Loved the interactions and flow overall but I'm a bit lost on the zero knowledge proof example. I'm familiar with the concept but I don't follow how the example is one. E.g. "By repeating the process enough times, the probability that you never catch me becomes smaller than, say, getting struck by lightning" doesn't seem to show it's a proof? If I pick a hundred numbers it'll look like I just proved some black box function which happens to be Sin[n] + 0.999999999999 is always positive even though I'd be able to clearly show it negative with the knowledge of the function.
It feels like something that got detached from the things that make it work during simplification. Or it could be that I just have a misunderstanding/oversight in the zero knowledge proof :).
In an unrelated note: I colored the larger graph and it didn't even play along!
It feels like something that got detached from the things that make it work during simplification. Or it could be that I just have a misunderstanding/oversight in the zero knowledge proof :).
In an unrelated note: I colored the larger graph and it didn't even play along!