Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30516

Description: Example for df-dec 12645, 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 12645 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 12453	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12452	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12659	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12659	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12454	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12659	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12659	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2736	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2736	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2736	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2736	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2736	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2736	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12319	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11321	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12698	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12698	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12698	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1542  (class class class)co 7367  0cc0 11038  1c1 11039   + caddc 11041  2c2 12236  3c3 12237  ;cdc 12644

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 1912  ax-6 1969  ax-7 2010  ax-8 2116  ax-9 2124  ax-10 2147  ax-11 2163  ax-12 2185  ax-ext 2708  ax-sep 5231  ax-nul 5241  ax-pow 5307  ax-pr 5375  ax-un 7689  ax-resscn 11095  ax-1cn 11096  ax-icn 11097  ax-addcl 11098  ax-addrcl 11099  ax-mulcl 11100  ax-mulrcl 11101  ax-mulcom 11102  ax-addass 11103  ax-mulass 11104  ax-distr 11105  ax-i2m1 11106  ax-1ne0 11107  ax-1rid 11108  ax-rnegex 11109  ax-rrecex 11110  ax-cnre 11111  ax-pre-lttri 11112  ax-pre-lttrn 11113  ax-pre-ltadd 11114

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 207  df-an 396  df-or 849  df-3or 1088  df-3an 1089  df-tru 1545  df-fal 1555  df-ex 1782  df-nf 1786  df-sb 2069  df-mo 2539  df-eu 2569  df-clab 2715  df-cleq 2728  df-clel 2811  df-nfc 2885  df-ne 2933  df-nel 3037  df-ral 3052  df-rex 3062  df-reu 3343  df-rab 3390  df-v 3431  df-sbc 3729  df-csb 3838  df-dif 3892  df-un 3894  df-in 3896  df-ss 3906  df-pss 3909  df-nul 4274  df-if 4467  df-pw 4543  df-sn 4568  df-pr 4570  df-op 4574  df-uni 4851  df-iun 4935  df-br 5086  df-opab 5148  df-mpt 5167  df-tr 5193  df-id 5526  df-eprel 5531  df-po 5539  df-so 5540  df-fr 5584  df-we 5586  df-xp 5637  df-rel 5638  df-cnv 5639  df-co 5640  df-dm 5641  df-rn 5642  df-res 5643  df-ima 5644  df-pred 6265  df-ord 6326  df-on 6327  df-lim 6328  df-suc 6329  df-iota 6454  df-fun 6500  df-fn 6501  df-f 6502  df-f1 6503  df-fo 6504  df-f1o 6505  df-fv 6506  df-ov 7370  df-om 7818  df-2nd 7943  df-frecs 8231  df-wrecs 8262  df-recs 8311  df-rdg 8349  df-er 8643  df-en 8894  df-dom 8895  df-sdom 8896  df-pnf 11181  df-mnf 11182  df-ltxr 11184  df-nn 12175  df-2 12244  df-3 12245  df-4 12246  df-5 12247  df-6 12248  df-7 12249  df-8 12250  df-9 12251  df-n0 12438  df-dec 12645

This theorem is referenced by: (None)