Theorem 1kp2ke3k 16320

Description: Example for df-dec 9611, 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 9611 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 9417	. . . 4 |- 1 e. NN0
2		0nn0 9416	. . . 4 |- 0 e. NN0
3	1, 2	deccl 9624	. . 3 |- ; 1 0 e. NN0
4	3, 2	deccl 9624	. 2 |- ;; 1 0 0 e. NN0
5		2nn0 9418	. . . 4 |- 2 e. NN0
6	5, 2	deccl 9624	. . 3 |- ; 2 0 e. NN0
7	6, 2	deccl 9624	. 2 |- ;; 2 0 0 e. NN0
8		eqid 2231	. 2 |- ;;; 1 0 0 0 = ;;; 1 0 0 0
9		eqid 2231	. 2 |- ;;; 2 0 0 0 = ;;; 2 0 0 0
10		eqid 2231	. . 3 |- ;; 1 0 0 = ;; 1 0 0
11		eqid 2231	. . 3 |- ;; 2 0 0 = ;; 2 0 0
12		eqid 2231	. . . 4 |- ; 1 0 = ; 1 0
13		eqid 2231	. . . 4 |- ; 2 0 = ; 2 0
14		1p2e3 9277	. . . 4 |- ( 1 + 2 ) = 3
15		00id 8319	. . . 4 |- ( 0 + 0 ) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 9663	. . 3 |- (; 1 0 + ; 2 0 ) = ; 3 0
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 9663	. 2 |- (;; 1 0 0 + ;; 2 0 0 ) = ;; 3 0 0
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 9663	1 |- (;;; 1 0 0 0 + ;;; 2 0 0 0 ) = ;;; 3 0 0 0

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1397  (class class class)co 6017   0cc0 8031   1c1 8032   + caddc 8034   2c2 9193   3c3 9194  ;cdc 9610

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 716  ax-5 1495  ax-7 1496  ax-gen 1497  ax-ie1 1541  ax-ie2 1542  ax-8 1552  ax-10 1553  ax-11 1554  ax-i12 1555  ax-bndl 1557  ax-4 1558  ax-17 1574  ax-i9 1578  ax-ial 1582  ax-i5r 1583  ax-14 2205  ax-ext 2213  ax-sep 4207  ax-pow 4264  ax-pr 4299  ax-setind 4635  ax-cnex 8122  ax-resscn 8123  ax-1cn 8124  ax-1re 8125  ax-icn 8126  ax-addcl 8127  ax-addrcl 8128  ax-mulcl 8129  ax-addcom 8131  ax-mulcom 8132  ax-addass 8133  ax-mulass 8134  ax-distr 8135  ax-i2m1 8136  ax-1rid 8138  ax-0id 8139  ax-rnegex 8140  ax-cnre 8142

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 117  df-3an 1006  df-tru 1400  df-fal 1403  df-nf 1509  df-sb 1811  df-eu 2082  df-mo 2083  df-clab 2218  df-cleq 2224  df-clel 2227  df-nfc 2363  df-ne 2403  df-ral 2515  df-rex 2516  df-reu 2517  df-rab 2519  df-v 2804  df-sbc 3032  df-dif 3202  df-un 3204  df-in 3206  df-ss 3213  df-pw 3654  df-sn 3675  df-pr 3676  df-op 3678  df-uni 3894  df-int 3929  df-br 4089  df-opab 4151  df-id 4390  df-xp 4731  df-rel 4732  df-cnv 4733  df-co 4734  df-dm 4735  df-iota 5286  df-fun 5328  df-fv 5334  df-riota 5970  df-ov 6020  df-oprab 6021  df-mpo 6022  df-sub 8351  df-inn 9143  df-2 9201  df-3 9202  df-4 9203  df-5 9204  df-6 9205  df-7 9206  df-8 9207  df-9 9208  df-n0 9402  df-dec 9611

This theorem is referenced by: (None)