Theorem 1kp2ke3k 16421

Description: Example for df-dec 9656, 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 9656 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 9460	. . . 4 |- 1 e. NN0
2		0nn0 9459	. . . 4 |- 0 e. NN0
3	1, 2	deccl 9669	. . 3 |- ; 1 0 e. NN0
4	3, 2	deccl 9669	. 2 |- ;; 1 0 0 e. NN0
5		2nn0 9461	. . . 4 |- 2 e. NN0
6	5, 2	deccl 9669	. . 3 |- ; 2 0 e. NN0
7	6, 2	deccl 9669	. 2 |- ;; 2 0 0 e. NN0
8		eqid 2231	. 2 |- ;;; 1 0 0 0 = ;;; 1 0 0 0
9		eqid 2231	. 2 |- ;;; 2 0 0 0 = ;;; 2 0 0 0
10		eqid 2231	. . 3 |- ;; 1 0 0 = ;; 1 0 0
11		eqid 2231	. . 3 |- ;; 2 0 0 = ;; 2 0 0
12		eqid 2231	. . . 4 |- ; 1 0 = ; 1 0
13		eqid 2231	. . . 4 |- ; 2 0 = ; 2 0
14		1p2e3 9320	. . . 4 |- ( 1 + 2 ) = 3
15		00id 8362	. . . 4 |- ( 0 + 0 ) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 9708	. . 3 |- (; 1 0 + ; 2 0 ) = ; 3 0
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 9708	. 2 |- (;; 1 0 0 + ;; 2 0 0 ) = ;; 3 0 0
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 9708	1 |- (;;; 1 0 0 0 + ;;; 2 0 0 0 ) = ;;; 3 0 0 0

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1398  (class class class)co 6028   0cc0 8075   1c1 8076   + caddc 8078   2c2 9236   3c3 9237  ;cdc 9655

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 619  ax-in2 620  ax-io 717  ax-5 1496  ax-7 1497  ax-gen 1498  ax-ie1 1542  ax-ie2 1543  ax-8 1553  ax-10 1554  ax-11 1555  ax-i12 1556  ax-bndl 1558  ax-4 1559  ax-17 1575  ax-i9 1579  ax-ial 1583  ax-i5r 1584  ax-14 2205  ax-ext 2213  ax-sep 4212  ax-pow 4270  ax-pr 4305  ax-setind 4641  ax-cnex 8166  ax-resscn 8167  ax-1cn 8168  ax-1re 8169  ax-icn 8170  ax-addcl 8171  ax-addrcl 8172  ax-mulcl 8173  ax-addcom 8175  ax-mulcom 8176  ax-addass 8177  ax-mulass 8178  ax-distr 8179  ax-i2m1 8180  ax-1rid 8182  ax-0id 8183  ax-rnegex 8184  ax-cnre 8186

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 117  df-3an 1007  df-tru 1401  df-fal 1404  df-nf 1510  df-sb 1811  df-eu 2082  df-mo 2083  df-clab 2218  df-cleq 2224  df-clel 2227  df-nfc 2364  df-ne 2404  df-ral 2516  df-rex 2517  df-reu 2518  df-rab 2520  df-v 2805  df-sbc 3033  df-dif 3203  df-un 3205  df-in 3207  df-ss 3214  df-pw 3658  df-sn 3679  df-pr 3680  df-op 3682  df-uni 3899  df-int 3934  df-br 4094  df-opab 4156  df-id 4396  df-xp 4737  df-rel 4738  df-cnv 4739  df-co 4740  df-dm 4741  df-iota 5293  df-fun 5335  df-fv 5341  df-riota 5981  df-ov 6031  df-oprab 6032  df-mpo 6033  df-sub 8394  df-inn 9186  df-2 9244  df-3 9245  df-4 9246  df-5 9247  df-6 9248  df-7 9249  df-8 9250  df-9 9251  df-n0 9445  df-dec 9656

This theorem is referenced by: (None)