Theorem 1kp2ke3k 15370

Description: Example for df-dec 9458, 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 9458 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 9265	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 9264	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 9471	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 9471	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 9266	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 9471	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 9471	. 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 9125	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 8167	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 9510	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 9510	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 9510	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1364  (class class class)co 5922  0cc0 7879  1c1 7880   + caddc 7882  2c2 9041  3c3 9042  ;cdc 9457

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 4151  ax-pow 4207  ax-pr 4242  ax-setind 4573  ax-cnex 7970  ax-resscn 7971  ax-1cn 7972  ax-1re 7973  ax-icn 7974  ax-addcl 7975  ax-addrcl 7976  ax-mulcl 7977  ax-addcom 7979  ax-mulcom 7980  ax-addass 7981  ax-mulass 7982  ax-distr 7983  ax-i2m1 7984  ax-1rid 7986  ax-0id 7987  ax-rnegex 7988  ax-cnre 7990

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 3607  df-sn 3628  df-pr 3629  df-op 3631  df-uni 3840  df-int 3875  df-br 4034  df-opab 4095  df-id 4328  df-xp 4669  df-rel 4670  df-cnv 4671  df-co 4672  df-dm 4673  df-iota 5219  df-fun 5260  df-fv 5266  df-riota 5877  df-ov 5925  df-oprab 5926  df-mpo 5927  df-sub 8199  df-inn 8991  df-2 9049  df-3 9050  df-4 9051  df-5 9052  df-6 9053  df-7 9054  df-8 9055  df-9 9056  df-n0 9250  df-dec 9458

This theorem is referenced by: (None)