Theorem 1kp2ke3k 28789

Description: Example for df-dec 12420, 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 12420 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 12232	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12231	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12434	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12434	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12233	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12434	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12434	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2739	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2739	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2739	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2739	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2739	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2739	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12099	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11133	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12473	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12473	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12473	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1541  (class class class)co 7268  0cc0 10855  1c1 10856   + caddc 10858  2c2 12011  3c3 12012  ;cdc 12419

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1801  ax-4 1815  ax-5 1916  ax-6 1974  ax-7 2014  ax-8 2111  ax-9 2119  ax-10 2140  ax-11 2157  ax-12 2174  ax-ext 2710  ax-sep 5226  ax-nul 5233  ax-pow 5291  ax-pr 5355  ax-un 7579  ax-resscn 10912  ax-1cn 10913  ax-icn 10914  ax-addcl 10915  ax-addrcl 10916  ax-mulcl 10917  ax-mulrcl 10918  ax-mulcom 10919  ax-addass 10920  ax-mulass 10921  ax-distr 10922  ax-i2m1 10923  ax-1ne0 10924  ax-1rid 10925  ax-rnegex 10926  ax-rrecex 10927  ax-cnre 10928  ax-pre-lttri 10929  ax-pre-lttrn 10930  ax-pre-ltadd 10931

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 206  df-an 396  df-or 844  df-3or 1086  df-3an 1087  df-tru 1544  df-fal 1554  df-ex 1786  df-nf 1790  df-sb 2071  df-mo 2541  df-eu 2570  df-clab 2717  df-cleq 2731  df-clel 2817  df-nfc 2890  df-ne 2945  df-nel 3051  df-ral 3070  df-rex 3071  df-reu 3072  df-rab 3074  df-v 3432  df-sbc 3720  df-csb 3837  df-dif 3894  df-un 3896  df-in 3898  df-ss 3908  df-pss 3910  df-nul 4262  df-if 4465  df-pw 4540  df-sn 4567  df-pr 4569  df-tp 4571  df-op 4573  df-uni 4845  df-iun 4931  df-br 5079  df-opab 5141  df-mpt 5162  df-tr 5196  df-id 5488  df-eprel 5494  df-po 5502  df-so 5503  df-fr 5543  df-we 5545  df-xp 5594  df-rel 5595  df-cnv 5596  df-co 5597  df-dm 5598  df-rn 5599  df-res 5600  df-ima 5601  df-pred 6199  df-ord 6266  df-on 6267  df-lim 6268  df-suc 6269  df-iota 6388  df-fun 6432  df-fn 6433  df-f 6434  df-f1 6435  df-fo 6436  df-f1o 6437  df-fv 6438  df-ov 7271  df-om 7701  df-2nd 7818  df-frecs 8081  df-wrecs 8112  df-recs 8186  df-rdg 8225  df-er 8472  df-en 8708  df-dom 8709  df-sdom 8710  df-pnf 10995  df-mnf 10996  df-ltxr 10998  df-nn 11957  df-2 12019  df-3 12020  df-4 12021  df-5 12022  df-6 12023  df-7 12024  df-8 12025  df-9 12026  df-n0 12217  df-dec 12420

This theorem is referenced by: (None)