Theorem 1kp2ke3k 16256

Description: Example for df-dec 9602, 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 9602 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 9408	. . . 4 |- 1 e. NN0
2		0nn0 9407	. . . 4 |- 0 e. NN0
3	1, 2	deccl 9615	. . 3 |- ; 1 0 e. NN0
4	3, 2	deccl 9615	. 2 |- ;; 1 0 0 e. NN0
5		2nn0 9409	. . . 4 |- 2 e. NN0
6	5, 2	deccl 9615	. . 3 |- ; 2 0 e. NN0
7	6, 2	deccl 9615	. 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 9268	. . . 4 |- ( 1 + 2 ) = 3
15		00id 8310	. . . 4 |- ( 0 + 0 ) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 9654	. . 3 |- (; 1 0 + ; 2 0 ) = ; 3 0
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 9654	. 2 |- (;; 1 0 0 + ;; 2 0 0 ) = ;; 3 0 0
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 9654	1 |- (;;; 1 0 0 0 + ;;; 2 0 0 0 ) = ;;; 3 0 0 0

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1395  (class class class)co 6013   0cc0 8022   1c1 8023   + caddc 8025   2c2 9184   3c3 9185  ;cdc 9601

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 4205  ax-pow 4262  ax-pr 4297  ax-setind 4633  ax-cnex 8113  ax-resscn 8114  ax-1cn 8115  ax-1re 8116  ax-icn 8117  ax-addcl 8118  ax-addrcl 8119  ax-mulcl 8120  ax-addcom 8122  ax-mulcom 8123  ax-addass 8124  ax-mulass 8125  ax-distr 8126  ax-i2m1 8127  ax-1rid 8129  ax-0id 8130  ax-rnegex 8131  ax-cnre 8133

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 2802  df-sbc 3030  df-dif 3200  df-un 3202  df-in 3204  df-ss 3211  df-pw 3652  df-sn 3673  df-pr 3674  df-op 3676  df-uni 3892  df-int 3927  df-br 4087  df-opab 4149  df-id 4388  df-xp 4729  df-rel 4730  df-cnv 4731  df-co 4732  df-dm 4733  df-iota 5284  df-fun 5326  df-fv 5332  df-riota 5966  df-ov 6016  df-oprab 6017  df-mpo 6018  df-sub 8342  df-inn 9134  df-2 9192  df-3 9193  df-4 9194  df-5 9195  df-6 9196  df-7 9197  df-8 9198  df-9 9199  df-n0 9393  df-dec 9602

This theorem is referenced by: (None)