Theorem 1kp2ke3k 15860

Description: Example for df-dec 9540, 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 9540 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 9346	. . . 4 |- 1 e. NN0
2		0nn0 9345	. . . 4 |- 0 e. NN0
3	1, 2	deccl 9553	. . 3 |- ; 1 0 e. NN0
4	3, 2	deccl 9553	. 2 |- ;; 1 0 0 e. NN0
5		2nn0 9347	. . . 4 |- 2 e. NN0
6	5, 2	deccl 9553	. . 3 |- ; 2 0 e. NN0
7	6, 2	deccl 9553	. 2 |- ;; 2 0 0 e. NN0
8		eqid 2207	. 2 |- ;;; 1 0 0 0 = ;;; 1 0 0 0
9		eqid 2207	. 2 |- ;;; 2 0 0 0 = ;;; 2 0 0 0
10		eqid 2207	. . 3 |- ;; 1 0 0 = ;; 1 0 0
11		eqid 2207	. . 3 |- ;; 2 0 0 = ;; 2 0 0
12		eqid 2207	. . . 4 |- ; 1 0 = ; 1 0
13		eqid 2207	. . . 4 |- ; 2 0 = ; 2 0
14		1p2e3 9206	. . . 4 |- ( 1 + 2 ) = 3
15		00id 8248	. . . 4 |- ( 0 + 0 ) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 9592	. . 3 |- (; 1 0 + ; 2 0 ) = ; 3 0
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 9592	. 2 |- (;; 1 0 0 + ;; 2 0 0 ) = ;; 3 0 0
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 9592	1 |- (;;; 1 0 0 0 + ;;; 2 0 0 0 ) = ;;; 3 0 0 0

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1373  (class class class)co 5967   0cc0 7960   1c1 7961   + caddc 7963   2c2 9122   3c3 9123  ;cdc 9539

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 615  ax-in2 616  ax-io 711  ax-5 1471  ax-7 1472  ax-gen 1473  ax-ie1 1517  ax-ie2 1518  ax-8 1528  ax-10 1529  ax-11 1530  ax-i12 1531  ax-bndl 1533  ax-4 1534  ax-17 1550  ax-i9 1554  ax-ial 1558  ax-i5r 1559  ax-14 2181  ax-ext 2189  ax-sep 4178  ax-pow 4234  ax-pr 4269  ax-setind 4603  ax-cnex 8051  ax-resscn 8052  ax-1cn 8053  ax-1re 8054  ax-icn 8055  ax-addcl 8056  ax-addrcl 8057  ax-mulcl 8058  ax-addcom 8060  ax-mulcom 8061  ax-addass 8062  ax-mulass 8063  ax-distr 8064  ax-i2m1 8065  ax-1rid 8067  ax-0id 8068  ax-rnegex 8069  ax-cnre 8071

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 117  df-3an 983  df-tru 1376  df-fal 1379  df-nf 1485  df-sb 1787  df-eu 2058  df-mo 2059  df-clab 2194  df-cleq 2200  df-clel 2203  df-nfc 2339  df-ne 2379  df-ral 2491  df-rex 2492  df-reu 2493  df-rab 2495  df-v 2778  df-sbc 3006  df-dif 3176  df-un 3178  df-in 3180  df-ss 3187  df-pw 3628  df-sn 3649  df-pr 3650  df-op 3652  df-uni 3865  df-int 3900  df-br 4060  df-opab 4122  df-id 4358  df-xp 4699  df-rel 4700  df-cnv 4701  df-co 4702  df-dm 4703  df-iota 5251  df-fun 5292  df-fv 5298  df-riota 5922  df-ov 5970  df-oprab 5971  df-mpo 5972  df-sub 8280  df-inn 9072  df-2 9130  df-3 9131  df-4 9132  df-5 9133  df-6 9134  df-7 9135  df-8 9136  df-9 9137  df-n0 9331  df-dec 9540

This theorem is referenced by: (None)