Theorem 1kp2ke3k 16738

Description: Example for df-dec 9778, 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 9778 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 9579	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 9578	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 9791	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 9791	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 9580	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 9791	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 9791	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2238	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2238	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2238	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2238	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2238	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2238	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 9439	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 8467	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 9830	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 9830	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 9830	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

This proof depends on syntax axioms:   = wceq 1402  (class class class)co 6085  0cc0 8179  1c1 8180   + caddc 8182  2c2 9355  3c3 9356  ;cdc 9777

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 4249  ax-pow 4311  ax-pr 4346  ax-setind 4684  ax-cnex 8270  ax-resscn 8271  ax-1cn 8272  ax-1re 8273  ax-icn 8274  ax-addcl 8275  ax-addrcl 8276  ax-mulcl 8277  ax-addcom 8279  ax-mulcom 8280  ax-addass 8281  ax-mulass 8282  ax-distr 8283  ax-i2m1 8284  ax-1rid 8286  ax-0id 8287  ax-rnegex 8288  ax-cnre 8290

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 3715  df-pr 3716  df-op 3718  df-uni 3936  df-int 3971  df-br 4131  df-opab 4193  df-id 4438  df-xp 4780  df-rel 4781  df-cnv 4782  df-co 4783  df-dm 4784  df-iota 5337  df-fun 5379  df-fv 5385  df-riota 6038  df-ov 6088  df-oprab 6089  df-mpo 6090  df-sub 8499  df-inn 9305  df-2 9363  df-3 9364  df-4 9365  df-5 9366  df-6 9367  df-7 9368  df-8 9369  df-9 9370  df-n0 9564  df-dec 9778

This theorem is used by: (None)