Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30778

Description: Example for df-dec 12713, 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 12713 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 12521	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12520	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12727	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12727	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12522	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12727	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12727	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2763	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2763	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2763	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2763	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2763	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2763	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12384	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11386	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12771	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12771	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12771	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1570  (class class class)co 7412  0cc0 11101  1c1 11102   + caddc 11104  2c2 12296  3c3 12297  ;cdc 12712

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1825  ax-4 1839  ax-5 1940  ax-6 1997  ax-7 2038  ax-8 2145  ax-9 2153  ax-10 2176  ax-11 2192  ax-12 2213  ax-ext 2735  ax-sep 5258  ax-nul 5270  ax-pow 5338  ax-pr 5406  ax-un 7734  ax-resscn 11158  ax-1cn 11159  ax-icn 11160  ax-addcl 11161  ax-addrcl 11162  ax-mulcl 11163  ax-mulrcl 11164  ax-mulcom 11165  ax-addass 11166  ax-mulass 11167  ax-distr 11168  ax-i2m1 11169  ax-1ne0 11170  ax-1rid 11171  ax-rnegex 11172  ax-rrecex 11173  ax-cnre 11174  ax-pre-lttri 11175  ax-pre-lttrn 11176  ax-pre-ltadd 11177

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 210  df-an 401  df-or 861  df-3or 1104  df-3an 1105  df-tru 1573  df-fal 1583  df-ex 1810  df-nf 1814  df-sb 2097  df-mo 2567  df-eu 2597  df-clab 2742  df-cleq 2755  df-clel 2838  df-nfc 2912  df-ne 2959  df-nel 3065  df-ral 3080  df-rex 3090  df-reu 3370  df-rab 3417  df-v 3457  df-sbc 3746  df-csb 3855  df-dif 3909  df-un 3911  df-in 3913  df-ss 3923  df-pss 3926  df-nul 4288  df-if 4489  df-pw 4565  df-sn 4591  df-pr 4593  df-op 4597  df-uni 4874  df-iun 4959  df-br 5111  df-opab 5175  df-mpt 5194  df-tr 5220  df-id 5558  df-eprel 5563  df-po 5571  df-so 5572  df-fr 5616  df-we 5618  df-xp 5669  df-rel 5670  df-cnv 5671  df-co 5672  df-dm 5673  df-rn 5674  df-res 5675  df-ima 5676  df-pred 6304  df-ord 6365  df-on 6366  df-lim 6367  df-suc 6368  df-iota 6494  df-fun 6540  df-fn 6541  df-f 6542  df-f1 6543  df-fo 6544  df-f1o 6545  df-fv 6546  df-ov 7415  df-om 7864  df-2nd 7988  df-frecs 8279  df-wrecs 8310  df-recs 8359  df-rdg 8398  df-er 8695  df-en 8945  df-dom 8946  df-sdom 8947  df-pnf 11246  df-mnf 11247  df-ltxr 11249  df-nn 12235  df-2 12304  df-3 12305  df-4 12306  df-5 12307  df-6 12308  df-7 12309  df-8 12310  df-9 12311  df-n0 12506  df-dec 12713

This theorem is referenced by: (None)