Theorem 1kp2ke3k 12925

Description: Example for df-dec 9176, 1000 + 2000 = 3000.

This proof disproves (by counterexample) the assertion of Hao Wang, who stated, "There is a theorem in the primitive notation of set theory that corresponds to the arithmetic theorem 1000 + 2000 = 3000. The formula would be forbiddingly long... even if (one) knows the definitions and is asked to simplify the long formula according to them, chances are he will make errors and arrive at some incorrect result." (Hao Wang, "Theory and practice in mathematics" , In Thomas Tymoczko, editor, New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics, pp 129-152, Birkauser Boston, Inc., Boston, 1986. (QA8.6.N48). The quote itself is on page 140.)

This is noted in Metamath: A Computer Language for Pure Mathematics by Norman Megill (2007) section 1.1.3. Megill then states, "A number of writers have conveyed the impression that the kind of absolute rigor provided by Metamath is an impossible dream, suggesting that a complete, formal verification of a typical theorem would take millions of steps in untold volumes of books... These writers assume, however, that in order to achieve the kind of complete formal verification they desire one must break down a proof into individual primitive steps that make direct reference to the axioms. This is not necessary. There is no reason not to make use of previously proved theorems rather than proving them over and over... A hierarchy of theorems and definitions permits an exponential growth in the formula sizes and primitive proof steps to be described with only a linear growth in the number of symbols used. Of course, this is how ordinary informal mathematics is normally done anyway, but with Metamath it can be done with absolute rigor and precision."

The proof here starts with ( 2 + 1 ) = 3, commutes it, and repeatedly multiplies both sides by ten. This is certainly longer than traditional mathematical proofs, e.g., there are a number of steps explicitly shown here to show that we're allowed to do operations such as multiplication. However, while longer, the proof is clearly a manageable size - even though every step is rigorously derived all the way back to the primitive notions of set theory and logic. And while there's a risk of making errors, the many independent verifiers make it much less likely that an incorrect result will be accepted.

This proof heavily relies on the decimal constructor df-dec 9176 developed by Mario Carneiro in 2015. The underlying Metamath language has an intentionally very small set of primitives; it doesn't even have a built-in construct for numbers. Instead, the digits are defined using these primitives, and the decimal constructor is used to make it easy to express larger numbers as combinations of digits.

(Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 29-Jun-2016.) (Shortened by Mario Carneiro using the arithmetic algorithm in mmj2, 30-Jun-2016.)

Assertion

Ref	Expression
1kp2ke3k	|- (;;; 1 0 0 0 + ;;; 2 0 0 0 ) = ;;; 3 0 0 0

Proof of Theorem 1kp2ke3k

Step	Hyp	Ref	Expression
1		1nn0 8986	. . . 4 |- 1 e. NN0
2		0nn0 8985	. . . 4 |- 0 e. NN0
3	1, 2	deccl 9189	. . 3 |- ; 1 0 e. NN0
4	3, 2	deccl 9189	. 2 |- ;; 1 0 0 e. NN0
5		2nn0 8987	. . . 4 |- 2 e. NN0
6	5, 2	deccl 9189	. . 3 |- ; 2 0 e. NN0
7	6, 2	deccl 9189	. 2 |- ;; 2 0 0 e. NN0
8		eqid 2137	. 2 |- ;;; 1 0 0 0 = ;;; 1 0 0 0
9		eqid 2137	. 2 |- ;;; 2 0 0 0 = ;;; 2 0 0 0
10		eqid 2137	. . 3 |- ;; 1 0 0 = ;; 1 0 0
11		eqid 2137	. . 3 |- ;; 2 0 0 = ;; 2 0 0
12		eqid 2137	. . . 4 |- ; 1 0 = ; 1 0
13		eqid 2137	. . . 4 |- ; 2 0 = ; 2 0
14		1p2e3 8847	. . . 4 |- ( 1 + 2 ) = 3
15		00id 7896	. . . 4 |- ( 0 + 0 ) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 9228	. . 3 |- (; 1 0 + ; 2 0 ) = ; 3 0
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 9228	. 2 |- (;; 1 0 0 + ;; 2 0 0 ) = ;; 3 0 0
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 9228	1 |- (;;; 1 0 0 0 + ;;; 2 0 0 0 ) = ;;; 3 0 0 0

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1331  (class class class)co 5767   0cc0 7613   1c1 7614   + caddc 7616   2c2 8764   3c3 8765  ;cdc 9175

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-ia1 105  ax-ia2 106  ax-ia3 107  ax-in1 603  ax-in2 604  ax-io 698  ax-5 1423  ax-7 1424  ax-gen 1425  ax-ie1 1469  ax-ie2 1470  ax-8 1482  ax-10 1483  ax-11 1484  ax-i12 1485  ax-bndl 1486  ax-4 1487  ax-14 1492  ax-17 1506  ax-i9 1510  ax-ial 1514  ax-i5r 1515  ax-ext 2119  ax-sep 4041  ax-pow 4093  ax-pr 4126  ax-setind 4447  ax-cnex 7704  ax-resscn 7705  ax-1cn 7706  ax-1re 7707  ax-icn 7708  ax-addcl 7709  ax-addrcl 7710  ax-mulcl 7711  ax-addcom 7713  ax-mulcom 7714  ax-addass 7715  ax-mulass 7716  ax-distr 7717  ax-i2m1 7718  ax-1rid 7720  ax-0id 7721  ax-rnegex 7722  ax-cnre 7724

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 116  df-3an 964  df-tru 1334  df-fal 1337  df-nf 1437  df-sb 1736  df-eu 2000  df-mo 2001  df-clab 2124  df-cleq 2130  df-clel 2133  df-nfc 2268  df-ne 2307  df-ral 2419  df-rex 2420  df-reu 2421  df-rab 2423  df-v 2683  df-sbc 2905  df-dif 3068  df-un 3070  df-in 3072  df-ss 3079  df-pw 3507  df-sn 3528  df-pr 3529  df-op 3531  df-uni 3732  df-int 3767  df-br 3925  df-opab 3985  df-id 4210  df-xp 4540  df-rel 4541  df-cnv 4542  df-co 4543  df-dm 4544  df-iota 5083  df-fun 5120  df-fv 5126  df-riota 5723  df-ov 5770  df-oprab 5771  df-mpo 5772  df-sub 7928  df-inn 8714  df-2 8772  df-3 8773  df-4 8774  df-5 8775  df-6 8776  df-7 8777  df-8 8778  df-9 8779  df-n0 8971  df-dec 9176

This theorem is referenced by: (None)