Theorem 1kp2ke3k 31104

Description: Example for df-dec 12855, 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 12855 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.) (Proof 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 12662	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12661	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12869	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12869	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12663	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12869	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12869	. 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 12525	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11524	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12913	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12913	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12913	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

This proof depends on syntax axioms:   = wceq 1570  (class class class)co 7451  0cc0 11239  1c1 11240   + caddc 11242  2c2 12437  3c3 12438  ;cdc 12854

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 1945  ax-6 2002  ax-7 2043  ax-8 2149  ax-9 2157  ax-10 2180  ax-11 2197  ax-12 2216  ax-ext 2735  ax-sep 5255  ax-nul 5266  ax-pow 5334  ax-pr 5398  ax-un 7783  ax-resscn 11296  ax-1cn 11297  ax-icn 11298  ax-addcl 11299  ax-addrcl 11300  ax-mulcl 11301  ax-mulrcl 11302  ax-mulcom 11303  ax-addass 11304  ax-mulass 11305  ax-distr 11306  ax-i2m1 11307  ax-1ne0 11308  ax-1rid 11309  ax-rnegex 11310  ax-rrecex 11311  ax-cnre 11312  ax-pre-lttri 11313  ax-pre-lttrn 11314  ax-pre-ltadd 11315

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 2102  df-mo 2567  df-eu 2597  df-clab 2742  df-cleq 2755  df-clel 2839  df-nfc 2913  df-ne 2960  df-nel 3066  df-ral 3081  df-rex 3091  df-reu 3370  df-rab 3417  df-v 3456  df-sbc 3743  df-csb 3852  df-ss 3901  df-pss 4017  df-dif 4050  df-in 4094  df-un 4154  df-nul 4282  df-if 4486  df-pw 4562  df-sn 4589  df-pr 4591  df-op 4841  df-uni 4873  df-iun 4958  df-br 5109  df-opab 5174  df-mpt 5193  df-tr 5219  df-id 5553  df-eprel 5558  df-po 5566  df-so 5567  df-fr 5611  df-we 5613  df-xp 5664  df-rel 5665  df-cnv 5666  df-co 5667  df-dm 5668  df-rn 5669  df-res 5670  df-ima 5671  df-pred 6330  df-ord 6391  df-on 6392  df-lim 6393  df-suc 6394  df-iota 6520  df-fun 6568  df-fn 6569  df-f 6570  df-f1 6571  df-fo 6572  df-f1o 6573  df-fv 6574  df-ov 7454  df-om 7912  df-2nd 8036  df-frecs 8337  df-wrecs 8368  df-recs 8417  df-rdg 8456  df-er 8755  df-en 9012  df-dom 9013  df-sdom 9014  df-pnf 11384  df-mnf 11385  df-ltxr 11387  df-nn 12376  df-2 12445  df-3 12446  df-4 12447  df-5 12448  df-6 12449  df-7 12450  df-8 12451  df-9 12452  df-n0 12647  df-dec 12855

This theorem is used by: (None)