Theorem 1kp2ke3k 15454

Description: Example for df-dec 9475, 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 9475 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 9282	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 9281	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 9488	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 9488	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 9283	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 9488	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 9488	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2196	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2196	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2196	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2196	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2196	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2196	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 9142	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 8184	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 9527	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 9527	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 9527	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1364  (class class class)co 5925  0cc0 7896  1c1 7897   + caddc 7899  2c2 9058  3c3 9059  ;cdc 9474

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 710  ax-5 1461  ax-7 1462  ax-gen 1463  ax-ie1 1507  ax-ie2 1508  ax-8 1518  ax-10 1519  ax-11 1520  ax-i12 1521  ax-bndl 1523  ax-4 1524  ax-17 1540  ax-i9 1544  ax-ial 1548  ax-i5r 1549  ax-14 2170  ax-ext 2178  ax-sep 4152  ax-pow 4208  ax-pr 4243  ax-setind 4574  ax-cnex 7987  ax-resscn 7988  ax-1cn 7989  ax-1re 7990  ax-icn 7991  ax-addcl 7992  ax-addrcl 7993  ax-mulcl 7994  ax-addcom 7996  ax-mulcom 7997  ax-addass 7998  ax-mulass 7999  ax-distr 8000  ax-i2m1 8001  ax-1rid 8003  ax-0id 8004  ax-rnegex 8005  ax-cnre 8007

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 117  df-3an 982  df-tru 1367  df-fal 1370  df-nf 1475  df-sb 1777  df-eu 2048  df-mo 2049  df-clab 2183  df-cleq 2189  df-clel 2192  df-nfc 2328  df-ne 2368  df-ral 2480  df-rex 2481  df-reu 2482  df-rab 2484  df-v 2765  df-sbc 2990  df-dif 3159  df-un 3161  df-in 3163  df-ss 3170  df-pw 3608  df-sn 3629  df-pr 3630  df-op 3632  df-uni 3841  df-int 3876  df-br 4035  df-opab 4096  df-id 4329  df-xp 4670  df-rel 4671  df-cnv 4672  df-co 4673  df-dm 4674  df-iota 5220  df-fun 5261  df-fv 5267  df-riota 5880  df-ov 5928  df-oprab 5929  df-mpo 5930  df-sub 8216  df-inn 9008  df-2 9066  df-3 9067  df-4 9068  df-5 9069  df-6 9070  df-7 9071  df-8 9072  df-9 9073  df-n0 9267  df-dec 9475

This theorem is referenced by: (None)