I guess I should be concrete. Suppose the instruction set is 6502. Below, if we start at the first position, A9, the A register would be loaded with the value A0, then there would be relative branch. However, if we start executing at the second, A0, the Y register would be loaded with 10 and then there would be subroutine call. One could imagine modeling the effects with a constraint solver to embed two distinct programs in the same byte sequence. Neither would be encrypted, but one of them wouldn’t be visible without changing the readers reference frame. I don’t think a reverse engineer would spot it just from a disassembly.
A9 A0 10 20 10 From: Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of Jon Zingale <[email protected]> Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Date: Friday, May 29, 2020 at 9:23 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife Marcus, you write: The experience of being out-of-phase with a conversation has the same gist. You summarized much of my experience with Friam. Can you say more about how it is like homomorphic encryption, but in plain sight? There is a sense that homomorphic encryption (relative to the privacy discussion) is in plain sight (public key), so I am guessing you have something different in mind. Jon
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
