Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30408

Description: Example for df-dec 12610, 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 12610 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 12418	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12417	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12624	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12624	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12419	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12624	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12624	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2729	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2729	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2729	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2729	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2729	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2729	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12284	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11309	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12663	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12663	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12663	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1540  (class class class)co 7353  0cc0 11028  1c1 11029   + caddc 11031  2c2 12201  3c3 12202  ;cdc 12609

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 2008  ax-8 2111  ax-9 2119  ax-10 2142  ax-11 2158  ax-12 2178  ax-ext 2701  ax-sep 5238  ax-nul 5248  ax-pow 5307  ax-pr 5374  ax-un 7675  ax-resscn 11085  ax-1cn 11086  ax-icn 11087  ax-addcl 11088  ax-addrcl 11089  ax-mulcl 11090  ax-mulrcl 11091  ax-mulcom 11092  ax-addass 11093  ax-mulass 11094  ax-distr 11095  ax-i2m1 11096  ax-1ne0 11097  ax-1rid 11098  ax-rnegex 11099  ax-rrecex 11100  ax-cnre 11101  ax-pre-lttri 11102  ax-pre-lttrn 11103  ax-pre-ltadd 11104

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 2066  df-mo 2533  df-eu 2562  df-clab 2708  df-cleq 2721  df-clel 2803  df-nfc 2878  df-ne 2926  df-nel 3030  df-ral 3045  df-rex 3054  df-reu 3346  df-rab 3397  df-v 3440  df-sbc 3745  df-csb 3854  df-dif 3908  df-un 3910  df-in 3912  df-ss 3922  df-pss 3925  df-nul 4287  df-if 4479  df-pw 4555  df-sn 4580  df-pr 4582  df-op 4586  df-uni 4862  df-iun 4946  df-br 5096  df-opab 5158  df-mpt 5177  df-tr 5203  df-id 5518  df-eprel 5523  df-po 5531  df-so 5532  df-fr 5576  df-we 5578  df-xp 5629  df-rel 5630  df-cnv 5631  df-co 5632  df-dm 5633  df-rn 5634  df-res 5635  df-ima 5636  df-pred 6253  df-ord 6314  df-on 6315  df-lim 6316  df-suc 6317  df-iota 6442  df-fun 6488  df-fn 6489  df-f 6490  df-f1 6491  df-fo 6492  df-f1o 6493  df-fv 6494  df-ov 7356  df-om 7807  df-2nd 7932  df-frecs 8221  df-wrecs 8252  df-recs 8301  df-rdg 8339  df-er 8632  df-en 8880  df-dom 8881  df-sdom 8882  df-pnf 11170  df-mnf 11171  df-ltxr 11173  df-nn 12147  df-2 12209  df-3 12210  df-4 12211  df-5 12212  df-6 12213  df-7 12214  df-8 12215  df-9 12216  df-n0 12403  df-dec 12610

This theorem is referenced by: (None)