Tauchain Update: Significant code changes in Github and discussion of progress. By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. September 30, 2018.
Just several hours ago lead developer and founder of the Tauchain project Ohad Asor released his most significant code update yet. This blog post will be to discuss some of those updates and put it into context. In order to make sense of the current codebase : "Tauchain Codebase" I will also discuss a bit about the makeup of the code.
The significant breakthrough - Ohad implements the BDD
First some might be wondering what is BDD? BDD is a data structure called binary decision diagram. This data structure in my opinion is as significant to Tauchain as the "blockchain" data structure was to Bitcoin. For those who do not have a computer science degree I will elaborate on what exactly a data structure is below before discussing what a BDD is and why it is so significant.
Brief discussion on what a data structure is
In programming a data structure is a concept which represents a data organization method. For example blockchain is all about how records are stored as blocks. There are other similar data structures which represent decentralized data management and storage such as for instance the distributed hash table data structure.
A blockchain data structure looks like this for visualization:
By Matthäus Wander [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], from Wikimedia Commons
A hash table looks like this for a visual:
By Jorge Stolfi [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], from Wikimedia Commons
The really good programmers choose the appropriate data structure to meet the requirements of the project. BDD was chosen specifically by Ohad because it provides efficiency boosts in a key area necessary for Tauchain to function as intended. In specific we know Tauchain requires partial fixed point logic in order to have decidability in P-SPACE. We also know Tauchain requires decentralization and efficiency. Efficiency can be understood better in terms of the trade off between time and space. We do not have unlimited time or space so we must sacrifice one in order to get more of the other.
When we look at the code base we know that Ohad can optimize the code either by sacrificing space in which the executable will be bigger (but the code runs faster) or he can choose to sacrifice time in which the code is a smaller executable to save memory but might run slightly slower. This highlights the essential trade off between time and space when optimizing code but of course there is more to it because algorithms within a code base have to make similar trade offs.
Now what exactly is a BDD (binary decision diagram)?
Now that we understand the basics about efficiency and what a data structure is we can make a bit more sense of what a BDD is. In order to understand why BDD as a data structure is so important to Tauchain we have to remember that Tauchain is about logic. We can take the most basic example of Socrates:
A predicate takes an entity or entities in the domain of discourse as input while outputs are either True or False. Consider the two sentences "Socrates is a philosopher" and "Plato is a philosopher". In propositional logic, these sentences are viewed as being unrelated and might be denoted, for example, by variables such as p and q. The predicate "is a philosopher" occurs in both sentences, which have a common structure of "a is a philosopher". The variable a is instantiated as "Socrates" in the first sentence and is instantiated as "Plato" in the second sentence. While first-order logic allows for the use of predicates, such as "is a philosopher" in this example, propositional logic does not.
Based on the rules of first order logic we can have our inputs and receive our outputs. In the most basic example above we an see a bit about how logic works. To elaborate further:
Relationships between predicates can be stated using logical connectives. Consider, for example, the first-order formula "if a is a philosopher, then a is a scholar". This formula is a conditional statement with "a is a philosopher" as its hypothesis and "a is a scholar" as its conclusion. The truth of this formula depends on which object is denoted by a, and on the interpretations of the predicates "is a philosopher" and "is a scholar".
A truth table has one column for each input variable (for example, P and Q), and one final column showing all of the possible results of the logical operation that the table represents (for example, P XOR Q). Each row of the truth table contains one possible configuration of the input variables (for instance, P=true Q=false), and the result of the operation for those values. See the examples below for further clarification. Ludwig Wittgenstein is often credited with inventing the truth table in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, though it appeared at least a year earlier in a paper on propositional logic by Emil Leon Post.
When we are dealing with logic we may find that a truth table helps with visualization.
Now with this knowledge we have the most basic Socrates example:
This can be represented via truth table and is called a syllogism. To solve this we simply apply a kind of reasoning called deductive reasoning. This would indicate that if All men are mortal is true and if Socrates is a man is also true then Socrates is a mortal must be true. If we were to say all men are mortal but Socrates is immortal then Socrates cannot be a man. So if Socrates is a man he must be moral or there is what we call a contradiction. Logic is all about avoiding these sorts of contradictions and in specific binary or boolean logic is to reach a conclusion which always must be one of two possible values.
If I ask you to play a game which we want to guarantee will end with either one of two possible outcomes then we have a good example of a boolean function. 1 or 0, true or false, on or off, a or b.
Some of you may be familiar with data structure we call a DAG (directed acyclic graph). For those of you who understand this concept you can visualize a BDD as being very similar to a propositional DAG.
By David Eppstein [CC0], from Wikimedia Commons
We know from DAGs that it's a finite amount of vertices, edges, etc. We may also be able to visualize topological ordering and if you remember my post on transitive closure you might also remember the visuals on how that can work:
A binary decision diagram can represent a truth table:
By The original uploader was IMeowbot at English Wikipedia. (Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons.) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], via Wikimedia Commons
And from these visuals now it should be abundantly clear how this is critical to the functioning of Tauchain. The BDD data structure allows for efficient model checking as well. To understand we have to consider the boolean satisfiability problem.
This highlights the fact that BDD can be used to create a SAT solver.
A DPLL SAT solver employs a systematic backtracking search procedure to explore the (exponentially sized) space of variable assignments looking for satisfying assignments. The basic search procedure was proposed in two seminal papers in the early 1960s (see references below) and is now commonly referred to as the Davis–Putnam–Logemann–Loveland algorithm ("DPLL" or "DLL"). Theoretically, exponential lower bounds have been proved for the DPLL family of algorithms.
Without getting overwhelmed by technical details the key points are below:
To read the code for yourself and track the progress of Tauchain development take a look at Github:
Bizarre headline, isn't it? Sorry. It just ... coalesced spontaneously as ... a protein folding . Lets try to decompress it. Compression is comprehension . Decompression is experience. Firstly, I'll throw herein three bold statements - big separate mega-topics which I'll soon revisit by furnishing them with or backing them by their due Behest.io  full-fledged articles.:
1. The World is Fiat
I tend to generalize the term of fiat , to not only currency  but to all the Sollen  approach to transactors. In my vocabulary Fiat as an umbrella, general term for all social interaction which requires external enforcement, i.e. all what's not trustless or self-enforcing like morals  or blockchain . The whole system of monetized coercion. Or reciprocal - coercion backed fiat monetization . (Note: monetization of coercion vs coercion of monetization are not related by an OR  operator, but they are typical chicken-and-egg problem  - even the smallest children know that eggs precede chicks!) All what requires trust ...
2. Trust is Force
''You trust 'em only as much as you could make 'em to.''
Coercion or force or violence ... itself, IS currency per se - the primordial, the deeply preceding the emergence of Mankind one, and who manages to rigorize  it quantitatively will get and give us a TOE  unification of ecology and economics, i.e. instantly Nobel prizes! Not sure in which combination of fields. Simultaneously.
3. Money is Mnemonics
E.g. money in all forms is ... accountancy. Or book-keeping. Ledgers. Logs. Databases. Memory. They are even cognates  those - money and memory. Ancient truism.
It comes as necessity from the problem of simultaneity of transactions between autonomous agents, with other words - between automata , or self-thinkers, or those who are black-boxes  to each other. Regardless of whether the economy is mere barter, or it have uplifted one or more of its items to transactor/currency status.
Apparent feature of all accountancy systems is that they possess cardinality  of entries.
Up to now we know single-entry , double-entry  and tripple-entry  book-keeping system.
Not sure if a 'system' where everybody perceives, remembers and acts upon an isolated unshared 'ledger' of records on what's owed, contained only in its head - and runs it the way they could and want ... - counts for zero-entry book-keeping. Pun intended.
Can't wrap my head around negative or fractional numbers of book-keeping entries, nor I know what's the maximum practical and useful number of entries to juggle with. I expect Tau to bring together the, without any shadow of doubt, already available but dispersed across space and time bits and pieces of knowledge on accountancy entries cardinality into a general theory of transaction logging. It is necessary because, you know - an item is money (mnemonic  facility) ... transactor is accelerator , and general theory will give us a tool to know which monetary mechanism design  is the most powerful wealth growth booster.
Satoshi's blockchain is the first and only instance of successful implementation of the triple-entry book-keeping , so far, where credit and debit records and receipt are coined  into one. Self-enforcing log-book is as much (or not more) magical, or deus ex machina  solution then a horseless carriage vs a 'legacy' cart.
The blockchain catered total value is expectedly impressive grower itself. It took only 7-8 years to Bitcoin (and its imitations) to reach ~1% of what took 7-8 THOUSANDS of years to Gold  to get.
BUT, we still live in a predominantly Fiat, double-entry book-keeping world:
Visualize the modern world as a forest of centralized 2-entry ledgers:
From the several hundreds of tree stems - the Central Banks , though the thousands and thousands of commercial banks - fractional reserve franchisees of the Central Banks, down to the individual humans and firms credit-debit records.
A vast centralized fractal of 2-entry ledgers of ledgers. Lined into one by the global meta-ledgers - provided by international institutions like BIS .
Important Note: ... which I must make here - Lots of crap talk we've heard about how Blockchain is against Fiat, how it will replace it, how it frees us from the illths of the ancient regime  . NOTHING like that! The truth is that, for now, we do not have even the slightest idea or hint about how we could decentralize or detrust interpersonal voluntary exchange! Geography and history, e.g. nature and culture are forces to reckon. The propaganda suggestion that fiat money is kinda fake, printed at a wish, valuable only because we all believe in them ... is one of biggest nonsense I've ever heard.
As in any forest, the tree size and power varies. And matters. USD is the Yggdrasil  of the meatspace  of the global fiat mainstream Swartzwald  ! (Just like BTC is in the cyberspace one. It is not occasional at all that both are so perfect systemic benchmark matches.) In the ocean of fiat, USD is a giant landmass, a Pangea which is nearly impossible to go around of. The force of 20 000 golf balls of Plutonium coupled with same number of office dustbins of LiD  . And 1000+ military bases scattered around the world. And comprehensive coverage of the sea routes to guarantee that the global trade goes by the books. And working supremacy of law system as an antidote of internal corruption decay of the system... Shall the USD survive the Blockchaincalypsis? Of course! Taxcoins  are always needed. The runaway crypto-fication of the fiat monetary systems only makes the due payments of geopolitical services more and more unescapable. And more and more precise and fairer. With higher resolution and lower lag.
Backed by force means that the the strongest force is the most trustful. Like all those currencies who belong to the hall of glory of the millennial monumental transactors.: Hellenic drachma  - survived so far as a currency name in the Gulf , Roman solidus , Spanish silver dollar , etc. ... used to be. Mainstreamers - for being backed by the biggest force. (Mentioning the Force, we simply can not go without a Star Wars quote , I'm afraid - the best and most inexorable thesaurus of cliches.)
Lets close now the three side notes of dictionary intro here, and go back to PROCRUSTICS:
First, yes, it is about that antiquity gangsta, the psychopathic dropout of the noble blacksmiths profession - Procrustes .:
''who attacked people by stretching them or cutting off their legs, so as to force them to fit the size of an iron bed.''
Secondly, the etymology turtledoves  who explained to us what Behest is , clarify that:
Don't look exactly like pigeons, do they?
Thirdly, Procrustics by the great philosopher Stanislaw Lem . This is from Wikipedia:
''In 1959 science fiction novel Eden by Stanislaw Lem, Procrustics is the name of a fictitious information-theory based social engineering discipline of molding groups within a society and ultimately a society as a whole to behave as designed by secretive hidden rulers, to create a hideous form of social control in which the very existence of the governing powers is denied and each individual appears to themselves to be free yet are being manipulated and controlled. One example described in the novel is "concentration camps" without any guards which are designed so that the prisoners stay inside apparently on their "free" will.''
Last but not least, it is no surprise that this so much meaning laden word entered the vast fields of mathematics, too - , , , to denote so important concepts. Procrustean transformations:
''Hence, it may change the size, but not the shape of an ... object.''
I think this is enough of explanation to tie it up into:
The Fiat is procrustic because it is ripe to be transcaled!
Fiat is saturated. It can not grow the old ways any more. It is really dearer and dearer to be grown. It reached its internal limits.
Fiat (as global fractal integration of all double-entry accountancy books) is a narrative.
Fiat is procrustic, because being unaffordable thing to cover it all: it omits, it cuts off, it keeps out, excludes, discriminates, sequesters ...
As a narrative it tells a story of wealth, but leaves out so vast unsung, though present, riches.
The global fiat bards memory is too weak to memorize it all and they are not clever enough to distinguish the true from false entries ...
The fiat Yggdrasil Norns  fingers are weak to handle all threads and to manage to interweave them all into the meta-ledger ...
Giant mass of economic data left lying in waste, unused. And that's REALLY bad cause the data about the system state is the fuel for its own self-reinforcing positive feedback loop . Yeah, data as the new oil , but literally.
The estimates are that as much as up to 80% of all economic information stays off the record .
Cf.: Hernando de Soto Polar , who estimated that.:
''The existence of such massive exclusion generates two parallel economies, legal and extra legal. An elite minority enjoys the economic benefits of the law and globalization, while the majority of entrepreneurs are stuck in poverty, where their assets—adding up to more than US$10 trillion worldwide—languish as dead capital in the shadows of the law.''
in his 2000, ''The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else'' 
Cf.: aka Bazaaristan .:
''Across the globe, 1.8 billion people -- a quarter of the world's population -- work off the books each day. They are paid in cash for the goods they sell and the services they provide, and due to their ubiquity, there's a word for these merchants in nearly every language. As Robert Neuwirth reports, in French colonies, they're known as débrouillards -- self-starters, entrepreneurs, all outside the bureaucratic system. They might be vendors selling revolutionary goods in Egypt's Tahrir Square, Nigerians selling mobile phones, or the guy down the street hawking flowers on the corner. Whoever they are, they work in the world's fastest-growing economy: System D. As Neuwirth writes, System D, slang for "l'economie de la débrouillardise," is the crucial blackmarket, providing opportunities where the regulated global economy has failed. Its value is estimated at roughly $10 trillion, meaning, as Neuwirth points out, that, "If System D were an independent nation, united in a single political structure -- call it the the United Street Sellers Republic (USSR) or, perhaps, Bazaaristan -- it would be an economic superpower, the second largest economy in the world." The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) predicts that two-thirds of the world's workers will be employed in System D as soon as 2020.''
Cf.: the world unbanked population phenomenon 
''Two billion people worldwide do not have a bank account or access to a financial institution via a mobile phone, or any other device.''
The ancient worldmap picture up at the bizarre headline, denotes exactly this 'Here Be Dragons' situation of the Blockchain-unboosted yet Fiat finance.
All these examples demonstrate not a conspiracy of a kind, but mere and obvious fiat unscaling symptomatics.
Probably in the old centralized way, for a double-entry book-keeping system in order to check, record and run all facts of relevant economic information, would have to consume more than what the economy makes as a whole! :)
This inevitably crosses with the important topics of the network scaling effects - for merely linking all the dots means automatically n^2 bigger economy . Without to add anything new, but by just noticing and accounting of the existing wealth.
We have probably dozens of TIMES bigger economy than we realize! Tantalus suffering .
On the comparative costs of the accounting systems there are three studies, , ,  which I particularly value, and which put into a neat perspective together with the network scaling effects  are definitely subject of separate near future blog posts of mine.
Now scroll-up back to the ''Important note'' above, please.
Blockchain is not the Fiat killer. It is its Transcaler  !!
And Tauchain being - together with so many other things - the generalization and the generalizer of all possible blockchains in particular and all possible accountancies in general - is the transcaler of the transcalers.
And as effect - the ultimate economy (incl. economy governance ) Accelerator .
The power of ambiguity and of ambiguity minimization in communication. By Dana Edwards on Steemit. June 1, 2018.
Formal communication benefits from ambiguity minimization.
So what exactly do I mean by formal communication? Well when we think of how human beings communicate with machines it is in a formal language. This formal language requires minimized ambiguity for security analysis (how can we analyze code if we cannot effectively interpret it?). The other problem is that the machines require for example that if... then... else and similar conditional statements are well defined and unambiguous.
Is it possible to show that a grammar is unambiguous?
To show a grammar is unambiguous you have to argue that for each string in the language there is only one derivation tree. This is how it would be done theoretically speaking.
In computer science, an ambiguous grammar is a context-free grammar for which there exists a string that can have more than one leftmost derivation or parse tree, while an unambiguous grammar is a context-free grammar for which every valid string has a unique leftmost derivation or parse tree. Many languages admit both ambiguous and unambiguous grammars, while some languages admit only ambiguous grammars.
Specifically we know that deterministic context free grammars must be unambiguous. So we know unambiguous grammars exist. It appears the strategy is ambiguity minimization with regard to formal languages (such as computer programming languages).
For computer programming languages, the reference grammar is often ambiguous, due to issues such as the dangling else problem. If present, these ambiguities are generally resolved by adding precedence rules or other context-sensitive parsing rules, so the overall phrase grammar is unambiguous. The set of all parse trees for an ambiguous sentence is called a parse forest.
The parse forest is an important concept to note. All possible parse trees for an ambiguous sentence is called a "parse forest". This concept is key to understanding the strategy of ambiguity minimization. So we can in practice minimize ambiguity and we know for certain that deterministic context free grammars admit an unambiguous grammar but what does that mean? What are the benefits of unambiguous language in general?
A benefit of ambiguity minimization
Simple English is a form of controlled English designed to minimize ambiguity in English. This is important because by using simple English to codify the rules or write the laws it puts it in a language where there is less of a computational expense (in brain power) to process and interpret the statements.
In one of my older blogposts @omitaylor commented and in one of her future posts she asked about the topic of love. In specific her post was titled: "What Does LOVE Mean To YOU"
Her post highlights the fact that there are different love languages and that we don't all speak the same love language. Ambiguity here is actually not a good thing but the simple fact is when someone speaks about love how do we know they are talking about the same thing? As a result we often seek an agreed upon or formally defined "love concept" where we all agree it's love. This is not trivial to find and as a result a topic like love is not easy to discuss in any serious manner. Unambiguous communication or to be more precise (minimized ambiguity) would allow Alice to discuss with Bob the topic of love in a way where they both know exactly what the other is referring to in terms of behavioral expectations, emotions/feelings, etc.
If Alice agrees to love Bob then Bob has no way to determine what Alice means unless he and she agree on a mutually defined concept of love. This highlights how agreement requires very good communication and how minimizing ambiguity can be beneficial at least in this example.
Ambiguity minimization makes sense when you are following a principle of computational kindness. That is if Alice would like to reduce the computational burden on Bob then she can reduce or minimize the ambiguity of her sentence. This is because in order for Bob to interpret an ambiguous sentence Bob must in essence sort all possible interpretations of that sentence from most likely interpretation to least likely interpretation, and before he can even sort he must first search in order to find all possible or at least plausible interpretations.
This is very computationally expensive for Bob but very cheap for Alice. Alice knows exactly what she means but Bob has no clue what Alice REALLY means.
A benefit of ambiguity
There are other examples where increasing ambiguity could be beneficial, such as perhaps when the communication is less than formal, or to share a stream of consciousness without turning it into a formal communication. Humor for example rides on ambiguity and a good joke may have multiple layers. Art also leverages ambiguity because it's perhaps meant to be interpreted 20 different ways all to produce a certain desired affect.
Ambiguity allows more meaning to be packed into fewer words. This in a sense is a sort of compression scheme. So if a sentence has multiple possible meanings the levels or meanings are still finite. It's a fixed amount of meanings and so theoretically speaking a search can be conducted. In fact this is what a human being does when interpreting natural language where a sentence can have multiple meanings (they do a search for all possible interpretations of that sentence). The problem with this is that it is computationally expensive as a process at least for the human being to try to figure out all possible interpretations of a sentence.
Lawyers when they do their work are working with a specific knowledge base of common legal sentences and common interpretations known in their profession but the rest of us might see a sentence in lawyer-speak and not really know what it means because we will not know the common interpretations. This is a big problem of course because to form agreements between two parties both parties need to have a common understanding (a kind of knowledge symmetric understandability) allowing them both to interpret roughly the same sentence to mean the same thing.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
― Robert A. Heinlein 
No, it is not a vow everybody to be everything. It is a reflection of the fundamental human fungibility . The average human can be taught to take any human role. The exceptions of true organic geniuses (those who are hard to be replaced) and morons (those who are incapable to replace), only confirm this general rule of shear numbers . This is what makes the mankind so scalable .
''Know'' is synonymous with ''can''. Literally. Knowledge = technology. Even etymologically . Knowledge is praxis . Only. There ain't such thing as impractical knowledge. If it is not a skill, it is not knowledge. I mentioned once  that we're all AIs. Ref.: feral children .
We are not what we eat , but we are what we've learnt. You are what you know/can. And you can what you have learnt. Learning is from the taking side. Teaching is on the giving side. Of one and a same process. We do not have a word to denote the modulus  of learning/teaching, it seems. But it will come.
We are taught by the others, the society. We are the cherry ontop of a layer cake of culture onto nature . We are learning by ... living. We acquire skills in plethora of contexts from family, street, school, job, media ... Learning  is not a monopoly of man, countless systems are also learners. Maybe one of the basic definitions of life and intelligence is the ability to learn . Giant topic, yeah. We won't graze into it here now on what is learning, but on how we learn.
Due to our neurological bottlenecks we spontaneously form hierarchies . This hinders our scalabilty  by forcing humanity to be more or less a fractal of 5. We are close to a number of breakthroughs which to mitigate these innate limitations of ours into a number of ways    . But the general case is not subject of this article - herein we focus on HOW we are taught. How we acquire knowledge, and how this knowledge of ours gets recognized and utilized by society. And the hierarchic emergent structuring is of course in full force upon us in teaching as well as into everything social else.
So comes education , such comes exam , knowledge certification , certified skills application , knowledge creation verification , job fitness testing , CVs and employer recommendations ... etc., etc. With all the bugs and the so little features of this 'map is not the territory' , situation.
It is all centralized and hierarchic - exactly as the global fractal of double-entry accountancy ledgers which we call fiat financial system is. In fact it is so interwoven with fiat finance than it is almost inextricable from it . And as much inefficient and imprecise.
In all these years of talking and thinking on Tauchain  - I noticed - and this suspicion of mine incrementally turns into shear conviction - that Tau, the upscaler of humanity, inevitably also is the ultimate teaching machine. If education is facilitating of learning, Tau is the maximizer of learning. By its very construction, it comes out so.
People talk and listen whenever and whatever they want. Tau has unlimited capacity to listen and attend and remember, and answer. Only limited by the hardware capacity allocated. Tau extracts meaning. Purifies the stream, distills it down to the essence. Detects repetitions, contradictions and all other, ubiquitous nowadays conversation bugs. Remembers changes of opinions of the individual user. And points them out. Sounds like the best tool to know oneself. And the others to know you if you let them.
Your Tau account or profile is what you know. You say what you say and also ask. Say statements and questions. Tau pools you together with the others who state the same and, more importantly, who ask the same type of questions. Knowing what you know, and asking about what you don't know but want to know, maps not only your knowledge state but also maps your knowledge dynamics. Records and drives how your knowledge changes. You even have access to what you forget, and can recollect it. True real time knowledge state reporting. For first time in human history.
If consciousness  is - aside from the clinical state of being merely awake - the post-factum integration of senso-motoric experience , the Accountant of mind, the speaker of the narrative which is you, then Tau is your consciousness booster. That is - stronger than thought.
The ultimate teaching, the ultimate fair testing or exam, the ultimate real-time comprehensive diploma, or certificate, super-peer reviewed paper(s) of you as academic carrer.., the ultimate job interview AND the ultimate ... job of being working as yourself and anything useful you create to be instantly scarcifiable and monetizable - your Tau account is! And all the rest of accessible socoety - being your own workforce. And you to them. In the billions. In a move. In real time.
Including control over the pathways of increase of your skills towards the most productive personally for you learning directions, because it aids you to analyze the you-Tau history and to apply knowledge maximizer techniques and to participate profitably into creation of newer better ones. Maximizer of self. And maximizer of society making it to consist of max-selfs. Ever improving. Merger of education with work occupation. Work-as-you-live.
The literal Knowledge Economy, as described by @trafalgar in his article  from few months ago. Where search, creation, reflection, certification, recognition, commercialization, accumulation, modification, improvement ... everything of knowledge - is all in one.
And it is not only Humans and Tau lonely job. I foresee the other Machines to join the party . Yes, I mean machines capable to have interests and to ask and seek answers of palatable questions.
This - the education amplification - to come down the technology way - has been, of course, anticipated by many. Few arbitrary examples:
- A distant rough-sketch hint for the inevitable tuition power of Tau is Neil Stephenson's  ''The Diamond age''  , with the depicted: '' Or, A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer '' , as an interactive networked teaching device.
- or if I'm right about the inevitable conquest of the natural languages territory  - UX  like in the 'Her' (2013) film .
- Thomas Frey  of the futurist DaVinci Institute  in his book ''Epiphany Z''  paid special attention of this.: down the way of micro- and nano-education, an effective merger of the processes of education, diplomas issuing, job application, exam and actual execution of job obligations. Tom does not know about Tau. But I'll tell him.
With a big smile of irony and self-irony of course... these examples. Just to pick from here and there proofs of the giant anticipation of what's to come. And taken with a few big grains of salt. Cause the reality will be immensely more powerful.
Tutor , tuition , my emphasis via using exactly this wording, comes to denote the economic side of learning/teaching. It is about the cost of learning - the association of tuition with fees, about the placement of the acquired skills, about the business organization of those, about the protection of ownership and security of transaction of knowledge ... Let me introduce here a neologism  which to reflect the business side of it:
Scrooge Factor 
- Simply denoting the money-making power of a technology use by a business. The 'money suction power' of a business entity or organization of any kind coming from the application of a technology, if you want. Technology as socialized knowledge. Scaled up over multiple humans. Over a society. Of course the Scrooge Factor can pump in different directions. The Scrooge Factor of the traditional hierarchic education, governance and everything ... is apparently very often negative - hierarchies decapitalize, dissipate, waste. Orders of magnitude more wasteful than any PoW , but on this - some other time.
So aside from all the niceties of the abstractions of the full supply and value chains of a Knowledge economy, lets round up some numbers:
- We know that a true functional semantic search engine alone is worth $10t. Yeah. Tens of Trills. Trillions. As per the assessments of Davos WEF attendees of as far as I remember 2015 or 2016...
- Also, Bill Gates stated back in 2004  that ''If you invent a breakthrough in artificial intelligence, so machines can learn,'' Mr. Gates responded, ''that is worth 10 Microsofts.''
- Tom Frey  also argued  that by 2030 the biggest corporation in the world will be an online school. Given the present day size and growth rate  of, say, Amazon  this 'online school' should be in the range of good deal of trillions of marcap if it is to be bigger than the biggest corporations. But we do not need such indirect analogies over analogies to access the scale. The shear size of the global education industry is the most eloquent indicator . Note that Tom talks about 'corporation' i.e. for clumsy and inefficient hierarchic human collective. Not for a system which does this orders of magnitude more efficiently and powerfully due to being intrinsically P2P, i.e. geodesic . Even the best futurologists can be forgiven for missing to predict Tau. :)
And this mind-boggling hail of trillions, does not even account for the Hanson Engine  factor.
Tau the Tutor ex Machina is just another unintended useful consequence outta the overall design.
It is nearly impossible to track and contemplate exactly what all these 'side-effects' would be and how they will synergetically boost each other.
With my articles I intend to only touch some lines of the immense phase space  of the possibilia, with neither any ambition to think it is possible to cover it all, nor this to represent any form of advice.
Future is incompressible. Compression is comprehension. Comprehensible only by living.
Failure to go to the geodesic way of learning, will turn these beautiful but trilling words into prophecy:
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." H.P.Lovecraft  (1926 ).''
Logo by CapitanArt
Enlaces / Links
Logo by CapitanArt
Archivos / Archives
Suggested readings to better understand the Tau ecosystem, Tau Meta Language, Tau-Chain and Agoras, and collaborate in the development of the project.
Lecturas sugeridas para entender mejor el ecosistema Tau, Tau Meta Lenguaje, Tau-Chain y Agoras, y colaborar en el desarrollo del proyecto.