, but can be assembled as in FIG-2. Likewise, every real software component for each CBP in FIG-2 is custom designed to fit perfectly and perform optimally (and not reusable).

For example, most of the components (e.g., engine, or gear-box) for Camry is custom designed to fit perfectly and perform optimally and not reusable in another product line such as Corolla.

But, each component in FIG-2 is created using reusable ingredient parts such as steel, alloys, plastic or metals. Today, software engineering refers to the reusable ingredient parts as components and using them is defined as CBE.

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Reviewers/Scientists,

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein

The existing flawed theoretical foundation (represented by Exhibits B1, B2 & B3) has contributed to the notorious software crisis. I started creating a new, valid scientific paradigm or discipline called Componentology to address this problem.

### Open Knowledge for Componentology

Anyone can contribute new knowledge (e.g., theories) to any scientific discipline, such as Botany, Zoology, Virology, or Chemistry. Similarly, anyone can contribute new knowledge to the emerging scientific discipline of Componentology.

Anyone can test and falsify any theory or method in established scientific disciplines like Botany, Zoology, Virology, or Chemistry. Likewise, anyone can test and falsify any theory or method in the new scientific discipline of Componentology.

“The scientific method is do whatever it takes to not fool yourself into thinking something is true that is not, or into thinking that something is not true that is.” … Neil Degrasse Tyson

Lets work together to create Open Knowledge to find useful truths/reality. Discovering the Truth in Componentology exposes deeply entrenched misconceptions. It is a mistake to build any modern discipline of engineering (including software engineering and formal methods) based on subjective beliefs that are inconsistent with each other and misconceptions, as illustrated in Table-1.

Best Regards, Raju

[paddykrishnan]

I do not deny the need to have a better understanding of how software components can be designed and used. My issue is that the paper does not provide any solution (or any pathway to a solution). It outlines what other fields have done. But it is not clear to me how this applies to software. There are no references in the paper that relate to the process of software development.

[Componentologist]

Dear Dr. Krishnan,

You mentioned, "My issue is that the paper does not provide any solution (or any pathway to a solution). It outlines what other fields have done. But it is not clear to me how this applies to software."

I respectfully disagree with you. Section 2 briefly summarizes Component-Oriented Programming (COP), which we have been practicing and perfecting for nearly two decades. We have created hundreds of ideal Component-Based Products (CBP) using our inventions and innovations. Today, no one else in the world can create large software products as ideal CBPs.

For example, we have developed next-generation GUI technologies capable of building ideal pluggable components essential for constructing software products as ideal CBPs. None of the existing GUI technologies, such as those from Microsoft, Apple, or SUN/Java, can create pluggable components like ours. You can find an example here: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html

Furthermore, none of them can encapsulate a mini-GUI application, such as Air-traffic-control, as a class definition (i.e., a Java class) that can be easily plugged into a software/virtual-system-board with just 2 lines of code, as shown in Listing-1 on the above web page.

As of today, the software/virtual-system-board (refer to SoA in FIG-2 on page-2) has not yet been invented or used by anyone else in the world. There are many such missing pieces that we have created for our COP, representing a logical evolution from Object-Oriented Programming (OOP).

If you disagree, you can challenge my claims by presenting software-system-boards or class definitions that encapsulate mini-GUI applications comprising dozens of interactive GUI components. I made this request to hundreds of software researchers, and none of them can show any counter evidence.

Currently, unsuspecting and impressionable software students are being forcibly indoctrinated into the existing geocentric paradigm of Component-Based Software Engineering (CBSE): http://real-software-components.com/raju/HugeHarmToStudents.pdf

In the 16th century, astronomy students would receive an F-grade for challenging the illusions of the geocentric paradigm. The 16th century researchers are oblivious to the heliocentric reality, which was in stark contrast with geocentric paradigm.

Likewise, today's software students would receive an F-grade for challenging untested and inconsistent myths in Exhibits B1, B2 & B3 or for standing up for the testable and falsifiable reality of Componentology. Today, software community is oblivious to the reality (i.e., Componentology), and the reality is in stark contrast with the existing dogma painted by inconsistent description in Exhibits B1, B2 & B3.

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Dr. Krishnan,

I would like to request permission to expand upon my previous response. The reason I primarily focused on basic science Componentology is because it provides a crucial and valid theoretical foundation for conducting applied research in innovative endeavors such as ideal-CBPs/COP.

It is impossible for even the greatest painters to accurately depict elephants if they are uncertain about what elephants truly are (i.e., are they trees, fish, birds, animals, buildings, fruits, or flowers). Similarly, it is impossible to develop software products as CBPs without a clear understanding of what constitutes an ideal CBP (that is unknown to software world) and the real components (that is unknown to software world) required for CBP development.

As an example of another scientific study I am planning to conduct, please refer to: http://neuronology.org/ChartGPTonNeuronology.pdf (located at http://neuronology.org/). To accurately replicate reality, it is essential to gain an objective understanding of it. Most of my scientific research has been conducted openly and transparently, and I have shared it in web forums such as: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Raju-Chiluvuri-2

Best Regards, Raju

[asterbini]

I have read the paper. It seems to me that the main part of the paper is like a Manifesto proposing to study and create a methodology for designing software/hardware components. The description is definitely too vague for me and does not cover or suggest aspects like: required data definitions, communication protocols, timing issues deriving by the components interactions, interferences between components at a physical level (electromagnetic interferences, mechanical coupling and so on). While I agree that complex systems are hard to analyze, I think that the suggested ideas have been already used in software engineering, in mechanical engineering and in electronic engineering. I am not convinced that some of the examples of non-component are correct. A building, for example, is actually built by a lot of reusable standardized modules with clear interactions. If the only difference with component-based-system would be that they can be disassembled and reassembled I feel that I could transform a CBS into e non-CBS just by gluing the parts, which would seems to me a too simple way to disrupt the proposed methodology. I think I would understand better the real contribution of the paper if, once the Manifesto ideas have been stated briefly, a complete example of a component-based system is presented, together with an analysis of the issues deriving from required and forbidden component interactions, and a description of the design for the required "general purpose" interaction channel between the connected components (at all levels, data, electrical, protocols, failures, concurrency, bottlenecks .....). My 2 cents ....

[Componentologist]

Dear Dr. Sterbini,

I want to express my gratitude for reviewing my paper, which suggests the creation of a new branch of science, Componentology (essential for conducting applied research in CBSE). I appreciate your valuable feedback.

Due to page limitations, the objective is limited to establishing Componentology as a new branch of science, rather than utilizing the new Body of Knowledge (BoK) for applied research in CBSE.

You said: "general purpose" interaction channel between the connected components (at all levels, data, electrical, protocols, failures, concurrency, bottlenecks .....).

The information regarding the topics you mentioned is openly available in my web-sites, and those interested can review them. A top-level overview can be found at: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/Sample_SoA_CASE_tool.html. Even minute details can be explored in my patents: https://patents.justia.com/patent/11275567 & https://patents.justia.com/patent/10949171 . Me and my team made several iterations for years to make them simple.

Subverting a dominant paradigm involves many aspects, each requiring years of research, experimentation, and evidence. I have dedicated many years to this field, focusing on methods and mechanisms, including the creation of a "general-purpose" interaction channel between connected components.

Please appreciate the complexity of challenging the largest dominant paradigm in the history of science and engineering. The magnitude of any dominant paradigm can be measured by the size of the accumulated Body of Knowledge (BoK) and the number of active practitioners of the paradigm: http://real-software-components.com/raju/DominantBelief.pdf .

Dr. Sterbini, one cannot teach the 7th chapter in a science textbook without first establishing first principles in the first chapter, providing examples, evidence (e.g., observations for descriptive knowledge), and theories (e.g., explanatory knowledge) in subsequent chapters, and so on.

The topics you mentioned will be covered in chapters seventh to ninth chapters of a textbook on real CBSE (if it is written). Please understand the role of basic sciences in fields like medical sciences: http://componentology.org/WhyComponentology.pdf

Additionally, given the diversity of component and part types, it is essential to create a taxonomic classification and nomenclature, assigning scientific names to each class of parts/components and providing valid, objective descriptions for each type of component/part, similar to what botany and zoology have done for plants and animals, respectively.

I am hoping to get support for conducting this exercise with the assistance of the research community and have proposed it to NSF.gov and SEI/CMU. While there are various useful component/part types, they are not all crucial for building Component-Based Products (CBPs), which primarily require "ideal pluggable components." One of the objectives of my paper is to generate interest in the research community to contribute to this taxonomic classification and nomenclature effort under Open Knowledge.

I encourage you to explore how civil engineering can transform into a genuine Component-Based Engineering (CBE), where walls, ceilings, and beams become components that can be assembled: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt3oLPnyE_I and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRjGVS1FIwk. You can watch many such fascinating videos of Broad Group, that inspired me. Me and my team spent weeks deeply analyzing such things to gain hidden insights.

Unlike buildings, which are not disposable due to material and transportation costs, software compiled using old components can be considered disposable, as we can compile new product versions by replacing them with new pluggable components. I can write 20 pages paper on this topic alone.

Please find attached ServiceAccess.pdf. The objective is to provide outstanding service access to each of the pluggable components, and there is a lot of room for improvement and for innovations, which require redesigning compilers – It is beyond my capabilities. ServiceAccess .pdf

There are no additional per-component material costs or transportation costs to create each additional copy of the software product. To replace one or more components, all that is required is recompiling the code after substituting new components. It is necessary to consider each concept in the overall context, i.e., the new paradigm based on the objective Body of Knowledge (BoK) of Componentology. Most of the concepts would seem inconsistent or misleading when viewed outside of this context (i.e., in the existing geocentric paradox of software engineering).

There are numerous aspects to consider, and I am unsure where to begin, so I started by establishing the theoretical foundation in the first two chapters. Please grasp the complexity of subverting a dominant paradigm: http://real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology .

Please bear in mind this basic cardinal rule of the scientific method: It is a fatal mistake to use flawed subjective beliefs as core foundational assumptions (i.e., first principles), and it would have dreadful consequences if a large and widely practiced dominant paradigm were created (e.g., evolved through millions of man-hours of investment since 1968 NATO Conference on Software Engineering) without realizing the mistake.

Best Regards, Raju ServiceAccess .pdf

[Componentologist]

Dear Scientists/Reviewers,

I believe that my paper has been successful in achieving its goals, if it can establish the following: Currently, there is no pure scientific discipline equivalent to the proposed Componentology. Just like physical products, software products are created using various kinds of software parts and components, emphasizing the importance of having an objective understanding of these elements in the context of software. Componentology (e.g., taxonomic classification and scientific nomenclature) is indispensable for the successful execution of applied research in software engineering.

Two crucial questions for determining the necessity of creating a new branch of science are: (1) Is it necessary to establish this new branch of science? and (2) Is it currently unavailable (i.e., is it missing or overlooked)? We have initiated the creation of Componentology because the answer to both questions is a resounding 'Yes.' We conducted fundamental research and established Componentology as a new fundamental science, akin to various branches of medical sciences such as Immunology, Componentology, Genetics, or Neuronology, for example at http://componentology.org/WhyComponentology.pdf

The theoretical foundation (in layer#1 of Table 2) for conducting research in every discipline of applied science such as engineering or medical sciences relies on rigorous scientific knowledge and established mathematical methods. In every other engineering discipline, formal methods are also based on solid scientific insights and proven mathematical principles. Therefore, it is a mistake to conduct applied research in software engineering or create formal method by relying on a theoretical foundation (in layer#1 of Table 2) filled with pseudoscientific knowledge, such as misconceptions illustrated in Exhibits B1 and B3.

It is imperative for drivers (holding driver’s licenses) to be knowledgeable about and adhere to the basic traffic rules when driving on the roads, including stopping at red lights and driving on the right or correct side of the road. Similarly, it is mandatory for scientists who volunteer to review scientific papers, such as proposals for paradigm-shifting fundamental discoveries (e.g., new scientific branches like Componentology), to know and adhere to elementary principles of the scientific method (please refer to the three principles in section 5).

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Scientists/Reviewers,

It is generally accepted scientific principles that any academic knowledge that is not testable and falsifiable is untrustworthy and unreliable. Existing knowledge, such as the subjective descriptions in Exhibits B1 & B2 (seen on the left side of Table 1), is not testable or falsifiable. On the other hand, every piece of knowledge accumulated by Componentology is objective, testable and falsifiable. Only testable and falsifiable Body of Knowledge (BoK) can create consistent, complete, and objective descriptions of physical reality and accurate explanations for phenomena.

It is an essential condition that any theoretical knowledge that is used and relied upon for conducting engineering/applied research must be testable and falsifiable. How is it possible for anyone to know whether any given knowledge (e.g., a theory, description, or method) is valid or flawed if the knowledge is forbidden to be testable and falsifiable? Today, it is impossible (i.e., forbidden) to falsify any description in Exhibits B1 & B2, even if you have conclusive evidence to falsify the description. My countless efforts are snubbed, and I was humiliated whenever I tried to present such evidence.

Any theoretical knowledge considered to be scientific or trustworthy and relied upon for conducting engineering or applied research is unscientific and falls under the category of voodoo science if the theoretical knowledge is not testable and falsifiable. The reason I want to build awareness about Componentology is that it is essential to rely on a valid and trustworthy theoretical foundation (in Layer-1 of Table 2) for conducting applied research (in Layer-2 of Table 2).

### I have been imploring the software engineering research community not to deny basic scientific principles.

P.S.: It is vital for scientists to take any counter evidence very seriously, even if it is a false alarm: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FX6VlAsV8qQ. Relativity is the foundation of modern science, and descriptions for CBPs and ideal Components essential for CBPs must be the foundation for software engineering. No flawed theory can ever be exposed, if counter evidence is ignored or suppressed.

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Reviewers/Scientists,

I humbly request a final opportunity to present justification for why Componentology (that is a hard/pure science) is essential for scientific and technological progress in computer science and software engineering. Componentology can be further developed within the framework of 'Open Knowledge' and can be used to gain valuable scientific insights crucial for solving each of the technological challenges in software engineering (e.g., ideal CBPs) and artificial general intelligence.

The theoretical foundation for conducting applied research in software engineering must not be based on subjective beliefs or ideological choices/biases. Describing the structure and anatomy of ideal CBPs, along with defining the nature and essential properties of components essential for ideal CBPs, should be objective and empirical, similar to how determining which planet is at the center or describing the structure of planetary orbits or system (e.g., Kepler's laws) is based on empirical and objective, without reliance on subjective beliefs or ideological factors/prejudice.

The unanimity of biases is not a determinant of truth or objectivity. Just because everyone agreed that the Earth was at the center did not make it true. Until the 16th century, the fact that the Sun was at the center was unknown and viewed as heresy whenever it was mentioned. Isn't this proof that the Heliocentric reality was unknown? In other words, the research community was oblivious to the Heliocentric reality.

Similarly, no one in the software world knows the structure and anatomy of CBPs (Component-Based Products), and it is viewed as heresy whenever I try to describe the structure of ideal CBPs (in FIG-2). This is proof that Componentology is unknown, and the software community is oblivious to the reality of Componentology.

For over a decade, I have been imploring the software research community not to maintain the existing paradox (e.g., illusions in Exhibits B1 & B3 about CBE and components that are essential for CBE) by disregarding proven principles of the scientific method.

One of the objectives of Componentology is to eliminate subjective biases and determine the structure and anatomy of ideal CBPs, as well as define the nature and essential properties of components essential for ideal CBPs based on objective observations and empirical evidence/data.

In case of engineering research for addressing each of the unsolved technological challenges requires acquiring relevant and unique scientific insights and objective knowledge based on empirical evidence. It is impossible to acquire such essential evidence based objective knowledge by disregarding scientific principles or evidence.

Best Regards, Raju

[fsciarrone]

Dear all, Unfortunately, this work is completely outside my field of expertise and therefore, after reading it, I do not feel able to express an opinion that is scientifically correct as I completely lack the background on this subject. So I wish everyone good work.

[AMelonio]

Assuming that the topic is quite far from my research and expertise, I read the paper and all the comments by the authors in replying to the reviewers comments. The paper reports an interesting point of view but I had difficulty on finding a clear research contribution by reading the paper as is.moreover it is not clear how the proposed methodology can be applied in real case studies so as to be “validated”. As a minor comment, the style of the paper (too verbose and dense of information) make the paper hard to read.

[AntonioCerone]

Dear Author,

I would like to thank you for your extensive participation in the discussion of your submission. However, I also would like to emphasise that this discussion should not aim at expanding the content of your submission by integrating a lot of additional information. Your submission is supposed to be self-contained and include all the necessary information for the reviewers, and in general the readers, to understand the importance and the contribution of your work. Of course, you are welcome to answer to the reviewers' criticisms, but only using and further explaining the content of your submission. And in a way that could then be easily incorporated in the final version of the paper. You are not expected to invite the reviewers to read/view additional materials or to use this discussion context to present a large amount of new materials. You have submitted to a workshop and it is natural to have a space limitation in the paper. Contributions that, within the space limit, cannot be self-contained in terms of the message they aim to deliver, in spite of being very important and innovative, may just be unsuitable to be presented in a workshop. Please try to address the criticisms in a constructive way by proposing feasible changes and improvements to your submission. In fact, you are expect to submit, by the approaching deadline, a revision of your papers that fully addresses such criticisms.

Kind Regards,

Antonio Cerone OpenCERT 2023 Program Co-chair

[asterbini]

As already mentioned by others, I agree that the paper should be self-contained and discuss in reasonable detail at least one case study.

[Componentologist]

Dear Scientists/Reviewers,

I respectfully disagree with the comment that the paper is not self-contained. The paper is, indeed, self-contained, and its goal is to explain the vital need for the creation of a pure and rigorous scientific discipline known as Componentology. This discipline is essential for conducting applied research by relying on a hard scientific Body of Knowledge (BoK). To support this claim, I have provided evidence, such as Exhibits B1, B2, and B3, as well as Table 1 on page 5, which demonstrate that the existing Body of Knowledge (BoK) is pseudoscience.

In the 16th century, meaningful progress was impossible without exposing the dominant geocentric paradox/illusion and embracing the heliocentric reality. If the geocentric paradox had not been challenged and not yet overturned, humanity would still be in the Dark Ages. Similarly, in the field of software engineering, making significant progress requires us to expose the existing geocentric paradox/illusion of software engineering and embracing pure/basic scientific reality of Componentology.

Until the discovery of Kepler's three laws, no one in the world knew the correct structure of our planetary system and orbits. Similarly, today, no one else in the world knows the structure and anatomy of ideal CBPs (Component-Based Products). It is a mistake to insist that it is impossible to build software products as CBPs without trying to grasp an objective understanding of the structure and anatomy of physical CBPs. This is comparable to claiming that even talented painters cannot depict elephants, while refusing to comprehend what an elephant is (i.e., whether it's a tree, bird, fruit, flower, animal, or fish). I have observed that even school kids can draw pictures of elephants. Likewise, it is not challenging to build software products as CBPs once the necessary and missing tools, technologies, methods, and mechanisms are developed.

If I could get opportunity to conduct a workshop in support of Componentology, I will teach the structure and anatomy of ideal CBPs (Component-Based Products) using examples to illustrate key aspects of ideal CBPs. Additionally, I will explain the essential nature and characteristics of ideal components for building CBPs, again using examples to illustrate key aspects of these components. Furthermore, I will provide explanations and demonstrations of the technologies, mechanisms, and enabling tools that we have invented for constructing software products as CBPs.

Once the aforementioned knowledge about structure and anatomy of CBPs (Component-Based Products) is comprehended and essential objective insights are acquired by observing real CBPs for software, the responses to the questions raised by reviewers will become self-evident and self-explanatory. Therefore, it would be unjust to assess the paper as lacking self-containment without first grasping the structure and anatomy by observing real CBPs in action.

For instance, consider Service-Oriented Architecture (SoA), a well-known and widely used approach for inter-process communication between multiple executables, which requires no elaborate explanation. In my work, I have merely adapted this concept to facilitate intra-process communication within a single executable, specifically for the interaction between object instances within pluggable components. I assumed that it is self-explanatory, so I did not explain the SoA in the paper, but provided necessary information when asked.

It is unfair to insist that Kepler’s laws are not self-contained/incomplete, since there was no explanatory knowledge, and until Newton’s discoveries (that include universal gravity and three laws of motion) provided explanatory knowledge (that requires teaching calculus). Even the Newton’s universal gravity is not self-contained/incomplete, until Einstein’s general relativity, which requires many advancements in mathematics and instrumentation. I am sure, every such discovery raises few more unanswered questions.

The issue is the denial of scientific principles and the suppression of evidence by the software research community. For example, what is known today about CBE (Component-based Engineering) and the ideal components essential for CBE? How can we determine the trustworthiness of current knowledge, such as the dogma represented by Exhibits B1, B2, & B3, when the Body of Knowledge (BoK) is perceived as self-evident and prohibited from testing and falsification, similar to the myth that "Earth is at the center," which was considered sacred and immune from falsification?

We are living in the 21st century (and not in the dark ages), where the denial of scientific principles and the suppression of evidence, along with the use of pseudoscientific hokum (akin to the geocentric illusions) as the theoretical foundation for conducting applied research in Component-Based Software Engineering (CBSE), should be unacceptable scientific misconduct and breach of scientific integrity.

A valid theoretical foundation, as provided by Componentology, is a crucial prerequisite, just as Copernican discoveries and Kepler's laws were indispensable prerequisites for Newton's groundbreaking discoveries. It was impossible to discover the concept of universal gravity without the foundation laid by Kepler's laws.

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Dr. Antonio Cerone,

I want to express my gratitude for reviewing my paper. I am open to incorporating any elements that reviewers feel are missing, such as a brief explanation for "SoA" in FIG-2, as follows:

For instance, consider Service-Oriented Architecture (SoA), a well-known and widely used approach for inter-process communication between multiple executables, which requires no elaborate explanation. In case of SoA in FIG-2, I merely adapted this concept to facilitate intra-process communication within a single executable, specifically for the interactions and to facilitate communications between object instances for pluggable components.

I assumed that it is self-explanatory, so I did not explain the SoA (in FIG-2) in the paper, but provided necessary information when asked.

You can find an example like Listing-1 at: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html

If it exceeds the page limit, and if it is acceptable, I can remove Exhibit-A3 in Section 3.3.3. I am ready to make the necessary changes to ensure acceptance and the opportunity to provide live demonstrations.

The intention of the workshop is provide demos of real CBPs, since there is no substitute for a live demo, especially when no one else in the world has witnessed a new reality (e.g., a phenomenon), particularly true when this reality is counter intuitive and starkly contrasts with deeply entrenched conventional wisdom, which is akin to geocentric paradox.

Best Regards, Raju

[dataibi]

Dear author,

I read your paper, in my opinion, it provides an interesting proposal for a new research branch. If I understood correctly this research field is presented as a new hard science and it is not specifically oriented to Software Engineering but it is more general and suitable for any component based system. Therefore, even though many examples are provided in the software engineering domain, I thing this contribution should be discussed in a different workshop than OpenCERT closer to the idea presented in this paper. At any rate, I would suggest the following to improve, from my perspective, the structure of the manuscript:

• introduce the general idea of componentology in section 1, focusing on the main idea and presenting the application of the idea in the software engineering domain as use cases
• clearly distinguish between the application of this new science to the general domain and the application to the Software Engineering area. I see a sort of hierarchy in the topic presented. At the top we have the general perspective, then the application at the specific fields (one of this is the SW engineering) and more in detail it could be applied to the elements of the specific field (classes, sw modules, SoA, and so on).
• Research questions should be better defined, they appear more as general question.
• References report also comments that preferably should be included in the text of the paper.

In general, I think the paper would benefit of a new structure, as reported above I think that a hierarchical structure could help in clarifying these concepts. Finally, I really think this contribution it is not fully central to the topics of OpenCERT and it would find a better consideration in another conference or workshop.

[Componentologist]

Dear Dr. Taibi Davide,

I would like to express my gratitude for reviewing my paper. Allow me to respectfully disagree with your conclusions. Componentology serves as a vital theoretical foundation for conducting applied research in "Software Engineering" and formulating "Formal Methods."

Furthermore, the solicitation stated: “ It includes Open Content, under a form of non-restrictive license, and Open Knowledge, that is, the freedom to use, reuse, and redistribute knowledge without legal, social or technological restrictions.”

Kindly read the solicitation at: https://opencert.github.io/, which also stated that: “but still accepting submissions outside these aspects.” , and “Topics include, but are not restricted to”

It is challenging to identify an “Open Knowledge” better suited and more essential than Componentology for conducting applied research in "Software Engineering" and formulating "Formal Methods." Therefore, it is unfounded to claim that my proposal for Componentology is unsuitable for such solicitation.

You said: If I understood correctly this research field is presented as a new hard science and it is not specifically oriented to Software Engineering but it is more general and suitable for any component based system.

You are partly correct. My goal is gaining unbiased objective knowledge and insights, as if a dozen scientists were asked to create Componentology 60 years ago before the advent of digital programable computers. The requirement is to study the objective reality scientifically by strictly adhering to the principles of scientific method.

Assume that three groups are formed to conduct independent basic research, with each group comprising two scientists and two engineers. Each group conducts its research independently, meticulously accumulating observations, data, and evidence (e.g., to scientifically answer a comprehensive list of research questions).

Finally, all the groups collaborate to reconcile any differences based on observations and evidence and collectively write a book on Componentology. If such an approach had been in place, the researchers at the 1968 and 1969 NATO Software Engineering Conferences would never have made flawed assumptions about CBE and Components for CBE. These assumptions led research down the wrong path and ultimately resulted in the crisis as illustrated here: http://real-software-components.com/raju/ModifiedKuhnBlackHolePhase.pdf

The unbiased, clear, and unambiguous knowledge and insights in the above hypothetical book on Componentology are invaluable for "replicating" real CBE and CBPs in software. It becomes impossible to reach unbiased and objective conclusions when one is influenced by the illusions of the existing flawed dominant paradigm rooted in erroneous foundational assumptions.

I have endured this pain and resistance for over the past 12 years, with everyone assuming it is not relevant to them. This situation is reminiscent of scientists conducting research in the geocentric paradigm while insisting that the heliocentric model is not relevant to them.

Software researchers are making all three mistakes predicted by the most cited academic book of all time, as detailed in this link: http://real-software-components.com/raju/Kuhn3Mistakes.pdf. It is unacceptable and breach of scientific integrity to make this kind of mistake in the 21st century.

Regrettably, many computer scientists and software researchers take offense when I draw comparisons between the existing flawed software engineering paradigm and the 16th-century geocentric paradox/illusions. In my humble opinion, software researchers have made a larger mistake compared to the astronomers of the 16th century, who did not have access to the modern scientific methods and the wisdom of dozens of eminent historians and philosophers of science, such as Thomas Kuhn and Popper.

I apologize for my straightforward criticism. If the comparison between contemporary computer scientists and 16th-century researchers appears offensive, it could be considered insulting to the 16th-century researchers, whose research was constrained by religious theology, such as that of the Vatican.

In my humble opinion, the evidence suggests that computer scientists are making a larger mistake than the researchers of the 16th century by denying established scientific principles and suppressing evidence. How can any true scientist tolerate untestable and unfalsifiable dogma (e.g., Exhibits in B1 & B3) as trustworthy knowledge and rely on such knowledge for applied research?

P.S: I am open to altering the structure if a consensus is reached among the reviewers, and they can propose a structure acceptable to them that allows me the opportunity to demonstrate genuine CBPs during the workshop. However, the reviewers should bear in mind that the prevailing dominant paradigm is tainted by flawed dogma based on assumptions made during the 1968 NATO Software Engineering conference. Overcoming this dogma is nearly impossible without witnessing the ideal CBPs in action.

Best Regards, Raju Chiluvuri

[Componentologist]

Dear Scientists/Reviewers,

This paper http://www.es.mdh.se/pdf_publications/4272.pdf analysed 1231 papers published on CBSE (Component-based Software Engineering) during a period of 28 years, where each paper may be addressing a specific aspect of CBSE.

The Introduction section states that: “Component-Based Software Engineering (CBSE) promotes the development of software systems through construction from existing software components, the development of components as reusable entities, and system evolution realization by the customization and replacement of components (Szyperski, 2002). The CBSE idea is not new. It was envisioned more than forty years ago by McIlroy (1968) who provided an idea of commercial component production similar to that found in other engineering fields.”

The foundational assumptions (or first principles) for this paradigm were admittedly made in 1968 & 1969 NATO Software Engineering Conferences (i.e., McIlroy (1968)).

Challenging every aspect of each of those papers can be a daunting task. The best way to comprehend the new reality is by witnessing it firsthand. If given the opportunity, I can demonstrate actual CBPs in action.

P.S: Our perception has been polluted by many such beliefs and misconceptions. Please also see few references in Section-6 on page 14.

In the case of any real science, its paradigm can be falsified by disproving its foundational principles (or first principles). The geocentric paradigm must be incorrect if the core first principle, 'Earth is at the center,' is flawed. The heliocentric model must be the correct path if the statement 'Sun is at the center' is a valid fact.

Componentology is the correct path for research in CBSE, and the assumptions made in the 1968 NATO conference are fundamentally flawed. When wrong path was taken, any discipline ends up in a crisis, and the crisis cannot be fixed without finding and taking the right path.

No one asked for proof of the assumption that 'the Earth is at the center,' and no truth in history has faced more hostile resistance than the reality that 'the Sun is at the center.' Similarly, no one requested proof for the assumptions made in the 1968 and 1969 conferences, but the reality of Componentology has encountered significant resistance.

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Scientists/Reviewers,

Allow me to expand upon the previous message. The customary process involves two distinct steps. The first step entails establishing a robust theoretical foundation rooted in valid first principles, as depicted in Layer 1 of Table 2 on page 10. Subsequently, the second step involves conducting applied research, situated in Layer 2 of Table 2, while relying on the pertinent theoretical knowledge. Attempting to address a technological problem without first acquiring the necessary scientific knowledge is akin to putting the cart before the horse – a strategy that inevitably proves ineffective.

Hence, when confronted with a technological problem, it is imperative to initially identify the relevant theoretical knowledge essential for its resolution and, with an open mind, engage in basic research to fill any knowledge gaps. Successfully addressing a technological problem becomes an insurmountable challenge if the foundational theoretical knowledge in Layer 1 is marred by flawed theories or descriptions. Therefore, it is crucial to eliminate flawed theories and descriptions from the underlying theoretical knowledge in Layer 1. The imperfections present in Layer 1 are often amplified in the inventions created in Layer 2.

Consequently, I strongly urge the scientific community to prioritize their understanding of Componentology (with open mind and objectively free from the prevalent polluted misconceptions about CBE and Components for CBE) before embarking on the endeavor to comprehend ideal CBSE (Component-Based Software Engineering). Much like Thomas Edison's 10,000 failures before discovering the right solution, I too have expended many years and decades to discern the correct path. Regrettably, this brief paper cannot encompass all the unsuccessful approaches I've encountered.

Drawing from my decades of experience, it is evident that seldom do two individuals share identical questions or doubts. Consequently, answers must be customized to align with the context and the unique perceptional biases of each person. As I am intending to participate in the entire conference, provided my workshop proposal is accepted, I am fully prepared to address individual questions both after the workshop and during the conference itself.

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Scientists/Reviewers,

I would like to express my gratitude for reviewing my paper. I have incorporated many of your suggestions in the attached updated version. For example, I added a top-level summary for "SoA" and a small example in “Section 2.1” on Component-Based Products (CBP), which assembles 3 pluggable components.

SEFM2023_ComponentologyFinal.pdf

Dr. Taibi Davide, I am not able to change the structure since it would require substantial rework, which I cannot do in the short time I have. Also, many people prefer to first understand the objectives/vision, so they would like to grasp the structure and anatomy of an ideal CBP. Therefore, whichever structure I choose, there will be a few researchers who prefer the other.

Let me justify my choice: In the case of the first principle thinking used by Elon Musk, he defines the objectives and final product/solution. Then, he endeavors to accumulate theoretical knowledge for each aspect of the problem (e.g., electric-engine, battery, rocket engine, or controls) from the first principles.

Having a goal provides context for the research, which help us work with shared focus. One of my friends, who worked at Apple, also told me that Steve Jobs first defined the grand vision for the product/solution and then compelled his engineers to research and build each of the subsystems, fill gaps, and the final product.

Having a context and goal simplifies the research for each subsystem towards the goal. For example, our research goal for the "software system board" (represented by SoA in FIG-2) has been to eliminate the cost of assembling and replacing each of the components in FIG-2, by automating as many error-prone tasks as possible.

For instance, an intelligent SoA can perform tasks such as automatically detecting incompatible interfaces when a component is replaced by another new component, and generating documentation for interfaces (e.g., caller-interface and listener-interface) and inter-dependencies for each component.

When a gap is found to reach the vision, we can focus research efforts to address each of the gaps, to best possible solution and keep improving it based on use cases or when short comings are found. Where research efforts include both basic research and applied research to fill the gap or missing part.

Musk may never have encountered the problem of having flawed first principles in other hard scientific disciplines. It is unlikely for matured scientific disciplines to have flawed first principles in the theoretical foundation.

"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox." - Galileo

What I have learned is that it is impossible to maintain a paradox without denying scientific principles and suppressing evidence. Hence, I have been imploring the research community not to deny scientific principles. Any flawed foundational assumptions can be quickly detected by adhering to scientific principles, so I resonate with the following quote:

"The scientific method is to do whatever it takes to not fool yourself into thinking something is true that is not, or into thinking that something is not true that is." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

It is generally accepted that any academic knowledge that is not testable and falsifiable is untrustworthy and unreliable. Existing knowledge, such as the subjective descriptions in Exhibits B1 & B2 (seen on the left side of Table 1), is not testable or falsifiable. Most of the observations about physical CBPs and Components for CBPs are inconsistent with descriptions in Exhibits B1 & B2.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John Kennedy

Componentology challenges the deeply entrenched orthodoxies of the existing dominant paradigm, inducing a significant amount of discomfort and pain.

Every piece of knowledge accumulated by Componentology is objective, testable, and falsifiable. We have accumulated hundreds of observations for Componentology, and our theories and descriptions (e.g., Exhibits A1 & A2) are consistent with every know observation and evidence.

Only a testable and falsifiable Body of Knowledge (BoK) can create consistent, complete, and objective descriptions of physical reality and objective explanations for phenomena (that is testable and falsifiable).

P.S: Componentology is a simple science, akin to high school-level science subjects. The cardinal rule is that no piece of knowledge should be inconsistent with any known observation or evidence. Any piece of knowledge, such as a theory, description, concept, or method, can be falsified by the discovery of even a single inconsistent observation or piece of evidence.

Best Regards, Raju

SEFM2023_ComponentologyFinal.pdf

[AntonioCerone]

On behalf of the author, I upload the revised version. SEFM2023_ComponentologyFinal.pdf

Antonio Cerone OpenCERT 2023 Program Co-chair

[Componentologist]

Dear Scientists/Researchers,

Today, I came across this interesting video: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4UU44em2JsA. It is hard for researchers to believe that something no one else has seen.

The foundation for Kepler's laws was laid with a vast amount of data, observations, and evidence accumulated through the investment of 100-man-years at Tycho Brahe's observatory (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uraniborg).

Galileo's conclusion that the Sun is at the center of our solar system was based on evidence and observations gathered over decades using a telescope that was 30 times more powerful, an invention of Galileo's own. No one else could make such observations without access to such a powerful telescope.

Many discoveries are made serendipitously. No one else in the world has seen or heard of pure science Componentology and ideal CBPs for software (see FIG-2 and Section-2).

Even though it may be hard to believe, I have provided more than enough evidence in Exhibits B1, B2 & B3 to illustrate that the existing descriptions are inconsistent with observations (and are thus invalid). Additionally, the scientific descriptions in Exhibits A1 & A2 are consistent with observations and evidence regarding their real-world counterparts.

I have no doubt that learning and expanding Componentology (under Open Knowledge) provides valuable insights and unprecedented objectivity (by shedding light on many areas that are now untestable, unfalsifiable and subjective) for research in software engineering and the formulation of formal methods.

P.S: Galileo’s quotes capture his wisdom and insights gained from his resolute struggle to expose the flawed first principle ‘The Earth is at the center’: http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/Galileo-quotes.html . All quotes are relevant but I feel quotes 2 to 5 are more relevant.

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Reviewers,

I am disappointed for rejecting my submission of paradigm shifting revolutionary discoveries. Rejection of my proposed objective reality of Componentology is akin to the rejection of the heliocentric model until the 17th century, due to the incompetence and ignorance of the scientific principles.

It is imperative for drivers (holding driver’s licenses) to be knowledgeable about and adhere to the basic traffic rules when driving on the roads, including stopping at red lights and driving on the right or correct side of the road. Similarly, it is mandatory for scientists who volunteer to review scientific papers, such as proposals for paradigm-shifting fundamental discoveries (e.g., new scientific branches like Componentology), to know and adhere to elementary principles of the scientific method (please refer to the three principles in section 5).

Reviewers must be ashamed of claiming to be scientists and scientific misconduct, while being ignorant of basic principles of the scientific method and suppressing evidence and observations. Only fake scientists or ignorant fanatics justify violations of elementary scientific principles (e.g., Table 1 on page 7).

I am a naturalized US citizen and in the process of filing lawsuit against NSF.gov, NITRD.gov and ACM.org for indoctrinating unsuspecting and impressionable software students into the geocentric illusion of the software engineering. If you think, my allegation of scientific misconduct, deception, and ignorance is unfair, you can join the case or file a lawsuit.

The foundation for Kepler's laws was laid with a vast amount of data, observations, and evidence accumulated through the investment of 100-man-years at Tycho Brahe's observatory (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uraniborg).

Galileo's conclusion that the Sun is at the center of our solar system was based on evidence and observations gathered over decades using a telescope that was 30 times more powerful, an invention of Galileo's own. No one else could make such observations without access to such a powerful telescope.

The existing theoretical foundation for conducting applied research in software engineering, which was initially established based on flawed beliefs during the 1968-69 NATO Software Engineering Conferences, is comparable to the 16th-century geocentric paradox or illusion. The geocentric paradox, rooted in the 2300-year-old erroneous belief that the Earth is at the center, serves as an apt analogy.

Componentology, on the other hand, represents a rigorous scientific discipline and serves as the heliocentric reality for conducting applied research in software engineering and formulating formal methods. Rejecting my proposal to establish Componentology as a legitimate scientific branch and utilizing it as an objective theoretical foundation is analogous to rejecting the heliocentric reality during the dark ages. This rejection is akin to the actions of pseudoscientists who were ignorant of fundamental scientific principles and engaged in the suppression of valid evidence and observations. Such acts constitute grave instances of scientific misconduct.

Numerous research papers and books on software components and Component-Based Engineering (CBE) continue to perpetuate the flawed assumptions and misconceptions that were formulated during the 1968 and 1969 NATO Software Engineering Conferences. Today, the research community remains oblivious to the objective scientific reality of Componentology. This situation bears a resemblance to the field of astronomy, where virtually every essay prior to the 16th century affirmed the erroneous assumption that 'the Earth is at the center,' an idea formulated 2300 years ago, and researchers in the dark ages were unaware of the heliocentric reality.

Both science and engineering are highly precise and objective endeavours. Therefore, every piece of knowledge, such as descriptions, concepts, or theories, related to ideal CBPs (Component-Based Products) and real components, which are crucial for constructing CBPs, must also be precise and objective. There are no such precise or objective descriptions for each kind of component (see Exhibits B1 & B3) and each kind must be given a unique scientific name.

Even after clearly informing in no uncertain terms, teaching, and promoting voodoo science as real science is violation of consumer product safety act, since software crisis is responsible for thousands of deaths and injuries. If you ever think of what kind of evil researchers are responsible for prosecution of Galileo, please look in the mirror.

In addition to “Open Knowledge” the solicitation invited nine categories of submissions. Research papers: to present original research and the analysis, interpretation and validation of the research findings. Position papers: to present innovative, arguable ideas, opinions or frameworks which are likely to foster discussion at the workshop.

I did not draft the solicitation, which include proposal for “present innovative, arguable ideas, opinions or frameworks which are likely to foster discussion at the workshop.”

You must be ashamed of yourself for violated the terms of the solicitation. Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt.

Sadly, many software or computer scientists feel offended when they are compared with the evil researchers who sabotaged the heliocentric model until the 16th century. In fact, the researchers in the dark ages must be offended by comparing them with 21st century researchers who are sabotaging reality of Componentology and maintaining the existing illusions by denying scientific principles.

P.S: Every one of you causing huge harm to your students by forcibly indoctrinating them into the geocentric paradox of software engineering: http://real-software-components.com/raju/HugeHarmToStudents.pdf, since every student who states facts about CBPs would get Fail-grade as students got fail-grade for defending the fact “the Sun is at the canter”.

This thread is great evidence in my upcoming lawsuit, which establishes many vital facts such as real science Componentology does not exist, and no one in the world knows what an ideal CBP (Component-based Product) is. Where can Copernicus, Kepler, or Leeuwenhoek find references, when each is the first to discover the unknown reality/truth. Reviewers must be ashamed of asking for references. Reviewers must be ashamed of justifying violations of elementary scientific principles.

Only morons or fake scientists justify using the existing voodoo science (that is subjective inconsistent with evidence and observations of reality) over hard science Componentology (that is consistent with evidence and observations) as theoretical foundation for conducting applied research in software engineering and to formulate formal methods.

Best Regards, Raju Chiluvuri Proud Founder of http://componentology.org/

[Componentologist]

Dear Reviewers,

Please answer this simple question. If you were sent back in time to defend Galileo in the inquisition: http://componentology.org/Misc/ReplacingFlawedParadigm.pdf.

Even if you mastered calculus, advancements in mathematics and Newton Discoveries, how can you teach in this kind of paper. How can you teach Calculus, or provide evidence for Kepler’s laws in 15 pages.

I submitted proposal because of the following misrepresentation in the solicitation:

There are nine categories of submissions Research papers: to present original research and the analysis, interpretation and validation of the research findings. Position papers: to present innovative, arguable ideas, opinions or frameworks which are likely to foster discussion at the workshop.

Even in the worst-case scenario, I certainly “present innovative, arguable ideas, opinions or frameworks which are likely to foster discussion at the workshop.”.

Please do not make such misrepresentations and waste valuable time of real scientists. No reviewer said that my proposal is not “innovative, arguable ideas, opinions or frameworks which are likely to foster discussion at the workshop.”.

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Reviewers & Project Chair,

Even simple scientific observations prove that Components for real Component-Based Products are not reusable but must be custom designed: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html.

Please see attachment. The above web-page would prove that the assumptions (made in 1968 NATO Conferences) at the foundation of software engineering were flawed. Scientists must have open mind and must be objective.

Sadly, computer science is in the stranglehold of fake scientists and fanatics, who are ignorant of elementary principles of the scientific method. It never occurs to fake scientists that each of those great scientists (who has spent many decades) may have valid evidence and data to back their claims.

Fake scientists act like the donkey in this video, were no amount of evidence is enough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hl6bBBOmkc, which concludes: The worst waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who doesn't care about truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs and illusions.

P.S: I am leaving for India today evening and might not be able to respond for up to 48 hours.

Best Regards, Raju McIlroy_NATO1968.pdf

[Componentologist]

Dear Reviewers & Essay Chair,

How did you get doctorate in scientific disciplines without knowing the elementary principles listed in Section 5 on Page 14. Is it difficult to adhere to such simple three simple and elementary principles of the scientific method?

I know that my questions anger you and you feel insulted, but you are not qualified to review reseach papers, if you are ignorant of elementary principles of the scientific method in Section 5 on page 14.

Reviewing reseach papers is a noble and vital endeavour, which must be preformed with open mind and objectively, without violating elementary principles of the scientific method.

What kind of scientist feels that it is disrespectful, arrogant, and insulted, when flawed myths are challenged such as ‘the Earth is at the center’, or ‘reusable parts that cannot be assembled are components’, and using such fake components is CBE.

No one asked for proof of the assumption that 'the Earth is at the center,' and no truth in history has faced more hostile resistance than the reality that 'the Sun is at the center.'

Similarly, no one requested proof for the assumptions made in the 1968 and 1969 conferences, but the reality of Componentology has been encountering significant hostile resistance.

Why there is so much resistance to knowing the basic truths and reality, such as what is an ideal CBP (Component-Based Product). Today, no one else in the world can give a valid description for the differences between products that are real CBPs and products that are not Component-based products.

I have been openly imploring software researchers to find the truth for about 15 years without denying scientific principles and suppressing evidence https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Raju-Chiluvuri-2 and http://componentology.org/VoodooScience.pdf

P.S: It is a fatal mistake to use flawed myths as first principles that inevitably leads to a crisis, and it will have devastating consequences, if a large and most widely practised dominant paradigm is created without realising and fixing the root cause http://componentology.org/Misc/FixingAtTheRoot.pdf

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Dr. Antonio Cerone, Dr. Marco Temperini & Reviewers,

This serves as my cease-and-desist notice against the indoctrination of unsuspecting and impressionable software students into the geocentric illusion of software engineering, as well as under the Consumer Product Safety Act.

Is it possible to obtain a driver's license without knowing elementary rules, such as stopping at red lights at intersections and driving on the correct side (e.g., right side of the road in the USA) of the road on a two-way road?

Is it possible to earn a doctorate in any discipline of hard science without a grasp of the elementary principles of the scientific method outlined in Section 5, Page 14? Can we not find scientists or reviewers who possess knowledge of these fundamental scientific principles?

I am astonished that reviewers seem oblivious to the specific requirements outlined in the "Submission" section of the solicitation at https://opencert.github.io/, which states: "There are nine categories of submissions: Research papers: to present original research and the analysis, interpretation, and validation of the research findings. Position papers: to present innovative, arguable ideas, opinions, or frameworks which are likely to foster discussion at the workshop.

Is it not self-evident that only fake scientists defend the use of myths and misconceptions as a theoretical foundation (refer to Layer 1 in Table 2 on Page 12) for conducting applied or engineering research over hard, objective facts and reality?

Is it not considered cheating or scientific misconduct if a scientist with a doctorate in any discipline of applied science or engineering either does not know or justify violating elementary principles of the scientific method (as outlined in the three cardinal rules in Section 5 on Page 14)?

Comparing reviewers to the evil fake scientists who instigated the Vatican in the Dark Ages to prosecute Galileo and Bruno is an insult to the fake scientists of that era.

How long do fake scientists intend to perpetuate the existing geocentric paradox/illusion within software engineering by denying these elementary principles of the scientific method? This defective or flawed paradigm is already responsible for thousands of deaths and injuries.

Should any of you believe my allegations are incorrect, anyone is free to file a court case against me. I am a naturalized US citizen living in India, so you may file your case in either the USA or India.

Upon receipt of a cease-and-desist notice under the Consumer Product Safety Act, providers of defective products/services must conduct an investigation based on the evidence. I am legally obligated to provide any additional evidence or data if requested, provided sufficient time is given in good faith. Both parties must put in good faith honest effort in a transparent and objective manner.

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Dr. Antonio Cerone, Dr. Marco Temperini & Reviewers,

I am shocked at the scientific misconduct and dishonesty of the reviewers. It is mandatory for drivers to know and not violate the traffic rules such as stopping at red lights at intersections and driving on the correct side (e.g., the right side of the road in the USA) of the road on a two-way road.

Likewise, it is mandatory for scientists to know and not violate the elementary principles (see 3 basic principles listed in Section 5 on page 14) of the scientific method.

The software crisis can be solved by gaining a valid scientific understanding of the key differences between physical products that are certainly CBPs (Component-based Products) and products. Knowing the difference exposes the illogical and contradictory illusions of the existing dominant paradigm and helps create scientific methods to create each software product as a CBP.

I have been imploring the community of computer scientists to not maintain the existing paradox/illusion by denying or violating scientific principles, as Galileo did 400 years ago. Today, computer science practicing alternative science and I am being treated as the teacher in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh3Yz3PiXZw

There is an objective and scientific description of the anatomy and structure of physical CBPs. Likewise, every known physical component (that are building blocks for ideal CBPs) universally shares a few unique and essential properties. Knowing these essential properties that are uniquely and universally shared is essential to inventing real software components that are essential building blocks for CBPs.

P.S: I am not asking you to believe me, but asking to gain scientific knowledge about physical CBPs and Components, without denying basic scientific principles.

Any product can be a CBP (Component-Based Product) if and only if the product is built by assembling multiple components, as shown in FIG-2. It is not necessary for even a single component (e.g., in FIG-2) to be reusable or standardized. In the case of software products, almost every pluggable component in FIG-2 is custom-designed to fit perfectly and perform optimally in just one product. In the case of mechanical or aerospace products, most of the components are custom-designed to fit perfectly and perform optimally in just one product model.

Each of the components is created using reusable and standardized ingredient parts (that are shown using various shapes), which are erroneously referred to as components in software. In the case of non-CBP, the product is built by using ingredient parts (that are shown using various shapes) as in FIG-1. In the case of CBP, the product is built by assembling multiple components as in FIG-2, where each component in FIG-2 is built by using ingredient parts (that are shown using various shapes).

Let me give you an analogy: If you weigh both products (i.e., in FIG-1 and FIG2) they may weigh the same, and may use the same quantity of reusable ingredients parts that are acquired from 3rd party vendors such as steel, plastic, metals, alloys, cement, and paint.

“I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think” ― Socrates “You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself.” ― Galileo

Unless reviewers are willing to investigate evidence and information with an open mind, it is impossible to teach new paradigm-shifting realities and breakthroughs. My workshop in the conference would be recorded in history as a pivotal event in computer science if you had given me an opportunity.

It is scientific misconduct to not know or to violate elementary scientific principles. Any scientist having any ethics must surrender his doctorate in scientific discipline if he does not know or justify violating elementary scientific principles.

How is it possible to build a fully working prototype of any new product by assembling reusable components as in FIG-2? For example, where can the Wright Brothers purchase prefabricated components such as propellers and rudders for their first Airplane?

Aren’t the assumptions (e.g., building products by assembling mass-produced components) made in the 1968 NATO Software Engineering Conference illogical and self-contradictory: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html? They can purchase reusable ingredient parts to make custom components such as flops, the engine, propeller blades, wings, and rudders etc.

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Dr. Antonio Cerone, Dr. Marco Temperini & Reviewers,

Galileo's famous and insightful quote that passed the test of time: "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox."

As Galileo did about 400 years ago during the Dark Ages, I have been imploring computer scientists not to perpetuate an illogical paradox comprising inexplicable self-contradictory illusions by rejecting fundamental principles of the scientific method. Regrettably, I have been facing even greater resistance from scientists in the 21st century than Galileo faced from those who espoused pseudoscience during the Dark Ages. SummaryBackground.pdf

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein

It is inevitable that any discipline of science or engineering ends up in a crisis (e.g., as a paradox filled with illogical or inexplicable illusions) if its pre-paradigmatic theoretical foundation is comprised of flawed foundational assumptions as first principles (see attached PDF).

The existing consciousness (or paradigm) has been shaped by flawed knowledge (comprising illogical theories or concepts) that has been accumulated by relying on flawed first principles that are based on illogical and incomplete assumptions made in the 1968 NATO Software Engineering Conference: McILROY1968.pdf

It is impossible to solve the crisis without accumulating and using scientific knowledge and insights to understand objective reality (i.e., Componentology).

It is disposable if people who want to get driver’s licenses to drive cars on the city roads get angry when asked to learn traffic rules and they must not violate the traffic rules. The existing fake scientific foundation for software engineering has been maintained by denying basic scientific principles and suppressing any evidence that can expose flawed beliefs that are used as first principles.

Scientists who are required or volunteered to validate objectively groundbreaking or fundamental scientific discoveries must not feel offended when they are expected to know/learn basic scientific principles and it is deplorable if they suppress scientific evidence or justify violations of the scientific principles.

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Dr. Antonio Cerone, Dr. Marco Temperini & Reviewers,

The greatest tragedy is that computer scientists and researchers have been stubbornly refusing to learn and conform to elementary principles of the scientific method to gain the simple scientific knowledge necessary for understanding (i) the key differences between physical products that are certainly Component-Based Products (CBPs) and physical products that are certainly not Component-Based Products, and (ii) the key differences between physical components that are essential building blocks that can be assembled to build CBPs and other kinds of physical parts that are certainly not components.

The infamous software crisis can be solved by gaining such basic scientific knowledge about physical Component-Based Products (CBPs), and physical components that are essential building blocks of CBPs. This scientific knowledge and objective insights expose the existing illogical, and inexplicable contradictions or illusions about so-called components of software and insidiously CBE (Component-based Engineering) for Software.

What is the key difference between CBE paradigm and non-CBE paradigm?

In the case of non-CBE paradigms such as Civil and Software Engineering, each product (e.g., building, bridge, software applications, or house) is built by using reusable ingredient parts as illustrated in FIG-1, where various shapes represent reusable ingredient parts used to build the product.

In the case of real-CBE paradigms such as Mechanical, Electronic, or Aerospace engineering, each product (e.g., Car, Airplane, or Computer) is built by assembling multiple components as illustrated in FIG-2, where each component is built by using reusable ingredient parts, where various shapes in each component represent reusable ingredient parts used to build the component.

In the case of the CBE paradigm, there is an additional step of breaking the product (e.g., in FIG-1) into multiple components (e.g., FIG-2) and designing, building, and testing each of the components individually. Once all the components are built and tested, the product is built by assembling all the components as in FIG-2. To build the same product, each paradigm may use the same quantity and category of reusable ingredient parts (that are represented by various shapes in FIG-1 & FIG-2).

Therefore, software engineering can be transformed from a very inefficient non-CBE paradigm into a ten-times more efficient CBE paradigm by making necessary inventions such as (i) scientific methodology for breaking each software product into multiple self-contained modules based on a scientific understanding of nature and essential properties uniquely and universally shared by every known ideal physical component (by objectively studying all kinds of large ideal components for physical CBPs), (ii) technologies and tools to create each self-contained module as a pluggable component, and (iii) tools, methods, and mechanisms to automatically assemble all the pluggable components to build the product.

We have invented all the necessary inventions and accumulated overwhelming evidence and proof during the past 23 years. In the case of most groundbreaking discoveries or technological breakthroughs, the scientists, or researchers responsible for them possessed knowledge and concrete evidence for each of their respective achievements.

For instance, researchers such as Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Tesla, Edison, and Einstein painstakingly accumulated for decades a huge 'body or corpus of evidence' to support their claimed breakthroughs. None of them merely expected blind faith from the scientific community; instead, they sought the opportunity to demonstrate the "collection of proof" they had meticulously amassed.

Regrettably, instead of being open to looking at demonstrations of empirical evidence/proof, incompetent and ignorant organizations with racist tendencies, such as NSF.gov, IEEE.org, ACM.org, or Reviewers of Conferences, tend to reject groundbreaking discoveries or technological breakthroughs made particularly by people of color.

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Dr. Antonio Cerone, Dr. Marco Temperini & Reviewers,

Why are you evading my simple question about scientific misconduct and dishonesty?

It is imperative for drivers (holding driver’s licenses) to be knowledgeable about and adhere to the basic traffic rules when driving on the roads, including stopping at red lights and driving on the right or correct side of the road. For example, it is a mistake for a driver to drive his car on the wrong side of the road.

Similarly, it is mandatory for scientists who volunteer to review scientific papers, such as proposals for paradigm-shifting fundamental discoveries (e.g., vital new scientific branches like Componentology), to know and must not justify violating elementary principles of the scientific method (please refer to the three principles in section 5).

Do you disagree with my argument that it is scientific misconduct and deception to not know elementary scientific principles or to justify the blatant violation of elementary scientific principles?

Do you disagree with this well-established cardinal rule: In the case of conducting applied research (see layer 2 in Table 2) for any discipline (e.g., medical or engineering) applied science, its theoretical foundation or basic science in layer 1 must not be mythology (e.g., accumulated by relying on flawed first principles and/or by blatantly violating scientific principles)?

The existing theoretical foundation (or basic science) in layer 1 for conducting applied research in software engineering is created by using flawed assumptions (made in the 1968 NATO Conference) as first principles and accumulated by blatantly violating elementary principles of the scientific method.

For example, today no one in the software world can provide accurate and objective descriptions of the key differences between products that are most certainly CBPs (Component-Based Products) and products that are indisputably not Component-Based Products.

It is scientific misconduct and dishonesty if reviewers refuse to know the Truth that can expose the existing flawed dominant paradigm, which is the root cause and responsible for the infamous software crisis.

Even great painters cannot draw pictures of elephants if they do not know what elephants are (i.e., are they trees, fish, birds, animals, buildings, fruits, or flowers). Likewise, it is impossible to create each software product as a CBP, if the software community stubbornly refuses to know what an ideal CBP (See Section 2) is.

Research in basic science and engineering must be a highly precise and objective endeavor. Therefore, every piece of knowledge, such as descriptions, concepts, or theories, related to ideal CBPs and real components, which are crucial for constructing CBPs, must also be precise and objective.

There are no such precise or objective descriptions for each kind of component (see Exhibits B1 & B3). When there are multiple kinds of parts or components, science requires providing a precise objective description and assigning a unique scientific name to each kind of part or component.

The software community must first investigate evidence and acknowledge that the assumptions, that were made during the 1968 NATO Software Engineering Conference and have been used ever since as first principles to accumulate BoK (Body of Knowledge) in the theoretical foundation in Layer 1, are fundamentally flawed.

See this PDF: McIlroy_NATO1968.pdf

In the Dark Ages, the research community persecuted anyone who challenged their geocentric dogma by questioning the flawed belief “the Earth is at the center”. It is deplorable that today you are doing the same for questioning the existing dogma by questioning the illogical and inexplicable self-contradictory assumption made during the 1968 NATO Conference.

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Dr. Antonio Cerone, Dr. Marco Temperini & Reviewers,

Do you think that it is difficult to prove this in any court: The entire system of city traffic certainly collapses into chaos if individuals who are unaware of traffic rules are permitted to drive on city roads, flouting basic regulations like running red lights at major intersections and driving on the wrong side of the city roads.

Likewise, the research ecosystem within any scientific discipline would collapse into chaos (e.g., crisis as happened in the case of computer science) if scientists lacked knowledge of the fundamental principles of the scientific method and were allowed to blatantly disregard well-established scientific principles (see 3 basic principles in Section-5 on page 14).

I challenge the reviewers to falsify this assertion: It is impossible to find evidence that the researchers of computer science acquired any existing knowledge (see Exhibits B1, B2 & B3) such as descriptions, theories, mechanisms, or concepts for CBPs (Component-Based Products), mechanisms for CBE (Component-Based Engineering), and Components that are essential building blocks for CBPs, without violating well-established scientific principles.

Only ignorant and incompetent researchers can maintain any large and most widely practiced scientific paradox or illusion such as the 16th-century geocentric paradox/illusion (i.e., flawed dominant paradigm) and the existing flawed software engineering paradigm. SummaryBackground.pdf

"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox." … Galileo

It is impossible to maintain any scientific paradox or illusion (including computer science as fake science) without being ignorant of the elementary scientific principles of the scientific method and without justifying the blatant violations of the elementary scientific principles.

In today's world, even the most basic professions, typically occupied by high school dropouts such as electricians, plumbers, drivers, child caregivers, barbers, or nursing assistants, require getting a license. Yet, there is no requirement for a license, and any ignorant can claim to be a scientist and adjudicate genuine scientific discoveries.

For instance, anyone can claim to be a scientist, who is woefully ignorant of basic scientific principles and who unashamedly supports blatant violations of established scientific principles can obtain a doctorate in a scientific discipline and proceed to review and reject papers that propose genuine engineering breakthroughs based on groundbreaking scientific discoveries.

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Dr. Antonio Cerone, Dr. Marco Temperini & Reviewers,

I am in the process of filing a lawsuit against taxpayer-funded organizations NSF.gov, and SPSQ of NITRD.gov for scientific misconduct and dishonesty, which includes ignorance of elementary principles of the scientific method and justifying blatant violations of the scientific method.

The attached PDF summarizes the background for the Lawsuit: SummaryBackground.pdf

Evidence shows that NSF.gov violated the doctrine of equitable estoppel: NSF/SBIR has been soliciting proposals for significant engineering breakthroughs those that are based on “groundbreaking scientific discoveries”, “discoveries in fundamental science and engineering”, or “transformative or paradigm-shifting discoveries”.

It is criminal misconduct and fraud if scientists who solicited proposals for and have volunteered to review and validate transformative scientific discoveries if the scientists are ignorant of proven well-established principles of the scientific method or justify violations of the well-established scientific principles, which have been perfected for centuries by great scientific minds.

To the best of my knowledge, the general rule for almost every such discovery in the past, almost every researcher who made such a discovery accumulated a huge corpus of evidence, and data, or created new methods by investing many years or even decades in research. For example, Newton, Galileo, Einstein, and Max Plank invested many years in research to accumulate body of evidence and created new methods of mathematics.

I am not aware of any such discoveries that are exceptions to the above general rule, particularly in the case of transformative discoveries that ushered in a paradigm shift. Reviewers of transformative discoveries must be subject matter experts and qualified to understand and validate the corpus of evidence, and data or methods without violating the scientific principles to determine the truth objectively with open mind.

It is impossible for criminal/junk scientists (who are ignorant or deny scientific principles) to review and validate the corpus of evidence of any such transformative discoveries. It is misconduct and deception for NSF.gov to validate and reject such proposals by employing fake/junk scientists who are ignorant of or deny proven scientific principles.

This argument must be seen in the context of the Consumer Product Safety Act (to prevent unjust and preventable deaths due to defective product - software crises and spaghetti code), and the indoctrination of impressionable and unsuspecting software students into the existing fake science (that ruins their careers).

Rejection of my submission proves that any student who defends the scientific reality of hard science Componentology such as about CBPs and the Components necessary for CBPs would get a failing grade. Isn’t this forcible indoctrination into fake science?

Also, must be seen in the context of national economic security since federal agencies such as NITRD.gov, NSF.gov, ATP/NIST.gov, and DoD-funded SEI/CMU.edu wasted tens of billions of dollars since 1992 to find a solution for the infamous software crisis, without realizing the root cause: Illegally sustaining the prevalent paradox/illusion by denying or violating scientific principles (by fake/junk scientists who are ignorant of scientific principles).

I cannot let brainless zombie/fake scientists at NSF.gov sustain the prevalent paradox/illusions (that are being used as the theoretical foundation for conducting applied research in CBSE) by being ignorant of the scientific principles and by justifying blatant violations of the scientific principles.

I cannot let the preventable defect or deadly spaghetti code kill many more innocent people and indoctrinate unsuspecting software students into the geocentric paradox of software engineering, which turns them into zombies.

Best Regards, Raju SummaryBackground.pdf

[Componentologist]

Dear Dr. Antonio Cerone, Dr. Marco Temperini & Reviewers,

It is most deplorable that scientists of computer science have been suppressing my question about ambiguous, irrational, and subjective descriptions for components: https://wiki.c2.com/?ComponentDefinition & http://real-software-components.com/raju/WhatIsComponent2.pdf.

Only God has more mysterious descriptions and theories than components and CBPs as if no one alive has seen components and CBPs (Component-based Products).

1. I know science and such ambiguous, irrational, and subjective descriptions cannot be scientific knowledge.
2. I know engineering and such ambiguous, irrational, and subjective descriptions are useless or even harmful for engineering.
3. I know mathematics and such ambiguous, irrational, and subjective descriptions do not even remotely reusable any kind of mathematical knowledge.

I am not able to figure out what those descriptions are describing. If there are any scientists, can any computer scientist tell me what kind of academic descriptions they are and what they are describing? I found no components or reality in our planet that matched the descriptions. Are they describing objectively anything from our planet?

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." --- Bertrand Russell

"The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people." .... Martin Luther King, Jr.

Computer science is in the stranglehold of fake/junk scientists, while good scientists choose to be silent spectators of fraud and deception in promoting fake science as a scientific discipline.

Science, engineering, and particularly mathematics are objective and precise endeavors, leaving no room for uncertainty, ambiguity, or subjectivity. Knowledge in any discipline within science, engineering, or mathematics—comprising descriptions, concepts, methods, and theories—must be objective and precise. Mathematics embodies precision, perfection, certainty, and objectivity, opposing uncertainty, ambiguity, imperfection, irrationality, and subjectivity.

The existing knowledge forming the theoretical foundation for conducting applied research in software engineering, encompassing descriptions, concepts, methods, and theories for components and CBE (Component-Based Engineering), often epitomizes subjectivity, uncertainty, and ambiguity.

This subjective, irrational, and ambiguous knowledge is sometimes misrepresented as a branch of mathematics, despite evidence that the descriptions and concepts are subjective, ambiguous, and unscientific by blatantly violating scientific principles.

Best Regards, Raju

[Componentologist]

Dear Dr. Antonio Cerone, Dr. Marco Temperini & Reviewers,

Let me make one last appeal and message, assuming that one day scientists, who possess basic common sense and understand the purpose of science and mathematics (as well as the key differences between them), will read this thread. It is crucial for genuine scientists to understand the distinct roles of the tools and methods in science and mathematics to acquire valid knowledge that can be objectively tested and is falsifiable. Scientific knowledge is divided into two kinds, which are (i) descriptive knowledge (e.g., based on observations and empiricism), and (ii) explanatory knowledge that includes scientific rationale.

The purpose and function of mathematics are limited to providing explanatory knowledge, which includes scientific rationale and logic. Furthermore, mathematics is certainly not useful for providing descriptive knowledge. It is impossible to find any evidence that any hard science (e.g., main sciences such as Botany, Zoology, Chemistry, and Physics, as well as their sub-sciences) has ever used mathematics for descriptive knowledge.

Mathematicians should be ashamed of their inability to understand the function and limitations of mathematics. It is deplorable that fake or junk scientists in computer science have been fiercely justifying the classification of descriptive knowledge as mathematical knowledge.

Kindly let me define “BoK for CBSE” (i.e., descriptive knowledge): This descriptive knowledge encompasses descriptions, mechanisms, theories, and concepts about anatomy, structures of CBPs, mechanisms essential for CBE to build products as CBPs, and the essential properties, traits, attributes, or features of the components that are fundamental building blocks to create CBPs.

The BoK for CBSE certainly falls outside the realm and competence of tools and methods of mathematics. The BoK for CBSE certainly falls well within the realm and competence of tools and methods of science (i.e., the scientific method).

Computer scientists erroneously concluded that descriptive knowledge is mathematical knowledge. They accumulated this descriptive knowledge, which created a flawed paradigm and illusions, by blatantly violating scientific principles. These flawed paradoxes and illusions are being sustained by denying specific principles.

The tools, processes, and methods of Mathematics are useless for gaining, testing, and validating (or falsification) “descriptive knowledge” (i.e., BoK for CBSE). The tools, processes, and methods of science (i.e., referred to as the Scientific Method) have been perfected for centuries to seek out the truth for gaining, testing, and validating (or falsification) “descriptive knowledge” (i.e., BoK for CBSE).

It is nearly impossible to open new possibilities, perspectives, or perceptions of a valid paradigm until scientists are willing to look beyond the paradox/illusions of the existing flawed dominant paradigm, which was rooted in 54-year-old flawed foundational assumptions.

Best Regards, Raju