Theorem 1kp2ke3k 13107

Description: Example for df-dec 9207, 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 9207 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 9017	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 9016	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 9220	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 9220	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 9018	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 9220	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 9220	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2140	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2140	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2140	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2140	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2140	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2140	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 8878	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 7927	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 9259	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 9259	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 9259	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1332  (class class class)co 5782  0cc0 7644  1c1 7645   + caddc 7647  2c2 8795  3c3 8796  ;cdc 9206

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-ia1 105  ax-ia2 106  ax-ia3 107  ax-in1 604  ax-in2 605  ax-io 699  ax-5 1424  ax-7 1425  ax-gen 1426  ax-ie1 1470  ax-ie2 1471  ax-8 1483  ax-10 1484  ax-11 1485  ax-i12 1486  ax-bndl 1487  ax-4 1488  ax-14 1493  ax-17 1507  ax-i9 1511  ax-ial 1515  ax-i5r 1516  ax-ext 2122  ax-sep 4054  ax-pow 4106  ax-pr 4139  ax-setind 4460  ax-cnex 7735  ax-resscn 7736  ax-1cn 7737  ax-1re 7738  ax-icn 7739  ax-addcl 7740  ax-addrcl 7741  ax-mulcl 7742  ax-addcom 7744  ax-mulcom 7745  ax-addass 7746  ax-mulass 7747  ax-distr 7748  ax-i2m1 7749  ax-1rid 7751  ax-0id 7752  ax-rnegex 7753  ax-cnre 7755

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 116  df-3an 965  df-tru 1335  df-fal 1338  df-nf 1438  df-sb 1737  df-eu 2003  df-mo 2004  df-clab 2127  df-cleq 2133  df-clel 2136  df-nfc 2271  df-ne 2310  df-ral 2422  df-rex 2423  df-reu 2424  df-rab 2426  df-v 2691  df-sbc 2914  df-dif 3078  df-un 3080  df-in 3082  df-ss 3089  df-pw 3517  df-sn 3538  df-pr 3539  df-op 3541  df-uni 3745  df-int 3780  df-br 3938  df-opab 3998  df-id 4223  df-xp 4553  df-rel 4554  df-cnv 4555  df-co 4556  df-dm 4557  df-iota 5096  df-fun 5133  df-fv 5139  df-riota 5738  df-ov 5785  df-oprab 5786  df-mpo 5787  df-sub 7959  df-inn 8745  df-2 8803  df-3 8804  df-4 8805  df-5 8806  df-6 8807  df-7 8808  df-8 8809  df-9 8810  df-n0 9002  df-dec 9207

This theorem is referenced by: (None)