 Metamath Proof Explorer < Previous   Next > Nearby theorems Mirrors  >  Home  >  MPE Home  >  Th. List  >  1kp2ke3k Structured version   Visualization version   GIF version

Theorem 1kp2ke3k 27433
 Description: Example for df-dec 11532, 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 11532 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
StepHypRef Expression
1 1nn0 11346 . . . 4 1 ∈ ℕ0
2 0nn0 11345 . . . 4 0 ∈ ℕ0
31, 2deccl 11550 . . 3 10 ∈ ℕ0
43, 2deccl 11550 . 2 100 ∈ ℕ0
5 2nn0 11347 . . . 4 2 ∈ ℕ0
65, 2deccl 11550 . . 3 20 ∈ ℕ0
76, 2deccl 11550 . 2 200 ∈ ℕ0
8 eqid 2651 . 2 1000 = 1000
9 eqid 2651 . 2 2000 = 2000
10 eqid 2651 . . 3 100 = 100
11 eqid 2651 . . 3 200 = 200
12 eqid 2651 . . . 4 10 = 10
13 eqid 2651 . . . 4 20 = 20
14 1p2e3 11190 . . . 4 (1 + 2) = 3
15 00id 10249 . . . 4 (0 + 0) = 0
161, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15decadd 11608 . . 3 (10 + 20) = 30
173, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15decadd 11608 . 2 (100 + 200) = 300
184, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15decadd 11608 1 (1000 + 2000) = 3000
 Colors of variables: wff setvar class Syntax hints:   = wceq 1523  (class class class)co 6690  0cc0 9974  1c1 9975   + caddc 9977  2c2 11108  3c3 11109  ;cdc 11531 This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1762  ax-4 1777  ax-5 1879  ax-6 1945  ax-7 1981  ax-8 2032  ax-9 2039  ax-10 2059  ax-11 2074  ax-12 2087  ax-13 2282  ax-ext 2631  ax-sep 4814  ax-nul 4822  ax-pow 4873  ax-pr 4936  ax-un 6991  ax-resscn 10031  ax-1cn 10032  ax-icn 10033  ax-addcl 10034  ax-addrcl 10035  ax-mulcl 10036  ax-mulrcl 10037  ax-mulcom 10038  ax-addass 10039  ax-mulass 10040  ax-distr 10041  ax-i2m1 10042  ax-1ne0 10043  ax-1rid 10044  ax-rnegex 10045  ax-rrecex 10046  ax-cnre 10047  ax-pre-lttri 10048  ax-pre-lttrn 10049  ax-pre-ltadd 10050 This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 197  df-or 384  df-an 385  df-3or 1055  df-3an 1056  df-tru 1526  df-ex 1745  df-nf 1750  df-sb 1938  df-eu 2502  df-mo 2503  df-clab 2638  df-cleq 2644  df-clel 2647  df-nfc 2782  df-ne 2824  df-nel 2927  df-ral 2946  df-rex 2947  df-reu 2948  df-rab 2950  df-v 3233  df-sbc 3469  df-csb 3567  df-dif 3610  df-un 3612  df-in 3614  df-ss 3621  df-pss 3623  df-nul 3949  df-if 4120  df-pw 4193  df-sn 4211  df-pr 4213  df-tp 4215  df-op 4217  df-uni 4469  df-iun 4554  df-br 4686  df-opab 4746  df-mpt 4763  df-tr 4786  df-id 5053  df-eprel 5058  df-po 5064  df-so 5065  df-fr 5102  df-we 5104  df-xp 5149  df-rel 5150  df-cnv 5151  df-co 5152  df-dm 5153  df-rn 5154  df-res 5155  df-ima 5156  df-pred 5718  df-ord 5764  df-on 5765  df-lim 5766  df-suc 5767  df-iota 5889  df-fun 5928  df-fn 5929  df-f 5930  df-f1 5931  df-fo 5932  df-f1o 5933  df-fv 5934  df-ov 6693  df-om 7108  df-wrecs 7452  df-recs 7513  df-rdg 7551  df-er 7787  df-en 7998  df-dom 7999  df-sdom 8000  df-pnf 10114  df-mnf 10115  df-ltxr 10117  df-nn 11059  df-2 11117  df-3 11118  df-4 11119  df-5 11120  df-6 11121  df-7 11122  df-8 11123  df-9 11124  df-n0 11331  df-dec 11532 This theorem is referenced by: (None)
 Copyright terms: Public domain W3C validator