Logical error in the documentation for Unconstrained Functions
#4222
Assignees
Comments
|
thanks @KumaCrypto didn't run the code but it seems like there's a typo indeed, thanks for the heads-up! |
AztecBot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 1, 2024
…nition (#4221) Resolves #4222 Currently in order to specify whether we want to use a prover that produces SNARK recursion friendly proofs, we must pass a flag from the tooling infrastructure. This PR moves it be part of the circuit definition itself. The flag now lives on the Builder and is set when we call `create_circuit` in the acir format. The proof produced when this flag is true should be friendly for recursive verification inside of another SNARK. For example, a recursive friendly proof may use Blake3Pedersen for hashing in its transcript, while we still want a prove that uses Keccak for its transcript in order to be able to verify SNARKs on Ethereum. However, a verifier does not need a full circuit description and should be able to verify a proof with just the verification key and the proof. An `is_recursive_circuit` field was thus added to the verification key as well so that we can specify the accurate verifier to use for a given proof without the full circuit description. --------- Signed-off-by: kevaundray <kevtheappdev@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: ledwards2225 <98505400+ledwards2225@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: kevaundray <kevtheappdev@gmail.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Hey,
I noticed that in the documentation for
Unconstrained Functions, there is a logical error, namely in line 43.The block code above deletes
ANDoperator with value0xff, but the text says aboutXOR.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: