Theorem 1kp2ke3k 16721

Description: Example for df-dec 9761, 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 9761 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 9562	. . . 4 |- 1 e. NN0
2		0nn0 9561	. . . 4 |- 0 e. NN0
3	1, 2	deccl 9774	. . 3 |- ; 1 0 e. NN0
4	3, 2	deccl 9774	. 2 |- ;; 1 0 0 e. NN0
5		2nn0 9563	. . . 4 |- 2 e. NN0
6	5, 2	deccl 9774	. . 3 |- ; 2 0 e. NN0
7	6, 2	deccl 9774	. 2 |- ;; 2 0 0 e. NN0
8		eqid 2238	. 2 |- ;;; 1 0 0 0 = ;;; 1 0 0 0
9		eqid 2238	. 2 |- ;;; 2 0 0 0 = ;;; 2 0 0 0
10		eqid 2238	. . 3 |- ;; 1 0 0 = ;; 1 0 0
11		eqid 2238	. . 3 |- ;; 2 0 0 = ;; 2 0 0
12		eqid 2238	. . . 4 |- ; 1 0 = ; 1 0
13		eqid 2238	. . . 4 |- ; 2 0 = ; 2 0
14		1p2e3 9422	. . . 4 |- ( 1 + 2 ) = 3
15		00id 8461	. . . 4 |- ( 0 + 0 ) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 9813	. . 3 |- (; 1 0 + ; 2 0 ) = ; 3 0
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 9813	. 2 |- (;; 1 0 0 + ;; 2 0 0 ) = ;; 3 0 0
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 9813	1 |- (;;; 1 0 0 0 + ;;; 2 0 0 0 ) = ;;; 3 0 0 0

This proof depends on syntax axioms:   = wceq 1402  (class class class)co 6079   0cc0 8173   1c1 8174   + caddc 8176   2c2 9338   3c3 9339  ;cdc 9760

This proof depends on axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-ia1 106  ax-ia2 107  ax-ia3 108  ax-in1 623  ax-in2 624  ax-io 721  ax-5 1500  ax-7 1501  ax-gen 1502  ax-ie1 1546  ax-ie2 1547  ax-8 1557  ax-10 1558  ax-11 1559  ax-i12 1560  ax-bndl 1562  ax-4 1563  ax-17 1579  ax-i9 1583  ax-ial 1587  ax-i5r 1588  ax-14 2212  ax-ext 2220  ax-sep 4247  ax-pow 4309  ax-pr 4344  ax-setind 4682  ax-cnex 8264  ax-resscn 8265  ax-1cn 8266  ax-1re 8267  ax-icn 8268  ax-addcl 8269  ax-addrcl 8270  ax-mulcl 8271  ax-addcom 8273  ax-mulcom 8274  ax-addass 8275  ax-mulass 8276  ax-distr 8277  ax-i2m1 8278  ax-1rid 8280  ax-0id 8281  ax-rnegex 8282  ax-cnre 8284

This proof depends on definitions:  df-bi 117  df-3an 1011  df-tru 1405  df-fal 1408  df-nf 1514  df-sb 1816  df-eu 2089  df-mo 2090  df-clab 2225  df-cleq 2231  df-clel 2234  df-nfc 2381  df-ne 2421  df-ral 2533  df-rex 2534  df-reu 2535  df-rab 2537  df-v 2823  df-sbc 3052  df-dif 3222  df-un 3224  df-in 3226  df-ss 3233  df-pw 3690  df-sn 3714  df-pr 3715  df-op 3717  df-uni 3934  df-int 3969  df-br 4129  df-opab 4191  df-id 4436  df-xp 4778  df-rel 4779  df-cnv 4780  df-co 4781  df-dm 4782  df-iota 5335  df-fun 5377  df-fv 5383  df-riota 6032  df-ov 6082  df-oprab 6083  df-mpo 6084  df-sub 8493  df-inn 9288  df-2 9346  df-3 9347  df-4 9348  df-5 9349  df-6 9350  df-7 9351  df-8 9352  df-9 9353  df-n0 9547  df-dec 9761

This theorem is used by: (None)