Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30475

Description: Example for df-dec 12732, 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 12732 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 12540	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12539	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12746	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12746	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12541	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12746	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12746	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2735	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2735	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2735	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2735	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2735	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2735	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12407	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11434	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12785	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12785	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12785	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1537  (class class class)co 7431  0cc0 11153  1c1 11154   + caddc 11156  2c2 12319  3c3 12320  ;cdc 12731

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1792  ax-4 1806  ax-5 1908  ax-6 1965  ax-7 2005  ax-8 2108  ax-9 2116  ax-10 2139  ax-11 2155  ax-12 2175  ax-ext 2706  ax-sep 5302  ax-nul 5312  ax-pow 5371  ax-pr 5438  ax-un 7754  ax-resscn 11210  ax-1cn 11211  ax-icn 11212  ax-addcl 11213  ax-addrcl 11214  ax-mulcl 11215  ax-mulrcl 11216  ax-mulcom 11217  ax-addass 11218  ax-mulass 11219  ax-distr 11220  ax-i2m1 11221  ax-1ne0 11222  ax-1rid 11223  ax-rnegex 11224  ax-rrecex 11225  ax-cnre 11226  ax-pre-lttri 11227  ax-pre-lttrn 11228  ax-pre-ltadd 11229

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 207  df-an 396  df-or 848  df-3or 1087  df-3an 1088  df-tru 1540  df-fal 1550  df-ex 1777  df-nf 1781  df-sb 2063  df-mo 2538  df-eu 2567  df-clab 2713  df-cleq 2727  df-clel 2814  df-nfc 2890  df-ne 2939  df-nel 3045  df-ral 3060  df-rex 3069  df-reu 3379  df-rab 3434  df-v 3480  df-sbc 3792  df-csb 3909  df-dif 3966  df-un 3968  df-in 3970  df-ss 3980  df-pss 3983  df-nul 4340  df-if 4532  df-pw 4607  df-sn 4632  df-pr 4634  df-op 4638  df-uni 4913  df-iun 4998  df-br 5149  df-opab 5211  df-mpt 5232  df-tr 5266  df-id 5583  df-eprel 5589  df-po 5597  df-so 5598  df-fr 5641  df-we 5643  df-xp 5695  df-rel 5696  df-cnv 5697  df-co 5698  df-dm 5699  df-rn 5700  df-res 5701  df-ima 5702  df-pred 6323  df-ord 6389  df-on 6390  df-lim 6391  df-suc 6392  df-iota 6516  df-fun 6565  df-fn 6566  df-f 6567  df-f1 6568  df-fo 6569  df-f1o 6570  df-fv 6571  df-ov 7434  df-om 7888  df-2nd 8014  df-frecs 8305  df-wrecs 8336  df-recs 8410  df-rdg 8449  df-er 8744  df-en 8985  df-dom 8986  df-sdom 8987  df-pnf 11295  df-mnf 11296  df-ltxr 11298  df-nn 12265  df-2 12327  df-3 12328  df-4 12329  df-5 12330  df-6 12331  df-7 12332  df-8 12333  df-9 12334  df-n0 12525  df-dec 12732

This theorem is referenced by: (None)