In the reduction proof below, where OWF exists only if is a PRG. I am not able to understand the highlighted part I am able to understand how G(x) id generated. But then what is the use of variable z. Also if the probability is &gt;1/2 + e then the distinguisher wins! Then how is this still a OWF
This is an example of proof by contradiction. If you have ever seen a proof that the square root of 2 is irrational, that probably used a similar logical argument. Our goal is to prove that $\mathcal A$ does not exist, but we do that by assuming it does exist and then deducing that something goes wrong. The place to pay attention is bullet 4 where we assume $\mathcal A$ exists; mathematicians and computer scientists could make life easier at this point by adding &quot;SPOILER ALERT: It doesn't!&quot;. The next three bullets proceed from this assumption and at the end of bullet 7 the wheels fall off because, as you realised, we have constructed a case where the distinguisher wins and because we know that $G$ is a PRG this cannot happen. We go back to bullet 4 and realise that we must have gone wrong by assuming the existence of $\mathcal A$. We conclude that no such $\mathcal A$ can exist.
The variable $z$ is meant to represent a response to a challenge from the adversary. After that the proof shows how you can distinguish the response if you can lay your hands on $\mathcal A$ (SPOILER ALERT: You can't).