Score:2

Generic name for R1CS vs. AIR

bd flag

In the zero-knowledge cryptography nomenclature, we have multiple representations of arbitrary computation suitable for submission to various proof backends (e.g. Groth16). Two specific examples spring to mind: rank-1 constraint systems (R1CS) and Algebraic Intermediate Representations (AIR).

What are these called?

jmcph4 avatar
bd flag
Best I can seem to come up with is "relation" or "representation" which are accurate but seemingly broad. Source: https://github.com/arkworks-rs/.github/blob/main/profile/README.md
Score:1
in flag

I'd say, R1CS, PLONK and AIR are 3 different arithmetic circuit / constraints systems ("backends").

All of these characterize NP and work using arithmetic over finite prime fields.

Other languages that characterize NP are for example 3-SAT. So it should be possible to define ZK with a 3-SAT backend:

https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/135457/is-there-a-zero-knowledge-proof-for-sat

An interesting side question would be: why are arithmetic circuits seemingly preferred to SAT based ones? One possible answer: using arithmetic circuits allows to use advanced math available, eg compressing polynomials

Also compare to the verifier-based definition of NP:

"Given any instance I of problem Π \Pi and witness W, if there exists a verifier V so that given the ordered pair (I, W) as input, V returns "yes" in polynomial time if the witness proves that the answer is "yes" or "no" in polynomial time otherwise, then Π \Pi is in NP." (wikipedia)

I sit in a Tesla and translated this thread with Ai:

mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.