Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30208

Description: Example for df-dec 12682, 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 12682 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 12492	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12491	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12696	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12696	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12493	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12696	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12696	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2726	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2726	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2726	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2726	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2726	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2726	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12359	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11393	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12735	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12735	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12735	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1533  (class class class)co 7405  0cc0 11112  1c1 11113   + caddc 11115  2c2 12271  3c3 12272  ;cdc 12681

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1789  ax-4 1803  ax-5 1905  ax-6 1963  ax-7 2003  ax-8 2100  ax-9 2108  ax-10 2129  ax-11 2146  ax-12 2163  ax-ext 2697  ax-sep 5292  ax-nul 5299  ax-pow 5356  ax-pr 5420  ax-un 7722  ax-resscn 11169  ax-1cn 11170  ax-icn 11171  ax-addcl 11172  ax-addrcl 11173  ax-mulcl 11174  ax-mulrcl 11175  ax-mulcom 11176  ax-addass 11177  ax-mulass 11178  ax-distr 11179  ax-i2m1 11180  ax-1ne0 11181  ax-1rid 11182  ax-rnegex 11183  ax-rrecex 11184  ax-cnre 11185  ax-pre-lttri 11186  ax-pre-lttrn 11187  ax-pre-ltadd 11188

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 206  df-an 396  df-or 845  df-3or 1085  df-3an 1086  df-tru 1536  df-fal 1546  df-ex 1774  df-nf 1778  df-sb 2060  df-mo 2528  df-eu 2557  df-clab 2704  df-cleq 2718  df-clel 2804  df-nfc 2879  df-ne 2935  df-nel 3041  df-ral 3056  df-rex 3065  df-reu 3371  df-rab 3427  df-v 3470  df-sbc 3773  df-csb 3889  df-dif 3946  df-un 3948  df-in 3950  df-ss 3960  df-pss 3962  df-nul 4318  df-if 4524  df-pw 4599  df-sn 4624  df-pr 4626  df-op 4630  df-uni 4903  df-iun 4992  df-br 5142  df-opab 5204  df-mpt 5225  df-tr 5259  df-id 5567  df-eprel 5573  df-po 5581  df-so 5582  df-fr 5624  df-we 5626  df-xp 5675  df-rel 5676  df-cnv 5677  df-co 5678  df-dm 5679  df-rn 5680  df-res 5681  df-ima 5682  df-pred 6294  df-ord 6361  df-on 6362  df-lim 6363  df-suc 6364  df-iota 6489  df-fun 6539  df-fn 6540  df-f 6541  df-f1 6542  df-fo 6543  df-f1o 6544  df-fv 6545  df-ov 7408  df-om 7853  df-2nd 7975  df-frecs 8267  df-wrecs 8298  df-recs 8372  df-rdg 8411  df-er 8705  df-en 8942  df-dom 8943  df-sdom 8944  df-pnf 11254  df-mnf 11255  df-ltxr 11257  df-nn 12217  df-2 12279  df-3 12280  df-4 12281  df-5 12282  df-6 12283  df-7 12284  df-8 12285  df-9 12286  df-n0 12477  df-dec 12682

This theorem is referenced by: (None)