Pseudo-Proof of Constrained Sudoku is co-np

Question

The definition of CO-NP

A decision problem X is a member of co-NP if and only if its complement X is in the complexity class NP. In other words, co-NP is the class of problems for which there is a polynomial-time algorithm that can verify "no" instances - wikipedia

Sparse-Language

Where all strings have the form 1k, where "1" can be any fixed symbol. For example, the language {1, 111, 1111} is unary, as is the language {1k | k is prime}

For a string s over an alphabet Σ, let shift(s) denote the set of circular shifts of s, and for a set L of strings, let shift(L) denote the set of all circular shifts of strings in L. If L is a cyclic code, then shift(L) ⊆ L; this is a necessary condition for L being a cyclic language.

My algorithm follows a 3x3 shift language allowing valid Sudoku Grids. Valid grids up to 50x50 and seemingly 100x100 so far have been generated.

Wikipedia, Cyclic language, Sparse Language

The language used by this algorithm is a 3x3 circular shift. A cyclic code of permutes allowing valid grid.

Constrained Sudoku Pseudo Proof

What I'm trying to do/Decision Problem

I'm trying to compare two grids. One non-constrained and the other constrained. Both grids are technically valid but within their own "class"

Determine if a valid Sudoku grid is of the conventional class or the constrained class following the shift(L) circular language.

As mentioned in the co-NP definition a decision problem "X" is a member of co-np if and only if its complement X is in the complexity class "NP." As said before, co-np is the class of problems for which a poly verifier can say no instances. The algorithm verifies no instances for grids. If it does not follow the circular language. It says, "not a constrained puzzle." Therefore, Constrained Sudoku is co-np.

Assuming, that the cyclic language is maintained indefinitely.

Cyclic Permutation

let n = input

let k = shift(L)

Pn = (n-k)!

(n-3)! == lim_(n->∞) 3 = 3

In reduced form

(n - 3)! = n->∞-k

Pseudo-Code

if indexes/elements match in grid and follows  shift(L) language:

                                   print "yes"
else:

                                   print "no"

Overall, is this sufficient proof that Constrained Sudoku is co-np?

Constrained Sudoku Algorithm

Answer 1

No, it's not a persuasive proof.

Before you can have a valid proof, you must first precisely state whatever it is you are trying to prove. You haven't done that.

A language (a decision problem) is in co-NP if it satisfies certain requirements. You have not defined a language; you have not defined a decision problem. You use the phrase "Constrained Sudoku" but you have not given a precise definition of what formal language that is intended to refer to.

What you list as a "definition" of co-NP is actually an English-language summary of the definition; it's not a substitute for knowing the precise mathematical definition.

The reasoning in your "proof" is faulty. You write:

I use an algorithm that in essence says "no" when [...]. Therefore, Constrained Sudoku is co-np.

That doesn't follow. Just because you have an algorithm that sometimes says no, doesn't mean that the corresponding problem is in co-NP. There are additional requirements, which you haven't checked.

I'd like to give some general advice. Before trying to tackle this problem, I suggest you spend a bunch of time studying the fundamentals. Set aside Sudoku and your ideas for a few weeks, and find an online course where you can learn complexity theory. That will give you a mathematical framework that, once you've learned it, you can come back and apply to Sudoku. Until you've done that, it is pointless to continue trying to frame questions like this.