Theorem 1kp2ke3k 10713

Description: Example for df-dec 8559, 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 8559 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 8371	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 8370	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 8572	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 8572	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 8372	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 8572	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 8572	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2082	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2082	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2082	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2082	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2082	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2082	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 8233	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 7316	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 8611	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 8611	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 8611	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1285  (class class class)co 5543  0cc0 7043  1c1 7044   + caddc 7046  2c2 8156  3c3 8157  ;cdc 8558

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-1 5  ax-2 6  ax-mp 7  ax-ia1 104  ax-ia2 105  ax-ia3 106  ax-in1 577  ax-in2 578  ax-io 663  ax-5 1377  ax-7 1378  ax-gen 1379  ax-ie1 1423  ax-ie2 1424  ax-8 1436  ax-10 1437  ax-11 1438  ax-i12 1439  ax-bndl 1440  ax-4 1441  ax-14 1446  ax-17 1460  ax-i9 1464  ax-ial 1468  ax-i5r 1469  ax-ext 2064  ax-sep 3904  ax-pow 3956  ax-pr 3972  ax-setind 4288  ax-cnex 7129  ax-resscn 7130  ax-1cn 7131  ax-1re 7132  ax-icn 7133  ax-addcl 7134  ax-addrcl 7135  ax-mulcl 7136  ax-addcom 7138  ax-mulcom 7139  ax-addass 7140  ax-mulass 7141  ax-distr 7142  ax-i2m1 7143  ax-1rid 7145  ax-0id 7146  ax-rnegex 7147  ax-cnre 7149

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 115  df-3an 922  df-tru 1288  df-fal 1291  df-nf 1391  df-sb 1687  df-eu 1945  df-mo 1946  df-clab 2069  df-cleq 2075  df-clel 2078  df-nfc 2209  df-ne 2247  df-ral 2354  df-rex 2355  df-reu 2356  df-rab 2358  df-v 2604  df-sbc 2817  df-dif 2976  df-un 2978  df-in 2980  df-ss 2987  df-pw 3392  df-sn 3412  df-pr 3413  df-op 3415  df-uni 3610  df-int 3645  df-br 3794  df-opab 3848  df-id 4056  df-xp 4377  df-rel 4378  df-cnv 4379  df-co 4380  df-dm 4381  df-iota 4897  df-fun 4934  df-fv 4940  df-riota 5499  df-ov 5546  df-oprab 5547  df-mpt2 5548  df-sub 7348  df-inn 8107  df-2 8165  df-3 8166  df-4 8167  df-5 8168  df-6 8169  df-7 8170  df-8 8171  df-9 8172  df-n0 8356  df-dec 8559

This theorem is referenced by: (None)