Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30534

Description: Example for df-dec 12636, 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 12636 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 12444	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12443	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12650	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12650	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12445	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12650	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12650	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2739	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2739	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2739	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2739	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2739	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2739	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12310	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11312	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12689	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12689	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12689	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1547  (class class class)co 7356  0cc0 11029  1c1 11030   + caddc 11032  2c2 12227  3c3 12228  ;cdc 12635

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1802  ax-4 1816  ax-5 1917  ax-6 1974  ax-7 2015  ax-8 2121  ax-9 2129  ax-10 2152  ax-11 2168  ax-12 2189  ax-ext 2711  ax-sep 5218  ax-nul 5228  ax-pow 5294  ax-pr 5362  ax-un 7678  ax-resscn 11086  ax-1cn 11087  ax-icn 11088  ax-addcl 11089  ax-addrcl 11090  ax-mulcl 11091  ax-mulrcl 11092  ax-mulcom 11093  ax-addass 11094  ax-mulass 11095  ax-distr 11096  ax-i2m1 11097  ax-1ne0 11098  ax-1rid 11099  ax-rnegex 11100  ax-rrecex 11101  ax-cnre 11102  ax-pre-lttri 11103  ax-pre-lttrn 11104  ax-pre-ltadd 11105

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 208  df-an 397  df-or 854  df-3or 1093  df-3an 1094  df-tru 1550  df-fal 1560  df-ex 1787  df-nf 1791  df-sb 2074  df-mo 2543  df-eu 2573  df-clab 2718  df-cleq 2731  df-clel 2814  df-nfc 2888  df-ne 2935  df-nel 3039  df-ral 3054  df-rex 3064  df-reu 3345  df-rab 3392  df-v 3433  df-sbc 3724  df-csb 3832  df-dif 3886  df-un 3888  df-in 3890  df-ss 3900  df-pss 3903  df-nul 4262  df-if 4455  df-pw 4531  df-sn 4556  df-pr 4558  df-op 4562  df-uni 4839  df-iun 4923  df-br 5073  df-opab 5135  df-mpt 5154  df-tr 5180  df-id 5513  df-eprel 5518  df-po 5526  df-so 5527  df-fr 5571  df-we 5573  df-xp 5624  df-rel 5625  df-cnv 5626  df-co 5627  df-dm 5628  df-rn 5629  df-res 5630  df-ima 5631  df-pred 6252  df-ord 6313  df-on 6314  df-lim 6315  df-suc 6316  df-iota 6441  df-fun 6487  df-fn 6488  df-f 6489  df-f1 6490  df-fo 6491  df-f1o 6492  df-fv 6493  df-ov 7359  df-om 7807  df-2nd 7932  df-frecs 8221  df-wrecs 8252  df-recs 8301  df-rdg 8339  df-er 8633  df-en 8884  df-dom 8885  df-sdom 8886  df-pnf 11172  df-mnf 11173  df-ltxr 11175  df-nn 12166  df-2 12235  df-3 12236  df-4 12237  df-5 12238  df-6 12239  df-7 12240  df-8 12241  df-9 12242  df-n0 12429  df-dec 12636

This theorem is referenced by: (None)