Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30382

Description: Example for df-dec 12657, 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 12657 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 12465	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12464	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12671	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12671	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12466	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12671	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12671	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2730	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2730	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2730	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2730	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2730	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2730	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12331	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11356	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12710	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12710	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12710	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1540  (class class class)co 7390  0cc0 11075  1c1 11076   + caddc 11078  2c2 12248  3c3 12249  ;cdc 12656

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 2008  ax-8 2111  ax-9 2119  ax-10 2142  ax-11 2158  ax-12 2178  ax-ext 2702  ax-sep 5254  ax-nul 5264  ax-pow 5323  ax-pr 5390  ax-un 7714  ax-resscn 11132  ax-1cn 11133  ax-icn 11134  ax-addcl 11135  ax-addrcl 11136  ax-mulcl 11137  ax-mulrcl 11138  ax-mulcom 11139  ax-addass 11140  ax-mulass 11141  ax-distr 11142  ax-i2m1 11143  ax-1ne0 11144  ax-1rid 11145  ax-rnegex 11146  ax-rrecex 11147  ax-cnre 11148  ax-pre-lttri 11149  ax-pre-lttrn 11150  ax-pre-ltadd 11151

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 2066  df-mo 2534  df-eu 2563  df-clab 2709  df-cleq 2722  df-clel 2804  df-nfc 2879  df-ne 2927  df-nel 3031  df-ral 3046  df-rex 3055  df-reu 3357  df-rab 3409  df-v 3452  df-sbc 3757  df-csb 3866  df-dif 3920  df-un 3922  df-in 3924  df-ss 3934  df-pss 3937  df-nul 4300  df-if 4492  df-pw 4568  df-sn 4593  df-pr 4595  df-op 4599  df-uni 4875  df-iun 4960  df-br 5111  df-opab 5173  df-mpt 5192  df-tr 5218  df-id 5536  df-eprel 5541  df-po 5549  df-so 5550  df-fr 5594  df-we 5596  df-xp 5647  df-rel 5648  df-cnv 5649  df-co 5650  df-dm 5651  df-rn 5652  df-res 5653  df-ima 5654  df-pred 6277  df-ord 6338  df-on 6339  df-lim 6340  df-suc 6341  df-iota 6467  df-fun 6516  df-fn 6517  df-f 6518  df-f1 6519  df-fo 6520  df-f1o 6521  df-fv 6522  df-ov 7393  df-om 7846  df-2nd 7972  df-frecs 8263  df-wrecs 8294  df-recs 8343  df-rdg 8381  df-er 8674  df-en 8922  df-dom 8923  df-sdom 8924  df-pnf 11217  df-mnf 11218  df-ltxr 11220  df-nn 12194  df-2 12256  df-3 12257  df-4 12258  df-5 12259  df-6 12260  df-7 12261  df-8 12262  df-9 12263  df-n0 12450  df-dec 12657

This theorem is referenced by: (None)