EDIT: I've migrated the question by deleting the same question I asked on mathematics stackexchange.
2 questions: (1) I am confused about the definition of support used in the proof given in the textbook Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach lemma 9.2 by Arora and Barak (2) The usage of the assumption that $\boldsymbol{\mathbf{P}} = \boldsymbol{\mathbf{NP}}$
Lemma 9.2 states that
if $\boldsymbol{\mathbf{P}} = \boldsymbol{\mathbf{NP}}$, then given any polynomial-time computable encryption scheme $(E, D)$ with key length $n$ shorter than the message length $m$ and where $E$ and $D$ are each poly-time computable functions satisfying $D_k(E_k(x)) = x$ for plaintext $x$, we can construct a polynomial-time algorithm $A$ such that for every input length $m$ we can construct a pair of messages $x_0, x_1 \in \{0, 1\}^m$ satisfying that the algorithm $A$ distinguishes any given encryption of either $x_0$ or $x_1$ with probability greater than $\frac{3}{4}$.
(1) In the proof, they write:
Let $S \subseteq \{0, 1\}^*$ denote the support of $E_{U_n}(0^m)$
where $U_n$ is the uniform distribution on $\{0, 1\}^n$ and then they state:
Note that $y \in S$ if and only if $y = E_k(0^m)$; hence if $\boldsymbol{\mathbf{P}} = \boldsymbol{\mathbf{NP}}$ then membership in $S$ can be efficiently verified.
But the definition of a support as I have known is that the support of a function is the smallest closed set of inputs where the function does not vanish. But $y$ is the output of the encryption function so how can it be in defined to be in the support of the function in the definition I'm using? How is the support defined properly in this case?
(2) My second confusion is on the statement
Note that $y \in S$ if and only if $y = E_k(0^m)$; hence if $\boldsymbol{\mathbf{P}} = \boldsymbol{\mathbf{NP}}$ then membership in $S$ can be efficiently verified.
It seems that verification is efficient since in this case given a witness, a key $k$, one can encrypt $0^m$ with key $k$ and compare the output with $y$ and encryption is a poly-time computable function. Where does the assumption $\boldsymbol{\mathbf{P}} = \boldsymbol{\mathbf{NP}}$ come into play?