Theorem 1kp2ke3k 28219

Description: Example for df-dec 12093, 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 12093 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 11907	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 11906	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12107	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12107	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 11908	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12107	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12107	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2821	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2821	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2821	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2821	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2821	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2821	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 11774	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 10809	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12146	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12146	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12146	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1533  (class class class)co 7150  0cc0 10531  1c1 10532   + caddc 10534  2c2 11686  3c3 11687  ;cdc 12092

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1792  ax-4 1806  ax-5 1907  ax-6 1966  ax-7 2011  ax-8 2112  ax-9 2120  ax-10 2141  ax-11 2156  ax-12 2172  ax-ext 2793  ax-sep 5196  ax-nul 5203  ax-pow 5259  ax-pr 5322  ax-un 7455  ax-resscn 10588  ax-1cn 10589  ax-icn 10590  ax-addcl 10591  ax-addrcl 10592  ax-mulcl 10593  ax-mulrcl 10594  ax-mulcom 10595  ax-addass 10596  ax-mulass 10597  ax-distr 10598  ax-i2m1 10599  ax-1ne0 10600  ax-1rid 10601  ax-rnegex 10602  ax-rrecex 10603  ax-cnre 10604  ax-pre-lttri 10605  ax-pre-lttrn 10606  ax-pre-ltadd 10607

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 209  df-an 399  df-or 844  df-3or 1084  df-3an 1085  df-tru 1536  df-ex 1777  df-nf 1781  df-sb 2066  df-mo 2618  df-eu 2650  df-clab 2800  df-cleq 2814  df-clel 2893  df-nfc 2963  df-ne 3017  df-nel 3124  df-ral 3143  df-rex 3144  df-reu 3145  df-rab 3147  df-v 3497  df-sbc 3773  df-csb 3884  df-dif 3939  df-un 3941  df-in 3943  df-ss 3952  df-pss 3954  df-nul 4292  df-if 4468  df-pw 4541  df-sn 4562  df-pr 4564  df-tp 4566  df-op 4568  df-uni 4833  df-iun 4914  df-br 5060  df-opab 5122  df-mpt 5140  df-tr 5166  df-id 5455  df-eprel 5460  df-po 5469  df-so 5470  df-fr 5509  df-we 5511  df-xp 5556  df-rel 5557  df-cnv 5558  df-co 5559  df-dm 5560  df-rn 5561  df-res 5562  df-ima 5563  df-pred 6143  df-ord 6189  df-on 6190  df-lim 6191  df-suc 6192  df-iota 6309  df-fun 6352  df-fn 6353  df-f 6354  df-f1 6355  df-fo 6356  df-f1o 6357  df-fv 6358  df-ov 7153  df-om 7575  df-wrecs 7941  df-recs 8002  df-rdg 8040  df-er 8283  df-en 8504  df-dom 8505  df-sdom 8506  df-pnf 10671  df-mnf 10672  df-ltxr 10674  df-nn 11633  df-2 11694  df-3 11695  df-4 11696  df-5 11697  df-6 11698  df-7 11699  df-8 11700  df-9 11701  df-n0 11892  df-dec 12093

This theorem is referenced by: (None)