Theorem 1kp2ke3k 16046

Description: Example for df-dec 9575, 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 9575 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 9381	. . . 4 |- 1 e. NN0
2		0nn0 9380	. . . 4 |- 0 e. NN0
3	1, 2	deccl 9588	. . 3 |- ; 1 0 e. NN0
4	3, 2	deccl 9588	. 2 |- ;; 1 0 0 e. NN0
5		2nn0 9382	. . . 4 |- 2 e. NN0
6	5, 2	deccl 9588	. . 3 |- ; 2 0 e. NN0
7	6, 2	deccl 9588	. 2 |- ;; 2 0 0 e. NN0
8		eqid 2229	. 2 |- ;;; 1 0 0 0 = ;;; 1 0 0 0
9		eqid 2229	. 2 |- ;;; 2 0 0 0 = ;;; 2 0 0 0
10		eqid 2229	. . 3 |- ;; 1 0 0 = ;; 1 0 0
11		eqid 2229	. . 3 |- ;; 2 0 0 = ;; 2 0 0
12		eqid 2229	. . . 4 |- ; 1 0 = ; 1 0
13		eqid 2229	. . . 4 |- ; 2 0 = ; 2 0
14		1p2e3 9241	. . . 4 |- ( 1 + 2 ) = 3
15		00id 8283	. . . 4 |- ( 0 + 0 ) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 9627	. . 3 |- (; 1 0 + ; 2 0 ) = ; 3 0
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 9627	. 2 |- (;; 1 0 0 + ;; 2 0 0 ) = ;; 3 0 0
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 9627	1 |- (;;; 1 0 0 0 + ;;; 2 0 0 0 ) = ;;; 3 0 0 0

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1395  (class class class)co 6000   0cc0 7995   1c1 7996   + caddc 7998   2c2 9157   3c3 9158  ;cdc 9574

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-ia1 106  ax-ia2 107  ax-ia3 108  ax-in1 617  ax-in2 618  ax-io 714  ax-5 1493  ax-7 1494  ax-gen 1495  ax-ie1 1539  ax-ie2 1540  ax-8 1550  ax-10 1551  ax-11 1552  ax-i12 1553  ax-bndl 1555  ax-4 1556  ax-17 1572  ax-i9 1576  ax-ial 1580  ax-i5r 1581  ax-14 2203  ax-ext 2211  ax-sep 4201  ax-pow 4257  ax-pr 4292  ax-setind 4628  ax-cnex 8086  ax-resscn 8087  ax-1cn 8088  ax-1re 8089  ax-icn 8090  ax-addcl 8091  ax-addrcl 8092  ax-mulcl 8093  ax-addcom 8095  ax-mulcom 8096  ax-addass 8097  ax-mulass 8098  ax-distr 8099  ax-i2m1 8100  ax-1rid 8102  ax-0id 8103  ax-rnegex 8104  ax-cnre 8106

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 117  df-3an 1004  df-tru 1398  df-fal 1401  df-nf 1507  df-sb 1809  df-eu 2080  df-mo 2081  df-clab 2216  df-cleq 2222  df-clel 2225  df-nfc 2361  df-ne 2401  df-ral 2513  df-rex 2514  df-reu 2515  df-rab 2517  df-v 2801  df-sbc 3029  df-dif 3199  df-un 3201  df-in 3203  df-ss 3210  df-pw 3651  df-sn 3672  df-pr 3673  df-op 3675  df-uni 3888  df-int 3923  df-br 4083  df-opab 4145  df-id 4383  df-xp 4724  df-rel 4725  df-cnv 4726  df-co 4727  df-dm 4728  df-iota 5277  df-fun 5319  df-fv 5325  df-riota 5953  df-ov 6003  df-oprab 6004  df-mpo 6005  df-sub 8315  df-inn 9107  df-2 9165  df-3 9166  df-4 9167  df-5 9168  df-6 9169  df-7 9170  df-8 9171  df-9 9172  df-n0 9366  df-dec 9575

This theorem is referenced by: (None)