Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30447

Description: Example for df-dec 12599, 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 12599 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 12408	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12407	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12613	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12613	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12409	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12613	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12613	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2733	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2733	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2733	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2733	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2733	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2733	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12274	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11299	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12652	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12652	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12652	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1541  (class class class)co 7355  0cc0 11017  1c1 11018   + caddc 11020  2c2 12191  3c3 12192  ;cdc 12598

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1796  ax-4 1810  ax-5 1911  ax-6 1968  ax-7 2009  ax-8 2115  ax-9 2123  ax-10 2146  ax-11 2162  ax-12 2182  ax-ext 2705  ax-sep 5238  ax-nul 5248  ax-pow 5307  ax-pr 5374  ax-un 7677  ax-resscn 11074  ax-1cn 11075  ax-icn 11076  ax-addcl 11077  ax-addrcl 11078  ax-mulcl 11079  ax-mulrcl 11080  ax-mulcom 11081  ax-addass 11082  ax-mulass 11083  ax-distr 11084  ax-i2m1 11085  ax-1ne0 11086  ax-1rid 11087  ax-rnegex 11088  ax-rrecex 11089  ax-cnre 11090  ax-pre-lttri 11091  ax-pre-lttrn 11092  ax-pre-ltadd 11093

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 207  df-an 396  df-or 848  df-3or 1087  df-3an 1088  df-tru 1544  df-fal 1554  df-ex 1781  df-nf 1785  df-sb 2068  df-mo 2537  df-eu 2566  df-clab 2712  df-cleq 2725  df-clel 2808  df-nfc 2882  df-ne 2930  df-nel 3034  df-ral 3049  df-rex 3058  df-reu 3348  df-rab 3397  df-v 3439  df-sbc 3738  df-csb 3847  df-dif 3901  df-un 3903  df-in 3905  df-ss 3915  df-pss 3918  df-nul 4283  df-if 4477  df-pw 4553  df-sn 4578  df-pr 4580  df-op 4584  df-uni 4861  df-iun 4945  df-br 5096  df-opab 5158  df-mpt 5177  df-tr 5203  df-id 5516  df-eprel 5521  df-po 5529  df-so 5530  df-fr 5574  df-we 5576  df-xp 5627  df-rel 5628  df-cnv 5629  df-co 5630  df-dm 5631  df-rn 5632  df-res 5633  df-ima 5634  df-pred 6256  df-ord 6317  df-on 6318  df-lim 6319  df-suc 6320  df-iota 6445  df-fun 6491  df-fn 6492  df-f 6493  df-f1 6494  df-fo 6495  df-f1o 6496  df-fv 6497  df-ov 7358  df-om 7806  df-2nd 7931  df-frecs 8220  df-wrecs 8251  df-recs 8300  df-rdg 8338  df-er 8631  df-en 8880  df-dom 8881  df-sdom 8882  df-pnf 11159  df-mnf 11160  df-ltxr 11162  df-nn 12137  df-2 12199  df-3 12200  df-4 12201  df-5 12202  df-6 12203  df-7 12204  df-8 12205  df-9 12206  df-n0 12393  df-dec 12599

This theorem is referenced by: (None)