Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30531

Description: Example for df-dec 12636, 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 12636 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 12444	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12443	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12650	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12650	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12445	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12650	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12650	. 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 12310	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11312	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12689	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12689	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12689	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1542  (class class class)co 7360  0cc0 11029  1c1 11030   + caddc 11032  2c2 12227  3c3 12228  ;cdc 12635

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 2709  ax-sep 5231  ax-nul 5241  ax-pow 5302  ax-pr 5370  ax-un 7682  ax-resscn 11086  ax-1cn 11087  ax-icn 11088  ax-addcl 11089  ax-addrcl 11090  ax-mulcl 11091  ax-mulrcl 11092  ax-mulcom 11093  ax-addass 11094  ax-mulass 11095  ax-distr 11096  ax-i2m1 11097  ax-1ne0 11098  ax-1rid 11099  ax-rnegex 11100  ax-rrecex 11101  ax-cnre 11102  ax-pre-lttri 11103  ax-pre-lttrn 11104  ax-pre-ltadd 11105

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 2540  df-eu 2570  df-clab 2716  df-cleq 2729  df-clel 2812  df-nfc 2886  df-ne 2934  df-nel 3038  df-ral 3053  df-rex 3063  df-reu 3344  df-rab 3391  df-v 3432  df-sbc 3730  df-csb 3839  df-dif 3893  df-un 3895  df-in 3897  df-ss 3907  df-pss 3910  df-nul 4275  df-if 4468  df-pw 4544  df-sn 4569  df-pr 4571  df-op 4575  df-uni 4852  df-iun 4936  df-br 5087  df-opab 5149  df-mpt 5168  df-tr 5194  df-id 5519  df-eprel 5524  df-po 5532  df-so 5533  df-fr 5577  df-we 5579  df-xp 5630  df-rel 5631  df-cnv 5632  df-co 5633  df-dm 5634  df-rn 5635  df-res 5636  df-ima 5637  df-pred 6259  df-ord 6320  df-on 6321  df-lim 6322  df-suc 6323  df-iota 6448  df-fun 6494  df-fn 6495  df-f 6496  df-f1 6497  df-fo 6498  df-f1o 6499  df-fv 6500  df-ov 7363  df-om 7811  df-2nd 7936  df-frecs 8224  df-wrecs 8255  df-recs 8304  df-rdg 8342  df-er 8636  df-en 8887  df-dom 8888  df-sdom 8889  df-pnf 11172  df-mnf 11173  df-ltxr 11175  df-nn 12166  df-2 12235  df-3 12236  df-4 12237  df-5 12238  df-6 12239  df-7 12240  df-8 12241  df-9 12242  df-n0 12429  df-dec 12636

This theorem is referenced by: (None)