Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30826

Description: Example for df-dec 12723, 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 12723 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 12531	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12530	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12737	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12737	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12532	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12737	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12737	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2765	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2765	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2765	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2765	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2765	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2765	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12394	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11396	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12781	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12781	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12781	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

This proof depends on syntax axioms:   = wceq 1570  (class class class)co 7416  0cc0 11111  1c1 11112   + caddc 11114  2c2 12306  3c3 12307  ;cdc 12722

This proof depends on axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1828  ax-4 1842  ax-5 1943  ax-6 2000  ax-7 2041  ax-8 2148  ax-9 2156  ax-10 2179  ax-11 2195  ax-12 2216  ax-ext 2737  ax-sep 5259  ax-nul 5271  ax-pow 5338  ax-pr 5406  ax-un 7738  ax-resscn 11168  ax-1cn 11169  ax-icn 11170  ax-addcl 11171  ax-addrcl 11172  ax-mulcl 11173  ax-mulrcl 11174  ax-mulcom 11175  ax-addass 11176  ax-mulass 11177  ax-distr 11178  ax-i2m1 11179  ax-1ne0 11180  ax-1rid 11181  ax-rnegex 11182  ax-rrecex 11183  ax-cnre 11184  ax-pre-lttri 11185  ax-pre-lttrn 11186  ax-pre-ltadd 11187

This proof depends on definitions:  df-bi 210  df-an 402  df-or 862  df-3or 1104  df-3an 1105  df-tru 1573  df-fal 1583  df-ex 1813  df-nf 1817  df-sb 2100  df-mo 2569  df-eu 2599  df-clab 2744  df-cleq 2757  df-clel 2840  df-nfc 2914  df-ne 2961  df-nel 3067  df-ral 3082  df-rex 3092  df-reu 3372  df-rab 3419  df-v 3459  df-sbc 3747  df-csb 3855  df-dif 3909  df-un 3911  df-in 3913  df-ss 3923  df-pss 3926  df-nul 4287  df-if 4490  df-pw 4566  df-sn 4592  df-pr 4594  df-op 4598  df-uni 4875  df-iun 4960  df-br 5112  df-opab 5176  df-mpt 5195  df-tr 5221  df-id 5558  df-eprel 5563  df-po 5571  df-so 5572  df-fr 5616  df-we 5618  df-xp 5669  df-rel 5670  df-cnv 5671  df-co 5672  df-dm 5673  df-rn 5674  df-res 5675  df-ima 5676  df-pred 6306  df-ord 6367  df-on 6368  df-lim 6369  df-suc 6370  df-iota 6496  df-fun 6542  df-fn 6543  df-f 6544  df-f1 6545  df-fo 6546  df-f1o 6547  df-fv 6548  df-ov 7419  df-om 7865  df-2nd 7989  df-frecs 8280  df-wrecs 8311  df-recs 8360  df-rdg 8399  df-er 8696  df-en 8946  df-dom 8947  df-sdom 8948  df-pnf 11256  df-mnf 11257  df-ltxr 11259  df-nn 12245  df-2 12314  df-3 12315  df-4 12316  df-5 12317  df-6 12318  df-7 12319  df-8 12320  df-9 12321  df-n0 12516  df-dec 12723

This theorem is used by: (None)