Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30465

Description: Example for df-dec 12734, 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 12734 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 12542	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12541	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12748	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12748	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12543	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12748	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12748	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2737	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2737	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2737	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2737	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2737	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2737	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12409	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11436	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12787	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12787	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12787	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1540  (class class class)co 7431  0cc0 11155  1c1 11156   + caddc 11158  2c2 12321  3c3 12322  ;cdc 12733

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 2708  ax-sep 5296  ax-nul 5306  ax-pow 5365  ax-pr 5432  ax-un 7755  ax-resscn 11212  ax-1cn 11213  ax-icn 11214  ax-addcl 11215  ax-addrcl 11216  ax-mulcl 11217  ax-mulrcl 11218  ax-mulcom 11219  ax-addass 11220  ax-mulass 11221  ax-distr 11222  ax-i2m1 11223  ax-1ne0 11224  ax-1rid 11225  ax-rnegex 11226  ax-rrecex 11227  ax-cnre 11228  ax-pre-lttri 11229  ax-pre-lttrn 11230  ax-pre-ltadd 11231

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 207  df-an 396  df-or 849  df-3or 1088  df-3an 1089  df-tru 1543  df-fal 1553  df-ex 1780  df-nf 1784  df-sb 2065  df-mo 2540  df-eu 2569  df-clab 2715  df-cleq 2729  df-clel 2816  df-nfc 2892  df-ne 2941  df-nel 3047  df-ral 3062  df-rex 3071  df-reu 3381  df-rab 3437  df-v 3482  df-sbc 3789  df-csb 3900  df-dif 3954  df-un 3956  df-in 3958  df-ss 3968  df-pss 3971  df-nul 4334  df-if 4526  df-pw 4602  df-sn 4627  df-pr 4629  df-op 4633  df-uni 4908  df-iun 4993  df-br 5144  df-opab 5206  df-mpt 5226  df-tr 5260  df-id 5578  df-eprel 5584  df-po 5592  df-so 5593  df-fr 5637  df-we 5639  df-xp 5691  df-rel 5692  df-cnv 5693  df-co 5694  df-dm 5695  df-rn 5696  df-res 5697  df-ima 5698  df-pred 6321  df-ord 6387  df-on 6388  df-lim 6389  df-suc 6390  df-iota 6514  df-fun 6563  df-fn 6564  df-f 6565  df-f1 6566  df-fo 6567  df-f1o 6568  df-fv 6569  df-ov 7434  df-om 7888  df-2nd 8015  df-frecs 8306  df-wrecs 8337  df-recs 8411  df-rdg 8450  df-er 8745  df-en 8986  df-dom 8987  df-sdom 8988  df-pnf 11297  df-mnf 11298  df-ltxr 11300  df-nn 12267  df-2 12329  df-3 12330  df-4 12331  df-5 12332  df-6 12333  df-7 12334  df-8 12335  df-9 12336  df-n0 12527  df-dec 12734

This theorem is referenced by: (None)