Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30926

Description: Example for df-dec 12737, 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 12737 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 12544	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12543	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12751	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12751	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12545	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12751	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12751	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2760	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2760	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2760	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2760	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2760	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2760	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12407	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11409	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12795	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12795	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12795	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

This proof depends on syntax axioms:   = wceq 1570  (class class class)co 7413  0cc0 11124  1c1 11125   + caddc 11127  2c2 12319  3c3 12320  ;cdc 12736

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 2732  ax-sep 5251  ax-nul 5263  ax-pow 5330  ax-pr 5398  ax-un 7736  ax-resscn 11181  ax-1cn 11182  ax-icn 11183  ax-addcl 11184  ax-addrcl 11185  ax-mulcl 11186  ax-mulrcl 11187  ax-mulcom 11188  ax-addass 11189  ax-mulass 11190  ax-distr 11191  ax-i2m1 11192  ax-1ne0 11193  ax-1rid 11194  ax-rnegex 11195  ax-rrecex 11196  ax-cnre 11197  ax-pre-lttri 11198  ax-pre-lttrn 11199  ax-pre-ltadd 11200

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 2564  df-eu 2594  df-clab 2739  df-cleq 2752  df-clel 2835  df-nfc 2909  df-ne 2956  df-nel 3062  df-ral 3077  df-rex 3087  df-reu 3366  df-rab 3413  df-v 3452  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 5550  df-eprel 5555  df-po 5563  df-so 5564  df-fr 5608  df-we 5610  df-xp 5661  df-rel 5662  df-cnv 5663  df-co 5664  df-dm 5665  df-rn 5666  df-res 5667  df-ima 5668  df-pred 6299  df-ord 6360  df-on 6361  df-lim 6362  df-suc 6363  df-iota 6489  df-fun 6535  df-fn 6536  df-f 6537  df-f1 6538  df-fo 6539  df-f1o 6540  df-fv 6541  df-ov 7416  df-om 7863  df-2nd 7987  df-frecs 8280  df-wrecs 8311  df-recs 8360  df-rdg 8399  df-er 8696  df-en 8953  df-dom 8954  df-sdom 8955  df-pnf 11269  df-mnf 11270  df-ltxr 11272  df-nn 12258  df-2 12327  df-3 12328  df-4 12329  df-5 12330  df-6 12331  df-7 12332  df-8 12333  df-9 12334  df-n0 12529  df-dec 12737

This theorem is used by: (None)