I have showed a new Chinese etymology with five premises.

1. Premise one --- All (each and every) Chinese words (characters) are composed of from a set of word roots.

2. Premise two --- The meaning of all Chinese words can be read out from their faces.

3. Premise three --- The pronunciation of all Chinese words can be read out from their faces.

4. Premise four --- an etymology memory algebra, with only 220 root words (R), it generates 300 commonly used compound roots (also as sound modules, M). Thus, R + M = 220 + 300 = 520. With these 520, all 60,000 Chinese written words are generated. That is,

etymology memory algebra is R + M = R x M

5. Premise five --- with the premise four, the Chinese character system can be mastered in 90 days for anyone who knows not a single Chinese character at the beginning.

The premise 4 is the direct consequence of the first three premises. As long as the first three premises are valid, the premise 4 will be valid.

The premise 5 can be physically tested, and some actual case study data were provided and were reviewed by the world.

The first three premises were deductively proved with existential introduction, existential generalization and a process of universal proof. The process of the universal proof is now in progress by inviting the world to select 10 randomly chosen words. Thus, before a negative case is verified, the claim of the universal proof should be honored.

If anyone cannot accept the above argument on the deduction proof with a progressive process, he must accept the “induction” proof which is a bit weaker than the deduction proof. The induction proof consists of the following steps.

a. Existential introduction (it is true for, at least, one case), the same as the deduction proof.

b. Existential generalization (it is true for “n” cases, n > 1), more precise than the deduction proof.

c. Inductively proved if n + 1 (the next coming up case, not an arbitrary selected) is true.

The difference between the deduction and the induction proofs are very clear. For induction, any one additional case after the accepted existential generalization will be sufficient as a proof. For deduction, that additional case after the existential generalization must be randomly selected. Thus, the induction proof is a bit weaker than the deduction proof.

With these understandings, I can now openly claim that this new etymology is inductively proved while waiting for the world to complete the deduction proof.

Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong