Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30243

Description: Example for df-dec 12700, 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 12700 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 12510	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12509	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12714	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12714	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12511	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12714	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12714	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2727	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2727	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2727	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2727	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2727	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2727	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12377	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11411	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12753	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12753	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12753	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1534  (class class class)co 7414  0cc0 11130  1c1 11131   + caddc 11133  2c2 12289  3c3 12290  ;cdc 12699

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1790  ax-4 1804  ax-5 1906  ax-6 1964  ax-7 2004  ax-8 2101  ax-9 2109  ax-10 2130  ax-11 2147  ax-12 2164  ax-ext 2698  ax-sep 5293  ax-nul 5300  ax-pow 5359  ax-pr 5423  ax-un 7734  ax-resscn 11187  ax-1cn 11188  ax-icn 11189  ax-addcl 11190  ax-addrcl 11191  ax-mulcl 11192  ax-mulrcl 11193  ax-mulcom 11194  ax-addass 11195  ax-mulass 11196  ax-distr 11197  ax-i2m1 11198  ax-1ne0 11199  ax-1rid 11200  ax-rnegex 11201  ax-rrecex 11202  ax-cnre 11203  ax-pre-lttri 11204  ax-pre-lttrn 11205  ax-pre-ltadd 11206

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 206  df-an 396  df-or 847  df-3or 1086  df-3an 1087  df-tru 1537  df-fal 1547  df-ex 1775  df-nf 1779  df-sb 2061  df-mo 2529  df-eu 2558  df-clab 2705  df-cleq 2719  df-clel 2805  df-nfc 2880  df-ne 2936  df-nel 3042  df-ral 3057  df-rex 3066  df-reu 3372  df-rab 3428  df-v 3471  df-sbc 3775  df-csb 3890  df-dif 3947  df-un 3949  df-in 3951  df-ss 3961  df-pss 3963  df-nul 4319  df-if 4525  df-pw 4600  df-sn 4625  df-pr 4627  df-op 4631  df-uni 4904  df-iun 4993  df-br 5143  df-opab 5205  df-mpt 5226  df-tr 5260  df-id 5570  df-eprel 5576  df-po 5584  df-so 5585  df-fr 5627  df-we 5629  df-xp 5678  df-rel 5679  df-cnv 5680  df-co 5681  df-dm 5682  df-rn 5683  df-res 5684  df-ima 5685  df-pred 6299  df-ord 6366  df-on 6367  df-lim 6368  df-suc 6369  df-iota 6494  df-fun 6544  df-fn 6545  df-f 6546  df-f1 6547  df-fo 6548  df-f1o 6549  df-fv 6550  df-ov 7417  df-om 7865  df-2nd 7988  df-frecs 8280  df-wrecs 8311  df-recs 8385  df-rdg 8424  df-er 8718  df-en 8956  df-dom 8957  df-sdom 8958  df-pnf 11272  df-mnf 11273  df-ltxr 11275  df-nn 12235  df-2 12297  df-3 12298  df-4 12299  df-5 12300  df-6 12301  df-7 12302  df-8 12303  df-9 12304  df-n0 12495  df-dec 12700

This theorem is referenced by: (None)