Theorem 1kp2ke3k 31040

Description: Example for df-dec 12808, 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 12808 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 12615	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12614	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12822	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12822	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12616	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12822	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12822	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2761	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2761	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2761	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2761	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2761	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2761	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12478	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11478	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12866	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12866	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12866	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

This proof depends on syntax axioms:   = wceq 1570  (class class class)co 7418  0cc0 11193  1c1 11194   + caddc 11196  2c2 12390  3c3 12391  ;cdc 12807

This proof depends on axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1828  ax-4 1842  ax-5 1943  ax-6 2000  ax-7 2041  ax-8 2147  ax-9 2155  ax-10 2178  ax-11 2194  ax-12 2213  ax-ext 2733  ax-sep 5249  ax-nul 5260  ax-pow 5327  ax-pr 5391  ax-un 7749  ax-resscn 11250  ax-1cn 11251  ax-icn 11252  ax-addcl 11253  ax-addrcl 11254  ax-mulcl 11255  ax-mulrcl 11256  ax-mulcom 11257  ax-addass 11258  ax-mulass 11259  ax-distr 11260  ax-i2m1 11261  ax-1ne0 11262  ax-1rid 11263  ax-rnegex 11264  ax-rrecex 11265  ax-cnre 11266  ax-pre-lttri 11267  ax-pre-lttrn 11268  ax-pre-ltadd 11269

This proof depends on definitions:  df-bi 210  df-an 402  df-or 862  df-3or 1104  df-3an 1105  df-tru 1573  df-fal 1583  df-ex 1813  df-nf 1817  df-sb 2100  df-mo 2565  df-eu 2595  df-clab 2740  df-cleq 2753  df-clel 2836  df-nfc 2910  df-ne 2957  df-nel 3063  df-ral 3078  df-rex 3088  df-reu 3367  df-rab 3414  df-v 3453  df-sbc 3740  df-csb 3848  df-dif 3902  df-un 3904  df-in 3906  df-ss 3916  df-pss 3919  df-nul 4280  df-if 4483  df-pw 4559  df-sn 4585  df-pr 4587  df-op 4591  df-uni 4868  df-iun 4953  df-br 5104  df-opab 5168  df-mpt 5187  df-tr 5213  df-id 5546  df-eprel 5551  df-po 5559  df-so 5560  df-fr 5604  df-we 5606  df-xp 5657  df-rel 5658  df-cnv 5659  df-co 5660  df-dm 5661  df-rn 5662  df-res 5663  df-ima 5664  df-pred 6303  df-ord 6364  df-on 6365  df-lim 6366  df-suc 6367  df-iota 6493  df-fun 6539  df-fn 6540  df-f 6541  df-f1 6542  df-fo 6543  df-f1o 6544  df-fv 6545  df-ov 7421  df-om 7876  df-2nd 8000  df-frecs 8292  df-wrecs 8323  df-recs 8372  df-rdg 8411  df-er 8710  df-en 8967  df-dom 8968  df-sdom 8969  df-pnf 11338  df-mnf 11339  df-ltxr 11341  df-nn 12329  df-2 12398  df-3 12399  df-4 12400  df-5 12401  df-6 12402  df-7 12403  df-8 12404  df-9 12405  df-n0 12600  df-dec 12808

This theorem is used by: (None)