Theorem 1kp2ke3k 16492

Description: Example for df-dec 9710, 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 9710 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 9512	. . . 4 |- 1 e. NN0
2		0nn0 9511	. . . 4 |- 0 e. NN0
3	1, 2	deccl 9723	. . 3 |- ; 1 0 e. NN0
4	3, 2	deccl 9723	. 2 |- ;; 1 0 0 e. NN0
5		2nn0 9513	. . . 4 |- 2 e. NN0
6	5, 2	deccl 9723	. . 3 |- ; 2 0 e. NN0
7	6, 2	deccl 9723	. 2 |- ;; 2 0 0 e. NN0
8		eqid 2232	. 2 |- ;;; 1 0 0 0 = ;;; 1 0 0 0
9		eqid 2232	. 2 |- ;;; 2 0 0 0 = ;;; 2 0 0 0
10		eqid 2232	. . 3 |- ;; 1 0 0 = ;; 1 0 0
11		eqid 2232	. . 3 |- ;; 2 0 0 = ;; 2 0 0
12		eqid 2232	. . . 4 |- ; 1 0 = ; 1 0
13		eqid 2232	. . . 4 |- ; 2 0 = ; 2 0
14		1p2e3 9372	. . . 4 |- ( 1 + 2 ) = 3
15		00id 8414	. . . 4 |- ( 0 + 0 ) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 9762	. . 3 |- (; 1 0 + ; 2 0 ) = ; 3 0
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 9762	. 2 |- (;; 1 0 0 + ;; 2 0 0 ) = ;; 3 0 0
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 9762	1 |- (;;; 1 0 0 0 + ;;; 2 0 0 0 ) = ;;; 3 0 0 0

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1398  (class class class)co 6050   0cc0 8127   1c1 8128   + caddc 8130   2c2 9288   3c3 9289  ;cdc 9709

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 619  ax-in2 620  ax-io 717  ax-5 1496  ax-7 1497  ax-gen 1498  ax-ie1 1542  ax-ie2 1543  ax-8 1553  ax-10 1554  ax-11 1555  ax-i12 1556  ax-bndl 1558  ax-4 1559  ax-17 1575  ax-i9 1579  ax-ial 1583  ax-i5r 1584  ax-14 2206  ax-ext 2214  ax-sep 4228  ax-pow 4287  ax-pr 4322  ax-setind 4659  ax-cnex 8218  ax-resscn 8219  ax-1cn 8220  ax-1re 8221  ax-icn 8222  ax-addcl 8223  ax-addrcl 8224  ax-mulcl 8225  ax-addcom 8227  ax-mulcom 8228  ax-addass 8229  ax-mulass 8230  ax-distr 8231  ax-i2m1 8232  ax-1rid 8234  ax-0id 8235  ax-rnegex 8236  ax-cnre 8238

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 117  df-3an 1007  df-tru 1401  df-fal 1404  df-nf 1510  df-sb 1812  df-eu 2083  df-mo 2084  df-clab 2219  df-cleq 2225  df-clel 2228  df-nfc 2373  df-ne 2413  df-ral 2525  df-rex 2526  df-reu 2527  df-rab 2529  df-v 2815  df-sbc 3043  df-dif 3213  df-un 3215  df-in 3217  df-ss 3224  df-pw 3671  df-sn 3695  df-pr 3696  df-op 3698  df-uni 3915  df-int 3950  df-br 4110  df-opab 4172  df-id 4414  df-xp 4755  df-rel 4756  df-cnv 4757  df-co 4758  df-dm 4759  df-iota 5312  df-fun 5354  df-fv 5360  df-riota 6003  df-ov 6053  df-oprab 6054  df-mpo 6055  df-sub 8446  df-inn 9238  df-2 9296  df-3 9297  df-4 9298  df-5 9299  df-6 9300  df-7 9301  df-8 9302  df-9 9303  df-n0 9497  df-dec 9710

This theorem is referenced by: (None)