Theorem 1kp2ke3k 28859

Description: Example for df-dec 12488, 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 12488 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 12299	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12298	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12502	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12502	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12300	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12502	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12502	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2736	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2736	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2736	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2736	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2736	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2736	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12166	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11200	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12541	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12541	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12541	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1539  (class class class)co 7307  0cc0 10921  1c1 10922   + caddc 10924  2c2 12078  3c3 12079  ;cdc 12487

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 1911  ax-6 1969  ax-7 2009  ax-8 2106  ax-9 2114  ax-10 2135  ax-11 2152  ax-12 2169  ax-ext 2707  ax-sep 5232  ax-nul 5239  ax-pow 5297  ax-pr 5361  ax-un 7620  ax-resscn 10978  ax-1cn 10979  ax-icn 10980  ax-addcl 10981  ax-addrcl 10982  ax-mulcl 10983  ax-mulrcl 10984  ax-mulcom 10985  ax-addass 10986  ax-mulass 10987  ax-distr 10988  ax-i2m1 10989  ax-1ne0 10990  ax-1rid 10991  ax-rnegex 10992  ax-rrecex 10993  ax-cnre 10994  ax-pre-lttri 10995  ax-pre-lttrn 10996  ax-pre-ltadd 10997

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 206  df-an 398  df-or 846  df-3or 1088  df-3an 1089  df-tru 1542  df-fal 1552  df-ex 1780  df-nf 1784  df-sb 2066  df-mo 2538  df-eu 2567  df-clab 2714  df-cleq 2728  df-clel 2814  df-nfc 2887  df-ne 2942  df-nel 3048  df-ral 3063  df-rex 3072  df-reu 3305  df-rab 3306  df-v 3439  df-sbc 3722  df-csb 3838  df-dif 3895  df-un 3897  df-in 3899  df-ss 3909  df-pss 3911  df-nul 4263  df-if 4466  df-pw 4541  df-sn 4566  df-pr 4568  df-op 4572  df-uni 4845  df-iun 4933  df-br 5082  df-opab 5144  df-mpt 5165  df-tr 5199  df-id 5500  df-eprel 5506  df-po 5514  df-so 5515  df-fr 5555  df-we 5557  df-xp 5606  df-rel 5607  df-cnv 5608  df-co 5609  df-dm 5610  df-rn 5611  df-res 5612  df-ima 5613  df-pred 6217  df-ord 6284  df-on 6285  df-lim 6286  df-suc 6287  df-iota 6410  df-fun 6460  df-fn 6461  df-f 6462  df-f1 6463  df-fo 6464  df-f1o 6465  df-fv 6466  df-ov 7310  df-om 7745  df-2nd 7864  df-frecs 8128  df-wrecs 8159  df-recs 8233  df-rdg 8272  df-er 8529  df-en 8765  df-dom 8766  df-sdom 8767  df-pnf 11061  df-mnf 11062  df-ltxr 11064  df-nn 12024  df-2 12086  df-3 12087  df-4 12088  df-5 12089  df-6 12090  df-7 12091  df-8 12092  df-9 12093  df-n0 12284  df-dec 12488

This theorem is referenced by: (None)