Theorem 1kp2ke3k 12936

Description: Example for df-dec 9183, 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 9183 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	⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Proof of Theorem 1kp2ke3k

Step	Hyp	Ref	Expression
1		1nn0 8993	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 8992	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 9196	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 9196	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 8994	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 9196	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 9196	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2139	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2139	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2139	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2139	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2139	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2139	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 8854	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 7903	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 9235	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 9235	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 9235	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1331  (class class class)co 5774  0cc0 7620  1c1 7621   + caddc 7623  2c2 8771  3c3 8772  ;cdc 9182

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 2121  ax-sep 4046  ax-pow 4098  ax-pr 4131  ax-setind 4452  ax-cnex 7711  ax-resscn 7712  ax-1cn 7713  ax-1re 7714  ax-icn 7715  ax-addcl 7716  ax-addrcl 7717  ax-mulcl 7718  ax-addcom 7720  ax-mulcom 7721  ax-addass 7722  ax-mulass 7723  ax-distr 7724  ax-i2m1 7725  ax-1rid 7727  ax-0id 7728  ax-rnegex 7729  ax-cnre 7731

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 2002  df-mo 2003  df-clab 2126  df-cleq 2132  df-clel 2135  df-nfc 2270  df-ne 2309  df-ral 2421  df-rex 2422  df-reu 2423  df-rab 2425  df-v 2688  df-sbc 2910  df-dif 3073  df-un 3075  df-in 3077  df-ss 3084  df-pw 3512  df-sn 3533  df-pr 3534  df-op 3536  df-uni 3737  df-int 3772  df-br 3930  df-opab 3990  df-id 4215  df-xp 4545  df-rel 4546  df-cnv 4547  df-co 4548  df-dm 4549  df-iota 5088  df-fun 5125  df-fv 5131  df-riota 5730  df-ov 5777  df-oprab 5778  df-mpo 5779  df-sub 7935  df-inn 8721  df-2 8779  df-3 8780  df-4 8781  df-5 8782  df-6 8783  df-7 8784  df-8 8785  df-9 8786  df-n0 8978  df-dec 9183

This theorem is referenced by: (None)