Theorem 1kp2ke3k 30375

Description: Example for df-dec 12650, 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 12650 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 12458	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 12457	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 12664	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 12664	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 12459	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 12664	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 12664	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2729	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2729	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2729	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2729	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2729	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2729	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 12324	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 11349	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 12703	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 12703	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 12703	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1540  (class class class)co 7387  0cc0 11068  1c1 11069   + caddc 11071  2c2 12241  3c3 12242  ;cdc 12649

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1795  ax-4 1809  ax-5 1910  ax-6 1967  ax-7 2008  ax-8 2111  ax-9 2119  ax-10 2142  ax-11 2158  ax-12 2178  ax-ext 2701  ax-sep 5251  ax-nul 5261  ax-pow 5320  ax-pr 5387  ax-un 7711  ax-resscn 11125  ax-1cn 11126  ax-icn 11127  ax-addcl 11128  ax-addrcl 11129  ax-mulcl 11130  ax-mulrcl 11131  ax-mulcom 11132  ax-addass 11133  ax-mulass 11134  ax-distr 11135  ax-i2m1 11136  ax-1ne0 11137  ax-1rid 11138  ax-rnegex 11139  ax-rrecex 11140  ax-cnre 11141  ax-pre-lttri 11142  ax-pre-lttrn 11143  ax-pre-ltadd 11144

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 207  df-an 396  df-or 848  df-3or 1087  df-3an 1088  df-tru 1543  df-fal 1553  df-ex 1780  df-nf 1784  df-sb 2066  df-mo 2533  df-eu 2562  df-clab 2708  df-cleq 2721  df-clel 2803  df-nfc 2878  df-ne 2926  df-nel 3030  df-ral 3045  df-rex 3054  df-reu 3355  df-rab 3406  df-v 3449  df-sbc 3754  df-csb 3863  df-dif 3917  df-un 3919  df-in 3921  df-ss 3931  df-pss 3934  df-nul 4297  df-if 4489  df-pw 4565  df-sn 4590  df-pr 4592  df-op 4596  df-uni 4872  df-iun 4957  df-br 5108  df-opab 5170  df-mpt 5189  df-tr 5215  df-id 5533  df-eprel 5538  df-po 5546  df-so 5547  df-fr 5591  df-we 5593  df-xp 5644  df-rel 5645  df-cnv 5646  df-co 5647  df-dm 5648  df-rn 5649  df-res 5650  df-ima 5651  df-pred 6274  df-ord 6335  df-on 6336  df-lim 6337  df-suc 6338  df-iota 6464  df-fun 6513  df-fn 6514  df-f 6515  df-f1 6516  df-fo 6517  df-f1o 6518  df-fv 6519  df-ov 7390  df-om 7843  df-2nd 7969  df-frecs 8260  df-wrecs 8291  df-recs 8340  df-rdg 8378  df-er 8671  df-en 8919  df-dom 8920  df-sdom 8921  df-pnf 11210  df-mnf 11211  df-ltxr 11213  df-nn 12187  df-2 12249  df-3 12250  df-4 12251  df-5 12252  df-6 12253  df-7 12254  df-8 12255  df-9 12256  df-n0 12443  df-dec 12650

This theorem is referenced by: (None)