Theorem 1kp2ke3k 11297

Description: Example for df-dec 8847, 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 8847 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	⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Proof of Theorem 1kp2ke3k

Step	Hyp	Ref	Expression
1		1nn0 8659	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 8658	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 8860	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 8860	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 8660	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 8860	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 8860	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2088	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2088	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2088	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2088	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2088	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2088	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 8520	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 7602	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 8899	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 8899	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 8899	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1289  (class class class)co 5634  0cc0 7329  1c1 7330   + caddc 7332  2c2 8444  3c3 8445  ;cdc 8846

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-1 5  ax-2 6  ax-mp 7  ax-ia1 104  ax-ia2 105  ax-ia3 106  ax-in1 579  ax-in2 580  ax-io 665  ax-5 1381  ax-7 1382  ax-gen 1383  ax-ie1 1427  ax-ie2 1428  ax-8 1440  ax-10 1441  ax-11 1442  ax-i12 1443  ax-bndl 1444  ax-4 1445  ax-14 1450  ax-17 1464  ax-i9 1468  ax-ial 1472  ax-i5r 1473  ax-ext 2070  ax-sep 3949  ax-pow 4001  ax-pr 4027  ax-setind 4343  ax-cnex 7415  ax-resscn 7416  ax-1cn 7417  ax-1re 7418  ax-icn 7419  ax-addcl 7420  ax-addrcl 7421  ax-mulcl 7422  ax-addcom 7424  ax-mulcom 7425  ax-addass 7426  ax-mulass 7427  ax-distr 7428  ax-i2m1 7429  ax-1rid 7431  ax-0id 7432  ax-rnegex 7433  ax-cnre 7435

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 115  df-3an 926  df-tru 1292  df-fal 1295  df-nf 1395  df-sb 1693  df-eu 1951  df-mo 1952  df-clab 2075  df-cleq 2081  df-clel 2084  df-nfc 2217  df-ne 2256  df-ral 2364  df-rex 2365  df-reu 2366  df-rab 2368  df-v 2621  df-sbc 2839  df-dif 2999  df-un 3001  df-in 3003  df-ss 3010  df-pw 3427  df-sn 3447  df-pr 3448  df-op 3450  df-uni 3649  df-int 3684  df-br 3838  df-opab 3892  df-id 4111  df-xp 4434  df-rel 4435  df-cnv 4436  df-co 4437  df-dm 4438  df-iota 4967  df-fun 5004  df-fv 5010  df-riota 5590  df-ov 5637  df-oprab 5638  df-mpt2 5639  df-sub 7634  df-inn 8395  df-2 8452  df-3 8453  df-4 8454  df-5 8455  df-6 8456  df-7 8457  df-8 8458  df-9 8459  df-n0 8644  df-dec 8847

This theorem is referenced by: (None)