Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30605

Description: Example for df-dec 12683, 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 12683 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 12491	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12490	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12697	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12697	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12492	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12697	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12697	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2761	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2761	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2761	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2761	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2761	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2761	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12354	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11352	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12741	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12741	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12741	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1559  (class class class)co 7391  0cc0 11067  1c1 11068   + caddc 11070  2c2 12266  3c3 12267  ;cdc 12682

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1814  ax-4 1828  ax-5 1929  ax-6 1986  ax-7 2027  ax-8 2143  ax-9 2151  ax-10 2174  ax-11 2190  ax-12 2211  ax-ext 2733  ax-sep 5243  ax-nul 5253  ax-pow 5319  ax-pr 5387  ax-un 7713  ax-resscn 11124  ax-1cn 11125  ax-icn 11126  ax-addcl 11127  ax-addrcl 11128  ax-mulcl 11129  ax-mulrcl 11130  ax-mulcom 11131  ax-addass 11132  ax-mulass 11133  ax-distr 11134  ax-i2m1 11135  ax-1ne0 11136  ax-1rid 11137  ax-rnegex 11138  ax-rrecex 11139  ax-cnre 11140  ax-pre-lttri 11141  ax-pre-lttrn 11142  ax-pre-ltadd 11143

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 209  df-an 400  df-or 859  df-3or 1098  df-3an 1099  df-tru 1562  df-fal 1572  df-ex 1799  df-nf 1803  df-sb 2090  df-mo 2565  df-eu 2595  df-clab 2740  df-cleq 2753  df-clel 2836  df-nfc 2910  df-ne 2957  df-nel 3061  df-ral 3076  df-rex 3086  df-reu 3367  df-rab 3414  df-v 3455  df-sbc 3743  df-csb 3851  df-dif 3905  df-un 3907  df-in 3909  df-ss 3919  df-pss 3922  df-nul 4284  df-if 4478  df-pw 4554  df-sn 4580  df-pr 4582  df-op 4586  df-uni 4863  df-iun 4948  df-br 5098  df-opab 5160  df-mpt 5179  df-tr 5205  df-id 5538  df-eprel 5543  df-po 5551  df-so 5552  df-fr 5596  df-we 5598  df-xp 5649  df-rel 5650  df-cnv 5651  df-co 5652  df-dm 5653  df-rn 5654  df-res 5655  df-ima 5656  df-pred 6283  df-ord 6344  df-on 6345  df-lim 6346  df-suc 6347  df-iota 6472  df-fun 6518  df-fn 6519  df-f 6520  df-f1 6521  df-fo 6522  df-f1o 6523  df-fv 6524  df-ov 7394  df-om 7842  df-2nd 7966  df-frecs 8256  df-wrecs 8287  df-recs 8336  df-rdg 8375  df-er 8672  df-en 8922  df-dom 8923  df-sdom 8924  df-pnf 11212  df-mnf 11213  df-ltxr 11215  df-nn 12205  df-2 12274  df-3 12275  df-4 12276  df-5 12277  df-6 12278  df-7 12279  df-8 12280  df-9 12281  df-n0 12476  df-dec 12683

This theorem is referenced by: (None)