Theorem 1kp2ke3k 16143

Description: Example for df-dec 9590, 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 9590 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 9396	. . . 4 |- 1 e. NN0
2		0nn0 9395	. . . 4 |- 0 e. NN0
3	1, 2	deccl 9603	. . 3 |- ; 1 0 e. NN0
4	3, 2	deccl 9603	. 2 |- ;; 1 0 0 e. NN0
5		2nn0 9397	. . . 4 |- 2 e. NN0
6	5, 2	deccl 9603	. . 3 |- ; 2 0 e. NN0
7	6, 2	deccl 9603	. 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 9256	. . . 4 |- ( 1 + 2 ) = 3
15		00id 8298	. . . 4 |- ( 0 + 0 ) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 9642	. . 3 |- (; 1 0 + ; 2 0 ) = ; 3 0
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 9642	. 2 |- (;; 1 0 0 + ;; 2 0 0 ) = ;; 3 0 0
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 9642	1 |- (;;; 1 0 0 0 + ;;; 2 0 0 0 ) = ;;; 3 0 0 0

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1395  (class class class)co 6007   0cc0 8010   1c1 8011   + caddc 8013   2c2 9172   3c3 9173  ;cdc 9589

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 4202  ax-pow 4258  ax-pr 4293  ax-setind 4629  ax-cnex 8101  ax-resscn 8102  ax-1cn 8103  ax-1re 8104  ax-icn 8105  ax-addcl 8106  ax-addrcl 8107  ax-mulcl 8108  ax-addcom 8110  ax-mulcom 8111  ax-addass 8112  ax-mulass 8113  ax-distr 8114  ax-i2m1 8115  ax-1rid 8117  ax-0id 8118  ax-rnegex 8119  ax-cnre 8121

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 3889  df-int 3924  df-br 4084  df-opab 4146  df-id 4384  df-xp 4725  df-rel 4726  df-cnv 4727  df-co 4728  df-dm 4729  df-iota 5278  df-fun 5320  df-fv 5326  df-riota 5960  df-ov 6010  df-oprab 6011  df-mpo 6012  df-sub 8330  df-inn 9122  df-2 9180  df-3 9181  df-4 9182  df-5 9183  df-6 9184  df-7 9185  df-8 9186  df-9 9187  df-n0 9381  df-dec 9590

This theorem is referenced by: (None)