Theorem 1kp2ke3k 15216

Description: Example for df-dec 9449, 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 9449 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 9256	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 9255	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 9462	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 9462	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 9257	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 9462	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 9462	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2193	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2193	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2193	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2193	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2193	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2193	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 9116	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 8160	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 9501	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 9501	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 9501	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1364  (class class class)co 5918  0cc0 7872  1c1 7873   + caddc 7875  2c2 9033  3c3 9034  ;cdc 9448

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 1458  ax-7 1459  ax-gen 1460  ax-ie1 1504  ax-ie2 1505  ax-8 1515  ax-10 1516  ax-11 1517  ax-i12 1518  ax-bndl 1520  ax-4 1521  ax-17 1537  ax-i9 1541  ax-ial 1545  ax-i5r 1546  ax-14 2167  ax-ext 2175  ax-sep 4147  ax-pow 4203  ax-pr 4238  ax-setind 4569  ax-cnex 7963  ax-resscn 7964  ax-1cn 7965  ax-1re 7966  ax-icn 7967  ax-addcl 7968  ax-addrcl 7969  ax-mulcl 7970  ax-addcom 7972  ax-mulcom 7973  ax-addass 7974  ax-mulass 7975  ax-distr 7976  ax-i2m1 7977  ax-1rid 7979  ax-0id 7980  ax-rnegex 7981  ax-cnre 7983

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 117  df-3an 982  df-tru 1367  df-fal 1370  df-nf 1472  df-sb 1774  df-eu 2045  df-mo 2046  df-clab 2180  df-cleq 2186  df-clel 2189  df-nfc 2325  df-ne 2365  df-ral 2477  df-rex 2478  df-reu 2479  df-rab 2481  df-v 2762  df-sbc 2986  df-dif 3155  df-un 3157  df-in 3159  df-ss 3166  df-pw 3603  df-sn 3624  df-pr 3625  df-op 3627  df-uni 3836  df-int 3871  df-br 4030  df-opab 4091  df-id 4324  df-xp 4665  df-rel 4666  df-cnv 4667  df-co 4668  df-dm 4669  df-iota 5215  df-fun 5256  df-fv 5262  df-riota 5873  df-ov 5921  df-oprab 5922  df-mpo 5923  df-sub 8192  df-inn 8983  df-2 9041  df-3 9042  df-4 9043  df-5 9044  df-6 9045  df-7 9046  df-8 9047  df-9 9048  df-n0 9241  df-dec 9449

This theorem is referenced by: (None)