Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30373

Description: Example for df-dec 12707, 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 12707 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 12515	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12514	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12721	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12721	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12516	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12721	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12721	. 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 12381	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11408	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12760	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12760	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12760	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1540  (class class class)co 7403  0cc0 11127  1c1 11128   + caddc 11130  2c2 12293  3c3 12294  ;cdc 12706

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1795  ax-4 1809  ax-5 1910  ax-6 1967  ax-7 2007  ax-8 2110  ax-9 2118  ax-10 2141  ax-11 2157  ax-12 2177  ax-ext 2707  ax-sep 5266  ax-nul 5276  ax-pow 5335  ax-pr 5402  ax-un 7727  ax-resscn 11184  ax-1cn 11185  ax-icn 11186  ax-addcl 11187  ax-addrcl 11188  ax-mulcl 11189  ax-mulrcl 11190  ax-mulcom 11191  ax-addass 11192  ax-mulass 11193  ax-distr 11194  ax-i2m1 11195  ax-1ne0 11196  ax-1rid 11197  ax-rnegex 11198  ax-rrecex 11199  ax-cnre 11200  ax-pre-lttri 11201  ax-pre-lttrn 11202  ax-pre-ltadd 11203

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 207  df-an 396  df-or 848  df-3or 1087  df-3an 1088  df-tru 1543  df-fal 1553  df-ex 1780  df-nf 1784  df-sb 2065  df-mo 2539  df-eu 2568  df-clab 2714  df-cleq 2727  df-clel 2809  df-nfc 2885  df-ne 2933  df-nel 3037  df-ral 3052  df-rex 3061  df-reu 3360  df-rab 3416  df-v 3461  df-sbc 3766  df-csb 3875  df-dif 3929  df-un 3931  df-in 3933  df-ss 3943  df-pss 3946  df-nul 4309  df-if 4501  df-pw 4577  df-sn 4602  df-pr 4604  df-op 4608  df-uni 4884  df-iun 4969  df-br 5120  df-opab 5182  df-mpt 5202  df-tr 5230  df-id 5548  df-eprel 5553  df-po 5561  df-so 5562  df-fr 5606  df-we 5608  df-xp 5660  df-rel 5661  df-cnv 5662  df-co 5663  df-dm 5664  df-rn 5665  df-res 5666  df-ima 5667  df-pred 6290  df-ord 6355  df-on 6356  df-lim 6357  df-suc 6358  df-iota 6483  df-fun 6532  df-fn 6533  df-f 6534  df-f1 6535  df-fo 6536  df-f1o 6537  df-fv 6538  df-ov 7406  df-om 7860  df-2nd 7987  df-frecs 8278  df-wrecs 8309  df-recs 8383  df-rdg 8422  df-er 8717  df-en 8958  df-dom 8959  df-sdom 8960  df-pnf 11269  df-mnf 11270  df-ltxr 11272  df-nn 12239  df-2 12301  df-3 12302  df-4 12303  df-5 12304  df-6 12305  df-7 12306  df-8 12307  df-9 12308  df-n0 12500  df-dec 12707

This theorem is referenced by: (None)