Theorem 1kp2ke3k 29689

Description: Example for df-dec 12675, 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 12675 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 12485	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12484	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12689	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12689	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12486	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12689	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12689	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2733	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2733	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2733	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2733	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2733	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2733	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12352	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11386	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12728	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12728	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12728	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1542  (class class class)co 7406  0cc0 11107  1c1 11108   + caddc 11110  2c2 12264  3c3 12265  ;cdc 12674

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1798  ax-4 1812  ax-5 1914  ax-6 1972  ax-7 2012  ax-8 2109  ax-9 2117  ax-10 2138  ax-11 2155  ax-12 2172  ax-ext 2704  ax-sep 5299  ax-nul 5306  ax-pow 5363  ax-pr 5427  ax-un 7722  ax-resscn 11164  ax-1cn 11165  ax-icn 11166  ax-addcl 11167  ax-addrcl 11168  ax-mulcl 11169  ax-mulrcl 11170  ax-mulcom 11171  ax-addass 11172  ax-mulass 11173  ax-distr 11174  ax-i2m1 11175  ax-1ne0 11176  ax-1rid 11177  ax-rnegex 11178  ax-rrecex 11179  ax-cnre 11180  ax-pre-lttri 11181  ax-pre-lttrn 11182  ax-pre-ltadd 11183

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 206  df-an 398  df-or 847  df-3or 1089  df-3an 1090  df-tru 1545  df-fal 1555  df-ex 1783  df-nf 1787  df-sb 2069  df-mo 2535  df-eu 2564  df-clab 2711  df-cleq 2725  df-clel 2811  df-nfc 2886  df-ne 2942  df-nel 3048  df-ral 3063  df-rex 3072  df-reu 3378  df-rab 3434  df-v 3477  df-sbc 3778  df-csb 3894  df-dif 3951  df-un 3953  df-in 3955  df-ss 3965  df-pss 3967  df-nul 4323  df-if 4529  df-pw 4604  df-sn 4629  df-pr 4631  df-op 4635  df-uni 4909  df-iun 4999  df-br 5149  df-opab 5211  df-mpt 5232  df-tr 5266  df-id 5574  df-eprel 5580  df-po 5588  df-so 5589  df-fr 5631  df-we 5633  df-xp 5682  df-rel 5683  df-cnv 5684  df-co 5685  df-dm 5686  df-rn 5687  df-res 5688  df-ima 5689  df-pred 6298  df-ord 6365  df-on 6366  df-lim 6367  df-suc 6368  df-iota 6493  df-fun 6543  df-fn 6544  df-f 6545  df-f1 6546  df-fo 6547  df-f1o 6548  df-fv 6549  df-ov 7409  df-om 7853  df-2nd 7973  df-frecs 8263  df-wrecs 8294  df-recs 8368  df-rdg 8407  df-er 8700  df-en 8937  df-dom 8938  df-sdom 8939  df-pnf 11247  df-mnf 11248  df-ltxr 11250  df-nn 12210  df-2 12272  df-3 12273  df-4 12274  df-5 12275  df-6 12276  df-7 12277  df-8 12278  df-9 12279  df-n0 12470  df-dec 12675

This theorem is referenced by: (None)