Theorem 1kp2ke3k 27882

Description: Example for df-dec 11850, 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 11850 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 11664	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 11663	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 11864	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 11864	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 11665	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 11864	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 11864	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2778	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2778	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2778	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2778	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2778	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2778	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 11529	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 10553	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 11904	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 11904	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 11904	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1601  (class class class)co 6924  0cc0 10274  1c1 10275   + caddc 10277  2c2 11434  3c3 11435  ;cdc 11849

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1839  ax-4 1853  ax-5 1953  ax-6 2021  ax-7 2055  ax-8 2109  ax-9 2116  ax-10 2135  ax-11 2150  ax-12 2163  ax-13 2334  ax-ext 2754  ax-sep 5019  ax-nul 5027  ax-pow 5079  ax-pr 5140  ax-un 7228  ax-resscn 10331  ax-1cn 10332  ax-icn 10333  ax-addcl 10334  ax-addrcl 10335  ax-mulcl 10336  ax-mulrcl 10337  ax-mulcom 10338  ax-addass 10339  ax-mulass 10340  ax-distr 10341  ax-i2m1 10342  ax-1ne0 10343  ax-1rid 10344  ax-rnegex 10345  ax-rrecex 10346  ax-cnre 10347  ax-pre-lttri 10348  ax-pre-lttrn 10349  ax-pre-ltadd 10350

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 199  df-an 387  df-or 837  df-3or 1072  df-3an 1073  df-tru 1605  df-ex 1824  df-nf 1828  df-sb 2012  df-mo 2551  df-eu 2587  df-clab 2764  df-cleq 2770  df-clel 2774  df-nfc 2921  df-ne 2970  df-nel 3076  df-ral 3095  df-rex 3096  df-reu 3097  df-rab 3099  df-v 3400  df-sbc 3653  df-csb 3752  df-dif 3795  df-un 3797  df-in 3799  df-ss 3806  df-pss 3808  df-nul 4142  df-if 4308  df-pw 4381  df-sn 4399  df-pr 4401  df-tp 4403  df-op 4405  df-uni 4674  df-iun 4757  df-br 4889  df-opab 4951  df-mpt 4968  df-tr 4990  df-id 5263  df-eprel 5268  df-po 5276  df-so 5277  df-fr 5316  df-we 5318  df-xp 5363  df-rel 5364  df-cnv 5365  df-co 5366  df-dm 5367  df-rn 5368  df-res 5369  df-ima 5370  df-pred 5935  df-ord 5981  df-on 5982  df-lim 5983  df-suc 5984  df-iota 6101  df-fun 6139  df-fn 6140  df-f 6141  df-f1 6142  df-fo 6143  df-f1o 6144  df-fv 6145  df-ov 6927  df-om 7346  df-wrecs 7691  df-recs 7753  df-rdg 7791  df-er 8028  df-en 8244  df-dom 8245  df-sdom 8246  df-pnf 10415  df-mnf 10416  df-ltxr 10418  df-nn 11379  df-2 11442  df-3 11443  df-4 11444  df-5 11445  df-6 11446  df-7 11447  df-8 11448  df-9 11449  df-n0 11647  df-dec 11850

This theorem is referenced by: (None)