Theorem 1kp2ke3k 28231

Description: Example for df-dec 12087, 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 12087 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 11901	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 11900	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12101	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12101	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 11902	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12101	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12101	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2798	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2798	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2798	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2798	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2798	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2798	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 11768	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 10804	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12140	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12140	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12140	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1538  (class class class)co 7135  0cc0 10526  1c1 10527   + caddc 10529  2c2 11680  3c3 11681  ;cdc 12086

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 1911  ax-6 1970  ax-7 2015  ax-8 2113  ax-9 2121  ax-10 2142  ax-11 2158  ax-12 2175  ax-ext 2770  ax-sep 5167  ax-nul 5174  ax-pow 5231  ax-pr 5295  ax-un 7441  ax-resscn 10583  ax-1cn 10584  ax-icn 10585  ax-addcl 10586  ax-addrcl 10587  ax-mulcl 10588  ax-mulrcl 10589  ax-mulcom 10590  ax-addass 10591  ax-mulass 10592  ax-distr 10593  ax-i2m1 10594  ax-1ne0 10595  ax-1rid 10596  ax-rnegex 10597  ax-rrecex 10598  ax-cnre 10599  ax-pre-lttri 10600  ax-pre-lttrn 10601  ax-pre-ltadd 10602

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 210  df-an 400  df-or 845  df-3or 1085  df-3an 1086  df-tru 1541  df-ex 1782  df-nf 1786  df-sb 2070  df-mo 2598  df-eu 2629  df-clab 2777  df-cleq 2791  df-clel 2870  df-nfc 2938  df-ne 2988  df-nel 3092  df-ral 3111  df-rex 3112  df-reu 3113  df-rab 3115  df-v 3443  df-sbc 3721  df-csb 3829  df-dif 3884  df-un 3886  df-in 3888  df-ss 3898  df-pss 3900  df-nul 4244  df-if 4426  df-pw 4499  df-sn 4526  df-pr 4528  df-tp 4530  df-op 4532  df-uni 4801  df-iun 4883  df-br 5031  df-opab 5093  df-mpt 5111  df-tr 5137  df-id 5425  df-eprel 5430  df-po 5438  df-so 5439  df-fr 5478  df-we 5480  df-xp 5525  df-rel 5526  df-cnv 5527  df-co 5528  df-dm 5529  df-rn 5530  df-res 5531  df-ima 5532  df-pred 6116  df-ord 6162  df-on 6163  df-lim 6164  df-suc 6165  df-iota 6283  df-fun 6326  df-fn 6327  df-f 6328  df-f1 6329  df-fo 6330  df-f1o 6331  df-fv 6332  df-ov 7138  df-om 7561  df-wrecs 7930  df-recs 7991  df-rdg 8029  df-er 8272  df-en 8493  df-dom 8494  df-sdom 8495  df-pnf 10666  df-mnf 10667  df-ltxr 10669  df-nn 11626  df-2 11688  df-3 11689  df-4 11690  df-5 11691  df-6 11692  df-7 11693  df-8 11694  df-9 11695  df-n0 11886  df-dec 12087

This theorem is referenced by: (None)