Theorem 1kp2ke3k 15660

Description: Example for df-dec 9505, 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 9505 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 9311	. . . 4 |- 1 e. NN0
2		0nn0 9310	. . . 4 |- 0 e. NN0
3	1, 2	deccl 9518	. . 3 |- ; 1 0 e. NN0
4	3, 2	deccl 9518	. 2 |- ;; 1 0 0 e. NN0
5		2nn0 9312	. . . 4 |- 2 e. NN0
6	5, 2	deccl 9518	. . 3 |- ; 2 0 e. NN0
7	6, 2	deccl 9518	. 2 |- ;; 2 0 0 e. NN0
8		eqid 2205	. 2 |- ;;; 1 0 0 0 = ;;; 1 0 0 0
9		eqid 2205	. 2 |- ;;; 2 0 0 0 = ;;; 2 0 0 0
10		eqid 2205	. . 3 |- ;; 1 0 0 = ;; 1 0 0
11		eqid 2205	. . 3 |- ;; 2 0 0 = ;; 2 0 0
12		eqid 2205	. . . 4 |- ; 1 0 = ; 1 0
13		eqid 2205	. . . 4 |- ; 2 0 = ; 2 0
14		1p2e3 9171	. . . 4 |- ( 1 + 2 ) = 3
15		00id 8213	. . . 4 |- ( 0 + 0 ) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 9557	. . 3 |- (; 1 0 + ; 2 0 ) = ; 3 0
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 9557	. 2 |- (;; 1 0 0 + ;; 2 0 0 ) = ;; 3 0 0
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 9557	1 |- (;;; 1 0 0 0 + ;;; 2 0 0 0 ) = ;;; 3 0 0 0

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1373  (class class class)co 5944   0cc0 7925   1c1 7926   + caddc 7928   2c2 9087   3c3 9088  ;cdc 9504

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 1470  ax-7 1471  ax-gen 1472  ax-ie1 1516  ax-ie2 1517  ax-8 1527  ax-10 1528  ax-11 1529  ax-i12 1530  ax-bndl 1532  ax-4 1533  ax-17 1549  ax-i9 1553  ax-ial 1557  ax-i5r 1558  ax-14 2179  ax-ext 2187  ax-sep 4162  ax-pow 4218  ax-pr 4253  ax-setind 4585  ax-cnex 8016  ax-resscn 8017  ax-1cn 8018  ax-1re 8019  ax-icn 8020  ax-addcl 8021  ax-addrcl 8022  ax-mulcl 8023  ax-addcom 8025  ax-mulcom 8026  ax-addass 8027  ax-mulass 8028  ax-distr 8029  ax-i2m1 8030  ax-1rid 8032  ax-0id 8033  ax-rnegex 8034  ax-cnre 8036

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 117  df-3an 983  df-tru 1376  df-fal 1379  df-nf 1484  df-sb 1786  df-eu 2057  df-mo 2058  df-clab 2192  df-cleq 2198  df-clel 2201  df-nfc 2337  df-ne 2377  df-ral 2489  df-rex 2490  df-reu 2491  df-rab 2493  df-v 2774  df-sbc 2999  df-dif 3168  df-un 3170  df-in 3172  df-ss 3179  df-pw 3618  df-sn 3639  df-pr 3640  df-op 3642  df-uni 3851  df-int 3886  df-br 4045  df-opab 4106  df-id 4340  df-xp 4681  df-rel 4682  df-cnv 4683  df-co 4684  df-dm 4685  df-iota 5232  df-fun 5273  df-fv 5279  df-riota 5899  df-ov 5947  df-oprab 5948  df-mpo 5949  df-sub 8245  df-inn 9037  df-2 9095  df-3 9096  df-4 9097  df-5 9098  df-6 9099  df-7 9100  df-8 9101  df-9 9102  df-n0 9296  df-dec 9505

This theorem is referenced by: (None)