Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30536

Description: Example for df-dec 12640, 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 12640 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 12448	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12447	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12654	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12654	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12449	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12654	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12654	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2741	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2741	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2741	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2741	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2741	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2741	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12314	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11317	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12693	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12693	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12693	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1548  (class class class)co 7359  0cc0 11034  1c1 11035   + caddc 11037  2c2 12231  3c3 12232  ;cdc 12639

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1803  ax-4 1817  ax-5 1918  ax-6 1975  ax-7 2016  ax-8 2123  ax-9 2131  ax-10 2154  ax-11 2170  ax-12 2191  ax-ext 2713  ax-sep 5220  ax-nul 5230  ax-pow 5296  ax-pr 5364  ax-un 7681  ax-resscn 11091  ax-1cn 11092  ax-icn 11093  ax-addcl 11094  ax-addrcl 11095  ax-mulcl 11096  ax-mulrcl 11097  ax-mulcom 11098  ax-addass 11099  ax-mulass 11100  ax-distr 11101  ax-i2m1 11102  ax-1ne0 11103  ax-1rid 11104  ax-rnegex 11105  ax-rrecex 11106  ax-cnre 11107  ax-pre-lttri 11108  ax-pre-lttrn 11109  ax-pre-ltadd 11110

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 209  df-an 398  df-or 855  df-3or 1094  df-3an 1095  df-tru 1551  df-fal 1561  df-ex 1788  df-nf 1792  df-sb 2075  df-mo 2545  df-eu 2575  df-clab 2720  df-cleq 2733  df-clel 2816  df-nfc 2890  df-ne 2937  df-nel 3041  df-ral 3056  df-rex 3066  df-reu 3347  df-rab 3394  df-v 3435  df-sbc 3725  df-csb 3833  df-dif 3887  df-un 3889  df-in 3891  df-ss 3901  df-pss 3904  df-nul 4264  df-if 4457  df-pw 4533  df-sn 4558  df-pr 4560  df-op 4564  df-uni 4841  df-iun 4925  df-br 5075  df-opab 5137  df-mpt 5156  df-tr 5182  df-id 5515  df-eprel 5520  df-po 5528  df-so 5529  df-fr 5573  df-we 5575  df-xp 5626  df-rel 5627  df-cnv 5628  df-co 5629  df-dm 5630  df-rn 5631  df-res 5632  df-ima 5633  df-pred 6255  df-ord 6316  df-on 6317  df-lim 6318  df-suc 6319  df-iota 6444  df-fun 6490  df-fn 6491  df-f 6492  df-f1 6493  df-fo 6494  df-f1o 6495  df-fv 6496  df-ov 7362  df-om 7810  df-2nd 7934  df-frecs 8224  df-wrecs 8255  df-recs 8304  df-rdg 8343  df-er 8637  df-en 8888  df-dom 8889  df-sdom 8890  df-pnf 11177  df-mnf 11178  df-ltxr 11180  df-nn 12170  df-2 12239  df-3 12240  df-4 12241  df-5 12242  df-6 12243  df-7 12244  df-8 12245  df-9 12246  df-n0 12433  df-dec 12640

This theorem is referenced by: (None)