Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30734

Description: Example for df-dec 12708, 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 12708 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 12516	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12515	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12722	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12722	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12517	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12722	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12722	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2769	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2769	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2769	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2769	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2769	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2769	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12379	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11381	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12766	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12766	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12766	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1567  (class class class)co 7408  0cc0 11096  1c1 11097   + caddc 11099  2c2 12291  3c3 12292  ;cdc 12707

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1822  ax-4 1836  ax-5 1937  ax-6 1994  ax-7 2035  ax-8 2151  ax-9 2159  ax-10 2182  ax-11 2198  ax-12 2219  ax-ext 2741  ax-sep 5258  ax-nul 5268  ax-pow 5334  ax-pr 5402  ax-un 7730  ax-resscn 11153  ax-1cn 11154  ax-icn 11155  ax-addcl 11156  ax-addrcl 11157  ax-mulcl 11158  ax-mulrcl 11159  ax-mulcom 11160  ax-addass 11161  ax-mulass 11162  ax-distr 11163  ax-i2m1 11164  ax-1ne0 11165  ax-1rid 11166  ax-rnegex 11167  ax-rrecex 11168  ax-cnre 11169  ax-pre-lttri 11170  ax-pre-lttrn 11171  ax-pre-ltadd 11172

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 210  df-an 401  df-or 861  df-3or 1102  df-3an 1103  df-tru 1570  df-fal 1580  df-ex 1807  df-nf 1811  df-sb 2098  df-mo 2573  df-eu 2603  df-clab 2748  df-cleq 2761  df-clel 2844  df-nfc 2918  df-ne 2965  df-nel 3071  df-ral 3086  df-rex 3096  df-reu 3377  df-rab 3424  df-v 3465  df-sbc 3754  df-csb 3862  df-dif 3916  df-un 3918  df-in 3920  df-ss 3930  df-pss 3933  df-nul 4295  df-if 4490  df-pw 4566  df-sn 4592  df-pr 4594  df-op 4598  df-uni 4874  df-iun 4959  df-br 5111  df-opab 5175  df-mpt 5194  df-tr 5220  df-id 5554  df-eprel 5559  df-po 5567  df-so 5568  df-fr 5612  df-we 5614  df-xp 5665  df-rel 5666  df-cnv 5667  df-co 5668  df-dm 5669  df-rn 5670  df-res 5671  df-ima 5672  df-pred 6299  df-ord 6360  df-on 6361  df-lim 6362  df-suc 6363  df-iota 6489  df-fun 6535  df-fn 6536  df-f 6537  df-f1 6538  df-fo 6539  df-f1o 6540  df-fv 6541  df-ov 7411  df-om 7859  df-2nd 7983  df-frecs 8274  df-wrecs 8305  df-recs 8354  df-rdg 8393  df-er 8690  df-en 8940  df-dom 8941  df-sdom 8942  df-pnf 11241  df-mnf 11242  df-ltxr 11244  df-nn 12230  df-2 12299  df-3 12300  df-4 12301  df-5 12302  df-6 12303  df-7 12304  df-8 12305  df-9 12306  df-n0 12501  df-dec 12708

This theorem is referenced by: (None)