Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30427

Description: Example for df-dec 12709, 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 12709 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 12517	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12516	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12723	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12723	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12518	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12723	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12723	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2735	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2735	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2735	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2735	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2735	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2735	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12383	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11410	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12762	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12762	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12762	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1540  (class class class)co 7405  0cc0 11129  1c1 11130   + caddc 11132  2c2 12295  3c3 12296  ;cdc 12708

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1795  ax-4 1809  ax-5 1910  ax-6 1967  ax-7 2007  ax-8 2110  ax-9 2118  ax-10 2141  ax-11 2157  ax-12 2177  ax-ext 2707  ax-sep 5266  ax-nul 5276  ax-pow 5335  ax-pr 5402  ax-un 7729  ax-resscn 11186  ax-1cn 11187  ax-icn 11188  ax-addcl 11189  ax-addrcl 11190  ax-mulcl 11191  ax-mulrcl 11192  ax-mulcom 11193  ax-addass 11194  ax-mulass 11195  ax-distr 11196  ax-i2m1 11197  ax-1ne0 11198  ax-1rid 11199  ax-rnegex 11200  ax-rrecex 11201  ax-cnre 11202  ax-pre-lttri 11203  ax-pre-lttrn 11204  ax-pre-ltadd 11205

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 207  df-an 396  df-or 848  df-3or 1087  df-3an 1088  df-tru 1543  df-fal 1553  df-ex 1780  df-nf 1784  df-sb 2065  df-mo 2539  df-eu 2568  df-clab 2714  df-cleq 2727  df-clel 2809  df-nfc 2885  df-ne 2933  df-nel 3037  df-ral 3052  df-rex 3061  df-reu 3360  df-rab 3416  df-v 3461  df-sbc 3766  df-csb 3875  df-dif 3929  df-un 3931  df-in 3933  df-ss 3943  df-pss 3946  df-nul 4309  df-if 4501  df-pw 4577  df-sn 4602  df-pr 4604  df-op 4608  df-uni 4884  df-iun 4969  df-br 5120  df-opab 5182  df-mpt 5202  df-tr 5230  df-id 5548  df-eprel 5553  df-po 5561  df-so 5562  df-fr 5606  df-we 5608  df-xp 5660  df-rel 5661  df-cnv 5662  df-co 5663  df-dm 5664  df-rn 5665  df-res 5666  df-ima 5667  df-pred 6290  df-ord 6355  df-on 6356  df-lim 6357  df-suc 6358  df-iota 6484  df-fun 6533  df-fn 6534  df-f 6535  df-f1 6536  df-fo 6537  df-f1o 6538  df-fv 6539  df-ov 7408  df-om 7862  df-2nd 7989  df-frecs 8280  df-wrecs 8311  df-recs 8385  df-rdg 8424  df-er 8719  df-en 8960  df-dom 8961  df-sdom 8962  df-pnf 11271  df-mnf 11272  df-ltxr 11274  df-nn 12241  df-2 12303  df-3 12304  df-4 12305  df-5 12306  df-6 12307  df-7 12308  df-8 12309  df-9 12310  df-n0 12502  df-dec 12709

This theorem is referenced by: (None)