Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30533

Description: Example for df-dec 12620, 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 12620 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 12429	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12428	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12634	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12634	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12430	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12634	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12634	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2737	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2737	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2737	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2737	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2737	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2737	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12295	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11320	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12673	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12673	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12673	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1542  (class class class)co 7368  0cc0 11038  1c1 11039   + caddc 11041  2c2 12212  3c3 12213  ;cdc 12619

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1797  ax-4 1811  ax-5 1912  ax-6 1969  ax-7 2010  ax-8 2116  ax-9 2124  ax-10 2147  ax-11 2163  ax-12 2185  ax-ext 2709  ax-sep 5243  ax-nul 5253  ax-pow 5312  ax-pr 5379  ax-un 7690  ax-resscn 11095  ax-1cn 11096  ax-icn 11097  ax-addcl 11098  ax-addrcl 11099  ax-mulcl 11100  ax-mulrcl 11101  ax-mulcom 11102  ax-addass 11103  ax-mulass 11104  ax-distr 11105  ax-i2m1 11106  ax-1ne0 11107  ax-1rid 11108  ax-rnegex 11109  ax-rrecex 11110  ax-cnre 11111  ax-pre-lttri 11112  ax-pre-lttrn 11113  ax-pre-ltadd 11114

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 207  df-an 396  df-or 849  df-3or 1088  df-3an 1089  df-tru 1545  df-fal 1555  df-ex 1782  df-nf 1786  df-sb 2069  df-mo 2540  df-eu 2570  df-clab 2716  df-cleq 2729  df-clel 2812  df-nfc 2886  df-ne 2934  df-nel 3038  df-ral 3053  df-rex 3063  df-reu 3353  df-rab 3402  df-v 3444  df-sbc 3743  df-csb 3852  df-dif 3906  df-un 3908  df-in 3910  df-ss 3920  df-pss 3923  df-nul 4288  df-if 4482  df-pw 4558  df-sn 4583  df-pr 4585  df-op 4589  df-uni 4866  df-iun 4950  df-br 5101  df-opab 5163  df-mpt 5182  df-tr 5208  df-id 5527  df-eprel 5532  df-po 5540  df-so 5541  df-fr 5585  df-we 5587  df-xp 5638  df-rel 5639  df-cnv 5640  df-co 5641  df-dm 5642  df-rn 5643  df-res 5644  df-ima 5645  df-pred 6267  df-ord 6328  df-on 6329  df-lim 6330  df-suc 6331  df-iota 6456  df-fun 6502  df-fn 6503  df-f 6504  df-f1 6505  df-fo 6506  df-f1o 6507  df-fv 6508  df-ov 7371  df-om 7819  df-2nd 7944  df-frecs 8233  df-wrecs 8264  df-recs 8313  df-rdg 8351  df-er 8645  df-en 8896  df-dom 8897  df-sdom 8898  df-pnf 11180  df-mnf 11181  df-ltxr 11183  df-nn 12158  df-2 12220  df-3 12221  df-4 12222  df-5 12223  df-6 12224  df-7 12225  df-8 12226  df-9 12227  df-n0 12414  df-dec 12620

This theorem is referenced by: (None)