mirror of https://github.com/zcash/halo2.git
book: Fix typo
This commit is contained in:
parent
e1a4be5728
commit
45a251537a
|
@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ Reference: [Generic Lookups with PLONK (DRAFT)](/LTPc5f-3S0qNF6MtwD-Tdg?view)
|
|||
|
||||
### Vanishing argument
|
||||
We want to check that the expressions defined by the gate constraints, permutation
|
||||
constraints and loookup constraints evaluate to zero at all elements in the multiplicative
|
||||
constraints and lookup constraints evaluate to zero at all elements in the multiplicative
|
||||
subgroup. To do this, the prover collapses all the expressions into one polynomial
|
||||
$$H(X) = \sum_{i=0}^e y^i E_i(X),$$
|
||||
where $e$ is the number of expressions and $y$ is a random challenge used to keep the
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ polynomial with degree $2^k - 1.$
|
|||
|
||||
| | |
|
||||
| -------- | -------- |
|
||||
| <img src="https://i.imgur.com/vMXKFDV.png" width=1900> | Since $G$ is a commitment, it can be checked in an inner product argument. The verifier circuit witnesses $G$ and brings $G, u_1, \cdots, u_k$ out as public inputs to the proof $\pi.$ The next verifier instance checks $\pi$ using the inner product argument; this includes checking that $G = \text{Commit}(g(X, u_1, \cdots, u_k))$ evaluates at some random point to the expected value for the given challenges $u_1, \cdots, u_k.$ Recall from the [previous section](#Polynomial-commitment-using-inner-product-argument) that this check only requires $\log d$ work. <br><br> At the end of checking $\pi$ and $G,$ the circuit is left with a new $G',$ along with the $u_1', \cdots, u_k'$ challenges sampled for the check. To fully accept $\pi$ as valid, we should perform a linear-time computation of $G' = \langle\mathbf{G}, \mathbf{s}'\rangle$. Once again, we delay this computation by witnessing $G'$ and bringing $G, u_1, \cdots, u_k$ out as public inputs to the proof $\pi.$ <br><br> This goes on from one proof instance to the next, until we are satisfied with the size of our batch of proofs. We finally perform a single linear-time computation, thus deciding the validity of the whole batch. |
|
||||
| <img src="https://i.imgur.com/vMXKFDV.png" width=1900> | Since $G$ is a commitment, it can be checked in an inner product argument. The verifier circuit witnesses $G$ and brings $G, u_1, \cdots, u_k$ out as public inputs to the proof $\pi.$ The next verifier instance checks $\pi$ using the inner product argument; this includes checking that $G = \text{Commit}(g(X, u_1, \cdots, u_k))$ evaluates at some random point to the expected value for the given challenges $u_1, \cdots, u_k.$ Recall from the [previous section](#Polynomial-commitment-using-inner-product-argument) that this check only requires $\log d$ work. <br><br> At the end of checking $\pi$ and $G,$ the circuit is left with a new $G',$ along with the $u_1', \cdots, u_k'$ challenges sampled for the check. To fully accept $\pi$ as valid, we should perform a linear-time computation of $G' = \langle\mathbf{G}, \mathbf{s}'\rangle$. Once again, we delay this computation by witnessing $G'$ and bringing $G', u_1', \cdots, u_k'$ out as public inputs to the proof $\pi'.$ <br><br> This goes on from one proof instance to the next, until we are satisfied with the size of our batch of proofs. We finally perform a single linear-time computation, thus deciding the validity of the whole batch. |
|
||||
|
||||
We recall from the section [Cycles of curves](curves.md#cycles-of-curves) that we can
|
||||
instantiate this protocol over a two-cycle, where a proof produced by one curve is
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue