Theorem 1kp2ke3k 31053

Description: Example for df-dec 12819, 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 12819 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 12626	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12625	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12833	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12833	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12627	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12833	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12833	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2760	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2760	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2760	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2760	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2760	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2760	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12489	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11489	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12877	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12877	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12877	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

This proof depends on syntax axioms:   = wceq 1569  (class class class)co 7421  0cc0 11204  1c1 11205   + caddc 11207  2c2 12401  3c3 12402  ;cdc 12818

This proof depends on axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1827  ax-4 1841  ax-5 1942  ax-6 1999  ax-7 2040  ax-8 2146  ax-9 2154  ax-10 2177  ax-11 2193  ax-12 2212  ax-ext 2732  ax-sep 5248  ax-nul 5259  ax-pow 5326  ax-pr 5390  ax-un 7752  ax-resscn 11261  ax-1cn 11262  ax-icn 11263  ax-addcl 11264  ax-addrcl 11265  ax-mulcl 11266  ax-mulrcl 11267  ax-mulcom 11268  ax-addass 11269  ax-mulass 11270  ax-distr 11271  ax-i2m1 11272  ax-1ne0 11273  ax-1rid 11274  ax-rnegex 11275  ax-rrecex 11276  ax-cnre 11277  ax-pre-lttri 11278  ax-pre-lttrn 11279  ax-pre-ltadd 11280

This proof depends on definitions:  df-bi 210  df-an 402  df-or 862  df-3or 1104  df-3an 1105  df-tru 1572  df-fal 1582  df-ex 1812  df-nf 1816  df-sb 2099  df-mo 2564  df-eu 2594  df-clab 2739  df-cleq 2752  df-clel 2835  df-nfc 2909  df-ne 2956  df-nel 3062  df-ral 3077  df-rex 3087  df-reu 3366  df-rab 3413  df-v 3452  df-sbc 3739  df-csb 3847  df-ss 3896  df-pss 4014  df-dif 4047  df-in 4091  df-un 4151  df-nul 4279  df-if 4482  df-pw 4558  df-sn 4585  df-pr 4587  df-op 4835  df-uni 4867  df-iun 4952  df-br 5103  df-opab 5167  df-mpt 5186  df-tr 5212  df-id 5545  df-eprel 5550  df-po 5558  df-so 5559  df-fr 5603  df-we 5605  df-xp 5656  df-rel 5657  df-cnv 5658  df-co 5659  df-dm 5660  df-rn 5661  df-res 5662  df-ima 5663  df-pred 6304  df-ord 6365  df-on 6366  df-lim 6367  df-suc 6368  df-iota 6494  df-fun 6541  df-fn 6542  df-f 6543  df-f1 6544  df-fo 6545  df-f1o 6546  df-fv 6547  df-ov 7424  df-om 7879  df-2nd 8003  df-frecs 8303  df-wrecs 8334  df-recs 8383  df-rdg 8422  df-er 8721  df-en 8978  df-dom 8979  df-sdom 8980  df-pnf 11349  df-mnf 11350  df-ltxr 11352  df-nn 12340  df-2 12409  df-3 12410  df-4 12411  df-5 12412  df-6 12413  df-7 12414  df-8 12415  df-9 12416  df-n0 12611  df-dec 12819

This theorem is used by: (None)